Act for Missouri · PSC Ratepayer Watch · November 9, 2026
Who Pays for Missouri’s Power Expansion?
The latest Evergy PSC filings bring data-center costs, construction financing, electric rates and citizen participation into sharper focus.
A follow-up to our October 18 coverage · Cases ER-2026-0143 and EA-2026-0343 · Record reviewed November 9, 2026
Start here · The one-minute version
Just the Facts — Without the Fine Print
One asks whether Evergy may build a large gas plant and battery system. The other decides what Evergy Missouri Metro may charge its electric customers.
Evergy expects major growth from very large electricity customers. Parties disagree about how to credit their revenues and assign the costs of serving them.
They question parts of the large-load settlement, fuel and capacity charges, rate design, and protections if large customers do not use the power anticipated.
A contested settlement would assign small and medium general-service customers a larger percentage of the systemwide rate increase than the largest customer classes. It has not been approved.
SB 4 permits certain gas-plant construction costs in rates with PSC approval. Whether particular amounts qualify and who should bear them remain separate questions.
The proposed-project case has an in-person public hearing November 16 and virtual hearings November 17. The Commission has not approved the proposed projects.
The bottom line: These hearings and briefs have exposed important disagreements. They are not proof that contested rates, surcharges or construction charges have already been approved.
For background on the earlier intervention ruling, see Residents Denied a Seat at the Table (October 18). For the broader SB 4 context, read SB 4 Meets the Electric Bill.
First, understand the two cases
Should the projects receive permission to proceed?
Evergy Missouri Metro and Missouri West seek Certificates of Convenience and Necessity (CCNs) for Buchanan Bluffs Unit 2, a proposed 710 MW gas facility in Buchanan County, and Foxtrot, a proposed 109 MW battery system in Jasper County. The PSC has established a procedural schedule and public hearings, but has not issued a final CCN order.
What can customers be charged?
The separate Evergy Missouri Metro rate case examines the utility’s overall revenue requirement and how rates, fuel costs, investment costs, and large-load revenues are distributed among customer groups. Evidence has been heard; parties filed initial briefs on November 6. The Commission has not issued a final rate order.
What is the difference between a CCN, a rate case, and a public comment?
A CCN is regulatory permission for a project. A rate case decides allowable revenue and rates. A public comment tells the Commission what a citizen thinks or has experienced; it does not confer the evidence-gathering and cross-examination rights of a formal intervenor. A project may be under review even as separate rate-recovery questions are argued.
What has happened since October 18?
- October 19–20 — Hearing schedule and instructions issued. The Commission set the public-hearing process for EA-2026-0343 and added a noon virtual session on November 17. Procedural order · Hearing instructions
- October 23 — Evergy corrected rate-case testimony. A missing professional-qualifications attachment was supplied for return-on-equity witness Ann Bulkley; Evergy stated no substantive testimony was changed. Notice
- October 26–November 5 — Hearing transcripts became publicly available. They document the parties’ earlier testimony about large-load revenue, FAC charges, CWIP, rate design, transmission investments and a proposed critical-peak surcharge. Later official transcripts replace or supplement unofficial versions. Transcript entries in docket
- October 27 — The Commission requested an issues-status report. After six nonunanimous settlements and overlapping disputes, it ordered the parties to map which issues remained contested. Order
- November 4 — Project-case discovery instructions. In EA-2026-0343, the Commission required advance submissions if parties need the November 30 discovery conference to resolve disputes. Order
- November 6 — The rate-case dispute moved into written briefs. Public Counsel, Evergy, Google, Velvet Tech, PSC Staff and the Midwest Energy Consumers Group filed initial briefs. Parties jointly filed a 14-page issues-status chart. Joint issues list
- November 9 — Official hearing record updated. The PSC docket added the official transcript of its October 13 evidentiary hearing as Filing #356, not a new decision. Transcript entry
Big dispute #1: Will data-center growth help existing ratepayers?
Large-load customers may bring substantial electricity sales. But new demand can also require purchased capacity, fuel, wires, transmission upgrades and generating facilities. Higher revenues alone do not prove that the corresponding costs are fully covered.
| Contested point | Positions in the record | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Large-load revenue credit | The Evergy–Google settlement proposes recognizing $60 million in LLPS revenue; Public Counsel advocates $117 million annually. The amounts are competing ratemaking assumptions, not total project costs. | A different revenue credit changes what the utility seeks from remaining customer classes. But it must be evaluated with the costs of serving those customers. |
| Fuel Adjustment Clause (FAC) | PSC Staff objects to proposed treatment of capacity costs associated with large customers and warns about potential double recovery. Evergy and Google dispute that assessment. | The FAC can adjust bills between rate cases. Its cost categories and accounting treatment determine who bears changes. |
| Long-term commitments | Public Counsel proposes stronger LLPS protections, including a 90% minimum bill instead of 80%, 20-year contracts instead of 12, and a broader threshold for coverage. | Contract duration, billing floors and security provisions matter if a customer uses less electricity than expected or leaves. |
Sources: OPC’s November 6 initial brief (large-load revenue and tariff issues); Staff’s November 6 brief; rate-case record.
Plain-English explainer: What is the Fuel Adjustment Clause?
The FAC is a mechanism that adjusts customer bills for certain changes in fuel and purchased-power costs outside a full rate case. The base factor is the reference amount built into base rates. Which expenses are included, the starting factor, and how costs are shared can substantially affect later bills. A proposed factor in testimony is not an approved rate.
Plain-English explainer: What is stranded-cost risk?
If infrastructure is built for anticipated demand, but that demand is delayed, smaller than forecast or disappears, someone must still pay eligible remaining costs. That is stranded-cost exposure. Contracts, deposits, collateral, minimum bills and exit charges may reduce it; the central dispute is whether the safeguards cover the risks created.
Big dispute #2: What would a rate increase mean for small businesses?
The October 13 on-the-record presentation described a proposed revenue apportionment among different customer classes. Under the contested settlement, residential customers would receive 100% of the systemwide average percentage increase; small and medium general-service customers, 112.44%; and large general-service and large-load classes, 94%.
| Customer class | Share of systemwide average percentage increase (proposed) |
|---|---|
| Residential | 100% |
| Small General Service | 112.44% |
| Medium General Service | 112.44% |
| Large General Service | 94% |
| Large Load Power Service | 94% |
These numbers describe how a percentage increase would be allocated, not actual approved increases. For example, if an overall average increase were hypothetically 10%, the formula would correspond to approximately 11.244% for the small- and medium-service classes and 9.4% for the two larger categories. That example is not a forecast or final bill calculation.
PSC Staff disputes the cost-of-service basis for the proposed allocation and favors an equal percentage approach; Public Counsel also challenged aspects of the rate-design settlement. The proponents maintain that their negotiated allocation is supported by their approach to rate design. October 13 presentation transcript · OPC brief.
Big dispute #3: Could customers pay while a plant is still being built?
Missouri’s 2025 SB 4 allows the PSC, within statutory limits, to include certain natural-gas plant construction work in progress (CWIP) in rate base before a plant begins generating electricity. Inclusion permits a return on qualifying construction investment earlier than under traditional post-completion recovery. Read SB 4.
In Metro’s rate proceeding, parties disputed treatment of Mullin Creek Unit 2 and turbine prepayments; separate certificate proceedings address the project's authorization and related requirements. Mullin Creek 2 is not Buchanan Bluffs Unit 2. Those should not be conflated. The separate EA-2026-0343 application also seeks a determination concerning eligible CWIP for Buchanan Bluffs, but the Commission has not granted final project or CWIP approval in that case.
What are CWIP, PISA and return on equity?
CWIP is construction work in progress; the argument is over whether and when investment in unfinished projects is included for ratemaking. PISA (Plant-in-Service Accounting) is a different Missouri utility-accounting mechanism involving qualifying investments placed into service. Return on equity (ROE) is the allowed shareholder return used in calculating a utility’s overall authorized cost of capital. Public Counsel’s November 6 brief advocates a 9.25% ROE and 45% equity component; Evergy has advocated a 10.5% ROE. These are parties’ proposals, not approved figures in this case.
Other issues brought into focus
Transmission costs linked to a large customer
Public Counsel witness Paul Alvarez argued for disallowing approximately $14.7 million of transmission-related costs associated with Panasonic. Evergy challenged the basis for that allocation, including the methodology used. This remains a contested recommendation, not a disallowance ordered by the Commission.
A proposed critical-peak charge
Testimony also addressed a proposed extreme-weather or Critical Peak Rate mechanism, with alternatives of an additional 10 cents per kWh for a six-hour event or 2.5 cents per kWh across an event day, subject to proposed exceptions and implementation rules. Neither is an approved surcharge.
Testimony also discussed utility cybersecurity expense tracking, depreciation, and an approximately $216.3 million PISA accounting asset in a partial settlement schedule. Those are distinct accounting and cost-recovery matters and should not be described as newly imposed household charges. October 7 transcript.
What has changed for citizens near Buchanan Bluffs?
Our October 18 article explained the Commission’s refusal to reconsider the denial of several local residents’ applications to become formal parties. Since then, the Commission approved a procedural schedule and denied objections to that schedule from residents who were not admitted as intervenors. Formal party status and public-comment rights remain different.
The Commission has scheduled the following opportunities to hear information, ask questions under its hearing procedures and provide public testimony. These are public hearings on the proposed projects, not a new opportunity to become a formal intervenor.
6 p.m. — St. Joseph
Missouri Western State University
Blum 219 & 222
4525 Downs Drive
St. Joseph, Missouri
Noon and 6 p.m.
Webex or telephone access; separate meeting IDs for each session. Register by 5 p.m. November 16 if you wish to participate in the virtual Q&A or give comments, using the PSC’s number below.
Virtual meeting IDs: Noon: 2867 595 8361; 6 p.m.: 2861 048 7349. Password: 0343. Telephone participation: 650-479-3207. For virtual participation registration or clarification, call the PSC at 800-392-4211. Always confirm up-to-date instructions before the event. Commission’s hearing order and details.
What happens next?
| Date | Next step | Case |
|---|---|---|
| November 16–17, 2026 | Public hearings and citizen testimony | EA-2026-0343 |
| November 18, 2026 | Scheduled reply briefs on rate-case disputes | ER-2026-0143 |
| November 30, 2026 | Project-case discovery conference, if needed | EA-2026-0343 |
| January 7, 2027 | Staff and intervenor rebuttal testimony (scheduled) | EA-2026-0343 |
| February 24–26, 2027 | Project evidentiary hearings (scheduled) | EA-2026-0343 |
Schedules can change by later PSC order; the rate case’s January 6, 2027 operation-of-law date is a statutory milestone, not a guaranteed announcement date. EA schedule · ER docket.
Follow the money — and protect the public’s ability to question it
Act for Missouri has consistently questioned laws and regulatory proposals that permit the cost of massive utility expansion to move onto captive ratepayers before the value, necessity and allocation of that investment are fully demonstrated. We oppose placing construction work in progress into customer rates and believe the record should show how incremental large-load costs are assigned, how projected revenues are credited and what happens if customers depart.
These are Act for Missouri’s policy positions, not findings by the Commission. The record includes competing arguments from Evergy, Google, Staff, Public Counsel and other parties. Missouri citizens can review those filings and decide what concerns to raise themselves.
What citizens can do now
1. Attend or participate in a November hearing
For Buchanan Bluffs and Foxtrot, the in-person hearing is November 16 at 6 p.m. in St. Joseph; virtual hearings are November 17 at noon and 6 p.m.. Call 800-392-4211 by 5 p.m. November 16 to register for virtual Q&A/testimony. Read official instructions.
2. Submit public comments in the correct case
Use EA-2026-0343 for plant need, site impacts, project costs, CWIP and proposed conditions; use ER-2026-0143 for rate design, large-load revenue, FAC, construction expense and customer-class cost allocation. Open PSC public comment form ↗
3. Ask for explanations that can be checked
For example: How much new generation or capacity expense is caused by signed large-load commitments? Which costs are paid directly by those customers? How do FAC charges avoid double recovery? Are minimum bills, collateral and contract duration sufficient if demand falls short? What evidence establishes the need for each project, and how are neighboring residents’ concerns evaluated?
4. Read the briefs and follow both dockets
Rate case ER-2026-0143 · Project case EA-2026-0343. To raise concerns about how legal authority works in future cases, use the state-legislator lookup at the top of this page. Legislators can review the law; the Commission decides the individual PSC cases.
Public comments are not formal testimony from an intervenor. Comments may be public; avoid utility account numbers, private medical details and unnecessary personal identifiers. Commission and legal deadlines are not extended by submitting comments.
Go straight to the source documents
The following are official PSC filings and records. Testimony and briefs are party submissions; settlement agreements are proposals unless approved; orders explain actions taken by the Commission. Public records may omit confidential material.
- ER-2026-0143 — complete rate-case docket (through Filing #356, November 9).
- EA-2026-0343 — complete proposed-project docket (through Filing #73, November 4).
- OPC Initial Brief, November 6 (large-load revenues, LLPS safeguards, ROE, FAC, CWIP and rate design).
- PSC Staff Initial Post-Hearing Brief, November 6 (public attachment available on filing page).
- Evergy Initial Post-Hearing Brief, November 6 (public and confidential versions listed).
- Google Initial Post-Hearing Brief, November 6 (large-load-related arguments).
- Joint List of Status of Issues, November 6 (the 14-page cross-reference of settlements, issues and objections).
- October 13 on-the-record presentation transcript (rate class and LLPS settlements).
- October 8 evidentiary hearing transcript (critical-peak rate proposal and Mullin Creek CWIP).
- October 19 project procedural schedule order.
- October 20 public-hearing participation order.
- November 4 project discovery conference order.
- SB 4 (2025) enacted bill text.
- Official PSC public comment form.
Editorial cutoff: November 9, 2026, approximately 11 a.m. Central. This article covers developments since October 18, not every docket document. Case statuses and hearing arrangements may change; use the live docket before relying on them.