ACT FOR MISSOURI · ENERGY & ACCOUNTABILITY
SB 4 meets the electric bill
PSC Staff urges rejection of a large-load settlement. Public Counsel raises revenue and construction-cost concerns. Missouri ratepayers have reason to speak up before the Commission decides.
Developing story · Updated October 10, 2026 · By Act for Missouri
START HERE · ABOUT A MINUTE TO READ
The Facts, Without the Fine Print
Two Missouri utility cases are raising one basic question: who pays for the power needed by rapidly growing electricity users?
- Missouri changed the law. SB 4 allows regulators to approve certain natural-gas power-plant construction costs in electric rates before the plants are operating. Approval is not automatic.
- Evergy wants to add power resources. Its proposed Buchanan Bluffs gas plant and Foxtrot battery are connected, in Evergy's testimony, to rising demand that includes data centers.
- Regulators' advocates are challenging who pays. PSC Staff and Missouri's Office of Public Counsel have raised concerns over large-customer revenue, fuel and capacity charges, and how costs are divided among customer groups.
- Evergy disputes those objections. The company says its proposed arrangement with Google handles large-load costs appropriately. The Commission must weigh the competing positions.
- Nothing is finally decided in these two cases. The rate case has a Commission presentation scheduled for October 13; the construction case is also pending. Public comments can still raise concerns, though they do not determine the result.
The bottom line: Act for Missouri opposes charging customers for construction work in progress and wants clear, enforceable proof that existing households and businesses will not be left covering costs caused by extraordinary new demand.
The points above summarize public filings through October 9, 2026. Allegations by Staff, Public Counsel, and Evergy are not findings by the Commission.
Act for Missouri has followed SB 4 since its introduction. Now Evergy’s own filings connect new generating resources, data-center demand, and the law’s construction-financing provisions. A separate rate case asks how the costs and revenues of large customers should affect everyone else’s bills.
The public-interest question is straightforward: Will the customers driving new costs pay their appropriate share, and will existing customers receive the benefits they are promised? Answering it requires reading both the law’s safeguards and the proposals now before regulators.
Staff has asked the Commission not to approve the October 5 Evergy–Google large-load agreement. Separately, the Office of the Public Counsel (OPC) has challenged proposed large-load revenue treatment and certain construction costs in rate-case testimony. Those objections deserve answers before customers are asked to pay. Read the concerns and their limits ↓
Objections do not decide a case. The Commission can disagree with Staff or OPC. Act for Missouri urges readers to ask for rejection or changes that address the documented concerns—and to oppose charging customers for construction work in progress. Make your position heard ↓
Read straight through, or open the blue explainers for background. Labels distinguish documented facts, party positions, and our analysis.
Two cases. Different decisions.
What should Evergy build?
EA-2026-0343
Evergy Missouri Metro and Missouri West seek certificates for Buchanan Bluffs Unit 2, a 710 MW gas plant in Buchanan County, and Foxtrot, a 109 MW battery project in Jasper County.
The October 1 order scheduled a prehearing conference for October 7 at 9 a.m. to discuss the need for a hearing and a schedule.
How should Metro rates work?
ER-2026-0143
Evergy Missouri Metro’s general rate case includes disputes about large-load revenues, fuel costs, cost allocation, and CWIP.
The schedule sets evidentiary hearings for October 5–9, 13, and 15–16; briefs follow in November. January 6, 2027 is the operation-of-law date, not a promised vote date.
Status is a dated snapshot, not a live feed. Check the linked dockets for later filings and orders.
What is a CCN—and how is it different from a rate case?
A Certificate of Convenience and Necessity is regulatory permission for a project. A rate case decides what the utility may charge. A CCN can establish construction-related conditions without immediately putting every projected cost into customer bills. See the application and Evergy’s recovery explanation.
New developments: October 7–9
The latest filings turn the general concern over cost shifting into specific disputes about how large-load customers and existing customers would be treated. The positions below are contested, not Commission findings.
- PSC Staff objects to the proposed rate-design settlement. Staff argues that the allocation approach could place disproportionately high costs on residential and smaller-business customers while giving the largest-load class a smaller percentage increase. ER-2026-0143, filing 322.
- Public Counsel separately opposes the large-load settlement. OPC argues for additional safeguards involving the customer-class threshold, minimum billing demand, recognized large-load revenue, and Fuel Adjustment Clause treatment. OPC also opposes a separate rate-design settlement. Filings 323–324.
- A separate programs agreement is proposed. Evergy, Staff and Renew Missouri filed a non-unanimous agreement covering customer assistance, weatherization and data-related measures. It is a proposal, not yet a final Commission order. Filing 320.
- Evergy replies to the large-load objections. The company rejects the interpretation that its proposed FAC treatment allows double recovery, defends its large-load revenue assumptions and disputes additional safeguards proposed by Staff and OPC. ER-2026-0143, filing 327.
- The Commission schedules a public proceeding to question the settlements. An on-the-record presentation concerning six non-unanimous agreements is set for October 13 at 10 a.m. in Room 310, 200 Madison Street, Jefferson City. Scheduling a presentation does not approve the agreements. Official case calendar · Filing 326.
- Public Counsel asks for local residents to be heard as intervenors. In the construction case, OPC seeks reconsideration of the denial of intervention applications from 29 local residents. Formal intervention provides procedural rights beyond public comment; this filing concerns participation, not approval of the plant or its costs. EA-2026-0343, filing 65.
What is being disputed about the Fuel Adjustment Clause?
Staff and Public Counsel question whether certain fuel or purchased-capacity expenses tied to very large customers might be charged more broadly or recovered more than once under the proposed accounting. Evergy disputes those characterizations. The outcome depends on which terms and accounting rules the Commission approves. A filed allegation does not establish that customers have already been overcharged. Review the objections and reply in the rate-case docket.
Staff urges rejection. OPC raises additional concerns.
PSC Staff and the Office of the Public Counsel are distinct participants. Their filings state positions for the Commission to consider. The commissioners decide disputed issues.
What is OPC, and whose interests is it supposed to represent?
The Office of the Public Counsel is Missouri’s public advocate in utility regulation. It is separate from the Public Service Commission. Its attorneys and technical experts investigate utility proposals, present evidence, question witnesses, and represent the public in PSC proceedings and appeals. Its intended role is to protect the public’s interests when monopoly utilities seek regulatory approval. OPC’s official explanation of its role
OPC does not set rates or cast a deciding vote. The commissioners make the decisions. Staff and OPC are separate participants, and their recommendations can differ. Act for Missouri evaluates their positions on the merits; OPC’s public-interest mission does not mean every recommendation necessarily matches our position.
Staff asks the Commission to reject the agreement
“protect ratepayers from adverse FAC impacts of unprecedented customer growth”
Staff’s stated concern — objection, p. 2
Staff asks the Commission not to approve the agreement. It challenges minimum-bill calculations, the earnings mechanism, and missing reporting requirements. Its fuel-cost objections include alleged double recovery through the FAC and LLPS energy charges, and spreading large-load energy expense across customers.
Staff also disputes adding long-term capacity transactions to the FAC and says an LLPS interim capacity charge is available to recover incremental capacity expense from large customers. These are Staff’s allegations and recommendations, not findings of unlawful charges. Objection, pp. 2–5
What is a Fuel Adjustment Clause (FAC)?
An FAC adjusts bills for specified fuel and purchased-power costs between general rate cases. Its base factor represents the baseline against which actual net energy costs are compared. The baseline, included costs, and sharing rules can affect later charges even when base rates stay unchanged. Staff’s FAC discussion and the proposed treatment.
Public Counsel questions revenues and spending
In September 10 testimony, Ron Nelson argued that the then-proposed $25 million large-load revenue adjustment was too small. He recommended $117 million annually, or an annual mechanism returning excess LLPS revenues to other rate classes. He warned that company-wide earnings tests could obscure gains from large-load growth if other operations underperform. This testimony predates the October 5 settlement’s $60 million proposal. Nelson, pp. 2–6
“prepayments may display intent, but they do not show actual construction”
John Riley for OPC — surrebuttal, p. 11
Riley disputes treating turbine prepayments for Mullin Creek #2 as CWIP in the rate case, arguing they precede the construction timeframe. That is a separate project and a specific eligibility dispute—not a claim that Buchanan Bluffs costs have already entered Metro rates. Riley, pp. 10–11
More context: OPC’s broader concern about investment incentives
Paul Alvarez argues that reduced regulatory lag and disallowance risk under SB 4 may weaken incentives to control capital spending. He recommends customer benefit-cost review of discretionary investments and challenges particular grid costs. This is OPC-sponsored expert testimony about investment discipline, not a Commission conclusion that SB 4 caused unnecessary construction. Alvarez, pp. 2–6
Can the Commission approve a proposal despite objections?
Yes—and there is a relevant precedent. In its November 2025 Evergy large-load order, the Commission approved a framework after Staff objected to the settlement. It also rejected Staff’s and OPC’s proposed emergency-curtailment changes, reasoning that the existing plan already addressed curtailment. Order, pp. 7 and 30
That history does not predict these cases. It shows why an objection is a reason to examine the record and speak up, rather than assume the proposal will be rejected. The Commission must make its own decision.
The October 5 proposal
Their LLPS agreement proposes a $60 million large-load revenue amount in the rate calculation, minimum monthly billing demand at the higher of measured demand or 80% of annual contract capacity, and an earnings-sharing mechanism. It also proposes different FAC sharing percentages for allocated non-LLPS and LLPS costs, while combining customer responsibility amounts into the fuel adjustment rate.
The earnings mechanism has conditions: company earnings must exceed an allowed-return threshold plus a 20-basis-point band, and LLPS revenues must exceed the amount reflected in rates. The proposed customer share is 65% of the qualifying amount, returned through a future rate case. These are negotiated terms, not guaranteed refunds or approved rates. Agreement, pp. 1–4 and Exhibit D
The SB 4 connection is documented
FACT · ENACTED LAW SB 4 took effect August 28, 2025. Two provisions matter directly here. Senate bill record
When customers begin paying
§393.135.2 permits PSC-approved CWIP in rate base for new natural-gas units. It limits eligible amounts by estimated project cost and construction period, substitutes for otherwise applicable construction financing allowances, and provides refunds with interest when the Commission finds imprudence or unreasonable delay in placing the project in service.
Who bears large-load costs
§393.130.7 requires special tariffs for qualifying large customers, with thresholds tied to utility size. Rates should reflect their representative cost share and prevent unjust or unreasonable costs from reaching other customer classes.
Read both provisions in the enacted law, pp. 40–42
What are CWIP, rate base, and AFUDC?
CWIP means Construction Work in Progress. Rate base is the investment amount used to calculate an allowed utility return. Including eligible construction spending can let customers pay a return before the plant operates. AFUDC accumulates a financing allowance during construction for later recovery. CWIP changes the timing of financing recovery; it does not mean customers pay the entire construction budget at once. Klote’s explanation, pp. 5–7.
EVERGY POSITION In the construction case, Ronald Klote expressly invokes SB 4. He argues that CWIP can reduce financing costs compared with accumulating those costs until a plant enters service. He also says the application seeks a determination of eligible CWIP; recovery would depend on actual construction expenditures and rate proceedings. Klote testimony, pp. 5–7
PRIOR COMMISSION DECISION The PSC already approved a large-load framework in EO-2025-0154 on November 13, 2025. Its order expressly connects that proceeding to SB 4. The current cases concern further implementation and disputed treatment; they are not Missouri’s first large-load tariff decision. Prior Report and Order, pp. 7–8
Why data centers are part of this story
“will support the executed ESAs from data center customers”
Evergy witness Zachary Gladhill on Buchanan Bluffs Unit 2 and Foxtrot — direct testimony, p. 17
EVERGY FORECAST & CLAIMS Gladhill reports five data-center agreements totaling approximately 2.5 GW across Evergy, and about 3 GW including other large customers. Those are company-wide figures, not a Missouri-only total or the output of these two projects. For Missouri planning, he identifies about 810 MW for two Metro customers and about 800 MW for five West customers. These are projected loads, not proof that all facilities are operating at full demand.
Evergy says large customers can improve system utilization, support economic development, and spread costs. Its application also cites reliability and reserve requirements among the reasons for new resources. The projects’ justification is broader than data centers alone. Gladhill, pp. 10–17 · Application, pp. 14–16
What do “large load,” MW, and ESA mean?
A load is demand for electricity. A megawatt (MW) measures power; 1,000 MW equals one gigawatt (GW). Energy over time is measured in megawatt-hours. An ESA is an electric service agreement. A tariff sets approved rates and service terms; LLPS means Large Load Power Service. A project’s generating capacity and a customer’s projected demand are different measures, so the numbers should not be treated as a one-for-one match. Evergy’s demand testimony.
- 1 · Legal authoritySB 4 sets financing options and large-load safeguards.
- 2 · Demand & resourcesEvergy forecasts demand and asks for construction approval.
- 3 · Rates & contractsRegulators evaluate recovery, revenue credits, and allocation.
- 4 · AccountabilityActual demand and costs test whether protections work.
Conceptual guide: the cases overlap in subject matter but have separate records and decisions.
Growth can bring benefits—and obligations that outlast it
We oppose CWIP—even when the law permits it.
Act for Missouri opposes using construction work in progress in customer rates at all. SB 4’s authorization does not make that policy fair. Utilities already benefit from monopoly status: customers generally cannot choose a competing electric utility if they dislike the price or the expansion plan. We believe that advantage comes with a responsibility to finance expansion without requiring captive ratepayers to shoulder its construction risk.
In our view, utility owners and the large customers driving expansion should bear that risk, rather than households and existing businesses paying a return on plants before those plants serve them. Refund provisions and cost limits do not resolve our fundamental objection to collecting these costs during construction.
New customers can bring revenue, but infrastructure obligations can outlast the demand used to justify them. If a data center arrives late, uses less power, or leaves, the bills do not automatically disappear. We want enforceable commitments and transparent cost allocation, alongside rejection of CWIP treatment. This is Act for Missouri’s policy position; OPC’s specific challenge to turbine prepayments is a narrower eligibility dispute.
What are cost allocation and stranded-cost risk?
Cost allocation divides utility costs among customer groups. Stranded-cost risk is the possibility that investment remains unrecovered when the expected use or revenue does not materialize. A facility can still operate yet have less supporting demand than forecast. Who ultimately pays depends on contracts, collectible security, tariff rules, and regulatory decisions. This is a risk to evaluate, not a prediction that a particular customer will leave. Read the existing safeguards.
EXISTING SAFEGUARDS The 2025 LLPS order includes minimum billing, collateral, capacity-reduction provisions, and exit charges. It describes collateral initially equal to two years of minimum bills and a 36-month notice requirement for early termination or a rate-schedule change. Their existence matters; whether their coverage is sufficient for particular investments still warrants scrutiny. Report and Order, pp. 13–15
Follow the risk: what if demand changes?
Illustrative questions, not forecasts or calculated bill impacts. Select a scenario.
Demand arrives as planned
Ask whether new customer revenue covers its allocated costs and when the remaining customers receive any resulting benefit. Strong sales alone do not establish fair allocation.
From law to implementation
- August 28, 2025 · Law takes effectSB 4’s utility provisions become effective. Bill record
- November 13, 2025 · Large-load framework approvedThe PSC issues its decision in EO-2025-0154. Order
- February 6, 2026 · Metro rate filingThe tariff filing initiates the general rate review. Procedural history
- August 31, 2026 · Construction applicationEvergy files for Buchanan Bluffs Unit 2 and Foxtrot. Application
- October 5–9, 2026 · Contested implementationEvergy and Google file their LLPS proposal; Staff objects the next day. Additional objections and replies follow October 7–9, while the construction case receives a Public Counsel intervention motion. Proposal · Objection · Conference order
- Next · Hearings, briefs, decisionsMetro’s scheduled hearings continue through October 16, with briefs November 6 and 18. An on-the-record presentation on contested settlements is scheduled for October 13 at 10 a.m. Watch for final orders, approved tariffs, and any revised schedules. Schedule
Ask the Commission to reject or require changes
ACT FOR MISSOURI · SUGGESTED ACTIONAsk commissioners to address Staff’s and OPC’s October 7 objections, Evergy’s October 9 reply, and earlier testimony explicitly before approving disputed charges or settlement terms. Our position is to reject the October 5 large-load agreement as filed unless the documented concerns are satisfactorily resolved, and to deny requested CWIP treatment. Public comments can communicate those requests; they do not guarantee an outcome.
Choose the case that matches your concern. Put its number in the form’s Related Submission No. field and repeat it in your comment. Use your own words and describe the information or protection you want the Commission to examine.
Construction & project risk
EA-2026-0343
- What demand commitments justify these resources, and what alternatives were evaluated?
- Will the Commission deny requested CWIP treatment rather than charge customers during construction?
- How would delay, cancellation, or lower demand affect existing customers?
EA-2026-0343: I oppose charging customers for construction work in progress and ask the Commission to deny requested CWIP treatment. Please require evidence of demand commitments, alternatives, and enforceable protections so existing customers do not bear expansion costs caused by demand that fails to materialize.
Rates & cost allocation
ER-2026-0143
- How will large-load fuel and capacity costs be assigned?
- How will duplicate recovery be prevented and checked?
- When will large-load revenues benefit other customers?
ER-2026-0143: Please reject the October 5 large-load agreement as filed unless changes satisfactorily address Staff’s October 6 and OPC’s October 7 objections, including the concerns addressed in Evergy’s October 9 reply. Explain how the final decision resolves the fuel and capacity cost-allocation concerns, prevents duplicate recovery, and addresses OPC’s testimony about large-load revenues. I also oppose CWIP treatment and ask the Commission to address OPC’s challenge to Mullin Creek #2 turbine prepayments before allowing their recovery.
These sample comments reflect Act for Missouri’s position. Personalize them to express your own views and the concerns that matter to your household or business.
Verified ways to reach the PSC
Registration is not required. You may also email pscinfo@psc.mo.gov, call 1-800-392-4211, or write to Missouri Public Service Commission, Attn: Consumer Services Unit, P.O. Box 360, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0360. PSC instructions · Official form
This page does not send a comment. Review what you submit and avoid putting account numbers or unnecessary sensitive information in the comment narrative.
Is commenting the same as intervening or testifying?
No. A public comment communicates your concerns; it does not make you a formal party. Evidentiary hearings are proceedings for presenting and testing evidence, not automatically open-microphone public hearings. Use the PSC’s public-comment channels and check case orders for any specific public-hearing opportunity. Comment channels · Hearing procedure
The October 7 objection deadline discussed in Staff’s filing applies to parties responding to stipulations. It should not be presented as a general citizen-comment deadline. Staff filing, p. 1
For legislative accountability: use the legislator lookup at the top of this page to ask your state senator and representative to repeal SB 4’s authorization for CWIP in rates and strengthen protections against shifting large-load costs to existing customers. Legislators can address the law; the PSC decides these dockets.
A final decision should let a reader follow the money: the costs caused by new demand, the commitments backing that demand, the revenues credited to existing customers, and responsibility if the forecast fails. Economic-development promises deserve that level of public accountability.
Read the record
Primary sources and docket updates reviewed through October 9, 2026. Testimony is evidence offered by a party; a stipulation is a proposal; an order records a Commission action. Public versions may omit confidential material. Page references use printed document pages unless stated otherwise.
Open the source library (additional docket filings and primary records)
- ER-2026-0143: October 7 Staff rate-design objection (item 322); OPC rate-design and LLPS objections (items 323–324); programs stipulation (item 320); October 9 Evergy LLPS reply (item 327) and Commission order (item 326)
- EA-2026-0343: October 9 OPC motion for reconsideration of denied local-resident interventions (item 65)
- Rate-case official calendar: October 13 on-the-record presentation and hearings
- SB 4, enacted text, §§393.130.7 and 393.135.2, pp. 40–42
- Missouri Senate: SB 4 history and effective date
- EA-2026-0343: official docket
- ER-2026-0143: official docket
- Evergy CCN application, August 31, 2026 (public version)
- Zachary Gladhill, direct testimony, August 31, 2026, pp. 9–17
- Ronald Klote, direct testimony, August 31, 2026, pp. 5–7
- PSC Report and Order, EO-2025-0154, November 13, 2025 (copy filed as Exhibit 603 in ET-2025-0184)
- Evergy–Google LLPS stipulation, October 5, 2026, pp. 1–4 and Exhibit D
- PSC Staff objection, October 6, 2026, pp. 1–5 (public version)
- Ron Nelson for OPC, surrebuttal, September 10, 2026, pp. 2–6
- John Riley for OPC, surrebuttal, September 10, 2026, pp. 10–11
- Paul Alvarez for OPC, surrebuttal, September 10, 2026, pp. 2–6
- PSC order setting CCN prehearing conference, October 1, 2026
- PSC rate-case scheduling order, March 18, 2026, pp. 4–5
- PSC: verified ways to submit comments
- PSC public comment form; no registration required
- Office of the Public Counsel: official role and responsibilities
Editorial scope: this article focuses on SB 4, large-load growth, and ratepayer exposure. It is not a summary of every issue or filing in either case.