Act for Missouri · Public accountability · October 18, 2026
Residents Denied a Seat at the Table
Missouri’s Public Service Commission refuses to reconsider local residents’ intervention requests in Evergy’s proposed power-plant case.
Case EA-2026-0343 · Filing #69 · Order issued October 16, 2026
Start here · About a two-minute read
Just the facts — without the legal jargon
1. Evergy wants to build a power plant. The company seeks approval for a 710-megawatt natural-gas plant in Buchanan County and a separate 109-megawatt battery project in Jasper County.
2. People who live near the proposed plant asked to participate directly. They applied to become formal parties, known as intervenors, in the Public Service Commission (PSC) case.
3. The PSC said no — and on October 16 said no again. After initially denying the requests on September 29, the Commission rejected motions asking it to reconsider.
4. The Commission says the Office of Public Counsel can represent them. Residents and Public Counsel questioned whether statewide representation adequately addresses interests unique to people living near the facility.
5. Residents can still speak up. They may submit public comments, contact Public Counsel, follow the case and participate in any public hearing the PSC holds. But public comment is not the same as having formal rights as a party.
The essential distinction: This ruling decides who participates as a party in the regulatory case. It does not approve the plant, determine utility rates, or decide the merits of residents’ concerns.
What exactly did the PSC decide?
In Filing #69, Order Regarding Motions for Reconsideration, issued and effective October 16, 2026, the Commission denied motions to reconsider its previous decision excluding local residents from formal intervention. The ruling responds to requests by the Office of the Public Counsel (OPC) and some applicants who had sought party status. The order is two substantive pages long, followed by certification and service pages.
The Commission says a reconsideration motion must identify specific reasons an earlier order was unlawful, unjust or unreasonable. It concluded that the applications did not demonstrate a sufficient reason to reverse its decision. It also expressed confidence that Public Counsel would adequately represent the general public, including those who sought to intervene.
What does “motion for reconsideration” mean?
It is a request for the same decision-making body to revisit an earlier order. Under 20 CSR 4240-2.160(2), a party seeking reconsideration must identify why it considers the order unlawful, unjust or unreasonable. Denying reconsideration leaves the earlier order in place. It is not a fresh ruling on whether the proposed projects are needed or should be approved.
How did we get here?
August 31 — Evergy files its application
Evergy Missouri Metro and Missouri West seek Certificates of Convenience and Necessity for Buchanan Bluffs Unit 2 and the Foxtrot battery system. The PSC’s notice announced a September 17 intervention deadline.
September — residents seek intervention
Residents near the Buchanan County site submit applications. The September 29 order describes 16 timely and 14 late applications received at that point from members of the public near the proposed site. Evergy opposed the requests. The numbers are a dated snapshot of applications, not necessarily a count of distinct individuals.
September 29 — intervention denied
In Filing #60, the Commission granted Renew Missouri’s unopposed application but denied the residents’ requests. It said residents had not shown interests different from other area residents composing the general public for the case, and cited other channels for their participation.
October 9 — Public Counsel asks for reconsideration
OPC filed Filing #65, asking the Commission to reconsider its denial. Individual applicants also sought reconsideration through separate filings.
October 16 — the Commission refuses to change course
Filing #69 denies reconsideration. The intervention ruling therefore remains in effect as of this article’s October 18 publication.
What does intervention actually give a citizen?
Regulatory proceedings are more like legal cases than town halls. A person who submits a public comment is making their views known; someone admitted as an intervenor becomes a formal party with procedural rights and obligations.
Public commenter
- Can submit a written statement for the record.
- Can express firsthand local concerns.
- May speak at a properly noticed local public hearing, if one is held.
- Does not automatically gain party-level discovery, evidentiary presentation or cross-examination rights.
Formal intervenor
- Participates as a party, subject to Commission rules and orders.
- May obtain and test evidence through authorized discovery.
- May present evidence, question witnesses and submit legal arguments.
- Must follow procedural deadlines and other requirements.
What legal test did the Commission apply?
The September 29 order quoted 20 CSR 4240-2.075(3), which allows intervention when an applicant has an interest different from the general public that may be adversely affected, or when intervention would serve the public interest. The Commission found the residents had not met the standard on the record before it, while granting Renew Missouri intervention. Whether the rule was applied correctly is a matter that could be evaluated through appropriate legal channels; this article does not claim a court has ruled on it.
The central disagreement: can statewide representation replace a local voice?
The Commission’s explanation: OPC is charged with representing the general public in utility proceedings. In its October 16 order, the Commission said OPC could adequately represent the applicants’ interests. The earlier September 29 order also noted that people could comment, potentially testify at a local public hearing, or request permission to file an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief under its rules.
The residents’ and OPC’s concern: Living near a particular facility may raise issues that differ from the public’s overall interest in electricity service — including neighborhood noise, lighting, land use, agricultural impacts, water, air quality and property impacts. Those concerns might not always align neatly with utility rates or with the statewide public interest. OPC sought reconsideration of the intervention denial.
Evergy’s position: In the September proceedings, Evergy opposed the resident intervention applications. The October 16 order did not itself resolve broader disagreements about local impacts or whether the proposed facilities serve the public convenience and necessity. Readers should not infer that opposing intervention establishes any motive beyond the position recorded in the docket.
What the ruling does not do
- It does not approve construction. Evergy’s CCN applications still require substantive review.
- It does not establish that the plant is necessary. That question belongs to the merits of the proceeding.
- It does not impose a new monthly charge. A CCN decision and later rate-recovery decisions are separate issues.
- It does not end public participation. Written comments and appropriate hearing opportunities remain available.
- It does not resolve all rights or appeal questions. Anyone considering legal challenges or renewed procedural filings should consult qualified Missouri counsel promptly about applicable rules and deadlines.
What about SB 4, data centers, and construction work in progress?
The wider Evergy proceeding concerns proposed generation capacity and potential future cost recovery. SB 4 made certain natural-gas construction work in progress (CWIP) eligible for PSC-approved treatment in rates before a facility is placed in service. Large-load demand and the allocation of expansion costs are substantive issues worth following. But Filing #69 does not decide CWIP, data-center cost allocation or ratepayer liability. Those subjects should be examined in their own evidence and orders. For that background, see Act for Missouri’s broader SB 4 / Evergy investigation.
What citizens can do now
The intervention ruling narrows one avenue of participation, but it does not close the public record. The following steps are practical and distinguish what is open to everyone from formal legal procedures.
Read the order and track the docket
Start with the October 16 order and the full EA-2026-0343 docket. Watch for orders setting a final procedural schedule, local public hearings, testimony and any final project decision.
Submit a public comment using the case number
Use the PSC’s official comment form or consult its commenting instructions. Identify EA-2026-0343. State whether you live near the site, are a customer, own nearby property or have another specific interest; explain concrete concerns and what evidence you want considered. You can also contact the PSC at 1-800-392-4211 or pscinfo@psc.mo.gov.
Share localized evidence, not only conclusions
Specific information can be more useful than a generic objection: site distance, road conditions, existing land uses, photographs taken lawfully, water concerns, likely construction traffic, or questions about noise and cumulative impacts. Avoid posting sensitive personal details or assuming unverified impacts are established facts.
Contact the Office of Public Counsel
Ask how OPC intends to address concerns of residents denied party status and what documentation could assist its work. OPC can be contacted at opcservice@opc.mo.gov or 1-866-922-2959. Public Counsel can consider information and issues but cannot promise to present any particular claim.
Participate in a public hearing if one is formally scheduled
The parties have proposed November 16 in-person hearings in the Buchanan County area and a November 17 virtual hearing. Those dates were proposed, not established by Filing #69. Verify the final dates, location, registration procedures and opportunities to testify in the current docket before traveling or relying on them.
Seek legal advice before attempting additional procedural action
Residents wishing to contest the intervention denial or seek other party-level relief should ask an attorney familiar with Missouri administrative law to evaluate available options, standing, deadlines and the full case record. The September 29 order mentions a possible request to file an amicus curiae brief; that is not the same as gaining intervenor status and requires compliance with PSC rules.
Submit a comment to the Missouri PSC ↗ Follow the official case docket ↗
Read the actual record
This article distinguishes official rulings from positions asserted by the parties. Status reflects records reviewed October 18, 2026; verify later docket updates before relying on dates.
- Filing #69 — Order Regarding Motions for Reconsideration (October 16). The decision discussed in this article.
- Filing #60 — Order Regarding Intervention Requests (September 29). Includes the Commission’s Rule 2.075 reasoning and options for public input.
- Filing #65 — OPC’s Motion to Reconsider (October 9). Public Counsel’s reconsideration request.
- EA-2026-0343 — complete official PSC docket. Subsequent orders, filings and announcements.
- PSC notice about the application and citizen commenting (September 3).
- PSC — Submit Comments and official online comment form.