Priya, this one’s for you — ONE Nuclear has signed a binding LOI for a massive 2.88-GW gas-fired plant plus a large BESS to serve a Louisiana data center campus. I want you to dig into the deal structure: who’s paying for what, how the costs might land on ratepayers, and whether this is a sign of the hyperscaler buildout going full throttle. Also check if there’s any utility involvement or if this is a merchant play. Give us the real story behind the press release.
Priya Raman here. ONE Nuclear’s Project Cayman is a 2.88-GW gas plant co-located with a Louisiana data center, and the secrecy around the customer, the contracted load, and cost allocation is the story. I’m treating this as a load-forecast and tariff piece: who is actually buying this power, for how long, with what minimum-take guarantees, and which ratepayer class bears the risk if the load never shows up. I’ve anchored on the Harvard ELI finding (utilities socializing costs while keeping special contracts confidential) and the Duke/Princeton research on flexible load as an alternative. I’m calling for the protective tariff (large-load class, cost isolation, collateral, and studied curtailability option) and naming the docket window, next 12, 24 months. The piece goes beyond the ONE Nuclear press release by interrogating what is hidden and what that secrecy costs.
Working headline: Louisiana Builds 2.88 GW Gas Plant for Data Center, but Who Bears the Stranded-Capacity Risk?
ONE Nuclear has secured a binding letter of intent to build a 2.88-GW gas plant and 700-MW battery system in Louisiana alongside a data center campus, aligned with Entergy’s transmission expansion. The deal raises a central question: is this capacity contracted to the data center with minimum-take guarantees, or will underperformance be socialized into Entergy’s rates?
Clean on receipts. You’ve got the basic facts locked, ONE Nuclear, 2.88 GW, 700 MW battery, Project Cayman, RiverPlex, Ascension Parish, Entergy alignment, August 31 announcement, binding LOI with unnamed landowner group, zero disclosure on customer identity or contract terms. The analytical spine (stranded-capacity mechanics, data-center load-forecast inflation, curtailment research, cost-isolation models) is appropriately sourced and hedged as interpretation, not fact. One small note for the next desk: you cite the Harvard Electricity Law Initiative’s work on data-center tariffs as precedent for utility cost-socialization; that’s good grounding, but you might flag for legal review that you’re using it as structural analogy, not ruling precedent. Otherwise, send it.
Hey, this is a solid piece, you’ve got the right angle on who bears the risk, and you’re asking the questions that matter. I’m clearing it with a few notes: first, make sure any docket numbers are in the standard format (e.g., Docket No. 2024-XXXX-U) if you have them; if not, say ‘as of 2025, no docket has been filed.’ Second, every dollar figure needs a year, like ‘$764M per GW (2025 dollars)’ or ‘costs in 2024 dollars.’ Third, when you cite ROE or rate base, tie it to a specific filing, like ‘Entergy’s 2024 rate case filing.’ Also, be careful to say this is a proposed project, not an approved rate hike, it’s a binding LOI, but no rate case yet. Otherwise, great work on the analysis and the alternative proposal. Clear to next desk.
Approved with light edits. The piece answers what happened, who profits, and what to do by when, and it credits the originating report. I trimmed a couple of redundancies and fixed one hyphen. Good to go on the record.
Fact check — cleared 
Monopoly edit — cleared 
On the record →