Louisiana’s utility watchdog is weighing a new money disclosure rule that could shake up who gets a voice in the state’s biggest power fights. The Louisiana Public Service Commission is considering a requirement that any group seeking intervenor status in utility dockets must reveal how much of its funding comes from outside the state, including money tied to certain foreign governments. Backers call it a badly needed transparency fix, while critics see a move that could scare everyday Louisianans out of the room.
According to an April 15 commission transcript, Chairman Eric Skrmetta told staff to draft an “Interim Rule 10a” that would force intervenors to file a sworn affidavit. That filing would have to spell out the percentage of annual funding that comes from out of state, any grants or contracts linked to named foreign countries, and the ultimate source of any pass through money. The draft envisions those disclosures as public records and warns that failure to comply could lead to denial or revocation of intervenor status or other remedies. Staff was also instructed to model the rule on similar state transparency provisions and to fold proposed language into the commission’s rules docket so stakeholders can weigh in.
Conservative think tank’s report lights the fuse
The push did not come out of nowhere. In March, the conservative Pelican Institute released a white paper that tallied what it said was roughly $115.5 million in out of state funding flowing to Louisiana advocacy organizations. The report argued that those outside dollars are steering policy debates around energy and data centers. By the Pelican Institute’s own account, that research helped spur the disclosure drive at the commission and is being framed by supporters as part of a larger bid to secure what they call “Louisiana energy dominance.”
Advocates warn the rule could freeze out community voices
Environmental and ratepayer advocates say the emerging rule sounds neat on paper and messy in real life. They argue that smaller, local groups would struggle to trace every dollar and might simply stop intervening rather than risk running afoul of a complex affidavit requirement.
“It struck me as a solution in search of a problem,” Commissioner Davante Lewis told reporters, as reported by Verite News. Organizers with groups such as the Alliance for Affordable Energy have warned that the “directly or indirectly” disclosure standard could force them to follow long chains of funding, creating what they see as technical traps that discourage public participation instead of inviting it.
High stakes for mega projects and rate fights
The timing of the proposal is no accident. The commission has been wrestling with sprawling cases tied to large industrial and tech customers, where intervenors can number in the dozens and the money at stake runs into the billions over time.
Entergy has described an August 2025 approval that cleared the way for generation and transmission investments to serve Meta’s Richland Parish data center in a company release, and the related filings lay out plans for multiple combined cycle plants plus substantial transmission work to support the campus. Because cases like that attract a wide mix of environmental groups, industrial customers and consumer advocates, the new disclosure rule would alter what many of those players must reveal about their own backers and could quietly reshape who shows up at all.
Utilities like transparency, but not for themselves
On one point, the big power companies and rule supporters agree: more transparency sounds good. Representatives for Southwestern Electric Power Company, Cleco Power and Entergy Louisiana have told reporters they support additional disclosure requirements for intervenors. At the same time, they have urged the commission to carve out regulated utilities from the new rule, arguing that they already disclose extensive financial information through the commission and in public shareholder filings.
That position, along with the claim in some filings that the proposal is “narrowly tailored” and administratively manageable, was reported by the Louisiana Illuminator.
Legal gray areas and paperwork headaches
The draft concept does not shy away from teeth. The commission transcript instructs staff to include clear enforcement language that noncompliance “may result in denial or revocation of intervenor status, sanctions, or other remedies.” Coupled with the broad “directly or indirectly” standard, that has raised both procedural and constitutional questions that advocacy groups and lawyers say will have to be hashed out in the rule making process.
Industry and communications trade associations have also flagged the nuts and bolts problem. Tracing long, multi layer funding chains and updating sworn affidavits on a recurring basis, they argue, could become a serious administrative burden for organizations that are already stretched thin.
What happens next
For now, the fight is moving from rhetoric to rule drafting. Staff has been ordered to prepare specific language for the commission, and the measure is expected to come back for discussion at the commission’s August meeting, according to reporting by the Louisiana Illuminator. Advocates, along with at least two candidates running to replace Chairman Skrmetta, have signaled they are watching closely, ensuring the draft is both a high stakes regulatory move and a live political issue.
The directive formally opens a rule making track. Once staff circulates proposed text, anyone with a stake in intervenor access, from neighborhood groups to multinational developers, will have a clear chance to file comments and test how far the commission really wants to go in following the money.
