The Arkansas Public Service Commission approved Entergy Arkansas’ application for the Jefferson Power Station (“JPS”), a natural gas power plant that Entergy estimates will cost more than $1.5 billion. (See Docket No. 25-047-U)

For the Jefferson Power Station, the Commission found that, “the actions taken by the Company do not constitute a true comparison to market opportunities.” Entergy had crafted requests for proposals so narrowly that no proposals were submitted and even JPS would not have qualified as a proposal. Further, the proposed power plant “was manually inputted into the 2024 IRP analysis and not the result of an optimization analysis”. Even compared to reasonable alternatives, the Commission chastised Entergy, stating, “EAL’s failure to perform an analysis of the White Bluff conversion and compare that option against JPS is inexcusable, given that the Company has had seven years to do so.” The Commission concluded, “EAL has failed to offer substantial evidence that its total project costs for JPS are reasonable or in the public interest.” 

Even so, the Commission approved JPS in part because Arkansas Act 373, the Generating Arkansas Jobs Act, a bill lobbied heavily for by our state's electric utilities, including Entergy, provides an exemption that allows JPS to avoid having to meet more stringent requirements. 

So why is the PSC’s decision ultimately a win for Arkansas ratepayers and clean energy? 

The Southern Renewable Energy Association was founded to promote energy policies that strengthen reliability, support responsible clean energy development, and ensure customers benefit from fair competition and innovation. For years, SREA has consistently raised these points in regulatory proceedings, emphasizing that competition is not an obstacle to reliability—it is one of the best tools regulators have to protect customers. At its core, competitive procurement is about accountability. When utilities are required to solicit and evaluate a wide range of options—rather than defaulting to self-build projects—customers benefit from market discipline, price transparency, and better outcomes.

In this docket, SREA urged the Commission to closely scrutinize whether proposed investments were evaluated through a fair, open, and competitive process. We’ve seen utilities rush applications for commissions to approve new power plants without evaluating alternatives, and pressure their regulators into a tough decision, just like with JPS. Bypassing competition can lead to higher costs for customers and missed opportunities to procure lower-cost resources from the market.

The Commission agreed, and adopted new requirements for future competitive solicitations involving system resources.

While the $1.5 billion JPS facility will be built, the Commission is requiring Entergy to hire an independent monitor to ensure final costs are just and reasonable. Future power plants now require a “robust competitive RFP process” that also uses an independent monitor. Those competitive solicitations are also required to be “all-source RFPs and not limited to a specific resource”, expanding the pool of power plants to bid in to Entergy’s requests.  

That alignment with SREA’s position is not accidental; it reflects sustained, credible engagement grounded in data, precedent, and sound policy.

For Arkansas customers, this outcome matters. Competitive procurement helps ensure:

• Customers are not locked into higher-cost solutions unnecessarily
• Utilities fully test the market before committing ratepayer dollars
• Long-term costs are minimized, not just short-term capital expenditures

In practical terms, this approach can mean millions of dollars in avoided costs over time, while still maintaining reliability and system resilience. The Commission’s decision sends a firm message to utilities: major generation investments must be justified through transparent, competitive, all-source processes — not presumed, preselected, or shielded from market scrutiny.

For SREA members—developers, investors, and companies operating in Arkansas and across the region—this decision sends a clear signal: the Commission values competition and expects utilities to take it seriously. Renewable energy resources may not always win in a competitive solicitation, but that’s a better scenario than narrowly crafted RFPs that preclude any participation.

The Bigger Picture

This decision is about more than one docket. It reinforces a regulatory principle that will shape future resource planning, procurement, and investment decisions in Arkansas.

SREA will continue to advocate for:

• Competitive, technology-neutral procurement
• Robust oversight of major utility investments
• Policies that protect ratepayers while enabling a modern, reliable grid

This is what constructive engagement looks like—and it’s exactly why SREA shows up.