Act for Missouri Logo

Here to Educate, Activate, and Engage Missouri Citizens!

Join us in our mission through meaningful actions and initiatives.

Find Your Missouri Legislators

“Fair Share” or Cross-Subsidy? PSC Staff Broke with Commissioners on Evergy’s Data Center Tariff

High-voltage transmission lines and a large industrial facility representing data center power use
SB 4 and a new Evergy tariff are being used to claim that massive new power users—like data centers—will “pay their fair share.” The split between the Commissioners and their own Staff tells a different story.

SB 4 was sold as a win for Missouri families: make massive power users like data centers pay their “fair share,” so regular customers aren’t stuck subsidizing them. Now a new Public Service Commission order for Evergy is being waved around as “proof” that it worked. But in this case, the PSC’s own Staff and the Office of Public Counsel warned about cross-subsidies and proposed a different design—only to have the Commissioners side with Evergy and a coalition of large corporate users instead.

Short version (TL;DR)

  • SB 4 required big utilities to create a special rate for huge power users; it was marketed as a way to make data centers pay their “fair share.”
  • Evergy and a coalition including Ameren, Google, the Data Center Coalition, Nucor, Sierra Club, and Renew Missouri wrote the settlement the Commission approved.
  • The PSC’s own Staff and the Office of Public Counsel warned about subsidization risk and proposed a more protective alternative. The Commission rejected their plan.
  • The order lowers the threshold from the 100 MW in SB 4 down to 75 MW—so more big projects can qualify for this special treatment.
  • The order does not cut residential or small-business rates, and it does not guarantee that data centers will cover every cost they create. Any benefit (or harm) to your bill will be decided later in future rate cases.

On this page

1. What SB 4 Promised

When SB 4 moved through the legislature, the public message was simple:

  • Missouri is going to attract big projects like data centers and battery plants.
  • Those massive users will be put on a special rate so they “pay their own way.”
  • Families and small businesses won’t subsidize the costs of serving them.

The actual statute (Section 393.130.7, RSMo) did two key things for large investor-owned utilities like Evergy and Ameren:

  1. It required them to file a special rate schedule for customers over 100 megawatts (MW) of peak demand.
  2. It told the PSC to design those rates to “reasonably ensure” that those customers’ rates reflect their “representative share” of the costs to serve them, and to prevent other customer classes from bearing “unjust or unreasonable” costs because of them.

In other words, 100 MW was the floor for who had to be covered, and the legal standard was “reasonable” and “representative share”—not “every cost down to the penny.”

Dig deeper: What is 100 MW in plain terms?

Power is measured in watts. A megawatt (MW) is one million watts. A typical home might use a few kilowatts (kW) at any given moment. 100 MW is the kind of peak demand you’d expect from:

  • A very large factory or industrial complex, or
  • A major data center campus running 24/7.

SB 4 said: customers this big should be on their own special plan. The PSC was allowed—but not required—to extend that framework down to smaller (but still huge) users.

2. What the Evergy Order Actually Does

The order in Case EO-2025-0154 applies to Evergy Missouri Metro and Evergy Missouri West. It does not directly change Ameren or Liberty’s rates, although it will likely be used as a model.

In simple terms, the order:

  • Creates a new Large Load Power Service (LLPS) rate class for massive power users.
  • Sets the eligibility threshold at 75 MW instead of the 100 MW mentioned in SB 4.
  • Requires LLPS customers to sign long-term contracts—up to about 17 years including ramp-up.
  • Charges a Minimum Monthly Bill based on at least 80% of their promised peak usage.
  • Requires collateral (roughly two years of minimum bills, subject to credit tests), plus exit fees and early termination fees if they walk away early.
  • Creates a Cost Stabilization Rider that is supposed to recover LLPS-related costs from LLPS customers.
  • Makes LLPS customers pay the direct costs of their own substation and local transmission extensions.

What it does not do:

  • It does not cut residential or small-business base rates.
  • It does not create a separate fuel-cost tracker just for LLPS customers.
  • It does not guarantee that every cost data centers cause will be walled off from your bill.
Dig deeper: How the LLPS billing structure actually works

Each LLPS customer agrees to a Contract Capacity—their steady-state peak load. Each month they pay:

  • A demand charge on at least 80% of Contract Capacity (called “Minimum Demand”).
  • A fixed customer charge (metering, billing, support).
  • A “grid charge” for substation and transmission, based on the higher of actual recent peak or that Minimum Demand.
  • Charges under the Cost Stabilization Rider, set on that same Minimum Demand.

Even if a data center barely runs in a given month, Evergy still collects most of the revenue it expected—by design. That’s what the Commission points to when it claims “strong safeguards” against stranded costs.

3. Who Wrote the Plan (and Who Objected)

The plan the Commission approved did not come from the PSC’s in-house experts or the public’s consumer advocate.

Here’s how it unfolded:

  1. Evergy writes the original plan. After SB 4 passed, Evergy’s lawyers and consultants drafted a new LLPS tariff and contract structure and filed it with the Commission.
  2. Parties intervene. PSC Staff, the Office of Public Counsel (OPC), Ameren, large customers (like Nucor and Velvet Tech), the Data Center Coalition, Sierra Club, and Renew Missouri all joined the case.
  3. Evergy and its allies negotiate a settlement. Evergy, Ameren, Google, the Data Center Coalition, Nucor, Velvet Tech, Sierra Club, and Renew Missouri signed a Non-Unanimous Global Stipulation and Agreement that slightly modified Evergy’s original proposal but kept its basic shape.
  4. Staff and OPC say “no.” PSC Staff and OPC did not sign the settlement. They warned about cross-subsidy risks and offered a more complex alternative with additional charges and protections for regular customers.
  5. The Commission chooses the settlement. In its order, the Commission approved the Evergy/Google/data-center coalition settlement and rejected the Staff/OPC plan as too complicated and potentially “discouraging” to large-load development.
Dig deeper: What Staff and OPC wanted that didn’t make it in

Among other things, Staff and OPC pushed for:

  • A cap on how much of Evergy’s system could be taken up by LLPS customers.
  • Separate or modified treatment of LLPS fuel and wholesale power costs in the Fuel Adjustment Clause (FAC).
  • More detailed grid-cost tracking (including separate pricing nodes at the Southwest Power Pool).
  • Mechanisms to share LLPS-driven “extra” revenues with other customers between rate cases.
  • A community benefits program funded by LLPS customers to help low-income households and heat-island mitigation.

The Commission declined each of these, saying they were unnecessary, too complex, or beyond its authority. That is why it is misleading to hold this order up as a slam-dunk proof that “consumers are fully protected.”

4. Will Data Centers Really Pay Their “Fair Share”?

The Commission and Evergy both say this LLPS plan contains “strong safeguards” and will make large new loads pay their “fair share,” so existing customers “don’t foot the bill.” On paper, there are real protections:

  • LLPS customers face big minimum bills, collateral, exit fees, and early-termination fees.
  • They pay the direct cost of their own substation and local transmission extensions.
  • The Cost Stabilization Rider is designed to recover LLPS-related capacity costs from those same customers.

But that’s not the whole story. There are important cost buckets where the order either defers decisions to future rate cases or leaves costs to be socialized.

Clearly on the LLPS tab ✅

  • Direct substation and local transmission extensions for LLPS customers.
  • Minimum demand charges on at least 80% of their contract capacity.
  • Collateral, exit fees, and early-termination fees if they walk away.

Shared costs / open questions ⚠️

  • Fuel and wholesale power costs passed through the Fuel Adjustment Clause (FAC), where LLPS customers and regular customers are in the same pot—for now.
  • Regional transmission “network upgrades” under the Southwest Power Pool, which are socialized across all load, not billed only to LLPS customers.
  • How any LLPS “extra revenues” get used between rate cases (no automatic sharing with families today).

What this order does not guarantee ❌

  • No guaranteed cut to residential or small-business rates.
  • No iron-clad rule that every LLPS-driven cost is walled off from your bill.
  • No binding commitment that extra LLPS revenue must be used to reduce other customers’ rates.

The bottom line: this order is a bet that these structures will generally keep things fair. It is not a hard guarantee that families and small businesses will never pay for costs caused by mega-users.

Dig deeper: What is “subsidization” in this context?

In plain language, subsidization means:

When one group of customers quietly pays part of the costs created by another group.

Both OPC and PSC Staff raised concerns that, without stronger protections, regular customers would still end up paying:

  • Some LLPS-driven fuel and wholesale costs through the FAC, and
  • Some LLPS-driven transmission upgrades through regional cost sharing.

The Commission disagreed that their alternative was necessary—but it did not create the kind of airtight separation that everyday people usually think of when they hear “they’ll pay their fair share.”

5. Lowering the Threshold: 100 MW vs 75 MW

SB 4 used 100 MW as the minimum size of customers big utilities had to cover with a special large-load tariff. The law also explicitly gives the Commission permission to apply the same framework to smaller loads if it chooses.

In this order, the Commission exercised that option and set Evergy’s LLPS threshold at 75 MW.

Who does that favor?

  • More large corporate power users (data centers, big industrials) now qualify for custom LLPS deals.
  • Evergy gets more potential long-term, high-revenue customers locked into minimum bills and collateral.
  • Economic-development officials get to pitch more projects with the promise of a special tariff and green-branding options.

Who doesn’t directly benefit?

  • Residential and small-business customers, who see no automatic rate reduction and still carry some of the system risk.
Dig deeper: Why does 75 MW vs 100 MW matter?

There are projects that might land in the 75–100 MW range:

  • A “medium-large” data center campus.
  • A manufacturing or logistics hub with significant electrified processes.

Under a strict 100 MW threshold, some of these loads might have stayed on standard tariffs, with more traditional protections and cost allocations. By lowering the bar to 75 MW, the Commission pulls more of these projects into the LLPS world—with all its pros and cons.

6. Who’s Watching the Watchdogs?

It’s normal, legally, for the Commission to disagree with its own Staff or with OPC. They are separate parties in a case, not the Commission’s “bosses.” But it’s still important to understand who is making these calls and what relationships they bring to the table.

In this case, the Commission sided with Evergy and the large-load coalition over both PSC Staff and OPC at the same time. That’s a strong signal about whose vision carried the most weight.

Dig deeper: Commissioners and potential conflicts Missourians should know about

Chair Kayla Hahn

  • Former policy director and senior advisor to Gov. Parson, now PSC Chair.
  • Married to lobbyist Jay Hahn, whose clients have included regulated and energy-related interests (such as Missouri American Water and an emissions-testing contractor).
  • Serves on regional and national energy policy bodies (SPP Regional State Committee, NARUC electricity committee).

Commissioner Glen Kolkmeyer

  • Former state representative; served on utility-related committees.
  • Owner and CEO of a company that hauls gasoline, diesel, propane, and anhydrous ammonia—fuels closely tied to the utilities he now regulates.

Commissioner John P. Mitchell

  • Career engineer who spent decades at Burns & McDonnell designing utility-scale water and infrastructure projects.
  • Now regulates utilities that hire firms like his former employer to build major projects.

Commissioner Maida Coleman

  • Former state legislator and Senate Minority Leader.
  • Known for sponsoring the “Hot Weather Law” protecting customers from summer shut-offs.

These backgrounds don’t apply any wrongdoing, but they are something Missourians should be aware of and paying attention to when commissioners choose a utility-backed settlement over the warnings of their own technical Staff and the public’s consumer advocate.

7. What This Means for Missouri Families

So what does all this mean in practical terms?

  • This order does not reduce your electric rates today.
  • It gives Evergy a powerful tool to recruit 75+ MW projects—especially data centers and other energy-hungry facilities.
  • On paper, it tries to make those customers pay most of their own way—through minimum bills, collateral, and a special rider.
  • In reality, some important cost buckets—fuel, wholesale power, and regional grid upgrades—are still shared, and any future benefit to you depends on future rate cases and future commissions.

When you hear someone point to this order as proof that “SB 4 is working” or that “data centers will pay their fair share,” here are some fair questions to ask:

  • If this is such a win for consumers, where is the plan to lower residential and small-business rates—and on what timeline?
  • What concrete steps will the PSC take in the next rate cases to make sure LLPS fuel and grid costs aren’t quietly shifted onto families through the FAC?
  • Why did the Commission choose the Evergy/Google/data-center settlement over the alternative written by its own Staff and the Office of Public Counsel?
  • How many 75–100 MW projects are now eligible for this special treatment that wouldn’t have been covered if the threshold had stayed at 100 MW?

Missourians deserve more than slogans. They deserve clear answers, honest math, and decisions that put families, small businesses, and constitutional protections first.

8. Dig Deeper: Documents & Sources

For readers who want to see the primary documents and follow the case history themselves, here are starting points you can explore (links and docket numbers can be updated as better URLs become available):

Note: This article is our best good-faith summary of complex regulatory documents. We encourage readers—and especially lawmakers and local officials—to review the underlying filings and orders and reach their own conclusions.

Share this post

Facebook Share on X
← Back to Homepage