One tenant, ten plants, seven and a half gigawatts
In Richland Parish, in the northeast corner of Louisiana, a stretch of farmland has become the site of Meta's Hyperion campus, now scaled to 5 gigawatts and an investment past 50 billion dollars. The power to run it is being built alongside it. The Louisiana Public Service Commission approved three combined-cycle gas turbines on 20 August 2025, with a combined capacity of about 2.26 gigawatts, for what was then a 2 gigawatt campus. On 27 March 2026 Entergy Louisiana announced that Meta would fund seven more. Counting the three already approved, ten gas plants are now in the pipeline for roughly 7.5 gigawatts.
Around them comes about 240 miles of new high-voltage transmission and grid-scale battery storage at three separate sites. Entergy's forecast of what all this delivers to its existing customers has moved from roughly 650 million dollars to about 2.65 billion. Why it matters. That revision is the figure the utility wants quoted, and it is a real one. It also describes the contracted phase of the arrangement rather than the whole life of what is being built.
A single private tenant is now the reason a regulated utility is constructing generation and transmission on the scale of a national programme. Once that is true, the tenant's contract term stops being a commercial detail between two companies. It becomes a planning assumption for every other customer connected to the same network.
Fifteen years of contract against thirty years of asset
The term is the whole story. Meta has offered to offset most of the cost for Entergy's customers by paying the full annual revenue on the plants for 15 years. Combined-cycle gas plants of this type are built, financed and depreciated against roughly 30 years of operation. The contract therefore covers the first half of the asset's life. The second half is not covered by anything.
Commissioner Davante Lewis said this during the proceedings rather than after them: the 15-year power agreement potentially leaves Louisiana households responsible for the remaining costs of plants with a 30-year operational life, should Meta exit the state early. That is not a hostile reading of the deal. It is the arithmetic of the term sheet. The risk being described is not that the campus fails, which would be dramatic and is unlikely. It is the quieter possibility that a 15-year commitment is simply shorter than the thing it paid for.
What this is, structurally. It is a residual-value transfer, the same shape as a lease that ends while the equipment still has years of use in it. Whoever holds the asset when the term expires holds whatever value or liability remains. Inside a regulated utility the holder is the rate base, which means every other customer on the system. The benefit is contracted, quantified and dated. The tail is none of those three.
Fifty signatures nobody outside the room could read
The New York Times reported on 27 July that the arrangement was assembled over months of confidential negotiation. More than 50 state officials signed non-disclosure agreements. Officials rewrote pending legislation to create a sales-tax exemption for data-centre equipment, assembled property tax breaks and infrastructure commitments, and avoided public meetings until the project was unveiled. A 20-year sales-tax exemption covering data centres that break ground before 2029 was central to the strategy, and the resulting package has been valued at around 3.3 billion dollars.
One detail shows what that information asymmetry was worth. State Senator Jay Morris co-authored legislation supporting the project, voted for the key tax incentive and advocated for the utility's expansion. Last September, after signing a non-disclosure agreement tied to the project, he sold 300 acres he co-owned near the development site to Entergy. Ethics specialists quoted in the reporting questioned whether the process advantaged insiders while limiting public scrutiny; the negotiations themselves appear to have complied with state law.
The transferable lesson is not about Louisiana. The party that negotiates under a non-disclosure agreement sets the term. The parties who never saw the document inherit whatever the term does not cover. That is a general rule about anchor-tenant infrastructure and it holds anywhere a single large load justifies network investment that everyone else pays to maintain. The secrecy explains how the deal passed. The term explains what it costs.
What to ask your own network operator
In Europe this structure arrives in a different legal wrapper. Connection agreements, network tariffs and the justification for large-load reinforcement are regulated and, to a meaningful degree, disclosable. National regulators publish the reasoning behind network investment, and the tariff consequences of a large connection are a matter of public consultation rather than a negotiated secret. The asymmetry in Europe is therefore not secrecy. It is that almost nobody asks.
Three questions are worth putting in writing to your distribution or transmission operator. Which anchor loads are cited as justification for the reinforcement planned in your connection area, and what is the contracted term of each. What happens to the tariff treatment of those assets if the anchor load reduces its offtake or leaves before the end of the asset life. And whether your own position in the connection queue sits behind a load whose contract is shorter than the infrastructure it triggered.
The point of asking is not objection. A large neighbouring load is frequently good news. It can pull forward reinforcement you would otherwise have waited years for, and it can make a marginal connection viable. But the benefit and the tail have different durations, and only one of them appears in the announcement. Establishing the term while the reinforcement is still being planned is the difference between sharing an upgrade and inheriting an asset nobody has contracted to pay for.
Read next: The Money Buys Test Rigs, Not Permission | 2028 Is an Executive Order, Not a Product Date
