Checked claims about power

Evidence limitation: Whether generation, transmission, capacity-market, wholesale-market or pre-tariff contracts can affect household bills remains a separate question from this tariff arithmetic. The saved record holds the tariff sheets and the PUCO docket listing, not a PUCO or Ohio Consumers' Counsel analysis of household bill effects and not the text of the 5 August 2026 order or the 30 September 2026 entry on rehearing.

Evidence limitation: Kentucky Utilities' parallel EHLF tariff was not read. Which customers have signed EHLF agreements and on what terms; agreements are to be filed with the Commission.

Evidence limitation: The electric service agreement's full terms, what Meta pays, and costs after the 15-year term. The written Order No. U-37425 could not be read; its terms here come from the session transcript.

Evidence limitation: The Commission's definition of the very large customer class, which existing data center agreements fall under the subdivision 3 exemption, any approved data center tariff or agreement, and whether specific upgrade costs have been charged to a data center.

Evidence limitation: The text of the Commission's orders approving the Ameren Missouri and Evergy large load tariffs, including the 12-year minimum term and collateral terms the PSC describes; those orders could not be read.

Evidence limitation: The Energy Futures Group report behind the release's $50 billion figure, and the Task Force's next report, due 15 February 2027; the Task Force's work continues through December 2028.

Evidence limitation: The text of Plan Approval 32-00457A (number and rating of turbines, permitted capacity), DEP's comment response on data center scope, whether construction has begun, whether power production will start in 2027, and any data center tenant. The plan approval documents could not be read.

Evidence limitation: Metered load at the site, whether the second 150 MW has since been approved and energized, and the substation numbering, which MLGW's update does not give.

Evidence limitation: Which data center contracts have been filed or approved under the law, and how incremental costs have been calculated in practice.

Supported means these documents describe a dispute, not proof of a $587 million cost shift.

The financial question remains unresolved here. The underlying analysis, billing records and a commission determination were not reviewed.

Evidence limitation: The underlying analysis, billing and PSA records, and a commission determination were not reviewed. The allegation concerns large energy users including data centers; it is not an established data-center-only charge to residential customers. These sources do not determine which financial interpretation is correct or establish present regulator status.

Evidence limitation: Whether the Commission has approved a Delmarva large-load tariff, its terms, and whether any 25 MW-plus customer has been interconnected or has an interconnection date. The text of Order 10829, Delmarva's Dec 2025 tariff filing and the Hearing Examiner's findings were not read. Docket 25-0826 on DelaFile was not retrieved. No reviewed document in the sources checked establishes it.

Evidence limitation: The definition of qualified data center in K.S.A. 74-50,331 and its thresholds; whether any Kansas utility serves a data center under a commission-approved contract rate outside this section; what tariff or contract any named Kansas project, including the tracked Beale Data Center record, would take service under; and the 'cooperative' exclusion's effect on data centers served by cooperatives. No reviewed document in the sources checked establishes it.

Evidence limitation: The completion year. Whether any building or substation is finished. Utility capacity as distinct from the 216 MW critical IT figure. Measured water use.

Evidence limitation: Whether any of that generation is built, energized, or metered. The split of the gigawatt figure among wind, solar, and batteries. The capacity of the on-site gas. Data-center IT load. Hourly matching between generation and the data center.

Evidence limitation: The tariff, rate, or interconnection agreement that would show who pays. Any later bill or regulator order.

Evidence limitation: The individual Clearway contracts, their dates, and whether any energy is generated or matched to a named facility. The linked social post was inaccessible; its wording was not reviewed.

Evidence limitation: Whether the plants are built or the energy is generated. Which Google facility takes it. Hourly or physical matching. The contract text itself.

Evidence limitation: Whether construction has started, any building is operating, or the stated IT load, area, or water-use figure has been measured. Utility power is a separate figure on the same page.

Evidence limitation: Whether the substation is built or energized, and any utility filing that states its capacity.

Evidence limitation: Whether either building is under construction or operating. Utility power. Metered load. The wording of the unopened construction post.

Evidence limitation: Whether a NIPSCO agreement was ever executed, and which milestones failed; the executed development agreement, the extension resolutions and any NIPSCO filing for this expansion are not in the saved record.

Evidence limitation: Critical IT capacity; measured load; owner/operator legal roles distinct from applicant; actual occupancy or opening date (the city's revenue FAQ projects the first building 'expected online in 2028').

Evidence limitation: MPSC final disposition of U-22058; whether load has materialized; measured load; critical IT capacity; executed public (non-confidential) contract text.

Evidence limitation: Rescheduled hearing date and outcome; whether NSR 10883 is later issued, denied, or withdrawn; data-center IT load; utility demand.

Evidence limitation: Effects outside the reviewed site-specific commitment, including other tariffs, projects and wholesale-market costs, are not established here.

The underlying filing, hearing outcome and any certificate remain unverified. Company generation figures are not data-center IT capacity.

Evidence limitation: Underlying application and staff report; reason for the official/company MW discrepancy; hearing outcome; any OPSB certificate or construction authorization.

The hearing notice is historical. Its outcome and any certificate remain unverified; the follow-up is overdue.

Evidence limitation: The underlying OPSB application, hearing outcome, certificate status, and future effect on retail bills.

Review limitation: No limitation was recorded in this review. That does not establish that none exists.

Evidence limitation: Contracted, energized and measured load.

Evidence limitation: Utility contract and regulatory cost-allocation record.

Review limitation: No limitation was recorded in this review. That does not establish that none exists.