Last week, the Publisher of this paper presented his version of Entergy’s spending for Amazon’s data centers vs. Entergy’s CEO’s version. The face-off was scored like an imaginary football game. The Publisher won. Home-field advantage? He used Perplexity AI (Artificial Intelligence) to score the imaginary game.
The Publisher also described how he uses AI to increase his productivity as a professional journalist. As an amateur, I have found AI useful too. I used Perplexity AI to help me with this and several other articles about how Entergy’s spending for Amazon will likely harm residential customers. Entergy’s CEO says there won’t be any unusual harm. I thought it would be amusing and informative to present our competing narratives on this issue as an imaginary formal debate. Here’s Perplexity AI’s version.
Resolved: Entergy’s spending for Amazon infrastructure won’t increase residential rates more than they would increase otherwise. For the Affirmative: Entergy’s CEO. For the Negative: Bigger Pie’s Old Guy.
Affirmative Case. Key Arguments: 1) Customers benefit. Spending for Amazon spreads fixed costs and keeps rates lower for all customers. 2) Grid Modernization. Spending improves generation efficiency, grid upgrades, improves reliability, and affordability. 3) Economic Development. Amazon brings jobs, tax revenues, and technology leadership — like Nissan does. 4) No unusual rate increases. Rates will stay below the national average. 5) Amazon covers costs. Its rate covers costs to serve it plus nearly 50% of grid improvement costs. It reduces the burden on other customers.
Affirmative Case Supporting evidence: 1) CEO and news releases claim Entergy’s Amazon investment benefits all customers and keeps rates affordable. 2) Entergy’s public rate plan claims to keep bills below the national average.
Negative Case. Key Arguments:
1) Amazon deal sidelines PSC. No Entergy spending oversight. No small customer protection. No caps on Entergy rate increases. 2) Entergy gets 10+% profit on spending for Amazon. It encourages overspending. 3) Competitive bids for construction spending are not required. Sweetheart contracts. Inflated costs. 4) It looks like Kemper County Lignite Plant. Runaway costs. Higher rates for small customers. 5) Secret Amazon rates and deal terms are suspicious. 6) Entergy rates have increased by 28% over the last 3 years without Amazon spending. More increases are likely.
Negative Case Supporting Evidence: 1) Legislature sidelined PSC and usurped its authority. No oversight for Entergy’s spending. Removed caps on rate increase. 2) Entergy’s profit increases with its spending. Incentivizes spending. 3) Rates up in other states with data centers even with PSC and Legislative oversight. Rate increases here likely even higher here due to no PSC oversight and legislative support for Entergy.
Debate Scoring. Evidence: Affirmative cites Company statements, rate plan. Negative stronger: cites specific legislation, regulatory changes. Transparency: Affirmative offers general assurances. Negative critiques secrecy in detail. Negative stronger: highlights lack of contract transparency. Consumer Protections: Affirmative claims benefit to all. Negative documents loss of PSC oversight. Negative stronger: removal of oversight and rate caps.
Historical Precedent: Affirmative cites Nissan example. Negative cites Kemper Plant, recent rate hikes. Negative stronger: more relevant utility history. Logic/Incentives: Affirmative offers spreading costs, modernizations. Negative cites Entergy’s cost plus incentive, over spending. Negative stronger: aligns with utility incentive structure. Addressing Risk: Affirmative denies risk, offers assurances. Negative details how risk is shifted to public. Negative stronger: more granular risk analysis.
Summary: The Old Guy presents stronger, more evidenced-based case. He provides details about oversight removal, incentives that reward Entergy’s overspending, removal of rate caps, recent rate increases. He draws direct links between legislative changes and residential customer risk and cites examples from other states.
Entergy’s CEO offers general assurances and economic development arguments. He fails to address structural changes that remove small customer protections. Entergy’s claims rely on projections and assumptions that large customers benefit the system — but don’t refute the negative’s points about regulatory changes and uncontrolled cost pass-throughs.
Debate Decision: The Old Guy wins. Based on the evidence and arguments, the negative prevails. Entergy’s spending on Amazon’s infrastructure likely increases residential rates more due to lack of oversight, rate caps and due to the incentive structure for utility spending.
Take away: I learned from high school and college debates that facts usually beat spin. That’s probably still true in fair contests. But legislators rigged Entergy’s Amazon deal. (It’s real too—not just talk.) When it comes to spin, big utilities are in a league of their own. So even though facts favor small customers, odds favor the spin giant. But then odds also favored the Philistine giant Goliath.
(Note my narratives appeared in the Northside Sun, the Magnolia Tribune, on the Bigger Pie website, and on WLBT. The CEO’s narratives referenced here appeared in the Northside Sun and in a transcript of his interview with a popular talk radio host.)
Kelley Williams, a Northsider, is chairman of Bigger Pie, a Jackson-based think tank promoting free markets and government efficiency.
