# Google SRC Order No. 11 Rehearing Ruling Doc. 83 in [[psc/docket-25-055-p-special-contract-2026-05-22/_overview|Docket 25-055-P]] — the Commission's 11-page ruling (2026-01-29) on Entergy's Petition for Rehearing or Clarification of [[Google SRC Order No. 9 Final Approval and CIAC Ruling|Order No. 9]]. It locks in the life-of-asset amortization for the contribution payments, grants the ITC treatment under explicit protest, and carries the Commission's strongest institutional language in the corpus on negotiated-deal constraints. ## What's inside - `25-055-P_83_1.pdf` — disposition of the two rehearing questions (the payment-amortization schedule; the ITC treatment) plus a §C statement on cumulative ratepayer impact. ## Key takeaways - **The amortization ruling:** "EAL did not offer new or substantial evidence ... that its proposed amortization schedule 'provides comparable benefits for other customers over the life of the strategic investment.' Accordingly, the Company's proposed amortization schedule is **denied in favor of a schedule that is consistent with the life of the Cypress Solar assets** and that spreads those benefits comparably over that duration" (p. 6). EAL was ordered to re-file Exhibits CKE-3/CKE-4 within seven days — done 2026-02-05 ([[Google SRC CIAC Compliance Filing]]). - **The ITC grant — non-precedential, "fait accompli":** "the Commission notes that this deal was presented as a fait accompli and acknowledges EAL's and Google's need for certainty regarding the terms of the negotiated Agreement ... the Commission hereby grants EAL's requested ITC treatment given the unique nature of the Agreement" (pp. 7–8). With the warning: "the Company **shall not contract away ratemaking treatments that are clearly within the province of the Commission**. The amortization period granted by this order is not – and should not – be treated as precedential" (p. 8). The order records that "no Party ... has disputed that ITCs are tax credits owed to ratepayers" and that "Cypress Solar is a shared resource, but the ITCs are being used for the benefit of a single customer" (p. 8). - **§C — the cumulative-impact statement:** the Commission's "ongoing and significant concerns with the cumulative and increasing ratepayer impact of EAL's pending and recently approved proposals for major new generation and transmission facilities" across 24-072-U (Lake Catherine/Ironwood), 25-047-U (Jefferson), and 25-054-U (Cypress), citing the five-year cumulative rate-change exhibit (Klucher Supplemental Hearing Exhibit MSK-2, Docket 25-049-TF) and "EAL's expressed intent to study the repowering of the White Bluff Generating Station with natural gas" (pp. 8–9). ## People and orgs mentioned [[Entergy Arkansas]]; [[APSC General Staff]] ([[Regina L. Butler]]'s response framing adopted); [[Google LLC]] / [[Altitude Capital, LLC]]; [[Matthew S. Klucher]] (the MSK-2 exhibit). ## Concepts invoked [[Special rate contract]] · [[Generating Arkansas Jobs Act (GAJA) rider]] · [[Arkansas Cypress]] ## Events documented - [[2026-01 Order No. 11 Forces Life-of-Asset Amortization of the Google Payments]] ## Cross-references - Completes the [[T001 - CIAC Classification of Google Generation Payments|T001]] resolution. - The "shall not contract away ratemaking treatments" directive is the Commission's clearest assertion of authority over future hyperscale SRCs — load-bearing for [[Who Pays for Entergy's New Generation]] and any future SRC docket. ## Open questions / follow-ups - Klucher's MSK-2 cumulative-rate-impact exhibit (Docket 25-049-TF Doc. 87) — the Commission's own citation for the affordability concern — is a high-value retrieval target. - White Bluff gas-repowering study — a prospective fourth GAJA-scale investment to watch.