Officials Question, Entergy Insists: The Debate Over a Jefferson County Power Plant
Entergy’s proposed Jefferson Power Station faces resistance from Arkansas regulators and the attorney general’s office, while the company insists the project is needed and supported by lawmakers.
For decades, Entergy Corporation has powered Arkansas through a wide mix of energy sources. The company operates a nuclear plant in Russellville, coal plants in Newark and Redfield, hydro facilities along the Ouachita River, natural gas plants in Malvern and El Dorado, and solar fields in Searcy and Lee County.
Now the utility is seeking to add another plant to its Arkansas portfolio. The proposed facility in Jefferson County would run on natural gas and generate more than 750 megawatts of electricity. Entergy describes it as a crucial investment in the state’s future, but regulators and the attorney general’s office are questioning its cost.
The Jefferson Power Station Proposal
Entergy has filed an application to build the Jefferson Power Station next to its White Bluff Power Plant, which is scheduled to close in 2030. The new facility would be a one by one combined cycle combustion turbine plant, designed with a natural gas turbine paired with a steam turbine to increase efficiency. The company says the project is intended to replace White Bluff’s output and help meet Arkansas’s rising demand for electricity.
Construction could begin as early as 2026, with operations starting in 2029. Entergy projects the plant will generate between 700 and 800 jobs during peak construction and employ at least 22 full-time workers once the facility is operational.
Pushback From State Officials
Earlier this month, the Arkansas attorney general’s office and the staff of the Arkansas Public Service Commission recommended that the commission deny Entergy’s application for the Jefferson Power Station.
Scott Norwood, an energy consultant testifying for the attorney general’s office, raised concerns about the cost of the project. He questioned whether Entergy had properly considered a more economical alternative, such as converting the coal-fired White Bluff plant to operate on natural gas.
In a September 5 PSC filing, Norwood stated that Entergy Arkansas LLC has not shown that the cost of the Jefferson Power Station is reasonable or that it represents the best available option to meet the company’s system capacity needs in 2030.
Norwood also recognized that Entergy had shown a clear need for the additional power the Jefferson Power Station would supply.
Entergy Responds to Criticism
Entergy maintains that the process is being misrepresented. Company officials note strong support from Arkansas lawmakers and emphasize that the regulatory review is still ongoing.
“The application has not been denied. The regulatory proceeding is ongoing,” said Ventrell Thompson, vice president of customer service for Entergy Arkansas, in an interview with KATV Channel 7.
“This is a back-and-forth process where additional information is requested, and we will provide that information to ensure the commission has everything it needs to make a decision that is in the public interest for our customers.”
Economic Stakes for Arkansas
Entergy maintains that the Jefferson Power Station supports Arkansas’s economic future. The company says it will prioritize local workers and vendors during construction and that ongoing operational needs, including land management and vegetation control, will provide a sustained local impact. Entergy also expects indirect benefits for area businesses, such as restaurants, hotels, and retail stores, fueled by the influx of construction activity and workers.
The discussion around the project also highlights broader questions about Arkansas’s energy needs. Officials note that the state could require more power in the coming years due to major investments and large-scale projects. At least three technology-driven data centers are proposed in Arkansas, including a $1 billion, 400-acre facility at the Port of Little Rock. These facilities are energy-intensive and could significantly increase statewide electricity demand.
A Divided Path Forward
The Jefferson Power Station has become a center of debate, reflecting the tension between meeting Arkansas’s growing energy needs, the expense of new infrastructure, and the regulatory questions raised by state officials.
Entergy asserts that the project is both necessary and beneficial, but state regulators will have the final say on whether it moves forward. With the planned closure of White Bluff and rising power demands from new industries, the outcome could shape Arkansas’s energy future for decades.
