by Ty Tagami | Capitol Beat News Service
ATLANTA — Advocates for the environment and renewable energy say in a formal filing with the state utilities regulator that Georgia Power’s pledge to hold down homeowners’ utility bills during a proposed expansion of capacity for data centers is an empty promise.
The monopoly utility wants permission to increase its electricity generation by 10 gigawatts ahead of an anticipated surge in demand by tech companies that are developing power hungry artificial intelligence. The massive expansion now has the blessing of the Public Service Commission’s public interest advocacy staff despite earlier concerns.
The agency’s staff had judged the company’s demand forecasts to be unrealistic and had said normal ratepayers would end up footing the bill for the expansions if data center companies did not ultimately come to Georgia to use all the new power.
They recommended in November that the commission certify only three new gigawatts “to protect customers from having to pay for unnecessary capacity costs.”
Then, last week, the staff pivoted, recommending approval of Georgia Power’s request in exchange for a pledge to put “downward pressure” on billing. For the typical residential customer, the company said, that amounted to $8.50 a month from 2029 through 2031.
It was a sudden announcement, on the morning of the final public hearing before Friday’s vote. Lawyers for expansion opponents lacked time for thorough review before the hearing. This week they filed formal rebuttals that call for a delay on voting by the five-member commission to give time to rewrite the contracts.
The Southern Environmental Law Center’s filings on behalf of Georgia Interfaith Power & Light and the Southface Energy Institute say the contracts need clearer language to ensure the ratepayer protections are enforceable, given the 45-year lifespan of the methane gas power plants that Georgia Power wants to build.
“If Georgia Power’s load forecast doesn’t materialize, certifying costs limits the tools available to the Commission,” the lawyers wrote in a brief filed with the commission Tuesday. Georgia Power wants to add $50 billion to $60 billion to customers’ bills, it said. “Once these costs are certified, state law severely restricts the Commission’s ability to disallow these costs in the future.”
The lawyers wrote that the $8.50 reduction is a “phantom promise” that does not ensure ratepayers will see it in their bills.
One reason is the “trade secret” deference given Georgia Power to withhold information, which opponents’ lawyers say they need to calculate details of that downward pressure. They wrote in an accompanying petition that numbers provided verbally last week were “concerningly high.”
The tentative agreement that commission staff reached with Georgia Power last week, called a “stipulated agreement,” assures only one piece of a three-part equation involving revenue and benefits, they wrote. “Without transparency as to the assumptions underlying the promised ‘downward pressure,’ future enforcement of that promise will be elusive.”
Two of the five commissioners were handily beaten by Democrats in last month’s election, an outcome that had Republicans worried about next year’s general election. GOP candidates in other races characterized it as a backlash against recent increases approved by the full commission.
All of the current commissioners are Republicans. They are scheduled to vote on Georgia Power’s expansion Friday, including the two defeated Republicans who will hold their seats through the end of the year.
The hearing starts at 9:30 a.m. at the commission’s offices in downtown Atlanta. But the lawyers for the opponents petitioned for more information from Georgia Power about the “actual impact” of financial promises in the stipulated agreement “and to support enforcement of those promises” in the future.
They asked for at least 30 days to review any response. By then, the two Democrats would be seated. Both oppose the Georgia Power’s expansion.
But on Thursday a lawyer for Georgia Power asked the commission to deny the petition, writing that the company had submitted “ample” documentation already and that no additional hearing was required before the vote.
