Georgia Power fired back at critics this week, saying dire warnings about the cost of its proposal to collect fees upfront for nuclear power expansion were mistaken.

In testimony filed with the state Public Service Commission late Monday, the utility said critics including the PSC’s public advocacy staff had mixed accounting apples and oranges to come up with their estimates. Those critics will have an opportunity to cross-examine the company in two weeks.

The company also blasted a cost-control mechanism proposed by the state PSC staff.

Under that plan, the PSC could roll back Georgia Power’s allowed return on its $6.4 billion nuclear investment if the construction project ran too far over budget.

Georgia Power said no dice.

“We must start by emphatically stating that we cannot and will not agree to the staff’s proposed ‘incentive’ plan,” the company said in the testimony.

“We will not accept a certificate that includes those regulatory conditions,” it said.

The company said its business depends on offering low rates, which is cost-control incentive enough.

Georgia Power’s rebuttal came on the eve of a state Senate committee hearing about a bill that would give the company the early funding it wants, bypassing the PSC.

The Senate Regulated Industry and Utility Committee will hear testimony on Senate Bill 31 Wednesday afternoon.

The rebuttal also kicked off what is likely to be a frenzied final month in the company’s quest for PSC approval of its nuclear plan. A final hearing is scheduled for Feb. 9, with a ruling due in March.

Georgia Power wants to build two new reactors at its Vogtle nuclear plants and has estimated its portion of the cost at $6.4 billion.

It says growing power demand will require new plants. It says nuclear is a better option than cheaper-to-build coal or gas-fired plants. Soaring fuel and environmental control costs will make coal and gas plants pricier to operate, the company says.

Environmentalists oppose the plan, saying the plants aren’t needed, are dirty and will use up Georgia’s scarce water.

But the flashpoint in the case is a fight over how the plants would be funded.

Georgia Power wants to collect $1.6 billion in financing charges for the new reactors beginning six years before they’re complete.

Normally, customers pay when plants begin providing power, although the PSC has discretion to change that.

The company says the early collection would soften rate shock, protect its bond rating and lop $300 million off the reactors’ cost, which customers will pay over 60 years.

PSC staff say that calculation assumes consumers have no better use for the money advanced to Georgia Power.

A staff consultant said the plan would cost consumers hundreds of millions in net present dollars, which factor in the time value of customers’ money.

It is that calculation that the company says is mistaken. It said the PSC staff’s consultants used “inconsistent and incorrect assumptions.”

Meanwhile, the legislative push continues, beginning with Wednesday’s hearing.

In response to a commissioner request, PSC staff prepared an analysis of Senate Bill 31.

It said S.B. 31 would strip the state’s expert rate-making body of the discretion to decide how and from whom utility costs will be collected.

The analysis included a sometimes unusual list of pros and cons.

Among its pros: Customers who can borrow money for zero percent would see benefits from the plan by 2027.

Among its cons: Customers don’t have a zero percent cost of money.