Federal regulator rejects request for Cobb EMC investigation

By Janel Davis

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Cobb EMC won a small victory late last week when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission found that a group of the co-op's customers failed to show how the nonprofit electric utility violated the Federal Power Act.

In April, a group of Cobb EMC customers asked FERC, which has regulatory authority over the co-op, to investigate the utility's spending, including spending on new coal plants in South Georgia. The group, headed by Mark Hackett and Daniel Davis, said Cobb EMC failed to make required disclosures to FERC, and that conflicts of interests alleged in a 2007 lawsuit filed by other customers violated federal rules.

The commission did not find any indication of a potential violation of FERC’s anti-market manipulation regulations, and it also denied the customers’ request for an investigation.

Since the complaint's filing, Cobb EMC officials have called it part of a radical environmentalist effort, and after the ruling, Cobb EMC spokesman Sam Kelly, in a news release, called it a “staged publicity event.” Despite the customers’ claims that a top-flight legal team was looking into their concerns, they were unable to present facts to justify an investigation, Kelly said.

Hackett called FERC’s ruling disappointing.

“Maybe they feel that state court is already in the middle of things and is addressing the situation,” he said. “Now we need to forge ahead and get as much done at the state level as we can.”

Hackett does not plan to pursue the complaint further.

The FERC decision is the latest in a series of events involving the co-operative since the 2007 suit over Cobb EMC's creation of a for-profit side business.

Cobb EMC’s board is scheduled to appear in court Friday to hash out details of the 2008 settlement, specifically board elections, which have not been held since the 2007 legal action began.

Former co-op chief Dwight Brown, recently reindicted on 35 counts of theft, racketeering and witness intimidation charges stemming from the initial customer lawsuit, is due back in court in October.