Groups urge PSC to reconsider approval of Georgia Power’s $16B expansion
Several environmental groups have asked the Public Service Commission to reconsider its decision last month to grant Georgia Power the go-ahead on a historic expansion of its power fleet, arguing the legal standard for approval was not met.
The “joint petition for reconsideration” challenges the PSC’s Dec. 19 vote to allow Georgia Power to build almost 10,000 megawatts of new gas-burning power plants, battery storage systems and some solar.
The five members of the PSC — all Republicans at the time — voted to “certify” the company’s request, a key step that paves the way for the utility to charge customers for the costs down the line.
But the coalition of environmental groups contends the PSC cleared Georgia Power’s expansion without the data to show all of the new power plants are needed, at least for now. They also argue that evidence wasn’t provided during the monthslong proceedings to fully assess how the company’s plans will affect residential customers.
As part of the deal approving the expansion, Georgia Power agreed to use extra revenue from data centers to put $8.50 in “downward pressure” on the average residential customer’s monthly bills. But the petitioners say those promises are squishy.
“Any upside is vague, and at best temporary,” the petition says.
Georgia Power’s unprecedented expansion would add more than double the combined output of the four nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle near Augusta to the grid in just five years. Most of the new power supplies are to serve energy-hungry data centers popping up across Georgia.
The expansion carries a projected price tag of $16 billion in capital investment, but several groups say the ultimate cost could be closer to $50 billion or $60 billion over the life of the power plants, including infrastructure and third-party power agreement costs. The new gas units are expected to run for at least 45 years.
The groups have asked the PSC to hold a hearing on the petition and deny approval of several of the new gas power plants, among other requests.
The petition was filed by the Southern Environmental Law Center, representing Georgia Interfaith Power and Light and the Southface Institute, and the Sierra Club, on behalf of itself and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.
The groups argue Georgia Power did not demonstrate that its approved expansion plan is in the public interest, the standard under Georgia law. State law says power resources can be “certified” if they’re found to “assure an economical and reliable supply of electric power and energy.”
“The commission must find every resource it certifies is in the public interest, but here it doesn’t explain how this tradeoff could be worth it,” the petition says.
A spokesman for Georgia Power said the utility is still reviewing the motion but does not think the commission’s decision needs to be reconsidered.
“The Georgia PSC’s unanimous decision in December not only provides the energy we need to keep energy reliable for a growing Georgia but delivers savings of more than $100 per year for the typical residential customer,” spokesman Matthew Kent said in an email.
That $100 in annual savings breaks down to roughly $8.50 a month.
PSC Chairman Jason Shaw declined to comment because this is an active case. The commission has 45 days to vote on the motion.
Georgia Power, the PSC staff and others who have formally participated in the case have 10 days to respond to the motion in the meantime. After that, commissioners will take up the issue, including hearing formal comments, at a PSC committee meeting.
If the PSC denies the motion, its December decision would stand. That would open the door for the environmental groups to appeal the commissions’ December decision to Fulton County Superior Court.
If regulators grant the motion, they must take additional steps on what that means. They could vote to change specific parts of their December decision or set a new schedule that includes asking Georgia Power and others to file more documents and appear at subsequent hearings.
At the time of the vote, the PSC was comprised of all Republicans, who unanimously voted to “certify” the utility’s plan. Since then, two of the PSC’s five commissioners have been replaced by Democrats, who scored resounding victories over Republican incumbents last November. Those Democrats, Peter Hubbard and Alicia Johnson, during the campaign expressed concerns about Georgia Power’s plans.
Late last year, some of the environmental groups involved in this petition also sought to delay the PSC vote on Georgia Power’s expansion until 2026, when two new Democratic commissioners would be seated.
Asked whether the recent shift in the PSC’s makeup had any bearing on the request for reconsideration now, SELC senior attorney Jennifer Whitfield said their motion is “grounded in the fact that it has not proven a need for such a major investment.”
“Regardless of the makeup of the Commission, we maintain our position that there is not a need for 100% of the unreasonably expensive resources Georgia Power is asking for …” Whitfield said.
A note of disclosure
This coverage is supported by a partnership with Green South Foundation and Journalism Funding Partners. You can learn more and support our climate reporting by donating at AJC.com/donate/climate.
About the Authors
Drew Kann is a reporter at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution covering climate change and environmental issues. His passion is for stories that capture how humans are responding to a changing environment. He is a proud graduate of the University of Georgia and Northwestern University, and prior to joining the AJC, he held various roles at CNN.
Kristi Swartz is an AJC contributing writer covering climate change and related matters. She writes about how climate change impacts people’s lives, from extreme weather hitting parts of the state more frequently, to higher electricity bills, insurance premiums and health care expenses.
