Today, the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) decided to certify the largest ever request for new electric generating capacity, at the largest ever cost to ratepayers, in state history, and likely in the nation. While the initial cost of the plan would be about $20 billion for equipment and construction, the actual total cost to ratepayers could easily be in the $50 to $60 billion range when financing, profit, and other costs are included.
SACE, with fellow intervenors in the case, argued against this outcome because it isn’t in the public interest and has a very high likelihood of driving electricity bills further upward and is all but guaranteed to worsen pollution and the climate crisis.
This may seem counter to statements coming from Georgia Power. As a long-time intervenor at the PSC, we have seen Georgia Power spin its case time and again to attempt to justify its actions that will primarily benefit shareholders over customers. We have even seen Georgia Power weasel out of settlements from past dockets, such as claiming they only needed to “study” energy efficiency instead of actually doing anything to use efficiency to help customers lower bills. SELC attorney Jennifer Whitfield braved Commissioner sarcasm and scorn this morning when urging the Commission to take the minimal time to clarify what is in the settlement it would vote on today and how it would be enforced, so that Georgia Power could not weasel out of it again.
Instead of an interest in even confirming the basics in the settlement agreement, Commissioners McDonald and Pridemore repeatedly asked Whitfield questions and made comments that made it clear that they are comfortable leaving the details of customer protection to be worked out in a future case in 2028–or even 2031. But by then, these plants will be under construction, Georgia Power will have spent billions of dollars, and it will be very difficult for the Commission to keep customer bills from rising as a result.
Intervenors want upfront assurance and clarity on exactly how the supposed customer protections will work. Even though the law allows three more months for consideration of this case, however, Commissioners were not willing to wait even one more day or put the details of customer protection in the record of the case. Instead, they voted to give Georgia Power everything it asked for now, and left the details of customer protection for later
At the heart of the missing information is a promise by Georgia Power to reduce customer bills by $8.50 during a three-year window six years from now in exchange for getting approvals that will eventually cost ratepayers $50-$60 billion over the next few decades. But Georgia Power refused to say what customer bill level the $8.50 would be reduced from, and a lot of evidence that the case could actually increase bills. This is like when an advertiser says you will “save $50” off a new backyard grill after raising the original price $100. At the end of the day there isn’t a $50 in “savings” but actually a $50 increase in total cost.
This is trivial if you have a choice to buy or not buy the grill. But if you buy electricity from Georgia Power, you don’t have a choice and will end up paying the increase, despite today’s sweet-sounding promises. The Commission is expecting us to trust them and Georgia Power that we are getting a great deal, even though recently costs have been going through the roof.
What do we know and not know about the $8.50 promise?
Georgia Power claims that the historically unprecedented amount of newly-approved power plants will be paid for mostly by huge expected electricity sales to new data centers. However, Georgia Power’s model on which the $8.50 is based includes an assumption that assigns only a portion of the costs of the resources approved today to new large loads.
Georgia Power’s press release on this decision states that “will deliver estimated savings of approximately $102 per year,” which sounds like bills should be going down. But the decision itself only specifies $8.50/month (i.e. $102/year) of “downward pressure” on residential bills. But “downward pressure” does not mean bills will be lower, as has been stated by witnesses in this case. This case also includes upward pressure. PSC Staff did a rough calculation of that upward pressure, and on the conservative end, that upward pressure is AT LEAST $20 per month. That’s more than double the downward pressure, meaning that bills will go up.
If I give you $20 and you give me $8 back, you can claim you are “saving” me $8, but I’m still $12 in the hole.
Has Georgia Power done enough to convince us that they truly need a historic 10,000 GW of new resources? No, they have not. And by approving this plan, the Georgia Public Service Commission risks further increasing bills.
Teeny-tiny Silver Lining?
I’ll note that not everything in the settlement is bad, just like not everything in the portfolio Georgia Power is asking for approval for is bad. Staff clearly sees it as a big win to be able to monitor costs project-by-project instead of as a portfolio, so that if one goes over-budget and one is under-budget, Georgia Power can’t automatically let them cancel each other out.
While I commend Staff for getting this concession in its negotiations, construction monitoring is typical in the industry at this point, and it’s far from enough to justify certification of such wildly expensive and risky projects like the McIntosh gas plant, which is in the running for being the most expensive gas plant ever. And even if the Commission is monitoring construction costs, as they did regularly for Vogtle 3 & 4, that does not mean the Commission will put a stop to projects that are a bad deal. Once certified, as the Commission voted to do today, it is very difficult for a future Commission to pull back on this decision without having any impact on customer bills.
Was This Decision Based on Facts or Politics?
This all begs the question: why? Why is this Commission so hell bent on barreling through with this decision at the risk of making a poor decision? Because they are clinging to power and relevance. Any delay in this decision means that two new Commissioners would get a say. If the Commission weren’t so preoccupied with politics and rushing this decision through before two new Commissioners are seated, they could see the practicality of taking the time to nail down how average citizens will be protected from the costs of massive power plants built mostly to meet data center growth.
Georgia law established the Commission to serve the public interest so that monopoly utilities can’t run roughshod over customers. In the absence of competition, since families and businesses can’t choose another electricity provider over Georgia Power, it is the responsibility of the PSC to hold Georgia Power accountable. Accountability was clearly lacking in the Commission hearing room today, making the two PSC elections in November 2026 all the more important. Will accountability come for Commissioners then?
