The numbers are in, and if you’re a Georgia Power customer, they don’t paint a pretty picture. We’re talking about a potential $20-plus monthly hike on your utility bill, and it’s all tied to a speculative gold rush for data centers. The Georgia Public Service Commission’s (PSC) own staff, the people whose job it is to scrutinize these things, have delivered a warning that cuts through the corporate gloss like a hot knife through butter.
Georgia Power, the state's largest electric utility, wants to add a staggering 10,000 megawatts (MW) to its power generation fleet over the next five years. For context, that’s roughly nine times the output of a single nuclear reactor at Plant Vogtle (each provides about 1,100 MW). The utility claims this massive expansion is necessary to meet the burgeoning demand from new data centers—those server farms powering everything from AI to your cat videos. But here’s where the data gets murky, and my analytical antennae start twitching.
PSC staff, along with outside consultants, aren’t buying Georgia Power’s full forecast. Their new testimony argues that only about a third of the proposed buildout—roughly 3,100 MW—is actually backed by signed contracts. The rest, as PSC’s electric section director Robert Trokey and his colleagues put it, is "speculative and exposes customers to the risk of stranded costs if the anticipated load does not materialize." To be more exact, the staff suggests approving 3,100 MW, conditionally approving another 4,200 MW, and outright rejecting the most expensive 2,400 MW. This isn't just a minor disagreement; it's a fundamental clash over methodology and risk assessment. How exactly does Georgia Power arrive at its 10,000 MW figure when its own regulators see such a vast chasm between commitment and conjecture? It feels less like a firm forecast and more like an ambitious wish list.
We’ve seen this playbook before. Data centers, as vital as they are to our digital lives, are also notoriously fickle. They’re quick to sign, but just as quick to cancel or pivot to other states if conditions aren't perfect. The PSC staff pointed out that this has already happened in Georgia. What’s more, their evidence suggests Georgia Power’s aggressive forecasts have a history of overestimating electricity demand from these facilities. If this trend continues, we could be looking at a scenario where Georgia Power builds out colossal amounts of generation capacity—think new gas-fired plants, the kind environmental groups aren't exactly thrilled about—only for the demand to evaporate. Imagine building a massive, gleaming airport with dozens of gates, only to find out half the airlines decided to fly elsewhere. Existing customers are then left holding the bag, paying for power plants, electricity contracts, and grid upgrades whether the electrons are needed or not.
Let’s not mince words: Georgia Power stands to profit "tremendously" from this expansion. The staff’s analysis indicates that the proposed plant additions would nearly double the company’s "rate base"—a key metric used to determine its earnings. This isn't just about keeping the lights on; it's about a significant boost to the utility's bottom line. When the incentive structure so clearly favors overbuilding, how can we expect unbiased projections of demand? It's like asking a contractor to estimate the cost of a renovation when they get a bonus for every extra room they suggest. My analysis suggests that the utility's "committed" portfolio of 11,000 MW, while impressive on paper, needs far more scrutiny than a simple declaration. What are the penalty clauses for cancellation? What's the actual capital at risk for these "committed" customers? These are the granular details that separate real demand from speculative enthusiasm.
Adding another layer of complexity, and frankly, a dollop of cynicism, is the political backdrop. This decision looms on December 19, just days before two newly elected Democratic PSC commissioners take office. These incumbents, Fitz Johnson and Tim Echols, lost their seats earlier this month, largely due to public frustration over rising utility bills. So, we have outgoing commissioners, rejected by the electorate on the very issue of utility costs, casting votes on a proposal that could dramatically increase those costs for years to come. I've looked at hundreds of these filings, and this particular timing is unusual, to say the least. It raises a legitimate question about accountability and whether the public’s recent electoral message will be heard or simply overridden in a lame-duck session.
Georgia Power, for its part, dismisses the demand as speculative, pointing to a recent filing showing an 11,000 MW "portfolio" of committed large customers. They also claim there are options if demand doesn't materialize, like new contracts or delaying construction. Yet, the PSC staff highlights a critical flaw: most existing data center contracts were signed before new "large load" billing rules designed to protect non-data center customers took effect. Without contracts under this new framework, there’s "no guarantee those costs will not be passed on to existing customers." It’s a classic shell game, where the utility moves the pea of cost responsibility around, and the customer is left guessing which cup it’s under. Will these new protections actually apply, or are they just window dressing for a deal already in motion?
The stakes here are considerable. We're not just talking about a few dollars; we’re discussing potentially billions in infrastructure costs, borne by everyday Georgians, for a demand that may or may not fully materialize. The PSC staff’s recommendations are a clear call for prudence, for slowing down this runaway train until the actual data confirms the need. They aren't saying no to data centers, they’re saying "show us the receipts, not just the promises."
The question, then, isn't whether Georgia needs more power. It's about who pays for the risk of providing that power, and whether a utility, poised for immense profit, should be allowed to gamble with its customers' wallets on what appears to be a highly volatile market. The cooling towers at Plant Vogtle stand as a monument to massive energy projects, but they also serve as a silent reminder of the financial burdens that can be placed on ratepayers. Will the PSC heed its own staff's warning, or will it greenlight a buildout that could leave Georgians paying for empty promises?
