Utilities tell Economic Development & Tourism committee reliability, planning and customer-choice rules underpin statewide job growth

Chairman Jason Shaw of the Georgia Public Service Commission told the House Economic Development & Tourism Committee on Oct. 27 that a reliable electric grid and competitive rates are central to the state’s economic development success.

"We regulate the investor owned utilities in the state," Shaw said, outlining the PSC’s functions and saying the agency sees itself “as an economic development arm of the state.” He described the commission’s role in reliability, natural gas safety and in overseeing renewables and long‑range planning.

The committee heard that Georgia’s integrated planning processes and customer‑choice rules are being used to prepare for sharp load growth driven largely by data centers. Shaw said Georgia Power’s integrated resource plan (IRP) — the 20‑year resource planning docket the utility files every three years under the enacted IRP law — is central to ensuring reliability and that the PSC will vote on the current case in July. He told members the commission opened an update to the IRP last year to add capacity after a rapid jump in projects seeking to locate in Georgia.

Why it matters: multiple presenters said Georgia’s grid reliability, long‑term planning and territorial rules — including a one‑time customer choice for very large new customers — are among the reasons site selectors and data centers target Georgia, carrying implications for electricity supply, transmission planning and ratepayer protections.

What presenters said and what they told the committee

- Load growth and the IRP. Shaw and other utility presenters described an unprecedented surge of large projects seeking service. Shaw quoted pipeline estimates that rose from roughly 16,000 megawatts of projects in October 2023, to about 24,000 megawatts when the commission voted on the IRP update last year, to roughly 34,000 megawatts early this year and "about 40,000 megawatts" at the time of his remarks. He said planners are preparing for several thousand megawatts that are most likely to come online and that the IRP process and related hearings are being used to secure new capacity.

- Minimum‑bill provisions and contract length for large loads. Shaw described recent PSC rules requiring very large customers (presenters used 100 megawatts as the large‑load example) to pay a share of connection costs up front, and said the commission has shifted from short (three‑ to five‑year) contracts toward 15‑year minimum bills so new large customers help cover the costs of generation, transmission and distribution needed to serve them.

- Data centers and economic development. Multiple presenters said data centers account for a large share of the current pipeline, noting their high, sustained electricity use and that their siting drives new transmission and generation needs. Shaw said such customers helped spur an IRP update that added megawatts procured through RFPs.

- Georgia’s fuel mix and capacity investments. Shaw provided a high‑level Georgia Power system breakdown that he attributed to the utility: about 41% natural gas, roughly 14% nuclear (driven by the new Vogtle Units 3 and 4), 18% coal and about 20% renewables (mainly solar). Oglethorpe Power and EMC partners described a separate but similar mix for co‑op systems and plans to add generation: Oglethorpe initiated two new generation projects in Monroe and Talbot counties totaling about $2.1 billion, the EMC presenters said.

- Territorial rules and customer choice. Jason Bragg of Georgia EMC described the Georgia Territorial Electric Service Act of 1973, which divides the state into service territories but allows a one‑time provider choice for new customers whose connected load exceeds 900 kilowatts. He said the customer‑choice provision and the state’s integrated transmission system give Georgia an advantage in recruiting large industrial projects.

- Cooperatives and scale. Bragg said Georgia has 41 electric cooperatives serving roughly 4.4 million residents over about three‑quarters of the state’s land area; EMCs generally have far fewer meters per mile than investor‑owned utilities, reflecting their rural service patterns. He also described joint planning through Oglethorpe Power and Georgia Transmission.

- Local and statewide utility economic‑development teams. Charlie Mosley of Georgia Power, Bradley Harris of Georgia EMC and Scott Berta of Electric Cities of Georgia described how their organizations coordinate with the Georgia Department of Economic Development and local partners to market sites, produce GIS and 3‑D visualizations, maintain available‑site and building databases, and support local workforce and site‑preparation work. Mosley said Georgia’s model — cooperation among state agencies and utilities under a Team Georgia approach — is a competitive advantage.

- Natural gas and rural expansion. Shaw and EMC presenters noted work to expand natural gas infrastructure through a universal service fund and an economic development tariff to serve rural areas. Shaw told the committee the universal service fund currently has about $70,000,000 available while projects seeking assistance total on the order of $250,000,000.

Committee questions and next steps

Committee members asked how the integrated transmission system and regional ties allow Georgia to import power in emergencies; presenters confirmed Georgia can and has pulled power from neighboring states and emphasized joint planning. Members also asked for follow‑up materials; presenters said slide decks and contact information would be shared with the committee.

Ending

Utility and PSC officials told the Economic Development & Tourism Committee that Georgia’s combination of grid reliability, statutory planning tools such as the IRP, territorial customer‑choice provisions and cooperative economic‑development programs has helped the state attract large, energy‑intensive projects while providing mechanisms to require those customers to pay their share of new interconnection costs. No formal committee action or vote was recorded during the presentations.