House energy subcommittee backs allowing GEFA loans to bury power lines, expands authority language

The House Energy, Utilities & Telecommunications subcommittee voted 5-3 to send a committee substitute for Senate Bill 13 (LC 49 23 42 S) to the full committee with a “due pass” recommendation after amending the bill to add language allowing the Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA) to make loans for converting above-ground electrical lines to underground as part of grid-hardening efforts.

Leader Evstration, who presented the committee substitute, said the change adds language “which would allow for GEFA, in circumstances for the purposes of conversion of electrical lines from above ground lines to underground lines,” and would permit GEFA to issue loans when local governments undertake grid-hardening projects.

The amendment inserts the conversion language in two places (noted in the substitute as lines 44–45 and again at 54–55) and leaves the allocation and approval of any loans to GEFA’s existing processes; the substitute does not itself mandate that GEFA make loans for these purposes.

Supporters and critics framed the debate around two central issues: the immediate benefit of burying power lines for reliability and resilience, and whether expanding GEFA’s stated purposes would divert resources from its original mission. Representative Frantz said she “appreciate[s] the addition of the buried electrical lines because I understand that that is like, that needs to be done” for grid safety, but expressed concern about tying GEFA to natural gas projects as well.

Representative Francis asked who typically pays to bury electric lines. The chair and proponents answered that the cost depends on circumstance: cities sometimes pay for aesthetic-driven projects; the Department of Transportation may pay when burying accompanies a DOT project; and in cases of grid resilience the owner of the lines—often an electric membership cooperative (EMC) or power company—could bear the cost. Leader Evstration said local governments would in some cases seek a loan through GEFA to cover those expenses.

Mark Riddell, legislative chair of the Sierra Club, opposed the expansion and criticized what he described as “growth in government.” Riddell said he did not “understand why GEFA needs to get into the natural gas business,” cautioned about shifting GEFA’s focus away from conservation and water programs, and pointed to recent funding pressures and competing needs for GEFA funding. He also referenced other legislation–Senate Bill 206, the South Georgia Energy Authority Act–as an alternative vehicle for some gas-service projects affecting parts of south Georgia.

Several members said the substitute preserves GEFA’s discretion; it adds eligible uses to the authority’s definitions but does not compel particular allocations. The subcommittee record shows members asked for and did not receive testimony from GEFA’s director, Hunter Hill; multiple speakers noted Hunter Hill was not present.

The subcommittee took a voice and hand-count vote after debate. The motion to give the substitute a due-pass recommendation carried 5–3 and the bill advanced to the full committee. Following the vote the subcommittee adjourned.

Votes at a glance: Senate Bill 13 (LC 49 23 42 S) — Committee substitute; motion: due-pass recommendation to full committee; vote: 5 yes, 3 no; mover/second: not specified in the transcript; outcome: approved to advance to full committee.

The bill will next be considered by the full Energy, Utilities & Telecommunications committee; no timeline for that hearing was stated in the subcommittee record.