Panel approves bill to let PSC regulate some private water companies; budget, coverage limits discussed

The House Agriculture & Consumer Affairs Committee voted Monday morning to pass HB449, a bill by Representative Rhodes that would give the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) regulatory authority over certain private water companies that use surface water and serve larger customer bases.

The bill won committee approval by voice vote after questions from multiple members about rate limits, the PSC's capacity and protections for small or rural systems.

Representative John Rhodes, the bill's author, told the committee private water companies currently operate with little state oversight and said, "We're 1 of 5 states that do not regulate private water companies." He also told members the PSC will need funding to staff and run the new oversight program, estimating a budget requirement of about $750,000 to $1.2 million.

The measure includes a provision discussed by members that would limit certain increases (a 15% figure was raised during questioning) and removes capital expenditures and hookup fees from the calculation of tap fees as a compromise to private operators, Rhodes said. He described the 15% provision as the product of compromise and "very fair" if companies can justify increases.

Committee members stressed the bill is narrow in scope. A member noted the bill applies only to systems that use surface water and to systems with at least 2,000 customers, and will not affect private well systems. Rhodes said the PSC would review rate cases and hold hearings, giving customers a forum to contest charges "just as we do with Georgia Power."

Some lawmakers pressed for consumer protections in edge cases. Representative Darlene Tyler asked whether a private system could simply shut down rather than seek a rate increase; Rhodes replied there is no shut-down prohibition in the bill and that, in his view, the affected systems are unlikely to close. Representative Matthews asked about costs for firefighting water drawn from private systems; Rhodes did not have an answer and said he would find out.

Committee members and the author framed the bill as a limited initial step to introduce PSC oversight for water rates and operations in a subset of systems, not a full, statewide regulatory expansion. The sponsor and others characterized it as a way to "stick his toe in" and observe how PSC regulation works for a small number of systems before widening the scope.

A motion to pass the bill (LC550562S as presented to the committee) was made and seconded; the committee approved the motion by voice vote with no recorded opposing votes, and the bill was sent on toward rules. The committee chair asked that paperwork be completed and forwarded to rules.

The discussion produced several implementation and fiscal questions the committee flagged for follow-up: the PSC budget request and staffing levels; the practical impact on small, rural systems; and unresolved queries about responsibilities (for example, firefighting water costs) under private systems.

If enacted, the PSC would have a new rate-case process for covered private water utilities; the bill as presented left enforcement details and some consumer protections to the PSC rulemaking and subsequent legislative or administrative action.

Votes at a glance: HB449 (LC550562S) ' Committee action: passed by voice vote; mover: Chairman Corbett (as recorded in committee); second: not specified; outcome: approved.