Senate committee hears competing views on SB34 substitute aimed at keeping data‑center costs off residential bills

Senators considered a committee substitute (LC566566S) associated with Senate Bill 34 that folds in language from House Bill 1063 and would require contracts between electric utilities and large‑load customers to include terms designed to protect residential and retail electricity customers from costs associated with serving those customers.

Sponsor testimony emphasized two objectives: require contract terms such as minimum billing to recover incremental costs and prevent utilities from shifting the cost of infrastructure built for data centers onto residential ratepayers. The sponsor said his original language — which he described as broader — was substantially reduced in the substitute and urged the committee to preserve protections that bar passing costs from large loads to retail customers.

Testimony from technical and consumer advocates warned of large capital commitments by Georgia Power and Southern Company and the risk that customers could pay for infrastructure that outlasts a data center's presence. Bob Sherrier of the Southern Environmental Law Center said the Public Service Commission has certified roughly 14,000 megawatts of new capacity and that Georgia Power’s new contracts, as filed, require only two years of payments on termination while some earlier orders described longer protections; that mismatch, he said, could leave multi‑year bill obligations unpaid if data‑center demand falls.

Liz Coyle of Georgia Watch told senators the commission authorized large build‑outs that could amount to tens of billions of dollars in revenue requirement and expressed concern that a failure of anticipated data‑center demand would still leave customers to pay. Dr. Conrad Hayashi, citing research, warned of large projected costs in some analyses and of nonfinancial impacts (water use, noise). Amy Sharma of Science for Georgia summarized independent forecasts projecting the Southeast's likely data‑center demand at roughly half the megawatts the PSC has certified and said the substitute as amended by Senator Hufstedler offered a practical approach to avoid overcharging residential customers.

Committee members pressed on whether contract language alone is sufficient protection and whether the legislature would be intruding on the PSC's rate‑setting authority; some members suggested workshopping language with PSC staff and Georgia Power. The chair declined to call a vote, said he had scheduled meetings with Georgia Power and the PSC for further input, and adjourned the hearing.