Senate committee approves Summers substitute on data‑center cost protections after debate with PSC and Georgia Power

The Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee advanced a substitute to Senate Bill 34 that aims to protect residential and small business electric customers from bearing costs associated with serving large new electric loads, including data centers, after extended testimony from the Public Service Commission (PSC), Georgia Power and industry stakeholders.

Senator Hufstedler introduced competing substitutes that differ mainly in whether the statute should prescribe specific rate‑making treatment (section B in one substitute) or instead codify contract and rule requirements and leave rate‑making flexibility to the PSC (the other substitute). The sponsor framed the core question as whether protections should be specified in statute to prevent cost shifting to non‑data‑center customers.

Jason Shaw of the PSC described "unprecedented load growth" since 2023 and urged flexibility. "These are loads we have not seen before," Shaw testified, explaining the commission updated rules and contract standards to ensure reliability and that large loads pay costs tied to interconnection and long‑term commitments. Tom Bond, a PSC technical official, said codifying rigid accounting and cost‑allocation methods could prevent the commission from adapting to larger future customers.

Georgia Power’s Aaron Mitchell said the company shares the bill’s intent but opposed specific statutory language in section B because it would amount to direct rate‑making in statute and could impede the company's and commission's ability to design rates and allocate costs. Mitchell provided company figures, saying capital investment to serve large loads approved by the commission is about $20 billion (he disputed larger estimates that had been cited) and said Georgia Power has committed to $1.6 billion in customer savings after the current rate freeze ends.

Industry witnesses diverged: the Data Center Coalition’s Cara Bender supported the substitute that preserves PSC flexibility (the 584 substitute) and argued the PSC’s rulemaking and contract process should remain central; Bobby Baker urged codified legislative protections to ensure the "cost causer pays" principle and cited multi‑billion investment estimates by the utility.

Committee members asked detailed questions about megawatt scales, timing of generation additions, who bears stranded‑asset risk, and how minimum bills and performance security work to protect non‑participating customers. Georgia Power described using transmission contributions and performance security to limit other customers’ exposure should a large customer default.

After debate, Senator Summers’ substitute (LC0584s) was placed on the floor; Senator Albers moved to substitute back to Senator Hufstedler’s version (LC560566s). The Albers amendment failed (recorded ~4 in favor, ~9 opposed). The committee then approved the Summers substitute by recorded voice vote (9 yes, 3 no) and the bill will go to the Rules Committee.

Next steps: the bill advances to Rules, and legislators and agency staff signaled continued oversight and potential technical fixes in subsequent drafting stages.