Behind Closed Doors: Georgia’s Controversial Decision to Expand Fossil Fuels

Author: Clara Conry

Editor: Sonya Doubledee

On March 27th, the Georgia Public Service Commission reached a preliminary agreement with Georgia Power to expand the usage of fossil fuels in Georgia despite the pleas of university students, doctors, scientists, and Georgia residents. 

This agreement allows Georgia Power (a subsidiary of Southern Power, the main power producer for fifteen states) to build three new oil-and-gas-fired units in Coweta County and continue to purchase watts from Mississippi Power’s coal-fired power plants. This plan continues Georgia’s reliance on fossil fuel power and expands oil and gas within Atlanta. During the commission hearing, students and staff from Emory Public Health School testified to the impact of PM 2.5 pollution on Atlanta residents:

“Outdoor workers are bearing the brunt of life-threatening and dehumanizing extreme heat health effects which many more communities will face as heat waves worsen. Therefore, the burning of coal, gas, oil, and biomass is not safe for Georgians,” said a nurse researcher in Cobb County.  

“Fossil fuels cause climate change and air pollution, and these things are killing us and making us sick. This article in the highly regarded journal Nature Medicine estimates that the cumulative death toll from climate change since 2000 will pass 4 million this year, which is more than the population of Los Angeles. When we burn fossil fuels, we also know that air pollution is created, and this makes people sick and makes people die sooner than they should. The closer you are to this burning of fossil fuels, the worse that air pollution is and its subsequent harms,” said an infectious disease specialist from Dekalb County. 

“As our elected officials who regulate our electricity, gas, and Telecommunications across Georgia, it is your responsibility to answer to the needs of our community. What we know for a fact is that this plant poses a very real threat to our community. These powered plants have polluted the area with radioactive materials that have leaked into our water, soil, and ecosystem and have proven to have negative consequences on almost everything within the proximity to these power plants. What you are allowing is for these companies to pollute and kill the community members living here in the state of Georgia.” said the civic engagement director of Mi Familia Vota

Given all the damage associated with new power plants, why did the Public Service Commission green light these new plants? Across four days, the Public Service Commission sat for eight hours trying to reach this decision. The hearing was structured similarly to a lawsuit, even down to the seating arrangements. The commissions sat at a raised platform in a semi-circle while Georgia Power and the State faced them on opposite sides of the room. During the day, each side calls expert panels that testify on their behalf. After each panel, stakeholders ask questions. Organizations from Clean Energy for Georgia to Walmart to the DOD were invited to the hearing and cross-examined the panels. 

On the first day of hearings, the commission began with testimony from the “Public Interest Advocacy Staff.” These staff represent “the State’s residential and small commercial and industrial consumers in proceedings before the PSC.”

The first panel called before the commission “reviews the methodologies used to forecast historic organic growth as well as large load growth in the load realization model.” and concluded, “the forecast used by Georgia Power is likely skewed to show low realization sooner and in greater quantity than is likely to materialize.” They concluded the intense spike in energy demand would occur later and with far less demand than Georgia Power predicted. 

Why would that matter? Georgia Power updates its Integrated Resource Plan(IRP) every three years. This plan helps predict energy demand and identifies a plan to ensure the utility can meet said demand. This plan must be approved by Georgia’s Public Service Commission. But, it has been less than a year since Georgia Powers last scheduled IRP update.

Georgia Power implies that its energy projections have drastically changed in the last nine months. They say the situation altered so dramatically they needed to file an emergency IRP outside the regular schedule. This sharp increase has to do with “large load users,” or, in other words, data centers. Data centers store large computers and telecommunication devices and require exorbitant amounts of energy. Atlanta has begun to house multiple developing data centers. It is now ranked as the sixth-largest market for commissioned power. 

Suppose Georgia Powers’ energy consumption model is correct. In that case, it proves that an emergency change to the IRP is critical and that waiting for the regularly scheduled ones will lead to power outages. If Georgia Powers’ energy consumption models are wrong, it begs the question of why file the IRP now instead of waiting.

By the end of that day, five panels had been formed, each advocating for re-evaluating at least part of Georgia Powers’ priorities through the regular IRP process. 

The second-to-last panel discussed the need for Plant Yates’s three new oil and gas-burning plants. The staff experts advocated delaying the expansion of plants at Yates until the regular IRP process. They cited limited research into alternative ways to achieve wattage requirements, saying that “smaller, cheaper solutions and larger, more cost-effective solutions were excluded from consideration.”

The Georgia Union of Manufacturers and the Georgia Senate for Energy Solutions discussed the money Georgia Power could lose if their models were right. The Union of Manufacturers how this agreement limits other power companies’ ability to compete for contracts, undermining cost saving and enforcing a Georgia Power monopoly. Georgia Power makes millions of dollars annually; a minor profit loss due to outages would have a limited effect on the company’s sustainability. The Georgia Senate for Energy Solutions explained: “The risk is heavily asymmetric. If staff are wrong then Georgia Power doesn’t make as much profit. If the company is wrong, customers foot the bill.”

So, why did Georgia Power approve the new plants? We will never fully know. The Public Service Commission agreed with Georgia Power before the testimony was even finished. On the final day of the hearing, the PSC staff said they had agreed and that the fossil fuel plants had been approved. 

While democratic processes should consult companies and reflect multiple stakeholders, ultimately, the Public Service Commission is meant to act on behalf of Georgia residents. The evidence is clear and conclusive that fossil fuels have a disparate impact on our health, and the residents affected by these fuels have spoken. This hearing begs a larger question for Georgia state officials. How will they ensure fair, democratic processes when deciding major environmental issues?