Hubbard is also concerned that the data centers underpinning Georgia Power’s expansion plan may fail to materialize. If the AI bubble bursts and those facilities are never built, or if developers simply choose to build in another state, customers would be stuck with even higher utility bills to pay for assets they don’t need.
A Georgia Power spokesperson told Canary Media that the utility has options to contain cost impacts on its customers if its power-demand forecasts turn out to be too high; for example, it could delay or cancel construction or sell capacity on the wholesale market.
“Nothing about the Company’s current request binds the Commission’s hands on taking actions to re-examine a certificate if forecasted needs were to change,” the spokesperson said in a September email.
But Hubbard worries that these kinds of remedial actions won’t be effective. Once the utility starts ordering power turbines, expanding gas-pipeline capacity, and taking on other construction costs, “you can’t unring the bell,” he said. “The best way to prevent that is to not make the mistake in the first place.”
To be clear, it’s not certain that Hubbard or his fellow Democratic challenger in next week’s election will have the power to make major changes at the commission. If she and Hubbard win seats on the commission, they’d have to convince at least one of the three Republicans to side with them in any decision.
Hubbard conceded that his pro-environmental stances have put him at odds with current commissioners. He’s on the record opposing the commission’s decisions this year on Georgia Power’s integrated resource plan and on a temporary rate freeze that critics say obscures the looming costs that customers may end up paying for the utility’s fossil-fuel-heavy resource mix. Hubbard has also blasted the regulatory group for being too in step with the utility.
“Frankly, the five Republican commissioners on the commission take their cues from Georgia Power,” he said.
He’s not alone in that viewpoint. Robert Baker, a Republican PSC commissioner from 1993 to 2011, told Canary Media in September that he thinks the current commission has failed to sufficiently push back on the utility’s plans.
“You’re dealing with a commission that basically rubber-stamps everything that comes its way from Georgia Power,” he said. “That makes it very difficult for people who have a differing opinion about what should happen, or how it should happen, to have serious input into the process.”
Even if it is an uphill battle, Hubbard said that if elected, he’d at least have the “bully pulpit” to raise visibility for his concerns — and push for better regulation.
The case for solar and batteries in Georgia
Right now, big solar farms are the cheapest, fastest way to add new electrons to the grid — and Georgia is one of the top states for growth of the renewable energy resource.
Meanwhile, gas turbines are in very short supply, with current estimates of backlogs for new gas-power plants stretching into the early 2030s.
That’s why Georgia Power’s proposal to focus on building out fossil-fueled infrastructure defies logic, Hubbard said.
Georgia Power has put a “thumb on the scale” against solar over the past half-decade or so, Hubbard said. The reason, he believes, is that the PSC has mandated that most of the utility’s solar expansion be built by third-party developers rather than Georgia Power itself. But these third-party resources are less lucrative to vertically integrated utilities like Georgia Power, which earn a guaranteed profit on the projects they build and operate.
In recent years, the utility has delayed and rejected solar procurements under competitive structures. Nearly 18 gigawatts of solar and battery projects from outside developers are now seeking to interconnect in Georgia, as Hubbard noted in May testimony to the commission — a pool of resources that could be brought online to meet the load growth the utility is facing.
Georgia Power has pointed to challenges in expanding its power grid to allow these projects to interconnect. Similar grid bottlenecks are holding back new solar, wind, and battery projects across the country.
But Hubbard said the commission could push the utility to find less congested parts of its grid where solar and battery projects could be fast-tracked. In fact, he’s familiar with the Georgia Power maps that can reveal such “sweet spots,” due to his work as a grid expert for solar developers in the state.
“This could tell you whether developing a solar and battery plant here could bear far higher costs than developing it at this other location,” he said. “What often kills a project are the interconnection costs — and those aren’t known until you go through the whole interconnection study process.”
Georgia Power has insisted that its chosen mix of resources is the best way to reliably provide enough power to meet customer needs. Hubbard conceded that his own modeling lacks the in-depth, confidential data required to say with complete certainty that his preferred solar- and battery-heavy portfolio would be better.
But as a commissioner, he’d be able to access the underlying data to determine the exact mix of clean power versus fossil gas that would be most cost-effective.
“I’m going to tread carefully on all this,” he said. “Once I have access to all that information, I’m not sure what I’ll find. … But I want to do it.”
Disclosure: Charles Hua is a member of Canary Media’s board of directors. The board has no influence over Canary Media’s reporting.
{
if ($event.target.classList.contains(‘hs-richtext’)) {
if ($event.target.textContent === ‘+ more options’) {
$event.target.remove();
open = true;
}
}
}”
>
Great Job Jeff St. John & the Team @ Canary Media Source link for sharing this story.
