Public Service Commission to take up plan to add new fossil fuels to energy mix

ATLANTA – Georgia energy regulators already have approved a request by Georgia Power for a significant increase in electrical generating capacity to meet the needs of a growing state.

But the state Public Service Commission (PSC) still must sign off on a key component of the Atlanta-based utility’s plan: a proposal to build three new “dual-fuel” turbines at Plant Yates near Newnan. The PSC will hold a hearing on the project July 24 and vote on it next month.

In April, commissioners approved Georgia Power’s plan to add 6,600 megawatts of additional generating capacity, a huge jump from the 400 megawatts the company had predicted it would need two years ago. Driving that big increase are the growing demands of large industrial customers, including an influx of power-hungry data centers being built across the state.

Of that 6,600 megawatts, about 1,300 megawatts would come from the new turbines. The capacity of each turbine would be about 441 megawatts when using natural gas and about 351 megawatts when using ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel.

“Georgia is experiencing a historic increase in the state’s energy and capacity needs,” Georgia Power executives wrote in the company’s application for certification of the three proposed turbines. “The development of Plant Yates Units 8-10 is one of several critical steps needed to address the extraordinary near- and long-term energy needs of this state and our customers.

“Collectively, these three units will generate more then 1,300 MW of necessary peaking capacity, with the first unit available to serve customers beginning in the winter of 2026/2027. This peaking capacity resource is paramount to the company’s ability to continue to reliably meet the capacity needs of our customers and our state.”

But environmental and consumer advocacy groups that have filed with the PSC as intervenors in the case argue that building new turbines powered by oil and gas is premature and runs counter to a prevailing trend in the industry and among the public against fossil fuels.

Bryan Jacob, solar program director for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, said utilities should be moving away from fossil fuels as power generating sources rather than committing to new gas projects.

“We’re already over-reliant on gas,” he said. “This is doubling down on a fossil-fuel source we already rely on too much.”

“Georgians want clean energy,” added Bob Sherrier, a staff attorney with the Atlanta-based Southern Environmental Law Center.

Jacob said building the turbines now also would be premature because other options haven’t been fully explored.

“Georgia Power has an all-source procurement request for proposals that’s already out for bid,” he said. “We think the commission should look at those. … If there’s a set of resources that will meet the need at a lower cost, they’re obligated to consider it.”

But both Georgia Power executives and the PSC’s Public Interest Advocacy Staff cite provisions contained in an agreement between the two parties they say protects customers.

“The company agrees that if the application is granted, Georgia Power will not seek recovery of any project construction costs that exceed the proposed project construction cost in the company’s January 31, 2024, application for certification absent a showing that such costs are the result of circumstances beyond the company’s control,” Georgia Power asserted in the agreement.

But Sherrier said the agreement covers only construction costs, not the costs of the fuel the new turbines will burn. The commission approved a fuel costs recovery plan submitted by Georgia Power last year that raised the average residential customer’s bill by $15.90 per month.

“Fuel costs go straight to customers,” Sherrier said.

The agreement also sets out a process for monitoring the construction of the three turbines, with Georgia Power submitting progress reports to the PSC every six months. The same process was used during the construction of two additional nuclear reactors at Georgia Power’s Plant Vogtle, a project that was completed in April.

Jacob said he’s skeptical of the value of construction monitoring, considering that the Vogtle reactors went into commercial operation seven years behind schedule after encountering cost overruns that more than doubled the price tag.

But Sherrier sounded a hopeful note looking ahead to the role construction monitoring could play in the Plant Yates project.

“Hopefully, there won’t be cost overruns,” he said. “But if there are, we’ll be able to see them coming and address it.”