Georgia PSC Denies Reconsideration of Nearly 10 GW Georgia Power Capacity Certification

February 2026

On February 18, 2026, the Georgia Public Service Commission ("PSC" or "Commission") voted 3–2 to deny a Joint Petition for Reconsideration challenging its December 30, 2025 Order certifying approximately 9,885 MW of new Georgia Power capacity resources in Docket Nos. 56298 and 56310. See Order Adopting Stipulation and Granting Certification of Capacity from the 2029–2031 All-Source RFP and Supplemental Resources for 2028–2031 Capacity, Dkt. Nos. 56298 & 56310 (Dec. 30, 2025) (“Certification Order”). The decision reinforces the Commission’s willingness to approve forward-looking capacity additions based on forecasted load growth—particularly large-load and data center demand—without requiring executed service contracts in hand.

Background

In December 2025, the PSC adopted a Stipulation between Georgia Power and the Commission’s Public Interest Advocacy Staff approving 7,999 MW of resources selected through the 2029–2031 All-Source RFP and 1,886 MW of supplemental resources for 2028–2031. Certification Order at 3–4.

The portfolio includes thermal PPAs, company-owned combined cycle units, battery storage projects, solar-plus-storage projects, and an amendment to an existing PPA. Certification Order at 4–6.

Intervenors—Georgia Interfaith Power & Light, Southface Energy Institute, Sierra Club, and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy—argued that the certification relied on speculative growth and could significantly increase customer bills over time. See Joint Petition for Rehearing, Reconsideration, Clarification, and Oral Argument at 3-4 (Jan. 9, 2026) (“Joint Petition”). In addition, Intervenors argued there was no need for a single of the 757 megawatts of McIntosh Unit 12 by 2031 even using Georgia Power’s own load forecast.

Core Legal Issue: Forecasted Need vs. Executed Contracts

The central legal dispute concerned the meaning of “need” under Georgia’s certification statute. See O.C.G.A. § 46-3A-4(a). Intervenors contended that certification requires binding customer contracts demonstrating concrete demand before new generation may be approved. See Joint Petition at 12–13 (Jan. 9, 2026).

Georgia Power responded that Georgia’s statutory integrated resource planning framework expressly contemplates forward-looking certification based on reasonably forecasted demand and that requiring executed customer contracts before certification would undermine reliability and economic development. See Georgia Power Company’s Response to Joint Petition for Reconsideration at 3–6 (Jan. 20, 2026) (“GPC Response”).

At its February 18, 2026 hearing, the Commission declined to revisit its Order, effectively reaffirming that certification may be based on projected—not merely contracted—demand.

Key Stipulation Affecting Ratepayers

The Commission’s Order adopted a Stipulation containing several intended ratepayer protections. See Stipulation, Dkt. Nos. 56298 & 56310 (Dec. 9, 2025).

Notably, Georgia Power agreed that incremental revenue from large-load customers must create downward pressure of at least $8.50 per month for a typical residential customer (1,000 kWh usage) during 2029–2031. Stipulation ¶ 4.  What happens after 2031 in the event of building out excess capacity remains to be seen.

 

Risk Allocation and What Comes Next

A central policy concern raised in the proceeding was risk allocation: if forecasted data center and large-load growth slows, who bears the cost of overbuilt capacity?

Georgia Power outlined several mitigation tools it may employ if load growth underperforms, including delaying or canceling resources being constructed, increasing usage from existing customers, reducing procurement volumes, or selling excess capacity into the Southeast wholesale market. See GPC Response at 9–10.

The Commission’s decision confirms that the PSC will continue to rely on approved load forecasting methodologies and its position that the statutory standard permits certification based on projected—not merely contracted—demand.

At the same time, issues raised in the reconsideration filings suggests that disputes over the timing and specificity of “need” under O.C.G.A. § 46-3A-4(a) may resurface in future certification or rate proceedings if projected growth does not materialize as anticipated.

For questions regarding PSC certification proceedings, integrated resource planning, or large-load contracting strategy in Georgia, please contact T. Blalock Law.

#solardevelopment #EPC #batterystorage #BESS #energyregulation #largeload