Georgia PSC tells feds not to worry about Ossoff’s AI data center inquiry
Last week, U.S. Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to investigate whether proper safeguards are in place for electricity rates amid a boom in AI data centers setting up shop and vying to come to the Peach State.
Ossoff requested a response by June 1 to four questions about FERC’s role in energy affordability, load forecasting and data centers.
Public interest research and protection groups and environmental justice leaders praised this request as data center development grows while no laws protect consumers from any negative impact of data centers in Georgia.
However, on Monday, a week after Ossoff’s request, two Georgia Public Service Commissioners gave an unsolicited response to FERC’s chairman, declaring there is a “simple answer to his inquiry” and touting the guardrails they have put in place.
The PSC created a rule in January 2025 that required data centers requiring over 100 megawatts of power would pay for costs incurred by upstream generation, i.e. pay for their power. It added longer contract lengths (from five-year contracts to 15-year contracts) and minimum billing requirements for high-load customers.
“Data centers are not affecting power bills in our state,” Commissioners Jason Shaw and Trisha Pridemore said in their letter. “… Any effect on bills is a minimum of three years away.”
But Brionté McCorkle, executive director of Georgia Conservation Voters, said those PSC protections don’t require AI data center prices to appear on people’s bills as they are not law, and the rule can be overturned anytime.
“(That rule) is not fully locked in, transparent or guaranteed to cover the true cost of the system being built,” McCorkle said in an email. “The problem is that this rule is not the same as a hard statutory prohibition on cost-shifting. It does not clearly guarantee that all data center-related costs will be kept off residential and small business bills over time. The PSC rule may address some upfront infrastructure and contract risks, but there are other costs, including fuel costs from running additional methane gas plants, future rate case impacts and storm recovery costs tied to a bigger and more climate-polluting system.”
Ossoff asked FERC whether these protections are “credible and enforceable” and “what steps is the regulatory committee taking to improve load forecasting?”
McCorkle praised Ossoff for the outreach to FERC but said FERC’s role is limited.
“It generally oversees wholesale power markets and interstate transmission, not retail rate design at the state level,” she said in her response to the Ledger-Enquirer. “Any review should look beyond short-term bill impacts and examine the long-term decisions being made now, especially demand projections, the 10,000 MW methane gas expansion, fuel costs, transmission costs and future rate recovery.”
Plus, the protections Ossoff is asking for were in this year’s legislative session within Georgia Senate Bill 34, which would have banned any costs related to providing electricity to a data center from being passed down to residential ratepayers.
But it was stripped of those protections from heavy lobbying by Georgia Power and data center industry officials. Ultimately, it didn’t pass.
“SB 34 would have prohibited costs related to serving commercial data centers, including increased fuel requirements, generation costs and transmission costs from being included in rates, unless those costs were recovered solely or substantially from the data centers themselves,” she McCorkle said in an email. “The power company actively worked to change the language and stop it altogether. The fact that Georgia Power and data center interests opposed the stronger version of SB 34 tells us the current rule is not enough.”
Georgia Public Interest Research Group shares McCorkle’s and Ossoff’s concerns and praised the PSC for working on energy affordability issues.
“Georgia PIRG is deeply concerned that Georgia Power residential and small-business customers will end up paying for data center costs,” said Aidyn Levin, a campaign associate at PIRG. “We’re also deeply concerned that they’re doubling down on gas, which is incredibly volatile. We’re glad that the Public Service Commission and Senator Ossoff are working on these issues.”
But McCorkle called the letter from Pridemore and Shaw to FERC a measure of protection for Georgia Power.
“It’s clear they are acting as a block to protect Georgia Power as they have been for the duration of their time on the commission,” she said.
In response to the claims about protecting Georgia Power and why they sent the letter to FERC, Shaw said the letter speaks for itself.
However, Pridemore said the Commissioners told Georgia Power how the state wanted data centers treated as far back as April 2024, which resulted in the January 2025 ruling making data centers pay all costs for their energy needs. She also called out Ossoff for asking FERC in the first place because her energy expertise is “well known”.
“Sen. Ossoff must have missed these pivotal decisions and orders of the PSC,” Pridemore said in an email. “Someone on his staff should have informed him that Georgia is the national model for protecting consumers from data center costs. My work with the White House National Energy Dominance Council, to make the Georgia rule a part of President Trump’s energy agenda, is well known by serious energy experts in America.”
This story was originally published April 29, 2026 at 4:37 PM.
