SB 34: Public Service Commission; costs incurred by an electric utility as a result of providing electric services to commercial data centers from being included in any rates; prohibit

In plain language

What the bill does

Who it affects

Why it matters

Key provisions

From the bill

Discussed in meetings (6)

The House and Senate meetings that took this bill up, from their machine transcripts. Each account was written by Georgia Commons with AI and is not part of the record; the video is what was said.

1. Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee, February 3, 2026

   From 0:41:24 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said SB 34 would prevent homeowners and small businesses from paying electricity infrastructure costs caused by large customers, making protections harder to change than commission rules. The proposed substitute replaces data centers with customers using at least 100 megawatts. The sponsor agreed to reconsider that scope and clarify covered costs after a member warned that ambiguity could invite lawsuits. Asked about coverage, the sponsor said it would apply to Georgia Power. A Public Service Commission witness said the commission had no position, described minimum bills, longer contracts, collateral and exit penalties, and warned that legislation could limit future flexibility. The witness disputed that data centers caused recent rate increases and described a three-year base-rate freeze, with storm and fuel charges handled separately. A Data Center Coalition witness opposed legislation as unnecessary, preferred coverage across industries, and requested limiting charges to costs solely attributable to large customers. A Georgia Power witness also opposed it, saying large customers pay all service costs plus additional amounts benefiting other customers. Asked about bankruptcy and unused generation, the witness described financial guarantees, early plant retirement and replacement customers as safeguards. Members questioned manufacturing impacts and construction risks. No vote occurred; revisions and further testimony were planned.

2. Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee, February 12, 2026

   From 0:32:20 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said SB 34 would prevent costs caused by large electricity users from being charged to residential and small-business customers. The sponsor’s substitute added contract protections drawn from HB 1063, covering minimum payments, contract length, credit protections and termination. A competing substitute retained those requirements but removed the broader cost restriction. The sponsor said contracts alone would not cover construction costs if expected customers never arrived. One member favored contracts and questioned legislative involvement in rate setting; the sponsor answered that the bill restricted cost shifting, not specific rates. A Southern Environmental Law Center witness supported the broader restriction, saying filed contracts required only two years of termination payments despite terms of at least 15 years. The witness also said approved capacity exceeded contracted demand. A Georgia Watch witness warned customers could pay for unused construction. A public witness raised financial and public-health concerns. A Science for Georgia witness said a study with Greenlink Analytics projected regional demand at roughly half the approved expansion. The chair announced no vote, said competing substitutes needed review, and planned further input from Georgia Power and the Public Service Commission before a decision.

3. Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee, February 24, 2026

   From 0:44:24 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor favored a substitute combining contract requirements for large electricity customers with an explicit prohibition on shifting their service costs to other customers. The sponsor said the alternative omitted that prohibition. Public Service Commission witnesses said existing rules already protected customers and warned that legislation could restrict flexibility as electricity demand changed. Members questioned what specific language would prevent adjustments and argued that protection should remain binding during emergencies. A commission attorney distinguished contract requirements from rate-setting protections. Georgia Power’s witness warned that the explicit prohibition could invite allocation disputes and jeopardize revenues benefiting other customers. The witness cited a rate freeze through 2028 and $1.6 billion in savings for 2029–2031. Asked about defaults and upfront payments, the witness cited financial security and upfront transmission charges, and said generation prepayments could be considered without legislation. The Data Center Coalition preferred the contract-focused alternative. Another supporting witness argued that statutory protection was stronger than changeable rules, citing $34 billion in planned investment. Georgia Power’s witness separately put approved generation and transmission capital investment near $20 billion. The sponsor denied that the preferred version prevented customer savings. The committee rejected switching to that version, 4 to 9, then approved substitute LC560584S, 9 to 3, for Rules Committee consideration.

4. Senate Rules Committee, February 25, 2026

   From 0:20:01 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said the bill addresses costs incurred in providing electricity to commercial data centers and noted that the calendar description of a prohibition was outdated. No questions followed. The committee later unanimously included the bill on the floor calendar.

5. Senate Rules Committee, March 5, 2026

   From 1:00:01 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: A committee member asked to add SB 34 for consideration. The chair declined because its language was already included in SB 410. Earlier, while presenting that combined proposal, the chair described the incorporated language as intended to prevent other utility customers from paying data centers' electric-service costs.

• Read aloud: Senate floor session, February 25, 2026 (legislative day 24), 0:33:46

Status timeline

Sponsors

Topics