Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee, February 12, 2026

Transcript

404 turns. Select a time to play that moment of the video.

1. 0:03:22

   And introduce. We got a long day we've had today on the floor in the Senate, so we're gonna try to be, uh, orderly and quick. We have two bills. Senator Goodman lives way south of here, and he's got a long drive home. I told him we could let him go first, and he'll be relatively quick. And then the second bill we've already heard once, so it ought to be, uh, relatively snappy, too. There may be some other people that want to be heard on it. Um...

2. 0:03:48

   Can I, can I go ahead and begin?

3. 0:03:49

   Go right ahead. You are recognized.

4. 0:03:52

   Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This-

5. 0:03:53

   Senator Goodman of District-

6. 0:03:53

   This-

7. 0:03:53

   This is SB 458.

8. 0:03:55

   Yes, sir. Working off of, uh, LC 62-0332. Um, this bill came about, uh, my local folks back home, uh, met with my realtors. They asked to meet with me, as well as my South Georgia Home Builders Association. And basically, what it does is create a home inspector's license. Um, nearly 80% of all US states require licensure for home inspection. Since 1999, Georgia's licensing requirements for home inspectors is thrown to each local jurisdiction. As such, consumers cannot expect any consistency with regard to home inspector from one county to the next.

9. 0:04:26

   Establishing one minimum threshold will reduce the regulatory confusion that currently exists. Most Georgia, most Georgia citizens believe that home inspectors are licensed. They generally only learn they are not if something negative occurs during or after their home purchase. Most Georgia home inspectors are good actors and upstanding members of the community, but this is about protecting our citizens from the ones who do not have the best interest of our citizens at heart. Home inspectors are only part of the real estate transaction that are not licensed, leaving consumers to deal with any issues on their own. Licensing home inspectors would be a consumer protection for home buyers that is long overdue.

10. 0:04:57

    Approaching, approaching licensing in this manner minimizes the cost to establish and administer the license over establishing a standalone board. We're not, uh, been in talks with the governor's office. We're not, uh, creating a standalone board. We're, we're putting the, uh, the licensure under the, uh, contractor's board. Um, so what it will do is establish a criteria for ho- uh, home inspector licensing and, uh, establish administration of that license, uh, type consistent with administration of the existing contractor's license.

11. 0:05:29

    Uh, I'd be glad to, if you wanna walk through the bill, um, going through, uh, on line 44 to 56, uh, it shows that it does not create a new board or expand the composition. It, uh, deals with the reciprocity between the states. Uh, lines 57 on down, uh, basic, basic licensure consistency with nearly 40 other states. I have one question I'd like to ask the members of the committee that I have a little bit of pause about on, uh, on line 59, um, I'm sorry, line 60, uh, where it says that they must possess a high school diploma or equivalent.

12. 0:06:06

    Um, I know there are some older retired home builders that are, uh, may not have finished high school but have built 500 homes in their lifetimes and do home inspections just to, uh, you know, that... I, I wanna see what the will of the committee might would be on that. Um, you know, line 68 to 74, you know, requires that, uh, home inspectors, uh, carry liability insurance. Um, 78 to 84, you know, defines companies. 88 to 96 defines, uh, standards of practice.

13. 0:06:39

    97 to 109 is investigative powers. 116 to 119 shows that it's self-funded. Um, 120 to 125 shows it doesn't interfere with existing practice. 126 to one, uh, 129 is the grandfather approach. And I, I have a committee sub that I went in, but I, I talked to, to you, Mr. Chairman. You said it was not necessary for me to bring a committee sub, but I think in order to give-

14. 0:07:05

    The reason is that you said all it did was change the effective date.

15. 0:07:08

    Yes, sir. But, but I-

16. 0:07:09

    And we can have that with an amendment here-

17. 0:07:11

    Yes, sir

18. 0:07:11

    ... on the committee if that's all you had.

19. 0:07:13

    That's all it is. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I, if, if, if it would, uh, you know, just upon further reflection and, and speaking with, with other folks, um, we feel like maybe if we put the, uh... Oh, it's been a long day, Mr. Chairman.

20. 0:07:27

    Yeah.

21. 0:07:27

    The effective date, uh, put it out to January 1, 2028 if, if, um, the members of the committee would see fit to do that to give everyone ample time. Um, with that, Mr. Chairman, I know everybody's tired. It's been a long day and a long week.

22. 0:07:40

    What's the date again that you'd like that to be?

23. 0:07:42

    Sir?

24. 0:07:42

    What's the date you'd like to be the effective date?

25. 0:07:44

    Uh, January 1st, 2028.

26. 0:07:50

    What line is that on?

27. 0:07:51

    Yes, it would be a new line. Um, let me get us, let's wind back to that, to the high school degree. So I mean, well, these aren't real exactly qualified people if they don't even have a GED or, or a high school degree.

28. 0:08:05

    Well, um-

29. 0:08:05

    You need some level of education to have a, be competent to inspect homes.

30. 0:08:10

    Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't know. You know, my stepdad that helped raise me quit school in the 10th grade and built a company and put it around the world and did business in 40 countries. Um, talk, spoke with, uh, my superintendent of schools in Lowndes County last night, and her father was one of the most successful builders in South Georgia, and he, he didn't have a, a high school degree. So that's, that's the reason that that has given me a little pause.

31. 0:08:32

    All right. Hang on one sec. Um, so they're also having to get training to do this, 120 hours of board-approved classroom or online coursework. I don't guess that stepdad has done that yet, either. It'd take him three or four months to get the schooling that he has to do and then have 40 hours of supervised inspections before he would be, and then pass an exam-

32. 0:08:57

    Yes, sir

33. 0:08:58

    ... by the board. So that, it'd be a whole... He's gonna have to do some serious work. M- almost be easier to get a GED than do all those things.

34. 0:09:05

    Well, could be. Could be. Yes, sir.

35. 0:09:08

    All right. So why, why do you feel like all that's necessary to, to, um, be qualified to do this?

36. 0:09:15

    Well, you know, I think it's just to, showing, you know, competency. Um, Jeff, would you come up here and, and speak? This is Jeff. If you don't mind, Mr. Chairman, do you mind if I bring Jeff and Rick up here?

37. 0:09:26

    No mind at all. It'd be fine, yeah.

38. 0:09:29

    Sure.

39. 0:09:30

    So w- with regard to, um, the individuals that, um, Chairman Goodman's speaking about, you actually do have on lines 126 through 129 those that are actually practicing now. Um, the grandfather section allows them to come in by simply passing the National Home Inspector Examination. Many of those folks, if they are doing home inspections now, may have already done something, either this exact exam or something similar to it, uh, because they may be a member of the trade associations that deal with this.

40. 0:10:07

    The purpose of the licensure is to simply ensure there's that minimal threshold. Um, you know, with regard to the high school diploma, um, you do have the or equivalent. You could also possibly even give the board the authority to establish something that could, that they could deem as that standard. That may be a way to avoid that of, of experience.

41. 0:10:29

    Who's the board we're referring to here?

42. 0:10:31

    It's the, uh, residential contractor's board.

43. 0:10:34

    So we're just folding them under that?

44. 0:10:36

    It's just a, it's, it's not a new board, it's just a new license type under that board.

45. 0:10:40

    All right. Uh, Senator Dolezal, you're recognized for questions, then Senator Albers.

46. 0:10:46

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would it be okay if I ask a few?

47. 0:10:48

    That'd be fine.

48. 0:10:49

    Jeff, who are you representing?

49. 0:10:50

    I'm sorry. I'm with the Georgia Realtors, um, and we are supportive of this legislation.

50. 0:10:56

    So we've been in a posture the last few years of kinda de-licensing, deregulating, rolling back red tape. Um, and in this committee, I would say the general posture, if I could speak for the committee, is a skepticism towards licensing schemes and mechanisms. Uh, I, I'll, I'll speak for myself and say I'm highly skeptical-

51. 0:11:13

    Sure

52. 0:11:14

    ... um, that annual continuing education does anything other than put money in the pockets of the associations that force them down our throats.

53. 0:11:21

    Sure.

54. 0:11:22

    Um, so I, I'm from the fastest growing county in the state.

55. 0:11:26

    Mm-hmm.

56. 0:11:27

    A lot of real estate transactions. Eight years in the Senate, I've received zero phone calls about issues with building inspectors. I think the, they're typically referred by good realtors. The realtors figure out who the good home inspectors are.

57. 0:11:40

    Sure.

58. 0:11:41

    And the free market seems to take care of it. So convince me-

59. 0:11:45

    Sure

60. 0:11:45

    ... to the best of your ability that I'm wrong.

61. 0:11:46

    I understand exactly what you're talking about. Um, what I would say is, unfortunately, Georgia at this point, ever since 1999, has had a almost a backdoor into licensure for this, but it throws it to local jurisdictions only. So in other words, there is the potential right now I could be a home inspector that is approved in one county, but not the next, and I need to meet a different standard for that county, and I could need to meet a different standard for the next. But in 1999, that is how Georgia addressed this issue originally, and that was really at the beginning of looking at home inspectors with licensure.

62. 0:12:24

    Um, over the years, we now have, uh, roughly about 40 states that have licensure and recognize reciprocity with other states. Georgia is not one of them. And, um, essentially what this is doing is not so much creating something new, but standardizing so that one person that is an inspector, let's say in Dougherty County, and I'm not saying that they actually put this in place, could also be an inspector in Sumter County. Could also be an inspector anywhere in the state, because they've met essentially the core threshold, um, that most states look at.

63. 0:13:02

    That simplifies the reciprocity.

64. 0:13:04

    I, I think that's awesome.

65. 0:13:05

    Sure.

66. 0:13:06

    Um, what would you think about rather than acquire, requiring all this time, have an option for somebody to just go pass the test? That if, uh, regardless if they've been in the business or not.

67. 0:13:16

    Sure.

68. 0:13:16

    But if you can come in and pass the test, then you're, you're licensed, as opposed to having to go to school.

69. 0:13:20

    I, I, I would defer to the senator. I'm not here to speak to what I think an inspector should do.

70. 0:13:24

    Okay.

71. 0:13:24

    Just the fact of that we support it.

72. 0:13:26

    Gotcha.

73. 0:13:27

    So that, thank you for the, for the question, Senator. And I, I would say this, I would say that, um, you know, I brought this bill. This is not something that I w- you know, have been just, you know, super passionate about. It came about, uh, because of, uh, my constituents reaching out to me. Um, I had, uh, one person tell me that they'd bought a house and, um, home inspection, home inspection happened, everything passed with flying colors. Within about a month, they had $40,000 worth of repairs. And so-

74. 0:13:56

    So does your local municipality regulate them?

75. 0:13:59

    They do. Um, but what I would just say this, I would say that anything that, uh, and I'm speaking for myself here, I'm, I'm, I'm gonna be happy with what I can get, that I can carry back home to my folks and says, say that we have done something, um, that we, we have, um, as a legislature, tried to help these folks to show that, that, you know, that we have done something to, that these folks have to prove some, um, minimal amount of competency in their field, is what I would say.

76. 0:14:24

    Do, the last question, if you don't, do you know why your local municipality hasn't revoked their ability to do business in your county? If-

77. 0:14:30

    I, I don't.

78. 0:14:30

    Okay.

79. 0:14:32

    Would you-

80. 0:14:32

    Yeah, sure, I'd be happy to speak to that question.

81. 0:14:33

    Do you mind, Mr. Chairman?

82. 0:14:35

    Okay. Uh, not specifically with that county, 'cause I'm not certain of the instance. But, um, what you are seeing right now is when, when you have a home inspector, uh, and they have not done sufficient work, in other words, they're not demonstrating competency in their practice, and that's, uh, I always look at licensure as the purpose of the state being involved in that is to ensure just a core competency. They may not be the best, but they have passed a minimal threshold. If you are, uh, practicing now, your only recourse is if you were to take that to court or take it, you know, for adjudication, it would be returning the fee you paid, not the $40,000 that potentially there's harm with.

83. 0:15:19

    That's why there's the bonding requirement in here. It is a, uh, protection of this consumer interest.

84. 0:15:24

    So under the 1999 rule, there's not an ability for-

85. 0:15:27

    There's not. It's a very core, basic, almost equivalent to kinda like a business license in those local jurisdictions. But again, it's not something where, uh, this would im- When you look at the section that deals with the ability to have the investigations and sanctions, that is on par with what currently exists under the residential contractors. Um, it gives you the ability... By giving a license, you have something to take away. Right now, it is simply more looked at as the fee you pay in local jurisdictions or, you know, whatever else they may throw onto that, but not something that has the sanctionability of this.

86. 0:16:07

    You're making progress.

87. 0:16:09

    Sure.

88. 0:16:11

    Um, can I add something too?

89. 0:16:12

    Uh, yeah. But, but the one thing I was just gonna ask is your flexibility on this continuing ed. Uh, the continuing ed is usually-

90. 0:16:17

    Oh

91. 0:16:17

    ... go watch two videos online, you pay somebody 100 bucks-

92. 0:16:19

    No, I understand

93. 0:16:20

    ... and just get somebody

94. 0:16:20

    I'm honest- really, I'm, you know, I wanna get what I can get, is what I'm, what I'm trying to say. But one thing I do think that we need to do, and of course everybody on this committee, I mean, I, I wanna know what you think about this. But I do think that these folks that are performing this task should have some liability insurance. Um, I mean, when you're talking about buying a million or $2 million home or whether it be a $100,000 home, um, you know, right now it's kind of the Wild West. You don't have to have a license, you don't have to, you know, uh, prove any sort of competency, and you don't have to have any kind of liability insurance.

95. 0:16:55

    And when you're talking about, you know, you're paying someone for a service, and up here in Atlanta, good Lord, you know, what homes sell for up here, that, that, there b- should be, um, the consumer protection aspect of it is what I'm referring to. And, um-

96. 0:17:09

    In your friend or constituent, in your constituent's case, did they sue that home inspector for their negligent inspection or failure to disclose whatever the defects were?

97. 0:17:20

    No, sir. Although, you know, I guess you can sue someone, but if there's not any insurance involved, I... You know, if they don't have some level of protection.

98. 0:17:31

    Senator Albers, you're recognized. Jeff, that mic one is live.

99. 0:17:34

    Yeah.

100. 0:17:34

     If, yeah, I noticed you're leaning over. If it's more convenient to you.

101. 0:17:37

     Sure. Thank you.

102. 0:17:37

     Senator Albers, you're recognized.

103. 0:17:39

     Thanks, Mr. Chairman. If I could ask a few questions, uh, to the author and his, uh, helper here.

104. 0:17:44

     Mm-hmm.

105. 0:17:44

     Uh, first I just wanna tell you, I actually had this happen to me over 20 years ago, where I had a home inspector come in who missed something. It cost me over $10,000 and I got my 300 bucks back, that was it. So I think there is a concern, and I've felt it, uh, myself. But my questions will rely more about, uh, a few things. Um, Senator Dolezal actually mentioned, I, I'm not sure there's 15 hours of continuing education credit even available for someone who does a home inspection. So I think that might be a little bit much.

106. 0:18:14

     Mm-hmm.

107. 0:18:14

     Um, so perhaps we revisit that or, or maybe, you know, continuing education maybe doesn't even need to be done i- in a job like this. But is this a must or a shall? So my example is, can I, can I go to someone and offer them a home inspection, they can pay me money, but know that I am not certified versus someone who could be a certified one? And that's really up to me as the individual that gets to choose who I want to do that stuff. Does that make sense? When I could pay my neighbor up the road who's a handyman to come fix some plumbing, but he's not a certified plumber, versus something might be bigger in my house that, you know what?

108. 0:18:46

     I wanna hire the certified plumber.

109. 0:18:50

     I can't imagine someone making a purchase like that. Most people's homes are their largest asset. Um, I can't imagine that someone would not choose the person that is the certified inspector, but that's just me now.

110. 0:19:07

     But, but would it prohibit at that point from someone doing that?

111. 0:19:12

     I think at that point it w- uh, Jeff, will you answer that?

112. 0:19:15

     Sure.

113. 0:19:15

     I mean, you've got lending institutions as well-

114. 0:19:17

     Sure

115. 0:19:17

     ... and I'm not sure that the lending institution, unless you're paying cash for the home, I feel like they would be much more comfortable with utilizing a service with someone that is certified.

116. 0:19:25

     Sure.

117. 0:19:26

     W- and I'm, I'm never one to say just because other states do it, we should follow, but I'm not aware of any state that has optional licensing for any type of f- profession. You either look at it as something that the state sees that there's a need, that consumers could be harmed, and so there's a license or there's not. Typically, when you're looking at the how good someone might be, that's where you look at the professional designations that they may obtain.

118. 0:19:53

     Mm-hmm.

119. 0:19:53

     Um, I always kind of look at it as the state's job when it comes to a profession they've chosen to license, is only the bare minimum. You're a 16-year-old that knows how to drive the car. If you wanna have somebody to go out and do stunt driving for you or, you know, be your bodyguard, you wanna be certain they're trained in that realm and you've seen their work. But if you simply just wanna know I'm not gonna get killed, you know, th- this is someone who is minimally certified by the state not to completely ruin my life, and there are some minimal protections.

120. 0:20:24

     Um, otherwise you're looking at a massive education effort for the consumer, where the state then has to say, "Here's what a licensed one means, and here's what it doesn't mean." Um, if you're looking at a, a base threshold, whatever it may be, with whatever CE, um, if any, then at least you're looking at this is a core that the state starts at.

121. 0:20:47

     Sure. A- and if I could-

122. 0:20:47

     Yeah

123. 0:20:48

     ... just a couple more, Mr. Chairman. On line 64 and 65, you know, I understand the minimum of 120 hours of classroom online work. If nobody has this today though, we're creating something new, how would they get the 40 hours of supervisors inspection done?

124. 0:21:03

     You, that's where the lines, uh, 126 through 129 come in. So anytime there's a new profession, you have to come up with, it's kinda like the chicken and the egg.

125. 0:21:14

     Okay.

126. 0:21:14

     You gotta, you gotta give them the ability to hatch from nothing.

127. 0:21:18

     Okay. And then last-

128. 0:21:18

     Which is they, yeah, they're currently in the business.

129. 0:21:20

     And just last question, comment. Uh, Senator Goodman brought up, uh, the issue on line 60 about high school diploma or its equivalent.

130. 0:21:26

     Mm-hmm.

131. 0:21:26

     I, I do understand there's been folks, you know, in generations before us that that was a different model. Maybe it's something of, or equivalent of 35 years experience or something that's high enough that would qualify to-

132. 0:21:37

     Thank you

133. 0:21:37

     ... show that they know what they're doing, but I, I do resonate with that.

134. 0:21:39

     Thank you, Senator. I, I think that's a very good idea. I do.

135. 0:21:43

     Thank you.

136. 0:21:46

     Pro Tem. Mr. Pro Tem, you're recognized for questioning our resident expert- ... in licensing boards.

137. 0:21:52

     Thank you, Chairman. Um, Chairman Goodman, uh, I appreciate how responsive to your constituents you always are. Uh, you- you're a fantastic senator. Um, I would, uh-

138. 0:22:07

     Now here comes the bad part.

139. 0:22:10

     It's about, it's about to be like a-

140. 0:22:13

     You felt it, didn't you?

141. 0:22:14

     He's not asking you to be his valentine yet.

142. 0:22:17

     I, I do, um, I do ... One portion of this bill that I really, really, really like is the insurance requirement, uh, section 70 through- ... line 70 through 74. Um, beyond that, I-

143. 0:22:35

     That's how you sell it.

144. 0:22:36

     Um,

145. 0:22:39

     I guess my question would be do you feel like somebody's gonna be a better home inspector just because the state issues them a license?

146. 0:22:52

     I would think that making sure that someone has some level of basic competency, because basically right now, um, JR, my, my, you know, 21-year-old son that's at the University of Georgia could, you know, put out a shingle with a business card and says, "I'm a home inspector," you know? And I, I think that's where the level, I guess, of consumer protection comes from. Um, but the, the ... You know, we brought this bill 'cause I, I wanted-- And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hearing it, because I wanted to get the feel of the committee and, um, you know, everyone see what we could do to addre- 'cause it, it is an issue across the state.

147. 0:23:31

     And, you know, the home builders, um, the realtors, and my folks back home, uh, brought it to me. And so, um, I, I don't know. I tend to agree with you, uh, Senator, as well, about the continuing education. Um, that wasn't language that I particularly put in there, but I ... with interested parties, we put in there. But I can tell you, as a farmer, I have to get continuing education for my pesticides license, and at 48 years old, I don't think they can teach me any more about how to m- how to, how to, you know, mix pyrethroids, you know?

148. 0:24:01

     So, um, I certainly understand that. And so, um, I don't think it's a bad idea, especially in light of, of, of, you know, a home purchase being such a monumental thing in someone's life, you know, and it being their, by and large, most times their largest asset. Of having some, to prove some basic level of competency that ... The consumer protection aspect's where I'm coming from.

149. 0:24:25

     Can I ask a follow-up?

150. 0:24:27

     Go ahead. You may.

151. 0:24:28

     Mr. Chairman Goodman, I wanna see if you, or ask you if you've kinda had the same experience I've had. In my district, the number one constituent complaint or call or concern that I have relates to property taxes, but the number two relates to licensure. I can't get my license. I can't get anybody to answer the phone. I can't figure out what to do. I can't, you know, I can't go to work 'cause I don't, can't get the state to issue what ... You know, I feel like I've met all the requirements, but I can't for, get, get it done and get, get my license.

152. 0:25:04

     Mm-hmm.

153. 0:25:05

     I'm ... So, it, would you, have you gotten those kind of calls?

154. 0:25:08

     No. Uh, Mr. Pro Tem, I think that's, uh,

155. 0:25:15

     a, a third of the calls that I get probably, of some kind of professional licensing. And I appreciate all the work you've done on this, and I'm not typically someone that is out there trying to hunt for new licenses for people. You know what I mean? For, uh ... But, uh, in this case, you know, like I say, my folks back home and, and, you know, they met with me, and we met there at the home builder's, uh, office in Valdosta. And, and the testimony and, and, and the concerns that I, that I got from everybody, I, I felt like it was worth having the discussion with everyone. And like I said, um, I'm speaking for myself.

156. 0:25:46

     I'm not speaking for, for everybody. But I'd, I'd be, um, I'm open to what this committee, um, is willing to do to help me, uh, and to help all of us, um, come up with, uh, some solutions for the consumer protection aspect of it.

157. 0:26:02

     I'd like to talk to you, uh, if, if this doesn't move forward-

158. 0:26:06

     Mm-hmm

159. 0:26:06

     ... with maybe a certification-

160. 0:26:08

     Mm-hmm

161. 0:26:08

     ... uh, instead of a, a license, but-

162. 0:26:10

     And if this-

163. 0:26:11

     ... I appreciate you bringing this up

164. 0:26:12

     ... yes, sir. Thank you, and thank you for allowing me, Mr. Chairman, to hear you.

165. 0:26:14

     Sure.

166. 0:26:14

     If this, if the committee decides that they don't wanna pass this bill, then I would submit maybe we back up and look and say, "Well, we require that everyone take the test, and we require everyone carry liability insurance." So they have to pass the test and have liability insurance. That's just, you know, I don't, I ... But then again, that's, that's up to the members of the committee. I know this committee is traditionally handling all the licensing issues, and I know the chairman's much more knowledgeable about this, and of course the pro tem is as well, and I am.

167. 0:26:42

     Thank you.

168. 0:26:43

     Mm-hmm.

169. 0:26:43

     I'm gonna recognize Senator Williams for a question, and then Senator Summers has one.

170. 0:26:48

     Thank you.

171. 0:26:49

     Is this just for residential, or are this for commercial buildings also?

172. 0:26:53

     Residential.

173. 0:26:54

     Residential.

174. 0:26:55

     Yes, sir.

175. 0:26:55

     Um, I had a similar situation about 20 years ago. Bought a house, and of course had it inspected. And, um, after I got moved in, then found out one of the toilets was dumping right on the ground under the house. And then my- ... power bill was just ridiculous. I couldn't get the house cool. So I happened to be under the house trying to figure this thing out one day, and the central air kicked on, and when it did, the main box, the whole inn flapped up.

176. 0:27:28

     So, uh, I was cooling under the house more than I was in the house.

177. 0:27:32

     Oh.

178. 0:27:33

     But I have a well-known-

179. 0:27:35

     You had to keep that sewage cooled out there.

180. 0:27:39

     Yeah. No wonder it didn't smell. I have, have a well-known former, uh, state official in my town. happens to be, uh, an official at the college. She purchased a house, uh, just about, uh, three years ago, and had a sunroom. And the inspector goes in, and the former owner had all these cookbooks just stacked all around under the windows of the sunroom.

181. 0:28:12

     Never moved any of those books. Turns out after the, this person bought the house, she and her husband. So it turns out when the owners moved out and they removed all of those cookbooks, that whole outside wall was rotten.

182. 0:28:31

     Mm.

183. 0:28:32

     And she has spent a lot, a lot of money, more than some houses cost, repairing that. And I don't know if, you know, you can, you can teach them all you want, but are they gonna still do the job? Um, you know, but that's just some of the bad experiences I've had. That's the reason I just wanted to be vocal about that, that they're ... And, and I'm, and Senator Dolezal, what he was saying about the continuing education, thank goodness I had, I quit having to do it when I turned 65.

184. 0:29:10

     But I'm the same way. It's a racket, and all it is is putting money in somebody's pocket, most of the continuing education. But, uh, uh, the professional licensing boards, I've had a lot of experience with those for about 50 years too, so know them very well. Thank you.

185. 0:29:30

     Thank you.

186. 0:29:31

     Mm.

187. 0:29:31

     Thank you, Senator.

188. 0:29:31

     Senator Summers.

189. 0:29:33

     Chairman Goodman, in the essence of where we are and in the posture where we are now, would you consider let's making this a hearing and you working with Senator Walker and Senator Dolezal-

190. 0:29:41

     Well-

191. 0:29:41

     ... and see if we can't perfect this for you?

192. 0:29:43

     Yeah. I, I kinda assumed this was a hearing to start with.

193. 0:29:46

     Okay.

194. 0:29:46

     I, I didn't think we were voting on the bill today.

195. 0:29:47

     Okay.

196. 0:29:48

     I thought it was simple. We were gonna get you in and out here, get you back home. Um-

197. 0:29:52

     When it comes-

198. 0:29:53

     There, there's enough concerns that I'm not so sure you've got enough support to pass it, so if you're willing to do that-

199. 0:29:58

     Yes, sir. I'm willing to work with the committee

200. 0:30:00

     ... take it and come meet out with them and-

201. 0:30:01

     You know you'll get the insurance from Senator Walker, correct?

202. 0:30:04

     If you come up with a, uh, a substitute, just bring it to me. Uh, and if anybody else on the committee has suggestions, everybody's... One of the beauties of a citizen legislature is we all have different experiences, and might have some things we can throw in to help you.

203. 0:30:20

     Sure. Thank you.

204. 0:30:21

     All right.

205. 0:30:21

     Thank y'all for allowing me-

206. 0:30:22

     I appreciate you being here

207. 0:30:22

     ... to have the conversation. Yes, sir.

208. 0:30:25

     Thank you. Thank you.

209. 0:30:25

     It's a good subject. We just, I think we just gotta get it-

210. 0:30:28

     We gotta figure it out. Thank you.

211. 0:30:30

     Yeah.

212. 0:30:31

     Thank you, Senator.

213. 0:30:32

     All right, Senator Hufstetler. Not trying to rush anybody along. It, um, we're gonna try to hold this to about 30 minutes to get folks-

214. 0:30:42

     I don't know about sitting behind

215. 0:30:43

     ... home since we're out tomorrow. I've got you with your committee sub. It is in our folders.

216. 0:30:50

     Mm-hmm.

217. 0:30:50

     It's the one on top, and as, as you... The, the one we're gonna look at to begin with is LC 56-6566S. There's another committee sub you're aware of that's been-

218. 0:31:04

     Mm

219. 0:31:04

     ... prepared by-

220. 0:31:04

     Just, just made aware of that, correct

221. 0:31:05

     ... Senator Summers and Senator Brass that essentially deletes, uh, a portion of yours. So I want you to talk us through your committee sub that you presented with me and tell me-

222. 0:31:17

     All right

223. 0:31:17

     ... what you changed from the original one that we, we passed your bill last year. We've heard it already once this year. I think we're close to, uh, understanding it.

224. 0:31:24

     Okay.

225. 0:31:25

     We only have one person signed up to speak, so-

226. 0:31:27

     Okay. So we on-

227. 0:31:27

     ... lay it on us.

228. 0:31:28

     We only had the, those against it last time, so I, I, but you're, you say there's only one person to speak anyway, so that's, that's good. All right.

229. 0:31:38

     Yeah. Well, if-

230. 0:31:38

     Thank you

231. 0:31:39

     ... if I, if there's other folks that have come to hear, I'll be glad to have them talk.

232. 0:31:43

     I didn't get signed. I'm not gonna

233. 0:31:45

     Yeah, there's a few other, I think.

234. 0:31:46

     And I don't mind if we-

235. 0:31:47

     So might back out. Just lay it back out so anybody else can sign up.

236. 0:31:51

     Now look-

237. 0:31:52

     We picked up the notice about five minutes after the meeting started. We'll put it back out if anybody else wants to sign up.

238. 0:31:57

     Second.

239. 0:31:58

     Did you wanna hear from them first? I mean,

240. 0:31:59

     I want, I wanna hear from you first-

241. 0:32:00

     ... they came here to talk to them

242. 0:32:01

     ... and I want you to tell us what you changed from your original bill.

243. 0:32:07

     Okay. I'm gonna go here first.

244. 0:32:08

     That's great.

245. 0:32:10

     Okay.

246. 0:32:13

     All right. Um, well, I will, I will tell it. I do need to correct a few things.

247. 0:32:19

     In your folder.

248. 0:32:19

     Actually-

249. 0:32:20

     Senate Bill 34 should be-

250. 0:32:23

     But they want to be the passing around.

251. 0:32:30

     I, I do wanna speak to a few things that were said at the last meeting that weren't correct, so, um, I'll do that and explain the difference in my bill and my opinion of the substitute here pretty quickly, I think. But thank you, Chairman Cowsert and members of the Senate Regulated Industry Committee, for allowing me to present this bill. But I did wanna first address a few things that were said that said my statements were false that weren't false. Um, so first of all, the first thing in your folder, if you'll, if you keep them in order, the first thing in your folder is, uh, Georgia rates right off the Public Service Commission website.

252. 0:33:10

     Now, if you look in that first packet stapled together, page two, you'll see the lowest rate in Georgia, middle of the page, squared in, Cobb EMC. For committee members-

253. 0:33:21

     If-

254. 0:33:21

     ... this is the little folder that we just ... Hell, this is not in our folders. It's the one that-

255. 0:33:26

     Just, just information-

256. 0:33:27

     ... Senator Hufstetler just sent around

257. 0:33:27

     ... I'm bringing. So if you go to the top of... And, and there's 100 or so, uh, EMCs, MEAGs, m- uh, utilities in this Georgia. They're all in here. So if you go to top of page three, the one at the top is Georgia Power, and that is the highest rate in the state of Georgia. So what you're saying is that the Walmart of power in Georgia... And, and I'm having to repeat what was said about rates before is why we're doing this. Is much higher than the Publix and the Krogers and the mom-and-pop stores and all them.

258. 0:34:00

     They're the highest in Georgia. If you go to the, uh, second little flyer with the rates on there, you'll see that there is one higher than Georgia in the South, and that's Alabama, which is also a southern company. But if you look at the rates in the South, Alabama and Georgia are the highest in the South on the kilowatt rates. Um, now these numbers, that chart, as I told you, it's straight off the Public Service Commission website.

259. 0:34:33

     Information's off the federal EIA website. So people don't pay in kilowatts, so they pay in dollars, and there's a lot of add-on fees we have in Georgia. And so if you go to the third one, there's a study by Forbes that shows Georgia's being the fifth highest in utilities. Now, if you look at the utilities on there, you look at the water, they're not very high. If you look at the, um, cable, it's not high to the national average.

260. 0:35:03

     Those others, and it, it's, it's, it's electricity and natural gas. And, and, you know, we already saw that the EMCs are actually helping the average in Georgia. It's not them either. So, um, they're not the ones driving up the cost. Now, the next chart you have on there, which is those numbers there, these... If you look on there, that's, that's from the, uh, excuse me, from the, uh, EIA, you know, federal site there, and these numbers are from the PSC.

261. 0:35:41

     The residential rates back in 2010, right after the utility council, that's another bill I know, but right after the Utility Consumer Council was disbanded, were at 10 cents. Now they've gone up to 15 and a half, while the industrial rates have gone up from six to 7 cents. Much higher than the rate of inflation. If you go down to the bottom one there, you'll see that, um, including 2025, residential rates have gone up 83.75%.

262. 0:36:14

     These numbers from the federal government, EIA's website, and the PSC.

263. 0:36:19

     What's EIA stand for? I don't want to be dumb, but-

264. 0:36:22

     Energy, somebody probably- Information. Information. Energy Information Administration. It's the official federal website that lists all the c- energy costs.

265. 0:36:30

     Okay. I just never heard of that agency. I was wondering what it was.

266. 0:36:32

     Yeah.

267. 0:36:33

     Okay.

268. 0:36:34

     So, um, another statement I made was said that the energy demand before data centers were flat. Go to the next chart. You've got 2010. Georgia Power re- retail sales, again, off the federal site, were 87 terabytes. If you go to 2024, 87 terabytes.

269. 0:37:02

     So, um, the reason I did this, anybody can come in here and talk, I bring you numbers. As we heard earlier and, um, had seen that, uh, Southern Company's, um, February 20th, 2025, uh, is planning to spend 34 billion.

270. 0:37:24

     Now, in the bill, I included the four points from the House bill that were suggested last time from 1063. They're in there. But the, those four items only address what the contract would be with a data center.

271. 0:37:40

     Uh, w- so where... Tell me where are those four items. Point me to some lines here.

272. 0:37:43

     All right. I got to, I got to flip to the bill here.

273. 0:37:46

     Okay. This is your committee substitute, 56-0566S.

274. 0:37:53

     Yeah.

275. 0:37:54

     What you did was you took your bill and you combined it with this House bill that we were discussing at our last meeting.

276. 0:38:00

     Correct.

277. 0:38:01

     Picked and choose the parts of theirs you liked.

278. 0:38:03

     So if you go to lines 32 there through 38, that's what-

279. 0:38:11

     I think... Wait a minute. Hang on. Let me find those. Everybody good on the... Do you have the bill?

280. 0:38:17

     It's in another folder. Different, different folder. Not mine, of course.

281. 0:38:19

     In your committee folder.

282. 0:38:19

     It's in your, in your regular folder.

283. 0:38:23

     Lines 32 through 38 is, sets out minimum billing requirements for a data center, a contract term, performance and credit, termination provisions, but that's just with a data center. This doesn't have anything to do about protecting you from overall cost. If, if, uh, data centers take two of those gigabytes, who covers the other eight? Nothing specifies in there what happens on that.

284. 0:38:53

     My original part was in the language up there in sections one and two that says they're related to the provision of electric service of at large, large load customers and would not have been incurred for the electric demand of such large load customers.

285. 0:39:08

     If you go back to-

286. 0:39:08

     So I left my original stuff in there. I did take out substantially, because the data center said they didn't like that word substantially, so I took it out. People suggested I add this language from House Bill 1063, which I did. Um, and in the substitute, my two items are, uh, completely gone. I saw this right before the meeting, and to me, that guts the whole bill. There's no protection. There's only how you have a contract with a data center. So, um,

287. 0:39:41

     you know, we've heard

288. 0:39:45

     that, um, from PSC staff that they're required to make two-year payments. Staff said there's no protection after a few years. And I know the cost of these gas turbines are being spread over 45 years. We've been told there's contracts in place, but we don't know It's all hidden behind trade secrets and secrecy. The bill simply says consumers and small businesses will not pay for costs from these large load customers. People try to cloud the issue with, "Well, we don't know the unintended consequences," or, "What constraints does this put on a big customer coming to the state?" The only constraint on those customers is that the cost can't be put on residential customers.

289. 0:40:27

     If they come here at 2:00 AM and they're using excess power, that doesn't put a cost on the customers, that's fine. But if you build an infrastructure, you're not gonna shift it to the consumers as has been done in the past. Um, so I know you've heard from people, and, and I'll go to this last folder when I talk about the, the last item in there. We'll go ahead and go to it.

290. 0:40:52

     If you see there,

291. 0:40:57

     that's, that's the one if everybody's got it. There's more redactions in this sheet than the Epstein files. There is nothing... I mean, look at it and see. That's, that's what they're telling us. So you heard, "Just trust us. We got it covered. Hang on, and in 2029 the downward pressure may mean rates don't increase quite as fast." These are the same people who said my statements were false, but we need to let the consumers know they're protected by law.

292. 0:41:28

     The Georgia ratepayers and voters are counting on you to protect them. I don't need to remind you of the 63/37% crushing vote the incumbents got just three months ago. They should have supported this bill and showed the voters protection.

293. 0:41:45

     Those who did support this bill are the ones that got elected, and, and I wish the incumbents had, and these people are gonna be back at the ballot box again in May and November. They expect and demand protection, and I would urge you to support Senate Bill 34. Be happy to take any questions.

294. 0:42:02

     I'm, I'm gonna keep it real brief because wanna make, we got some people that signed up to be heard, and I'm gonna try to get a few of them in here. Your original bill essentially was, uh, moved, removed by the, the, the n- proposed committee sub from Senator Summers.

295. 0:42:22

     Right. It, it, it, I added the, the 1063 Brad Thomas' language into mine-

296. 0:42:28

     I see

297. 0:42:28

     ... but kept mine in there. He left Brad's in there but took mine completely out, and that just guts the bill.

298. 0:42:33

     All right. So the committee sub takes out your original bill, puts in the House bill essentially.

299. 0:42:37

     Mm-hmm.

300. 0:42:37

     Okay. Um, anybody got a quick question for Chairman Hufstetler? Otherwise, let's hear a couple people we got signed up that made the effort to come. All right. Thank you.

301. 0:42:50

     Senator Brass.

302. 0:42:50

     All right. Uh, Senator Brass, you are recognized.

303. 0:42:55

     Got you on number one.

304. 0:42:56

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I just, I wanna go through the new language real quick and explain-

305. 0:43:05

     You, you talking about y- the sub you guys are offering or the, or-

306. 0:43:09

     I'm talking about your-

307. 0:43:10

     My bill? Okay

308. 0:43:11

     ... well, either one. It doesn't matter.

309. 0:43:12

     Got it.

310. 0:43:12

     The language is in both.

311. 0:43:14

     Mm-hmm.

312. 0:43:15

     So let's, I'm gonna read it. "Each contract between an electric utility and a large load customer for the provision," and I'm on line 27, uh, "for the provision of electric service entered into or after the effective date of this act shall include terms and conditions designed to protect residential and retail electricity customers from costs associated with serving new large load customers, including but not limited to the following: minimum billing requirements designed to recover incremental costs associated with serving or preparing to serve a large load customer, a contract term that may exceed the length of the applicable service tariff, performance and credit provisions designed to protect retail customers in event of contract default, and terminations provisions designed to protect retail customers in the event of the termination of the contract for electric service." So you're saying, uh, the overall goal of the bill is to ensure retail customers, ratepayers are not paying for upgrades in the system for the data centers.

313. 0:44:29

     Is that correct?

314. 0:44:30

     Accurate.

315. 0:44:31

     So that part, the, the additional language that's being added in either sub is doing it through the contract.

316. 0:44:42

     Mm-hmm.

317. 0:44:43

     Would you agree with that?

318. 0:44:44

     Uh, it, it helps protect, but it says each contract on line 27. How many contracts-

319. 0:44:50

     So then that's all of them.

320. 0:44:52

     That, so, so however-

321. 0:44:53

     So each would be all

322. 0:44:53

     ... many contracts there are, if they don't add up to the expansion, then, um, there's not protection for the consumers. And we saw that the, um, you know, the staff's testimony was the protection wasn't there for the length of these turbines.

323. 0:45:10

     Well, is it, is it-

324. 0:45:10

     This other language-

325. 0:45:11

     Well, is it, is it not true if there's an expansion and it's beyond the l- the total of the contracts, would that not mean that-

326. 0:45:19

     I don't think the expansion would be on the total of the contracts

327. 0:45:20

     ... that the expansion would be on the amount of the contract, so it's, it would be the ratepayers?

328. 0:45:27

     I don't think it protects the ratepayers because it's, it doesn't cover all of the expansion, and we don't know. We saw the redacted sheet. We're told there's contracts there. We don't know exactly how many, um-

329. 0:45:39

     But we have a total, don't we?

330. 0:45:40

     That's why-

331. 0:45:42

     Don't we have a total?

332. 0:45:43

     I don't think we do, but that's why I think the other part up there in line 17 through 22 are important, saying no cost incurred will be put on the, um, from the large load customers. What's wrong with that statement? Seems pretty simple to me.

333. 0:46:00

     I don't have a problem with that statement. Where, where I've got concerns is more when you get into- Lines 23 and four, we're, we're getting into, into rates, which is the legislature gave-

334. 0:46:19

     We're not, we're not telling what rate to charge

335. 0:46:21

     ... the PSC. The, the, the legislature gave the PSC the ability to, to affect rates, not us-

336. 0:46:27

     We're, we're not telling them what rate to charge

337. 0:46:28

     ... a long time ago, long before us.

338. 0:46:29

     We're saying don't put construction costs for data centers in residential and small business rates. But the, the rate they determine, that's what they have been doing and what they would still do.

339. 0:46:43

     Yeah, I just, I mean, my concern is, again, I mean, lines 27, the, the new language that you did agree to add, it does it through, it does what, in my opinion, does what you're trying to do, but is it, it does it through the, through the contract. You're doing it through, I guess you're doing it more through rate setting, which is not-

340. 0:47:06

     No, we're not setting rates

341. 0:47:07

     ... the job of, of, of us.

342. 0:47:10

     We're not setting rates.

343. 0:47:11

     So-

344. 0:47:11

     We're saying what you can't do is put this cost on the residential rates.

345. 0:47:14

     Okay. That's fair. I mean, I just disagree. I, I think-

346. 0:47:17

     Okay

347. 0:47:17

     ... a better way to do it is through the contract, but, um, but that's why we're here, to debate.

348. 0:47:24

     All right.

349. 0:47:24

     Senator Summers, you're recognized for a question.

350. 0:47:27

     Chairman Ufsetter, thank you. Um, n- nothing's intended to gut your bill. It was intended to, uh, 'cause I had questions regarding your bill. The last thing we wanna do is not prot- protect consumers. I mean, that's, that's, that's a given. But how many data centers are there online in Georgia right now, do you know?

351. 0:47:43

     I don't know that number. I know there's, there's data centers that are negotiating here and all over the country, the same group. And I think probably some of them are, are very serious and some of them aren't.

352. 0:47:56

     I couldn't agree with you more. I know there's probably, if I check the website, there's like 50 plus that are-

353. 0:48:02

     Mm

354. 0:48:02

     ... put in whatever they call that study to, s- about Georgia.

355. 0:48:05

     Mm-hmm.

356. 0:48:06

     But none of these data centers were here when these rates went up, basically. These rates have, they increased before the data centers got here. So it concerns me that, you know, I think we've already put legislation in, and we've already tapped on this. And what Senator Brass was just saying is we're not, we, we don't want the data centers costing consumers any money.

357. 0:48:22

     No, and, and, you know, I would, I would say this doesn't go back in time. I wish it did, because you saw the demand's flat for the consumers, and then Vogtle came on board, and that's where the power's going to. But now the residential customers and small business have a 60-year mortgage to pay for Plant Vogtle power that's gonna be used elsewhere, already built into their rates. You saw what's happened to the industrial rates going up a penny while the, um, residential rates over that time period went up over 50%. That's the past.

358. 0:48:52

     I think it's wrong, but I'm only looking at the future.

359. 0:48:56

     Mr. Chairman? Um-

360. 0:48:58

     One more.

361. 0:49:00

     Well, I'll ask a, I'll ask two questions and one then.

362. 0:49:03

     Okay. I'ma, I'ma move on. We're gonna call, uh-

363. 0:49:06

     Okay

364. 0:49:07

     ... Bob Sherer. You can ask him offline.

365. 0:49:21

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name's Bob Sherer. I'm a lawyer at the Southern Environmental Law Center. We're a nonprofit, uh, pro bono law firm where I focus on energy policy. And I do a lot of work at the Public Service Commission representing nonprofit groups that care about both the energy mix on the grid and the bottom line on folks' power bills, both of which are implicated by this data center boom. Georgia Power is doubling its capital infrastructure in the next couple years.

366. 0:49:53

     We have closely reviewed its filings on that in integrated resource plans, rate case related proceedings, certifications, and more. We consult with subject matter experts and offer alternative solutions, and we have asked the commission multiple times to take stronger protective action for customers that it has refused to do. And so I wanna talk briefly today about why I think Senate Bill 34 is needed as it was originally written and, uh, kind of describe the gaps in the protection that the commission and Georgia Power have agreed to, a- as well as in the language from the House bill that I see on, on the substitutes, about why the contracts themselves are far less protective than has been stated.

367. 0:50:40

     And then second, I wanna talk about the roughly $60 billion in costs to add to power bills over the next several decades, uh, and the agreement that was reached to, to put those on folks' bills.

368. 0:50:58

     Shoot. Start talking.

369. 0:51:03

     The, the new contracts that are, that are essentially described in the language from House Bill 1063, um,

370. 0:51:12

     they, uh, there's a number of issues with them. They have not been, you know, gone through a rate case or anything like that, but I'll point out one. Um, the commission's order in April of last year that approved this contracting scheme, it said that if a data center ended its contract early, it would have to pay the minimum billing for the rest of the contract term, for the rest of the 15 years. When Georgia Power finally filed one of these new contracts, it did not include that language.

371. 0:51:43

     In fact, it only required two years of payments for termination on a 15-year plus contract. So more than a decade's worth of bills could go unpaid if, you know, the demand for AI changes in a couple years, if a data center doesn't stick around for the full 15 years. And we don't know why that term changed or that protection went away, but what we do know is that after that happened, the commission staff started talking about in public filings, "Okay, what do we do if there's not enough money if a data center leaves early?"

372. 0:52:21

     The other thing that's important about the, the, the distinction between, uh, Senate Bill 34 and the contract-focused approach is that the contracts look only at the cost of one customer at a time. They do not look at the costs that are getting spent on data centers that either leave early, like I just said, or that do not show up and sign a contract. The Public Service Commission has signed off on around 14,000 megawatts of new capacity in the next couple years, and there's nowhere near 14,000 megawatts o- of new data center load under these new contracts.

373. 0:53:00

     It's not even close. And that is, the commission is allowing Georgia Power to build ahead of signing binding contracts with data centers, and if those contracts don't come or the data centers use less than they predict, we still have to pay the costs that Georgia Power spends. That's what the certification decision means. It means they get to add those costs into folks' bills. They could cancel the projects later. They could cancel on one of these new power plants, but any of the costs spent to date go on people's power bills, and there's no protection for those kind of costs when you look at it contract by contract, data center at a, single data center at a time.

374. 0:53:44

     I, I'm happy to, to answer any questions that folks might have about, you know, some of the, the rate-making agreements that have been reached in the last couple years. Um, but what I'm, what I'm saying is that Senate Bill 34 is not duplicative. It provides a backstop. It doesn't say, "Commission, here's how you protect customers." It just says, "You know what? You can go through the rate-making process, and however you decide is best, that's fine. Just make sure that none of these data center costs, none of these large load costs show up on residential bills." And I think that's the approach that makes more sense.

375. 0:54:21

     You say, "The outcome we want is that." And you know, when you hear from the data centers and Georgia Power and even the commission to an extent that, you know, "We're already doing this. You don't need the Senate Bill 34," you know, what I hear as someone who does a lot of work at the Public Service Commission is them saying, "Don't make it enforceable. Leave us the option to subsidize data centers down the road with residential bills." Thank you.

376. 0:54:54

     What, what if we just codified word for word the, the rule or regulation that you keep referencing that the PSC passed?

377. 0:55:04

     That is f- essentially what House Bill 1063 does. The, the commission's rule is als- applies only to Georgia Power's discretion when it enters contracts.

378. 0:55:15

     So that's not enough for you?

379. 0:55:16

     That's not enough.

380. 0:55:17

     Okay. Any other members have questions? All right. Thank you for being here, and, uh, I've got a couple more.

381. 0:55:23

     Thank you.

382. 0:55:24

     Uh, Liz Coyle, Georgia Watch.

383. 0:55:32

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm Liz Coyle. I'm the executive director of Georgia Watch. We're a statewide consumer advocacy organization. As some of you will remember since you've seen me here before, uh, we've spent a lot of time down at the Public Service Commission intervening in rate cases, uh, all the Vogel, Vogel hearings that went on for many, many years. Um, and so I was really concerned, uh, when the commission took the action they did in, in late December to authorize the company to build out 10,000 megawatts on top of the four they'd approved just a couple years before, um, uh, knowing that that would be the equivalent of a couple more Plant Vogels and knowing the cost on that.

384. 0:56:17

     You know, you hear minimum figures of 16 billion, but realistically, you know, you're seeing estimates once you add on things that go into the revenue requirement, like Southern Company's profit and income taxes on the profit, you know, you're looking at amounts that get up to what Plant Vogel ended up costing the people of Georgia. And, um, y- I know you know, you know, we have a toll-free consumer hotline. People call us all the time because they can't afford their power bills, and they're worried they're gonna lose their electricity, and I know your constituents are calling you about that same thing.

385. 0:56:52

     We've heard the company, uh, in the last hearing on this testify, uh, and talk in public settings about the fact that, well, people's power bills, you know, the rates are frozen. Well, people's bills aren't frozen. People's bills are still going up, and frozen just means we're not gonna get to look under the hood of how much is being spent in the next three years before the next rate case. And, uh, if they l- move forward with building out the capacity to serve all of these so-called data centers, large load customers that are coming, and those customers don't come, well, the Public Service Commission has already certified for them to do that build-out.

386. 0:57:42

     That is what has me so worried, that we could end up finding three to five years from now that all of Georgia Power's customers... 'Cause that's the construct, right? The P- Public Service Commission says, "You have authorization to build," and Georgia Power will say, "Well, you told me I, I, well, we could build this. We've built it. Now you know we have a right to recover those costs from our customers. We'd like to say it's gonna be the data centers, but if that doesn't happen and we've done all this build-out, our customers are still gonna have to pay." That's why I think Senator Hufstetler's version of SB34 is what this committee should seriously look at and pass.

387. 0:58:27

     Questions from committee members? Thank you for being with us, Liz. Dr. Conrad Hayashi.

388. 0:58:40

     Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman, members. I thank you very much for having an opportunity to speak. I have, uh, just over, uh, 30 years of military experience, uh, and then worked within CDC and looked at public health issues. But I've been examining and following, uh, a lot of the metrics as a, someone trained in epidemiology, looking at the issue of costs, recovery, uh, price earnings, et cetera, and, uh, thus brought me and my family to be strongly supportive of Senate Bill 34.

389. 0:59:12

     A number of reasons, uh, having been in the military a long time before I went to CDC, I experienced a time, and many of us may have remembered seeing reports about, oh, uh, $500 toilet seats and, uh, $300 ashtrays that the military was buying, and these were scandalous. Well, I think the scandal is also that we are b- we have been buying essentially cost plus with Southern Company and Georgia Power.

390. 0:59:44

     And, uh, the finance, uh, equities firm, uh, Jefferies & Company examined and was looking at some, a lot of the details for, uh, Southern Company and Georgia Power and projected as far as, uh, as, uh, Ms. Coyle mentioned, some numbers that would cost as much as Vogtle, but also came up to figures of up to 80 to $82 million, uh, excuse me, billion dollars, uh, within five years. So if you're working on cost plus and we are guaranteeing that we are going to pay profits, uh, this becomes a pig in a poke.

391. 1:00:21

     There's, uh, looking at The Economist and other journals, there's a lot of speculation about whether, uh, there is a AI bubble that is coming. And so if these companies end up not, or only a few companies end up becoming dominant and buying out others, uh, you'll have like empty Walmart malls. I mean, giant things. And also these things have a significant impact, uh, potentially on public health because of the use of the amounts of water, uh, the noise, uh, low frequency issues and so forth.

392. 1:00:58

     So, uh, in terms of contracts and so forth, I think about what Ronald Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." And we have not been able to verify or have good reason to trust, uh, Southern Company and Georgia Power. So, uh, I, I view this as a organization. Uh, the company has essentially said, "We want to socialize the expenses, uh, additional expenses, build-outs, infrastructure, but we will privatize the profits." That is not the American way.

393. 1:01:34

     The difference between Southern Company and me is that I am a capitalist. So I appreciate, uh, any support that you can give for, uh, Senator Hufstetler's bill, and thank you for your consideration on this.

394. 1:01:49

     Thank you. Amy Sharma. Let me tell you what we're gonna do. We're gonna hear... Is Amy Sharma here?

395. 1:01:56

     Yes.

396. 1:01:57

     We're gonna hear from you. I also have my old law school classmate, Bobby Baker, now known as Robert Baker, signed up, former PSC commissioner, and Aaron Mitchell from Georgia Power. We're not gonna vote on this today. I, we had a six-hour debate on the floor of the Senate on, uh, reducing taxes. I do not expect to hear any more public comment on this. This is our second full day of it. I'm going to now have to engage a little bit with all the, the parties. I had Georgia Power and Public Service Commission lined up to meet with me at 1:00 today so I could hear them before, and it's not fair to, to vote on this without me getting meaningful input from them and those of you that have these varying, uh, now committee substitutes.

397. 1:02:41

     But I wanna hear from you, uh, and you are with Science for Georgia.

398. 1:02:46

     Yeah. Thank you. Uh, good afternoon, all. Uh, my name's Amy, Dr. Amy Sharma. I'm the executive director of Science for Georgia. Uh, we're a nonprofit organization working to get science out of the lab and onto the streets. Um, I'm a proud subject matter expert on this data center shenanigans. Uh, I used to build chips for IBM, so when I say the data centers can do better, I can nerd out and tell you why, but I am not here to nerd out today, so I got you.

399. 1:03:18

     Uh, I recently completed a study with Greenlink Analytics, and we used forecasts from subject matter experts around the world, and they are like the International Energy, Energy Agency and Lawrence Berkeley and, uh, Boston Consultants. And as we looked at these forecasts for what we thought data center build-out was gonna be over the next 10 years, each subsequent forecast shifted down. The only people shifting demand up are the power companies.

400. 1:03:49

     So as the good doctor just said, this is a bubble. Uh, and we found demand in the Southeast will most likely be about half of what has just been approved by the Public Service Commission. And actually, 10 gigawatts of demand only has a 1 in 500 chance of happening. Uh, that's less than 20, uh, .1 per, or that's less than 1%. Uh, also less than 1% right now, the percent of GDP growth not related to data center and data center expenses.

401. 1:04:26

     Holy crap, I got some tulips to spend, sell you too. So everybody's independent analysis is pointing to approximately half the new demand. The reason SB 34, as substituted by Senator Hufstetler here, is so good is that if we go ahead and we build these 10 to 14 new gigawatts of power supply and the demand never materializes, all that means is that the good citizens of Georgia do not have to pay for this overbuild.

402. 1:05:00

     That's all we're asking for is that for the PSC to figure out how to pay for this without raising, uh, residential rate payers. That's it. So as Hufstetler has amended it, is the way to go. Thank you all for your time.

403. 1:05:16

     Thank you. All right, so, uh, with that, we're gonna conclude the hearing today. Um, Mr. Chairman, I can't tell you exactly what day. I'm concerned we may not sort through the committee sub before Tuesday's meeting. We must meet Tuesday and Thursday of next week, but I will, uh, I'll talk with you over the weekend, see if we can, can do it then. The only other public comment I would invite is from Georgia Power to be heard and the Public Service Commission, and of course you, um, before we m- make a decision.

404. 1:05:49

     So let me, I'll let you know when I can get you on. And for now, we are adjourned. Thank you. And Bobby Baker.