--- title: Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee, March 27, 2026 collection: meetings id: 2026-03-27/senate-regulated-industries-and-utilities cite_as: Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee, March 27, 2026, video https://vimeo.com/1177478094 (machine transcript by Georgia Commons) canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-27/senate-regulated-industries-and-utilities md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-27/senate-regulated-industries-and-utilities.md text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-27/senate-regulated-industries-and-utilities/text source_url: https://vimeo.com/1177478094 date: 2026-03-27 status: machine transcript corpus_version: meetings-2026-10-23-8c15ead0f18d license: Machine transcript and summaries by Georgia Commons from the General Assembly's public video; the video stays on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel; see about.md publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice. up: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-27.md previous: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-26/senate-finance.md next: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-27/house-special-rules.md index: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/index.md chamber: Senate body: Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee body_url: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/senate-regulated-industries-and-utilities.md meeting_kind: committee session: 2025-2026 Regular Session start_time: 2026-03-27T08:00:00-04:00 location: 450 CAP duration_seconds: 5529.0 video_id: 1177478094 video_title: 03/27/2026 Senate Committee on Regulated Industries and Utilities agenda_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/agendas/senate/RIUAgenda3.27.26.pdf bills_discussed: - HB 34 - HB 1027 summaries_model: gpt-6.1-sol transcript_turns: 288 --- # Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee, March 27, 2026 Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee; March 27, 2026; 2025-2026 Regular Session. Video, on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel: https://vimeo.com/1177478094. Agenda: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/agendas/senate/RIUAgenda3.27.26.pdf. > This is a machine transcript of the General Assembly's video, made by a speech-recognition model. It is not an official record and can mishear words, names, and numbers. Speakers are not identified. The video is the record: every timestamp links to the moment it plays. ## Summary written by Georgia Commons Written by gpt-6.1-sol from the transcript below. It is not part of the record. Quote the transcript or the video, not the summary. The committee approved amended versions of two bills. [HB 34](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/hb34) would tighten rules for hemp beverages, including reducing the allowed THC amount and requiring driving-related warnings. Members removed a provision allowing sales in liquor stores, rejected a motion to postpone action, and passed the amended substitute. [HB 1027](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/hb1027) would allow certain electric-power contracts lasting up to 20 years. Discussion focused on requiring large customers such as data centers to pay their share of new generating capacity and protecting other customers from those costs. The committee approved that substitute 9 to 1, subject to editing, and sent it to the Rules Committee. ## Bills discussed (2) Each account was written by gpt-6.1-sol from the stretch of the transcript it names. The bill's number is said in that stretch, unless it was the only bill on a committee's agenda. ### HB 34. Professional licensing boards; continuing education tracking solution to monitor compliance of licenses with applicable continuing education requirements; establish [HB 34](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/hb34) (2025-2026 Regular Session). From [0:20:06](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1206s), turns 5 to 127. The chair said the substitute would reduce the hemp-beverage limit from 10 to 5 milligrams per 12-ounce serving, require warnings about impairment and driving, and revise the definition of intoxicating cannabinoids to address alternative THC compounds. The chair said limits for gummies and other products would remain unchanged. Asked about the Agriculture Department’s opposition, the chair said the department preferred its current 10-milligram limit. One member opposed expanding sales to liquor stores and offered an amendment removing that provision, which passed 5 to 4. Another member sought to postpone action until federal changes expected in November, citing packaging costs and the department’s opposition. That motion failed. The chair argued that lower limits and warnings would protect drivers during the intervening months. Another member warned of harm to businesses, disputed using California’s restrictions as a safety argument, and said impairment must be established rather than inferred from consumption alone. Members debated THC testing and whether an outright ban would be preferable. The chair declined a late request to offer another amendment because voting had begun. The committee passed the substitute as amended; a complete final vote count was not stated. ### HB 1027. Local government; authorize certain long-term contracts for sale of electric power [HB 1027](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/hb1027) (2025-2026 Regular Session). From [0:37:37](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2257s), turns 127 to 285. The chair said the bill would extend certain electric-power contracts from 10 to 20 years to accommodate large customers such as data centers. The sponsor said the substitute replaced retail-rate restrictions with requirements that large customers pay their share of new generating capacity during the initial contract, while municipal participants pay no more than their proportional share. MEAG Power’s general counsel said Fulton County Superior Court would review the contracts through its bond-validation process, which supports borrowing terms. A member asked why that court was specified; the witness cited MEAG’s governing law. The chair questioned whether removing rate restrictions could let data centers receive preferential prices and give MEAG an advantage over other utilities. Another member argued that equal-rate requirements could disadvantage MEAG because large, steady loads differ from residential use. The witness said MEAG would negotiate large-customer energy prices centrally, while ordinary municipal rates vary. The sponsor maintained that construction-cost requirements would protect other customers and provide comparable treatment to Georgia Power. Legislative counsel identified drafting errors and an unintended removal of existing utility-contract requirements; the sponsor said that removal was not intended. The committee approved the substitute 9 to 1, subject to editing, and sent it to Rules. ## Transcript (288 turns) [0:19:12](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1152s) Yeah, we're gonna recognize Senator Albers for a quick announcement. [0:19:15](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1155s) If I could have everybody's attention. This is the last committee meeting for Chairman Bill Cowsert, who has been a dear friend of mine and so many people in this building. In the 16 years that I've gotten to serve, there is no one has ever walked in this building that has chaired a committee better, more thorough, has done it with grace, uh, has been more well-prepared for the people who have come before him, as well as us. He's been a tremendous mentor to me and a dear friend. [0:19:44](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1184s) Thank you. [0:19:44](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1184s) And I'd just like to ask each one of us to give him a round of applause for the great work. Chairman Cowsert. [0:19:47](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1187s) Thank you very much. So, man, I'm glad I recognized you now. Uh, [0:19:56](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1196s) we just have two matters to deal with, and, uh, one of them is still really a little bit of a work in progress. The first was our substitute to House Bill 34. This was the one that put in the hemp, uh, beverage re- regulations. It reduced from 10 milligrams to 5 milligrams per 12-ounce serving, required a warning label on the cans to let folks know that they would impair you and could render you DUI, uh, and it allowed the sale of hemp beverages in liquor stores. [0:20:28](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1228s) As, uh, we've heard all the testimony on this, there was a quick little... Only reason we didn't have to show it again is there was a change in the definition of intoxicating cannabinoids that had to be consistent with the current law. What is the pleasure of committee on this bill? [0:20:46](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1246s) You've got a question over here. [0:20:47](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1247s) I've got a question from Senator Jones. [0:20:50](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1250s) Oh, uh, no, I was just pulling up my chair. [0:20:51](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1251s) All right. [0:20:52](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1252s) Is any... I have a question, Mr. Chairman. [0:20:57](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1257s) Go right ahead. [0:20:57](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1257s) I- is it possible we can hear from the agriculture department or any of those people? [0:21:01](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1261s) They've already con- conferred with me on it. They, they are opposed to the bill. [0:21:07](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1267s) I make a motion. [0:21:07](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1267s) All right, recognize Senator Albers for a motion. [0:21:10](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1270s) I make a motion to pass, Mr. Chairman. [0:21:12](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1272s) And that's by substitute LC56-0699S. [0:21:16](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1276s) Yes, sir. [0:21:17](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1277s) All right. Is there a second? [0:21:19](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1279s) Second. [0:21:20](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1280s) Got a second from Senator Ginn. Any discussion or proposed amendments? [0:21:24](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1284s) Mr. Chairman, I got a question. [0:21:26](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1286s) I got a question from Senator Dolezal. [0:21:29](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1289s) Thank you, Chairman. Could you summarize, uh, from your conversations with the department, what the, what the opposition is? Is there anything we can do to assuage those concerns as you see it? [0:21:39](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1299s) I, I think they like their 10-milligram limit, as I understand it. Um, that's their current rule and regulation. And as we discussed, federal law now as of November 1st, it'll only be .4 milligrams per, uh, serving or container. This doesn't change the, the limits of the gummies or other type of products, just the beverages. And they currently, they cannot be sold in a, a liquor store because they're deemed to be a food product. But this would allow that, which seems to me to be a more appropriate place, especially if they're limited in the amount of intoxicating THC. [0:22:17](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1337s) This closes that THC loophole where they've been circumventing the Delta-9 with Delta-8, Delta-10, Delta-11, various other compounds. Senator Ginn, you're recognized. [0:22:26](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1346s) Uh, Mr. Chairman, on line 227, [0:22:31](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1351s) the, uh, it, it, it mentions 10. I haven't read through the whole section, but I'm, I'm looking at that and I'm thinking, "Okay, you're, you're lowering it, but, but here it's referencing 10, so- [0:22:44](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1364s) That's in the gummies, the food products. We're not changing those. [0:22:48](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1368s) Okay. [0:22:49](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1369s) It, it was just... Yeah, that's, uh, that's talking about the, uh, the other consumable hemp products. If you turn the page to the top of page 10, you'll see the, the reference to the, the, the beverages. [0:23:04](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1384s) Mr. Chairman, I got a question. [0:23:06](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1386s) Go ahead. [0:23:07](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1387s) I have a question for the chairman. [0:23:08](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1388s) All right. You got a question from President Pro Tem. [0:23:13](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1393s) Uh, I hadn't been s- super involved with this conversation, so I apologize if y'all have already gone over this, but the expanding the, the distribution of this through liquor stores is... I, I don't really particularly care for that idea. Um, d- d- would they be able to sell gummies in liquor stores? Maybe they already can. I don't, I don't know. [0:23:42](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1422s) This doesn't address that. It just addresses the beverages. [0:23:47](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1427s) The beverage products, I see it. I mean, it, it just seems like we're being, uh... You know, we, we won't allow g- grocery stores to sell High Noon. It, it just doesn't... It seems, uh, strange to me that we're- [0:24:05](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1445s) Yeah. [0:24:05](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1445s) We on, on one, on one front we're like, "We wanna protect the, the system that we've had, and you can't sell anything but malt beverage products in grocery stores." But on the other hand, we're gonna let the liquor store sell whatever they want to. I don't know. [0:24:22](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1462s) No, that's a, that is a policy debate. I was trying to, uh, get my vice chairman to vote to support the bill, but he had a separate bill to allow the sale in, in liquor stores, so I implemented it in this bill, and then he voted against it anyway. So if you want to amend and take that out, that's fine with me. Um- [0:24:39](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1479s) I'd offer that amendment, Mr. Chairman. [0:24:41](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1481s) Okay. [0:24:43](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1483s) But at the appropriate time. I don't, I don't know if that- [0:24:46](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1486s) No, it's now, while this, the bill's on the- [0:24:49](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1489s) It's on for discussion [0:24:50](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1490s) ... for discussion. Let me try to find you the- [0:24:51](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1491s) This line. [0:24:52](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1492s) Location. [0:24:53](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1493s) It's in section four. It's on page 11, looks like to me. [0:24:58](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1498s) That is. [0:24:59](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1499s) All right. [0:24:59](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1499s) And so you would be- [0:25:00](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1500s) Strikes all of C [0:25:01](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1501s) ... deleting lines 253 through 255. [0:25:03](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1503s) Second. [0:25:04](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1504s) And that's seconded by Senator Albers. Uh, Senator Summers, you are recognized for a question or discussion. [0:25:11](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1511s) How about a discussion to start with, Mr. Chairman? Here we are fixing to change something that we just got through beating up the last couple years, and we're, we're getting ahead of the f- federal government. They're gonna make a ruling, as you keep saying, in November. It would be prudent, in my opinion, to wait till November to see what the federal government decides to do, and then we follow what the federal government decides to do, instead of us trying to get ahead of the federal government and make these changes. And if you... [0:25:41](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1541s) And if, a- and if we, and if we implement this stuff and it's not right, then we're back fighting this same thing again and be- and beating this horse. Right now, all labeling and all packages would have to be changed if we, if we do this. I can assure you the agriculture department is not for this, and they're the one policing this thing. So I'd like to table this bill, make a motion to table this bill, and hold off on this bill until the federal government makes their ruling. So I'd like to put that tabling motion on the table, Mr. Chairman. [0:26:08](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1568s) That motion would be in order. Is there a second? [0:26:11](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1571s) Second. [0:26:11](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1571s) Second by Senator Jones. Any discussion on that? It would be my preference that we deal with this. And I'd remind you, we passed this bill last year, and it went to the floor of the Senate where they made the restrictions even tighter. This is your body. The Senate made it that it would be zero THC in the beverages. [0:26:32](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1592s) I believe they tried to ban everything. [0:26:33](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1593s) They did. And this... And they passed that bill. So the will of the Senate is that we not sell these hemp products whatsoever. This bill is a compromise. The current rules and regulations allow up to 10 milligrams per beverage. This takes it to five. It also says, uh, that if the federal ban remains in effect, then that will supersede this law. What- what you're looking at is really an eight-month period here. Are we gonna continue selling these products that all the testimony is two and a half milligrams per serving is enough to get you high, and let people go out there and drive and not realize that it may limit their ability to drive? [0:27:15](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1635s) Are we gonna put this in effect to limit it from 10 to five until November when it goes to 4.4 milligrams or not? Um, all in favor of tabling the bill, raise your hand. All opposed. All right, the nays have it. All right, the amendment is now in order, uh, for removing essentially lines 250 and 200. [0:27:41](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1661s) Chairman, can I- [0:27:42](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1662s) You. [0:27:42](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1662s) It seems like the only thing that would be left in section four, uh, basically I think it would be back to the original law of section four. [0:27:50](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1670s) Okay. Would that be fair for your motion to remove- [0:27:53](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1673s) Yes. I, I make the motion to remove section four. [0:27:55](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1675s) All right. All in favor, raise your hand. It's been seconded. One, two, three, all, four, uh, five. All opposed. Four. Okay, so that amendment passes. Now the underlying bill without section four is on the- [0:28:16](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1696s) Mr. Chairman. [0:28:16](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1696s) Yes, sir. [0:28:17](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1697s) Just, Senator- [0:28:18](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1698s) Yeah [0:28:19](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1699s) ... as we're getting, uh, ready to vote for the bill, um, I just want to bring a couple of things to our attention. As we're getting ready to do this, which would cause, um, major problems for, for a lot of our business folks out there. One of the things that w- was stated the other day was about California, that California was so liberal and they've even banned it. And I always knew that as a senator from, a good friend from Macon says, "It's all about the money." And so I will tell you this, one of the things that when you really look at it, and I'll read this to you, "The Origin Council standing opposed to an earlier version because the, the word, the, the new law would bring hemp THC into the state's marijuana framework sold at dispensaries." This was a battle between those who want it sold at dispensaries and those who did not. [0:29:06](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1746s) This was not about saving children and things of that nature. It was a money battle. That's what it was. And then, of course, when you read about it, Gavin Newsom jumps up and says he want... And I know he's a Democrat, but I'm gonna call it out. He jumps up and says, talks, and says it's about saving children, but it wasn't. It was a money battle, because some people didn't want it to be in dispensaries. Others were like, "You can sell it into the grocery stores." And what they did just ended up banning it. But it had nothing to do with children. It had nothing to do with morality. It was all about money. And that's what we're kinda adopting here and putting a lot of folks out of business to some extent. [0:29:39](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1779s) Other issue that w- that came up was when you start talking about DUI. As a former prosecutor of DUI, it is harder to prove, um, DUI, but that's how it should be when you start talking about DUI drugs, because it's our obligation to prove these cases. But the fact of the matter is saliva tests are actually more, more pronounced now. They're getting better. The saliva tests actually can show now when you actually have used, unlike the blood test. I believe Alabama's now actually doing trials. Other states are doing trials as far as saliva tests are concerned. So technology's actually catching up to that. [0:30:10](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1810s) But what I don't want us to do is adopt something based on when we looking at other states and say that they banned it is that they banned it because of truth, justice, and the American way. Well, maybe it was, 'cause it was about money, but that's all it was. Let's understand that. That's all it was. And I'm not saying that's what's driving this committee, but what I am saying is let's don't have blinders on when we point to what other people may are doing. And I think that we owe it to folks out here who've been kinda transforming their sales from one industry to another, or not necessarily transforming, but certainly now the TH sales have gone up, and so beer and liquor sales maybe going down a little bit, and yet they're gonna be suffering. [0:30:52](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1852s) And let's see what the federal government is gonna do. I think that's the key thing. Let's wait and see what the federal government is gonna do. And there's no doubt that what they're arguing about is money, too, quite frankly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. [0:31:04](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1864s) Thank you. Senator Albers. [0:31:07](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1867s) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a, a quick comment. I think if we waited on the federal government, uh, Mr. Leader, uh, nothing would ever get done, uh, based on their track record over the last 100 years. [0:31:17](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1877s) Thank you. [0:31:17](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1877s) However, um, I'm, I'm very appreciative that you pointed out that, uh, from very liberal California, their, their governor, Gavin Newsom, apparently has lied according to you, and, uh, we'll, we'll definitely keep that in mind in, uh, future presidential elections. Thank you so much. [0:31:31](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1891s) Thank you so much. [0:31:32](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1892s) What I did is actually show what's real- [0:31:34](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1894s) Yeah [0:31:34](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1894s) ... to assembly. [0:31:35](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1895s) Thank you. Recognized, sir. [0:31:36](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1896s) Because that is the fact of the matter, and politics can take a backseat to persons' livelihoods. And I would say this, when we start talking about the T- let me also mention, Mr. Chair, when we talk about the THC drinks, I do want to point out this. THC drinks in California still are legal. They're l- they're sold. They're just not hemp drinks. Those are the ones that they banned. Let me read this to you right quick, Mr. Chair. "The highest high at the best price. Same high sipper will get you there quicker. These hitters pack 100 milligrams of THC and smack as hard as your favorite throwback iced tea." That is sold in California. [0:32:13](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1933s) That is one drink. [0:32:15](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1935s) And that will kill you. [0:32:16](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1936s) And that w- it, it absolutely will. [0:32:18](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1938s) All right. Listen here- [0:32:19](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1939s) But the bottom line is, but the bottom line is, but we're not talking about 100 milligrams. But the bottom line is, let's don't use a state that had a money battle to put these folks out of business. [0:32:28](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1948s) Thank you. I'm listening to the governor. That, that was part of the debate in California. You're accurate on that, on the, the THC being an intoxicant. DUI drugs is under 46-391(6), and it is any level of THC in your system under current evaluation, blood test, is DUI. And this warning is just to let people know that these, these hemp THC beverages, it's... I'll read it. "Consumption of this product may impair the ability to operate a motor vehicle." That is accurate. [0:33:02](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=1982s) "Consumption of this product before operating a motor vehicle may constitute a violation of the DUI statute." It's just let people know when they're dr- drinking these, don't be driving a car because you may be impaired. And even if your argument's right that you might not currently be impaired, you are DUI under Georgia law. Let's warn drivers before they drink these beverages, uh, don't bi- don't drive a car. All right, Senator Ginn. [0:33:30](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2010s) Mr. Chairman. Yeah, thank you. I, I have a, a question on that, uh, DUI test, and I, I, I'm not sure which one of the lawyers in the room want to answer it for me. But the, the, the THC stays in your bloodstream for up to 30 days, and I don't know if it's a cumulative effect or how it works, but, you know, if, if somebody has... You, you can do the math on alcohol and kind of how long it takes to, for it to dissipate in your body and that kind of stuff. On the THC, somebody has one of these drinks on Monday, one of them on Wednesday, one of them on f- three of them on Friday, Sunday, uh, oh, well, Saturday they get pulled over for the, uh, something and suspected to be DUI. [0:34:13](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2053s) All those things are gonna add up in their system, and they may not be high at the time, what, what may mean m- dysfunctional, but the, the only test that we have right now is, is the THC in the bloodstream, is it not? [0:34:25](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2065s) Right now. [0:34:27](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2067s) And I mean, why would we not just say, "Hey, we want to ban this," because we put everybody at risk, uh, in this case. The driver, the, the, the person that wants to use the, the product, the, the, uh, public that's out there if they are indeed impaired, the, uh, the insurance companies in the, in our state. These, to me, I, I'm, I'm trying to figure it out. It's doesn't make sense that, that we're legitimizing, uh, this and, and n- n- not doing an outright ban in Georgia. I know we can't do what, you know, uh, on the federal government, but where'd we miss that boat? [0:35:02](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2102s) Can't help you with that. [0:35:03](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2103s) Oh. S- Senator Jones, you, you, you were a prosecutor. [0:35:06](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2106s) Senator Jones. [0:35:06](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2106s) Yes. Um, no, you're not... Your argument basically is that you're saying that the ingesting it, uh, of, of something that's legal right now is automatically make somebody commit a crime, because DUI is a crime. He did recognize me. [0:35:23](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2123s) I did. [0:35:23](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2123s) Because DUI is a crime, but there's ways of actually showing that, where you could do field sobriety test. They don't get arrested to actually do the test until the officer's made a determination that they are impaired, and there's certain field sobriety tests that they can go through to, to actually do that. So I think it's a fallacy though to say, well, these persons who drink this drink is any more likely to commit a crime than a person who drinks, um, alcohol. Because if, if we kind of use that logic, then we ought to ban alcohol. And, and the only reason why we don't do that, because alcohol allows us to be ... [0:35:54](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2154s) So I mean, if you, if you're consistent with it, if you're really consistent with the argument, but that's really the key. When you say, well, if a person just use it, no, the, the, they're using it is not committing a crime. The crime is using it to where you're impaired, and the impairment can be shown through field sobriety evaluations, and there are different ones to show for marijuana, there are different ones to show for alcohol. The field sobriety evaluations work a little bit differently for both. Um, sometimes they're a little harder to prove, but it still is a requirement to do that. But they don't take the test until they're arrested because the deputy believes they've committed the crime of driving under the influence of drugs. [0:36:31](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2191s) That has already been determined. So it, don't say that, well, if a person drinks this, they're automatically in violation of the law. That's not, that's not accurate at all, any more than when we go to a football game and have a drink, we're not in automatically violation of the law. [0:36:43](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2203s) Thank you. [0:36:44](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2204s) And the, uh- [0:36:44](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2204s) All right [0:36:44](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2204s) ... Chairman, one, one last thing. In our folder there's a, there's an amendment, the AM560074. The, uh, ah, are, are we gonna, gonna take up that amendment? I'd like to if we can. [0:36:56](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2216s) Nobody brought that amendment forward. [0:36:58](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2218s) The, uh, well, is it too- [0:37:00](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2220s) I- [0:37:00](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2220s) Is it too late for me to offer this, this amendment- [0:37:02](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2222s) It is [0:37:02](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2222s) ... and with a slight change for- [0:37:03](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2223s) It is at this time. We had amendments. We had discussion. The move do pass, uh- Substitute to HB 34 as amended is now being voted on. [0:37:15](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2235s) Raise your hand. No questions. [0:37:15](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2235s) We've already called the vote, no. All in favor, raise your hand. All opposed. Got three, four against. [0:37:26](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2246s) Raise your hand. [0:37:27](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2247s) Okay. [0:37:27](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2247s) Raising up your hand. [0:37:28](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=2248s) Bill passes. I gotta take a five-minute recess to look at a committee sub that came in late last night on the, the, the remaining bill, House Bill 1027. Give us five minutes, and let me just make sure we can understand what we have and decide whether we're gonna vote on it and make sure the members have copies of this. Thank you. We'll be in recess for five minutes. [0:59:22](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=3562s) All right. We have printed new copies of a committee substitute that I'm gonna let Representative Anderson present here when we reconvene here in just one second. They're making copies for committee members now. [0:59:40](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=3580s) Representative, if you'll come forward, I'm gonna let you explain the changes that were made from the version we looked at on Tuesday, I suppose it was. Just give us one second to make sure they bring these copies out so that everybody knows what we're talking about. [1:00:01](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=3601s) This is the... This is a copy of it. Glance over it real quick. It is slightly, with the language. [1:00:23](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=3623s) Yeah. Just to refresh committee members, we had this bill deals with the ability of MEAG utilities to essentially be able to contract with the large data centers, the large load customers. And the current law limits the length of contracts they can have with customers to 10 years. The large power use data centers, um, would like to have a guarantee of power for at least 20 years at a, at a guaranteed rate. [1:00:59](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=3659s) And one reason they want that is they're being asked to pay a good portion of the construction cost for new power generation up front. We had looked at the original bill that passed the House, and we recognized that in SB 410, we had adopted the Public Service Commission's rules and regulations for Georgia Power on, on their contractual provisions on these type of lo- large load customers. And there was discussion in this committee that we wanted to make sure the MEAGs were on a level playing field with the Georgia Power contracts and vice versa, that didn't have an advantage. [1:01:38](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=3698s) So I've had discussions with the author and members of MEAG about how to do that and to protect the ratepayers from inadvertently absorbing the cost of these new power generation to, to fuel essentially the, the data centers, and I believe that's what this committee sub does. And I'm gonna let Representative Anderson present it and explain to us what changes you've made and just maybe walk through what it does. Just give us a couple more minutes. [1:02:08](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=3728s) They are literally- [1:02:09](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=3729s) Yes, sir [1:02:09](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=3729s) ... copying the, the document now. They're gonna be in here I hope any second. [1:02:16](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=3736s) What's the bill number again? [1:02:18](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=3738s) Th- this is House Bill 1027. It's not in your folder 'cause we're working off a committee sub that is being printed. Um... [1:02:37](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=3757s) I called it House. [1:02:45](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=3765s) Oh, bless. [1:03:47](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=3827s) Thank you. [1:03:49](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=3829s) All right. We are now back in order. And I'm gonna ask you please, Representative Anderson, to review with us again House- the substitute to House Bill 1027. [1:04:02](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=3842s) Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, uh, I appreciate all the efforts that have gone in to, to try to make this bill as, as good as it can be and all the discussions we've had. Uh, the version that we're looking at, that's, that's in front of you now of, uh, House Bill 1027, and it's my understanding this still has to be finalized and reviewed at, at- [1:04:23](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=3863s) Yeah, it's not out of edit team- [1:04:25](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=3865s) Okay [1:04:25](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=3865s) ... in legislative council, if they can have it prepared. [1:04:28](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=3868s) The, the, the fundamental difference between this bill and the bill we considered last in this committee is, uh, a couple of things. One, uh, the references to retail customer rates have been removed, uh, and in, in the place of that, and what that was, uh, doing in the other bill was to basically ensure- Protection of our smaller customers, residential, small commercial, that sort of thing, from incurring additional costs due to large load customers. In place of that, the provision in here regarding the Superior Court review of the, the, uh, the contract, we're, we're retaining the ability to enter into up to 20-year contracts, uh, will also include a, uh, provision requiring that the large load customer, any additional, uh, generating capacity required to be constructed to serve that customer, that they pay 100% of their portion of the cost of that generation during the term of that initial contract. [1:05:28](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=3928s) And the protection that any municipality or member of MEAG that contracts for the balance, if there is any, of that generating capacity pays no more than their pro rata portion of that generating capacity. So it's, uh, uh, it do- by doing that, you have the effect of protecting, uh, your smaller load ratepayers. [1:05:58](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=3958s) Pete, uh, I mean, um, Pete, I wanna call on you because you have explained to me this Superior Court contract validation process. This committee is not familiar with that because it's, as I understand it, fairly unique to, to MEAG's contracts. Would you explain how that works? What type of contracts have to be validated? And because you have built the protections to the consumer in this validation process, that you will not be able to enter into these 10-year, more than 10-year contracts without submitting it to the Superior Court and them essentially guaranteeing that it's not gonna be an undue burden on the other ratepayers. [1:06:41](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4001s) But if you could walk us through how that works and why you're distinguishing between rate approvals and sharing of the cost of the production of new power generating facilities. [1:06:53](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4013s) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Pete Degnan. I'm general counsel for MEAG Power. Um, we have a really, in my view, special and critically important structure in Georgia where when MEAG Power purports to do any new project, whether it be a coal plant, a gas plant, or a nuclear plant, um, we have to go to Fulton County Superior Court and get authority to issue the bonds to support that construction effort. But what's really important in that process is that every contract we enter into with our cities, or in this case, with a large load customer, has to be submitted to the Superior Court, and the Superior Court reviews it and reaches final rulings as to whether the contract is enforceable. [1:07:43](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4063s) And once that decision is made by the Superior Court, those contracts can never be challenged on any grounds, um, at, at any point, even constitutional grounds. That is so important to us because it impacts our credit ratings with the bond agencies. There's no other state that has this type of process. And so the credit rating agencies and the bond purchasers know that when MEAG Power issues $100 million of bonds supported by contracts, those contracts can never be challenged on any grounds, and we get huge benefit in terms of the credit rating and therefore lowering the interest rate for our cities. [1:08:22](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4102s) So that, that process is, is so important to us here. So what we're proposing in, in this change is that the retail rates aren't established by MEAG Power. They're established by our cities, and each city government has virtually unfettered discretion in terms of establishing those rates, and, and that's pretty well established in Georgia case law. So we felt that trying to deal with the issue of making sure the large load providers pay for the cost, that a better approach than retail rates, because our city's retail rates vary, and they include distribution costs, not just wholesale costs, that the better approach would deal with the construction costs for new generation. [1:09:08](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4148s) MEAG is e- equally balanced now. All of the generation that we have is dedicated to our cities. For any new large load customer, we have to build a new plant. We have no power to provide that large load customer. In effect, we have to build a new plant. And so we thought a great approach would be to provide in this statute that the cost of the new plant would have to be paid by the large load customer during the initial term of the contract. [1:09:39](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4179s) So it's a 15-year contract. They have to pay 100% of the cost during the 15 years. That way we can make sure that if there's any default on the part of that lo- large load customer, we can immediately cut off the power and, and institute our, our remedies. Um, so that, that's basically what we're proposing here, is that we deal with the retail rate concern by dealing with the, the cost of construction of the plant, making sure that is a responsibility of a new large load customer, and further ensuring that that large load customer has to meet that cost responsibility during the initial term of any contract, um, for that, for that load. [1:10:23](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4223s) Those are the only two changes. [1:10:25](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4225s) Thanks, Mr. Chairman. [1:10:27](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4227s) Uh, Chair, I'm gonna recognize Senator Summers for a question. Who are you asking the question to, the author or the witness? [1:10:34](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4234s) Who- whichever one wants to answer it, I guess. [1:10:36](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4236s) Just wanna make sure of, of, of two things that we were, uh, kind of caught up in last week. This-- Make sure you just say it. I wanna hear it. This puts the MEAG Authority on a level playing field with any other power producing outfit. Is that correct? [1:10:54](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4254s) Yes, sir. Because, um, we're now limited to those retail contracts for no more than 10 years. By being able to go to t- 20 years, it puts us on the even playing field. [1:11:05](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4265s) And last but not least, and I want to make sure I understand this, e- e- exactly wh- on 25, uh, line 25, tell me why we're... Is it... Are we in the Fulton County Superior Court for the simple reason MEAG is here in this area, or can that be any superior court? Just wanna clarify. [1:11:22](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4282s) F- we put in the Fulton County, um, because our MEAG act, the act in 1973, requires us to go to Fulton County- [1:11:31](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4291s) That's what I- [1:11:32](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4292s) ... with respect to any bond issues. [1:11:33](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4293s) That's what, uh, uh... That's what I need to know. [1:11:35](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4295s) Yeah. [1:11:35](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4295s) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:11:36](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4296s) Mr. Chairman. [1:11:38](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4298s) Senator Ginn, you're recognized with a question. [1:11:40](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4300s) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, on line 56, there's a, a two in parentheses, and I know there's... This is quick work, and I'm not sure if that parentheses two is, uh, just we didn't... Do we need to strike it? Is that a- [1:11:57](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4317s) Ben, do you see that? [1:11:58](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4318s) Uh, the version you have in front of you, uh, when you vote on it, I will ask permission to clean up and do some grammatical changes as well as title, as well as title changes, and that's exactly one of those- [1:12:09](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4329s) Yes. That- [1:12:10](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4330s) ... small [1:12:10](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4330s) And, and Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time, I, I would make a motion to do pass. [1:12:15](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4335s) Okay. We'll finish our questions, and we'll tell you the appropriate time. Um- [1:12:20](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4340s) Luke. [1:12:21](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4341s) I had a question back to the approval of the rates. Is that currently approved by the Fulton County Superior Court, and when you have a new contract, are they re- [1:12:34](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4354s) The same. Thank you. [1:12:39](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4359s) Thank you. [1:12:39](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4359s) They're... On, on line 100 of our last committee sub that you worked off of, it said, "No such contract shall authorize the large load customer to pay a rate that is below the rate paid to retail customers of the political subdivisions which have contracted with the large load customer." That was something that was important, um, you know, in the public discussion, is that these data centers not get favorable treatment. [1:13:10](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4390s) Right. [1:13:10](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4390s) Is... Explain, is that now no longer gonna be part of the superior court approval process or, or the, the, uh, the shifting of the cost of the new power generation handles that, in your view? [1:13:23](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4403s) It, it, in my view, the shifting of the cost for the new power generation handles the concern underlying the, the provision you just quoted. The problem with the language on retail rates is that the r- the construction of the retail rate is done by each city to whom we provide power. We have no control over, over that. And, but the city councils make the decision, the ratepayer... I mean, the taxp- uh, the citizens obviously decide whether they're, they're comfortable with that. [1:13:54](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4434s) But the retail rate, as I understand it, has to include at each city level the total cost of running the distributions, um, uh, of, of the city, the distribution assets, which is entirely different than what we deal with providing the wholesale power. The cities then take our wholesale power, and they have to get it to their citizens, so they have poles and wires, distribution poles and wires and other assets that they use and they own and they control to get our power into the homes of the citizens. [1:14:27](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4467s) And then each city takes into account different public policy issues in establishing the rates. Typically a, a city will have three or four different rates: one for industrial, one for commercial, one for residential, sometimes one for, for, um, multifamily. And the city council decides in establishing those rates what of those different options they want to, um, try and encourage. So if they want to en- encourage industrial, new industrial growth, they'll take that into account in establishing the industrial rate, and so on and so forth. [1:15:02](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4502s) Um, it's, it's a great structure, I believe, in Georgia, because it allows the local governments to really focus on those issues and to implement them in part by the rates that they establish. So that's a complicated structure done on the city level, and I thought for what I understood this commission wanted us to really focus on, is to make sure that the large load customer would not result in any cost going to serve that customer onto the citizens. [1:15:33](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4533s) Right. [1:15:34](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4534s) And that's where we, we think not only will this ensure that, but it will really result in the cost that we then impose on the wholesale cost to the various local governments to be less than what it would otherwise be- [1:15:49](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4549s) Right [1:15:49](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4549s) ... because of the cost that we're going to recover from the large load customer, and will flow through in a positive way to each city. So we thought that was the real optimum way to do it and still leave each city with the authority that they currently have to take into account a variety of public policy issues in establishing the different category of rates and the amounts of those rates to, to their citizens. [1:16:12](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4572s) So that's one of our two main concerns. One is we don't want the citizens of Georgia, period, whether they're MEAG cities or Georgia Power customers or EMC customers, to end up shouldering the cost of these data centers' power needs by ending up having higher rates of their own. But number two is we don't want these data centers to get favorable treatment, that their fees or their, their power rates are lower than the existing commercial customers and residential customers, um, because that, that's a parity thing. [1:16:49](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4609s) It doesn't seem fair. What's troubling me a little bit here, without that oversight of the rates- What if one of your cities is trying to entice a data center to come to their community? The big carrot is the property taxes. They can be humongous, and they might offer a lower rate to the data center if they locate in their community because they're gonna make it up on property taxes. [1:17:23](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4643s) But that doesn't sound like they have to have that same lower rate for the existing residential and commercial customers. That's, that's a, a concern of mine that... 'Cause I could... If I was a, you know, mayor of a, of a MEAC city, I would love to, you know, triple my property tax digest, and I wouldn't be so worried about how much profit I made out of my electric utility service. Uh, is there any... Am I just making something up? [1:17:52](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4672s) No, you're- [1:17:52](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4672s) Is there any gu- any protection against that? [1:17:54](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4674s) You've, you've got a legitimate issue that you just identified. Um, it exists today because if we have a new, not, let, let's say not a data center, but a new industrial load, a, a car manufacturing company or s- a heavy, heavy part manufacturer looking where to locate in Georgia, the cities now compete for those large loads. Nothing to do with data centers. [1:18:18](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4698s) Mm. [1:18:18](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4698s) And when they decide during the package that they put together to present to those customers in the customer choice process, they will look at those issues. They will look at the rate coupled with the income tax and the things that you just mentioned. Now, the one, one protection is that when you establish a rate at the city level, a retail rate, it can't be just for one customer. It has to be a rate that is designed for every, um, eh, pur- purchaser of electric power by that city that meets the parameters of the rate. [1:18:54](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4734s) So you establishes, you establish parameters. For instance, a parameter could be, uh, for an industrial load customer that's going to build assets greater than $10 million, and, and criteria like that. And every customer that meets that criteria is then entitled to the rate. They cannot discriminate in establishing the rates. There has to be objective criteria that tells everybody what rate they will fall into at the city level, depending upon whether they meet that criteria. [1:19:27](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4767s) Um, our thought, and, and, and frankly, there, there have been challenges over the years, as you might expect, in the courts with respect to city rates. And when you look at the, the, the case law, basically what the Supreme Court has said in Georgia is that that rate-making authority to a city is vested by home rule powers directly in the cities, and that the city councils are the, the only body to be able to s- that has the lawful authority to establish rates with respect to their citizens in that, um, as long as the rates are fair and non-discriminatory. [1:20:04](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4804s) So we thought given that whole body of law and the whole body of statutes, and understanding the concern here, and believe me, MEAC Power is not gonna do, serve a data center unless it's a good deal for the cities. It's the only purpose we exist, is to get good deals for the cities. We're a nonprofit. We don't get dollar profit. We're a public authority. [1:20:25](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4825s) Yeah, I get it. [1:20:26](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4826s) And we- [1:20:26](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4826s) But I'm, I'm sitting here thinking, on these customer choice large load customers- [1:20:32](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4832s) Yes [1:20:32](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4832s) ... they can bid or, you know, against getting it from a MEAC, getting it from an EMC, or getting it from Georgia Power- [1:20:41](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4841s) Yes [1:20:41](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4841s) ... despite the Territorial Service Act. So if you are able to give discounted prices to a data center, you're gonna win that competitive process every time. EMCs will never build another one, and neither will, if they've ever even built one. And Georgia Power probably won't either, and that's what was raised in this committee the last meeting, is was it a level playing field, or is it giving you guys an advantage, or is it just catching you up, you know? Senator Ginn, you got a question? 'Cause we're not, we'll finish questions first. [1:21:12](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4872s) Well, I, I was just gonna comment on, on what it would've done to handicap MEAC in our last meeting. That was why I brought that up, was if, if we had the language in that substitute, the, uh, forward, then they could've had to been required to sell electricity to a residential customer whose usage is very minimal and very fluctuating from day to day, year to year- [1:21:35](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4895s) Yeah [1:21:35](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4895s) ... the, uh, uh, at a lower rate than what they would serve somebody that's a continuous load. And so, uh, uh, uh, we haven't constrained Georgia Power or the EMCs that way, and I hope we never will because if we do, w- we take Georgia out of the com- [1:21:50](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4910s) Right [1:21:50](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4910s) ... competition for these customer loads. [1:21:52](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4912s) But Georgia Power is now constrained. If they're gonna have a long-term contract, which are essentially necessary to land one of these hyperscaler centers, they have to be approved by the Public Service Commission, who has rules and regulations that we are codifying now, the approval of the contract, and that's what we're trying to make sure here, that they can't get a contract approved that has to protect against rate discrimination, but MEACs can if we don't make sure they're re- these long-term contracts are treated the same or similar. [1:22:28](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4948s) That's, that's all I'm probing. [1:22:31](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4951s) All right. [1:22:31](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4951s) Uh, any other questions from committee members? Uh- [1:22:35](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4955s) If I can make one other point. [1:22:36](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4956s) Y- you can make. Go ahead. [1:22:37](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4957s) Because y- you're raising good questions. Um, what we plan on doing at the MEAC level, if we get the opportunity to serve a new large load customer a- and we have to provide, let's say, 500 megawatts of power to that large load customer, we will negotiate at the MEAC level the terms of that contract with the new large load customer And we'll pick the best proposal from the various large load customers. [1:23:08](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=4988s) We'll do an RFP process, the best proposal, and then we'll negotiate the terms. We'll be the ones negotiating how much they will pay for the energy as well as paying for 100% of the cost of construction, not at the city level, because we're gonna offer this opportunity to all of our cities, not one individual city. So we have to be, for these types of projects, we have to be the ones do- doing that negotiation so that the terms would apply to all of our cities, not any individual city. [1:23:42](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5022s) Does that negotiation include the rates that the large load customer will pay? [1:23:46](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5026s) It, it, it's going to include the amount that the large load customer's gonna pay for the energy. That's the rate. The, the- [1:23:52](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5032s) Okay [1:23:52](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5032s) ... the rate's establishing the energy cost. We will be doing that. [1:23:56](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5036s) So everything you said about each city having different rates is superseded by your contract. [1:24:01](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5041s) On, on... in this, yes, because what I said is generally the r- the rule. But for large load customers, we're n- we're gonna do it at the MEAG level, not the city level. It's the only way it can be done so that we can offer each city, including small cities in South Georgia who otherwise couldn't participate in a data center project, we can offer each of our 49, or 48 cities and one county, the opportunity to participate in the deal that we put together, that we structure. [1:24:33](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5073s) Your deal will set the rate- [1:24:35](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5075s) Yes [1:24:35](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5075s) ... the price per kilowatt hour? [1:24:36](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5076s) Yes. [1:24:36](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5076s) Okay. And what you're saying is you can't guarantee that that is not less than some other residential customer 'cause some cities- [1:24:44](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5084s) Exactly [1:24:44](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5084s) ... might have higher rates. [1:24:45](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5085s) Exactly. [1:24:45](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5085s) Okay. Senator Rhett, question? [1:24:48](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5088s) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a thought. You know, initially, like you were saying, the property tax benefits may look good, but I think the main concern is will the consumption costs outweigh it, and who pays? Just a thought. [1:25:03](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5103s) Is that all there are questions? [1:25:04](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5104s) Just a thought. [1:25:05](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5105s) Okay, thank you. Anybody else got thoughts or questions? Representative. [1:25:11](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5111s) Mr. Chairman, if I, if I may, just to kind of, uh, kind of summarize some of what I think I'm hearing you say, uh, mentioning Georgia Power's, uh, the PSC rules that were codif- codified through 410, that sort of thing. Basically, that is designed to make sure that there's no cross-subsidation, uh, subsidization, I can't talk this morning, uh, of the, uh, capital cost to serve those customers amongst the other classes of customers. The language that's in this bill now does exactly that. [1:25:42](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5142s) It prevents the cost, the incremental cost or the, uh, additional cost to serve for these large load customers from being imposed on the rest of the ratepayers. It, uh, it restricts that to only being paid during the term of the contract, uh, amortized or upfront or a combination for that particular customer by that customer. So it actually puts... Th- this is basically making the, the playing field for the customer and for the pr- utility provider, uh, on parity to what's being, being done with Georgia Power Company. [1:26:15](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5175s) Okay. Okay. Uh, Senator Ginn, do you still wish a motion or did they talk you out of it? [1:26:21](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5181s) No, I'm, I'm, I'm all in, Cindy. I, I, I did wanna let, let our legislative council recognize, uh, we have two section threes. The, uh, oh, uh, I think the, the one on page five needs to be changed to section four. There's a couple other typos in there, and so, uh, I think he wants to be a- a- address how we're gonna address the typos. [1:26:41](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5201s) Um, I'll do that. We'll put it through a, a quick editing process. I just want permission to change some comments. However, I would like to go back to your previous statement to ensure that I'm on the same page as the committee. Um, I understand by the way this is drafted, they want to delete that section two and three from, uh, code section 36-126. That, uh, I wanna make sure the committee, that that is the will of the committee, because what that does is remove certain requirements for contracts in excess of two years for both electric, natural, natural gas, and water utility services. [1:27:23](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5243s) And I haven't heard that discussed. So if that was left off of this draft or just to make it shorter, um, you know, for, for ease of reading, then I, I would like to know that, uh, was being actively- [1:27:34](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5254s) It, it... We did not intend to do that. [1:27:37](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5257s) Okay. [1:27:38](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5258s) Okay. [1:27:38](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5258s) That's it. [1:27:39](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5259s) Then in the editing process, restore paragraph two. [1:27:44](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5264s) That's correct. [1:27:44](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5264s) Okay. [1:27:45](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5265s) Uh, and additionally, there's a reference to the 20%, which is a example- [1:27:49](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5269s) Page two. Page two also [1:27:51](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5271s) ... paragraph. Um, locations, we generally don't put those in code. [1:27:55](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5275s) Except this one. [1:27:56](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5276s) So that would [1:27:58](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5278s) Okay. [1:27:58](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5278s) Mr. Chairman. [1:27:58](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5278s) So you wanna restore on page five. [1:28:01](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5281s) Four. [1:28:02](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5282s) I mean, page four. There at line 4056, you're gonna put that back in here, or make sure it stays in. [1:28:13](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5293s) Yeah. I don't have your line numbers, but- [1:28:14](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5294s) Okay [1:28:14](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5294s) ... the two and three that are- [1:28:15](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5295s) I see [1:28:16](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5296s) ... already currently codified, I would not include. [1:28:18](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5298s) Okay. [1:28:19](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5299s) And there's a, and there's a two on one and two on- [1:28:21](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5301s) It happens to be blank. [1:28:22](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5302s) Right, right. [1:28:23](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5303s) Okay. Okay, we all square on... Is that your intent? [1:28:26](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5306s) As- [1:28:26](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5306s) Okay [1:28:26](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5306s) ... Mr. Chairman, I, I'm, I'm gonna move the, uh, best I can, Cindy, uh, 'cause we don't have the perfected copy, but the, uh, to pass HB1027, and I'm not gonna do anything but reference the number of the LC474302S. [1:28:42](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5322s) Right. [1:28:43](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5323s) But I know that that's subject to change. [1:28:44](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5324s) To editing. [1:28:45](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5325s) With edits. [1:28:46](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5326s) With edits. You got it. Is there a second? [1:28:47](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5327s) Second. [1:28:48](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5328s) Got a second by Senator Albers. Any further discussion? All right. All in favor, raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. And any, any opposed? One opposed. All right. That passes. We will send it on to Rules Committee and let them fly spec it at that stage. That's all the business before the committee. We all have to get down to House Rules and other committees here this morning, and so we are hereby adjourned. Thank you all. [1:29:16](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5356s) Thank you. [1:29:16](https://vimeo.com/1177478094#t=5356s) Thank you.