WALTON ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY (Two Cases)

Nestle Purina bought an old textile mill and warehouse in Hartwell, Georgia and spent over $300 million turning it into a pet food plant. Nestle then tried to switch its electricity provider from Georgia Power to Walton Electric Membership Corporation, relying on a Georgia law that lets a customer pick a new supplier if the old premises were 'destroyed or dismantled' and not rebuilt 'in substantial kind.' Georgia Power objected, saying the building was only renovated, not dismantled, so it kept the exclusive right to serve it. The Georgia Public Service Commission sided with Nestle, but a superior court and the Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed, saying the changes were not a complete, whole-building demolition. The Supreme Court of Georgia disagreed, ruling that 'dismantled' can mean substantial partial stripping away of a building's structure, not just total ruin, and that the Commission's decision should have been upheld under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.

A building can be 'dismantled' under the Territorial Electric Service Act even without total destruction, as long as it is substantially taken apart or stripped of structural components; because the Commission reasonably found Nestle's renovations met that standard and the rebuilt facility was not the same in substantial kind, its decision allowing the switch to Walton EMC should have been upheld.

The ruling clarifies when large industrial customers in Georgia can switch electric suppliers after major renovations, affecting how utilities like Georgia Power and electric co-ops compete for big manufacturing accounts, and it sets the standard courts must use when reviewing future Public Service Commission territorial disputes.

Reversed

1. The court held that whether renovated premises meet the legal test of being 'destroyed or dismantled' and not 'reconstructed in substantial kind' is a mixed question of law and fact, meaning it combines a factual assessment with a legal standard, and such mixed questions are reviewed only for abuse of discretion, a deferential standard asking whether the decision fell within a reasonable range of judgment.
2. The court interpreted the statute's text and concluded that 'destroyed' means complete ruin or demolition, while 'dismantled' means something less severe, such as substantially taking apart or stripping away a building's structural components, equipment, or contents, without requiring total destruction.
3. The court explained that legislative exceptions in statutes must still be read fairly according to their plain language rather than narrowed beyond what the text supports, rejecting Georgia Power's argument that 'dismantled' should require wholesale destruction.
4. The court found that the Commission's underlying factual findings, such as the removal of walls, roofing, flooring, and electrical systems and the $300 million in changes, were supported by evidence, and the lower courts had agreed with those factual findings.
5. Applying the abuse-of-discretion standard to the Commission's legal conclusion, the court found no abuse of discretion in the Commission's determination that the substantial modifications amounted to dismantling and that the resulting pet food plant was not reconstructed in substantial kind compared to the original textile facility.

• electric supplier switching
• Territorial Electric Service Act
• Georgia Public Service Commission
• Nestle Purina Hartwell facility
• standard of judicial review