Is the Public Service Commission really listening? Climate reporters look at the data

Caption

The Georgia Public Service Commission at a February 2024 meeting.

Credit: Screenshot from PSC livestream

The Georgia Public Service Commission will resume negotiations next week with Georgia Power on their new Integrated Resource Plan. The IRP is how Georgia Power describes the mix of ways it will produce electricity for its customers. 

Over the years hundreds of concerned citizens have asked Georgia’s Public Service Commission during public comment periods to approve IRPs by Georgia Power only if they rely more on renewable energy and less on fossil fuels. But the five-member elected body has consistently voted for Georgia Power plans that continue reliance on fossil fuels. That has led some to wonder: what’s the point of public comment periods if our elected leaders don’t seem to be listening? Climate reporters Kala Hunter of the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer and Margaret Walker with the Macon Telegraph spoke with GPB’s Peter Biello about what they’ve found.

Peter Biello: Welcome to the program.

Margaret Walker: Hi, thanks for having us.

Kala Hunter: Thanks Peter.

Peter Biello: I'll start with you, Margaret. In your reporting, you've looked at how many people have made comments and what, broadly speaking, those people were speaking for or against. What did you find in the numbers?

Margaret Walker: We looked at — Kala can confirm — it was close to 900 comments. Was that right, Kala?

Kala Hunter: Yeah, the numbers ended up being about 42% of the almost a thousand comments expressed concern over using fossil fuels in the energy mix for the last two Georgia Power integrated resources plan. That was like 419 out of almost 1,000 comments.

Margaret Walker: And those concerns came in the ways of concern for their health, concern for the environment, concern about climate change, concern about future generations. The concerns came many different forms and we looked into all of those different categories.

Peter Biello: And it seems as though at least on first glance that those preferences are not finding their way into the vote outcomes of the PSC. You've spoken to some members of the Public Service Commission. What have they said when confronted with the accusation that they may not be listening to that 42%?

Margaret Walker: The public service commissioners told us that they first care about safety, reliability and cost. And then they look at sustainability as kind of like a fourth consideration, but those three things come first to them. And they did say that they read all of the public comment. They said, if people reach out to us, then we read it or we listen to it. When it came to voting, they still voted in favor of the heavily reliant fossil fuel plan.

Peter Biello: Hmm, because that, I guess, is safer in their view or more cost-effective?

Kala Hunter: Yeah, I mean, one of the commissioners said, look, like, the concerns aren't as —I would say they more so dismissed the level of people that are concerned. You know, they said, look, like, those are just small pockets of concerns. Those aren't what you think they are. And we actually did the numbers and found, you know, 42%, which I would argue is bigger than a small pocket of concern. But they have — we could go into a lot more detail about their reasoning for voting the way they voted. A big claim they like to use is having a diverse energy mix.

Peter Biello: Recently, GPB's Grant Blankenship spoke with a PSC member, Tim Echols, and asked him about whether or not the voice of those showing up at public hearings, public comment periods, periods of being heard. And here's what he had to say.

Tim Echols: I don't add up the comments. "Okay, let's see, 50 said this and 70 said that and 90 said this." That is not how I set public policy. I set up public policy based on judgment. That's how I set public policy, I'm not just taking some kind of poll out here and making a decision based on a poll.

Peter Biello: And he also told Grant Blankenship a few things, that some of the young people who raised the loudest objections recently were from out of state. And the other thing he said was that he simply knows more, that as a member of the PSC, he has access to information that the public doesn't. And that's what he's making his decisions based on. I wanna ask both of you what you make of his argument. We'll start with you, Kala.

Kala Hunter: Well, I think what Grant is getting at is sort of like, well, how do you assess what to consider? And how do essentially do your job? And if Echols is saying that his job isn't to sort of count public comments or make tallies, it begs the question, well, what's the point of the public comments? What's the point the process? So I mean, I think Echols' comment is obviously a very, sort of — I think he's kind of running around the question of the purpose of of the comments and why the plans continue to include energy sources that have proven time and time again to be harmful to public health and the stability of our planet and ecosystems.

Peter Biello: Margaret?

Margaret Walker: I will say this about Echols. I think when we looked at how the commissioners, aside from public comment, are gathering information about what their constituents — Echols is an involved commissioner. So he goes to, I would argue, the most out of all of the commissioners' public meetings and events, interacting maybe with the most people in the public. However, what is the point of having a public comment forum if you're not considering it? Is it just a formality or is it actually being considered?

Peter Biello: Well, in their defense, they're not saying that they're not considering it. It's just not outweighing other things that they have said are more important, right?

Margaret Walker: Right, right.

Peter Biello: The members of the PSC seem then to be citing their impression of a silent majority versus a vocal minority. And so I'm wondering, how is this different from any other public body where, you know, loud yet relatively smaller groups show up at meetings of democratically elected governing bodies, whether it be like school board or a city council. And they don't always get what they want. How is this different?

Kala Hunter: I think it's different because the Public Service Commission's role is to — I'll actually quote the purpose of the integrated resource plan: "the overall objective of the plan should be based on current commission policy concerning minimizing customer bills, minimizing overall rates and maximizing net societal benefit." So, I would say incorporating, what, 42% of the society that's paying the bills, maximizing their societal benefit would be an important thing to consider given that they are, you know, they are paid public officials and our tax dollars pay for their roles and that's really their job is to sort of be in this position of both judgment and decision making and hearing out all of the different voices of Georgia Power customers.

Peter Biello: Climate reporters Margaret Walker with the Macon Telegraph and Kala Hunter of the Columbus Ledger Inquirer. Thank you so much for speaking with me.

Kala Hunter: Thank you, Peter.

Margaret Walker: Thanks for having us.