Georgia Power lost $152 million of customers' money by running its coal plants uneconomically—yet faces no penalty for the decision. That eye-opening figure sits at the heart of a bold challenge filed this week by three major environmental groups demanding that Georgia's largest utility finally share the financial burden of rising fuel costs instead of passing every dollar straight to ratepayers.
The Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy submitted a post-hearing brief to Georgia's Public Service Commission in the company's 2026 Fuel Cost Recovery case. The filing exposes what advocates call a textbook moral hazard: because Georgia Power has historically passed nearly 100 percent of fuel expenses to customers with minimal scrutiny, the company has little incentive to control costs or make economically sound decisions. Over the past 15 years, the Commission has disallowed less than one percent of conservatively estimated fuel costs totaling $29 billion.
The environmental groups are pushing the Public Service Commission to establish a fuel cost sharing mechanism that would require Georgia Power to absorb at least some portion of fuel-related losses, similar to how other utilities across the country operate. The $152 million coal-plant loss illustrates exactly why such accountability matters. When a utility knows customers will cover every expense regardless, decisions that seem uneconomical—building new gas plants or running inefficient coal facilities—become attractive ways to boost shareholder profits at ratepayers' expense.
"Georgia Power wants to choose the most expensive, most uneconomic use of coal power and keep the public in the dark about why it made a $152 million decision when more affordable options were available," said Adrien Webber, Sierra Club Georgia Chapter Director. The utility continues to earn record profits while ordinary Georgians absorb rising bills, he argued, making it essential that Georgia Power "pay its fair share of our fuel costs, and put people over profits."
Maggie Shober, Research Director for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, offered a clear analogy: "If I had a guarantee that someone else would pay off my credit card every month, I would have absolutely no incentive to stay within a given budget. That is what is happening in Georgia with utility fuel costs." She noted that Georgia Power is "building new gas plants to boost shareholder profits, because the Commission has always rubber-stamped their 100 percent fuel cost pass through."
The brief also supports staff-proposed improvements to Georgia Power's original request that emerged during settlement negotiations currently before the Commission. But the core ask remains straightforward—introduce genuine accountability by making utilities share responsibility for fuel costs rather than treating ratepayers as an unlimited line of credit.
For Georgia ratepayers already grappling with rising energy bills, this filing represents a crucial moment. The question before regulators is whether Georgia Power should continue operating as if nearly every dollar it spends is guaranteed to flow directly into customer bills, or whether the state will finally demand the kind of cost discipline that protects consumers and encourages utilities to make decisions based on actual economics rather than shareholder returns.