O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 46-2-25 (2019)

Procedure for changing any rate, charge, classification, or service

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) No person, firm, or corporation (referred to in this Code section as a ‘‘utility’’) subject to the jurisdiction of the commission shall make any change in any rate, charge, classification, or service subject to the jurisdiction of the commission, or in any rule or regulation relating thereto, except after 30 days’ notice to the commission and to the public, unless the

commission otherwise orders, or unless the commission has previously authorized or approved the change. Such notice shall be given by filing with the commission and keeping open for public inspection new schedules stating plainly the changes to be made in the schedules then in force and the time when the changes will go into effect. The commission, for good cause shown, may allow changes to take effect without requiring the 30 days’ notice by an order specifying the changes to be made, the time when they shall take effect, and the manner in which they shall be filed and published. (b) Whenever any new schedule is filed pursuant to subsection (a) of this Code section, the commission shall have authority, either upon written complaint or upon its own initiative without complaint, at once, and, if it so orders, without answer or formal pleading by the utility but upon reasonable notice, to enter upon a hearing concerning the lawfulness of such rate, charge, classification, or service. Pending such hearing and the decision thereon, the commission, upon filing with such schedule and delivering to the utility affected thereby a statement in writing of its reasons for such suspension, may suspend the operation of such schedule and defer the use of such rate, charge, classification, or service, but not for a period longer than five months beyond the time when it would otherwise go into effect, provided that the commission may apply to the Superior Court of Fulton County for an extension of such period, as provided for in Code Section

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases, 1985–2010 · leading case: Atmos Energy Corp. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 674 S.E.2d 312 (Ga. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Atmos Energy Corp. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 674 S.E.2d 312 (Ga. 2009). · cites it 34× “Subsection (a) of that statute requires the utility to give 30 days notice to the PSC and the public regarding such a change.”

Fulton Cnty. Taxpayers Found., Inc. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 700 S.E.2d 554 (Ga. 2010). · cites it 18× “While the certification proceeding was pending, the General Assembly passed the Georgia Nuclear Energy Financing Act, codified *877 as OCGA § 46-2-25 (c.l), which amended OCGA § 46-2-25 to allow for the recovery of construction costs for nuclear power plants before completion of…”

S. Motor Carriers Rate Conf., Inc. v. United States, 471 U.S. 48 (1985). · cites it 6× “§ 62-134(a) (1982); Ga. Code Ann. § 46-2-25 (a) (1982); Miss.”

Georgia Power Co. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 396 S.E.2d 562 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 12× “" OCGA § 46-2-25 (b). Schedule & Productivity Disallowances 6.”

Atmos Energy Corp. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 659 S.E.2d 385 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 14× “See OCGA § 46-2-25 (a). The PSC is then authorized to suspend the application of the proposed change for up to five months during which time it can hold hearings on the proposal and then decide whether to approve the changed rates.”

Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 442 S.E.2d 860 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 6× “On May 31, 1991, the Company initiated a rate-change proceeding under OCGA § 46-2-25 (a), by filing new schedules with the PSC increasing the Company’s rates and charges for gas service.”

Alltel Georgia Commc'ns v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 505 S.E.2d 218 (Ga. 1998). · cites it 4× “[10] See O.C.G.A. § 46-2-25 (1972) (If the PSC failed to object to filed rates within 30 days, the rates become effective).”

Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Alltel Georgia Commc'ns Corp., 489 S.E.2d 350 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “Under the majority’s construction, an electing company must run the gauntlet between the election date and the effective date risking a PSC-ordered reduction in maximum existing rates and becoming locked in for the next five years to such rate structure.”

Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. ALLTEL Georgia Commc'ns Corp., 536 S.E.2d 542 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “On appeal, the Commission enumerates as error *647 the superior court’s finding that: (1) ALLTEL was denied due process; (2) the Commission shifted the burden of proof to ALLTEL; (3) the Commission did not carry its burden of proving that ALLTEL’s existing rates were unjust and…”

Carr v. S. Co., 731 F. Supp. 1067 (S.D. Ga. 1990). · cites it 4× “Before addressing plaintiffs’ claims within the context of defendants’ motions to dismiss, it is important to first highlight Georgia law with respect to the PSC’s regulation of public utilities.”

Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. S. Bell, 327 S.E.2d 726 (Ga. 1985). · cites it 2× “The Commission ordered a suspension of the rates for five months from April 30, 1984 and conducted evidentiary hearings as authorized by OCGA § 46-2-25. By orders of September 28, 1984 and October 22, 1984, the Commission granted an increase of $34,661,000 annually.”

Georgia Power Co. v. Georgia Indus. Grp., 447 S.E.2d 118 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 11× “superior court reversed the Commission’s orders, finding that such expenses are recoverable only through the test year rate case procedure prescribed by OCGA §§ 46-2-25 and 46-2-26.1, which was not followed in this case.”

Show all 18 citing cases →

— 46-2-25(a) — 1 case

Carr v. S. Co., 731 F. Supp. 1067 (S.D. Ga. 1990). “Before addressing plaintiffs’ claims within the context of defendants’ motions to dismiss, it is important to first highlight Georgia law with respect to the PSC’s regulation of public utilities.”

— 46-2-25(b) — 2 cases

Ga. Pub. Serv. v. Cam. for Pros. Ga., 492 S.E.2d 916 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).

Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Georgia Textile Mfrs. Assoc., 470 S.E.2d 230 (Ga. 1996).

— 46-2-25(d) — 1 case

Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Alltel Georgia Commc'ns Corp., 489 S.E.2d 350 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). “Under the majority’s construction, an electing company must run the gauntlet between the election date and the effective date risking a PSC-ordered reduction in maximum existing rates and becoming locked in for the next five years to such rate structure.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.