Effect of 1976 amendment to section.

- The 1976 amendment to former Code 1933, § 93-307.1 (see O.C.G.A § 46-2-25), which added subsection (d), was a recognition by the legislature that section prior to amendment did not prohibit the effectuating of rates according to the date of billing, which would therefore cover some electricity used prior to the date of the effectuating order. Moore v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 242 Ga. 182, 249 S.E.2d 549 (1978).

Construction with other statutes.

- O.C.G.A. § 46-2-25 supercedes contrary provisions of the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-13-17, with regard to the judicial review of decisions made by the Georgia Public Service Commission. Atmos Energy Corp. v. Ga. PSC, 290 Ga. App. 243, 659 S.E.2d 385 (2008).

Entitlement to lower rate must be shown to challenge increase on constitutional grounds.

- Utility customers must show they have a legal entitlement to or a vested right in the utility rates being charged before any proposed increase, before they can claim any property rights protected by the United States Constitution. Georgia Power Project v. Georgia Power Co., 409 F. Supp. 332 (N.D. Ga. 1975).

Utility customers have no vested rights in fixed utility rates. Georgia Power Project v. Georgia Power Co., 409 F. Supp. 332 (N.D. Ga. 1975).

Utility customers have no property interest in rate increases.

- Utility customers have no sufficient property interest in given utility rate increase to invoke procedural protections of due process clause of U.S. Const., Amend. 14. Georgia Power Project v. Georgia Power Co., 409 F. Supp. 332 (N.D. Ga. 1975).

Collective ratemaking activities carried on by "rate bureaus" immune from antitrust liability.

- Collective ratemaking activities carried on by "rate bureaus" composed of motor common carriers operate in several states, although not compelled by the states involved, "clearly articulated state policy" and thus were immune from antitrust liability. Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. United States, 471 U.S. 48, 105 S. Ct. 1721, 85 L. Ed. 2d 36 (1985).

Recovery of costs of demand-side programs.

- The commission had authority under O.C.G.A. § 46-3A-9 to allow a utility to recover the costs of demand-side energy conservation programs and interruptible service credits through riders or surcharges outside of a general rate case and the test year statute. Georgia Power Co. v. Georgia Indus. Group, 214 Ga. App. 196, 447 S.E.2d 118 (1994).

Order addressing disposition of overearnings authorized.

- Neither the Public Service Commission's determination that Tier 2 local exchange companies' return on equity earnings exceeded that authorized, nor its order for the application of over-earnings to reduce intrastate access rates violated either subsection (d) of O.C.G.A. § 46-2-25, which prohibits rate-making orders with retroactive effect, or O.C.G.A. § 46-5-166(f)(2), regarding adjustments to intrastate access rates. Georgia PSC v. ALLTEL Ga. Communs. Corp., 244 Ga. App. 645, 536 S.E.2d 542 (2000).

What constitutes a rate case.

- A hearing before the commission to consider a utility's proposed alternate rate plan that did not recommend or request any rate changes for customers did not constitute a rate case requiring a full hearing. Georgia Public Serv. Comm'n v. Campaign for a Prosperous Ga., 229 Ga. App. 28, 492 S.E.2d 916 (1997).

Sufficiency of findings of fact.

- Where the Public Service Commission granted a rate increase, but disallowed some of the utility company's costs in calculating the rate base for a fair increase because it concluded that some of the costs were the result of the company's imprudent management of the project, the agency's decision was within its authority, and was supported by the facts. Georgia Power Co. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 196 Ga. App. 572, 396 S.E.2d 562 (1990), cert. denied, 196 Ga. App. 908, 396 S.E.2d 562 (1990).

Court lacked jurisdiction to hear utility company's ratemaking appeal from an interim order.

- Trial court erred by affirming a decision of the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) in a ratemaking appeal filed by a gas distribution company and by denying the PSC's motion to dismiss the company's appeal; the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the company's petition for judicial review since one order appealed from was an interim order, and not a final order, and a voice note appealed from was not even a decision subject to review. Atmos Energy Corp. v. Ga. PSC, 290 Ga. App. 243, 659 S.E.2d 385 (2008).

Natural gas distribution company could not challenge a rate change ruling by the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) because the order was not a final order under O.C.G.A. § 46-2-25(d) as the language indicated that it was only an interim decision; § 46-2-25 did not mandate the entry of a final order at the end of the six-month "file and suspend" period, and O.C.G.A. § 50-13-17(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act did not prevail over the more restrictive requirements imposed by § 46-2-25(d) as to the manner in which the PSC rendered a decision. Atmos Energy Corp. v. Ga. PSC, 285 Ga. 133, 674 S.E.2d 312 (2009).

Constitutional challenges to statute could not be considered on appeal.

- Taxpayers constitutional challenges to the Georgia Nuclear Energy Financing Act, O.C.G.A. § 46-2-25(c.1), could not be considered on appeal because the trial court declined to reach the merits of the constitutional challenges and merely ruled that the taxpayers lacked standing to raise the claims; because the taxpayers neither enumerated as error the ruling of the trial court that the taxpayers lacked standing to raise a constitutional challenge to § 46-2-25(c.1) nor provided any argument or citation of authority with respect to that ruling, it was not made an issue in the appeal and would not be considered. Fulton County Taxpayers Found., Inc. v. Ga. PSC, 287 Ga. 876, 700 S.E.2d 554 (2010).

Cited in Georgia Power Co. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 231 Ga. 339, 201 S.E.2d 423 (1973); Georgia Power Co. v. Allied Chem. Corp., 233 Ga. 558, 212 S.E.2d 628 (1975); Bryan v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 238 Ga. 572, 234 S.E.2d 784 (1977).

Companies within scope of section.

- Common carriers and transportation companies as well as power utilities are covered by former Code 1933, § 93-307.1 (see O.C.G.A § 46-2-25). 1972 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 72-34.

Limitation on suspension of schedule by commission.

- Commission may not suspend schedule beyond five months, unless a utility by its own action manifests an intent to withdraw or extend the effective date of a scheduled increase. 1973 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 73-70.

Section is exclusive method for suspending tariff revision implementation.

- Former Code 1933, § 93-307.1 (see O.C.G.A § 46-2-25) was exclusive method by which commission may suspend implementation of tariff revision. 1973 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 73-6.

Commission's responsibility not altered by conditional approval of tariff amendment.

- Conditional approval by the commission of tariff amendment during 30-day period provided by former Code 1933, § 93-307.1 (see O.C.G.A § 46-2-25) did not alter substantive responsibility and authority of the commission. 1973 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 73-6.

Implemented tariff amendment not to be suspended during subsequent examination.

- A tariff amendment which has been implemented by a utility, either by virtue of the expiration of the 30-day period without commission action or by virtue of such conditional approval by the commission during that period, may not be later suspended by the commission during subsequent examination pending a final determination by the commission. 1973 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 73-6.

Later examination possible even after decision not to suspend tariff revision.

- If the commission in the exercise of its discretion determines that a tariff revision should not be suspended under former Code 1933, § 93-307.1 (see O.C.G.A § 46-2-25), the commission was not foreclosed from later examining the tariff provision, on its own initiative or upon the filing of a complaint. 1973 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 73-6.

Terminating utility service to persons outside municipality.

- A municipality which provides utility services to persons located outside the limits of the municipality may terminate such utility services in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the UCC. 1987 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U87-27.

C.J.S.

- 73B C.J.S., Public Utilities, §§ 15, 18-22, 45-49, 53-55.

ALR.

- Power of federal government over intrastate rates, 14 A.L.R. 454; 22 A.L.R. 1100.

Power of Public Service Commission to increase franchise rates, 28 A.L.R. 587; 29 A.L.R. 356.

Validity, construction, and effect of provisions for the appropriation of excess income of public utility, 33 A.L.R. 488.

Service contract by public utility in consideration of conveyance of property by individual or private corporations as affected by public utility acts, 41 A.L.R. 257.

Power of state or municipality to fix minimum public utility rates, 68 A.L.R. 1002.

Profit factor in determining rates for municipally owned or operated public utility, 90 A.L.R. 700.

Allowance in fixing rates of public utility for depletion or amortization in respect of natural resources, 91 A.L.R. 1413.

Right of customers of public utility with respect to fund representing a refund from another supplying utility upon reduction of latter's rates, 18 A.L.R.2d 1343.

Variations of utility rates based on flat and meter rates, 40 A.L.R.2d 1331.

Validity of "fuel adjustment" or similar clauses authorizing electric utility to pass on increased cost of fuel to its customers, 83 A.L.R.3d 933.

Advertising or promotional expenditures of public utility as part of operating expenses for ratemaking purposes, 83 A.L.R.3d 963.

Public utility's right to recover cost of nuclear power plants abandoned before completion, 83 A.L.R.4th 183.