This section not unlawful attempt to regulate or fix charges of municipal utilities.

- Ga. L. 1973, p. 200, § 10 (see O.C.G.A. § 46-3-11) does not attempt to interfere with either the municipality or the electric membership corporation in the establishment of their rate levels. Therefore, it is clear that the section does not constitute an unlawful attempt to regulate or fix the charges of municipal utilities prohibited by Ga. Const. 1976, Art. III, Sec. VIII, Para. I (Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. VI, Para. I), subject to the exception in Ga. Const. 1976, Art. IX, Sec. VIII, Para. I (Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. VI, Para. I, II; Art. XI, Sec. I, Para. IV). City of Calhoun v. North Ga. Elec. Membership Corp., 233 Ga. 759, 213 S.E.2d 596 (1975).

Electric supplier may recover underbilled services.

- Georgia Supreme Court's decisions under the Georgia Territorial Electric Service Act (GTESA), O.C.G.A. § 46-3-1 et seq., in cases involving under-billing by electricity providers, are not necessarily binding with regard to billing by other utility companies; however, there is no case law suggesting that natural gas providers warrant greater protection than that afforded to electric vendors under the GTESA; with regard to electric provider under-billing cases, the Georgia Supreme Court has not limited the assertion of affirmative defenses to "innocent" electric consumers only and therefore, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, will not impose an "innocent consumer" prerequisite to the assertion of an affirmative defense to a gas utility provider's under-billing claim. City of Lawrenceville v. Ricoh Elecs., Inc., 370 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (N.D. Ga. 2005).

Defenses allowed against recovery of underbilled services.

- When an electric supplier's act results in the underbilling of its customer, and the supplier seeks to recover the correct billing amount, the customer can assert accord and satisfaction, equitable estoppel, or statute of limitation defenses. Brown v. Walton Elec. Mbrshp. Corp., 272 Ga. 453, 531 S.E.2d 712 (2000), reversing Brown v. Walton Elec. Membership Corp., 238 Ga. App. 347, 518 S.E.2d 727 (1999).

Electric supplier may condition sale by it of satellite dish to retail electric service clients.

- An electrical supplier may require a consumer to receive retail electric service from "such electric supplier" as a condition for the consumer to purchase a satellite dish from the supplier, but under O.C.G.A. §§ 46-3-200 and46-3-201, an electric membership corporation must require a consumer to be a member of that EMC before the EMC can sell a satellite dish to the consumer. Washington Elec. Membership Corp. v. Avant, 256 Ga. 340, 348 S.E.2d 647 (1986).

Cited in Greensboro Lumber Co. v. Georgia Power Co., 643 F. Supp. 1345 (N.D. Ga. 1986); Albany Oil Mill, Inc. v. Sumter Elec. Membership Corp., 212 Ga. App. 242, 441 S.E.2d 524 (1994); Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Ga. PSC, 278 Ga. App. 239, 628 S.E.2d 658 (2006).

ALR.

- Right of public utility corporation to refuse its service because of collateral matter not related to that service, 55 A.L.R. 771.

Variations of electric utility rates based on quantity used, 67 A.L.R. 821.

Right of electrical company to discriminate against a concern which desires service for resale, 112 A.L.R. 773.

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