O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 46-3-152 (2019)

Jurisdiction of commission over rates, services, and practices of authority

✓ 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

The rates, services, and practices relating to the generation, transmission, and sale by the authority of power to be generated from the projects authorized by this article shall not be subject to the provisions of the Georgia Public Service Commission law nor to regulation by nor jurisdiction of the commission.

History

(Ga. L. 1975, p. 107, § 26.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS The Public Service Commission’s interpretations of the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG) Act are not entitled to great deference and are reviewed de novo. Municipal Elec. Auth. v. Georgia Pub. Serv.

Comm’n, 241 Ga. App. 237, 525 S.E.2d 399 (1999). Cited in Greensboro Lumber Co. v. Georgia Power Co., 643 F. Supp. 1345 (N.D. Ga. 1986), aff ’d, 844 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1988).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Applicability of public utility acts to municipal corporations owning or operating a public utility, 10 ALR 1432; 18 ALR 946.

Public utility’s right to recover cost of nuclear power plants abandoned before completion, 83 ALR4th 183.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1986–1999 · leading case: Greensboro Lumber Co. v. Georgia Power Co., 643 F. Supp. 1345 (N.D. Ga. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Greensboro Lumber Co. v. Georgia Power Co., 643 F. Supp. 1345 (N.D. Ga. 1986). · cites it 2× “O.C.G.A. § 46-3-152. Under the new, broader standard of the state action exemption articulated in Town of Hallie and Southern Motor Carriers, both the power supply arrangements between MEAG and the Participants and MEAG’s participation in the ITS and its joint ownership…”
Mun. Elec. Auth. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 525 S.E.2d 399 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 46-3-152. We conclude, therefore, that the PSC’s interpretations of the MEAG Act are not entitled to great deference.”
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.