O.C.G.A.

46-3A-7 (2019)

Construction costs as part of rate base; review of construction work in progress; verification of expenditures; recovery of costs of canceled construction

✓ 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) So long as the commission has not modified or revoked the certificate for an electric plant under Code Section 46-3A-6 and to the extent the utility seeks to add to its rate base upon completion of the plant construction costs that do not exceed 100 percent of those approved by the commission under Code Section 46-3A-5, Code Section 46-3A-6, or subsection (b) of this Code section, that construction cost amount may be excluded from the rate base only on the basis of fraud, concealment, failure to disclose a material fact, imprudence, or criminal misconduct. Inclusion of costs in excess of 100 percent of those approved by the commission shall not be permitted unless shown by the utility to have been reasonable and prudent. (b) In addition to the review of the continuing need for an electric plant under construction prescribed in Code Section 46-3A-6, the commission, upon its own motion, may conduct or the utility may request that the commission conduct an ongoing review of such construction as it proceeds. Every one to three years, or at such lesser intervals upon the direction of the commission or request of the utility, the applicant shall file a progress report and any proposed revisions in the cost estimates, construction schedule, or project configuration. Within 180 days of such filing, the commission shall verify and approve or disapprove expenditures made pursuant to the certificate and shall approve, disapprove, or modify any proposed revisions. If the commission fails to so act within 180 days after

such filing, the previous expenditures and any proposed revisions shall be deemed approved by operation of law. (c) If the commission verifies expenditures as made pursuant to a certificated capacity resource, that verification forecloses subsequent exclusion of those costs from the utility’s rate base, absent fraud, concealment, failure to disclose a material fact, imprudence, or criminal misconduct. (d) If the commission disapproves of all or part of the proposed revisions and the utility cancels construction of some or all of the facility as a result of the disapproval, the utility may recover through any rate-making vehicle over a reasonable period of time, absent fraud, concealment, failure to disclose a material fact, imprudence, or criminal misconduct, the amount of its actual investment, net of actual salvage value, in the partially completed portion of the facility along with the cost of carrying the unamortized balance of that investment to the extent such investment is verified as made pursuant to the certificate.

History

(Code 1981, § 46-3A-7, enacted by Ga. L. 1991, p. 1696, § 1.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1994–1994 · leading case: Georgia Power Co. v. Georgia Indus. Grp., 447 S.E.2d 118 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994).
Georgia Power Co. v. Georgia Indus. Grp., 447 S.E.2d 118 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “We further note that in providing for utilities to recover the cost of constructing new power plants, the legislature specified in OCGA § 46-3A-7 (a) that a utility should be permitted to include in its “rate base” the full amount of approved construction costs absent a showing…”
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.