Why Georgia Power’s OpenAI Deal Is Under Fire at the PSC

Three environmental and clean-energy groups — NRDC, the Sierra Club and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy — have asked the Georgia Public Service Commission to reject OpenAI’s request for electric service from Georgia Power unless the utility discloses contract terms and adds enforceable ratepayer protections.

The dispute centres on a 3.2-gigawatt power load that would be the largest single customer ever added to Georgia’s electric system. The advocates say the contract has been redacted in its entirety, leaving the public unable to see how costs for grid upgrades and new infrastructure would be recovered.

In a letter to the commission, the groups argue that a fully redacted cost-recovery provision could leave existing Georgia Power customers responsible for costs incurred to serve OpenAI. They call for unredacted disclosure of load commitments, schedules, exit provisions, collateral and infrastructure costs; a standard large-load tariff class; and an affirmative commission vote for contracts above 500 megawatts or infrastructure values over $1 billion.

The Ratepayer Risk Buried in a Redacted 3.2 GW Contract

The OpenAI Load and the Cost-Shifting Question

The central issue is not whether Georgia needs power, but who pays for the infrastructure OpenAI’s project requires. A 3.2 GW load is substantial enough that serving it could require billions of dollars in new generation or transmission. If the contract’s cost-recovery terms are weak, the groups contend, Georgia Power’s remaining customers would absorb costs that the tech company should bear. That is an interpretation, not an established fact: the contract’s opacity is precisely what makes independent verification impossible.

Advertisement

Why Full Redaction Is the Focal Point

Patrick King of NRDC says the contract is “redacted in its entirety,” meaning ratepayers cannot know what the commission is actually considering. That removes the normal accountability check: regulators and intervenors cannot test whether the load commitments, collateral or exit provisions are sufficient. The filing also argues that Georgia Power’s use of individualized contracts gives the utility discretion that a standard tariff class would not.

What the Proposed Remedies Would Change

The groups are asking the PSC to replace discretionary case-by-case approvals with three structural rules: public disclosure of key large-load terms, a standardized large-load customer tariff, and a mandatory affirmative vote for high-impact deals above 500 MW or $1 billion in infrastructure. If adopted, those rules would shift future negotiations from private agreements to more visible, repeatable terms — and would likely apply beyond OpenAI to other data-centre developers seeking Georgia Power service.

The filing does not include a response from Georgia Power or OpenAI, and it does not prove that the current deal underprices service. It does, however, expose a governance gap that has become common as large data-centre loads grow faster than utility tariff structures.

What the Filing Means for Georgia Power, OpenAI and Customers

  • Georgia Power and OpenAI should expect the PSC to test whether the redacted contract recovers all infrastructure costs from OpenAI; the filing asks the commission to reject the deal unless unredacted load commitments, schedules, exit provisions, collateral and infrastructure costs are disclosed.
  • Ratepayers and local governments can use that same checklist when commenting on the docket, instead of relying on broad objections: the specific missing items are load commitments, schedules, exit provisions, collateral and infrastructure costs.
  • Large-load developers planning Georgia projects should model a possible new “large-load customer” tariff and mandatory commission vote for deals above 500 MW or $1 billion in infrastructure, not just the current negotiated contract path.
  • If the PSC adopts the groups’ proposals, any future OpenAI-Georgia Power agreement would need to show enforceable recovery from the tech company, reducing the risk that existing customers are left with stranded grid costs.

Risk & Opportunity Assessment

Commercial RiskHighThe PSC could delay or reject the 3.2 GW contract or impose conditions that alter the deal’s economics; the groups have formally asked for rejection unless protections are added.
Competitive RiskMediumA standardized large-load tariff and mandatory approval threshold would remove Georgia Power’s discretion in negotiating individual data-center contracts and could open comparable service terms to other developers.
Regulatory RiskHighEnvironmental and consumer groups have put the PSC under public pressure to require unredacted terms and an affirmative vote for high-impact contracts; the commission could adopt those rules.
Reputation RiskMediumGeorgia Power and OpenAI are publicly accused of hiding a fully redacted contract while asking ratepayers to bear risk, and the criticism is being driven by credible advocacy groups and circulated in media.
Technology DisruptionLowThe dispute concerns transparency and cost recovery for grid infrastructure, not a new technology displacing current systems; the AI data-centre load itself is already known.
Commercial OpportunityMediumClearer large-load rules could reduce contested delays for future data-centre projects and give developers a predictable tariff path, but no such rule exists yet.