Shelia Edwards

“Yes.”

Josh Tolbert (Received on Oct 21)

“Yes. Contracts of this size can create decades of financial obligations and affect electricity costs throughout Georgia. Elected commissioners should vote publicly after a thorough technical and financial review, with an opportunity for public input. Staff analysis is essential, but commissioners should take responsibility for decisions with consequences this significant. I would require a clear demonstration that the contract covers the customer’s direct and indirect costs, protects existing customers if projected demand fails to materialize, and maintains reliable service.”

Shelia Edwards

“I believe the public has a right to know whether large corporations, including data centers, are paying their fair share of the electricity infrastructure they require. The public should have access to essential contract terms, including projected electricity demand, infrastructure costs, ratepayer protections, minimum payment commitments, contract duration, and provisions addressing what happens if a large customer reduces operations or leaves Georgia. Formal intervenors should have access to the complete contracts under appropriate confidentiality agreements or protective orders so they can independently evaluate whether the arrangements protect consumers. Legitimate trade secrets should be narrowly limited to information whose disclosure would cause demonstrable competitive harm. Contract terms that determine who pays for electricity infrastructure cannot be hidden simply because a utility or corporation labels them confidential. I will push for independent scrutiny, meaningful public disclosure, and Commission votes on major contracts. My guiding principle is straightforward: Who pays? Who profits? And who is protecting Georgia's ratepayers? The Public Service Commission must answer those questions before approving agreements that could leave Georgia families paying for decades.”

Josh Tolbert (Received on Oct 21)

“The public should be able to understand what is being promised, who bears the financial risk, and how existing customers are protected. Contract duration, cost-allocation methods, minimum payment obligations, termination protections, and projected ratepayer benefits should be disclosed as fully as possible.

Qualified intervenors and their experts should have access to the full terms needed to evaluate those protections, subject to appropriate confidentiality agreements and protective orders. Trade-secret protection should require a specific, demonstrated justification and narrowly tailored redactions. It should not become a blanket exemption that prevents meaningful scrutiny of obligations affecting customers’ bills.”

Shelia Edwards

“As Commissioner, I will vote for data centers to pay their own way—not Georgia families. Georgia families should never be forced to pay for power plants, transmission lines, or other infrastructure built to serve data centers if that projected demand never materializes. The PSC must require binding, enforceable financial commitments from large-load customers before approving major infrastructure investments on their behalf. These protections should include minimum payment obligations, take-or-pay contracts, substantial financial guarantees, and exit penalties that prevent companies from walking away and leaving residential customers with the bill. I would also require independent verification of projected electricity demand, phased infrastructure development tied to actual customer commitments, and transparent accounting that separates data center costs from residential ratepayer obligations. Most importantly, the financial risk of speculative data center growth must rest with the corporations creating that demand—not seniors, veterans, working families, or small businesses. Georgia Power should not be allowed to earn profits on unnecessary infrastructure while residential customers absorb the losses. My position is clear: If data centers need the power, they must pay for it. If their demand never materializes, Georgia families should not be left holding the bill. That’s accountability, and that’s putting People Before Profits.”

Josh Tolbert (Received on Oct 21)

“Data centers must cover all direct and indirect costs their demand creates, including generation, transmission, substations, and associated natural gas infrastructure and transportation commitments. Contracts should include enforceable minimum payments, meaningful financial security, and termination provisions sufficient to protect existing customers if projects are delayed, use less electricity, or close early.

Construction should proceed in phases tied to credible demand and binding financial commitments. Before approving utility expansion, the PSC should also evaluate customer-supplied generation that can reduce the capacity the utility must build. The primary financial risk of speculative growth should fall on the developers and utility investors whose decisions create that risk. Residential customers should not become the financial backstop for demand that never arrives.”

Shelia Edwards

“Georgia families need guaranteed savings, not speculative promises. Georgia Power’s projection that large-load customers will reduce residential bills beginning in 2029 must be independently verified, not simply accepted at face value. Georgians have heard enough promises about future savings while their electricity bills continue to rise. I would require the PSC to conduct independent financial and demand analyses, examine the assumptions behind projected revenues, and establish measurable benchmarks to track whether those savings actually reach residential customers. The company should be required to provide regular public reports comparing projected revenues, actual collections, infrastructure costs, and the impact on residential bills. If those projections fail to materialize, residential customers should not be forced to cover the difference. Large-load contracts must include enforceable financial guarantees, minimum payment requirements, and other protections that place the financial risk on the corporations creating the demand—not Georgia families. I would also require that verified net revenues benefiting residential customers be reflected in actual rates or bill credits, rather than simply used to justify future spending. My position is simple: Georgia Power must prove the savings, deliver the savings, and be held accountable if its projections fall short. The PSC’s responsibility is not to protect Georgia Power’s profit projections. It is to protect the people of Georgia.”

Josh Tolbert (Received on Oct 21)

“The PSC should require an independently reviewable analysis showing how projected revenue compares with all associated costs, including construction, financing, fuel, operations, and supporting infrastructure. That analysis should test scenarios involving delayed projects, lower demand, higher costs, and early closures.

The Commission should then require regular public reporting comparing actual results with those projections and showing whether savings reach customers’ bills.

If projections fail, the response should follow enforceable protections established before approval: collecting contractual payments, drawing on financial security where appropriate, and reconsidering construction that is no longer justified. The PSC should scrutinize any attempt to recover resulting losses from residential customers. Promised future savings must be supported by evidence and enforceable commitments.”

Shelia Edwards

“Existing customers must come first. Reliability cannot be sacrificed to accommodate data centers and other large corporate customers. I believe the PSC must require Georgia Power to demonstrate that serving massive new electricity loads will not compromise service reliability, grid stability, or storm restoration times for existing customers, particularly in rural and historically underserved communities. Before approving major new loads, I would require independent reliability assessments, enforceable performance standards, and infrastructure plans that account for the needs of existing customers. Georgia Power must also demonstrate that it has sufficient generation, transmission capacity, maintenance resources, and emergency response personnel to serve everyone reliably. Rural Georgians should not be left waiting longer for power restoration because utility resources have been redirected to serve multibillion-dollar data centers. I would push for transparent reporting of outage frequency, duration, and restoration times by geographic area, along with accountability when performance standards are not met. Large-load customers should also pay their fair share of the grid upgrades and additional capacity required to serve them. My position is simple: Economic development should strengthen Georgia’s electric grid, not weaken reliability for the families and communities already depending on it. No Georgian should be pushed to the back of the line so a data center can move to the front. People Before Profits.”

Josh Tolbert (Received on Oct 21)

“The PSC should require studies of both statewide capacity and the local transmission and distribution systems affected by each major new customer. Having enough generation statewide does not establish that a particular community can reliably accommodate a large new load.

Necessary upgrades should be completed before service expands, with costs assigned to the customers creating the need. Reviews should also examine backup-power arrangements, emergency operating procedures, and whether growth will strain maintenance crews, equipment inventories, or storm-response resources.

I would require reliability and restoration reporting that identifies rural service problems rather than hiding them within statewide averages. Restoration priorities should reflect safety and community needs. Large customers should finance the infrastructure and resources their growth requires while existing communities receive dependable service.”

Shelia Edwards

“Georgia’s energy future must be affordable, reliable, environmentally responsible, and fair to the communities bearing the greatest burden. I believe the PSC must evaluate new power plants based on their full costs and long-term consequences, not simply Georgia Power’s preferred solution. That means examining construction costs, fuel price volatility, reliability, environmental impacts, and the financial risks passed on to ratepayers. When considering projects like the proposed gas-fired units at Plant McIntosh in Effingham County, I would require independent analysis comparing new gas generation with alternatives such as solar, battery storage, energy efficiency, and demand management. We must determine whether additional generation is truly needed and whether less expensive, cleaner alternatives can meet that need reliably. Community impacts must carry significant weight in these decisions. Too often, rural, Black, low-income, and historically underserved communities bear the environmental and health burdens of energy infrastructure while receiving few of the economic benefits. Residents deserve meaningful opportunities to participate before decisions are made, not after projects are approved. I would also examine air pollution, water use, greenhouse gas emissions, and the long-term financial risks of building fossil fuel infrastructure that customers may be paying for decades from now. Reliability is nonnegotiable, but it should never be used as a blank check for unnecessary spending or environmental harm. My responsibility as a commissioner would be to ask three fundamental questions: Is this investment necessary? Is it the most affordable and responsible option? And who ultimately pays the price? Georgia can build a reliable energy future without sacrificing affordability, public health, or the well-being of our communities. That’s what putting People Before Profits means.”

Josh Tolbert (Received on Oct 21)

“For proposals such as the gas-fired units at Plant McIntosh, I would begin by examining whether the capacity is needed, who creates that need, and which alternatives can meet it reliably at the lowest total cost.

That comparison must include construction, financing, fuel, pipeline capacity, operations, environmental compliance, and the risk that forecast demand does not materialize. Alternatives should include upgrades to existing plants, competitive power purchases, customer-supplied generation, and other resources capable of meeting the same reliability requirements.

Environmental and community impacts—including emissions, water use, noise, and infrastructure burdens—deserve measurable analysis and meaningful public participation. My goal is the lowest-emission option that meets affordability and reliability requirements, with appropriate mitigation and fair cost allocation. A project should earn approval through evidence.”

Shelia Edwards

“Data centers have demonstrated that they can bring investment to Georgia, but they have not demonstrated that their massive electricity demands will translate into lower monthly bills for Georgia families. Georgia Power is promising future savings but promises are not proof. Before we commit billions of dollars to new power plants and transmission infrastructure, we need independent verification of the costs, benefits, and risks. As a Public Service Commissioner, I will demand evidence that data centers are paying their full share and that residential customers are receiving measurable benefits. Georgia families should not be asked to finance the infrastructure for billion-dollar corporations based on projected benefits that may never materialize. My standard is simple: Show me the savings. Show me who pays. And show me who is accountable if those promises fall short. That position recognizes the potential benefits without dismissing them, while making independent verification and consumer protection the central responsibilities of the PSC.”

Josh Tolbert (Received on Oct 21)

“Large data centers can potentially reduce electricity costs for existing customers by contributing toward shared system costs and financing infrastructure improvements. Their demand may also support investment in more efficient generation. Those benefits must be demonstrated after accounting for every associated expense and financial risk.

My standard is that data centers pay their full direct and indirect costs and provide a measurable financial benefit to existing ratepayers. Contracts must protect customers against delays, lower-than-promised demand, and early closures.

Whether a data center belongs in a community should remain a local decision through a transparent process. The PSC’s responsibility is to ensure that providing utility service protects existing customers, maintains reliability, and delivers the benefits used to justify approval.”

helia Edwards

“Once I am elected, I would push for a mandatory public review and recorded Commission vote on all major large-load contracts before they take effect. These reviews must include independent cost assessments, full transparency, and enforceable financial guarantees ensuring that data centers and other large customers pay for the infrastructure required to serve them. Georgia families should never be forced to subsidize multibillion-dollar corporations or bear the financial risk if projected electricity demand fails to materialize. The PSC must stop rubber-stamping major utility decisions and restore accountability to the people it was elected to serve. People Before Profits.”

Josh Tolbert (Received on Oct 21)

“I would propose requiring a public commission vote on major large-load contracts, supported by a written analysis of their full costs, financial risks, reliability impacts, and protections for existing customers.

Before voting for approval, I would require evidence that enforceable customer commitments and financial security adequately address delays, reduced demand, and early termination. The analysis should also examine whether customer-supplied generation could reduce utility construction and demonstrate how any projected savings would reach existing customers.

This would make commissioners directly accountable for the decision and give the public a clear record of its justification. My engineering background would help me challenge unsupported assumptions and evaluate whether the proposed protections actually work.”