Cost of Keeping Cool: Georgia Power Customers Struggle With Summer Bills

[jaagu]

The Cost of Keeping Cool: Georgia Power Customers Struggle With Summer Bills...

When the power goes out during a Georgia summer, the heat builds fast. Inside a home without air conditioning, the air turns heavy and stifling. For Donica Odell, who has dealt with Georgia Power disconnections for much of her life, it feels “like you’re boiling like crab legs.”

Georgia Power, the state’s largest utility, has disconnection rates among the highest in the country. The problem worsens in the summer, when disconnections rise at the same time temperatures soar, leaving households without the air conditioning they rely on to stay cool in dangerous heat.

According to a study by the Energy and Policy Institute, Georgia Power had the 10th-highest number of utility disconnections nationwide in 2024, with 187,007 disconnections out of nearly 2.5 million customers.

The utility recorded approximately 273,800 residential disconnection events in 2025, according to the Southern Company, Georgia Power’s parent company.

The increase comes as Georgia Power customers have faced higher electricity bills following the completion of nuclear-powered Plant Vogtle and as the utility has sought additional power resources to meet growing demand from data centers.

Summer electricity bills can be hundreds of dollars higher than those in the winter. Odell’s bill reached nearly $600 last month, compared with an average of about $120 during the winter.

oooooooooooo

Georgia Power claimed that Vogtle 3&4 would result in cheap electricity for the ratepayers. Turnsout to be another big lie.

[waterfell]

@jaagu

The increase comes as Georgia Power customers have faced higher electricity bills following the completion of nuclear-powered Plant Vogtle and as the utility has sought additional power resources to meet growing demand from data centers.

In reality, Georgia Power customers pay electricity rates comparable to the rest of the US. According to the Georgia Public Service Commission residential rate survey, Georgia Power customers pay $0.1755 per kwh, for use below 500 kwh per month. This goes to $0.1829 per kwh for 1000 kwh per month. This compares with the national average residential price of electricity at $0.1816 per kwh.

$0.1755 per kwh is much better than states like California, which has an average residential price of $0.3317. Here in San Diego, during the afternoon and early evening hours, I am charged over $1.00 per kwh. I would much prefer to pay the Georgia Power rates, knowing their reliable nuclear plants are supplying electricity at stable rates for the next 60 years. The prices here in California are skyrocketing and continue to go up every month on my bill.

https://www.edhat.com/california/news/california-sees-nations-largest-electricity-rate-increase-up-39-since-2019/

Data from the Energy Institute at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business shows electricity rates in California rose by 39% between 2019 and 2025, the largest increase of any state during that period.

California is one of the nation’s largest electricity producers, ranking fourth in the U.S., yet residents still pay some of the highest electricity rates.

Electricity bills are no longer just a routine household expense for many Californians; they have become a financial strain.

_ Pete

[McLovin1981]

@waterfell

In reality, Georgia Power customers pay electricity rates comparable to the rest of the US.

The question how much of their rates are attributable to Vogtle, right? Georgia’s Public Service Commission hiked rates by 10% to pay for the project.

You could argue Georgia Power is in a good position with enormous amount of power coming online just before the data center boom.

And you can argue there are societal benefits from carbon free power. I’d agree with both of those.

But there is no version of this story where this lead to this lead to cheap power for rate payers. Don’t take my word for it, that’s literally what the people who set the rates said:

The PSC’s staff has testified that the project’s enormous cost overruns have eliminated any economic benefits for ratepayers, who would have been better served if natural gas plants had been built instead.

Georgia Power rates: Public to pay bulk of Plant Vogtle costs

[waterfell]

@McLovin1981

But there is no version of this story where this lead to this lead to cheap power for rate payers. Don’t take my word for it, that’s literally what the people who set the rates said:

The PSC’s staff has testified that the project’s enormous cost overruns have eliminated any economic benefits for ratepayers, who would have been better served if natural gas plants had been built instead.

Congratulations to you and the PSC for having perfect 20-20 hindsight. But I wonder if your foresight is equally as perfect? Do you know what the price of natural gas is going to be in 30 or 40 years? The Vogtle 3&4 plants will only be middle-aged by then. Could it be that the price of natural gas might rise a bit in the next 40 or 60 years? If the price of gas spikes up, as fossil fuels sometimes do, that could make the Vogtle 3 and 4 projects look like good deals. Georgia Power will be in a good position, having those reliable power plants whose operating costs are not tied to the price of fossil fuels.

In the world of investing, there is the well-known concept of diversification. You don’t want to put everything in one just one stock, or even one industry. Most people should spread their retirement savings around, investing in several different companies and asset classes, so that if one investment goes south, hopefully the others will be stable or even go up.

The same concept should apply to electric utility companies. Right now, natural gas is cheap and plentiful, so building power plants that burn gas seems like a good idea. But maybe a smart utility should also have some power plants that don’t rely so much on just one fuel type? Maybe they should diversify their generation resources?

There isn’t much wind power in the south-eastern states. There might be some potential for solar, but the capacity factor for solar is so low, they still need reliable and dispatchable power to make electricity at night. Hydro is limited by where the rivers are and the regional effects of dams. Coal is frowned upon for being dirty and contributing to the CO2 production. (Natural gas also produces CO2, but that seems to be less important.) Like it or not, nuclear power is going to be in the conversation.

_ Pete

[jaagu]

@waterfell

There isn’t much wind power in the south-eastern states. There might be some potential for solar, but the capacity factor for solar is so low, they still need reliable and dispatchable power to make electricity at night. Hydro is limited by where the rivers are and the regional effects of dams. Coal is frowned upon for being dirty and contributing to the CO2 production.

There is a whole lot of potential for solar + batteries in Georgia. Georgia Power generates lots of dirty electicity:

• Oil – 3%**
• Natural Gas – 44%**
• Coal – 17%**

and some clean electricity:

• Nuclear – 12%
• Hydro – 5%
• Solar* – 14%
• Bio-Mass – 1%
• Wind – 1%
• DSO* – 3%

At least the dirty coal electricity could be turned over to solar + batteries, hydro, wind + batteries, and biomass. Nuclear is too expensive.

Georgia Power says following:

Solar energy, battery solutions, and the importance of a diverse fuel mix for 24/7 power.

Georgia’s landscape and annual hours of sunlight makes our state particularly suitable for solar energy generation compared to other areas of the country.

Energy Sources | Georgia Power

[jaagu]

@waterfell

Data from the Energy Institute at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business shows electricity rates in California rose by 39% between 2019 and 2025, the largest increase of any state during that period.

California is one of the nation’s largest electricity producers, ranking fourth in the U.S., yet residents still pay some of the highest electricity rates.

One factor behind California’s rising electricity rates is the growing share of non-energy costs embedded in utility bills.

According to a report from the Little Hoover Commission, ratepayers are increasingly paying for wildfire mitigation, grid hardening, climate-related mandates, and legacy policy obligations that are largely unrelated to the cost of producing electricity.

These expenses are passed directly to customers through regulated rate structures, making bills higher even when fuel prices or electricity demand remain stable.

[waterfell]

@jaagu

At least the dirty coal electricity could be turned over to solar + batteries, hydro, wind + batteries, and biomass. Nuclear is too expensive.

The latest levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) and levelized cost of storage (LCOS) from the EIA shows nuclear at $87.81 per MWh, while battery storage is at $152.61 per MWh. PV-battery hybrid is shown as $94.20/MWh.

Oh, but its nuclear that’s too expensive?

_ Pete

[jaagu]

@waterfell

The latest levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) and levelized cost of storage (LCOS) from the EIA shows nuclear at $87.81 per MWh, while battery storage is at $152.61 per MWh. PV-battery hybrid is shown as $94.20/MWh.

This new study by the biased Trump Administration is suspect. I will study it further, but here are some comments:

1. There is no logical path for advanced nuclear generation to be viable by by 2031.
2. Battery storage at $152.61 makes no sense. We are not going to build huge stand-alone battery farms rated at 1000 MW. Batteries are used in conjunction with solar, wind, or other power generation.
3. PV + battery hybrid is shown as $94.20 with no tax credit.
4. Avanced nuclear is shown as $87.81 with tax credit, but without the tax credit it is more than $20.00 higher at more than $108.00.

[waterfell]

@jaagu

1. PV + battery hybrid is shown as $94.20 with no tax credit.
2. Avanced nuclear is shown as $87.81 with tax credit, but without the tax credit it is more than $20.00 higher at more than $108.00.

A PV + battery hybrid plant does not provide the same kind of performance as a nuclear power plant. Look at the General Assumptions printed in the LCOE document (page 3).

The batteries only work for 4 hours after the sun goes down. This is a common characteristic for this kind of hybrid power plant. In reality, the effectiveness of solar panels starts to decline in the late afternoon, well before the sun actually sets. Yet people have this weird expectation that their electricity will keep working throughout the night. And what about late December and early January, when the sun sets before 5 PM?

This is why life is more complicated than some single number printed in a government report. As the EIA document cautions:

“LCOE is limited because it only reflects the cost to build and operate a plant,
not the value of the plant to the grid”

Nuclear plants, with their always on 24/7 power, in my opinion, provide more value to the grid than some solar array with a 4-hour battery connected.

_ Pete

[jaagu]

@waterfell

Nuclear plants, with their always on 24/7 power, in my opinion, provide more value to the grid than some solar array with a 4-hour battery connected.

Always on is not correct because they have capacity factor of about 90 to 92. Which means they are off 8 to 10 percent of the time.

Also, there is no logical path for advanced nuclear generation to be viable by 2031.

[waterfell]

@jaagu

Always on is not correct because they have capacity factor of about 90 to 92. Which means they are off 8 to 10 percent of the time.

Since you are going to split hairs, I would like to point out that many nuclear plants have multiple reactors at one plant location. They try to keep at least one reactor running, while the other(s) might be down for refueling or maintenance. In this way, the power plant, as a whole, is (almost) always “on”.

For instance, below is the electricity production graph from the EIA for the Vogtle plant in Georgia, which many people seem to hate.

The graph goes back to 2001, and we can see the power plant, as a whole, produced electricity during every month. There was never a month when the power plant didn’t generate power. We can also see the recent additions of Vogtle 3 and 4, which raised monthly output to over 3 million MWh.

The refueling outages are always scheduled many months in advance, and are often timed when grid demand is expected to be lower than normal. This often happens in the spring and autumn months, when the weather isn’t too hot or too cold. Vogtle-2, for instance, has recently been operating at reduced power for the last few weeks, and looks like they may be shutting down to refuel soon, here at the beginning of autumn. But don’t worry, Vogtle-1, -3, and -4 should still be available.

Occasionally, a plant will trip itself off-line, creating an unplanned outage. That is what they are designed to do when even small equipment problems are detected. Those type of outages are relatively rare these days, but they do still happen from time to time.

Below is a similar graph for the Palo Verde plant in Arizona, going back to 2001.

There was one month in 2006 when production was less than 1 million MWh. Other than that, monthly output is usually somewhere between 2 million and 3 million MWh.

_ Pete

[jaagu]

@waterfell

I would like to point out that many nuclear plants have multiple reactors at one plant location. They try to keep at least one reactor running, while the other(s) might be down for refueling or maintenance. In this way, the power plant, as a whole, is (almost) always “on”.

Thank you for your weasel words to correct your earlier claims about “always on” with “almost always on”.

Per your logic of keeping one of two reactor always on makes me laugh. The grid does not care if a non-nuclear power plant takes up the slack produced by one of two reactors is off line. The only ones who care are Southern Company/Georgia Power because thesse nukes need to pay back all that mega capital costs loans they generated during the construction of these nukes.