SACE | Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
SACE Testimony at the 2013 Georgia Power IRP
Georgia Power 2013 IRP & Efficiency Proceeding Testimony
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy intervened in the 2013 proceedings to review Georgia Power Company’s 2013 IRP and its proposal for the next three years of energy efficiency programs (known as demand-side management, or DSM, in Georgia). All the publicly available materials for this proceeding are available from the Commission’s website. The proceedings are officially recorded as:
- Docket 36498: 2013 Integrated Resource Plan and Application for Decertification of Plant Branch Units 3 and 4, Plant McManus Units 1 and 2, Plant Kraft Units 1-4, Plant Yates Units 1-5, Plant Boulevard Units 2 and 3 and Plant Bowen Unit 6
- Docket 36499: Georgia Power Company’s Application for the Certification of its Amended Demand Side Management Plan
With the support of our attorneys at the Southern Environmental Law Center, two SACE staff members and our consultant filed expert witness testimony in this proceeding as well as various other position statements. The testimony is contained in the following documents and discussed in our legal brief.
- Testimony of John D. Wilson (36498), along with exhibits 1-8, primarily related to the overall integrated resource plan and a comparative evaluation of SACE’s recommendations with respect to energy efficiency, coal plant retirements, and solar energy development with the plan recommended by Georgia Power Company.
- Testimony of George Evans (36498), along with exhibits 1-4, primarily related to Georgia Power Company’s proposals to retire or repower of coal plants.
- Testimony of Natalie Mims (36499), along with exhibits 1-8, primarily related to SACE’s recommended “enhanced” energy efficiency program proposal.
- Post-Hearing Brief of Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (filed by Southern Environmental Law Center)
Please note that a substantial amount of the interesting and useful data is redacted (blacked out). This is due to the policies of Georgia Power Company, which are not questioned by the Georgia Public Service Commission, and are very unusual compared to peer utilities. The testimony of John D. Wilson and Natalie Mims include some text highlighted in green. This are items which the company agreed did not need to be redacted during the proceeding, and revised testimony was filed. If the information that is redacted vs. made public seems inconsistent, only Georgia Power can explain why they view some information as Trade Secret and not other information.