[link removed]


** Georgia PSC incumbents take majority of campaign money from regulated utility interests ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------

By Daniel Tait on August 13, 2025

Georgia Public Service Commission incumbents Fitz Johnson and Tim Echols have each received most of their campaign funding, since January 2024, from individuals and companies associated with the monopoly utilities they regulate. In the District 3 race, incumbent Commissioner Fitz Johnson has received more than 87 percent of his campaign contributions from donors tied to entities regulated by the Public Service Commission (PSC). In District 2, Commissioner Tim Echols has taken more than 61 percent of his campaign funding from those sources.

The Georgia PSC sets rates and oversees the operations of utilities like Georgia Power, Atlanta Gas Light, Liberty Utilities and some telecommunications companies. Accepting money from individuals and companies with business before the PSC raises conflict-of-interest concerns and reinforces patterns of regulatory capture. The Georgia Public Service Commission has approved six Georgia Power rate increases since 2022, according to
reporting ([link removed]) by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

District-by-district fundraising patterns

Many of the utility-affiliated contributions to Johnson and Echols came from sources with financial stakes in PSC decisions. These include executives at Georgia Power, its parent Southern Company, the law firm that represents Georgia Power at the commission, and contractors and trade groups tied to natural gas infrastructure. These giving patterns echo prior ([link removed]) election cycles, where incumbents relied heavily on contributions associated with regulated entities.


**
District 3 — Fitz Johnson (R)

Johnson has raised $200,325 for his campaign since January 1, 2024. Of that total, $174,500, or 87 percent, came from people or businesses connected to PSC-regulated entities, including Georgia Power executives, Southern Company subsidiaries, and trade associations. These contributions also include checks from lobbyists and political action committees with business before the commission.

Associated contributors to Johnson include:
------------------------------------------------------------
* Six contributions totalling $22,250 from Troutman Pepper, the law firm representing Georgia Power at the PSC, or its employees. Four of the six Troutman contributions were from attorneys that represent Georgia Power at the Commission: Steven Hewitson, Brandon Marzo, Allison Pryor, and Michael Wooldridge.
* 11 contributions totalling $6,400 from people employed by Georgia Power, its parent Southern Company, or another Southern affiliate, including a $1,000 contribution from Southern Company Gas CEO Jim Kerr.
* 21 contributions totaling $4,850 from employees of Gas South, a gas marketer.

Johnson did not respond to a request for comment from the Energy and Policy Institute.

District 2 — Tim Echols (R)

Echols has raised $360,786.29 for his campaign since January 1, 2024. Of that, $221,250, or 61 percent, came from utility-affiliated sources. His donors include executives and lobbyists for companies with active cases before the PSC, as well as contractors whose business depends on PSC-regulated utilities.

Associated contributors to Echols include:
* Six contributions totalling $18,750 from Troutman Pepper, the law firm representing Georgia Power at the PSC, or its employees. Four of the six Troutman contributions were from attorneys that represent Georgia Power at the Commission: Steven Hewitson, Brandon Marzo, Allison Pryor, and Michael Wooldridge.
* 14 contributions totalling $6,750 from people employed by Georgia Power, its parent Southern Company, or another Southern affiliate, including a $1,000 contribution from Southern Company Gas CEO Jim Kerr.
* Nine contributions totaling $3,650 from employees of Gas South, a gas marketer.

Echols received two anonymous contributions in 2024; one for $34,424.09 on April 17 and another for $5,084.94 on December 22. Echols did not respond to a request for more information about the identities of the two contributors, or to other questions from the Energy and Policy Institute.

District 2 — Alicia Johnson (D) and District 3 — Peter Hubbard (D)

District 2 challenger Alicia Johnson, running against Tim Echols, has raised $23,187. She had no contributions from regulated-entity sources that the Energy and Policy Institute could identify in the Energy and Policy Institute’s analysis of campaign finance filings. District 3 challenger Peter Hubbard, running against Fitz Johnson, has raised $24,775, with $1,505 (about 6.07 percent) associated with regulated companies.

Real-world impact

The PSC’s decisions determine the cost and reliability of electric and gas service for millions of Georgians. When commissioners take the majority of their campaign funds from utility-affiliated donors, it risks influencing how they receive and perceive information from those sources. Commissioners taking campaign funds from utility-affiliated donors also reinforces public perceptions that regulatory outcomes may be influenced by campaign cash, rather than the public interest.

The Georgia PSC campaign finance findings are part of a broader trend across the Southeast, where monopoly utilities use political spending to preserve favorable regulatory conditions. A
recent Floodlight analysis ([link removed]) of campaign finance data in nine of the 10 states that elect their public service commissioners found that more than a third of all contributions greater than $250 were from fossil fuel and electric utility interests, totalling more than $13.5 million.

Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law initiative at Harvard University told Floodlight, “(When) the people regulating the utility are essentially propped up by the utility itself, it’s problematic. I think everybody can recognize that as a conflict of interest.”

Several Southeastern states give monopoly utilities some of the most favorable regulatory treatment in the country,
according ([link removed]) to S&P Global’s Regulatory Research Associates. Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Tennessee all earn “Above Average” ratings from an investor perspective, signaling lower risk and higher returns for utility shareholders. Georgia is in the top four nationally. These ratings line up with some of the highest authorized returns on equity (ROE) – a measure of utilities’ regulated profit margins – in the nation, often exceeding 10 percent. In a region where utilities face little competition and maintain vertically integrated monopolies, higher ROEs rules translate into stable, outsized profits paid for by captive customers.

In Georgia, there is no cap on the profits a monopoly utility like Georgia Power can earn. The Public Service Commission sets an earnings band for the company’s ROE, which is currently set at 11.9 percent, within which all profits go to the company. If Georgia Power’s earnings exceed that level, the utility must return some of the excess to customers, but it is allowed to keep a portion. In 2023, the PSC found ([link removed]) Georgia Power earned a 13.69 percent ROE, resulting in $292.8 million in excess revenues. Of that, $117.1 million was refunded to customers, $117.1 million was applied to regulatory assets, and Georgia Power kept $58.6 million.

Methodology

The Energy and Policy Institute analyzed contributions to each Republican and Democratic candidate for the Georgia Public Service Commission to check for ties to regulated entities.

Regulated entities are those who have rates set by Commission proceedings, or whose operations are subject to Commission oversight. EPI counted the following as “associated” with a regulated entity:
* Law firms and employees of law firms representing regulated entities
* Lobbyists registered to represent regulated entities
* Executives, employees, and retirees of regulated entities
* Companies, and the people who work for them, with known financial ties to regulated entities or their affiliates
* Corporations with no public profile that are owned by or associated with people from or representing regulated entities

Some contributions were untraceable. EPI treated those as contributions as not being associated with a regulated entity.

All figures are based on public filings, current as of August 8, 2025. To view the original source data and EPI’s classification of each contribution, please visit
this link ([link removed]) .


** Recent EPI articles and press:
------------------------------------------------------------
* Utility-backed climate framework could weaken emissions targets ([link removed])
* ‘Financial support’ from Minnesota Power may have influenced backers of utility acquisition, judge says ([link removed])
* MotherJones: Did RNC Chair Michael Whatley Help Run a Fossil Fuel Front Group? ([link removed])
* Pluribus News: Legislators look to limit profits utilities make on investments ([link removed])
* Tampa Bay Times: Trump nominates Florida utility official in shakeup ([link removed])

Get in touch. Do you have a question or want to provide information?
Contact us ([link removed])
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
mailto:[email protected]

View this email in your browser ([link removed])

Copyright (C) 2025 Energy and Policy Institute. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website via our Contact Us page.
Our mailing address is:
Energy and Policy Institute
P.O. Box 337
El Verano, CA 95433
USA
Want to change how you receive these emails?

You can update your preferences ([link removed]) or unsubscribe ([link removed])