In the fall of 2019, Alabama Power filed a petition with the Public Service Commission (PSC), seeking permission to charge its customers well over a billion dollars over a 40-year period for an unprecedented expansion. The company says it needs to be able to generate a lot more electricity, even though the state’s electricity demand is generally stable. The proposed expansion would increase Alabama Power’s capacity by nearly 20%.
In March, Sierra Club and other intervenors challenged Alabama Power’s expansion at a hearing before the Public Service Commission. The company’s proposal, which is mostly made up of fossil fuels, is a bad financial deal for customers.
In the coming months, the PSC will review the record and decide whether to grant, partly grant, or deny the company’s plan.
This blog series will explain Alabama Power’s proposed expansion and clarify the stakes of one of the biggest energy cases ever to be decided in Alabama history. Missed post one? Find it here!
By Sari Amiel, Legal Fellow with the Sierra Club's Environmental Law Program
------------
Walking up the steps of the PSC building in Montgomery on March 9, 2020 (the first day of the public hearing on Alabama Power’s proposed unprecedented capacity expansion), I passed a group of Alabama Power customers who were holding signs urging the Commission not to approve expensive new gas-fired power plants that would lead to customers paying higher utility bills.
Little did they know that standing outside the PSC 30 minutes before the hearing would cost them their seats inside the hearing room. And because the PSC did not livestream the hearing or set up an overflow room with seats, sitting in the hearing room was the only opportunity for members of the public to follow along with the proceedings they traveled all the way to Montgomery to observe.
Under a temporary media plan adopted by the PSC for this hearing, people inside could not even use their phones to check a text, let alone broadcast or record the proceedings for the benefit of those who could not find seats. The PSC stationed a security guard at the back of the hearing room who intervened even when audience members quietly checked their phones. Only days before the hearing, the PSC established that temporary media plan, which required any media outlets to get permission in advance in order to record, broadcast, or photograph the hearing. No media outlets had received that permission, so the only way to fully follow along with the hearing in real time was to be present.
The Public Service Commission needs to live up to its name by increasing transparency. If the PSC follows through with its goal of making its temporary media plan permanent, it would greatly reduce transparency and undercut the public’s confidence—along with violating the public’s First Amendment rights. The permanent Media Coverage Plan sets in stone taxing rules: (1) people must submit a written request to the PSC five days before a hearing, and receive the PSC’s permission, before they can record or even photograph hearings; (2) any party, witness, attorney, Commissioner, or Administrative Law Judge can revoke that permission at any time, for any reason; and (3) nobody but attorneys and their support staff can use any “digital device” while in the hearing room, for any purpose.
Essentially, this means that the Southern Company, at any point in time and for any reason, can deny the public and media access to its plans for Alabama. This is a huge blow to Alabama Power’s customers, especially low-income folks, who are most heavily impacted by rate hikes. Everyone who has a utility bill has the right to know what is going on at their Public Service Commission. In the neighboring states of Georgia and Mississippi, PSCs livestream their proceedings and allow attendees to freely record them.
Various groups have opposed the PSC’s Media Coverage Plan, including the Alabama Press Association, the Sierra Club, and other environmental and civil rights-focused nonprofits. These groups argue that, under the U.S. Constitution and Alabama’s Open Meetings Act, the PSC cannot impose such a wide-ranging limit on the public’s right to record public proceedings.
Good governance requires transparent proceedings and well-informed citizens. Let’s make sure that “Public” remains part of “Public Service Commission.”