Georgia Power’s all-source RFP compared proposals for future electric capacity from thermal generation, standalone energy storage and storage paired with renewable resources. The process moved through bidder input on solicitation terms, conformity screening, economic and technical evaluation, transmission analysis and regulatory certification. The Georgia Public Service Commission ultimately certified 18 RFP-selected resources totaling 7,999 MW; a separate 1,886 MW of supplemental resources was not selected through this RFP.
-
Utility: Georgia Power Company
Utility type: Investor-owned utility
Technology / purchase: Electric capacity and generation/storage resources through power purchase agreements and company-owned projects; the solicitation also permitted asset purchase and build-transfer structures
Buying motion: Energy-resource acquisition / contracting (competitive all-source RFP)
Stages visible in the record: Problem Definition → Solution Exploration → Vendor Evaluation → Purchase Decision
Stakeholders explicitly visible: Georgia Power evaluation team; Georgia PSC Public Interest Advocacy Staff; Accion Group as independent evaluator; transmission analysis personnel; E3 Consulting and Natural Power technical reviewers; resource bidders; Georgia Public Service Commission
Evidence / information explicitly mentioned: Draft RFP and pro-forma agreements; bidder conference and Q&A; submitted comments; bid forms and project schedules; interconnection and site-control information; conformity screen; bid fees and security; mock-bid model tests; blinded price-only report; updated prices and optional commercial-operation dates; technical due-diligence checklists; transmission and portfolio analyses; finalist PPA clarifications
Outcome: Georgia PSC certified 18 RFP-selected resources totaling 7,999 MW in December 2025; project completion and commercial operation are not established
Source basis: Independent evaluator’s regulatory report, Georgia PSC filings and annual report, Georgia Power announcement, and issuer SEC Form 10-K
Stakeholders explicitly visible: unbold text
Evidence / information explicitly mentioned: unbold text
Outcome: unbold text
Source basis: unbold text
What triggered the purchase
The Georgia PSC's 2022 integrated resource plan (IRP) order required Georgia Power to conduct an all-source solicitation to address identified capacity needs for 2029-2031. The independent evaluator described the RFP as a process for obtaining capacity resources that could meet those needs. The subsequent regulatory record also describes increased forecasts for large-load demand, including data centers, but it does not establish the utility’s earliest recognition of the capacity need.
The RFP website opened in December 2023. Georgia Power’s process was therefore already at the stage of developing and conducting a resource solicitation when the detailed public record begins.
How the utility defined what it needed
The solicitation sought up to 8,500 MW of capacity from standalone energy storage with grid-charging capability, storage paired with renewable resources and grid-charging capability, and thermal generation. Proposals could involve existing or new facilities and take the form of power purchase agreements (PPAs), asset purchase agreements (APAs), build-transfer agreements (BTAs) or company-owned proposals (COPs). The RFP required proposed resources to be fully dispatchable, available to follow Georgia Power’s scheduling instructions and capable of automatic generation control (AGC).
The public record describes how prospective bidders could review the solicitation documents, rather than reconstructing the utility’s earlier internal requirements-development process. Georgia Power and the independent evaluator circulated draft RFP terms and pro-forma agreements. A March 4, 2024 bidder conference provided presentations and Q&A, with written responses and materials distributed through the RFP website.
Two comment periods in 2024 invited input on the draft RFP and contract forms. According to independent evaluator Accion Group, 539 comments from nine participants were received and processed. Georgia Power’s evaluation team, PSC Staff and Accion reviewed the comments and responses before final RFP documents were approved in July 2024. The record does not attribute a particular contract change to a particular commenter.
How vendors or options were evaluated
Bids closed in July 2024. Accion reports that 57 bids were submitted, three were withdrawn during initial confirmation and 54 were evaluated. The evaluated offers were not all treated as interchangeable: they differed by technology, proposed site and contractual ownership structure.
Before comparative rankings were finalized, the evaluation framework was reviewed and tested with mock bids. Georgia Power, PSC Staff and Accion reviewed assumptions and economic models, including a subsequent test using updated B2025 assumptions. The framework compared the net present value of generation and transmission costs and used production-cost scenarios to assess operating effects. Accion and Staff also prepared a price-only comparison separated by technology and bid type, with bidder identities suppressed. That preliminary comparison was not the final resource ranking.
A conformity review reduced the field to 33 conforming offers from 17 unique sites, according to Accion. Separately from economic comparisons, participation required bid fees; advancing offers faced bid-security requirements, and APA/BTA bids were subject to staged due-diligence fees. Those financial participation conditions were not simply additional price-scoring factors.
The RFP also reserved Georgia Power’s right to consider non-price attributes, including bidder financial and technical competence, development schedules, operating and dispatch characteristics, environmental risks, and transmission delivery. The evaluator documents the availability of these considerations, not that each listed attribute was separately scored for every offer.
Remaining bidders were permitted to refresh prices in January 2025 and, in February, to offer an alternate earlier commercial-operation date. Earlier dates were optional and were not automatically preferred. Evaluators then reran comparisons for the competitive tier using refreshed bid information. Transmission interconnection and delivery costs were incorporated into the final shortlist analysis.
Georgia Power compared two portfolios that differed in the location and timing of company-owned combined-cycle generation options. Accion reports that Georgia Power, PSC Staff and the evaluator agreed on the portfolio capable of bringing capacity online earlier, although it was more expensive. Accion separately describes the selected portfolio as having higher transmission costs and an earlier intended in-service schedule. Detailed cost differences appear in confidential exhibits and cannot be reconstructed from the public report.
A shortlist was established on May 16, 2025. Georgia Power then held discussions with finalists to clarify project-specific PPA terms, with Accion and PSC Staff participating. Accion states that bidders were not permitted to reprice bids or shift the allocation of risks and benefits through these discussions. One thermal-project bidder ultimately withdrew following extended contract discussions.
Evidence and information explicitly mentioned
Draft solicitation and contract comments
The draft RFP, pro-forma PPAs, APA and BTA documents, bidder-conference materials and shared Q&A provided the basis for pre-bid participation. Accion recorded the 539 comments from nine participants across the two comment windows and its review of Georgia Power’s responses. This is documented bidder input on the solicitation, not proof that any specific bidder obtained a requested change.
Bid forms and project-readiness information
Bid submissions called for construction schedules, interconnection agreement status, facility location and site control, technical and operational specifications, single-line drawings, financial and credit information, bidder qualifications, and pricing. Storage submissions included design, duration, cycle limits and efficiency information; thermal submissions included fuel and operating data. These were required project descriptions and evidence inputs, not an independently documented score for each item.
Conformity screening and financial participation requirements
Accion’s conformity list retained 33 offers for further comparison. The process also specified nonrefundable bid fees, security for bids reaching the competitive tier, and additional due-diligence payments for APA/BTA proposals. The evaluator reports these requirements and some bidder withdrawals or refunds, but the public record does not establish that every removed offer failed the same test.
Economic-model testing and price-only comparison
Georgia Power, PSC Staff and Accion reviewed mock-bid model results and updated assumptions before continuing comparative evaluation. Accion and Staff produced a blinded price-only report by technology and bid type. The subsequent economic evaluation incorporated generation and transmission cost, production-cost scenarios and capacity-related assumptions; the price-only tables should not be read as the final ranking.
Technical due-diligence checklists
Accion describes minimum technical requirements and detailed checklists for APA, BTA and company-owned proposals. Georgia Power engaged E3 Consulting and Natural Power to review company-owned proposals, including combined-cycle and battery-storage technical requirements. These reviews tested resource proposals against technical requirements; they were not a separate selection of equipment, controls, software or EPC suppliers.
Transmission studies and portfolio alternatives
The transmission analysis team examined project interconnection and delivery requirements, estimated upgrades and costs, and verified feasible connection timing. Accion reviewed those studies and documented two alternative portfolios. The evaluator explicitly connects the preferred portfolio to earlier resource availability despite higher costs, while the detailed cost comparisons remained confidential.
Outcome
Georgia Power sought certification of its resource package in July 2025. That request included both capacity selected through the all-source RFP and supplemental resources outside the competitive RFP. The utility’s application was not itself a regulatory approval.
The Georgia PSC voted on December 19, 2025 to approve a certification stipulation, and its final order was filed December 30, 2025. The Commission’s annual report and the issuer’s 2025 Form 10-K corroborate 18 resources selected through the RFP totaling 7,999 MW: four PPAs totaling 1,195 MW and 14 company-owned projects comprising three thermal project sites, nine standalone battery-storage facilities and two battery-storage-plus-solar facilities.
The same approval separately covered 1,886 MW of supplemental resources outside the RFP, in a distinct docket. Together the two categories totaled 9,885 MW, but that combined amount is not the RFP-selected portfolio.
The documented outcome is resource certification, not confirmation that all PPAs were executed, that generation and storage projects were completed, or that the resources had entered commercial operation. The record does not identify direct awards to battery equipment manufacturers, inverter vendors, software suppliers, EPC contractors or systems integrators.
Why this case matters for vendors
Bidders could comment on RFP and contract terms before submitting offers
Georgia Power exposed draft solicitation and pro-forma contract documents to market comment, held a bidder conference and processed 539 comments from nine participants. For resource developers, the record identifies a formal opportunity to examine commercial terms and seek clarification before bids closed. It does not show that every comment was adopted or that a particular participant changed the requirements.
Conformity screening and commercial comparison were separate steps
Accion reports 54 evaluated offers but only 33 conforming offers after the initial screen. Detailed project submissions, bid security and technical due diligence sat alongside model-based economic comparison. This case shows why documentation of site, interconnection, schedule and resource characteristics was part of a resource bid, rather than something addressed only after a price ranking.
Earlier transmission availability mattered in the preferred portfolio
Accion explicitly reports agreement on an earlier-available portfolio despite higher cost, following transmission and commercial-operation-date analysis. In this procurement, a project’s feasible delivery timetable was relevant to the portfolio comparison. The confidential exhibits do not support a public claim about the precise dollar premium or the weight assigned to each evaluation factor.
-
Accion Group, Final Report of the Independent Evaluator Regarding 2029-2031 Capacity Request for Proposals (November 12, 2025)
Public link: https://services.psc.ga.gov/api/v1/External/Public/Get/Document/DownloadFile/224482/105757
Provenance: Independent evaluator’s first-person process report filed with the Georgia PSC. Relevant sections: III, VI-XII (bidder input, bid receipt, fees, model testing, screening, price refresh, transmission analysis and contracting).Georgia PSC, Order Adopting Stipulation and Granting Certification of Capacity from the 2029-2031 All-Source RFP and Supplemental Resources (filed December 30, 2025)
Public link: https://services.psc.ga.gov/api/v1/External/Public/Get/Document/DownloadFile/224953/106427
Provenance: Signed final regulatory order, filing #224953, documenting the Commission’s decision; the certified resource totals are also supported by S117 and S119.Georgia PSC Staff, Proposed Order Adopting Stipulation (December 17, 2025)
Public link: https://services.psc.ga.gov/api/v1/External/Public/Get/Document/DownloadFile/224882/106095
Provenance: Staff-proposed procedural and certification account, not the signed final order. The proposed order's 21 shortlisted proposals are not the same reporting unit as the 18 RFP-selected resources subsequently certified.Georgia Public Service Commission, 2025 Annual Report (published May 2026)
Public link: https://psc.ga.gov/site/downloads/annual_reports/2025_GAPSC_Annual_Report.pdf
Provenance: Official regulator retrospective, PDF p. 20, distinguishing RFP capacity in docket 56298 from supplemental resources in docket 56310.Georgia Power, Georgia Power requests certification of approximately 9,900 MW of new resources (July 31, 2025)
Public link: https://www.georgiapower.com/news-hub/press-releases/georgia-power-requests-certification-of-approximately-9900-mw-of-new-resources-from-the-georgia-psc.html
Provenance: Utility announcement of a requested certification package, not evidence of final approval.The Southern Company / Georgia Power, 2025 Annual Report on Form 10-K, Regulatory Matters: Certification Requests (filed February 19, 2026)
Public link: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/92122/000009212226000006/R53.htm
Provenance: Issuer-filed post-approval regulatory disclosure confirming the 7,999 MW RFP-selected portfolio, its 18 resource components and the separate supplemental resources.Evidence limitations: The independent evaluator and Staff’s proposed order use differing bid, proposal and capacity measures. Those figures should not be reconciled into a single proposal-to-award conversion, and winter-capacity or winter-ELCC values are not interchangeable with certified nominal MW. Confidential evaluation exhibits limit visibility into detailed rankings and portfolio cost differences. Certification establishes the regulatory decision, not future commissioning, operating performance or direct downstream equipment and software contracts.
More Buying Cases
NEW CASES + ANALYSIS
Get new Utility Buying Cases when they’re published, plus analysis of how utilities buy. Subscribe to CONDUCTOR below
