by Ralph Chapoco, Alabama Reflector
August 5, 2025

The Alabama Public Service Commission Tuesday approved Alabama Power’s purchase of a natural gas power plant in Autauga County.

Commissioners also approved the company’s request to increase the monthly electricity rates it charges to its residential customers by $3.32 to offset the cost of acquiring the plant.

“After a review of all of the pre-filed testimony, the transcript of the hearing and the post hearing briefs in the form of proposed orders, the Staff has determined that Alabama Power Company has demonstrated a need for additional capacity and presented evidence demonstrating that the Lindsay Hill Facility proposed by the Company represents a reasonable means by which the Company can meet this need in a reliable and economic manner,” said John Garner, executive director of the Public Service Commission during the meeting.

The company said in a filing with the PSC in October that it needs roughly 1,200 megawatts in new power capacity by the end of the decade, due in part to the growth of data centers. The utility estimates that it will have surplus capacity until 2028.

This would be the third Alabama Power rate increase that the company imposed on its customers since 2020. The company acquired other power plants in 2020 and 2022 and increased the rate by $5 per month to pay for the cost of those purchases.

Alabama Power seeks to purchase natural gas plant in Autauga County

Alabama Power said in a statement on Tuesday that the decision reinforces the company’s commitment to deliver dependable energy to Alabama.

“Adding Lindsay Hill’s strong track record of reliable power to our generation mix will strengthen our ability to meet the growing needs of our state so we can economically produce the electricity our customers count on,” Alabama Power said. “Customers will not see any impact on their bills from this facility until mid-2027.”

Renewable energy advocates who intervened in the case and sought to block the purchase.

“Alabama Power’s five-year gas grab burdens families with higher bills and highlights the utility’s failure to consider cheaper and cleaner alternatives,” said Daniel Tait, executive director of Energy Alabama, in a statement.

“Alabama families deserve better than approving polluting power plants without proof they’re absolutely necessary,” said Jilisa Milton, director of Greater-Brimingham Alliance to Stop Pollution (GASP), in a statement.

Energy Alabama and GASP, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center argue that Alabama Power overestimated the demand of these data centers when it estimated future capacity needs and excluded other energy sources that are more friendly to the environment from consideration

Alabama Power said it based its estimates on the power demand of a currently operational data center. It also said that it excluded renewable energy sources, such as solar power and energy storage, from its options because the company does not have the experience with those energy sources.

Alabama Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alabama Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Brian Lyman for questions: info@alabamareflector.com.

The post Alabama PSC allows Alabama Power to purchase Autauga County power plant appeared first on alabamareflector.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Right

The article primarily presents factual reporting on the Alabama Public Service Commission’s approval of Alabama Power’s purchase of a natural gas power plant and rate increase. The framing largely reflects a pro-business and utility-friendly perspective, emphasizing the company’s need to meet growing power demands and maintain reliable service. While it includes critical voices from environmental groups who oppose the purchase and rate hike, their perspectives are presented as opposition statements rather than integrated analysis. Overall, the article maintains a tone that leans toward supporting traditional energy infrastructure and regulatory decisions favoring the utility, aligning it with a Center-Right bias.