Federated Dep't Stores Inc. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n

Federated Department Stores, Inc. “Federated” seeks judicial review of orders issued by the Georgia Public Service Commission the “Commission” pursuant to an investigatory docket proceeding of the Commission. According to Federated, these orders failed to adequately address the disparity in rates charged by the Georgia Power Company “Georgia Power” between new customers and long-standing customers such as Federated. Federated’s petition for judicial review of the investigatory docket proceeding was denied by the Superior Court of Fulton County on the grounds that the Commission’s orders did not render Federated “aggrieved” and that the proceeding was not a “contested case” as required by OCGA § 50-13-19 a.1 Federated appealed, alleging that the trial court erred in dismissing its petition for judicial review. We discern no error and affirm. The investigatory docket proceeding was scheduled by the Commission at the request of Federated to review the manner in which Georgia Power applied tariffs for its new and established customers. Federated alleged that Georgia Power’s pricing system unreasonably discriminated against it and other established customers in favor of newer customers, thus violating OCGA § 46-3-11.

Following a hearing, the Commission issued an order acknowledging discrimination in Georgia Power’s treatment of established and new customers but expressly not determining if the discrimination was unjust. Instead, the Commission’s order reiterated that the purpose of the proceeding was not to modify Georgia Power’s rates but to gather information to serve “as a resource for the Commission in future rate proceedings. . . .” The Commission’s order provided that the Georgia Power rate case proceeding scheduled for that year should consider the “disparity of treatment . . . made available by Georgia Power to new and existing customers, and whether it should be continued, lessened or eliminated.” Prior to the commencement of the Georgia Power rate case, however, Federated filed a petition for judicial review of the final order and two preliminary orders emanating from the investigatory docket proceeding.2