COMMISSIONERS: I DEBORAH K. FLANNAGAN execunve DIRECTOR JAN 2 4 2020 CHUCK EATON, CHAIRMAN TIM G. ECHOLS, VICE-CHAIRMAN LAUREN MCDONALD TRICIA PRIDEMORE REECE JASON sum . EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Georgia iButh: 52mm Qtummtsamn (404) 6564501 244 WASHINGTON STREET, SW FAX: (404) 656-2341 (800) 282-5813 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30334-5701 IN RE: GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, Petitioner vs. WALTON ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION, Respondent and NESTLE PURINA PET FOOD CORPORATIOIN, Intervenor. Docket No. 42509 INITIAL DECISIIQEU - mil-am W. APPEARANCES: On behalf of Georgia Power Company: ROBERT P. EDWARDS, JR., ESQ. WILLIAM M. DROZE, ESQ. ASHLEY O. CAMERON. ESQ. On behalf of Walton Electric Membership Corporation DAVID R. COOK, ESQ. ANTONIO E. VEAL, ESQ. On behalf of Nestle Purina: CURTIS J. ESQ. NICHOLAS A. BEDO, ESQ. I. Statement of Proceedings This proceeding was initiated by Georgia Power Company (?Georgia Power? or on April 26, 2019, with the ?ling of a Petition to the Georgia Public Service Commission (?Commission?) against Walton Electric Membership Corporation (?Walton?) alleging that Walton is in violation of the Georgia Electric Territorial Service Act ("Territorial Act" or "Act") in serving the Premises located at 266 Industrial Park Road, in Hartwell, Georgia, 30064 (?Premises?). Georgia Power contends that an extension of retail electric service by Walton EMC to the Premises would be in violation of the Territorial Act, speci?cally O.C. G. A. prohibiting any electric supplier from ?furnishing retail electric service to any Premises which such electric supplier is not entitled to serve under this part.? In its Answer and Defenses, ?led May 25, 2019, Walton claimed that the substantial changes made to the facility on the Premises resulted in a new Premises that is not "in substantial kin to the old and dismantled Premises. Due to this, the owner may exercise its right to select its electric supplier in accordance with O.C.G.A. and that Walton EMC is entitled to extend service to the Premises in accordance with the valid choice of a consumer utilizing a new Premises with a connected load upon initial full operation in excess of 900 kilowatts. On June 18, 2019, the matter was assigned to a Hearing Of?cer. A Notice of Hearing and Procedural and Scheduling Order was issued on June 16, 2019. The Notice, among other things, set the Docket for hearing to take place at 10:00 am. on September 4th and 5th, 2019. On July 12, 2019, Georgia Power and Walton consented to Nestle Purina Petcare Company?s (?Nestle ?or ?Nestle Purina?) Petition to Intervene making Nestle a full party of record. Nestle then ?led, on July 29, 2019, Answers and Defenses to Georgia Power?s Petition. Nestle claimed that it is not unlawful under the Territorial Act for it to take electric service from Walton stating that substantial changes made to the facility on the Premises resulted in a new premise that is not ?in substantial kind? to the old and dismantled Premises. Nestle asserted that it may exercise its right to select its electric supplier in accordance with O.C.G.A. All parties ?led Motions in Limine and Objections to Testimony and Exhibits. The Motions and Objections are denied. The Hearing Of?cer has discretion to consider material outside the strict rules of evidence in administrative proceedings and allow it appropriate weight it is due. Furthermore, if a Petition for Review is granted, it is imperative that the full Commission, have the entire record and all unabridged ?lings available to it. Georgia Power presented direct and rebuttal testimony of: Mr. Harold D. Lawson, President of Sterling Development and Engineering Corporation; Mr. Glenn W. Dyke, Customer Pricing Manager; Mr. Cliff D. BishOp, Managing Engineer at Exponent, Incorporated; and Mr. John D. Osteraas, Group Vice President and Principal Engineer of Exponent, Incorporated Nestle Purina sponsored direct and rebuttal testimony of: Mr. Gopi Sandhu, Director of Engineering Sustainable Operations; Mr. Ryan Montgomery, Electrical and Controls Engineering Docket No. 42509 Initial Decision Page 2 of 12 Manager; Mr. John DeMartino, Senior Engineer; and Ms. Rachel Miller, Factory Manager of the Hartwell site for Nestle Purina. Walton presented direct testimony of: Mr. Ronnie Lee, President and Chief Executive Of?cer of Walton Electric Membership Corporation; and Mr. Hudson Kingery, Engineering and Power Services director. Georgia Power introduced GPC Eidlibits 1?18, 29, 31, 39, 50, 51, 54, 63, 70, 71, 72, 74, 78, 86, 87, and 88; Nestle Purina introduced NPCC Exhibits 363?366, 403?404, 437?439, 448? 451, 452, 453, Demartino Exhibits 1?10, Miller Exhibits 1?9; and WEMC introduced WEMC Exhibits 233, Lee Exhibits 1?4, and Kingery Exhibits 1?6, and HK-R7. All Exhibits were entered in to the record. On September 3, 2019, Georgia Power reiterated, in its Pre-Hearing Brief, the contention that Walton and Nestle?s claims are in violation of the Territorial Act . II. Matter at Issue The following matter is at issue in this proceeding and will be decided pursuant to O.C.G.A. 46-3?8 and on the basis of sworn testimony, exhibits, facts and arguments presented at the hearing: Whether Georgia Power has the exclusive right to continue service to the Premises located in its assigned service area at 266 Industrial Park Road, Hartwell, Georgia 30643, or whether Walton EMC has met its burden of showing by admissible evidence under 0. C. GA. 46-3?8 of the Act that the Premises was destroyed or dismantled and not reconstructed in substantial kind and is a new large load customer Premises. Contentions of The Parties Georgia Power claims that it has the exclusive right to continue serving the Premises because it has served the Premises since its construction in 1991, and because the Premises has not been torn down or otherwise destroyed or dismantled. Georgia Power contends that even if the Premises had been destroyed or dismantled and reconstructed, the building, as it exists now, is ?in substantial kind? to the building as it existed before it was purchased by Nestle Purina. While the parties stipulate that the Premises has a connected load of 900kW or greater, Georgia Power contends that Walton has failed to meet its threshold burden of demonstrating that the Premises is a ?new? Premises. Docket No. 42509 Initial Decision Page 3 of 12 Walton and Nestle contend that Walton has the right to serve the Premises because it was ?destroyed or dismantled? within the meaning of the Territorial Act as a result of changes made to the Premises by its new owner, Nestle. Walton asserts that these changes resulted in the old Premises, which formerly operated as a textile manufacturing plant, being destroyed or dismantled and reconstructed not in substantial kind as a ?new? Premises consisting of a wet pet food manufacturing plant. IV. Stipulations 0f the Parties Prior to the hearing, the Parties entered into the following three sti EMC and Georgia Power are electric suppliers as de?ned in the Territori. to the jurisdiction of the Commission; (2) the Premises is wholly lo municipal limits of Hartwell, Georgia as those limits stood on March 2! pulations: (1) Walton al Act and are subject cated outside of the 9, 1973, and as those limits currently stand today; and, (3) at all relevant times the Premises had and will have a connected load in excess of 900 kilowatts. V. Findings of Fact The Premises is located at 266 Industrial Park Road, Hartwell, Georgia 30643. When Dundee Mills built the existing facility in 1991, it consisted of a 190,000 5 and a 137,000 square foot manufacturing facility used to manufactt Speci?cally towels. (Tr. 172-173). In 1999, Springs Industries (?Spring facility to the existing Premises, expanding the manufacturing space to 313 The Premises is located in an unincorporated area of Hart County assigned service area with a connected load upon initial ?ill operation in ex quare foot warehouse ire consumer goods, added a weaving ,000 square feet. (Id) in Georgia Power?s cess of 900 kilowatts. The Premises began production in 1991. Georgia Power has served the Premises, including its expansions, ever since. The multiple buildings, structures and facilities that are part of the Premises are all located on contiguous tracts of land. Georgia Power serves the Premises on a single-metered basis and has served, and continues to serve, the Premises to a 2500 transformer. In 1991, the space was designed and the constructed on a manufacturin and warehouse facility for Dundee Mills to produce consum: towels, and warehouse raw and ?nished goods. Dundee Mills stored the 3 their on?site warehouse and distributed to customers throughout the United Via an overhead line 348,182 square foot 3r products, including packaged products in States. At that time, the warehouse/distribution space was 189,850 square feet, while the cut and sewing Space was 93,450 square feet. The bleachery and bleachery basement were 21,700 square feet each, and Docket No. 42509 Initial Decision Page 4 of 12 the boiler house was 5,208 square feet. The maintenance shop was 6,888 square feet; the tank farm was 2,880 square feet; the waste water pretreatment area was 1,151 square feet; and the of?ce area was 5,355 square feet. (Tr. 52). Springs Industries subsequently acquired the facility in 1999 and constructed a 206,773 square foot weaving plant addition to vertically integrate the manufacturing process. (GPC Exhibit 2 at 4.) The total facility area after the 1999 expansion by Springs Industries was 554,955 square feet. (Tr. 53). In 2006, Springs Industries ceased operations of the textile factory, removing much of its manufacturing equipment and laying off roughly 1,200 employees. (Tr.335) The textile mill remained vacant for the next decade while it was listed for sale. From 2016 to late 2017, Springs leased parts of the Premises to various tenants for storage, including: 225,000 square feet to Ryder; 30,000 square feet to Royston; and 40,000 square feet to Latexco. (Id) The tenants used the existing facility for warehousing Space, a storage facility with no manufacturing activities. (Tr.533, 509). In 2017, Nestle Purina purchased the existing Premises for $7 million dollars. (Tr. 318). During the selection process, Nestle representatives spoke with a Southern Company representative who mentioned Georgia's Consumer Choice program. (Tr. 319). Although Nestle lacked knowledge about the program at the time, Mr. Sandhu, Director of Engineering Sustainable Operations for Nestle Purina, noted "we understood that there could be some options for renewables through the [choice] program." (Id) In support of its commitment to utilize 100% renewable electricity to power its facilities across its entire portfolio, Nestle Purina made it clear that it must power the Hartwell Pet Food Facility with 100 renewable energy at its initial full operation. (Tr.336) As stated by Mr. Sandhu, ?the commitment to 100% renewables is "an essential policy decision for Nestle." (Id) Although GPC transferred the electric service for the Premises to Nestle?s name, it did not enter into an agreement with Georgia Power regarding electric service, rate structure, or renewable energy sourcing for the Premises. (Tr.326.) Nestle contended that it and GPC understood that Nestle would need temporary service until it ?nished its construction project and that it deferred any discussion or selection of electric service, rates, or electric service provider until construction was well underway. (Id) Walton?s engineering and power services director testified that he worked closely with Nestle's engineers and representatives to determine that Nestle?s expected load, connected load and its electric service needs and concerns. Walton determined that it would provide Nestle Purina electric service via a single 12 kV meter at an onsite substation. Two independent circuits would end at locations near Nestle's metal-clad switchgear. (Tr. 598). Docket No. 42509 Initial Decision Page 5 of 12 Walton, in conjunction with GTC, constructed a 41.7 MVA 115 to 12 kV substation immediately adjacent to the plant on the property. The forecasted ?nal cost for the substation for GTC and Walton was $1,883,863 and $182,512 respectively. Walton also agreed to spend approximately $526,000 on distribution lines and equipment. This substation will have the capacity and reliability to effectively power Nestle's food processing plant at their projected load of 12 megawatts by late 2021. (Tr. 599) In February 2018, Nestle informed Georgia Power it did not want to use the location originally designated for a substation needed to serve Nestle?s anticipated ?xture load growth, and instead, intended to continue to take service from existing distribution lines until it had installed its full load. Georgia Power?s representative informed Nestle of the need to plan for a substation addition in 2018 and given the size of the load additions that Nestle was considering, recommended that the time to make the commitments to assure adequate capacity was then, not later. Georgia Power claimed that Nestle, however, did not respond until much later and only now acknowledges that, in addition to an internal Nestle debate concerning whether to take service for its expansions from distribution or transmission service, (Tr.543) Nestle?s management was unfamiliar with the application of the Territorial Act and thus ?were not ready? to make a ?long term. commitment to Georgia Power.? (Tr. 364). To support operations, Nestle proceeded to implement its plan for a self-owned switchyard using its own transformers. It then requested Georgia Power to serve the switchyard from Georgia Power?s primary distribution line while maintaining its original service point as well. Georgia Power contended that it accommodated Nestle?s request and continues to serve the entire Nestle load for the building ?om the primary distribution feed used to serve the Premises originally. This feed terminates in a metering cubicle serving Nestle?s Premises through Nestle?s switchyard and a pad?mounted transformer that directly serves the building and was installed in 1991. (Tr.l22). Georgia Power states that it is serving the Premises but it is not a temporary facility and it is not being served from a temporary service drop. Georgia Power asserts that it ?serves a huge industrial building through a pad?mounted transformer and a switchyard that serves the rest of the Premises through a primary distribution line terminating in a metering cubicle. Power] is serving the consumer utilizing the Premises, Nestle, and the electric energy provided by Georgia Power is running Nestle's Operations Center, Distribution Center, lighting and offices in addition to the operating equipment and facilities in the 1999 addition and the 2002 compressor building.? (Tr. 148). Nestle testi?ed that the existing buildings and systems were dilapidated. The facility had been largely abandoned for about twelve years and, in its condition at the time, the property was Docket No. 42509 Initial Decision Page 6 of 12 completely unsuitable for food manufacturing. Nestle witness Sandhu stated that it was clear once Nestle acquired the old Premises that portions of it would have to be demolished. The existing systems, electrical, storrnwater, wastewater, HVAC, and air handling, among others, would all have to be removed and replaced, and substantial portions of the roo?ng and ?ooring completely replaced. The wastewater pre-treatment system was designed for textile operations, and was in disrepair. A new wastewater treatment system with different unit operations would be required to accommodate a food processing operation. There was also some environmental remediation needed with respect to a past diesel fuel leak into the soil and groundwater. (Tr. 310). Nestle argued that, physically, the site was overgrown and had many safety hazards. (Tr. 321)_The existing interior offices were stained and unusable, and thus had to be demolished. (Tr. 455). The existing facility was in?ltrated with birds and pests, as well as exposed to the elements and outside air with none of the temperature control or proper air handling required for the processing and packaging of wet pet food. In addition, the existing facility lacked suf?cient utility systems to power, clean, and safeguard a new wet pet food manufacturing facility, or to maintain a chilled temperature to store ingredients. Nestle Purina was also only able to preserve and use some of the external walls and portions of the roof. (Id) Speci?cally, the areas of the roof over the bleachery had water penetration issues and were replaced immediately, with the rest of the roof needing to be replaced in segments over the next several years. Nestle's Project Engineering Manager, explained that the existing roof had a ballasted roof system; the mechanically fastened roo?ng system installed by Nestle Purina is preferred because it is a more hygienic option than the existing ballasted system. Further, the new roo?ng material is a rubberized roof with a different membrane. (Tr. 83) Georgia Power testi?ed that, while Nestle Purina is making renovations and additions to the Springs manufacturing facility, the facility retains its manufacturing and warehousing character. Georgia Power asserted that no changes have been observed to the original facility that amount to the destruction or dismantling of the original facility as it was designed and used by Springs Industries and none that would prevent its use as a warehouse and manufacturing plant, including being returned to textiles manufacturing. (Tr. 59). Georgia Power claims that the Premises it has continuously served remains intact and functionally unchanged from its ownership under Springs Industries and Dundee. Georgia Power?s witness testi?ed that the replacement of the small area of roof over the bleachery was ?typical building maintenance? and ?not connected to the transition from textile manufacturing to pet food manufacturing within the facility and that modi?cations to the facility for compliance with food processing requirements were minor and none of those changes affected the occupancy classi?cation or generic functions of the facility. (Tr. 252). Witness Lawson contended that modi?cations to the facility for compliance with food processing requirements were minor and none of those changes affected the occupancy classi?cation or generic functions of the facility. (Tr. 64). Docket No. 42509 Initial Decision Page 7 of 12 The Hearing Of?cer ?nds that Nestle removed and replaced the electrical system and infrastructure; removed and replaced 30 percent of the ?ooring and foundation in its food processing area; removed concrete slabs in the old weave room; changed the foundation in the old bleachery by ?lling the old vats with concrete and the old pits with ballast, structural steel, and concrete; removed the roof above the old bleachery, the old tank building, and some of the distribution center; demolished the old ?lter press? structural piers; demolished and removed the old air washing pits; and demolished the 01d crane system. Nestle Purina has swallowed up the old ventilation tunnels; some interior and exterior walls; and replaced the old air plenum where the new of?ce space sits. Additionally, Nestle Purina demolished interior walls, made openings in other walls, and is enclosing some exterior walls with a new building. (Tr. 447-453, 488?492, 537 and 552-556). The Hearing Of?cer further ?nds that Nestle has committed $220 million to prepare the Hartwell Pet Food Facility for startup in the fall of 2019, and an additional $80 million to reach initial full operation by the second quarter of 2020. (Tr. 459?505). Nestle Purina has: (1) replaced the wastewater treatment facility, (2) changed the overall structure and design of the existing facility, (3) constructed approximately 120,00 square feet of additional buildings, (4) replaced the existing electrical systems, (5) replaced the air handling systems, and (6) created a food safe environment by, among other things, sealing off and otherwise protecting the interior from pests and other contaminants, and (7) added a freezer in one of the new buildings. DeMartino, Exh.- 4; Miller, VI. Conclusions of Law Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and the provisions of the Georgia Territorial Act as construed in past Commission cases, the Hearing Of?cer makes the following Conclusions of Law. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to O.C.G.A. 46-3?13 and O.C.G.A. 50-13-11. This matter has been assigned to the Commission's undersigned Hearing Of?cer for hearing and initial decision pursuant to the provisions of O.C.G.A. 46?2-58, 50- 13-13 and 50?13-17. By their agreement to schedule a hearing, counsel for the parties have waived statutory or regulatory deadlines for the rendering of a decision in this case. Whether Georgia Power or Walton may lawfully serve the Nestle facility is determined under the "grandfather clause? of the Territorial Act. (O.C.G.A. The grandfather clause states "every electric supplier shall have the exclusive right to continue serving any Premises lawfully served by including Premises which have been destroyed or dismantled Docket No. 42509 Initial Decision Page 8 of 12 and which are reconstructed after March 29. 1973, in substantial Irina: on approximately the same site." Under the Territorial Act, a consumer and end user of electric service may choose its electric service provider when it satis?es the large load exception. O.C.G.A. The large load exception is satis?ed when a consumer takes single-metered electric service at one or more new Premises with a connected load, upon initial full Operation, of 900 kilowatts or more. O.C.G.A. In the context of existing Premises, rather than green?eld lots, the Territorial Act deems a Premises as new when it has been destroyed or dismantled and (ii) reconstructed not in substantial kind. O.C.G.A. Because the Territorial Act does not de?ne ?destroy? or ?dismantle,? the Commission has previously turned to the word?s plain meaning derived from dictionary de?nitions: [T]he term ?destroyed? is, of course, the past tense of the verb ?destroy? which means ?to ruin completely; spoil; 2. To tear down or break up; demolish . . and [T]he word ?dismantled? is the past tense of the verb ?dismantle? which means To take apart; disassemblegradual, systematic way, 2. T0 strip of furnishings or equipment. Georgia Power Company v. Habersham Electric Corporation, Docket No. 23 *22 (Initial Decision March 26, 2007, Order Adopting and Modifying Initial Decision September 18, 2007). The Commission has applied the plain meaning of ?destroy? and ?dismantle? differently based upon the speci?c factual situations presented in each case. ?While certain equipment within and outside the LP building has been and may be dismantled (to be replaced, in large part, by similar equipment), the premises the building itself? has not been ?taken apart so that it is in separate pieces,? or ?destroyed in an orderly way.? Ga. Power Co. v. Jackson Elec. Membership Corp. ,Docket No. 38658, 2015. Other examples include: ?With the expenditure of more than $300,000.00 in remodeling costs by NGD, the Disputed Premises was stripped down to the bare concrete walls and foundation and, after knocking out one such core wall and repairing and enlarging the foundation, was rebuilt and remodeled into a ?like new? modern professional of?ce building with a larger and totally different appearance inside and outside from the pre?existing structure. In the words of the statute, the Disputed Premises was totally dismantled and reconstructed into a 37% larger structure of a substantially different kind. the completion of such remodeling, the Disputed Premises Docket No. 42509 Initial Decision Page 9 of 12 not only looks new and different in comparison with the pre?remodeling appearance, but the DiSputed Premises is a new, larger and different structure (admittedly utilizing 3 of 4 core walls, an interior stairwell, and much of the original foundation from the pre-l995 building) with [sic] substantially increases value and signi?cantly different uses.? Georgia Power Company v. Marietta Board of Lights and Water, Docket No. 7545-U *8?9 (Initial Decision, January 12, 1998). ?As a comparison between [the exhibits] and as the photographs of the interior show, the Old Sony Plant has been taken apart and stripped of its furnishings and equipment, much of the ?oor broken up, walls and partitions removed, openings made all actions that satisfy the plain meaning of ?dismantled.? Southwire, at 13. See also Greystone Power Corporation v. Georgia Power Company, Docket No. 40803 (Initial Decision, March 23, 2018); In re Diverse Power v. City of Lagrange, Docket No. 13392, at 7 (Final Commission Order, Dec. 4, 2003) (discussing the application of ?in substantial kind?); Colquitt EMC 12. Georgia Power Co. Docket No. 12528, at 12?13 (Initial Decision, Jan. 18, 2002). The Hearing Of?cer ?nds Walton and Nestle?s argument compelling. The Commission?s previous rulings and the facts of this case clearly point to a conclusion that the Premises have been destroyed or destroyed. As the Hearing Of?cer found in the prior section, Nestle removed and replaced the electrical system and infrastructure; removed and replaced 30 percent of the ?ooring and foundation in its food processing area; removed concrete slabs in the old weave room; changed the foundation in the old bleachery by ?lling the old vats with concrete and the old pits with ballast, structural steel, and concrete; removed the roof above the old bleachery, the old tank building, and some of the distribution center; demolished the old ?lter press? structural piers; demolished and removed the old air washing pits; and demolished the old crane system. Nestle Purina has swallowed up the old ventilation tunnels; some interior and exterior walls; and replaced the old air plenum where the new of?ce space sits. Additionally, Nestle Purina demolished interior walls, made openings in other walls, and is enclosing some exterior walls with a new building. The Hearing Of?cer concludes that Nestle Purina dismantled the Premises when it took apart and stripped away the electrical system, HVAC system, crane system, air handling system, wastewater system, storm water system, and removed various parts of the roof. At a cost of over $300 million, these substantial modi?cations are in keeping, if not in excess of, the plain meaning of the words ?dismantle? and ?destroy and an accurate re?ection of previous Commission interpretations of the Territorial Act?s mandate of ?dismantle or destroy.? The Hearing Of?cer concludes that Nestle has destroyed or dismantled the Premises in keeping with the Georgia Territorial Act and Commission precedent. Like the terms ?destroyed or ?dismantled, nowhere in the Territorial Act is the term "in substantial kind" de?ned. ?[t]herefore, under principles of statutory construction, ordinary signi?cation must be given to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1985) de?nes "substantial" as "being largely but not wholly that which is speci?ed." Docket No. 42509 Initial Decision Page 10 of 12 Similarly, the word "kind" is de?ned by the same dictionary as "fundamental nature or quality; a group united by common traits or interests." Thus, according to past Commission decisions, the term "in substantial kin means a facility which is largely, but not wholly, of the same fundamental nature or quality as the previous facility. North Georgia Electric Membership Corporation v. City 0: Dalton, Docket No. (Initial Decision, June 21, 1991), Georgia Power Company V. iddle Georgia Electric Membership Corporation, Docket No. (Initial Decision, May 16, 1989); Central Georgia Electric Membership Company v. Georgia Power Company, Docket No. (Initial Decision, May 9, 1988).? (Georgia Power Company v. Marietta Board ofLights and Water, Docket No. 75450 (Initial Decision, January 12, 1998, p. 8) Commission precedent establishes that the term "in substantial kind" means a facility which is largely, but not wholly, of the same fundamental nature or quality as the previous facility.? Co/qailt EMC v. Georgia Power Company, Docket No. 12528 (Initial Decision, January 16, 2002); Georgia Power Company v. Marietta Board of Lights and Water, Docket No. 75450 (Initial Decision, January 12, 1998) North Georgia EMC v. City of Dalton, Docket No. 3941 (initial Decision, June 21, 1991); Georgia Power Company v. Middle Georgia EMC, Docket No. (Initial Decision, May 16, 1989); Central Georgia EMC v. Georgia Power Company, Docket No. 3692 (Initial Decision, May 9, As the Hearing Of?cer found in the prior section, Nestle has committed $220 million to prepare the Hartwell Pet Food Facility for startup in the fall of 2019, and an additional $80 million to reach initial full Operation by the second quarter of 2020. (Tr. 459?505). Nestle Purina has: (1) replaced the wastewater treatment facility, (2) changed the overall structure and design of the existing facility, (3) constructed approximately 120,00 square feet of additional buildings, (4) replaced the existing electrical systems, replaced the air handling systems, and (6) created a food safe environment by, among other things, sealing off and otherwise protecting the interior from pests and other contaminants, and (7) added a freezer in one of the new buildings. And it is not simply of measure of the physical structure but includes ?changed or that the use of such Disputed Premises change, but the size, con?guration, appearance, and value of such Disputed Premises has changed substantially in quality and nature.? (MBLW, P.9) There are countless differences between the Springs Industries and Nestle in terms of both physical appearance and structure, and primary purpose and function. Taken as a whole, the facts of this case demonstrate, without question, that the Premises are not "largely of the same fundamental nature or quality, and they do not share substantive "common traits", as required by the MBLW decision and its progenies. Diverse Power, Inc. v. ity ofLaGrange, Dkt. No. 40642. The abundant of evidence presented in this proceeding supports the conclusion that the Premises has been reconstructed not in substantial kind as the previous facility. Docket No. 42509 Initial Decision Page 11 of 12 VII. Ordering Paragraghs WHEREFORE, the Petition of Georgia Power Company claiming that Walton Electric Corporation IS in Violation of the Georgia Territorial Act IS DENIED as the Hearing Of?cer ?nds that the Premises was destroyed or dismantled that a new Premises exists and there has been no reconstruction in kind so as to afford Georgia Power any grandfather rights at the Premises. Ordered Further, all Motions in Limine and Objections to Testimony and Exhibits are denied. Pursuant to the provisions of in the absence of an Application for Review made within 30 days from the date of this Initial Decision, or an Order by the Commission for review on its own motion, this Initial Decision shall, without ?thher proceedings, become the Final Decision of the Commission. SO ORDERED this 24th day of January 2020. Nancy G\?ijsonb~ Hearing Of?cer, Georgia Public Service Commission Docket No. 425 09 initial Decision Page 12 of 12 BEFORE THE GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMNIISSION In the Matter of: GEORGIA POWER COMPANY Petitioner vs. Docket No. 42509 WALTON ELETRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION Respondent CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE hereby certify that the foregoing Hearing Of?cer?s Initial Decision in the above-referenced docket was filed with the Commission's Executive Secretary, an electronic copy of same was served upon all parties and persons listed below via electronic mail, or unless otherwise indicated, as follows: Reece McAlister* Robert P. Edwards, 11?. Executive Secretary EggyiSPg?zoSlewice Comm William Droze Georgia Public Service Comm. 244 ?fashington Street SW Troutman Sanders LLP 244 Washington Street, SW Atlanta GA 30334 600 Peachtree Street, NE. Atlanta, GA 30334 ngibson@psc.state.ga.us Atlanta, Georgia 30308 50-5tate- 3-?5 bob.edwards@troutman.com Curtis J. Romig, Esq. DaVld R. Cook D. Ronme Lee Nicholas A. Be do, Esq. Roland R. Hall PreSIdent and CEO an Cave Lei hton Paisner LLP Autry, Hall Cook, LLP Walton Electric Membership ry . . . One Atlantlc Center, 14th Floor 2100 East Exchange, Sutte 2100 Corporatton . 1201 West Peachtree Street, NW Tucker, Georgla 30084 P.O- Box 260 - Atlanta, Georgla 30309?3471 cookgalahclawcom 842 US Hwy 78 NW curtis romid??bcl law com hall@ahclaw.com So Certi?ed, this 24?h da of January, 2020. Hearing 0 cer