The dispute over a power plant intended to serve a Covington data center has moved beyond the summer’s question of whether air regulators would issue a permit. VoltaGrid received that authorization in September, while a separate state utility proceeding has continued toward a December hearing.
An October 22 scheduling order sets a December 9, 10 a.m. hearing in the Georgia Public Service Commission case. The commission’s December calendar also lists the proceeding. As of this November 3 review, the docket is listed as open.
The important distinction is that the environmental-permit question and the utility-law dispute are no longer at the same procedural point. A permit for the equipment is not a final ruling on the challenged power-supply arrangement.
What the air permit authorizes
The issued air-quality permit, dated September 18, covers VoltaGrid’s facility at 10835 Hazelbrand Road NE. It describes a maximum output of 90 megawatts, 33 natural-gas engines, fuel-gas heaters and an emergency generator. A condition limits simultaneous operation to 30 of the 33 main engines.
The document imposes emissions, monitoring and other operating requirements. It is a conditional regulatory authorization—not evidence that all equipment is operating, that every other approval has been obtained or that the facility is presently complying with every condition.
The permit is available in EPD’s issued-permit registry. Its terms are the basis for this description.
Earlier construction also drew enforcement orders
EPD’s executed-order record for VoltaGrid lists a September 16 order and an $11,500 settlement amount for installing engines before receiving a construction permit. A September 18 order for SF ATL2 (DE), LLC lists the same stated cause and a $31,000 settlement amount. Both were posted September 30.
Those amounts total $42,500. The public listings establish executed enforcement orders and their stated amounts; they do not establish that payment has been made.
The PSC case is a separate track
Sustainable Newton and nearby residents asked the PSC to examine whether VoltaGrid’s arrangement with data-center developer Serverfarm violates Georgia utility laws. VoltaGrid has contested the proceeding, including through a motion to dismiss.
On September 28, a hearing officer denied VoltaGrid’s request to pause the case. The order explained that the commission had directed its own inquiry into whether the service falls within its jurisdiction. Pausing for a hearing-officer ruling would delay the record the commission had ordered developed, it said. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss or the merits of the underlying dispute.
The October scheduling amendment also addressed access to information designated as trade secrets. It scheduled a hearing on that issue for October 29 and established later steps leading to the December proceeding. The scheduling document does not establish what was decided at the October 29 hearing.
The public docket records further October filings, including VoltaGrid’s October 26 reply supporting dismissal and an October 27 objection to the amended schedule. Those filings are party positions, not commission findings.
For now, the records establish an issued air permit and a contested utility proceeding with a scheduled hearing—not a single, final green light resolving every issue surrounding the project.