In this challenge to a rate change ruling by the Georgia Public Service Commission “PSC”, the Court of Appeals vacated the superior court’s order on the petition for judicial review filed by Atmos Energy Corporation “AEC” on the basis that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition and then remanded the case to that court with direction that it dismiss the petition. Atmos Energy Corporation v. Georgia Public Service Commission , 290 Ga. App. 243 1 659 SE2d 385 2008. We granted AEC’s writ of certiorari to address questions regarding the finality of the orders issued by the PSC. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the Court of Appeals. OCGA § 46-2-25 governs the procedure for changing any rate, charge, classification or service by any utility subject to the jurisdiction of the PSC. Subsection a of that statute requires the utility to give 30 days notice to the PSC and the public regarding such a change. Pursuant to subsection b of OCGA § 46-2-25, the PSC, in order to enter upon a hearing concerning the lawfulness of the change, is authorized to suspend the operation of the proposed change and defer the use of the change “but not for a period longer than five months beyond the time when it would otherwise go into effect.” Should a longer period of time be necessary, OCGA § 46-2-25 b explicitly authorizes the PSC to “apply to the Superior Court of Fulton County for an extension of such period, as provided for in Code Section 46-2-57.”
The facts pertinent to this case are as follows. AEC, a natural gas distribution company subject to the PSC’s jurisdiction, commenced a utility rate-change proceeding before the PSC on May 20, 2005. The PSC suspended operation of that change pursuant to OCGA § 46-2-25 b and conducted a series of hearings on the matter. On the last day of the six-month “file and suspend” period provided in OCGA § 46-2-25,1 the PSC entered a 12-page order the “November Order” that contained findings of facts and conclusions of law authorizing AEC to increase its rates in part. Although the November Order stated, at the bottom of each page, that it was a “final order,” it also specifically provided that “a more detailed Order explaining each item herein will follow.” AEC chose to file a petition for rehearing and reconsideration of that order. See PSC Rule 515-2-1-.08. At its administrative session in December 2005, the PSC addressed AEC’s motion and, by voice vote, decided to amend and modify a portion of the November Order to correct a computation error.
