Atmos Energy Corporation filed a petition for judicial review in the Superior Court of Fulton County in which it challenged the administrative decision of the Georgia Public Service Commission “PSC” authorizing certain rates Atmos could charge for gas service. The PSC moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was procedurally defective under the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act “APA”, OCGA § 50-13-19 a and b. The superior court entered an order denying the motion to dismiss and affirming the decision of the PSC. In Case No. A07A1874, Atmos appeals, contending that the superior court erred in affirming the PSC’s decision. In Case No. A07A1880, the PSC cross-appeals, contending that the superior court erred in denying its motion to dismiss.1 For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to hear Atmos’ petition for judicial review and therefore should have dismissed the petition. The record reflects that Atmos Energy Corporation is a natural gas distribution company that serves Gainesville and Columbus, Georgia. As a natural gas company, Atmos is regulated by the PSC, and any increase in the rates Atmos charges its customers are subject to the PSC’s approval. See OCGA § § 46-2-20 a, 46-2-25 a. As such, before Atmos makes any change to the rates it charges customers, it must file notice of the proposed change with the PSC and the public at least 30 days before the proposed change is to take effect. See OCGA § 46-2-25 a. The PSC is then authorized to suspend the application of the proposed change for up to five months during which time it can hold hearings on the proposal and then decide whether to approve the changed rates. See OCGA § 46-2-25 b.
On May 20, 2005, Atmos commenced a utility rate-change proceeding before the PSC in which it sought to increase its rates and charges to customers beginning on June 20, 2005. Pursuant to OCGA § 46-2-25 b, the PSC suspended application of the proposed increase for five months and then conducted a series of hearings on the matter. On November 21, 2005, the PSC entered a 12-page order which contained findings of fact and conclusions of law authorizing Atmos to increase its rates and charges in part, but also disagreeing with Atmos on several methodological and calculation issues. The order stated, at the bottom of each page, that it was a “Final Order.” The order further provided, however, that “a more detailed Order explaining each item herein will follow.”
