Conservation is always a good idea, but the benefits are not as effective as NY because of population density. A percentage point of saving in GA is a lot less energy than a percentage point in NY. Doesn’t GA produce a surplus of electricity already? That means the conservation is most important in the markets dependant on GA electricity. That does nto mean we should not conserve.

Wind farms would only work in coastal areas and, possibly, the lower plains around Adel and Tifton. Good luck getting wind farms off of Tybee, St Simons, Jekyll or the Cumberland NAtional Seashore.

Try building a dam in GA and watch somebody freak about water rights or the Split Toad Tree Hopping Catfish Woodpecker.

Nuclear? hahahahaha a good idea for France and the US Navy, but the enviros just begin to convulse when you mention a nuke plant. Plus, one reason for the extra non-nuke capacity is that droughts remove cooling water from nukes, which can reduce their output enough to cause an electricity shortage.

So, clean coal it is. I don’t know how much cleaner it is than dirty coal, but it seems to be ok with many of the enviro groups and may be the least damaging alternative.

In the case of a surplus, electricity is sold to other parts for the country and that can help reduce the cost of electricity to GA residents. This is a tremendous benefit to the poorest residents and the businesses which create jobs, assuming the regulators are paying attention.