Mississippi Power Joins United Nations Imaginary War on CO2 Inflicting Serious Economic Harm

Mississippi Power is following the commitments of their parent company, Southern Company, to the United Nations, Kyoto protocols.  The old science utilized by the EPA is falling under great scrutiny as more evidence of falsified science data pours into the public domain.  We continue to plead with Mississippi Power and our three Public Service Commissioners to actually look into the agendas being strategically implemented into America’s energy production creating a serious economic hardship on Mississippians and their Businesses.

Nicholas Loris, a policy analyst with the Heritage Foundation believes there are sound reasons why Congress should prevent Lisa Jackson of the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant or dangerous greenhouse gas.

As Loris writes in The Washington Times:

1. The EPA inspector general’s finding that EPA did not follow federal data quality standards in preparing its “endangerment finding” regarding greenhouse gases.
2. The profusion of scientific dissent.
3. The massive economic costs and minimal environmental benefits.

The EPA declared CO2 to be a dangerous pollutant in April of 2009, but in September 2011, the EPA’s Inspector General released a report showing that Jackson’s “experts” failed to follow proper federal guidelines for reaching the conclusion that CO2 must be regulated.

Loris notes that even if the EPA regulated CO2 in America, it would have little impact on the planet. China and India both emit far more CO2 than does the U.S. They have no intention of slowing down their production of energy. Loris writes:

The EPA’s regulations would, however, inflict serious economic harm. Although the agency targets the largest emitters of greenhouse gases first, the financial burden would extend to every American. The agency’s first two targets are fossil-fuel power plants and petroleum refineries. The U.S. gets 85 percent of its energy from fossil fuels. Regulating these entities would significantly increase energy costs – electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel and heating oil – directly.

Delaying regulations sounds nice in theory, but that’s not enough for the energy industry. Energy companies need certainty in order to make rational economic decisions. Uncertainty leads to stalled projects and economic stagnation. But, of course, the destruction of the fossil fuel industry is the not-so-hidden agenda of Lisa Jackson and her environmental activist friends inside the EPA. Delays and changing regulations work wonders on throwing the energy industry into chaos.

Here for original article

Smart Meter Opt Out for Mississippi

Opt-out OUTRAGE!

As of today I have not heard of a way for Mississippians to opt-out of the Smart Meter. MS residences return home to find someone had trespassed and ignored signage to not place device. If you care about this issue I hope you will be the one to begin voicing concern.  Of course the power companies say they are safe and do wonderful things for the people.  Well put that in a contract Power Companies.  Remember the tobacco companies said smoking did not cause cancer.  It takes years to perform scientific studies (Unless you work for Al Gore)  and these studies are in progress but are not yet complete.

Today the President of the California the Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), Michael Peevey issued a Proposed Decision on what to do with the thousands of complaints against the (dumb, too smart, not smart, spy, murder, dirty, hazardous, merd, smeter)  microwave computer utility meters that companies are stealthily installing with support from government and environmentalists.

The CPUC, whose mission is to provide safe and reliable utility service at reasonable rates, and regulate the utilities has once again rubber stamped PG&E’s demands. Peevey’s proposed decision says we must pay $90 upfront and $15 a month for a “radio off” meter. Analog meters are not included.  The fees are an obvious punishment, and likely illegal.

What can we do about this outrage in California?  Here’s an idea: We can REFUSE to pay. Deduct it from the utility bill in protest.

Here’s what others think about the concept of opt-out:

“We should not have to pay for NO CHANGE in electric service. We don’t pay for not getting cable. We don’t pay for not getting satellite. We don’t pay for gas if we don’t use gas appliances. What the heck is going on when we have to pay MORE for something we don’t want, don’t need, won’t use and can’t get out of. When the vacuum salesman comes to the door, and I don’t want to buy a vacuum, I don’t buy it and he doesn’t get into my wallet.” Anonymous survey comment

Just removing the meter from our home I don’t think will restore the peace and freedom from harm. As you know with all the homes having the meters on them, the amount of radiation is substantial. I don’t think I am overstating this. I am beginning to think they are trying to do a slow kill, so we don’t wake up to it. It is interesting that some of us have a super sensitivity to the radiation while others no less being slowly harmed by it are clueless because they don’t sense anything. CMC, Riverside County CA

“These folks are way better organized than the power industry, they are creating converts every day and they’re not going to stop with a puny opt-out option.” Phil Carson, Editor-in-chief, Intelligent Utility Daily

http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?p=6405

What do you think?

PSC LEONARD BENTZ CALLED TO ACTION Against FRAUD

PSC Leonard Bentz;

If you truly want to save Mississippians money in rates then simply remove citizen funding for the CO2 Capturing on the Lignite Coal Plant until the science has been reviewed and proven as accurate.  Why should Mississippi pay for a fraudulent global warming scam?  We cannot give into fraud and it is your duty to know the difference and take action.

A new year could bring increased rates for Mississippi Power Co. customers.

The company filed three requests for a combined 11.35 percent increase to the Mississippi Public Service Commission on Tuesday.

If approved, any changes will go into effect in 2012.

Southern District PSC Commissioner Leonard Bentz said Mississippi Power customers are paying far less for electricity than they did in 2009 and his goal is to keep utility bills as low as possible. He said the filings are under review.

“I am going to make sure that I go through each piece with a fine-tooth-comb,” he said. “They are not a package deal and may not all be approved.”

Mississippi Power serves approximately 188,000 customers in 23 southeast Mississippi counties.

The Certified New Plant A filing requests an 11.66 percent increase that would cover financing costs for the Kemper Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Project.

“The Kemper IGCC Project is on schedule and progressing well. When completed, this plant will generate electricity for customers at a significantly lower cost than any of the alternatives,” said Tommy Anderson, vice president of Generation Development.

Tommy Anderson, Please put that in a contract for the people, that we will have lower rates for the customers in Mississippi. That is a lie and am not afraid to call it out.  The least costly plan would be to stop following the Kyoto Protocols created by the United Nations that Southern Company is willingly following.

“The recovery of financing costs during construction will save customers hundreds of millions of dollars in additional financing charges over the life of the plant.”

Please compare costs if we did not invest in the fraudulent science scam that CO2 kills people and needs to be contained.

In addition to the CNP-A filing, Mississippi Power has requested a 2.20 percent decrease in the amount it recovers in its annual fuel filing. Mississippi Power’s fuel costs are recovered from customers on a dollar-for-dollar basis. The company does not earn a profit on the fuel used to generate electricity.

Company spokeswoman Cindy Duvall said lower gas prices at the pump allowed the company to request a 2.20 percent decrease in the amount it recovers in its annual fuel filing.

“When Mississippi Power has the lower costs, we pass those on to our customers for decrease on their bill. We don’t make money on our fuel costs,” she said.

What about making huge profits on global warming caused by CO2 science fraud.  That is somehow OK to charge us for? 

The company’s annual PEP filing (base rate) indicates an increase of 1.89 percent. In existence since 1986, PEP represents the costs the company incurs to ensure customers can continue to receive reliable electric service.

“This represents our performance evaluation plan and customers refer to it as a base rate,” Duvall said. “It’s an increase of 1.89 percent. That represents reliability and customer service so when customers flip the switch, something happens.”

LA TONYA FRELIX

American Staff Writer

Mississippi Power requesting aditional $98 million/11.66% rate increase for April 2012

Form 8-K for MISSISSIPPI POWER CO


16-Nov-2011

Other Events

Item 8.01 Other Events. See MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS – FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL –
“Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle” of Mississippi Power Company (“Mississippi Power”) in Item 7 and Note 3 to the financial statements of Mississippi Power under “Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle” in Item 8 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 for information on the Kemper County integrated coal gasification combined cycle facility (the “Kemper IGCC”). See also MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS – FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL – “Mississippi PSC Matters – Retail Regulatory Matters
– Certificated New Plant” and – “Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle” in Mississippi Power’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2011 for information related to the Kemper IGCC and Certificated New Plant-A (“CNP-A”). CNP-A is a new proposed cost recovery mechanism designed specifically to recover financing costs during the construction phase of the Kemper IGCC. On November 15, 2011, Mississippi Power filed its 2012 CNP-A annual filing with the Mississippi Public Service Commission (the “MPSC”), in connection with the proposed rate schedule filed by Mississippi Power with the MPSC on April 27, 2011. Mississippi Power currently projects to spend a total of approximately $2.2 billion on engineering, procurement, construction and other Kemper IGCC-related activities through December 31, 2012, with $870 million projected to be spent through December 31, 2011 and $1.3 billion projected to be spent in 2012. Based upon the projected costs through December 31, 2012, Mississippi Power calculates a 2012 CNP-A retail revenue adjustment of approximately $98 million, representing an increase in total retail revenues of approximately 11.66 percent.

 


Mississippi Power is also requesting that the CNP-A rates become effective with the April 2012 billings. Mississippi Power’s 2012 CNP-A annual filing and related proposed rate schedule are subject to the review and approval of the MPSC.
The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot now be determined.

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements:

Certain information contained in this Current Report on Form 8-K is forward-looking information based on current expectations and plans that involve risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking information includes, among other things, statements regarding Mississippi Power’s filing with the MPSC to recover financing costs related to the construction of Kemper IGCC, as well as statements regarding estimated construction costs and retail revenue adjustments. Mississippi Power cautions that there are certain factors that can cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking information that has been provided. The reader is cautioned not to put undue reliance on this forward-looking information, which is not a guarantee of future performance and is subject to a number of uncertainties and other factors, many of which are outside the control of Mississippi Power; accordingly, there can be no assurance that such suggested results will be realized. The following factors, in addition to those discussed in Mississippi Power’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, and subsequent securities filings, could cause actual results to differ materially from management expectations as suggested by such forward-looking information: state and federal rate regulations and the impact of pending and future rate cases and negotiations, including rate actions relating to fuel and other cost recovery mechanisms and the MPSC’s review of the CNP-A filing (the final outcome of which may differ materially from Mississippi Power’s proposal); changes in business conditions; changes in environmental statutes and regulations; ability to control costs and cost overruns during the development and construction of the Kemper IGCC; regulatory approvals and actions related to the Kemper IGCC, including MPSC approvals and potential U.S. Department of Energy loan guarantees; the ability of counterparties of Mississippi Power to make payments as and when due and to perform as required; interest rate fluctuations and financial market conditions and the results of financing efforts, including Mississippi Power’s credit ratings; and the impacts of any potential U.S. credit rating downgrade or other sovereign financial issues, including the impacts on interest rates, access to capital markets, impacts on currency exchange rates, counterparty performance, and the economy in general, as well as potential impacts on the availability or benefits of proposed U.S. Department of Energy loan guarantees. Mississippi Power expressly disclaims any obligation to update any forward-looking information.

http://biz.yahoo.com/e/111116/mpj8-k.html
 

Lower Your Living Sandard

Light bulbs, electric consumption, toilets, food intake… all under correction of The U.N. Agenda for the 21st century. Southern Company, as mentioned in their annual report, is cooperating with the bizarre environmental suggestions generated from the United Nations conference called the Kyoto Protocols.  The result will be a much lowered living standard.

Redevelopment sounds wonderful but steals the property from landowners. Just another way to reduce our living standard.

EPA and Global warming Hysteria on Fox News

Chris Horner, author of Power Grab

debunks the EPA and global warming hysteria on Fox News.

 

 

The Turkey Bologna Mississippi Power-Southern Company Gobble-up

Mississippi Power and Southern Company, are strong proponents of global warming.  They have been collaborating since at least 2003 on preventing further Global warming by following the Kyoto Protocols.  Southern Co Voluntary Emission Reductions Kyoto protocols  complies with Al Gore Science clowns recommendations VOLUNTARILY as UN dictates without laws or official regulations on CO2 yet.   Southern Co will fully comply with United Nation’s Kyoto Protocols.
Just ignore The Southern Company’s occasional forceful finger wag suggesting EPA disapproval as they continue to help develop mountains of regulations in full cooperation following the Kyoto protocols.
All is not well with Al Gore’s turkey bologna science.  More emails exposed providing more evidence for criminal fraud we hope will be used to stop this non-science in the IPCC.  Perhaps Southern Company should rethink their bed-fellow.

Shocker: 5000 More ‘Climategate’ Emails Released!

More Climategate emails have been released — showing widespread deceit among climate alarmists.

Five thousand more Climategate emails have just been released on a Russian web site. PR trouble is on the way for Al Gore, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, James Hansen, and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC), etc.

James Delingpole, author of Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors, couldn’t be happier. As he writes in yesterday’s newspaper column:

… all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they’d like it to be.

In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism.

Delingpole then lists a few excerpts from the latest Climategate emails. Among them are these:

/// The IPCC Process ///
<1939> Thorne/MetO: Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary […]

<3066> Thorne: I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

<1611> Carter: It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.

<2884> Wigley: Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […]

<4755> Overpeck: The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.

<3456> Overpeck: I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about “Subsequent evidence” […] Need to convince readers that there really has been an increase in knowledge – more evidence.  What is it?

<0714> Jones: Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about the tornadoes group.

<3205> Jones: Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud issue – on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be have to involve him ?)

This is just a little sampling of thousands of newly-released emails from the gurus of “climate change.” The fun has just begun.

Climate realists are combing through these emails to find more proof that the “climate change” activists are dishonest and pursuing political agendas that have more to do with global government than dealing with any real climate change crisis.

For background on the Climategate emails released in November, 2009, read Climategate by Brian Sussman and Climategate: The CRUtape Letters by Steven Mosher.

And, for more on the Climategate 2.0 email scandal, check out: Steve McIntyre, James Delingpole, Anthony Watts, and Steve Milloy. The emails can be downloaded from FOIA.org.

Southern Co Investing in United Nation’s SMART GRID

Click HERE for U.N. involvement

in Smart Grid

Utility Efficiency Efforts Ranked

by Susan DeFreitas, November 22nd, 2011

Across the country, utilities are investing in smart grid technology, including smart meters, as well as customer education programs designed to help households save cash and carbon. But some utilities are investing far more in this effort than others, according to a recent report, and reaping different levels of efficiencies in return for those efforts.

This new report by Ceres, a coalition of investors and environmental groups working with companies to address sustainability challenges, reveals that major utilities, such as National Grid subsidiaries Massachusetts Electric and Narragansett Electric, and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) in California, are investing up to $4.80 per megawatt-hour of retail electricity sales in energy efficiency programs. This is nearly 50 times the amount some other utilities – such as the United Electric Coop Service in Texas, and the Southern Company subsidiaries Alabama Power and Georgia Power – are investing.

Ceres used data provided by the utilities to the Energy Information Administration to evaluate investments by 50 utility companies from across the nation. According to the report, utilities achieved energy savings ranging from less than 0.1 percent of total retail sales to nearly 2 percent of total retail sales. The 10 best-performing utilities all demonstrated energy savings equal to 1 percent or more of annual electricity sales.

What makes the difference in such investments across the country? “State policies that remove unintended disincentives for a utility to pursue energy efficiency are major drivers of utility spending,” Ceres said, particularly for regulated, investor-owned utilities. Among the 50 utilities studied, a general positive correlation was shown between the strength of state efficiency policy and the level of investment and savings (though there were exceptions to the rule).

According to Ceres, utilities joining PG&E and the National Grid subsidiaries in the top 10 for energy savings include Southern California Edison, Nevada Power, Idaho Power, Seattle City Light, Salt River Project, and Interstate Power & Light. The companies rounding out the bottom 10 were First Energy subsidiaries Metropolitan Edison and Ohio Edison, Southern Company subsidiaries Georgia Power, Alabama Power and Mississippi Power and Duke subsidiary Duke Energy Indiana, Ceres said.

Judge refuses to halt DOE Assistance for Mississippi Power’s Kemper Lignite Coal Plant

What about the economic impact?   The economic impact was not included? Someone needs to bring that forward to a judge as well.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has rejected Sierra Club’s attempt to stop the Department of Energy from providing money or a loan guarantee on a 582-MW coal-fired power plant in Mississippi, until it has fully examined environmental impacts (Sierra Club v. U.S. Department of Energy, 11-514 JDB, D.D.C.).

The issues are not ripe for adjudication, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said in a 21-page opinion issued today.

DOE “has not yet made an ‘irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources’ with respect to loan guarantees,” Bates wrote, referring to DOE’s pending decision on whether to provide guarantees for up to 80 percent of the project cost, estimated to exceed $2 billion.

“Until [DOE] issues a Record of Decision on a guarantee, it is not committed to making one,” Bates said. “The Sierra Club may be correct that the department is closer to making a decision than the agencies were in Wyoming, Center for Biological Diversity, or Nevada.”

But “[u]ntil DOE actually commits to a loan guarantee, it is not relevant that DOE has committed other resources to the Kemper project or that DOE seems to the Sierra Club to have made up its mind,” the judge said. “Furthermore, it is not clear that there will be no further development of the issues here. Although the EIS did discuss a loan guarantee and was entitled ‘final,’ the EIS does not itself commit resources, and the agency could very well undertake further analysis (environmental or otherwise) before actually committing resources or deciding not to commit resources. Finally, it is not relevant that deferred review might make the agency more likely to continue on its course of action or make the ultimate decision harder to undo, since that is true in virtually every situation in which courts defer review on ripeness grounds.”

Arguing for a preliminary injunction, Sierra Club said, “Mississippi Power’s current activities at the construction site are destroying acres of forest, degrading local air quality, and disrupting an otherwise peaceful, rural community. Further construction and eventual operation of the coal plant and strip mine will destroy over 50 miles of streams and thousands of acres of wetlands, industrialize an estimated 13,925 acres of prime farmland and undeveloped forest, and burden surrounding communities with toxic air and water pollution.”

The plaintiffs also asserted that the project “is expected to lead to electricity rate hikes of nearly 50 percent for local residents” and that “[w]hile DOE and Mississippi Power seek to justify this project’s expense and enduring environmental impacts on grounds that it will advance the development of carbon capture technology, the plant will not be required to capture, much less sequester, the 5.7 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent1 (“CO2e”) that it will generate each year.”

Bates said issuing an injunction would not provide the relief sought by Sierra Club:

“Mississippi Power has provided a sworn affidavit indicating that it will proceed with the Kemper project with or without [Clean Coal Power Initiative] assistance or a loan guarantee. The Sierra Club has produced evidence that the project was unlikely to have commenced without federal funding, but has not made such a showing regarding the continued viability of the project without federal funding.  Hence, the Sierra Club has failed to meet its burden of showing that it will be irreparably harmed by DOE’s funding of the Kemper Project absent the injunction it seeks.”

Excerpts from opinion

[T]he court will deny the Sierra Club’s motion for a preliminary injunction and grant the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss.  The case shall proceed only on the Sierra Club’s remaining claims.

The Sierra Club’s complaint presents five causes of action.  First, the Sierra Club alleges that DOE violated NEPA by selecting the Kemper project for CCPI funding without giving detailed consideration to alternatives other than building the plant proposed by Mississippi Power.  Compl. ¶¶ 46-49.  Second, the Sierra Club alleges that DOE violated NEPA by selecting the Kemper project for a loan guarantee without giving detailed consideration to alternatives. Compl. ¶¶ 50-53.  Third, the Sierra Club alleges that DOE violated NEPA by preparing the EIS with a specified “purpose and need” that was too narrow.  Compl. ¶¶ 54-58.  Fourth, the Sierra Club alleges that DOE violated NEPA by neglecting to consider the cumulative impact of emissions from the Kemper project in combination with emissions from other coal plants.  Compl. ¶¶ 59-62.  Fifth, the Sierra Club alleges that DOE violated NEPA by failing to disclose all the environmental impacts of the Kemper project and failing to identify mitigation measures.  Compl. ¶¶ 63-64.

Excerpts – Sierra Club brief in support of P.I. motion (5/16/2011)

DOE’s final EIS authorizes “a $270 million grant award and federal loan guarantees of up to $1.9 billion. Without this federal assistance, the Mississippi Power Company, a subsidiary of Southern Company, would be unable to finance its proposed ‘Plant Ratcliffe’—a new 582-megawatt (“MW”) coal plant that will burn lignite coal from a proposed 12,275-acre strip mine.  Already, DOE has disbursed nearly $50 million, which is funding ongoing construction work at the Ratcliffe site.”

HERE

Steve Davies
Editor/Publisher
Endangered Species & Wetlands Report (www.eswr.com)

Liberty Fuels, North American Coal Corp, Mississippi Power, Southern Company, and Public Private Partnerships

 

Liberty Fuels Co. LLC – a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corp. of Bismarck, N.D might be participating in the Public Private Partnership with Southern Company bleeding the life out of American Businesses. Any perspective?

It was a question asked at the hearing for Liberty Fuel Contract in DeKalb.

%d bloggers like this: