Government proposes first carbon limits on power plants

I wonder if Southern Company was the company singing the praises of the new EPA regulations.  Southern Company through Mississippi Power’s new demonstration lignite coal plant in Kemper County, Mississippi will be voluntarily participating in the proposed EPA CO2 regulations and plays an pro-active roll in helping the EPA gain the numbers needed to implement the new regulations.

 

By Timothy Gardner

WASHINGTON | Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:19pm EDT

(Reuters) – The Obama administration proposed on Tuesday the first rules to cut carbon dioxide emissions from new U.S. power plants, a move hotly contested by Republicans and industry in an election year.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal would effectively stop the building of most new coal-fired plants in an industry that is moving rapidly to more natural gas. But the rules will not regulate existing power plants, the source of one third of U.S. emissions, and will not apply to any plants that start construction over the next 12 months.

The watering down of the proposal led some ardent environmentalists to criticize its loopholes, but a power company that has taken steps to cut emissions praised the rules.

While the proposal does not dictate which fuels a plant can burn, it requires any new coal plants to use costly technology to capture and store the emissions underground. Any new coal-fired plants would have to halve carbon dioxide emissions to match those of gas plants.

“We’re putting in place a standard that relies on the use of clean, American made technology to tackle a challenge that we can’t leave to our kids and grandkids,” EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told reporters in a teleconference.

Jackson could not say whether the standards, which will go through a public comment period, would be finalized before the November 6 election. If they are not, they could be more easily overturned if Obama lost.

Republicans say a slew of EPA clean air measures will drive up power costs but have had little success in trying to stop them in Congress. Industries have turned to the courts to slow down the EPA’s program.

Some Democrats from energy-intensive states also complained. “The overreaching that EPA continues to do is going to create a tremendous burden and hardship on the families and people of America,” said Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia.

REGULATORY CERTAINTY

The EPA’s overall clean-air efforts have divided the power industry between companies that have moved toward cleaner energy, such as Exelon and NextEra, and those that generate most of their power from coal, such as Southern Co and American Electric Power.

Ralph Izzo, the chairman and CEO of PSEG, a utility that has invested in cleaner burning energy, said the rules provide a logical framework to confront the emissions. The rules provide the industry with “much needed regulatory certainty,” that is needed to help guide future multi-billion dollar investments in the U.S. power grid, he added.

Under the new standards, coal plants could add equipment to capture and bury underground for permanent storage their carbon emissions. The rules give utilities time to get those systems running, by requiring they average the emissions cuts over 30 years. Still, the coal-burning industry says that carbon capture and storage, known as CCS, is not yet commercially available.

Jackson said the EPA believes the technology will be ready soon. “Every model that we’ve seen shows that technology as it develops will become commercially available certainly within the next 10 years”.

The National Mining Association said the rules can only hurt industry. “This proposal is the latest convoy in EPA’s regulatory train wreck that is rolling across America, crushing jobs and arresting our economic recovery at every stop

The portion of U.S. electricity fired by coal has slipped from about 50 percent to 45 percent in the last few years as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and other drilling techniques have allowed access to vast new U.S. natural gas supplies.

NO PLAN FOR EXISTING PLANTS

The EPA is the main tool President Barack Obama has left to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which he pledged at an international climate meeting to cut by about 17 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels.

But the agency’s moves are also met by challenges by industry in the courts and have been under withering criticism from Republicans, who have made environmental regulations a big campaign theme ahead of the November 6 elections.

Environmentalists are part of Obama’s base and the administration has tried to walk a tightrope with its “all of the above” energy strategy that includes tougher energy regulations and support for renewable energy, while also supporting drilling for oil and gas.

Greens who were stung by Obama’s decision last September to delay a major smog rule, mostly cheered the EPA on Tuesday.

“The bottom line for our country is that cleaner power will cut harmful carbon dioxide pollution, protect our children and help secure a safe prosperous future,” said Vickie Patton, the general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund.

But others bemoaned a concession to industry that left existing plants without limits. The EPA’s Jackson said the agency has no current plans to issue rules on those plants, which backers of climate action say are essential to tackle climate change.

Obama “should stand by EPA Administrator Jackson and her team as they push corporate polluters to reduce the CO2 spewing from smokestacks today,” said Kyle Ash of Greenpeace.

An industry analyst said the proposal gives power companies a break as the rules would not regulate the existing plants subject to other EPA rules on mercury and other emissions. “We think this is very reassuring news to an industry on the cusp of investing billions to meet,” those other limits, said Christine Tezak, an energy policy analyst at R.W. Baird & Co.

“Moving forward, it will be important for EPA to address carbon emissions for existing power plants as well,” said Kevin Kennedy, the U.S. climate director at the research group World Resources Institute. “Existing plants represent a significant opportunity to improve efficiency and reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.”

 

Original post Here

Advertisements

Our Victory Against the Mississippi Power’s Kemper Coal Plant Retruns to PSC For Re-Evaluation

It is a happy day to see that the Kemper County Demonstration Lignite Coal Plant is being reevaluated by the PSC per court reversal.  It will be interesting to see how Leonard Bentz and Lynne Posey explain the public value in carbon dioxide capturing, transport, and storage to the Mississippi ratepayer.

In the wake of the latest exposure of the United Nations fraudulent global warming science, the Sustainable Development plans is no doubt  at risk as well.  In order to substantiate the need to capture carbon dioxide the three Mississippi Public Service Commissioners will need to prove the science behind the Kyoto Protocols of the United Nations. Southern Company is voluntarily following the United Nation’s Kyoto Protocols to implement their Agenda 21  to reduce energy usage via excessive energy costs.  This was clearly to be an experiment of behavior modification.

We need to celebrate and get right back to work because Kemper County Coal plant is moving forward and will surely work with the Obama administration and Steven Chu to find any loop-hole to keep the money pit going on the backs of the people. I say pull the plug.

Presley Issues Statement on Kemper County Coal Plant

March 16, 2012

Today Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley issued the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s reversal of  Mississippi Power Company’s Kemper County Coal Plant:

Today’s 9-0 decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court reversing the $2.8 billion Kemper County Coal Plant is a major victory for each and every customer of Mississippi Power Company and deals a serious blow to the company’s corporate socialism.

In this case, Mississippi Power Company gave new meaning to the phrase “We got the gold mine, they got the shaft”.

I’ve argued consistently that customers of Mississippi Power Company have been mistreated by the company hiding rate impacts in this case and by putting their shareholders above their customers.

This plant is untried technology. The shareholders have no risks while the customers have all the risks along with a 45% rate hike to boot. The company also wanted to raise rates before the plant produced any electricity. I believe in “pay as you go”, I just don’t believe you should pay BEFORE you go.

I personally wrote multi-page dissents in this case and am pleased today to see that those arguments were not in vain.

This $2.8 billion case comes back now to the commission for further review.

EPA Lawsuits Question Basis, Procedures Behind EPA’s “Endangerment Finding”

EPA’s Global Warming Juggernaut Challenged in Court

Lawsuits Question Basis, Procedures Behind EPA’s “Endangerment Finding
February 27, 2012

Washington, D.C., February 27, 2012 – EPA’s economically ruinous plans for regulating greenhouse gas emissions are being challenged in federal court this week by a broad array of states and private parties, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Science and Environmental Policy Project, and FreedomWorks.  A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Tuesday and Wednesday in a set of cases challenging EPA’s decision to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.  The court will also review a series of major EPA regulations based on that decision.

The petitioners argue that EPA acted arbitrarily and illegally in a number of respects:  it ignored the severe shortcomings of climate models; it illegally adopted the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and it refused to reopen its proceedings in the wake of Climategate.  The agency also ignored the fact that its incredibly costly regulations will have no detectable impact on global temperature.  Despite their extraordinary economic impacts, their much-ballyhooed benefits will in fact amount to zero.

“The fact that the court is devoting two days to hearing these cases demonstrates the importance of these legal questions.  But from a political standpoint, there’s even more at stake,” said CEI Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis.   “In 2010, after two decades of global warming advocacy, Congress declined to give EPA explicit authority to regulate greenhouse gases when Senate leaders pulled the plug on cap-and-trade legislation.  EPA’s insistence on going forward with its command-and-control agenda despite this defies both history and logic.”

Last year, EPA’s own Inspector General found that the agency based its 2009 “Endangerment Finding” (that emissions from greenhouse gases endanger the public health and welfare) on a flawed and inadequate assessment of climate science, and that EPA’s peer review methodology did not meet OMB requirements for highly influential scientific assessments.  (See EPA IG Report)

HERE for More

Cap and Trade by Stealth: U.S. States Partner With Foreign Governments

By Alex Newman   The New American

While Americans were battling cap-and-trade legislation at the national and international levels, global-warming alarmists were quietly building regional systems between state and local governments, private industry, and even foreign governments that basically achieve the same effect — higher energy prices for consumers and more money for governments.

The first and most prominent of these U.S. cap-and-trade systems is known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). It was created not by the people through their legislatures, but by a so-called “Memorandum of Understanding” between state governors.

Consisting so far of 10 Northeastern and mid-Atlantic states — Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont — the scheme is described on the RGGI website as “the first mandatory, market-based effort in the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Its board of directors consists primarily of each participating state’s top environmental bureaucrats.

The “Initiative” works by having each state cap its carbon dioxide emissions at a certain level, then auctioning off emissions permits to the highest bidder. Eventually, the CO2 limits will be reduced, causing increased energy prices as companies pass along the added costs to consumers. By 2018, the RGGI plans to reduce energy-sector emissions by 10 percent.

Thus far, the scheme has netted close to a billion dollars by selling “carbon credits” to utility companies and other firms in participating states, earning about $50 million through an auction held on December 1. The first auction was actually held in 2008, and there have been nine since then. Spoils from the emissions permits are then handed out by state governments to companies, environmental groups, and others.

Incredibly, the RGGI has managed to avoid public scrutiny of its operations by incorporating as a non-profit organization and leaving enforcement and regulation to the individual states. The corporation claims it does not have to respond to public requests for information since, technically, it is not actually a government entity.

But the corruption is already coming out in the open. “New Hampshire conservationists had high hopes for how $18 million in funding generated by the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) might advance energy efficiency projects,” wrote columnist Fergus Cullen in the New Hampshire Union Leader earlier this year. “Unfortunately, cronyism and corporate welfare hallmark too many grants awarded by the Public Utilities Commission so far.”

Cullen’s piece details, among other things, the outrageous handouts to “environmental” front groups and big businesses that helped push the scheme through. For example, an activist group in New Hampshire called “Clean Air Cool Planet” was incorporated by out-of-state bigwigs to promote global-warming alarmism — including Al Gore’s discredited “documentary,” An Inconvenient Truth.

“Having helped create this pot of money, Clean Air was one of the first in line with its hand out so it can do more alarmist advocacy, paid for with public resources awarded by friends,” Cullen explains. The group has already received almost half of a million dollars. Another example cited by the columnist: “Yogurt on a mission” producer Stonyfield Farm, with $300 million in yearly sales, received nearly $150,000 to upgrade its air-conditioning system.

Money was basically shoveled out, “creating opportunities for the well-connected and the in-the-know” while “millions of dollars have gone out the window, wasted like heat leaking out of an uncaulked pane,” Cullen concludes.

But RGGI boss Jonathan Schrage — who after intense public pressure recently disclosed his salary of almost $170,000 per year — thinks the scheme is great. “I look forward to building RGGI Inc. into a dependable administrative ally of each state’s RGGI program,” Schrag said in a press release when he was appointed executive director. “The states have done tremendous work to develop the first CO2 cap-and-trade system in the U.S.”

Not everyone thinks so, though. And in an e-mail to supporters, the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise warned of even bigger problems to come. “RGGI is the prototype for more regional cap & tax entities,” wrote the organization’s executive vice president Ron Arnold. “Soon RGGI will expand to every state and stick you with astronomical energy prices.”

Arnold blamed the “corruptocrats in Washington” for the “gigantic waste of tax dollars,” adding that the “crooks behind RGGI must be exposed” and held accountable. He also said that, despite RGGI claims that it is “making a significant impact to combat the threat of global warming,” the data proves otherwise.

“The only impact RGGI has made so far is they have raised energy prices and created a slush fund for each member state,” Arnold explained. And according to his letter, “the fact that global warming isn’t even real” won’t prevent the “climate change scam” from spreading to other states. And he’s right — it’s already happening.

An even bigger and more ambitious effort that includes Canadian provinces — and even Mexican states — as “observers” is set to go into effect in 2012. Known as the Western Climate Initiative, the scheme is described on its official website as “a collaboration of independent jurisdictions working together to identify, evaluate, and implement policies to tackle climate change at a regional level.”

Among the participating “jurisdictions”: California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Montana, and four Canadian provinces. So-called observers, “jurisdictions” that are likely to join soon, include six Mexican states, an additional six U.S. states, and another three Canadian provinces. The Western Climate Initiative, like the RGGI, was also created by an agreement between state governors — not legislatures.

A similar scheme for the American Midwest, under the banner of the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord, is also set to enter into force in 2012. The agreement encompasses Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Manitoba, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin — for now. Three other U.S. states and one additional Canadian province are listed on the scheme’s website as “observers.”

One unifying factor between all the regional partnerships is the emphasis on promoting expansion and eventual federal — and even international — involvement. And in Cancun at the global warming summit, state and local-government leaders made it clear that they would continue marching forward with the anti-carbon dioxide schemes at the global level — no matter what the outcome of United Nations climate talks currently underway in Cancun.

“We are proving that while a global agreement is important, we do not need to wait for it to start building the path to a new low carbon future,” explained Quebec Premier Jean Charest, the co-chair of the States & Regions Alliance, during a summit at the COP16. “As our national counterparts meet here in Cancun to continue the negotiations, states and regions are continuing to show the leadership necessary to make practical headway on climate action.”

And this is all part of the broader global plan. The so-called “States and Regions Alliance” represented by Premier Charest — some 60 state and regional governments accounting for about 15 percent of the world’s Gross Domestic Product — is part of a shadowy but powerful international non-profit known as “The Climate Group.”

The organization works with the United Nations Development Program, the World Economic Forum, the Administrative Center for China’s Agenda 21, the U.S. Department of Energy, and other high-profile institutions, agencies and governments to advance the global climate agenda. And it promotes the implementation of global-warming schemes through “sub-national” levels of government — among other things.

“States, regions and cities are where the rubber hits the road in terms of practical action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” wrote States and Regions Alliance co-chair and Quebec Premier Charest, along with his fellow co-chair, South Australia Premier Mike Rann.

“The UN Development Program estimates that 50 per cent to 80 per cent of the emissions cuts needed to keep climate change below 2C will need to be delivered at state, regional and city levels,” the co-chairs noted in their joint column for The Australian entitled ‘Think globally, act locally? States already are.’ “This is because regional governments often control regulation for many of the key areas for addressing climate change, such as power generation, the built environment, waste management, transport and land use planning.”

CEO of The Climate Group Steve Howard offered a similar analysis. “A clean industrial revolution is not only possible, but it is well underway in the world’s leading states, cities and regions,” he told COP16 attendees at the “Climate Leaders Summit” in Cancun Wednesday. “The subnational governments in our Alliance are not waiting for a global agreement but are forging agreements of their own to lead a growing global market for low-carbon goods and services already estimated at $4.7 trillion.”

Despite the U.S. Senate’s rejection of cap-and-trade legislation, the carbon-tax agenda is still being implemented in America and around the world. Using the Environmental Protection Agency, the Obama administration is moving forward on regulating emissions of carbon dioxide at the federal level. And through alliances and agreements between states and even foreign governments — unconstitutional under Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution — those same forces are building a powerful and expensive carbon regime that could eventually encompass every state in the Union, and beyond.

For original text http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/5466-cap-and-trade-by-stealth-us-states-partner-with-foreign-governments

Trial Over Removal of Spent Nuclear Fuel SYSTEM FUELS, INC., SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, AND SOUTH MISSISSIPPI ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION, V. UNITED STATES

SYSTEM FUELS INC. v. U.S.

SYSTEM FUELS, INC., SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, AND SOUTH MISSISSIPPI ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Cross Appellant.

Nos. 2010-5116, 2010-5117

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Decided: January 19, 2012.

ALEX D. TOMASZCZUK, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, of McLean, Virginia, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief were JAY E. SILBERG, of Washington, DC; and EVAN D. WESSER, of McLean, Virginia. Of counsel on the brief was L. JAGER SMITH, JR., Wise Carter Child & Caraway, P.A., of Jackson, Mississippi.
ALAN J. LO RE, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-cross appellant. With him on the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, HAROLD D. LESTER, JR., Assistant Director, SHARON A. SNYDER, Trial Attorney, MARIAN E. SULLIVAN and ANDREW P. AVERBACH, Senior Trial Counsel; and SCOTT R. DAMELIN, Trial Attorney. Of counsel on the brief was JANE K. TAYLOR, Attorney, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Energy, of Washington, DC.
Before RADER, NEWMAN and DYK, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court filed by Chief Judge RADER. Opinion concurring-in-part, dissenting-in-part filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN.

 

 RADER, Chief Judge.

On summary judgment, the United States Court of Federal Claims determined that the United States breached its contract with Plaintiffs-Appellants System Fuels, Inc., System Energy Resources, and South Mississippi Electric Power Association (collectively “Plaintiffs”) for the removal of spent nuclear fuel. Sys. Fuels, Inc. v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 722, 732-33 (2005) (“SFI I“). The trial court also granted summary judgment in favor of the Government regarding the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Id. at 735. The trial court set damages for the breach at $10,014,114 as well as the cost of borrowed funds for financing the construction of the dry fuel storage project. Sys. Fuels, Inc. v. United States, 78 Fed. Cl. 769, 809 (2007) (“SFI II“). On reconsideration, the trial court reduced damages to $9,735,634 and denied the cost of borrowed funds. Sys. Fuels, Inc. v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 101, 114 (2010) (“SFI III“). This court affirms the trial court’s denial of borrowing costs and reverses the denial of overhead costs. On damages, this court affirms the trial court’s award.

I.

In 1983, Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (“NWPA”), Pub. L. No. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2201 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 10101-10270 (2006)), to provide for the Government’s collection and disposal of spent nuclear fuel (“SNF“) and high-level radioactive waste (“HLW“). The NWPA authorized the Department of Energy (“DOE”) to contract with the owners of SNF and HLW for disposal. 42 U.S.C. § 10222(a)(1). In return for the payment of fees into the Nuclear Waste Fund, the Standard Contract provided that the DOE would begin to dispose of the SNF and HLW “not later than January 31, 1998.” 42 U.S.C. § 10222(a)(5)(B); 10 C.F.R. § 961.11 (2011). The Standard Contract provides that “[t]he Purchaser shall arrange for, and provide, all preparation, packaging, required inspections, and loading activities necessary for the transportation of SNF and/or HLW to the DOE facility.” 10 C.F.R. § 961.11 (Article IV.A.2). Because collection and disposal of SNF and HLW did not begin on January 31, 1998, this court held in Northern States Power Co. v. United States, 224 F.3d 1361, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2000), and Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. v. United States, 225 F.3d 1336, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2000), that the DOE had breached the Standard Contract with the nuclear energy industry. This case examines another chapter in the lengthy search for remedies for breach of the Standard Contract.

On June 30, 1983, System Fuels, Inc. entered into the DOE’s Standard Contract on behalf of itself, System Energy Resources, and South Mississippi Power Association. SFI I, 66 Fed. Cl. at 725. System Energy Resources and South Mississippi Power Association own Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (“Grand Gulf”). System Fuels, Inc. served as the purchaser under the Standard Contract. Id. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a license to System Fuels, Inc. and South Mississippi Power Association to operate Unit 1 of Grand Gulf, whose SNF is stored in a “wet pool.” Id. In 2002, Plaintiffs began preparations to construct an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (“ISFSI”) capable of holding additional dry storage containers of SNF until DOE complied with its removal obligations. Plaintiffs anticipated that the “wet pool” would reach capacity in 2007. Id.; SFI II, 78 Fed. Cl. at 783. The record shows that System Energy Resources and South Mississippi Power Association have paid almost $148 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund in accordance with the terms of the applicable fee schedule of the Standard Contract. The Government has not begun performing its duties and responsibilities under the Standard Contract. SFI I, 66 Fed. Cl. at 725, 730. As of March 4, 2005, Plaintiffs alleged that they had spent approximately $4.75 million to construct the ISFSI. Id. at 732-33. After this court rendered its decision in Indiana Michigan Power Co. v. United States, 422 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005), Plaintiffs amended the complaint to allege that they had incurred $12,178,000 in costs to plan and construct the ISFSI at Grand Gulf to mitigate breach damages. SFI II, 78 Fed. Cl. at 771.

Every 18 months, the reactor at Grand Gulf shuts down to facilitate removal of fuel assemblies, which are then placed in two onsite storage facilities for 20 to 25 days during routine maintenance. Id. at 779. In an effort to explore their options for dry fuel storage, Plaintiffs sought guidance from an engineering services firm in the commercial nuclear industry. This firm recommended the “best short-term option for increasing spent fuel storage capacity at Grand Gulf was to recover cells currently inaccessible in the existing [onsite storage facilities].” Id. at 780. Plaintiffs also contracted with a dry cask storage system company and explored long-term options. Plaintiffs undertook construction of dry fuel storage because the core of the Grand Gulf reactor would reach capacity in 2007, and, by their estimates, the Government would not remove waste until 2022. Id. at 781. As a business practice, Plaintiffs maintain a full core reserve—a practice beyond current federal requirements. Id. at 782. Plaintiffs determined that they could maintain this business practice through 2005 and, with cell recovery efforts, accommodate the SNF and HLW discharges through 2007. Id. at 782-83.

In constructing the ISFSI, Plaintiffs created six categories of capital work operations: spent fuel studies, ISFSI design and construction, cask fabrication facility, dry fuel equipment storage building, ISFSI electrical and security systems, and auxiliary building door modification. Plaintiffs recorded and tracked costs associated with the dry fuel storage facility. Id. at 783. Plaintiffs sought damages for the capital work operations, totaling $10,591,000, and cost of capital to finance these operations, totaling $1,587,000. Id. at 783, 785.

The trial court held an eight-day trial on damages. Id. at 773 n.2. The trial court did not specify an acceptance rate of spent fuel but determined that Plaintiffs should be awarded over $10,014,114 in mitigation damages for their capital work operations. Id. at 794, 809. The award did not include the cost of borrowed funds because, even though the trial court determined that Plaintiffs were entitled to recover this amount, it needed clarification and sought additional expert testimony before making a final decision concerning mitigation damages. Id. at 809-10.

The trial court revisited its causation analysis after this court rendered the following decisions: Yankee Atomic Electric Co. v. United States, 536 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United States, 536 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Sacramento Municipal Utility District v. United States, 293 Fed. Appx. 766 (Fed. Cir. 2008). SFI III, 92 Fed. Cl. at 102. The trial court held evidentiary hearings concerning causation and addressed the claim for the costs of borrowed funds. Id. at 103-05. The trial court reduced the amount of damages previously awarded to Plaintiffs for their “cell recovery efforts” and determined that England v. Contel Advanced Systems, Inc., 384 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2004), barred the grant of an award for the cost of borrowed funds. 92 Fed. Cl. at 108, 111-12.

Plaintiffs appeal the trial court’s refusal to award the cost of borrowed funds and overhead costs as mitigation damages. The Government appeals on the ground that the trial court’s causation analysis did not include a comparison of breach and non-breach worlds under the Standard Contract. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

II.

This court reviews the factual findings of the United States Court of Federal Claims for clear error, Ind. Mich., 422 F.3d at 1373, including “the general types of damages awarded . . ., their appropriateness . . ., and rates used to calculate them . . .,” Home Sav. of Am. v. United States, 399 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “A finding may be held clearly erroneous when . . . the appellate court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” 422 F.3d at 1373 (quoting In re Mark Indus., 751 F.2d 1219, 1222-23 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). This court reviews the trial court’s legal conclusions without deference. Yankee Atomic, 536 F.3d at 1272. This court provides the trial court with wide discretion in determining an appropriate quantum of damages. Hi-Shear Tech. Corp. v. United States, 356 F.3d 1372, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

III.

Plaintiffs sought $1,587,000 as damages for the cost of borrowed funds to construct their dry fuel storage facility. SFI II, 78 Fed. Cl. at 785. The trial court stated that its authority to award interest on a claim of damages is governed by the Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Rules of Decision Act, which states that “interest on a claim against the United States shall be allowed in a judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims only under a contract or Act of Congress expressly providing for payment thereof.” SFI III, 92 Fed. Cl. at 110 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2516(a)) (internal citations omitted).

As this court stated in England, “[t]he no-interest rule is an aspect of the basic rule of sovereign immunity.” 384 F.3d at 1379 (citing Library of Cong. v. Shaw, 478 U.S. 310, 315 (1986); Smith v. Principi, 281 F.3d 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). This no-interest rule denies claims for interest and “interest costs incurred on money borrowed as a result of the government’s breach or delay in payment.” 384 F.3d at 1379 (citing J.D. Hedin Constr. Co. v. United States, 456 F.2d 1315, 1330 (Ct. Cl. 1972); Komatsu Mfg. Co. v. United States, 131 F.Supp. 949, 950 (Ct. Cl. 1955); Ramsey v. United States, 101 F.Supp. 353, 356-57 (Ct. Cl. 1951); Myerle v. United States, 33 Ct. Cl. 1, 25 (1897)).

Although expressing concerns about the policy and uniform application of England, the trial court ultimately applied the rule of that case and denied interest. In Energy Northwest v. United States, issued after the trial court’s judgment in the present case, this court addressed those concerns and reaffirmed England, distinguishing it from cases where the Government has been held liable for interest. 641 F.3d 1300, 1310-12 (Fed. Cir. 2011). England therefore controls this case. Because the trial court properly applied England, this court affirms the trial court’s denial of the cost of borrowed funds.

IV.

Plaintiffs incurred additional overhead costs when managing the six capital work operations. Plaintiffs maintained a separate accounting for overhead costs, consistent with the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) regulations. The separate accounting, referred to as the “capital suspense loader,” includes the cost of administrative and engineering personnel supporting capital construction projects. J.A. 348-49, 351. These overhead costs consist of two pools: (1) administrative and general costs for personnel at corporate headquarters and (2) nuclear-specific costs for personnel at the Nuclear South headquarters and Grand Gulf site. J.A. 349. The trial court acknowledged that “DOE was aware that Plaintiffs were required to account to FERC for all costs incurred.” SFI II, 78 Fed. Cl. at 791. Originally, the trial court withheld these costs for lack of proof with “reasonable certainty.” Id. at 800. Plaintiffs then provided additional analysis showing that costs associated with the “capital suspense loader” were $497,619. The trial court then offset the overall damages awarded to Plaintiffs by this amount. SFI III, 92 Fed. Cl. at 104-05, 108.

As explained in Indiana Michigan, “[d]amages for a breach of contract are recoverable where: (1) the damages were reasonably foreseeable by the breaching party at the time of contracting; (2) the breach is a substantial causal factor in the damages; and (3) the damages are shown with reasonable certainty.” 422 F.3d at 1373 (citing Energy Capital Corp. v. United States, 302 F.3d 1314, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). In Carolina Power & Light Co. v. United States, this court affirmed the trial court’s awarding of overhead costs to a utility whose “internal accounting system uses specific codes to allocate a portion of [the overhead expenses] to particular projects . . . .” 573 F.3d 1271, 1276-77 (Fed. Cir. 2009). This court has previously determined that “the amount of damages need not be `ascertainable with absolute exactness or mathematical precision,’ [but that] recovery for speculative damages is precluded.” Ind. Mich., 422 F.3d at 1373 (quoting San Carlos Irrigation & Drainage Dist. v. United States, 111 F.3d 1557, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). In Energy Northwest, this court found that “mitigation activities generally were supported by certain overhead services that Energy Northwest provided for the benefit of all its operations (not only its mitigation activities).” 641 F.3d at 1309. This court made such a determination based on testimony “estimating the portion of . . . overhead costs fairly allocated to support . . . the mitigation via generally accepted accounting practices . . .” Id.

Thus, Plaintiffs may recover overhead costs incurred for mitigation-related work. The record shows that Plaintiffs used an internal accounting system with particular codes for the “capital suspense loader.” Further, the record shows that the internal accounting system allocates on a monthly basis the overhead associated with the pool and charges accounts for the appropriate project. J.A. 348-50. Thus, Plaintiffs used accounting procedures “as mandated by FERC,” J.A. 349, and “consistent with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles,” J.A. 351. The trial court clearly erred in finding that these accounting records did not “demonstrate the effect of the mitigation project on the capital pools entitlement with `reasonable particularity.'”

Therefore, because the record fully supports Plaintiffs’ proof of overhead costs, this court reverses the trial court’s grant of offset of damages for the “capital suspense loader” overhead costs.

V.

In Yankee Atomic, this court determined that a SNF utility company “had the burden to provide the contractual acceptance rate and apply that rate before suggesting that the Government’s breach was a substantial factor in causing the [Plaintiffs’] claimed expenses.” 536 F.3d at 1273. This court went further to state that “[w]ithout record evidence about the [utility’s] condition with full Government performance, the Court of Federal Claims could not perform the necessary comparison between the breach and non-breach worlds and thus could not accurately assess the [Plaintiffs’] damages.” Id. Plaintiffs bear the burden to establish the alleged mitigation costs were caused by the breach. Energy Nw. v. United States, 641 F.3d 1300, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “[A] defendant must move forward by pointing out the costs it believes the plaintiff avoided because of its breach,” but “with respect to both claimed costs and avoided costs, plaintiffs bear the burden of persuasion.” S. Nuclear Operating Co. v. United States, 637 F.3d 1297, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Boston Edison Co. v. United States, 658 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (the Government “may be responsible for affirmatively pointing out costs that were avoided” due to the breach, but once the Government has identified the plaintiff’s avoided costs, “the plaintiff must incorporate them into a plausible model of the damages”); Energy Nw., 641 F.3d at 1308 n.5 (“Once the defendant has properly articulated an offset, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to incorporate those saved costs into its formulation of a plausible but-for world.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). While in some places the trial court, without the benefit of our most recent cases, inaccurately placed the burden of proof on the Government, we do not think that this error affected the result.

In SFI II, the trial court determined that Plaintiffs’ mitigation was foreseeable:

[T]he record contains clear and convincing evidence that on June 30, 1983, it was “foreseeable” to DOE that, if performance could not be commenced by January 31, 1998, Plaintiffs would have to make interim arrangements to store SNF and HLW and DOE could have foreseen that such interim arrangements could entail the need to plan, design, and construct dry fuel storage and the [sic] incur costs to borrow funds to finance those mitigation efforts.

78 Fed. Cl. at 791. Additionally, the trial court determined that the costs of modification of the auxiliary building were “incurred to mitigate the Government’s partial breach.” Id. at 801. The trial court analyzed the costs associated with the auxiliary building modifications, procedures and programs to use the casks and dose assessment, implementation of the transfer and haul paths for the casks, and scaffolding. Id. at 800-06. The trial court’s analysis was based on the costs included in Plaintiffs’ claims for damages, offsets asserted by the Government, and comparison of “the real world versus the costs of the modifications in the non-breach world.” Id. at 800. The trial court determined that Plaintiffs’ costs were reasonable for several of the auxiliary building modifications and implementation of the transfer and haul paths for the casks. Id. at 801-04, 805. In contrast, the trial court awarded offsets for (i) the procedures and programs to use the casks and dose assessment and (ii) a portion of the scaffolding costs. Id. at 804, 805-06.

In SFI III, the trial court weighed evidence concerning causation of the contested damages and application of the 1987 Annual Capacity Report Rate. 92 Fed. Cl. at 103-04. The trial court heard testimony concerning Grand Gulf in breach and non-breach worlds and “determine[d] that [Plaintiffs] would have performed the cell recovery project even if DOE accepted SNF at Grand Gulf in 2006” and offset Plaintiffs’ award for damages based on the “appropriate `related’ costs.” Id. at 104. The trial court stated that Plaintiffs “advised the court that three adjustments should be made to the prior costs claimed,” which related to offsetting costs associated with Plaintiffs’ claims for “payroll loader,” “capital suspense loader,” and “equipment purchased, sequence design, and dose assessment.” Id. at 104-05.

The trial court also weighed evidence regarding the “cell recovery effort.” After comparing the breach and non-breach worlds, the trial court determined that Plaintiffs were “not entitled to include[ ] $184,208 for the cell recovery effort as damages.” Id. at 105-06. The trial court then applied this court’s holding in Yankee Atomic, 536 F.3d at 1268, and determined that the “reasonable foreseeability element was satisfied” and “the necessity to proceed with dry fuel storage at Grand Gulf . . . was caused by both the partial breach and DOE’s inability to guarantee the commencement of performance by 2005, when the spent fuel pool would reach capacity.” SFI III, 92 Fed. Cl. at 107. The trial court discredited Plaintiffs’ expert testimony regarding performance in a non-breach world because the expert was “not qualified to testify about nuclear power plant operations.” Id. at 108. The trial court offset Plaintiffs’ damages by $184,208 and awarded Plaintiffs $9,735,634 in nominal damages because the trial court determined that Plaintiffs did not meet their burden to prove that Plaintiffs would not have engaged in “cell recovery efforts” but for the Government’s breach. Id. at 108.

Review of the record shows that the trial court’s damages analysis in SFI II included comparison between breach and non-breach worlds, and offsets were awarded where appropriate. In SFI III, the record confirms the trial court’s application of the 1987 Annual Capacity Report Rate and also applicable additional adjustments. The record evidence further supports the trial court’s comparison between the breach and non-breach worlds for the assessment of damages. This court discerns no error in these determinations. Thus, the trial court accurately addressed causation as set forth by Yankee Atomic and applied offsets as necessary. This court affirms the trial court’s causation analysis and its revised nominal damages award.

VI.

Because the trial court properly adhered to the decision of England, this court affirms the denial of Plaintiffs’ claim for the cost of borrowed funds. This court reverses the trial court’s denial of overhead costs. This court affirms the trial court’s causation analysis and revised award of nominal damages.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART AND REVERSED-IN-PART.

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs.

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, concurring in part, dissenting in part.

In this arena of varied Federal Circuit pronouncements on diverse facts, the court now carves an exception into the rule that damages due to breach of contract shall render the injured party monetarily whole. The rule, applicable to the government as to all contracting entities, is that when the non-breaching party is required to incur expenditures in order to mitigate the consequences of breach, the cost of those expenditures is compensable as damages. That cost of mitigation is not “interest on a claim,” but a component of damages. Thus the “no-interest rule” is inapplicable. I respectfully dissent from the portion of the court’s decision that denies recovery of such damages.

DISCUSSION

Analytical care is required to avoid blurring the distinction between the cost of money expended to mitigate a breach and interest awarded on a judgment for damages. The “non-interest” statute is directed to interest on an adjudicated claim:

28 U.S.C. §2516. Interest on claims and judgments

(a) Interest on a claim against the United States shall be allowed in a judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims only under a contract or Act of Congress expressly providing for payment thereof.

This statute does not apply to the System Fuels situation. System Fuels incurred capital costs to construct an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, a facility that was required to be constructed in view of the government’s partial breach of the Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste. “All capital raised by a corporation has a cost . . . .” LaSalle Talman Bank, F.S.B. v. United States, 317 F.3d 1363, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The Court of Federal Claims stated that the record establishes that System Fuels incurred $1,587,000 as cost of the capital expended to mitigate this breach.1 This cost is not “[i]nterest on a claim . . . in a judgment,” and denial of recovery of this cost contravenes the principle that “[t]he remedy for breach of contract is damages sufficient to place the injured party in as good a position as it would have been had the breaching party fully performed.” Indiana Michigan Power Co. v. United States, 422 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005). System Fuels’ cost of the capital required to mitigate the government’s breach is substantive damages, not interest on a claim.

This distinction has long been recognized. In Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 U.S. 310, 314 (1986), the Court explained that “interest is an element of damages separate from damages on the substantive claim.” In Shaw the Court denied the enlargement in Title VII attorney fees due to delay in payment of the fees; the Court did not state a rule about costs of capital. Precedent well illustrates that the “no-interest rule” is not a bar to substantive damages. E.g., Peoria Tribe of Indians of Okl. v. United States, 390 U.S. 468, 471, 473 (1968) (rejecting the government’s invocation of the no-interest rule, and holding the government liable “for its failure to invest the proceeds that would have been received had the United States not violated the treaty”); Larson v. United States, 274 F.3d 643, 646 (1st Cir. 2001) (explaining that the award by the United States of investment proceeds on seized funds in United States v. Kingsley, 851 F.2d 16 (1st Cir. 1988) was not an award of prejudgment interest because “the award was in the form of damages directly caused by” the government’s breach of a plea agreement).

Recognition that damages include the cost of the money expended in mitigation is exemplified in the FIRREA cases, e.g., Bluebonnet Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v. United States, 266 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the increased financing costs” represented in the Economic Benefits Agreement are recoverable as damages); LaSalle Talman, 317 F.3d at 1374-75 (damages can include “the cost of capital”); Citizen Fed. Bank v. United States, 474 F.3d 1314, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (damages include the “expenses it incurred in replacing its regulatory capital after FIRREA had precluded thrifts from using regulatory goodwill or subordinated debt as regulatory capital”). The analogy is apt, for here System Fuels expended capital to provide storage facilities after the government breached its contract to store the spent fuel.

“Government liability in contract is viewed as perhaps `the widest and most unequivocal waiver of federal immunity from suit.'” United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 215 (1983) (quoting Developments in the Law — Remedies Against the United States and Its Officials, 70 Harv. L. Rev. 827, 876 (1957)); see United States v. Emery, Bird, Thayer Realty Co., 237 U.S. 28, 32 (1915) (the Tucker Act is a “great act of justice”).

Law and precedent establish government liability for the cost of mitigation, where government breach requires expenditures in mitigation. In Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Se., Inc. v. United States, 530 U.S. 604, 607-08 (2000) the Court reinforced that “[w]hen the United States enters into contract relations, its rights and duties therein are governed generally by the law applicable to contracts between private individuals,” quoting United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839, 895 (1996) (plurality opinion). This court in Indiana Michigan applied “the general principle is that all losses, however described, are recoverable.” 422 F.3d at 1373 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 347 cmt. c (1981)). The Restatement explains that “the injured party is entitled to recover for all loss actually suffered. . . . includ[ing] costs incurred in a reasonable effort, whether successful or not, to avoid loss.” §347 cmt. c.

The government’s argument that recovery of mitigation costs is precluded by its reinterpreted “no-interest rule” is as inappropriate as it is incorrect, and should be rejected by the court, not adopted and enlarged. As stated in Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61, 69 (1955), the court is not a “self-constituted guardian of the Treasury.” My colleagues err in holding that the cost of mitigation of governmental breach of contract cannot include the cost of the money expended in mitigation. I respectfully dissent.


Southern Company may Bankrupt via New International Environmental Court


The Devastating News Southern Company

Mississippi Power Has been Waiting For

OBAMA’S GLOBAL POVERTY ACT IS BACK

by Tom DeWeese
January 11, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

He might be a whiz kid at creating computer software, but beyond that Bill Gates has proven time and again that he hasn’t a clue about why or how freedom works.

He constantly teams up with anti-free market types like the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) to produce “educational programs” in his software packages, misdirecting unsuspecting children with political propaganda. In 2002 he gave the NWF $600,000 worth of software to help these environmental radicals run their programs to block the drilling of American oil. Apparently Gates doesn’t understand that he needs oil to create power to run computers. Most recently his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donated $3 million to eight universities to reinvent the flush toilet. Environmentalists call that device “one of the world’s most destructive habits.”

Clearly Gates is a captive of his own wealth, suffering the usual rich man’s guilt over being rich – rushing full speed ahead to “give back to the world.” Funny how such giving back always seems to mean supporting socialist causes with money gained from the free market. Up till now, Gates has just been giving his own money voluntarily. Even if it’s to bad causes, he is certainly free to use his money anyway he chooses.

Now, however, his misguided meddling is about to involve the misdirecting of everyone’s income, and so the world’s richest useful idiot just became dangerous to freedom.

In November, as part of the G20 summit, Gates, representing his foundation, presented a report on a plan to eradicate world poverty. Said Gates, “I am honored to have been given this important opportunity. My report will address the financing needed to achieve maximum progress on the Millennium Development Goals, and to make faster progress on development over the next decade.” Gate’s report proposes a financial transaction tax (FTT) on tobacco, aviation, fuel and carbon (energy), to be enforced by all members of the G20 nations. The financial transaction tax has been excitedly talked about in the halls of the UN for a decade. Called the Tobin Tax, named after a Yale economist who dreamed it up, FTT would give the UN almost unlimited funding by taxing every stock and monetary transaction in the world.

Gates didn’t just dream this up on his own accord. He is actually resurrecting legislation a bill introduced in 2008 by then Senator Barack Obama. It was called the Global Poverty Act. Obama introduced the bill during his one abbreviated term in the U.S. Senate.

The bill was one of the only pieces of legislation ever introduced by Senator Barack Obama, and it wasn’t just a compassionate bit of fluff that Obama dreamed up to help the poor of the world. This bill was directly tied to the United Nations and served as little more than a shake down of American taxpayers in a massive wealth redistribution scheme. The Global Poverty Act would provide the United Nations with 0.7% of the United States gross national product. Estimates indicated that would add up to at least $845 billion of taxpayer money into UN coffers, to be spent (or wasted) by UN bureaucrats. The excuse for the taxing, of course, is to help end poverty in third world countries. The bill died in Congress in 2008 after passing unanimously in the House. Now Bill Gates has resurrected it.

Of course the United States has had an ongoing program of supplying billions of dollars in foreign aid and assistance to the poor for decades. In addition, the U.S. pays most of the bills at the UN for its many unworkable poverty programs. So what’s new about the Global Poverty Act, and why is it dangerous?

First, some history that led up to the Global Poverty Act. In 1999 and 2000 non-governmental organizations, NGOs held numerous meetings around the world to write what became known as the Charter for Global Democracy. The document was prepared as a blue print for achieving global governance. In reality it was a charter for the abolition of individual freedom, national sovereignty and limited government.

The Charter for Global Democracy outlined its goals in 12 detailed “principles:”

Principle One called for the consolidation of all international agencies under the direct authority of the UN.

Principle Two called for UN regulation of all transnational corporations and financial institutions, requiring an “international code of conduct” concerning the environment and labor standards.

Principle Three explored various schemes to create independent revenue sources for the UN – meaning UN taxes including fees on all international monetary transactions, taxes on aircraft flights in the skies, and on shipping fuels, and licensing of what the UN called the “global commons,” meaning use of air, water and natural resources. The Law of the Sea Treaty fits this category.

Principle Four would restructure the UN by eliminating the veto power and permanent member status on the Security Council. Such a move would almost completely eliminate U.S. influence and power in the world body. In turn Principle Four called for the creation of an “Assembly of the People” which would be populated by hand-picked non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which are nothing more than political groups with their own agendas (the UN calls NGOs “civil society”). Now, the UN says these NGO’s will be the representatives of the “people” and the Assembly of the People will become the new power of the UN.

Principle Five would authorize a standing UN army.

Principle six would require UN registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies “as part of a multinational global security system” under the authority of the UN.

Principle Seven would require individual and national compliance with all UN “Human rights” treaties and declarations.

Principle Eight would activate the UN Criminal Court and make it compulsory for all nations — now achieved.

Principle Nine called for a new institution to establish economic and environmental security by ensuring “Sustainable Development.”

Principle Ten would establish an International Environmental Court

Principle Eleven demanded an international declaration stating that climate change is an essential global security interest that requires the creation of a “high level action team” to allocate carbon emissions based on equal per-capita rights – The Kyoto Global Warming Treaty in action.

Principle Twelve demanded the cancellation of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions and for the “equitable sharing” of global resources, as allocated by the UN – here is where Obama’s Global Poverty Act comes in.

Specifically, the Charter for Global Democracy was intended to give the UN domain over all of the earth’s land, air and seas. In addition it would give the UN the power to control all natural resources, wild life, and energy sources, even radio waves. Such control would allow the UN to place taxes on everything from development; to fishing; to air travel; to shipping. Anything that could be defined as using the earth’s resources would be subject to UN use-taxes. Coincidentally, all twelve principles came directly from the UN’s Commission on Global Governance.

There was one major problem with the Charter for Global Democracy, at least as far as the UN was concerned. It was too honest and straightforward. Overt action displeases the high-order thinking skills of UN diplomats. The UN likes to keep things fuzzy and gray so as not to scare off the natives. That way there is less chance of screaming headlines of a pending takeover by the UN. So, by the time the UN’s Millennium Summit rolled around in September 2000, things weren’t quite so clear. Click here

At the Summit, attended by literally every head of state and world leader, including then-president Bill Clinton, the name of the Charter had been changed to the Millennium Declaration and the language had been toned down to sound more like suggestions and ideas. Then those “suggestions” were put together in the “Millennium Declaration” in the name of all of the heads of state. No vote or debate was allowed — just acclamation by world leaders who basically said nothing. And the deed was done. The UN had its marching orders for the new Millennium.

Now the principles were called “Millennium Goals,” and there were eight instead of twelve. Goal 1: Eradicate Extreme Hunger and Poverty; Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education; Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women; Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality; Goal 5: Improve Maternal Health; Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases; Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability; Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development.

Yes, these are sneaky guys, well trained in the art of saying nothing. Who could oppose such noble goals? The Millennium Project, which was set up to achieve the “goals” says on its website that it intends to “end poverty by 2015.” A noble goal, indeed. So what happened to the 12 Charter principles? Take a hard look – they are all still there.

Principles One, Two, and Twelve are right there in Goal 8 – to develop a global partnership for development. Now almost every world organization such as the World Bank carries a section on their web sites calling for “Millennium Development Goals” which control international banking and loan policy. They set policy goals for each country and sometimes communities to measure if nations are keeping their promise to implement the Millennium goals.

Principle Seven is clearly Goal 3, the only way to assure Gender Equality is to enforce compliance with UN Human Rights treaties. Principle Eight has already been achieved. Principle Nine is Goal 7. Al Gore is doing his best to enforce Principle Eleven. Global Warming, no matter how well the theory is debunked, just won’t go away because it is one of the Millennium Goals.

And then there is Barack Obama’s Global Poverty Act. Can you see which Principle that is? Of course, Principle 12 and Goal 1. Obama’s 2008 bill specifically mentioned the Millennium Goals as its guide and the 0.7% of GNP is right out of UN documents. In order to eradicate poverty by 2015, they say, every industrial nation must pony up 0.7% of their GNP to the UN for use in eradicating poverty. Southern Company May go Bankrupt

The UN is now becoming an international collection agency, pressing to collect the promises the world leaders made at the Millennium Summit. The UN wants the cash. In 2005 former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said, “Developed countries that have not already done so should establish timetables to achieve the 0.7% target of gross national income for official development assistance by no later than 2015…”

At the Summit in 2000, the UN set clear goals to establish its power over sovereign nations and to enforce the greatest redistribution of wealth scheme ever perpetrated on the world. Now it has the Criminal Court; Sustainable Development (Agenda 21) is fast becoming official policy in every corner of the nation—only today we call it “going green;” and there is a full court press on to enforce Global Warming policy, in spite of the fact that there is now overwhelming evidence pouring out of the scientific community to fully debunk the scam.

Obama introduced the Global Poverty Act as he campaigned for the Presidency with the obvious and clear intention of showcasing the then little known Senator as a world leader. But the bill died in the Senate. Now, Bill Gates is proving his “useful idiot” status (a term coined by Lenin to describe capitalists who would sell the rope to hang capitalism), by serving as Obama’s lackey to resurrect the Global Poverty Act.

And right on cue, just after Bill Gates made his report to the G20 Summit calling for a financial transaction tax, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) introduced legislation to put a tax on “certain trading activities undertaken by banking and financial firms.” The bills, of course, are the Tobin Tax and in line with Gate’s report.

Clearly, Obama needs to show that, under his leadership, the United States is falling in line with the Millennium Declaration and its 2015 deadline for implementation. Truth, science and American taxpayer interests be hanged, as Bill Gates offers the rope, Harkin and DeFazio provide the knot, and Obama gets to pretend to be a “world” leader.

SEISMIC ACTIVITY INDUCED BY THE INJECTION OF CO2 IN DEEP SALINE AQUIFERS

Ohio earthquake has brought more uncertainty to the Mississippi CO2 sequestration, the underground storage of CO2. When will the public demand answers and action.   Keep in mind that CO2 sequestration was initially developed as a result of United Nations meetings, when it was thought that CO2 was a poisonous gas that needed to be contained to prevent the end  of Earth and all its inhabitants due to global warming cooking us all.  We now know that the science behind the whack-o global warming scare was falsified  and a new group of independent scientist with credibility have demonstrated just the opposite. HERE  THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY MAN.

ISSUES RELATED TO SEISMIC ACTIVITY INDUCED BY THE INJECTION
OF CO2 IN DEEP SALINE AQUIFERS

Abstract
Case studies, theory, regulation, and special considerations regarding the disposal of carbon
dioxide (CO2) into deep saline aquifers were investigated to assess the potential for induced
seismic activity. Formations capable of accepting large volumes of CO2 make deep well injection
of CO2 an attractive option. While seismic implications must be considered for injection
facilities, induced seismic activity may be prevented through proper siting, installation, operation,
and monitoring. Instances of induced seismic activity have been documented at hazardous waste
disposal wells, oil fields, and other sites. Induced seismic activity usually occurs along
previously faulted rocks and may be investigated by analyzing the stress conditions at depth.
Seismic events are unlikely to occur due to injection in porous rocks unless very high injection
pressures cause hydraulic fracturing. Injection wells in the United States are regulated through
the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. UIC guidance requires an injection facility to
perform extensive characterization, testing, and monitoring. Special considerations related to the
properties of CO2 may have seismic ramifications to a deep well injection facility. Supercritical
CO2 liquid is less dense than water and may cause density-driven stress conditions at depth or
interact with formation water and rocks, causing a reduction in permeability and pressure buildup
leading to seismic activity. Structural compatibility, historical seismic activity, cases of seismic
activity triggered by deep well injection, and formation capacity were considered in evaluating
the regional seismic suitability in the United States. Regions in the central, midwestern, and
southeastern United States appear best suited for deep well injection. In Ohio, substantial deep
well injection at a waste disposal facility has not caused seismic events in a seismically active
area. Current technology provides effective tools for investigating and preventing induced
seismic activity. More research is recommended on developing site selection criteria and
operational constraints for CO2 storage sites near zones of seismic concerns.

More can be read here http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/p37.pdf

Other related story HERE

World Opinion Is Changing and Reason is Here to STAY

Canada has pulled out of the 1997 anti-global warming Kyoto protocol, saying the treaty is ‘not working’. The departure comes a day after further climate talks in South Africa led to a new agreement, which is set to replace Kyoto by 2015. Piers Corbyn, the founder of the Weather Action Foundation, hopes Canada withdrawal will lead to the collapse of “useless” Kyoto protocol.

Mississippi Power and Entergy Named in Lawsuit

This may come to a surprise to some and not to others. AVENT v. MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY

GLEN AVENT, APPELLANT, v. MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC.), APPELLEE.

 No. 2010-CA-00865-COA.

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         December 6, 2011.

DANA J. SWAN, Attorney for Appellant.
JOHN H. DUNBAR, KATE MAULDIN EMBRY, Attorneys for Appellee.
EN BANC.
GRIFFIS, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶ 1. This case considers whether the circuit court was in error to dismiss Glen Avent’s complaint against Entergy Mississippi, Inc. for failure to prosecute under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b), or to grant summary judgment in favor of Sheraton Tunica Corporation under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 56. We find no error and affirm.
FACTS
¶ 2. Avent was employed by Andy Bland Construction Company. On July 3, 1994, Avent was working at a construction site in Tunica County, Mississippi. He operated a man-lift that became stuck in wet sand. There was an effort to free the lift and pull it out of the sand. The lift came into contact with an overhead electrical line. As a result, Avent was injured.
¶ 3. Sheraton owned the property that was the construction work site. Sheraton contracted with W.G. Yates and Son Construction Co., as the general contractor. Entergy had installed the electrical line. Andy Bland was a subcontractor of Yates.
¶ 4. On November 8, 1996, Avent filed a lawsuit. The complaint named several defendants, including Mississippi Power & Light (now known as Entergy Mississippi, Inc.) Yates, Sheraton, and several John Does. After the defendants were served, they responded to the complaint, and the parties engaged in discovery.
¶ 5. Sheraton filed a motion for summary judgment on May 21, 1997. Avent promptly responded to Sheraton’s motion.
GRIFFIS, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶ 1. This case considers whether the circuit court was in error to dismiss Glen Avent’s complaint against Entergy Mississippi, Inc. for failure to prosecute under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b), or to grant summary judgment in favor of Sheraton Tunica Corporation under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 56. We find no error and affirm.
¶ 6. The circuit court entered an “Agreed Scheduling Order” on April 18, 1997, requiring all discovery completed by August 30, 1997; plaintiff’s experts to be designated by June 15, 1997; defendant’s experts by July 30, 1997; and all motions filed by September 30, 1997. On August 28, 1997, the circuit court entered an “Agreed Amended Scheduling Order,” requiring all discovery completed by November 30, 1997; plaintiff’s experts designated by August 30, 1997; defendant’s experts by September 30, 1997; and all motions filed by December 30, 1997. On November 13, 1997, the circuit court entered another “Agreed Amended Scheduling Order,” requiring all discovery completed by March 30, 1998; plaintiff’s experts designated by December 30, 1997; defendant’s experts designated by January 30, 1998; and all motions filed by April 30, 1998.
¶ 7. Yates filed a motion for summary judgment on May 1, 1998. After the circuit court heard the summary-judgment motions, the court granted Sheraton’s motion, which was filed on May 21, 1997, and dismissed Sheraton as a party on October 6, 1998. A week later, the circuit court granted Yates’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Yates as a party.
¶ 8. Several filings were entered on the docket from the time of the final judgment through August 10, 1999, when the clerk filed a letter from Entergy’s counsel that gave notice that the name of his law firm had changed. None of the filings were significant.
¶ 9. For almost six years, according to the clerk’s docket, this case was dormant.1 The clerk’s docket sheet does not indicate that any further pleadings were filed or action taken until February 14, 2005, when the plaintiff’s attorney filed a designation of experts.
¶ 10. Almost another year passed with no action on this case. On January 11, 2006, Avent filed a supplemental response to Entergy’s interrogatories. After this, the docket indicates the parties’ filings as follows:
March 29, 2006: Avent mailed a letter to Entergy, investigating whether the case could be disposed of through mediation.
April 5, 2006: Entergy responded by mail to Avent’s March letter.
April 10, 2006: Entergy sent a follow-up letter to Avent regarding mediation.
April 12, 2006: Avent set mediation for May 30, 2006.
April 12, 2006: Entergy confirmed mediation dates, but questioned the value of mediation due to the length of time that the case had been dormant.
April 18, 2006: Entergy filed a notice of service of its third set of interrogatories.
April 25, 2006: Entergy sent a letter to Avent cancelling mediation, requesting a new deposition, and expressing concern about the likelihood of finding crucial witnesses given the age of the case.
May 9, 2006: Avent sent Entergy a letter with potential deposition dates.
June 6, 2006: Entergy filed its motion to dismiss based on want of prosecution; at the same time, Entergy filed an affidavit explaining its inability to locate witnesses.
More HERE

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
%d bloggers like this: