Mississippi Power & Southern Company’s FRAUD on Local Radio

I bet this topic will NOT be brought up in Mississippi Supreme court since the Sierra Club is a Non-Government Agency for the United Nations.   My understanding is the Sierra Club is a tool used to put laws into place by bringing litigation to UN connected programs and then settling or causing  decisions to be placed into law moving the Agenda of the UN forward.  We will see.  If they really cared they would demand to have the CO2 controversy proven in court to settle the science.

From Youtube

Mississippi Power‘s CO2 Capturing Lignite Coal Plant in Kemper County is based on FRAUDULENT SCIENCE. My favorite Gulf Coast Morning Radio Show host Kipp Greggory, interviewed former NASA scientist and White House Adviser, John L Casey, Author of COLD SUN. This is a portion of the exchange.
The Space and Science Research Corporation, (SSRC) is an independent scientific research organization in Orlando, Florida, USA. It has become the leading research organization in the United States on the subject of the science and planning for the next climate change to a long lasting cold era especially with regard to alerting the government, the media, and the people of the need to prepare for this new climate era.

Its staff of Supporting Researchers includes some of the world’s best in the fields of solar physics and geology including earthquake science and volcanism.

The SSRC and its President, Mr. John L. Casey, have an established record of accuracy in climate change predictions using the Relational Cycle Theory or RC Theory of climate change, a theory based on solar cycles as the main drivers behind the Earth’s variations in climate.
The Mission of the SSRC Is: To provide an independent un-biased resource for the government, media, corporations, and the people on important areas of scientific research and engineering, especially the science behind the next climate change and measures that can be taken to prepare for it.

Supreme court will hear Kemper Coal Plant arguments Mississippi Power & Southern Company

Supreme court will hear Kemper Coal Plant arguments

by MBJ Staff  (Mississippi Business Journal)

Published: November 4,2011

The Mississippi Supreme Court will hear arguments from the Sierra Club challenging the state Public Service Commission’s approval of the project in Kemper County by Mississippi Power Co. Mississippi Power has started construction of the $2.4 billion coal plant.

Oral arguments are scheduled for Dec. 14.

The suit was filed and heard in Harrison County Chancery Court. Judge Jim Persons ruled in favor of the Commission and Gulfport-based Mississippi Power in February.

Mississippi Power began building the Kemper plant after the Commission passed a second conditional approval of the facility with 2-1 vote in May 2010.

The Commission’s first conditional approval was passed in April of 2010 and capped the project at $2.4 billion, among other restrictions. The second order, passed approximately one month later, limits the plant’s cost overruns to $2.88 billion and also allows the utility to charge customers for financing costs before the plant becomes operational.

The Sierra Club believes the Commissions’ second conditional approval of the plant is arbitrary and  unsupported by evidence presented in extensive hearings regarding the project.

The suit says that the Commissioners “did not explain how their finding that a $2.88 billion cost was acceptable could be squared with their previous finding that there is no evidence to support a cost of over $2.4 billion.”

State Sierra Club director Louie Miller said the club has taken on the unexpected role of consumer advocate in addition to environmental advocate in this case.

Included in the suit is an effort to make customer rate impacts from the plant available to the public.

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

Haley Barbour Sends Letters to Pressure Kemper Purchase on Ratepeyers

Commissioners Deny Barbour’s Influence

by Adam Lynch
June 23, 2010

Mississippi Sierra Club Director Louie Miller says that a letter from Gov. Haley Barbour to the Public Service Commission asking it to approve an experimental coal plant in Kemper County may have had an unseemly impact on Public Service Commissioners Leonard Bentz’ and Lynn Posey’s decision to increase the plant’s construction-cost cap by $480 million at the request of Mississippi Power Company.

“It’s not coincidental that the ‘flip flop’ occurred less than 72 hours after Governor Haley Barbour sent a strongly worded letter to the Commissioners insisting the plant get built,” Miller wrote in a statement. “It is also not lost on us that Barbour’s Washington lobby firm, Barbour, Griffith and Rogers, represents Southern Company, the parent company of Mississippi Power, who touted on their website they were responsible for lobbying the (U.S.) Department of Energy to land federal money for Kemper.”

Barbour stated in his May 24 letter that a PSC decision making the construction of the plant impossible would be “an awful, outrageous outcome.”

The Mississippi Sierra Club filed a June 17 lawsuit in Harrison County Chancery Court calling the PSC’s decision to raise the construction-cost cap of the plant by 20 percent “arbitrary and capricious.” The suit challenges the decision by Bentz and Posey to revise the original April 29 PSC decision capping construction expenses of the proposed coal-burning power plant at $2.4 billion.

Under the original decision, the stockholders of Mississippi Power, the company seeking to construct the plant, would have carried any costs above $2.4 billion. MPC complained, however, that they should be able to pass additional costs above $2.4 billion down to their ratepayers, and warned that they could not afford to build the plant if they were not allowed to do so.

When Bentz and Posey revised their decision May 26, they allowed the company to charge ratepayers an additional $480 million, or up to $2.88 billion for the plant—even though MPC did not release to the public the amount of the rate increases customers would shoulder or provide any documentation supporting the rate increase. Under comparable circumstances, Entergy Mississippi customer rates increased about 40 percent after construction of the similarly priced Grand Gulf nuclear reactor in the 1980s.

“The actions of the majority are arbitrary, capricious, beyond legal authority and unsupported by substantial evidence. These actions are contrary to governing statutes. The Commission’s decision granting the certificate and the May 26, 2010, order must be vacated,” the Sierra Club states in its motion.

The organization also demands that the court order the commission to act on an earlier motion that the Sierra Club filed with the PSC to make public how the plant affects rates, and to temporarily suspend the PSC decision allowing construction of the Kemper project pending a decision by the court.

Commissioner Bentz disputed Miller’s argument that Barbour held any power over his personal decision to upgrade the April 29 decision.

“When did the Sierra Club ever support anything that is progressive?” Bentz asked. “They have opposed this plant from the beginning. They talk about us flip-flopping and changing our minds, but that’s incorrect. We never denied the power company the right to build the plant, not in the first order and not in the second order.”

Commissioner Brandon Presley, who voted against both PSC decisions to allow the construction of the plant, said at a June press luncheon and in his May 26 dissent that the PSC had received no new information warranting the increase in the construction cap.

“It seems the only reason the majority changed its mind in this case is because Mississippi Power Company insisted,” Presley wrote in his May 26 dissent.

Bentz argued that MPC still must approach the PSC for approval before charging ratepayers anything more than the original $2.4 billion.

“Louie Miller is an idiot,” Bentz said. “Our decision does not automatically grant MPC a dime more than their original $2.4 billion price. They still have to come back to us if the cost goes beyond that and ask permission for that increase.”

But Presley says, however, that the PSC will undoubtedly approve the additional costs.

“The project costs more than (MPC’s) net worth. As soon as the cost goes north of $2.4 billion and you don’t approve the cost increase, we’ll bankrupt the company,” he said.

Bentz added that he was unaware of any influence from a letter by the governor, and said he was unfamiliar with the letter to which Miller referred. Presley, who said he submitted the letter into public record after receiving the document, said he had been unimpressed with the message. “My position is that if the administration in Washington and the state feels so confident about this plant let them come in and pay for it,” Presley said.

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/commissioners_deny_barbours_influence_062310/

%d bloggers like this: