DID BARBOUR LOBBY FOR KEMPER COUNTY COAL PLANT?

It is not my original idea that Haley Barbour Lobbied and profited from the build of Mississippi Power and Southern Company’s experimental lignite coal plant in Kemper County.  I believe we can count on Phil Bryant to do a good job.

HERE

 

By BEN SMITH Politico

The news that Haley Barbour will return to his lobbying practice at BGR, the firm he founded and that made him a wealthy man, comes as anything but a surprise. Barbour, in fact, never really left. He has, as has been reported, continued to be paid from the firm — through a blind trust — as governor of Mississippi.

But that’s not Barbour’s only connection to the firm. He’s also continued to operate out of its Washington, D.C. office on at least some of his frequent trips to Washington, D.C.

A Democratic operative who filmed the video above when Barbour was contemplating a presidential campaign sends it over. In the video, shot last October, Barbour and his entourage enter BGR’s office.

“Doing a little lobbying, Governor?” the cameraman asks.

“Borrowing a cheap phone,” he replies.

That’s what BGR is known for: Cheapest phones in DC.

We Must Reduce Production and Consumption & Mississippi Power Obeys

Hopefully our commissioners will one day say this…

“STATES SHOULD REDUCE AND ELIMINATE UNSUSTAINABLE PATTERNS OF PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION AND PROMOTE APPROPRIATE DEMOGRAPHIC POLICIES”

Quote found here

and here and many other places on official UN websites.

Why Obama Wants Your Electric Bills to go up

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/

Mississippi is Waking Up Thanks to Travis Rose

Mississippi Punked – Scheme Raises Energy Prices to Enrich Wall Street

Congressional Climate Bills:

Stealth Schemes to Raise Energy Prices

and Enrich Wall Street

by Stephen Lendman
Monday, 17 May 2010
If cap and trade is enacted, polluters will win. Consumers will lose, and Wall Street will get the mother of all speculative bonanzas. No wonder, they and the energy giants are lobbying ferociously for passage.

On June 26, 2009, HR 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA) passed, purportedly “To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy.”

In fact, it lets energy polluters raise prices for huge windfall profits and gives Wall Street a bonanza through carbon trading derivatives speculation. Catherine Austin Fitts’ Solari.com blog, “Coming Clean” explained it last July in her article titled, “The Next Really Scary Bubble” is coming, saying:

“If you think the housing and credit bubble diminished your financial security and your community, or the bailouts, or the rising gas prices did as well, hold on to your hat” for what’s ahead. “Carbon trading is gearing up to make the housing and derivative bubbles look like target practice,” or in other words, be the mother of all scams, courtesy of administration, House and Senate collaboration with Wall Street and the energy giants.

Now the Senate version – a clean energy bill? Not according to the Center for Biological Diversity (biologicaldiversity.org) calling it:

“a disaster for our climate and planet. (The Kerry-Lieberman) proposal moves us one baby step forward and at least three giant steps back in any rational effort to address the climate crisis. (Their bill) would entrench our addiction to fossil fuels by offering incentives for increased oil and gas drilling just days after what appears to be the worst offshore oil disaster in American history.”

Their proposal includes “no safeguards….to make offshore oil safe. (It) echoes greenhouse pollution reduction targets that scientists recently called ‘paltry’ and inadequate to prevent the worst impacts of climate change….The Kerry-Lieberman (bill) is not the answer because it asks the wrong questions.”

New climate legislation must:

  • reduce “atmospheric carbon dioxide to 350 parts per million….;”
  • supplement “existing environmental laws – especially the Clean Air Act – instead of gutting these successful and proven environmental protections;”
  • be “free of loopholes allowing polluters to delay or avoid reducing their greenhouse gas emissions;” and
  • avoid “habitat destruction and increased greenhouse gas emissions through perverse subsidies.”

House of Senate bills fail “these tests.” They’re “a disaster for our climate and planet.” The House bill lets polluters “escape real emissions reductions.” The Senate bill:

  • bans Clean Air Act provisions and “existing state and local efforts to tackle climate change;”
  • facilitates, subsidizes, and accelerates oil and gas drilling, including offshore;
  • “subsidize(s) dangerous and costly nuclear energy; and
  • incentivize(s) the destruction of forests for biomass energy production;” this provision, however, appears stalled.

Last June, Public Citizen called the House bill:

“a new legal right to pollute (that) gives away 85 percent of (its) credits to polluters. (It) will not solve our climate crisis but will enrich already powerful oil, coal and nuclear power companies” at the expense of consumers stuck with higher than ever bills to enrich them.

This writer’s July 8 article titled, Obama’s Cap and Trade Carbon Emissions Bill: A Stealth Scheme to License Pollution and Fraud explained it.

Hyperbolic Democrats praised it, Speaker Pelosi calling it “transformational legislation which takes us into the future” after taking congratulatory calls from Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Al Gore.

The former vice president has long-standing ties to Goldman Sachs (GS), and in 2004, he and David Blood, GS’s former asset management division CEO, co-founded Generation Investment Management LLC, a firm likely to profit hugely from cap and trade schemes if enacted.

So will energy giants like Royal Dutch Shell (top-ranked in 2009 on Fortune’s Global 500) and Duke Energy that helped write the bill, that according to Friends of the Earth President Brent Blackwelder “fails to come anywhere close to solving the climate crisis. Worse, (it) eliminates preexisting EPA authority to address global warming – that means it’s actually a step backward.”

Greepeace agreed saying it “sets emission reduction targets far lower than science demands, then undermines even those targets with massive offsets. The giveaways and preferences in the bill will actually spur a new generation of nuclear and coal-fired power plants to the detriment of real energy solutions.”

Energy companies praised it, and why not. Big Coal got a waiver until 2025. Agribusiness was exempted altogether even though it contributes up to one-fourth of greenhouse gas emissions. The free allowances provision benefits the nuclear industry hugely. The nation’s largest nuclear power company, Exelon, said it would reap a $1 – 1.5 billion annual windfall from subsidies and higher prices.

ACESA is a scam. It’s about profits, not environmental remediation. Its emissions reduction targets are so weak, they effectively license polluters by giving them a new profit center to exploit. As for Wall Street, it offers greater than ever derivatives trading profits – a new multi-trillion dollar market to be “securitized, derivatized, and speculated,” according to Clinton’s former Commerce undersecretary, Robert Shapiro. If cap and trade becomes law, the market will explode in his judgment.

Others agree, seeing a speculative bonanza, why FIRE sector (finance, insurance and real estate) lobbyists spent a record $465 million in 2009 according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Energy and natural resources companies also, spending $409 million to assure a plum this sweet becomes law.

The American Power Act (APC) – Unveiled on May 16 and now available in Pdf form.

It’s as hyperbolic as the House version saying:

It “will transform our economy, set us on the path toward energy independence and improve the quality of the air we breathe. It will create millions of good jobs that cannot be shipped abroad and it will launch America into a position of leadership in the global clean energy economy.”

It claims not to be about enriching Wall Street, but to reduce carbon pollution by “17 percent in 2020 and by over 80 percent in 2050,” so far ahead that who’ll remember unmet targets.

It says:

  • “Consumers will come out on top.
  • We need energy made in America.
  • America needs to regain its competitive edge….
  • We need a new approach to reducing emissions (and)
  • The system must be simple, stable and secure.”

Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica debunked it, saying:

“Without dramatic improvements, this bill should not be passed, and senators should consider alternatives. In the meantime, existing tools like the Clean Air Act must be put to work. More broadly, we must end a system in which polluter lobbyists exercise effective veto power in Congress. Our economy, global security and the health of the public are all at stake.”

According to Public Citizen’s Tyson Slocum in his May 13 analysis, APC fails across the board saying the “Climate Bill Is a Misnomer: It’s a Nuclear Energy-Promoting, Oil-Drilling-Championing, Coal Mining-Boosting Gift to Polluters….with a weak carbon-pricing mechanism thrown in.”

Worse still, it guts the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. It provides nuclear power incentives at taxpayers expense. Under sections 1101 and 1105, citizens won’t have public hearings on nuclear power risks, especially ones in their communities. Section 1102 “increases loan guarantees primarily for nuclear power to a jaw-dropping $54 billion.” Considering the industry’s high default risk, consumers will be stuck with the bill the way they’ve paid trillions for Wall Street bailouts.

In section 1103, 12 proposed nuclear plants will get $6 billion in taxpayer-subsidized risk insurance. Section 1121 lets nuclear power operators accelerate depreciation. Section 1121 “provides a 10 percent investment tax credit for new reactors.” Under section 1123, the industry gets Advanced Energy Project credits, and it “derives certain tax, bond and grant benefits from investing in nuclear power” from sections 1124, 5 and 6.

More than ever, Big Oil gets to “Drill Baby, Drill” (that assures “Spill Baby, Spill”), including more of it offshore, despite the spreading Gulf disaster, and there’s more. Under section 1202, states may keep 37.5 of oil and gas royalties. “That’s like saying because more rich people live in California and New York compared to Mississippi and New Mexico, (they) should be able to keep more federal dollars raised from income taxes. Royalty revenue sharing is patently unfair,” especially since offshore spills respect no state shorelines or inland areas if they spread.

Big coal will get generous loan guarantees and more. “Section 1412 establishes a (utility-collected) carbon tax paid by ratepayers….to fund carbon capture and storage (CCS) – with no money allocated to rooftop solar or energy efficiency investments.” Under section 1431, coal companies are given (taxpayer subsidized) emissions allowances – “an untested, risky strategy that benefits (them) and is gobbling up a lion’s share of subsidies” that should go for renewable energy development.

Merchant coal power plants (whose rates aren’t regulated) will get about 5% of the handouts, “which will provide opportunities for them to gouge consumers.”

Section 1604 says because “voluntary” renewable energy markets are efficient and effective programs, “the policy of the United States is to continue to support” them without the guarantees given fossil fuel and nuclear industry giants.

The bill also promotes carbon offsets trading – a scam to let polluters buy credits from countries or companies whose greenhouse gas emissions fall below their allowed quotas. However, shifting isn’t reduction. It simply transfers pollution from one place to another, has no verification mechanism, creates a system wide open to fraud and mismanagement, and allows the same market manipulation shenanigans that created the housing and toxic derivatives bubbles – precisely why energy giants and Wall Street want it.

Utilities, not consumers, will benefit from free 2013 – 2029 allowances, “exclusively” for ratepayers purportedly. But instead of remitting directly to them, the Senate bill lets state utility commissions decide. They, in turn, can be more or less consumer friendly, but as their past history shows, ratepayers will end up losers.

As for Wall Street, the Senate bill is marginally less accommodative than the House version, but not enough to matter. For example, a new Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Office of Carbon Market Oversight is created, letting the corporate-run agency regulate spot and futures emission markets.

It would require emissions traders to register, be approved, and have their transactions cleared through a CFTC-run Carbon Clearing Organization. It’ll work the same way the Federal Reserve regulates banks – by letting the giants that own it make the rules.

Further, carbon trading lets Wall Street “control our climate future” by “mak(ing) the housing and derivatives bubbles look like target practice,” as Catherine Austin Fitts explained.

If cap and trade is enacted, polluters will win. Consumers will lose, and Wall Street will get the mother of all speculative bonanzas. No wonder, they and the energy giants are lobbying ferociously for passage.

Connection to the Gulf Disaster

On May 9, Attorney General Eric Holder told ABC’s This Week that he sent Justice Department officials to the Gulf to determine if any “misfeasance (or) malfeasance” occurred.

Is the Senate climate bill perhaps connected to the Gulf spill? – being used as a pretext to propose “protections,” including a provision saying:

“Mindful of the accident in the Gulf, we institute important new protections for coastal states by allowing them to opt out of drilling up to 75 miles from their shores. In addition, directly impacted states can veto drilling plans if they stand to suffer significant adverse impacts in the event of an accident.”

Don’t bet on it, as House and Senate bills, in fact, assure more, not less, offshore drilling, thus far prohibited in oil rich waters Big Oil companies covet. But what they want, they generally get, free from regulatory oversight or not enough to matter. That won’t change nor the chance for more spills, on or offshore. As one expert explained: “As long as we keep using this stuff, we’re going to be spilling it. It goes with the territory.”

Yet if the Gulf incident was deliberate, why so? On September 30, S. 1733: Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act was introduced, purportedly to “create clean energy jobs, promote energy independence, reduce global warming pollution, and transition to a clean energy economy.”

On November 5, it was reported to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, remained stalled, and the December Copenhagen climate summit (COP 15) failed. Then after the April 20 Gulf incident, it was reactivated to take advantage of a good crisis – what White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel once told the Wall Street Journal saying:

“You never want to let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is that it’s an opportunity to do things you thought you couldn’t do before.”

And a joint Kerry-Lieberman statement said ahead of the bill’s rollout:

“We are more encouraged today that we can secure the necessary votes to pass this legislation this year in part because the last weeks have given everyone with a stake in this issue a heightened understanding that as a nation, we can no longer wait to solve this problem which threatens our economy, our security and our environment.”

White House climate advisor, Carol Browner, told Bloomberg TV that:

“This accident, this tragedy, is actually heightening people’s interest in energy in this country and in wanting a different energy plan.”

Perhaps they, BP, Transocean and Halliburton know something we don’t. In this case a possible false flag “accident” to jump-start passage of the Senate bill to enrich polluters and Wall Street, the only way they may have thought possible after Senate debate stalled.

Of course, to enlist enough public and congressional support, a headline-making incident was needed, though doubtful one this grave was intended – according to some experts spewing from 40,000 – 100,000 gallons daily to continue for months, even years given the enormous underwater pressure at a one-mile depth – 40,000 pounds per square inch, the reason fixes so far tried have failed, and no one’s sure what’ll work. The latest BP tube insertion may be more a PR stunt than a solution, but don’t look for its officials or Washington to explain it.

Extremely worrisome are the enormous deep water oil plumes, one, for example, 16 km long, five km wide, and 91 meters thick, suggesting permanent ecological damage with untold consequences. Already, oxygen in the Gulf is depleting, threatening sea life over a vast area and the livelihoods of area fishermen.

As for the industry’s likely cost, it’s pocket change, especially as others (including Washington and perhaps the states), not the offenders, will pay the most. Consider the Exxon Valdez disaster.

It occurred in March 1989. After years of litigation, plaintiffs got $385 million in compensatory damages and $5 billion in punitive ones. However, after numerous appeals, the Supreme Court (in June 2008) reduced the latter ones to $500 million – ten cents on the dollar or the equivalent of about 1.5 days profit from Exxon’s Q 1 2008 operations, or hardly enough to matter.

As for Prince William sound and its residents, its beaches are still contaminated. The high-pressure hoses did more harm than good. They destroyed interlocking layers of gravel and flushed away fine sediments that protect beach areas, clams and mussels during storms. As many as 300,000 seabirds were killed plus other wildlife.

A Trustee Council study found 17 of 27 monitored species haven’t recovered. Bio-accumulation of toxins affected the killer whale population. Clams are inedible from hydrocarbon poisoning. Shellfish damage slowed the recovery of otters that feed on them. The herring never returned. Salmon caught have abscesses and tumors, and the lives of about 32,000 plaintiffs were permanently disrupted economically, emotionally and culturally by bankruptcies, alcoholism, suicides, family violence, and divorces. And today the area still smells like a gas station and perhaps will for decades.

As for enacting Senate energy legislation, falsely called a climate bill, the battle lines are now drawn, including for offshore drilling, but given its importance to Big Oil, expect heavy-lifting lobbying for passage, whether or not this year. Whatever happens, expect the public to lose out to powerful corporate interests, especially energy and Wall Street ones spending millions to assure it.


Stephen Lendman

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His blog is sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to Lendman’s cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2010/051710Lendman.shtml

Power’s High Price Will Cost Jobs PSC LEONARD BENTZ:

PSC COMMISSIONER LEONARD BENTZ: Power’s High Cost Will Cost Coast Jobs

Sunday, February 08, 2009 12:53 PM

(Source: The Sun Herald (Biloxi, Miss.) tracking By Mary Perez, The Sun Herald, Biloxi, Miss.

Feb. 8–Leonard Bentz knows this week he has to sign off on a fuel-cost adjustment requested by Mississippi Power and he knows it will mean job losses in South Mississippi.

“I believe I’ve had every single casino call me,” said Bentz, chairman of the Mississippi Public Service Commission. He said they’ve told him, “The fuel-price increase is going to make us have to lay people off.”

Mississippi Power has requested a 9.2 percent increase for residential customers. The increase is higher for commercial and industrial customers because fuel costs make up a larger portion of their bills.

For Northrop Grumman it could mean an increase of $2 million this year. Beau Rivage Resort and Casino faces a $700,000 to $800,000 increase and Island View Casino around $300,000.

“Those are just some of the numbers we are hearing,” said Bentz.

He tells everyone who calls him about the increase, “If you have an idea, please give it to me.”

Bentz said, “I should have signed that order two months ago. I’ve not allowed them to put the new fuel prices in place yet.”

Business owners knew the increase was coming. In July and August representatives from Mississippi Power gave all major business customers an estimate of the increase, said company spokeswoman Cindy Webb.  (I strongly question the effectiveness of this communication, for I have asked multiple Business owners and members of Chamber and rarely did one say, “oh yes I heard about it.”  And no one said MS power told me.)  In November, when the utility filed for the fuel-cost adjustment, representatives went back and gave the businesses specific costs.

“It’s our annual true-up on fuel,” said Webb. It’s not the largest annual fuel adjustment. That was 10 percent in 2006. In 2008 Mississippi Power customers paid a 4 percent fuel-adjustment increase, and Webb said there were decreases in 2002 and 2003.

“It depends on the fuel markets,” she said.

Mississippi Power Company hasn’t had public hearings on fuel increases, but Bentz scheduled one for Dec. 29 in Gulfport. Only a handful of residents and business owners attended. (that is because no one knew about the meeting.  Bentz cares more about his no call list than a change that will affect the homes of every Mississippian.)“It was not the best time in the world to have a hearing,” Bentz said, “but I wanted to have a public hearing anyway.” He said at the meeting the dollar-for-dollar “pass-through,” in a regulated market such as Mississippi’s, allows the utility to pass on the cost of doing business to the customer. If the company spends $100 million on fuel and is allowed a rate of return of 10 percent, the company can bill the customers for the additional $10 million.

“Mississippi Power Company can only earn what the state regulators allow them to earn,” Bentz said.

Mississippi Power uses coal and gas to operate its power plants.

Mississippi Power CEO Anthony Topazi said gas was up 100 percent in 2008 and coal was at an all-time high.

“I’m spending more to provide the same amount of energy,” he said.

When the prices were steadily climbing last year, the company negotiated multi-year contracts on the futures market to lock in the cost and be assured a supply of coal and gas.

“It’s a great deal when you lock that contract price in and the prices skyrocket,” said Bentz.” It’s a horrible deal when you lock that price in and the prices go down,” as they did in this case.

Bentz said he doesn’t have the staff or the $1 million it would take to do an audit to see if the utility paid the lowest price possible for fuel.

“There needs to be a disincentive, or some type of incentive to the power company for purchasing fuel the cheapest they possibly can do it,” he said.

It won’t be just the customers who feel the pinch. Bentz said, “I told Anthony (Topazi) the other day, ‘Y’all need to put these planes on the ground,'” referring to corporate aircraft.

Bentz added, “Profitmargins are not going to be what they were in the good years,” and he said, “I don’t believe bonuses are going to be paid to the amount that they’ve been paid.”

Webb said Mississippi Power has a hiring freeze and, “we are doing everything we can to control costs. We’re looking at the things we can do that won’t impact customerservice.”

If Bentz doesn’t sign the increase, he said, the Mississippi Supreme Court would most likely overturn that decision and grant it anyway, as the court has done in the past.

He can amortize the increase over 12 months or possibly two years. “When you do that, it’s just like putting it on a credit card,” he said, with the customers paying the carrying costs.

“It’s a crap shoot,” he said. “If prices keep going down it’s a great thing. But if they keep going up, you’re just compounding costs on top of each other.”

—–

To see more of The Sun Herald, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.sunherald.com.

Copyright (c) 2009, The Sun Herald, Biloxi, Miss.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

NYSE:NOC,

A service of YellowBrix, Inc.

via PSC COMMISSIONER LEONARD BENTZ: Power’s High Cost Will Cost Coast Jobs.

Mississippi Coal Comments are in Red and added for commentary

%d bloggers like this: