Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2024

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Contingencies

CONTINGENCIES

See Note 3 to the financial statements in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for information relating to various lawsuits and other contingencies.

General Litigation Matters

The Registrants are involved in various matters being litigated and regulatory matters. The ultimate outcome of such pending or potential litigation or regulatory matters against each Registrant and any subsidiaries cannot be determined at this time; however, for current proceedings not specifically reported herein, management does not anticipate that the ultimate liabilities, if any, arising from such current proceedings would have a material effect on such Registrant's financial statements.

The Registrants intend to dispute the allegations raised in and vigorously defend against the pending legal challenges discussed below; however, the ultimate outcome of each of these matters cannot be determined at this time.

Southern Company and Mississippi Power

In 2010, the DOE, through a cooperative agreement with SCS, agreed to fund $270 million of the Kemper County energy facility through the grants awarded to the project by the DOE under the Clean Coal Power Initiative Round 2. In 2016, additional DOE grants in the amount of $137 million were awarded to the Kemper County energy facility. In 2018, Mississippi Power filed with the DOE its request for property closeout certification under the contract related to the $387 million of total grants received. In 2020, Mississippi Power and Southern Company executed an agreement with the DOE completing Mississippi Power's request, which enabled Mississippi Power to proceed with full dismantlement of the abandoned gasifier-related assets and site restoration activities. In connection with the DOE closeout discussions, in 2019, the Civil Division of the Department of Justice informed Southern Company and Mississippi Power of a civil investigation related to the DOE grants. In August 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia unsealed a civil action in which defendants Southern Company, SCS, and Mississippi Power are alleged to have violated certain provisions of the False Claims Act by fraudulently inducing the DOE to disburse funds pursuant to the grants. The federal government declined to intervene in the action. In October 2023, the plaintiff, a former SCS employee, filed an amended complaint, again alleging certain violations of the False Claims Act. The plaintiff seeks to recover all damages incurred personally and on behalf of the federal government caused by the defendants' alleged violations, as well as treble damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief. On February 2, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. An adverse outcome could have a material impact on Southern Company's and Mississippi Power's financial statements.

Alabama Power

In September 2022, Mobile Baykeeper filed a citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama alleging that Alabama Power's plan to close the Plant Barry ash pond utilizing a closure-in-place

methodology violates the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and regulations governing CCR. Among other relief requested, Mobile Baykeeper sought a declaratory judgment that the RCRA and regulations governing CCR were being violated, preliminary and injunctive relief to prevent implementation of Alabama Power's closure plan, and the development of a closure plan that satisfies regulations governing CCR requirements. In December 2022, Alabama Power filed a motion to dismiss the case. On January 4, 2024, the lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice by the U.S. District Court judge. On February 1, 2024, the plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider.

In January 2023, the EPA issued a Notice of Potential Violations associated with Alabama Power's plan to close the Plant Barry ash pond. Alabama Power has affirmed to the EPA its position that it is in compliance with CCR requirements.

These matters could have a material impact on Alabama Power's financial statements, including ARO estimates and cash flows. See Note 6 to the financial statements in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for a discussion of Alabama Power's ARO liabilities.

Georgia Power

In July 2020, a group of individual plaintiffs filed a complaint, which was amended in December 2022, in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia against Georgia Power alleging that the construction and operation of Plant Scherer has impacted groundwater and air, resulting in alleged personal injuries and property damage. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages including punitive damages, a medical monitoring fund, and injunctive relief. In December 2022, the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia granted Georgia Power's motion to transfer the case to the Superior Court of Monroe County, Georgia. In May 2023, the Superior Court of Monroe County, Georgia denied Georgia Power's motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In July 2023, the Superior Court of Monroe County, Georgia denied the remaining motions to dismiss certain claims and plaintiffs that Georgia Power filed at the outset of the case. On March 11, 2024, Georgia Power filed a motion to dismiss certain claims. On March 14, 2024, Georgia Power filed motions for summary judgment.

In October 2021, February 2022, and January 2023, a total of eight additional complaints were filed in the Superior Court of Monroe County, Georgia against Georgia Power alleging that releases from Plant Scherer have impacted groundwater and air, resulting in alleged personal injuries and property damage. The plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages including punitive damages. After Georgia Power removed these cases to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaints without prejudice in November 2022 and January 2023. In May 2023, the plaintiffs in the cases originally filed in October 2021, February 2022, and January 2023 refiled their eight complaints in the Superior Court of Monroe County, Georgia. Also in May 2023, a new complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Monroe County, Georgia against Georgia Power alleging that the construction and operation of Plant Scherer have impacted groundwater and air, resulting in alleged personal injuries. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, including punitive damages. Also in May 2023, Georgia Power removed all of these cases to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. The plaintiffs are requesting the court remand the cases back to the Superior Court of Monroe County, Georgia.

The amount of possible loss, if any, from these matters cannot be estimated at this time.

Mississippi Power

In 2018, Ray C. Turnage and 10 other individual plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint against Mississippi Power and the three then-serving members of the Mississippi PSC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, which was amended in March 2019 to include four additional plaintiffs. Mississippi Power received Mississippi PSC approval in 2013 to charge a mirror CWIP rate premised upon including in its rate base pre-construction and construction costs for the Kemper County energy facility prior to placing the Kemper County energy facility into service. The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed that approval and ordered Mississippi Power to refund the amounts paid by customers under the previously-approved mirror CWIP rate. The plaintiffs allege that

the initial approval process, and the amount approved, were improper and make claims for gross negligence, reckless conduct, and intentional wrongdoing. They also allege that Mississippi Power underpaid customers by up to $23.5 million in the refund process by applying an incorrect interest rate. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and their putative class, actual damages, punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, and costs. The district court dismissed the amended complaint; however, in March 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to name the new members of the Mississippi PSC, the Mississippi Development Authority, and Southern Company as additional defendants and add a cause of action against all defendants based on a dormant commerce clause theory under the U.S. Constitution. In July 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which included the same federal claims as the proposed second amended complaint, as well as several additional state law claims based on the allegation that Mississippi Power failed to disclose the annual percentage rate of interest applicable to refunds. In November 2020, the district court denied each of the plaintiffs' pending motions and entered final judgment in favor of Mississippi Power. In January 2021, the district court denied further motions by the plaintiffs to vacate the judgment and to file a revised second amended complaint. In February 2021, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In March 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the dismissal of the claims against the Mississippi PSC defendants but reversing the dismissal of the claims against Mississippi Power. In May 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied a petition by Mississippi Power for a rehearing en banc and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi for further proceedings. In June 2022, Mississippi Power filed with the trial court a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, which was granted on March 15, 2023. On March 28, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In December 2023, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint against Mississippi Power, and the plaintiffs filed a petition for panel rehearing, which was denied on January 10, 2024. The plaintiffs did not file a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. This matter is now concluded.

Southern Power

In 2021, Southern Power and certain of its subsidiaries filed an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association against First Solar for defective design of actuators on trackers and inverters installed by First Solar under the engineering, procurement, and construction agreements associated with five solar projects owned by Southern Power and partners and managed by Southern Power. In 2023, Southern Power received an award of approximately $36 million and filed for confirmation in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Subsequently in 2023, First Solar filed a motion to dismiss the confirmation and, in February 2024, filed a petition to vacate the arbitration award in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York. In March 2024, Southern Power dismissed the proceeding in Delaware without prejudice and filed an opposition to First Solar's petition in the New York matter.

Environmental Remediation

The Southern Company system must comply with environmental laws and regulations governing the handling and disposal of waste and releases of hazardous substances. Under these various laws and regulations, the Southern Company system could incur substantial costs to clean up affected sites. The traditional electric operating companies and the natural gas distribution utilities in Illinois and Georgia have each received authority from their respective state PSCs or other applicable state regulatory agencies to recover approved environmental remediation costs through regulatory mechanisms. These regulatory mechanisms are adjusted annually or as necessary within limits approved by the state PSCs or other applicable state regulatory agencies.

Georgia Power's environmental remediation liability was $14 million at both March 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, respectively. Georgia Power has been designated or identified as a potentially responsible party at sites

governed by the Georgia Hazardous Site Response Act and/or by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, and assessment and potential cleanup of such sites is expected.

Southern Company Gas' environmental remediation liability was $228 million and $222 million at March 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, respectively, based on the estimated cost of environmental investigation and remediation associated with known former manufactured gas plant operating sites.

The ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be determined at this time; however, as a result of the regulatory treatment for environmental remediation expenses described above, the final disposition of these matters is not expected to have a material impact on the financial statements of the applicable Registrants.

Other Matters

Traditional Electric Operating Companies

In April 2019, Bellsouth Telecommunications d/b/a AT&T Alabama (AT&T) filed a complaint against Alabama Power with the FCC alleging that the pole rental rate AT&T is required to pay pursuant to the parties' joint use agreement is unjust and unreasonable under federal law. The complaint sought a new rate and approximately $87 million in refunds of alleged overpayments for the preceding six years. In August 2019, the FCC stayed the case in favor of arbitration, which AT&T has not pursued. The joint use agreement remains in effect. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time, but an adverse outcome could have a material impact on the financial statements of Southern Company and Alabama Power. Georgia Power and Mississippi Power have joint use agreements with other AT&T affiliates.