Contingencies and Regulatory Matters

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Contingencies and Regulatory Matters [Abstract]

CONTINGENCIES AND REGULATORY MATTERS

(B)	CONTINGENCIES AND REGULATORY MATTERS
	See Note 3 to the financial statements of the registrants in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for information relating to various lawsuits, other contingencies, and regulatory matters.
	General Litigation Matters
	Each registrant is subject to certain claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. In addition, each registrant’s business activities are subject to extensive governmental regulation related to public health and the environment, such as regulation of air emissions and water discharges. Litigation over environmental issues and claims of various types, including property damage, personal injury, common law nuisance, and citizen enforcement of environmental requirements such as opacity and air and water quality standards, has increased generally throughout the U.S. In particular, personal injury and other claims for damages caused by alleged exposure to hazardous materials, and common law nuisance claims for injunctive relief and property damage allegedly caused by greenhouse gas and other emissions, have become more frequent. The ultimate outcome of such pending or potential litigation against each registrant and any of its subsidiaries cannot be predicted at this time; however, for current proceedings not specifically reported herein or in Note 3 to the financial statements of each registrant in Item 8 of the Form 10-K, 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.
	Environmental Matters
	New Source Review Actions
	In November 1999, the EPA brought a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against certain Southern Company subsidiaries, including Alabama Power and Georgia Power, alleging that these subsidiaries had violated NSR provisions of the Clean Air Act and related state laws at certain coal-fired generating facilities. After Alabama Power was dismissed from the original action, the EPA filed a separate action in January 2001 against Alabama Power in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. In these lawsuits, the EPA alleges that NSR violations occurred at eight coal-fired generating facilities operated by Alabama Power and Georgia Power, including facilities co-owned by Mississippi Power and Gulf Power. The civil actions request penalties and injunctive relief, including an order requiring installation of the best available control technology at the affected units. The EPA concurrently issued notices of violation to Gulf Power and Mississippi Power relating to Gulf Power’s Plant Crist and Mississippi Power’s Plant Watson. In early 2000, the EPA filed a motion to amend its complaint to add Gulf Power and Mississippi Power as defendants based on the allegations in the notices of violation. However, in March 2001, the court denied the motion based on lack of jurisdiction, and the EPA has not re-filed. The action against Georgia Power has been administratively closed since the spring of 2001, and the case has not been reopened. The separate action against Alabama Power is ongoing.
	In June 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama entered a consent decree between Alabama Power and the EPA, resolving a portion of the Alabama Power lawsuit relating to the alleged NSR violations at Plant Miller. In September 2010, the EPA dismissed five of its eight remaining claims against Alabama Power, leaving only three claims for summary disposition or trial, including the claim relating to a facility co-owned by Mississippi Power. On March 14, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama granted Alabama Power’s motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims and dismissed the case with prejudice. The EPA has appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
	Southern Company believes that the traditional operating companies complied with applicable laws and the EPA regulations and interpretations in effect at the time the work in question took place. The Clean Air Act authorizes maximum civil penalties of $25,000 to $37,500 per day, per violation at each generating unit, depending on the date of the alleged violation. An adverse outcome could require substantial capital expenditures or affect the timing of currently budgeted capital expenditures that cannot be determined at this time and could possibly require payment of substantial penalties. Such expenditures could affect future results of operations, cash flows, and financial condition if such costs are not recovered through regulated rates. The ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be determined at this time.
	Carbon Dioxide Litigation
	New York Case
	In July 2004, three environmental groups and attorneys general from several states, each outside of Southern Company’s service territory, and the corporation counsel for New York City filed complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Southern Company and four other electric power companies. The complaints allege that the companies’ emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, contribute to global warming, which the plaintiffs assert is a public nuisance. Under common law public and private nuisance theories, the plaintiffs seek a judicial order (1) holding each defendant jointly and severally liable for creating, contributing to, and/or maintaining global warming and (2) requiring each of the defendants to cap its emissions of carbon dioxide and then reduce those emissions by a specified percentage each year for at least a decade. The plaintiffs did not seek monetary damages in connection with their claims. Southern Company believes these claims are without merit. In September 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Southern Company’s and the other defendants’ motions to dismiss these cases. The plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in October 2005 and in September 2009 that court reversed and remanded the case to the district court. In December 2010, Southern Company and the other defendants appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 20, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs’ federal common law claims against Southern Company and four other electric utilities were displaced by the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations addressing greenhouse gas emissions and remanded the case for consideration of whether federal law may also preempt the remaining state law claims. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.
	Kivalina Case
	In February 2008, the Native Village of Kivalina and the City of Kivalina filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against several electric utilities (including Southern Company), several oil companies, and a coal company. The plaintiffs are the governing bodies of an Inupiat village in Alaska. The plaintiffs allege that the village is being destroyed by erosion caused by global warming that the plaintiffs attribute to emissions of greenhouse gases by the defendants. The plaintiffs assert claims for public and private nuisance and contend that some of the defendants have acted in concert and are therefore jointly and severally liable for the plaintiffs’ damages. The suit seeks damages for lost property values and for the cost of relocating the village, which is alleged to be $95 million to $400 million. Southern Company believes that these claims are without merit. In September 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the case based on lack of jurisdiction and ruled the claims were barred by the political question doctrine and by the plaintiffs’ failure to establish legal standing by showing that the defendants’ conduct caused the injury alleged. In November 2009, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the district court’s order dismissing the case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stayed this case on February 23, 2011, pending the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the New York case discussed above. The plaintiffs have moved to lift the stay. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.
	Other Litigation
	Common law nuisance claims for injunctive relief and property damage allegedly caused by greenhouse gas emissions have become more frequent, and, as illustrated by the New York and Kivalina cases, courts have been debating whether private parties and states have standing to bring such claims. In another common law nuisance case, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed private party claims against certain oil, coal, chemical, and utility companies alleging damages as a result of Hurricane Katrina. The court ruled that the parties lacked standing to bring the claims and the claims were barred by the political question doctrine. In October 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court and held that the plaintiffs did have standing to assert their nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims and none of the claims were barred by the political question doctrine. In May 2010, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal of the case based on procedural grounds, reinstating the district court decision in favor of the defendants. On January 10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ petition to reinstate the appeal. This case is now concluded. However, on May 27, 2011, a class action complaint alleging damages as a result of Hurricane Katrina was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi by the same plaintiffs who brought the previous common law nuisance case involving substantially similar allegations. The current litigation was filed against numerous chemical, coal, oil, and utility companies (including Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, and Southern Power) and includes many of the same defendants that were involved in the earlier case. Each Southern Company entity named in the lawsuit believes these claims are without merit. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.

Environmental Remediation

The registrants must comply with environmental laws and regulations that cover the handling and disposal of waste and releases of hazardous substances. Under these various laws and regulations, the subsidiaries may also incur substantial costs to clean up properties. The traditional operating companies have each received authority from their respective state PSCs to recover approved environmental compliance costs through regulatory mechanisms. Within limits approved by the state PSCs, these rates are adjusted annually or as necessary.

Georgia Power’s environmental remediation liability as of June 30, 2011 was $14 million. Georgia Power has been designated or identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at sites governed by the Georgia Hazardous Site Response Act and/or by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), including a large site in Brunswick, Georgia on the CERCLA National Priorities List (NPL). The parties have completed the removal of wastes from the Brunswick site as ordered by the EPA. Additional cleanup and claims for recovery of natural resource damages at this site or for the assessment and potential cleanup of other sites on the Georgia Hazardous Sites Inventory and CERCLA NPL are anticipated; however, they are not expected to have a material impact on Georgia Power’s or Southern Company’s financial statements.

In September 2008, the EPA advised Georgia Power that it has been designated as a PRP at the Ward Transformer Superfund site located in Raleigh, North Carolina. Numerous other entities have also received notices regarding this site from the EPA. In addition, in April 2009, two PRPs filed separate actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina against numerous other PRPs, including Georgia Power, seeking contribution from the defendants for expenses incurred by the plaintiffs related to work performed at a portion of the site. Discovery is on-going in these cases. The ultimate outcome of these matters will depend upon further environmental assessment and the ultimate number of PRPs and cannot be determined at this time; however, it is not expected to have a material impact on Southern Company’s and Georgia Power’s financial statements.

Gulf Power’s environmental remediation liability includes estimated costs of environmental remediation projects of approximately $63 million as of June 30, 2011. These estimated costs relate to site closure criteria by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for potential impacts to soil and groundwater from herbicide applications at Gulf Power substations. The schedule for completion of the remediation projects will be subject to FDEP approval. The projects have been approved by the Florida PSC for recovery through Gulf Power’s environmental cost recovery clause; therefore, there was no impact on net income as a result of these estimates.

In 2003, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) designated Mississippi Power as a PRP at a site in Texas. The site was owned by an electric transformer company that handled Mississippi Power’s transformers as well as those of many other entities. The site owner is bankrupt and the State of Texas has entered into an agreement with Mississippi Power and several other utilities to investigate and remediate the site. Amounts expensed related to this work were not material. Hundreds of entities have received notices from the TCEQ requesting their participation in the anticipated site remediation. The final impact of this matter will depend upon further environmental assessment and the ultimate number of PRPs. The remediation expenses incurred by Mississippi Power are expected to be recovered through the ECO Plan.

The final outcome of these matters cannot now be determined. However, based on the currently known conditions at these sites and the nature and extent of activities relating to these sites, Southern Company, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power do not believe that additional liabilities, if any, at these sites would be material to their respective financial statements.

Right of Way Litigation

Southern Company and certain of its subsidiaries, including Mississippi Power, have been named as defendants in numerous lawsuits brought by landowners since 2001. The plaintiffs’ lawsuits claim that defendants may not use, or sublease to third parties, some or all of the fiber optic communications lines on the rights of way that cross the plaintiffs’ properties and that such actions exceed the easements or other property rights held by defendants. The plaintiffs assert claims for, among other things, trespass and unjust enrichment and seek compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief. Management of Southern Company and Mississippi Power believe they have complied with applicable laws and that the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit.

Mississippi Power has entered into agreements with plaintiffs in approximately 95% of the actions pending against Mississippi Power to clarify its easement rights in the State of Mississippi. These agreements have been approved by the Circuit Courts of Harrison County and Jasper County, Mississippi (First Judicial Circuit), and the related cases have been dismissed. These agreements have not resulted in any material effects on Southern Company’s or Mississippi Power’s financial statements.

In addition, in late 2001, certain subsidiaries of Southern Company, including Mississippi Power, were named as defendants in a lawsuit brought in Troup County, Georgia, Superior Court by Interstate Fiber Network Inc. a subsidiary of telecommunications company ITC DeltaCom, Inc. that uses certain of the defendants’ rights of way. This lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants are contractually obligated to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the telecommunications company from any liability that may be assessed against it in pending and future right of way litigation. Southern Company and Mississippi Power believe that the plaintiff’s claims are without merit. In the fall of 2004, the trial court stayed the case until resolution of the underlying landowner litigation discussed above. In January 2005, the Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed the telecommunications company’s appeal of the trial court’s order for lack of jurisdiction. In August 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit for lack of prosecution. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim. On March 25, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims for breach of contract for failing to make the defendants’ facilities fully available to the plaintiffs and for failing to indemnify the plaintiffs in defending the underlying landowner litigation. An adverse outcome in this matter is not expected to be material to Southern Company or Mississippi Power; however, the final outcome cannot now be determined.

Nuclear Fuel Disposal Cost Litigation

See Note 3 to the financial statements of Southern Company, Alabama Power, and Georgia Power under “Nuclear Fuel Disposal Costs” in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for information regarding the litigation brought by Alabama Power and Georgia Power against the government for breach of contracts related to the disposal of spent nuclear fuel.

In July 2007, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims awarded Georgia Power approximately $30 million, based on its ownership interests, and awarded Alabama Power approximately $17 million, representing substantially all of the direct costs of the expansion of spent nuclear fuel storage facilities at Plants Farley, Hatch, and Vogtle from 1998 through 2004. In November 2007, the government’s motion for reconsideration was denied. In January 2008, the government filed an appeal and, in February 2008, filed a motion to stay the appeal, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted in April 2008. In May 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit lifted the stay.

On March 11, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an order in which it affirmed the damage award to Alabama Power, but remanded the Georgia Power portion of the proceeding back to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for reconsideration of the damages amount in light of the spent nuclear fuel acceptance rates adopted in a separate proceeding by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On July 7, 2011, Alabama Power and the government entered into a stipulation for the entry of a separate judgment in favor of Alabama Power. On July 12, 2011, the court entered final judgment in favor of Alabama Power.

In April 2008, a second claim against the government was filed for damages incurred after December 31, 2004 (the court-mandated cut-off in the original claim) due to the government’s alleged continuing breach of contract. The complaint does not contain any specific dollar amount for recovery of damages. Damages will continue to accumulate until the issue is resolved or the storage is provided. No amounts have been recognized in the financial statements as of June 30, 2011 for either claim. The final outcome of these matters cannot be determined at this time, but no material impact on net income is expected as any damage amounts collected from the government are expected to be returned to customers.

Sufficient pool storage capacity for spent fuel is available at Plant Vogtle to maintain full-core discharge capability for both units into 2014. Construction of an on-site dry storage facility at Plant Vogtle is expected to begin in sufficient time to maintain pool full-core discharge capability. At Plants Hatch and Farley, on-site dry spent fuel storage facilities are operational and can be expanded to accommodate spent fuel through the expected life of each plant.

Income Tax Matters

Georgia State Income Tax Credits

Georgia Power’s 2005 through 2009 income tax filings for the State of Georgia included state income tax credits for increased activity through Georgia ports. Georgia Power also filed similar claims for the years 2002 through 2004. In July 2007, Georgia Power filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton County to recover the credits claimed for the years 2002 through 2004. On June 10, 2011, Georgia Power and the Georgia Department of Revenue agreed to a settlement resolving the claims. As a result, Georgia Power recorded additional tax benefits of approximately $64 million and, in accordance with the 2010 ARP, also recorded a related regulatory liability of approximately $62 million. In addition, Georgia Power recorded a reduction of approximately $23 million in related interest expense. See Notes 3 and 5 to the financial statements of Southern Company and Georgia Power in Item 8 of the Form 10-K under “Income Tax Matters” and “Unrecognized Tax Benefits,” respectively, for additional information.

State PSC Matters

Alabama Power

Retail Rate Adjustments

See Note 3 to the financial statements of Southern Company and Alabama Power under “Retail Regulatory Matters — Alabama Power — Natural Disaster Reserve” and “Retail Regulatory Matters — Natural Disaster Reserve,” respectively, in Item 7 of the Form 10-K for information regarding the rate structure of Alabama Power. On July 12, 2011, the Alabama PSC issued an order to eliminate a tax-related adjustment under Alabama Power’s rate structure effective with October 2011 billings. Alabama Power anticipates the elimination of this adjustment will result in additional revenues of approximately $30 million for the remainder of 2011 and is expected to have an annual effect of approximately $150 million beginning in 2012.

In accordance with the order, Alabama Power will make additional accruals to the NDR in the fourth quarter 2011 of an amount equal to such additional 2011 revenues from the elimination of the tax-related adjustment, to replenish the NDR, which was impacted as a result of operations and maintenance expenses incurred in connection with the April 2011 storms in Alabama. Alabama Power expects that these additional revenues will preclude the need for a rate adjustment under Rate Stabilization and Equalization (Rate RSE). Accordingly, Alabama Power agreed to a moratorium on any increase in 2012 under Rate RSE.

Natural Disaster Reserve

See Note 3 to the financial statements of Southern Company and Alabama Power under “Retail Regulatory Matters — Alabama Power — Natural Disaster Reserve” and “Retail Regulatory Matters — Natural Disaster Reserve,” respectively, in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information.

On April 27, 2011, storms swept through the central part of Alabama causing significant damage in parts of the service territory of Alabama Power. Over 400,000 of Alabama Power’s 1.4 million customers were without electrical service immediately after the storms, resulting from significant damage to Alabama Power’s transmission and distribution facilities. In addition, during the first six months of 2011, multiple storms caused varying degrees of damage to Alabama Power’s facilities. The estimated cost of repairing the damage to facilities and restoring electrical service to customers, as a result of these storms, is between $40 million and $55 million for operations and maintenance expenses and between $135 million and $165 million for capital-related expenditures. Alabama Power maintains a reserve for operations and maintenance expenses to cover the cost of damages from major storms to Alabama Power’s transmission and distribution facilities.

At June 30, 2011, the NDR had an accumulated balance of $90 million, which is included in the Condensed Balance Sheets herein under other regulatory liabilities, deferred. The accruals are reflected as operations and maintenance expenses in the Condensed Statements of Income herein.

In accordance with the order discussed above issued by the Alabama PSC on July 12, 2011 to eliminate a tax-related adjustment under Alabama Power’s rate structure, Alabama Power will make additional accruals to the NDR in the fourth quarter 2011 of an amount equal to such additional 2011 revenues, which are expected to be approximately $30 million.

Retail Fuel Cost Recovery

See Note 3 to the financial statements of Southern Company and Alabama Power under “Retail Regulatory Matters — Alabama Power — Fuel Cost Recovery” and “Retail Regulatory Matters — Fuel Cost Recovery,” respectively, in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for information regarding Alabama Power’s fuel cost recovery. Alabama Power’s under recovered fuel costs as of June 30, 2011 totaled $35 million as compared to $4 million at December 31, 2010. These under recovered fuel costs at June 30, 2011 are included in under recovered regulatory clause revenues and deferred under recovered regulatory clause revenues on Alabama Power’s Condensed Balance Sheets herein. This classification is based on an estimate which includes such factors as weather, generation availability, energy demand, and the price of energy. A change in any of these factors could have a material impact on the timing of any recovery of the under recovered fuel costs.

Georgia Power

Fuel Cost Recovery

See Note 3 to the financial statements of Southern Company and Georgia Power under “Retail Regulatory Matters — Georgia Power — Fuel Cost Recovery” and “Retail Regulatory Matters — Fuel Cost Recovery,” respectively, in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information. On May 24, 2011, the Georgia PSC approved Georgia Power’s request to decrease fuel rates by 0.61%. The decrease will reduce Georgia Power’s annual billings by approximately $43 million effective June 1, 2011. Fuel cost recovery revenues as recorded on the financial statements are adjusted for differences in actual recoverable fuel costs and amounts billed in current regulated rates. Accordingly, any changes in the billing factor will not have a significant effect on Southern Company’s or Georgia Power’s revenues or net income, but will affect cash flow.

Nuclear Construction

See Note 3 to the financial statements of Southern Company and Georgia Power under “Retail Regulatory Matters — Georgia Power — Nuclear Construction” and “Construction — Nuclear,” respectively, in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information regarding Georgia Power’s construction of Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4.

In December 2010, Westinghouse submitted an AP1000 Design Certification Amendment (DCA) to the NRC. On February 10, 2011, the NRC announced that it was seeking public comment on a proposed rule to approve the DCA and amend the certified AP1000 reactor design for use in the U.S. The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards also issued a letter on January 24, 2011 endorsing the issuance of the Construction and Operating Licenses (COLs) for Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4. In addition, on March 25, 2011, the NRC submitted to the EPA the final environmental impact statement for Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4. In a letter dated August 2, 2011, the NRC clarified the timeframe for approval of the COLs for Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4, which continues to allow for issuance of the COLs in late 2011. Georgia Power expects the NRC to approve the DCA in late 2011. However, due to certain administrative procedural requirements, it is possible that the effective date of the DCA and issuance of the COLs could occur in early 2012. In this case, the NRC could approve Georgia Power’s request for a second limited work authorization, which would allow Georgia Power to perform additional construction activities related to the nuclear island in fall 2011 and attain commercial operation in 2016 and 2017 for Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4, respectively.

On February 21, 2011, the Georgia PSC voted to approve Georgia Power’s third semi-annual construction monitoring report including total costs of $1.05 billion for Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 incurred through June 30, 2010. In connection with its certification of Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4, the Georgia PSC ordered Georgia Power and the Georgia PSC Public Interest Advocacy Staff to work together to develop a risk sharing or incentive mechanism that would provide some level of protection to ratepayers in the event of significant cost overruns, but also not penalize Georgia Power’s earnings if and when overruns are due to mandates from governing agencies. Such discussions have continued since that time and, in May 2011, the Georgia PSC initiated a separate proceeding to address the issue. On July 15, 2011, Georgia Power and the Georgia PSC Public Interest Advocacy Staff reached a settlement agreement. Under the settlement, the proposed risk sharing mechanisms were withdrawn. On August 2, 2011, the Georgia PSC voted to approve the settlement agreement. Georgia Power will continue to file construction monitoring reports by February 28 and August 31 of each year during the construction period.

In December 2010, the Georgia PSC approved Georgia Power’s NCCR tariff, which became effective January 1, 2011. The NCCR tariff was established to recover financing costs for nuclear construction projects by including the related construction work in progress accounts in rate base during the construction period in accordance with the Georgia Nuclear Energy Financing Act. With respect to Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4, this legislation allows Georgia Power to recover projected financing costs of approximately $1.68 billion during the construction period beginning in 2011, which reduces the projected in-service cost to approximately $4.41 billion. Georgia Power is collecting and amortizing to earnings approximately $91 million of financing costs capitalized in 2009 and 2010 over the five-year period ending December 31, 2015, in addition to the ongoing financing costs. At June 30, 2011, approximately $82 million of these 2009 and 2010 costs are included in construction work in progress.

Georgia Power, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia, an incorporated municipality in the State of Georgia acting by and through its Board of Water, Light, and Sinking Fund Commissioners (collectively, Owners), and a consortium consisting of Westinghouse and Stone & Webster, Inc. have established both informal and formal dispute resolution procedures in order to resolve issues that commonly arise during the course of constructing a project of this magnitude. Southern Nuclear, on behalf of the Owners, has initiated both formal and informal claims through these procedures, including ongoing claims. During the course of construction activities, issues have materialized that may impact the project budget and schedule, including potential costs associated with compressing the project schedule to meet the projected commercial operation dates. The Owners have successfully used both the informal and formal procedures to resolve disputes and expect to resolve any existing and future disputes through these procedures as well.

There are other pending technical and procedural challenges to the construction and licensing of Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4, including petitions filed at the NRC in response to the events in Japan. Similar additional challenges at the state and federal level are expected as construction proceeds.

The ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be determined at this time.

Other Construction

In May 2010, the Georgia PSC approved Georgia Power’s request to extend the construction schedule for Plant McDonough Units 4, 5, and 6 as a result of the short-term reduction in forecasted demand, as well as the requested increase in the certified amount. As a result, the units are expected to be placed into service in January 2012, May 2012, and January 2013, respectively. The Georgia PSC has approved Georgia Power’s quarterly construction monitoring reports, including actual project expenditures incurred, through September 30, 2010. Georgia Power will continue to file quarterly construction monitoring reports throughout the construction period.

2011Integrated Resource Plan Update

See Note 3 to the financial statements of Southern Company and Georgia Power under “Retail Regulatory Matters — Rate Plans” and “Retail Regulatory Matters — Rate Plans,” respectively, in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information regarding potential rules and regulations being developed by the EPA, including the Utility Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) rule for coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units, revisions to effluent guidelines for steam electric power plants, and additional regulation of coal combustion byproducts; the State of Georgia’s Multi-Pollutant Rule; Georgia Power’s analysis of the potential costs and benefits of installing the required controls on its fossil generating units in light of these regulations; and the 2010 ARP.

On August 4, 2011, Georgia Power filed an update to its IRP (2011 IRP Update). The filing includes Georgia Power’s application to decertify Plant Branch Units 1 and 2 as of December 31, 2013 and October 1, 2013, the compliance dates for the respective units under the Georgia Multi-Pollutant Rule. However, as a result of the considerable uncertainty regarding pending state and federal environmental regulations, Georgia Power is continuing to defer decisions to add controls, switch fuel, or retire its remaining fossil generating units where environmental controls have not yet been installed, representing approximately 2,600 MWs of capacity. Georgia Power expects to update its economic analysis of these units once the Utility MACT rule is finalized. Georgia Power currently expects that certain units, representing approximately 600 MWs of capacity, are more likely than others to switch fuel or be controlled in time to comply with the Utility MACT rule. However, even if the updated economic analysis shows more positive benefits associated with adding controls or switching fuel for more units, it is unlikely that all of the required controls could be completed by 2015, the expected effective date of the Utility MACT rule. As a result, Georgia Power currently cannot rely on the availability of approximately 2,000 MWs of capacity in 2015. As such, the 2011 IRP Update also includes Georgia Power’s application requesting that the Georgia PSC certify the purchase of a total of 1,562 MWs of capacity beginning in 2015, from four PPAs selected through the 2015 request for proposal process.

Under the terms of the 2010 ARP, any costs associated with changes to Georgia Power’s approved environmental operating or capital budgets resulting from new or revised environmental regulations through 2013 that are approved by the Georgia PSC in connection with an updated IRP will be deferred as a regulatory asset to be recovered over a time period deemed appropriate by the Georgia PSC. In connection with the retirement decision, Georgia Power reclassified the retail portion of the net carrying value of Plant Branch Units 1 and 2 from plant in service, net of depreciation, to other utility plant, net. Georgia Power is continuing to depreciate these units using the current composite straight-line rates previously approved by the Georgia PSC and upon actual retirement has requested that the Georgia PSC approve the continued deferral and amortization of the units’ remaining net carrying value. As a result of this regulatory treatment, the de-certification of Plant Branch Units 1 and 2 is not expected to have a significant impact on Southern Company’s or Georgia Power’s financial statements.

The Georgia PSC is expected to vote on these requests in March 2012. The ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be determined at this time.

Gulf Power

Retail Base Rate Case

On July 8, 2011, Gulf Power filed a petition with the Florida PSC requesting an increase in retail rates to the extent necessary to generate additional gross annual revenues in the amount of $93.5 million. The requested increase is expected to provide a reasonable opportunity for Gulf Power to earn a retail rate of return on common equity of 11.7%. The Florida PSC is expected to make a decision on this matter in the first quarter 2012.

Gulf Power has calculated its revenue deficiency based on the projected period January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 which serves as the test year. The test year provides the appropriate period of utility operations to be analyzed by the Florida PSC to be able to set reasonable rates for the period the new rates will be in effect. The period January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 best represents expected future operations of Gulf Power as the regional economy emerges from the recession. The petition also requests that the Florida PSC approve the projected January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 test year and consent to new rate schedules going into operation on a permanent basis as soon as possible.

Additionally, Gulf Power has requested interim relief to increase retail rates to the extent necessary to generate additional gross revenues in the amount of $38.5 million, to be operative during the interim period before the effective date of the requested rate increase. Gulf Power has requested that the Florida PSC act within 60 days to authorize Gulf Power to begin collecting these revenues as soon as possible.

The ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be determined at this time.

Fuel Cost Recovery

Gulf Power has established fuel cost recovery rates approved by the Florida PSC. In previous years, Gulf Power has experienced volatility in pricing of fuel commodities with higher than expected pricing for coal and volatile price swings in natural gas. If the projected fuel cost over or under recovery balance at year-end exceeds 10% of the projected fuel revenue applicable for the period, Gulf Power is required to notify the Florida PSC and indicate an adjustment to the fuel cost recovery factor is being requested.

Under recovered fuel costs at June 30, 2011 totaled $18.9 million, compared to $17.4 million at December 31, 2010. This amount is included in under recovered regulatory clause revenues on Gulf Power’s Condensed Balance Sheets herein. Fuel cost recovery revenues, as recorded on the financial statements, are adjusted for differences in actual recoverable costs and amounts billed in current regulated rates. Accordingly, any change in the billing factor will have no significant effect on Southern Company’s or Gulf Power’s revenues or net income, but will affect cash flow. See Notes 1 and 3 to the financial statements of Gulf Power under “Revenues” and “Retail Regulatory Matters — Fuel Cost Recovery,” respectively, in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information.

Purchased Power Capacity Recovery

Gulf Power has established purchased power capacity recovery cost rates as approved by the Florida PSC. If the projected purchased power capacity cost over or under recovery balance at year-end exceeds 10% of the projected purchased power capacity revenue applicable for the period, Gulf Power is required to notify the Florida PSC and indicate an adjustment to the purchased power capacity cost recovery factor is being requested.

Over recovered purchased power capacity costs at June 30, 2011 totaled $10.1 million compared to $4.4 million at December 31, 2010. This amount is included in other regulatory liabilities, current on Southern Company’s and Gulf Power’s Condensed Balance Sheets herein. Purchased power capacity cost recovery revenues, as recorded on the financial statements, are adjusted for differences in actual recoverable costs and amounts billed in current regulated rates. Accordingly, any change in the billing factor will have no significant effect on Southern Company’s or Gulf Power’s revenues or net income, but will affect cash flow.

See Notes 1 and 3 to the financial statements of Gulf Power under “Revenues” and “Retail Regulatory Matters — Purchased Power Capacity Recovery,” respectively, in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information.

Environmental Cost Recovery

In July 2010, Mississippi Power filed a request for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct a flue gas desulfurization system (scrubber) on Plant Daniel Units 1 and 2. These units are jointly owned by Mississippi Power and Gulf Power, with 50% ownership each. The estimated total cost of the project is approximately $625 million and is scheduled for completion in early 2015. Hearings on the certificate request were held by the Mississippi PSC on January 25, 2011, but a final order has not yet been issued. On May 5, 2011, the Mississippi PSC approved up to $19.5 million (with respect to Mississippi Power’s ownership portion) in additional spending for 2011 for the scrubber project. A decision on a final order is not anticipated prior to issuance of the final Utility MACT rule in November 2011. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time. See Note 3 to the financial statements of Gulf Power under “Retail Regulatory Matters — Environmental Cost Recovery” in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information.

Energy Conservation Cost Recovery

Every five years, the Florida PSC establishes new numeric conservation goals covering a 10-year period for utilities to reduce annual energy and seasonal peak demand using demand-side management (DSM) programs. After the goals are established, utilities develop plans and programs to meet the approved goals. The costs for these programs are recovered through rates established annually in the Energy Conservation Cost Recovery clause.

The most recent goal setting process established new DSM goals for the period 2010-2019. The new goals are significantly larger than the goals established in the previous five-year cycle due to a change in the cost-effectiveness test on which the Florida PSC relies to set the goals. Throughout 2010, Gulf Power engaged in a process at the Florida PSC to develop plans and programs to meet the new DSM goals. The DSM program standards were approved in April 2011, which allow Gulf Power to implement its DSM programs designed to meet the new goals. Higher cost recovery rates and achievement of the new DSM goals may result in reduced sales of electricity which could negatively impact results of operations, cash flows, and financial condition if base rates cannot be adjusted on a timely basis.

Mississippi Power

Performance Evaluation Plan

See Note 3 to the financial statements of Mississippi Power under “Retail Regulatory Matters — Performance Evaluation Plan” in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information regarding Mississippi Power’s base rates.

In November 2010, Mississippi Power filed its annual PEP filing for 2011, which indicated a rate increase of 1.936%, or $16.1 million, annually. On January 10, 2011, the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff (MPUS) contested the filing. On June 7, 2011, the Mississippi PSC issued an order approving a joint stipulation between the MPUS and Mississippi Power resulting in no change in rates.

On March 15, 2011, Mississippi Power submitted its annual PEP lookback filing for 2010, which recommended no surcharge or refund. On May 2, 2011, Mississippi Power received a letter from the MPUS disputing certain items in the 2010 PEP lookback filing. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.

System Restoration Rider

See Note 3 to the financial statements of Mississippi Power under “Retail Regulatory Matters — System Restoration Rider” in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information regarding the System Restoration Rider.

On January 31, 2011, Mississippi Power submitted its 2011 System Restoration Rider rate filing to the Mississippi PSC, which proposed that Mississippi Power be allowed to accrue approximately $3.6 million to the property damage reserve in 2011. On May 5, 2011, the filing was approved by the Mississippi PSC.

Environmental Compliance Overview Plan

See Note 3 to the financial statements of Mississippi Power under “Retail Regulatory Matters — Environmental Compliance Overview Plan” in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for information on Mississippi Power’s annual environmental filing with the Mississippi PSC.

On February 14, 2011, Mississippi Power submitted its ECO Plan notice which proposed an immaterial decrease in annual revenues. In addition, Mississippi Power proposed to change the ECO Plan collection period to more appropriately match ECO Plan revenues with ECO Plan expenditures. On April 7, 2011, due to changes in ECO Plan cost projections, Mississippi Power submitted a revised 2011 ECO Plan which changed the requested annual revenues to a $0.9 million decrease. On May 5, 2011, hearings on the revised ECO Plan were held and the filing was approved by the Mississippi PSC with the new rates effective in May 2011.

In July 2010, Mississippi Power filed a request for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct a flue gas desulfurization system (scrubber) on Plant Daniel Units 1 and 2. These units are jointly owned by Mississippi Power and Gulf Power, with 50% ownership each. The estimated total cost of the project is approximately $625 million with Mississippi Power’s portion being $312.5 million. As of June 30, 2011, total project expenditures were $24.5 million with Mississippi Power’s portion being $12.2 million. The project is scheduled for completion in early 2015. Mississippi Power’s portion of the cost, if approved by the Mississippi PSC, is expected to be recovered through the ECO Plan. Hearings on the certificate request were held by the Mississippi PSC on January 25, 2011. On May 5, 2011, in conjunction with the ECO Plan hearings, the Mississippi PSC approved up to $19.5 million (with respect to Mississippi Power’s ownership portion) in additional spending for 2011 for the scrubber project. A decision on a final order is not anticipated prior to issuance of the final Utility MACT rule in November 2011. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.

Certificated New Plant

On April 27, 2011, Mississippi Power submitted to the Mississippi PSC a proposed rate schedule detailing Certificated New Plant-A (CNP-A), a new proposed cost recovery mechanism designed specifically to recover financing costs during the construction phase of the Kemper IGCC. Annual CNP-A rate filings would be made with the first filing occurring in November 2011. If approved by the Mississippi PSC, recovery through CNP-A will remain in place thereafter until the end of the calendar year that the Kemper IGCC is placed into commercial service, which is projected to be 2014. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.

Fuel Cost Recovery

See Note 3 to the financial statements of Mississippi Power under “Retail Regulatory Matters — Fuel Cost Recovery” in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for information regarding Mississippi Power’s fuel cost recovery. Mississippi Power establishes, annually, a retail fuel cost recovery factor that is approved by the Mississippi PSC. Mississippi Power is required to file for an adjustment to the retail fuel cost recovery factor annually; such filing occurred in November 2010. The Mississippi PSC approved the retail fuel cost recovery factor in December 2010, with the new rates effective in January 2011. The retail fuel cost recovery factor will result in an annual decrease in an amount equal to 5.0% of total 2010 retail revenue. At June 30, 2011, the amount of over recovered retail fuel costs included in the balance sheets was $47.8 million compared to $55.2 million at December 31, 2010. Mississippi Power also has a wholesale Municipal and Rural Associations (MRA) and a Market Based (MB) fuel cost recovery factor. Effective January 1, 2011, the wholesale MRA fuel rate decreased, resulting in an annual decrease in an amount equal to 3.5% of total 2010 MRA revenue. Effective February 1, 2011, the wholesale MB fuel rate decreased, resulting in an annual decrease in an amount equal to 7.0% of total 2010 MB revenue. At June 30, 2011, the amount of over recovered wholesale MRA and MB fuel costs included in the balance sheets was $15.1 million and $2.8 million compared to $17.5 million and $4.4 million, respectively, at December 31, 2010. In addition, at June 30, 2011, the amount of over recovered MRA emissions allowance cost included in the balance sheet was $0.6 million. See Note 3 to the financial statements of Mississippi Power under “FERC Matters” in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information. Mississippi Power’s operating revenues are adjusted for differences in actual recoverable fuel cost and amounts billed in accordance with the currently approved cost recovery rate. Accordingly, this decrease to the billing factors will have no significant effect on Southern Company’s or Mississippi Power’s revenues or net income, but will decrease annual cash flow.

Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle

See Note 3 to the financial statements of Southern Company under “Retail Regulatory Matters — Mississippi Power Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle” and of Mississippi Power under “Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle” in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for information regarding Mississippi Power’s construction of the Kemper IGCC.

In June 2010, the Mississippi Chapter of the Sierra Club (Sierra Club) filed an appeal of the Mississippi PSC’s June 3, 2010 decision to grant the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Kemper IGCC with the Chancery Court of Harrison County, Mississippi (Chancery Court). Subsequently, in July 2010, the Sierra Club also filed an appeal directly with the Mississippi Supreme Court. In October 2010, the Mississippi Supreme Court dismissed the Sierra Club’s direct appeal. On February 28, 2011, the Chancery Court issued a judgment affirming the Mississippi PSC’s order authorizing the construction of the Kemper IGCC. On March 1, 2011, the Sierra Club appealed the Chancery Court’s decision to the Mississippi Supreme Court.

In May 2009, Mississippi Power received notification from the IRS formally certifying the IRS allocated Internal Revenue Code Section 48A tax credits (Phase I) of $133 million to Mississippi Power. On April 19, 2011, Mississippi Power received notification from the IRS formally certifying that the IRS allocated $279 million of Internal Revenue Code Section 48A tax credits (Phase II) to Mississippi Power. The utilization of Phase I and Phase II credits is dependent upon meeting the IRS certification requirements, including an in-service date no later than May 11, 2014 for the Phase I credits and April 19, 2016 for the Phase II credits. In order to remain eligible for the Phase II tax credits, Mississippi Power plans to capture and sequester (via enhanced oil recovery) at least 65% of the carbon dioxide (CO₂) produced by the plant during operations in accordance with the recapture rules for Section 48A investment tax credits. Through June 30, 2011, Mississippi Power received or accrued tax benefits totaling $51.7 million for these tax credits, which will be amortized as a reduction to depreciation and amortization over the life of the Kemper IGCC.

In February 2008, Mississippi Power requested that the DOE transfer the remaining funds previously granted under the Clean Coal Power Initiative Round 2 (CCPI2) from a cancelled IGCC project of one of Southern Company’s subsidiaries that would have been located in Orlando, Florida. In December 2008, an agreement was reached to assign the remaining funds ($270 million) to the Kemper IGCC. Mississippi Power will receive grant funds of $245 million during the construction of the Kemper IGCC and $25 million during its initial operation. Through June 30, 2011, Mississippi Power has received $111.7 million and requested an additional $11.8 million associated with this grant.

On March 10, 2011, the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the DOE regarding the National Environmental Policy Act review process asking for a preliminary and permanent injunction on the issuance of CCPI2 funds and loan guarantees and a stay to any related construction activities based upon alleged deficiencies in the DOE’s environmental impact statement. Mississippi Power was allowed to intervene in this lawsuit on May 18, 2011.

In March 2010, the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) issued the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) air permit modification for the plant, which modifies the original PSD air permit issued in October 2008. The Sierra Club requested a formal evidentiary hearing regarding the issuance of the modified permit. On April 4, 2011, the MDEQ Permit Board held an evidentiary hearing wherein the permit board unanimously affirmed the PSD air permit. On June 30, 2011, the Sierra Club appealed the final PSD air permit issued by the MDEQ to the Chancery Court of Kemper County, Mississippi.

On March 4, 2011, Mississippi Power and Denbury Onshore (Denbury), a subsidiary of Denbury Resources Inc., entered into a contract in which Denbury will purchase 70% of the CO₂ captured from the Kemper IGCC. On May 19, 2011, Mississippi Power and Treetop Midstream Services, LLC (Treetop), an affiliate of Tellus Operating Group, LLC and a subsidiary of Tenrgys, LLC, entered into a contract in which Treetop will purchase 30% of the CO₂ captured from the Kemper IGCC.

On April 27, 2011, Mississippi Power submitted to the Mississippi PSC a proposed rate schedule detailing CNP-A, a new proposed cost recovery mechanism designed specifically to recover financing costs during the construction phase of the Kemper IGCC. See “Certificated New Plant” herein for additional information.

On June 7, 2011, consistent with the treatment of non-capital costs during the pre-construction period, the Mississippi PSC granted Mississippi Power the authority to defer all non-capital, Kemper IGCC-related costs to a regulatory asset during the construction period. The amortization period for the regulatory asset will be determined by the Mississippi PSC at a later date. In addition, Mississippi Power is authorized to accrue carrying costs for 2011 on the unamortized balance of such regulatory assets at a rate and in a manner to be determined by the Mississippi PSC in connection with future proceedings regarding the cost recovery mechanism for the Kemper IGCC.

As of June 30, 2011, Mississippi Power had spent a total of $488.2 million on the Kemper IGCC, including regulatory filing costs. Of this total, $345.7 million was included in construction work in progress (net of $123.5 million of CCPI2 grant funds), $16.4 million was recorded in other regulatory assets, $1.6 million was recorded in other deferred charges and assets, and $1.0 million was previously expensed.

The ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be determined at this time.

Plant Daniel Combined Cycle Generating Units

See Note 7 to the financial statements of Southern Company and Mississippi Power under “Operating Leases” and “Operating Leases — Plant Daniel Combined Cycle Generating Units,” respectively, in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for information relating to Mississippi Power’s lease of a combined cycle generating facility at Plant Daniel (Facility).

Mississippi Power was required to provide notice of its intent to either renew the lease or purchase the Facility by July 22, 2011. On July 20, 2011, Mississippi Power provided notice to the lessor of its intent to purchase the Facility. Mississippi Power’s right to purchase the Facility was approved by the Mississippi PSC in its order dated January 7, 1998, as amended on February 19, 1999, which granted Mississippi Power a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Facility. Mississippi Power expects to acquire the Facility in October 2011.

In conjunction with the purchase of the Facility, Mississippi Power will make a cash payment of approximately $84 million. Mississippi Power also intends to assume debt obligations of the lessor related to the Facility, which mature in 2021 and have a face value of $270 million and a fixed stated interest rate of 7.13%. Accounting rules require that the Facility be reflected on Southern Company’s and Mississippi Power’s financial statements at the time of the purchase at the fair value of the consideration rendered. Accordingly, any assumed debt will be recorded at fair market value at the time of the purchase of the Facility in October 2011. Mississippi Power intends to maintain its traditional capital structure by adding equity to support the additional debt.

In connection with the purchase of the Facility, on July 25, 2011, Mississippi Power filed a request for an accounting order from the Mississippi PSC. If the accounting order is approved as requested, the revenue requirements under the purchase option will equal those otherwise required under operating lease accounting treatment for the extended lease term, with any differences deferred as a regulatory asset over the 10-year period ending October 2021. At the conclusion of the proposed deferral period in 2021, the unamortized deferral balance will be amortized into rates over the remaining life of the Facility. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.