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, business activities of Southern Company's subsidiaries 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 air quality and water standards, has occurred throughout the U.S. This litigation has included claims for damages alleged to have been caused by CO₂ and other emissions, CCR, and alleged exposure to hazardous materials, and/or requests for injunctive relief in connection with such matters.

The ultimate outcome of such pending or potential litigation against each registrant and any 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

As part of a nationwide enforcement initiative against the electric utility industry which began in 1999, the EPA brought civil enforcement actions in federal district court against Alabama Power and Georgia Power alleging violations of the New Source Review (NSR) provisions of the Clean Air Act at certain coal-fired electric generating units, including units co-owned by Gulf Power and Mississippi Power. These civil actions seek penalties and injunctive relief, including orders requiring installation of the best available control technologies at the affected units. The case against Georgia Power (including claims related to a unit co-owned by Gulf Power) has been administratively closed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia since 2001. The case against Alabama Power (including claims involving a unit co-owned by Mississippi Power) has been actively litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, resulting in a settlement in 2006 of the alleged NSR violations at Plant Miller; voluntary dismissal of certain claims by the EPA; and a grant of summary judgment for Alabama Power on all remaining claims and dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2011. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the 2011 judgment in favor of Alabama Power, and the case has been transferred back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama for further proceedings.

Southern Company and each traditional operating company believe each such traditional operating company complied with applicable laws and regulations 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, depending on the date of the alleged violation. An adverse outcome could require substantial 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.

Environmental Remediation

The Southern Company system 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 Southern Company system could 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. These rates are adjusted annually or as necessary within limits approved by the state PSCs.

Georgia Power's environmental remediation liability as of March 31, 2015 was $27 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 site in Brunswick, Georgia on the CERCLA National Priorities List. 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 are anticipated.

Georgia Power and numerous other entities have been designated by the EPA as PRPs at the Ward Transformer Superfund site located in Raleigh, North Carolina. In 2011, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) to Georgia Power and 22 other parties, ordering specific remedial action of certain areas at the site. Later in 2011, Georgia Power filed a response with the EPA stating it has sufficient cause to believe it is not a liable party under CERCLA. The EPA notified Georgia Power in 2011 that it is considering enforcement options against Georgia Power and other non-complying UAO recipients. If the EPA pursues enforcement actions and the court determines that a respondent failed to comply with the UAO without sufficient cause, the EPA may also seek civil penalties of up to $37,500 per day for the violation and punitive damages of up to three times the costs incurred by the EPA as a result of the party's failure to comply with the UAO.

In addition to the EPA's action at this site, Georgia Power, along with many other parties, was sued in a private action by several existing PRPs for cost recovery related to the removal action. In 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina Western Division granted Georgia Power's summary judgment motion ruling that Georgia Power has no liability in the private action. On March 20, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling. The plaintiffs may seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ultimate outcome of these matters will depend upon the success of defenses asserted, the ultimate number of PRPs participating in the cleanup, and numerous other factors and cannot be determined at this time; however, as a result of Georgia Power's regulatory treatment for environmental remediation expenses, these matters are not expected to have a material impact on Southern Company's or Georgia Power's financial statements. See Note 1 to the financial statements of Georgia Power under "Environmental Remediation Recovery" in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information regarding the regulatory treatment.

Gulf Power's environmental remediation liability includes estimated costs of environmental remediation projects of approximately $47 million as of March 31, 2015. These estimated costs primarily 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 is subject to FDEP approval. The projects have been approved by the Florida PSC for recovery through Gulf Power's environmental cost recovery clause; therefore, these liabilities have no impact on net income.

In 2003, Mississippi Power and numerous other entities were designated by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as PRPs at a site that was owned by an electric transformer company that handled Mississippi Power's transformers. The TCEQ approved the final site remediation plan in 2013 and, in March 2014, the impacted utilities, including Mississippi Power, agreed to commence remediation actions on the site. Mississippi Power's environmental remediation liability was $0.5 million as of March 31, 2015 and is expected to be recovered through the ECO Plan.

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

Nuclear Fuel Disposal Cost Litigation

Acting through the DOE and pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the U.S. government entered into contracts with Alabama Power and Georgia Power that require the DOE to dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste generated at Plants Hatch and Farley and Plant Vogtle Units 1 and 2 beginning no later than January 31, 1998. The DOE has yet to commence the performance of its contractual and statutory obligation to dispose of spent nuclear fuel. Consequently, Alabama Power and Georgia Power pursued and continue to pursue legal remedies against the U.S. government for its partial breach of contract.

In December 2014, the Court of Federal Claims entered a judgment in favor of Georgia Power and Alabama Power in the second spent nuclear fuel lawsuit seeking damages for the period from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2010. Georgia Power recovered approximately $18 million, based on its ownership interests, and Alabama Power recovered approximately $26 million. The judgment amounts were paid on March 19, 2015. In March 2015, Georgia Power credited the award to accounts where the original costs were charged and reduced rate base, fuel, and cost of service for the benefit of customers. The final outcome of this matter for Alabama Power cannot be determined at this time; however, no material impact on Southern Company's or Alabama Power's net income is expected as the damage amounts collected from the government are expected to be used for the benefit of customers.

In March 2014, Alabama Power and Georgia Power filed additional lawsuits against the U.S. government for the costs of continuing to store spent nuclear fuel at Plants Farley and Hatch and Plant Vogtle Units 1 and 2 for the period from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2013. The damage period was subsequently extended to December 31, 2014. Damages will continue to accumulate until the issue is resolved or storage is provided. No amounts have been recognized in the financial statements as of March 31, 2015 for any potential recoveries from the additional lawsuits. The final outcome of these matters cannot be determined at this time; however, no material impact on Southern Company's, Alabama Power's, or Georgia Power's net income is expected.

FERC Matters

Municipal and Rural Associations Tariff

See Note 3 to the financial statements of Mississippi Power under "FERC Matters" in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information regarding a settlement agreement entered into by Mississippi Power regarding the establishment of a regulatory asset for Kemper IGCC-related costs. See Note 3 to the financial statements of Southern Company and Mississippi Power under "Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle" in Item 8 of the Form 10-K and "Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle" herein for information regarding Mississippi Power's construction of the Kemper IGCC.

On March 31, 2015, Mississippi Power reached a settlement agreement with its wholesale customers and filed a request with the FERC to forgo the Municipal and Rural Associations cost-based electric tariff increase reflected in the filing by, among other things, increasing the accrual of AFUDC in lieu of including CWIP in rate base. The settlement agreement, if accepted by the FERC, provides that the additional accrual of AFUDC is effective April 1, 2015. The additional resulting AFUDC is projected to be approximately $12 million annually, of which $9 million relates to the Kemper IGCC. In addition, a settlement agreement entered into in 2014 and approved by the FERC allowed for an adjustment to the wholesale revenue requirement in the event the Kemper IGCC, or any substantial portion thereof, was placed in service before or after December 1, 2014. A regulatory asset account was recorded as a result of a portion of the Kemper IGCC being placed in service prior to the projected date. The March 31, 2015 settlement agreement provides that the regulatory asset will be amortized over nine months, beginning April 1, 2015. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.

Market-Based Rate Authority

The traditional operating companies and Southern Power have authority from the FERC to sell electricity at market-based rates. Since 2008, that authority, for certain balancing authority areas, has been conditioned on compliance with the requirements of an energy auction, which the FERC found to be tailored mitigation that addresses potential market power concerns. In accordance with FERC regulations governing such authority, the traditional operating companies and Southern Power filed a triennial market power analysis on June 30, 2014, which included continued reliance on the energy auction as tailored mitigation. On April 27, 2015, the FERC issued an order finding that the traditional operating companies' and Southern Power's existing tailored mitigation may not effectively mitigate the potential to exert market power in certain areas served by the traditional operating companies and in some adjacent areas. To retain market-based rate authority, the FERC has directed the traditional operating companies and Southern Power, within 60 days, to show why market-based rate authority should not be revoked in these areas or to provide a mitigation plan to further address market power concerns. The traditional operating companies and Southern Power are evaluating the order. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.

Retail Regulatory Matters

Alabama Power

See Note 3 to the financial statements of Southern Company and Alabama Power under "Retail Regulatory Matters – Alabama Power" and "Retail Regulatory Matters," respectively, in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information regarding Alabama Power's recovery of retail costs through various regulatory clauses and accounting orders. The recovery balance of each regulatory clause follows:



Regulatory Clause	Balance Sheet Line Item	March 31, 2015		December 31, 2014
		(in millions)
Rate CNP Compliance – Under^*	Deferred under recovered regulatory clause revenues	$	25	$	2
	Under recovered regulatory clause revenues, current	16		47
Rate CNP PPA – Under	Deferred under recovered regulatory clause revenues	62		29
	Under recovered regulatory clause revenues, current	—		27
Retail Energy Cost Recovery – Over	Deferred over recovered regulatory clause revenues	81		47
Natural Disaster Reserve	Other regulatory liabilities, deferred	82		84

* Formerly Known As Rate CNP Environmental

Rate CNP

In March 2015, the Emerging Issues Task Force unanimously recommended to allow the normal purchases and normal sales exception for physical forward transactions in nodal energy markets. The FASB proposed new accounting guidance reflecting the recommendation on April 23, 2015. This guidance is subject to a public comment period before the FASB issues a final accounting standard. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.

Rate CNP Compliance (Formerly Known As Rate CNP Environmental)

See Note 3 to the financial statements of Southern Company under "Retail Regulatory Matters – Alabama Power – Rate CNP" and " – Non-Environmental Federal Mandated Costs Accounting Order" and of Alabama Power under "Retail Regulatory Matters – Rate CNP" and " – Non-Environmental Federal Mandated Costs Accounting Order" in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information regarding Alabama Power's development of a revised cost recovery mechanism.

On March 3, 2015, the Alabama PSC approved a modification to Rate CNP Environmental to include compliance costs for both environmental and non-environmental mandates. The recoverable non-environmental compliance costs result from laws, regulations, and other mandates directed at the utility industry involving the security, reliability, safety, sustainability, or similar considerations impacting Alabama Power's facilities or operations. This modification to Rate CNP Environmental was effective March 20, 2015 with the revised rate now defined as Rate CNP Compliance. Alabama Power incurred $14 million of non-environmental compliance costs during the first quarter 2015 and will be limited to recovery of $50 million for the year. Customer rates will not be impacted before January 2016; therefore, the modification will increase the under-recovered position for Rate CNP Compliance during the year.

Georgia Power

Integrated Resource Plan

See Note 3 to the financial statements of Southern Company and Georgia Power under "Retail Regulatory Matters – Georgia Power – Integrated Resource Plans" and "Retail Regulatory Matters – Integrated Resource Plans," respectively, in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information.

To comply with the April 16, 2015 effective date of the MATS rule, Plant Branch Units 1, 3, and 4 (1,266 MWs), Plant Yates Units 1 through 5 (579 MWs), and Plant McManus Units 1 and 2 (122 MWs) were retired on April 15, 2015. In addition, operations were discontinued at Plant Mitchell Unit 3 (155 MWs) and its decertification will be requested in connection with the triennial Integrated Resource Plan in 2016. The switch to natural gas as the primary fuel is complete at Plant Yates Unit 7 and is underway at Plant Yates Unit 6. Plant Yates Unit 7 was returned to service on May 4, 2015 and Plant Yates Unit 6 is expected to return to service in mid-2015.

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.

As of March 31, 2015, Georgia Power's under recovered fuel balance totaled $151 million and is included in current assets and other deferred charges and assets on Southern Company's and Georgia Power's Condensed Balance Sheets herein. As of December 31, 2014, Georgia Power's under recovered fuel balance totaled $199 million and is included in current assets and other deferred charges and assets on Southern Company's and Georgia Power's Condensed Balance Sheets herein. On January 20, 2015, the Georgia PSC approved the deferral of Georgia Power's next fuel case filing until at least June 30, 2015.

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, 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 "Retail Regulatory Matters – Nuclear Construction," respectively, in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information regarding Georgia Power's construction of Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4, Vogtle Construction Monitoring (VCM) reports, and pending litigation.

In 2008, Georgia Power, acting for itself and as agent for the Vogtle Owners, entered into an agreement (Vogtle 3 and 4 Agreement) with the Contractor, pursuant to which the Contractor agreed to design, engineer, procure, construct, and test Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4. Under the terms of the Vogtle 3 and 4 Agreement, the Vogtle Owners agreed to pay a purchase price that is subject to certain price escalations and adjustments, including fixed escalation amounts and index-based adjustments, as well as adjustments for change orders, and performance bonuses for early completion and unit performance. The Vogtle 3 and 4 Agreement also provides for liquidated damages upon the Contractor's failure to fulfill the schedule and performance guarantees. The Contractor's liability to the Vogtle Owners for schedule and performance liquidated damages and warranty claims is subject to a cap. In addition, the Vogtle 3 and 4 Agreement provides for limited cost sharing by the Vogtle Owners for Contractor costs under certain conditions (which have not occurred), with maximum additional capital costs under this provision attributable to Georgia Power (based on Georgia Power's ownership interest) of approximately $114 million. Each Vogtle Owner is severally (and not jointly) liable for its proportionate share, based on its ownership interest, of all amounts owed to the Contractor under the Vogtle 3 and 4 Agreement. Georgia Power's proportionate share is 45.7%.

Certain payment obligations of Westinghouse and CB&I Stone & Webster, Inc. (formerly known as Stone & Webster, Inc.) under the Vogtle 3 and 4 Agreement are guaranteed by Toshiba Corporation and The Shaw Group Inc. (a subsidiary of Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, N.V.), respectively. In the event of certain credit rating downgrades of any Vogtle Owner, such Vogtle Owner will be required to provide a letter of credit or other credit enhancement. The Vogtle Owners may terminate the Vogtle 3 and 4 Agreement at any time for their convenience, provided that the Vogtle Owners will be required to pay certain termination costs. The Contractor may terminate the Vogtle 3 and 4 Agreement under certain circumstances, including certain Vogtle Owner suspension or delays of work, action by a governmental authority to permanently stop work, certain breaches of the Vogtle 3 and 4 Agreement by the Vogtle Owners, Vogtle Owner insolvency, and certain other events.

In 2009, the NRC issued an Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization which allowed limited work to begin on Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4. The NRC certified the Westinghouse Design Control Document, as amended (DCD), for the AP1000 nuclear reactor design, in late 2011, and issued combined construction and operating licenses (COLs) in early 2012. Receipt of the COLs allowed full construction to begin. There have been technical and procedural challenges to the construction and licensing of Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4, at the federal and state level, and additional challenges are expected as construction proceeds.

In 2012, the Vogtle Owners and the Contractor began negotiations regarding the costs associated with design changes to the DCD and the delays in the timing of approval of the DCD and issuance of the COLs, including the assertion by the Contractor that the Vogtle Owners are responsible for these costs under the terms of the Vogtle 3 and 4 Agreement. Also in 2012, Georgia Power and the other Vogtle Owners filed suit against the Contractor in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia seeking a declaratory judgment that the Vogtle Owners are not responsible for these costs. In 2012, the Contractor also filed suit against Georgia Power and the other Vogtle Owners in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging the Vogtle Owners are responsible for these costs. In 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the Contractor's suit, ruling that the proper venue is the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. On March 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. The portion of additional costs claimed by the Contractor in its initial complaint that would be attributable to Georgia Power (based on Georgia Power's ownership interest) is approximately $425 million (in 2008 dollars). The Contractor also asserted it is entitled to extensions of the guaranteed substantial completion dates of April 2016 and April 2017 for Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4, respectively. In May 2014, the Contractor filed an amended counterclaim to the suit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia alleging that (i) the design changes to the DCD imposed by the NRC delayed module production and the impacts to the Contractor are recoverable by the Contractor under the Vogtle 3 and 4 Agreement and (ii) the changes to the basemat rebar design required by the NRC caused additional costs and delays recoverable by the Contractor under the Vogtle 3 and 4 Agreement. The Contractor did not specify in its amended counterclaim the amounts relating to these new allegations; however, the Contractor has subsequently asserted related minimum damages (based on Georgia Power's ownership interest) of $113 million. The Contractor may from time to time continue to assert that it is entitled to additional payments with respect to these allegations, any of which could be substantial. Georgia Power has not agreed to the proposed cost or to any changes to the guaranteed substantial completion dates or that the Vogtle Owners have any responsibility for costs related to these issues. Litigation is ongoing and Georgia Power intends to vigorously defend the positions of the Vogtle Owners. Georgia Power also expects negotiations with the Contractor to continue with respect to cost and schedule. During such negotiations the parties may reach a mutually acceptable compromise of their positions.

Georgia Power is required to file semi-annual VCM reports with the Georgia PSC by February 28 and August 31 each year. If the projected certified construction capital costs to be borne by Georgia Power increase by 5% or the projected in-service dates are significantly extended, Georgia Power is required to seek an amendment to the Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 certificate from the Georgia PSC. Georgia Power's eighth VCM report filed in 2013 requested an amendment to the certificate to increase the estimated in-service capital cost of Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 from $4.4 billion to $4.8 billion and to extend the estimated in-service dates to the fourth quarter 2017 and the fourth quarter 2018 for Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4, respectively. In 2013, the Georgia PSC approved a stipulation (2013 Stipulation) entered into by Georgia Power and the Georgia PSC staff to waive the requirement to amend the Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 certificate, until the completion of Plant Vogtle Unit 3, or earlier if deemed appropriate by the Georgia PSC and Georgia Power. The Georgia PSC has approved eleven VCM reports covering the periods through June 30, 2014, including construction capital costs incurred, which through that date totaled $2.8 billion.

On January 29, 2015, Georgia Power announced it was notified by the Contractor of the Contractor's revised forecast for completion of Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4, which would incrementally delay the previously disclosed estimated in-service dates by 18 months (from the fourth quarter of 2017 to the second quarter of 2019 for Unit 3 and from the fourth quarter of 2018 to the second quarter of 2020 for Unit 4).

Georgia Power does not believe that the Contractor's revised forecast reflects all efforts that may be possible to mitigate the Contractor's delay. In addition, Georgia Power believes that, pursuant to the Vogtle 3 and 4 Agreement, the Contractor is responsible for the Contractor's costs related to the Contractor's delay (including any related construction and mitigation costs, which could be material) and that the Vogtle Owners are entitled to recover liquidated damages for the Contractor's delay beyond the guaranteed substantial completion dates of April 2016 and April 2017 for Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4, respectively. Consistent with the Contractor's position in the pending litigation described above, Georgia Power expects the Contractor to contest any claims for liquidated damages and to assert that the Vogtle Owners are responsible for additional costs related to the Contractor's delay.

On February 27, 2015, Georgia Power filed its twelfth VCM report with the Georgia PSC covering the period from July 1 through December 31, 2014, which requested approval for an additional $0.2 billion of construction capital costs incurred during that period. The twelfth VCM report also reflected the Contractor's revised forecast for completion of Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 as well as additional estimated owner-related costs, which include approximately $10 million per month expected to result from the Contractor's proposed 18-month delay, including property taxes, oversight costs, compliance costs, and other operational readiness costs. No Contractor costs related to the Contractor's proposed 18-month delay were included in the twelfth VCM report. Additionally, while Georgia Power has not agreed to any change to the guaranteed substantial completion dates, the twelfth VCM report included a requested amendment (Requested Amendment) to the Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 certificate to reflect the Contractor's revised forecast, to include the estimated owner's costs associated with the proposed 18-month Contractor delay, and to increase the estimated total in-service capital cost of Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 to $5.0 billion.

Georgia Power will continue to incur financing costs of approximately $30 million per month until Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 are placed in service. The twelfth VCM report estimated financing costs during the construction period to total approximately $2.5 billion.

On April 15, 2015, the Georgia PSC issued a procedural order in connection with the twelfth VCM report. Pursuant to this order, the Georgia PSC deemed the Requested Amendment unnecessary and withdrawn until the completion of construction of Plant Vogtle Unit 3 consistent with the 2013 Stipulation. The Georgia PSC recognized that the certified cost and the 2013 Stipulation do not constitute a cost recovery cap. In accordance with the Georgia Integrated Resource Planning Act, any costs incurred by Georgia Power in excess of the certified amount will be included in rate base, provided Georgia Power shows the costs to be reasonable and prudent. Financing costs up to the certified amount will be collected through the NCCR tariff until the units are placed in service, while financing costs on any construction-related costs in excess of the $4.4 billion certified amount are expected to be recovered through AFUDC.

Processes are in place that are designed to assure compliance with the requirements specified in the DCD and the COLs, including inspections by Southern Nuclear and the NRC that occur throughout construction. As a result of such compliance processes, certain license amendment requests have been filed and approved or are pending before the NRC. Various design and other licensing-based compliance issues are expected to arise as construction proceeds, which may result in additional license amendments or require other resolution. If any license amendment requests or other licensing-based compliance issues are not resolved in a timely manner, there may be delays in the project schedule that could result in increased costs either to the Vogtle Owners or the Contractor or to both.

As construction continues, the risk remains that ongoing challenges with Contractor performance including additional challenges in its fabrication, assembly, delivery, and installation of the shield building and structural modules, delays in the receipt of the remaining permits necessary for the operation of Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4, or other issues could arise and may further impact project schedule and cost. In addition, the IRS allocated production tax credits to each of Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4, which require the applicable unit to be placed in service before 2021.

Additional claims by the Contractor or Georgia Power (on behalf of the Vogtle Owners) are also likely to arise throughout construction. These claims may be resolved through formal and informal dispute resolution procedures under the Vogtle 3 and 4 Agreement, but also may be resolved through litigation.

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

Gulf Power

Retail Base Rate Case

See Note 3 to the financial statements of Gulf Power under "Retail Regulatory Matters – Retail Base Rate Case" in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information.

In December 2013, the Florida PSC approved a settlement agreement that provides Gulf Power may reduce depreciation expense and record a regulatory asset up to $62.5 million between January 2014 and June 2017. In any given month, such depreciation expense reduction may not exceed the amount necessary for the ROE, as reported to the Florida PSC monthly, to reach the midpoint of the authorized retail ROE range then in effect. Gulf Power recognized a $19.6 million reduction in depreciation expense in the first three months of 2015.

Cost Recovery Clauses

See Note 3 to the financial statements of Gulf Power under "Retail Regulatory Matters – Cost Recovery Clauses" in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information regarding Gulf Power's recovery of retail costs through various regulatory clauses and accounting orders. Gulf Power has four regulatory clauses which are approved by the Florida PSC. The recovery balance of each regulatory clause follows:



Recovery Clause	Balance Sheet Location	March 31, 2015		December 31, 2014
		(in millions)
Fuel Cost Recovery – Under	Under recovered regulatory clause revenues	$	32	$	40
Purchased Power Capacity Recovery – Under	Under recovered regulatory clause revenues	3		—
Environmental Cost Recovery – Under	Under recovered regulatory clause revenues	12		10
Energy Conservation Cost Recovery – Under	Under recovered regulatory clause revenues	1		3

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.

On March 17, 2015, Mississippi Power submitted its annual PEP lookback filing for 2014, which indicated no surcharge or refund. On March 26, 2015, the Mississippi PSC suspended the filing to allow more time for review.

The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.

System Restoration Rider

See Note 1 to the financial statements of Mississippi Power under "Provision for Property Damage" in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information.

On February 2, 2015, Mississippi Power submitted its 2015 System Restoration Rider (SRR) rate filing with the Mississippi PSC, which proposed that the 2015 SRR rate remain level at zero and Mississippi Power be allowed to accrue $3 million to the property damage reserve in 2015. On March 3, 2015, the Mississippi PSC suspended the filing to allow more time for review.

The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.

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.

In 2012, the Mississippi PSC approved Mississippi Power's request for a CPCN to construct scrubbers on Plant Daniel Units 1 and 2, which are scheduled to be placed in service in September and November 2015, respectively. These units are jointly owned by Mississippi Power and Gulf Power, with 50% ownership each. The estimated total cost of the project is approximately $660 million, with Mississippi Power's portion being $330 million, excluding AFUDC. Mississippi Power's portion of the cost is expected to be recovered through the ECO Plan following the scheduled completion of the project in December 2015. As of March 31, 2015, total project expenditures were $570 million, of which Mississippi Power's portion was $290 million, excluding AFUDC of $22 million.

On February 25, 2015, Mississippi Power submitted its annual ECO filing for 2015, which indicated an annual increase in revenues of approximately $8 million. The filing is under review by the Mississippi PSC.

The ultimate outcome of these matters 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.

At March 31, 2015, the amount of over-recovered retail fuel costs included on Mississippi Power's Condensed Balance Sheet herein was $15 million compared to under-recovered retail fuel costs of $2 million at December 31, 2014.

Ad Valorem Tax Adjustment

See Note 3 to the financial statements of Mississippi Power under "Retail Regulatory Matters – Ad Valorem Tax Adjustment" in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information.

On April 23, 2015, Mississippi Power filed its annual ad valorem tax adjustment factor filing for 2015, which requested an annual rate decrease of 0.35%, or $2 million in annual retail revenues, primarily due to a decrease in average millage rates.

The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.

Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle

See Note 3 to the financial statements of Southern Company and 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.

Kemper IGCC Overview

Construction of Mississippi Power's Kemper IGCC is nearing completion and start-up activities will continue until the Kemper IGCC is placed in service. The Kemper IGCC will utilize an IGCC technology with an output capacity of 582 MWs. The Kemper IGCC will be fueled by locally mined lignite (an abundant, lower heating value coal) from a mine owned by Mississippi Power and situated adjacent to the Kemper IGCC. The mine, operated by North American Coal Corporation, started commercial operation in 2013. In connection with the Kemper IGCC, Mississippi Power constructed and plans to operate approximately 61 miles of CO₂ pipeline infrastructure for the planned transport of captured CO₂ for use in enhanced oil recovery.

Kemper IGCC Schedule and Cost Estimate

In 2012, the Mississippi PSC issued the 2012 MPSC CPCN Order, a detailed order confirming the CPCN originally approved by the Mississippi PSC in 2010 authorizing the acquisition, construction, and operation of the Kemper IGCC.

The certificated cost estimate of the Kemper IGCC included in the 2012 MPSC CPCN Order was $2.4 billion, net of $245 million of grants awarded to the Kemper IGCC project by the DOE under the Clean Coal Power Initiative Round 2 (DOE Grants) and excluding the cost of the lignite mine and equipment, the cost of the CO₂ pipeline facilities, and AFUDC related to the Kemper IGCC. The 2012 MPSC CPCN Order approved a construction cost cap of up to $2.88 billion, with recovery of prudently-incurred costs subject to approval by the Mississippi PSC. The Kemper IGCC was originally projected to be placed in service in May 2014. Mississippi Power placed the combined cycle and the associated common facilities portion of the Kemper IGCC in service using natural gas in August 2014 and continues to focus on completing the remainder of the Kemper IGCC, including the gasifier and the gas clean-up facilities, for which the in-service date is currently expected to occur in the first half of 2016. Recovery of the Kemper IGCC costs subject to the cost cap and the cost of the lignite mine and equipment, the cost of the CO₂ pipeline facilities, AFUDC, and certain general exceptions, including change of law, force majeure, and beneficial capital (which exists when Mississippi Power demonstrates that the purpose and effect of the construction cost increase is to produce efficiencies that will result in a neutral or favorable effect on customers relative to the original proposal for the CPCN) (Cost Cap Exceptions) remain subject to review and approval by the Mississippi PSC. Mississippi Power's Kemper IGCC 2010 project estimate, current cost estimate (which includes the impacts of the Mississippi Supreme Court's (Court) decision), and actual costs incurred as of March 31, 2015, as adjusted for the Court's decision, are as follows:



Cost Category	2010 Project Estimate^(f)		Current Estimate		Actual Costs at March 31, 2015
	(in billions)
Plant Subject to Cost Cap^(a)	$	2.40	$	4.94	$	4.37
Lignite Mine and Equipment	0.21		0.23		0.23
CO₂ Pipeline Facilities	0.14		0.11		0.10
AFUDC^(b)(c)	0.17		0.64		0.48
Combined Cycle and Related Assets Placed in Service – Incremental^(d)	—		0.02		—
General Exceptions	0.05		0.10		0.08
Deferred Costs^(c)(e)	—		0.18		0.14
Total Kemper IGCC^(a)(c)	$	2.97	$	6.22	$	5.40

(a)

The 2012 MPSC CPCN Order approved a construction cost cap of up to $2.88 billion, net of the DOE Grants and excluding the Cost Cap Exceptions. The Current Estimate and Actual Costs include non-incremental operating and maintenance costs related to the combined cycle and associated common facilities placed in service in August 2014 that are subject to the $2.88 billion cost cap and exclude post-in-service costs for the lignite mine. See "Rate Recovery of Kemper IGCC Costs – 2013 MPSC Rate Order" for additional information.

(b)

Mississippi Power's original estimate included recovery of financing costs during construction rather than the accrual of AFUDC. This approach was not approved by the Mississippi PSC in 2012 as described in "Rate Recovery of Kemper IGCC Costs." The current estimate includes an approximately $9 million increase in AFUDC related to a settlement agreement with the wholesale customers for cost-based rates under FERC's jurisdiction. See "FERC Matters" herein for additional information.


(c)	Amounts in the Current Estimate reflect estimated costs through March 31, 2016.


(d)	Incremental operating and maintenance costs related to the combined cycle and associated common facilities placed in service in August 2014, net of costs related to energy sales. See "Rate Recovery of Kemper IGCC Costs – 2013 MPSC Rate Order" for additional information.


(e)	The 2012 MPSC CPCN Order approved deferral of non-capital Kemper IGCC-related costs during construction as described in "Rate Recovery of Kemper IGCC Costs – Regulatory Assets and Liabilities."


(f)	The 2010 Project Estimate is the certificated cost estimate adjusted to include the certificatedestimate for the CO₂ pipeline facilities which was approved in 2011 by the Mississippi PSC.

Of the total costs, including post-in-service costs for the lignite mine, incurred as of March 31, 2015, $3.27 billion was included in property, plant, and equipment (which is net of the DOE Grants and estimated probable losses of $2.06 billion), $2 million in other property and investments, $52 million in fossil fuel stock, $35 million in materials and supplies, $174 million in other regulatory assets, $12 million in other deferred charges and assets, and $24 million in AROs in the balance sheet, with $1 million previously expensed.

Mississippi Power does not intend to seek any rate recovery or joint owner contributions for any costs related to the construction of the Kemper IGCC that exceed the $2.88 billion cost cap, net of the DOE Grants and excluding the Cost Cap Exceptions. Mississippi Power recorded pre-tax charges to income for revisions to the cost estimate of $9 million ($6 million after tax) in the first quarter 2015. This amount is in addition to charges totaling $868 million ($536 million after tax), $1.10 billion ($681 million after tax), and $78 million ($48 million after tax) in 2014, 2013, and 2012, respectively. Southern Company recorded pre-tax charges to income for revisions to the cost estimate of $868 million ($536 million after tax) and $1.2 billion ($729 million after tax) in 2014 and 2013, respectively. The increases to the cost estimate in the first quarter 2015 primarily reflected costs related to additional labor costs in support of start-up and operational readiness activities. The current estimate includes costs through March 31, 2016. Any further extension of the in-service date is currently estimated to result in additional base costs of approximately $25 million to $30 million per month, which includes maintaining necessary levels of start-up labor, materials, and fuel, as well as operational resources required to execute start-up and commissioning activities. Any further extension of the in-service date with respect to the Kemper IGCC would also increase costs for the Cost Cap Exceptions, which are not subject to the $2.88 billion cost cap established by the Mississippi PSC. These costs include AFUDC, which is currently estimated to total approximately $13 million per month, as well as carrying costs and operating expenses on Kemper IGCC assets placed in service and consulting and legal fees, which are being deferred as regulatory assets and are estimated to total approximately $6 million per month.

Any further cost increases and/or extensions of the in-service date with respect to the Kemper IGCC may result from factors including, but not limited to, labor costs and productivity, adverse weather conditions, shortages and inconsistent quality of equipment, materials, and labor, contractor or supplier delay, non-performance under construction or other agreements, operational readiness, including specialized operator training and required site safety programs, unforeseen engineering or design problems, start-up activities for this first-of-a-kind technology (including major equipment failure and system integration), and/or operational performance (including additional costs to satisfy any operational parameters ultimately adopted by the Mississippi PSC). In subsequent periods, any further changes in the estimated costs to complete construction and start-up of the Kemper IGCC subject to the $2.88 billion cost cap, net of the DOE Grants and excluding the Cost Cap Exceptions, will be reflected in Southern Company's statements of income and Mississippi Power's statements of operations and these changes could be material.

Rate Recovery of Kemper IGCC Costs

The ultimate outcome of the rate recovery matters discussed herein, including the resolution of legal challenges, determinations of prudency, and the specific manner of recovery of prudently-incurred costs, cannot be determined at this time, but could have a material impact on Southern Company's and Mississippi Power's results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

2012 MPSC CPCN Order

The 2012 MPSC CPCN Order included provisions relating to both Mississippi Power's recovery of financing costs during the course of construction of the Kemper IGCC and Mississippi Power's recovery of costs following the date the Kemper IGCC is placed in service. With respect to recovery of costs following the in-service date of the Kemper IGCC, the 2012 MPSC CPCN Order provided for the establishment of operational cost and revenue parameters based upon assumptions in Mississippi Power's petition for the CPCN. Mississippi Power expects the Mississippi PSC to apply operational parameters in connection with the evaluation of the Rate Mitigation Plan (defined below) and any alternative proceedings related to the operation of the Kemper IGCC. To the extent the Mississippi PSC determines the Kemper IGCC does not meet the operational parameters ultimately adopted by the Mississippi PSC or Mississippi Power incurs additional costs to satisfy such parameters, there could be a material adverse impact on Southern Company's or Mississippi Power's financial statements.

2013 Settlement Agreement

In January 2013, Mississippi Power entered into a settlement agreement with the Mississippi PSC that, among other things, established the process for resolving matters regarding cost recovery related to the Kemper IGCC (2013 Settlement Agreement). Under the 2013 Settlement Agreement, Mississippi Power agreed to limit the portion of prudently-incurred Kemper IGCC costs to be included in retail rate base to the $2.4 billion certificated cost estimate, plus the Cost Cap Exceptions, but excluding AFUDC, and any other costs permitted or determined to be excluded from the $2.88 billion cost cap by the Mississippi PSC. The 2013 Settlement Agreement also allowed Mississippi Power to secure alternate financing for costs not otherwise recovered in any Mississippi PSC rate proceedings contemplated by the 2013 Settlement Agreement. The Court found the 2013 Settlement Agreement unenforceable due to a lack of public notice for the related proceedings. See "2015 Mississippi Supreme Court Decision" herein for additional information.

Legislation to authorize a multi-year rate plan and legislation to provide for alternate financing through securitization of up to $1.0 billion of prudently-incurred costs was enacted into law in 2013. Mississippi Power's intent under the 2013 Settlement Agreement was to securitize (1) prudently-incurred costs in excess of the certificated cost estimate and up to the $2.88 billion cost cap, net of the DOE Grants and excluding the Cost Cap Exceptions, (2) accrued AFUDC, and (3) other prudently-incurred costs, which include carrying costs from the estimated in-service date until securitization is finalized and other costs not included in the Rate Mitigation Plan as approved by the Mississippi PSC. The Court's decision did not impact Mississippi Power's ability to utilize alternate financing through securitization, the 2012 MPSC CPCN Order, or the February 2013 legislation. See "2015 Mississippi Supreme Court Decision" herein for additional information.

2013 MPSC Rate Order

Consistent with the terms of the 2013 Settlement Agreement, in March 2013, the Mississippi PSC issued a rate order approving retail rate increases of 15% effective March 19, 2013, and 3% effective January 1, 2014, which collectively were designed to collect $156 million annually beginning in 2014 (2013 MPSC Rate Order). For the period from March 2013 through March 31, 2015, $294 million had been collected primarily to be used to mitigate customer rate impacts after the Kemper IGCC is placed in service. Because the 2013 MPSC Rate Order did not provide for the inclusion of CWIP in rate base as permitted by the Baseload Act, Mississippi Power continues to record AFUDC on the Kemper IGCC through the in-service date. Mississippi Power will not record AFUDC on any additional costs of the Kemper IGCC that exceed the $2.88 billion cost cap, except for Cost Cap Exception amounts. Mississippi Power will continue to record AFUDC and collect and defer the approved rates through the in-service date until directed to do otherwise by the Mississippi PSC.

In August 2014, Mississippi Power provided an analysis of the costs and benefits of placing the combined cycle and the associated common facilities portion of the Kemper IGCC in service, including the expected accounting treatment. Mississippi Power's analysis requested, among other things, confirmation of Mississippi Power's accounting treatment by the Mississippi PSC of the continued collection of rates as prescribed by the 2013 MPSC Rate Order, with the current recognition as revenue of the related equity return on all assets placed in service and the deferral of all remaining rate collections under the 2013 MPSC Rate Order to a regulatory liability account. See "2015 Mississippi Supreme Court Decision" for additional information regarding the decision of the Court which would discontinue the collection of, and require the refund of, all amounts previously collected under the 2013 MPSC Rate Order.

In addition, Mississippi Power's August 2014 filing with the Mississippi PSC requested confirmation of Mississippi Power's accounting treatment by the Mississippi PSC of the continued accrual of AFUDC through the in-service date of the remainder of the Kemper IGCC and the deferral of operating costs for the combined cycle as regulatory assets. Under Mississippi Power's proposal, non-incremental costs that would have been incurred whether or not the combined cycle was placed in service would be included in a regulatory asset and would continue to be subject to the $2.88 billion cost cap. Additionally, incremental costs that would not have been incurred if the combined cycle had not gone into service would be included in a regulatory asset and would not be subject to the cost cap because these costs are incurred to support operation of the combined cycle. All energy revenues associated with the combined cycle variable operating and maintenance expenses would be credited to this regulatory asset. See "Regulatory Assets and Liabilities" for additional information. Any action by the Mississippi PSC that is inconsistent with the treatment requested by Mississippi Power could have a material impact on the results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity of Southern Company and Mississippi Power.

2015 Mississippi Supreme Court Decision

On February 12, 2015, the Court issued its decision in the legal challenge to the 2013 MPSC Rate Order filed by Thomas A. Blanton. The Court reversed the 2013 MPSC Rate Order based on, among other things, its findings that (1) the Mirror CWIP rate treatment was not provided for under the Baseload Act and (2) the Mississippi PSC should have determined the prudence of Kemper IGCC costs before approving rate recovery through the 2013 MPSC Rate Order. The Court also found the 2013 Settlement Agreement unenforceable due to a lack of public notice for the related proceedings. The Court's ruling remands the matter to the Mississippi PSC to (1) fix by order the rates that were in existence prior to the 2013 MPSC Rate Order, (2) fix no rate increases until the Mississippi PSC is in compliance with the Court's ruling, and (3) enter an order refunding amounts collected under the 2013 MPSC Rate Order. Through March 31, 2015, Mississippi Power had collected $294 million through rates under the 2013 MPSC Rate Order. Any required refunds would also include carrying costs. The Court's decision will become legally effective upon the issuance of a mandate to the Mississippi PSC. Absent specific instruction from the Court, the Mississippi PSC will determine the method and timing of the refund. On March 12, 2015, Mississippi Power and the Mississippi PSC filed motions for rehearing. If the Court denies the motions, it would issue the mandate to the Mississippi PSC no later than seven days following such decision.

Rate Mitigation Plan

In 2013, Mississippi Power, in compliance with the 2013 MPSC Rate Order, filed a revision to the proposed rate recovery plan with the Mississippi PSC for the Kemper IGCC for cost recovery through 2020 (Rate Mitigation Plan), which is still under review by the Mississippi PSC. The revenue requirements set forth in the Rate Mitigation Plan assume the sale of a 15% undivided interest in the Kemper IGCC to SMEPA and utilization of bonus depreciation, which currently requires that the related long-term asset be placed in service in 2015. In the Rate Mitigation Plan, Mississippi Power proposed recovery of an annual revenue requirement of approximately $156 million of Kemper IGCC-related operational costs and rate base amounts, including plant costs equal to the $2.4 billion certificated cost estimate. The 2013 MPSC Rate Order, which increased rates beginning in March 2013, was integral to the Rate Mitigation Plan, which contemplates amortization of the regulatory liability balance at the in-service date to be used to mitigate customer rate impacts through 2020, based on a fixed amortization schedule that requires approval by the Mississippi PSC. Under the Rate Mitigation Plan, Mississippi Power proposed annual rate recovery to remain the same from 2014 through 2020, with the proposed revenue requirement approximating the forecasted cost of service for the period 2014 through 2020. Under Mississippi Power's proposal, to the extent the actual annual cost of service differs from the approved forecast for certain items, the difference would be deferred as a regulatory asset or liability, subject to accrual of carrying costs, and would be included in the next year's rate recovery calculation. If any deferred balance remains at the end of 2020, the Mississippi PSC would review the amount and, if approved, determine the appropriate method and period of disposition. See "Regulatory Assets and Liabilities" herein for additional information.

To the extent that refunds of amounts collected under the 2013 MPSC Rate Order are required on a schedule different from the amortization schedule proposed in the Rate Mitigation Plan, the customer billing impacts proposed under the Rate Mitigation Plan would no longer be viable. See "2015 Mississippi Supreme Court Decision" herein for additional information.

In addition to current estimated costs at March 31, 2015 of $6.22 billion, Mississippi Power anticipates that it will incur additional costs after the Kemper IGCC in-service date until the Kemper IGCC cost recovery approach is finalized. These costs include, but are not limited to, regulatory costs and additional carrying costs which could be material. Recovery of these costs would be subject to approval by the Mississippi PSC.

Mississippi Power also expects to seek rate recovery through alternate means, which could include a traditional rate case. On May 1, 2015, Mississippi Power notified the Mississippi PSC of its plans to file a rate request in May 2015.

Prudence Reviews

The Mississippi PSC's review of Kemper IGCC costs is ongoing. In August 2014, the Mississippi PSC ordered that a consolidated prudence determination of all Kemper IGCC costs be completed after the entire project has been placed in service and has demonstrated availability for a reasonable period of time as determined by the Mississippi PSC and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff (MPUS). The Mississippi PSC has encouraged the parties to work in good faith to settle contested issues and Mississippi Power is working to reach a mutually acceptable resolution. As a result of the Court's decision, Mississippi Power intends to request that the Mississippi PSC reconsider its prudence review schedule. See "2015 Mississippi Supreme Court Decision" herein for additional information.

Regulatory Assets and Liabilities

Consistent with the treatment of non-capital costs incurred during the pre-construction period, the Mississippi PSC issued an accounting order in 2011 granting Mississippi Power the authority to defer all non-capital Kemper IGCC-related costs to a regulatory asset through the in-service date, subject to review of such costs by the Mississippi PSC. Such costs include, but are not limited to, carrying costs on Kemper IGCC assets currently placed in service, costs associated with Mississippi PSC and MPUS consultants, prudence costs, legal fees, and operating expenses associated with assets placed in service.

In August 2014, Mississippi Power requested confirmation by the Mississippi PSC of Mississippi Power's authority to defer all operating expenses associated with the operation of the combined cycle subject to review of such costs by the Mississippi PSC. In addition, Mississippi Power is authorized to accrue carrying costs on the unamortized balance of such regulatory assets at a rate and in a manner to be determined by the Mississippi PSC in future cost recovery mechanism proceedings. As of March 31, 2015, the regulatory asset balance associated with the Kemper IGCC was $174 million. The projected balance at March 31, 2016 is estimated to total approximately $266 million. The amortization period for any such costs approved for recovery remains subject to approval by the Mississippi PSC.

The 2013 MPSC Rate Order approved retail rate increases of 15% effective March 19, 2013 and 3% effective January 1, 2014, which collectively were designed to collect $156 million annually beginning in 2014. On February 12, 2015, the Court ordered the Mississippi PSC to refund Mirror CWIP and to fix by order the rates that were in existence prior to the 2013 MPSC Rate Order. Mississippi Power is deferring the collections under the approved rates in the Mirror CWIP regulatory liability until otherwise directed by the Mississippi PSC. Mississippi Power is also accruing carrying costs on the unamortized balance of the Mirror CWIP regulatory liability for the benefit of retail customers. As of March 31, 2015, the balance of the Mirror CWIP regulatory liability, including carrying costs, was $311 million.

See "2015 Mississippi Supreme Court Decision" herein for additional information.

See Note 1 to the financial statements of Southern Company and Mississippi Power under "Regulatory Assets and Liabilities" in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information.

Lignite Mine and CO₂ Pipeline Facilities

In conjunction with the Kemper IGCC, Mississippi Power will own the lignite mine and equipment and has acquired and will continue to acquire mineral reserves located around the Kemper IGCC site. The mine started commercial operation in June 2013.

In 2010, Mississippi Power executed a 40-year management fee contract with Liberty Fuels Company, LLC (Liberty Fuels), a wholly-owned subsidiary of The North American Coal Corporation, which developed, constructed, and is operating and managing the mining operations. The contract with Liberty Fuels is effective through the end of the mine reclamation. As the mining permit holder, Liberty Fuels has a legal obligation to perform mine reclamation and Mississippi Power has a contractual obligation to fund all reclamation activities. In addition to the obligation to fund the reclamation activities, Mississippi Power currently provides working capital support to Liberty Fuels through cash advances for capital purchases, payroll, and other operating expenses. See Note 1 to the financial statements of Mississippi Power under "Asset Retirement Obligations and Other Costs of Removal" and "Variable Interest Entities" in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information.

In addition, Mississippi Power has constructed and will operate the CO₂ pipeline for the planned transport of captured CO₂ for use in enhanced oil recovery. Mississippi Power has entered into agreements with Denbury Onshore (Denbury), a subsidiary of Denbury Resources Inc., and Treetop Midstream Services, LLC (Treetop), an affiliate of Tellus Operating Group, LLC and a subsidiary of Tengrys, LLC, pursuant to which Denbury will purchase 70% of the CO₂ captured from the Kemper IGCC and Treetop will purchase 30% of the CO₂ captured from the Kemper IGCC. The agreements with Denbury and Treetop provide termination rights in the event that Mississippi Power does not satisfy its contractual obligation with respect to deliveries of captured CO₂ by May 11, 2015. While Mississippi Power has received no indication from either Denbury or Treetop of their intent to terminate their respective agreements, any termination or material modification of these agreements could result in a material reduction in future chemical product sales revenues and could have a material financial impact on Mississippi Power to the extent Mississippi Power is not able to enter into other similar contractual arrangements.

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

Proposed Sale of Undivided Interest to SMEPA

In 2010, Mississippi Power and SMEPA entered into an asset purchase agreement (APA) whereby SMEPA agreed to purchase a 17.5% undivided interest in the Kemper IGCC. In 2012, the Mississippi PSC approved the sale and transfer of the 17.5% undivided interest in the Kemper IGCC to SMEPA. Later in 2012, Mississippi Power and SMEPA signed an amendment to the APA whereby SMEPA reduced its purchase commitment percentage from a 17.5% to a 15% undivided interest in the Kemper IGCC. In March 2013, Mississippi Power and SMEPA signed an amendment to the APA whereby they agreed to amend a 2011 power supply agreement between the parties to reduce the capacity amounts to be received by SMEPA by half (approximately 75 MWs) at the sale and transfer of the undivided interest in the Kemper IGCC to SMEPA. Capacity revenues under the 2011 power supply agreement were $4 million in the first quarter 2015 and $17 million in 2014.

By letter agreement dated October 6, 2014, Mississippi Power and SMEPA agreed in principle on certain issues related to SMEPA's proposed purchase of a 15% undivided interest in the Kemper IGCC. The parties agreed to further amend the APA as follows: (1) Mississippi Power agreed to cap at $2.88 billion the portion of the purchase price payable for development and construction costs, net of the Cost Cap Exceptions, title insurance reimbursement, and AFUDC and/or carrying costs through the Closing Commitment Date (defined below); (2) SMEPA agreed to close the purchase within 180 days after the date of the execution of the amended APA or before the Kemper IGCC in-service date, whichever occurs first (Closing Commitment Date), subject only to satisfaction of certain conditions; and (3) AFUDC and/or carrying costs will continue to be accrued on the capped development and construction costs, the Cost Cap Exceptions, and any operating costs, net of revenues until the amended APA is executed by both parties, and thereafter AFUDC and/or carrying costs and payment of interest on SMEPA's deposited money will be suspended and waived provided closing occurs by the Closing Commitment Date. The letter agreement also provided for certain post-closing adjustments to address any differences between the actual and the estimated amounts of post-in-service date costs (both expenses and capital) and revenue credits for those portions of the Kemper IGCC previously placed in service.

By letter dated December 18, 2014, SMEPA notified Mississippi Power that SMEPA decided not to extend the December 31, 2014 estimated closing date in the APA or revise the APA to include the contemplated amendments; however, both parties agree that the APA will remain in effect until closing or until either party gives notice of termination.

The closing of this transaction is also conditioned upon execution of a joint ownership and operating agreement, the absence of material adverse effects, receipt of all construction permits, and appropriate regulatory approvals, as well as SMEPA's receipt of Rural Utilities Service (RUS) funding. In 2012, SMEPA received a conditional loan commitment from RUS for the purchase.

In 2012, in January 2014, and in October 2014, Mississippi Power received $150 million, $75 million, and $50 million, respectively, of interest-bearing refundable deposits from SMEPA to be applied to the purchase. While the expectation is that these amounts will be applied to the purchase price at closing, Mississippi Power would be required to refund the deposits upon the termination of the APA or within 15 days of a request by SMEPA for a full or partial refund. Accordingly, the deposits have been presented as a current liability in the balance sheet and as financing proceeds in the statement of cash flow. Southern Company has agreed to guarantee the obligations of Mississippi Power with respect to any refund of the deposits to SMEPA. The ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be determined at this time.

Investment Tax Credits

The IRS allocated $279 million (Phase II) of Internal Revenue Code Section 48A tax credits to Mississippi Power in connection with the Kemper IGCC. Through March 31, 2015, Mississippi Power had recorded tax benefits totaling $276 million for the Phase II credits, of which approximately $207 million had been utilized through that date. These credits will be amortized as a reduction to depreciation and amortization over the life of the Kemper IGCC and are dependent upon meeting the IRS certification requirements, including an in-service date no later than April 19, 2016 and the capture and sequestration (via enhanced oil recovery) of at least 65% of the CO₂ produced by the Kemper IGCC during operations in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code. Mississippi Power currently expects to place the Kemper IGCC in service in the first half of 2016. In addition, a portion of the Phase II tax credits will be subject to recapture upon completion of SMEPA's proposed purchase of an undivided interest in the Kemper IGCC as described above. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.

Section 174 Research and Experimental Deduction

Southern Company, on behalf of Mississippi Power, reflected deductions for research and experimental (R&E) expenditures related to the Kemper IGCC in its federal income tax calculations for 2013 and 2014. Due to the uncertainty related to this tax position, Southern Company and Mississippi Power had unrecognized tax benefits totaling approximately $211 million at March 31, 2015. See Note 5 to the financial statements of Southern Company and Mississippi Power under "Unrecognized Tax Benefits" in Item 8 of the Form 10-K and Note (G) herein under "Unrecognized Tax Benefits" for additional information. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.