SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Commission
Registrant, State of Incorporation,
I.R.S. Employer
File Number
Address and Telephone Number
Identification No.
The Southern Company
58-0690070
(A Delaware Corporation)
30 Ivan Allen Jr. Boulevard, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
(404) 506-5000
Alabama Power Company
63-0004250
(An Alabama Corporation)
600 North 18
th
Street
Birmingham, Alabama 35291
(205) 257-1000
Georgia Power Company
58-0257110
(A Georgia Corporation)
241 Ralph McGill Boulevard, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
(404) 506-6526
Gulf Power Company
59-0276810
(A Florida Corporation)
One Energy Place
Pensacola, Florida 32520
(850) 444-6111
Mississippi Power Company
64-0205820
(A Mississippi Corporation)
2992 West Beach
Gulfport, Mississippi 39501
(228) 864-1211
Southern Power Company
58-2598670
(A Delaware Corporation)
30 Ivan Allen Jr. Boulevard, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
(404) 506-5000
Large | Smaller | |||||||||||||||
Accelerated | Accelerated | Non-accelerated | Reporting | |||||||||||||
Registrant | Filer | Filer | Filer | Company | ||||||||||||
The Southern Company
|
X | |||||||||||||||
Alabama Power Company
|
X | |||||||||||||||
Georgia Power Company
|
X | |||||||||||||||
Gulf Power Company
|
X | |||||||||||||||
Mississippi Power Company
|
X | |||||||||||||||
Southern Power Company
|
X |
Description of | Shares Outstanding | |||||||
Registrant | Common Stock | at September 30, 2010 | ||||||
The Southern Company
|
Par Value $5 Per Share | 838,671,173 | ||||||
Alabama Power Company
|
Par Value $40 Per Share | 30,537,500 | ||||||
Georgia Power Company
|
Without Par Value | 9,261,500 | ||||||
Gulf Power Company
|
Without Par Value | 3,642,717 | ||||||
Mississippi Power Company
|
Without Par Value | 1,121,000 | ||||||
Southern Power Company
|
Par Value $0.01 Per Share | 1,000 |
2
Page | ||||||
Number | ||||||
DEFINITIONS | 5 | |||||
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION | 7 | |||||
|
||||||
PART I FINANCIAL INFORMATION
|
||||||
|
||||||
Item 1. |
Financial Statements (Unaudited)
|
|||||
Item 2. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
|
|||||
9 | ||||||
10 | ||||||
11 | ||||||
13 | ||||||
14 | ||||||
40 | ||||||
40 | ||||||
41 | ||||||
42 | ||||||
44 | ||||||
62 | ||||||
62 | ||||||
63 | ||||||
64 | ||||||
66 | ||||||
86 | ||||||
86 | ||||||
87 | ||||||
88 | ||||||
90 | ||||||
108 | ||||||
108 | ||||||
109 | ||||||
110 | ||||||
112 | ||||||
134 | ||||||
134 | ||||||
135 | ||||||
136 | ||||||
138 | ||||||
151 | ||||||
Item 3. | 37 | |||||
Item 4. | 37 | |||||
Item 4T. | 37 |
3
Page | ||||||
Number | ||||||
PART II OTHER INFORMATION | ||||||
|
||||||
Item 1. | 182 | |||||
Item 1A. | 182 | |||||
Item 2. |
Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds
|
Inapplicable | ||||
Item 3. |
Defaults Upon Senior Securities
|
Inapplicable | ||||
Item 5. |
Other Information
|
Inapplicable | ||||
Item 6. | 183 | |||||
188 |
4
Term | Meaning | |
2007 Retail Rate Plan
|
Georgia Powers retail rate plan for the years 2008 through 2010 | |
AFUDC
|
Allowance for funds used during construction | |
Alabama Power
|
Alabama Power Company | |
Clean Air Act
|
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 | |
DOE
|
U.S. Department of Energy | |
Duke Energy
|
Duke Energy Corporation | |
ECO Plan
|
Mississippi Powers Environmental Compliance Overview Plan | |
EPA
|
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | |
FERC
|
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission | |
Fitch
|
Fitch Ratings, Inc. | |
Form 10-K
|
Combined Annual Report on Form 10-K of Southern Company, Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, Mississippi Power, and Southern Power for the year ended December 31, 2009 | |
GAAP
|
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles | |
Georgia Power
|
Georgia Power Company | |
Georgia PSC Staff
|
Georgia Public Service Commission Public Interest Advocacy Staff | |
Gulf Power
|
Gulf Power Company | |
IGCC
|
Integrated coal gasification combined cycle | |
IIC
|
Intercompany Interchange Contract | |
Internal Revenue Code
|
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended | |
IRS
|
Internal Revenue Service | |
KWH
|
Kilowatt-hour | |
LIBOR
|
London Interbank Offered Rate | |
Mirant
|
Mirant Corporation | |
Mississippi Power
|
Mississippi Power Company | |
mmBtu
|
Million British thermal unit | |
Moodys
|
Moodys Investors Service | |
MW
|
Megawatt | |
MWH
|
Megawatt-hour | |
NDR
|
Alabama Powers natural disaster reserve | |
NRC
|
Nuclear Regulatory Commission | |
NSR
|
New Source Review | |
OCI
|
Other Comprehensive Income | |
PEP
|
Mississippi Powers Performance Evaluation Plan | |
Power Pool
|
The operating arrangement whereby the integrated generating resources of the traditional operating companies and Southern Power are subject to joint commitment and dispatch in order to serve their combined load obligations | |
PPA
|
Power Purchase Agreement | |
PSC
|
Public Service Commission | |
Rate CNP Environmental
|
Alabama Powers certificated new plant for environmental costs | |
Rate ECR
|
Alabama Powers energy cost recovery rate mechanism | |
Rate NDR
|
Alabama Powers natural disaster cost recovery rate mechanism | |
Rate RSE
|
Alabama Powers rate stabilization and equalization plan | |
registrants
|
Southern Company, Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, Mississippi Power, and Southern Power | |
SCS
|
Southern Company Services, Inc. | |
SEC
|
Securities and Exchange Commission |
5
Term | Meaning | |
Southern Company
|
The Southern Company | |
Southern Company system
|
Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, Southern Power, and other subsidiaries | |
SouthernLINC Wireless
|
Southern Communications Services, Inc. | |
Southern Nuclear
|
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. | |
Southern Power
|
Southern Power Company | |
traditional operating companies
|
Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power | |
Westinghouse
|
Westinghouse Electric Company LLC | |
wholesale revenues
|
revenues generated from sales for resale |
6
| the impact of recent and future federal and state regulatory change, including legislative and regulatory initiatives regarding deregulation and restructuring of the electric utility industry, implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, environmental laws including regulation of water quality, coal combustion byproducts, and emissions of sulfur, nitrogen, carbon, soot, particulate matter, hazardous air pollutants, including mercury, and other substances, financial reform legislation, and also changes in tax and other laws and regulations to which Southern Company and its subsidiaries are subject, as well as changes in application of existing laws and regulations; |
| current and future litigation, regulatory investigations, proceedings, or inquiries, including the pending EPA civil actions against certain Southern Company subsidiaries, FERC matters, and IRS audits; |
| the effects, extent, and timing of the entry of additional competition in the markets in which Southern Companys subsidiaries operate; |
| variations in demand for electricity, including those relating to weather, the general economy and recovery from the recent recession, population and business growth (and declines), and the effects of energy conservation measures; |
| available sources and costs of fuels; |
| effects of inflation; |
| ability to control costs and avoid cost overruns during the development and construction of facilities; |
| investment performance of Southern Companys employee benefit plans and nuclear decommissioning trusts; |
| advances in technology; |
| state and federal rate regulations and the impact of pending and future rate cases and negotiations, including rate actions relating to fuel and other cost recovery mechanisms; |
| regulatory approvals and actions related to the potential Plant Vogtle expansion, including Georgia PSC and NRC approvals and potential DOE loan guarantees; |
| regulatory approvals and actions related to the Kemper IGCC, including Mississippi PSC approvals and potential DOE loan guarantees; |
| the performance of projects undertaken by the non-utility businesses and the success of efforts to invest in and develop new opportunities; |
| internal restructuring or other restructuring options that may be pursued; |
| potential business strategies, including acquisitions or dispositions of assets or businesses, which cannot be assured to be completed or beneficial to Southern Company or its subsidiaries; |
| the ability of counterparties of Southern Company and its subsidiaries to make payments as and when due and to perform as required; |
| the ability to obtain new short- and long-term contracts with wholesale customers; |
| the direct or indirect effect on Southern Companys business resulting from terrorist incidents and the threat of terrorist incidents; |
| interest rate fluctuations and financial market conditions and the results of financing efforts, including Southern Companys and its subsidiaries credit ratings; |
| the ability of Southern Company and its subsidiaries to obtain additional generating capacity at competitive prices; |
| catastrophic events such as fires, earthquakes, explosions, floods, hurricanes, droughts, pandemic health events such as influenzas, or other similar occurrences; |
| the direct or indirect effects on Southern Companys business resulting from incidents affecting the U.S. electric grid or operation of generating resources; |
| the effect of accounting pronouncements issued periodically by standard setting bodies; and |
| other factors discussed elsewhere herein and in other reports (including the Form 10-K) filed by the registrants from time to time with the SEC. |
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
For the Three Months
For the Nine Months
Ended September 30,
Ended September 30,
2010
2009
2010
2009
(in thousands)
(in thousands)
$
4,572,617
$
3,997,659
$
11,603,017
$
10,355,330
565,932
519,122
1,580,748
1,408,286
160,960
139,869
438,547
391,070
20,403
24,832
62,336
78,267
5,319,912
4,681,482
13,684,648
12,232,953
1,969,683
1,733,527
5,243,826
4,588,932
209,287
166,791
464,226
407,623
1,020,370
820,889
2,846,785
2,523,184
202,000
426,797
332,117
1,136,730
1,099,216
235,260
212,882
661,521
620,851
3,861,397
3,266,206
10,353,088
9,441,806
1,458,515
1,415,276
3,331,560
2,791,147
45,162
51,061
139,853
141,173
5,463
6,013
15,057
17,791
5,839
6,578
12,639
24,695
26,300
(17,184
)
(225,138
)
(226,345
)
(666,289
)
(684,902
)
(14,481
)
(10,466
)
(37,185
)
(27,293
)
(183,155
)
(173,159
)
(535,925
)
(519,420
)
1,275,360
1,242,117
2,795,635
2,271,727
441,927
435,947
925,110
828,833
833,433
806,170
1,870,525
1,442,894
16,195
16,195
48,585
48,585
$
817,238
$
789,975
$
1,821,940
$
1,394,309
$
0.98
$
0.99
$
2.20
$
1.77
$
0.97
$
0.99
$
2.19
$
1.76
835,953
798,418
828,947
789,675
841,835
800,178
833,220
791,259
$
0.4550
$
0.4375
$
1.3475
$
1.2950
Table of Contents
For the Nine Months
Ended September 30,
2010
2009
(in thousands)
$
1,870,525
$
1,442,894
1,376,511
1,310,854
572,862
(14,565
)
(76,976
)
(40,781
)
(139,853
)
(141,173
)
(12,639
)
(24,695
)
(26,300
)
17,184
51,792
42,775
28,307
20,850
1,530
(16,167
)
(50,554
)
(21,955
)
10,126
32,321
(319,384
)
319,286
220,017
(361,520
)
(10,880
)
(40,811
)
(48,186
)
(50,977
)
(82,318
)
(210,459
)
118,131
238,988
93,323
(273,349
)
(75,733
)
157,384
3,526,601
2,359,784
(2,893,812
)
(3,179,009
)
(12
)
(49,528
)
24,811
90,088
(695,855
)
(1,066,688
)
671,600
1,019,401
6,607
339,911
(83,930
)
(85,022
)
(83,678
)
110,265
48,285
(35,766
)
(3,005,984
)
(2,856,348
)
(289,202
)
118,124
2,796,000
2,216,010
610,465
668,529
(1,871,485
)
(1,229,484
)
(1,113,948
)
(1,018,928
)
(48,921
)
(48,675
)
(34,513
)
(18,732
)
48,396
686,844
569,013
190,280
689,722
416,581
$
1,258,735
$
606,861
$
589,129
$
589,919
$
277,716
$
644,541
Table of Contents
At September 30,
At December 31,
Assets
2010
2009
(in thousands)
$
1,258,735
$
689,722
18,336
43,135
1,435,968
953,222
443,838
394,492
226,820
333,459
261,104
374,670
(29,741
)
(24,568
)
1,222,690
1,446,984
808,446
793,847
144,607
145,049
529,823
508,338
222,531
166,549
66,295
48,558
6,609,452
5,873,457
56,029,332
53,587,853
19,947,881
19,121,271
36,081,451
34,466,582
660,856
593,119
4,457,402
4,170,596
41,199,709
39,230,297
1,142,566
1,070,117
620,674
610,252
279,015
282,974
2,042,255
1,963,343
1,182,050
1,047,452
192,296
208,346
265,867
254,936
291,736
373,245
2,652,520
2,701,910
458,895
392,880
5,043,364
4,978,769
$
54,894,780
$
52,045,866
Table of Contents
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(UNAUDITED)
At September 30,
At December 31,
Liabilities and Stockholders Equity
2010
2009
(in thousands)
$
1,983,593
$
1,112,705
348,399
639,199
1,160,993
1,329,448
333,876
330,582
77,995
13,005
177,969
165,645
459,839
398,384
238,944
218,188
182,454
183,911
351,859
247,950
175,938
124,648
190,760
528,147
311,793
292,016
5,994,412
5,583,828
18,198,225
18,131,244
7,069,518
6,454,822
238,734
248,232
472,174
447,650
2,336,393
2,304,344
1,247,760
1,201,343
1,202,491
1,091,425
295,545
277,932
502,756
345,888
13,365,371
12,371,636
37,558,008
36,086,708
374,496
374,496
4,195,666
4,100,742
3,550,130
2,994,245
(13,962
)
(14,797
)
8,594,861
7,884,922
(71,747
)
(87,778
)
16,254,948
14,877,334
707,328
707,328
16,962,276
15,584,662
$
54,894,780
$
52,045,866
Table of Contents
For the Three Months
For the Nine Months
Ended September 30,
Ended September 30,
2010
2009
2010
2009
(in thousands)
(in thousands)
$
833,433
$
806,170
$
1,870,525
$
1,442,894
1,595
(2,151
)
814
(3,815
)
3,839
7,339
14,413
20,807
(3,086
)
(1,359
)
(290
)
2,310
365
350
1,094
1,049
2,713
4,179
16,031
20,351
(16,195
)
(16,195
)
(48,585
)
(48,585
)
$
819,951
$
794,154
$
1,837,971
$
1,414,660
Table of Contents
AND
YEAR-TO-DATE 2010 vs. YEAR-TO-DATE 2009
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$27.2
3.5
$427.6
30.7
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$574.9
14.4
$1,247.7
12.0
Third Quarter
Year-to-Date
2010
2010
(in millions)
(% change)
(in millions)
(% change)
$
3,997.7
$
10,355.3
162.1
4.1
296.7
2.9
8.0
0.2
50.4
0.5
197.3
4.9
377.1
3.6
207.5
5.2
523.5
5.0
$
4,572.6
14.4
%
$
11,603.0
12.0
%
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$46.8
9.0
$172.5
12.2
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$21.1
15.1
$47.4
12.1
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$(4.4)
(17.8)
$(16.0)
(20.4)
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010
Year-to-Date 2010
vs.
vs.
Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$236.2
13.6
$654.9
14.3
42.5
25.5
56.6
13.9
$278.7
$711.5
*
Fuel includes fuel purchased by the Southern Company system for tolling
agreements where power is generated by
the provider and is included in purchased power when determining the average cost
of purchased power.
Average Cost
Third Quarter
2010
Third Quarter
2009
Percent
Change
Year-to-Date
2010
Year-to-Date
2009
Percent
Change
(cents per net KWH)
(cents per net KWH)
3.55
3.42
3.8
3.55
3.39
4.7
8.03
8.00
0.4
7.13
6.20
15.0
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$199.5
24.3
$323.6
12.8
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$(202.0)
N/M
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$94.7
28.5
$37.5
3.4
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$22.4
10.5
$40.6
6.6
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$(5.9)
(11.6)
$(1.3)
(0.9)
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$(0.8)
(11.2)
$(12.1)
(48.8)
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$(26.3)
N/M
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$(17.2)
N/M
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$(1.2)
(0.5)
$(18.6)
(2.7)
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$6.0
1.4
$96.3
11.6
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
§
Continuation of a plus or minus 100 basis point range for ROE.
§
Creation of an Adjustable Cost Recovery (ACR) tariff. If approved, beginning with an
effective date of January 1, 2012, the ACR will work to maintain Georgia Powers earnings
within the ROE band established by the Georgia PSC in this case. If Georgia Powers
earnings projected for the upcoming year are within the ROE band, no adjustment under the
ACR tariff will be requested. If Georgia Powers earnings projected for the upcoming year
are outside (either above or below) the approved ROE band, the ACR tariff will be used to
adjust projected earnings back to the mid-point of the approved ROE band.
The ACR tariff would also return to the sharing mechanism used prior to the 2007 Retail Rate
Plan whereby two-thirds of any actual earnings for the previous year above the approved ROE
band would be refunded to customers, with the remaining one-third retained by Georgia Power
as incentive to manage expenses and operate as efficiently as possible. In addition, if
earnings are below the approved ROE band, Georgia Power would accept one-third of the
shortfall and retail customers would be responsible for the remaining two-thirds.
§
Creation of a new Certified Capacity Cost Recovery (CCCR) tariff to recover costs
related to new capacity additions certified by the Georgia PSC and updated through
applicable project construction monitoring reports and hearings.
§
Continuation and enhancement of the ECCR and DSM-Residential tariffs from the 2007
Retail Rate Plan and creation of a DSM-Commercial tariff to recover environmental capital
and operating costs resulting from governmental mandates and DSM costs approved and
certified by the Georgia PSC.
§
Implementation of an annual review of the MFF tariff to adjust for changes in relative
gross receipts between customers served inside and outside municipal boundaries.
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter
Year-to-Date
2010
2010
Changes
Changes
Fair Value
(in millions)
$
(202
)
$
(178
)
49
160
(96
)
(231
)
$
(249
)
$
(249
)
(a)
Current period changes also include the changes in fair value of new contracts entered into
during the period, if any.
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Asset (Liability) Derivatives
September 30, 2010
December 31, 2009
(in millions)
$
(247
)
$
(175
)
1
(2
)
(3
)
(1
)
$
(249
)
$
(178
)
September 30, 2010
Fair Value Measurements
Total
Maturity
Fair Value
Year 1
Years 2&3
Years 4&5
(in millions)
$
$
$
$
(249)
(168)
(80)
(1)
$(249)
$ (168)
$ (80)
$ (1)
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
37
38
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
For the Three Months
For the Nine Months
Ended September 30,
Ended September 30,
2010
2009
2010
2009
(in thousands)
(in thousands)
$
1,526,738
$
1,342,665
$
3,924,612
$
3,520,408
85,823
170,573
395,164
483,180
42,966
34,042
193,622
170,887
50,406
44,876
149,927
123,963
1,705,933
1,592,156
4,663,325
4,298,438
500,150
506,376
1,455,226
1,437,095
34,931
42,915
65,532
84,582
57,524
73,966
161,216
172,096
378,133
272,118
997,731
827,275
153,488
136,784
451,065
406,687
84,261
77,353
247,592
239,673
1,208,487
1,109,512
3,378,362
3,167,408
497,446
482,644
1,284,963
1,131,030
8,155
21,053
28,529
56,931
4,129
4,419
12,143
12,689
(76,292
)
(75,817
)
(226,986
)
(224,792
)
(6,137
)
(6,714
)
(17,827
)
(17,577
)
(70,145
)
(57,059
)
(204,141
)
(172,749
)
427,301
425,585
1,080,822
958,281
157,782
154,050
398,912
344,416
269,519
271,535
681,910
613,865
9,866
9,866
29,598
29,598
$
259,653
$
261,669
$
652,312
$
584,267
For the Three Months
For the Nine Months
Ended September 30,
Ended September 30,
2010
2009
2010
2009
(in thousands)
(in thousands)
$
259,653
$
261,669
$
652,312
$
584,267
30
(307
)
13
(2,916
)
(110
)
2,002
782
5,685
(80
)
1,695
795
2,769
$
259,573
$
263,364
$
653,107
$
587,036
Table of Contents
For the Nine Months
Ended September 30,
2010
2009
(in thousands)
$
681,910
$
613,865
519,320
474,250
301,119
(32,333
)
(28,529
)
(56,931
)
(8,840
)
(2,955
)
4,174
3,475
27,933
25,302
(109,948
)
232,890
21,130
(20,609
)
(9,906
)
(22,783
)
(33,540
)
(43,436
)
(66,037
)
(197,357
)
(48,091
)
168,493
7,541
(46,583
)
(103,390
)
70,111
1,154,846
1,165,399
(684,738
)
(896,913
)
18,464
39,866
(126,039
)
(177,639
)
126,039
177,639
(25,830
)
(21,419
)
(34,329
)
37,486
(9,212
)
(27,484
)
(735,645
)
(868,464
)
(24,995
)
135,000
18,823
17,177
53,000
500,000
(250,000
)
(29,670
)
(29,602
)
(407,025
)
(392,100
)
(1,242
)
(2,474
)
(419,114
)
6,006
87
302,941
368,016
28,181
$
368,103
$
331,122
$
214,102
$
190,014
$
212,036
$
274,486
Table of Contents
At September 30,
At December 31,
Assets
2010
2009
(in thousands)
$
368,103
$
368,016
18,249
36,711
451,381
322,292
142,372
134,875
12,065
37,338
46,986
33,522
45,382
61,508
(12,035
)
(9,551
)
369,074
394,511
335,954
326,074
54,038
53,607
222,608
111,320
45,246
34,347
8,633
6,203
2,108,056
1,910,773
19,794,009
18,574,229
6,861,206
6,558,864
12,932,803
12,015,365
296,484
253,308
560,185
1,256,311
13,789,472
13,524,984
61,600
59,628
516,696
489,795
70,066
69,749
648,362
619,172
411,986
387,447
159,843
132,643
741,280
750,492
207,103
198,582
1,520,212
1,469,164
$
18,066,102
$
17,524,093
Table of Contents
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS (UNAUDITED)
At September 30,
At December 31,
Liabilities and Stockholders Equity
2010
2009
(in thousands)
$
450,000
$
100,000
225,885
194,675
193,220
328,400
85,849
86,975
1,721
14,789
101,088
31,918
65,219
65,455
44,415
44,751
81,239
71,286
40,499
37,844
95,227
181,565
38,062
40,020
1,422,424
1,197,678
5,732,575
6,082,489
2,572,558
2,293,468
85,979
88,705
158,770
164,713
405,342
387,936
511,828
491,007
701,073
668,151
198,742
169,224
5,495
22,060
77,676
37,113
4,717,463
4,322,377
11,872,462
11,602,544
341,715
341,715
343,373
343,373
1,221,500
1,221,500
2,145,902
2,119,818
2,145,738
1,900,526
(4,588
)
(5,383
)
5,508,552
5,236,461
$
18,066,102
$
17,524,093
Table of Contents
AND
YEAR-TO-DATE 2010 vs. YEAR-TO-DATE 2009
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$(2.0)
(0.8)
$68.0
11.6
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$184.0
13.7
$404.2
11.5
Third Quarter
Year-to-Date
2010
2010
(in millions)
(% change)
(in millions)
(% change)
$
1,342.7
$
3,520.4
90.4
6.7
218.7
6.2
(1.6
)
(0.1
)
6.4
0.2
82.6
6.2
163.7
4.7
12.6
0.9
15.4
0.4
$
1,526.7
13.7
%
$
3,924.6
11.5
%
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$(84.8)
(49.7)
$(88.0)
(18.2)
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$9.0
26.2
$22.7
13.3
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$5.5
12.3
$26.0
20.9
Third Quarter 2010
Year-to-Date 2010
vs.
vs.
Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$
(6.2
)
(1.2
)
$
18.1
1.3
(8.0
)
(18.6
)
(19.0
)
(22.5
)
(16.5
)
(22.2
)
(10.9
)
(6.3
)
$
(30.7
)
$
(11.8
)
*
Fuel includes fuel purchased by Alabama Power for tolling agreements where power is generated
by the provider and is included in
purchased power when determining the average cost of purchased power.
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter
Third Quarter
Percent
Year-to-Date
Year-to-Date
Percent
Average Cost
2010
2009
Change
2010
2009
Change
(cents per net KWH)
(cents per net KWH)
2.72
2.80
(2.9
)
2.78
2.83
(1.8
)
7.11
6.45
10.2
6.83
6.23
9.6
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$106.0
39.0
$170.4
20.6
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$16.7
12.2
$44.4
10.9
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$6.9
8.9
$7.9
3.3
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$(12.9)
(61.3)
$(28.4)
(49.9)
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$3.7
2.4
$54.5
15.8
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter
Year-to-Date
2010
2010
Changes
Changes
Fair Value
(in millions)
$
(45
)
$
(44
)
14
48
(23
)
(58
)
$
(54
)
$
(54
)
September 30, 2010
Fair Value Measurements
Total
Maturity
Fair Value
Year 1
Years 2&3
Years 4&5
(in millions)
$
$
$
$
(54
)
(40
)
(14
)
$
(54
)
$
(40
)
$
(14
)
$
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
For the Three Months
For the Nine Months
Ended September 30,
Ended September 30,
2010
2009
2010
2009
(in thousands)
(in thousands)
$
2,418,231
$
2,093,503
$
6,036,216
$
5,368,123
108,938
108,521
307,167
301,077
16,844
53,687
43,118
98,520
84,163
71,477
225,345
199,623
2,628,176
2,327,188
6,611,846
5,967,343
928,016
830,283
2,442,897
2,083,662
128,557
86,450
294,098
219,220
142,509
158,864
436,507
528,505
434,904
358,821
1,224,157
1,102,876
181,866
122,740
426,094
464,931
98,732
86,620
264,372
243,876
1,914,584
1,643,778
5,088,125
4,643,070
713,592
683,410
1,523,721
1,324,273
34,039
23,200
104,694
66,267
603
611
1,398
1,644
(94,596
)
(95,309
)
(274,918
)
(293,124
)
(5,754
)
(4,127
)
(12,967
)
(8,316
)
(65,708
)
(75,625
)
(181,793
)
(233,529
)
647,884
607,785
1,341,928
1,090,744
223,669
215,720
432,851
378,030
424,215
392,065
909,077
712,714
4,345
4,345
13,036
13,036
$
419,870
$
387,720
$
896,041
$
699,678
For the Three Months
For the Nine Months
Ended September 30,
Ended September 30,
2010
2009
2010
2009
(in thousands)
(in thousands)
$
419,870
$
387,720
$
896,041
$
699,678
(682
)
(10
)
(247
)
2,186
3,725
8,143
10,336
2,186
3,043
8,133
10,089
$
422,056
$
390,763
$
904,174
$
709,767
Table of Contents
For the Nine Months
Ended September 30,
2010
2009
(in thousands)
$
909,077
$
712,714
550,940
566,741
225,432
111,035
(77,081
)
(37,210
)
(53,761
)
(39,570
)
(104,694
)
(66,267
)
20,458
16,713
(16,167
)
1,275
22,381
(8,925
)
21,131
(125,658
)
3,648
153,144
(245,777
)
2,096
(20,694
)
4,006
505
61,223
40,719
65,873
131,432
45,015
(105,097
)
38,103
35,575
1,706,523
1,131,812
(1,628,055
)
(1,778,030
)
22,077
(569,815
)
(889,049
)
545,561
841,763
20,793
43,824
(45,918
)
(41,709
)
27,345
45,828
(16,318
)
7,519
(1,666,407
)
(1,747,777
)
(320,549
)
(103,634
)
681,353
923,840
416,510
1,950,000
500,000
1,100
(327,310
)
(1,111,914
)
(332,841
)
(2,500
)
(13,300
)
(13,121
)
(615,000
)
(554,175
)
(32,761
)
(12,674
)
535,329
497,695
575,445
(118,270
)
14,309
132,739
$
589,754
$
14,469
$
231,285
$
239,290
$
107,427
$
115,436
Table of Contents
At September 30,
At December 31,
Assets
2010
2009
(in thousands)
$
589,754
$
14,309
753,688
486,885
206,150
172,035
196,149
291,837
45,288
146,932
55,466
62,758
28,593
11,775
(13,309
)
(9,856
)
573,122
726,266
367,308
362,803
73,806
74,566
90,058
132,668
105,665
76,634
117,249
62,651
3,188,987
2,612,263
26,109,530
25,120,034
9,857,869
9,493,068
16,251,661
15,626,966
364,372
339,810
3,079,691
2,521,091
19,695,724
18,487,867
68,037
66,106
625,869
580,322
38,391
38,516
732,297
684,944
707,496
608,851
291,736
373,245
1,331,659
1,321,904
202,049
205,492
2,532,940
2,509,492
$
26,149,948
$
24,294,566
Table of Contents
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS (UNAUDITED)
At September 30,
At December 31,
Liabilities and Stockholders Equity
2010
2009
(in thousands)
$
874,817
$
253,882
3,410
323,958
293,416
238,599
545,539
602,003
200,189
200,103
79,533
548
177,241
164,863
261,155
290,174
117,228
89,228
55,098
57,662
91,663
42,756
84,146
49,788
37,000
216,000
21,066
99,807
117,382
84,319
2,958,883
2,713,690
7,985,180
7,782,340
3,648,873
3,389,907
129,985
133,683
232,566
242,496
945,999
923,177
703,827
676,705
186,793
124,662
210,345
139,024
6,058,388
5,629,654
17,002,451
16,125,684
44,991
44,991
220,966
220,966
398,473
398,473
5,281,791
4,592,350
3,213,975
2,932,934
(12,699
)
(20,832
)
8,881,540
7,902,925
$
26,149,948
$
24,294,566
Table of Contents
AND
YEAR-TO-DATE 2010 vs. YEAR-TO-DATE 2009
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$32.2
8.3
$196.3
28.1
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$324.7
15.5
$668.1
12.4
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter
Year-to-Date
2010
2010
(in millions)
(% change)
(in millions)
(% change)
$
2,093.5
$
5,368.1
49.5
2.4
21.8
0.4
9.8
0.4
49.9
0.9
104.3
5.0
181.9
3.4
161.1
7.7
414.5
7.7
$
2,418.2
15.5
%
$
6,036.2
12.4
%
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$(36.8)
(68.6)
$(55.4)
(56.2)
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$12.7
17.7
$25.7
12.9
Third Quarter 2010
Year-to-Date 2010
vs.
vs.
Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$
97.7
11.8
$
359.2
17.2
42.1
48.7
74.9
34.2
(16.4
)
(10.3
)
(92.0
)
(17.4
)
$
123.4
$
342.1
*
Fuel includes fuel purchased by Georgia Power for tolling agreements where power is
generated by the provider and is
included in purchased power when determining the average cost of purchased power.
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter
Third Quarter
Percent
Year-to-Date
Year-to-Date
Percent
Average Cost
2010
2009
Change
2010
2009
Change
(cents per net KWH)
(cents per net KWH)
3.97
3.50
13.4
3.84
3.39
13.3
5.50
6.43
(14.5
)
5.90
6.14
(3.9
)
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$76.1
21.2
$121.3
11.0
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$59.1
48.2
$(38.8)
(8.4)
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$12.1
14.0
$20.5
8.4
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$10.8
46.7
$38.4
58.0
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$7.9
3.7
$54.8
14.5
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
§
Continuation of a plus or minus 100 basis point range for ROE.
§
Creation of an Adjustable Cost Recovery (ACR) tariff. If approved, beginning with an
effective date of January 1, 2012, the ACR will work to maintain Georgia Powers earnings
within the ROE band established by the Georgia PSC in this case. If Georgia Powers
earnings projected for the upcoming year are within the ROE band, no adjustment under the
ACR tariff will be requested. If Georgia Powers earnings projected for the upcoming year
are outside (either above or below) the approved ROE band, the ACR tariff will be used to
adjust projected earnings back to the mid-point of the approved ROE band.
The ACR tariff would also return to the sharing mechanism used prior to the 2007 Retail Rate
Plan whereby two-thirds of any actual earnings for the previous year above the approved ROE
band would be refunded to customers, with the remaining one-third retained by Georgia Power
as incentive to manage expenses and operate as efficiently as possible. In addition, if
earnings are below the approved ROE band, Georgia Power would accept one-third of the
shortfall and retail customers would be responsible for the remaining two-thirds.
§
Creation of a new Certified Capacity Cost Recovery (CCCR) tariff to recover costs
related to new capacity additions certified by the Georgia PSC and updated through
applicable project construction monitoring reports and hearings.
§
Continuation and enhancement of the ECCR and DSM-Residential tariffs from the 2007
Retail Rate Plan and creation of a DSM-Commercial tariff to recover environmental capital
and operating costs resulting from governmental mandates and DSM costs approved and
certified by the Georgia PSC.
§
Implementation of an annual review of the MFF tariff to adjust for changes in relative
gross receipts between customers served inside and outside municipal boundaries.
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter
Year-to-Date
2010
2010
Changes
Changes
Fair Value
(in millions)
$
(93
)
$
(75
)
19
69
(47
)
(115
)
$
(121
)
$
(121
)
(a)
Current period changes also include the changes in fair value of new contracts entered into
during the period, if any.
September 30, 2010
Fair Value Measurements
Total
Maturity
Fair Value
Year 1
Years 2&3
Years 4&5
(in millions)
$
$
$
$
(121
)
(84
)
(37
)
$
(121
)
$
(84
)
$
(37
)
$
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
For the Three Months
For the Nine Months
Ended September 30,
Ended September 30,
2010
2009
2010
2009
(in thousands)
(in thousands)
$
396,671
$
329,597
$
1,021,530
$
858,038
31,211
25,752
86,041
70,418
37,995
3,661
88,386
19,748
17,578
18,631
47,381
54,816
483,455
377,641
1,243,338
1,003,020
237,003
163,302
585,167
435,050
12,771
9,991
34,615
20,480
20,282
29,399
51,725
58,020
67,178
57,422
202,202
194,896
34,032
23,452
90,651
69,828
29,293
26,683
78,586
72,120
400,559
310,249
1,042,946
850,394
82,896
67,392
200,392
152,626
1,424
6,810
4,504
17,335
31
129
87
423
(13,764
)
(9,264
)
(38,286
)
(29,003
)
(471
)
(266
)
(1,355
)
(1,369
)
(12,780
)
(2,591
)
(35,050
)
(12,614
)
70,116
64,801
165,342
140,012
25,658
22,042
60,166
45,341
44,458
42,759
105,176
94,671
1,551
1,551
4,652
4,652
$
42,907
$
41,208
$
100,524
$
90,019
For the Three Months
For the Nine Months
Ended September 30,
Ended September 30,
2010
2009
2010
2009
(in thousands)
(in thousands)
$
42,907
$
41,208
$
100,524
$
90,019
(659
)
(863
)
(659
)
143
166
455
500
143
(493
)
(408
)
(159
)
$
43,050
$
40,715
$
100,116
$
89,860
Table of Contents
For the Nine Months
Ended September 30,
2010
2009
(in thousands)
$
105,176
$
94,671
95,491
74,407
55,355
(2,177
)
(4,504
)
(17,335
)
2,883
1,123
959
793
1,530
1,040
(4,009
)
(67,814
)
40,388
29,483
(54,511
)
(1,363
)
(1,411
)
(9,558
)
416
34
10,831
2,667
2,178
12,003
(13,022
)
18,166
14,593
2,695
(7,364
)
10,776
8,627
255,019
148,198
(203,911
)
(330,776
)
(49,188
)
6,347
28,144
(750
)
(6,758
)
(17,792
)
(11,721
)
(4,211
)
(5,462
)
(295
)
17
(220,612
)
(375,744
)
(88,733
)
(101,589
)
50,000
135,000
3,571
3,461
21,000
130,400
300,000
140,000
(140,413
)
(1,033
)
(4,652
)
(4,652
)
(78,225
)
(66,975
)
(3,280
)
(1,613
)
59,268
232,999
93,675
5,453
8,677
3,443
$
102,352
$
8,896
$
28,394
$
29,123
$
13,862
$
43,423
Table of Contents
At September 30,
At December 31,
Assets
2010
2009
(in thousands)
$
102,352
$
8,677
6,347
98,295
64,257
64,894
60,414
18,606
4,285
7,748
4,107
17,832
7,503
(2,226
)
(1,913
)
153,230
183,619
40,049
38,478
23,560
19,172
29,874
44,760
927
3,634
555,141
443,340
3,552,116
3,430,503
1,052,758
1,009,807
2,499,358
2,420,696
227,643
159,499
2,727,001
2,580,195
16,219
15,923
44,947
39,018
221,691
190,971
31,940
24,160
298,578
254,149
$
3,596,939
$
3,293,607
Table of Contents
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS (UNAUDITED)
At September 30,
At December 31,
Liabilities and Stockholders Equity
2010
2009
(in thousands)
$
185,000
$
140,000
90,331
59,361
47,421
66,993
80,184
35,695
32,361
2,816
1,955
25,319
7,297
14,959
10,222
12,032
9,337
31,597
22,416
12,807
9,442
21,335
20,092
467,914
471,058
1,112,478
978,914
353,886
297,405
8,495
9,652
110,708
109,271
199,154
191,248
42,481
41,399
122,754
92,370
837,478
741,345
2,417,870
2,191,317
97,998
97,998
303,060
253,060
539,466
534,577
241,415
219,117
(2,870
)
(2,462
)
1,081,071
1,004,292
$
3,596,939
$
3,293,607
Table of Contents
AND
YEAR-TO-DATE 2010 vs. YEAR-TO-DATE 2009
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
4.1
$10.5
11.7
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$67.1
20.4
$163.5
19.1
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter
Year-to-Date
2010
2010
(in millions)
(% change)
(in millions)
(% change)
$
329.6
$
858.0
22.2
6.7
56.0
6.5
0.8
0.3
(2.8
)
(0.2
)
6.5
2.0
18.3
2.1
37.6
11.4
92.0
10.7
$
396.7
20.4
$
1,021.5
19.1
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
21.2
$15.6
22.2
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$34.4
937.8
$68.7
347.6
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$(1.0)
(5.7)
$(7.4)
(13.6)
Third Quarter 2010
Year-to-Date 2010
vs.
vs.
Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$
73.7
45.1
$
150.2
34.5
2.8
27.8
14.1
69.0
(9.1
)
(31.0
)
(6.3
)
(10.8
)
$
67.4
$
158.0
*
Fuel includes fuel purchased by Gulf Power for tolling agreements where power is
generated by the provider and is included in purchased power when determining the average cost of purchased
power.
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter
Third Quarter
Percent
Year-to-Date
Year-to-Date
Percent
Average Cost
2010
2009
Change
2010
2009
Change
(cents per net KWH)
(cents per net KWH)
5.09
4.59
10.9
5.04
4.46
13.0
7.93
7.98
(0.6
)
5.99
6.78
(11.7
)
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
17.0
$7.3
3.7
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$10.5
45.1
$20.8
29.8
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$2.6
9.8
$6.5
9.0
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$(5.4)
(79.1)
$(12.8)
(74.0)
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$4.5
48.6
$9.3
32.0
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$3.6
16.4
$14.8
32.7
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter
Year-to-Date
2010
2010
Changes
Changes
Fair Value
(in millions)
$
(15
)
$
(14
)
4
14
(7
)
(18
)
$
(18
)
$
(18
)
(a)
Current period changes also include the changes in fair value of new contracts entered into
during the period, if any.
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
September 30, 2010
Fair Value Measurements
Total
Maturity
Fair Value
Year 1
Years 2&3
Years 4&5
(in millions)
$
$
$
$
(18
)
(13
)
(5
)
$
(18
)
$
(13
)
$
(5
)
$
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
For the Three Months
For the Nine Months
Ended September 30,
Ended September 30,
2010
2009
2010
2009
(in thousands)
(in thousands)
$
230,977
$
231,894
$
620,658
$
608,761
78,409
81,242
223,499
235,089
13,025
13,404
31,636
30,785
4,672
4,140
11,749
11,449
327,083
330,680
887,542
886,084
154,607
148,115
388,979
393,912
2,547
1,666
7,666
7,374
10,902
21,946
60,113
65,346
65,953
61,138
205,055
182,500
20,106
17,707
57,567
53,382
17,935
17,033
53,568
48,178
272,050
267,605
772,948
750,692
55,033
63,075
114,594
135,392
1,490
2,018
387
49
34
122
829
(4,886
)
(6,075
)
(17,011
)
(17,091
)
1,099
474
3,272
2,852
(2,248
)
(5,567
)
(11,599
)
(13,023
)
52,785
57,508
102,995
122,369
18,759
22,177
37,631
46,268
34,026
35,331
65,364
76,101
433
433
1,299
1,299
$
33,593
$
34,898
$
64,065
$
74,802
For the Three Months
For the Nine Months
Ended September 30,
Ended September 30,
2010
2009
2010
2009
(in thousands)
(in thousands)
$
33,593
$
34,898
$
64,065
$
74,802
7
(44
)
13
$
33,600
$
34,854
$
64,078
$
74,802
Table of Contents
For the Nine Months
Ended September 30,
2010
2009
(in thousands)
$
65,364
$
76,101
60,959
58,929
(4,557
)
(27,430
)
14,352
(2,018
)
(387
)
6,657
5,817
1,053
822
(50,554
)
(21,955
)
(720
)
618
(21,003
)
(6,482
)
54,994
10,163
(42,838
)
(222
)
(1,782
)
1,061
(2,503
)
(9,783
)
25,819
(26,354
)
7,630
13,430
427
(10,238
)
14,939
20,466
(442
)
228
125,344
85,217
(125,980
)
(72,661
)
(7,613
)
(9,911
)
6,903
(3,949
)
(6,693
)
(2,150
)
(133,383
)
(88,671
)
(24,891
)
3,920
3,330
125,000
125,000
(988
)
(40,000
)
(1,299
)
(1,299
)
(51,450
)
(51,375
)
(614
)
(1,714
)
74,569
9,051
66,530
5,597
65,025
22,413
$
131,555
$
28,010
$
16,726
$
15,824
$
11,345
$
48,008
Table of Contents
At September 30,
At December 31,
Assets
2010
2009
(in thousands)
$
131,555
$
65,025
45,923
36,766
30,233
27,168
7,131
11,337
51,368
13,215
(1,006
)
(940
)
117,074
127,237
28,014
27,793
64,823
53,273
37,925
32,237
16,094
12,625
529,134
405,736
2,370,635
2,316,494
975,536
950,373
1,395,099
1,366,121
198,977
48,219
1,594,076
1,414,340
6,120
7,018
13,638
8,536
149,175
209,100
30,767
27,951
193,580
245,587
$
2,322,910
$
2,072,681
Table of Contents
At September 30,
At December 31,
Liabilities and Stockholders Equity
2010
2009
(in thousands)
$
206,409
$
1,330
58,410
49,209
64,925
38,662
12,142
11,143
25,823
10,590
42,021
49,547
4,405
5,739
14,212
13,785
5,655
7,610
63,534
48,596
29,762
19,454
24,780
21,142
552,078
276,807
412,539
493,480
230,058
223,066
12,121
13,937
26,286
12,825
166,495
161,778
107,615
97,820
57,014
54,576
49,214
47,090
648,803
611,092
1,613,420
1,381,379
32,780
32,780
37,691
37,691
331,122
325,562
307,884
295,269
13
676,710
658,522
$
2,322,910
$
2,072,681
Table of Contents
AND
YEAR-TO-DATE 2010 vs. YEAR-TO-DATE 2009
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$(1.3)
(3.7)
$(10.7)
(14.4)
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$(0.9)
(0.4)
$11.9
2.0
Third Quarter
Year-to-Date
2010
2010
(in millions)
(% change)
(in millions)
(% change)
$
231.9
$
608.8
0.2
(1.0
)
(0.5
)
(3.1
)
(0.5
)
3.9
1.7
13.2
2.2
(3.8
)
(1.6
)
1.6
0.3
$
231.0
(0.4
)%
$
620.7
2.0
%
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$(2.8)
(3.5)
$(11.6)
(4.9)
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$(0.4)
(2.8)
$0.9
2.8
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010
Year-to-Date 2010
vs.
vs.
Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$
6.5
4.4
$
(4.9
)
(1.3
)
0.8
52.8
0.3
4.0
(11.0
)
(50.3
)
(5.2
)
(8.0
)
$
(3.7
)
$
(9.8
)
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter
Third Quarter
Percent
Year-to-Date
Year-to-Date
Percent
Average Cost
2010
2009
Change
2010
2009
Change
(cents per net KWH)
(cents per net KWH)
4.08
4.38
(6.8
)
4.21
4.34
(3.0
)
4.04
3.62
11.6
3.72
3.62
2.8
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$4.8
7.9
$22.5
12.4
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$2.4
13.5
$4.2
7.8
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$0.9
5.3
$5.4
11.2
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$1.5
N/M
$1.6
N/M
N/M Not meaningful
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$(1.2)
(19.6)
$(0.1)
(0.5)
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$(3.4)
(15.4)
$(8.7)
(18.7)
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter
Year-to-Date
2010
2010
Changes
Changes
Fair Value
(in millions)
$
(48
)
$
(42
)
9
26
(15
)
(38
)
$
(54
)
$
(54
)
(a)
Current period changes also include the changes in fair value of new contracts
entered into during the period, if any.
September 30, 2010
Fair Value Measurements
Total
Maturity
Fair Value
Year 1
Years 2&3
Years 4&5
(in millions)
$
$
$
$
(54
)
(30
)
(24
)
$
(54
)
$
(30
)
$
(24
)
$
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
For the Three Months
For the Nine Months
Ended September 30,
Ended September 30,
2010
2009
2010
2009
(in thousands)
(in thousands)
$
261,551
$
133,032
$
568,877
$
318,521
93,062
147,921
287,603
420,923
2,217
2,416
5,314
6,040
356,830
283,369
861,794
745,484
120,466
58,820
294,658
176,332
24,939
20,019
59,103
66,279
31,454
20,915
79,874
49,977
34,614
29,094
111,499
97,033
29,361
23,190
87,362
74,727
4,071
4,166
14,314
13,714
244,905
156,204
646,810
478,062
111,925
127,165
214,984
267,422
(18,801
)
(21,438
)
(58,408
)
(64,589
)
(113
)
2,699
198
2,465
(18,914
)
(18,739
)
(58,210
)
(62,124
)
93,011
108,426
156,774
205,298
31,317
41,146
50,566
79,048
$
61,694
$
67,280
$
106,208
$
126,250
For the Three Months
For the Nine Months
Ended September 30,
Ended September 30,
2010
2009
2010
2009
(in thousands)
(in thousands)
$
61,694
$
67,280
$
106,208
$
126,250
1,759
(459
)
2,400
7
1,590
1,461
4,703
4,336
3,349
1,002
7,103
4,343
$
65,043
$
68,282
$
113,311
$
130,593
Table of Contents
For the Nine Months
Ended September 30,
2010
2009
(in thousands)
$
106,208
$
126,250
97,469
83,890
13,251
8,020
22,150
18,846
33,290
2,435
(406
)
401
35,565
(49
)
(39,890
)
2,014
2,611
(35,537
)
(44,195
)
6,097
2,215
3,216
(4,110
)
2,013
598
396
(2,194
)
(20,777
)
31,069
62,260
(12,194
)
(12,152
)
21
(199
)
255,814
232,768
(210,599
)
(47,696
)
4,000
52
31,021
6,915
(30,936
)
(26,118
)
(248
)
(184
)
(206,762
)
(67,031
)
20,216
3,908
2,068
(80,325
)
(79,575
)
(56,201
)
(77,507
)
(7,149
)
88,230
7,152
37,894
$
3
$
126,124
$
63,560
$
68,652
$
(8,158
)
$
20,467
Table of Contents
At September 30,
At December 31,
Assets
2010
2009
(in thousands)
$
3
$
7,152
77,125
28,873
1,890
2,064
34,792
38,561
10,189
15,351
32,416
31,607
20,459
44,090
3,245
5,177
2,577
3,176
6,103
4,901
6,754
188,799
187,706
3,026,358
2,994,463
507,266
439,457
2,519,092
2,555,006
361,223
153,982
2,880,315
2,708,988
1,839
1,794
at September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively
48,622
49,102
50,461
50,896
83,858
74,513
3,341
3,540
16,410
17,410
103,609
95,463
$
3,223,184
$
3,043,053
Table of Contents
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (UNAUDITED)
At September 30,
At December 31,
Liabilities and Stockholders Equity
2010
2009
(in thousands)
$
139,164
$
118,948
80,438
58,493
42,981
31,128
15,163
1,449
14,248
2,576
17,729
29,923
7,405
8,119
22
323
317,150
250,959
1,297,797
1,297,607
255,847
238,293
44,958
16,800
52,798
36,369
4,873
5,651
17,745
2,252
376,221
299,365
1,991,168
1,847,931
868,370
864,462
377,944
352,061
(14,298
)
(21,401
)
1,232,016
1,195,122
$
3,223,184
$
3,043,053
Table of Contents
AND
YEAR-TO-DATE 2010 vs. YEAR-TO-DATE 2009
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$(5.6)
(8.3)
$(20.1)
(15.9)
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$128.6
96.6
$250.4
78.6
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$(54.8)
(37.1)
$(133.3)
(31.7)
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010
Year-to-Date 2010
vs.
vs.
Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$
61.7
104.8
$
118.4
67.1
4.9
24.6
(7.2
)
(10.8
)
10.5
50.4
29.8
59.8
$
77.1
$
141.0
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$5.5
19.0
$14.5
14.9
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$6.2
26.6
$12.7
16.9
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$(2.6)
(12.3)
$(6.2)
(9.6)
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$(2.8)
(104.2)
$(2.3)
(92.0)
Third Quarter 2010 vs. Third Quarter 2009
Year-to-Date 2010 vs. Year-to-Date 2009
(change in millions)
(% change)
(change in millions)
(% change)
$(9.8)
(23.9)
$(28.4)
(36.0)
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Third Quarter
Year-to-Date
2010
2010
Changes
Changes
Fair Value
(in millions)
$
(1.2
)
$
(3.5
)
3.3
3.8
(4.1
)
(2.3
)
$
(2.0
)
$
(2.0
)
(a)
Current period changes also include the changes in fair value of new contracts
entered into during the period, if any.
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
September 30,
June 30,
December 31,
2010
2010
2009
0.7
0.7
2.7
$
5.22
$
6.77
$
(0.36
)
9.3
5.6
8.3
2.0
$
0.69
$
1.31
$
0.29
$
$
$
(0.04
)
September 30,
December 31,
Asset (Liability) Derivatives
2010
2009
(in millions)
$
1.5
$
(2.5
)
(3.5
)
(1.0
)
$
(2.0
)
$
(3.5
)
September 30, 2010
Fair Value Measurements
Total
Maturity
Fair Value
Year 1
Years 2&3
Years 4&5
(in millions)
$
$
$
$
(2.0
)
(1.3
)
(1.0
)
0.3
$
(2.0
)
$
(1.3
)
$
(1.0
)
$
0.3
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
FOR
THE SOUTHERN COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
GULF POWER COMPANY
MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY
SOUTHERN POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BY REGISTRANT
Applicable Notes
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I
A, B, C, E, F, G, H
A, B, C, E, F, G, H
A, B, C, E, F, G, H
A, B, C, E, F, G, H
A, B, C, E, G, H
Table of Contents
ALABAMA POWER COMPANY
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
GULF POWER COMPANY
MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY
SOUTHERN POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
(A)
INTRODUCTION
The condensed quarterly financial statements of each registrant included herein have been prepared
by such registrant, without audit, pursuant to the rules and regulations of the SEC. The Condensed
Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2009 have been derived from the audited financial statements of
each registrant. In the opinion of each registrants management, the information regarding such
registrant furnished herein reflects all adjustments, which, except as otherwise disclosed, are of
a normal recurring nature, necessary to present fairly the results of operations for the periods
ended September 30, 2010 and 2009. Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included
in annual financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted
in the United States have been condensed or omitted pursuant to such rules and regulations,
although each registrant believes that the disclosures regarding such registrant are adequate to
make the information presented not misleading. Disclosures which would substantially duplicate the
disclosures in the Form 10-K and details which have not changed significantly in amount or
composition since the filing of the Form 10-K are generally omitted from this Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q. Therefore, these Condensed Financial Statements should be read in conjunction with the
financial statements and the notes thereto included in the Form 10-K. Due to the seasonal
variations in the demand for energy, operating results for the periods presented are not
necessarily indicative of the operating results to be expected for the full year.
Certain prior years data presented in the financial statements have been reclassified to conform
to the current year presentation.
Affiliate Transactions
In January 2010, Gulf Power purchased turbine rotor assembly parts owned by Georgia Power and
Southern Power for approximately $4 million and $6 million, respectively. In June 2010,
Mississippi Power purchased a turbine rotor assembly part from Gulf Power for approximately $6
million. In September 2010, Georgia Power purchased a compressor rotor assembly part owned by Gulf
Power for approximately $4 million. In September 2010, Southern Power purchased turbine rotor
assembly parts owned by Georgia Power, Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power for approximately $6
million, $1 million, and $7 million, respectively. These affiliate transactions were in accordance
with FERC and state PSC rules and guidelines.
Variable Interest Entities
Effective January 1, 2010, the traditional operating companies and Southern Power adopted new
accounting guidance which modified the consolidation model and expanded disclosures related to
variable interest entities (VIE). The primary beneficiary of a VIE is required to consolidate the
VIE when it has both the power to direct the activities of the VIE that most significantly impact
the VIEs economic performance and the obligation to absorb losses or the right to receive benefits
from the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE. The adoption of this new accounting
guidance did not result in the traditional operating companies or Southern Power consolidating any
VIEs that were not already consolidated under previous guidance, nor deconsolidating any VIEs.
Mississippi Power is required to provide financing for all costs associated with the mine
development and operation under a contract with Liberty Fuels Company, LLC (Liberty Fuels) in
conjunction with the construction of Kemper IGCC described in Note (B) under State PSC Matters Mississippi Power Integrated Coal
Gasification Combined Cycle herein. Liberty Fuels qualifies as a VIE for which Mississippi Power
is the primary beneficiary. As of September 30, 2010, Liberty Fuels has not had a material impact
on the financial position and results of operations of Mississippi Power.
Table of Contents
Southern Power has certain wholly-owned subsidiaries that are determined to be VIEs. Southern
Power is considered the primary beneficiary of these VIEs because it controls the most significant
activities of the VIEs, including operating and maintaining the respective assets, and has the
obligation to absorb expected losses of these VIEs to the extent of its equity interests.
(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 registrants 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 United States. 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 the registrants and
any of their 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 liabilities, if any, arising from such
current proceedings would have a material adverse effect on such registrants financial statements.
Mirant Matters
Mirant was an energy company with businesses that included independent power projects and energy
trading and risk management companies in the U.S. and selected other countries. It was a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Southern Company until its initial public offering in October 2000. In
April 2001, Southern Company completed a spin-off to its shareholders of its remaining ownership,
and Mirant became an independent corporate entity.
In July 2003, Mirant and certain of its affiliates filed voluntary petitions for relief under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas.
The Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming Mirants plan of reorganization in December 2005,
and Mirant announced that this plan became effective in January 2006. As part of the plan, Mirant
transferred substantially all of its assets and its restructured debt to a new corporation that
adopted the name Mirant Corporation (Reorganized Mirant).
Under the terms of the separation agreements entered into in connection with the spin-off, Mirant
agreed to indemnify Southern Company for certain costs. As a result of Mirants bankruptcy,
Southern Company sought reimbursement as an unsecured creditor in Mirants Chapter 11 proceeding.
If Southern Companys claims for indemnification with respect to these costs are allowed, then
Mirants indemnity obligations to Southern Company would constitute unsecured claims against Mirant
entitled to stock in Reorganized Mirant. As a result of the $202 million settlement in March 2009
of another suit related to Mirant (MC Asset Recovery litigation), the maximum amount Southern
Company can assert by proof of claim in the Mirant bankruptcy is capped at $9.5 million. See Note
5 to the financial statements of Southern Company under Effective Tax Rate in Item 8 of the Form
10-K for more information regarding the MC Asset Recovery litigation settlement. By settlement
agreement, dated as of July 7, 2010, substantially all the claims filed by Southern Company against
Mirant have been resolved. Pursuant to the agreement, Southern Company was given allowed unsecured
claims against Mirant in the aggregate amount of approximately $8.8 million, which claims will be
treated pursuant to the terms of the Mirant plan of reorganization. The parties also released each
other from any other claims arising from events or conduct prior to the effective date of Mirants
plan of reorganization, with certain limited exceptions. The settlement has been approved by the
bankruptcy court. This matter is now concluded.
Table of Contents
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 the 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 Powers Plant Crist and Mississippi Powers 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 original action, now
solely against Georgia Power, has been administratively closed since the spring of 2001, and the
case has not been reopened.
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 July 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama granted partial summary judgment in favor of Alabama Power with respect to its
other affected units regarding the proper legal test for determining whether projects are routine
maintenance, repair, and replacement and therefore are excluded from NSR permitting.
On September 2, 2010, following the end of discovery, 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 the facility co-owned by Mississippi Power. The parties each filed motions
for summary judgment on September 30, 2010. The court has set a trial date for October 2011 for
any remaining claims.
Southern Company and the traditional operating companies believe that they 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; however, the
ultimate outcome of this matter cannot now be determined.
Carbon Dioxide Litigation
New York Case
In July 2004, three environmental groups and attorneys general from eight states, each outside of
Southern Companys 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 have not, however, requested that damages be awarded in
connection with their claims. Southern Company believes these claims are without merit and notes
that the complaint cites no statutory or regulatory basis for the claims. In September 2005, the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Southern Companys 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, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit reversed the district courts ruling, vacating the
Table of Contents
dismissal of the plaintiffs claim, and remanding the case to the district court. In November
2009, the defendants, including Southern Company, sought rehearing en banc. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the defendants petition for rehearing en banc on March 5,
2010. On August 2, 2010, the defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court. The ultimate outcome of these matters 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 contend that the village is being
destroyed by erosion allegedly 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 and notes that the complaint cites no
statutory or regulatory basis for the claims. 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 the standard for determining 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 courts order dismissing the case. 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 courts have recently determined that private parties
and states have standing to bring such claims. For example, in October 2009, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippis dismissal of private party claims against certain oil, coal, chemical, and utility
companies alleging damages as a result of Hurricane Katrina. In reversing the dismissal, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that plaintiffs have standing to assert their nuisance,
trespass, and negligence claims and none of these claims are barred by the political question
doctrine. On May 28, 2010, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the
plaintiffs appeal of the case based on procedural grounds relating to the loss of a quorum by the
full court on reconsideration, reinstating the district court decision in favor of the defendants.
On August 27, 2010, the plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus
directing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to reinstate the plaintiffs appeal.
Southern Company is not currently a party to this litigation, but the traditional operating
companies and Southern Power were named as defendants in an amended complaint which was rendered
moot in August 2007 by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi when such
court dismissed the original matter. 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 Powers environmental remediation liability as of September 30, 2010 was $13.8 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 claims for recovery of
natural resource damages at this site or for the assessment and potential cleanup of other sites on
the Georgia Hazardous
Table of Contents
Sites Inventory and CERCLA NPL are anticipated; however, they are not expected to have a material
impact on Georgia Powers financial statements.
By letter dated September 30, 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 from the EPA. Georgia Power, along with other named PRPs, is
negotiating with the EPA to address cleanup of the site and reimbursement for past expenditures
related to work performed at the site. 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. 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 Georgia
Powers financial statements.
Gulf Powers environmental remediation liability includes estimated costs of environmental
remediation projects of approximately $62.2 million as of September 30, 2010. 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 Powers
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
Powers 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 on Mississippi Power 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.
FERC Matters
Market-Based Rate Authority
Each of the traditional operating companies and Southern Power has authorization from the FERC to
sell power to non-affiliates, including short-term opportunity sales, at market-based prices.
Specific FERC approval must be obtained with respect to a market-based contract with an affiliate.
In December 2004, the FERC initiated a proceeding to assess Southern Companys generation market
power within its retail service territory. The ability to charge market-based rates in other
markets was not an issue in the proceeding. Any new market-based rate sales by any subsidiary of
Southern Company in Southern Companys retail service territory entered into during a 15-month
refund period that ended in May 2006 could have been subject to refund to a cost-based rate level.
In December 2009, Southern Company and the FERC trial staff reached an agreement in principle that
would resolve the proceeding in its entirety. The agreement does not reflect any finding or
suggestion that any subsidiary of Southern Company possesses or has exercised any market power.
The agreement likewise does not require Southern Company to make any refunds related to sales
during the 15-month refund period. The agreement does provide for the traditional operating
companies and Southern Power to donate a total of $1.7 million to nonprofit organizations in the
states in which they operate for the purpose of offsetting the electricity bills of low-income
retail customers. The joint offer of settlement
Table of Contents
was filed on March 2, 2010. On July 13, 2010, the FERC issued an order approving the filed
settlement, finding it to be fair, reasonable, and in the public interest. The traditional
operating companies and Southern Power made the related donations. This matter is now concluded.
Intercompany Interchange Contract
Southern Companys generation fleet in its retail service territory is operated under the
Intercompany Interchange Contract (IIC), as approved by the FERC. In May 2005, the FERC initiated
a new proceeding to examine (1) the provisions of the IIC among the traditional operating
companies, Southern Power, and SCS, as agent, under the terms of which the Power Pool is operated,
(2) whether any parties to the IIC have violated the FERCs standards of conduct applicable to
utility companies that are transmission providers, and (3) whether Southern Companys code of
conduct defining Southern Power as a system company rather than a marketing affiliate is just
and reasonable. In connection with the formation of Southern Power, the FERC authorized Southern
Powers inclusion in the IIC in 2000. The FERC also previously approved Southern Companys code of
conduct.
In October 2006, the FERC issued an order accepting a settlement resolving the proceeding subject
to Southern Companys agreement to accept certain modifications to the settlements terms.
Southern Company notified the FERC that it accepted the modifications. The modifications largely
involve functional separation and information restrictions related to marketing activities
conducted on behalf of Southern Power. In November 2006, Southern Company filed with the FERC a
compliance plan in connection with the order. In April 2007, the FERC approved, with certain
modifications, the plan submitted by Southern Company. Implementation of the plan did not have a
material impact on Southern Companys or the traditional operating companies financial statements.
In November 2007, Southern Company notified the FERC that the plan had been implemented. In
December 2008, the FERC division of audits issued for public comment its final audit report
pertaining to compliance implementation and related matters. No comments were submitted
challenging the audit reports findings of Southern Companys compliance. The proceeding remains
open pending a decision from the FERC regarding the audit report.
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 that
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 Companys or Mississippi Powers 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, a subsidiary of telecommunications company ITC DeltaCom, Inc. that uses
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 plaintiffs 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 companys
appeal of the trial courts order for lack of jurisdiction.
On August 24, 2010, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the suit.
The plaintiff has opposed this motion.
An adverse outcome in this matter, combined with an adverse outcome
against the telecommunications company in one or more of the
Table of Contents
right of
way lawsuits, could result in substantial judgments; however, the
final outcome of these matters 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 governments 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. On May 5,
2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit lifted the stay.
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 governments alleged
continuing breach of contract. In October 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
denied a similar request by the government to stay this proceeding. 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 September 30, 2010 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.
Income Tax Matters
Georgia State Income Tax Credits
Georgia Powers 2005 through 2009 income tax filings for the State of Georgia include state income
tax credits for increased activity through Georgia ports. Georgia Power had also filed similar
claims for the years 2002 through 2004. The Georgia Department of Revenue has not responded to
these claims. 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 March 22, 2010, the Superior
Court of Fulton County ruled in favor of Georgia Powers motion for summary judgment. The Georgia
Department of Revenue has appealed to the Georgia Court of Appeals. An unrecognized tax benefit
has been recorded related to these credits. If Georgia Power prevails, no material impact on
Southern Companys or Georgia Powers net income is expected as a significant portion of any tax
benefit is expected to be returned to retail customers. If Georgia Power is not successful,
payment of the related state tax could have a significant, and possibly material, negative effect
on Southern Companys and Georgia Powers cash flow. See Note 5 to the financial statements of
Southern Company and Georgia Power in Item 8 of the Form 10-K under Unrecognized Tax Benefits and
Note (G) herein for additional information. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot now be
determined.
Tax Method of Accounting for Repairs
Southern Company submitted a change in the tax accounting method for repair costs associated with
Southern Companys generation, transmission, and distribution systems with the filing of the 2009
federal income tax return in September 2010. The new tax method is expected to result in net
positive cash flow for 2010 of approximately $117 million for Alabama Power, $110 million for
Georgia Power, $6 million for Gulf Power, $3 million for Mississippi Power, $5 million for Southern
Power, and $243 million for Southern Company on a consolidated basis. Although IRS approval of
this change is considered automatic, the amount claimed is subject to review because the IRS will
be issuing final guidance on this issue. Currently, the IRS is working with the utility industry
in an effort to resolve this matter in a consistent manner for all utilities. Due to uncertainty
concerning the ultimate resolution of this issue, an unrecognized tax benefit has been recorded for
the change in the tax accounting method for repair costs. See Note (G) herein for additional
information. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.
Table of Contents
Bonus Depreciation
On September 27, 2010, the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010 (SBJCA) was signed into law.
The SBJCA includes an extension of the 50% bonus depreciation for certain property acquired in 2010
and placed in service in 2010 or, in certain limited cases, 2011. The estimated cash flow
reduction to tax payments for 2010 are approximately $102 million for Alabama Power, $130 million
for Georgia Power, $37 million for Gulf Power, $16 million for Mississippi Power, $3 million for
Southern Power, and $309 million for Southern Company on a consolidated basis.
State PSC Matters
Alabama Power
Nuclear Outage Accounting Order
On August 17, 2010, the Alabama PSC approved a change to the nuclear maintenance outage accounting
process associated with routine refueling activities. Currently, Alabama Power accrues nuclear
outage operations and maintenance expenses for the two units of Plant Farley during the 18-month
cycle for the outages. In accordance with the new order, nuclear outage expenses will be deferred
when the charges actually occur and then amortized over the subsequent 18-month period.
The initial result of implementation of the new accounting order is that no nuclear maintenance
outage expenses will be recognized from January 2011 through December 2011, which will decrease
nuclear outage operations and maintenance expenses in 2011 from 2010 by approximately $50 million.
During the fall of 2011, actual nuclear outage expenses associated with one unit of Plant Farley
will be deferred to a regulatory asset account; beginning in January 2012 these deferred costs will
be amortized to nuclear operations and maintenance expense over an 18-month period. During the
spring of 2012, actual nuclear outage expenses associated with the other unit of Plant Farley will
be deferred to a regulatory asset account; beginning in July 2012 these deferred costs will be
amortized to nuclear operations and maintenance expense over an 18-month period. Alabama Power
will continue the pattern of deferral of nuclear outage expenses as incurred and the recognition of
expenses over a subsequent 18-month period.
Natural Disaster Cost Recovery
See Note 3 to the financial statements of Alabama Power under Retail Regulatory Matters Natural
Disaster Reserve in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for information regarding natural disaster cost
recovery.
Based on an order from the Alabama PSC, Alabama Power maintains a reserve for operations and
maintenance expense to cover the cost of damages from major storms to its transmission and
distribution facilities, referred to as the NDR.
On August 20, 2010, the Alabama PSC approved an order enhancing the NDR that eliminated the $75
million authorized limit and allows Alabama Power to make additional accruals to the NDR. The
order also allows for reliability-related expenditures to be charged against the additional
accruals when the NDR balance exceeds $75 million. Alabama Power may designate a portion of the
NDR to reliability-related expenditures as a part of an annual budget process for the following
year or during the current year for identified unbudgeted reliability-related expenditures that are
incurred. Accruals that have not been designated can be used to offset storm charges. Additional
accruals to the NDR will enhance Alabama Powers ability to deal with the financial effects of
future natural disasters, promote system reliability, and offset costs retail customers would
otherwise bear.
The structure of the monthly Rate NDR charge to customers is not altered and continues to include a
component to maintain the $75 million base reserve.
Table of Contents
In September 2010, Alabama Power accrued an additional $40 million to the NDR, resulting in an
accumulated balance of approximately $118 million, which is included in the Condensed Balance
Sheets herein under other regulatory liabilities, deferred. The additional accruals are reflected
as operations and maintenance expense in the Condensed Statements of Income herein.
Georgia Power
Rate Plans
See Note 3 to the financial statements of Georgia Power under Retail Regulatory Matters Rate
Plans and of Southern Company under Retail Regulatory Matters Georgia Power Retail Rate
Plans and Cost of Removal in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for information regarding the 2007 Retail
Rate Plan.
On August 27, 2009, the Georgia PSC approved an accounting order that would allow Georgia Power to
amortize up to $324 million of its regulatory liability related to other cost of removal
obligations. Under the terms of the accounting order, Georgia Power was entitled to amortize up to
one-third of the regulatory liability ($108 million) in 2009, limited to the amount needed to earn
no more than a 9.75% retail return on equity (ROE). In addition, Georgia Power may amortize up to
two-thirds of the regulatory liability ($216 million) in 2010, limited to the amount needed to earn
no more than a 10.15% retail ROE. From July 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010, Georgia Power had
amortized $161 million of the regulatory liability. Georgia Power currently expects to amortize
approximately $40 million of the regulatory liability in the fourth quarter 2010; however, the
final amount is subject to the limitations described previously and cannot be determined at this
time.
In accordance with the 2007 Retail Rate Plan, Georgia Power filed a base rate case with the Georgia
PSC on July 1, 2010. The filing includes a requested rate increase totaling $615 million, or 8.2%
of retail revenues, to be effective January 1, 2011 based on a proposed retail ROE of 11.95%. The
requested increase will be recovered through Georgia Powers existing base rate tariffs as follows:
$451 million, or 6.0%, through the traditional base rate tariffs; $115 million, or 1.5%, through
the Environmental Compliance Cost Recovery (ECCR) tariff; $32 million through the Demand Side
Management (DSM) tariffs; and $17 million through the Municipal Franchise Fee (MFF) tariff. The
majority of the increase in retail revenues is being requested to cover the costs of environmental
compliance and continued investment in new generation, transmission, and distribution facilities to
support growth and ensure reliability. The remainder of the increase includes recovery of higher
operation, maintenance, and other investment costs to meet the current and future demand for
electricity.
Unlike rate plans based on traditional one-year test periods, the 2007 Retail Rate Plan was
designed to operate for the three-year period ending December 31, 2010. The 2010 rate case request
includes proposed enhancements to the structure of the 2007 Retail Rate Plan to fit the current
economic climate, including a process of annual tariff compliance reviews that would allow it to
continue to operate for multiple years (Proposed Alternate Rate Plan). The primary points of the
Proposed Alternate Rate Plan include:
§
Continuation of a plus or minus 100 basis point range for ROE.
§
Creation of an Adjustable Cost Recovery (ACR) tariff. If approved, beginning with an
effective date of January 1, 2012, the ACR will work to maintain Georgia Powers earnings
within the ROE band established by the Georgia PSC in this case. If Georgia Powers
earnings projected for the upcoming year are within the ROE band, no adjustment under the
ACR tariff will be requested. If Georgia Powers earnings projected for the upcoming year
are outside (either above or below) the approved ROE band, the ACR tariff will be used to
adjust projected earnings back to the mid-point of the approved ROE band.
The ACR tariff would also return to the sharing mechanism used prior to the 2007 Retail Rate
Plan whereby two-thirds of any actual earnings for the previous year above the approved ROE
band would be refunded to customers, with the remaining one-third retained by Georgia Power
as incentive to manage expenses and operate as efficiently as possible. In addition, if
earnings are below the approved ROE band, Georgia Power would accept one-third of the
shortfall and retail customers would be responsible for the remaining two-thirds.
Table of Contents
§
Creation of a new Certified Capacity Cost Recovery (CCCR) tariff to recover costs
related to new capacity additions certified by the Georgia PSC and updated through
applicable project construction monitoring reports and hearings.
§
Continuation and enhancement of the ECCR and DSM-Residential tariffs from the 2007
Retail Rate Plan and creation of a DSM-Commercial tariff to recover environmental capital
and operating costs resulting from governmental mandates and DSM costs approved and
certified by the Georgia PSC.
§
Implementation of an annual review of the MFF tariff to adjust for changes in relative
gross receipts between customers served inside and outside municipal boundaries.
These proposed enhancements would become effective in 2012 with revenue requirements for each
tariff updated through separate compliance filings based on Georgia Powers budget for the upcoming
year. Based on Georgia Powers 2010 budget, earnings are currently projected to be slightly below
the proposed ROE band in 2012 and within the band in 2013. However, updated budgets and revenue
forecasts may eliminate, increase, or decrease the need for an ACR tariff adjustment in either
year. In addition, Georgia Power currently estimates the ECCR tariff would increase by $120
million in 2012 and would decrease by $12 million in 2013. The CCCR tariff would begin recovering
the costs of Plant McDonough Units 4, 5, and 6 with increases of $99 million in February 2012, $77
million in June 2012, and $76 million in February 2013. The DSM tariffs would increase by $17
million in 2012 and $18 million in 2013 to reflect the terms of the stipulated agreement in Georgia
Powers 2010 DSM Certification proceeding. Amounts recovered under the MFF tariff are based on
amounts recovered under all other tariffs.
Hearings on Georgia Powers direct testimony were held in October 2010. In direct testimony filed
on October 22, 2010, the Georgia PSC Staff proposed various adjustments based on a traditional
one-year test period that would result in a proposed increase of $436 million in 2011 using a 10.5%
ROE. The Georgia PSC Staff recommendation would also allow additional increases of $181 million
and $88 million in 2012 and 2013, respectively, to recover the costs associated with Plant
McDonough Units 4, 5, and 6. These additional increases would be recovered through Georgia Powers
traditional base rate tariffs. While supporting the proposed DSM and MFF tariffs, the Georgia PSC
Staff recommended against approval of the proposed ECCR, CCCR, and ACR tariffs. Georgia Power
disagrees with the Georgia PSC Staffs positions. Hearings on the Georgia PSC Staff and intervenor
direct testimony will be held in November 2010. Georgia Powers rebuttal hearings will occur in
early December 2010. The Georgia PSC is scheduled to issue a final order in this matter on
December 21, 2010.
The final outcome of these matters cannot now be determined.
Fuel Cost Recovery
See Note 3 to the financial statements of Southern Company under Retail Regulatory Matters
Georgia Power Fuel Cost Recovery and of Georgia Power under Retail Regulatory Matters Fuel
Cost Recovery in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information on Georgia Powers fuel cost
recovery.
On March 11, 2010, the Georgia PSC voted to approve the stipulation among Georgia Power, the
Georgia PSC Staff, and three customer groups with the exception that the under recovered fuel
balance be collected over 42 months. The new rates, which became effective April 1, 2010, will
result in an increase of approximately $373 million to Georgia Powers total annual fuel cost
recovery billings. Georgia Power is required to file its next fuel case by March 1, 2011.
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 Powers
construction of two additional nuclear generating units on the site of Plant Vogtle (Plant Vogtle
Units 3 and 4).
Table of Contents
In June 2009, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) filed a petition in the Superior Court
of Fulton County, Georgia seeking review of the Georgia PSCs certification order and challenging
the constitutionality of the Georgia Nuclear Financing Act. On May 5, 2010, the court dismissed as
premature the plaintiffs claim challenging the Georgia Nuclear Energy Financing Act. The
dismissal of the claim related to the Georgia Nuclear Energy Financing Act is subject to appeal and
the plaintiffs are expected to re-file this claim in the future. In addition, on May 5, 2010, the
court issued an order remanding the Georgia PSCs certification order for inclusion of further
findings of fact and conclusions of law by the Georgia PSC. In compliance with the courts order,
the Georgia PSC issued its order on remand to include further findings of fact and conclusions of
law on June 23, 2010. On July 5, 2010, the SACE and the Fulton County Taxpayers Foundation, Inc.
filed separate motions with the Georgia PSC for reconsideration of the order on remand. On August
17, 2010, the Georgia PSC voted to reaffirm its order. The SACE subsequently appealed to the
Superior Court of Fulton County.
In August 2009 and June 2010, the NRC issued letters to Westinghouse revising the review schedules
needed to certify the AP1000 standard design for new reactors in response to concerns related to
the availability of adequate information and the shield building design. The shield building
protects the containment and provides structural support to the containment cooling water supply.
Georgia Power is continuing to work with Westinghouse and the NRC to resolve these concerns. Any
possible delays in the AP1000 design certification schedule, including those addressed by the NRC
in their letters, are not currently expected to affect the projected commercial operation dates for
Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4.
On August 17, 2010, the Georgia PSC voted to approve Georgia Powers semi-annual construction
monitoring report including all construction and capital costs of $583 million made on Plant Vogtle
Units 3 and 4 through December 31, 2009. The Georgia PSC also approved an amendment to the
engineering, procurement, and construction agreement for Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 that replaced
certain index-based adjustments with fixed escalation factors. Georgia Power will continue to file
construction monitoring reports by February 28 and August 31 of each year during the construction
period.
On September 3, 2010, Georgia Power filed with the Georgia PSC the Nuclear Construction Cost
Recovery tariff, as authorized in April 2009 under the Georgia Nuclear Energy Financing Act. The
filing includes a rate increase of approximately $218 million to recover financing costs associated
with the construction of Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4, effective January 1, 2011.
There are pending technical and procedural challenges to the construction and licensing of Plant
Vogtle Units 3 and 4. 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
In August 2009, Georgia Power filed its quarterly construction monitoring report for Plant
McDonough Units 4, 5, and 6 for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. In September 2009, Georgia Power
amended the report. As amended, the report included a request for an increase in the certified
costs to construct Plant McDonough. On February 24, 2010, Georgia Power reached a stipulation
agreement with the Georgia PSC staff that was approved by the Georgia PSC on March 16, 2010. The
stipulation resolved the June 30, 2009 construction monitoring report, including the approval of
actual expenditures and the requested increase in the certified amount.
On May 6, 2010, the Georgia PSC approved Georgia Powers 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. In addition, on
September 7, 2010, the Georgia PSC approved the March 31, 2010 construction monitoring report
including actual project expenditures incurred through March 31, 2010.
On September 21, 2010, the Georgia PSC approved Georgia Powers offer to place 562 MWs of wholesale
capacity into retail rate base. A portion of the capacity will go into retail rate base in January
2015, with the remainder going into retail rate base starting April 1, 2016.
Table of Contents
Mississippi Power
Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle
See Note 3 to the financial statements of Southern Company under Retail Regulatory Matters
Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) and of Mississippi Power under Integrated
Coal Gasification Combined Cycle in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for information regarding
Mississippi Powers construction of the Kemper IGCC.
On March 9, 2010, the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality issued the PSD air permit
modification for the Kemper IGCC, which modifies the original PSD air permit issued in October
2008. The Mississippi Chapter of the Sierra Club has requested a formal evidentiary hearing
regarding the issuance of the modified permit.
In addition to the Internal Revenue Code Section 48A Phase I tax credits of $133 million certified
by the IRS in May 2009, Mississippi Power filed an application in November 2009 with the DOE and in
December 2009 with the IRS for certain tax credits available to projects using advanced coal
technologies under the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008. The DOE subsequently
certified the Kemper IGCC, and on April 30, 2010, the IRS allocated $279 million of Phase II tax
credits under Section 48A of the Internal Revenue Code to Mississippi Power. On September 30,
2010, Mississippi Power and the IRS executed the closing agreement for the Phase II tax credits.
The utilization of these credits is dependent upon meeting the IRS certification requirements and
completing the Kemper IGCC in a timely manner. Mississippi Power has secured all environmental
reviews and permits necessary to commence construction of the Kemper IGCC and has entered into a
binding contract for the steam turbine generator, completing two milestone requirements for these
credits. In order to remain eligible for the Phase II tax credits, Mississippi Power must capture
and sequester at least 65% of the carbon dioxide produced by the plant during operations in
accordance with the recapture rules for Section 48A investment tax credits, and must meet the
required in-service date, satisfy environmental and other permitting requirements, and have in
place a binding contract for the steam turbine generator.
On April 29, 2010, the Mississippi PSC issued an order finding that Mississippi Powers
application to acquire, construct, and operate the Kemper IGCC did not satisfy the requirement
of public convenience and necessity in the form that the project and the related cost recovery
were originally proposed by Mississippi Power. The April 2010 order also approved recovery of
$46 million of $50.5 million in prudent pre-construction costs incurred through March 2009. The
remaining $4.5 million is associated with overhead costs and variable pay of SCS, which were
recommended for exclusion from pre-construction costs by a consultant hired by the Mississippi
Public Utilities Staff. An additional $3.5 million has been incurred for costs of this type
from March 2009 through May 2010. The remaining $4.5 million, as well as additional
pre-construction amounts incurred during the generation screening and evaluation process through
May 2010 will be reviewed and addressed in a future proceeding.
On May 10, 2010, Mississippi Power filed a motion in response to the April 29, 2010 order of the
Mississippi PSC relating to the Kemper IGCC, or in the alternative, for alteration or rehearing
of such order.
On May 26, 2010, the Mississippi PSC issued an order revising its findings from the April 29,
2010 order. Among other things, the Mississippi PSCs May 26, 2010 order (1) approved the
alternate construction cost cap of up to $2.88 billion (and any amounts that fall within
specified exemptions from the cost cap; such exemptions include the costs of the lignite mine
and equipment), subject to determinations by the Mississippi PSC that such costs in excess of
$2.4 billion are prudent and required by the public convenience and necessity; (2) provided for
the establishment of operational cost and revenue parameters based upon assumptions in
Mississippi Powers proposal; and (3) approved financing cost recovery on construction work in
progress (CWIP) balances under the State of Mississippi Baseload Act of 2008 (Baseload Act),
which provides for the accrual of allowance for funds used during construction in 2010 and
2011 and recovery of financing costs on 100% of CWIP in 2012, 2013, and through May 1, 2014
(provided that the amount of CWIP allowed is (i) reduced by the amount of government
construction cost incentives received by Mississippi Power in excess of $296 million to the
extent that such amount increases cash flow for the pertinent regulatory period and (ii)
justified by a showing that such CWIP allowance will benefit customers over the life of the
plant). The Mississippi PSC order established periodic prudence reviews during the annual CWIP
review process. More frequent prudence determinations may be requested at a later time. On May
27, 2010, Mississippi
Table of Contents
Power filed a motion with the Mississippi PSC accepting the conditions
contained in the order. On June 3, 2010, the
Mississippi PSC issued the final certificate order which granted Mississippi Powers motion and
issued a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing acquisition, construction,
and operation of the Kemper IGCC.
In conjunction with the Kemper IGCC, Mississippi Power will own the lignite mine and equipment
and will acquire mineral reserves located at the plant site in Kemper County. The estimated
capital cost of the mine is approximately $214 million. On May 27, 2010, Mississippi Power
executed a 40-year management fee contract with Liberty Fuels Company, LLC, a subsidiary of The
North American Coal Corporation, which will develop, construct, and manage the mining
operations. The agreement is effective June 1, 2010 through the end of the mine reclamation.
On June 17, 2010, the Sierra Club filed an appeal of the Mississippi PSCs June 3, 2010 decision
to grant a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the Kemper IGCC with the Chancery
Court of Harrison County, Mississippi (Chancery Court). Subsequently, on July 6, 2010, the
Sierra Club also filed an appeal directly with the Mississippi Supreme Court. On July 20, 2010,
the Chancery Court issued a stay of the proceeding pending the resolution of the jurisdictional
issues raised in a motion filed by Mississippi Power on July 16, 2010 to confirm jurisdiction in
the Mississippi Supreme Court. On October 7, 2010, the Mississippi Supreme Court denied
Mississippi Powers motion and dismissed the Sierra Clubs direct appeal. The appeal will now
proceed in the Chancery Court.
On July 27, 2010, Mississippi Power and South Mississippi Electric Power Association (SMEPA)
entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement whereby SMEPA will purchase an undivided 17.5% interest
in the Kemper IGCC. The closing of this transaction is conditioned upon execution of a joint
ownership and operating agreement, receipt of all construction permits, appropriate regulatory
approvals, financing, and other conditions.
On August 19, 2010, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Record of Decision (ROD) by the
DOE for the Clean Coal Power Initiative Round 2 (CCPI2) grants was noted in the Federal
Register. The NEPA ROD and its accompanying final environmental impact statement were the final
major hurdles necessary for Mississippi Power to receive grant funds of $245 million during the
construction of the Kemper IGCC and $25 million during the initial operation of the Kemper IGCC.
As of September 30, 2010, Mississippi Power had spent a total of $195.5 million on the Kemper
IGCC, including regulatory filing costs. Of this total, $156.4 million was included in CWIP
(net of $24.8 million recorded as a receivable of CCPI2 grant funds), $11.5 million was recorded
in other regulatory assets, $1.3 million was recorded in other deferred charges and assets, and
$1.5 million was expensed. Upon receipt of the issuance of the final certificate order in May
2010, construction screening costs including regulatory filing costs totaled $129.0 million. As
of May 31, 2010, construction related screening costs of $116.2 million were reclassified to
CWIP while the non-capital related costs of $11.2 million and $0.6 million were classified in
other regulatory assets and other deferred charges, respectively, and $1.0 million was
previously expensed.
The ultimate outcome of these matters cannot now be determined.
Table of Contents
(C)
FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS
As of September 30, 2010, assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis
during the period, together with the level of the fair value hierarchy in which they fall, were
as follows:
Fair Value Measurements Using
Quoted Prices
in Active
Significant
Markets for
Other
Significant
Identical
Observable
Unobservable
Assets
Inputs
Inputs
As of September 30, 2010:
(Level 1)
(Level 2)
(Level 3)
Total
(in millions)
$
$
8
$
$
8
17
17
5
5
758
390
1,148
1,082
1,082
21
51
13
85
$
1,861
$
471
$
13
$
2,345
$
$
256
$
$
256
2
2
$
$
258
$
$
258
$
304
$
55
$
$
359
20
8
28
86
86
32
32
10
10
319
319
$
643
$
191
$
$
834
$
$
54
$
$
54
Table of Contents
Fair Value Measurements Using
Quoted Prices
in Active
Significant
Markets for
Other
Significant
Identical
Observable
Unobservable
Assets
Inputs
Inputs
As of September 30, 2010:
(Level 1)
(Level 2)
(Level 3)
Total
(in millions)
$
434
$
1
$
$
435
26
26
38
38
76
76
41
41
17
17
574
574
$
1,008
$
199
$
$
1,207
$
$
121
$
$
121
$
12
$
$
$
12
$
$
18
$
$
18
$
$
5
$
$
5
125
125
$
125
$
5
$
$
130
$
$
54
$
$
54
$
$
7
$
$
7
$
$
9
$
$
9
(a)
Excludes receivables related to investment income, pending investment sales, and
payables related to pending investment purchases.
(b)
For additional detail, see the nuclear decommissioning trusts sections for Alabama
Power and Georgia Power in this table.
Valuation Methodologies
The energy-related derivatives primarily consist of over-the-counter financial products for
natural gas and physical power products, including from time to time, basis swaps. These are
standard products used within the energy industry and are valued using the market approach. The
inputs used are mainly from observable market sources, such as forward natural gas prices, power
prices, implied volatility, and LIBOR interest rates. Interest rate and foreign currency
derivatives are also standard over-the-counter financial products valued using the market
approach. Inputs for interest rate derivatives include LIBOR interest rates, interest rate
futures contracts, and occasionally implied volatility of interest rate options. Inputs for
foreign currency derivatives are from observable market sources. See Note (H) herein for
additional information on how these derivatives are used.
Table of Contents
Other investments include investments in funds that are valued using the market approach and
income approach. Securities that are traded in the open market are valued at the closing price
on their principal exchange as of the measurement date. Discounts are applied in accordance
with GAAP when certain trading restrictions exist. For investments that are not traded in the
open market, the price paid will have been determined based on market factors including
comparable multiples and the expectations regarding cash flows and business plan execution. As
the investments mature or if market conditions change materially, further analysis of the fair
market value of the investment is performed. This analysis is typically based on a metric, such
as multiple of earnings, revenues, earnings before interest and income taxes, or earnings
adjusted for certain cash changes. These multiples are based on comparable multiples for
publicly traded companies or other relevant prior transactions.
For fair value measurements of investments within the nuclear decommissioning trusts and rabbi
trust funds, specifically the fixed income assets using significant other observable inputs and
significant unobservable inputs, the primary valuation technique used is the market approach.
External pricing vendors are designated for each of the asset classes in the nuclear
decommissioning trusts and rabbi trust funds with each security discriminately assigned a
primary pricing source, based on similar characteristics.
A market price secured from the primary source vendor is then used in the valuation of the
assets within the trusts. As a general approach, market pricing vendors gather market data
(including indices and market research reports) and integrate relative credit information,
observed market movements, and sector news into proprietary pricing models, pricing systems, and
mathematical tools. Dealer quotes and other market information including live trading levels
and pricing analysts judgment are also obtained when available.
As of September 30, 2010, the fair value measurements of investments calculated at net asset
value per share (or its equivalent), as well as the nature and risks of those investments, were
as follows:
Fair
Unfunded
Redemption
Redemption
As of September 30, 2010:
Value
Commitments
Frequency
Notice Period
(in millions)
$
35
None
Daily
1 to 3 days
17
None
Daily
Not applicable
81
None
Daily
15 days
1,082
None
Daily
Not applicable
1
None
Daily
Not applicable
$
81
None
Daily
15 days
319
None
Daily
Not applicable
$
35
None
Daily
1 to 3 days
17
None
Daily
Not applicable
574
None
Daily
Not applicable
$
12
None
Daily
Not applicable
$
125
None
Daily
Not applicable
Table of Contents
The commingled funds in the nuclear decommissioning trusts invest primarily in a
diversified portfolio of investment high grade money market instruments, including, but not
limited to, commercial paper, notes, repurchase agreements, and other evidences of indebtedness
with a maturity not exceeding 13 months from the date of purchase. The commingled funds will,
however, maintain a dollar-weighted average portfolio maturity of 90 days or less. The assets
may be longer term investment grade fixed income obligations having a maximum five-year final
maturity with put features or floating rates with a reset rate date of 13 months or less. The
primary objective for the commingled funds is a high level of current income consistent with
stability of principal and liquidity.
Alabama Powers nuclear decommissioning trusts include investments in Trust-Owned Life Insurance
(TOLI). The taxable nuclear decommissioning trust invests in the TOLI in order to minimize the
impact of taxes on the portfolio and can draw on the value of the TOLI through death proceeds,
loans against the cash surrender value, and/or the cash surrender value, subject to legal
restrictions. The amounts reported in the tables above reflect the fair value of investments
the insurer has made in relation to the TOLI agreements. The nuclear decommissioning trusts do
not own the underlying investments, but the fair value of the investments approximates the cash
surrender value of the TOLI policies. The investments made by the insurer are in commingled
funds. The commingled funds primarily include investments in domestic and international equity
securities and predominantly high-quality fixed income securities. These fixed income
securities include U.S. Treasury and government agency fixed income securities, non-U.S.
government and agency fixed income securities, domestic and foreign corporate fixed income
securities, and, to some degree, mortgage and asset backed securities. The passively managed
funds seek to replicate the performance of a related index. The actively managed funds seek to
exceed the performance of a related index through security analysis and selection.
Southern Company, Alabama Power, and Georgia Power account for investment securities held in the
nuclear decommissioning trust funds at fair value. For the three months and nine months ended
September 30, 2010, the increase in fair value of the funds, which includes reinvested interest and
dividends, is recorded in the regulatory liability and was $43 million and $27 million,
respectively, for Alabama Power, $51 million and $25 million, respectively, for Georgia Power, and
$94 million and $52 million, respectively, for Southern Company.
The money market funds are short-term investments of excess funds in various money market mutual
funds, which are portfolios of short-term debt securities. The money market funds are regulated
by the SEC and typically receive the highest rating from credit rating agencies. Regulatory and
rating agency requirements for money market funds include minimum credit ratings and maximum
maturities for individual securities and a maximum weighted average portfolio maturity.
Redemptions are available on a same day basis up to the full amount of the investments in the
money market funds.
Changes in the fair value measurement of the Level 3 items using significant unobservable inputs
for Southern Company at September 30, 2010 were as follows:
Level 3
Other
Three Months Ended
Nine Months Ended
September 30, 2010
September 30, 2010
(in millions)
$
19
$
35
(1
)
(1
)
(5
)
(1
)
(20
)
$
13
$
13
Transfers in and out of the levels of fair value hierarchy are recognized as of the end of the
reporting period. At March 31, 2010, the value of one of the investments was reclassified from
Level 3 to Level 1 because the securities began trading on the public market. The reclassification
is reflected in the table above as a transfer out of Level 3 at its fair value.
Table of Contents
At September 30, 2010, other financial instruments for which the carrying amount did not equal fair
value were as follows:
Carrying Amount
Fair Value
(in millions)
$
20,089
$
21,479
$
6,183
$
6,679
$
8,800
$
9,371
$
1,297
$
1,386
$
617
$
657
$
1,298
$
1,424
The fair values were based on closing market prices (Level 1) or closing prices of comparable
instruments (Level 2).
(D)
STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
Earnings per Share
For Southern Company, the only difference in computing basic and diluted earnings per share is
attributable to exercised options and outstanding options under the stock option plan. See Note 8
to the financial statements of Southern Company in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for further information
on the stock option plan. The effect of the stock options was determined using the treasury stock
method.
Shares used to compute diluted earnings per share were as follows:
Three Months
Three Months
Nine Months
Nine Months
Ended
Ended
Ended
Ended
September 30, 2010
September 30, 2009
September 30, 2010
September 30, 2009
(in thousands)
835,953
798,418
828,947
789,675
5,882
1,760
4,273
1,584
841,835
800,178
833,220
791,259
Stock options that were not included in the diluted earnings per share calculation because they
were anti-dilutive were 6.7 million and 25.5 million for the three months ended September 30, 2010
and 2009, respectively, and 13.7 million and 37.7 million for the nine months ended September 30,
2010 and 2009, respectively. Assuming an average stock price of $38.01 (the highest exercise price
of the anti-dilutive options outstanding), the effect of options would have increased by 0.4
million and 2.2 million shares for the three months ended September 30, 2010 and 2009,
respectively, and 0.8 million and 3.3 million shares for the nine months ended September 30, 2010
and 2009, respectively.
Table of Contents
Changes in Stockholders Equity
The following table presents year-to-date changes in stockholders equity of Southern Company:
Preferred and
Number of
Common
Preference
Total
Common Shares
Stockholders
Stock of
Stockholders
Issued
Treasury
Equity
Subsidiaries
Equity
(in thousands)
(in millions)
820,152
(505
)
$
14,878
$
707
$
15,585
1,822
1,822
16
16
18,994
650
650
(1,114
)
(1,114
)
30
3
3
839,146
(475
)
$
16,255
$
707
$
16,962
777,616
(424
)
$
13,276
$
707
$
13,983
1,394
1,394
20
20
23,078
692
692
(1,018
)
(1,018
)
(58
)
(2
)
(2
)
800,694
(482
)
$
14,362
$
707
$
15,069
(E)
FINANCING
Bank Credit Arrangements
Bank credit arrangements provide liquidity support to the registrants commercial paper borrowings
and the traditional operating companies variable rate pollution control revenue bonds. See Note 6
to the financial statements of Southern Company, Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power,
Mississippi Power, and Southern Power under Bank Credit Arrangements in Item 8 of the Form 10-K
for additional information.
The following table outlines the credit arrangements by company as of September 30, 2010:
Executable
Expires Within One
Term-Loans
Expires
Year
(a)
No
One
Two
Term
Term
Company
Total
Unused
Year
Years
2010
2011
2012
Out
Out
(in millions)
$
950
$
950
$
$
$
$
$
950
$
$
1,271
1,271
372
60
446
765
372
134
1,715
1,703
220
40
595
1,120
260
335
235
235
205
50
185
205
30
161
161
65
41
16
145
106
55
400
400
400
60
60
60
60
60
$
4,792
$
4,780
$
922
$
81
$
126
$
1,431
$
3,235
$
1,003
$
554
(a)
Reflects facilities expiring on or before September 30, 2011.
Table of Contents
Subsequent to September 30, 2010, Gulf Power renewed an existing credit agreement totaling $30
million and increased an existing credit agreement by $5 million; both agreements contain
provisions allowing a one-year term loan executable at expiration and extended the expiration date
to 2011.
(F)
RETIREMENT BENEFITS
Southern Company has a defined benefit, trusteed, pension plan covering substantially all
employees. The plan is funded in accordance with requirements of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA). No mandatory contributions to the plan are expected for
the years ending December 31, 2010 and 2011, although management may consider making discretionary
contributions. Southern Company also provides certain defined benefit pension plans for a selected
group of management and highly compensated employees. Benefits under these non-qualified pension
plans are funded on a cash basis. In addition, Southern Company provides certain medical care and
life insurance benefits for retired employees through other postretirement benefit plans. The
traditional operating companies fund related trusts to the extent required by their respective
regulatory commissions.
See Note 2 to the financial statements of Southern Company, Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf
Power, and Mississippi Power in Item 8 of the Form 10-K.
Components of the net periodic benefit costs for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010
and 2009 were as follows:
Southern
Alabama
Georgia
Gulf
Mississippi
PENSION PLANS
Company
Power
Power
Power
Power
(in millions)
$
43
$
10
$
13
$
2
$
2
98
25
36
5
4
(138
)
(42
)
(54
)
(6
)
(5
)
11
3
4
1
$
14
$
(4
)
$
(1
)
$
1
$
2
$
129
$
31
$
40
$
6
$
6
293
73
109
13
13
(413
)
(126
)
(164
)
(18
)
(16
)
32
8
11
1
2
$
41
$
(14
)
$
(4
)
$
2
$
5
$
36
$
8
$
12
$
2
$
2
96
24
37
4
4
(135
)
(41
)
(54
)
(6
)
(6
)
11
3
4
1
1
$
8
$
(6
)
$
(1
)
$
1
$
1
$
109
$
25
$
36
$
5
$
5
290
72
110
13
13
(406
)
(123
)
(162
)
(18
)
(16
)
32
8
12
1
2
$
25
$
(18
)
$
(4
)
$
1
$
4
Table of Contents
Southern
Alabama
Georgia
Gulf
Mississippi
POSTRETIREMENT BENEFITS
Company
Power
Power
Power
Power
(in millions)
$
6
$
2
$
3
$
$
25
7
11
1
2
(15
)
(7
)
(8
)
5
2
2
$
21
$
4
$
8
$
1
$
2
$
19
$
5
$
7
$
1
$
1
75
20
33
3
4
(47
)
(19
)
(23
)
(1
)
(1
)
15
5
8
$
62
$
11
$
25
$
3
$
4
$
7
$
2
$
2
$
$
28
7
13
1
1
(16
)
(6
)
(8
)
7
2
4
1
$
26
$
5
$
11
$
1
$
2
$
20
$
5
$
7
$
1
$
1
85
22
38
4
4
(46
)
(18
)
(23
)
(1
)
(1
)
21
6
11
1
$
80
$
15
$
33
$
4
$
5
(G)
EFFECTIVE TAX RATE AND UNRECOGNIZED TAX BENEFITS
Effective Tax Rate
Southern Companys effective tax rate was 33.1% for the nine months ended September 30, 2010, as
compared to 36.5% for the corresponding period in 2009. Southern Companys effective tax rate is
lower than the statutory rate primarily due to its employee stock plans dividend deduction and
AFUDC equity, which is not taxable. See Note 5 to the financial statements of each registrant in
Item 8 of the Form 10-K for information on the effective income tax rate. Southern Companys
effective tax rate decreased for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 as compared to September
30, 2009 primarily due to the $202 million charge for the MC Asset Recovery settlement, which
occurred in the first quarter 2009. Southern Company is currently evaluating potential recovery of
the settlement payment through various means including insurance, claims in U.S. Bankruptcy Court,
and other avenues. The degree to which any recovery is realized will determine, in part, the final
income tax treatment of the settlement payment. Additionally, Georgia Powers effective tax rate
decreased for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 compared to September 30, 2009 from 34.7% to
32.3% primarily due to the recognition of additional Georgia state tax credits and additional AFUDC
equity. Southern Powers effective tax rate decreased for the nine months ended
September 30, 2010 compared to September 30, 2009 from 38.5% to 32.3% primarily due to tax benefits
associated with the construction of its biomass facility.
Table of Contents
Unrecognized Tax Benefits
Changes during 2010 for unrecognized tax benefits were as follows:
Southern
Alabama
Georgia
Gulf
Mississippi
Southern
Company
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
(in millions)
$
199
$
6
$
181
$
2
$
3
$
37
1
35
1
67
31
32
1
1
(32
)
(28
)
$
271
$
38
$
220
$
3
$
3
$
2
As of
December 31,
As of September 30, 2010
2009
Georgia
Southern
Southern
Power
Other
Company
Company
(in millions)
$
191
$
15
$
206
$
199
29
36
65
$
220
$
51
$
271
$
199
The tax positions impacting the effective tax rate primarily relate to Georgia state tax
credit litigation at Georgia Power and the production activities deduction tax position. The tax
positions not impacting the effective tax rate relate to the timing difference associated with the
tax accounting method change for repairs. These amounts are presented on a gross basis without
considering the related federal or state income tax impact. See Note (B) under Income Tax Matters
Georgia State Income Tax Credits and Tax Method of Accounting for Repairs herein for
additional information.
Accrued interest for unrecognized tax benefits was as follows:
Georgia
Other
Southern
Power
Registrants
Company
(in millions)
$
20
$
1
$
21
5
1
6
$
25
$
2
$
27
None of the registrants accrued any penalties on uncertain tax positions.
It is reasonably possible that the amount of the unrecognized tax benefits associated with a
majority of Southern Companys and Georgia Powers unrecognized tax positions will significantly
increase or decrease within the next 12 months. The resolution of the Georgia state tax credits
litigation would substantially reduce the balances. The conclusion or settlement of state audits
could also impact the balances significantly. At this time, an estimate of the range of reasonably
possible outcomes cannot be determined.
Table of Contents
(H)
DERIVATIVES
Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power are exposed to market
risks, primarily commodity price risk and interest rate risk and occasionally foreign currency
risk. To manage the volatility attributable to these exposures, each company nets its exposures,
where possible, to take advantage of natural offsets and enters into various derivative
transactions for the remaining exposures pursuant to each companys policies in areas such as
counterparty exposure and risk management practices. Each companys policy is that derivatives are
to be used primarily for hedging purposes and mandates strict adherence to all applicable risk
management policies. Derivative positions are monitored using techniques including, but not
limited to, market valuation, value at risk, stress testing, and sensitivity analysis. Derivative
instruments are recognized at fair value in the balance sheets as either assets or liabilities.
Energy-Related Derivatives
The traditional operating companies and Southern Power enter into energy-related derivatives to
hedge exposures to electricity, gas, and other fuel price changes. However, due to cost-based rate
regulations, the traditional operating companies have limited exposure to market volatility in
commodity fuel prices and prices of electricity. Each of the traditional operating companies
manages fuel-hedging programs, implemented per the guidelines of their respective state PSCs,
through the use of financial derivative contracts. Southern Power has limited exposure to market
volatility in commodity fuel prices and prices of electricity because its long-term sales contracts
shift substantially all fuel cost responsibility to the purchaser. However, Southern Power has
been and may continue to be exposed to market volatility in energy-related commodity prices as a
result of sales of uncontracted generating capacity.
To mitigate residual risks relative to movements in electricity prices, the traditional operating
companies and Southern Power may enter into physical fixed-price or heat rate contracts for the
purchase and sale of electricity through the wholesale electricity market. To mitigate residual
risks relative to movements in gas prices, the traditional operating companies and Southern Power
may enter into fixed-price contracts for natural gas purchases; however, a significant portion of
contracts are priced at market.
Energy-related derivative contracts are accounted for in one of three methods:
Regulatory Hedges
Energy-related derivative contracts which are designated as regulatory
hedges relate primarily to the traditional operating companies fuel-hedging programs, where
gains and losses are initially recorded as regulatory liabilities and assets, respectively,
and then are included in fuel expense as the underlying fuel is used in operations and
ultimately recovered through the respective fuel cost recovery clauses.
Cash Flow Hedges
Gains and losses on energy-related derivatives designated as cash flow
hedges, which are mainly used by Southern Power, to hedge anticipated purchases and sales are
initially deferred in OCI before being recognized in the statements of income in the same
period as the hedged transactions are reflected in earnings.
Not Designated
Gains and losses on energy-related derivative contracts that are not
designated or fail to qualify as hedges are recognized in the statements of income as
incurred.
Some energy-related derivative contracts require physical delivery as opposed to financial
settlement, and this type of derivative is both common and prevalent within the electric industry.
When an energy-related derivative contract is settled physically, any cumulative unrealized gain or
loss is reversed and the contract price is recognized in the respective line item representing the
actual price of the underlying goods being delivered.
Table of Contents
At September 30, 2010, the net volume of energy-related derivative contracts for power and natural
gas positions for the registrants, together with the longest hedge date over which the respective
entity is hedging its exposure to the variability in future cash flows for forecasted transactions
and the longest date for derivatives not designated as hedges, were as follows:
Power
Gas
Longest
Longest
Net
Longest
Longest
Net Sold
Hedge
Non-Hedge
Purchased
Hedge
Non-Hedge
As of September 30, 2010:
MWH
Date
Date
mmBtu
Date
Date
(in millions)
(in millions)
0.7
2010
2011
138
2014
2014
34
2014
61
2014
14
2014
20
2014
0.7
2010
2011
9
2012
2014
In addition to the volumes discussed in the table above, the traditional operating companies
and Southern Power enter into physical natural gas supply contracts that provide the option to sell
back excess gas due to operational constraints. The expected volume of natural gas subject to such
a feature is 5 million mmBtu for Southern Company, 3 million mmBtu for Georgia Power, and less than
1 million mmBtu for each of the other registrants.
For the next 12-month period ending September 30, 2011, Southern Company and Southern Power expect
to reclassify $5 million in gains from OCI to revenue and $2 million in losses from OCI to fuel
expense with respect to cash flow hedges. Such amounts are immaterial for all other registrants.
Interest Rate Derivatives
Southern Company and certain subsidiaries also enter into interest rate derivatives, which include
forward-starting interest rate swaps, to hedge exposure to changes in interest rates. Derivatives
related to existing variable rate securities or forecasted transactions are accounted for as cash
flow hedges. Derivatives related to existing fixed rate securities are accounted for as fair value
hedges. The derivatives employed as hedging instruments are structured to minimize
ineffectiveness.
For cash flow hedges, the effective portion of the derivatives fair value gains or losses is
recorded in OCI and is reclassified into earnings at the same time the hedged transactions affect
earnings. Any ineffectiveness is recorded directly to earnings. For fair value hedges, the
derivatives fair value gains or losses and hedged items fair value gains or losses are both
recorded directly to earnings,
providing an offset with any difference representing
ineffectiveness.
At September 30, 2010, the following interest rate derivatives were outstanding:
Fair Value
Hedge
Gain (Loss)
Notional
Interest Rate
Interest Rate
Maturity
September 30,
Amount
Received
Paid
Date
2010
(in millions)
(in millions)
$
300
3-month LIBOR +
0.40% spread
1.24
%*
October 2011
$
(2
)
350
4.15%
3-month LIBOR +
1.96%* spread
May 2014
17
$
650
$
15
*
Weighted Average
Table of Contents
The following table reflects the estimated pre-tax gains (losses) that will be reclassified
from OCI to interest expense for the next 12-month period ending September 30, 2011, together with
the longest date that total deferred gains and losses are expected to be amortized into earnings.
Estimated Gain (Loss) to
be Reclassified for the
Total Deferred
12 Months Ending
Gains (Losses)
Registrant
September 30, 2011
Amortized Through
(in millions)
$
(18
)
2037
1
2035
(5
)
2037
(1
)
2020
(11
)
2016
Foreign Currency Derivatives
Southern Company and certain subsidiaries may enter into foreign currency derivatives to hedge
exposure to changes in foreign currency exchange rates arising from purchases of equipment
denominated in a currency other than U.S. dollars. Derivatives related to a firm commitment in a
foreign currency transaction are accounted for as a fair value hedge where the derivatives fair
value gains or losses and hedged items fair value gains or losses are both recorded directly to
earnings. Derivatives related to a forecasted transaction are accounted for as a cash flow hedge
where the effective portion of the derivatives fair value gains or losses is recorded in OCI and
is reclassified into earnings at the same time the hedged transactions affect earnings. Any
ineffectiveness is recorded directly to earnings. The derivatives employed as hedging instruments
are structured to minimize ineffectiveness.
At September 30, 2010, the following foreign currency derivatives were outstanding:
Fair Value
Gain (Loss)
Notional
Hedge
September 30,
Amount
Forward Rate
Maturity
Date
2010
(in millions)
(in millions)
YEN780
85.45 Yen per
Dollar*
Various through May 2011
$
EUR36.7
1.228 Dollars per
Euro*
Various through June 2012
5
$
5
*
Weighted Average
Table of Contents
Derivative Financial Statement Presentation and Amounts
At September 30, 2010, the fair value of energy-related derivatives, interest rate derivatives and
foreign currency derivatives were reflected in the balance sheets as follows:
Asset Derivatives at September 30, 2010
Fair Value
Derivative Category and Balance Sheet
Southern
Alabama
Georgia
Gulf
Mississippi
Southern
Location
Company
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
(in millions)
$
5
$
$
$
$
$
5
7
10
3
3
2
2
$
27
$
$
$
$
5
$
5
$
2
$
$
$
$
$
2
1
$
3
$
$
$
$
$
2
$
30
$
$
$
$
5
$
7
*
Southern Company includes Assets from risk management activities in Other current
assets where applicable.
Table of Contents
Liability Derivatives at September 30, 2010
Fair Value
Derivative Category and Balance Sheet
Southern
Alabama
Georgia
Gulf
Mississippi
Southern
Location
Company
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
(in millions)
$
167
$
40
$
84
$
13
$
30
80
14
37
5
24
$
247
$
54
$
121
$
18
$
54
N/A
$
2
$
$
$
$
$
2
1
1
2
$
5
$
$
$
$
$
3
$
5
$
$
$
$
$
5
1
1
$
6
$
$
$
$
$
6
$
258
$
54
$
121
$
18
$
54
$
9
All derivative instruments are measured at fair value. See Note (C) herein for additional
information.
At September 30, 2010, the pre-tax effect of unrealized derivative gains (losses) arising from
energy-related derivative instruments designated as regulatory hedging instruments and deferred on
the balance sheet were as follows:
Regulatory Hedge Unrealized Gain (Loss) Recognized on the Balance Sheet
Derivative Category and Balance Sheet
Southern
Alabama
Georgia
Gulf
Mississippi
Location
Company
Power
Power
Power
Power
(in millions)
$
(167
)
$
(40
)
$
(84
)
$
(13
)
$
(30
)
(80
)
(14
)
(37
)
(5
)
(24
)
$
(247
)
$
(54
)
$
(121
)
$
(18
)
$
(54
)
For the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2010, the pre-tax gains from interest
rate derivatives designated as fair value hedging instruments on Southern Companys statements of
income were $9 million and $17 million, respectively. These amounts were offset with changes in
the fair value of the hedged debt.
For the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2010, the pre-tax gains from foreign
currency derivatives designated as fair value hedging instruments on Mississippi Powers statements
of income were $5 million. These amounts were offset with changes in the fair value of the
purchase commitment related to equipment purchases.
Table of Contents
For the three months ended September 30, 2010 and September 30, 2009, the pre-tax effect of
energy-related derivatives and interest rate derivatives designated as cash flow hedging
instruments on the statements of income were as follows:
Gain (Loss)
Recognized in OCI
Gain (Loss) Reclassified from Accumulated OCI
Derivatives in Cash Flow
on Derivative
into Income (Effective Portion)
Hedging Relationships
(Effective Portion)
Statements of Income Location
Amount
2010
2009
2010
2009
(in millions)
(in millions)
$
3
$
(1
)
Fuel
$
$
(1
)
(3
)
Interest expense
(7
)
(12
)
$
2
$
(4
)
$
(7
)
$
(12
)
$
$
(1
)
Interest expense
$
$
(3
)
$
$
(1
)
Interest expense
$
(3
)
$
(6
)
$
$
(1
)
Interest expense
$
$
$
3
$
(1
)
Fuel
$
$
Interest expense
(3
)
(2
)
$
3
$
(1
)
$
(3
)
$
(2
)
For the nine months ended September 30, 2010 and September 30, 2009, the pre-tax effect of
energy-related derivatives and interest rate derivatives designated as cash flow hedging
instruments on the statements of income were as follows:
Gain (Loss)
Recognized in OCI
Gain (Loss) Reclassified from Accumulated OCI
Derivatives in Cash Flow
on Derivative
into Income (Effective Portion)
Hedging Relationships
(Effective Portion)
Statements of Income Location
Amount
2010
2009
2010
2009
(in millions)
(in millions)
$
4
$
Fuel
$
$
(3
)
(6
)
Interest expense
(24
)
(34
)
$
1
$
(6
)
$
(24
)
$
(34
)
$
$
(5
)
Interest expense
$
(1
)
$
(9
)
$
$
Interest expense
$
(13
)
$
(17
)
$
(1
)
$
(1
)
Interest expense
$
(1
)
$
(1
)
$
4
$
Fuel
$
$
Interest expense
(8
)
(7
)
$
4
$
$
(8
)
$
(7
)
There was no material ineffectiveness recorded in earnings for any registrant for any period
presented.
Table of Contents
For the three months ended September 30, 2010 and September 30, 2009, the pre-tax effect of
energy-related derivatives not designated as hedging instruments on the statements of income were
as follows:
Derivatives not Designated
Unrealized Gain (Loss) Recognized in Income
as Hedging Instruments
Statements of Income Location
Amount
2010
2009
(in millions)
Wholesale revenues
$
(1
)
$
4
Fuel
(1
)
(1
)
Purchased power
(1
)
(1
)
$
(3
)
$
2
Wholesale revenues
$
(1
)
$
4
Fuel
(1
)
(1
)
Purchased power
(1
)
(1
)
$
(3
)
$
2
For the nine months ended September 30, 2010 and September 30, 2009, the pre-tax effect of
energy-related derivatives not designated as hedging instruments on the statements of income were
as follows:
Derivatives not Designated
Unrealized Gain (Loss) Recognized in Income
as Hedging Instruments
Statements of Income Location
Amount
2010
2009
(in millions)
Wholesale revenues
$
$
9
Fuel
(1
)
(4
)
Purchased power
(1
)
(4
)
$
(2
)
$
1
Wholesale revenues
$
$
9
Fuel
(1
)
(4
)
Purchased power
(1
)
(4
)
$
(2
)
$
1
Contingent Features
The registrants do not have any credit arrangements that would require material changes in payment
schedules or terminations as a result of a credit rating downgrade. There are certain derivatives
that could require collateral, but not accelerated payment, in the event of various credit rating
changes of certain Southern Company subsidiaries. At September 30, 2010, the fair value of
derivative liabilities with contingent features, by registrant, was as follows:
Southern
Alabama
Georgia
Gulf
Mississippi
Southern
Company
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
(in millions)
$
51
$
9
$
33
$
2
$
6
$
1
At September 30, 2010, the registrants had no collateral posted with their derivative
counterparties; however, because of the joint and several liability features underlying these
derivatives, the maximum potential collateral requirements arising from the credit-risk-related
contingent features, at a rating below BBB- and/or Baa3, was $51 million for each registrant.
Table of Contents
Currently, each of the registrants has investment grade credit ratings from the major rating
agencies with respect to debt, preferred securities, preferred stock, and/or preference stock.
Generally, collateral may be provided by a Southern Company guaranty, letter of credit, or cash.
For the traditional operating companies and Southern Power, included in these amounts are certain
agreements that could require collateral in the event that one or more Power Pool participants has
a credit rating change to below investment grade.
(I)
SEGMENT AND RELATED INFORMATION
Southern Companys reportable business segments are the sale of electricity in the Southeast by the
four traditional operating companies and Southern Power. Revenues from sales by Southern Power to
the traditional operating companies were $93 million and $288 million for the three months and nine
months ended September 30, 2010, respectively, and $148 million and $421 million for the three
months and nine months ended September 30, 2009, respectively. The All Other column includes
parent Southern Company, which does not allocate operating expenses to business segments. Also,
this category includes segments below the quantitative threshold for separate disclosure. These
segments include investments in telecommunications, renewable energy projects, and leveraged lease
projects. All other intersegment revenues are not material. Financial data for business segments
and products and services was as follows:
Electric Utilities
Traditional
Operating
Southern
All
Companies
Power
Eliminations
Total
Other
Eliminations
Consolidated
(
in millions
)
$
5,066
$
357
$
(124
)
$
5,299
$
40
$
(19
)
$
5,320
757
61
818
(1
)
817
September
30,
2010:
$
13,127
$
862
$
(367
)
$
13,622
$
122
$
(59
)
$
13,685
1,713
106
1,819
4
(1
)
1,822
$
51,329
$
3,223
$
(176
)
$
54,376
$
1,092
$
(573
)
$
54,895
$
4,543
$
283
$
(169
)
$
4,657
$
43
$
(18
)
$
4,682
726
67
793
(2
)
(1
)
790
September
30,
2009:
$
11,881
$
745
$
(471
)
$
12,155
$
130
$
(52
)
$
12,233
1,449
126
1,575
(182
)
1
1,394
$
48,403
$
3,043
$
(143
)
$
51,303
$
1,223
$
(480
)
$
52,046
*
After dividends on preferred and preference stock of subsidiaries
Products and Services
Electric Utilities Revenues
Period
Retail
Wholesale
Other
Total
(
in millions
)
$
4,573
$
566
$
160
$
5,299
3,997
519
141
4,657
$
11,603
$
1,581
$
438
$
13,622
10,355
1,408
392
12,155
Table of Contents
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
See the Notes to the Condensed Financial Statements herein for information regarding
certain legal and administrative proceedings in which the registrants are involved.
See RISK FACTORS in Item 1A of the Form 10-K for a discussion of the risk factors of the
registrants. There have been no material changes to these risk factors from those
previously disclosed in the Form 10-K.
Table of Contents
Item 6.
Exhibits.
(4) Instruments Describing Rights of Security Holders, Including Indentures
Southern Company
-
Sixth Supplemental Indenture to the Senior Note Indenture dated as of
September 17, 2010, providing for the issuance of the Series 2010A 2.375%
Senior Notes due September 15, 2015. (Designated in Form 8-K dated September
13, 2010, File No. 1-3526, as Exhibit 4.2.)
Alabama Power
-
Forty-Fourth Supplemental Indenture to Senior Note Indenture dated as of
October 5, 2010, providing for the issuance of the Series 2010A 3.375% Senior
Notes due October 1, 2020. (Designated in Form 8-K dated September 27, 2010,
File No. 1-3164, as Exhibit 4.2.)
Georgia Power
-
Forty-Second Supplemental Indenture to Senior Note Indenture dated as of
August 31, 2010, providing for the issuance of the Series 2010C 4.75% Senior
Notes due September 1, 2040. (Designated in Form 8-K dated August 26, 2010,
File No. 1-6468, as Exhibit 4.2.)
-
Forty-Third Supplemental Indenture to Senior Note Indenture dated as of
September 23, 2010, providing for the issuance of the Series 2010D 1.30%
Senior Notes due September 15, 2013. (Designated in Form 8-K dated September
20, 2010, File No. 1-6468, as Exhibit 4.2.)
Gulf Power
-
Seventeenth Supplemental Indenture to Senior Note Indenture dated as of
September 17, 2010, providing for the issuance of the Series 2010B 5.10%
Senior Notes due October 1, 2040. (Designated in Form 8-K dated September 9,
2010, File No. 001-31737, as Exhibit 4.2.)
(10) Material Contracts
Southern Company
-
Base Salaries of Named Executive Officers.
-
Restricted Stock Award Agreement between Southern Company and W. Paul
Bowers dated July 27, 2010.
Alabama Power
-
Base Salaries of Named Executive Officers.
-
Deferred Compensation Agreement between Southern Company, Alabama Power,
Georgia Power, Gulf Power, Mississippi Power, and SCS and Philip C. Raymond
dated September 15, 2010.
-
Consulting Agreement between Jerry L. Stewart and SCS dated October 11,
2010.
Table of Contents
Gulf Power
-
Base Salaries of Named Executive Officers.
-
Deferred Compensation Agreement between Southern Company, Georgia Power,
Gulf Power, and Southern Nuclear and Bentina C. Terry dated August 1, 2010.
-
Deferred Compensation Agreement between Southern Company, Alabama Power,
Georgia Power, Gulf Power, Mississippi Power, and SCS and Philip C. Raymond
dated September 15, 2010. See Exhibit 10(b)2 herein.
Mississippi Power
-
Base Salaries of Named Executive Officers.
-
Retention Agreement between Edward Day, VI and SCS dated January 22, 2008,
Amendment to Retention Agreement dated December 12, 2008, and Amendment of
Retention Agreement dated July 29, 2010.
(24) Power of Attorney and Resolutions
Southern Company
-
Power of Attorney and resolution. (Designated in the Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2009, File No. 1-3526 as Exhibit 24(a) and
incorporated herein by reference.)
-
Power of Attorney for Art P. Beattie.
Alabama Power
-
Power of Attorney and resolution. (Designated in the Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2009, File No. 1-3164 as Exhibit 24(b) and
incorporated herein by reference.)
-
Power of Attorney for Philip C. Raymond.
Georgia Power
-
Power of Attorney and resolution. (Designated in the Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2009, File No. 1-6468 as Exhibit 24(c) and
incorporated herein by reference.)
Gulf Power
-
Power of Attorney and resolution. (Designated in the Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2009, File No. 001-31737 as Exhibit 24(d) and
incorporated herein by reference.)
-
Power of Attorney for Richard S. Teel.
Mississippi Power
-
Power of Attorney and resolution. (Designated in the Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2009, File No. 001-11229 as Exhibit 24(e) and
incorporated herein by reference.)
-
Power of Attorney for Edward Day, VI.
Table of Contents
-
Power of Attorney for Moses H. Feagin.
Southern Power
-
Power of Attorney and resolution. (Designated in the Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2009, File No. 333-98553 as Exhibit 24(f) and
incorporated herein by reference.)
-
Power of Attorney for Oscar C. Harper.
(31) Section 302 Certifications
Southern Company
-
Certificate of Southern Companys Chief Executive Officer required by
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
-
Certificate of Southern Companys Chief Financial Officer required by
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Alabama Power
-
Certificate of Alabama Powers Chief Executive Officer required by Section
302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
-
Certificate of Alabama Powers Chief Financial Officer required by Section
302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Georgia Power
-
Certificate of Georgia Powers Chief Executive Officer required by Section
302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
-
Certificate of Georgia Powers Chief Financial Officer required by Section
302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Gulf Power
-
Certificate of Gulf Powers Chief Executive Officer required by Section 302
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
-
Certificate of Gulf Powers Chief Financial Officer required by Section 302
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Mississippi Power
-
Certificate of Mississippi Powers Chief Executive Officer required by
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
-
Certificate of Mississippi Powers Chief Financial Officer required by
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Table of Contents
Southern Power
-
Certificate of Southern Powers Chief
Executive Officer required by Section 302 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
-
Certificate of Southern Powers Chief
Financial Officer required by Section 302 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
(32) Section 906 Certifications
Southern Company
-
Certificate of Southern Companys Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002.
Alabama Power
-
Certificate of Alabama Powers Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002.
Georgia Power
-
Certificate of Georgia Powers Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Gulf Power
-
Certificate of Gulf Powers Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Mississippi Power
-
Certificate of Mississippi Powers Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002.
Southern Power
-
Certificate of Southern Powers Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
THE SOUTHERN COMPANY
By
David M. Ratcliffe
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
By
Art P. Beattie
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
By
/s/ Melissa K. Caen
Table of Contents
ALABAMA POWER COMPANY
By
Charles D. McCrary
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
By
Philip C. Raymond
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)
By
/s/ Melissa K. Caen
Table of Contents
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
By
Michael D. Garrett
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
By
Ronnie R. Labrato
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)
By
/s/ Melissa K. Caen
Table of Contents
GULF POWER COMPANY
By
Susan N. Story
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
By
Richard S. Teel
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
By
/s/ Melissa K. Caen
Table of Contents
MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY
By
Edward Day, VI
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
By
Moses H. Feagin
Vice President, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
By
/s/ Melissa K. Caen
Table of Contents
SOUTHERN POWER COMPANY
By
Oscar C. Harper
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
By
Michael W. Southern
Senior Vice President, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
By
/s/ Melissa K. Caen
David M. Ratcliffe
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|
$1,163,351
|
W. Paul Bowers*
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|
$680,000
|
Thomas A. Fanning
President
|
$950,000
|
Charles D. McCrary
Executive Vice President of the Company,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Alabama
Power Company
|
$701,976
|
Michael D. Garrett
Executive Vice President of the Company,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Georgia
Power Company
|
$695,402
|
Art P. Beattie**
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|
$535,000
|
Charles D. McCrary
President and Chief Executive Officer
|
$701,976
|
Art P. Beattie*
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer
|
$535,000
|
Mark A. Crosswhite
Executive Vice President
|
$307,057
|
Steven R. Spencer
Executive Vice President
|
$390,562
|
Jerry L. Stewart
Senior Vice President
|
$364,132
|
Philip Raymond**
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer
|
$257,707
|
THE SOUTHERN COMPANY
By: /s/C. Alan Martin
Its: Executive Vice President
|
ALABAMA POWER COMPANY
By: /s/Charles D. McCrary
Its: President & CEO
|
|
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
By: /s/Michael D. Garrett
Its: President & CEO
|
|
GULF POWER COMPANY
By: /s/Susan N. Story
Its: President & CEO
|
|
MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY
By: /s/Edward V. Day, VI
Its: President & CEO
|
|
SOUTHERN COMPANY SERVICES, INC.
By: /s/C. Alan Martin
Its: President
|
|
PHILIP C. RAYMOND
/s/Philip C. Raymond
|
ASSIGNOR
ALABAMA POWER COMPANY
By: ____________________________
Its: ____________________________
Date: __________________________
|
|
ASSIGNEE
COMPANY
By: ____________________________
Its: ____________________________
Date: ___________________________
|
If to Consultant:
Jerry L. Stewart
3016 Brookhill Drive
Birmingham, AL 35243
|
If to the Company:
Patricia L. Roberts
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
Southern Company Services, Inc.
30 Ivan Allen Blvd. NW, Bin #SC1204
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
|
“COMPANY”
SOUTHERN COMPANY SERVICES, INC.
|
“CONSULTANT”
JERRY L. STEWART
|
By:
/s/Patricia L. Roberts
Its: Vice President
|
/s/Jerry L. Stewart
Witnessed By:
/s/Sheila McReynolds
|
Susan N. Story
President and Chief Executive Officer
|
$419,849
|
Philip Raymond*
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|
$257,707
|
P. Bernard Jacob
Vice President
|
$238,408
|
Theodore J. McCullough
Vice President
|
$209,645
|
Bentina C. Terry
Vice President
|
$236,428
|
R. Scott Teel**
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|
$220,562
|
THE SOUTHERN COMPANY
By: /s/C. Alan Martin
Its: Executive Vice President
|
|
GULF POWER COMPANY
By: /s/Susan N. Story
Its: President & CEO
|
|
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
By: /s/Michael D. Garrett
Its: President & CEO
|
|
SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY, INC.
By: /s/James H. Miller, III
Its: President & CEO
|
|
BENTINA C. TERRY
/s/Bentina C. Terry
|
Anthony J. Topazi*
President and Chief Executive Officer
|
$578,000
|
Frances V. Turnage*
Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
|
$234,356
|
Donald R. Horsley
Vice President
|
$262,337
|
Kimberly D. Flowers
Vice President
|
$235,526
|
John W. Atherton
Vice President
|
$213,592
|
Edward Day, VI**
President and Chief Executive Officer
|
$380,000
|
Moses H. Feagin**
Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
|
$213,592 |
Philip C. Raymond
Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer
a
nd Treasurer
|
600 North 18th Street
Post Office Box 2641
Birmingham, Alabama 35291
Tel 205.257.2500
Fax 205.257.2176
|
|
Scott Teel
Vice President and CFO
|
One Energy Place
Pensacola, Florida
32520-0100
Tel 850.444.6111
|
|
2992 West Beach Boulevard
P.O. Box 4079
Gulfport, Mississippi 39502-4079
Tel 800.532.1502
|
|
|
2992 West Beach Boulevard
P.O. Box 4079
Gulfport, Mississippi 39502-4079
Tel 800.532.1502
|
|
|
Southern Power Company
Bin 15N-8206
600 North 18th Street
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
|
|
|
1.
|
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Southern Company;
|
2.
|
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|
3.
|
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
|
4.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
|
(a)
|
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
|
(b)
|
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
|
(c)
|
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
|
(d)
|
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
|
5.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
|
(a)
|
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
|
(b)
|
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
|
1.
|
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Southern Company;
|
2.
|
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|
3.
|
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
|
4.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
|
(a)
|
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
|
(b)
|
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
|
(c)
|
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
|
(d)
|
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
|
5.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
|
(a)
|
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
|
(b)
|
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
|
1.
|
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Alabama Power Company;
|
2.
|
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|
3.
|
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
|
4.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
|
(a)
|
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
|
(b)
|
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
|
(c)
|
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
|
(d)
|
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
|
5.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
|
(a)
|
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
|
(b)
|
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
|
1.
|
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Alabama Power Company;
|
2.
|
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|
3.
|
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
|
4.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
|
(a)
|
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
|
(b)
|
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
|
(c)
|
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
|
(d)
|
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
|
5.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
|
(a)
|
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
|
(b)
|
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
|
1.
|
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Georgia Power Company;
|
2.
|
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|
3.
|
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
|
4.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
|
(a)
|
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
|
(b)
|
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
|
(c)
|
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
|
(d)
|
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
|
5.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
|
(a)
|
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
|
(b)
|
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
|
1.
|
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Georgia Power Company;
|
2.
|
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|
3.
|
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
|
4.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
|
(a)
|
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
|
(b)
|
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
|
(c)
|
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
|
(d)
|
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
|
5.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
|
(a)
|
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
|
(b)
|
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
|
1.
|
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Gulf Power Company;
|
2.
|
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|
3.
|
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
|
4.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
|
(a)
|
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
|
(b)
|
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
|
(c)
|
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
|
(d)
|
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
|
5.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
|
(a)
|
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
|
(b)
|
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
|
1.
|
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Gulf Power Company;
|
2.
|
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|
3.
|
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
|
4.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
|
(a)
|
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
|
(b)
|
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
|
(c)
|
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
|
(d)
|
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
|
5.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
|
(a)
|
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
|
(b)
|
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
|
1.
|
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mississippi Power Company;
|
2.
|
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|
3.
|
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
|
4.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
|
(a)
|
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
|
(b)
|
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
|
(c)
|
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
|
(d)
|
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
|
5.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
|
(a)
|
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
|
(b)
|
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
|
1.
|
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mississippi Power Company;
|
2.
|
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|
3.
|
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
|
4.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
|
(a)
|
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
|
(b)
|
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
|
(c)
|
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
|
(d)
|
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
|
5.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
|
(a)
|
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
|
(b)
|
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
|
1.
|
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Southern Power Company;
|
2.
|
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|
3.
|
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
|
4.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
|
(a)
|
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
|
(b)
|
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
|
(c)
|
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
|
(d)
|
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
|
5.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
|
(a)
|
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
|
(b)
|
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
|
1.
|
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Southern Power Company;
|
2.
|
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|
3.
|
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
|
4.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
|
(a)
|
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
|
(b)
|
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
|
(c)
|
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
|
(d)
|
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
|
5.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
|
(a)
|
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
|
(b)
|
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
|
(1)
|
such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The Southern Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, which this statement accompanies, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|
(2)
|
the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The Southern Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The Southern Company.
|
/s/David M. Ratcliffe
David M. Ratcliffe
Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer
|
|
/s/Art P. Beattie
Art P. Beattie
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
|
(1)
|
such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Alabama Power Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, which this statement accompanies, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|
(2)
|
the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Alabama Power Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Alabama Power Company.
|
/s/Charles D. McCrary
Charles D. McCrary
President and Chief Executive Officer
|
|
/s/Philip C. Raymond
Philip C. Raymond
Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|
(1)
|
such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Georgia Power Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, which this statement accompanies, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|
(2)
|
the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Georgia Power Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Georgia Power Company.
|
/s/Michael D. Garrett
Michael D. Garrett
President and Chief Executive Officer
|
|
/s/Ronnie R. Labrato
Ronnie R. Labrato
Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|
(1)
|
such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gulf Power Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, which this statement accompanies, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|
(2)
|
the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gulf Power Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gulf Power Company.
|
/s/Susan N. Story
Susan N. Story
President and Chief Executive Officer
|
|
/s/Richard S. Teel
Richard S. Teel
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|
(1)
|
such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mississippi Power Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, which this statement accompanies, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|
(2)
|
the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mississippi Power Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Mississippi Power Company.
|
/s/Edward Day, VI
Edward Day, VI
President and Chief Executive Officer
|
|
/s/Moses H. Feagin
Moses H. Feagin
Vice President, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer
|
(1)
|
such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Southern Power Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, which this statement accompanies, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|
(2)
|
the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Southern Power Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Southern Power Company.
|
/s/Oscar C. Harper, IV
Oscar C. Harper, IV
President and Chief Executive Officer
|
|
/s/Michael W. Southern
Michael W. Southern
Senior Vice President, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer
|