\n
\nSources: U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz to visit Kemper coal plant<\/a>,<\/p>\n
\n\n
\n<\/a>
\nThe PSC voted unanimously to require Mississippi Power to provide
\nadditional documents justifying their spending on the Kemper plant.
\nThe hearing is set for May 2014, when the plant was originally
\nsupposed to go online.\n<\/p>\n\n“If the PSC rejects some of the spending as imprudent, it
\ncould add to the $1 billion in costs that shareholders have already
\nagreed to absorb,” the Associated Press reported last month.\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\nMeanwhile, GA PSC
\n
\nabdicated cost oversight for new nukes at Plant Vogtle<\/a>
\nuntil they’re built.
\nBut GA PSC could change that decision at any time,
\nespecially if new Commissioners get elected.<\/p>\n\nAP 16 October 2013,
\n
\nPSC asking for more information on Kemper coal plant<\/a>,<\/p>\n\n\nThe state Public Service Commission voted 3-0 yesterday to require
\nmore information from Mississippi Power on the $4.75 billion it is
\nspending to build the coal-fueled power plant in eastern
\nMississippi. The Sierra Club, which opposes the plant, had asked
\ncommissioners to reject the spending by the subsidiary of
\nAtlanta-based Southern Co.\n<\/p>\n\nCommissioners had planned to put off reviewing spending until the
\nKemper plant was finished, but agreed in a settlement with
\nMississippi Power to examine some costs earlier. Yesterday’s action
\nsets the hearing for May 2014. That was supposed to be the month
\nwhen the plant goes into commercial operation, but the company
\nrecently announced it wouldn’t meet that deadline. If the PSC
\nrejects some of the spending as imprudent, it could add to the $1
\nbillion in costs that shareholders have already agreed to absorb.\n<\/p>\n\nTuesday’s order says the commission will assume spending was wise,
\nbut said the company must say more about how it managed spending.
\nRegulators also want information on the differences between original
\ncost estimates and current forecasts. The project, including a mine
\nand pipelines, is more than $1.5 billion over budget from original
\nestimates.\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\nWhat does this mean?<\/p>\n
\n\n
\n<\/a>
\nNorthern District Commissioner Brandon Presley, a Democrat, said the
\norder raises the burden of proof on Mississippi Power.\n<\/p>\n\n“They’ve got to prove that the decisions they made were
\ndecisions an economical, efficient, well-managed utility would
\nmake,” said Presley, a Kemper opponent.\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\nAnd what does that mean?<\/p>\n
\n\n“Prudency governs a public utility’s continuation of an
\ninvestment as well as its decision to enter into that investment …
\nand requires the utility to respond prudently to changing
\ncircumstance or new challenges that arise as the project
\nprogresses,” the commission wrote, quoting a 1991 order from
\nLouisiana.\n<\/p>\n\n
\n<\/a>
\nSierra Club lawyer Robert Wiygul said the commission needs to
\nscrutinize decision-making during construction.\n<\/p>\n\n“Prudence is not just in the initial phases and authorization
\nof the project, but throughout,” he said.\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\nMeanwhile, Mississippi Power President Ed Holland
\njust wrote the epitaph for coal:<\/p>\n\n
![](\"http:\/\/www.mississippipower.com\/about\/images\/ed-holland.jpg\")
<\/a>