corresp
UNITED
STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
FORM 10-K
(X) ANNUAL
REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2006
OR
( ) TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR
15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the Transition Period
from
to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commission
|
|
Registrant, State of
Incorporation,
|
|
I.R.S. Employer
|
File Number
|
|
Address and Telephone Number
|
|
Identification No.
|
|
|
1-3526
|
|
|
The Southern Company
|
|
58-0690070
|
|
|
|
|
(A Delaware Corporation)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 Ivan Allen Jr. Boulevard, N.W.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(404) 506-5000
|
|
|
|
1-3164
|
|
|
Alabama Power Company
|
|
63-0004250
|
|
|
|
|
(An Alabama Corporation)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
600 North 18th Street
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Birmingham, Alabama 35291
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(205) 257-1000
|
|
|
|
1-6468
|
|
|
Georgia Power Company
|
|
58-0257110
|
|
|
|
|
(A Georgia Corporation)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
241 Ralph McGill Boulevard, N.E.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(404) 506-6526
|
|
|
|
0-2429
|
|
|
Gulf Power Company
|
|
59-0276810
|
|
|
|
|
(A Florida Corporation)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One Energy Place
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pensacola, Florida 32520
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(850) 444-6111
|
|
|
|
001-11229
|
|
|
Mississippi Power Company
|
|
64-0205820
|
|
|
|
|
(A Mississippi Corporation)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2992 West Beach
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gulfport, Mississippi 39501
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(228) 864-1211
|
|
|
|
333-98553
|
|
|
Southern Power Company
|
|
58-2598670
|
|
|
|
|
(A Delaware Corporation)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 Ivan Allen Jr. Boulevard, N.W.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(404) 506-5000
|
|
|
Securities
registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:1
Each of the following classes or series of securities registered
pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act is listed on the New
York Stock Exchange.
|
|
|
|
|
Title of each class
|
|
|
|
Registrant
|
|
Common Stock, $5 par value
|
|
The Southern Company
|
|
|
|
Mandatorily redeemable
preferred securities, $25 liquidation amount
|
|
|
7.125% Trust Preferred
Securities2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class A preferred, cumulative, $25 stated
capital
|
|
Alabama Power Company
|
5.20% Series
|
|
5.83% Series
|
|
|
5.30% Series
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Notes
|
|
|
|
|
55/8%
Series AA
|
|
5.875% Series II
|
|
|
57/8%
Series GG
|
|
6.375% Series JJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class A Preferred Stock, non-cumulative,
par value $25 per share
|
|
Georgia Power Company
|
61/8%
Series
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Notes
|
|
|
|
|
5.90% Series O
|
|
6% Series R
|
|
5.70% Series X
|
5.75% Series T
|
|
6% Series W
|
|
5.75%
Series G5
|
|
|
|
Mandatorily redeemable preferred securities,
$25 liquidation amount
|
|
|
71/8%
Trust Preferred
Securities3
|
|
|
|
|
57/8%
Trust Preferred
Securities4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Notes
|
|
|
|
Gulf Power Company
|
5.25% Series H
|
|
5.75% Series I
|
|
|
5.875% Series J
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
As of December 31, 2006. |
2 |
|
Issued by Southern Company Capital Trust VI and guaranteed
by The Southern Company. |
3 |
|
Issued by Georgia Power Capital Trust V and guaranteed by
Georgia Power Company. |
4 |
|
Issued by Georgia Power Capital Trust VII and guaranteed by
Georgia Power Company. |
5 |
|
Assumed by Georgia Power Company in connection with its merger
with Savannah Electric and Power Company, effective July 1,
2006. |
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Notes
|
|
|
|
Mississippi Power Company
|
55/8%
Series E
|
|
|
|
|
Depositary preferred shares, each representing one-fourth
of a share of preferred stock, cumulative, $100 par
value
|
|
|
5.25% Series
|
|
|
|
|
Mandatorily redeemable preferred securities,
$25 liquidation amount
|
|
|
7.20% Trust Originated Preferred
Securities6
|
|
|
Securities
registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act:7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title of each class
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registrant
|
|
Preferred stock, cumulative, $100 par value
|
|
|
|
Alabama Power Company
|
4.20% Series
|
|
4.60% Series
|
|
4.72% Series
|
|
|
4.52% Series
|
|
4.64% Series
|
|
4.92% Series
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class A Preferred Stock, cumulative,
$100,000 stated capital
|
|
|
Flexible Money Market (Series 2003A)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock, cumulative, $100 par value
|
|
Mississippi Power Company
|
4.40% Series
|
|
4.60% Series
|
|
|
|
|
4.72% Series
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
Issued by Mississippi Power Capital Trust II and guaranteed
by Mississippi Power Company. |
7 |
|
As of December 31, 2006. |
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registrant
|
|
|
Yes
|
|
|
No
|
The Southern Company
|
|
|
x
|
|
|
|
Alabama Power Company
|
|
|
x
|
|
|
|
Georgia Power Company
|
|
|
x
|
|
|
|
Gulf Power Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
x
|
Mississippi Power Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
x
|
Southern Power Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
x
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file
reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the
Act. Yes No X (Response applicable to
all registrants.)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrants (1) have
filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the
preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrants were required to file such reports), and
(2) have been subject to such filing requirements for the
past 90 days. Yes X No
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best
of registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or
information statements incorporated by reference in
Part III of this
Form 10-K
or any amendment to this
Form 10-K.
(X)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated
filer. See definition of accelerated filer and large
accelerated filer in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accelerated
|
|
|
Accelerated
|
|
|
Non-accelerated
|
Registrant
|
|
|
Filer
|
|
|
Filer
|
|
|
Filer
|
The Southern Company
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama Power Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
Georgia Power Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
Gulf Power Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
Mississippi Power Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
Southern Power Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the Act). Yes No X (Response
applicable to all registrants.)
Aggregate market value of The Southern Companys common
stock held by non-affiliates of The Southern Company at
June 30, 2006: $23.8 billion. All of the common stock
of the other registrants is held by The Southern Company. A
description of each registrants common stock follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description of
|
|
Shares Outstanding
|
Registrant
|
|
Common Stock
|
|
at January 31,
2007
|
|
The Southern Company
|
|
|
Par Value $5 Per Share
|
|
|
|
748,594,220
|
|
Alabama Power Company
|
|
|
Par Value $40 Per Share
|
|
|
|
12,250,000
|
|
Georgia Power Company
|
|
|
Without Par Value
|
|
|
|
9,261,500
|
|
Gulf Power Company
|
|
|
Without Par Value
|
|
|
|
1,792,717
|
|
Mississippi Power Company
|
|
|
Without Par Value
|
|
|
|
1,121,000
|
|
Southern Power Company
|
|
|
Par Value $0.01 Per Share
|
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
Documents incorporated by reference: specified portions of The
Southern Companys Proxy Statement relating to the 2007
Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference
into PART III. In addition, specified portions of the
Information Statements of Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power
Company and Mississippi Power Company relating to each of their
respective 2007 Annual Meetings of Shareholders are incorporated
by reference into PART III.
Southern Power Company meets the conditions set forth in General
Instructions I(1)(a) and (b) of
Form 10-K
and is therefore filing this
Form 10-K
with the reduced disclosure format specified in General
Instructions I(2)(b) and (c) of
Form 10-K.
This combined
Form 10-K
is separately filed by The Southern Company, Alabama Power
Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi
Power Company and Southern Power Company. Information contained
herein relating to any individual company is filed by such
company on its own behalf. Each company makes no representation
as to information relating to the other companies.
DEFINITIONS
When used in Items 1 through 5 and Items 9A
through 15, the following terms will have the meanings
indicated.
|
|
|
AEC
|
|
Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc.
|
AFUDC
|
|
Allowance for Funds Used During
Construction
|
Alabama Power
|
|
Alabama Power Company
|
AMEA
|
|
Alabama Municipal Electric
Authority
|
Clean Air Act
|
|
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
|
Dalton
|
|
City of Dalton, Georgia
|
DOE
|
|
United States Department of Energy
|
Duke Energy
|
|
Duke Energy Corporation
|
Energy Act of 1992
|
|
Energy Policy Act of 1992
|
Energy Act of 2005
|
|
Energy Policy Act of 2005
|
Energy Solutions
|
|
Southern Company Energy Solutions,
Inc.
|
EPA
|
|
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
|
FASB
|
|
Financial Accounting Standards
Board
|
FERC
|
|
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
|
FMPA
|
|
Florida Municipal Power Agency
|
FP&L
|
|
Florida Power & Light
Company
|
Gas South
|
|
Gas South, LLC, an affiliate of
Cobb Electric Membership Corporation
|
Georgia Power
|
|
Georgia Power Company
|
Gulf Power
|
|
Gulf Power Company
|
Hampton
|
|
City of Hampton, Georgia
|
Holding Company Act
|
|
Public Utility Holding Company Act
of 1935, as amended
|
IBEW
|
|
International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers
|
IIC
|
|
Intercompany Interchange Contract
|
IPP
|
|
Independent power producer
|
IRP
|
|
Integrated Resource Plan
|
IRS
|
|
Internal Revenue Service
|
JEA
|
|
Jacksonville Electric Authority
|
KUA
|
|
Kissimmee Utility Authority
|
MEAG
|
|
Municipal Electric Authority of
Georgia
|
Mirant
|
|
Mirant Corporation
|
Mississippi Power
|
|
Mississippi Power Company
|
Moodys
|
|
Moodys Investors Service
|
NRC
|
|
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
|
OPC
|
|
Oglethorpe Power Corporation
|
OUC
|
|
Orlando Utilities Commission
|
PPA
|
|
Power Purchase Agreement
|
Progress Energy Carolinas
|
|
Carolina Power & Light
Company, d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
|
Progress Energy Florida
|
|
Florida Power Corporation, d/b/a
Progress Energy Florida, Inc.
|
PSC
|
|
Public Service Commission
|
registrants
|
|
The Southern Company, Alabama
Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company,
Mississippi Power Company and Southern Power Company
|
ii
DEFINITIONS
(continued)
|
|
|
RFP
|
|
Request for Proposal
|
RTO
|
|
Regional Transmission Organization
|
RUS
|
|
Rural Utility Service (formerly
Rural Electrification Administration)
|
S&P
|
|
Standard and Poors, a
division of The McGraw-Hill Companies
|
Savannah Electric
|
|
Savannah Electric and Power
Company (merged into Georgia Power on July 1, 2006)
|
SCS
|
|
Southern Company Services, Inc.
(the system service company)
|
SEC
|
|
Securities and Exchange Commission
|
SEGCO
|
|
Southern Electric Generating
Company
|
SEPA
|
|
Southeastern Power Administration
|
SERC
|
|
Southeastern Electric Reliability
Council
|
SMEPA
|
|
South Mississippi Electric Power
Association
|
Southern Company
|
|
The Southern Company
|
Southern Company Gas
|
|
Southern Company Gas LLC
|
Southern Company system
|
|
Southern Company, the traditional
operating companies, Southern Power, SEGCO, Southern Nuclear,
SCS, SouthernLINC Wireless and other subsidiaries
|
Southern Holdings
|
|
Southern Company Holdings, Inc.
|
SouthernLINC Wireless
|
|
Southern Communications Services,
Inc.
|
Southern Nuclear
|
|
Southern Nuclear Operating
Company, Inc.
|
Southern Power
|
|
Southern Power Company
|
Southern Telecom
|
|
Southern Telecom, Inc.
|
traditional operating companies
|
|
Alabama Power Company, Georgia
Power Company, Gulf Power Company and Mississippi Power Company
|
TVA
|
|
Tennessee Valley Authority
|
iii
CAUTIONARY
STATEMENT REGARDING
FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
This Annual Report on
Form 10-K
contains forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements
include, among other things, statements concerning the strategic
goals for Southern Companys wholesale business, retail
sales growth, customer growth, storm damage cost recovery and repairs, fuel cost
recovery, environmental regulations and expenditures, earnings
growth, dividend payout ratios, access to sources of capital,
projections for postretirement benefit trust contributions,
synthetic fuel investments, financing activities, completion of
construction projects, impacts of the adoption of new accounting
rules, and estimated construction and other expenditures. In
some cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by
terminology such as may, will,
could, should, expects,
plans, anticipates,
believes, estimates,
projects, predicts,
potential or continue or the negative of
these terms or other similar terminology. There are various
factors that could cause actual results to differ materially
from those suggested by the forward-looking statements;
accordingly, there can be no assurance that such indicated
results will be realized. These factors include:
|
|
|
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 Act of 2005, and also
changes in environmental, 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, IRS audits, and Mirant matters;
|
|
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 population, and business
growth (and declines);
|
|
available sources and costs of fuels;
|
|
ability to control costs;
|
|
investment performance of Southern Companys employee
benefit plans;
|
|
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 storm restoration cost recovery;
|
|
the performance of projects undertaken by the non-utility
businesses and the success of efforts to invest in and develop
new opportunities;
|
|
fluctuations in the level of oil prices;
|
|
the level of production, if any, by the synthetic fuel
operations at Carbontronics Synfuels Investors LP and Alabama
Fuel Products, LLC for fiscal year 2007;
|
|
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;
|
|
the ability to obtain new short- and long-term contracts with
neighboring utilities;
|
|
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, pandemic health events such as an avian
influenza, or other similar occurrences;
|
|
the direct or indirect effects on Southern Companys
business resulting from incidents similar to the August 2003
power outage in the Northeast;
|
|
the effect of accounting pronouncements issued periodically by
standard setting bodies; and
|
|
other factors discussed elsewhere herein and in other reports
filed by the registrants from time to time with the SEC.
|
The registrants expressly disclaim any obligation to update
any forward-looking statements.
iv
PART I
Southern Company was incorporated under the laws of Delaware on
November 9, 1945. Southern Company is domesticated under
the laws of Georgia and is qualified to do business as a foreign
corporation under the laws of Alabama. Southern Company owns all
the outstanding common stock of Alabama Power, Georgia Power,
Gulf Power and Mississippi Power, each of which is an operating
public utility company. The traditional operating companies
supply electric service in the states of Alabama, Georgia,
Florida and Mississippi. More particular information relating to
each of the traditional operating companies is as follows:
Alabama Power is a corporation organized under the laws
of the State of Alabama on November 10, 1927, by the
consolidation of a predecessor Alabama Power Company, Gulf
Electric Company and Houston Power Company. The predecessor
Alabama Power Company had been in continuous existence since its
incorporation in 1906.
Georgia Power was incorporated under the laws of the
State of Georgia on June 26, 1930, and admitted to do
business in Alabama on September 15, 1948. Effective
July 1, 2006, Savannah Electric, formerly a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Southern Company, was merged with and into Georgia
Power.
Gulf Power is a Florida corporation that has had a
continuous existence since it was originally organized under the
laws of the State of Maine on November 2, 1925. Gulf Power
was admitted to do business in Florida on January 15, 1926,
in Mississippi on October 25, 1976, and in Georgia on
November 20, 1984. Gulf Power became a Florida corporation
after being domesticated under the laws of the State of Florida
on November 2, 2005.
Mississippi Power was incorporated under the laws of the
State of Mississippi on July 12, 1972, was admitted to do
business in Alabama on November 28, 1972, and effective
December 21, 1972, by the merger into it of the predecessor
Mississippi Power Company, succeeded to the business and
properties of the latter company. The predecessor Mississippi
Power Company was incorporated under the laws of the State of
Maine on November 24, 1924, and was admitted to do business
in Mississippi on December 23, 1924, and in Alabama on
December 7, 1962.
In addition, Southern Company owns all of the common stock of
Southern Power, which is also an operating public utility
company. Southern Power constructs, acquires and manages
generation assets and sells electricity at market-based rates in
the wholesale market. Southern Power is a corporation organized
under the laws of Delaware on January 8, 2001 and was
admitted to do business in the States of Alabama, Florida and
Georgia on January 10, 2001 and in the State of Mississippi
on January 30, 2001.
Southern Company also owns all the outstanding common stock or
membership interests of SouthernLINC Wireless, Southern Company
Gas, Southern Nuclear, SCS, Southern Telecom, Southern Holdings
and other direct and indirect subsidiaries. SouthernLINC
Wireless provides digital wireless communications services to
the traditional operating companies and also markets these
services to the public within the Southeast. Southern Nuclear
provides services to Alabama Powers and Georgia
Powers nuclear plants. SCS is the system service company
providing, at cost, specialized services to Southern Company and
its subsidiary companies. Southern Telecom provides wholesale
fiber optic solutions to telecommunication providers in the
Southeast. Southern Holdings is an intermediate holding
subsidiary for Southern Companys investments in synthetic
fuels and leveraged leases and various other energy-related
businesses.
Alabama Power and Georgia Power each own 50% of the outstanding
common stock of SEGCO. SEGCO is an operating public utility
company that owns electric generating units with an aggregate
capacity of 1,019,680 kilowatts at Plant Gaston on the Coosa
River near Wilsonville, Alabama. Alabama Power and Georgia Power
are each entitled to one-half of SEGCOs capacity and
energy. Alabama Power acts as SEGCOs agent in the
operation of SEGCOs units and furnishes coal to SEGCO as
fuel for its units. SEGCO also owns three 230,000 volt
transmission lines extending from Plant Gaston to the Georgia
state line at which point connection is made with the Georgia
Power transmission line system.
See Note 10 to the financial statements of Southern Company
in Item 8 herein for additional information regarding
Southern Companys segment and related information.
The registrants Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q,
Current Reports on
Form 8-K
and all amendments to those reports are made available on
Southern Companys website, free of charge, as soon as
reasonably practicable after such material is electronically
filed with or furnished to the SEC. Southern Companys
internet address is www.southerncompany.com.
I-1
The
Southern Company System
Traditional
operating companies
The transmission facilities of each of the traditional operating
companies are connected to the respective companys own
generating plants and other sources of power and are
interconnected with the transmission facilities of the other
traditional operating companies and SEGCO by means of heavy-duty
high voltage lines. For information on Georgia Powers
integrated transmission system, see Territory Served by
the Utilities herein for additional information.
Operating contracts covering arrangements in effect with
principal neighboring utility systems provide for capacity
exchanges, capacity purchases and sales, transfers of economy
energy and other similar transactions. Additionally, the
traditional operating companies have entered into voluntary
reliability agreements with the subsidiaries of Entergy
Corporation, Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group and TVA
and with Progress Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy, South Carolina
Electric & Gas Company and Virginia Electric and Power
Company, each of which provides for the establishment and
periodic review of principles and procedures for planning and
operation of generation and transmission facilities, maintenance
schedules, load retention programs, emergency operations and
other matters affecting the reliability of bulk power supply.
The traditional operating companies have joined with other
utilities in the Southeast (including those referred to above)
to form the SERC to augment further the reliability and adequacy
of bulk power supply. Through the SERC, the traditional
operating companies are represented on the National Electric
Reliability Council.
The IIC provides for coordinating operations of the power
producing facilities of the traditional operating companies and
Southern Power and the capacities available to such companies
from non-affiliated sources and for the pooling of surplus
energy available for interchange. Coordinated operation of the
entire interconnected system is conducted through a central
power supply coordination office maintained by SCS. The
available sources of energy are allocated to the traditional
operating companies and Southern Power to provide the most
economical sources of power consistent with reliable operation.
The resulting benefits and savings are apportioned among each of
the companies. See MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND
ANALYSIS FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL
FERC Matters Intercompany Interchange
Contract of each of the registrants in Item 7 herein
and Note 3 to the financial statements of Southern Company,
each of the traditional operating companies and Southern Power,
all under FERC Matters Intercompany
Interchange Contract in Item 8 herein for information
on the settlement of the FERC proceeding related to the IIC.
Southern Company, each traditional operating company, Southern
Power, Southern Nuclear, SEGCO and other subsidiaries have
contracted with SCS to furnish, at direct or allocated cost and
upon request, the following services: general and design
engineering, purchasing, accounting and statistical analysis,
finance and treasury, tax, information resources, marketing,
auditing, insurance and pension administration, human resources,
systems and procedures and other services with respect to
business and operations and power pool transactions. Southern
Power, SouthernLINC Wireless and Southern Telecom have also
secured from the traditional operating companies certain
services which are furnished at cost.
Alabama Power and Georgia Power each have a contract with
Southern Nuclear to operate Plant Farley and Plants Hatch and
Vogtle, respectively. See Regulation Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 herein for additional information.
Southern
Power
Southern Power is an electric wholesale generation subsidiary
with market-based rate authority from the FERC. Southern Power
constructs, acquires and manages generating facilities and sells
the output under long-term, fixed-price capacity contracts both
to unaffiliated wholesale purchasers as well as to the
traditional operating companies (under PPAs approved by the
respective state PSCs). Southern Powers business
activities are not subject to traditional state regulation of
utilities but are subject to regulation by the FERC. Southern
Power has attempted to insulate itself from significant fuel
supply, fuel transportation and electric transmission risks by
making such risks the responsibility of the counterparties to
the PPAs. However, Southern Powers overall profit will
depend on the parameters of the wholesale market and its
efficient operation of its wholesale generating assets. At
December 31, 2006, Southern Power had 6,733 megawatts of
nameplate capacity in commercial operation.
Other
Business
In January 2006, Southern Company Gas sold substantially all of
its assets, including natural gas inventory, accounts receivable
and customer list to Gas South. See Note 3 to the financial
statements of Southern Company under Southern Company Gas
Sale in Item 8 herein for additional information.
Southern Holdings is an intermediate holding subsidiary for
Southern Companys investments in synthetic fuels and
leveraged leases and various other energy-related businesses.
Southern Companys interest in
I-2
one of the synthetic fuel entities was terminated in 2006.
Synthetic fuel tax credits will no longer be available after
December 31, 2007.
SouthernLINC Wireless serves Southern Companys traditional
operating companies and markets its services to non-affiliates
within the Southeast. SouthernLINC Wireless delivers multiple
wireless communication options including push to talk, cellular
service, text messaging, wireless internet access and wireless
data. Its system covers approximately 128,000 square miles
in the Southeast.
These continuing efforts to invest in and develop new business
opportunities offer potential returns exceeding those of
rate-regulated operations. However, these activities also
involve a higher degree of risk.
Construction
Programs
The subsidiary companies of Southern Company are engaged in
continuous construction programs to accommodate existing and
estimated future loads on their respective systems. For
estimated construction and environmental expenditures for the
periods 2007 through 2009, see Note 7 to the financial
statements of Southern Company, each traditional operating
company and Southern Power all under Construction
Program in Item 8 herein.
Estimated construction costs in 2007 are expected to be
apportioned approximately as follows: (in millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southern
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company
|
|
Alabama
|
|
Georgia
|
|
Gulf
|
|
Mississippi
|
|
Southern
|
|
|
System*
|
|
Power
|
|
Power
|
|
Power
|
|
Power
|
|
Power
|
|
|
|
|
New generation
|
|
$
|
172
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
172
|
|
Environmental
|
|
|
1,661
|
|
|
|
505
|
|
|
|
955
|
|
|
|
171
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Other generating facilities,
including associated plant substations
|
|
|
441
|
|
|
|
175
|
|
|
|
167
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
47
|
|
New business
|
|
|
406
|
|
|
|
159
|
|
|
|
201
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Transmission
|
|
|
447
|
|
|
|
104
|
|
|
|
293
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Joint line and substation
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Distribution
|
|
|
321
|
|
|
|
143
|
|
|
|
136
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Nuclear fuel
|
|
|
116
|
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
General plant
|
|
|
342
|
|
|
|
84
|
|
|
|
103
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,911
|
|
|
$
|
1,218
|
|
|
$
|
1,923
|
|
|
$
|
278
|
|
|
$
|
146
|
|
|
$
|
241
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*These amounts include the traditional operating companies and
Southern Power (as detailed in the table above) as well as the
amounts for the other subsidiaries. See Other
Business herein for additional information.
The construction programs are subject to periodic review and
revision, and actual construction costs may vary from the above
estimates because of numerous factors. These factors include:
changes in business conditions; acquisition of additional
generating assets; revised load growth estimates; changes in
environmental regulations; changes in existing nuclear plants to
meet new regulatory requirements; changes in FERC rules and
regulations; increasing costs of labor, equipment and materials;
and cost of capital. In addition, there can be no assurance that
costs related to capital expenditures will be fully recovered.
Under Georgia law, Georgia Power is required to file an IRP for
approval by the Georgia PSC. Through the IRP process, the
Georgia PSC must pre-certify the construction of new power
plants and new PPAs. See Rate Matters
Integrated Resource Planning herein for additional
information.
See Regulation Environmental Statutes and
Regulations herein for additional information with respect
to certain existing and proposed environmental requirements and
PROPERTIES Jointly-Owned Facilities in
Item 2 herein for additional information concerning Alabama
Powers, Georgia Powers and Southern Powers
joint ownership of certain generating units and related
facilities with certain non-affiliated utilities.
Financing
Programs
See each of the registrants MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION
AND ANALYSIS FINANCIAL CONDITION AND LIQUIDITY in
Item 7 herein and Note 6 to the financial statements
of Southern Company, each traditional operating company and
Southern Power in Item 8 herein for information concerning
financing programs.
I-3
Fuel
Supply
The traditional operating companies and SEGCOs
supply of electricity is derived predominantly from coal.
Southern Powers supply of electricity is primarily fueled
by natural gas. The sources of generation for the years 2004
through 2006 are shown below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coal
|
|
|
Nuclear
|
|
|
Hydro
|
|
|
Gas
|
|
|
Oil
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama Power
|
2004
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
2005
|
|
|
67
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
2006
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Georgia Power
|
2004
|
|
|
76
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
2005
|
|
|
75
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2006
|
|
|
75
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Gulf Power
|
2004
|
|
|
84
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
2005
|
|
|
86
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
2006
|
|
|
87
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Mississippi Power
|
2004
|
|
|
69
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
2005
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
2006
|
|
|
71
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
SEGCO
|
2004
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
2005
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
2006
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Southern Power
|
2004
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
2005
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
2006
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Southern Company
system weighted average
|
2004
|
|
|
69
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
2005
|
|
|
71
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
2006
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Less than 0.5%.** Not applicable. |
For the traditional operating companies and SEGCO, the average
costs of fuel in cents per net
kilowatt-hour
generated for 2004 through 2006 are shown below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
2005
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama Power
|
|
1.69
|
|
2.02
|
|
2.27
|
Georgia Power
|
|
1.58
|
|
2.12
|
|
2.39
|
Gulf Power
|
|
2.32
|
|
2.77
|
|
3.27
|
Mississippi Power
|
|
2.50
|
|
3.11
|
|
3.34
|
SEGCO
|
|
1.60
|
|
1.69
|
|
2.12
|
Southern Company
system weighted average
|
|
1.89
|
|
2.39
|
|
2.64
|
|
|
The traditional operating companies have long-term agreements in
place from which they expect to receive approximately 89% of
their coal burn requirements in 2007. These agreements cover
remaining terms up to nine years. In 2006, the weighted average
sulfur content of all coal burned by the traditional operating
companies was 0.86% sulfur. This sulfur level, along with banked
and purchased sulfur dioxide allowances, allowed the traditional
operating companies to remain within limits set by the
Phase II acid rain requirements of the Clean Air Act. In
2006, Southern Company purchased approximately
$50.8 million of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emission
allowances to be used in current and future periods. As
additional environmental regulations are proposed that impact
the utilization of coal, the traditional operating
companies fuel mix will be monitored to ensure that the
traditional operating companies remain in compliance with
applicable laws and regulations. Additionally, Southern Company
and the traditional operating companies will continue to
evaluate the need to purchase additional emission allowances and
the timing of capital expenditures for emission control
equipment. See MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND
ANALYSIS FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL
Environmental Matters Environmental Statutes
and Regulations of Southern Company and each of the
traditional operating companies in Item 7 herein for
information on the Clean Air Act.
The Southern Company system has long-term agreements in place
for its natural gas burn requirements. For 2007, the Southern
Company system has contracted for 176 billion cubic feet of
natural gas supply. These agreements cover remaining terms up to
12 years. In addition to gas supply, the Southern Company
system has contracts in place for both firm gas transportation
and storage. Management believes that these contracts provide
sufficient natural gas supplies, transportation and storage to
ensure normal operations of the Southern Company systems
natural gas generating units.
Changes in fuel prices to the traditional operating companies
are generally reflected in fuel adjustment
I-4
clauses contained in rate schedules. See Rate
Matters Rate Structure herein for additional
information. Southern Powers PPAs generally provide that
the counterparty is responsible for substantially all of the
cost of fuel.
Alabama Power and Georgia Power have numerous contracts covering
a portion of their nuclear fuel needs for uranium, conversion
services, enrichment services and fuel fabrication. These
contracts have varying expiration dates and most are short to
medium term (less than 10 years). Management believes that
sufficient capacity for nuclear fuel supplies and processing
exists to preclude the impairment of normal operations of the
Southern Company systems nuclear generating units.
Alabama Power and Georgia Power have contracts with the DOE that
provide for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The
DOE failed to begin disposing of spent fuel in 1998, as required
by the contracts, and Alabama Power and Georgia Power are
pursuing legal remedies against the government for breach of
contract. At Plants Farley and Hatch,
on-site dry
storage facilities are operational and can be expanded to
accommodate spent fuel through the life of each plant.
Sufficient pool storage capacity for spent fuel is available at
Plant Vogtle to maintain full-core discharge capability for both
units into 2014. Construction of an
on-site dry
storage facility at Plant Vogtle is expected to begin in
sufficient time to maintain pool full-core discharge capability.
The Energy Act of 1992 established a Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, which is funded in
part by a special assessment on utilities with nuclear plants,
including Alabama Power and Georgia Power. This assessment was
paid over a
15-year
period that ended in 2006. This fund will be used by the DOE for
the decontamination and decommissioning of its nuclear fuel
enrichment facilities. The law provides that utilities will
recover these payments in the same manner as any other fuel
expense. See Note 1 to the financial statements of Southern
Company, Alabama Power and Georgia Power under Nuclear
Fuel Disposal Costs in Item 8 herein for additional
information.
Territory
Served by the Utilities
The territory in which the traditional operating companies
provide electric service comprises most of the states of Alabama
and Georgia together with the northwestern portion of Florida
and southeastern Mississippi. In this territory there are
non-affiliated electric distribution systems which obtain some
or all of their power requirements either directly or indirectly
from the traditional operating companies. The territory has an
area of approximately 120,000 square miles and an estimated
population of approximately 11 million.
Alabama Power is engaged, within the State of Alabama, in the
generation and purchase of electricity and the distribution and
sale of such electricity at retail in over 1,000 communities
(including Anniston, Birmingham, Gadsden, Mobile, Montgomery and
Tuscaloosa) and at wholesale to 15 municipally-owned electric
distribution systems, 11 of which are served indirectly through
sales to AMEA, and two rural distributing cooperative
associations. Alabama Power also supplies steam service in
downtown Birmingham. Alabama Power owns coal reserves near its
Plant Gorgas and uses the output of coal from the reserves in
its generating plants. Alabama Power also sells, and cooperates
with dealers in promoting the sale of, electric appliances.
Georgia Power is engaged in the generation and purchase of
electricity and the transmission, distribution and sale of such
electricity within the State of Georgia at retail in over 600
communities (including Athens, Atlanta, Augusta, Columbus, Macon
and Rome), as well as in rural areas, and at wholesale currently
to OPC, MEAG, Dalton and Hampton. This territory also includes
the five-county area in eastern Georgia formerly served by
Savannah Electric. See Note 3 to the financial statements
of Georgia Power under Merger in Item 8 herein
for information on the merger of Savannah Electric with and into
Georgia Power.
Gulf Power is engaged, within the northwestern portion of
Florida, in the generation and purchase of electricity and the
distribution and sale of such electricity at retail in 71
communities (including Pensacola, Panama City and
Fort Walton Beach), as well as in rural areas, and at
wholesale to a non-affiliated utility and a municipality.
Mississippi Power is engaged in the generation and purchase of
electricity and the distribution and sale of such energy within
the 23 counties of southeastern Mississippi, at retail in 123
communities (including Biloxi, Gulfport, Hattiesburg, Laurel,
Meridian and Pascagoula), as well as in rural areas, and at
wholesale to one municipality, six rural electric distribution
cooperative associations and one generating and transmitting
cooperative.
For information relating to
kilowatt-hour
sales by classification for the traditional operating companies,
see MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS of each of the traditional operating
companies in Item 7 herein. Also, for information relating
to the sources of revenues for the Southern Company system, each
of the traditional operating companies and Southern Power,
reference is made to Item 6 herein.
I-5
A portion of the area served by the traditional operating
companies adjoins the area served by TVA and its municipal and
cooperative distributors. An Act of Congress limits the
distribution of TVA power, unless otherwise authorized by
Congress, to specified areas or customers which generally were
those served on July 1, 1957.
The RUS has authority to make loans to cooperative associations
or corporations to enable them to provide electric service to
customers in rural sections of the country. There are 71
electric cooperative organizations operating in the territory in
which the traditional operating companies provide electric
service at retail or wholesale.
One of these organizations, AEC, is a generating and
transmitting cooperative selling power to several distributing
cooperatives, municipal systems and other customers in south
Alabama and northwest Florida. AEC owns generating units with
approximately 1,776 megawatts of nameplate capacity, including
an undivided 8.16% ownership interest in Alabama Powers
Plant Miller Units 1 and 2. AECs facilities were financed
with RUS loans secured by long-term contracts requiring
distributing cooperatives to take their requirements from AEC to
the extent such energy is available.
Four electric cooperative associations, financed by the RUS,
operate within Gulf Powers service area. These
cooperatives purchase their full requirements from AEC and SEPA
(a federal power marketing agency). A
non-affiliated
utility also operates within Gulf Powers service area and
purchases its full requirements from Gulf Power.
Alabama Power and Gulf Power have entered into separate
agreements with AEC involving interconnection between their
respective systems. The delivery of capacity and energy from AEC
to certain distributing cooperatives in the service areas of
Alabama Power and Gulf Power is governed by the Southern
Company/AEC Network Transmission Service Agreement. The rates
for this service to AEC are on file with the FERC. See
PROPERTIES Jointly-Owned Facilities in
Item 2 herein for details of Alabama Powers
joint-ownership with AEC of a portion of Plant Miller.
Mississippi Power has an interchange agreement with SMEPA, a
generating and transmitting cooperative, pursuant to which
various services are provided, including the furnishing of
protective capacity by Mississippi Power to SMEPA.
There are 43 electric cooperative organizations operating in, or
in areas adjoining, territory in the State of Georgia in which
Georgia Power provides electric service at retail or wholesale.
Three of these organizations obtain their power from TVA, one
from Southern Power under a
15-year
agreement which began in January 2005 and one from other
sources. OPC has a wholesale power contract with the remaining
38 of these cooperative organizations. OPC and these cooperative
organizations utilize self-owned generation, some of which is
acquired and jointly-owned with Georgia Power, megawatt capacity
purchases from Georgia Power under power supply agreements and
other arrangements to meet their power supply obligations.
Georgia Power, OPC and Georgia Systems Operations Corporation
entered into a new control area compact agreement effective
March 2005 which replaced previous coordination service
agreements.
In April 2006, AEC began purchasing 250 megawatts of capacity
from Georgia Power for a
10-year
term. In January 2005, 29 electric cooperative organizations
served by OPC and one served by Southern Power began purchasing
a total of 700 megawatts of capacity from Georgia Power under
individual contracts for
10-year
terms. Also, in January 2005, the electric cooperative served by
Southern Power began purchasing 25 megawatts of peaking
capacity from Georgia Power under a
10-year
contract. This electric cooperative began purchasing
50 megawatts of coal-fired capacity from Georgia Power
beginning on April 1, 2006 and ending on December 31,
2014 and will purchase another 75 megawatts of coal-fired
capacity from Georgia Power beginning June 1, 2010 and
ending December 31, 2019. See PROPERTIES
Jointly-Owned Facilities in Item 2 herein for
additional information.
There are 65 municipally-owned electric distribution systems
operating in the territory in which the traditional operating
companies provide electric service at retail or wholesale.
AMEA was organized under an act of the Alabama legislature and
is comprised of 11 municipalities. In December 2001, Alabama
Power entered into a power sales agreement with AMEA which began
on January 1, 2006. Under this contract, AMEA supplies 70
to 95 megawatts of power from its combustion turbine plant
and Alabama Power serves the remainder of its member needs
through 2010. Beginning in 2011, the amount of power supplied to
AMEA by Alabama Power is fixed at 2010 levels and AMEA has the
option to seek other suppliers for its incremental growth needs
through 2015, at which time the contract terminates.
Forty-eight municipally-owned electric distribution systems and
one county-owned system receive their requirements through MEAG,
which was established by a Georgia state statute in 1975. MEAG
serves these requirements from self-owned generation facilities,
some of which are acquired and jointly-owned with Georgia Power,
power purchased from Georgia Power and purchases from other
resources. In 1997, a pseudo scheduling and services agreement
was implemented
I-6
between Georgia Power and MEAG. Since 1977, Dalton has filled
its requirements from self-owned generation facilities, some of
which are acquired and jointly-owned with Georgia Power, and
through purchases from Georgia Power pursuant to their partial
requirements tariff. Beginning January 1, 2003, Dalton
entered into a power supply agreement with Georgia Power and
Southern Power pursuant to which it will purchase 134 megawatts
from Georgia Power and the balance of its requirements, net of
self-owned generation, from Southern Power for a
15-year
term. In addition, Georgia Power serves the full requirements of
Hamptons electric distribution system under a market-based
contract. See PROPERTIES Jointly-Owned
Facilities in Item 2 herein for additional
information.
Georgia Power has entered into substantially similar agreements
with Georgia Transmission Corporation (formerly OPCs
transmission division), MEAG and Dalton providing for the
establishment of an integrated transmission system to carry the
power and energy of each. The agreements require an investment
by each party in the integrated transmission system in
proportion to its respective share of the aggregate system load.
See PROPERTIES Jointly-Owned Facilities
in Item 2 herein for additional information.
See MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS FUTURE
EARNINGS POTENTIAL Power Sales
Agreements of Southern Power in Item 7 herein for
information concerning its PPAs.
SCS, acting on behalf of the traditional operating companies,
also has a contract with SEPA providing for the use of the
traditional operating companies facilities at government
expense to deliver to certain cooperatives and municipalities,
entitled by federal statute to preference in the purchase of
power from SEPA, quantities of power equivalent to the amounts
of power allocated to them by SEPA from certain United States
government hydroelectric projects.
The retail service rights of all electric suppliers in the State
of Georgia are regulated by the 1973 State Territorial Electric
Service Act. Pursuant to the provisions of this Act, all areas
within existing municipal limits were assigned to the primary
electric supplier therein (451 municipalities, including
Atlanta, Columbus, Macon, Augusta, Athens, Rome and Valdosta, to
Georgia Power; 115 to electric cooperatives; and 50 to
publicly-owned systems). Areas outside of such municipal limits
were either to be assigned or to be declared open for customer
choice of supplier by action of the Georgia PSC pursuant to
standards set forth in this Act. Consistent with such standards,
the Georgia PSC has assigned substantially all of the land area
in the state to a supplier. Notwithstanding such assignments,
this Act provides that any new customer locating outside of 1973
municipal limits and having a connected load of at least 900
kilowatts may receive electric service from the supplier of its
choice. See Competition herein for additional
information.
Under the provisions of its franchises and concessions and the
1973 State Territorial Electric Service Act, and pursuant to the
merger with Savannah Electric, Georgia Power now has the full
but nonexclusive right to serve the City of Savannah, the Towns
of Bloomingdale, Pooler, Garden City, Guyton, Newington, Oliver,
Port Wentworth, Rincon, Tybee Island, Springfield, Thunderbolt
and Vernonburg, and in conjunction with a secondary supplier,
the Town of Richmond Hill. In addition, Savannah Electric was
assigned certain unincorporated areas in Chatham, Effingham,
Bryan, Bulloch and Screven Counties by the Georgia PSC. In
connection with the merger of Savannah Electric with and into
Georgia Power, the Georgia PSC approved the transfer of Savannah
Electrics service territory to Georgia Power at the
effective time of merger. See Competition herein for
additional information.
Pursuant to the 1956 Utility Act, the Mississippi PSC issued
Grandfather Certificates of public convenience and
necessity to Mississippi Power and to six distribution rural
cooperatives operating in southeastern Mississippi, then served
in whole or in part by Mississippi Power, authorizing them to
distribute electricity in certain specified geographically
described areas of the state. The six cooperatives serve
approximately 375,000 retail customers in a certificated area of
approximately 10,300 square miles. In areas included in a
Grandfather Certificate, the utility holding such
certificate may, without further certification, extend its lines
up to five miles; other extensions within that area by such
utility, or by other utilities, may not be made except upon a
showing of, and a grant of a certificate of, public convenience
and necessity. Areas included in such a certificate which are
subsequently annexed to municipalities may continue to be served
by the holder of the certificate, irrespective of whether it has
a franchise in the annexing municipality. On the other hand, the
holder of the municipal franchise may not extend service into
such newly annexed area without authorization by the Mississippi
PSC.
Competition
The electric utility industry in the United States is continuing
to evolve as a result of regulatory and competitive factors.
Among the early primary agents of change was the Energy Act of
1992. The Energy Act of 1992 allowed IPPs to access a
utilitys transmission network in order to sell electricity
to other utilities.
Alabama Power currently has cogeneration contracts in effect
with 10 industrial customers. Under the terms of these
contracts, Alabama Power purchases excess
I-7
generation of such companies. During 2006, Alabama Power
purchased approximately 78 million
kilowatt-hours
from such companies at a cost of $3.9 million.
Georgia Power currently has contracts in effect with 10 small
power producers whereby Georgia Power purchases their excess
generation. During 2006, Georgia Power purchased 11 million
kilowatt-hours
from such companies at a cost of $2.4 million. Georgia
Power has PPAs for electricity with two cogeneration facilities.
Payments are subject to reductions for failure to meet minimum
capacity output. During 2006, Georgia Power purchased
356 million
kilowatt-hours
at a cost of $70.6 million from these facilities.
Also during 2006, pursuant to the merger with Savannah Electric,
Georgia Power purchased energy from seven customer-owned
generating facilities. Six of the seven customers provide only
energy to Georgia Power. These six customers make no capacity
commitment and are not dispatched by Georgia Power. Georgia
Power does have a contract with the remaining customer for eight
megawatts of dispatchable capacity and energy. During 2006,
Georgia Power purchased a total of 48.6 million
kilowatt-hours
from the seven suppliers at a cost of approximately
$1.9 million.
Gulf Power currently has agreements in effect with various
industrial, commercial and qualifying facilities pursuant to
which Gulf Power purchases as available energy from
customer-owned generation. During 2006, Gulf Power purchased
9.3 million
kilowatt-hours
from such companies for approximately $0.5 million.
Mississippi Power currently has a cogeneration agreement in
effect with one of its industrial customers. Under the terms of
this contract, Mississippi Power purchases any excess
generation. During 2006, this customer had no excess generation.
The competition for retail energy sales among competing
suppliers of energy is influenced by various factors, including
price, availability, technological advancements and reliability.
These factors are, in turn, affected by, among other influences,
regulatory, political and environmental considerations, taxation
and supply.
Generally, the traditional operating companies have experienced,
and expect to continue to experience, competition in their
respective retail service territories in varying degrees as the
result of self-generation (as described above) and fuel
switching by customers and other factors. See also
Territory Served by the Utilities herein for
additional information concerning suppliers of electricity
operating within or near the areas served at retail by the
traditional operating companies.
Southern Power competes with investor owned utilities, IPPs and
others for wholesale energy sales in the Southeastern United
States wholesale market. The needs of this market are driven by
the demands of end users in the Southeast and the generation
available. Southern Powers success in wholesale energy
sales is influenced by various factors including reliability and
availability of Southern Powers plants, availability of
transmission to serve the demand, price and Southern
Powers ability to contain costs.
Seasonality
Electric power generation is a seasonal business. At the
traditional operating companies and Southern Power, the demand
for power peaks during the hot summer months, with market prices
also peaking at that time. Power demand peaks can also be
recorded during the winter. As a result, the overall operating
results of Southern Company, the traditional operating companies
and Southern Power in the future may fluctuate substantially on
a seasonal basis. In addition, Southern Company, the traditional
operating companies and Southern Power have historically sold
less power, and consequently earned less income, when weather
conditions are milder.
Regulation
State
Commissions
The traditional operating companies are subject to the
jurisdiction of their respective state PSCs, which have broad
powers of supervision and regulation over public utilities
operating in the respective states, including their rates,
service regulations, sales of securities (except for the
Mississippi PSC) and, in the cases of the Georgia PSC and the
Mississippi PSC, in part, retail service territories. See
Territory Served by the Utilities and Rate
Matters herein for additional information.
Federal
Power Act
In July 2005, the U.S. Congress passed the Energy Act of
2005 which repealed the Holding Company Act effective
February 8, 2006. The traditional operating companies,
Southern Power and its generation subsidiaries and SEGCO are all
public utilities engaged in wholesale sales of energy in
interstate commerce and therefore remain subject to the rate,
financial and accounting jurisdiction of the FERC under the
Federal Power Act. Certain financing approvals which would have
been obtained from the SEC under the repealed Holding Company
Act now must be obtained from the FERC. In implementing repeal
of the Holding Company Act, the FERC sought to minimize
unnecessary administrative burdens and decided to retain an
at cost standard for services rendered by system
service companies such as SCS, to permit certain existing
financing authorizations to remain effective without further
action by the FERC and to reduce reporting requirements. In
addition to its repeal of the Holding
I-8
Company Act, the Energy Act of 2005 authorized the FERC to
establish regional reliability organizations authorized to
enforce reliability standards, established a process for the
FERC to address impediments to the construction of transmission
and established clear responsibility for the FERC to prohibit
manipulative energy trading practices.
Alabama Power and Georgia Power are also subject to the
provisions of the Federal Power Act or the earlier Federal Water
Power Act applicable to licensees with respect to their
hydroelectric developments. Among the hydroelectric projects
subject to licensing by the FERC are 14 existing Alabama Power
generating stations having an aggregate installed capacity of
1,662,400 kilowatts and 18 existing Georgia Power generating
stations having an aggregate installed capacity of 1,074,696
kilowatts.
In 2003, Georgia Power started the relicensing process for the
Morgan Falls project which is located on the Chattahoochee River
near Atlanta, Georgia and submitted the final license
application for this facility to the FERC in February 2007. The
current license for the Morgan Falls project expires in 2009. In
2007, Georgia Power expects to begin the relicensing process for
Bartletts Ferry which is located on the Chattahoochee
River near Columbus, Georgia. The current Bartletts Ferry
license expires in 2014 and the application for a new license is
expected to be submitted to the FERC in 2012. In July 2005,
Alabama Power filed two applications with the FERC for new
50-year
licenses for its seven hydroelectric developments on the Coosa
River (Weiss, Henry, Logan Martin, Lay, Mitchell, Jordan and
Bouldin) and for the Lewis Smith and Bankhead developments on
the Warrior River. The FERC licenses for all of these nine
developments expire in July and August of 2007. In 2006, Alabama
Power initiated the process of developing an application to
relicense the Martin hydroelectric project located on the
Tallapoosa River. The current Martin license will expire in 2013
and the application for a new license is expected to be filed
with the FERC in 2011. See MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND
ANALYSIS FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL
FERC Matters Hydro Relicensing of
Alabama Power in Item 7 herein for additional information.
Georgia Power and OPC also have a license, expiring in 2027, for
the Rocky Mountain Plant, a pure pumped storage facility of
847,800 kilowatt capacity. See PROPERTIES
Jointly-Owned Facilities in Item 2 herein for
additional information.
Licenses for all projects, excluding those discussed above,
expire in the period
2013-2033 in
the case of Alabama Powers projects and in the period
2014-2039 in
the case of Georgia Powers projects.
Upon or after the expiration of each license, the United States
Government, by act of Congress, may take over the project or the
FERC may relicense the project either to the original licensee
or to a new licensee. In the event of takeover or relicensing to
another, the original licensee is to be compensated in
accordance with the provisions of the Federal Power Act, such
compensation to reflect the net investment of the licensee in
the project, not in excess of the fair value of the property
taken, plus reasonable damages to other property of the licensee
resulting from the severance therefrom of the property taken. If
the FERC does not act on the new license application prior to
the expiration of the existing license, the FERC is required to
issue annual licenses, under the same terms and conditions of
the existing license, until a new license is issued.
Atomic
Energy Act of 1954
Alabama Power, Georgia Power and Southern Nuclear are subject to
the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
which vests jurisdiction in the NRC over the construction and
operation of nuclear reactors, particularly with regard to
certain public health and safety and antitrust matters. The
National Environmental Policy Act has been construed to expand
the jurisdiction of the NRC to consider the environmental impact
of a facility licensed under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended.
The NRC operating licenses for Plant Vogtle units 1 and 2
currently expire in January 2027 and February 2029,
respectively. In January 2002, the NRC granted Georgia Power a
20-year
extension of the licenses for both units at Plant Hatch which
permits the operation of units 1 and 2 until 2034 and 2038,
respectively. Georgia Power plans to file an application with
the NRC in June 2007 to extend the licenses for Plant Vogtle
units 1 and 2 for an additional 20 years. In May 2005, the
NRC granted Alabama Power a
20-year
extension of the licenses for both units at Plant Farley which
permits operation of units 1 and 2 until 2037 and 2041,
respectively.
See Notes 1 and 9 to the financial statements of Southern
Company, Alabama Power and Georgia Power in Item 8 herein
for information on nuclear decommissioning costs and nuclear
insurance.
FERC
Matters
See MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS FUTURE
EARNINGS POTENTIAL FERC Matters of each
of the registrants in Item 7 herein for information on
matters regarding the FERC.
I-9
Environmental
Statutes and Regulations
Southern Companys operations are subject to extensive
regulation by state and federal environmental agencies under a
variety of statutes and regulations governing environmental
media, including air, water and land resources. Compliance with
these environmental requirements involves significant capital
and operating costs, a major portion of which is expected to be
recovered through existing ratemaking provisions. There is no
assurance, however, that all such costs will be recovered.
Compliance with the federal Clean Air Act and resulting
regulations has been, and will continue to be, a significant
focus for Southern Company, each traditional operating company
and SEGCO. See MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND
ANALYSIS FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL
Environmental Matters of Southern Company and each
of the traditional operating companies in Item 7 herein for
additional information about the Clean Air Act and other
environmental issues, including the litigation brought by the
EPA under the New Source Review provisions of the Clean Air Act.
Additionally, each traditional operating company and SEGCO has
incurred costs for environmental remediation of various sites.
See MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS FUTURE
EARNINGS POTENTIAL Environmental
Matters Environmental Statutes and
Regulation Environmental Remediation of
Southern Company and each of the traditional operating companies
in Item 7 herein for information regarding environmental
remediation efforts. Also, see Note 3 to the financial
statements of Southern Company, Georgia Power, Gulf Power and
Mississippi Power under Environmental Matters
Environmental Remediation in Item 8 herein for
information regarding the identification of sites that may
require environmental remediation.
The traditional operating companies, Southern Power and SEGCO
are unable to predict at this time what additional steps they
may be required to take as a result of the implementation of
existing or future quality control requirements for air, water
and hazardous or toxic materials, but such steps could adversely
affect system operations and result in substantial additional
costs.
The outcome of the matters mentioned above under
Regulation cannot now be determined, except that
these developments may result in delays in obtaining appropriate
licenses for generating facilities, increased construction and
operating costs or reduced generation, the nature and extent of
which, while not determinable at this time, could be substantial.
Rate
Matters
Rate
Structure
The rates and service regulations of the traditional operating
companies are uniform for each class of service throughout their
respective service areas. Rates for residential electric service
are generally of the block type based upon
kilowatt-hours
used and include minimum charges. Residential and other rates
contain separate customer charges. Rates for commercial service
are presently of the block type and, for large customers, the
billing demand is generally used to determine capacity and
minimum bill charges. These large customers rates are
generally based upon usage by the customer and include rates
with special features to encourage off-peak usage. Additionally,
Alabama Power, Gulf Power and Mississippi Power are generally
allowed by their respective state PSCs to negotiate the terms
and cost of service to large customers. Such terms and cost of
service, however, are subject to final state PSC approval.
Fuel and net purchased energy costs are recovered through
specific fuel
cost recovery provisions at the traditional operating companies. These fuel cost
recovery provisions are adjusted to reflect increases or
decreases in such costs as needed. Gulf
Powers and Mississippi Powers fuel cost recovery
provisions are adjusted annually to reflect increases or
decreases in such costs. Georgia Power is currently required to
file for an adjustment to its fuel cost recovery rate no later
than March 1, 2008. Alabama Powers fuel clause is
adjusted as required. Revenues are adjusted for differences
between recoverable costs and amounts actually recovered in
current rates.
Approved environmental compliance and storm damage costs are
recovered at Alabama Power, Gulf Power and Mississippi Power
through cost recovery provisions approved by their respective
state PSCs. Within limits approved by their respective PSCs,
these rates are adjusted to reflect increases or
decreases in such costs as required. Alabama Power recovers the
cost of new plant and Gulf Power recovers purchased power capacity
and conservation costs through cost recovery provisions which are adjusted as required
to reflect increases or decreases in such costs as needed.
Georgia Power continues to recover environmental compliance,
storm damage and new plant costs through its base rates.
Revenues are adjusted for differences between recoverable costs
and amounts actually recovered in current rates.
See MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS FUTURE
EARNINGS POTENTIAL PSC Matters of
Southern Company and each of the
I-10
traditional operating companies in Item 7 herein and
Note 3 to the financial statements of Southern Company
under Alabama Power Retail Regulatory Matters and
Georgia Power Retail Regulatory Matters and
Note 3 to the financial statements of each of the
traditional operating companies under Retail Regulatory
Matters in Item 8 herein for a discussion of rate
matters. Also, see Note 1 to the financial statements of
Southern Company and each of the traditional operating companies
in Item 8 herein for a discussion of recovery of fuel costs
and environmental compliance costs through rates.
Southern Power is authorized by the FERC to sell power to
non-affiliates at market-based prices and to make short-term
opportunity sales at market rates. Special FERC approval must be
obtained with respect to a market-based contract with an
affiliate. See MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND
ANALYSIS FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL
FERC Matters Market-Based Rate Authority
of Southern Power in Item 7 herein and Note 3 to the
financial statements of Southern Power under FERC
Matters Market-Based Rate Authority in
Item 8 herein for a discussion of rate matters.
Integrated
Resource Planning
Georgia Power must file an IRP with the Georgia PSC that
specifies how it intends to meet the future electrical needs of
its customers through a combination of demand-side and
supply-side resources. The Georgia PSC must certify any new
demand-side or supply-side resources. Once certified, the lesser
of actual or certified construction costs and purchased power
costs will be recoverable through rates.
In December 2002, the Georgia PSC certified a PPA between Duke
Energy and Georgia Power for 620 megawatts for seven years that
began in June 2005.
K-Gen Power,
LLC has replaced Duke Energy as a party to this contract.
In May 2004, the Georgia PSC ordered Georgia Power and Savannah
Electric to purchase the McIntosh combined cycle generating
facility from Southern Power and place it into their respective
rate bases. The McIntosh resource was previously certified as a
PPA by the Georgia PSC in the supply-side certification
conducted in 2002 and, at the same time, the Georgia PSC also
approved the de-certification of Savannah Electrics Plant
Riverside, units 4 through 8, effective in May 2005. The
McIntosh units produce a combined 1,240 megawatts and have been
available since June 2005. Pursuant to the merger with Savannah
Electric, Georgia Power now has 100% ownership of the McIntosh
units. See Note 3 to the financial statements of Georgia
Power under Retail Regulatory Matters Rate
Plans in Item 8 herein for additional information.
Following the Georgia PSCs approval of the 2004 IRP,
Georgia Power de-certified the Atkinson combustion turbine units
5A and 5B totaling approximately 80 megawatts of capacity
and extended the life of the Kraft combustion turbine unit until
such time as its retirement is warranted.
Georgia Power received certification of its RFP for
approximately 1,000 megawatts to meet its future supply-side
capacity needs for 2009 and beyond.
In January 2006, Georgia Power filed an application with the
Georgia PSC to approve an amendment to Georgia Powers IRP
in connection with the merger to add Savannah Electric customers
and generating assets. In June 2006, the Georgia PSC approved
the merger between Georgia Power and Savannah Electric. Also,
the Georgia PSC approved the transfer of territory, customers,
power plants and demand-side programs from Savannah Electric to
Georgia Power.
In March 2006, Georgia Power issued RFPs for approximately 2,100
and 1,400 megawatts, respectively, to meet its 2010 and 2011
supply-side needs. For the 2011 RFP, Georgia Power submitted
self-build proposals that compare to the market. Additionally,
Georgia Power will continue a residential load management
program which was certified by the Georgia PSC for up to 40
megawatts of equivalent supply-side capacity. Georgia Power will
continue to utilize approximately eight megawatts of capacity
from existing qualifying facilities under firm contracts and
continue to add additional resources as ordered by the Georgia
PSC.
On January 31, 2007, Georgia Power filed its 2007 IRP with
the Georgia PSC. With the 2007 IRP and subsequent filings,
Georgia Power proposes to: (1) retire the coal units at
Plant McDonough and replace them with combined-cycle natural gas
units; (2) gain approval for five new energy efficiency
pilot programs and request that certified demand-side management
programs receive similar financial treatment as supply-side
options; (3) pursue up to three new renewable generation
projects with a Georgia Power ownership interest;
(4) establish new nuclear units as a preferred option to
meet demand in the 2015/2016 timeframe; and (5) establish
policy that baseload generating plants should be built by
Georgia Power and should not be subject to the competitive bid
process. The Georgia PSC decision on this 2007 IRP filing is
expected in July 2007.
Environmental
Cost Recovery Plans
See MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS FUTURE
EARNINGS POTENTIAL PSC Matters
Alabama Power and PSC Matters Retail
Rate Adjustments, respectively, of Southern Company and
Alabama Power in Item 7 herein and Note 3
I-11
to the financial statements of Southern Company and Alabama
Power, under Alabama Power Retail Regulatory Matters
and Retail Regulatory Matters, respectively, in
Item 8 herein for a discussion on Alabama PSC rate matters.
See Note 3 to the financial statements of Gulf Power under
Retail Regulatory Matters Environmental Cost
Recovery in Item 8 herein for information on Gulf
Powers environmental cost recovery.
See MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS FUTURE
EARNINGS POTENTIAL PSC Matters
Environmental Compliance Overview Plan of Mississippi
Power in Item 7 herein and Note 3 to the financial
statements of Mississippi Power under Retail Regulatory
Matters Environmental Compliance Overview Plan
in Item 8 herein for information on Mississippi
Powers environmental cost recovery.
Storm
Damage Cost Recovery
See MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS FUTURE
EARNINGS POTENTIAL PSC Matters
Storm Damage Cost Recovery of Southern Company, Gulf Power
and Mississippi Power and PSC Matters Natural
Disaster Cost Recovery of Alabama Power in Item 7
herein and Note 3 to the financial statements of Southern
Company, Alabama Power, Gulf Power and Mississippi Power under
Storm Damage Cost Recovery, Retail Regulatory
Matters Natural Disaster Cost Recovery,
Retail Regulatory Matters Storm Damage Cost
Recovery and Retail Regulatory Matters
Storm Damage Cost Recovery, respectively, in Item 8
herein for a discussion of the impacts and recovery of storm
damage costs related to Hurricanes Ivan, Dennis and Katrina.
Employee
Relations
The Southern Company system had a total of 26,091 employees on
its payroll at December 31, 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employees
|
|
|
at
|
|
|
December 31, 2006
|
|
Alabama Power
|
|
|
6,796
|
|
Georgia Power
|
|
|
9,278
|
|
Gulf Power
|
|
|
1,321
|
|
Mississippi Power
|
|
|
1,270
|
|
SCS
|
|
|
3,737
|
|
Southern Holdings*
|
|
|
4
|
|
Southern Nuclear
|
|
|
3,216
|
|
Southern Power
|
|
|
**
|
|
Other
|
|
|
469
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
26,091
|
|
|
|
* One of Southern Holdings subsidiaries has
4 employees. Southern Holdings has agreements with SCS
whereby all other employee services are rendered at cost.
** Southern Power has no employees. Southern Power has
agreements with SCS and the traditional operating companies
whereby employee services are rendered at cost.
The traditional operating companies have separate agreements
with local unions of the IBEW generally covering wages, working
conditions and procedures for handling grievances and
arbitration. These agreements apply with certain exceptions to
operating, maintenance and construction employees.
Alabama Power has agreements with the IBEW on a five-year
contract extending to August 15, 2009. Upon notice given at
least 60 days prior to that date, negotiations may be
initiated with respect to agreement terms to be effective after
such date.
Georgia Power has an agreement with the IBEW covering wages and
working conditions, which is in effect through June 30,
2008.
Gulf Power has an agreement with the IBEW covering wages and
working conditions, which is in effect through October 14,
2009.
Mississippi Power has an agreement with the IBEW extending the
previous contract for one year to August 16, 2007.
Negotiations are expected to begin in July 2007 on a new
four-year agreement.
Southern Nuclear has agreements with the IBEW on a three-year
contract extending to June 30, 2008 for Plants Hatch and
Vogtle and a three-year contract which is in effect through
August 15, 2009 for Plant Farley. Upon notice given at
least 60 days prior to these dates, negotiations may be
initiated with respect to agreement terms to be effective after
such dates.
The agreements also subject the terms of the pension plans for
the companies discussed above to collective bargaining with the
unions at either a five-year or a
10-year
cycle, depending upon union and company actions.
In addition to the other information in this
Form 10-K,
including MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL in Item 7 of each registrant, and
other documents filed by Southern Company
and/or its
subsidiaries with the SEC from time to time, the following
factors should be carefully considered in evaluating Southern
Company and its subsidiaries. Such factors could affect actual
results and cause results to differ materially from
I-12
those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by, or
on behalf of, Southern Company
and/or its
subsidiaries.
Risks
Related to the Energy Industry
Southern Company and its subsidiaries are subject to
substantial governmental regulation. Compliance with current and
future regulatory requirements and procurement of necessary
approvals, permits and certificates may result in substantial
costs to Southern Company and its subsidiaries.
Southern Company and its subsidiaries, including the traditional
operating companies and Southern Power, are subject to
substantial regulation from federal, state and local regulatory
agencies. Southern Company and its subsidiaries are required to
comply with numerous laws and regulations and to obtain numerous
permits, approvals and certificates from the governmental
agencies that regulate various aspects of their businesses,
including customer rates, service regulations, retail service
territories, sales of securities, asset acquisitions and sales,
accounting policies and practices and the operation of
fossil-fuel, hydroelectric and nuclear generating facilities.
For example, the rates charged to wholesale customers by the
traditional operating companies and by Southern Power must be
approved by the FERC. In addition, the respective state PSCs
must approve the traditional operating companies rates for
retail customers. While the retail rates approved by the
respective state PSCs are designed to provide for recovery of
costs and a return on invested capital, there can be no
assurance that a state PSC will not deem certain costs to be
imprudently incurred and not subject to recovery.
Southern Company and its subsidiaries believe the necessary
permits, approvals and certificates have been obtained for its
existing operations and that their respective businesses are
conducted in accordance with applicable laws; however, the
impact of any future revision or changes in interpretations of
existing regulations or the adoption of new laws and regulations
applicable to Southern Company or any of its subsidiaries cannot
now be predicted. Changes in regulation or the imposition of
additional regulations could influence the operating environment
of Southern Company and its subsidiaries and may result in
substantial costs.
General
Risks Related to Operation of Southern Companys Utility
Subsidiaries
The regional power market in which Southern Company and its
utility subsidiaries compete may have changing transmission
regulatory structures, which could affect the ownership of these
assets and related revenues and expenses.
The traditional operating companies currently own and operate
transmission facilities as part of a vertically integrated
utility. Transmission revenues are not separated from generation
and distribution revenues in their approved retail rates. Since
1999, when the FERC issued final rules on RTOs, there have been
a number of proceedings at FERC designed to encourage further
voluntary formation of RTOs or to mandate their formation. Under
this new transmission regulatory structure, the traditional
operating companies could transfer functional control (but not
ownership) of their transmission facilities to an independent
third party. While there are no active proceedings at FERC that
would require Southern Company to participate in a RTO, current
FERC efforts that may potentially change the regulatory
and/or
operational structure of transmission include rules related to
the standardization of generation interconnection, as well as an
inquiry into, among other things, market power by vertically
integrated utilities. The financial condition, net income and
cash flows of Southern Company and its utility subsidiaries
could be adversely affected by future changes in the federal
regulatory or operational structure of transmission.
Certain events in the energy markets that are beyond the
control of Southern Company and its subsidiaries have increased
the level of public and regulatory scrutiny in the energy
industry and in the capital markets. The reaction to these
events may result in new laws or regulations related to the
business operations or the accounting treatment of the existing
operations of Southern Company and its subsidiaries which could
have a negative impact on the net income or access to capital of
Southern Company and its subsidiaries.
As a result of the energy crisis in California during the summer
of 2001, the Enron Corporation bankruptcy, investigations by
governmental authorities into energy trading activities and the
August 2003 power outage in the Northeast, companies in
regulated and unregulated electric utility businesses have been
under an increased amount of public and regulatory scrutiny with
respect to, among other things, accounting practices, financial
disclosures and relationships with independent auditors. This
increased scrutiny has led to substantial changes in laws and
regulations affecting Southern Company and its subsidiaries,
including, among others, enhanced internal control and auditor
independence requirements, financial statement certification
requirements, more frequent SEC reviews of financial statements
and accelerated and additional SEC filing requirements. New
accounting and disclosure requirements have changed the way
Southern Company and its subsidiaries are required to record
revenues, expenses, assets and liabilities. Southern Company
expects continued regulatory focus on accounting and financial
reporting issues. Future
I-13
disruptions in the industry such as those described above and
any additional resulting regulations may have a negative impact
on the net income or access to capital of Southern Company and
its subsidiaries.
Deregulation or restructuring in the electric industry may
result in increased competition and unrecovered costs which
could negatively impact the net income of Southern Company and
the traditional operating companies and the value of their
respective assets.
Increased competition, which may result from restructuring
efforts, could have a significant adverse financial impact on
Southern Company and its traditional operating companies.
Increased competition could result in increased pressure to
lower the cost of electricity. Any adoption in the territories
served by the traditional operating companies of retail
competition and the unbundling of regulated energy service could
have a significant adverse financial impact on Southern Company
and the traditional operating companies due to an impairment of
assets, a loss of retail customers, lower profit margins, an
inability to recover reasonable costs or increased costs of
capital. Southern Company and the traditional operating
companies cannot predict if or when they may be subject to
changes in legislation or regulation, nor can Southern Company
and the traditional operating companies predict the impact of
these changes.
Additionally, the electric utility industry has experienced a
substantial increase in competition at the wholesale level. As a
result of changes in federal law and regulatory policy,
competition in the wholesale electricity market has greatly
increased due to a greater participation by traditional
electricity suppliers, non-utility generators, IPPs, wholesale
power marketers and brokers and due to the trading of energy
futures contracts on various commodities exchanges. In addition,
FERC rules on transmission service are designed to facilitate
competition in the wholesale market on a nationwide basis by
providing greater flexibility and more choices to wholesale
power customers.
Potential changes to the criteria used by the FERC for
approval of market-based contracts may negatively impact the
traditional operating companies and Southern Powers
ability to charge market-based rates.
Each of the traditional operating companies and Southern Power
have authorization from the FERC to sell power to nonaffiliates,
including short-term opportunity sales, at market-based prices.
Specific FERC approval must be obtained with respect to a
market-based sale to an affiliate. In December 2004, the FERC
initiated a proceeding to assess Southern Companys
generation dominance within its retail service territory. The
ability to charge market-based rates in other markets is not an
issue in that 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 beginning February 27, 2005 could be subject
to refund to the level of the default cost-based rates, pending
the outcome of the proceeding. Such sales through May 27,
2006, the end of the refund period were approximately
$19.7 million for the Southern Company system. In the event
that FERCs default mitigation measures for entities that
are found to have market power are ultimately applied, the
traditional operating companies and Southern Power may be
required to charge cost-based rates for certain wholesale sales
in the Southern Company retail service territory, which may be
lower than negotiated market-based rates.
In addition, in May 2005 the FERC started an investigation to
determine whether Southern Company satisfies the other three
parts of FERCs market-based rate analysis: transmission
market power, barriers to entry and affiliate abuse or
reciprocal dealing. The FERC established a new
15-month
refund period related to this expanded investigation. Any new
market-based rate sales involving any Southern Company
subsidiary could be subject to refund to the extent the FERC
orders lower rates as a result of this new investigation. Such
sales through October 19, 2006, the end of the refund
period, were approximately $55.4 million for the Southern
Company system, of which $15.5 million relates to sales
inside the retail service territory discussed above.
Risks
Related to Environmental Regulation
Southern Companys and the traditional operating
companies costs of compliance with environmental laws are
significant. The costs of compliance with future environmental
laws and the incurrence of environmental liabilities could
negatively impact the net income and cash flows of Southern
Company, the traditional operating companies or Southern
Power.
Southern Company and the traditional operating companies are
subject to extensive federal, state and local environmental
requirements which, among other things, regulate air emissions,
water discharges and the management of hazardous and solid waste
in order to adequately protect the environment. Compliance with
these legal requirements requires Southern Company and the
traditional operating companies to commit significant
expenditures for installation of pollution control equipment,
environmental monitoring, emissions fees and permits at all of
their respective facilities. These expenditures are significant
and Southern Company and the traditional operating companies
expect that they will increase in the future. Through 2006,
Southern Company had invested approximately $3.1 billion in
capital projects
I-14
to comply with these requirements, with annual totals of
$661 million, $423 million and $300 million for
2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Southern Company expects that
capital expenditures to assure compliance with existing and new
regulations will be an additional $1.66 billion,
$1.65 billion and $1.27 billion for 2007, 2008 and
2009, respectively. Because Southern Companys compliance
strategy is impacted by changes to existing environmental laws
and regulations, the cost, availability, and existing inventory
of emission allowances, and Southern Companys fuel mix,
the ultimate outcome cannot be determined at this time.
Litigation over environmental issues and claims of various
types, including property damage, personal injury, and citizen
enforcement of environmental requirements, such as opacity and
other air quality standards, has increased generally throughout
the United States. In particular, personal injury claims for
damages caused by alleged exposure to hazardous materials have
become more frequent.
If Southern Company, the traditional operating companies or
Southern Power fail to comply with environmental laws and
regulations, even if caused by factors beyond their control,
that failure may result in the assessment of civil or criminal
penalties and fines. The EPA has filed civil actions against
Alabama Power and Georgia Power alleging violations of the new
source review provisions of the Clean Air Act. Southern Company
is a party to suits alleging its emissions of carbon dioxide, a
greenhouse gas, contribute to global warming. An adverse outcome
in any one of these cases could require substantial capital
expenditures that cannot be determined at this time and could
possibly require the payment of substantial penalties. This
could affect future results of operations, cash flows, and
possibly financial condition if such costs are not recovered
through regulated rates.
Existing environmental laws and regulations may be revised or
new laws and regulations related to global climate change, air
quality or other environmental and health concerns may be
adopted or become applicable to Southern Company, the
traditional operating companies and Southern Power. Revised or
additional laws and regulations could result in significant
additional expense and operating restrictions on the facilities
of the traditional operating companies or Southern Power or
increased compliance costs which may not be fully recoverable
from customers and would therefore reduce the net income of
Southern Company, the traditional operating companies or
Southern Power. The cost impact of such legislation would depend
upon the specific requirements enacted and cannot be determined
at this time.
Risks
Related to Southern Company and its Business
Southern Company may be unable to meet its ongoing and future
financial obligations and to pay dividends on its common stock
if its subsidiaries are unable to pay upstream dividends or
repay funds to Southern Company.
Southern Company is a holding company and, as such, Southern
Company has no operations of its own. Substantially all of
Southern Companys consolidated assets are held by
subsidiaries. Southern Companys ability to meet its
financial obligations and to pay dividends on its common stock
at the current rate is primarily dependent on the net income and
cash flows of its subsidiaries and their ability to pay upstream
dividends or to repay funds to Southern Company. Prior to
funding Southern Company, Southern Companys subsidiaries
have financial obligations that must be satisfied, including
among others, debt service and preferred and preference stock
dividends. Southern Companys subsidiaries are separate
legal entities and have no obligation to provide Southern
Company with funds for its payment obligations.
The financial performance of Southern Company and its
subsidiaries may be adversely affected if its subsidiaries are
unable to successfully operate their facilities.
Southern Companys financial performance depends on the
successful operation of its subsidiaries electric
generating, transmission and distribution facilities. Operating
these facilities involves many risks, including:
|
|
|
|
|
operator error and breakdown or failure of equipment or
processes;
|
|
|
operating limitations that may be imposed by environmental or
other regulatory requirements;
|
|
|
labor disputes;
|
|
|
terrorist attacks;
|
|
|
fuel or material supply interruptions;
|
|
|
compliance with mandatory reliability standards if
adopted; and
|
|
|
catastrophic events such as fires, earthquakes, explosions,
floods, hurricanes, pandemic health events such as an avian
influenza or other similar occurrences.
|
A decrease or elimination of revenues from power produced by the
electric generating facilities or an increase in the cost of
operating the facilities would reduce the net income and cash
flows and could adversely impact the financial condition of the
affected traditional operating company or Southern Power and of
Southern Company.
The revenues of Southern Company, the traditional operating
companies and Southern Power depend in
I-15
part on sales under PPAs. The failure of a counterparty to
one of these PPAs to perform its obligations, or the failure to
renew the PPAs, could have a negative impact on the net income
and cash flows of the affected traditional operating company or
Southern Power and of Southern Company.
Most of Southern Powers generating capacity has been sold
to purchasers under PPAs having initial terms of five to
15 years. In addition, the traditional operating companies
enter into PPAs with non-affiliated parties. Revenues are
dependent on the continued performance by the purchasers of
their obligations under these PPAs. Even though Southern Power
and the traditional operating companies have a rigorous credit
evaluation, the failure of one of the purchasers to perform its
obligations could have a negative impact on the net income and
cash flows of the affected traditional operating company or
Southern Power and of Southern Company. Although these credit
evaluations take into account the possibility of default by a
purchaser, actual exposure to a default by a purchaser may be
greater than the credit evaluation predicts. Neither Southern
Power nor the traditional operating companies can predict
whether the PPAs will be renewed at the end of their respective
terms or on what terms any renewals may be made. If a PPA is not
renewed, a replacement PPA cannot be assured.
Southern Company, the traditional operating companies and
Southern Power may incur additional costs or delays in the
construction of new plants or environmental facilities and may
not be able to recover their investment. The facilities of
Southern Company, the traditional operating companies and
Southern Power require ongoing capital expenditures.
Certain of the traditional operating companies and Southern
Power are in the process of constructing new generating
facilities and adding environmental controls equipment at
existing generating facilities. Southern Company intends to
continue its strategy of developing and constructing other new
facilities, expanding existing facilities and adding
environmental control equipment. The completion of these types
of projects without delays or cost overruns is subject to
substantial risks, including:
|
|
|
|
|
shortages and inconsistent quality of equipment, materials and
labor;
|
|
|
work stoppages;
|
|
|
permits, approvals and other regulatory matters;
|
|
|
adverse weather conditions;
|
|
|
unforeseen engineering problems;
|
|
|
environmental and geological conditions;
|
|
|
delays or increased costs to interconnect its facilities to
transmission grids;
|
|
|
unanticipated cost increases; and
|
|
|
attention to other projects.
|
Tightening labor markets in the Southeast and increasing costs
of materials have resulted in increasing cost estimates for
Southern Companys subsidiaries construction
projects. If a traditional operating company or Southern Power
is unable to complete the development or construction of a
facility or decides to delay or cancel construction of a
facility, it may not be able to recover its investment in that
facility. In addition, construction delays and contractor
performance shortfalls can result in the loss of revenues and
may, in turn, adversely affect the net income and financial
position of a traditional operating company or Southern Power
and of Southern Company. Furthermore, if construction projects
are not completed according to specification, a traditional
operating company or Southern Power and Southern Company may
incur liabilities and suffer reduced plant efficiency, higher
operating costs and reduced net income.
Once facilities come into commercial operation, ongoing capital
expenditures are required to maintain reliable levels of
operation. Significant portions of the traditional operating
companies existing facilities were constructed many years
ago. Older generation equipment, even if maintained in
accordance with good engineering practices, may require
significant capital expenditures to maintain efficiency, to
comply with changing environmental requirements or to provide
reliable operations.
Changes in technology may make Southern Companys
electric generating facilities owned by the traditional
operating companies and Southern Power less competitive.
A key element of the business model of Southern Company, the
traditional operating companies and Southern Power is that
generating power at central power plants achieves economies of
scale and produces power at relatively low cost. There are other
technologies that produce power, most notably fuel cells,
microturbines, windmills and solar cells. It is possible that
advances in technology will reduce the cost of alternative
methods of producing power to a level that is competitive with
that of most central power station electric production. If this
were to happen and if these technologies achieved economies of
scale, the market share of Southern Company, the traditional
operating companies and Southern Power could be eroded, and the
value of their respective electric generating facilities could
be reduced. Changes in technology could also alter the channels
through which retail electric customers buy or utilize power,
which could reduce the revenues or increase the expenses of
Southern Company, the traditional operating companies or
Southern Power.
Operation of nuclear facilities involves inherent risks,
including environmental, health, regulatory, terrorism and
financial risks that could result in fines or the
I-16
closure of Southern Companys nuclear units owned by
Alabama Power or Georgia Power, and which may present potential
exposures in excess of insurance coverage.
Alabama Power owns two nuclear units and Georgia Power holds
undivided interests in, and contracts for operation of, four
nuclear units. These six units are operated by Southern Nuclear
and represent approximately 3,680 megawatts, or 9.1%, of
Southern Companys generation capacity as of
December 31, 2006. These nuclear facilities are subject to
environmental, health and financial risks such as
on-site
storage of spent nuclear fuel, the ability to dispose of such
spent nuclear fuel, the ability to maintain adequate reserves
for decommissioning, potential liabilities arising out of the
operation of these facilities and the threat of a possible
terrorist attack. Alabama Power and Georgia Power maintain
decommissioning trusts and external insurance coverage to
minimize the financial exposure to these risks; however, it is
possible that damages could exceed the amount of insurance
coverage.
The NRC has broad authority under federal law to impose
licensing and safety-related requirements for the operation of
nuclear generation facilities. In the event of non-compliance,
the NRC has the authority to impose fines or shut down a unit,
or both, depending upon its assessment of the severity of the
situation, until compliance is achieved. NRC orders or new
regulations related to increased security measures and any
future safety requirements promulgated by the NRC could require
Alabama Power and Georgia Power to make substantial operating
and capital expenditures at their nuclear plants. In addition,
although Alabama Power, Georgia Power and Southern Company have
no reason to anticipate a serious nuclear incident at their
plants, if an incident did occur, it could result in substantial
costs to Alabama Power or Georgia Power and Southern Company. A
major incident at a nuclear facility anywhere in the world could
cause the NRC to limit or prohibit the operation or licensing of
any domestic nuclear unit.
In addition, potential terrorist threats and increased public
scrutiny of utilities could result in increased nuclear
licensing or compliance costs that are difficult or impossible
to predict.
The generation and energy marketing operations of Southern
Company, the traditional operating companies and Southern Power
are subject to risks, many of which are beyond their control,
including changes in power prices and fuel costs, that may
reduce Southern Companys, the traditional operating
companies and Southern Powers revenues and increase
costs.
The generation and energy marketing operations of Southern
Company, the traditional operating companies and Southern Power
are subject to changes in power prices or fuel costs, which
could increase the cost of producing power or decrease the
amount Southern Company, the traditional operating companies and
Southern Power receive from the sale of power. The market prices
for these commodities may fluctuate over relatively short
periods of time. Southern Company, the traditional operating
companies and Southern Power attempt to mitigate risks
associated with fluctuating fuel costs by passing these costs on
to customers through the traditional operating companies
fuel cost recovery clauses or through PPAs. Among the factors
that could influence power prices and fuel costs are:
|
|
|
|
|
prevailing market prices for coal, natural gas, uranium, fuel
oil and other fuels used in the generation facilities of the
traditional operating companies and Southern Power including
associated transportation costs, and supplies of such
commodities;
|
|
|
demand for energy and the extent of additional supplies of
energy available from current or new competitors;
|
|
|
liquidity in the general wholesale electricity market;
|
|
|
weather conditions impacting demand for electricity;
|
|
|
seasonality;
|
|
|
transmission or transportation constraints or inefficiencies;
|
|
|
availability of competitively priced alternative energy sources;
|
|
|
forced or unscheduled plant outages for the Southern Company
system, its competitors or third party providers;
|
|
|
the financial condition of market participants;
|
|
|
the economy in the service territory and in general, including
the impact of economic conditions on industrial and commercial
demand for electricity;
|
|
|
natural disasters, wars, embargos, acts of terrorism and other
catastrophic events; and
|
|
|
federal, state and foreign energy and environmental regulation
and legislation.
|
Certain of these factors could increase the expenses of the
traditional operating companies or Southern Power and Southern
Company. For the traditional operating companies, such increases
may not be fully recoverable through rates. Other of these
factors could reduce the revenues of the traditional operating
companies or Southern Power and Southern Company.
As a result of increasing fuel costs, the traditional operating
companies have accrued significant
I-17
underrecovered fuel cost balances. In addition, Gulf Power and
Mississippi Power have significant deficit balances in their
storm cost recovery reserves as a result of Hurricanes Ivan,
Dennis and Katrina. The traditional operating companies may
experience similar deficit balances following future storms.
While the traditional operating companies are generally
authorized to recover underrecovered fuel costs through
fuel cost recovery clauses and storm recovery costs through
special rate provisions administered by the
respective PSCs, recovery may be denied if costs are
deemed to be imprudently incurred and delays in the
authorization of such recovery could negatively impact the cash
flows of the affected traditional operating companies and
Southern Company.
The use of derivative contracts by Southern Company and its
subsidiaries in the normal course of business could result in
financial losses that negatively impact the net income of
Southern Company and its subsidiaries.
Southern Company and its subsidiaries, including the traditional
operating companies and Southern Power, use derivative
instruments, such as swaps, options, futures and forwards, to
manage their commodity and financial market risks and, to a
lesser extent, engage in limited trading activities. Southern
Company and its subsidiaries could recognize financial losses as
a result of volatility in the market values of these contracts
or if a counterparty fails to perform. In the absence of
actively quoted market prices and pricing information from
external sources, the valuation of these financial instruments
can involve managements judgment or use of estimates. As a
result, changes in the underlying assumptions or use of
alternative valuation methods could affect the value of the
reported fair value of these contracts.
The traditional operating companies and Southern Power may
not be able to obtain adequate fuel supplies, which could limit
their ability to operate their facilities.
The traditional operating companies and Southern Power purchase
fuel, including coal, natural gas, uranium and fuel oil, from a
number of suppliers. Disruption in the delivery of fuel,
including disruptions as a result of, among other things,
transportation delays, weather, labor relations, force majuere
events or environmental regulations affecting any of these fuel
suppliers, could limit the ability of the traditional operating
companies and Southern Power to operate their respective
facilities, and thus reduce the net income of the affected
traditional operating company or Southern Power and Southern
Company.
The traditional operating companies are dependent on coal for
much of their electric generating capacity. Each traditional
operating company has coal supply contracts in place; however,
there can be no assurance that the counterparties to these
agreements will fulfill their obligations to supply coal to the
traditional operating companies. The suppliers under these
agreements may experience financial or technical problems which
inhibit their ability to fulfill their obligations to the
traditional operating companies. In addition, the suppliers
under these agreements may not be required to supply coal to the
traditional operating companies under certain circumstances,
such as in the event of a natural disaster. If the traditional
operating companies are unable to obtain their coal requirements
under these contracts, the traditional operating companies may
be required to purchase their coal requirements at higher
prices, which may not be fully recoverable through rates.
In addition, Southern Power in particular, and the traditional
operating companies to a lesser extent, are dependent on natural
gas for a portion of their electric generating capacity. Natural
gas supplies can be subject to disruption in the event
production or distribution is curtailed. For example, in
connection with the 2005 hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico,
production and distribution of natural gas was limited for a
period of time, resulting in shortages and significant increases
in the price of natural gas. In addition, world market
conditions for fuels, including the policies of the Organization
of Petroleum Exporting Countries, can impact the price and
availability of natural gas.
Demand for power could exceed supply capacity, resulting in
increased costs for purchasing capacity in the open market or
building additional generation capabilities.
Through the traditional operating companies and Southern Power,
Southern Company is currently obligated to supply power to
retail customers and wholesale customers under long-term PPAs.
At peak times, the demand for power required to meet this
obligation could exceed Southern Companys available
generation capacity. Market or competitive forces may require
that the traditional operating companies or Southern Power
purchase capacity on the open market or build additional
generation capabilities. Because regulators may not permit the
traditional operating companies to pass all of these purchase or
construction costs on to their customers, the traditional
operating companies may not be able to recover any of these
costs or may have exposure to regulatory lag associated with the
time between the incurrence of costs of purchased or constructed
capacity and the traditional operating companies recovery
in customers rates. Under Southern Powers long-term
fixed price PPAs, Southern Power would not have the ability to
recover any of these costs. These situations could have negative
impacts on net income and cash flows for the
I-18
affected traditional operating company or Southern Power and
Southern Company.
The operating results of Southern Company, the traditional
operating companies and Southern Power are affected by weather
conditions and may fluctuate on a seasonal and quarterly
basis.
Electric power generation is generally a seasonal business. In
many parts of the country, demand for power peaks during the hot
summer months, with market prices also peaking at that time. In
other areas, power demand peaks during the winter. As a result,
the overall operating results of Southern Company, the
traditional operating companies and Southern Power in the future
may fluctuate substantially on a seasonal basis. In addition,
Southern Company, the traditional operating companies and
Southern Power have historically sold less power, and
consequently earned less income, when weather conditions are
milder. Unusually mild weather in the future could reduce the
revenues, net income, available cash and borrowing ability of
Southern Company, the traditional operating companies and
Southern Power.
Mirant and The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of
Mirant Corporation have filed a claim against Southern Company
seeking substantial monetary damages in connection with
transfers made by Mirant to Southern Company prior to the Mirant
spin-off.
In July 2003, Mirant filed for voluntary reorganization under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. In January 2006,
Mirants plan of reorganization became effective, and
Mirant emerged from bankruptcy.
In 2005, Mirant, as debtor in possession, and The Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Mirant Corporation filed a
complaint against Southern Company in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Northern District of Texas, which was amended in
July 2005, February 2006 and May 2006. The third amended
complaint (the complaint) alleges that Southern Company caused
Mirant to engage in certain fraudulent transfers and to pay
illegal dividends to Southern Company prior to the spin-off. The
complaint also seeks to recharacterize certain advances from
Southern Company to Mirant for investments in energy facilities
from debt to equity. The complaint further alleges that Southern
Company is liable to Mirants creditors for the full amount
of Mirants liability and that Southern Company breached
its fiduciary duties to Mirant and its creditors, caused Mirant
to breach fiduciary duties to its creditors, and aided and
abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by Mirants directors
and officers. The complaint also seeks recoveries under theories
of restitution, unjust enrichment, and alter ego. The complaint
seeks monetary damages in excess of $2 billion plus
interest, punitive damages, attorneys fees, and costs.
Finally, the complaint includes an objection to Southern
Companys pending claims against Mirant in the Bankruptcy
Court (which relate to reimbursement under the separation
agreements of payments such as income taxes, interest, legal
fees, and other guarantees described in Note 7 to the
financial statements of Southern Company in Item 8 herein)
and seeks equitable subordination of Southern Companys
claims to the claims of all other creditors. Southern Company
served an answer to the complaint in June 2006.
On January 10, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas granted Southern Companys
motion to withdraw this action from the Bankruptcy Court and, on
February 15, 2006, granted Southern Companys motion
to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia. On May 19, 2006, Southern
Company filed a motion for summary judgment seeking entry of
judgment against the plaintiff as to all counts of the
complaint. On December 11, 2006, the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted in part and
denied in part the motion. As a result, certain breach of
fiduciary duty claims are barred; all other claims in the
complaint may proceed. Southern Company believes there is no
meritorious basis for the claims in the complaint and is
vigorously defending itself in this action. However, the final
outcome of this matter cannot now be determined.
IRS challenges to Southern Companys income tax
deductions taken in connection with four international leveraged
lease transactions could result in the payment of substantial
additional interest and penalties and could materially impact
Southern Companys cash flow and net income.
Southern Company participates in four international leveraged
lease transactions and receives federal income tax deductions
for depreciation and amortization, as well as interest on
related debt. In connection with its audit of Southern
Companys tax returns for 1996 through 2001, the IRS
proposed to disallow Southern Companys tax losses related
to one international leveraged lease (a
lease-in-lease-out,
or LILO) transaction. In February 2005, Southern Company reached
a negotiated settlement with the IRS relating to this matter,
which is now final.
In connection with its audit of 2000 and 2001, the IRS also
challenged Southern Companys deductions related to three
other international lease
(sale-in-lease-out,
or SILO) transactions. In the third quarter 2006, Southern
Company paid the full amount of the disputed tax and the
applicable interest on the SILO issue for tax years
2000-2001
and filed a claim for refund which has been denied by the IRS.
The disputed tax amount is $79 million and the related
interest is approximately $24 million for these tax years.
This payment, and the subsequent IRS disallowance of the refund
claim, closed the issue with
I-19
the IRS and Southern Company plans to proceed with litigation.
The IRS has also raised the SILO issues for tax years 2002 and
2003. The estimated amount of disputed tax and interest for
these years is approximately $83 million and
$15 million, respectively. The tax and interest for these
tax years was paid to the IRS in the fourth quarter 2006.
Southern Company has accounted for both payments in 2006 as
deposits, as management believes no additional tax or interest
liabilities have been incurred.
Although the payment of the tax liability did not affect
Southern Companys results of operations under accounting
standards in effect through December 31, 2006, it did
impact cash flow. For tax years 2000 through 2006, Southern
Company has claimed $284 million in tax benefits related to
these SILO transactions challenged by the IRS. Southern Company
believes these transactions are valid leases for U.S. tax
purposes and thus the related deductions are allowable. Southern
Company will continue to defend this position through
administrative appeals or litigation. The ultimate outcome of
these matters cannot now be determined.
In July 2006, the FASB released new interpretations for the
accounting for both leveraged leases and uncertain tax positions
that were adopted January 1, 2007. For the LILO transaction
settled with the IRS in February 2005, the leveraged leases
accounting interpretation requires that Southern Company
recognize a cumulative effect reduction to beginning 2007
retained earnings of approximately $17 million at adoption
and change the timing of income recognized under the lease.
For the SILO transactions which are the subject of pending
litigation, Southern Company is continuing to evaluate the
impact of the new interpretations but estimates that the
reduction to retained earnings in 2007 could be approximately
$115 million to $135 million. The impact on Southern
Companys net income of these accounting interpretations
would also be dependent on the outcome of the pending litigation
or changes in assumptions related to uncertain tax positions but
could be significant and potentially material.
Risks
Related to Market and Economic Volatility
The business of Southern Company, the traditional operating
companies and Southern Power is dependent on their ability to
successfully access capital markets. The inability of Southern
Company, any traditional operating company or Southern Power to
access capital may limit its ability to execute its business
plan or pursue improvements and make acquisitions that Southern
Company, the traditional operating companies or Southern Power
may otherwise rely on for future growth.
Southern Company, the traditional operating companies and
Southern Power rely on access to both short-term money markets
and longer-term capital markets as a significant source of
liquidity for capital requirements not satisfied by the cash
flow from their respective operations. If Southern Company, any
traditional operating company or Southern Power is not able to
access capital at competitive rates, its ability to implement
its business plan or pursue improvements and make acquisitions
that Southern Company, the traditional operating companies or
Southern Power may otherwise rely on for future growth will be
limited. Each of Southern Company, the traditional operating
companies and Southern Power believes that it will maintain
sufficient access to these financial markets based upon current
credit ratings. However, certain market disruptions or a
downgrade of the credit rating of Southern Company, any
traditional operating company or Southern Power may increase its
cost of borrowing or adversely affect its ability to raise
capital through the issuance of securities or other borrowing
arrangements. Such disruptions could include:
|
|
|
|
|
an economic downturn;
|
|
|
the bankruptcy of an unrelated energy company;
|
|
|
capital market conditions generally;
|
|
|
market prices for electricity and gas;
|
|
|
terrorist attacks or threatened attacks on Southern
Companys facilities or unrelated energy companies;
|
|
|
war or threat of war; or
|
|
|
the overall health of the utility industry.
|
Southern Company, the traditional operating companies and
Southern Power are subject to risks associated with a changing
economic environment, including their ability to obtain
insurance, the financial stability of their respective customers
and their ability to raise capital.
The threat of terrorism and the related military action by the
United States continue to affect the nations economy and
financial markets. The insurance industry has also been
disrupted by these events as well as recent hurricane activity
on the Gulf Coast. The availability of insurance covering risks
Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, Southern
Power and their respective competitors typically insure against
may decrease, and the insurance that Southern Company, the
traditional operating companies and Southern Power are able to
obtain may have higher deductibles, higher premiums and more
restrictive policy terms. Any economic downturn or disruption of
financial markets could constrain the capital available to
Southern Companys, the traditional operating
companies and Southern Powers industry and could
reduce access to funding for the respective operations of
Southern
I-20
Company, the traditional operating companies and Southern Power,
as well as the financial stability of their respective customers
and counterparties. These factors could adversely affect
Southern Companys subsidiaries ability to achieve
energy sales growth, thereby decreasing Southern Companys
level of future net income.
Certain of the traditional operating companies have
substantial investments in the Gulf Coast region which can be
subject to major storm activity. The ability of the traditional
operating companies to recover costs and replenish reserves in
the event of a major storm, other natural disaster, terrorist
attack or other catastrophic event generally will require
regulatory action. Additionally, storm damage may affect the
availability and cost of insurance to these traditional
operating companies.
Each traditional operating company maintains a reserve for
property damage to cover the cost of damages from major storms
to its transmission and distribution lines and the cost of
uninsured damages to its generating facilities and other
property. In September 2004, Hurricane Ivan hit the Gulf coast
of Florida and Alabama, causing significant damage to the
service areas of Alabama Power and Gulf Power. In July and
August 2005, Hurricanes Dennis and Katrina, respectively, hit
the Gulf coast of the United States and caused significant
damage in the service areas of Gulf Power, Alabama Power and
Mississippi Power. In each case, costs to the respective
traditional operating companies exceeded their respective storm
cost reserves and insurance coverage and were subsequently
approved for recovery by their respective state PSCs. In the
event a traditional operating company experiences a natural
disaster, terrorist attack or other catastrophic event, recovery
of costs in excess of reserves and insurance coverage is subject
to the approval of its state PSC. While the traditional
operating companies generally are entitled to recover prudently
incurred costs incurred in connection with such an event, any
denial by the applicable state PSC or delay in recovery of any
portion of such costs could have a material negative impact on a
traditional operating companys results of operations
and/or cash
flows.
Item 1B. UNRESOLVED
STAFF COMMENTS.
None.
I-21
Electric
Properties The Electric Utilities
The traditional operating companies, Southern Power and SEGCO,
at December 31, 2006, owned
and/or
operated 34 hydroelectric generating stations, 34 fossil fuel
generating stations, three nuclear generating stations and 12
combined cycle/cogeneration stations. The amounts of capacity
for each company are shown in the table below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nameplate
|
Generating Station
|
|
Location
|
|
Capacity (1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Kilowatts)
|
|
FOSSIL STEAM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gadsden
|
|
Gadsden, AL
|
|
|
120,000
|
|
Gorgas
|
|
Jasper, AL
|
|
|
1,221,250
|
|
Barry
|
|
Mobile, AL
|
|
|
1,525,000
|
|
Greene County
|
|
Demopolis, AL
|
|
|
300,000
|
(2)
|
Gaston Unit 5
|
|
Wilsonville, AL
|
|
|
880,000
|
|
Miller
|
|
Birmingham, AL
|
|
|
2,532,288
|
(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama Power Total
|
|
|
6,578,538
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bowen
|
|
Cartersville, GA
|
|
|
3,160,000
|
|
Branch
|
|
Milledgeville, GA
|
|
|
1,539,700
|
|
Hammond
|
|
Rome, GA
|
|
|
800,000
|
|
Kraft
|
|
Port Wentworth, GA
|
|
|
281,136
|
|
McDonough
|
|
Atlanta, GA
|
|
|
490,000
|
|
McIntosh
|
|
Effingham County, GA
|
|
|
163,117
|
|
McManus
|
|
Brunswick, GA
|
|
|
115,000
|
|
Mitchell
|
|
Albany, GA
|
|
|
125,000
|
|
Scherer
|
|
Macon, GA
|
|
|
750,924
|
(4)
|
Wansley
|
|
Carrollton, GA
|
|
|
925,550
|
(5)
|
Yates
|
|
Newnan, GA
|
|
|
1,250,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Georgia Power Total
|
|
|
9,600,427
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crist
|
|
Pensacola, FL
|
|
|
970,000
|
|
Daniel
|
|
Pascagoula, MS
|
|
|
500,000
|
(6)
|
Lansing Smith
|
|
Panama City, FL
|
|
|
305,000
|
|
Scholz
|
|
Chattahoochee, FL
|
|
|
80,000
|
|
Scherer Unit 3
|
|
Macon, GA
|
|
|
204,500
|
(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gulf Power Total
|
|
|
2,059,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel
|
|
Pascagoula, MS
|
|
|
500,000
|
(6)
|
Eaton
|
|
Hattiesburg, MS
|
|
|
67,500
|
|
Greene County
|
|
Demopolis, AL
|
|
|
200,000
|
(2)
|
Sweatt
|
|
Meridian, MS
|
|
|
80,000
|
|
Watson
|
|
Gulfport, MS
|
|
|
1,012,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi Power
Total
|
|
|
1,859,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gaston Units 1-4
|
|
Wilsonville, AL
|
|
|
|
|
SEGCO Total
|
|
|
|
|
1,000,000
|
(7)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Fossil Steam
|
|
|
|
|
21,097,965
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NUCLEAR STEAM
|
|
|
|
|
Farley
|
|
Dothan, AL
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama Power Total
|
|
|
1,720,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hatch
|
|
Baxley, GA
|
|
|
899,612
|
(8)
|
Vogtle
|
|
Augusta, GA
|
|
|
1,060,240
|
(9)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Georgia Power Total
|
|
|
1,959,852
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Nuclear Steam
|
|
|
|
|
3,679,852
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMBUSTION TURBINES
|
|
|
|
|
Greene County
|
|
Demopolis, AL
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama Power Total
|
|
|
720,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boulevard
|
|
Savannah, GA
|
|
|
59,100
|
|
Bowen
|
|
Cartersville, GA
|
|
|
39,400
|
|
Intercession City
|
|
Intercession City, FL
|
|
|
47,667
|
(10)
|
Kraft
|
|
Port Wentworth, GA
|
|
|
22,000
|
|
McDonough
|
|
Atlanta, GA
|
|
|
78,800
|
|
McIntosh Units 1 through 8
|
|
Effingham County, GA
|
|
|
640,000
|
|
McManus
|
|
Brunswick, GA
|
|
|
481,700
|
|
Mitchell
|
|
Albany, GA
|
|
|
118,200
|
|
Robins
|
|
Warner Robins, GA
|
|
|
158,400
|
|
Wansley
|
|
Carrollton, GA
|
|
|
26,322
|
|
Wilson
|
|
Augusta, GA
|
|
|
354,100
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Georgia Power Total
|
|
|
2,025,689
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lansing Smith
Unit A
|
|
Panama City, FL
|
|
|
39,400
|
|
Pea Ridge
Units 1-3
|
|
Pea Ridge, FL
|
|
|
15,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gulf Power Total
|
|
|
54,400
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chevron Cogenerating Station
|
|
Pascagoula, MS
|
|
|
147,292
|
(11)
|
Sweatt
|
|
Meridian, MS
|
|
|
39,400
|
|
Watson
|
|
Gulfport, MS
|
|
|
39,360
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi Power
Total
|
|
|
226,052
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dahlberg
|
|
Jackson County, GA
|
|
|
756,000
|
|
DeSoto
|
|
Arcadia, FL
|
|
|
343,760
|
|
Oleander
|
|
Cocoa, FL
|
|
|
628,400
|
|
Rowan
|
|
Salisbury, NC
|
|
|
455,250
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southern Power Total
|
|
|
2,183,410
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gaston (SEGCO)
|
|
Wilsonville, AL
|
|
|
19,680
|
(7)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Combustion Turbines
|
|
|
5,229,231
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COGENERATION
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Washington County
|
|
Washington County, AL
|
|
|
123,428
|
|
GE Plastics Project
|
|
Burkeville, AL
|
|
|
104,800
|
|
Theodore
|
|
Theodore, AL
|
|
|
236,418
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama Power Total
|
|
|
464,646
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMBINED CYCLE
|
|
|
|
|
Barry
|
|
Mobile, AL
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama Power Total
|
|
|
1,070,424
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
McIntosh Units 10&11
|
|
Effingham County, GA
|
|
|
|
|
Georgia Power Total
|
|
|
1,318,920
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Smith
|
|
Lynn Haven, FL
|
|
|
|
|
Gulf Power Total
|
|
|
545,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel (Leased)
|
|
Pascagoula, MS
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi Power
Total
|
|
|
1,070,424
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I-22
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nameplate
|
Generating Station
|
|
Location
|
|
Capacity (1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Kilowatts)
|
|
Franklin
|
|
Smiths, AL
|
|
|
1,198,360
|
|
Harris
|
|
Autaugaville, AL
|
|
|
1,318,920
|
|
Rowan
|
|
Salisbury, NC
|
|
|
530,550
|
|
Stanton Unit A
|
|
Orlando, FL
|
|
|
428,649
|
(12)
|
Wansley
|
|
Carrollton, GA
|
|
|
1,073,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southern Power Total
|
|
|
4,549,479
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Combined Cycle
|
|
|
8,554,747
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HYDROELECTRIC
FACILITIES
|
|
|
|
|
Bankhead
|
|
Holt, AL
|
|
|
53,985
|
|
Bouldin
|
|
Wetumpka, AL
|
|
|
225,000
|
|
Harris
|
|
Wedowee, AL
|
|
|
132,000
|
|
Henry
|
|
Ohatchee, AL
|
|
|
72,900
|
|
Holt
|
|
Holt, AL
|
|
|
46,944
|
|
Jordan
|
|
Wetumpka, AL
|
|
|
100,000
|
|
Lay
|
|
Clanton, AL
|
|
|
177,000
|
|
Lewis Smith
|
|
Jasper, AL
|
|
|
157,500
|
|
Logan Martin
|
|
Vincent, AL
|
|
|
135,000
|
|
Martin
|
|
Dadeville, AL
|
|
|
182,000
|
|
Mitchell
|
|
Verbena, AL
|
|
|
170,000
|
|
Thurlow
|
|
Tallassee, AL
|
|
|
81,000
|
|
Weiss
|
|
Leesburg, AL
|
|
|
87,750
|
|
Yates
|
|
Tallassee, AL
|
|
|
47,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama Power Total
|
|
|
1,668,079
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barnett Shoals (Leased)
|
|
Athens, GA
|
|
|
2,800
|
|
Bartletts Ferry
|
|
Columbus, GA
|
|
|
173,000
|
|
Goat Rock
|
|
Columbus, GA
|
|
|
38,600
|
|
Lloyd Shoals
|
|
Jackson, GA
|
|
|
14,400
|
|
Morgan Falls
|
|
Atlanta, GA
|
|
|
16,800
|
|
North Highlands
|
|
Columbus, GA
|
|
|
29,600
|
|
Oliver Dam
|
|
Columbus, GA
|
|
|
60,000
|
|
Rocky Mountain
|
|
Rome, GA
|
|
|
215,256
|
(13)
|
Sinclair Dam
|
|
Milledgeville, GA
|
|
|
45,000
|
|
Tallulah Falls
|
|
Clayton, GA
|
|
|
72,000
|
|
Terrora
|
|
Clayton, GA
|
|
|
16,000
|
|
Tugalo
|
|
Clayton, GA
|
|
|
45,000
|
|
Wallace Dam
|
|
Eatonton, GA
|
|
|
321,300
|
|
Yonah
|
|
Toccoa, GA
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
6 Other Plants
|
|
|
|
|
18,080
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Georgia Power Total
|
|
|
1,090,336
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Hydroelectric Facilities
|
|
|
2,758,415
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Generating
Capacity
|
|
|
41,784,856
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes:
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
See Jointly-Owned
Facilities herein for additional information.
|
(2)
|
|
Owned by Alabama Power and
Mississippi Power as tenants in common in the proportions of 60%
and 40%, respectively.
|
(3)
|
|
Capacity shown is Alabama
Powers portion (91.84%) of total plant capacity.
|
(4)
|
|
Capacity shown for Georgia Power is
8.4% of Units 1 and 2 and 75% of Unit 3. Capacity shown for Gulf
Power is 25% of Unit 3.
|
(5)
|
|
Capacity shown is Georgia
Powers portion (53.5%) of total plant capacity.
|
(6)
|
|
Represents 50% of the plant which
is owned as tenants in common by Gulf Power and Mississippi
Power.
|
(7)
|
|
SEGCO is jointly-owned by Alabama
Power and Georgia Power. See BUSINESS in Item 1 herein for
additional information.
|
(8)
|
|
Capacity shown is Georgia
Powers portion (50.1%) of total plant capacity.
|
(9)
|
|
Capacity shown is Georgia
Powers portion (45.7%) of total plant capacity.
|
(10)
|
|
Capacity shown represents
331/3%
of total plant capacity. Georgia Power owns a 1/3 interest in
the unit with 100% use of the unit from June through September.
Progress Energy Florida operates the unit.
|
(11)
|
|
Generation is dedicated to a single
industrial customer.
|
(12)
|
|
Capacity shown is Southern
Powers portion (65%) of total plant capacity.
|
(13)
|
|
Capacity shown is Georgia
Powers portion (25.4%) of total plant capacity. OPC
operates the plant.
|
Except as discussed below under Titles to Property,
the principal plants and other important units of the
traditional operating companies, Southern Power and SEGCO are
owned in fee by the respective companies. It is the opinion of
management of each such company that its operating properties
are adequately maintained and are substantially in good
operating condition.
Mississippi Power owns a
79-mile
length of
500-kilovolt
transmission line which is leased to Entergy Gulf States. The
line, completed in 1984, extends from Plant Daniel to the
Louisiana state line. Entergy Gulf States is paying a use fee
over a
40-year
period covering all expenses and the amortization of the
original $57 million cost of the line. At December 31,
2006, the unamortized portion of this cost was approximately
$26.2 million.
The all-time maximum demand on the traditional operating
companies, Southern Power and SEGCO was 35,889,900 kilowatts and
occurred on August 7, 2006. This amount excludes demand
served by capacity retained by MEAG, OPC and SEPA. The reserve
margin for the traditional operating companies, Southern Power
and SEGCO at that time was 17.1%. See SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA in
Item 6 herein for additional information on peak demands.
I-23
Jointly-Owned
Facilities
Alabama Power, Georgia Power and Southern Power have undivided
interests in certain generating plants and other related
facilities to or from non-affiliated parties. The percentages of
ownership are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage Ownership
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Progress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Alabama
|
|
|
|
Georgia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy
|
|
Southern
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Power
|
|
AEC
|
|
Power
|
|
OPC
|
|
MEAG
|
|
DALTON
|
|
Florida
|
|
Power
|
|
OUC
|
|
FMPA
|
|
KUA
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Megawatts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant Miller Units 1 and 2
|
|
|
1,320
|
|
|
|
91.8
|
%
|
|
|
8.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
Plant Hatch
|
|
|
1,796
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50.1
|
|
|
|
30.0
|
|
|
|
17.7
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant Vogtle
|
|
|
2,320
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45.7
|
|
|
|
30.0
|
|
|
|
22.7
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant Scherer Units 1 and 2
|
|
|
1,636
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.4
|
|
|
|
60.0
|
|
|
|
30.2
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant Wansley
|
|
|
1,779
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53.5
|
|
|
|
30.0
|
|
|
|
15.1
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rocky Mountain
|
|
|
848
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25.4
|
|
|
|
74.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intercession City, FL
|
|
|
143
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant Stanton A
|
|
|
660
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65
|
%
|
|
|
28
|
%
|
|
|
3.5
|
%
|
|
|
3.5
|
%
|
|
|
Alabama Power and Georgia Power have contracted to operate and
maintain the respective units in which each has an interest
(other than Rocky Mountain and Intercession City) as agent for
the joint owners. SCS provides operation and maintenance
services for Plant Stanton A.
In addition, Georgia Power has commitments regarding a portion
of a five percent interest in Plant Vogtle owned by MEAG that
are in effect until the later of retirement of the plant or the
latest stated maturity date of MEAGs bonds issued to
finance such ownership interest. The payments for capacity are
required whether any capacity is available. The energy cost is a
function of each units variable operating costs. Except
for the portion of the capacity payments related to the Georgia
PSCs disallowances of Plant Vogtle costs, the cost of such
capacity and energy is included in purchased power from
non-affiliates in Georgia Powers statements of income in
Item 8 herein.
Titles to
Property
The traditional operating companies, Southern Powers
and SEGCOs interests in the principal plants (other than
certain pollution control facilities, one small hydroelectric
generating station leased by Georgia Power, combined cycle units
at Plant Daniel leased by Mississippi Power and the land on
which five combustion turbine generators of Mississippi Power
are located, which is held by easement) and other important
units of the respective companies are owned in fee by such
companies, subject only to the liens pursuant to pollution
control bonds of Alabama Power and Gulf Power and to excepted
encumbrances as defined therein. At December 31, 2006, Gulf
Powers interest in its principal plants was subject to a
lien under a mortgage indenture. The mortgage indenture and the
lien were discharged effective January 26, 2007. See
Note 6 to the financial statements of Southern Company,
Alabama Power and Gulf Power under Assets Subject to
Lien and Note 7 to the financial statements of
Mississippi Power under Operating Leases Plant
Daniel Combined Cycle Generating Units in Item 8
herein for additional information. The traditional operating
companies own the fee interests in certain of their principal
plants as tenants in common. See Jointly-Owned
Facilities herein for additional information. Properties
such as electric transmission and distribution lines and steam
heating mains are constructed principally on
rights-of-way
which are maintained under franchise or are held by easement
only. A substantial portion of lands submerged by reservoirs is
held under flood right easements.
|
|
Item 3.
|
LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
United States of America v. Alabama Power
(United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama) |
|
|
|
United States of America v. Georgia Power and Savannah
Electric
(United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia) |
|
|
|
See Environmental Matters New Source Review
Actions in Note 3 to Southern Companys and each
traditional operating companys financial statements in
Item 8 herein for information. |
|
(2) |
|
Environmental Remediation |
|
|
|
See Environmental Matters Environmental
Remediation in Note 3 to the financial statements of
Southern Company, Georgia Power and Mississippi Power and
Retail Regulatory Matters Environmental
Remediation in Note 3 to the financial statements of
Gulf Power in Item 8 herein for information related to
environmental remediation. |
|
(3) |
|
In re: Mirant Corporation, et al.
(United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
Texas) |
I-24
|
|
|
|
|
See Mirant Matters Mirant Bankruptcy in
Note 3 to Southern Companys financial statements in
Item 8 herein for information. |
|
(4) |
|
MC Asset Recovery, LLC v. Southern Company
(United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia) (formerly styled In re: Mirant Corporation,
et al. in the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Northern District of Texas) |
|
|
|
See Mirant Matters MC Asset Recovery
Litigation in Note 3 to Southern Companys
financial statements in Item 8 herein for information. |
|
(5) |
|
In re: Mirant Corporation Securities Litigation
(United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia) |
|
|
|
See Mirant Matters Mirant Securities
Litigation in Note 3 to Southern Companys
financial statements in Item 8 herein for information. |
|
(6) |
|
In re: Mirant Corporation ERISA Litigation
(United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia) |
|
|
|
See Mirant Matters Southern Company Employee
Savings Plan Litigation in Note 3 to Southern
Companys financial statements in Item 8 herein for
information. |
|
(7) |
|
Sierra Club, et al. v. Georgia Power
(United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia) |
|
|
|
See Plant Wansley Environmental Litigation in
Note 3 to Southern Companys and Georgia Powers
financial statements in Item 8 herein for information. |
|
(8) |
|
Right of Way Litigation |
|
|
|
See Right of Way Litigation in Note 3 to
Southern Companys, Georgia Powers, Gulf Powers
and Mississippi Powers financial statements in Item 8
herein for information. |
See Note 3 to each registrants financial statements
in Item 8 herein for descriptions of additional legal and
administrative proceedings discussed therein.
Item 4. SUBMISSION
OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS.
Southern Company, Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power,
Mississippi Power and Southern Power
None.
I-25
EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS OF
SOUTHERN COMPANY
(Identification of executive officers of Southern Company is
inserted in Part I in accordance with
Regulation S-K,
Item 401(b), Instruction 3.) The ages of the
officers set forth below are as of December 31, 2006.
David M. Ratcliffe
Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
Age 58
Elected in 1999. President since April 2004; Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer since July 2004. Previously served as Chief
Executive Officer of Georgia Power from June 1999 to April 2004;
and President of Georgia Power from June 1999 to December 2003.
Andrew J. Dearman, III
Executive Vice President
Age 53
Elected in 2005. Executive Vice President since December 2005.
Previously served as Senior Vice President from December 2000
until December 2005.
Dwight H. Evans
Executive Vice President
Age 58
Elected in 2001. Executive Vice President since May 2001.
Thomas A. Fanning
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Age 49
Elected in 2003. Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer since April 2003. Previously served as
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of Gulf Power
from 2002 to April 2003; and Executive Vice President, Treasurer
and Chief Financial Officer of Georgia Power from 1999 to 2002.
Michael D. Garrett
Executive Vice President
Age 57
Elected in 2004. Executive Vice President since January 1,
2004. He also serves as President and Director of Georgia Power
since January 1, 2004 and Chief Executive Officer of
Georgia Power since April 2004. Previously served as President,
Chief Executive Officer and Director of Mississippi Power from
2001 to 2003.
G. Edison Holland, Jr.
Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
Age 54
Elected in 2001. Executive Vice President and General Counsel
since 2001.
Anthony R. James
Executive Vice President
Age 56
Elected in 2005. Executive Vice President of Southern Company
since December 2005. Previously served as Chairman of Savannah
Electric from December 2005 through January 2006 and President
and Chief Executive Officer of Savannah Electric from April 2001
to December 2005.
Charles D. McCrary
Executive Vice President
Age 55
Elected in 1998. Executive Vice President of Southern Company
since February 2002; President and Chief Executive Officer of
Alabama Power since October 2001.
W. Paul Bowers
Executive Vice President of SCS
Age 50
Elected in 2001. Executive Vice President of SCS since May 2001
and previously served as President and Chief Executive Officer
of Southern Power from May 2001 to March 2005.
J. Barnie Beasley
President and Chief Executive Officer of Southern Nuclear
Age 55
Elected in 2004. President and Chief Executive Officer of
Southern Nuclear since September 2004. Previously served as
Executive Vice President of Southern Nuclear from January 2004
to September 2004; and Vice President from July 1998 through
December 2003.
The officers of Southern Company were elected for a term running
from the first meeting of the directors following the last
annual meeting (May 24, 2006) for one year until the
first board meeting after the next annual meeting or until their
successors are elected and have qualified.
I-26
EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS OF
ALABAMA POWER
(Identification of executive officers of Alabama Power is
inserted in Part I in accordance with
Regulation S-K,
Item 401(b), Instruction 3.) The ages of the
officers set forth below are as of December 31, 2006.
Charles D. McCrary
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
Age 55
Elected in 2001. President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
since October 2001; Executive Vice President of Southern Company
since February 2002.
Art P. Beattie
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Age 52
Elected in 2004. Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer since February 2005. Previously served as
Vice President and Comptroller of Alabama Power from 1998
through January 2005.
C. Alan Martin
Executive Vice President
Age 58
Elected in 1999. Executive Vice President of the Customer
Service Organization since 2001.
Steven R. Spencer
Executive Vice President
Age 51
Elected in 2001. Executive Vice President of External Affairs
since 2001.
Jerry L. Stewart
Senior Vice President
Age 57
Elected in 1999. Senior Vice President of Fossil and Hydro
Generation since 1999.
The officers of Alabama Power were elected for a term running
from the last annual organizational meeting of the directors
(April 28, 2006) for one year until the next annual meeting
or until their successors are elected and have qualified.
I-27
EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS OF
GEORGIA POWER
(Identification of executive officers of Georgia Power is
inserted in Part I in accordance with
Regulation S-K,
Item 401(b), Instruction 3.) The ages of the
officers set forth below are as of December 31, 2006.
Michael D. Garrett
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
Age 57
Elected in 2003. President and Chief Executive Officer of
Georgia Power since April 2004. Previously served as President
of Georgia Power from January 2004 to April 2004; President and
Chief Executive Officer and Director of Mississippi Power from
May 2001 to December 2003.
Mickey A. Brown
Executive Vice President
Age 59
Elected in 2001. Executive Vice President of the Customer
Service Organization since January 2005. Previously served as
Senior Vice President of Distribution from May 2001 to December
2005.
Cliff S. Thrasher
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Age 56
Elected in 2005. Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer since March 2005. Previously served as
Senior Vice President, Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer
of Southern Power from November 2002 to March 2005 and Vice
President of SCS from June 2002 to March 2005; and Vice
President, Comptroller and Chief Accounting Officer of Georgia
Power from September 1995 to June 2002.
Christopher C. Womack
Executive Vice President
Age 48
Elected in 2001. Executive Vice President of External Affairs
since March 2006. Previously served as Senior Vice President of
Fossil and Hydro Generation and Senior Production Officer from
December 2001 to February 2006.
Judy M. Anderson
Senior Vice President
Age 58
Elected in 2001. Senior Vice President of Charitable Giving
since 2001.
Douglas E. Jones
Senior Vice President
Age 48
Elected in 2005. Senior Vice President of Fossil and Hydro
Generation since March 2006. Previously served as Senior Vice
President of Customer Service and Sales from January 2005 to
February 2006; Executive Vice President of Southern Power from
January 2004 to January 2005; Senior Vice President of SCS from
December 2001 to January 2004.
James H. Miller, III
Senior Vice President and General Counsel
Age 57
Elected in 2004. Senior Vice President and General Counsel since
March 2004. Previously served as Vice President and Associate
General Counsel for SCS and Senior Vice President, General
Counsel and Assistant Secretary of Southern Power from 2001 to
2004.
Each of the above is currently an executive officer of Georgia
Power, serving a term running from the last annual
organizational meeting of the directors (May 17,
2006) for one year until the next annual meeting or until
their successors are elected and qualified.
I-28
EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS OF
MISSISSIPPI POWER
(Identification of executive officers of Mississippi Power is
inserted in Part I in accordance with
Regulation S-K,
Item 401(b), Instruction 3.) The ages of the
officers set forth below are as of December 31, 2006.
Anthony J. Topazi
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
Age 56
Elected in 2003. President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
since January 1, 2004. Previously served as Executive Vice
President of Southern Company Generation and Energy Marketing
from November 2000 to December 2003; Senior Vice President of
Southern Power from November 2002 to December 2003; and Vice
President of Southern Power from 2001 until November 2002.
John W. Atherton
Vice President
Age 46
Elected in 2004. Vice President of External Affairs since
January 2005. Previously served as the Director of Economic
Development from September 2003 to January 2005; Manager, Sales
and Marketing Services from April 2002 to August 2003; and
Manager, State Legislative Affairs from August 1996 to April
2002.
Kimberly D. Flowers
Vice President
Age 42
Elected in 2005. Vice President and Senior Production Officer
since March 2005. Previously served as Plant Manager, Plant
Bowen, Georgia Power from November 2000 until March 2005.
Donald R. Horsley
Vice President
Age 52
Elected in 2006. Vice President of Customer Services and Retail
Marketing since April 2006. Previously served as Vice President
of Transmission at Alabama Power from March 2005 to March 2006
and Manager, Transmission Lines at Alabama Power from February
2001 to March 2005.
Frances V. Turnage
Vice President, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer
Age 58
Elected in 2005. Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial
Officer since March 2005. Previously served as Comptroller from
1993 to March 2005.
The officers of Mississippi Power were elected for a term
running from the last annual organizational meeting of the
directors (April 12, 2006) for one year until the next
annual meeting or until their successors are elected and have
qualified.
I-29
PART II
Item 5.
MARKET FOR REGISTRANTS COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER
MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
|
|
|
(a)(1) |
|
The common stock of Southern Company is listed and traded on the
New York Stock Exchange. The common stock is also traded on
regional exchanges across the United States. The high and low
stock prices for each quarter of the past two years were as
follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High
|
|
Low
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
$
|
35.89
|
|
|
$
|
32.34
|
|
Second Quarter
|
|
|
33.25
|
|
|
|
30.48
|
|
Third Quarter
|
|
|
35.00
|
|
|
|
32.01
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
|
37.40
|
|
|
|
34.49
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
$
|
34.34
|
|
|
$
|
31.14
|
|
Second Quarter
|
|
|
35.00
|
|
|
|
31.60
|
|
Third Quarter
|
|
|
36.47
|
|
|
|
33.24
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
|
36.33
|
|
|
|
32.76
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no market for the other registrants common stock,
all of which is owned by Southern Company. |
|
(2) |
|
Number of Southern Companys common stockholders of record
at December 31, 2006:
110,259 |
|
|
|
Each of the other registrants have one common stockholder,
Southern Company. |
|
(3) |
|
Dividends on each registrants common stock are payable at
the discretion of their respective board of directors. The
dividends on common stock declared by Southern Company and the
traditional operating companies to their stockholder(s) for the
past two years were as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registrant
|
|
Quarter
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southern
|
|
First
|
|
$
|
276,442
|
|
|
$
|
265,958
|
|
Company
|
|
Second
|
|
|
287,704
|
|
|
|
277,679
|
|
|
|
Third
|
|
|
287,845
|
|
|
|
277,625
|
|
|
|
Fourth
|
|
|
288,440
|
|
|
|
276,306
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama Power
|
|
First
|
|
|
110,150
|
|
|
|
102,475
|
|
|
|
Second
|
|
|
110,150
|
|
|
|
102,475
|
|
|
|
Third
|
|
|
110,150
|
|
|
|
102,475
|
|
|
|
Fourth
|
|
|
110,150
|
|
|
|
102,475
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Georgia Power
|
|
First
|
|
|
157,500
|
|
|
|
145,700
|
|
|
|
Second
|
|
|
157,500
|
|
|
|
145,700
|
|
|
|
Third
|
|
|
157,500
|
|
|
|
145,700
|
|
|
|
Fourth
|
|
|
157,500
|
|
|
|
145,700
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gulf Power
|
|
First
|
|
|
17,575
|
|
|
|
17,100
|
|
|
|
Second
|
|
|
17,575
|
|
|
|
17,100
|
|
|
|
Third
|
|
|
17,575
|
|
|
|
17,100
|
|
|
|
Fourth
|
|
|
17,575
|
|
|
|
17,100
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi
|
|
First
|
|
|
16,300
|
|
|
|
15,500
|
|
Power
|
|
Second
|
|
|
16,300
|
|
|
|
15,500
|
|
|
|
Third
|
|
|
16,300
|
|
|
|
15,500
|
|
|
|
Fourth
|
|
|
16,300
|
|
|
|
15,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 2005 and 2006, Southern Power paid dividends to Southern
Company as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registrant
|
|
Quarter
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Southern Power
|
|
First
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
|
Second
|
|
|
38.9
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
Third
|
|
|
19.4
|
|
|
|
36.2
|
|
|
|
Fourth
|
|
|
19.4
|
|
|
|
36.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The dividend paid per share of Southern Companys common
stock was 35.75¢ for first quarter of 2005 and 37.25¢
for the remaining quarters of 2005 and the first quarter of
2006. For the second, third and fourth quarters of |
II-1
|
|
|
|
|
2006, the dividend paid per share of Southern Companys
common stock was 38.75¢. |
|
|
|
Southern Powers credit facility contains potential
limitations on the payment of common stock dividends. At
December 31, 2006, Southern Power was in compliance with
the conditions of this credit facility and thus had no
restrictions on its ability to pay common stock dividends. See
Note 8 to the financial statements of Southern Company
under Common Stock Dividend Restrictions and
Note 6 to the financial statements of Southern Power under
Dividend Restriction in Item 8 herein for
additional information regarding these restrictions. |
|
(4) |
|
Securities authorized for issuance under equity compensation
plans. |
|
|
|
See Part III, Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain
Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters
under the heading Equity Compensation Plan
Information herein. |
Not applicable.
|
|
|
(c) |
|
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities |
None.
Item 6. SELECTED
FINANCIAL DATA
Southern Company. See SELECTED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL AND
OPERATING DATA, contained herein at pages II-80 and
II-81.
Alabama Power. See SELECTED FINANCIAL AND OPERATING
DATA, contained herein at pages
II-136 and
II-137.
Georgia Power. See SELECTED FINANCIAL AND OPERATING
DATA, contained herein at pages II-192 and II-193.
Gulf Power. See SELECTED FINANCIAL AND OPERATING
DATA, contained herein at pages II-242 and II-243.
Mississippi Power. See SELECTED FINANCIAL AND OPERATING
DATA, contained herein at
pages II-295
and II-296.
Southern Power. See SELECTED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL AND
OPERATING DATA, contained herein at
page II-327.
|
|
Item 7.
|
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS
|
Southern Company. See MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND
ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS,
contained herein at pages II-10 through II-37.
Alabama Power. See MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND
ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS,
contained herein at pages II-84 through II-103.
Georgia Power. See MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND
ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS,
contained herein at pages II-140 through II-159.
Gulf Power. See MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS,
contained herein at pages II-196 through II-214.
Mississippi Power. See MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND
ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS,
contained herein at pages II-246 through II-266.
Southern Power. See MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND
ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS,
contained herein at pages II-299 through II-312.
Item 7A. QUANTITATIVE
AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
See MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - FINANCIAL
CONDITION AND LIQUIDITY Market Price
Risk of each of the registrants in Item 7 herein and
Note 1 of each of the registrants financial
statements under Financial Instruments in
Item 8 herein. See also Note 6 to the financial
statements of Southern Company, each traditional operating
company and Southern Power under Financial
Instruments in Item 8 herein.
II-2
Item 8. FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
INDEX TO
2006 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
II-7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
II-8
|
|
|
|
|
II-9
|
|
|
|
|
II-38
|
|
|
|
|
II-39
|
|
|
|
|
II-40
|
|
|
|
|
II-42
|
|
|
|
|
II-44
|
|
|
|
|
II-44
|
|
|
|
|
II-45
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
II-83
|
|
|
|
|
II-104
|
|
|
|
|
II-105
|
|
|
|
|
II-106
|
|
|
|
|
II-108
|
|
|
|
|
II-110
|
|
|
|
|
II-110
|
|
|
|
|
II-111
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
II-139
|
|
|
|
|
II-160
|
|
|
|
|
II-161
|
|
|
|
|
II-162
|
|
|
|
|
II-164
|
|
|
|
|
II-165
|
|
|
|
|
II-165
|
|
|
|
|
II-166
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
II-195
|
|
|
|
|
II-215
|
|
|
|
|
II-216
|
|
|
|
|
II-217
|
|
|
|
|
II-219
|
|
II-3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page
|
|
|
|
|
II-220
|
|
|
|
|
II-220
|
|
|
|
|
II-221
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
II-245
|
|
|
|
|
II-267
|
|
|
|
|
II-268
|
|
|
|
|
II-269
|
|
|
|
|
II-271
|
|
|
|
|
II-272
|
|
|
|
|
II-272
|
|
|
|
|
II-273
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
II-298
|
|
|
|
|
II-313
|
|
|
|
|
II-314
|
|
|
|
|
II-315
|
|
|
|
|
II-317
|
|
|
|
|
II-317
|
|
|
|
|
II-318
|
|
|
|
Item 9.
|
CHANGES
IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
|
None.
II-4
|
|
Item 9A.
|
CONTROLS
AND PROCEDURES
|
Disclosure
Controls And Procedures.
As of the end of the period covered by this annual report,
Southern Company, the traditional operating companies and
Southern Power conducted separate evaluations under the
supervision and with the participation of each companys
management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and
operation of the disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in
Sections 13a-15(e)
and
15d-15(e) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Based upon these
evaluations, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial
Officer, in each case, concluded that the disclosure controls
and procedures are effective in alerting them in a timely manner
to material information relating to their company (including its
consolidated subsidiaries, if any) required to be included in
periodic filings with the SEC.
Internal
Control Over Financial Reporting.
(a) Managements Annual Report on Internal Control Over
Financial Reporting.
(1) Southern
Company
Southern Companys Managements Report on Internal
Control Over Financial Reporting is included on page II-7
of this
Form 10-K.
(2) Traditional
operating companies and Southern Power
Not applicable because these companies are not accelerated
filers.
(b) Attestation
Report of the Registered Public Accounting Firm.
(1) Southern
Company
The report of Deloitte & Touche LLP, Southern
Companys independent registered public accounting firm,
regarding managements assessment of Southern
Companys internal control over financial reporting and the
effectiveness of Southern Companys internal control over
financial reporting is included on page II-8 of this
Form 10-K.
(2) Traditional
operating companies and Southern Power
Not applicable because these companies are not accelerated
filers.
(c) Changes in
internal controls.
There have been no changes in Southern Companys, Alabama
Powers, Georgia Powers, Gulf Powers,
Mississippi Powers or Southern Powers internal
control over financial reporting (as such term is defined in
Rules 13a-15(f)
and
15d-15(f)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) during the
fourth quarter 2006 that have materially affected or are
reasonably likely to materially affect Southern Companys,
Alabama Powers, Georgia Powers, Gulf Powers,
Mississippi Powers or Southern Powers internal
control over financial reporting.
|
|
Item 9B.
|
OTHER
INFORMATION
|
None.
II-5
MANAGEMENTS
REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
Southern Company and
Subsidiary Companies 2006 Annual Report
Southern Companys management is responsible for
establishing and maintaining an adequate system of internal
control over financial reporting as required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and as defined in Exchange Act
Rule 13a-15(f).
A control system can provide only reasonable, not absolute,
assurance that the objectives of the control system are met.
Under managements supervision, an evaluation of the design
and effectiveness of Southern Companys internal control
over financial reporting was conducted based on the framework in
Internal ControlIntegrated Framework issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission
(COSO). Based on this evaluation, management concluded that
Southern Companys internal control over financial
reporting was effective as of December 31, 2006.
Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public
accounting firm, as auditors of Southern Companys
financial statements, has issued an attestation report on
managements assessment of the effectiveness of Southern
Companys internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2006. Deloitte & Touche LLPs
report, which expresses unqualified opinions on
managements assessment and on the effectiveness of
Southern Companys internal control over financial
reporting, is included herein.
David M. Ratcliffe
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer
Thomas A. Fanning
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
and Treasurer
February 26, 2007
II-7
Internal
Control Over Financial Reporting
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Southern Company
We have audited managements assessment, included in the
accompanying Managements Report on Internal Control Over
Financial Reporting
(page II-7),
that Southern Company (the Company) maintained
effective internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2006, based on criteria established in
Internal ControlIntegrated Framework issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission. The Companys management is responsible for
maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting
and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on managements assessment and an opinion on the
effectiveness of the Companys internal control over
financial reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control
over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of
internal control over financial reporting, evaluating
managements assessment, testing and evaluating the design
and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing
such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable
basis for our opinions.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed by, or under the supervision of, the
companys principal executive and principal financial
officers, or persons performing similar functions, and effected
by the companys board of directors, management, and other
personnel 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. A companys
internal control over financial reporting includes those
policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance
of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions
are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company
are being made only in accordance with authorizations of
management and directors of the company; and (3) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of the inherent limitations of internal control over
financial reporting, including the possibility of collusion or
improper management override of controls, material misstatements
due to error or fraud may not be prevented or detected on a
timely basis. Also, projections of any evaluation of the
effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting
to future periods are subject to the risk that the controls may
become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the
degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may
deteriorate.
In our opinion, managements assessment that the Company
maintained effective internal control over financial reporting
as of December 31, 2006, is fairly stated, in all material
respects, based on the criteria established in Internal
ControlIntegrated Framework issued by the Committee of
Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Also in our
opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects,
effective internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2006, based on the criteria established in
Internal ControlIntegrated Framework issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2006 of the Company and our report dated
February 26, 2007 expressed an unqualified opinion on those
financial statements and included an explanatory paragraph
regarding a change in the method of accounting for the funded
status of defined benefit pension and other postretirement plans.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
February 26, 2007
II-8
Consolidated
Financial Statements
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Southern Company
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and
consolidated statements of capitalization of Southern Company
and Subsidiary Companies (the Company) as of
December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated
statements of income, comprehensive income, common
stockholders equity, and cash flows for each of the three
years in the period ended December 31, 2006. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the
Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements
(pages II-38 to II-79) present fairly, in all material
respects, the financial position of Southern Company and
Subsidiary Companies at December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the
results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the
three years in the period ended December 31, 2006, in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America.
As discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements, in 2006
the Company changed its method of accounting for the funded
status of defined benefit pension and other postretirement plans.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
effectiveness of the Companys internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, based on the
criteria established in Internal ControlIntegrated
Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated
February 26, 2007 expressed an unqualified opinion on
managements assessment of the effectiveness of the
Companys internal control over financial reporting and an
unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Companys
internal control over financial reporting.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
February 26, 2007
II-9
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
OVERVIEW
Business
Activities
The primary business of Southern Company (the Company) is
electricity sales in the Southeast by the traditional operating
companies Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power,
and Mississippi Power and Southern Power. Savannah
Electric and Power Company (Savannah Electric) was also a
traditional operating company subsidiary of Southern Company
until being merged with and into Georgia Power effective
July 1, 2006. Southern Power constructs, acquires, and
manages generation assets and sells electricity at market-based
rates in the wholesale market.
Many factors affect the opportunities, challenges, and risks of
Southern Companys electricity business. These factors
include the traditional operating companies ability to
maintain a stable regulatory environment, to achieve energy
sales growth, and to effectively manage and secure timely
recovery of rising costs. These costs include those related to
growing demand, increasingly stringent environmental standards,
fuel prices, and storm restoration following multiple
hurricanes. Since the beginning of 2004, each of the traditional
operating companies completed successful retail base rate
proceedings. These regulatory actions have provided earnings
stability and enabled the recovery of substantial capital
investments to facilitate the continued reliability of the
transmission and distribution network and to continue
environmental improvements at the generating plants. During 2005
and 2006, each of the traditional operating companies completed
proceedings as necessary to address fuel and storm damage cost
recovery. Appropriately balancing environmental expenditures
with customer prices will continue to challenge the Company for
the foreseeable future.
Another major factor is the profitability of the competitive
market-based wholesale generating business and federal
regulatory policy, which may impact Southern Companys
level of participation in this market. Southern Power continued
executing its regional strategy in 2006 through the acquisition
of power plants in North Carolina and Florida. Consistent with
prior acquisitions, the newly acquired plants have associated
power purchase agreements (PPAs) in place. The Company continues
to face regulatory challenges related to transmission and market
power issues at the national level.
Southern Companys other business activities include an
investment in a synthetic fuel producing entity (which claims
federal income tax credits designed to offset its operating
losses), leveraged lease projects, telecommunications, and
energy-related services. Management continues to evaluate the
contribution of each of these activities to total shareholder
return and may pursue acquisitions and dispositions accordingly.
The synthetic fuel tax credits will no longer be available after
December 31, 2007. In January 2006, the sale of the
Companys natural gas marketing business was completed.
Key
Performance Indicators
In striving to maximize shareholder value while providing
cost-effective energy to more than four million customers,
Southern Company continues to focus on several key indicators.
These indicators include customer satisfaction, plant
availability, system reliability, and earnings per share (EPS),
excluding earnings from synthetic fuel investments. Southern
Companys financial success is directly tied to the
satisfaction of its customers. Key elements of ensuring customer
satisfaction include outstanding service, high reliability, and
competitive prices. Management uses customer satisfaction
surveys and reliability indicators to evaluate the
Companys results.
Peak season equivalent forced outage rate (Peak Season EFOR) is
an indicator of fossil/hydro plant availability and efficient
generation fleet operations during the months when generation
needs are greatest. The rate is calculated by dividing the
number of hours of forced outages by total generation hours. The
2006 Peak Season EFOR of 1.11 percent is better than the
target and a significant improvement over 2005 Peak Season EFOR.
Transmission and distribution system reliability performance is
measured by the frequency and duration of outages. Performance
targets for reliability are set internally based on historical
performance, expected weather conditions, and expected capital
expenditures. The performance for 2006 exceeded most targets on
these reliability measures.
Southern Companys synthetic fuel investments generate tax
credits as a result of synthetic fuel production. Due to higher
oil prices in 2006, these tax credits were partially phased out
and one synfuel investment was terminated. As a result, Southern
Companys synthetic fuel investments did not contribute
significantly to earnings and EPS during 2006. These tax credits
will no longer be available after December 31, 2007.
Southern Company management uses EPS, excluding synfuel
earnings, to evaluate the performance
II-10
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
of Southern Companys ongoing business activities. Southern
Company believes the presentation of earnings and EPS excluding
the results of the synthetic fuel investments also is useful for
investors because it provides investors with additional
information for purposes of comparing Southern Companys
performance for such periods. The presentation of this
additional information is not meant to be considered a
substitute for financial measures prepared in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles.
Southern Companys 2006 results compared with its targets
for some of these key indicators are reflected in the following
chart:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Key
Performance
Indicator
|
|
|
2006 Target
Performance
|
|
|
2006 Actual
Performance
|
Customer Satisfaction
|
|
|
Top quartile in
customer surveys
|
|
|
Top quartile
|
Peak Season EFOR
|
|
|
2.75% or less
|
|
|
1.11%
|
Basic EPS
|
|
|
$2.15
$2.20
|
|
|
$2.12
|
EPS, excluding synfuel
earnings
|
|
|
$2.03
$2.08
|
|
|
$2.10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See RESULTS OF OPERATIONS herein for additional information on
the Companys financial performance. The financial
performance achieved in 2006 reflects the continued emphasis
that management places on these indicators as well as the
commitment shown by employees in achieving or exceeding
managements expectations.
Earnings
Southern Companys net income was $1.57 billion in
2006, a decrease of 1.1 percent from the prior year. The
lower earnings compared with the prior year were primarily the
result of a reduction of tax credits related to the production
of synthetic fuels. This decrease was largely offset by
continued economic strength and a growing customer base. Net
income was $1.59 billion in 2005 and $1.53 billion in
2004, reflecting increases over the prior year of
3.8 percent and 4.0 percent, respectively. Basic EPS,
including discontinued operations, was $2.12 in 2006, $2.14 in
2005, and $2.07 in 2004. Diluted EPS, which factors in
additional shares related to stock options, was 2 cents lower
than basic EPS for 2006 and 1 cent lower for each of 2005 and
2004.
Dividends
Southern Company has paid dividends on its common stock since
1948. Dividends paid per share of common stock were $1.535 in
2006, $1.475 in 2005, and $1.415 in 2004. In January 2007,
Southern Company declared a quarterly dividend of 38.75 cents
per share. This is the 237th consecutive quarter that
Southern Company has paid a dividend equal to or higher than the
previous quarter. The Company targets a dividend payout ratio of
approximately 70 to 75 percent of net income, excluding
earnings from synthetic fuel businesses. For 2006, the actual
payout ratio was 73 percent, excluding synthetic fuel
earnings, and 72.5 percent overall.
RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS
Electricity
Businesses
Southern Companys electric utilities generate and sell
electricity to retail and wholesale customers in the Southeast.
A condensed income statement for the electricity business is as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (Decrease)
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
from Prior Year
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
Electric operating revenues
|
|
$
|
14,088
|
|
|
$
|
810
|
|
|
$
|
1,813
|
|
|
$
|
718
|
|
|
|
Fuel
|
|
|
5,143
|
|
|
|
655
|
|
|
|
1,089
|
|
|
|
400
|
|
Purchased power
|
|
|
543
|
|
|
|
(188
|
)
|
|
|
88
|
|
|
|
170
|
|
Other operations and maintenance
|
|
|
3,290
|
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
215
|
|
|
|
148
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
1,164
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
229
|
|
|
|
(64
|
)
|
Taxes other than income taxes
|
|
|
715
|
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
Total electric operating expenses
|
|
|
10,855
|
|
|
|
603
|
|
|
|
1,673
|
|
|
|
694
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
3,233
|
|
|
|
207
|
|
|
|
140
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
Other income, net
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
Interest expenses
|
|
|
751
|
|
|
|
75
|
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
949
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
1,586
|
|
|
$
|
73
|
|
|
$
|
92
|
|
|
$
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
II-11
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
Revenues
Details of electric operating revenues are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Retail prior year
|
|
$
|
11,165
|
|
|
$
|
9,732
|
|
|
$
|
8,875
|
|
Change in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base rates
|
|
|
72
|
|
|
|
236
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
Sales growth
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
184
|
|
|
|
216
|
|
Weather
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
48
|
|
Fuel and other cost recovery
clauses
|
|
|
489
|
|
|
|
979
|
|
|
|
552
|
|
|
|
Retail current year
|
|
|
11,801
|
|
|
|
11,165
|
|
|
|
9,732
|
|
|
|
Sales for resale
|
|
|
1,822
|
|
|
|
1,667
|
|
|
|
1,341
|
|
Other electric operating revenues
|
|
|
465
|
|
|
|
446
|
|
|
|
392
|
|
|
|
Electric operating revenues
|
|
$
|
14,088
|
|
|
$
|
13,278
|
|
|
$
|
11,465
|
|
|
|
Percent change
|
|
|
6.1
|
%
|
|
|
15.8
|
%
|
|
|
6.7
|
%
|
|
|
Retail revenues increased $636 million, $1.4 billion,
and $857 million in 2006, 2005, and 2004, respectively. The
significant factors driving these changes are shown in the
preceding table. The increase in base rates in 2005 is primarily
due to approval by the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC)
of a retail base rate increase at Georgia Power. Electric rates
for the traditional operating companies include provisions to
adjust billings for fluctuations in fuel costs, including the
energy component of purchased power costs. Under these
provisions, fuel revenues generally equal fuel expenses,
including the fuel component of purchased power, and do not
affect net income. Certain of the traditional operating
companies also have clauses to recover other costs, such as
environmental, storm damage, new plants, and PPAs.
Sales for resale revenues consist of PPAs with investor-owned
utilities and electric cooperatives, short-term opportunity
sales, and unit power sales contracts. Southern Companys
average wholesale contract extends more than 10 years and,
as a result, the Company has significantly limited its
remarketing risk. Short-term opportunity sales are made at
market-based rates that generally provide a margin above the
Companys variable cost to produce the energy. Revenues
associated with PPAs and opportunity sales were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Other power sales
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity and other
|
|
$
|
499
|
|
|
$
|
430
|
|
|
$
|
308
|
|
Energy
|
|
|
841
|
|
|
|
799
|
|
|
|
635
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,340
|
|
|
$
|
1,229
|
|
|
$
|
943
|
|
|
|
Capacity revenues under unit power sales contracts, principally
sales to Florida utilities, reflect the recovery of fixed costs
and a return on investment, and energy is generally sold at
variable cost. Unit power kilowatt-hour (KWH) sales increased
0.2 percent, 1.7 percent, and 1.9 percent in
2006, 2005, and 2004, respectively. Fluctuations in oil and
natural gas prices, which are the primary fuel sources for unit
power sales customers, influence changes in these sales.
However, because the energy is generally sold at variable cost,
these fluctuations have a minimal effect on earnings. The
capacity and energy components of the unit power sales contracts
were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Unit power
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
$
|
208
|
|
|
$
|
201
|
|
|
$
|
185
|
|
Energy
|
|
|
274
|
|
|
|
237
|
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
482
|
|
|
$
|
438
|
|
|
$
|
398
|
|
|
|
In 2006, sales for resale revenues increased $155 million
as a result of a 10.5 percent increase in the average cost
of fuel per net KWH generated, as well as revenues resulting
from new PPAs in 2006. In addition, Southern Company assumed
four PPAs through the acquisitions of Plants DeSoto and Rowan in
June and September 2006, respectively. The 2006 increase was
partially offset by a decrease in opportunity sales.
In 2005, sales for resale revenues increased $326 million
primarily due to a 26.5 percent increase in the average
cost of fuel per net KWH generated. In addition, Southern
Company entered into new PPAs with 30 electric membership
cooperatives (EMCs) and Flint EMC, both beginning in January
2005, and assumed two PPAs in June 2005 in connection with the
acquisition of Plant Oleander.
In 2004, sales for resale revenues decreased $17 million
primarily due to a lower price differential between market
prices and the Companys marginal cost that reduced the
availability of short-term opportunity sales. Milder summer
weather throughout the Southeast also reduced demand.
II-12
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
Energy
Sales
Changes in revenues are influenced heavily by the volume of
energy sold each year. KWH sales for 2006 and the percent change
by year were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KWH
|
|
Percent Change
|
|
|
2006
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(in billions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential
|
|
|
52.4
|
|
|
2.5
|
%
|
|
|
2.8
|
%
|
|
|
3.9
|
%
|
Commercial
|
|
|
53.0
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
|
|
3.4
|
|
Industrial
|
|
|
55.0
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
(2.2
|
)
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
Other
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
(7.6
|
)
|
|
|
(0.9
|
)
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
Total retail
|
|
|
161.3
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
Sales for resale
|
|
|
40.1
|
|
|
6.1
|
|
|
|
7.3
|
|
|
|
(13.0
|
)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
201.4
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
Retail energy sales in 2006 increased 2.3 billion KWH as a
result of customer growth of 1.7 percent, sustained
economic growth primarily in the residential and commercial
customer classes, and warmer weather in 2006 when compared to
2005. Retail energy sales in 2005 increased 1.9 billion KWH
as a result of sustained economic growth and customer growth of
1.2 percent. Hurricane Katrina dampened customer growth
from previous years and was the primary contributor to the
decrease in industrial sales in 2005. In addition, in 2005, some
Georgia Power industrial customers were reclassified from
industrial to commercial to be consistent with the rate
structure approved by the Georgia PSC resulting in higher
commercial sales and lower industrial sales in 2005 when
compared with 2004. Retail energy sales in 2004 were strong
across all customer classes as a result of an improved economy
in the Southeast and customer growth of 1.5 percent.
Energy sales for resale increased by 2.3 billion KWH in
2006, increased by 2.6 billion KWH in 2005, and decreased
by 5.3 billion KWH in 2004. The increases in sales for
resale in 2006 and 2005 are related primarily to the new PPAs
discussed above. The decrease in 2004 compared with 2003 is
primarily due to a lower price differential between market
prices and the Companys marginal cost that reduced the
availability of short-term opportunity sales. Milder summer
weather throughout the Southeast also reduced demand.
Fuel
and Purchased Power Expenses
Fuel costs constitute the single largest expense for the
electric utilities. The mix of fuel sources for generation of
electricity is determined primarily by demand, the unit cost of
fuel consumed, and the availability of generating units. Details
of Southern Companys generation, fuel, and purchased power
are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Total generation
(billions of KWH)
|
|
|
201
|
|
|
|
195
|
|
|
|
188
|
|
Total purchased power
(billions of KWH)
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
Sources of generation
(percent)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coal
|
|
|
70
|
%
|
|
|
71
|
%
|
|
|
69
|
%
|
Nuclear
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
Gas
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
Hydro
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
Cost of fuel, generated
(cents per net
KWH)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coal
|
|
|
2.40
|
|
|
|
1.93
|
|
|
|
1.75
|
|
Nuclear
|
|
|
0.47
|
|
|
|
0.47
|
|
|
|
0.46
|
|
Gas
|
|
|
6.63
|
|
|
|
8.52
|
|
|
|
4.90
|
|
|
|
Average cost of fuel, generated
(cents per net
KWH)
|
|
|
2.64
|
|
|
|
2.39
|
|
|
|
1.89
|
|
Average cost of purchased power
(cents per net
KWH)
|
|
|
5.64
|
|
|
|
7.14
|
|
|
|
4.48
|
|
|
|
Fuel and purchased power expenses were $5.7 billion in
2006, an increase of $467 million or 8.9 percent above
the prior year costs. This increase was the result of a
$319 million increase in the cost of fuel and purchased
power and $148 million related to an increase in total KWH
generated and purchased.
In 2005, fuel and purchased power expenses were
$5.2 billion, an increase of $1.2 billion or
29.1 percent above 2004 costs. This increase was the result
of a $1.2 billion increase in the cost of fuel and
purchased power, partially offset by $47 million related to
a decrease in total KWH generated and purchased.
Fuel and purchased power expenses were $4.0 billion in
2004, an increase of $570 million or 16.4 percent
above 2003 costs. This increase was the result of a
$473 million increase in the cost of fuel and purchased
power and $97 million related to an increase in total KWH
generated and purchased.
While prices have moderated somewhat in 2006, a significant
upward trend in the cost of coal and natural gas has emerged
since 2003, and volatility in these markets is expected to
continue. Increased coal prices have been influenced by a
worldwide increase in demand as a result of rapid economic
growth in China, as well as by increases in mining and fuel
transportation costs. Higher natural gas prices in the United
States are the result of increased demand and slightly lower gas
supplies despite increased drilling activity. Natural gas
production
II-13
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
and supply interruptions, such as those caused by the 2004 and
2005 hurricanes, result in an immediate market response;
however, the long-term impact of this price volatility may be
reduced by imports of liquefied natural gas if new liquefied gas
facilities are built. Fuel expenses generally do not affect net
income, since they are offset by fuel revenues under the
traditional operating companies fuel cost recovery
provisions. Likewise, Southern Powers PPAs generally
provide that the purchasers are responsible for substantially
all of the cost of fuel.
Other
Operations and Maintenance Expenses
Other operations and maintenance expenses were
$3.3 billion, $3.2 billion, and $3.0 billion,
increasing $70 million, $215 million, and
$148 million in 2006, 2005, and 2004, respectively. Other
production expenses at fossil, hydro, and nuclear plants
increased $3 million, $58 million, and
$53 million in 2006, 2005, and 2004, respectively.
Production expenses fluctuate from year to year due to
variations in outage schedules, flexible spending projects, and
normal increases in costs.
Administrative and general expenses increased $29 million
in 2006 as a result of a $17 million increase in salaries
and wages and a $24 million increase in pension expense,
partially offset by a $16 million reduction in medical
expenses. Administrative and general expenses increased
$73 million in 2005 related to a $33 million increase
in employee benefits; a $22 million increase in shared
service expenses, primarily increases in Sarbanes-Oxley Act
compliance costs, legal costs, and other corporate expenses; and
a $9 million increase in property damage. Administrative
and general expenses increased $106 million in 2004
primarily related to a $41 million increase in employee
benefits, a $23 million increase in shared service
expenses, primarily nuclear security, and a $13 million
increase in property insurance.
Transmission and distribution expenses increased
$30 million, $60 million, and $49 million in
2006, 2005, and 2004, respectively. Transmission and
distribution expenses increased in 2006 primarily due to
expenses associated with recovery of prior year storm costs
through natural disaster recovery clauses and additional
investment in distribution to meet customer growth. Transmission
and distribution expenses increased in 2005 primarily as a
result of $48 million of expenses recorded by Alabama Power
in accordance with an accounting order approved by the Alabama
PSC primarily to offset the costs of Hurricane Ivan and restore
the natural disaster reserve. In accordance with the accounting
order, Alabama Power also returned certain regulatory
liabilities related to deferred income taxes to its retail
customers; therefore, the combined effect of the accounting
order had no impact on net income. See Note 3 to the
financial statements under Storm Damage Cost
Recovery for additional information. Transmission and
distribution expenses fluctuate from year to year due to
variations in maintenance schedules, flexible spending projects,
and normal increases in costs and are the primary basis for the
2004 increase.
The 2004 increase in other operations and maintenance expenses
was partially offset by a $60 million regulatory liability
related to Plant Daniel that was expensed in 2003.
Depreciation
and Amortization Expenses
Depreciation and amortization expenses increased
$27 million in 2006 as a result of the acquisitions of
Plants DeSoto, Rowan, and Oleander in June 2006, September 2006,
and June 2005, respectively, and a reduction in the amortization
of the Plant Daniel regulatory liability. An increase in
depreciation rates at Southern Power associated with adoption of
a new depreciation study also contributed to the 2006 increase.
Partially offsetting the 2006 increase was the amortization of a
Georgia Power regulatory liability related to the levelization
of certain purchased power capacity costs as ordered by the
Georgia PSC under the terms of the retail rate order effective
January 1, 2005. See Note 3 to the financial
statements under Georgia Power Retail Regulatory
Matters for additional information.
Depreciation and amortization expenses increased
$229 million in 2005 as a result of additional plant in
service and from the expiration in 2004 of certain provisions in
Georgia Powers retail rate plan for the three years ended
December 31, 2004 (2001 Retail Rate Plan). In accordance
with the 2001 Retail Rate Plan, Georgia Power amortized an
accelerated cost recovery liability as a credit to amortization
expense and recognized new Georgia PSC-certified purchased power
capacity costs in rates evenly over the three years ended
December 31, 2004. See Note 3 to the financial
statements under Georgia Power Retail Regulatory
Matters for additional information.
Depreciation and amortization expenses declined by
$64 million in 2004 primarily as a result of amortization
of the Plant Daniel regulatory liability and a Georgia Power
regulatory liability related to the levelization of certain
purchased power capacity costs that reduced amortization expense
by $17 million and $90 million, respectively, from the
prior year. See FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL PSC
Matters Mississippi Power herein and
Note 3 to the financial statements
II-14
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
under Georgia Power Retail Regulatory Matters for
more information on these regulatory adjustments. These
reductions were partially offset by a higher depreciable plant
base.
Taxes
Other Than Income Taxes
Taxes other than income taxes increased by $39 million in
2006 primarily as a result of increases in franchise and
municipal gross receipts taxes associated with increases in
revenues from energy sales as well as increases in property
taxes associated with additional plant in service. Taxes other
than income taxes increased by $52 million in 2005
primarily as a result of increases in franchise and municipal
gross receipts taxes associated with increases in revenues from
energy sales. In 2004, taxes other than income taxes increased
by $40 million primarily as a result of additional plant in
service and a higher property tax base.
Interest
Expenses
Total interest charges and other financing costs increased by
$75 million in 2006 due to a $78 million increase
associated with $708 million in additional debt outstanding
at December 31, 2006 compared to December 31, 2005 and
a $7 million increase associated with an increase in
average interest rates on variable rate debt, partially offset
by a $6 million increase in capitalized interest associated
with construction projects and a $3 million reduction in
other interest costs. Total interest charges and other financing
costs increased by $62 million in 2005 associated with an
additional $863 million in debt outstanding at
December 31, 2005 as compared to December 31, 2004 and
an increase in average interest rates on variable rate debt.
Variable rates on pollution control bonds are highly correlated
with the Bond Market Association (BMA) Municipal Swap Index,
which averaged 2.5 percent in 2005 and 1.2 percent in
2004. Variable rates on commercial paper and senior notes are
highly correlated with the one-month London Interbank Offer Rate
(LIBOR), which averaged 3.4 percent in 2005 and
1.5 percent in 2004. An additional $17 million
increase in 2005 was the result of a lower percentage of
interest costs capitalized as construction projects reached
completion. The $19 million increase in interest charges
and other financing costs in 2004 was also the result of a lower
percentage of interest costs capitalized as construction
projects reached completion.
Other
Business Activities
Southern Companys other business activities include the
parent company (which does not allocate operating expenses to
business units), investments in synthetic fuels and leveraged
lease projects, telecommunications, and energy-related services.
These businesses are classified in general categories and may
comprise one or more of the following subsidiaries: Southern
Company Holdings invests in various energy-related projects,
including synthetic fuels and leveraged lease projects that
receive tax benefits, which contribute significantly to the
economic results of these investments; SouthernLINC Wireless
provides digital wireless communications services to the
traditional operating companies and also markets these services
to the public within the Southeast; Southern Telecom provides
fiber optics services in the Southeast; and Southern Company Gas
was a retail gas marketer serving customers in the State of
Georgia. On January 4, 2006, Southern Company Gas completed
the sale of substantially all of its assets and is reflected in
the condensed income statement below as discontinued operations.
See Note 3 to the financial statements under Southern
Company Gas Sale for additional information. A condensed
income statement for Southern Companys other business
activities follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (Decrease)
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
from Prior Year
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Operating revenues
|
|
$
|
268
|
|
|
$
|
(8
|
)
|
|
$
|
12
|
|
|
$
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
Other operations and maintenance
|
|
|
238
|
|
|
|
(59
|
)
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
Taxes other than income taxes
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
277
|
|
|
|
(63
|
)
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
Operating income/(loss)
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
(27
|
)
|
Equity in losses of unconsolidated
subsidiaries
|
|
|
(60
|
)
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
|
(25
|
)
|
|
|
3
|
|
Leveraged lease income
|
|
|
69
|
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
Other income, net
|
|
|
(31
|
)
|
|
|
(18
|
)
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
Interest expenses
|
|
|
149
|
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
(21
|
)
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
(168
|
)
|
|
|
136
|
|
|
|
(14
|
)
|
|
|
(63
|
)
|
Discontinued operations, net of tax
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
Net income/(loss)
|
|
$
|
(13
|
)
|
|
$
|
(91
|
)
|
|
$
|
(33
|
)
|
|
$
|
61
|
|
|
|
Southern Companys non-electric operating revenues
decreased $8 million in 2006 primarily as a result of a
$21 million decrease in revenues at SouthernLINC Wireless
related to lower average revenue per subscriber and lower
equipment and accessory sales. The 2006 decrease was partially
offset by a $12 million increase in
II-15
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
fuel procurement service revenues. Higher production and
increased fees in the synthetic fuel business contributed to the
$12 million increase in 2005. The $7 million decrease
in 2004 was primarily due to lower operating revenues in one of
the Companys energy-related services businesses, partially
offset by an increase in SouthernLINC Wireless revenues as a
result of increased wireless subscribers.
Other operations and maintenance expenses for these other
businesses declined $59 million in 2006 primarily as a
result of $32 million of lower production expenses related
to the termination of Southern Companys membership
interest in one of the synthetic fuel entities, $13 million
attributed to the wind-down of one of the Companys
energy-related services businesses, and $7 million of lower
expenses resulting from the March 2006 sale of a subsidiary that
provided rail car maintenance services. Other operations and
maintenance expenses increased by $12 million in 2005 as a
result of $9 million of higher losses for property damage,
$2 million in higher network costs at SouthernLINC
Wireless, and an $11 million increase in shared service
expenses, partially offset by the $12.5 million bad debt
reserve in 2004 discussed below. Other operations and
maintenance expenses increased $28 million in 2004
primarily due to a $3 million increase in advertising, a
$5 million increase in shared services expenses, and a
$12.5 million bad debt reserve related to additional
federal income taxes and interest Southern Company paid on
behalf of Mirant Corporation (Mirant). See FUTURE EARNINGS
POTENTIAL Mirant Matters herein and
Note 3 to the financial statements under Mirant
Matters Mirant Bankruptcy for additional
information.
The 2006 and 2005 decreases in depreciation and amortization
expenses when compared to the prior years were not material.
Depreciation and amortization expenses decreased $9 million
in 2004 primarily as a result of $10 million of expenses
associated with the repurchase of debt at Southern Company
Holdings in 2003.
Southern Company made investments in two synthetic fuel
production facilities that generate operating losses. These
investments also allow Southern Company to claim federal income
tax credits that offset these operating losses and make the
projects profitable. The decrease in equity in losses of
unconsolidated subsidiaries in 2006 reflects the result of
terminating Southern Companys membership interest in one
of the synthetic fuel entities which reduced the amount of
Southern Companys share of the losses and, therefore, the
funding obligation for the year. The decrease also resulted from
lower operating expenses while the production facilities at the
other synthetic fuel entity were idled from May to September
2006 due to higher oil prices. The increase in equity in losses
of unconsolidated subsidiaries in 2005 reflects the results of
additional production expenses at the synthetic fuel production
facilities. The 2004 decrease in equity in losses of
unconsolidated subsidiaries when compared to the prior year was
not material. The federal income tax credits resulting from
these investments totaled $65 million in 2006,
$177 million in 2005, and $146 million in 2004. In
2004, a $37 million reserve related to these tax credits
was reversed following the settlement of an Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) audit. See FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL
Income Tax Matters Synthetic Fuel Tax
Credits herein for further information.
The $18 million decrease in other income in 2006 as
compared with 2005 resulted from a $25 million decrease
related to changes in the value of derivative transactions in
the synthetic fuel business and a $16 million decrease
related to the impairment of investments in the synthetic fuel
entities, partially offset by the release of $6 million in
certain contractual obligations associated with these
investments. The 2005 decrease in other income when compared to
the prior year was not material. The decrease in other income in
2004 as compared with 2003 reflects a $15 million gain for
a Southern Telecom contract settlement during 2003.
Total interest charges and other financing costs increased by
$48 million in 2006 due to a $19 million increase
associated with $149 million in additional debt outstanding
at December 31, 2006 as compared to December 31, 2005,
a $12 million increase associated with an increase in
average interest rates on variable rate debt, a $6 million
loss on the early redemption of long-term debt payable to
affiliated trusts in January 2006, and a $16 million loss
on the repayment of long-term debt payable to affiliated trusts
in December 2006. The 2006 increase is partially offset by a
$4 million reduction in other interest costs. Interest
expense increased by $18 million in 2005 associated with an
additional $283 million in debt outstanding and a
164 basis point increase in average interest rates on
variable rate debt. Interest expense decreased $21 million
in 2004 as a result of the parent companys redemption of
preferred securities in 2003. This decrease was partially offset
by an increase in outstanding long-term debt in 2004.
The $136 million increase in income taxes in 2006 as
compared with 2005 resulted from an $80 million decrease in
synthetic fuel tax credits as a result of terminating the
Companys membership interest in one of the synthetic fuel
entities and curtailing production at the other synthetic fuel
entity from May to September 2006. In addition, $32 million
of tax credit reserves were
II-16
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
recorded in 2006 due to an anticipated phase-out of synthetic
fuel tax credits due to higher oil prices. See FUTURE EARNINGS
POTENTIAL Income Tax Matters
Synthetic Fuel Tax Credits herein for further information.
The 2005 decrease in income taxes when compared to the prior
year was not material. The $63 million decrease in income
taxes in 2004 as compared with 2003 resulted from a
$19 million increase in synthetic fuel tax credits as a
result of increased production and a $44 million change in
a reserve recorded related to these tax credits.
Effects
of Inflation
The traditional operating companies and Southern Power are
subject to rate regulation and party to long-term contracts that
are generally based on the recovery of historical costs. When
historical costs are included, or when inflation exceeds
projected costs used in rate regulation, the effects of
inflation can create an economic loss since the recovery of
costs could be in dollars that have less purchasing power. In
addition, the income tax laws are based on historical costs.
While the inflation rate has been relatively low in recent
years, it continues to have an adverse effect on Southern
Company because of the large investment in utility plant with
long economic lives. Conventional accounting for historical cost
does not recognize this economic loss nor the partially
offsetting gain that arises through financing facilities with
fixed-money obligations such as long-term debt and preferred
securities. Any recognition of inflation by regulatory
authorities is reflected in the rate of return allowed in the
traditional operating companies approved electric rates.
FUTURE
EARNINGS POTENTIAL
General
The four traditional operating companies operate as vertically
integrated utilities providing electricity to customers within
their service areas in the southeastern United States. Prices
for electricity provided to retail customers are set by state
PSCs under cost-based regulatory principles. Retail rates and
earnings are reviewed and may be adjusted periodically within
certain limitations. Southern Power continues to focus on
long-term capacity contracts, optimized by limited energy
trading activities. The level of future earnings depends on
numerous factors including the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commissions (FERC) market-based rate investigation,
creditworthiness of customers, total generating capacity
available in the Southeast, and the successful remarketing of
capacity as current contracts expire. See ACCOUNTING
POLICIES Application of Critical Accounting
Policies and Estimates Electric Utility
Regulation herein and Note 3 to the financial
statements for additional information about regulatory matters.
The results of operations for the past three years are not
necessarily indicative of future earnings potential. The level
of Southern Companys future earnings depends on numerous
factors that affect the opportunities, challenges, and risks of
Southern Companys primary business of selling electricity.
These factors include the traditional operating companies
ability to maintain a stable regulatory environment that
continues to allow for the recovery of all prudently incurred
costs during a time of increasing costs. Another major factor is
the profitability of the competitive market-based wholesale
generating business and federal regulatory policy, which may
impact Southern Companys level of participation in this
market. Future earnings for the electricity business in the near
term will depend, in part, upon growth in energy sales, which is
subject to a number of factors. These factors include weather,
competition, new energy contracts with neighboring utilities,
energy conservation practiced by customers, the price of
electricity, the price elasticity of demand, and the rate of
economic growth in the service area.
Southern Company system generating capacity increased 1,276
megawatts in 2006. The acquisition by Southern Power of Plants
DeSoto and Rowan added 1,330 megawatts to the fleet while
generating capacity was reduced by 54 megawatts due to the
retirement of two fossil units and the re-rating of one hydro
unit. In general, Southern Company has constructed or acquired
new generating capacity only after entering into long-term
capacity contracts for the new facilities or to meet
requirements of Southern Companys regulated retail
markets, both of which are optimized by limited energy trading
activities.
To adapt to a less regulated, more competitive environment,
Southern Company continues to evaluate and consider a wide array
of potential business strategies. These strategies may include
business combinations, acquisitions involving other utility or
non-utility businesses or properties, internal restructuring,
disposition of certain assets, or some combination thereof.
Furthermore, Southern Company may engage in new business
ventures that arise from competitive and regulatory changes in
the utility industry. Pursuit of any of the above strategies, or
any combination thereof, may significantly affect the business
operations and financial condition of Southern Company.
II-17
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
Environmental
Matters
Compliance costs related to the Clean Air Act and other
environmental regulations could affect earnings if such costs
cannot be fully recovered in rates on a timely basis.
Environmental compliance spending over the next several years
may exceed amounts estimated. Some of the factors driving the
potential for such an increase are higher commodity costs,
market demand for labor, and scope additions and clarifications.
The timing, specific requirements, and estimated costs could
also change as environmental regulations are modified. See
Note 3 to the financial statements under
Environmental Matters for additional information.
New
Source Review Actions
In November 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency (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 New Source
Review (NSR) provisions of the Clean Air Act and related state
laws at certain coal-fired generating facilities. Through
subsequent amendments and other legal procedures, the EPA filed
a separate action in January 2001 against Alabama Power in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
after Alabama Power was dismissed from the original action. In
these lawsuits, the EPA alleged that NSR violations occurred at
eight coal-fired generating facilities operated by Alabama Power
and Georgia Power (including a facility formerly owned by
Savannah Electric). The civil actions request penalties and
injunctive relief, including an order requiring the installation
of the best available control technology at the affected units.
On June 19, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama entered a consent decree between
Alabama Power and the EPA, resolving the alleged NSR violations
at Plant Miller. The consent decree required Alabama Power to
pay $100,000 to resolve the governments claim for a civil
penalty and to donate $4.9 million of sulfur dioxide
emission allowances to a nonprofit charitable organization and
formalized specific emissions reductions to be accomplished by
Alabama Power, consistent with other Clean Air Act programs that
require emissions reductions. On August 14, 2006, the
district court in Alabama granted Alabama Powers motion
for summary judgment and entered final judgment in favor of
Alabama Power on the EPAs claims related to Plants Barry,
Gaston, Gorgas, and Greene County. The plaintiffs have appealed
this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit and, on November 14, 2006, the Eleventh Circuit
granted plaintiffs request to stay the appeal, pending the
U.S. Supreme Courts ruling in a similar NSR case
filed by the EPA against Duke Energy. The action against Georgia
Power has been administratively closed since the spring of 2001,
and none of the parties has sought to reopen the case.
Southern Company believes that the traditional operating
companies complied with applicable laws and the EPA regulations
and interpretations in effect at the time the work in question
took place. The Clean Air Act authorizes maximum civil penalties
of $25,000 to $32,500 per day, per violation at each
generating unit, depending on the date of the alleged violation.
An adverse outcome in any one of these cases could require
substantial capital expenditures that cannot be determined at
this time and could possibly require payment of substantial
penalties. Such expenditures could affect future results of
operations, cash flows, and financial condition if such costs
are not recovered through regulated rates.
The EPA has issued a series of proposed and final revisions to
its NSR regulations under the Clean Air Act, many of which have
been subject to legal challenges by environmental groups and
states. On June 24, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld, in part, the
EPAs revisions to NSR regulations that were issued in
December 2002 but vacated portions of those revisions addressing
the exclusion of certain pollution control projects. These
regulatory revisions have been adopted by each of the states
within Southern Companys service territory. On
March 17, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit also vacated an EPA rule which
sought to clarify the scope of the existing Routine Maintenance,
Repair, and Replacement exclusion. In October 2005 and September
2006, the EPA also published proposed rules clarifying the test
for determining when an emissions increase subject to the NSR
permitting requirements has occurred. The impact of these
proposed rules will depend on adoption of the final rules by the
EPA and the individual state implementation of such rules, as
well as the outcome of any additional legal challenges, and,
therefore, cannot be determined at this time.
Carbon
Dioxide Litigation
In July 2004, attorneys general from eight states, each outside
of Southern Companys service territory, and the
corporation counsel for New York City filed a complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Southern Company and four other electric power
companies. A nearly identical complaint was filed
II-18
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
by three environmental groups in the same court. 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. 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. The ultimate outcome of
these matters cannot be determined at this time.
Plant
Wansley Environmental Litigation
In December 2002, the Sierra Club, Physicians for Social
Responsibility, Georgia Forestwatch, and one individual filed a
civil suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia against Georgia Power for alleged violations
of the Clean Air Act at four of the units at Plant Wansley. The
civil action requested injunctive and declaratory relief, civil
penalties, a supplemental environmental project, and
attorneys fees. In January 2007, following the March 2006
reversal and remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit, the district court ruled for Georgia Power on
all remaining allegations in this case. The only issue remaining
for resolution by the district court is the appropriate remedy
for two isolated, short-term, technical violations of the
plants Clean Air Act operating permit. The court has asked
the parties to submit a joint proposed remedy or individual
proposals in the event the parties cannot agree. Although the
ultimate outcome of this matter cannot currently be determined,
the resulting liability associated with the two events is not
expected to have a material impact on the Companys
financial statements.
Environmental
Statutes and Regulations
General
Southern Companys operations are subject to extensive
regulation by state and federal environmental agencies under a
variety of statutes and regulations governing environmental
media, including air, water, and land resources. Applicable
statutes include the Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act; the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the
Toxic Substances Control Act; the Emergency Planning &
Community
Right-to-Know
Act; and the Endangered Species Act. Compliance with these
environmental requirements involves significant capital and
operating costs, a major portion of which is expected to be
recovered through existing ratemaking provisions. Through 2006,
Southern Company had invested approximately $3.1 billion in
capital projects to comply with these requirements, with annual
totals of $661 million, $423 million, and
$300 million for 2006, 2005, and 2004, respectively. The
Company expects that capital expenditures to assure compliance
with existing and new regulations will be an additional
$1.66 billion, $1.65 billion, and $1.27 billion
for 2007, 2008, and 2009, respectively. Because the
Companys compliance strategy is impacted by changes to
existing environmental laws and regulations, the cost,
availability, and existing inventory of emission allowances, and
the Companys fuel mix, the ultimate outcome cannot be
determined at this time. Environmental costs that are known and
estimable at this time are included in capital expenditures
discussed under FINANCIAL CONDITION AND LIQUIDITY
Capital Requirements and Contractual Obligations
herein.
Compliance with possible additional federal or state legislation
or regulations related to global climate change, air quality, or
other environmental and health concerns could also significantly
affect Southern Company. New environmental legislation or
regulations, or changes to existing statutes or regulations,
could affect many areas of Southern Companys operations;
however, the full impact of any such changes cannot be
determined at this time.
Air
Quality
Compliance with the Clean Air Act and resulting regulations has
been and will continue to be a significant focus for Southern
Company. Through 2006, the Company had spent approximately
$2.5 billion in reducing sulfur dioxide
(SO2)
and nitrogen oxide
(NOx)
emissions and in monitoring emissions pursuant to the Clean Air
Act. Additional controls have been announced and are currently
being installed at several plants to further reduce
SO2,
NOx,
and mercury emissions, maintain compliance with existing
regulations, and meet new requirements.
Approximately $1.3 billion of the expenditures related to
reducing
NOx
emissions pursuant to state and federal requirements were in
connection with the EPAs
II-19
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
one-hour
ozone air quality standard and the 1998 regional
NOx
reduction rules. In addition, in 2006, Gulf Power completed
implementation of the terms of a 2002 agreement with the State
of Florida to help ensure attainment of the ozone standard in
the Pensacola, Florida area. The conditions of the agreement,
which required installing additional controls on certain units
and retiring three older units at a plant near Pensacola,
totaled approximately $133.8 million, and have been
approved under Gulf Powers environmental cost recovery
clause.
In 2005, the EPA revoked the
one-hour
ozone air quality standard and published the second of two sets
of final rules for implementation of the new, more stringent
eight-hour
ozone standard. Areas within Southern Companys service
area that were designated as nonattainment under the
eight-hour
ozone standard included Macon (Georgia), Jefferson and Shelby
Counties, near and including Birmingham (Alabama), and a
20-county
area within metropolitan Atlanta. Macon is in the process of
seeking redesignation by the EPA as an attainment area and is
preparing a maintenance plan for approval. The Birmingham area
was redesignated to attainment with the
eight-hour
ozone standard by the EPA on June 12, 2006, and the EPA
subsequently approved a maintenance plan for the area to address
future exceedances of the standard. On December 22, 2006,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit vacated the first set of implementation rules adopted in
2004 and remanded the rules to the EPA for further refinement.
The impact of this decision, if any, cannot be determined at
this time and will depend on subsequent legal action
and/or
rulemaking activity. State implementation plans, including new
emission control regulations necessary to bring ozone
nonattainment areas into attainment, are currently required for
most areas by June 2007. These state implementation plans could
require further reductions in
NOx
emissions from power plants.
During 2005, the EPAs fine particulate matter
nonattainment designations became effective for several areas
within Southern Companys service area in Alabama and
Georgia, and the EPA proposed a rule for the implementation of
the fine particulate matter standard. The EPA is expected to
publish its final rule for implementation of the existing fine
particulate matter standard in early 2007. State plans for
addressing the nonattainment designations under the existing
standard are required by April 2008 and could require further
reductions in
SO2
and
NOx
emissions from power plants. On September 21, 2006, the EPA
published a final rule lowering the
24-hour fine
particulate matter air quality standard even further and plans
to designate nonattainment areas based on the new standard by
December 2009. The final outcome of this matter cannot be
determined at this time.
The EPA issued the final Clean Air Interstate Rule in March
2005. This
cap-and-trade
rule addresses power plant
SO2
and
NOx
emissions that were found to contribute to nonattainment of the
eight-hour
ozone and fine particulate matter standards in downwind states.
Twenty-eight eastern states, including each of the states within
Southern Companys service area, are subject to the
requirements of the rule. The rule calls for additional
reductions of
NOx
and/or
SO2
to be achieved in two phases, 2009/2010 and 2015. These
reductions will be accomplished by the installation of
additional emission controls at Southern Companys
coal-fired facilities or by the purchase of emission allowances
from a
cap-and-trade
program.
The Clean Air Visibility Rule (formerly called the Regional Haze
Rule) was finalized in July 2005. The goal of this rule is to
restore natural visibility conditions in certain areas
(primarily national parks and wilderness areas) by 2064. The
rule involves (1) the application of Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) to certain sources built between 1962
and 1977 and (2) the application of any additional
emissions reductions which may be deemed necessary for each
designated area to achieve reasonable progress toward the
natural conditions goal by 2018. Thereafter, for each
10-year
planning period, additional emissions reductions will be
required to continue to demonstrate reasonable progress in each
area during that period. For power plants, the Clean Air
Visibility Rule allows states to determine that the Clean Air
Interstate Rule satisfies BART requirements for
SO2
and
NOx.
However, additional BART requirements for particulate matter
could be imposed, and the reasonable progress provisions could
result in requirements for additional
SO2
controls. By December 17, 2007, states must submit
implementation plans that contain strategies for BART and any
other control measures required to achieve the first phase of
reasonable progress.
In March 2005, the EPA published the final Clean Air Mercury
Rule, a
cap-and-trade
program for the reduction of mercury emissions from coal-fired
power plants. The rule sets caps on mercury emissions to be
implemented in two phases, 2010 and 2018, and provides for an
emission allowance trading market. The Company anticipates that
emission controls installed to achieve compliance with the Clean
Air Interstate Rule and the
eight-hour
ozone and fine-particulate air quality standards will also
result in mercury emission reductions. However, the long-term
capability of emission control equipment to reduce mercury
emissions is still being evaluated, and the
II-20
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
installation of additional control technologies may be required.
The impacts of the
eight-hour
ozone and the fine particulate matter nonattainment
designations, the Clean Air Interstate Rule, the Clean Air
Visibility Rule, and the Clean Air Mercury Rule on the Company
will depend on the development and implementation of rules at
the state level. States implementing the Clean Air Mercury Rule
and the Clean Air Interstate Rule, in particular, have the
option not to participate in the national
cap-and-trade
programs and could require reductions greater than those
mandated by the federal rules. Impacts will also depend on
resolution of pending legal challenges to these rules.
Therefore, the full effects of these regulations on the Company
cannot be determined at this time. The Company has developed and
continually updates a comprehensive environmental compliance
strategy to comply with the continuing and new environmental
requirements discussed above. As part of this strategy, the
Company plans to install additional
SO2,
NOx,
and mercury emission controls within the next several years to
assure continued compliance with applicable air quality
requirements.
Water
Quality
In July 2004, the EPA published its final technology-based
regulations under the Clean Water Act for the purpose of
reducing impingement and entrainment of fish, shellfish, and
other forms of aquatic life at existing power plant cooling
water intake structures. The rules require baseline biological
information and, perhaps, installation of fish protection
technology near some intake structures at existing power plants.
On January 25, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit overturned and remanded several provisions of the
rule to the EPA for revisions. Among other things, the court
rejected the EPAs use of cost-benefit analysis
and suggested some ways to incorporate cost considerations. The
full impact of these regulations will depend on subsequent legal
proceedings, further rulemaking by the EPA, the results of
studies and analyses performed as part of the rules
implementation, and the actual requirements established by state
regulatory agencies and, therefore, cannot now be determined.
Georgia Power is retrofitting a closed-loop recirculating
cooling tower at one facility under the Clean Water Act to cool
water prior to discharge and is considering undertaking similar
work at an additional facility. The total estimated capital cost
for this project is $96 million. Southern Company is also
considering similar projects at other facilities.
Environmental
Remediation
Southern Company must comply with other environmental laws and
regulations that cover the handling and disposal of waste and
release of hazardous substances. Under these various laws and
regulations, the traditional operating companies could incur
substantial costs to clean up properties. The traditional
operating companies conduct studies to determine the extent of
any required cleanup and have recognized in their respective
financial statements the costs to clean up known sites. Amounts
for cleanup and ongoing monitoring costs were not material for
any year presented. The traditional operating companies may be
liable for some or all required cleanup costs for additional
sites that may require environmental remediation. See
Note 3 to the financial statements under
Environmental Matters Environmental
Remediation for additional information.
Global
Climate Issues
Domestic efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions have been
spurred by international negotiations under the Framework
Convention on Climate Change and specifically the Kyoto
Protocol, which proposes a binding limitation on the emissions
of greenhouse gases for industrialized countries. The Bush
Administration has not supported U.S. ratification of the
Kyoto Protocol or other mandatory carbon dioxide reduction
legislation; however, in 2002, it did announce a goal to reduce
the greenhouse gas intensity of the U.S. economy, the ratio
of greenhouse gas emissions to the value of U.S. economic
output, by 18 percent by 2012. Southern Company is
participating in the voluntary electric utility sector climate
change initiative, known as Power Partners, under the Bush
Administrations Climate VISION program. The utility sector
pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions rate by
3 percent to 5 percent by
2010-2012.
The Company continues to evaluate future energy and emission
profiles relative to the Power Partners program and is
participating in voluntary programs to support the industry
initiative. In addition, the Company is participating in the
Bush Administrations Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean
Development and Climate, a public/private partnership to work
together to meet goals for energy security, national air
pollution reduction, and climate change in ways that promote
sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction. Legislative
proposals that would impose mandatory restrictions on carbon
dioxide emissions continue to be considered in Congress. The
ultimate outcome cannot be determined at this time; however,
mandatory restrictions on the Companys carbon dioxide
emissions could result in significant additional compliance
costs that could affect future results of operations, cash
II-21
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
flows, and financial condition if such costs are not recovered
through regulated rates.
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 dominance within its retail
service territory. The ability to charge market-based rates in
other markets is not an issue in that 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 beginning February 27, 2005 could be subject
to refund to the level of the default cost-based rates, pending
the outcome of the proceeding. Such sales through May 27,
2006, the end of the refund period, were approximately
$19.7 million for the Southern Company system. In the event
that the FERCs default mitigation measures for entities
that are found to have market power are ultimately applied, the
traditional operating companies and Southern Power may be
required to charge cost-based rates for certain wholesale sales
in the Southern Company retail service territory, which may be
lower than negotiated market-based rates. The final outcome of
this matter will depend on the form in which the final
methodology for assessing generation market power and mitigation
rules may be ultimately adopted and cannot be determined at this
time.
In addition, in May 2005, the FERC started an investigation to
determine whether Southern Company satisfies the other three
parts of the FERCs market-based rate analysis:
transmission market power, barriers to entry, and affiliate
abuse or reciprocal dealing. The FERC established a new
15-month
refund period related to this expanded investigation. Any new
market-based rate sales involving any Southern Company
subsidiary could be subject to refund to the extent the FERC
orders lower rates as a result of this new investigation. Such
sales through October 19, 2006, the end of the refund
period, were approximately $55.4 million for the Southern
Company system, of which $15.5 million relates to sales
inside the retail service territory discussed above. The FERC
also directed that this expanded proceeding be held in abeyance
pending the outcome of the proceeding on the Intercompany
Interchange Contract (IIC) discussed below. On
January 3, 2007, the FERC issued an order noting settlement
of the IIC proceeding and seeking comment identifying any
remaining issues and the proper procedure for addressing any
such issues.
Southern Company and its subsidiaries believe that there is no
meritorious basis for these proceedings and are vigorously
defending themselves in this matter. However, the final outcome
of this matter, including any remedies to be applied in the
event of an adverse ruling in these proceedings, cannot now be
determined.
Intercompany
Interchange Contract
The Companys generation fleet in its retail service
territory is operated under the IIC, as approved by the
FERC. In May 2005, the FERC initiated a new proceeding to
examine (1) the provisions of the IIC among Alabama
Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, Mississippi Power, Savannah
Electric, Southern Power, and Southern Company Services, Inc.
(SCS), as agent, under the terms of which the power pool of
Southern Company is operated, and, in particular, the propriety
of the continued inclusion of Southern Power as a party to
the IIC, (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.
On October 5, 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. On October 20, 2006, 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. Southern Company filed
with the FERC on November 6, 2006 an implementation plan to
comply with the modifications set forth in the order. The impact
of the modifications is not expected to have a material impact
on Southern Companys financial statements.
Generation
Interconnection Agreements
In July 2003, the FERC issued its final rule on the
standardization of generation interconnection agreements and
procedures (Order 2003). Order 2003 shifts much of the financial
burden of new transmission investment from
II-22
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
the generator to the transmission provider. The FERC has
indicated that Order 2003, which was effective January 20,
2004, is to be applied prospectively to new generating
facilities interconnecting to a transmission system. Order 2003
was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit on January 12, 2007. The cost impact
resulting from Order 2003 will vary on a
case-by-case
basis for each new generator interconnecting to the transmission
system.
On November 22, 2004, generator company subsidiaries of
Tenaska, Inc. (Tenaska), as counterparties to three previously
executed interconnection agreements with subsidiaries of
Southern Company, filed complaints at the FERC requesting that
the FERC modify the agreements and that those Southern Company
subsidiaries refund a total of $19 million previously paid
for interconnection facilities, with interest. Southern Company
has also received requests for similar modifications from other
entities, though no other complaints are pending with the FERC.
On January 19, 2007, the FERC issued an order granting
Tenaskas requested relief. Although the FERCs order
requires the modification of Tenaskas interconnection
agreements, the order reduces the amount of the refund that had
been requested by Tenaska. As a result, Southern Company
estimates indicate that no refund is due Tenaska. Southern
Company has requested rehearing of the FERCs order. The
final outcome of this matter cannot now be determined.
Transmission
In December 1999, the FERC issued its final rule on Regional
Transmission Organizations (RTOs). Since that time, there have
been a number of additional proceedings at the FERC designed to
encourage further voluntary formation of RTOs or to mandate
their formation. However, at the current time, there are no
active proceedings that would require Southern Company to
participate in an RTO. Current FERC efforts that may potentially
change the regulatory
and/or
operational structure of transmission include rules related to
the standardization of generation interconnection, as well as an
inquiry into, among other things, market power by vertically
integrated utilities. See Market-Based Rate
Authority and Generation Interconnection
Agreements above for additional information. The final
outcome of these proceedings cannot now be determined. However,
Southern Companys financial condition, results of
operations, and cash flows could be adversely affected by future
changes in the federal regulatory or operational structure of
transmission.
PSC
Matters
Alabama
Power
In October 2005, the Alabama PSC approved a revision to the Rate
Stabilization and Equalization Plan (Rate RSE) requested by
Alabama Power. Effective January 2007, Rate RSE adjustments are
based on forward-looking information for the applicable upcoming
calendar year. Rate adjustments for any two-year period, when
averaged together, cannot exceed 4 percent per year and any
annual adjustment is limited to 5 percent. Rates remain
unchanged when the projected return on common equity (ROE)
ranges between 13 percent and 14.5 percent. If Alabama
Powers actual retail ROE is above the allowed equity
return range, customer refunds will be required; however, there
is no provision for additional customer billings should the
actual retail return on common equity fall below the allowed
equity return range. Alabama Power made its initial submission
of projected data for calendar year 2007 on December 1,
2006. The Rate RSE increase for 2007 is 4.76 percent, or
$193 million annually and, became effective in January
2007. See Note 3 to the financial statements under
Alabama Power Retail Regulatory Matters for further
information.
Georgia
Power
In December 2004, the Georgia PSC approved the three-year retail
rate plan ending December 31, 2007 (2004 Retail Rate Plan)
for Georgia Power. Under the terms of the 2004 Retail Rate Plan,
Georgia Powers earnings are evaluated against a retail ROE
range of 10.25 percent to 12.25 percent. Two-thirds of
any earnings above 12.25 percent are applied to rate
refunds, with the remaining one-third retained by Georgia Power.
Retail rates and customer fees were increased by approximately
$203 million in January 2005 to cover the higher costs of
purchased power, operations and maintenance expenses,
environmental compliance, and continued investment in new
generation, transmission, and distribution facilities to support
growth and ensure reliability.
Georgia Power is required to file a general rate case on or
about July 1, 2007, in response to which the Georgia PSC
would be expected to determine whether the 2004 Retail Rate Plan
should be continued, modified, or discontinued. See Note 3
to the financial statements under Georgia Power Retail
Regulatory Matters for additional information.
Effective July 1, 2006, Savannah Electric was merged into
Georgia Power. See Fuel Cost Recovery herein for
additional information.
II-23
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
Mississippi
Power
In February 2007, Mississippi Power filed with the
Mississippi PSC its annual Environmental Compliance Overview
(ECO) Plan evaluation for 2007. Mississippi Power requested an
86 cent per 1,000 KWH increase for retail customers. This
increase represents approximately $7.5 million per year in
annual revenues for Mississippi Power. Hearings with the
Mississippi PSC are expected to be held in April 2007. The
outcome of the 2007 filing cannot now be determined. In April
2006, the Mississippi PSC approved Mississippi Powers 2006
ECO Plan, which included a 12 cent per 1,000 KWH reduction for
retail customers. This decrease represented a reduction of
approximately $1.3 million per year in annual revenues for
Mississippi Power. The new rates were effective in April 2006.
In December 2006, Mississippi Power submitted its annual
Performance Evaluation Plan (PEP) filing for 2007, which
resulted in no rate change. Pursuant to the rate schedule, an
order is not required from the Mississippi PSC for Mississippi
Power to continue to bill the filed rate in effect. In March
2006, the Mississippi PSC approved Mississippi Powers 2006
PEP filing, which included an annual retail base rate increase
of 5 percent, or $32 million that was effective in
April 2006. Ordinarily, PEP limits annual rate increases to
4 percent; however, Mississippi Power had requested that
the Mississippi PSC approve a temporary change to allow it to
exceed this cap as a result of the ongoing effects of Hurricane
Katrina.
In May 2004, the Mississippi PSC approved Mississippi
Powers request to reclassify to jurisdictional cost of
service the 266 megawatts of Plant Daniel unit 3 and 4 capacity,
effective January 1, 2004. The Mississippi PSC authorized
Mississippi Power to include the related costs and revenue
credits in jurisdictional rate base, cost of service, and
revenue requirement calculations for purposes of retail rate
recovery. Mississippi Power is amortizing the regulatory
liability established pursuant to the Mississippi PSCs
order to earnings as follows: $16.5 million in 2004,
$25.1 million in 2005, $13.0 million in 2006, and
$5.7 million in 2007, resulting in expense reductions in
each of those years.
Fuel
Cost Recovery
The traditional operating companies each have established fuel
cost recovery rates approved by their respective state PSCs.
Over the past two years, the traditional operating companies
have continued to experience higher than expected fuel costs for
coal, natural gas, and uranium. These higher fuel costs have
increased the under recovered fuel costs included in the balance
sheets to $1.3 billion at December 31, 2006. The
traditional operating companies continuously monitor the under
recovered fuel cost balance in light of these higher fuel costs.
Each of the traditional operating companies received approval in
2005 and/or
2006 to increase its fuel cost recovery factors to recover
existing under recovered amounts as well as projected future
costs.
Alabama Power fuel costs are recovered under Rate ECR (Energy
Cost Recovery), which provides for the addition of a fuel and
energy cost factor to base rates. In December 2005, the Alabama
PSC approved an increase that allows for the recovery of
approximately $227 million in existing under recovered fuel
costs over a two-year period. As of December 31, 2006,
Alabama Power had an under recovered fuel balance of
approximately $301 million.
In March 2006, Georgia Power and Savannah Electric filed a
combined request for fuel cost recovery rate changes with the
Georgia PSC to be effective July 1, 2006, the effective
date of the merger of Savannah Electric into Georgia Power. On
June 15, 2006, the Georgia PSC ruled on the request and
approved an increase in Georgia Powers total annual fuel
billings of approximately $400 million. The Georgia PSC
order provided for a combined ongoing fuel forecast but reduced
the requested increase related to such forecast by
$200 million. The order also required Georgia Power to file
for a new fuel cost recovery rate on a semi-annual basis,
beginning in September 2006. Accordingly, on September 15,
2006, Georgia Power filed a request to recover fuel costs
incurred through August 2006 by increasing the fuel cost
recovery rate.
On November 13, 2006, under an agreement with the Georgia
PSC staff, Georgia Power filed a supplementary request
reflecting a forecast of annual fuel costs, as well as updated
information for previously incurred fuel costs. On
February 6, 2007, the Georgia PSC ruled on the request and
approved an increase in Georgia Powers total annual
billings of approximately $383 million. The Georgia PSC
order reduced Georgia Powers requested increase in the
forecast of annual fuel costs by $40 million and disallowed
$4 million of previously incurred fuel costs. The order
also requires Georgia Power to file for a
II-24
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
new fuel cost recovery rate no later than March 1, 2008.
The new rates will become effective on March 1, 2007.
Estimated under recovered fuel costs are to be recovered through
May 2009 for customers in the former Georgia Power territory and
through November 2009 for customers in the former Savannah
Electric territory. As of December 31, 2006, Georgia Power
had an under recovered fuel balance of approximately
$898 million.
Fuel cost recovery revenues as recorded on the financial
statements are adjusted for differences in actual recoverable
costs and amounts billed in current regulated rates.
Accordingly, changing the billing factor has no significant
effect on the Companys revenues or net income, but does
impact annual cash flow. Based on their respective state PSC
orders, a portion of the under recovered regulatory clause
revenues for Alabama Power and Georgia Power was reclassified
from current assets to deferred charges and other assets in the
balance sheet. See Note 1 to the financial statements under
Revenues and Note 3 to the financial statements
under Alabama Power Retail Regulatory Matters and
Georgia Power Retail Regulatory Matters for
additional information.
Storm
Damage Cost Recovery
In July 2005 and August 2005, Hurricanes Dennis and Katrina,
respectively, hit the Gulf Coast of the United States and caused
significant damage within Southern Companys service area,
including portions of the service areas of Gulf Power, Alabama
Power, and Mississippi Power. In addition, Hurricane Ivan hit
the Gulf Coast of Florida and Alabama in September 2004, causing
significant damage to the service areas of both Gulf Power and
Alabama Power. Each retail operating company maintains a reserve
to cover the cost of damages from major storms to its
transmission and distribution lines and the cost of uninsured
damages to its generation facilities and other property. In
addition, each of the affected traditional operating companies
has been authorized by its state PSC to defer the portion of the
hurricane restoration costs that exceeded the balance in its
storm damage reserve account. As of December 31, 2006, the
under recovered balance in Southern Companys storm damage
reserve accounts totaled approximately $89 million, of
which approximately $57 million and $32 million,
respectively, are included in the balance sheets herein under
Other Current Assets and Other Regulatory
Assets.
In June 2006, the Mississippi PSC issued an order based upon a
stipulation between Mississippi Power and the Mississippi Public
Utilities Staff. The stipulation and the associated order
certified actual storm restoration costs relating to Hurricane
Katrina through April 30, 2006 of $267.9 million and
affirmed estimated additional costs through December 31,
2007 of $34.5 million, for total storm restoration costs of
$302.4 million which was net of insurance proceeds of
approximately $77 million, without offset for the property
damage reserve of $3.0 million. Of the total amount,
$292.8 million applies to Mississippi Powers retail
jurisdiction. The order directed Mississippi Power to file an
application with the Mississippi Development Authority (MDA) for
a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). Mississippi Power
filed the CDBG application with the MDA in September 2006. On
October 30, 2006, Mississippi Power received from the MDA a
CDBG in the amount of $276.4 million. Mississippi Power has
appropriately allocated and applied these CDBG proceeds to both
retail and wholesale storm restoration cost recovery.
Mississippi Power filed an application for a financing order
with the Mississippi PSC on July 3, 2006 for restoration
costs under the state bond program. On October 27, 2006,
the Mississippi PSC issued a financing order that authorizes the
issuance of $121.2 million of system restoration bonds.
This amount includes $25.2 million for the retail storm
recovery costs not covered by the CDBG, $60 million for a
property damage reserve, and $36 million for the retail
portion of the construction of the storm operations facility.
The bonds will be issued by the Mississippi Development Bank on
behalf of the State of Mississippi and will be reported as
liabilities by the State of Mississippi. Periodic
true-up
mechanisms will be structured to comply with terms and
requirements of the legislation. Details regarding the issuance
of the bonds have not been finalized. The final outcome of this
matter cannot now be determined.
As of December 31, 2006, Mississippi Powers under
recovered balance in the property damage reserve account totaled
approximately $4.7 million which is included in the balance
sheets herein under Current Assets.
In July 2006, the Florida PSC issued its order approving a
stipulation and settlement between Gulf Power and several
consumer groups that resolved all matters relating to Gulf
Powers request for recovery of incurred costs for
storm-recovery activities and the replenishment of Gulf
Powers property damage reserve. The order provides for an
extension of the storm-recovery surcharge currently being
collected by Gulf Power for an additional 27 months,
expiring in June 2009. According to the stipulation, the funds
resulting from the extension of the current surcharge will first
be credited to the unrecovered balance of storm-recovery costs
associated with Hurricane Ivan until these costs have been fully
recovered. The funds will then be credited to the property
II-25
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
reserve for recovery of the storm-recovery costs of
$52.6 million associated with Hurricanes Dennis and Katrina
that were previously charged to the reserve. Should revenues
collected by Gulf Power through the extension of the
storm-recovery surcharge exceed the storm-recovery costs
associated with Hurricanes Dennis and Katrina, the excess
revenues will be credited to the reserve. The annual accrual to
the reserve of $3.5 million and Gulf Powers limited
discretionary authority to make additional accruals to the
reserve will continue as previously approved by the Florida PSC.
Gulf Power made discretionary accruals to the reserve of
$3 million, $6 million, and $15 million in 2006,
2005, and 2004, respectively. As part of a March 2005 agreement
regarding Hurricane Ivan costs that established the existing
surcharge, Gulf Power agreed that it would not seek any
additional increase in its base rates and charges to become
effective on or before March 1, 2007. The terms of the
stipulation do not alter or affect that portion of the prior
agreement. According to the order, in the case of future storms,
if Gulf Power incurs cumulative costs for storm-recovery
activities in excess of $10 million during any calendar
year, Gulf Power will be permitted to file a streamlined formal
request for an interim surcharge. Any interim surcharge would
provide for the recovery, subject to refund, of up to
80 percent of the claimed costs for storm-recovery
activities. Gulf Power would then petition the Florida PSC for
full recovery through an additional surcharge or other cost
recovery mechanism.
As of December 31, 2006, Gulf Powers unrecovered
balance in the property damage reserve totaled approximately
$45.7 million, of which approximately $28.8 million
and $16.9 million, respectively, are included in the
balance sheets herein under Current Assets and
Deferred Charges and Other Assets.
At Alabama Power, operation and maintenance expenses associated
with Hurricane Ivan were $57.8 million. In 2005, Alabama
Power received Alabama PSC approvals to return certain
regulatory liabilities to the retail customers. These orders
also allowed Alabama Power to simultaneously recover from
customers accruals of approximately $48 million primarily
to offset the costs of Hurricane Ivan and restore a positive
balance in the natural disaster reserve. The combined effect of
these orders had no impact on net income in 2005.
In December 2005, the Alabama PSC approved a separate rate rider
to recover Alabama Powers $51 million of deferred
Hurricane Dennis and Katrina operation and maintenance costs
over a two-year period and to replenish its reserve to a target
balance of $75 million over a five-year period.
As of December 31, 2006, Alabama Power had recovered
$49.5 million of the costs allowed for storm-recovery
activities, of which $34.5 million was a reduction in the
deficit balance in the natural disaster reserve account related
to costs deferred from previous storms. The remaining under
recovered balance in the property damage reserve account totaled
approximately $16.8 million at December 31, 2006 and
is included in the balance sheets herein under Current
Assets. The remaining $15.0 million collected was
used to establish the target reserve for future storms. The
balance in the target reserve, reduced for current year
activity, was $13.2 million at December 31, 2006 and
is included in the balance sheets herein under Other
Regulatory Liabilities.
See Notes 1 and 3 to the financial statements under
Storm Damage Reserves and Storm Damage Cost
Recovery, respectively, for additional information on
these reserves. The final outcome of these matters cannot now be
determined.
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 for
voluntary reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy
Code. In January 2006, Mirants plan of reorganization
became effective, and Mirant emerged from bankruptcy. 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). Southern Company has
certain contingent liabilities associated with guarantees of
contractual commitments made by Mirants subsidiaries
discussed in Note 7 to the financial statements under
Guarantees and with various lawsuits discussed in
Note 3 to the financial statements under Mirant
Matters.
II-26
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
In December 2004, as a result of concluding an IRS audit for the
tax years 2000 and 2001, Southern Company paid $39 million
in additional tax and interest for issues related to Mirant tax
items. Under the terms of the separation agreements entered into
in connection with the spin-off, Mirant agreed to indemnify
Southern Company for costs associated with these tax items and
additional IRS assessments. However, as a result of
Mirants bankruptcy, Southern Company sought reimbursement
as an unsecured creditor in the Chapter 11 proceeding.
Based on managements assessment of the collectibility of
the $39 million receivable, Southern Company has reserved
approximately $13.7 million. In December 2006, Southern
Company received approximately $23 million in tax refunds
from the IRS related to Mirant tax items. Additional refunds are
expected. The amount of any unsecured claim ultimately allowed
with respect to Mirant tax items is expected to be reduced
dollar-for-dollar
by the amount of all refunds received from the IRS by Southern
Company.
If Southern Company is ultimately required to make any
additional payments either with respect to the IRS audit or its
contingent obligations under guarantees of Mirant subsidiaries,
Mirants indemnification obligation to Southern Company for
these additional payments, if allowed, would constitute
unsecured claims against Mirant, entitled to stock in
Reorganized Mirant. See Note 3 to the financial statements
under Mirant Matters Mirant Bankruptcy.
In June 2005, Mirant, as a debtor in possession, and The
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Mirant Corporation
filed a complaint against Southern Company in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas,
which was amended in July 2005, February 2006, and May 2006. The
third amended complaint (the complaint) alleges that Southern
Company caused Mirant to engage in certain fraudulent transfers
and to pay illegal dividends to Southern Company prior to the
spin-off. The complaint also seeks to recharacterize certain
advances from Southern Company to Mirant for investments in
energy facilities from debt to equity. The complaint further
alleges that Southern Company is liable to Mirants
creditors for the full amount of Mirants liability and
that Southern Company breached its fiduciary duties to Mirant
and its creditors, caused Mirant to breach fiduciary duties to
its creditors, and aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary
duties by Mirants directors and officers. The complaint
also seeks recoveries under theories of restitution, unjust
enrichment, and alter ego. The complaint seeks monetary damages
in excess of $2 billion plus interest, punitive damages,
attorneys fees, and costs. Finally, the complaint includes
an objection to Southern Companys pending claims against
Mirant in the Bankruptcy Court (which relate to reimbursement
under the separation agreements of payments such as income
taxes, interest, legal fees, and other guarantees described in
Note 7 to the financial statements) and seeks equitable
subordination of Southern Companys claims to the claims of
all other creditors. Southern Company served an answer to the
complaint in June 2006.
In January 2006, MC Asset Recovery, a special purpose subsidiary
of Reorganized Mirant, was substituted as plaintiff. In February
2006, the Companys motion to transfer the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
was granted. On May 19, 2006, Southern Company filed a
motion for summary judgment seeking entry of judgment against
the plaintiff as to all counts in the complaint. On
December 11, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia granted in part and denied in part
the motion. As a result, certain breach of fiduciary duty claims
were barred; all other claims in the complaint may proceed.
Southern Company believes there is no meritorious basis for the
claims in the complaint and is vigorously defending itself in
this action. See Note 3 to the financial statements under
Mirant Matters MC Asset Recovery
Litigation for additional information. The ultimate
outcome of these matters cannot be determined at this time.
Income
Tax Matters
Leveraged
Lease Transactions
Southern Company undergoes audits by the IRS for each of its tax
years. The IRS has completed its audits of Southern
Companys consolidated federal income tax returns for all
years through 2003. Southern Company participates in four
international leveraged lease transactions and receives federal
income tax deductions for depreciation and amortization, as well
as interest on related debt. The IRS proposed to disallow the
tax losses for one of these leases (a
lease-in-lease-out,
or LILO) in connection with its audit of 1997 through 2001. In
October 2004, Southern Company submitted the issue to the IRS
appeals division and in February 2005 reached a negotiated
settlement with the IRS, which is now final.
In connection with its audit of 2000 and 2001, the IRS also
challenged Southern Companys deductions related to three
other international lease
(sale-in-lease-out,
or SILO) transactions. In the third quarter 2006, Southern
Company paid the full amount of the disputed tax and the
applicable interest on the SILO issue for tax years
2000-2001
and filed a claim for refund which has been denied by the IRS.
The disputed tax amount is $79 million
II-27
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
and the related interest is approximately $24 million for
these tax years. This payment, and the subsequent IRS
disallowance of the refund claim, closed the issue with the IRS
and Southern Company plans to proceed with litigation. The IRS
has also raised the SILO issues for tax years 2002 and 2003. The
estimated amount of disputed tax and interest for these years is
approximately $83 million and $15 million,
respectively. The tax and interest for these tax years was paid
to the IRS in the fourth quarter 2006. Southern Company has
accounted for both payments in 2006 as deposits, as management
believes no additional tax or interest liabilities have been
incurred.
Although the payment of the tax liability did not affect
Southern Companys results of operations under accounting
standards in effect through December 31, 2006, it did
impact cash flow. For tax years 2000 through 2006, Southern
Company has claimed $284 million in tax benefits related to
these SILO transactions challenged by the IRS. See Note 1
to the financial statements under Leveraged Leases
for additional information. Southern Company believes these
transactions are valid leases for U.S. tax purposes and
thus the related deductions are allowable. The Company will
continue to defend this position through administrative appeals
or litigation. The ultimate outcome of these matters cannot now
be determined.
In July 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
released new interpretations for the accounting for both
leveraged leases and uncertain tax positions that were adopted
January 1, 2007. For the LILO transaction settled with the
IRS in February 2005, the leveraged leases accounting
interpretation requires that Southern Company recognize a
cumulative effect reduction to beginning 2007 retained earnings
of approximately $17 million at adoption and change the
timing of income recognized under the lease.
For the SILO transactions which are the subject of pending
litigation, Southern Company is continuing to evaluate the
impact of the new interpretations but estimates that the
reduction to retained earnings in 2007 could be approximately
$115 million to $135 million. The impact on Southern
Companys net income of these accounting interpretations
would also be dependent on the outcome of the pending litigation
or changes in assumptions related to uncertain tax positions but
could be significant, and potentially material.
Synthetic
Fuel Tax Credits
Southern Company had investments in two entities that produce
synthetic fuel and receive tax credits under Section 45K
(formerly Section 29) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended (Internal Revenue Code). During 2006, as
discussed below, Southern Companys interest in one of the
synthetic fuel entities was terminated. In accordance with
Section 45K of the Internal Revenue Code, these tax credits
are subject to limitation as the annual average price of oil (as
determined by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))
increases over a specified, inflation-adjusted dollar amount
published in the spring of the subsequent year. Southern
Company, along with its partners in these investments, has
continued to monitor oil prices. Reserves against these tax
credits of $32 million were recorded in 2006 due to
projected phase-outs of the credits in 2006 as a result of
higher oil prices. Synthetic fuel tax credits will end
December 31, 2007.
In May 2006, production at one of the synthetic fuel investments
was idled due to continued uncertainty over the value of tax
credits. In addition, Southern Company entered into an agreement
in June 2006 which terminated its ownership interest in its
other synthetic fuel investment, effective July 1, 2006.
Also, during 2006, Southern Company entered into derivative
transactions designed to reduce its exposure to changes in the
value of tax credits associated with its synthetic fuel
investments. These derivative transactions were marked to market
through other income (expense), net. As a result of these
actions and the projected continued phase out of tax credits
because of high oil prices, the investments in these two
synthetic fuel entities were considered fully impaired and
approximately $16 million was written off and is reflected
in the line item Impairment loss on equity method
investments on the statements of income herein. In
September 2006, due to reduced oil prices in the third quarter,
production was restarted at the synthetic fuel facility in which
Southern Company still has an ownership interest. In October
2006, Southern Company entered into additional derivative
transactions to reduce its exposure to the potential phase-out
of these income tax credits in 2007. Subsequent to
December 31, 2006, the Company entered into additional
derivative transactions to further reduce its exposure to
potential phase-out of tax credits in 2007. See Note 6 to
the financial statements under Financial Instruments
for additional information regarding the impact of these
derivatives. The final outcome of these matters cannot now be
determined.
II-28
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
Construction
Projects
Integrated
Coal Gasification Combined Cycle
In December 2005, Southern Power and the Orlando Utilities
Commission (OUC) executed definitive agreements for development
of an integrated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC)
285-megawatt project in Orlando, Florida. The definitive
agreements provide that Southern Power will own at least
65 percent of the gasifier portion of the IGCC project. OUC
will own the remainder of the gasifier portion and
100 percent of the combined cycle portion of the IGCC
project. OUC will purchase all of the gasifier capacity from
Southern Power once the plant is in commercial operation.
Southern Power will construct the project and manage its
operation after construction is completed. In February 2006,
Southern Power signed a cooperative agreement with the DOE that
provides up to $235 million in grant funding for the
gasification portion of this project. The IGCC project is
subject to National Environmental Policy Act review as well as
state environmental review, requires certain regulatory
approvals, and is expected to begin commercial operation in
2010. The total cost related to the IGCC project is currently
being reviewed, and may be higher than earlier estimates due to
increases in commodity costs and increased market demand for
labor. Southern Power had spent $7.8 million as of
December 31, 2006. Southern Power has the option under the
agreements to end its participation in the IGCC project at the
end of the project definition phase which is expected to be
during 2007.
In June 2006, Mississippi Power filed an application with the
DOE for certain tax credits available to projects using clean
coal technologies under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The
proposed project is an advanced coal gasification facility
located in Kemper County, Mississippi that would use locally
mined lignite coal. The proposed 693 megawatt plant, excluding
the mine cost, is expected to require an approximate investment
of $1.5 billion and is expected to be completed in 2013.
The DOE subsequently certified the project and in November 2006
the IRS allocated Internal Revenue Code Section 48A tax
credits to Mississippi Power of $133 million. The
utilization of these credits is dependent upon meeting the
certification requirements for the project under the Internal
Revenue Code. The plant would use an air-blown IGCC technology
that generates power from low-rank coals and coals with high
moisture or high ash content. These coals, which include
lignite, make up half the proven U.S. and worldwide coal
reserves. Mississippi Power is still undergoing a feasibility
assessment of the project which could take up to two years.
Approval by various regulatory agencies, including the
Mississippi PSC, will also be required if the project proceeds.
The final outcome of these matters cannot now be determined.
Nuclear
On August 15, 2006, as part of a potential expansion of
Plant Vogtle, Georgia Power and Southern Nuclear Operating
Company, Inc. (SNC) filed an application with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) for an early site permit (ESP) on
behalf of the owners of Plant Vogtle. In addition, Georgia Power
and SNC notified the NRC of their intent to apply for a combined
construction and operating license (COL) in 2008. Ownership
agreements have been signed with each of the existing Plant
Vogtle co-owners. See Note 4 to the financial statements
for additional information on these co-owners. In June 2006, the
Georgia PSC approved Georgia Powers request to establish
an accounting order that would allow Georgia Power to defer for
future recovery the ESP and COL costs, of which Georgia
Powers portion is estimated to total approximately
$51 million over the next four years. At this point, no
final decision has been made regarding actual construction. Any
new generation resource must be certified by the Georgia PSC in
a separate proceeding.
On March 16, 2006, a subsidiary of Southern Company entered
into a development agreement with Duke Energy Corporation (Duke
Energy) to evaluate the potential construction of a new
two-unit
nuclear plant at a jointly owned site in Cherokee County, South
Carolina. If constructed, Southern Company would own an interest
in Unit 1, representing approximately 500 megawatts. Duke
Energy will be the developer and licensed operator of any plant
built at the site.
Southern Company also is participating in NuStart Energy
Development, LLC (NuStart Energy), a broad-based nuclear
industry consortium formed to share the cost of developing a COL
and the related NRC review. NuStart Energy plans to complete
detailed engineering design work and to prepare COL applications
for two advanced reactor designs, then to choose one of the
applications and file it for NRC review and approval. The COL
ultimately is expected to be transferred to one or more of the
consortium companies; however, at this time, none of them have
committed to build a new nuclear plant.
Southern Company is also exploring other possibilities relating
to nuclear power projects, both on its own or in partnership
with other utilities. The final outcome of these matters cannot
now be determined.
II-29
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
Other
Matters
Southern Company is involved in various other matters being
litigated, regulatory matters, and certain tax-related issues
that could affect future earnings. See Note 3 to the
financial statements for information regarding material issues.
ACCOUNTING
POLICIES
Application
of Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
Southern Company prepares its consolidated financial statements
in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in
the United States. Significant accounting policies are described
in Note 1 to the financial statements. In the application
of these policies, certain estimates are made that may have a
material impact on Southern Companys results of operations
and related disclosures. Different assumptions and measurements
could produce estimates that are significantly different from
those recorded in the financial statements. Senior management
has discussed the development and selection of the critical
accounting policies and estimates described below with the Audit
Committee of Southern Companys Board of Directors.
Electric
Utility Regulation
Southern Companys traditional operating companies, which
comprise approximately 93 percent of Southern
Companys total earnings for 2006, are subject to retail
regulation by their respective state PSCs and wholesale
regulation by the FERC. These regulatory agencies set the rates
the traditional operating companies are permitted to charge
customers based on allowable costs. As a result, the traditional
operating companies apply FASB Statement No. 71,
Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types of
Regulation (SFAS No. 71), which requires the
financial statements to reflect the effects of rate regulation.
Through the ratemaking process, the regulators may require the
inclusion of costs or revenues in periods different than when
they would be recognized by a non-regulated company. This
treatment may result in the deferral of expenses and the
recording of related regulatory assets based on anticipated
future recovery through rates or the deferral of gains or
creation of liabilities and the recording of related regulatory
liabilities. The application of SFAS No. 71 has a
further effect on the Companys financial statements as a
result of the estimates of allowable costs used in the
ratemaking process. These estimates may differ from those
actually incurred by the traditional operating companies;
therefore, the accounting estimates inherent in specific costs
such as depreciation, nuclear decommissioning, and pension and
postretirement benefits have less of a direct impact on the
Companys results of operations than they would on a
non-regulated company.
As reflected in Note 1 to the financial statements,
significant regulatory assets and liabilities have been
recorded. Management reviews the ultimate recoverability of
these regulatory assets and liabilities based on applicable
regulatory guidelines and accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States. However, adverse legislative,
judicial, or regulatory actions could materially impact the
amounts of such regulatory assets and liabilities and could
adversely impact the Companys financial statements.
Contingent
Obligations
Southern Company and its subsidiaries are subject to a number of
federal and state laws and regulations, as well as other factors
and conditions that potentially subject them to environmental,
litigation, income tax, and other risks. See FUTURE EARNINGS
POTENTIAL herein and Note 3 to the financial statements for
more information regarding certain of these contingencies.
Southern Company periodically evaluates its exposure to such
risks and records reserves for those matters where a loss is
considered probable and reasonably estimable in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. The adequacy of
reserves can be significantly affected by external events or
conditions that can be unpredictable; thus, the ultimate outcome
of such matters could materially affect Southern Companys
financial statements. These events or conditions include the
following:
|
|
|
Changes in existing state or federal regulation by governmental
authorities having jurisdiction over air quality, water quality,
control of toxic substances, hazardous and solid wastes, and
other environmental matters.
|
|
|
Changes in existing income tax regulations or changes in IRS or
state revenue department interpretations of existing regulations.
|
|
|
Identification of additional sites that require environmental
remediation or the filing of other complaints in which Southern
Company or its subsidiaries may be asserted to be a potentially
responsible party.
|
|
|
Identification and evaluation of other potential lawsuits or
complaints in which Southern Company or its subsidiaries may be
named as a defendant.
|
II-30
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
|
|
|
Resolution or progression of existing matters through the
legislative process, the court systems, the IRS, or the EPA.
|
Unbilled
Revenues
Revenues related to the sale of electricity are recorded when
electricity is delivered to customers. However, the
determination of KWH sales to individual customers is based on
the reading of their meters, which is performed on a systematic
basis throughout the month. At the end of each month, amounts of
electricity delivered to customers, but not yet metered and
billed, are estimated. Components of the unbilled revenue
estimates include total KWH territorial supply, total KWH
billed, estimated total electricity lost in delivery, and
customer usage. These components can fluctuate as a result of a
number of factors including weather, generation patterns, and
power delivery volume and other operational constraints. These
factors can be unpredictable and can vary from historical
trends. As a result, the overall estimate of unbilled revenues
could be significantly affected, which could have a material
impact on the Companys results of operations.
New
Accounting Standards
Stock
Options
On January 1, 2006, Southern Company adopted FASB Statement
No. 123(R), Share-Based Payment, using the
modified prospective method. This statement requires that
compensation cost relating to share-based payment transactions
be recognized in financial statements. That cost is measured
based on the grant date fair value of the equity or liability
instruments issued. Although the compensation expense required
under the revised statement differs slightly, the impacts on the
Companys financial statements are similar to the pro forma
disclosures included in Note 1 to the financial statements
under Stock Options.
Pensions
and Other Postretirement Plans
On December 31, 2006, Southern Company adopted FASB
Statement No. 158, Employers Accounting for
Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans
(SFAS No. 158), which requires recognition of the
funded status of its defined benefit postretirement plans in its
balance sheet. With the adoption of SFAS No. 158,
Southern Company recorded an additional prepaid pension asset of
$520 million with respect to its overfunded defined benefit
plan and additional liabilities of $45 million and
$553 million, respectively, related to its underfunded
non-qualified pension plans and retiree benefit plans.
Additionally, SFAS No. 158 will require Southern
Company to change the measurement date for its defined benefit
postretirement plan assets and obligations from
September 30 to December 31 beginning with the year
ending December 31, 2008. See Note 2 to the financial
statements for additional information.
Guidance
on Considering the Materiality of Misstatements
In September 2006, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 108,
Considering the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements when
Quantifying Misstatements in Current Year Financial
Statements (SAB 108). SAB 108 addresses how the
effects of prior year uncorrected misstatements should be
considered when quantifying misstatements in current year
financial statements. SAB 108 requires companies to
quantify misstatements using both a balance sheet and an income
statement approach and to evaluate whether either approach
results in quantifying an error that is material in light of
relevant quantitative and qualitative factors. When the effect
of initial adoption is material, companies will record the
effect as a cumulative effect adjustment to beginning of year
retained earnings. The provisions of SAB 108 were effective
for the Southern Company for the year ended December 31,
2006. The adoption of SAB 108 did not have a material
impact on Southern Companys financial statements.
Income
Taxes
In July 2006, the FASB issued Interpretation No. 48,
Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes
(FIN 48). This interpretation requires that tax benefits
must be more likely than not of being sustained in
order to be recognized. Southern Company adopted FIN 48
effective January 1, 2007. The impact on Southern
Companys financial statements is estimated to be a
reduction to retained earnings of $15 million to
$25 million.
Leveraged
Leases
In July 2006, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position
No. FAS 13-2,
Accounting for a Change or Projected Change in the Timing
of Cash Flows Relating to Income Taxes Generated by a Leveraged
Lease Transaction (FSP
13-2). This
staff position amends FASB Statement No. 13,
Accounting for Leases to require recalculation of
the rate of return and the allocation of income whenever the
projected timing of the income tax cash flows generated by a
leveraged lease is revised. Southern Company adopted FSP
13-2
effective January 1, 2007. This adoption required Southern
Company to recognize a cumulative effect of an approximate
$17 million decrease
II-31
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
to retained earnings related to the LILO transaction settled
with the IRS in February 2005. The estimated impact of the
adoption related to the SILO transactions is a reduction to
retained earnings of approximately $100 million to
$115 million. See FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL
Income Tax Matters Leveraged Lease
Transactions above and Note 3 to the financial
statements under Income Tax Matters herein for
further details about the effect of FSP
13-2.
Fair
Value Measurement
The FASB issued FASB Statement No. 157, Fair Value
Measurements (SFAS No. 157) in September
2006. SFAS No. 157 provides guidance on how to measure
fair value where it is permitted or required under other
accounting pronouncements. SFAS No. 157 also requires
additional disclosures about fair value measurements. Southern
Company plans to adopt SFAS No. 157 on January 1,
2008 and is currently assessing its impact.
Fair
Value Option
In February 2007, the FASB issued FASB Statement No. 159,
Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial
Liabilities Including an Amendment of FASB Statement
No. 115 (SFAS No. 159). This standard
permits an entity to choose to measure many financial
instruments and certain other items at fair value. Southern
Company plans to adopt SFAS No. 159 on January 1,
2008 and is currently assessing its impact.
FINANCIAL
CONDITION AND LIQUIDITY
Overview
Southern Companys financial condition remained stable at
December 31, 2006. Net cash flow from operations increased
from 2005 by $290 million. The increase was primarily the
result of decreases in under recovered fuel cost receivables due
to higher allowed fuel recovery rates, decreases in under
recovered storm restoration costs, and decreases in accounts
payable from year-end 2005 amounts that included substantial
hurricane-related expenditures, partially offset by increases in
fossil fuel inventory. The $165 million decrease from 2005
to 2004 resulted primarily from higher fuel costs at the
traditional operating companies, partially offset by increases
in base rates and fuel recovery rates. See FUTURE EARNINGS
POTENTIAL PSC Matters Fuel Cost
Recovery and Storm Damage Cost Recovery for
additional information.
Significant balance sheet changes include an increase in notes
payable of $683 million primarily to meet Southern
Companys short-term financing needs until longer term
financing is secured, an increase in securities due within one
year of $517 million for debt maturing within the next
year, and an increase in property, plant, and equipment of
$1.6 billion. The majority of funds needed for property
additions were provided from operating activities. The
implementation of SFAS No. 158 resulted in significant
balance sheet changes and accounts for a large portion of the
increases in prepaid pension assets of $527 million, other
regulatory assets of $417 million, employee benefit
obligations of $637 million, and other regulatory
liabilities of $471 million.
At the close of 2006, the closing price of Southern
Companys common stock was $36.86 per share, compared
with book value of $15.24 per share. The
market-to-book
value ratio was 242 percent at the end of 2006, compared
with 240 percent at year-end 2005.
Southern Company, each of the traditional operating companies,
and Southern Power, have received investment grade ratings from
the major rating agencies with respect to debt, preferred
securities, preferred stock, and/or preference stock. SCS has an
investment grade corporate credit rating.
Sources
of Capital
Southern Company intends to meet its future capital needs
through internal cash flow and external security issuances.
Equity capital can be provided from any combination of the
Companys stock plans, private placements, or public
offerings. The amount and timing of additional equity capital to
be raised in 2007, as well as in subsequent years, will be
contingent on Southern Companys investment opportunities.
The Company does not currently anticipate any equity offerings
in 2007 outside of its existing stock option plan, the employee
savings plan, and the Southern Investment Plan.
The traditional operating companies and Southern Power plan to
obtain the funds required for construction and other purposes
from sources similar to those used in the past, which were
primarily from operating cash flows, security issuances, term
loans, and short-term borrowings. See Note 3 to the
financial statements under Storm Damage Cost
Recovery for information regarding additional options that
Mississippi Power may pursue for recovering storm damage costs.
However, the type and timing of any financings, if needed, will
depend upon prevailing market conditions, regulatory approval,
and other factors. The issuance of securities by the traditional
operating companies is generally subject to the approval of the
applicable state PSC. In addition, the issuance of all
securities by Mississippi Power and Southern Power
II-32
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
and short-term securities by Georgia Power is generally subject
to regulatory approval by the FERC. Additionally, with respect
to the public offering of securities, Southern Company and
certain of its subsidiaries file registration statements with
the SEC under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
(1933 Act). The amounts of securities authorized by the
appropriate regulatory authorities, as well as the amounts, if
any, registered under the 1933 Act, are continuously
monitored and appropriate filings are made to ensure flexibility
in the capital markets.
Southern Company, each traditional operating company, and Southern
Power obtain
financing separately without credit support from any affiliate.
See Note 6 to the financial statements under Bank
Credit Arrangements for additional information. The
Southern Company system does not maintain a centralized cash or
money pool. Therefore, funds of each company are not commingled
with funds of any other company.
Southern Companys current liabilities frequently exceed
current assets because of the continued use of short-term debt
as a funding source to meet cash needs as well as scheduled
maturities of long-term debt. To meet short-term cash needs and
contingencies, Southern Company has substantial cash flow from
operating activities and access to the capital markets,
including commercial paper programs, to meet liquidity needs.
At December 31, 2006, Southern Company and its subsidiaries
had approximately $167 million of cash and cash equivalents
and $3.3 billion of unused credit arrangements with banks,
of which $656 million expire in 2007 and $2.7 billion
expire in 2008 and beyond. Of the $2.7 billion expiring in
2008 and beyond, $2.4 billion does not expire until 2011.
Approximately $79 million of the credit facilities expiring
in 2007 allow for the execution of term loans for an additional
two-year period, and $343 million allow for the execution
of one-year term loans. Most of these arrangements contain
covenants that limit debt levels and typically contain cross
default provisions that are restricted only to the indebtedness
of the individual company. Southern Company and its subsidiaries
are currently in compliance with all such covenants. See
Note 6 to the financial statements under Bank Credit
Arrangements for additional information.
Financing
Activities
During 2006, Southern Company and its subsidiaries issued
$1.4 billion of senior notes, $154 million of
obligations related to pollution control revenue bonds, and
$150 million of preference stock. Interest rate hedges of
$1.1 billion notional amount were settled at a gain of
$2.7 million related to the issuances. The security
issuances were used to redeem or extinguish $1.2 billion of
long-term debt, to redeem $169 million of obligations
related to pollution control revenue bonds, to redeem
$15 million of preferred stock, to fund Southern
Companys ongoing construction program, and for general
corporate purposes. In the second and fourth quarters of 2006,
Alabama Power issued to Southern Company a total of
3 million shares of Alabama Power common stock at
$40.00 per share. The proceeds of $120 million were
used by Alabama Power to repay short-term indebtedness and for
other general corporate purposes.
Subsequent to December 31, 2006, Southern Company issued
$500 million of senior notes. The proceeds from the sale of
the senior notes were used by the Company to repay a portion of
its outstanding short-term indebtedness, a portion of which was
incurred to extinguish the 8.19% and 8.14% Southern Company
Capital Funding Junior Subordinated Notes, and for other general
corporate purposes. Also subsequent to December 31, 2006,
Georgia Power entered into interest rate swap transactions with
a notional amount of $375 million, in order to reduce
exposure to interest rate risk. The transactions will be settled
over the next two years as the underlying debt is issued, and
any resulting gain or loss will be amortized over a
10-year
period.
On January 19, 2007, Gulf Power issued to Southern Company
800,000 shares of Gulf Powers common stock, without
par value, for $80 million. The proceeds were used by Gulf
Power to repay short-term indebtedness and for other general
corporate purposes. On February 6, 2007, Alabama Power
issued $200 million in senior notes. The proceeds from the
sale of the senior notes were used to repay a portion of Alabama
Powers outstanding short-term debt and for other general
corporate purposes.
Off-Balance
Sheet Financing Arrangements
In 2001, Mississippi Power began the initial
10-year term
of a lease agreement for a combined cycle generating facility
built at Plant Daniel for approximately $370 million. In
2003, the generating facility was acquired by Juniper Capital
L.P. (Juniper), a limited partnership whose investors are
unaffiliated with Mississippi Power. Simultaneously, Juniper
entered into a restructured lease agreement with Mississippi
Power. Juniper has also entered into leases with other parties
unrelated to Mississippi Power. The assets leased by Mississippi
Power comprise less than 50 percent of Junipers
assets. Mississippi Power is not required to consolidate the
leased assets and related liabilities, and the lease with
Juniper is considered an operating lease. The lease also
provides for a residual value guarantee, approximately
73 percent of the acquisition cost, by
II-33
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
Mississippi Power that is due upon termination of the lease in
the event that Mississippi Power does not renew the lease or
purchase the assets and that the fair market value is less than
the unamortized cost of the assets. See Note 7 to the
financial statements under Operating Leases for
additional information.
Credit
Rating Risk
Southern Company does 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 contracts that could require collateral, but not
accelerated payment, in the event of a credit rating change to
BBB- or Baa3 or below. These contracts are primarily for
physical electricity purchases and sales. At December 31,
2006, the maximum potential collateral requirements at a BBB- or
Baa3 rating were approximately $291 million. The maximum
potential collateral requirements at a rating below BBB- or Baa3
were approximately $711 million. Generally, collateral may
be provided by a Southern Company guaranty, letter of credit, or
cash. Southern Companys operating subsidiaries are also
party to certain derivative agreements that could require
collateral
and/or
accelerated payment in the event of a credit rating change to
below investment grade for Alabama Power and/or Georgia Power.
These agreements are primarily for natural gas and power price
risk management activities. At December 31, 2006, Southern
Companys total exposure to these types of agreements was
approximately $27.4 million.
Market
Price Risk
Southern Company is exposed to market risks, primarily commodity
price risk and interest rate risk. To manage the volatility
attributable to these exposures, the Company nets the exposures
to take advantage of natural offsets and enters into various
derivative transactions for the remaining exposures pursuant to
the Companys policies in areas such as counterparty
exposure and risk management practices. Company 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.
To mitigate future exposure to change in interest rates, the
Company enters into forward starting interest rate swaps that
have been designated as hedges. The swaps outstanding at
December 31, 2006 have a notional amount of
$725 million and are related to anticipated debt issuances
over the next year. The weighted average interest rate on
$1.7 billion of long-term variable interest rate exposure
that has not been hedged at January 1, 2007 was
5.1 percent. If Southern Company sustained a 100 basis
point change in interest rates for all unhedged variable rate
long-term debt, the change would affect annualized interest
expense by approximately $17.9 million at January 1,
2007. For further information, see Notes 1 and 6 to the
financial statements under Financial Instruments.
Due to cost-based rate regulations, the traditional operating
companies have limited exposure to market volatility in interest
rates, commodity fuel prices, and prices of electricity. In
addition, Southern Powers exposure to market volatility in
commodity fuel prices and prices of electricity is limited
because its long-term sales contracts generally shift
substantially all fuel cost responsibility to the purchaser. To
mitigate residual risks relative to movements in electricity
prices, the traditional operating companies and Southern Power
enter into fixed-price contracts for the purchase and sale of
electricity through the wholesale electricity market and, to a
lesser extent, into similar contracts for natural gas purchases.
The traditional operating companies have implemented
fuel-hedging programs at the instruction of their respective
state PSCs.
The changes in fair value of energy-related derivative contracts
and year-end valuations were as follows at December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in Fair Value
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Contracts beginning of year
|
|
$
|
101
|
|
|
$
|
11
|
|
Contracts realized or settled
|
|
|
93
|
|
|
|
(106
|
)
|
New contracts at inception
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in valuation techniques
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period changes(a)
|
|
|
(276
|
)
|
|
|
196
|
|
|
|
Contracts end of year
|
|
$
|
(82
|
)
|
|
$
|
101
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
Current period changes also include the changes in fair value of
new contracts entered into during the period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source of 2006 Year-End Valuation Prices
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Maturity
|
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
2007
|
|
2008-2009
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Actively quoted
|
|
$
|
(86
|
)
|
|
$
|
(79
|
)
|
|
$
|
(7
|
)
|
External sources
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
Models and other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contracts end of year
|
|
$
|
(82
|
)
|
|
$
|
(75
|
)
|
|
$
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
II-34
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
Unrealized gains and losses from
mark-to-market
adjustments on derivative contracts related to the traditional
operating companies fuel hedging programs are recorded as
regulatory assets and liabilities. Realized gains and losses
from these programs are included in fuel expense and are
recovered through the traditional operating companies fuel
cost recovery clauses. In addition, unrealized gains and losses
on energy-related derivatives used by Southern Power to hedge
anticipated purchases and sales are deferred in other
comprehensive income. Gains and losses on derivative contracts
that are not designated as hedges are recognized in the
statements of income as incurred. At December 31, 2006, the
fair value gains/(losses) of energy-related derivative contracts
was reflected in the financial statements as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amounts
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Regulatory assets, net
|
|
$
|
(85
|
)
|
Accumulated other comprehensive
income
|
|
|
3
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fair value
|
|
$
|
(82
|
)
|
|
|
Unrealized pre-tax gains and losses from energy-related
derivative contracts recognized in income were not material for
any year presented.
Southern Company is exposed to market price risk in the event of
nonperformance by counterparties to the energy-related
derivative contracts. Southern Companys policy is to enter
into agreements with counterparties that have investment grade
credit ratings by Moodys and Standard &
Poors or with counterparties who have posted collateral to
cover potential credit exposure. Therefore, Southern Company
does not anticipate market risk exposure from nonperformance by
the counterparties. For additional information, see Notes 1
and 6 to the financial statements under Financial
Instruments.
To reduce Southern Companys exposure to changes in the
value of synthetic fuel tax credits, which are impacted by
changes in oil prices, the Company has entered into derivative
transactions indexed to oil prices. Because these transactions
are not designated as hedges, the gains and losses are
recognized in the statements of income as incurred. For 2006 and
2005, the fair value losses recognized in income to mark the
transactions to market were $32 million and
$7 million, respectively. In January 2007, Southern Company
entered into additional derivative transactions with net initial
premiums paid of $3 million to further reduce its exposure
to the potential phase-out of these income tax credits in 2007.
For further information, see Notes 1 and 6 to the
financial statements under Financial Instruments.
Capital
Requirements and Contractual Obligations
The construction program of Southern Company is currently
estimated to be $3.9 billion for 2007, $4.5 billion
for 2008, and $4.8 billion for 2009. Environmental
expenditures included in these amounts are $1.66 billion,
$1.65 billion, and $1.27 billion for 2007, 2008, and
2009, respectively. Actual construction costs may vary from this
estimate because of changes in such factors as: business
conditions; environmental regulations; nuclear plant
regulations; FERC rules and regulations; load projections; the
cost and efficiency of construction labor, equipment, and
materials; and the cost of capital. In addition, there can be no
assurance that costs related to capital expenditures will be
fully recovered.
As a result of NRC requirements, Alabama Power and Georgia Power
have external trust funds for nuclear decommissioning costs;
however, Alabama Power currently has no additional funding
requirements. For additional information, see Note 1 to the
financial statements under Nuclear Decommissioning.
In addition, as discussed in Note 2 to the financial
statements, Southern Company provides postretirement benefits to
substantially all employees and funds trusts to the extent
required by the traditional operating companies respective
regulatory commissions.
Other funding requirements related to obligations associated
with scheduled maturities of long-term debt and preferred
securities, as well as the related interest, derivative
obligations, preferred and preference stock dividends, leases,
and other purchase commitments are as follows. See
Notes 1, 6, and 7 to the financial statements for
additional information.
II-35
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
Contractual
Obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-
|
|
2010-
|
|
After
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
2009
|
|
2011
|
|
2011
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Long-term
debt(a)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Principal
|
|
$
|
1,418
|
|
|
$
|
1,103
|
|
|
$
|
615
|
|
|
$
|
10,803
|
|
|
$
|
13,939
|
|
Interest
|
|
|
738
|
|
|
|
1,307
|
|
|
|
1,205
|
|
|
|
10,572
|
|
|
|
13,822
|
|
Other derivative
obligations(b)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commodity
|
|
|
119
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
129
|
|
Interest
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Preferred and preference stock
dividends(c)
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
81
|
|
|
|
81
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
203
|
|
Operating leases
|
|
|
135
|
|
|
|
224
|
|
|
|
160
|
|
|
|
186
|
|
|
|
705
|
|
Purchase
commitments(d)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital(e)
|
|
|
3,790
|
|
|
|
9,050
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
12,840
|
|
Coal
|
|
|
3,294
|
|
|
|
4,329
|
|
|
|
1,644
|
|
|
|
2,221
|
|
|
|
11,488
|
|
Nuclear fuel
|
|
|
120
|
|
|
|
231
|
|
|
|
305
|
|
|
|
236
|
|
|
|
892
|
|
Natural
gas(f)
|
|
|
1,347
|
|
|
|
1,902
|
|
|
|
809
|
|
|
|
2,740
|
|
|
|
6,798
|
|
Purchased power
|
|
|
173
|
|
|
|
374
|
|
|
|
351
|
|
|
|
890
|
|
|
|
1,788
|
|
Long-term service agreements
|
|
|
74
|
|
|
|
156
|
|
|
|
193
|
|
|
|
1,231
|
|
|
|
1,654
|
|
Trusts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear decommissioning
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
110
|
|
|
|
145
|
|
Postretirement
benefits(g)
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
91
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
132
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
11,303
|
|
|
$
|
18,872
|
|
|
$
|
5,377
|
|
|
$
|
28,989
|
|
|
$
|
64,541
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
|
All amounts are reflected based on
final maturity dates. On February 1, 2007,
$400 million aggregate principal amount of long-term debt
matured. The maturity was funded with short-term borrowings.
Southern Company and its subsidiaries plan to continue to retire
higher-cost securities and replace these obligations with
lower-cost capital if market conditions permit. Variable rate
interest obligations are estimated based on rates as of
January 1, 2007, as reflected in the statements of
capitalization. Fixed rates include, where applicable, the
effects of interest rate derivatives employed to manage interest
rate risk.
|
|
(b)
|
|
For additional information, see
Notes 1 and 6 to the financial statements.
|
|
(c)
|
|
Preferred and preference stock do
not mature; therefore, amounts are provided for the next five
years only.
|
|
(d)
|
|
Southern Company generally does not
enter into non-cancelable commitments for other operations and
maintenance expenditures. Total other operations and maintenance
expenses for 2006, 2005, and 2004 were $3.5 billion,
$3.5 billion, and $3.3 billion, respectively.
|
|
(e)
|
|
Southern Company forecasts capital
expenditures over a three-year period. Amounts represent current
estimates of total expenditures excluding those amounts related
to contractual purchase commitments for uranium and nuclear fuel
conversion, enrichment, and fabrication services. At
December 31, 2006, significant purchase commitments were
outstanding in connection with the construction program.
|
|
(f)
|
|
Natural gas purchase commitments
are based on various indices at the time of delivery. Amounts
reflected have been estimated based on the New York Mercantile
Exchange future prices at December 31, 2006.
|
|
(g)
|
|
Southern Company forecasts
postretirement trust contributions over a three-year period. No
contributions related to Southern Companys pension trust
are currently expected during this period. See Note 2 to
the financial statements for additional information related to
the pension and postretirement plans, including estimated
benefit payments. Certain benefit payments will be made through
the related trusts. Other benefit payments will be made from
Southern Companys corporate assets.
|
II-36
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary
Companies 2006 Annual Report
Cautionary
Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
Southern Companys 2006 Annual Report contains
forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include,
among other things, statements concerning the strategic goals
for the wholesale business, retail sales growth, customer growth, storm damage
cost recovery and repairs, fuel cost recovery, environmental
regulations and expenditures, earnings growth, dividend payout
ratios, access to sources of capital, projections for
postretirement benefit trust contributions, synthetic fuel
investments, financing activities, completion of construction
projects, impacts of adoption of new accounting rules, and
estimated construction and other expenditures. In some cases,
forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such
as may, will, could,
should, expects, plans,
anticipates, believes,
estimates, projects,
predicts, potential, or
continue or the negative of these terms or other
similar terminology. There are various factors that could cause
actual results to differ materially from those suggested by the
forward-looking statements; accordingly, there can be no
assurance that such indicated results will be realized. These
factors include:
|
|
|
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, and
also changes in environmental, 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, IRS audits, and Mirant matters;
|
|
|
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 population, and business
growth (and declines);
|
|
|
available sources and costs of fuels;
|
|
|
ability to control costs;
|
|
|
investment performance of Southern Companys employee
benefit plans;
|
|
|
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 storm restoration cost recovery;
|
|
|
the performance of projects undertaken by the non-utility
businesses and the success of efforts to invest in and develop
new opportunities;
|
|
|
fluctuations in the level of oil prices;
|
|
|
the level of production, if any, by the synthetic fuel
operations at Carbontronics Synfuels Investors LP and Alabama
Fuel Products, LLC for fiscal year 2007;
|
|
|
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;
|
|
|
the ability to obtain new short- and long-term contracts with
neighboring utilities;
|
|
|
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, pandemic health events such as an avian
influenza, or other similar occurrences;
|
|
|
the direct or indirect effects on Southern Companys
business resulting from incidents similar to the August 2003
power outage in the Northeast;
|
|
|
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 Company from time to time with the SEC.
|
Southern Company expressly disclaims any obligation to update
any forward-looking statements.
II-37
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME
For the Years Ended
December 31, 2006, 2005, and 2004
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2006 Annual
Report
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Operating Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail revenues
|
|
$
|
11,801
|
|
|
$
|
11,165
|
|
|
$
|
9,732
|
|
Sales for resale
|
|
|
1,822
|
|
|
|
1,667
|
|
|
|
1,341
|
|
Other electric revenues
|
|
|
465
|
|
|
|
446
|
|
|
|
392
|
|
Other revenues
|
|
|
268
|
|
|
|
276
|
|
|
|
264
|
|
|
|
Total operating revenues
|
|
|
14,356
|
|
|
|
13,554
|
|
|
|
11,729
|
|
|
|
Operating Expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel
|
|
|
5,152
|
|
|
|
4,495
|
|
|
|
3,399
|
|
Purchased power
|
|
|
543
|
|
|
|
731
|
|
|
|
643
|
|
Other operations
|
|
|
2,423
|
|
|
|
2,394
|
|
|
|
2,263
|
|
Maintenance
|
|
|
1,096
|
|
|
|
1,116
|
|
|
|
1,027
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
1,200
|
|
|
|
1,176
|
|
|
|
949
|
|
Taxes other than income taxes
|
|
|
718
|
|
|
|
680
|
|
|
|
627
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
11,132
|
|
|
|
10,592
|
|
|
|
8,908
|
|
|
|
Operating Income
|
|
|
3,224
|
|
|
|
2,962
|
|
|
|
2,821
|
|
Other Income and
(Expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for equity funds used
during construction
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
|
47
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
Equity in losses of unconsolidated
subsidiaries
|
|
|
(57
|
)
|
|
|
(119
|
)
|
|
|
(95
|
)
|
Leveraged lease income
|
|
|
69
|
|
|
|
74
|
|
|
|
70
|
|
Impairment loss on equity method
investments
|
|
|
(16
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Interest expense, net of amounts
capitalized
|
|
|
(744
|
)
|
|
|
(619
|
)
|
|
|
(540
|
)
|
Interest expense to affiliate
trusts
|
|
|
(122
|
)
|
|
|
(128
|
)
|
|
|
(100
|
)
|
Distributions on mandatorily
redeemable preferred securities
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(27
|
)
|
Preferred and preference dividends
of subsidiaries
|
|
|
(34
|
)
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
Other income (expense), net
|
|
|
(56
|
)
|
|
|
(41
|
)
|
|
|
(59
|
)
|
|
|
Total other income and (expense)
|
|
|
(869
|
)
|
|
|
(776
|
)
|
|
|
(707
|
)
|
|
|
Earnings From Continuing
Operations Before Income Taxes
|
|
|
2,355
|
|
|
|
2,186
|
|
|
|
2,114
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
781
|
|
|
|
595
|
|
|
|
585
|
|
|
|
Earnings From Continuing
Operations
|
|
|
1,574
|
|
|
|
1,591
|
|
|
|
1,529
|
|
Earnings from discontinued
operations, net of income taxes of $(1), $-, and $2 for 2006,
2005, and 2004, respectively
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|