What exactly happened for the Mississippi Public Service Commission to let a utility company jack up the price on a plant by nearly a half-billion dollars in less than a month's time?
That was the big question that three Mississippi Supreme Court justices kept returning yesterday as they listened to arguments from lawyers representing the various sides of the dispute.
On one side was the Sierra Club, which opposes 582-megawatt plant slated to use experimental internal gasification combined technology. The organization also argued that the commission failed in its obligation to publicly explain its rationale for the reversal.
On the other side was Mississippi Power Co., which is building the plant, and the Public Service Commission.
Louie Miller, state director for the Mississippi Sierra Club, called the project "clean, dirty and unnecessary" at a press conference before the hearing took place.
On April 29, 2010, Commissioners Lynn Posey and Leonard Bentz issued a decision limiting the cost of the plant and to ratepayers to $2.4 billion. Mississippi Power stockholders would have to pick up any costs above $2.4 billion, they said at the time.
Mississippi Power, a unit of Atlanta-based Southern Co., argued that it should be able to pass any additional costs down to its ratepayers and warned that it could not afford to build the plant if not allowed to pass on the costs, including those above $2.4 billion.
Less than one month later, on May 26, the commission revised their decision, allowing the company to charge ratepayers up to $2.88 billion for the plant. Mississippi Power has not publicly released the amount of the rate increase customers would be shouldering as a result. At yesterday's hearing, Sierra Club attorney Robert Wiygul said he obtained confidential information showing that ratepayers' energy bills could rise as much as 45 percent.
Justices expressed a desire to see more of the commission's reasoning, pressing lawyers from Mississippi Power Co. and the PSC to direct them to where in the more than 30,000 pages of documents the commission justified their decision.
The justices were candid about the fact that they had not read all the materials but nevertheless expressed their concerns.
"So far, I don't find anything in the commission's order itself--and haven't yet found in the record--what it is that would help me understand that the commission is justified in making this factual conclusion that the risks are now balanced," presiding Justice Jess H. Dickinson said.
More like this story
More stories by this author
Support our reporting -- Follow the MFP.
