2.2.0.7falseContingencies and Regulatory Matters0202 - Disclosure - Contingencies and Regulatory Matterstruefalsefalsefalse1USDfalsefalseUSDStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso42170SharesStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0PureStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancepurexbrli0USDEPSDividehttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso4217http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0$20so_ContingenciesAndRegulatoryMattersAbstractsofalsenadurationContingencies and Regulatory Matters.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsetruefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalse1falsefalsefalsefalse00falsefalsefalsexbrli:stringItemTypestringContingencies and Regulatory Matters.false31so_ContingenciesAndRegulatoryMattersTextBlocksofalsenadurationContingencies and Regulatory Matters.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseverboselabelfalse1falsefalsefalsefalse00<!--DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd" -->
<!-- Begin Block Tagged Note 2 - so:ContingenciesAndRegulatoryMattersTextBlock-->
<div align="left" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">
<div style="margin-top: 6pt">
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: left">
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left">(B)</td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>CONTINGENCIES AND REGULATORY MATTERS</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 6pt">
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: left">
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>See Note 3 to the financial statements of the registrants in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for
information relating to various lawsuits, other contingencies, and regulatory matters.</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<!-- Folio -->
<!-- /Folio -->
</div>
<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 0pt">
<b>
</b>
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 6pt">
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: left">
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b> </b></td>
<td width="1%"><b> </b></td>
<td><b>General Litigation Matters</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>Each registrant is subject to certain claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of
business. In addition, each registrant’s business activities are subject to extensive governmental
regulation related to public health and the environment, such as regulation of air emissions and
water discharges. Litigation over environmental issues and claims of various types, including
property damage, personal injury, common law nuisance, and citizen enforcement of environmental
requirements such as opacity and air and water quality standards, has increased generally
throughout the United States. In particular, personal injury and other claims for damages caused
by alleged exposure to hazardous materials, and common law nuisance claims for injunctive relief
and property damage allegedly caused by greenhouse gas and other emissions, have become more
frequent. The ultimate outcome of such pending or potential litigation against the registrants and
any of their subsidiaries cannot be predicted at this time; however, for current proceedings not
specifically reported herein or in Note 3 to the financial statements of each registrant in Item 8
of the Form 10-K, management does not anticipate that the liabilities, if any, arising from such
current proceedings would have a material adverse effect on such registrant’s financial statements.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b> </b></td>
<td width="1%"><b> </b></td>
<td><b>Mirant Matters</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>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.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>In July 2003, Mirant and certain of its affiliates filed voluntary petitions for relief under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas.
The Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming Mirant’s plan of reorganization in December 2005,
and Mirant announced that this plan became effective in January 2006. As part of the plan, Mirant
transferred substantially all of its assets and its restructured debt to a new corporation that
adopted the name Mirant Corporation (Reorganized Mirant).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>Under the terms of the separation agreements entered into in connection with the spin-off, Mirant
agreed to indemnify Southern Company for certain costs. As a result of Mirant’s bankruptcy,
Southern Company sought reimbursement as an unsecured creditor in Mirant’s Chapter 11 proceeding.
If Southern Company’s claims for indemnification with respect to these costs are allowed, then
Mirant’s indemnity obligations to Southern Company would constitute unsecured claims against Mirant
entitled to stock in Reorganized Mirant. As a result of the $202 million settlement in March 2009
of another suit related to Mirant (MC Asset Recovery litigation), the maximum amount Southern
Company can assert by proof of claim in the Mirant bankruptcy is capped at $9.5 million. See Note
5 to the financial statements of Southern Company under “Effective Tax Rate” in Item 8 of the Form
10-K for more information regarding the MC Asset Recovery litigation settlement. By settlement
agreement, dated as of July 7, 2010, substantially all the claims filed by Southern Company against
Mirant have been resolved. Pursuant to the agreement, Southern Company will be given allowed
unsecured claims against Mirant in the aggregate amount of approximately $8.8 million, which claims
will be treated pursuant to the terms of the Mirant plan of reorganization. The parties also
released each other from any other claims arising from events or conduct prior to the effective
date of Mirant’s plan of reorganization, with certain limited exceptions. Mirant has requested
bankruptcy court approval of the settlement and the matter is scheduled to be heard on August 26,
2010. The final outcome of this matter cannot now be determined.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b> </b></td>
<td width="1%"><b> </b></td>
<td><b>Environmental Matters</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b><i> </i></b></td>
<td width="1%"><b><i> </i></b></td>
<td><b><i>New Source Review Actions</i></b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>In November 1999, the EPA brought a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia against certain Southern Company subsidiaries, including Alabama Power and
Georgia Power, alleging that these subsidiaries had violated the NSR provisions of the Clean Air
Act and related state laws at certain coal-fired generating facilities. After Alabama Power was
dismissed from the original action, the EPA filed a separate action in January 2001 against Alabama
Power in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. In these lawsuits, the EPA
alleges that NSR
violations occurred at eight coal-fired generating facilities operated by Alabama Power and Georgia
Power, including
facilities co-owned by Mississippi Power and Gulf Power. The civil actions
request penalties and injunctive relief, including an order requiring installation of the best
available control technology at the affected units. The EPA concurrently issued notices of
violation to Gulf Power and Mississippi Power relating to Gulf Power’s Plant Crist and Mississippi
Power’s Plant Watson. In early 2000, the EPA filed a motion to amend its complaint to add Gulf
Power and Mississippi Power as defendants based on the allegations in the notices of violation.
However, in March 2001, the court denied the motion based on lack of jurisdiction, and the EPA has
not re-filed. The original action, now solely against Georgia Power, has been administratively
closed since the spring of 2001, and the case has not been reopened.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>In June 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama entered a consent decree
between Alabama Power and the EPA, resolving a portion of the Alabama Power lawsuit relating to the
alleged NSR violations at Plant Miller. In July 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama granted partial summary judgment in favor of Alabama Power with respect to its
other affected units regarding the proper legal test for determining whether projects are routine
maintenance, repair, and replacement and therefore are excluded from NSR permitting. The decision
did not resolve the case, which remains ongoing.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>Southern Company and the traditional operating companies believe that they complied with applicable
laws and the EPA regulations and interpretations in effect at the time the work in question took
place. The Clean Air Act authorizes maximum civil penalties of $25,000 to $37,500 per day, per
violation at each generating unit, depending on the date of the alleged violation. An adverse
outcome could require substantial capital expenditures or affect the timing of currently budgeted
capital expenditures that cannot be determined at this time and could possibly require payment of
substantial penalties. Such expenditures could affect future results of operations, cash flows,
and financial condition if such costs are not recovered through regulated rates.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b><i> </i></b></td>
<td width="1%"><b><i> </i></b></td>
<td><b><i>Carbon Dioxide Litigation</i></b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><i> </i></td>
<td width="1%"><i> </i></td>
<td><i>New York Case</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>In July 2004, three environmental groups and attorneys general from eight states, each outside of
Southern Company’s service territory, and the corporation counsel for New York City filed
complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Southern
Company and four other electric power companies. The complaints allege that the companies’
emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, contribute to global warming, which the plaintiffs
assert is a public nuisance. Under common law public and private nuisance theories, the plaintiffs
seek a judicial order (1) holding each defendant jointly and severally liable for creating,
contributing to, and/or maintaining global warming and (2) requiring each of the defendants to cap
its emissions of carbon dioxide and then reduce those emissions by a specified percentage each year
for at least a decade. The plaintiffs have not, however, requested that damages be awarded in
connection with their claims. Southern Company believes these claims are without merit and notes
that the complaint cites no statutory or regulatory basis for the claims. In September 2005, the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Southern Company’s and the other
defendants’ motions to dismiss these cases. The plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit in October 2005 and, in September 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling, vacating the dismissal of the
plaintiffs’ claim, and remanding the case to the district court. In November 2009, the defendants,
including Southern Company, sought rehearing en banc. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit denied the defendants’ petition for rehearing en banc on March 5, 2010 and granted the
defendants’ request to stay the mandate to allow the defendants to file a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 16, 2010. On
August 2, 2010, the defendants filed a
petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. The ultimate outcome of these matters
cannot be determined at this time.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><i> </i></td>
<td width="1%"><i> </i></td>
<td><i>Kivalina Case</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>In February 2008, the Native Village of Kivalina and the City of Kivalina filed a suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against several electric utilities
(including Southern Company), several oil companies, and a coal company. The plaintiffs are the
governing bodies of an Inupiat village in Alaska. The plaintiffs contend that the
village is being destroyed by erosion allegedly caused by global warming that the plaintiffs
attribute to emissions of greenhouse gases by the defendants. The plaintiffs assert claims for
public and private nuisance and contend that some of
the defendants have acted in concert and are
therefore jointly and severally liable for the plaintiffs’ damages. The suit seeks damages for
lost property values and for the cost of relocating the village, which is alleged to be $95 million
to $400 million. Southern Company believes that these claims are without merit and notes that the
complaint cites no statutory or regulatory basis for the claims. In September 2009, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss
the case based on lack of jurisdiction and ruled the claims were barred by the political question
doctrine and by the plaintiffs’ failure to establish the standard for determining that the
defendants’ conduct caused the injury alleged. In November 2009, the plaintiffs filed an appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit challenging the district court’s order
dismissing the case. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><i> </i></td>
<td width="1%"><i> </i></td>
<td><i>Other Litigation</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>Common law nuisance claims for injunctive relief and property damage allegedly caused by greenhouse
gas emissions have become more frequent, and courts have recently determined that private parties
and states have standing to bring such claims. For example, in October 2009, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi’s dismissal of private party claims against certain oil, coal, chemical, and utility
companies alleging damages as a result of Hurricane Katrina. In reversing the dismissal, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that plaintiffs have standing to assert their nuisance,
trespass, and negligence claims and none of these claims are barred by the political question
doctrine. On May 28, 2010, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the
plaintiffs’ appeal of the case based on procedural grounds relating to the loss of a quorum by the
full court on reconsideration, reinstating the district court decision in favor of the defendants.
The plaintiffs have until August 26, 2010 to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court. Southern Company is not currently a party to this litigation, but the traditional
operating companies and Southern Power were named as defendants in an amended complaint which was
rendered moot in August 2007 by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
when such court dismissed the original matter. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be
determined at this time.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b> </b></td>
<td width="1%"><b> </b></td>
<td><b>Environmental Remediation</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>The registrants must comply with environmental laws and regulations that cover the handling and
disposal of waste and releases of hazardous substances. Under these various laws and regulations,
the subsidiaries may also incur substantial costs to clean up properties. The traditional
operating companies have each received authority from their respective state PSCs to recover
approved environmental compliance costs through regulatory mechanisms. Within limits approved by
the state PSCs, these rates are adjusted annually or as necessary.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>Georgia Power’s environmental remediation liability as of June 30, 2010 was $14.1 million. Georgia
Power has been designated or identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at sites governed
by the Georgia Hazardous Site Response Act and/or by the federal Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), including a large site in Brunswick, Georgia on
the CERCLA National Priorities List (NPL). The parties have completed the removal of wastes from
the Brunswick site as ordered by the EPA. Additional claims for recovery of natural resource
damages at this site or for the assessment and potential cleanup of other sites on the Georgia
Hazardous Sites Inventory and CERCLA NPL are anticipated; however, they are not expected to have a
material impact on Georgia Power’s financial statements.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>By letter dated September 30, 2008, the EPA advised Georgia Power that it has been designated as a
PRP at the Ward Transformer Superfund site located in Raleigh, North Carolina. Numerous other
entities have also received notices from the EPA. Georgia Power, along with other named PRPs, is
negotiating with the EPA to address cleanup of the site and reimbursement for past expenditures
related to work performed at the site. In addition, in April 2009, two PRPs filed separate actions
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina against numerous other PRPs,
including Georgia Power, seeking contribution from the defendants for expenses incurred by the
plaintiffs related to work performed at a portion of the site. The ultimate outcome of these
matters will depend upon further environmental
assessment and the ultimate number of PRPs and cannot be determined at this time; however, it is
not expected to have a material impact on Georgia Power’s financial statements.</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<!-- Folio -->
<!-- /Folio -->
</div>
<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 0pt">
<b>
</b>
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 6pt">
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: left">
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>Gulf Power’s environmental remediation liability includes estimated costs of environmental
remediation projects of approximately $63.1 million as of June 30, 2010. These estimated costs
relate to site closure criteria by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for
potential impacts to soil and groundwater from herbicide applications at Gulf Power substations.
The schedule for completion of the remediation projects will be subject to FDEP approval. The
projects have been approved by the Florida PSC for recovery through Gulf Power’s environmental cost
recovery clause; therefore, there was no impact on net income as a result of these estimates.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>In 2003, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) designated Mississippi Power as a PRP
at a site in Texas. The site was owned by an electric transformer company that handled Mississippi
Power’s transformers as well as those of many other entities. The site owner is bankrupt and the
State of Texas has entered into an agreement with Mississippi Power and several other utilities to
investigate and remediate the site. Amounts expensed related to this work were not material.
Hundreds of entities have received notices from the TCEQ requesting their participation in the
anticipated site remediation. The final impact of this matter on Mississippi Power will depend
upon further environmental assessment and the ultimate number of PRPs. The remediation expenses
incurred by Mississippi Power are expected to be recovered through the ECO Plan.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>The final outcome of these matters cannot now be determined. However, based on the currently known
conditions at these sites and the nature and extent of activities relating to these sites, Southern
Company, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power do not believe that additional
liabilities, if any, at these sites would be material to their respective financial statements.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b> </b></td>
<td width="1%"><b> </b></td>
<td><b>FERC Matters</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b><i> </i></b></td>
<td width="1%"><b><i> </i></b></td>
<td><b><i>Market-Based Rate Authority</i></b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>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.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>In December 2004, the FERC initiated a proceeding to assess Southern Company’s generation market
power within its retail service territory. The ability to charge market-based rates in other
markets was not an issue in the proceeding. Any new market-based rate sales by any subsidiary of
Southern Company in Southern Company’s retail service territory entered into during a 15-month
refund period that ended in May 2006 could have been subject to refund to a cost-based rate level.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>In December 2009, Southern Company and the FERC trial staff reached an agreement in principle that
would resolve the proceeding in its entirety. The agreement does not reflect any finding or
suggestion that any subsidiary of Southern Company possesses or has exercised any market power.
The agreement likewise does not require Southern Company to make any refunds related to sales
during the 15-month refund period. The agreement does provide for the traditional operating
companies and Southern Power to donate a total of $1.7 million to nonprofit organizations in the
states in which they operate for the purpose of offsetting the electricity bills of low-income
retail customers. The joint offer of settlement was filed on March 2, 2010. On July 13, 2010, the
FERC issued an order approving the filed settlement, finding it to be fair, reasonable, and in the
public interest. There is a 30-day period within which a rehearing request may be filed. If the
30-day period expires and no rehearing request has been filed, then the payment shall be made
within 15 days after the order becomes final and non-appealable.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b><i> </i></b></td>
<td width="1%"><b><i> </i></b></td>
<td><b><i>Intercompany Interchange Contract</i></b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>Southern Company’s generation fleet in its retail service territory is operated under the
Intercompany Interchange Contract (IIC), as approved by the FERC. In May 2005, the FERC initiated
a new proceeding to examine (1) the provisions of the IIC among the traditional operating
companies, Southern Power, and SCS, as agent, under the terms of which the Power Pool is operated,
(2) whether any parties to the IIC have violated the FERC’s standards of conduct applicable to
utility companies that are transmission providers, and (3) whether Southern Company’s 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
Power’s inclusion in the IIC in 2000. The FERC also previously approved Southern Company’s code of
conduct.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>In October 2006, the FERC issued an order accepting a settlement resolving the proceeding subject
to Southern Company’s agreement to accept certain modifications to the settlement’s terms.
Southern Company notified the FERC that it accepted the modifications. The modifications largely
involve functional separation and information restrictions related to marketing activities
conducted on behalf of Southern Power. In November 2006, Southern Company filed with the FERC a
compliance plan in connection with the order. In April 2007, the FERC approved, with certain
modifications, the plan submitted by Southern Company. Implementation of the plan did not have a
material impact on Southern Company’s or the traditional operating companies’ financial statements.
In November 2007, Southern Company notified the FERC that the plan had been implemented. In
December 2008, the FERC division of audits issued for public comment its final audit report
pertaining to compliance implementation and related matters. No comments were submitted
challenging the audit report’s findings of Southern Company’s compliance. The proceeding remains
open pending a decision from the FERC regarding the audit report.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b> </b></td>
<td width="1%"><b> </b></td>
<td><b>Right of Way Litigation</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>Southern Company and certain of its subsidiaries, including Mississippi Power, have been named as
defendants in numerous lawsuits brought by landowners since 2001. The plaintiffs’ lawsuits claim
that defendants may not use, or sublease to third parties, some or all of the fiber optic
communications lines on the rights of way that cross the plaintiffs’ properties and that such
actions exceed the easements or other property rights held by defendants. The plaintiffs assert
claims for, among other things, trespass and unjust enrichment and seek compensatory and punitive
damages and injunctive relief. Management of Southern Company and Mississippi Power believe that
they have complied with applicable laws and that the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>Mississippi Power has entered into agreements with plaintiffs in approximately 95% of the actions
pending against Mississippi Power to clarify its easement rights in the State of Mississippi.
These agreements have been approved by the Circuit Courts of Harrison County and Jasper County,
Mississippi (First Judicial Circuit), and the related cases have been dismissed. These agreements
have not resulted in any material effects on Southern Company’s or Mississippi Power’s financial
statements.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>In addition, in late 2001, certain subsidiaries of Southern Company, including Mississippi Power,
were named as defendants in a lawsuit brought in Troup County, Georgia, Superior Court by
Interstate Fiber Network, a subsidiary of telecommunications company ITC DeltaCom, Inc. that uses
rights of way. This lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants are contractually
obligated to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the telecommunications company from any liability
that may be assessed against it in pending and future right of way litigation. Southern Company
and Mississippi Power believe that the plaintiff’s claims are without merit. In the fall of 2004,
the trial court stayed the case until resolution of the underlying landowner litigation discussed
above. In January 2005, the Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed the telecommunications company’s
appeal of the trial court’s order for lack of jurisdiction. An adverse outcome in this matter,
combined with an adverse outcome against the telecommunications company in one or more of the right
of way lawsuits, could result in substantial judgments; however, the final outcome of these matters
cannot now be determined.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b> </b></td>
<td width="1%"><b> </b></td>
<td><b>Nuclear Fuel Disposal Cost Litigation</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>See Note 3 to the financial statements of Southern Company, Alabama Power, and Georgia Power under
“Nuclear Fuel Disposal Costs” in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for information regarding the litigation
brought by Alabama Power and Georgia Power against the government for breach of contracts related
to the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. In July 2007, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims awarded
Georgia Power approximately $30 million, based on its ownership interests, and awarded Alabama
Power approximately $17 million, representing substantially all of the direct costs of the
expansion of spent nuclear fuel storage facilities at Plants Farley, Hatch, and Vogtle from 1998
through 2004. In November 2007, the government’s motion for reconsideration was denied. In
January 2008, the government filed an appeal and, in
February 2008, filed a motion to stay the appeal, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit granted in April 2008. On May 5, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
lifted the stay.</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<!-- Folio -->
<!-- /Folio -->
</div>
<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 0pt">
<b>
</b>
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 6pt">
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: left">
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>In April 2008, a second claim against the government was filed for damages incurred after December
31, 2004 (the court-mandated cut-off in the original claim), due to the government’s alleged
continuing breach of contract. In October 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
denied a similar request by the government to stay this proceeding. The complaint does not contain
any specific dollar amount for recovery of damages. Damages will continue to accumulate until the
issue is resolved or the storage is provided. No amounts have been recognized in the financial
statements as of June 30, 2010 for either claim. The final outcome of these matters cannot be
determined at this time, but no material impact on net income is expected as any damage amounts
collected from the government are expected to be returned to customers.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b> </b></td>
<td width="1%"><b> </b></td>
<td><b>Income Tax Matters</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b><i> </i></b></td>
<td width="1%"><b><i> </i></b></td>
<td><b><i>Georgia State Income Tax Credits</i></b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>Georgia Power’s 2005 through 2008 income tax filings for the State of Georgia include state income
tax credits for increased activity through Georgia ports. Georgia Power had also filed similar
claims for the years 2002 through 2004. The Georgia Department of Revenue has not responded to
these claims. In July 2007, Georgia Power filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton County
to recover the credits claimed for the years 2002 through 2004. On March 22, 2010, the Superior
Court of Fulton County ruled in favor of Georgia Power’s motion for summary judgment. On April 30,
2010, the Georgia Department of Revenue filed its notice of appeal with the Georgia Court of
Appeals. An unrecognized tax benefit has been recorded related to these credits. If Georgia Power
prevails, no material impact on Southern Company’s or Georgia Power’s net income is expected, as a
significant portion of any tax benefit is expected to be returned to Georgia Power’s retail
customers<b>. </b>If Georgia Power is not successful, payment of the related state tax could have a
significant, and possibly material, negative effect on Georgia Power’s and Southern Company’s cash
flow. See Note 5 to the financial statements of Southern Company and Georgia Power in Item 8 of
the Form 10-K under “Unrecognized Tax Benefits” and Note (G) herein for additional information.
The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot now be determined.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b> </b></td>
<td width="1%"><b> </b></td>
<td><b>Retail Regulatory Matters</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b><i> </i></b></td>
<td width="1%"><b><i> </i></b></td>
<td><b><i>Rate Plans</i></b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>See Note 3 to the financial statements of Georgia Power under “Retail Regulatory Matters – Rate
Plans” and of Southern Company under “Retail Regulatory Matters – Georgia Power – Retail Rate
Plans” and “– Cost of Removal” in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for information regarding the 2007 Retail
Rate Plan.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>On August 27, 2009, the Georgia PSC approved an accounting order that would allow Georgia Power to
amortize up to $324 million of its regulatory liability related to other cost of removal
obligations. Under the terms of the accounting order, Georgia Power was entitled to amortize up to
one-third of the regulatory liability ($108 million) in 2009, limited to the amount needed to earn
no more than a 9.75% retail return on equity (ROE). In addition, Georgia Power may amortize up to
two-thirds of the regulatory liability ($216 million) in 2010, limited to the amount needed to earn
no more than a 10.15% retail ROE. Through June 30, 2010, Georgia Power had amortized $155.3
million of the regulatory liability.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>In accordance with the 2007 Retail Rate Plan, Georgia Power filed a base rate case with the Georgia
PSC on July 1, 2010. The filing includes a requested rate increase totaling $615 million, or 8.2%
of retail revenues, to be effective January 1, 2011, based on a proposed retail ROE of 11.95%. The
requested increase will be recovered through Georgia Power’s existing base rate tariffs as follows:
$451 million, or 6.0%, through the traditional base rate tariffs; $115 million, or 1.5%, through the
Environmental Compliance Cost Recovery (ECCR) tariff; $32 million through the Demand Side
Management (DSM) tariffs; and $17 million through the Municipal Franchise Fee (MFF) tariff. The
majority of the increase in retail revenues is being requested to cover the costs of environmental
compliance and continued investment in new generation, transmission, and distribution facilities to
support growth and ensure reliability. The remainder of the increase includes recovery of higher
operation, maintenance, and other investment costs to meet the current and future demand for
electricity.</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<!-- Folio -->
<!-- /Folio -->
</div>
<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 0pt">
<b>
</b>
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 6pt">
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: left">
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>Unlike rate plans based on traditional one-year test periods, the 2007 Retail Rate Plan was
designed to operate for the three-year period ending December 31, 2010. The 2010 rate case request
includes proposed enhancements to the structure of the 2007 Retail Rate Plan to fit the current
economic climate, including a process of annual tariff compliance reviews that would allow it to
continue to operate for multiple years (Proposed Alternate Rate Plan). The primary points of the
Proposed Alternate Rate Plan include:</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 6pt">
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: left">
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="6%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="3%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b>•</b></td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>Continuation of a plus or minus 100 basis point range for ROE.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="6%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="3%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b>•</b></td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>Creation of an Adjustable Cost Recovery (ACR) tariff. If approved, beginning with an
effective date of January 1, 2012, the ACR will work to maintain Georgia Power’s earnings
within the ROE band established by the Georgia PSC in this case. If Georgia Power’s
earnings projected for the upcoming year are within the ROE band, no adjustment under the
ACR tariff will be requested. If Georgia Power’s earnings projected for the upcoming year
are outside (either above or below) the approved ROE band, the ACR tariff will be used to
adjust projected earnings back to the mid-point of the approved ROE band.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="6%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="3%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>The ACR tariff would also return to the sharing mechanism used prior to the 2007 Retail Rate
Plan whereby two-thirds of any actual earnings for the previous year above the approved ROE
band would be refunded to customers, with the remaining one-third retained by Georgia Power
as incentive to manage expenses and operate as efficiently as possible. In addition, if
earnings are below the approved ROE band, Georgia Power would accept one-third of the
shortfall and retail customers would be responsible for the remaining two-thirds.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="6%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="3%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b>•</b></td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>Creation of a new Certified Capacity Cost Recovery (CCCR) tariff to recover costs
related to new capacity additions certified by the Georgia PSC and updated through
applicable project construction monitoring reports and hearings.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="6%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="3%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b>•</b></td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>Continuation and enhancement of the ECCR and DSM-Residential tariffs from the 2007
Retail Rate Plan and creation of a DSM-Commercial tariff to recover environmental capital
and operating costs resulting from governmental mandates and DSM costs approved and
certified by the Georgia PSC.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="6%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="3%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b>•</b></td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>Implementation of an annual review of the MFF tariff to adjust for changes in relative
gross receipts between customers served inside and outside municipal boundaries.</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 6pt">
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: left">
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>These proposed enhancements would become effective in 2012 with revenue requirements for each
tariff updated through separate compliance filings based on Georgia Power’s budget for the upcoming
year. Based on Georgia Power’s 2010 budget, earnings are currently projected to be slightly below
the proposed ROE band in 2012 and within the band in 2013. However, updated budgets and revenue
forecasts may eliminate, increase, or decrease the need for an ACR tariff adjustment in either
year. In addition, Georgia Power currently estimates the ECCR tariff would increase by $120
million in 2012 and would decrease by $12 million in 2013. The CCCR tariff would begin recovering
the costs of Plant McDonough Units 4, 5, and 6 with increases of $99 million in February 2012, $77
million in June 2012, and $76 million in February 2013. The DSM tariffs would increase by $17
million in 2012 and $18 million in 2013 to reflect the terms of the stipulated agreement in Georgia
Power’s 2010 DSM Certification proceeding. Amounts recovered under the MFF tariff are based on
amounts recovered under all other tariffs.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>Georgia Power expects the Georgia PSC to issue a final order in this matter during December 2010.
The final outcome of this matter cannot now be determined.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b><i> </i></b></td>
<td width="1%"><b><i> </i></b></td>
<td><b><i>Fuel Cost Recovery</i></b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>See Note 3 to the financial statements of Southern Company under “Retail Regulatory Matters –
Georgia Power – Fuel Cost Recovery” and of Georgia Power under “Retail Regulatory Matters – Fuel
Cost Recovery” in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information on Georgia Power’s fuel cost
recovery.</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<!-- Folio -->
<!-- /Folio -->
</div>
<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 0pt">
<b>
</b>
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 6pt">
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: left">
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>On March 11, 2010, the Georgia PSC voted to approve the stipulation among Georgia Power, the
Georgia PSC Public Interest Advocacy Staff, and three customer groups with the exception that the
under recovered fuel balance be collected over 42 months. The new rates, which became effective
April 1, 2010, will result in an increase of approximately $373 million to Georgia Power’s total
annual fuel cost recovery billings. Georgia Power is required to file its next fuel case by March
1, 2011.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b><i> </i></b></td>
<td width="1%"><b><i> </i></b></td>
<td><b><i>Nuclear Construction</i></b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>See Note 3 to the financial statements of Southern Company and Georgia Power under “Retail
Regulatory Matters – Georgia Power – Nuclear Construction” and “Construction – Nuclear,”
respectively, in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information regarding Georgia Power’s
construction of two nuclear generating units at Plant Vogtle.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>In June 2009, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) filed a petition in the Superior Court
of Fulton County, Georgia seeking review of the Georgia PSC’s certification order and challenging
the constitutionality of the Georgia Nuclear Financing Act. On May 5, 2010, the court dismissed as
premature the plaintiffs’ claim challenging the Georgia Nuclear Energy Financing Act. The
dismissal of the claim related to the Georgia Nuclear Energy Financing Act is subject to appeal and
the plaintiffs are expected to re-file this claim in the future. In addition, on May 5, 2010, the
court issued an order remanding the Georgia PSC’s certification order for inclusion of further
findings of fact and conclusions of law by the Georgia PSC. In compliance with the court’s order,
the Georgia PSC issued its order on remand to include further findings of fact and conclusions of
law on June 23, 2010. On July 5, 2010, the SACE and the Fulton County Taxpayers Foundation, Inc.
filed separation motions with the Georgia PSC for reconsideration of the order on remand.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>In August 2009 and June 2010, the NRC issued letters to Westinghouse revising the review schedules
needed to certify the AP1000 standard design for new reactors and expressing concerns related to
the availability of adequate information and the shield building design. The shield building
protects the containment and provides structural support to the containment cooling water supply.
Georgia Power is continuing to work with Westinghouse and the NRC to resolve these concerns. Any
possible delays in the AP1000 design certification schedule, including those addressed by the NRC
in their letters, are not currently expected to affect the projected commercial operation dates for
Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>There are pending technical and procedural challenges to the construction and licensing of Plant
Vogtle Units 3 and 4. Similar additional challenges at the state and federal level are expected as
construction proceeds.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>The ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be determined at this time.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b><i> </i></b></td>
<td width="1%"><b><i> </i></b></td>
<td><b><i>Other Construction</i></b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>In August 2009, Georgia Power filed its quarterly construction monitoring report for Plant
McDonough Units 4, 5, and 6 for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. In September 2009, Georgia Power
amended the report. As amended, the report includes a request for an increase in the certified
costs to construct Plant McDonough. On February 24, 2010, Georgia Power reached a stipulation
agreement with the Georgia PSC staff that was approved by the Georgia PSC on March 16, 2010. The
stipulation resolves the June 30, 2009 construction monitoring report, including the approval of
actual expenditures and the requested increase in the certified amount.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>On May 6, 2010, the Georgia PSC approved Georgia Power’s request to extend the construction
schedule for Plant McDonough Units 4, 5, and 6 as a result of the short-term reduction in
forecasted demand.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b><i> </i></b></td>
<td width="1%"><b><i> </i></b></td>
<td><b><i>Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle</i></b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>See Note 3 to the financial statements of Southern Company under “Retail Regulatory Matters –
Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)” and of Mississippi Power under “Integrated
Coal Gasification Combined Cycle” in Item 8 of the Form 10-K for information regarding
Mississippi Power’s construction of the Kemper IGCC.</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<!-- Folio -->
<!-- /Folio -->
</div>
<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 0pt">
<b>
</b>
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 6pt">
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: left">
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>On March 9, 2010, the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality issued the PSD air permit
modification for the Kemper IGCC, which modifies the original PSD air permit issued in October
2008. The Mississippi Chapter of the Sierra Club has requested a formal evidentiary hearing
regarding the issuance of the modified permit.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>In addition to the Internal Revenue Code Section 48A Phase I tax credits of $133 million certified
by the IRS in May 2009, Mississippi Power filed an application in November 2009 with the DOE and in
December 2009 with the IRS for certain tax credits available to projects using advanced coal
technologies under the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008. The DOE subsequently
certified the Kemper IGCC, and on April 30, 2010, the IRS allocated $279 million of Phase II tax
credits under Section 48A of the Internal Revenue Code to Mississippi Power. The utilization of
these credits is dependent upon meeting the IRS certification requirements and completing the
Kemper IGCC in a timely manner. Mississippi Power has secured all environmental reviews and
permits necessary to commence construction of the Kemper IGCC and has entered into a binding
contract for the steam turbine generator, completing two milestone requirements for these credits.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>On April 29, 2010, the Mississippi PSC issued an order finding that Mississippi Power’s
application to acquire, construct, and operate the Kemper IGCC did not satisfy the requirement
of public convenience and necessity in the form that the project and the related cost recovery
were originally proposed by Mississippi Power. The April 2010 order also approved recovery of
$46 million of $50.5 million in prudent pre-construction costs incurred through March 2009. The
remaining $4.5 million is associated with overhead costs and variable pay of SCS, which were
recommended for exclusion from pre-construction costs by a consultant hired by the Mississippi
Public Utilities Staff. An additional $3.5 million has been incurred for costs of this type
since March 2009. The remaining $4.5 million, as well as additional pre-construction amounts
incurred during the generation screening and evaluation process through May 2010, will be
reviewed and addressed in a future proceeding.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>On May 10, 2010, Mississippi Power filed a motion in response to the April 29, 2010 order of the
Mississippi PSC relating to the Kemper IGCC, or in the alternative, for alteration or rehearing
of such order.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>On May 26, 2010, the Mississippi PSC issued an order revising its findings from the April 29,
2010 order. Among other things, the Mississippi PSC’s May 26, 2010 order (1) approved the
alternate construction cost cap of up to $2.88 billion (and any amounts that fall within
specified exemptions from the cost cap; such exemptions include the costs of the lignite mine
and equipment), subject to determinations by the Mississippi PSC that such costs in excess of
$2.4 billion are prudent and required by the public convenience and necessity; (2) provided for
the establishment of operational cost and revenue parameters based upon assumptions in
Mississippi Power’s proposal; and (3) approved financing cost recovery on construction work in
progress (CWIP) balances under the State of Mississippi Baseload Act of 2008 (Baseload Act),
which provides for the accrual of allowance for funds used during construction in 2010 and 2011
and recovery of financing costs on 100% of CWIP in 2012, 2013, and through May 1, 2014 (provided
that the amount of CWIP allowed is (i) reduced by the amount of government construction cost
incentives received by Mississippi Power in excess of $296 million to the extent that such
amount increases cash flow for the pertinent regulatory period and (ii) justified by a showing
that such CWIP allowance will benefit customers over the life of the plant). The Mississippi
PSC order established periodic prudence reviews during the annual CWIP review process. More
frequent prudence determinations may be requested at a later time. On May 27, 2010, Mississippi
Power filed a motion with the Mississippi PSC accepting the conditions contained in the order.
On June 3, 2010, the Mississippi PSC issued the final certificate order which granted
Mississippi Power’s motion and issued a certificate of public convenience and necessity
authorizing acquisition, construction, and operation of the Kemper IGCC.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>In conjunction with the Kemper IGCC, Mississippi Power will own the lignite mine and equipment
and will acquire mineral reserves located at the plant site in Kemper County. On May 27, 2010,
Mississippi Power executed a 40-year management fee contract with Liberty Fuels Company, LLC, a
subsidiary of The North American Coal Corporation, which will develop, construct, and manage the
mining operations. The agreement is effective June 1, 2010 through the end of the mine
reclamation.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>On June 17, 2010, the Sierra Club filed an appeal of the Mississippi PSC’s June 3, 2010 decision
to grant a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the Kemper IGCC with the Chancery
Court of Harrison County, Mississippi (Chancery Court). Subsequently, on July 6, 2010, the
Sierra Club also filed an appeal directly with the Mississippi
Supreme Court. On July 20, 2010, the Chancery Court issued a stay of the proceeding pending the
resolution of the jurisdictional issues raised in a motion filed by Mississippi Power on July
16, 2010 to confirm jurisdiction in the Mississippi Supreme Court.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>On July 27, 2010, Mississippi Power and South Mississippi Electric Power Association (SMEPA)
entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement whereby SMEPA will purchase an undivided 17.5% interest
in the Kemper IGCC project. The closing of this transaction is conditioned upon execution of a
joint ownership and operating agreement, receipt of all construction permits, appropriate
regulatory approvals, financing, and other conditions.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>As of June 30, 2010, Mississippi Power had spent a total of $142.4 million on the Kemper IGCC,
including regulatory filing costs. Of this total, $129.1 million was included in CWIP, $11.3
million was recorded in other regulatory assets, $0.8 million was recorded in other deferred
charges and assets, and $1.3 million was expensed. Upon receipt of the issuance of the final
certificate order in May 2010, construction screening costs including regulatory filing costs
totaled $129.0 million. As of May 31, 2010, construction related screening costs of $116.2
million were reclassified to CWIP while the non-capital related costs of $11.2 million and $0.6
million were classified in other regulatory assets and other deferred charges, respectively, and
$1.0 million was previously expensed. Costs incurred for the six months ended June 30, 2010
totaled $68.9 million compared to $14.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2009.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 6pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="2%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="2%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>The ultimate outcome of these matters cannot now be determined.</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 6pt">
</div>
</div>
<!--DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd" -->
<!-- Begin Block Tagged Notefalsefalsefalseus-types:textBlockItemTypetextblockContingencies and Regulatory Matters.No authoritative reference available.false12falseUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownfalsetrue