Legalectric

This is a map of the footprint of the 78MW Stella Solar and Atlantic Green Power project proposed for Upper Pittsgrove, New Jersey.  I’ve ehard there are others planned nearby, but that this is the biggest.

Project description from Atlantic Green Power Holding Company 3Q 10-Q filing:

Pittsgrove Solar Farm

There are two meetings coming up about this project:

Informational Meeting

Elmer Grange Hall

Tuesday, March 16, 2010 from 6 to 8:30 p.m.

and the Land Use meeting where the town will approve or deny the application:

Upper Pittsgrove Town Hall

Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 7:30 p.m.

Now you all know how I love solar, from the solar hot water my father designed for the Minnesota Zoo to those simple little heaters you can make or buy:

Build a Simple Solar Heater

Northern Tool sells simple solar air heaters

Every house needs these simple solar heaters.

Solar PV should also be on the roof of every big box there is, and on every home.  But to be clear, I don’t think it belongs covering prime ag fields a long way from load.  That isn’t “highest and best use,” and  just doesn’t make sense when you consider the capacity factor of solar and the line loss over transmission.  So, this project seems odd…

Why do it?  Well, look who is involved and the incentives — means, motive and opportunity — and given that, I hope the town will take a close look before jumping, at the very least, require these conditions (off the top of my head):

1. No ag land be removed from production; and
2. No ag land be removed from ag preservation designation; and
3. Commercial solar be limited to commercial and industrial areas; and
4. Commercial solar be limited to roofs in rural areas.

WHO IS GOING TO BUY THIS POWER?

LET’S SEE THE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT!

The article way below, from Today’s Sunbeam, says it is to be built on land that “is currently owned by Ed Stella and will be leased to Atlantic Green Power…” but the Atlantic Green Power site says that Edward Stella, Jr., is the “Vice President of Project Development.”  From what I can see, this is their FIRST project.  Edward Stella as VP?  Really, it’s right here, so we’re not exactly talking about an arms length transaction:

Edward Stella, Jr.

Vice President of Project Development, Director

Edward Stella, Jr. was appointed as the Vice President of Project Development and as a Director of Atlantic Green Power Holding Company on February 3, 2010. He also was a founder of Atlantic Green Power Corporation, the wholly-owned subsidiary of Atlantic Green Power Holding Company, and has served as a Director thereof since its inception on September 17, 2009. He has over 30 years of experience in land development, land clearing and mulching operations. He is the President of Stella Contracting, Inc., one of the largest land-clearing companies operating on the East Coast, and the President of South Jersey Agricultural Products (SJAP), a company engaged in the sale of top soil and mulch to such customers as Scott’s, Coastal Supply, Home Depot and Lowes. Mr. Stella has had the honor of being nominated by Ernst & Young LLP for Entrepreneur of the Year in 2000 in the greater Philadelphia area.

If he’s connected to “such customers as Scott’s, Coastal Supply, Home Depot and Lowes” why aren’t they putting solar on the roofs of those big boxes, where it can be used, and not on prime ag land far away from big boxes?

Atlantic Green Power Holding Company has been in existence since September 17, 2009, and Edward Stella, Jr., has been “Vice President of Project Development” and a “Director” for all of a month.

A press released based blurb provides two sources for more information:

Robert Demos, Jr., President & CEO of Atlantic Green Power Holding Company

and

Howard Greene, Greene Inc., and CLICK HERE FOR GREENEINCPR.COM — HA!!

So now, let’s look at Lodestar Mining… from their site, their ONLY press release listed posts these links for Atlantic Green Power and Lodestar.  CLICK ON THESE LINKS THAT THEY PROVIDED:

AGPH per yahoo

So keep digging - here are their SEC filings

LGST - their own link says “There are no All Market results”

Hmmmmmmmmmmm…

CLICK HERE for Lodestar’s 10-Q for the year ending June 30, 2008, with this statement:

Lodestar’s financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and settlement of liabilities and commitments in the normal course of business for the foreseeable future. Since inception, the Company has accumulated losses aggregating to $31,301 and has insufficient working capital to meet operating needs for the next twelve months as of June 30, 2008, all of which raise substantial doubt about Lodestar’s ability to continue as a going concern.

CLICK HERE FOR LATE FILED 2008 10-K.

From their 10-K regarding their one option contract:

As of March 13, 2009, the second option payment of $75,000 had not been made. Accordingly, Lodestar executed an extension agreement dated March 12, 2009 with Claim Lake Nickel wherein Claim Lake agreed to extend the term for the second payment to March 13, 2010.

Claim Lake intends to continue to develop its property through additional surface exploration comprising geological mapping, lithogeochemistry and soil geochemistry and diamond drilling. This activity is dependent on being able to raise additional funding.

If we are unable to complete any phase of exploration because we don’t have enough money, we will cease operations until we raise more money.  If we can’t or don’t raise more money, we will cease operations.  We do not intend to hire additional employees at this time.  All of the work on the property will be conducted by unaffiliated independent contractors that we will hire.  The independent contractors will be responsible for surveying, geology, engineering, exploration, and excavation.  The geologists will evaluate the information derived from the exploration and excavation and the engineers will advise us on the economic feasibility of removing the mineralized material.

And this snippet:

Liquidity and Capital Resources

To meet our need for cash we closed an equity offering and raised $50,500 in Canadian dollars.  We cannot guarantee that these funds will be sufficient to stay in business.  If we find mineralized material and it is economically feasible to remove the mineralized material, we will attempt to raise additional money through a subsequent private placement, public offering or through loans.  If the funds we raised are insufficient to complete our exploration of the property, we will have to find alternative sources, like a second public offering, a private placement of securities, or loans from our officers or others.

At December 31, 2008, we had a working capital deficit of ($137,602), which is currently insufficient for us to implement our business plan.

At the present time, we have not made any arrangements to raise additional cash other than through the offering that was registered with the SEC in March, 2008 and closed in 2008.  If we need additional cash and can’t raise it we will either have to suspend operations until we do raise the cash, or cease operations entirely.  The funds raised in the March, 2008 registration offering will allow the company to operate until March, 2010.  Other than as described in this paragraph, we have no other financing plans.

As of March 13, 2009, the second option payment of $75,000 had not been made. Accordingly, Lodestar executed an extension agreement dated March 12, 2009 with Claim Lake Nickel wherein Claim Lake agreed to extend the term for the second payment to March 13, 2010.

As of December 31, 2008, we have yet to generate any revenues.

We issued 3,000,000 shares of common stock pursuant to the exemption from registration set forth in section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. On November 15, 2006, the corporation issued 3,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to Ian McKinnon, Chief Executive Officer of Lodestar Mining, Incorporated, that Rule 144 of the Securities Act of 1933 defines as restricted securities.  The shares were issued in consideration for payment of $30,000 US from Ian McKinnon.  These shares will be restricted by the resale limitations of Rule 144 under the Securities Act of 1933.

We registered 2,000,000 shares of common stock to be offered at $0.05 per share.  In 2008, we issued 1,010,000 shares at $0.05 per share for a total of $50,500 (Canadian dollars).

As of December 31, 2008, our total assets were $9,806 US and our total liabilities were $147,408 US.

And again, a statement of its tenuous existence as a going concern:

CLICK HERE for latest SEC filings as Atlantic Green Power Holding Company — SUDDENLY IT’S ATLANTIC GREEN POWER HOLDING COMPANY, NEW PEOPLE, NEW PUROSE

And again, the solar project particulars:

Pittsgrove Solar Farm

Something that caught my eye on their site — which is repeated in the SEC 3Q 10-Q filing — a press release that talks about the ARRA incentive, a 30% cash payment in lieu of federal investment tax credit, and federally guaranteed loans and a 30% investment tax credit.  Seems ALL of those would apply here, so let’s say Mr. Stella is  “motivated.”

In the U.S., the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus bill of 2009 (ARRA) contains several provisions designed to alleviate renewable energy project financing constraints resulting from the economic downturn.

The ARRA establishes a temporary grant program that will allow commercial solar customers to receive a cash payment to cover 30% of the cost of installing solar equipment in lieu of the federal investment tax credit. The ARRA also appropriated $6 billion for a new loan guarantee program which the government estimates could support up to $60 billion of loans specifically for renewable energy and transmission projects. In addition, ARRA includes up to $2.3 billion for a new 30% investment tax credit for U.S. based renewable energy product production facilities.

Here’s the article from Today’s Sunbeam:

Read the rest of this entry »

Hot off the press from MDU — there’s contact info at the bottom.

DO SEND THEM CONDOLENCES AND A THANK YOU NOTE!!!

From MPR just now:

Controversial power plant won’t be built

And a BSII Press Release found in the inbox:

November 2, 2009

Participating utilities announce wind-down of Big Stone II project

The participating utilities announced today that they will not build the Big Stone II Project, a planned 500-to-600-megawatt coal-fired power plant to be located near Milbank, South Dakota, and its associated transmission. The project required additional participants to move forward; however none have committed.

Big Stone II, a fully permitted project, had been determined to be the least-cost, environmentally sound baseload power plant for the project participants. The project’s high voltage transmission facilities were to be sized to also serve the region’s burgeoning wind energy development.

The Big Stone II Project participants were Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, Heartland Consumers Power District, Missouri River Energy Services and Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.

For information specific to each company, contact:

Mark Hanson, Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 701-530-1093 or mark.hanson@mduresources.com.

Bill Radio, Missouri River Energy Services, 605-731-2522 or billr@mrenergy.com.

Russ Olson, Heartland Consumers Power District, 605-256-6536 or rolson@hcpd.com.

Lori Frisk-Thompson, Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, 507-526-2193 or lorift@cmmpa.org.

Oct 19 Chisago County meeting re: LS Power Sunrise River Energy Station

How odd… it’s in both STrib and StPPP today… so comment opportunities abound!

Here’s the story from Dennis Lien:

Skeptics question Chisago power plant

Residents fear water pollution, say plans are too vague

By Dennis Lien
Updated: 11/01/2009 11:22:19 PM CST

At first blush, a proposal for a large power plant in rural Chisago County would seem to have a lot going for it, including apparent need and general support from clean-energy interests.

But that doesn’t mean LS Power’s natural gas-fired project is racing along. Far from it. Many county residents, skeptical of the company’s assertions and irked by what they consider a secretive approach, don’t like it one bit.

“Whether they are for it or against it, people in this area have a right to know what this is about,” said Joyce Marienfeld, a member of an opposition group called Friends of the Sunrise River. “This has been real slippery — just not right.”

County residents have been on edge since earlier this year when the East Coast power plant builder offered what residents viewed as a vague proposal to build a 780-megawatt power plant on a 40-acre site northwest of Lindstrom, 30 miles north of St. Paul. The plant, expected to cost $300 million to $500 million, would use low-polluting natural gas to supplement the state’s growing wind industry by operating when wind power isn’t available or during periods of peak demand.

The Legislature quickly approved tax breaks similar to those given to other plants, provided local governments follow suit. If that happens, the project would be free to seek various air and water permits and Public Utilities Commission approval.

Critics soon objected, especially over plans to use 2 million gallons of groundwater a
Advertisement
Quantcast
day and to discharge that water into the nearby Sunrise River, which empties into the nationally protected St. Croix River.

Earlier this month, the company backed off that approach, opting instead to use treated water from two area wastewater treatment plants.

Opponents, however, continue to maintain the proposal is heavy on general concepts and light on specifics.

“It’s kind of common sense to judge what they are actually planning on doing, instead of vague things on paper,” said state Rep. Jeremy Kalin, DFL-Lindstrom. “We can’t do that.”

Blake Wheatley, LS Power’s assistant vice president, promised more detail will follow, once lingering property tax issues are addressed locally.

“In order for us to be comfortable spending many hundreds of thousands of dollars doing studies, we really need some level of comfort that we can put that economic albatross at bay,” he said.

But critics have other concerns about what could be the largest natural-gas plant in the state.

They say it doesn’t fit into the rural, agricultural landscape and is just a half-mile from the popular Carlos Avery State Wildlife Management Area. Moreover, they fear increased truck traffic, annoying plant lights and, despite company denials, new power lines. Pollution, they said, could filter through the sandy soil into the Mt. Simon-Hinckley aquifer or get to the Sunrise River.

Building in an already zoned industrial park would be more appropriate, according to Marienfeld, who lives three miles from the proposed site.

Wheatley said the company wants to build the plant to fill a demand for electrical power in Minnesota and the Upper Midwest. He said a “great portion” of the power would be sold in Minnesota, with some going to other states.

LS Power has been talking to state utilities about buying the power but hasn’t reached any agreements, he said. “If we can’t identify markets, we are not going forward with it,” he said, adding that discussions with Minnesota utilities “have been very, very positive.”

Placing the plant near the existing Chisago County power substation eliminates the need for additional transmission lines, according to Wheatley. “That substation is one of the biggest, if not the largest, in the state of Minnesota,” he said.

The plant, he said, would not be as visually intrusive as many people fear. “The rural way of life they are used to will continue,” he said.

If everything goes according to plan, Wheatley said, construction would start in 2011, and the plant would open a couple of years later.

Without addressing the proposal’s specifics, St. Paul-based Fresh Energy said it likes the idea of natural gas being used to fill gaps in wind power.

“It’s important for Minnesota to add a modest amount of new high-efficiency, low-emission natural gas power stations to be available when renewable energy sources like solar and wind need a bit of help,” said Michael Noble, its executive director. “Remember that Minnesota is on course to add $10 billion in wind power this next decade.”

Earlier this month, the state Office of Energy Security released a study that said the state needs more natural gas-fired power plants over the next 15 years to provide intermittent and peak power upon demand.

Asked about the LS Power proposal, Energy Security director Bill Glahn said, “It would definitely be most welcome to help us meet our needs for power in the coming years.”

“That report is so far off it’s scary,” responded Carol Overland, an attorney for opposition group Concerned River Valley Citizens. “They are using outdated information.”

Before the Public Utilities Commission takes up the proposal, the Lent Township and Chisago County boards must approve development agreements. Kalin recently urged them to include six conditions, such as a ban on groundwater use and new transmission lines.

“None of them have flagged their intentions,” County Administrator John Moosey said of the five county commissioners. “This is just a great microcosm of local government. Both sides have very strong points, and there are benefits to each.”

And from the STrib’s Tom Meersman:

Protected aquifer feared at risk

By TOM MEERSMAN, Star Tribune

It’s about appropriate land use

Many of us who live near the proposed LS Power Plant are not against power plants in general or the jobs that building them create. We are … read more against a New Jersey-based private equity investment firm, taking our natural resources, spoiling our rural way of life, and getting a $8-9 Million/year tax break to boot. The power is not needed locally. This is not just a peaker plant to offset wind power, when the wind isn’t blowing. It’s a huge (855MW)albatross stuck in the middle of a residential, agricultural area - in direct opposition to the Township and County Comprehansive Land Use plans. Go to LS Power’s website and take a look at what an equivalent plnat looks like. Build the power plant where it belongs - in an industrial area

Pooling underneath the Twin Cities area is drinking water so old and pristine that it’s protected by state law.

It can’t be used for industrial purposes in the seven-county metro area.

But the rules that protect the 900-foot-deep Mount Simon-Hinckley aquifer in the metro don’t apply to Chisago County, where LS Power wants to build a $300 million to $500 million power plant.

The New Jersey-based company’s proposal to use groundwater from the aquifer has intensified opposition to the plant and has raised interest in changing the law to put the water off-limits.

“It is certainly a last-resort aquifer,” said Chris Elvrum, manager of water supply planning for the Metropolitan Council. “It is used by some municipalities when there’s no readily available other source, and only for potable use.”

Elvrum said age-dated samples show that the water ranges from 1,000 to 35,000 years old. Depending on where it is withdrawn, it can take hundreds of years to recharge.

Since the 1989 law forbidding its use for industrial purposes in the metro area, that region has expanded: the U.S. Census Bureau now defines the metropolitan statistical area as 13 counties, including Chisago and several others not part of the original seven-county list.

A change in plans

LS Power knew of Mount Simon’s importance, said D. Blake Wheatley, lead project developer for the company. But he said it proposed last summer to use the deeper water anyway, for fear of competing with any city and private wells that draw water from shallower aquifers. The proposal called for the plant to use water from one or two nearby sewage treatment plants and, if necessary, to supplement that with as much as 2 million gallons of groundwater per day, including some from Mount Simon.

However, the company recently abruptly changed direction; Wheatley said it will not use any groundwater.

“We’re going to make do with the water that we have” from the North Branch and Chisago Lakes joint sewage treatment plants, he said.

The company also abandoned plans to discharge 1 million gallons of water a day from the plant into a tributary of the Sunrise River, said Wheatley, and will develop a “zero-discharge liquid system.”

The decision stems from a change in the design of the natural-gas-fired plant, he said, not from citizen concerns.

Plant meeting draws 500

About 500 people attended a meeting last week to debate the proposal. Some said they supported the plant because it would generate tax revenue and construction jobs.

Others expressed doubts about the company’s change of mind on groundwater use.

Rob Kravitz lives about 2 miles from the site and opposes the plant, period.

“They’ve made concessions, at least on paper, regarding the water use issues,” he said. “My fear is that, after it’s built, they they’ll apply for groundwater permits anyway.”

Kravitz and others are also concerned that the 780-megawatt plant would require more high-voltage power lines in the area. The company denies that.

The proposed 40-acre site is less than a mile from a large electrical substation and within 5 miles of two interstate natural gas pipelines.

Friends of the Sunrise River, a citizens’ group opposed to the project, contends that it will lower property values, increase noise and traffic and conflict with the rural character of the county.

“If the truth were known, it would have more negatives than positives,” said Larry Baker, chairman of the group.

LS Power is only at the beginning of the project, Wheatley said, and hasn’t submitted a formal plan to regulators.

It is seeking a development agreement with the township board and Chisago County commissioners that pertains mainly to property tax exemptions that require local approval. Those decisions likely will be made in December, after which the company would begin pursuing required permits and approvals from state agencies.

Whatever happens next with the project, Rep. Jeremy Kalin, DFL-Lindstrom, said that he is determined to close the loophole that allows the Mount Simon aquifer to be tapped for multiple uses. Kalin said that he and Sen. Rick Olseen, DFL-Harris, who also represents the area, will introduce a bill next year to extend protection of the aquifer beyond the seven-county metro area.

“It takes dozens or hundreds of years for that water to filter down and to be pure and drinkable,” Kalin said. “We’re not going to just use it for cooling a power plant.”

It’s out today, Dan Gunderson at MPR has done an extensive piece on the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission “investigation” of wind turbine noise and health impacts, looking at, per the PUC:

The Commission is gathering information to determine if current permit conditions on setbacks remain appropriate and reasonable.

PUC - Notice WITH SERVICE LIST

Here’s the audio — full text is way below:

What concerns me is that, again, they only gave notice of this docket to the wind industry, and not the people intervening or commenting in PUC wind dockets who raised this issue in the first place, and my comment on that to the PUC, urging them t expand the Notice:

Overland Comments - Request for Broader Distribution of Notice

To see the PUC’s wind turbine setback docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us, click “eDockets” on lower right, and search for docket 09-845.

And here’s the MPR piece in writing:

Wind turbine noise concerns prompt investigation

by Dan Gunderson, Minnesota Public Radio

August 4, 2009

Valley City, ND — Wind farms are rapidly expanding across the Midwest, and a growing number of residents who live near the wind turbines are complaining about noise.

In Minnesota, those complaints prompted the Public Utilities Commission to investigate.

When Dennis and Cathryn Stillings chose a place to retire, they were looking for solitude and quiet. So a couple of years ago, they bought a farmstead in the rolling hills of eastern North Dakota.

Soon after they moved in, dozens of wind turbines sprouted in a neighbor’s nearby field.

Dennis Stillings said he wasn’t bothered at first because he supported wind energy and he was told the turbines were quiet, no louder than 55 decibels.

“Which is about the same level as your refrigerator running, or the same level as my conversation right now,” Stillings said. “Well, if I was holding a conversation with someone in my living room and someone in the corner was sitting there going bop, bop, bop at 55 decibels, it would drive me nuts and I’d kick him out.”
Larger view
Wind turbines

The Stillings said what bothers them is the pulsating, low-frequency sound. They say it’s like a giant dishwasher, or a helicopter in the distance. Cathryn Stillings said there’s no escaping the sound and that she’s having trouble sleeping.

“It’s a duller sound in the house but it’s still out there,” she said. “You can hear it through the walls. It just kind of gets in your bones.”

The Stillings’ complaints are similar to cases popping up around the country in the past couple of years, as wind farm expansion moves closer to populated areas. Complaints include headaches, dizziness and trouble sleeping.

In Minnesota, a handful of groups have organized to demand tougher regulation. They want the state to require more distance between wind turbines and homes. A report by the Minnesota Department of Health concluded there are potential health concerns.

Read the rest of this entry »

and Mississippi’s PSC says… “Ummmmm… not so fast…”

It’s Mississippi Power’s Kemper County IGCC project.  I’ve had a few interesting conversations about this project this morning, and some productive googling time.  Like WOW, can you believe what they’re trying to do?

Mississippi Power Kemper County IGCC page here

Mississippi Power had the audacity to think it could get “construction work in progress” rate recovery, and boost the rates immediately if not sooner to pull the $$$ out of ratepayer pockets to build this boondoggle.  And there’s where the Mississippi PSC comes in, saying, “Ummmmmmm, no, not so fast!” (perhaps it was “STOP — THIEF!!!!”)

For the Mississippi PSC docket on this, go here:

PSC Docket 2009-UA-14  — Mississippi Power IGCC

And there’s DOE involvement - and EIS

Notice of Intent to Prepare EIS

And of course Richard Hargis is on this one too… I’ve fired off an email to him about the status.

Mississippi Power says that they plan to build a plant with CO2 capture and sequestration!?!?!  What a farce — it’s not been done, can’t be done, and even if it could, THAT WOULD REDUCE PLANT OUTPUT BY HOW MUCH?  Give me a break.

Here’s the page they say “CO2 capture and sequestration”

Let’s see, they say $2.2 billion cost, well, that might build about 80% of the plant, add another $440 million to complete it, add another $1 billion OR MORE for capture, and that doesn’t even include CO2 sequestration, transport pipeline and pressurization stations and place to store it, AND THEN THERE’S LIABILITY COVERAGE FOR CO2 RELEASES… and that doesn’t even include the 25-40% loss of efficiency for capture, transport and repressurization and storage FOREVER…  How dare they spout this unadulterated bullshit…

Is this a Conoco Phillips project, or ???  I’ll dig around to see what I can see…  Nope, it says “KBR” and based on some plant in Wilsonville, Alabama… again, I’ll do some digging.

Southern cancels IGCC plant in Florida

Oh my, it’s not a power plant, it’s:

The Power Systems Development Facility in Wilsonville, Alabama

“America’s Advanced Coal Research Center”

Here we go, from McMillan Scott:

Kemper County IGCC Project

READ THAT POWER POINT — it says TWO GASIFIERS!!!  TWO, ONLY TWO!!!  hee hee hee hee, WHERE’S THE SPARE GASIFIER?!?!?!

And here’s a great report in the Jackson Free Press (when was the last time you heard about parasitic load in any newspaper?!?!  Very well done!!!)

PSC Creates New Hurdles for Coal-Burning Plant

Mississippi Power wants the PSC to move faster to approve a new plant.

by Adam Lynch
June 11, 2009

The Mississippi Public Service Commission met last Friday to consider multiple motions submitted by Mississippi Power, the Sierra Club, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood and others regarding Mississippi Power’s proposed coal-burning plant in Kemper County.

Mississippi Power filed a motion in January for the PSC to fast-forward deliberations on development of the $2.2 billion integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) power plant maintaining that federal money for the program comes with a ticking clock. The 582-megawatt plant will be a combination of lignite coalmine, a coal burner and a gas-powered processor, which dries out the low quality coal pulled from the lignite mine. (The net output of the plant may be reduced by as much as 100 megawatts due to the parasitic power required to dry lignite coal to a usable form.)

“This plant will diversify our fuel sources and will produce energy at lower and more stable costs than any other fossil fuel option,” said Anthony Topazi, Mississippi Power president and chief executive officer in a January statement. “By creating an additional fuel alternative—Mississippi lignite—this project creates significant energy cost reductions for our customers, such that over its life, the energy savings more than offset the cost of building the plant.”

Opposition to the plant, including environmental advocates the Sierra Club and senior citizen representative AARP, claim the plant could raise rate-payers’ utility bills by up to 15 percent.

The PSC denied motions filed by competing power suppliers Magnolia Energy and Entegra Power Group, and the state attorney general motion to suspend their review of Mississippi Power’s request to build the plant, according to The Clarion-Ledger. The denials were only a portion of the whole story, however.

Read the rest of this entry »