SOUTHERN COMPANY
Table of Contents

 
 
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
     
þ   ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
     
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
     
For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2007
OR
     
o   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
     
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the Transition Period from                    to                    
         
Commission   Registrant, State of Incorporation,   I.R.S. Employer
File Number   Address and Telephone Number   Identification No.
1-3526
  The Southern Company   58-0690070
 
  (A Delaware Corporation)    
 
  30 Ivan Allen Jr. Boulevard, N.W.    
 
  Atlanta, Georgia 30308    
 
  (404) 506-5000    
 
       
1-3164
  Alabama Power Company   63-0004250
 
  (An Alabama Corporation)    
 
  600 North 18th Street    
 
  Birmingham, Alabama 35291    
 
  (205) 257-1000    
 
       
1-6468
  Georgia Power Company   58-0257110
 
  (A Georgia Corporation)    
 
  241 Ralph McGill Boulevard, N.E.    
 
  Atlanta, Georgia 30308    
 
  (404) 506-6526    
 
       
0-2429
  Gulf Power Company   59-0276810
 
  (A Florida Corporation)    
 
  One Energy Place    
 
  Pensacola, Florida 32520    
 
  (850) 444-6111    
 
       
001-11229
  Mississippi Power Company   64-0205820
 
  (A Mississippi Corporation)    
 
  2992 West Beach    
 
  Gulfport, Mississippi 39501    
 
  (228) 864-1211    
 
       
333-98553
  Southern Power Company   58-2598670
 
  (A Delaware Corporation)    
 
  30 Ivan Allen Jr. Boulevard, N.W.    
 
  Atlanta, Georgia 30308    
 
  (404) 506-5000    
 
 

 


Table of Contents

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:1
Each of the following classes or series of securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
         
Title of each class       Registrant
Common Stock, $5 par value
      The Southern Company
 
Class A preferred, cumulative, $25 stated capital     Alabama Power Company
5.20% Series
    5.83% Series  
5.30% Series
       
 
Senior Notes        
5 5/8% Series AA
  5.875% Series II  
5 7/8% Series GG
  6.375% Series JJ  
5.875% Series 2007B
       
 
Class A Preferred Stock, non-cumulative,        
Par value $25 per share       Georgia Power Company
6 1/8% Series
       
 
Senior Notes        
5.90% Series O
  6% Series R 5.70% Series X
5.75% Series T   6% Series W 5.75% Series G2
6.375% Series 2007D
       
 
Mandatorily redeemable preferred securities,      
$25 liquidation amount        
5 7/8% Trust Preferred Securities3
   
 
Senior Notes       Gulf Power Company
5.25% Series H
  5.75% Series I  
5.875% Series J
       
 
 
1   As of December 31, 2007.
 
2   Assumed by Georgia Power Company in connection with its merger with Savannah Electric and Power Company, effective July 1, 2006.
 
3   Issued by Georgia Power Capital Trust VII and guaranteed by Georgia Power Company.

 


Table of Contents

         
Senior Notes       Mississippi Power Company
5 5/8% Series E
       
         
Depositary preferred shares, each representing one-fourth        
of a share of preferred stock, cumulative, $100 par value        
5.25% Series
       
 
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:4
             
Title of each class           Registrant
Preferred stock, cumulative, $100 par value       Alabama Power Company
4.20% Series
  4.60% Series   4.72% Series    
4.52% Series
  4.64% Series   4.92% Series    
Class A Preferred Stock, cumulative, $100,000 stated capital
Flexible Money Market (Series 2003A)5
 
         
Preferred stock, cumulative, $100 par value   Mississippi Power Company
4.40% Series
  4.60% Series    
4.72% Series
       
 
 
 
4   As of December 31, 2007.
 
5   Redeemed on January 2, 2008.

 


Table of Contents

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
         
Registrant   Yes   No
The Southern Company
  ü    
Alabama Power Company
  ü    
Georgia Power Company
  ü    
Gulf Power Company
      ü
Mississippi Power Company
      ü
Southern Power Company
      ü
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes o No þ (Response applicable to all registrants.)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrants (1) have filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrants were required to file such reports), and (2) have been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrants’ knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
                 
    Large           Smaller
    Accelerated   Accelerated   Non-accelerated   Reporting
Registrant   Filer   Filer   Filer   Company
The Southern Company
  ü            
Alabama Power Company
          ü    
Georgia Power Company
          ü    
Gulf Power Company
          ü    
Mississippi Power Company
          ü    
Southern Power Company
          ü    
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o No þ (Response applicable to all registrants.)

 


Table of Contents

Aggregate market value of The Southern Company’s common stock held by non-affiliates of The Southern Company at June 29, 2007: $25.9 billion. All of the common stock of the other registrants is held by The Southern Company. A description of each registrant’s common stock follows:
             
    Description of   Shares Outstanding
Registrant   Common Stock   at January 31, 2008
The Southern Company
  Par Value $5 Per Share     764,712,159  
Alabama Power Company
  Par Value $40 Per Share     17,975,000  
Georgia Power Company
  Without Par Value     9,261,500  
Gulf Power Company
  Without Par Value     1,792,717  
Mississippi Power Company
  Without Par Value     1,121,000  
Southern Power Company
  Par Value $0.01 Per Share     1,000  
Documents incorporated by reference: specified portions of The Southern Company’s Proxy Statement relating to the 2008 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference into PART III. In addition, specified portions of the Information Statements of Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, and Mississippi Power Company relating to each of their respective 2008 Annual Meetings of Shareholders are incorporated by reference into PART III.
Southern Power Company meets the conditions set forth in General Instructions I(1)(a) and (b) of Form 10-K and is therefore filing this Form 10-K with the reduced disclosure format specified in General Instructions I(2)(b) and (c) of Form 10-K.
This combined Form 10-K is separately filed by The Southern Company, Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, and Southern Power Company. Information contained herein relating to any individual company is filed by such company on its own behalf. Each company makes no representation as to information relating to the other companies.
 

 


 

Table of Contents
         
        Page
       
   
 
   
Item 1     I-1
      I-2
      I-3
      I-4
      I-4
      I-5
      I-7
      I-8
      I-8
      I-10
      I-12
Item 1A     I-13
Item 1B     I-23
Item 2     I-24
Item 3     I-28
Item 4     I-29
      I-30
      I-32
      I-33
      I-34
   
 
   
       
   
 
   
Item 5     II-1
Item 6     II-2
Item 7     II-2
Item 7A     II-3
Item 8     II-4
Item 9     II-5
Item 9A     II-6
Item 9A(T)     II-6
Item 9B     II-7
   
 
   
       
   
 
   
Item 10     III-1
Item 11     III-4
Item 12     III-41
Item 13     III-42
Item 14     III-43
   
 
   
       
   
 
   
Item 15     IV-1
      IV-2
 i

 


Table of Contents

DEFINITIONS
When used in Items 1 through 5 and Items 9A through 15, the following terms will have the meanings indicated.
     
Term   Meaning
AFUDC
  Allowance for Funds Used During Construction
Alabama Power
  Alabama Power Company
AMEA
  Alabama Municipal Electric Authority
Clean Air Act
  Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
Dalton
  Dalton Utilities
DOE
  United States Department of Energy
Duke Energy
  Duke Energy Corporation
Energy Act of 1992
  Energy Policy Act of 1992
Energy Act of 2005
  Energy Policy Act of 2005
Energy Solutions
  Southern Company Energy Solutions, Inc.
EPA
  United States Environmental Protection Agency
FASB
  Financial Accounting Standards Board
FERC
  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FMPA
  Florida Municipal Power Agency
FP&L
  Florida Power & Light Company
Georgia Power
  Georgia Power Company
Gulf Power
  Gulf Power Company
Hampton
  City of Hampton, Georgia
Holding Company Act
  Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, as amended
IBEW
  International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
IIC
  Intercompany Interchange Contract
IPP
  Independent Power Producer
IRP
  Integrated Resource Plan
IRS
  Internal Revenue Service
KUA
  Kissimmee Utility Authority
MEAG
  Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia
Mirant
  Mirant Corporation
Mississippi Power
  Mississippi Power Company
Moody’s
  Moody’s Investors Service
NRC
  Nuclear Regulatory Commission
OPC
  Oglethorpe Power Corporation
OUC
  Orlando Utilities Commission
PowerSouth
  PowerSouth Energy Cooperative (formerly, Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc.)
PPA
  Power Purchase Agreement
Progress Energy Carolinas
  Carolina Power & Light Company, d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
Progress Energy Florida
  Florida Power Corporation, d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc.
PSC
  Public Service Commission
registrants
  The Southern Company, Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, and Southern Power Company
 ii

 


Table of Contents

DEFINITIONS
(continued)
     
Term   Meaning
RFP
  Request for Proposal
RUS
  Rural Utility Service (formerly Rural Electrification Administration)
S&P
  Standard and Poor’s, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies
Savannah Electric
  Savannah Electric and Power Company (merged into Georgia Power on July 1, 2006)
SCS
  Southern Company Services, Inc. (the system service company)
SEC
  Securities and Exchange Commission
SEGCO
  Southern Electric Generating Company
SEPA
  Southeastern Power Administration
SERC
  Southeastern Electric Reliability Council
SMEPA
  South Mississippi Electric Power Association
Southern Company
  The Southern Company
Southern Company system
  Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, Southern Power, SEGCO, Southern Nuclear, SCS, SouthernLINC Wireless, and other subsidiaries
Southern Holdings
  Southern Company Holdings, Inc.
SouthernLINC Wireless
  Southern Communications Services, Inc.
Southern Nuclear
  Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
Southern Power
  Southern Power Company
traditional operating companies
  Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, and Mississippi Power Company
TVA
  Tennessee Valley Authority
 iii

 


Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING
FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements concerning the strategic goals for the wholesale business, retail sales growth, customer growth, storm damage cost recovery and repairs, fuel cost recovery, environmental regulations and expenditures, earnings growth, dividend payout ratios, access to sources of capital, projections for postretirement benefit trust contributions, financing activities, completion of construction projects, impacts of adoption of new accounting rules, costs of implementing the IIC settlement with the FERC, and estimated construction and other expenditures. In some cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “could,” “should,” “expects,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “projects,” “predicts,” “potential,” or “continue” or the negative of these terms or other similar terminology. There are various factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those suggested by the forward-looking statements; accordingly, there can be no assurance that such indicated results will be realized. These factors include:
  the impact of recent and future federal and state regulatory change, including legislative and regulatory initiatives regarding deregulation and restructuring of the electric utility industry, implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, environmental laws including regulation of water quality and emissions of sulfur, nitrogen, mercury, carbon, soot, or particulate matter and other substances, and also changes in tax and other laws and regulations to which Southern Company and its subsidiaries are subject, as well as changes in application of existing laws and regulations;
 
  current and future litigation, regulatory investigations, proceedings, or inquiries, including the pending EPA civil actions against certain Southern Company subsidiaries, FERC matters, IRS audits, and Mirant matters;
 
  the effects, extent, and timing of the entry of additional competition in the markets in which Southern Company’s subsidiaries operate;
 
  variations in demand for electricity, including those relating to weather, the general economy, population, and business growth (and declines), and the effects of energy conservation measures;
 
  available sources and costs of fuel;
 
  effects of inflation;
 
  ability to control costs;
 
  investment performance of Southern Company’s employee benefit plans;
 
  advances in technology;
 
  state and federal rate regulations and the impact of pending and future rate cases and negotiations, including rate actions relating to fuel and storm restoration cost recovery;
 
  the performance of projects undertaken by the non-utility businesses and the success of efforts to invest in and develop new opportunities;
 
  internal restructuring or other restructuring options that may be pursued;
 
  potential business strategies, including acquisitions or dispositions of assets or businesses, which cannot be assured to be completed or beneficial to Southern Company or its subsidiaries;
 
  the ability of counterparties of Southern Company and its subsidiaries to make payments as and when due;
 
  the ability to obtain new short- and long-term contracts with neighboring utilities;
 
  the direct or indirect effect on Southern Company’s business resulting from terrorist incidents and the threat of terrorist incidents;
 
  interest rate fluctuations and financial market conditions and the results of financing efforts, including Southern Company’s and its subsidiaries’ credit ratings;
 
  the ability of Southern Company and its subsidiaries to obtain additional generating capacity at competitive prices;
 
  catastrophic events such as fires, earthquakes, explosions, floods, hurricanes, droughts, pandemic health events such as an avian influenza, or other similar occurrences;
 
  the direct or indirect effects on Southern Company’s business resulting from incidents similar to the August 2003 power outage in the Northeast;
 
  the effect of accounting pronouncements issued periodically by standard setting bodies; and
 
  other factors discussed elsewhere herein and in other reports filed by the registrants from time to time with the SEC.
The registrants expressly disclaim any obligation to update any forward-looking statements.

iv


Table of Contents

PART I
Item 1. BUSINESS
Southern Company was incorporated under the laws of Delaware on November 9, 1945. Southern Company is domesticated under the laws of Georgia and is qualified to do business as a foreign corporation under the laws of Alabama. Southern Company owns all of the outstanding common stock of Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power, each of which is an operating public utility company. The traditional operating companies supply electric service in the states of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Mississippi. More particular information relating to each of the traditional operating companies is as follows:
Alabama Power is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Alabama on November 10, 1927, by the consolidation of a predecessor Alabama Power Company, Gulf Electric Company, and Houston Power Company. The predecessor Alabama Power Company had been in continuous existence since its incorporation in 1906.
Georgia Power was incorporated under the laws of the State of Georgia on June 26, 1930, and admitted to do business in Alabama on September 15, 1948. Effective July 1, 2006, Savannah Electric, formerly a wholly-owned subsidiary of Southern Company, was merged with and into Georgia Power.
Gulf Power is a Florida corporation that has had a continuous existence since it was originally organized under the laws of the State of Maine on November 2, 1925. Gulf Power was admitted to do business in Florida on January 15, 1926, in Mississippi on October 25, 1976, and in Georgia on November 20, 1984. Gulf Power became a Florida corporation after being domesticated under the laws of the State of Florida on November 2, 2005.
Mississippi Power was incorporated under the laws of the State of Mississippi on July 12, 1972, was admitted to do business in Alabama on November 28, 1972, and effective December 21, 1972, by the merger into it of the predecessor Mississippi Power Company, succeeded to the business and properties of the latter company. The predecessor Mississippi Power Company was incorporated under the laws of the State of Maine on November 24, 1924, and was admitted to do business in Mississippi on December 23, 1924, and in Alabama on December 7, 1962.
In addition, Southern Company owns all of the common stock of Southern Power, which is also an operating public utility company. Southern Power constructs, acquires, owns, and manages generation assets and sells electricity at market-based rates in the wholesale market. Southern Power is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware on January 8, 2001 and was admitted to do business in the States of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia on January 10, 2001, in the State of Mississippi on January 30, 2001, and in the State of North Carolina on February 19, 2007.
Southern Company also owns all the outstanding common stock or membership interests of SouthernLINC Wireless, Southern Nuclear, SCS, Southern Holdings and other direct and indirect subsidiaries. SouthernLINC Wireless provides digital wireless communications services to the traditional operating companies and markets these services to the public and also provides wholesale fiber optic solutions to telecommunication providers in the Southeast. Southern Nuclear operates and provides services to Alabama Power’s and Georgia Power’s nuclear plants. SCS is the system service company providing, at cost, specialized services to Southern Company and its subsidiary companies. Southern Holdings is an intermediate holding subsidiary for Southern Company’s investments in synthetic fuels and leveraged leases and various other energy-related businesses. The investments in synthetic fuels ended on December 31, 2007.
Alabama Power and Georgia Power each own 50% of the outstanding common stock of SEGCO. SEGCO is an operating public utility company that owns electric generating units with an aggregate capacity of 1,019,680 kilowatts at Plant Gaston on the Coosa River near Wilsonville, Alabama. Alabama Power and Georgia Power are each entitled to one-half of SEGCO’s capacity and energy. Alabama Power acts as SEGCO’s agent in the operation of SEGCO’s units and furnishes coal to SEGCO as fuel for its units. SEGCO also owns three 230,000 volt transmission lines extending from Plant Gaston to the Georgia state line at which point connection is made with the Georgia Power

I-1


Table of Contents

transmission line system.
Southern Company’s segments and related information is included in Note 10 to the financial statements of Southern Company in Item 8 herein.
The registrants’ Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to those reports are made available on Southern Company’s website, free of charge, as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with or furnished to the SEC. Southern Company’s internet address is www.southerncompany.com.
The Southern Company System
Traditional Operating Companies
The traditional operating companies own generation and transmission facilities. See PROPERTIES in Item 2 herein for additional information on the traditional operating companies’ generating facilities. The transmission facilities of each of the traditional operating companies are connected to the respective company’s own generating plants and other sources of power and are interconnected with the transmission facilities of the other traditional operating companies and SEGCO by means of heavy-duty high voltage lines. For information on Georgia Power’s integrated transmission system, see “Territory Served by the Traditional Operating Companies and Southern Power” herein.
Operating contracts covering arrangements in effect with principal neighboring utility systems provide for capacity exchanges, capacity purchases and sales, transfers of economy energy, and other similar transactions. Additionally, the traditional operating companies have entered into voluntary reliability agreements with the subsidiaries of Entergy Corporation, Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group and TVA and with Progress Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, and Virginia Electric and Power Company, each of which provides for the establishment and periodic review of principles and procedures for planning and operation of generation and transmission facilities, maintenance schedules, load retention programs, emergency operations, and other matters affecting the reliability of bulk power supply. The traditional operating companies have joined with other utilities in the Southeast (including those referred to above) to form the SERC to augment further the reliability and adequacy of bulk power supply. Through the SERC, the traditional operating companies are represented on the National Electric Reliability Council.
The IIC provides for coordinating operations of the power producing facilities of the traditional operating companies and Southern Power and the capacities available to such companies from non-affiliated sources and for the pooling of surplus energy available for interchange. Coordinated operation of the entire interconnected system is conducted through a central power supply coordination office maintained by SCS. The available sources of energy are allocated to the traditional operating companies and Southern Power to provide the most economical sources of power consistent with reliable operation. The resulting benefits and savings are apportioned among each of the companies. See MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS – FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL – “FERC Matters – Intercompany Interchange Contract” of each registrant in Item 7 herein and Note 3 to the financial statements of each registrant, all under “FERC Matters – Intercompany Interchange Contract” in Item 8 herein for information on the settlement of the FERC proceeding related to the IIC.
Southern Company, each traditional operating company, Southern Power, Southern Nuclear, SEGCO, and other subsidiaries have contracted with SCS to furnish, at direct or allocated cost and upon request, the following services: general and design engineering, purchasing, accounting and statistical analysis, finance and treasury, tax, information resources, marketing, auditing, insurance and pension administration, human resources, systems and procedures, and other services with respect to business and operations and power pool transactions. Southern Power and SouthernLINC Wireless have also secured from the traditional operating companies certain services which are furnished at cost and, in the case of Southern Power in compliance with FERC regulations.
Alabama Power and Georgia Power each have a contract with Southern Nuclear to operate Plant Farley and Plants Hatch and Vogtle, respectively. See “Regulation – Nuclear Regulation” herein for additional information.

I-2


Table of Contents

Southern Power
Southern Power is an electric wholesale generation subsidiary with market-based rate authority from the FERC. Southern Power constructs, acquires, owns, and manages generating facilities and sells the output under long-term, fixed-price capacity contracts both to unaffiliated wholesale purchasers as well as to the traditional operating companies (under PPAs approved by the applicable state PSCs and the FERC). Southern Power’s business activities are not subject to traditional state regulation of utilities but are subject to regulation by the FERC. Southern Power has attempted to insulate itself from significant fuel supply, fuel transportation, and electric transmission risks by making such risks the responsibility of the counterparties to the PPAs. However, Southern Power’s overall profit will depend on the parameters of the wholesale market and the efficient operation of its wholesale generating assets. For additional information on Southern Power’s business activities, see MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS– OVERVIEW- “Business Activities” of Southern Power in Item 7 herein.
In 2006, Southern Power acquired all of the outstanding membership interests of DeSoto County Generating Company, LLC and Rowan County Power, LLC from a subsidiary of Progress Energy, Inc. For additional information on these acquisitions see Note 2 to the financial statements of Southern Power in Item 8 herein. At December 31, 2007, Southern Power had 6,896 megawatts of nameplate capacity in commercial operation.
Other Businesses
Southern Holdings is an intermediate holding subsidiary for Southern Company’s investments in synthetic fuels and leveraged leases and various other energy-related businesses. Southern Company’s interest in one of the synthetic fuel entities was terminated in 2006. Synthetic fuel tax credits expired on December 31, 2007 and the synthetic fuel investments were terminated on December 31, 2007.
SouthernLINC Wireless serves the traditional operating companies and markets its services to non-affiliates within the Southeast. SouthernLINC Wireless delivers multiple wireless communication options including push to talk, cellular service, text messaging, wireless internet access, and wireless data. Its system covers approximately 128,000 square miles in the Southeast. SouthernLINC Wireless also provides wholesale fiber optic solutions to telecommunication providers in the Southeast.
These efforts to invest in and develop new business opportunities offer potential returns exceeding those of rate-regulated operations. However, these activities also involve a higher degree of risk.
Construction Programs
The subsidiary companies of Southern Company are engaged in continuous construction programs to accommodate existing and estimated future loads on their respective systems. For estimated construction and environmental expenditures for the periods 2008 through 2010, see Note 7 to the financial statements of each registrant all under “Construction Program” in Item 8 herein. Estimated construction costs in 2008 are expected to be apportioned approximately as follows: (in millions)
                                                         
    Southern                            
    Company   Alabama   Georgia   Gulf   Mississippi   Southern        
    System*   Power   Power   Power   Power   Power        
     
New generation
  $ 221     $     $ 183     $     $     $ 38          
Environmental
    1,768       646       707       317       75                
Other generating facilities, including associated plant substations
    507       181       186       20       39       71          
New business
    527       257       212       30       28                
Transmission
    450       96       316       22       15                
Distribution
    343       143       163       11       26                
Nuclear fuel
    308       159       148                            
General plant
    327       89       116       10       3                
     
 
  $ 4,451     $ 1,571     $ 2,031     $ 410     $ 186     $ 109          
     

I-3


Table of Contents

 
*   These amounts include the traditional operating companies and Southern Power (as detailed in the table above) as well as the amounts for the other subsidiaries. See “Other Businesses” herein for additional information.
The construction programs are subject to periodic review and revision, and actual construction costs may vary materially from the above estimates because of numerous factors. These factors include: changes in business conditions; acquisition of additional generating assets; revised load growth estimates; changes in environmental statutes and regulations; changes in existing nuclear plants to meet new regulatory requirements; changes in FERC rules and regulations; increasing costs of labor, equipment and materials; cost of capital and other factors described above under the heading “Cautionary Notice Regarding Forward Looking Statements.” In addition, there can be no assurance that costs related to capital expenditures will be fully recovered.
Under Georgia law, Georgia Power is required to file an IRP for approval by the Georgia PSC. Through the IRP process, the Georgia PSC must pre-certify the construction of new power plants and new PPAs. See “Rate Matters – Integrated Resource Planning” herein for additional information.
See “Regulation – Environmental Statutes and Regulations” herein for additional information with respect to certain existing and proposed environmental requirements and PROPERTIES – “Jointly-Owned Facilities” in Item 2 herein for additional information concerning Alabama Power’s, Georgia Power’s, and Southern Power’s joint ownership of certain generating units and related facilities with certain non-affiliated utilities.
Financing Programs
See each of the registrant’s MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS – FINANCIAL CONDITION AND LIQUIDITY in Item 7 herein and Note 6 to the financial statements of each registrant in Item 8 herein for information concerning financing programs.
Fuel Supply
The traditional operating companies’ and SEGCO’s supply of electricity is derived predominantly from coal. Southern Power’s supply of electricity is primarily fueled by natural gas. See MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS – RESULTS OF OPERATION – “Fuel and Purchased Power Expenses” of Southern Company and each traditional operating company in Item 7 herein for information regarding the electricity generated and the average cost of fuel in cents per net kilowatt-hour generated for the years 2005 through 2007.
The traditional operating companies have agreements in place from which they expect to receive approximately 84% of their coal burn requirements in 2008. These agreements have terms ranging between one and seven years. In 2007, the weighted average sulfur content of all coal burned by the traditional operating companies was 0.84% sulfur. This sulfur level, along with banked and purchased sulfur dioxide allowances, allowed the traditional operating companies to remain within limits set by the Phase II acid rain requirements of the Clean Air Act. In 2007, Southern Company purchased approximately $50.76 million of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emission allowances to be used in current and future periods. As additional environmental regulations are proposed that impact the utilization of coal, the traditional operating companies’ fuel mix will be monitored to ensure that the traditional operating companies remain in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Additionally, Southern Company and the traditional operating companies will continue to evaluate the need to purchase additional emission allowances and the timing of capital expenditures for emission control equipment. See MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS – FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL – “Environmental Matters” of Southern Company and each traditional operating company in Item 7 herein for information on the Clean Air Act and global climate issues.
SCS, acting on behalf of the traditional operating companies and Southern Power, has agreements in place for the natural gas burn requirements of the Southern Company system. For 2008, SCS has contracted for 650 billion cubic feet of natural gas supply. These agreements cover remaining terms up to 12 years. In addition to gas supply, SCS has contracts in place for both firm gas transportation and storage. Management believes that these contracts provide sufficient natural gas supplies, transportation, and storage to ensure normal operations of the Southern Company system’s natural gas generating units.

I-4


Table of Contents

Changes in fuel prices to the traditional operating companies are generally reflected in fuel adjustment clauses contained in rate schedules. See “Rate Matters – Rate Structure and Cost Recovery Plans” herein for additional information. Southern Power’s PPAs generally provide that the counterparty is responsible for substantially all of the cost of fuel.
Alabama Power and Georgia Power have numerous contracts covering a portion of their nuclear fuel needs for uranium, conversion services, enrichment services and fuel fabrication. These contracts have varying expiration dates and most of them are for less than 10 years. Management believes that sufficient capacity for nuclear fuel supplies and processing exists to preclude the impairment of normal operations of the Southern Company system’s nuclear generating units.
Alabama Power and Georgia Power have contracts with the United States, acting through the DOE, that provide for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The DOE failed to begin disposing of spent fuel in 1998, as required by the contracts, and Alabama Power and Georgia Power are pursuing legal remedies against the government for breach of contract. See Note 1 to the financial statements of Southern Company, Alabama Power, and Georgia Power under “Nuclear Fuel Disposal Costs” in Item 8 herein for additional information.
Territory Served by the Traditional Operating Companies and Southern Power
The territory in which the traditional operating companies provide electric service comprises most of the states of Alabama and Georgia together with the northwestern portion of Florida and southeastern Mississippi. In this territory there are non-affiliated electric distribution systems which obtain some or all of their power requirements either directly or indirectly from the traditional operating companies. The territory has an area of approximately 120,000 square miles and an estimated population of approximately 13 million. Southern Power sells electricity at market-based prices in the Super-Southeast wholesale market to investor-owned utilities, IPPs, municipalities, and electric cooperatives.
Alabama Power is engaged, within the State of Alabama, in the generation and purchase of electricity and the transmission, distribution, and sale of such electricity at retail in over 650 communities (including Anniston, Birmingham, Gadsden, Mobile, Montgomery, and Tuscaloosa) and at wholesale to 15 municipally-owned electric distribution systems, 11 of which are served indirectly through sales to AMEA, and two rural distributing cooperative associations. Alabama Power also supplies steam service in downtown Birmingham. Alabama Power owns coal reserves near its Plant Gorgas and uses the output of coal from the reserves in its generating plants. Alabama Power also sells, and cooperates with dealers in promoting the sale of, electric appliances.
Georgia Power is engaged in the generation and purchase of electricity and the transmission, distribution, and sale of such electricity within the State of Georgia at retail in over 600 communities (including Athens, Atlanta, Augusta, Columbus, Macon, Rome, and Savannah), as well as in rural areas, and at wholesale currently to OPC, MEAG, Dalton, Hampton, and 30 electric cooperatives.
Gulf Power is engaged, within the northwestern portion of Florida, in the generation and purchase of electricity and the transmission, distribution, and sale of such electricity at retail in 71 communities (including Pensacola, Panama City, and Fort Walton Beach), as well as in rural areas, and at wholesale to a non-affiliated utility and a municipality.
Mississippi Power is engaged in the generation and purchase of electricity and the transmission, distribution, and sale of such energy within 23 counties in southeastern Mississippi, at retail in 123 communities (including Biloxi, Gulfport, Hattiesburg, Laurel, Meridian, and Pascagoula), as well as in rural areas, and at wholesale to one municipality, six rural electric distribution cooperative associations, and one generating and transmitting cooperative.
For information relating to kilowatt-hour sales by classification for the traditional operating companies, see MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS – RESULTS OF OPERATIONS of each traditional operating company in Item 7 herein. Also, for information relating to the sources of revenues for Southern Company, each traditional operating company, and Southern Power, reference is made to Item 6 herein.
The RUS has authority to make loans to cooperative associations or corporations to enable them to provide electric

I-5


Table of Contents

service to customers in rural sections of the country. There are 71 electric cooperative organizations operating in the territory in which the traditional operating companies provide electric service at retail or wholesale.
One of these organizations, PowerSouth, is a generating and transmitting cooperative selling power to several distributing cooperatives, municipal systems, and other customers in south Alabama and northwest Florida. PowerSouth owns generating units with approximately 1,776 megawatts of nameplate capacity, including an undivided 8.16% ownership interest in Alabama Power’s Plant Miller Units 1 and 2. PowerSouth’s facilities were financed with RUS loans secured by long-term contracts requiring distributing cooperatives to take their requirements from PowerSouth to the extent such energy is available.
Alabama Power and Gulf Power have entered into separate agreements with PowerSouth involving interconnection between their respective systems. The delivery of capacity and energy from PowerSouth to certain distributing cooperatives in the service areas of Alabama Power and Gulf Power is governed by the Southern Company/PowerSouth Network Transmission Service Agreement. The rates for this service to PowerSouth are on file with the FERC. See PROPERTIES – “Jointly-Owned Facilities” in Item 2 herein for details of Alabama Power’s joint-ownership with PowerSouth of a portion of Plant Miller.
Four electric cooperative associations, financed by the RUS, operate within Gulf Power’s service area. These cooperatives purchase their full requirements from PowerSouth and SEPA (a federal power marketing agency). A non-affiliated utility also operates within Gulf Power’s service area and purchases its full requirements from Gulf Power.
Mississippi Power has an interchange agreement with SMEPA, a generating and transmitting cooperative, pursuant to which various services are provided, including the furnishing of protective capacity by Mississippi Power to SMEPA.
There are also 65 municipally-owned electric distribution systems operating in the territory in which the traditional operating companies provide electric service at retail or wholesale.
Forty-eight municipally-owned electric distribution systems and one county-owned system receive their requirements through MEAG, which was established by a Georgia state statute in 1975. MEAG serves these requirements from self-owned generation facilities, some of which are acquired and jointly-owned with Georgia Power, power purchased from Georgia Power, and purchases from other resources. MEAG also has a pseudo scheduling and services agreement with Georgia Power. Dalton serves its requirements from self-owned generation facilities, some of which are acquired and jointly-owned with Georgia Power, and through purchases from Georgia Power pursuant to their partial requirements tariff. In addition, Georgia Power serves the full requirements of Hampton’s electric distribution system under a market-based contract. See PROPERTIES – “Jointly-Owned Facilities” in Item 2 herein for additional information.
Georgia Power has entered into substantially similar agreements with Georgia Transmission Corporation (formerly OPC’s transmission division), MEAG, and Dalton providing for the establishment of an integrated transmission system to carry the power and energy of all parties. The agreements require an investment by each party in the integrated transmission system in proportion to its respective share of the aggregate system load. See PROPERTIES – “Jointly-Owned Facilities” in Item 2 herein for additional information.
Southern Power has PPAs with the municipalities of Dalton, North Carolina Municipal Power Agency No. 1, Florida Municipal Power Agency, and Piedmont Municipal Power Agency. See MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS – FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL – “Power Sales Agreements” of Southern Power in Item 7 herein for additional information concerning Southern Power’s PPAs.
SCS, acting on behalf of the traditional operating companies, also has a contract with SEPA providing for the use of the traditional operating companies’ facilities at government expense to deliver to certain cooperatives and municipalities, entitled by federal statute to preference in the purchase of power from SEPA, quantities of power equivalent to the amounts of power allocated to them by SEPA from certain United States government hydroelectric projects.
The retail service rights of all electric suppliers in the State of Georgia are regulated by the Territorial Electric

I-6


Table of Contents

Service Act of 1973. Pursuant to the provisions of this Act, all areas within existing municipal limits were assigned to the primary electric supplier therein. Areas outside of such municipal limits were either to be assigned or to be declared open for customer choice of supplier by action of the Georgia PSC pursuant to standards set forth in this Act. Consistent with such standards, the Georgia PSC has assigned substantially all of the land area in the state to a supplier. Notwithstanding such assignments, this Act provides that any new customer locating outside of 1973 municipal limits and having a connected load of at least 900 kilowatts may exercise a one-time choice for the life of the premises to receive electric service from the supplier of its choice. See “Competition” herein for additional information.
Pursuant to the 1956 Utility Act, the Mississippi PSC issued “Grandfather Certificates” of public convenience and necessity to Mississippi Power and to six distribution rural cooperatives operating in southeastern Mississippi, then served in whole or in part by Mississippi Power, authorizing them to distribute electricity in certain specified geographically described areas of the state. The six cooperatives serve approximately 325,000 retail customers in a certificated area of approximately 10,300 square miles. In areas included in a “Grandfather Certificate,” the utility holding such certificate may, without further certification, extend its lines up to five miles; other extensions within that area by such utility, or by other utilities, may not be made except upon a showing of, and a grant of a certificate of, public convenience and necessity. Areas included in such a certificate which are subsequently annexed to municipalities may continue to be served by the holder of the certificate, irrespective of whether it has a franchise in the annexing municipality. On the other hand, the holder of the municipal franchise may not extend service into such newly annexed area without authorization by the Mississippi PSC.
Competition
The electric utility industry in the United States is continuing to evolve as a result of regulatory and competitive factors. Among the early primary agents of change was the Energy Act of 1992 which allowed IPPs to access a utility’s transmission network in order to sell electricity to other utilities.
The competition for retail energy sales among competing suppliers of energy is influenced by various factors, including price, availability, technological advancements, service, and reliability. These factors are, in turn, affected by, among other influences, regulatory, political, and environmental considerations, taxation, and supply.
Generally, the traditional operating companies have experienced, and expect to continue to experience, competition in their respective retail service territories in varying degrees as the result of self-generation (as described above) by customers and other factors. See also “Territory Served by the Traditional Operating Companies and Southern Power” herein for additional information concerning suppliers of electricity operating within or near the areas served at retail by the traditional operating companies.
Southern Power competes with investor owned utilities, IPPs, and others for wholesale energy sales in primarily the Southeastern United States wholesale market. The needs of this market are driven by the demands of end users in the Southeast and the generation available. Southern Power’s success in wholesale energy sales is influenced by various factors including reliability and availability of Southern Power’s plants, availability of transmission to serve the demand, price, and Southern Power’s ability to contain costs.
Alabama Power currently has cogeneration contracts in effect with 10 industrial customers. Under the terms of these contracts, Alabama Power purchases excess generation of such companies. During 2007, Alabama Power purchased approximately 101 million kilowatt-hours from such companies at a cost of $4.9 million.
Georgia Power currently has contracts in effect with nine small power producers whereby Georgia Power purchases their excess generation. During 2007, Georgia Power purchased 8 million kilowatt-hours from such companies at a cost of $0.6 million. Georgia Power has PPAs for electricity with two cogeneration facilities. Payments are subject to reductions for failure to meet minimum capacity output. During 2007, Georgia Power purchased 559 million kilowatt-hours at a cost of $86.9 million from these facilities.
Also during 2007, Georgia Power purchased energy from seven customer-owned generating facilities. Six of the seven customers provide only energy to Georgia Power. These six customers make no capacity commitment and are not dispatched by Georgia Power. Georgia Power does have a contract with the remaining customer for eight

I-7


Table of Contents

megawatts of dispatchable capacity and energy. During 2007, Georgia Power purchased a total of 88 million kilowatt-hours from the seven suppliers at a cost of approximately $2.8 million.
Gulf Power currently has agreements in effect with various industrial, commercial, and qualifying facilities pursuant to which Gulf Power purchases “as available” energy from customer-owned generation. During 2007, Gulf Power purchased 57.8 million kilowatt-hours from such companies for approximately $2.3 million.
Mississippi Power currently has a cogeneration agreement in effect with one of its industrial customers. Under the terms of this contract, Mississippi Power purchases any excess generation. During 2007, this customer had no excess generation.
Seasonality
The demand for electric power generation is affected by seasonal differences in the weather. At the traditional operating companies and Southern Power, the demand for power peaks during the summer months, with market prices reflecting the demand of power and available generating resources at that time. Power demand peaks can also be recorded during the winter. As a result, the overall operating results of Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power in the future may fluctuate substantially on a seasonal basis. In addition, Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power have historically sold less power when weather conditions are milder.
Regulation
State Commissions
The traditional operating companies are subject to the jurisdiction of their respective state PSCs. The PSCs have broad powers of supervision and regulation over public utilities operating in the respective states, including their rates, service regulations, sales of securities (except for the Mississippi PSC), and, in the cases of the Georgia PSC and the Mississippi PSC, in part, retail service territories. See “Territory Served by the Traditional Operating Companies and Southern Power” and “Rate Matters” herein for additional information.
Federal Power Act
In 2005, the U.S. Congress passed the Energy Act of 2005 which repealed the Holding Company Act effective February 8, 2006. The traditional operating companies, Southern Power and its generation subsidiaries, and SEGCO are all public utilities engaged in wholesale sales of energy in interstate commerce and therefore remain subject to the rate, financial, and accounting jurisdiction of the FERC under the Federal Power Act. The FERC must approve certain financings and allows an “at cost standard” for services rendered by system service companies such as SCS. In addition to its repeal of the Holding Company Act, the Energy Act of 2005 authorized the FERC to establish regional reliability organizations authorized to enforce reliability standards, established a process for the FERC to address impediments to the construction of transmission, and established clear responsibility for the FERC to prohibit manipulative energy trading practices.
Alabama Power and Georgia Power are also subject to the provisions of the Federal Power Act or the earlier Federal Water Power Act applicable to licensees with respect to their hydroelectric developments. Among the hydroelectric projects subject to licensing by the FERC are 14 existing Alabama Power generating stations having an aggregate installed capacity of 1,662,400 kilowatts and 18 existing Georgia Power generating stations having an aggregate installed capacity of 1,074,696 kilowatts.
In 2003, Georgia Power started the relicensing process for the Morgan Falls project which is located on the Chattahoochee River near Atlanta, Georgia and submitted the final license application for this facility to the FERC in February 2007. The current license for the Morgan Falls project expires in 2009. In 2007, Georgia Power began the relicensing process for Bartlett’s Ferry which is located on the Chattahoochee River near Columbus, Georgia. The current Bartlett’s Ferry license expires in 2014 and the application for a new license is expected to be submitted to the FERC in 2012. In July 2005, Alabama Power filed two applications with the FERC for new 50-year licenses for its seven hydroelectric developments on the Coosa River (Weiss, Henry, Logan Martin, Lay, Mitchell, Jordan,

I-8


Table of Contents

and Bouldin) and for the Lewis Smith and Bankhead developments on the Warrior River. The FERC licenses for all of these nine developments expired in July and August of 2007. The FERC issued an annual license for the Coosa developments on August 8, 2007 and issued an annual license for the Warrior developments on September 6, 2007. These annual licenses provide the FERC with additional time to complete its review of the license applications. In 2006, Alabama Power initiated the process of developing an application to relicense the Martin hydroelectric project located on the Tallapoosa River. The current Martin license will expire in 2013 and the application for a new license is expected to be filed with the FERC in 2011. See MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS – FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL – “FERC Matters – Hydro Relicensing” of Alabama Power in Item 7 herein for additional information.
Georgia Power and OPC also have a license, expiring in 2027, for the Rocky Mountain Plant, a pure pumped storage facility of 847,800 kilowatt capacity. See PROPERTIES – “Jointly-Owned Facilities” in Item 2 herein for additional information.
Licenses for all projects, excluding those discussed above, expire in the period 2015-2034 in the case of Alabama Power’s projects and in the period 2014-2039 in the case of Georgia Power’s projects.
Upon or after the expiration of each license, the United States Government, by act of Congress, may take over the project or the FERC may relicense the project either to the original licensee or to a new licensee. In the event of takeover or relicensing to another, the original licensee is to be compensated in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Power Act, such compensation to reflect the net investment of the licensee in the project, not in excess of the fair value of the property, plus reasonable damages to other property of the licensee resulting from the severance therefrom of the property. If the FERC does not act on the new license application prior to the expiration of the existing license, the FERC is required to issue annual licenses, under the same terms and conditions of the existing license, until a new license is issued.
Nuclear Regulation
Alabama Power, Georgia Power and Southern Nuclear are subject to regulation by the NRC. The NRC is responsible for licensing and regulating nuclear facilities and materials and for conducting research in support of the licensing and regulatory process, as mandated by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978; and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and other applicable statutes. These responsibilities also include protecting public health and safety, protecting the environment, protecting and safeguarding nuclear materials and nuclear power plants in the interest of national security, and assuring conformity with antitrust laws.
The NRC operating licenses for Plant Vogtle units 1 and 2 currently expire in January 2027 and February 2029, respectively. In January 2002, the NRC granted Georgia Power a 20-year extension of the licenses for both units at Plant Hatch which permits the operation of units 1 and 2 until 2034 and 2038, respectively. Georgia Power filed an application with the NRC in June 2007 to extend the licenses for Plant Vogtle units 1 and 2 for an additional 20 years. In May 2005, the NRC granted Alabama Power a 20-year extension of the licenses for both units at Plant Farley which permits operation of units 1 and 2 until 2037 and 2041, respectively.
See Notes 1 and 9 to the financial statements of Southern Company, Alabama Power, and Georgia Power in Item 8 herein for information on nuclear decommissioning costs and nuclear insurance.
FERC Matters
See MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS – FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL – “FERC Matters” of each of the registrants in Item 7 herein for information on matters regarding the FERC.
Environmental Statutes and Regulations
Southern Company’s operations are subject to extensive regulation by state and federal environmental agencies under a variety of statutes and regulations governing environmental media, including air, water, and land resources. Compliance with these existing environmental requirements involves significant capital and operating costs, a major

I-9


Table of Contents

portion of which is expected to be recovered through existing ratemaking provisions. There is no assurance, however, that all such costs will be recovered.
Compliance with the federal Clean Air Act and resulting regulations has been, and will continue to be, a significant focus for Southern Company, each traditional operating company, Southern Power, and SEGCO. In addition, existing environmental laws and regulations may be changed or new laws and regulations may be adopted or otherwise become applicable to Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, or Southern Power, including laws and regulations designed to address global climate change, air quality, water quality or other environmental, public health, and welfare concerns. See MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS – FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL – “Environmental Matters” of Southern Company and each of the traditional operating companies in Item 7 herein for additional information about the Clean Air Act and other environmental issues, including the litigation brought by the EPA under the New Source Review provisions of the Clean Air Act and possible climate change legislation and regulation. Also see MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS – FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL – “Environmental Matters” and “Global Climate Issues” of Southern Power in Item 7 herein for information about the Clean Air Act, other environmental issues, and possible climate change legislation and regulation.
The traditional operating companies, Southern Power, and SEGCO are unable to predict at this time what additional steps they may be required to take as a result of the implementation of existing or future control requirements for climate, air, water, and hazardous or toxic materials, but such steps could adversely affect system operations and result in substantial additional costs.
The outcome of the matters mentioned above under “Regulation” cannot now be determined, except that these developments may result in delays in obtaining appropriate licenses for generating facilities, increased construction and operating costs, or reduced generation, the nature and extent of which, while not determinable at this time, could be substantial.
Rate Matters
Rate Structure and Cost Recovery Plans
The rates and service regulations of the traditional operating companies are uniform for each class of service throughout their respective service areas. Rates for residential electric service are generally of the block type based upon kilowatt-hours used and include minimum charges. Residential and other rates contain separate customer charges. Rates for commercial service are presently of the block type and, for large customers, the billing demand is generally used to determine capacity and minimum bill charges. These large customers’ rates are generally based upon usage by the customer and include rates with special features to encourage off-peak usage. Additionally, Alabama Power, Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power are generally allowed by their respective state PSCs to negotiate the terms and cost of service to large customers. Such terms and cost of service, however, are subject to final state PSC approval.
Fuel and net purchased energy costs are recovered through specific fuel cost recovery provisions at the traditional operating companies. These fuel cost recovery provisions are adjusted to reflect increases or decreases in such costs as needed. Gulf Power’s and Mississippi Power’s fuel cost recovery provisions are adjusted annually to reflect increases or decreases in such costs. Georgia Power is currently required to file for an adjustment to its fuel cost recovery rate no later than March 1, 2008. Alabama Power’s fuel clause is adjusted as required. Revenues are adjusted for differences between recoverable costs and amounts actually recovered in current rates.
Approved environmental compliance and storm damage costs are recovered at Alabama Power, Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power through cost recovery provisions approved by their respective state PSCs. Within limits approved by their respective PSCs, these rates are adjusted to reflect increases or decreases in such costs as required.
Georgia Power’s environmental compliance costs were recovered in base rates through 2007. Under the 2007 retail rate plan approved by the Georgia PSC, an environmental compliance cost recovery tariff was implemented effective January 1, 2008, to allow for recovery of costs related to environmental controls mandated by state and federal regulations. Georgia Power continues to recover storm damage and new plant costs through its base rates.

I-10


Table of Contents

Alabama Power recovers the cost of certificated new plant and purchased power capacity and Gulf Power recovers purchased power capacity and conservation costs through cost recovery provisions which are adjusted as required to reflect increases or decreases in such costs as needed. Revenues are adjusted for differences between recoverable costs and amounts actually recovered in current rates.
See MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS – FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL – “PSC Matters” of Southern Company and each of the traditional operating companies in Item 7 herein and Note 3 to the financial statements of Southern Company under “Alabama Power Retail Regulatory Matters” and “Georgia Power Retail Regulatory Matters” and Note 3 to the financial statements of each of the traditional operating companies under “Retail Regulatory Matters” in Item 8 herein for a discussion of rate matters. Also, see Note 1 to the financial statements of Southern Company and each of the traditional operating companies in Item 8 herein for a discussion of recovery of fuel costs, storm damage costs, and environmental compliance costs through rates.
The traditional operating companies and Southern Power are authorized by 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. See MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS – FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL – “FERC Matters – Market-Based Rate Authority” of each registrant in Item 7 herein and Note 3 to the financial statements of each registrant under “FERC Matters – Market-Based Rate Authority” in Item 8 herein for a discussion of rate matters.
Integrated Resource Planning
Triennially, Georgia Power must file an IRP with the Georgia PSC that specifies how it intends to meet the future electrical needs of its customers through a combination of demand-side and supply-side resources. The Georgia PSC under state law will certify any new demand-side or supply-side resources. Once certified, the lesser of actual or certified construction costs and purchased power costs will be recoverable through rates.
On July 12, 2007, the Georgia PSC approved Georgia Power’s 2007 IRP including the following provisions:
(1) retiring the coal units at Plant McDonough and replacing them with combined-cycle natural gas units; (2) approving new energy efficiency pilot programs and rate recovery of demand-side management programs; (3) approving pursuit of up to three new renewable generation projects with a Georgia Power ownership interest; and (4) establishing new nuclear units as a preferred option to meet demand in the 2015/2016 timeframe.
In July 2007, the Georgia PSC ordered Georgia Power to issue a RFP, submit the proposals for new base load generation needed in the 2016-2017 timeframe by February 1, 2008, and file an application to certify the chosen resources by May 1, 2008. The RFP was issued in November 2007. In December 2007, Georgia Power requested, and the Georgia PSC approved, extension of the proposal submission until May 1, 2008 and the filing date of Georgia Power’s application to certify the chosen resources until August 1, 2008.
See MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS – RESULTS OF OPERATION – “Fuel and Purchased Power Expenses” of Georgia Power in Item 7 herein for information on the Georgia PSC’s approval of PPAs to begin in 2010.

I-11


Table of Contents

Employee Relations
The Southern Company system had a total of 26,742 employees on its payroll at December 31, 2007.
         
 
    Employees at December 31, 2007
 
Alabama Power
    6,980  
Georgia Power
    9,270  
Gulf Power
    1,324  
Mississippi Power
    1,299  
SCS
    4,125  
Southern Holdings*
    1  
Southern Nuclear
    3,267  
Southern Power**
     
Other
    476  
 
Total
    26,742  
 
 
*   One of Southern Holdings’ subsidiaries has an employee. Southern Holdings has agreements with SCS whereby all other employee services are rendered at cost.
 
**   Southern Power has no employees. Southern Power has agreements with SCS and the traditional operating companies whereby employee services are rendered at amounts in compliance with FERC regulations.
The traditional operating companies have separate agreements with local unions of the IBEW generally covering wages, working conditions, and procedures for handling grievances and arbitration. These agreements apply with certain exceptions to operating, maintenance, and construction employees.
Alabama Power has agreements with the IBEW on a five-year contract extending to August 15, 2009. Upon notice given at least 60 days prior to that date, negotiations may be initiated with respect to agreement terms to be effective after such date.
Georgia Power has an agreement with the IBEW covering wages and working conditions, which is in effect through June 30, 2008.
Gulf Power has an agreement with the IBEW covering wages and working conditions, which is in effect through October 14, 2009.
Mississippi Power has an agreement with the IBEW covering wages and working conditions, which is in effect through August 16, 2010.
Southern Nuclear has agreements with the IBEW on a three-year contract extending to June 30, 2008 for Plants Hatch and Vogtle and a three-year contract which is in effect through August 15, 2009 for Plant Farley. Upon notice given at least 60 days prior to these dates, negotiations may be initiated with respect to agreement terms to be effective after such dates.
The agreements also subject the terms of the pension plans for the companies discussed above to collective bargaining with the unions at either a five-year or a 10-year cycle, depending upon union and company actions.

I-12


Table of Contents

Item 1A. RISK FACTORS
In addition to the other information in this Form 10-K, including MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS – FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL in Item 7 of each registrant, and other documents filed by Southern Company and/or its subsidiaries with the SEC from time to time, the following factors should be carefully considered in evaluating Southern Company and its subsidiaries. Such factors could affect actual results and cause results to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by, or on behalf of, Southern Company and/or its subsidiaries.
Risks Related to the Energy Industry
Southern Company and its subsidiaries are subject to substantial governmental regulation. Compliance with current and future regulatory requirements and procurement of necessary approvals, permits, and certificates may result in substantial costs to Southern Company and its subsidiaries.
Southern Company and its subsidiaries, including the traditional operating companies and Southern Power, are subject to substantial regulation from federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. Southern Company and its subsidiaries are required to comply with numerous laws and regulations and to obtain numerous permits, approvals, and certificates from the governmental agencies that regulate various aspects of their businesses, including customer rates, service regulations, retail service territories, sales of securities, asset acquisitions and sales, accounting policies and practices, and the operation of fossil-fuel, hydroelectric, and nuclear generating facilities. For example, the rates charged to wholesale customers by the traditional operating companies and by Southern Power must be approved by the FERC and failure to maintain FERC market-based rate authority may impact the rates charged to wholesale customers. Additionally, the respective state PSCs must approve the traditional operating companies’ rates for retail customers. While the retail rates approved by the respective state PSCs are designed to provide for recovery of costs and a return on invested capital, there can be no assurance that a state PSC will not deem certain costs to be imprudently incurred and not subject to recovery.
Southern Company and its subsidiaries believe the necessary permits, approvals and certificates have been obtained for its existing operations and that their respective businesses are conducted in accordance with applicable laws; however, the impact of any future revision or changes in interpretations of existing regulations or the adoption of new laws and regulations applicable to Southern Company or any of its subsidiaries cannot now be predicted. Changes in regulation or the imposition of additional regulations could influence the operating environment of Southern Company and its subsidiaries and may result in substantial costs.
Certain events in the energy markets that are beyond the control of Southern Company and its subsidiaries have increased the level of public and regulatory scrutiny in the energy industry and in the capital markets. The reaction to these events may result in new laws or regulations related to the business operations or the accounting treatment of the existing operations of Southern Company and its subsidiaries which could have a negative impact on the net income or access to capital of Southern Company and its subsidiaries.
Companies in regulated and unregulated electric utility businesses have been under an increased amount of public and regulatory scrutiny with respect to, among other things, accounting practices, financial disclosures, and relationships with independent auditors. This increased scrutiny has led to substantial changes in laws and regulations affecting Southern Company and its subsidiaries, including, among other things, enhanced internal control and auditor independence requirements, financial statement certification requirements, more frequent SEC reviews of financial statements, and accelerated and additional SEC filing requirements. New accounting and disclosure requirements have changed the way Southern Company and its subsidiaries are required to record revenues, expenses, assets, and liabilities. Southern Company expects continued regulatory focus on accounting and financial reporting issues. Disruptions in the industry and any resulting additional regulations may have a negative impact on the net income or access to capital of Southern Company and its subsidiaries.
General Risks Related to Operation of Southern Company’s Utility Subsidiaries
The regional power market in which Southern Company and its utility subsidiaries compete may have changing transmission regulatory structures, which could affect the ownership of these assets and related

I-13


Table of Contents

revenues and expenses.
The traditional operating companies currently own and operate transmission facilities as part of a vertically integrated utility. Transmission revenues are not separated from generation and distribution revenues in their approved retail rates. Current FERC efforts that may potentially change the regulatory and/or operational structure of transmission include rules related to the standardization of generation interconnection, as well as an inquiry into, among other things, market power by vertically integrated utilities. The financial condition, net income, and cash flows of Southern Company and its utility subsidiaries could be adversely affected by future changes in the federal regulatory or operational structure of transmission.
Deregulation or restructuring in the electric industry may result in increased competition and unrecovered costs which could negatively impact the net income of Southern Company and the traditional operating companies and the value of their respective assets.
Increased competition resulting from restructuring efforts, could have a significant adverse financial impact on Southern Company and the traditional operating companies. Any adoption in the territories served by the traditional operating companies of retail competition and the unbundling of regulated energy service could have a significant adverse financial impact on Southern Company and the traditional operating companies due to an impairment of assets, a loss of retail customers, lower profit margins, an inability to recover reasonable costs, or increased costs of capital. Southern Company and the traditional operating companies cannot predict if or when they may be subject to changes in legislation or regulation, nor can Southern Company and the traditional operating companies predict the impact of these changes.
Additionally, the electric utility industry has experienced a substantial increase in competition at the wholesale level. As a result of changes in federal law and regulatory policy, competition in the wholesale electricity market has greatly increased due to a greater participation by traditional electricity suppliers, non-utility generators, IPPs, wholesale power marketers, and brokers and due to the trading of energy futures contracts on various commodities exchanges. In addition, FERC rules on transmission service are designed to facilitate competition in the wholesale market on a nationwide basis by providing greater flexibility and more choices to wholesale power customers.
Changes to the criteria used by the FERC for approval of market-based rate authority may negatively impact the traditional operating companies’ and Southern Power’s ability to charge market-based rates which could negatively impact the net income and cash flow of Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power.
Each of the traditional operating companies and Southern Power have authorization from the FERC to sell power to nonaffiliates, including short-term opportunity sales, at market-based prices. Specific FERC approval must be obtained with respect to a market-based sale to an affiliate.
In December 2004, the FERC initiated a proceeding to assess Southern Company’s generation dominance within its retail service territory. The ability to charge market-based rates in other markets is 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 be subject to refund to a cost-based rate level.
In late June and July 2007, hearings were held in this proceeding and the presiding administrative law judge issued an initial decision on November 9, 2007 regarding the methodology to be used in the generation dominance tests. The proceedings are ongoing. The ultimate outcome of this generation dominance proceeding cannot now be determined, but an adverse decision by the FERC in a final order could require the traditional operating companies and Southern Power to charge cost-based rates for certain wholesale sales in the Southern Company retail service territory, which may be lower than negotiated market-based rates, and could also result in refunds of up to $19.7 million, plus interest. Southern Company and its subsidiaries believe that there is no meritorious basis for this proceeding and are vigorously defending themselves in this matter.

I-14


Table of Contents

On June 21, 2007, the FERC issued its final rule regarding market-based rate authority. The FERC generally retained its current market-based rate standards. The impact of this order and its effect on the generation dominance proceeding cannot now be determined.
Risks Related to Environmental and Climate Change Legislation and Regulation
Southern Company’s and the traditional operating companies’ costs of compliance with environmental laws are significant. The costs of compliance with future environmental laws, including laws and regulations designed to address global climate change, and the incurrence of environmental liabilities could affect unit retirement decisions and negatively impact the net income, cash flows, and financial condition of Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, or Southern Power.
Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power are subject to extensive federal, state, and local environmental requirements which, among other things, regulate air emissions, water discharges, and the management of hazardous and solid waste in order to adequately protect the environment. Compliance with these legal requirements requires Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power to commit significant expenditures for installation of pollution control equipment, environmental monitoring, emissions fees, and permits at all of their respective facilities. These expenditures are significant and Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power expect that they will increase in the future. Through 2007, Southern Company had invested approximately $4.7 billion in capital projects to comply with these requirements, with annual totals of $1.5 billion, $661 million, and $423 million for 2007, 2006, and 2005, respectively. Southern Company expects that capital expenditures to assure compliance with existing and new statutes and regulations will be an additional $1.8 billion, $1.5 billion, and $0.6 billion for 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively. Because Southern Company’s compliance strategy is impacted by changes to existing environmental laws, statutes, and regulations, the cost, availability, and existing inventory of emission allowances, and Southern Company’s fuel mix, the ultimate outcome cannot be determined at this time.
Litigation over environmental issues and claims of various types, including property damage, personal injury, 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 claims for damages caused by alleged exposure to hazardous materials have become more frequent.
If Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, or Southern Power fail to comply with environmental laws and regulations, even if caused by factors beyond their control, that failure may result in the assessment of civil or criminal penalties and fines. The EPA has filed civil actions against Alabama Power and Georgia Power alleging violations of the new source review provisions of the Clean Air Act. Southern Company is a party to suits alleging its emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, contribute to global warming. An adverse outcome in either of these cases could require substantial capital expenditures that cannot be determined at this time, and could possibly require payment of substantial penalties. Such expenditures could affect unit retirement and replacement decisions, and results of operations, cash flows, and financial condition if such costs are not recovered through regulated rates.
Existing environmental laws and regulations may be revised or new laws and regulations related to global climate change, air quality, or other environmental and health concerns may be adopted or become applicable to Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power. For example, legislative proposals that would impose mandatory requirements on greenhouse gas emissions continue to be considered in Congress. In addition, some states are considering or have undertaken actions to regulate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In July 2007, for example, the Governor of the State of Florida signed three executive orders addressing reduction of greenhouse gas emissions within the state, including statewide emission reduction targets beginning in 2017. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles. The EPA is currently developing its response to this decision. Regulatory decisions that will follow from this response may have implications for both new and existing stationary sources, such as power plants.
New or revised laws and regulations or new interpretations of existing laws and regulations, such as those related to climate change, could affect unit retirement and replacement decisions and/or result in significant additional expense and operating restrictions on the facilities of the traditional operating companies or Southern Power or increased

I-15


Table of Contents

compliance costs which may not be fully recoverable from customers and would therefore reduce the net income of Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, or Southern Power. The cost impact of such legislation, regulation, or new interpretations would depend upon the specific requirements enacted and cannot be determined at this time.
Risks Related to Southern Company and its Business
Southern Company may be unable to meet its ongoing and future financial obligations and to pay dividends on its common stock if its subsidiaries are unable to pay upstream dividends or repay funds to Southern Company.
Southern Company is a holding company and, as such, Southern Company has no operations of its own. Substantially all of Southern Company’s consolidated assets are held by subsidiaries. Southern Company’s ability to meet its financial obligations and to pay dividends on its common stock at the current rate is primarily dependent on the net income and cash flows of its subsidiaries and their ability to pay upstream dividends or to repay funds to Southern Company. Prior to funding Southern Company, Southern Company’s subsidiaries have financial obligations that must be satisfied, including among others, debt service and preferred and preference stock dividends. Southern Company’s subsidiaries are separate legal entities and have no obligation to provide Southern Company with funds for its payment obligations.
The financial performance of Southern Company and its subsidiaries may be adversely affected if its subsidiaries are unable to successfully operate their facilities.
Southern Company’s financial performance depends on the successful operation of its subsidiaries’ electric generating, transmission, and distribution facilities. Operating these facilities involves many risks, including:
    operator error or failure of equipment or processes;
 
    operating limitations that may be imposed by environmental or other regulatory requirements;
 
    labor disputes;
 
    terrorist attacks;
 
    fuel or material supply interruptions;
 
    compliance with mandatory reliability standards; and
 
    catastrophic events such as fires, earthquakes, explosions, floods, droughts, hurricanes, pandemic health events such as an avian influenza, or other similar occurrences.
A decrease or elimination of revenues from power produced by the electric generating facilities or an increase in the cost of operating the facilities would reduce the net income and cash flows and could adversely impact the financial condition of the affected traditional operating company or Southern Power and of Southern Company.
The revenues of Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power depend in part on sales under PPAs. The failure of a counterparty to one of these PPAs to perform its obligations, or the failure to renew the PPAs, could have a negative impact on the net income and cash flows of the affected traditional operating company or Southern Power and of Southern Company.
Most of Southern Power’s generating capacity has been sold to purchasers under PPAs having initial terms of five to 15 years. In addition, the traditional operating companies enter into PPAs with non-affiliated parties. Revenues are dependent on the continued performance by the purchasers of their obligations under these PPAs. Even though Southern Power and the traditional operating companies have a rigorous credit evaluation process, the failure of one of the purchasers to perform its obligations could have a negative impact on the net income and cash flows of the affected traditional operating company or Southern Power and of Southern Company. Although these credit

I-16


Table of Contents

evaluations take into account the possibility of default by a purchaser, actual exposure to a default by a purchaser may be greater than the credit evaluation predicts. Additionally, neither Southern Power nor any traditional operating company can predict whether the PPAs will be renewed at the end of their respective terms or on what terms any renewals may be made. If a PPA is not renewed, a replacement PPA cannot be assured.
Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power may incur additional costs or delays in the construction of new plants or environmental facilities and may not be able to recover their investment. The facilities of Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power require ongoing capital expenditures.
Certain of the traditional operating companies and Southern Power are in the process of constructing new generating facilities and adding environmental controls equipment at existing generating facilities. Southern Company intends to continue its strategy of developing and constructing other new facilities, expanding existing facilities and adding environmental control equipment. The completion of these types of projects without delays or cost overruns is subject to substantial risks, including:
    shortages and inconsistent quality of equipment, materials, and labor, including environmental laws and regulations;
 
    work stoppages;
 
    permits, approvals, and other regulatory matters;
 
    adverse weather conditions;
 
    unforeseen engineering problems;
 
    environmental and geological conditions;
 
    delays or increased costs to interconnect its facilities to transmission grids;
 
    unanticipated cost increases; and
 
    attention to other projects.
Tightening labor markets in the Southeast and increasing costs of materials have resulted in increasing cost estimates for Southern Company’s subsidiaries’ construction projects. If a traditional operating company or Southern Power is unable to complete the development or construction of a facility or decides to delay or cancel construction of a facility, it may not be able to recover its investment in that facility. In addition, construction delays and contractor performance shortfalls can result in the loss of revenues and may, in turn, adversely affect the net income and financial position of a traditional operating company or Southern Power and of Southern Company. Furthermore, if construction projects are not completed according to specification, a traditional operating company or Southern Power and Southern Company may incur liabilities and suffer reduced plant efficiency, higher operating costs, and reduced net income.
Once facilities come into commercial operation, ongoing capital expenditures are required to maintain reliable levels of operation. Significant portions of the traditional operating companies’ existing facilities were constructed many years ago. Older generation equipment, even if maintained in accordance with good engineering practices, may require significant capital expenditures to maintain efficiency, to comply with changing environmental requirements, or to provide reliable operations.
Changes in technology may make Southern Company’s electric generating facilities owned by the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power less competitive.
A key element of the business model of Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power is that generating power at central station power plants achieves economies of scale and produces power at a

I-17


Table of Contents

competitive cost. There are distributed generation technologies that produce power, including fuel cells, microturbines, wind turbines, and solar cells. It is possible that advances in technology will reduce the cost of alternative methods of producing power to a level that is competitive with that of most central station power electric production. If this were to happen and if these technologies achieved economies of scale, the market share of Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power could be eroded, and the value of their respective electric generating facilities could be reduced. It is also possible that rapid advances in central station power generation technology could reduce the value of the current electric generating facilities owned by Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power. Changes in technology could also alter the channels through which retail electric customers buy or utilize power, which could reduce the revenues or increase the expenses of Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, or Southern Power.
Operation of nuclear facilities involves inherent risks, including environmental, health, regulatory, terrorism and financial risks that could result in fines or the closure of Southern Company’s nuclear units owned by Alabama Power or Georgia Power, and which may present potential exposures in excess of insurance coverage.
Alabama Power owns two nuclear units and Georgia Power holds undivided interests in, and contracts for operation of, four nuclear units. These six units are operated by Southern Nuclear and represent approximately 3,680 megawatts, or 8.8%, of Southern Company’s generation capacity as of December 31, 2007. These nuclear facilities are subject to environmental, health and financial risks such as on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel, the ability to dispose of such spent nuclear fuel, the ability to maintain adequate reserves for decommissioning, potential liabilities arising out of the operation of these facilities, and the threat of a possible terrorist attack. Alabama Power and Georgia Power maintain decommissioning trusts and external insurance coverage to minimize the financial exposure to these risks; however, it is possible that damages could exceed the amount of insurance coverage.
The NRC has broad authority under federal law to impose licensing and safety-related requirements for the operation of nuclear generation facilities. In the event of non-compliance, the NRC has the authority to impose fines or shut down a unit, or both, depending upon its assessment of the severity of the situation, until compliance is achieved. NRC orders or new regulations related to increased security measures and any future safety requirements promulgated by the NRC could require Alabama Power and Georgia Power to make substantial operating and capital expenditures at their nuclear plants. In addition, although Alabama Power, Georgia Power, and Southern Company have no reason to anticipate a serious nuclear incident at their plants, if an incident did occur, it could result in substantial costs to Alabama Power or Georgia Power and Southern Company. A major incident at a nuclear facility anywhere in the world could cause the NRC to limit or prohibit the operation or licensing of any domestic nuclear unit.
In addition, potential terrorist threats and increased public scrutiny of utilities could result in increased nuclear licensing or compliance costs that are difficult or impossible to predict.
The generation and energy marketing operations of Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power are subject to risks, many of which are beyond their control, including changes in power prices and fuel costs, that may reduce Southern Company’s, the traditional operating companies,’ and Southern Power’s revenues and increase costs.
The generation and energy marketing operations of Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power are subject to changes in power prices or fuel costs, which could increase the cost of producing power or decrease the amount Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power receive from the sale of power. The market prices for these commodities may fluctuate significantly over relatively short periods of time. Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power attempt to mitigate risks associated with fluctuating fuel costs by passing these costs on to customers through the traditional operating companies’ fuel cost recovery clauses or through PPAs. Among the factors that could influence power prices and fuel costs are:
    prevailing market prices for coal, natural gas, uranium, fuel oil, and other fuels used in the generation facilities of the traditional operating companies and Southern Power including associated transportation costs, and supplies of such commodities;

I-18


Table of Contents

    demand for energy and the extent of additional supplies of energy available from current or new competitors;
 
    liquidity in the general wholesale electricity market;
 
    weather conditions impacting demand for electricity;
 
    seasonality;
 
    transmission or transportation constraints or inefficiencies;
 
    availability of competitively priced alternative energy sources;
 
    forced or unscheduled plant outages for the Southern Company system, its competitors, or third party providers;
 
    the financial condition of market participants;
 
    the economy in the service territory, nation and worldwide, including the impact of economic conditions on industrial and commercial demand for electricity and the worldwide demand for fuels;
 
    natural disasters, wars, embargos, acts of terrorism, and other catastrophic events; and
 
    federal, state, and foreign energy and environmental regulation and legislation.
Certain of these factors could increase the expenses of the traditional operating companies or Southern Power and Southern Company. For the traditional operating companies, such increases may not be fully recoverable through rates. Other of these factors could reduce the revenues of the traditional operating companies or Southern Power and Southern Company.
As a result of increasing fuel costs, the traditional operating companies have accrued significant underrecovered fuel cost balances. In addition, Gulf Power has a significant underrecovered balance in its storm cost recovery reserve as a result of Hurricanes Dennis and Katrina. The traditional operating companies may experience similar deficit balances following future storms. While the traditional operating companies are generally authorized to recover underrecovered fuel costs through fuel cost recovery clauses and storm recovery costs through special rate provisions administered by the respective PSCs, recovery may be denied if costs are deemed to be imprudently incurred and delays in the authorization of such recovery could negatively impact the cash flows of the affected traditional operating company and Southern Company.
The use of derivative contracts by Southern Company and its subsidiaries in the normal course of business could result in financial losses that negatively impact the net income of Southern Company and its subsidiaries.
Southern Company and its subsidiaries, including the traditional operating companies and Southern Power, use derivative instruments, such as swaps, options, futures, and forwards, to manage their commodity and financial market risks and, to a lesser extent, engage in limited trading activities. Southern Company and its subsidiaries could recognize financial losses as a result of volatility in the market values of these contracts or if a counterparty fails to perform. In the absence of actively quoted market prices and pricing information from external sources, the valuation of these financial instruments can involve management’s judgment or use of estimates. As a result, changes in the underlying assumptions or use of alternative valuation methods could affect the value of the reported fair value of these contracts.
The traditional operating companies and Southern Power may not be able to obtain adequate fuel supplies, which could limit their ability to operate their facilities.

I-19


Table of Contents

The traditional operating companies and Southern Power purchase fuel, including coal, natural gas, uranium, and fuel oil, from a number of suppliers. Disruption in the delivery of fuel, including disruptions as a result of, among other things, transportation delays, weather, labor relations, force majeure events, or environmental regulations affecting any of these fuel suppliers, could limit the ability of the traditional operating companies and Southern Power to operate their respective facilities, and thus reduce the net income of the affected traditional operating company or Southern Power and Southern Company.
The traditional operating companies are dependent on coal for much of their electric generating capacity. Each traditional operating company has coal supply contracts in place; however, there can be no assurance that the counterparties to these agreements will fulfill their obligations to supply coal to the traditional operating companies. The suppliers under these agreements may experience financial or technical problems which inhibit their ability to fulfill their obligations to the traditional operating companies. In addition, the suppliers under these agreements may not be required to supply coal to the traditional operating companies under certain circumstances, such as in the event of a natural disaster. If the traditional operating companies are unable to obtain their coal requirements under these contracts, the traditional operating companies may be required to purchase their coal requirements at higher prices, which may not be fully recoverable through rates.
In addition, Southern Power in particular, and the traditional operating companies to a lesser extent, are dependent on natural gas for a portion of their electric generating capacity. Natural gas supplies can be subject to disruption in the event production or distribution is curtailed. For example, in connection with the 2005 hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, production and distribution of natural gas was limited for a period of time, resulting in shortages and significant increases in the price of natural gas. In addition, world market conditions for fuels, including the policies of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, can impact the price and availability of natural gas.
Demand for power could exceed supply capacity, resulting in increased costs for purchasing capacity in the open market or building additional generation capabilities.
Through the traditional operating companies and Southern Power, Southern Company is currently obligated to supply power to retail customers and wholesale customers under long-term PPAs. At peak times, the demand for power required to meet this obligation could exceed Southern Company’s available generation capacity. Market or competitive forces may require that the traditional operating companies or Southern Power purchase capacity on the open market or build additional generation capabilities. Because regulators may not permit the traditional operating companies to pass all of these purchase or construction costs on to their customers, the traditional operating companies may not be able to recover any of these costs or may have exposure to regulatory lag associated with the time between the incurrence of costs of purchased or constructed capacity and the traditional operating companies’ recovery in customers’ rates. Under Southern Power’s long-term fixed price PPAs, Southern Power would not have the ability to recover any of these costs. These situations could have negative impacts on net income and cash flows for the affected traditional operating company or Southern Power and Southern Company.
The operating results of Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power are affected by weather conditions and may fluctuate on a seasonal and quarterly basis.
Electric power supply is generally a seasonal business. In many parts of the country, demand for power peaks during the summer months, with market prices also peaking at that time. In other areas, power demand peaks during the winter. As a result, the overall operating results of Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power in the future may fluctuate substantially on a seasonal basis. In addition, Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power have historically sold less power when weather conditions are milder. Unusually mild weather in the future could reduce the revenues, net income, available cash and borrowing ability of Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power.
Mirant and The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Mirant Corporation have filed a claim against Southern Company seeking substantial monetary damages in connection with transfers made by Mirant to Southern Company prior to the Mirant spin-off.

I-20


Table of Contents

Mirant was an energy company with businesses that included independent power projects and energy trading and risk management companies in the U.S. and selected other countries. It was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Southern Company until its initial public offering in October 2000. In April 2001, Southern Company completed a spin-off to its shareholders of its remaining ownership, and Mirant became an independent corporate entity.
In July 2003, Mirant and certain of its affiliates filed for voluntary reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. In January 2006, Mirant’s plan of reorganization became effective, and Mirant emerged from bankruptcy. As part of the plan, Mirant transferred substantially all of its assets and its restructured debt to a new corporation that adopted the name Mirant Corporation (Reorganized Mirant).
In December 2004, as a result of concluding an IRS audit for the tax years 2000 and 2001, Southern Company paid approximately $39 million in additional tax and interest related to Mirant tax items and filed a claim in Mirant’s bankruptcy case for that amount. Through December 2007, Southern Company received from the IRS approximately $36 million in refunds related to Mirant. Southern Company believes it has a right to recoup the $39 million tax payment owed by Mirant from such tax refunds. As a result, Southern Company intends to retain the tax refunds and reduce its claim against Mirant for the payment of Mirant taxes by the amount of such refunds.  MC Asset Recovery, a special purpose subsidiary of Reorganized Mirant, has objected to and sought to equitably subordinate the Southern Company tax claim in its fraudulent transfer litigation against Southern Company.  Southern Company has reserved the approximately $3 million amount remaining with respect to its Mirant tax claim.
If Southern Company is ultimately required to make any additional payments either with respect to the IRS audit or its contingent obligations under guarantees of Mirant subsidiaries, Mirant’s indemnification obligation to Southern Company for these additional payments, if allowed, would constitute unsecured claims against Mirant, entitled to stock in Reorganized Mirant.
In June 2005, Mirant, as a debtor in possession, and The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Mirant Corporation filed a complaint against Southern Company in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, which was amended in July 2005, February 2006, May 2006, and March 2007. In January 2006, MC Asset Recovery was substituted as plaintiff. The fourth amended complaint alleges that Southern Company caused Mirant to engage in certain fraudulent transfers and to pay illegal dividends to Southern Company prior to the spin-off. The complaint also seeks to recharacterize certain advances from Southern Company to Mirant for investments in energy facilities from debt to equity. The complaint further alleges that Southern Company is liable to Mirant’s creditors for the full amount of Mirant’s liability and that Southern Company breached its fiduciary duties to Mirant and its creditors, caused Mirant to breach fiduciary duties to its creditors, and aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by Mirant’s directors and officers. The complaint also seeks recoveries under theories of restitution, unjust enrichment, and alter ego. In addition, the complaint alleges a claim under the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act (FDCPA) to void certain transfers from Mirant to Southern Company. MC Asset Recovery claims to have standing to assert violations of the FDCPA and to recover property on behalf of the Mirant debtors’ estates. The complaint seeks monetary damages in excess of $2 billion plus interest, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. Finally, the complaint includes an objection to Southern Company’s pending claims against Mirant in the Bankruptcy Court (which relate to reimbursement under the separation agreements of payments such as income taxes, interest, legal fees, and other guarantees described in Note 7 to the financial statements of Southern Company in Item 8 herein) and seeks equitable subordination of Southern Company’s claims to the claims of all other creditors. Southern Company served an answer to the complaint in April 2007.
In February 2006, Southern Company’s motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia was granted. In May 2006, Southern Company filed a motion for summary judgment seeking entry of judgment against the plaintiff as to all counts in the complaint. In December 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted in part and denied in part the motion. As a result, certain breach of fiduciary duty claims alleged in earlier versions of the complaint were barred; all other claims may proceed. Southern Company believes there is no meritorious basis for the claims in the complaint and is vigorously defending itself in this action. The ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be determined at this time.
IRS challenges to Southern Company’s income tax deductions taken in connection with three international leveraged lease transactions could result in the payment of substantial additional interest and penalties and

I-21


Table of Contents

could materially impact Southern Company’s cash flow and net income.
Southern Company undergoes audits by the IRS for each of its tax years. The IRS has completed its audits of Southern Company’s consolidated federal income tax returns for all years prior to 2004. The IRS challenged Southern Company’s deductions related to three international lease transactions (SILO or sale-in-lease-out transactions), in connection with its audits of Southern Company’s 2000 through 2003 tax returns. In the third quarter 2006, Southern Company paid the full amount of the disputed tax and the applicable interest on the SILO issue for tax years 2000 and 2001 and filed a claim for refund which was denied by the IRS. The disputed tax amount was $79 million and the related interest approximately $24 million for these tax years. This payment, and the subsequent IRS disallowance of the refund claim, closed the issue with the IRS and Southern Company initiated litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for a complete refund of tax and interest paid for the 2000 and 2001 tax years. The IRS also challenged the SILO deductions for the tax years 2002 and 2003. The estimated amount of disputed tax and interest for these tax years was approximately $83 million and $15 million, respectively. The tax and interest for these tax years was paid to the IRS in the fourth quarter 2006. Southern Company has accounted for both payments in 2006 as deposits. For the tax years 2000 through 2007, Southern Company has claimed approximately $330 million in tax benefits related to these SILO transactions challenged by the IRS. These tax benefits relate to timing differences and do not impact total net income. Southern Company believes these transactions are valid leases for U.S. tax purposes and the related deductions are allowable. Southern Company is continuing to pursue resolution of these matters; however, the ultimate outcome cannot now be determined. In addition, the U.S. Senate is currently considering legislation that would disallow tax benefits after December 31, 2007 for SILO losses and other international leveraged lease transactions (such as lease-in-lease-out transactions). The ultimate impact on Southern Company’s net income will be dependent on the outcome of the pending litigation and proposed legislation, but could be significant, and potentially material.
Risks Related to Market and Economic Volatility
The business of Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power is dependent on their ability to successfully access capital markets. The inability of Southern Company, any traditional operating company or Southern Power to access capital may limit its ability to execute its business plan or pursue improvements and make acquisitions that Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, or Southern Power may otherwise rely on for future growth.
Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power rely on access to both short-term money markets and longer-term capital markets as a significant source of liquidity for capital requirements not satisfied by the cash flow from their respective operations. If Southern Company, any traditional operating company, or Southern Power is not able to access capital at competitive rates, its ability to implement its business plan or pursue improvements and make acquisitions that Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, or Southern Power may otherwise rely on for future growth will be limited. Each of Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power believes that it will maintain sufficient access to these financial markets based upon current credit ratings. However, certain market disruptions or a downgrade of the credit rating of Southern Company, any traditional operating company, or Southern Power may increase its cost of borrowing or adversely affect its ability to raise capital through the issuance of securities or other borrowing arrangements. Such disruptions could include:
    an economic downturn or uncertainty;
 
    the bankruptcy of an unrelated energy company;
 
    capital market conditions generally;
 
    market prices for electricity and gas;
 
    terrorist attacks or threatened attacks on Southern Company’s facilities or unrelated energy companies;
 
    war or threat of war; or

I-22


Table of Contents

    the overall health of the utility industry.
Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power are subject to risks associated with a changing economic environment, including their ability to obtain insurance, the financial stability of their respective customers, and their ability to raise capital.
The threat of terrorism and the hurricanes that affected the Gulf Coast, among other things, have had disruptive effects on the insurance industry. The availability of insurance covering risks that Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, Southern Power, and their respective competitors typically insure against may decrease, and the insurance that Southern Company, the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power are able to obtain may have higher deductibles, higher premiums, and more restrictive policy terms. Any economic downturn or disruption of financial markets could negatively affect the financial stability of their respective customers and counterparties. These factors could adversely affect Southern Company’s subsidiaries’ ability to achieve energy sales growth, thereby decreasing Southern Company’s level of future net income.
Certain of the traditional operating companies have substantial investments in the Gulf Coast region which can be subject to major storm activity. The ability of the traditional operating companies to recover costs and replenish reserves in the event of a major storm, other natural disaster, terrorist attack, or other catastrophic event generally will require regulatory action.
Each traditional operating company maintains a reserve for property damage to cover the cost of damages from major storms to its transmission and distribution lines and the cost of uninsured damages to its generating facilities and other property. In September 2004, Hurricane Ivan hit the Gulf coast of Florida and Alabama, causing significant damage to the service areas of Alabama Power and Gulf Power. In July and August 2005, Hurricanes Dennis and Katrina, respectively, hit the Gulf coast of the United States and caused significant damage in the service areas of Gulf Power, Alabama Power, and Mississippi Power. In each case, costs to the respective traditional operating companies exceeded their respective storm cost reserves and insurance coverage and were subsequently approved for recovery by their respective state PSCs. In the event a traditional operating company experiences a natural disaster, terrorist attack, or other catastrophic event, recovery of costs in excess of reserves and insurance coverage is subject to the approval of its state PSC. While the traditional operating companies generally are entitled to recover prudently incurred costs incurred in connection with such an event, any denial by the applicable state PSC or delay in recovery of any portion of such costs could have a material negative impact on a traditional operating company’s and Southern Company’s results of operations and/or cash flows.
Item 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS.
None.

I-23


Table of Contents

Item 2. PROPERTIES
Electric Properties – The Electric Utilities
The traditional operating companies, Southern Power, and SEGCO, at December 31, 2007, owned and/or operated 34 hydroelectric generating stations, 34 fossil fuel generating stations, 3 nuclear generating stations, and 12 combined cycle/cogeneration stations. The amounts of capacity for each company are shown in the table below.
             
        Nameplate
Generating Station   Location   Capacity (1)
        (Kilowatts)
FOSSIL STEAM
           
Gadsden
  Gadsden, AL     120,000  
Gorgas
  Jasper, AL     1,221,250  
Barry
  Mobile, AL     1,525,000  
Greene County
  Demopolis, AL     300,000 (2)
Gaston Unit 5
  Wilsonville, AL     880,000  
Miller
  Birmingham, AL     2,532,288 (3)
 
           
Alabama Power Total
        6,578,538  
 
           
 
           
Bowen
  Cartersville, GA     3,160,000  
Branch
  Milledgeville, GA     1,539,700  
Hammond
  Rome, GA     800,000  
Kraft
  Port Wentworth, GA     281,136  
McDonough
  Atlanta, GA     490,000  
McIntosh
  Effingham County, GA     163,117  
McManus
  Brunswick, GA     115,000  
Mitchell
  Albany, GA     125,000  
Scherer
  Macon, GA     750,924 (4)
Wansley
  Carrollton, GA     925,550 (5)
Yates
  Newnan, GA     1,250,000  
 
           
Georgia Power Total
        9,600,427  
 
           
 
           
Crist
  Pensacola, FL     970,000  
Daniel
  Pascagoula, MS     500,000 (6)
Lansing Smith
  Panama City, FL     305,000  
Scholz
  Chattahoochee, FL     80,000  
Scherer Unit 3
  Macon, GA     204,500 (4)
 
           
Gulf Power Total
        2,059,500  
 
           
 
           
Daniel
  Pascagoula, MS     500,000 (6)
Eaton
  Hattiesburg, MS     67,500  
Greene County
  Demopolis, AL     200,000 (2)
Sweatt
  Meridian, MS     80,000  
Watson
  Gulfport, MS     1,012,000  
 
           
Mississippi Power Total
        1,859,500  
 
           
 
           
Gaston Units 1-4
  Wilsonville, AL        
SEGCO Total
        1,000,000 (7)
 
           
Total Fossil Steam
        21,097,965  
 
           
 
           
NUCLEAR STEAM
           
Farley
  Dothan, AL        
Alabama Power Total
        1,720,000  
 
           
 
           
Hatch
  Baxley, GA     899,612 (8)
Vogtle
  Augusta, GA     1,060,240 (9)
 
           
Georgia Power Total
        1,959,852  
 
           
Total Nuclear Steam
        3,679,852  
 
           
 
           
COMBUSTION TURBINES
           
Greene County
  Demopolis, AL        
Alabama Power Total
        720,000  
 
           
 
           
Boulevard
  Savannah, GA     59,100  
Bowen
  Cartersville, GA     39,400  
Intercession City
  Intercession City, FL     47,667 (10)
Kraft
  Port Wentworth, GA     22,000  
McDonough
  Atlanta, GA     78,800  
McIntosh Units 1 through 8
  Effingham County, GA     640,000  
McManus
  Brunswick, GA     481,700  
Mitchell
  Albany, GA     118,200  
Robins
  Warner Robins, GA     158,400  
Wansley
  Carrollton, GA     26,322  
Wilson
  Augusta, GA     354,100  
 
           
Georgia Power Total
        2,025,689  
 
           
 
           
Lansing Smith Unit A
  Panama City, FL     39,400  
Pea Ridge Units 1-3
  Pea Ridge, FL     15,000  
 
           
Gulf Power Total
        54,400  
 
           
 
Chevron Cogenerating Station
  Pascagoula, MS     147,292 (11)
Sweatt
  Meridian, MS     39,400  

I-24


Table of Contents

             
        Nameplate
Generating Station   Location   Capacity (1)
        (Kilowatts)
Watson
  Gulfport, MS     39,360  
 
           
Mississippi Power Total
        226,052  
 
           
 
           
Dahlberg
  Jackson County, GA     756,000  
DeSoto
  Arcadia, FL     343,760  
Oleander
  Cocoa, FL     791,301  
Rowan
  Salisbury, NC     455,250  
 
           
Southern Power Total
        2,346,311  
 
           
 
           
Gaston (SEGCO)
  Wilsonville, AL     19,680 (7)
 
           
Total Combustion Turbines
        5,392,132  
 
           
 
           
COGENERATION
           
Washington County
  Washington County, AL     123,428  
GE Plastics Project
  Burkeville, AL     104,800  
Theodore
  Theodore, AL     236,418  
 
           
Total Cogeneration
        464,646  
 
           
 
           
COMBINED CYCLE
           
Barry
  Mobile, AL        
Alabama Power Total
        1,070,424  
 
           
McIntosh Units 10&11
  Effingham County, GA        
Georgia Power Total
        1,318,920  
 
           
Smith
  Lynn Haven, FL        
Gulf Power Total
        545,500  
 
           
Daniel (Leased)
  Pascagoula, MS        
Mississippi Power Total
        1,070,424  
 
           
Franklin
  Smiths, AL     1,198,360  
Harris
  Autaugaville, AL     1,318,920  
Rowan
  Salisbury, NC     530,550  
Stanton Unit A
  Orlando, FL     428,649 (12)
Wansley
  Carrollton, GA     1,073,000  
 
           
Southern Power Total
        4,549,479  
 
           
Total Combined Cycle
        8,554,747  
 
           
 
           
HYDROELECTRIC FACILITIES
           
Bankhead
  Holt, AL     53,985  
Bouldin
  Wetumpka, AL     225,000  
Harris
  Wedowee, AL     132,000  
Henry
  Ohatchee, AL     72,900  
Holt
  Holt, AL     46,944  
Jordan
  Wetumpka, AL     100,000  
Lay
  Clanton, AL     177,000  
Lewis Smith
  Jasper, AL     157,500  
Logan Martin
  Vincent, AL     135,000  
Martin
  Dadeville, AL     182,000  
Mitchell
  Verbena, AL     170,000  
Thurlow
  Tallassee, AL     81,000  
Weiss
  Leesburg, AL     87,750  
Yates
  Tallassee, AL     47,000  
 
           
Alabama Power Total
        1,668,079  
 
           
 
           
Barnett Shoals (Leased)
  Athens, GA     2,800  
Bartletts Ferry
  Columbus, GA     173,000  
Goat Rock
  Columbus, GA     38,600  
Lloyd Shoals
  Jackson, GA     14,400  
Morgan Falls
  Atlanta, GA     16,800  
North Highlands
  Columbus, GA     29,600  
Oliver Dam
  Columbus, GA     60,000  
Rocky Mountain
  Rome, GA     215,256 (13)
Sinclair Dam
  Milledgeville, GA     45,000  
Tallulah Falls
  Clayton, GA     72,000  
Terrora
  Clayton, GA     16,000  
Tugalo
  Clayton, GA     45,000  
Wallace Dam
  Eatonton, GA     321,300  
Yonah
  Toccoa, GA     22,500  
6 Other Plants
        18,080  
 
           
Georgia Power Total
        1,090,336  
 
           
Total Hydroelectric Facilities
        2,758,415  
 
           
 
           
Total Generating Capacity
        41,947,757  
 
           
 
Notes:
 
(1)   See “Jointly-Owned Facilities” herein for additional information.
 
(2)   Owned by Alabama Power and Mississippi Power as tenants in common in the proportions of 60% and 40%, respectively.
 
(3)   Capacity shown is Alabama Power’s portion (91.84%) of total plant capacity.
 
(4)   Capacity shown for Georgia Power is 8.4% of Units 1 and 2 and 75% of Unit 3. Capacity shown for Gulf Power is 25% of Unit 3.
 
(5)   Capacity shown is Georgia Power’s portion (53.5%) of total plant capacity.

I-25


Table of Contents

(6)   Represents 50% of the plant which is owned as tenants in common by Gulf Power and Mississippi Power.
 
(7)   SEGCO is jointly-owned by Alabama Power and Georgia Power. See BUSINESS in Item 1 herein for additional information.
 
(8)   Capacity shown is Georgia Power’s portion (50.1%) of total plant capacity.
 
(9)   Capacity shown is Georgia Power’s portion (45.7%) of total plant capacity.
 
(10)   Capacity shown represents 33 1/3% of total plant capacity. Georgia Power owns a 1/3 interest in the unit with 100% use of the unit from June through September. Progress Energy Florida operates the unit.
 
(11)   Generation is dedicated to a single industrial customer.
 
(12)   Capacity shown is Southern Power’s portion (65%) of total plant capacity.
 
(13)   Capacity shown is Georgia Power’s portion (25.4%) of total plant capacity. OPC operates the plant.
Except as discussed below under “Titles to Property,” the principal plants and other important units of the traditional operating companies, Southern Power, and SEGCO are owned in fee by the respective companies. It is the opinion of management of each such company that its operating properties are adequately maintained and are substantially in good operating condition.
Mississippi Power owns a 79-mile length of 500-kilovolt transmission line which is leased to Entergy Gulf States. The line, completed in 1984, extends from Plant Daniel to the Louisiana state line. Entergy Gulf States is paying a use fee over a 40-year period covering all expenses and the amortization of the original $57 million cost of the line. At December 31, 2007, the unamortized portion of this cost was approximately $25 million.
The all-time maximum demand on the traditional operating companies, Southern Power, and SEGCO was 38,777,000 kilowatts and occurred on August 22, 2007. This amount excludes demand served by capacity retained by MEAG, OPC, and SEPA. The reserve margin for the traditional operating companies, Southern Power, and SEGCO at that time was 11.2%. See SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA in Item 6 herein for additional information on peak demands.

I-26


Table of Contents

Jointly-Owned Facilities
Alabama Power, Georgia Power, and Southern Power have undivided interests in certain generating plants and other related facilities to or from non-affiliated parties. The percentages of ownership are as follows:
                                                                                                 
            Percentage Ownership
                                                            Progress                
    Total   Alabama   Power   Georgia                           Energy   Southern            
    Capacity   Power   South   Power   OPC   MEAG   Dalton   Florida   Power   OUC   FMPA   KUA
    (Megawatts)                                                                                        
Plant Miller
Units 1 and 2
    1,320       91.8 %     8.2 %     %     %     %     %     %     %     %     %     %
Plant Hatch
    1,796                   50.1       30.0       17.7       2.2                                
Plant Vogtle
    2,320                   45.7       30.0       22.7       1.6                                
Plant Scherer
Units 1 and 2
    1,636                   8.4       60.0       30.2       1.4                                
Plant Wansley
    1,779                   53.5       30.0       15.1       1.4                                
Rocky Mountain
    848                   25.4       74.6                                            
Intercession City, FL
    143                   33.3                         66.7                          
Plant Stanton A
    660                                                 65 %     28 %     3.5 %     3.5 %
 
Alabama Power and Georgia Power have contracted to operate and maintain the respective units in which each has an interest (other than Rocky Mountain and Intercession City) as agent for the joint owners. SCS provides operation and maintenance services for Plant Stanton A.
In addition, Georgia Power has commitments regarding a portion of a five percent interest in Plant Vogtle owned by MEAG that are in effect until the later of retirement of the plant or the latest stated maturity date of MEAG’s bonds issued to finance such ownership interest. The payments for capacity are required whether any capacity is available. The energy cost is a function of each unit’s variable operating costs. Except for the portion of the capacity payments related to the Georgia PSC’s disallowances of Plant Vogtle costs, the cost of such capacity and energy is included in purchased power from non-affiliates in Georgia Power’s statements of income in Item 8 herein.
Titles to Property
The traditional operating companies’, Southern Power’s, and SEGCO’s interests in the principal plants (other than certain pollution control facilities, one small hydroelectric generating station leased by Georgia Power, combined cycle units at Plant Daniel leased by Mississippi Power and the land on which five combustion turbine generators of Mississippi Power are located, which is held by easement) and other important units of the respective companies are owned in fee by such companies, subject only to the liens pursuant to pollution control bonds of Alabama Power and Gulf Power on specific pollution control facilities. As of January 26, 2007, Gulf Power’s mortgage indenture and the lien on its principal property were discharged. See Note 6 to the financial statements of Southern Company, Alabama Power, and Gulf Power under “Assets Subject to Lien” and Note 7 to the financial statements of Mississippi Power under “Operating Leases – Plant Daniel Combined Cycle Generating Units” in Item 8 herein for additional information. The traditional operating companies own the fee interests in certain of their principal plants as tenants in common. See “Jointly-Owned Facilities” herein for additional information. Properties such as electric transmission and distribution lines and steam heating mains are constructed principally on rights-of-way which are maintained under franchise or are held by easement only. A substantial portion of lands submerged by reservoirs is held under flood right easements.

I-27


Table of Contents

Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
(1) United States of America v. Alabama Power (United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama)
      United States of America v. Georgia Power and Savannah Electric (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia)
See “Environmental Matters – New Source Review Actions” in Note 3 to Southern Company’s and each traditional operating company’s financial statements in Item 8 herein for information.
(2) Environmental Remediation
See “Environmental Matters – Environmental Remediation” in Note 3 to the financial statements of Southern Company, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power and “Retail Regulatory Matters – Environmental Compliance Overview Plan” in Note 3 to the financial statements of Mississippi Power in Item 8 herein for information related to environmental remediation.
(3) In re: Mirant Corporation, et al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas)
See “Mirant Matters – Mirant Bankruptcy” in Note 3 to Southern Company’s financial statements in Item 8 herein for information.
(4) MC Asset Recovery, LLC v. Southern Company (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia) (formerly styled In re: Mirant Corporation, et al. in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas)
See “Mirant Matters – MC Asset Recovery Litigation” in Note 3 to Southern Company’s financial statements in Item 8 herein for information.
(5) In re: Mirant Corporation Securities Litigation (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia)
See “Mirant Matters – Mirant Securities Litigation” in Note 3 to Southern Company’s financial statements in Item 8 herein for information.
(6) Right of Way Litigation
See “Right of Way Litigation” in Note 3 to Southern Company’s, Georgia Power’s, Gulf Power’s, and Mississippi Power’s financial statements in Item 8 herein for information.
See Note 3 to each registrant’s financial statements in Item 8 herein for descriptions of additional legal and administrative proceedings discussed therein.

I-28


Table of Contents

Item 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS.
Southern Company, Alabama Power, Gulf Power, Mississippi Power, and Southern Power
None.
Georgia Power
By written consent, in lieu of a special meeting of the sole common shareholder of Georgia Power, effective October 8, 2007, the sole shareholder approved an amendment to the Charter of Georgia Power to establish a new series of preference stock designated as the “6.50% Series 2007A Preference Stock, Non-Cumulative, Par Value $100 Per Share” (Amendment).
All of the 9,261,500 outstanding shares of Georgia Power’s common stock were owned by Southern Company and were voted in favor of the Amendment.

I-29


Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF SOUTHERN COMPANY
(Identification of executive officers of Southern Company is inserted in Part I in accordance with Regulation S-K, Item 401(b), Instruction 3.) The ages of the officers set forth below are as of December 31, 2007.
David M. Ratcliffe
Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director
Age 59
Elected in 1999. President since April 2004; Chairman and Chief Executive Officer since July 2004. Previously served as Chief Executive Officer of Georgia Power from June 1999 to April 2004; and President of Georgia Power from June 1999 to December 2003.
W. Paul Bowers
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Age 51
Elected in 2001. Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since February 1, 2008 and Executive Vice President since May 2007. Previously served as President of Southern Company Generation, a business unit of Southern Company, and Executive Vice President of SCS since May 2001; and President and Chief Executive Officer of Southern Power from May 2001 through March 2005.
Thomas A. Fanning
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
Age 50
Elected in 2003. Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer since February 1, 2008. Previously served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer from May 2007 through January 2008; Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer from April 2003 to May 2007; and President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director of Gulf Power from 2002 to April 2003.
Michael D. Garrett
Executive Vice President
Age 58
Elected in 2004. Executive Vice President since January 1, 2004. He also serves as President and Director of Georgia Power since January 1, 2004 and Chief Executive Officer of Georgia Power since April 2004. Previously served as President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director of Mississippi Power from 2001 to 2003.
G. Edison Holland, Jr.
Executive Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary
Age 55
Elected in 2001. Executive Vice President and General Counsel since 2001.
C. Alan Martin
President and Chief Executive Officer of SCS
Age 59
Elected in 2008. President and Chief Executive Officer of SCS since February 1, 2008. Previously served as Executive Vice President of the Customer Service Organization at Alabama Power from May 2001 through January 2008.
Charles D. McCrary
Executive Vice President
Age 56
Elected in 1998. Executive Vice President of Southern Company since February 2002; President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director of Alabama Power since October 2001.

I-30


Table of Contents

J. Barnie Beasley
President and Chief Executive Officer of Southern Nuclear
Age 56
Elected in 2004. President and Chief Executive Officer of Southern Nuclear since September 2004. Previously served as Executive Vice President of Southern Nuclear from January 2004 to September 2004; and Vice President from July 1998 through December 2003.
The officers of Southern Company were elected for a term running from the first meeting of the directors following the last annual meeting (May 23, 2007) for one year until the first board meeting after the next annual meeting or until their successors are elected and have qualified, except for Mr. Martin whose election was effective on February 1, 2008.

I-31


Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF ALABAMA POWER
(Identification of executive officers of Alabama Power is inserted in Part I in accordance with Regulation S-K, Item 401(b), Instruction 3.) The ages of the officers set forth below are as of December 31, 2007.
Charles D. McCrary
President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director
Age 56
Elected in 2001. President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director since October 2001; Executive Vice President of Southern Company since February 2002.
Art P. Beattie
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer
Age 53
Elected in 2004. Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer since February 2005. Previously served as Vice President and Comptroller of Alabama Power from 1998 through January 2005.
Mark A. Crosswhite
Executive Vice President
Age 45
Elected in 2008. Executive Vice President of External Affairs since February 1, 2008. Previously served as Senior Vice President and Counsel of Alabama Power from July 2006 through January 2008; Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and Assistant Secretary of Southern Power from March 2004 through January 2005; and Vice President of SCS from March 2004 through January 2008. Prior to March 2004, Mr. Crosswhite was a partner at the law firm of Balch & Bingham LLP.
Steven R. Spencer
Executive Vice President
Age 52
Elected in 2001. Executive Vice President of the Customer Service Organization since February 1, 2008. Previously served as Executive Vice President of External Affairs from 2001 through January 2008.
Jerry L. Stewart
Senior Vice President
Age 58
Elected in 1999. Senior Vice President of Fossil and Hydro Generation since 1999.
The officers of Alabama Power were elected for a term running from the last annual organizational meeting of the directors (July 27, 2007) for one year until the next annual meeting or until their successors are elected and have qualified, except for Mr. Crosswhite whose election was effective February 1, 2008.

I-32


Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF GEORGIA POWER
(Identification of executive officers of Georgia Power is inserted in Part I in accordance with Regulation S-K, Item 401(b), Instruction 3.) The ages of the officers set forth below are as of December 31, 2007.
Michael D. Garrett
President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director
Age 58
Elected in 2003. President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director of Georgia Power since April 2004. Previously served as President and Director of Georgia Power from January 2004 to April 2004; President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director of Mississippi Power from May 2001 through December 2003.
Mickey A. Brown
Executive Vice President
Age 60
Elected in 2001. Executive Vice President of the Customer Service Organization since January 2005. Previously served as Senior Vice President of Distribution from May 2001 through December 2004.
Cliff S. Thrasher
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer
Age 57
Elected in 2005. Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer since March 2005. Previously served as Senior Vice President, Comptroller, and Chief Financial Officer of Southern Power from November 2002 to March 2005 and Vice President of SCS from June 2002 to March 2005.
Christopher C. Womack
Executive Vice President
Age 49
Elected in 2001. Executive Vice President of External Affairs since March 2006. Previously served as Senior Vice President of Fossil and Hydro Generation and Senior Production Officer from December 2001 to February 2006.
Judy M. Anderson
Senior Vice President
Age 59
Elected in 2001. Senior Vice President of Charitable Giving since 2001.
Douglas E. Jones
Senior Vice President
Age 49
Elected in 2005. Senior Vice President of Fossil and Hydro Generation since March 2006. Previously served as Senior Vice President of Customer Service and Sales from January 2005 to February 2006; Executive Vice President of Southern Power from January 2004 to January 2005; Senior Vice President of SCS from December 2001 to January 2004.
James H. Miller, III
Senior Vice President and General Counsel
Age 58
Elected in 2004. Senior Vice President and General Counsel since March 2004. Previously served as Vice President and Associate General Counsel for SCS and Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and Assistant Secretary of Southern Power from August 2001 through February 2004.
Each of the above is currently an executive officer of Georgia Power, serving a term running from the last annual organizational meeting of the directors (May 16, 2007) for one year until the next annual meeting or until their successors are elected and qualified.

I-33


Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF MISSISSIPPI POWER
(Identification of executive officers of Mississippi Power is inserted in Part I in accordance with Regulation S-K, Item 401(b), Instruction 3.) The ages of the officers set forth below are as of December 31, 2007.
Anthony J. Topazi
President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director
Age 57
Elected in 2003. President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director since January 1, 2004. Previously served as Executive Vice President of Southern Company Generation and Energy Marketing from November 2000 to December 2003; and Senior Vice President of Southern Power from November 2002 to December 2003.
John W. Atherton
Vice President
Age 47
Elected in 2004. Vice President of External Affairs since January 2005. Previously served as the Director of Economic Development from September 2003 to January 2005; and Manager, Sales and Marketing Services from April 2002 to August 2003.
Kimberly D. Flowers
Vice President
Age 44
Elected in 2005. Vice President and Senior Production Officer since March 2005. Previously served as Plant Manager, Plant Bowen, Georgia Power from November 2000 until March 2005.
Donald R. Horsley
Vice President
Age 53
Elected in 2006. Vice President of Customer Services and Retail Marketing since April 2006. Previously served as Vice President of Transmission at Alabama Power from March 2005 to March 2006 and Manager, Transmission Lines at Alabama Power from February 2001 to March 2005.
Frances V. Turnage
Vice President, Treasurer, and
Chief Financial Officer
Age 59
Elected in 2005. Vice President, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer since March 2005. Previously served as Comptroller from 1993 to March 2005.
The officers of Mississippi Power were elected for a term running from the last annual organizational meeting of the directors (April 11, 2007) for one year until the next annual meeting or until their successors are elected and have qualified.

I-34


Table of Contents

PART II
Item 5.   MARKET FOR REGISTRANTS’ COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
(a)(1) The common stock of Southern Company is listed and traded on the New York Stock Exchange. The common stock is also traded on regional exchanges across the United States. The high and low stock prices for each quarter of the past two years were as follows:
                 
    High   Low
2007
               
First Quarter
  $ 37.25     $ 34.85  
Second Quarter
    38.90       33.50  
Third Quarter
    37.70       33.16  
Fourth Quarter
    39.35       35.15  
 
               
2006
               
First Quarter
  $ 35.89     $ 32.34  
Second Quarter
    33.25       30.48  
Third Quarter
    35.00       32.01  
Fourth Quarter
    37.40       34.49  
 
There is no market for the other registrants’ common stock, all of which is owned by Southern Company.
(a)(2) Number of Southern Company’s common stockholders of record at December 31, 2007: 102,903
Each of the other registrants have one common stockholder, Southern Company.
(a)(3) Dividends on each registrant’s common stock are payable at the discretion of their respective board of directors. The dividends on common stock declared by Southern Company and the traditional operating companies to their stockholder(s) for the past two years were as follows:
                         
Registrant   Quarter   2007   2006
            (in thousands)
Southern Company
  First   $ 290,292     $ 276,442  
 
  Second     303,699       287,704  
 
  Third     304,775       287,845  
 
  Fourth     306,039       288,440  
 
                       
Alabama Power
  First     116,250       110,150  
 
  Second     116,250       110,150  
 
  Third     116,250       110,150  
 
  Fourth     116,250       110,150  
 
                       
Georgia Power
  First     172,475       157,500  
 
  Second     172,475       157,500  
 
  Third     172,475       157,500  
 
  Fourth     172,475       157,500  
 
                       
Gulf Power
  First     18,525       17,575  
 
  Second     18,525       17,575  
 
  Third     18,525       17,575  
 
  Fourth     18,525       17,575  
 
Mississippi Power
  First     16,825       16,300  
 
  Second     16,825       16,300  
 
  Third     16,825       16,300  
 
  Fourth     16,825       16,300  

II-1


Table of Contents

In 2006 and 2007, Southern Power paid dividends to Southern Company as follows:
                         
Registrant   Quarter   2007   2006
            (in millions)
Southern Power
  First   $ 22.45     $  
 
  Second     22.45       38.9  
 
  Third     22.45       19.4  
 
  Fourth     22.45       19.4  
The dividend paid per share of Southern Company’s common stock was 37.25¢ in the first quarter of 2006 and 38.75¢ for the remaining quarters of 2006 and the first quarter of 2007. For the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2007, the dividend paid per share of Southern Company’s common stock was 40.25¢.
The traditional operating companies and Southern Power can only pay dividends to Southern Company out of retained earnings or paid-in-capital.
Southern Power’s credit facility contains potential limitations on the payment of common stock dividends. At December 31, 2007, Southern Power was in compliance with the conditions of this credit facility and thus had no restrictions on its ability to pay common stock dividends. See Note 8 to the financial statements of Southern Company under “Common Stock Dividend Restrictions” and Note 6 to the financial statements of Southern Power under “Dividend Restrictions” in Item 8 herein for additional information regarding these restrictions.
(a)(4) Securities authorized for issuance under equity compensation plans.
See Part III, Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters under the heading “Equity Compensation Plan Information” herein.
(b) Use of Proceeds
Not applicable.
(c) Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
None.
Item 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
Southern Company. See “SELECTED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL AND OPERATING DATA,” contained herein at pages II-97 and II-98.
Alabama Power. See “SELECTED FINANCIAL AND OPERATING DATA,” contained herein at pages II-159 and II-160.
Georgia Power. See “SELECTED FINANCIAL AND OPERATING DATA,” contained herein at pages II-225 and II-226.
Gulf Power. See “SELECTED FINANCIAL AND OPERATING DATA,” contained herein at pages II-282 and II-283.
Mississippi Power. See “SELECTED FINANCIAL AND OPERATING DATA,” contained herein at pages II-343 and II-344.
Southern Power. See “SELECTED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL AND OPERATING DATA,” contained herein at page II-382.
Item 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Southern Company. See “MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS,” contained herein at pages II-12 through II-45.

II-2


Table of Contents

Alabama Power. See “MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS,” contained herein at pages II-102 through II-122.
Georgia Power. See “MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS,” contained herein at pages II-164 through II-185.
Gulf Power. See “MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS,” contained herein at pages II-230 through II-250.
Mississippi Power. See “MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS,” contained herein at pages II-287 through II-309.
Southern Power. See “MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS,” contained herein at pages II-348 through II-364.
Item 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
See MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - FINANCIAL CONDITION AND LIQUIDITY – “Market Price Risk” of each of the registrants in Item 7 herein and Note 1 of each of the registrant’s financial statements under “Financial Instruments” in Item 8 herein. See also Note 6 to the financial statements of Southern Company, each traditional operating company, and Southern Power under “Financial Instruments” in Item 8 herein.

II-3


Table of Contents

Item 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
INDEX TO 2007 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
         
    Page
The Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies:
       
  II-9
       
  II-10
  II-11
  II-46
  II-47
  II-48
  II-50
  II-52
  II-52
  II-53
 
       
Alabama Power:
       
  II-100
  II-101
  II-123
  II-124
  II-125
  II-127
  II-129
  II-129
  II-130
 
       
Georgia Power:
       
  II-162
  II-163
  II-186
  II-187
  II-188
  II-190
  II-191
  II-191
  II-192
 
       
Gulf Power:
       
  II-228
  II-229
  II-251
  II-252
  II-253
  II-255
  II-256
  II-256
  II-257

II-4


Table of Contents

         
    Page
Mississippi Power:
       
  II-285
  II-286
  II-310
  II-311
  II-312
  II-314
  II-315
  II-315
  II-316
 
       
Southern Power and Subsidiary Companies:
       
  II-346
  II-347
  II-365
  II-366
  II-367
  II-369
  II-369
  II-370
Item 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
None.

II-5


Table of Contents

Item 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
Disclosure Controls And Procedures.
As of the end of the period covered by this annual report, Southern Company conducted an evaluation under the supervision and with the participation of Southern Company’s management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of the disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Sections 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Based upon this evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer concluded that the disclosure controls and procedures are effective in alerting them in a timely manner to material information relating to Southern Company (including its consolidated subsidiaries) required to be included in periodic filings with the SEC.
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting.
     (a) Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting.
Southern Company’s Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting is included on page II-9 of this Form 10-K.
     (b) Attestation Report of the Registered Public Accounting Firm.
The report of Deloitte & Touche LLP, Southern Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, regarding Southern Company’s internal control over financial reporting is included on page II-10 of this Form 10-K.
     (c) Changes in internal controls.
There have been no changes in Southern Company’s internal control over financial reporting (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) during the fourth quarter 2007 that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect Southern Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
Item 9A(T). CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
Disclosure Controls And Procedures.
As of the end of the period covered by this annual report, Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, Mississippi Power, and Southern Power conducted separate evaluations under the supervision and with the participation of each company’s management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of the disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Sections 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Based upon these evaluations, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, in each case, concluded that the disclosure controls and procedures are effective in alerting them in a timely manner to material information relating to their company (including its consolidated subsidiaries, if any) required to be included in periodic filings with the SEC.
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting.
     (a) Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting.
Alabama Power’s Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting is included on page II-100 of this Form 10-K.
Georgia Power’s Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting is included on page II-162 of this Form 10-K.
Gulf Power’s Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting is included on page II-228 of this Form 10-K.

II-6


Table of Contents

Mississippi Power’s Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting is included on page II-285 of this Form 10-K.
Southern Power’s Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting is included on page II-346 of this Form 10-K.
     (b) Changes in internal controls.
There have been no changes in Alabama Power’s, Georgia Power’s, Gulf Power’s, Mississippi Power’s, or Southern Power’s internal control over financial reporting (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) during the fourth quarter 2007 that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect Alabama Power’s, Georgia Power’s, Gulf Power’s, Mississippi Power’s, or Southern Power’s internal control over financial reporting.
Item 9B. OTHER INFORMATION
     None.

II-7


Table of Contents

THE SOUTHERN COMPANY
AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
FINANCIAL SECTION

II-8


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
Southern Company’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining an adequate system of internal control over financial reporting as required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f). A control system can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met.
Under management’s supervision, an evaluation of the design and effectiveness of Southern Company’s internal control over financial reporting was conducted based on the framework in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on this evaluation, management concluded that Southern Company’s internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2007.
Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as auditors of Southern Company’s financial statements, has issued an attestation report on the effectiveness of Southern Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007. Deloitte & Touche LLP’s report on Southern Company’s internal control over financial reporting is included herein.
/s/ David M. Ratcliffe
David M. Ratcliffe
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer
/s/ W. Paul Bowers
W. Paul Bowers
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
February 25, 2008

II-9


Table of Contents

Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Southern Company
We have audited the internal control over financial reporting of Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2007, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The Company’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting (page II-9). Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed by, or under the supervision of, the company’s principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, and effected by the company’s board of directors, management, and other personnel to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of the inherent limitations of internal control over financial reporting, including the possibility of collusion or improper management override of controls, material misstatements due to error or fraud may not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Also, projections of any evaluation of the effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting to future periods are subject to the risk that the controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, based on the criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 of the Company and our report dated February 25, 2008 expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements and included an explanatory paragraph regarding changes in the method of accounting for uncertainty in income taxes and the method of accounting for the impact of changes in the timing of income tax cash flows generated by leveraged leases in 2007 and a change in the method of accounting for the funded status of defined benefit pension and other postretirement plans in 2006.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
February 25, 2008

II-10


Table of Contents

Consolidated Financial Statements
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Southern Company
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and consolidated statements of capitalization of Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, common stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2007. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements (pages II-46 to II-95) present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies at December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2007, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
As discussed in Notes 3 and 5 to the financial statements, in 2007 the Company changed its method of accounting for uncertainty in income taxes and its method of accounting for the impact of changes in the timing of income tax cash flows generated by leveraged leases. As discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements, in 2006 the Company changed its method of accounting for the funded status of defined benefit pension and other postretirement plans.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, based on the criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated February 25, 2008 expressed an unqualified opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
February 25, 2008

II-11


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
OVERVIEW
Business Activities
The primary business of Southern Company (the Company) is electricity sales in the Southeast by the traditional operating companies — Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power — and Southern Power. The four traditional operating companies are vertically integrated utilities providing electric service in four Southeastern states. Southern Power constructs, acquires, and manages generation assets and sells electricity at market-based rates in the wholesale market.
Many factors affect the opportunities, challenges, and risks of Southern Company’s electricity business. These factors include the traditional operating companies’ ability to maintain a stable regulatory environment, to achieve energy sales growth, and to effectively manage and secure timely recovery of rising costs. Each of the traditional operating companies has various regulatory mechanisms that operate to address cost recovery. Since 2005, the traditional operating companies have completed a number of regulatory proceedings that provide for the timely recovery of costs. Appropriately balancing required costs and capital expenditures with customer prices will continue to challenge the Company for the foreseeable future.
Another major factor is the profitability of the competitive market-based wholesale generating business and federal regulatory policy, which may impact Southern Company’s level of participation in this market. Southern Power continues to execute its regional strategy through a combination of acquiring and constructing new power plants and by entering into power purchase agreements (PPAs) with investor owned utilities, independent power producers, municipalities, and electric cooperatives. The Company continues to face regulatory challenges related to transmission and market power issues at the national level.
Southern Company’s other business activities include leveraged lease projects, telecommunications, energy-related services, and an investment in a synthetic fuel producing entity which claimed federal income tax credits designed to offset its operating losses. The availability of synthetic fuel tax credits and the Company’s investment in these activities ended on December 31, 2007. Management continues to evaluate the contribution of each of these remaining activities to total shareholder return and may pursue acquisitions and dispositions accordingly.
Key Performance Indicators
In striving to maximize shareholder value while providing cost-effective energy to more than four million customers, Southern Company continues to focus on several key indicators. These indicators include customer satisfaction, plant availability, system reliability, and earnings per share (EPS), excluding earnings from synthetic fuel investments. Southern Company’s financial success is directly tied to the satisfaction of its customers. Key elements of ensuring customer satisfaction include outstanding service, high reliability, and competitive prices. Management uses customer satisfaction surveys and reliability indicators to evaluate the Company’s results.
Peak season equivalent forced outage rate (Peak Season EFOR) is an indicator of fossil/hydro plant availability and efficient generation fleet operations during the months when generation needs are greatest. The rate is calculated by dividing the number of hours of forced outages by total generation hours. The fossil/hydro 2007 Peak Season EFOR of 1.60% was better than the target. The nuclear generating fleet also uses Peak Season EFOR as an indicator of availability and efficient generation fleet operations during the peak season. The nuclear 2007 Peak Season EFOR of 0.94% was also better than target. Transmission and distribution system reliability performance is measured by the frequency and duration of outages. Performance targets for reliability are set internally based on historical performance, expected weather conditions, and expected capital expenditures. The performance for 2007 was better than target for these reliability measures.

II-12


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
Southern Company’s synthetic fuel investments have generated tax credits as a result of synthetic fuel production. Due to higher oil prices in 2006 and 2007, these tax credits were partially phased out and one synthetic fuel investment was terminated in 2006. These tax credits were no longer available after December 31, 2007. Southern Company management uses EPS, excluding earnings from synthetic fuel investments, to evaluate the performance of Southern Company’s ongoing business activities. Southern Company believes the presentation of earnings and EPS excluding the results of the synthetic fuel investments also is useful for investors because it provides investors with additional information for purposes of comparing Southern Company’s performance for such periods. The presentation of this additional information is not meant to be considered a substitute for financial measures prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
Southern Company’s 2007 results compared with its targets for some of these key indicators are reflected in the following chart:
                 
    2007 Target   2007 Actual
Key Performance Indicator   Performance   Performance
    Top quartile in    
Customer Satisfaction
  customer surveys   Top quartile
Peak Season EFOR — fossil/hydro
  2.75% or less     1.60 %
Peak Season EFOR — nuclear
  2.00% or less     0.94 %
Basic EPS
  $ 2.18 — $2.25     $ 2.29  
EPS, excluding earnings from synthetic fuel investments
  $ 2.13 — $2.18     $ 2.21  
See RESULTS OF OPERATIONS herein for additional information on the Company’s financial performance. The financial performance achieved in 2007 reflects the continued emphasis that management places on these indicators as well as the commitment shown by employees in achieving or exceeding management’s expectations.
Earnings
Southern Company’s net income was $1.73 billion in 2007, an increase of 10.2% from the prior year. The higher earnings compared with the prior year were primarily the result of a warm summer and state regulatory actions. These positive factors were offset in part by higher non-fuel operations and maintenance expenses, higher interest expense, and higher asset depreciation primarily associated with increased investment in environmental equipment at generating plants and transmission and distribution related to maintaining reliability. Net income was $1.57 billion in 2006 and $1.59 billion in 2005, reflecting a 1.1% decrease and a 3.8% increase over the prior year, respectively. Basic EPS was $2.29 in 2007, $2.12 in 2006, and $2.14 in 2005. Diluted EPS, which factors in additional shares related to stock options, was $2.28 for 2007, $2.10 for 2006, and $2.13 for 2005.
Dividends
Southern Company has paid dividends on its common stock since 1948. Dividends paid per share of common stock were $1.595 in 2007, $1.535 in 2006, and $1.475 in 2005. In January 2008, Southern Company declared a quarterly dividend of 40.25 cents per share. This is the 241st consecutive quarter that Southern Company has paid a dividend equal to or higher than the previous quarter. The Company targets a dividend payout ratio of approximately 70% of net income, excluding earnings from synthetic fuel investments. For 2007, the actual payout ratio was 72%, excluding earnings from synthetic fuel investments, and 69.5% overall.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Electricity Business
Southern Company’s electric utilities generate and sell electricity to retail and wholesale customers in the Southeast.

II-13


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
A condensed income statement for the electricity business follows:
                                 
            Increase (Decrease)
    Amount   from Prior Year
 
    2007     2007     2006     2005  
 
            (in millions)        
Electric operating revenues
  $ 15,140     $ 1,052     $ 810     $ 1,813  
 
Fuel
    5,844       701       655       1,089  
Purchased power
    515       (28 )     (188 )     88  
Other operations and maintenance
    3,473       183       70       215  
Depreciation and amortization
    1,215       51       27       229  
Taxes other than income taxes
    738       23       39       52  
 
Total electric operating expenses
    11,785       930       603       1,673  
 
Operating income
    3,355       122       207       140  
Other income, net
    121       68       (9 )     38  
Interest expense and dividends
    812       61       75       62  
Income taxes
    950       1       50       24  
 
Net income
  $ 1,714     $ 128     $ 73     $ 92  
 
Electric Operating Revenues
Details of electric operating revenues were as follows:
                         
    Amount  
 
    2007     2006     2005  
 
    (in millions)  
Retail — prior year
  $ 11,800.6     $ 11,164.9     $ 9,732.1  
Estimated change in —
                       
Rates and pricing
    161.3       9.0       309.0  
Sales growth
    59.6       114.4       105.0  
Weather
    54.0       34.9       33.8  
Fuel and other cost recovery
    563.0       477.4       985.0  
 
Retail — current year
    12,638.5       11,800.6       11,164.9  
Wholesale revenues
    1,988.3       1,821.7       1,667.0  
Other electric operating revenues
    513.7       465.7       446.2  
 
Electric operating revenues
  $ 15,140.5     $ 14,088.0     $ 13,278.1  
 
Percent change
    7.5 %     6.1 %     15.8 %
 
Retail revenues increased $838 million, $636 million, and $1.4 billion in 2007, 2006, and 2005, respectively. The significant factors driving these changes are shown in the preceding table. The increase in rates and pricing in 2007 was primarily due to Alabama Power’s increase under its Rate Stabilization and Equalization Plan (Rate RSE), as ordered by the Alabama Public Service Commission (PSC). See Note 3 to the financial statements under “Alabama Power Retail Regulatory Matters” for additional information. Partially offsetting the 2007 increase was a decrease in contributions from market-based rates to large commercial and industrial customers at Georgia Power. The 2006 increase in rates and pricing when compared to the prior year was not material. The increase in rates and pricing in 2005 was primarily due to approval by the Georgia PSC of a retail base rate increase at Georgia Power. See “Energy Sales” below for a discussion of changes in the volume of energy sold, including changes related to sales growth and weather.
Electric rates for the traditional operating companies include provisions to adjust billings for fluctuations in fuel costs, including the energy component of purchased power costs. Under these provisions, fuel revenues generally

II-14


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
equal fuel expenses, including the fuel component of purchased power, and do not affect net income. The traditional operating companies may also have one or more regulatory mechanisms to recover other costs such as environmental, storm damage, new plants, and PPAs.
Wholesale revenues consist of PPAs with investor-owned utilities and electric cooperatives, short-term opportunity sales, and unit power sales contracts. Southern Company’s average wholesale contract extends more than 11 years and, as a result, the Company has significantly limited its remarketing risk.
In 2007, wholesale revenues increased $166 million primarily as a result of a 9.5% increase in the average cost of fuel per net kilowatt-hour (KWH) generated. Excluding fuel, wholesale revenues were flat when compared to the prior year.
In 2006, wholesale revenues increased $155 million primarily as a result of a 10.5% increase in the average cost of fuel per net KWH generated, as well as revenues resulting from new PPAs in 2006. In addition, Southern Company assumed four PPAs through the acquisitions of Plants DeSoto and Rowan in June and September 2006, respectively. The 2006 increase was partially offset by a decrease in short-term opportunity sales.
In 2005, wholesale revenues increased $326 million primarily due to a 26.5% increase in the average cost of fuel per net KWH generated. In addition, Southern Company entered into new PPAs with 30 electric membership cooperatives (EMCs) and Flint EMC, both beginning in January 2005, and assumed two PPAs in June 2005 in connection with the acquisition of Plant Oleander.
Short-term opportunity sales are made at market-based rates that generally provide a margin above the Company’s variable cost to produce the energy. Revenues associated with PPAs and opportunity sales were as follows:
                         
    2007   2006   2005
 
    (in millions)
Other power sales —
                       
Capacity and other
  $ 533     $ 499     $ 430  
Energy
    989       841       799  
 
Total
  $ 1,522     $ 1,340     $ 1,229  
 
Capacity revenues under unit power sales contracts, principally sales to Florida utilities, reflect the recovery of fixed costs and a return on investment. Unit power KWH sales decreased 0.8% in 2007 and increased 0.2% and 1.7% in 2006 and 2005, respectively. Fluctuations in oil and natural gas prices, which are the primary fuel sources for unit power sales customers, influence changes in these sales. However, because the energy is generally sold at variable cost, these fluctuations have a minimal effect on earnings. The capacity and energy components of the unit power sales contracts were as follows:
                         
    2007   2006   2005
 
    (in millions)
Unit power sales —
                       
Capacity
  $ 202     $ 208     $ 201  
Energy
    264       274       237  
 
Total
  $ 466     $ 482     $ 438  
 
Energy Sales
Changes in revenues are influenced heavily by the change in the volume of energy sold from year to year. KWH sales for 2007 and the percent change by year were as follows:

II-15


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
                                 
    KWHs   Percent Change
    2007   2007   2006   2005
 
    (in billions)                        
Residential
    53.3       1.8 %     2.5 %     2.8 %
Commercial
    54.7       3.2       2.2       3.6  
Industrial
    54.7       (0.7 )     (0.2 )     (2.2 )
Other
    0.9       4.4       (7.6 )     (0.9 )
 
Total retail
    163.6       1.4       1.4       1.2  
Wholesale
    40.8       5.9       3.7       7.2  
 
Total energy sales
    204.4       2.3       1.9       2.3  
 
Retail energy sales in 2007 increased 2.3 billion KWHs as a result of 1.3% customer growth and favorable weather in 2007 when compared to 2006. The 2007 decrease in industrial sales primarily resulted from reduced demand and closures within the textile industry, as well as decreased demand in the primary metals sector and the stone, clay, and glass sector. Retail energy sales in 2006 increased 2.3 billion KWHs as a result of customer growth of 1.7%, sustained economic growth primarily in the residential and commercial customer classes, and favorable weather in 2006 when compared to 2005. Retail energy sales in 2005 increased 1.9 billion KWHs as a result of sustained economic growth and customer growth of 1.2%. Hurricane Katrina dampened customer growth from previous years and was the primary contributor to the decrease in industrial sales in 2005. In addition, in 2005, some Georgia Power industrial customers were reclassified from industrial to commercial to be consistent with the rate structure approved by the Georgia PSC resulting in higher commercial sales and lower industrial sales in 2005 when compared with 2004.
Wholesale energy sales increased by 2.3 billion KWHs, 1.4 billion KWHs, and 2.5 billion KWHs in 2007, 2006, and 2005, respectively. The increase in wholesale energy sales in 2007 was primarily related to new PPAs acquired by Southern Company through the acquisition of Plant Rowan in September 2006, as well as new contracts with EnergyUnited Electric Membership Corporation that commenced in September 2006 and January 2007. An increase in KWH sales under existing PPAs also contributed to the 2007 increase. The increases in wholesale energy sales in 2006 and 2005 were related primarily to the new PPAs discussed previously under “Electric Operating Revenues.”
Fuel and Purchased Power Expenses
Fuel costs constitute the single largest expense for the electric utilities. The mix of fuel sources for generation of electricity is determined primarily by demand, the unit cost of fuel consumed, and the availability of generating units. Additionally, the electric utilities purchase a portion of their electricity needs from the wholesale market. Details of Southern Company’s electricity generated and purchased were as follows:
                         
    2007   2006   2005
 
Total generation (billions of KWHs)
    206       201       195  
Total purchased power (billions of KWHs)
    8       8       9  
 
Sources of generation (percent)
                       
Coal
    70       70       71  
Nuclear
    14       15       15  
Gas
    15       13       11  
Hydro
    1       2       3  
 
Cost of fuel, generated (cents per net KWH)
                       
Coal
    2.61       2.40       1.93  
Nuclear
    0.50       0.47       0.47  
Gas
    6.64       6.63       8.52  
 
Average cost of fuel, generated (cents per net KWH)
    2.89       2.64       2.39  
Average cost of purchased power (cents per net KWH)
    7.20       6.82       8.04  
 

II-16


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
In 2007, fuel and purchased power expenses were $6.4 billion, an increase of $673 million or 11.8% above 2006 costs. This increase was primarily the result of a $543 million net increase in the average cost of fuel and purchased power partially resulting from a 51.4% decrease in hydro generation as a result of a severe drought. Also contributing to this increase was a $130 million increase related to an increase in net KWHs generated and purchased.
Fuel and purchased power expenses were $5.7 billion in 2006, an increase of $467 million or 8.9% above the prior year costs. This increase was primarily the result of a $367 million net increase in the average cost of fuel and purchased power and a $100 million increase related to an increase in net KWHs generated and purchased.
In 2005, fuel and purchased power expenses were $5.2 billion, an increase of $1.2 billion or 29.1% above 2004 costs. This increase was the result of a $1.3 billion net increase in the average cost of fuel and purchased power, partially offset by $67 million related to a decrease in net KWHs generated and purchased.
While there has been a significant upward trend in the cost of coal and natural gas since 2003, prices moderated somewhat in 2006 and 2007. Coal prices have been influenced by a worldwide increase in demand from developing countries, as well as increases in mining and fuel transportation costs. While demand for natural gas in the United States continued to increase in 2007, natural gas supplies have also risen due to increased production and higher storage levels. During 2007, uranium prices were volatile and increased over the course of the year due to increasing long-term demand with primary production levels at approximately 55% to 60% of demand. Secondary supplies and inventories were sufficient to fill the primary production shortfall.
Fuel expenses generally do not affect net income, since they are offset by fuel revenues under the traditional operating companies’ fuel cost recovery provisions. Likewise, Southern Power’s PPAs generally provide that the purchasers are responsible for substantially all of the cost of fuel.
Other Operations and Maintenance Expenses
Other operations and maintenance expenses were $3.5 billion, $3.3 billion, and $3.2 billion, increasing $183 million, $70 million, and $215 million in 2007, 2006, and 2005, respectively. Discussion of significant variances for components of other operations and maintenance expenses follows.
Other production expenses at fossil, hydro, and nuclear plants increased $128 million, $3 million, and $58 million in 2007, 2006, and 2005, respectively. Production expenses fluctuate from year to year due to variations in outage schedules and normal increases in costs. Other production expenses increased in 2007 primarily due to a $40 million increase related to expenses incurred for maintenance outages at generating units and a $29 million increase related to new facilities, mainly costs associated with the write-off of Southern Power’s integrated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC) project and the acquisitions of Plants DeSoto and Rowan by Southern Power in June and September 2006, respectively. A $25 million increase related to labor and materials expenses and a $22 million increase in nuclear refueling costs also contributed to the 2007 increase. See FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL — “Construction Projects — Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle” herein for additional information regarding the write-off of Southern Power’s IGCC project and Note 1 to the financial statements under “Property, Plant, and Equipment” for additional information regarding the amortization of nuclear refueling costs. The 2006 increase in other production expenses when compared to the prior year was not material. Other production expenses increased in 2005 due to a $50 million increase related primarily to expenses incurred for maintenance outages at generating units.
Administrative and general expenses increased $28 million, $29 million, and $73 million in 2007, 2006, and 2005, respectively. Administrative and general expenses increased in 2007 primarily as a result of a $16 million increase in legal costs and expenses associated with an increase in employees. Also contributing to the 2007 increase was a

II-17


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
$14 million increase in accrued expenses for the litigation and workers’ compensation reserve, partially offset by an $8 million decrease in property damage expense. Administrative and general expenses increased in 2006 primarily as a result of a $17 million increase in salaries and wages and a $24 million increase in pension expense, partially offset by a $16 million reduction in medical expenses. Administrative and general expenses increased in 2005 primarily related to a $33 million increase in employee benefits; a $22 million increase in Sarbanes-Oxley Act compliance costs, legal costs, and other corporate expenses; and a $9 million increase in property damage expense.
Transmission and distribution expenses increased $21 million, $30 million, and $60 million in 2007, 2006, and 2005, respectively. Transmission and distribution expenses fluctuate from year to year due to variations in maintenance schedules and normal increases in costs. Transmission and distribution expenses increased in 2007 primarily as a result of increases in labor and materials costs and maintenance associated with additional investment to meet customer growth. Transmission and distribution expenses increased in 2006 primarily due to expenses associated with recovery of prior year storm costs through natural disaster recovery clauses and maintenance associated with additional investment in distribution to meet customer growth. Transmission and distribution expenses increased in 2005 primarily as a result of $48 million of expenses recorded by Alabama Power in accordance with an accounting order approved by the Alabama PSC primarily to offset the costs of Hurricane Ivan and restore the natural disaster reserve. In accordance with the accounting order, Alabama Power also returned certain regulatory liabilities related to deferred income taxes to its retail customers; therefore, the combined effect of the accounting order had no impact on net income. See Note 3 to the financial statements under “Storm Damage Cost Recovery” for additional information.
Depreciation and Amortization
Depreciation and amortization increased $51 million in 2007 primarily as a result of additional investments in environmental equipment at generating plants and transmission and distribution projects mainly at Alabama Power and Georgia Power and an increase in the amortization expense of a regulatory liability recorded in 2003 in connection with the Mississippi PSC’s accounting order on Plant Daniel capacity. Partially offsetting the 2007 increase was a reduction in amortization expense due to a Georgia Power regulatory liability related to the levelization of certain purchased power capacity costs as ordered by the Georgia PSC under the terms of the retail rate order effective January 1, 2005. See Note 1 to the financial statements under “Depreciation and Amortization” for additional information.
Depreciation and amortization increased $27 million in 2006 primarily as a result of the acquisitions of Plants DeSoto, Rowan, and Oleander in June 2006, September 2006, and June 2005, respectively, and an increase in the amortization expense of the Mississippi Power regulatory liability related to Plant Daniel capacity. An increase in depreciation rates at Southern Power associated with adoption of a new depreciation study also contributed to the 2006 increase. Partially offsetting the 2006 increase was a reduction in the amortization expense of a Georgia Power regulatory liability related to the levelization of certain purchased power capacity costs.
Depreciation and amortization increased $229 million in 2005 primarily as a result of additional plant in service and from the expiration in 2004 of certain provisions related to the amortization of regulatory liabilities associated with purchased power capacity costs in Georgia Power’s retail rate plan for the three years ended December 31, 2004.
Taxes Other than Income Taxes
Taxes other than income taxes increased $23 million in 2007 primarily as a result of increases in franchise and municipal gross receipts taxes associated with increases in revenues from energy sales, partially offset by a decrease in property taxes resulting from the resolution of a dispute with Monroe County, Georgia. Taxes other than income taxes increased $39 million in 2006 primarily as a result of increases in franchise and municipal gross receipts taxes associated with increases in revenues from energy sales, as well as increases in property taxes associated with

II-18


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
additional plant in service. Taxes other than income taxes increased $52 million in 2005 primarily as a result of increases in franchise and municipal gross receipts taxes associated with increases in revenues from energy sales.
Other Income, Net
Other income, net increased $68 million in 2007 primarily as a result of a $56 million increase in allowance for equity funds used during construction related to additional investments in environmental equipment at generating plants and transmission and distribution projects mainly at Alabama Power and Georgia Power. The 2006 decrease in other income, net when compared to the prior year was not material. Other income, net increased $38 million in 2005 primarily as a result of a $19 million reduction largely related to the disallowance of certain Plant McIntosh costs by the Georgia PSC in 2004, a $10 million increase related primarily to changes in the value of derivative transactions, and a $6 million increase in interest income.
Interest Expense and Dividends
Total interest charges and other financing costs increased by $61 million in 2007 primarily as a result of a $72 million increase associated with $1.2 billion in additional debt and preference stock outstanding at December 31, 2007 compared to December 31, 2006 and higher interest rates associated with the issuance of new long-term debt. Also contributing to the 2007 increase was $7 million related to higher average interest rates on existing variable rate debt and $19 million in other interest costs. These increases were partially offset by $38 million more capitalized interest as compared to 2006.
Total interest charges and other financing costs increased by $75 million in 2006 primarily due to a $78 million increase associated with $708 million in additional debt outstanding at December 31, 2006 compared to December 31, 2005 and higher interest rates associated with the issuance of new long-term debt. Also contributing to the 2006 increase was $7 million associated with higher average interest rates on existing variable rate debt, partially offset by $6 million more capitalized interest associated with construction projects and $3 million in lower other interest costs.
Total interest charges and other financing costs increased by $62 million in 2005 associated with an additional $863 million in debt outstanding at December 31, 2005 as compared to December 31, 2004 and an increase in average interest rates on variable rate debt. Variable rates on pollution control bonds are highly correlated with the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association Municipal Swap Index, which averaged 2.5% in 2005 and 1.2% in 2004. Variable rates on commercial paper and senior notes are highly correlated with the one-month London Interbank Offer Rate, which averaged 3.4% in 2005 and 1.5% in 2004. An additional $17 million increase in 2005 was the result of a lower percentage of interest costs capitalized as construction projects reached completion.
Income Taxes
Income taxes were relatively flat in 2007 as higher pre-tax earnings were largely offset due to a deduction for a Georgia Power land donation, the tax benefit associated with an increase in allowance for equity funds used during construction, and an increase in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (Internal Revenue Code), Section 199 production activities deduction. See Note 5 to the financial statements under “Effective Tax Rate” for additional information.
Income taxes increased $50 million in 2006 primarily due to higher pre-tax earnings and the impact of the accounting order approved by the Alabama PSC discussed previously under “Other Operations and Maintenance Expenses.” See Note 3 to the financial statements under “Storm Damage Cost Recovery” for additional information.

II-19


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
Income taxes increased $24 million in 2005 primarily as a result of higher pre-tax earnings, partially offset by the impact of the accounting order approved by the Alabama PSC discussed above.
Other Business Activities
Southern Company’s other business activities include the parent company (which does not allocate operating expenses to business units), investments in leveraged lease and synthetic fuel projects, telecommunications, and energy-related services. These businesses are classified in general categories and may comprise one or more of the following subsidiaries: Southern Company Holdings invests in various energy-related projects, including leveraged lease and synthetic fuel projects that receive tax benefits, which contribute significantly to the economic results of these investments; SouthernLINC Wireless provides digital wireless communications to the traditional operating companies and also markets these services to the public and provides fiber cable services within the Southeast. Southern Company’s investment in the synthetic fuel projects ended at December 31, 2007. A condensed income statement for Southern Company’s other business activities follows:
                                 
            Increase (Decrease)
    Amount   from Prior Year
    2007   2007   2006   2005
    (in millions)
Operating revenues
  $ 213     $ (55 )   $ (8 )   $ 12  
 
Other operations and maintenance
    209       (29 )     (59 )     12  
Depreciation and amortization
    30       (6 )     (3 )     (2 )
Taxes other than income taxes
    3             (1 )     1  
 
Total operating expenses
    242       (35 )     (63 )     11  
 
Operating income/(loss)
    (29 )     (20 )     55       1  
Equity in losses of unconsolidated subsidiaries
    (25 )     35       62       (25 )
Leveraged lease income
    40       (29 )     (5 )     4  
Other income, net
    41       73       (19 )     (9 )
Interest expense
    122       (27 )     48       18  
Income taxes
    (115 )     53       136       (14 )
 
Net income/(loss)
  $ 20     $ 33     $ (91 )   $ (33 )
 
Operating Revenues
Southern Company’s non-electric operating revenues from these other businesses decreased $55 million in 2007 primarily as a result of a $13 million decrease in revenues at SouthernLINC Wireless related to lower average revenue per subscriber and fewer subscribers due to increased competition in the industry. Also contributing to the 2007 decrease was a $14 million decrease in fuel procurement service revenues following a contract termination and an $11 million decrease in revenues from Southern Company’s energy-related services business. The $8 million decrease in 2006 primarily resulted from a $21 million decrease in revenues at SouthernLINC Wireless related to lower average revenue per subscriber and lower equipment and accessory sales. The 2006 decrease was partially offset by a $12 million increase in fuel procurement service revenues. Higher production and increased fees in the synthetic fuel business contributed to the $12 million increase in 2005.
Other Operations and Maintenance Expenses
Other operations and maintenance expenses for these other businesses decreased $29 million in 2007 primarily as a result of $11 million of lower production expenses related to the termination of Southern Company’s membership interest in one of the synthetic fuel entities and $8 million attributed to the wind-down of one of the Company’s

II-20


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
energy-related services businesses. Other operations and maintenance expenses decreased $59 million in 2006 primarily as a result of $32 million of lower production expenses related to the termination of Southern Company’s membership interest in one of the synthetic fuel entities, $13 million attributed to the wind-down of one of the Company’s energy-related services businesses, and $7 million of lower expenses resulting from the March 2006 sale of a subsidiary that provided rail car maintenance services. Other operations and maintenance expenses increased by $12 million in 2005 primarily as a result of $9 million of higher losses for property damage, $2 million in higher network costs at SouthernLINC Wireless, and an $11 million increase in shared service expenses, partially offset by the $12.5 million bad debt reserve in 2004 related to additional federal income taxes and interest Southern Company paid on behalf of Mirant Corporation (Mirant). See FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL — “Mirant Matters” herein and Note 3 to the financial statements under “Mirant Matters — Mirant Bankruptcy” for additional information.
Equity in Losses of Unconsolidated Subsidiaries
Southern Company made investments in two synthetic fuel production facilities that generated operating losses. These investments allowed Southern Company to claim federal income tax credits that offset these operating losses and made the projects profitable. The 2007 decrease in equity in losses of unconsolidated subsidiaries was the result of terminating Southern Company’s membership interest in one of the synthetic fuel entities which reduced the amount of the Company’s share of the losses and, therefore, the funding obligation for the year. Also contributing to the 2007 decrease were adjustments related the phase-out of the related federal income tax credits, partially offset by higher operating expenses due to idled production in 2006 and decreased production in 2007 in anticipation of exiting the business. The 2006 decrease in equity in losses of unconsolidated subsidiaries was the result of terminating Southern Company’s membership interest in one of the synthetic fuel entities which reduced the amount of the Company’s share of the losses and, therefore, the funding obligation for the year. The 2006 decrease also resulted from lower operating expenses while the production facilities at the other synthetic fuel entity were idled from May to September 2006 due to higher oil prices. The increase in equity in losses of unconsolidated subsidiaries in 2005 resulted from additional production expenses at the synthetic fuel production facilities. The net synthetic fuel tax credits resulting from these investments totaled $36 million in 2007, $65 million in 2006, and $177 million in 2005.
Leveraged Lease Income
Southern Company has several leveraged lease agreements which relate to international and domestic energy generation, distribution, and transportation assets. Southern Company receives federal income tax deductions for depreciation and amortization, as well as interest on long-term debt related to these investments. Leveraged lease income decreased $29 million in 2007 as a result of the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Staff Position No. FAS 13-2, “Accounting for a Change or Projected Change in the Timing of Cash Flows Relating to Income Taxes Generated by a Leveraged Lease Transaction” (FSP 13-2), as well as an expected decline in leveraged lease income over the terms of the leases. See FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL — “Income Tax Matters — Leveraged Lease Transactions” herein for further information. The 2006 and 2005 changes in leveraged lease income when compared to the prior year were not material.
Other Income, Net
Other income, net for these other businesses increased $73 million in 2007 primarily as a result of a $60 million increase related to changes in the value of derivative transactions in the synthetic fuel business and a $16 million increase related to the 2006 impairment of investments in the synthetic fuel entities, partially offset by the release of $6 million in certain contractual obligations associated with these investments in 2006. The $19 million decrease in other income, net in 2006 as compared with 2005 primarily resulted from a $25 million decrease related to changes in the value of derivative transactions in the synthetic fuel business and the previously mentioned impairment and

II-21


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
release of contractual obligations. The 2005 decrease in other income, net when compared to the prior year was not material.
Interest Expense
Total interest charges and other financing costs for these other businesses decreased by $27 million in 2007 primarily as a result of $16 million of losses on debt that was reacquired in 2006. Also contributing to the 2007 decrease was $97 million less debt outstanding at December 31, 2007 compared to December 31, 2006, lower interest rates associated with the issuance of new long-term debt, and a $4 million decrease in other interest costs. Total interest charges and other financing costs increased by $48 million in 2006 primarily due to a $19 million increase associated with $149 million in additional debt outstanding at December 31, 2006 as compared to December 31, 2005 and higher interest rates associated with the issuance of new long-term debt. Also contributing to the increase were $12 million associated with higher average interest rates on existing variable rate debt, a $6 million loss on the early redemption of long-term debt payable to affiliated trusts in January 2006, and a $16 million loss on the repayment of long-term debt payable to affiliated trusts in December 2006. The 2006 increase was partially offset by $4 million in lower other interest costs. Interest expense increased by $18 million in 2005 associated with an additional $283 million in debt outstanding and a 164 basis point increase in average interest rates on variable rate debt.
Income Taxes
Income taxes for these other businesses increased $53 million in 2007 primarily as a result of a $30 million decrease in net synthetic fuel tax credits as a result of terminating Southern Company’s membership interest in one of the synthetic fuel entities in 2006 and increasing the synthetic fuel tax credit reserves due to an anticipated phase-out of synthetic fuel tax credits due to higher oil prices. The $136 million increase in income taxes in 2006 as compared with 2005 primarily resulted from a $111 million decrease in net synthetic fuel tax credits as a result of terminating Southern Company’s membership interest in one of the synthetic fuel entities, curtailing production at the other synthetic fuel entity from May to September 2006, and increasing the synthetic fuel tax credit reserves due to an anticipated phase-out of synthetic fuel tax credits due to higher oil prices. See Note 5 to the financial statements under “Effective Tax Rate” for further information. The 2005 decrease in income taxes when compared to the prior year was not material.
Effects of Inflation
The traditional operating companies and Southern Power are subject to rate regulation and party to long-term contracts that are generally based on the recovery of historical costs. When historical costs are included, or when inflation exceeds projected costs used in rate regulation or in market-based prices, the effects of inflation can create an economic loss since the recovery of costs could be in dollars that have less purchasing power. In addition, the income tax laws are based on historical costs. While the inflation rate has been relatively low in recent years, it continues to have an adverse effect on Southern Company because of the large investment in utility plant with long economic lives. Conventional accounting for historical cost does not recognize this economic loss nor the partially offsetting gain that arises through financing facilities with fixed-money obligations such as long-term debt, preferred securities, preferred stock, and preference stock. Any recognition of inflation by regulatory authorities is reflected in the rate of return allowed in the traditional operating companies’ approved electric rates.

II-22


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL
General
The four traditional operating companies operate as vertically integrated utilities providing electricity to customers within their service areas in the southeastern United States. Prices for electricity provided to retail customers are set by state PSCs under cost-based regulatory principles. Prices for wholesale electricity sales, interconnecting transmission lines, and the exchange of electric power are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Retail rates and earnings are reviewed and may be adjusted periodically within certain limitations. Southern Power continues to focus on long-term capacity contracts, optimized by limited energy trading activities. See ACCOUNTING POLICIES — “Application of Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates — Electric Utility Regulation” herein and Note 3 to the financial statements for additional information about regulatory matters.
The results of operations for the past three years are not necessarily indicative of future earnings potential. The level of Southern Company’s future earnings depends on numerous factors that affect the opportunities, challenges, and risks of Southern Company’s primary business of selling electricity. These factors include the traditional operating companies’ ability to maintain a stable regulatory environment that continues to allow for the recovery of all prudently incurred costs during a time of increasing costs. Other major factors include the profitability of the competitive wholesale supply business and federal regulatory policy (including the FERC’s market-based rate proceeding), which may impact Southern Company’s level of participation in this market. Future earnings for the electricity business in the near term will depend, in part, upon growth in energy sales, which is subject to a number of factors. These factors include weather, competition, new energy contracts with neighboring utilities, energy conservation practiced by customers, the price of electricity, the price elasticity of demand, and the rate of economic growth in the service area. In addition, the level of future earnings for the wholesale supply business also depends on numerous factors including creditworthiness of customers, total generating capacity available in the Southeast, and the successful remarketing of capacity as current contracts expire.
Southern Company system generating capacity increased 163 megawatts due to Southern Power’s completion of Plant Oleander Unit 5 in December 2007. In general, Southern Company has constructed or acquired new generating capacity only after entering into long-term capacity contracts for the new facilities or to meet requirements of Southern Company’s regulated retail markets, both of which are optimized by limited energy trading activities.
To adapt to a less regulated, more competitive environment, Southern Company continues to evaluate and consider a wide array of potential business strategies. These strategies may include business combinations, acquisitions involving other utility or non-utility businesses or properties, disposition of certain assets, internal restructuring, or some combination thereof. Furthermore, Southern Company may engage in new business ventures that arise from competitive and regulatory changes in the utility industry. Pursuit of any of the above strategies, or any combination thereof, may significantly affect the business operations, risks, and financial condition of Southern Company.
Environmental Matters
Compliance costs related to the Clean Air Act and other environmental statutes and regulations could affect earnings if such costs cannot continue to be fully recovered in rates on a timely basis. Environmental compliance spending over the next several years may exceed amounts estimated. Some of the factors driving the potential for such an increase are higher commodity costs, market demand for labor, and scope additions and clarifications. The timing, specific requirements, and estimated costs could also change as environmental statutes and regulations are adopted or modified. See Note 3 to the financial statements under “Environmental Matters” for additional information.

II-23


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
New Source Review Actions
In November 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) brought a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against certain Southern Company subsidiaries, including Alabama Power and Georgia Power, alleging that these subsidiaries had violated the New Source Review (NSR) provisions of the Clean Air Act and related state laws at certain coal-fired generating facilities. Through subsequent amendments and other legal procedures, the EPA filed a separate action in January 2001 against Alabama Power in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama after Alabama Power was dismissed from the original action. In these lawsuits, the EPA alleged that NSR violations occurred at eight coal-fired generating facilities operated by Alabama Power and Georgia Power. The civil actions request penalties and injunctive relief, including an order requiring the installation of the best available control technology at the affected units. The action against Georgia Power has been administratively closed since the spring of 2001, and the case has not been reopened.
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 the alleged NSR violations at Plant Miller. The consent decree required Alabama Power to pay $100,000 to resolve the government’s claim for a civil penalty and to donate $4.9 million of sulfur dioxide emission allowances to a nonprofit charitable organization and formalized specific emissions reductions to be accomplished by Alabama Power, consistent with other Clean Air Act programs that require emissions reductions. In August 2006, the district court in Alabama granted Alabama Power’s motion for summary judgment and entered final judgment in favor of Alabama Power on the EPA’s claims related to all of the remaining plants: Plants Barry, Gaston, Gorgas, and Greene County.
The plaintiffs appealed the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the appeal was stayed by the Appeals Court pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in a similar case against Duke Energy. The Supreme Court issued its decision in the Duke Energy case in April 2007. On October 5, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama issued an order in the Alabama Power case indicating a willingness to re-evaluate its previous decision in light of the Supreme Court’s Duke Energy opinion. On December 21, 2007, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s decision in the Alabama Power case and remanded the case back to the district court for consideration of the legal issues in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Duke Energy case. The final outcome of these matters cannot be determined at this time.
Southern Company believes that the traditional operating companies complied with applicable laws and the EPA regulations and interpretations in effect at the time the work in question took place. The Clean Air Act authorizes maximum civil penalties of $25,000 to $32,500 per day, per violation at each generating unit, depending on the date of the alleged violation. An adverse outcome in either of these cases 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.
The EPA has issued a series of proposed and final revisions to its NSR regulations under the Clean Air Act, many of which have been subject to legal challenges by environmental groups and states. In June 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld, in part, the EPA’s revisions to NSR regulations that were issued in December 2002 but vacated portions of those revisions addressing the exclusion of certain pollution control projects. These regulatory revisions have been adopted by each of the states within Southern Company’s service territory. In March 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also vacated an EPA rule which sought to clarify the scope of the existing routine maintenance, repair, and replacement exclusion. The EPA has also published proposed rules clarifying the test for determining when an emissions increase subject to the NSR permitting requirements has occurred. The impact of these proposed rules will depend on adoption of the final rules by the EPA and the individual state implementation of such rules, as well as the outcome of any additional legal challenges, and, therefore, cannot be determined at this time.

II-24


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
Carbon Dioxide Litigation
In July 2004, attorneys general from eight states, each outside of Southern Company’s service territory, and the corporation counsel for New York City filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Southern Company and four other electric power companies. A nearly identical complaint was filed by three environmental groups in the same court. The complaints allege that the companies’ emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, contribute to global warming, which the plaintiffs assert is a public nuisance. Under common law public and private nuisance theories, the plaintiffs seek a judicial order (1) holding each defendant jointly and severally liable for creating, contributing to, and/or maintaining global warming and (2) requiring each of the defendants to cap its emissions of carbon dioxide and then reduce those emissions by a specified percentage each year for at least a decade. Plaintiffs have not, however, requested that damages be awarded in connection with their claims. Southern Company believes these claims are without merit and notes that the complaint cites no statutory or regulatory basis for the claims. In September 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Southern 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 no decision has been issued. The ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be determined at this time.
Environmental Statutes and Regulations
General
Southern Company’s operations are subject to extensive regulation by state and federal environmental agencies under a variety of statutes and regulations governing environmental media, including air, water, and land resources. Applicable statutes include the Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Toxic Substances Control Act; the Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act; and the Endangered Species Act. Compliance with these environmental requirements involves significant capital and operating costs, a major portion of which is expected to be recovered through existing ratemaking provisions. Through 2007, Southern Company had invested approximately $4.7 billion in capital projects to comply with these requirements, with annual totals of $1.5 billion, $661 million, and $423 million for 2007, 2006, and 2005, respectively. The Company expects that capital expenditures to assure compliance with existing and new statutes and regulations will be an additional $1.8 billion, $1.5 billion, and $0.6 billion for 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively. The Company’s compliance strategy is impacted by changes to existing environmental laws, statutes, and regulations, the cost, availability, and existing inventory of emission allowances, and the Company’s fuel mix. Environmental costs that are known and estimable at this time are included in capital expenditures discussed under FINANCIAL CONDITION AND LIQUIDITY — “Capital Requirements and Contractual Obligations” herein.
Compliance with possible additional federal or state legislation or regulations related to global climate change, air quality, or other environmental and health concerns could also significantly affect Southern Company. New environmental legislation or regulations, or changes to existing statutes or regulations, could affect many areas of Southern Company’s operations; however, the full impact of any such changes cannot be determined at this time.
Air Quality
Compliance with the Clean Air Act and resulting regulations has been and will continue to be a significant focus for Southern Company. Through 2007, the Company had spent approximately $3.8 billion in reducing sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions and in monitoring emissions pursuant to the Clean Air Act. Additional controls have been announced and are currently being installed at several plants to further reduce SO2, NOx, and mercury emissions, maintain compliance with existing regulations, and meet new requirements.

II-25


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
In 2004, the EPA designated nonattainment areas under an eight-hour ozone standard. Areas within Southern Company’s service area that were designated as nonattainment under the eight-hour ozone standard included Macon (Georgia), Jefferson and Shelby Counties, near and including Birmingham (Alabama), and a 20-county area within metropolitan Atlanta. The Macon area was redesignated by the EPA as an attainment area on September 19, 2007. The Birmingham area was redesignated to attainment by the EPA in June 2006, and the EPA subsequently approved a maintenance plan for the area to address future exceedances of the standard. In December 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the first set of implementation rules adopted in 2004 and remanded the rules to the EPA for further refinement. On June 20, 2007, the EPA proposed additional revisions to the current eight-hour ozone standard which, if enacted, could result in designation of new nonattainment areas within Southern Company’s service territory. The EPA has requested comment and is expected to publish final revisions to the standard in 2008. The impact of this decision, if any, cannot be determined at this time and will depend on subsequent legal action and/or future nonattainment designations and state regulatory plans.
During 2005, the EPA’s fine particulate matter nonattainment designations became effective for several areas within Southern Company’s service area in Alabama and Georgia. State plans for addressing the nonattainment designations under the existing standard are required by April 2008 and could require further reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions from power plants. In September 2006, the EPA published a final rule which increased the stringency of the 24-hour average fine particulate matter air quality standard. In December 2007, state agencies recommended to the EPA that Jefferson County (Birmingham) and Etowah County (Gadsden) in Alabama and an area encompassing all or parts of 22 counties within metropolitan Atlanta in Georgia be designated as nonattainment for this standard. The EPA plans to designate nonattainment areas based on the new standard by December 2009. The ultimate outcome of this matter depends on the development and submittal of the required state plans and resolution of pending legal challenges and, therefore, cannot be determined at this time.
The EPA issued the final Clean Air Interstate Rule in March 2005. This cap-and-trade rule addresses power plant SO2 and NOx emissions that were found to contribute to nonattainment of the eight-hour ozone and fine particulate matter standards in downwind states. Twenty-eight eastern states, including each of the states within Southern Company’s service area, are subject to the requirements of the rule. The rule calls for additional reductions of NOx and/or SO2 to be achieved in two phases, 2009/2010 and 2015. States in the Southern Company service territory have completed plans to implement this program. These reductions will be accomplished by the installation of additional emission controls at Southern Company’s coal-fired facilities and/or by the purchase of emission allowances from a cap-and-trade program.
The Clean Air Visibility Rule (formerly called the Regional Haze Rule) was finalized in July 2005. The goal of this rule is to restore natural visibility conditions in certain areas (primarily national parks and wilderness areas) by 2064. The rule involves (1) the application of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) to certain sources built between 1962 and 1977 and (2) the application of any additional emissions reductions which may be deemed necessary for each designated area to achieve reasonable progress by 2018 toward the natural conditions goal. Thereafter, for each 10-year planning period, additional emissions reductions will be required to continue to demonstrate reasonable progress in each area during that period. For power plants, the Clean Air Visibility Rule allows states to determine that the Clean Air Interstate Rule satisfies BART requirements for SO2 and NOx. Extensive studies were performed for each of the Company’s affected units to demonstrate that additional particulate matter controls are not necessary under BART. At the request of the State of Georgia, additional analyses were performed for certain units in Georgia to demonstrate that no additional SO2 controls were required. Additional analyses will be required for one of the Company’s plants in Florida. States are currently completing implementation plans that contain strategies for BART and any other measures required to achieve the first phase of reasonable progress.
The impacts of the eight-hour ozone and the fine particulate matter nonattainment designations and the Clean Air Visibility Rule on the Company will depend on the development and implementation of rules at the state level. For

II-26


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
example, while it has implemented the Clean Air Interstate Rule, in June 2007 the State of Georgia approved a “multi-pollutant rule” that will require plant-specific emission controls on all but the smallest generating units in Georgia according to a schedule set forth in the rule. The rule is designed to ensure reductions in emissions of SO2, NOx, and mercury in Georgia. Therefore, the full effects of these regulations on the Company cannot be determined at this time. The Company has developed and continually updates a comprehensive environmental compliance strategy to comply with the continuing and new environmental requirements discussed above. As part of this strategy, the Company plans to install additional SO2 and NOx emission controls within the next several years to assure continued compliance with applicable air quality requirements.
In March 2005, the EPA published the final Clean Air Mercury Rule, a cap-and-trade program for the reduction of mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. The rule sets caps on mercury emissions to be implemented in two phases, 2010 and 2018, and provides for an emission allowance trading market. The final Clean Air Mercury Rule was challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The petitioners alleged that the EPA was not authorized to establish a cap-and-trade program for mercury emissions and instead the EPA must establish maximum achievable control technology standards for coal-fired electric utility steam generating units. On February 8, 2008, the court issued its ruling and vacated the Clean Air Mercury Rule. The Company’s overall environmental compliance strategy relies primarily on a combination of SO2 and NOx controls to reduce mercury emissions. Any significant changes in the strategy will depend on the outcome of any appeals and/or future federal and state rulemakings. Future rulemakings could require emission reductions more stringent than required by the Clean Air Mercury Rule.
Water Quality
In July 2004, the EPA published its final technology-based regulations under the Clean Water Act for the purpose of reducing impingement and entrainment of fish, shellfish, and other forms of aquatic life at existing power plant cooling water intake structures. The rules require baseline biological information and, perhaps, installation of fish protection technology near some intake structures at existing power plants. On January 25, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned and remanded several provisions of the rule to the EPA for revisions. Among other things, the court rejected the EPA’s use of “cost-benefit” analysis and suggested some ways to incorporate cost considerations. The full impact of these regulations will depend on subsequent legal proceedings, further rulemaking by the EPA, the results of studies and analyses performed as part of the rules’ implementation, and the actual requirements established by state regulatory agencies and, therefore, cannot be determined at this time.
Environmental Remediation
Southern Company must comply with other environmental laws and regulations that cover the handling and disposal of waste and release of hazardous substances. Under these various laws and regulations, the traditional operating companies could incur substantial costs to clean up properties. The traditional operating companies conduct studies to determine the extent of any required cleanup and have recognized in their respective financial statements the costs to clean up known sites. Amounts for cleanup and ongoing monitoring costs were not material for any year presented. The traditional operating companies may be liable for some or all required cleanup costs for additional sites that may require environmental remediation. See Note 3 to the financial statements under “Environmental Matters — Environmental Remediation” for additional information.
Global Climate Issues
Federal legislative proposals that would impose mandatory requirements related to greenhouse gas emissions continue to be considered in Congress. The ultimate outcome of these proposals cannot be determined at this time; however, mandatory restrictions on the Company’s greenhouse gas emissions could result in significant additional

II-27


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
compliance costs that could affect future unit retirement and replacement decisions and results of operations, cash flows, and financial condition if such costs are not recovered through regulated rates.
In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles. The EPA is currently developing its response to this decision. Regulatory decisions that will follow from this response may have implications for both new and existing stationary sources, such as power plants. The ultimate outcome of these rulemaking activities cannot be determined at this time; however, as with the current legislative proposals, mandatory restrictions on the Company’s greenhouse gas emissions could result in significant additional compliance costs that could affect future unit retirement and replacement decisions and results of operations, cash flows, and financial condition if such costs are not recovered through regulated rates.
In addition, some states are considering or have undertaken actions to regulate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, on July 13, 2007, the Governor of the State of Florida signed three executive orders addressing reduction of greenhouse gas emissions within the state, including statewide emission reduction targets beginning in 2017. Included in the orders is a directive to the Florida Secretary of Environmental Protection to develop rules adopting maximum allowable emissions levels of greenhouse gases for electric utilities, consistent with the statewide emission reduction targets, and a request to the Florida PSC to initiate rulemaking requiring utilities to produce at least 20% of their electricity from renewable sources. The impact of these orders on Southern Company will depend on the development, adoption, and implementation of any rules governing greenhouse gas emissions, and the ultimate outcome cannot be determined at this time.
International climate change negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change also continue. Current efforts focus on a potential successor to the Kyoto Protocol for the post 2008 through 2012 timeframe. The outcome and impact of the international negotiations cannot be determined at this time.
The Company continues to evaluate its future energy and emission profiles and is participating in voluntary programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to help develop and advance technology to reduce emissions.
FERC Matters
Market-Based Rate Authority
Each of the traditional operating companies and Southern Power has authorization from the FERC to sell power to non-affiliates, including short-term opportunity sales, at market-based prices. Specific FERC approval must be obtained with respect to a market-based contract with an affiliate.
In December 2004, the FERC initiated a proceeding to assess Southern Company’s generation dominance within its retail service territory. The ability to charge market-based rates in other markets is 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 be subject to refund to a cost-based rate level.
In late June and July 2007, hearings were held in this proceeding and the presiding administrative law judge issued an initial decision on November 9, 2007 regarding the methodology to be used in the generation dominance tests. The proceedings are ongoing. The ultimate outcome of this generation dominance proceeding cannot now be determined, but an adverse decision by the FERC in a final order could require the traditional operating companies and Southern Power to charge cost-based rates for certain wholesale sales in the Southern Company retail service territory, which may be lower than negotiated market-based rates, and could also result in refunds of up to $19.7

II-28


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
million, plus interest. Southern Company and its subsidiaries believe that there is no meritorious basis for this proceeding and are vigorously defending themselves in this matter.
On June 21, 2007, the FERC issued its final rule regarding market-based rate authority. The FERC generally retained its current market-based rate standards. The impact of this order and its effect on the generation dominance proceeding cannot now be determined.
Intercompany Interchange Contract
The 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 Southern Company Services, Inc. (SCS), as agent, under the terms of which the power pool of Southern Company 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.
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 and Southern Company notified the FERC that it accepted the modifications. The modifications largely involve functional separation and information restrictions related to marketing activities conducted on behalf of Southern Power. Southern Company filed with the FERC in November 2006 a compliance plan in connection with the order. On April 19, 2007, the FERC approved, with certain modifications, the plan submitted by Southern Company. Implementation of the plan is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements. On November 19, 2007, Southern Company notified the FERC that the plan had been implemented and the FERC division of audits subsequently began an audit pertaining to compliance implementation and related matters, which is ongoing.
Generation Interconnection Agreements
In November 2004, generator company subsidiaries of Tenaska, Inc. (Tenaska), as counterparties to three previously executed interconnection agreements with subsidiaries of Southern Company, filed complaints at the FERC requesting that the FERC modify the agreements and that those Southern Company subsidiaries refund a total of $19 million previously paid for interconnection facilities. No other similar complaints are pending with the FERC.
On January 19, 2007, the FERC issued an order granting Tenaska’s requested relief. Although the FERC’s order required the modification of Tenaska’s interconnection agreements, under the provisions of the order, Southern Company determined that no refund was payable to Tenaska. Southern Company requested rehearing asserting that the FERC retroactively applied a new principle to existing interconnection agreements. Tenaska requested rehearing of FERC’s methodology for determining the amount of refunds. The requested rehearings were denied, and Southern Company and Tenaska have appealed the orders to the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia. The final outcome of this matter cannot now be determined.
PSC Matters
Alabama Power
In October 2005, the Alabama PSC approved a revision to the Rate Stabilization and Equalization Plan (Rate RSE) requested by Alabama Power. Effective January 2007, Rate RSE adjustments are based on forward-looking

II-29


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
information for the applicable upcoming calendar year. Rate adjustments for any two-year period, when averaged together, cannot exceed 4% per year and any annual adjustment is limited to 5%. Rates remain unchanged when the retail return on common equity (ROE) is projected to be between 13% and 14.5%. If Alabama Power’s actual retail ROE is above the allowed equity return range, customer refunds will be required; however, there is no provision for additional customer billings should the actual retail ROE fall below the allowed equity return range. The Rate RSE increase for 2008 is 3.24%, or $147 million annually, and was effective in January 2008. Under the terms of Rate RSE, the maximum increase for 2009 cannot exceed 4.76%. See Note 3 to the financial statements under “Alabama Power Retail Regulatory Matters” for further information.
Georgia Power
In December 2007, the Georgia PSC approved the retail rate plan for the years 2008 through 2010 (2007 Retail Rate Plan). Under the 2007 Retail Rate Plan, Georgia Power’s earnings will continue to be evaluated against a retail ROE range of 10.25% to 12.25%. Two-thirds of any earnings above 12.25% will be applied to rate refunds with the remaining one-third applied to an environmental compliance cost recovery (ECCR) tariff. Georgia Power has agreed that it will not file for a general base rate increase during this period unless its projected retail ROE falls below 10.25%. Retail base rates increased by approximately $99.7 million effective January 1, 2008 to provide for cost recovery of transmission, distribution, generation, and other investments, as well as increased operating costs. In addition, the ECCR tariff was implemented to allow for the recovery of costs for required environmental projects mandated by state and federal regulations. The ECCR tariff increased rates by approximately $222 million effective January 1, 2008. Georgia Power is required to file a general rate case by July 1, 2010, in response to which the Georgia PSC would be expected to determine whether the 2007 Retail Rate Plan should be continued, modified, or discontinued. See Note 3 to the financial statements under “Georgia Power Retail Regulatory Matters” for additional information.
Fuel Cost Recovery
The traditional operating companies each have established fuel cost recovery rates approved by their respective state PSCs. Over the past several years, the traditional operating companies have continued to experience higher than expected fuel costs for coal, natural gas, and uranium. The traditional operating companies continuously monitor the under recovered fuel cost balance in light of these higher fuel costs. Each of the traditional operating companies received approval in 2006 and/or 2007 to increase its fuel cost recovery factor to recover existing under recovered amounts as well as projected future costs. At December 31, 2007, the amount of under recovered fuel costs included in the balance sheets was $1.1 billion compared to $1.3 billion at December 31, 2006.
Fuel cost recovery revenues as recorded on the financial statements are adjusted for differences in actual recoverable costs and amounts billed in current regulated rates. Accordingly, changing the billing factor has no significant effect on the Company’s revenues or net income, but does impact annual cash flow. Based on their respective state PSC orders, a portion of the under recovered regulatory clause revenues for Alabama Power and Georgia Power was reclassified from current assets to deferred charges and other assets in the balance sheets. See Note 1 to the financial statements under “Revenues” and Note 3 to the financial statements under “Alabama Power Retail Regulatory Matters” and “Georgia Power Retail Regulatory Matters” for additional information.
Storm Damage Cost Recovery
Each traditional operating company maintains a reserve to cover the cost of damages from major storms to its transmission and distribution lines and generally the cost of uninsured damages to its generation facilities and other property. In addition, each of the traditional operating companies has been authorized by its state PSC to defer the portion of the major storm restoration costs that exceeded the balance in its storm damage reserve account. As of December 31, 2007, the under recovered balance in Southern Company’s storm damage reserve accounts totaled

II-30


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
approximately $43 million, of which approximately $40 million and $3 million, respectively, are included in the balance sheets herein under “Other Current Assets” and “Other Regulatory Assets.”
See Notes 1 and 3 to the financial statements under “Storm Damage Reserves” and “Storm Damage Cost Recovery,” respectively, for additional information on these reserves. The final outcome of these matters cannot now be determined.
Mirant Matters
Mirant was an energy company with businesses that included independent power projects and energy trading and risk management companies in the U.S. and selected other countries. It was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Southern Company until its initial public offering in October 2000. In April 2001, Southern Company completed a spin-off to its shareholders of its remaining ownership, and Mirant became an independent corporate entity.
In July 2003, Mirant and certain of its affiliates filed for voluntary reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. In January 2006, Mirant’s plan of reorganization became effective, and Mirant emerged from bankruptcy. As part of the plan, Mirant transferred substantially all of its assets and its restructured debt to a new corporation that adopted the name Mirant Corporation (Reorganized Mirant). Southern Company has certain contingent liabilities associated with guarantees of contractual commitments made by Mirant’s subsidiaries discussed in Note 7 to the financial statements under “Guarantees” and with various lawsuits discussed in Note 3 to the financial statements under “Mirant Matters.”
In December 2004, as a result of concluding an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audit for the tax years 2000 and 2001, Southern Company paid approximately $39 million in additional tax and interest related to Mirant tax items and filed a claim in Mirant’s bankruptcy case for that amount. Through December 2007, Southern Company received from the IRS approximately $36 million in refunds related to Mirant. Southern Company believes it has a right to recoup the $39 million tax payment owed by Mirant from such tax refunds. As a result, Southern Company intends to retain the tax refunds and reduce its claim against Mirant for the payment of Mirant taxes by the amount of such refunds. MC Asset Recovery, a special purpose subsidiary of Reorganized Mirant, has objected to and sought to equitably subordinate the Southern Company tax claim in its fraudulent transfer litigation against Southern Company. Southern Company has reserved the approximately $3 million amount remaining with respect to its Mirant tax claim.
If Southern Company is ultimately required to make any additional payments either with respect to the IRS audit or its contingent obligations under guarantees of Mirant subsidiaries, Mirant’s indemnification obligation to Southern Company for these additional payments, if allowed, would constitute unsecured claims against Mirant, entitled to stock in Reorganized Mirant. See Note 3 to the financial statements under “Mirant Matters — Mirant Bankruptcy.”
In June 2005, Mirant, as a debtor in possession, and The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Mirant Corporation filed a complaint against Southern Company in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, which was amended in July 2005, February 2006, May 2006, and March 2007. In January 2006, MC Asset Recovery was substituted as plaintiff. The fourth amended complaint (the complaint) alleges that Southern Company caused Mirant to engage in certain fraudulent transfers and to pay illegal dividends to Southern Company prior to the spin-off. The complaint also seeks to recharacterize certain advances from Southern Company to Mirant for investments in energy facilities from debt to equity. The complaint further alleges that Southern Company is liable to Mirant’s creditors for the full amount of Mirant’s liability and that Southern Company breached its fiduciary duties to Mirant and its creditors, caused Mirant to breach fiduciary duties to its creditors, and aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by Mirant’s directors and officers. The complaint also seeks recoveries under theories of restitution, unjust enrichment, and alter ego. In addition, the complaint alleges a claim under the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act (FDCPA) to void certain transfers from Mirant to Southern Company. MC Asset

II-31


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
Recovery claims to have standing to assert violations of the FDCPA and to recover property on behalf of the Mirant debtors’ estates. The complaint seeks monetary damages in excess of $2 billion plus interest, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. Finally, the complaint includes an objection to Southern Company’s pending claims against Mirant in the Bankruptcy Court (which relate to reimbursement under the separation agreements of payments such as income taxes, interest, legal fees, and other guarantees described in Note 7 to the financial statements) and seeks equitable subordination of Southern Company’s claims to the claims of all other creditors. Southern Company served an answer to the complaint in April 2007.
In February 2006, the Company’s motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia was granted. In May 2006, Southern Company filed a motion for summary judgment seeking entry of judgment against the plaintiff as to all counts in the complaint. In December 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted in part and denied in part the motion. As a result, certain breach of fiduciary duty claims alleged in earlier versions of the complaint were barred; all other claims may proceed. Southern Company believes there is no meritorious basis for the claims in the complaint and is vigorously defending itself in this action. See Note 3 to the financial statements under “Mirant Matters — MC Asset Recovery Litigation” for additional information. The ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be determined at this time.
Mirant Securities Litigation
In November 2002, Southern Company, certain former and current senior officers of Southern Company, and 12 underwriters of Mirant’s initial public offering were added as defendants in a class action lawsuit that several Mirant shareholders originally filed against Mirant and certain Mirant officers in May 2002. Several other similar lawsuits filed subsequently were consolidated into this litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The amended complaint is based on allegations related to alleged improper energy trading and marketing activities involving the California energy market, alleged false statements and omissions in Mirant’s prospectus for its initial public offering and in subsequent public statements by Mirant, and accounting-related issues previously disclosed by Mirant. The lawsuit purports to include persons who acquired Mirant securities between September 26, 2000 and September 5, 2002.
In July 2003, the court dismissed all claims based on Mirant’s alleged improper energy trading and marketing activities involving the California energy market. The other claims do not allege any improper trading and marketing activity, accounting errors, or material misstatements or omissions on the part of Southern Company but seek to impose liability on Southern Company based on allegations that Southern Company was a “control person” as to Mirant prior to the spin-off date. Southern Company filed an answer to the consolidated amended class action complaint in September 2003. Plaintiffs have also filed a motion for class certification.
During Mirant’s Chapter 11 proceeding, the securities litigation was stayed, with the exception of limited discovery. Since Mirant’s plan of reorganization has become effective, the stay has been lifted. In March 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration requesting that the court vacate that portion of its July 2003 order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims based upon Mirant’s alleged improper energy trading and marketing activities involving the California energy market. Southern Company and the other defendants have opposed the plaintiffs’ motion. On March 6, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, reinstated the California energy market claims, and granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel certain class certification discovery. On March 21, 2007, defendants filed renewed motions to dismiss the California energy claims on grounds originally set forth in their 2003 motions to dismiss, but which were not addressed by the court. On July 27, 2007, certain defendants, including Southern Company, filed motions for reconsideration of the court’s denial of a motion seeking dismissal of certain federal securities laws claims based upon, among other things, certain alleged errors included in financial statements issued by Mirant. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.

II-32


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
The plaintiffs have also stated that they intend to request that the court grant leave for them to amend the complaint to add allegations based upon claims asserted against Southern Company in the MC Asset Recovery litigation.
Under certain circumstances, Southern Company will be obligated under its Bylaws to indemnify the four current and/or former Southern Company officers who served as directors of Mirant at the time of its initial public offering through the date of the spin-off and who are also named as defendants in this lawsuit. The final outcome of this matter cannot now be determined.
Income Tax Matters
Leveraged Lease Transactions
Southern Company undergoes audits by the IRS for each of its tax years. The IRS has completed its audits of Southern Company’s consolidated federal income tax returns for all years prior to 2004. The IRS challenged Southern Company’s deductions related to three international lease transactions (SILO or sale-in-lease-out transactions), in connection with its audits of Southern Company’s 2000 through 2003 tax returns. In the third quarter 2006, Southern Company paid the full amount of the disputed tax and the applicable interest on the SILO issue for tax years 2000 and 2001 and filed a claim for refund which was denied by the IRS. The disputed tax amount was $79 million and the related interest approximately $24 million for these tax years. This payment, and the subsequent IRS disallowance of the refund claim, closed the issue with the IRS and Southern Company initiated litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for a complete refund of tax and interest paid for the 2000 and 2001 tax years. The IRS also challenged the SILO deductions for the tax years 2002 and 2003. The estimated amount of disputed tax and interest for these tax years was approximately $83 million and $15 million, respectively. The tax and interest for these tax years was paid to the IRS in the fourth quarter 2006. Southern Company has accounted for both payments in 2006 as deposits. For tax years 2000 through 2007, Southern Company has claimed approximately $330 million in tax benefits related to these SILO transactions challenged by the IRS. These tax benefits relate to timing differences and do not impact total net income. Southern Company believes these transactions are valid leases for U.S. tax purposes and the related deductions are allowable. Southern Company is continuing to pursue resolution of these matters; however, the ultimate outcome cannot now be determined. In addition, the U.S. Senate is currently considering legislation that would disallow tax benefits after December 31, 2007 for SILO losses and other international leveraged lease transactions (such as lease-in-lease-out transactions). The ultimate impact on Southern Company’s net income and cash flow will be dependent on the outcome of the pending litigation and proposed legislation, but could be significant, and potentially material.
FSP 13-2 amended FASB Statement No. 13, “Accounting for Leases” to require recalculation of the rate of return and the allocation of income whenever the projected timing of the income tax cash flows generated by a leveraged lease is revised. Southern Company adopted FSP 13-2 effective January 1, 2007. The initial adoption required Southern Company to recognize a cumulative effect through retained earnings. Any future changes in the underlying lease assumptions that will change the projected or actual income tax cash flows will result in an additional recalculation of the net investment in the leases and will be recorded currently in income. See ACCOUNTING POLICIES — “New Accounting Standards — Leveraged Lease Transactions” herein and Note 3 to the financial statements under “Income Tax Matters” herein for further details.
Bonus Depreciation
On February 13, 2008, President Bush signed the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 (Stimulus Act) into law. The Stimulus Act includes a provision that allows 50% bonus depreciation for certain property acquired in 2008 and placed in service in 2008 or, in certain limited cases, 2009. Southern Company is currently assessing the financial implications of the Stimulus Act; however, the ultimate impact cannot be determined at this time.

II-33


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
Georgia State Income Tax Credits
Georgia Power’s 2005 through 2007 income tax filings for the State of Georgia include state income tax credits for increased activity through Georgia ports. Georgia Power has also filed similar claims for the years 2002 through 2004. The Georgia Department of Revenue has not responded to these claims. On July 24, 2007, Georgia Power filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton County to recover the credits claimed for the years 2002 through 2004. If allowed, these claims could have a significant, possibly material, positive effect on Southern Company’s net income. If Georgia Power is not successful, payment of the related state tax could have a significant, possibly material, negative effect on Southern Company’s cash flow. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot now be determined.
Internal Revenue Code Section 199 Domestic Production Deduction
The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 created a tax deduction for a portion of income attributable to U.S. production activities as defined in the Internal Revenue Code Section 199 (production activities deduction). The deduction is equal to a stated percentage of qualified production activities net income. The percentage is phased in over the years 2005 through 2010 with a 3% rate applicable to the years 2005 and 2006, a 6% rate applicable for years 2007 through 2009, and a 9% rate applicable for all years after 2009. See Note 5 to the financial statements under “Effective Tax Rate” for additional information.
Construction Projects
Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle
In December 2005, Southern Power and the Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) executed definitive agreements for development of a 285-megawatt IGCC project in Orlando, Florida. The definitive agreements provided that Southern Power would own at least 65% of the gasifier portion of the IGCC project. OUC would own the remainder of the gasifier portion and 100% of the combined cycle portion of the IGCC project. Southern Power signed cooperative agreements with the DOE that provided up to $293.8 million in grant funding for the gasification portion of this project. The IGCC project was expected to begin commercial operation in 2010. Due to continuing uncertainty surrounding potential state regulations relating to greenhouse gas emissions, Southern Power and OUC mutually agreed to terminate the construction of the gasifier portion of the IGCC project in November 2007. Southern Power will continue construction of the gas-fired combined cycle generating facility under a fixed price, long-term contract for engineering, procurement, and construction services. The Company recorded an after-tax loss of approximately $10.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2007 related to the cancellation of the gasifier portion of the IGCC project.
In June 2006, Mississippi Power filed an application with the United States Department of Energy (DOE) for certain tax credits available to projects using clean coal technologies under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The proposed project is an advanced coal gasification facility located in Kemper County, Mississippi that would use locally mined lignite coal. The proposed 693-megawatt plant is expected to require an approximate investment of $1.5 billion, excluding the mine costs, and is expected to be completed in 2013. The DOE subsequently certified the project and in November 2006 the IRS allocated Internal Revenue Code tax credits to Mississippi Power of $133 million. The utilization of these credits is dependent upon meeting the certification requirements for the project under the Internal Revenue Code. The plant would use an air-blown IGCC technology that generates power from low-rank coals and coals with high moisture or high ash content. These coals, which include lignite, make up half the proven U.S. and worldwide coal reserves. Mississippi Power is undertaking a feasibility assessment of the project which could take up to two years. Approval by various regulatory agencies, including the Mississippi PSC, will also be required if the project proceeds. The Mississippi PSC has authorized Mississippi Power to create a regulatory asset for the approved retail portion of the costs associated with the generation resource planning, evaluation, and screening

II-34


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
activities up to approximately $23.8 million ($16 million for the retail portion). The retail portion of these costs will be charged to and remain as a regulatory asset until the Mississippi PSC determines the prudence and ultimate recovery, which decision is expected in January 2009.
The final outcome of these matters cannot now be determined.
Nuclear
In August 2006, as part of a potential expansion of Plant Vogtle, Georgia Power and Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) filed an application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for an early site permit (ESP) on behalf of the owners of Plant Vogtle. In addition, Georgia Power and SNC notified the NRC of their intent to apply for a combined construction and operating license (COL) in 2008. Ownership agreements have been signed with each of the existing Plant Vogtle co-owners. See Note 4 to the financial statements for additional information on these co-owners. In June 2006, the Georgia PSC approved an accounting order that would allow Georgia Power to defer for future recovery the ESP and COL costs, of which Georgia Power’s portion is estimated to total approximately $51 million. At December 31, 2007, approximately $28.4 million is included in deferred charges and other assets. No final decision has been made regarding actual construction. Any new generation resource must be certified by the Georgia PSC in a separate proceeding.
Southern Company also is participating in NuStart Energy Development, LLC (NuStart Energy), a broad-based nuclear industry consortium formed to share the cost of developing a COL and the related NRC review. NuStart Energy was organized to complete detailed engineering design work and to prepare COL applications for two advanced reactor designs. COLs for the two reactor designs were submitted to the NRC during the fourth quarter of 2007. The COLs ultimately are expected to be transferred to one or more of the consortium companies; however, at this time, none of them have committed to build a new nuclear plant.
Southern Company is also exploring other possibilities relating to nuclear power projects, both on its own or in partnership with other utilities. The final outcome of these matters cannot now be determined.
Nuclear Relicensing
In January 2002, the NRC granted Georgia Power a 20-year extension of the licenses for both units at Plant Hatch which permits the operation of Units 1 and 2 until 2034 and 2038, respectively. Georgia Power filed an application with the NRC in June 2007 to extend the licenses for Plant Vogtle Units 1 and 2 for an additional 20 years. Georgia Power anticipates the NRC may make a decision regarding the license extension for Plant Vogtle as early as 2009.
Other Matters
Southern Company is involved in various other matters being litigated, regulatory matters, and certain tax-related issues that could affect future earnings. In addition, Southern Company is subject to certain claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. Southern Company’s business activities are subject to extensive governmental regulation related to public health and the environment. 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 claims for damages caused by alleged exposure to hazardous materials have become more frequent. The ultimate outcome of such pending or potential litigation against Southern Company and its subsidiaries cannot be predicted at this time; however, for current proceedings not specifically reported herein, management does not anticipate that the liabilities, if any, arising from such current

II-35


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
proceedings would have a material adverse effect on Southern Company’s financial statements. See Note 3 to the financial statements for information regarding material issues.
ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Application of Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
Southern Company prepares its consolidated financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. Significant accounting policies are described in Note 1 to the financial statements. In the application of these policies, certain estimates are made that may have a material impact on Southern Company’s results of operations and related disclosures. Different assumptions and measurements could produce estimates that are significantly different from those recorded in the financial statements. Senior management has discussed the development and selection of the critical accounting policies and estimates described below with the Audit Committee of Southern Company’s Board of Directors.
Electric Utility Regulation
Southern Company’s traditional operating companies, which comprise approximately 91% of Southern Company’s total earnings for 2007, are subject to retail regulation by their respective state PSCs and wholesale regulation by the FERC. These regulatory agencies set the rates the traditional operating companies are permitted to charge customers based on allowable costs. As a result, the traditional operating companies apply FASB Statement No. 71, “Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types of Regulation” (SFAS No. 71), which requires the financial statements to reflect the effects of rate regulation. Through the ratemaking process, the regulators may require the inclusion of costs or revenues in periods different than when they would be recognized by a non-regulated company. This treatment may result in the deferral of expenses and the recording of related regulatory assets based on anticipated future recovery through rates or the deferral of gains or creation of liabilities and the recording of related regulatory liabilities. The application of SFAS No. 71 has a further effect on the Company’s financial statements as a result of the estimates of allowable costs used in the ratemaking process. These estimates may differ from those actually incurred by the traditional operating companies; therefore, the accounting estimates inherent in specific costs such as depreciation, nuclear decommissioning, and pension and postretirement benefits have less of a direct impact on the Company’s results of operations than they would on a non-regulated company.
As reflected in Note 1 to the financial statements, significant regulatory assets and liabilities have been recorded. Management reviews the ultimate recoverability of these regulatory assets and liabilities based on applicable regulatory guidelines and accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. However, adverse legislative, judicial, or regulatory actions could materially impact the amounts of such regulatory assets and liabilities and could adversely impact the Company’s financial statements.
Contingent Obligations
Southern Company and its subsidiaries are subject to a number of federal and state laws and regulations, as well as other factors and conditions that potentially subject them to environmental, litigation, income tax, and other risks. See FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL herein and Note 3 to the financial statements for more information regarding certain of these contingencies. Southern Company periodically evaluates its exposure to such risks and records reserves for those matters where a loss is considered probable and reasonably estimable in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The adequacy of reserves can be significantly affected by external events or conditions that can be unpredictable; thus, the ultimate outcome of such matters could materially affect Southern Company’s financial statements. These events or conditions include the following:

II-36


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
  Changes in existing state or federal regulation by governmental authorities having jurisdiction over air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances, hazardous and solid wastes, and other environmental matters.
 
  Changes in existing income tax regulations or changes in IRS or state revenue department interpretations of existing regulations.
 
  Identification of additional sites that require environmental remediation or the filing of other complaints in which Southern Company or its subsidiaries may be asserted to be a potentially responsible party.
 
  Identification and evaluation of other potential lawsuits or complaints in which Southern Company or its subsidiaries may be named as a defendant.
 
  Resolution or progression of existing matters through the legislative process, the court systems, the IRS, the FERC, or the EPA.
Unbilled Revenues
Revenues related to the sale of electricity are recorded when electricity is delivered to customers. However, the determination of KWH sales to individual customers is based on the reading of their meters, which is performed on a systematic basis throughout the month. At the end of each month, amounts of electricity delivered to customers, but not yet metered and billed, are estimated. Components of the unbilled revenue estimates include total KWH territorial supply, total KWH billed, estimated total electricity lost in delivery, and customer usage. These components can fluctuate as a result of a number of factors including weather, generation patterns, and power delivery volume and other operational constraints. These factors can be unpredictable and can vary from historical trends. As a result, the overall estimate of unbilled revenues could be significantly affected, which could have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations.
Leveraged Leases
FASB Staff Position No. FAS 13-2, “Accounting for a Change or Projected Change in the Timing of Cash Flows Relating to Income Taxes Generated by a Leveraged Lease Transaction” (FSP 13-2) amended FASB Statement No. 13, “Accounting for Leases” to require recalculation of the rate of return and the allocation of income whenever the projected timing of the income tax cash flows generated by a leveraged lease is revised. Southern Company adopted FSP 13-2 effective January 1, 2007. The initial adoption required Southern Company to record a cumulative effect to retained earnings. Any future changes in the underlying lease assumptions, such as the expected resolution date of the ongoing SILO litigation, which will change the projected or actual income tax cash flows will result in an additional recalculation of the net investment in the leases and will be recorded currently in income. See FUTURE EARNINGS POTENTIAL — “Income Tax Matters — Leveraged Lease Transactions” above and Note 3 to the financial statements under “Income Tax Matters” herein for further details.
New Accounting Standards
Income Taxes
On January 1, 2007, Southern Company adopted FASB Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes” (FIN 48), which requires companies to determine whether it is “more likely than not” that a tax position will be sustained upon examination by the appropriate taxing authorities before any part of the benefit can be recorded in the financial statements. It also provides guidance on the recognition, measurement, and classification of income tax uncertainties, along with any related interest and penalties. The provisions of FIN 48 were applied to all tax positions beginning January 1, 2007. The impact on Southern Company’s financial

II-37


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
statements was a reduction to beginning 2007 retained earnings of approximately $15 million related to Southern Company’s SILO transactions. See Note 5 to the financial statements for additional information.
Leveraged Leases
Effective January 1, 2007, Southern Company adopted FSP 13-2. The cumulative effect of initially adopting FSP 13-2 was recorded as a reduction to beginning retained earnings. For the LILO (lease-in-lease-out) transaction settled with the IRS in February 2005, the cumulative effect of adopting FSP 13-2 was a $17 million reduction in retained earnings. With respect to Southern Company’s SILO transactions, the adoption of FSP 13-2 reduced retained earnings by $108 million. The adjustments to retained earnings are non-cash charges and will be recognized as income over the remaining terms of the affected leases. The adoption of FSP 13-2 also resulted in a reduction to net income of approximately $15 million during 2007. Any future changes in the projected or actual income tax cash flows will result in an additional recalculation of the net investment in the leases and will be recorded currently in income.
Pensions and Other Postretirement Plans
On December 31, 2006, Southern Company adopted FASB Statement No. 158, “Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans” (SFAS No. 158), which requires recognition of the funded status of its defined benefit postretirement plans in the balance sheets. Additionally, SFAS No. 158 will require Southern Company to change the measurement date for its defined benefit postretirement plan assets and obligations from September 30 to December 31 beginning with the year ending December 31, 2008. See Note 2 to the financial statements for additional information.
Fair Value Measurement
The FASB issued FASB Statement No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements” (SFAS No. 157) in September 2006. SFAS No. 157 provides guidance on how to measure fair value where it is permitted or required under other accounting pronouncements. SFAS No. 157 also requires additional disclosures about fair value measurements. Southern Company adopted SFAS No. 157 in its entirety on January 1, 2008, with no material effect on its financial condition or results of operations.
Fair Value Option
In February 2007, the FASB issued FASB Statement No. 159, “Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities — Including an Amendment of FASB Statement No. 115” (SFAS No. 159). This standard permits an entity to choose to measure many financial instruments and certain other items at fair value. Southern Company adopted SFAS No. 159 on January 1, 2008, with no material effect on its financial condition or results of operations.
Business Combinations
In December 2007, the FASB issued FASB Statement No. 141 (revised 2007), “Business Combinations (SFAS No. 141R). SFAS No. 141R, when adopted, will significantly change the accounting for business combinations, specifically the accounting for contingent consideration, contingencies, acquisition costs, and restructuring costs. Southern Company plans to adopt SFAS No. 141R on January 1, 2009. It is likely that the adoption of SFAS No. 141R will have a significant impact on the accounting for any business combinations completed by Southern Company after January 1, 2009.
In December 2007, the FASB issued FASB Statement No. 160, “Non-controlling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements” (SFAS No. 160). SFAS No. 160 amends Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51, “Consolidated

II-38


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
Financial Statements” to establish accounting and reporting standards for the non-controlling (minority) interest in a subsidiary and for the deconsolidation of a subsidiary. It clarifies that a non-controlling interest in a subsidiary should be reported as equity in the consolidated financial statements and establishes a single method of accounting for changes in a parent’s ownership interest in a subsidiary that do not result in deconsolidation. Southern Company plans to adopt SFAS No. 160 on January 1, 2009. Southern Company is currently assessing its impact, if any.
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND LIQUIDITY
Overview
Southern Company’s financial condition remained stable at December 31, 2007. Net cash provided from operating activities totaled $3.4 billion, an increase of $575 million as compared to 2006. The increase was primarily due to an increase in net income as previously discussed, an increase in cash collections from previously deferred fuel and storm damage costs, and a reduction in cash outflows compared to the previous year in fossil fuel inventory. In 2006, net cash provided from operating activities increased over the previous year by $290 million primarily as a result of a decrease in under recovered storm restoration costs, a decrease in accounts payable from year-end 2005 amounts that included substantial hurricane-related expenditures, partially offset by an increase in fossil fuel inventory. In 2005, net cash provided from operating activities totaled $2.5 billion, a decrease of $165 million as compared to 2004 primarily due to higher fuel costs at the traditional operating companies, partially offset by increases in base rates and fuel recovery rates.
Net cash used for investing activities in 2007 totaled $3.7 billion primarily due to property additions to utility plant of $3.5 billion. In 2006, net cash used for investing activities was $2.8 billion primarily due to property additions to utility plant of $3.0 billion, partially offset by proceeds from the sale of Southern Company Gas LLC and the receipt by Mississippi Power of capital grant proceeds related to Hurricane Katrina. In 2005, net cash used for investing activities was $2.6 billion primarily due to property additions to utility plant of $2.4 billion.
Net cash provided from financing activities totaled $348 million in 2007 primarily due to replacement of short-term debt with longer term financing and cash raised from common stock programs. In 2006 and 2005, net cash used for financing activities was $21 million and $67 million, respectively.
Significant balance sheet changes in 2007 include an increase in long-term debt of $1.6 billion primarily to replace short-term debt and to provide funds for the Company’s continuous construction program. Balance sheet changes also include an increase in property, plant, and equipment of $2.2 billion and an increase in prepaid pension assets of $820 million with a corresponding increase in other regulatory liabilities.
At the end of 2007, the closing price of Southern Company’s common stock was $38.75 per share, compared with book value of $16.23 per share. The market-to-book value ratio was 239% at the end of 2007, compared with 242% at year-end 2006.
Southern Company, each of the traditional operating companies, and Southern Power have received investment grade ratings from the major rating agencies with respect to debt, preferred securities, preferred stock, and/or preference stock. SCS has an investment grade corporate credit rating.
Sources of Capital
Southern Company intends to meet its future capital needs through internal cash flow and external security issuances. Equity capital can be provided from any combination of the Company’s stock plans, private placements, or public offerings. The amount and timing of additional equity capital to be raised in 2008, as well as in subsequent years, will be contingent on Southern Company’s investment opportunities.

II-39


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
The traditional operating companies and Southern Power plan to obtain the funds required for construction and other purposes from sources similar to those used in the past, which were primarily from operating cash flows, security issuances, term loans, and short-term borrowings. However, the type and timing of any financings, if needed, will depend upon prevailing market conditions, regulatory approval, and other factors. The issuance of securities by the traditional operating companies is generally subject to the approval of the applicable state PSC. In addition, the issuance of all securities by Mississippi Power and Southern Power and short-term securities by Georgia Power is generally subject to regulatory approval by the FERC. Additionally, with respect to the public offering of securities, Southern Company and certain of its subsidiaries file registration statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (1933 Act). The amounts of securities authorized by the appropriate regulatory authorities, as well as the amounts, if any, registered under the 1933 Act, are continuously monitored and appropriate filings are made to ensure flexibility in the capital markets.
Southern Company, each traditional operating company, and Southern Power obtain financing separately without credit support from any affiliate. See Note 6 to the financial statements under “Bank Credit Arrangements” for additional information. The Southern Company system does not maintain a centralized cash or money pool. Therefore, funds of each company are not commingled with funds of any other company.
Southern Company’s current liabilities frequently exceed current assets because of the continued use of short-term debt as a funding source to meet cash needs as well as scheduled maturities of long-term debt. To meet short-term cash needs and contingencies, Southern Company has substantial cash flow from operating activities and access to the capital markets, including commercial paper programs, to meet liquidity needs.
At December 31, 2007, Southern Company and its subsidiaries had approximately $201 million of cash and cash equivalents and $4.1 billion of unused credit arrangements with banks, of which $811 million expire in 2008 and $3.3 billion expire in 2012. Approximately $79 million of the credit facilities expiring in 2008 allow for the execution of term loans for an additional two-year period, and $500 million allow for the execution of one-year term loans. Most of these arrangements contain covenants that limit debt levels and typically contain cross default provisions that are restricted only to the indebtedness of the individual company. Southern Company and its subsidiaries are currently in compliance with all such covenants. See Note 6 to the financial statements under “Bank Credit Arrangements” for additional information.
Financing Activities
During 2007, Southern Company and its subsidiaries issued $3.4 billion of senior notes, $456 million of obligations related to tax-exempt bonds, and $470 million of preference stock. Interest rate hedges of $1.4 billion notional amount were settled at a gain of $9 million related to the issuances. The security issuances were used to redeem $2.6 billion of long-term debt, to reduce short-term indebtedness, to fund Southern Company’s ongoing construction program, and for general corporate purposes.
Subsequent to December 31, 2007, Alabama Power issued $300 million of senior notes. The proceeds from the sale of the senior notes were used to repay a portion of outstanding short-term indebtedness and for other general corporate purposes, including Alabama Power’s continuous construction program.
Off-Balance Sheet Financing Arrangements
In 2001, Mississippi Power began the initial 10-year term of a lease agreement for a combined cycle generating facility built at Plant Daniel for approximately $370 million. In 2003, the generating facility was acquired by Juniper Capital L.P. (Juniper), a limited partnership whose investors are unaffiliated with Mississippi Power. Simultaneously, Juniper entered into a restructured lease agreement with Mississippi Power. Juniper has also entered into leases with other parties unrelated to Mississippi Power. The assets leased by Mississippi Power comprise less than 50% of Juniper’s assets. Mississippi Power is not required to consolidate the leased assets and

II-40


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
related liabilities, and the lease with Juniper is considered an operating lease. The lease also provides for a residual value guarantee, approximately 73% of the acquisition cost, by Mississippi Power that is due upon termination of the lease in the event that Mississippi Power does not renew the lease or purchase the assets and that the fair market value is less than the unamortized cost of the assets. See Note 7 to the financial statements under “Operating Leases” for additional information.
Credit Rating Risk
Southern Company does not have any credit arrangements that would require material changes in payment schedules or terminations as a result of a credit rating downgrade. There are certain contracts that could require collateral, but not accelerated payment, in the event of a credit rating change to BBB and Baa2, or BBB- or Baa3 or below. These contracts are primarily for physical electricity purchases and sales. At December 31, 2007, the maximum potential collateral requirements at a BBB and Baa2 rating were approximately $9 million and at a BBB- or Baa3 rating were approximately $297 million. At December 31, 2007, the maximum potential collateral requirements at a rating below BBB- or Baa3 were approximately $1.0 billion. Generally, collateral may be provided by a Southern Company guaranty, letter of credit, or cash.
Southern Company’s operating subsidiaries are also party to certain agreements that could require collateral and/or accelerated payment in the event of a credit rating change to below investment grade for Alabama Power and/or Georgia Power. These agreements are primarily for natural gas and power price risk management activities. At December 31, 2007, Southern Company’s total exposure to these types of agreements was approximately $15 million.
Market Price Risk
Southern Company is exposed to market risks, primarily commodity price risk and interest rate risk. To manage the volatility attributable to these exposures, the Company nets the exposures to take advantage of natural offsets and enters into various derivative transactions for the remaining exposures pursuant to the Company’s policies in areas such as counterparty exposure and risk management practices. Company policy is that derivatives are to be used primarily for hedging purposes and mandates strict adherence to all applicable risk management policies. Derivative positions are monitored using techniques including, but not limited to, market valuation, value at risk, stress testing, and sensitivity analysis.
To mitigate future exposure to a change in interest rates, the Company enters into forward starting interest rate swaps and other derivatives that have been designated as hedges. Derivatives outstanding at December 31, 2007 have a notional amount of $505 million and are related to anticipated debt issuances over the next two years. The weighted average interest rate on $3.4 billion of long-term variable interest rate exposure that has not been hedged at January 1, 2008 was 4.5%. On January 8, 2008, Georgia Power converted $115 million of floating rate pollution control bonds to a fixed interest rate, reducing the Company’s exposure to $3.3 billion. Beginning in February 2008, Georgia Power and Alabama Power hedged a total of $601 million and $576 million, respectively, of floating rate exposure, further reducing the Company’s long-term variable interest rate exposure to $2.1 billion. If Southern Company sustained a 100 basis point change in interest rates for all unhedged variable rate long-term debt, the change would affect annualized interest expense by approximately $33.7 million at January 1, 2008. Subsequent to the recently completed transactions, a 100 basis point change in interest rates for all unhedged variable rate long-term debt would affect annualized interest expense by approximately $22.2 million. For further information, see Notes 1 and 6 to the financial statements under “Financial Instruments.”
Of the Company’s remaining $2.1 billion of variable interest rate exposure, approximately $1.1 billion relates to tax-exempt auction rate pollution control bonds. Recent weakness in the auction markets has resulted in failed auctions during February 2008 of some of the $1.1 billion auction rate securities which results in significantly higher interest

II-41


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
rates during the failed auctions period. The Company has sent notice of conversion of $946 million of these auction rate securities to alternative interest rate determination methods and plans to remarket all remaining auction rate securities in a timely manner. None of the securities are insured or backed by letters of credit that would require approval of a guarantor or security provider. It is not expected that the higher rates as a result of the weakness in the auction markets will be material.
Due to cost-based rate regulations, the traditional operating companies have limited exposure to market volatility in interest rates, commodity fuel prices, and prices of electricity. In addition, Southern Power’s exposure to market volatility in commodity fuel prices and prices of electricity is limited because its long-term sales contracts generally shift substantially all fuel cost responsibility to the purchaser. To mitigate residual risks relative to movements in electricity prices, the traditional operating companies enter into fixed-price contracts for the purchase and sale of electricity through the wholesale electricity market and, to a lesser extent, into financial hedge contracts for natural gas purchases. The traditional operating companies have implemented fuel-hedging programs at the instruction of their respective state PSCs.
The changes in fair value of energy-related derivative contracts and year-end valuations were as follows at December 31:
                 
    Changes in Fair Value
 
    2007   2006
 
    (in millions)
Contracts beginning of year
  $ (82 )   $ 101  
Contracts realized or settled
    80       93  
New contracts at inception
           
Changes in valuation techniques
           
Current period changes(a)
    6       (276 )
 
Contracts end of year
  $ 4     $ (82 )
 
(a)   Current period changes also include the changes in fair value of new contracts entered into during the period, if any.
                         
    Source of 2007 Year-End
    Valuation Prices
 
    Total   Maturity
    Fair Value   Year 1   1-3 Years
 
    (in millions)
Actively quoted
  $ (1 )   $ (11 )   $ 10  
External sources
    5       5        
Models and other methods
                 
 
Contracts end of year
  $ 4     $ (6 )   $ 10  
 
Unrealized gains and losses from mark-to-market adjustments on derivative contracts related to the traditional operating companies’ fuel hedging programs are recorded as regulatory assets and liabilities. Realized gains and losses from these programs are included in fuel expense and are recovered through the traditional operating companies’ fuel cost recovery clauses. In addition, unrealized gains and losses on energy-related derivatives used by Southern Power to hedge anticipated purchases and sales are deferred in other comprehensive income. Gains and losses on derivative contracts that are not designated as hedges are recognized in the statements of income as incurred. At December 31, 2007, the fair value gains/(losses) of energy-related derivative contracts were reflected in the financial statements as follows:

II-42


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
         
    Amounts
 
    (in millions)
Regulatory assets, net
  $     
Accumulated other comprehensive income
    1  
Net income
    3  
 
Total fair value
  $ 4  
 
Unrealized pre-tax gains and losses from energy-related derivative contracts recognized in income were not material for any year presented.
Southern Company is exposed to market price risk in the event of nonperformance by counterparties to the energy-related derivative contracts. Southern Company’s policy is to enter into agreements with counterparties that have investment grade credit ratings by Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s or with counterparties who have posted collateral to cover potential credit exposure. Therefore, Southern Company does not anticipate market risk exposure from nonperformance by the counterparties. For additional information, see Notes 1 and 6 to the financial statements under “Financial Instruments.”
To reduce Southern Company’s exposure to changes in the value of synthetic fuel tax credits, which were impacted by changes in oil prices, the Company entered into derivative transactions indexed to oil prices. Because these transactions are not designated as hedges, the gains and losses are recognized in the statements of income as incurred. For 2007, the fair value gain recognized in income for mark to market transactions was $27 million. For 2006 and 2005, the fair value losses recognized in income for mark to market transactions were $32 million and $7 million, respectively. For further information, see Notes 1 and 6 to the financial statements under “Financial Instruments.”
Capital Requirements and Contractual Obligations
The construction program of Southern Company is currently estimated to be $4.5 billion for 2008, $4.8 billion for 2009, and $4.3 billion for 2010. Environmental expenditures included in these estimated amounts are $1.8 billion, $1.5 billion, and $0.6 billion for 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively. Actual construction costs may vary from these estimates because of changes in such factors as: business conditions; environmental statutes and regulations; nuclear plant regulations; FERC rules and regulations; load projections; the cost and efficiency of construction labor, equipment, and materials; and the cost of capital. In addition, there can be no assurance that costs related to capital expenditures will be fully recovered.
As a result of NRC requirements, Alabama Power and Georgia Power have external trust funds for nuclear decommissioning costs; however, Alabama Power currently has no additional funding requirements. For additional information, see Note 1 to the financial statements under “Nuclear Decommissioning.”
In addition, as discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements, Southern Company provides postretirement benefits to substantially all employees and funds trusts to the extent required by the traditional operating companies’ respective regulatory commissions.
Other funding requirements related to obligations associated with scheduled maturities of long-term debt and preferred securities, as well as the related interest, derivative obligations, preferred and preference stock dividends, leases, and other purchase commitments are as follows. See Notes 1, 6, and 7 to the financial statements for additional information.

II-43


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
Contractual Obligations
                                                 
            2009-   2011-   After   Uncertain    
    2008   2010   2012   2012   Timing(e)   Total
 
    (in millions)
Long-term debt(a)
                                               
Principal
  $ 1,053     $ 900     $ 1,909     $ 11,353     $     $ 15,215  
Interest
    805       1,479       1,398       10,985             14,667  
Preferred stock(b)
    125                               125  
Preferred and preference stock dividends(c)
    71       142       142                   355  
Other derivative obligations(d)
                                               
Commodity
    46                               46  
Interest
    16       4                         20  
Operating leases
    125       199        109       164             597  
Unrecognized tax benefits and interest(e)
    187                          108       295  
Purchase commitments(f)
                                               
Capital(g)
    4,275       8,779                         13,054  
Limestone(h)
    7       49       69       180             305  
Coal
    3,413       3,766       1,359       1,683             10,221  
Nuclear fuel
    176       358        313       167             1,014  
Natural gas(i)
    1,735       1,773        948       3,530             7,986  
Purchased power
    177        436        381       1,656             2,650  
Long-term service agreements(j)
    81        203        205       1,784             2,273  
Trusts —
                                               
Nuclear decommissioning
    7       7       7       56             77  
Postretirement benefits(k)
    46       84                         130  
 
Total
  $ 12,345     $ 18,179     $ 6,840     $ 31,558     $ 108     $ 69,030  
 
(a)   All amounts are reflected based on final maturity dates. Southern Company and its subsidiaries plan to continue to retire higher-cost securities and replace these obligations with lower-cost capital if market conditions permit. Variable rate interest obligations are estimated based on rates as of January 1, 2008, as reflected in the statements of capitalization. Fixed rates include, where applicable, the effects of interest rate derivatives employed to manage interest rate risk.
 
(b)   On October 26, 2007, Alabama Power announced the redemption on January 1, 2008 of 1,250 shares of Flexible Money Market Class A Preferred Stock (Series 2003A), Cumulative, Par Value $1 Per Share (Stated Capital $100,000 Per Share).
 
(c)   Preferred and preference stock do not mature; therefore, amounts are provided for the next five years only.
 
(d)   For additional information, see Notes 1 and 6 to the financial statements.
 
(e)   The timing related to the $108 million in unrecognized tax benefits and interest payments in individual years beyond 12 months cannot be reasonably and reliably estimated due to uncertainties in the timing of the effective settlement of tax positions. Of this $108 million, $71 million is expected to represent cash payments. See Notes 3 and 5 to the financial statements for additional information.
 
(f)   Southern Company generally does not enter into non-cancelable commitments for other operations and maintenance expenditures. Total other operations and maintenance expenses for 2007, 2006, and 2005 were $3.7 billion, $3.5 billion, and $3.5 billion, respectively.
 
(g)   Southern Company forecasts capital expenditures over a three-year period. Amounts represent current estimates of total expenditures excluding those amounts related to contractual purchase commitments for nuclear fuel. At December 31, 2007, significant purchase commitments were outstanding in connection with the construction program.
 
(h)   As part of Southern Company’s program to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions from certain of its coal plants, the traditional operating companies are constructing certain equipment and have entered into various long-term commitments for the procurement of limestone to be used in such equipment.
 
(i)   Natural gas purchase commitments are based on various indices at the time of delivery. Amounts reflected have been estimated based on the New York Mercantile Exchange future prices at December 31, 2007.
 
(j)   Long-term service agreements include price escalation based on inflation indices.
 
(k)   Southern Company forecasts postretirement trust contributions over a three-year period. No contributions related to Southern Company’s pension trust are currently expected during this period. See Note 2 to the financial statements for additional information related to the pension and postretirement plans, including estimated benefit payments. Certain benefit payments will be made through the related trusts. Other benefit payments will be made from Southern Company’s corporate assets.

II-44


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
Southern Company’s 2007 Annual Report contains forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements concerning the strategic goals for the wholesale business, customer growth, storm damage cost recovery and repairs, fuel cost recovery, environmental regulations and expenditures, earnings growth, dividend payout ratios, access to sources of capital, projections for postretirement benefit trust contributions, financing activities, completion of construction projects, impacts of adoption of new accounting rules, and estimated construction and other expenditures. In some cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “could,” “should,” “expects,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “projects,” “predicts,” “potential,” or “continue” or the negative of these terms or other similar terminology. There are various factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those suggested by the forward-looking statements; accordingly, there can be no assurance that such indicated results will be realized. These factors include:
  the impact of recent and future federal and state regulatory change, including legislative and regulatory initiatives regarding deregulation and restructuring of the electric utility industry, implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, environmental laws including regulation of water quality and emissions of sulfur, nitrogen, mercury, carbon, soot, or particulate matter and other substances, and also changes in tax and other laws and regulations to which Southern Company and its subsidiaries are subject, as well as changes in application of existing laws and regulations;
 
  current and future litigation, regulatory investigations, proceedings, or inquiries, including the pending EPA civil actions against certain Southern Company subsidiaries, FERC matters, IRS audits, and Mirant matters;
 
  the effects, extent, and timing of the entry of additional competition in the markets in which Southern Company’s subsidiaries operate;
 
  variations in demand for electricity, including those relating to weather, the general economy, population, and business growth (and declines), and the effects of energy conservation measures;
 
  available sources and costs of fuel;
 
  effects of inflation;
 
  ability to control costs;
 
  investment performance of Southern Company’s employee benefit plans;
 
  advances in technology;
 
  state and federal rate regulations and the impact of pending and future rate cases and negotiations, including rate actions relating to fuel and storm restoration cost recovery;
 
  the performance of projects undertaken by the non-utility businesses and the success of efforts to invest in and develop new opportunities;
 
  internal restructuring or other restructuring options that may be pursued;
 
  potential business strategies, including acquisitions or dispositions of assets or businesses, which cannot be assured to be completed or beneficial to Southern Company or its subsidiaries;
 
  the ability of counterparties of Southern Company and its subsidiaries to make payments as and when due;
 
  the ability to obtain new short- and long-term contracts with neighboring utilities;
 
  the direct or indirect effect on Southern Company’s business resulting from terrorist incidents and the threat of terrorist incidents;
 
  interest rate fluctuations and financial market conditions and the results of financing efforts, including Southern Company’s and its subsidiaries’ credit ratings;
 
  the ability of Southern Company and its subsidiaries to obtain additional generating capacity at competitive prices;
 
  catastrophic events such as fires, earthquakes, explosions, floods, hurricanes, droughts, pandemic health events such as an avian influenza, or other similar occurrences;
 
  the direct or indirect effects on Southern Company’s business resulting from incidents similar to the August 2003 power outage in the Northeast;
 
  the effect of accounting pronouncements issued periodically by standard setting bodies; and
 
  other factors discussed elsewhere herein and in other reports (including the Form 10-K) filed by the Company from time to time with the SEC.
Southern Company expressly disclaims any obligation to update any forward-looking statements.

II-45


Table of Contents

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
For the Years Ended December 31, 2007, 2006, and 2005
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
                         
 
    2007     2006     2005  
 
    (in millions)  
 
                       
Operating Revenues:
                       
Retail revenues
  $ 12,639     $ 11,801     $ 11,165  
Wholesale revenues
    1,988       1,822       1,667  
Other electric revenues
    513       465       446  
Other revenues
    213       268       276  
 
Total operating revenues
    15,353       14,356       13,554  
 
Operating Expenses:
                       
Fuel
    5,856       5,152       4,495  
Purchased power
    515       543       731  
Other operations
    2,495       2,423       2,394  
Maintenance
    1,175       1,096       1,116  
Depreciation and amortization
    1,245       1,200       1,176  
Taxes other than income taxes
    741       718       680  
 
Total operating expenses
    12,027       11,132       10,592  
 
Operating Income
    3,326       3,224       2,962  
Other Income and (Expense):
                       
Allowance for equity funds used during construction
    106       50       51  
Interest income
    45       41       36  
Equity in losses of unconsolidated subsidiaries
    (24 )     (57 )     (119 )
Leveraged lease income
    40       69       74  
Impairment loss on equity method investments
          (16 )      
Interest expense, net of amounts capitalized
    (886 )     (866 )     (747 )
Preferred and preference dividends of subsidiaries
    (48 )     (34 )     (30 )
Other income (expense), net
    10       (58 )     (41 )
 
Total other income and (expense)
    (757 )     (871 )     (776 )
 
Earnings Before Income Taxes
    2,569       2,353       2,186  
Income taxes
    835       780       595  
 
Consolidated Net Income
  $ 1,734     $ 1,573     $ 1,591  
 
Common Stock Data:
                       
Earnings per share—
                       
Basic
  $ 2.29     $ 2.12     $ 2.14  
Diluted
    2.28       2.10       2.13  
 
Average number of shares of common stock outstanding — (in millions)
                       
Basic
    756       743       744  
Diluted
    761       748       749  
 
Cash dividends paid per share of common stock
  $ 1.595     $ 1.535     $ 1.475  
 
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

II-46


Table of Contents

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
For the Years Ended December 31, 2007, 2006, and 2005
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
                         
 
    2007     2006     2005  
 
    (in millions)  
Operating Activities:
                       
Consolidated net income
  $ 1,734     $ 1,573     $ 1,591  
Adjustments to reconcile consolidated net income to net cash provided from operating activities —
                       
Depreciation and amortization
    1,486       1,421       1,398  
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits
    7       202       499  
Allowance for equity funds used during construction
    (106 )     (50 )     (51 )
Equity in losses of unconsolidated subsidiaries
    24       57       119  
Leveraged lease income
    (40 )     (69 )     (74 )
Pension, postretirement, and other employee benefits
    39       46       (6 )
Stock option expense
    28       28        
Derivative fair value adjustments
    (30 )     32       8  
Hedge settlements
    10       13       (19 )
Hurricane Katrina grant proceeds-property reserve
    60              
Storm damage accounting order
                48  
Other, net
    58       50       20  
Changes in certain current assets and liabilities —
                       
Receivables
    165       (69 )     (1,045 )
Fossil fuel stock
    (39 )     (246 )     (110 )
Materials and supplies
    (71 )     7       (78 )
Other current assets
          73       (1 )
Accounts payable
    105       (173 )     71  
Hurricane Katrina grant proceeds
    14       120        
Accrued taxes
    (19 )     (103 )     28  
Accrued compensation
    (40 )     (24 )     13  
Other current liabilities
    10       (68 )     119  
 
Net cash provided from operating activities
    3,395       2,820       2,530  
 
Investing Activities:
                       
Property additions
    (3,545 )     (2,994 )     (2,370 )
Investment in restricted cash from pollution control bonds
    (157 )            
Distribution of restricted cash from pollution control bonds
    78              
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund purchases
    (783 )     (751 )     (606 )
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund sales
    775       743       596  
Proceeds from property sales
    33       150       10  
Hurricane Katrina capital grant proceeds
    35       153        
Investment in unconsolidated subsidiaries
    (37 )     (64 )     (115 )
Cost of removal net of salvage
    (108 )     (90 )     (128 )
Other
          19       (16 )
 
Net cash used for investing activities
    (3,709 )     (2,834 )     (2,629 )
 
Financing Activities:
                       
Increase (decrease) in notes payable, net
    (669 )     683       831  
Proceeds —
                       
Long-term debt
    3,826       1,564       1,608  
Preferred and preference stock
    470       150       55  
Common stock
    538       137       213  
Redemptions —
                       
Long-term debt
    (2,566 )     (1,366 )     (1,285 )
Preferred and preference stock
          (15 )     (4 )
Common stock repurchased
                (352 )
Payment of common stock dividends
    (1,205 )     (1,140 )     (1,098 )
Other
    (46 )     (34 )     (35 )
 
Net cash (used for) provided from financing activities
    348       (21 )     (67 )
 
Net Change in Cash and Cash Equivalents
    34       (35 )     (166 )
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Year
    167       202       368  
 
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Year
  $ 201     $ 167     $ 202  
 
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

II-47


Table of Contents

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
At December 31, 2007 and 2006
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
                 
 
Assets   2007     2006  
 
    (in millions)  
Current Assets:
               
Cash and cash equivalents
  $ 201     $ 167  
Restricted cash
    68        
Receivables —
               
Customer accounts receivable
    1,000       943  
Unbilled revenues
    294       283  
Under recovered regulatory clause revenues
    716       517  
Other accounts and notes receivable
    348       330  
Accumulated provision for uncollectible accounts
    (22 )     (35 )
Fossil fuel stock, at average cost
    710       675  
Materials and supplies, at average cost
    725       648  
Vacation pay
    135       121  
Prepaid expenses
    146       128  
Other
    411       242  
 
Total current assets
    4,732       4,019  
 
Property, Plant, and Equipment:
               
In service
    47,176       45,486  
Less accumulated depreciation
    17,413       16,582  
 
 
    29,763       28,904  
Nuclear fuel, at amortized cost
    336       317  
Construction work in progress
    3,228       1,871  
 
Total property, plant, and equipment
    33,327       31,092  
 
Other Property and Investments:
               
Nuclear decommissioning trusts, at fair value
    1,132       1,058  
Leveraged leases
    984       1,139  
Other
    238       296  
 
Total other property and investments
    2,354       2,493  
 
Deferred Charges and Other Assets:
               
Deferred charges related to income taxes
    910       895  
Prepaid pension costs
    2,369       1,549  
Unamortized debt issuance expense
    191       172  
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt
    289       293  
Deferred under recovered regulatory clause revenues
    389       845  
Other regulatory assets
    768       936  
Other
    460       564  
 
Total deferred charges and other assets
    5,376       5,254  
 
Total Assets
  $ 45,789     $ 42,858  
 
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

II-48


Table of Contents

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
At December 31, 2007 and 2006
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
                 
 
Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity   2007     2006  
 
    (in millions)  
Current Liabilities:
               
Securities due within one year
  $ 1,178     $ 1,418  
Notes payable
    1,272       1,941  
Accounts payable
    1,214       1,081  
Customer deposits
    274       249  
Accrued taxes —
               
Income taxes
    217       110  
Other
    330       391  
Accrued interest
    218       184  
Accrued vacation pay
    171       151  
Accrued compensation
    408       444  
Other
    349       384  
 
Total current liabilities
    5,631       6,353  
 
Long-term Debt (See accompanying statements)
    14,143       12,503  
 
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities:
               
Accumulated deferred income taxes
    5,839       5,989  
Deferred credits related to income taxes
    272       291  
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits
    479       503  
Employee benefit obligations
    1,492       1,567  
Asset retirement obligations
    1,200       1,137  
Other cost of removal obligations
    1,308       1,300  
Other regulatory liabilities
    1,613       794  
Other
    347       306  
 
Total deferred credits and other liabilities
    12,550       11,887  
 
Total Liabilities
    32,324       30,743  
 
Preferred and Preference Stock of Subsidiaries (See accompanying statements)
    1,080       744  
 
Common Stockholders’ Equity (See accompanying statements)
    12,385       11,371  
 
Total Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity
  $ 45,789     $ 42,858  
 
Commitments and Contingent Matters (See notes)
               
 
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

II-49


Table of Contents

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CAPITALIZATION
At December 31, 2007 and 2006
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
                                         
 
            2007     2006     2007     2006  
            (in millions)     (percent of total)  
 
                                       
Long-Term Debt:
                                       
Long-term debt payable to affiliated trusts —
                                       
Maturity
  Interest Rates                                
2041 through 2044
  4.75% to 7.20%   $ 412     $ 1,561                  
 
Long-term senior notes and debt —
                                       
Maturity
  Interest Rates                                
2007
  3.50% to 7.13%           1,204                  
2008
  2.54% to 7.00%     459       460                  
2009
  4.10% to 7.00%     127       127                  
2010
  4.70%       102       102                  
2011
  4.00% to 5.10%     302       302                  
2012
  4.85% to 6.25%     1,478       778                  
2013 through 2047
  4.35% to 8.12%     8,060       5,952                  
Adjustable rates (at 1/1/08):
                                       
2007
  5.62%             169                  
2008
  4.94% to 5.00%     550                        
2009
  5.09% to 5.33%     440       440                  
2010
  6.35%       202       221                  
 
Total long-term senior notes and debt
            11,720       9,755                  
 
Other long-term debt —
                                       
Pollution control revenue bonds —
                                       
Maturity
  Interest Rates                                
2012 through 2036
  3.76% to 5.45%     812       812                  
Variable rates (at 1/1/08):
                                       
2011 through 2041
  2.67% to 5.25%     2,170       1,714                  
 
Total other long-term debt
            2,982       2,526                  
 
Capitalized lease obligations
            101       97                  
 
Unamortized debt (discount), net
            (19 )     (18 )                
 
Total long-term debt (annual interest requirement — $805 million)
            15,196       13,921                  
Less amount due within one year
            1,053       1,418                  
 
Long-term debt excluding amount due within one year
            14,143       12,503       51.2 %     50.8 %
 

II-50


Table of Contents

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CAPITALIZATION (continued)
At December 31, 2007 and 2006
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
                                 
 
    2007     2006     2007     2006  
    (in millions)     (percent of total)  
 
                               
Preferred and Preference Stock of Subsidiaries:
                               
Cumulative preferred stock
                               
$100 par or stated value — 4.20% to 5.44%
                               
Authorized — 20 million shares
                               
Outstanding — 1 million shares
    81       81                  
$1 par value — 4.95% to 5.83%
                               
Authorized — 28 million shares
                               
Outstanding — 12 million shares: $25 stated value
    294       294                  
Outstanding — 1,250 shares: $100,000 stated capital
    123       123                  
Non-cumulative preferred stock
                               
$25 par value — 6.00% to 6.13%
                               
Authorized — 60 million shares
                               
Outstanding — 2 million shares
    45       45                  
Preference stock
                               
Authorized — 65 million shares
                               
Outstanding — $1 par value — 5.63% to 6.50%
    343       147                  
— 2007: 14 million shares (non-cumulative)
                               
— 2006: 6 million shares (non-cumulative)
                               
— $100 par or stated value — 6.00% to 6.50%
    319       54                  
— 2007: 3 million shares (non-cumulative)
                               
— 2006: 1 million shares (non-cumulative)
                               
 
Total preferred and preference stock of subsidiaries
                               
(annual dividend requirement — $71 million)
    1,205       744                  
Less amount due within one year
    125                        
 
Preferred and preference stock of subsidiaries excluding amount due within one year
    1,080       744       3.9       3.0  
 
Common Stockholders’ Equity:
                               
Common stock, par value $5 per share —
    3,817       3,759                  
Authorized — 1 billion shares
                               
Issued — 2007: 764 million shares
                               
— 2006: 752 million shares
                               
Treasury — 2007: 0.4 million shares
                               
— 2006: 5.6 million shares
                               
Paid-in capital
    1,454       1,096                  
Treasury, at cost
    (11 )     (192 )                
Retained earnings
    7,155       6,765                  
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
    (30 )     (57 )                
 
Total common stockholders’ equity
    12,385       11,371       44.9       46.2  
 
Total Capitalization
  $ 27,608     $ 24,618       100.0 %     100.0 %
 
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

II-51


Table of Contents

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMMON STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
For the Years Ended December 31, 2007, 2006, and 2005
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
                                                 
 
    Common Stock           Accumulated    
    Par   Paid-In           Retained   Other Comprehensive    
    Value   Capital   Treasury   Earnings   Income (Loss)   Total
  (in millions)
Balance at December 31, 2004
  $ 3,709     $ 869     $ (6 )   $ 5,839     $ (133 )   $ 10,278  
Net income
                      1,591             1,591  
Other comprehensive income
                            5       5  
Stock issued
    50       216                         266  
Stock repurchased, at cost
                (352 )                 (352 )
Cash dividends
                      (1,098 )           (1,098 )
Other
                (1 )                 (1 )
 
Balance at December 31, 2005
    3,759       1,085       (359 )     6,332       (128 )     10,689  
Net income
                      1,573             1,573  
Other comprehensive income
                            19       19  
Adjustment to initially apply FASB Statement No. 158, net of tax
                            52       52  
Stock issued
          11       168                   179  
Cash dividends
                      (1,140 )           (1,140 )
Other
                (1 )                 (1 )
 
Balance at December 31, 2006
    3,759       1,096       (192 )     6,765       (57 )     11,371  
Net income
                      1,734             1,734  
Other comprehensive income
                            27       27  
Stock issued
    58       356       183                   597  
Adjustment to initially apply FIN 48, net of tax
                      (15 )           (15 )
Adjustment to initially apply FSP 13-2,
net of tax
                      (125 )           (125 )
Cash dividends
                      (1,204 )           (1,204 )
Other
          2       (2 )                  
 
Balance at December 31, 2007
  $ 3,817     $ 1,454     $ (11 )   $ 7,155     $ (30 )   $ 12,385  
 
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
For the Years Ended December 31, 2007, 2006, and 2005
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
                         
 
    2007     2006     2005  
    (in millions)  
Consolidated Net Income
  $ 1,734     $ 1,573     $ 1,591  
 
Other comprehensive income:
                       
Qualifying hedges:
                       
Changes in fair value, net of tax of $(3), $(5), and $11, respectively
    (5 )     (8 )     18  
Reclassification adjustment for amounts included in net income, net of tax of $6, $-, and $1, respectively
    9       1       2  
Marketable securities:
                       
Changes in fair value, net of tax of $3, $4, and $(2), respectively
    4       8       (4 )
Reclassification adjustment for amounts included in net income, net of tax of $-, $-, and $-, respectively
    (1 )            
Pension and other postretirement benefit plans:
                       
Benefit plan net gain (loss), net of tax of $13, $-, and $-, respectively
    20              
Additional prior service costs from amendment to non-qualified pension plans, net of tax of $(2), $-, and $-, respectively
    (2 )            
Change in additional minimum pension liability, net of tax of $-, $10, and $(6), respectively
          18       (11 )
Reclassification adjustment for amounts included in net income, net of tax of $1, $-, and $-, respectively
    2              
 
Total other comprehensive income
    27       19       5  
 
Consolidated Comprehensive Income
  $ 1,761     $ 1,592     $ 1,596  
 
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

II-52


Table of Contents

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
General
The Southern Company (the Company) is the parent company of four traditional operating companies, Southern Power Company (Southern Power), Southern Company Services, Inc. (SCS), Southern Communications Services, Inc. (SouthernLINC Wireless), Southern Company Holdings, Inc. (Southern Holdings), Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern Nuclear), and other direct and indirect subsidiaries. The traditional operating companies, Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power, are vertically integrated utilities providing electric service in four Southeastern states. Southern Power constructs, acquires, and manages generation assets and sells electricity at market-based rates in the wholesale market. SCS, the system service company, provides, at cost, specialized services to Southern Company and the subsidiary companies. SouthernLINC Wireless provides digital wireless communications services to the traditional operating companies and also markets these services to the public and provides fiber cable services within the Southeast. Southern Holdings is an intermediate holding company subsidiary for Southern Company’s investments in synthetic fuels and leveraged leases and various other energy-related businesses. The investments in synthetic fuels ended on December 31, 2007. Southern Nuclear operates and provides services to Southern Company’s nuclear power plants.
The financial statements reflect Southern Company’s investments in the subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. The equity method is used for entities in which the Company has significant influence but does not control and for variable interest entities where the Company is not the primary beneficiary. All material intercompany transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.
The traditional operating companies, Southern Power, and certain of their subsidiaries are subject to regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the traditional operating companies are also subject to regulation by their respective state public service commissions (PSC). The companies follow accounting principles generally accepted in the United States and comply with the accounting policies and practices prescribed by their respective commissions. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires the use of estimates, and the actual results may differ from those estimates.
Reclassifications
Certain prior years’ data presented in the financial statements have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation. These reclassifications had no effect on total assets, net income, cash flows, or earnings per share.
The balance sheets and the statements of cash flows have been modified to combine “Long-term Debt Payable to Affiliate Trusts” into “Long-term Debt.” Correspondingly, the statements of income were modified to report “Interest expense to affiliate trusts” together with “Interest expense, net of amounts capitalized.” Due to the immateriality of earnings from discontinued operations during all periods presented, the statements of income and the statements of comprehensive income have been modified to report net income without a separate disclosure of the effect from discontinued operations. Also, due to immateriality, the statements of cash flows were adjusted to reflect “Tax benefit of stock options” together with the amounts reported in “Other, net.”
Related Party Transactions
Alabama Power and Georgia Power purchased synthetic fuel from Alabama Fuel Products, LLC (AFP), an entity in which Southern Holdings held a 30% ownership interest until July 2006, when its ownership interest was terminated. Total fuel purchases through June 2006 and for the year 2005 were $354 million and $507 million, respectively. Synfuel Services, Inc. (SSI), another subsidiary of Southern Holdings, provided fuel transportation services to AFP that were ultimately reflected in the cost of the synthetic fuel billed to Alabama Power and Georgia Power. In connection with these services, the related revenues of approximately $62 million and $83 million through June 2006 and for the year 2005, respectively, have been eliminated against fuel expense in the financial

II-53


Table of Contents

NOTES (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
statements. SSI also provided additional services to AFP, as well as to a related party of AFP. Revenues from these transactions totaled approximately $24 million and $40 million through June 2006 and for the year 2005, respectively.
Subsequent to the termination of Southern Company’s membership interest in AFP, Alabama Power and Georgia Power continued to purchase an additional $750 million and $384 million in fuel from AFP in 2007 and 2006, respectively. SSI continued to provide fuel transportation services of $131 million in 2007 and $62 million in 2006, which were eliminated against fuel expense in the financial statements. SSI also provided other additional services to AFP and a related party of AFP totaling $47 million and $21 million in 2007 and 2006, respectively. The synthetic fuel investments and related party transactions were terminated on December 31, 2007.
Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
The traditional operating companies are subject to the provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Statement No. 71, “Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types of Regulation” (SFAS No. 71). Regulatory assets represent probable future revenues associated with certain costs that are expected to be recovered from customers through the ratemaking process. Regulatory liabilities represent probable future reductions in revenues associated with amounts that are expected to be credited to customers through the ratemaking process. Regulatory assets and (liabilities) reflected in the balance sheets at December 31 relate to:
                         
    2007   2006   Note
 
    (in millions)
Deferred income tax charges
  $ 911     $ 896       (a )
Asset retirement obligations-asset
    50       61       (a )
Asset retirement obligations-liability
    (154 )     (155 )     (a )
Other cost of removal obligations
    (1,308 )     (1,300 )     (a )
Deferred income tax credits
    (275 )     (293 )     (a )
Loss on reacquired debt
    289       293       (b )
Vacation pay
    135       121       (c )
Under recovered regulatory clause revenues
    371       411       (d )
Building lease
    49       51       (d )
Generating plant outage costs
    46       56       (d )
Under recovered storm damage costs
    43       89       (d )
Fuel hedging-asset
    25       115       (d )
Fuel hedging-liability
    (20 )     (13 )     (d )
Other assets
    88       55       (d )
Environmental remediation-asset
    67       57       (d )
Environmental remediation-liability
    (22 )     (32 )     (d )
Deferred purchased power
    (20 )     (38 )     (d )
Other liabilities
    (111 )     (50 )     (d )
Plant Daniel capacity
          (6 )     (e )
Overfunded retiree benefit plans
    (1,288 )     (508 )     (f )
Underfunded retiree benefit plans
    547       697       (f )
 
Total
  $ (577 )   $ 507          
 
Note: The recovery and amortization periods for these regulatory assets and (liabilities) are as follows:
(a)   Asset retirement and removal liabilities are recorded, deferred income tax assets are recovered, and deferred tax liabilities are amortized over the related property lives, which may range up to 65 years. Asset retirement and removal liabilities will be settled and trued up following completion of the related activities.
 
(b)   Recovered over either the remaining life of the original issue or, if refinanced, over the life of the new issue, which may range up to 50 years.
 
(c)   Recorded as earned by employees and recovered as paid, generally within one year.
 
(d)   Recorded and recovered or amortized as approved by the appropriate state PSCs.
 
(e)   Amortized over a four-year period that ended in 2007.
 
(f)   Recovered and amortized over the average remaining service period which may range up to 14 years. See Note 2 under “Retirement Benefits.”

II-54


Table of Contents

NOTES (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
In the event that a portion of a traditional operating company’s operations is no longer subject to the provisions of SFAS No. 71, such company would be required to write off related regulatory assets and liabilities that are not specifically recoverable through regulated rates. In addition, the traditional operating company would be required to determine if any impairment to other assets, including plant, exists and write down the assets, if impaired, to their fair values. All regulatory assets and liabilities are to be reflected in rates. See Note 3 under “Alabama Power Retail Regulatory Matters,” “Georgia Power Retail Regulatory Matters,” and “Storm Damage Cost Recovery” for additional information.
Revenues
Wholesale capacity revenues are generally recognized on a levelized basis over the appropriate contract periods. Energy and other revenues are recognized as services are provided. Unbilled revenues related to retail sales are accrued at the end of each fiscal period. Electric rates for the traditional operating companies include provisions to adjust billings for fluctuations in fuel costs, fuel hedging, the energy component of purchased power costs, and certain other costs. Revenues are adjusted for differences between these actual costs and amounts billed in current regulated rates. Under or over recovered regulatory clause revenues are recorded in the balance sheets and are recovered or returned to customers through adjustments to the billing factors.
Retail fuel cost recovery mechanisms vary by each retail operating company, but in general, the process requires periodic filings with the appropriate state PSC. Alabama Power continuously monitors the under/over recovered balance and files for a revised fuel rate when management deems appropriate. Georgia Power is required to file a new fuel case no later than March 1, 2008. Gulf Power is required to notify the Florida PSC if the projected fuel revenue over or under recovery exceeds 10% of the projected fuel revenue applicable for the period and indicate if an adjustment to the fuel cost recovery factor is being requested. Mississippi Power is required to file for an adjustment to the fuel cost recovery factor annually. See Note 3 under “Alabama Power Retail Regulatory Matters” and “Georgia Power Retail Regulatory Matters” for additional information.
Southern Company has a diversified base of customers. No single customer or industry comprises 10% or more of revenues. For all periods presented, uncollectible accounts averaged less than 1% of revenues.
Fuel Costs
Fuel costs are expensed as the fuel is used. Fuel expense generally includes the cost of purchased emission allowances as they are used. Fuel expense also includes the amortization of the cost of nuclear fuel and a charge, based on nuclear generation, for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel.
Nuclear Fuel Disposal Costs
Alabama Power and Georgia Power have contracts with the United States, acting through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), that provide for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The DOE failed to begin disposing of spent nuclear fuel in 1998 as required by the contracts, and Alabama Power and Georgia Power are pursuing legal remedies against the government for breach of contract.
On July 9, 2007, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims awarded Georgia Power a total of $30 million, based on its ownership interests, and awarded Alabama Power $17.3 million, representing all of the direct costs of the expansion of spent nuclear fuel storage facilities from 1998 through 2004. On July 24, 2007, the government filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on November 1, 2007. The government filed an appeal on January 2, 2008. No amounts have been recognized in the financial statements as of December 31, 2007. The final outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time, but no material impact on net income is expected as any award received is expected to be returned to customers.

II-55


Table of Contents

NOTES (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
Sufficient pool storage capacity for spent fuel is available at Plant Vogtle to maintain full-core discharge capability for both units into 2014. Construction of an on-site dry storage facility at Plant Vogtle is expected to begin in sufficient time to maintain pool full-core discharge capability. At Plants Hatch and Farley, on-site dry storage facilities are operational and can be expanded to accommodate spent fuel through the expected life of each plant.
Income and Other Taxes
Southern Company uses the liability method of accounting for deferred income taxes and provides deferred income taxes for all significant income tax temporary differences. Investment tax credits utilized are deferred and amortized to income over the average life of the related property. Taxes that are collected from customers on behalf of governmental agencies to be remitted to these agencies are presented net on the statements of income.
In accordance with FASB Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes” (FIN 48), Southern Company recognizes tax positions that are “more likely than not” of being sustained upon examination by the appropriate taxing authorities. See Note 5 under “Unrecognized Tax Benefits” for additional information on the effect of adopting FIN 48.
Property, Plant, and Equipment
Property, plant, and equipment is stated at original cost less regulatory disallowances and impairments. Original cost includes: materials; labor; minor items of property; appropriate administrative and general costs; payroll-related costs such as taxes, pensions, and other benefits; and the interest capitalized and/or cost of funds used during construction.
Southern Company’s property, plant, and equipment consisted of the following at December 31:
                 
    2007     2006  
 
    (in millions)  
Generation
  $ 23,879     $ 23,355  
Transmission
    6,761       6,352  
Distribution
    13,134       12,484  
General
    2,619       2,510  
Plant acquisition adjustment
    43       40  
 
Utility plant in service
    46,436       44,741  
 
IT equipment and software
    230       226  
Communications equipment
    452       445  
Other
    58       74  
 
Other plant in service
    740       745  
 
Total plant in service
  $ 47,176     $ 45,486  
 
The cost of replacements of property, exclusive of minor items of property, is capitalized. The cost of maintenance, repairs, and replacement of minor items of property is charged to maintenance expense as incurred or performed with the exception of nuclear refueling costs, which are recorded in accordance with specific state PSC orders. Alabama Power accrues estimated nuclear refueling costs in advance of the unit’s next refueling outage. Georgia Power defers and amortizes nuclear refueling costs over the unit’s operating cycle before the next refueling. The refueling cycles for Alabama Power and Georgia Power range from 18 to 24 months for each unit. In accordance with a Georgia PSC order, Georgia Power also defers the costs of certain significant inspection costs for the combustion turbines at Plant McIntosh and amortizes such costs over 10 years, which approximates the expected maintenance cycle.

II-56


Table of Contents

NOTES (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
Depreciation and Amortization
Depreciation of the original cost of utility plant in service is provided primarily by using composite straight-line rates, which approximated 3.0% in 2007, 3.0% in 2006, and 2.9% in 2005. Depreciation studies are conducted periodically to update the composite rates. These studies are filed with the respective state PSC for the traditional operating companies. Accumulated depreciation for utility plant in service totaled $17.0 billion and $16.2 billion at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. When property subject to composite depreciation is retired or otherwise disposed of in the normal course of business, its original cost, together with the cost of removal, less salvage, is charged to accumulated depreciation. For other property dispositions, the applicable cost and accumulated depreciation is removed from the balance sheet accounts and a gain or loss is recognized. Minor items of property included in the original cost of the plant are retired when the related property unit is retired.
Under Georgia Power’s retail rate plan for the three years ended December 31, 2007 (2004 Retail Rate Plan), Georgia Power was ordered to recognize Georgia PSC—certified capacity costs in rates evenly over the three years covered by the 2004 Retail Rate Plan. Georgia Power recorded credits to amortization of $19 million and $14 million in 2007 and 2006, respectively, and an increase to amortization of $33 million in 2005. See Note 3 under “Retail Regulatory Matters — Rate Plans” for additional information.
In May 2004, the Mississippi PSC approved Mississippi Power’s request to reclassify 266 megawatts of Plant Daniel units 3 and 4 capacity to jurisdictional cost of service effective January 1, 2004 and authorized Mississippi Power to include the related costs and revenue credits in jurisdictional rate base, cost of service, and revenue requirement calculations for purposes of retail rate recovery. Mississippi Power amortized the related regulatory liability pursuant to the Mississippi PSC’s order as follows: $17 million in 2004, $25 million in 2005, $13 million in 2006, and $6 million in 2007, resulting in increases to earnings in each of those years.
Depreciation of the original cost of other plant in service is provided primarily on a straight-line basis over estimated useful lives ranging from 3 to 25 years. Accumulated depreciation for other plant in service totaled $429 million and $405 million at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
Asset Retirement Obligations and Other Costs of Removal
Asset retirement obligations are computed as the present value of the ultimate costs for an asset’s future retirement and are recorded in the period in which the liability is incurred. The costs are capitalized as part of the related long-lived asset and depreciated over the asset’s useful life. The Company has received accounting guidance from the various state PSCs allowing the continued accrual of other future retirement costs for long-lived assets that the Company does not have a legal obligation to retire. Accordingly, the accumulated removal costs for these obligations will continue to be reflected in the balance sheets as a regulatory liability.
The liability recognized to retire long-lived assets primarily relates to the Company’s nuclear facilities, Plants Farley, Hatch, and Vogtle. The fair value of assets legally restricted for settling retirement obligations related to nuclear facilities as of December 31, 2007 was $1.1 billion. In addition, the Company has retirement obligations related to various landfill sites and underground storage tanks. In connection with the adoption of FASB Interpretation No. 47, “Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations” (FIN 47), Southern Company also recorded additional asset retirement obligations (and assets) of approximately $153 million, primarily related to asbestos removal and disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls in certain transformers. The Company also has identified retirement obligations related to certain transmission and distribution facilities, co-generation facilities, certain wireless communication towers, and certain structures authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. However, liabilities for the removal of these assets have not been recorded because the range of time over which the Company may settle these obligations is unknown and cannot be reasonably estimated. The Company will continue to recognize in the statements of income allowed removal costs in accordance with its regulatory treatment. Any differences between costs recognized under FASB Statement No. 143 “Accounting for Asset Retirement

II-57


Table of Contents

NOTES (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
Obligations” (SFAS No. 143) and FIN 47 and those reflected in rates are recognized as either a regulatory asset or liability, as ordered by the various state PSCs, and are reflected in the balance sheets. See “Nuclear Decommissioning” herein for further information on amounts included in rates.
Details of the asset retirement obligations included in the balance sheets are as follows:
                 
    2007   2006
 
    (in millions)
Balance beginning of year
  $ 1,137     $ 1,117  
Liabilities incurred
    1       8  
Liabilities settled
    (8 )     (5 )
Accretion
    74       73  
Cash flow revisions
    (1 )     (56 )
 
Balance end of year
  $ 1,203     $ 1,137  
 
Nuclear Decommissioning
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires licensees of commercial nuclear power reactors to establish a plan for providing reasonable assurance of funds for future decommissioning. Alabama Power and Georgia Power have external trust funds to comply with the NRC’s regulations. Use of the funds is restricted to nuclear decommissioning activities and the funds are managed and invested in accordance with applicable requirements of various regulatory bodies, including the NRC, the FERC, and state PSCs, as well as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The trust funds are invested in a tax-efficient manner in a diversified mix of equity and fixed income securities and are classified as available-for-sale.
The trust funds are included in the balance sheets at fair value, as obtained from quoted market prices for the same or similar investments. As the external trust funds are actively managed by unrelated parties with limited direction from the Company, the Company does not have the ability to choose to hold securities with unrealized losses until recovery. Through 2005, the Company considered other-than-temporary impairments to be immaterial. However, since the January 1, 2006 effective date of FASB Staff Position FAS 115-1/124-1, “The Meaning of Other-Than-Temporary Impairment and Its Application to Certain Investments” (FSP No. 115-1), the Company considers all unrealized losses to represent other-than-temporary impairments. The adoption of FSP No. 115-1 had no impact on the results of operations, cash flows, or financial condition of the Company as all losses have been and continue to be recorded through a regulatory liability, whether realized, unrealized, or identified as other-than-temporary.
Details of the securities held in these trusts at December 31, 2007 were as follows:
                         
            Other-than-Temporary    
2007   Unrealized Gains   Impairments   Fair Value
 
    (in millions)
Equity
  $ 256.3     $ (27.9 )   $ 787.8  
Debt
    11.8       (5.3 )     312.0  
Other
    0.1             32.0  
 
Total
  $ 268.2     $ (33.2 )   $ 1,131.8  
 
                         
            Other-than-Temporary    
2006   Unrealized Gains   Impairments   Fair Value
 
    (in millions)
Equity
  $ 227.9     $ (10.3 )   $ 763.1  
Debt
    3.7       (2.1 )     285.5  
Other
                8.9  
 
Total
  $ 231.6     $ (12.4 )   $ 1,057.5  
 

II-58


Table of Contents

NOTES (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
The contractual maturities of debt securities at December 31, 2007 are as follows: $35.7 million in 2008; $67.3 million in 2009-2012; $58.1 million in 2013-2017; and $151.2 million thereafter.
Sales of the securities held in the trust funds resulted in cash proceeds of $774.8 million, $743.1 million, and $596.3 million in 2007, 2006, and 2005, respectively, all of which were re-invested. Realized gains and other-than-temporary impairment losses were $78.3 million and $76.3 million, respectively, in 2007 and $39.8 million and $30.3 million, respectively, in 2006. Net realized gains were $22.5 million in 2005. Realized gains and other-than-temporary impairment losses are determined on a specific identification basis. In accordance with regulatory guidance, all realized and unrealized gains and losses are included in the regulatory liability for asset retirement obligations in the balance sheets and are not included in net income or other comprehensive income. Unrealized gains and other-than-temporary impairment losses are considered non-cash transactions for purposes of the statements of cash flow.
Amounts previously recorded in internal reserves are being transferred into the external trust funds over periods approved by the respective state PSCs. The NRC’s minimum external funding requirements are based on a generic estimate of the cost to decommission only the radioactive portions of a nuclear unit based on the size and type of reactor. Alabama Power and Georgia Power have filed plans with the NRC designed to ensure that, over time, the deposits and earnings of the external trust funds will provide the minimum funding amounts prescribed by the NRC. At December 31, 2007, the accumulated provisions for decommissioning were as follows:
                         
    Plant Farley   Plant Hatch   Plant Vogtle
 
    (in millions)
External trust funds, at fair value
  $ 543     $ 368     $ 222  
Internal reserves
    27              
 
Total
  $ 570     $ 368     $ 222  
 
Site study cost is the estimate to decommission a specific facility as of the site study year. The estimated costs of decommissioning based on the most current studies, which were performed in 2003 for Plant Farley and in 2006 for the Georgia Power plants, were as follows for Alabama Power’s Plant Farley and Georgia Power’s ownership interests in Plants Hatch and Vogtle:
                         
    Plant Farley   Plant Hatch   Plant Vogtle
 
Decommissioning periods:
                       
Beginning year
    2017       2034       2027  
Completion year
    2046       2061       2051  
 
 
          (in millions)        
Site study costs:
                       
Radiated structures
  $ 892     $ 544     $ 507  
Non-radiated structures
    63       46       67  
 
Total
  $ 955     $ 590     $ 574  
 
The decommissioning cost estimates are based on prompt dismantlement and removal of the plant from service. The actual decommissioning costs may vary from the above estimates because of changes in the assumed date of decommissioning, changes in NRC requirements, or changes in the assumptions used in making these estimates.
For ratemaking purposes, Alabama Power’s decommissioning costs are based on the site study and Georgia Power’s decommissioning costs are based on the NRC generic estimate to decommission the radioactive portion of the facilities as of 2006. The estimates used in current rates are $450 million and $313 million for Plants Hatch and Vogtle, respectively. Amounts expensed were $7 million annually for Plant Vogtle for 2005 through 2007. Significant assumptions used to determine these costs for ratemaking were an inflation rate of 4.5% and 2.9% for

II-59


Table of Contents

NOTES (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
Alabama Power and Georgia Power, respectively, and a trust earnings rate of 7.0% and 4.9% for Alabama Power and Georgia Power, respectively. As a result of license extensions, amounts previously contributed to the external trust funds for Plants Hatch and Farley are currently projected to be adequate to meet the decommissioning obligations. Georgia Power filed an application with the NRC in June 2007 to extend the licenses for Plant Vogtle Units 1 and 2 for an additional 20 years. Georgia Power anticipates the NRC may make a decision regarding the license extension for Plant Vogtle as early as 2009.
Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC) and Interest Capitalized
In accordance with regulatory treatment, the traditional operating companies record AFUDC, which represents the estimated debt and equity costs of capital funds that are necessary to finance the construction of new regulated facilities. While cash is not realized currently from such allowance, it increases the revenue requirement over the service life of the plant through a higher rate base and higher depreciation expense. The equity component of AFUDC is not included in calculating taxable income. Interest related to the construction of new facilities not included in the traditional operating companies’ regulated rates is capitalized in accordance with standard interest capitalization requirements. AFUDC and interest capitalized, net of income taxes were 8.4%, 4.2%, and 4.0% of net income for 2007, 2006, and 2005, respectively.
Cash payments for interest totaled $798 million, $875 million, and $661 million in 2007, 2006, and 2005, respectively, net of amounts capitalized of $64 million, $27 million, and $21 million, respectively.
Impairment of Long-Lived Assets and Intangibles
Southern Company evaluates long-lived assets for impairment when events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of such assets may not be recoverable. The determination of whether an impairment has occurred is based on either a specific regulatory disallowance or an estimate of undiscounted future cash flows attributable to the assets, as compared with the carrying value of the assets. If an impairment has occurred, the amount of the impairment recognized is determined by either the amount of regulatory disallowance or by estimating the fair value of the assets and recording a loss if the carrying value is greater than the fair value. For assets identified as held for sale, the carrying value is compared to the estimated fair value less the cost to sell in order to determine if an impairment loss is required. Until the assets are disposed of, their estimated fair value is re-evaluated when circumstances or events change.
Storm Damage Reserves
Each traditional operating company maintains a reserve to cover the cost of damages from major storms to its transmission and distribution lines and generally the cost of uninsured damages to its generation facilities and other property. In accordance with their respective state PSC orders, the traditional operating companies accrued $25.6 million in 2007 that is recoverable through rates. Alabama Power, Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power also have discretionary authority from their state PSCs to accrue certain additional amounts as circumstances warrant. In 2007, there were no such accruals. In 2006 and 2005, additional accruals totaled $3 million and $6 million, respectively. See Note 3 under “Storm Damage Cost Recovery” for additional information regarding these reserves following Hurricanes Ivan, Dennis, and Katrina and the deferral of additional costs, as well as additional rate riders or other cost recovery mechanisms which have been or may be approved by the respective state PSCs to recover the deferred costs and accrue reserves for future storms.
Leveraged Leases
Southern Company has several leveraged lease agreements, with terms ranging up to 45 years, which relate to international and domestic energy generation, distribution, and transportation assets. Southern Company receives federal income tax deductions for depreciation and amortization, as well as interest on long-term debt related to

II-60


Table of Contents

NOTES (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
these investments. The Company reviews all important lease assumptions at least annually, or more frequently if events or changes in circumstances indicate that a change in assumptions has occurred or may occur. These assumptions include the effective tax rate, the residual value, the credit quality of the lessees, and the timing of expected tax cash flows.
Southern Company’s net investment in domestic leveraged leases consists of the following at December 31:
                 
    2007   2006
 
    (in millions)
Net rentals receivable
  $ 494     $ 497  
Unearned income
    (244 )     (261 )
 
Investment in leveraged leases
     250        236  
Deferred taxes from leveraged leases
    (163 )     (133 )
 
Net investment in leveraged leases
  $ 87     $ 103  
 
A summary of the components of income from domestic leveraged leases was as follows:
                         
    2007   2006   2005
 
    (in millions)
Pretax leveraged lease income
  $ 16     $ 20     $ 23  
Income tax expense
    (7 )     (9 )     (11 )
 
Net leveraged lease income
  $ 9     $ 11     $ 12  
 
Southern Company’s net investment in international leveraged leases consists of the following at December 31:
                 
    2007   2006
 
    (in millions)
Net rentals receivable
  $ 1,298     $ 1,299  
Unearned income
    (563 )     (396 )
 
Investment in leveraged leases
    735        903  
Deferred taxes from leveraged leases
    (316 )     (492 )
 
Net investment in leveraged leases
  $ 419     $ 411  
 
A summary of the components of income from international leveraged leases was as follows:
                         
    2007   2006   2005
 
    (in millions)
Pretax leveraged lease income
  $ 24     $ 49     $ 51  
Income tax expense
    (8 )     (17 )     (18 )
 
Net leveraged lease income
  $ 16     $ 32     $ 33  
 
See Note 3 under “Income Tax Matters” for additional information regarding the leveraged lease transactions.
Cash and Cash Equivalents
For purposes of the financial statements, temporary cash investments are considered cash equivalents. Temporary cash investments are securities with original maturities of 90 days or less.

II-61


Table of Contents

NOTES (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
Materials and Supplies
Generally, materials and supplies include the average costs of transmission, distribution, and generating plant materials. Materials are charged to inventory when purchased and then expensed or capitalized to plant, as appropriate, when installed.
Fuel Inventory
Fuel inventory includes the average costs of oil, coal, natural gas, and emission allowances. Fuel is charged to inventory when purchased and then expensed as used and recovered by the traditional operating companies through fuel cost recovery rates approved by each state PSC. Emission allowances granted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are included in inventory at zero cost.
Stock Options
Prior to January 1, 2006, Southern Company accounted for options granted in accordance with Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25; thus, no compensation expense was recognized because the exercise price of all options granted equaled the fair market value on the date of the grant.
Effective January 1, 2006, the Company adopted the fair value recognition provisions of FASB Statement No. 123(R), “Share-Based Payment” (SFAS No. 123(R)), using the modified prospective method. Under that method, compensation cost for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 was recognized as the requisite service was rendered and included: (a) compensation cost for the portion of share-based awards granted prior to and that were outstanding as of January 1, 2006, for which the requisite service had not been rendered, based on the grant-date fair value of those awards as calculated in accordance with the original provisions of FASB Statement No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation”, and (b) compensation cost for all share-based awards granted subsequent to January 1, 2006, based on the grant-date fair value estimated in accordance with the provisions of SFAS No. 123(R). Results for prior periods have not been restated.
For Southern Company, the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R) resulted in a reduction in earnings before income taxes and net income of $28 million and $17 million, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2007, and $28 million and $17 million, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2006. Additionally, SFAS No. 123(R) requires the gross excess tax benefit from stock option exercises to be reclassified as a financing cash flow as opposed to an operating cash flow; the reduction in operating cash flows and increase in financing cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 was $21 million and $10 million, respectively.
The adoption of SFAS No. 123(R) also resulted in a reduction in basic and diluted earnings per share of $0.03 and $0.02, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2007 and $0.02 and $0.03, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2006.
For the year ended December 31, 2005, prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R), the pro forma impact of fair-value accounting for options granted on net income and basic and diluted earnings per share was as follows:
                         
            Options Impact    
2005   As Reported   After Tax   Pro Forma
 
Net income (in millions)
  $ 1,591     $ (17 )   $ 1,574  
Earnings per share (dollars):
                       
Basic
  $ 2.14             $ 2.12  
Diluted
  $ 2.13             $ 2.10  
Because historical forfeitures have been insignificant and are expected to remain insignificant, no forfeitures were assumed in the calculation of compensation expense; rather they are recognized when they occur.

II-62


Table of Contents

NOTES (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
The estimated fair values of stock options granted in 2007, 2006, and 2005 were derived using the Black-Scholes stock option pricing model. Expected volatility was based on historical volatility of Southern Company’s stock over a period equal to the expected term. Southern Company used historical exercise data to estimate the expected term that represents the period of time that options granted to employees are expected to be outstanding. The risk-free rate was based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of grant that covers the expected term of the stock options. The following table shows the assumptions used in the pricing model and the weighted average grant-date fair value of stock options granted:
                         
Year Ended December 31   2007   2006   2005
 
Expected volatility
    14.8 %     16.9 %     17.9 %
Expected term (in years)
    5.0       5.0       5.0  
Interest rate
    4.6 %     4.6 %     3.9 %
Dividend yield
    4.3 %     4.4 %     4.4 %
Weighted average grant-date fair value
  $ 4.12     $ 4.15     $ 3.90  
Financial Instruments
Southern Company uses derivative financial instruments to limit exposure to fluctuations in interest rates, the prices of certain fuel purchases, and electricity purchases and sales. All derivative financial instruments are recognized as either assets or liabilities (categorized in “Other”) and are measured at fair value. Substantially all of Southern Company’s bulk energy purchases and sales contracts that meet the definition of a derivative are exempt from fair value accounting requirements and are accounted for under the accrual method. Other derivative contracts qualify as cash flow hedges of anticipated transactions or are recoverable through the traditional operating companies’ fuel hedging programs. This results in the deferral of related gains and losses in other comprehensive income or regulatory assets and liabilities, respectively, until the hedged transactions occur. Any ineffectiveness arising from cash flow hedges is recognized currently in net income. Other derivative contracts, including derivatives related to synthetic fuel investments, are marked to market through current period income and are recorded on a net basis in the statements of income.
Southern Company is exposed to losses related to financial instruments in the event of counterparties’ nonperformance. The Company has established controls to determine and monitor the creditworthiness of counterparties in order to mitigate the Company’s exposure to counterparty credit risk.
The other Southern Company financial instruments for which the carrying amount did not equal fair value at December 31 were as follows:
                 
    Carrying Amount   Fair Value
 
    (in millions)
Long-term debt:
               
2007
  $ 15,095     $ 14,931  
2006
  $ 13,824     $ 13,702  
The fair values were based on either closing market prices or closing prices of comparable instruments.
Comprehensive Income
The objective of comprehensive income is to report a measure of all changes in common stock equity of an enterprise that result from transactions and other economic events of the period other than transactions with owners. Comprehensive income consists of net income, changes in the fair value of qualifying cash flow hedges and marketable securities, and certain changes in pension and other post retirement benefit plans, less income taxes and reclassifications for amounts included in net income.

II-63


Table of Contents

NOTES (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
Variable Interest Entities
The primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity must consolidate the related assets and liabilities. Southern Company has established certain wholly-owned trusts to issue preferred securities. See Note 6 under “Long-Term Debt Payable to Affiliated Trusts” for additional information. However, Southern Company and the traditional operating companies are not considered the primary beneficiaries of the trusts. Therefore, the investments in these trusts are reflected as Other Investments, and the related loans from the trusts are included in Long-term Debt in the balance sheets.
In addition, Southern Company holds an 85% limited partnership investment in an energy/technology venture capital fund that is consolidated in the financial statements. During the third quarter of 2004, Southern Company terminated new investments in this fund; however, additional contributions to existing investments will still occur. Southern Company has committed to a maximum investment of $46 million, of which $44 million has been funded. Southern Company’s investment in the fund at December 31, 2007 totaled $26.4 million.
2. RETIREMENT BENEFITS
Southern Company has a defined benefit, trusteed, pension plan covering substantially all employees. The plan is funded in accordance with requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA). No contributions to the plan are expected for the year ending December 31, 2008. Southern Company also provides certain defined benefit pension plans for a selected group of management and highly compensated employees. Benefits under these non-qualified plans are funded on a cash basis. In addition, Southern Company provides certain medical care and life insurance benefits for retired employees through other postretirement benefit plans. The traditional operating companies fund related trusts to the extent required by their respective regulatory commissions. For the year ending December 31, 2008, postretirement trust contributions are expected to total approximately $46 million.
The measurement date for plan assets and obligations is September 30 for each year presented. Pursuant to FASB Statement No. 158, “Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans,” Southern Company will be required to change the measurement date for its defined benefit postretirement plans from September 30 to December 31 beginning with the year ending December 31, 2008.
Pension Plans
The total accumulated benefit obligation for the pension plans was $5.3 billion in 2007 and $5.1 billion in 2006. Changes during the year in the projected benefit obligations and fair value of plan assets were as follows:

II-64


Table of Contents

NOTES (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
                 
    2007     2006  
 
    (in millions)  
Change in benefit obligation
               
Benefit obligation at beginning of year
  $ 5,491     $ 5,557  
Service cost
    147        153  
Interest cost
    324        300  
Benefits paid
    (241 )     (230 )
Plan amendments
    50       8  
Actuarial (gain) loss
    (111 )     (297 )
 
Balance at end of year
    5,660       5,491  
 
Change in plan assets
               
Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year
    6,693       6,147  
Actual return on plan assets
    1,153       759  
Employer contributions
    19       17  
Benefits paid
    (241 )     (230 )
 
Fair value of plan assets at end of year
    7,624       6,693  
 
Funded status at end of year
    1,964       1,202  
Fourth quarter contributions
    5       5  
 
Prepaid pension asset, net
  $ 1,969     $ 1,207  
 
At December 31, 2007, the projected benefit obligations for the qualified and non-qualified pension plans were $5.3 billion and $0.4 billion, respectively. All plan assets are related to the qualified pension plan.
Pension plan assets are managed and invested in accordance with all applicable requirements, including ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (Internal Revenue Code). The Company’s investment policy covers a diversified mix of assets, including equity and fixed income securities, real estate, and private equity. Derivative instruments are used primarily as hedging tools but may also be used to gain efficient exposure to the various asset classes. The Company primarily minimizes the risk of large losses through diversification but also monitors and manages other aspects of risk. The actual composition of the Company’s pension plan assets as of the end of the year, along with the targeted mix of assets, is presented below:
                         
    Target   2007   2006
 
Domestic equity
    36 %     38 %     38 %
International equity
    24       24       23  
Fixed income
    15       15       16  
Real estate
    15       16       16  
Private equity
    10       7       7  
 
Total
    100 %     100 %     100 %
 
Amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheets related to the Company’s pension plans consist of the following:
                 
    2007     2006  
 
    (in millions)
Prepaid pension costs
  $ 2,369     $ 1,549  
Other regulatory assets
    188       158  
Current liabilities, other
    (21 )     (18 )
Other regulatory liabilities
    (1,288 )     (507 )
Employee benefit obligations
    (379 )     (324 )
Accumulated other comprehensive income
    (26 )      
 

II-65


Table of Contents

NOTES (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
Presented below are the amounts included in accumulated other comprehensive income, regulatory assets, and regulatory liabilities at December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006 related to the defined benefit pension plans that have not yet been recognized in net periodic pension cost along with the estimated amortization of such amounts for the next fiscal year:
                 
    Prior Service Cost   Net(Gain)/Loss
 
    (in millions)
Balance at December 31, 2007:
               
Accumulated other comprehensive income
  $ 14     $ (40 )
Regulatory assets
    66       122  
Regulatory liabilities
    198       (1,486 )
 
Total
  $ 278     $ (1,404 )
 
 
               
Balance at December 31, 2006:
               
Accumulated other comprehensive income
  $ 11     $ (11 )
Regulatory assets
    27        131  
Regulatory liabilities
     225       (732 )
 
Total
  $ 263     $ (612 )
 
 
               
Estimated amortization in net periodic pension cost in 2008:
               
Accumulated other comprehensive income
  $ 2     $ 1  
Regulatory assets
    9       9  
Regulatory liabilities
    26        
 
Total
  $ 37     $ 10  
 
The components of other comprehensive income, along with the changes in the balances of regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities, related to the defined benefit pension plans for the year ended December 31, 2007 are presented in the following table:
                         
    Accumulated Other        
    Comprehensive   Regulatory   Regulatory
    Income   Assets   Liabilities
 
            (in millions)        
Beginning balance
  $     $ 158     $ (507 )
Net (gain)
    (28 )           (753 )
Change in prior service costs
    4       46        
Reclassification adjustments:
                       
Amortization of prior service costs
    (2 )     (7 )     (28 )
Amortization of net gain
          (9 )      
 
Total reclassification adjustments
    (2 )     (16 )     (28 )
 
Total change
    (26 )     30       (781 )
 
Ending balance
  $ (26 )   $ 188     $ (1,288 )
 
Components of net periodic pension cost were as follows:
                         
    2007   2006   2005
 
    (in millions)
Service cost
  $ 147     $ 153     $ 138  
Interest cost
    324        300       286  
Expected return on plan assets
    (481 )     (456 )     (456 )
Recognized net (gain) loss
    10       16       10  
Net amortization
    35       26       24  
 
Net periodic pension cost
  $ 35     $ 39     $ 2  
 

II-66


Table of Contents

NOTES (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
Net periodic pension cost (income) is the sum of service cost, interest cost, and other costs netted against the expected return on plan assets. The expected return on plan assets is determined by multiplying the expected rate of return on plan assets and the market-related value of plan assets. In determining the market-related value of plan assets, the Company has elected to amortize changes in the market value of all plan assets over five years rather than recognize the changes immediately. As a result, the accounting value of plan assets that is used to calculate the expected return on plan assets differs from the current fair value of the plan assets.
Future benefit payments reflect expected future service and are estimated based on assumptions used to measure the projected benefit obligation for the pension plans. At December 31, 2007, estimated benefit payments were as follows:
         
    Benefit Payments
 
    (in millions)
2008
  $ 265  
2009
    275  
2010
    289  
2011
    327  
2012
    349  
2013 to 2017
    2,007  
 
Other Postretirement Benefits
Changes during the year in the accumulated postretirement benefit obligations (APBO) and in the fair value of plan assets were as follows:
                 
    2007   2006
 
    (in millions)
Change in benefit obligation
               
Benefit obligation at beginning of year
  $ 1,830     $ 1,826  
Service cost
    27       30  
Interest cost
     107       98  
Benefits paid
    (83 )     (79 )
Actuarial (gain) loss
    (90 )     (49 )
Retiree drug subsidy
    6       4  
 
Balance at end of year
    1,797       1,830  
 
Change in plan assets
               
Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year
    731       684  
Actual return on plan assets
    105       68  
Employer contributions
    61       97  
Benefits paid
    (77 )     (118 )
 
Fair value of plan assets at end of year
    820       731  
 
Funded status at end of year
    ( 977 )     (1,099 )
Fourth quarter contributions
    65       53  
 
Accrued liability
  $ (912 )   $ (1,046 )
 
Other postretirement benefits plan assets are managed and invested in accordance with all applicable requirements, including ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. The Company’s investment policy covers a diversified mix of assets, including equity and fixed income securities, real estate, and private equity. Derivative instruments are used primarily as hedging tools but may also be used to gain efficient exposure to the various asset classes. The Company primarily minimizes the risk of large losses through diversification but also monitors and manages other aspects of risk. The actual composition of the Company’s other postretirement benefit plan assets as of the end of the year, along with the targeted mix of assets, is presented below:

II-67


Table of Contents

NOTES (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
                         
    Target   2007   2006
 
Domestic equity
    43 %     45 %     44 %
International equity
    18       20       20  
Fixed income
    29       26       27  
Real estate
    6       6       6  
Private equity
    4       3       3  
 
Total
    100 %     100 %     100 %
 
Amounts recognized in the balance sheets related to the Company’s other postretirement benefit plans consist of the following:
                 
    2007     2006  
    (in millions)  
Other regulatory assets
  $ 360     $ 539  
Current liabilities, other
    (3 )     (3 )
Employee benefit obligations
    (909 )     (1,043 )
Accumulated other comprehensive income
    8       14  
 
Presented below are the amounts included in accumulated other comprehensive income and regulatory assets at December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006 related to the other postretirement benefit plans that have not yet been recognized in net periodic postretirement benefit cost along with the estimated amortization of such amounts for the next fiscal year.
                         
    Prior Service   Net(Gain)/   Transition
    Cost   Loss   Obligation
    (in millions)
Balance at December 31, 2007:
                       
Accumulated other comprehensive income
  $ 4     $ 4     $  
Regulatory assets
    99       177       84  
 
Total
  $ 103     $ 181     $ 84  
 
Balance at December 31, 2006:
                       
Accumulated other comprehensive income
  $ 4     $ 10     $  
Regulatory assets
    108       332       99  
 
Total
  $ 112     $ 342     $ 99  
 
 
                       
Estimated amortization as net periodic postretirement benefit cost in 2008:
                       
Accumulated other comprehensive income
  $     $     $   —  
Regulatory assets
    9       7       15  
 
Total
  $ 9     $ 7     $ 15  
 
The components of other comprehensive income, along with the changes in the balance of regulatory assets, related to the other postretirement benefit plans for the year ended December 31, 2007 are presented in the following table:
                 
    Accumulated Other    
    Comprehensive   Regulatory
    Income   Assets
    (in millions)
Beginning balance
  $ 14     $ 539  
Net (gain)
    (6 )     (141 )
Change in prior service costs
           
Reclassification adjustments:
               
Amortization of transition obligation
          (15 )
Amortization of prior service costs
          (9 )
Amortization of net gain
          (14 )
 
Total reclassification adjustments
          (38 )
 
Total change
    (6 )     (179 )
 
Ending balance
  $ 8     $ 360  
 

II-68


Table of Contents

NOTES (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
Components of the other postretirement benefit plans’ net periodic cost were as follows:
                         
    2007   2006   2005
    (in millions)
Service cost
  $ 27     $ 30     $ 28  
Interest cost
    107       98       97  
Expected return on plan assets
    (52 )     (49 )     (45 )
Net amortization
    38       43       38  
 
Net postretirement cost
  $ 120     $ 122     $ 118  
 
The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Medicare Act) provides a 28% prescription drug subsidy for Medicare eligible retirees. The effect of the subsidy reduced Southern Company’s expenses for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006, and 2005 by approximately $35 million, $39 million, and $26 million, respectively.
Future benefit payments, including prescription drug benefits, reflect expected future service and are estimated based on assumptions used to measure the APBO for the postretirement plans. Estimated benefit payments are reduced by drug subsidy receipts expected as a result of the Medicare Act as follows:
                         
    Benefit Payments   Subsidy Receipts   Total
    (in millions)
2008
  $ 94     $ (7 )   $ 87  
2009
    102       (8 )     94  
2010
    113       (10 )     103  
2011
    123       (11 )     112  
2012
    131       (13 )     118  
2013 to 2017
    745       (91 )     654  
 
Actuarial Assumptions
The weighted average rates assumed in the actuarial calculations used to determine both the benefit obligations as of the measurement date and the net periodic costs for the pension and other postretirement benefit plans for the following year are presented below. Net periodic benefit costs were calculated in 2004 for the 2005 plan year using a discount rate of 5.75%.
                         
    2007     2006     2005  
 
Discount
    6.30 %     6.00 %     5.50 %
Annual salary increase
    3.75       3.50       3.00  
Long-term return on plan assets
    8.50       8.50       8.50  
 
The Company determined the long-term rate of return based on historical asset class returns and current market conditions, taking into account the diversification benefits of investing in multiple asset classes.
An additional assumption used in measuring the APBO was a weighted average medical care cost trend rate of 9.75% for 2008, decreasing gradually to 5.25% through the year 2015 and remaining at that level thereafter. An annual increase or decrease in the assumed medical care cost trend rate of 1% would affect the APBO and the service and interest cost components at December 31, 2007 as follows:
                 
    1 Percent   1 Percent
    Increase   Decrease
    (in millions)
Benefit obligation
  $ 126     $ 107  
Service and interest costs
    9       8  
 

II-69


Table of Contents

NOTES (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
Employee Savings Plan
Southern Company also sponsors a 401(k) defined contribution plan covering substantially all employees. The Company provides an 85% matching contribution up to 6% of an employee’s base salary. Prior to November 2006, the Company matched employee contributions at a rate of 75% up to 6% of the employee’s base salary. Total matching contributions made to the plan for 2007, 2006, and 2005 were $73 million, $62 million, and $58 million, respectively.
3. CONTINGENCIES AND REGULATORY MATTERS
General Litigation Matters
Southern Company is subject to certain claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. In addition, Southern Company’s business activities are subject to extensive governmental regulation related to public health and the environment. 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 claims for damages caused by alleged exposure to hazardous materials have become more frequent. The ultimate outcome of such pending or potential litigation against Southern Company and its subsidiaries cannot be predicted at this time; however, for current proceedings not specifically reported herein, management does not anticipate that the liabilities, if any, arising from such current proceedings would have a material adverse effect on Southern Company’s financial statements.
Mirant Matters
Mirant Corporation (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.
Mirant Bankruptcy
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).
Southern Company has certain contingent liabilities associated with guarantees of contractual commitments made by Mirant’s subsidiaries discussed in Note 7 under “Guarantees” and with various lawsuits related to Mirant discussed below. Also, Southern Company has joint and several liability with Mirant regarding the joint consolidated federal income tax returns through 2001, as discussed in Note 5. In December 2004, as a result of concluding an IRS audit for the tax years 2000 and 2001, Southern Company paid approximately $39 million in additional tax and interest related to Mirant tax items and filed a claim in Mirant’s bankruptcy case for that amount. Through December 2007, Southern Company received from the IRS approximately $36 million in refunds related to Mirant. Southern Company believes it has a right to recoup the $39 million tax payment owed by Mirant from such tax refunds. As a result, Southern Company intends to retain the tax refunds and reduce its claim against Mirant for the payment of Mirant taxes by the amount of such refunds. MC Asset Recovery, a special purpose subsidiary of Reorganized Mirant, has objected to and sought to equitably subordinate the Southern Company tax claim in its fraudulent

II-70


Table of Contents

NOTES (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
transfer litigation against Southern Company. Southern Company has reserved the approximately $3 million amount remaining with respect to its Mirant tax claim.
Under the terms of the separation agreements entered into in connection with the spin-off, Mirant agreed to indemnify Southern Company for costs associated with these guarantees, lawsuits, and additional IRS assessments. However, as a result of Mirant’s bankruptcy, Southern Company sought reimbursement as an unsecured creditor in Mirant’s Chapter 11 proceeding. As part of a complaint filed against Southern Company in June 2005 and amended thereafter, Mirant and The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Mirant Corporation (Unsecured Creditors’ Committee) objected to and sought equitable subordination of Southern Company’s claims, and Mirant moved to reject the separation agreements entered into in connection with the spin-off. MC Asset Recovery has been substituted as plaintiff in the complaint. If Southern Company’s claims for indemnification with respect to these, or any additional future payments, are allowed, then Mirant’s indemnity obligations to Southern Company would constitute unsecured claims against Mirant entitled to stock in Reorganized Mirant. The final outcome of this matter cannot now be determined.
MC Asset Recovery Litigation
In June 2005, Mirant, as a debtor in possession, and the Unsecured Creditors’ Committee filed a complaint against Southern Company in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, which was amended in July 2005, February 2006, May 2006, and March 2007.
In December 2005, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order authorizing the transfer of this proceeding, along with certain other actions, to MC Asset Recovery. Under that order, Reorganized Mirant is obligated to fund up to $20 million in professional fees in connection with the lawsuits, as well as certain additional amounts. Any net recoveries from these lawsuits will be distributed to, and shared equally by, certain unsecured creditors and the original equity holders. In January 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas substituted MC Asset Recovery as plaintiff.
The complaint, as amended in March 2007, alleges that Southern Company caused Mirant to engage in certain fraudulent transfers and to pay illegal dividends to Southern Company prior to the spin-off. The alleged fraudulent transfers and illegal dividends include without limitation: (1) certain dividends from Mirant to Southern Company in the aggregate amount of $668 million, (2) the repayment of certain intercompany loans and accrued interest in an aggregate amount of $1.035 billion, and (3) the dividend distribution of one share of Series B Preferred Stock and its subsequent redemption in exchange for Mirant’s 80% interest in a holding company that owned SE Finance Capital Corporation and Southern Company Capital Funding, Inc., which transfer plaintiff asserts is valued at over $200 million. The complaint also seeks to recharacterize certain advances from Southern Company to Mirant for investments in energy facilities from debt to equity. The complaint further alleges that Southern Company is liable to Mirant’s creditors for the full amount of Mirant’s liability under an alter ego theory of recovery and that Southern Company breached its fiduciary duties to Mirant and its creditors, caused Mirant to breach its fiduciary duties to creditors, and aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by Mirant’s directors and officers. The complaint also seeks recoveries under the theories of restitution and unjust enrichment. In addition, the complaint alleges a claim under the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act (FDCPA) to void certain transfers from Mirant to Southern Company. MC Asset Recovery claims to have standing to assert violations of the FDCPA and to recover property on behalf of the Mirant debtors’ estates. The complaint seeks monetary damages in excess of $2 billion plus interest, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. Finally, the complaint includes an objection to Southern Company’s pending claims against Mirant in the Bankruptcy Court (which relate to reimbursement under the separation agreements of payments such as income taxes, interest, legal fees, and other guarantees described in Note 7) and seeks equitable subordination of Southern Company’s claims to the claims of all other creditors. Southern Company served an answer to the complaint in April 2007.

II-71


Table of Contents

NOTES (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
In January 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted Southern Company’s motion to withdraw this action from the Bankruptcy Court and, in February 2006, granted Southern Company’s motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. In May 2006, Southern Company filed a motion for summary judgment seeking entry of judgment against the plaintiff as to all counts of the complaint. In December 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted in part and denied in part the motion. As a result, certain breach of fiduciary duty claims alleged in earlier versions of the complaint are barred; all other claims in the complaint may proceed. Southern Company believes there is no meritorious basis for the claims in the complaint and is vigorously defending itself in this action. However, the final outcome of this matter cannot now be determined.
Mirant Securities Litigation
In November 2002, Southern Company, certain former and current senior officers of Southern Company, and 12 underwriters of Mirant’s initial public offering were added as defendants in a class action lawsuit that several Mirant shareholders originally filed against Mirant and certain Mirant officers in May 2002. Several other similar lawsuits filed subsequently were consolidated into this litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The amended complaint is based on allegations related to alleged improper energy trading and marketing activities involving the California energy market, alleged false statements and omissions in Mirant’s prospectus for its initial public offering and in subsequent public statements by Mirant, and accounting-related issues previously disclosed by Mirant. The lawsuit purports to include persons who acquired Mirant securities between September 26, 2000 and September 5, 2002.
In July 2003, the court dismissed all claims based on Mirant’s alleged improper energy trading and marketing activities involving the California energy market. The other claims do not allege any improper trading and marketing activity, accounting errors, or material misstatements or omissions on the part of Southern Company but seek to impose liability on Southern Company based on allegations that Southern Company was a “control person” as to Mirant prior to the spin-off date. Southern Company filed an answer to the consolidated amended class action complaint in September 2003. Plaintiffs have also filed a motion for class certification.
During Mirant’s Chapter 11 proceeding, the securities litigation was stayed, with the exception of limited discovery. Since Mirant’s plan of reorganization has become effective, the stay has been lifted. In March 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration requesting that the court vacate that portion of its July 2003 order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims based upon Mirant’s alleged improper energy trading and marketing activities involving the California energy market. Southern Company and the other defendants have opposed the plaintiffs’ motion. On March 6, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, reinstated the California energy market claims, and granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel certain class certification discovery. On March 21, 2007, defendants filed renewed motions to dismiss the California energy claims on grounds originally set forth in their 2003 motions to dismiss, but which were not addressed by the court. On July 27, 2007, certain defendants, including Southern Company, filed motions for reconsideration of the court’s denial of a motion seeking dismissal of certain federal securities laws claims based upon, among other things, certain alleged errors included in financial statements issued by Mirant. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.
The plaintiffs have also stated that they intend to request that the court grant leave for them to amend the complaint to add allegations based upon claims asserted against Southern Company in the MC Asset Recovery litigation.
Under certain circumstances, Southern Company will be obligated under its Bylaws to indemnify the four current and/or former Southern Company officers who served as directors of Mirant at the time of its initial public offering through the date of the spin-off and who are also named as defendants in this lawsuit. The final outcome of this matter cannot now be determined.

II-72


Table of Contents

NOTES (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
Environmental Matters
New Source Review Actions
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 New Source Review (NSR) provisions of the Clean Air Act and related state laws at certain coal-fired generating facilities. Through subsequent amendments and other legal procedures, the EPA filed a separate action in January 2001 against Alabama Power in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama after Alabama Power was dismissed from the original action. In these lawsuits, the EPA alleged that NSR violations occurred at eight coal-fired generating facilities operated by Alabama Power and Georgia Power. The civil actions request penalties and injunctive relief, including an order requiring the installation of the best available control technology at the affected units. The action against Georgia Power has been administratively closed since the spring of 2001, and the case has not been reopened.
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 the alleged NSR violations at Plant Miller. The consent decree required Alabama Power to pay $100,000 to resolve the government’s claim for a civil penalty and to donate $4.9 million of sulfur dioxide emission allowances to a nonprofit charitable organization and formalized specific emissions reductions to be accomplished by Alabama Power, consistent with other Clean Air Act programs that require emissions reductions. In August 2006, the district court in Alabama granted Alabama Power’s motion for summary judgment and entered final judgment in favor of Alabama Power on the EPA’s claims related to all of the remaining plants: Plants Barry, Gaston, Gorgas, and Greene County.
The plaintiffs appealed the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the appeal was stayed by the Appeals Court pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in a similar case against Duke Energy. The Supreme Court issued its decision in the Duke Energy case in April 2007. On October 5, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama issued an order in the Alabama Power case indicating a willingness to re-evaluate its previous decision in light of the Supreme Court’s Duke Energy opinion. On December 21, 2007, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s decision in the Alabama Power case and remanded the case back to the district court for consideration of the legal issues in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Duke Energy case. The final outcome of these matters cannot be determined at this time.
Southern Company believes that the traditional operating companies complied with applicable laws and the EPA regulations and interpretations in effect at the time the work in question took place. The Clean Air Act authorizes maximum civil penalties of $25,000 to $32,500 per day, per violation at each generating unit, depending on the date of the alleged violation. An adverse outcome in either of these cases 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.
Carbon Dioxide Litigation
In July 2004, attorneys general from eight states, each outside of Southern Company’s service territory, and the corporation counsel for New York City filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Southern Company and four other electric power companies. A nearly identical complaint was filed by three environmental groups in the same court. The complaints allege that the companies’ emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, contribute to global warming, which the plaintiffs assert is a public nuisance. Under common law public and private nuisance theories, the plaintiffs seek a judicial order (1) holding each defendant jointly and severally liable for creating, contributing to, and/or maintaining global warming and (2) requiring each of the defendants to cap its emissions of carbon dioxide and then reduce those emissions by a specified percentage each

II-73


Table of Contents

NOTES (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
year for at least a decade. Plaintiffs have not, however, requested that damages be awarded in connection with their claims. Southern Company believes these claims are without merit and notes that the complaint cites no statutory or regulatory basis for the claims. In September 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Southern 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 no decision has been issued. The ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be determined at this time.
Environmental Remediation
Southern Company must comply with other 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.
Through 2007, Georgia Power recovered environmental costs through its base rates. Beginning in 2008, in connection with the retail rate plan for the years 2008 through 2010 (2007 Retail Rate Plan), an environmental compliance cost recovery tariff, including an annual accrual of $1.2 million for environmental remediation, was implemented. Environmental remediation expenditures will be charged against the reserve as they are incurred. The annual accrual amount will be reviewed and adjusted as necessary in future regulatory proceedings. The balance of Georgia Power’s environmental remediation liability at December 31, 2007 was $13.5 million.
Georgia Power has been designated as a potentially responsible party 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.
Gulf Power’s environmental remediation liability includes estimated costs of environmental remediation projects of approximately $66.9 million as of December 31, 2007. These estimated costs relate to new regulations and more stringent site closure criteria by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for impacts to 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.
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, management does not believe that additional liabilities, if any, at these sites would be material to the financial statements.
FERC Matters
Market-Based Rate Authority
Each of the traditional operating companies and Southern Power has authorization from the FERC to sell power to non-affiliates, including short-term opportunity sales, at market-based prices. Specific FERC approval must be obtained with respect to a market-based contract with an affiliate.
In December 2004, the FERC initiated a proceeding to assess Southern Company’s generation dominance within its retail service territory. The ability to charge market-based rates in other markets is not an issue in the proceeding.

II-74


Table of Contents

NOTES (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
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 be subject to refund to a cost-based rate level.
In late June and July 2007, hearings were held in this proceeding and the presiding administrative law judge issued an initial decision on November 9, 2007 regarding the methodology to be used in the generation dominance tests. The proceedings are ongoing. The ultimate outcome of this generation dominance proceeding cannot now be determined, but an adverse decision by the FERC in a final order could require the traditional operating companies and Southern Power to charge cost-based rates for certain wholesale sales in the Southern Company retail service territory, which may be lower than negotiated market-based rates and could also result in refunds of up to $19.7 million, plus interest. Southern Company and its subsidiaries believe that there is no meritorious basis for this proceeding and are vigorously defending themselves in this matter.
On June 21, 2007, the FERC issued its final rule regarding market-based rate authority. The FERC generally retained its current market-based rate standards. The impact of this order and its effect on the generation dominance proceeding cannot now be determined.
Intercompany Interchange Contract
The 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 of Southern Company 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.
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 and Southern Company notified the FERC that it accepted the modifications. The modifications largely involve functional separation and information restrictions related to marketing activities conducted on behalf of Southern Power. Southern Company filed with the FERC in November 2006 a compliance plan in connection with the order. On April 19, 2007, the FERC approved, with certain modifications, the plan submitted by Southern Company. Implementation of the plan is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements. On November 19, 2007, Southern Company notified the FERC that the plan had been implemented and the FERC division of audits subsequently began an audit pertaining to compliance implementation and related matters, which is ongoing.
Generation Interconnection Agreements
In November 2004, generator company subsidiaries of Tenaska, Inc. (Tenaska), as counterparties to three previously executed interconnection agreements with subsidiaries of Southern Company, filed complaints at the FERC requesting that the FERC modify the agreements and that those Southern Company subsidiaries refund a total of $19 million previously paid for interconnection facilities. No other similar complaints are pending with the FERC.
On January 19, 2007, the FERC issued an order granting Tenaska’s requested relief. Although the FERC’s order required the modification of Tenaska’s interconnection agreements, under the provisions of the order, Southern Company determined that no refund was payable to Tenaska. Southern Company requested rehearing asserting that the FERC retroactively applied a new principle to existing interconnection agreements. Tenaska requested rehearing of FERC’s methodology for determining the amount of refunds. The requested rehearings were denied, and

II-75


Table of Contents

NOTES (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
Southern Company and Tenaska have appealed the orders to the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia. The final outcome of this matter cannot now be determined.
Right of Way Litigation
Southern Company and certain of its subsidiaries, including Gulf Power, Mississippi Power, and Southern Telecom, Inc. (a subsidiary of SouthernLINC Wireless), 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 its subsidiaries believe that they have complied with applicable laws and that the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit.
In November 2003, the Second Circuit Court in Gadsden County, Florida, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on their motion for partial summary judgment concerning liability in one such lawsuit brought by landowners regarding the installation and use of fiber optic cable over Gulf Power rights of way located on the landowners’ property. Subsequently, the plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint and asked the court to enter a final declaratory judgment and to enter an order enjoining Gulf Power from allowing expanded general telecommunications use of the fiber optic cables that are the subject of this litigation. In January 2005, the trial court granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint and denied the requested declaratory and injunctive relief. In November 2005, the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and against Gulf Power on their respective motions for partial summary judgment. In that same order, the trial court also denied Gulf Power’s motion to dismiss certain claims. Gulf Power filed an appeal to the Florida First District Court of Appeals in December 2005. In October 2006, the Florida First District Court of Appeal issued an order dismissing Gulf Power’s December 2005 appeal on the basis that the trial court’s order was a non-final order and therefore not subject to review on appeal at this time. The case was returned to the trial court for further proceedings. The parties reached agreement on a proposed settlement plan that was subject to approval by the trial court. On November 7, 2007, the trial court granted preliminary approval and set forth the requirements for the trial court to make its final determination on the proposed settlement. Although the final outcome of this matter cannot now be determined, if approved the settlement is not expected to have a material effect on Southern Company’s financial statements.
To date, Mississippi Power has entered into agreements with plaintiffs in approximately 90% 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 dismissals of the related cases are in progress. These agreements have not resulted in any material effects on Southern Company’s financial statements.
In addition, in late 2001, certain subsidiaries of Southern Company, including Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, Mississippi Power, and Southern Telecom, Inc. (a subsidiary of SouthernLINC Wireless), were named as defendants in a lawsuit brought by a telecommunications company that uses certain of the defendants’ 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. The Company believes 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.

II-76


Table of Contents

NOTES (continued)
Southern Company and Subsidiary Companies 2007 Annual Report
Income Tax Matters
Leveraged Leases
Southern Company undergoes audits by the IRS for each of its tax years. The IRS has completed its audits of Southern Company’s consolidated federal income tax returns for all years prior to 2004. The IRS challenged Southern Company’s deductions related to three international lease transactions (SILO or sale-in-lease-out transactions), in connection with its audits of Southern Company’s 2000 through 2003 tax returns. In the third quarter 2006, Southern Company paid the full amount of the disputed tax and the applicable interest on the SILO issue for tax years 2000 and 2001 and filed a claim for refund which was denied by the IRS. The disputed tax amount was $79 million and the related interest approximately $24 million for these tax years. This payment, and the subsequent IRS disallowance of the refund claim, closed the issue with the IRS and Southern Company has initiated litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for a complete refund of tax and interest paid for the 2000 and 2001 tax years. The IRS also challenged the SILO deductions for the tax years 2002 and 2003. The estimated amount of disputed tax and interest for tax years 2002 and 2003 was approximately $83 million and $15 million, respectively. The tax and interest for these tax years was paid to the IRS in the fourth quarter 2006. Southern Company has accounted for both payments in 2006 as deposits. For tax years 2000 through 2007, Southern Company has claimed approximately $330 million in tax benefits related to these SILO transactions challenged by the IRS. These tax benefits relate to timing differences and do not impact total net income. Southern Company believes these transactions are valid leases for U.S. tax purposes and the related deductions are allowable. Southern Company is continuing to pursue resolution of these matters; however, the ultimate outcome cannot now be determined. In addition, the U.S. Senate is currently considering legislation that would disallow tax benefits for SILO losses and other international leveraged lease transactions (such as lease-in-lease-out transactions) occurring after December 31, 2007. The ultimate impact on Southern Company’s net income and cash flow will be dependent on the outcome of pending litigation and proposed legislation, but could be significant, and potentially material.
Effective January 1, 2007, Southern Company adopted both FIN 48 and FASB Staff Position No. FAS 13-2, “Accounting for a Change or Projected Change in the Timing of Cash Flows Relating to Income Taxes Generated by a Leveraged Lease Transaction” (FSP 13-2). FIN 48 requires companies to determine whether it is “more likely than not” that a tax position will be sustained upon examination by the appropriate taxing authorities before any part of the benefit can be recorded in the financial statements. It also provides guidance on the recognition, measurement, and classification of income tax uncertainties, along with any related interest and penalties. FSP 13-2 amends FASB Statement No. 13, “Accounting for Leases” requiring recalculation of the rate of return and the allocation of income whenever the projected timing of the income tax cash flows generated by a leveraged lease is revised with recognition of the resulting gain or loss in the year of the revision. FSP 13-2 also requires that all recognized tax positions in a leveraged lease must be measured in accordance with the criteria in FIN 48 and any changes resulting from FIN 48 must be reflected as a change in an important lease assumption as of the date of adoption. In adopting these standards, Southern Company concluded that a portion of the SILO tax benefits were uncertain tax positions, as defined in FIN 48. Accordingly, Southern Company also concluded that there was a change in the timing of project income tax cash flows and, as required by FSP 13-2, recalculated the rate of return and allocation of income under the lease-in-lease-out (LILO) and SILO transactions.
The cumulative effect of the initial adoption of FIN 48 and FSP 13-2 was recorded as an adjustment to beginning retained earnings. For the LILO transaction settled with the IRS in February 2005, the cumulative effect of adopting FSP 13-2 was a $17 million reduction in beginning retained earnings. With respect to Southern Company’s SILO transactions, the adoption of FSP 13-2 reduced beginning retained earnings by $108 million and the adoption of FIN 48 reduced beginning retained earnings by an additional $15 million. The adjustments to retained earnings are non-cash charges and those related to FSP 13-2 will be recognized as income over the remaining terms of the affected leases. The adoption of FSP 13-2 also resulted in a reduction of net income of approximately $15 million during 2007. Any future changes in the projected or actual income tax cash flows will result in an additional recalculation of the net investment in the leases and will be recorded currently in income.

II-77


Table of Contents