Talk:Southern Company/Archives/2011

1st and 3rd biggest CO2 emitting coal plant
I'm removing this as it has no reference. It is both obvious and irrelevant that a coal power plant emits carbon dioxide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.228.79.211 (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If the allegation is true, and if it is verifiable, then in my opinion it should be included in the article. CO2 sequestering and/or other methods (such as those under development by Wow Energies) are becoming viable options, and so it does not go without saying that having the 1st and 3rd biggest CO2 emitters is necessarily a given, in my opinion.  --Art Smart (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Environment
Speaking of WP:NOTE and WP:UNDUE, it appears clear to me that the Environment section may be a whitewash. See this for verifiable counterpoint. I intend to add balance to this section later this evening, but I wanted first to offer others more familiar with SO a chance to voice their opinions on the matter.

Also, self-disclosure might be appropriate among us editors of this article. I am both a customer of TXU and Reliant Energy, so I'm sure I get some of my power from SO. However, I have no employment or stock interests in SO.

I call upon all other editors of this article to likewise self-disclose any/all interests in SO. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a Southern Company employee but own SO stock; good point.Linepm (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Depends upon how much stock. Enough to create a conflict of interest would be too much, in my opinion.  --Art Smart (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly not enough to worry about my next meal coming from the dividends. Your point is well taken and I have reviewed WP:COI for my future benefit and reviewed my previous edits on this subject. I was aware of the potential for COI and tried to make sure to cite specific reasons for my changes and proposals in edit summaries and the talk page for that exact reason (as directed by WP:COI guidelines); I should have clearly stated that I am a stock owner (regardless of small amount) up front, thank you for encouraging me to be a better editor.Linepm (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've made a first stab at adding balance to this section. Disinterested editors (i.e., those lacking any significant conflict of interest) are welcome to wordsmith.  Thanks.  --Art Smart (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Updated the bulleted points for which you requested a citation and added a lead-in paragraph with reference. It looks like the bulleted list was a straight copy/paste from an older version of the company's webpage. In keeping with good faith and to avoid any appearance of COI, I didn't make any changes to the paragraph you recently added/edited. I agree that the Environmental section now looks much more balanced as it should. Well done. Linepm (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed the blockquote tags to make them bullet points, but I'm not sure that formatting was what was originally intended. Please adjust formatting, as well as providing a verifiable source for the bullet items. Thanks again. --Art Smart (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, please see above. Note that the bulleted points are a direct quote from the referenced webpage so I left the blockquote tags to prevent an appearance of copyright violation. Linepm (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks great, Linepm. Thanks for the cleanup.  --Art Smart (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Customer service
In the Overview section the article says "Among Southern's highlights are its dedication to customer service", which is typical puff language. No direct support is provided for this statement. In the Reuters article entitled [http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS132573+17-Jul-2008+PRN20080717 "J.D. Power and Associates Reports: Satisfaction With Electric Utility Companies Increases ..." (17 July 2008)] which reported on ranking of utilities by customer service, it said: "Among large utility companies in the South region, Alabama Power ranks highest. CPS Energy and Progress Energy Carolinas, respectively, closely follow Alabama Power." While Alabama Power is a Southern Company company, the other two are not. --Bejnar (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

need edits
entire article reads like company propganda --68.59.226.238 (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Environment section
The Environment section of this page has changed from pretty negative to pretty positive in less than 30 minutes, earlier today. I'm fine with the positive stuff, as long as the negative stuff remains in the article. I suspect a pretty lousy PR job, in blatant WP:COI fashion. I'll rewrite the negative package, while keeping the positive stuff for the moment, but it will need to be backed with reliable sources – Bouchecl (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment
I work for Southern Company and can help if needed. I understand the need for verifiable and objective information.

All the environmental information added to the page is accurate. The company's new generation investment has been in natural gas, gasification with CO2 storage, nuclear, and renewable projects.

Coal info is definitely part of the older story. Southern Company operates large coal plants, see the fuel mix noted at the top, some plants rank in the top five for size of output in the U.S. The rankings change from year to year. I think the DOE has rankings through 2007 posted. Big plants are probably better than many small ones, for efficiency. Emissions per kilowatt is a good measure.

Investment in coal plants today is for installation of environmental controls (SCRs, scrubbers). Southern Company figures are here:http://www.southerncompany.com/corporateresponsibility/environment/performance.aspx. Carbon dioxide issues with coal aren't as easy -- technology isn't as mature. Information on researching methods for CO2 storage here:http://www.southerncompany.com/corporateresponsibility/environment/climateChange.aspx. Moving future generation into nuclear -- Southern Company is building two new units at Plant Vogtle -- addresses demand growth without CO2 emissions.

The Bush contributions seem like old news. Investment in the solar, nuclear, and biomass plants is way larger and more significant for the future. Southern Company discusses legislative and regulatory participation on this page: http://www.southerncompany.com/corporateresponsibility/electricity/. Someone can take a look at a broader way to express this information objectively. Also perhaps check with EEI.org, an industry group. Information on Political Action Committee federal contributions is publicly available through the Federal Elections Commission at www.fec.gov.

Wcheerma (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am a customer of Alabama Power, a Southern Company subsidiary. According to the most recently available figures, the company's coal- and oil-fueled power plants are the second worst source of toxic air pollution in our state, trailing only the paper industry. In Birmingham, Alabama we are accustomed to "yellow alert" days when elderly or asthmatic people are discouraged from going outdoors. Alabama Power's two coal plants in the metro Birmingham area are understood to be the principal contributors to the problem, yet the company has left no stone unturned in its campaign to shirk (I know that's not NPOV, but it fits) compliance with the 42-year-old Clean Air Act.
 * When will the law finally meet with the company's approval? Don't hold your breath. This talk of "new generation investment" in "gasification" is just doublespeak for prolonging the company's reliance on cheap fuel, no matter how dangerous it might be.
 * This article contains some fluff about Southern Co.'s interest in "renewables," yet Alabama Power is anything but a leader in this area. In a state that boasts of being in the Sun Belt, with 200-240 days of sun per year, we are lectured that solar energy is somehow not suitable for us. Alabama senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions, enjoying the attention of Southern's stable of lobbyists, consistently block any effort to encourage (or refrain from discouraging) development of renewable energy. (But I'm sure their positions are based on principle. Of course they are.)
 * I suppose it would be difficult for me to contribute from a NPOV, as Alabama Power and Southern Co. have become synonymous in my mind with arrogant, self-serving duplicity in public affairs. But perhaps my perspective may help balance that of any editor who draws a paycheck from the company. I don't mean to imply that a company employee cannot possibly contribute from a NPOV. But company statements are not, in my view, reliable sources. — ℜob C. alias &Agrave;LAROB  13:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Please edit this...
It seems like half of the page is straight copy/paste from the website of southern co. The other half is from a enviromentilist website.

someone write something non-objective to either side.

Jmon366 (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please edit it. "Among Southern's highlights are its dedication to customer service" is footnoted by the company's website! Really! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.200.72 (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I did. At least I changed the environmental section, which was what most of the conversation was about. I added a dozen references/cites and cleaned up the propaganda-speak somewhat. (Some of it was a judgement call... are the amounts the company spent on cleanup relevant data, or just bragodoccio?)

Riventree (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Bush Inauguration Contribution Discussion
Rather than continue a good faith revert exchange, I propose a discussion as to whether a line about SO's place as one of 53 companies that contributed the maximum legal amount to President G. W. Bush's 2nd inauguration belongs in this article in the History section. That the contribution was made is well established and not disputed.

Remove I do not think that the line and its three references is appropriate per the guidelines of WP:NOTE, specifically WP:UNDUE as described here Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

A single, legal campaign contribution following a campaign in which Bush raised $367,227,801 and which was one of 53 equal maximum donations from a variety of firms and individuals is hardly worthy of mention in the History section of an article on a 60+ year old company. Given that the History section is so short and lacks coverage in many significant areas I propose the line be removed from the article or at the very least moved to a new section titled Politics or similar which would discuss the role of the company in local, state, and federal politics such as the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and the relevance of such a donation be put in contex. Linepm (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Retain

I support Linepm's suggestion that the text in question be "moved to a new section titled Politics or similar which would discuss the role of the company in local, state, and federal politics such as the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and the relevance of such a donation be put in contex." I would love to see all of SO's political and quasi-political contributions included in the article. The Board of SO felt the need to contribute to the Bush inaugural in an amount equal to the very maximum allowed. In so doing, they obviously had no qualms whatsoever about that contribution being made known to the general public, so I'm surprised 3.5 years later that any third party would try to hide that fact, even when acting in good faith (which I am confident is the case). I say retain the text, moving it to a special section if need be, and expand the article with other contributions and/or philanthropy. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Art, thank you for your civil and constructive rebuttal. May I suggest a new section as below which should hopefully address both our views, I have some additional comments that follow:

As a result of my work on the environmental section, this data was removed. I understand some people would have preferred to retain it, but I think the suggestion of a new section is better than retaining one sentence. Besides, the new administration has also lauded the company recently, so perhaps it's not as big a political divide as it once was. Riventree (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Political activity
Southern Company and its employees have long been major contributors to state and national campaigns. In recent years the company has supported Republican candidates predominantly, such as contributing the maximum of $250,000 to the second inauguration of President George W. Bush. , but has supported both Republicans and Democratic candidates throughout its history. Per the company's Political Contribution Policy, Southern Company refrains from making corporate contributions directly to state and local candidates, state and local political parties, and state and local political committees, though corporate funds may be used to make contributions to 527 organizations. Such 527 donations are published on the company's website.

The references were intentionally chosen as follows. First, the FEC database is a neutral, non-politically motivated source. I could not figure out how to do a search by company (corporate funds) only, I'm sure it is available and when you or I find it, it should certainly be added. Second, only one reference is needed for the Bush campaign contribution; the referenced USA Today article provides links to other articles on the same topic. Third, the company's own Policy and 527 disclosure is of key importance to the subject of this article section and should be included. A listing of contributions would not be appropriate to the body of the article, such a list would be most appropriate for an external link under WP guidelines which I feel certain we would agree to follow. Again, best wishes and thank you for your participation in crafting a neutral article. Linepm (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops. Sorry, but I didn't see the above discussion until after I made changes to the Environment section.  The above suggested language by Linepm may work, but I'd prefer something a bit more succinct.  Thanks again.  --Art Smart (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, your change looks good to me. Thank you for a honest, good, through discussion. Linepm (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)