Sierra Club v. Mississippi Public Service Commission and Mississippi Power Company, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2011-CA-00350-SCT SIERRA CLUB v. MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY, INC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: TRIAL JUDGE: COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: NATURE OF THE CASE: DISPOSITION: MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: 02/28/2011 HON. JAMES B. PERSONS HARRISON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ROBERT B. WIYGUL OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JUSTIN L. MATHENY L. CHRISTOPHER LOMAX HAROLD EDWARD PIZZETTA, III SHAWN STEPHEN SHURDEN LEO ERNEST MANUEL BEN HARRY STONE TIM A. FORD WILLIAM L. SMITH RICKY J. COX CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES REVERSED AND REMANDED - 03/15/2012 BEFORE DICKINSON, P.J., RANDOLPH AND PIERCE, JJ. DICKINSON, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT: ¶1. The Mississippi Power Company ( MPC ) applied to the Mississippi Public Service Commission ( Commission ) for permission to proceed with construction of a new power generation facility that would employ a new technology not in operation anywhere else in the United States, and to begin assessing the cost of construction (capped at $2.88 billion) to its current customers. The Sierra Club opposed the project before the Commission, but the Commission entered an order in favor of MPC. The Chancery Court of Harrison County affirmed, and the Sierra Club appealed. ¶2. When the Commission grants authority for such projects, Mississippi law requires it to make findings supporting its decision; and, according to the statute, the Commission s findings must be supported by substantial evidence presented which shall be in sufficient detail to enable [this] court on appeal to determine the controverted questions presented, and the basis of the commission's conclusion. 1 We find the Commission s approval of the project fails to satisfy this requirement, so we reverse the chancery court s judgment and the Commission s order and remand to the Commission for further proceedings. ¶3. REVERSED AND REMANDED. WALLER, C.J., CARLSON, P.J., RANDOLPH, LAMAR, KITCHENS, CHANDLER, PIERCE AND KING, JJ., CONCUR. 1 Miss. Code Ann. § 77-3-59 (Rev. 2009). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.