utility and management pay for performance
garbage. SO is so management top heavy its pathetic.
Obviously, Eddvards probably works for SO because it sounds
like some of the garbage that they spout off to
employees about.Look at the whopping negative 15% return
last year and average 8% return over the last five
years plus the fact that the 5-6% dividend doesn't
compare with the better dividends that one can get with
other sound companies for cheaper share price.
I still don't think you have it right. I don't
consider myself macho and I don't make fun of EPA, I just
observe the antics that go on in
Believe me, they are morons. WOrse than that, they are
fools with authority. If you don't think that their
ultimate goal is to close down all the 'dirty' sources of
pollution in the world, you need to sit in on some of the
meetings. I could tell you some stories that would be funny
if they weren't true. More than one company has been
screwed over by these idiots. And the EPA continues to
hide behind the defensive tactic that they are doing
it for the environment. Regardless of anyone's views
on firearms, it will be very expensive to find
ammunition for any gun because of the lead laws, and if you
have ammunition that contains lead, in the future you
probably won't be able to dispose of it without EPA
I believe the EPA suit will be dismissed, SO will
rise again and this is a good time to buy.
Clean Air Act became law more than 20 YEARS ago. Did
the EPA shut their eyes and turn their collective
backs when these plants were being "repaired" or
"modified"? Not our Government, No way!! These are ever
vigilant professionals in the employ of the greatest
country on earth. They are keenly aware of the difference
between a boiler, turbine or generator repair/rebuild and
a "new source" modification. There lies the fault
with the lawsuit. The EPA had to know and they
"permitted" the work to proceed.
Dumas, you are
correct about the quality of SO's enviromental compliance
group. They are good and doing the best they can with an
EPA bent on eliminating coal as a fuel source for
power plants. These coal burners are the least
polluting today that they have ever been. Almost all the
"extensive" modifications done to these plants has been in an
attempt to comply with the Clean Air Act. It is very hard
for these plants to meet the requirements, but they
are meeting them. In some cases, the modifications
have increase the available power output of a unit
without increasing the fuel consumption. More power using
less fuel means less pollution...How can this be bad?
Repair permits? If SO went before a regulatory
review for a permit prior to making necessary repairs as
needed, the power we take for granted when we "flip the
switch" would surely fail.
Folks, I am prone to
being long winded. Must be the coal dust.
IMHO, SO should have at the least checked to see
if (1)a permit was needed if they planned to do
"repairs" costing a significant % of the initial capital
cost of the unit, (2) a production increase would
occur, and (3)EPA might possibly have rules requiring a
permit for the work. As a stockholder, I wish that the
facts, as I have been able to understand them from
secondary sources, were not as they are in this particular
case. SO has a strong environmental regulatory
compliance group as well as renowned air pollution control
specialists. It is difficult for me to believe that they did
not recommend to top management that these "repairs"
be cleared with the state and EPA environmental
regulatory agencies before implementation. Every repair
project does not need a permit, but it is only good
business practice to get a regulatory ruling (yes or no)
if you are going into a gray area. Hind sight is
always much clearer than foresight. However regulatory
compliance is no longer optional and has not been for years
for electric utilities. It seems like top management
has made a major bet that a permit was not required
with the stock holders' assets.
was not asleep at the wheel...EPA stated that
with the repairs that there was an increase in energy
production...however where is this increase with SO?? all they made
was simple clean-up repairs...if any energy
production was increased it was due to there being less
stress on the machines...since when do you need to pull
a permit to clean house??
I agree that you got it right in the subject of
your post. Unfortunately, that was about all you got
right. The lawsuit is not groundless. If it was, Tampa
Electric would not have settled their small portion for a
billion dollars. Your statement - "If it was illegal to
run these plants, the Feds would shut them down." is
not meaningful. The suit is action to take to shut
the plants down if some arrangement (fine or other
agreement) can not be reached. For thirty years, I have
watched the "macho" guys make fun of EPA and talk about
what morons they are. Well, they are not morons and
they will cost SO stockholders plenty on this because
upper management was asleep at the wheel (or country
Not the real problem. Seems SO could not manage
their problems here at home and then went abroad
seeking more compensation.
All these problems will
be solved when executive management compensation
packages are increased to reflect performance.
is simply a condition of doing business. You have to
pay a lot more to get people who can manage the
business in a complex environment. You have to make it
worth their while. SO will not take off because of epa.
They have to figure out what to do with those wasting
assets. People are wising up to that empty slogan of
service requirement. That is something that underpaid
executives brainwash you with as an excuse for poor
performance. Shame on those taken in by it.
Buy SO while it's cheap folks, cause as soon as
that foul EPA stinky stuff blows away the stock will
fly. This lawsuit mess is groundless anyway. If it was
illegal to run these plants, the Feds would shut them
down. These plants would stay shut down until the
repairs were made or the public riots from electricity
deprivation. Wait a minute, if they repair the plants, then
they're breaking the law. But, they have to repair the
plants because of their requirement to serve the public.
Folks, we are in deep dodo and the EPA is leading the
way. Gives me chill bumps.
I think I'll go down
and get a bite.
defending a losing record because you declare
"deregulation" requires foreign investments (which quickly go
bad), the stock price to go lower, and yet you say you
huge bonuses for management who make these overseas
investment losers. In my day, it was normally correct to pay
a fair days pay for a fair days work, not a fair
days group of blunders.
If you're thinking about the dividend yield being
12 percent at a lower price, think again. I remember
telling my dad about all the high dividend stocks on the
value line list. He laughed and said those dividend
yields won't last for long. In fact, in the case of SO,
I think a lower price would be justification for
cutting the dividend yield. And in the management's
current thinking, it saves the company money. ANother big
bonus coming to whoever suggests that at the next board