Nicely written and in many cases, redundent requests for information already provided, easily answered, or off issue and will not be granted. This will delay the granting of the changes by about ONE (1) HOUR. LOL. Let's run through them;
#1. Since the ash output will be the same as originally permitted, as the increase output is due entirely due to increased efficiencies without burning additional wood, this question is redundent and if raised in original permitting hearings, already answered. At worst, they copy from original permitting draft.
#2. Since the final needs to be filed before construction starts anyway, premature and confidential BUT, since we now KNOW that PSNH is about to file the revised PPA which will meet the PUC's requirements, NO PROBLEM.
#3. Overly broad and without bearing on the issues at hand and confidential as to each firm's business affairs. Likely to be limited in scope and targeted to only specific entities where this MAY be of concern for the SEC.
#4. Irrelevent to issues at hand and as plant is not yet even under construction. See #6
#5. Irrelevent to issues at hand. See #6
#6. Irrelevent for the issues at hand AGAIN. The financial end of this was handled in the original determination GRANTING THE PERMIT. Other issues already determined and examined in original hearings wherein LLEG was granted a Permit.
#7,8,9. Irreelevent as to issues at hand. See #6.
#10. Already provided in motion.
#11. Irrelevent as to issues at hand. See #6.
#12, 13, 14. Irrelevent as to issues at hand. Permit already granted and this has nothing to do with changes proposed.
#15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. Easily answered in about 10 minutes. Very little relevence but may be of interest to committee.
#22, 23, 24. Not a problem if held as confidential.
#25. Already provided in original case. YES. Due to LLEG growing in the industry. duh!
#26. Redundent. Already appearent to all.
#27. Already answered, Repeat answer.
#28. Already done. REDUNDENT YET AGAIN.
So Spence, this is the great challenge you see moving forward for LLEG. LMAO. This filing is a bunch of trivial, redundent, irrelevent and immaterial information requests wholely OFF POINT to the FOUR (4) ISSUES AT HAND. REMEMBER THOSE FOUR (4) ISSUES.
Were I on the SEC, I would b!tch slap the attorney that came up with this diatribe for wasting my time and focusing almost entirely on off-topic issues instead of the FOUR (4) before the SEC, NOW.
As I said before. I see this causing LLEG about an hour of delay at best. They are going to have a hard time defending MOST of these requests if even I can see the irrelevence of these issues being raised.
While a VERY FEW may think everything has relevence, the SEC has made it clear that this WILL NOT be an opportunity to relitigate the site permit and will focus on, again, FOUR (4) issues at hand.
Just as I CORRECTLY predicted the outcome on the original outcome of the permit, let me just say, APPROVAL A LOCK, NO DELAYS foreseeable due to this. Boiler plate stuff easily approved.
LOOKING FORWARD TO ANOTHER GREAT DAY, WEEK, MONTH AND YEAR WITH LLEG !!!
AS ALWAYS,
GO LONG ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
KEEP THE FAITH ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
ENHANCE YOUR CALM ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
STAY THE COURSE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
GO LLEG ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
