OTCBB Verifiable Research & DD

[spencerforhire]

Matt,any idea what impact this might have on the slight changes you mentioned can be made to the PPA?

Mr. Franz who is the economic expert on behalf of the NH PUC isn't recommending acceptance of the PPA for the following reasons;

Franz testimony
Q. Do you believe the economic benefits described in Dr. Shapiro’s testimony will occur if the PPA is approved as filed?
A. No, I do not. The reason is not that Dr.Shapiro’s analysis is seriously flawed or that the model is fundamentally flawed, though tests have shown the RIMS II model can overstate results as compared to other models, but rather that Dr. Shapiro makes no provision for the fact that this contract’s prices are above market. These above market costs will result in higher energy service costs, which will be passed on to PSNH’s Energy Service customers, if approved by the Commission.
Based on Mr. McCluskey’s testimony, the above market estimates of energy and Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) over the life of the project will total approximately $550 million. On a levelized basis, Mr. McCluskey estimates the levelized cost of the Laidlaw project to be $162 per MWh. Every $10 per MWh of over-market costs associated with this project increases electric rates by approximately $4.8 million per year. If the over-market costs attributable to the proposed PPA are on the order of $55 per MWh as claimed by Mr. McCluskey, resulting in an annual above-market cost of about $26 million, then the perceived economic benefits of the project are not benefits at all, but costs borne by PSNH ratepayers taking Energy Service from PSNH as well as indirectly by New Hampshire’s businesses and households based on the inter-dependencies of the economy.
Stated another way, creating a subsidy for this project or any other, for that matter, doesn’t create wealth for the economy as a whole. It simply transfers wealth. Above market payments for electricity leave the total electricity-using group with less income
6for businesses to invest in other projects or for households to save or spend on products and services.
Q. Are there other issues that were not addressed in the testimony of Dr. Shapiro that could mitigate economic effects she estimates?
A. An important issue left unanswered is what effect this project could have on the other biomass generators currently operating in New Hampshire, especially those located near Berlin. I have not analyzed whether approval of this PPA and the construction and operation of Laidlaw would result in the closing of one or more of those facilities, but if that were to occur, the overall economic benefits of this project would be further reduced.
Q. Do you have an estimate of what the economic effect on New Hampshire would be if the PPA between PSNH and Laidlaw results in over-market costs of $50 - $60 per MWh per year?
A. Yes, based on a data response from Staff to PSNH. Staff Set-06, Q-Staff-009, Dr. Shapiro was asked to estimate a hypothetical increase in electric rates. The question was a follow-up to Staff Set 4, Q-Staff-012. Dr. Shapiro responded by using the results from a recent economic study done in 2008 by Dr. Ross Gittell, titled the “Economic Impact in New Hampshire of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI); An Independent Assessment.” Dr. Gittell used a different model, the REMI model, to estimate a scenario in which it was assumed that New Hampshire did not join RGGI. REMI was used to estimate the economic effect based on increased electric rate increases only. He reported those effects as changes to Gross State Product and employment. Dr. Gittell’s estimate of a $10 million increase in electric rates decreased Gross State Product by $4.95 million 7and reduced employment by 65.5 jobs. Obviously, the greater the above-market cost of the PPA, the more deleterious the economic impact on the State as a whole.
Q. Please provide your recommendation.
A. Based on my review of the economic effects contained in Dr. Shapiro’s testimony and the testimony provided by Mr. McCluskey that demonstrates the substantial over-market costs of the PPA, essentially a wealth transfer from ratepayers to Laidlaw and its affiliate, PJPD Holdings, LLC, I cannot recommend that the Commission approve this PPA as filed.
Q. Does this conclude your testimony?
A. Yes it does.

[spencerforhire]

As an investor, Digi, I certainly would hope you'd like to hear all sides of the Laidlaw story good and bad. Nothing worse than leading your own horse to pasture without knowing the full story and at the same time, I can understand why moderators wouldn't necessarily want any negatives to impact an upward trend by providing negatives to those who will sell or otherwise not invest to begin with.

It will be interesting to see just how much politics wins over law on this. What's so interesting here is that usually politics has an easier time behind closed doors, but in this case it kind of like having your pants down in public when it comes to the discrepancy between the PPA and State law pertinent to timing of a PPA.

[$Money Bags$]

First of all, including California in anything automatically makes it questionable. I for one am not totally for the bill, but am fully for 1603 section that passed today with it.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/senate-passes-extension-of-1603-tax-grant-program/

I know you are against Laidlaw and we get that, and even strangely appreciate your posts to keep things balanced. I have friends installing solar in CO and the state could really be a poster child for becoming less dependent. When I visited I was also impressed how they disguised cell phone towers there. It just radiates change.


Change, although not everyone wants it, is heading for Berlin and most will benefit. Change has come here too as Nissan has added on for its Leaf and I got a hands on with it last week. It's pretty cool, although the cost just isn't quite there yet. $2k for a charger too unless one of the first to own one. ugh.

[Grozny]

LLEG: Cash for credits
I found this article posted about a different biomass-to-energy plant. The program is also available to Laidlaw's proposed Berlin, NH plant and the government incentives are expected to subsidize part of their construction financing costs.

http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/power_city/2010/12/tax-legislation-may-benefit-reventure.html

"A provision in the tax bill extending the Bush era tax cuts contains a provision that would also extend a tax-credit program for renewable energy projects."

"The program, scheduled to end Dec. 31, pays cash in lieu of tax credits for renewable projects. Since renewable startups such as the ReVenture project seldom have sufficient profits to take advantage of the tax credits, the credits themselves are unhelpful to the projects.

But the cash payments can make an immediate impact on the feasibility of the project.

The 20-megawatt biomass plant that Forsite plans to build in the park could qualify for as much as $40 million in tax credits under the program."

[spencerforhire]

Interesting post from Investor's Village as follows. Have you researched any of this yet Matt?

"The Tax Deal Great For Billionaires But Lousy For Real People
One estimate has about a third of workers getting an income tax increase but they are generally the lowest paid and therefore count for little. California estimates that the bill at last report would add $3B to California's enormous deficit.

But that's just for those who care about the country.

What about investors in LLEG?

Very bad news with the understanding that we are talking about a moving target.

A fix is in for corn farmers, investors in wind and solar and even coal - but the back of the hand for thermal biomass.

Is most everybody posting on iHub environment- and America-hating billionaires - or just members of the deluded flocks?

Not that I have a strong opinion you understand.

Best, Terry"

[spencerforhire]

Digi, Certainly you're right if you don't take into consideration the time involved with this PPA being appealed and the fact that the construction phase needs to take place prior to energy being produced.

With an appeal in place, construction can't begin. An appeal or legislative change will prolong the production of power by several years or certainly PSNH and Laidlaw Berlin Biopower can agree to cut the time of the PPA approx. in half to avoid the legislature by following current law. However I believe there is a much simpler solution to this if it weren't for greed getting in the way.

[$Money Bags$]

Wouldn't that be only 4 years since it's a 20 year ppa. Since the tax credit bill is extended, it would be well worth it, even if they shortened it don't ya think.

[spencerforhire]

So once it passes the Borowski test of authenticity what do you think about this line in the sand, Matt?

[Grozny]

It's still hear-say until an objective link is provided. Not that I don't believe you but need to remain evenhanded.

[spencerforhire]

Matt, As an intervenor I can certify that I have received this motion in it's entirety and that the answer to your most recent question is quoted as it appears in the motion as follows:

"Wherefore, for the foregoig reasons, the Wood-Fired IPP's respectfully request that the Commission dismiss PSNH's petition and grant such other relief as the Commission deems just and proper. Because this motion is despositive in effect, and because this docket is on an accelerated schedule, a timely decision by the Commission in the Wood-Fired IPP's favor will save staff, the Office of Consumer Advocate, and the parties from expending resources preparing for hearing. The Wood Fired IPP's request that the Commission act on the motion at its earliest opportunity after objections are file."

[spencerforhire]

Never mind. Saved you the time Matt. Found the exact quote from these attorneys that wrote this to the PUC. Looks like we need a legislative change before this goes any further, Matt? Here's some of it... Your thoughts Matt? Thanks!

"It is clear from a plain reading of the RPS statute that the legislature did not intend to empower the commission (PUC) to authorize multi year REC contracts that extend beyond the year 2025. Second, the legislature reserved to itself the authority to increase, decrease or eliminate the Class 1 Purchase requirements in years 2026 and beyond.

Because the PPA obligates PSNH to purchase RECS for approx. nine years after 2025 when the RPS program ends and the purchase requirement ceases to exist, the terms and conditions of the PPA exceed PSNH's renewable portfolio requirements in absolute statutory terms. Consequently the Commission lacks authority under RSA 362-F to authorize PSNH to enter into the PPA......"

[Grozny]

The term 'verifiable' is still unsatisfied there. Also, there must have been a petition from the IPP's to declare this. When is the PUC planning on ruling with respect to this petition?

[spencerforhire]

Actually I think so Matt. Something came out yesterday where a grouping of attorneys representing Laidlaw's competitors showed that legislative changes need to be made before a PPA can be designed like the one PSNH and Laidlaw designed. I'm guessing that caused a great deal of sells late in the day on lleg. Apparently PSNH doesn't have the authority to structure a 20 year deal without legislative approval. If that weren't true, I can't imagine that so many attorneys would put that in writing. How bout you Matt? Any chance you might research for us? Thanks for being a true long and looking our for us and Happy Holidays my friend!

[Grozny]

Thanks spencer, are you able to provide verifiable information re: this?

[spencerforhire]

Good luck with your new research board Matt. Could you check into this for us. It seems that the PUC doesn't have the authority to rule on a PPA beyond the year 2025. Reportedly the legislature would need to change law or the PPA time frame changed by some 9 years. Due to the fact that PSNH has stated it needs the PUC to approve the PPA as it exists without the ability of opposition to appeal their decision, do you really think the PUC will break existing law to push this through or reject the Berlin PPA entirely and leave it up to the legislature?

[Grozny]

LLEG Good news: Tax Bill passes Senate Test

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-12-14-taxcutvotes14_ST_N.htm


The new tax bill includes an extension of the 1603 tax credits.

http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/5166/proposed-tax-bill-extends-1603-program

"The Reid Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 includes a component that should significantly benefit the developing biomass power industry—a continued Section 1603 Program, which extends for one year the start-of-construction deadline for the for the cash grant in lieu of tax credit program, which was established in the Recovery Act.

The 1603 Program enables qualifying renewable power projects that are eligible for either the federal production tax credit or investment tax credit to instead elect a 30 percent project reimbursement cash grant administered by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. In order to reap that benefit, however, project construction had to begin by the end of 2010."

[Grozny]

HTLJ link to SEC filings:
http://www.heartlandholdingsinc.com/SECfilings.htm

[SpoochyMcGoo]

on my streamer now. thanks for the headsup.

[TakeChances]

HTLJ One of the most undervalued stocks in penny land
Amex Run Planned
100m in revenues strong growth expected- Paying down debt steadily: All debt used to buy multiple properties, buildings, equipment and companies. Largest loan expires in October 2011. No convertible debt, all loan payments current. All loans secured by assets
Insiders recently purchased well over 2m shares near $500k of their own money

Insiders Purchased over $500K of stock with their personal funds
They now own over half the entire OS. As we speak a company buyback is now in the works as well. These shares won't be retired they will be used later when the stock reflects its true value. Company believes buying back HTLJ stock at or near the current share price is a great investment for the company
Insiders began buying shares with their own funds at .30
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=news&symbol=HTLJ&selsrc[0]=edgar&SEC=1

Low float: Insiders hold near 20m shares
No Dilution No toxic debt
Share Structure:
A/S 100M
O/S 35M

STOCK TRADING AT 14 CENTS...RiiDiculous!

[SpoochyMcGoo]

board marked. thank you.

[Grozny]

LLEG: Read the un-edited 20 year power purchase agreeement here. Dated 06/08/2010

http://nhpr.org/sites/default/files/PPA_Laidlaw_un-redacted.pdf

[Grozny]

LLEG: Extension of 1603 tax credits included in Senate's version of tax bill. The bill will be voted on TODAY December 13, 2010.

“The 1603 tax credit has created flexibility for funding renewable energy projects and is fundamental for keeping the solar industry growing in America.” He added that the program supported $18 billion in new renewable energy projects and enabled 1,100 projects in 42 states."

http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-energy-news/treasury-grant-1603-121010/

From Laidlaw's petition for expedited consideration of their 70MW Biomass power plant in Berlin, NH:


"Specifically, the Project’s financing plan utilizes a program established under Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “1603 Program”) which provides cash to qualifying renewable energy investment in lieu of the investment tax credit otherwise available under Section 48 of the Internal Revenue Code (the “ITC Credit”). The 1603 Program is available only to qualifying facilities that commence construction prior to January 1, 2011. (~ç Sec. 1603(a)(2))."

http://www.puc.state.nh.us/regulatory/CaseFile%5C2010%5C10-195%5CMOTIONS-OBJECTIONS%5C10-195%202010-08-17%20Laidlaw%20Berlin%20BioPower%20Pet%20for%20Intervention%20and%20Motion%20for%20Expedited%20Consideration.PDF

[discreet_suffolk]

Looks Good, hope we can make a ton of MONEY together

[Grozny]

==LLEG== LaidLaw Energy Group Information & DD:

"Laidlaw Energy is one of a small number of innovative companies that has developed and actively pursued the strategy of converting fossil fuel and idled power plants, as well as idled pulp and paper mills, to modern, environmentally advanced biomass-energy facilities."

Laidlaw Energy's business objective is to build a profitable portfolio of biomass energy plants and become the leading provider of biomass energy in the United States. In so doing, Laidlaw Energy intends to make a positive impact on the environment by providing a cleaner alternative to fossil fuel power, which will in turn help reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming and climate change."


Laidlaw Berlin Biopower - 70MW biomass facility to be built in Berlin, NH


PSNH has agreed to buy 100% of the power output and Renewable Energy Certificates from Laidlaw
Power Purchase Agrement to purchase 100% of Laidlaw Berlin's power for $1.43 Billion over 20 years
Biomass Magazine: Laidlaw and PSNH Reach Power Purchase Agreement

NH Site Evaluation Committee Approves Laidlaw Permit Application for 70 MW Biomass Facility

Shaheen announces $200,000 for North Country Biomass energy projects


Bioenergy company Laidlaw BioPower appoints [U.S. Representative Charles Bass (R-NH) to board of directors

Laidlaw Letters of support from NH Statesmen


Ware Cogen - 10MW plant in Ware, MA that Laidlaw has signed a letter of intent to acquire


Thermal Energy plant in New Bedford, MA - Laidlaw has executed a Memorandum of Understanding with an affiliate of a Massachusetts based private equity firm to initially lease and subsequently acquire an operating oil and gas fired power plant in Southeastern Massachusetts. The plant is situated in an industrial park and currently serves the thermal energy needs of a leading developer and manufacturer of photovoltaic products and technology. Laidlaw plans to convert the plant to biomass power to serve the electric and thermal needs of the photovoltaic company, with the balance of the plant’s electricity to be exported to the grid and sold to a local utility pursuant to a long-term contract.

Site Evaluation Committee begins deliberating on Laidlaw permit
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2010/9/21B.pdf

Deliberations on Laidlaw application to get underway
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2010/9/14B.pdf

PUC sets hearing on power agreement for Laidlaw biomass plant
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2010/9/2B.pdf

Laidlaw hearing continued until September 10
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2010/9/1B.pdf

Wood issues dominate second day of Laidlaw hearing
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2010/8/25B.pdf

Hearing on Laidlaw biomass plantunderway in Concord
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2010/9/22B.pdf

Hearing on Laidlawbiomass plant underway in Concord
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2010/8/24B.pdf

Deliberations on Laidlaw application to get underway
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2010/9/14B.pdf

Full Local support for Laidlaw's proposed 70MW Biopower plant
http://www.nhsec.nh.gov/2009-02/documents/100909aver_letter.pdf




Laidlaw makes charitable $10,000 donation to Berlin Youth Hockey




U.S. Representative Charles Bass giving a presentation by Laidlaw Energy Group to the University of New Hampshire

http://www.puc.nh.gov/Regulatory/Docketbk/2010/10-195.htm
http://www.nhsec.nh.gov/2009-02/index.htm

Laidlaw Energy to Become Fully Reporting SEC Registrant (10/26/2010)

==LLEG== Daily:


==LLEG== Weekly: