Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Mr. Bartoszek, Do you call not wanting a biomass plant on the Burgess mill site due to concern over the city center, existing IPPS, forest sustainability and electrical prices a "hidden agenda"? If not, you need to retract all that you've stated as that is, under oath, what I can say I'm all about Sir.
Interesting comment and thanks for the compliment in sentence one as I've tried very hard to protect myself along the way just as you have. I simply have done so without thinking about receivership. If sentence two is accurate then the state of NH believes your PPA is fair to the rate payer (which their experts specifically say to date they do not) and the state considers all the IPPS that have proven track records, nuisances, which the state is currently stating that is a concern the expert's haven't looked at quite yet. Since these same arguments are my arguments, your logic is missing, and as you say, you're too busy for your investors now and need to get back to work?
No agenda here, Gmenfan. Just providing the facts as usual.
If we really wanted to write a book about the definition of "mendacious" we could provide a series of PR's suggested by a pink sheet company that might qualify as a participant within the definition of Webster's dictionary. Most would think LLEG doesn't fit that definition here. Sometimes people need to tell the other side of the story and people who truly believe in doing due diligence would question deletion. Others would rather the whole story not be told.
Mike, Stating you or your company are not owner of the Burgess mill site, that you don't have a permit without PUC approval of a PPA that literally would cost ratepayers millions isn't lying and I do believe the state can read right through this PPA to the meat and potatoes of the monopoly that PSNH is trying to form. Yes, they have effectively utilized a company that went into receivership in their last round, of which, you sir, were at the helm. You proceeded to the state of NY to buy back that mill which was in receivership, and went about partially convincing the state of NY to award you a million dollar grant of which you didn't receive most. You have left vendors, lawyers, and mortgage holders unpaid along the way. You have started frivolous law suits that have been dismissed. I'm sorry that you have not performed to perfection as it would have been significantly easier for Berlin not to have to protect ourselves to the level we have under your guise that we support you. You do deserve credit for getting this project to a level where you achieved the attention of PSNH who was sure to replace you as quickly as they could by Newco, PJPD holdings and PSNH themselves. You sir, have burned many documented bridges along the way from Ellicotteville to Berlin, and the name switch to Burgess biopower is music to my ears after the people I've spoken to directly have shared their experiences to me about their encounters with you. Hopefully, sir, you're on a better footing as I know Berlin can say they are now if this baby goes forward. I'm not counting on it, however, without the help of Gestamp.
Tool, You stated, "Spence, are you certain that your opinions are worthy of consideration based on your history?" Answer- Probably more than yours.
1.PJPD Holdings bought the mill site, not Laidlaw. Laidlaw never could have pulled that off imo.
2.Laidlaw Energy didn't receive a permit to construct a power plant, NewCo, PJPD Holdings and Laidlaw dba Laidlaw Berlin biopower obtained no permit, but rather a conditional approval on an application that is substantially subject to PUC approval of the PPA without which no permit will be received.
3.Laidlaw's PPA with PSNH has received two expert votes; one from the consumer advocate and one from PUC staff to reject the PPA as written. A huge amendment to the PPA to bring the price down significantly should be mandated as the "mechanism" within the PPA to keep rates at market thin veiled over charge without a guaranteed payback. PSNH's right of first refusal and the tie to Schiller bring about a monopoly which flies in the face of regulation.
Well King, you know the old saying, you win some you lose some. Some of your company here hasn't received a 1600% return like you claim now have they? In fact, aren't there quite a few here that got in considerably higher and just need to stay put? Just maybe there are plenty that have helped your percentage grow at their expense? Nah couldn't be. Perhaps your return is why you're called King? But wait, you don't have a return as a long if you haven't sold do you? You wouldn't be shorting now would you?
Nah, never had any business relationship with Clean Power. Mel's a nice guy though, you'd like him, King, I'm sure.
That's what I keep telling Grenier also, King. You and I are really coming together with our thinking after all this time you ol softy. Happy New Year to you. Say hello to your wife for me as well.
Chuckle chuckle. Don't confuse anyone with the facts, please.
Ridiculous Ninja, You said, "MBB says this "I should add that the PPA contains a mechanism to ensure that rate payers do not pay above market prices for energy. It seems this has been completely overlooked." "
Do you know what that mechanism is? I think the PUC is totally on to that. If I'm reading accurately, that mechanism simply allows the PUC to keep track of any overage (which I'm guessing is going to be significant) and PSNH can deduct that from the price at the end of 20 years for the "benefit of ratepayers" provided PSNH even buys the plant and provided the plant is even worth that kind of money. Combine that with something which isn't even taken into consideration from what I can see, is the alternative compliance in lieu of RECS. Who's to say there will even be RECs this far into the picture. Completely overlooked? Nah, I think it's found to be thin veiled? Please enlighten me as to a mechanism that makes sense though, as I'm all ears.
I think the PUC already knows that existing infrastructure on this site should have lowered the cost of electricity significantly yet the PPA is calling for significantly higher costs for some strange reason. Couple this with the rumor that the capital cost is 300 million and therefore some 70 million is being given back by the government to pay down debt, they should be able to sell power for significantly less. I think Digi is right. One hell of a lot of room for negotiation on this bad boy. Maybe additionally throw in some PPAs for all the other IPPS, take the right of first refusal to PSNH out of the equation, and then maybe, just maybe we can wipe out the word "monopoly". I think its important for someone to bring this logic forward to the PUC on behalf of the ratepayer, don't you Matt? Woodburner, are you interested, or should I?
I've invested more into LLEG than most and never hedged my bet.
"it must be difficult to live in a town where 99% of the people hate you"
King, you ol softy, you're mellowing as you age! I've gained 1% friendship in Berlin? Hahaha. Happy New Year.
We're all speculators, Digi. The IPPS speculate based on the PSNH squeeze to leave them PPAless and monopolize the market that there is a tremendous chance they will completely and/or utterly fall out of business. All this caused by a regulated business. They are not hiding those words. They are not hiding from paying massive legal fees to keep a dozen or so attorneys fighting PSNH's Bob Bersak. Additionally we have a massive paper company over in Rumford known as "New Page" that won't fight this, and I've heard they too believe Burgess biopower would lead to their demise if the PPA were accepted by the PUC, but believe strongly that it's not worth the fight as they're a Maine company and NH won't care about them.
If we were solely talking about free enterprise overtaking these companies that would be one thing. We're hearing, however, that this very expensive PPA provides wood market price to increase beyond their ability to stay open. That is not a free market, but a market caused by a monopoly. Monopolies Make the market, so the rate payer isn't protected by a clause that states rates can't go higher than market rates! Adjustments made by PSNH must also provide continuance of these other biomass facilities into the future.
I have little problem with Burgess biopower's powering up at this point now that this project has almost every protective clause known to man, and now that it has big money personally signing to guaranty its success. Provided the rate payer and other biomass facilities that support the north country revenue don't get shafted. When we started, we essentially had a company that fell into receivership in Ellicottville not long before, which is a big difference from NewCo and potentially Gestamp going forward. Lesson learned being that you fight for what you can get, and in this case we've gained a great deal of ground from where we started and working on what appears to be a middle ground with different players at this point.
We have to give Mike credit for fighting the odds that seem to be breaking his pattern apart at the moment. We also have to give credit to a significant number of people from Berlin who have fought hard for protective conditions that make this project conform to lofty ideals. The One Big piece, which is still a major error, the hike to the rate payer at the demise of biomass infrastructure already established in the north country to meet a 2025 initiative. Kind of like the impact Walmart has been having on the Mom and Pop store, huh Egrohs?
All this happening while a 1200 MW project of purportedly cheaper power from Canada (giving NH massive shot of revenue and slow economic time job base) doesn't qualify as renewable because it is water? Water over the damn as they say? Gone forever, never to be used again?
Pattern Broken
PPA conditionally signed subject to PUC approval of PPA
IPPS hire attorneys and form a coalition of several attorneys fighting for their VERY LIVES against PSNH and Laidlaw.
Staff's formal conclusion to date, not to accept PPA
Consumer advocate conclusion to date, not to accept PPA
Burgess mill site name being changed from Laidlaw Berlin Biopower to Burgess Biopower
Hints that Gestamp is "street wise" to be contemplating and big enough to go forward as an investor/owner with either plant in Berlin.
Stock nose diving after news of Staff and Consumer advocate conclusions to date
Mike posting assurances during rough waters
I understand it to be the new name given to Berlin's Burgess Mill Site.
lol. Glad you received help elsewhere. You can always count on your fellow investors for a helping hand. ;)
I'm truly sorry for you, but I can't respond to you seriously, sorry. I will say, however, stay strong, stay the logic, grasp the straw, think you are long, and move forward with your hands in prayer. Happy holidays Berlin mbblleg. You certainly are all in fun.
I'm not alone in not buying this week.
These questions are from the Office of Consumer Advocate, not me. Investors here are asking for this information apparently because they prefer to make informed decisions.
If they felt the terms of the PPA were unreasonable they would vote no. I'm sure they have similar questions that the State Office of Consumer Advocate has as follows:
1.Why would PSNH want to pay so much more for electricity from Laidlaw than it could buy elsewhere?
2. Why is one key provision in the PPA that PSNH has the right of first refusal to purchase the plant, as some people think that is really their goal, while that right is currently contradictory to law?
3.Doesn't it look like there is a really significant risk that customers would be locked into making those over-market payments?
4. Does the contract cover such a long period that the commission lacks the legal authority to approve it?
5. What impact does a fuel adjustment clause have on other north country biomass facilities, particularly since it's base rate being tied to Schiller could be construed as some sort of monopoly?
Those three members were not ruling on the PPA at all, nor were any of the other members. The members that gave approval do have a vote with the PUC.
Approval by the SEC is conditional upon the PUC approval of the PPA. SEC didn't have the job of approving or rejecting the PPA.
There isn't a clause to the effect of "going wood price". The clause is pertinent and tied to the price paid by Schiller which, of course, can be considerably different than the "going wood price" and can certainly be construed as self serving to PSNH, Schiller being owned by PSNH. It's not just the price of wood, it is also a very obvious paper trail of history by PSNH of not negotiating or renegotiating PPA's with any plants that they know they do not have a chance of owning. PSNH negotiated with THE one company (Laidlaw) they knew they could negotiate ownership transfer of, even though they can't own it by current law. The squeeze by PSNH and monopolized pricing of wood by PSNH almost creates certainty that these plants unfairly go out of business, AND the towns they support suffer greatly, fair trade being one thing, monopolies being another that the state mandates can't be part of this equation.
Yes and No. The north country is controlled by central and southern NH by voting power to begin with. I think they are certainly jealous of the attention Berlin has been getting of late, and many are irritated about that attention as they suffer through their own economic woes. If the 300 jobs you speak about are the construction jobs, that benefit is certainly a valid short term benefit. The direct and indirect job creation by Laidlaw's project is, unfortunately, putting at risk significantly more direct and indirect jobs at six other biomass plants and is scaring the hell out of New Page in Rumford Maine. The state is not ignoring this potential effect but rather weighing in all pluses and minuses. The property tax cut would not come close to 17%, however it would help Berlin and the state of course. Not sure where you're deriving a 1% increase in your electric bill.
From the PUC's perspective wouldn't they need to weigh what is a fair increase for the rate payer over 20 years other than $400 million in excess of what other proposals can produce electricity for? Also, at what cost do we continue to strive for renewable energy, and at what point and cost do we consider approaching legislative change (for purposes of tax benefits) Hydro Power as a renewable, to offset what appears to be an excessive cost for biomass energy?
Sancousy performs all the utility assessments for the city of Berlin and much of NH. He is very reputable. Rumors (and they are rumors) afloat are that individuals who represent lleg profited directly from a sale, not lleg necessarily. From my perspective it really doesn't matter whether lleg profited or Mike profited; he'd be a fool not to share the goods with you guys rather than have you walk away upset and unload his achieved value by having your support. Most of the time rumors aren't worth much in Berlin as this one has the value pegged at around 3 million which certainly would be ludicrous. Never go by rumors.
The question becomes; Are these significant changes acceptable to debt service and anticipated return on investment? On one hand the state is pushing for renewable energy, on the other hand, the profit margin is appearing to be significantly larger on hydro projects not currently qualifying as renewable energy if indeed the electrical prices are coming in significantly less...unless hydro company greed is comparatively less.
Certainly you'd choose to focus on Sancousy. Wink Wink
http://www.puc.nh.gov/Regulatory/Docketbk/2010/10-195.htm
Interesting article on the Hydro Quebec project which is getting a great deal of opposition in the north country and a great deal of support from central NH for obvious reasons. It will be interesting to see what impact this project has on potential change in law and north country projects. The Green energy debate is getting larger by the day. This provides massive employment and tax revenue to NH.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/230011/psnh-president-looks-to-future-flow-of-power
Everyone seems to be blowing this out of proportion.
http://www.nhpr.org/consumer-advocate-says-no-berlin-biomass-plant
Franz testimony in its entirety as follows:
Q. Please state your name, occupation and business address.
A. My name is Thomas C. Frantz. I am employed by the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission as Director of the Electric Division. My business address is 21 S. Fruit St., Suite 10, Concord, New Hampshire 03301.
Q. Please summarize your education and professional experience.
A. Please see Attachment TCF-1.
Q. What is the purpose of your testimony?
A. The purpose of this testimony is to provide Staff’s position on the economic benefits for New Hampshire of the proposed Purchased Power Agreement (PPA) between Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) and Laidlaw Berlin Biopower , LLC (Laidlaw). The Commission must consider under RSA 362-F:9 as part of its determination as to whether the proposed purchased power agreement is in the public interest.
Q. What is the specific section of RSA 362-F:9 your testimony will address?
A. My testimony addresses RSA 362-F:9, II(e) which lists one of the factors that the Commission must consider in its review of a purchased power agreement pursuant to this statute. That factor addresses the economic development and environmental benefits for New Hampshire.
1
Q. Will your testimony address both the economic development and environmental benefits?
A. No, it will not. I will address only the economic impacts of the proposed project. I recommend that the Commission take administrative notice of the Laidlaw proceeding that went before the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee as to the environmental impact of the project.
Q. Who will be addressing the four other factors under RSA 362-F:9?
A. Those factors are addressed in the testimony of staff witness, George McCluskey.
Q. The economic benefits attributed to the Laidlaw project are estimated by Dr. Shapiro using an input-output model, the RIMS II model. Would you provide a general overview of an input-output model?
A. Input-output models are commonly used analytical tools to estimate the effects of a change in one sector of the economy on other economic sectors of the economy. At their core, input-output models or I/O models as they are often referred to, aim to describe the economic relationships and interdependencies that bind and define an economy. Input-output analysis is based on the simple economic fact that a large proportion of economic activity, whether at the national, state or local level, is devoted to the production of intermediate goods and services that are ultimately required to meet the demand for final goods and services.
Such inter-industry relationships are described through the use of a matrix, the input-output table that indicates the transactions that occur throughout the defined economic
2
region during a specified time period. The I/O table, which can vary greatly in its level of disaggregation, indicates which industries purchase products, measured in dollars, from other industries in the economy for use as inputs in their processing of final goods and services. The typical transactions of an I/O table are indicated by the flow of dollars from one industry or sector to another. The sub-areas within the table are made up of the processing sector, which indicates the industries that purchase and sell from each other (the producing industries are rows and the purchasing industries are the columns), as well as a section of rows that indicates payments made, either to households or government, for services rendered. The remaining part of an I/O table is referred to as Final Demand. It is this section of columns that “drives” the economy. Final Demand includes Exports from the industries listed in the rows, Purchases by Government from those industries and a Households section that indicates household purchases of finished goods and services from the producing industries and the payments sector listed on the left-hand side of the I/O table. Total gross output from each industry is the sum of the purchases from each sector listed in the column and from the corresponding cell from each component of Final Demand. A simple I/O table is shown in Attachment TCF-2. This hypothetical transaction table indicates that Industry A purchased 11 billion dollars worth of products and services from Industry D during the period of the study. The total output from Industry D sold to the industries listed in the Processing Sector and to the groups listed under Final Demand was 39 billion dollars, assuming the table’s units are in billions of dollars.
After the I/O table is created, a technical coefficients table can be created that indicates how much one industry purchases from another industry per dollar of output. It
3
represents the direct purchases required to produce a dollar’s worth of output, but does not show the total value. The increased output requires additional rounds of purchases and production from throughout the economy. It is that additional economic activity that leads to the well known “multiplier effect” used in analyzing changes in economic activity. The development of the input-output model won the Russian-born economist, Wassily Leontief, the Nobel Prize in economic science in 1973.
Q. Is the RIMS II model widely used for assessing economic impacts?
A. Yes, it is perhaps the most commonly used I/O model for assessing the effects of small changes on a regional economy. It was developed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the 1970s and has been widely used since that time. One of the advantages of using the RIMS II model is the availability of multipliers for many regions throughout the country. The RIMS II model also entails a large amount of detailed data by industry and the multipliers are updated frequently to incorporate changes in local area personal income and wage and salary data.
Q. What economic effects did Dr. Shapiro estimate the Laidlaw project would have on New Hampshire?
A. Dr. Shapiro used information Laidlaw provided to the Site Evaluation Committee as the basis for her economic analysis. The affected region for her study was the whole state of New Hampshire. Dr. Shapiro estimates that during the construction phase of the project, the total direct, indirect and induced jobs created throughout New Hampshire will be 470 based on Type II RIMS Employment multipliers. Her estimate is based on Laidlaw expending $70 million into the local economy during the 32 months it expects to build
4
the project. The $70 million of construction expenditure will add approximately $57 million annually to output and increase earnings annually by $17.3 million over the 32-month construction period. A data response from PSNH to Concord Steam, Q-CSC-008, estimates the economic effects of the project, including Dr. Shapiro’s estimate of the annual economic impact attributed to various expenditures on biomass fuel. The response is attached to my testimony as Attachment TCF-3.
Q. Are there any concerns about using RIMS II or another similar model to estimate the economic effects of a project such as the Laidlaw project?
A. Yes. While I/O models can be quite useful tools for assessing changes in economic activity in a region, they do rely on a number of key assumptions. Violation of any one of these key assumptions could adversely affect the results of the model. The smaller the economic region, generally, the more likely the assumptions may be violated.
Q. What are those key I/O modeling assumptions?
A. An important assumption is that the relationship between inputs and outputs is proportional; for example, a doubling of an input by a sector means that the producing sector’s output must also double. Traditional I/O analysis does not allow for economies of scale. Another key assumption, especially for local or regional models, is no substitution of production inputs. An example of this problem can occur when a price change results in input substitution, which could result in different inter-relationships after the price change than were in effect before the price change. Of course, new products are invented all the time and technological change can occur over fairly short periods of time. All of these conditions can affect I/O model results.
5
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
6
for 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 7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
and 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.
Dr. Shapiro's testimony is missing something pretty significant, Mike. I'm looking forward to when Shapiro addresses above market contract prices to offset this expert's rejection of the PPA. Also wondering how much influence the advisory board appointed by NH's governing body has... Anyhow, happy holidays.
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.
I think you should look at the list of those on their advisory board and note a few might be familiar names to you. Note that the board is appointed by the Governor and Senate. Not sure we need to bring this down to the level of backrubs, but if you think they're not important...you might want to exercise a little caution.
It will indeed. Once the Doctor has included this rate increase in her testimony.
A PUC document by an expert is a rumor? Interesting...
and boy do these guys get around, believe me. ever met the chair?
Generally, I would anticipate expert witnesses are brought into the decision making process because what they say means a great deal, especially I would think the PUC would judge their own expert witness as a substantial asset and cost to their decision making process. In terms of the cost of the PPA to ratepayers, 400 million over what other producers would charge is a pretty serious situation I'd think, but you never know what a "little" tweaking can do.
PUC's Consumer Advocate Rejects Laidlaw's Plans
By Chris Jensen on Monday, December 20, 2010
ARTICLE TOOLS
* Listen
* Comments (0)
* Email
* Print
Bookmark and Share
A new report from a state office that is responsible for looking out for New Hampshire consumers is bad news for a proposed biomass plant in Berlin.
The report comes from the Public Utilities Commission’s Office of the Consumer Advocate.
It looks at the proposed 20-year contract under which Public Service of New Hampshire would buy electricity from a biomass plant to be operated by Laidlaw Berlin Bipower.
It recommends the PUC reject the deal.
Over the 20 years it says the deal would cost PSNH customers about $400 million more than if PSHN bought the electricity elsewhere.
The PUC will be holding hearings on the deal next month. If it follows the advice of the consumer advocate that would be a huge problem for Laidlaw.
Earlier this year the project got an okay from the state’s site evaluation committee.
But a major condition was that the PUC approve the 20-year contract.
The site evaluation committee predicted without that contract being approved Laidlaw probably won’t have the financing it needs to go ahead.
For NHPR News this is Chris Jensen