working hard to expose scammers
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.
Well this appears to be shaping up to be an interesting hearing on Nov 3 I would say. ;)
http://www.puc.state.nh.us/Regulatory/CaseFile/2009/09-067/LETTERS,%20MEMOS/09-067%202009-10-15%20OCA%27s%20ltr%20will%20be%20participating.PDF
"PSNH can charge the end user what ever they want" Oh really? Have you taken time to review State law? Or does your own personal opinion trump State law? Kind of like your dd trumps reality. lol
When WILL we see the permit application Gmen? Let me guess. Soon right? lol ;)
Are you serious? Ummmm.....no I didn’t say that. But what I did say was that the PUC, which is the State, could require PSNH to at the very least look at all proposals. Which they have refused to do. How can PSNH claim to be offering the best price to their end user if they are not willing to explore all the options? Especially one from a company that has a great deal more experience in the power producing field then LLEG. But then that is not to difficult to do given Laidlaw has yet to produce 1 MW of power in how many years of existence?
As a PSNH rate payer I would want to know that they are shopping around for the best price. Wouldn’t you?
Well you might want to wake up from your cute little dream because that fantasy is about to beat Laidlaw to the punch. ;)
That’s what you’re counting on anyway. But I say State law wins this one. ;)
Article 83 of the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire states that “Free and fair competition in the trades and industries is an inherent and essential right of the people and should be protected against all monopolies and conspiracies which tend to hinder or destroy it”. It goes on to grant the legislature the power to enact laws that will prevent those who would “endeavor to raise the price of any article of commerce or to destroy free and fair competition in the trades and industries through combination conspiracy, monopoly or any other unfair means”
That article of the constitution was, in fact, cited in RSA 374-F:1, when the legislature stated as policy that; “Competitive markets should provide electricity suppliers with incentives to operate efficiently and cleanly, open markets for new and improved technologies, provide electricity buyers and sellers with appropriate price signals, and improve public confidence in the electric utility industry.” In that same statute, the legislature clearly stated that “the development of competitive markets for wholesale and retail electricity services are key elements in a restructured industry”.
The staff of Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) have, in fact, previously acknowledged their obligation to provide a fair and open market as a part of deregulation and encouraging a competitive market. When testifying before the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) on February 5, 2008 and again on December 6, 2008, PSNH staff stated that each power project will be evaluated on its own merits and that all power providers would be treated fairly and evenly without any pre-conditions.
In enacting RSA 362-F:1, the legislature further stated that; “It is therefore in the public interest to stimulate investment in low emission renewable energy generation technologies”. The legislation went on to place the onus for this effort on the electric utilities and provided the PUC with the power to authorize long term purchase power agreements between utilities and renewable energy providers.
All of this must also be considered in the light of RSA 378:37, which clearly states that; “The general court declares that it shall be the energy policy of this state to meet the energy needs of the citizens and businesses of the state at the lowest reasonable cost while providing for the reliability and diversity of energy sources”. RSA 378:38 goes on to lay out the guidelines for each utility’s biennial least cost integrated resource plan and its review by the PUC. During that review, the commission is enjoined to consider potential environmental, economic and health-related impacts of each proposed option, and if other factors are equal, the order of priorities is prescribed as; conservation, renewable energy sources and finally all other energy sources.
When all of the factors are considered . . . it is clear that PSNH has a constitutional, statutory, regulatory, and ethical requirement to sit at the table and consider all power supply offers. By repeatedly failing to even consider a purchase power agreement from an indigenous renewable energy provider, they have demonstrated a disregard for free and fair competition. As a regulated utility with an exclusive distribution franchise (i.e., poles and wires), their failure to encourage competitive energy markets and provide electricity buyers and sellers with appropriate price signals is clearly contrary to the requirements of state law and policy. Finally, without openly considering all of the options and offers for power, it is obviously impossible for a utility to state that they are providing the lowest reasonable cost power to their customers.
Thus, by failing to even consider offers of power from renewable power projects in New Hampshire, PSNH has fallen short of their obligation to the citizens of the State of New Hampshire and their duty to their own customers.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XXXIV-378.htm
What and leave all the fun for you!! You gotta admit it will be fun to see how this turns out. Either way we will always have this time together to reminisce about in the future. ;)
When will the SEC application be filed? Oh that's right "soon"? As in.....before the end of this year? Next year? How about never?
What will be the result of the upcoming PUC hearing? PSNH will be required to disclose their “agreement” with Laidlaw. The PUC will require PSNH to accept CPD offer for power because they are offering to sell it for 5% less then the Laidlaw deal.
That will secure CPD financing before Laidlaw can get their application filed and approved. Oh but wait, we will never see an application because Laidlaw can not address the many many issues which they face.
Where does that leave Laidlaw? Anywhere but Berlin NH. ;)
CPD wins. Heres why.
LLEG has an “agreement” with PSNH that has yet to be approved by the PUC and likely won’t because it is based on inaccurate information. Once that inaccurate information is revealed to the PUC there is no way their “agreement” will be approved.
CPD in front of Laidlaw in the ISO queue.
There is not sufficient line capacity for the proposed 66 MW of power they want to generate.
Wood studies show there is not ample wood supply for a plant the size LLEG is proposing.
CPD has all their permits and have several options available for selling their power and are close to securing a buyer for their power that will likely be long before Laidlaw gets their permit filed if at all.
CPD has an agreement to sell steam to Fraser, which is more valuable then hot water.
CPD does not threaten NH forests.
Berlin supports CPD but does not want Laidlaw in the middle of the city.
I can go on, but what’s the point?
CPD is the clear winner hands down!
Actually it is quite the opposite in Berlin. The “older” folks who support deLaidlaw are the ones who are the non-progressive thinkers who want things to be the way they were 50 years ago. The “younger” folks are running the city now and are pushing their forwarding thinking agenda of change and progression. They have broad base support in the community and that will be validated Nov 3 IMO. They also support the CPD biomass plant that better fits in their forward thinking plan because it is in the proper location. Nice try again, but in the end this will come down to what the city wants IMO.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_409qmDqZp04/St27GgHkLdI/AAAAAAAAAEA/c4Q6mG6HtCQ/s1600-h/MayorReport_pg1.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_409qmDqZp04/St27q7Sa1tI/AAAAAAAAAEI/ETFiAiam9wA/s1600-h/MayorReport_pg2.jpg
You’re in good PR writing hands if nothing else. Like the song says, don’t stop believing. “Soon” is an essential word in the vocabulary of the deLaidlaw investor. The application won’t be filed before the election, if at all IMO. And if it were ever filed, it wouldn’t be approved IMO. Just too many realities stand in the way of this dream IMO. But so long as there is money to be made on PR’s, it’s better then waiting for something to happen “soon”. But keep dreaming.
I do not believe the overall success or failure of Laidlaw will hinge on the Berlin project alone. Supposedly Laidlaw has other projects in the pipeline and good for them if they do. I wish them luck. I am focused on the Berlin project because of the negative impact I believe it will have on the City, region and State. But that is an entirely separate discussion IMO. For now let’s not focus on the merit of the Berlin project, but rather the likelihood of it. Laidlaw says they continue to make progress on the Berlin project. I believe the outcome of certain upcoming events will influence if and/or how the project moves forward. If you don’t agree, then no need to respond.
Do you think we will see an application before November 3?
I say no. I have stated the reasons why I believe we won’t in a previous post. msg# 52215
Do you believe the outcome of the PUC hearings will have any affect on Laidlaw?
I say yes. I believe that the PUC will require PSNH to reveal their deal with Laidlaw. They will have to eventually anyway since the PUC must approve it. I also believe PSNH will be required to offer the same deal to CPD. That will put CPD ahead of Laidlaw and Noble since their project has received all permits and is “shovel ready”. This is important because of the limited line capacity. Laidlaw has stated they are not worried about line capacity, but they have not stated what their work-around solution is to the issue. An issue that will have to be addressed if an application were to be filed anyway.
Do you believe the upcoming Berlin election will have an impact on the Berlin Laidlaw project?
I believe yes and I am not alone. If it would not, why would so many pro-Laidlaw people be running? And Paul Grenier the challenger for Mayor has stated this election is about being pro or con Laidlaw. All the others who are challenging the incumbents have also stated they are pro Laidlaw. That is obvious to everyone in Berlin. Certainly the current administration has not made life easy for Laidlaw. I believe a continuance of the same stance will certainly have implications for Laidlaw if they were to proceed.
Those are the issues Laidlaw faces in Berlin IMO. If you don’t agree no need to respond. If you do, I would be curious to hear how you see things playing out.
Thanks.
I did not say or intend to imply that the reelection of the current administration would spell doom for Laidlaw. It will only slow down the inevitable. There are many larger obstacles then the current administration which will spell doom to Laidlaw’s aspirations in Berlin IMO.
Ok so can we agree we have a few major events coming up. Some “sooner” then others. Let’s look at them shall we? We have the pending application from Laidlaw. No set date, just a solid “soon”. ;) We have the PUC case filed by CPD coming up November 3rd. And we have the Berlin elections November 3rd. Coincidence? The last 2 we know will happen for sure. Since those decisions could affect Laidlaw and the application, it would make sense we likely won’t see the application till after those events. Plus the Berlin EFSEC Committee is not done their work yet.
Ok so the PUC will not make any major decisions that day since it is just for preliminary statements. However everyone will be watching the elections. I believe it will send a message loud and clear which direction the people of Berlin want to see things go. I believe this is important for Laidlaw because it will only make it more difficult if the current administration remains in power.
If there were a pro Laidlaw Berlin administration life would be good for Laidlaw. However that alone will not make the project happened IMO. That is just the beginning. There remain many other obstacles ahead for Laidlaw in Berlin IMO. But no sense discussing them now. Let’s see what happens in November.
Ouch. I still like you Matt. I do hope we meet some day Matt. We will have much to discuss. Till then study hard and aspire to do great things young man! ;)
I believe my posts clearly reflect my dd. If that weren’t the case you would not continue dismissing and trivializing what I say. Like I said, ignore me. It will either happen or it will not. In the mean time nothing wrong with challenging each other’s dd.
For the record, when do you think we will see the application Matt? I have stated when I think. And so far all you continue saying is "soon".
Just asking. ;)
PS. How do we know anyone here is an investor? Really?
Please do ignore me if you so choose. I understand what is going on here. I am not here to play the spoiler. This is simply a forum for sharing information and perspective. You may not agree or like it, that’s ok with me. I don’t agree or like all of the information either. Welcome to America.
One thing is certain, time will tell. In the mean time we may as well continue to enjoy discussing the merits and deficiencies of the project. Because that is what a wise investor does. ;)
I am happy to share it. :)
"I predict Laidlaw will be successful."
At what?
"I also predict that you won't be elected to the council"
That would require me running.
"and CPD won't pay your bonus."
Why would they?
Who does your dd?
With the potential news I hear might be coming in the next few weeks, I predict you will still be able to get in on this in the trip zeros.
"CPD claimed that a purchase power agreement is a prerequisite to moving forward with the financing, construction and eventual operation of the Berlin CPD facility "
It does not say they need to get a purchase power agreement from PSNH.
"PSNH filed its answer to the complaint on April 28, 2009 denying any wrongdoing and stating that it had not violated RSA 362-F:1 or RSA 378:37 through 39."
Of course they denied any wrongdoing. But that is for the PUC to decide.
I look forward to that hearing.
Mr. Bartoszek, "The company will soon file with the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee (NHSEC) for permitting the facility."
City Council Minutes 02/09/2009 Work Session
Here we are in October. Can anyone define "soon"?
DeLaidlaw soon.
That is what PSNH says. But thankfully for NH ratepayers they don't make the rules.
Well I guess we will find out soon enough. :)
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
DE 09-067
ORDER OF NOTICE
On April 7, 2009, Clean Power Development, LLC (CPD) filed a complaint against Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) pursuant to RSA 365:1 claiming that PSNH refused to enter into negotiations to purchase the energy, capacity and renewable energy certificates (RECs) associated with the output a 29-megawatt biomass-fueled combined heat and power energy facility CPD plans to build in Berlin, New Hampshire. CPD claimed that a purchase power agreement is a prerequisite to moving forward with the financing, construction and eventual operation of the Berlin CPD facility and that PSNH’s refusal to negotiate with CPD constituted, among other things, a violation of PSNH’s least cost plan approved by the Commission in Order No. 24,945 (February 27, 2009) in Docket No. DE 07-108 and RSA 362-F:1, the purpose section of the Electric Renewable Portfolio Standards law, RSA 378:37, the New Hampshire Energy Policy, and RSA 378:38 and 39, New Hampshire’s law requiring electric utilities to file least cost integrated resource plans for approval by the Commission.
On April 14, 2009, pursuant to RSA 365:2, the Commission issued a secretarial letter directing PSNH to answer the charges in CPD’s complaint. PSNH filed its answer to the complaint on April 28, 2009 denying any wrongdoing and stating that it had not violated RSA 362-F:1 or RSA 378:37 through 39. PSNH said that CPD had not made a bona fide offer of contract terms when it approached PSNH regarding the CPD facility. In addition, PSNH pointed out that there is no requirement in New Hampshire for any market participant, including a utility, to enter into a long-term power purchase agreement with any merchant generator. PSNH said that if a generator is a “qualifying facility” within the meaning of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) (16 U.S.C. §2601-2645) and the federal rules implementing PURPA (18 CFR 292), PSNH would be required to purchase the output at the short-term avoided cost rate approved by the Commission in PSNH’s restructuring docket. See Docket No. 99-099, PSNH Proposed Restructuring Settlement, 85 NH PUC 567, Order No. 23,549 (September 8, 2000). On May 29, 2009, CPD filed a request for a formal investigation by the Commission.
Concord Steam Corporation (Concord Steam), a facility that is developing a combined heat and power biomass facility in Concord, filed a petition to intervene on July 23, 2009.1 Concord Steam claimed that it approached PSNH regarding the potential for PSNH to purchase power from the proposed facility and that PSNH had responded by saying that it had no interest in entering into a purchase power agreement with a renewable energy facility at this time.
During June and July, the Commission’s General Counsel, Anne Ross, met with CPD, PSNH and Concord Steam in an attempt to assist the parties in resolving the dispute on an informal basis. Despite several meetings and the submission of power purchase term sheets by CPD and Concord Steam to PSNH, the parties were not able to settle their differences.
On September 14, 2009, CPD again filed a motion requesting that the Commission open a formal investigation of CPD’s complaint against PSNH. PSNH filed a response on September 24, 2009 stating it had been in the process of reviewing CPD’s proposed long term purchased power agreement but would no longer do so, given CPD’s motion to open a formal investigation. CPD responded to PSNH’s filing on September 29, 2009. On October 1, 2009, Concord Steam filed a response to PSNH interpreting PURPA as requiring PSNH to purchase power from
1 The Commission also received copies of correspondence between David Bertrand, the Mayor of Berlin, and PSNH and several additional letters of comment from CPD.
qualified facilities at a rate different than that established by the Commission in Order No. 23,549.
Because there may be a basis for the dispute between the parties concerning the nature and extent of PSNH’s legal obligation to purchase power from CPD, the Commission is opening an investigation into CPD’s complaint pursuant to Puc 204.04 and RSA 365:4. In order to determine whether an adjudicative proceeding shall be commenced to resolve the CPD complaint and, if so, how such proceeding would be conducted, the Commission, consistent with Puc 204.05, will hold a prehearing conference to take the statements and hear the recommendations of CPD and PSNH.
Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED, that a Prehearing Conference, pursuant to N.H. Admin. Rules Puc 203.15, be held before the Commission located at 21 S. Fruit St., Suite 10, Concord, New Hampshire on November 3, 2009 at 10:00 a.m., at which each party will provide a preliminary statement of its position and any of the issues set forth in N.H. Admin. Rule Puc 203.15 shall be considered; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that, immediately following the Prehearing Conference, CPD, PSNH, the Staff of the Commission and any Intervenors hold a Technical Session, if necessary, to determine how to proceed with the investigation of the complaint; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that pursuant to N.H. Admin. Rules Puc 203.12, CPD shall notify all persons desiring to be heard at this hearing by publishing a copy of this Order of Notice no later than October 16, 2009, in a newspaper with general circulation in those portions of the state in which operations are conducted, publication to be documented by affidavit filed with the Commission on or before November 3, 2009; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that pursuant to N.H. Admin. Rules Puc 203.17, any party seeking to intervene in the proceeding shall submit to the Commission seven copies of a Petition to Intervene with copies sent to CPD, PSNH and the Office of the Consumer Advocate on or before October 28, 2009, such Petition stating the facts demonstrating how its rights, duties, privileges, immunities or other substantial interest may be affected by the proceeding, as required by N.H. Admin. Rule Puc 203.17 and RSA 541-A:32,I(b).
By order of the Public Utilities Commission of New Hampshire this ninth day of October, 2009.
Adele E. Leighton
Assistant to the Executive Director
Individuals needing assistance or auxiliary communication aids due to sensory impairment or other disability, should contact the Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator, NHPUC, 21 S. Fruit St., Suite 10, Concord, New Hampshire 03301-2429; 603-271-2431 603-271-2431; TDD Access: Relay N.H. 1-800-735-2964 1-800-735-2964. Notification of the need for assistance should be made one week prior to the scheduled event.
It might be a non-issue if they couldn’t sell their power, but then PSNH isn’t the only game in town for selling power to.
CPD has stated they do have other power providers they are talking to about buying their power. So they really don’t need PSNH. Thankfully for NH ratepayers CPD is also pursuing the complaint against PSNH to make sure that PSNH is paying the best price they can for their power.
Obviously CPD continues to make progress otherwise why spend so much time and money getting all their permits they need? Which they now have.
The real issue for Laidlaw is if CPD gets on the grid first, which it is looking more like they will, it leaves no room for Laidlaw without upgrading the lines.
Good idea. I wish him luck. We will check it out.
Yes it does look great. What type of food?
My agenda is to let investors know there is more to the story then they are sometimes lead to believe on this forum. Which is what this forum is for. Your agenda is to make money investing in this stock. My agenda should pose no threat to your agenda unless you believe what I have to say has some merit. Which I tend to believe it must since you feel compelled to continue dismissing and trivializing my input as bashing. One thing is certain, time will tell. See you at the finish line!
Which one is that Matt?
You haven’t offended me. Unlike some I believe it is important to understand and discuss all the issues and how the competition has impacted Laidlaw moving forward in Berlin. Keep asking those questions despite what others think or believe. Don’t be bullied or intimidated, it’s your money. If your line of questioning didn’t threaten people they would not bother to respond. They won’t answer your specific questions because they know it is an issue better left alone IMO.
You can find many answers to your questions about the EFSEC process here.
http://www.nhsec.nh.gov/
What is important to understand for an investor in my opinion is that the application or permit acceptance is not a given despite what some here might try to lead you to believe. Yes the EFSEC committee makes the final decision. Some here believe it will be accepted quickly and without challenge. However there are many factors that must be taken into consideration. That point was made evident during the recent Nobel wind farm application. Noble Environmental Power officials went through many months of hearings to get approval from New Hampshire’s Site Evaluation Committee. Read more about it here. And that project had little opposition in comparison to the Berlin Project.
http://www.nhpr.org/node/25501.
Another very important fact to understand is the intervener status. Basically this allows individuals and/or groups an opportunity to participate in the permit process. This is an important fact to understand since the City of Berlin has stated it is planning to file for intervener status. The current Mayor and Council have made their dislike for the Laidlaw project very public. The city has hired an attorney http://www.drm.com/attorney/bio/n:_jonathanPeress who specializes in air quality and climate change regulatory and policy matters to represent them for the EFSEC process.
Which effectively stopped the Ellicottville project.
And I have heard there are other entities preparing to request intervener status over concerns of negative impacts this project would have region and Statewide, should an application ever be filed.
There is an effort by some Laidlaw supporters within the community of Berlin to try and unseat the current Mayor and Council in the coming election this November. It is clear among Berlin residents that the upcoming election will be a referendum on the project given the candidates running. The application process is costly and lengthy. Laidlaw realizes they have an uphill battle with the current administration. Which is why I believe you would not see an application until after the elections, if at all.
There are many who will continue to dismiss and trivialize my input here. That is fine with me. But that attorney is sounding pretty good from where I sit.
Which happens to be within site of a giant stack in the middle of the most densely populated part of downtown Berlin NH.
It’s like someone once told me; investing in a penny stock is akin to buying a scratch ticket, use your spare change. Have fun and thanks for playin NH lottery’s newest game “Berlin’s Future”!
;)
If that is so, then why is Max scrambling to get issues addressed prior to filing? Because he and the handful of Laidlaw supporters in town are aware that without the backing of Berlin there is no chance the State will go against the wishes of Berlin. The State has already made that clear.
When was the last time you were in Berlin?
Sage is discounting the role Berlin residents will play in this. We’ll have to see just how much these elections are a “side issue” for Laidlaw sage. If Berlin residents elect a slate of candidates opposed to the Laidlaw project I believe that will speak volumes in Concord.
I would try to get everyone focusing on the other projects also sage. Good plan ;)
Read again King.
I would be very surprised to see a filing at all. IMO as it stands right now there are to many obstacles to overcome for the Berlin project to move forward. Everyone is well aware that the upcoming elections will be a referendum on Laidlaw. Everyone is watching because they know without the support of Berlin there will be no support in Concord. And without support in Concord, it is unlikely even the powerful PSNH machine will be able to wield the influence they need to push it through IMO.
There is no doubt now that the candidate line up for Berlin Mayor and Council is a clear signal that this will be a referendum on the Laidlaw proposal.
Here is the line-up.
Pro Laidlaw – Oppose Laidlaw
For Mayor
Paul Grenier - David Bertrand (incumbent)
Ward 1
Beverly Ingersoll - Ryan Landry (incumbent)
Ward 2
Former Mayor Robert Danderson - realtor Jonathan Edwards
Ward 3
Former Councilor Paul Cusson and former state Representative Michael Rozek. - Ronald Goudreau (incumbent)
Ward 4
All 3 candidates oppose Laidlaw.
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2009/10/6B.pdf
Do you have proof of someone else trying to get the mill site? Or is it just speculation on your part once again?
Fortunately for PSNH ratepayers you can’t circumvent State Law.
Article 83 of the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire states that “Free and fair competition in the trades and industries is an inherent and essential right of the people and should be protected against all monopolies and conspiracies which tend to hinder or destroy it”. It goes on to grant the legislature the power to enact laws that will prevent those who would “endeavor to raise the price of any article of commerce or to destroy free and fair competition in the trades and industries through combination conspiracy, monopoly or any other unfair means”
That article of the constitution was, in fact, cited in RSA 374-F:1, when the legislature stated as policy that; “Competitive markets should provide electricity suppliers with incentives to operate efficiently and cleanly, open markets for new and improved technologies, provide electricity buyers and sellers with appropriate price signals, and improve public confidence in the electric utility industry.” In that same statute, the legislature clearly stated that “the development of competitive markets for wholesale and retail electricity services are key elements in a restructured industry”.
The staff of Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) have, in fact, previously acknowledged their obligation to provide a fair and open market as a part of deregulation and encouraging a competitive market. When testifying before the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) on February 5, 2008 and again on December 6, 2008, PSNH staff stated that each power project will be evaluated on its own merits and that all power providers would be treated fairly and evenly without any pre-conditions.
In enacting RSA 362-F:1, the legislature further stated that; “It is therefore in the public interest to stimulate investment in low emission renewable energy generation technologies”. The legislation went on to place the onus for this effort on the electric utilities and provided the PUC with the power to authorize long term purchase power agreements between utilities and renewable energy providers.
All of this must also be considered in the light of RSA 378:37, which clearly states that; “The general court declares that it shall be the energy policy of this state to meet the energy needs of the citizens and businesses of the state at the lowest reasonable cost while providing for the reliability and diversity of energy sources”. RSA 378:38 goes on to lay out the guidelines for each utility’s biennial least cost integrated resource plan and its review by the PUC. During that review, the commission is enjoined to consider potential environmental, economic and health-related impacts of each proposed option, and if other factors are equal, the order of priorities is prescribed as; conservation, renewable energy sources and finally all other energy sources.
When all of the factors are considered . . . it is clear that PSNH has a constitutional, statutory, regulatory, and ethical requirement to sit at the table and consider all power supply offers. By repeatedly failing to even consider a purchase power agreement from an indigenous renewable energy provider, they have demonstrated a disregard for free and fair competition. As a regulated utility with an exclusive distribution franchise (i.e., poles and wires), their failure to encourage competitive energy markets and provide electricity buyers and sellers with appropriate price signals is clearly contrary to the requirements of state law and policy. Finally, without openly considering all of the options and offers for power, it is obviously impossible for a utility to state that they are providing the lowest reasonable cost power to their customers.
Thus, by failing to even consider offers of power from renewable power projects in New Hampshire, PSNH has fallen short of their obligation to the citizens of the State of New Hampshire and their duty to their own customers.
That sounds like a good suggestion since it appears that this one could linger in no mans land for some time to come IMO.
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
COMPLAINT OF CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC
AGAINST PUBLIC SERVICE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
DE 09-067
MOTION TO COMMENCE FORMAL INVESTIGATION
1. Clean Power Development, LLC (CPD) filed a Complaint against PSNH on April 7,
2009. PSNH filed its response to the charges in the CPD’s Complaint on April 28, 2009.
Pursuant to Rule Puc 204.04, on May 5, 2009, CPD informed the Commission that it was not
satisfied with PSNH’s response.
2. There are two competing wood-fueled biomass-energy facilities projects being
developed in Berlin, NH: the CPD facility and the Laidlaw Berlin facility.
o The CPD project is supported by the City of Berlin.
o The sustainable wood supply will not support the oversized Laidlaw Berlin
project, let alone both projects.
o The CPD project occupies position 229 in the ISO-NE Interconnection Study
Queue, ahead of the Laidlaw Berlin project which occupies position 251 in the
Queue.
o The CPD project is nearly shovel-ready whereas the Laidlaw project is subject to
a lengthy permitting process.
o CPD and Fraser N.H. LLC, the owner operator of the Gorham, New Hampshire
paper mill, have executed a Memorandum of Understanding related to potentially
providing steam from the Clean Power Berlin project to the Gorham paper mill
for papermaking process use.
3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Laidlaw Berlin announced in September, 2008 that it
had reached an agreement with its friends at PSNH on the material terms of a contemplated 20-
year power purchase agreement which would provide a “guaranteed” source of revenue for the
Laidlaw project.
4. In stark contrast, CPD’s overtures to PSNH have been repeatedly rebuffed, according
to PSNH, “because of Mel Liston and how he had testified against PSNH in other venues. He’s
just a bad person and we don’t do business with people like him.” Therefore, PSNH does not
know, nor are they willing to investigate whether the CPD Facility would be better for its
ratepayers, for regional economic prosperity, for renewable resource sustainability, and in the
overall public interest.
5. Because of its entanglements with the Laidlaw project, PSNH has continued to rebuff
good-faith attempts by CPD to resolve its issues with PSNH.
6. PSNH has arrogated to itself the determination of which renewable projects get built
in New Hampshire. The renewable energy projects that get to deal with PSNH are screened to
make sure they fit PSNH’s “business model.” For the reasons set forth in CPD’s complaint, this
state of affairs simply cannot be reconciled with the state law or public policy on renewable
energy.
7. If it appears to the commission that there p~gy be a basis for the complainant’s dispute,
the commission ~i~ii conduct an independent investigation pursuant to RSA 365:4. Puc
204.04(b). (Emphasis supplied.)
WHEREFORE, CPD respectfully request the Commission to forthwith commence a
formal investigation the matters set forth in CPD’s Complaint and to grant CPD such other and
further relief as may be just and reasonable
Respectfully submitted,
CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC
By its Attorney,
I~T. Rodier /
Dated: September 14, 2009 1500A Lafayette Road, No. 112
Portsmouth, Nfl 0380 1-5918
603-559-9987 603-559-9987
‘At a hearing held at the Public Utilities Commission on February 5, 2009 in Docket No. DE -08-077, a
PSN}l witnessed testified under oath during cross-examination that PSNH has an open door policy for all
renewable resource developers and that all proposals of any kind would be considered in good faith and
treated strictly on their merits:
Q. All right. So, the door is always open to talk, and it could be indexed, it could be a fixed rate, and each project is evaluated on its own?
A. Yes.
Q. But nobody is in or out just because of who they are?
A. No.
Transcript, DE 08-07, February 5, 2009
Time will tell correct?