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.
I have news for you. Counsel for the Public is letting the SEC know that from its perspective, "The Joint Motion (Laidlaw/Berlin Station) describes a new operation that is significantly different from what was proposed and certificated last fall." That my friend is a very big statement and one that involves pass through costs to an immense degree to the NH rate payer!! This baby needs to go into overtime and it WILL!! This statement essentially states the original SEC decision is no longer applicable as far as counsel for the public is concerned WITHOUT "discovery opportunities, technical sessions and witnesses." Some of you stated that you had no problems with intervention due to major change and it appears that the very counsel that protects the rate payer believes there are major changes to dissect.
You could be right but this is a whole new deal now boys. This baby's going back to a serious hearing imho. This just in;
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SITE EVALUATION COMMITTEE
)
RE: Application of Berlin Station, LLC )
for Certificate of site and )
Facility )
)
Docket No. 2011-01
RESPONSE OF COUNSEL FOR THE PUBLIC
TO JOINT MOTION FOR TRANSFER AND AMENDMENT
Counsel For The Public, K. Allen Brooks, ("Counsel") hereby responds to the Joint
Motion of Laidlaw Berlin Biopower, LLC and Berlin Station, LLC for Transfer and
Amendment of the Certificate of Site and Facility, and Notice of Change In Major Contractor
(the "Joint Motion"):
The Joint Motion describes a new operation that is significantly different from what
was proposed and certificated last fall. As such, without appropriate procedural protections
and the development of a complete record, it would not be within the Sub-Committee's
discretion to grant the Joint Motion prior to providing Counsel for the Public an opportunity
to retain expert witnesses pursuant to RSA l62-H:9 to the extent it deems necessary,
providing all the parties discovery opportunities - including data requests and technical
sessions - and conducting appropriate evidentiary hearings. 1
WHEREFORE, Counsel for the Public respectfully requests that the Sub-committee
deny the Joint Motion at this time and instead, order the parties to work with counsel to the
SEC to devise a procedural order for adjudicating the requests made in the Joint Motion.
Respectfully submitted,
COUNSEL FOR THE PUBLIC
By his attorneys
MICHAEL A. DELANEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
j(q;~
K. Allen Brooks
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Protection Bureau
33 Capitol Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301-6397
Tel. (603) 271-3679
Peter C.L. Roth
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Protection Bureau
33 Capitol Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301-6397
Tel. (603) 271-3679
I
I see. So the SEC was aware of figures 20% higher than what was provided to the SEC at the time the SEC made the decision on Laidlaw or am I missing something here? Keep in mind this is just one detail of three, but for the moment let's just focus on this one.
"There is only one person in the State of NH that thinks the SEC will reopen the entire case. Everyone else is rational and expects the SEC to only allow the new topics to be discussed."
So you think a 20% Laidlaw differential between two testimonies is meaningless and not new? You think that rising wood prices that can paralyze existing wood commodity businesses so much that are writing hundreds of letters to NH politicians is meaningless? And you think its rational to think that way? We'll see about that shortly now won't we Investool?
So you think a 20% differential passed on to the rate payer, a difference that wasn't part of the SEC process should be bypassed by the SEC and passed on to the rate payer? Why is that?
Why would that be Woodburner. Do you see anything inaccurate or anything not worthy of concern?
That is not a PUC hearing; it is a horse of a much different color and is called a SEC hearing.
Not the same agency, two separate agencies, two separate matters.
Poster who reports to be MBartoszek of Laidlaw had stated Cate ST. would never end up purchasing the paper mill in Berlin and apparently he might be right. New investor moves into place apparently.
http://www.berlindailysun.com/featured/story/patriarch-papers-tours-cascade-mill
A better answer to due process on the Laidlaw matter:
Good afternoon, Mr. Edwards,
The following reply is intended to answer your question posed to me earlier today. It comes from the Counsel for the Site Evaluation Committee, Attorney Michael Iacopino:
_____________
The matter only requires an adjudicatory process if it becomes a contested case. That is if parties with a significant interest in the outcome are allowed to intervene and contest the relief sought by the Joint Applicants.
Of course the committee could order extended proceedings on its own motion if it feels that there is insufficient information and they request additional info from the Applicants. The Committee could also exercise its authority to deny the requested relief.
_____________
Tim Drew
http://www.nh.gov/pelrb/procedure/hearings.htm
"Don't forget Jon the IPPS have been subsadized for 20 years!! Do some DD see how the Rates sky rocked when they came on line!!! Chech it out Jon!! We soon forgot about that??"
Listen to yourself, Woodburner. Read your words. You are suggesting that two wrongs make a right. The IPPS had been subsidized for 20 years, so now it's ok for the Laidlaw project to be subsidized for 20 years? Until you realize this biomass situation in northern NH CAN NOT be either us or them, we're all in quick sand my friend. It is that simple or Laidlaw Berlin Biopower, Berlin Station IS appealable. And no one with Laidlaw wants the IPPS to appeal now that 2025 wasn't extended.
Listen, The IPPS have existing infrastructure, and more importantly represent significantly more jobs both indirect and direct than Laidlaw's application shows. The IPPS also pay revenue as operating plants without contracts which is significantly less revenue to the towns and state than they obtain with contracts. These contracts are important to job stability, the 2025 initiative, and are imperative to northern NH towns. This 900 lb gorilla known as PSNH needs a talking to or they're going to end up taking everyone down with them. What's worse; they have the weasel clauses within this PPA to take everyone down, and they have the power to say NO to the IPPS because...(just maybe they can buy them for pennies on a dollar one day after legislative change some day like THEY'VE DONE BEFORE!)They've also been down and out before and they're showing they can do it again! I think the following link hits the nail right on the head and then some. This appeared in the Concord Monitor the other day just after 500 letters were received by politicians around the state of NH from IPP employees and loggers not too keen on losing their jobs . See you boys in Concord on the 22nd.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/250659/why-i-changed-my-mind-on-northern-pass
"Transactions of this size seem to be loaded with "red tape"."
A great deal of the red tape is created by the applicant, that is, outside of title issues and contamination inherent to the paper mill. Let's face it. PSNH's reluctance to play ball with the IPPS has created the great risk of job and tax revenue LOSS in numerous north country towns. Yeah, yeah they're all going to close anyhow...yeah sure. Laidlaw's pass through cost to the rate payer has made both PUC staff and experts and OCA staff and experts have reservations about this docket. Recently essentially most of the players have changed. Additionally the new creation of a "mechanism" to achieve "results" at the end of 20 years that no one can prove are either going to be positive or negative has most if not all parties saying....HUH?????????????????? I'm eating the donuts NOT the PUC.
I believe that the SEC will go by their guidelines. Intervenors have until tomorrow to file, Objections have until the 22nd, I believe, which leaves the SEC with Friday or any day thereafter to decide on intervention status.
"Would you rather pay a few extra dollars a month for the next twenty years or take your chances and risk paying considerably more if these unfactored variables drive the price of electrity up years from now?"
I'd rather the true rate increase be known and paid by the user who is alive and benefiting today if it makes sense, rather than hidden in some sort of "potential wind fall" down the road. If it's that great of a PPA, provide the price right up front for the world to see brother. I think you'll see that price become necessity very very soon. Just sayin.
Really? I was under the impression that the increased output was already covered within the PUC, as the subject of 75 MW was already asked within testimony by the IPPS attorney, and confirmed by PSNH. Therefore, the only issue before the SEC would be that of wood usage which is claimed to be the same which if accurate would be a moot point now wouldn't it?
"If I'm not mistaken the PPA has a mechanism which will counteract the effects of inflation on electric rates."
That mechanism assumes great risk by rate payers "counting" on a PSNH purchase or sale of PSNH interest that will benefit PSNH customers 20 years from now. There is a great deal of debate as to what impact that can be. That debate is in black and white in PUC testimony with docket 10-195.
Looking statistically at PUC Staff and expert testimony as well as OCA staff and expert testimony going back many years into the archives, it becomes apparent that in many many other dockets these professionals haven't at all been actively showing reservation over approval of other dockets as they've clearly shown they are on this docket with Laidlaw and PSNH. And, the amount of time to decide on an expedited hearing may well be testimony to their reservations.
If it was as simple as $3.00 per month, tjodel, we'd be happy to. The truth of the matter is, however, that significantly more increase is at stake with this PPA, and with that in mind, we could never be so reckless as to offer a reduction in rent until the PPA is denied or significantly altered. In my opinion the PPA will ultimately be accepted after being so significantly altered that it will be difficult to meet the approval of PSNH. Keep in mind, PSNH wants there own plants. If they don't approve of an amended PPA that simply moves them one step closer in their hopes for legislative change.
"it would at best be a minimum amount as evidenced by intervenors J.E. submission to the PUC claiming that it would cost his tenants an average of $3 a month,"
If taken out of context, that figure was provided by PUC staff expert witness testimony. Then again, many statements taken out of context are misleading. Would you also like to share with your readership what rate that would be without the infamous accumulating reduction mechanism? And you might also include the wood price adjustment clause (which is objectionable because of its anti-competitive effect on the wood market) in the PPA that adjusts the price of energy at Laidlaw by 1.8 times the change in the price of wood at Schiller (from a base of $34/ton.) Thanks in advance.
"I'm all for intervention as long as it applies to the changes the LLEG has proposed."
So we are in agreement that intervention has a purpose as it applies to the changes and is significantly different than what was covered in the old docket. So now that there is a new docket and there likely will be new issues, the new docket with intervention certainly falls into the same schedule of discovery and cross as the previous docket, wouldn't you agree?
Interesting. So you believe no intervention will be granted?
i think you'd be surprised that solar is far more advantageous on flat roofs than wind power in that location. i hope (for Laidlaw's sake) they're taking part in the solar plans that are all over the news there. They're competing against some pretty formidable renewable energy businesses in that business park. It appears that Laidlaw purchased "control" of the boiler within the old Polaroid facility. Meanwhile in the news are plans to mount significant amounts of solar panels which I find very very interesting. Could it be that Laidlaw is in the solar business...or competing against the solar business. Why would existing solar businesses not want to use their own products to defray the cost of energy. hmmmm.
I think you're right about the solar power usage to defray the cost of power. lol.
I was hopeful I'd get your attention Mike. Now be a man and answer some questions with specifics"The deal is closed" Why don't you dare tell us mike that you purchased the "property"? Did you even "purchase" the facility? Is it simply a controlling interest of a lease? What kind of past performance, Mike? Why must you be so secretive, Mike. Show your great deal to your great investors. Is the potential addition of revenue you speak of akin to the 2.5 million note you hope to get someday to put your company out of the red?
"Spin this, "This new asset is expected to add several million dollars in revenue per annum" "
No details, no history of past performance, the word "expected", the phrases "add more efficiency", "acquire control". Laidlaw investors will settle for any partial statements just so long as helps puff the pps. Truly humorous to think its enough for a newbie to hang a hat upon. Keep up the spin boys.
"I think tht this is significant enough to push this news!!!"
Not really. Laidlaw has given everyone reason to have doubt. Acquiring a "controlling factor" of a facility is a very general statement and Laidlaw has demonstrated time and time again that acquiring means anything and everything other than the purchase of real property. If the project has some financials of relevance based on past performance, keeping them a secret from investors looking for tangible statements is just brilliant isn't it? The fact that specifics are not available and the word "efficiency" is being focused on is akin to the word "potential". Ah yes...remember the disclaimer...forward thinking ideas...
Really? link please.
"it is my understanding that the NH Timberland Owners Association does not oppose the Laidlaw project"
agreed. I do not believe the NH Timberland Owners Assoc. has taken a direct stand against Laidlaw; they merely are taking a stand against the demise of the existing facilities in NH and certainly for good reason. Indirectly, I think if you listen to the audio, the underlying reasoning for concern is indeed Berlin through wood price increase, but everyone is taking a different tact than attacking Laidlaw directly. Additionally, it would be a poor move for the NH Timberland Owner's Assoc. to be against Laidlaw should the other biomass companies be up against closing up shop, which they are at the moment, thus the concern.
"Where are these letters? "
I see. So you think the concern over Laidlaw is being staged on this audio with a NH Senator responding to comment that over 500 letters having been sent out by stating we've received enough, no more letters.... LISTEN TO THE AUDIO IT WON'T KILL YOU I PROMISE
"LLEG was willing to take on the expense related to dealing with a brownfield site, or do you want the citizens of Berlin to eat the cost of which would total tens of millions of taxpayer dollars"
not according to my dd. link please.
No one is lousy at what they are doing in these smaller companies Investool; they are working without contracts because PSNH is choking them and for what? So that PSNH has a chance at legislative change to purchase these plants for pennies on a dollar down the road? Seems like the only logical solution to greed to me. Your project doesn't stand a chance at going through without these big boys cooperating with the smaller guys. You can count on that. PSNH and the Laidlaw people or the legislature needs to come up with a plan to offer these companies a reasonable way to survive or the potential negative impact simply negates your project from logically happening. I would think you boys on ihub would start understanding that NH isn't going to let the 900 lb gorilla come in and stomp on these companies. Hundreds of letters and meetings are rearing their heads with members of the Senate, the Timberland Owners Association, Lumber companies etc. all uniting in defense of these biomass companies. Wake up, smell the coffee, and understand compromise is mandated or acceptance of the PPA becomes a part of history that didn't happen. Rather than supporting such tactics employed by PSNH you might get further ahead by joining in an effort to see all infrastructure included in moving forward with a responsible plan that pushes NH forward not potentially backwards in job and revenue loss. Carefully listen to that audio my friend. An "us or them" approach ain't gonna work.
It is very interesting, and more importantly focuses on the reasons NH should have for not approving the Laidlaw PPA and with Berlin (The Laidlaw Project) only being mentioned once by one of the speakers. Apparently NH politicians have received over 500 letters to date from people concerned in the forest industry over the impact the loss of these IPPS could have on all phases of this state's wood commodity industry. As an example, just one of the lumber companies equates the loss of just one biomass plant in Tamworth impacting 73 logging jobs and over 9.8 million in revenue. This is not a meeting of just the IPPS chanting "woe is me" This is one in a series of meetings orchestrated as part of a major campaign to reach out to state Senate, Governor and other NH politicians, and is sponsored by the NH Timberland Owners Association. If you don't think this is big, think again, and ask yourself why Laidlaw's PUC decision appears to be shelved at this point. Other interesting points;
"The pricing market without a contract is not even covering the fuel price at $25.00 per ton at the current energy price."
"The price a land owner currently gets per truck load of chips is about $30.00"
"We can't stand many more increases in wood costs" (Lumber company owner)
"Importance within this industry is that it is dispersed around the state."
"The plants of concern produce 120 MW, consume 1.8 million tons, directly employ 150 for a payroll of 15..6 million, with total projection of 71.6 million including indirect jobs.
The Laidlaw, PSNH, Berlin Station PPA is a potential stage 4 cancer to the NH wood commodity business. It can not be allowed to be approved as written. It defeats the purpose of the 2025 initiative by setting the stage for 75 MW replacing an already established infrastructure of 120 Megawatts with strategic placement that sprinkles economic benefit all over the state without the complications created by monopolies.
"Of course, companies try to STOP aLL competition right? "
So you consider the Timber Owner's Association a company?
"Certainly, you don't think this is just a fight over $$$$$$$ by ll these people right?? "
It's a fight over greed and an unwillingness to cooperate on PSNH's part with the IPPS.
"No, they can rally all they want... IMO, they have been taking advantage of loggers up to this point ...."
The historical averages for wood chips are not necessarily showing anyone is taking advantage of loggers, but that they are doing much to support loggers in a down economy.
"and frankly, that FRAGILE FOREST DD HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN!!"
So protection has been in place through the "Weeks Act" and many other protective measures since the late 1800s because NH recognized that liquidation harvesting during the late 1800s shouldn't be repeated, yet we've seen in recent years a mirror image of those past practices up here in the mountains. Yes the fact that the forest is fragile is proven without a shadow of a doubt. Careless acts have been proven to take decades to correct, which proves the forest is fragile beyond reasonable doubt.
I am interested in the continued operation of all currently operating biomass facilities in northern NH as it is important to preserve existing infrastructure due to their strategic locations not interfering with one another. I'm also in favor of biomass in Berlin, but the current infrastructure on the Burgess mill site shows no value in the existing infrastructure as the PPA price to rate payers is so high that competing bids from ground up facilities showed better rates within testimony suggesting that either the price paid for the infrastructure was too high, or that the infrastructure doesn't provide value to the rate payer that supersedes a ground up operation. Therefore, my preference would be the higher efficient plant, smaller in size next to the waste water facility that offered a better bid to PSNH and a better location for Berlin and in particular a closer location with synergy to the mill.
Berlin Station would mostly inherit workers from the demise of other biomass facilities if wood price increase occurred. But the proposal before the PPA won't happen as it exists, so I think for the record, we can certainly say that on paper Laidlaw (Berlin station) creates 40 direct jobs yet in reality, Laidlaw has no operating biomass facilities and therefore has offered no direct biomass plant jobs in there 12 year tenure.
To a degree you are accurate as to the potential of a few of the plants being more updated than others that may be able to weather the storm; the point being, however, that none of the existing infrastructure should be sent out to pasture while we are suggesting we convert infrastructure in Berlin that would be significantly more costly than updating the infrastructure within already existing biomass facilities.
"Why should PSNH be forced to give them an advantage that nobody else will get. "
Because if they don't your Laidlaw induced project is destined to die a rather long death imho. The IPPS have a second chance and it is called intervening at the next round of hearings known as Berlin station. I'm glad you don't think their playing a good hand. I'm especially pleased that you think a wood monopoly is a dead horse. Perhaps we can call this next round the rising of the dead. We have a looooonnnngggg way to go my friend.
"It's quite interesting that you argue that "40 jobs won't do it" when opposing the Berlin Station project then you quote a source which says that 600+ jobs are at risk due to the state of the smaller plants. "
Because I don't believe the Laidlaw project ever would have added to that job base, but taken from it due to other power plant demise. No bias, no double standard. the Laidlaw proposal leads to the significant possibility of the demise of 600 jobs and recreates hundreds. That is not great, in fact that isn't even good. Laidlaw needs to create jobs without negatively impacting the 600 jobs quoted, then Laidlaw becomes good. But that won't happen without disposal of a significant amount of greed in my opinion. Nothing personal.
Absolutely, and yes I anticipate you will.
Something does need to give Big Bucks. PSNH needs to help the IPPS survive or the IPPS and others simply have no choice but to do everything possible to keep this deal from happening. There is a difference between free trade and fair trade. If our goal as a state is to obtain 25% by 2025 we need to work with new and old; we can't go by the mentality of survival of the fittest because the definition doesn't fit into the NH plan for renewable energy when there is an obvious choking of these plants by PSNH not offering PPAs to any biomass facilites but one, and that IS NOT survival of the fittest; that is more akin to working against the 2025 initiative and wasting valuable renewable infrastructure already strategically in place to keep wood supply renewable, and our 2025 initiative moving forward rather than backward. Something has to give is right. My guess is it's a factor of greed.
The biggest factor, that of a monopoly, goes way beyond the supporters who wrote letters in support of the Laidlaw Berlin plant; indeed it encompasses the governors initiative of 25% by the year 2025, and the fact that we will start out with a potential loss in excess of 100 MW in operating facilities to welcome a 75MW facility, fewer jobs, and less of a resulting percentage of renewable energy than we began with. That is not the NH way.