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.
Certainly you don't need to believe a Laidlaw induced monopoly can raise chip price, Sir. But don't even begin to say this goes unsubstantiated as this is just one in a series of informational sessions triggered by this very concern. Note that these meetings are supported by the NH Timberland Owners Association. Are you also going to say they have bias towards making money on timber sales? Why don't you call the number below and see what impact they feel rising chip prices can have.
Biomass in Crisis:
Jobs, Clean Energy, and the Economy at Risk
An informational meeting for Loggers, Truckers, and other Timber Harvesting Professionals
March 31, 2011
Merrimack Valley High School Auditorium
106 Village St,
Penacook, NH 03303
5 p.m. - 8 p.m.
The New Hampshire Timber Harvesting Council will be hosting an informational meeting to discuss both the current situation surrounding biomass-burning wood-to-energy facilities and what is in store for the future of biomass in New Hampshire. Recent market conditions have resulted in an uncertain future for the 6 independent biomass-burning power plants in New Hampshire that collectively provide up to 100 MW of renewable electricity- enough to power 100,000 homes- to the New England electric power grid. These plants directly employ over 100 employees and pay nearly $1.1 million dollars in state and local taxes. In addition, their suppliers and subcontractors employ over 500 workers in the form of chip producers, truckers, mechanics and maintenance sub-contractors. The state of New Hampshire will lose $45 million dollars or more annually in economic activity. This impact, and the jobs that are created, are a critical part of the New Hampshire economy, and a source of good, well paying rural jobs.
The meeting will include an update on regional energy markets, the results of a survey of the economic impacts of both the power plants and biomass chip producers, and a panel discussion on the future of biomass and where we go from here.
For more information, please contact The New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association at (603) 224-9699 or www.nhtoa.org.
"Hopefully the added needs would raise the price enough to warrent a REASONABLE price so more loggers could be hired and revitalize the industry."
Perhaps, yet with price hikes likely, at the very likely demise and substantial loss of revenue of 6 biomass plants and several hundred more jobs certainly including loggers. Listen, you don't raise price to attract logging jobs at the expense of infrastructure (biomass facilities) that support significant loggers. This monopoly with Laidlaw IS NOT going to happen guys; price hikes on junk wood is a HUGE RISK for NH's already fragile forest based economy.
Fact is the biggest concern is a wood commodity monopoly being created in a down market. Let's face it, wood commodity business is way down with higher grade wood. While everyone is hurting simply bring in a chipping monopoly and waste the whole tree for biomass while the market is down and pass the cost onto the rate payer. During that time, put the small biomass plants out of business to create even more of a monopoly. The chipping company wins as a monopoly (located next to Berlin and close to Schiller) and Laidlaw and Schiller create the other monopoly by no other biomass companies being offered PPAs. This is why the NH Timberland Counsel is coming out in full force and why the SEC will be bring Berlin Station to a new hearing. And, monopolies are Not the NH way of doing business.
Good morning. Email just arrived that new Laidlaw project docket hearing is to be advertised in the NH Union Leader paper and the Berlin Daily Sun paper I assume next week.
"Today is NOT when the first item was filed with the PUC that stated that they OWNED and RENTED property."
I see. So recently filed LLC's would always show ownership right away at a registry? Lease purchase agreements would be on file at a registry also? Property management is part of the registry of documents? Representation of tenants who are ratepayers impacted by this Laidlaw proposal are part of registry documents? In what world may I ask?
"Good work on the PUC's part. Shows how little impact this intervener has"
Note that PSNH stated this not the PUC in the Laidlaw hearings. Note that Edrest did become an intervenor in Laidlaw hearings as a result of the PUC granting that status just after these erroneous claims and that if such claims were accurate Edrest certainly would not have been granted intervention.. Also note that PSNH would not make the same claims today regarding Edrest Properties' ownership in properties or Edrest's rate payer status. More DD is obviously needed on your part to discover the entire testimony that proved PSNH statements to be false in this regard.
The price of greed = the price you pay with a result of no PPA. All the pieces haven't at all been put together if the net result is a price to the rate payer that is ridiculous Ninja. Scan past PUC dockets and see how staff and oca talk favorably about their dockets, then go to this docket and witness a different side of staff and oca. Just saying. Listen, if the players in this project including PSNH become reasonable and play a better ballgame with the rate payers and the smaller IPPS this project deserves to go forward, if not it deserves to flat out get a failing grade and probably will.
"20 year PPAs are the culmination of the wait and they are unlike any other business. Non-stop cash for 20 years!"
Unreasonably high PPA's (such as the Laidlaw/PSNH model) don't get approved and shouldn't get approved (especially when they were waaaay to high to begin with) and then you add 5MW to the mix to produce an additional billion in revenue without offering the rate payer a lower price. The price of greed = the price you pay with a result of no PPA.
"their owners are likely building and/or operating larger ones in various parts of the country."
all well and good provided in all parts of the country no monopolies are created on wood supply.
"Again, what does this have to do with the SEC hearings?? "
My friend, you will, in short order, find out that the focus at the new SEC hearing has grave reason to be significantly different. Perhaps if you research the players (all the players) you will discover a new found major concern that wasn't there with the original proposal. Suffice it to say if you can't find it, you won't know about it until the hearings are under way and most probably not until cross examination. Patience as Tom used to say prior to jumping ship. Stay the course my friend.
As it relates to lleg, yes, even without ownership of lleg shares.
"Hey, I believe when an intervener favors past selfish items over the current tragedy of unemployment of their neighbors, Which LLEG could help with. That really shows the lack of character of that intervenor, AND shows the type of lowlifes that are trying to stop the advancement of Progress for their fellow citizens."
Of course being concerned about net loss of jobs and revenue in the north country due to closure of smaller biomass facilities in northern NH due to a monopolization within the wood commodity business creating rising wood prices that could paralyze over a thousand jobs in nearby Rumford and hundreds of jobs in NH is very selfish, isn't it "now invest?" You're in for a different Rodeo this time around at the SEC my friend.
You would never guess that these NH plants actually combine to provide more value towards the 25% by 2025 initiative than Laidlaw hands down. And to say these facilities are dying anyhow is akin to saying their infrastructure isn't valuable when an old mill boiler that needs significantly more upgrades is valuable yet its value doesn't produce a PPA price even close to reality according to PUC staff which is a very very strong statement. These smaller biomass plants are strategically located, and very valuable to preserve for Berlin, not just the towns they support.
"funny, rumor is that they are spending all their time laughing at OFFICIAL LLEG intervenor letters sent to them talking about walks in the woods. "
Please, I beg of you, keep this type of comment going. I believe it verifies the type of individual that well represents the company vowing for this project to move forward. After all, the SEC and the PUC would never be concerned over preservation of history, one of their biggest commodities, and heaven forbid they ever took a walk in woods. You guys are doing us a tremendous service here and I beg and plead for you to keep it up. Thanks Now Invest.
"Laidlaw Energy Reports 2010 Earnings of $2.4 Million "
Please "note" earning figure based on a "promise to pay "note" of over two million. Devilish details... Surely one could construe that a poster highlighting earnings as if they are liquid assets is at the very least...misleading.
This is what is needed to give the Laidlaw (Berlin Station) project credibility.
"John Halle, president of Cate Street Capital said the new owners are looking at a total investment of $60 million, including $25 million for a tissue machine. He hopes to close on the purchase by early April and reopen the mill immediately"
The purchase of this mill will be regarded as a minor accomplishment, reopening the mill immediately is where the gain in credibility takes center stage. If that happens "IMMEDIATELY" as stated, credibility soars, if not this whole process stands to fall into a huge rut and the 2.5 million promise to pay more than likely follows suit as just another PR that everyone is accustomed to by now. Keep in mind, MBartoszek, if he is who most of you claim he is on this board, has posted here that the Cascade mill will NEVER reopen yet his successor of this project is very adamant that it will. You would think that if these two were still on the same Laidlaw Berlin team, they might be singing the same song? Leads one to believe the letter that is circulating indeed signifies a changing of the guards.
"NO, Not for people who understand the business world and how LLEG is in a business that has a lot of Gov't intervention. I am not confused!! MBB would have to be crazy not to have that 2.5 in his back pocket, OR an alternative to having it."
Interesting. So most balance sheets in the business world have a main focus of notes payable as the only item leading them from red to green. Very enlightening indeed.
"P.S. The word from mill workers is that they expect purchase/sale agreement to be signed within the next week"
Weren't we all lead to believe the purchase and sale was already signed and that we are awaiting a closing on that deal? Communication seems to be as confusing as whether Laidlaw will obtain any of the 2.5 million promise to pay they've based 2010 entire green balance sheet upon.
Certain new issues that will come to light at the new SEC hearing make this a completely different game.
Agreed, The PUC change from the Laidlaw Berlin Biopower docket to the Berlin Station docket won't come anytime soon.
"You haven't been right about anything yet when it comes to this project, so I doubt this will change any time soon."
Really? Can we agree that Laidlaw never came to fruition in Berlin to date, and never will as a result of completely new entities, name change, and an infamous letter floating about?
"REALITY CHECK! SEC RULED UNANIMOUSLY LAST TIME!!!! are the changes THAT different??? "
Were PUC staff expert opinions and OCA expert opinions part of the SEC hearings? Please provide links. Were the IPPS intervenors then? Links please. Price of the PPA known at the time? Link please? The big changes...I'll leave for the beginning of May's input to the SEC site. From there you can judge just how different in fact they are. With any luck PSNH may start to play ball with the IPPS and rate payers through significantly lowering the price of one PPA and offering other agreements before then, yet I wouldn't count on common sense overruling greed.
"We have all witnessed the poor logic that some of the official interveners have attempted to use on the PUC, so I am sure they
will use the same poor logic with the SEC."
So poor that the PUC fast tracked the approval of the Laidlaw project as they did the hearings? Do you have a link to that approval?
Quite to the contrary, I see no reason why the SEC wouldn't allow intervenors to come forward, especially those that missed the Laidlaw boat the first time around. It just wouldn't be the NH way otherwise. Once intervenors are scheduled the process becomes the same. New docket, new day. And that's ok for you to think otherwise of course.
"If it is totally a new entity why wouldn't the same expert witnesses be able to be used?"
I'm not sure I ever said whether the same or different experts will be used this time around. I did say the focus will change this time around.
"you've been wrong about every single issue."
since 2007 some have stated the Laidlaw proposal wouldn't come to fruition, and so far that hasn't proved "wrong". People can now say "Laidlaw" never happened now that entirely different players have formed under "Berlin station". But that's immaterial. Laidlaw's hopeful windfall on their balance sheets that attempts to take them out of the red based on a "note to get paid" when the lottery of an assumed approval hits or some other action occurs seems to be stuck in quick sand. Just watch this unfold, King my friend. What's your solution to "other projects" moving forward on notes payable?
You do realize the SEC is following the same process, procedural guidelines that were followed in the Laidlaw hearings correct? You do realize this is being handled as a completely new entity correct? Do you realize how much crossing took place of all the original players? And you don't think the same crossing of expert witnesses will be allowed this time around? Ah.....o.k.
Granting intervenors will lead to a new hearing on the Burgess mill site.
Maybe not if they smarten up. The need to be kind to the ipps and the rate payers and massive problems go away.
You may hear about supply issues this time around at the hearings, Discreet, but supply isn't what the focus needs to be on any more. Everyone is aware of a finite supply of wood and that this plant pushes its limit. Suffice it to say it will be very enlightening and surprising over many months of hearings to come just how different the new SEC hearings will be. In the mean time count on the PUC putting any decision on the back burner.
Since 2007 the one argument I'm achieving is that this proposal hasn't come to fruition and is having some major up hill battles at the moment. All other arguments pale by comparison.You wouldn't believe it would you? No hints this time around my friend. You'll see requests for intervention soon enough. The biggest issue for you at the moment seems to be that this project's potential demise can very well mean the 2 million lottery ticket Barty's been hoping for isn't added or significantly delayed to his balance sheet after all. Curious what impact that could have on all other projects and the PPS, you?
A smarter plan might be for the big guys to start offering the small IPPS PPAs and the Rate payers massive cuts in the price of the PPA with what is now known as Berlin station with absolutely no mention of Laidlaw in the title anymore. But hey, if greed wishes to place this in a quagmire, so be it.
refer back to the balance sheet. that paper net of 2 mil + isn't available is it? your good guess might be no puc approval holds up further projects.
I won't personally elaborate much at the hearings about the issues but expert witness testimony will.
Probably not, just new ones I'm sure.
I've been speaking with NH wood experts for the next round of "Laidlaw" hearings. I'm at a point where I need my own expert witness testimony now that this is going back to the SEC.
I have news for you sir and respect your opinions on Laidlaw and its developments. I invite you to the hearing in April where you will be honored with 30 minutes of one on one expert attention during the lunch hour that will be very enlightening for you. Is it possible for you to make it to Concord?
Yes, in particular this statement:
"All the parties do agree on one thing - - no one can predict the future."
The problem is, however, that PSNH DOES use and HAS used the same tables when it "fits" their cause. If there is a weak point in their closing statement it would be the use and absence of use of these tables as they see fit. On this PPA they choose not to use any projected tables on the basis "no one can predict the future". On many many other occasions they use projection tables as a benchmark for the future.
I believe their entire closing statement is based on "no one can predict the future" when in fact everyone agrees that benchmarking should occur through the use of projected figures.
Actually I talk to numerous people who don't want anything to do with that plant in the middle of the city. Very few have ever approached me in favor of it with any concern over my actions, sorry. Just sayin.
Let's talk about when it's done...What is the payroll of direct jobs with Laidlaw's 40 employees vs. the Fed Pen 300 jobs?
noooooooo that's not at all what I'm saying. Staff has set the stage for one of of three possible outcomes none of which are positive outcomes for PSNH, Laidlaw Berlin Biopower, or investors here.
1.Approval with major conditions attached that PSNH claims will make the project financially impossible
2. Approval without conditions which will force an appeal by intervenor(s)
3. Rejection of the PPA which will force an appeal.
What's interesting is comparing staff and oca comments on the Laidlaw PPA to comments both have made on other dockets. Very very intriguing and comforting to me anyhow.
ah, but their purpose is what, Discreet?
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
CHAIRMAN
Thomas B. Getz
COMMISSIONERS
Clifton C. Below
Amy L. Ignatius
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
AND SECRETARY
Debra A. Howland
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
21 S. Fruit Street, Suite 10
Concord, N.H. 03301-2429
Tel. (603) 271-2431
FAX (603) 271-3878
TDD Access: Relay NH
1 -800-735-2964
Website:
www.puc.nh.gov
Debra A. Rowland
Executive Director
New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission
21 South Fruit Street Suite 10
Concord New Hampshire 03301
February 14, 2011
Re: Docket No. DE 10-195
Public Service Company ofNew Hampshire
Petition for Approval of Purchase Power Agreement
Staff Written Closing
Dear Ms. Rowland:
Pursuant to the directive of the Commission in the above-captioned docket,
enclosed herein please find Staff’s written closing.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Suzanne G. Amidon
Staff Attorney
Service List (electronic service only)