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.
The Berlin Daily Sun entitled the governor's statement as an endorsement, not the governor. The governor's statement clearly makes note that he is awaiting a decision by the PUC. Based on what we see on letterhead to date from the PUC, it would take a great deal of back paddling for this outcome to be favorable for a PPA to be accepted as is. Just sayin
Discreet, The one thing that Laidlaw longs dislike is balance of opinion and documents. You will note that none of you are focusing AT ALL on the closing statement that appears on PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION LETTERHEAD. Why is that Discreet? Do you suppose for a minute that you don't wish to divulge the entirety of closing arguments that might not suit the need of an upward pps thrust as a result of only disclosing the positive and not the negatives? Is that fair to a "newbie" lleg investor Discreet?
Yet interestingly on NH Public Utilities Commission letterhead, this is the type of closing statement one wouldn't want to see on the PUC's own letterhead if one was invested in the favorable outcome of the PPA. Just sayin.
For those who missed the closing statements that appeared on NH Public Utilities Commission letterhead here are the bullet points of importance to consider today as you make your investments!! Good luck to you and trust in your own due diligence!!
PUC Staff Closing Statement
"The PPA IS GROSSLY OVER-PRICED"
"THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE PPA ON RATES IS UNACCEPTABLE"
"PURCHASING ALL OF THE REC OUTPUT OF THE LAIDLAW FACILITY IS CONTRARY TO RSA 362-F:9,1"
"THE CUMULATIVE REDUCTION ACCOUNT DOES NOT ADD VALUE TO THE PPA."
"THE COSTS OF THE PPA OUTWEIGH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DENEFITS OF THE PPA."
"CHANGES TO THE PPA (psnh exhibit 9) FALL WELL SHORT OF ADDRESSING STAFF'S CONCERNS REGARDING THE HIGH COST OF THE PRODUCTS.
age and efficiency are not the factors.
You said, "Now Concord Steam and CPD are the two IPP's that pulled out of the process after contaminating the issue with this bogus testimony and were faced with discovery to provide documentation that these undocumented CLAIMS were based on fact and reliable evidence to support the claim. Instead, they tucked tail and removed themselves from the process rather than face having to substantiate these claims with evidence of some sort. YET, HERE IS THE STAFF, relying on this as factual evidence to support their "CLAIMS".
You are mistaken. I believe you are well aware and have spoken about the possible involvement of Gestamp in this proposed project. If you are as good as you say you are with analytical skills then you surely realize that it potentially became a conflict for Gestamp partners (CPD and Concord Steam President Peter Bloomfield, who is also part of the CPD team) to continue as intervenors in opposition to the proposed Laidlaw Berlin Biopower project. This is not a tail between the legs dropping of intervention, this is strategic potential partnership negotiations and decisions, and if you don't know that you should know that.
You also used one of staff quotes as follows in your post. Quoted:…The first test, comparing the PPA prices with the prices for comparable renewable energy projects, demonstrates that PSNH could have received the same products that it is purchasing from Laidlaw from two competing biomass projects (Concord Steam and CPD) at prices that represent discounts of 12.6% and 8.5% respectively compared to Laidlaw. …
What you apparently don't know is that this testimony is still valid and being used in the decision process. The testimony that is not being used is the PPA Concord Steam testified they had which was 18% lower than the Laidlaw proposed PPA. Because Concord Steam pulled out, that PPA (Concord Steam PPA that is 18% below Laidlaw's) is no longer part of testimony. It is however, certainly within the thought process of all involved.
The PSNH closing statement is very good as you state. So is the City's which you haven't seen but is also in favor of the project. I did not bother sending you an email of all these closing statements which I sent out to all others who requested them yesterday. You really seem to have no interest in looking at both sides of the argument which I believe weakens due diligency on your part and can potentially mislead investors. You appear to be very biased in stating that Staff, OCA, and the IPPS are not effective closing arguments. Certainly a great many RSA's are brought up by all parties. If there is a weak point among these closing statements it certainly can be construed as the last paragraph you focus on surprisingly as a positive for PSNH. PSNH essentially is stating a threat to the PUC that this is the last PPA if they don't play ball and significantly insult the PUC Staff experts in almost every word. I'll leave you with this. I'm amazed at the negativity this portrays toward the PUC, and I have to say before this quote, didn't PSNH think for one instant about the ol sayin "Don't bite the hand that's feeding you"? In my opinion, the following paragraph may come back to bite them in the a$$. I'm sure you'll respond in kind that you hope all the "good guys" come back to bite me in the...You will say what you will, but to mislead anyone into thinking you have a slam dunk PPA is a real disservice to credibility on this board.
"The PPA PSNH has presented is a good deal, a financeable deal, a deal that took extensive negotiations, a deal that is innovative and provides unprecedented protections for customers, a deal
that will result in keeping energy and investment dollars in the state to benefit our own economy,
and create hundreds of jobs - - just as the Legislature intended. As stated by Mr. Long in his
testimony, this deal is the best one available for meeting the state’s RPS. There will likely not be
another one if this PPA is not approved. The Commission must therefore decide whether it will
implement the state’s policy objectives based upon the significant merits of this PPA and not on
long-term forecasts which all parties agree will ultimately be incorrect."
Staff on the other hand is saying it's Not a good deal, could jeopardize MORE JOBS at existing facilities, and absolutely DOES NOT protect rate payers BECAUSE there is no where near the value PSNH says there is within the cumulative reduction account and therefore the thin veiled figure of $3.50/month to the rate payer is SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN REALITY. Additionally, staff and others site that projection figures are consistently used by PSNH on other PPA in existence and in this one instance, all of a sudden projections are no longer used. Keep in mind, this is a staff closing statement that is printed on letterhead from the State of NH Public Utilities Commission. To take that lightly is akin to suggesting there's no pumping being done by pumpers within the pink sheets.
There is no way this stock is going upward on news. At best, an approval will have significant conditions, which does not come close to meaning an approval meets the approval of either PSNH or Laidlaw Berlin Biopower. You will see this more clearly through testimony of PUC staff, OCA staff, and IPPS attorney referral to various RSAs. That is, at least, if logic rules the day. Additionally the decision on Lempster Wind, which wasn't as detailed as this docket, took 2.5 months after closing statements prior to the decision and appeal process.
I will blanket email most recent testimony to everyone later this afternoon unless anyone has a particular problem with all email addresses showing up on the same email. Sending separately is more than I care to devote time to today.
additional testimony available on the puc web site today.
http://www.puc.nh.gov/Regulatory/Docketbk/2010/10-195.htm
need and email address. thanks.
will do. probably at least 100 pages of reading or more. I have your email.
I'm offering to email laidlaw docket info. Not sure who else would.
So tricky, can't even get them scanned into pdf. Any suggestions?
I can not provide numerous documents yet as they can not be copied to the lleg message board. These documents are available via email however and can be forwarded to email addresses. Laidlaw investors can then have access to them should they wish.
You stated: "Further, based on transcripts read to date which reveal NO CONCERNS of consequence, I expect a unanimous decision approving the PPA."
Apparently you've been unable to gain access to any transcripts beyond those posted by the PUC. Additionally, to draw a conclusion based on the magnitude of concern brought about by this docket, that there is "no concern of consequence" is akin to saying there are no apples in apple pie. Welcome back, however.
This is an election year for who? Certainly not Gov. Lynch. So for Laidlaw, your guess is that politics will win Below over? Hmmm interesting. I think you'd be far better with Getz and Ignatius on your side as I'm already guessing Below is the weak vote that will side with PSNH. The other two with a legal back ground have staff, lead by experts and an attorney, saying no, not even close to the PPA, and you think Getz and Ignatius will start carrying the football in the opposite direction based on politics? Wow! Is that money getting in the way of reason by chance? One thing is for sure; no one has any clue how this PPA will turn out. My guess is that the PUC will avoid political corruption at all expense, and you seem to think their going to swim with the sharks?
Certainly having politics on your side would be very important at the moment for LLEG, wouldn't it? Must be tough when staff isn't looking out for committee member reappointment. What tangled webs we'd weave if politics was brought in to deceive. hmmmm.
PSNH doesn't really have bullet points in their presentation. They focus on many issues in the closing statement which in my opinion are very good, and focus on the benefits of the project in many instances, and completely attempt to rip apart Staff Expert, McCluskey. I am not qualified to make judgement on PSNH's disagreements with McCluskey but if they are legitimate arguments as to significant flaws in MCluskey's testimony as a whole, then McCluskey in not only being portrayed as an embarrassment as the State's expert, but it also suggests that most intervenors, staff and OCA, with the exception of the City and CPD are completely off base if in agreement with McCluskey.
In comparison to Lempster wind, the support level for the existing PPA is very low with both Staff and OCA. Some of the biggest requests in the PPA, such as the cumulative reduction account, and excess REC purchases are way beyond their recommendation. In Lempster wind both Staff and OCA seemed to be fairly statisfied that the PPA should be approved as is which is significantly different than the stand both are taking on this docket. Additionally, with far less debate than this docket (as it appears), from closing statments to PUC decision there was a gap in time of 2.5 months, so your opinion on this docket flying by seems more than accurate.
The meetings are done. Rather than closing statements within a hearing all parties agreed to provide them in writing. I thought that was good news as the petitioner normally would have an advantage in being last.
PUC staff. It wasn't so much the $3.50 as it was the other category called "The Cumulative Reduction Account" which keeps track of the excess after the $3.50 over 20 years. That figure unfortunately isn't available to all the rate payers who died before PSNH celebrated the calculated windfall in the year 2034. Only the good die young though Digi so you and I will still be around, right? ;)
Well Investool, lets look back at a few announcements that could be construed in the same light for Laidlaw and Mr. Bartoszek.
6/1/06 LLEG announces 5 million funding for NY project
7/7/06 LLEG announces buying 5MWTG for NY
7/27/06 Stockholder update $5 million in growth financing for the NY project
OCt 10, 2006 LLeg announces building the nations cleanest biomass facility-16 MW in NH Start up in 2007
10/13/06 Expect permitting in Alexandria to be done in 3-6 months
1/23/07 LLeg to obtain 1000 acres of land in western Ny for closed loop project.
2/6/2007 Stockholder update that reiterated the technology and agricultural investments.
3/7/07 LLEG is pursuing development of a wind project
4/2/2007 Laidlaw and EcoPower joint venture will acquire assets in Berlin. The project will be financed by Basic Energy.
4/12/07 charley Bass announced as an advisor. Start up in 2008
June 19 2007 The acquisition of the Berlin project is expected to close with the next several months. Announced a partnership with Triangle Equities
July 17 2007 the Berlin biomass energy facility currently expected to commence operation in late 2008 or early 2009
8/6/2007 Announced that Laidlaw has executed an engagement letter with Greystone for financing.
8/27 2007 Laidlaw expects to close on the acquisition within the next 60 days.
Nov. 8, 2007 Hope to announce deal in Berlin done "as soon as the next couple of weeks." "Preparing the company to move to the OTCBB in 2008".
Dec. 4, 2007 "Laidlaw is expected to close on the acquisition of Berlin boiler and property comprising the former Fraser Paper pulp mill site with the next few weeks."
12/10/2007"We are finalizing the transaction to acquire the assets in Berlin, NH and I believe that we are on track for a closing aroundt eh end of the year." Announced financing from a major wall street investment bank that would provide all necessary funds to develop the project.
12/7 2007 Hired Steven Corso of Gruber and co to audit records to move to the OTCBB in 2008
1/24/2008 "We are making good progress on the closing of the Berlin transaction and I feel very confident about where things are currently." Have draft 2006-7 financial audits done will then turn attention to registration fro OTCBB- should be done within 6 months.
4/1/2008 In the process of finalizing the definitive asset purchase agreement with NAD, the current owner of the Berlin site, and expect to announce the execution of this documents within the next several days. Also announced that financing would be through a sale/leases arrangement with HH Capital.
4/2/2008 Bartoszek announced that National Grid has signed a PPA for all of the power generated in Berlin.
5/12/08 "Closing on the Berlin paper mill deal is imminent."
June 5, 08 Announcement of Henniker project
June 11, 2008 CHP project in Lexington MA
June 16, 2008 MBB- We have arranged financing and will embark on permitting and contracting over the next 12 months with construction to begin early inb 2009
MBB blog July 9 2008 "I have been up to my eyes in work on Berlin...typical as you get close to a closing."
MICHAEL BARTOSZEK IS AN EXPERT IN LEADING PEOPLE TO BELIEVE HE IS LEGITIMATE. Have you ever followed up on any of these announcements to see what people think of this guy and his company?
I have seen the closing arguments as well at this stage, but the rehearing request came from the IPPS. The following statements are paragraph headings from PUC staff that they provided today as their closing statement paragraph headings. I am trying to sift through a great deal of closing statements all due today that just came in, but I can tell you this; read these statements and judge for yourself.
Staff Closing Statement
"The PPA IS GROSSLY OVER-PRICED"
"THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE PPA ON RATES IS UNACCEPTABLE"
"PURCHASING ALL OF THE REC OUTPUT OF THE LAIDLAW FACILITY IS CONTRARY TO RSA 362-F:9,1"
"THE CUMULATIVE REDUCTION ACCOUNT DOES NOT ADD VALUE TO THE PPA."
"THE COSTS OF THE PPA OUTWEIGH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DENEFITS OF THE PPA."
"CHANGES TO THE PPA (psnh exhibit 9) FALL WELL SHORT OF ADDRESSING STAFF'S CONCERNS REGARDING THE HIGH COST OF THE PRODUCTS.
Well, In case you missed these dates, here they are. Will continue announcements made in 2009 and 2010 to make sure you have them all, but too busy right now.
Nov. 8, 2007 Hope to announce deal in Berlin done "as soon as the next couple of weeks." "Preparing the company to move to the OTCBB in 2008".
12/7 2007 Hired Steven Corso of Gruber and co to audit records to move to the OTCBB in 2008
1/24/2008 "We are making good progress on the closing of the Berlin transaction and I feel very confident about where things are currently." Have draft 2006-7 financial audits done will then turn attention to registration fro OTCBB- should be done within 6 months.
That's interesting. It seems strange that PSNH would be concerned enough to place that contingency on the entire agreement if it has no more legal authority to grant that than to grant PSNH a right to purchase a utility under current law. Sounds to me like they you feel they are trying to approach legislative change in more than one way. Don't you think it's strange for a company to be asking for things that defy current legal authority as part of a PPA unless they're really looking for escape clauses?
Great to at least hear some realistic opinion. I would agree that this is far from any certain outcome. The odds, I do believe, are against an outcome being unappealable, however. It will be interesting to see if the PUC leaves the option open for appeals, what unfolds and when. I would assume the appeals must be filed within 30 days of a decision.
lol. Thanks techs12 but my guess is Gmenfan wouldn't agree. Anyone here going to the last PUC hearing? Or to the Timberland Association meeting?
I couldn't agree more.
I would but you have me blocked. ;)
I did go yesterday, and I think what came out of that hearing that matters to everyone was from Mr. McCluskey. It was a very simple statement really. He stated, in defense of PSNH's statement that he wasn't recommending the state accept the PPA, that PUC staff was not suggesting that the PPA not be accepted, nor were they stating they are not in favor of A biomass facility in Berlin. Rather, they were in favor of a PPA based on the provisions that concern them that are NOT within the PPA, or that are part of the PPA that should not be part of the PPA or should be changed within the PPA in their opinion. From here this will go through politics and circumstance and you and I will sit down at the bar in the end and have a cold one, I hope, Discreet Suffolk. For all intensive purposes pertinent to getting the most buck for my city, I'm done my friend. Good luck to all of us. great looking car by the way.
After four years, sooner is better for everyone so that we can go on to the next chapter, which I don't think will be the end of the novel by any means.
two different times. Laidlaw in the morning and later in the afternoon after the other one is done. It may finish today.
Yes. But I think that it will be approved in such a fashion (with significant conditions) that it won't be acceptable to PSNH and/or Laidlaw but certainly an acceptable way out of the political nightmare for the PUC after these last three days of staff expert critism. Staff experts stated yesterday that they are not against approving the PPA, and also point out what significant conditions they would like to impose. The wait begins. GLTU.
continued.
What DD was that?
There was no pop because there was no reason for a pop.
http://www.puc.nh.gov/Regulatory/Docketbk/2010/10-195.htm
Tap, PUC Staff has provided you with all the updated material. Just go to staff entries from 1/26-2/1
Sure. Nothing at the meeting regarding the Laidlaw/PSNH PPA that I was privy to was to be kept confidential that I have outlined here or anywhere else. I have yet to see it posted on the PUC site, but that doesn't make it not available to the public if an intervenor wishes to disclose what is not of a confidential nature.
No but I am in 09-067. I am now on the mailing list of 10-160 (I guess??) because it is so important to 10-195, so I've been getting the results of that docket recently and always followed that docket before as it didn't make sense to me that PSNH was looking for significantly higher rates to impact an already high percentage of customer migration. Scary actually if you look at the migration and the potential rate hikes it can have on the residential user if such a PPA was accepted as most of the bigger players (power users) have already migrated away from PSNH making residential and commercial ratepayers the ones holding "the bad" Please don't go there if you're about to suggest we can all go somewhere else as that contributes to making your situation even worse.
Yes it was me.
1. PJPD Holdings purchased the plant, not Laidlaw
2. PJPD Holdings purchased the land, not Laidlaw
3. Laidlaw doesn't have a PPA
4. The NHSEC hasn't awarded a permit without serious contingencies that imho will never come to fruition
5. You're right... and what a mistake that has been for Berlin
6. There has been no permit granted
7. Never said that
8. That is still taking place
9. Actually that has happened, but you won't admit it, due to Gestamp
So BigBuckfl
You're mostly inaccurate as usual, but remember...
AS ALWAYS????????
GO LONG? ??????????
KEEP THE FAITH? ???????????
ENHANCE YOUR CALM? ???????????
STAY THE COURSE? ???????????
ah, ok, sorry for the delay. I remember this request now and just have been way too busy. On the first part of this paragraph, you are partially right. Of the Brookfield project 140 jobs are from outside the immediate area and 70 are local. Of the fed pen, 200 from outside 100-150 from this area. Brookfield's a go, and the fed pen skeleton crew have purchased homes and are on payroll with the warden arriving in less than ten days. The budget for the fed pen won't be passed until after 3/6/2011. Will it pass? probably but not definitely.
As to your question regarding the ppa price. PUC staff is siting unretracted competitive bids after the retraction of 8.5% and 12.5% lower, so the Concord bid of 18% lower isn't one of them. Because of these bids, the state is of the opinion that an RFP could have and should have gone out for competitive bids. Additionally, as Bartoszek has admitted that the material terms of a PPA were reached some two years prior to production of the PPA that are not much different than those we see today, the rush to closure of this docket at the last minute and no rfp long ago is being questioned. And, rightfully so.
As to your claim that price will be rewritten...I've crossed Mr. Long specifically on that question as price to the rate payer to date HASN'T been lowered and he has stated that the rate to rate payers has already been negotiated and that is the price that is offered. He and Laidlaw can always bend on this but so far have yet to impact the rate to the rate payer despite obvious signs this is going nowhere without substantial bending. It will not necessarily "be rewritten until it goes" if what PSNH really wants is to convince the PUC that they need to build a biomass plant themselves in the north country and it wouldn't surprise me if this is where this is headed. I can assure you that the PUC staff would need to do significant back paddling to agree to anything close to what Laidlaw PSNH want. Hope this helps. I can assure you there are plenty of "people" on this board I'd rather keep in the dark as to these advancements.