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.
There continues to be several ongoing discussions taking place about alternate uses for the site. One only need live here to know that. Additionally, the EPA has told the City that remediation of the mercury cell site can result in many uses, including residential if the City so desires. Keep in mind that is a superfund site. So I suspect a brownfield site can be remediated to accommodate several uses. Especially in light of the many examples (some worse IMO) statewide proving it can be done.
I suspect the reason no one is discussing plans publicly is to avoid giving Laidlaw the ability to blame others when they don’t succeed. It would appear interested parties may be steering clear of any potential for legal action from anyone. Can’t say I blame them. Who wants to see their money going for legal fees when it could be put to better use?
Well except in the case of Ellicottville if you’re a Laidlaw stock holder perhaps. ;)
Laidlaw claims to have the expertise to build and operate biomass plants. Yet they hired an attorney who specializes in the EFSEC process to help them file. How much is that costing you?
They requested that City officials work with them to address the issues that most concern them. City officials agree and take the appropriate action to assure they get proper representation at the EFSEC process also. What community would do (or has done) any less?
Now some are taking issue with the City hiring an attorney to help them through the EFSEC process.
The only reason I can come up with for anyone taking issue with the City getting EFSEC representation is that they realize Laidlaw will have to back up all the PR’s.
Should be interesting. I know I am looking forward to it. ;)
When it comes to addressing issues within communities that elect their own officials, County Commissioners have no power and little influence. That is what local elected officials are for. County Commissioners are primarily responsible for areas that are unincorporated. So when it comes to areas where the moose out number the people, they rule. ;)
In your link, where does it say, “to oppose the project.” The newspaper made that up.
“the city needs to hire a lawyer who specializes in those types of hearings to protect the rights of Berlin citizens”
You should be happy. You wanted City officials to work with Laidlaw to make sure they addressed the issues that concern them. Well apparently they plan too. Oh happy day! ;)
I suspect the reason no one has commented is because most folks in NH understand that County Commissioners wield about as much power as Laidlaw produces at all their biomass plants put together.
Furthermore, the article states, “contrary to the position of the Berlin city council which plans to file as an intervenor (sic) to oppose the project.”
Can anyone produce something showing where Mayor and Council say they plan to file as interveners to oppose the project?
Sorry Tom, but it appears you may have misinterpreted the meaning of Councilor Lafleur’s remark. After questioning him directly as to the meaning of that remark he assured me that it was intended as sarcasm. It’s nice to live here and get the real meaning right from the source rather then from a newspaper.
In fact it was State DRED Commissioner George Bald who told Mayor and Council the State would not force anything on Berlin they did not want.
Even Gallus and Mears have stated that Concord does not care either way.
Sorry to disappoint you again Tom.
Tom, where do you get the impression that local government is attempting to “deprive the company if it’s rights”? Based on Laidlaws history in Ellicottville NY, it’s safe to say that Laidlaw would be threatening a Lawsuit if that were the case. And since they are not, I believe your statement is false.
Surely you are not suggesting that the City not work with Laidlaw through the EFSEC process? Which is exactly what they are proposing to do as indicated by the action taken to fund legal council in order to assure the citizens get proper representation. I thought that is what Laidlaw wanted.
You really believe they will file the application this summer? That would be a surprise IMO.
Tisk tisk Tom. This is a Laidlaw forum. Regardless of what you believe about CP, the fact is, it is Laidlaw who continues to stagnate. It appears that Laidlaw’s inability to make progress is having an effect on some of the longs who appear to be running out of patience. Can’t say I blame them though.
Laidlaw certainly has an uphill battle ahead of them. Especially given that as interveners in the EFSEC process there is little doubt the State and City will require them to provide facts to support all the PR’s released in the last couple years.
I see things are going south again. I suspect much of that is the result of reverstaxman and others patience running out due to the lack of progress and the prospect of a challenging EFSEC process. Can’t say I blame them. Like Tom says, you have to have patience. Apparently for some, there is a limit to how long you can keep the faith that LLEG will ever be more then a pinky.
I just find it interesting that supposedly someone (no one can confirm who it is) thinks enough of the project to put up 100 million, yet they won’t finance what it will take to get it there. Yeah, I guess I missed that class.
Ok, thank you for confirming that what Matt said was correct. Laidlaw does not have their financing to get the application done and therefore will not be eligible to get the supposed 100 million. Got it. You have been a big help.
Well Sage, Matt says “Through talks with the CEO, he is working on getting a capital firm to finance til then.” - Posted by: MBorowski
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=37472595
Sounds to me like LLEG doesn’t have all their financing in place. Unless you consider getting money from investors financing.
And since you consider my comments of questionable worth, I don’t suspect you will waste anymore time responding.
So Laidlaw does not get the 100 million for construction if they cannot file? And they cannot file if they cannot get funding to file? And they cannot get funding to file unless the get money from shareholders. And they lose shareholders the longer this this takes. It just seems that whoever is putting up the 100 million would be willing to help with the funding to file. But that is not the case.
So the 100 million financing is contingent on getting funding to file the application?
Lucky for you I understand he is back working as Senior Compliance Examiner for the FDIC. I’m guessing you have to be pretty sharp with numbers for that job.
You talking about this guy? The City Councilor?
Ronald P. Goudreau
Senior Vice President, Northway Bank
Northway Financial, Inc.
Berlin , NH
Sector: FINANCIAL / Regional - Northeast Banks
Officer since January 2003
53 Years Old
Ronald P. Goudreau has served as Senior Vice President and Operations Officer of the Bank since 2003. He is responsible for both deposit and loan operations. Prior to joining the Bank, he served as Senior Compliance Examiner of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from 1992 to 2003.
http://people.forbes.com/profile/ronald-p-goudreau/58569
“Laidlaw has the superior business model”
The SEC process will determine if they do. It will be interesting to see who steps forward as their supposed financing.
“Therefore, PSNH chose to work with Laidlaw and not to work with CP... All of which is in the best interests of the end user...”
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.
MR. RODIER: Okay. I want to -- I just want to make sure that last answer was recorded?"
“CP's attempts to discredit Laidlaw in coordination with the small group of vocal opponents through a campaign of misinformation, false statements, and innuendo is failing miserably...”
So if you have nothing to fear, why bother taking time to respond since as you put it “opponents are failing miserably”? Unless of course you are worried.
“(in spite of the efforts of the current Mayor and certain City Council members to sabotage Laidlaw's legal rights to do business on the private property zoned for industrial use on which the project will be completed)...”
What proof do you have this is happening? Unless you are referring to them preparing for the SEC process. Which just goes to prove Laidlaw is concerned about interveners at the SEC process. Not that it will ever get that far IMO. :)
Cheers!
To bad for Laidlaw that PSNH has to show a price model that takes the end user into account. (WHOOPS!)
Cheers! :)
“PSNH does business the same way any other company does business. They can buy/sell to whoever they wish.”
The hole in your argument has a name, NH PUC. They are charged with protecting the end user.
Cheers! ;)
Matthew, You neglected to provide a link to your sources. Allow me.
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2009/4/22B.pdf
Cheers! :)
To the editor: In order to gain additional insight into their efforts, I attended Laidlaw Energy Group’s recent presentation to the UNH Energy Club and found it interesting and enlightening on several fronts. I was especially impressed with the candor of the presenters in speaking to the university audience. Laidlaw board member Charlie Bass began by making it clear that while some have said that at 66 MW’s the Laidlaw project is too large for the region to support, that wasn’t necessarily true. He pointed out that the price of fuel and electricity is the key factor in this business. He went on to say that if/when somebody can pay more for the chips and it causes somebody else to go out of business, well, that’s the way that business works. Vice President Lou Bravakis then explained that the region was able to provide 3.5 million tons of biomass. Of that, 3 million tons were already being used, mostly by pulp mills, but that those businesses were teetering and their failure would make available the 700,000 to 750,000 tons of biomass the Laidlaw project would call for. Putting these statements together, it is clear that the Laidlaw business plan is based on the collapse of other biomass users, such as the pulp mills and existing biomass power plants. Their view apparently is that if Laidlaw’s ability to pay more for the chips causes those closures, that’s just a part of business. Perhaps the most interesting presentation, however, was provided by a Laidlaw contractor, Mr. Ray Racine, an engineer with Waldron Engineering. Mr. Racine pro-vided a very detailed analysis of the energy density of wood chip biomass and used this to explain that due to this and other factors, the size of a biomass power plant becomes a significant issue. First of all, he explained that biomass power plants usually have a maximum size of 50 MW’s because that’s the size that can be supplied by harvesting within a 50 miles radius of the plant. Citing his energy density to volume ratios he explained that 50 miles is the maximum distance from which you can economically harvest biomass. Again using the energy-volume ratios he explained that at 50 MW a biomass power plant would require 70 truckloads of chips a day, seven days a week. The concern being that for any-thing larger than 50MW, the volume of truck traffic could become a significant issue. Finally, Mr. Racine pro-vided the analysis to show that bringing in wood chips by rail was not economically viable. Due to the relative low energy density to volume ratio, it would take almost 6 train cars to provide the energy of 1 car carrying coal. He said that adding to the cost of extra cars, the cost to load and unload those cars would make the overall costs so high that you will never see rail used to transport wood chips. We at Clean Power Development agree com-pletely with the analysis of Mr. Racine. That is why the Clean Power project in Berlin was reduced from 45 MW to 29 MW to conform to available biomass. We adamantly believe that size does matter and an unreasonably sized plant potentially jeopardizes not only the environment and the community, but also other businesses in the region by creating an excessive competition over a limited resource. Bill Gabler Project Manager Clean Power Development Concord
Clean Power files complaint against PSNH
BY BARBARA TETREAULT THE BERLIN DAILY SUN
Charging Public Service of N.H. has repeatedly refused to negotiate an agreement to purchase its power, Clean Power Development has filed a formal complaint against the utility with the state Public Utilities Commission. Public Service has until April 28, to fi le an answer to Clean Power’s complaint. Clean Power is seeking to build a 22 to 29 megawatt biomass plant near Berlin’s wastewater treatment plant. The Concord-based company has the support of the city council, which has sold Clean Power an option to purchase the 11-acre site. The complaint alleges Clean Power has approached PSNH numerous times since 2006 to negotiate an agreement to sell PSNH the power that would be produced at its Berlin plant. Clean Power said PSNH has rebuffed its efforts to negotiate such an agreement. The company said a power purchase agreement is a prerequisite to moving forward with financing and constructing the facility. At the same time, the complaint charges Laidlaw Berlin Biopower and PSNH announced last September that they have reached agreement on the terms of a 20-year power purchase agreement for Laidlaw’s proposed Berlin project. The complaint notes a PSNH official testified before the PUC in February that the utility has an open door policy on renewable energy developers and would consider all proposals on their merits. That testimony was followed with a written memorandum that PSNH treats all renewable energy developers “evenly and fairly”. The complaint alleges last month a senior PSNH official told Clean Power the utility would never buy power from Clean Power because its president, Mel Liston, had testified against PSNH in other venues. Liston identified the official as Donna Gamache. Liston said he is a former PSNH employee with over 36 years in the steam and power industry. As president of Pinetree Power, he constructed biomass facilities in Bethlehem and Tamworth. Liston said he has disagreed with his former employer on occasion. “I testified against them in the past and I probably will in the future,” he said, in a phone interview. Included with the complaint was a copy of the letter Mayor David Bertrand sent to PSNH, asking why the two biomass developers were being treated differently. PSNH spokesman Martin Murrray said the utility could not comment on the complaint because it is still pending. But in an April 8, letter to Bertrand, PSNH Assistant General Counsel Robert Bersak said PSNH is not required to agree to a long term power contract with any electric generator or supplier. He said under the state’s electric restructuring law passed a few years ago, the utility operates an ‘open access’ retail electric system where any retail customer is free to chose their own electric supplier. As a result, he wrote PSNH’s need to purchase power from others is limited and it is cautious about making voluntary long-term agreements. Bersak wrote that Clean Power could sell its output directly to the New England wholesale market or could negotiate a bilateral agreement with any one of hundreds of electric utilities, municipal electric departments, and cooperatives through-out New England. Liston said Clean Power is talking to other potential buyers. He said he is concerned PSNH’s agreement with Laid-law may include a fuel adjustment clause that would increase the rate Laidlaw gets for its power if biomass prices go up. He said that would give Laidlaw an advantage over every other biomass or wood pellet plant competing for low grade wood in the northern sector of the state and even abutting states.
Spence, working out a deal to make it look like they own the mill site when they really don’t was the easy part. It is obvious Laidlaw is worried about the SEC process or they would not be so engaged in trying to get more locals to drink the kool aide. Given the recent actions by Roth in the case of Nobel, I will be very surprised to see Laidlaw ever file an application. And if they were to file, well let’s just say that’s when things would get real interesting. ;)
There you go again. Governor Lynch did not say he is supportive of all renewable projects. So your assumption that he is supportive of Laidlaw is purely speculative.
Word is there is a major developer who is waiting in the wings for Laidlaw to go away so they can step in and create real opportunity and real jobs on the mill site. And since Laidlaw does not own the site, I suspect the real property owners have been contacted.
No I do not see the Governors stance on renewable energy as being supportive of Laidlaw. But then I have managed to stay away from the kool-aide also.
My point is Governor Lynch does not specifically say he supports Laidlaw as Matthew would have readers believe. To imply that he does is simply conjecture. And just because he says he is in favor of biomass does not mean he has the power or desire to fast track any project. Nor would he in Laidlaw’s case given the known opposition.
Can you produce one press release that says the State of New Hampshire supports the Laidlaw project?
Yes read the entire thing because nowhere does it say that Governor Lynch supports Laidlaw.
Sorry to disappoint you again Tom, but it has been apparent to me for some time now that your complete lack of understanding with regard to the SEC process is leading you to false conclusions again. Just a suggestion, but perhaps instead of spending your time trying to convince yourself and others that you comprehend the process, you may want to do some reading to learn exactly how the process works. I have attached a link that you may want to look at to learn more about the SEC process. http://www.nhsec.nh.gov No need to thank me. I get great satisfaction helping the less knowledgeable.
Since Laidlaw will never file an application with the SEC IMO, unfortunately you will not get to see how the process works in this instance. But if they were legitimate I believe you would have seen the committee charged with overseeing the process being highly critical of Laidlaw’s lack of experience, lack of plans, lack of qualified wood study, lack of community support, lack of financing, trail of millions in unpaid bills, and voracious appetite for frivolous litigation which has born no fruit. Not to mention queue issues, transmission issues, pollution issues, noise issues, traffic issues and the many other issues that would impact the host community. And speaking of the host community, they get a seat at the table as an intervener in the process. Which explains the motivation behind Laidlaws recent propaganda push to gain local support. That’s because at the end of the day Tom, it IS about the facts. Not hope and wishful thinking as seems to be the investment strategy of many here.
But I am perfectly content to just wait for things to unfold so that you can see for yourself what many have been trying to tell you for a long time now; that Laidlaw is far from possessing the means by which to build, own or operate a biomass facility.
You can be as patient as you like, but that won’t change the facts. Which will eventually support everything I state above.
And I’m having a hard time trying to understand why Laidlaw and their flock are so distressed about getting the good Mayor and Council on board (aka drinking the kool-aide) when it is continually repeated that it does not matter because it is in the hands of the State FSEC process. Apparently Laidlaw is concerned about having a challenging voice at the table. Which is evidenced by the recent frantic and desperate push to gain local support. And well they should be concerned IMO.
You are aware that Mr. Cusson lost his bid to be reelected in the last election because of his stance in favor of biomass on the mill site?
So you have the blind leading the blind on that one.
It's neat how you can buy shares, then sell them and watch the line go up and down. weeeeeeeeeeeeee ;)
Well then you might want to consult with MB’s attorney. Because MB’s own attorney said it was a minimum 9 month process.
Minimum 9 months after submitted before a decision can be made on the application.
http://www.nh.gov/oep/programs/energy/documents/Ch204.pdf
Agreed. Are you saying this is the development you have been so patiently waiting for the last 2 plus years? Just so there is no confusion on what I am patiently waiting for. It will be the day Berlin citizens can move past the distraction that Laidlaw has become to the serious business of planning a future without biomass on the mill site. I will try to refrain from coming here to gloat once that inevitably happens. Wish me luck.
By the way, are you aware that the "agreement" between Laidlaw and PSNH has not been approved by the PUC?
“Berlin permitting underway”
Any word on when the application will be ready to submit to the State Site Evaluation Committee? That is when the permitting will be “underway”.
Who is "they"?
Zoning board approves Clean Power special exceptions
BERLIN — The zoning board Wednesday night granted Clean Power Development’s request for three special exceptions for its proposed biomass plant. The board ruled it did not have the authority to grant a fourth requested special exception. While the board approved the special exceptions, Chair Harold Bigelow said he had serious concerns that the plant will increase truck traffic in the city’s downtown and abutting residential areas. “We have to live with that,” he said. Clean Power sought special exceptions for the height of its fence and buildings, fewer than required parking spaces, and as a renewable energy facility. The Concord based company is proposing to build a 22-27 megawatt biomass plant near the city’s wastewater treatment plant which is zoned industrial-business. The board unanimously granted special exceptions for the height of the fence and buildings. The company is proposing a ten foot high fence around the biomass plant. The zoning ordinance allows a maximum of six feet. The stack on the plant will be 173 and the silos 100 feet high - the zone sets a building height of 35 feet. Clean Power sought a special exception to get by with 19 parking spaces instead of the 43 required by the square footage of the plant. Project Manager Bill Gabler explained that the maximum number of people work- ing at one time would be 15 during the day shift. Board member Dana Hoyt pointed out the ordinance does not allow for a special exception to the parking space requirement. Zoning officer Joseph Martin suggested the issue be turned over to the planning board to handle under the site plan review process. The board agreed. Clean Power also requested a special exception under the city’s renewable energy facilities ordinance. Gabler said the existing transmission line can handle the added power from the plant. He said Clean Power is researching three options for connecting to the grid. The board had requested a peer review of Clean Power’s wood study by University of New Hampshire Extension Professor and Forest Industry Specialist Sarah Smith. Smith found the study, done last spring by Innovative Natural Resources Solution LLC, used the most relevant data available and was thorough. The study estimated there is enough biomass fuel available in Coos County at a reasonable price to supply a 30-megawatt biomass plant. The board voted 4-1 to approve the special exception for the renewable energy facility. Bigelow voted against granting the special exception. He said he believes wood trucks traveling to and from the plant will clog up the downtown. Board member Richard Tremaine said the biomass plant will generate far less truck traffic than the pulp mill. Gabler said the biomass plant will use about a quarter of the wood that the pulp mill consumed. He said truck routing is within the city’s domain. City Planner Pamela Laflamme said the city has already redrawn its truck route to keep such traffic out of the downtown as much as possible.
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2009/3/13B.pdf
“rejected a bill to fund”
Sorry not my theory. It was the leaders in Concord who voted not to fund it. That in itself speaks volumes. But I do hope that won’t discourage you. I am looking forward to hearing your logic as things progress.
Oh and by the way, the state has made it very clear to Mayor and Council that they won’t force any business they don’t want down their throat.
"Commissioner Bald established that communities tell the State what they want and what they don't want."
http://berlinnh.gov/Pages/BerlinNH_CouncilMinutes/I0237AFEF
Any idea when Laidlaw plans to file their application with FSEC?
"I wonder if a company (such a Laidlaw) who received a grant of a million bucks in the past and never opened the facility after receiving the grant, would still be eligible for grants through this program. Seems akin to the Feds bailing out the car industry and then having them come back to say they're going bankrupt."
Senate rejects Coos transmission bill
CONCORD — The state Senate has rejected a bill to fund renewable energy projects in northern New Hampshire. The bill would have set aside $155 million over the next 11 years to the state Public Utilities Commission for projects in the North Country,as well as other improvements to the region’s electrical transmission system. Most of the funding would have come from existing federal grant programs for renewable power. Commission rate payers would have kicked in about $39 million during that period, and the rest would have come from developers and a few smaller bonds. The bill was introduced by state Senator John Gallus, (B-Berlin) and cosponsored by Reps. Bill Remick, (R-Lancaster), Larry Rappaport, (RColebrook), and Robert Theberge, (D-Berlin). The transmission lines in Coos County can only accommodate an additional 100 megawatts of generation without a major upgrade costing up to $155 million. There are renewable energy projects totaling over 400 megawatts of generation in the ISO-N.E. queue for Coos County. The Energy, Environment, and Economic Development Committee voted 5-0 to send the bill out with an inexpedient to legislate recommendation. (Associated Press and staff
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2009/3/12B.pdf
Guess there is not such big support in Concord after all.
First ready, first to connect. Thank You for pointing that out. Yes, that does work out well for Clean Power. Especially given that Laidlaw has yet to start the application process with the State. Which no one will say when that may even begin.
“The company (Clean Power) hopes to have all its necessary local and state permits in hand to allow it to break ground on the plant this spring with a target date of December 2010 to be in operation.”
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2009/3/10B.pdf