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.
r u mike johnnyray?
it happens like clockwork after the imposter shows concern?
Keep buying Mike. Someone needs to set the perception that this isn't tanking.
"CPD caved and threw in the towel admitting defeat by LLEG"
There is a commercial involving cavemen. Are you one of them? You see, only a cavemen wouldn't know at this point based on testimony before the PUC, that Gestamp/CPD made an announcement that they are contemplating a partnership with Laidlaw Berlin Biopower, which based on your analysis would practically make you and I "bruthas from anutha" now wouldn't it? Or Gestamp/CPD upon failure of the PPA and ahead of Laidlaw on queue continues on with their project.
My agenda is to provide factual data and opinion on this board. I understand as much as the (apparent) "imposter" Mike that this board is viewed regularly by the "real john does" hidden behind creative aliases and lurking behind absent comments.
You can do a lot better than that King Oil you ol softy, I've already covered that one with you. Next?
Well BigBucksFl, why don't you provide one or all of those half truths or lies as you call them for us to dissect one at a time. Thanks.
CTTC, I really hope you're right for your sake and some other posters. I think, however, that you really need to keep your fingers crossed tightly. There's a few things happening right now that just don't add up.
That's pretty humorous. Any attempted fast track simply opens an easier door to appeal. Think of what you're saying. The PUC doesn't want this to end in appeal. Neither does PSNH or Laidlaw. Better to let the intervenors, OCA and staff heard in entirety. I note the PUC calendar is quite empty going into the second week of Feb. No reason why the hearings can't be all resolved by the end of Feb.
lol.
"I intend to continue the forestry operations consistent with prior practices."
which has been to support the paper mills from collapsing which is Good News for the mills but not necessarily for you know who. There is good reason for this stock to be tanking at the moment. Barty needs to save the day and "make a rise" in a hurry. He should have time before day's end to create a perceived rally don't you think?
Bogged Down. PUC has set aside Feb1 and Feb8 as next two dates for hearings.
Careful...If this weren't stricken, chances are the demand for discovery through witnesses as to the validity of his testimony would have dragged this out into purplemountain two month territory. These "cry babies" as you call them potentially help your cause. Even stricken all have heard what Sancousy has to say.
I agree with you. Also, the last thing Mike would want to do is be present. His attorney has been there. Having Laidlaw as the missing link to this hearing is convenient for both PSNH and Laidlaw. Having Concord Steam as a missing link now also throws out the testimony that Concord Steam came up with a PPA 18% below the cost of the Laidlaw PPA without having any infrastructure in place as Concord steam's PPA involves a greenfield project.
When I cross examined Gary Long as to whether the savings due to infrastructure or the 45-70 million was taken into consideration to bring down the rate within the PPA he conveniently stated that my question was for the developer (Laidlaw Berlin Biopower), not PSNH. Gee...Laidlaw isn't around to ask that question, so I guess I'll have to ask staff and the consumer advocate experts their opinion to get their take on it when it comes time to cross them.
Guaranteed this hearing goes into February. We are only at the first round of cross examination with three more experts to cross, and significantly more due process after that. Then we'll undoubtedly have the parade of merrymen (politicians, Barry and Joe) spouting off the "woe is Berlin", "jobs, jobs, jobs mantra. Fortunately, the PUC, intervenors, and PSNH are being educated ahead of time that Berlin has an annual payroll coming to the city this summer with the federal prison of some 40 million dollars annually of which statistics nationwide show at least 90% stays in the community. The federal prison is already starting hiring. Additionally, beginning Feb. 8 the influx for the Noble wind/Brookfield project begins with an influx of 200 workers substantially using Berlin for a base. I have my hands full trying to line up 140 units for these guys and need help. This project is larger than Laidlaw and will produce significant local jobs.
Now what we need to see happen is for the PUC to be convinced that Berlin isn't on the brink of disaster without Laidlaw and that a smaller biomass plant is really in the best interests of everyone involved including our forest. This is truly a PPA from hell. It's interesting to note that while cross examining Gary Long he denied any knowledge of liquidated harvesting heavily occurring in Berlin, that sweeping legislative changes in Maine as to liquidation harvesting forced one of the worst offenders (Dillon) to move his operations to northern NH where he among others have literally raped most of any immediate biomass significance of thousands of acres in close proximity to Berlin and northward stretching for miles. (It's great to have a retired logger friend as witness to this devastation who isn't prejudiced by employment and is beside himself as to liquidation practices that have replaced responsible forestry.)
I think a good move if need be would be to appeal a favorable ruling on the PPA as the Laidlaw project's significance will pale by the comparison of the impact of these other immediate influxes this spring and summer and people wont be so eager to sell themselves short in Berlin. Then we can bring in the smaller plant on the outskirts of town to help with the tax base, then redefine the middle of the city by eliminating the stack to REALLY enhance our tax base rather than selling the city short on a bad move in the city center. This whole hearing process was way too rushed based on the fact that Laidlaw and PSNH essentially did their number crunching three years ago and there is significant reason to appeal. These guys calculated that a rush job at the last moment would be the best way to get a touch down and I'm beginning to think and talk about a rate payer appeal process just in case this PPA passes as unreasonably written.
Discreet, Most do not consider me negative at this point but rather realistic. The company that appears to be taking LLEG's place is a powerhouse of biomass people, I just don't know if there is anything left other than a monetary settlement to LLEG that seems to be declining in an effort to come to terms acceptable to the PUC and keep this alive. PSNH has made it abundantly clear that any bending being done is being done by Laidlaw and at Laidlaw's expense not PSNH. I have to assume that is an accurate statement by PSNH.
By rights there should be a period of discovery for experts to examine the impact of these changes. This has, at a minimum, pushed this out potentially into next week as the PUC has reserved both tomorrow and Tuesday for continued hearings. The IPPS cross examination of PSNH took well over four hours yesterday.
You have a very good point. In fact the IPPS focused on that yesterday and compared the numbers calculated in 08 to today's rates on the PPA and their similarities to lay the ground work for there being no "rush" for an expedited hearing had this process of examining the PPA been available sooner. They are also objecting to the changes that have been made to the PPA this late in the game should leave room to a period of discovery and testimony from experts as to the impact these changes can make. It was really quite effective how the IPP attorney had PSNH show through reading data how similar the numbers in the PPA are to those provided in the 2008 offer sheet. This attorney also made Gary Long admit that back in 08 when Laidlaw announced its agreement on the material terms of the PPA that there was no agreement either verbally or in writing and that PSNH could have backed out of the numbers at any time.This, I'm sure, will impact the credibility of the Laidlaw recent announcement of a synergistic company colocating to the Berlin site, as it was also disclosed that Laidlaw has made some 40 announcements in the past of this generic nature most of which have failed to come to fruition.
A technical session will begin the day over what of Sancousy's testimony will be stricken, followed by OCA and staff questining the PSNH panel. This is just cross examining PSNH's panel. I suspect that will take all of today. That will leave significantly more cross examination of OCA, staff and City experts and certainly will prolong the hearing significantly most likely into next week. This week Wed. has been reserved for this hearing as well as Tuesday next week so far.
Gary Long didn't seem to want to reveal straight answers to questions. The attorney for the IPPS was able to place a few holes in PSNH testimony. Too much to go into, but suffice it to say, despite Gary Long's less that perfect appearance, the announcement by Rodier that Gestamp, who according to his announcement wholly owns CPD now, are contemplating a partnership with NewCo, was music to my ears but hardly surprising based on rumors. To answer CTTC, I'm of the opinion that the deal is "contemplated" rather than "done" as it is largely dependent on an acceptably revised PPA failing which I'm quite certain you'll see the CPD project go forward in the alternative. Obviously still my preferred project due to location and sustainability of the northern forest. But this new partnership brings to the table a "potentially" significant set of ethical standards, more protection and history of already accomplished north country biomass operations to the mix that were lacking before. Additionally Laidlaw has proposed significant changes to the PPA, some of which are important to the rate payer and to all intervenors. This partnership is being announced as "contemplated", and is also stating that this partnership, if it is consummated, is going beyond Berlin though it is being placed on the record as a partnership between NewCo and Gestamp/CPD rather than LLEG. I don't get the impression from hearing the statement that LLEG is involved but one never knows.
Changes to the PPA as proposed by Laidlaw are as follows:
1.Capacity Cap- the PPA will be capped at annual MW level of 67.5 MW net or 75 MW gross (consistent with the design and efficiency of the existing infrastructure and filed ISO-NE documentation).
2.Interest on cumulative reduction account: -the account will accumulate interest; per annum rate of interest equal to the prime lending rate plus two percent(consistent with "Interest Rate"definition in PPA).
3.Excess Recs- term: For each calendar year during the Term of this Agreement, PSNH will identify the amount of any NH Class 1 Recs purchased and released in such calendar year) that cause PSNH to exceed the sum of (i) all NH Class I RECs obtained by PSNH from other sources (or released from banking) is such year, plus (ii) the minimum requirement of PSNH to obtain and retire NH Class 1 RECs pursuant to RSA 362-F (or any successor requirement) applicable to such calendar year (Excess NH Class 1 RECS") For each Excess NH Class 1 REC, PSNH will determine the difference between (i) the price it paid Seller for such Excess NH Class 1 REC, and (ii) any value realized by PSNH through the resale of other disposition of such Excess Class 1 REC (the "Net Value"). The Net Value, positive or negative, will be added to the continuous calculation of the Cumulative Reduction provided for in Section 6.1.3(a) above. PSNH will provide documentation reasonably necessary to verify such calculations.
4.REC's Beyond 2025: Same Provision as Excess RECS, except post 2025, for each calendar year after 2025, PSNH will identify the amount of any NH Class 1 RECS purchased from Seller (either in that calendar year or purchased in earlier years and banked, and released in such calendar year) that cause PSNH to exceed the sum of (i) the teen applicable RPS Class 1 REC requirement; (ii) any value realized by PSNH through the resale of disposition of such Post 2025 RECS; or (iii) the actual amount paid pursuant to the PPA, whichever is less. The Post 2025 Net Value, positive or negative, will be added to the continuous calculation of the Cumulative Reduction provided for in Section 6.1.3(a). PSNH will provide documentation reasonably necessary to verify such calculations.
5. Base Price Energy: the "Base Price" shall be lowered from $83 to $75.80; a reduction of 9.5% reduction. Related change: $34/ton price will be lowered to $30/ton; a reduction of 13.3% reduction.
6. Wood Price Factor: the established 1.8 tons/MWh will be lowered to 1.6 tons/MWh; a reduction of 12.5 % reduction.
Just as a note, Coming out of the first day I'm getting the impression that these changes are not enough to satisfy the intervenors. The cumulative reduction in particular will be a bone of contention all the way to the end. And still a very serious threat is a legal challenge being made by the IPPS as to the PUC's ability to go beyond 2025 on the PPA. I strongly believe that some sort of deal be required to rectify this issue with the IPPS or this will be appealed assuming they have the staying power. They certainly seem to be setting up the battlefield for an appeal. Also, most intervenors do not want wood price tied to Schiller as it is construed as potentially self serving, and this hasn't been changed in PPA.
Gestamp/Clean Power and NewCo/Laidlaw Berlin Biopower contemplating partnership. No Surprise.Clean Power and Concord Steam dropping their intervenor status. No surprise. An interesting day. I thought Gary Long stumbled quite a bit, was surprised to see Sancousy testimony largely stricken. Looks like this is headed into next week potentially.
Where have you guys been? This news about Concord Steam's request to drop out is old news (three days old ;) ) Some here have been speculating for well over a month that there is no longer any opposition between CPD and Laidlaw. Since Concord Steam's Peter Bloomfield is part of CPD, Gestamp is part of CPD, and the strong rumor around the state now is that Gestamp has joined forces with NewCo/Laidlaw Berlin Biopower, the logical answer is Concord Steam may have a significant conflict as an intervenor in opposition of the project perhaps? I wonder if CPD/Gestamp is headed towards a controlling interest? Wouldn't that be a SHOCKER? Gotta pack the donuts and head out. Pump that stock today boys. Spread the word Discreet, but give me you email address so that your news can be more current. You've got a major brush fire to put out in this PPA before all the ducks are in order. It may be difficult to attract the lemmings just yet.
Interference? = net gain in jobs by keeping ppa from hell from eliminating already operating facilities. It's quite simple really; significantly more direct and indirect jobs already in place among operating facilities. Appreciate the compliment but I certainly don't think a real estate broker will change the course of this, massive change in the PPA will, however.
Laidlaw's impact on Berlin is just one of my hobbies. I spend much more time on my passion of renovating investment properties and working on my houseboat project, otherwise I would have posted more yesterday. I need to find some solar panels for the roof. Electricity is getting way too expensive due to "you know who."
"That seems perfectly understandable considering myself and my team have only managed in the past couple of years to successfully develop one of the largest commercial biomass projects in the world and negotiate and execute a $1.5 billion PPA"
To Mike's credit, he has developed a proposed project and a proposed PPA, but he hasn't developed "one of the largest commercial biomass projects in the world" any more than one of his "long investors" can say they've developed any profit from holding and counting their chickens on a piece of paper before they hatch. The New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission's staff has stated "NO" as it stands. Hopefully Mike and his team can significantly change the PPA in order to make the statement above accurate.
It is also factually contradictory that Mike would post here yet on his personal blog he states that he does not associate with anyone on this blog, nor comment on this blog. I'm not sold on the idea this poster is the company's CEO as it is factually and grammatically an inaccurate post not meeting the expectations one would anticipate coming from a CEO working on a 1.5 billion PPA. I think whomever is attempting to impersonate the "real Mike Bartoszek" seems to be bringing into question Mike's competence. Whomever this individual is might do well to change their alias.
ah yes, but your democratic governor has been around the block a few times and won't deregulate the snake that's for sure. He may have lunch with Gary but he isn't that foolish.
MY WORD REVERSE, YOU'VE REVERSED DIRECTION. ARE YOU OK? NO KOOL AID INFLUENCE I HOPE?
An approval without major change would likely lead to an appeal by any number of those opposed to the project, a rejection may also lead to an appeal by PSNH.
Logically, BMBBLLEG it just can't happen at this stage without a huge shift in risk from the rate payer to Laidlaw. Certainly that huge change can still happen. You've seen by now or should have seen that staff for the PUC has stated the parties are way too far apart and that is why the settlement stage has made its way to a hearing. If we were talking about a little tweaking Mr. Berlin you would have seen a settlement, but the tweaking stage is over my friend, so let it go, and understand that serious changes are in store or this baby's going down for the count, count on it. ;)
Not a majority state wide, just Berlin. This is not a Berlin ruling; it's a state ruling. Your north country politicians (who maneuver more like the mob behind closed doors) will learn that the PUC will impatiently wait for them to vent their "woe is Berlin" charade at the beginning of the hearing, and will be eager to get on with the hearing. From there major changes must occur to the PPA or it will be rejected or appealed using simple logic and to avoid obvious political corruption. Grab your popcorn and watch it happen.
Not at the power price remotely close to this PPA, sorry. This is headed towards a rejection unless your team LLEG/PSNH bends significantly. If they do great, if not this baby aint going forward without an appeal, period.
"The PPA contains a mechanism to ensure that rate payers do not pay above market prices for energy."
That's pretty funny, and not accurate. Mike and PSNH have attempted to make it seem as though rate payers won't pay above market, however you and I would pay higher rates for 20 years, then PSNH gets to shave off what we pay from the price on what they purchase the infrastructure for. We then assume that because PSNH purchases the infrastructure for a song, the song is passed along to rate payers alive and well at that time. It's really quite a gimmick rather than THE rate payer insurance package its being touted as.
Rather humorous isn't it. Meanwhile, "you know who" is getting a grand share of the customers at Freedom Energy. Is he your old boss? Priceless how this attorney maneuvers around snakes in the grass to come out on top of it all simply by offering realistic rates. Ever seen him in court? He places a hush on the room. I'm sure PSNH is glad he's currently on the side line for CPD. Too bad for them he's still involved on dockets 160 and 067. I wonder how much money he's cost PSNH over the years.
I truly believe that PSNH attempts to change law to shift the burden of expenses onto the ratepayer by continuously adding fees and rallying to change law in their favor and against the best interest of the rate payer. They are consistently offering new tragedies to screw the rate payer under the guise of "fuel adjustment clauses", "buy down agreements", and the now infamous attempt at the "creation of a non-bypassable charge" They are treading water in a sea of problems and have driven themselves into a messy bankruptcy situation by foolishly taking such risks in the past. No power company should do things causing their customers to leave, yet PSNH has established quite the track record in customer migration. I didn't answer your question initially as I honestly believe there is no valid reason for PSNH to lay all the risk on the ratepayer but they have attempted to do so and won't get away with it on this PPA.
Well let's see. PSNH's cost is already too high which is causing customers to leave in droves (30%) before the PPA adds to the high cost. Post PPA from hell, the cost reaches soaring heights, customer migration gets significantly worse. Could never happen, could it? wink wink.
Ah, So you think they'll train a 55 year old papermaker accustomed to $48K per year to run a forklift, or powerjack rather than hire a 30 year old at $28K? Excuse me for not sounding supportive of the idea, but isn't management going to be looking to keep their costs as low as possible, or is this why the infrastructure isn't even showing up as a benefit to the ratepayer?
Now this is getting really interesting. Docket 10-160 being pulled into the limelight on customer migration. Is it coming across that the PUC is setting up a scenerio that massive above market cost by Laidlaw and customer migration are just what the doctor didn't order???? This is reeeeaaaally headed in the proper direction.
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
CHAIRMAN
Tel. (603) 271-2431
Thomas B. Getz
FAX (603) 271-3878
COMMISSIONERS
Clifton C. Below
TDD Access: Relay NH
Amy L. Ignatius
1-800-735-2964
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND SECRETARY Debra A. Howland
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 21 S. Fruit Street, Suite 10
Website: www.puc.nh.gov
Concord, N.H. 03301-2429
January 21,2011
Re: DE 10-160, Public Service Company of New Hampshire Investigation into Effects of Customer Migration Briefs
To the Parties:
The Commission opened the above-captioned docket to investigate the effects of customer migration from Public Service Company of New Hampshire's (PSNH) default energy service to competitive supply. Specifically, many ofPSNH's large commercial and industrial customers have switched to competitive supply, resulting in PSNH's energy service costs being recovered from a smaller customer base, primarily residential and small commercial customers. At the close of the December 1, 2010 hearing in this matter, the Commission noted that the parties had agreed to file briefs to address the legal issues related to the various alternatives proposed in this docket. Rather than providing oral closing statements, the Commission stated that it would allow the parties to provide closing statements in those briefs and that it would issue a secretarial letter with further direction on issues to be addressed in the briefs.
The Commission has identified several issues to be addressed in legal briefs. In general, parties should address issues found in RSA 369-B and RSA 374-F pertaining to default service, generation ownership by PSNH and stranded costs. For example, RSA 369-B:3, IV(b)(l)(A) contains the requirement that until the sale ofPSNH's fossil and hydro generation assets PSNH shall provide all default service from its generation assets and supplemental power purchases, if necessary. Also, RSA 374-F:3, XII governs the recovery of stranded costs under electric utility restructuring. Stranded costs are defined at RSA 374-F:2, IV. Pursuant to RSA 374-F:3, XII (d), entry and exit fees are not preferred recovery mechanisms.
Some parties have proposed a "stay-out" provision to be imposed on customers who migrate to competitive supply, which would result in those customers paying more for default service if they return to PSNH. Parties should address whether a stay-out provision is permissible under RSA 374-F, RSA 378:10 and any other applicable statutes. Likewise, there was inquiry about the possibility ofproviding a separate default service for the largest customers who have hourly interval metering and who choose a competitive supplier that might be based on dynamic marginal supply costs, i.e. real-time market prices. Parties should address whether such a default service option would be permissible under the law, including RSA 369-B, 374-F, 378:7-a, and
378: 1O. In addition, Parties should address whether there is any legal impediment to the implementation of a purchase of receivables (POR) program, which was suggested as a means of improving customer choice for residential and small business customers.
January 21,2011
Page 2
PSNH has proposed the creation of a non-bypassable charge, consisting of certain fixed costs associated with its generation plants and certain purchased power obligations, to mitigate the cost of default service for those customers who continue to take default service from the Company. The Commission asks the parties to address whether costs to be recovered under PSNH's proposed non-bypassable charge would or should be considered stranded costs within the meaning ofRSA 374-F:2, IV, whether a non-by-passable charge is an appropriate recovery mechanism pursuant to RSA 374-F and whether it is permissible under RSA 369-B:3, IV(b)(1)(A) and RSA 374-F.
The Commission is also interested in understanding whether any of the parties perceive legal barriers to requiring PSNH to bid all of its generation into the daily market and purchase all ofits energy requirements through a request for proposal process similar to that used by Unitil Energy Systems, Inc. and Granite State Electric Company d/b/a National Grid. In addition, parties should address whether there are any legal impediments to the proposals (1) that PSNH issue a request for proposals to cover supplemental energy purchases (i.e., those needed to serve PSNH's default service load in excess ofPSNH's generation), and (2) that there should be separate default service pricing for those customers returning to PSNH's energy service.
Among other proposals put forth was a proposal that PSNH divest its generation assets and issue requests for proposals to the market for its default service requirements. RSA 369-B:3a states that "PSNH may divest its generation assets ifthe commission finds that it is in the economic interest of retail customers ofPSNH to do so, and provides for the cost recovery of such divestiture." Briefs should address whether RSA 369-B:3-a allows the Commission to require PSNH to divest its generation assets and, if so, what particular procedures may be appropriate for such a proceeding.
With respect to each proposal, the Commission directs parties to identify any alternatives that could be implemented in the near term with a final order in this proceeding, as opposed to those that would require further investigation.
The issues identified above, including the specific statutes, should not be considered as limiting the parties' ability to address any other issues or statutes not specifically identified.
The deadline for legal briefs shall be Febmary 9,2011.
Sincerely, !
.~~-,s..-,---,. -\'".~\. ,-\
< . '.('
Debra A. Howland Executive Director
cc: Service list (electronic service only)
Based on that election it would have been 60% for 40% against.
A significant number but probably not a majority. A reasonable guess is probably somewhere between 30-40% of the population against, the other 60%-70% interested mostly because they've been disillusioned by the inaccurate assumption on their part of mostly Berlin people obtaining a job.
That is inaccurate. I am in favor of synergy to increase efficiency of any biomass plant. I am also in favor of biomass plants that are appropriately located. I don't believe Laidlaw's location is appropriate as the infrastructure at this point is apparently worthless as Laidlaw has come in with above market price with the existing infrastructure that is 18% higher than a greenfield project. This brings into serious question what value the infrastructure has or why that value wasn't used to decrease cost to the consumer. If the infrastucture has no value than surely there is a better location than directly in the middle of the city. Having said that, I've been wondering when Concord Steam would withdraw as an intervenor as they've done what they needed to which was to produce the PPA they have that shows this 18% issue. Now they have apparently asked to withdraw as an intervenor. Here's the latest from the State. Got to love it! lol
"THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
CHAIRMAN
Tel. (603) 271-2431
Thomas B. Getz
FAX (603) 271-3878
COMMISSIONERS
Clifton C. Below
TOO Access: Relay NH
Amy L. Ignatius
1-800-735-2964
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND SECRETARY Debra A. Howland
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 21 S. Fruit Street, Suite 10
Website: www.puc.nh.gov
Concord, N.H. 03301-2429
January 21,2011
Re: DE 10-195, Public Service Company of New Hampshire Petition for Approval of Power Purchase Agreement between PSNH and Laidlaw Berlin BioPower, LLC
To the Parties:
On January 21,2011, the City ofBerlin filed a motion requesting that the Commission designate Commission Staff member George McCluskey as a staff advocate. Also on January 21,2011, Concord Steam Corporation (Concord Steam) filed a notice of withdrawal of its petition to intervene.
The motion to designate alleges that in view of the "strong positions" taken by Mr. McCluskey in his pre-filed testimony on behalf of Staff, the City of Berlin feels that he will be unable to "fairly and neutrally" advise the Commission in this proceeding and should be designated as a staff advocate pursuant to RSA 363 :32, 1. The City of Berlin is an intervenor with full rights of participation in this docket and is therefore entitled to request designation. Based on the allegations in the motion, the Commission has determined that the standard for mandatory designation under RSA 363:32, I has not been met. Nonetheless, the Commission has determined that this is a particularly controversial case and of significant consequence within the meaning ofRSA 363:32, II and that it would enhance the public's confidence in the fundamental fairness of this proceeding to designate Mr. McCluskey as a staff advocate in this docket as a matter of discretion.
Regarding Concord Steam's notice of withdrawal, the Commission will give the parties the opportunity to address at the hearing on January 24,2011 why the Commission should not permit Concord Steam to withdraw from the docket in the same manner as Laidlaw Berlin BioPower, LLC was permitted to withdraw. See Order No. 25,171 (November 17,2011) at 5-6, which also resulted in striking the evidence provided by Laidlaw. Parties may also address why permitting Concord Steam's withdrawal would not render moot Public Service Company of New Hampshire's January 7, 2011, motion to rescind Concord Steam's intervenor status or, in the alternative, motion to strike testimony and/or motion to compel discovery from Concord Steam.
January 21,2011 Page two
Finally, the Commission will provide the opportunity for public comments pursuant to
N.H. Code Admin. Rules Puc 203.18 at the beginning ofthe hearing that commences at 9 a.m. on January 24,2011. There will also be an opportunity for public comments at the conclusion of the hearing, but commenters are advised that, for the sake of administrative efficiency, they will not be allowed to comment on both occasions.
Sincerely,
c
., "--\,----.(
~
Debra A. Howland Executive Director
cc: Service List Docket File"
Laidlaw won't employ them anyhow, as this will either go south or be tied up in appeals imo. Brookfield will provide loggers with jobs immediately beginning next month and will extend through the remainder of this year. In March over 200 jobs will be added to the work force. Between Brookfield and the prison some 45-50 million in pay roll with great medical benefits supporting the local hospitals, and substantial payroll to provide synergy throughout the north country. But frankly, much of the unemployed are those who lost their job at the paper mill where the average age was in the mid 50's. None of these guys will be doing any of the construction projects and they are too old to qualify for jobs at the prison. Many of these guys being close to retirement, however, have their houses paid off and have made good money throughout their life which many I'm sure saved for a rainy day knowing the paper industry was in disarray. The reality is that none of these projects, Laidlaw included, offer any immediate jobs for those removed from the workforce by closure of the mill.
No King that was not proven false as I have never had any ties with CPD. I simply asked CPD's attorney for help in filing procedure and due to time constraints asked CPD to hand deliver a petition to intervene to the SEC. Nothing more, nothing less.
"So you would prefer nonproductive, taxpayer draining government "jobs" instead of private industry, like Laidlaw."
Well tjodel, I've seen taxpayers have to pay for Laidlaw grants in Ellicotteville that were used for a Laidlaw plant that never came to fruition that would fall into the same category as "nonproductive, taxpayer draining private industry."