Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
"I'm sure there were financial gains for you to be had."
Really? I could certainly say that statement is false under oath. And I did not support the losing horse; they have won either way from what I understand. They either choose to partner up or continue on with their plan depending on the outcome, which will be heavily dependent on whether Laidlaw and/or PSNH significantly change the PPA that won't even come close to happening as is.
"Electric power retailers are lining up to file rate hike petitions with state regulators. "
Meanwhile NH rate payers are dropping PSNH and going with companies like Clean Power attorney's company "Freedom Energy". Customer migration heavily coming into the picture now that this PPA is so excessively above market. Go to docket 10-160 for more info on another one of PSNH's problems that they're contending with on this PPA.
"Electric power retailers are lining up to file rate hike petitions with state regulators. "
Meanwhile NH rate payers are dropping PSNH and going with companies like Clean Power attorney's company "Freedom Energy". Customer migration heavily coming into the picture now that this PPA is so excessively above market. Go to docket 10-160 for more info on another one of PSNH's problems that they're contending with on this PPA.
Zeprules, You support LLEG which supports existing infrastructure from a paper mill, but you don't support the existing infrastructure of operating biomass plants some of which have been significantly and recently upgraded. Please advise as to how that can be logical. Look, we're hearing today that one of these experts understands Berlin's need for jobs but the need doesn't measure up to the risk. Berlin's got a great deal going for it without the Laidlaw project this year and the state is just getting a hold of that information JUST in time. No more woe is Berlin, sorry. My agenda is nothing more than a strong desire not to allow this PPA to move us backwards instead of forward. Right now its design is significantly flawed. It may be "tweaked" substantially but so far we haven't seen that.
Brookfield Power, Noble Wind. No Mystery.
Oh here we go again LLEGER? Get some other ihubbers to help you out also, they just love the prison subject. Yes my neighbors consist of 9 correctional officers within a stone's throw of my house. Comforting, and no, wrong, don't even begin to talk about the inmate families moving into town or escapes from modern low/medium security facilities. Knowing what we know now, would we have supported having a state or federal prison in Berlin having experienced a state prison for years now? Absolutely! I would know better than most selling and renting to these folks. Gee, can't seem to remember catering to any inmates/families. Care for some statistics? We have had a state prison here for years, recession proof, professional jobs, great addition to the town. Police department records supporting no increase in crime due to the state prison. Massive influx of payroll to help the community. I'm not impressed with the statistics relative to how many of our inmates end right back in the slammer, I don't think our correctional system is even close to perfect, and I understand YOU and I are paying for them. But, if they're going to exist, I'd rather their massive payroll benefit my town then the one next door. By the way, you wouldn't know they exist in Berlin unless you got lost in the woods.
Don't worry we're getting those jobs (with or without Laidlaw) Just one of new employers will be bringing in a 36 million dollar per year payroll to the city this spring and summer. With a 90%+ nationwide statistic for salary paid back into the community that project alone will significantly change Berlin. Add to that a 200+ million project just miles north of Berlin beginning in 14 days and this area is going to have a very busy year.
Tap, There are so many north country existing biomass plants that PSNH could choose to offer PPA's to that their very reluctance to do so brings into question PSNH's interest in NH's 2025 initiative. All totaled these plants comprise significantly more infrastructure, Mega Watts, jobs and tax base than Laidlaw ever could. Their closure isn't so much a threat being made by them; it is a major risk being made by a PPA from hell that quite frankly has been ripped apart at the state level to a point of very little acceptance within the major terms. So why else would experts for the PUC state in testimony that the risk is higher than the benefit unless they thought "Laidlaw is essentially bad for the NH economy.", as you state.
Additionally, Berlin has an infusion of millions of dollars coming to the north country and hundreds upon hundreds of professional jobs due to arrive this spring and summer. Another project north of Berlin is bringing tens of millions beginning Feb. 1, 2011 and many construction jobs. This influx has nothing to do with Laidlaw or The Burgess mill site. Area politicians are not touting these major influxes in an effort to woe the state into thinking we're going bankrupt. I will cover this at the final hearing with statistical data. This dire straits approach to Laidlaw being the saving grace of Berlin is the furthest thing from the truth, and could be the death of significant north country biomass infrastructure already in place.
The PPA passes the buck squarely onto the back of the rate payer at a significantly higher rate than what at least one competitor is currently negotiating with other utility companies and has provided as testimony. The huge difference is that Laidlaw's PPA is some 18% higher than a GREENFIELD project, and Laidlaw presumably had a 100 million dollar infrastructure head start. The PUC experts have sniffed out something fishy and apparently the boys at PSNH and Berlin Biopower don't want to share some of that fish with the rate payer. Aint gonna happen folks without a massive PPA change in my opinion. As I stated many weeks ago, if the PPA takes a significant drop in overmarket price, and has no wood price ties to Schiller those are the significant remaining issues for me along with PSNH's currently illegal request to purchase. Other than those issues, Berlin has been well protected by massive contingencies required within the conditional acceptance by the SEC.
lol. First of all, do you have any idea how much over market this PPA is? The PUC staff is calling it formidable and risky. You have not seen hundreds of recent pages of expert testimony but it certainly should assure anyone reading it that there is FAR MORE concern to the PUC than a few cents more for electricity every month my friend. In direct quote; "risk significantly higher than benefit". Please don't insinuate that the experts weighing out this docket are quibbling over a few cents on John Does bill as the risk is well beyond that.
Perhaps they've read the new docket filings? Or perhaps they comprehend no endorsement at the state level out of the same readings others claim are endorsements. I especially like the two thumbs up cartoon.
"Then on the other end, we have you doing the exact same last ditch effort on a message board to try and push your agenda. Painting the kettle black eh."
My agenda? It seems my agenda is shared with the IPPS, Concord Steam, OCA and PUC staff testimony. Higher wood prices, and a significantly over market PPA isn't good for rate payers, isn't good for significantly more jobs already created in the north country for decades within the other biomass facilities. It's quite simple really. If those plants close, which is highly likely upon significantly higher wood chip price the net effect is significantly fewer jobs with Laidlaw and a NEGATIVE net result percentage for the State's 2025 initiative. Perhaps this is why testimony on behalf of the PUC isn't even referring to this as free trade anymore. (Now being questioned as fair trade) Digi, need to ask you a question. Why aren't you reading testimony as it becomes available as part of your due diligence? You may want to view what shows up on the docket between today and late tomorrow my friend. This is anything but a last ditch effort on my part to do anything other than provide information at this point in time. I already know for a fact that I'm fine with whatever outcome occurs at this point. Already received every protection known to mankind for the city of Berlin, just needed to gain protection for the rate payer and the smaller biomass companies, and now know that protection is inevitable, or politics will rear its head to the point where an appeal becomes a foolish risk on the part of politicians. I'm just waiting to see if our local politicians continue to go down this foolish path as it will bite them is the a$$ with an appeal in the grand finale if they choose to be so careless.
"I really like the political maneuvering going on here...the timing on all of this stuff is great."
It's too bad, however, that you won't recognize the political machine down state recognizes that this political maneuvering is a self serving Berlin politician and coos county commissioners maneuver. The "woe is me Berlin" political platform of "jobs, jobs, jobs" has lost significant momentum downstate with common knowledge that this project can impact more jobs than it creates and raise rates significantly.
The mayor realizes this and is providing this forum and local media with last ditch efforts in local tabloids to try to build up a somewhat ridiculed Berlin group of politicians. Meanwhile an influx of hundreds of professional jobs entirely unrelated to this docket coming to Berlin this spring and summer along with the Wind Park construction beginning next month or in March at the latest is growing to be center stage. These need to become topics at these hearings for contrasting reasons to the dire straits picture being touted by local politicians.
The timing of this announcement is priceless, the generic nature suspect, and the significance, frankly, doesn't exist. The Governor's letter clearly was not an endorsement of this project; it was certainly a willingness to support the project, provided it received PUC approval. Hardly an endorsement when it is now public that the PUC staff and OCA could not come close to settlement on the PPA. The Berlin Daily Sun tabloid called it an endorsement. Political maneuvering of this docket is no secret to the PUC or anyone else involved in this docket. They expect it and they expect politicians and the Laidlaw company to utilize media any way they can to build a positive perception to offset the significant difference of what could be an acceptable PPA. They smile at the north country tabloid, "The Berlin Daily Sun", and I'm thinking they take it with a grain of salt. I'd like to thank the mayor of Berlin, however, for making this announcement known here prior to its publication.
Staff email record going forward to hearing as follows:
"Good morning. Following the settlement meeting on Friday, Staff and the OCA were presented with an alternative counter-proposal for review. We find that we are still far apart and now are preparing to litigate the filing. Please recall that the hearing begins at 9:00 on Monday morning.
I’ll be sending out an email with a proposal on how to structure the hearing.
If anything changes, I’ll let you know.
Thank you.
Suzanne Amidon, Esq.
Staff Attorney/Hearings Examiner
NH Public Utilities Commission
21 South Fruit Street
Concord, NH 03301
Fax: 603 271 3878
Phone: 603 271 6616
Email: suzanne.amidon@puc.nh.gov"
The Burgess Biopower plant design is for a stand alone plant. It has not been designed to encompass "spin off businesses" at all. This is simply within testimony of Laidlaw Berlin Biopower. Certainly at a significant expense anything can be accomplished. First, we need to find out why the existing infrastructure value and importance wasn't calculated into a much better rate for the rate payer, then we need to understand where the cost of existing infrastructure still comes in 18% above a greenfield, then we can begin to talk about dreams. You have some good ideas, however, LLEGE and I would agree that these ideas of yours make for higher efficiencies which I'm all in favor of.
Do you really think those costs are figured into this, King Oil?
Great to hear some logic here.
"You can't say that just because someone else got a better deal than you it makes it a bad deal"
The problem for you, sir, is that it obviously isn't a better deal for rate payers which the PUC is trying to protect. Additionally it flies in the face of the importance touted by Laidlaw of the existing infrastructure value of some tens of millions of dollars (if not 100 million in actual value). Did they knock down the existing infrastructure over night or something???
No one has won or lost in this docket. The stated issue is that a greenfield project absent any infrastructure is coming in 18% below an existing facility with 100 million in infrastructure. Are you suggesting that testimony would be fabricated by anyone at this point in time with SO much to lose or gain in this outcome? I highly doubt that to be case. This is not Concord Steam or Jon Edwards speaking; it is Concord Steam's expert witness speaking after reviewing Concord Steam's PPA according to the expert witness' testimony. If you don't want information as it becomes available hit the ignore button, brother. There are others here that have stated they like to hear information as it becomes available.
You've got big News through some new filings at the PUC that have yet to be posted but are now public to the service list! Over 120 pages of documents filed just in the past few days.
Gary Long testimony excerpt as follows:
"Do you have any other initial comments?
32 A. Yes. It must be noted that this rebuttal testimony had to be written and submitted while
33 the discovery process is still underway. PSNH has a pending motion to compel responses
34 to discovery outstanding regarding Concord Steam Corporation’s objections to myriad
- 1 -
1 PSNH questions based upon a case of “mistaken identity” (i.e., the party in interest with
2 the information is apparently Concord Power and Steam, LLC, and not the party3
intervenor Concord Steam Corporation.) We respectfully request the ability to provide
4 any additional rebuttal testimony necessary as a result of whatever discovery responses
5 are obtained from Concord Steam Corporation, unless either PSNH’s Motion to Rescind
6 their intervenor status or Motion to Strike their testimony are granted."
spencerforhire's comments:
and then comes the discovery for Concord Steam that they have a PPA with a resulting price over 20 years that is 18% lower than Laidlaw's PPA. Isn't Concord Steam's new project a greenfield project???? What ever happened to the 100 million dollar value of the existing infrastructure in Berlin NH??? Whatever happened to competitive bidding??? Houston, we may have a problem...
Concord Steam Witness testimony excerpt: John Dalton
The Concord Steam "PPA pricing continues to be 18% below that of Laidlaw's PPA over a 20 year contract term evaluated.
The Concord Power PPA pricing supports my prior testimony that the Laidlaw PPA pricing appears to be higher than other alternatives available in the market and that PSNH should have used a competitive bidding process to determine which renewable generation project developers would be awarded contracts."
Ah King you ol softy, trying to save all the good ones for yourself, huh?
Hahaha. Please spare me the visit. The financing might be a nightmare with paper only profits. :)
I like your sense of humor. lol.
Interesting article on Laidlaw PPA provider PSNH
http://www.nhpr.org/psnh-seeks-new-charges-questions-about-future-loom
I can't answer any of your questions.
no it wasn't nor will it be.
Jan 14 settlement meeting not open to public/confidential as follows:
"Puc 203.20 Settlement and Stipulation of Facts.
(a) All participants in settlement conferences shall treat discussions at settlement conferences as confidential and shall not disclose the contents of such discussions to third parties or seek to introduce them into evidence.
(b) The commission shall approve a disposition of any contested case by stipulation, settlement, consent order or default, if it determines that the result is just and reasonable and serves the public interest.
(c) The parties to any proceeding before the commission shall, by stipulation in writing filed with the commission or entered in the record at the hearing, agree upon the facts or any portion thereof involved in the hearing when such facts are not in dispute among the parties.
(d) If a stipulation is filed and is not contested by any party, the stipulation shall bind the commission as to the facts in question, and the commission shall consider the stipulation as evidence in the decision of the matter.
(e) Settlements and stipulations shall be filed no less than 5 days prior to the hearing, except as provided in (f).
(f) The commission shall accept late-filed stipulations and settlements when such acceptance:
(1) Promotes the orderly and efficient conduct of the proceeding; and
(2) Will not impair the rights of any party to the proceeding."
tjodel, What is your job?
He fights industrial values throughout the country, and Berlin is lucky to have him. He's not a nice guy in court though he comes across as one.
Ninja, In testimony to the NHPUC, expert testimony by PUC staff stated the cost of power in the Laidlaw/PSNH PPA was significantly higher than market. If you'd like I'd be happy to provide in its entirety the specifics of the expert testimony which clearly show just how significantly higher those costs are, Sir. Nothing goofy about it, simply facts.
He didn't need to say "power is significantly higher in the Laidlaw PPA" as the experts for PUC staff beat him to it. Therefore there is no "untruth" as you say. (Unless of course you believe expert testimony by PUC staff to be untrue.)
He didn't need to say "power is significantly higher in the Laidlaw PPA" as the experts for PUC staff beat him to it. Therefore there is no "untruth" as you say. (Unless of course you believe expert testimony by PUC staff to be untrue.
The expert (Industrial Assessor Sancousy) has taken into consideration the value compromise for the retrofit and 10 year usage of the boiler and stack.
I understand the boiler cost in 1990 to be $100 million. That figure in sworn testimony is anticipated to "save the project" $500 per kilowatt of gross kilowatt capacity. It appears to be saving the project that money but not the rate payer is all I'm saying. That's a big issue going forward. But you're probably right, there's so much room for these "hands" to drop the price, they'll work it out eventually; always comes down to how much is left to pay Digi though, right?
The city of Berlin has an industrial assessor by the name of Skip Sancousy who is all in favor of the Laidlaw project. There are many things I admire about Sancousy's work, especially his accuracy. Very impressive responses made by Sancousy to the IPPS that were just emailed on the subject of the positives pertinent to the location of the proposed Laidlaw biomass project in Berlin, and as a result, its cost effectiveness. I especially like his sentence as follows:
"This savings is directly translated into reduced energy, capacity, and REC costs incurred by Public Service for the ratepayers of Public Service."
This statement, in a perfect world, should be true. PUC staff expert testimony, however, is testifying the opposite is true of what Sansoucy logically concludes; that in staff expert opinion the price of power is significantly higher in the Laidlaw PPA. Why is that? Why would a touted savings due to existing infrastructure lead to significantly higher electrical costs in the PPA than what PUC staff suggests is available elsewhere?
The problem with having too many players in a deal appears to be that too many players need to get paid one way or the other in this case, at the expense of the rate payer. There should be plenty of room to bring the price of this PPA down below what expert testimony suggests is available elsewhere, due to existing infrastructure. Whatever happened to the benefit of the 100 million already invested in the existing infrastructure? This issue needs to be substantially brought to the forefront in the next few weeks. This apparent absence of infrastructure reduction specifically calls into question not only pricing of power, but also of wood and the very survival of biomass facilities already in existence that are needed to accomplish the 2025 initiative. Are we taking one step forward and two steps backward here?
another example of above market costs...
"PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
DE 10-195
NH PUC Staff Responses
to Data Requests of Wood-Fired IPPS
Date Received: December 28, 2011 Date of Response: January 11, 2011
Request: IPP – 1 Witness: George McCluskey
REQUEST
Mr. McCluskey estimated that the balance in the cumulative reduction would have been $77 million higher if PSNH had insisted on Laidlaw treating the above-market energy payments as loans requiring interest to be accumulated at 5% annually. Please estimate the interest on the over-market cost of:
a.
RECs assuming the RPS continues beyond 2025 under the current statutue; and
b.
RECs assuming the RPS ends December 31, 2025 under the current statute.
RESPONSE:
Wood-Fired IPPs should note that the $77 million value estimate was based on a 2008 analysis that reflects the proposed PPA prices and PSNH’s initial plant assumptions. That is, a plant with a net capacity of 58 MW and a capacity factor of 85%. Using instead Laidlaw’s revised plant assumptions (i.e., 63 MW net capacity and 87.5% capacity factor) increases the cumulative reduction balance by $86 million to $247 million. Note also that the increase would have been higher had the calculation been performed with market energy prices that reflect current market conditions rather than the market conditions reflected in PSNH’s 2008 analysis.
The question asks for the cumulative interest owed to PSNH at the end of the 20-year term on above-market REC payments charged at 5% per annum. The calculation of the above-market payments and the interest on those payments requires a market-value projection for RECs. As shown in Attachment 1-1 to this response, using the current market-value for Class 1 RECs of $16.5/MWh as a maket value proxy results in the following:
a.
The interest on the above-market REC payments through 2033 amounts to $211 million. The corresponding balance in the above-market REC account is $399 million.
b.
The interest on the above-market REC payments through 2025 amounts to $74 million. The corresponding balance in the above-market REC account is $245 million.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
DE 10-195
NH PUC Staff Responses
to Data Requests of Wood-Fired IPPS
Date Received: December 28, 2011 Date of Response: January 11, 2011
Request: IPP – 2 Witness: George McCluskey
REQUEST
Mr. McCluskey estimated that PSNH’s purchases of RECs under the PPA would result in $175 million in excess costs, and that PSNH might recoup $50 million of this cost. See Testimony of George R. McCluskey at 14. Are Mr. McCluskey’s estimates based on an RPS requirement that terminates in 2025, or an RPS requirement that continues beyond 2025? If the latter, what does Mr. McCluskey project the over-market cost of RECs would be if the RPS requirement terminates in 2025?
RESPONSE:
No, Mr. McCluskey’s estimates are not based on an RPS requirement that terminates in 2025. Wood-Fired IPPs should note that the $175 million figure does not represent the over-market cost of RECs purchased over the 20-year term of the PPA. What it represents is the total cost (i.e., market plus above-market) to PSNH of purchasing RECs that it does not expect to need during the period 2014-2023 based on an assumed migration rate of 31%. The detailes of this calculation are provided in Exhibit GRM-6. Because Mr. McCluskey estimates that PSNH will need all of the RECs purchased from Laidlaw after 2023 (again assuming a migration rate of 31%), the period beyond 2023 does figure into the cost estimate.
The above-market cost of the excess REC purchases is $125 million, as stated at page 14 of his testimony, which is based on a market price of $16.5 per REC. Using the same market price, the above-market cost of all RECs pruduced by the facility during the period 2014-2025 is $239 million. See Attachment 1-2.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
DE 10-195
NH PUC Staff Responses
to Data Requests of Wood-Fired IPPS
Date Received: December 28, 2011 Date of Response: January 11, 2011
Request: IPP – 3 Witness: George McCluskey
REQUEST
Mr. McCluskey concludes that PSNH has committed to purchase more RECs from Laidlaw than it is likely to need during the term of the PPA, resulting in unnecessary additonal costs for PSNH customers. See Testimony of George R. McCluskey at 15. The Lempster contract was approved pursuant to RSA 362-F:9 in Docket DE 08-077 even though PSNH was required under that contract to purchase more RECs than it required. Does Mr. McCluskey perceive any differences between PSNH’s purchase of RECs that it did not require from the Lempster project and PSNH’s purchase of RECs that it will not require from the Laidlaw project that make the Laidlaw PPA, as filed, ineligible for approval under RSA 362-F:9?
RESPONSE:
Yes. In the Lempster proceeding, the Commission decided that PSNH could potentially sell RECs purchased from Lempster to third-parties rather than use them to meet its New Hampshire Class 1 RPS obligation. The basis for that decision appears to be the Commission’s acceptance of the argument that the Lempster RECs could have more value in out-of-state markets potentially resulting in cost savings for PSNH customers. In order to realize such cost savings, the price of Class 1 RECs in Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, or Connecticut would have to be greater than the price paid to Lempster, which apparently was considered likely given that the REC prices in the Lempster PPA were described by Staff in that proceeding as being “favorable” to PSNH. The same cannot be said for the REC prices in the Laidlaw PPA. Those prices are not only substantially higher than the Lempster prices, they are multiple times the current market price for NH Class 1 RECs. Consequently, there is no opportunity, based on current market prices, to benefit PSNH customers by purchasing the Laidlaw RECs and re-selling them to third-parties in other states. On the contrary, it would be economically irrational for PSNH to purchase RECs from Laidlaw at PPA prices and re-sell them to third-parties at prevailing market prices.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
DE 10-195
NH PUC Staff Responses
to Data Requests of Wood-Fired IPPS
Date Received: December 28, 2011 Date of Response: January 11, 2011
Request: IPP – 4 Witness: George McCluskey
REQUEST
Please see Testimony of George R. McCluskey at 18, lines 13-19, and his statement therein that the purchase price under the Right of First Refusal will reflect the value in the Cumulative Reduction account under the PPA. Please describe how the Cumulative Reduction account value would be reflected in a purchase price offered at a time when the fair market value of the Facility is projected to be less than the amount in the Cumulative Reduction account at the end of the 20-year term of the PPA.
RESPONSE:
Article 7.1.2 requires that the new owner of the facility assume all rights and obligations of the Seller, including those with respect to the Cumulative Reduction. Thus, any potential new owner making an offer to purchase the facility should have incorporated the impact of Article 7.1.2 into his/her offer purchase price. Mr. McCluskey believes that Article 7.1.2 would compel the potential new owner to reduce the offer purchase price by the balance in the Cumulative Reduction account at the time of the offer. If the potential new owner determines that the fair market value of the facility at the end of the 20-year term is unlikely to support a reduction in the purchase price equal to the balance in the Cumulative Reduction account, such potential new owner might be willing to increase his/her offer in an effort to acquire the facility.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
DE 10-195
NH PUC Staff Responses
to Data Requests of Wood-Fired IPPS
Date Received: December 28, 2011 Date of Response: January 11, 2011
Request: IPP – 5 Witness: George McCluskey
REQUEST
Mr. McCluskey states that PSNH would pay Laidlaw approximately $285 million in above-market energy costs over the 20-year term of the PPA. See Testimony of George R. McCluskey at 26. Please provide Mr. McCluskey’s calculation of this total amount.
RESPONSE:
Although Mr. McCluskey’s testimony does state that above-market energy costs amounted to $285 million, his spreadsheet shows $280 million. See Attachment 1-5.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
DE 10-195
NH PUC Staff Responses
to Data Requests of Wood-Fired IPPS
Date Received: December 28, 2011 Date of Response: January 11, 2011
Request: IPP – 6 Witness: George McCluskey
REQUEST
Mr. McCluskey states that PSNH would pay Laidlaw approximately $285 million in above-market energy costs over the 20-year term of the PPA. See Testimony of George R. McCluskey at 26. If this amount is nominal, please state the total amount in real dollars at the end of the 20-year term.
RESPONSE:
The above-market energy cost is in nominal dollars. Discounting the annual above-market energy costs using PSNH’s after-tax cost of capital produces a total above-market energy cost of $144 million in 2014 dollars. See Attachment 1-6."
Anything's a possibility. I see that the PUC broadened their legislative ability to go beyond 2025 in the Lempster Wind PPA REC qualifications and are now bringing that (confidential) information forward on this docket. Additionally the article in the Monitor on wood supply is quite timely. I have to wonder how the IPPS will handle these two issues. These are big issues. We may have a touchdown brewing. Setting the stage for the PUC counteroffer. Here comes the politics. King Oil is smiling I'm sure.
The IPP's are asking the PUC to dismiss PSNH's petition, and that the Commission "issue its order as soon as possible to aid settlement discussions scheduled for January 14, 2011."
Are you digging for gold in sasquatch territory? An LLEG PR will follow a PUC decision.
Impressive new logo, is that a kiwi or LLEG's new logo?
A great deal will come from the settlement discussions scheduled for later this week, in my opinion.