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.
Sorry I don't have it. Matt is working on getting a copy.
FYI.....
The PPA has been released to the public. Someone's worse nightmare.
http://www.puc.nh.gov/Regulatory/Orders/2010orders/25168e.pdf
Looking forward to seeing the details.....or not.
Yeah so old that the final order of denial for rehearing came out last Friday the 12th, and has yet to be posted on the PUC site.
Below is a link to the PUC site docket 10-195 Public Service of New Hampshire Petition for Approval of Power Purchase Agreement between PSNH of NH and Laidlaw Berlin BioPower, LLC
http://www.puc.nh.gov/Regulatory/Docketbk/2010/10-195.htm
Below is a link to the PUC Prehearing Conference Order, which states the initial denial for confidential treatment.
As to your question: go to page 10 for the Motion for Protective Order
“We, therefore, deny the motion for confidential treatment and direct PSNH to promptly provide the information at issue, except for the value of property to be protected by title insurance, to the interveners in this docket and to file an unredacted copy of the PPA as well as Mr. Labrecque’ s testimony and exhibits in the public record of this proceeding.”
http://www.puc.nh.gov/Regulatory/CaseFile/2010/10-195/ORDERS/10-195%202010-10-14%20NHPUC%20Order%20No.%2025,158-Prehearing%20Conference%20Order.PDF
Below is a link to PSNH’s motion for rehearing
http://www.puc.nh.gov/Regulatory/CaseFile/2010/10-195/MOTIONS-OBJECTIONS/10-195%202010-10-22%20PSNH%20Motion%20for%20Rehearing.pdf
I expect they will post the Order Denying Motion for Rehearing soon.
That is certainly their right; it only requires more time and money. But given the PUC’s grounds for requiring that information be disclosed, it would appear the Supreme Court would have to overturn it’s own past rulings in order to rule in PSNH’s favor.
I am not predicting anything, just stating facts. The PUC has denied PSNH’s request for confidential treatment of certain terms of the PPA. Which means that PSNH must now disclose that information as requested by the PUC if they intend to proceed with the process. Or as Purple has stated they can appeal to the NH Supreme Court. Which would of course negate any chance of an expedited PUC process.
For anyone who didn’t get the memo, he is referring to the most recent order from the PUC denying PSNH’s motion for rehearing of the PUC’s initial denial of PSNH’s motion for confidential treatment of certain pricing terms and certain other information.
In a nutshell, this isn’t going the way PSNH had hoped. The PUC does not agree with their arguments for keeping those details of the PPA private. So now the ball is squarely in PSNH’s court. Will they comply with the PUC order to release those details? Or are the arguments they made to keep them private compelling enough reasons for PSNH to not want to disclose them? Which would essentially prevent the project from moving forward since an approved PPA is the most significant requirement of the SEC's conditional permit approval. Lack of an approved PPA would also hinder Laidlaws ability to secure financing as was stated during the SEC process.
"The centrality of the terms of the Laidlaw PPA to the finding required under RSA 362-F:9, combined with the way the terms have been negotiated and set forth in the contract, pose a substantial obstacle to presenting a final order that would be, in any measure, useful or informative to the public if the terms themselves, specifically price, could not be disclosed. At the same time, we are not persuaded that disclosure will hamper PSNH in its negotiations with Hydro Quebec, and therefore harm its ratepayers, given the age of the negotiated Laidlaw price relative to the still ongoing negotiations between NU, and its project partner, NStar and Hydro Quebec, the difference in scale between Laidlaw’s 70 MWs and Hydro Quebec’s 1200 MWs, and the difference in the products purchased in terms of counter party, energy, capacity and RECs. “The purpose of the Right-to-Know Law is to ensure both the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussions and records of all public bodies, and their accountability to the people . . . we resolve questions regarding the Right-to-Know Law with a view to providing the utmost
information.” Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375, 378 (2008) (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, we deny the motion for rehearing."
http://2much2do4now.typepad.com/bytechew/2010/11/a-break-from-the-insanity.html#comments
Thanks Spence....
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SITE EVALUATION COMMITTEE
Application of Laidlaw Berlin BioPower, LLC for a Certificate of Site and Facility
for a Renewable Energy Facility in Berlin, New Hampshire
SEC Docket No. 2009-02
POST-HEARING BRIEF OF CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
CPD is a New Hampshire limited liability company that focuses on the development of renewable and sustainable wood-fueled biomass-energy facilities. CPD’s offices are located at 130 Pembroke Road, Suite 100, Concord, New Hampshire.
CPD plans to construct, own and operate a biomass facility, Clean Power Berlin, LLC (“CPB Facility”) located in Berlin, New Hampshire, which will generate electricity and steam through the combustion of forest product biomass chips supplied through local markets. The CPB Facility will be capable of generating not more than 29.5MW gross output of electricity. Normal net generation will usually be in the 15 to 22MWw gross output range based upon thermal load during combined heat and power (“CHP”) operation. The CPB Facility can operate with an efficiency of 60% or higher through CHP design.
The site of the CPB Facility is 20 Shelby Street in Berlin, on land adjacent to the City of Berlin Waste Water Treatment Plant. The site of the CPD Facility is on the Androscoggin River, approximately 1 ½ miles downstream from the site of the Laidlaw Project.
On December 16, 2009, Applicant Laidlaw Berlin Biopower, LLC filed an Application with the Site Evaluation Committee for a Certificate of Site and Facility in Berlin, New Hampshire. Hearings were held by the Committee on August 23 through August 27, and on September 10. Clean Power Development, LLC was granted limited intervenor status by the Committee. Order on Pending Motions (March 24, 2010). CPD presented testimony and conducted cross-examination at the hearings. CPD hereby submits its post-trial brief in this proceeding. In this brief, CPD primarily focuses on the key issues which have arisen during the proceeding. By way of supplementation, appended hereto and incorporated herein is the closing statement of CPD made to the Committee on September 10, 2010. Transcript Day 6 at 85 to 102.
II. ARGUMENT
A. Applicant cannot be granted a Certificate of Site and Approval unless and until the Purchase Power Agreement (PPA) is approved by the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (NHPUC).
The Committee can only issue a Certificate of Site and Facility if it can make a finding that the Applicant has adequate financial capability to assure construction and operation of the facility. See, RSA 162-H:16, IV(a). According to Applicant’s Testimony, “nder RSA 162-H:16, in order to obtain a Certificate of Site and Facility the Applicant must show that it has adequate financial capability to construct and operate the Project in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Certificate.” Testimony of Michael B. Bartoszek at 4. Stated differently, an applicant cannot obtain a certificate unless it can show that it has adequate financial capability.
According to Applicant,
[t]he ongoing operations of the Project will largely be supported by the cash flows generated from a long-term Power Purchase Agreement (“PPA”) that is being finalized with Public Service Company of New Hampshire (“PSNH”) pursuant to an executed Letter of Intent. The PPA is an essential element of the Project’s financial viability and will be the dominant positive factor in securing the debt financing.
Application at 92 (Emphasis added).
Moreover, the Applicant provided the following response to a data request from Public Counsel:
14. Is a PPA necessary in order to make the Project financially viable?
Response: Yes.
Laidlaw Exh. 17
Pursuant to RSA 362-F:9, the PPA requires approval from the NHPUC before it can become effective. Accordingly, since Applicant has stated that the “PPA is an essential element of the Project’s financial viability,” the Applicant will not be able to demonstrate “adequate financial capability” unless and until the PPA is approved by the NHPUC.
In its Application, Laidlaw stated that:
Similar to the Committee’s course of action in Granite Reliable Power, LLC (Decision Granting Certificate of Site and Facility With Conditions, July 15, 2009, Docket No. 2008-04), the Applicant would be willing to accept a certificate condition that prohibits the commencement of construction until all construction financing is in place.
Testimony of Michael B. Bartoszek at 8.
Laidlaw’s reliance on the Committee’s Decision in the Granite Reliable Power, LLC proceeding is misplaced. In that Decision, the Committee found that:
[t]he Applicant has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that is has the financial capability to finance, construct and operate the project. Nonetheless, all parties agree that the current market for financing such projects is challenging. Therefore, the Subcommittee determines that the Applicant must have committed construction financing for the project in place before construction may commence.
Decision, SEC Docket No. 2008-04, at 32 (Emphasis added.)
Granite Reliable Power, LLC was able to satisfactorily demonstrate to the Committee that it had the present capability to finance, construct and operate its project, based in large part on its experience in developing a number of other wind power projects. In contrast, based upon its Application and Testimony, Laidlaw Berlin Biopower, LLC (or NewCo. – see argument below), an entity that has not developed other biomass projects, will not possess, as it must, the requisite financial capability to finance, construct and operate its proposed project unless and until the PPA is approved by the NHPUC. While the NHPUC has opened this docket, there has not yet been a prehearing conference, the deadline for the submission of interventions has yet to come, and no schedule has yet been set for the docket. It is likely to take at a minimum, a number of months to resolve.
B. RSA 162-H: 16, IV requires that the Committee must consider “available alternatives” and, other relevant factors bearing on whether the objectives of RSA 162-H would be best served by the issuance of the Certificate.
New Hampshire’s siting statute, RSA Chapter 162-H, has as its fundamental purpose the selection and utilization of appropriate sites for new bulk power and energy facilities. In enacting Chapter 162-H, the legislature recognized “that the selection of sites for energy facilities… will have a significant impact upon the welfare of the population, the location and growth of industry, the overall economic growth of the state, the environment of the state, and the use of natural resources.” RSA 162:H-1 (Emphasis supplied). Accordingly, the Legislature determined that it is in the public interest to:
(a) to maintain a balance between the environment and the need for new energy facilities; (b) to avoid undue delay in the construction of needed facilities and to ensure full and timely consideration of environmental consequences; (c) to ensure that all entities planning to construct facilities provide full and complete disclosure to the public of such plans; and (d) to ensure that the construction and operation of energy facilities is treated as a significant aspect of land-use planning in which all environmental, economic, and technical issues are resolved in an integrated fashion.
Id. (Emphasis supplied.)
New Hampshire’s siting statute also sets forth the framework and criteria to be used by the Site Evaluation Committee in evaluating whether to issue a certificate of site and facility:
The site evaluation committee, after having considered available alternatives and fully reviewed the environmental impact of the site or route, and other relevant factors bearing on whether the objectives of this chapter would be best served by the issuance of the certificate, must find that the site and facility:
(a) Applicant has adequate financial, technical, and managerial capability to assure construction and operation of the facility in continuing compliance with the terms and conditions of the certificate.
(b) Will not unduly interfere with the orderly development of the region with due consideration having been given to the views of municipal and regional planning commissions and municipal governing bodies.
(c) Will not have an unreasonable adverse effect on aesthetics, historic sites, air and water quality, the natural environment, and public health and safety.
RSA 162:H-16, IV (Emphasis added.)
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court explained the well-settled fundamental tenets of statutory construction:
In matters of statutory interpretation, we are the final arbiters of the legislature’s intent as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole. We interpret statutes not in isolation, but in the context of the overall statutory scheme. Our analysis must start with consideration of the plain meaning of the relevant statutes, construing them, where reasonably possible, to effectuate their underlying policies. Insofar as reasonably possible, we will construe the various statutory provisions harmoniously.
In re Pennichuck Water Works, Inc., 160 N.H. 18, 992 A.2d 740 (N.H. 2010).
Accordingly, in deciding whether to issue the proposed Laidlaw project a certificate of site and facility, the Committee must construe the statutory term “after having considered available alternatives”, in a manner consistent with the purposes of the siting statute: to wit, “to maintain a balance between the environment and the need for new energy facilities.” It would be an error of law for the Committee to not consider all available alternatives to the Laidlaw Project to balance environment impact and new energy facilities. One such alternative that should be considered by the Committee is the Clean Power Development project proposed for Berlin on the site of the Berlin Waste Water Treatment Facility. Alternatives such as the Clean Power Development project must be considered and evaluated by the Committee in order for it to determine the optimum balance between the environment and the need to construct new energy facilities.
CPD also submits that as part of this analysis of alternatives, the Committee should consider the alternatives of continuation of existing biomass facilities, as compared with the construction and operation of a new Laidlaw facility, since, as noted below, there was testimony to the effect that construction of the Laidlaw facility will put existing biomass facilities out of business.
C. Applicant’s proposed facility will interfere with the orderly development of the region.
In deciding whether to issue the proposed Laidlaw project a Certificate of Site and Facility, the Committee must construe the statutory term “orderly development of the region”, in a manner that, inter alia, does not negatively impact the location and growth of industry and ensures that “all environmental, economic, and technical issues are resolved in an integrated fashion.”
1. The proposed Laidlaw project will negatively impact the existing biomass generating facilities resulting in the loss of jobs and economic activity.
The central issue in this proceeding was succinctly and accurately articulated in the following brief exchange between Committee member Michael Harrington and Mel Liston, General Manager of CPD:
BY MR. HARRINGTON:
Q. Getting back to a couple specific questions.
It seems as if the testimony we've heard on the availability of wood has been one constant throughout, given by Laidlaw, their experts and yourself, and that is: If you're willing to spend enough money, there's plenty of wood. Do you agree that's correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So, rather than harp on how much is available and from what mileage, it really comes down to price.
Transcript Day 5 at 116.
CPD repeatedly stated during the hearings that if the Laidlaw project went forward, and the NHPUC approved the proposed PPA between PSNH and Laidlaw, then CPD would be unable to continue with its proposed combined heat and power project to be located in Berlin. CPD’s statements were echoed by a number of the existing biomass generating facilities and their representatives:
Indeck-Alexandria Energy, Alexandria, N.H.
Indeck’s ability to compete as a merchant generating facility in New Hampshire is directly impacted by the development of the Laidlaw project and the purchase power agreement with Public Service
Transcript Day 5 at 175.
D. G. Whitefield Biomass Power Plant, Whitefield, N.H.
D. G. Whitefield will be at a competitive disadvantage with this proposed large-scale biomass facility, particularly if the Laidlaw facility benefits from an above-market rate order that includes fuel cost recovery mechanisms. This would effectively allow Laidlaw to pass through regulator-approved fuel costs to captive electricity customers. This presents an unfair competitive advantage that threatens the continued viability of D.G. Whitefield.
Transcript Day 5 at 209, 210.
Concord Steam Corporation
What we, essentially, what we create, if we allow this to go forward, is one buyer, and I know it's Laidlaw, but, effectively, it's PSNH. We've got one buyer, with two plants, that will control well over 50 percent of the wood supply in the marketplace in New Hampshire. And, allowing them to have a contract with Cousineau throws another monkey wrench in the works. And, I think it's going to create some real problems for us to continue to get wood supply at a reasonable rate. I have ratepayers I have to be concerned for. And, I think this is going to severely affect our ability to protect their interests.
Transcript Day 6 at 15.
Robert Berti, North Country Procurement
So, my thoughts on it, knowing what the present price of electricity is, and what the plants can pay, and what's available, I think that, if that Laidlaw Project goes in, the impacts on two existing will be severe. The impact on two other plants will be moderate to severe. And, two other plants will be slight to moderate. But it will have impacts.
Transcript Day 6 at 29, 30.
Bridgewater Power Company, Bridgewater, NH
We're very concerned that the construction of the Laidlaw facility will further undermine our ability to operate. A 70 megawatt plant will have a reach for fuel well over 100 miles and greatly impact our market. Further, the contract being proposed for the facility, in Section 6.1.2, outlines a fuel adjustment that limits fuel risk to the owners and ties the price of fuel to the price of fuel from Schiller Station. Schiller Station is a rate based plant, and fuel risk at that facility is borne by ratepayers. Therefore, the index that the Laidlaw plant is benchmarked against is a facility that has no fuel price risk. Our facility has no such backstop, and never has. Higher fuel prices and pressure on supply will likely force us out of business. It seems that the certainty of existing jobs and existing facilities should be the number one priority, so that existing jobs and benefits of these facilities are not lost or traded for speculative jobs.
Transcript Day 6 at 32.
In view of the foregoing statements from the existing biomass generating facilities, it is clear that the Laidlaw project will severely disrupt the orderly development of the region and will probably cause a net loss of jobs and economic activity.
2. The proposed Laidlaw project will result in the curtailment and/or shutdown of existing generation facilities on the Coos Loop.
Mr. Gabler’s testimony on behalf of CPD on the transmission issues was compelling and uncontroverted by Laidlaw:
The System Impact Study done by ISO-New England, which was Laidlaw Exhibit 56, very -- it shows very explicitly that operation of the Laidlaw Project will result in the curtailment and/or shutdown of the existing generation on the Coos Loop. In the base case assumed for the study, Berlin Hydro, Smith Hydro, and the Whitefield biomass plant would be shut down. In reality, it could be any generator, including LBB, that would be shut down on any given day. And, the resulting disorder to the region would bring a future of uncertainty and economic uncertainty, not only to operating power plants, but fuel suppliers for those projects.
****
The New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission and the North Country Transmission Commission have been studying this issue for about three years, and have heard testimony that a more vibrant upgrade, which would allow operation of all projects, could be in the vicinity of $100 million or possibly more. KEMA is currently working on a study of those cost allocations for the State of New Hampshire.
That draft report was due out last week. It has been delayed and will be out shortly. However, given the sizable cost, Laidlaw has chosen not to pursue that avenue. They have clearly stated in letters to the Transmission Commission that the addition of such costs could well make their project economically unfeasible.
Transcript Day 6 at 48, 49.
Permitting the construction and operation of the proposed Laidlaw plant will clearly impact the orderly development of the region through the resulting imposition of minimum interconnection standards, otherwise known as "MIS", on the region.
D. NewCo is the party responsible for constructing and operating the Project, and accordingly, should be the Applicant.
RSA 162-H:5, I requires that “[n]o person shall commence to construct any energy facility within the state unless it has obtained a certificate pursuant to this chapter. Such facilities shall be constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with the terms of the certificate.”
According to Committee Exhibit No. 1, NewCo Energy, LLC currently owns Aware Energy Funding LLC, which in turn owns 100% of PJPD Holdings, LLC. NewCo will also own 100% of Applicant Laidlaw Berlin Biopower, LLC.
The NewCo Management Board consists of Richard Cyr, Keith Mueller, and Michael Ferree. The NewCo Management Board consists of the same individuals as the Laidlaw Berlin Biopower Management Board. Additionally, according to Committee Exhibit No. 1, Laidlaw Berlin Biopower is a mere “development entity.” In this regard, Mr. Bartoszek explained Applicant’s role in the following manner:
So as a project sponsor our job is to assemble the various components that make a project – a project and a project financing viable, including material contracts permits and things of that nature so that the project essentially pencils out and makes sense. And its not uncommon for then a developer at that stage to make some arrangement to move to the other side as other parties move forward with construction and operation.
Transcript Day 3 at 144, 145.
Under these facts and circumstances, the issue before the Committee is which of the foregoing “persons” is proposing to “construct” the Laidlaw project in Berlin. In order to resolve this issue the Committee must construe RSA 162-H:5, I in light of its underlying policies. As the Committee well knows, the Laidlaw Project will be owned by PJPD. Laidlaw will no longer own the underlying equity in the project. NewCo is the party that will be responsible for the construction and operation of the facility and therefore should be the “person” applying for the Certificate.
Because of the late stage of the proceedings (after discovery was completed by the parties) when the Committee and the parties were notified of this significant change in the Applicant, the Committee should take more time, and should give the parties more time, to obtain information about and analyze the financial, managerial and technical capabilities of the Applicant.
E. The Committee is not authorized to issue a Certificate at this time because it cannot comply with RSA 162-H directives.
The Committee is not authorized to issue a Certificate for the proposed facility at this time because it cannot comply with RSA 162-H directives regarding potential environmental impacts and adverse effects on public health and safety. It is apparent from the scant record on environmental conditions at the site that neither the Committee nor the Department of Environmental Services has made sufficient inquiry into the nature, extent or need to remedy historical contamination that may pose adverse environmental, public health or safety consequences. As discussed below, issuing a Certificate for siting a 70 MW power plant with associated construction and operational activities, based upon the preliminary and incomplete environmental investigations of the site conducted to date, would be premature, at best, and contrary to this Committee’s statutory obligations. Furthermore, any attempt to impose conditions upon the Applicant relating to environmental investigation would be insufficient to address environmental and public health risks, in part because siting a facility of this nature and size in a contaminated area may inhibit future investigation and foreclose the viability of remedial alternatives, including activity and use restrictions. Thus, the Committee should deny the application.
In lieu of denial, the Committee should reopen this proceeding to require the Applicant to conduct and submit additional environmental investigatory information sufficient to assure the Committee that the siting, construction, operation and closure of the proposed facility would not adversely affect public health, safety or the environment.
1. Full environmental review must precede a Certificate
Under RSA 162-H:16, IV, the Committee is required to fully review the environmental impact of the site and must find that the site and facility “will not have an unreasonable adverse effect on … air and water quality, the natural environment, and public health and safety.” RSA 162-H, IV(c). A certificate “shall be conclusive on all questions of siting, land use, air and water quality.” RSA 162-H, II. The record shows that, despite severe contamination of the entire mill area, very little environmental investigation has been performed on the proposed site. The record also shows that further and more complete environmental study is imminent, but will not necessarily be taken into account before construction of the facility begins. This puts the cart before the horse. Under the statute, a certificate may not issue unless and until further investigation allows the Committee to conclude that issuing a certificate for siting a 70 MW power plant would not create adverse risks to health, safety and the environment.
2. The record shows that environmental review is incomplete
The record shows that the proposed project site is contaminated with heavy metals, among other things, and that there has not been a full review of environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The Applicant’s representative, Mr. Frecker, stated under oath on August 23, 2010, that he was aware of a 2003 investigation conducted by GZA with regard to the site, that 7 of 13 groundwater monitoring wells did not show levels of any metals or organics above groundwater quality standards (which means that 6 did exceed standards) and that GZA recommended additional sampling of groundwater and soil “to determine if levels of mercury which were detected were, in fact, not just associated with natural background because they were only a couple or part per billion above the regulatory standards in the state of New Hampshire.” Transcript of Laidlaw Berlin BioPower, LLC, August 23, 2010, pp 14-15 (hereinafter “Transcript”). A review of the GZA assessment, which was not included in the record as an exhibit, indicates a level of concern far beyond Mr. Frecker’s characterization. See, e.g., GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., “Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation, Burgess Pulp Mill and Cascade Paper Mill, Berlin and Gorham, New Hampshire,” prepared for NHDES, December, 2003 at 27 (“Due to the exceedances of certain AGQS in groundwater samples collected from certain monitoring wells at both sites, and the exceedances of certain S1 soil standards in certain soil samples collected, the Burgess and Cascade Mills should enter the regulatory programs of the New Hampshire Corrective Action process.”)
Mr. Frecker also made reference to the nearby Chlor-Alkali plant where EPA has been doing investigations for mercury contamination, Transcript, pp.12-13, as well as Laidlaw’s intention to “provide a significant level of monetary support and cooperation” in having subsurface and other studies conducted at the site by City of Berlin consultants. Transcript, pp. 11-12. This testimony confirms that the proposed site has not only failed to be included in the state’s corrective action program, as recommended by GZA, but also that further investigation has not been conducted.
These passages raise the issue of whether this Committee can conclude, based upon the current record, that the proposed project will not have an unreasonable effect on public health and safety or the environment. There are at least two investigatory efforts referenced in the record that suggest otherwise, as these efforts would produce the very information that the Committee needs to make the required determination. The first effort is the EPA investigation of hazardous contaminants that have migrated to the site from the upriver Chlor-Alkali plant. According to EPA’s website, these hazards have yet to be fully characterized or assessed in terms of remedial action that might be necessary. See www.epa.gov. The Chlor-Alkali site, which has been listed on Superfund’s National Priorities List as a result of concerns about mercury, dioxin and other hazards, see 70 Fed. Reg. 54286 (September 14, 2005), will undergo years of testing and evaluation that may well result in remediation activities to address health and safety risks. EPA’s website states that at least 135 pounds of mercury and mercury-containing sediments were removed from the Androscoggin River and its bank and that “based on results of testing performed on the site during the Summer of 2009, EPA will begin investigating the area surrounding the site in 2010. It is anticipated that sampling to determine the risk to human health and the environment will occur on the 38-acre area that abuts the former cell house area of the site.” See epa.gov/rl/npl (Waste Site Cleanup & Reuse in New England). EPA’s investigation and subsequent remedial determinations may well extend as far as the proposed facility and may require remediation or activity and use restrictions incompatible with the siting of a 70 MW biomass power plant.
The second investigatory effort is contained in the City of Berlin’s proposed certificate conditions and a Scope of Work submitted by its consultant. See Exh. Berlin 1 (Proposed Certificate Conditions) and Exh. Berlin 1D (Scope of Work for Subsurface Investigation). One condition would require Laidlaw to fully fund the Scope of Work for a Phase II Environmental Site Characterization dated August 10, 2010 but would also allow for construction of the facility while the investigation proceeds. See Exh. Berlin 1, p. 8, par. 13 (“Performance of the Scope of Work shall be conducted, to the greatest extent possible, so as not to interfere with construction of the facility … .”). The August 10, 2010 Scope of Work states that “the City of Berlin currently lacks sufficient information regarding the nature and extent of contamination at the site which may affect potential re-use scenarios.” See Exh. Berlin 1D, p.1. Allowing reuse of the site for construction of a 70 MW power plant before the necessary studies are conducted makes little sense.
Thus, the record of this proceeding demonstrates that issuance of a certificate is premature because the Committee cannot fully review the risks of developing this site, as proposed, nor can it impose appropriate conditions with regard to construction, development or closure until all appropriate investigations and remedial recommendations are completed. See 162-H:16, VI (“A certificate of site and facility may contain such reasonable terms and conditions as the committee deems necessary …”). See also RSA 147-F:12, IV (“The department shall impose such conditions on the redevelopment and use of the property as it finds necessary or proper to assure that the contamination on the site does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment …”). The City of Berlin’s proposal to require investigation as a condition of approval by this Committee, even while construction proceeds, ignores that the approval itself would foreclose future investigatory or remedial activities that may become necessary. More importantly, the studies may suggest that reuse of the proposed site for construction of a large power plant on contaminated soil and groundwater is inappropriate. Furthermore, the Committee is currently incapable of assessing the risks of actual construction of the project, which could result in exacerbation or additional releases of mercury and other contamination that already exists. See, e.g., Transcript, pp. 9-10 (“you’re not going to really puncture into contaminants that much … correct?).
It is incumbent upon this Committee to seek, review and assess, through authorized state agencies, the results of subsurface investigations and remedial recommendations, including EPA feasibility studies for the Chlor-Alkali plant areas, before issuing a certificate in this proceeding.
3. The Committee should require additional record submissions.
RSA 162-H:10, IV and V authorize the Committee and public counsel to require or to conduct studies deemed necessary and to employ consultants, as appropriate, at the Applicant’s expense. As the proposed project site has not been fully investigated and no plan for remedial action or use restrictions (“remedial action plan” or “RAP”) has been developed under the state’s corrective action programs, it is appropriate for the Committee and public counsel to require the Applicant to fund these efforts and to submit the studies for the record before a final decision is made on the application. See, e.g., RSA 147-F:11, VII (“A remedial action plan shall describe in detail a remedial strategy for the property that shall ensure protection of human health and the environment … .”) The Committee should also reopen the record to allow for submission of documents related to environmental concerns for the proposed site, including but not limited to the GZA report, EPA studies and the City of Berlin’s January 13, 2010 Notice of Intent to Sue PJPD Holdings, LLC under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, all of which are referenced in testimony or exhibits but not made part of the record. See, e.g., Exh. Berlin 1, p. 9 (referencing notice of intent to file a citizens’ lawsuit under imminent hazard provisions of RCRA).
Testimony and related exhibits regarding liability protection that the Attorney General’s Office or the City of Berlin might offer the Applicant is irrelevant to this Committee’s statutory obligations and should be disregarded by this Committee in determining whether the proposed project would adversely affect public health, safety or the environment. See, e.g., Transcript, pp. 17-21 and Exh. PC 1 and PC 4; see also Exh. Berlin 1, p.9. Any covenants not to sue issued by the Attorney General’s Office or the city relate only to liability issues and not to the risks presented by this site, which this Committee is obligated to review.
That the liability covenant referenced by public counsel was issued outside of the auspices RSA 147-F, which would normally require RAP approval and subsequent completion of remedial activities before liability protection can extend to the current owner, compare Exh. PC 1, RSA 147-F:12, V and RSA 147-F:13, IV, illustrates that the proceedings conducted to date on environmental issues have been misdirected and wholly inadequate. For these reasons, the record should be reopened and supplemented to allow the Committee to perform a full environmental review before acting on the application.
III. CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Committee should not grant a Certificate of Site and Facility to Applicant.
Respectfully submitted,
CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT,
LLC
By its Attorney,
/s/_James T. Rodier
Dated: September 16, 2010 1500A Lafayette Road, No. 112 Portsmouth, NH 03801-5918
603-559-9987
Certificate Of Service
I hereby certify that I have provided a copy of this Motion for Clarification and/or Rehearing to the Parties on the Service List in this proceeding.
/s/_James T. Rodier
Yes Spence I have heard the same about the other biomass companies now coming forward to intervene. For obvious reasons they have serious concerns which likely won’t be lost on the PUC. I agree their testimony is significant given the important role they now play in the existing NH biomass industry. I believe the timing shows that even they are unsure how the applicant has made it this far. Who you know helps, but it’s what you know that ultimately must stand on it’s own.
Of course none of that likely matters for LLEG IMO.
From what I understand it does. But unfortunately the old adage “no news is good news” may not apply for some in this instance IMO. ;)
As for JE, it appears he may have just been taking a few well-deserved moments to enjoy watching the Mayor squirm and then loose control as he came to the realization of admitting that Jon was right. He didn’t want to admit it though, so instead he just used the gavel to stop the torment IMO. lol
Spence, do you suppose MB’s silence has anything to do with the testimony he gave during last week’s hearings in Concord? It will be interesting to see how investors react once they hear what he had to say about the relationship (or lack thereof?) between Berlin and LLEG. Gotta give it to these shareholders though, they sure know how to look at the bright side of things. Good thing to, that is a trait that could serve them well in the near future IMO. ;)
"Public Service of New Hampshire has agreed to negotiate with
Clean Power Development regarding easements the company needs to begin work on its Berlin biomass project."
Word is that behind the scenes PSNH is being scolded for their actions against CP. The PUC didn’t order them to negotiate with CP because PSNH realizes they don’t want to piss off the PUC. Above everything PSNH knows they need to work with the PUC and pissing them off to fight Laidlaw’s battles is just not worth it to them in the end.
I especially love the cartoon. So true isn’t it? See you at the finish line kids. ;)
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2010/7/23B.pdf
I often question whether it is reading or understanding that is the challenge for Laidlaw investors. Assuming you spent the time to read their testimony, do you honestly believe that Mel and Bill’s testimony is fabricated? If you believe it is, then why not directly challenge it? Or is it that you can't? Perhaps it’s just the reality of it all that is just to difficult for Laidlaw investors to accept. Oh well, at least you can’t claim you weren’t given all the facts.
http://www.nhsec.nh.gov/2009-02/index.htm
I especially enjoy the parts where Mel and Bill use Landvest, PSNH and Laidlaw officials own testimony to help make the case against the application. Priceless. Who’s orchestrating this thing for Laidlaw anyway? lol
You can only claim their testimony is biased if you can prove what they say does not reflect fact. If you read their testimony you will see they back up what they say with factual information from reputable sources. If it were biased then Laidlaw, the State and other experts would be disputing it. But since no one is, or can, one can conclude that their testimony will be looked at by EFSEC for what it is, expert testimony from experienced individuals who know and understand the industry as well as anyone in the State or region for that matter.
Read it and weep. The best is yet to come IMO. Like when PSNH backs off their PPA with Laidlaw because they know they won’t get it past the PUC given the facts presented by Mel. Those pesky facts eh ;)
http://www.nhsec.nh.gov/2009-02/index.htm
Sure I don’t mind helping you at all, since your “sources” are a far cry from reliable. LMAO
Send me your email address and I will get the number right off to you.
So do your "sources" also believe CPD is going before the planning board next Tuesday because they want to announce they are done? LMAO
Tell us what your "sources" say about the investment group who bought the mill? lol
This should be good. ;)
Dead in the water? Clean Power Development will be providing an update to the Berlin Planning Department on June 8. Great time to hear how alive and well Clean Power is.
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
BEFORE THE ENERGY FCILIIYT SITE EVALUATION COMMITTEE
Docket No. 2009-02
Application of Laidlaw Berlin BioPower, LLC
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM W. GABLER ON
BEHALF OF CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC
Q: Please state your name, title and business address for the record.
A: My name is William W. Gabler and I am the Project Manager for Clean Power Development (CPD), which is located at 130 Pembroke Rd. Suite 100, Concord, NH 03301
Q. How would you summarize your testimony?
A. The Coos Loop is an old regional transmission system of a very limited capacity. While the exact amount of that capacity may be the subject of technical debate, it is generally recognized that with the minor upgrades anticipated to be done by Granite Reliable wind the system may be able to carry in excess of 100 MW, and possibly as high as 140 MW. This limitation on the ability to transmit power has hindered the development of renewable energy in northern New Hampshire. Because of that, this situation has resulted in extensive involvement by the state’s legislative body, the PUC and ISO-NE, all of whom recognize the need to expand the current capacity in order to accommodate the development of additional renewable generation.
It should be noted at the outset that in the absence of expanded capacity, interconnection of new projects beyond those already operating and/or permitted to build will result in the imposition of Minimum Interconnection Standards (MIS) by ISO-NE. Under this protocol, existing contracts and purchase power agreements may be cast aside, as ISO-NE dispatches purely on bid price.
Thus, issuing a permit to the Laidlaw Berlin Biopower project, whose output we know for a fact will exceed the available transmission capacity, will have significant consequences throughout the north country of New Hampshire. Existing generation facilities on the Coos Loop will not know from one day to the next if they will be allowed to operate. Fuel suppliers for those plants will not know from one day to the next if they will have work. Projects that are fully permitted and ready to be built may well be brought to a standstill by the economic uncertainty brought on by MIS. The possible economic impact of layoffs and lost employment in the plants as well as the forestry and trucking communities could be staggering.
A thorough review of all factors related to the transmission system in northern New Hampshire clearly reveals that issuance of a permit for the construction of the Laidlaw Berlin Biopower project will likely have a significant negative impact on the orderly development of the region.
Q: Please briefly summarize your educational background, relevant background and employment experience.
A. I have a BA in History from New York State University. I served 23 years in the U.S. Navy as a nuclear power plant operator, supervisor, and engineering officer, and was the senior nuclear operator for the Navy’s nuclear power program when I retired. Following that, I worked for 5 years as the Energy Services Supervisor at New Hampshire Electric Cooperative, during which time I joined the U.S. Association of Energy Engineers (AEE). As a member of AEE, I obtained national certification as an Energy Manager and a Distributed Generation Professional and served as the President of the Maine/New Hampshire chapter of the association.
In 2000 I was elected to the New Hampshire legislature, where I served on the House Science, Technology and Energy committee. During that term, I was chairman of the Biomass Energy Study Committee and led the effort to develop a long range energy plan for the state that integrated generation, transmission and related issues into a coherent energy policy. As a result, I was asked to serve on the Executive Committee for the development of the New Hampshire Energy Plan in 2002. Later, while serving as policy advisor to the governor, one of my areas of responsibility was energy-related issues.
In 2008 I joined Clean Power Development where I serve as Project Manager and am currently involved in developing projects in Berlin and Winchester, New Hampshire, as well as investigating additional development opportunities in the region.
Q: What is the purpose of your testimony?
A: To discuss various aspects of the regional transmission system, interconnection to the transmission grid and the impact that development of excess generation in the region might have on the orderly development of the region.
Q: Please describe some of the history of the existing regional transmission system.
A: The transmission system in northern New Hampshire is a 115-KV system, owned by Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) and has been built in stages since the 1940s. This system is generally referred to as the Coos County Loop, the Coos Loop, or simply the Loop.
Michael Bartoszek, CEO of Laidlaw Berlin Biopower, summed up his view of the condition of the Coos Loop in his January 8, 2008 letter to Michael Harrington at the New Hampshire PUC where he stated that:
“It’s no secret that the loop is very old and has suffered decades of undercapitalization”
In my opinion, his statement is correct, and as a result, the Coos Loop has, over the years, been the subject of much scrutiny, discussion and several legislative actions.
Q. Please discuss the findings of the PUC and legislative studies of the Coos Loop.
A. Recognizing the limited ability of the Coos Loop to support additional renewable generation beyond an estimated 130 MW, the New Hampshire legislature in 2007 passed Senate Bill 140, which in its statement of findings said that:
“In order to develop substantial electric generation from renewable energy, existing transmission infrastructure, particularly in the northern part of the state, will need to be upgraded or replaced or new transmission facilities will need to be built.”
In passing Senate Bill 140, the legislature went on to order that:
“The public utilities commission shall file a report with the general court by December 1, 2007 that describes: the existing electricity transmission system in New Hampshire; the current process for siting, constructing, and financing transmission upgrades and expansion; the approximate costs of potentially appropriate transmission upgrades; approaches pursued by other states to encourage transmission expansion related to renewable generation; and actions the public utilities commission has taken to advance New Hampshire interests with respect to transmission.”
Thus, it was that on December 1, 2007, the Public Utilities Commission issued the “Background Report on New Hampshire Transmission Infrastructure” (http://www.puc.state.nh.us/Transmission%20Commission/Transmission%20Infrastructure/NHPUC%20SB140%20Report%2012-1-07%20REDACTED.pdf ).
As previously identified, that report evaluates the currently limited capacity and then goes on to lay out three options for upgrading the capacity of the Coos Loop to a level sufficient for the proposed projects to interconnect. Those three options ranged in cost from $160 million to $210 million.
The fourth option in the report was to utilize Minimum Interconnection Standards as a potential interim measure that would allow additional generation to start construction and begin interconnection while the necessary transmission upgrades were being made. Under that scenario, additional generation beyond the current capacity of the system could be allowed to interconnect, but the report clearly notes that use of the MIS:
“ . . . does, however, limit the output of these units based on system and generation conditions as well as reduce or eliminate the unit’s capacity value (in the FCM). Therefore, while this option is theoretically feasible, it may not be acceptable to generators, or, more to the point, their investors or lenders.”
As a result of the need identified in the PUC report and other efforts, the legislature took action in 2008 to form the North Country Transmission Commission (SB 383) and charged the commission to provide input with regard to achieving the necessary transmission capacity expansion in a timely manner and to provide a report of its findings and recommendations on or before December 1, 2008.
In its December 2008 progress report (http://www.puc.state.nh.us/Transmission%20Commission/120108%20Progress%20Report/Progress%20Report.pdf), the transmission commission confirmed the position that an upgrade of the existing transmission system or construct new transmission was absolutely necessary in order to facilitate the development of renewables in the North Country.
In appendix Q of the North Country Transmission Commission report, Michael Bartoszek, CEO of Laidlaw Berlin Biopower, speaking of the need to identify creative ways to expand the capacity of the Coos Loop and to release the renewable energy capacity of the North Country states that:
“However, as we all know, none of this will become a reality without adequate capacity to export that power to the ever increasing demand of New Hampshire’s southern tier.”
Mr. Bartoszek cautioned however, that:
“ . . . the process of bringing it up to 21st century standards will need to be structured in a manner that encourages, not discourages the “build out” of new plants.” Because “Any plan that places an excessive capital burden on potential projects to the point of unacceptable risk to investors will not achieve the ultimate goal of the PUC or provide much needed economic opportunities to the citizens of the North Country.”
In a more direct manner, Mr. Bartoszek addressed his specific concerns regarding the financial impact of plans to upgrade the Coos Loop on the economic viability of Laidlaw Berlin Biopower in his January 8, 2009 letter to Michael Harrington at the NH PUC.
“Renewable energy projects are capital intensive and entail significant risk under the best of circumstances. The scenario outlined in the report, whereby new generators would shoulder the entire cost of upgrading the loop, would significantly impact Laidlaw’s capital budget. To be fair, we would be willing to assume some of the burden of the necessary transmission upgrades, but not at the expense of developing a project that is ineligible for financing.”
In the above comment, Mr. Bartoszek was addressing section 3.2 of the PUC’s December 2007 Coos Loop report which lays out a process whereby the state would take the lead on a major upgrade of the loop, with each developer then paying for the portion of capacity that they utilized which was beyond that provided by the Noble Wind project upgrade. Thus, Mr. Bartoszek makes it clear that Laidlaw Berlin Biopower anticipates using capacity well beyond that provided by the Noble Wind upgrade, to the point where the extra cost of the necessary upgrades could well jeopardize the economic viability of the Laidlaw project.
Q. What is the currently available transmission capacity of the Coos Loop?
A. The previously noted, New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission “Background Report on New Hampshire Transmission Infrastructure” concludes on page 25 of that report, that:
“To reliably transfer additional power over these lines, equipment must be replaced or upgraded, although it is possible that up to 60 MW of generation could be accommodated under existing condition.”
On page 11 of its report, the commission noted that:
“According to PSNH, the Coos County Loop could support approximately 100 MW of new generation in the area without significant transmission upgrades.”
Later in the document, it is clarified that the extra 40 MW of capacity could be obtained by re-sagging the existing lines at a cost of approximately $10 million, and that:
“Interconnecting new generation in excess of 100 MWs to the loop, will require more costly upgrades to both PSNH and NGrid transmission systems.”
Mr. Michael Bartoszek quantified his view of the capacity of the Coos Loop in an October 31, 2008 letter to PUC Chairman Tom Getz where he said that:
“The current system can accommodate additional generation with a minimal amount of upgrades. Depending on generation location and type, we have been advised that between 100-160 megawatts of capacity is available.”
The engineering analysis included in the system impact study completed by Siemens Energy for ISO NE on April 24, 2009, regarding the Granite Reliable Wind project, confirms that with minor upgrades the Coos Loop will have an available capacity of between 120 and 140 MW.
This is an important value, because the Granite Reliable Wind project, Clean Power Development and Laidlaw Berlin Biopower total 190 MW of net power output (99+27+64). Thus, while the exact amount of available capacity may be the subject of further analysis, everyone is in agreement that there is insufficient capacity available for Laidlaw Berlin Biopower to operate in addition to those plants currently operating and/or permitted to construct (i.e. Granite Reliable Wind and Clean Power Development).
Q. Please explain the “Minimum Impact Standards” previously mentioned.
A. First, it is important to note that MIS was only proposed as a potential interim measure to allow additional generation to interconnect while transmission upgrades were made. It was never intended as a solution to the situation or as a long term fix. Especially in light of the fact that transmission upgrades are not even in the planning stages and may well be many years away. This means that reliance on MIS severely jeopardizes the orderly development of northern New Hampshire.
The issue of MIS was discussed in detail during the November 20, 2009 meeting of the North Country Transmission Commission, where the minutes record the assessment of MIS by Mike Harrington of the NH PUC.
“It means that if there is a line that is capable of handling a 100 MW transmission line, then anything up to 100 MW can connect on that line under the minimum interconnection standard. There could be multiple plants all connected under the same line because they could all produce up to their full amount of electricity, assuming that none of the other plants were running. The problem comes when you have multiple plants because they are all going to want to run to the maximum extent possible. ISO-NE will dispatch the lowest bid resource because that is what is economical. When new plants are added, there is not a pecking order or hierarchy to existing plants, so if a new plant comes on and bids lower, the older plant could be displaced as to which gets dispatched. It is whichever bids the lowest, with no seniority rights; there are not even any rights if you spent the money to upgrade the transmission when you came in. If a new company can bid their electricity lower, they will get dispatched even over the facility that paid for the upgrade to the line, under the minimal interconnection standard.”
Emphasis added
A significant issue of concern regarding MIS was then further expounded on by Joe Staszowski of PSNH who explained that under MIS;
“ . . . a purchase power agreement has no impact on whether the plant is dispatched. The plant will bid into the ISO-NE market, and ISO-NE will dispatch generators from the lowest to the highest cost. Whether a plant is dispatched is dependent on the bid price, not on any contractual price under a PPA.”
Emphasis added
Thus, under MIS an operating power plant with a contractual obligation to provide power may be blocked from doing so by a plant that bids lower.
Q. Has ISO-NE recognized this issue, and if so, how is that reflected in their analysis?
A. Yes, ISO-NE has recognized the reality of the limitations existent in the Coos Loop in the study conducted for Queue # 251, filed as Appendix Q of the application under review. Section 4 of that study establishes the base cases and forecasts the generation dispatch lineup should Laidlaw Berlin Biopower be built and operate. Table 4-2 reflects the dispatch lineup (under MIS) that was considered in the feasibility study. That table identifies 59MW of existing generation on the Coos Loop that ISO-NE anticipates would be called on to shutdown when Laidlaw Berlin BioPower operates at full power.
So are you saying that PSNH is going to intentionally stand in the way of an easement to stop CP? That should go over well with the State.
Can you prove I am wrong? How can you be sure I don’t attend meetings? Perhaps you can find somewhere in the application that shows where they are planning to supply heat? Have fun wasting your time looking. The question was asked directly to them and they clearly stated they are not making provisions in their plans to provide auxiliary heat.
My understanding is that they are currently working on a PPA. Things are coming together nicely from what I hear and plans are to break ground this summer.
Laidlaw has already publicly stated they did not make any provisions and are not planning to make any provisions to supply heat to businesses on the site.
I understand CP is in the process of attaining the easements for the right-of-way to build their access road. They are also getting ready to begin clearing their lot for construction. They are hoping to begin construction this summer from what I hear.
Fortunately he does not think much about Laidlaws Berlin project.
http://www.allbusiness.com/energy-utilities/renewable-energy-biomass/11816268-1.html
Look before leaping into biomass electricity.
By Niebling, Charlie
Publication: New Hampshire Business Review
Date: Friday, February 27 2009
TO THE EDITOR:
First, full disclosure: I am general manager for New England Wool Pellet in Jaffrey. I have an interest in seeing the use of pellet fuels grow in the northeastern United States.
Now why I write: New Hampshire will be making a colossal mistake by blithely endorsing the use of the North Country's biomass resource to make electricity, rather than its much higher and better use--heat. The North Country is blessed with a valuable natural resource--its forests. If we use these forests sustainably they can provide for our economic and ecological well-being. Much has been said about the role of our forests in meeting the energy needs of our state, region and country. But as the North Country Council's recent wood supply study revealed, there are limited volumes of biomass available for energy.
This study estimated that North Country forests can sustainably yield approximately 600,000 green tons of biomass per year for new energy demand, given all the other demands on this wood resource and the biological limits of our forests.
The study begs the question: Clearly this is a finite resource, so what is the highest and best use of this resource? I submit that it IS NOF to turn it into electricity at efficiencies of about 20 to 25 percent, but rather to turn it into heat, at efficiencies of 70-90+ percent.
Much has also been said about the need for upgrades to the electric transmission capacity in the North Country. The cost of such upgrades sufficient to carry power from new generation to downstate and out-of-state consumers is now estimated to exceed $200 million. What is the highest and best use of $200 million of taxpayer or ratepayer dollars? I believe it is to help the people and communities of the North Country tighten building envelopes and convert their heating needs from volatile imported oil, propane and natural gas to locally-produced dean-burning chip and pellet central heating systems. Central heating, community-scale district heating and combined heat and power technology is advancing rapidly in Europe and elsewhere, and is available TODAY. We have a choice: the 600,000 tons of biomass can either produce roughly 60 megawatts of electricity to satisfy folks from away, or enough heating fuels to meet the needs of about 50,000 North Country homes and businesses (about 150 megawatts of heat, given the much higher efficiencies!). Far more jobs would be created through a local heat economy and the harvesting and refining of biomass fuels, than by making electricity. Tens of millions in-annual heating fuel expenditures would circulate in your neighbor's pocket, rather than bleed out-of-state to finance overseas petro-dictatorships.
I urge North Country policy leaders to take a hard look at this choice and consider the enormous potential to heat the North Country with your own resources. More jobs through local economic development energy security through energy independence, and a citizenry far more connected to the resource--and far more likely to insist on its responsible management In my view, the choice is clear.
Charlie Niebling
New England Wood Pellet LLC
Jaffrey
Which State plates will it have?
Yes looking good from here if you are opposed to the project. Looks like it’s got lots of obstacles which IMO won’t ever be addressed.
Answers that should have been ready for the first exam long ago, but weren’t. I suspect probably won’t be ready for the next exam.
No business plan
No financing
No sustainability plans
No connectivity plans
No PPA
Just the hope for an approved application so they can then get all that done.
If the plan were so great, everything would already be in place.
Oh well there is always the “next” project.
“The counsel for the public, represented by attorneys Peter Roth and Allen Brooks asked for more information in a number of areas and indicated they would need to see more before they would approve the project.
Mr. Roth said he doesn't see a business plan, which would be a necessity before the public counsel will sign off on the project. He also said he didn't see anyone within the organization with the experience necessary to raise the funding necessary to move forward.
Mr. Roth came back to the business plan issue: To not have a financial model in your own pocket, it seems a little reckless. Mr. Roth pointed out relying on the market won't meet the SEC's requirement of proving financial viability. He asked if Laidlaw expects to have financing by the time the SEC makes a ruling. Mr. Bartoszek said no, the SEC permit will be an important piece in order to find financing.
Laidlaw responded they are still researching how to best approach sustainable harvesting.”
http://www.newhampshirelakesandmountains.com/pdf/BER.2010.05.12.pdf
IMO it is clear that Laidlaw has yet to demonstrate they have the people, know-how, financing, financial model, fuel supply, connectivity, etc etc, but they do have one thing, gullible investors! You have a wiener!
Can’t blame you for trying to put a positive spin on bad news. It can’t be easy to learn you are nothing more then an ATM since Laidlaw does not own anything, has no financing in place for construction, has no financial model, can’t show there is enough wood, has no PPA and can’t dispute a study that shows there is not enough capacity in the Coos loop to connect. But yeah other then overcoming all those obstacles everything is good. But keep buying since there are projects in the pipeline. Wink wink.
Hey don’t take this news to hard, there is always the MA, or Illinois or whatever project in the pipeline? Keep your chin up. Soon. Patience.
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2010/5/7B.pdf
BERLIN — Laidlaw Berlin BioPower officials and consultants were grilled for over six hours Wednesday on the technical aspects of their proposed biomass plant. Questions focused on the company’s financial structure and capacity, wood supply and sustainability, local impacts of noise and truck traffic, and the Coos transmission system. The technical session was an opportunity for intervenors to seek further information beyond answers provided by Laidlaw to written questions as part of its permitting process before the state Site Evaluation Committee. The two Co-Counsel for the Public opened the session and Senior Assistant Attorneys- General Allen Brooks and Peter Roth exhaustively quizzed Laidlaw officials for about three hours. Roth, in particular, honed in on the financial aspects of the project. Laidlaw President Michael Bartoszek explained that PJPD Holdings, LLC., owns the property and assets. Laidlaw is the applicant and will obtain the necessary permits and will operate the facility. PJPD is wholly owned by Aware Energy Funding, LLC., which in turn is wholly owned by NewCo Energy, LLC. Both Aware Energy and NewCo are incorporated in Delaware. Bartoszek said Laidlaw has spent $12 million on the project already and has another $3 million in hand from PJPD to complete the permitting process. He said Laidlaw and PJPD expect to finance the estimated $160 million required to construct the 70-megawatt plant by raising $120 million through institutional investors and $40 million in equity funding from New Co. Roth pointed out Laidlaw does not have a financial model showing the plant would be profitable and suggested it was a little reckless not to have such modeling. He reminded Laidlaw that it has the burden of proving it has the financial capability to construct and operate the plant. “I don’t know how you’re going to get financing if you don’t have a financial model,” Roth said. Bartoszek said there are financial documents that have not been released to the intervenors because of confidential issues. Laidlaw Attorney Barry Needleman indicated the documents will be available to Counsel for the Public and the city of Berlin once his client files a confidential agreement that will limit third party access to the documents. Bartoszek said Laidlaw also expects to have a power purchase agreement in place by the end of the SEC process which will give his firm an investment grade utility rating. But citing confidentiality, he refused to answer whether the anticipated power purchase agreement with Public Service of N.H. will include a fuel price adjustment. Roth noted Laidlaw has no chief financial officer and asked if anyone on Laidlaw’s management team had ever raised $110 million for a biomass plant before. Carl Strickler, senior vice president and chief operating officer of Fibrowatt LLC, said he raised $200 million in 2004 for a plant in Texas. Brooks asked about the life span for a biomass facility and if Laidlaw could provide models of other long operating profitable biomass facilities. He asked what such a facility can offer Berlin residents in terms of stability. Bartoszek said no business can predict future operations. Laidlaw Vice President Lou Bravakis said the presence of the former chemical recovery boiler is a huge advantage, allowing Laidlaw to reduce construction costs significantly. Another main focus for the intervenors was whether there is sufficient wood in the region to supply the facility using sustainable harvesting practices. Clean Power Development, which has a proposal to develop a 29-megawatt biomass plant in Berlin, has argued there is not enough wood for both facilities and existing users. Both developers have submitted wood studies representing their point of view. Laidlaw has objected to questions about wood availability and sustainable harvesting, arguing fuel procurement is outside the Site Evaluation Committee’s purview. In spite of that objection, Laidlaw said it has a wood study by Landvest, showing there is sufficient wood for both facilities. Bravakis said the study shows there is 7.2 million tons of wood available annually with current usage at 6 million tons. He said Laidlaw would use 750,000 annually and Clean Power would use 300,000 tons. The issue of wood supply lead to an testy exchange between Clean Power President Mel Liston and Bartoszek. As Liston repeatedly questioned his counterpart about the wood supply issue, Bartoszek said he doubts Clean Power will get built. “I don’t think there’s a very high likelihood your project is going to go through,” Bartoszek LAIDLAW from page 21 said, Michael Iacopino, attorney for the Site Evaluation Committee, reminded the attorneys that the session is designed as an opportunity for the intervenors to get information. He said the time to make arguments is during the adjudicatory hearings scheduled for August. Attorney Arthur Cunningham, representing the N.H. Sierra Club, said the environmental group is most concerned that wood used at the plant is harvested in a way that protects the health of the region’s forests. He stressed the Sierra Club is not opposed to biomass plants. He urged Laidlaw to take the initiative and put in place a procurement policy that requires wood used at the facility to be harvested using sustainable forestry practices. Bravakis said Laidlaw plans to develop a procurement policy that requires third party verification of sustainable forestry practices. Cunningham asked if the plan would be in writing and Bravakis said it would. Clean Power Attorney James Rodier asked if there is capacity on the Coos Transmission system for the output of Granite Reliable Power’s wind farm and the Laidlaw and Clean Power biomass plants. He pointed out a study performed for the North Country Transmission Commission indicates there is not enough room. Bartoszek said everyone is free to draw their own conclusions from the study. He said Laidlaw ISONew England, which manages the region’s supply, is conducting a system impact study for the Laidlaw project. He noted all three developers have requested to interconnect to the grid. Representing the city of Berlin, Attorney Peter Van Ooh addressed issues of noise and truck traffic. He reported the Berlin planning board voted Tuesday to ask that noise levels not exceed 55 decibels at the perimeter of the property. The board also asked that no wood delivers be allowed on Sundays and between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. Monday though Saturday. A second technical session is scheduled for June 25. That session will be for witnesses called by the Counsel for the Public and the intervenors and will also be held in Berlin.
It was fun! But then my definition of fun is watching Laidlaw representatives squirm under intense questioning.
Apparently it's was not deleted, but I don't expect you to refute it because I know you can't.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=49713077
From reading the answers provided by Laidlaw in response to the inquiries from the attorney generals office, it is evident that:
1. Laidlaw owns absolutely no part of the Berlin power plant, so all previous claims of company value were unfounded.
2. Laidlaw has not done any economic analysis of the cost of fuel supply.
3. Laidlaw has never had any meaningful discussions with anyone regarding financing the project, despite previous claims to the contrary.
4. Upon completion of construction, Laidlaw will get a lease to operate the plant. (Just like Waldron had an agreement to do the phase 3 work upon completion of 1 & 2)
5. Laidlaws estimate of start of operation (revenue) is either fall of 2012 or the spring of 2013, depending on which answer you read
6. Laidlaw has never done any financial modeling of the economic viability of the plant, but intend to do so soon.
The best way to dismiss him as a basher is to refute his claims. But yet you can’t.
Interesting that you choose to dismiss him as a basher rather then counter the points he made. I take it as a good sign. It means you are unable to refute the points he made which can only mean they must be valid. I expect more of the same as the process continues. If you think these prices are low, you ain’t seen nuttin yet. IMO
Sure, I will post a link to it “soon”. You’re a patient bunch, I am sure you can wait. ;)
You folks should enjoy this, after all you are used to getting the run around! ;)
STATE OF NE\ü HAMPSHIRE SITE EVALUATION COMMITTEE
SEC DOCKET NO. 2OO9.O2
Application of Laidlaw Berlin Biopower, LLC, for a Certificate of Site and Facility for a
70MW Biomass Fueled Energy Facility in Berlin, Coos County New Hampshire
LAIDLAW BERLIN BTOPOWER, LLC'S RESPONSE TO
FIRST DATA REOUESTS OF COT]NSEL FOR THE PUBLIC
Preliminarv Statement and General Obiections
All responses contained herein are subject to these general objections.
Laidlaw objects to each data request to the extent it seeks information that is irrelevant,
immaterial, not within Laidlaw's possession, custody or control, attorney-client privilege and/or
work product privilege protected information, business confidential information andlor
information that is in the public domain and equally available to Counsel for the Public and
Laidlaw.
Laidlaw objects to questions pertaining to the availability of wood and the manner in
which the proposed facility would acquire its wood, such as whether the supply would be
"sustainable". The "Availability'' question addresses the issue of whether there is enough wood
for the proposed facility to operate. The fuel procurement issue involves the manner in which
the proposed facility will obtain its wood. Laidlaw believes those issues are beyond the Site
Evaluation Committee's purview. Nevertheless, without waiving its objections, Laidlaw
believes there is unquestionably more than enough wood supply for the proposed facility.
Laidlaw has provided and will provide information to support that position. Regarding the
procurement issue, without waiving its objection, Laidlaw intends to propose a Certificate
condition that it believes will address this issue.
Responsive documents and communications are being provided in these responses.
Documents or coÍrmunications relating to ongoing negotiations, however, are irrelevant,
immaterial and therefore nonresponsive.
Laidlaw reserves the right to supplement its responses to these data requests upon
discovery of additional responsive data.
Responses
1. Please provide all documents included in the Application that were not
produced in the copy of the Application provided to Counsel under the
explanation f r Confidential Treatment Requested. "
Response: The Site Evaluation Committee has a copy which is subject to a
Protective Order. Applicant is not opposed to Public Counsel having access to
that document subject to that Order.
2. Please identify each of the persons or entities that hold an interest in PJPD,
LLC and Aware Energy, LLC. Please provide copies of all documents
concerning any relationship between the Applicant and either of the two
entities.
Response: As the chart below illustrates, PJPD Holdings, LLC ("PJPD") is
wholly owned by Aware Energy Funding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
("Aware"), which in turn is wholly owned by NewCo Energy, LLC, also a
Delaware limited liability company ("NewCo"). Each of these companies is a
single purpose entity ("SPE"), formed solely for the purpose of the Project. PJPD
will own the assets and issue the debt; Applicant will execute all construction
contracts and operating agreements; and Aware is providing funding which comes
from NewCo and its investors. While complex, SPE status is designed to preserve
and protect the Project and the other collateral from extraneous, non-project risks.
PJPD is a party to a confidential Development Agreement with Applicant that
provides for funding of the initial development activities until construction
financing is put in place. These arrangements are highly sensitive and confidential
and Applicant will only provide copies if an appropriate confidentiality order or
agreement is in place.
-" Lease of Facility
The majority of NewCo investors are individuals indirectly affiliated through past
arrdlor present employment with Accenture PLC, as more particularly described
Laidlaw Berlin
BioPower. LLC
2
in the Application at Section H(5) . The NewCo investors have invested in
numerous other projects with similar structures and have provided all Project
financing to date and have indicated a willingness to invest in the Project. The
following individual investors in NewCo provide advisory services to facilitate
the Project:
Keith Mueller
Mr. Mueller recently retired as a managing director from Accenture after 2J
years. He held numerous roles at Accenture including leading the North America
Utility organizalion with over 500 consultants, leading the firm's Global Utility
industry with responsibility for managing the industries go-to-market strategy and
coordinating over 2,000 individuals. Mr. Mueller also managed the P&L for the
Resources Industry (energy, utility and natural resources industries) for North
America, was responsible for leading all of Accenture sales efforts and for
defining the strategy and the development of Accenture's Business Process
Outsourcing Industry solutions. Mr. Mueller sat on the firm's executive
committee and was also responsible for compensation and hiring for the United
States with over 10,000 hires per year.
David Hill
Mr. Hill is a retired senior managing director from Accenture where during his24
years his client work spanned a number of industries including financial services,
transportation, retail and consumer goods. These programs were multi-year,
technology enabled change programs with both outsourcing and consulting
initiatives including organizational, human performance, process and IT
components. In addition Mr. Hill held several management roles from 2002 until
2005 when he had P&L responsibility for the Consumer and Industrial Products
practice across North and South America and the Systems Integration practice. In
both of these roles, he supervised investment activities, technology alliances,
training development and oversaw the global development and deployment of
3,500 technology consulting personnel.
Richard Golden
Mr. Golden spent 28 years with Accenture where he managed large, complex
business and information technology consulting projects for Global 1000
companies. He specializedinthe manufacturing, retail and defense & aviation
industries. He also held various executive management roles including: Managing
Director - Sweden and Finland; Managing Partner - Retail Industries in Europe
and Africa; Managing Partner - Ventures & Alliances for the Product Operating
Unit; Managing Partner - Global Operations for the $2.1 billion Products
Operating Unit; and as Corporate Chief of Staff where he helped manage the
transition of Accenture from a global partnership to an international corporation.
-JMr.
Golden most recently was Managing Director of Alumni Capital Network, a
private equity firm specializinginbuying and building small to mid-sized
businesses. He managed fundraising for the firm's $68 million fund and is
currently a board member. Mr. Golden also serves on the boards of "Biflex
Intimates Group", a New York City company that designs, manufactures and
distributes private label apparel to large box retailers.
Michael C. Loulakis, Esq., DBIA
Mr. Loulakis is President and CEO of Capital Project Strategies (CPS), a
specialized consulting firm that provides strategic procurement, contracting and
risk management advice to clients who develop and construct capital projects.
Prior to forming CPS, Mike practiced law for almost 30 years with the national
construction law firm of Wickwire Gavin, P.C. where he served as its president
and chairman until its merger with Akerman Senterfitt in 2006. He has extensive
and diverse experience in representing both public and private sector owners in
the transportation, power, petrochemical and process industries, particularly on
projects using design-build and EPC contracting. Mr. Loulakis is widely
published, and is the author of several books on design-build and project delivery
that are being used by both universities and industry. He holds a civil engineering
degree from Tufts and a law degree from Boston University.
Please identify the number of tons of carbon that the Project will emit into
the environment on an annual basis.
Response: The facility is not subject to any regulations or requirements with
respect to carbon emissions and therefore this request seeks irrelevant and
immaterial information.
The USEPA's guidance document *AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emissions Factors" provides factors that can be used to estimate COz emissions
from a variety of combustion sources such as the Project's wood fired boiler.
Using the COz emission factor presented in AP-42 for wood fired combustion
sources (AP-42, Section 1.6), and assuming that the boiler operates at the annual
average heat input rating for 365 days per and24 hours per day, the estimated
annual COz emissions would be approximately 796,000 tons per year.
Babcock & Wilcox (B&W), Laidlaw's technology provider for the fluidized bed
system to be installed in the boiler, has estimated COz emissions based on the
chemical analysis of wood that may be supplied to the Project. As presented in
the emissions sunmary tables contained in Appendix A of the Air Permit
Application (Appendix C of the Application for Site and Facility), that analysis
suggests that the maximum COz emissions from the boiler are approximately
895,000 tons per year.
-4-
4.
Both of these estimates ignore the widely and long accepted premise that
combustion of biomass such as that to be used by the Project is not considered to
contribute to global greenhouse gas levels as discussed is response to data request
4 below.
Please quantify overall carbon emissions versus carbon sequestration or
other positive impacts related to atmospheric carbon that demonstrate that
the Project will be t'carbon neutral.tt
Response: The facility is not subject to any regulations or requirements with
respect to carbon emissions and therefore this request seeks irrelevant and
immaterial information.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory published a report summarizing their
findings regarding the COz emissions associated with a variety of energy
generation technologies (NREL/TP -5 I 0 -3257 5, J anuary, 2004). The NREL study
included a life-cycle analysis that considered upstream processes necessary for
feedstock procurement, including collecting biomass, transportation, and any
construction of equipment (NREL Report at iii). NREL's Report concludes that
direct fired biomass energy generation has a negative global warming potential
(GWP) of 410 grams of COz equivalents per kilowatt-hour of energy produced.
The US EPA's emissions factor guidance document AP-42 as cited in response to
Data Request 3 above, states with regard to wood residue combustion in boilers
(AP-42, Section 1.6),"CO2emitted from this source is generally not counted as
greenhouse gas emissions because it is not considered part of the short term COz
cycle of the biosphere."
In addition, Laidlaw notes the following regulatory programs that confirm the
carbon neutrality of biomass energy generation:
o The Model Rule developed by the multi-state Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative (RGGI) exempts biomass energy facilities from the requirements of
obtaining CO2 emissions allowances.
o NHDES regulations establishingaCO2 Budget Trading Program (Env-A
4600), with a stated purpose of stabilizing and reducing emissions of CO2,
exempt facilities combusting eligible biomass fuel from the need to obtain
allowances. Notably, the regulations specify that "Biomass combusted at
Schiller Station, as permitted effective March 7,2006, qualifies as eligible
biomass." Env-A 4602.38. The biomass used at PSNH's Schiller Station
comes from similar sources that will provide biomass fuel to Laidlaw's
project.
-5-
5. With respect to question #4, please describe the scope of the analysis
including whether secondary carbon sources such as vehicle emissions were
considered. If a source or factor was excluded from the analysis, please state
why it was excluded.
Response: The facility is not subject to any regulations or requirements with
respect to carbon emissions and therefore this request seeks irrelevant
information.
See response to data request 4 above.
Please state the expected lifespan of each of the major components of the
facilify.
Response: The two principal items of equipment are the boiler and the steam
turbine generator. Both of these have useful lives expected to be in excess of 40
years, given appropriate operation and maintenance. Similar lives can be expected
for other major equipment including the air pollution control equipment, cooling
water system, boiler feed pumps and motors, boiler fans and motors, step up
transformer and auxiliary transformer etc.
Please describe the impact of the facility's wastewater upon the
Androscoggin River because of thermal loading if the facility is not able to
recycle hot water by its reuse at the Cascade Flats mill. Provide copies of any
reports or studies in your possession or control regarding those impacts.
Response: Whether the Project recycles hot water or not makes no difference
to the Project's thermal loading to the River as only stormwater will be
discharged directly to the river. Although such heat recovery may alter the
wastewater discharge temperature slightly, this effluent will be discharged to the
Berlin Waste Water Treatment Facility. The Project's wastewater discharge is not
expected to alter the discharge of the WWTF as it will be controlled to less than
150oF, will combine with other waste waters is it travels nearly a mile through the
sewer system to the W-WTF, and will then combine with all other municipal
wastewater in the WWTF's treatment tanks.
Please provide a maintenance and replacement schedule for all major
components of the facility.
Response: The basic philosophy of the facility will be to develop a
preventative and predictive maintenance program and to normally schedule an
annual major maintenance shutdown. The timing and duration of the annual
shutdown will be coordinated with PSNH in consideration of peak generating
periods. Specific maintenance tasks for the annual shutdown will be developed
and scheduled in accordance with the equipment manufacturers
6.
7.
8.
-6-
recommendations. We anticipate that the following work tasks will be typical of
the annual major maintenance shutdown:
Boiler:
o Annual boiler work and inspections as required and as recommended by the boiler
manufacturer.
o Sootblowerinspections.
o Steam drum intemal inspection.
o Hydrostatic pressure test.
o Auxiliary fuel and burner inspections.
Turbine/Generator: (Minor inspection):
o Annual minor T/ G work and inspections as recommended by T/G manufacturer.
o Borescope inspection of steam path.
o Bearing inspection.
o Test over speed trip function
o Generator Hi-pot or Doble power factor test.
Turbine/Generator: (Major inspection):
o Every 5 to 7 years the major maintenance shutdown will include a major
turbine/generator outage which will be scheduled with a work scope as
recommended and co-ordinated with the T/G manufacturer.
o Typically, at this time the turbine rotor and generator field is removed and the
entire steam path is cleaned.
Electrical:
o IR survey ofelectrical connections.
o Calibration testing and resistance measurements.
o Insulation resistance testing.
o Doble power factor transformer testing.
o Station baIfery load test.
Balance of Plant:
o Annual work and inspections as required and as recommended by the equipment
manufacturers.
Replacement schedule of components will be developed as determined by the
predictive maintenance program, the component operating history and the work
and inspection results obtained during the annual maintenance shutdown.
7
9. Please specify whether capital improvements beyond the normal operation
and maintenance budget will be needed to keep the Project viable and
operational for twenty-five (25) years after operation commences. Do the
same for fifty years (50), seventy-five years (75), and one hundred (100)
years.
Response: The basic philosophy of the facility will be to develop a
preventative and predictive maintenance program and to normally schedule an
annual major maintenance shutdown. This comprehensive maintenance program
will be designed to maintain the facility in a safe, environmentally compliant
condition in order to meet its production goals throughout its operating life. Any
capital improvement project, as determined to be needed by the predictive
maintenance program, the equipment operating history and the work and
inspection results obtained during the annual maintenance shutdown, will be
planned, developed and included in the normal annual budget. Certain capital
projects, such as those associated with technological advances, productivity and
efficiency improvement may be economically advantageous to implement,
however, no major capital project is expected to be required during the first 25
years of operation. The same maintenance philosophy is intended to be applied
going forward beyond 25 years. Predicting what capital improvements might
needed 50, to 75,1o 100 years out is very difficult, if not impossible, to forecast.
Please describe the life expectancy of the Project without additional capital
expenditures.
Response: Certain capital projects, such as those associated with
technological advances, productivity and efficiency improvement may be
economically advantageous to implement, however, no major capital project is
expected to be required during the first 25 years of operation.
Please state the number of tons of ashes that the facility will produce on a
monthly basis. Describe in detail the procedures that the facility will employ
to manage and dispose of those ashes. Include in your description maps and
diagrams showing the location and design of any ash holding structures or
locations. Provide copies of any documents relating to your plans to sell any
such ashes for reuse.
Response: Using an ash in fuel figure corresponding to the current available
knowledge of the feedstock mix, together with a design feedstock moisture level
it is anticipated that the ash arising from the boiler will be in the order of 130
tons/week or approximately 560 tons/month when firing at l00o/o MCR
(annualized plant capacity factor -90%). These figures are subject to revision as
more representative statistics on fuel analysis are obtained.
10.
11.
-8-
12.
13.
t4.
15.
Fly ash will be continuously collected from the electrostatic precipitator and
mechanical dust collector hoppers using a dry mechanical system. Collected fly
ash will be conveyed to a dry storage bin inside of the boiler building. While the
design of this system has not yet commenced, it will be sized to provide storage
capacity sufficient to accept twelve to twenty four hours of full-load operation.
Ash from the elevated storage bin will be processed through a pug mill which
mixes dry fly ash with water to produce a wet cake that minimizes dust generation
during subsequent handling. The wetted fly ash will then be loaded onto trucks
and transported offsite for disposal or for beneficial re-use in agricultural land
applications.
Please provide copies of all power purchase agreements ("PPA") with
respect to any energy to be produced by the Project.
Response: At this time, Applicant does not have an executed power purchase
agreement.
If the Applicant has not yet entered into a PPA, does the Applicant anticipate
entering into a PPA prior to the close of the SEC process? Please provide
copies ofany correspondence, term sheets, letters ofintent or draft
agreements regarding sales of power to be produced by the Project.
Response: Applicant anticipates that a PPA will be executed before the SEC
process is concluded. Correspondence, term sheets, letters ofintent and draft
agreements relating to the PPA are highly sensitive and confidential business
information the disclosure of which would cause direct harm to the competitive
position of the Applicant. Such drafts and related documents are irrelevant and
immaterial. Moreover the Applicant is under an obligation to keep this
information confidential and cannot release such information at the present time.
The Applicant will only make the PPA available if an appropriate confidentiality
order or agreement is in place.
Is a PPA necessary in order to make the Project financially viable?
Response: Yes.
Please provide forecasts for earnings/losses through 2010,
Response: As discussed in more detail in22. below, Applicant does not
forecast any earnings or losses through 2010 as Applicant remains in the
development phase of the Project.
-9 -
16. Identify the source of funds now on hand and previously expended for costs
of the Project.
Response: Since acquiring the property in January,2009, PJPD has expended
approximately $12.1 Million on Project development and property acquisition. In
addition, PJPD has $3.3 million in available funds and PJPD has committed $2
Million of those funds in Project development funding to Applicant.
State the amount of unrestricted cash held by the Applicant.
Response: As indicated in #16 above, PJPD has provided commitments to the
Applicant of an additional $2 Million in Project development funding.
State the amount of cash on hand for the Project. State the amount of cash
needed in the next 36 months, by quarter, for the development of the Project.
State the amount of income, including loan proceeds or equity, projected for
the Project in the next 36 months, by quarter, and the sources of such. State
the complete basis for such projections.
Response: Applicant believes the Project will be financially viable, howevet,
at this stage, it is impossible to provide accurate projections over the next 36
months, especially when the following key elements have not been finalized: (i)
construction agreements; (ii) process and technology agreements; (iii) fuel supply
agreements, (iv) ratified revenue sources, including finalizingthe PPA; (v)
determined the cost of capital; (vi) determined final cost of interconnection costs,
and (vii) determined various other engineering and maintenance costs. All of
these items are actively being worked on and should be finalized in due course of
Project development. At this stage, we anticipate approximately 30+l- months of
continued development and actual construction and commissioning activity. As
indicated previously, PJPD has committed an additional $2 Million to develop the
Project to the point of construction funding, thereafter; we anticipate construction
funding to provide all other costs to construct and commission the facility.
During the next 36 months we do not anticipate any measurable income and we
anticipate the entire project construction and related activities to be fully funded
and capitalized in the construction funding. As we indicated in our response to
question 20, we anticipate the construction funding to be a combination of debt
and equity.
Identify any loan applications, requests, or proposals for financing made by
the Applicant for this project and provide copies. Identify and provide copies
of any term sheets or commitment letters for such loans. Provide copies of
any loan documents associated with such loans.
Response: The funding to date has been provided by PJPD pursuant to the
Development Agreement and it is anticipated that the $14.1 Million will be
sufficient to carry the Project through to receipt of final permits. At that time,
t7.
18.
19.
-10-
20.
PJPD, in close cooperation with the Applicant, will seek a combination of debt
and equity financing. Preliminary discussions have been held with investors and
lenders, but no formal applications, requests or proposals have been made, nor
have any term sheets, commitment letters or loan documents been generated. In
the experience of PJPD and Applicant; investors and lenders are not willing to
make commitments until such time as permits and other deliverables are in hand.
Please specify the amounts of debt and equity that the Project will need.
Describe all material terms with respect to the debt and the equity,
respectively. Identify the sources of such debt and equity.
Response: The Applicant and PJPD expect that construction of the Project
will be financed through a combination of (i) Senior and Subordinated secured
debt of approximately $120 Million that will be privately placed with Institutional
Investors, most likely a combination of life insurers and investment banks; and
(ii) approximately $40 Million in equity related contributions originating with
NewCo. The percentage of debt will depend upon final documentation and
contracts, but is commonly around 10-80% of total project costs.
How much capital for the Project does the Applicant have committed
through financing or equity as of the hearing date?
Response: Applicant has committed financing for the Project in the amount of
$14.1 Million from PJPD. As of this date, Applicant has expended in the
development of the Project approximately $12.1 Million, with $2 Million
remaining for further development.
Please provide consolidating balance sheets and income statements for each
of PJPD, Homeland Renewable Energy Inc., Homeland Laidlaw Energy,
LLC, and Fibrowatt Operations LLC.
Response: Attached are the balance sheets as of December 31 , 2009 and
March 31, 2010 and the related statements of operations for the year ended
December 31,2009 and three months ended March 3I,2010 for PJPD Holdings,
LLC (a development stage enterprise).
The other financial statements requested are still in the process of being prepared
and finalized for the year ending December 37,2009. When they are completed
they can be made available to Public Counsel with adequate provision for
confidentiality of these documents.
21.
22.
- 11-
23. Please provide legal organization charts for each entity that will own any
interest in or operate the facility, the Applicant or the land on which the
project will be constructed.
Response: Exhibit 1 to the pre-filed testimony of Michael B. Bartoszek shows
the organizational chart of the entities that have ownership interests in the
Applicant (Laidlaw BioPower, LLC and Homeland Laidlaw Energy, LLC) and
who will operate the facility (Applicant, Homeland Laidlaw, LLC, Fibrowatt,
LLC and Fibrowatt Operations, LLC).
PJPD is 100% owner of the Facility and the land. Pursuant to the confidential
Development Agreement with Applicant, Applicant and Fibrowatt will construct
the Facility. Upon completion, the Facility will be leased to Applicant, who will
be the operator of the Facility. The terms of the lease will give control of the
operations of the Facility to Applicant.
Please provide a copy of the Project's financial model showing the
Applicantrs fÌnancial assumptions and projections on a going forward basis
through to complete amorfuation of all debt.
Response: At this stage of the Project, the Applicant believes that any
financial model through the amortization of all debt (which Applicant assumes to
be twenty years) would be purely speculative and Applicant has prepared no such
model, for the reasons set forth in response to question 18. The Applicant intends
to develop an accurate financial projection with the assistance of an independent
engineer in the coming months.
If, one year after the Project commences operation, the cost of fuel,
transportation of fuel, maintenance and all other costs exceed the amount of
revenue obtained through the sale of energy, will the Project continue to be
operated?
Response: While this is purely a hypothetical question and assumes a highly
unlikely scenario, energy projects of the type being developed by Applicant
typically maintain reserve funds to meet shortfalls in cash for operations, major
maintenance and debt service and are generally required to do so by their lenders
and investors. Moreover, the offtake agreements of projects of this type often
involve adjustments to mitigate some of the hypothesized exposures.
At this stage, it is simply impossible to predict what actions would be taken if the
Facility operated at a loss during its first year.
24.
25.
t2-
26. Please describe all impacts that may result if, due to an increase in fuel costs
the size of the woodbasket were reduced to that within a 2- hour drive, a I lz
hour drive and a l-hour drive radius around the Project. Include in your
answer assessment of environmental, financial, orderly development of the
region, and aesthetics impacts of these reduced dimensions.
Response: This is an extremely difficult question to answer due to the
dynamic complexities of the Northeast fiber market. For example, a local
contractor could be conducting an integrated timber harvest within 30 miles of the
plant and can afford to dedicate trucks to deliver woodchips to the facility;
however that same contractor might take a job 80 miles away and decide to
deliver roundwood to the plant because he can "back-haul" logs from a
concentration yard thereby cutting his costs of delivery. Furthermore the notion
that fuel costs would rise without corresponding increases in revenue somehow
forcing the plant to restrict fuel deliveries to mile limitation is unrealistic. Since a
majority of the electrical generation in the Northeast is provided by natural gas
there is a direct correlation between fossil fuel price increases and electricity
pricing. Prior to the recent recession and corresponding drop in electrical pricing
the Northeast was experiencing very high electricity pricing due to the high cost
of oil and natural gas. Biomass is a locally produced commodity indirectly
connected to fossil fuel pricing which creates stability with respect to global
energy markets.
To understand how changes in variables that underlie the economics of the
Northeast wood market affect the region, one only has to look back andrealize
that the current forest is abundant and healthy in spite of a century of wood
consumption. Moreover, the region is suffering economically due to the loss of
markets that accompanied the pulp and paper industry.
27. Please indicate all assumptions used by Landvest with respect to
transportation costs.
Response: The Landvest study did.not examine pricing of fuel to the facility
which would include an analysis of transportation costs. Applicant expects to
conduct a detailed econometric modeling analysis in the fall of 2010 which will
include all costs.
28. Please describe all impacts upon the Project if the cost of transportation of
fuel were to increase over a ten-year period by respectively 5o/o,lÙVorzÙo/o,
50o/o, and 1007o. Include in this assessment impacts on the price of power in
the State.
Response: The project anticipates that its fuel supply agreement will be
structured in such away to incentivize suppliers to provide fuel at the lowest price
-13-
29.
then available. Transportation of fuel is only one component that factors into the
overall delivered price per ton of fuel.
The Applicant's project, like most energy projects that involve commercial
financing, look at various operating scenarios to assess how the project will
perform financially in various operating environments, including generally
"worse case scenario" assumptions. We believe the project will be able to operate
profitably in a various economic circumstances, but this project like just about
any other business is subject to commercial risks and no assurance can be
provided that it will not encounter an economic scenario that renders it
unprofitable. Trying to state a price point where the project becomes uneconomic
is purely a hypothetical exercise subject to changes in the underlying assumptions
of the energy markets over the next20 years that cannot be reasonably predicted.
In order to mitigate economic risk to the project, however, energy projects of the
tlpe being developed by Applicant typically maintain reserve funds to meet
shortfalls in cash for operations, major maintenance and debt service and are
generally required to do so by their lenders and investors. Moreover, the offtake
agreements of projects of this tlpe often involve adjustments to mitigate some of
hypothesized exposures.
Please provide an analysis using the approach suggested in the last
paragraph of page 9 of the comments of The \ililderness Society (TWS),
dated April 2,2010.Include in that analysis the map TWS suggested.
Response: The method that the'Wilderness Society suggests is unrealistic due
to the variables underlying wood procurement for facilities that are physically
located or have woodsheds that theoretically reach into the defìned area of supply.
The unknown is how the deficits would be met by these facilities considering the
realities of the market: trucking distances; expansion to regions with less
competition, existing fiber agreements etc. The reality is that the woodsheds look
more like legislative districts than circles as the Wilderness Society suggests.
Due to the shutdown of the Berlin, Groveton and Gilman mills, a lot of low-grade
wood is either left in the woods or trucked to existing facilities, many of which
are outside of New Hampshire. Once the plant is on-line many of the contractors
that are currently sending material to outside facilities will supply us resulting in
more wood remaining in the wood basket. These are the underlying assumptions
that make the Landvest model work.
Identify what construction activities are planned before the end of 2010 and
the source of all funds for those activities.
Response: V/ork will begin on the conversion of the existing recovery boiler
to a bubbling fluidized bed (BFB) boiler. The EPC contractor will mobilize to the
site and begin installation of the projects temporary power and communication
30.
14-
systems. Final grading of the site will start as will the foundation work for the
new turbine generator building. This work will be funded by the financing
described in response to # 20.
31. Please state the reasons that construction of the Project will take 2 to 3 years
to complete.
Response: The overall duration of the project is somewhat controlled by the
delivery schedule of the longest lead item. In the case of the Laidlaw Berlin
BioPower project the long lead item is the manufacturing and delivery of the
steam turbine generator which is projected to be between 18 & 20 months. The
erection schedule for the steam turbine generator is 4 months after which time the
final commissioning of the facility can begin.
32. The Applicant has stated a desire to work with the local community in terms
of project design, planning, and integration into the local landscape. To the
extent that the Applicant reaches an agreement with the City of Berlin or
other community groups, does the Applicant anticipate that these will be
outside agreements or does the Applicant anticipate that it will consent to
have these agreements become part of the SEC permit?
Response: Applicant has already been working with the City to address its
concems. At this time Applicant expects that it will consent to have any
agreement it reaches with the City become part of the SEC Certificate.
33. Please state from where the labor used for construction of the Project will be
obtained.
Response: The final determination of where the labor for construction for the
Project will be made by the selected EPC Contractor, however the Applicant
expects there is a high probability that amajor portion of total work will be
locally supplied through the NH Building Trades Council.
34. Does the Applicant plan on maximizing the use of New Hampshire labor to
construct the Project? If so, please describe what steps the Applicant will
take to ensure that use of New Hampshire labor will be maximized.
Response: Applicant and its EPC Contractor will work closely with the New
Hampshire Building Trades Council and will make efforts to maximize the use of
New Hampshire and local Berlin area workers. Additionally, Applicant will work
with its EPC Contractor to make every effort to employ these qualified workers
from the Berlin and surrounding areas.
35. Does the Applicant plan on maximizing the use of New Hampshire citizens to
operate, manage, and maintain the Project? If so, please describe what steps
-15-
36.
the Applicant will take to ensure that employment of New Ilampshire
citizens to operate, manage and maintain the Project will be maximized.
Response: Our policy is to hire from the local community and every effort
will be made to recruit local people for employment at the plant.
Prior to the start-up and commissioning phase, we will begin to recruit the
permanent plant staff. Adequate notice will be provided on our web site and in
local newspapers before we begin recruiting candidates. Our plan is to offer
employment candidates the ability to apply for a plant position on line, by mail or
in person.
Please set forth any conditions to a certificate that the Applicant would
propose for the Project to protect the sustainability of New Hampshire's
forest resources and the natural environment therein.
Response: As Applicant noted in its objection, the wood procurement
practices of large end-users are not regulated. Applicant does not believe there is
any basis to single out its use, which is substantially smaller than some other endusers
of New Hampshire forest resources, and regulate its acquisition of wood.
Notwithstanding its objections, Applicant will propose a Certificate condition to
address this issue.
Provide copies of all documents that relate in any way to any of the questions
stated above and your responses thereto.
Response: All relevant, material and non confidential documents responsive
to these requests are attached. Drafts are considered irrelevant and immaterial
and therefore are not attached.
Please identify the person responding to each of the foregoing data requests,
include their name, address, title, and experience and qualification for
answering the data request.
Response: Responses to the foregoing data requests were prepared by and at
the direction of the following individuals, whose experience and qualifications are
set forth in their testimony submitted in conjunction with the Application, in
consultation with counsel:
Michael B. Bartoszek
CEO Laidlaw Berlin BioPower, LLC
90 John Street, 4û Floor
New York, New York 10038
Carl Strickler
37.
38.
-t6-
Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
Fibrowatt LLC
One Summit Square, Suite 200
17 17 Langhorne-Newtown Road
Langhorne,PA 19047
Raymond S. Kushe
Principal
Laidlaw Berlin BioPower, LLC
20 Island Park
Yarmouth, ME 04096
Louis T. Bravakis
Lead Developer
Laidlaw Berlin BioPower, LLC
45 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05602
Dammon Frecker
Vice President of Energy & Industrial Services
ESS Group,Inc.
888
'Worcester
Street, Suite 240
Wellesley, li/.A02482
On behalf of PJPD Holdings, LLC, in consultation with counsel:
Richard Cyr
130 Clinton Street
Portsmouth, NH 03801
-17 -
PJPD, ttG (a Development Stâge Enterpise)
Statement of Operetlons
fort'he year ended Decembe¡ 31, 2ût9 and Three Mo¡rths Ended March lL,2oilo
(unaudlted)
RevEnues - Management Fees
Dir€Gt Pro¡ect Costs and Expenses
Land, buifdings and equipment
Project Requisition Expense
Legal, Consulting & Underwrlting
Travel &subsistence
Occupancy & office
Project Management
Capitalized lnterest
Operatiru income or (expense)
Other lncome or expense
Capita lized Project costs
lncome (Loss) before tax
For the Year
Ended
Decemebr 31,
zoo9
s
6,203,3t8
1,152,890
549,936
43,L95
5,4r5
t,430,957
950,000
70,335,770
(10,335,770)
For üte Three
(3) Montfis
Ended March
3L 2010
s
427,986
98,150
3,143
42
984,549
250,950
1,7Ø,82O
(!,7æ,820)
t0,335,77O
10,33s,770
t,7u,87O
7,7U,82O
ss
-
PJPD, ![C ( a Developrnent Stage Enterprise)
Balance Sheets
As of December 31, 2fl)9 and March 31' 2010
(unaudited)
ASSETS
Currert Assets
Cash and cash equivalents
Loan proceeds receivable
Total Current Assets
Property and EquiPment, at cost
Construction in Progress - Land and Buildings
Construction in Progress - Equipment
Constructíon in Progress - Development Costs
Total
Other Assets
Security Deposits
TOTAL ASSEÍS
UABII.JTIES AND MEMBERS' EQUITY
Current Liabilities
Accounts payable
Accrued lnterest
Total current liabÍlities
Loan Payable - Related Party
Memberc'Equ¡ty
Members capítal accounts
Equity Formation Costs
Retained Earnings - unallocated
Total Equity
Total Liabilities and Members' Equity
L2tstlz}Oe il}ilzüt0
s 100
3,346,636
3,346,736
5,579,577
623,801
4,732,392 5,897,272
LO,315,770 t2,100,590
21.4?9 27,439
5,579,577
623,8OI
a [o.zsl.zog s 15,468,765
(560,606)
950,000 1,200,950
389,394 1,200,950
10,000,000 14,300,000
100 100
132.2851 p2,28sl
(32,185) (32,L851
s 10,357.209 S t5,468,765
All relevant information in reference to Laidlaw’s legal council.
Here is a link to Laidlaw’s own website showing their legal counsel as Cohen & Czarnik, LLP http://www.laidlawenergy.com/investors.html
Here is a link to an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal about the SEC suing Czarnik http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100201-716392.html
Here is a link to the SEC complaint against Czarnik for allegedly writing bogus opinion letters to help stock promoters improperly procure unrestricted stock certificates in three unregistered "penny" stock offerings.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2010/comp21401.pdf
Chad Bray, The Wall Street Journal, February 1, 2010
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--The U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission sued a New York lawyer on Monday for allegedly writing bogus opinion letters to help stock promoters improperly procure unrestricted stock certificates in three unregistered "penny" stock offerings.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan on Monday, alleges that Stephen Czarnik, a partner at Cohen and Czarnik LLP, assisted three stock promoters in the abuse of a rule that allows accredited investors to acquire unrestricted shares from transfer agents in unregistered securities offerings that don't exceed $1 million.
The SEC said Czarnik continues to serve as a "one-man 'opinion-mill' for unregistered penny stock offerings." The regulator said Czarnik has authored at least 111 opinion letters for unregistered stock offerings, involving the transfer of more than 2.5 billion shares to penny stock promoters by 43 issuers.
"Czarnik served an essential role in these illegal offerings," the regulator said. "He churned out bogus opinion letters predicated on the promoters' alleged representations to him that they are buy-and-hold investors. In fact, Czarnik knew that they had no intention of holding the stock, but that they intended to nationally advertise the stock and quickly dump their shares into the public market for millions of dollars."
The alleged improper activity involved unregistered offerings for three penny stock companies between June 2007 and January 2008, in which the promoters served as intermediaries.
Czarnik didn't immediately return a phone call seeking comment Monday.
Before agreeing to issue unrestricted shares in absence of a registration, many transfer agents require a lawyer's opinion from the issuer's counsel explaining why it would be legal to do so, the SEC said.
The SEC said the promoters improperly pretended to be accredited investors intent on buying and holding stock of small companies for investment purpose, but their true goal was to take the companies public and immediately distribute stock in the public market.
"Czarnik knew or was severely reckless in not knowing that the promoters intended to distribute the stock to the public and that the transfer agent would rely on his letters and issue stock certificates without restrictive legends," the SEC said.
And a couple links to help you digest that info.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2010/comp21401.pdf
http://www.laidlawenergy.com/investors.html