Laidlaw Energy Group, Inc.(fka LLEG)

[rich sears]

Matthew, You neglected to provide a link to your sources. Allow me.

http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2009/4/22B.pdf

Cheers! :)

To the editor: In order to gain additional insight into their efforts, I attended Laidlaw Energy Group’s recent presentation to the UNH Energy Club and found it interesting and enlightening on several fronts. I was especially impressed with the candor of the presenters in speaking to the university audience. Laidlaw board member Charlie Bass began by making it clear that while some have said that at 66 MW’s the Laidlaw project is too large for the region to support, that wasn’t necessarily true. He pointed out that the price of fuel and electricity is the key factor in this business. He went on to say that if/when somebody can pay more for the chips and it causes somebody else to go out of business, well, that’s the way that business works. Vice President Lou Bravakis then explained that the region was able to provide 3.5 million tons of biomass. Of that, 3 million tons were already being used, mostly by pulp mills, but that those businesses were teetering and their failure would make available the 700,000 to 750,000 tons of biomass the Laidlaw project would call for. Putting these statements together, it is clear that the Laidlaw business plan is based on the collapse of other biomass users, such as the pulp mills and existing biomass power plants. Their view apparently is that if Laidlaw’s ability to pay more for the chips causes those closures, that’s just a part of business. Perhaps the most interesting presentation, however, was provided by a Laidlaw contractor, Mr. Ray Racine, an engineer with Waldron Engineering. Mr. Racine pro-vided a very detailed analysis of the energy density of wood chip biomass and used this to explain that due to this and other factors, the size of a biomass power plant becomes a significant issue. First of all, he explained that biomass power plants usually have a maximum size of 50 MW’s because that’s the size that can be supplied by harvesting within a 50 miles radius of the plant. Citing his energy density to volume ratios he explained that 50 miles is the maximum distance from which you can economically harvest biomass. Again using the energy-volume ratios he explained that at 50 MW a biomass power plant would require 70 truckloads of chips a day, seven days a week. The concern being that for any-thing larger than 50MW, the volume of truck traffic could become a significant issue. Finally, Mr. Racine pro-vided the analysis to show that bringing in wood chips by rail was not economically viable. Due to the relative low energy density to volume ratio, it would take almost 6 train cars to provide the energy of 1 car carrying coal. He said that adding to the cost of extra cars, the cost to load and unload those cars would make the overall costs so high that you will never see rail used to transport wood chips. We at Clean Power Development agree com-pletely with the analysis of Mr. Racine. That is why the Clean Power project in Berlin was reduced from 45 MW to 29 MW to conform to available biomass. We adamantly believe that size does matter and an unreasonably sized plant potentially jeopardizes not only the environment and the community, but also other businesses in the region by creating an excessive competition over a limited resource. Bill Gabler Project Manager Clean Power Development Concord

Clean Power files complaint against PSNH
BY BARBARA TETREAULT THE BERLIN DAILY SUN
Charging Public Service of N.H. has repeatedly refused to negotiate an agreement to purchase its power, Clean Power Development has filed a formal complaint against the utility with the state Public Utilities Commission. Public Service has until April 28, to fi le an answer to Clean Power’s complaint. Clean Power is seeking to build a 22 to 29 megawatt biomass plant near Berlin’s wastewater treatment plant. The Concord-based company has the support of the city council, which has sold Clean Power an option to purchase the 11-acre site. The complaint alleges Clean Power has approached PSNH numerous times since 2006 to negotiate an agreement to sell PSNH the power that would be produced at its Berlin plant. Clean Power said PSNH has rebuffed its efforts to negotiate such an agreement. The company said a power purchase agreement is a prerequisite to moving forward with financing and constructing the facility. At the same time, the complaint charges Laidlaw Berlin Biopower and PSNH announced last September that they have reached agreement on the terms of a 20-year power purchase agreement for Laidlaw’s proposed Berlin project. The complaint notes a PSNH official testified before the PUC in February that the utility has an open door policy on renewable energy developers and would consider all proposals on their merits. That testimony was followed with a written memorandum that PSNH treats all renewable energy developers “evenly and fairly”. The complaint alleges last month a senior PSNH official told Clean Power the utility would never buy power from Clean Power because its president, Mel Liston, had testified against PSNH in other venues. Liston identified the official as Donna Gamache. Liston said he is a former PSNH employee with over 36 years in the steam and power industry. As president of Pinetree Power, he constructed biomass facilities in Bethlehem and Tamworth. Liston said he has disagreed with his former employer on occasion. “I testified against them in the past and I probably will in the future,” he said, in a phone interview. Included with the complaint was a copy of the letter Mayor David Bertrand sent to PSNH, asking why the two biomass developers were being treated differently. PSNH spokesman Martin Murrray said the utility could not comment on the complaint because it is still pending. But in an April 8, letter to Bertrand, PSNH Assistant General Counsel Robert Bersak said PSNH is not required to agree to a long term power contract with any electric generator or supplier. He said under the state’s electric restructuring law passed a few years ago, the utility operates an ‘open access’ retail electric system where any retail customer is free to chose their own electric supplier. As a result, he wrote PSNH’s need to purchase power from others is limited and it is cautious about making voluntary long-term agreements. Bersak wrote that Clean Power could sell its output directly to the New England wholesale market or could negotiate a bilateral agreement with any one of hundreds of electric utilities, municipal electric departments, and cooperatives through-out New England. Liston said Clean Power is talking to other potential buyers. He said he is concerned PSNH’s agreement with Laid-law may include a fuel adjustment clause that would increase the rate Laidlaw gets for its power if biomass prices go up. He said that would give Laidlaw an advantage over every other biomass or wood pellet plant competing for low grade wood in the northern sector of the state and even abutting states.