That sounds like a good suggestion since it appears that this one could linger in no mans land for some time to come IMO.
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
COMPLAINT OF CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC
AGAINST PUBLIC SERVICE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
DE 09-067
MOTION TO COMMENCE FORMAL INVESTIGATION
1. Clean Power Development, LLC (CPD) filed a Complaint against PSNH on April 7,
2009. PSNH filed its response to the charges in the CPD’s Complaint on April 28, 2009.
Pursuant to Rule Puc 204.04, on May 5, 2009, CPD informed the Commission that it was not
satisfied with PSNH’s response.
2. There are two competing wood-fueled biomass-energy facilities projects being
developed in Berlin, NH: the CPD facility and the Laidlaw Berlin facility.
o The CPD project is supported by the City of Berlin.
o The sustainable wood supply will not support the oversized Laidlaw Berlin
project, let alone both projects.
o The CPD project occupies position 229 in the ISO-NE Interconnection Study
Queue, ahead of the Laidlaw Berlin project which occupies position 251 in the
Queue.
o The CPD project is nearly shovel-ready whereas the Laidlaw project is subject to
a lengthy permitting process.
o CPD and Fraser N.H. LLC, the owner operator of the Gorham, New Hampshire
paper mill, have executed a Memorandum of Understanding related to potentially
providing steam from the Clean Power Berlin project to the Gorham paper mill
for papermaking process use.
3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Laidlaw Berlin announced in September, 2008 that it
had reached an agreement with its friends at PSNH on the material terms of a contemplated 20-
year power purchase agreement which would provide a “guaranteed” source of revenue for the
Laidlaw project.
4. In stark contrast, CPD’s overtures to PSNH have been repeatedly rebuffed, according
to PSNH, “because of Mel Liston and how he had testified against PSNH in other venues. He’s
just a bad person and we don’t do business with people like him.” Therefore, PSNH does not
know, nor are they willing to investigate whether the CPD Facility would be better for its
ratepayers, for regional economic prosperity, for renewable resource sustainability, and in the
overall public interest.
5. Because of its entanglements with the Laidlaw project, PSNH has continued to rebuff
good-faith attempts by CPD to resolve its issues with PSNH.
6. PSNH has arrogated to itself the determination of which renewable projects get built
in New Hampshire. The renewable energy projects that get to deal with PSNH are screened to
make sure they fit PSNH’s “business model.” For the reasons set forth in CPD’s complaint, this
state of affairs simply cannot be reconciled with the state law or public policy on renewable
energy.
7. If it appears to the commission that there p~gy be a basis for the complainant’s dispute,
the commission ~i~ii conduct an independent investigation pursuant to RSA 365:4. Puc
204.04(b). (Emphasis supplied.)
WHEREFORE, CPD respectfully request the Commission to forthwith commence a
formal investigation the matters set forth in CPD’s Complaint and to grant CPD such other and
further relief as may be just and reasonable
Respectfully submitted,
CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC
By its Attorney,
I~T. Rodier /
Dated: September 14, 2009 1500A Lafayette Road, No. 112
Portsmouth, Nfl 0380 1-5918
603-559-9987 603-559-9987
‘At a hearing held at the Public Utilities Commission on February 5, 2009 in Docket No. DE -08-077, a
PSN}l witnessed testified under oath during cross-examination that PSNH has an open door policy for all
renewable resource developers and that all proposals of any kind would be considered in good faith and
treated strictly on their merits:
Q. All right. So, the door is always open to talk, and it could be indexed, it could be a fixed rate, and each project is evaluated on its own?
A. Yes.
Q. But nobody is in or out just because of who they are?
A. No.
Transcript, DE 08-07, February 5, 2009
