Saturday, October 31, 2009 7:02:19 AM
November 3 will be an interesting day for more then one reason.
When PSNH is required by State law to enter into a purchase agreement with CPD, that will be the end of Laidlaw in Berlin NH IMO.
Any questions?
PETITION TO INTERVENE
In Re: Order of Notice DE-09-067
The State ofNew Hampshire Public Utilities Commission
Complaint of Clean Power Development, LLC filed 4/7/09
I, James U. McClammer, Jr., New Hampshire State Representative, Sullivan 5, requests intervenor status in the above-mentioned matter, scheduled for hearing November 3,2009 for the following reasons:
As a ratepayer and representative of the residents of Charlestown, Acworth and Langdon, I am concerned that the Public Service Company ofNew Hampshire (PSNH) acts in a manner that is in the “public good.” Specifically, I am concerned that PSNH purchases energy at the most competitive prices, and that it encourages the development of alternative and sustainable energy by buying from “green” producers.
Sincerely,
- arlestown, NH 03603
Carbon Alliance
27 October 2009
Debra A. Howland
Executive Director
New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission
21 South Fruit Street, Suite 10
Concord, NH 03301
Re: Docket: DE 09-067
Dear Ms. Howland:
The Carbon Action Alliance is a group of New Hampshire residents and businessmen concerned about regulatory barriers to developing the state’s abundant natural energy resources. It is equally concerned about the prospects for reducing and avoiding carbon dioxide emissions from existing and planned New Hampshire fossil-fueled thermal and electric energy generation sources.
The Alliance submits this “Motion to Intervene” in the above referenced docket to address both these concerns by demonstrating that the failure of Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) to enter into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Clean Power Development (CPD) harms New Hampshire in three ways:
(1) It is retarding the ability of the state to reduce or avoid its CO2 emissions as recommended by the New Hampshire Climate Action Plan (CAP).
(2) It is causing calculable harm to the New Hampshire’s air, land and water systems.
(3) It is placing an avoidable financial burden on the New Hampshire electric ratepayer. The very existence of this complaint underscores the unwillingness of PSNH — an
active participant in the deliberations of the Climate Change Policy Task Force and a signatory to the New Hampshire Climate Action Plan (NHCAP) — to act in good faith to implement three key recommendations of the Plan.
To wit:
1. Address Barriers to Low- and Non-C02- Emitting Electric Generation (Energy Generation & Use, Action 2 4).
Rather than “identifying and removing obstacles to siting and constructing low- and non C02-emitting energy facilities”, PSNH is creating barriers to “the development of new low and non-CO2 emitting facilities in the state.” PSNH is making it more difficult and more expensive for New Hampshire “to move away from carbon-based supply side resources (i.e. fossil-fuel-fired power plants) while offsetting the impact of any potential load growth” (NH Climate Action Plan. p. 42)
PD Box 693 Littleton, NH 03561 • • chair@carbonactionalliance.or
Importantly, PSNH’s reluctance to purchase biomass-generated electricity from a New Hampshire generator is delaying the phasing out of older, higher C02-emitting facilities
whose orderly retirement could “facilitate the achievement of New Hampshire’s Renewable Portfolio Standard targets and Governor Lynch’s goal of achieving 25°c of New Hampshire’s energy production from Renewable Energy by 2025.” (Climate Action
Plan. p. 42) By failing to negotiate a power purchase agreement with CPD. PSNH’s continuing recalcitrance is having a chilling effect on the non-carbon energy marketplace. It is creating uncertainty among developers about the prospects of a New Hampshire renewable energy project obtaining a long-term purchaser of its electricity. Consequently, renewable energy projects are reluctant to invest limited financial resources in developing, financing and operating clean energy facilities — facilities which will create new, high-paying, clean jobs and add to state and local tax revenues and stimulate business activity generally.
2. Promote Renewable Energy through the Electric Portfolio Standard (RPS)(Energy Generation & Use, Action 2.1).
The New Hampshire Renewable Portfolio Standard “mandates that 23.8°c of retail electricity sales to in-state customers be provided by renewable energy resources by 2025”. Two-thirds of this goal must come from renewable energy resources such as
new solar, wind, geothermal and biomass. In 2008, more than three-quarters of the Renewable Energy Credits (REC5) authorized
by RSA 362-F were allocated to out-of-state certified facilities.
PSNH’s refusal to purchase the electrical output from a “shovel-ready”, in-state biomass project jeopardizes the creation of future New Hampshire-based RECs while facilitating the export of New Hampshire revenue to other states. By discouraging this Class I renewable energy project, PSNH will have fewer, less expensive RECs available to meet its RPS requirements. Failing to negotiate a PPA with CPD could easily result in New Hampshire distribution utilities making larger payments to the Alternative Compliance Fund—at a significant cost to the ratepayer.
3. Increase Renewable Energy and Low-C02-Emitting Thermal Energy Systems (RCI Action 3.1). By endorsing the New Hampshire Climate Action Plan in March 2009, PSNH has agreed ‘...to promote the expanded use of renewable and Iow-C02-emitting thermal
energy systems to reduce tossii fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions.” It is also endorsing efforts to provide “incentives and attractive financing for the use of cost effective, renewable energy resources and hig h-efficiency/low-C02-emitti ng thermal systems.”
PC Box 693 Littleton, NH 03561~603-568-49i6 chair@carbonactionalliance.org
PETITION TO INTERVENE NHP[JC OCT2~’O9 PM12:3G
In Re: Order of Notice DE-09-067
The State of New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission
Complaint of Clean Power Development, LLC filed 4/7/0 9
I, Judith T. Spang State Representative, District No. 7 New Hampshire, County of
Strafford, wish to intervene in the above-entitled matter, scheduled for hearing November
3, 2009 for the following reasons:
As a ratepayer and representative of the residents ofNew Durham, Milton, Middleton, Farmington, Barrington and Strafford, I am concerned that adoption of the least-cost principle is not being implemented. Electricity to be generated from the Clean Power Development (CPD) facility in Berlin is potentially below the cost of self-generated electricity by Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSN}4) owned assets, thus, there is an opportunity to lower the average cost to ratepayers. Secondly there is the concern that PSNH has arbitrarily chosen to enter a purchase power agreement with an alternative supplier (Laidlaw) at apparently higher price and without due diligence related to many of the significant issues such that we must question the PSNH reasons and motivation that would justify such a decision or commitment. I am concerned that the PSNH decisions related to renewable energy supply are in its interest only, and at the detriment of ratepayer interest, as well as the state and local interest related to the economy, the environment, and in accordance with the relevant state laws and policies. Since (PSNH) chooses not to seriously consider or be open to purchase-power negotiations with CPD (as well as other alternative energy producers), its conduct ensures needlessly higher electric bills to the consumers in my district. The Berlin site of the proposed CPD bio-mass plant provides an array of synergies which
combine to produce high overall production efficiencies - as high as 80 percent. Use of the city’s wastewater reduces or eliminates the need for well or river water for circulation and evaporation makeup while reducing the municipal wastewater treatment plant discharge load on the Androscoggin River. The ability of CPD to provide favorably priced process steam for the nearby Fraser paper mill strengthens that business that is a major source of employment in the region and significantly improves the regional carbon footprint as a result of replacing the use of imported fossil fuel. I understand that there are significant additional and realizable synergies involving the growing of algae for bio-oil production, local greenhouse production of food crops, and the desire and effort of CPD to move forward with the City of Berlin to have a District Heating System. All currently available and proposed synergies combine to substantially reduce the regional carbon footprint, overall air emissions, and environmental profile, plus significantly
improve the employment opportunities for Northern NH, which are all collectively in the best interests ofNew Hampshire residents. I contend that PSNH as a monopoly utility with protected territory and other favorable business protection is obliged to operate in the “public good” and, therefore, has a requirement to place value on all the favorable aspects related to the proposed CPD project when doing a least-cost analysis. I must question the PSNH business plan when~ chooses to ignore significant opportunities to serve their customer base in a way that better serve the “public good”.
Sincerely,
Judith T. Spang, 55 Wiswall Road, Durham, NH 03824 603-659-5936
judith@kestrelnet.net
STATE OF NEW I{AMPSfflRE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
COMPLAINT 01? CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC
AGAINST PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
DE 96-067
CITY OF BERLIN PETITION TO INTERVENE
NOW COMES the City of Berlin (the “City”) New Hampshire and hereby petitions the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission for intervention in the above-captioned proceeding pursuant to RSA 541-A:32 and NH Code Admin. Rule Puc 203.17. In support of its Petition, the City states the following:
1. The City and its residents are rate payers in the service territory of Public Service Company ofNew Hampshire (“PSNH”). The City is a steward of the economic, environmental, public health and welfare interests of the residents of the City. Without limitation, such interests include the appropriate uses of land within the City and the orderly development of the region
2. The so-called Coos County Loop, the high voltage transmission line serving northern New Hampshire, passes through the City. Several proposed renewable energy electric generating facilities have initiated regulatory review proceedings and/or announced the intention to he constructed within and/or in close proximity to the City. Each such facility directly and substantially implicates one or more of the foregoing interests of the City.
3. This docket concerns a complaint filed by Clean Power Development (“CPD”)claiming that Public Service ofNew Hampshire (“PSNH”) has refused to enter into negotiations for a power purchase agreement (“PPA”), to purchase energy, capacity and environmental attributes such as renewable energy credits from an as yet to be constructed biomass-fired combined heat and power facility proposed by CPD on property within the City. The complaint states that PSNH has not treated prospective developers of renewable energy facilities “even and fairly” in reviewing proposals and negotiating PPAs.
4. In this docket, the Commission is being asked to make determinations concerning the nature and extent of PSNH’s legal obligations to negotiate PPAs in good faith with CPD and other renewable developers, including for competing projects proposed within and/or in close proximity to the City, in order to satisfy energy service needs at the lowest overall cost to its rate payers. According to the complaint, a PPA is a prerequisite for a proposed biomass-fired facility to move forward with the financing, construction and eventual operation. Insofar as this is true, whether or not a proposed facility within and/or in close proximity to the City is able to negotiate a PPA with PSNH significantly impacts: 1) the cost of electricity to PSNH rate payers including the City and its residents; 2) which, if any, proposed renewable energy facilities will be economically viable and can be built within and/or in close proximity to City; 3) the nature of proposed renewable energy facility development within and/or in close proximity to City; and 4) the consequent impacts to the economic, environmental, public health and welfare interests of the City.
5. As PSNH rate payers (including the City and its residents) and the host community for several proposed renewable energy facilities, the City has a substantial interest that may be affected by the Commission’s deliberations and determinations in this proceeding. WHEREFORE, the City respectfully requests that it he granted full intervenor status in this proceeding.
Respectfully submitted,
CITY OF BERLIN
By its City Manager on behalf of
THE BERLIN CITY COUNCIL
Patrick MacQueen, City Manager
City of Berlin, NH
168 Main Street
Berlin, NH 03570
Tel:
Fax: (603)-752-8550
E-Mail: city manager~berlinnh.gov
October 27, 2009
Debra A. Howland
Executive Director
New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission
21 South Fruit St.
Concord, NH 03301
RE: Docket Number DE-09-067
Dear Ms. Howland;
Attached is my petition for intervener status in Docket Number DE 09-067, Complaint of
Clean Power Development, LLC against Public Service of New Hampshire.
Thank you very much for taking my request to be an intervener.
Sincerely,
State Representative Robin Read
Science, Technology and Energy Committee
132 Elwyn Ave.
Portsmouth, NH 03801
501-0139
STATEOF NEW HAMPSHIRE
before the
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
DE-09-067
Complaint OF CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC
AGAINST PUBLIC SERVICE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
STATE REPRESENTATIVE ROBIN P. READ
PETITION TO INTERVENE
October 27, 2009. NOW COMES State Representative Robin P. Read and respectfully requests leave to intervene as a party in the above-referenced proceeding. In support of this petition, Rep. Read states the following:
As a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives representing Portsmouth and Newington, a member of the Science, Technology and Energy Committee of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, a Public Service ofNew Hampshire (PSNH)
ratepayer, and longtime advocate for the development ofNew Hampshire’s renewable energy resources, I have an ongoing interest in this proceeding.
1 .Clean Power Development is proposing to build a 29-megawatt biomass-fueled combined heat and power energy facility in Berlin, NH. The facility would create much needed jobs in New Hampshire’s North Countiy and reduce the need for greenhouse gas
producing fossil fuel energy sources to produce electricity. The City of Berlin supports the project yet Public Service ofNew Hampshire has refused to enter into serious negotiations with Clean Power Development to purchase Clean Power Development’s
energy. PSNH, though, has entered into an agreement to purchase power from another biomass project that studies indicate would likely have a negative long-term impact on the state’s forest products industry.
2. Clean Power Development’s power is expected to cost less than energy produced by PSNH owned facilities. Thus PSNH would be violating Public Utilities Commission Least Cost Planning orders by refusing to purchase Clean Power Development’s energy.
3. New Hampshire RSA 362 F-i states that “it is in public interest to stimulate investment in low emission renewable energy generation technologies in New England and, in particular, New Hampshire, whether at new or existing facilities.” Clean Power Development’s Project would be such a facility.
4. Under electric industry deregulation and subsequent Renewable Portfolio Standard and other legislation, the New Hampshire Legislature intended that a merchant power industry be created in the state that would provide competition in the industry and would promote the development of the state’s renewable energy resources. PSNH’s actions in this matter have not met the letter or spirit of these laws and have not been in the best
interests ofNew Hampshire’s ratepayers or the state’s efforts to reduce emissions and protect its environment.
Respectfully submitted
State Representative Robin Read
132 Elwyn Ave.
Portsmouth, NH 03801
TOWN OF WINCHESTER * U INCORPORATEI) JULY 2’~” 1753
- I Richmond Road • Winchester, New Hampshire 034/U (~ -~
V ice: • Fax: (603) 239-4710 • TDD Access: Relay NH 1-S00-735-2964 ~
- select-rnen(a winchester.nh.gov • ~vw’.v.wtnchester-nh.gov
October26, 2009
OCT27’0~3~ 1-.-.
New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission
21 South Fruit Street, Suite 10
Concord, NH 03301-2429
Re: Docket #DE 09-067
Complaint of Clean Power Development, LLC (CPD) Against Public Service Of New Hampshire (PSNH)
Dear Sir or Madam:
Please honor this request/petition to intervene submitted by the Town of Winchester, New Hampshire, as a municipality, and on behalf of our citizens and businesses. The Town of Winchester is a rate payer to PSNH, as are most of our citizens and businesses. Our community is located in Cheshire County and over the years has seen heavy commercial business loss including A.C. Lawrence Leather Company, two paper mills, N.E. Box Company, Wood Flour Inc., and the Crestwoods Lumber Company, to name a few. This amounts to over 800 jobs lost. We are a now the home of three Brownfield sites, one of which was a super fund project containing plus or minus 19 acres of commercial land. The loss of business has left us with a reduced tax base and limited prospect for economic revival. Clean Power Development, LLC (hereinafter “CPD”) approached town officials to discuss the feasibility of locating the biomass plant in our community. After several visits and public meetings, CPD optioned several parcels of land within Winchester and advanced considerable effort toward their plan to build a biomass energy plant including a thirty-mile radius wood forest study showing perhaps the most prime spot in all of New England for this renewable energy project. As in the Berlin situation, CPD has located next to our municipal wastewater plant and plans to reclaim that water as part of their supply requirement. Since they can use the entire effluent flow instead of going directly to the Ashuelot River, we may be converted to a zero discharge facility. There is also the possibility of using steam heat for some of our municipal buildings. CPD also intends to co-locate additional industry plus an agriculture growing operation nearby to the facility. The opportunities for more, and better jobs, and increased tax base are multiplied. CPD is also very much interested in assisting with environmental mitigation and redevelopment of our largest Brownfield site, which is town owned. Winchester officials, not being extremely familiar with biomass plant operations, decided to investigate further. Arrangements were made to first meet with the Tamworth Board of Selectmen and Town Administrator to get their perspective on the Pine Tree Biomass Plant in Tamworth, then visit and tour the plant. What members of the select board, planning board, and economic development committee members heard was nothing but praise and full support of what Pine Tree has meant to their small community. They reported higher paying jobs for plant employees, and also for loggers and truckers. Restaurants, gas stations and other town businesses and businesses from surrounding towns have reported added income. We were told that the plant is very supportive of all community activities and has had a positive influence on good forestry management practices by paying premium prices to those that have plans in place. The Town of Winchester is concerned that PSNH’s actions are too far out of alignment with what is in the public interest. From our perspective, PSNH has a very narrow and self serving vision of how this state should address climate issues and dependence on fossil fuels and provide renewable generation capacity that best serves its customers while also meeting the other goals important to our state and local communities. Winchester feels strongly that all the positive aspects, as well as the negative, need to be figured into any cost analysis that a utility or the commission considers when valuing the merit of a new merchant power source. The Town of Winchester is concerned that CPD is not receiving fair or appropriate consideration by PSNH for CPD’s energy proposal in Berlin, and that if this approach for determining who gets to build and what types of designs are appropriate are left to a self serving giant utility, then a CPD project of considerable merit and beneficial for Winchester will also receive the PSNH cold shoulder. The Town of Winchester is also very concerned that the path PSNH is pursuing with an overly large 66 MW biomass plant in northern New Hampshire will have far reaching and limiting implications for the remainder of the State. The very considerable potential for multiple, smaller, more efficient, dispersed or decentralized biomass projects, wood pellet plants, and biomass fueled heating systems around the state are all put in jeopardy if one overly large PSNH backed facility in Northern New Hampshire draws all that potential and opportunity for a single, poorly thought out and inappropriate installation. The trucking costs alone for the fuel needed for the plant in northern NH would waste hundreds, if not thousands of gallons of diesel fuel daily for the miles returned home empty and goes against spirit of our state, and of our nations reducing its dependence on fossil fuel. Perhaps this bad behavior on the part of PSNH will now serve notice to the legislature that completing the deregulation process is in our best interest as it is clear that PSNH will never give up being the spoiler related to the Merchant Power Industry, as long as there is any chance they can own additional generation capacity thereby stranding millions more in rate base subject
to their substantial guaranteed annual rate of return. The laws that New Hampshire adopted call for the State to get 25% of its energy from renewable resources such as biomass by 2025, but let us use common sense and accomplish this wisely.
lly submitted,
~~iiA API •~
Ro e ert Gray’~own Ad trator
I
Gustave Ruth, Chairman
Board of Selectmen and Conservation Commission
04 ~
Jo Gomarlo, Chairman
Revitalization Economic Development Committee
JG irec
PETITION TO INTERVENE
In Re: Order of Notice DE-09-067
The State of New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission
Complaint of Clean Power Development, LLC filed 4/7 09
I, Robert J. Perry, State Representative, District No. 3, of Strafford, New County of Strafford, wish to intervene in the above-entitled matter, scheduled for hearing November 3, 2009 for the following reasons:
As a ratepayer and representative of the residents ofNew Durham, Milton, Middleton, Farmington, Barrington and Strafford, I am concerned that adoption of the least-cost principle is not being implemented. Electricity to be generated from the Clean Power Development (CPD) facility in Berlin is potentially below the cost of self-generated electricity by Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) owned assets, thus, there is an opportunity to lower the average cost to ratepayers. Secondly there is the concern that PSNH has arbitrarily chosen to enter a purchase power agreement with an alternative supplier (Laidlaw) at apparently higher price and without due diligence related to many of the significant issues such that we must question the PSNH reasons and motivation that would justif~’ such a decision or commitment. I am concerned that the PSNH decisions related to renewable energy supply are in its interest only, and at the detriment of ratepayer interest, as well as the state and local interest related to the economy, the environment, and in accordance with the relevant state laws and policies. Since (PSNH) chooses not to seriously consider or be open to purchase-power negotiations with CPD (as well as other alternative energy producers), its conduct ensures needlessly higher electric bills to the consumers in my district. The Berlin site of the proposed CPD bio-mass plant provides an array of synergies which combine to produce high overall production efficiencies - as high as 80 percent. Use of the city’s wastewater reduces or eliminates the need for well or river water for circulation and evaporation makeup while reducing the municipal wastewater treatment plant discharge load on the Androscoggin River. The ability of CPD to provide favorably priced process steam for the nearby Fraser paper mill strengthens that business that is a major source of employment in the region and significantly improves the regional carbon footprint as a result of replacing the use of imported fossil fuel. I understand that there are significant additional and realizable synergies involving the growing of algae for bio-oil production, local greenhouse production of food crops, and the desire and effort of CPD to move forward with the City of Berlin to have a District Heating System. All currently available and proposed synergies combine to substantially reduce the regional carbon footprint, overall air emissions, and environmental profile, plus significantly improve the employment opportunities for Northern NH, which are all collectively in the best interests of New Hampshire residents. I contend that PSNH as a monopoly utility with protected territory and other favorable business protection is obliged to operate in the “public good” and, therefore, has a requirement to place value on all the favorable aspects related to the proposed CPD project when doing a least-cost analysis. I must question the PSNH business plan when it chooses to ignore significant opportunities to serve their customer base in a way that would also better serve the “public good”.
Sincere1y,~,~ ,
Robert J. Perry, 88 Ev. ns ount~; Road, Strafford, NH 03884 603-269-4651
Nd~~DdHN
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
COMPLAINT OF CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC
AGAINST PUBLIC SERVICE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Motion to Intervene submitted by:
Rate Payer: Jonathan Edwards
323 School Street
Berlin, NH 03570
Docket #: DE 09-067
Date: 10/15/2009
Commission Members,
As a rate payer, business owner, and citizen of Berlin, I have been following the Clean Power complaint against Public Service Company of NH since its inception and respectfully request permission to intervene for reasons as follows;
1.PSNH has ignored the opportunity to provide rate payers with least cost energy by failure to consider an energy provider that has offered 5% cheaper power than its arbitrarily chosen supplier. PSNH has apparently made its decision about suppliers without any due diligence or consideration related to fuel price, availability or sustainability. PSNH apparently determines the merit of one project over another
without any consideration related to plant efficiency, synergy with surrounding industry and community, suitability for interconnection to the grid, or opportunities to improve the overall environmental picture for the region. It is clear that PSNH not only disregards electrical commodity cost to the detriment of captive ratepayers but gives no consideration to all the other aspects that have intrinsic value to the region, and the state.
2.Public Service Company of NH is refusing to work with Clean Power Development that has the superior energy business model that does not threaten forest sustainability as provided by numerous wood studies. PSNH moving forward with its presently preferred Laidlaw supplier will lead to the demise of currently operating biomass energy plants elsewhere in the state and likewise destroy other wood commodity businesses as a result of higher chip prices when demand exceeds supply. This will lead to increased negative impact to the north country economy in both loss of jobs and superior alternative business opportunity.
3.Public Service company of NH’s failure to work with the energy producer that has highest and soonest potential to provide assistance to the Fraser/Gorham mill business model via steam production with a highly efficient Combined Heat and Power design brings into question the who aspect of PSNH operating
in the Public Good. The very basis for their franchise and special treatment as a Public Utility. PSNH not willing to consider a project that is fully permitted and shovel ready thumbs its nose at the governor’s 2025 initiative.
4.Public Service company of NH’s failure to work with an energy provider that is located outside the city’s center eliminates choice, for the City of Berlin to rechart its future going forward into the 21st Century. The Clean Power project is best located to realize the most economic benefit for the region while also achieving the absolute least negative impact. Yet PSNH chooses the project that is not permitted, that appears to be at least twice as large as what can be sustained by the regional working forest, provides all kinds of negative impact related to health and welfare issues, dangerous downtown truck traffic, noise, quality of life, facility appearance, wood dust and fire hazard risks, plus a general perception of mistrust for the developer based upon their actions in other communities. PSNH ignores the stated and demonstrated concern by the Mayor and Council of Berlin related to PSNH’s arbitrary backing of Laidlaw.
5.The State of NH has based its conclusions of wood availability performed by a company (Landvest) that has sizeable real estate holdings and represents numerous land holders. Such a company may not have been the best choice to provide an impartial assessment. However when completed, the study established that a conservative analysis of the working forest within 75 miles of Berlin would not be adequate to supply the volume required by Laidlaw. It would appear that Laidlaw has now hired this
same company to come up with a more favorable conclusion. Any such updating of its wood study to cast the Laidlaw project size in a more favorable light must be considered invalid and bring forth the potential conflict of interest.
6.lt is my understanding that PSNH is a protected monopoly that should function in the Public Good, and that it is not supposed to compete with private industry. It is my understanding that the Legislature has created a Merchant Power Industry that is to build new generation within New Hampshire. Therefore PSNH should not compete with the Merchant Power Industry. It is my understanding that PSNH is supposed to encourage the Merchant Power industry in New Hampshire especially as it applies to
indigenous renewable power. It is my understanding that PSNH is to gain its new generation capacity through a least cost approach and that intrinsic aspects such as efficiency, economic prosperity, and the environment are all supposed to be considered in that analysis of least cost value. I feel that PSNH is letting us down in relation to each and every aspect above. It is clear to me that PSNH is bent upon
destroying the Merchant Power Industry so that it may be the only game in town and our state will only be presented with the option of PSNH owned assets stranded in rate base and contrary to previous Legislative and Public Utility efforts to move away from this approach that has been and continues to be so overly abusive of the captive PSNH customer base.
Respectfully,
Jonathan Edwards
ECM-Eastem Construction Management, LLC respectfully submits this “Motion to Intervene” in the above referenced Docket. In
consideration of this matter we offer the following:
1.) As a past and future Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) rate payer we feel PSNH has not acted in the best interest of its rate payers by refusing to enter into negotiations for long term Power Purchase Agreement with
renewable energy providers such as Clean Power Development, LLC.
2.) As a supposed non-competitive entity as required by statue, it appears by its refusal to consider the purchase of energy from renewable providers, that is(PSNH) is acting as a competitive organization.
3.) As a Construction Management firm ECM has clients (schools, manufacturing facilities, municipal facilities, health care facilities) that are depending on the synergies offered by the Clean Power Development project. Public Service of New Hampshire’s refusal to negotiate a purchase agreement with CPD will likely delay or halt the progress of the CPD project. If this is allowed to occur it would seriously impact the expansion of the aforementioned facilities, thus gravely impacting the business success of ECM.
4.) By refusing to purchase power from a renewable environmentally sustainable energy provider who has offered a 5% lower rate than that of other providers PSNH has displayed a disregard and is in violation of RSA 362-F:1 as well as RSA 378:37 and RSA 378:38.
5.) PSNH has acted in a discriminatory and unethical fashion by considering negotiating a Power Purchase Agreement with a prospective energy provider (Laid law) that intends to over-consume the available forest resources and disregards published biomass fuel availability reports.
6.) If the Public Utilities Commission capitulates the PSNH and Laidlaw plan it would result in a substantial increase in wood chip fuel prices. This increase would have a detrimental effect on the regional economy, likely forcing the closure of existing biomass power facilities in surrounding communities, resulting in substantial job loss for a region
hat is already suffering a borderline depression.
Respectfully submitted,
Christopher H. ,Pri
ECM-Eastem Construction anement, LLC
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
BEFORE THE
NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
COMPLAINT OF CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC
AGAINST PUBLIC SERVICE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
BE 09-067
PETITION FOR INTERVENTION OF
CONCORD STEAM CORPORATION
NOW COMES Concord Steam Corporation (Concord Steam) and hereby petitions the
New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission for intervention in the above-captioned proceeding
pursuant to RSA 541-A:32 and NH Code Admin. Rule Puc 203.17. In support of its Petition for
Intervention, Petitioner says the following:
1. Concord Steam is one of a few wood-fired district-heating plants in the world. It
provides District Heating service to the downtown Concord, New Hampshire area.
2. Concord Steam has been developing a wood-fired combined heat and power plant in
Concord since 2007. The project has all of the necessary permits and approvals and has financing lined up. The New Hampshire Electric Cooperative has plans to purchase 40% of the plant’s electrical output.
3. Public Service ofNew Hampshire (PSNH) has been contacted three different times by
Concord Steam regarding a potential purchase of the remaining output of the plant. During the last call on July 2, 2009, PSNH told Concord Steam that PSNH had many irons in the fire and that they had no interest right now, or in fact for many years to come, in renewable energy. PSNH would not even begin a discussion of price or terms.
4. CPD has a Complaint pending before the Commission in DE-09-067 alleging that
PSNH has been unwilling to even discuss a power purchase agreement with CPD, even while PSNH was reaching an agreement with a different (and excessively-large proposed biomass energy facility) on the material terms of a contemplated 20-year power purchase agreement which would provide a “guaranteed” source of revenue for that project.
5. The renewable energy projects that get to deal with PSNH appear to be screened to
make sure they fit PSNH’s “business model.” This state of affairs simply cannot be reconciled with the state law or public policy on renewable energy.
6. In a press release dated September 29, 2008, PSNH stated that “[tihe development of
new native sources of renewable energy is essential for New Hampshire’s energy future...”
7. In its Least Cost Plan which was approved by the Commission in Order No. 24,945
(February 27, 2009), PSNH told the Commission that:
There has been a movement toward a “greener” environment, while the cost of energy
and generating capacity has continued to increase. PSNH has successfully completed and placed in service Northern Wood Power, but is unable to materially add to its renewable generating capacity due to State policy.
****
To meet the New Hampshire RPS requirements, PSNH will need to procure 261,000
MWh from Class I renewable resources, 13,000 MWh from Class II renewable resources,
601,000 MWh from Class III renewable resources, and 58,000 MWh from Class IV renewable
resources to meet its RPS deficiency by 2012...
PSNH Least Cost Integrated Resource Plan at 5, 6 (Emphasis supplied.)
8. PSNH does not seem to use consistent rules or formats with which to consider and
evaluate renewable energy projects.
9. Concord Steam would hope to be treated fairly by PSNH and have an opportunity to
objectively discuss contracting with PSNH for purchase of in-state generated renewable power and RECs.
10. Accordingly, Concord Steam has a substantial interest in the issues presented to the
Commission in the proceeding WHEREFORE, Concord Steam hereby respectfully requests the Commission to grant it
intervener party status and to order such other and further relief as may be just and equitable.
Dated: July 23, 2009
Respectfully submitted,
CONCORD STEAM CO]
Peter Bloomfield,
Concord Steam
P.O. Box 2520
Concord, NH 03302-2520
Certification of Service
Pursuant to Rules Puc 203.02(2) and Puc 203.11, I have served a copy of this petition on
each person identified on the commission’s service list ~~
March 18, 2009
Mr. Gary Long
Public Service Company ofNew Hampshire
P.O. Box 330
Manchester, New Hampshire 03105-0330
Re: Biomass Energy Facilities in Berlin, NH
Dear Mr. Long:
As I am sure you are well aware, currently, there are two (2) potential biomass energy
facilities proposed to be located in the City of Berlin. One of these, a 22-29 megawatt
facility proposed by Clean Power Development of Concord, NH has formerly filed with
the City of Berlin for Site Plan Review, etc. and is hopeffil to begin construction in the
second quarter of 2009. The other proposal is a 60-66 megawatt facility proposed by
Laidlaw Energy Group, a New York Corporation. Laidlaw is proposing to retrofit the
existing chemical recovery boiler on the former Fraser Papers Mill property in Berlin.
The property has been purchased by a holding company, which is one of Laidlaw’s
affiliates. Laidlaw indicates that they are in the process of preparing their application to
the New Hampshire Energy Facility Site Evaluation Committee (EFSEC). Both of these
facilities have the potential to help New Hampshire attain its goal of 25x’25 as set forth
by Governor Lynch. I am contacting you about this subject for the following reasons. Laidlaw, through one of its press releases, indicates that PSNH and Laidlaw have reached an agreement in principle for a twenty-year power purchase agreement. Clean Power however, indicates that despite their good faith attempts, they have been unable to get PSNH to entertain the possibility of a power purchase agreement between both parties. My question to you is why is PSNH treating these two possible renewable energy facilities differently? Why is PSNH so quick to embrace a potential twenty-year accord with a New York company that has yet to prove itself in the renewable energy generation market, yet seems truly averse to good faith negotiations with a New Hampshire company? Page 2 March 18, 2009 As Berlin strives for economic development, (a topic emphasized greatly by PSNH as evidenced by its website it and numerous economic development partnerships) we do not understand the preferential treatment being given to Laidlaw by PSNH in comparison to Clean Power Development. With the exclusionary treatment of Clean Power, how can PSNH guarantee that they are providing power to its customers at the lowest cost available? On behalf of the citizens of Berlin, NH, I respectfully request that PSNH respond to these questions as we try our best to make assessments of the various pros and cons of both proposed projects. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
David Bertrand
Mayor, City of Berlin
Cc: Berlin City Council
Governor John Lynch
Thomas Getz, Public Utilities Commission Chairman
Coos County Commissioners
...and this is where it all began....
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
COMPLAINT OF CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC
AGAINST PUBLIC SERVICE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Now Comes Clean Power Development, LLC (“CPD”) and, pursuant to RSA 365:1 and
Rule Puc 204, hereby complains against Public Service ofNew Hampshire (“PSNH”), and in
support hereof states as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. CPD is a New Hampshire limited liability company that focuses on the development of
renewable and sustainable wood-fueled biomass-energy facilities. CPD hopes to begin
construction on its Berlin Clean Power Facility (“CPD Facility”) during 2009.
2. PSNH is a New Hampshire electric utility subject to the jurisdiction of the New
Hampshire Public Utilities Commission.
3. The CPD Facility will generate electricity through the combustion of whole tree chips
supplied through local markets. The CPD Facility will be capable of generating at least 22Mw, but not more than 29Mw gross output of electricity. CPD has entered into an option agreement for the purchase of land in Berlin for the location of the CPD Facility. The CPD Facility will be connected to the so-called “Coos County Loop” owned by PSNH for the transmission of its electrical output.
4. The CPD Facility is supported by the City of Berlin. The CPD Facility occupies
position 229 in the IS0-NE Interconnection Study Queue, ahead of the Laidlaw Berlin project which occupies position 251 in the Queue
5. Mel Liston is President of CPD. Mr. Liston has over 36 years of experience working
in the steam and power industry. For the last 25, he has been a developer and consultant working on numerous biomass and alternative energy projects throughout New Hampshire. While serving as president of Pinetree Power Development Corporation, Mr. Liston advanced biomass power in New Hampshire, constructing Bethlehem’s 15MW biomass plant and Tamworth’s 22MW biomass plant. His project portfolio also includes the Timco and BioEnergy cogeneration facilities, where he served as construction manager.
1
ALLEGATIONS
6. CPD has approached PSNH on numerous occasions since 2006 seeking to negotiate a
power purchase agreement (“PPA”) with PSNH whereby PSNH would purchase the energy, capacity and renewable energy certificates associated with output of this and other Facilities. A PPA is a prerequisite to moving forward with the fmancing, construction and eventual operation of the Facility.
7. Notwithstanding that the CPD Facility is supported by the City of Berlin, Laidlaw
Berlin BioPower, LLC announced in September, 2008 that they had reached an agreement with PSNH on the material terms of a contemplated 20-year power purchase agreement for its proposed Berlin project.
8. At a hearing held at the Public Utilities Commission on February 5, 2009 in Docket
No. DE -08-077, a PSNH 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.
MR. RODIER: Okay. I want to -- I just want to make sure that last answer was recorded?
Transcript, DE 08-07, February 5, 2009
9. PSNH counsel further represented in a memorandum to the Commission on February
19, 2009 in Docket No. DE -08-077 that PSNH does not establish any pre-conditions for
negotiations with third party developers of renewable energy resources and all are treated
“evenly and fairly.”
10. CPD’s repeated and diligent efforts to negotiate a PPA with PSNH have been
rebuffed by PSNH. In fact, at a meeting with a PSNH senior executive held on December 6, 2006, CPD proposed to supply power to PSNH in such a manner as to reduce PSNH’s average cost of energy. CPD was told by PSNH that PSNH is only interested in renewable projects it can own and place in its rate base. PSNH has frequently proclaimed that it supports legislative efforts to modify current state law in order to allow PSNH to propose additional new renewable energy power generation.
11. On March 14, 2009, a senior PSNH governmental affairs representative told CPD
that “the reason PSNH would never buy power from Clean Power is because of Mel Liston and how he had testified against them in other venues. He’s just a bad person and we don’t do business with people like him.”
12. In letter dated March 16 to Mr. Liston, that “[g]iven, amongst other things, the current
economic situation and the status of both PSNH’s and New England’s power supply options, PSNH has chosen not to enter into discussions with your company concerning the output of your proposed CPD Berlin Project.” (Emphasis supplied). Accordingly, PSNH appears to have adopted the position that PSNH has no need for the output of the CPD Facility.
14. In a letter to PSNH from CPD’s counsel dated March 23, 2009, CPD proposed to sell the output of the CPD Facility at “an amount equivalent to the prices PSNH has agreed to pay Laidlaw for the output of Laidlaw’s Berlin project.” PSNH responded that it would be precluded from doing so because the prices paid to Laidlaw are protected by a confidentiality Agreement.
COMPLAINT I
15. PSNH has a duty of candor toward the Commission. PSNH’s testimony in Docket
No. DE -08-077 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 merit; and that nobody would be in or out because of who they are, is apparently not true. PSNH counsel’s letter to the Commission stating that PSNH does not establish any pre-conditions for negotiations with third party developers of renewable energy resources and all are treated “evenly and fairly” is apparently not true.
COMPLAINT II
16. PSNH has violated the terms of its Least Cost Plan approved by the Commission by.
Order No. 24,945 (February 27, 2009). In its letter dated March 16 to Mr. Liston, PSNH appears to have adopted the position that PSNH has no need for the output of the CPD Facility. In the Least Cost Plan recently approved by the Commission at PSNH’s request, PSNH proclaimed as follows: There has been a movement toward a “greener” environment, while the cost of energy and generating capacity has continued to increase. PSNH has successfully completed and placed in service Northern Wood Power, but is unable to materially add to its renewable generating capacity due to State policy.
****
To meet the projected energy requirements, PSNH will need to purchase 4 to 5 million
MWh annually in the open market over the planning period... 3
To meet PSN}{’s projected ISO-New England capacity requirement, between 900 and
1,000 MW of capacity will need to be procured annually over the planning period...
****
To meet the New Hampshire RPS requirements, PSNH will need to procure 261,000
MWh from Class I renewable resources, 13,000 MWh from Class II renewable resources,
601,000 MWh from Class III renewable resources, and 58,000 MWh from Class IV renewable resources to meet its RPS deficiency by 2012...
PSNH Least Cost Integrated Resource Plan at 5,6.
17. PSNH apparently has a “business model” that apparently excludes renewable projects
such as the Berlin Clean Power Facility from consideration. PSNH did not disclose this business model to the Commission during the lengthy proceedings in DE 07-108, 2007 PSNH Least Cost Integrated Resource Plan.
COMPLAINT III
18. PSNH has the obligation under RSA 378:37 and 38 “to develop and implement an
integrated resource plan that satisfies customer energy service needs at the lowest overall cost consistent with maintaining supply reliability.” Order No. 24,945, DE 07-108 (February 27, 2009) at 12. Pursuant to RSA 378:39, renewable energy sources have priority over of all other energy sources.
17. According to New Hampshire law “[ut is... in the public interest to stimulate
investment in low emission renewable energy generation technologies in New England and, in particular, New Hampshire, whether at new or existing facilities.” RSA 362 F-i.
19. PSNH has clearly violated New Hampshire state energy policy as established by
RSA 362-F, and RSA 378:37, 38 and 39. PSNH has an obligation under RSA 362 F-i to at least objectively consider a PPA with a proposed renewable facility. PSNH may not reject out-of hand proposals from a renewable facility such as CPD, particularly where, as here, it has represented to the Commission that every developer would be treated “evenly and fairly.” PSNH’s assertion that they won’t do business with Mel Liston because he has testified against them in other venues is unlawful and a violation of both RSA 362-F, and RSA 378:37.
4
WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, Comes Clean Power Development, LLC
respectfully requests the Commission to:
A. Convene an adjudicative proceeding as provided in N.H. Admin. Rule PUC 2505.13
to allow Clean Power Development, LLC an opportunity to prove, after discovery and
deposition, the foregoing alleged violations
B. Order PSN}1 to make reparation to Clean Power Development, LLC; and
C. Grant such other and further relief as may be just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC
By its Attorney,
Is! James T. Rodier
Dated:April 7. 2009 1500A Lafayette Road, No. 112
Portsmouth, NH 03801-59 18
irodier~freedomenergy.com
http://www.puc.nh.gov/Regulatory/Docketbk/2009/09-067.htm
When PSNH is required by State law to enter into a purchase agreement with CPD, that will be the end of Laidlaw in Berlin NH IMO.
Any questions?
PETITION TO INTERVENE
In Re: Order of Notice DE-09-067
The State ofNew Hampshire Public Utilities Commission
Complaint of Clean Power Development, LLC filed 4/7/09
I, James U. McClammer, Jr., New Hampshire State Representative, Sullivan 5, requests intervenor status in the above-mentioned matter, scheduled for hearing November 3,2009 for the following reasons:
As a ratepayer and representative of the residents of Charlestown, Acworth and Langdon, I am concerned that the Public Service Company ofNew Hampshire (PSNH) acts in a manner that is in the “public good.” Specifically, I am concerned that PSNH purchases energy at the most competitive prices, and that it encourages the development of alternative and sustainable energy by buying from “green” producers.
Sincerely,
- arlestown, NH 03603
Carbon Alliance
27 October 2009
Debra A. Howland
Executive Director
New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission
21 South Fruit Street, Suite 10
Concord, NH 03301
Re: Docket: DE 09-067
Dear Ms. Howland:
The Carbon Action Alliance is a group of New Hampshire residents and businessmen concerned about regulatory barriers to developing the state’s abundant natural energy resources. It is equally concerned about the prospects for reducing and avoiding carbon dioxide emissions from existing and planned New Hampshire fossil-fueled thermal and electric energy generation sources.
The Alliance submits this “Motion to Intervene” in the above referenced docket to address both these concerns by demonstrating that the failure of Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) to enter into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Clean Power Development (CPD) harms New Hampshire in three ways:
(1) It is retarding the ability of the state to reduce or avoid its CO2 emissions as recommended by the New Hampshire Climate Action Plan (CAP).
(2) It is causing calculable harm to the New Hampshire’s air, land and water systems.
(3) It is placing an avoidable financial burden on the New Hampshire electric ratepayer. The very existence of this complaint underscores the unwillingness of PSNH — an
active participant in the deliberations of the Climate Change Policy Task Force and a signatory to the New Hampshire Climate Action Plan (NHCAP) — to act in good faith to implement three key recommendations of the Plan.
To wit:
1. Address Barriers to Low- and Non-C02- Emitting Electric Generation (Energy Generation & Use, Action 2 4).
Rather than “identifying and removing obstacles to siting and constructing low- and non C02-emitting energy facilities”, PSNH is creating barriers to “the development of new low and non-CO2 emitting facilities in the state.” PSNH is making it more difficult and more expensive for New Hampshire “to move away from carbon-based supply side resources (i.e. fossil-fuel-fired power plants) while offsetting the impact of any potential load growth” (NH Climate Action Plan. p. 42)
PD Box 693 Littleton, NH 03561 • • chair@carbonactionalliance.or
Importantly, PSNH’s reluctance to purchase biomass-generated electricity from a New Hampshire generator is delaying the phasing out of older, higher C02-emitting facilities
whose orderly retirement could “facilitate the achievement of New Hampshire’s Renewable Portfolio Standard targets and Governor Lynch’s goal of achieving 25°c of New Hampshire’s energy production from Renewable Energy by 2025.” (Climate Action
Plan. p. 42) By failing to negotiate a power purchase agreement with CPD. PSNH’s continuing recalcitrance is having a chilling effect on the non-carbon energy marketplace. It is creating uncertainty among developers about the prospects of a New Hampshire renewable energy project obtaining a long-term purchaser of its electricity. Consequently, renewable energy projects are reluctant to invest limited financial resources in developing, financing and operating clean energy facilities — facilities which will create new, high-paying, clean jobs and add to state and local tax revenues and stimulate business activity generally.
2. Promote Renewable Energy through the Electric Portfolio Standard (RPS)(Energy Generation & Use, Action 2.1).
The New Hampshire Renewable Portfolio Standard “mandates that 23.8°c of retail electricity sales to in-state customers be provided by renewable energy resources by 2025”. Two-thirds of this goal must come from renewable energy resources such as
new solar, wind, geothermal and biomass. In 2008, more than three-quarters of the Renewable Energy Credits (REC5) authorized
by RSA 362-F were allocated to out-of-state certified facilities.
PSNH’s refusal to purchase the electrical output from a “shovel-ready”, in-state biomass project jeopardizes the creation of future New Hampshire-based RECs while facilitating the export of New Hampshire revenue to other states. By discouraging this Class I renewable energy project, PSNH will have fewer, less expensive RECs available to meet its RPS requirements. Failing to negotiate a PPA with CPD could easily result in New Hampshire distribution utilities making larger payments to the Alternative Compliance Fund—at a significant cost to the ratepayer.
3. Increase Renewable Energy and Low-C02-Emitting Thermal Energy Systems (RCI Action 3.1). By endorsing the New Hampshire Climate Action Plan in March 2009, PSNH has agreed ‘...to promote the expanded use of renewable and Iow-C02-emitting thermal
energy systems to reduce tossii fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions.” It is also endorsing efforts to provide “incentives and attractive financing for the use of cost effective, renewable energy resources and hig h-efficiency/low-C02-emitti ng thermal systems.”
PC Box 693 Littleton, NH 03561~603-568-49i6 chair@carbonactionalliance.org
PETITION TO INTERVENE NHP[JC OCT2~’O9 PM12:3G
In Re: Order of Notice DE-09-067
The State of New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission
Complaint of Clean Power Development, LLC filed 4/7/0 9
I, Judith T. Spang State Representative, District No. 7 New Hampshire, County of
Strafford, wish to intervene in the above-entitled matter, scheduled for hearing November
3, 2009 for the following reasons:
As a ratepayer and representative of the residents ofNew Durham, Milton, Middleton, Farmington, Barrington and Strafford, I am concerned that adoption of the least-cost principle is not being implemented. Electricity to be generated from the Clean Power Development (CPD) facility in Berlin is potentially below the cost of self-generated electricity by Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSN}4) owned assets, thus, there is an opportunity to lower the average cost to ratepayers. Secondly there is the concern that PSNH has arbitrarily chosen to enter a purchase power agreement with an alternative supplier (Laidlaw) at apparently higher price and without due diligence related to many of the significant issues such that we must question the PSNH reasons and motivation that would justify such a decision or commitment. I am concerned that the PSNH decisions related to renewable energy supply are in its interest only, and at the detriment of ratepayer interest, as well as the state and local interest related to the economy, the environment, and in accordance with the relevant state laws and policies. Since (PSNH) chooses not to seriously consider or be open to purchase-power negotiations with CPD (as well as other alternative energy producers), its conduct ensures needlessly higher electric bills to the consumers in my district. The Berlin site of the proposed CPD bio-mass plant provides an array of synergies which
combine to produce high overall production efficiencies - as high as 80 percent. Use of the city’s wastewater reduces or eliminates the need for well or river water for circulation and evaporation makeup while reducing the municipal wastewater treatment plant discharge load on the Androscoggin River. The ability of CPD to provide favorably priced process steam for the nearby Fraser paper mill strengthens that business that is a major source of employment in the region and significantly improves the regional carbon footprint as a result of replacing the use of imported fossil fuel. I understand that there are significant additional and realizable synergies involving the growing of algae for bio-oil production, local greenhouse production of food crops, and the desire and effort of CPD to move forward with the City of Berlin to have a District Heating System. All currently available and proposed synergies combine to substantially reduce the regional carbon footprint, overall air emissions, and environmental profile, plus significantly
improve the employment opportunities for Northern NH, which are all collectively in the best interests ofNew Hampshire residents. I contend that PSNH as a monopoly utility with protected territory and other favorable business protection is obliged to operate in the “public good” and, therefore, has a requirement to place value on all the favorable aspects related to the proposed CPD project when doing a least-cost analysis. I must question the PSNH business plan when~ chooses to ignore significant opportunities to serve their customer base in a way that better serve the “public good”.
Sincerely,
Judith T. Spang, 55 Wiswall Road, Durham, NH 03824 603-659-5936
judith@kestrelnet.net
STATE OF NEW I{AMPSfflRE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
COMPLAINT 01? CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC
AGAINST PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
DE 96-067
CITY OF BERLIN PETITION TO INTERVENE
NOW COMES the City of Berlin (the “City”) New Hampshire and hereby petitions the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission for intervention in the above-captioned proceeding pursuant to RSA 541-A:32 and NH Code Admin. Rule Puc 203.17. In support of its Petition, the City states the following:
1. The City and its residents are rate payers in the service territory of Public Service Company ofNew Hampshire (“PSNH”). The City is a steward of the economic, environmental, public health and welfare interests of the residents of the City. Without limitation, such interests include the appropriate uses of land within the City and the orderly development of the region
2. The so-called Coos County Loop, the high voltage transmission line serving northern New Hampshire, passes through the City. Several proposed renewable energy electric generating facilities have initiated regulatory review proceedings and/or announced the intention to he constructed within and/or in close proximity to the City. Each such facility directly and substantially implicates one or more of the foregoing interests of the City.
3. This docket concerns a complaint filed by Clean Power Development (“CPD”)claiming that Public Service ofNew Hampshire (“PSNH”) has refused to enter into negotiations for a power purchase agreement (“PPA”), to purchase energy, capacity and environmental attributes such as renewable energy credits from an as yet to be constructed biomass-fired combined heat and power facility proposed by CPD on property within the City. The complaint states that PSNH has not treated prospective developers of renewable energy facilities “even and fairly” in reviewing proposals and negotiating PPAs.
4. In this docket, the Commission is being asked to make determinations concerning the nature and extent of PSNH’s legal obligations to negotiate PPAs in good faith with CPD and other renewable developers, including for competing projects proposed within and/or in close proximity to the City, in order to satisfy energy service needs at the lowest overall cost to its rate payers. According to the complaint, a PPA is a prerequisite for a proposed biomass-fired facility to move forward with the financing, construction and eventual operation. Insofar as this is true, whether or not a proposed facility within and/or in close proximity to the City is able to negotiate a PPA with PSNH significantly impacts: 1) the cost of electricity to PSNH rate payers including the City and its residents; 2) which, if any, proposed renewable energy facilities will be economically viable and can be built within and/or in close proximity to City; 3) the nature of proposed renewable energy facility development within and/or in close proximity to City; and 4) the consequent impacts to the economic, environmental, public health and welfare interests of the City.
5. As PSNH rate payers (including the City and its residents) and the host community for several proposed renewable energy facilities, the City has a substantial interest that may be affected by the Commission’s deliberations and determinations in this proceeding. WHEREFORE, the City respectfully requests that it he granted full intervenor status in this proceeding.
Respectfully submitted,
CITY OF BERLIN
By its City Manager on behalf of
THE BERLIN CITY COUNCIL
Patrick MacQueen, City Manager
City of Berlin, NH
168 Main Street
Berlin, NH 03570
Tel:
Fax: (603)-752-8550
E-Mail: city manager~berlinnh.gov
October 27, 2009
Debra A. Howland
Executive Director
New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission
21 South Fruit St.
Concord, NH 03301
RE: Docket Number DE-09-067
Dear Ms. Howland;
Attached is my petition for intervener status in Docket Number DE 09-067, Complaint of
Clean Power Development, LLC against Public Service of New Hampshire.
Thank you very much for taking my request to be an intervener.
Sincerely,
State Representative Robin Read
Science, Technology and Energy Committee
132 Elwyn Ave.
Portsmouth, NH 03801
501-0139
STATEOF NEW HAMPSHIRE
before the
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
DE-09-067
Complaint OF CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC
AGAINST PUBLIC SERVICE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
STATE REPRESENTATIVE ROBIN P. READ
PETITION TO INTERVENE
October 27, 2009. NOW COMES State Representative Robin P. Read and respectfully requests leave to intervene as a party in the above-referenced proceeding. In support of this petition, Rep. Read states the following:
As a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives representing Portsmouth and Newington, a member of the Science, Technology and Energy Committee of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, a Public Service ofNew Hampshire (PSNH)
ratepayer, and longtime advocate for the development ofNew Hampshire’s renewable energy resources, I have an ongoing interest in this proceeding.
1 .Clean Power Development is proposing to build a 29-megawatt biomass-fueled combined heat and power energy facility in Berlin, NH. The facility would create much needed jobs in New Hampshire’s North Countiy and reduce the need for greenhouse gas
producing fossil fuel energy sources to produce electricity. The City of Berlin supports the project yet Public Service ofNew Hampshire has refused to enter into serious negotiations with Clean Power Development to purchase Clean Power Development’s
energy. PSNH, though, has entered into an agreement to purchase power from another biomass project that studies indicate would likely have a negative long-term impact on the state’s forest products industry.
2. Clean Power Development’s power is expected to cost less than energy produced by PSNH owned facilities. Thus PSNH would be violating Public Utilities Commission Least Cost Planning orders by refusing to purchase Clean Power Development’s energy.
3. New Hampshire RSA 362 F-i states that “it is in public interest to stimulate investment in low emission renewable energy generation technologies in New England and, in particular, New Hampshire, whether at new or existing facilities.” Clean Power Development’s Project would be such a facility.
4. Under electric industry deregulation and subsequent Renewable Portfolio Standard and other legislation, the New Hampshire Legislature intended that a merchant power industry be created in the state that would provide competition in the industry and would promote the development of the state’s renewable energy resources. PSNH’s actions in this matter have not met the letter or spirit of these laws and have not been in the best
interests ofNew Hampshire’s ratepayers or the state’s efforts to reduce emissions and protect its environment.
Respectfully submitted
State Representative Robin Read
132 Elwyn Ave.
Portsmouth, NH 03801
TOWN OF WINCHESTER * U INCORPORATEI) JULY 2’~” 1753
- I Richmond Road • Winchester, New Hampshire 034/U (~ -~
V ice: • Fax: (603) 239-4710 • TDD Access: Relay NH 1-S00-735-2964 ~
- select-rnen(a winchester.nh.gov • ~vw’.v.wtnchester-nh.gov
October26, 2009
OCT27’0~3~ 1-.-.
New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission
21 South Fruit Street, Suite 10
Concord, NH 03301-2429
Re: Docket #DE 09-067
Complaint of Clean Power Development, LLC (CPD) Against Public Service Of New Hampshire (PSNH)
Dear Sir or Madam:
Please honor this request/petition to intervene submitted by the Town of Winchester, New Hampshire, as a municipality, and on behalf of our citizens and businesses. The Town of Winchester is a rate payer to PSNH, as are most of our citizens and businesses. Our community is located in Cheshire County and over the years has seen heavy commercial business loss including A.C. Lawrence Leather Company, two paper mills, N.E. Box Company, Wood Flour Inc., and the Crestwoods Lumber Company, to name a few. This amounts to over 800 jobs lost. We are a now the home of three Brownfield sites, one of which was a super fund project containing plus or minus 19 acres of commercial land. The loss of business has left us with a reduced tax base and limited prospect for economic revival. Clean Power Development, LLC (hereinafter “CPD”) approached town officials to discuss the feasibility of locating the biomass plant in our community. After several visits and public meetings, CPD optioned several parcels of land within Winchester and advanced considerable effort toward their plan to build a biomass energy plant including a thirty-mile radius wood forest study showing perhaps the most prime spot in all of New England for this renewable energy project. As in the Berlin situation, CPD has located next to our municipal wastewater plant and plans to reclaim that water as part of their supply requirement. Since they can use the entire effluent flow instead of going directly to the Ashuelot River, we may be converted to a zero discharge facility. There is also the possibility of using steam heat for some of our municipal buildings. CPD also intends to co-locate additional industry plus an agriculture growing operation nearby to the facility. The opportunities for more, and better jobs, and increased tax base are multiplied. CPD is also very much interested in assisting with environmental mitigation and redevelopment of our largest Brownfield site, which is town owned. Winchester officials, not being extremely familiar with biomass plant operations, decided to investigate further. Arrangements were made to first meet with the Tamworth Board of Selectmen and Town Administrator to get their perspective on the Pine Tree Biomass Plant in Tamworth, then visit and tour the plant. What members of the select board, planning board, and economic development committee members heard was nothing but praise and full support of what Pine Tree has meant to their small community. They reported higher paying jobs for plant employees, and also for loggers and truckers. Restaurants, gas stations and other town businesses and businesses from surrounding towns have reported added income. We were told that the plant is very supportive of all community activities and has had a positive influence on good forestry management practices by paying premium prices to those that have plans in place. The Town of Winchester is concerned that PSNH’s actions are too far out of alignment with what is in the public interest. From our perspective, PSNH has a very narrow and self serving vision of how this state should address climate issues and dependence on fossil fuels and provide renewable generation capacity that best serves its customers while also meeting the other goals important to our state and local communities. Winchester feels strongly that all the positive aspects, as well as the negative, need to be figured into any cost analysis that a utility or the commission considers when valuing the merit of a new merchant power source. The Town of Winchester is concerned that CPD is not receiving fair or appropriate consideration by PSNH for CPD’s energy proposal in Berlin, and that if this approach for determining who gets to build and what types of designs are appropriate are left to a self serving giant utility, then a CPD project of considerable merit and beneficial for Winchester will also receive the PSNH cold shoulder. The Town of Winchester is also very concerned that the path PSNH is pursuing with an overly large 66 MW biomass plant in northern New Hampshire will have far reaching and limiting implications for the remainder of the State. The very considerable potential for multiple, smaller, more efficient, dispersed or decentralized biomass projects, wood pellet plants, and biomass fueled heating systems around the state are all put in jeopardy if one overly large PSNH backed facility in Northern New Hampshire draws all that potential and opportunity for a single, poorly thought out and inappropriate installation. The trucking costs alone for the fuel needed for the plant in northern NH would waste hundreds, if not thousands of gallons of diesel fuel daily for the miles returned home empty and goes against spirit of our state, and of our nations reducing its dependence on fossil fuel. Perhaps this bad behavior on the part of PSNH will now serve notice to the legislature that completing the deregulation process is in our best interest as it is clear that PSNH will never give up being the spoiler related to the Merchant Power Industry, as long as there is any chance they can own additional generation capacity thereby stranding millions more in rate base subject
to their substantial guaranteed annual rate of return. The laws that New Hampshire adopted call for the State to get 25% of its energy from renewable resources such as biomass by 2025, but let us use common sense and accomplish this wisely.
lly submitted,
~~iiA API •~
Ro e ert Gray’~own Ad trator
I
Gustave Ruth, Chairman
Board of Selectmen and Conservation Commission
04 ~
Jo Gomarlo, Chairman
Revitalization Economic Development Committee
JG irec
PETITION TO INTERVENE
In Re: Order of Notice DE-09-067
The State of New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission
Complaint of Clean Power Development, LLC filed 4/7 09
I, Robert J. Perry, State Representative, District No. 3, of Strafford, New County of Strafford, wish to intervene in the above-entitled matter, scheduled for hearing November 3, 2009 for the following reasons:
As a ratepayer and representative of the residents ofNew Durham, Milton, Middleton, Farmington, Barrington and Strafford, I am concerned that adoption of the least-cost principle is not being implemented. Electricity to be generated from the Clean Power Development (CPD) facility in Berlin is potentially below the cost of self-generated electricity by Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) owned assets, thus, there is an opportunity to lower the average cost to ratepayers. Secondly there is the concern that PSNH has arbitrarily chosen to enter a purchase power agreement with an alternative supplier (Laidlaw) at apparently higher price and without due diligence related to many of the significant issues such that we must question the PSNH reasons and motivation that would justif~’ such a decision or commitment. I am concerned that the PSNH decisions related to renewable energy supply are in its interest only, and at the detriment of ratepayer interest, as well as the state and local interest related to the economy, the environment, and in accordance with the relevant state laws and policies. Since (PSNH) chooses not to seriously consider or be open to purchase-power negotiations with CPD (as well as other alternative energy producers), its conduct ensures needlessly higher electric bills to the consumers in my district. The Berlin site of the proposed CPD bio-mass plant provides an array of synergies which combine to produce high overall production efficiencies - as high as 80 percent. Use of the city’s wastewater reduces or eliminates the need for well or river water for circulation and evaporation makeup while reducing the municipal wastewater treatment plant discharge load on the Androscoggin River. The ability of CPD to provide favorably priced process steam for the nearby Fraser paper mill strengthens that business that is a major source of employment in the region and significantly improves the regional carbon footprint as a result of replacing the use of imported fossil fuel. I understand that there are significant additional and realizable synergies involving the growing of algae for bio-oil production, local greenhouse production of food crops, and the desire and effort of CPD to move forward with the City of Berlin to have a District Heating System. All currently available and proposed synergies combine to substantially reduce the regional carbon footprint, overall air emissions, and environmental profile, plus significantly improve the employment opportunities for Northern NH, which are all collectively in the best interests of New Hampshire residents. I contend that PSNH as a monopoly utility with protected territory and other favorable business protection is obliged to operate in the “public good” and, therefore, has a requirement to place value on all the favorable aspects related to the proposed CPD project when doing a least-cost analysis. I must question the PSNH business plan when it chooses to ignore significant opportunities to serve their customer base in a way that would also better serve the “public good”.
Sincere1y,~,~ ,
Robert J. Perry, 88 Ev. ns ount~; Road, Strafford, NH 03884 603-269-4651
Nd~~DdHN
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
COMPLAINT OF CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC
AGAINST PUBLIC SERVICE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Motion to Intervene submitted by:
Rate Payer: Jonathan Edwards
323 School Street
Berlin, NH 03570
Docket #: DE 09-067
Date: 10/15/2009
Commission Members,
As a rate payer, business owner, and citizen of Berlin, I have been following the Clean Power complaint against Public Service Company of NH since its inception and respectfully request permission to intervene for reasons as follows;
1.PSNH has ignored the opportunity to provide rate payers with least cost energy by failure to consider an energy provider that has offered 5% cheaper power than its arbitrarily chosen supplier. PSNH has apparently made its decision about suppliers without any due diligence or consideration related to fuel price, availability or sustainability. PSNH apparently determines the merit of one project over another
without any consideration related to plant efficiency, synergy with surrounding industry and community, suitability for interconnection to the grid, or opportunities to improve the overall environmental picture for the region. It is clear that PSNH not only disregards electrical commodity cost to the detriment of captive ratepayers but gives no consideration to all the other aspects that have intrinsic value to the region, and the state.
2.Public Service Company of NH is refusing to work with Clean Power Development that has the superior energy business model that does not threaten forest sustainability as provided by numerous wood studies. PSNH moving forward with its presently preferred Laidlaw supplier will lead to the demise of currently operating biomass energy plants elsewhere in the state and likewise destroy other wood commodity businesses as a result of higher chip prices when demand exceeds supply. This will lead to increased negative impact to the north country economy in both loss of jobs and superior alternative business opportunity.
3.Public Service company of NH’s failure to work with the energy producer that has highest and soonest potential to provide assistance to the Fraser/Gorham mill business model via steam production with a highly efficient Combined Heat and Power design brings into question the who aspect of PSNH operating
in the Public Good. The very basis for their franchise and special treatment as a Public Utility. PSNH not willing to consider a project that is fully permitted and shovel ready thumbs its nose at the governor’s 2025 initiative.
4.Public Service company of NH’s failure to work with an energy provider that is located outside the city’s center eliminates choice, for the City of Berlin to rechart its future going forward into the 21st Century. The Clean Power project is best located to realize the most economic benefit for the region while also achieving the absolute least negative impact. Yet PSNH chooses the project that is not permitted, that appears to be at least twice as large as what can be sustained by the regional working forest, provides all kinds of negative impact related to health and welfare issues, dangerous downtown truck traffic, noise, quality of life, facility appearance, wood dust and fire hazard risks, plus a general perception of mistrust for the developer based upon their actions in other communities. PSNH ignores the stated and demonstrated concern by the Mayor and Council of Berlin related to PSNH’s arbitrary backing of Laidlaw.
5.The State of NH has based its conclusions of wood availability performed by a company (Landvest) that has sizeable real estate holdings and represents numerous land holders. Such a company may not have been the best choice to provide an impartial assessment. However when completed, the study established that a conservative analysis of the working forest within 75 miles of Berlin would not be adequate to supply the volume required by Laidlaw. It would appear that Laidlaw has now hired this
same company to come up with a more favorable conclusion. Any such updating of its wood study to cast the Laidlaw project size in a more favorable light must be considered invalid and bring forth the potential conflict of interest.
6.lt is my understanding that PSNH is a protected monopoly that should function in the Public Good, and that it is not supposed to compete with private industry. It is my understanding that the Legislature has created a Merchant Power Industry that is to build new generation within New Hampshire. Therefore PSNH should not compete with the Merchant Power Industry. It is my understanding that PSNH is supposed to encourage the Merchant Power industry in New Hampshire especially as it applies to
indigenous renewable power. It is my understanding that PSNH is to gain its new generation capacity through a least cost approach and that intrinsic aspects such as efficiency, economic prosperity, and the environment are all supposed to be considered in that analysis of least cost value. I feel that PSNH is letting us down in relation to each and every aspect above. It is clear to me that PSNH is bent upon
destroying the Merchant Power Industry so that it may be the only game in town and our state will only be presented with the option of PSNH owned assets stranded in rate base and contrary to previous Legislative and Public Utility efforts to move away from this approach that has been and continues to be so overly abusive of the captive PSNH customer base.
Respectfully,
Jonathan Edwards
ECM-Eastem Construction Management, LLC respectfully submits this “Motion to Intervene” in the above referenced Docket. In
consideration of this matter we offer the following:
1.) As a past and future Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) rate payer we feel PSNH has not acted in the best interest of its rate payers by refusing to enter into negotiations for long term Power Purchase Agreement with
renewable energy providers such as Clean Power Development, LLC.
2.) As a supposed non-competitive entity as required by statue, it appears by its refusal to consider the purchase of energy from renewable providers, that is(PSNH) is acting as a competitive organization.
3.) As a Construction Management firm ECM has clients (schools, manufacturing facilities, municipal facilities, health care facilities) that are depending on the synergies offered by the Clean Power Development project. Public Service of New Hampshire’s refusal to negotiate a purchase agreement with CPD will likely delay or halt the progress of the CPD project. If this is allowed to occur it would seriously impact the expansion of the aforementioned facilities, thus gravely impacting the business success of ECM.
4.) By refusing to purchase power from a renewable environmentally sustainable energy provider who has offered a 5% lower rate than that of other providers PSNH has displayed a disregard and is in violation of RSA 362-F:1 as well as RSA 378:37 and RSA 378:38.
5.) PSNH has acted in a discriminatory and unethical fashion by considering negotiating a Power Purchase Agreement with a prospective energy provider (Laid law) that intends to over-consume the available forest resources and disregards published biomass fuel availability reports.
6.) If the Public Utilities Commission capitulates the PSNH and Laidlaw plan it would result in a substantial increase in wood chip fuel prices. This increase would have a detrimental effect on the regional economy, likely forcing the closure of existing biomass power facilities in surrounding communities, resulting in substantial job loss for a region
hat is already suffering a borderline depression.
Respectfully submitted,
Christopher H. ,Pri
ECM-Eastem Construction anement, LLC
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
BEFORE THE
NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
COMPLAINT OF CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC
AGAINST PUBLIC SERVICE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
BE 09-067
PETITION FOR INTERVENTION OF
CONCORD STEAM CORPORATION
NOW COMES Concord Steam Corporation (Concord Steam) and hereby petitions the
New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission for intervention in the above-captioned proceeding
pursuant to RSA 541-A:32 and NH Code Admin. Rule Puc 203.17. In support of its Petition for
Intervention, Petitioner says the following:
1. Concord Steam is one of a few wood-fired district-heating plants in the world. It
provides District Heating service to the downtown Concord, New Hampshire area.
2. Concord Steam has been developing a wood-fired combined heat and power plant in
Concord since 2007. The project has all of the necessary permits and approvals and has financing lined up. The New Hampshire Electric Cooperative has plans to purchase 40% of the plant’s electrical output.
3. Public Service ofNew Hampshire (PSNH) has been contacted three different times by
Concord Steam regarding a potential purchase of the remaining output of the plant. During the last call on July 2, 2009, PSNH told Concord Steam that PSNH had many irons in the fire and that they had no interest right now, or in fact for many years to come, in renewable energy. PSNH would not even begin a discussion of price or terms.
4. CPD has a Complaint pending before the Commission in DE-09-067 alleging that
PSNH has been unwilling to even discuss a power purchase agreement with CPD, even while PSNH was reaching an agreement with a different (and excessively-large proposed biomass energy facility) on the material terms of a contemplated 20-year power purchase agreement which would provide a “guaranteed” source of revenue for that project.
5. The renewable energy projects that get to deal with PSNH appear to be screened to
make sure they fit PSNH’s “business model.” This state of affairs simply cannot be reconciled with the state law or public policy on renewable energy.
6. In a press release dated September 29, 2008, PSNH stated that “[tihe development of
new native sources of renewable energy is essential for New Hampshire’s energy future...”
7. In its Least Cost Plan which was approved by the Commission in Order No. 24,945
(February 27, 2009), PSNH told the Commission that:
There has been a movement toward a “greener” environment, while the cost of energy
and generating capacity has continued to increase. PSNH has successfully completed and placed in service Northern Wood Power, but is unable to materially add to its renewable generating capacity due to State policy.
****
To meet the New Hampshire RPS requirements, PSNH will need to procure 261,000
MWh from Class I renewable resources, 13,000 MWh from Class II renewable resources,
601,000 MWh from Class III renewable resources, and 58,000 MWh from Class IV renewable
resources to meet its RPS deficiency by 2012...
PSNH Least Cost Integrated Resource Plan at 5, 6 (Emphasis supplied.)
8. PSNH does not seem to use consistent rules or formats with which to consider and
evaluate renewable energy projects.
9. Concord Steam would hope to be treated fairly by PSNH and have an opportunity to
objectively discuss contracting with PSNH for purchase of in-state generated renewable power and RECs.
10. Accordingly, Concord Steam has a substantial interest in the issues presented to the
Commission in the proceeding WHEREFORE, Concord Steam hereby respectfully requests the Commission to grant it
intervener party status and to order such other and further relief as may be just and equitable.
Dated: July 23, 2009
Respectfully submitted,
CONCORD STEAM CO]
Peter Bloomfield,
Concord Steam
P.O. Box 2520
Concord, NH 03302-2520
Certification of Service
Pursuant to Rules Puc 203.02(2) and Puc 203.11, I have served a copy of this petition on
each person identified on the commission’s service list ~~
March 18, 2009
Mr. Gary Long
Public Service Company ofNew Hampshire
P.O. Box 330
Manchester, New Hampshire 03105-0330
Re: Biomass Energy Facilities in Berlin, NH
Dear Mr. Long:
As I am sure you are well aware, currently, there are two (2) potential biomass energy
facilities proposed to be located in the City of Berlin. One of these, a 22-29 megawatt
facility proposed by Clean Power Development of Concord, NH has formerly filed with
the City of Berlin for Site Plan Review, etc. and is hopeffil to begin construction in the
second quarter of 2009. The other proposal is a 60-66 megawatt facility proposed by
Laidlaw Energy Group, a New York Corporation. Laidlaw is proposing to retrofit the
existing chemical recovery boiler on the former Fraser Papers Mill property in Berlin.
The property has been purchased by a holding company, which is one of Laidlaw’s
affiliates. Laidlaw indicates that they are in the process of preparing their application to
the New Hampshire Energy Facility Site Evaluation Committee (EFSEC). Both of these
facilities have the potential to help New Hampshire attain its goal of 25x’25 as set forth
by Governor Lynch. I am contacting you about this subject for the following reasons. Laidlaw, through one of its press releases, indicates that PSNH and Laidlaw have reached an agreement in principle for a twenty-year power purchase agreement. Clean Power however, indicates that despite their good faith attempts, they have been unable to get PSNH to entertain the possibility of a power purchase agreement between both parties. My question to you is why is PSNH treating these two possible renewable energy facilities differently? Why is PSNH so quick to embrace a potential twenty-year accord with a New York company that has yet to prove itself in the renewable energy generation market, yet seems truly averse to good faith negotiations with a New Hampshire company? Page 2 March 18, 2009 As Berlin strives for economic development, (a topic emphasized greatly by PSNH as evidenced by its website it and numerous economic development partnerships) we do not understand the preferential treatment being given to Laidlaw by PSNH in comparison to Clean Power Development. With the exclusionary treatment of Clean Power, how can PSNH guarantee that they are providing power to its customers at the lowest cost available? On behalf of the citizens of Berlin, NH, I respectfully request that PSNH respond to these questions as we try our best to make assessments of the various pros and cons of both proposed projects. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
David Bertrand
Mayor, City of Berlin
Cc: Berlin City Council
Governor John Lynch
Thomas Getz, Public Utilities Commission Chairman
Coos County Commissioners
...and this is where it all began....
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
COMPLAINT OF CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC
AGAINST PUBLIC SERVICE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Now Comes Clean Power Development, LLC (“CPD”) and, pursuant to RSA 365:1 and
Rule Puc 204, hereby complains against Public Service ofNew Hampshire (“PSNH”), and in
support hereof states as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. CPD is a New Hampshire limited liability company that focuses on the development of
renewable and sustainable wood-fueled biomass-energy facilities. CPD hopes to begin
construction on its Berlin Clean Power Facility (“CPD Facility”) during 2009.
2. PSNH is a New Hampshire electric utility subject to the jurisdiction of the New
Hampshire Public Utilities Commission.
3. The CPD Facility will generate electricity through the combustion of whole tree chips
supplied through local markets. The CPD Facility will be capable of generating at least 22Mw, but not more than 29Mw gross output of electricity. CPD has entered into an option agreement for the purchase of land in Berlin for the location of the CPD Facility. The CPD Facility will be connected to the so-called “Coos County Loop” owned by PSNH for the transmission of its electrical output.
4. The CPD Facility is supported by the City of Berlin. The CPD Facility occupies
position 229 in the IS0-NE Interconnection Study Queue, ahead of the Laidlaw Berlin project which occupies position 251 in the Queue
5. Mel Liston is President of CPD. Mr. Liston has over 36 years of experience working
in the steam and power industry. For the last 25, he has been a developer and consultant working on numerous biomass and alternative energy projects throughout New Hampshire. While serving as president of Pinetree Power Development Corporation, Mr. Liston advanced biomass power in New Hampshire, constructing Bethlehem’s 15MW biomass plant and Tamworth’s 22MW biomass plant. His project portfolio also includes the Timco and BioEnergy cogeneration facilities, where he served as construction manager.
1
ALLEGATIONS
6. CPD has approached PSNH on numerous occasions since 2006 seeking to negotiate a
power purchase agreement (“PPA”) with PSNH whereby PSNH would purchase the energy, capacity and renewable energy certificates associated with output of this and other Facilities. A PPA is a prerequisite to moving forward with the fmancing, construction and eventual operation of the Facility.
7. Notwithstanding that the CPD Facility is supported by the City of Berlin, Laidlaw
Berlin BioPower, LLC announced in September, 2008 that they had reached an agreement with PSNH on the material terms of a contemplated 20-year power purchase agreement for its proposed Berlin project.
8. At a hearing held at the Public Utilities Commission on February 5, 2009 in Docket
No. DE -08-077, a PSNH 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.
MR. RODIER: Okay. I want to -- I just want to make sure that last answer was recorded?
Transcript, DE 08-07, February 5, 2009
9. PSNH counsel further represented in a memorandum to the Commission on February
19, 2009 in Docket No. DE -08-077 that PSNH does not establish any pre-conditions for
negotiations with third party developers of renewable energy resources and all are treated
“evenly and fairly.”
10. CPD’s repeated and diligent efforts to negotiate a PPA with PSNH have been
rebuffed by PSNH. In fact, at a meeting with a PSNH senior executive held on December 6, 2006, CPD proposed to supply power to PSNH in such a manner as to reduce PSNH’s average cost of energy. CPD was told by PSNH that PSNH is only interested in renewable projects it can own and place in its rate base. PSNH has frequently proclaimed that it supports legislative efforts to modify current state law in order to allow PSNH to propose additional new renewable energy power generation.
11. On March 14, 2009, a senior PSNH governmental affairs representative told CPD
that “the reason PSNH would never buy power from Clean Power is because of Mel Liston and how he had testified against them in other venues. He’s just a bad person and we don’t do business with people like him.”
12. In letter dated March 16 to Mr. Liston, that “[g]iven, amongst other things, the current
economic situation and the status of both PSNH’s and New England’s power supply options, PSNH has chosen not to enter into discussions with your company concerning the output of your proposed CPD Berlin Project.” (Emphasis supplied). Accordingly, PSNH appears to have adopted the position that PSNH has no need for the output of the CPD Facility.
14. In a letter to PSNH from CPD’s counsel dated March 23, 2009, CPD proposed to sell the output of the CPD Facility at “an amount equivalent to the prices PSNH has agreed to pay Laidlaw for the output of Laidlaw’s Berlin project.” PSNH responded that it would be precluded from doing so because the prices paid to Laidlaw are protected by a confidentiality Agreement.
COMPLAINT I
15. PSNH has a duty of candor toward the Commission. PSNH’s testimony in Docket
No. DE -08-077 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 merit; and that nobody would be in or out because of who they are, is apparently not true. PSNH counsel’s letter to the Commission stating that PSNH does not establish any pre-conditions for negotiations with third party developers of renewable energy resources and all are treated “evenly and fairly” is apparently not true.
COMPLAINT II
16. PSNH has violated the terms of its Least Cost Plan approved by the Commission by.
Order No. 24,945 (February 27, 2009). In its letter dated March 16 to Mr. Liston, PSNH appears to have adopted the position that PSNH has no need for the output of the CPD Facility. In the Least Cost Plan recently approved by the Commission at PSNH’s request, PSNH proclaimed as follows: There has been a movement toward a “greener” environment, while the cost of energy and generating capacity has continued to increase. PSNH has successfully completed and placed in service Northern Wood Power, but is unable to materially add to its renewable generating capacity due to State policy.
****
To meet the projected energy requirements, PSNH will need to purchase 4 to 5 million
MWh annually in the open market over the planning period... 3
To meet PSN}{’s projected ISO-New England capacity requirement, between 900 and
1,000 MW of capacity will need to be procured annually over the planning period...
****
To meet the New Hampshire RPS requirements, PSNH will need to procure 261,000
MWh from Class I renewable resources, 13,000 MWh from Class II renewable resources,
601,000 MWh from Class III renewable resources, and 58,000 MWh from Class IV renewable resources to meet its RPS deficiency by 2012...
PSNH Least Cost Integrated Resource Plan at 5,6.
17. PSNH apparently has a “business model” that apparently excludes renewable projects
such as the Berlin Clean Power Facility from consideration. PSNH did not disclose this business model to the Commission during the lengthy proceedings in DE 07-108, 2007 PSNH Least Cost Integrated Resource Plan.
COMPLAINT III
18. PSNH has the obligation under RSA 378:37 and 38 “to develop and implement an
integrated resource plan that satisfies customer energy service needs at the lowest overall cost consistent with maintaining supply reliability.” Order No. 24,945, DE 07-108 (February 27, 2009) at 12. Pursuant to RSA 378:39, renewable energy sources have priority over of all other energy sources.
17. According to New Hampshire law “[ut is... in the public interest to stimulate
investment in low emission renewable energy generation technologies in New England and, in particular, New Hampshire, whether at new or existing facilities.” RSA 362 F-i.
19. PSNH has clearly violated New Hampshire state energy policy as established by
RSA 362-F, and RSA 378:37, 38 and 39. PSNH has an obligation under RSA 362 F-i to at least objectively consider a PPA with a proposed renewable facility. PSNH may not reject out-of hand proposals from a renewable facility such as CPD, particularly where, as here, it has represented to the Commission that every developer would be treated “evenly and fairly.” PSNH’s assertion that they won’t do business with Mel Liston because he has testified against them in other venues is unlawful and a violation of both RSA 362-F, and RSA 378:37.
4
WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, Comes Clean Power Development, LLC
respectfully requests the Commission to:
A. Convene an adjudicative proceeding as provided in N.H. Admin. Rule PUC 2505.13
to allow Clean Power Development, LLC an opportunity to prove, after discovery and
deposition, the foregoing alleged violations
B. Order PSN}1 to make reparation to Clean Power Development, LLC; and
C. Grant such other and further relief as may be just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC
By its Attorney,
Is! James T. Rodier
Dated:April 7. 2009 1500A Lafayette Road, No. 112
Portsmouth, NH 03801-59 18
irodier~freedomenergy.com
http://www.puc.nh.gov/Regulatory/Docketbk/2009/09-067.htm
Join the InvestorsHub Community
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.
