Here is his PM
spencerforhire Member Level
Saturday, November 13, 2010 5:48:39 AM
The last paragraph in the PUC ruling that I'm quoting below certainly leads one to believe the PUC doesn't think the fat lady's singing. I continue to believe that the SEC pushed most politics aside in their highly contingent decision and now the PUC is following suit. This process has mandated a highly conditional certificate of almost every single concern known to man. It needed to as it impacts the state's wood supply and economics as far south to at least Concord Steam. Now PSNH is continuing to delay the project every day they fail to follow the order of releasing the PPA to the public for review. Wait until the NH rate payer catches a whiff of the devil in the details. My biggest curiosity will be whether the PUC allows late intervention by rate payers due to lack of disclosure by PSNH on an earlier order, in relation to The right to know law.
"The centrality of the terms of the Laidlaw PPA to the finding required under RSA 362-F:9, combined
with the way the terms have been negotiated and set forth in the contract, pose a substantial
obstacle to presenting a final order that would be, in any measure, useful or informative to the
public if the terms themselves, specifically price, could not be disclosed. At the same time, we
are not persuaded that disclosure will hamper PSNH in its negotiations with Hydro Quebec, and
therefore harm its ratepayers, given the age of the negotiated Laidlaw price relative to the still
ongoing negotiations between NU, and its project partner, NStar and Hydro Quebec, the
difference in scale between Laidlaw’s 70 MWs and Hydro Quebec’s 1200 MWs, and the
difference in the products purchased in terms of counter party, energy, capacity and RECs. “The
purpose of the Right-to-Know Law is to ensure both the greatest possible public access to the
actions, discussions and records of all public bodies, and their accountability to the people . . . we
resolve questions regarding the Right-to-Know Law with a view to providing the utmost
information.” Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375, 378 (2008) (internal
citations omitted). Accordingly, we deny the motion for rehearing."
