Laidlaw Energy Group, Inc.(fka LLEG)

[rich sears]

For anyone who didn’t get the memo, he is referring to the most recent order from the PUC denying PSNH’s motion for rehearing of the PUC’s initial denial of PSNH’s motion for confidential treatment of certain pricing terms and certain other information.

In a nutshell, this isn’t going the way PSNH had hoped. The PUC does not agree with their arguments for keeping those details of the PPA private. So now the ball is squarely in PSNH’s court. Will they comply with the PUC order to release those details? Or are the arguments they made to keep them private compelling enough reasons for PSNH to not want to disclose them? Which would essentially prevent the project from moving forward since an approved PPA is the most significant requirement of the SEC's conditional permit approval. Lack of an approved PPA would also hinder Laidlaws ability to secure financing as was stated during the SEC process.

"The centrality of the terms of the Laidlaw PPA to the finding required under RSA 362-F:9, combined with the way the terms have been negotiated and set forth in the contract, pose a substantial obstacle to presenting a final order that would be, in any measure, useful or informative to the public if the terms themselves, specifically price, could not be disclosed. At the same time, we are not persuaded that disclosure will hamper PSNH in its negotiations with Hydro Quebec, and therefore harm its ratepayers, given the age of the negotiated Laidlaw price relative to the still ongoing negotiations between NU, and its project partner, NStar and Hydro Quebec, the difference in scale between Laidlaw’s 70 MWs and Hydro Quebec’s 1200 MWs, and the difference in the products purchased in terms of counter party, energy, capacity and RECs. “The purpose of the Right-to-Know Law is to ensure both the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussions and records of all public bodies, and their accountability to the people . . . we resolve questions regarding the Right-to-Know Law with a view to providing the utmost
information.” Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375, 378 (2008) (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, we deny the motion for rehearing."

http://2much2do4now.typepad.com/bytechew/2010/11/a-break-from-the-insanity.html#comments