You said, "Now Concord Steam and CPD are the two IPP's that pulled out of the process after contaminating the issue with this bogus testimony and were faced with discovery to provide documentation that these undocumented CLAIMS were based on fact and reliable evidence to support the claim. Instead, they tucked tail and removed themselves from the process rather than face having to substantiate these claims with evidence of some sort. YET, HERE IS THE STAFF, relying on this as factual evidence to support their "CLAIMS".
You are mistaken. I believe you are well aware and have spoken about the possible involvement of Gestamp in this proposed project. If you are as good as you say you are with analytical skills then you surely realize that it potentially became a conflict for Gestamp partners (CPD and Concord Steam President Peter Bloomfield, who is also part of the CPD team) to continue as intervenors in opposition to the proposed Laidlaw Berlin Biopower project. This is not a tail between the legs dropping of intervention, this is strategic potential partnership negotiations and decisions, and if you don't know that you should know that.
You also used one of staff quotes as follows in your post. Quoted:…The first test, comparing the PPA prices with the prices for comparable renewable energy projects, demonstrates that PSNH could have received the same products that it is purchasing from Laidlaw from two competing biomass projects (Concord Steam and CPD) at prices that represent discounts of 12.6% and 8.5% respectively compared to Laidlaw. …
What you apparently don't know is that this testimony is still valid and being used in the decision process. The testimony that is not being used is the PPA Concord Steam testified they had which was 18% lower than the Laidlaw proposed PPA. Because Concord Steam pulled out, that PPA (Concord Steam PPA that is 18% below Laidlaw's) is no longer part of testimony. It is however, certainly within the thought process of all involved.
The PSNH closing statement is very good as you state. So is the City's which you haven't seen but is also in favor of the project. I did not bother sending you an email of all these closing statements which I sent out to all others who requested them yesterday. You really seem to have no interest in looking at both sides of the argument which I believe weakens due diligency on your part and can potentially mislead investors. You appear to be very biased in stating that Staff, OCA, and the IPPS are not effective closing arguments. Certainly a great many RSA's are brought up by all parties. If there is a weak point among these closing statements it certainly can be construed as the last paragraph you focus on surprisingly as a positive for PSNH. PSNH essentially is stating a threat to the PUC that this is the last PPA if they don't play ball and significantly insult the PUC Staff experts in almost every word. I'll leave you with this. I'm amazed at the negativity this portrays toward the PUC, and I have to say before this quote, didn't PSNH think for one instant about the ol sayin "Don't bite the hand that's feeding you"? In my opinion, the following paragraph may come back to bite them in the a$$. I'm sure you'll respond in kind that you hope all the "good guys" come back to bite me in the...You will say what you will, but to mislead anyone into thinking you have a slam dunk PPA is a real disservice to credibility on this board.
"The PPA PSNH has presented is a good deal, a financeable deal, a deal that took extensive negotiations, a deal that is innovative and provides unprecedented protections for customers, a deal
that will result in keeping energy and investment dollars in the state to benefit our own economy,
and create hundreds of jobs - - just as the Legislature intended. As stated by Mr. Long in his
testimony, this deal is the best one available for meeting the state’s RPS. There will likely not be
another one if this PPA is not approved. The Commission must therefore decide whether it will
implement the state’s policy objectives based upon the significant merits of this PPA and not on
long-term forecasts which all parties agree will ultimately be incorrect."
Staff on the other hand is saying it's Not a good deal, could jeopardize MORE JOBS at existing facilities, and absolutely DOES NOT protect rate payers BECAUSE there is no where near the value PSNH says there is within the cumulative reduction account and therefore the thin veiled figure of $3.50/month to the rate payer is SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN REALITY. Additionally, staff and others site that projection figures are consistently used by PSNH on other PPA in existence and in this one instance, all of a sudden projections are no longer used. Keep in mind, this is a staff closing statement that is printed on letterhead from the State of NH Public Utilities Commission. To take that lightly is akin to suggesting there's no pumping being done by pumpers within the pink sheets.
