Laidlaw Energy Group, Inc.(fka LLEG)

[BigBucksFl]

Spencer, trying to cloud the issues again?

I believe you are well aware and have spoken about the possible involvement of Gestamp in this proposed project.

HERE IS WHAT I SAID:

..the next day it is being taken over by CPD and Gestamp ( based on rumor, likely off byte&chew, and we know who starts those rumors there, wink, wink )..

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=60016759

What you apparently don't know is that this testimony is still valid and being used in the decision process.

What you fail to realize is that the commissioners KNOW EXACTLY where those numbers came from, and will disregard them as unproven and unreliable !

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.

REALLY ? ME MISLEAD INVESTORS ? Where is the slam dunk killer testimony that is going to stop this project if it can't even be referred to in the parties closing arguments? Oh, wait a minute, perhaps this is what you are referring to;

Staff Ex.
14 shows that, depending upon which set of numbers is used, the results of those predictions vary
significantly, from a $300 M net benefit to customers to a $300 M detriment. All the parties do agree
on one thing - - no one can predict the future.

OR THIS:

The testimonies submitted by OCA and the Staff Advocate have little to say about the cost of
capacity under the PPA. Mr. McCluskey’s Exhibit GRM-14 shows the PPA appears to present a
nominal savings of over $40 M in capacity value. He criticized that figure based on Levitan’s use of
an inflation factor adjustment in the later years; however, both Synapse and Mr. McCluskey himself
utilized that same methodology with impunity.

OR THIS;

Even Mr. Traum conceded, in response to a data request, that it
was not OCA’s opinion and testimony that REC prices will be 30% of the ACP for the term of the
proposed Laidlaw contract. It would be patently unreasonable to rely upon the OCA’s analyses,
given Mr. Traum’s response to that question.

OR THIS;

The Staff Advocate
testified, “I've never even heard of Ventyx before this, the hearings.” Similarly, despite his repeated
citations to the Massachusetts and New York renewable programs, he claimed unfamiliarity with
the Connecticut Project 150 statutory renewable RFP process. The Staff Advocate criticized PSNH’s
witnesses for not reading the Synapse report. Yet, that very same report, on more than a half dozen
occasions, references Ventyx (which he claimed he had never heard of) and, in more than a half
dozen other places, references Connecticut’s Project 150 (which he claimed he was unfamiliar with).

OR THIS;

but then admitted he was
wrong. When asked about his testimony where he stated PSNH “will pay” $1.6 B for the Laidlaw
products, he ultimately conceded that he really does not know what PSNH will pay

OR THIS;

“Staff assumed that the price of
RECs would rise from the existing level at the rate that the ACP rose,” in this proceeding, his
testimony included steadily decreasing REC pricing. Such inaccuracies and inconsistencies make
the Staff Advocate’s testimony unreliable and of little merit.

OR THIS;

During cross-examination, the Staff Advocate waffled and equivocated regarding
this error. It required direct questioning from Commissioner Below for an almost-direct response
that maybe he had made a mistake.

AND ON AND ON IT GOES. MANY MANY more such quotes can be pulled from the testimony of the proceedings from the PSNH Closing Argument which shows us exactly who won the war of testimony.

OVER and OVER we see the Staff Advocate and OCA witnesses being repeatedly forced to ADMIT that either;
1. They were wrong in their calculations.
2. They did not know the facts of the matter.
3. They were unaware of critical issues.
4. Their testimony and projections were wrong.
OR, and this is my favorite part where Commissioner Below had to FORCE the Staff advocate to answer a question and admit that he had made a mistake on an issue.

NOT A GOOD SIGN FOR YOUR SIDE OF THE ISSUE !

You keep insisting that based on Staff:

Staff on the other hand is saying

positions, PSNH is just wrong. You are assuming that the commissioners were not there or awake for all of the testimony showing how Staff AND OCA used assumptions, incorrect information and did not know the facts related to EACH ISSUE, ..

AND WERE FORCED TO ADMIT THIS IN THEIR TESTIMONY !

Come on Spencer, and you say that I am not fair and willing to look at both sides of an issue. It would appear that you are the one wearing blinders in this matter. I read the closing arguments, word by word, of the Staff and IPP's, which you claimed had won the day, and yet their closing arguments focus on testimony prior to admissions of them being wrong, information shown to be bogus and unreliable at best, fraudulent at worst, and in the case of the IPP's, believe that the commissioners should interpret Statutes according to the IPP attorneys stretch of the statutes rather than existing law and PRIOR DECISIONS, including ones from APPEALS.

POINT IS Spencer, according to closing arguments from all 3 of these parties it is clear that PSNH kicked butt in the testimony and cross examination portion.

THEREFORE, I will stick with my statement;

AND THAT IS HOW IT IS DONE ! ! !

BADA BANG BABY ! ! !

WE ARE DEFINITELY HEADED FOR APPROVAL ! ! !

LOOKING FORWARD TO ANOTHER GREAT DAY, WEEK, MONTH AND YEAR WITH LLEG !!!

AS ALWAYS,

GO LONG ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

KEEP THE FAITH ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

ENHANCE YOUR CALM ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

STAY THE COURSE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

GO LLEG ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !