Laidlaw Energy Group, Inc.(fka LLEG)

[BigBucksFl]

Fantastic News. I spent several hours comparing the conditions to the REVISED PPA offered by LLEG and PSNH, and as far as I can tell, very close, and the difference will likely be able to be made up by selling excess power and REC's on the market at full value, rather than discounted rates. The following 8 conditions and my assessment follow, to wit;

1. BASE ENERGY PRICE: A change in the conversion factor from 1.8 to 1.6. This was already proposed by LLEG in the revisions offered earlier in the process and is NOT A FACTOR as it is already agreed to.

A change in the price per MWH from 83.00 to 69.80. In the revisions, a rate change from 83.00 to that of 75.80 was proposed meaning they want an additional cut of 6.00 per MWH, or about 8%. Since we all know that Mike is a smart guy, my guess would be that they knew that regardless of what rate was offered, the PUC would want a reduction to prove they earned their paycheck and did their job, and likely built in an additional 10% as a safety cushion. I know I would have. This taken with the improved efficiencies and generation capacity providing for the prior reduction in rates in the revisions offered, means that the 10% cushion, if there, is sufficient to allow this to be a viable rate. I doubt this is a serious issue.

Reduction in the price of wood, regardless of supplier since the WPA was approved, from $34 to $30. This too was also in the revisions offered and therefore is NOT A FACTOR as it is already agreed to.

2. CAPACITY PRICES: The capacity price changes proposed are for the first 2 years ONLY. Lowering the rate from $4.25 per KW month to $2.95 per KW month for the first 2 years only. What effect this will have I am not sure as I do not care to take the time necessary to research this to totally understand the process for this charge but, since it is for the first 2 years only, with the remainder of years 3 through 20 remaining unchanged, I suspect that this will be accpeted as to me it appears to be a nominal 3% reduction over 20 years. Do not see any serious issue.

3. REC PRICES: The price discount adjustment based on ACP results provides LLEG with a good deal for the REC's, above current market even with the discounts, and the primary adjustment again is for the first 2 years of the project. My personal opinion, LLEG is gonna make a ton with this deal. Do not see any serious issue.

4. REC VOLUME: Here I think the PUC screwed the consumer, not LLEG. The PUC limits how many REC's can be bought by PSNH each year at the discounted rate, regardless of NEED. Meaning, in any year in which the need is higher, PSNH will need to pay LLEG prices, a competitors or market prices, or pay a fine to the state for failing to provide the necessary number of REC''s in meeting their 25/25 obligations. I think it is likely a good deal for LLEG as it allows a percentage of REC's produced to be sold on the market as demand increases, for full market price without discount. Meaning of course those costs passed on to consumers. This is what happens when beurocrats are constrained by ideas failing to look more than 2 years into the future. My opinion, a win for LLEG and a loss for consumers. Do not see an issue here.

5. ENERGY OUTPUT: Here again, I think the PUC did a disservice to the consumer. They have taken a contract and set into stone a minimum that PSNH MUST purchase from LLEG, leaving excess power to be sold to anyone at market rates. This, especially in later years as the 25/25 obligation grows, may leave a bad taste in the mouths of consumers again, because beurocrats are unable to look past the 2-3 year window. Even tohough PSNH could buy excess power above the minimum stated, based on this clause they wanted, it would be at market rates without discounts. Again, I see a plus for LLEG with the majority of downside for the consumer. Do not see an issue here either.

6. CUMULATIVE REDUCTION FACTOR: This allows any overpricing to be credited toward future purchase of the facility, if that ever occured, 20 years down the road. it also allows for a price credit if the power is substantially overpriced in any one year and credited the following year. Do not see a problem with this either yet again on this issue, I am not totally versed in the exact terms of the proposal, although it looks as if the PUC dropped the ball in not taking up LLEG on its offer to apply interest rates higher than originally proposed so this change may actually result in a wash effect. Do not see an issue here.

7. RETENTION OF COMMISSION JURISDICTION: Duh. Need I say more. No brainer. Not a problem.

8. IDENTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTED PARTIES: No way, LOL. Thought this would be top secret and contracts not changed. Duh. LOL. Again, No Brainer. Of course the names of new parties will be on new PPA. Even the commission makes fun of this one themselves. No issue here.

So this is my take on the APPROVAL. To see if I am right will not take long. If as I suspect that even the revisions offered on the PPA had wiggle room in them, STANDARD PRACTICE, then we will likely see the new PPA presented within the 30 days the PUC has set forth. If the parties object or want to negotiate a point or two because they feel it cuts too deeply, then this too will show up within that 30 days, IMO.

I wholeheartedly believe that based on Mike's post earlier this evening;

It's approved. Approval of contracts of this type ALWAYS comes with conditions. No surprise there. The fat lady has done her singing and no amount of spin and damage control on the part of project opponents can change that.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=62210924

as well as my own analysis of the conditions as compared to the concessions offered by the parties and the real market conditions that do now exist, and will exist as the 25/25 regulations become more binding and restrictive with projected needs for future needs and future generation capacity, this will likely be set in stone with FINAL APPROVAL forthcoming.

I find it interesting that the PUC's projection with changes proposed, including those already agreed to by LLEG, they estimate its worth to be nearing $1.5B, which is what Mike claimed it was worth this whole time from the very start. Sounds as if Mike was spot on in his estimation of the contract, with the proposed changes.

With approval in hand, roadblocks are now gone. The remaining issue of the proposed changes before the SEC will be expeditiously handled so as not to cause undue burden to the project and the parties, despite the opponents to the project who will claim otherwise. The SEC has before it proposed revisions to the already approved Site Permit. It now becomes a simple matter of approving the proposed changes, despite some parties trying to gain intervenor status based on OLD, SETTLED arguments already dismissed, and dismissing FACTS such as the proposed increase in efficiency. While a valient effort, it too will be sumarily dismissed when FACTS are taken into account.

I fully expect the SEC will make an expeditious ruling on the matter before it as it is nothing more than LLEG complying with the requirements of the SEC order GRANTING the SITE PERMIT, despite the claims that the name change, which requires a new docket, somehow opens up everything for a total review. The SEC members are not about to sit and litigate everything already settled by them previously, despite the desire of those trying to stop the project.

My honest assessment is that this will be handled quickly and with minimal intrusion allowed as it is merely approval of the changes to the ALREADY APPROVED SITE PERMIT.

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 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !