Trying to untangle the web

As I watch the people who had invested in Laidlaw/LLEG scrambling to figure out what’s going on and what their next move might be, I’m trying to put myself in their shoes and asking “How in hell did I get here and what do I do now?”  I’ve followed what I believe is the main conduit for conversations about Laidlaw on I-HUB for the past 3 to 4 years and have been amazed at the lack of common sense in many of their conversations. In my opinion, their conversations reflect a combination of arrogance, ignorance, overconfidence and blind faith in the company and its CEO Mr. Bartoszek. “MBB” or “Mike” as many call him, was their guru and whatever Mike said became gospel to most investors. How does one become so…popular? How does one become so popular in fact that people will give him their hard earned money? There was ample evidence along the way that Laidlaw and its managers were not the most trustworthy individuals around after the Ellicottville NY project, yet the faith and trust of the investors kept growing. To this day I’m puzzled by this blind faith when I listen to the investors questioning the action of the Securities and Exchange Commission and who blame the SEC not Laidlaw or Mike. What transpired over the years that built-up the credibility of Laidlaw to this point? Going back 5 years or so to Laidlaw’s failure in Ellicottville NY and all the negative publicity that came out of that fiasco you would think that the company would have died on the vine. But no, Mike regrouped and came to Berlin and found the right combination of circumstances and people to give it another try, this time on a grand scale. How did Mike manage to distance himself from the dismal failure of the past and do such a remarkable job going forward with the Berlin project? I’ll go out on a limb here and conjure-up a possible explanation which goes like this; At first Mr. Bartoszek did not make a very positive impression in Berlin. City Hall was less than enthusiastic about the Laidlaw project as a matter of fact the incumbent mayor Danderson was defeated by a 3 to 1 margin by Dave Bertrand who ran on an anti-Laidlaw platform. Mayor Danderson had proclaimed that a vote for him was a vote for Laidlaw coming to Berlin and he lost in a landslide! Many of the candidates running and winning council seats were also anti-Laidlaw. I believe that we need to study what transpired after the Danderson defeat to figure-out what were the events that turned what was a bad start for Laidlaw to a positive outcome. Although the Bertrand Administration was sour on Laidlaw, they failed to mount a successful campaign against the project. They worked behind the scenes gathering information about Laidlaw, but concentrated primarily on challenging the project at the permitting level. By this time there was also a fear in City Hall that Laidlaw would sue the City if the City acted too boldly, something the company had done in Ellicottville NY to the tune of $10M. The City working behind the scenes with their lawyer was not something that the residents of Berlin were impressed with and, at the same time, a dark cloud began to hang over the future of the Cascade Mill. While all of this was going on in Berlin, I believe that Mike was putting together a strategy to turn his fortunes around.(LLEG $.0003/shr then) I believe he made a concentrated effort  packaging his project by running photos of himself with high profile individuals such as Hillary Clinton and Charlie Bass and locally supporting Paul Grenier.  He knew that Charlie Bass could open the door to the business community in Berlin and the State and it worked. By then he knew that Charlie had connections to many companies, including PSNH, who he needed on his side if he was going to win the heart and minds of folks in Berlin and Concord. I can only speculate that Mike and Charlie had numerous meetings with PSNH and a collaborative strategy for going forward with the Berlin project included a new mayor for Berlin who was pro Laidlaw/PSNH. Armed with the endorsement of PSNH, placing Charlie on the Board of Directors and a pro-Laidlaw mayor, Mike had a powerful PR message for potential investors. As a side benefit, PSNH now had ammunition to kill the efforts by Clean Power to build its own biomass plant in Berlin by stating that Mel Liston was a “bad person” and that they were now supporting a more credible project and developer, the Laidlaw Project and Mr. Michael Bartoszek. All of this played well on I-HUB for weeks and months and, the investors were more and more impressed with company and CEO. The stock went from $.0003 to over $.005 as investors were encouraged by events such as the announcement that PSNH was offering a PPA to Laidlaw while denying the same to Clean Power. The PSNH and Bass connection put Laidlaw on the front page of newspapers not only in New Hampshire, but in energy publications nation wide. I believe that PSNH provided more than a market for the power; it provided credibility and trust “to believe in the Laidlaw project” and the CEO. Now I realize that this is my fictional account of events and may require some imagination, but at the moment, it’s my only explanation as to why so many investors are now like deer in the headlights of the SEC truck and searching for answers.

Comments

[Chet]

I think you're missing the main reason, Rocky. Since the 1980's the biomass industry has been a thorn in the side of PSNH. They tried to kill it in the 1990's by buying back a number of the existing plants. As the 2000's rolled on they saw the biomass industry start to rise out of the ashes like a phoenix and decided this time around they were going to control it. They first got approval for the conversion of one of their Newington plants to biomass. However, they were prevented by legislation, to own any new plants. They saw plans pop up for 5 or 6 small plants and decided to block them by preventing them getting contracts. I think this is when they saw the Berlin project as a wish come true. The 75 mw plant would block the proposed plants plus put the rest of the existing plants out of business. I think they saw Bartoszek as a pawn for getting what they wanted. They arranged to have LLEG brought in to act as a puppet while they worked up plans to to finance the project without any PSNH finger prints. Once they had their financing complete they just moved in and replaced LLEG and all their associated support (Homeland, Cousineau, and Fiberwat) with their own people. All it cost, for them, was chump change, $3.0 million in exchange for a $140 million biomass plant that they now indirectly control. This is my theory of what really happened.

[Rocky]

Your theory Chet is as valid as mine. I was focusing my comments more from the perspective of the shareholder who finds himself kind-of holding the bag/empty bag and is trying to figure out the who and the now what. Investing in LLEG became part of their belief system. So how did they become such believers?

[Chet]

Greed, will blind people to facts anyday. The IHUB LLEG board is laced with pumpers placed there just to pump the stock. I've come to the conclusion you have to be a real moron to play the pink sheet market. The pinks are the modern "Wild, Wild West". Everyone on the board is operating under an alias with many of the "pumpers" having more than one alias to use. Look at this character in Florida, Chad Curtis, operates with 14 different alias, with a modus operandi of three per stock. He pumped up LLEG in 2008 as MBBLLEG while someone with the same name as his partner Dwight Flatt handed out information on the Laidlaw web page. All this information was dug up and Jon at the time and totally ignored. Another poster, BOSCO99, played the part of someone that was in the now about the stock. It's a big game. One of the posters, Digiholic, estimated LLEG was making anywhere from $50,000 to $60,000 a month off the stock. I want someone to ask BigBucksFl if he knows who Chad Curtis and Dwight Flatt are in the worst way.

[Chet]

From the IHUB ASUS board:

Chad Curtis Pumps & Aliases, latest alias is stocktrader1120. Probably using Dwight's alias. Seems to have abandoned MBBLLEG, his previous pump and dump alias.

PBLS Pump: Otcstk - IHUB
PBLS Pump: ne14afree - Raging Bull
SLJB Pump: ChipHldr - IHUB
SLJB Pump: MarqueeAssetManagement - Corporate
SLJB Pump: BuyOrDie - IHUB
GOIH Pump: FieldFire - IHUB
MDOR Pump: StockBossSilver - MySpace
MDOR Pump: MDOR - Corporate
MDOR Pump: StockTrader1120 - IHUB
WNSH Pump: VOIP-INTERFACE - IHUB
PHBR Pump: CornyAlias - IHUB
PHBR Pump: CameraMan - Connection uncertain.
PHBR Pump: Curber (BHUB CEO - supports Chad on MDOR, PHBR, WNSH)
LLEG Pump: MBBLLEG - IHUB

[Chet]

FLATT v. UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

DWIGHT FLATT, Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent.

Case No. 10-60073-MC-UNGARO/SIMONTON.

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

April 14, 2010.
ORDER DENYING MOVANT'S MOTION TO QUASH OR FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER NARROWING THE SCOPE OF SUBPOENA

ANDREA M. SIMONTON, Magistrate Judge.

Presently pending before the Court is Dwight Flatt's Motion to Quash or For a Protective Order Narrowing the Scope of Respondent's Subpoena To Bank of America, N.A. Seeking Production of Private Banking Records (DE # 1). The Motion has been referred by the Honorable Ursula Ungaro to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge (DE # 5). The Government has filed an Opposition to the Motion (DE # 6). The Movant has not filed a Reply and the time for doing so has elapsed. For the reasons stated below, Dwight Flatt's Motion to Quash or for Protective Order is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND

Movant Dwight Flatt filed the instant Motion seeking to quash the administrative subpoena or for the entry of a protective order related to an administrative subpoena served on Bank of America, N.A. by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") seeking certain banking records related to bank accounts maintained by Mr. Flatt and/or Spartan Equity Consultants, LLC., ("Spartan"). The Subpoena is captioned, "In the Matter of Magnum d'Or Resources, Inc., FL-3490" and specifically commands the Bank to produce various account information documents reflecting credits, debits, charges, deposits and/or withdrawals for all accounts held in the name of Spartan Equity Consultants, LLC and/or Dwight Flatt for the period of January 1, 2007 through the present (DE # 1-1 at 4-6). In addition, a letter addressed to Mr. Flatt from the SEC which accompanied the subpoena at issue and is attached to the Motion to Quash, indicates that an investigation into Magnum D'Or Resources, Inc., has been launched regarding possible violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Mr. Flatt asserts that he is entitled to have the Subpoena quashed based upon the customer privacy provisions contained in The Right to Financial Privacy Act 12 U.S.C.A. § 3410, et seq., ("RFPA" of "Act").

The Government counters that the Subpoena seeks documents relevant to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry, and should therefore not be quashed pursuant to the customer protections provisions set forth in the RFPA.
II. LEGAL STANDARD

The RFPA provides, in relevant part,

(a) Filing of motion to quash or application to enjoin; proper court; contents

. . . a customer may file a motion to quash an administrative summons or judicial subpena, or an application to enjoin a Government authority from obtaining financial records pursuant to a formal written request, with copies served upon the Government authority . . . Such motion or application shall contain an affidavit or sworn statement —

(1) stating that the applicant is a customer of the financial institution from which financial records pertaining to him have been sought; and

(2) stating the applicant's reasons for believing that the financial records sought are not relevant to the legitimate law enforcement inquiry stated by the Government authority in its notice, or that there has not been substantial compliance with the provisions of this chapter.

12 U.S.C. § 3410(a). In addition, § 3410(c) provides,

(c) Decision of court

If the court finds that the applicant is not the customer to whom the financial records sought by the Government authority pertain, or that there is a demonstrable reason to believe that the law enforcement inquiry is legitimate and a reasonable belief that the records sought are relevant to that inquiry, it shall deny the motion or application, and, in the case of an administrative summons or court order other than a search warrant, order such process enforced. If the court finds that the applicant is the customer to whom the records sought by the Government authority pertain, and that there is not a demonstrable reason to believe that the law enforcement inquiry is legitimate and a reasonable belief that the records sought are relevant to that inquiry, or that there has not been substantial compliance with the provisions of this chapter, it shall order the process quashed or shall enjoin the Government authority's formal written request

12 U.S.C. § 3410(c).
III. PARTIES' POSITIONS

As stated above, in the Motion, Mr. Flatt seeks to quash the subpoena that was issued by the SEC related to bank accounts maintained at Bank of America in the name of Mr. Flatt and/or Spartan. In support of his Motion, Mr. Flatt has submitted his own Declaration stating that he is a customer of Bank of America, N.A., that the SEC has subpoenaed his financial and banking records from Bank of America for the period from January 1, 2007, and that the requested records are not relevant to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry (DE # 1). Mr. Flatt also asserts that the subpoena is overly broad because it seeks any and all financial records from Mr. Flatt or Spartan Equity Consultants, LLC., rather than limiting the request to records related to Magnum d'Or Resources, Inc., ("Magnum"), the subject of the SEC investigation. Mr. Flatt therefore requests, in the alternative to quashing the subpoena, that the court issue a protective order narrowing the scope of the subpoena to records related only to Magnum d'Or Resources.

In its Verified Opposition to the Motion, the SEC first asserts that Mr. Flatt lacks standing to challenge the subpoena under the RFPA on behalf of Spartan because the RFPA only provides relief for individual "customers" and not for limited liability corporations like Spartan. In addition, the SEC asserts that its investigation of Magnum is a legitimate law-enforcement inquiry and that the subpoenaed documents are relevant to that investigation. Specifically, the SEC asserts that on October 30, 2009, the Commission entered a formal order of investigation pertaining to Magnum which has produced evidence that Magnum issued S-8 shares to various individuals, including Mr. Flatt, in violation of certain securities laws. The SEC staff believes that after receiving the shares from Magnum, Mr. Flatt sold the shares and placed the proceeds from the sales in his Spartan Equity business bank account, as well as his personal account. The SEC therefore argues that Mr. Flatt has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the subpoenaed documents have no connection to the subject matter of the investigation. In support of its Opposition, the SEC has submitted the Verification of Julie Russo, an attorney with the SEC's Division of Enforcement in Miami who certifies that the facts set forth in the SEC's Opposition regarding the investigation are true and correct.
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Standing to Challenge Subpoena for Spartan Equity Consultants, LLC.

The SEC first argues that Mr. Flatt lacks standing to challenge the subpoenas at issue on behalf of Spartan, a Limited Liability Company, because the RFPA only provides relief to individual customers and not businesses like Spartan.

The Right to Financial Privacy Act contains definitions related to the relief available under the Act and specifically provides that "`customer' means any person or authorized representative of that person who utilized or is utilizing any service of a financial institution, or for whom a financial institution is acting or has acted as a fiduciary, in relation to an account maintained in the person's name." 12 U.S.C.A. § 3401 (5). In addition, the Act defines "person" as "an individual or a partnership of five or fewer individuals." 12 U.S.C.A. § 3401 (4) In Exchange Point, LLC. v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F. Supp. 2d 172, 174-76 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), a district court examined these particular definitions under the RFPA and held that the customer protections available under the Act did not apply to limited liability corporations because those entities do not meet the limited definitions of "customers" and "persons" under the Act. In arriving at its determination, the court observed that the primary purpose of the RFPA was to protect the privacy rights of individuals and small partnerships. The court further opined that, although in certain situations an LLC is viewed more like a partnership than a corporation, because typically no member of an LLC is liable for the debts of the company, an LLC is not entitled to the "customer" protections of the RFPA. Id.[ 1 ] Other courts have reached similar conclusions and noted that generally courts strictly construe the definition of "customer" under the Act. See Pittsburgh National Bank v. United States, 771 F.2d 73, 75 (3d Cir. 1985) (declining to expand Act's coverage to include other entities, finding the limited definition of a customer to be dispositive); Accord Spa Flying Serv., Inc. v. United States, 724 F.2d 95, 96 (8th Cir. 1984) (noting Act's definitions are unmistakable and holding corporations excluded because not specifically enumerated therein); Chao v. Cmty. Trust Co., 474 F.3d 75, 88 (3d Cir.2007) (same); Collins v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 737 F. Supp. 1467 (N.D. Ill. 1990) (same); Donovan v. Nat'l Bank, 696 F2d 678, 683 (9th Cir. 1983) (declining to extend Act's protections beyond individual customer records to records held by employee benefit plan entity).

In this case, the Plaintiff does not dispute that Spartan Equity Consultants is a Limited Liability Company organized under the laws of the state of Florida. Thus, as pointed out by the Government, much like the LLC at issue in Exchange Point, Spartan does not meet the definition of either an individual or a partnership under the RFPA and therefore is not a "customer" under the Act. Moreover, Spartan's members, including Mr. Flatt, are unlike persons in a partnership, in that they are not liable for the debts of the company and thus do not fall into the category of persons intended to be protected by the RFPA.[ 2 ] Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that the customer protections in the RFPA do not provide a basis to quash the SEC subpoena in this matter on behalf of Spartan.
B. SEC Subpoena as Legitimate Law Enforcement Inquiry seeking Relevant Documents

Mr. Flatt also challenges the SEC subpoena as not being a legitimate law enforcement inquiry as it pertains to him. As stated above, the RFPA provides that a court may grant a motion to quash the Government's subpoena requesting a customer's financial records from a financial institution if the court determines that: 1) the person seeking to quash the subpoena is the customer to whom the financial records pertain; and, 2) there is no demonstrable reason to believe that the law enforcement inquiry is legitimate and the records sought are relevant to that inquiry.

The undersigned has carefully reviewed the Subpoena at issue and the undisputed statements contained in the Government's Opposition to the Motion to Quash, and concludes that although it appears that Mr. Flatt meets the first prong of the test set forth in the Act, his Motion to Quash should still be denied because he fails to satisfy the second prong of the test. Specifically, based upon the representations by the Government in its papers, the SEC is engaged in a legitimate law enforcement inquiry. Indeed, the Movant does not assert that the investigation by the SEC related to potential securities violations by Magnum is not legitimate or does not qualify as law enforcement inquiry. Moreover, there is no indication that the SEC's contention that it seeks the documents to assist in tracing the monies between Magnum and its consultants, including Mr. Flatt, which may have involved the improper share transactions, is untrue. Thus, the SEC has demonstrated that it is engaged in a legitimate law enforcement inquiry.

Similarly, Mr. Flatt's argument that the subpoena is overly broad and seeks irrelevant documents that are not limited to transactions involving Magnus, also fails. As stated by the Fifth Circuit,

For purposes of an administrative subpoena, the notion of relevancy is a broad one. An agency can investigate merely on the suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not. So long as the material requested touches a matter under investigation, an administrative subpoena will survive a challenge that the material is not relevant.

Sandsend Fin. Consultants, Ltd. v. Fed. Home Loan Bank Bd., 878 F. 2d 875 (5th Cir. 1989) (emphasis added) (citations and quotations omitted). In this case, Mr. Flatt has not asserted that he has no knowledge of the Magnus transactions at issue, but rather contends that he is not the subject of the investigation and would like to cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, this is not a case in which the customer has no connection to the transactions or the entity under investigation, or where a subpoena seeks documents from a multi-national corporation which in no way relate to the investigation. See Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp., 169 F.R.D. 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (quashing subpoena that sought documents from investment bank company for all transactions with company under investigation over ten-year period, including international divisions of company without any ties to transactions at issue). In addition, the SEC asserts that it is in need of the requested bank records to trace the path of the proceeds of the alleged illegal transactions committed by Magnus. Such funds may have been distributed to other persons or entities through the subpoenaed bank accounts, or may have been handled as pass-through investor funds, and thus would not necessarily be labeled as Magnum transactions. Thus, it is impossible to ascertain at this juncture which specific bank account transactions involve Magnum proceeds, or to identify the names of all of the persons or entities involved in those transactions. As such, the Subpoena is not overbroad. Accord, S.E.C. v. Dowdell, 144 Fed. Appx. 716, 724 (10th Cir. Aug. 3, 2005) (affirming district court's denial of motion to quash where SEC subpoena sought to trace funds which passed through bank account of lawyer who introduced parties to the investigation target). Simply put, under the facts of this case, Mr. Flatt, as the movant, has failed to demonstrate that the SEC subpoena seeks documents that are not relevant to or touch upon a legitimate law enforcement investigation; and, on the contrary, the SEC has demonstrated that the documents are relevant to a legitimate law enforcement investigation. See Davidov v. U.S. S.E.C., 415 F. Supp. 2d 386, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (stating under RFPA plaintiff must first show factual basis for his conclusion that records sought are irrelevant and then agency must only show reasonable belief that records sought are relevant). Thus, the Court declines to limit the subpoena on these grounds, as well.

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Dwight Flatt's Motion to Quash or For a Protective Order Narrowing the Scope of Respondent's Subpoena To Bank of America, N.A. Seeking Production of Private Banking Records (DE # 1) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED.

[wood burner]

TORONTO, Jan. 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ - Mina Mar Group Inc. http://www.facebook.com/l/695d0AVSgS-6UFvMNZPkAFXOfcw/www.minamargroup.com/ (MMG) and Mina Mar Marketing Group http://www.facebook.com/l/695d0NuZVaqj8cyzj-yavIBmy9g/www.minamargroup.net/ (MMMG) inform the public that the courts ruled in the favour of Mina Mar Group in slander lawsuit against Investors Hub.

Mr. Justice Belobaba, Ontario Superior Court Of Justice awarded judgment in favor of Mina Mar Group, and awarded $75,000 in general damages, $10,000 in punitive damages and $20,000 for the trial costs to the company.

This was never about the money but rather principle. These stock bashers should not be allowed to destroy other peoples reputations and businesses with slanderous and malicious posts on the Internet

The court ruling can be seen on this link http://www.facebook.com/l/695d0RUdeXs_YBx-RyZ33jULIQQ/www.minamargroup.com/stock_bashers.php

Mina Mar Group wishes to quote some key declarations of the court:

"4... THIS COURT ORDERS that all negative, defamatory and libellous
postings, made by Posters and members of Investors Hub.Com Inc web site are
untrue and are and were made without any foundation nor basis for any of their
content

5... THE COURT ORDERS THAT the Defendants, Robert Zumbrunnen, Matt Brown
and InvestorsHub.com Inc. apologize and publicly retract the libelous
statements made against the Plaintiffs and that they shall send their signed
retraction to the Plaintiffs and publish the same on the web site,
InvestorsHub.com

[Chet]

ooh a ND has arrived on site...I'm shaking in my boots.

[Antonio Andolini]

So a year and half ago, some marketing firm won a judgment in a Canadian court against some posters on a message board.
Hoser! Take off to the Great White North!

[Antonio Andolini]

GO BRUINS!

[Rocky]

They're going, they're GOING!

[warren,]

Gee Rocky, That's what I say about Berlin Station and Cascade! Like a Phoenix, Berlin will see it's Economic Recovery. Laidlaw will just be a Footnote in the History of all this.

[warren,]

Antonio, Did You See this?

What We Have Left - Jan Marvel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG4mwEvZ

Are ANY Democrats against This Travesty at a National Level? We Know Steven Chu does not give a $@#* about New Hampshire, and is Itching to sign a Presidential Permit...It's just "N.H.'s Fight", correct?

Stop ( Or Bury ) the Northern Pass!

[warren,]

- Just Type in "What We Have Left - Jan Marvel" on U-Tube, and I'm sure You will get the Song, Shot & Recorded in Tilton N.H. plus Other Info.

[jon]

I think that both Rocky and Chet have not only hit the nail on the head, but that lleg should have their fingers crossed that the Securities and Exchange commission never discovers dwight flatt's apparent significance to laidlaw energy. It should be easier now that dwight's reference has been deleted recently from laidlaw energy web site.

What's puzzling about all of this is the impact this SEC levy can have on the Berlin project. Construction financing based on revised statements has not occurred yet and laidlaw Energy is due another payment at close of construction financing according to that revision. That indirectly makes laidlaw energy, currently suspended from trading, part of the Berlin project equation as an anchor potentially weighing Berlin's project down. These SEC allegations against laidlaw energy are what we have suspected of laidlaw energy all along and its unfortunate if this impacts a significantly more credible grouping within Cate Street and company. Though we're seeing activity at the mill site it is not construction but rather dismantling. Construction doesn't happen without PUC approval and all the stipulations being met. I'd be surprised if both the PUC and SEC were not watching these allegations against LLEG as they unfold. I think its time for all parties to distance themselves as much as possible from laidlaw energy even though the allegations haven't been proven accurate.

[warren,]

http://www.nhpr.org/new-public-hearings-nort

Chris Jensen on the New Proposed Route from Au Canada to Groveton. And the Extension of Public Comments. Hey, Why not bring this Northern Pass down through Berlin? There may not be as many Objections.

[warren,]

Rocky is All in Favour of L' Passe du Nord(?)...Mais bien sur!!

[warren,]

New Public Hearings on Northern Pass Likely

By Chris Jensen on Tuesday, June 14, 2011

The Deparment of Energy is extending the comment period on the Northern Pass project which was to have ended today. That sets the scene for a whole new set of public hearings on the Northern Pass project. NHPR’s Chris Jensen reports.

The Department of Energy plans to extend the public comment period on the Northern Pass project.

The DOE is doing that because it expects Northern Pass to file a new route for the power lines from Canada, according to a Department of Energy spokeswoman.

The spokeswoman couldn’t immediately say how long that extension would be.

If Northern Pass files the new route that will trigger a new series of public hearings, the spokeswoman said.

Earlier this year the DOE held a series of hearings throughout the state. Almost all of those who spoke objected to the project.

In April Northern Pass officials acknowledged that strong opposition and said they were working on a different route between Canada and Groveton. They hoped that would reduce the opposition.

The notice of the extended comment period is expected to be published in the Federal Register in the next few days.

For NHPR News this is Chris Jensen

[warren,]

What We Have Left - Jan Marvel

AttaGirlRecords 1 video Subscribe

794 views
LikeAdd toShare

Uploaded by AttaGirlRecords on May 17, 2011

An inspirational song for those in opposition to the Northern Pass. A song which
emotes the feelings of thousands who live, ski, hike, camp and visit our beautiful
state of New Hampshire.

14 likes, 0 dislikes

Show more.....Rocky?

[Wing Nut]

Jon,

This problem with Laidlaw will have no affect upon the Berlin project (in my opinion). The Berlin project is a done deal and regulatory approval is just around the corner.

Take care,
WN

[Rocky]

You may be right WN, but it all depends what action the Securities and Exchange Commission takes and the quality of the firewall between Laidlaw and Cate Street. There's always the possibility that the Laidlaw sale to Cate Street is one of the issues that the SEC found troubling for some reason and then the PUC ties the Laidlaw issues to the approval of the PPA. None of us have the answers to all these possibilities. Time will tell.

[warren,]

Great News about the City Budget, what a pleasant surprise after yesterday's letters in the mail. Great Work Mayor Paul, and a BIG Thank You to Our Hard Working City Council!
I'm sure this will be something to remember this fall, along with the success story at Cascade and expected Regulatory Approval & ensuing Economic Benefits at the former Burgess Site. No one should Forget how Our Last Mayor & Council sent letters to every Church in Berlin asking for a PILT !!! They were a Black Disgrace IMO.

[Antonio Andolini]

GO BRUINS!

[Chet]

Wing Nut, I agree with you. I don't think the mess with Laidlaw is going to have any affect on the Berlin project and the Dwight Flatt incident was over two years ago, the SEC may never see it. What would be interesting is the SEC proving there is a real connection between the management of LLEG and IHUB but I not going to hold my breath.

The only thing that'll kill the Berlin Project now is if the investors find the cost too high and the returns too low.

[Antonio Andolini]

Good night Canada!

[Rocky]

Congratulations to the Boston Bruins and all their fans in Berlin and the North Country.