Legalectric

This is a map of the footprint of the 78MW Stella Solar and Atlantic Green Power project proposed for Upper Pittsgrove, New Jersey.  I’ve ehard there are others planned nearby, but that this is the biggest.

Project description from Atlantic Green Power Holding Company 3Q 10-Q filing:

Pittsgrove Solar Farm

There are two meetings coming up about this project:

Informational Meeting

Elmer Grange Hall

Tuesday, March 16, 2010 from 6 to 8:30 p.m.

and the Land Use meeting where the town will approve or deny the application:

Upper Pittsgrove Town Hall

Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 7:30 p.m.

Now you all know how I love solar, from the solar hot water my father designed for the Minnesota Zoo to those simple little heaters you can make or buy:

Build a Simple Solar Heater

Northern Tool sells simple solar air heaters

Every house needs these simple solar heaters.

Solar PV should also be on the roof of every big box there is, and on every home.  But to be clear, I don’t think it belongs covering prime ag fields a long way from load.  That isn’t “highest and best use,” and  just doesn’t make sense when you consider the capacity factor of solar and the line loss over transmission.  So, this project seems odd…

Why do it?  Well, look who is involved and the incentives — means, motive and opportunity — and given that, I hope the town will take a close look before jumping, at the very least, require these conditions (off the top of my head):

1. No ag land be removed from production; and
2. No ag land be removed from ag preservation designation; and
3. Commercial solar be limited to commercial and industrial areas; and
4. Commercial solar be limited to roofs in rural areas.

WHO IS GOING TO BUY THIS POWER?

LET’S SEE THE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT!

The article way below, from Today’s Sunbeam, says it is to be built on land that “is currently owned by Ed Stella and will be leased to Atlantic Green Power…” but the Atlantic Green Power site says that Edward Stella, Jr., is the “Vice President of Project Development.”  From what I can see, this is their FIRST project.  Edward Stella as VP?  Really, it’s right here, so we’re not exactly talking about an arms length transaction:

Edward Stella, Jr.

Vice President of Project Development, Director

Edward Stella, Jr. was appointed as the Vice President of Project Development and as a Director of Atlantic Green Power Holding Company on February 3, 2010. He also was a founder of Atlantic Green Power Corporation, the wholly-owned subsidiary of Atlantic Green Power Holding Company, and has served as a Director thereof since its inception on September 17, 2009. He has over 30 years of experience in land development, land clearing and mulching operations. He is the President of Stella Contracting, Inc., one of the largest land-clearing companies operating on the East Coast, and the President of South Jersey Agricultural Products (SJAP), a company engaged in the sale of top soil and mulch to such customers as Scott’s, Coastal Supply, Home Depot and Lowes. Mr. Stella has had the honor of being nominated by Ernst & Young LLP for Entrepreneur of the Year in 2000 in the greater Philadelphia area.

If he’s connected to “such customers as Scott’s, Coastal Supply, Home Depot and Lowes” why aren’t they putting solar on the roofs of those big boxes, where it can be used, and not on prime ag land far away from big boxes?

Atlantic Green Power Holding Company has been in existence since September 17, 2009, and Edward Stella, Jr., has been “Vice President of Project Development” and a “Director” for all of a month.

A press released based blurb provides two sources for more information:

Robert Demos, Jr., President & CEO of Atlantic Green Power Holding Company

and

Howard Greene, Greene Inc., and CLICK HERE FOR GREENEINCPR.COM — HA!!

So now, let’s look at Lodestar Mining… from their site, their ONLY press release listed posts these links for Atlantic Green Power and Lodestar.  CLICK ON THESE LINKS THAT THEY PROVIDED:

AGPH per yahoo

So keep digging – here are their SEC filings

LGST – their own link says “There are no All Market results”

Hmmmmmmmmmmm…

CLICK HERE for Lodestar’s 10-Q for the year ending June 30, 2008, with this statement:

Lodestar’s financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and settlement of liabilities and commitments in the normal course of business for the foreseeable future. Since inception, the Company has accumulated losses aggregating to $31,301 and has insufficient working capital to meet operating needs for the next twelve months as of June 30, 2008, all of which raise substantial doubt about Lodestar’s ability to continue as a going concern.

CLICK HERE FOR LATE FILED 2008 10-K.

From their 10-K regarding their one option contract:

As of March 13, 2009, the second option payment of $75,000 had not been made. Accordingly, Lodestar executed an extension agreement dated March 12, 2009 with Claim Lake Nickel wherein Claim Lake agreed to extend the term for the second payment to March 13, 2010.

Claim Lake intends to continue to develop its property through additional surface exploration comprising geological mapping, lithogeochemistry and soil geochemistry and diamond drilling. This activity is dependent on being able to raise additional funding.

If we are unable to complete any phase of exploration because we don’t have enough money, we will cease operations until we raise more money.  If we can’t or don’t raise more money, we will cease operations.  We do not intend to hire additional employees at this time.  All of the work on the property will be conducted by unaffiliated independent contractors that we will hire.  The independent contractors will be responsible for surveying, geology, engineering, exploration, and excavation.  The geologists will evaluate the information derived from the exploration and excavation and the engineers will advise us on the economic feasibility of removing the mineralized material.

And this snippet:

Liquidity and Capital Resources

To meet our need for cash we closed an equity offering and raised $50,500 in Canadian dollars.  We cannot guarantee that these funds will be sufficient to stay in business.  If we find mineralized material and it is economically feasible to remove the mineralized material, we will attempt to raise additional money through a subsequent private placement, public offering or through loans.  If the funds we raised are insufficient to complete our exploration of the property, we will have to find alternative sources, like a second public offering, a private placement of securities, or loans from our officers or others.

At December 31, 2008, we had a working capital deficit of ($137,602), which is currently insufficient for us to implement our business plan.

At the present time, we have not made any arrangements to raise additional cash other than through the offering that was registered with the SEC in March, 2008 and closed in 2008.  If we need additional cash and can’t raise it we will either have to suspend operations until we do raise the cash, or cease operations entirely.  The funds raised in the March, 2008 registration offering will allow the company to operate until March, 2010.  Other than as described in this paragraph, we have no other financing plans.

As of March 13, 2009, the second option payment of $75,000 had not been made. Accordingly, Lodestar executed an extension agreement dated March 12, 2009 with Claim Lake Nickel wherein Claim Lake agreed to extend the term for the second payment to March 13, 2010.

As of December 31, 2008, we have yet to generate any revenues.

We issued 3,000,000 shares of common stock pursuant to the exemption from registration set forth in section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. On November 15, 2006, the corporation issued 3,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to Ian McKinnon, Chief Executive Officer of Lodestar Mining, Incorporated, that Rule 144 of the Securities Act of 1933 defines as restricted securities.  The shares were issued in consideration for payment of $30,000 US from Ian McKinnon.  These shares will be restricted by the resale limitations of Rule 144 under the Securities Act of 1933.

We registered 2,000,000 shares of common stock to be offered at $0.05 per share.  In 2008, we issued 1,010,000 shares at $0.05 per share for a total of $50,500 (Canadian dollars).

As of December 31, 2008, our total assets were $9,806 US and our total liabilities were $147,408 US.

And again, a statement of its tenuous existence as a going concern:

CLICK HERE for latest SEC filings as Atlantic Green Power Holding Company — SUDDENLY IT’S ATLANTIC GREEN POWER HOLDING COMPANY, NEW PEOPLE, NEW PUROSE

And again, the solar project particulars:

Pittsgrove Solar Farm

Something that caught my eye on their site — which is repeated in the SEC 3Q 10-Q filing — a press release that talks about the ARRA incentive, a 30% cash payment in lieu of federal investment tax credit, and federally guaranteed loans and a 30% investment tax credit.  Seems ALL of those would apply here, so let’s say Mr. Stella is  “motivated.”

In the U.S., the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus bill of 2009 (ARRA) contains several provisions designed to alleviate renewable energy project financing constraints resulting from the economic downturn.

The ARRA establishes a temporary grant program that will allow commercial solar customers to receive a cash payment to cover 30% of the cost of installing solar equipment in lieu of the federal investment tax credit. The ARRA also appropriated $6 billion for a new loan guarantee program which the government estimates could support up to $60 billion of loans specifically for renewable energy and transmission projects. In addition, ARRA includes up to $2.3 billion for a new 30% investment tax credit for U.S. based renewable energy product production facilities.

Here’s the article from Today’s Sunbeam:

Photo from the Country News – Does MOES’ Larry Hartman have a headache?  Is he dreaming of retirement?  He IS holding on to the microphone, word has it that people such as the speaker here, Dean Bungum, weren’t given the microphone to speak.  It was standing room only for the MOES public meeting for the wind project going up on Dexter.

On March 4, Thursday, it was the same scene in Mazeppa for the Goodhue Wind Project…   Oh, the AVA Goodhue Wind Project, the names have been changed to protect … nevermind.  We don’t know why the name was changed.  But there are new people involved.  How does that change in ownership affect the already questioned C-BED status of this project?

They held the Goodhue meeting in Mazeppa?  Why?  Why not in Goodhue County?  Why not at the Goodhue Lions Club?  Why not at the Zumbrota school?  Or the Legion on 58 in the middle of town…

There are some significant deadlines in the Goodhue Wind Project.  Oh, first, to look up the dockets on PUC site:

CLICK HERE FOR PUC DOCKET SEARCH

Search for 09-1186 (Certificate of Need); 08-1233 (Siting) and 09-1349 & 09-1350 (Power Purchase Agmts)

IMPORTANT DATES:

March 15 – Comments in PPA Dockets on Xcel’s request for amendment – send to stuart.mitchell@state.mn.us and burl.haar@state.mn.us and file on eFiling if you can.

March 26 – Comments for scope of Environmental Report for Siting & Certificate of Need – send to larry.hartman@state.mn.us

March 29 – Reply Comments in PPA Dockets about others comments on Xcel’s request for amendment – send to stuart.mitchell@state.mn.us and burl.haar@state.mn.us and file on eFiling if you can.

Holler if questions!

WTF?

The ALJ’s recommendation has come out in the Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project docket and he’s recommended that a permit be issued.  Really…

This is the judge who tossed out my client, Public Intervenors – Mesaba, Xcel Energy and Minnesota Power because we didn’t file testimony.  Show me in the rules where filing testimony is required…

THERE WERE NO PARTIES IN THIS DOCKET, JUST EXCELSIOR ENERGY.

Read it for yourself:

ALJ Report 12-28-09

I’m at a loss about what to say…

Jorgensen’s got to get over it — Mesaba is done, ain’t happening, dead, dead dead, yet she’s spinning those tales and hype about Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba IGCC Project.  From the first words in the title, it’s lies, lies and more lies, oh, and misrepresentations and falsehoods and exaggerations and utter bullshit too!  Why does the St. Paul Pioneer Press give her space forthis advertising of the nonsensical kind?

Here’s what Citizens Against the Mesaba Projet’s Charlotte Neigh had to say about it:

Julie Jorgensen is using the opportune hook of the Copenhagen conference to repeat Excelsior Energy’s same old, self-serving promotional claims about the “clean coal” technology of its Mesaba Energy Project. One must wonder why the Press unquestioningly allots opinion space to the promoter of a precarious for-profit venture, financed almost exclusively by $40 million in public funds, which have been benefiting the author and her co-founder husband, Tom Micheletti.

What Jorgensen didn’t say:

• The U.N. negotiators in Copenhagen decided to leave carbon capture and storage, the prime objective of the IGCC technology touted by Excelsior Energy, off the list of clean-energy projects eligible for the Clean Development Mechanism; the 12/17/09 Wall Street Journal reported that “clean coal seems to be getting the cold shoulder at the climate summit”, and  “. . .  clean coal is anything but viable right now”.

• Mesaba’s Unit I would emit 5 million tons of carbon dioxide per year and the Department of Energy has acknowledged that capturing and sequestering the CO2 from the proposed Taconite plant is not feasible.

• The claimed economic benefit has been rejected by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, which found the project too expensive and risky and not in the public interest.

• The need for this Project has never been proven; no utility is willing to buy its output; Xcel Energy successfully resisted efforts to force it into a power purchase agreement; and the MPUC has declined to require other utilities in the state to include Mesaba’s output in their resource plans.

• The environmental claims are yet to be adjudicated as the MPUC considers the route and siting permits and other government agencies pursue their concerns related to air, water and waste permits.

Is Jorgensen’s piece really that bad?  See for yourself:

Julie Jorgensen: We need baseload power. Coal’s plentiful. Let’s clean it up

By Julie Jorgensen
Updated: 12/17/2009 05:54:25 PM CST

As heads of government gather in my ancestral home of Denmark, the world considers its energy options.

The challenge for Copenhagen is that commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions are at odds with the plans of developing nations to rely on inexpensive fossil energy to fuel economic growth and improve their standard of living. Developed nations, meanwhile, fear that mandated greenhouse gas reductions will tax economic recovery and prolong global recession. Diplomacy is the art of the achievable, and these realities will be balanced against concerns about the effect of man-made carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases on Earth’s climate.

On the home front, there are plenty of competing concerns to consider as we address our energy needs. But there are two things our local energy experts agree on: Minnesota has an impending need for more baseload power, and renewables can’t do the job alone.

For baseload — that is, the steady supply of electricity for everything from factories to home outlets — Minnesotans must take a long, hard look at the most abundant resource in our own backyard: coal. Not old-fashioned, dirty, polluting coal, but coal used to fuel a new technology called IGCC, which stands for Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle. In addition to producing clean, affordable energy, such plants would allow us to transform America’s 250-year supply of coal into ultra-clean fuels like synthetic natural gas, transportation fuels, and hydrogen.

I’m the co-founder of Excelsior Energy, which is developing the Mesaba Energy Project, an IGCC power plant near the town of Taconite on Minnesota’s Iron Range. From my point of view, IGCC offers economic and environmental benefits to Minnesota. The Midwest is poised be a leader in the delivery of this technology. Gov. Tim Pawlenty and the Minnesota Legislature have supported the development of Minnesota’s IGCC plant, the Mesaba Energy Project, since 2003, and the project has been exempted from a statewide prohibition against new coal plants. Eleven Midwest governors established a collective goal to spur construction of at least five commercial-scale IGCC plants by 2015, and President Obama announced a goal to build five such “first-of-a-kind” clean coal plants. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has provided significant funding and incentives to the Mesaba Project to offset the costs of needed innovation.

Adoption of IGCC technology is essential to cleaning up coal and mitigating climate change.

IGCC plants use less water, use less land, create less waste, and emit two-thirds less air pollution than the cleanest of the traditional coal plants that currently deliver most of our electricity. In addition, IGCC plants clean a volume of gas that is a mere 1/100th of the stream pouring out of the smokestacks at the Sherco coal plant in Becker and the Boswell coal plant in Cohasset. This makes it easier and cheaper to prevent the release of carbon dioxide, which is essential in the face of potential climate change regulation.

As fears mount about global warming, environmental advocates like the Clean Air Task Force and the Natural Resources Defense Council support the timely and widespread commercialization of IGCC technology. From a global perspective, the importance of commercializing a cleaner way to use coal cannot be understated: both India and China have vast coal reserves, which they will inevitably use in the cheapest and easiest possible ways to fuel their growing economies.

Nuclear power faces major obstacles. Plans for a federal nuclear waste repository have been scrapped. The Obama Administration stopped the DOE’s development of the Yucca Mountain repository, originally slated to begin accepting waste in 1998, without providing an alternative storage plan. As a result, we will store nuclear waste on the banks of the Mississippi River for the foreseeable future.

Additionally, the costs of new nuclear facilities may put them out of reach.

Even if the Legislature lifts Minnesota’s ban on new nuclear plants, it will be at least 20 years before a new plant could be licensed and built in Minnesota, given the long and costly lead-times. Simply put, new nuclear capacity cannot meet our current needs.

While the eyes of the world are on Copenhagen, it’s appropriate for Minnesotans to ponder our own impending energy crisis. Since renewables and conservation can’t meet all of our new energy needs, we must make some difficult choices that ultimately will involve coal-fired, natural gas-fired, and nuclear energy sources. Marrying new IGCC technology with the abundance of U.S. coal makes clean coal the most rational choice for our state.

Julie Jorgensen is the former CEO of CogenAmerica, a publicly traded independent power company, and a former executive of NRG Energy, a global energy development company. She’s a co-founder of Excelsior Energy Inc., which is developing a coal gasification plant near Taconite on Minnesota’s Iron Range. Her e-mail address is JulieJorgensen@ExcelsiorEnergy.com.

From ECM article…

On Monday, citizens of Lent Township organized a Special Meeting, as allowed under statute, and told the Town Board what they thought of LS Power’s Sunrise River Energy Station.  The hands raised you see in the photo is the vote telling the board that they should not approve a development agreement with LS Power.

The people say NO, but the township, the following day, went ahead and approved the Development Agreement:

Power Plant Gets Township Approval

And a view from the trenches:

We the PEOPLE – found in the Fish Lake Karpa

And here’s the report from the Post Review:

Citizens’ vote was to nix power plant

By MaryHelen Swanson

There were a few empty chairs, but if those standing at the back of the room had all wanted to sit, the attendance would still be considered “standing room only.”

lent meeting1.jpgThat was the scene at Lent Town Hall Monday night as a special citizen-petitioned meeting got underway.

The folks were divided by Lent residency and non-residency.

There were separate sign-in sheets and designated seating areas.

Called to order by Lent Township Clerk Laura LeVasseur, it soon became the people’s meeting when they elected Mark Koran moderator.

First order of business was the Pledge of Allegiance.

With the agenda adopted, resident Dave Milles introduced a resolution which was adopted by the people with no audible nays.

Milles went on to read the resolution.

It noted three things that were expected to happen that night:
• openly and publicly review and discuss the final draft of the development agreement by and among Lent Township and Sunrise River Energy, LLC (also known as LS Power) prior to any official vote of the Lent Township board to approve and/or sign the development agreement;

• to present and vote on a resolution requiring a public referendum on the question of approval or disapproval of any development agreement by the township and energy group prior to any official vote of the Lent township board to approve and/or sign the development agreement;

• and to present and vote on a resolution requiring Lent Township board to comply with the results of the referendum when taking any action or vote to approve and or sign the development agreement.

All of the above was accomplished Monday night.
Read the rest of this entry »