I was driving around today and heard the newscast on NHPR mention the ATV trail opening tomorrow. In fact, I heard them mention it two different times. Residents of Berlin notice when statewide media report the fires that happen all too often in town. It’s worth pointing out when they are covering the good things as well. While it is usually WMUR people mention when they talk about this phenomenon, they aren’t the only media outlet in the state. Berlin needs to fight the image battle in whatever way they can.
Weather looks good for tomorrow. I’ll be up to cover the opening ceremonies. Hopefully some other media outlets will as well.
Update: I just took a look online, it looks like the story made it out on the AP wire. That’s a good sign people will show up. Heck with statewide media, that’s nationwide.
And I’ve noticed the war has broken out on here about CPD, PSNH and Laidlaw. Wow. Impressive. I’m still waiting to get the official transcript to get a clearer picture of what happened on Tuesday, but I’ve had a few good conversations about the issue. I don’t really worry, however about what people think any of it means. In the end the PUC will likely decide exactly what it means.
I received some vitriolic responses to my posting the report I got. As I’ve said before LPJ isn’t the news outlet I work for. I don’t print rumors in the paper. (I did, however, put Rumorz in the paper.) On LPJ I post whatever I like, including things I haven’t researched. In any such post I’ll point that out, but if you go through and read my posts and think its all news it’s you who has experienced a failure in judgment. In fact I’ve never claimed this site to be a replacement for the paper; it’s something I do for fun people interested in Berlin frequent to supplement their experience with the city. If you don’t like it feel free to direct your browser elsewhere. If you enjoy the discussion, feel free to contribute.
The debate about this one issue is so funny to me. The same day I posted the PUC comments I posted about a building collapsing on Mason Street. I thought it might have been part of the housing initiative effort. I tweeted congratulations to Andre Caron for taking down another one. I was wrong. The building collapsed due to a clogged roof drain, and it was torn down unexpectedly on the fire chiefs orders. I updated the information as I learned it, and no one complained I was shirking my journalistic duties.
Then I post a report I got about the hearings, clearly including the fact that the report is unsubstantiated in the post. Almost immediately get a comment from Laidlaw CEO Michael Bartoszek commenting about my “bad journalism.”
Bad journalism? Really? Which one of my stories in the Reporter was biased? I once was accused of bias because of the questions I asked someone I was interviewing. Really? Bias? Which one of my stories in the Reporter was biased? I don’t think people making these accusations understand what they are talking about when it comes to bias and bad journalism—I’d have to put it in the paper for those terms to apply.
I imagine Mr. Bartoszek is trying to protect his company’s reputation among investors, which commonly check out LPJ. I fully encourage him to tell his side of the story, either on here or anywhere else. And maybe if everyone understands the roll of this site it will relieve me of having to address accusations of bias or bad journalism. If you are coming to LPJ for the news you’re in the wrong spot—check out the Berlin Reporter if that’s what you’re looking for. If you are interested in hearing one more perspective on a dynamic city in the midst of change, that’s what this site is about. I have never billed it as a news site, or as a replacement for either the Reporter or the daily paper. If you want to add to the conversation, I’d love to hear your view. If you want to bitch about my trust fund (Huge. Really.) grow up and learn to read a newspaper.
By the way, I do have an opinion about events in Berlin. It would be impossible to spend as much time there as I do and not. I am not convinced biomass in the center of the city would kill it’s viability as a recreation destination. In fact, I think Berlin could cash in on green energy to improve its image, whether that is on the fringe of the city or in the center.
I don’t know if there is enough wood to support the two plants, but I don’t know there isn’t. Many experts aren’t sure, so I don’t write off the project because of that.
I think CPD does a good job of holding the city’s hand through a process that is often confusing and complex. Bill Gabler comes to Berlin almost daily and is happy to explain what CPD is doing every step of the way. Laidlaw could learn a lot from CPD’s approach. In northern New Hampshire having a face attached to a company goes a long way. Lou Bravakis seems like a great guy, and if he were in the community to the same extent as Mr. Gabler it would alleviate a lot of residents’ concerns.
Laidlaw could remove many of the hurdles in front of them if it wished. They could remove them because they erected them.
I am not, like many people who post comments here, dead set against the project. I think if Laidlaw were to approach Berlin with a bit more transparency, with a better recognition that this is a serious issue for a small city used to getting screwed by industrial interests, they could bring many opponents to their side.
It’s like Laidlaw doesn’t recognize Berlin has been scarred in the past. The city is like an abused child, both angry and scared by people approaching it and likely to lash out. It takes deliberate, cautious movements to move forward in Berlin and not raise the ire of residents. CPD has done that well. Laidlaw could follow suit.
They could easily fix their PR problem with a little heavy hand-holding, instead of another press release. Explain what happened in Ellicottville. Show up to city council meetings. Agree to provide a small percentage each year for community giving (it will likely reduce your taxes anyway). Talk about wood and workers and location like they are something other than statistics. In Berlin that mill site is precious. Some people hate it, others love it, but for everyone it is central to their identity. The people of Berlin, as Councilor Ryan Landry said, are more comfortable when that stack is puffing smoke. Don’t try to elbow your way in, Laidlaw; show people what you’re doing so they have confidence in you.
I don’t think Laidlaw recognizes how closely their project treads to the soul of the city. If they did maybe from the start they would have taken a different approach. Of course they want to make money, but I imagine they also want to be part of the community they are located in. They haven’t done a good job integrating thus far, but I believe that can change. All it would take is a little effort.
ErikEisele.com 
Bravo Erik! Bravo man! I imagine Mr. Bartoszek is trying to protect his company's reputation among investors, which commonly check out LPJ – you bet!
Erik, you hit the nail on the head; the PUC is all that matters. Same with EFSEC. We can postulate all we want, at the end of the day it is whatever data they consider relevant that will matter.Erik the “hurdles” you refer to are not issues of hand holding in my opinion. Yes, it is nice when you ask a question and can get a consistently straight answer. Especially an answer that can withstand the scrutiny of the facts directly relating to the question asked. Because those are the facts of the matter that can be verified and will ultimately be used by the PUC or EFSEC. Those are the facts that will ultimately decide the fate of all projects. Those are the real issues that are at the heart of the debate. They are about supply issues and capacity issues. They are about pollution and noise. They are about the orderly development of a region. They are about having financing and all the other things that ultimately go into deciding which projects move forward and which don’t. Take the emotion out of it. Care all you want, but understand that caring takes a backseat to the facts on the ground.Take the wood supply issue for example, we have heard several opinions on whether there is ample supply or not. It appears some have even decided the fate of a project one way or the other based on those opinions alone. “I read it in the paper so it must be true”. It was fairly well discussed at a public meeting last spring at WMCC. We have even seen some recent studies. But what data will EFSEC use to decide if there is ample supply or not? Will they commission their own study rendering all others irrelevant? Beyond that, how will using that available wood supply impact existing and proposed biomass projects? To me these are just some of the questions EFSEC will need to consider in deciding this one issue. That is only one of the major hurdles that go well beyond hand holding in my opinion.Hand holding is nice, but it is no replacement for the facts.
Erik,Go aheah and post half truths on this page. If you think that is the right thing to do. What you don't understand is that LLEG never claimed to have a purchase agreement. I guarantee you have a trust fund. Have fun playing journalist/man of the people up there "in them hills".
Tim –I agree the facts are important, and I am giving Laidlaw the benefit of the doubt that they have looked into the facts. I am assuming they would like to be a good community member, but they aren't accustomed to working in a community like Berlin. Maybe some of the big answers opponents are looking for are there, and if they were a little more transparent in Berlin it would diffuse critics. Maybe they need a better understanding of how the business climate works up there. I'm hoping so. Like I've said previously, I don't think developing the mill site with biomass would be terrible for the city, as long as it is done with a good partner. Laidlaw has the opportunity to be an excellent partner, if they recognize they're current approach turns some people off. The PUC and EFSEC should address wood, transmission, PPA and other big picture issues beyond the scope of Berlin. Laidlaw can fix a lot of the problems occurring at the ground level. I'd like to see that, because I think the divisions are bad for the community. Laidlaw could diffuse many of them simply by taking a softer approach.If you don't think biomass in the center of town is compatible with at 21st century Berlin, you won't agree with me. I am not convinced that is true, so I am open to a smart project with a good partner. Maybe Laidlaw can become that partner, but it would take changes like those I outlined above.Until then, however, they are going to continue to be a lightning rod. People get fired up on here and elsewhere about the issue, and they have lost the capacity for rational, reasoned discussion. That creates a difficult environment to reach a compromise. The extreme elements may never come around on to seeing the Laidlaw project as good for the city, but people like Councilor Landry could be convinced by a little more open approach. So could I.
Eric-I don’t know much about blogs and I appreciate your explanation that we shouldn’t consider your information fact based instead if we have a question or knowledge that what you post is rumor innuendo or wrong we should just not read it, I applaud your honesty.That must explain why you characterize me, my colleagues and our organization as being non responsive to the needs of the community. I do understand that you have only been on the beat for a short while and don’t know that we have been showing up on a steady basis for over three years, talking to the citizens in Berlin and listening to their concerns and comments which get incorporated into our plans as we develop our project. Maybe you should ask some of the 2000+ folks that signed a petition supporting our project what they think. Oh yea, I forgot you don’t what to be held to that standard of verifying what you state. But, as you suggest, we should just direct our browsers elsewhere.Lou Bravakis
Erik, I suggest that you get in touch with the folks in Ellicottville NY and that you do your "reporter thing", asking the hard questions that will disclose the true character of Laidlaw and its business practices. I challenge you to do that because I believe it falls within the bounds of your fiduciary responsibilities as a journalist. My personal conclusion is that it's a company with a Wall Street personality, the personality of its CEO. Its business practices reflects the philosophy that "what's good for industry is good for community and it's people" and it doesn't give a second thought to human or social issues unless it's mandated. "Berlin, beware"
Boggles my mind why LLEG management spend their time blogging instead of filling the permit, for example.
It appears to me the only job Erik could get was for the Berlin Reporter< a weekly paper for a town of less ten 10,000 people. Hell of a gig there, kid. You are a long, long way from The New York Times aren't ya! Way to go! Daddy must be pissed this all you are doing with that expensive education!
Erik, welcome to the real world of the angry and the challenged. Personally I'm grateful for your stint on The Berlin Reporter and keep in mind that you always need to consider the source of any criticism. The"Anonymous" commenter above gives you a good insight into those who are insecure and have a negative perception of Berlin and, who are the biggest challenge to the betterment of the City. In other words he's saying; Berlin is a lousy place and you're not that smart for being here. It's no wonder these same folks have no sensitivity to the negative impact of the Laidlaw project or the potential of the mill property. In the back of their minds, Berlin is a lousy place that doesn't deserve anything better than a recycled pulp mill boiler. Their world is an ugly place, a sad way to go through life.
All,Let this not become a forum for personal attacks. That is what the Byte and Chew blog is for!Lou, thanks for your input. We'd like to get you guys back to UNH to give another presentation in the Spring as Laidlaw's projects mature.Matthew
“I am giving Laidlaw the benefit of the doubt that they have looked into the facts”. I have to tell you Erik it surprises and disheartens me to hear you say that. I thought it was the reporter’s job to verify the facts, not just take what people say at face value. Especially when those facts have been repeatedly challenged and will ultimately decided the fate of the project.“Maybe some of the big answers opponents are looking for are there, and if they were a little more transparent in Berlin it would diffuse critics.” Maybe. But if that is the case then the best way to silence your critics is to have your facts corroborated. And by that I mean by the same measure that will be used to make the final determination.“I am assuming they would like to be a good community member, but they aren't accustomed to working in a community like Berlin.” What is that suppose to mean? Can that also be said about the way things went in Ellicotville NY? Did what they learn there teach them to go after the support of higher profile officials first so that they can influence public opinion? Let’s not just conveniently sweep what happened in NY under the rug. If you are willing to turn your head about what happened there, then you potentially set yourself up for another problem down the road. “Laidlaw could diffuse many of them simply by taking a softer approach.” What does that mean? What is a “softer approach”?“The PUC and EFSEC should address wood, transmission, PPA and other big picture issues beyond the scope of Berlin.” Not should, but will. And their determination of the facts will ultimately decide whether the project goes forward. At the end of the day their opinion is the only one that matters isn’t it?“Until then, however, they are going to continue to be a lightning rod. People get fired up on here and elsewhere about the issue, and they have lost the capacity for rational, reasoned discussion. That creates a difficult environment to reach a compromise. The extreme elements may never come around on to seeing the Laidlaw project as good for the city, but people like Councilor Landry could be convinced by a little more open approach. So could I.”Erik, this isn’t about compromise, it’s about the facts. If you want it to be about compromise then why stop at a biomass plant? Let’s open a nuclear waste dump site. I am sure we can find some compromise if it promises another 40 jobs. I mean why not, because according to public opinion the site is too polluted to do anything else with it anyway. Or is it? Who has the real answer to that question?And about those 40 Laidlaw jobs, does anyone know what they are and how much they will pay? Perhaps if I gave people the benefit of the doubt more often, I wouldn’t have so many questions. But then I wouldn’t be doing my job.
Eric, Due to your busy schedule, I'm sure, you had to miss an important EFSEC meeting (the local EFSEC committee meeting that is) on Thursday only because that meeting covered the issues you disclose here in real life drama. Significantly more public support for Laidlaw, as you state, could be achieved if they were part of the community and well liked. Just look at the 2000 signatures obtained from people that largely decided to sign based on the supporters circulating the petitions without even having met reps from Laidlaw or having been educated to the issues of impact. I heard from some folks that didn't want to sign these petitions that the petitioners did not easily accept the word "no" as they canvassed a particular neighborhood.A few things though. I don't see "wood experts" going around saying supply is not an issue. I do see Barry Kelly stating that but have also heard Barry (by accident) talking among Laidlaw officials in the "we" tense with some detail. I think it's timely for Barry to disclose his relationship in the wood management field with Laidlaw if we are to address him as an expert as experts such as Landvest who are doing the wood study for Laidlaw represent timberland owners and have large real estate holdings that can sometimes be considered biased in their conclusions. Barry, who is well respected by the community and rightfully so, also holds large tracts of land, and has ties to the woods industry. He would make a great woods commodity manager for Laidlaw if there was enough cost effective wood supply. Anyone, including Barry, however, could be part of the problem if lack of supply leads to sustainability issues which is very questionable at the moment. Always keep in mind that Barry's premise has been that this area once used 1.2 million tons of "low grade" wood per year and now the Burgess pulp mill is closed so there's plenty of wood. That's the wrong quality wood, however. That wood is higher quality wood made of chipped logs. Cost effective wood for biomass plants consists of the branches and limbs and leaves that don't exist without the pulp mill using the logs unless you start using the log for biomass, which drives the chip price up and negatively impacts other wood commodity businesses. Perhaps Barry can let us know how chip price can be kept down if the whole log is used as no one else seems to be able to tell us that. The question becomes: why would Barry care if the price of wood in any quality goes up? The answer seems to be that maybe he wouldn't?Jon Edwards
Erik I'm disappointed in your….timid reaction to the minimal threat and pressure from Laidlaw. If journalism is really going to be your bag and you enjoy the work as much as you've told us you do, you better go to the gym and strengthened your spine. At the moment I'll soften my remarks since I have no idea who your editor is or how much support or lack of support you're receiving from that end. I don't expect for you to take sides or positions on issues, I expect you to dig beyond the facade of the issues and to share those findings. You told us that you were going to do that, remember?
Wow. I was hoping to point out a possible workable solution in the city among actors that are now tied together; I wasn't trying to exacerbated divisions. It's a bit like talking about abortion: no matter what you say, if you have an opinion people will not like it. I take solace in the fact that neither side agrees with me. I'm somewhere in the middle, which is where I'm supposed to be.Lou –Thanks for your comments. Your right, my view is on a limited timeframe. I'm pointing out what relatively neutral people (they're quiet in Berlin, but they're there) have told me, not my direct experience. I understand if you take issue with that. I meant no disrespect to you or your company. I was trying to give a positive suggestion as to how the divide could be crossed between Laidlaw and some of its less strident critics. I'm hoping to spark dialog, not ignite passions, but I encourage you to go elsewhere if you don't value LPJ.Matthew –Exactly. Maybe the Internet just isn't the right place for reasoned conversation. Regardless, I'm going to keep with this. I don't really worry about the attacks: they are a tedious part of an otherwise valuable conversation, but they will likely continue.I did talk to Pat MacQueen, the city manager yesterday, who confirmed my report from the PUC, that PSNH's lawyer said Laidlaw didn't have an agreement. He said he felt it was much different than what Laidlaw had led people to believe.Mr. MacQueen also said Laidlaw had taken at approach in the city he couldn't understand. He said perhaps it works in New York, but it had turned people off in Berlin.So I find I'm not reporting lies and innuendo, even on LPJ. Hopefully it will spark some self-reflection and lead to real conversation, instead of just people venting frustration. Unlikely, but it could happen.
Erik,You speak about a workable solution like the City has a final say in the matter. It doesn’t. You make it sound like all we have to do is compromise and everything may work out. It won’t. Not because I am not willing to listen or discuss issues the city may have some control over. But rather because it is my understanding issues of wood supply, line capacity, orderly development and the queue take precedents. So I believe we should stay focused on those issues first. We can get around to discussing ascetics once we get past the biggies. You want to know if this project will go forward? Stop talking about compromise and start talking about the issues. Is there enough wood? Is line capacity an issue? Does Clean Power’s position ahead of Laidlaw in the ISO queue impact Laidlaw if Clean Power comes on line first? How about if Laidlaw fits in with the orderly development of the city and region? How about environmental concerns? Didn’t the NY project get stopped because of concerns raised over air quality? Shouldn’t we be asking that important question?I contend that there is a higher and better use for the site. That is my opinion. I base that on my belief that the site can be cleaned. There are examples of that. The EPA told us that. Once you open your mind to that possibility then uses are practically endless. Given that potential why wouldn’t I see 120 acres in the middle of downtown as having a higher and better use then for a 65 MW biomass plant? My approach to this once in a lifetime opportunity is to look not years down the road, but decades. Maybe that is my error? Maybe I shouldn’t be taking such a long-term view of what the potential 120 acres in the middle of a city might have for generations to come. Maybe that is what draws the distinction between whether to compromise or not?
By Steve LeBlancAssociated Press / November 8, 2009E-mail this articleTo:Invalid E-mail addressAdd a personal message:(80 character limit) Your E-mail:Invalid E-mail addressSending your articleYour article has been sent. * E-mail| * Print| * Reprints| * Yahoo! Buzz| * ShareThisText size – +The Patrick administration is rethinking its support of wood-burning power plants, a key element of its long-term strategy to wean the state off fossil fuels. DiscussCOMMENTS (16)Wood, also known as biomass, has long been part of the state’s portfolio of renewable energy sources, along with solar, wind, and geothermal.But some environmental activists say biomass plants could lead to the clear cutting of forests while pumping more carbon dioxide into the air than coal plants, adding to global warming. That criticism has ramped up recently in Western Massachusetts.The administration has already invested $1 million to jump-start four proposed wood-burning plants in Russell, Greenfield, Springfield, and Pittsfield as it tries to meet the goal of producing 15 percent of the state’s energy needs from renewable sources by 2020.State Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian Bowles says the administration now wants more information about the possible negative effects of the wood-burning plants.“Difficult questions about biomass have arisen in the past year,’’ Bowles said. “We are asking those hard questions and asking them in a way that no other states have asked them.’’Bowles said he wants more information about the greenhouse gases the plants emit and how they can be operated while also maintaining forests. Bowles is ordering a six-month study of the issue as the Department of Energy Resources develops new regulations for biomass facilities.Biomass technology was included with solar and wind energy when the state developed its “renewable portfolio standard’’ in 2002. The portfolio requires utilities and other electricity suppliers to deliver an increasing percentage of renewable energy to their customers – a move designed to provide financial incentives for developers of green energy sources in Massachusetts.But Meg Sheehan, an attorney based in Cambridge, calls biomass “a false solution to the climate change crisis.’’“They are trying to convince the public that this is clean and green when it is neither,’’ she said. “It is an incinerator that burns wood.’’Sheehan is pushing a ballot question that would severely restrict the amount of carbon dioxide the plants can emit. If supporters can gather enough signatures, the question would appear on the 2010 ballot.Other opponents of wood-burning plants include Dr. James Wang, president of the Hampden District Medical Society. He released a letter last month saying the proposed biomass plant in Russell presents “an unacceptable threat to the health of the citizens of the Pioneer Valley.’’Biomass plant owners say it’s unfair to lump in wood-burning plants with coal-burning plants.They argue that every megawatt of power produced by wood-burning plants replaces a megawatt produced by a coal plant. They also argue that unlike coal, trees left standing can absorb the carbon dioxide released when wood is burned. And the trees cut down for fuel can be replanted.Bowles said the state is planning a public meeting in Western Massachusetts in late November to hear concerns about the biomass plants. He said he expects the state to eventually approve stricter regulations on the plants.
BIOMASS REALITY CHECKContrary to the "clean" energy claims made by biomass proponents, biomass burning is neither clean nor "green". The McNeil biomass plant in Burlington touted by biomass proponents is the biggest polluter in the entire state of Vermont, and emits 79 classified pollutants. See: http://www.planethazard.com/phmapenv.aspx?mode=topten&area=state&state=VTEven the "state of the art" proposed "clean wood" biomass power plants in Russell, and Greenfield would emit more CO2, VOC, CO and particulates, and nearly as much smog-producing NOx per MWhr of energy produced as the 50 year old Mt Tom coal plant in Holyoke. The proposed Springfield plant would be even worse since they plan to burn construction and demolition debris, a practice illegal in New Hampshire due to toxic air emissions.Biomass burning of living trees is never “carbon neutral” and “environmentalists” who promote biomass burning are clueless on this issue, and undermine their own credibility by regurgitating this industry "greenwash". In fact, on October 23rd, a ground-breaking article, "Fixing a Critical Climate Accounting Error", debunking the carbon neutrality myth of biomass burning was published in Science, one of the most prestigious, peer-reviewed journals in the world. Authors, including researchers from Princeton University and Woods Hole Laboratory, state clearly that "harvesting existing forests for electricity adds net carbon to the air." Releasing carbon locked up in living, growing, existing trees has the same effect as releasing carbon in fossil fuels, except it is actually worse since burning trees releases more carbon than burning fossil fuels. Because burning wood is so inefficient, it releases 3,300 lbs of CO2 per MWhr of energy produced versus 2,100 lbs for coal and 1,300 lbs for gas. Since when did tree-huggers turn into tree-burners? I see no point in recycling paper to save trees if they are just going to be burned in biomass burners. We need to be getting away from combustion, rather than subsidizing it. It is disturbing to see hypocritical “environmental groups” who rightly admonish the world to plant trees to help air quality, now turn around and endorse burning huge amounts of forest for tiny amounts of power.Importantly, achievable and economical conservation and efficiency measures, that don’t even dent our beloved hog-like lifestyles could reduce energy use at least 30%, so why would we triple the logging, worsen the air quality, add enormous quantities of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and spend valuable taxpayer dollars burning forests for at best 1% more energy? Please take a look at the following powerpoint to see the "biomess" we are in now in Massachusetts. http://www.maforests.org/Biomess.pptChris Matera, P.E.Massachusetts Forest Watchwww.maforests.org/
Tim,I sincerely hope you stick to your guns because Mr. Grenier, Mr. Danderson & Mr. Rosek are going to try to bully you into believing that Laidlaw and biomass in downtown Berlin will be a great addition to our community and that it is the only option for that site. I strongly disagree, and I don't want my daughter growing up in the shadow of that smoke stack. I will fight for a better and higher use for the pulp mill site until fighting is no longer an option. Ryan Landry, You should heed this advice as well. The gang of 3 is coming after you both and they will not hesitate to smear your names to get the result they want. They will steam roll you and they will bully you and they will make false claims to get their way. Eric,I think you may have missed a very important point. Laidlaw cannot provide us with facts about wood supply, grid capacity, carbon neutrality, etc. because they don't have any facts to back up their claims. They are in the PR business, not the power generating business. The facts on this project are their enemy and that is the reason for their lack of transparency. The only way their plant succeeds is if they get enough politicians in their back pocket. While I appreciate the work you are doing, I think you are missing what is right in front of your eyes. Laidlaw is not good for Berlin, for electric rate payers, for the environment, for the home owners & businesses around the plant or for the northern forest. Thankfully the permit application process will bear out these facts (unless that process is also tainted by dirty politics which unfortunately is a real possibility).Laidlaw is a cancer upon Berlin and that cancer is spreading rapidly (as was evidenced by the recent election). You are wrong to think that there is a compromise to a noisy, dirty, polluting biomass plant in the middle of the City (next to our homes and our parks and our downtown retail district). The only real compromise is the Clean Power project which is being stonewalled by PSNH and dirty politicians. If Clean Power succeeds then Laidlaw fails and that is the best we can all collectively hope for right now.You are way wrong on this issue. The City of Berlin is being screwed, and the people screwing us aren't using any lubricant.