Der up von Ballard steht noch aus bei fuelcell? - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

[Wildschwein]

[Wildschwein]

Es gibt ja im Gegensatz von vor einigen Jahren auch mittlerweile Aufträge von staatlichen Entwicklungsprogrammen, Militär und Firmen, die Produkte mit Brennstofftechnologie entwickeln.

Bei Ballard hats ja letzte Woche gefunkt. Wäre schön, wenn fuelcell als US Hersteller von den US Programmen die Barak Obama auflegt profitiert.

[Wildschwein]

Die Eigentümer haben bis Ende März dazugekauft:

Laut Yahoo finance:

BENTLEY CHRISTOPHER R
Officer Option Exercise
25-Mar-09 252,828
25-Mar-09
BRDAR DANIEL
Officer Acquisition (Non Open Market)
18-Mar-09 72,330
18-Mar-09
EPSTEIN GLENN H
Director Purchase
8-Sep-08 10,000
8-Sep-08
KEMPNER THOMAS L
Director Disposition (Non Open Market)
5-Nov-08 282,834
5-Nov-08
LAWSON WILLIAM A
Director Purchase
8-Oct-08 104,104
8-Oct-08
LEITMAN JERRY D
Other Option Exercise
10-Apr-07 1,290,690
10-Apr-07
LUDEMANN BRUCE A
Officer Acquisition (Non Open Market)
18-Mar-09 22,518
18-Mar-09
MAHLER JOSEPH G
Officer Acquisition (Non Open Market)
18-Mar-09 177,749
18-Mar-09
VON BRANCONI CHRISTOF FRANZ SALVADOR
Director Ownership Statement
14-Dec-07 2,746,548

14-Dec-07

[Wildschwein]

25-Mar-09 BENTLEY CHRISTOPHER R
Officer 40,000 Direct Option Exercise at $1.63 per share. $65,199
19-Mar-09 BENTLEY CHRISTOPHER R
Officer 16,284 Direct Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $2.61 per share. $42,501
18-Mar-09 LUDEMANN BRUCE A
Officer 12,673 Direct Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $2.61 per share. $33,076
18-Mar-09 BRDAR DANIEL
Officer 36,974 Direct Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $2.61 per share. $96,502
18-Mar-09 MAHLER JOSEPH G
Officer 15,997 Direct Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $2.61 per share. $41,752
5-Nov-08 KEMPNER THOMAS L
Director 410,292 Direct Disposition (Non Open Market) at $0 per share. N/A
5-Nov-08 KEMPNER THOMAS L
Director 264,834 Direct Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 per share. N/A
29-Oct-08 KEMPNER THOMAS L
Director 80,900 Direct Disposition (Non Open Market) at $0 per share. N/A
29-Oct-08 KEMPNER THOMAS L
Director 18,000 Direct Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 per share. N/A
8-Oct-08 LAWSON WILLIAM A
Director 10,000 Direct Purchase at $4.34 per share. $43,400
8-Sep-08 EPSTEIN GLENN H
Director 9,600 Direct Purchase at $6.20 per share. $59,520
5-Sep-08 EPSTEIN GLENN H
Director 400 Direct Purchase at $6.10 per share. $2,440

[Wildschwein]

Press Release Source: FuelCell Energy, Inc.
FuelCell Energy Power Plant to Provide Ultra-Clean, Reliable Power for Barksdale Air Force Base
Power Plant Helps Maintain Continuous Base Operations While Helping Department of Defense Meet Its Energy Efficiency Targets
Monday April 6, 2009, 8:30 am EDT
Buzz up! Print

Related:
FuelCell Energy Inc.

DANBURY, Conn., April 6, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- FuelCell Energy, Inc. (NasdaqGM:FCEL - News), a leading manufacturer of high efficiency, ultra-clean power plants using renewable and other fuels for commercial, industrial, government and utility customers, today announced the sale of a 300 kilowatt (kW) Direct FuelCell(r) (DFC(r)) power plant to improve the availability of reliable and environmentally friendly electricity for Barksdale Air Force Base (AFB) in Louisiana.
Related QuotesSymbol Price Change
FCEL 2.58 +0.02



The DFC power plant was purchased by Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), under contract with the United States Air Force Advanced Power Technology Office (APTO). CTC will provide research, design, development, testing, demonstration, and sustainment of the 300 kW carbonate fuel cell system at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana. The system is expected to be operational in early 2010.

The U.S. government is the largest electricity consumer in the world, with thousands of government buildings and military facilities in the U.S. and abroad. As the government continues to deploy ultra-clean, efficient DFC power plants, it will reduce its emissions and peak power requirements while increasing power reliability.

DFC fuel cell power plants generate power electrochemically, without combustion, producing near-zero air pollutants like NOX, SOX and particulate matter. FuelCell Energy's power plants generate baseload electricity 24/7 with 47 percent electrical efficiency, compared to 25 to 40 percent for combustion-based technology their size. When used in a combined heat and power application where the fuel cell's byproduct heat is being used for hot water or for space heating, DFC power plants can achieve up to 80 percent system efficiency. This efficiency results in significantly reduced CO2 emissions and lower power costs.

As a key Air Combat Command base, Barksdale has a pivotal role in the nation's deterrent force and serves as headquarters for the 2nd Bomb Wing, the oldest bomber wing in the Air Force. DFC power plants increase energy reliability and security because they operate locally independent of the grid. The DFC300 will support Barksdale's critical operations in emergencies such as blackouts, natural disasters, weather events and other threats to the grid. By supplementing the base's power grid with 24/7 baseload power, the DFC power plant increases the availability and reliability of Barksdale's power supply.

``DFC power plants are a high-efficiency, distributed power generation solution that meets Barksdale's high reliability and security requirements,'' said Bill Foster, Vice President Government Business Development for FuelCell Energy. ``Installing a DFC power plant furthers the U.S. Department of Defense plan to increase energy efficiency and use more clean generation sources as set forth in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.''

About FuelCell Energy

FuelCell Energy is the world leader in the development and production of stationary fuel cells for commercial, industrial, municipal and utility customers. FuelCell Energy's ultra-clean and high efficiency DFC(r) fuel cells are generating power at over 50 locations worldwide. The company's power plants have generated more than 275 million kWh of power using a variety of fuels including renewable wastewater gas, biogas from beer and food processing, as well as natural gas and other hydrocarbon fuels. FuelCell Energy has partnerships with major power plant developers and power companies around the world. The company also receives funding from the U.S. Department of Energy and other government agencies for the development of leading edge technologies such as fuel cells. For more information, please visit our website at http://www.fuelcellenergy.com.

About Concurrent Technologies Corporation

Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC) is an independent, nonprofit, applied scientific research and development professional services organization providing innovative management and technology-based solutions to government and industry. As a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization, CTC's primary purpose and programs are to undertake applied scientific research and development activities that serve the public interest. For more information, visit http://www.ctc.com.

About Advanced Power Technology Office

The APTO was established by the United States Air Force to lead, manage and coordinate the USAF role in integrating advanced power and alternative-energy technologies into the USAF inventory of: ground vehicles, support equipment, Basic Expeditionary Airfield Resources (BEAR), fuel cell equipment, and base infrastructure. The APTO resides in the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia. The goals of APTO are to provide increased capabilities and benefits to the warfighter; support the Air Force's environmental and energy policy requirements and reduce dependency on foreign energy sources by the insertion of advanced power technologies. For more information, visit http://www.robins.af.mil/units/apto.asp.

This news release contains forward-looking statements, including statements regarding the Company's plans and expectations regarding the continuing development and commercialization of its fuel cell technology. All forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Factors that could cause such a difference include, without limitation, general risks associated with product development, manufacturing, changes in the utility regulatory environment, potential volatility of energy prices, rapid technological change, competition, and the Company's ability to achieve its sales plans and cost reduction targets, as well as other risks set forth in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The forward-looking statements contained herein speak only as of the date of this press release. The Company expressly disclaims any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any such statement to reflect any change in the Company's expectations or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based.

Direct FuelCell, DFC, DFC/T and FuelCell Energy, Inc. are all registered trademarks of FuelCell Energy, Inc. DFC-ERG is a trademark jointly owned by Enbridge, Inc. and FuelCell Energy, Inc.
Contact:
FuelCell Energy, Inc.
Lisa Lettieri
[phone]
[e-mail]

[Wildschwein]

8. April 2009!!!

:http://www.dpuc.state.ct.us/dockcurr.nsf/f7de85eded62752a852…

besser das Original Dokument lesen, hier ist es leider etwas unformatiert.

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITY CONTROL
TEN FRANKLIN SQUARE
NEW BRITAIN, CT 06051



DOCKET NO. 08-03-03
DPUC REVIEW OF LONG-TERM RENEWABLE CONTRACTS - ROUND 3 RESULTS





April 8, 2009

By the following Commissioners:


Anthony J. Palermino
John W. Betkoski, III
Donald W. Downes


DECISION



















I. INTRODUCTION 3
A. SUMMARY 3
B. LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 3
C. PROPOSED PROJECTS 4
D. PARTIES AND INTERVENORS 5
E. CONDUCT OF THE PROCEEDING 5
F. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECTS 6
1. Bridgeport Fuel Cell Park Project 6
2. DFC-ERG Trumbull Project 6
3. DFC-ERG Bloomfield Project 6
4. DFC-ERG Glastonbury Project 6
5. Cube Fuel Cell Project 6
6. Triangle Fuel Cell Project 7
7. Hartford Fuel Cell Project 7
G. IMPACT OF FEDERAL ENERGY PRODUCTION INCENTIVES INVESTMENT TAX CREDITS 7
II. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS 8
A. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS UNDER CONN. GEN. STAT. § 16-244C(J)(2) 8
B. THE EVALUATION PROCESS AND POSITION OF PARTIES 9
C. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS AND PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS 10
1. Analysis of CCEF, OCC and EDC’s Recommendations 10
2. Financial Impact and Economic Climate 11
3. Competition and Market Forces 12
4. Type of Technology and Fuel Diversity 13
5. Summary of Analysis 13
D. OTHER ISSUES 14
1. Cost Recovery and Accounting Issues 14
2. Alternate Pricing Option 6a, Pricing Modifiers and Sale of RECs 15
4. Revisions to EPA Provisions and Pricing Options 18
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDERS 19
A. CONCLUSION 19
B. ORDERS 20
















I. INTRODUCTION

A. SUMMARY

In this Decision, the Department evaluates the seven proposals submitted pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-244c(j)(2), as amended by Section 124 of Public Act 07-242, which requires the electric distribution companies to file with the Department no later than October 1, 2008, power purchase contracts from Class I renewable energy source projects that receive funding from the Renewable Energy Investment Fund. The Department conditionally approves five contracts with approximately 27.3 megawatts of renewable source generation (based on seasonal average capacity) consisting of five fuel cell facilities. These projects, when combined with the fifteen megawatt contract approved in Round 1 and one hundred nine megawatts approved in Round 2 result in a total of approximately one hundred fifty three megawatts of renewable energy source generators approved to date. The Department thereby finds this complies with the one-hundred fifty megawatt legislative mandate.

B. LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

General Statutes of Connecticut § 16-244c(j)(2) (Conn. Gen. Stat.), as amended by Section 124 of Public Act 07-242, requires the electric distribution companies (EDCs) to submit to the Department for its approval long-term purchase power agreements from Class I renewable energy source projects that receive funding from the Renewable Energy Investment Fund. On or after October 1, 2007 and until September 30, 2008 such agreements shall be comprised of not less than a total, apportioned among each EDC, of one hundred twenty five megawatts (MW); and on and after October 1, 2008 such agreements shall be comprised of not less than a total, apportioned among each EDC, of one hundred fifty MW.

In the Decision dated October 20, 2004, in Docket No. 03-07-17, DPUC Review of Long-Term Contracts, the Department approved the process and the electricity purchase agreement (EPA) to be used to implement Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-244c(j)(2).
The stated goal of the process was to support the development and financing of
new renewable energy sources by providing long term contracts for their output.
The October 20, 2004 Decision created a three-step review and selection process in
which the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund (CCEF); the EDCs, The Connecticut Light
and power Company (CL&P) and The United Illuminating Company (UI); and the
Department of Public Utility Control (Department) each play a role. Specifically, CCEF
1) performs the initial review and selection of proposed projects; 2) determines project
financial and technical viability of the project; other costs/benefits related to the project;
and the CCEF grant amount and 3) forwards projects to CL&P and UI for their review.
UI and CL&P analyze the interconnection point and costs related thereto, reliability and
other impacts of each project, the financial impact on utility customers after the CCEF
grant and evaluate the projects’ costs and benefits. After CL&P and UI perform their
review, they submit a written review to the Department for its review in a proceeding in
which the Department will decide whether to approve or reject proposed projects.



C. PROPOSED PROJECTS

On September 16, 2008, CCEF, CL&P and UI submitted their summary and evaluation of project information, including their observations on each project. CCEF recommended five of the seven proposed projects, totaling approximately twenty nine MW for Round 3, and provided a ranking for the project selections. The projects are summarized below.

1. Project Name: DFC-ERG Bloomfield
Developer Name: DFC ERG CT, LLC
Location: Bloomfield
Type: Fuel Cell + Energy Recovery Generator
Size: 3.367 MW (seasonal average capacity)

2. Project Name: Bridgeport Fuel Cell Park
Developer Name: Bridgeport Fuel Cell Park, LLC
Location: Bridgeport
Type: Fuel Cell + Organic Rankine Cycle
Size: 14.294 MW (seasonal average capacity)

3. Project Name: DFC-ERG Trumbull
Developer Name: DFC ERG CT, LLC
Location: Trumbull
Type: Fuel Cell + Energy Recovery Generator
Size: 3.200 MW (seasonal average capacity)

4. Project Name: DFC-ERG Glastonbury
Developer Name: DFC ERG CT, LLC
Location: Glastonbury
Type: Fuel Cell + Energy Recovery Generator
Size: 3.200 MW (seasonal average capacity)

5. Project Name: Cube
Developer Name: EPG Fuel Cell, LLC
Location: Danbury
Type: Fuel Cell + Un-fired Gas Turbine
Size: 3.238 MW (seasonal average capacity)

6. Project Name: Triangle
Developer Name: EPG Fuel Cell, LLC
Location: Danbury
Type: Fuel Cell + Un-fired Gas Turbine
Size: 15.1 MW (seasonal average capacity)

7. Project Name: Hartford Fuel Cell
Developer Name: TEN Companies
Location: Hartford
Type: Fuel Cell
Size: 2.7 MW (seasonal average capacity)

Two of the proposed projects in Round 3, Bridgeport Fuel Cell Park (BFCP) and Triangle, are resubmittals of projects proposed, but not approved, in Round 2. CCEF ranked BFCP 9th of 11 proposals in Round 2, and Triangle 4th of 11 in Round 2.

CCEF initially recommended acceptance of the five top ranked projects. In a letter to the Department dated December 9, 2008, CCEF suggested also accepting the sixth ranked project, Triangle, to mitigate the anticipated impact of project attrition.

All of the projects in Round 3 are fuel cells. Four of the projects proposed in Round 3; BFCP, DFC-ERG Bloomfield, DFC-ERG Trumbull, and DFC-ERG Glastonbury are under common ownership and are affiliated with Fuel Cell Energy, Inc., which is also the manufacturer of the fuel cells used in all of the proposed projects in Round 3. Two other projects proposed in Round 3, Cube and Triangle, are both owned by EPG Fuel Cell, LLC.

D. PARTIES AND INTERVENORS

The Service List in this proceeding identifying participants is attached to this Decision (Attachment A).

E. CONDUCT OF THE PROCEEDING

Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-244c(j)(2), and a Notice of Hearing dated July 15, 2008, the Department established the above cited docket to hear evidence regarding seven Class I renewable energy source electric generation projects reviewed by the CCEF for the purpose of determining (1) whether these projects satisfy the criteria of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-244c(j)(2) and the Department’s decisions relating thereto; (2) whether the Department should approve or reject long-term purchase power contracts with these projects, and; (3) any other issues the Department deems relevant to the Department’s review of projects pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-244c(j)(2).

Class I renewable energy sources are those defined in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16 1(a)(26) and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16 1(a)(45) for sustainable biomass. These sources include solar power, wind power, fuel cells, methane gas from landfills, ocean thermal power, wave or tidal power, low emission advanced renewable energy conversion technologies, certain run of the-river hydropower facilities, certain biomass facilities or any electrical generation, including distributed generation, generated from a Class I renewable energy source.

Hearings were conducted on November 19, 2008 (transcript pages 1-263), November 25, 2008 (transcript pages 264-410) and December 10, 2008 (transcript pages 411-475), at the Department’s offices, Ten Franklin Square, New Britain, Connecticut.





F. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECTS

1. Bridgeport Fuel Cell Park Project

The proposed Bridgeport Fuel Cell Park, LLC project (Bridgeport or BFCP) is a 15 MW maximum capacity project with five Direct Fuel Cell (DFC3000) power plants that convert natural gas into electricity and generate heat that can be used to provide heating and cooling. The project would be sited at a vacant brownfield owned by the City of Bridgeport, located in Southwest Connecticut. The project has been authorized for a grant from CCEF of $1,550,000. Project features include; Fuel Cell/Organic Rankine Cycle energy system, Natural gas supplied by SCG adjacent to project site, 5 Fuel Cell Energy power plants supplemented by 930 kilowatt (kW) of output from Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC). The project uses pricing option 6a.

2. DFC-ERG Trumbull Project

The proposed DFC-ERG Trumbull Project (Trumbull) consists of a combined fuel cell/turbo expander energy system direct fuel cell energy recovery generation (DFC-ERG) system. SCG is the gas supplier. Maximum capacity is 3.4 MW and the project has been authorized for a grant from CCEF of $50,000. Alternate pricing proposal is pricing option 6a, using a price modifier that would reduce project cost by $3/MWh.

3. DFC-ERG Bloomfield Project

The proposed DFC-ERG Bloomfield Project (Bloomfield) consists of a combined fuel cell/turbo expander energy system DFC-ERG. CNG is the gas supplier. Maximum capacity is 3.65 MW and the project has been authorized for a grant from CCEF of $50,000. Alternate pricing proposal is pricing option 6a, using a price modifier that would reduce project cost by $3/MWh.

4. DFC-ERG Glastonbury Project

The proposed DFC-ERG Glastonbury Project (Glastonbury) consists of a combined fuel cell/turbo expander energy system DFC-ERG. CNG is the gas supplier. Maximum capacity is 3.4 MW and the project has been authorized for a grant from CCEF of $50,000. Alternate pricing proposal is pricing option 6a, using a price modifier that would reduce project cost by $3/MWh.

5. Cube Fuel Cell Project
The proposed Cube Fuel Cell Project (Cube), developed by EPG Fuel Cell, LLC (EPG), is a 3.36 MW maximum capacity project that would use a FCE DFC3000. The project utilizes an unfired gas turbine. The project would be installed in Danbury, Connecticut and has been authorized for a grant from CCEF of $3,000,000.





6. Triangle Fuel Cell Project
The proposed Triangle Fuel Cell Project (Triangle), developed by EPG, is a 15.1 MW maximum capacity project that would use several FCE DFC3000 units, each with a net maximum output of 2.5 MW of electricity. The project has a nominal grant designation from CCEF of $3,000,000.

7. Hartford Fuel Cell Project
The proposed Hartford Fuel Cell Project (Hartford), developed by TEN Companies is a 2.7 MW maximum capacity project that would use a FCE DFC3000. The project would be installed in Hartford, Connecticut. The project has a nominal grant designation from CCEF of $50,000.

G. IMPACT OF FEDERAL ENERGY PRODUCTION INCENTIVES INVESTMENT TAX CREDITS

During the course of the proceeding, the Department became aware of important legislative action at the Federal level. The passage of the “Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008” (the Act) by the United States Congress resulted in an extension and increase to energy production incentives known as “Investment Tax Credits” (ITC). The Act increased the ITC by $2,000 per kilowatt of capacity, subject to a thirty percent (30%) cap and reduced tax depreciation, for facilities producing electricity by employment of a fuel cell. Since all seven of the proposed projects in Round 3 are fuel cells, this has significant potential for ratepayer benefit impact.

On October 3, 2008, the CCEF submitted a motion to the Department to stay the proceeding and allow the proposers to submit “refreshed bids” reflecting possible lower project costs based on the impact of the Act. The Department granted the motion, and CCEF thereafter reordinated the ranking of the proposed projects, based on the results of the refreshed bids. The reordinated list appears below.

1. Bridgeport Fuel Cell Park (Originally ranked second)

2. DFC-ERG Trumbull (Originally ranked third)

3. DFC-ERG Bloomfield (Originally ranked first)

4. DFC-ERG Glastonbury (Originally ranked fourth)

5. Cube (Originally ranked fifth)

6. Triangle (Originally ranked sixth)

7. Hartford Fuel Cell (Originally ranked seventh)

In their written exceptions UI recommended that the Department add a provision that would require selected projects to pursue American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) stimulus funding and provide a commensurate price reduction to customers. The ARRA contains many provisions to support the development of renewable energy projects and similar initiatives through the availability of federal stimulus funds.

The Department has further considered the likelihood that additional economic assistance may become available from the Federal government to fund projects selected under this program by way of ARRA. As with the ITC, the source of the funding under the ARRA is the general taxpaying public. The Department will not require the projects to pursue stimulus funding but recognizes that ARRA may create opportunities to provide benefits to both the projects and ratepayers. The Department believes that ratepayers should share in any benefit of this economic incentive, since they are the source of this funding and also bear the cost of this program. Therefore the Department shall require the approved projects to return 65% of the gross amount of any funding received under the ARRA to ratepayers by reducing the contract pricing under the EPA by a commensurate amount. The remaining 35% may be kept by the project. The Department will require each project selected to report to the Department annually the status of stimulus funding.

II. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS

A. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS UNDER CONN. GEN. STAT. § 16-244C(J)(2)

Conn. Gen Stat. § 16-244c(j)(2) requires that each EDC providing transitional standard offer service, standard service, supplier of last resort service or back-up electric generation service shall, not later than July 1, 2008, file with the Department for approval of one or more long-term power purchase contracts. Such projects must satisfy the following statutory requirements: (1) qualify as a Class I renewable energy source, (2) receive funding from the Renewable Energy Investment Fund, (3) are not less than one MW in size, (4) have a price contract that conforms to one of the formulas set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-244c(j)2) or the Department’s decisions, (5) located in Connecticut, (6) have an EPA contract of not less than ten years, and (7) will commence operation on or after July 1, 2003.

The Department has reviewed the proposed projects, described above, and finds that each of the projects meets all of the statutory requirements (1) through (7) discussed above.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-244c(j)(2) also requires the Department to give preference to awarding EPA contracts to those projects that would provide a financial benefit to ratepayers or that would enhance the reliability of the State’s electric transmission system. Further, such contracts shall be comprised of not less than a total, apportioned among each EDC, of 150 megawatts by October 1, 2008. Projects must satisfy all of the statutory criteria to be eligible for awards of long-term agreements with EDCs. Additionally, the Department considered the CCEF’s recognition of the need for project locational diversity and technology diversity, as provided for in the CCEF Request for Proposal (RFP) document. The Department reviewed all of the proposed projects that satisfy the statutory criteria and, giving preference to projects that will provide financial and non-financial benefits to ratepayers or enhance the reliability of the electric transmission system, exercised its discretion and approved the projects that it determined are in the public interest.

B. THE EVALUATION PROCESS AND POSITION OF PARTIES

Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §16 244c(j)(2), as modified by Section 124 of Public Act 07 242, An Act Concerning Electricity and Energy Efficiency, the Department must approve long term contracts between renewable energy projects and the EDCs totaling not less than 150 MW by October 1, 2008. The Act states that, “in its approval of such contracts, the Department shall give preference to purchase contracts from these projects that would provide a financial benefit to ratepayers or would enhance the reliability of the electric transmission system of the State.” In implementing Project 150, the Department approved a multi phase review process for analyzing, selecting, and ultimately approving EPAs for those proposed projects that merit long term contracts.

CCEF conducted an extensive ratepayer impact analysis. CCEF projected avoided energy costs, capacity values and the value of renewable energy certificates (REC) over the contract years, which was then compared to project costs to determine the ratepayer impact. Based on extensive review and analysis, CCEF determined five projects totaling approximately 28.8 MW merited an EPA. CCEF forwarded their recommended projects to the EDCs for their review and analysis.

The EDCs reviewed and analyzed the projects and forwarded the results of their cost/benefit analysis based on the refreshed bids to the Department. In a filing dated November 10, 2008, the EDCs did not provide any recommendations as to which projects should be selected (Tr. 11/19/08 pp 32-33).

The analysis by the EDCs compared the contract cost, based on the proposed project pricing, to the avoided energy, capacity and REC values. In the EDCs analysis, the energy value, Locational Marginal Price (LMP), was held constant over the combined life of the project. The projected LMP is the 24 month average of the (day ahead and real time) energy prices at the delivery point (as of 2400 hours on September 30, 2008), as required by the Department’s October 20, 2004 Decision in Docket No. 03 07 17 and its January 5, 2005 Decision in Docket No. 03 07 17RE01. Future REC and capacity values, although uncertain at this time, were estimated using consistent assumptions for all projects. REC value estimates were set at several price points for analysis, while capacity value estimates were set for all years at $4.50/kW-month. The EDCs used the $4.50/kW-month floor price from the Forward Capacity Auction (FCA) for the 2010/2011 Capacity Commitment Period (the first FCA) due to the uncertainty of the capacity market and because the first FCA ended at the floor price with an over-supply condition.

The Department conducted four days of hearings. The record in this proceeding indicates a thorough Department review of extensive testimony and exhibits entered into the record, in which the Department conducted a significant amount of discovery and cross examination.

The OCC recommends the Department accept only those projects that create a limited cost impact to ratepayers and that provide co benefits to the generation of Class I renewable power. While not citing a specific number, the OCC has recommended the Department only approve a “small number” of projects (OCC Brief 12/17/08). The OCC also expressed concern over the fact that Fuel Cell Energy (FCE) is in a “monopoly situation” (OCC Brief 12/17/08) as the sole producer of fuel cells for all seven of the projects under consideration in Round 3 and based on FCE’s apparent control over the market price of fuel cells.

C. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS AND PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS

The Department has reviewed the economic analysis provided by the CCEF, OCC and EDCs. The three analyses complement each other, providing several scenarios under different assumptions, which is useful in the evaluation and selection of the projects. The overarching principles guiding the Department in this proceeding are to ensure reliable and safe electric service at reasonable rates. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 16-11 and 16-244. See also Conn Gen. Stat. §§ 16-9 and 16-19e. With that in mind, the Department has considered the overall evaluation and recommendations of the CCEF, the ratepayer impact analysis conducted by CCEF, the EDCs and the OCC, a consideration of the of non-economic impacts of projects as provided for in the RFP, an awareness of the current economic climate, and the language contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-244c(j)(2) as amended by Section 124 of Public Act 07-242 in our determination of which projects to select for an EPA. While the Department notes OCC’s concern regarding ratepayer impact, it remains mindful of the compliance deadline contained in the enabling legislation. The Department’s analysis of these issues is discussed below.

1. Analysis of CCEF, OCC and EDC’s Recommendations

CCEF recommended the Department approve 27.3 MW of fuel cells, based on seasonal average capacity, comprising of Bridgeport Fuel Cell 14.3 MW; Trumbull 3.2 MW, Bloomfield 3.4 MW, Glastonbury 3.2 MW and Cube 3.2 MW. In support of their recommendations CCEF has conducted an extensive evaluation of the projects. The EDCs have also conducted an analysis of the impact on ratepayers. The Department has considered the ratepayer impact analysis conducted by both the CCEF and the EDCs as well as the analysis of non price factors done by CCEF, the recommendations of the OCC and others deemed important by the Department in its determination as to which projects to approve in Round 3 of Project 150.

Each of the seven projects analyzed was projected to have costs significantly higher than market over the life of their contracts. That said, the five projects recommended by CCEF provide the lowest ratepayer impact of the seven projects analyzed under numerous scenarios performed by CCEF. Triangle and Hartford TEN are consistently the lowest ranking projects. The five projects recommended provide the lowest ratepayer impact on $/MWh basis in CCEF’s base case analysis. P.6 Exhibit F. The five projects recommended provide the lowest ratepayer impact under scenarios in which high electric and natural gas prices are forecasted (p.12 Exhibit F) and lower electric and gas prices are forecasted p.13 Exhibit F. The 5 projects also minimize the impact on ratepayers in cases where REC prices are higher or lower than the base case. p. 15, 17 Exhibit F. Finally, the results are the same whether the CCEF funding is included or excluded from the analysis. p. 19 Exhibit F.

The initial ratepayer impact analysis of September 16, 2008 conducted by the EDCs supported the selection of the smaller fuel cell projects recommended by CCEF and rejection of Hartford TEN. However, Triangle provided less of an impact than Bridgeport under the low REC and mid priced REC scenarios and virtually the same impact under the high REC case on a cents/kWh basis. Since their initial analysis, the utilities provided an updated analysis to reflect the refreshed bids as well as changes to gas delivery tariffs approved for the gas distribution companies. The impact of the Bridgeport project declined significantly and improved relative to Triangle in the new analysis. Bridgeport is now projected to be slightly higher in the low REC scenario but significantly lower than Triangle in the mid high priced REC scenarios. Table 3 October 2008 filing. The Department believes the updated analysis by the EDCs further supports the recommendations by CCEF.

The five projects recommended by CCEF rank best on ratepayer impact as well as the overall score based on their evaluation of the projects. The overall score is made up of the following: 55% Ratepayer Costs; 20% Project Feasibility, 15% Financial Viability and 10% Ratepayer Benefits. Evaluating each variable, Triangle was rated lower than Bridgeport in every category.

After a thorough analysis of all the information, the Department believes the evidence supports the ranking of projects as recommended by CCEF. The Department, however, is very concerned with the overall impact on ratepayers expected from these projects. Based on an analysis of the net present value (NPV) to ratepayers, each of the projects under consideration has a potential for total costs of between 4.4 and 5.3 million dollars per MW, holding assumptions constant. The EDCs estimate the impact on ratepayers to be approximately $257.4 million, or $126.0 million on a present value basis above the cost of generation with a mid-range price of RECs of $25, if the Department were to approve 27.3 MW of fuel cells comprised of; Bridgeport Fuel Cell 14.3 MW, Trumbull 3.2 MW, Bloomfield 3.4 MW, Glastonbury 3.2 MW and Cube 3.2 MW in Round 3 of project 150. The cost would increase to $310.7 million or $152.6 million on an NPV basis if REC prices averaged $5.

2. Financial Impact and Economic Climate

In the Decision in Docket No. 03-07-17, the Department found cost alone should not be the determining factor in project selection. However, it is a substantial consideration, and the reality of the current economic climate is that the ratepayers of Connecticut may object to supporting the high cost of all of the Round 3 projects under current conditions. The plain language of Section 16-244c(j)(2) and other provisions governing the Department provide sufficient evidence of legislative intent to guide the Department. Neither Section 16-244c(j)(2) nor any other statutes of general applicability governing the Department require it to ignore the cost implications of the proposed projects and select them regardless of ratepayer impact. The Department confirmed its position on this matter in Docket No. 07-04-27 (Round 2) when it found that, had the Legislature wanted the Department to approve all projects that the Department finds meet the statutory criteria, without any review of the costs and benefits of projects, the legislature would have clearly indicated that the Department’s review role was so limited, and the statute would contain plain language stating that the Department must approve EPAs with any and all projects that satisfy the statutory criteria until the MW benchmarked was met and order that the costs of the EPAs be passed on to ratepayers through EDC rates. Although the legislation provides timelines for compliance with benchmarks, the overarching responsibility of the Department under this legislation is to act in the public interest, which includes consideration of cost impacts on ratepayers.

3. Competition and Market Forces

The Department is concerned about the apparent lack of competition in this solicitation. All of the proposed projects use fuel cells, and all are produced by the same manufacturer, FCE. FCE also owns four of the seven projects.

The Department has also considered the economic impact on ratepayers of the conditions created by having a sole firm, FCE, being the equipment supplier for all of the projects in Round 3. In addition to the potential for FCE to control the costs of equipment, an additional potential for competitive impact is created by the fact that FCE is in a position of ownership in four of the seven projects in Round 3. Although FCE testified that it has intensions to divest itself of these projects at some point in the future, they never indicated a timetable for divestiture, or even a definite statement that it would, in fact, do so. FCE has presented the divestiture scenario as a possibility, rather than a definite outcome.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-244c(j)(2) grants certain air emission credits and tax credits to the owner of a fuel cell facility when it utilizes fuel cell equipment manufactured in Connecticut. Because of the value of these credits in this fledgling industry, it creates an economic incentive so valuable that the legislation results in a virtual de facto requirement to use fuel cells made in Connecticut in order to participate in Round 3 of this program. Based on testimony during the hearings, there are only two manufacturers in Connecticut capable of producing the type of fuel cells required: FCE and United Technologies Corp (UTC). Tr., pg. 382.

The ability of FCE to control the price of fuel cells became apparent during the process of submittal of refreshed bids based on the change to the ITC. The sales agreement between FCE and its Connecticut customers included a provision where the purchase price paid to FCE would increase substantially, by $200 per kilowatt, upon passage of the ITC legislation. Tr., p. 384. During the hearing, FCE testified that its costs of production were in no way increased by the status of the ITC. Tr., p 388. FCE testified that the reason for the price increase to customers was that its costs were increasing. However, FCE presented no documentation, testimony or evidence regarding the cause or source of increasing costs, other than their generalized claim. This price increase by FCE would result in approximately $5.5 million in additional revenue to the firm, based on 25 MW of project selection, and an increase of more than $8.8 million if the Department selected all six projects recommended by CCEF. Despite the substantial sales price increase, no potential customer cancelled their order. The ability of a manufacturer to unilaterally raise prices without impacting sales is, in the words of the OCC, a hallmark of a monopoly. OCC Brief 12/17/08. The Department believes that FCE’s ability to dictate the market price of fuel cells used in this program is unacceptable and will address this matter in the Decision herein.

The apparent intension of the U.S. Congress in passing the Act was to cause federal funds to directly support generation facilities that produce electricity by applying tax relief to that specific activity. It was not the apparent Congressional intent to apply this tax incentive to the manufacturer of fuel cells. The pricing policy of FCE in this matter has thwarted the intended purpose of the federal legislation. It is additionally the case that the Connecticut legislature’s purpose in including the air emission credits and tax credits predicated on using fuel cell equipment manufactured in Connecticut under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-244c(j)(2) has had the unintended consequence of resulting in a de facto price subsidy for one firm, rather than a general incentive to the development of fuel cells as a source of electrical generation in Connecticut, and this is all to the loss of ratepayers.

4. Type of Technology and Fuel Diversity

Each technology and project design brings uncertainties and risks with regard to project completion, timeliness and ability to meet capacity obligations. With regard to fuel cells, the Department shares with OCC the concern that all of the Round 3 projects are fuel cell projects based on the FCE’s 2.8 MW DFC 3000 fuel cell unit. In the proceeding in Docket No. 03-07-17 (Round 1) the CCEF indicated that diversity provides ratepayer benefits beyond cost, including: availability, reliability, energy security, environmental impact and economic development. The Department believes it is in the public interest that the number of projects in the Project 150 portfolio mix not become overly weighted toward any one technology. Presently, of the eight approved projects, three are fuel cells (DCF-ERG Milford, Stamford Hospital, and Waterbury Hospital), and all seven of the projects submitted in Round 3 are fuel cells. The Department continues in its backing of the development of fuel cell technology under this program. As a result of this Departmental stance, Connecticut maintains its unquestionable position at the national forefront of support for development of the fuel cell industry and the deployment of fuel cells in the generation of electricity. The Department anticipates that greater diversity of technology and fuel type, increasing the level of Class I energy sources in Connecticut’s generation mix, may be achieved in the future. The value of such diversity in technology and fuel type is also recognized in the selection criteria of the CCEF RFP.

5. Summary of Analysis

The plain language of Section 16-244c(j)(2) clearly directs the Department to assess project benefits, specifically financial benefits to ratepayers and reliability benefits to the electric transmission system, and gives the Department the discretion to approve or reject projects based on its review of benefits, provided that preference is given in the selection process to projects the Department determines provide said benefits. In the course of the proceedings in Docket No. 07-04-27, all participants were made aware that the Department viewed its role as screening projects for statutory compliance and reviewing the merits of the proposals and deciding whether to approve or reject proposals. Due to the severe projected rate impact, lack of competition in this solicitation and thoughtful analysis of all factors, the Department is hesitant with regard to selecting the nearly thirty (30) MW of projects recommended by CCEF in Round 3 of Project 150.

The Department has considered the overall evaluation and recommendations of the CCEF, the ratepayer impact analysis conducted by CCEF, the EDCs and the OCC and the reliability of the projects in our determination of which projects to select for an EPA. The Department finds all seven of the projects, including the five recommended by CCEF, satisfy the seven statutory requirements of Conn. Gen Stat. § 16-244c(j)(2) enumerated in the Decision herein. Based on the language of Conn. Gen Stat. § 16-244c(j)(2), which requires the Department to give preference to projects that would provide a ratepayer benefit (or minimize ratepayer cost) or improve system reliability, the Department finds that, none the less, the language of the enablining legislation regarding the timeline for procurement of 150 MW directs the Department to accept the five projects recommended by CCEF. For the purpose of compliance with Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-244c(j)(2), the MWh value of projects for use in the EPAs shall be determined by taking the kWh value as it appears in Section 3.5 of the EPA and dividing by 1,000 to convert to MWh. This is the maximum purchase quantity to be paid at the EPA specified contract rates.

The Department also concludes that the price escalator negotiated by FCE with its customers, based on the change to the ITC, is not linked to or based on any increase in production costs of FCE, is opportunistic, and is not in the public interest. If the selected projects and FCE cannot agree to an adjustment in pricing to reflect the application of the full value of the ITC, and apply this full value to the project pricing, the Department will not approve an EPA for any impacted project.

D. OTHER ISSUES

1. Cost Recovery and Accounting Issues

In their Briefs dated December 17, 2008, CL&P and UI request the Department make certain findings with respect to the ability to seek cost recovery for costs associated with being a party to EPAs approved in this Decision. UI Brief, p. 6; CL&P Brief, Attachment A. CL&P claims the BFCP project may result in future unfavorable accounting treatments if consolidation is required under FIN46(R), Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities. CL&P brief, pp. 4-6. CL&P requests language in the EPA directing that projects provide information needed by CL&P to perform periodic review of accounting issues. CL&P Brief, pp. 7-8. UI and CL&P also request that the Department rule that entering into the EPA and cost sharing agreement are in the public interest and prudent, and:

• that, with respect to the EDCs' performance and enforcement of the EPA and cost sharing agreement, the EDCs shall be entitled to recover costs impacting the EDCs found by the Department to be prudently incurred and specifically related to the EPA;

• that Project 150 cost recovery shall be through the non-bypassable federally mandated congestion charge;

• that, if future accounting treatment of the EPA causes financial impacts, CL&P or UI can file a rate case under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 16-19 and 16-244c(j)(2) at any time, and

• that, if CL&P or UI is legally barred from filing a rate case during the time it is incurring costs related to an accounting treatment, it can defer those costs and seek recovery subject to the Department’s review of the appropriateness of the deferral and prudency review of the costs.

As previously determined by the Department in the Round 2 Decision, the Department will allow full recovery of all prudently incurred costs associated with CL&P’s and UI’s participation as parties to the EPAs and Cost Sharing Agreements through an appropriate charge to ratepayers. The Department will determine if the power will be used to supply standard service or sold into the market in an appropriate proceeding closer to the in-service date of the projects. At that time, the Department will determine the charge under which these costs will be recovered. The Department will also allow recovery for any prudently incremental costs to administer these contracts.

With respect to accounting issues, CL&P or UI can file a rate case under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 16-19 and 16-244c(j)(2) at any time, to seek recovery of prudently incurred costs related to any adverse cost impacts attributable to the accounting treatment of the projects approved by this decision. If CL&P or UI is legally barred from filing a rate case during the time it is incurring costs related to an accounting treatment, the EDCs will be allowed to defer those costs and seek recovery subject to the Department’s review of the appropriateness of the deferral and a prudency review of the costs.

The Department also approves the provision CL&P requested to add to the EPA that would require the project to provide certain information needed by the EDCs to perform accounting analysis. The provision must specify that the parties are required to submit any dispute under this provision to the Department for resolution.

2. Alternate Pricing Option 6a, Pricing Modifiers and Sale of RECs

With the exception of BFCP, all of the projects propose retaining 50% of the RECs generated by their generation facility and transferring the remaining 50% of the RECs to the EDCs. The EDCs testified they would be responsible for selling the RECs transferred from these projects (Tr. 11/19/08 pp 188-189). The proposal originally submitted by BFCP includes retention of 100% of the RECs by BFCP and a transfer of value from BFCP to the EDCs, based on the price per MWH at which the RECs are sold. Under their proposal, BFCP would retain the total sale proceeds if the sale price of RECs is $6/MWH or less. If the actual sale price of the RECs is greater than $6/MWH, BFCP would transfer to the EDCs the portion of the sale price greater than $6/MWH. In either price scenario, BFCP can retain no more than $6/MWH for the RECs.

Two issues were raised during the proceeding regarding the REC proposal by BFCP. One issue was whether their proposal was consistent with approved pricing option 6a and the second issue concerns the retention and/or sale of RECs generated by the projects

During the proceeding, an issue was raised regarding the interpretation of the appropriate application of the “B” factor price modifier under pricing option 6a proposed by BFCP in its bid. EPG claimed BFCP’s bid was not compliant with the CCEF request for proposal (RFP) based on the assertion the pricing modifier was not in conformance with an RFP parameter requiring any price modifier result in a fixed price. (EPG Brief December 17, 2008, pp 3-7).

BFCP stated they believed EPG had misinterpreted two relevant matters; that the EPG claim was reliant on the summary of the CCEF “question and answer” session (Q&A) conducted on May 7, 2008 at the Crown Plaza Hotel in Cromwell, CT in the Round 3 RFP, and that EPG had misunderstood the intended meaning of the words “fixed adjustment” in the Q&A. BFCP made the claim the Q&A was not part of the RFP, and therefore lack of conformance with language contained in the Q&A summary could not be used to disqualify any bid. BFCP further claimed the term fixed adjustment as used in the Q&A did not mean fixed number.

CCEF testified the term used in the Q&A was “fixed adjustment”, not fixed number (CCEF Response to LFE-2 and Tr. pp 80-81, 178-179, 342-343). CCEF also stated the Q&A summary was not part of the RFP (Tr. pg 199-200). CCEF further stated that the BFCP bid with the price modifier was compliant with the RFP. (Tr. pg 201).

The Department has evaluated the content of the RFP issued by CCEF in connection with Round 3 and has examined the content of the Q&A summary. It is clear to the Department the Q&A summary was not a constituent component of the RFP, but was, rather, the outcome of an informal meeting conducted to clarify certain matters related to the RFP. It is also certainly the case the wording in the Q&A summary uses the term “fixed adjustment”, not “fixed number”, and that CCEF could have used the term “fixed number” if that had been the intended message, but chose not to. It does not appear CCEF intended the Q&A session to be part of the RFP document, and the Department does not find that CCEF presented it as such to any bidder. The primary purpose of pricing option 6a was to allow greater flexibility for fuel cell projects to develop pricing that would lower costs from those in the legislatively allowed pricing option. (Pricing Option 6) The Department does not find fault with CCEF’s interpretation of the relationship between the RFP and the Q&A session, nor with the CCEF’s interpretation of the meaning of “fixed adjustment”, as used in the Q&A. The Department believes that the proposal is consistent with the intent of the Departments approval for 6a. Therefore the Department concludes the pricing proposed by BFCP is compliant with the CCEF RFP.

Regarding the sale of RECs, in response to Late Filed Exhibit-8, BFCP stated they are agreeable to two additional alternate REC sale proposals. BFCP would agree to register the RECs with the New England Power Pool Generation Information System (NEPOOL GIS). Once registered, BFCP would transfer the RECS to the EDCs, who would sell them and pay BFCP the sale proceeds, up to a maximum of $6/MWH, with the EDC retaining any sales in excess of $6/MWH. The other alternate proposed by BFCP was that BFCP would register the RECs with NEPOOL GIS, retain the RECs, and pay the EDCs a fixed rate of $6/MWH.

The BFCP response to LFE-8 included a cost sharing proposal component for fees that may be paid to a third party broker for sale of RECs. BFCP proposed that the Company would be responsible for the cost of the brokerage fee up to $6/MWH, and the EDCs would be responsible for the cost of the brokerage fee related to the portion greater than $6/MWH. BFCP and the EDCs testified that they had participated in discussions regarding the brokerage issues. The EDCs and BFCP testified that they did not discuss projection for the anticipated actual brokerage fee during any such discussions with the EDCs. The EDCs stated their understanding that a typical brokerage fee would be 2 to 3% (two to three percent). BFCP stated that during internal company discussions at BFCP, an appropriate brokerage fee of 10% (ten percent) was suggested. The EDCs and BFCP both stated that any brokerage fee should be structured in a way to motivate the broker to obtain the best value for the RECS (e.g. a percentage of the sale price). Tr. 12/10/08 pp 430-435 and 449-452.

The EDCs proposal stipulated a variety of reporting responsibilities for BFCP. Under the EDCs proposal, BFCP would be required to report to the EDCs on REC sale transaction dates and amounts and the proposal includes the assignment of arbitrary benchmark values for RECs created but not sold within any particular calendar month.

The Department believes that the best option, to ensure that ratepayers receive the benefits of the RECs is for BFCP to transfer 100% of the RECs to the EDCs. The EDCs would then sell the RECs and return up to $6/MWH to BFCP. Since the EDCs will already be obligated to sell RECs generated by other facilities, the Department finds that having the EDCs also sell the RECs generated by BFCP does not create any additional burden for the EDCs nor any unique accounting issues. Since the EDCs already must sell RECs; there is generally no need to use brokers that would only reduce revenues and increase costs to ratepayers. BFCP has agreed that they will not dispute the sales price if RECs sell below $6/MWH. (BFCP Response to LFE-8). This removes one more argument of CL&P’s in opposition to them selling the RECs.

The Department finds BFCP submitted a price modifier that is based on the expected contract price for RECs, and their proposed price modifier did not mention or include any allowance for transaction fees. The Department believes that the RECs from this project should be treated as the RECs from other projects that must be sold by the electric distribution companies. The Department generally does not believe a third party broker is needed to sell the RECs but will allow brokers if it is in the best interest of customers to do so.

In response to LFE 8, the EDCs stated they preferred that BFCP shoulder the responsibility for the registration and sale of all RECs generated by the project. The EDCs expressed concern regarding retention of the RECs. The EDCs indicated they had concerns regarding the “potential for the utilities to influence (either directly or indirectly) the financial health of the project” and that they were concerned regarding the impact this might have “for consolidation under accounting rules” if the EDCs were involved in the sale of the BFCP RECs. Response to LFE-8. In written exceptions CL&P indicated that based on a preliminary analysis, the BFCP proposed price multiplier would shift additional project variability to CL&P and therefore could require consolidation of Bridgeport’s financial statements into those of CL&P.

The Department does not perceive how the EDCs could be accused or suspected of having the ability to influence or control the market price for RECs, or how the EDCs selling the BFCP RECs differs in any significant way from their obligation under this program to sell RECs generated by the program’s other generating facilities. CL&P could not provide a reasonable explanation why they believed this project is so much riskier than other projects. CL&P has numerous generation contracts for hundreds of megawatts through IPPs, EIA and Project 150, none of which have required consolidation. The nebulous accounting concerns of the EDCs with regard to the sale of BFCP RECs appear to the Department to be unfounded. The sale price of all RECs is uncertain. This uncertainty is similar to other projects. However, the EDCs are allowed full recovery of all costs of these projects so that there is no uncertainty of cost recovery regardless of REC prices.

Based on this analysis the Department will require BFCP to transfer 100% of the RECs to the EDCs. The EDCs would then sell the RECs and return up to $6/MWh to BFCP.

It is the Department’s intent to avoid consolidation if possible. The Department therefore will require CL&P to provide an opinion by its outside auditors by June 15, 2009 as to whether the BFCP contract will require consolidation as approved herein. If consolidation is required the Department will allow BFCP to retain the RECs, sell them though a broker and transfer the revenues to the EDCs as indicated in Late File 8.

3. Project Cost Allocation

With regard to project cost allocation between the EDCs, the Department directs that the costs shall be shared in accordance with the cost allocation apportionment between CL&P and UI, using the agreement previously approved by the Department in its Decision in Docket No. 03-07-17RE03.
4. Revisions to EPA Provisions and Pricing Options

Recognizing that further procurement action may be required based on the possibility of project attrition, prior to conducting any future procurement the Department will consider whether certain improvements with respect to the EPA and Pricing Options for non-fuel cell projects should be developed. The Department does not intend for CCEF or others to address changes to Pricing Options for fuel cell projects.

Based on the experience with the Clearview biomass project, the Department believes that project sponsors need to commit more fully to going forward with their projects before they sign and execute an EPA. In addition to the revision to the EPA regarding sharing of data needed by the EDCs to perform accounting analysis discussed above, the Department, therefore, directs that a working group comprised of the CCEF, OCC, CL&P and UI revise the EPA (1) to provide a requirement that projects post performance security which can be used to satisfy damages due to the project’s failure to meet its performance obligations under the EPA; (2) to provide for damages to be paid by projects for non-performance with respect to attaining commercial operation by the in service date specified in the EPA and other appropriate levels of performance specified in the EPA; and (3) any other appropriate revisions designed to assure project performance. The Department believes that such revisions will cause projects that are not fully committed to withdraw from consideration as only those fully committed will post performance security and take the risk of damage payments in the event they fail to perform obligations under the EPA.

With regard to any future procurement needs caused by project attrition, the Department also requests that the working group examine whether the Pricing Options for non-fuel cell projects and price caps should be revised to achieve the following goals; 1) increase participation of other (non-fuel cell) Class 1 projects, 2) ensure that approved projects will be able to obtain financing and 3) assure that the price charged to consumers is not more than is reasonably necessary to assure projects obtain financing and to enable the project to earn a reasonable return on its investment.

With respect to the EPA and Pricing Option issues discussed above, these working groups will submit for the Department’s consideration prior to any future procurement solicitation compliance filings reporting any consensus recommendations as well as various options for any issues for which a consensus recommendation was not achieved.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDERS

A. CONCLUSION

The Department has considered the overall evaluation and recommendations of the CCEF, the ratepayer impact analysis conducted by CCEF, the EDCs and the OCC and the reliability of the projects in our determination of which projects to select for an EPA. The Department finds that all seven of the projects, including the five initially recommended by CCEF satisfy the seven statutory requirements of Conn. Gen Stat. § 16-244c(j)(2) enumerated in the Decision herein. Based on the requirements of the enabling legislation, the Department therefore selects the five projects recommended by CCEF to receive EPA contracts, providing a total of 27.3 MW, subject to the modifications and Orders set forth in the Decision herein. In particular, these projects must agree to reduce their price to reflect the full ITC as a precondition to the Department approving EPAs for the projects and to an equitable distribution to ratepayers of any additional government funded economic incentive that may become available by applying sixty-five percent (65%) of the gross funding secured to reducing ratepayer costs. The procurement in Round 3 results in an overall total of approximately 153 MW authorized under Project 150.






B. ORDERS

1. Selected projects and Fuel Cell Energy shall indicate to the Department in writing if they agree to reduce their price to reflect the full ITC credit in their sales agreement to the level in place prior to the change in the ITC within 10 (ten) days of the date of this Decision and shall concurrently submit updated financial information to the EDCs. Selected projects shall also indicate to the Department in writing if they agree to future reductions in price to reflect any value secured by the project(s) under the ARRA based on applying sixty-five percent (65%) of the gross funding secured to reducing ratepayer costs and to report annually to the Department by January 1 each year any funding so received.

2. For projects that agree to adjust their price in response to Order 1 above, CL&P and UI shall file with the Department executed contracts that conform to rulings in this Decision with selected projects within 60 (sixty) days of the date of Departmental approval of the pricing reductions in response to Order 1 above.

3. CL&P and UI shall collaborate with CCEF and OCC to revise the EPA for any future project(s) which may be considered in any subsequent round(s) to the Department’s review of long term renewable contracts (1) to provide a requirement that projects post performance security which can be used to satisfy damages due to the project’s failure to meet its performance obligations under the EPA; (2) to provide for damages to be paid by projects for non-performance with respect to attaining commercial operation by the in service date specified in the EPA and other appropriate levels of performance specified in the EPA; and (3) any other appropriate revisions designed to assure project performance and examine whether the Pricing Options for non-fuel cell projects and price caps should be revised.

4. CL&P shall provide an opinion by its outside auditors by June 15, 2009 as to whether the BFCP contract, as approved herein, will require consolidation.














08-03-03 Attachment A

Status Business Representing
Participant Robert Babcock
President
Elemental Power
304 Park Avenue South
11th Floor
New York, NY 10010
Participant Michael Coretto
The United Illuminating Company
157 Church Street
P.O. Box 1564
New Haven, CT 06506-0901 UI
Participant Paul A. Horowitz
PAH Associates
9 Quorn Hunt Road
West Simsbury, CT 06092 OCC
Participant Janet L. Janczewski
Senior Corporate Counsel & Secretary
The Southern Connecticut Gas Company and Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation
60 Marsh Hill Road
Orange, CT 06477 The Southern Connecticut Gas Company and Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation
Participant Frederic L. Klein
Pullman & Comley, LLC
90 State House Square
Hartford, CT 06103
Participant Howard Lubow
Overland Consulting
11551 Ash Street
Suite 215
Leawood, KS 66211 Overland Consulting
Participant Mr. Paul Michaud
Director Regulatory Policy Planning Managing Counsel
Connecticut Clean Energy Fund
200 Corporate Place
Rocky Hill, CT 06067 Connecticut Clean Energy Fund
Participant Joey Lee Miranda
Robinson & Cole
280 Trumbull Street
Hartford, CT 06103-3597 DFC ERG CT, LLC/ Bridgeport Fuel Cell Park, LLC/ FuelCell Energy, Inc.
Participant Janet R. Palmer
Manager-Regulatory Policy-CT
Northeast Utilities Service Company
P.O.Box 270
Hartford, Ct 06141-0270 CL&P
Participant James S. Potter
President
Clearview Power, LLC
163 North Shore Road
Hampton, NH 03842 Clearview Power, LLC
Participant James S. Potter
President
Clearview Power, LLC
163 North Shore Road
Hampton, NH 03842 Versailles Renewable Energy, LLC
Participant Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esq.
OCC
Ten Franklin Square
New Britain, CT 06051 OCC
Participant Derek K. Rudd
TEN Companies, Inc.
60 Columbus Blvd.
Hartford, CT 06103 TEN Companies, Inc.
Participant Richard Shaw
Bridgeport Fuel Cell Park
c/o FuelCell Energy, Inc.
3 Great Pasture Road
Danbury, CT 06813-1305 Bridgeport Fuel Cell Park
Participant Andrew Skok
DFC ERG CT, LLC
3 Great Pasture Road
Danbury, CT 06813 DFC ERG CT, LLC
Participant Michael C. Wertheimer, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
10 Franklin Square
New Britain, CT 06051 AG
Participant Frank Wolak
FuelCell Energy, Inc.
3 Great Pasture Road
Danbury, CT 06813-1305 FuelCell Energy, Inc.

DOCKET NO. 08-03-03
DPUC REVIEW OF LONG-TERM RENEWABLE CONTRACTS - ROUND 3 RESULTS


This Decision is adopted by the following Commissioners:




Anthony J. Palermino


John W. Betkoski, III


Donald W. Downes








CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Decision issued by the Department of Public Utility Control, State of Connecticut, and was forwarded by Certified Mail to all parties of record in this proceeding on the date indicated.







April 8, 2009
Kimberley J. Santopietro Date
Executive Secretary
Department of Public Utility Control

[Wildschwein]

Da sollen wohl einige Projekte alleine in diesem Bundesstaat angeleiert werden,
und Fuel Cell scheint laut diesem Dokument (letztes Posting) irgendwie involviert zu sein:

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECTS

1. Bridgeport Fuel Cell Park Project

The proposed Bridgeport Fuel Cell Park, LLC project (Bridgeport or BFCP) is a 15 MW maximum capacity project with five Direct Fuel Cell (DFC3000) power plants that convert natural gas into electricity and generate heat that can be used to provide heating and cooling. The project would be sited at a vacant brownfield owned by the City of Bridgeport, located in Southwest Connecticut. The project has been authorized for a grant from CCEF of $1,550,000. Project features include; Fuel Cell/Organic Rankine Cycle energy system, Natural gas supplied by SCG adjacent to project site, 5 Fuel Cell Energy power plants supplemented by 930 kilowatt (kW) of output from Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC). The project uses pricing option 6a.

2. DFC-ERG Trumbull Project

The proposed DFC-ERG Trumbull Project (Trumbull) consists of a combined fuel cell/turbo expander energy system direct fuel cell energy recovery generation (DFC-ERG) system. SCG is the gas supplier. Maximum capacity is 3.4 MW and the project has been authorized for a grant from CCEF of $50,000. Alternate pricing proposal is pricing option 6a, using a price modifier that would reduce project cost by $3/MWh.

3. DFC-ERG Bloomfield Project

The proposed DFC-ERG Bloomfield Project (Bloomfield) consists of a combined fuel cell/turbo expander energy system DFC-ERG. CNG is the gas supplier. Maximum capacity is 3.65 MW and the project has been authorized for a grant from CCEF of $50,000. Alternate pricing proposal is pricing option 6a, using a price modifier that would reduce project cost by $3/MWh.

4. DFC-ERG Glastonbury Project

The proposed DFC-ERG Glastonbury Project (Glastonbury) consists of a combined fuel cell/turbo expander energy system DFC-ERG. CNG is the gas supplier. Maximum capacity is 3.4 MW and the project has been authorized for a grant from CCEF of $50,000. Alternate pricing proposal is pricing option 6a, using a price modifier that would reduce project cost by $3/MWh.

5. Cube Fuel Cell Project
The proposed Cube Fuel Cell Project (Cube), developed by EPG Fuel Cell, LLC (EPG), is a 3.36 MW maximum capacity project that would use a FCE DFC3000. The project utilizes an unfired gas turbine. The project would be installed in Danbury, Connecticut and has been authorized for a grant from CCEF of $3,000,000.





6. Triangle Fuel Cell Project
The proposed Triangle Fuel Cell Project (Triangle), developed by EPG, is a 15.1 MW maximum capacity project that would use several FCE DFC3000 units, each with a net maximum output of 2.5 MW of electricity. The project has a nominal grant designation from CCEF of $3,000,000.

7. Hartford Fuel Cell Project
The proposed Hartford Fuel Cell Project (Hartford), developed by TEN Companies is a 2.7 MW maximum capacity project that would use a FCE DFC3000. The project would be installed in Hartford, Connecticut. The project has a nominal grant designation from CCEF of $50,000.

[Gangbangotto2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 36.944.712 von Wildschwein am 08.04.09 20:43:39

Schon mal die Fundamentals angeschaut ??

Laut yahoo finance:

Umsatz: 107,44 Mio USD
Net Loss: 97,57 Mio USD
Levered Free Cash Flow: -62,33 Mio USd
Cash: 43,57 Mio USD

Fazit: Ein halbes Jahr noch, dann wird massiv Kapital benötigt. Das Teil steht nicht umsonst rund 96 % unter Allzeithoch, Zockerei um ein paar Prozente natürlich jederzeit möglich.....

[Wildschwein]

Das problem mit dem Cash hat Ballard ja auch. das ist eben so, wenn Unternehmen seit einer decade entwickeln und nichts verkaufen.
Aber die großen Wasserstoffentwickler wie Ballard, fuelcell etc. sind die einzigen industriellen technologieträger für fuel cells auf unserem Globus. Ballard musste auch die Aktien massiv verwässern, aber da sehe ich in dieser Branche nicht das Problem. Das liegt in der Natur der Sache. Wenn früher oder später die Technologie vom Markt oder der Politik angenommen wird, dann haben die jetzigen Big Player der Wasserstoffbranche natürlich ´bessere Chancen als kleine Startups ohne Erfahrung.
Ich nehme an, das die USA auch versuchen wird vermehrt heimische Firmen zu beauftragen und zu fördern. Jetzt hat die US Regierung ja auch den Klimawandel begriffen und muss in Verbindung mit der Wirtschaftskriese neue Weichen stellen.

[Wildschwein]

Es könnte sein, dass das Umfeld für Beteilligungen in der Wasserstofftechnologie zur Zeit recht günstig ist.

Es ist einfach unglaublich, zur Zeit könnte man warscheinlich mit einem Bruchteil der total sinnlosen Abwrackprämie die gesamte Wassertofftechnologie der Welt aufkaufen.

Das wäre mal ein Coup einer Bundesregierung!

[Peederwoogn2]

moin wildschwein


gerade thread auf gemacht und schnell 10 beiträge reingeballert das schon wiedr ein push


wo ist den dein letzter push thread hin seit heute morgen verschwunden

[Wildschwein]

moin

wie kann man denn fuelcell pushen?
und gestern der Wert war auch 100% US dominiert be dem gigantischen Umsätzen dort.


Das sind alles Umsätze die können aus D nicht beeinflusst werden.
Vor einigen Wochen hatte ich auch auf Ballard aufmerksam gemacht, ist ja auch wirklich gut gelaufen. Ich halte es eben für möglich, dass nun das fuelcell nachzieht wenn keine fundamental schlechten Meldungen kommen.
Da denen das Cash ausgeht müssen sie sich ja nach neuen Partner umsehen, das gibt vielleicht dann auch noch Auftrieb. Natürlich reine Spekuation, aber dafür sind wir ja alle hier.

[Wildschwein]

das der thread weg ist, ist mir auch aufgefallen,
eigendlich schade, da ich auch noch drin bin und dortt waren ja die ganzen Infos zusammengestellt.
Habn aber keine Lust das nun nochmal zu tun.

[Wildschwein]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 36.948.695 von Wildschwein am 09.04.09 13:10:19

DIRECT COMPETITOR COMPARISON

FCEL BLDP ENER PLUG Industry
Market Cap: 180.82M 158.50M 636.47M 120.41M 140.43M
Employees: 534 N/A 1,768 N/A 1.18K
Qtrly Rev Growth (yoy): 44.60% -5.80% 82.70% 3.50% 24.90%
Revenue (ttm): 107.44M 59.58M 351.24M 17.90M 184.17M
Gross Margin (ttm): -46.52% -41.95% 33.99% -71.23% 27.54%
EBITDA (ttm): -84.30M -43.08M 77.20M -67.68M 19.55M
Oper Margins (ttm): -86.66% -85.77% 13.93% -415.08% 3.32%
Net Income (ttm): -97.57M 34.08M 43.75M -121.70M N/A
EPS (ttm): -1.420 0.397 1.026 -1.362 0.15
P/E (ttm): N/A 4.86 13.56 N/A 8.56
PEG (5 yr expected): N/A N/A 0.52 N/A 1.01
P/S (ttm): 1.68 2.66 1.81 6.73 0.62

[Wildschwein]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 36.948.695 von Wildschwein am 09.04.09 13:10:19

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/co?s=FCEL

[Wildschwein]

(Printer friendly version) Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control Issues Final Decision Approving 27.3 Megawatts of Projects Using FuelCell Energy Power Plants Projects Help Connecticut Reach Its Clean and Renewable Goals for Power Generation

Trendwende?

DANBURY, Conn., Apr 9, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) -- FuelCell Energy, Inc. (Nasdaq: FCEL), a leading manufacturer of high efficiency, ultra-clean power plants using renewable and other fuels for commercial, industrial, government and utility customers, today announced that the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC) issued its final decision approving 27.3 megawatts (MW) of projects incorporating the company's highly efficient Direct FuelCell(r) (DFC(r)) power plants. The sales value of the projects will be $84 million when project developers finalize electricity purchase agreements and project financing.

The approved projects include nine FuelCell Energy DFC3000 power plants: 3.4 MW DFC-ERG for a natural gas letdown station in Bloomfield, Conn.; 3.2 MW Direct FuelCell/Turbine (DFC/T) for a substation in Danbury, Conn.; 14.3 MW DFC3000 in Bridgeport, Conn.; 3.2 MW DFC-ERG in Trumbull, Conn.; and 3.2 MW DFC-ERG in Glastonbury, Conn. The Connecticut Clean Energy (CCEF) Fund recommended the five projects under Round 3 of Project 150, which requires Connecticut utilities to enter into Energy Purchase Agreements for 150 MW of clean power. With this latest approval, the DPUC will have approved 153 MW of projects including 43.5 MW of FuelCell Energy power plants.

"The DFC-ERG and DFC/T power plants achieve approximately 60 percent electrical efficiency -- the highest electrical efficiency of any available distributed generation technology," said R. Daniel Brdar, Chairman and CEO of FuelCell Energy. "This efficiency results in low carbon emissions because less fuel is used to produce electricity. And because our power plants do not combust fuel, our customers also benefit from near-zero emissions of NOX, SOX and particulate matter."

Distributed generation fuel cells locate the power generation where it's needed, adding 24/7, baseload power to the existing transmission and distribution network. Because the installations are smaller than typical central generation power plants, they are easier to site, permit, and finance. Central generation plants are larger, take significantly longer to permit and construct, and have higher emissions. Additionally, they often require new, controversial transmission and distribution lines to deliver the power to where it is needed. DFC power plants can be deployed in approximately one year and require no new transmission and distribution investment.

Connecticut is one of 28 states and Washington D.C. that have Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS). Under Connecticut's RPS, utilities are required to purchase 27 percent or approximately 1,000 MW of their power from clean energy sources by 2020. Fuel cells are an ideal part of the clean energy solution for RPS states because they provide reliable baseload power 24 hours a day, with near-zero emissions and low CO2.

About FuelCell Energy

FuelCell Energy is the world leader in the development and production of stationary fuel cells for commercial, industrial, municipal and utility customers. FuelCell Energy's ultra-clean and high efficiency DFC(r) fuel cells are generating power at over 50 locations worldwide. The company's power plants have generated more than 275 million kWh of power using a variety of fuels including renewable wastewater gas, biogas from beer and food processing, as well as natural gas and other hydrocarbon fuels. FuelCell Energy has partnerships with major power plant developers and power companies around the world. The company also receives funding from the U.S. Department of Energy and other government agencies for the development of leading edge technologies such as fuel cells. For more information please visit our website at www.fuelcellenergy.com

This news release contains forward-looking statements, including statements regarding the Company's plans and expectations regarding the continuing development and commercialization of its fuel cell technology. All forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Factors that could cause such a difference include, without limitation, general risks associated with product development, manufacturing, changes in the utility regulatory environment, potential volatility of energy prices, rapid technological change, competition, and the Company's ability to achieve its sales plans and cost reduction targets, as well as other risks set forth in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The forward-looking statements contained herein speak only as of the date of this press release. The Company expressly disclaims any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any such statement to reflect any change in the Company's expectations or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based.

Direct FuelCell, DFC, DFC/T and FuelCell Energy, Inc. are all registered trademarks of FuelCell Energy, Inc. DFC-ERG is a trademark jointly owned by Enbridge, Inc. and FuelCell Energy, Inc.

This news release was distributed by GlobeNewswire, www.globenewswire.com

SOURCE: FuelCell Energy, Inc.

By Staff
CONTACT: FuelCell Energy, Inc.
Lisa Lettieri
[phone]
[e-mail]


(C) Copyright 2009 GlobeNewswire, Inc. All rights reserved.

**********************************************************************

As of Sunday, 04-05-2009 23:59, the latest Comtex SmarTrend? Alert,
an automated pattern recognition system, indicated an UPTREND on
11-28-2008 for FCEL @ $4.21.

For more information on SmarTrend, contact your market data
provider or go to www.mysmartrend.com

SmarTrend is a registered trademark of Comtex News Network, Inc.
Copyright ? 2004-2009 Comtex News Network, Inc. All rights reserved.


INDUSTRY KEYWORD: Energy Industries
SUBJECT CODE: ENERGY
UTILITIES
Product Services Announcement
Government News

[Wildschwein]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 36.950.266 von Wildschwein am 09.04.09 15:54:03

+10 % nicht schlecht für die erste knappe h

[Wildschwein]

ich korrigiere:

müssten jetzt 13% oder so sein

[Wildschwein]

http://chart4.onvista.de/i_kl.html?PREV_CLOSE=1&ID_NOTATION=…

[Wildschwein]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 36.948.470 von Peederwoogn2 am 09.04.09 12:37:24

von wegen \"Push\", der Wert ist viel zu groß für einen Push. Ich würde es eher als Wildschweinnasenfund bezeichnen. Man soll sich ja nicht selbst loben, aber wenn stets versucht wird die Beiträge ins Lächerliche zu ziehen, gehen manche Entwicklungen dann doch runter wie Butter.

Am 9.4. bei USD 2.50, heute 5.5. bei USD 3.40. Mein Thread scheint sich im Alltimelow eröffnet zu haben.

Nichts für Ungut, werde mich nicht weiter loben.

Aber viel interessanter ist, was ist der kurzfristige Hintergrund für die positive Entwicklung? Langfristig, klar, Mittelfristig-eventuell der Start ins Wasserstoffzeitalter, kurzfristig weiss ich nicht, stehen News an oder sowas, oder einfach nur der Nachzug zu Ballard?

[Wildschwein]

http://quotes.freerealtime.com/rt/frt/N?symbol=FCEL&art=C200…

AnalystChoice.com Brings You the Best Complimentary Research Report on WYNN, ADSK, HLIT and FCEL NOTE TO EDITORS: The Following Is an Investment Opinion Being Issued by AnalystChoice.com (AC).

NEW DELHI, INDIA, Jun 12, 2009 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- Analyst Choice has combined some of the best financial and technical minds worldwide to bring you an array of free quality equity research and reporting. Today we have begun in-depth reporting on our website evaluating the current market condition of Wynn Resorts Ltd. (NASDAQ: WYNN), Autodesk Inc. (NASDAQ: ADSK), Harmonic Inc (NASDAQ: HLIT) and FuelCell Energy Inc. (NASDAQ: FCEL) While the world economy undergoes enormous pressure and unprecedented actions are been taken to avoid the worst and boost the shrinking global economic growth, our analysts brings you a bird's eye view of how the big players in the different key sectors and industries of the NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX and TSX are coping. Sign up now by visiting the following link and receive free access to the CFA reports listed in this release.

http://www.analystchoice.com/?id=6&name=Register
Our research and reporting style takes you closer to the basics and allows you to understand the company's lifecycle on a peer-to-peer and company-to-industry level.

By opting to register for our free membership on http://www.analystchoice.com/?id=6&name=Register, you will have access to these reports & opinions. You can expect to have a brief analysis on the different key aspects of these companies, that is:

-- Corporate Analysis
-- Financial Reporting
-- Sector & Industry Scrutiny
-- Buy, Hold, Sell Opinion
-- Technical Summary


We offer you proper technical guidance on your investment strategies; you simply
have to contact us for general inquiries on [e-mail] or for
support on [e-mail]

AnalystChoice.com is an independent financial research portal and as such has
not received any compensation by any of the above mentioned companies.

SOURCE: AC Financial



Copyright 2009 Marketwire, All rights reserved.



**********************************************************************

As of Monday, 06-08-2009 23:59, the latest Comtex SmarTrend? Alert,
an automated pattern recognition system, indicated an UPTREND on
11-28-2008 for FCEL @ $4.21.

For more information on SmarTrend, contact your market data
provider or go to www.mysmartrend.com

SmarTrend is a registered trademark of Comtex News Network, Inc.
Copyright ? 2004-2009 Comtex News Network, Inc. All rights reserved.


SUBJECT CODE: Financial Services:Investment Opinion
Business/Finance: General:Investment Opinion

[Wildschwein]

http://quotes.freerealtime.com/rt/frt/N?symbol=FCEL&art=C200…

(Printer friendly version) xtremepicks.com: FuelCell Energy, Inc. (Nasdaq:FCEL) Xtreme picks of the day!

Jun 22, 2009 (M2 PRESSWIRE via COMTEX) -- The team at Xtremepicks.com scans the US and Canadian markets looking for microcap companies which show promise and have unique niches and opportunities. We look at all sectors to provide investors with the best investment opportunities in search of the next multi-bagger. Join Now!

Today's news alerts include: FuelCell Energy Announces Closing of $24.2 Million Registered Direct Offering

6.7 Million Shares Issued At $3.59 Per Share

DANBURY, Conn., Jun 19, 2009 -- FuelCell Energy, Inc. (Nasdaq: FCEL) announced today that it closed its previously announced sale of approximately 6.7 million shares of its common stock at $3.59 per share in a registered direct offering. Net proceeds to the Company from the offering, after payment of placement agent fees and offering expenses, were approximately $22.5 million.

FuelCell Energy intends to use the net proceeds from this offering for product development, project financing, expansion of manufacturing capacity, and general corporate purposes. Canaccord Adams Inc. and Lazard Capital Markets LLC acted as placement agents for the offering.

A shelf registration statement relating to these securities previously was filed and declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission. A prospectus supplement related to the offering was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. This press release does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of offers to buy any security and shall not constitute an offer, solicitation, or sale of any security in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation, or sale would be unlawful. A copy of the base prospectus and prospectus supplement can be obtained at the Securities and Exchange Commission's website http://www.sec.gov or via written request to FuelCell Energy at 3 Great Pasture Road, Danbury, CT 06813, Attention Investor Relations.

About FuelCell Energy, Inc.

FuelCell Energy is the world leader in the development and production of stationary fuel cells for commercial, industrial, municipal and utility customers. FuelCell Energy's ultra-clean and high efficiency DFC(r) fuel cells are generating power at over 50 locations worldwide. The company's power plants have generated over 315 million kWh of power using a variety of fuels including renewable wastewater gas, biogas from beer and food processing, as well as natural gas and other hydrocarbon fuels. FuelCell Energy has partnerships with major power plant developers and power companies around the world. The company also receives funding from the U.S. Department of Energy and other government agencies for the development of leading edge technologies such as fuel cells. For more information please visit our website at www.fuelcellenergy.com

This news release contains forward-looking statements, including statements regarding the Company's plans and expectations regarding the continuing development and commercialization of its fuel cell technology. All forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Factors that could cause such a difference include, without limitation, general risks associated with product development, manufacturing, changes in the utility regulatory environment, potential volatility of energy prices, rapid technological change, competition, and the Company's ability to achieve its sales plans and cost reduction targets, as well as other risks set forth in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The forward-looking statements contained herein speak only as of the date of this press release. The Company expressly disclaims any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any such statement to reflect any change in the Company's expectations or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based.

Direct FuelCell, DFC, DFC/T and FuelCell Energy, Inc. are all registered trademarks of FuelCell Energy, Inc. DFC-ERG is a registered trademark jointly owned by Enbridge, Inc. and FuelCell Energy, Inc.

About Xtremepicks.com

Xtremepicks.com team of excellence strives to find undervalued, good momentum stock plays. We provide financial and investor relations services for small to mid-cap stocks with weekly and special newsletters to keep you informed of the latest movers. Unlike other sites, we explore, research, and understand all aspects of a company. We only recommend companies we feel has the potential for future higher valuations. Our seasoned research team is always looking for the next Xtreme Pick to send to you.

Xtremepicks.com is a leading stock website that provides free daily alerts on stocks that are moving up. xtremepicks.com also tracks small cap stocks that are on the brink of exploding. We also feature companies on our website with research report, analysis, and newsletters. To feature a company on our web site please contact us at [e-mail]

Xtremepicks.com is an independent electronic publication that provides information on selected publicly traded companies. xtremepicks.com is not a registered investment advisor or broker-dealer. Xtremepicks.com affiliates, officers, directors and employees may buy and sell additional shares in any company mentioned herein and may profit in the event those shares rise in value. Please do your own Due Diligence before investing in any of the stocks mentioned above.

CONTACT: Xtremepicks.com e-mail: [e-mail] WWW: http://www.Xtremepicks.com

((M2 Communications disclaims all liability for information provided within M2 PressWIRE. Data supplied by named party/parties. Further information on M2 PressWIRE can be obtained at http://www.presswire.net on the world wide web Inquiries to [e-mail].


(C)1994-2009 M2 COMMUNICATIONS

**********************************************************************

As of Thursday, 06-18-2009 23:59, the latest Comtex SmarTrend? Alert,
an automated pattern recognition system, indicated an UPTREND on
11-28-2008 for FCEL @ $4.21.

For more information on SmarTrend, contact your market data
provider or go to www.mysmartrend.com

SmarTrend is a registered trademark of Comtex News Network, Inc.
Copyright ? 2004-2009 Comtex News Network, Inc. All rights reserved.

[GueldnerG45S]

Ballarad über 28% plus--was ist da los

Wer weiß was

[newefra]

California Wastewater Treatment Facility Expands Its FuelCell Energy Power Plant to Generate 1.0 Megawatt of Green Electricity

Combined Heat and Power Efficiency and Near-Zero Emissions Meet City of Tulare's Need for Cost Savings and Clean Power

DANBURY, Conn., Dec. 8, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- FuelCell Energy, Inc. (Nasdaq:FCEL), a leading manufacturer of high efficiency ultra-clean power plants using renewable and other fuels for commercial, industrial, government, and utility customers, today announced the sale of a fourth DFC300 fuel cell unit to the City of Tulare, Calif. to expand the municipality's existing fuel cell power plant to 1.0 megawatt (MW) and increase the amount of green electricity produced at the regional wastewater treatment facility.

With this expansion of its on-site Direct FuelCell(R) (DFC(R)) power plant, Tulare will generate more than 40 percent of the electricity needed to run its water treatment operation. The City of Tulare wastewater treatment facility serves a population of 58,000, processing 12.5 million gallons per day of sewage from domestic households and commercial sources of water discharge, including waste from the region's seven large dairy-processing enterprises.

The San Joaquin Valley region has a myriad of challenges to improving local air quality because the City of Tulare is growing at more than double the rate of California's state-wide average. Fuel cells help address air quality concerns because they do not burn fuel, instead processing it electro-chemically to transform it into electricity, with near-zero emissions of NOX, SOX and particulate matter.

Additionally, heat is created in the process, which the system captures and applies to Tulare's wastewater treatment process. This combined heat and power system can deliver an overall efficiency of up to 90 percent, which results in low CO2 emissions and reduces the wastewater plant's overall electricity costs.

"The combined heat and power capability of FuelCell Energy's power plant has been ideal for us," said Lew Nelson, Tulare's Director of Public Works. "The fuel cells generate clean electricity and heat that we use in our anaerobic digester, making this system the most efficient and cost-effective for our needs."

Because these DFC power plants operate on methane, a renewable byproduct of wastewater processing, they eliminate the air pollution that normally would result from releasing the biogas to the atmosphere or flaring it.

"Tulare's wastewater facility is a perfect application for our products," said R. Daniel Brdar, Chairman and CEO of FuelCell Energy. "Wastewater facilities produce methane -- a gas that is over 20 times more harmful than carbon dioxide. Instead of releasing the methane to the atmosphere or flaring it, wastewater facilities use that gas in our power plants to cleanly and economically produce electricity and heat."

Tulare's success in applying this approach to wastewater treatment was honored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with its Clean Air Excellence Award earlier this year. Under the EPA'sGreen Power Partnership program, Tulare was named to the Top 20 List of the agency's "partners generating and consuming the most green power on-site."

[GueldnerG45S]

Hat BMW die Brennstoffzelle von Ballard power

Dienstag, 08. Dezember 2009

Auslaufmodell Wasserstoffantrieb
BMW stellt Testflotte ein

Angesichts des Trends zu Elektro- und Hybridautos schwindet bei BMW die Hoffnung auf einen Durchbruch des Wasserstoff-Motors.


BMW trittt beim Praxis-Einsatz von wasserstoffbetriebenen Fahrzeugen auf die Bremse.
(Foto: AP)


"Es wird vorerst keine neue Wasserstoff-Testflotte geben", sagte Entwicklungsvorstand Klaus Draeger dem "Handelsblatt". "Wir arbeiten aber weiter an der Option." Geforscht wird nach Angaben eines Sprechers noch an Speicherung und Verbrennung des Wasserstoffs. Das Ende des Praxistests dürfte BMW sparen helfen, denn die Forschung an mehreren alternativen Antriebsformen verschlingt immense Summen.

BMW-Chef Norbert Reithofer hatte zuletzt deutlich gemacht, dass Autos mit Wasserstoff-Verbrennungsmotor, aus deren Auspuff nur Wasserdampf kommt, nicht vor 2030 vorstellbar seien - weitaus später als erhofft. Als einen Grund nennen die Münchner die fehlende Infrastruktur. Andere Hersteller sind in die Erforschung der Technologie entweder nicht eingestiegen oder haben ihr bereits den Rücken gekehrt.

BMW forscht nach eigenen Angaben seit rund 30 Jahren an dem alternativen Antrieb und stellte 1992 ein erstes Wasserstoff-Fahrzeug her. Seit 2006 testen Prominente aus aller Welt 100 Limousinen der 7er-Reihe mit einem Motor, der reinen Wasserstoff verbrennt. Wie der Sprecher sagte, sind noch rund 20 dieser Testwagen im Einsatz, etwa beim Weltklimagipfel in Kopenhagen. Sie sollen aber im Laufe der nächsten Monate aus dem Verkehr gezogen werden.

rts

http://www.n-tv.de/auto/meldungen/BMW-stellt-Testflotte-ein-…

[spiritrob]

güldner, du weißt doch sicher, dass bmw keine
brennstoffzellen eingebaut hat. im artikel steht
ja auch was vom wasserstoff-verbrennungs-motor.

aber im ernst. ich find gut, dass sie davon abstand
nehmen. mir scheint somit doch die entwicklung auf
die brennstoffzelle hinauszulaufen.

schönen tag

[newefra]

heute kommt mal etwas Leben in FCEL - und ich wieder in den grünen Bereich

FuelCell Energy Inc. ist über seinen gleitenden Durchschnitt geklettert


(RTTNews) - die Aktien von FuelCell Energy Inc. (FCEL) sind heute morgen mit einem Gap gestiegen um im weiteren Handel weiter zu steigen. Der Titel notiert z.Z. um 0,44 bei $3,60.

FuelCell Energy Inc. ist auf über ein ein und einhalb Monatshoch gestiegen und hat seine 50 und 200 Tagesmittel nach oben durchbrochen

newefra

[spiritrob]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 38.642.178 von newefra am 29.12.09 16:02:42

ja wow!
was ist denn heute los bei den brennstoffzellen?

freut mich natürlich der sprung,
aber vom grünen bereich träume ich derzeit noch heftig

[newefra]

das ist der Grund für den heutigen Anstieg.


FuelCell Energie (FCEL Zitat) gehört zu einer Handvoll Brennstoffzellenfirmen, die Dienstag auf überdurchschnittlichem Volumen sammeln, weil die Industrie die Bundesregierung ersucht, Brennstoffzellen unter „grünen“ Technologien einzuordnen.

FuelCell Energieaktien stiegen 14,2% bis $3,61, sprang PLUG-IN-Power 9,6% bis 77 Cents und Ballard (BLDP Z) gewann 3,9% bis $1,88 während der Dienstag Sitzung

Die Rallye kommt, nachdem ein Artikel im Washington Times Dienstag das großen Schwierigkeiten der Brennstoffzellenhersteller im inländischen Markt aufzeigte, wenn der Kongreß nicht Produktion und Gebrauch in den US fördert. Die stationären Brennstoffzellen, die von den Firmen wie FuelCell Energie produziert werden, sind Generatoren vor Ort, die Energie mit fast keinen Schadstoffen produzieren.
Der Artikel bemerkte, dass Nachfrage nach den Brennstoffzellen in Japan und in Südkorea weit die inländische Versorgung überflügelt, da ausländische Regierungen Steuervergünstigungen oder Beihilfe den Firmen zur Verfügung stellen, die die stationären Brennstoffzellen importieren und verwenden.
„Wir benötigen eine Gesetzgebung mit Bestimmungen die Entwicklung der Brennstoffzellen zu fördern,“ Pflege Bill, Vizepräsident der Regierungsgeschäftlichen Entwicklung für FuelCell Energie, sagten der Zeitung. Foster fügte hinzu, dass FuelCell Energie mit Kongreß arbeitet um besondere Aufmerksamkeit in den bevorstehenden Sitzunge.
Mehr als 2,25 Million Aktien FuelCell Energie wechselten Hände bis 10:30 a.m. EST, verglichen mit dem gleitenden 50 Tagesmittel von 670.000 Anteilen. Die Firma hat ein 75,11 Millionanteil Float mit einem Float des Shorts von 9,4% 30. November, entsprechend Yahoo!
. Insider halten 23% der Anteile der Firma, während weitere 67,1% von Institutionen gehalten werden.

[newefra]

Shares of FuelCell Energy ($3.67, +$0.51, +16.14%) and Plug Power Inc. (PLUG, $0.77, +$0.06, +8.45%) jumped Tuesday on hopes the alternative-energy companies may gain government support for their technology.

Quelle: Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091229-706150.html

newefra

[newefra]

Hallo und alles Gute zum Neuen Jahr

von $ 3,16 auf $ 3,76 in einer Woche !

niemand mehr dabei?
noch beeindruckender als der Kursanstieg war das Volumen der letzten beiden Tage.
Meiner Einschätzung nach wird sich die Unterstützung der US-Regierung für die Branche in der nächsten Zeit konkretisieren.
Ich jedenfalls werde bei einem Rücksetzer nochmals nachlegen.

newefra

[newefra]

und schwuppdiwupp die 4$ übersprungen

war nix mit Rücksetzer zum Nachkauf


newefra

[newefra]

es gibt mal wieder etwas zu vermelden und zwar eine neue Personalie

newefra


PRESS RELEASE: FuelCell Energy Taps Energy Industry Executive to Lead Firm's Global Commercial Development
09.02.10 14:30:35- DJP

DANBURY, Conn., Feb. 9, 2010 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- FuelCell Energy, Inc. (Nasdaq:FCEL), a leading manufacturer of high efficiency ultra-clean power plants using renewable and other fuels for commercial, industrial, government and utility customers, today announced the appointment of Chip Bottone as Senior Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer.
His focus at FuelCell Energy is to accelerate profitable revenue growth by capitalizing on heightened demand by the world's industrialized and emerging nations for clean, alternative forms of energy generation -- a need well-matched by the company's Direct FuelCell(R) (DFC(R)) power plants. He is also responsible for developing and implementing strategies to further expand
the company's market opportunities and growth potential.
Bottone's qualifications include 25 years of experience at Ingersoll Rand Company, the diversified multi-national industrial concern where he held a series of roles culminating in President of the Energy Systems division. There he built a global alternative energy business providing distributed energy and
environmental solutions for customers in the U.S., China and Europe. He also was a senior executive for the company's Power Generation business and its Portable Power division, among others. During his tenure, he managed business activities with operations in the U.S., the United Kingdom, China, India, the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe and Russia. Throughout his career at Ingersoll Rand, Bottone increased sales and profitability for his areas of responsibility.
"As an executive who brings senior strategic management skills, long-standing customer relationships and deep experience in the energy industry, Chip is ideal for leading our drive to grow the size and pace of our order pipeline," said R. Daniel Brdar, Chairman and CEO of FuelCell Energy. "His record of executing innovative strategies and building businesses will be especially
important in our efforts to develop and capture new markets. We're delighted to have him aboard."
Bottone earned his undergraduate degree in Mechanical Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology, and holds a Certificate of Professional Development from The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.




FuelCell Energie ist der Weltmarktführer in der Entwicklung und in der Produktion der stationären Brennstoffzellen für die Handels-, industriellen, städtischen und Gebrauchskunden. Die ultra-saubere und hohe Leistungsfähigkeit DFC FuelCell Energie (R) erzeugen Brennstoffzellen Macht an über 55 Standorten weltweit. Die Kraftwerke der Firma haben in 400 Million KWH Macht unter Verwendung einer Vielzahl der Brennstoffe einschließlich auswechselbares Abwassergas, Biogas vom Bier und Lebensmittelverarbeitung sowie Erdgas und andere Kohlenwasserstoffbrennstoffe erzeugt. FuelCell Energie hat Partnerschaften mit Haupt-Kraftwerkentwicklern und -Elektrizitätsgesellschaften um die Welt. Die Firma empfängt auch Finanzierung vom US-Energieministerium und von anderen Regierungsagenturen für die Entwicklung der Vorderkantetechnologien wie Brennstoffzellen.
Zu mehr Information besichtigen Sie bitte unsere Website bei www.fuelcellenergy.com.

[newefra]

FuelCell Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: FCEL) hat das 9. höchste Kurspotenzial nach oben in diesem Segment des Marktes. Das Steigerungspotenzial ist 121,0%. Sein Kursziel ist $5,83 basiert auf dem Durchschnitt von allen.

Quelle
http://www.cnanalyst.com/2010/02/top-10-tech-stocks-with-hig…

newefra

[spiritrob]

[newefra]

TORRINGTON — Senator Christopher Dodd will visit Fuel Cell Energy in Torrington to unveil his fuel cell plan to power the creation of new clean energy jobs for Connecticut.

The senator had plans for a January visit, but was delayed in Washington D.C. for business reasons.

Dodd, who recently announced he would not seek re-election later this year, will tour the Fuel Cell Energy building on Technology Park Drive before announcing what his office is touting as a comprehensive strategy to expand the fuel cell industry and bring more green jobs to the area.

The senator’s fuel cell plan aims to jump start Connecticut’s fuel cell industry by increasing the investment tax credit for fuel cells, setting goals for residential use, and providing incentives to manufacturers and consumers to use fuel cells. Dodd will tour the facility with Fuel Cell Energy’s Chief Executive Officer Daniel Brdar.

Bryan DeAngelis, Dodd’s spokesman, said details of the green jobs plan would not be revealed until the actual appearance, but said it would focus mostly on developing fuel cell technologies, making the Torrington company the obvious choice for a venue.

Dodd’s job creation agenda was originally presented at an East Hartford appearance in early December, with much of the plan dependent on embracing new technologies and manufacturing opportunities.

The senator also proposed the creation of business zones dedicated purely to clean energy businesses, such as those that have begun to sprout up in the Torrington area like Fuel Cell and the Optiwind wind turbine company.

Mike Agogliati can be reached by e-mail at [e-mail]


newefra

[newefra]

ein Interview mit dem CEO und ein Bericht über den Besuch des Senators.

newefra

http://www.cleanskies.com/videos/fuelcell-energy-ceo-station…" target="_blank" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">

http://www.cleanskies.com/videos/fuelcell-energy-ceo-station…

http://www.connecticutplus.com/cplus/information/news/News_1…" target="_blank" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">
http://www.connecticutplus.com/cplus/information/news/News_1…


Dodd stellt Brennstoffzellenplan in Torrington vor

Durch das Büro des Senators Dodds

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) war in Torrington, heute, um FuelCell Energie zu besuchen und seinen Planes vorzustellen, um den Gebrauch von Brennstoffzellen in Häusern und Geschäften zu fördern. Dodds Brennstoffzellenplan hat nicht nur das Potenzial, neue Jobs in Connecticut und überall in Amerika zu schaffen, aber auch den Gebrauch einer, sauberen Energiequelle des 21. Jahrhunderts zu fördern.

„Connecticut ist bereits ein Weltmarktführer in der Produktion der Brennstoffzellen, die Verbrauch der Fossilienbrennstoffe verringern, Kohlenstoffemissionen reduzieren, und Energiekosten reduzieren durch den Vorteil am Ort erzeugen, innerhalb der Brennstoffzelleeinheit,“ sagte Dodd, der auf dem Ausflug von FuelCell Energie CEO Daniel Brdar verbunden wurde. „Wir müssen den Markt für diese Energiesparenden Produkte vergrössern. Wenn wir diese Nachfrage schaffen können, können wir neue Jobs und eine neue Industrie schaffen und eine neue Ära von Connecticut-Wohlstand heute schaffen.“

Dodd schlägt einen dreistufigen Plan vor kickstart die Brennstoffzelleindustrie und Connecticut zu unterstützen. Zuerst zielt sie darauf ab, Connecticuts Brennstoffzelleindustrie zu fördern, indem sie unmittelbare Nachfrage nach Brennstoffzellen - und unmittelbare Jobs - indem die Anregung der Bundesregierung aufzugreifen, den Übergang zur sauberen Energie zu führen und in die Gelegenheiten zu investieren, in denen Brennstoffzellen verwendet werden können.

Zweitens erhöht sie die Steuergutschrift für Anschaffung von Anlagegütern für Brennstoffzellen, aufmunternde Geschäfte, um ihre Anlagen mit den hoch-leistungsfähigen, Connecticut-errichteten Systemen zu erhitzen und anzutreiben. Schließlich Dodds stellt Plan ein ehrgeiziges Ziel für den Wohngebrauch von Brennstoffzellen - ein und versieht Hersteller und Verbraucher mit Anreizen, um ihn zu treffen.

[newefra]

FuelCell Energy To Expand Business To Torrington
By MARA LEE The Hartford Courant February 27, 2010

TORRINGTON — - FuelCell Energy has won so much business from Connecticut utilities that it plans to expand its Torrington factory operations, which now employ 220.

Bids won in December 2007 and April 2009 total 44 megawatts of electricity generation, which "would represent a little over a year's worth at current production levels," said CEO R. Daniel Brdar Friday. "It would force us to ramp up our production, including hiring."

There's one catch — the factory hasn't started work on any of the fuel cells, because it doesn't have financing. The company needs to borrow a little more than $200 million to fulfill the orders.

Once those loans are secured, Brdar plans to make the fuel cells over a year or 18 months, at the same time the company continues to build for clients around the world.

The utilities signed contracts to buy energy from the fuel-cell power plants because of a state mandate that utilities buy 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said Friday in a visit to FuelCell Energy that the federal government also should drive demand for fuel cells. In 2005, Congress passed a bill authorizing $100 million in fuel cell purchases by the military and government agencies, but hasn't appropriated the funding for it. Dodd urged his colleagues to do so.

Brdar told a group of employees assembled for Dodd's talk that the company is trying to get financing through a Department of Energy loan program. The program, established in the stimulus bill, helps alternative energy products get financing through banks and from federal funds. FuelCell Energy, headquartered in Danbury, has passed the first application phase, and will submit its next phase in March. By June, Brdar should know if they've been accepted.

The company is also pursuing Wall Street, hoping to find investors to underwrite the project.

The fuel cells manufactured in Torrington can use a variety of fuels — natural gas, methane generated from biological waste, or high-sulfur diesel.

Dodd told the crowd it was a pity all the fuel cells he saw on the floor are headed for power plants in South Korea.

Brdar said 90 percent of the company's backlog of orders will be exported to Asia. It's a good thing that foreign buyers are paying for technology designed and built in Connecticut, he said.

"We're not unhappy with that," he said. "We'd like to have both" domestic and foreign sales

[newefra]

PRESS RELEASE: FuelCell Energy Urges Support for Sen. Dodd's Plan to Spur Broader Use of Fuel Cell Power Plants and Create U.S. Jobs and Manufacturing
01.03.10 22:15:20- DJPN
DANBURY, Conn., March 1, 2010 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- FuelCell Energy, Inc.(Nasdaq:FCEL), a leading manufacturer of high efficiency ultra-clean power plants using renewable and other fuels for commercial, industrial, government
and utility customers, today urged support for a proposal by U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd that would encourage federal agencies and private business to increase their use of fuel cells as a source of electricity. At FuelCell Energy's manufacturing plant in Torrington, Conn., on Friday, Sen. Dodd (D.-Conn.) publicly announced a program to foster an immediate demand for
fuel cell power plants. Building on aspirations set forth in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, the proposal seeks to expand the number of U.S. government facilities powered by this form of clean energy.
The program also seeks to broaden fuel cells' use in the private sector by boosting the investment tax credit (ITC). Currently, when a business purchases a fuel cell for a highly efficient Combined Heat and Power (CHP) application --
where heat naturally generated by the power plant is used in a related,
energy-saving operation -- it is eligible for an ITC of up to 30 percent of the plant's cost (up to $3,000 per kilowatt). The new plan increases the ITC to up to 40 percent of cost (up to $3,500 per kilowatt) for CHP applications.
Many federal facilities are well-suited to the compact, quiet profile that on-site fuel cell power plants represent. Under the Dodd proposal, government agencies would be required to identify qualified locations. FuelCell Energy power plants provide increased power reliability, improved energy security by
distributing smaller power plants, and energy independence by utilizing domestic fuel sources. The resulting demand for fuel cell power plants would be expected to drive U.S. manufacturing and create new jobs.
"The U.S. government is far and away the No. 1 user of energy in the world; no one else even comes close," said R. Daniel Brdar, Chairman and CEO of FuelCell Energy. "A program like this is a chance for the government to lead by example, and put these home-grown technologies to use for creating jobs, building a
market for clean-tech products and sustaining American manufacturing. The positive effects would ripple through our economy for years to come."
About FuelCell Energy
FuelCell Energy is the world leader in the development and production of stationary fuel cells for commercial, industrial, municipal and utility customers. FuelCell Energy's ultra-clean and high efficiency DFC(R) fuel cells are generating power at over 50 locations worldwide. The company's power plants have generated approximately 450 million kWh of power using a variety of fuels
including renewable wastewater gas, biogas from beer and food processing, as well as natural gas and other hydrocarbon fuels. FuelCell Energy has partnerships with major power plant developers and power companies around the world. The company also receives funding from the U.S. Department of Energy and other government agencies for the development of leading edge technologies such
as fuel cells. For more information please visit our website at
www.fuelcellenergy.com.
This news release contains forward-looking statements, including statements regarding the Company's plans and expectations regarding the continuing development and commercialization of its fuel cell technology. All forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Factors that
could cause such a difference include, without limitation, general risks associated with product development, manufacturing, changes in the regulatory environment, customer strategies, potential volatility of energy prices, rapid technological change, competition, and the Company's ability to achieve its sales plans and cost reduction targets, as well as other risks set forth in the
Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The
forward-looking statements contained herein speak only as of the date of this press release. The Company expressly disclaims any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any such statement to reflect any change in the Company's expectations or any change in events, conditions or
circumstances on which any such statement is based.

Direct FuelCell, DFC and FuelCell Energy, Inc. are all registered trademarks
of FuelCell Energy, Inc.

[spiritrob]

first quarter results
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/FuelCell-Energy-Reports-First-…

[spiritrob]

elektrische effizienz von 63,5%
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/FuelCell-Energy-Releases-Data-…

[spiritrob]

fuelcell ist hip :-)
http://seekingalpha.com/article/198108-grandaddy-of-fuel-cel…

[newefra]

California Public Utilities Commission Approves 5.6 MW Fuel Cell Energy Projects to be Sited at State Universities

DANBURY, Conn., April 12, 2010 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- FuelCell Energy, Inc. (Nasdaq:FCEL) a leading manufacturer of high efficiency ultra-clean power plants using renewable and other fuels for commercial, industrial, government, and utility customers today announced that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has authorized Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Southern California Edison Company to undertake Fuel Cell Projects to install utility-owned fuel cells on several University of California and California State University campuses. FuelCell Energy, Inc. (FCE) will work with the utilities to finalize contracts. "The CPUC has clearly demonstrated a leadership role in advancing environmentally friendly power generating sources with this decision," commented Jeff Cox, Director Business Development, FuelCell Energy, Inc. "This ruling is another milestone for FuelCell Energy as we work with prospective customers and regulatory bodies in the State of California to encourage the use of our highly efficient and environmentally friendly fuel cells."

The CPUC approval includes the installation of four FCE 1.4 megawatts (MW) fuel cell power plants at four state universities in California. PG&E's Fuel Cell Project will include the installation and operation of two FCE 1.4 MW facilities at California State University-East Bay and San Francisco State. The fuel cells plan to utilize the byproducts of the energy conversion process, including waste heat and water to meet the campus needs including thermal demand for heating the swimming pool at CSU-East Bay and using excess water for landscape irrigation. Southern California Edison's Fuel Cell Project will include two FCE 1.4 MW units located at CSU-San Bernardino and CSU-Long Beach. The fuel cells will interconnect and operate in parallel with Edison's distribution system and utilize the byproduct heat.

This approval is part of a program to support ultra clean distributed power generation. Distributed generation can provide increased reliability, power quality and energy security. The fuel cell power plants are expected to be configured to generate base load electricity for the facilities in addition to recovering the surplus heat byproduct for heating needs. This configuration can achieve up to 80% efficiency. Additionally, because fuel cells produce power electro-chemically, without combustion, they produce near-zero harmful emissions.

In conjunction with the installation of the fuel cell power plants, the state universities are expected to incorporate fuel cell technology into their respective curriculums to teach students and the public about the benefits of fuel cell systems. In the application for approval filed with the CPUC, F. King Alexander, President California State University – Long Beach was quoted from a letter of support stating, "A fuel cell system on campus would not only be a great addition to our energy infrastructure but would also be a significant educational opportunity for students to learn and experience emerging clean power technology."

The State of California is one of the country's leading environmental advocates with over 75 different incentive programs and laws to encourage the use of clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, AB32 caps carbon dioxide emissions while the state's Renewable Portfolio Standard requires 33% clean energy generation by 2020 and the Government Office Building initiative aims to reduce state-owned energy use by 20% (1,935 MW) by 2015 from a 2003 baseline. Additionally, the California Air Resources Board's CARB07 strictly regulates distributed generation power plants, specifying limits for emissions of nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds. FuelCell Energy products meet all of these stringent emission requirements.

About FuelCell Energy

DFC® fuel cells are generating power at over 50 locations worldwide. The Company's power plants have generated over 450 million kWh of power using a variety of fuels including renewable wastewater gas, biogas from beer and food processing, as well as natural gas and other hydrocarbon fuels. FuelCell Energy has partnerships with major power plant developers and power companies around the world. The Company also receives funding from the U.S. Department of Energy and other government agencies for the development of leading edge technologies such as fuel cells. For more information please visit our website at www.fuelcellenergy.com

This news release contains forward-looking statements, including statements regarding the Company's plans and expectations regarding the continuing development, commercialization and financing of its fuel cell technology and business plans. All forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Factors that could cause such a difference include, without limitation, general risks associated with product development, manufacturing, changes in the regulatory environment, customer strategies, potential volatility of energy prices, rapid technological change, competition, and the Company's ability to achieve its sales plans and cost reduction targets, as well as other risks set forth in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The forward-looking statements contained herein speak only as of the date of this press release. The Company expressly disclaims any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any such statement to reflect any change in the Company's expectations or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based.

Direct FuelCell, DFC, DFC/T, DFC-H2 and FuelCell Energy, Inc. are all registered trademarks of FuelCell Energy, Inc. DFC-ERG is a registered trademark jointly owned by Enbridge, Inc. and FuelCell Energy, Inc.

CONTACT: FuelCell Energy, Inc.
Kurt Goddard
203-830-7494
[e-mail]

[Wildschwein]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 39.114.132 von spiritrob am 11.03.10 14:46:07

weiss jemand warum die so abschmiert?

[spiritrob]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 39.748.634 von Wildschwein am 28.06.10 23:51:39

24 mio. neue aktien werden geboten.

[Wildschwein]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 39.749.640 von spiritrob am 29.06.10 09:55:00

Alle 24 Mio sind gezeichnet. Nach dem Absturz um 50% innerhalb von 30 Tagen könnte ein Rebound möglich sein.
Zeichnungspreis von 30 Mio $ über dem aktuellen Kurs!!
Jetzt könnten mit News und Kursanstiegen die neuen Investoren zufrieden gestellt werden.

Jetzt heisst es abwarten und Tee trinken.

[Wildschwein]

bis jetzt + 9 % heute

[Wildschwein]

http://www.de.sharewise.com/aktien/US35952H1068-fuelcell-ene…

[Wildschwein]

Empfehlung Detailansicht Weitere Statistiken Kommentare (0) Weiterleiten
Max. Start Stop Loss Vergleich zum Index Börse
0,800 € Frankfurt

Limits noch nicht erreicht, Limits gültig bis Montag, 05. Juli 2010, 23:59 Uhr
03.07.2010
kaufen

Derzeit versucht sich die Aktie zu stabilisieren.Dennoch sind dies noch keine Kaufkurse da es dafür noch kein Singnal gibt.Die Aktie gilt seit 2 Monaten in der Stochastik als überverkauft.Der RSI liegt zwar schon unter 30 könnte sich aber noch etwas abschwächen.Der MACD geht immer noch abwärts und zeigt keine Trendumkehr.Trotzdem glaube ich das bei ca. 1 Dollar die Umkehr kommen kann.

Kommentare (0) Vorherige Meinungen dieses Autors zu dieser Aktie
Um Kommentare lesen zu können müssen Sie angemeldet sein.

[Wildschwein]

http://blog.mercedes-benz-passion.com/2010/05/daimler-und-to…

Daimler und Toyota planen offenbar Kooperation bei Brennstoffzellen-Technologie

Von Philipp Deppe | 25.Mai 2010

Die Daimler AG und der japanische Autohersteller Toyota planen offenbar – nach Informationen der “Financial Times Deutschland” – eine Kooperation bei der Brennstoffzellen-Technik und bei Brennstoffzellenfahrzeugen.



Toyota forscht seit 1992 an dieser Zukunftstechnologie für alternative Antriebe. Daimler entwickelt seit einem ähnlichen langem Zeitraum an der Brennstoffzellentechnik und hat laut eigenen Angaben bereits mehr als 1 Milliarde Euro dafür ausgegeben. Bereits jetzt gibt es mit der B-Klasse F-CELL, ein in Kleinserie gebautes und voll alltagstaugliches Fahrzeug mit dem umweltfreudlichen Brennstoffzellen Antrieb. Wir hatten bereits die Möglichkeit uns selbst davon zu überzeugen und können nur positives berichten (MB Passion fährt die zukünftige B-Klasse F-CELL). Ab 2015 wird die B-Klasse F-Cell in die Serienproduktion gehen und dann für jedermann erhältlich sein. Zeitgleich ist auch bei Toyota das erste serienmäßige Brennstoffzellen-Fahrzeug geplant, so dass ein Joint Venture durch aus Sinn für die Zukunft haben könnte. Weitere Informationen zu B-Klasse F-CELL sind hier zu finden.

Bild: Daimler AG

[Wildschwein]

[Wildschwein]

Daimler auf World Hydrogen Energy Conference: Elektro-Mobilität mit Brennstoffzelle ist bereit für den Alltagseinsatz

Von Philipp Deppe | 17.Mai 2010

Für das Engagement der Inititative H2 Mobility nahm Dieter Zetsche stellvertretend für die beteiligten Unternehmen zum Auftakt der Konferenz den “IPHE Award” (International Partnership for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells in the Economy) in der Kategorie “Excellence in Leadership” entgegen.



Ziel der Initiative ist es, die Kommerzialisierung von Elektrofahrzeugen mit Brennstoffzelle voranzutreiben und Wasserstoff- sowie Brennstoffzellentechnologien zum integralen Bestandteil des automobilen Antriebsmixes der Zukunft zu machen. Das gemeinsam mit EnBW, Linde, OMV, Shell, Total, Vattenfall und der Nationale Organisation Wasserstoff- und Brennstoffzellentechnologie (NOW GmbH) beschlossene Memorandum of Understanding geht auf eine Initiative von Daimler und Linde zurück und hat sich den Aufbau eines flächendeckenden Wasserstofftankstellennetzes in Deutschland zum Ziel gesetzt.

Daimler auf der World Hydrogen Energy Conference
Die 18. World Hydrogen Energy Conference (WHEC) gilt als die weltweit bedeutendste Fachveranstaltung zum Thema Wasserstoff sowie dessen wirtschaftliche Nutzung als Energieträger. Die WHEC verfolgt dabei das Ziel, eine zukunftsfähige, umweltfreundliche Energiewirtschaft durch die Nutzung von Wasserstoff zu gestalten. Dazu diskutieren internationale Experten gemeinsam über den Stand der Entwicklungen sowie über die Marktvorbereitung und -einführung der Wasserstoff- und Brennstoffzellentechnologie. Der Fokus der diesjährigen Konferenz liegt auf Innovationen, Entwicklungen und den neusten Forschungsergebnissen der deutschen Industrie und Wissenschaft.

Für die Daimler AG ist eine Beteiligung an dieser Konferenz im Rahmen einer Mobilitäts-Ausstellung ein selbstverständlicher Schritt, denn Elektromobilität mit Brennstoffzellen-Technologie ist integraler Bestandteil der Antriebs-Roadmap von Daimler zu nachhaltiger Mobilität. Sie ermöglicht lokal emissionsfreie Mobilität, bei kurzen Betankungszeiten und gleichzeitig hohen Reichweiten. “Es ist keine Frage mehr, ob die Brennstoffzelle eine tragfähige Alternative zum Verbrennungsmotor wird, sondern nur noch wann”, sagte Dieter Zetsche, Vorstandsvorsitzender der Daimler AG, zum Auftakt der Konferenz. “Die Technologie ist bereits marktreif. Um jetzt den Weg zur breiten Markteinführung zu ebnen, brauchen wir eine gezielte Forschungsförderung, eine effektive Marktaktivierung und verbindliche, weltweit gültige Standards”, so Dieter Zetsche.

Ride & Drives mit Elektrofahrzeugen mit Brennstoffzelle
Einblicke in den marktreifen Stand der Technik bei Mercedes-Benz geben Präsentationen und Exponate am Daimler-Messestand, sowie die Möglichkeit zum Ride & Drive. Neben der Mercedes-Benz B-Klasse F-CELL, ist auch der Mercedes-Benz Citaro FuelCELL-Hybrid auf der WHEC vertreten. Alle Besucher der Konferenz können beide Fahrzeuge im Rahmen der angebotenen Ride & Drives ausprobieren und selbst erleben. Beide Fahrzeuge demonstrieren eindrucksvoll die erlebbare Alltagstauglichkeit der Brennstoffzellentechnik von Daimler.

Markteinführung von Elektrofahrzeugen mit Brennstoffzelle
Laufende Demonstrationsprojekte, wie die Clean Energy Partnership (CEP), an denen die Mineralölwirtschaft, Energieversorger und die Automobilindustrie beteiligt sind, belegen, dass die Herstellung und Lagerung sowie der Transport und Einsatz von Druckwasserstoff ebenso wie der Aufbau der hierfür erforderlichen Infrastruktur technisch möglich sind. Darüber hinaus haben führende Automobilhersteller eine gemeinsame Absichtserklärung zur Entwicklung und Markteinführung von Elektrofahrzeugen mit Brennstoffzelle bekannt gegeben. Sie gehen dabei ab 2015 von mehreren hunderttausend Fahrzeugen weltweit über den gesamten Lebenszyklus aus.

Quelle: Daimler AG

[Wildschwein]

Wenn wir Glück haben sehen wir hier einen schönen Rebound, potential nach oben scheint ja da zu sein (auch die Meinung des obigen Analysten).
Die Kapitalerhöhung war ja erfolgreich und lag oberhalb des aktuellen Kurses.

[Wildschwein]

mal schaun ob die Amis heute Lust auf Rebound haben

[Wildschwein]

der Kurs wird ja sowiso in USA gemacht

[Wildschwein]

[Wildschwein]

02.06.10, 08:05 CANACCORD ADAMS
FuelCell Energy neues Kursziel


Rating-Update:

Vancouver (aktiencheck.de AG) - Mark Sigal, Analyst von Canaccord Adams, stuft die Aktie von FuelCell Energy (ISIN US35952H1068/ WKN 884382) unverändert mit "buy" ein. Das Kursziel werde von 6,20 auf 4,50 USD gesenkt. (02.06.2010/ac/a/u)

[Wildschwein]

http://analysen.onvista.de/empfehlungen/artikel/02.06.2010-0…

[Wildschwein]

das wären zum heutigen Kurs etwa 400% plus.

Da bibn ich kurzfristig skeptisch,
aber ein guter rein technischer Rebound könnte immerhin einen Anteil davon bedeuten

[Wildschwein]

http://analysen.onvista.de/empfehlungen/artikel/02.06.2010-0…

[Wildschwein]

10 Jahre


6 Monate
(scheint mir reichlich überverkauft)



1 Monat

[Wildschwein]

Na wer sagts denn...

scheint schon loszugehen, heute 5 % im Plus.
wenn die 38 Tage Linie geschnitten werden sollte in den nächsten Tagen dann könnte es einen noch nachhaltigen Rebound geben, ist jedenfalls meine Meinung und Hoffnung.
(Bitte nicht nachahmen,
ist nichts zum spielen... ;-)

[Wildschwein]

nochmal 5 % plus heute,

[Wildschwein]

geht weiter

[Wildschwein]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 39.836.696 von Wildschwein am 17.07.10 14:52:23

heute gehts scheinbar los,
riesen Umsätze und 7 % im Plus,
es gab news heute!

:-)

[Wildschwein]

Ich sags ja,
Ihr habt alle Euren Einsatz verpennt..

[Wildschwein]

so,
jetzt knallts,
das war die 38 Tage Linie.

Soeben riesen umsatz im intraday

[epicFail]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 39.905.754 von Wildschwein am 30.07.10 18:37:44

Bin auch seit 2 Wochen investiert. Hab das gefunden als News. Damit du hier keine Selbstgespräche führst Wildschwein
Entschuldigt bitte die mäßig gute Übersetzung. Aber mithilfe von "google-Übersetzer" und 'nem Dictionary hates doch noch geklappt.

Artikel 8.01. Andere Events.
Am 28. Juli 2010 gab FuelCell Energy, Inc (\ "FuelCell \") eine Presseinformation aus, die bekannt gab, dass die Versicherer von FuelCell ein öffentliches Angebot von 24.0 Millionen Anteilen der Stammaktie ihre Mehrzuteilung/Überzuteilung eingeholt haben, zusätzliche 3.6 Millionen Anteile der FuelCell Stammaktie zu kaufen und das Angebot geschlossen haben. Die zusätzlichen gesamten Nettoeinnahmen zu FuelCell von der Mehrzuteilung/Überzuteilung beliefen sich auf etwa 4.2 Millionen $ nach dem Abzug von Versicherungsprovision(?) , Gebühren und Ausgaben.

Originaltext
28-Jul-2010

Other Events, Financial Statements and Exhibits


Item 8.01. Other Events.

On July 28, 2010, FuelCell Energy, Inc. ("FuelCell") issued a press release announcing that the underwriters of FuelCell's public offering of 24.0 million shares of common stock have closed on their over-allotment option to purchase an additional 3.6 million shares of FuelCell common stock and have concluded the offering. The additional aggregate net proceeds to FuelCell from the over-allotment option totaled approximately $4.2 million after deducting underwriting discounts, fees and expenses.

Quelle: http://biz.yahoo.com/e/100728/fcel8-k.html

[epicFail]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 39.907.584 von epicFail am 31.07.10 11:49:07

Hier eine weitere Pressemitteilung, ziemlich zeitnah vom 28.7.2010.Was haltet ihr davon?


Presse Veröffentlichung QUELLE: FuelCell Energy, Inc. On Wednesday July 28, 2010, 10:59 am EDT

DANBURY, Conn., am 28. Juli 2010 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) - FuelCell Energy, Inc (Nasdaq:FCEL - Nachrichten) ein Haupthersteller der hocheffiziente, ultrasaubere Kraftwerke, die erneuerbare und andere Brennstoffe für kommerziell, industriell, Regierungs-, und Dienstprogramm-Kunden verwenden, gaben heute bekannt, dass die Versicherer der Gesellschaft \ ein öffentliches Angebot von 24.0 Millionen Anteilen der Stammaktie ihre Überzuteilungsauswahl eingeholt haben, zusätzliche 3.6 Millionen Anteile der FuelCell Energiestammaktie zu kaufen und das Angebot geschlossen haben. Die zusätzlichen gesamten Nettoeinnahmen zur FuelCell Energie von der Überzuteilungsauswahl beliefen sich auf etwa 4.2 Millionen $ nach dem Abzug von Versicherungsprämien, Gebühren und Ausgaben. FuelCell-Energie hat vor, die Nettoeinnahmen von diesem Angebot für Produktentwicklung, Projektfinanzierung, Vergrößerung der Produktionskapazität und allgemeine korporative Zwecke zu verwenden. Lazard-Kapitalmärkte LLC handelten als der alleinige book-running Manager(?) und Canaccord Genuity Inc. war Co-Manager(?) für das Angebot.

Eine Shelf Regestration wurde in Zusammenhang mit diesen Wertpapieren vorher vereinbart und wurde durch die Securities- und Exchangekommission für wirksam erklärt. Ein mit dem Angebot verbundener, finaler Börsenprospekt wurde mit den Securities- und Exchangekommission vereinbart. Die Wertpapiere können nur mittels eines Prospektes einschließlich eines Börsenprospektes angeboten werden, die einen Teil der wirksamen Börsenzulassung bilden. Kopien des Prospektes, des einleitenden Börsenprospektes und des finalen Börsenprospektes in Zusammenhang mit diesem Angebot können an den Securities- und Exchangekommission \ Website http: // www.sec.gov oder von Lazard Kapitalmärkten LLC, 30 Rockefeller Platz, 60. Fußboden, New York, NY 10020 oder über das Telefon (an 800) 542-0970 oder Canaccord Genuity Inc z.Hd. erhalten werden: Syndikat-Abteilung, 99 Hauptstraße, 12. Floor, Boston, Magister artium 02110 oder über das Telefon (an 800) 225-6201.

Originaltext
DANBURY, Conn., July 28, 2010 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- FuelCell Energy, Inc. (Nasdaq:FCEL - News) a leading manufacturer of high efficiency ultra-clean power plants using renewable and other fuels for commercial, industrial, government, and utility customers announced today that the underwriters of the Company's public offering of 24.0 million shares of common stock have closed on their over-allotment option to purchase an additional 3.6 million shares of FuelCell Energy common stock and have concluded the offering. The additional aggregate net proceeds to FuelCell Energy from the over-allotment option totaled approximately $4.2 million after deducting underwriting discounts, fees and expenses. FuelCell Energy intends to use the net proceeds from this offering for product development, project financing, expansion of manufacturing capacity, and general corporate purposes. Lazard Capital Markets LLC acted as the sole book-running manager and Canaccord Genuity Inc. was co-manager for the offering.

A shelf registration statement relating to these securities was previously filed and declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission. A final prospectus supplement related to the offering was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The securities may be offered only by means of a prospectus, including a prospectus supplement, forming a part of the effective registration statement. Copies of the base prospectus, the preliminary prospectus supplement and the final prospectus supplement relating to this offering can be obtained at the Securities and Exchange Commission's website http://www.sec.gov or from Lazard Capital Markets LLC, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 60th Floor, New York, NY 10020 or via telephone at [phone] or Canaccord Genuity Inc., Attn: Syndicate Department, 99 High Street, 12th Floor, Boston, MA 02110 or via telephone at [phone].

Quelle: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/FuelCell-Energy-Announces-the-…

gruß

[Wildschwein]

was war denn da los heite,
ist da was im Busch?

[Wildschwein]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 40.210.457 von Wildschwein am 25.09.10 14:41:18

jetzt aber,
mal locker 10 % heute

[Wildschwein]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 40.210.457 von Wildschwein am 25.09.10 14:41:18

wegen Großauftrag

[Wildschwein]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 40.210.457 von Wildschwein am 25.09.10 14:41:18

Ganz USA kauft was geht,
4,5 MW Verkauft

[Wildschwein]

[Joarei]

Schöne Bodenbildung und umsatzgetragener Ausbruch;könnte was werden!

[Joarei]

Manchmal gehts ganz schnell!

[Wildschwein]

Na was geht denn da seit 2 Wochen ab?

[TimeFactor]

War´s das schon ?

[spiritrob]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 40.815.610 von TimeFactor am 06.01.11 22:58:01

nein

[Wildschwein]

Ein ganz schön stabiler Intrady,
dass werden interessante Wochen und Monate vor uns im Brennstoffzellensektor glaube ich

[spiritrob]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/FuelCell-Energy-Reports-First-…

[spiritrob]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/FuelCell-Energy-Reports-First-…