(Total Views: 107)
Posted On: 10/25/2024 11:10:31 PM
Post# of 13011
Isn’t it true that snpw had zero experience in pursuing such approvals for a new technology to be manufactured out of city, out of state? Did they really think that a company from New Jersey was going to waltz into Rhode Island and secure approval for such a project.
The lack of experience in this case was a liability. Before any project is funded, the risks are defined and a plan to mitigate the risks created. A change is certificate approval would have been on the top of the list here. Go to those in state for counsel and consultation. Go to the local and audit opinions with the intent of educating and influencing. In the case of snpw, they moved quickly forward - signed a lease, set up equipment etc. Bad play. The perception of forcing a project upon a city/state etc is never good.
And snpw likely would have had a chance to address issues if they had experience in these transactions. They didn’t and it failed.
My opinions.
The lack of experience in this case was a liability. Before any project is funded, the risks are defined and a plan to mitigate the risks created. A change is certificate approval would have been on the top of the list here. Go to those in state for counsel and consultation. Go to the local and audit opinions with the intent of educating and influencing. In the case of snpw, they moved quickly forward - signed a lease, set up equipment etc. Bad play. The perception of forcing a project upon a city/state etc is never good.
And snpw likely would have had a chance to address issues if they had experience in these transactions. They didn’t and it failed.
Quote:
A former CEO like yourself would know that if not for the new law, every concerns the public had referenced in the denial, the COMPANY WOULD HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO ADDRESS AND CORRECT, but with the new law that right was taken away from the company.
My opinions.
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
