Officials slate show cause hearing for power plant
BURRILLVILLE – The state Energy Facility Siting Board has agreed to schedule a show cause hearing on Monday for Invenergy to show why its power plant application should not be suspended indefinitely pending the outcome of two recently-disclosed lawsuits pending at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in Washington, D.C.
The hearing was requested Monday by the Conservation Law Foundation and the Town of Burrillville, which called the EFSB’s decision to hold the hearing a “huge victory” in its fight againt Invenergy’s plans to build a $1 billion fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in Pascoag.
In testimony before the EFSB on Nov. 27, the CLF informed the panel that Invenergy had so far been unable to sign an interconnection agreement for its proposed power plant with National Grid and the ISO (the operator of the New England electricity grid). In response to that, John Niland, director of business development for Invenergy, sent a letter to the EFSB on Dec. 1, admitting, for the first time, that there were two recently-filed Invenergy lawsuits pending at FERC pertaining to Invenergy’s interconnection.
Based on that information, the CLF and Town of Burrillville sent a joint letter to the EFSB, urging the panel to schedule a hearing and have Invenergy show cause as to why the power plant docket should not be suspended indefinitely in order to await the results of the lawsuits pending before FERC.
Jerry Elmer, senior attorney for the CLF, argues that the lawsuits – however they turn out – would have a huge effect on the Invenergy case.
“CLF and Burrillville needed to set the record straight so we worked over the weekend drafting a fairly detailed letter explaining to the EFSB just what a huge deal these two Invenergy lawsuits are at FERC,” Elmer said.
At the EFSB’s open meeting on Tuesday, the panel agreed to grant the request
and has scheduled the showcause hearing for Monday at 9:30 a.m. at the Public Utilities Commission Offices, 89 Jefferson Boulevard, Warwick.
In part, the order states: “In light of the lack of information regarding the Supplemental Water Supply Plan and the uncertainty of the affect of the FERC complaint, the Board ordered Invenergy to appear before it to show cause as to: (1) whether the Supplemental Water Supply Plan with the NIT, as submitted, contains sufficient detail for the Board to evaluate and/ or whether the Supplemental Water Supply Plan should be dismissed from the pending application, and (2) whether the application, as submitted, under Board Rules 1.5 and 1.6 would be sufficiently changed as to the cost impact on ratepayers so as to require suspension during the pendency of the actions before FERC.”
Invenergy declined to comment on the board’s decision to hold the show-cause hearing.
“What Monday’s CLF/ Burrillville letter did was to explain to the EFSB what the two pending FERC lawsuits are about,” said Elmer. “The thrust in both lawsuits is that Invenergy wants to fob off onto electricity ratepayers several hundred million dollars in interconnection costs that – under the ISO Tariff – Invenergy is legally required to pay.”
Elmer said if Invenergy wins the FERC lawsuits, it would get to shift hundreds of millions of dollars in costs onto New England electricity ratepayers.
“This would be illegal, because it would violate the ISO tariff that must be followed by every electricity generator in New England.,” he said. “And the EFSB would be very unlikely to grant a permit under those circumstances.”
If Invenergy loses, he said, it would be forced to spend these hundreds of millions of dollars itself. “This is something that Invenergy is probably unable to do, and something which Invenergy has already told the ISO it won’t do before getting its EFSB permit,” Elmer said.
Elmer says he believes the EFSB is “very likely” to suspend the case indefinitely, because the EFSB wants to know the outcome of the FERC lawsuits before moving ahead with the Invenergy docket.
“The case is not over yet, but this was a huge victory for the anti-Invenergy side,” he said. The problem for Invenergy is that what we said in our letter is basically true. Regardless of how the FERC lawsuits turn out, it will have huge implications for Invenergy.”
Elmer said that regardless of how the FERC lawsuits turn out, the EFSB needs to know those results before going ahead.
“I believe that it is likely that at the upcoming showcause hearing the Invenergy docket will be suspended pending the outcome of the FERC cases,” he said. “Although Invenergy told the EFSB that the FERC ruling will come within 60 days, in fact it could be a year or more for FERC to rule.”
Elmer says that at the end of the day, Invenergy will have the same problem it has today.
“If Invenergy wins at FERC, it would be shifting hundreds of millions of dollars in interconnection costs onto ratepayers, and the EFSB will never go along with that,” he said. “If Invenergy loses at FERC, it will have to pay that money itself, something Invenergy is unlikely to do before receiving an EFSB permit.”
Elmer alleges that Invenergy knew about the issue with interconnection costs three years ago.
“Invenergy started discussing these costs with the ISO on Jan. 8, 2015. Invenergy knew about the costs in February 2016, when it participated in the ISO’s Forward Capacity Auction. Invenergy has been engaged in furious negotiations with National Grid and the ISO for the past several months. For three years, Invenergy failed to disclose these crucial points to the EFSB and to the public.”