State officials delay power plant hearing
BURRILLVILLE – The state Energy Facility Siting Board Thursday granted Invenergy Thermal Development’s request for a 30-day extension on a show cause 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 scheduled to be held Monday, but has now been postponed until Tuesday, Jan. 30 at 9:30 a.m. at the Public Utilities Commission Offices, 89 Jefferson Boulevard, Warwick.
Invenergy says it requested the extension so it would have sufficient time to prepare for the hearing.
The hearing was requested last 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 against Invenergy’s plans to build a $1 billion 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.
At the EFSB’s open meeting on Tuesday, the panel agreed to grant the request. 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 t of the actions before FERC.”
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.
Elmer said that regardless of how the FERC lawsuits turn out, the EFSB needs to know those results before going ahead.