Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) is filing a Motion with the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) this morning in the Invenergy case. The Motion seeks Supplemental Advisory Opinions and permission to take additional discovery and file supplemental expert testimony related to Invenergy’s “bombshell” announcement on Wednesday, that ISO New England has barred Invenergy from entering its second turbine in Forward Capacity Auction-12 (FCA-12), to be held in February 2018. This auction will determine the price southern New England will pay for electricity in the 2021-2022 season.

In February 2016, Invenergy failed to clear its second turbine in FCA-10. In February 2017, Invenergy failed to clear its second turbine in FCA-11. Now Invenergy is being told that its second turbine will not even be allowed to participate in FCA-12.

With the admission that half of the company’s proposed $1 billion fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant, aimed at the forests of northwest Rhode Island, will not be allowed to participate in the FCA, Invenergy submitted a detailed explanation from a company they have hired to serve as an expert witness in the upcoming EFSB hearings. According to the motion filed by CLF Senior Attorney Jerry Elmer, “Invenergy filed an analysis by its outside expert witness, Ryan Hardy, of PA Consulting Group, addressing what Invenergy believes is the meaning and import of the decision of the ISO to disqualify Invenergy from FCA-12. In fairness, other parties must be given the same opportunity to present testimony of their own witnesses pertaining to the same subject: the meaning and import of the ISO’s recent decision to disqualify Invenergy from FCA-12.”

The analysis from PA Consulting Group of course paints Invenergy’s present circumstances in the rosiest possible light and would have taken weeks, if not months, to complete. Invenergy knew about the decision to keep their proposed second turbine out of the auction for a while before revealing it. CLF is asking that other parties in the hearing be given time to perform their own analysis.

In the motion CLF is asking for:

(a) two additional Supplemental Advisory Opinions to address the newly available information;
(b) leave to take additional discovery to address the newly available information; and
(c) leave to file supplemental expert testimony based on the new information.

CLF is requesting oral argument on this Motion.

[UPDATE: Invenergy, as expected, has objected to the motion.]

Newest Oldest Best
Notify of