PROVIDENCE – State regulators are calling on Invenergy Thermal Development LLC to explain how its proposed power plant in Burrillville could end up costing ratepayers millions more than expected.
The questions stem from two recent lawsuits filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission showing Invenergy has sought to avoid paying costs associated with connecting its generator to the electrical grid.
Healing Beyond the Surface: Expert Wound Care with Angela Fazio, RN, BSN, CWCN
Why specialized treatment matters more than you may realize. For millions of Americans, chronic wounds…
Learn More
Invenergy, in a complaint against National Grid Rhode Island and ISO New England, argues interconnection costs should be paid by customers instead of companies.
“In regards to [Invenergy’s] interconnection alone, transmission customers would be unjustly enriched to the tune of $123-$164 million,” according to its complaint.
The complaint contradicts previous comments made by Invenergy officials, who have insisted the $1 billion project would not cost ratepayers. The discrepancies raised concerns among state regulators currently considering whether to permit the 1,000-megawatt, gas-fired power plant.
“It’s been stated over and over by [Invenergy] that this is a privately funded project without seeking ratepayer money,” said Janet Coit, a member of the R.I. Energy Facility Siting Board.
Invenergy declined to comment.
The project, originally proposed in 2015, has become one of the most controversial energy and environmental issues in Rhode Island. Last week, most Rhode Island municipalities called on Gov. Gina M. Raimondo to become more involved in the debate.
Invenergy’s legal issues first emerged last week when Conservation Law Foundation and Burrillville attorneys raised them during a meeting.
The lawyers on Monday subsequently filed a motion with the EFSB, asking its members to indefinitely suspend Invenergy’s proposal until the FERC cases are resolved. The board on Tuesday voted unanimously in favor of holding a meeting to hear from Invenergy officials to explain why the application should not be suspended.
John Niland, Invenergy director of business development, filed a motion on Dec. 1 insisting the issues with FERC could be resolved within 60 days.
CLF attorney Jerry Elmer, however, estimates it could be drawn out for years.
“I think Invenergy is dead,” Elmer said, pointedly.
A more widespread argument has already formed surrounding Invenergy’s complaint to FERC. The filing has yielded several protests and requests for intervention from interested parties throughout the New England region.
“Invenergy has stirred a hornet’s nest without knowing it,” Elmer said.
The interest comes twofold.
Firstly, transmission costs are shared between New England ratepayers, meaning any costs incurred during Invenergy’s interconnection would likely increase the bills of customers throughout the region.
Secondly, the interconnection costs have been paid by other New England generators in the past, meaning any exception to Invenergy could create an unfair playing field in the wholesale energy market.
The New England States Committee on Electricity, a regional nonprofit governed by a board appointed by New England governors, filed its position in protest to Invenergy’s complaint.
“Granting the relief requested by [Invenergy] would impact every generator and transmission customer, and thereby, every retail electric customer in New England,” NESCO wrote.
The EFSB is scheduled to hear from Invenergy on Dec. 18.
Eli Sherman is a PBN staff writer. Email him at Sherman@PBN.com, or follow him on Twitter @Eli_Sherman.
