PJM Interconnection on Nov. 22 filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an executed Interconnection Construction Service Agreement (CSA) with gas-fired project developer Lackawanna Energy Center LLC and interconnecting transmission owner PPL Electric Utilities.
This Lackawanna CSA supersedes a prior CSA among the same parties. The new Lackawanna CSA facilitates the interconnection to the PJM system of the Lackawanna Thermal Generating Station in Jessup Borough, Pennsylvania. The CSA is associated with an Interconnection Service Agreement (ISA) among PJM, Lackawanna, and PPL that was filed unexecuted with the commission.
The Lackawanna ISA facilitates the interconnection to the PJM system of an increase in the Maximum Facility Output of the Lackawanna Thermal Generating Station in an amount of 370 MW over Lackawanna’s previous interconnection of 1,000 MW, for a total of 1,370 MW. The Lackawanna ISA also provides for a 370 MW increase in Capacity Interconnection Rights (CIRs), for a total of 1,370 MW in CIRs.
The revised CSA has a scheduled In-service date for the project of June 1, 2017.
Notably, Lackawanna Energy Center LLC on Nov. 22 replied at FERC to a motion out of time by ITC Lake Erie Connector LLC to comment on the unexecuted Interconnection Service Agreement. Lackawanna has requested that the commission direct PJM to remove language in the ISA that would permit PJM to limit the output of the Lackawanna generation facility and the project’s Capacity Interconnection Rights until such time as certain upgrades recommended by the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) – an affected aystem – were completed.
In its answer to the protest, PJM stated that it included the challenged language “to protect the NYISO system.” ITC did not object to the commission granting Lackawanna’s protest. ITC requested, however, that, “if the Commission deems it necessary to decide any NYISO-related issues [in this docket], …the Commission should set those issues for hearing, and allow for additional fact-finding …[so that ITC] will not be prejudiced by any determinations or precedent established in this docket.”
But Lackawanna argued that ITC provides no basis for the commission to set any issues for hearing.
- First, while ITC quotes extensively from the protest, it fails to note Lackawanna’s contention that in order to grant the protest the commission need only take the NYISO Report at “face value,” and need not consider any additional facts beyond those stated in the NYISO Report, said Lackawanna.
- Second, ITC’s suggestion that its pending interconnection request somehow is at issue in this proceeding is unavailing, Lackawanna added. This proceeding is limited to addressing Lackawanna’s ISA. ITC is behind Lackawanna in the queue and its interconnection will be addressed in separate studies conducted by PJM, and potentially by NYISO as an affected system.
- Third, and more importantly, Lackawanna said that ITC’s concerns about potential prejudice or precedent provide no reason for convening a hearing merely in order to eliminate any such potential. FERC does not set matters for hearing in dockets involving one party’s ISA because a second party whose ISA is not before the commission claims that it somehow might be prejudiced by the commission’s ruling or because of that ruling’s potentially precedential effect, Lackawanna wrote. “Indeed, any party wishing to intervene in any proceeding is required to say as much in order to sustain its motion to intervene,” it added.