FERC on Thursday confirmed its denial of requests to change two merchant transmission facilities’ interconnection agreements, rejecting requests to rehear the orders (ER17-2073, ER17-2267).

But the commission’s procedural rulings were moot because it granted Hudson Transmission Partners and Linden VFT the substantive relief they sought nearly a year ago.

Hudson and Linden had sought to amend their facilities’ interconnection service agreements (ISAs) to downgrade their combined 1,003 MW of firm transmission withdrawal rights, which include the right to schedule energy and capacity withdrawals from the PJM system, into non-firm transmission withdrawal rights that only include the right to schedule energy.

Citing transmission owner Public Service Electric and Gas’ opposition to the changes, FERC rejected them, saying PJM’s Tariff doesn’t allow it to alter agreements without approval of all the signatories. But the commission also initiated a Section 206 investigation of the Tariff language that required it to deny the requests. (See Rejecting PJM ‘Wheel’-related Requests, FERC Sets Inquiry.)

That investigation led the commission to rule last December that the Tariff language was unjust and unreasonable and that the facilities should have the ability to unilaterally change from firm to non-firm rights. (See NJ Merchant Tx Operators Win Relief on Upgrade Costs.)

In the interim, Linden and Hudson had filed for rehearing. In Thursday’s ruling, FERC stuck with its original reasoning rejecting arguments that the revisions were “a nonsubstantive change … akin to other ministerial amendments PJM regularly files unexecuted.”

There was no doubt that the switch to non-firm service was substantive, as they determined whether Hudson and Linden would be on the hook for the roughly $653 million in costs PJM allocated to them for upgrades to PSE&G’s transmission system.

— Rory D. Sweeney