By William Opalka

Opponents of a financial lifeline for the R.E. Ginna nuclear plant were rejected Monday in their bid for more time to  prepare their challenges.

Environmentalists and industrial consumers contended the current schedule will deny ratepayers due process in a case that could cost them $175 million.

The New York Public Service Commission has ordered initial “issue statements” by April 15 in a review of the ratepayer impact of a reliability support services agreement between Rochester Gas & Electric and Exelon’s Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, the plant’s owner. (See Action on Ginna RSSA Delayed 4 Months.)

The PSC ordered the utility to make a deal to keep the plant operating after regulators and NYISO determined the plant was needed to maintain system reliability. A flurry of filings have been made over the past two weeks as supporters and opponents of the deal vie for position (14-E-0270).

Those filings “have not established a basis for us to conclude that an extension of the deadline for submitting issue statements is necessary,” administrative law judges overseeing the case wrote. They also cited the coming summer peak demand, the reliability needs provided by the plant and Ginna’s right to cancel the agreement on July 1 as reasons to keep to the established schedule.

The judges said they were being asked to make rulings on the merits of the agreement in what is meant to be a procedural phase of the case. “We must establish a schedule that preserves the full range of possible outcomes for commission review and decision, without, in practical effect, deciding substantive issues,” they added.

Opponents asked the PSC for more time to make their case against the deal, while the utility, plant owner and PSC staff want to maintain a schedule that would close the case by July 29. If approved, the agreement would be retroactive to April 1 and last through September 2018.

The Alliance for a Green Economy and Citizens Environmental Coalition joined the opposition in an April 1 filing in which they also challenged the hearing schedule. The groups said the April 1 effective date of the contract was arbitrary.

“It is unreasonable to saddle Rochester-area customers with retroactive costs and interest payments that will start accruing before there has been time for [the] public to comment on the proposal or for the Public Service Commission to review the case,” they said.

They added that in a “major rate proceeding,” the PSC staff and interested parties have three to four months to conduct discovery. “The relief sought in this case is distinguishable from that which is sought in a typical major rate filing,” the judges wrote, citing the PSC order and the limited issue it posed.

The Utility Intervention Unit of the state’s Consumer Protection Bureau also challenged the effective date, “which was arrived at without the benefit of the parties’ input, [and] should not be used as a justification for limiting the parties’ due process opportunities to participate effectively in this proceeding.”

About 60 commercial, industrial and institutional customers said they support a one-month delay as a “reasonable” time frame to resolve issues before hearings with administrative law judges.

The PSC staff disagreed, saying that the schedule — which allowed 45 days for public comments — meets state law and balances the need to provide adequate time for the public to comment.