By William Opalka

Connecticut regulators asked FERC last week to dismiss a complaint from a renewable energy developer that contends the state’s energy procurement practices violate the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act.

The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority said Allco Renewable Energy’s complaint is without merit because it is challenging a procurement program created by state law “that is different than, and a supplement to, Connecticut’s federally mandated PURPA program” (EL16-11).

Allco asked FERC to void the state’s award of a contract to a 250-MW wind farm in Maine. It cited FERC and federal court rulings that say states have no authority to procure energy except under PURPA, which is limited to qualifying facilities (QFs) of 80 MW or less. (See Solar Developer Asks FERC for PURPA Enforcement.)

In their response, Connecticut officials said commission action is not warranted because Allco is not actually challenging the state’s PURPA program. “Petitioner does not complain about any aspect of Connecticut’s PURPA program and, in fact, concedes the ‘potential availability of a PURPA contract,’ but elects not to participate in the program,” the officials wrote.

“Petitioner is a disappointed bidder in the Connecticut renewables solicitation conducted two years ago,” they added. The officials said their procurement programs do not violate PURPA or the Federal Power Act. “Cognizant of the commission’s exclusive authority over wholesale sales of energy, the Connecticut agencies have not set or modified rates or otherwise acted on matters within the commission’s FPA authority,” they said.

Allco filed the complaint with FERC on Nov. 9 after a federal appeals court said the company had not exhausted its administrative remedies in challenging the state procurement.

Allco said that the appeals court’s decision endorsed its contention that the state had violated PURPA by preempting federal authority over wholesale contracts. However, the appeals court issued an amended decision on Dec. 1, disputing Allco’s characterization. The court said it “express[es] no view on the merits of Allco’s preemption theory.”