Ruling Casts Doubt on Fate of Big Rivers Coal Plant
FERC declined to rehear an earlier ruling that denied a bid to extend interconnection rights to Big Rivers Electric's Coleman Station in Kentucky.

By Amanda Durish Cook

The prospects became bleaker for one Big Rivers Electric coal-fired generator last week after FERC declined to rehear an earlier ruling that denied a bid to extend interconnection rights for the Kentucky plant.

FERC earlier this year rejected Big Rivers’ initial request to keep its Coleman Station interconnected to MISO’s grid for another year after the RTO ended a three-year system support resource agreement for the 433-MW coal plant in September 2016. (See FERC Refuses Interconnection Extension for Big Rivers’ Plant.)

In its rehearing request, Big Rivers did not challenge the commission’s earlier refusal to extend the rights, but instead argued that a “termination of interconnection service for the Coleman Station could potentially harm reliability and impose increased costs on Big Rivers’ members.”

FERC disagreed with that contention (EL17-15-001).

“Big Rivers cites no specific evidence in support of its claim that there are potential adverse impacts on system reliability due to termination of interconnection service to the Coleman Station,” the commission said in its Nov. 27 order. “Moreover, we note that MISO evaluated reliability concerns associated with the suspension of the Coleman Station when Big Rivers submitted its Attachment Y notice to suspend its operations.”

The commission’s ruling once again pointed out that Coleman cannot return to service until it complies with EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. It also noted the plant does not currently have load to serve since the nearby Century Aluminum smelter — once the plant’s primary customer — completed load curtailment arrangements.

ferc big rivers electric
Employees in front of the Coleman Station in June 2017 | Big Rivers

“Big Rivers itself acknowledges that the decision of whether and when to return the Coleman Station to service will be a complicated one. It thus appears that the Coleman Station may not be returned to service regardless of whether its interconnection service is reinstated,” FERC said.

‘Not Unique’

In early October, Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) wrote to Chairman Neil Chatterjee urging a “full and fair consideration” of Big Rivers’ request for rehearing.

But FERC said the challenges facing the nearly 50-year-old Coleman are commonplace: “While we appreciate the difficulties facing Big Rivers with regard to the future disposition of the Coleman Station, its circumstances are not unique. There are likely other generators that are currently uneconomic that would, if possible, reserve their interconnection service indefinitely in the hopes of future market changes.”

Big Rivers also argued that FERC was still allowing for disparate treatment of generators. While Coleman never had a generator interconnection agreement (GIA) with MISO, the RTO would be prohibited from cutting service to a generator operating under a GIA, the company contended.

FERC said the result would be the same, GIA or not, “because Big Rivers had not satisfied the requirement of taking ‘significant steps to maintain or restore operational readiness … as soon as possible.’”

Big Rivers additionally filed a motion in September asking FERC to consider the “evolving status of MISO’s policies on replacing retiring generation facilities and the interplay of MISO suspension, retirement and SSR rules.” MISO officials and stakeholders are currently considering whether SSR units facing terminations should be able to maintain service even after contract expiration in order to allow them to participate in the RTO’s annual capacity auction.

“Although styled as a motion to clarify the record, Big Rivers seeks to reopen the record and lodge the two MISO presentations for commission consideration,” FERC responded. “Evidence that MISO and its stakeholders are in the process of considering changes to the Tariff that may allow generators to retain interconnection rights following retirement do not constitute a ‘change in core circumstance’ at ‘the very heart of the case.’”

GenerationMISO

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *