Weekly Update Courtesy of URN #3973: The Minnesota Court of Appeals has affirmed a Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) decision in which the commission had declined to compel an electric utility, Northern States Power Co. d/b/a Xcel Energy, to enter into a power purchase agreement (PPA) with the sponsor of an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant.

The project developer, Excelsior Energy Inc., had touted its Mesaba Energy Project as a state-of-the-art IGCC facility that would be both environmentally friendly and economically productive. Although it had received certain preliminary permits and local approvals for the project, Excelsior was unable to reach agreement with Xcel Energy for purchasing the unit’s output. Excelsior thereupon petitioned the PUC for an order mandating that Xcel Energy sign the developer’s proffered PPA.

In considering the terms of the proposed PPA, the commission undertook a two-part analysis, the first part of which looked at whether the plant qualified as an innovative energy project (IEP) under state law. The commission said that if that first part were answered in the affirmative, then it needed to determine if the associated PPA would be in the public interest. Despite various parties’ claims to the contrary, the PUC declared that the Mesaba project did indeed fit within the definition of an IEP under state law. The commission explained that the IGCC technology was clearly innovative, would use coal as a primary fuel, and would significantly reduce four noxious emissions enumerated in the controlling statute. The commission thus concluded that the project met the basic criteria for IEP status established in the legislation. However, the commission ultimately disapproved the PPA, deeming it to involve an excessive and unrealistic cost structure that could jeopardize Xcel Energy’s financial health if it were forced to enter the agreement. Although the project developer argued that the PUC’s public interest analysis had exceeded its PPA review authority, the court held that the commission was clearly within its rights to conduct such a review, given its obligation to protect the overall public interest and the broad discretion conferred upon it to interpret those laws and regulations which it has been charged with enforcing, such as the IEP statute.

Accordingly, the court refused to substitute its judgment for that of the commission.-Subscribe to Utility Regulatory News for the full story.