Commissioner Mark C. Christie Concurrence on Invenergy Wind Development LLC

Invenergy Wind Development LLC       
Invenergy Solar Development LLC 

Docket No.    ER21-2807-001

Recognizing my dissent to the Commission’s initial order in this proceeding,[1] I concur with today’s result because reversing course and granting Invenergy’s waiver request at this time—i.e., allowing it to potentially withdraw its interconnection requests from the queue without loss of its financial security—would only exacerbate the queue delays and harm to third parties already done by the Commission’s prior orders.[2]  In other words, today’s order represents the least bad alternative at this time.

I note, however, that I continue to find the reasoning set forth in today’s order for denying Invenergy’s waiver request to be wholly unconvincing and the result arbitrary.  It is undeniable that the Commission’s “case-by-case” implementation of its waiver policy has allowed it to, in this instance, provide undue preference for one interconnection customer over another without adequate justification. 

I understand and believe in the importance of regulatory flexibility where there is both good cause and no evidence of harm to third parties.  As a result, bright-line rules and policies with respect to waivers may not be feasible and some level of discretion must necessarily be held by the regulator.  Here, however, my colleagues have taken advantage of this discretion to reach outcomes that are both arbitrary and unduly discriminatory, and in doing so have undermined whatever value remained of the Commission’s four-pronged waiver “test”.  I hope going forward we can reexamine the Commission’s waiver policies to provide clear guidance that can be consistently and fairly applied going forward. 

For these reasons, I respectfully concur.