10-17-2007

Supplement to Request for Rehearing and Clarification

Cross Hudson's submission of the EMCP to the NYPSC demonstrates that the Cross Hudson project is positioned to deliver power to New York City by 2010. Hudson has also obtained U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit authorizing construction under the Hudson River.

10-09-2007

Answer to Requests for Clarification

Hudson opposes Cross Hudson Corp.’s request for clarification because CHC raises issues beyond the scope of the proceeding. Hudson also argues that NYISO’s requests are redundant, in that they seek clarification on issues already covered in the Order on Complaint or in NYISO’s own tariff.

08-22-2007

Order on Complaint

FERC issued an Order granting Hudson Transmission Partner's June 13, 2007 complaint against NYISO, which alleged that NYISO's interpretation and implementation of the interconnection queuing provisions of NYISO's Open Access Transmission Tariff are unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory. FERC reasoned that NYISO should have removed Cross Hudson's Project from the interconnection queue when it received notice that Cross Hudson was withdrawing the Project. FERC stated that since the language of the Notice Procedures were ambiguous, the written withdrawal was sufficient.

08-17-2007

Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer

Hudson Transmission Partners filed an Answer in response to NYISO's August 14, 2007 answer. Hudson reiterated that NYISO's arguments do not change the fact that PSEG In-City filed a letter with FERC stating that it had discontinued development of its project and no longer required access to a bus position.

08-14-2007

Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer

NYISO filed an Answer in response to the Second Answer of Hudson Transmission Partners, arguing: (1) Cross Hudson is not a "grandfathered project" itself and properly remains in NYISO's Interconnection Queue because it has met the requirements of the NYISO OATT; (2) Cross Hudson has remained in NYISO's interconnection queue because it has satisfied teh requirements of both Attachment S and Attachment X; and (3) the fact that Cross Hudson has not yet finalized an Attachment X Interconnection Agreement is irrelevant.

08-06-2007

Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer

Hudson Transmission Partners filed an Answer in response to Cross Hudson Corporation's Answer to NYISO's Answer. HTP argued: (1) the disagreement between NYISO and CHC highlights the problem of which HTP complained (confusion regarding the interconnection queue); and (2) CHC is attempting to distance itself from its only source of legitimacy in that it states it has transitioned from a pre-Order No. 2003 interconnection agreement (which it has) to an Attachment X interconnection agreement (which it does not have).

07-20-2007

Answer

Cross Hudson Corporation field an Answer in response to NYISO's July 5, 2007 Answer in this proceeding. Cross Hudson argued that NYISO has applied its Tariff consistently to Cross Hudson and Cross Hudson has met every milestone in the Tariff to remain in the interconnection queue, and that NYISO's clarification is unnecessary and misguided because Cross Hudson is no more "unique" than other pre-Order No. 2003 projects that during early development did not have access to the protections now afforded by that Order.

07-20-2007

Answer

Hudson Transmission Partners filed an opposition to NYISO and Cross Hudson Corporation's filings in this proceeding. HTP argued: (1) there are no material facts in dispute; (2) NYISO's arguments concerning what constitutes written notice are unjust and unreasonable; (3) NYISO does not present a credible challenge to the Complaint with regard to FERC precedent; (4) NYISO fails to explain how Cross Hudson's project is the same "specific large facility;" (5) NYISO's unjust and unreasonable practices in maintaining its interconnection queue must be corrected; and (5) HTP is not anti-competitive and in-city would not be penalized.

07-05-2007

Motion to Intervene, Protest and Motion To Dismiss

Cross Hudson Corporation filed a motion to intervene in this proceeding. CHC also filed a protest and motion to dismiss, arguing: (1) HTP fundamentally misapprehends the purpose of the Interconnection Queue to establish an order for the performance of studies; (2) Cross Hudson never exited the Interconnection process; (3) Cross Hudson should not be removed from the Queue; (4) elimination of Cross Hudson from the Queue will be destabilizing to the market; (4) Cross Hudson's project does not cause delay to HTP's project; and (5) if FERC finds that NYISO violated its Tariff, the remedy should be directed at NYISO and not Cross Hudson.

07-05-2007

Motion to Intervene

The New York Transmission Owners (Central Hudson Gas & Electric, LIPA, New York State Electric & Gas, Niagara Mohawk Power, Rochester Gas and Electric) filed a motion to intervene in this proceeding.

07-05-2007

Answer and Request for Expedited Action

NYISO filed an Answer in response to Hudson Transmission Partners' June 13, 2007 Complaint in this proceeding. NYISO argued: (1) Cross Hudson's February 24, 2005 letter to FERC did not constitute written notice to NYISO of Cross Hudson's withdrawal from the Interconnection Queue; (2) FERC should not require NYISO to monitor indirect communications from developers regarding the status of their projects; (3) HTP has not shown that Cross Hudson failed to comply with the requirements set forth in the LFIP; (4) HTP has failed to show that the cancellation of the two-party Interconnection Agreement required NYISO to remove Cross Hudson from the Interconnection Queue; (5) HTP has not shown that Cross Hudson's Queue position was improperly transferred; (6) Cross Hudson has not requested to change the In-Service date currently listed in the Interconnection Queue; (7) HTP wrongly characterized NYISO's position as holding that a developer need only comply with the requirements of Attachment S to remain in the Interconnection Queue; and (8) NYISO has not engaged in undue discrimination against HTP.

07-03-2007

Motion to Intervene

The NRG Companies (NRG Power Marketing, Asoria Gas Turbine Power, Arthur Kill Power, Conemaugh Power, Indian River Power, Keystone Power, NRG Energy Center Dover, NRG Energy Center Paxton, NRG Rockford, NRG Rockford II, Vienna Power) filed a motion to intervene in this proceeding.

07-03-2007

Motion to Intervene

FPL Energy Generators (FPL Energy Marcus Hook, North Jersey Energy Associates, Doswell Limited Partnership, Backbone Mountain Windpower, Mill Run Windpower, Somerset Windpower, Meyersdale Windpower, Waymart Wind Farm, Pennsylvania Windfarms) filed a motion to intervene in this proceeding.

07-03-2007

Motion to Intervene

The PSEG Companies (Public Service Electric and Gas, PSEG Power, PSEG Energy Resources & Trade) filed a motion to intervene in this proceeding.

06-28-2007

Notice of Intervention

The New York State Public Service Commission filed a notice of intervention in this proceeding.

06-14-2007

Complaint Requesting Fast Track Processing

Hudson Transmission Partners filed a complaint alleging that NYISO improperly allowed Cross Hudson Corporation to assume PSEG In-City's position ahead of HTP in the Interconnection Queue after PSEG terminated the project. HTP requested that FERC direct NYISO to remove the PSEG In-City Project from its Interconnection Queue and place it at the end of the queue.

06-14-2007

Notice of Filing of Complaint

FERC issued notice of Hudson Transmission Partners' complaint filed in this proceeding on June 14, 2007. Comments, protests and motions to intervene must be filed by the deadline.