Becky Schwantes - RE: Plants with same mailing address 

 

Hello Becky,

I took a look at the list that you provided in your last email. For most of the groupings both of the plants have an 

NR status. This is a non-regulatory status. The reason why these plants may be separated out into two plant 

codes is because they are operating competitively and do not want to share competitive information (fuel costs, 

etc.). The EIA-923 survey collects fuel costs information, and the respondents enter data in that form using their 

Plant Code (same Plant Codes as in the EIA-860). So, although I can not say for sure this is the reason why 

those plants have their own codes, it is very likely due to a non-sharing data issue. Also, another reason why 

some Plants will have more than one code even though they have the same address may be due to their FERC 

status. The FERC Qualifying Facility, Small Power Producer or Exempt Wholesale Generator status can be 

applied to some or all of the generating units in a Facility, and if the status is applied to only some of the units, 

then they would be broken up into numerous plant codes so as to reflect the appropriate FERC status in

Schedule 2 of the EIA-860 survey.

There is one plant grouping that you have listed that I am still unsure about. This is Plant 8073 and 56227. The 

only difference in our data for these two plants is their Latitudes and Longitudes. You would not have seen this 

as we do not publish Latitude and Longitude information readily. Both of these two plants have an RE status, so 

they would not have separate Plant IDs based on sensitive (as with cost) data. So, we are looking into these 

two plants to see whether there is another reason why these are broken into two rather than one.

I hope this has been helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Thanks,

Patricia (Trisha) Hutchins

EIA-860, EIA-860M Survey Analyst

Electric Power Division

Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels

Energy Information Administration

(202) 586-1029

Patricia.Hutchins@eia.doe.gov

From: Becky Schwantes [mailto:Becky.Schwantes@erg.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 11:56 AM 

To: Hutchins, Patricia 

Subject: Plants with same mailing address

 

From: "Hutchins, Patricia" <Patricia.Hutchins@eia.doe.gov>

To: "Becky Schwantes" <Becky.Schwantes@erg.com>

Date: 4/13/2010 2:12 PM

Subject: RE: Plants with same mailing address

Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\BSchwantes\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4BC47BC... 6/17/2010
Hi Patricia,

I work at Eastern Research Group as a technical contractor to the EPA Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis 

Division. We are currently helping EPA with revising the effluent guidelines for the steam electric industry. As 

you may recall, I contacted you about two weeks ago to ask how EIA assigns plant IDs for units located at the 

same site. During that conversation, you described that units located at the same site are typically assigned 

different plant IDs when the units have different owners who cannot share information with one another. From 

our review of the EIA-860 data, this was the case for most of the plants that we identified as sharing their 

mailing address with at least one other plant. However, I also identified six address groupings (12 plants) where 

the regulatory status and the owners/operators appear to be the same for both of the unique plant IDs.

Information obtained from EIA-860 data for these 12 plants is attached. [TJ1] If possible, would you please 

review the plants’ information and help me identify why these plants were given unique plant IDs instead of 

reporting under a single plant ID. 

I would appreciate any help you can provide.

Thanks for your time and let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Becky 

Becky Schwantes

Chemist

Eastern Research Group, Inc.

becky.schwantes@erg.com

703-633-1715

[TJ1]

Page 2 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\BSchwantes\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4BC47BC... 6/17/2010
Becky Schwantes - FW: Plants with same mailing address 

 

Becky,

We did do some research on the last two plant IDs, 8073 and 56227, and we discovered that they are two

plants, as the latitude and longitude suggest. I am not sure if you were still interested in this, but I wanted to let 

you know since I sort of left this hanging in the last email.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Thanks,

Patricia (Trisha) Hutchins

EIA-860, EIA-860M Survey Analyst

Electric Power Division

Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels

Energy Information Administration

(202) 586-1029

Patricia.Hutchins@eia.doe.gov

From: Hutchins, Patricia 

Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 2:11 PM 

To: 'Becky Schwantes' 

Subject: RE: Plants with same mailing address

 

Hello Becky,

I took a look at the list that you provided in your last email. For most of the groupings both of the plants have an 

NR status. This is a non-regulatory status. The reason why these plants may be separated out into two plant 

codes is because they are operating competitively and do not want to share competitive information (fuel costs, 

etc.). The EIA-923 survey collects fuel costs information, and the respondents enter data in that form using their 

Plant Code (same Plant Codes as in the EIA-860). So, although I can not say for sure this is the reason why 

those plants have their own codes, it is very likely due to a non-sharing data issue. Also, another reason why 

some Plants will have more than one code even though they have the same address may be due to their FERC 

status. The FERC Qualifying Facility, Small Power Producer or Exempt Wholesale Generator status can be 

From: "Hutchins, Patricia" <Patricia.Hutchins@eia.doe.gov>

To: <Becky.Schwantes@erg.com>

Date: 4/19/2010 4:54 PM

Subject: FW: Plants with same mailing address

Page 1 of 3

file://C:\Documents and Settings\BSchwantes\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4BCC8AD... 4/19/2010
applied to some or all of the generating units in a Facility, and if the status is applied to only some of the units, 

then they would be broken up into numerous plant codes so as to reflect the appropriate FERC status in

Schedule 2 of the EIA-860 survey.

There is one plant grouping that you have listed that I am still unsure about. This is Plant 8073 and 56227. The 

only difference in our data for these two plants is their Latitudes and Longitudes. You would not have seen this 

as we do not publish Latitude and Longitude information readily. Both of these two plants have an RE status, so 

they would not have separate Plant IDs based on sensitive (as with cost) data. So, we are looking into these 

two plants to see whether there is another reason why these are broken into two rather than one.

I hope this has been helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Thanks,

Patricia (Trisha) Hutchins

EIA-860, EIA-860M Survey Analyst

Electric Power Division

Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels

Energy Information Administration

(202) 586-1029

Patricia.Hutchins@eia.doe.gov

From: Becky Schwantes [mailto:Becky.Schwantes@erg.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 11:56 AM 

To: Hutchins, Patricia 

Subject: Plants with same mailing address

 

Hi Patricia,

I work at Eastern Research Group as a technical contractor to the EPA Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis 

Division. We are currently helping EPA with revising the effluent guidelines for the steam electric industry. As 

you may recall, I contacted you about two weeks ago to ask how EIA assigns plant IDs for units located at the 

same site. During that conversation, you described that units located at the same site are typically assigned 

different plant IDs when the units have different owners who cannot share information with one another. From 

our review of the EIA-860 data, this was the case for most of the plants that we identified as sharing their 

mailing address with at least one other plant. However, I also identified six address groupings (12 plants) where 

the regulatory status and the owners/operators appear to be the same for both of the unique plant IDs.

Information obtained from EIA-860 data for these 12 plants is attached. [TJ1] If possible, would you 

please review the plants’ information and help me identify why these plants were given unique plant IDs instead 

of reporting under a single plant ID. 

I would appreciate any help you can provide.

Thanks for your time and let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Page 2 of 3

file://C:\Documents and Settings\BSchwantes\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4BCC8AD... 4/19/2010
Becky 

Becky Schwantes

Chemist

Eastern Research Group, Inc.

becky.schwantes@erg.com

703-633-1715

Page 3 of 3

file://C:\Documents and Settings\BSchwantes\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4BCC8AD... 4/19/2010