### 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 r eason why these plants may be separated out into tw o plant codes is because they are operating competitively a nd do not want to share competitive information (fu el costs, etc.). The EIA-923 survey collects fuel costs info rmation, and the respondents enter data in that for m using their Plant Code (same Plant Codes as in the EIA-860). S o, although I can not say for sure this is the reas on why those plants have their own codes, it is very likel y due to a non-sharing data issue. Also, another r eason why some Plants will have more than one code even thoug h they have the same address may be due to their FE RC status. The FERC Qualifying Facility, Small Power Producer or Exempt Wholesale Generator status can b e applied to some or all of the generating units in a Facility, and if the status is applied to only som e of the units, then they would be broken up into numerous plant co des 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 th at 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 You would not hav e seen this as we do not publish Latitude and Longitude informa tion readily. Both of these two plants have an RE status, so they would not have separate Plant IDs based on sen sitive (as with cost) data. So, we are looking int o these two plants to see whether there is another reason w hy these are broken into two rather than one.

I hope this has been helpful. Please let me know i f 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 Fue ls

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

6/17/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settings\BSchwantes\Local Settings\Temp\XPgr pwise\4BC47BC

...Hi Patricia,

I work at Eastern Research Group as a technical con tractor to the EPA Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division. We are currently helping EPA with revisin g the effluent guidelines for the steam electric in dustry. 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 a ssigned different plant IDs when the units have different o wners who cannot share information with one another . From our review of the EIA-860 data, this was the case f or most of the plants that we identified as sharing their mailing address with at least one other plant. Howe ver, I also identified six address groupings (12 pl ants) where the regulatory status and the owners/operators appe ar 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 inste ad 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 an y questions.

Thanks, Becky

Becky Schwantes Chemist Eastern Research Group, Inc. becky.schwantes@erg.com 703-633-1715

[TJ1] 

### Page 2 of 2

6/17/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settings\BSchwantes\Local Settings\Temp\XPgr pwise\4BC47BC

...

### 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 a m not sure if you were still interested in this, bu t I wanted to let you know since I sort of left this hanging in the l ast email.

Please let me know if you have any further question s.

Thanks,

Patricia (Trisha) Hutchins

EIA-860, EIA-860M Survey Analyst

Electric Power Division

Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fue ls

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 r eason why these plants may be separated out into tw o plant codes is because they are operating competitively a nd do not want to share competitive information (fu el costs, etc.). The EIA-923 survey collects fuel costs info rmation, and the respondents enter data in that for m using their Plant Code (same Plant Codes as in the EIA-860). S o, although I can not say for sure this is the reas on why those plants have their own codes, it is very likel y due to a non-sharing data issue. Also, another r eason why some Plants will have more than one code even thoug h they have the same address may be due to their FE RC status. The FERC Qualifying Facility, Small Power Producer or Exempt Wholesale Generator status can b e 

### 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

4/19/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settings\BSchwantes\Local Settings\Temp\XPgr pwise\4BCC8AD

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

then they would be broken up into numerous plant co des 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 th at 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 hav e seen this as we do not publish Latitude and Longitude informa tion readily. Both of these two plants have an RE status, so they would not have separate Plant IDs based on sen sitive (as with cost) data. So, we are looking int o these two plants to see whether there is another reason w hy these are broken into two rather than one.

I hope this has been helpful. Please let me know i f 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 Fue ls

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 con tractor to the EPA Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division. We are currently helping EPA with revisin g the effluent guidelines for the steam electric in dustry. 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 a ssigned different plant IDs when the units have different o wners who cannot share information with one another . From our review of the EIA-860 data, this was the case f or most of the plants that we identified as sharing their mailing address with at least one other plant. Howe ver, I also identified six address groupings (12 pl ants) where the regulatory status and the owners/operators appe ar 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 i dentify why these plants were given unique plant ID s 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 an y questions.

Thanks, 

### Page 2 of 3

4/19/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settings\BSchwantes\Local Settings\Temp\XPgr pwise\4BCC8AD

...Becky

Becky Schwantes Chemist Eastern Research Group, Inc. becky.schwantes@erg.com 703-633-1715 

### Page 3 of 3

4/19/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settings\BSchwantes\Local Settings\Temp\XPgr pwise\4BCC8AD

...