Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/03/30/2010-6769/revisions-to-form-procedures-and-criteria-for-certification-of-qualifying-facility-status-for-a
Timestamp: 2017-02-25 13:43:29
Document Index: 373477776

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u2009131', 'art 292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009131', '§\u2009131', '§\u2009131', '§\u2009131', '§\u2009131', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009202', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009202', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009131', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009131', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009131', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', 'arts 131', 'art1', 'art 131', 'art2', 'art1', 'art 292', 'art2', '§\u2009292', 'art3', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', 'art4', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', 'art5', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009131', 'art6', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', 'art7', '§\u2009292', '§\u2009292', 'art 292', '§\u2009292']

:: Revisions to Form, Procedures, and Criteria for Certification of Qualifying Facility Status for a Small Power Production or Cogeneration Facility
A Rule by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on 03/30/2010
15949-15986
2010-6769
Commission Determination IV. Proposed Revisions to the Form No. 556
A. General NOPR Proposal Comments Commission Determination B. Name of Form NOPR Proposal Comments Commission Determination C. Geographic Coordinates NOPR Proposal Comments Commission Determination D. Ownership NOPR Proposal Comments
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2010-6769
Start Printed Page 15950
1. In this Final Rule, the Commission is removing from § 131.80 of its regulations [1] the contents and general instructions of the Form No. 556 used in the certification of qualifying status for an existing or proposed small power production or cogeneration facility, and, in their place, providing that an applicant seeking to certify qualifying facility (QF) status of a small power production or cogeneration facility must complete and file the Form No. 556 that is in effect at the time of filing (which will be made available for download from the Commission's QF Web site).[2] The Commission also is requiring that the Form No. 556 be submitted to the Commission electronically.
3. Additionally, the Commission is revising the procedures, standards and criteria for QF status provided in Part 292 of its regulations to accomplish the following: (1) Exemption of generating facilities with net power production capacities of 1 MW or less from the requirement that a generating facility, to be a QF, must file either a notice of self-certification or an application for Commission certification; (2) codification of the Commission's authority to waive the QF certification requirement for good cause; (3) extension to all applicants for QF certification the requirement (currently applicable only to applicants for self-certification of QF status) to serve a copy of a filed Form No. 556 on the affected utilities and state regulatory authorities; (4) elimination of the requirement for applicants to provide a draft notice suitable for publication in the Federal Register; and (5) clarification, simplification or correction of certain sections of the regulations.[3] 4. Finally, the Commission is changing the exemption of QFs from the Federal Power Act,[4] and to the exemption of QFs from the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005 (PUHCA) and certain State laws and regulations [5] to make clear that certain small power production facilities that satisfy the criteria of section 3(17)(E) of the Federal Power Act qualify for those exemptions.
6. The revisions to the Form No. 556 and the procedures for filing the Form No. 556 are informed by the Commission's experience both with administering the Form No. 556 and with new technologies for electronic data collection that have become available since the Form No. 556 was first established by Order No. 575 in 1995.[6] The changes will increase the effectiveness of the Commission's policies encouraging cogeneration and small power production, as required by section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA).[7] II. Background
7. When the Commission first implemented section 201 of PURPA, it provided two paths to QF status: Self certification (which, as discussed below, required no filing with the Commission) and Commission certification.[8] The procedures for self-certification are contained in § 292.207(a) of the Start Printed Page 15951Commission's regulations.[9] When a small power production facility or cogeneration facility self-certifies (or self-recertifies),[10] it certifies that it satisfies the requirements for QF status. The Commission does not formally review the self-certification. Instead, the self-certification is assigned a docket number, and Commission staff looks at the filing to determine that the self-certifier has provided the information required by the regulations.
8. Self-certification was an essential part of the Commission's implementation of PURPA, and was intended, in part, to make the certification process quick and not unduly burdensome. Thus, when the Commission first implemented section 201 of PURPA in Order No. 70,[11] the Commission rejected a proposal to adopt a case-by-case Commission certification requirement for all QFs, but instead provided that facilities that met the requirements for QF status need only furnish notice to the Commission of QF status.[12] This notice (the self-certification) was purely for informational purposes and to help the Commission monitor the market penetration of QFs. QF status, however, was established by meeting the requirements for such status and did not depend on the filing. Indeed, the Commission noted that QFs and purchasing utilities could agree that a generating facility met the requirements for QF status, and the facility would qualify for the benefits of PURPA without making any filing with the Commission.
9. The Commission recognized, however, that the self-certification process would not always satisfy all those interested in a particular facility's status. Accordingly, the Commission also established, in § 292.207(b) of the regulations,[13] an “optional procedure” for QF status. Under this optional procedure, an entity may file an application for a determination by the Commission that a facility meets the requirements for QF status. Such an application requires a filing fee.[14] After receiving an application for Commission certification and the required fee, the Commission assigns the filing a docket number and notices the filing in the Federal Register, providing an opportunity for interventions and protests. The Commission's regulations provide that it will act on an application within 90 days of the filing (or of its supplement or amendment). The process gives those that need assurance of a facility's QF status (or lack of such status) a Commission order certifying (or denying) QF status. This optional procedure is commonly known as an application for Commission certification. In its original regulations, the Commission also provided that, once a facility was certified by the Commission, its qualifying status could be revoked by the Commission, upon the Commission's own motion, or upon the motion of any person.[15] This combination of encouraging self-certifications, while providing for both Commission-certification and an opportunity to seek revocation of QF status, would assure, the Commission believed, that only those generation facilities that meet the criteria for QF status would receive and retain that status.
11. Following the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), which imposed new requirements for QF status for “new” cogeneration facilities,[16] the Commission issued Order No. 671,[17] which implemented those new requirements. As part of that implementation, for the first time, notices of self-certifications for new cogeneration facilities were required to be published in the Federal Register; self-certifications, other than for new cogeneration facilities, are not published in the Federal Register. In addition, as noted above, for the first time, the Commission required the filing of a notice of self-certification or an application for Commission certification as a requirement for QF status.[18] III. Revisions to Regulations
12. The Commission proposed in the NOPR [19] to revise its regulations and the Form No. 556 to improve and simplify the QF certification process. In particular, the Commission proposed to remove the contents of the Form No. 556 from the regulations, and, in their place, to provide that an applicant seeking to certify QF status of a small power production or cogeneration facility must complete, and electronically file, the Form No. 556 that is in effect at the time of filing. The Commission also proposed to revise and reformat the Form No. 556 to clarify the content of the form and to take advantage of newer technologies that will reduce both the filing burden for Start Printed Page 15952applicants and the processing burden for the Commission. The Commission also proposed to exempt generating facilities with net power production capacities of 1 MW or less from the QF certification requirement, and to codify the Commission's authority to waive the QF certification requirement for good cause. Finally, the Commission proposed to clarify, simplify or correct certain sections of the regulations.
13. Seven parties filed comments in response to the NOPR.[20] The following sections provide a detailed discussion of the parties' comments, however, commenters generally express support for the Commission's proposals regarding the Form No. 556 and to clarify, simplify or correct certain sections of the regulations. In particular, most of the commenters support the Commission's proposal to remove the contents of the Form No. 556 from the regulations and require applicants to electronically file the Form No. 556 that is in effect at the time of filing, with the exception of certain concerns expressed by Interstate Renewable and objections raised by Southern. Commenters also generally support the Commission's proposal to revise and reformat the Form No. 556 to clarify the content of the form and to take advantage of newer technologies.
15. The Commission adopts the NOPR proposals to: (1) Remove the contents of the Form No. 556 from the regulations, and, in their place, to provide that an applicant seeking to certify the QF status of a small power production or cogeneration facility must complete, and electronically file, the Form No. 556 that is in effect at the time of filing; (2) revise and reformat the Form No. 556 to clarify the content of the form and to take advantage of newer technologies; (3) exempt generating facilities with net power production capacities of 1 MW or less from the QF certification requirement; (4) codify the Commission's authority to waive the QF certification requirement for good cause; (5) extend to all applicants for QF certification the requirement (currently applicable only to applicants for self-certification of QF status) to serve a copy of a filed Form No. 556 on the affected utilities and state regulatory authorities; (6) eliminate the requirement for applicants to provide a draft notice suitable for publication in the Federal Register; (7) clarify, simplify or correct certain sections of the regulations; and (8) change to the exemption of QFs from the Federal Power Act,[21] and to the exemption of QFs from the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005 (PUHCA) and certain State laws and regulations [22] to make clear that certain small power production facilities that satisfy the criteria of section 3(17)(E) of the Federal Power Act qualify for those exemptions.
16. The revisions to the Form No. 556 and the procedures for filing the Form No. 556 are informed by the Commission's experience both with administering the Form No. 556 and with new technologies for electronic data collection that have become available since the Form No. 556 was first established by Order No. 575 in 1995.[23] The changes will increase the effectiveness of the Commission's policies encouraging cogeneration and small power production, as required by section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA).[24] B. Revisions to 18 CFR 131.80
17. Currently, § 131.80 of the Commission regulations contains the text of Form No. 556 as well as instructions on how to complete the form. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that § 131.80 of the Commission's regulations will no longer contain Form No. 556. In place of the current language, we proposed to require in § 131.80(a) that any person seeking to certify a facility as a QF must complete and electronically file the Form No. 556 then in effect and in accordance with the instructions then incorporated in that form.
18. The Commission also proposed to require, through proposed § 131.80(c), that applicants submit their QF applications (whether initial certifications or recertifications, and whether self-certifications or applications for Commission certification) electronically via the Commission's eFiling Web site.
21. The Commission adopts its proposal to remove the contents of the Form No. 556 from its regulations, and, in their place, to provide that an applicant seeking to certify QF status of a small power production or cogeneration facility must complete, and electronically file, the Form No. 556 that is in effect at the time of filing. Revising § 131.80, as proposed, will make it easier to clarify and correct the form, should such changes prove necessary or appropriate in the future. Future changes to the form would be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget following a solicitation of comments from the public on proposed changes, but would not require a formal rulemaking. This treatment is consistent with how a number of other Commission information collections are managed, including FERC Form Nos. 1, 1-F, 3-Q, 60, 80, 714, and 715, as well Start Printed Page 15953as the FERC Form No. 580 Interrogatory.[25] 22. An electronic filing process will be faster, easier, less costly and less resource-intensive than hardcopy filing. An applicant filing electronically will receive an acknowledgement that the Commission has received the application and a docket number for the submittal much more quickly than it would by filing in hardcopy format. Also, electronic filing will allow the Commission to electronically process QF applications, dramatically reducing required staff resources and human error, and allowing the Commission to identify patterns of reporting errors and noncompliance that would be difficult to detect through manual processing. Finally, electronic filing of QF applications will facilitate the compilation of QF data that could be made available to the public. Each year Commission staff fields a number of requests for QF certification data from private organizations, researchers and other government agencies. Requiring applicants to file in electronic format will make it possible to respond to many more such requests, and/or to publish compiled QF data on the Commission's Web site.
24. Section 292.203 of our regulations [26] lists the general requirements for QF status. For a qualifying small power production facility, those requirements currently state that the facility must meet the maximum size criteria specified in § 292.204(a), meet the fuel use criteria specified in § 292.204(b), and must have filed a notice of self-certification or an application for Commission certification that has been granted. For a qualifying cogeneration facility, those requirements currently state that the facility must meet any applicable operating and efficiency standards provided in § 292.205(a) and (b), and that the facility must have filed a notice of self-certification or an application for Commission certification that has been granted.
25. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to correct an inadvertent error in § 292.203(b)(1) of our regulations.[27] Order No. 671 implemented additional technical requirements for certain cogeneration facilities in § 292.205(d), but § 292.203(b)(1) was not updated to reflect that a facility must comply with these new requirements (if applicable) in order to be a qualifying cogeneration facility. The Commission proposed to add the reference to § 292.205(d) in § 292.203(b). Because the technical requirements of § 292.205(d) are not “operating and efficiency standards,” the Commission proposed to amend § 292.203(b) to delete the phrase “operating and efficiency standards” and to replace it with the phrase “standards and criteria.”
26. Finally, the Commission sought comments on whether to add a § 292.203(d) which would (1) exempt certain small facilities from the requirement to make a filing for qualifying status, and (2) would make explicit the Commission's authority to grant waiver of the filing requirement upon a showing of good cause.[28] 27. The Commission also proposed a Form No. 556 exemption with a 1 MW threshold. The Commission explained that, while electronic filing of QF certifications has many benefits, some of the parties submitting applications for certification of QF status are small entities that consider the cost of legal representation to be burdensome and/or that lack access to the computer facilities necessary to make an electronic filing. To address this concern, the Commission proposed to amend § 292.203 to exempt the applicants with a net power production capacity of 1 MW or less, from the requirement to make any filing with the Commission in order to be a QF.
31. Southern requests the following clarifications: (1) QFs that are exempt from filing a Form No. 556 may still be required to provide notice or attestation to the relevant electric utilities that the facility is in fact a QF; (2) a utility may rely upon such a notice or attestation; and (3) an exempt QF should be required to provide important information to the electric utility, including principal components of the facility (electric generators, transformers, switchyard equipment), fuel type, maximum gross and net output, expected installation and Start Printed Page 15954operation dates as required to determine the impact of the QF on the safety and reliability of the electric system.
32. EEI also requests clarification on a number of matters related to an exemption threshold. Specifically, EEI requests the Commission also provide the following: (1) Clarification that utilities and/or state commissions may require proof that a facility meets the requirements to become a QF and may still require the facility to provide “necessary technical design information” through “another form of attestation” that the facility meets the eligibility requirements to be a QF; (2) clarification that disputes regarding the QF eligibility of facilities that are not required to submit filings may be brought to the Commission for resolution; (3) clarification that a utility may terminate or otherwise abrogate the QF contract of a facility that is exempt from filing requirements if it finds that the facility in fact does not meet the criteria to be considered a QF, or the facility owner made fraudulent or false representations regarding its satisfaction of QF eligibility criteria; (4) that any increase in power production capacity requires a new Interconnection Request and that certain changes other than power production capacity increase also may trigger the Material Modification provisions of the Commission's Interconnection Procedures; (5) revision to § 292.310 of the Commission's regulations to require a utility that is seeking relief from PURPA mandatory purchase obligations to provide only the name and address of any QF that is exempt from filing with the Commission to obtain QF status.[29] Commission Determination
33. The Commission adopts the NOPR proposal to update § 292.203(b) to reflect that a qualifying cogeneration facility must comply with any applicable requirements in § 292.205(d), and to make explicit the Commission's authority to grant waiver of the filing requirement upon a showing of good cause.
34. The Commission also adopts the NOPR proposal to add a § 292.203(d) to exempt facilities with a net power production capacity of 1 MW or less from the requirement to make a filing with the Commission in order to be a QF. The Commission notes that, until the effective date of Order No. 671, no filing, either of a self-certification or an application for Commission certification, was needed for a facility to claim QF status.[30] In instituting a filing requirement for QF status in Order No. 671, the Commission, among other things, explained that requiring a filing would help ensure that a “new” cogeneration facility would not be able to claim QF status without making a filing; [31] the Commission believed that the Congressional mandate to tighten the standards for cogeneration facilities required that a filing, either a self-certification or an application for Commission certification, be made by an entity claiming QF status.[32] However, for facilities that are comparatively small, such as solar generation facilities installed at residences or other relatively small electric consumers such as retail stores, hospitals, or schools (and, in fact, many of the filings received in recent years involve just such small solar and wind-powered facilities), there may not be as compelling a need for filings with the Commission for QF status.
35. The Commission adopts the originally-proposed 1 MW filing threshold for exemption from the requirement to make a filing for QF status. We find that a 1 MW threshold, consistent with PURPA's mandate,[33] encourages QFs—both cogeneration and small power production—by eliminating the burden of filing. And a 1 MW threshold appropriately balances the competing claims of those seeking a lower threshold and those seeking a higher threshold. A lower threshold, while perhaps exempting facilities installed at residences, would nevertheless continue to impose a requirement to file on facilities, such as facilities installed at retail stores, hospitals, or schools, that are among the small facilities that PURPA was equally intended to promote. Facilities larger than 1 MW, however, represent a significant departure from the smallest generation (residential, retail, hospitals, schools, etc.) and such larger facilities should not find the filing requirement for QF status to represent an undue burden. Facilities over 1 MW would typically require a significant capital outlay, on the order of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, and the additional burden, both financial and otherwise, of filing with the Commission will be comparatively minimal. Moreover, looking at QF filings for the last five years, we see that a substantial portion of such QF filings are from smaller facilities. QF certification filings from facilities 1 MW or smaller represented approximately 48 percent of all QF filings. The filings from these facilities, however, represented only a small percentage of the total capacity being certified as QFs; filings from facilities 1 MW or smaller represented only approximately one half of one percent of QF capacity certified. Given these figures, the need for filings from such facilities is equally small; such facilities, whether or not they are required to file a Form 556, would rarely, if ever, not be in compliance with the standards and criteria for QF status.
37. In exempting smaller generating facilities from the requirement to file a Form 556 in order to obtain QF status, the Commission is simply reverting, for these 1 MW and below facilities only, back to the policy that existed prior to Order No. 671, where QF status did not depend on such a filing. At that time, a facility's QF status was dependent only on whether the facility met the technical criteria for QF status, and was not dependent upon the applicant having Start Printed Page 15955made a certification filing with the Commission.
38. A transacting utility, of course, needs necessary technical information from a QF in order to safely and reliably interconnect and transact with the QF, and we would expect a QF to provide such information.[34] And a purchasing electric utility currently may contest a facility's QF status if it does not agree with the facility's claim to that status. Thus, utilities currently may file a petition for revocation of QF status for any facility that holds itself out as a QF but which the utility reasonably believes does not meet the requirements for QF status,[35] just as they could prior to Order No. 671. The Commission has not proposed to change these regulations in this proceeding.
41. The Commission declines to address, as beyond the scope of this proceeding, EEI's requests (1) to modify 18 CFR 292.310 to require a utility that is seeking relief from PURPA mandatory purchase obligations to provide only the name and address of any QF that is exempt from filing with the Commission to obtain QF status,[36] and (2) for the Commission to remind QFs that “any increase in MW requires a new Interconnection Request and that certain changes other than MW increase also may trigger the Material Modification provisions of the Commission's Interconnection Procedures.”
42. Section 3(17)(E) of the Federal Power Act provides that an “eligible solar, wind, waste or geothermal facility” is a facility which produces electric energy solely by the use, as a primary energy source, of solar energy, wind energy, waste resources or geothermal resources, but only if such facility meets certain criteria for dates of certification and construction. Section 3(17)(A) of the Federal Power Act provides that any eligible solar, wind, waste, or geothermal facility is a small power production facility, regardless of its size. The Commission implemented these sections of the Federal Power Act in § 292.204(a), including the statement that there are no size limitations for “eligible” solar, wind or waste facilities,[37] as defined by section 3(17)(E) of the Federal Power Act. The regulation then states that, for “a non-eligible facility,” the size limitation for a qualifying small power production facility is 80 MW.
43. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that the wording of § 292.204(a) has created confusion for many applicants. Applicants not familiar with section 3(17)(A) or (E) of the Federal Power Act frequently confuse the statutory concept of “eligibility” with more general questions of whether a facility is eligible for QF status. They often assume that an “eligible facility” is any facility that is eligible for qualifying status. In an attempt to reduce such confusion, the Commission proposed to revise § 292.204(a) to be more clear (avoiding using the term “eligible”) while achieving the same regulatory outcome as the current § 292.204(a).
44. No comments were received on the Commission's proposal to clarify the wording of § 292.204(a). However, EEI requests that the Commission revisit the “one-mile rule” used to determine whether two facilities are part of the same QF for purposes of § 292.204(a), and asks that the Commission adopt a rebuttable presumption that facilities on sites located more than one mile apart are independent for purposes of QF certification, but that utilities would be allowed to rebut this presumption upon a showing that the facilities, although located more than a mile apart, are “part of a common enterprise” and should thus be considered as a single entity, not entitled to more separate certifications of QF status.
45. The Commission adopts the NOPR proposal to revise § 292.204(a) to be more clear (avoiding using the term “eligible”) while achieving the same regulatory outcome. The Commission declines, as beyond the scope of this proceeding, the request by EEI to adopt a presumption that facilities on sites located more than one mile apart are independent for purposes of QF certification, and that such presumption be rebuttable based on considerations EEI enumerates.[38] E. Revisions to 18 CFR 292.205
46. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that the text of § 292.205(d) of the Commission's regulations [39] contains an error in the description of the new cogeneration facilities that are subject to the requirements of §§ 292.205(d)(1) and (2). Section 292.205(d) provides that the following facilities are subject to these requirements:
any cogeneration facility that was either not certified as a qualifying cogeneration facility on or before August 8, 2005, or that had not filed a notice of self-certification, self-recertification or an application for Commission certification or Commission recertification as a qualifying cogeneration facility under § 292.207 of this chapter prior to February 2, 2006, and which is seeking to sell electric energy pursuant to section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, 16 U.S.C. 824a-1.[40] 47. From this language, the criteria for QF status include whether or not a cogeneration facility was “certified as” a qualifying cogeneration facility by August 8, 2005.[41] However, the text of section 210(n)(2) of PURPA states that the Commission's prior cogeneration requirements shall continue to apply to any facility that “was a qualifying cogeneration facility on [August 8, Start Printed Page 159562005].” [42] Furthermore, at the time of enactment of EPAct 2005, the Commission's regulations did not require that a facility that complied with the requirements for QF status be self or Commission certified in order to be a QF.[43] As such, there were many facilities that were QFs on August 8, 2005, even though they were not self or Commission certified as QFs by that date. To correct this error, the Commission proposed to strike the words “certified as” from the first sentence of § 292.205(d).
48. Section 210(n)(2) of PURPA also states that the Commission's prior cogeneration requirements will continue to apply to any facility that “had filed with the Commission a notice of self-certification, self recertification or an application for Commission certification under 18 CFR 292.207 prior to [February 2, 2006].” [44] The Commission implemented this provision in § 292.205(d) by not applying the new cogeneration requirements to any cogeneration facility that had filed “a notice of self-certification, self-recertification or an application for Commission certification or Commission recertification as a qualifying cogeneration facility under § 292.207 of this chapter prior to February 2, 2006.” Because any facility that had recertified (either by self-recertification or application for Commission recertification) prior to February 2, 2006 must necessarily have made its original certification prior to February 2, 2006, the Commission proposed in the NOPR that the inclusion of “self-recertification” and “application for Commission recertification” in this provision is unnecessary. The Commission proposed to simplify § 292.205(d) to state that the new cogeneration requirements will not apply to any facility that had filed “a notice of self-certification or an application for Commission certification as a qualifying cogeneration facility under § 292.207 of this chapter prior to February 2, 2006.”
50. The Commission adopts the NOPR proposals to strike the words “certified as” from the first sentence of § 292.205(d) and to simplify § 292.205(d) to state that the new cogeneration requirements will not apply to any facility that had filed “a notice of self-certification or an application for Commission certification as a qualifying cogeneration facility under § 292.207 of this chapter prior to February 2, 2006.” The proposed revisions achieve the intended regulatory result of the existing regulatory text while decreasing the complexity of the regulatory text, and thus the opportunities for confusion.
51. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to eliminate the procedure for pre-authorized Commission recertification contained in § 292.207(a)(2).[45] That procedure was established to give applicants for facilities that have been certified under the procedures for Commission certification in § 292.207(b) a list of insubstantial alterations and modifications that would not result in the revocation of QF status previously granted by the Commission. Section 292.207(a)(2)(ii) also requires those making the changes listed in § 292.207(a)(2)(i) to notify the Commission and each affected utility and State regulatory authority of each such change.
53. The Commission further noted that the types of changes listed in § 292.207(a)(2)(i) were somewhat misleading, as a strict reading of that list implied that almost any change to a QF, no matter how small, would require notice to the Commission and to the affected utilities and State regulatory authorities. In reality, the Commission explained, changes falling below a certain level of importance were not significant enough to justify the burden on the applicant of the recertification requirement.
55. Sun Edison, on the other hand, requests that the Commission retain a list of pre-approved QF changes that would not require QF recertification, and otherwise clarify the trigger threshold for recertification. In this regard, Sun Edison requests clarification of what the Commission meant in the NOPR by its statement that “changes falling below a certain level of importance are not significant enough to justify the burden on the applicant of the recertification requirement.” [46] In particular, Sun Edison argues that changes in ownership should not trigger a re-filing requirement. Sun Edison suggests that, if the Commission does not eliminate the reporting requirement for ownership information as requested by Sun Edison and addressed below, the Commission consider requiring that the applicant only provide ownership information once in Form No. 556 and that no subsequent change in QF ownership require a refiling of Form No. 556, or that, for subsequent change in QF ownership, the applicant only provide the Commission with a list of affected QF dockets, rather than submit an entire new Form No. 556 for each QF in which it owns an interest. Finally, Sun Edison requests that for all or some small power QFs, especially those without fuel or size limitations, the Commission grant a “continued presumption” of QF status as long as such facilities continue to comply with the criteria for QF status (other than the Start Printed Page 15957filing requirements) and do not change their essential nature.
57. The Commission declines Sun Edison's request to include a list in the regulations of specific changes that would not require QF recertification. Section 292.207(d) of the Commission's regulations provides that “if a qualifying facility fails to conform with any material facts or representations presented by the cogenerator or small power producer in its submittals to the Commission, the [applicant's certification] may no longer be relied upon.” This standard will continue to provide the basis for when recertification of facilities is necessary, i.e., when facilities fail to conform with any material facts or representations presented in an applicant's previous certification.[47] This standard has been in place for decades and, in our experience, has provided the guidance needed to QFs to decide whether to make a recertification filing; in the absence of any evidence that the process requires modification, we decline to do so at this time.[48] 58. The Commission also denies Sun Edison's request that the Commission consider requiring that applicants need only provide ownership information in the initial certification filing, and that no subsequent changes in QF ownership need be reported. The Commission notes that the Commission determined in Order No. 671 that, despite the elimination in EPAct 2005 of the ownership restrictions, ownership information assists the Commission in monitoring potential discrimination in the provision of service to customers and assists the Commission in reviewing the extent to which various QFs should continue to be exempt from various provisions of the FPA and state laws.[49] Although the revised Form No. 556 adopted in this Final Rule relaxes, to some extent, when a QF is required to disclose its owners,[50] the Commission's finding in Order No. 671 about the usefulness of ownership information continues to be true today. Thus, we will continue the QF ownership reporting requirement, including the requirement that any change in material facts and representations triggers a recertification requirement. We clarify, however, that the Commission will not consider a change in ownership to be a change in material facts and representations made in the previous filing if no owner increases their equity interest by at least 10 percent from the equity interest previously reported.[51] 59. We also decline Sun Edison's request that applicants be allowed, in recertifications reporting ownership changes, to only provide the Commission with a list of affected QF dockets rather than submit a new Form No. 556 for each QF in which it owns a reportable interest. The Commission may, however, on a case-by-case basis, choose to waive requirement to file Form No. 556.
61. EEI concurs with the Commission's proposal to delete § 292.207(a)(1)(iii) and suggests the Commission also require all currently-certified QFs to re-file their information electronically within two years after a final rule becomes effective.
63. The Commission adopts the NOPR proposal to require applicants to provide all of the information for their facility in each Form No. 556 they submit with a self-recertification or an application for Commission recertification. The Commission adopts the NOPR proposal to delete the provision in § 292.207(a)(1)(iii) that provides that subsequent notices of self-recertification for the same facility may reference prior self-certifications or prior Commission certifications, and need only refer to changes which have occurred with respect to the facility since the prior notice or the prior Commission certification.
64. This proposed change will result in greater transparency: During the processing of routine QF petitions and periodic compliance reviews of self-certifications, the Commission frequently finds that the original certification data for some facilities (particularly facilities originally certified in the 1980s) can be difficult to obtain. Notwithstanding U.S. Clean Heat & Power's claim, requiring the provision of full data in a recertification would be a small, one-time burden for applicants, because applicants may, after their first recertification subsequent to a Final Rule implementing this proposal, simply download their previous electronically-filed Form No. 556 from eLibrary and update the relevant responses to generate their new Form No. 556. Given the significant benefit and the small, one-time burden, deletion of § 292.207(a)(1)(iii) is appropriate.Start Printed Page 15958
65. We disagree with U.S. Clean Heat & Power's assessment of the time requirements associated with adopting this proposal, and find that, for most facilities that are properly monitoring their compliance with the relevant QF standards, the burden even of recreating the most complex cogeneration portions of the Form No. 556 is not unreasonable.[52] Qualifying cogeneration facilities are, after all, required to comply with operating and efficiency standards for both the 12-month period beginning with the date the facility first produces electric energy, and any calendar year subsequent to the year in which the facility first produces electric energy.[53] Applicants properly monitoring compliance with the QF requirements should have the data necessary to complete the Form No. 556 reasonably accessible. We clarify, to the extent necessary, that applicants which have archived their original filings need not necessarily undertake extensive searches for those original filings, or undertake extensive efforts to recreate the data in those original filings. Rather, current operating data can (and should) be used when recertifying a facility, particularly if any material changes have been made to the operation of the facility.
68. Section 292.207(a)(1)(iv) of our regulations [54] currently requires that notices of self-certifications and self-recertifications for new cogeneration facilities be published in the Federal Register. Similarly, § 292.207(b)(4) of our regulations [55] requires that notices of applications for Commission certification or recertification be published in the Federal Register. For these applications that require publication of notices in the Federal Register, §§ 292.207(a)(1)(iv) and (b)(4) require that applicants provide with their filing a draft notice suitable for publication in the Federal Register on electronic media.
69. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to continue to publish notices of self-certification and self-recertification for new cogeneration facilities and applications for Commission certification and recertification in the Federal Register, and included that requirement in the proposed § 292.207(c). However, the Commission proposed to delete §§ 292.207(a)(1)(iv) and (b)(4) in order to eliminate the requirement that applicants for those types of filings provide a draft notice suitable for publication in the Federal Register.
71. The Commission adopts the NOPR proposal to delete §§ 292.207(a)(1)(iv) and (b)(4) in order to eliminate the requirement that applicants for those types of filings provide a draft notice suitable for publication in the Federal Register. The Commission will be able to automatically generate Federal Register notices directly from the electronic Form No. 556 data, without requiring a draft notice be submitted by the applicant.
72. Currently applicants for self-certification are required to serve a copy of their QF self-certification filings on each electric utility with which they expect to interconnect, transmit or sell electric energy to, or purchase supplementary, standby, back-up and maintenance power from, and the State regulatory authority of each state where the facilities and each affected electric utility is located.[56] No such requirement currently exists for applications for Commission certification.
74. Interstate Renewables suggests exempting small QFs that will be exempt under proposed § 202.203(d)(1) from the requirement to file a Form 556 from the notice requirements contained in proposed § 292.207(c)(2).
75. Interstate Renewables also requests that proposed § 292.207(c)(2) be modified to provide that a utility is not required to purchase electric energy from a facility until 5 days (rather than 90 days) after the facility meets the notice requirements in section (c)(1) of this section.
77. The Commission denies Interstate Renewables's request to decrease the time provided in § 292.207(c)(2) for an electric utility to begin purchasing electric energy from 90 days to 5 days; 90 days has long been part of the Commission's regulations and we are not persuaded to change it. However, we instead adopt in § 292.207(c)(2) the regulatory text more closely aligned with that § 292.207(c), so that § 292.207(c)(2) will read as follows:
As a result of adopting this language, § 292.207(c)(2) will maintain the current policy that the 90-day requirement can be satisfied with notification to the utility, instead of tying it to a filing with the Commission. In light of this change, we also decline Interstate Renewables' proposal to begin § 292.207(c)(2) with the phrase “Except for a facility exempt under § 202.203(d)(1).” Because, as explained above, a facility will be able to notify the electric utility without necessarily having to make a Form No. 556 filing with the Commission, we see Start Printed Page 15959no reason to modify this 500 kW threshold.
78. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to remove reference to “pre-authorized Commission recertification” in the title of § 292.207(a) and in the text of § 292.207(d)(1)(i). The Commission also proposed to delete the current § 292.207(a)(1), and to replace it, in § 292.207(a), with a procedure for self-certification that incorporates clear reference to proposed § 131.80 and to the notice requirements in § 292.207(c).
79. No comments were received on this issue.[57] Commission Determination
80. The Commission adopts the NOPR proposal to remove reference to “pre-authorized Commission recertification” in the title of § 292.207(a) and in the body text of § 292.207(d)(1)(i). The Commission also adopts the NOPR proposal to delete the current § 292.207(a)(1), and to replace it, in § 292.207(a), with a procedure for self-certification that incorporates clear reference to proposed § 131.80 and to the notice requirements in § 292.207(c).
81. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to amend § 292.601(a) of its regulations [58] to make clear the exemption from the specified Federal Power Act sections is applicable to any facility that meets the definition of an “eligible solar, wind, waste or geothermal facility” under section 3(17)(E) of the Federal Power Act. Section 4 of the Solar, Wind, Waste, and Geothermal Power Production Incentives Act of 1990 (Incentives Act) [59] provides that “eligible facilities” shall not be subject to the size limitations contained in § 292.601(b) of the Commission's regulations, unless the Commission otherwise specifies. The Commission there explained that it had found that the size limitation for eligibility for the exemptions contained in §§ 292.601 and 292.602, otherwise applicable to other small power production facilities, does not apply to “eligible facilities.” [60] Comments
83. The Commission adopts the NOPR proposal to amend § 292.601(a) of its regulations to make clear the exemption from the specified Federal Power Act sections is applicable to any facility that meets the definition of an “eligible solar, wind, waste or geothermal facility” under section 3(17)(E) of the Federal Power Act.
84. We note that, because § 292.602(a) states that the exemption from the PUHCA and State laws and regulations provided by that section applies to any QF described in § 292.601(a), and because the QFs described by § 292.601(a) include all QFs other than those described by § 292.601(b), the Incentives Act's exemption of “eligible facilities” from the size limitation contained in § 292.601(b) also has the effect of making such facilities eligible for the exemptions from PUHCA and State laws and regulations.
85. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to amend § 292.602(c)(1) to clarify that it is only the QFs described in paragraph (a) of that section that may take advantage of the exemptions provided in § 292.602, and to correct a typographical error. Finally, the Commission proposed to correct a typographical error in the title of § 292.602.
Commission Determination 87. The Commission adopts the NOPR proposal to amend § 292.602(c)(1) to clarify that it is only the QFs described in paragraph (a) of that section that may take advantage of the exemptions provided in § 292.602, and to correct a typographical error. The Commission also adopts the NOPR proposal to correct a typographical error in the title of § 292.602.
A. General NOPR Proposal 88. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to make a number of changes to the content and organization of the Form No. 556. The proposed revised Form No. 556 was made available for download from the Commission's QF Web site, and was published in the Federal Register.[61] As discussed above, the Commission did not propose to include the content of the Form No. 556 in the Commission's regulations. Rather, the Commission proposed that the changed Form No. 556, once approved, will become “the Form No. 556 then in effect” for purposes of proposed § 131.80. The Commission therefore gave notice of its proposed changes to Form No. 556, and explained that it intended to submit the revised Form No. 556 for OMB approval pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act,[62] after receiving and considering comments on those changes.
91. The Commission further explained that its experience had been that the open-ended nature of the current Form No. 556 data collection—where applicants are able to type any answer or no answer in response to an Start Printed Page 15960item—often resulted in applicants incorrectly answering or skipping items or portions of items that they mistakenly feel do not apply to them. The Commission proposed to implement improved instructions, use a greater number of questions which are individually narrower in scope, and use certain electronic data controls and validation options, such as checkboxes and data entry fields that only accept data formatted in the appropriate way to minimize these problems.
Comments 92. No comments were filed on this proposal.
Commission Determination 93. We will adopt the new revised Form No. 556, as proposed in the NOPR, with minor clarifications and corrections. As explained in the NOPR, we expect that the revised form both will be less burdensome to those filling out the form and will provide the Commission with information that is more accurate and readily accessible.
B. Name of Form NOPR Proposal 94. In Order No. 575, the Commission adopted San Diego Gas and Electric Company's suggestion to title the Form No. 556 to make clear that it applies to proposed as well as to existing facilities.[63] In the NOPR, the Commission did not propose to change the applicability of the form to proposed and existing facilities; however, as part of its attempt to make the Form No. 556 as simple and clear as possible, the Commission proposed to shorten the name of the form to “Certification of Qualifying Facility (QF) Status for a Small Power Production or Cogeneration Facility.”
Comments 95. No comments were filed on this proposal.
Commission Determination 96. The Commission adopts the NOPR proposal to shorten the name of the Form No. 556 to “Certification of Qualifying Facility (QF) Status for a Small Power Production or Cogeneration Facility.”
C. Geographic Coordinates NOPR Proposal 97. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that, over the years, it had received a number of inquiries from the public seeking certain information about QFs. Many of these inquiries were from academics, research organizations or other government entities performing studies of the effectiveness of PURPA and the Commission's regulations implementing PURPA. Often such inquiries have involved the locations of the QFs. The Commission explained that, currently, location information is collected only through the street address of the facility, even though some facilities in rural or wilderness areas do not have a street address.
Comments 99. Southern supported this proposal. No other comments were filed on this proposal.
Commission Determination 100. The Commission adopts the NOPR proposal to include a new line 3c that will require applicants for facilities without a street address to provide the geographic coordinates (latitude and longitude) of their facilities. The text of line 3c directs applicants to the Geographic Coordinates section of the instructions on page 4 which discusses several different ways through which applicants might obtain the geographic coordinates of their facilities: Through certain free online map services (with links available through the Commission's QF Web site); a GPS device; Google Earth; a property survey; various engineering or construction drawings; a property deed; or a municipal or county map showing property lines. Applicants are directed in line 3c to provide their geographic coordinates to three decimal places, and are given a simple formula for how to convert degrees, minutes and seconds to decimal degrees.
D. Ownership NOPR Proposal 101. In Order No. 671, the Commission eliminated the limitation on electric utility and electric utility holding company ownership of QFs, but maintained the requirement that applicants provide ownership information in the Form No. 556.[64] 102. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that the wording of item 1c of the current Form No. 556 has proven confusing with respect to the collection of ownership information. In particular, the Commission explained that item 1c did not specify the amount of equity interest in the facility above which the applicant is required to identify the owner. For facilities with many owners, this can prove burdensome, particularly if the ownership changes frequently.
104. The Commission proposed to clarify both the level of ownership above which applicants are required to identify owners, and which information must be provided for direct and upstream owners. First, while maintaining the current requirement that applicants indicate the percentage of direct ownership held by any electric utility [65] or holding company,[66] the Commission proposed to clarify in line 5a of the proposed Form No. 556 that an applicant need only provide information for direct owners that hold at least 10 percent equity interest in the facility.[67] Second, the Commission proposed to require in line 5b that applicants identify all upstream owners that both (1) hold at least a 10 percent equity interest in the facility and (2) are electric utilities or holding companies.
105. EEI and Southern support the Commission's clarification of level of ownership. As discussed above, Sun Edison requests the Commission Start Printed Page 15961consider the legal basis for requiring that ownership be tracked by the Commission and asks that changes in ownership not trigger a re-filing requirement, or that the Commission consider requiring that the QF owner only provide ownership information once in the original Form No. 556 and that no subsequent change in QF ownership require a refiling of Form No. 556, or that, for a subsequent change in QF ownership, the QF owner only provide the Commission with a list of affected QF dockets, rather than submit an entire new Form No. 556 for each QF in which it owns an interest.
106. The Commission adopts the NOPR proposal to clarify the level of ownership above which applicants are required to identify owners, and which information must be provided for direct and upstream owners. Specifically, the Commission, while maintaining the requirement that applicants indicate the percentage of direct ownership held by any electric utility [68] or holding company,[69] the Commission adopts the NOPR proposal to clarify in line 5a of Form No. 556 that an applicant need only provide information for direct owners that hold at least 10 percent equity interest in the facility. Also, the Commission adopts the NOPR proposal to require in line 5b that applicants identify all upstream owners that both (1) hold at least a 10 percent equity interest in the facility and (2) are electric utilities or holding companies.
108. Section 292.204(b) of the Commission's regulations [70] allows small power production facilities to use oil, natural gas or coal in amounts up to and including 25 percent of the total energy input to the facility as calculated during the 12-month period beginning with the date the facility first produces electric energy and any calendar year subsequent to the year in which the facility first produces electric energy. Such use of oil, natural gas or coal is limited to certain purposes specified in section 3(17)(B) of the Federal Power Act as implemented in § 292.204(b)(2) of the Commission's regulations.[71] 109. Item 7 of the current Form No. 556 requires applicants to describe “how fossil fuel use will not exceed 25 percent of the total annual energy input limit,” and “how the use of fossil fuel will be limited to the following purposes to conform to Federal Power Act section 3(17)(B): Ignition, start-up, flame stabilization, control use, and minimal amounts of fuel required to alleviate or prevent unanticipated equipment outages and emergencies directly affecting the public.” In the NOPR, the Commission explained that experience with this item had indicated two problems. First, because applicants have significant latitude in how they respond in the current Form No. 556, they often make statements which do not, on their face, commit themselves to fuel use that would meet the Commission's requirements for qualifying small power production facilities. While these responses are unlikely to represent an intentional attempt on the part of applicants to circumvent the Commission's regulations for fuel use, the statements could make enforcement of the Commission's regulations more difficult.
115. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that some applicants had complained that, for relatively simple cogeneration facilities, some of the information required is meaningless or not known. For example, small diesel generators utilizing jacket water cooling systems to capture waste heat were often certified as qualifying cogeneration facilities. Such systems typically have no steam at any point in the system, and instead use pressurized water or an antifreeze solution to recover the waste heat and transport it to the useful thermal application. For such systems, applicants had complained that specifying pressure has no significance, since the effect of pressure on enthalpy (a measure of thermal energy content) is negligible for liquids at standard conditions. Likewise, applicants had complained that, since pressure in all-liquid systems is not an important design variable, it Start Printed Page 15962was often not known to any degree of accuracy in such systems.
122. In response to EPAct 2005, the Commission implemented in Order No. 671 additional requirements for new cogeneration facilities selling power pursuant to section 210 of PURPA.[72] The Commission implemented the “productive and beneficial” and “fundamental use” requirements of EPAct 2005 through the inclusion of a new section in the Form No. 556 that required applicants to respond to the text of the statute, providing applicants space to demonstrate compliance with EPAct 2005's requirements. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that, in practice, Form No. 556 had not provided sufficient guidance to applicants whether their facilities enjoy a presumption of compliance under § 292.205(d)(4) of the Commission's regulations, or whether such facilities fall within the safe harbor established by the “fundamental use test” in § 292.205(d)(3).
123. The Commission noted in the NOPR that, in implementing the “productive and beneficial” requirement of EPAct 2005, the Commission essentially maintained its long-standing “usefulness” standard, except that what it deemed as presumptively useful was now rebuttable.[73] The Commission explained that the current Form No. 556 requirement that applicants demonstrate compliance both with the “productive and beneficial” standard (in item 15) and the “useful” standard (in items 12, 13 and/or 14) could be condensed and streamlined without degrading the information provided or the level of Commission and public oversight of the QF program. The Commission proposed to consolidate these requirements into the portion of the proposed Form No. 556 where applicants demonstrate the “usefulness” of the thermal output (lines 12a, 12b, 14a, and 14b of the proposed form).
124. The Commission explained that the “fundamental use” requirement for EPAct 2005 cogeneration facilities, on the other hand, involved data collection that was specific to EPAct 2005 facilities. As such, the Commission proposes to implement a new section of the Form No. 556 entitled “EPAct 2005 Requirements for Fundamental Use of Energy Output from Cogeneration Facilities.” This section would replace the current “For New Cogeneration Facilities” section. The Commission proposed this new section to facilitate an applicant's determination, in accordance with the applicable regulations (1) whether the EPAct 2005 cogeneration requirements apply to its facility, given the date on which the facility was originally a QF or originally filed for QF certification; (2) whether (if applicable) its pre-EPAct 2005 facility is subject to EPAct 2005 by virtue of changes to the facility which essentially make it a “new” EPAct 2005 facility; (3) whether its facility is excluded from the “fundamental use” requirement by virtue of the fact that power will not be sold from the facility pursuant to section 210 of PURPA; (4) whether its facility enjoys a rebuttable presumption of compliance with the “fundamental use” requirement by virtue of its small electric output; and/or (5) whether its facility complies with the fundamental use requirement by virtue of meeting the fundamental use test established in § 292.205(d)(3) of the Commission's regulations. If an applicant's facility is found to be subject to the EPAct 2005 requirements, but to fail the fundamental use test, then the applicant is instructed by line 11d of the proposed Form No. 556 to provide a narrative explanation of and support for why its facility meets the requirement that the electrical, thermal, chemical and mechanical output of an EPAct 2005 cogeneration facility is used fundamentally for industrial, commercial, residential or institutional purposes and is not intended fundamentally for sale to an electric utility, taking into account technological, efficiency, economic, and Start Printed Page 15963variable thermal energy requirements, as well as state laws applicable to sales of electric energy from a QF to its host facility.
125. Additionally, in proposed line 11c, applicants are required to provide information to be used in determining whether a modification to a pre-EPAct 2005 cogeneration facility might be so significant that the facility should be considered a new facility that would be subject to the additional requirements (if applicable) for EPAct 2005 cogeneration facilities. In Order No. 671, the Commission established a rebuttable presumption that a pre-EPAct 2005 cogeneration facility does not become an EPAct 2005 cogeneration facility merely because it files for recertification; however, the Commission cautioned that “changes to an existing cogeneration facility could be so great (such as an increase in capacity from 50 MW to 350 MW) that what an applicant is claiming to be an existing facility should, in fact, be considered a `new' cogeneration facility at the same site.” [74] The Commission explained in the NOPR that it will continue this rebuttable presumption, but also that it was proposing to require that an applicant filing a self-recertification or an application for Commission recertification for a pre-EPAct 2005 cogeneration facility provide sufficient information about any changes to the facility to evaluate whether in fact the changes are so significant that the facility should be considered an EPAct 2005 cogeneration facility.
129. The Commission also adopts the NOPR proposal to implement a new section of the Form No. 556, entitled “EPAct 2005 Requirements for Fundamental Use of Energy Output from Cogeneration Facilities.” However, we reject requests to specify exactly what types of changes would make an existing facility a “new” facility for the purposes of the additional EPAct 2005 requirements in § 292.205(d). The Commission finds EEI's requests for clarifications and EEI's related proposals with respect to the threshold above which changes to a facility would render a facility “new” for the purposes of the § 292.205(d) requirements to be beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
133. The collection of information contained in this Final Rule has been Start Printed Page 15964submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act.[75] The Commission solicited comments on the Commission's need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected or retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques.
Facility typeFiling typeNumber of respondentsHours per respondentTotal annual hourscogeneration facility > 1 MWself-certification1008800cogeneration facility > 1 MWapplication for Commission certification350150small power production facility > 1 MWself-certification40031,200small power production facility > 1 MWapplication for Commission certification166
137. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.[76] No environmental consideration is needed for the promulgation of a rule that addresses information gathering, analysis, and dissemination.[77] This Final Rule involves information gathering, analysis, and dissemination. Consequently, neither an Environmental Impact Statement nor Environmental Assessment is required.
138. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) [78] requires rulemakings to contain either a description or analysis of the effect that the rule will have on small entities or a certification that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In this Final Rule, we implement three different types of regulatory changes, and we address each in turn.
141. The requirement to report in line 3g geographic coordinates is applicable only to those facilities that do not have a street address and is therefore not generally applicable to all applicants. Moreover, in most cases, geographic coordinates can be obtained from a simple web search (with help provided by the instructions and the Commission's Web site); a GPS device (including some cellular phones); the use of free computer programs (such as Google Earth); or the review of certain documents, such as a property survey, various engineering or construction drawings, a property deed, or a Start Printed Page 15965municipal or county map showing property lines.
Start Amendment PartIn consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends parts 131 and 292 of Title 18 of the End Amendment Part
Start Amendment Part1. The authority citation for part 131 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part
Start Amendment Part2. Section 131.80 is revised to read as follows:End Amendment Part
Start Amendment Part1. The authority citation for part 292 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part
Start Amendment Part2. Section 292.203 is revised to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(c) Hydroelectric small power production facilities located at a new dam or diversion. (1) A hydroelectric small power production facility that impounds or diverts the water of a natural watercourse by means of a new dam or diversion (as that term is defined in § 292.202(p)) is a qualifying facility if it meets the requirements of:Start Printed Page 15966
Start Amendment Part3. In § 292.204, paragraph (a)(1) is revised and paragraph (a)(4) is added to read as follows:End Amendment Part
§ 292.204 Criteria for qualifying small power production facilities.
Start Amendment Part4. In § 292.205, paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:End Amendment Part
§ 292.205 Criteria for qualifying cogeneration facilities.
Start Amendment Part5. In § 292.207, paragraphs (a) through (d)(1)(i) are revised to read as follows:End Amendment Part
§ 292.207 Procedures for obtaining qualifying status.
(a) Self-certification. The qualifying facility status of an existing or a proposed facility that meets the requirements of § 292.203 may be self-certified by the owner or operator of the facility or its representative by properly completing a Form No. 556 and filing that form with the Commission, pursuant to § 131.80 of this chapter, and complying with paragraph (c) of this section.
Start Amendment Part6. In § 292.601, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:End Amendment Part
§ 292.601 Exemption to qualifying facilities from the Federal Power Act.
Start Amendment Part7. In § 292.602, the title and paragraph (c)(1) are revised to read as follows:End Amendment Part
§ 292.602 Exemption to qualifying facilities from the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005 and certain State laws and regulations.
(c) Exemption from certain State laws and regulations. (1) Any qualifying facility described in paragraph (a) of this section shall be exempted (except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this Start Printed Page 15967section) from State laws or regulations respecting:
Start Printed Page 15973
Start Printed Page 15984
Start Printed Page 15985
Start Printed Page 15986
18 CFR 131.80.
http://www.ferc.gov/​QF.
18 CFR Part 292.
18 CFR 292.601.
18 CFR 292.602.
Streamlining of Regulations Pertaining to Parts II and III of the Federal Power Act and the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, Order No. 575, 60 FR 4831 (Jan. 25, 1995), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,014, order on reh'g, Order No. 575-A, 71 FERC ¶ 61,121 (1995).
16 U.S.C. 824a-3.
There is no fee for self-certification; there is, however, a fee for Commission certification. 18 CFR 381.505. The Commission will not process an application for Commission certification without receipt of the applicable fee.
18 CFR 292.207(a).
Because recertification is a type of certification, policies applicable to self-certification and application for Commission certification also apply to self-recertification and application for Commission recertification.
Small Power Production and Cogeneration Facilities—Qualifying Status, Order No. 70, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 1977-1981 ¶ 30,134 (1980), order on reh'g, Order Nos. 69-A and 70-A, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 1977-1981 ¶ 30,160 (1980), aff'd in part and vacated in part, American Electric Power Service Corp. v. FERC, 675 F.2d 1226 (D.C. Cir. 1982), rev'd in part, American Paper Institute, Inc. v. American Electric Power Service Corp., 461 U.S. 402 (1983).
Order No. 70, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,134 at 30,954. As discussed below, the Commission, in 2005, added a requirement that a cogeneration facility or small power production facility either self-certify or receive Commission certification to have QF status. See 18 CFR 292.203(a)(3), (b)(2).
18 CFR 292.207(b).
18 CFR 381.505.
See 18 CFR 292.207(d)(ii). A similar opportunity for the Commission to revoke the QF status of a self-certified facility on the Commission's own motion, or on the motion of another party, was not expressly provided in the regulations; the Commission, however, allowed others to seek the revocation of a self-certified QF by filing a petition for declaratory order. In Order No. 671, infra note 17, the right to file a motion seeking revocation of a self-certification was added to the Commission's regulations. A motion seeking revocation requires a filing fee as a declaratory order. Chugach Electric Association, Inc., 121 FERC ¶ 61,287, at P 51-54 (2007). The filing fee for a declaratory order is provided in 18 CFR 381.302.
A “new” cogeneration facility is defined as any cogeneration facility that was either not a qualifying cogeneration facility on or before August 8, 2005, or that had not filed a notice of self-certification, self-recertification or an application for Commission certification or Commission recertification as a qualifying cogeneration facility prior to February 2, 2006. 16 U.S.C. 824a-3(n)(2)(B); 18 CFR 292.205(d).
Revised Regulations Governing Small Power Production and Cogeneration Facilities, Order No. 671, 71 FR 7852 (Feb. 15, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,203 (2006), order on reh'g, Order No. 671-A, 71 FR 30585 (May 30, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,219 (2006).
See 18 CFR 292.203(a)(3), (b)(2).
Revisions to Form, Procedures, and Criteria for Certification of Qualifying Facility Status for a Small Power Production or Cogeneration Facility, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR). 74 FR 54,503 (Oct. 22, 2009), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,648 (2009).
Interstate Renewable Energy Council and SolarCity (Interstate Renewable); Sun Edison LLC (Sun Edison); The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA); Edison Electric Institute (EEI); U.S. Clean Heat & Power Association (U.S. Clean Heat & Power); Southern Company, Inc. (Southern); and Tayrn Rucinski (an individual). Southern filed on behalf of Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, and Mississippi Power Company.
18 CFR 366.23.
18 CFR 292.203.
18 CFR 292.203(b)(1).
Citing Ashland Windfarm, LLC, 124 FERC ¶ 61,068 (2008) (Commission granted waiver of the filing requirement for QF status).
EEI notes that § 292.310 information collection is the subject of the Commission's current request for OMB renewal of FERC-912 in Docket IC09-912-000.
While not required, a facility seeking to claim QF status had the option of filing a self-certification or an application for Commission certification, and many facilities chose to do so. Here, as we explain below, we are adopting an exemption from the requirement to file for facilities with a net power production capacity of 1 MW or less. As before, though, while not required, a facility with a net power production capacity of 1 MW or less seeking to claim QF status has the option of filing a self-certification or an application for Commission certification should it choose to do so.
As noted below, over the last five years, the percentage of facilities that are cogeneration facilities 1 MW or smaller filing for QF status has proven to be comparatively small.
Order No. 671, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,203 at P 81.
See 16 U.S.C. 824a-3(a).
Such information would include principal components of the facility (electric generators, transformers, switchyard equipment), fuel type, maximum gross and net output, expected installation and operation dates as required to determine the impact of the QF on the safety and reliability of the electric system. A purchasing utility may also ask a QF that has not filed a Form 556 to provide the utility an attestation that the QF meets the requirements for QF status.
18 CFR 292.207(d).
We note, however, that the Commission does not expect a utility to provide, in a PURPA section 210(m) filing, a QF docket number for a potentially-affected QF that has not filed, or not yet filed, for QF status. Similarly, in a PURPA section 210(m) filing, where the potentially affected QF's plans are not sufficiently definite such that the QF does not, in fact, know the information required for the filing so that a filing utility does not have information required by section 292.310 of our regulations, the filing utility may state that it does not have the information and state why the information is not available.
The Commission pointed out in the NOPR that “geothermal” was inadvertently omitted when the regulation was written. However, the Commission explained that the proposed changes obviate the need to correct this omission.
We note that the one-mile rule has been part of the Commission's regulations since the initial implementation of PURPA.
18 CFR 292.205(d).
The significance of August 8, 2005 is that it is the date on which the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was signed into law.
16 U.S.C. 824a-3(n)(2)(A) (emphasis added).
See Order No. 671, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,203 at P 81.
16 U.S.C. 824a-3(n)(2)(B).
18 CFR 292.207(a)(2).
NOPR Revision to Form, Procedures, and Criteria for Certification of Qualifying Facility Status for a Small Power Production or Cogeneration Facility, 74 FR 54503 (Oct. 22, 2009), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,648 at P 28.
In response to Sun Edison's request, we clarify that this standard also establishes the “certain level of importance” (referred to in P 28 of the NOPR) of a change below which the burden on the applicant of the recertification requirement is not justified. NOPR at P 28.
We note that Commission staff may be contacted by QFs for informal guidance whether a particular change to a QF may require a recertification.
Order No. 671 at P 110.
While the Commission found that utility owners should be disclosed, see id., the Form No. 556 adopted in this Final Rule does not require disclosure of any owners with less than a 10 percent equity interest in the facility.
To avoid any confusion, we note that the addition of an owner not previously reported and that holds an equity interest of 10 percent or more would be a material change that would require recertification.
U.S. Clean Heat & Power, representing the interests of combined heat and power facilities, is presumably concerned with the relatively complex operating and efficiency data that must be reported for qualifying cogeneration facilities.
18 CFR 292.205(a)(1), (a)(2) and (b); Order No. 671 at P 51.
18 CFR 292.207(a)(1)(iv).
18 CFR 292.207(b)(4).
18 CFR 292.207(a)(ii).
Sun Edison did file comments, summarized and discussed above, opposing the elimination of the pre-authorized Commission recertification procedure from the regulations; however, in the current section the Commission addresses only the editorial revisions to the regulations to accommodate the policy determinations made by the Commission above.
18 CFR 292.601(a).
Pub. L. 101-575, 104 Stat. 2834 (1990), as amended by Pub. L. 102-46, 105 Stat. 249 (1991).
Cambria Cogen Co., 53 FERC ¶ 61,459, at 62,619 (1990).
http://www.ferc.gov/​QF. The revised Form No. 556, as adopted, will not be attached to the Microsoft Word version of this Final Rule, but will be published in the Federal Register.
Order No. 575, 60 FR 4831 (Jan. 13, 1995), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,014, at 31,282 and 31,285.
Order No. 671, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,203 at P 110.
As defined in section 3(22) of the Federal Power Act. 16 U.S.C. 796(22).
As defined in section 1262(8) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005. 42 U.S.C 16451(8).
The Commission explained in the NOPR that the 10 percent ownership threshold was proposed to be consistent with the 10 percent ownership thresholds used in the definition of a “holding company” in section 1262(8) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 16451(8), and in the definition of “affiliate” in 18 CFR 35.36(a)(9).
18 CFR 292.204(b).
18 CFR 292.204(b)(2).
Congress in EPAct 2005, and the Commission in implementing EPAct 2005, referred to the facilities subject to the EPAct 2005 requirements as “new” cogeneration facilities. 16 U.S.C. 824a-3(n); 18 CFR 292.205(d). To avoid confusion that this “new” label will create as time passes and such facilities are not “new” anymore (except with respect to the date of the implementation of EPAct 2005), we will refer in the Form No. 556 to such facilities as “EPAct 2005 cogeneration facilities.”
Order No. 671, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,203 at P 17.
Id. P 115.
See Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987).