skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: QF monitoring. [Qualifying Facilities]

Abstract

This article examines the effects on project financing of independent power projects of the California Public Utilities Commission decision to grant authority to California utilities to monitor and enforce compliance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Qualifying Facility standards. The topics of the article include monitoring proposals, monitoring guidelines, the effects of monitoring, minimizing status loss and monitoring requirements.

Authors:
 [1];  [2]
  1. (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom, San Francisco, CA (United States))
  2. (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom, Los Angeles, CA (United States))
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
7003509
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Independent Energy; (United States); Journal Volume: 21:8
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS; CALIFORNIA; PRICING REGULATIONS; FOSSIL-FUEL POWER PLANTS; FINANCING; COGENERATION; ECONOMICS; ELECTRIC UTILITIES; PROFITS; US PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATORY POLICIES ACT; DEUS; DEVELOPED COUNTRIES; LAWS; NORTH AMERICA; POWER GENERATION; POWER PLANTS; PUBLIC UTILITIES; REGULATIONS; STEAM GENERATION; THERMAL POWER PLANTS; US NATIONAL ENERGY ACT; USA 200700* -- Fossil-Fueled Power Plants-- Legislation & Regulations-- (1990-)

Citation Formats

Greenwald, S., and Hoffman, B.. QF monitoring. [Qualifying Facilities]. United States: N. p., 1991. Web.
Greenwald, S., & Hoffman, B.. QF monitoring. [Qualifying Facilities]. United States.
Greenwald, S., and Hoffman, B.. 1991. "QF monitoring. [Qualifying Facilities]". United States. doi:.
@article{osti_7003509,
title = {QF monitoring. [Qualifying Facilities]},
author = {Greenwald, S. and Hoffman, B.},
abstractNote = {This article examines the effects on project financing of independent power projects of the California Public Utilities Commission decision to grant authority to California utilities to monitor and enforce compliance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Qualifying Facility standards. The topics of the article include monitoring proposals, monitoring guidelines, the effects of monitoring, minimizing status loss and monitoring requirements.},
doi = {},
journal = {Independent Energy; (United States)},
number = ,
volume = 21:8,
place = {United States},
year = 1991,
month =
}
  • The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is interpreting waste natural gas in a way that will make it possible to use otherwise unmarketable gas to generate power under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act. This will benefit small power producers which are not cogenerators under PURPA. To classify as a waste, a material must be both a by-product and have little or no current commercial value. Two factors, market price and cost of production, determine marketability. The gas is categorized according to Btu value. If FERC should speed up its decision making, this new rule could help to free upmore » unmarketable gas, otherwise its effects will be only academic.« less
  • The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) denied Consolidated Edison's request for a rehearing on the 1981 rule which automatically qualifies new diesel and dual-fueled cogeneration facilities under sections 201 and 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act. The petition was to return these two types of facilities on an interim exlusion status because of deficiencies in final environmental impact statements, faulty projections of the growth of cogeneration, socio-economic impacts, and tax effects. The article presents the arguments on both sides and FERC's conclusions.
  • The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) received 224 applications for cogeneration certification in 1983, an increase of 46 over the previous year. This will bring the total megawattage of cogenerated and small power production to 4060 and the mid-1990 projection to over 40,000 MW. A breakdown of the 224 units shows cogeneration contributing 90, biomass 38, hydro 56, and the remainder divided among waste, solar, geothermal, and wind projects. Continued growth in the cogeneration and small power field will require the states to implement the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act and to resolve current litigation. Some state and utilities havemore » been reluctant.« less
  • Prior to the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Act), most Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) deliberations involving transmission services did not occur in transmission rate or service proceedings per se. The Commission conducted a number of general inquiries or studies of the subject, including setting the terms and conditions of transmission services as part of merger proceedings and [open quotes]market-based[close quotes] pricing proceedings. With the passage of the Act, the FERC is likely to be asked to confront the advisability of requiring transmission services in a more direct manner. The Act permits [open quotes][a]ny electricmore » utility, Federal power marketing agency, or any other person generating electrical energy for sale for resale[close quotes] to petition the Commission for a wheeling order. The FERC may order wheeling in accordance with section 212 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and a finding that such wheeling would [open quotes]otherwise be in the public interest.[close quotes] When compounded with the need to find that wheeling is in the public interest, the requirements set forth in section 212 are considerable. This article focuses on an important area of section 212 criteria, namely the interplay between between the public interest and economic efficiency criteria in the case of Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) Qualifying Facilities (QF). Two recent proceedings in which the FERC considered the need to provide power transmission service guarantees for QFs are analyzed from the standpoint of public and private economic welfare. The two proceedings are the merger of Utah Power Light Company, PacifiCorp, PC/UP L Merging Corporation (Utah) and the Western Systems Power Pool application (WSPP).« less
  • On June 15, the FERC dismissed a motion by the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) to intervene to challenge the filing of Merck, Sharp and Dohme Quimica De Puerto Rico, Inc. (Merck), for qualifying status under PURPA. (Docket QF 84-188). The FERC's reason for dismissing the motion for intervention was that the Merck submission was not a true application for certification, but rather, merely a notice that the proposed facility would in fact be a qualifying facility. Under FERC rules, a qualifying cogenerator or small power producer may follow either of two procedures: (1) an application procedure, under whichmore » the FERC will rule on whether a particular facility is a qualifying facility, or (2) a notification procedure, under which FERC does not rule. The application is a voluntary, optional procedure, provided by FERC for situations in which a potential qualifying facility requires affirmative certification, typically for financing purposes. Otherwise, merely filing a notification is sufficient for a qualifying facility to be able to take advantage of the benefits of PURPA.« less