FERC Staff Questions Wind Farms on Calculation of PURPA’s One-Mile Rule

Jun 21, 2017

Reading Time : 5 min

By: Shawn Whites

One-Mile Rule

Under PURPA’s “mandatory purchase obligation,” a public utility is generally required to purchase all of the output of QFs with which it is interconnected at the utility’s avoided cost rate. A facility qualifies as a QF if its capacity is less than 80 MW, which includes the aggregated capacity of other small generation facilities that (i) use the same resource type, (ii) are owned by the same person or its affiliates, and (iii) are located at the same site.1In determining whether two or more facilities are located at the same site, FERC’s regulations specify that a facility “located within one mile of the facility for which [QF status] is sought”—as measured by the distance between the electric generating equipment of the facilities—is deemed to be “located at the same site.”2Since developers often pursue multiple projects within the same general vicinity, two 80 MW facilities owned by affiliates would not qualify as separate QFs if they are located within one mile of each other. 

Beaver Creek’s Weighted Geographic Center Methodology

On February 9, 2017, Beaver Creek applied for QF status for two approximately 80 MW wind projects in Montana made up of 32 wind turbines each. Beaver Creek notes that the projects are contiguous to two additional 80 MW wind projects, although the two Beaver Creek projects are not affiliated with each other or the other two projects.3Despite their stated non affiliation, Beaver Creek nonetheless acknowledges that “the [close] proximity of these four wind projects raises a question of how the calculation of the . . . one-mile rule would be applied [if] the Commission determined that the [projects] were affiliated” or if the Beaver Creek projects decide at a later date to form an affiliate relationship.4

While the distance between the projects’ electric generating equipment (i.e., wind turbines) serves as the relevant measurement for applying the one-mile rule, Beaver Creek argues that such an approach poses a “unique challenge” for wind projects. Unlike other renewable energy projects with less stringent siting requirements and fewer pieces of generating equipment, Beaver Creek notes that the siting of wind projects is “determined based on the specific topography of the region”5in order to maximize the wind resource, which requires the dispersal of multiple wind turbines across a large stretch of land. Beaver Creek instead proposes that the “appropriate application of the one-mile rule to wind facilities is to apply the distance calculation to the weighted geographic center of the turbine array,”6since each individual wind turbine forms a piece of the project as a whole, ultimately “converg[ing] to a central point for collection.”7Beaver Creek notes that, when measuring from this geographic center, each of the projects satisfies the one-mile rule.

NorthWestern Corporation, the utility required to purchase the output of the projects, protested the proposed methodology, arguing that the one-mile rule is “unambiguous”—the electric generating equipment is the wind turbines, and the distance between the two closest turbines is less than one mile.8

Beaver Creek’s Responses to FERC’s Deficiency Letters

FERC’s deficiency letters asked Beaver Creek to (1) explain how its weighted geographic center calculation of the one-mile rule complies with the Commission’s requirement that the “distances [between two facilities] shall be measured from the electrical generating equipment of a facility,” (2) provide the distance between the wind projects by measuring the distance between the two closest individual wind turbines and (3) submit a topographical map depicting the location of each individual wind turbine.9

In its June 9, 2017, response,  Beaver Creek repeats many of the same arguments made in its original application, stressing that “measur[ing] the distance between wind generation facilities” using individual wind turbines “is an impractical view on what constitutes the ‘facility’ or ‘electrical generating equipment’ for purposes of applying” the one-mile rule.10Beaver Creek then notes that, since the “Commission has provided little guidance on how to calculate the distance between wind generation facilities for purposes of calculating the one-mile rule,”11the weighted geographic center methodology serves as a reasonable proxy that is easily applicable to all wind projects. Crucial to Beaver Creek’s argument is the fact that, when taking into account the 2.5 MW capacity of each individual wind turbine, “there is no area within a one-mile radius of [each of the projects] with more than 80 MW of generation capacity.”12

Implications

Beaver Creek is essentially asking the Commission to re interpret the one-mile rule. In previous orders on QF applications, the Commission took the position that the one-mile rule is a “rule and not a rebuttable presumption” in response to protests that two projects technically greater than one-mile apart should nonetheless fail the test because they “gamed” PURPA.13Though that context differs from the instant case, which involves the standard of measurement for applying the rule, the Commission’s language appears to be clear—the one-mile rule is not open to interpretation. 

Concerns over PURPA’s one-mile rule were most recently discussed at a June 2016 FERC technical conference, where at least one participant, the American Wind Energy Association, urged the Commission to “publish information about how it measures one mile.”14Such information has yet to be published, though it could come through the issuance of an order on Beaver Creek’s applications once quorum is restored at FERC. The future Commission will thus need to determine whether the use of a weighted geographical center methodology is an acceptable approach for calculating the one-mile rule or whether the rule’s standard of measuring from the “electric generating equipment” is also a bright line. In any event, a clarification of the Commission’s policy regarding the one-mile rule will provide increased regulatory certainty for developers of projects hoping to achieve QF status.

 


 

118 C.F.R. § 292.204(a)(1) (2017).

2Id. § 292.204(a)(2).

3The additional projects are Beaver Creek Wind , LLC and Beaver Creek Wind IV, LLC, together with Beaver Creek Wind II, LLC and Beaver Creek Wind III, LLC.  

4Beaver Creek Wind II, LLC, Application for Certification, QF17-673-000, at 12 (filed Feb. 9, 2017).  While two applications were submitted in two separate dockets, both applications are substantively the same and are therefore referred to as one application in this post.

5Id. at 13.

6Id. at 12.

7Beaver Creek Wind II, LLC, Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer, Docket No. QF17-673-000, at 5 (filed Mar. 17, 2017).

8NorthWestern Corp., Motion to Intervene, Motion to Consolidate, and Protest, Docket No. QF17-673-000, at 6 (filed Mar. 2, 2017).

9FERC Staff, Deficiency Letter, Docket No. QF17-673-000, at 2 (May 10, 2017).

10Response of Beaver Creek Wind II, LLC to May 10, 2017 Deficiency Letter, Docket No. QF17-673-000, at 3 (filed June 9, 2017).

11Id.  

12Id. at 5.

13See, e.g., DeWind Novus, LLC, 139 FERC ¶ 61,201, at P 25 (2012).

14American Wind Energy Association, Post-Technical Conference Comments, AD16-16-000, at 6 (filed Nov. 15, 2016). 

 

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

August 07, 2024

*Thank you to JaKell Larson, 2024 Akin Summer Associate, for her valuable collaboration on this article.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 31, 2024

Interstate oil, liquid and refined products pipelines regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will soon be able to raise their transportation rates (provided they were set using FERC’s popular Index rate methodology) in the wake of a significant new decision by the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) in Liquid Energy Pipeline Association v. FERC (LEPA).

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 29, 2024

On Wednesday, July 24, 2024, the U.S. House of Representative Committee on Energy and Commerce held a Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security hearing to review the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request. Members of the Subcommittee had the opportunity to hear testimony from all five Commissioners, including FERC Chairman Willie Phillips and Commissioner Mark Christie, as well as the three recently confirmed commissioners, David Rosner, Lindsay See and Judy Chang. In addition to their prepared remarks, the five commissioners answered questions on FERC’s mandate to provide affordable and reliable electricity and natural gas services nationwide, while also ensuring it fulfills its primary mission of maintaining just and reasonable rates.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 29, 2024

On July 9, 2024, the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) erred in ordering refunds for certain bilateral spot market transactions in the Western Energy Coordinating Council (WECC) region that exceeded the $1,000/megawatt-hour (MWh) “soft” price cap for such sales.1 Finding FERC failed to conduct a “Mobile-Sierra public-interest analysis” before “altering” those contracts by ordering refunds, the court vacated FERC’s orders and remanded the case to FERC for further proceedings.2

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2024

On June 28, 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which for 40 years required court deference to reasonable agency interpretations of federal statutes in certain circumstances, even when the reviewing court would read the statute differently. The Court ended “Chevron deference” and held that courts “must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” In doing so, the Court upended a longstanding principle of administrative law that is likely to make agency decisions more susceptible to challenge in the courts.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 3, 2024

We are pleased to share a recording of Akin and ICF’s recently presented “Powering Progress: Decoding FERC Order No. 1920” webinar, along with the program materials.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 12, 2024

Join projects & energy transition partner Ben Reiter at Infocast's Transmission & Interconnection Summit, where he will moderate the “Dealing with the Impacts of Increased Interconnection Request Requirements and Costs” panel.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 4, 2024

Join projects & energy transition partners Hayden Harms and Vanessa Wilson at Infocast's RNG & SAF Capital Markets Summit, where Hayden will moderate the "Investor Perspectives: Private Equity, Infrastructure Funds, & Strategies" panel, and Vanessa will moderate the "Opportunities in Other Biogas/Fuels Markets" panel.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.