(a) Small power production facilities. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, a small power production facility is a qualifying facility if it:
(1) Meets the maximum size criteria specified in § 292.204(a);
(2) Meets the fuel use criteria specified in § 292.204(b); and
(3) Unless exempted by paragraph (d), has filed with the Commission a notice of self-certification, pursuant to § 292.207(a); or has filed with the Commission an application for Commission certification, pursuant to § 292.207(b)(1), that has been granted.
(b) Cogeneration facilities. A cogeneration facility, including any diesel and dual-fuel cogeneration facility, is a qualifying facility if it:
(1) Meets any applicable standards and criteria specified in §§ 292.205(a), (b) and (d); and
(2) Unless exempted by paragraph (d), has filed with the Commission a notice of self-certification, pursuant to § 292.207(a); or has filed with the Commission an application for Commission certification, pursuant to § 292.207(b)(1), that has been granted.
(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:
(i) Paragraph (a) of this section; and
(ii) Section 292.208.
(2) [Reserved]
(d) Exemptions and waivers from filing requirement. (1) Any facility with a net power production capacity of 1 MW or less is exempt from the filing requirements of paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(2) of this section.
(2) The Commission may waive the requirement of paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(2) of this section for good cause. Any applicant seeking waiver of paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(2) of this section must file a petition for declaratory order describing in detail the reasons waiver is being sought.
[Order 732, 75 FR 15965, Mar. 30, 2010]
Notes of Decisions
Empire Lumber Co. v. Washington Water Power Co., 755 P.2d 1229 (Idaho 1988).
· cites it 4× “§ 824a-3(b) and 18 C.F.R. § 292.203 . The qualifying facility, at its option, may require the utility to purchase the energy as it becomes available or purchase the energy pursuant to a "legally enforceable obligation," over a specified term.”
Ellis-Hall Consultants v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 2016 UT 34 (Utah 2016).
“The federal standards for qualifying facility status are set forth in 18 C.F.R. § 292.203 . We are not asked here to decide whether Ellis-Hall's project is a qualifying facility.”
Power Resource Grp., Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 73 S.W.3d 354 (Tex. App. 2002).
“18 C.F.R. § 292.203 (b)(1), (2). In contrast, the self-certification procedure only requires the applying facility to file its application with the Commission, and concurrently serve on each electric utility to which it expects to provide power, and the state regulatory…”
Apline Energy, LLC v. Matanuska Elec. Ass'n, 369 P.3d 245 (Alaska 2016).
· cites it 2× “Ass'n, 121 FERC 61,287 121 (2007) ("[There [are] reasons that a [qualifying facility] may want or need [formal] certification (including the requirement of some lenders, utilities, or state regulators that a generator seeking [qualifying facility} status and the benefits of…”
Rosebud Enter., Inc. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 917 P.2d 766 (Idaho 1996).
“See PURPA §§ 201, 210; 18 C.F.R. §§ 292.203 (a), .204 (1994). Rosebud proposes to develop a 40 megawatt (MW) electric generating facility near Montpelier, Idaho, that will burn high sulphur, waste petroleum coke.”
Application of Wind Power Pac. Investors-Iii, 686 P.2d 831 (Haw. 1984).
“In an analysis of 18 C.F.R. § 292.203 (corresponding to Administrative Rule § 6-74-4), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission stated: There was some confusion in the comments as to who actually qualifies under this program.”
South River Power Partners L.P. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 696 A.2d 926 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1997).
“On September 10, 1993, South River filed a notice of QF self-certification with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) indicating that the project is a qualifying small power production facility under FERC's criteria set forth at 18 C.F.R. §§ 292.203 , 292.204 and…”
Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Mass. Dept. of Pub. Util., 941 F. Supp. 233 (D. Mass. 1996).
“Because the court concludes that MIT's claim is properly interpreted as a disagreement regarding the application of Cambridge Electric's CTC, this court has no jurisdiction over MIT's claim.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.