FERC Reaffirms and Clarifies Exemption for Certain Qualifying Facilities from Section 203 of the Federal Power Act

Nov 30, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

Longstanding FERC regulations have exempted most QFs, including all small power production QFs smaller than 30 MW and cogeneration QFs of any size, from most sections of the FPA, including Section 203.  However, because FERC’s acceptance of a market-based rate tariff for an entity typically results in the regulation of such entity as a “public utility” under the FPA, some uncertainty developed in the U.S. electric power sector regarding whether QFs with market-based rate authorization are, in fact, exempt from Section 203.  This uncertainty generated several “abundance of caution” applications to FERC for Section 203 authorization for transactions involving changes in ownership or control over QFs with market-based rate authorization that otherwise met the criteria for the exemption from Section 203.  Ultimately, FERC Staff addressed those applications in letter orders issued under delegated authority from FERC without making any determination regarding FERC’s Section 203 jurisdiction over the relevant QFs, leaving open the question raised by the precautionary applications.

In its order, which FERC issued in response to an April 2015 petition for declaratory order filed by Chevron U.S.A. Inc. regarding certain of its and its affiliates’ cogeneration QFs with market-based rate authorization, FERC held that the language of the exemption in Section 292.601(c) of its regulations is “straight-forward, and on its face exempts the vast majority of QFs from FPA section 203(a)(1).”  FERC emphasized, however, that if a public utility would otherwise be jurisdictional because of ownership or operation of facilities other than those considered part of a QF, that public utility would be subject to Section 203 of the FPA.  FERC also provided a reminder that after any transfer of QF facilities the new owner or operator of the QF is required to file an updated self-certification of the QF status of the relevant facilities on FERC Form 556 to reflect the change in ownership.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 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.