FERC Updates Agenda for June Technical Conference on PURPA Implementation Issues

May 11, 2016

Reading Time : 2 min

By: Shawn Whites, paralegal

According to the updated agenda, the technical conference will focus on two principal issues:  (1) mandatory purchase obligations under PURPA; and (2) the calculation of utilities’ avoided costs for such purchases.

Two panels are slated to address these issues, and include representatives of investor-owned utilities, rural electric cooperatives, independent power producers, state public utility commissions, renewable and clean energy groups, and large industrial customers.  The first panel will address FERC’s regulations implementing PURPA’s mandatory purchase obligation for power produced by certain “qualifying facilities” (QFs), including issues such as:

  • application of the Commission’s “one-mile rule” for determining whether facilities are “located at the same site” for determining QF status for small power production QFs, including implications of the “one-mile rule” on electricity markets and for utilities’ long-range resource planning efforts
  • the Commission’s rebuttable presumption that QFs 20 MW and smaller do not have nondiscriminatory access to competitive organized wholesale markets, and the barriers to access to such markets encountered by such QFs
  • curtailment of QFs
  • the impact of utility contracting and interconnection practices on QF transactions
  • the obligation to purchase “as available” power from QFs
  • the obligation of utilities to sell supplemental, standby, backup and maintenance power to QFs
  • the obligation to purchase power from QFs pursuant to legally enforceable obligations.

The second panel will address the various methods for calculating a utility’s avoided cost for power purchases from QFs, including specific issues such as:

  • assumptions and analyses used to develop avoided costs
  • whether and how various pricing methodologies are consistent with PURPA
  • the strengths and weaknesses of different avoided cost pricing methodologies
  • potential improvements to current pricing methodologies
  • whether an avoided cost methodology reflects the locational or time value of

QF output

  • the role of wholesale market revenues in developing avoided cost calculations
  • methodologies for determining avoided costs for capacity and for long- and short-term arrangements.

As noted above, several of these issues were raised in the congressional Republicans’ November 2015 request to FERC.  Congressional Democrats responded to that request in February 2016, sending their own letter to FERC suggesting additional topics that should be considered at the technical conference.  Noting their view that Title II of PURPA “remains a singular federal backstop to support renewable energy in parts of the country that may otherwise have significant barriers,” their letter asks FERC to examine a number of issues, including:

  • whether methods to calculate avoided costs accurately reflect the full value of costs avoided by QFs, including energy, capacity, ancillary service, transmission and distribution costs
  • whether states have used tools available under PURPA, such as adjusting avoided costs, limiting the size of QFs, or shortening the maximum length of contracts, to address “perceived oversupplies” of QF power
  • whether there are technologies or categories of facilities, such as energy storage, marine and hydrokinetic generation, or fuel cells, which may be eligible to become QFs, but are not currently being built or certified as QFs
  • whether FERC is effectively enforcing PURPA, including imposing penalties on QFs that have not properly certified and remedying improper implementation of the law by some states.

While these issues are not reflected as directly in FERC’s updated agenda, they may nonetheless be discussed at the technical conference. 
Written comments from the panelists are due June 7, 2016, and will be published on the Commission’s website before the conference.  FERC is likely to seek comments from the general public following the technical conference.

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.