FERC Eases Small Residential Solar QF Filing Burden for Sunrun

May 7, 2019

Reading Time : 3 min

By: Shawn Whites (Paralegal)

Background

FERC’s regulations exempt “[a]ny facility with a net power production capacity of 1 MW or less” from filing a Form 556 to self-certify QF status or an application for certification as a QF.1 To determine a small power production facility’s net power production capacity, FERC aggregates the capacity of any commonly-owned facilities that (i) use the same energy resource (e.g., solar insolation) and (ii) are located at the same site, i.e., “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.2 Because developers often pursue multiple projects within the same general vicinity, two or more facilities with common ownership that, standing alone, would not exceed 1 MW in net power production capacity could be deemed to exceed the 1 MW threshold if located within one mile of each other, thereby triggering the requirement to make a filing with FERC to obtain QF status.

In September 2018, Sunrun petitioned FERC to waive its QF filing requirements for separately‑interconnected residential solar photovoltaic systems that are both (i) owned and maintained by Sunrun but provide homeowners with an “option to purchase” (as opposed to the homeowner buying and owning the system outright); and (ii) individually 20 kW or less but when aggregated may exceed 1 MW within one-mile.  Sunrun also requested waiver “of the requirement in Item 8a of Form No. 556 to include in a certification filing for clusters of rooftop PV systems above 20 kW information regarding the facilities covered by the first requested waiver (i.e., 20 kW or less facilities), even if the facilities of 20 kW or less are within one mile of the cluster exceeding 20 kW that is being certified.”3

Sunrun explained that while it does not currently make FERC-jurisdictional wholesale sales, several factors warrant clarification from FERC on the applicability of its QF regulations to Sunrun’s portfolio.  Such factors include (i) Sunrun’s intention to pursue emerging opportunities “for aggregated [DERs] to participate in organized wholesale electric markets,” through which it would make FERC-jurisdictional sales; (ii) the growing concentration of Sunrun’s “third-party owned systems,” which in certain parts of the country may exceed 1 MW by virtue of being located within one mile of each other; and (iii) “increasing inquiries from lenders and investors regarding QF status and the regulatory exemptions it affords.”4

FERC’s Waiver Order

FERC granted both waiver requests, reasoning that “[i]ndividual homeowners’ decisions to use Sunrun’s third-party financing option . . . should not result in the need for Sunrun to continuously monitor the concentration of these individual residential facilities and then file numerous certifications and re-certifications for QF systems of 20 kW or less, which would otherwise be far too small individually to cross the 1 MW threshold for filing but for this third-party financing arrangement.”5 FERC noted, however, that “if any new requirements are placed on [wholesale DER] aggregations” resulting from FERC’s ongoing DER rulemaking proceeding, such “requirements would apply to Sunrun’s aggregated resources irrespective of the outcome of this proceeding.”6

While certain language in the Waiver Order might be interpreted to mean that the waivers FERC granted to Sunrun are generally applicable, other language makes clear that FERC granted the requested waivers only to Sunrun and only for the specific types of facilities addressed in Sunrun’s petition.  Accordingly, similarly situated developers should not rely on the Waiver Order to refrain from filing Form 556s for similar projects or to omit information from Section 8a of Form 556.  Rather, similarly situated parties that would benefit from the waivers that FERC granted to Sunrun should request—and now have reasoning to support—similar waivers from FERC for their facilities.

 


1 18 C.F.R. § 292.203(d)(1) (2019).

2 Id. §§ 292.204(a)(1)-(2).

3 Sunrun, Inc., 167 FERC ¶ 61,059, at P 23 (2019) (“Waiver Order”).

4 Sunrun, Inc. Petition for Declaratory Order at 8, FERC Docket No. EL18-205-000 (filed Sept. 24, 2018).

5 Waiver Order at P 25.

6 Id. at P 30.

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.