Commissioner James Danly Statement
August 24, 2021
Docket No. QF21-115-000
I dissent from the Commission’s decision to affirm Gallatin Power Partners, LLC’s (Gallatin) self-recertification of its Trident Solar 1 Facility (Trident Solar) as a small power production qualifying facility (QF) pursuant to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). This proceeding is similar to Broadview Solar, LLC (Broadview).[1] In today’s order, the Commission finds the Trident Solar facility “to be nearly identical to the Broadview facility” and concludes that the power production capacity of the Trident Solar facility “cannot and will not exceed 80 MW” because it “can only deliver a maximum of 80 MW of AC electricity to NorthWestern’s system at any one point in time.”[2] As I explained in my dissent to the Broadview March Rehearing Order, not a single word of the Commission’s “for-delivery-to-the-utility” standard, which was adopted in the Broadview March Rehearing Order, appears anywhere in the text of PURPA establishing the 80 MW power production capacity limit.[3] Nor, as I also explained, does this standard find any support in the Commission’s regulations or precedent.[4] Nothing in the record or in today’s order causes me to revisit my opinion on these issues.
Gallatin’s revised submission proves the point I made in my dissent to Broadview. Form No. 556 specifies how an applicant should ordinarily calculate and report the power production capacity of its facility.[5] A project sponsor must report “maximum gross power production capacity at the terminals of the individual generator(s) under the most favorable anticipated design conditions” (line 7a).[6] The project sponsor may then subtract parasitic station power used at the facility (line 7b), electrical losses in interconnection transformers (line 7c), electrical losses in AC/DC conversion equipment (line 7d), and other interconnection losses (line 7e) to yield the facility’s maximum net power production capacity (line 7g).[7] On April 26, 2021, after the issuance of the Commission’s Broadview March Rehearing Order, Gallatin revised its Form No. 556.[8] In line 7a of the revised form, Gallatin stated that its “maximum gross power production capacity at the terminals of the individual generator(s) under the most favorable anticipated design conditions” equals 160,000 kW.[9] In line 7d, Gallatin entered electrical losses in AC/DC conversion equipment of 80,000 kW.[10] Subtracting line 7d from 7a yields a figure for the maximum net power production capacity of 80,000 kW, bringing it neatly within the 80 MW threshold.[11]
Somehow Gallatin has decided to record the 80,000 kW of power that is not produced for immediate delivery (but which is within the power production capacity of its generator) as an “electrical loss.” But, of course, it is not. Electrical loss is an engineering term; it is not power that could be produced but is not, nor is it power that is produced but not immediately sent out of the facility. Electrical loss is power that is dissipated by the physical effects of the system as, for example, when energy is lost to the heating of components. Gallatin’s entry in line 7d cannot be correct.[12] The fact that the form does not permit project sponsors to enter a figure for “power that could be produced and immediately delivered but is not” supports my contention that such maneuvers were never contemplated by PURPA, our implementing regulations, or our precedent before Broadview.
Gallatin probably revised its submission in response to Broadview. I understand why they did. But to record 80,000 kW on line 7d is at best an error, at worst it is misleading. Going forward, I hope that parties seeking QF certification, even those seeking to take advantage of the Commission’s pronouncement in Broadview, will accurately record their facilities’ attributes in their submissions.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
[1] 174 FERC ¶ 61,199 (Broadview March Rehearing Order), order on reh’g, 175 FERC ¶ 61,228 (2021) (Broadview June Rehearing Order).
[2] Gallatin Power Partners, LLC, 176 FERC ¶ 61,120, at P 7 (2021).
[3] See Broadview March Rehearing Order, 174 FERC ¶ 61,199 (Danly, Comm’r, dissenting at P 9).
[4] See id. (Danly, Comm’r, dissenting at P 1).
[5] See Form No. 556, FERC, https://www.ferc.gov/media/form-no-556.
[6] Id. at 10.
[7] See id.
[8] Gallatin’s previous Form No. 556, filed on November 12, 2020, listed a “maximum gross power production capacity at the terminals of the individual generator(s) under the most favorable anticipated design conditions” of 80,000 kW. Listing no deductions, Gallatin’s November 12, 2020 Form No. 556 stated the maximum net power production capacity as 80,000 kW.
[9] Gallatin Power Partners, LLC April 26, 2021 Revised Form No. 556 at 10.
[10] See id.
[11] See id.
[12] To the extent to which Gallatin might have attempted to explain how the 80,000 kW entry could be considered an “electrical loss” in the narrative on line 7h, it did not avail itself of the opportunity to do so.