On June 5, 2019, FERC revoked the self-certification for qualifying facility (“QF”) status of Eco Green Generation LLC’s (“Eco Green”) hybrid power generation facility (the “Facility”) located in and around Fairbanks, Alaska. In doing so, FERC found that the Facility—which consists of a wind farm and twenty duel-fueled renewable diesel and propane engines intended to firm the energy generated by the wind farm—does not meet the criteria for a small power production QF or a cogeneration QF.
On February 21, 2019, Eco Green filed a Form No. 556 with FERC to certify its Facility as a QF. In its Form No. 556, Eco Green described the Facility as consisting of a 37.8 MW wind farm and twenty separate 5 MW reciprocating engines duel fueled from 3% renewable diesel and 97% propane, with the reciprocating engines being intended to firm the energy produced by the wind turbines. Eco Green claimed that the Facility was a QF by virtue of it being both a qualifying small power production facility and a qualifying cogeneration facility. On March 5, 2019, Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. (“Golden Valley”) filed a petition for declaratory order challenging the QF status of the Facility.
In its order, FERC granted the petition of Golden Valley and revoked QF status for the Facility without prejudice to Eco Green filing new self-certifications that would address the deficiencies in its previously filed Form No. 556. First, FERC found that the Facility was over 100 MW in size, with its cogeneration units burning 97% propone, and thus the Facility did not qualify as a small power production QF. Second, FERC found that the Facility did not qualify as a cogeneration QF because (1) the Facility does not meet the definition of a cogeneration facility because its wind turbines do not produce thermal energy and would not be a part of the sequential use of energy of the facility; (2) Eco Green’s Form No. 556 did not provide enough information to demonstrate that the Facility would satisfy the necessary operating and efficiency standards; (3) the thermal usage of the Facility was too speculative to be productive and beneficial because Eco Green did not identify specific thermal hosts in its Form No. 556, and the Facility’s thermal energy was thus essentially going to unidentified customers for unknown purposes; and (4) the Facility’s output was intended for sale to an electric utility.
A copy of the order is available here.