,
9 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
As we wait for the PURPA NOPR, a short thread on legislative history. Chatterjee and McNamee highlighted that PURPA was passed in a different energy world. Natural gas and oil were scarce. Renewables were expensive. True, but Congress's legislative findings were much more general 
I'm relying here on Richard Hirsh's outstanding Power Loss, which has an entire chapter on the legislative history - amazon.com/Power-Loss-Der…
PURPA was informally known as the Rate Reform Bill. The most controversial aspects were in Title I, which ultimately required states to "consider" various methods of computing retail rates. Rep. Dingell held 8 days of hearings on retail rates!
Other parts of Carter's National Energy Act dealt explicitly with dwindling gas and oil supplies for the power sector. The Fuel Use Act banned new plants from using those fuels as their primary energy supply (although there were exemptions) - energy.gov/oe/services/el…
Hirsh finds that sec. 210 which establishes the QF program stemmed from Carter's desire to reverse the trend of dwindling electricity production from the industrial sector. In 1962, industrial plants generated 10%; that fell to 3% by 1978.
Carter initially focused on cogeneration - presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/nati… (ctrl+f cogeneration) - and while Carter's bill also included Renewables, the initial Senate version only included cogen
Sen, Percy (R-IL), co-founder of Alliance to Save Energy, got "small power production facilities" back in the bill. Hirsh concludes that lobbying by a waste-to-energy firm in MA was crucial in making utility purchases mandatory. Ultimately sec 210 generated little controversy.
Congress partially repealed the Fuel Use Act in 1981 and repealed the rest in 1987 - library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/docu….
That year, the House held 3 days of hearings on PURPA. It did not repeal PURPA. dropbox.com/home/PURPA?pre…
That year, the House held 3 days of hearings on PURPA. It did not repeal PURPA. dropbox.com/home/PURPA?pre…
The President of EEI testified that "consumers, through their utilities, should not have to buy power which is not needed. Nor should they buy power from projects which do not conserve energy, do not contribute to efficiency, and which lead to inequitable rates." Sound familiar?
