ML14304A701: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 15: Line 15:
| page count = 148
| page count = 148
}}
}}
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentI INew York Independent System OperatorFINAL REPORTSeptember 16, 2014 Caution and DisclaimerThe contents of these materials are for information purposes and are provided "as is" withoutrepresentation or warranty of any kind, including without limitation, accuracy, completeness or fitnessfor any particular purposes. The New York Independent System Operator assumes no responsibility tothe reader or any other party for the consequences of any errors or omissions. The NYISO may revisethese materials at any time in its sole discretion without notice to the reader.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment Table of ContentsExe cutive S u m m a ry ................................................................................................................................. i1 .In tro d u ctio n .................................................................................................................................. 12. Summary of Prior CRPs ........................................................................................................... 33. RNA Base Case Assumptions, Drivers and Methodology ........................................................ 53.1. Annual Energy and Summer Peak Demand Forecasts ................................................. 63.2. Forecast of Special Case Resources ........................................................................... 113.3. Resource Additions and Removal ................................................................................ 113.4. Local Transmission Plans ........................................................................................... 143.5. Bulk Transmission Projects ......................................................................................... 143.6. Base Case Peak Load and Resource Ratios .................................................................. 163.7. Methodology for the Determination of Needs .......................................................... 174. Reliability Needs Assessment ................................................................................................ 204 .1 .O ve rv ie w ......................................................................................................................... 2 04.2. Reliability Needs for Base Case .................................................................................. 204.2.1. Transmission Security Assessment ........................................................................ 204.2.2. Short Circuit Assessment ......................................................................................... 274.2.3. Transmission and Resource Adequacy Assessment .............................................. 284.2.4. System Stability Assessment .................................................................................. 304.3. Reliability Needs Summary ......................................................................................... 314.4. Dunkirk Plant Fuel Conversion Sensitivity .................................................................. 364 .5 .Sce n a rio s ......................................................................................................................... 3 84.5.1. High Load (Econometric) Forecast ......................................................................... 384.5.2. Zonal Capacity at Risk ............................................................................................. 384.5.3. Indian Point Retirement Assessment ....................................................................... 394.5.4. Transmission Security Assessment Using 90/10 Load Forecast ............................. 404.5.5. Stressed W inter Condition Assessment .................................................................. 445. Impacts of Environmental Regulations .................................................................................. 465.1. Regulations Reviewed for Impacts on NYCA Generators .......................................... 465.1.1. Reasonably Available Control Technology for NOx (NOx RACT) ............................ 475.1.2. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) ............................................................. 485.1.3. Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) ............................................................ 495.1.4. Mercury Reduction Program for Coal-Fired Electric Utility Steam GeneratingU n its (M R P ) ................................................................................................................................. 5 05.1.5. Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) ................................................................... 505.1.6. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) ............................................................ 515.1.7. RICE, NSPS, and NESHAP ......................................................................................... 525.1.8. Best Technology Available (BTA) ............................................................................. 52NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment 5.2. Summary of Environmental Regulation Impacts ......................................................... 546 .Fu e l A d e q u a cy ............................................................................................................................. 5 66.1. Gas Infrastructure Adequacy Assessment .................................................................. 566.2. Loss of Gas Supply Assessment .................................................................................. 576.3. Summary of Other Ongoing NYISO efforts .................................................................. 587. Observations and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 618 .H isto ric C o ng e stio n ..................................................................................................................... 6 3A p p e n d ice s A -D .................................................................................................................................. 64Appendix A -2014 Reliability Needs Assessment Glossary ................................................... A-1Appendix B -The Reliability Planning Process ......................................................................... B-1Appendix C -Load and Energy Forecast 2014-2024 ............................................................... C-1Appendix D -Transmission System Security and Resource Adequacy Assessment ................. D-1NYISO 20i4 Reliability Needs Assessment Table of TablesTable 1: Reliability Needs identified in 2014 RNA ...................................................................... iiTable 2-1: Current Status of Tracked Market-Based Solutions & TOs' Plans ............................. 3Table 2-2: Proposed Generation Projects from Completed Class Years .................................... 4Table 2-3: Other Proposed Generation Projects ........................................................................ 4Table 3-1: Comparison of 2012 & 2014 RNA Base Case Forecasts ............................................ 7Table 3-2: Comparison of 2014 RNA Base Case Forecast and High Load (Econometric) Scenario 8Table 3-3: Generation Addition and Removal ........................................................................... 12Table 3-4: NYCA Peak Load and Resource Ratios 2015 through 2024 ..................................... 16Table 3-5: Load/Resources Comparison of Year 2019 (MW) ................................................... 17Table 4-1: 2014 RNA Transmission Security Thermal Violations .............................................. 25Table 4-2: 2014 RNA Transmission Security Reliability Need Year .......................................... 26Table 4-3:2014 RNA Over-Duty Circuit Breaker Summary ..................................................... 27Table 4-4: Transmission System Thermal Emergency Transfer Limits ..................................... 28Table 4-5: Transmission System Voltage Emergency Transfer Limits ...................................... 28Table 4-6: Transmission System Base Case Emergency Transfer Limits ................................... 28Table 4-7: NYCA Resource Adequacy Measure (in LOLE) ........................................................ 30Table 4-8: Summary of the LOLE Results -Base, Thermal and "Free Flowing" Sensitivities ....... 31Table 4-9: Compensatory MW Additions for Transmission Security Violations ...................... 33Table 4-10: Compensatory MW Additions for Resource Adequacy Violations ........................ 34Table 4-11: 2014 RNA 50/50 Forecast Transmission Security Thermal Violations with Dunkirk In-S e rv ice ................................................................................................................................... 3 7Table 4-12: Zonal Capacity at Risk (M W ) .................................................................................. 39Table 4-13: Indian Point Plant Retirement LOLE Results .......................................................... 40Table 4-14: 90/10 Peak Load Forecast NYCA Remaining Resources ....................................... 41Table 4-15: 90/10 Transmission Security Violations Not Observed Under 50/50 Load Conditions............................................................................................................................................... 4 2Table 4-16: 50/50 Transmission Security Violations Exacerbated Under 90/10 Load Conditions43Table 4-17: Derivation of 2014 NYCA W inter LFU ................................................................... 45Table 4-18: Simultaneous NYCA Import Limits and MW Lost in Stressed Winter Scenario ......... 45Table 5-1: NOx RACT Limits Pounds/mmBTU Effective until June 30, 2014 ........................... 47NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment Table 5-2: New NOx RACT Limits Pounds/mmBTU Effective Starting from July 1, 2014 ...... 47Table 5-3: Em ission (BA RT) Lim its ............................................................................................ 49Table 5-4: NYSDEC BTA Determinations (as of March 2014) ................................................... 53Table 5-5: Im pact of New Environmental Programs ............................................................... 54Table 5-6: Summary of Significant Operational Impacts due to Environmental Regulations ...... 54Table 6-1: Loss of Gas Assessment for 2014-2015 Winter ...................................................... 58Table C-i: Summary of Economic & Electric System Growth Rates -Actual & Forecast ..... C-1Table C-2: Historic Energy and Seasonal Peak Demand -Actual and Weather-Normalized ....... C-2Table C-3: Annual Energy and Summer Peak Demand -Actual & Forecast ................................ C-3Table C-4: Annual Energy by Zone -Actual & Forecast (GWh) ................................................... C-7Table C-5: Summer Coincident Peak Demand by Zone -Actual & Forecast (MW) .................... C-8Table C-6: Winter Coincident Peak Demand by Zone -Actual & Forecast (MW) ....................... C-9NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment Table of FiguresFigure 1: Approximate Locations of Relative Reliability Needs ................................................. iiFigure 3-1: 2014 Base Case Energy Forecast and Scenarios ...................................................... 9Figure 3-2: 2014 Base Case Summer Peak Demand Forecast and Scenarios ............................. 9Figure 3-3: 2014 Base Case Energy Efficiency & Retail Solar PV -Annual Energy ................... 10Figure 3-4: 2014 Base Case Energy Efficiency & Retail Solar PV -Summer Peak .................... 10Figure 4-1: Approximate Locations of Transmission Security Needs ....................................... 21Figure 6-1: Natural Gas Pipeline Network in NYCA ................................................................. 59Figure C-1: Zonal Energy Forecast Growth Rates -2014 to 2024 ................................................ C-6Figure C-2: Zonal Summer Peak Demand Forecast Growth Rates -2014 to 2024 ...................... C-6Figure D-1: M ARS Topology for Year 2015 ................................................................................ D-13Figure D-2: PJM -SENY MARS Topology for Year 2015 ............................................................... D-14Figure D-3: M ARS Topology for Year 2016 ................................................................................ D-15Figure D-4: PJM -SENY MARS Topology for Year 2016 ............................................................... D-16NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment Executive SummaryThe 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment (RNA) assesses resource adequacy and bothtransmission security and adequacy of the New York Control Area (NYCA) bulk powertransmission system from year 2015 through 2024, the study period of this RNA. The 2014 RNAidentifies transmission security needs in portions of the bulk power transmission system, and aNYCA LOLE violation due to inadequate resource capacity located in Southeast New York(SENY).The NYISO finds transmission security violations beginning in 2015, some of which aresimilar to those found in the 2012 RNA. The NYISO also identifies resource adequacy violations,which begin in 2019 and increase through 2024.For transmission security, there are four primary regions with reliability needs:Rochester, Western & Central New York, Capital Region, and Lower Hudson Valley & New YorkCity. These reliability needs are generally driven by recent and proposed generator retirementsor mothballing combined with load growth. The New York transmission owners havedeveloped plans through their respective local transmission planning processes to constructtransmission projects to meet not only the needs identified in the previous RNA, but also anyadditional needs occurring since then and prior to this RNA. These transmission projects,subject to inclusion rules, have been modeled in the 2014 RNA base case. Reliability needsidentified in this report exist despite the inclusion of the transmission projects in the base case,or exist until certain projects are completed. The transmission security needs in the Buffalo andBinghamton areas are influenced by whether the fuel conversion project can be completed forthe Dunkirk Plant for it to return to service by 2016. As a result, this project was addressed as asensitivity and the impact of the results are noted with the base case reliability needs.While resource adequacy violations continue to be identified in SENY, the 2014 RNA isprojecting the need year to be 2019, one year before the need year identified in the 2012 RNA.The most significant difference between the 2012 RNA and the 2014 RNA is the decrease of theNYCA capacity margin (the total capacity less the peak load forecast).For summer 2014 resource adequacy, the existing capacity provides about a 122.7%Installed Capacity Reserve to meet the summer 2014 Installed Reserve Margin requirement of117.0%. The capacity margin decreases throughout the study period, but more rapidly in theouter years due to load growth. The NYISO calculated the difference in the capacity marginbetween the 2012 RNA and the 2014 RNA in the need year of 2019 and determined a netdecrease of 2,100 MW. The difference breaks down as follows:1. The NYCA capacity resources are 874 MW less for 2019 (724 MW upstate and 150 MWin SENY);2. The NYCA baseline load forecast is 250 MW higher for 2019 (497 MW higher upstateand 247 MW lower in SENY); and3. The NYCA Special Case Resources (SCRs) projection is 976 MW less for 2019 (685 MWupstate and 291 MW in SENY).The reliability needs identified in the 2014 RNA are summarized in Table 1 below, andthe approximate locations of the regions are marked on Figure 1.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment Table 1: Reliability Needs identified in 2014 RNAYear of Transmission Security Violations Resource AdequacyNeed (Area/Load Zone/Transmission Owner) (LOLE)Rochester Area in Genesee (Zone B), owned by RG&EBinghamton Area in Central (Zone C), owned by NYSEG*2015 Syracuse Area in Central (Zone C), owned by N. GridUtica Area in Mohawk Valley (Zone E), owned by N. GridAlbany Area in Capital (Zone F), owned by N. Grid2016 No additional violations No violationRochester Area issues mitigated2017 Additional Syracuse Area in Central (Zone C), owned by N. GridAdditional Utica Area in Mohawk Valley (Zone E), owned by N. Grid*Binghamton Area voltage in Central (Zone C), owned by NYSEG2018 Buffalo Area in Dysinger (Zone A), owned by N. Grid*2019 No additional violations Violation (LOLE = 0.11)2020 Additional Binghamton Area in Central (Zone C), owned by NYSEG* Violation (LOLE = 0.13)2021 Additional Buffalo Area in West (Zone A), owned by N. Grid* Violation (LOLE = 0.15)2022 Additional Buffalo Area in West (Zone A), owned by N. Grid* Violation (LOLE = 0.18)Transmission between Capital (Zone F) and Hudson Valley (Zone G), owned by N. Grid2023 No additional violations Violation (LOLE = 0.22)2024 No additional violations Violation (LOLE = 0.26)* Some violations would be resolved upon the return of the Dunkirk plant to service.Figure 1: Approximate Locations of Reliability NeedsNote: The red circles indicate the areas where the load may be impacted by transmission security constraints, andthe blue circle indicates the region with resource adequacy violations.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment ii The NYISO expects existing and recent market rule changes to entice marketparticipants to take actions that will help meet the resource adequacy needs in SENY, asidentified by the 2012 RNA and the 2014 RNA. The resources needed downstream of theupstate New York to SENY interface is approximately 1,200 MW in 2024 (100 MW in 2019),which could be transmission or capacity resources. The new Zones G-J Locality will providemarket signals for resources to provide service in this area. Capacity owners and developersare taking steps to return mothballed units to service, restore units to their full capability, orbuild new in the Zones G-J Locality. If some or all of these units return to service or aredeveloped, the reliability need year would be postponed beyond 2019. In addition, othermeasures, such as the demand response, energy efficiency and CHP projects, would alsopostpone the reliability need year beyond 2019. New York State Public Service Commission isalso promoting regulated transmission development to relieve the transmission constraintsbetween upstate New York and SENY, which could also defer the need for additional resources.Potential solutions will be submitted for evaluation during the solutions phase of the ReliabilityPlanning Process (RPP) and included in the upcoming 2014 Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP)if appropriate.As a backstop to market-based solutions, the NYISO employs a process to defineresponsibility should the market fail to provide an adequate solution to an identified reliabilityneed. Since there are transmission security violations in Zones A, B, C, E, and F within the studyperiod, the transmission owners (TOs) in those zones (i.e., National Grid, RGE, and NYSEG) areresponsible and will be tasked to develop detailed regulated backstop solutions for evaluationin the 2014 CRP.Given the limited time between the identification of certain transmission security needsin this RNA report and their occurrence in 2015, the use of demand response and operatingprocedures, including those for emergency conditions, may be necessary to maintain reliabilityduring peak load periods until permanent solutions can be put in place. Accordingly, the NYISOexpects the TOs to present updates to their Local Transmission Owner Plans for these zones,including their proposed operating procedures pending completion of their permanentsolutions, for review and acceptance by the NYISO and in the 2014 CRP.The NYISO identified reliability needs for resource adequacy in SENY starting in the year2019; therefore, the TOs in SENY (i.e., Orange & Rockland, Central Hudson, New York StateElectric and Gas, Con Edison, and LIPA) are responsible to develop the regulated backstopsolution(s). The study also identified a transmission security violation in 2022 on the Leeds-Pleasant Valley 345 kV circuit, and this circuit is the main constraint of the Upstate New York toSoutheast New York (UPNY-SENY) interface identified in the resource adequacy analysis.Therefore, the violation could be resolved by solution(s) that respond to the resource adequacydeficiencies identified for 2019 -2024.If the resource adequacy solution is non-transmission, these reliability needs can only bemost efficiently satisfied through the addition of compensatory megawatts in SENY becausesuch resources need to be located below the UPNY-SENY interface constraint to be effective.Additions in Zones A through F could partially resolve these reliability needs. Potentialsolutions could include a combination of additional transfer capability by adding transmissionNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessmentiii facilities into SENY from outside those zones and/or resource additions at least some of whichwould be best located in SENY.In addition, the 2014 RNA provides analysis of risks to the Bulk Power TransmissionFacilities under certain sensitivities and scenarios to assist developers and stakeholders topropose market-based and regulated reliability solutions as well as policy makers to formulatestate policy. The 2014 RNA analysis included a sensitivity of the Dunkirk Fuel conversionproject, and scenarios to address recent experiences in the NYISO operations, which revealedpotential future reliability risks caused particularly by generation retirements, fuel availability,or other factors that could limit energy production during the extreme winter weather. Thefindings under the sensitivity and scenario conditions are:" Dunkirk Fuel Conversion Project: The availability of Dunkirk after the fuel conversion projectin 2016 resolves thermal transmission security violations in the Buffalo and Binghamtonareas, but does not resolve the resource adequacy needs identified in 2019 and thereafter.* High (econometric) Load Forecast: Resource adequacy violations occur as soon as 2017.* Indian Point Energy Center Plant Retirement: Reliability violations would occur in 2016 if theIndian Point Plant were to be retired at the latter of the two units' current license expirationdates in December 2015.* Zonal Capacity at Risk: For year 2015, removal of up to 2,500 MW in Zones A through F, 650MW in Zones G through I, 650 MW in Zone J, or 550 MW in Zone K would result in a NYCAresource adequacy violation." Transmission Security under 90/10 Forecasted Load: The 90/10 forecast for the statewidecoincident summer peak is on average approximately 2,400 MW higher than the baseline50/50 forecast. This higher load would result in the earlier occurrence of the reliabilityneeds identified in the base case as well as the occurrence of new violations in the samefour primary regions. In addition, based on the assumptions applied in this analysis,beginning in 2017 there would be insufficient resources to meet the minimum 10-minuteoperating reserve requirement of 1,310 MW. Starting in 2020, there would be insufficientresources to meet the modeled 90/10 peak load under pre-contingency conditions." Stressed Winter Scenario: The winter of 2013-2014 experienced five major cold snaps,including three polar vortex events that extended across much of the country. The NYISOset a new winter peak load of 25,738 MW, while neighboring ISOs and utilities concurrentlyset record winter peaks during the month of January. Compounding the impact from highload conditions, extensive generation derates and gas pipeline constraints occurredsimultaneously due to the extreme winter weather. In the extreme case that NYCA isassumed to be unable to receive any emergency assistance from neighboring areas, itwould take a loss of capacity in excess of 7,250 MW due to energy production constraints inextreme winter conditions to cause a resource adequacy violation in 2015.In addition to the scenarios, the NYISO also analyzed the risks associated with thecumulative impact of environmental laws and regulations, which may affect the flexibility inplant operation and may make fossil plants energy-limited resources. The RNA discusses theenvironmental regulations that affect long term power system planning and highlights theimpacts of various environmental drivers on resource availability.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessmentiv The RNA is the first step of the NYISO reliability planning process. As a product of thisstep, the NYISO documents the reliability needs in the RNA report, which is presented to theNYISO Board of Directors for approval. The NYISO Board approval initiates the second step,which involves the NYISO requesting proposed solutions to mitigate the identified needs tomaintain acceptable levels of system reliability throughout the study period.As part of its ongoing reliability planning process, the NYISO monitors and tracks theprogress of market-based projects, regulated backstop solutions, together with other resourceadditions and retirements, consistent with its obligation to protect confidential informationunder its Code of Conduct. The other tracked resources include: (i) units interconnecting to thebulk power transmission system; (ii) the development and installation of local transmissionfacilities; (iii) additions, mothballs or retirement of generators; (iv) the status ofmothballed/retired facilities; (v) the continued implementation of New York State energyefficiency and similar programs; (vi) participation in the NYISO demand response programs;and (vii) the impact of new and proposed environmental regulations on the existing generationfleet.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentV DRAFT -For Discussion Purposes1. IntroductionThe Reliability Needs Assessment (RNA) is developed by the NYISO in conjunction withMarket Participants and all interested parties as its first step in the Comprehensive SystemPlanning Process (CSPP). The RNA is the foundation study used in the development of theNYISO Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP). The RNA is performed to evaluate electric systemreliability, for both transmission security and resource adequacy, over a 10-year study period.If the RNA identifies any violation of Reliability Criteria for Bulk Power Transmission Facilities(BPTF), the NYISO will report a Reliability Need quantified by an amount of compensatorymegawatts (MW). After approval of the RNA, the NYISO will request market-based andalternative regulated proposals from interested parties to address the identified ReliabilityNeeds, and designate one or more Responsible Transmission Owners to develop a regulatedbackstop solution to address each identified Reliability Need. This report sets forth the NYISO'sfindings for the study period 2015-2024.The CRP will provide a plan for continued reliability of the bulk power system during thestudy period depending on a combination of additional resources. The resources may beprovided by market-based solutions being developed in response to market forces and therequest for solutions following the approval of this RNA. If the market does not adequatelyrespond, continued reliability will be ensured by either regulated solutions being developed bythe TOs which are obligated to provide reliable service to their customers or alternativeregulated solutions being developed by others. To maintain the system's long-term reliability,these additional resources must be readily available or in development at the appropriate timeof need. Just as important as the electric system plan is the process of planning itself. Electricsystem planning is an ongoing process of evaluating, monitoring and updating as conditionswarrant. Along with addressing reliability, the CSPP is also designed to provide information thatis both informative and of value to the New York wholesale electricity marketplace.Proposed solutions that are submitted in response to an identified Reliability Need areevaluated in the development of the CRP and must satisfy Reliability Criteria. However, thesolutions submitted to the NYISO for evaluation in the CRP do not have to be in the sameamounts of MW or locations as the compensatory MW reported in the RNA. There are variouscombinations of resources and transmission upgrades that could meet the needs identified inthe RNA. The reconfiguration of transmission facilities and/or modifications to operatingprotocols identified in the solution phase could result in changes and/or modifications of theneeds identified in the RNA.This report begins with a summary of the 2012 CRP and prior reliability plans. Thereport continues with a summary of the load and resource forecast for the next 10 years, RNAbase case assumptions and methodology, and reports the RNA findings for years 2015 through2024. Detailed analyses, data and results, and the underlying modeling assumptions arecontained in the appendices.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment1 The RPP tests the robustness of the needs assessment studies and determines, throughthe development of appropriate scenarios, factors and issues that might adversely impact thereliability of the BPTF. The scenarios that were considered include: (i) high load (econometricforecast prior to inclusion of statewide energy efficiency programs and retail solar photovoltaic(PV), that increases the load by approximately 2,000 MW by 2024); (ii) Indian Point Plantretirement; (iii) 90/10 load forecast; (iv) zonal capacity at risk; and (v) stressed winterconditions. In addition to assessing the base case conditions and scenarios, the impact of theDunkirk plant fuel conversion is analyzed as a sensitivity.The NYISO will prepare and issue its 2014 CRP based upon this 2014 RNA report. TheNYISO will monitor the assumptions underlying the RNA base case as well as the progress of themarket-based solutions submitted in earlier CRPs and projects that have met the NYISO's basecase inclusion rules for this RNA. These base case assumptions include, but are not limited to,the measured progress towards achieving the State energy efficiency program standards, theimpact(s) of ongoing developments in State and Federal environmental regulatory programs onexisting power plants, the status of plant re-licensing efforts, and the development oftransmission owner projects identified in the Local Transmission Plans (LTPs).For informational purposes, this RNA report also provides the marketplace with thelatest historical information available for the past five years of congestion via a link to theNYISO's website. The 2014 CRP will be the foundation for the 2015 Congestion Assessment andResource Integration Study (CARIS). A more detailed evaluation of system congestion ispresented in the CARIS.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment2
: 2. Summary of Prior CRPsThis is the seventh RNA since the NYISO planning process was approved by FERC inDecember 2004. The first three RNA reports identified Reliability Needs and the first threeCRPs (2005-2007) evaluated the market-based and regulated backstop solutions submitted inresponse to those identified needs. The 2009 CRP and the 2010 CRP indicated that the systemdid not exhibit any violations of applicable reliability criteria and no solutions were necessary tobe solicited. Therefore, market-based and regulated solutions were not requested. The 2012RNA identified Reliability Needs and the 2012 CRP evaluated market-based and regulatedsolutions in response to those needs. The NYISO has not previously triggered any regulatedbackstop solutions to meet previously identified Reliability Needs due to changes in systemconditions and sufficiency of projects coming into service.Table 2-1 presents the market solutions and TOs' plans that were submitted in responseto previous requests for solutions. These solutions were included in the 2012 CRP and theinformation concerning these solutions has been updated herein to reflect their current status.The table also indicates that 1,545 MW of solutions are either in-service or are still beingreported to the NYISO as moving forward with the development of their projects.In addition to those projects in Table 2-1, there are a number of other projects in theNYISO interconnection study queue which are also moving forward through the interconnectionprocess, but have not been offered as market solutions in this process. Some of theseadditional generation resources have either accepted their cost allocation as part of a ClassYear Facilities Study process or are included in the currently ongoing 2012 Class Year FacilitiesStudy. These projects are listed in Table 2-2 and 2-3 in the order of each project's proposed in-service dates. The projects that meet the 2014 RNA base case inclusion rules are included inTable 3-3. The listings of other Class Year Projects can be found along with other projects thathave not met inclusion rules.Table 2-1: Current Status of Tracked Market-Based Solutions & TOs' PlansIncluded inOriginal In- Name Plate CRIS SummerQueue # Project Submitted Zone (MW) (MW) Proposal Type Current Status 2014 RNABase Case?69 Empire Generation Project CRP 2008 F Q1 2010 670 592.4 577.1 Resource Proposal In-Service YesBack-to-Back HVDC, AC CRP 2007, CRP 2008, and was an206 alternative regulated proposal PJM -J Q2 2011 660 660 660 TrrnsmissionLine HTP Proposalin CRP 2005153 ConEd M29 Project CRP 2005 J May 2010 N/A N/A N/A TO's Plans In-Service Yes-Sta 80xfmr replacement CRP 2012 B 2014 N/A N/A N/A TO's Plans In-Service YesRamapo Protectiona ddi tion CRP2012 G 2013 N/A N/A N/A TO's Plans In-Service YesAddition-5 Mile Road Substation CRP2012 A -N/A N/A N/A TO's Plans Summer 2015 Yes201, Gas Turbine NRG Astoria CRP 2005, CRP 2007, CRP 2008 J June 2010 278.9 155 250 Resource Proposal June 2017 Nore-powering CRP 2012339 Station 255 CRP 2012 B -N/A N/A N/A TO's Plans 04 2016 Yes-Clay -Teall #10 11SkV CRP2012 C 2016 N/A N/A N/A TO's Plans Q4 2017 YesNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment3 Table 2-2: Proposed Generation Projects from Completed Class YearsProposed In Name Plate CRIS Summer Included inQueue N Owner/Operator Station Unit Zone UnitType ClassYearService Date (MW) (MW) (MW) 2014 RNA?237 Allegany Wind, LLC Allegany Wind A 2015/11 72.5 0.0 72.5 Wind Turbines 2010 No197 PPM Roaring Brook, LLC/ PPM Roaring Brook Wind E 2015/12 78.0 0.0 78.0 Wind Turbines 2008 No349 Taylor Bionass Energy Mont., LLC Taylor Biomass G 2015/12 21.0 19.0 19.0 Solid Waste 2011 Yes251 CPV Valley, LLC CPV Valley Energy Center G 2016/05 820.0 680.0 677.6 Combined Cycle 2011 No201 NRG Energy Berrians GT J 2017/06 200.0 155.0 200.0 Combined Cycle 2011 No224 NRG Energy, Inc. Berrians GT II J 2017/06 78.9 0.0 50.0 Combined Cycle 2011 NoTable 2-3: Other Proposed Generation ProjectsQueue # Owner/Operator Station Unit Zone Proposed I Name Plate CRIS Summer Type Included inService Date (MW) (MW) (MW) 2014RNA?372 Dry Lots Wind, LLC Dry Lots Wind E 2014/11 33.0 TBD 33.0 Wind Turbines No354 Atlantic Wind, LLC North Ridge Wind E 2014/12 100.0 TED 100.0 Wind Turbines No276 Air Energie TCI, Inc. Crown City Wind C 2014/12 90.0 TBD 90.0 Wind Turbines No371 South Moutain Wind, LLC South Mountain Wind E 2014/12 18.0 TRD 18.0 Wind Turbines No361 US PowerGen Co. Luyster Creek Energy 2 2015/06 508.6 TOD 401.0 Combined Cycle No360 NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Watkins Glen Wind C 2015/07 122.4 TRD 122.4 Wind Turbines No382 Astoria Generating Co. South Pier Improvement J 2015/07 190.0 TBD 88.0 Combustion Turbines No347 Franklin Wind Farm, LLC Franklin Wind E 2015/12 50.4 TBD 50.4 Wind Turbines No270 Wind Development Contract Co, LIC Hounsfield Wind E 2015/12 244.8 TRD 244.8 Wind Turbines No266 NRG Energy, Inc. Berrians GT III J 2016/06 278.9 TBD 250.0 Combined Cycle No383 NRG Energy, INC. Bowline Gen. Station Unit #3 G 2016/06 814.0 TBD 775.0 Combined Cycle No310 Cricket Valley Energy Center, LLC Cricket Valley Energy Center G 2018/01 1308.0 TBD 1019.9 Combined Cycle No322 Rolling Upland Wind Farm, LLC Rolling Upland Wind E 2018/10 59.9 1TD 59.9 Wind Turbines NoNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment4
: 3. RNA Base Case Assumptions, Drivers and MethodologyThe NYISO has established procedures and a schedule for the collection and submissionof data and for the preparation of the models used in the RNA. The NYISO's CSPP proceduresare designed to allow its planning activities to be performed in an open and transparentmanner under a defined set of rules and to be aligned and coordinated with the relatedactivities of the NERC, NPCC, and New York State Reliability Council (NYSRC). The assumptionsunderlying the RNA were reviewed at the Transmission Planning Advisory Subcommittee (TPAS)and the Electric System Planning Working Group (ESPWG). The Study Period analyzed in the2014 RNA is the ten years from 2015 through 2024 for the base case, sensitivity and scenarios.All studies and analyses of the RNA base case reference the same energy and peakdemand forecast, which is the baseline forecast reported in the 2014 Gold Book. The baselineforecast is an econometric forecast with an adjustment to reflect projected gains (i.e., loadreduction) associated with statewide energy efficiency programs and retail solar PVinstallations.The study base cases were developed in accordance with NYISO procedures usingprojections for the installation and retirement of generation resources and transmissionfacilities that were developed in conjunction with market participants and TransmissionOwners. These are included in the base case using the NYISO 2014 FERC 715 filing as a startingpoint, and consistent with the base case inclusion screening process provided in the ReliabilityPlanning Process (RPP) Manual. Resources that choose to participate in markets outside ofNew York are modeled as contracts, thus preventing their capacity from being used to meetresource adequacy requirements in New York. Representations of neighboring systems arederived from interregional coordination conducted under the NPCC, and pursuant to theNortheast ISO/RTO Planning Coordination Protocol.Table 3-3 shows the new projects which meet the screening requirements for inclusionin the RNA base case.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment5 3.1. Annual Energy and Summer Peak Demand ForecastsThere are two primary forecasts modeled in the 2014 RNA, as contained in the 2014Gold Book. The first forecast, which is used in a scenario, is an econometric forecast of annualenergy and peak demand. The second forecast, which is used for the 2014 RNA base case,includes projected reductions for the impacts of energy efficiency programs and retail solar PVpower'.The NYISO's energy efficiency estimates include the impact of programs authorized bythe Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standards (EEPS), New York Power Authority (NYPA), and LongIsland Power Authority (LIPA). The NYISO has been a party to the EEPS proceeding from itsinception and is now an ex-officio member of the E2 advisory group, the successor to theEvaluation Advisory Group, which is responsible for advising the New York State Public ServiceCommission (NYDPS) on energy efficiency related issues and topics. The NYISO reviewed anddiscussed with market participants in the ESPWG and TPAS, projections for the potential impactof both energy efficiency and the EEPS over the 10-year Study Period. The factors considered indeveloping the 2014 RNA base case forecast are included in Appendix C.The assumptions for the 2014 economic growth, energy efficiency program impacts andretail solar PV impacts were discussed with market participants during meetings of the ESPWGand TPAS during the first quarter of 2014. The ESPWG and TPAS reviewed and discussed theassumptions used in the 2014 RNA base case forecast in accordance with proceduresestablished for the RNA.The annual average energy growth rate in the 2014 Gold Book decreased to 0.16%, ascompared to 0.59% in the 2012 Gold Book. The 2014 Gold Book's annual average summer peakdemand growth decreased to 0.83%, as compared to 0.85% in the 2012 Gold Book. The lowerenergy growth rate is attributed to the influence of both the economy and the continuedimpact of energy efficiency and retail solar PV. While these factors had a smaller impact onsummer peak growth than on annual energy growth, the expectation for peak growth is stilllower in 2014 than it was in 2012. Due to the low growth rates in both energy and summerpeak demand, the value in performing a low-growth scenario for the RNA was diminished, andthus, this scenario was not modeled in the 2014 RNA.Table 3-1 below summarizes the 2014 RNA econometric forecast and the 2012 RNA basecase forecast. Table 3-1 shows a comparison of the base case forecasts and energy efficiencyprogram impacts contained in the 2012 RNA and the 2014 RNA. Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2present actual, weather-normalized and forecasts of annual energy and summer peak demandfor the 2014 RNA. Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4 present the NYISO's projections of annual energyand summer peak demand in the 2014 RNA for energy efficiency and retail solar PV.1 The term retail solar PV is used to refer to customer-sited solar PV, to distinguish it from large-scale solar PV thatis considered as part of the fleet of electric generation in the state.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment6 Table 3-1: Comparison of 2012 & 2014 RNA Base Case ForecastsComparison of Base Case Energy Forecasts -2012 & 2014 RNA (GWh)lAnnual GWh 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 202412012 RNA Base Case 163,659 164,627 165,340 166,030 166,915 166,997 168,021 169,409 171,176 172,514 173,5692014 RNA Base Case 163,161 163,214 163,907 163,604 163,753 164,305 165,101 164,830 164,975 165,109 165,721IChange from 2012 RNA -2,179 -2,816 -3,008 -3,393 -4,268 -5,104 -6,075 -7,684 -8,594 NA NA IComparison of Base Case Peak Forecasts -2012 & 2014 RNA (MW)lAnnual MW 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 202412012 RNA Base Case 33,295 33,696 33,914 34,151 34,345 34,550 34,868 35,204 35,526 35,913 36,2302014 RNA Base Case 33,666 34,066 34,412 34,766 35,111 35,454 35,656 35,890 36,127 36,369 36,580IChange from 2012 RNA -248 -85 67 216 243 250 130 103 NA NAComparison of Energy Impacts from Statewide Energy Efficiency Programs & Retail Solar PV -2012 RNA & 2014 RNA (GWh)2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 20242012 RNA Base Case 1,919 3,462 5,140 6,645 7,903 9,149 10,066 10,670 11,230 11,755 12,2442014 RNA Base Case 1,919 3,462 4,823 6,558 8,099 9,395 10,449 11,455 12,439 13,341 14,228 15,108 15,975lChange from 2012 RNA -317 -87 196 246 383 785 1,209 1,586 1,984 NA NAComparison of Peak Impacts from Statewide Energy Efficiency & Retail Solar PV -2012 RNA & 2014 RNA (MW)1 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 20242012 RNA Base Case 343 624 932 1,210 1,446 1,674 1,861 1,983 2,101 2,217 2,3242014 RNA Base Case 343 624 848 1,115 1,372 1,549 1,715 1,867 2,025 2,169 2,314 2,456 2,703IChange from 2012 RNA 95 125 -146 -116 48 -10 NA NANYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment7 Table 3-2: Comparison of 2014 RNA Base Case Forecast and High Load (Econometric) ScenarioAnnual GWh 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 20242014 High Load Scenario 164,522 166,310 168,544 169,537 170,740 172,298 174,078 174,709 175,741 176,755 178,2342014 RNA BaseCase 163,161 163,214 163,907 163,604 163,753 164,305 165,101 164,830 164,975 165,109 165,721Energy Impacts of EE Programs & Retail Solar PVCumulative GWh 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 20242014 RNA Base Case 1,361 3,096 4,637 5,933 6,987 7,993 8,977 9,879 10,766 11,646 12,513[Annual MW 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 20242014 High Load Scenario 33,890 34,557 35,160 35,691 36,202 36,697 37,057 37,435 37,817 38,201 38,6592014 RNA Base Case 33,666 34,066 34,412 34,766 35,111 35,454 35,656 35,890 36,127 36,369 36,580Summer Peak Demand Impacts of EE Programs & Retail Solar PVCumulative MW 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 20242014 RNA Base Case 224 491 748 925 1,091 1,243 1,401 1,545 1,690 1,832 2,079NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment8 Figure 3-1: 2014 Base Case Energy Forecast and ScenariosAnnual Energy -Actual, Normal & Forecasts (GWh)180000175000 -[-170000-165000160000--4 1---ý_,1550007[iI I0oI- N C,150000C:) 1' C4 M" 1" G: 0 O00 a 00 00 000 0 0 000-oD0Ii04C,,¢0%-(N.oC4'- -- '- '-"0000ONNNNO O004N00404Iý0NC)N4CIIJ (1111 N N NI +- Actual ---- Normal Econometric Base Case IFigure 3-2: 2014 Base Case Summer Peak Demand Forecast and ScenariosSummer Peak Demand -Actual, Normal & Forecasts (MW)40000 -i 1 "T39000 .. ... -----38000 j ---.-.37000 -36000 ------ -A---------35000 -- -'33000 --, -31000 -- -- I30000 - --- -- --27000 --- t.--.-, I , ii I i .26000 -~------------- ~ 4~t* 4O0 ) 0 CO ' L) (0 -00 OO 0 N M It0 0 0 a C0 0 0 0 0 0 ----------N N N N0 0 0 D 4 04 0 0 0 J0 0 0 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NI --Actual ----Normal --*-Econometric -BaseCase INYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment9 Energy Efficiency& Retail Solar PV -Annual Energy (GWh)14,00012,00010,0008,0006,0004,0002,0000.~ LO CO 1- CO O 0 C~j ce) v---N ~iý C~ N (NoD CD C 0 0 0D 0 C) 0D 0 0(i (N (Nj (j (j (N 04 C-4 .4 (N (N1*0Energy Efficiency *1RetaiISolarPIVIFigure 3-3: 2014 Base Case Energy Efficiency & Retail Solar PV -Annual EnergyEnergy Efficiency & Retail SolarPV -SummerPeak (MW)2,5002,0001,5001,0005000v LOl (0 r- CO a) 0 CN CO ~---( N CN (N (N0) 0> 0> 0) 0 0 0 0>( (N ( (N N q (N (N ( (N (N (1 0 Energy Efficiency *RetailSolarPV IFigure 3-4: 2014 Base Case Energy Efficiency & Retail Solar PV -Summer Peak0NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment10 3.2. Forecast of Special Case ResourcesThe 2014 RNA special case resource (SCR) levels are based on the 2014 Gold Book valueof 1,189 MW. The MARS program used for resource adequacy analysis calculates the SCRvalues for each hour based on the ratio of hourly load to peak load. Transmission securityanalysis, which evaluates normal transfer criteria, does not consider SCRs.3.3. Resource Additions and RemovalSince the 2012 RNA, resources have been added to the system, some mothball noticeshave been withdrawn and the associated facilities have returned to the system and someresources have been removed. A total of 455.9 MW have been added to the 2014 RNA basecase either as new generation or existing units returning to service. Meanwhile, a total of1,368.8 MW have been removed from the 2012 RNA base case because these units haveretired, mothballed, or proposed to retire/mothball. The comparison of generation statusbetween the 2012 RNA and 2014 RNA is detailed in Table 3-3 below. The MW values representthe Capacity Resources Interconnection Service (CRIS) MW values as shown in the 2014 GoldBook.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment11 Table 3-3: Generation Addition and Removal1CR1IS 2012 RNAIStation Unit Zone j (MW) R 2014 RNA Status*(MW) Status*IResource AdditionStony Creek Wind C 93.9 N/A I/S since Nov. 2013Taylor Biomass G 19.0 N/A I/S starting Dec. 2015Astoria GT 10 J 24.9 O/S I/S return to service since July 15, 2013Astoria GT 11 J 23.6 O/S I/S return to service since July 15, 2013Gowanus 1 J 154.4 O/S I/S (Intent to Retire Notice withdrawn)Gowanus 4 J 140.1 O/S I/S (Intent to Retire Notice withdrawn)Total Resource Addition (CR1S MW) 455.9Resource RemovalDunkirk 2 A 97.2 O/S I/S until May, 31 2015RG&E Station 9 B 14.3 I/S O/SSeneca Oswego Fulton 1 C 0.7 I/S 0/SSeneca Oswego Fulton 2 C 0.3 I/S O/SSyracuse Energy ST1 C 11.0 I/S O/SSyracuse Energy ST2 C 58.9 I/S O/SCayuga 1 C 154.1 I/S I/S until June 30 2017Cayuga 2 C 154.1 I/S I/S until June 30 2017Chateaugay Power D 18.2 I/S O/SSelkirk-I F 76.1 I/S O/S, Intent to Mothball Notice issued in Feb. 2014**Selkirk-Il F 271.6 I/S 0/5, Intent to Mothball Notice issued in Feb. 2014**Danskammer 1 G 61.0 I/S 0/S, Intent to Retire Notice issued in Jan. 2013'**Danskammer 2 G 59.2 I/S O/S, Intent to Retire Notice issued in Jan. 2013'**Danskammer 3 G 137.2 I/S O/S, Intent to Retire Notice issued in Jan. 2013'**Danskammer4 G 236.2 I/S O/S, Intent to Retire Notice issued in Jan. 2013'**Danskammer 5 G 0.0 I/S O/S, Intent to Retire Notice issued in Jan. 2013***Danskammer 6 G 0.0 I/S 0/5, Intent to Retire Notice issued in Jan. 2013'**Ravenswood 07 J 12.7 I/S O/SMontauk 2, 3, 4 K 6.0 I/S O/STotal Resource Removal (CRIS MW) 1368.8,* I/S for In-Service, and O/S for Out-of-Service** Following the completion of this RNA report, Selkirk Cogen Partners, in a letter dated Sept 3, 2014, withdrewtheir earlier notice of intent to mothball Selkirk Units 1 & 2.***On June 27, 2014, the PSC approved the transfer of the Danskammer facility to Helios Power Capital, LLC, andMercuria Energy America, Inc. Following the transfer, the owners have stated their intent to return theDanskammer facility to operation.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment12 NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment 13 3.4. Local Transmission PlansAs part of the Local Transmission Planning Process (LTPP), Transmission Ownerspresented their Local Transmission Plans (LTPs) to the NYISO and Stakeholders in the fall of2013. The NYISO reviewed the LTPs and included them in the 2014 Gold Book. The firmtransmission plans included in the 2014 RNA base case are reported in Appendix D.Assumptions for inclusion in the RNA were based on data as of April 1, 2014.3.5. Bulk Transmission ProjectsSince the 2012 RNA some additional transmission projects have met the inclusion rulesand are in the 2014 RNA base case. The National Grid Five Mile Road project includes tappingthe Homer City-Stolle Rd. 345 kV circuit and connecting to a new 115 kV station through one345/115 kV transformer. The National Grid Eastover Rd. project consists of tapping theRotterdam-Bear Swamp 230 kV circuit and connecting to a new 115 kV station with two230/115 kV transformers (one spare). These projects are modeled as in-service by summer of2015.The Transmission Owner Transmission Solutions (TOTS) is a group of projects by NYPA,NYSEG, and ConEdison that includes three primary projects. The first is Marcy South SeriesCompensation, which includes the installation of series capacitance at the Marcy station on theMarcy-Coopers Corners 345 kV circuit, and at Fraser station on the Edic-Fraser 345 kV and theFraser-Coopers Corners 345 kV circuits. A section of the Fraser-Coopers Corners 345 kV circuitwill also be reconductored. The second project is Rock Tavern-Ramapo, which includes buildingan additional 345 kV circuit between Rock Tavern and Ramapo and a 345/138 kV tapconnecting to the existing Sugarloaf 138 kV station. The third project is Staten IslandUnbottling, which includes the reconfiguration of Goethals and Linden CoGen substations aswell as the installation of additional cooling on the 345 kV cables from Goethals to Gowanusand Gowanus to Farragut. The TOTS projects are scheduled to be completed by summer of2016.An additional 345/115 kV transformer is modeled as in-service at the NYSEG WoodStreet station by the summer of 2016. An additional 230/115/34.5 kV transformer will also beinstalled at the NYSEG Gardenville substation by the summer of 2017.The RGE Station 255 project that taps the existing Somerset-Rochester and Niagara-Rochester 345 kV circuits is in the 2014 RNA base case. An additional 345 kV line will be addedfrom Station 255 to Station 80. Station 255 will have two 345/115 kV transformers connectingto a new 115kV station in the Rochester area. These projects, collectively known as theRochester Area Reliability Project, are modeled as in-service by 2017. Also since the 2012 RNA,two 345/115 kV transformers (T1 and T3) located at RGE Station 80 have been replaced withtransformers which have higher ratings, and are modeled accordingly in the 2014 RNA basecase.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment14 During the development of the 2012 CRP, National Grid proposed a project to mitigatepotential overloads around the Clay substation by reconductoring the Clay-Teall (#10) 115 kVcircuit by winter 2017. This upgrade is modeled as part of the 2014 RNA base case starting inthe year 2018.Two FirstEnergy projects within Pennsylvania that tap NYSEG transmission lines areincluded in the 2014 RNA base case: the Farmers Valley project, which taps the Homer City-Five Mile Rd. 345 kV tie-line, and the Mainesburg project, which taps the Homer City-Watercure345 kV tie-line. Both projects are modeled as in-service for summer 2015.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment15 3.6. Base Case Peak Load and Resource RatiosThe capacity used for the 2014 RNA base case peak load and resource ratio is theexisting generation adjusted for the unit retirements, mothballing, or proposals toretire/mothball announced as of April 15, 2014 along with the new resource additions that metthe base case inclusion rules reported in the 2014 Gold Book. This capacity is summarized inTable 3-4 below.Table 3-4: NYCA Peak Load and Resource Ratios 2015 through 2024Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Peak Load (MW)NYCA* 34,066 I 34,412 34,766 35,111 35,454 35,656 135,890 j 36,127 36,369 1 36,580Zone J* 12,050 12,215 _ 12,'385 _ 12,570 12,700 12790 12,900 12,990__ 13,100 113,185Zone K* 5,708 5,748 5,789 5,923ZnK*5,543 58 5,629 566Zone G-J 16,557 16,749 I 16,935 I 17,149 17,311 17,421 17,554 17,694 17,828 17,935Resources (MW)Capacity- 37,375 37,394 37,085 37,085 j 37,085 j 37,085 37,085 37,085 _37,085 j 37,085Net Purchases & Sales 2,237 2,237 2,237 I. 2,237 2,237 2,237 2,237 2,237 2,237" -2,237SCR 1,189 1,189 1,189 1,189 1,189 1,189 1,189 1,189 1,189 1189NYCA Total Resources 40,801 40,820__ --405 --,511 I 440,5511- 40,51 40,511 40,511 40,511 40,5.1.... .... _-- __--- '- -- '- .-.. ..- " ..... _ -. --'.... F---- .--.. -. --.'-- ..-. .-... ... .... .. ',-Capacity/Load Ratio 109.7% S 108.7% 106.7% 105.6% 104.6% 104.0% 103.3% 102.7% 102. 0/% J 101.4%Cap+NetPurch/Load Rat 116.3% 115.2% 113.1% I 112.0% 110.9% 110.3% 109.6% 108.8% 108.1% 107.5%Tot.Res./Load Ratio 119.8% 118.6% T 116.5% 115.4% 1 114.3% 1 113.6% 112.9% 112.1% 111.4% 110.7%Zone J Total Resources ,10, 10,797 10,797 10,797- 10,797 10,797 10 7 10,97 .10,797Tot.Res./Load Ratio 89.6% 88.4% 87.2% I 85.9- -85.0% 84.4% T 83.7% 83.1% 82.4% 81.9%Zone K Total Resources 6,360 .6,360 -6,360 1 6,360 1 6,1 ,360 6,360 .6,3,360 6,360Tot.Res./Load Ratio 114.7% -113-.8% --113.0% -12.% 1-111.4- T -110.6% 109.9% 109.1% 108.2% -107.4%Zone G-J Total Resources 15,137 J 15,137 1 3 ,137 j115,137 15,137 15,137 15,137Tot.Res./Load Ratio 91.4% 90.4% 89.4% 88.3% 87.4% 86.2% 85.5% 84.9% 84.4%*NYCA load values represent baseline coincident summer peak demand. Zones J and K load values represent non-coincident summer peak demand. Aggregate Zones G-J values represent G-J coincident peak, which is non-coincident with NYCA.**NYCA Capacity values include resources electrically internal to NYCA, additions, reratings, and retirements(including proposed retirements and mothballs). Capacity values reflect the lesser of CRIS and DMNC values. NYCAresources include the net purchases and sales as per the Gold Book. Zonal totals include the awarded UDRs forthose capacity zones.Notes:* SCR -Forecasted ICAP value based on 2014 Gold Book.* Wind generator summer capacity is counted as 100% of nameplate rating." The NYISO set a deadline of May 15, 2014 for deciding whether to include Dunkirk fuel conversion project inthe base case or to study it separately as a sensitivity. The NYISO subsequently determined to study itseparately as a sensitivity.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment16 For summer 2014 resource adequacy, the existing capacity provides about a 122.7%Installed Capacity Reserve to meet the summer 2014 Installed Reserve Margin requirement of117.0%. The capacity margin decreases throughout the study period, but more rapidly andnoticeably in the outer years due to load growth. Consequently, the reliability need year hasadvanced to 2019. To demonstrate the significant reduction in resources, the NYISO comparedthe capacity margin in the need year of 2019 between the 2012 RNA and the 2014 RNA. TheNYISO found a net capacity margin decrease of 2,100 MW, which breaks down as follows, andsummarized in Table 3-5:1. The NYCA capacity resources are 874 MW less for 2019 (724 MW upstate and 150 MWin SENY);2. The NYCA baseline load forecast is 250 MW higher for 2019 (497 MW higher upstateand 247 MW lower in SENY); and3. The NYCA Special Case Resources (SCRs) projection is 976 MW less for 2019 (685 MWupstate and 291 MW in SENY).This reduction contributes to the shift of the need year from 2020 to 2019 identified inthe 2014 RNA, and discussed in Section 4.Table 3-5: Load/Resources Comparison of Year 2019 (MW)Year 2019 2012 RNA 2014 RNA deltaLoad 35,204 35,454 250SCR 2,165 1,189 -976Total Capacity without SCRs 40,196 39,322 -874Net Change in capacity margin in 2014 RNA from 2012 RNA (MW) -2,1003.7. Methodology for the Determination of NeedsReliability Needs are defined by the Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) in terms oftotal deficiencies relative to Reliability Criteria determined from the assessments of the BPTFsperformed for the RNA. There are two steps to analyzing the reliability of the BPTFs. The first isto evaluate the security of the transmission system; the second is to evaluate the adequacy ofthe system, subject to the security constraints. The NYISO planning procedures include bothsecurity and adequacy assessments. The transmission adequacy and the resource adequacyassessments are performed together.Transmission security is the ability of the power system to withstand disturbances suchas short circuits or unanticipated loss of system elements and continue to supply and deliverelectricity. Security is assessed deterministically, with potential disturbances being appliedNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment17 without concern for the likelihood of the disturbance in the assessment. These disturbances(single-element and multiple-element contingencies) are categorized as the design criteriacontingencies, explicitly defined in the NYSRC Reliability Rules. The impacts when applyingthese design criteria contingencies are assessed to ensure no thermal loading, voltage orstability violations will occur. In addition, the NYISO performs a short circuit analysis todetermine if the system can clear faulted facilities reliably under short circuit conditions. TheNYISO "Guideline for Fault Current Assessment" describes the methodology for that analysis.The analysis for the transmission security assessment is conducted in accordance withNERC Reliability Standards, NPCC Transmission Design Criteria, and the NYSRC Reliability Rules.AC contingency analysis is performed on the BPTF to evaluate thermal and voltage performanceunder design contingency conditions using the Siemens PTI PSSE and PowerGEM TARAprograms. Generation is dispatched to match load plus system losses, while respectingtransmission security. Scheduled inter-area transfers modeled in the base case between theNYCA and neighboring systems are held constant.For the RNA, approximately 1,000 design criteria contingencies are evaluated under N-i,N-1-0, and N-1-1 normal transfer criteria conditions to ensure that the system is planned tomeet all applicable reliability criteria. To evaluate the impact of a single event from the normalsystem condition (N-i), all design criteria contingencies are evaluated including: singleelement, common structure, stuck breaker, generator, bus, and HVDC facilities contingencies.An N-1 violation occurs when the power flow on the monitored facility is greater than theapplicable post-contingency rating. N-i-0 and N-1-1 analysis evaluates the ability of the systemto meet design criteria after a critical element has already been lost. For N-i-0 and N-1-1analysis, single element contingencies are evaluated as the first contingency; the secondcontingency (N-1-1) includes all design criteria contingencies evaluated under N-1 conditions.The process of N-i-0 and N-1-1 testing allows for corrective actions including generatorredispatch, phase angle regulator (PAR) adjustments, and HVDC adjustments between the firstand second contingency. These corrective actions prepare the system for the next contingencyby reducing the flow to normal rating after the first contingency. An N-i-0 violation occurswhen the flow cannot be reduced to below the normal rating following the first contingency.An N-1-1 violation occurs when the facility is reduced to below the normal rating following thefirst contingency, but the power flow following the second contingency is greater than theapplicable post-contingency rating.Resource adequacy is the ability of the electric systems to supply the aggregateelectricity demand and energy requirements of the customers at all times, taking into accountscheduled and unscheduled outages of system elements. Resource adequacy considers thetransmission systems, generation resources, and other capacity resources, such as demandresponse. Resource adequacy assessments are performed on a probabilistic basis to capturethe random natures of system element outages. If a system has sufficient transmission andgeneration, the probability of an unplanned disconnection of firm load is equal to or less thanthe system's standard, which is expressed as a Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE). The New YorkNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessmentis State bulk power system is planned to meet a LOLE that, at any given point in time, is less thanor equal to an involuntary load disconnection that is not more frequent than once in every 10years, or 0.1 events per year. This requirement forms the basis of New York's Installed ReserveMargin (IRM) requirement and is on a statewide basis.If Reliability Needs are identified, various amounts and locations of compensatory MWrequired for the NYCA to satisfy those needs are determined to translate the criteria violationsto understandable quantities. Compensatory MW amounts are determined by adding genericcapacity resources to zones to effectively satisfy the needs. The compensatory MW amountsand locations are based on a review of binding transmission constraints and zonal LOLEdeterminations in an iterative process to determine various combinations that will result inReliability Criteria being met. These additions are used to estimate the amount of resourcesgenerally needed to satisfy Reliability Needs. The compensatory MW additions are notintended to represent specific proposed solutions. Resource needs could potentially be met byother combinations of resources in other areas including generation, transmission and demandresponse measures.Due to the differing natures of supply and demand-side resources and transmissionconstraints, the amounts and locations of resources necessary to match the level ofcompensatory MW needs identified will vary. Resource needs could be met in part bytransmission system reconfigurations that increase transfer limits, or by changes in operatingprotocols. Operating protocols could include such actions as using dynamic ratings for certainfacilities, invoking operating exceptions, or establishing special protection systems.The procedure to quantify compensatory MW for BPTF transmission security violationsis a separate process from calculating compensatory MW for resource adequacy violations.This quantification is performed by first calculating transfer distribution factors (TDF) on theoverloaded facilities. The power transfer used for this calculation is created by injecting powerat existing buses within the zone where the violation occurs, and reducing power at anaggregate of existing generators outside of the area.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment19
: 4. Reliability Needs Assessment4.1. OverviewReliability is defined and measured through the use of the concepts of security andadequacy described in Section 3.4.2. Reliability Needs for Base CaseBelow are the principal findings of the 2014 RNA applicable to the base case conditionsfor the 2015-2024 study periods including: transmission security assessment; short circuitassessment; resource and transmission adequacy assessment; system stability assessments;and scenario analyses.4.2.1. Transmission Security AssessmentThe RNA requires analysis of the security of the Bulk Power Transmission Facilities(BPTF) throughout the Study Period (2015-2024). The BPTF, as defined in this assessment,include all of the facilities designated by the NYISO as a Bulk Power System (BPS) element asdefined by the NYSRC and NPCC, as well as other transmission facilities that are relevant toplanning the New York State transmission system. To assist in the assessment, the NYISOreviewed many previously completed transmission security assessments, and utilized the mostrecent Area Transmission Review and FERC Form 715 power flow case that the NYISOsubmitted to FERC.The transmission security analysis identifies thermal violations on the BPTF throughoutthe Study Period (2015-2024) for N-i, N-1-0, and N-1-1 conditions, some of which are acontinuation of the violations identified in the 2012 RNA for which work is ongoing and some ofwhich represent new violations resulting from system changes modeled in the base case. Table4-1 provides a summary of the contingency pairs that result in the highest thermal overload oneach overloaded BPTF element under N-i, N-1-0, and N-1-1 conditions using coincident peakloading. In the second contingency column of Table 4-1, "N/A" corresponds to an N-1 violationand "Base Case" corresponds to an N-I-0 violation. Table 4-2 provides a summary of the yearby which a solution is needed to be in-service to mitigate the transmission security violation.Appendix D provides a summary of all contingency pairs that result in overloads on the BPTF forthe study period.There are four primary regions of Reliability Needs identified in Table 4-1 including:Rochester, Western & Central New York, Capital Region, and Lower Hudson Valley & New YorkCity. These Reliability Needs either continue to be generally driven by, or have arisen anew dueto, two primary factors: (i) recent and proposed generator retirements/mothballs; and (ii)combined with load growth. Considering non-coincident peak loading for these regions, theNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment20 overloads listed in Table 4-1 would increase most notably in the out-years. Figure 4-1geographically depicts the four regions where the loads may be impacted by transmissionsecurity constraints.Figure 4-1: Approximate Locations of Transmission Security NeedsRochesterThe transmission security analysis continues to show near-term overloads in theRochester area, primarily due to load growth. The 2012 RNA identified overloadedtransformers at Station 80 and Pannell starting in 2013. The Station 80 overloads wereresolved by the recently completed replacement of two transformers at that station. Theremaining portion of the Rochester Area Reliability Project, Rochester Gas and Electric (RG&E)Station 255, which was provided as a solution in the 2012 CRP is included in the base casestarting in 2017 according to the firm plans identified in the 2014 Gold Book.Starting in 2015, the Pannell 345/115 kV transformer 1TR is overloaded for the loss ofGinna followed by a stuck breaker at Pannell. Pannell 345/115 kV transformer 2TR is similarlyoverloaded for the loss of Ginna followed by a stuck breaker at Pannell. The Pannell-Quaker(#914) 115 kV line overloads for the loss of Ginna followed by a loss of Pannell 345/115 kV 3TR.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment21 The N-i-i violations on Pannell 345/115 transformers 1TR and 2TR and Pannell-Quaker (#914)115 kV are resolved after RG&E Station 255 is in-service.Western & Central New YorkThe transmission security analysis identifies a number of thermal and voltage violationson the BPTF in the Western and Central New York regions resulting from a lack of transmissionand generating resources to serve load and support voltage in the area.The 230 kV system between Niagara and Gardenville includes two parallel 230 kVtransmission lines from Niagara to Packard to Huntley to Gardenville, including a number oftaps to serve load in the Buffalo area. A third parallel 230 kV transmission line also runs fromNiagara to Robinson Rd. to Stolle Rd. to Gardenville. The N-i-1 analysis shows that in 2018,Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 kV overloads for loss of the parallel line (#79) followed by a stuckbreaker at the Robinson Road 230 kV substation. In 2021, the Packard-Huntley (#77) and (#78)lines each overload for the loss of the parallel line followed by a stuck breaker at the RobinsonRoad 230 kV substation. Similarly, in 2022, the Huntley-Gardenville (#79) line overloads for lossof the parallel line (#80) followed by a stuck breaker at the Robinson Road 230 kV substation.The overloads occur due to increased load in Western and Central New York and are aggravatedby both the mothball of Dunkirk generation and a new load-serving 230/115 kV substation(Four Mile Junction) just within the PJM area.National Grid's Clay 115 kV station includes eight 115 kV transmission connections andtwo 345/115 kV transformers that serve the Oswego and Syracuse areas. Starting in 2015, theClay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115 kV line has a flow of 146 MVA compared to a Long TermEmergency (LTE) rating of 120 MVA for an N-1 breaker failure at the Oswego 345 kV substation.In 2019, the flow increases to 166 MVA. The increase in flow between 2015 and 2019 isprimarily due to modeling the Cayuga generation plant out-of-service starting in 2017. Theincreased load and Dunkirk mothballing in 2015 also contribute to the overload. In 2024, theflow increases to 168 MVA due to load growth. In 2024, the Clay-Woodward (Euclid-Woodard)(#17) 115 kV line has a flow of 183 MVA compared to an LTE rating of 174 MVA due to an N-1breaker failure at the Lafayette 345 kV substation.Thermal overloads are also observed at Clay for N-i-1 conditions. Starting in 2015, theN-i-1 analysis shows various overloads in the Syracuse area including: Clay-Lockheed Martin(#14) 115 kV, Clay-Teall (#10) 115 kV, and the Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 kV line. Starting in 2017, theN-i-1 analysis shows additional overloads on: Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 kV, Clay-S. Oswego (#4)115 kV, and the Clay 345/115 kV 1TR transformer. In the 2012 RNA, the NYISO identifiedtransmission security violations on Clay-Teall (#10) 115 kV line. The overloads on the Clay-Teall(#10) 115 kV and the Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 kV lines are mitigated by the solutions identified inthe 2012 CRP starting in 2018, as described in Section 3.5 of this report. The Clay-LockheedMartin (#14) 115 kV line also experiences an N-I-0 violation starting in 2019 for the loss of theElbridge 345/115 kV transformer. The overloads in this area are primarily due to power flowingNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment22 from east-to-west on the 115 kV system to serve load in Central New York after the loss of anorth-to-south 345 kV path and are exacerbated with Cayuga mothballed.National Grid's Porter 115 kV station includes eight 115 kV transmission connectionsand two 345/115 kV transformers that serve the Utica and Syracuse areas. The N-1-1 analysisshows the Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 kV line overloaded starting in 2015 for the loss ofOswego-Elbridge-Lafayette (#17) 345 kV followed by a stuck breaker at the Clay 345 kVsubstation; additionally, the N-1-i analysis shows the Porter-Oneida (#7) 115 kV lineoverloaded starting in 2017 for the same contingency pair. These overloads are due to powerflowing from east to west on the 115 kV system to serve load in the Utica, Syracuse, and FingerLakes area and are exacerbated with Cayuga mothballed.In addition to the thermal violations identified in Table 4-1, the Porter 115 kV area haslocal low voltage issues in all years due to a stuck breaker contingency.The Oakdale 345/230/115 kV substation serves the Binghamton area. Starting in 2015,N-1-i analysis shows the loading on Oakdale 345/115 kV 2TR is overloaded for the loss ofWatercure 345/230 kV 1TR followed by a stuck breaker at Oakdale 345 kV; however, starting in2016 a second Watercure 345/230 kV transformer (expected in-service date prior to winter2015) is modeled in-service, which resolves Watercure 345/230 kV transformer from being alimiting contingency. With the second Watercure 345/230 kV transformer in-service in 2016,the limiting contingency pair changes to the loss of Fraser 345/115 kV 2TR followed by a stuckbreaker at Oakdale 345 kV. An N-1-0 violation occurs starting in 2016 on Oakdale 345/115 kV2TR for loss of Oakdale 345/115 kV 3TR and then in 2020 on Oakdale 345/115 kV 3TR for loss ofOakdale 345/115 kV 2TR. The overloads on the Oakdale 345/115 kV transformers are causedby the loss of sources (i.e. transformers) and are exacerbated with Cayuga mothballed.In addition to the thermal violations identified in Table 4-1, the Oakdale area has lowvoltage under N-i-1 conditions starting in 2017 for loss of transformer sources into the localarea from the bulk system. The low voltage is primarily due to modeling the Cayuga generationplant out-of-service starting in 2017.Capital RegionIn March of 2014, Selkirk Cogen Partners, LLC submitted their notice of intent tomothball the Selkirk I and Selkirk II facilities effective September 2014; therefore, thesegenerating units are not included in the base case. With the Selkirk plant modeled out-of-service, pre-contingency overloads exist on local 115 kV non-BPTF elements beginning in 2015and, unless resolved, continuing for all study years. There are also significant post-contingencyoverloads on the local 115 kV transmission lines. Additionally, overloads are noted on the NewScotland 345/115 kV transformer for the loss of generation at Bethlehem followed by loss of aNew Scotland 345 kV bus (#77) and the Reynolds 345/115 kV transformer has an N-1-0 violationfor the loss of generation at Bethlehem. National Grid is evaluating the overloaded localNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment23 facilities in this area and determining corrective action plans. The solutions developed byNational Grid will impact the magnitude of loadings on BPTF facilities in the Capital Region.These loadings on the BPTF facilities will be reevaluated as part of the CRP following NationalGrid's update to their local transmission plan.Lower Hudson Valley & New York CityThe UPNY-SENY interface includes five 345 kV lines from north to south within NewYork: Leeds -Athens -Pleasant Valley (#95/91) 345 kV, Leeds -Pleasant Valley (#92) 345 kV,Leeds -Hurley (#301) 345 kV, Coopers Corners -Rock Tavern (#42) 345 kV, and CoopersCorners -Middletown -Rock Tavern (#34) 345 kV. Similar to the 2012 RNA, the Leeds -Pleasant Valley lines are overloaded starting in 2022 for the N-1-1 loss of other 345 kV linesacross the UPNY-SENY interface. These overloads are due to load growth and a reduction ingeneration in the Lower Hudson Valley and New York City areas.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment24 Table 4-1: 2014 RNA Transmission Security Thermal Violations2015 2019 2024Normal LTE STE Flow Flow FlowZone Owner Monitored Element Rating Rating Rating First Contingency Second Contingency(MVA) (MVA) (MVA)(MVA) (MVA) (MVA)A N.Grid Packard-Huntley (#77) 230 556 644 704 649 Packard-Huntley SB Robinson Rd 230(Packard-Sawyer) (#78) 230A N.Grid Packard-Huntley (#78) 230 556 644 746 649 Packard-Huntley SB Robinson Rd 230(Packard-Sawyer) (#77) 230A N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#79) 230 566 654 755 664 Huntley-Gardenville $8 Robinson Rd 230(Huntley-Sawyer) (#80) 230661 672 Huntley-Gardenville SB Robinson Rd 230A N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 566 654 755 (#79) 230(Huntley-Sawyer) 697 Robinson-Stolle Rd Huntley-Gardenville(#65) 230 (#79) 230B RGE Pannell 345/115 1TR 228 282 336 372 L/O Ginna SB Pannell 345B RGE Pannell 345/115 2TR 228 282 336 372 L/O Ginna SB Pannell 345B RGE Pannell-Quaker (#914) 115 207.1 246.9 284.8 298 L/O Ginna Pannell 345/115 3TR573 Watercure 345/230 1TR SB Oakdale 345C NYSEG Oakdale 345/115 2TR 428 556 600 440 444 Oakdale 345/115 3TR Base CaseI I 1 1 574 586 Fraser 345/115 2TR SB Oakdale 345C NYSEG Oakdale 345/115 3TR 428 556 600 438 Oakdale 345/115 2TR Base Case146163168SB Oswego 345N/ACN.GridClay-Lockheed Martin (#14)115116120145139 1 142 1 Elbridge 345/115 1TR Base Case165204216Clay-Woodard (#17) 115SB Lafayette 345* 4- -I- .1 4 .4-CN.GridClay-Teall (#10) 115(Clay-Bartell Rd-Pine Grove)116120145131Clay-Teall(#11) 115SB Dewitt 345C N.Grid Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 116 120 145 126 Clay-Dewitt SB Oswego 345(Clay-Bartell Rd) 1 (#13) 345C N.Grid Clay 345/115 1TR 478 637 794 710 757 Oswego-EIbridge-Lafayette SB Clay 345(#17) 345183 SB Lafayette 345 N/AC N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 174 174 174 Clay-Lockheed Martin(Euclid-Woodward) 207 220 CaLce Mri SB Lafayette 345_______ ______ _______(#14) 115C N.Grid S. Oswego-Clay (#4) 115(S. Oswego-Whitaker) 104 104 104 114 117 Clay 345/115 1TR SB Clay 345Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 128 141 142 Oswego-Elbridge-Lafayette SB Clay 345E N.Grid (Porter-Kelsey) 116 120 145 128 14 142 (#17) 345PotrKle 143 Clay-Dewitt (#13) 345 SB Oswego 345Porter-Oneida (#7) 115 122 125 Oswego-Elbridge-Lafayette SB Clay 345E N.Grid Porter-Oneica) 116 120 145 122 125(#17) 345(Porter-W. Utica) 126 Clay-Dewitt (#13) 345 SB Oswego 345F N.Grid New Scotland 345/115 1TR 458 570 731 631 659 837 L/O Bethlehem New Scotland (#77) 345F N.Grid Reynolds 345/115 459 562 755 492 498 584 L/O Bethlehem Base CaseF-G N.Grid Leeds-Pleasant Valley (#92) 1331 1538 1724 1587 Athens-Pleasant Valley Tower 41&33345 (491) 345F-G N.Grid Athens-Pleasant Valley (#91) 1331 1538 1724 1584 Leeds-Pleasant Valley (#92) Tower 41&33345 345NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment25 Table 4-2: 2014 RNA Transmission Security Reliability Need YearZone Owner Monitored Element Year of NeedB RGE Pannell 345/115 1TR 2015B RGE Pannell 345/115 2TR 2015B RGE Pannell-Quaker (#914) 115 2015C NYSEG Oakdale 345/115 2TR 2015C N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115 2015C N.Grid Clay-Teall (#10) 115 2015(Clay-Bartell Rd-Pine Grove)C N.Grid Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 2015(Clay-Bartell Rd)E N.Grid Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 2015(Porter-Kelsey)F N.Grid New Scotland 345/115 1TR 2015F N.Grid Reynolds 345/115 2015C N.Grid Clay 345/115 1TR 2017C N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 2017(Euclid-Woodward)C N.Grid S. Oswego-Clay (#4) 115 2017(S. Oswego-Whitaker)E N.Grid Porter-Oneida (#7) 115 2017(Porter-W. Utica)A N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 2018(Huntley-Sawyer)C NYSEG Oakdale 345/115 3TR 2020A N.Grid Packard-Huntley (#77) 230 2021(Packard-Sawyer)A N.Grid Packard-Huntley (#78) 230 2021(Packard-Sawyer)A N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#79) 230 2022(Huntley-Sawyer)F -G N.Grid Leeds-Pleasant Valley (#92) 345 2022F -G N.Grid Athens-Pleasant Valley (#91) 345 2022NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment26 4.2.2. Short Circuit AssessmentPerformance of a transmission security assessment includes the calculation ofsymmetrical short circuit current to ascertain whether the circuit breakers in the system couldbe subject to fault current levels in excess of their rated interrupting capability. The analysiswas performed for the year 2019 reflecting the study conditions outlined in Section 3. Thecalculated fault levels would be constant over the second five years because no new generationor transmission is modeled in the RNA for second five years, and the methodology for fault dutycalculation is not sensitive to load growth. The detailed results are presented in Appendix D ofthis report.National Grid, having taken into account factors such as circuit breaker age and faultcurrent asymmetry, has derated breakers at certain stations. As a result, overdutied breakerswere identified at Porter 230 kV and Porter 115 kV stations. Table 4-3: summarizes over-dutybreakers at each station. National Grid reports that plans to make the necessary facilityupgrades are in place. For Porter 115 kV, National Grid is scheduled to rebuild the station andreplace all the breakers by Winter 2014/2015. For Porter 230 kV, National Grid is scheduled toadd microprocessor relays to mitigate the overdutied breakers by the end of 2014.Table 4-3:2014 RNA Over-Duty Circuit Breaker SummarySubstation kV Number of Over-Duty Breaker IDCircuit BreakersPorter 115 10 R130, RIO, R20, R30, R40, R50,1R60, R70, R80, R90Porter 230 9 R110,R120,R15, R170, R25, R320,1R835, R825, R845NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment27 4.2.3. Transmission and Resource Adequacy AssessmentThe NYISO conducts its resource adequacy analysis with General Electric's Multi AreaReliability Simulation (MARS) software package. The modeling applies interface transfer limitsand performs a probabilistic simulation of outages of capacity and transmission resources.The emergency transfer limits were developed using the 2014 RNA base case. Table 4-4,Table 4-5, and Table 4-6 below provide the thermal and voltage emergency transfer limits forthe major NYCA interfaces. For comparison purposes, the 2012 RNA transfer limits arepresented.Table 4-4: Transmission System Thermal Emergency Transfer Limits2014 RNA study 2012 RNA studyInterface 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2024 2015 2016 2017Dysinger East 2200 2150 2100 2075 2050 Same as 2019 2975 2975 2975Central East MARS 4025 4500 4500 4500 4500 Same as 2019 3425 3425 3475E to G (Marcy South) 1700 2150 2150 2150 2150 Same as 2019 1700 1700 1700F to G 3475 3475 3475 3475 3475 Same as 2019 3475 3475 3475UPNY-SENY MARS 5150 5600 5600 5600 5600 Same as 2019 5150 5150 5150to J (Dunwoodie South MARS) 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 Same as 2019 4400 4400 44001to K (Y49/Y50) 1290 1290 1290 1290 1290 Same as 2019 1290 1290 1290Table 4-5: Transmission System Voltage Emergency Transfer Limits2014 RNA study 2012 RNA studyInterface 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2024 2015 2016 2017Dysinger East 2700 DNC DNC DNC 2800 Same as 2019 2875 2900 2875West Central 1475 DNC DNC DNC 1350 Same as 2019 1850 1900 1900Central East MARS 3250 3100 3100 3100 3100 Same as 2019 3350 3350 3350Central East Group 4800 5000 5000 5000 5000 Same as 2019 4800 4800 4800UPNY-ConEd 5210 5210 5210 5210 5210 Same as 2019 5210 5210 52101 to J & K 5160 5160 5160 5160 5160 Same as 2019 5160 5160 5160DNC: Did Not CalculateTable 4-6: Transmission System Base Case Emergency Transfer Limits2014 RNA study 2012 RNA studyInterface 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2024 2015 2016 2017Dysinger East 2200 T1 2150 T 2100 T 2075 T 2050 T Same as 2019 2875 V 29001 V 2875 VCentral East MARS 3250 V 3100 V 3100 V 3100 V 3100 V Same as 2019 3350 V_ 3350 V 3350 VCentral East Group 4800 v 5000 V 5000 V 5000 v 5000 v Same as 2019 4800 v 4800 V 4800 VEto G (Marcy South) 1700 T 2150 T 2150 T 2150 T 2150 T Same as 2019 1700 T 1700 T 1700 TFtoG 3475 T 3475 T 3475 T 3475 T 3475 T Sameas2019 3475 T 3475 T 3475 TUPNY-SENYMARS 5150 T 5600 T 5600 T 5600 T 5600 T Sameas2019 5150 T 5150 T 5150 TIto J (Dunwoodie South MARS) 4400 T 4400 T 4400 T 4400 T 4400 T Same as 2019 4400 T 4400 T 4400 1ItoK(Y49/YS0) 1290 T 1290 T1 1290 T 1290 T 1290 T Sameas2019 1290 T1 1290 T 1290 "1toJ&K 5160 C 5160 C 5160 C 5160 C 5160 C Sameas2019 5160 C 5160 C 5160 CNote: T=Thermal, V=Voltage, C=CombinedNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment28 The Dysinger East transfer limit decreased compared to the transfer limit used in the2012 RNA. The thermal limitations on the 230 kV transmission path between Packard andGardenville in Zone A became more constraining than the voltage limitations. This was dueprimarily to modeling the Dunkirk plant as out-of-service in the 2014 RNA analysis whereas, incontrast, there was 500 MW of generic generation modeled at the Dunkirk substation for thecalculation of transfer limits in the 2012 RNA. The transfer limit further reduces incrementallyeach year due to load growth in Zone A.The Central East MARS interface limit is lower for the 2014 RNA than it was for the 2012RNA. This is primarily due to the inclusion of the Transmission Owner Transmission Solutions(TOTS) projects. The inclusion of the TOTS projects in the model also resulted in increases tothe Central East Group, Marcy South, and UPNY-SENY MARS interface transfer limits. The TOTSprojects that add series compensation to the Marcy South transmission corridor effectivelyincrease flow through that transmission path. The second Rock Tavern-Ramapo 345 kV linealso contributes to this change in the power flow pattern. The result is that power is divertedsomewhat from the circuits that make up the Central East MARS interface and the power flowacross the UPNY-SENY interface is more balanced between the Marcy South corridor and theLeeds-Pleasant Valley corridor. Inclusion of the TOTS projects also impacts the A line and VFTinterface(Staten Island) by significantly reducing the constraints on flows from Staten Islandgeneration and the ties to New Jersey.The results of the 2014 RNA base case studies show that the LOLE for the NYCA exceeds0.1 beginning in the year 2019 and the LOLE continues to increase through 20242. The LOLEresults for the entire 10-year RNA base case are presented in Table 4-7. While the LOLE criteriaare evaluated on a statewide basis, both the NYCA and zonal LOLE are presented forinformational purposes to assist in the development of the compensatory MWs. The zonalLOLE are driven by many factors and thus cannot be used for direct identification of the driversof the statewide [OLE violations. A test to determine the causation of the LOLE separation on azonal basis caused by transmission interface constraints was developed and applied to identifythose interfaces most binding at the time of NYCA LOLE event. It is referred to as the BindingInterface test and it is critical in developing the most effective compensatory MW locations.Consistent with the previous RNAs, UPNY-SENY remains the most constraining interface.2 RNA Study results are rounded to two decimal places. A result of exactly 0.01, for example, would correspond toone event in one hundred years.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment29 Table 4-7: NYCA Resource Adequacy Measure (in LOLE)Zone(s) 25 2 ON 2Zone A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Zone B 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.09Zone C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Zone D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Zone E 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.09Zone F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Zones A-F 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.09Zone G 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08Zone H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Zone I 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.22 0.25Zone J 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.25Zone K 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.19Zones G-K 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.22 0.26NYCA 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.22 0.26*Note: "0" represents an LOLE less or equal to 0.004.In order to avoid over-dependence on emergency assistance from external areas,emergency operating procedures in the external areas are not modeled. Capacity of theexternal systems is further adjusted so that the interconnected LOLE value of the external areas(Ontario, New England, Hydro Quebec, and PJM) is not less than 0.10 and not greater than 0.15for the year 2015. The level of load and generation are frozen in the remaining years. The LOLEfor the external systems will generally increase consistent with the increase in NYCA LOLE whichresults from the load growth over the Study Period. The increase is higher than in previousRNAs because of the increased binding on Dysinger East and Central East Group.4.2.4. System Stability AssessmentThe 2010 NYISO Comprehensive Area Transmission Review (CATR), which wascompleted in June 2011 and evaluated the year 2015, is the most recent CATR. The 2013 NYISOIntermediate Area Transmission Review evaluated the year 2018 and was completed in June2014. The stability analyses conducted as part of the 2010 and 2013 ATRs in conformance withthe applicable NERC standards, NPCC criteria, and NYSRC Reliability Rules found no stabilityissues (criteria violations) for summer peak load and light load conditions.0NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment30 4.3. Reliability Needs SummaryAfter determining that the LOLE criterion would be violated beginning in 2019 andcontinuing through 2024, the LOLE for the bulk power system for those years was calculatedwith two additional cases. The first is NYCA Thermal with all NYCA internal transfer limits set atthermal (not voltage) limits to determine whether the system was adequate to delivergeneration to the loads without the voltage constraints. The second is the NYCA free flow,which was performed with all NYCA internal transfer limits removed. Table 4-8 presents asummary of the results.Table 4-8: Summary of the LOLE Results -Base, Thermal, and Free Flow Cases2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024NYCA 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.22 0.26NYCA Thermal 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.22 0.26NYCA FreeFlow 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.09In general, an LOLE result above 0.1 days per year indicates that additional resources arerequired to maintain reliability (adequacy). The results indicate the first year of need forresources (a Reliability Need) is 2019 for the RNA base case. The Reliability Needs can beresolved by adding capacity resources downstream of the transmission constraints or by addingtransmission reinforcement to mitigate the constraints.To determine if transmission reinforcements would be beneficial, the "NYCA Thermal"and a "NYCA Free Flow Test" cases are executed. The first year of need for the free flowsensitivity case is beyond 2024, which means that there is no statewide deficiency, andtransmission reinforcement is a potential option to resolving the LOLE violation. In addition,the NYCA Thermal case results indicate that voltage limits are not constraining enough toimpact NYCA LOLE.Additional analysis of the base case results to determine binding hours showed thatUPNY-SENY remains among the most constraining interfaces, consistent with the conclusionfrom the previous RNAs. This indicates that increasing the total resources downstream ofUPNY-SENY or increasing the UPNY-SENY transfer limit will be among the most effective optionsto resolve the LOLE violations. Another aspect of the binding hours determination is to performa relaxation by increasing the individual constraint limits, one at a time. Increasing the limit onUPNY-SENY by 1,000 MW showed the most movement in NYCA LOLE and the individual LoadZone LOLE. Zonal LOLE went down for all Zones G-K. This test further indicates the potential oftransmission reinforcements and gives valuable insight to the most effective locations for theCompensatory MW development shown in Section 4.3.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment31 Compensatory MWTo provide information to the marketplace regarding the magnitude of the resourcesthat are required to meet the BPTF transmission security needs, Table 4-9 contains a summaryof the minimum compensatory MW to satisfy the transmission security violations identified inSection 4.2.1.The compensatory MW identified in Table 4-9 are for illustrative purposes only and arenot meant to limit the specific facilities or types of resources that may be offered as ReliabilityNeeds solutions. Compensatory MW may reflect generation capacity (MVA), demand response,or transmission additions.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment32 Table 4-9: Compensatory MW Additions for Transmission Security Violations2015 MVA 2015 Min. 2019 MVA 2019 Min. 2024 MVA 2024 Min.Zone Owner Monitored Element Overload Comp. Overload Comp. Overload Comp.OMW MW MWA N.Grid Packard-Huntley (#77) 230(Packard-Sawyer) 5_7A N.Grid Packard-Huntley (#78) 230(Packard-Sawyer) 5_7A N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#79) 230(Huntley-Sawyer) 10 12A N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 7 9(Huntley-Sawyer) 43 51B RGE Pannell 345/115 1TR 90 295B RGE Pannell 345/115 2TR 90 295B RGE Pannell-Quaker (#914) 115 49 8617 34C NYSEG Oakdale 345/115 2TR 12 23 16 3018 34 30 56C NYSEG Oakdale 345/115 3TR 10 1926 35 46 61 48 64C N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 28 38 32 4345 61 84 114 96 130C N.Grid Clay-Teall (#10) 115 11 15(Clay-Bartell Rd-Pine Grove)C N.Grid Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 6 8(Clay-Bartell Rd)C N.Grid Clay 345/115 1TR 73 182 120 299C N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 9 15(Euclid-Woodward) 33 54 46 75C N.Grid S. Oswego-Clay (#4) 115 10 17 13 22(S. Oswego-Whitaker) _0_17_13_22E N.Grid Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 7 10 21 30(Porter-Kelsey) 23 33E N.Grid Porter-Oneida (#7) 115 2 3(Porter-W. Utica) 6 8F N.Grid New Scotland 345/115 1TR 61 141 89 205 267 612F N.Grid Reynolds 345/115 33 109 39 128 125 427F-G N.Grid Leeds-Pleasant Valley (#92) 345 49 160F-G N.Grid Athens-Pleasant Valley (#91) 46 152E _______ 345 46 152NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment33 For resource adequacy deficiencies, the amount and location of the compensatory MWis determined by testing combinations of capacity resources (representing blocks of 50MW ofUCAP) located in various load zones until the NYCA LOLE is reduced to 0.1 days per year or less.The process of calculating compensatory MW values informs developers and policy makers byallowing them to test all resource types in meeting needs, by providing additional informationon binding interfaces, and allows for the iterative testing of resources in various locations tomeet system needs. The purpose of the analyses is not only to show the level of compensatoryMW needed to meet the LOLE criterion, but also the importance of the location chosen for thecompensatory MW. The results of the MARS simulations for the RNA base case, and scenariosprovide information that can be used to guide the compensatory MW analyses as well. If anLOLE violation is, to some extent, caused by a frequently constrained interface, locatingcompensatory MW upstream of that load zone will result in a higher level of requiredcompensatory MW to meet resource adequacy requirements. The location of thesecompensatory MW assumes that there are no impacts on internal zonal constraints or thepresent interface limits into or out of the Zone(s) being tested. These impacts will bedetermined for the solutions that will be evaluated in the CRP.Not all alternatives tested were able to achieve an LOLE of less than or equal to 0.1 daysper year. The results of the compensatory MW calculation show that by 2024, a total of 1,150MW are required to mitigate the reliability criteria violations in the base case.Table 4-10: Compensatory MW Additions for Resource Adequacy ViolationsZones for AdditionsYearOnly in ABCEF Only in G-K Only in J Only in K2015 ----2016 ----2017 ----2018 ----2019 400 100 100 1002020 3,900 300 300 3002021 5,600 500 500 5002022 7,400 700 700 8002023 not feasible 950 950 1,1002024 not feasible 1,150 1,150 1,500Review of the results indicates that adequate compensatory MW must be located withinZone G through K because of the existing transmission constraints into those Zones. Potentialsolutions could include a combination of additional transfer capability into Zones G through Kfrom outside those zones and/or resources located within Zones G through K. Furtherexamination of the results reveals that the constraining hours of UPNY-SENY and Dysinger Eastare increasing over the Study Period. Binding hours for interface below UPNY-SENY are not thatNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment34 significant in 2024 for the base case, but would increase greatly if significant resources areadded exclusively to Zone K.These results indicate that the total amount of compensatory MW could be locatedanywhere within SENY; no individual zone has a unique requirement. Although theeffectiveness of compensatory MW located in Zones A through F and Zone K diminishes as thetransmission constraints to the deficient zones become more binding, these compensatory MWwill help to mitigate the statewide LOLE violations. Compensatory MW located in Zones Athrough F, and assuming equal distribution, is only reasonably effective for 2019, and even thenwould require four times as much MW to be as effective. The effectiveness diminishes rapidlyfor future years and becomes non feasible in 2023. For Zone K, the compensatory MW wouldbe as effective up to 500 MW to the year 2021, with a reduction in effectiveness ofapproximately thirty percent in 2024. The NYISO will evaluate proposed solutions effectivenessin mitigating LOLE violations and any impacts on transfer limits during the development of the2014 CRP. There are other combinations of compensatory MW that would also meet thestatewide reliability criteria, but it is not the intent of this analysis to identify preferredlocations or combinations for potential solutions.The regulated backstop solutions may take the form of alternative solutions of possibleresource additions and system changes. Such proposals will provide an estimatedimplementation schedule so that trigger dates could be determined by the NYISO for purposesof beginning the regulatory approval and development processes for the regulated backstopsolutions if market solutions do not materialize in time to meet the reliability needs.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment35 4.4. Dunkirk Plant Fuel Conversion SensitivityThe Dunkirk plant sensitivity evaluates the NYCA system using the base caseassumptions, with the added assumption that the proposed fuel conversion of Dunkirk units #2,#3, and #4, a total of 435 MW, from coal to natural gas is completed prior to summer 2016.The impact of Dunkirk generation returning to service on the NYCA BPTF3 was assessedin this sensitivity analysis. The availability of Dunkirk after the fuel conversion project relievesthe transmission security thermal violations in Buffalo and Binghamton areas.The transmission security analysis with Dunkirk not in-service continues to identifyseveral thermal violations on the BPTF for N-i, N-I-0, and N-1-1 conditions under 50/50coincident peak load forecast conditions. With Dunkirk in-service, the thermal violationsobserved in the RNA base case in the Western New York region and the Binghamton Area(Oakdale 345/230/115 kV substation) are resolved. In the Central region the overloadsobserved in the Oswego, Utica, and Syracuse areas are reduced, but not resolved with Dunkirkin-service due to a higher west to east flow, but require further system changes to resolve theoverloads. The Capital and Southeast regions are insignificantly impacted with Dunkirk in-service. The voltage violations observed in the RNA base case in the Binghamton and Uticaareas are not resolved with Dunkirk in-service because Dunkirk is too far removedgeographically to have any substantial effect on these violations.Table 4-11 provides a summary of the contingency pairs with Dunkirk in-service thatresult in the highest thermal overload on each violated BPTF element in the Central regionunder N-i, N-i-0, and N-1-1 conditions under 50/50 coincident peak load conditions. In thesecond contingency column of Table 4-11, "N/A" corresponds to an N-1 violation and "BaseCase" corresponds to an N-i-0 violation. Considering non-coincident zonal peak loading, theoverloads listed in Table 4-11 can increase, most notably in the out-years.3 The local transmission projects are modeled appropriately according to PSC Case 12-E-0577 -Proceeding onMotion of the Commission to Examine Repowering Alternatives to Utility Transmission Reinforcements -MaterialsPresented at October 31, 2013 Technical Conference, presented by National Grid.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment36 Table 4-11: 2014 RNA 50/50 Forecast Transmission Security Thermal Violations with Dunkirk In-ServiceFor resource adequacy assessment, dynamic limit tables are implemented on twointerfaces, Dysinger East and Zone A Group, and the details are included in Appendix D.Starting in 2019, NYCA LOLE exceeds 0.1, and the return of Dunkirk to service following its fuelconversion does not change the Need Year.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment37 4.5. ScenariosThe NYISO develops reliability scenarios pursuant to Section 31.2.2.5 of Attachment Y ofthe OATT. Scenarios are variations on the RNA base case to assess the impact of possiblechanges in key study assumptions which, if they occurred, could change the timing, location ordegree of Reliability Criteria violations on the NYCA system during the study period. Thefollowing scenarios were evaluated as part of the RNA:* High Load (Econometric) Forecast (impacts associated with projected energy reductionsproduced statewide)" Transmission security assessment using a 90/10 load forecast" Zonal Capacity at Risk* Indian Point Plant Retirement assessment* Stressed Winter Condition assessment4.5.1. High Load (Econometric) ForecastThe RNA base case forecast includes impacts associated with projected energyreductions coming from statewide energy efficiency and retail PV programs. The High LoadForecast Scenario excludes these energy efficiency program impacts from the peak forecast,resulting in the econometric forecast levels, and is shown in Table 3-2. This results in a higherpeak load in 2024 than the base case forecast by 2,079 MW. Given that the peak load in theeconometric forecast is higher than the base case, the probability of violating the LOLE criterionincreases with violations also occurring at any earlier point in time.The results indicate the LOLE would be 0.08 in 2016 and would increase to 0.13 by 2017under the high load scenario. If the high load forecast were to materialize, the year of need forresource adequacy would be advanced by two years from 2019 in the base case to 2017 in thehigh load scenario. The horizon year, 2024, LOLE would increase from 0.26 to 0.81 absentsystem changes to resolve violations in earlier years.4.5.2. Zonal Capacity at RiskThe base case LOLE does not exceed 0.10 until 2019. Scenario analyses were performedto determine the reduction in zonal capacity (i.e., the amount of capacity in each zone thatcould be lost) which would cause the NYCA LOLE to exceed 0.10 in each year from 2015 through2018. The NYISO reduced zonal capacity to determine when violations occur in the samemanner as the compensatory MW are added to mitigate resource adequacy violations, but withthe opposite impact. The zonal capacity at risk analysis is summarized in Table 4-12.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment38 Table 4-12: Zonal Capacity at Risk (MW)2015 2016 2017 2018Zone A 1,550 1,750 1,450 750Zone B exceeds zonal resources exceeds zonal resources exceeds zonal resources 450Zone C 2,200 1,850 1,100 450Zone D exceeds zonal resources exceeds zonal resources 1,100 450Zone E exceeds zonal resources exceeds zonal resources exceeds zonal resources 500Zone F 1,800 1,700 1,050 450Zones A-F 2,500 2,200 1,300 550Zone G 650 750 400 150Zone H 650 750 400 150Zone I N/A N/A N/A N/AZones G-I 650 750 400 150ZoneJ 650 750 400 150Zone K 550 550 350 150The zones at risk analyses identify a maximum level of capacity that can be removedwithout causing LOLE violations. However, the impact of removing capacity on the reliability ofthe transmission system and the transfer capability are highly location dependent. Thus, inreality, lower amounts of capacity removal are likely to result in reliability issues at specifictransmission locations. The study did not attempt to assess a comprehensive set of potentialscenarios that might arise from specific unit retirements. Therefore, actual proposed capacityremoval from any of these zones would need to be further studied in light of the specificcapacity locations in the transmission network to determine whether any additional violationsof reliability criteria would result. Additional transmission security analysis, such as N-i-1analysis, would need to be performed for any contemplated plant retirement in any zone.4.5.3. Indian Point Retirement AssessmentBecause its owners submitted license renewal applications on a timely basis, the IndianPoint Plant is authorized to continue operations throughout its currently ongoing licenserenewal processes. This scenario studied the impacts if the Indian Point Plant were instead tobe retired by the end of 2015 (the later of the two current license expiration dates). Significantviolations of transmission security and resource adequacy criteria would occur in 2016 if theIndian Point Plant were to be retired as of that time. These results were determined using thebase case assumptions with the additional change that the Con Edison load was modified toincorporate 125 MW of targeted load reduction projects, consisting of 100 MW of EnergyEfficiency and Demand Reduction, and 25 MW of Combined Heat and Power distributedgeneration.The Indian Point Plant has two base-load units (2,060 MW total) located in Zone H inSoutheastern New York, an area of the State that is subject to transmission constraints thatNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment39 limit transfers in that area as demonstrated by the reliability violations that arise by 2019 in thebase case. Southeastern New York, with the Indian Point Plant in service, currently relies ontransfers to augment existing capacity. Consequently, load growth or loss of generationcapacity in this area would aggravate constraints.The transmission security analysis has not materially changed since the 2012 RNAregarding the need year under the Indian Point retirement scenario. The results showed thatthe shutdown of the Indian Point Plant exacerbates the loading across the UPNY-SENYinterface, with the Leeds -Pleasant Valley and Athens -Pleasant Valley 345 kV lines abovetheir LTE ratings in 2016.Using the base case load forecast adjusted for the Con Edison EE program, LOLE is 0.31in 2016 with Indian Point Plant retired, which is a substantial violation of the 0.1 days per yearcriterion. Beyond 2016, the LOLE continues to escalate due to annual load growth for theremainder of the Study Period reaching an LOLE of 1.17 days per year in 2024. The NYCA LOLEis summarized in Table 4-13 below.Table 4-13: Indian Point Plant Retirement LOLE ResultsIndian Point Plant Retiremený 2016 2017 2018 i2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024NYCA LOLE 1 0.31 0.40 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.76 0.89 1.03 1.17Compared with 2012 RNA, the resulting LOLE violations are lower, but continue tosubstantially exceed the LOLE requirement should the Indian Point Plant retire. Note that withthe large loss of capacity, the LOLE violations increase exponentially. Other factors, such asTransmission Owner Transmission Solutions (TOTS), decrease the impact of the loss of capacity,but will not solve the violations.4.5.4. Transmission Security Assessment Using 90/10 Load ForecastThe 90/10 peak load forecast represents an extreme weather condition (e.g. hotsummer day). Table 4-14 provides a summary of the 90/10 coincident peak load forecastthrough the ten-year study period compared to the total resources modeled as available,resulting in the total remaining resources on a year-by-year basis. The resource totals includenet purchases and sales, and all available thermal and large hydro units are modeled at 100% oftheir summer capability. Derates to small hydro, wind, and solar PV are applied consistent withthe transmission security base case assumptions.As shown in Table 4-14, based on the assumptions applied in this analysis, beginning in2017 there are insufficient resources to meet the minimum 10-minute operating reserverequirement of 1,310 MW4.Due to insufficient generation represented in the power flow case4 New York State Reliability Council, "NYSRC Reliability Rules for Planning and Operating the New York State PowerSystem", Version 33, dated April 10, 2014NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment40 to meet the minimum operating reserve, loss of source contingencies are not studied in the2019 case. Starting in 2020, there are insufficient resources to meet the modeled 90/10 peakload; therefore, a transmission security assessment was not performed under 90/10 conditionsin the 2024 case. In 2015, there are sufficient resources to meet the minimum operatingreserve, and thus, all design criteria contingencies are evaluated.Table 4-14: 90/10 Peak Load Forecast NYCA Remaining Resources (MW)2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Total Resources* 38,313 38,332 38,017 38,017 38,017 38,017 38,017 38,017 38,017 38,01790/10 Peak Load Forecast 36,397 36,764 37,142 37,506 37,870 38,089 38,338 38,592 38,850 39,073Remaining Resources ] 1,916 1 1,568 875 511 147 321 -575 -833 -1,056* Total resources include NYCA generation and net purchases & sales. Assumes 100% availability of thermal andlarge hydro units; small hydro, wind and solar PV are derated.The four primary regions of Reliability Needs due to transmission security violationsidentified in the RNA base case are exacerbated under 90/10 coincident peak load conditions.Table 4-15 provides a summary of the contingency pairs that result in the highest thermaloverload on BPTF elements that are not observed under 50/50 coincident peak load conditions.Table 4-16 shows that increased load growth across the state exacerbates the violationsidentified in the RNA base case. These reliability needs are generally driven by recent andproposed generator retirements/mothballs combined with higher levels of load growth. Forboth tables, in the second contingency column "N/A" corresponds to a violation occurringunder N-1 conditions and "Base Case" corresponds to a violation under an N-1-0 conditions.While the 90/10 peak load forecast does result in additional overloads, those overloadsoccur in the same four primary regions of Reliability Needs identified in the 50/50 peak loadbase case. As shown in Table 4-16, the increased peak load would also result in the earlieroccurrence of the Reliability Needs identified in the 50/50 peak load base case. Although theLeeds -Pleasant Valley 345 kV lines are not overloaded in 2015 under the conditions studied,those lines are loaded to 98% of the LTE rating under 90/10 peak load N-1-1 conditions. Anysignificant reduction of generation or imports in Southeast New York in 2015 would result in anoverload on Leeds -Pleasant Valley 345 kV for the evaluated 90/10 peak load conditions.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment41 Table 4-15: 90/10 Transmission Security Violations Not Observed Under 50/50 Load ConditionsNormal LTE STE 2015 2019 First Contingency Second ContingencyZone Owner Monitored Element (kV) Rating Rating Rating Flow Flow (kV) (kV)(MVA) (MVA) (MVA) (MVA) (MVA)A N.Grid Niagara-Packard (#61) 230 620 717 841 738 Oswegovolney (#12) T:62&BP76345A N.Grid Niagara-Packard (#62) 230 620 717 841 801 Oswego-Volney (#12) T:61&64345A N.Grid Niagara 230/115 AT2 192 239 288 264 Niagara-Packard (#61) SB Packard 230230B RGE Pannell 345/115 3TR 255 319 336 258 L/O Ginna Base Case277 Niagara-Robinson Rd Base CaseB RGE Station 82-Mortimer 115 258.1 357.9 410.4 (#64) 345388 L/O Ginna SB Pannell 345B RGE Station 80 345/115 2TR 330 415 478 444 Station 80 345/115 5TR SB Station 80 345B RGE Station 80 345/115 5TR 462 567 630 636 Station 80 345/115 2TR SB Station 80 345C N.Grid Clay 345/115 2TR 478 637 794 695 Clay 345/115 1TR SB Oswego 345C N.Grid Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 116 120 145 138 Clay-Dewitt SB Oswego 345(Bartell Rd-Pine Grove) (#13) 345C N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 220 252 280 260 Clay-Lockheed Martin SB Lafayette 345(Clay-Euclid) (#14) 115C N.Grid Clay-Lighthouse Hill (#7) 115 108 108 108 123 Clay 345/115 1TR SB Clay 345(Lighthouse Hill-Mallory) 1C NYSEG Watercure 345/230 1TR 440 540 600 568 Oakdale 345/115 2TR SB Oakdale 345E N.Grid Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 116 120 145 123 Clay-Dewitt SB Oswego 345(W. Utica-Walesville) 1 (#13) 345NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment42 Table 4-16: 50/50 Transmission Security Violations Exacerbated Under 90/10 Load ConditionsNormal LTE STE 2015 2019 First ContingencyZone Owner Monitored Element (kV) Rating Rating Rating Flow Flow (kV) Second Contingency (kV)(MVA) (MVA) (MVA) (MVA) (MVA)A N.Grid Packard-Huntley (#77) 230 556 644 704 663 Packard-Huntley (#78) 230 SB Robinson Rd. 230(Packard-Sawyer)Packard-H untley (#78) 230A N.Grid (Packard-Sawyer) 556 644 746 645 663 Packard-Huntley (#77) 230 SB Robinson Rd. 230A N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#79) 230 566 654 755 661 672 Huntley-Gardenville SB Robinson Rd. 230(Huntley-Sawyer) (#80) 230662 Huntley-Gardenville N/A(#79) 230568 Huntley-Gardenville Base CaseN.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 566 654 755230(Huntley-Sawyer) 692 Robinson Rd.-Stolle Rd. Huntley-Gardenville(#65) 230 (#79) 230Stolle Rd.-Gardenville Huntley-Gardenville(#66) 230 (#79) 230247 L/O Ginna Base CaseB RGE Pannell 345/115 1TR 228 282 336____414 L/O Ginna SB Pannel1345247 L/O Ginna Base Case414 L/O Ginna SB Pannel1 345B RGE Pannell 345/115 2TR 228 282 336293 Station 80-Pannell SB Pannell 345(RP-1) 345B RGE Pannell-Quaker (#914) 115 207.1 246.9 284.8 316 L/O Ginna Pannell 345/115 3TR583 SB Oakdale 345 N/AC NYSEG Oakdale 345/115 2TR 428 556 600 478 491 Oakdale 345/115 3TR Base Case637 688 Fraser 345/115 2TR SB Oakdale 345472 484 Oakdale 345/115 2TR Base CaseC NYSEG Oakdale 345/115 3TR 428 556 600 618 Watercure 345/115 1TR SB Oakdale 345587 Oakdale 345/115 2TR SB Oakdale 345162 184 SB Oswego 345 N/AC N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 116 120 145 134 161 Elbridge 345/115 1TR Base Case115198 234 Clay-Wood (#17) 115 SB Lafayette 345C N.Grid Clay-Teall (#10) 115 Clay-Dewitt SB Oswego 345__N__rid (Clay-Bartell Rd-Pine Grove) 116 120 145 149 (#13) 345C N.Grid Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 116 120 145 151 Clay-Dewitt(#13) 345C N.Grid (Clay-Bartell Rd) Clt(#13)345 SB Oswego 345C N.Grid Clay 345/115 1TR 478 637 794 736 Oswego-Elbridge-Lafayette SB Clay 345478 637 794 778 (#17) 345200 SB Lafayette 345 N/AC N.Grid (Euclid-Woodward) 174 174 174 201 240 Clay-Lockheed Martin SB Lafayette 345(#14) 115C N.Grid Clay-S. Oswego (#4) 115C_ N.Grid (S. Oswego-Whitaker) 104 104 104 120 121 Clay 345/115 1TR SB Clay 345123 132 SB Oswego 345 N/AE N.Grid Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 116 120 145 129 Porter-Oneida (#7) 115 Base Case(Porter-Kelsey) 147 155 Clay-Dewitt SB Oswego 345(#13) 345E N.Grid Porter-Oneida (#7) 115 116 120 145 129 140 Clay-Dewitt SB Oswego 345(Porter-W. Utica) (#13) 345F N.Grid New Scotland 345/115 1TR 458 570 731 707 L/O Bethlehem New Scotland 345/1152TRF N.Grid Reynolds 345/115 459 562 755 562 L/O Bethlehem Base CaseF-G N.Grid Leeds-Pleasant Valley (#92) 1331 1538 1724 1711 Athens-Pleasant Valley T:41&33345 (#91)345F-G N.Grid Athens-Pleasant Valley (#91) 1331 1538 1724 1695 Leeds-Pleasant Valley T:41&33345 (#92) 345NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment43 4.5.5. Stressed Winter Condition AssessmentFive major cold snaps were experienced during the 2013-2014 winter season, includingthree polar vortex events that chilled large swaths of the Eastern Interconnection and theremainder of the United States. During this time the NYISO set a new winter peak of 25,738MW while neighboring ISOs and utilities concurrently set their own record winter peaks duringthe month of January as well. The extreme winter weather conditions resulted in high loadconditions, transmission and generation derates, and gas pipeline constraints.The widespread impact reduced the ability of neighboring areas to provide assistance toNew York. Highlights of the peak day recorded on January 7, 2014 follow:5* On January 7, the NYISO set a new record winter peak load of 25,738 MWs.* 25,541 MW -- Prior record winter peak load set in 2004* 24,709 MW -- "50/50" forecast winter peak for 2013-14* 26,307 MW -- "90/10" forecast winter peak for 2013-14* Many other ISOs and utilities set record Winter Peaks, including PJM, MISO, TVA, andSouthern Company; although NYCA did not lose the ability to provide and receive emergencyassistance from neighboring pools. The record shows that NYCA exported power to PJM whileimporting from HQ, ISO-NE and IESO.* The NYISO experienced 4,135 MW of generator derates over the peak hour.* The NYISO activated demand response resources on a voluntary basis in all zones tomaintain operating reserve criteria; however, because the 21-hour prior notification was notprovided demand response participation was limited.* The NYISO issued a NERC Energy Emergency Alert 1 indicating that the NYISO was justmeeting reserve requirements.* The NYISO issued public appeals for customers to curtail non-essential use.Based upon this experience, the scenario was constructed to gauge the amount ofcapacity that could be lost from the NYCA while restricting the ability to receive assistance fromour neighbors. Capacity was removed from all NYCA zones proportional to zonal capacity ateach external assistance level until an annual LOLE violation was observed for the year.Additionally, the hourly loads in the MARS model for the month of January 2015 were modifiedto reflect actual January 2014 loads for all three input load shapes. The experienced January2014 peak was normalized to 50/50 conditions and the load forecast uncertainty (LFU) bins forwinter conditions were updated for the MARS model. These values are shown in Table 4-17.5 This value is the actual load prior to adjustment for demand response that was activated at the time of thesystem winter peak.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment44 Table 4-17: Derivation of 2014 NYCA Winter LFUZones Bin 1 Bin 2 Bin 3 Bin 4 Bin 5 Bin 6 Bin 7A 1.136 1.090 1.045 1.000 0.955 0.910 0.864B 1.135 1.090 1.045 1.000 0.955 0.910 0.865C 1.136 1.091 1.045 1.000 0.955 0.909 0.864D 1.170 1.113 1.057 1.000 0.943 0.887 0.830E 1.136 1.091 1.045 1.000 0.955 0.909 0.864F 1.136 1.090 1.045 1.000 0.955 0.910 0.864G 1.136 1.090 1.045 1.000 0.955 0.910 0.864H 1.158 1.105 1.053 1.000 0.947 0.895 0.8421 1.158 1.105 1.053 1.000 0.947 0.895 0.842J 1.158 1.105 1.053 1.000 0.947 0.895 0.842K 1.180 1.120 1.060 1.000 0.940 0.880 0.820NYCA 1.151 1.101 1.051 1.000 0.949 0.899 0.849Probability 0.0062 0.0606 0.2417 0.383 0.2417 0.0606 0.0062In order to model a statewide LOLE violation in 2015, the annual LOLE of 0.06, asobserved in Table 4-7, was subtracted from the reliability criterion level of 0.1 days/yr to reacha target LOLE of 0.04 for this scenario. January 2015 was then simulated with multiple levels ofNYCA capacity loss and external import capability reduction until the target January LOLE wasobserved.Many factors can impact the emergency assistance from neighboring control areas;therefore a simple approach was adopted and applied to this scenario. By creating a NYCAimport interface that was defined as encircling all of NYCA, it became possible to limit theexternal import capability by defining a MW flow limit. In the conservative case that NYCA isunable to receive emergency assistance from any of the neighboring areas, it would take acapacity loss of 7,250 MW of resources in an extreme weather condition to result in an annualLOLE violation in year 2015.Table 4-18: Simultaneous NYCA Import Limits and MW Lost in Stressed Winter ScenarioLimit (MW) MW Lost4,000 11,3002,000 9,3000 7,250NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment45
: 5. Impacts of Environmental Regulations5.1. Regulations Reviewed for Impacts on NYCA GeneratorsThe 2012 RNA identified new environmental regulatory programs that could impact theoperation of the Bulk Power Transmission Facilities. These state and federal regulatoryinitiatives cumulatively will require considerable investment by the owners of New York'sexisting thermal power plants in order to comply. The following programs are reviewed in the2014 RNA:a) NOx RACT: Reasonably Available Control Technology (Effective July 2014)b) BART. Best Available Retrofit Technology for regional haze (Effective January 2014)c) MATS: Mercury and Air Toxics Standard for hazardous air pollutants (Effective April2015)d) MRP: Mercury Reduction Program for Coal-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units-Phase II reduces Mercury emissions from coal fired power plants in New York beginningJanuary 2015e) CSAPR: Cross State Air Pollution Rule for the reduction of S02 and NOx emissions in 28Eastern States. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the CSAPR as promulgated by USEPA.The Supreme Court remanded the rule to the District Circuit Court of Appeals for furtherproceedings, and eventual implementation by the USEPA.f) CAIR: Clean Air Interstate Rule will continue in place until CSAPR is implementedg) RGGI: Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Phase II cap reductions started January 2014h) C02 Emission Standards: NSPS scheduled to become effective June 2014, Existing SourcePerformance Standards may be effective in 2016i) RICE: NSPS and NESHAP -New Source Performance Standards and MaximumAchievable Control Technology for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (EffectiveJuly 2016).j) BTA: Best Technology Available for cooling water intake structures (Effective uponPermit Renewal)The NYISO has determined that as much as 33,200 MW in the existing fleet (88% of 2014Summer Capacity) will have some level of exposure to the new regulations.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment46 5.1.1. Reasonably Available Control Technology for NOx (NOx RACT)The NYSDEC has promulgated revised regulations for the control of Nitrogen Oxides(NOx) emissions from fossil-fueled electric generating units. These regulations are known asNOx RACT (Reasonably Available Control Technology). In New York, 221 units with 27,100 MWof capacity are affected. The revised emission rate limits become effective on July 1, 2014.There are three major NOx RACT System Averaging "bubbles" in Zone J: TC Ravenswood(TCR Bubble), NRG Arthur Kill- Astoria Gas Turbines (NRG Bubble), and USPowerGen Astoria-Narrows and Gowanus Gas Turbines (USPowerGen Bubble). Historically the boilers havedemonstrated the ability to operate at emission rates that are below the presumptive emissionrates in the NOx RACT regulation. On the other hand, the older gas turbines in Zone Jfrequently operate at emission rates in excess of the presumptive limits. With planning andcareful operation, the units within the bubbles can be operated in a manner such that thehigher emission rates from the gas turbines can be offset by the lower emission rates from theboilers. Table 5-1 below has the presumptive NOx RACT emission limits that were in effect untilJune 30, 2014. Table 5-2 has the new presumptive emission limits effective starting from July 1,2014. The emission limits for the gas turbines remain unchanged. It is apparent that the abilityof the boilers to offset emissions from the gas turbines will be significantly reduced with thenew limits.Table 5-1: NOx RACT Limits Effective until June 30, 2014Boiler Type (Pounds/mmBTU or #/mmBTU)Tangential Wall Cyclone StokerGas Only 0.20 0.20 -Gas/Oil 0.25 0.25 0.43Coal Wet 1.00 1.00 0.60Coal Dry 0.42 0.45 0.30Table 5-2: New NOx RACT Limits Effective Starting from July 1, 2014Boiler Type (Pounds/mmBTU or #/mmBTU)Fuel Type FluidizedTangential Wall Cyclone BedGas Only 0.08 0.08 -Gas/Oil 0.15 0.15 0.20Coal Wet 0.12 0.12 0.20 -Coal Dry 0.12 0.12 -0.08Using publicly available information from USEPA and USEIA, estimated NOx emissionrates can be determined across the operating spectrum for various combinations of fuels forNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment47 specific units greater than 15 MW. Using this information, the NYISO has analyzed potentialNOx emissions under the lower NOx RACT standards to determine if the system emissionaveraging plans can be achieved. The analysis has focused on the peak day July 19, 2013 inZone J. It appears that compliance with the TC Ravenswood emission plan should be feasiblewithout imposing the operating limits on the affected units.The analysis of the NRG bubble shows that operation of the complete fleet of gasturbines could be sustained in a manner consistent with the actual operating profile on thepeak day. Similarly, supplemental data provided by USPowerGen demonstrates that the fleetof gas turbines could operate in a manner similar to what it did on the peak day in 2013. Giventhat this analysis is based upon historic performance which occurred when the emission limitswere higher, it is possible that the boilers could achieve lower emission rates and therefore thegas turbines could operate for more extended periods.Conversely, invoking the Loss of Gas Minimum Oil Burn (LOG-MOB) reliability rulerequires the boilers under certain conditions to burn residual fuel oil (RFO) which increases NOxemissions and reduces the ability of the boilers to produce necessary offsets. Incrementaloperation of the boilers on gas during off peak hours could mitigate the impact of increasedNOx emissions from LOG-MOB on the reduced hours of operation of the gas turbine.5.1.2. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)The class of steam electric units constructed between 1963 and 1977 are subject tocontinuing emission reductions required by the Clean Air Act. In New York, there are 15 units inservice with 7,531 MW of summer capacity that are affected. Table 5-3 identifies the newemission limitations in place for these units6.6 The table is not intended to include all emission limitations.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment48 Table 5-3: New BART Emission LimitsDMNC (1) ParticulateApplicable Plants Unit(s) (MW) S02 NOx Matte(MW) Matter0.15 #/mmBTU;Arthur Kill ST 3 500 0 24 Hors24 Hours.0.15 #/mmBTU for gas,and 0.25 #/mmBTU forBowline 1, 2 758 0.37% S RFO oil;oil;24 Hours0.1/0.2 #/mmBTUBarrett ST 02 196 0.37% S RFO Gas/ Oil; 0.1 #/mmBTU24 Hours0.1/0.2 #/mrn BTUNorthport 1,2,3,4 1,583 0.7% S RFO Gas/ Oil;24 HoursOswego 5,6 1,574 0.75% S RFO 383/665 tons per yearRavenswood ST 01, ST 02 1,693 0.30% S RFO 0.15 #/mmBTUand ST 03 30 DayRoseton 1, 2 1,227 0.55#/mmBTUs23 0.09#/mmBTU; 0.12#/mmBTU; 0.06Danskammer 4 237 24 or 2 or #/mrnBTU;24 Hours 24 Hours ou1 Hour2014 In-Service 7,531Notes:1. Summer capability from 2014 Gold Book2. Not included in 2014 In-Service totalThe new BART limits identified in Table 5-3 are not expected to affect availability ofthese units during times of peak demand.5.1.3. Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS)The USEPA Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) will limit emissions of mercury andair toxics through the use of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) for HazardousAir Pollutants (HAP) from coal and oil fueled steam generators with a nameplate capacity of 25MW or more. MATS will affect 23 units in the NYCA that represent 10,300 MW of nameplatecapacity. Compliance requirements begin in March 2015 with an extension through March 2017for Reliability Critical Units (RCU).The majority of the New York coal fleet has installed emission control equipment thatmay place compliance within reach. One coal fired unit in New York is considering seeking anextension of the compliance deadline to March 2017.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment49 The heavy oil-fired units will need to either make significant investments in emissioncontrol technology or switch to a cleaner mix of fuels in order to comply with the proposedstandards. Given the current outlook for the continued attractiveness of natural gas comparedto heavy oil, it is anticipated that compliance can be achieved by dual fuel units through the use7of natural gas to maintain fuel ratios that are specified in the regulation5.1.4. Mercury Reduction Program for Coal-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (MRP)New York State also has a mercury emission limit program for coal fired units. Phase II ofthe program begins January 1, 2015. The allowable emission limit is half of the MATS standard.The impact of the MRP requirements is shown below Section 5.2.5.1.5. Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)The CSAPR establishes a new allowance system for units with at least 25 MW nameplatecapacity or more. Affected generators will need one allowance for each ton emitted in a year.In New York, CSAPR will affect 154 units that represent 25,900 MW of nameplate capacity. TheUSEPA estimated New York's annual allowance costs for 2012 at $65 million. There aremultiple scenarios which show that New York's generation fleet can operate in compliance withthe program in the first phase. Compliance actions for the second phase may include emissioncontrol retrofits, fuel switching, and new clean efficient generation. The US Supreme Courtupheld the CSAPR regulation and remanded the case to the District of Columbia Circuit Court ofAppeals to resolve the remaining litigation and work with the USEPA to develop a revisedimplementation schedule. Further, since the rule was finalized in 2012, two National AmbientAir Quality Standards, for S02 and Ozone, have been promulgated. The USEPA may recognizethese new standards, unit retirements, and/ or changes in load and fuel forecasts in updatedmodeling that may be necessary for implementation of the CSAPR. EPA has filed with the D.C.Circuit Court of Appeals requesting authority to implement the rule in January 2015.While the CSAPR is updated and implementation plans are finalized, the Clean AirInterstate Rule (CAIR) remains in effect. CAIR also employs an allowance based system toreduce emissions of S02 and NOx over time. The rule is designed to begin Phase II on January1, 2015 with an approximate 50% reduction in emission allowances entering the marketplace.The CAIR marketplace is currently oversupplied with S02 and NOx emissions allowances, whichhas resulted in prices that are relatively low. It is expected that the continued operation ofCAIR will not impact either the amount of capacity available or the relative dispatch order.7 The MATS regulation provides for an exemption for units that use oil for less than ten percent of heat inputannually over a three year period, and less than 15 percent in any given year. The regulation provides for anexemption from emission limits for units that limit oil use to less than the amount equivalent to an eight percentcapacity factor over a two year period.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment50 5.1.6. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and USEPA Proposed Carbon RulesThe Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative established a cap over C02 emissions from mostfossil fueled units of 25 MW or more in 2009. Phase II of the RGGI program became effectiveJanuary 1, 2014 and reduces the cap by 45% to 91,000,000 tons for 2014. Phase II then appliesannual emission cap reductions of 2.5% until 2020. One RGGI Allowance is required for eachton of C02 emitted during a three year compliance period. A key provision to keep theallowance and electricity markets functioning is the provision of a Cost Containment Reserve(CCR). If demand exceeds supply at predetermined trigger prices an additional 10,000,000(5,000,000 in 2014) allowances will be added to the market. Trigger prices are set to rise to$10/ton in 2017 and escalate at 2.5% annually thereafter. RGGI Inc. modeling analyses showthat the trigger prices will be reached on several occasions throughout the period. Coal unitsmay be further handicapped by the cost of carbon emission allowances, which could add up to$5/MWh in cost compared to older combined cycle units and up to $10/MWh for non-emittingmachines.The USEPA is in the process of promulgating New Source Performance Standardsdesigned to limit C02 emissions from new fossil fueled steam generators and combined cycleunits. While the proposed rule would present significant technological challenges for coal firedunits; for gas fired units, the rules are generally less stringent than NYSDEC's existing Part 251emission regulations. USEPA's rule does not apply to simple cycle turbines that limit their salesto the grid to less than one-third of their potential electrical output.On June 2, 2014, the USEPA proposed a rule to limit C02 emissions from existing powerplants by 30% from 2005 levels8.The rule is designed to lower emission rates from 2012 asmeasured in terms of # C02/MWh, however, it does allow states to develop mass basedsystems such as RGGI. The proposal calls for an initial reduction by 2020 while achievement ofthe final reductions will be required by 2030. State implementation plans can make use of: (i)coal fired plant efficiency improvements; (ii) shifts in dispatch patterns to increase productionfrom natural gas fired combined cycle plants; (iii) increased construction and operation of lowand non-emitting generators; and (iv) aggressive deployment of energy efficiency measures.The proposal calls for the continued operation of existing and completion of new nuclearplants.8 The proposed rule is extensive in length, broad in scope, and presents a complex approach to establishing baselines and future emission reduction requirements. The comment period closes in mid-October. The rule will befinalized in June of 2015. State Implementation Plans will be developed with public participation over thefollowing year, or three year period if regional plans are proposed. The NYISO analysis will be a continuing effortover the next several years. At important points in the process, reports will be provided to stakeholders identifyingthe issues of importance to the NYISO.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment51 5.1.7. RICE: NSPS and NESHAPIn January 2013, the USEPA finalized two new rules that apply to engine poweredgenerators typically used as emergency generators. Some of the affected generators alsoparticipate in the NYISO's Special Case Resource (SCR) or Emergency Day-ahead Response(EDRP) Programs. EPA finalized National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants(NESHAP), and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), for Reciprocating InternalCombustion Engines (RICE). The new rules are designed to allow older emergency generatorsthat do not meet the EPA's rules to comply by limiting operations in non-emergency events toless than 15 hours per year. These resources can participate in utility and NYISO emergencydemand response programs; however the engine operation is limited to a maximum of 100hours per year for testing and utility or the NYISO emergency demand response operations forwhich a Level 2 Energy Emergency Alert is called by the grid operator.The New York DEC is also developing rules to control emissions of NOx and particulatematter (PM10 and 2.5) from engine driven generators that participate in the EDRP. Theproposed rules will apply to all such generators above 150 kW in New York City and above 300kW in the remainder of the State not already covered by a Title V Permit containing stricter NOxand PM limits. Depending on their specific types, it appears that engines purchased since 2005and 2006 should be able to operate within the proposed limits. Older engines can beretrofitted with emission control packages, replaced with newer engines, or cease participationin the demand response programs. The proposed rule is generally comparable to rules alreadyin place in a number of other states within the Ozone Transport Region. NYSDEC's estimatedcompliance schedule is still developing, with a currently contemplated compliance schedule ofmid -2016.5.1.8. Best Technology Available (BTA)The USEPA has proposed a new Clear Water Act Section 316 b rule providing standardsfor the design and operation of power plant cooling systems. This rule will be implemented byNYSDEC, which has finalized a policy for the implementation of the Best Technology Available(BTA) for plant cooling water intake structures. This policy is activated upon renewal of aplant's water withdrawal and discharge permit. Based upon a review of current informationavailable from NYSDEC, the NYISO has estimated that between 4,200-7,200 MW of nameplatecapacity could be required to undertake major system retrofits, including closed cycle coolingsystems. One high profile application of this policy is the Indian Point nuclear power plant.Table 5-4 shows the current status of plants under consideration for BTA determinations.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment52 Table 5-4: NYSDEC BTA Determinations (as of March 2014)Plant StatusArthur Kill BTA Decision made, monitoringAstoria BTA Decision made, installing equipmentBarrett Repowering Study underway, otherwise closed cycleBowline BTA Decision made, capacity factor limited to 15% over 5 yearsBrooklyn Navy Yard BTA Decision made, installing upgradesCayuga BTA Decision made, install screens, UPP accepted, Sierra Club challengedDunkirk BTA Decision made, monitoringEast River BTA installed, monitoringFitzpatrick NYSDEC ready to issue BTA determination for offshore intake and screensFort Drum BTA installed, monitoringGinna BTA Decision 2015 or laterBTA Decision capacity factor limited and variable speed pumps, NRG andSierra Club have requested hearingsIndian Point Hearings, BTA Decision 2016 at the earliestNine Mile Pt 1 Possible BTA determination this yearNorthport Possible BTA determination next yearOswego Lower priority for NYSDEC, possibly capacity factor limitedPort Jefferson BTA installed, monitoringRavenswood BTA installed, monitoringRoseton In hearingsSomerset Possible BTA determination this yearThe owners of Bowline have accepted a limit on the duration of operation of the plantas their compliance method. NYSDEC's BTA Policy allows units to operate with 15% capacityfactor averaged over a five year period provided that impingement goals are met and the plantis operated in a manner that minimizes entrainment. Close inspection of the 2014 RNA MARSsimulations shows that Bowline plant was committed at less than the 15% capacity factorlimitation; thus imposing the BTA capacity factor limit does not degrade the NYCA LOLE.More recently, a draft State Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit was issuedfor public comment for Huntley Station. The draft contained the 15% capacity factor limitationover the next five year period following finalization of the permit. If the proposed operatinglimitation were to become effective, the output of the plant would need to be significantlyreduced over the five year period following finalization of the Huntley SPDES permit, ascompared to recent production. The loss of output from Huntley could reduce transfer limits inthe area, thereby altering production at Niagara and limiting imports from Ontario. To reflectthe impact, the MARS topology for 2014 RNA implemented dynamic limit tables for DysingerEast and Zone A Group interfaces; details are described in Appendix D.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment53 5.2. Summary of Environmental Regulation ImpactsTable 5-4 summarizes the impact of the new environmental regulations. Approximately33,800 MW of nameplate capacity may be affected to some extent by these regulations.Compliance plans are in place for NOx RACT, BART, and RGGI. Reviewing publicly availableinformation from USEPA and USEIA, most generators affected by MATS and MRP havedemonstrated operations with emission levels consistent with the new regulations. BTAdeterminations are the result of extensive studies and negotiations that in most cases have notresulted in decisions requiring conversion to closed cycle cooling systems. Thesedeterminations are made on a plant specific schedule. The Indian Point Nuclear Plant BTAdetermination is the subject of an extensive hearing and Administrative Law Judgedetermination process that will continue through 2015.Table 5-5: Impact of New Environmental RegulationsCompliance ApproximateProgram Status Deadline Nameplate Capacity27,100 MWNOx RACT In effect July 2014 221 ut(221 units)8,400 MWBART In effect January 2014 (15 u t(15 units)MATS In effect April 10,300 MW2015/2016/2017 (23 units)1,500 MWMRP In effect January 2015 (6 ut(6 units)Supreme Court 26,300 MWCSAPR validated USEPA TBD (160 units)rule25,800 MWRGGI In effect In effect (54 u t(154 units)BTA In effect Upon permit 16,400 MWRenewal (34 units)NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment54 Using publicly available information from USEPA and USEIA, the NYISO further identified theunits that may experience significant operational impacts from the environmental regulations.The summary is provided below and in Table 5-6:" NOx RACTprogram: It appears that compliance with each of the three NOx bubblelimitation is achievable." BART limits: The Oswego Units #5 and #6 are estimated to be able to start and operateat maximum output for many more days than they have been committed historically.Accordingly, imposing these estimated BART operating limits does not change NYCALOLE in 2014 RNA.* MATS/MRP Program: Given the current outlook for the continued attractiveness ofnatural gas compared to heavy oil, it is anticipated that compliance can be achieved bydual fuel units through the use of natural gas to maintain fuel ratios that are specified inthe regulation.* RGGI: The impact of RGGI may increase the operating cost of all coal units. Should allcoal units retire, loss of nearly 1,500 MW in upstate would cause LOLE to exceed0.1/day in year 2017 or before, and cause reliability violations.Table 5-6: Summary of Potentially Significant Operational Impacts due to New EnvironmentalRegulationsProgram Status Significant Future Operations Potentially CapacityOperational Impacts Impacted (MW)Three NYC NOx Arthur Kill, Astoria Gas Turbines,NOx RACT July 2014 bubbles Astoria, Narrows, Gowanus, 5,300RavenswoodOswego 5 & 6: limited number of daysBART In effect Emission caps go operat i ted at 1,600for operations at peakAstoria, Ravenswood, Northport,MATS/MRP April 2015/6/7 Oil use limits Barrett, Port Jefferson, Bowline, 8,800Roseton, OswegoCSAPR Uncertain Cost increases UncertainRGGI In effect Cost increases up to All Coal units 1,450$10/MWHPermit Potential retirementsBTA Renewa or capacity factor Indian Point, Bowline, and Huntley 3,200limitsNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment55
: 6. Fuel Adequacy6.1. Gas Infrastructure Adequacy AssessmentAs the plentiful low cost gas produced in the Marcellus Shale makes its way into NewYork, the amount of electrical demand supplied and energy produced by this gas have steadilyincreased. The benefits of this shift in the relative costs of fossil fuels include reducedemissions, improved generation efficiency, and lower electricity prices. These benefits,however, are accompanied by a reduction in overall fuel diversity.in NYCA. This reduction infuel diversity has led to the Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative (EIPC) gas andelectric infrastructure study and FERC proceedings addressing gas and electric systemcommunications, and market coordination, all of which are intended to improve the knowledgebase for electric and gas system planners, operators, and policy makers.The NYISO has recently completed a study that examined the ability of the regionalnatural gas infrastructure to meet the reliability needs of New York's electric system.Specifically the study provided a detailed review of New York gas markets and infrastructure,assessed historic pipeline congestion patterns, provided an infrastructure and supply adequacyforecast and examined postulated contingency events. Importantly, the study concluded therewill be no unserved gas demand for generation on the interstate gas pipeline systemsthroughout the next five years, even with the retirement of Indian Point and relatedreplacement of that generation with 2,000 MW of new capacity in the Lower Hudson Valley.The study did not examine the impact of intra-state pipeline deliverability constraintson the LDC systems. The study did document increasing congestion on key pipelines in NewYork resulting from increased gas demand in New England and to a lesser degree by in- statedemand increases for generation. Gas fired generators located on constrained pipelinesegments may continue to experience gas supply curtailments over the study horizon. Gaspipeline expansions under construction and planned will materially increase delivery capabilityand result in reduced delivery basis and future interruptions. The market for gas supplyforward contracts has already made significant adjustment to recognize the future completionof these projects. The price difference between Henry Hub and the NYC represented by theTransco NY 6 delivery point has disappeared except for a small number of incidences in thewinter months. Moreover, New York is fortunate to have dual fuel capability installed at themajority of its gas fired generators.The NYISO conducted surveys in October 2012 and October 2013 to verify dual fuelcapability. Based on the October 2013 survey results, it was determined that of 18,011 MW(Summer DMNC) dual fuel generators reported in the 2013 Gold Book, 16,983 MW havepermits that allow them to operate on oil. In addition, there were 2,505 MW (Summer DMNC)oil-only generators reported in the 2013 Gold Book; based on the October 2013 Survey results,this has increased to 2,579 MW (Summer DMNC). Thus, the summer capability of oil and dualNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment56 fuel units with oil permits totals 19,562 MW. These oil and dual fuel facilities represent astrong fleet of resources that can respond to delivery disruptions on the gas pipeline systemduring both summer and winter seasons.6.2. Loss of Gas Supply AssessmentLoss of Gas Supply Assessment was conducted as part of the NYISO 2013 AreaTransmission Review (ATR). The findings of the assessment are summarized below.Natural gas-fired generation in NYCA is supplied by various networks of major gaspipelines, as described in Appendix 0 of the 2013 ATR. NYCA generation capacity has a balanceof fuel mix which provides operational flexibility and reliability. Several generation plants havedual fuel capability. Based on the NYISO 2013 Gold Book, 8% of the generating capacity isfueled by natural gas only, 47% by oil and natural gas, and the remainder is fueled by oil, coal,nuclear, hydro, wind, and other.The loss of gas supply assessment was performed using the winter 2018 50/50 forecastof the coincident peak load. The power flow base case was developed by assuming all gas onlyunits and dual fuel units that do not have a current license to operate with the alternative fuelare not available due to a gas supply shortage. The total reduction in generating capacity was4,251 MW; however, only 2,777 MW had to be redispatched due to the modeling assumptionsin the base case. N-1 and N-1-1 thermal and voltage analysis was performed using the TARAprogram monitoring bulk system voltages and all 115 kV and above elements for post-contingency LTE thermal ratings.No thermal or voltage violations are observed in addition to those already identified forthe summer peak conditions for this extreme system condition. The only stability issue notedfor this gas shortage scenario was an undamped response to a single-line to ground stuckbreaker fault at Marcy on the Marcy -Volney 345kV line. Possible mitigation would be tobalance the VAr flow from each plant at the Oswego complex or redispatching the Oswegocomplex.The capacity of 2014-2015 winter is summarized in Table 6-1 below. In the event thatNYCA loses gas-only units, the remaining capacity is sufficient to supply the load. However, inthe extreme case that NYCA loses gas-only units, and simultaneously the oil inventory of alldual-fuel units has been depleted, a total capacity of 16,879 MW would be unavailable. As theconsequence of such an extreme event, the remaining generation would not be sufficient tosupply NYCA load.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment57 Table 6-1: Loss of Gas Assessment for 2014-2015 Winter2015 Winter Capacity (MW)Peak Load 24,737NYCA winter capacity 40,220If gas-only units lose gas supplyGas-only capacity -3,568Total remaining capacity 36,652If gas-only and dual-fuel units lose gas supply and deplete oilGas only capacity -3,568Dual-fuel capacity -16,879Total remaining capacity 19,77316.3. Summary of Other Ongoing NYISO effortsThe NYISO has been working with stakeholders and other industry groups to identifyand address fuel adequacy concerns. Most notably, the Electric Gas Coordination WorkingGroup (EGCWG) and EIPC are actively studying related issues. The efforts are summarized inthis section.At EGCWG, the efforts are focusing on gas-electric coordination issues within NYCA. TheNYISO retained Levitan & Associates (LAI) to prepare the following reports:* "Fuel Assurance Operating and Capital Costs for Generation in NYCA" (Task 1)* The "NYCA Pipeline Congestion and Infrastructure Adequacy Assessment" (Task 2)The final study reports have been completed and are posted on the NYISO website9.Theconsolidated network of interstate pipelines serving New York is shown in Figure 6-1.9 Task 1 final report: http://www.nviso.com/public/committees/documents.isp?com=bic egcwg&directory=2013-06-17Task 2 final report:http://www.nviso.com/public/webdocs/markets operations/committees/bic egcwg/meeting materials/2013-10-23/Levitan%2OPipeline%20Congestion%20and%2OAdequacv%20Report%20Sep23%20-%2fFinilO/n?0ACFIoAnRprdlrtpd ndfNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment58 Figure 6-1: Natural Gas Pipeline Network in NYCANYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment59 At EIPC, six Participating Planning Authorities (PPAs) are actively involved in the Gas-ElectricSystem Interface Study, which includes ISO-NE, NYISO, PJM, IESO, TVA, and MISO (includes theEntergy system). The efforts are focusing on gas-electric coordination issues in the regionacross the six PAs. The study has four targets:1. Develop a baseline assessment that includes description of the natural gas-electricsystem interface(s) and how they impact each other.2. Evaluate the capability of the natural gas system(s) to supply the individual andaggregate fuel requirement from the electric power sector over a five and ten yearstudy horizon.3. Identify contingencies on the natural gas system that could adversely affect electricsystem reliability and vice versa.4. Review operational and planning issues and any changes in planning analysis andoperations that may be impacted by the availability or non-availability of dual fuelcapability at generating units.Target 1 has been completed, and the report is posted on EIPC website1°. Target 2 is currentlyunderway, while Targets 3 and 4 are in the planning stage.10 http://www.eipconline.com/Gas-ElectricDocuments.htmlNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment60
: 7. Observations and RecommendationsThe 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment (RNA) assesses resource adequacy and bothtransmission security and adequacy of the New York Control Area (NYCA) bulk powertransmission system from year 2015 through 2024, the study period of this RNA. The 2014 RNAidentifies transmission security needs in portions of the bulk power transmission system, and aNYCA LOLE violation due to inadequate resource capacity located in Southeast New York(SENY).The NYISO finds transmission security violations beginning in 2015, some of which aresimilar to those found in the 2012 RNA. The NYISO also identifies resource adequacy violations,which begin in 2019 and increase through 2024, if they are not resolved.For transmission security, there are four primary regions with reliability needs:Rochester, Western & Central New York, Capital Region, and Lower Hudson Valley & New YorkCity. These reliability needs are generally driven by recent and proposed generator retirementsor mothballing combined with load growth. The New York transmission owners havedeveloped plans through their respective local transmission planning processes to constructtransmission projects to meet not only the needs identified in the previous RNA, but also anyadditional needs occurring since then and prior to this RNA. These transmission projects,subject to inclusion rules, have been modeled in the 2014 RNA base case. Reliability needsidentified in this report exist despite the inclusion of the transmission projects in the base case.The transmission security needs in the Buffalo and Binghamton areas are influenced bywhether the fuel conversion project can be completed for the Dunkirk Plant for it to return toservice by 2016. As a result, this project was addressed as a sensitivity and the impact of theresults are noted with the base case reliability needs.While resource adequacy violations continue to be identified in SENY, the 2014 RNA isprojecting the need year to be 2019, one year before the need year identified in the 2012 RNA.The most significant difference between the 2012 RNA and the 2014 RNA is the decrease of theNYCA capacity margin (the total capacity less the peak load forecast).The NYISO expects existing and recent market rule changes to entice marketparticipants to take actions that will help meet the resource adequacy needs in SENY, asidentified by the 2012 RNA and the 2014 RNA. The resources needed downstream of theupstate New York to SENY interface is approximately 1,200 MW in 2024 (100 MW in 2019),which could be transmission or capacity resources. The new Zones G-J Locality will providemarket signals for resources to provide service in this area. Capacity owners and developersare taking steps to return mothballed units to service, restore units to their full capability, orbuild new in the Zones G-J Locality. If some or all of these units return to service or aredeveloped, the reliability need year would be postponed beyond 2019. In addition, New YorkState government is promoting transmission development to relieve the transmissionconstraints between upstate New York and SENY, which could also defer the need forNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment61 additional resources. The NYISO anticipates that such potential solutions will be submitted forevaluation during the solutions phase of the Reliability Planning Process (RPP) and included inthe upcoming 2014 Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP) if appropriate.As a backstop to market-based solutions, the NYISO employs a process to defineresponsibility should the market fail to provide an adequate solution to an identified reliabilityneed. Since there are transmission security violations in Zones A, B, C, E, and F within the studyperiod, the transmission owners (TOs) in those zones (i.e., National Grid, RGE, and NYSEG) areresponsible and will be tasked to develop detailed regulated backstop solutions for evaluationin the 2014 CRP.Given the limited time between the identification of certain transmission security needsin this RNA report and their occurrence in 2015, the use of demand response and operatingprocedures, including those for emergency conditions, may be necessary to maintain reliabilityduring peak load periods until permanent solutions can be put in place. Accordingly, the NYISOexpects the TOs to present updates to their Local Transmission Owner Plans for these zones,including their proposed operating procedures pending completion of their permanentsolutions, for review and acceptance by the NYISO and in the 2014 CRP.The NYISO identified reliability needs for resource adequacy in SENY starting in the year2019; therefore, the TOs in SENY (i.e., Orange & Rockland, Central Hudson, New York StateElectric and Gas, Con Edison, and LIPA) are responsible to develop the regulated backstopsolution(s). The study also identified a transmission security violation in 2022 on the Leeds-Pleasant Valley 345 kV circuit, and this circuit is the main constraint of the Upstate New York toSoutheast New York (UPNY-SENY) interface identified in the resource adequacy analysis.Therefore, the violation could be resolved by solution(s) that respond to the resource adequacydeficiencies identified for 2019 -2024.If the resource adequacy solution is non-transmission, these reliability needs can only bemost efficiently satisfied through the addition of compensatory megawatts in SENY becausesuch resources need to be located below the UPNY-SENY interface constraint to be effective.Additions in Zones A through F could partially resolve these reliability needs. Potentialsolutions could include a combination of additional transfer capability by adding transmissionfacilities into SENY from outside those zones and/or resource additions at least some of whichwould be best located in SENY.The RNA is the first step of the NYISO reliability planning process. As a product of thisstep, the NYISO documents the reliability needs in the RNA report, which is presented to theNYISO Board of Directors for approval. The NYISO Board approval initiates the second step,which involves the NYISO requesting proposed solutions to mitigate the identified needs tomaintain acceptable levels of system reliability throughout the study period.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment62
: 8. Historic CongestionAppendix A of Attachment Y of the NYISO OATT states: "As part of its CSPP, the ISO willprepare summaries and detailed analysis of historic and projected congestion across the NYSTransmission System. This will include analysis to identify the significant causes of historiccongestion in an effort to help Market Participants and other interested parties distinguishpersistent and addressable congestion from congestion that results from onetime events ortransient adjustments in operating procedures that may or may not recur. This information willassist Market Participants and other stakeholders to make appropriately informed decisions."The detailed analysis of historic congestion can be found on the NYISO Web site."11 http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets-operations/services/planning/documents/index.jspNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment63 Appendices A-DNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment64 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesAppendix A -2014 Reliability Needs Assessment GlossaryTerm Definition10-year Study 10-year period starting with the year after the study is dated andPeriod projecting forward 10 years. For example, the 2014 RNA covers the10-year Study Period of 2015 through 2024.Adequacy Encompassing both generation and transmission, adequacy refers tothe ability of the bulk power system to supply the aggregaterequirements of consumers at all times, accounting for scheduledand unscheduled outages of system components.Alternative Regulated solutions submitted by a TO or other developer inRegulated Solutions response to a solicitation by the ARS, if the NYISO determines thatthere is a Reliability Need.Annual Transmission An assessment, conducted by the NYISO staff in cooperation withReliability Market Participants, to determine the System Upgrade FacilitiesAssessment (ATRA) required for each generation and merchant transmission projectincluded in the Applicable Reliability Standards, to interconnect tothe New York State Transmission System in compliance withApplicable Reliability Standards and the NYISO MinimumInterconnection Standard.Area Transmission The NYISO, in its role as Planning Coordinator, is responsible forReview (ATR) providing an annual report to the NPCC Compliance Committee inregard to its Area Transmission Review in accordance with the NPCCReliability Compliance and Enforcement Program and in conformancewith the NPCC Design and Operation of the Bulk Power System(Directory #1).Best Available NYS DEC regulation, required for compliance with the federal CleanRetrofit Technology Air Act, applying to fossil fueled electric generating units built(BART) between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977. Emissions control ofSO2, NOx and PM may be necessary for compliance. Compliancedeadline is January 2014.Best Technology NYS DEC policy establishing performance goals for new and existingAvailable (BTA) electricity generating plants for Cooling Water Intake Structures. Thepolicy would apply to plants with design intake capacity greater than20 million gallons/day and prescribes reductions in fish mortality.The performance goals call for the use of wet, closed-cycle coolingsystems at existing generating plants.New York State Bulk The facilities identified as the New York State Bulk PowerPower Transmission Transmission Facilities in the annual Area Transmission ReviewFacility (BPTF) submitted to NPCC by the ISO pursuant to NPCC requirements.Capability Period The Summer Capability Period lasts six months, from May 1 throughNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentA-1 DRAFT -For Discussion PurposesTerm DefinitionOctober 31. The Winter Capability Period runs from November 1through April 30 of the following year.Capacity The capability to generate or transmit electrical power, or the abilityto reduce demand at the direction of the NYISO.Capacity Resource CRIS is the service provided by NYISO to interconnect the Developer'sIntegration Service Large Generating Facility or Merchant Transmission Facility to the(CRIS) New York State Transmission System in accordance with the NYISODeliverability Interconnection Standard, to enable the New York StateTransmission System to deliver electric capacity from the LargeGenerating Facility or Merchant Transmission Facility, pursuant to theterms of the NYISO OATT.Class Year The group of generation and merchant transmission projectsincluded in any particular Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment(ATRA), in accordance with the criteria specified for including suchprojects in the assessment.Clean Air Interstate USEPA rule to reduce interstate transport of fine particulate matterRule (CAIR) (PM) and ozone. CAIR provides a federal framework to limit theemission of SO2 and NOx.Comprehensive A biennial study undertaken by the NYISO that evaluates projectsReliability Plan (CRP) offered to meet New York's future electric power needs, as identifiedin the Reliability Needs Assessment (RNA). The CRP may triggerelectric utilities to pursue regulated solutions or other developers topursue alternative regulated solutions to meet Reliability Needs, ifmarket-based solutions will not be available by the need date. It isthe second step in the Reliability Planning Process (RPP).Comprehensive A transmission system planning process that is comprised of threeSystem Planning components: 1) Local transmission owner planning; 2) Compilation ofProcess (CSPP) local plans into the Reliability Planning Process (RPP), which includesdeveloping a Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP); 3) Channeling theCRP data into the Congestion Assessment and Resource IntegrationStudy (CARIS)Congestion The third component of the Comprehensive System Planning ProcessAssessment and (CSPP). The CARIS is based on the Comprehensive Reliability PlanResource (CRP).Integration Study(CARIS)Congestion Congestion on the transmission system results from physical limits onhow much power transmission equipment can carry withoutexceeding thermal, voltage and/or stability limits determined tomaintain system reliability.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentA-2 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesTerm DefinitionContingencies Contingencies are individual electrical system events (includingdisturbances and equipment failures) that are likely to happen.Cross-State Air This USEPA rule requires the reduction of power plant emissions thatPollution Rule contribute to exceedances of ozone and/or fine particle standards in(CSARP) other states.Dependable The sustained maximum net output of a generator, as demonstratedMaximum Net by the performance of a test or through actual operation, averagedCapability over a continuous time period as defined in the ISO Procedures. The(DMNC) DMNC test determines the amount of Installed Capacity used tocalculate the Unforced Capacity that the Resource is permitted tosupply to the NYCA.Electric System A NYISO governance working group for Market ParticipantsPlanning Work designated to fulfill the planning functions assigned to it. The ESPWGGroup (ESPWG) is a working group that provides a forum for stakeholders and MarketParticipants to provide input into the NYISO's Comprehensive SystemPlanning Process (CSPP), the NYISO's response to FERC reliability-related Orders and other directives, other system planning activities,policies regarding cost allocation and recovery for regulatedreliability and/or economic projects, and related matters.Energy Efficiency A statewide program ordered by the NYDPS in response to thePortfolio Standard Governor's call to reduce New Yorkers' electricity usage by 15% of(EEPS) 2007 forecast levels by the year 2015, with comparable results innatural gas conservation.Federal Energy The federal energy regulatory agency within the U.S. Department ofRegulatory Energy that approves the NYISO's tariffs and regulates its operationCommission (FERC) of the bulk electricity grid, wholesale power markets, and planningand interconnection processes.FERC 715 Annual report that is required by transmitting utilities operating gridfacilities that are rated at or above 100 kilovolts. The report consistsof transmission systems maps, a detailed description of transmissionplanning Reliability Criteria, detailed descriptions of transmissionplanning assessment practices, and detailed evaluation of anticipatedsystem performance as measured against Reliability Criteria.Forced Outage An unanticipated loss of capacity due to the breakdown of a powerplant or transmission line. It can also mean the intentional shutdownof a generating unit or transmission line for emergency reasons.Gap Solution A solution to a Reliability Need that is designed to be temporary andto strive to be compatible with permanent market-based proposals.A permanent regulated solution, if appropriate, may proceed inparallel with a Gap Solution. The NYISO may call for a Gap Solution toNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentA-3 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesTerm Definitionan imminent threat to reliability of the Bulk Power TransmissionFacilities if no market-based solutions, regulated backstop solutions,or alternative regulated solutions can meet the Reliability Needs in atimely manner.Gold Book Annual NYISO publication of its Load and Capacity Data Report.Installed Capacity A Generator or Load facility that complies with the requirements in(ICAP) the Reliability Rules and is capable of supplying and/or reducing thedemand for Energy in the NYCA for the purpose of ensuring thatsufficient Energy and Capacity are available to meet the ReliabilityRules. The Installed Capacity requirement, established by the NewYork State Reliability Council (NYSRC), includes a margin of reserve inaccordance with the Reliability Rules.Installed Reserve The amount of installed electric generation capacity above 100% ofMargin (IRM) the forecasted peak electric demand that is required to meet NYSRCresource adequacy criteria. Most studies in recent years haveindicated a need for a 15-20% reserve margin for adequate reliabilityin New York.Interconnection A queue of transmission and generation projects that have submittedQueue an Interconnection Request to the NYISO to be interconnected to theNew York State Transmission System. All projects must undergo threestudies -a Feasibility Study (unless parties agree not to perform it), aSystem Reliability Impact Study (SRIS) and a Facilities Study -beforeinterconnecting to the grid.Local Transmission The Local Transmission Owner Plan, developed by each TransmissionPlan (LTP) Owner, which describes its respective plans that may be underconsideration or finalized for its own Transmission District.Local Transmission The first step in the Comprehensive System Planning Process (CSPP),Owner Planning under which transmission owners in New York's electricity marketsProcess (LTPP) provide their local transmission plans for consideration and commentby interested parties.Loss of load LOLE establishes the amount of generation and demand-sideexpectation (LOLE) resources needed -subject to the level of the availability of thoseresources, load uncertainty, available transmission system transfercapability and emergency operating procedures -to minimize theprobability of an involuntary loss of firm electric load on the bulkelectricity grid. The state's bulk electricity grid is designed to meet anLOLE that is not greater than one occurrence of an involuntary loaddisconnection in 10 years, expressed mathematically as 0.1 days peryear.Market-Based Investor-proposed projects that are driven by market needs to meetSolutions future reliability requirements of the bulk electricity grid as outlinedin the RNA. Those solutions can include generation, transmission and0NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentA-4 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesTerm Definitiondemand response Programs.Market Monitoring A consulting or other professional services firm, or other similarUnit entity, retained by the NYISO Board pursuant to ISO Services TariffSection 30.4.6.8.1, Attachment 0 -Market Monitoring Plan.Market Participant An entity, excluding the ISO, that produces, transmits, sells, and/orpurchases for resale Capacity, Energy and Ancillary Services in theWholesale Market. Market Participants include: TransmissionCustomers under the ISO OATT, Customers under the ISO ServicesTariff, Power Exchanges, Transmission Owners, Primary Holders,LSEs, Suppliers and their designated agents. Market Participants alsoinclude entities buyingor selling TCCs.Mercury and Air The rule applies to oil and coal fired generators and establishes limitsToxics Standards for HAPs, acid gases, mercury (Hg), and particulate matter (PM).(MATS) Compliance is required by March 2015, with extensions to 2017 forreliability critical units.Mercury Reduction NYSDEC regulation of mercury emissions from coal-fired electricProgram for Coal- utility steam generating units with a nameplate capacity of moreFired Electric Utility than 25 MW producing electricity for sale.Steam GeneratingUnits (MRP)National Ambient Limits, set by the EPA, on pollutants considered harmful to publicAir Quality health and the environment.Standards (NAAQS)New York Control The area under the electrical control of the NYISO. It includes theArea (NYCA) entire state of New York, and is divided into 11 zones.New York State The agency that implements New York State environmentalDepartment of conservation law, with some programs also governed by federal law.EnvironmentalConservation(NYSDEC)New York Formed in 1997 and commencing operations in 1999, the NYISO is aIndependent System not-for-profit organization that manages New York's bulk electricityOperator (NYISO) grid -an 11,056-mile network of high voltage lines that carryelectricity throughout the state. The NYISO also oversees the state'swholesale electricity markets. The organization is governed by anindependent Board of Directors and a governance structure made upof committees with Market Participants and stakeholders asmembers.New York State As defined in the New York Public Service Law, it serves as the staffDepartment of for the New York State Public Service Commission.Public ServiceNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentA-5 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesTerm Definition(NYDPS)New York State A corporation created under the New York State Public AuthoritiesEnergy Research and law and funded by the System Benefits Charge (SBC) and otherDevelopment sources. Among other responsibilities, NYSERDA is charged withAuthority conducting a multifaceted energy and environmental research and(NYSERDA) development program to meet New York State's diverse economicneeds, and administering state System Benefits Charge, RenewablePortfolio Standard, and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standardprograms.New York State The New York State Public Service Commission is the decision makingPublic Service body of the New York State Department of Public Service. The PSCCommission (NYPSC) regulates the state's electric, gas, steam, telecommunications, andwater utilities and oversees the cable industry. The Commission hasthe responsibility for setting rates and ensuring that safe andadequate service is provided by New York's utilities. In addition, theCommission exercises jurisdiction over the siting of major gas andelectric transmission facilitiesNew York State A not-for-profit entity that develops, maintains, and, from time-to-Reliability Council time, updates the Reliability Rules which shall be complied with by(NYSRC) the New York Independent System Operator ("NYISO") and allentities engaging in electric transmission, ancillary services, energyand power transactions on the New York State Power System.North American A not-for-profit organization that develops and enforces reliabilityElectric Reliability standards; assesses reliability annually via 10-year and seasonalCorporation (NERC) forecasts; monitors the bulk power system; and educates, trains, andcertifies industry personnel. NERC is subject to oversight by the FERCand governmental authorities in Canada.Northeast Power A not-for-profit corporation responsible for promoting and improvingCoordinating the reliability of the international, interconnected bulk power systemCouncil (NPCC) in Northeastern North America.Open Access Document of Rates, Terms and Conditions, regulated by the FERC,Transmission Tariff under which the NYISO provides transmission service. The OATT is a(OAT-) dynamic document to which revisions are made on a collaborativebasis by the NYISO, New York's Electricity Market Stakeholders, andthe FERC.Order 890 Adopted by FERC in February 2007, Order 890 is a change to FERC's1996 transmission open access regulations (established in Orders 888and 889). Order 890 is intended to provide for more effectivecompetition, transparency and planning in wholesale electricitymarkets and transmission grid operations, as well as to strengthenthe Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) with regard to non-NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentA-6 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesTerm Definitiondiscriminatory transmission service. Order 890 requires TransmissionProviders -including the NYISO -to have a formal planning processthat provides for a coordinated transmission planning process,including reliability and economic planning studies.Order 1000 Order No. 1000 is a Final Rule that reforms the FERC electrictransmission planning and cost allocation requirements for publicutility transmission providers. The rule builds on the reforms of OrderNo. 890 and provides for transmission planning to meet transmissionneeds driven by Public Policy Requirements, interregional planning,opens transmission development for new transmission needs to non-incumbent developers, and provides for cost allocation and recoveryof transmission upgrades.Outage The forced or scheduled removal of generating capacity or atransmission line from service.Peak Demand The maximum instantaneous power demand, measured inmegawatts (MW), and also known as peak load, is usually measuredand averaged over an hourly interval.Reasonably Regulations promulgated by NYSDEC for the control of emissions ofAvailable Control nitrogen oxides (NOx) from fossil fueled power plants. TheTechnology for regulations establish presumptive emission limits for each type ofOxides of Nitrogen fossil fueled generator and fuel used as an electric generator in NY.(NOx RACT) The NOx RACT limits are part of the State Implementation Plan forachieving compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard(NAAQS) for ozone.Reactive Power Facilities such as generators, high voltage transmission lines,Resources synchronous condensers, capacitor banks, and static VArcompensators that provide reactive power. Reactive power is theportion of electric power that establishes and sustains the electricand magnetic fields of alternating-current equipment. Reactivepower is usually expressed as kilovolt-amperes reactive (kVAr) ormegavolt-ampere reactive (MVAr).Regional A cooperative effort by nine Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states (notGreenhouse Gas including New Jersey or Pennsylvania) to limit greenhouse gasInitiative (RGGI) emissions using a market-based cap-and-trade approach.Regulated Backstop Proposals required of certain TOs to meet Reliability Needs asSolutions outlined in the RNA. Those solutions can include generation,transmission or demand response. Non-Transmission Ownerdevelopers may also submit regulated solutions.Reliability Criteria The electric power system planning and operating policies, standards,criteria, guidelines, procedures, and rules promulgated by the NorthAmerican Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), Northeast PowerNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentA-7 DRAFT -For Discussion PurposesTerm DefinitionCoordinating Council (NPCC), and the New York State ReliabilityCouncil (NYSRC), as they may be amended from time to time.Reliability Need A condition identified by the NYISO in the RNA as a violation orpotential violation of Reliability Criteria.Reliability Needs A biennial study which evaluates the resource adequacy andAssessment (RNA) transmission system adequacy and security of the New York bulkpower system over a ten year Study Period. Through this evaluation,the NYISO identifies Reliability Needs in accordance with applicableReliability Criteria.Reliability Planning The biennial process that includes evaluation of resource adequacyProcess (RPP) and transmission system security of the state's bulk electricity gridover a 10-year period and evaluates solutions to meet those needs.The RPP consists of two studies: the RNA, which identifies potentialproblems, and the CRP, which evaluates specific solutions to thoseproblems.Renewable Portfolio Proceeding commenced by order of the NYDPS in 2004 whichStandard (RPS) established the goal to increase renewable energy used in New YorkState to 30% of total New York energy usage (equivalent toapproximately 3,700 MW of capacity) by 2015.Responsible The Transmission Owner(s) or TOs designated by the NYISO, pursuantTransmission Owner to the NYISO RPP, to prepare a proposal for a regulated solution to a(Responsible TO) Reliability Need or to proceed with a regulated solution to aReliability Need. The Responsible TO will normally be theTransmission Owner in whose Transmission District the NYISOidentifies a Reliability Need.Security The ability of the power system to withstand the loss of one or moreelements without involuntarily disconnecting firm load.Special Case A NYISO demand response program designed to reduce power usageResources (SCR) by businesses and large power users qualified to participate in theNYISO's ICAP market. Companies that sign up as SCRs are paid inadvance for agreeing to cut power upon NYISO request.State Environmental NYS law requiring the sponsoring or approving governmental body toQuality Review Act identify and mitigate the significant environmental impacts of the(SEQRA) activity/project it is proposing or permitting.Study Period The 10-year time period evaluated in the RNA.System Reliability A study, conducted by the NYISO in accordance with ApplicableImpact Study (SRIS) Reliability Standards, to evaluate the impact of a proposedinterconnection on the reliability of the New York State TransmissionSystem.System Benefits An amount of money, charged to ratepayers on their electric bills,NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentA-8 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesTerm DefinitionCharge (SBC) which is administered and allocated by NYSERDA towards energy-efficiency programs, research and development initiatives, low-income energy programs, and environmental disclosure activities.Transfer Capability The measure of the ability of interconnected electrical systems toreliably move or transfer power from one area to another over alltransmission facilities (or paths) between those areas under specifiedsystem conditions.Transmission Limitations on the ability of a transmission system to transferConstraints electricity during normal or emergency system conditions.Transmission Owner A public utility or authority that owns transmission facilities and(TO) provides Transmission Service under the NYISO's tariffsTransmission An identified group of Market Participants that advises the NYISOPlanning Advisory Operating Committee and provides support to the NYISO Staff inSubcommittee regard to transmission planning matters including transmission(TPAS) system reliability, expansion, and interconnectionUnforced Capacity Unforced capacity delivery rights are rights that may be granted toDelivery Rights controllable lines to deliver generating capacity from locations(UDR) outside the NYCA to localities within NYCA.Weather Adjustments made to normalize the impact of weather when makingNormalized energy and peak demand forecasts. Using historical weather data,energy analysts can account for the influence of extreme weatherconditions and adjust actual energy use and peak demand toestimate what would have happened if the hottest day or the coldestday had been the typical, or "normal," weather conditions. "Normal"is usually calculated by taking the average of the previous 20 years ofweather data.Zone One of the eleven regions in the NYCA connected to each other byidentified transmission interfaces and designated as Load Zones A-K.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentA-9 DRAFT -For Discussion PurposesAppendix B -The Reliability Planning Process 0This section presents an overview of the NYISO reliability planning process (RPP).A detailed discussion of the reliability planning process, including applicable ReliabilityCriteria, is contained in NYISO Manual entitled: "Reliability Planning Process Manual,"which is posted on the NYISO's website.The NYISO reliability planning process is an integral part of the NYISO's overallComprehensive System Planning Process (CSPP). The CSPP planning process iscomprised of the Local Transmission Planning Process (LTPP), the RPP, and theCongestion Assessment and Resource Integration Study (CARIS). Each CSPP cycle beginswith the LTPP. As part of the LTPP, local Transmission Owners perform transmissionstudies for their BPTFs in their transmission areas according to all applicable criteria.Links to the Transmission Owner's LTPs can be found on the NYISO's website. The LTPPprovides inputs for the NYISO's reliability planning process. During the RPP process, theNYISO conducts the Reliability Needs Assessment (RNA) and Comprehensive ReliabilityPlan (CRP). The RNA evaluates the adequacy and security of the bulk power system overa 10-year study period. In identifying resource adequacy needs, the NYISO identifies theamount of resources in megawatts (known as "compensatory megawatts") and thelocations in which they are needed to meet those needs. After the RNA is complete, theNYISO requests and evaluates market-based solutions, regulated backstop solutions andalternative regulated solutions that address the identified Reliability Needs. This stepresults in the development of the NYISO's CRP for the 10-year study period. The CRPprovides inputs for the NYISO's economic planning process known as CARIS. CARISPhase 1 examines congestion on the New York bulk power system and the costs andbenefits of alternatives to alleviate that congestion. During CARIS Phase 2, the NYISOwill evaluate specific transmission project proposals for regulated cost recovery.The NYISO's reliability planning process is a long-range assessment of bothresource adequacy and transmission reliability of the New York bulk power systemconducted over a 10-year planning horizon. There are two different aspects to analyzingthe bulk power system's reliability in the RNA: adequacy and security. Adequacy is aplanning and probabilistic concept. A system is adequate if the probability of havingsufficient transmission and generation to meet expected demand is equal to or less thanthe system's standard, which is expressed as a loss of load expectation (LOLE). The NewYork State bulk power system is planned to meet an LOLE that, at any given point intime, is less than or equal to an involuntary load disconnection that is not more frequentthan once in every 10 years, or 0.1 days per year. This requirement forms the basis ofNew York's installed reserve margin (IRM) resource adequacy requirement.Security is an operating and deterministic concept. This means that possibleevents are identified as having significant adverse reliability consequences, and thesystem is planned and operated so that the system can continue to serve load even ifthese events occur. Security requirements are sometimes referred to as N-1 or N-1-1. NNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentB-1 DRAFT- For Discussion Purposesis the number of system components; an N-1 requirement means that the system canwithstand single disturbance events (e.g., generator, bus section, transmission circuit,breaker failure, double-circuit tower) without violating thermal, voltage and stabilitylimits or before affecting service to consumers. An N-i-1 requirement means that theReliability Criteria apply after any critical element such as a generator, a transmissioncircuit, a transformer, series or shunt compensating device, or a high voltage directcurrent (HVDC) pole has already been lost. Generation and power flows can be adjustedby the use of iO-minute operating reserve, phase angle regulator control and HVDCcontrol and a second single disturbance is analyzed.The RPP is anchored in the market-based philosophy of the NYISO and its MarketParticipants, which posits that market solutions should be the preferred choice to meetthe identified Reliability Needs reported in the RNA. In the CRP, the reliability of the bulkpower system is assessed and solutions to Reliability Needs evaluated in accordancewith existing Reliability Criteria of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation(NERC), the Northeast Power Coordinating Council, Inc. (NPCC), and the New York StateReliability Council (NYSRC) as they may change from time to time. These criteria and adescription of the nature of long-term bulk power system planning are described indetail in the applicable planning manual, and are briefly summarized below. In theevent that market-based solutions do not materialize to meet a Reliability Need in atimely manner, the NYISO designates the Responsible TO or Responsible TOs ordeveloper of an alternative regulated solution to proceed with a regulated solution inorder to maintain system reliability. Under the RPP, the NYISO also has an affirmativeobligation to report historic congestion across the transmission system. In addition, thedraft RNA is provided to the Market Monitoring Unit for review and consideration ofwhether market rules changes are necessary to address an identified failure, if any, inone of the NYISO's competitive markets. If market failure is identified as the reason forthe lack of market-based solutions, the NYISO will explore appropriate changes in itsmarket rules with its stakeholders and Independent Market Monitor. The RPP does notsubstitute for the planning that each TO conducts to maintain the reliability of its ownbulk and non-bulk power systems.The NYISO does not license or construct projects to respond to identifiedReliability Needs reported in the RNA. The ultimate approval of those projects lies withregulatory agencies such as the FERC, the NYDPS, environmental permitting agencies,and local governments. The NYISO monitors the progress and continued viability ofproposed market and regulated projects to meet identified needs, and reports itsfindings in annual plans. Figure B-1 below summarizes the RPP and Figure B-2summarizes the CARIS which collectively comprise the CSPP process.The CRP will form the basis for the next cycle of the NYISO's economic planningprocess. That process will examine congestion on the New York bulk power system andthe costs and benefits of alternatives to alleviate that congestion.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentB-2 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesNYISO Reliability Planning ProcessNYISO Develops Power Flow Base Case RepresentationsNYISOPerformsFrom the FERC 715 Case (oATRA Network )Id5Ca e f iCases Meet Standards for Base Cases ( No Violations)NYIS PerNYISO Applies Base Case Screens Removing Projects to A ScenariosI Develop the BN e as D ses over the Ten Year Period b CDevelopedNYISO Works with TOe to Mitigate Local Proble y ilMeet Reliabili Nees And Reporte Actions in RNA iNYISO APprfovas of BPTFs for Security Assessment NY'SO PerformsP Violations Identified Reauyste R e-Id No Violatio s Identified Needed*" IF not,
* T T oT I de teria Deficiency (Needs) iI Develop Compensatory MWpMVAR eliablityPlanoCRP] I to remove Deficiency .YS PeL&CoTablScreeningNYISO Performs Transfer Limit Analysis for Resource Adequacy Assessment AndIdentifies Needs as Deficiency in LOLE Criteria by MARS MARS LOLE &Develop Compensatory MWs to Remove Deficiency ArmSNYISO Reviews LTPs as They Relate to BPTFs to Determine Whether They WillMeet Reliability Needs and Evaluate Alternatives from a Regional PerspectiveI NYISO Publicizes Reliability Needs AssessmentSNYISO Issues Request for SolutionsMarket-Based Resoonses i Regulated Responses*Generation s Trnmsion*DSM o May consider alternatives*Merchant Transmsin
* TO & nonTO proposalsNYISO Evaluates Market Based Responses, Regulated Responses and TO Updates ITo Determine Whether They Will Meet the Identified Reliability Me1edsIINYIS FomultesComprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP)T N&deg; viablettimely market or regulated solution to an Identified needI Board Approval of Plan (CRP) I I "Gap"' Solutions by T&#xfd;ei~v~................ o .............. I I Board Approval of Plan (CRP) Is eg at- Lon eurL mlNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentB-3 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesAppendix C -Load and Energy Forecast 2014-2024C-1. SummaryIn order to perform the 2014 RNA, a forecast of summer and winter peak demands andannual energy requirements was produced for the years 2014 -2024. The electricity forecast isbased on projections of New York's economy performed by Moody's Analytics in January 2014.The forecast includes detailed projections of employment, output, income and other factors fortwenty three regions in New York State. This appendix provides a summary of the electricenergy and peak demand forecasts and the key economic input variables used to produce theforecasts. Table C-1 provides a summary of key economic and electric system growth rates from2003 to 2024.In June 2008, the New York Public Service Commission issued its Order regarding theEnergy Efficiency Portfolio Standard. This proceeding set forth a statewide goal of a cumulativeenergy reduction of about 26,900 GWh. The NYISO estimates the peak demand impacts to beabout 5500 MW. This goal is expected to be achieved by contributions from a number of stateagencies, power authorities and utilities, as well as from federal codes and building standards.Table C-1: Summary of Economic & Electric System Growth Rates -Actual & ForecastAverage Annual Growth I2003-2008 2008-2013 2014-2019 2019-2024Total Employment 0.70% 0.52% 0.93% 0.21%Gross State Product 1.58% 1.85% 2.47% 1.75%Population 0.08% 0.34% 0.19% 0.14%Total Real Income 2.53% 1.59% 2.77% 2.25%Weather Normalized Summer Peak 1.40% -0.10% 1.04% 0.63%Weather Normalized Annual Energy 1.11% -0.36% 0.14% 0.17%NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentC-1 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesC-2. Historic OverviewThe New York Control Area (NYCA) is a summer peaking system and its summer peakhas grown faster than annual energy and winter peak over this period. Both summer and winterpeaks show considerable year-to-year variability due to the influence of peak-producingweather conditions for the seasonal peaks. Annual energy is influenced by weather conditionsover the entire year, which is much less variable than peak-producing conditions.Table C-2 shows the NYCA historic seasonal peaks and annual energy growth since 2001.The table provides both actual results and weather-normalized results, together with annualaverage growth rates for each table entry. The growth rates are averaged over the period 2003to 2013.Table C-2: Historic Energy and Seasonal Peak Demand -Actual and Weather-NormalizedAnnual Energy -GWhWeatherActual I NormalizedYear20032004200520062007200820092010201120122013158,130160.211167.,207162,237167,339165,613158,777163,505163,330162,843157,523160,832163,015163,413166073166,468161,908161,513162,628163,458Summer Peak -MWWeatherActual Normalized30,333 31,41028,433 31,40132,075 33,06833,939 32,99232,169 33,44432,432 33,67030,844 33,06333,452 32,45833,865 33,01932,547 33,10633,956 33,5021.13% 0.65%WeatherYear Actual Normalized2003-04 25,262 24,8492004-05 25,541 25,0062005-06 24,947 24,7702006-07 25,057 25,0302007-08 25,021 25,4902008-09 24,673 25,0162009-10 24,074 24,5372010-11 24,654 24,4522011-12 23,901 24,6302012-13 24,658 24,6302013-14 25,738 24,610Winter Peak -MW163,493 163,4730.33%0.37%0.19%-0.10%NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentC-2 DRAFT -For Discussion PurposesC-3. Forecast OverviewTable C-3 shows historic and forecast growth rates of annual energy for the differentregions in New York. The Upstate region includes Zones A -I. The NYCA's two locality zones,Zones J (New York City) and K (Long Island) are shown individually.Table C-3: Annual Energy and Summer Peak Demand -Actual & ForecastYear20032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242003-132014-242003-082008-132014-192019-24Annual Enery -GhUpstate J K NYCARegion85,223 50,829 21,960 158,01285,935 52,073 22,203 160,21190,253 54,007 22,948 167,20886,957 53,096 22,185 162,23889,843 54,750 22,748 167,34188,316 54,835 22,461 165,61283,788 53,100 21,892 158,78085,469 55,114 22,922 163,50586,566 54,059 22,704 163,32987,051 53,487 22,302 162,84088,084 53,316 22,114 163,51487,456 53,498 22,207 163,16187,602 53,284 22,328 163,21487,983 53,402 22,522 163,90787,870 53,144 22,590 163,60487,987 53,046 22,720 163,75388,515 52,940 22,850 164,30589,089 52,969 23,043 165,10188,993 52,727 23,110 164,83089,113 52,622 23,240 164,97589,222 52,517 23,370 165,10989,600 52,556 23,565 165,7210.3% 0.5% 0.1% 0.3%0.2% -0.2% 0.6% 0.2%0.7% 1.5% 0.5% 0.9%-0.1% -0.6% -0.3% -0.3%0.2% -0.2% 0.6% 0.1%0.2% -0.1% 0.6% 0.2%Summer Coincident Peak -MWUpstate J K NYCARegion15,100 10240 4,993 30,33314,271 9,742 4,420 28,43316,029 10,810 5,236 32,07517,054 11,300 5,585 33,93915,824 10,970 5,375 32,16916,223 10,979 5,231 32,43315,416 10,366 5,063 30,84516,408 11,213 5,832 33,45316,558 11,374 5,935 33,86716,608 10,722 5,109 32,43916,847 11,456 5,653 33,95616,621 11,643 5,402 33,66616,711 11,907 5,448 34,06616,850 12,070 5,492 34,41216,996 12,238 5,532 34,76617,120 12,421 5,570 35,11117,296 12,549 5,609 35,45417,369 12,638 5,649 35,65617,453 12,747 5,690 35,89017,560 12,836 5,731 36,12717,647 12,945 5,777 36,36917,730 13,029 5,821 36,5801. 1% 1. 1% 1.2% 1. 1%0.6% 11.1% 0.7% 0.8%1.4% 1.4% 0.9% 1.3%0.8% 0.9% 1.6% 0.9%0.8% 1.5% 0.8% 1.0%0.5% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6%NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentC-3 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesC-4. Forecast MethodologyThe NYISO methodology for producing the long term forecasts for the Reliability NeedsAssessment consists of the following steps.Econometric forecasts were developed for zonal energy using monthly data from 2000through 2013. For each zone, the NYISO estimated an ensemble of econometric models usingpopulation, households, economic output, employment, cooling degree days and heatingdegree days. Each member of the ensemble was evaluated and compared to historic data. Thezonal model chosen for the forecast was the one which best represented recent history and theregional growth for that zone. The NYISO also received and evaluated forecasts from ConEdison and LIPA, which were used in combination with the forecasts we developed for Zones H,I, J and K.The summer & winter non-coincident and coincident peak forecasts for Zones H, I, J andK were derived from the forecasts submitted to the NYISO by Con Edison and LIPA. For theremaining zones, the NYISO derived the summer and winter coincident peak demands from thezonal energy forecasts by using average zonal weather-normalized load factors from 2000through 2013. The 2014 summer peak forecast was matched to coincide with the 2014 ICAPforecast.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentC-4 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesC-4.1. Demand Side InitiativesThe Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (EEPS) is an initiative of the Governor of NewYork and implemented by the state's Public Service Commission. The goal of the initiative is toreduce electric energy usage by 15 percent from 2007 forecasted energy usage levels in theyear 2015 (the 15x15 initiative), for a reduction of 26,880 GWh by 2015.The NYS PSC directed a series of working groups composed of all interested parties tothe proceeding to obtain information needed to further elaborate the goal. The NYS PSC issuedan Order in June 2008, directing NYSERDA and the state's investor owned utilities to developconservation plans in accordance with the EEPS goal. The NYS PSC also identified goals that itexpected would be implemented by LIPA and NYPA.The NYISO has been a party to the EEPS proceeding from its inception. As part of thedevelopment of the 2014 RNA forecast, the NYISO developed an adjustment to the 2014econometric model that incorporated a portion of the EEPS goal. This was based upondiscussion with market participants in the Electric System Planning Working Group. The NYISOconsidered the following factors in developing the 2014 RNA base case:" NYS PSC-approved spending levels for the programs under its jurisdiction, includingthe Systems Benefit Charge and utility-specific programs* Expected realization rates, participation rates and timing of planned energyefficiency programs" Degree to which energy efficiency is already included in the NYISO's econometricenergy forecast* Impacts of new appliance efficiency standards, and building codes and standards" Specific energy efficiency plans proposed by LIPA, NYPA and Consolidated EdisonCompany of New York, Inc. (Con Edison)* The actual rates of implementation of EEPS based on data received fromDepartment of Public Service staff* Projected impact of customer-sited solar photovoltaic installationsOnce the statewide energy and demand impacts were developed, zonal level forecastswere produced for the econometric forecast and for the base case.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentC-5 DRAFT- For Discussion Purposes* Zone D's average energy and peak demand growth is based on the last four years of the forecast, after industrial load in thiszone is expected to return from a curtailment.Figure C-1: Zonal Energy Forecast Growth Rates -2014 to 2024Annual Peak Demand Growth Rates by Zone1.50%1.25%1.00%-0.75%0% t0.50%0.25%0.00%A B C D5 E F G H I J K NYCA-0.25%-0.50%Figure C-2: Zonal Summer Peak Demand Forecast Growth Rates -2014 to 2024NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentC-6 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesTable C-4: Annual Energy by Zone -Actual & Forecast (GWh)Year A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA2003 15,942 9,719 16,794 5,912 6,950 11,115 10,451 2,219 6,121 50,829 21,960 158,0122004 16,102 9,888 16,825 5,758 7,101 11,161 10,696 2,188 6,216 52,073 22,203 160,2112005 16,498 10,227 17,568 6,593 7,594 11,789 10,924 2,625 6,435 54,007 22,948 167,2082006 15,998 10,003 16,839 6,289 7,339 11,337 10,417 2,461 6,274 53,096 22,185 162,2382007 16,258 10,207 17,028 6,641 7,837 11,917 10,909 2,702 6,344 54,750 22,748 167,3412008 15,835 10,089 16,721 6,734 7,856 11,595 10,607 2,935 5,944 54,835 22,461 165,6122009 15,149 9,860 15,949 5,140 7,893 10,991 10,189 2,917 5,700 53,100 21,892 158,7802010 15,903 10,128 16,209 4,312 7,906 11,394 10,384 2,969 6,264 55,114 22,922 163,5052011 16,017 10,040 16,167 5,903 7,752 11,435 10,066 2,978 6,208 54,059 22,704 163,3292012 15,595 10,009 16,117 6,574 7,943 11,846 9,938 2,930 6,099 53,487 22,302 162,8402013 15,790 9,981 16,368 6,448 8,312 12,030 9,965 2,986 6,204 53,316 22,114 163,5142014 15,837 10,011 16,342 6,027 8,153 11,993 9,979 2,957 6,157 53,498 22,207 163,1612015 15,870 10,005 16,372 6,042 8,167 12,043 10,025 2,946 6,132 53,284 22,328 163,2142016 15,942 10,025 16,441 6,072 8,214 12,128 10,062 2,953 6,146 53,402 22,522 163,9072017 15,913 9,993 16,423 6,066 8,233 12,148 10,040 2,938 6,116 53,144 22,590 163,6042018 15,925 9,988 16,447 6,075 8,277 12,201 10,038 2,931 6,105 53,046 22,720 163,7532019 15,942 9,985 16,475 6,493 8,319 12,256 10,026 2,927 6,092 52,940 22,850 164,3052020 16,012 10,009 16,553 6,721 8,395 12,334 10,042 2,927 6,096 52,969 23,043 165,1012021 15,988 9,980 16,546 6,711 8,431 12,345 10,008 2,916 6,068 52,727 23,110 164,8302022 15,998 9,979 16,583 6,717 8,480 12,391 9,999 2,910 6,056 52,622 23,240 164,9752023 16,007 9,979 16,615 6,722 8,524 12,439 9,989 2,903 6,044 52,517 23,370 165,1092024 16,060 10,009 16,696 6,744 8,608 12,525 10,004 2,905 6,049 52,556 23,565 165,721NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentC-7 DRAFT -For Discussion PurposesTable C-5: Summer Coincident Peak Demand by Zone -Actual & Forecast (MW)Year A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA2003 2,510 1,782 2,727 671 1,208 2,163 2,146 498 1,395 10,240 4,993 30,3332004 2,493 1,743 2,585 644 1,057 1,953 2,041 475 1,280 9,742 4,420 28,4332005 2,726 1,923 2,897 768 1,314 2,164 2,236 592 1,409 10,810 5,236 32,0752006 2,735 2,110 3,128 767 1,435 2,380 2,436 596 1,467 11,300 5,585 33,9392007 2,592 1,860 2,786 795 1,257 2,185 2,316 595 1,438 10,970 5,375 32,1692008 2,611 2,001 2,939 801 1,268 2,270 2,277 657 1,399 10,979 5,231 32,4332009 2,595 1,939 2,780 536 1,351 2,181 2,159 596 1,279 10,366 5,063 30,8452010 2,663 1,985 2,846 552 1,437 2,339 2,399 700 1,487 11,213 5,832 33,4532011 2,556 2,019 2,872 776 1,447 2,233 2,415 730 1,510 11,374 5,935 33,8672012 2,743 2,107 2,888 774 1,420 2,388 2,242 653 1,393 10,722 5,109 32,4392013 2,549 2,030 2,921 819 1,540 2,392 2,358 721 1,517 11,456 5,653 33,9562014 2,674 2,054 2,896 703 1,434 2,374 2,290 689 1,507 11,643 5,402 33,6662015 2,688 2,062 2,916 705 1,449 2,405 2,309 684 1,493 11,907 5,448 34,0662016 2,710 2,077 2,942 707 1,464 2,437 2,324 688 1,501 12,070 5,492 34,4122017 2,733 2,093 2,972 710 1,483 2,475 2,336 688 1,506 12,238 5,532 34,7662018 2,748 2,103 2,993 715 1,499 2,503 2,347 694 1,518 12,421 5,570 35,1112019 2,756 2,110 3,009 789 1,512 2,529 2,355 702 1,534 12,549 5,609 35,4542020 2,763 2,112 3,020 793 1,523 2,547 2,363 706 1,542 12,638 5,649 35,6562021 2,769 2,115 3,033 797 1,536 2,570 2,370 709 1,554 12,747 5,690 35,8902022 2,773 2,117 3,044 801 1,547 2,595 2,377 724 1,582 12,836 5,731 36,1272023 2,777 2,121 3,055 805 1,558 2,624 2,383 730 1,594 12,945 5,777 36,3692024 2,780 2,124 3,067 809 1,572 2,649 2,388 734 1,607 13,029 5,821 36,580NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentC-8 0DRAFT -For Discussion PurposesTable C-6: Winter Coincident Peak Demand by Zone -Actual & Forecast (MW)Year A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA2003-04 2,433 1,576 2,755 857 1,344 1,944 1,720 478 981 7,527 3,647 25,2622004-05 2,446 1,609 2,747 918 1,281 1,937 1,766 474 939 7,695 3,729 25,5412005-06 2,450 1,544 2,700 890 1,266 1,886 1,663 515 955 7,497 3,581 24,9472006-07 2,382 1,566 2,755 921 1,274 1,888 1,638 504 944 7,680 3,505 25,0572007-08 2,336 1,536 2,621 936 1,312 1,886 1,727 524 904 7,643 3,596 25,0212008-09 2,274 1,567 2,533 930 1,289 1,771 1,634 529 884 7,692 3,570 24,6732009-10 2,330 1,555 2,558 648 1,289 1,788 1,527 561 813 7,562 3,443 24,0742010-11 2,413 1,606 2,657 645 1,296 1,825 1,586 526 927 7,661 3,512 24,6542011-12 2,220 1,535 2,532 904 1,243 1,765 1,618 490 893 7,323 3,378 23,9012012-13 2,343 1,568 2,672 954 1,348 1,923 1,539 510 947 7,456 3,399 24,6582013-14 2,358 1,645 2,781 848 1,415 1,989 1,700 625 974 7,810 3,594 25,7382014-15 2,382 1,575 2,608 858 1,323 1,905 1,554 538 935 7,529 3,530 24,7372015-16 2,391 1,577 2,615 860 1,325 1,914 1,564 538 934 7,537 3,540 24,7952016-17 2,399 1,580 2,621 863 1,327 1,925 1,568 540 939 7,544 3,550 24,8562017-18 2,406 1,583 2,628 862 1,332 1,935 1,572 539 937 7,552 3,560 24,9062018-19 2,413 1,587 2,636 863 1,338 1,947 1,576 540 937 7,559 3,570 24,9662019-20 2,423 1,591 2,645 934 1,345 1,961 1,580 540 938 7,567 3,580 25,1042020-21 2,433 1,596 2,654 937 1,355 1,972 1,583 542 941 7,574 3,590 25,1772021-22 2,444 1,602 2,667 936 1,365 1,985 1,589 542 940 7,582 3,600 25,2522022-23 2,455 1,608 2,679 936 1,377 2,000 1,597 542 940 7,590 3,610 25,3342023-24 2,468 1,617 2,692 937 1,389 2,017 1,607 542 941 7,597 3,620 25,4272024-25 2,484 1,628 2,709 939 1,402 2,037 1,618 543 942 7,605 3,630 25,537NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentC-9 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesAppendix D -Transmission System Security and ResourceAdequacy AssessmentThe analysis performed during the Reliability Needs Assessment requires thedevelopment of base cases for transmission security analysis and for resource adequacyanalysis. The power flow system model is used for transmission security assessmentand the development of the transfer limits to be implemented in the Multi-AreaReliability Simulation (MARS) model. A comprehensive assessment of the transmissionsystem is conducted through a series of steady-state power flow, transient stability, andshort circuit studies.In general, the RNA analyses indicated that the bulk power transmission systemcan be secured under N-i conditions, but that transfer limits for certain key interfacesmust be reduced below their thermal limits, in order to respect voltage criteria.However, a reduction in transfer limits on a limiting interface can result in higher LOLE,and/or needs occurring earlier than they otherwise would. To quantify this potentialimpact, LOLE analysis was conducted for the RNA base case, a case modeling voltagelimited interfaces using the higher thermal limits (NYCA Thermal), and also a casewithout any internal NYCA transmission limits (NYCA Free Flow). These cases weresimulated to demonstrate the impact that transmission limits have on the LOLE results.The results from this analysis are reported in Table 4-7.The MARS model was used to determine whether adequate resources would beavailable to meet the NYSRC and NPCC reliability criteria of one day in ten years (0.1days/year). The results showed a deficiency in years 2019 -2024 (See Section 4.2.3 ofthis report.) The MARS model was also used to evaluate selected scenarios (Section 4.3)and it was used to determine compensatory MW requirements for identified ReliabilityNeeds (See Section 4.2.5).NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-1 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesD-1 2014 RNA Assumption MatrixD-1.1 Assumption Matrix for Resource Adequacy AssessmentParameter 204IRM Model Assumptions Basis for IRM 2014 RNA Model ChangeT &#xfd; Recommended q RecommendationLoad ParametersForecast based onOctober 1, 2013 forecast: examination of 2013 2014 Gold Book, NYCA loadsPeak Load NYCA 33,655 MW, NYC weather normalized peaks. similar to Oct 2013 forecast, NYC11,740 MW, LI 5,461 MW Top three external Area and LI lowerpeak days aligned withNYCAMultiple Load Shapes Model Same, Multiple Load ShapesLoad Shape using years 2002, 2006, and See white paper Model using years 2002, 2006,2007 and 2007Based on collected data andLoad Forecast Zonal model updated to input from LIPA, Con Ed, SameUncertainty reflect current data and NYISO. (Seeattachment A)Capacity ParametersExisting 2013 Gold Book values. Use 2014 Gold Book, capacity similarGenerating Unit min (DMNC vs. CRIS) capacity 2013 Gold Book publication to 2013 Gold BookCapacities valueUnits built since the 2013Gold Book and those non- Consistent with Inclusion Rules,Proposed New 769 W of c ity wa renewable units with capacity repowered or returnedNon-Wind Units repowered or returned to Interconnection to service plus Taylor BiomassAgreements signed by included in the base caseAugust 1.Retirement 164 MW retirements Policy 5 guidelines on 2014 Gold Book Section IV, notUnits* reported, See Attachment B3 retirement disposition in modeled in the base caseIRM studies2014 Gold Book Section IV,Cayuga modeled 2015 and 2016only. Not modeled in the baseMothball Units* case: Dunkirk 1, 2, 3, and 4,9/10/2012, TC Ravenswood GT7, 3/13/2014, and Selkirk I & II,9/1/2014ICAP IneligibleForced Outage N/AUnitsForced Outage Modeled in the base case withUnits EFOR reflecting the outageFive-year (2008-20i2) GADS T. Rates representing theForced and data for each unit Equivalent Forced Outagerepresented. Those units with Rates (EFORd) during Update for most recent five yearPartial Outage less than five years -use demand periods over the period, 2009-2013Ratesrepresentative data. See most recent five-yearattachments C and C1 period (2008-2012)Based on schedules received Updated schedules,Planned Outages by the NYSIO and adjusted for currently, data from last Samehistory year is being usedNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-2 DRAFT- For Discussion Purposes2014 IRM Model Assumptions Basis for IRMParameter Recommended Recommendation 2014 RNA Model ChangeSummer Nominal 50 MW -dividedMaintenance equally between upstate and Review of most recent data SamedownstateOperational historyCombustion Derates based on temperature indicates the derates are in- SameTurbine Derates correction curves provided line with manufacturer'scurvesRenewable units based onProposed New No new wind, See Attachment RPS agreements, 2014 Gold Book IV, no new windWind Units B1 interconnection Queue and unitsICS inputNumber decrease due to a(2013 IRM) forecast not(201 IRM forcastnot 2014 Gold Book Section III andWind Resources Wind Capacity -1366.6 MW participating in NY Capacity IVmarket (Marble RiverWind).Actual hourly plant output ofWind Shape the 2012 calendar year. Testing results and White SameSummer Peak Hour availability Paperof 17%Based on collected hourlySolar Capacity of 31.5 MW solar data, Summer Peak 2014 Gold Book, as reflected inSolar Resources plus 12.5 MW of new units. Hour capacity factor based Load ForecastSee Attachment B-2 on June 1 -Aug 31, hoursHB14 -HB18Review of unit productionNon-NYPA and hydrological conditionsHydro Resources Derated by 45% including recognized Sameforecasts (i.e. NOAA)Grandfathered amounts: PJM Grandfathered Rights,Capacity -1080 MW, HQ- 1090 MW,Capacity -1080 t MW, e H s -1090MW, ETCNL, and other FERC Modeled same as in 2012 RNAPurchases All contracts model as identified rightsequivalent contractsThese are long termLong Term firm sales (279 ThsarlogtmCapacity Sales MW) federally monitoredcontractsUDRs No new UDRs Updated to most current UDRsTopology ParametersBased on 2013 OperatingStudy, 2013 OperationsEngineering VoltageAll changes reviewed and Studies, 2013Interface Limits commented on by TPAS. See Comprehensive Planning ted analsAttachment E. Process, and additionalanalysis includinginterregional planninginitiatives2014 Gold Book Section VII thatare consistent with the inclusionrules Firm projects in-servicenNone Identified s n O rvie within three years are modeled,Transmission NnIdtiedmodels and NYISO review sc sTT 21) ieMlsuch as TOTS (2016), Five MileRoad (2015), Mainesburg (2015),Farmers Valley (2016), etc.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-3 DRAFT -For Discussion Purposes2014 IRM Model Assumptions Basis for IRMParameter Recommended Recommendation 2014 RNA Model ChangeAll existing Cable EFORs Same transition rate as providedCable Forced updated for NYC and LI to Sase Transition stat overOutage Rates reflect most recent five-year Based on TO analysis by TO and held constant overhistory ten yearsEmergency Operating Procedure ParametersJuly 2014 -1195 MW based Those sold for the programon registrations and modeled discounted to historic 2014 Gold Book, registrationSpecial Case as 758 MW of effective availability. Summer values CAP is similar to IRM but UCAPResources capacity. Monthly variation calculated from July 2013based on historical experience registrations (see(no Limit on number of calls) attachment F).July 2013- 93.9 MW Those sold for the programregistered model as 12.8 MW discounted to historicin July and proportional to availability. Summer values CAP and UCAP regbotimlEDRP Resources monthly peak load in other calculated from July 2013 ICAP and UCAP are both similarmonths. registrations and forecast to IRMLimit to five calls per month growth.721 MW of non-SCR/non- Based on TO information,Other EOPs EDRP resources measured data, and NYISO Updated as availableSee Attachment D forecastsExternal Control Areas ParametersLoad and Capacity data LOLE adjusted to between 0.1PJM provided by PJM/NPCC CP-8, and 0.15 for every year oftenand may be adjusted per year oftenNYSRC Policy 5 year periodLoad and Capacity data LOLE adjusted to between 0.1ISONE provided by PJM/NPCC CP-8, and 0.15 for every year of tenand may be adjusted perNYSRC Policy 5Load and Capacity data LOLE adjusted to between 0.1HQ provided by PJM/NPCC CP-8, and 0.15 for every year of tenand may be adjusted per year perio nNYSRC Policy 5Load and Capacity data LOLE adjusted to between 0.1IESO provided by PJM/NPCC CP-8, and 0.15 for every year of tenand may be adjusted per year perio nNYSRC Policy 5All NPCC Control Areas andReserve Sharing PJM interconnection indicate Per NPCC CP-8 WG Samethat they will share reservesequally among all membersMiscellaneousMARS Model Version 3.16.5 Per benchmark testing and Version 3.18Version ICS recommendationEnvironmental No estimated impacts based An analysis of generator Updated to most recent NYSDECInitiatives on review of existing rules and plans to comply with new BTA determinationretirement trends regulations in 2014*Treatment of retired or mothballed units for purposes of RNA modeling: Any generating units that,pursuant to the PSC Orders in Case 05-E-0889, have provided a notice of Retirement, Mothball, etc., bythe study lock-down date, were assumed not to be available for the RNA study period.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-4 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesD-1.2 Assumption Matrix for Transmission Security AssessmentParameter,-' Md e, ing'Asu m...onsSr q e "Peak Load NYCA baseline coincident summer peak 2014 Gold BookforecastConEd: voltage varyingLoad model 2014 FERC 715 filingRest of NYCA: constant powerSystem Per updates received through Databank NYISO RAD Manual, 2014 FERC 715representation process (Subject to RNA base case filinginclusion rules)Inter-area Consistent with ERAG MMWGinterchange interchange schedule 2014 FERC 715 filing, MMWGschedulesInter-area Consistent with applicable tariffs and 2014 FERC 715 filingcontrollable tie known firm contracts or rightsschedulesConsistent with ConEdison operating 2014 FERC 715 filing, ConEdIn-city series reactors protocol (All series reactors in-service protocolfor summer)SVCs, FACTS Set at zero pre-contingency; allowed to NYISO T&D Manualadjust post-contingencyTransformer & PAR Taps allowed to adjust pre-contingency; 2014 FERC 715 filingtaps fixed post-contingencySwitched shunts Allowed to adjust pre-contingency; 2014 FERC 715 filingfixed post-contingencyFault current analysis Per Fault Current Assessment Guideline NYISO Fault Current Assessmentsettings GuidelinePower flow: PSS/E v32.2.1, PSS/MUSTv11.0, TARA v735Model Version Dynamics: PSS/E v32.2.1Short Circuit: ASPEN v12.2NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-5 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesD-2 RNA Power Flow Base Case Development and Thermal Transfer Limit ResultsD- 2.1 Development of RNA Power Flow Base CasesThe base cases used in analyzing the performance of the transmission systemwere developed from the 2014 FERC 715 filing power flow case library. The loadrepresentation in the power flow model is the summer peak load forecast reported inthe 2014 Gold Book Table 1-2a baseline forecast of coincident peak demand. Thesystem representation for the NPCC Areas in the base cases is from the 2013 Base CaseDevelopment (BCD) libraries compiled by the NPCC SS-37 Base Case Developmentworking group. The PJM system representation was derived from the PJM RegionalTransmission Expansion Plan (RTEP) planning process models. The remaining modelsare from the Eastern Interconnection Reliability Assessment Group (ERAG) MultiregionalModeling Working Group (MMWG) 2013 power flow model library.The 2014 RNA base case model of the New York system representation includesthe following new and proposed facilities:1. TO LTPs for non-bulk transmission facilities and NYPA transmission plans for non-bulk power facilities which are reported to the NYISO as firm transmission planswill be included,2. TO bulk power system projects not in-service or under construction will beincluded if:a. the project is the regulated solution triggered in a prior year, orb. the project is required in connection with any projects and plans that areincluded in the Study Period base case, orc. the project is part of a TO LTP or the NYPA transmission plan, and reported tothe NYISO as a firm transmission plan(s), and is expected to be in service within3 years, and has an approved SRIS or an approved SIS (as applicable), and hasreceived NYPSC certification (or other required regulatory approvals andreviews).3. Other projects that are in-service or under construction will be included,4. Other projects not already in-service or under construction will be included andmodeled at the contracted-for capacity if they have:a. an approved SRIS or an approved SIS (as applicable), andb. a NYPSC certificate, or other required regulatory approvals and complete reviewunder the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") where the NYPSCsiting process is not applicable, andc. an executed contract with a credit worthy entity for at least half of the projectcapacity.The RNA base case does not include all projects currently listed on the NYISO'sinterconnection queue or those shown in the 2014 Gold Book. It includes only thosewhich meet the screening requirements for inclusion. The firm transmission plansincluded in 2014 RNA base case are included in Table D-1 below.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-6 DRAFT -For Discussion PurposesTable D-1: Firm Transmission Plans included in 2014 RNA Base CaseI ExpectedLine In-Service Nominal Voltage Thermal Ratings Project Description / Class Year /Transmission Length Date/Yr in kV # of Conductor Size Type ofOn ConstructionOwner Terminals in Miles Prior to Year Operating Design ckts Summer WinterCHGECHGECHGECHGECHGECHGECHGECHGECHGECHGEConEdConEdConEdConEdConEdConEdConEdConEdConEdConEdLIPALIPANGRIDNGRIDNGRIDNGRIDNGRIDNCRIDNGRIDNGRIDNGRIDNGRIDNGRIDNGRIDNorth CatskillPleasant ValleyTodd HillHurley AveSaugertiesSt. PoolHigh FallsKerhonksonModenaGalevilleDunwoodie SouthDunwoodie SouthGoethalsRock TavernGoethalsGowanusGoethalsGoethalsGoethalsGreenwoodHoltsville DRSSRandall AveDunkirkRomePorterHomer CityHomer CityFeura BushTodd HillFishkill PlainsSaugertiesNorth CatskillHigh FallsKerhonksonHonk FailsGalevilleKerhonksonDunwoodie SouthDunwoodie SouthGoethalsSugarloafGowanusFarragutUnden Co-GenLinden Co-GenLinden Co-GenGreenwoodWest BusWildwoodDunkirkRomePorterStolle RoadFive Mile Rd (New Station)Series Reactor S 2014 1155.53 W 2015 1155.23 W 2015 11511.40 S 2020 11512.46 S 2020 1155.61 S 2020 11510.03 S 2020 1154.97 S 2020 1154.62 S 2020 1158.96 S 2020 115Phase shifter S 2014 138Phase shifter S 2014 138Reconfiguration S 2014 34513.70 S 2016 34512.95 S 2016 3454.05 S 2016 345-1,50 S 2016 3451.50 S 2016 3451.50 S 2016 345Reconfiguration S 2018 138N/A S 2014 138N/A S 2014 138Cap Bank W 2014 115W 2014 115W 2014 115-204.11 S 2015 345151.11 5 2015 34553.00 S 2015 345-65.69 S 2015 11558.30 S 2015 1151151151151151151151151151151151381383453453453453453453451381381381151151153453453451151151 1280 15601 1280 15631 1280 15631 1114 13591 1114 13591 1114 .13591 1114 13592 1114 13591 1114 13591 1114 13592 Nominal 132 MVA1 Nominal 300 MVAN/A N/A1 1811 MVA 1918 MVA2 632 MVA 679MVA2 800MVA 844MVA1 2504 25041 1252 12521 1252 1252N/A N/A-150 MVAR 150 MVAR-150 MVAR 150 MVAR1 67 MVAR 67 MVAR-N/A N/AN/A N/A1 1013 12001 1013 12001 1013 12002 584 7082 129MVA 156MVA-478MVA 590MVA2 129MVA 156MVA1 478MVA 590MVA1 1105 1284Reactor impedance increase from 12% to 16%Rebuild line with 1033 ACSRRebuild line with 1033 ACSR1-795 ACSR1-795 ACSR1-795 ACSR1-795 ACSR1-795 ACSR1-795 ACSR1-795 ACSRPAR RetirementPAR ReplacementReconfiguration2-1590 ACSRAdditional CoolingAdditional CoolingFeeder SeperationFeeder SeperationFeeder SeperationReconfigurationDynamic Reactive Support System (DRSS)Dynamic Reactive Support System (DRSS)Capacitor Bank 2 -33.3 MVARStation RebuildRebuild 115kV StationNew Five Mile substationNew Five Mile substationNew Five Mile substationNew Five Mile substationNew Five Mile substationNew Five Mile substationNew Five Mile substationReplace Transformer795 ACSROHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHUGUGUGUGUGOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHFive Mile Rd (New Station) Stolle RoadGardenville Homer HillGardenvilie Five Mile Rd (New Station)Five Mile Rd (New Station) Five Mile Rd (New Station)Five Mile Rd (New Station) Homer HillClay ClayRotterdam Bear Swampxfmr8.00xfmr-43.64S 2015 345/115 345/115S 2015 115 115S 2015 345/115 345/115S 2015 230 230NGRID RotterdamNGRID Eastover Road (New Station)Eastover Road (New Station) 23.20Bear Swamp 21.88S 2015 230 230 1S 2015 230 230 11114 1284 Rotterdam-Bear Swamp #E205 Loop (0.8 miles new)1105 1347 Rotterdam-Bear Swamp #E205 Loop (0.8 miles new)NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-7 0DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesExpectedUne In-Service Nominal Voltage Thermal Ratings Project Description/ Class Year/Transmission Length Date/Yr in kV # of Conductor Size Type ofI ConstructionOwner Terminals in Miles Prior to Year Operating Design ckts Summer WinterNGRID Eastover Road (New Station) Eastover Road (New Station) Xfmr S 2015 230/115 230/115 1 345MVA 406MVA TransformerNGRIDLuther ForestNGRID Luther ForestNGRID Eastover Road (New Station)NGRID BattenkillNGRID BattenkillNGRID Eastover Road (New Station)NGRID/NYSE Homer CityNGRID/NYSE Homer CityNGRID/NYSE Farmers ValleyNGRID ClayNGRID ClayNYPA MosesNYPA MosesNYPA MosesNYPA MosesNYPA MosesNYPA MarcyNYPA EdicNYPA FraserNYPA NiagaraNYPA NiagaraNYPA Station 255 (New Station)NYPA Dysinger TapNYPA Dysinger TapNYPA Station 255 (New Station)NYSEG MeyerNYSEG Wood StreetNYSEG Ashley RoadNYSEG Big TreeNYSEG Cooaers CornersNorth Troy -18.30 S 2015Eastover Road (New Station) 17.50 S 2015North Troy 2.60 S 2015North Troy -22.39 S 2015Eastover Road (New Station) 21.59 S 2015North Troy 2.60 S 2015Five Mile Rd (New Station) -151.11 S 2016Farmers Valley 120.00 S 2016Five Mile Rd (New Station) 31.00 S 2016Dewitt 10.24 W 2017Teall 12.75 W 2017Willis -37.11 S 2014Willis 37.11 S 2014Willis 37.11 S 2014Moses Cap Bank W 2014Moses Cap Bank W 2015Coopers Corners Series Comp 5 2016Fraser Series Comp 5 2016Coopers Corners Series Camp 5 2016Rochester -70.20 W 2016Station 255 (New Station) 66.40 W 2016Rochester 3.80 W 2016Rochester -44.00 W 2016Station 255 (New Station) 40.20 W 2016Rochester 3.80 W 2016Meyer Cap Bank 5 2014Katonah 11.70 W 2014Ashley Road Cap Bank W 2014Big Tree Cap Bank W 2014Coopers Corners Shunt Reactor W 2014115115115115115115345345345115115230230230115115345345345345345345345345345115115115115345115 1 937 1141 1033.5 ACSR115 1 937 1141 Luther Forest-North Troy Loop (0.9 miles new)115 1 937 1141 Luther Forest-North Troy Loop (0.9 miles new)115 1 916 1118 605 ACSR115 1 937 1141 Battenkill-North Troy Loop (0.9 miles new)115 1 916 ills Battenkill-North Troy Loop (0.9 miles new)345 1 1013 1200 New Five Mile substation345 1 1013 1200 New Farmer Valley substation345 1 1013 1200 New Farmer Valley substation115 1 193MVA 245MVA Reconductor 4/0 CU to 795ACSR115 1 220 MVA 239MVA Reconductor 4/0 CU to 795ACSR230 2 876 1121 795 ACSR230 1 876 1121 795 ACSR230 1 876 1121 795 ACSR115 1 100 MVAR 100 MVAR Cap Bank Installation to Replace Moses Synchronous Condensers115 1 100 MVAR 100 MVAR Cap Bank Installation to Replace Moses Synchronous Condensers345 1 1776 MVA 1793 MVA Installation of Series Compensation on UCC2-41345 1 1793 MVA 1793 MVA Installation of Series Compensation on EF24-40345 1 1494 MVA 1793 MVA Installation of Series Compensation on FCC33345 1 2177 2662 2-795 ACSR345 1 2177 2662 2-795 ACSR345 1 2177 2662 2-795 ACSR345 1 2177 2662 2-795 ACSR345 1 2177 2662 2-795 ACSR345 1 2177 2662 2-795 ACSR115 1 18 MVAR 18 MVAR Capacitor Bank Installation115 1 775 945 477 ACSR115 1 150 MVAR 150 MVAR Capacitor Bank (DOE)115 1 50 MVAR 50 MVAR Capacitor Bank (DOE)345 1 200 MVAR 200 MVAR Shunt Reactor InstallationNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGWatercure RoadGoudeyJennisonHomer CityWatercure RoadMainesburgWood StreetWatercure RoadAES WestoverAES OneontaWatercure RoadMainesburgHomer CityCarmelofmr W 2015 345/230 345/230 1 426 MVA 494 MVAreconfig W 2014 115 115 -N/A N/Areconfig W 2014 115 115 N/A N/A-177.00 S 2015 345 345 1 1549 155226.00 S 2015 345 345 1 1549 1552151.00 S 2015 345 345 1 1549 15521.34 W 2015 115 115 1 775 945Transformersubstation separationsubstation separation2156 ACR2156 ACR2156 ACR477 ACSRNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-8 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesI ExpectedLine In-Service Nominal Voltage Thermal Ratings Project Description / Class Year /ransmission Length Date/Yr in kV # of Conductor Size Type ofConstructionOwner Terminals in Miles Prior to Year Operating Design ckts Summer WinterNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGO&RO&RO&RO&RO&RO&RO&RO&RO&RO&RO&RO&RO&RRGERGERGERGERGERGERGERGERGERGERGERGERGERGERGERGECarmelFraserWood StreetElbridgeGardenvilleKlinekill TapStephentownColliersColliersCarmelRamapoNew HempsteadHartleySummit (RECO)RamapoSugarloafLittle TorO&R's Line 26BurnsHarings Corner (RECO)West Nyack (NY)RamapoMontvale (RECO)Station 69Station 67Station 251MortimerStation 251Station 23Station 23Station 42Station 168Station 262Station 33Station 262Station 255 (New Station)KatonahCoopers CornersWood StreetState StreetGardenvilleKlinekillStephentownColliersColliersCarmelSugarloafSugarloafSugarloafSterling ForestCorporate DriveTappan (NY)Harings Corner (RECO)SugarloafStation 69Station 418Station 251Station 251Station 33Station 23Station 23Station 23Station 168Station 262Station 262Station 23Rochester13.0421.80xfmr14.50xfmr<10xfmrxfmrxfmrxfmr16.00Cap BankCap BankCap Bank16.00xfmrCap Bankxfmr5.007.0017.00Cap BankCap Bank3.5xfmr10.98xfmrxsmrS 2016 115 115 1 1079 10795 2016 345 345 1 2500 3000S 2016 345/115 345/115 1 280 MVA 300 MVAW 2016 115 115 1 250 MVA 305 MVAS 2017 230/115 230/115 1 200 MVA 225 MVAW 2017 115 115 1 n=124MVA >=150MVAW 2017 115/34.5 115/34.5 1 37 MVA 44MVAW 2019 115/46 115/46 1 42MVA 55MVAW 2019 115/46 115/46 1 63MVA 75MVAW 2019 115/46 115/46 1 80MVA 96MVAS 2014 138 345 1 1089 1298S 2014 138 138 1 32MVAR 32MVARS 2014 69 69 1 32 MVAR 32 MVARW 2015 69 69 1 32MVAR 32MVARS 2016 345 345 1 3030 3210S 2016 345/138 345/138 1 400 MVA 400 MVAS 2016 138 138 1 32 MVAR 32 MVARS 2016 138/69 138/69 1 175 MVA 175 MVAS 2016 138 138 1 1980 2120S 2015 69 69 1 1096 1314W 2019 69 138 1 1604 1723W 2020 138 138 1 1980 2120S 2021 69 69 1 32MVAR 32MVARS 2014 115 115 1 20 MVAR 20MVARW 2014 115 115 1 1255 1255W 2014 115/34.5 115/34.5 2 30 MVA 33.8 MVAW 2014 115 115 2 1396 1707W 2014 115 115 2 1396 17075 2015 115/34.5 115/34.5 2 75 MVA 84 MVAS 2015 15/11.5/11 5/11.5/1, 2 75 MVA 64 MS/Aconvert 46kV to 115kVACCR 1742-19 ReconductorTransformer1033 ACSRTransformer477 ACSRTransformerTransformerTransformerTransformer2-1590 ACSRCapacitor bankCapacitor bankCapacitor bank2-1590 ACSRTransformerCapacitor bankTransformer1272 ACSSThree-way switch station795 ACSS1272 ACSSCapacitor bankCapacitor Bank (DOE)New 115kV LineTransformerNew 115kV LineNew 115kV LineTransformerTransformerPhase ShifterTransformerTransformerUnderground CableUnderground Cable2-795 ACSRTransformerNew 115kV LineNew 115kV LineOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHPhase Shifter 5 2015 115 115 1 253 MVA 285 MVAxfmr 5 2015 115/34.5 115/34.5 1 100 MVA 112 MVAxfmr S 2015 115/34.5 115/34.5 1 56 MVA 63 MVA2.97 W 2015 115 115 1 2008 24091.46 W 2015 115 115 1 2008 24093.80 W 2016 345 345 1 2177 2662xfmr W 2016 345/115 345/115 2 400 MVA 450 MVA9.60 W 2016 115 115 1 1506 180711.10 W 2016 115 115 1 1506 1807UGUGOHOHOH+UGStation 255 (New Station) Station 255 (New Station)Station 255 (New Station) Station 418Station 255 (New Station) Station 23NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-90 DRAFT -For Discussion PurposesD-2.2 Emergency Thermal Transfer Limit AnalysisThe NYISO performed analyses of the RNA base case to determine emergencythermal transfer limits for the key interfaces to be used in the MARS resource adequacyanalysis. Table D-1 reports the emergency thermal transfer limits for the RNA basesystem conditions:Table D-1: Emergency Thermal Transfer LimitsInterface 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Dysinger East 2200 1 2150 1 2100 1 2075 1 2050 1Volney East 5650 2 5650 2 5650 2 5650 2 5650 2Moses South 2650 3 2650 3 2650 3 2650 3 2650 3Central East MARS 4025 4 4500 5 4500 5 4500 5 4500 5F toG 3475 6 3475 6 3475 6 3475 6 3475 6UPNY-SENY MARS 5150 6 5600 6 5600 6 5600 6 5600 6Ito J (Dunwoodie South MARS) 4400 7 4400 7 4400 7 4400 7 4400 7i to K(Y49/Y50) 1290 8 1290 8 1290 8 1290 8 1290 8Limiting Facility Rating Contingency1 Huntley-Gardenville 230 kV (80) 755 Huntley-Gardenville 230 kV (79)2 Oakdale-Fraser 345kV 1380 Edic-Fraser 345kV3 Marcy 765/345 T2 transformer 1971 Marcy 765/345 TI transformer4 New Scotland-Leeds 345kV 1724 New Scotland-Leeds 345kV5 Porter-Rotterdam 230kV 560 Porter-Rotterdam 230kV6 Leeds-Pleasant Valley 345 kV 1725 Athens-Pleasant Valley 345 kV7 Mott Haven-Rainey 345 kV 786 Pre-disturbance8 Dunwoodie-Shore Rd 345 kV 653 Pre-disturbanceTable D-la: Dynamic Limit TablesOswego Complex Units*Year Interface All available any 1 out any 2 out any 3 out any 4 outCentral East MARS 3250 3200 3140 3035 29202015CE Group 4800 4725 4640 4485 4310Central East MARS 3100 3050 2990 2885 27702016-2024CE Group 5000 4925 4840 4685 4510* 9 Mile Point 1, 9 Mile Point 2, Fitzpatrick, Oswego 5, Oswego 6, Independence (Modeled as one unit inMARS)NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-10 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesHuntley/ Dunkirk UnitsYear Interface All available any I out any 2 out any 3 out 4 out2015 Dysinger East 2950 2650 2200 1575 950Zone AGroup 3450 2850 2300 1550 7752016 Dysinger East 2900 2600 2150 1525 900Zone AGroup 3425 2825 2275 1525 7502017 Dysinger East 2850 2550 2100 1475 850Zone AGroup 3400 2800 2250 1500 7252018 Dysinger East 2825 2525 2075 1450 825Zone AGroup 3375 2775 2225 1475 7002019 Dysinger East 2800 2500 2050 1425 800Zone AGroup 3350 2750 2200 1450 675* Huntley 67, Huntley 68, Dunkirk 3, Dunkirk 4Barrett Steam units (l and 2)Year Interface Both available Any 1 out Both outLI Sum 297 260 1442015-2024CE-LIPA (towards Zone J) 510 403 283Staten Island Units*AK 3 on, and anyone of AK 2,Linden Cogen 1or Linden Cogen Any 2 (or more)Year Interface All available 2 out AK3 out out2015 Dummy Zone J3 to J 200 500 700 815Staten Island Units*Year Interface All available Any out2016-2024 Dummy Zone J3 to 1 600 815* Arthur Kill 2, Arthur Kill 3, Linden Cogen (Modeled as 2 units in MARS)PSEG units*Year Interface All available any I out Any 2 out All out2015-2024 Dummy Zone J2 to J 1000 600 500 400PJM East to Dummy Zone J2 1000 600 500 4000* Hudson 2, Bergen 2 CC, Linden 2 CC (PJM)Northport UnitsYear Interface All available Any out2015-2024 Norwalk CT to K (NNC) 388 428NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-11 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesD-3 2014 RNA MARS Model Base Case DevelopmentThe system representation for PJM, Ontario, New England, and Hydro Quebecmodeled in the 2014 RNA base case was developed from the NPCC CP-8 2012 SummerAssessment. In order to avoid overdependence on emergency assistance from theexternal areas, the emergency operating procedure data was removed from the modelfor each External Area. In addition, the capacity of the external areas was furthermodified such that the LOLE value of each Area was a minimum value of 0.10 andcapped at a value of 0.15 through the year 2024. The external area model was thenfrozen for the remaining study years (2015 -2024). Because the load forecast in theNYCA continues to increase for the years 2015 -2024, the LOLE for each of the externalareas can experience increases despite the freeze of external loads and capacity.The topology used in the MARS model is represented in Figures D-1 and D-2 forthe year 2015, and Figures D-3 and D-4 for the year 2016. The internal transfer limitsmodeled are the summer emergency ratings derived from the RNA Power Flow casesdiscussed above. The external transfer limits are developed from the NPCC CP-8Summer Assessment MARS database with changes based upon the RNA base caseassumptions.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-12 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesFigure D-1: MARS Topology for Year 2015NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-13 0DRAFT -For Discussion PurposesJoint interface to monitorflow balan'e(PJM East to RECO) + (PJM East to J2) + (PJM East to J3) + (PJM East to J4) = 3075 MWFigure D-2: PJM-SENY MARS Topology for Year 2015NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-14 DRAFT- For Discussion Purposesw-NYCA zonal interfaces '1,500 Dynam ic internal tansfer liNYCA zonal connections 1,500 NYCA internal transfer limitsExternalconneclions 1o External tansfer limitsStandard Grouping NYCA zone*** Grouping used formonitoring "Dummy"zoneforanalysisFigure D-3: MARS Topology for Year 2016NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-15 oDRAFT -For Discussion PurposesJoint interface to monitorflow balahice(PJM East to RECO) + (PJM East to J2) + (PJM East to J3) + (PJM East to J4) = 3075 MWFigure D-4: PJM-SENY MARS Topology for Year 2016NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-16 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesD-4 Short Circuit AssessmentTable D-2 provides the results of NYISO's short circuit screening test. Individual breakerassessment (IBA) is required for any breakers whose rating is exceeded by the maximumfault current. Either NYISO or the Transmission Owner may complete the IBA.Table D-2: 2014 RNA Fault Current Analysis Summary TableNominal Lowest Rated 2014 RNA IBA Breaker(s)TO MaximumName kV Circuit Breaker nub Bus Fault Required OverdutiedAcademyAdirondackAES SomersetAlpsAstoria EastAstoria WestAstoria AnnexAthensBarrettBowline 2Bowline 1BrookhavenBuchanan N.Buchanan S.BuchananStony CreekCanandaiaguaChases LakeClarks CornersClayClayCoopers CornersCoronaDewittDuleyDunwoodie No.Dunwoodie So.DunkirkDunwoodieEast 13thEast 179th3452303453451381383453451383453451383453451382302302303451153453451383452301381382303451381386325324063456350.257.84040376340404040404046.749326340404040296363632 32.65 9.64 17.95 17.52 52.22 46.62 47.45 33.93 49.36 27.66 27.83 27.12 29.72 392 15.94 9.54 6.55 9.14 11.75 365 32.84 17.22 52.55 18.97 7.42 34.52 30.75 9.92 50.62 482 48.6NNNNNNNNNNNNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-17 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesSubstation Nominal Lowest Rated 2014 RNA IBA Breaker(s)TO MaximumName kV Circuit Breaker number Bus Fault Required OverdutiedEast 75 STEast FishkillE RiverEastviewEdicEast Garden CityEast Garden CityElbridgeELWOOD 1ELWOOD 2FarragutFitzpatrickFox HillsFresh KillsFresh KillsFraserFreeportGardenvilleGilboaGoethalsGowanusGreenlawnGreenwoodHaupagueHellgateHigh SheldonHillsideHolbrookHoltsgtHudson EHuntleyHurley AvenueIndependenceJamaicaLadentownLafayetteLeedsLake SuccessMarcyMarcy138345691383453451383451381383453451383451383451382303453453451381381381382302301381381382303453451383453453451383457656350506341.663804056.656.6633740634029.66331.2406363636363634028.652.2636330.530.444.563634037.757.863632 9.12 38.92 502 36.95 32.77 25.43 70.55 163 38.53 38.22 61.87 41.42 33.72 36.12 27.14 19.23 35.95 21.67 252 29.52 28.33 29.22 49.83 22.52 42.84 10.54 13.23 493 45.42 39.45 26.69 17.15 38.42 49.26 40.45 17.85 34.53 38.77 31.97 9.8NNNNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-18 DRAFT -For Discussion PurposesSubstation Nominal Lowest Rated 2014 RNA IBA Breaker(s)TO MaximumName kV Circuit Breaker number Bus Fault Required OverdutiedMassenaMeyerMiddletown TapMillwoodMillwoodMott HavenNewbridge RoadNewbridge RoadNiagaraNiagara ENiagara WNine Mile Point 1NorthportNew Scotland 77BNew Scotland 99BOakdaleOakwoodOswegoPackardPatnodePilgrimPleasant ValleyPorterPorterPort JeffersonPleasantvilleQueensbridgeRaineyRamapoReynolds RoadRiverheadRobinson RoadRockTavernRosetonRotterdam 66HRotterdam 77HRotterdam 99HRulandRyanSouth Ripley7652303451383453451383453452302303451383453453451383452302301383451152301383451383453453451382303453452302302301382302306328.66340636380406363635056.241.532.929.657.844.348.663636341.118.46363636363406334.457.96339.423.623.46363407 7.94 7.17 18.62 19.42 44.82 51.33 69.43 8.67 33.87 56.87 56.85 43.43 60.85 315 314 12.83 28.35 32.45 43.77 9.43 60.22 40.45 41.35 19.63 32.72 222 44.82 58.42 455 14.83 19.14 14.49 31.49 35.45 13.35 13.25 13.33 45.97 10.65 9.6NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-19 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesSubstation Nominal Lowest Rated 2014 RNA IBA Breaker(s)ITO MaximumName kV Circuit Breaker number Bus Fault Required Overdutied!South Mahwah-A 345 40 6 35 IN NSouth Mahwah- B 345 ! 40 6 34.7 N NStation 80 345 32 8 17.7 N NStation 122 345 32 B 16.7 N NSpringbrookTR N7 138 63 2 26.9 N NSpringbrookTRS6 138 63 -i 2 29.1 N NScriba 345 -55.3 5 46.8 N NSherman Creek 138 63 45.5 N NShore Road 345j 63 3 I3278 N NShore Road1 138 57.8 3 48.2 N N3 N NShorehaml 138 52.2 3 28.2 N NSprain Brook 345 63 2 51.9 N NSt. Lawrence 230 37 .L 33.7 N NStolle Road 345 32 4 14.2 N NStolle Road 230 28.6 4 5.1 N NStoneyridge 230 40 4 7.1 IN NSyosset 138 38.9 3 34.3 N NTremontl 138 63 { N N132 42.7Tremont2 138 63 2 42.6 N NMotthaven 138 50 2 13.4 N NVernon East 138 63 2 44.3 N NVernon West 138 63 2 34.9 N NValley Stream 138 63 3 53.7 N NVolney 345 45.1 5 36.5 N NWest 49th Street 345 63 .2 52.7 N NWadngrvl 138 56.4 3 26.1 N NWatercure 230 26.4 4 13.2 N NWatercure 345 29.6 NWeathersfield 230 40 4 9.1 N NWildwood 138 63 3 28.2 N NWillis 230 37 7 I 12.7 N [ NNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-20 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesTables D-3 provides the results of NYISO's IBA for Fitzpatrick 345kV, Porter 230 kV,Astoria West 138 kV, Porter 115 kV, and Northport 138 kV.Table D-3: NYISO IBA for 2014 RNA StudyFitzpatrick 345 kVCircuit Breaker Rating 3LG 2LG I LG I Overdut,10042 37 kA 32.4 34.5 34.1 NAstoria W. 138 kVCircuit Breaker Rating 3LG 2LG 1LG Overdut,GIN 45 38.9 42.38 44.15 NG2N 45 38.9 42.38 44.15 NNorthport 138 kVCircuit Breaker Rating 3LG 2LG 1LG Overdutb1310 56.2 52.02 52.5 50.98 N1320 56.2 52.04 52.08 50.96 N1450 56.2 49.01 50.83 51.82 N1460 56.2 26.97 29.38 30.86 N1470 56.2 31.94 32.43 32.67 NEast River 69 kVCircuit Breaker Rating 3LG 2LG 1LG Overdut53 50 42.8 44.9 46.1 N63 50 44.9 44.8 46.1 N73 50 42.7 44.9 46.1 N83 50 42.8 45.5 47.1 NGGT-2 50 39.7 41.6 42.8 NGen6 50 39.5 42.2 43.8 NNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-21 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesPorter 115 kVBREAKER DUTY P DUTYA BKRCAPA OVERDUTYRiO LN1 102.1 43911.4 43000 YR100 TB3 85.1 36595.3 43000 NR130 LN13 103 44307.7 43000 YR20LN2 102.1 43910.7 43000 YR200 TB4 82.2 35336.9 43000 NR30LN3 101.8 43753.4 43000 YR40LN4 101.7 43713.7 43000 YR50 LN5 101.7 43732.8 43000 YR60LN6 103.1 44312.4 43000 YR70LN7 101.1 43468.7 43000 YR80LN8 102 43874.6 43000 YR8105 BUSTLE 87.7 41846.5 47714.9 NR90LN9 103.1 44317.5 43000 YPorter 230 kVBREAKER DUTY P DUTY A BKR CAPA OVERDUTYRI1O B-11 109.1 26023.6 23857.4 YR120 B-12 109.1 26023.6 23857.4 YR15 B-TB1 109.1 26023.6 23857.4 YR170 B-17 109.1 26023.6 23857.4 YR25 B-TB2 109.1 26023.6 23857.4 YR300 B-30 54.2 21686.3 40000 NR310 B-31 54.2 21686.3 40000 NR320 B-30 109.1 26023.6 23857.4 YR825 31-TB2 104.2 24870.9 23857.4 YR835 12-TB1 105.1 25082.5 23857.4 YR845 11-17 104.1 24825.9 23857.4 YNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-22 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesD-5 Transmission Security Violations of the 2014 RNA Base CaseZone OwnerMonitored ElementNormal LTE STERating Rating Rating(MVA) (MVA) (MVA)First ContingencySecond ContingencyN.Grid Packard-Huntley (#77) 230 (Packard-Sawyer)N.Grid Packard-Huntley (#78) 230 (Packard-Sawyer)N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#79) 230 (Huntley-Sawyer)N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 (Huntley-Sawyer)N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 (Huntley-Sawyer)N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 (Huntley-Sawyer)N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 (Huntley-Sawyer)N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 (Huntley-Sawyer)N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 (Huntley-Sawyer)N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 (Huntley-Sawyer)N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 (Huntley-Sawyer)N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 (Huntley-Sawyer)N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 (Huntley-Sawyer)RGE Pannell 345/115 1TRRGE Pannell 345/115 1TRRGE Pannell 345/115 1TRRGE Pannell 345/115 2TRRGE Pannell 345/115 2TRRGE Pannell 345/115 2TRRGE Pannell 345/115 2TRRGE Pannell-Quaker (#914) 115RGE Pannell-Quaker (#914) 115RGE Pannell-Quaker (#914) 115N.Grid Clay 345/115 1TRN.Grid Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd)N.Grid Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd)N.Grid Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd)N.Grid Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd)N.Grid Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd)N.Grid Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd)N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115556556566566566566566566566566566566566228228228228228228228207.1207.1207.1478116116116116116116116116116116644 704644 746654 755654 755654 755654 755654 755654 755654 755654 755654 755654 755654 755282 336282 336282 336282 336282 336282 336282 336246.9 284.8246.9 284.8246.9 284.8637 794120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145HUNTLEY -PACKARD 78 230HUNTLEY -PACKARD 77 230HUNTLEY -GARDENVILL 80 230HUNTLEY -GARDENVILL 79 230ROBINSON -STOLLRD 65 230NIAGARA -ROBINSON 64 345LEEDS -HURLEY 301 345ATHENS -PV 91 345HQ-NY 765LEEDS -PV 92 345OS -EL -LFYTE 17 345NIAGARA -ROBINSON 64 345ROBINSON -STOLLRD 65 230GEN:GINNAGEN:GINNAGEN:GINNAGEN:GINNAGEN:GINNAGEN:GINNAGEN:GINNAGEN:GINNAGEN:GINNAGEN:GINNAOS -EL -LFYTE 17 345CLAY -DEW 13 345OS -EL -LFYTE 17 345CLAY -DEW 13 345CLAY -DEW 13 345CLAY -DEW 13 345OS -EL -LFYTE 17 345SB:OSWER985SB:LAFA_ELBB:ELBRIDGEOS -EL -LFYTE 17 345SB:ROB1230SB:ROB1230SB:ROB1230SB:ROB1230HUNTLEY -GARDENVILL 79 230HUNTLEY -GARDENVILL 79 230HUNTLEY -GARDENVILL 79 230HUNTLEY -GARDENVILL 79 230HUNTLEY -GARDENVILL 79 230HUNTLEY -GARDENVILL 79 230HUNTLEY -GARDENVILL 79 230T:78&79T:78&79SB:PANN34S_1X12282SB:ROCH_2T8082PANL 345/115 2TRSB:PANN345_3T12282SB:ROCH_2T8082PANL 345/115 1TRSB:PANN34S53802PANL 345/115 3TRSB:PANN345_1X12282SB:PANN34S_3T12282SB:CLAY345_R130SB:OSWE_R985CLAY -DEW 13 345T:17&11B:ELBRIDGEOS -EL -LFYTE 17 345SB:CLAY345_R925N/AN/AN/AN/A2015 2019 2024Flow Flow Flow(%) (%) (%)100.75100.73101.54101.06 102.72100.47 106.6S -106.54103.79103.33103.32103.32102.82102.79102.56131.56103.97103.84131.56103.97103.84103.54120.41100.73100.73111.53 118.77104.57104.06102.89102.87102.87102.71121.61 135.18 139.48121.51 133.23 139.79105.72 119.2 122.53105.72 119.2 122.53NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment0D-23 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesZone OwnerMonitored ElementNormal LTE STERating Rating Rating(MVA) (MVA) (MVA)N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Teall (#10) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd-Pine Grove)N.Grid Clay-Teall (#10) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd-Pine Grove)N.Grid Clay-Teall (#10) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd-Pine Grove)N.Grid Clay-Teall (#10) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd-Pine Grove)N.Grid Clay-Teall (#10) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd-Pine Grove)N.Grid Clay-Teall (#10) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd-Pine Grove)N.Grid Clay-Teall (#10) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd-Pine Grove)N.Grid Clay-Teall (#10) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd-Pine Grove)N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 (Euclid-Woodward)N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 (Euclid-Woodward)N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 (Euclid-Woodward)N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 (Euclid-Woodward)N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 (Euclid-Woodward)N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 (Euclid-Woodward)N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 (Euclid-Woodward)N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 (Euclid-Woodward)N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 (Euclid-Woodward)N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 (Euclid-Woodward)N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 (Euclid-Woodward)N.Grid S. Oswego-Clay (#4) 115 (S. Oswego-Whitaker)N.Grid S. Oswego-Clay (#4) 115 (S. Oswego-Whitaker)N.Grid S. Oswego-Clay (#4) 115 (S. Oswego-Whitaker)N.Grid S. Oswego-Clay (#4) 115 (S. Oswego-Whitaker)N.Grid S. Oswego-Clay (#4) 115 (S. Oswego-Whitaker)116116116116116116116116116116116116116116116116116116116116116116174174174174174174174174174174174104104104104104120120120120120120120120120120120120120120120120120120120120120120174174174174174174174174174174174104104104104104145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145174174174174174174174174174174174104104104104104First ContingencyELBRIDGE 345/115 1TRT:17&11ELBRIDGE 345/115 1TROS -EL -LFYTE 17 345CLAY -WOOD 17 115CLAY -WOOD 17 115IFYTE -CLARKCRNS 36A 345ELBRIDGE 345/115 1TROS -EL -LFYTE 17 345CLAY -WOOD 17 115CLAY -WOOD 17 115ELBRIDGE 345/115 1TRELBRIDGE 345/115 1TRHUNTLEY -GARDEN VILL 79 230CLAY -TEAL 11 115CLAY -TEAL 11 115CLAY -TEAL 11 115DEWITT 345/115 2TRDEWITT 345/115 2TRDEWITT 345/115 2TRCLAY -TEAL 11 115CLAY -DEW 13 345SB:LAFAELBCLAY -LM 14 115CLAY -LM 14 115GEN:GINNANIAGARA -ROBINSON 64 345EDIC -FRASER 345 SCROBINSON -STOLLRD 65 230HUNTLEY -GARDENVILL 79 230OS -EL -LFYTE 17 345PANL -CLAY PC-1 345PANL -CLAY PC-2 345CLAY 345/115 1TROSW -VOL 12 345CLAY 345/115 2TRCLAY 345/115 1TRCLAY 345/115 2TRSecond ContingencyN/AN/ABase CaseBase CaseSB:LAFA_ELBSB:OSWE_R985SB:OSWE_R985SB:CLAY115_R845SB:CLAY115_R845B:ELBRIDGEOS -EL -LFYTE 17 345CLAY -WOOD 17 115S:CLAY115_WOOD_17SB:OSWE_R985SB:DEW1345_R220SB:DEWI345R915SB:DEW1345_R130SB:CLAY115_R855CLAY -TEAL 11 115S:CLAY115_TEAL_11DEWITT 345/115 2TRSB:OSWE_R985N/ASB:LAFA_ELBSB:OSWE_R985SB:LAFA_ELBSB:LAFA_ELBSB:LAFA_ELBSB:LAFAELBSB:LAFA_ELBSB:CLAY115_R865SB:LAFA_ELBSB:LAFA_ELBSB:CLAY345_R130T:17&11SB:CLAY345_R35SB:CLAY345_R60SB:CLAY345_R2602015 2019 2024Flow Flow FlowN%) (%) (%)105.3 118.66 121.9104.98 118.4 121.43-119.63 122.96-119.14 120.84137.49 169.93 180.03136.45 169.38 176.78127.59 149.95 158.11123.88 155.12 159.98121.84 154.98 157.7119.37 151.94 157.77119.37 151.94 157.77118.63 148.2 153.03118.63 148.2 153.03118.51 142.91 143.55109.2 -109.18109.17107.41106.88106.88105.34103.87--105.15119.2 126.66113.05 118.41110.13 111.87108.52 108.45107.88 112.72107.67 107.96106.9 108.4106.49 108.46106.18 112.4106.17 112.45109.56 112.9S -107.75100.01 103.54S -102.35S -102NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-24 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesZone OwnerC N.GridC N.GridC N.GridC NGridC N.GridC N.GridC N.GridE N.GridE N.GridE N.GridE N.GridE N.GridE N.GridE N.GridE N.GridE N.GridE N.GridE N.GridE N.GridF N.GridE N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridMonitored ElementS. Oswego-Clay (#4) 115 (S. Oswego-Whitaker)S. Oswego-Clay (#4) 115 (S. Oswego-Whitaker)S. Oswego-Clay (#4) 115 (S. Oswego-Whitaker)Oakdale 345/115 2TROakdale 345/115 2TROakdale 345/115 2TROakdale 345/115 3TRPorter-Oneida (#7) 115 (Porter-W. Utica)Porter-Oneida (#7) 115 (Porter-W. Utica)Porter-Oneida (#7) 115 (Porter-W. Utica)Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 (Porter-Kelsey)Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 (Porter-Kelsey)Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 (Porter-Kelsey)Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 (Porter-Kelsey)Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 (Porter-Kelsey)Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 (Porter-Kelsey)Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 (Porter-Kelsey)Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 (Porter-Kelsey)Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 (Porter-Kelsey)New Scotland 345/115 1TRPorter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 (Porter-Kelsey)New Scotland 345/115 1TRNew Scotland 345/115 1TRNew Scotland 345/115 1TRNew Scotland 345/115 ITRNew Scotland 345/115 ITRNew Scotland 345/115 1TRReynolds 345/115Reynolds 345/115Reynolds 345/115Reynolds 345/115Reynolds 345/115Reynolds 345/115Reynolds 345/115Rotterdam 230/115 7TRRotterdam 230/115 7TRRotterdam 230/115 7TRNormal LTE STERating Rating Rating(MVA) (MVA) (MVA)104104104428428428428116116116116116116116116116116116116458116458458458458458458459459459459459459459300300300104 104104 104104 104556 600556 600556 600556 600120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145570 731120 145570 731570 731570 731570 731570 731570 731562 755562 755562 755562 755562 755562 755562 755355 402355 402355 402First ContingencyOS -EL -LFYTE 17 345CLAY 345/115 2TRCLAY 345/115 1TROKDLE 345/115 3TRFRASER 345/115 2TRWATERCURE 345/230 1TROKDLE 345/115 2TROS -EL -LFYTE 17 345CLAY -DEW 13 345PTR YAHN 115OS -EL -LFYTE 17 345CLAY -DEW 13 345CLAY 345/115 1TROS -EL -LFYTE 17 345CLAY 345/115 1TRCLAY 345/115 2TRCLAY -DEW 13 345CLAY -DEW 13 345CLAY -DEW 13 345GEN:BETHSTMPTR TRMNL 115GEN:BETHSTMGEN:BETHSTMN.SCOT77 345/115 2TRGEN:BETHSTMGEN:BETHSTMN.SCOT99 -LEEDS 94 345GEN:BETHSTMEASTOVER -BEARSWMP 230EASTOVER 230/115 1XTRGEN:BETHSTMN.SCOT77 345/115 2TRN.SCOT77 345/115 1TRLEEDS -HURLEY 301 345EASTOVER 230/115 1XTRROTTERDAM 230/115 1XTRROTTERDAM 230/115 3XTRSecond ContingencySB:CLAY345_R130SB:CLAY345_R80SB:CLAY345_R45Base CaseSB:OAKD345_31-B322SB:OAKD345_B3-3222Base CaseSB:CLAY345_R130SB:OSWER985SB:OSWER985SB:CLAY34S_R130SB:OSWE_R985SB:CLAY345_R130SB:CLAY345_R925SB:OSWE_R985SB:OSWE_R985B:ELBRIDGEOS -EL -LFYTE 17 345T:17&11Base CaseS:PTR11S_SCHLRB:N.S._77N.SCOT77 345/115 2TRG:BETHSTMS:Reynolds-Rey 345/115S:EMPIREB:N.S._77Base CaseG:BETHSTMGEN:BETHSTMN.SCOT77 345/115 1TRGEN:BETHSTMGEN:BETHSTMALPS -REYNOLDS 1 345SB:ROTT_230_R84ROTTERDAM 230/115 3XTRROTTERDAM 230/115 1XTR2015 2019 2024Flow Flow Flow(%) (%) (%)101100.96100.87102.85 103.75103.2 105.42102.88 ----102.22101.87 104.16S -104.73101.06 -106.37 117.17 118.53104.82 115.54 119.01100.43 113.63 113.46-108.25 108.91107.77 108.23107.53 108.02106.13 108.79106.13 108.79105.85 108.52S -106.05S -110.12110.56 115.54 146.76106 110.45 128.17108.85 125.99S -120.76119.66111.99107.06 108.49 127.15--126.12121.86120.57117.66115.31101.44123.31 112.59 122.44--116.41S -116.32NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-25 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesZone OwnerF-G N.GridF-G N.GridF-G N.GridF-G N.GridMonitored ElementAthens-Pleasant Valley (#91) 345Athens-Pleasant Valley (#91) 345Leeds-Pleasant Valley (#92) 345Leeds-Pleasant Valley (#92) 345Normal LTE STERating Rating Rating(MVA) (MVA) (MVA)1331 1538 17241331 1538 17241331 1538 17241331 1538 1724First ContingencyLEEDS -PV 92 345LEEDS -PV 92 345ATHENS -PV 91 345ATHENS -PV 91 345Second ContingencyT:41&33T:34&42T:41&33T:34&422015 2019 2024Flow Flow Flow(%N (%) (%N102.98100.74103.2100.94NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-26 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesZone OwnerF-G N.GridF-G N.GridF-G N.GridF-G N.GridMonitored ElementAthens-Pleasant Valley (#91) 345Athens-Pleasant Valley (#91) 345Leeds-Pleasant Valley (#92) 345Leeds-Pleasant Valley (#92) 345Normal LTE STERating Rating Rating(MVA) (MVA) (MVA)1331 1538 17241331 1538 17241331 1538 17241331 1538 1724First ContingencyLEEDS -PV 92 345LEEDS -PV 92 345ATHENS -PV 91 345ATHENS -PV 91 345Second ContingencyT:41&33T:34&42T:41&33T:34&422015 2019 2024Flow Flow Flow(%) (%) (%N102.98100.74103.2100.94NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-26
.1 Lbuited l tatts 1$n teWASHINGTON, DC 20510September 18, 2014
==Dear Reader:==
As colleagues on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, it is our privilege tohelp shape the focus and direction of the United States' energy policies. Through both rigorousanalysis and practical experience, we believe energy is good, and that access to affordable energyis essential.Among affordable energy's many benefits is the ability to heat our homes in winter, cool them insummer, and to accomplish with the flip of a switch tasks that took previous generations hours ofback-breaking labor. The modem conveniences associated with affordable energy have enabledAmericans to make more effective use of our most valuable commodity -our time. In turn, theyhave made our daily lives easier, to say nothing of the material comforts they provide and thehigh standard of living they enable. They have also freed us to pursue a variety of interests,including more formal education and careers.We have come a long way. But we must also recognize that affordable energy is hardlyguaranteed -and hardly universal. The lack of affordable energy disproportionally impactsminorities and the working poor, and many families feel the sting of high energy costs. Far toooften, residents from our home states of Alaska and South Carolina stop us on the street or writeletters detailing their heartbreaking struggle with rising energy prices.In Aniak, Alaska, a foster mother shared her bill for five gallons of stove oil. She simply couldnot afford to heat her home and provide other essentials for her children. Her receipt graphicallyillustrates her plight and resonates with us, as no parent should be forced to decide betweenhome heating and food for the family.A woman from McClellanville, South Carolina, recently explained how she diligently takesonline surveys to get an extra $25 for groceries -canned food and a small packet of meat -and isstill consistently a few hundred dollars short of making rent and paying utilities.We hear these stories from our home states every day, and even the national press, such as theLos Angeles Times, periodically tells their stories:"Holy Jiminy Christmas, what we're going through," said Dora Napoka, 49, the librarianat the village school [in Tuluksak, Alaska]. "It's like we have to choose between six gallons of stove oil or six gallons of gas to go out and get the firewood -or does my babyneed infant milk? Which one is more important?"Many of these troubling stories involve the elderly or disabled -those living on fixed incomeswho struggle over whether to spend their precious dollars on much-needed, quality of lifemedicine or increasing utility bills, like a woman from Columbia, South Carolina recentlyrevealed.These are just a small sampling of the real life, everyday pain that too many in our home statesand around the country are experiencing. Most are not looking for a handout, they're asking for ahand up -an opportunity to work hard, prosper, and change their life for the better. Yet even aslight increase in energy prices could be devastating to their future aspirations.Another tragic story caone from Lancaster, South Carolina where a woman agonizes overwanting nothing more than to have a good paying job to help pay the rent and power bills. Shehas to spend so much on her household utilities that she might soon be unable to keep hervehicle, which will make getting ajob that much more difficult.The Mayor of North Pole, Alaska, highlighted how affordable energy can impact a state'seconomy in a letter to the editor of the Anchorage Daily News:"If our residents can't spend extra money because every month, especially in the winter,they're scrimping just to pay for heating and lighting their homes, then many of ourbusinesses will also be hurting for lack of sales [...] If a store cuts back or goes out ofbusiness, then people are out of work, making it even more difficult for them to pay foressential heat and electricity, and that exacerbates the economic downturn!"These real-life stories and experiences -along with many others not listed here -compelled us towork together to devise a method to measure the extent of this problem. We are pleased to offerin this paper several new tools, the Indicators of Energy Insecurity (IEIs), which can be used toquantify certain effects of rising household energy costs. As we seek to understand theconsequences of higher energy costs, the JEls will enable us to estimate how many families arepushed below the poverty line, how many lose a significant portion of their spendable budget,and how many are forced to spend more than 10 percent of their income on home energy.It is important to remember that the individuals and families facing these circumstances becauseof energy costs are more than just numbers on a chart. These are people: our friends, ourneighbors, our coworkers, and our fellow citizens. It should be our goal to keep energyaffordable, and ensure that they never face the harsh choice between paying for householdenergy or other basic necessities.
We hope this paper will initiate a new discussion about American energy insecurity and thedangers associated with rising household energy costs. We welcome your engagement on thisimportant issue, and look forward to a renewed effort to ensure that the benefits of affordableenergy flow to more -and ultimately all -Americans.Sincerely,Lisa MurkowskiUnited States SenatorTim ScottUnited States Senator PLENTY AT STAKE:INDICATORS Or AMERICAN ENERGY INSECURITYSummary" A foundational pillar of our American way of life is access to affordable energy. Todaynearly all Americans can obtain electricity, home heating and cooling, cooking fuels,refrigeration, potable water, and communications connectivity. The domestic productionand availability of natural gas, oil, nuclear power, coal, hydropower, wind, solar, andother renewables provides Americans with energy security, the access to uninterruptableenergy sources at an affordable price.* However, too many Americans suffer from energy insecurity; they cannot afford theenergy required to heat or cool their homes or secure other basic needs such asrefrigeration. These Americans are still too often faced with harsh choices betweenpaying for energy and paying for food, medical care, and other necessities." The Indicators of Energy Insecurity (IEIs) described in this paper are intended to enablepolicyrnakers to consider, in quantitative terms, how a specific action will affectAmericans living in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and thus provide a newway to evaluate public policies and other events that impact energy prices. When energyprices rise, the lEls can be used to quantify:o The number of households that experience a significant decrease in spendablebudget;o The number of households pushed below the poverty line; ando The average household energy burden, expressed as a percentage of average grossincome.* The JEls illuminate a critical goal -affordability- that must be incorporated in ournation's energy policies.* Some of the critical findings of this initial use of the IEls on approximately 1.35 millionU.S. Census Bureau records are that a 10 percent increase in household energy costsleads to approximately:o 840,000 people across the U.S. being pushed into poverty;o 7 million additional people across the U.S. spending over 10 percent of their grosshousehold income on home energy; ando 65 percent of all families spending additional money on home energy that couldbe used to buy between one and three weeks' worth of groceries.A 10 percent increase in energy costs is certainly possible, as evidenced by a 110 percentincrease in electricity prices in Australia in recent years and a 15 percent increase inelectricity prices in Germany from early 2011 to early 2013. Additionally, Fairbanks,Alaska, experienced a 66 percent increase in heating oil costs over the past seven years.* Poorer households are naturally more sensitive to increases in energy costs and are at fargreater risk of energy insecurity.I PLENTY AT STAKE:INDICATORS OF AMERICAN ENERGY INSECURITYThe American quality of life continues to be the envy of nations around the world. While manydifferent factors contribute to it, a foundational pillar is our access to affordable energy. Todaynearly all Americans can obtain electricity, home heating and cooling, clean cooking fuels,refrigeration, potable water, and communications connectivity. All of these services in turn relyon basic energy resources such as natural gas, oil, nuclear power, coal, hydropower, wind, solar,and other renewables. The domestic availability and production of those resources providesAmericans with energy security, the access to uninterruptable energy sources at an affordableprice. 1Even in the land of energy plenty, however, too many Americans suffer from energy insecurity;they cannot afford the energy required to heat or cool their homes or secure other basic needssuch as refrigeration. These Americans, while not suffering from extreme "energy poverty,"2 arestill too often faced with harsh choices between paying for energy and paying for food, medicalcare, and other basic needs. Their plight forces us to confront two important questions: What isthe social cost of increased energy prices? And, conversely, what is the social benefit of lowerenergy prices?This paper addresses those questions and provides three ways of quantifying the impacts ofrising energy costs on American households and families. When energy prices rise, theIndicators of Energy Insecurity (1Els) introduced here can be used to quantify:I. The number of households that experience a significant decrease in spendable budget;2. The number of households pushed below the poverty line; and3. The average household energy burden, expressed as a percentage of average grossincome.international Energy Agency and Energy Security as a Grand Strategy (Report from the Energy Security as aGrand Strategy Workshop, May 7-8, 2012. Editors Pamela i. Sydelko, Sheila R. Ronis, and Leah B. Guzowski.Published by Argonne National Laboratory, May 2013).Although this paper focuses on American energy insecurity, global energy poverty is a more severe and even morechallenging problem. Defined as a lack of access to electricity and clean cooking fuels by the International EnergyAgency (hltp://www.iea.org/topicslenergypoverty/), global energy poverty impacts more than one billion peoplearound the world. It is associated with a dramatically lower quality of life than we are fortunate to enjoy inAmerica, as those without reliable access to energy face heightened risks of disease, malnourishment, and prematuredeath. The lack of access to energy also inhibits economic growth. It bears noting, in the context of this paper, thatmany of the federal policies that are relevant for addressing energy poverty are complementary to those associatedwith energy insecurity. Increasing domestic production of hydrocarbons, for example, and encouraging energyexports to help other nations can not only help moderate if not push down energy prices at home, but also reduce theU.S. trade deficit and create domestic jobs, all of which ameliorate the challenges of energy insecurity.2 The IEls are intended to enable policymakers to see clearly, in quantitative terms, how a specificaction will affect Americans living in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and thus providea new way to evaluate public policies and other events that impact energy prices. The IEIsillustrate real-world impacts that rising energy prices have on domestic households, includinghow many Americans will face energy insecurity or outright poverty. Fundamentally, the IEIsilluminate a critical goal -affordability -that must be incorporated in our nation's energypolicies.3Defining Enerev InsecurityA useful definition of energy insecurity comes not from American law, but from Great Britain'sWarm Homes and Energy Conservation Act. It defines energy insecurity to include both fuelpoverty, the inability to pay for the heating or cooling required to maintain a home at areasonable temperature,4 and the loss of access to electricity through cessation of service due tonon-payment or other factors.Energy insecurity causes stress for many Americans on a day-to-day basis and negativelyimpacts increasing portions of the population as energy prices rise. Energy price increases can ofcourse be deliberate, as a result of policies, or unexpected, such as those that resulted from addeddemand for heating during last winter's "polar vortex" events.5 Residential electricity prices forthe first half of 2014, a period impacted by the "polar vortex," had the highest year-over-yearincrease since 2009, with overall prices up 3.2 percent and New England's prices up 11.9percent.6Individuals and families experiencing energy insecurity commonly make sacrifices to reducetheir costs, such as: 7* Reducing other household spending by making trade-offs, which can include thediminished ability to buy food or to pay for medical care and education;" Increasing debt, which can include being late on payments to energy suppliers orincreased borrowing from other lenders;3 See, e.g., Energy 20/20: A Visionfor America's Energy Future, Senator Lisa Murkowski, February 4, 2013,http://www.energv.senate.gov!public/index.cfm/documents-republicans.4 Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act, http://www.legislation.gov.uklukpga/2000/3 l/section/l/enacted.5 Propane Supply, Energy Information Administration (ETA) Administrator Adam Sieminski, briefing to the U.S.Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, January 28, 2014.6 U.S. Energy Information Administration, August 2014 Electric Power Monthly.7 Wallace, A., A. Wright, and P. Fleming, Fuel poverty and household energy efficiency in England. Institute ofEnergy and Sustainable Development, De Montfort University, January 2008, and Urge-Vorsatz, D., and S.T.Herrero, Employment, energy security and fuel poverty implications of the large-scale, deep retrofitting of theHungarian building stock, Presented at TEA Fuel Poverty Workshop: Evaluating the Co-Benefits of Low-IncomeWeatherisation Programmes, Dublin, Ireland, January 2011.3
" Switching fuels to less expensive albeit less convenient and with greater emissionsoptions (e.g., from oil to firewood);" Maintaining low or high indoor temperatures when heating or cooling, respectively; and" Closing off rooms or sections of a residence to avoid heating or cooling those areas.The effects of these sacrifices are heightened odds of food insecurity, more frequent relocations,poorer health, decreased educational achievement, and reduced productivity.8Fairbanks, Alaska, is one example of a community that faces energy insecurity challenges.Located in the interior part of the State, its winter temperatures are extremely cold: the averagehigh temperature in January is just three degrees Fahrenheit, while the lowest winter temperatureever recorded is -66 degrees Fahrenheit (not including wind chill).9 Clearly, local residents'ability to heat their homes is critical. In recent years, however, the cost of heating oil inFairbanks has increased dramatically (66 percent between June 2007 and January 2014).10 Asprices have risen, the household energy burden of local residents has increased significantly. Tohelp lower their energy bills, more people have shifted to burning wood for space heating. Thishas impacted the population in several ways, all of which have had adverse effects on humanhealth. "While Alaska may appear to be a special case, home heating plays a significant role in energyconsumed throughout the United States: over 40 percent of total household energy consumptionis for space heating. Other household energy spending breaks down at about 35 percent forlighting, appliances, and electronics; 18 percent for water heating; and six percent for air* Cook, J., Frank, D., 2008, Food security, poverty, and human development in the United States, Annals of the NewYork Academy of Sciences 1136, 193-209.; Frank, D.A., Heat or Eat: Children's Health Watch, Presented at lEAFuel Poverty Workshop: Evaluating the Co-Benefits of Low-Income Weatherisation Programmes, Dublin, Ireland,January 2011; Boardman, B., Quality of life benefits (problems) that are hard to measure Presented at TEA FuelPoverty Workshop: Evaluating the Co-Benefits of Low-Income Weatherisation Programmes, Dublin, Ireland,January 2011; and Home Energy Affordability Gap: 2011, Connecticut Legislative Districts, Prepared for OperationFuel, Bloomfield, Connecticut, by Colton, R.D. of Fisher, Sheehan & Colton, Belmont, Massachusetts, December2011.9 htto://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/`grRh/USAKO083.'0 Calculated from heating oil number one prices obtained from the Alaska Fuel Price Report: Current CommunityConditions January 2014, published by the State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and EconomicDevelopment, Division of Community and Regional Affairs and Current Community Conditions: Fuel Prices AcrossAlaska, June 2007 Update, published by the State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and EconomicDevelopment Division of Community Advocacy, Research and Analysis Section.11 Switching to firewood also increased the time required to heat homes (wood collection, preparation, etc.), and ledto increased wood smoke emissions. These emissions have decreased air quality in the city; EPA has declared thecity in non-attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter. NAAQSare intended to protect the health of United States citizens.4 conditioning.12 Given that most Americans use those services every day, if not every hour,household energy costs ultimately represent a sizeable expense.According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the average household "spent$1,945 on heating, cooling, appliances, electronics, and lighting in 2012 [...] 2.7% of householdincome."13 Energy costs for people above and below the poverty line are very similar in absolutedollars, but, not unexpectedly, wealthier households spend a smaller percentage of their incomeon energy than poorer households.14 Poorer households are naturally more sensitive to increasesin energy costs and are at far greater risk of energy insecurity.Indicators of Energy InsecurityNew ways to quantify Americans who are in or at risk of energy insecurity are needed to assessthe impacts of potential increases in home energy costs.15 Accordingly, the following sectionsdetail three methods for quantifying the effects of energy costs on household budgets, thenumber of families in poverty, and the average household energy burden. The detailed analysisbehind these conclusions can be found in Appendix 1.Household Budget CutsAn obvious way to map the available household budget after energy costs is to subtract energyspending from gross income. If energy costs increase, the money required to pay those costscomes out of the budget available for other essential needs. Given the essential nature of energy,the associated price increases often crowd-out or eliminate other household essentials includingfood, clothing, medical care, and education.Figures I and 2 show the direct impacts of increasing household energy costs on family budgets.(Note that we are illustrating the IEI methodology in these figures for South Carolina, which,along with Alaska, is representative of the nation as a whole.) Figure 1 shows the share ofhouseholds paying more for energy for various ranges of energy price increases. For example, a10 percent increase in household energy costs results in over 80 percent of all families spendingan additional $100-$500 per year on energy. If energy costs rise 50 percent, nearly 90 percent of12EIA, Today in Energy, March 7,2013, http:/iwww.&#xa2;iaegov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10271. Data from 2009.13 ETA, Today in Energy, April 18, 2013, http://www.eia,gov/todavinenergy/detail.cfm?id= 10891.14 Home Energy Affordability Gap: 2011, Connecticut Legislative Districts, Prepared for Operation Fuel,Bloomfield, Connecticut, by Colton, R.D. of Fisher, Sheehan & Colton, Belmont, Massachusetts, December 2011." The IEls do not encompass transportation costs, which consume an additional portion of each household'sincome. Transportation costs are significant; for example, the Energy Information Administration reported that"Gasoline expenditures in 2012 for the average U.S. household reached $2,912, or just under 4% of income beforetaxes." (EMA, Today in Energy, February 4, 2013, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfin?id--983 1). The costsincluded within the lEls are those associated with fuels and electricity for heating and cooling, cooking, heatingwater, lighting, using appliances, and other non-transportation usages.5 More American Family Budgets Impacted as Energy Costs IncreaseIncreased Dollar Costs per Household as a Function of Percent Increase In Household Energy Costs(South Carolina)8S0-S2o0 0S100-$250 Szso2SSO0 0Ssoo.SoWo mSIOOO-S2500 MS25OM-S500o m> SQ0o1008070160~15s040A.3020101% 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% .50%Plercut Increase In Household EnuCoftsFigure 1. Increase in share of ho usehl~ds spending more on the energy budget as afunction of increasesin energy costs.households would be spending an additional $500-$2500 per year. It bears noting that a 50percent increase in energy costs is certainly possible, as evidenced by a 1 10 percent increase inelectricity prices recorded in Australia in recent years. 16 Similarly, Germany and the U.K. saw a15 and 22 percent increase in electricity prices, respectively, from the first half of 2011 to thefirst half of 2013.'Figure 2 illustrates the household budget impacts from Figure I in terms of the reduction in theaverage grocery budget for a famnily of four." Figure 2 shows that a small increase in energycosts can have a dramatic impact on a family's food budget. A 10 percent increase in energycosts equates to an amount equal to what the household would spend on groceries over a one tothree week period.16 http://www. foxnews .com/lworld./201 3/09/06`/a-&#xfd;&#xfd;&#xfd;ustralian-voters-angery-over-hiizh-clectricity-bi IIs-ready-to-punish-o ._ ___Euopseahol missioulb Eospedigat, additiooeuon~al 0-20 pceroa eurttt yexoar.It earsnd ot'in lea Half-15earl2 ereticraei electricity anpa rcs is afo eric2s, respetively fr3 th8eUfrsth ofr kh20 YB Itonth.Using the U.S. Department of Agriculture thrifty food plan, the tightest budget plan at $149.90 per week. Thethrifty plan was chosen because it most represents the budgets of those who have the least to spend.6 American Families Have Less Food Available When Energy Costs IncreaseNumber of Weeks of Food a Family of Four Could Purchase with the Money Used to Pay IncreasedEnergy Costs as a Function of the Percent increase in Household Energy Costs (South Carolina)0 < I week of groceries 03 1-2 weeks of groceries U 2-3 weeks of groceries 0 3-4 weeks of groceries0 4-6 weeks of groceries
* 6-8 weeks of groceries 0 >8 weeks of groceries1too909070160503020100% 1111- ill.1% 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%Percent Increase In Household Energy Costsigure2. Share of households with specified number of weeks of groceries eliminated by money used topay higher energy costs. (Grocery budgetfrom USDA thrifty plan, family offour.)Pushing Households Below The Poverty LineAnother way to look at the impacts of increasing energy costs is to quantify how many familiesare pushed below the poverty line as household budgets are saddled by additional energy costs.Figure 3 shows, on a state-by-state basis, the number of individuals falling below the povertyline in the United States when home energy costs are increased by 10 percent. Taken as a whole,more than 300,000 additional households with over 840,000 Americans would be pushed belowthe poverty line. A 10 percent increase in energy costs was chosen because it is realistic, andcould be the result of the enactment of public policies, shifting market conditions, or unexpectedevents. Higher increases are also possible.As with the household budget cut described above, Southeastern states are more significantlyimpacted than the rest of the country.7 Americans Entering Povertyh, 562-3,176h1 3,176-8,653L 8,653-15,017h 15,017-23,65623,656-79,346lure 3. Number of people pushed below the poverty line as home energy costs increase by 10 percent., SF48 IHousehold Energy BurdenThe third 1E1 for illustrating the impacts of energy costs on households is to calculate theincrease in a household's energy burden, which can help predict increasing levels of energyinsecurity.Figure 4 shows the average household energy burden in each state as a percentage of totalhousehold income.19 As might be expected, the areas with the highest shares of families inenergy insecurity correspond closely with the areas of the highest percentage of families facing asignificant budget cut or being forced into poverty due to an increase in home energy costs.These household budgets are already stressed so any additional energy costs resulting fromincreasing energy prices substantially impacts them.Importantly, there are a significant number of households in energy insecurity that are not belowthe poverty line (Figures 5 and 6). This can be seen when the share of households with energyinsecurity (i.e., high energy burdens) is divided into two categories based on the poverty line.The first category shows the energy burden only for households below the poverty line (Figure5); the second shows energy burdens for households above thepoverty line (Figure 6).It is noteworthy that the percentages of households in each category are very similar tbr moststates. The Southern states have higher percentages of households in both poverty and energyinsecurity than the rest of the country. The Northeastern states have higher percentages ofhouseholds in energy insecurity but not in poverty, compared to households in both energyinsecurity and poverty. States on the West Coast have lower percentages of households inenergy insecurity, both in and not in poverty, than the rest of the country.Almost three million households or 7 million people will enter energy insecurity across thecountry if household energy costs increase by 10 percent. For example, the total would beapproximately 19,000 and 132,000 households in Alaska and South Carolina, respectively.19 Household Energy Burden = Household Energy Costs x 100HEouseehold Income9 Percent of Households withHigh Household Energy Burdenhk 10-14hi 14-16 Aj 16-18h 18-22h, 22-30Figure 4. A map showing the spatial distribution of the percentage of households with a high householdenergy burden (spending more than ten percent of household gross income on home energy) in each statein 2012. The colors represent different quintiles of energy insecurity, with states depicted in red havingthe highest incidence of energy insecurity.I0 Percent of Households withHigh Household Energy Burdenin Povertyb1 5-7hi7-8~8-9hll 9-12h 12-18 ,8.A*'dFigure 5. The spatial distribution of households in each state with high household energy burdens and inpoverty, expressed as a percentage of total households.II Percent of Households withHigh Household Energy Burdenthat Are Not in Povertyhhhh4-66-88-99-1111-16'4 .00SFigure 6. The spatial distribution of households in each state with high household energy burdens thatare not in poverty, again expressed as a percentage of total households.Clearly, rising household income reduces the impact of current or increasing energy costs. Asshown in Figures 7 and 8, households with incomes just above the poverty level are mostimpacted by changes in household energy costs.12 Small Increase in Energy Costs Sends Significant Number ofNon-impoverished Households into Energy InsecurityHouseholds with High Household Energy Burden (Inltily and After a 10 Percent Increase In HomeEnergy Costs) as a Function of Household Income (South Carolina)90000m Ik m L ...... ..... L l ....... ....I80006 70000J5000040000110000000N Noumbe r pf 14USehoin Witl nI High ousenolo nenBurden6 Numberof Households w~h HighHouseholdEnoBurden after 10 Porcenfl Incefase In Energy CostsS dp d dp dp ? ?d 9  dp dp OP OP d%_P P' JP 4 t " '0 'P P P lipMNN9% ;.7prayMEYFigure 7. The distribution of households with energy insecurity as measured by high household energyburdens but not in poverty as afiuction of household income for South Carolina for the original case(blue) and a 10 increase in energy costs (red). South Carolina demonstrates the impact of cooling costson energy insecurity.13 Small Increase in Energy Costs Sends Significant Number ofNon-Impoverished Households into Energy InsecurityHouseholds with High Hous ld Ene Burden (Initially and After a 10 Percent Increue In HomeEnergy Costs) as e Function of Household Income (Aladm)U Number of HouS1owids with HWh HOusehold EnergyBurdenI ,1m. fU.WTUW nut k.,9000W100Burden after 10 Peroent increase in Energy COMtJ7000I:J300011000li0 i-f dp )4P Op 4P 01 sf&#xfd; ;P ' o N ,N N 4Nil- -0,, 9 Iq" P .SIP ' .P ,9 9 e .,mhold kxomeFigure 8. The distribution of households with energy insecurity, as measured by high household energy,but not in poverty as a function of household income for Alaskafor the original case (blue) and a 10increase in energy costs (red). Alaska shows a larger number of households with high household energyburdens, even at higher household income levels. The extreme climate ofAlaska may be responsible forthis effect; it is expensive to heat a dwelling to a comfortable temperature when the outside temperaturecan fall to -60 degrees Fahrenheit. The cost offuels is also higher in Alaska than in most other parts ofthe country.The Path ForwardAs indicators of energy insecurity, the IEls described in this paper provide new methods forestimating how increases in energy costs will affect the population of a specific state as well asthe country as a whole. The methods introduced here demonstrate that increasing householdenergy costs have a broad and significant adverse effect on the poor and near-poor members ofAmerican society. Any policy proposal that would tend to increase the cost of energy shouldtherefore be fully evaluated for its impact on energy insecurity, in order to give policymakers acomplete picture of its potential consequences. Pushing more families into poverty triggers anumber of significant socioeconomic issues, including increased government spending and agrowing dependence on government social and safety net programs.14 There are of course numerous ways to mitigate impacts of energy cost increases. The firstapproach includes encouraging -or at least not actively disadvantaging -the supply of low-costsources of electricity and heating fuels, and taking steps to minimize cost increases arising fromemerging energy resources. It can also include financial assistance for qualifying households,although given the history of the federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program(LIHEAP) program20 and the federal government's budget challenges, expecting substantiallymore funding from the federal government to pay higher energy costs for qualifying householdsis not realistic. Naturally, however, the preferred circumstance is for energy to be affordable andthe economy to be strong, enabling citizens to heat and cool their homes without having todepend on federal assistance for such basic needs.It bears noting that programs to increase energy efficiency and promote conservation can beviable ways to mitigate energy insecurity. However, some caution is needed here given that aprogram that works in Columbia, South Carolina, may not be effective in Bettles, Alaska, andvice versa. And, more relevant to the thesis of this paper, some programs intending to bringdown household energy costs do not directly benefit, and in some cases may disadvantage, low-income households. To use Fairbanks, Alaska, as an example, citizens who took advantage of anenergy rebate program designed to improve the efficiency of the housing stock were financiallysecure and could afford the up-front costs associated with the program. Some families interestedin the program could not participate in it because they were unable to secure a loan for the up-front energy efficiency improvement costs even though those costs would have been refunded bythe program.The foregoing discussion should prompt a number of key questions at the federal level:" How best can federal policy help relieve energy insecurity for the American people?" How can federal policy help decrease (or inhibit increases) in the cost of electricity andother household energy sources?* How can federal policy help decrease the cost of energy in remote communities?* What are the barriers to the deployment of less expensive energy sources in Alaska, othersparsely populated states or regions, and other regions, such as the southeast, where theincidence of energy insecurity is high?* What are the roles and effects of direct federal assistance?20 Spar, K., Federal Benefits and Services for People with Low Income: Programs, Policy, and Spending, FY2008-FY2009, Congressional Research Service Report R41625, January 3!, 201 i. LIHEAP is administered by theDepartment of Health and Human Services. The number of households receiving heating assistance in 2009 wasapproximately 7.4 million (heating or winter crisis assistance) with roughly 900,000 more receiving coolingassislance. This number represents 23.7 percent of federally eligible households.15
" Understanding that the current LIHEAP program only serves fewer than 24 percent ofhouseholds eligible for assistance and has limited money for weatherization, how canpeople in poverty improve the weatherization of their housing stock? And,* How can federal policy more effectively help people suffering an unexpected spike infuel prices due to circumstances beyond their control (e.g., heating costs from the polarvortex that forced people not normally in energy insecurity into that category)?Federal, state, and local governments, as well as other non-governmental organizations, havemany options to help households decrease their energy insecurity. As households move out ofenergy insecurity, their improved financial situation will allow them to mitigate the adverseconsequences associated with it: they can eat better, afford their medication, send their childrento school, and purchase more goods and services. For these reasons, it is important to remainvigilant about keeping energy costs low and lowering them where possible. We can and shoulddecrease energy insecurity in the United States so that all Americans can enjoy an even higherquality of life.16 Appendix 1: MethodologyData Set -American Community SurveyThe American Community Survey (ACS) is an ongoing, mandatory, statistical survey thatsamples a small subset of U.S. households each year in every state and the District of Columbiato determine community characteristics and eligibility for federal programs. 21 Among thehousehold characteristics collected by the survey are the number of people in the household,number of children under six, number of people over 65, type of housing unit (rental, singlefamily house, trailer, etc.), and infonnation on rent and mortgages. For this analysis the keyvariables in the ACS housing data set are: 1) the annual household income including all salaries,wages, tips, social security, welfare payments and public assistance, retirement benefits, survivoror disability pensions, rental incomes, interest, dividends, royalties, and any other sources ofincome (HINCP), and 2) the amount of money each household spends on energy in the form ofelectricity (ELEP), gas (GASP), and other fuels (FULP). The households considered in theanalysis are living in non-vacant, non-group homes that are either rented or owned by thehousehold, so families living in apartments, duplexes, attached and detached single familyhomes, mobile homes, trailers, and boats are all included in the analysis. Over 1.35 millionrecords from 2012 that include data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia were used toperform the analyses.Groceries -United States Department of Agriculture Thrifty Food PlanThe Official USDA Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home at Four Levels, U.S. Average, June 2014document provides the basis for quantifying how much money a family spends to providenutritious meals made at home. 23 The Food Plans give four different price levels for a weeklyfood cost for a family of four (the thrifty plan, the low-cost plan, the moderate-cost plan, and theliberal plan) based on differences in the specific foods and quantities of foods in each plan.Because the people most impacted by the rising cost of energy will be those with the leastdisposable income, the thrifty plan ($149.90 per week for a family of four of two adults between19 and 50 years old and two children, one of whom is between 6 and 8 years old and the other ofwhom is between 9 and II years old), the most inexpensive food plan, was selected for theanalyses. For the specific foods and quantities of foods in the Thrifty Food Plan, see ThriftyFood Plan, 2006.2421 https:f/www.census.gov/acs/www/2 ELEP and GASP are given on a per month basis while FULP is given on an annual basis."3http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/usda food_plans cost of food/CostofFoodJun2014.pdf24Thrifty Food Plan, 2006, Report CNPP-19 by Andrea Carlson, Mark Lino, WenYen Juan, Kenneth Hanson, and P.Peter Basiotis, of the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (except for Dr. Hanson who is with the EconomicResearch Service), U.S. Department of Agriculture, April 200717 Poverty- United States Department of Health & Human Services 2014 Poverty GuidelinesThe income levels for each state used to determine if a household is in poverty are the povertyguidelines updated periodically by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.25 For2014, the guidelines are as follows:2014 POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR THE48 CONTIGUOUS STATESAND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIAPersons in Povertyfamily/household guideline.For families/households with more than 9persons, add $4,060 for each additional person.i 1$11,670_2 115,7303 119,790i423,850&#xfd;5 127,910!6 131,970;7 36,030&#xfd;8 140,0902014 POVERTY GUIDELINES FORALASKAPersons in Povertyfamily/household guideline:For families/households with more than 8persons, add $5,080 for each additional person.1 ]$14,58012 19,660:3 24,7404 129,820i5 134,900i6 139,980;7 45,060.8 50,14025 http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/[ 4poverty,cfi18 2014 POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR HAWAIIPersons in Povertyfamily/household guideline,For families/households with more than 8'persons, add $4,670 for each additional person.i 1$13,420.2 18,090!3 122,760 .J.4 27,430I5 32,100;6 36,770:7 141,440 I.8 46,110While the U. S. Department of Health & Human Services includes energy costs when itestablishes poverty guidelines, the poverty thresholds were not developed as an itemized budgetwith specific dollar amounts for each type of household expenditure category.CalculationsThe following calculations are performed for every data record that meets the non-vacant, non-group home criteria for inclusion in the analyses. For several analyses, the number ofhouseholds meeting a criterion, such as "driven into poverty," in each data file is determined byapplying the formula to each household in the data file and then counting the number ofhouseholds that meet the criterion. The number of households meeting a criterion can also bedivided by the number of total households in the data file to determine the percentage ofhouseholds meeting that criterion.Household energy costs for a year = [(ELEP + GASP)* 12] + FULPIncrease in energy costs in dollars = Household energy costs x% increase 1n costIncrease in energy costs in weeks of groceries = increase in energy costs in dollarscost per week of groceriesHousehold in poverty if HINCP < poverty guideline for number of people in the household19 Household with revised income in poverty if (HINCP- increase in energy costs in dollars) <poverty guideline for number of people in the householdNumber of households driven into poverty = number of households with revised income inpoverty -number of households in povertyHousehold Energy Burden = Household Energy Costs .100Household income20}}

Revision as of 09:34, 26 June 2018

Indian Point, Units 2 & 3, 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment
ML14304A701
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 09/16/2014
From:
New York Independent System Operator
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML14304A441 List:
References
F-2012-1028
Download: ML14304A701 (148)
v • d • e


Text

2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentI INew York Independent System OperatorFINAL REPORTSeptember 16, 2014 Caution and DisclaimerThe contents of these materials are for information purposes and are provided "as is" withoutrepresentation or warranty of any kind, including without limitation, accuracy, completeness or fitnessfor any particular purposes. The New York Independent System Operator assumes no responsibility tothe reader or any other party for the consequences of any errors or omissions. The NYISO may revisethese materials at any time in its sole discretion without notice to the reader.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment Table of ContentsExe cutive S u m m a ry ................................................................................................................................. i1 .In tro d u ctio n .................................................................................................................................. 12. Summary of Prior CRPs ........................................................................................................... 33. RNA Base Case Assumptions, Drivers and Methodology ........................................................ 53.1. Annual Energy and Summer Peak Demand Forecasts ................................................. 63.2. Forecast of Special Case Resources ........................................................................... 113.3. Resource Additions and Removal ................................................................................ 113.4. Local Transmission Plans ........................................................................................... 143.5. Bulk Transmission Projects ......................................................................................... 143.6. Base Case Peak Load and Resource Ratios .................................................................. 163.7. Methodology for the Determination of Needs .......................................................... 174. Reliability Needs Assessment ................................................................................................ 204 .1 .O ve rv ie w ......................................................................................................................... 2 04.2. Reliability Needs for Base Case .................................................................................. 204.2.1. Transmission Security Assessment ........................................................................ 204.2.2. Short Circuit Assessment ......................................................................................... 274.2.3. Transmission and Resource Adequacy Assessment .............................................. 284.2.4. System Stability Assessment .................................................................................. 304.3. Reliability Needs Summary ......................................................................................... 314.4. Dunkirk Plant Fuel Conversion Sensitivity .................................................................. 364 .5 .Sce n a rio s ......................................................................................................................... 3 84.5.1. High Load (Econometric) Forecast ......................................................................... 384.5.2. Zonal Capacity at Risk ............................................................................................. 384.5.3. Indian Point Retirement Assessment ....................................................................... 394.5.4. Transmission Security Assessment Using 90/10 Load Forecast ............................. 404.5.5. Stressed W inter Condition Assessment .................................................................. 445. Impacts of Environmental Regulations .................................................................................. 465.1. Regulations Reviewed for Impacts on NYCA Generators .......................................... 465.1.1. Reasonably Available Control Technology for NOx (NOx RACT) ............................ 475.1.2. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) ............................................................. 485.1.3. Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) ............................................................ 495.1.4. Mercury Reduction Program for Coal-Fired Electric Utility Steam GeneratingU n its (M R P ) ................................................................................................................................. 5 05.1.5. Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) ................................................................... 505.1.6. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) ............................................................ 515.1.7. RICE, NSPS, and NESHAP ......................................................................................... 525.1.8. Best Technology Available (BTA) ............................................................................. 52NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment 5.2. Summary of Environmental Regulation Impacts ......................................................... 546 .Fu e l A d e q u a cy ............................................................................................................................. 5 66.1. Gas Infrastructure Adequacy Assessment .................................................................. 566.2. Loss of Gas Supply Assessment .................................................................................. 576.3. Summary of Other Ongoing NYISO efforts .................................................................. 587. Observations and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 618 .H isto ric C o ng e stio n ..................................................................................................................... 6 3A p p e n d ice s A -D .................................................................................................................................. 64Appendix A -2014 Reliability Needs Assessment Glossary ................................................... A-1Appendix B -The Reliability Planning Process ......................................................................... B-1Appendix C -Load and Energy Forecast 2014-2024 ............................................................... C-1Appendix D -Transmission System Security and Resource Adequacy Assessment ................. D-1NYISO 20i4 Reliability Needs Assessment Table of TablesTable 1: Reliability Needs identified in 2014 RNA ...................................................................... iiTable 2-1: Current Status of Tracked Market-Based Solutions & TOs' Plans ............................. 3Table 2-2: Proposed Generation Projects from Completed Class Years .................................... 4Table 2-3: Other Proposed Generation Projects ........................................................................ 4Table 3-1: Comparison of 2012 & 2014 RNA Base Case Forecasts ............................................ 7Table 3-2: Comparison of 2014 RNA Base Case Forecast and High Load (Econometric) Scenario 8Table 3-3: Generation Addition and Removal ........................................................................... 12Table 3-4: NYCA Peak Load and Resource Ratios 2015 through 2024 ..................................... 16Table 3-5: Load/Resources Comparison of Year 2019 (MW) ................................................... 17Table 4-1: 2014 RNA Transmission Security Thermal Violations .............................................. 25Table 4-2: 2014 RNA Transmission Security Reliability Need Year .......................................... 26Table 4-3:2014 RNA Over-Duty Circuit Breaker Summary ..................................................... 27Table 4-4: Transmission System Thermal Emergency Transfer Limits ..................................... 28Table 4-5: Transmission System Voltage Emergency Transfer Limits ...................................... 28Table 4-6: Transmission System Base Case Emergency Transfer Limits ................................... 28Table 4-7: NYCA Resource Adequacy Measure (in LOLE) ........................................................ 30Table 4-8: Summary of the LOLE Results -Base, Thermal and "Free Flowing" Sensitivities ....... 31Table 4-9: Compensatory MW Additions for Transmission Security Violations ...................... 33Table 4-10: Compensatory MW Additions for Resource Adequacy Violations ........................ 34Table 4-11: 2014 RNA 50/50 Forecast Transmission Security Thermal Violations with Dunkirk In-S e rv ice ................................................................................................................................... 3 7Table 4-12: Zonal Capacity at Risk (M W ) .................................................................................. 39Table 4-13: Indian Point Plant Retirement LOLE Results .......................................................... 40Table 4-14: 90/10 Peak Load Forecast NYCA Remaining Resources ....................................... 41Table 4-15: 90/10 Transmission Security Violations Not Observed Under 50/50 Load Conditions............................................................................................................................................... 4 2Table 4-16: 50/50 Transmission Security Violations Exacerbated Under 90/10 Load Conditions43Table 4-17: Derivation of 2014 NYCA W inter LFU ................................................................... 45Table 4-18: Simultaneous NYCA Import Limits and MW Lost in Stressed Winter Scenario ......... 45Table 5-1: NOx RACT Limits Pounds/mmBTU Effective until June 30, 2014 ........................... 47NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment Table 5-2: New NOx RACT Limits Pounds/mmBTU Effective Starting from July 1, 2014 ...... 47Table 5-3: Em ission (BA RT) Lim its ............................................................................................ 49Table 5-4: NYSDEC BTA Determinations (as of March 2014) ................................................... 53Table 5-5: Im pact of New Environmental Programs ............................................................... 54Table 5-6: Summary of Significant Operational Impacts due to Environmental Regulations ...... 54Table 6-1: Loss of Gas Assessment for 2014-2015 Winter ...................................................... 58Table C-i: Summary of Economic & Electric System Growth Rates -Actual & Forecast ..... C-1Table C-2: Historic Energy and Seasonal Peak Demand -Actual and Weather-Normalized ....... C-2Table C-3: Annual Energy and Summer Peak Demand -Actual & Forecast ................................ C-3Table C-4: Annual Energy by Zone -Actual & Forecast (GWh) ................................................... C-7Table C-5: Summer Coincident Peak Demand by Zone -Actual & Forecast (MW) .................... C-8Table C-6: Winter Coincident Peak Demand by Zone -Actual & Forecast (MW) ....................... C-9NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment Table of FiguresFigure 1: Approximate Locations of Relative Reliability Needs ................................................. iiFigure 3-1: 2014 Base Case Energy Forecast and Scenarios ...................................................... 9Figure 3-2: 2014 Base Case Summer Peak Demand Forecast and Scenarios ............................. 9Figure 3-3: 2014 Base Case Energy Efficiency & Retail Solar PV -Annual Energy ................... 10Figure 3-4: 2014 Base Case Energy Efficiency & Retail Solar PV -Summer Peak .................... 10Figure 4-1: Approximate Locations of Transmission Security Needs ....................................... 21Figure 6-1: Natural Gas Pipeline Network in NYCA ................................................................. 59Figure C-1: Zonal Energy Forecast Growth Rates -2014 to 2024 ................................................ C-6Figure C-2: Zonal Summer Peak Demand Forecast Growth Rates -2014 to 2024 ...................... C-6Figure D-1: M ARS Topology for Year 2015 ................................................................................ D-13Figure D-2: PJM -SENY MARS Topology for Year 2015 ............................................................... D-14Figure D-3: M ARS Topology for Year 2016 ................................................................................ D-15Figure D-4: PJM -SENY MARS Topology for Year 2016 ............................................................... D-16NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment Executive SummaryThe 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment (RNA) assesses resource adequacy and bothtransmission security and adequacy of the New York Control Area (NYCA) bulk powertransmission system from year 2015 through 2024, the study period of this RNA. The 2014 RNAidentifies transmission security needs in portions of the bulk power transmission system, and aNYCA LOLE violation due to inadequate resource capacity located in Southeast New York(SENY).The NYISO finds transmission security violations beginning in 2015, some of which aresimilar to those found in the 2012 RNA. The NYISO also identifies resource adequacy violations,which begin in 2019 and increase through 2024.For transmission security, there are four primary regions with reliability needs:Rochester, Western & Central New York, Capital Region, and Lower Hudson Valley & New YorkCity. These reliability needs are generally driven by recent and proposed generator retirementsor mothballing combined with load growth. The New York transmission owners havedeveloped plans through their respective local transmission planning processes to constructtransmission projects to meet not only the needs identified in the previous RNA, but also anyadditional needs occurring since then and prior to this RNA. These transmission projects,subject to inclusion rules, have been modeled in the 2014 RNA base case. Reliability needsidentified in this report exist despite the inclusion of the transmission projects in the base case,or exist until certain projects are completed. The transmission security needs in the Buffalo andBinghamton areas are influenced by whether the fuel conversion project can be completed forthe Dunkirk Plant for it to return to service by 2016. As a result, this project was addressed as asensitivity and the impact of the results are noted with the base case reliability needs.While resource adequacy violations continue to be identified in SENY, the 2014 RNA isprojecting the need year to be 2019, one year before the need year identified in the 2012 RNA.The most significant difference between the 2012 RNA and the 2014 RNA is the decrease of theNYCA capacity margin (the total capacity less the peak load forecast).For summer 2014 resource adequacy, the existing capacity provides about a 122.7%Installed Capacity Reserve to meet the summer 2014 Installed Reserve Margin requirement of117.0%. The capacity margin decreases throughout the study period, but more rapidly in theouter years due to load growth. The NYISO calculated the difference in the capacity marginbetween the 2012 RNA and the 2014 RNA in the need year of 2019 and determined a netdecrease of 2,100 MW. The difference breaks down as follows:1. The NYCA capacity resources are 874 MW less for 2019 (724 MW upstate and 150 MWin SENY);2. The NYCA baseline load forecast is 250 MW higher for 2019 (497 MW higher upstateand 247 MW lower in SENY); and3. The NYCA Special Case Resources (SCRs) projection is 976 MW less for 2019 (685 MWupstate and 291 MW in SENY).The reliability needs identified in the 2014 RNA are summarized in Table 1 below, andthe approximate locations of the regions are marked on Figure 1.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment Table 1: Reliability Needs identified in 2014 RNAYear of Transmission Security Violations Resource AdequacyNeed (Area/Load Zone/Transmission Owner) (LOLE)Rochester Area in Genesee (Zone B), owned by RG&EBinghamton Area in Central (Zone C), owned by NYSEG*2015 Syracuse Area in Central (Zone C), owned by N. GridUtica Area in Mohawk Valley (Zone E), owned by N. GridAlbany Area in Capital (Zone F), owned by N. Grid2016 No additional violations No violationRochester Area issues mitigated2017 Additional Syracuse Area in Central (Zone C), owned by N. GridAdditional Utica Area in Mohawk Valley (Zone E), owned by N. Grid*Binghamton Area voltage in Central (Zone C), owned by NYSEG2018 Buffalo Area in Dysinger (Zone A), owned by N. Grid*2019 No additional violations Violation (LOLE = 0.11)2020 Additional Binghamton Area in Central (Zone C), owned by NYSEG* Violation (LOLE = 0.13)2021 Additional Buffalo Area in West (Zone A), owned by N. Grid* Violation (LOLE = 0.15)2022 Additional Buffalo Area in West (Zone A), owned by N. Grid* Violation (LOLE = 0.18)Transmission between Capital (Zone F) and Hudson Valley (Zone G), owned by N. Grid2023 No additional violations Violation (LOLE = 0.22)2024 No additional violations Violation (LOLE = 0.26)* Some violations would be resolved upon the return of the Dunkirk plant to service.Figure 1: Approximate Locations of Reliability NeedsNote: The red circles indicate the areas where the load may be impacted by transmission security constraints, andthe blue circle indicates the region with resource adequacy violations.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment ii The NYISO expects existing and recent market rule changes to entice marketparticipants to take actions that will help meet the resource adequacy needs in SENY, asidentified by the 2012 RNA and the 2014 RNA. The resources needed downstream of theupstate New York to SENY interface is approximately 1,200 MW in 2024 (100 MW in 2019),which could be transmission or capacity resources. The new Zones G-J Locality will providemarket signals for resources to provide service in this area. Capacity owners and developersare taking steps to return mothballed units to service, restore units to their full capability, orbuild new in the Zones G-J Locality. If some or all of these units return to service or aredeveloped, the reliability need year would be postponed beyond 2019. In addition, othermeasures, such as the demand response, energy efficiency and CHP projects, would alsopostpone the reliability need year beyond 2019. New York State Public Service Commission isalso promoting regulated transmission development to relieve the transmission constraintsbetween upstate New York and SENY, which could also defer the need for additional resources.Potential solutions will be submitted for evaluation during the solutions phase of the ReliabilityPlanning Process (RPP) and included in the upcoming 2014 Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP)if appropriate.As a backstop to market-based solutions, the NYISO employs a process to defineresponsibility should the market fail to provide an adequate solution to an identified reliabilityneed. Since there are transmission security violations in Zones A, B, C, E, and F within the studyperiod, the transmission owners (TOs) in those zones (i.e., National Grid, RGE, and NYSEG) areresponsible and will be tasked to develop detailed regulated backstop solutions for evaluationin the 2014 CRP.Given the limited time between the identification of certain transmission security needsin this RNA report and their occurrence in 2015, the use of demand response and operatingprocedures, including those for emergency conditions, may be necessary to maintain reliabilityduring peak load periods until permanent solutions can be put in place. Accordingly, the NYISOexpects the TOs to present updates to their Local Transmission Owner Plans for these zones,including their proposed operating procedures pending completion of their permanentsolutions, for review and acceptance by the NYISO and in the 2014 CRP.The NYISO identified reliability needs for resource adequacy in SENY starting in the year2019; therefore, the TOs in SENY (i.e., Orange & Rockland, Central Hudson, New York StateElectric and Gas, Con Edison, and LIPA) are responsible to develop the regulated backstopsolution(s). The study also identified a transmission security violation in 2022 on the Leeds-Pleasant Valley 345 kV circuit, and this circuit is the main constraint of the Upstate New York toSoutheast New York (UPNY-SENY) interface identified in the resource adequacy analysis.Therefore, the violation could be resolved by solution(s) that respond to the resource adequacydeficiencies identified for 2019 -2024.If the resource adequacy solution is non-transmission, these reliability needs can only bemost efficiently satisfied through the addition of compensatory megawatts in SENY becausesuch resources need to be located below the UPNY-SENY interface constraint to be effective.Additions in Zones A through F could partially resolve these reliability needs. Potentialsolutions could include a combination of additional transfer capability by adding transmissionNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessmentiii facilities into SENY from outside those zones and/or resource additions at least some of whichwould be best located in SENY.In addition, the 2014 RNA provides analysis of risks to the Bulk Power TransmissionFacilities under certain sensitivities and scenarios to assist developers and stakeholders topropose market-based and regulated reliability solutions as well as policy makers to formulatestate policy. The 2014 RNA analysis included a sensitivity of the Dunkirk Fuel conversionproject, and scenarios to address recent experiences in the NYISO operations, which revealedpotential future reliability risks caused particularly by generation retirements, fuel availability,or other factors that could limit energy production during the extreme winter weather. Thefindings under the sensitivity and scenario conditions are:" Dunkirk Fuel Conversion Project: The availability of Dunkirk after the fuel conversion projectin 2016 resolves thermal transmission security violations in the Buffalo and Binghamtonareas, but does not resolve the resource adequacy needs identified in 2019 and thereafter.* High (econometric) Load Forecast: Resource adequacy violations occur as soon as 2017.* Indian Point Energy Center Plant Retirement: Reliability violations would occur in 2016 if theIndian Point Plant were to be retired at the latter of the two units' current license expirationdates in December 2015.* Zonal Capacity at Risk: For year 2015, removal of up to 2,500 MW in Zones A through F, 650MW in Zones G through I, 650 MW in Zone J, or 550 MW in Zone K would result in a NYCAresource adequacy violation." Transmission Security under 90/10 Forecasted Load: The 90/10 forecast for the statewidecoincident summer peak is on average approximately 2,400 MW higher than the baseline50/50 forecast. This higher load would result in the earlier occurrence of the reliabilityneeds identified in the base case as well as the occurrence of new violations in the samefour primary regions. In addition, based on the assumptions applied in this analysis,beginning in 2017 there would be insufficient resources to meet the minimum 10-minuteoperating reserve requirement of 1,310 MW. Starting in 2020, there would be insufficientresources to meet the modeled 90/10 peak load under pre-contingency conditions." Stressed Winter Scenario: The winter of 2013-2014 experienced five major cold snaps,including three polar vortex events that extended across much of the country. The NYISOset a new winter peak load of 25,738 MW, while neighboring ISOs and utilities concurrentlyset record winter peaks during the month of January. Compounding the impact from highload conditions, extensive generation derates and gas pipeline constraints occurredsimultaneously due to the extreme winter weather. In the extreme case that NYCA isassumed to be unable to receive any emergency assistance from neighboring areas, itwould take a loss of capacity in excess of 7,250 MW due to energy production constraints inextreme winter conditions to cause a resource adequacy violation in 2015.In addition to the scenarios, the NYISO also analyzed the risks associated with thecumulative impact of environmental laws and regulations, which may affect the flexibility inplant operation and may make fossil plants energy-limited resources. The RNA discusses theenvironmental regulations that affect long term power system planning and highlights theimpacts of various environmental drivers on resource availability.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessmentiv The RNA is the first step of the NYISO reliability planning process. As a product of thisstep, the NYISO documents the reliability needs in the RNA report, which is presented to theNYISO Board of Directors for approval. The NYISO Board approval initiates the second step,which involves the NYISO requesting proposed solutions to mitigate the identified needs tomaintain acceptable levels of system reliability throughout the study period.As part of its ongoing reliability planning process, the NYISO monitors and tracks theprogress of market-based projects, regulated backstop solutions, together with other resourceadditions and retirements, consistent with its obligation to protect confidential informationunder its Code of Conduct. The other tracked resources include: (i) units interconnecting to thebulk power transmission system; (ii) the development and installation of local transmissionfacilities; (iii) additions, mothballs or retirement of generators; (iv) the status ofmothballed/retired facilities; (v) the continued implementation of New York State energyefficiency and similar programs; (vi) participation in the NYISO demand response programs;and (vii) the impact of new and proposed environmental regulations on the existing generationfleet.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentV DRAFT -For Discussion Purposes1. IntroductionThe Reliability Needs Assessment (RNA) is developed by the NYISO in conjunction withMarket Participants and all interested parties as its first step in the Comprehensive SystemPlanning Process (CSPP). The RNA is the foundation study used in the development of theNYISO Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP). The RNA is performed to evaluate electric systemreliability, for both transmission security and resource adequacy, over a 10-year study period.If the RNA identifies any violation of Reliability Criteria for Bulk Power Transmission Facilities(BPTF), the NYISO will report a Reliability Need quantified by an amount of compensatorymegawatts (MW). After approval of the RNA, the NYISO will request market-based andalternative regulated proposals from interested parties to address the identified ReliabilityNeeds, and designate one or more Responsible Transmission Owners to develop a regulatedbackstop solution to address each identified Reliability Need. This report sets forth the NYISO'sfindings for the study period 2015-2024.The CRP will provide a plan for continued reliability of the bulk power system during thestudy period depending on a combination of additional resources. The resources may beprovided by market-based solutions being developed in response to market forces and therequest for solutions following the approval of this RNA. If the market does not adequatelyrespond, continued reliability will be ensured by either regulated solutions being developed bythe TOs which are obligated to provide reliable service to their customers or alternativeregulated solutions being developed by others. To maintain the system's long-term reliability,these additional resources must be readily available or in development at the appropriate timeof need. Just as important as the electric system plan is the process of planning itself. Electricsystem planning is an ongoing process of evaluating, monitoring and updating as conditionswarrant. Along with addressing reliability, the CSPP is also designed to provide information thatis both informative and of value to the New York wholesale electricity marketplace.Proposed solutions that are submitted in response to an identified Reliability Need areevaluated in the development of the CRP and must satisfy Reliability Criteria. However, thesolutions submitted to the NYISO for evaluation in the CRP do not have to be in the sameamounts of MW or locations as the compensatory MW reported in the RNA. There are variouscombinations of resources and transmission upgrades that could meet the needs identified inthe RNA. The reconfiguration of transmission facilities and/or modifications to operatingprotocols identified in the solution phase could result in changes and/or modifications of theneeds identified in the RNA.This report begins with a summary of the 2012 CRP and prior reliability plans. Thereport continues with a summary of the load and resource forecast for the next 10 years, RNAbase case assumptions and methodology, and reports the RNA findings for years 2015 through2024. Detailed analyses, data and results, and the underlying modeling assumptions arecontained in the appendices.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment1 The RPP tests the robustness of the needs assessment studies and determines, throughthe development of appropriate scenarios, factors and issues that might adversely impact thereliability of the BPTF. The scenarios that were considered include: (i) high load (econometricforecast prior to inclusion of statewide energy efficiency programs and retail solar photovoltaic(PV), that increases the load by approximately 2,000 MW by 2024); (ii) Indian Point Plantretirement; (iii) 90/10 load forecast; (iv) zonal capacity at risk; and (v) stressed winterconditions. In addition to assessing the base case conditions and scenarios, the impact of theDunkirk plant fuel conversion is analyzed as a sensitivity.The NYISO will prepare and issue its 2014 CRP based upon this 2014 RNA report. TheNYISO will monitor the assumptions underlying the RNA base case as well as the progress of themarket-based solutions submitted in earlier CRPs and projects that have met the NYISO's basecase inclusion rules for this RNA. These base case assumptions include, but are not limited to,the measured progress towards achieving the State energy efficiency program standards, theimpact(s) of ongoing developments in State and Federal environmental regulatory programs onexisting power plants, the status of plant re-licensing efforts, and the development oftransmission owner projects identified in the Local Transmission Plans (LTPs).For informational purposes, this RNA report also provides the marketplace with thelatest historical information available for the past five years of congestion via a link to theNYISO's website. The 2014 CRP will be the foundation for the 2015 Congestion Assessment andResource Integration Study (CARIS). A more detailed evaluation of system congestion ispresented in the CARIS.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment2

2. Summary of Prior CRPsThis is the seventh RNA since the NYISO planning process was approved by FERC inDecember 2004. The first three RNA reports identified Reliability Needs and the first threeCRPs (2005-2007) evaluated the market-based and regulated backstop solutions submitted inresponse to those identified needs. The 2009 CRP and the 2010 CRP indicated that the systemdid not exhibit any violations of applicable reliability criteria and no solutions were necessary tobe solicited. Therefore, market-based and regulated solutions were not requested. The 2012RNA identified Reliability Needs and the 2012 CRP evaluated market-based and regulatedsolutions in response to those needs. The NYISO has not previously triggered any regulatedbackstop solutions to meet previously identified Reliability Needs due to changes in systemconditions and sufficiency of projects coming into service.Table 2-1 presents the market solutions and TOs' plans that were submitted in responseto previous requests for solutions. These solutions were included in the 2012 CRP and theinformation concerning these solutions has been updated herein to reflect their current status.The table also indicates that 1,545 MW of solutions are either in-service or are still beingreported to the NYISO as moving forward with the development of their projects.In addition to those projects in Table 2-1, there are a number of other projects in theNYISO interconnection study queue which are also moving forward through the interconnectionprocess, but have not been offered as market solutions in this process. Some of theseadditional generation resources have either accepted their cost allocation as part of a ClassYear Facilities Study process or are included in the currently ongoing 2012 Class Year FacilitiesStudy. These projects are listed in Table 2-2 and 2-3 in the order of each project's proposed in-service dates. The projects that meet the 2014 RNA base case inclusion rules are included inTable 3-3. The listings of other Class Year Projects can be found along with other projects thathave not met inclusion rules.Table 2-1: Current Status of Tracked Market-Based Solutions & TOs' PlansIncluded inOriginal In- Name Plate CRIS SummerQueue # Project Submitted Zone (MW) (MW) Proposal Type Current Status 2014 RNABase Case?69 Empire Generation Project CRP 2008 F Q1 2010 670 592.4 577.1 Resource Proposal In-Service YesBack-to-Back HVDC, AC CRP 2007, CRP 2008, and was an206 alternative regulated proposal PJM -J Q2 2011 660 660 660 TrrnsmissionLine HTP Proposalin CRP 2005153 ConEd M29 Project CRP 2005 J May 2010 N/A N/A N/A TO's Plans In-Service Yes-Sta 80xfmr replacement CRP 2012 B 2014 N/A N/A N/A TO's Plans In-Service YesRamapo Protectiona ddi tion CRP2012 G 2013 N/A N/A N/A TO's Plans In-Service YesAddition-5 Mile Road Substation CRP2012 A -N/A N/A N/A TO's Plans Summer 2015 Yes201, Gas Turbine NRG Astoria CRP 2005, CRP 2007, CRP 2008 J June 2010 278.9 155 250 Resource Proposal June 2017 Nore-powering CRP 2012339 Station 255 CRP 2012 B -N/A N/A N/A TO's Plans 04 2016 Yes-Clay -Teall #10 11SkV CRP2012 C 2016 N/A N/A N/A TO's Plans Q4 2017 YesNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment3 Table 2-2: Proposed Generation Projects from Completed Class YearsProposed In Name Plate CRIS Summer Included inQueue N Owner/Operator Station Unit Zone UnitType ClassYearService Date (MW) (MW) (MW) 2014 RNA?237 Allegany Wind, LLC Allegany Wind A 2015/11 72.5 0.0 72.5 Wind Turbines 2010 No197 PPM Roaring Brook, LLC/ PPM Roaring Brook Wind E 2015/12 78.0 0.0 78.0 Wind Turbines 2008 No349 Taylor Bionass Energy Mont., LLC Taylor Biomass G 2015/12 21.0 19.0 19.0 Solid Waste 2011 Yes251 CPV Valley, LLC CPV Valley Energy Center G 2016/05 820.0 680.0 677.6 Combined Cycle 2011 No201 NRG Energy Berrians GT J 2017/06 200.0 155.0 200.0 Combined Cycle 2011 No224 NRG Energy, Inc. Berrians GT II J 2017/06 78.9 0.0 50.0 Combined Cycle 2011 NoTable 2-3: Other Proposed Generation ProjectsQueue # Owner/Operator Station Unit Zone Proposed I Name Plate CRIS Summer Type Included inService Date (MW) (MW) (MW) 2014RNA?372 Dry Lots Wind, LLC Dry Lots Wind E 2014/11 33.0 TBD 33.0 Wind Turbines No354 Atlantic Wind, LLC North Ridge Wind E 2014/12 100.0 TED 100.0 Wind Turbines No276 Air Energie TCI, Inc. Crown City Wind C 2014/12 90.0 TBD 90.0 Wind Turbines No371 South Moutain Wind, LLC South Mountain Wind E 2014/12 18.0 TRD 18.0 Wind Turbines No361 US PowerGen Co. Luyster Creek Energy 2 2015/06 508.6 TOD 401.0 Combined Cycle No360 NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Watkins Glen Wind C 2015/07 122.4 TRD 122.4 Wind Turbines No382 Astoria Generating Co. South Pier Improvement J 2015/07 190.0 TBD 88.0 Combustion Turbines No347 Franklin Wind Farm, LLC Franklin Wind E 2015/12 50.4 TBD 50.4 Wind Turbines No270 Wind Development Contract Co, LIC Hounsfield Wind E 2015/12 244.8 TRD 244.8 Wind Turbines No266 NRG Energy, Inc. Berrians GT III J 2016/06 278.9 TBD 250.0 Combined Cycle No383 NRG Energy, INC. Bowline Gen. Station Unit #3 G 2016/06 814.0 TBD 775.0 Combined Cycle No310 Cricket Valley Energy Center, LLC Cricket Valley Energy Center G 2018/01 1308.0 TBD 1019.9 Combined Cycle No322 Rolling Upland Wind Farm, LLC Rolling Upland Wind E 2018/10 59.9 1TD 59.9 Wind Turbines NoNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment4
3. RNA Base Case Assumptions, Drivers and MethodologyThe NYISO has established procedures and a schedule for the collection and submissionof data and for the preparation of the models used in the RNA. The NYISO's CSPP proceduresare designed to allow its planning activities to be performed in an open and transparentmanner under a defined set of rules and to be aligned and coordinated with the relatedactivities of the NERC, NPCC, and New York State Reliability Council (NYSRC). The assumptionsunderlying the RNA were reviewed at the Transmission Planning Advisory Subcommittee (TPAS)and the Electric System Planning Working Group (ESPWG). The Study Period analyzed in the2014 RNA is the ten years from 2015 through 2024 for the base case, sensitivity and scenarios.All studies and analyses of the RNA base case reference the same energy and peakdemand forecast, which is the baseline forecast reported in the 2014 Gold Book. The baselineforecast is an econometric forecast with an adjustment to reflect projected gains (i.e., loadreduction) associated with statewide energy efficiency programs and retail solar PVinstallations.The study base cases were developed in accordance with NYISO procedures usingprojections for the installation and retirement of generation resources and transmissionfacilities that were developed in conjunction with market participants and TransmissionOwners. These are included in the base case using the NYISO 2014 FERC 715 filing as a startingpoint, and consistent with the base case inclusion screening process provided in the ReliabilityPlanning Process (RPP) Manual. Resources that choose to participate in markets outside ofNew York are modeled as contracts, thus preventing their capacity from being used to meetresource adequacy requirements in New York. Representations of neighboring systems arederived from interregional coordination conducted under the NPCC, and pursuant to theNortheast ISO/RTO Planning Coordination Protocol.Table 3-3 shows the new projects which meet the screening requirements for inclusionin the RNA base case.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment5 3.1. Annual Energy and Summer Peak Demand ForecastsThere are two primary forecasts modeled in the 2014 RNA, as contained in the 2014Gold Book. The first forecast, which is used in a scenario, is an econometric forecast of annualenergy and peak demand. The second forecast, which is used for the 2014 RNA base case,includes projected reductions for the impacts of energy efficiency programs and retail solar PVpower'.The NYISO's energy efficiency estimates include the impact of programs authorized bythe Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standards (EEPS), New York Power Authority (NYPA), and LongIsland Power Authority (LIPA). The NYISO has been a party to the EEPS proceeding from itsinception and is now an ex-officio member of the E2 advisory group, the successor to theEvaluation Advisory Group, which is responsible for advising the New York State Public ServiceCommission (NYDPS) on energy efficiency related issues and topics. The NYISO reviewed anddiscussed with market participants in the ESPWG and TPAS, projections for the potential impactof both energy efficiency and the EEPS over the 10-year Study Period. The factors considered indeveloping the 2014 RNA base case forecast are included in Appendix C.The assumptions for the 2014 economic growth, energy efficiency program impacts andretail solar PV impacts were discussed with market participants during meetings of the ESPWGand TPAS during the first quarter of 2014. The ESPWG and TPAS reviewed and discussed theassumptions used in the 2014 RNA base case forecast in accordance with proceduresestablished for the RNA.The annual average energy growth rate in the 2014 Gold Book decreased to 0.16%, ascompared to 0.59% in the 2012 Gold Book. The 2014 Gold Book's annual average summer peakdemand growth decreased to 0.83%, as compared to 0.85% in the 2012 Gold Book. The lowerenergy growth rate is attributed to the influence of both the economy and the continuedimpact of energy efficiency and retail solar PV. While these factors had a smaller impact onsummer peak growth than on annual energy growth, the expectation for peak growth is stilllower in 2014 than it was in 2012. Due to the low growth rates in both energy and summerpeak demand, the value in performing a low-growth scenario for the RNA was diminished, andthus, this scenario was not modeled in the 2014 RNA.Table 3-1 below summarizes the 2014 RNA econometric forecast and the 2012 RNA basecase forecast. Table 3-1 shows a comparison of the base case forecasts and energy efficiencyprogram impacts contained in the 2012 RNA and the 2014 RNA. Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2present actual, weather-normalized and forecasts of annual energy and summer peak demandfor the 2014 RNA. Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4 present the NYISO's projections of annual energyand summer peak demand in the 2014 RNA for energy efficiency and retail solar PV.1 The term retail solar PV is used to refer to customer-sited solar PV, to distinguish it from large-scale solar PV thatis considered as part of the fleet of electric generation in the state.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment6 Table 3-1: Comparison of 2012 & 2014 RNA Base Case ForecastsComparison of Base Case Energy Forecasts -2012 & 2014 RNA (GWh)lAnnual GWh 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 202412012 RNA Base Case 163,659 164,627 165,340 166,030 166,915 166,997 168,021 169,409 171,176 172,514 173,5692014 RNA Base Case 163,161 163,214 163,907 163,604 163,753 164,305 165,101 164,830 164,975 165,109 165,721IChange from 2012 RNA -2,179 -2,816 -3,008 -3,393 -4,268 -5,104 -6,075 -7,684 -8,594 NA NA IComparison of Base Case Peak Forecasts -2012 & 2014 RNA (MW)lAnnual MW 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 202412012 RNA Base Case 33,295 33,696 33,914 34,151 34,345 34,550 34,868 35,204 35,526 35,913 36,2302014 RNA Base Case 33,666 34,066 34,412 34,766 35,111 35,454 35,656 35,890 36,127 36,369 36,580IChange from 2012 RNA -248 -85 67 216 243 250 130 103 NA NAComparison of Energy Impacts from Statewide Energy Efficiency Programs & Retail Solar PV -2012 RNA & 2014 RNA (GWh)2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 20242012 RNA Base Case 1,919 3,462 5,140 6,645 7,903 9,149 10,066 10,670 11,230 11,755 12,2442014 RNA Base Case 1,919 3,462 4,823 6,558 8,099 9,395 10,449 11,455 12,439 13,341 14,228 15,108 15,975lChange from 2012 RNA -317 -87 196 246 383 785 1,209 1,586 1,984 NA NAComparison of Peak Impacts from Statewide Energy Efficiency & Retail Solar PV -2012 RNA & 2014 RNA (MW)1 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 20242012 RNA Base Case 343 624 932 1,210 1,446 1,674 1,861 1,983 2,101 2,217 2,3242014 RNA Base Case 343 624 848 1,115 1,372 1,549 1,715 1,867 2,025 2,169 2,314 2,456 2,703IChange from 2012 RNA 95 125 -146 -116 48 -10 NA NANYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment7 Table 3-2: Comparison of 2014 RNA Base Case Forecast and High Load (Econometric) ScenarioAnnual GWh 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 20242014 High Load Scenario 164,522 166,310 168,544 169,537 170,740 172,298 174,078 174,709 175,741 176,755 178,2342014 RNA BaseCase 163,161 163,214 163,907 163,604 163,753 164,305 165,101 164,830 164,975 165,109 165,721Energy Impacts of EE Programs & Retail Solar PVCumulative GWh 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 20242014 RNA Base Case 1,361 3,096 4,637 5,933 6,987 7,993 8,977 9,879 10,766 11,646 12,513[Annual MW 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 20242014 High Load Scenario 33,890 34,557 35,160 35,691 36,202 36,697 37,057 37,435 37,817 38,201 38,6592014 RNA Base Case 33,666 34,066 34,412 34,766 35,111 35,454 35,656 35,890 36,127 36,369 36,580Summer Peak Demand Impacts of EE Programs & Retail Solar PVCumulative MW 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 20242014 RNA Base Case 224 491 748 925 1,091 1,243 1,401 1,545 1,690 1,832 2,079NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment8 Figure 3-1: 2014 Base Case Energy Forecast and ScenariosAnnual Energy -Actual, Normal & Forecasts (GWh)180000175000 -[-170000-165000160000--4 1---ý_,1550007[iI I0oI- N C,150000C:) 1' C4 M" 1" G: 0 O00 a 00 00 000 0 0 000-oD0Ii04C,,¢0%-(N.oC4'- -- '- '-"0000ONNNNO O004N00404Iý0NC)N4CIIJ (1111 N N NI +- Actual ---- Normal Econometric Base Case IFigure 3-2: 2014 Base Case Summer Peak Demand Forecast and ScenariosSummer Peak Demand -Actual, Normal & Forecasts (MW)40000 -i 1 "T39000 .. ... -----38000 j ---.-.37000 -36000 ------ -A---------35000 -- -'33000 --, -31000 -- -- I30000 - --- -- --27000 --- t.--.-, I , ii I i .26000 -~------------- ~ 4~t* 4O0 ) 0 CO ' L) (0 -00 OO 0 N M It0 0 0 a C0 0 0 0 0 0 ----------N N N N0 0 0 D 4 04 0 0 0 J0 0 0 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NI --Actual ----Normal --*-Econometric -BaseCase INYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment9 Energy Efficiency& Retail Solar PV -Annual Energy (GWh)14,00012,00010,0008,0006,0004,0002,0000.~ LO CO 1- CO O 0 C~j ce) v---N ~iý C~ N (NoD CD C 0 0 0D 0 C) 0D 0 0(i (N (Nj (j (j (N 04 C-4 .4 (N (N1*0Energy Efficiency *1RetaiISolarPIVIFigure 3-3: 2014 Base Case Energy Efficiency & Retail Solar PV -Annual EnergyEnergy Efficiency & Retail SolarPV -SummerPeak (MW)2,5002,0001,5001,0005000v LOl (0 r- CO a) 0 CN CO ~---( N CN (N (N0) 0> 0> 0) 0 0 0 0>( (N ( (N N q (N (N ( (N (N (1 0 Energy Efficiency *RetailSolarPV IFigure 3-4: 2014 Base Case Energy Efficiency & Retail Solar PV -Summer Peak0NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment10 3.2. Forecast of Special Case ResourcesThe 2014 RNA special case resource (SCR) levels are based on the 2014 Gold Book valueof 1,189 MW. The MARS program used for resource adequacy analysis calculates the SCRvalues for each hour based on the ratio of hourly load to peak load. Transmission securityanalysis, which evaluates normal transfer criteria, does not consider SCRs.3.3. Resource Additions and RemovalSince the 2012 RNA, resources have been added to the system, some mothball noticeshave been withdrawn and the associated facilities have returned to the system and someresources have been removed. A total of 455.9 MW have been added to the 2014 RNA basecase either as new generation or existing units returning to service. Meanwhile, a total of1,368.8 MW have been removed from the 2012 RNA base case because these units haveretired, mothballed, or proposed to retire/mothball. The comparison of generation statusbetween the 2012 RNA and 2014 RNA is detailed in Table 3-3 below. The MW values representthe Capacity Resources Interconnection Service (CRIS) MW values as shown in the 2014 GoldBook.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment11 Table 3-3: Generation Addition and Removal1CR1IS 2012 RNAIStation Unit Zone j (MW) R 2014 RNA Status*(MW) Status*IResource AdditionStony Creek Wind C 93.9 N/A I/S since Nov. 2013Taylor Biomass G 19.0 N/A I/S starting Dec. 2015Astoria GT 10 J 24.9 O/S I/S return to service since July 15, 2013Astoria GT 11 J 23.6 O/S I/S return to service since July 15, 2013Gowanus 1 J 154.4 O/S I/S (Intent to Retire Notice withdrawn)Gowanus 4 J 140.1 O/S I/S (Intent to Retire Notice withdrawn)Total Resource Addition (CR1S MW) 455.9Resource RemovalDunkirk 2 A 97.2 O/S I/S until May, 31 2015RG&E Station 9 B 14.3 I/S O/SSeneca Oswego Fulton 1 C 0.7 I/S 0/SSeneca Oswego Fulton 2 C 0.3 I/S O/SSyracuse Energy ST1 C 11.0 I/S O/SSyracuse Energy ST2 C 58.9 I/S O/SCayuga 1 C 154.1 I/S I/S until June 30 2017Cayuga 2 C 154.1 I/S I/S until June 30 2017Chateaugay Power D 18.2 I/S O/SSelkirk-I F 76.1 I/S O/S, Intent to Mothball Notice issued in Feb. 2014**Selkirk-Il F 271.6 I/S 0/5, Intent to Mothball Notice issued in Feb. 2014**Danskammer 1 G 61.0 I/S 0/S, Intent to Retire Notice issued in Jan. 2013'**Danskammer 2 G 59.2 I/S O/S, Intent to Retire Notice issued in Jan. 2013'**Danskammer 3 G 137.2 I/S O/S, Intent to Retire Notice issued in Jan. 2013'**Danskammer4 G 236.2 I/S O/S, Intent to Retire Notice issued in Jan. 2013'**Danskammer 5 G 0.0 I/S O/S, Intent to Retire Notice issued in Jan. 2013***Danskammer 6 G 0.0 I/S 0/5, Intent to Retire Notice issued in Jan. 2013'**Ravenswood 07 J 12.7 I/S O/SMontauk 2, 3, 4 K 6.0 I/S O/STotal Resource Removal (CRIS MW) 1368.8,* I/S for In-Service, and O/S for Out-of-Service** Following the completion of this RNA report, Selkirk Cogen Partners, in a letter dated Sept 3, 2014, withdrewtheir earlier notice of intent to mothball Selkirk Units 1 & 2.***On June 27, 2014, the PSC approved the transfer of the Danskammer facility to Helios Power Capital, LLC, andMercuria Energy America, Inc. Following the transfer, the owners have stated their intent to return theDanskammer facility to operation.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment12 NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment 13 3.4. Local Transmission PlansAs part of the Local Transmission Planning Process (LTPP), Transmission Ownerspresented their Local Transmission Plans (LTPs) to the NYISO and Stakeholders in the fall of2013. The NYISO reviewed the LTPs and included them in the 2014 Gold Book. The firmtransmission plans included in the 2014 RNA base case are reported in Appendix D.Assumptions for inclusion in the RNA were based on data as of April 1, 2014.3.5. Bulk Transmission ProjectsSince the 2012 RNA some additional transmission projects have met the inclusion rulesand are in the 2014 RNA base case. The National Grid Five Mile Road project includes tappingthe Homer City-Stolle Rd. 345 kV circuit and connecting to a new 115 kV station through one345/115 kV transformer. The National Grid Eastover Rd. project consists of tapping theRotterdam-Bear Swamp 230 kV circuit and connecting to a new 115 kV station with two230/115 kV transformers (one spare). These projects are modeled as in-service by summer of2015.The Transmission Owner Transmission Solutions (TOTS) is a group of projects by NYPA,NYSEG, and ConEdison that includes three primary projects. The first is Marcy South SeriesCompensation, which includes the installation of series capacitance at the Marcy station on theMarcy-Coopers Corners 345 kV circuit, and at Fraser station on the Edic-Fraser 345 kV and theFraser-Coopers Corners 345 kV circuits. A section of the Fraser-Coopers Corners 345 kV circuitwill also be reconductored. The second project is Rock Tavern-Ramapo, which includes buildingan additional 345 kV circuit between Rock Tavern and Ramapo and a 345/138 kV tapconnecting to the existing Sugarloaf 138 kV station. The third project is Staten IslandUnbottling, which includes the reconfiguration of Goethals and Linden CoGen substations aswell as the installation of additional cooling on the 345 kV cables from Goethals to Gowanusand Gowanus to Farragut. The TOTS projects are scheduled to be completed by summer of2016.An additional 345/115 kV transformer is modeled as in-service at the NYSEG WoodStreet station by the summer of 2016. An additional 230/115/34.5 kV transformer will also beinstalled at the NYSEG Gardenville substation by the summer of 2017.The RGE Station 255 project that taps the existing Somerset-Rochester and Niagara-Rochester 345 kV circuits is in the 2014 RNA base case. An additional 345 kV line will be addedfrom Station 255 to Station 80. Station 255 will have two 345/115 kV transformers connectingto a new 115kV station in the Rochester area. These projects, collectively known as theRochester Area Reliability Project, are modeled as in-service by 2017. Also since the 2012 RNA,two 345/115 kV transformers (T1 and T3) located at RGE Station 80 have been replaced withtransformers which have higher ratings, and are modeled accordingly in the 2014 RNA basecase.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment14 During the development of the 2012 CRP, National Grid proposed a project to mitigatepotential overloads around the Clay substation by reconductoring the Clay-Teall (#10) 115 kVcircuit by winter 2017. This upgrade is modeled as part of the 2014 RNA base case starting inthe year 2018.Two FirstEnergy projects within Pennsylvania that tap NYSEG transmission lines areincluded in the 2014 RNA base case: the Farmers Valley project, which taps the Homer City-Five Mile Rd. 345 kV tie-line, and the Mainesburg project, which taps the Homer City-Watercure345 kV tie-line. Both projects are modeled as in-service for summer 2015.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment15 3.6. Base Case Peak Load and Resource RatiosThe capacity used for the 2014 RNA base case peak load and resource ratio is theexisting generation adjusted for the unit retirements, mothballing, or proposals toretire/mothball announced as of April 15, 2014 along with the new resource additions that metthe base case inclusion rules reported in the 2014 Gold Book. This capacity is summarized inTable 3-4 below.Table 3-4: NYCA Peak Load and Resource Ratios 2015 through 2024Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Peak Load (MW)NYCA* 34,066 I 34,412 34,766 35,111 35,454 35,656 135,890 j 36,127 36,369 1 36,580Zone J* 12,050 12,215 _ 12,'385 _ 12,570 12,700 12790 12,900 12,990__ 13,100 113,185Zone K* 5,708 5,748 5,789 5,923ZnK*5,543 58 5,629 566Zone G-J 16,557 16,749 I 16,935 I 17,149 17,311 17,421 17,554 17,694 17,828 17,935Resources (MW)Capacity- 37,375 37,394 37,085 37,085 j 37,085 j 37,085 37,085 37,085 _37,085 j 37,085Net Purchases & Sales 2,237 2,237 2,237 I. 2,237 2,237 2,237 2,237 2,237 2,237" -2,237SCR 1,189 1,189 1,189 1,189 1,189 1,189 1,189 1,189 1,189 1189NYCA Total Resources 40,801 40,820__ --405 --,511 I 440,5511- 40,51 40,511 40,511 40,511 40,5.1.... .... _-- __--- '- -- '- .-.. ..- " ..... _ -. --'.... F---- .--.. -. --.'-- ..-. .-... ... .... .. ',-Capacity/Load Ratio 109.7% S 108.7% 106.7% 105.6% 104.6% 104.0% 103.3% 102.7% 102. 0/% J 101.4%Cap+NetPurch/Load Rat 116.3% 115.2% 113.1% I 112.0% 110.9% 110.3% 109.6% 108.8% 108.1% 107.5%Tot.Res./Load Ratio 119.8% 118.6% T 116.5% 115.4% 1 114.3% 1 113.6% 112.9% 112.1% 111.4% 110.7%Zone J Total Resources ,10, 10,797 10,797 10,797- 10,797 10,797 10 7 10,97 .10,797Tot.Res./Load Ratio 89.6% 88.4% 87.2% I 85.9- -85.0% 84.4% T 83.7% 83.1% 82.4% 81.9%Zone K Total Resources 6,360 .6,360 -6,360 1 6,360 1 6,1 ,360 6,360 .6,3,360 6,360Tot.Res./Load Ratio 114.7% -113-.8% --113.0% -12.% 1-111.4- T -110.6% 109.9% 109.1% 108.2% -107.4%Zone G-J Total Resources 15,137 J 15,137 1 3 ,137 j115,137 15,137 15,137 15,137Tot.Res./Load Ratio 91.4% 90.4% 89.4% 88.3% 87.4% 86.2% 85.5% 84.9% 84.4%*NYCA load values represent baseline coincident summer peak demand. Zones J and K load values represent non-coincident summer peak demand. Aggregate Zones G-J values represent G-J coincident peak, which is non-coincident with NYCA.**NYCA Capacity values include resources electrically internal to NYCA, additions, reratings, and retirements(including proposed retirements and mothballs). Capacity values reflect the lesser of CRIS and DMNC values. NYCAresources include the net purchases and sales as per the Gold Book. Zonal totals include the awarded UDRs forthose capacity zones.Notes:* SCR -Forecasted ICAP value based on 2014 Gold Book.* Wind generator summer capacity is counted as 100% of nameplate rating." The NYISO set a deadline of May 15, 2014 for deciding whether to include Dunkirk fuel conversion project inthe base case or to study it separately as a sensitivity. The NYISO subsequently determined to study itseparately as a sensitivity.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment16 For summer 2014 resource adequacy, the existing capacity provides about a 122.7%Installed Capacity Reserve to meet the summer 2014 Installed Reserve Margin requirement of117.0%. The capacity margin decreases throughout the study period, but more rapidly andnoticeably in the outer years due to load growth. Consequently, the reliability need year hasadvanced to 2019. To demonstrate the significant reduction in resources, the NYISO comparedthe capacity margin in the need year of 2019 between the 2012 RNA and the 2014 RNA. TheNYISO found a net capacity margin decrease of 2,100 MW, which breaks down as follows, andsummarized in Table 3-5:1. The NYCA capacity resources are 874 MW less for 2019 (724 MW upstate and 150 MWin SENY);2. The NYCA baseline load forecast is 250 MW higher for 2019 (497 MW higher upstateand 247 MW lower in SENY); and3. The NYCA Special Case Resources (SCRs) projection is 976 MW less for 2019 (685 MWupstate and 291 MW in SENY).This reduction contributes to the shift of the need year from 2020 to 2019 identified inthe 2014 RNA, and discussed in Section 4.Table 3-5: Load/Resources Comparison of Year 2019 (MW)Year 2019 2012 RNA 2014 RNA deltaLoad 35,204 35,454 250SCR 2,165 1,189 -976Total Capacity without SCRs 40,196 39,322 -874Net Change in capacity margin in 2014 RNA from 2012 RNA (MW) -2,1003.7. Methodology for the Determination of NeedsReliability Needs are defined by the Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) in terms oftotal deficiencies relative to Reliability Criteria determined from the assessments of the BPTFsperformed for the RNA. There are two steps to analyzing the reliability of the BPTFs. The first isto evaluate the security of the transmission system; the second is to evaluate the adequacy ofthe system, subject to the security constraints. The NYISO planning procedures include bothsecurity and adequacy assessments. The transmission adequacy and the resource adequacyassessments are performed together.Transmission security is the ability of the power system to withstand disturbances suchas short circuits or unanticipated loss of system elements and continue to supply and deliverelectricity. Security is assessed deterministically, with potential disturbances being appliedNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment17 without concern for the likelihood of the disturbance in the assessment. These disturbances(single-element and multiple-element contingencies) are categorized as the design criteriacontingencies, explicitly defined in the NYSRC Reliability Rules. The impacts when applyingthese design criteria contingencies are assessed to ensure no thermal loading, voltage orstability violations will occur. In addition, the NYISO performs a short circuit analysis todetermine if the system can clear faulted facilities reliably under short circuit conditions. TheNYISO "Guideline for Fault Current Assessment" describes the methodology for that analysis.The analysis for the transmission security assessment is conducted in accordance withNERC Reliability Standards, NPCC Transmission Design Criteria, and the NYSRC Reliability Rules.AC contingency analysis is performed on the BPTF to evaluate thermal and voltage performanceunder design contingency conditions using the Siemens PTI PSSE and PowerGEM TARAprograms. Generation is dispatched to match load plus system losses, while respectingtransmission security. Scheduled inter-area transfers modeled in the base case between theNYCA and neighboring systems are held constant.For the RNA, approximately 1,000 design criteria contingencies are evaluated under N-i,N-1-0, and N-1-1 normal transfer criteria conditions to ensure that the system is planned tomeet all applicable reliability criteria. To evaluate the impact of a single event from the normalsystem condition (N-i), all design criteria contingencies are evaluated including: singleelement, common structure, stuck breaker, generator, bus, and HVDC facilities contingencies.An N-1 violation occurs when the power flow on the monitored facility is greater than theapplicable post-contingency rating. N-i-0 and N-1-1 analysis evaluates the ability of the systemto meet design criteria after a critical element has already been lost. For N-i-0 and N-1-1analysis, single element contingencies are evaluated as the first contingency; the secondcontingency (N-1-1) includes all design criteria contingencies evaluated under N-1 conditions.The process of N-i-0 and N-1-1 testing allows for corrective actions including generatorredispatch, phase angle regulator (PAR) adjustments, and HVDC adjustments between the firstand second contingency. These corrective actions prepare the system for the next contingencyby reducing the flow to normal rating after the first contingency. An N-i-0 violation occurswhen the flow cannot be reduced to below the normal rating following the first contingency.An N-1-1 violation occurs when the facility is reduced to below the normal rating following thefirst contingency, but the power flow following the second contingency is greater than theapplicable post-contingency rating.Resource adequacy is the ability of the electric systems to supply the aggregateelectricity demand and energy requirements of the customers at all times, taking into accountscheduled and unscheduled outages of system elements. Resource adequacy considers thetransmission systems, generation resources, and other capacity resources, such as demandresponse. Resource adequacy assessments are performed on a probabilistic basis to capturethe random natures of system element outages. If a system has sufficient transmission andgeneration, the probability of an unplanned disconnection of firm load is equal to or less thanthe system's standard, which is expressed as a Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE). The New YorkNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessmentis State bulk power system is planned to meet a LOLE that, at any given point in time, is less thanor equal to an involuntary load disconnection that is not more frequent than once in every 10years, or 0.1 events per year. This requirement forms the basis of New York's Installed ReserveMargin (IRM) requirement and is on a statewide basis.If Reliability Needs are identified, various amounts and locations of compensatory MWrequired for the NYCA to satisfy those needs are determined to translate the criteria violationsto understandable quantities. Compensatory MW amounts are determined by adding genericcapacity resources to zones to effectively satisfy the needs. The compensatory MW amountsand locations are based on a review of binding transmission constraints and zonal LOLEdeterminations in an iterative process to determine various combinations that will result inReliability Criteria being met. These additions are used to estimate the amount of resourcesgenerally needed to satisfy Reliability Needs. The compensatory MW additions are notintended to represent specific proposed solutions. Resource needs could potentially be met byother combinations of resources in other areas including generation, transmission and demandresponse measures.Due to the differing natures of supply and demand-side resources and transmissionconstraints, the amounts and locations of resources necessary to match the level ofcompensatory MW needs identified will vary. Resource needs could be met in part bytransmission system reconfigurations that increase transfer limits, or by changes in operatingprotocols. Operating protocols could include such actions as using dynamic ratings for certainfacilities, invoking operating exceptions, or establishing special protection systems.The procedure to quantify compensatory MW for BPTF transmission security violationsis a separate process from calculating compensatory MW for resource adequacy violations.This quantification is performed by first calculating transfer distribution factors (TDF) on theoverloaded facilities. The power transfer used for this calculation is created by injecting powerat existing buses within the zone where the violation occurs, and reducing power at anaggregate of existing generators outside of the area.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment19
4. Reliability Needs Assessment4.1. OverviewReliability is defined and measured through the use of the concepts of security andadequacy described in Section 3.4.2. Reliability Needs for Base CaseBelow are the principal findings of the 2014 RNA applicable to the base case conditionsfor the 2015-2024 study periods including: transmission security assessment; short circuitassessment; resource and transmission adequacy assessment; system stability assessments;and scenario analyses.4.2.1. Transmission Security AssessmentThe RNA requires analysis of the security of the Bulk Power Transmission Facilities(BPTF) throughout the Study Period (2015-2024). The BPTF, as defined in this assessment,include all of the facilities designated by the NYISO as a Bulk Power System (BPS) element asdefined by the NYSRC and NPCC, as well as other transmission facilities that are relevant toplanning the New York State transmission system. To assist in the assessment, the NYISOreviewed many previously completed transmission security assessments, and utilized the mostrecent Area Transmission Review and FERC Form 715 power flow case that the NYISOsubmitted to FERC.The transmission security analysis identifies thermal violations on the BPTF throughoutthe Study Period (2015-2024) for N-i, N-1-0, and N-1-1 conditions, some of which are acontinuation of the violations identified in the 2012 RNA for which work is ongoing and some ofwhich represent new violations resulting from system changes modeled in the base case. Table4-1 provides a summary of the contingency pairs that result in the highest thermal overload oneach overloaded BPTF element under N-i, N-1-0, and N-1-1 conditions using coincident peakloading. In the second contingency column of Table 4-1, "N/A" corresponds to an N-1 violationand "Base Case" corresponds to an N-I-0 violation. Table 4-2 provides a summary of the yearby which a solution is needed to be in-service to mitigate the transmission security violation.Appendix D provides a summary of all contingency pairs that result in overloads on the BPTF forthe study period.There are four primary regions of Reliability Needs identified in Table 4-1 including:Rochester, Western & Central New York, Capital Region, and Lower Hudson Valley & New YorkCity. These Reliability Needs either continue to be generally driven by, or have arisen anew dueto, two primary factors: (i) recent and proposed generator retirements/mothballs; and (ii)combined with load growth. Considering non-coincident peak loading for these regions, theNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment20 overloads listed in Table 4-1 would increase most notably in the out-years. Figure 4-1geographically depicts the four regions where the loads may be impacted by transmissionsecurity constraints.Figure 4-1: Approximate Locations of Transmission Security NeedsRochesterThe transmission security analysis continues to show near-term overloads in theRochester area, primarily due to load growth. The 2012 RNA identified overloadedtransformers at Station 80 and Pannell starting in 2013. The Station 80 overloads wereresolved by the recently completed replacement of two transformers at that station. Theremaining portion of the Rochester Area Reliability Project, Rochester Gas and Electric (RG&E)Station 255, which was provided as a solution in the 2012 CRP is included in the base casestarting in 2017 according to the firm plans identified in the 2014 Gold Book.Starting in 2015, the Pannell 345/115 kV transformer 1TR is overloaded for the loss ofGinna followed by a stuck breaker at Pannell. Pannell 345/115 kV transformer 2TR is similarlyoverloaded for the loss of Ginna followed by a stuck breaker at Pannell. The Pannell-Quaker(#914) 115 kV line overloads for the loss of Ginna followed by a loss of Pannell 345/115 kV 3TR.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment21 The N-i-i violations on Pannell 345/115 transformers 1TR and 2TR and Pannell-Quaker (#914)115 kV are resolved after RG&E Station 255 is in-service.Western & Central New YorkThe transmission security analysis identifies a number of thermal and voltage violationson the BPTF in the Western and Central New York regions resulting from a lack of transmissionand generating resources to serve load and support voltage in the area.The 230 kV system between Niagara and Gardenville includes two parallel 230 kVtransmission lines from Niagara to Packard to Huntley to Gardenville, including a number oftaps to serve load in the Buffalo area. A third parallel 230 kV transmission line also runs fromNiagara to Robinson Rd. to Stolle Rd. to Gardenville. The N-i-1 analysis shows that in 2018,Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 kV overloads for loss of the parallel line (#79) followed by a stuckbreaker at the Robinson Road 230 kV substation. In 2021, the Packard-Huntley (#77) and (#78)lines each overload for the loss of the parallel line followed by a stuck breaker at the RobinsonRoad 230 kV substation. Similarly, in 2022, the Huntley-Gardenville (#79) line overloads for lossof the parallel line (#80) followed by a stuck breaker at the Robinson Road 230 kV substation.The overloads occur due to increased load in Western and Central New York and are aggravatedby both the mothball of Dunkirk generation and a new load-serving 230/115 kV substation(Four Mile Junction) just within the PJM area.National Grid's Clay 115 kV station includes eight 115 kV transmission connections andtwo 345/115 kV transformers that serve the Oswego and Syracuse areas. Starting in 2015, theClay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115 kV line has a flow of 146 MVA compared to a Long TermEmergency (LTE) rating of 120 MVA for an N-1 breaker failure at the Oswego 345 kV substation.In 2019, the flow increases to 166 MVA. The increase in flow between 2015 and 2019 isprimarily due to modeling the Cayuga generation plant out-of-service starting in 2017. Theincreased load and Dunkirk mothballing in 2015 also contribute to the overload. In 2024, theflow increases to 168 MVA due to load growth. In 2024, the Clay-Woodward (Euclid-Woodard)(#17) 115 kV line has a flow of 183 MVA compared to an LTE rating of 174 MVA due to an N-1breaker failure at the Lafayette 345 kV substation.Thermal overloads are also observed at Clay for N-i-1 conditions. Starting in 2015, theN-i-1 analysis shows various overloads in the Syracuse area including: Clay-Lockheed Martin(#14) 115 kV, Clay-Teall (#10) 115 kV, and the Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 kV line. Starting in 2017, theN-i-1 analysis shows additional overloads on: Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 kV, Clay-S. Oswego (#4)115 kV, and the Clay 345/115 kV 1TR transformer. In the 2012 RNA, the NYISO identifiedtransmission security violations on Clay-Teall (#10) 115 kV line. The overloads on the Clay-Teall(#10) 115 kV and the Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 kV lines are mitigated by the solutions identified inthe 2012 CRP starting in 2018, as described in Section 3.5 of this report. The Clay-LockheedMartin (#14) 115 kV line also experiences an N-I-0 violation starting in 2019 for the loss of theElbridge 345/115 kV transformer. The overloads in this area are primarily due to power flowingNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment22 from east-to-west on the 115 kV system to serve load in Central New York after the loss of anorth-to-south 345 kV path and are exacerbated with Cayuga mothballed.National Grid's Porter 115 kV station includes eight 115 kV transmission connectionsand two 345/115 kV transformers that serve the Utica and Syracuse areas. The N-1-1 analysisshows the Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 kV line overloaded starting in 2015 for the loss ofOswego-Elbridge-Lafayette (#17) 345 kV followed by a stuck breaker at the Clay 345 kVsubstation; additionally, the N-1-i analysis shows the Porter-Oneida (#7) 115 kV lineoverloaded starting in 2017 for the same contingency pair. These overloads are due to powerflowing from east to west on the 115 kV system to serve load in the Utica, Syracuse, and FingerLakes area and are exacerbated with Cayuga mothballed.In addition to the thermal violations identified in Table 4-1, the Porter 115 kV area haslocal low voltage issues in all years due to a stuck breaker contingency.The Oakdale 345/230/115 kV substation serves the Binghamton area. Starting in 2015,N-1-i analysis shows the loading on Oakdale 345/115 kV 2TR is overloaded for the loss ofWatercure 345/230 kV 1TR followed by a stuck breaker at Oakdale 345 kV; however, starting in2016 a second Watercure 345/230 kV transformer (expected in-service date prior to winter2015) is modeled in-service, which resolves Watercure 345/230 kV transformer from being alimiting contingency. With the second Watercure 345/230 kV transformer in-service in 2016,the limiting contingency pair changes to the loss of Fraser 345/115 kV 2TR followed by a stuckbreaker at Oakdale 345 kV. An N-1-0 violation occurs starting in 2016 on Oakdale 345/115 kV2TR for loss of Oakdale 345/115 kV 3TR and then in 2020 on Oakdale 345/115 kV 3TR for loss ofOakdale 345/115 kV 2TR. The overloads on the Oakdale 345/115 kV transformers are causedby the loss of sources (i.e. transformers) and are exacerbated with Cayuga mothballed.In addition to the thermal violations identified in Table 4-1, the Oakdale area has lowvoltage under N-i-1 conditions starting in 2017 for loss of transformer sources into the localarea from the bulk system. The low voltage is primarily due to modeling the Cayuga generationplant out-of-service starting in 2017.Capital RegionIn March of 2014, Selkirk Cogen Partners, LLC submitted their notice of intent tomothball the Selkirk I and Selkirk II facilities effective September 2014; therefore, thesegenerating units are not included in the base case. With the Selkirk plant modeled out-of-service, pre-contingency overloads exist on local 115 kV non-BPTF elements beginning in 2015and, unless resolved, continuing for all study years. There are also significant post-contingencyoverloads on the local 115 kV transmission lines. Additionally, overloads are noted on the NewScotland 345/115 kV transformer for the loss of generation at Bethlehem followed by loss of aNew Scotland 345 kV bus (#77) and the Reynolds 345/115 kV transformer has an N-1-0 violationfor the loss of generation at Bethlehem. National Grid is evaluating the overloaded localNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment23 facilities in this area and determining corrective action plans. The solutions developed byNational Grid will impact the magnitude of loadings on BPTF facilities in the Capital Region.These loadings on the BPTF facilities will be reevaluated as part of the CRP following NationalGrid's update to their local transmission plan.Lower Hudson Valley & New York CityThe UPNY-SENY interface includes five 345 kV lines from north to south within NewYork: Leeds -Athens -Pleasant Valley (#95/91) 345 kV, Leeds -Pleasant Valley (#92) 345 kV,Leeds -Hurley (#301) 345 kV, Coopers Corners -Rock Tavern (#42) 345 kV, and CoopersCorners -Middletown -Rock Tavern (#34) 345 kV. Similar to the 2012 RNA, the Leeds -Pleasant Valley lines are overloaded starting in 2022 for the N-1-1 loss of other 345 kV linesacross the UPNY-SENY interface. These overloads are due to load growth and a reduction ingeneration in the Lower Hudson Valley and New York City areas.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment24 Table 4-1: 2014 RNA Transmission Security Thermal Violations2015 2019 2024Normal LTE STE Flow Flow FlowZone Owner Monitored Element Rating Rating Rating First Contingency Second Contingency(MVA) (MVA) (MVA)(MVA) (MVA) (MVA)A N.Grid Packard-Huntley (#77) 230 556 644 704 649 Packard-Huntley SB Robinson Rd 230(Packard-Sawyer) (#78) 230A N.Grid Packard-Huntley (#78) 230 556 644 746 649 Packard-Huntley SB Robinson Rd 230(Packard-Sawyer) (#77) 230A N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#79) 230 566 654 755 664 Huntley-Gardenville $8 Robinson Rd 230(Huntley-Sawyer) (#80) 230661 672 Huntley-Gardenville SB Robinson Rd 230A N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 566 654 755 (#79) 230(Huntley-Sawyer) 697 Robinson-Stolle Rd Huntley-Gardenville(#65) 230 (#79) 230B RGE Pannell 345/115 1TR 228 282 336 372 L/O Ginna SB Pannell 345B RGE Pannell 345/115 2TR 228 282 336 372 L/O Ginna SB Pannell 345B RGE Pannell-Quaker (#914) 115 207.1 246.9 284.8 298 L/O Ginna Pannell 345/115 3TR573 Watercure 345/230 1TR SB Oakdale 345C NYSEG Oakdale 345/115 2TR 428 556 600 440 444 Oakdale 345/115 3TR Base CaseI I 1 1 574 586 Fraser 345/115 2TR SB Oakdale 345C NYSEG Oakdale 345/115 3TR 428 556 600 438 Oakdale 345/115 2TR Base Case146163168SB Oswego 345N/ACN.GridClay-Lockheed Martin (#14)115116120145139 1 142 1 Elbridge 345/115 1TR Base Case165204216Clay-Woodard (#17) 115SB Lafayette 345* 4- -I- .1 4 .4-CN.GridClay-Teall (#10) 115(Clay-Bartell Rd-Pine Grove)116120145131Clay-Teall(#11) 115SB Dewitt 345C N.Grid Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 116 120 145 126 Clay-Dewitt SB Oswego 345(Clay-Bartell Rd) 1 (#13) 345C N.Grid Clay 345/115 1TR 478 637 794 710 757 Oswego-EIbridge-Lafayette SB Clay 345(#17) 345183 SB Lafayette 345 N/AC N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 174 174 174 Clay-Lockheed Martin(Euclid-Woodward) 207 220 CaLce Mri SB Lafayette 345_______ ______ _______(#14) 115C N.Grid S. Oswego-Clay (#4) 115(S. Oswego-Whitaker) 104 104 104 114 117 Clay 345/115 1TR SB Clay 345Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 128 141 142 Oswego-Elbridge-Lafayette SB Clay 345E N.Grid (Porter-Kelsey) 116 120 145 128 14 142 (#17) 345PotrKle 143 Clay-Dewitt (#13) 345 SB Oswego 345Porter-Oneida (#7) 115 122 125 Oswego-Elbridge-Lafayette SB Clay 345E N.Grid Porter-Oneica) 116 120 145 122 125(#17) 345(Porter-W. Utica) 126 Clay-Dewitt (#13) 345 SB Oswego 345F N.Grid New Scotland 345/115 1TR 458 570 731 631 659 837 L/O Bethlehem New Scotland (#77) 345F N.Grid Reynolds 345/115 459 562 755 492 498 584 L/O Bethlehem Base CaseF-G N.Grid Leeds-Pleasant Valley (#92) 1331 1538 1724 1587 Athens-Pleasant Valley Tower 41&33345 (491) 345F-G N.Grid Athens-Pleasant Valley (#91) 1331 1538 1724 1584 Leeds-Pleasant Valley (#92) Tower 41&33345 345NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment25 Table 4-2: 2014 RNA Transmission Security Reliability Need YearZone Owner Monitored Element Year of NeedB RGE Pannell 345/115 1TR 2015B RGE Pannell 345/115 2TR 2015B RGE Pannell-Quaker (#914) 115 2015C NYSEG Oakdale 345/115 2TR 2015C N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115 2015C N.Grid Clay-Teall (#10) 115 2015(Clay-Bartell Rd-Pine Grove)C N.Grid Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 2015(Clay-Bartell Rd)E N.Grid Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 2015(Porter-Kelsey)F N.Grid New Scotland 345/115 1TR 2015F N.Grid Reynolds 345/115 2015C N.Grid Clay 345/115 1TR 2017C N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 2017(Euclid-Woodward)C N.Grid S. Oswego-Clay (#4) 115 2017(S. Oswego-Whitaker)E N.Grid Porter-Oneida (#7) 115 2017(Porter-W. Utica)A N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 2018(Huntley-Sawyer)C NYSEG Oakdale 345/115 3TR 2020A N.Grid Packard-Huntley (#77) 230 2021(Packard-Sawyer)A N.Grid Packard-Huntley (#78) 230 2021(Packard-Sawyer)A N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#79) 230 2022(Huntley-Sawyer)F -G N.Grid Leeds-Pleasant Valley (#92) 345 2022F -G N.Grid Athens-Pleasant Valley (#91) 345 2022NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment26 4.2.2. Short Circuit AssessmentPerformance of a transmission security assessment includes the calculation ofsymmetrical short circuit current to ascertain whether the circuit breakers in the system couldbe subject to fault current levels in excess of their rated interrupting capability. The analysiswas performed for the year 2019 reflecting the study conditions outlined in Section 3. Thecalculated fault levels would be constant over the second five years because no new generationor transmission is modeled in the RNA for second five years, and the methodology for fault dutycalculation is not sensitive to load growth. The detailed results are presented in Appendix D ofthis report.National Grid, having taken into account factors such as circuit breaker age and faultcurrent asymmetry, has derated breakers at certain stations. As a result, overdutied breakerswere identified at Porter 230 kV and Porter 115 kV stations. Table 4-3: summarizes over-dutybreakers at each station. National Grid reports that plans to make the necessary facilityupgrades are in place. For Porter 115 kV, National Grid is scheduled to rebuild the station andreplace all the breakers by Winter 2014/2015. For Porter 230 kV, National Grid is scheduled toadd microprocessor relays to mitigate the overdutied breakers by the end of 2014.Table 4-3:2014 RNA Over-Duty Circuit Breaker SummarySubstation kV Number of Over-Duty Breaker IDCircuit BreakersPorter 115 10 R130, RIO, R20, R30, R40, R50,1R60, R70, R80, R90Porter 230 9 R110,R120,R15, R170, R25, R320,1R835, R825, R845NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment27 4.2.3. Transmission and Resource Adequacy AssessmentThe NYISO conducts its resource adequacy analysis with General Electric's Multi AreaReliability Simulation (MARS) software package. The modeling applies interface transfer limitsand performs a probabilistic simulation of outages of capacity and transmission resources.The emergency transfer limits were developed using the 2014 RNA base case. Table 4-4,Table 4-5, and Table 4-6 below provide the thermal and voltage emergency transfer limits forthe major NYCA interfaces. For comparison purposes, the 2012 RNA transfer limits arepresented.Table 4-4: Transmission System Thermal Emergency Transfer Limits2014 RNA study 2012 RNA studyInterface 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2024 2015 2016 2017Dysinger East 2200 2150 2100 2075 2050 Same as 2019 2975 2975 2975Central East MARS 4025 4500 4500 4500 4500 Same as 2019 3425 3425 3475E to G (Marcy South) 1700 2150 2150 2150 2150 Same as 2019 1700 1700 1700F to G 3475 3475 3475 3475 3475 Same as 2019 3475 3475 3475UPNY-SENY MARS 5150 5600 5600 5600 5600 Same as 2019 5150 5150 5150to J (Dunwoodie South MARS) 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 Same as 2019 4400 4400 44001to K (Y49/Y50) 1290 1290 1290 1290 1290 Same as 2019 1290 1290 1290Table 4-5: Transmission System Voltage Emergency Transfer Limits2014 RNA study 2012 RNA studyInterface 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2024 2015 2016 2017Dysinger East 2700 DNC DNC DNC 2800 Same as 2019 2875 2900 2875West Central 1475 DNC DNC DNC 1350 Same as 2019 1850 1900 1900Central East MARS 3250 3100 3100 3100 3100 Same as 2019 3350 3350 3350Central East Group 4800 5000 5000 5000 5000 Same as 2019 4800 4800 4800UPNY-ConEd 5210 5210 5210 5210 5210 Same as 2019 5210 5210 52101 to J & K 5160 5160 5160 5160 5160 Same as 2019 5160 5160 5160DNC: Did Not CalculateTable 4-6: Transmission System Base Case Emergency Transfer Limits2014 RNA study 2012 RNA studyInterface 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2024 2015 2016 2017Dysinger East 2200 T1 2150 T 2100 T 2075 T 2050 T Same as 2019 2875 V 29001 V 2875 VCentral East MARS 3250 V 3100 V 3100 V 3100 V 3100 V Same as 2019 3350 V_ 3350 V 3350 VCentral East Group 4800 v 5000 V 5000 V 5000 v 5000 v Same as 2019 4800 v 4800 V 4800 VEto G (Marcy South) 1700 T 2150 T 2150 T 2150 T 2150 T Same as 2019 1700 T 1700 T 1700 TFtoG 3475 T 3475 T 3475 T 3475 T 3475 T Sameas2019 3475 T 3475 T 3475 TUPNY-SENYMARS 5150 T 5600 T 5600 T 5600 T 5600 T Sameas2019 5150 T 5150 T 5150 TIto J (Dunwoodie South MARS) 4400 T 4400 T 4400 T 4400 T 4400 T Same as 2019 4400 T 4400 T 4400 1ItoK(Y49/YS0) 1290 T 1290 T1 1290 T 1290 T 1290 T Sameas2019 1290 T1 1290 T 1290 "1toJ&K 5160 C 5160 C 5160 C 5160 C 5160 C Sameas2019 5160 C 5160 C 5160 CNote: T=Thermal, V=Voltage, C=CombinedNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment28 The Dysinger East transfer limit decreased compared to the transfer limit used in the2012 RNA. The thermal limitations on the 230 kV transmission path between Packard andGardenville in Zone A became more constraining than the voltage limitations. This was dueprimarily to modeling the Dunkirk plant as out-of-service in the 2014 RNA analysis whereas, incontrast, there was 500 MW of generic generation modeled at the Dunkirk substation for thecalculation of transfer limits in the 2012 RNA. The transfer limit further reduces incrementallyeach year due to load growth in Zone A.The Central East MARS interface limit is lower for the 2014 RNA than it was for the 2012RNA. This is primarily due to the inclusion of the Transmission Owner Transmission Solutions(TOTS) projects. The inclusion of the TOTS projects in the model also resulted in increases tothe Central East Group, Marcy South, and UPNY-SENY MARS interface transfer limits. The TOTSprojects that add series compensation to the Marcy South transmission corridor effectivelyincrease flow through that transmission path. The second Rock Tavern-Ramapo 345 kV linealso contributes to this change in the power flow pattern. The result is that power is divertedsomewhat from the circuits that make up the Central East MARS interface and the power flowacross the UPNY-SENY interface is more balanced between the Marcy South corridor and theLeeds-Pleasant Valley corridor. Inclusion of the TOTS projects also impacts the A line and VFTinterface(Staten Island) by significantly reducing the constraints on flows from Staten Islandgeneration and the ties to New Jersey.The results of the 2014 RNA base case studies show that the LOLE for the NYCA exceeds0.1 beginning in the year 2019 and the LOLE continues to increase through 20242. The LOLEresults for the entire 10-year RNA base case are presented in Table 4-7. While the LOLE criteriaare evaluated on a statewide basis, both the NYCA and zonal LOLE are presented forinformational purposes to assist in the development of the compensatory MWs. The zonalLOLE are driven by many factors and thus cannot be used for direct identification of the driversof the statewide [OLE violations. A test to determine the causation of the LOLE separation on azonal basis caused by transmission interface constraints was developed and applied to identifythose interfaces most binding at the time of NYCA LOLE event. It is referred to as the BindingInterface test and it is critical in developing the most effective compensatory MW locations.Consistent with the previous RNAs, UPNY-SENY remains the most constraining interface.2 RNA Study results are rounded to two decimal places. A result of exactly 0.01, for example, would correspond toone event in one hundred years.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment29 Table 4-7: NYCA Resource Adequacy Measure (in LOLE)Zone(s) 25 2 ON 2Zone A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Zone B 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.09Zone C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Zone D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Zone E 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.09Zone F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Zones A-F 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.09Zone G 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08Zone H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Zone I 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.22 0.25Zone J 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.25Zone K 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.19Zones G-K 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.22 0.26NYCA 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.22 0.26*Note: "0" represents an LOLE less or equal to 0.004.In order to avoid over-dependence on emergency assistance from external areas,emergency operating procedures in the external areas are not modeled. Capacity of theexternal systems is further adjusted so that the interconnected LOLE value of the external areas(Ontario, New England, Hydro Quebec, and PJM) is not less than 0.10 and not greater than 0.15for the year 2015. The level of load and generation are frozen in the remaining years. The LOLEfor the external systems will generally increase consistent with the increase in NYCA LOLE whichresults from the load growth over the Study Period. The increase is higher than in previousRNAs because of the increased binding on Dysinger East and Central East Group.4.2.4. System Stability AssessmentThe 2010 NYISO Comprehensive Area Transmission Review (CATR), which wascompleted in June 2011 and evaluated the year 2015, is the most recent CATR. The 2013 NYISOIntermediate Area Transmission Review evaluated the year 2018 and was completed in June2014. The stability analyses conducted as part of the 2010 and 2013 ATRs in conformance withthe applicable NERC standards, NPCC criteria, and NYSRC Reliability Rules found no stabilityissues (criteria violations) for summer peak load and light load conditions.0NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment30 4.3. Reliability Needs SummaryAfter determining that the LOLE criterion would be violated beginning in 2019 andcontinuing through 2024, the LOLE for the bulk power system for those years was calculatedwith two additional cases. The first is NYCA Thermal with all NYCA internal transfer limits set atthermal (not voltage) limits to determine whether the system was adequate to delivergeneration to the loads without the voltage constraints. The second is the NYCA free flow,which was performed with all NYCA internal transfer limits removed. Table 4-8 presents asummary of the results.Table 4-8: Summary of the LOLE Results -Base, Thermal, and Free Flow Cases2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024NYCA 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.22 0.26NYCA Thermal 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.22 0.26NYCA FreeFlow 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.09In general, an LOLE result above 0.1 days per year indicates that additional resources arerequired to maintain reliability (adequacy). The results indicate the first year of need forresources (a Reliability Need) is 2019 for the RNA base case. The Reliability Needs can beresolved by adding capacity resources downstream of the transmission constraints or by addingtransmission reinforcement to mitigate the constraints.To determine if transmission reinforcements would be beneficial, the "NYCA Thermal"and a "NYCA Free Flow Test" cases are executed. The first year of need for the free flowsensitivity case is beyond 2024, which means that there is no statewide deficiency, andtransmission reinforcement is a potential option to resolving the LOLE violation. In addition,the NYCA Thermal case results indicate that voltage limits are not constraining enough toimpact NYCA LOLE.Additional analysis of the base case results to determine binding hours showed thatUPNY-SENY remains among the most constraining interfaces, consistent with the conclusionfrom the previous RNAs. This indicates that increasing the total resources downstream ofUPNY-SENY or increasing the UPNY-SENY transfer limit will be among the most effective optionsto resolve the LOLE violations. Another aspect of the binding hours determination is to performa relaxation by increasing the individual constraint limits, one at a time. Increasing the limit onUPNY-SENY by 1,000 MW showed the most movement in NYCA LOLE and the individual LoadZone LOLE. Zonal LOLE went down for all Zones G-K. This test further indicates the potential oftransmission reinforcements and gives valuable insight to the most effective locations for theCompensatory MW development shown in Section 4.3.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment31 Compensatory MWTo provide information to the marketplace regarding the magnitude of the resourcesthat are required to meet the BPTF transmission security needs, Table 4-9 contains a summaryof the minimum compensatory MW to satisfy the transmission security violations identified inSection 4.2.1.The compensatory MW identified in Table 4-9 are for illustrative purposes only and arenot meant to limit the specific facilities or types of resources that may be offered as ReliabilityNeeds solutions. Compensatory MW may reflect generation capacity (MVA), demand response,or transmission additions.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment32 Table 4-9: Compensatory MW Additions for Transmission Security Violations2015 MVA 2015 Min. 2019 MVA 2019 Min. 2024 MVA 2024 Min.Zone Owner Monitored Element Overload Comp. Overload Comp. Overload Comp.OMW MW MWA N.Grid Packard-Huntley (#77) 230(Packard-Sawyer) 5_7A N.Grid Packard-Huntley (#78) 230(Packard-Sawyer) 5_7A N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#79) 230(Huntley-Sawyer) 10 12A N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 7 9(Huntley-Sawyer) 43 51B RGE Pannell 345/115 1TR 90 295B RGE Pannell 345/115 2TR 90 295B RGE Pannell-Quaker (#914) 115 49 8617 34C NYSEG Oakdale 345/115 2TR 12 23 16 3018 34 30 56C NYSEG Oakdale 345/115 3TR 10 1926 35 46 61 48 64C N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 28 38 32 4345 61 84 114 96 130C N.Grid Clay-Teall (#10) 115 11 15(Clay-Bartell Rd-Pine Grove)C N.Grid Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 6 8(Clay-Bartell Rd)C N.Grid Clay 345/115 1TR 73 182 120 299C N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 9 15(Euclid-Woodward) 33 54 46 75C N.Grid S. Oswego-Clay (#4) 115 10 17 13 22(S. Oswego-Whitaker) _0_17_13_22E N.Grid Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 7 10 21 30(Porter-Kelsey) 23 33E N.Grid Porter-Oneida (#7) 115 2 3(Porter-W. Utica) 6 8F N.Grid New Scotland 345/115 1TR 61 141 89 205 267 612F N.Grid Reynolds 345/115 33 109 39 128 125 427F-G N.Grid Leeds-Pleasant Valley (#92) 345 49 160F-G N.Grid Athens-Pleasant Valley (#91) 46 152E _______ 345 46 152NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment33 For resource adequacy deficiencies, the amount and location of the compensatory MWis determined by testing combinations of capacity resources (representing blocks of 50MW ofUCAP) located in various load zones until the NYCA LOLE is reduced to 0.1 days per year or less.The process of calculating compensatory MW values informs developers and policy makers byallowing them to test all resource types in meeting needs, by providing additional informationon binding interfaces, and allows for the iterative testing of resources in various locations tomeet system needs. The purpose of the analyses is not only to show the level of compensatoryMW needed to meet the LOLE criterion, but also the importance of the location chosen for thecompensatory MW. The results of the MARS simulations for the RNA base case, and scenariosprovide information that can be used to guide the compensatory MW analyses as well. If anLOLE violation is, to some extent, caused by a frequently constrained interface, locatingcompensatory MW upstream of that load zone will result in a higher level of requiredcompensatory MW to meet resource adequacy requirements. The location of thesecompensatory MW assumes that there are no impacts on internal zonal constraints or thepresent interface limits into or out of the Zone(s) being tested. These impacts will bedetermined for the solutions that will be evaluated in the CRP.Not all alternatives tested were able to achieve an LOLE of less than or equal to 0.1 daysper year. The results of the compensatory MW calculation show that by 2024, a total of 1,150MW are required to mitigate the reliability criteria violations in the base case.Table 4-10: Compensatory MW Additions for Resource Adequacy ViolationsZones for AdditionsYearOnly in ABCEF Only in G-K Only in J Only in K2015 ----2016 ----2017 ----2018 ----2019 400 100 100 1002020 3,900 300 300 3002021 5,600 500 500 5002022 7,400 700 700 8002023 not feasible 950 950 1,1002024 not feasible 1,150 1,150 1,500Review of the results indicates that adequate compensatory MW must be located withinZone G through K because of the existing transmission constraints into those Zones. Potentialsolutions could include a combination of additional transfer capability into Zones G through Kfrom outside those zones and/or resources located within Zones G through K. Furtherexamination of the results reveals that the constraining hours of UPNY-SENY and Dysinger Eastare increasing over the Study Period. Binding hours for interface below UPNY-SENY are not thatNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment34 significant in 2024 for the base case, but would increase greatly if significant resources areadded exclusively to Zone K.These results indicate that the total amount of compensatory MW could be locatedanywhere within SENY; no individual zone has a unique requirement. Although theeffectiveness of compensatory MW located in Zones A through F and Zone K diminishes as thetransmission constraints to the deficient zones become more binding, these compensatory MWwill help to mitigate the statewide LOLE violations. Compensatory MW located in Zones Athrough F, and assuming equal distribution, is only reasonably effective for 2019, and even thenwould require four times as much MW to be as effective. The effectiveness diminishes rapidlyfor future years and becomes non feasible in 2023. For Zone K, the compensatory MW wouldbe as effective up to 500 MW to the year 2021, with a reduction in effectiveness ofapproximately thirty percent in 2024. The NYISO will evaluate proposed solutions effectivenessin mitigating LOLE violations and any impacts on transfer limits during the development of the2014 CRP. There are other combinations of compensatory MW that would also meet thestatewide reliability criteria, but it is not the intent of this analysis to identify preferredlocations or combinations for potential solutions.The regulated backstop solutions may take the form of alternative solutions of possibleresource additions and system changes. Such proposals will provide an estimatedimplementation schedule so that trigger dates could be determined by the NYISO for purposesof beginning the regulatory approval and development processes for the regulated backstopsolutions if market solutions do not materialize in time to meet the reliability needs.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment35 4.4. Dunkirk Plant Fuel Conversion SensitivityThe Dunkirk plant sensitivity evaluates the NYCA system using the base caseassumptions, with the added assumption that the proposed fuel conversion of Dunkirk units #2,#3, and #4, a total of 435 MW, from coal to natural gas is completed prior to summer 2016.The impact of Dunkirk generation returning to service on the NYCA BPTF3 was assessedin this sensitivity analysis. The availability of Dunkirk after the fuel conversion project relievesthe transmission security thermal violations in Buffalo and Binghamton areas.The transmission security analysis with Dunkirk not in-service continues to identifyseveral thermal violations on the BPTF for N-i, N-I-0, and N-1-1 conditions under 50/50coincident peak load forecast conditions. With Dunkirk in-service, the thermal violationsobserved in the RNA base case in the Western New York region and the Binghamton Area(Oakdale 345/230/115 kV substation) are resolved. In the Central region the overloadsobserved in the Oswego, Utica, and Syracuse areas are reduced, but not resolved with Dunkirkin-service due to a higher west to east flow, but require further system changes to resolve theoverloads. The Capital and Southeast regions are insignificantly impacted with Dunkirk in-service. The voltage violations observed in the RNA base case in the Binghamton and Uticaareas are not resolved with Dunkirk in-service because Dunkirk is too far removedgeographically to have any substantial effect on these violations.Table 4-11 provides a summary of the contingency pairs with Dunkirk in-service thatresult in the highest thermal overload on each violated BPTF element in the Central regionunder N-i, N-i-0, and N-1-1 conditions under 50/50 coincident peak load conditions. In thesecond contingency column of Table 4-11, "N/A" corresponds to an N-1 violation and "BaseCase" corresponds to an N-i-0 violation. Considering non-coincident zonal peak loading, theoverloads listed in Table 4-11 can increase, most notably in the out-years.3 The local transmission projects are modeled appropriately according to PSC Case 12-E-0577 -Proceeding onMotion of the Commission to Examine Repowering Alternatives to Utility Transmission Reinforcements -MaterialsPresented at October 31, 2013 Technical Conference, presented by National Grid.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment36 Table 4-11: 2014 RNA 50/50 Forecast Transmission Security Thermal Violations with Dunkirk In-ServiceFor resource adequacy assessment, dynamic limit tables are implemented on twointerfaces, Dysinger East and Zone A Group, and the details are included in Appendix D.Starting in 2019, NYCA LOLE exceeds 0.1, and the return of Dunkirk to service following its fuelconversion does not change the Need Year.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment37 4.5. ScenariosThe NYISO develops reliability scenarios pursuant to Section 31.2.2.5 of Attachment Y ofthe OATT. Scenarios are variations on the RNA base case to assess the impact of possiblechanges in key study assumptions which, if they occurred, could change the timing, location ordegree of Reliability Criteria violations on the NYCA system during the study period. Thefollowing scenarios were evaluated as part of the RNA:* High Load (Econometric) Forecast (impacts associated with projected energy reductionsproduced statewide)" Transmission security assessment using a 90/10 load forecast" Zonal Capacity at Risk* Indian Point Plant Retirement assessment* Stressed Winter Condition assessment4.5.1. High Load (Econometric) ForecastThe RNA base case forecast includes impacts associated with projected energyreductions coming from statewide energy efficiency and retail PV programs. The High LoadForecast Scenario excludes these energy efficiency program impacts from the peak forecast,resulting in the econometric forecast levels, and is shown in Table 3-2. This results in a higherpeak load in 2024 than the base case forecast by 2,079 MW. Given that the peak load in theeconometric forecast is higher than the base case, the probability of violating the LOLE criterionincreases with violations also occurring at any earlier point in time.The results indicate the LOLE would be 0.08 in 2016 and would increase to 0.13 by 2017under the high load scenario. If the high load forecast were to materialize, the year of need forresource adequacy would be advanced by two years from 2019 in the base case to 2017 in thehigh load scenario. The horizon year, 2024, LOLE would increase from 0.26 to 0.81 absentsystem changes to resolve violations in earlier years.4.5.2. Zonal Capacity at RiskThe base case LOLE does not exceed 0.10 until 2019. Scenario analyses were performedto determine the reduction in zonal capacity (i.e., the amount of capacity in each zone thatcould be lost) which would cause the NYCA LOLE to exceed 0.10 in each year from 2015 through2018. The NYISO reduced zonal capacity to determine when violations occur in the samemanner as the compensatory MW are added to mitigate resource adequacy violations, but withthe opposite impact. The zonal capacity at risk analysis is summarized in Table 4-12.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment38 Table 4-12: Zonal Capacity at Risk (MW)2015 2016 2017 2018Zone A 1,550 1,750 1,450 750Zone B exceeds zonal resources exceeds zonal resources exceeds zonal resources 450Zone C 2,200 1,850 1,100 450Zone D exceeds zonal resources exceeds zonal resources 1,100 450Zone E exceeds zonal resources exceeds zonal resources exceeds zonal resources 500Zone F 1,800 1,700 1,050 450Zones A-F 2,500 2,200 1,300 550Zone G 650 750 400 150Zone H 650 750 400 150Zone I N/A N/A N/A N/AZones G-I 650 750 400 150ZoneJ 650 750 400 150Zone K 550 550 350 150The zones at risk analyses identify a maximum level of capacity that can be removedwithout causing LOLE violations. However, the impact of removing capacity on the reliability ofthe transmission system and the transfer capability are highly location dependent. Thus, inreality, lower amounts of capacity removal are likely to result in reliability issues at specifictransmission locations. The study did not attempt to assess a comprehensive set of potentialscenarios that might arise from specific unit retirements. Therefore, actual proposed capacityremoval from any of these zones would need to be further studied in light of the specificcapacity locations in the transmission network to determine whether any additional violationsof reliability criteria would result. Additional transmission security analysis, such as N-i-1analysis, would need to be performed for any contemplated plant retirement in any zone.4.5.3. Indian Point Retirement AssessmentBecause its owners submitted license renewal applications on a timely basis, the IndianPoint Plant is authorized to continue operations throughout its currently ongoing licenserenewal processes. This scenario studied the impacts if the Indian Point Plant were instead tobe retired by the end of 2015 (the later of the two current license expiration dates). Significantviolations of transmission security and resource adequacy criteria would occur in 2016 if theIndian Point Plant were to be retired as of that time. These results were determined using thebase case assumptions with the additional change that the Con Edison load was modified toincorporate 125 MW of targeted load reduction projects, consisting of 100 MW of EnergyEfficiency and Demand Reduction, and 25 MW of Combined Heat and Power distributedgeneration.The Indian Point Plant has two base-load units (2,060 MW total) located in Zone H inSoutheastern New York, an area of the State that is subject to transmission constraints thatNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment39 limit transfers in that area as demonstrated by the reliability violations that arise by 2019 in thebase case. Southeastern New York, with the Indian Point Plant in service, currently relies ontransfers to augment existing capacity. Consequently, load growth or loss of generationcapacity in this area would aggravate constraints.The transmission security analysis has not materially changed since the 2012 RNAregarding the need year under the Indian Point retirement scenario. The results showed thatthe shutdown of the Indian Point Plant exacerbates the loading across the UPNY-SENYinterface, with the Leeds -Pleasant Valley and Athens -Pleasant Valley 345 kV lines abovetheir LTE ratings in 2016.Using the base case load forecast adjusted for the Con Edison EE program, LOLE is 0.31in 2016 with Indian Point Plant retired, which is a substantial violation of the 0.1 days per yearcriterion. Beyond 2016, the LOLE continues to escalate due to annual load growth for theremainder of the Study Period reaching an LOLE of 1.17 days per year in 2024. The NYCA LOLEis summarized in Table 4-13 below.Table 4-13: Indian Point Plant Retirement LOLE ResultsIndian Point Plant Retiremený 2016 2017 2018 i2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024NYCA LOLE 1 0.31 0.40 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.76 0.89 1.03 1.17Compared with 2012 RNA, the resulting LOLE violations are lower, but continue tosubstantially exceed the LOLE requirement should the Indian Point Plant retire. Note that withthe large loss of capacity, the LOLE violations increase exponentially. Other factors, such asTransmission Owner Transmission Solutions (TOTS), decrease the impact of the loss of capacity,but will not solve the violations.4.5.4. Transmission Security Assessment Using 90/10 Load ForecastThe 90/10 peak load forecast represents an extreme weather condition (e.g. hotsummer day). Table 4-14 provides a summary of the 90/10 coincident peak load forecastthrough the ten-year study period compared to the total resources modeled as available,resulting in the total remaining resources on a year-by-year basis. The resource totals includenet purchases and sales, and all available thermal and large hydro units are modeled at 100% oftheir summer capability. Derates to small hydro, wind, and solar PV are applied consistent withthe transmission security base case assumptions.As shown in Table 4-14, based on the assumptions applied in this analysis, beginning in2017 there are insufficient resources to meet the minimum 10-minute operating reserverequirement of 1,310 MW4.Due to insufficient generation represented in the power flow case4 New York State Reliability Council, "NYSRC Reliability Rules for Planning and Operating the New York State PowerSystem", Version 33, dated April 10, 2014NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment40 to meet the minimum operating reserve, loss of source contingencies are not studied in the2019 case. Starting in 2020, there are insufficient resources to meet the modeled 90/10 peakload; therefore, a transmission security assessment was not performed under 90/10 conditionsin the 2024 case. In 2015, there are sufficient resources to meet the minimum operatingreserve, and thus, all design criteria contingencies are evaluated.Table 4-14: 90/10 Peak Load Forecast NYCA Remaining Resources (MW)2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Total Resources* 38,313 38,332 38,017 38,017 38,017 38,017 38,017 38,017 38,017 38,01790/10 Peak Load Forecast 36,397 36,764 37,142 37,506 37,870 38,089 38,338 38,592 38,850 39,073Remaining Resources ] 1,916 1 1,568 875 511 147 321 -575 -833 -1,056* Total resources include NYCA generation and net purchases & sales. Assumes 100% availability of thermal andlarge hydro units; small hydro, wind and solar PV are derated.The four primary regions of Reliability Needs due to transmission security violationsidentified in the RNA base case are exacerbated under 90/10 coincident peak load conditions.Table 4-15 provides a summary of the contingency pairs that result in the highest thermaloverload on BPTF elements that are not observed under 50/50 coincident peak load conditions.Table 4-16 shows that increased load growth across the state exacerbates the violationsidentified in the RNA base case. These reliability needs are generally driven by recent andproposed generator retirements/mothballs combined with higher levels of load growth. Forboth tables, in the second contingency column "N/A" corresponds to a violation occurringunder N-1 conditions and "Base Case" corresponds to a violation under an N-1-0 conditions.While the 90/10 peak load forecast does result in additional overloads, those overloadsoccur in the same four primary regions of Reliability Needs identified in the 50/50 peak loadbase case. As shown in Table 4-16, the increased peak load would also result in the earlieroccurrence of the Reliability Needs identified in the 50/50 peak load base case. Although theLeeds -Pleasant Valley 345 kV lines are not overloaded in 2015 under the conditions studied,those lines are loaded to 98% of the LTE rating under 90/10 peak load N-1-1 conditions. Anysignificant reduction of generation or imports in Southeast New York in 2015 would result in anoverload on Leeds -Pleasant Valley 345 kV for the evaluated 90/10 peak load conditions.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment41 Table 4-15: 90/10 Transmission Security Violations Not Observed Under 50/50 Load ConditionsNormal LTE STE 2015 2019 First Contingency Second ContingencyZone Owner Monitored Element (kV) Rating Rating Rating Flow Flow (kV) (kV)(MVA) (MVA) (MVA) (MVA) (MVA)A N.Grid Niagara-Packard (#61) 230 620 717 841 738 Oswegovolney (#12) T:62&BP76345A N.Grid Niagara-Packard (#62) 230 620 717 841 801 Oswego-Volney (#12) T:61&64345A N.Grid Niagara 230/115 AT2 192 239 288 264 Niagara-Packard (#61) SB Packard 230230B RGE Pannell 345/115 3TR 255 319 336 258 L/O Ginna Base Case277 Niagara-Robinson Rd Base CaseB RGE Station 82-Mortimer 115 258.1 357.9 410.4 (#64) 345388 L/O Ginna SB Pannell 345B RGE Station 80 345/115 2TR 330 415 478 444 Station 80 345/115 5TR SB Station 80 345B RGE Station 80 345/115 5TR 462 567 630 636 Station 80 345/115 2TR SB Station 80 345C N.Grid Clay 345/115 2TR 478 637 794 695 Clay 345/115 1TR SB Oswego 345C N.Grid Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 116 120 145 138 Clay-Dewitt SB Oswego 345(Bartell Rd-Pine Grove) (#13) 345C N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 220 252 280 260 Clay-Lockheed Martin SB Lafayette 345(Clay-Euclid) (#14) 115C N.Grid Clay-Lighthouse Hill (#7) 115 108 108 108 123 Clay 345/115 1TR SB Clay 345(Lighthouse Hill-Mallory) 1C NYSEG Watercure 345/230 1TR 440 540 600 568 Oakdale 345/115 2TR SB Oakdale 345E N.Grid Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 116 120 145 123 Clay-Dewitt SB Oswego 345(W. Utica-Walesville) 1 (#13) 345NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment42 Table 4-16: 50/50 Transmission Security Violations Exacerbated Under 90/10 Load ConditionsNormal LTE STE 2015 2019 First ContingencyZone Owner Monitored Element (kV) Rating Rating Rating Flow Flow (kV) Second Contingency (kV)(MVA) (MVA) (MVA) (MVA) (MVA)A N.Grid Packard-Huntley (#77) 230 556 644 704 663 Packard-Huntley (#78) 230 SB Robinson Rd. 230(Packard-Sawyer)Packard-H untley (#78) 230A N.Grid (Packard-Sawyer) 556 644 746 645 663 Packard-Huntley (#77) 230 SB Robinson Rd. 230A N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#79) 230 566 654 755 661 672 Huntley-Gardenville SB Robinson Rd. 230(Huntley-Sawyer) (#80) 230662 Huntley-Gardenville N/A(#79) 230568 Huntley-Gardenville Base CaseN.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 566 654 755230(Huntley-Sawyer) 692 Robinson Rd.-Stolle Rd. Huntley-Gardenville(#65) 230 (#79) 230Stolle Rd.-Gardenville Huntley-Gardenville(#66) 230 (#79) 230247 L/O Ginna Base CaseB RGE Pannell 345/115 1TR 228 282 336____414 L/O Ginna SB Pannel1345247 L/O Ginna Base Case414 L/O Ginna SB Pannel1 345B RGE Pannell 345/115 2TR 228 282 336293 Station 80-Pannell SB Pannell 345(RP-1) 345B RGE Pannell-Quaker (#914) 115 207.1 246.9 284.8 316 L/O Ginna Pannell 345/115 3TR583 SB Oakdale 345 N/AC NYSEG Oakdale 345/115 2TR 428 556 600 478 491 Oakdale 345/115 3TR Base Case637 688 Fraser 345/115 2TR SB Oakdale 345472 484 Oakdale 345/115 2TR Base CaseC NYSEG Oakdale 345/115 3TR 428 556 600 618 Watercure 345/115 1TR SB Oakdale 345587 Oakdale 345/115 2TR SB Oakdale 345162 184 SB Oswego 345 N/AC N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 116 120 145 134 161 Elbridge 345/115 1TR Base Case115198 234 Clay-Wood (#17) 115 SB Lafayette 345C N.Grid Clay-Teall (#10) 115 Clay-Dewitt SB Oswego 345__N__rid (Clay-Bartell Rd-Pine Grove) 116 120 145 149 (#13) 345C N.Grid Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 116 120 145 151 Clay-Dewitt(#13) 345C N.Grid (Clay-Bartell Rd) Clt(#13)345 SB Oswego 345C N.Grid Clay 345/115 1TR 478 637 794 736 Oswego-Elbridge-Lafayette SB Clay 345478 637 794 778 (#17) 345200 SB Lafayette 345 N/AC N.Grid (Euclid-Woodward) 174 174 174 201 240 Clay-Lockheed Martin SB Lafayette 345(#14) 115C N.Grid Clay-S. Oswego (#4) 115C_ N.Grid (S. Oswego-Whitaker) 104 104 104 120 121 Clay 345/115 1TR SB Clay 345123 132 SB Oswego 345 N/AE N.Grid Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 116 120 145 129 Porter-Oneida (#7) 115 Base Case(Porter-Kelsey) 147 155 Clay-Dewitt SB Oswego 345(#13) 345E N.Grid Porter-Oneida (#7) 115 116 120 145 129 140 Clay-Dewitt SB Oswego 345(Porter-W. Utica) (#13) 345F N.Grid New Scotland 345/115 1TR 458 570 731 707 L/O Bethlehem New Scotland 345/1152TRF N.Grid Reynolds 345/115 459 562 755 562 L/O Bethlehem Base CaseF-G N.Grid Leeds-Pleasant Valley (#92) 1331 1538 1724 1711 Athens-Pleasant Valley T:41&33345 (#91)345F-G N.Grid Athens-Pleasant Valley (#91) 1331 1538 1724 1695 Leeds-Pleasant Valley T:41&33345 (#92) 345NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment43 4.5.5. Stressed Winter Condition AssessmentFive major cold snaps were experienced during the 2013-2014 winter season, includingthree polar vortex events that chilled large swaths of the Eastern Interconnection and theremainder of the United States. During this time the NYISO set a new winter peak of 25,738MW while neighboring ISOs and utilities concurrently set their own record winter peaks duringthe month of January as well. The extreme winter weather conditions resulted in high loadconditions, transmission and generation derates, and gas pipeline constraints.The widespread impact reduced the ability of neighboring areas to provide assistance toNew York. Highlights of the peak day recorded on January 7, 2014 follow:5* On January 7, the NYISO set a new record winter peak load of 25,738 MWs.* 25,541 MW -- Prior record winter peak load set in 2004* 24,709 MW -- "50/50" forecast winter peak for 2013-14* 26,307 MW -- "90/10" forecast winter peak for 2013-14* Many other ISOs and utilities set record Winter Peaks, including PJM, MISO, TVA, andSouthern Company; although NYCA did not lose the ability to provide and receive emergencyassistance from neighboring pools. The record shows that NYCA exported power to PJM whileimporting from HQ, ISO-NE and IESO.* The NYISO experienced 4,135 MW of generator derates over the peak hour.* The NYISO activated demand response resources on a voluntary basis in all zones tomaintain operating reserve criteria; however, because the 21-hour prior notification was notprovided demand response participation was limited.* The NYISO issued a NERC Energy Emergency Alert 1 indicating that the NYISO was justmeeting reserve requirements.* The NYISO issued public appeals for customers to curtail non-essential use.Based upon this experience, the scenario was constructed to gauge the amount ofcapacity that could be lost from the NYCA while restricting the ability to receive assistance fromour neighbors. Capacity was removed from all NYCA zones proportional to zonal capacity ateach external assistance level until an annual LOLE violation was observed for the year.Additionally, the hourly loads in the MARS model for the month of January 2015 were modifiedto reflect actual January 2014 loads for all three input load shapes. The experienced January2014 peak was normalized to 50/50 conditions and the load forecast uncertainty (LFU) bins forwinter conditions were updated for the MARS model. These values are shown in Table 4-17.5 This value is the actual load prior to adjustment for demand response that was activated at the time of thesystem winter peak.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment44 Table 4-17: Derivation of 2014 NYCA Winter LFUZones Bin 1 Bin 2 Bin 3 Bin 4 Bin 5 Bin 6 Bin 7A 1.136 1.090 1.045 1.000 0.955 0.910 0.864B 1.135 1.090 1.045 1.000 0.955 0.910 0.865C 1.136 1.091 1.045 1.000 0.955 0.909 0.864D 1.170 1.113 1.057 1.000 0.943 0.887 0.830E 1.136 1.091 1.045 1.000 0.955 0.909 0.864F 1.136 1.090 1.045 1.000 0.955 0.910 0.864G 1.136 1.090 1.045 1.000 0.955 0.910 0.864H 1.158 1.105 1.053 1.000 0.947 0.895 0.8421 1.158 1.105 1.053 1.000 0.947 0.895 0.842J 1.158 1.105 1.053 1.000 0.947 0.895 0.842K 1.180 1.120 1.060 1.000 0.940 0.880 0.820NYCA 1.151 1.101 1.051 1.000 0.949 0.899 0.849Probability 0.0062 0.0606 0.2417 0.383 0.2417 0.0606 0.0062In order to model a statewide LOLE violation in 2015, the annual LOLE of 0.06, asobserved in Table 4-7, was subtracted from the reliability criterion level of 0.1 days/yr to reacha target LOLE of 0.04 for this scenario. January 2015 was then simulated with multiple levels ofNYCA capacity loss and external import capability reduction until the target January LOLE wasobserved.Many factors can impact the emergency assistance from neighboring control areas;therefore a simple approach was adopted and applied to this scenario. By creating a NYCAimport interface that was defined as encircling all of NYCA, it became possible to limit theexternal import capability by defining a MW flow limit. In the conservative case that NYCA isunable to receive emergency assistance from any of the neighboring areas, it would take acapacity loss of 7,250 MW of resources in an extreme weather condition to result in an annualLOLE violation in year 2015.Table 4-18: Simultaneous NYCA Import Limits and MW Lost in Stressed Winter ScenarioLimit (MW) MW Lost4,000 11,3002,000 9,3000 7,250NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment45
5. Impacts of Environmental Regulations5.1. Regulations Reviewed for Impacts on NYCA GeneratorsThe 2012 RNA identified new environmental regulatory programs that could impact theoperation of the Bulk Power Transmission Facilities. These state and federal regulatoryinitiatives cumulatively will require considerable investment by the owners of New York'sexisting thermal power plants in order to comply. The following programs are reviewed in the2014 RNA:a) NOx RACT: Reasonably Available Control Technology (Effective July 2014)b) BART. Best Available Retrofit Technology for regional haze (Effective January 2014)c) MATS: Mercury and Air Toxics Standard for hazardous air pollutants (Effective April2015)d) MRP: Mercury Reduction Program for Coal-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units-Phase II reduces Mercury emissions from coal fired power plants in New York beginningJanuary 2015e) CSAPR: Cross State Air Pollution Rule for the reduction of S02 and NOx emissions in 28Eastern States. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the CSAPR as promulgated by USEPA.The Supreme Court remanded the rule to the District Circuit Court of Appeals for furtherproceedings, and eventual implementation by the USEPA.f) CAIR: Clean Air Interstate Rule will continue in place until CSAPR is implementedg) RGGI: Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Phase II cap reductions started January 2014h) C02 Emission Standards: NSPS scheduled to become effective June 2014, Existing SourcePerformance Standards may be effective in 2016i) RICE: NSPS and NESHAP -New Source Performance Standards and MaximumAchievable Control Technology for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (EffectiveJuly 2016).j) BTA: Best Technology Available for cooling water intake structures (Effective uponPermit Renewal)The NYISO has determined that as much as 33,200 MW in the existing fleet (88% of 2014Summer Capacity) will have some level of exposure to the new regulations.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment46 5.1.1. Reasonably Available Control Technology for NOx (NOx RACT)The NYSDEC has promulgated revised regulations for the control of Nitrogen Oxides(NOx) emissions from fossil-fueled electric generating units. These regulations are known asNOx RACT (Reasonably Available Control Technology). In New York, 221 units with 27,100 MWof capacity are affected. The revised emission rate limits become effective on July 1, 2014.There are three major NOx RACT System Averaging "bubbles" in Zone J: TC Ravenswood(TCR Bubble), NRG Arthur Kill- Astoria Gas Turbines (NRG Bubble), and USPowerGen Astoria-Narrows and Gowanus Gas Turbines (USPowerGen Bubble). Historically the boilers havedemonstrated the ability to operate at emission rates that are below the presumptive emissionrates in the NOx RACT regulation. On the other hand, the older gas turbines in Zone Jfrequently operate at emission rates in excess of the presumptive limits. With planning andcareful operation, the units within the bubbles can be operated in a manner such that thehigher emission rates from the gas turbines can be offset by the lower emission rates from theboilers. Table 5-1 below has the presumptive NOx RACT emission limits that were in effect untilJune 30, 2014. Table 5-2 has the new presumptive emission limits effective starting from July 1,2014. The emission limits for the gas turbines remain unchanged. It is apparent that the abilityof the boilers to offset emissions from the gas turbines will be significantly reduced with thenew limits.Table 5-1: NOx RACT Limits Effective until June 30, 2014Boiler Type (Pounds/mmBTU or #/mmBTU)Tangential Wall Cyclone StokerGas Only 0.20 0.20 -Gas/Oil 0.25 0.25 0.43Coal Wet 1.00 1.00 0.60Coal Dry 0.42 0.45 0.30Table 5-2: New NOx RACT Limits Effective Starting from July 1, 2014Boiler Type (Pounds/mmBTU or #/mmBTU)Fuel Type FluidizedTangential Wall Cyclone BedGas Only 0.08 0.08 -Gas/Oil 0.15 0.15 0.20Coal Wet 0.12 0.12 0.20 -Coal Dry 0.12 0.12 -0.08Using publicly available information from USEPA and USEIA, estimated NOx emissionrates can be determined across the operating spectrum for various combinations of fuels forNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment47 specific units greater than 15 MW. Using this information, the NYISO has analyzed potentialNOx emissions under the lower NOx RACT standards to determine if the system emissionaveraging plans can be achieved. The analysis has focused on the peak day July 19, 2013 inZone J. It appears that compliance with the TC Ravenswood emission plan should be feasiblewithout imposing the operating limits on the affected units.The analysis of the NRG bubble shows that operation of the complete fleet of gasturbines could be sustained in a manner consistent with the actual operating profile on thepeak day. Similarly, supplemental data provided by USPowerGen demonstrates that the fleetof gas turbines could operate in a manner similar to what it did on the peak day in 2013. Giventhat this analysis is based upon historic performance which occurred when the emission limitswere higher, it is possible that the boilers could achieve lower emission rates and therefore thegas turbines could operate for more extended periods.Conversely, invoking the Loss of Gas Minimum Oil Burn (LOG-MOB) reliability rulerequires the boilers under certain conditions to burn residual fuel oil (RFO) which increases NOxemissions and reduces the ability of the boilers to produce necessary offsets. Incrementaloperation of the boilers on gas during off peak hours could mitigate the impact of increasedNOx emissions from LOG-MOB on the reduced hours of operation of the gas turbine.5.1.2. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)The class of steam electric units constructed between 1963 and 1977 are subject tocontinuing emission reductions required by the Clean Air Act. In New York, there are 15 units inservice with 7,531 MW of summer capacity that are affected. Table 5-3 identifies the newemission limitations in place for these units6.6 The table is not intended to include all emission limitations.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment48 Table 5-3: New BART Emission LimitsDMNC (1) ParticulateApplicable Plants Unit(s) (MW) S02 NOx Matte(MW) Matter0.15 #/mmBTU;Arthur Kill ST 3 500 0 24 Hors24 Hours.0.15 #/mmBTU for gas,and 0.25 #/mmBTU forBowline 1, 2 758 0.37% S RFO oil;oil;24 Hours0.1/0.2 #/mmBTUBarrett ST 02 196 0.37% S RFO Gas/ Oil; 0.1 #/mmBTU24 Hours0.1/0.2 #/mrn BTUNorthport 1,2,3,4 1,583 0.7% S RFO Gas/ Oil;24 HoursOswego 5,6 1,574 0.75% S RFO 383/665 tons per yearRavenswood ST 01, ST 02 1,693 0.30% S RFO 0.15 #/mmBTUand ST 03 30 DayRoseton 1, 2 1,227 0.55#/mmBTUs23 0.09#/mmBTU; 0.12#/mmBTU; 0.06Danskammer 4 237 24 or 2 or #/mrnBTU;24 Hours 24 Hours ou1 Hour2014 In-Service 7,531Notes:1. Summer capability from 2014 Gold Book2. Not included in 2014 In-Service totalThe new BART limits identified in Table 5-3 are not expected to affect availability ofthese units during times of peak demand.5.1.3. Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS)The USEPA Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) will limit emissions of mercury andair toxics through the use of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) for HazardousAir Pollutants (HAP) from coal and oil fueled steam generators with a nameplate capacity of 25MW or more. MATS will affect 23 units in the NYCA that represent 10,300 MW of nameplatecapacity. Compliance requirements begin in March 2015 with an extension through March 2017for Reliability Critical Units (RCU).The majority of the New York coal fleet has installed emission control equipment thatmay place compliance within reach. One coal fired unit in New York is considering seeking anextension of the compliance deadline to March 2017.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment49 The heavy oil-fired units will need to either make significant investments in emissioncontrol technology or switch to a cleaner mix of fuels in order to comply with the proposedstandards. Given the current outlook for the continued attractiveness of natural gas comparedto heavy oil, it is anticipated that compliance can be achieved by dual fuel units through the use7of natural gas to maintain fuel ratios that are specified in the regulation5.1.4. Mercury Reduction Program for Coal-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (MRP)New York State also has a mercury emission limit program for coal fired units. Phase II ofthe program begins January 1, 2015. The allowable emission limit is half of the MATS standard.The impact of the MRP requirements is shown below Section 5.2.5.1.5. Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)The CSAPR establishes a new allowance system for units with at least 25 MW nameplatecapacity or more. Affected generators will need one allowance for each ton emitted in a year.In New York, CSAPR will affect 154 units that represent 25,900 MW of nameplate capacity. TheUSEPA estimated New York's annual allowance costs for 2012 at $65 million. There aremultiple scenarios which show that New York's generation fleet can operate in compliance withthe program in the first phase. Compliance actions for the second phase may include emissioncontrol retrofits, fuel switching, and new clean efficient generation. The US Supreme Courtupheld the CSAPR regulation and remanded the case to the District of Columbia Circuit Court ofAppeals to resolve the remaining litigation and work with the USEPA to develop a revisedimplementation schedule. Further, since the rule was finalized in 2012, two National AmbientAir Quality Standards, for S02 and Ozone, have been promulgated. The USEPA may recognizethese new standards, unit retirements, and/ or changes in load and fuel forecasts in updatedmodeling that may be necessary for implementation of the CSAPR. EPA has filed with the D.C.Circuit Court of Appeals requesting authority to implement the rule in January 2015.While the CSAPR is updated and implementation plans are finalized, the Clean AirInterstate Rule (CAIR) remains in effect. CAIR also employs an allowance based system toreduce emissions of S02 and NOx over time. The rule is designed to begin Phase II on January1, 2015 with an approximate 50% reduction in emission allowances entering the marketplace.The CAIR marketplace is currently oversupplied with S02 and NOx emissions allowances, whichhas resulted in prices that are relatively low. It is expected that the continued operation ofCAIR will not impact either the amount of capacity available or the relative dispatch order.7 The MATS regulation provides for an exemption for units that use oil for less than ten percent of heat inputannually over a three year period, and less than 15 percent in any given year. The regulation provides for anexemption from emission limits for units that limit oil use to less than the amount equivalent to an eight percentcapacity factor over a two year period.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment50 5.1.6. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and USEPA Proposed Carbon RulesThe Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative established a cap over C02 emissions from mostfossil fueled units of 25 MW or more in 2009. Phase II of the RGGI program became effectiveJanuary 1, 2014 and reduces the cap by 45% to 91,000,000 tons for 2014. Phase II then appliesannual emission cap reductions of 2.5% until 2020. One RGGI Allowance is required for eachton of C02 emitted during a three year compliance period. A key provision to keep theallowance and electricity markets functioning is the provision of a Cost Containment Reserve(CCR). If demand exceeds supply at predetermined trigger prices an additional 10,000,000(5,000,000 in 2014) allowances will be added to the market. Trigger prices are set to rise to$10/ton in 2017 and escalate at 2.5% annually thereafter. RGGI Inc. modeling analyses showthat the trigger prices will be reached on several occasions throughout the period. Coal unitsmay be further handicapped by the cost of carbon emission allowances, which could add up to$5/MWh in cost compared to older combined cycle units and up to $10/MWh for non-emittingmachines.The USEPA is in the process of promulgating New Source Performance Standardsdesigned to limit C02 emissions from new fossil fueled steam generators and combined cycleunits. While the proposed rule would present significant technological challenges for coal firedunits; for gas fired units, the rules are generally less stringent than NYSDEC's existing Part 251emission regulations. USEPA's rule does not apply to simple cycle turbines that limit their salesto the grid to less than one-third of their potential electrical output.On June 2, 2014, the USEPA proposed a rule to limit C02 emissions from existing powerplants by 30% from 2005 levels8.The rule is designed to lower emission rates from 2012 asmeasured in terms of # C02/MWh, however, it does allow states to develop mass basedsystems such as RGGI. The proposal calls for an initial reduction by 2020 while achievement ofthe final reductions will be required by 2030. State implementation plans can make use of: (i)coal fired plant efficiency improvements; (ii) shifts in dispatch patterns to increase productionfrom natural gas fired combined cycle plants; (iii) increased construction and operation of lowand non-emitting generators; and (iv) aggressive deployment of energy efficiency measures.The proposal calls for the continued operation of existing and completion of new nuclearplants.8 The proposed rule is extensive in length, broad in scope, and presents a complex approach to establishing baselines and future emission reduction requirements. The comment period closes in mid-October. The rule will befinalized in June of 2015. State Implementation Plans will be developed with public participation over thefollowing year, or three year period if regional plans are proposed. The NYISO analysis will be a continuing effortover the next several years. At important points in the process, reports will be provided to stakeholders identifyingthe issues of importance to the NYISO.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment51 5.1.7. RICE: NSPS and NESHAPIn January 2013, the USEPA finalized two new rules that apply to engine poweredgenerators typically used as emergency generators. Some of the affected generators alsoparticipate in the NYISO's Special Case Resource (SCR) or Emergency Day-ahead Response(EDRP) Programs. EPA finalized National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants(NESHAP), and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), for Reciprocating InternalCombustion Engines (RICE). The new rules are designed to allow older emergency generatorsthat do not meet the EPA's rules to comply by limiting operations in non-emergency events toless than 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> per year. These resources can participate in utility and NYISO emergencydemand response programs; however the engine operation is limited to a maximum of 100hours per year for testing and utility or the NYISO emergency demand response operations forwhich a Level 2 Energy Emergency Alert is called by the grid operator.The New York DEC is also developing rules to control emissions of NOx and particulatematter (PM10 and 2.5) from engine driven generators that participate in the EDRP. Theproposed rules will apply to all such generators above 150 kW in New York City and above 300kW in the remainder of the State not already covered by a Title V Permit containing stricter NOxand PM limits. Depending on their specific types, it appears that engines purchased since 2005and 2006 should be able to operate within the proposed limits. Older engines can beretrofitted with emission control packages, replaced with newer engines, or cease participationin the demand response programs. The proposed rule is generally comparable to rules alreadyin place in a number of other states within the Ozone Transport Region. NYSDEC's estimatedcompliance schedule is still developing, with a currently contemplated compliance schedule ofmid -2016.5.1.8. Best Technology Available (BTA)The USEPA has proposed a new Clear Water Act Section 316 b rule providing standardsfor the design and operation of power plant cooling systems. This rule will be implemented byNYSDEC, which has finalized a policy for the implementation of the Best Technology Available(BTA) for plant cooling water intake structures. This policy is activated upon renewal of aplant's water withdrawal and discharge permit. Based upon a review of current informationavailable from NYSDEC, the NYISO has estimated that between 4,200-7,200 MW of nameplatecapacity could be required to undertake major system retrofits, including closed cycle coolingsystems. One high profile application of this policy is the Indian Point nuclear power plant.Table 5-4 shows the current status of plants under consideration for BTA determinations.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment52 Table 5-4: NYSDEC BTA Determinations (as of March 2014)Plant StatusArthur Kill BTA Decision made, monitoringAstoria BTA Decision made, installing equipmentBarrett Repowering Study underway, otherwise closed cycleBowline BTA Decision made, capacity factor limited to 15% over 5 yearsBrooklyn Navy Yard BTA Decision made, installing upgradesCayuga BTA Decision made, install screens, UPP accepted, Sierra Club challengedDunkirk BTA Decision made, monitoringEast River BTA installed, monitoringFitzpatrick NYSDEC ready to issue BTA determination for offshore intake and screensFort Drum BTA installed, monitoringGinna BTA Decision 2015 or laterBTA Decision capacity factor limited and variable speed pumps, NRG andSierra Club have requested hearingsIndian Point Hearings, BTA Decision 2016 at the earliestNine Mile Pt 1 Possible BTA determination this yearNorthport Possible BTA determination next yearOswego Lower priority for NYSDEC, possibly capacity factor limitedPort Jefferson BTA installed, monitoringRavenswood BTA installed, monitoringRoseton In hearingsSomerset Possible BTA determination this yearThe owners of Bowline have accepted a limit on the duration of operation of the plantas their compliance method. NYSDEC's BTA Policy allows units to operate with 15% capacityfactor averaged over a five year period provided that impingement goals are met and the plantis operated in a manner that minimizes entrainment. Close inspection of the 2014 RNA MARSsimulations shows that Bowline plant was committed at less than the 15% capacity factorlimitation; thus imposing the BTA capacity factor limit does not degrade the NYCA LOLE.More recently, a draft State Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit was issuedfor public comment for Huntley Station. The draft contained the 15% capacity factor limitationover the next five year period following finalization of the permit. If the proposed operatinglimitation were to become effective, the output of the plant would need to be significantlyreduced over the five year period following finalization of the Huntley SPDES permit, ascompared to recent production. The loss of output from Huntley could reduce transfer limits inthe area, thereby altering production at Niagara and limiting imports from Ontario. To reflectthe impact, the MARS topology for 2014 RNA implemented dynamic limit tables for DysingerEast and Zone A Group interfaces; details are described in Appendix D.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment53 5.2. Summary of Environmental Regulation ImpactsTable 5-4 summarizes the impact of the new environmental regulations. Approximately33,800 MW of nameplate capacity may be affected to some extent by these regulations.Compliance plans are in place for NOx RACT, BART, and RGGI. Reviewing publicly availableinformation from USEPA and USEIA, most generators affected by MATS and MRP havedemonstrated operations with emission levels consistent with the new regulations. BTAdeterminations are the result of extensive studies and negotiations that in most cases have notresulted in decisions requiring conversion to closed cycle cooling systems. Thesedeterminations are made on a plant specific schedule. The Indian Point Nuclear Plant BTAdetermination is the subject of an extensive hearing and Administrative Law Judgedetermination process that will continue through 2015.Table 5-5: Impact of New Environmental RegulationsCompliance ApproximateProgram Status Deadline Nameplate Capacity27,100 MWNOx RACT In effect July 2014 221 ut(221 units)8,400 MWBART In effect January 2014 (15 u t(15 units)MATS In effect April 10,300 MW2015/2016/2017 (23 units)1,500 MWMRP In effect January 2015 (6 ut(6 units)Supreme Court 26,300 MWCSAPR validated USEPA TBD (160 units)rule25,800 MWRGGI In effect In effect (54 u t(154 units)BTA In effect Upon permit 16,400 MWRenewal (34 units)NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment54 Using publicly available information from USEPA and USEIA, the NYISO further identified theunits that may experience significant operational impacts from the environmental regulations.The summary is provided below and in Table 5-6:" NOx RACTprogram: It appears that compliance with each of the three NOx bubblelimitation is achievable." BART limits: The Oswego Units #5 and #6 are estimated to be able to start and operateat maximum output for many more days than they have been committed historically.Accordingly, imposing these estimated BART operating limits does not change NYCALOLE in 2014 RNA.* MATS/MRP Program: Given the current outlook for the continued attractiveness ofnatural gas compared to heavy oil, it is anticipated that compliance can be achieved bydual fuel units through the use of natural gas to maintain fuel ratios that are specified inthe regulation.* RGGI: The impact of RGGI may increase the operating cost of all coal units. Should allcoal units retire, loss of nearly 1,500 MW in upstate would cause LOLE to exceed0.1/day in year 2017 or before, and cause reliability violations.Table 5-6: Summary of Potentially Significant Operational Impacts due to New EnvironmentalRegulationsProgram Status Significant Future Operations Potentially CapacityOperational Impacts Impacted (MW)Three NYC NOx Arthur Kill, Astoria Gas Turbines,NOx RACT July 2014 bubbles Astoria, Narrows, Gowanus, 5,300RavenswoodOswego 5 & 6: limited number of daysBART In effect Emission caps go operat i ted at 1,600for operations at peakAstoria, Ravenswood, Northport,MATS/MRP April 2015/6/7 Oil use limits Barrett, Port Jefferson, Bowline, 8,800Roseton, OswegoCSAPR Uncertain Cost increases UncertainRGGI In effect Cost increases up to All Coal units 1,450$10/MWHPermit Potential retirementsBTA Renewa or capacity factor Indian Point, Bowline, and Huntley 3,200limitsNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment55
6. Fuel Adequacy6.1. Gas Infrastructure Adequacy AssessmentAs the plentiful low cost gas produced in the Marcellus Shale makes its way into NewYork, the amount of electrical demand supplied and energy produced by this gas have steadilyincreased. The benefits of this shift in the relative costs of fossil fuels include reducedemissions, improved generation efficiency, and lower electricity prices. These benefits,however, are accompanied by a reduction in overall fuel diversity.in NYCA. This reduction infuel diversity has led to the Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative (EIPC) gas andelectric infrastructure study and FERC proceedings addressing gas and electric systemcommunications, and market coordination, all of which are intended to improve the knowledgebase for electric and gas system planners, operators, and policy makers.The NYISO has recently completed a study that examined the ability of the regionalnatural gas infrastructure to meet the reliability needs of New York's electric system.Specifically the study provided a detailed review of New York gas markets and infrastructure,assessed historic pipeline congestion patterns, provided an infrastructure and supply adequacyforecast and examined postulated contingency events. Importantly, the study concluded therewill be no unserved gas demand for generation on the interstate gas pipeline systemsthroughout the next five years, even with the retirement of Indian Point and relatedreplacement of that generation with 2,000 MW of new capacity in the Lower Hudson Valley.The study did not examine the impact of intra-state pipeline deliverability constraintson the LDC systems. The study did document increasing congestion on key pipelines in NewYork resulting from increased gas demand in New England and to a lesser degree by in- statedemand increases for generation. Gas fired generators located on constrained pipelinesegments may continue to experience gas supply curtailments over the study horizon. Gaspipeline expansions under construction and planned will materially increase delivery capabilityand result in reduced delivery basis and future interruptions. The market for gas supplyforward contracts has already made significant adjustment to recognize the future completionof these projects. The price difference between Henry Hub and the NYC represented by theTransco NY 6 delivery point has disappeared except for a small number of incidences in thewinter months. Moreover, New York is fortunate to have dual fuel capability installed at themajority of its gas fired generators.The NYISO conducted surveys in October 2012 and October 2013 to verify dual fuelcapability. Based on the October 2013 survey results, it was determined that of 18,011 MW(Summer DMNC) dual fuel generators reported in the 2013 Gold Book, 16,983 MW havepermits that allow them to operate on oil. In addition, there were 2,505 MW (Summer DMNC)oil-only generators reported in the 2013 Gold Book; based on the October 2013 Survey results,this has increased to 2,579 MW (Summer DMNC). Thus, the summer capability of oil and dualNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment56 fuel units with oil permits totals 19,562 MW. These oil and dual fuel facilities represent astrong fleet of resources that can respond to delivery disruptions on the gas pipeline systemduring both summer and winter seasons.6.2. Loss of Gas Supply AssessmentLoss of Gas Supply Assessment was conducted as part of the NYISO 2013 AreaTransmission Review (ATR). The findings of the assessment are summarized below.Natural gas-fired generation in NYCA is supplied by various networks of major gaspipelines, as described in Appendix 0 of the 2013 ATR. NYCA generation capacity has a balanceof fuel mix which provides operational flexibility and reliability. Several generation plants havedual fuel capability. Based on the NYISO 2013 Gold Book, 8% of the generating capacity isfueled by natural gas only, 47% by oil and natural gas, and the remainder is fueled by oil, coal,nuclear, hydro, wind, and other.The loss of gas supply assessment was performed using the winter 2018 50/50 forecastof the coincident peak load. The power flow base case was developed by assuming all gas onlyunits and dual fuel units that do not have a current license to operate with the alternative fuelare not available due to a gas supply shortage. The total reduction in generating capacity was4,251 MW; however, only 2,777 MW had to be redispatched due to the modeling assumptionsin the base case. N-1 and N-1-1 thermal and voltage analysis was performed using the TARAprogram monitoring bulk system voltages and all 115 kV and above elements for post-contingency LTE thermal ratings.No thermal or voltage violations are observed in addition to those already identified forthe summer peak conditions for this extreme system condition. The only stability issue notedfor this gas shortage scenario was an undamped response to a single-line to ground stuckbreaker fault at Marcy on the Marcy -Volney 345kV line. Possible mitigation would be tobalance the VAr flow from each plant at the Oswego complex or redispatching the Oswegocomplex.The capacity of 2014-2015 winter is summarized in Table 6-1 below. In the event thatNYCA loses gas-only units, the remaining capacity is sufficient to supply the load. However, inthe extreme case that NYCA loses gas-only units, and simultaneously the oil inventory of alldual-fuel units has been depleted, a total capacity of 16,879 MW would be unavailable. As theconsequence of such an extreme event, the remaining generation would not be sufficient tosupply NYCA load.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment57 Table 6-1: Loss of Gas Assessment for 2014-2015 Winter2015 Winter Capacity (MW)Peak Load 24,737NYCA winter capacity 40,220If gas-only units lose gas supplyGas-only capacity -3,568Total remaining capacity 36,652If gas-only and dual-fuel units lose gas supply and deplete oilGas only capacity -3,568Dual-fuel capacity -16,879Total remaining capacity 19,77316.3. Summary of Other Ongoing NYISO effortsThe NYISO has been working with stakeholders and other industry groups to identifyand address fuel adequacy concerns. Most notably, the Electric Gas Coordination WorkingGroup (EGCWG) and EIPC are actively studying related issues. The efforts are summarized inthis section.At EGCWG, the efforts are focusing on gas-electric coordination issues within NYCA. TheNYISO retained Levitan & Associates (LAI) to prepare the following reports:* "Fuel Assurance Operating and Capital Costs for Generation in NYCA" (Task 1)* The "NYCA Pipeline Congestion and Infrastructure Adequacy Assessment" (Task 2)The final study reports have been completed and are posted on the NYISO website9.Theconsolidated network of interstate pipelines serving New York is shown in Figure 6-1.9 Task 1 final report: http://www.nviso.com/public/committees/documents.isp?com=bic egcwg&directory=2013-06-17Task 2 final report:http://www.nviso.com/public/webdocs/markets operations/committees/bic egcwg/meeting materials/2013-10-23/Levitan%2OPipeline%20Congestion%20and%2OAdequacv%20Report%20Sep23%20-%2fFinilO/n?0ACFIoAnRprdlrtpd ndfNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment58 Figure 6-1: Natural Gas Pipeline Network in NYCANYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment59 At EIPC, six Participating Planning Authorities (PPAs) are actively involved in the Gas-ElectricSystem Interface Study, which includes ISO-NE, NYISO, PJM, IESO, TVA, and MISO (includes theEntergy system). The efforts are focusing on gas-electric coordination issues in the regionacross the six PAs. The study has four targets:1. Develop a baseline assessment that includes description of the natural gas-electricsystem interface(s) and how they impact each other.2. Evaluate the capability of the natural gas system(s) to supply the individual andaggregate fuel requirement from the electric power sector over a five and ten yearstudy horizon.3. Identify contingencies on the natural gas system that could adversely affect electricsystem reliability and vice versa.4. Review operational and planning issues and any changes in planning analysis andoperations that may be impacted by the availability or non-availability of dual fuelcapability at generating units.Target 1 has been completed, and the report is posted on EIPC website1°. Target 2 is currentlyunderway, while Targets 3 and 4 are in the planning stage.10 http://www.eipconline.com/Gas-ElectricDocuments.htmlNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment60
7. Observations and RecommendationsThe 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment (RNA) assesses resource adequacy and bothtransmission security and adequacy of the New York Control Area (NYCA) bulk powertransmission system from year 2015 through 2024, the study period of this RNA. The 2014 RNAidentifies transmission security needs in portions of the bulk power transmission system, and aNYCA LOLE violation due to inadequate resource capacity located in Southeast New York(SENY).The NYISO finds transmission security violations beginning in 2015, some of which aresimilar to those found in the 2012 RNA. The NYISO also identifies resource adequacy violations,which begin in 2019 and increase through 2024, if they are not resolved.For transmission security, there are four primary regions with reliability needs:Rochester, Western & Central New York, Capital Region, and Lower Hudson Valley & New YorkCity. These reliability needs are generally driven by recent and proposed generator retirementsor mothballing combined with load growth. The New York transmission owners havedeveloped plans through their respective local transmission planning processes to constructtransmission projects to meet not only the needs identified in the previous RNA, but also anyadditional needs occurring since then and prior to this RNA. These transmission projects,subject to inclusion rules, have been modeled in the 2014 RNA base case. Reliability needsidentified in this report exist despite the inclusion of the transmission projects in the base case.The transmission security needs in the Buffalo and Binghamton areas are influenced bywhether the fuel conversion project can be completed for the Dunkirk Plant for it to return toservice by 2016. As a result, this project was addressed as a sensitivity and the impact of theresults are noted with the base case reliability needs.While resource adequacy violations continue to be identified in SENY, the 2014 RNA isprojecting the need year to be 2019, one year before the need year identified in the 2012 RNA.The most significant difference between the 2012 RNA and the 2014 RNA is the decrease of theNYCA capacity margin (the total capacity less the peak load forecast).The NYISO expects existing and recent market rule changes to entice marketparticipants to take actions that will help meet the resource adequacy needs in SENY, asidentified by the 2012 RNA and the 2014 RNA. The resources needed downstream of theupstate New York to SENY interface is approximately 1,200 MW in 2024 (100 MW in 2019),which could be transmission or capacity resources. The new Zones G-J Locality will providemarket signals for resources to provide service in this area. Capacity owners and developersare taking steps to return mothballed units to service, restore units to their full capability, orbuild new in the Zones G-J Locality. If some or all of these units return to service or aredeveloped, the reliability need year would be postponed beyond 2019. In addition, New YorkState government is promoting transmission development to relieve the transmissionconstraints between upstate New York and SENY, which could also defer the need forNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment61 additional resources. The NYISO anticipates that such potential solutions will be submitted forevaluation during the solutions phase of the Reliability Planning Process (RPP) and included inthe upcoming 2014 Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP) if appropriate.As a backstop to market-based solutions, the NYISO employs a process to defineresponsibility should the market fail to provide an adequate solution to an identified reliabilityneed. Since there are transmission security violations in Zones A, B, C, E, and F within the studyperiod, the transmission owners (TOs) in those zones (i.e., National Grid, RGE, and NYSEG) areresponsible and will be tasked to develop detailed regulated backstop solutions for evaluationin the 2014 CRP.Given the limited time between the identification of certain transmission security needsin this RNA report and their occurrence in 2015, the use of demand response and operatingprocedures, including those for emergency conditions, may be necessary to maintain reliabilityduring peak load periods until permanent solutions can be put in place. Accordingly, the NYISOexpects the TOs to present updates to their Local Transmission Owner Plans for these zones,including their proposed operating procedures pending completion of their permanentsolutions, for review and acceptance by the NYISO and in the 2014 CRP.The NYISO identified reliability needs for resource adequacy in SENY starting in the year2019; therefore, the TOs in SENY (i.e., Orange & Rockland, Central Hudson, New York StateElectric and Gas, Con Edison, and LIPA) are responsible to develop the regulated backstopsolution(s). The study also identified a transmission security violation in 2022 on the Leeds-Pleasant Valley 345 kV circuit, and this circuit is the main constraint of the Upstate New York toSoutheast New York (UPNY-SENY) interface identified in the resource adequacy analysis.Therefore, the violation could be resolved by solution(s) that respond to the resource adequacydeficiencies identified for 2019 -2024.If the resource adequacy solution is non-transmission, these reliability needs can only bemost efficiently satisfied through the addition of compensatory megawatts in SENY becausesuch resources need to be located below the UPNY-SENY interface constraint to be effective.Additions in Zones A through F could partially resolve these reliability needs. Potentialsolutions could include a combination of additional transfer capability by adding transmissionfacilities into SENY from outside those zones and/or resource additions at least some of whichwould be best located in SENY.The RNA is the first step of the NYISO reliability planning process. As a product of thisstep, the NYISO documents the reliability needs in the RNA report, which is presented to theNYISO Board of Directors for approval. The NYISO Board approval initiates the second step,which involves the NYISO requesting proposed solutions to mitigate the identified needs tomaintain acceptable levels of system reliability throughout the study period.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment62
8. Historic CongestionAppendix A of Attachment Y of the NYISO OATT states: "As part of its CSPP, the ISO willprepare summaries and detailed analysis of historic and projected congestion across the NYSTransmission System. This will include analysis to identify the significant causes of historiccongestion in an effort to help Market Participants and other interested parties distinguishpersistent and addressable congestion from congestion that results from onetime events ortransient adjustments in operating procedures that may or may not recur. This information willassist Market Participants and other stakeholders to make appropriately informed decisions."The detailed analysis of historic congestion can be found on the NYISO Web site."11 http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets-operations/services/planning/documents/index.jspNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment63 Appendices A-DNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment64 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesAppendix A -2014 Reliability Needs Assessment GlossaryTerm Definition10-year Study 10-year period starting with the year after the study is dated andPeriod projecting forward 10 years. For example, the 2014 RNA covers the10-year Study Period of 2015 through 2024.Adequacy Encompassing both generation and transmission, adequacy refers tothe ability of the bulk power system to supply the aggregaterequirements of consumers at all times, accounting for scheduledand unscheduled outages of system components.Alternative Regulated solutions submitted by a TO or other developer inRegulated Solutions response to a solicitation by the ARS, if the NYISO determines thatthere is a Reliability Need.Annual Transmission An assessment, conducted by the NYISO staff in cooperation withReliability Market Participants, to determine the System Upgrade FacilitiesAssessment (ATRA) required for each generation and merchant transmission projectincluded in the Applicable Reliability Standards, to interconnect tothe New York State Transmission System in compliance withApplicable Reliability Standards and the NYISO MinimumInterconnection Standard.Area Transmission The NYISO, in its role as Planning Coordinator, is responsible forReview (ATR) providing an annual report to the NPCC Compliance Committee inregard to its Area Transmission Review in accordance with the NPCCReliability Compliance and Enforcement Program and in conformancewith the NPCC Design and Operation of the Bulk Power System(Directory #1).Best Available NYS DEC regulation, required for compliance with the federal CleanRetrofit Technology Air Act, applying to fossil fueled electric generating units built(BART) between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977. Emissions control ofSO2, NOx and PM may be necessary for compliance. Compliancedeadline is January 2014.Best Technology NYS DEC policy establishing performance goals for new and existingAvailable (BTA) electricity generating plants for Cooling Water Intake Structures. Thepolicy would apply to plants with design intake capacity greater than20 million gallons/day and prescribes reductions in fish mortality.The performance goals call for the use of wet, closed-cycle coolingsystems at existing generating plants.New York State Bulk The facilities identified as the New York State Bulk PowerPower Transmission Transmission Facilities in the annual Area Transmission ReviewFacility (BPTF) submitted to NPCC by the ISO pursuant to NPCC requirements.Capability Period The Summer Capability Period lasts six months, from May 1 throughNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentA-1 DRAFT -For Discussion PurposesTerm DefinitionOctober 31. The Winter Capability Period runs from November 1through April 30 of the following year.Capacity The capability to generate or transmit electrical power, or the abilityto reduce demand at the direction of the NYISO.Capacity Resource CRIS is the service provided by NYISO to interconnect the Developer'sIntegration Service Large Generating Facility or Merchant Transmission Facility to the(CRIS) New York State Transmission System in accordance with the NYISODeliverability Interconnection Standard, to enable the New York StateTransmission System to deliver electric capacity from the LargeGenerating Facility or Merchant Transmission Facility, pursuant to theterms of the NYISO OATT.Class Year The group of generation and merchant transmission projectsincluded in any particular Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment(ATRA), in accordance with the criteria specified for including suchprojects in the assessment.Clean Air Interstate USEPA rule to reduce interstate transport of fine particulate matterRule (CAIR) (PM) and ozone. CAIR provides a federal framework to limit theemission of SO2 and NOx.Comprehensive A biennial study undertaken by the NYISO that evaluates projectsReliability Plan (CRP) offered to meet New York's future electric power needs, as identifiedin the Reliability Needs Assessment (RNA). The CRP may triggerelectric utilities to pursue regulated solutions or other developers topursue alternative regulated solutions to meet Reliability Needs, ifmarket-based solutions will not be available by the need date. It isthe second step in the Reliability Planning Process (RPP).Comprehensive A transmission system planning process that is comprised of threeSystem Planning components: 1) Local transmission owner planning; 2) Compilation ofProcess (CSPP) local plans into the Reliability Planning Process (RPP), which includesdeveloping a Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP); 3) Channeling theCRP data into the Congestion Assessment and Resource IntegrationStudy (CARIS)Congestion The third component of the Comprehensive System Planning ProcessAssessment and (CSPP). The CARIS is based on the Comprehensive Reliability PlanResource (CRP).Integration Study(CARIS)Congestion Congestion on the transmission system results from physical limits onhow much power transmission equipment can carry withoutexceeding thermal, voltage and/or stability limits determined tomaintain system reliability.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentA-2 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesTerm DefinitionContingencies Contingencies are individual electrical system events (includingdisturbances and equipment failures) that are likely to happen.Cross-State Air This USEPA rule requires the reduction of power plant emissions thatPollution Rule contribute to exceedances of ozone and/or fine particle standards in(CSARP) other states.Dependable The sustained maximum net output of a generator, as demonstratedMaximum Net by the performance of a test or through actual operation, averagedCapability over a continuous time period as defined in the ISO Procedures. The(DMNC) DMNC test determines the amount of Installed Capacity used tocalculate the Unforced Capacity that the Resource is permitted tosupply to the NYCA.Electric System A NYISO governance working group for Market ParticipantsPlanning Work designated to fulfill the planning functions assigned to it. The ESPWGGroup (ESPWG) is a working group that provides a forum for stakeholders and MarketParticipants to provide input into the NYISO's Comprehensive SystemPlanning Process (CSPP), the NYISO's response to FERC reliability-related Orders and other directives, other system planning activities,policies regarding cost allocation and recovery for regulatedreliability and/or economic projects, and related matters.Energy Efficiency A statewide program ordered by the NYDPS in response to thePortfolio Standard Governor's call to reduce New Yorkers' electricity usage by 15% of(EEPS) 2007 forecast levels by the year 2015, with comparable results innatural gas conservation.Federal Energy The federal energy regulatory agency within the U.S. Department ofRegulatory Energy that approves the NYISO's tariffs and regulates its operationCommission (FERC) of the bulk electricity grid, wholesale power markets, and planningand interconnection processes.FERC 715 Annual report that is required by transmitting utilities operating gridfacilities that are rated at or above 100 kilovolts. The report consistsof transmission systems maps, a detailed description of transmissionplanning Reliability Criteria, detailed descriptions of transmissionplanning assessment practices, and detailed evaluation of anticipatedsystem performance as measured against Reliability Criteria.Forced Outage An unanticipated loss of capacity due to the breakdown of a powerplant or transmission line. It can also mean the intentional shutdownof a generating unit or transmission line for emergency reasons.Gap Solution A solution to a Reliability Need that is designed to be temporary andto strive to be compatible with permanent market-based proposals.A permanent regulated solution, if appropriate, may proceed inparallel with a Gap Solution. The NYISO may call for a Gap Solution toNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentA-3 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesTerm Definitionan imminent threat to reliability of the Bulk Power TransmissionFacilities if no market-based solutions, regulated backstop solutions,or alternative regulated solutions can meet the Reliability Needs in atimely manner.Gold Book Annual NYISO publication of its Load and Capacity Data Report.Installed Capacity A Generator or Load facility that complies with the requirements in(ICAP) the Reliability Rules and is capable of supplying and/or reducing thedemand for Energy in the NYCA for the purpose of ensuring thatsufficient Energy and Capacity are available to meet the ReliabilityRules. The Installed Capacity requirement, established by the NewYork State Reliability Council (NYSRC), includes a margin of reserve inaccordance with the Reliability Rules.Installed Reserve The amount of installed electric generation capacity above 100% ofMargin (IRM) the forecasted peak electric demand that is required to meet NYSRCresource adequacy criteria. Most studies in recent years haveindicated a need for a 15-20% reserve margin for adequate reliabilityin New York.Interconnection A queue of transmission and generation projects that have submittedQueue an Interconnection Request to the NYISO to be interconnected to theNew York State Transmission System. All projects must undergo threestudies -a Feasibility Study (unless parties agree not to perform it), aSystem Reliability Impact Study (SRIS) and a Facilities Study -beforeinterconnecting to the grid.Local Transmission The Local Transmission Owner Plan, developed by each TransmissionPlan (LTP) Owner, which describes its respective plans that may be underconsideration or finalized for its own Transmission District.Local Transmission The first step in the Comprehensive System Planning Process (CSPP),Owner Planning under which transmission owners in New York's electricity marketsProcess (LTPP) provide their local transmission plans for consideration and commentby interested parties.Loss of load LOLE establishes the amount of generation and demand-sideexpectation (LOLE) resources needed -subject to the level of the availability of thoseresources, load uncertainty, available transmission system transfercapability and emergency operating procedures -to minimize theprobability of an involuntary loss of firm electric load on the bulkelectricity grid. The state's bulk electricity grid is designed to meet anLOLE that is not greater than one occurrence of an involuntary loaddisconnection in 10 years, expressed mathematically as 0.1 days peryear.Market-Based Investor-proposed projects that are driven by market needs to meetSolutions future reliability requirements of the bulk electricity grid as outlinedin the RNA. Those solutions can include generation, transmission and0NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentA-4 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesTerm Definitiondemand response Programs.Market Monitoring A consulting or other professional services firm, or other similarUnit entity, retained by the NYISO Board pursuant to ISO Services TariffSection 30.4.6.8.1, Attachment 0 -Market Monitoring Plan.Market Participant An entity, excluding the ISO, that produces, transmits, sells, and/orpurchases for resale Capacity, Energy and Ancillary Services in theWholesale Market. Market Participants include: TransmissionCustomers under the ISO OATT, Customers under the ISO ServicesTariff, Power Exchanges, Transmission Owners, Primary Holders,LSEs, Suppliers and their designated agents. Market Participants alsoinclude entities buyingor selling TCCs.Mercury and Air The rule applies to oil and coal fired generators and establishes limitsToxics Standards for HAPs, acid gases, mercury (Hg), and particulate matter (PM).(MATS) Compliance is required by March 2015, with extensions to 2017 forreliability critical units.Mercury Reduction NYSDEC regulation of mercury emissions from coal-fired electricProgram for Coal- utility steam generating units with a nameplate capacity of moreFired Electric Utility than 25 MW producing electricity for sale.Steam GeneratingUnits (MRP)National Ambient Limits, set by the EPA, on pollutants considered harmful to publicAir Quality health and the environment.Standards (NAAQS)New York Control The area under the electrical control of the NYISO. It includes theArea (NYCA) entire state of New York, and is divided into 11 zones.New York State The agency that implements New York State environmentalDepartment of conservation law, with some programs also governed by federal law.EnvironmentalConservation(NYSDEC)New York Formed in 1997 and commencing operations in 1999, the NYISO is aIndependent System not-for-profit organization that manages New York's bulk electricityOperator (NYISO) grid -an 11,056-mile network of high voltage lines that carryelectricity throughout the state. The NYISO also oversees the state'swholesale electricity markets. The organization is governed by anindependent Board of Directors and a governance structure made upof committees with Market Participants and stakeholders asmembers.New York State As defined in the New York Public Service Law, it serves as the staffDepartment of for the New York State Public Service Commission.Public ServiceNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentA-5 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesTerm Definition(NYDPS)New York State A corporation created under the New York State Public AuthoritiesEnergy Research and law and funded by the System Benefits Charge (SBC) and otherDevelopment sources. Among other responsibilities, NYSERDA is charged withAuthority conducting a multifaceted energy and environmental research and(NYSERDA) development program to meet New York State's diverse economicneeds, and administering state System Benefits Charge, RenewablePortfolio Standard, and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standardprograms.New York State The New York State Public Service Commission is the decision makingPublic Service body of the New York State Department of Public Service. The PSCCommission (NYPSC) regulates the state's electric, gas, steam, telecommunications, andwater utilities and oversees the cable industry. The Commission hasthe responsibility for setting rates and ensuring that safe andadequate service is provided by New York's utilities. In addition, theCommission exercises jurisdiction over the siting of major gas andelectric transmission facilitiesNew York State A not-for-profit entity that develops, maintains, and, from time-to-Reliability Council time, updates the Reliability Rules which shall be complied with by(NYSRC) the New York Independent System Operator ("NYISO") and allentities engaging in electric transmission, ancillary services, energyand power transactions on the New York State Power System.North American A not-for-profit organization that develops and enforces reliabilityElectric Reliability standards; assesses reliability annually via 10-year and seasonalCorporation (NERC) forecasts; monitors the bulk power system; and educates, trains, andcertifies industry personnel. NERC is subject to oversight by the FERCand governmental authorities in Canada.Northeast Power A not-for-profit corporation responsible for promoting and improvingCoordinating the reliability of the international, interconnected bulk power systemCouncil (NPCC) in Northeastern North America.Open Access Document of Rates, Terms and Conditions, regulated by the FERC,Transmission Tariff under which the NYISO provides transmission service. The OATT is a(OAT-) dynamic document to which revisions are made on a collaborativebasis by the NYISO, New York's Electricity Market Stakeholders, andthe FERC.Order 890 Adopted by FERC in February 2007, Order 890 is a change to FERC's1996 transmission open access regulations (established in Orders 888and 889). Order 890 is intended to provide for more effectivecompetition, transparency and planning in wholesale electricitymarkets and transmission grid operations, as well as to strengthenthe Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) with regard to non-NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentA-6 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesTerm Definitiondiscriminatory transmission service. Order 890 requires TransmissionProviders -including the NYISO -to have a formal planning processthat provides for a coordinated transmission planning process,including reliability and economic planning studies.Order 1000 Order No. 1000 is a Final Rule that reforms the FERC electrictransmission planning and cost allocation requirements for publicutility transmission providers. The rule builds on the reforms of OrderNo. 890 and provides for transmission planning to meet transmissionneeds driven by Public Policy Requirements, interregional planning,opens transmission development for new transmission needs to non-incumbent developers, and provides for cost allocation and recoveryof transmission upgrades.Outage The forced or scheduled removal of generating capacity or atransmission line from service.Peak Demand The maximum instantaneous power demand, measured inmegawatts (MW), and also known as peak load, is usually measuredand averaged over an hourly interval.Reasonably Regulations promulgated by NYSDEC for the control of emissions ofAvailable Control nitrogen oxides (NOx) from fossil fueled power plants. TheTechnology for regulations establish presumptive emission limits for each type ofOxides of Nitrogen fossil fueled generator and fuel used as an electric generator in NY.(NOx RACT) The NOx RACT limits are part of the State Implementation Plan forachieving compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard(NAAQS) for ozone.Reactive Power Facilities such as generators, high voltage transmission lines,Resources synchronous condensers, capacitor banks, and static VArcompensators that provide reactive power. Reactive power is theportion of electric power that establishes and sustains the electricand magnetic fields of alternating-current equipment. Reactivepower is usually expressed as kilovolt-amperes reactive (kVAr) ormegavolt-ampere reactive (MVAr).Regional A cooperative effort by nine Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states (notGreenhouse Gas including New Jersey or Pennsylvania) to limit greenhouse gasInitiative (RGGI) emissions using a market-based cap-and-trade approach.Regulated Backstop Proposals required of certain TOs to meet Reliability Needs asSolutions outlined in the RNA. Those solutions can include generation,transmission or demand response. Non-Transmission Ownerdevelopers may also submit regulated solutions.Reliability Criteria The electric power system planning and operating policies, standards,criteria, guidelines, procedures, and rules promulgated by the NorthAmerican Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), Northeast PowerNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentA-7 DRAFT -For Discussion PurposesTerm DefinitionCoordinating Council (NPCC), and the New York State ReliabilityCouncil (NYSRC), as they may be amended from time to time.Reliability Need A condition identified by the NYISO in the RNA as a violation orpotential violation of Reliability Criteria.Reliability Needs A biennial study which evaluates the resource adequacy andAssessment (RNA) transmission system adequacy and security of the New York bulkpower system over a ten year Study Period. Through this evaluation,the NYISO identifies Reliability Needs in accordance with applicableReliability Criteria.Reliability Planning The biennial process that includes evaluation of resource adequacyProcess (RPP) and transmission system security of the state's bulk electricity gridover a 10-year period and evaluates solutions to meet those needs.The RPP consists of two studies: the RNA, which identifies potentialproblems, and the CRP, which evaluates specific solutions to thoseproblems.Renewable Portfolio Proceeding commenced by order of the NYDPS in 2004 whichStandard (RPS) established the goal to increase renewable energy used in New YorkState to 30% of total New York energy usage (equivalent toapproximately 3,700 MW of capacity) by 2015.Responsible The Transmission Owner(s) or TOs designated by the NYISO, pursuantTransmission Owner to the NYISO RPP, to prepare a proposal for a regulated solution to a(Responsible TO) Reliability Need or to proceed with a regulated solution to aReliability Need. The Responsible TO will normally be theTransmission Owner in whose Transmission District the NYISOidentifies a Reliability Need.Security The ability of the power system to withstand the loss of one or moreelements without involuntarily disconnecting firm load.Special Case A NYISO demand response program designed to reduce power usageResources (SCR) by businesses and large power users qualified to participate in theNYISO's ICAP market. Companies that sign up as SCRs are paid inadvance for agreeing to cut power upon NYISO request.State Environmental NYS law requiring the sponsoring or approving governmental body toQuality Review Act identify and mitigate the significant environmental impacts of the(SEQRA) activity/project it is proposing or permitting.Study Period The 10-year time period evaluated in the RNA.System Reliability A study, conducted by the NYISO in accordance with ApplicableImpact Study (SRIS) Reliability Standards, to evaluate the impact of a proposedinterconnection on the reliability of the New York State TransmissionSystem.System Benefits An amount of money, charged to ratepayers on their electric bills,NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentA-8 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesTerm DefinitionCharge (SBC) which is administered and allocated by NYSERDA towards energy-efficiency programs, research and development initiatives, low-income energy programs, and environmental disclosure activities.Transfer Capability The measure of the ability of interconnected electrical systems toreliably move or transfer power from one area to another over alltransmission facilities (or paths) between those areas under specifiedsystem conditions.Transmission Limitations on the ability of a transmission system to transferConstraints electricity during normal or emergency system conditions.Transmission Owner A public utility or authority that owns transmission facilities and(TO) provides Transmission Service under the NYISO's tariffsTransmission An identified group of Market Participants that advises the NYISOPlanning Advisory Operating Committee and provides support to the NYISO Staff inSubcommittee regard to transmission planning matters including transmission(TPAS) system reliability, expansion, and interconnectionUnforced Capacity Unforced capacity delivery rights are rights that may be granted toDelivery Rights controllable lines to deliver generating capacity from locations(UDR) outside the NYCA to localities within NYCA.Weather Adjustments made to normalize the impact of weather when makingNormalized energy and peak demand forecasts. Using historical weather data,energy analysts can account for the influence of extreme weatherconditions and adjust actual energy use and peak demand toestimate what would have happened if the hottest day or the coldestday had been the typical, or "normal," weather conditions. "Normal"is usually calculated by taking the average of the previous 20 years ofweather data.Zone One of the eleven regions in the NYCA connected to each other byidentified transmission interfaces and designated as Load Zones A-K.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentA-9 DRAFT -For Discussion PurposesAppendix B -The Reliability Planning Process 0This section presents an overview of the NYISO reliability planning process (RPP).A detailed discussion of the reliability planning process, including applicable ReliabilityCriteria, is contained in NYISO Manual entitled: "Reliability Planning Process Manual,"which is posted on the NYISO's website.The NYISO reliability planning process is an integral part of the NYISO's overallComprehensive System Planning Process (CSPP). The CSPP planning process iscomprised of the Local Transmission Planning Process (LTPP), the RPP, and theCongestion Assessment and Resource Integration Study (CARIS). Each CSPP cycle beginswith the LTPP. As part of the LTPP, local Transmission Owners perform transmissionstudies for their BPTFs in their transmission areas according to all applicable criteria.Links to the Transmission Owner's LTPs can be found on the NYISO's website. The LTPPprovides inputs for the NYISO's reliability planning process. During the RPP process, theNYISO conducts the Reliability Needs Assessment (RNA) and Comprehensive ReliabilityPlan (CRP). The RNA evaluates the adequacy and security of the bulk power system overa 10-year study period. In identifying resource adequacy needs, the NYISO identifies theamount of resources in megawatts (known as "compensatory megawatts") and thelocations in which they are needed to meet those needs. After the RNA is complete, theNYISO requests and evaluates market-based solutions, regulated backstop solutions andalternative regulated solutions that address the identified Reliability Needs. This stepresults in the development of the NYISO's CRP for the 10-year study period. The CRPprovides inputs for the NYISO's economic planning process known as CARIS. CARISPhase 1 examines congestion on the New York bulk power system and the costs andbenefits of alternatives to alleviate that congestion. During CARIS Phase 2, the NYISOwill evaluate specific transmission project proposals for regulated cost recovery.The NYISO's reliability planning process is a long-range assessment of bothresource adequacy and transmission reliability of the New York bulk power systemconducted over a 10-year planning horizon. There are two different aspects to analyzingthe bulk power system's reliability in the RNA: adequacy and security. Adequacy is aplanning and probabilistic concept. A system is adequate if the probability of havingsufficient transmission and generation to meet expected demand is equal to or less thanthe system's standard, which is expressed as a loss of load expectation (LOLE). The NewYork State bulk power system is planned to meet an LOLE that, at any given point intime, is less than or equal to an involuntary load disconnection that is not more frequentthan once in every 10 years, or 0.1 days per year. This requirement forms the basis ofNew York's installed reserve margin (IRM) resource adequacy requirement.Security is an operating and deterministic concept. This means that possibleevents are identified as having significant adverse reliability consequences, and thesystem is planned and operated so that the system can continue to serve load even ifthese events occur. Security requirements are sometimes referred to as N-1 or N-1-1. NNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentB-1 DRAFT- For Discussion Purposesis the number of system components; an N-1 requirement means that the system canwithstand single disturbance events (e.g., generator, bus section, transmission circuit,breaker failure, double-circuit tower) without violating thermal, voltage and stabilitylimits or before affecting service to consumers. An N-i-1 requirement means that theReliability Criteria apply after any critical element such as a generator, a transmissioncircuit, a transformer, series or shunt compensating device, or a high voltage directcurrent (HVDC) pole has already been lost. Generation and power flows can be adjustedby the use of iO-minute operating reserve, phase angle regulator control and HVDCcontrol and a second single disturbance is analyzed.The RPP is anchored in the market-based philosophy of the NYISO and its MarketParticipants, which posits that market solutions should be the preferred choice to meetthe identified Reliability Needs reported in the RNA. In the CRP, the reliability of the bulkpower system is assessed and solutions to Reliability Needs evaluated in accordancewith existing Reliability Criteria of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation(NERC), the Northeast Power Coordinating Council, Inc. (NPCC), and the New York StateReliability Council (NYSRC) as they may change from time to time. These criteria and adescription of the nature of long-term bulk power system planning are described indetail in the applicable planning manual, and are briefly summarized below. In theevent that market-based solutions do not materialize to meet a Reliability Need in atimely manner, the NYISO designates the Responsible TO or Responsible TOs ordeveloper of an alternative regulated solution to proceed with a regulated solution inorder to maintain system reliability. Under the RPP, the NYISO also has an affirmativeobligation to report historic congestion across the transmission system. In addition, thedraft RNA is provided to the Market Monitoring Unit for review and consideration ofwhether market rules changes are necessary to address an identified failure, if any, inone of the NYISO's competitive markets. If market failure is identified as the reason forthe lack of market-based solutions, the NYISO will explore appropriate changes in itsmarket rules with its stakeholders and Independent Market Monitor. The RPP does notsubstitute for the planning that each TO conducts to maintain the reliability of its ownbulk and non-bulk power systems.The NYISO does not license or construct projects to respond to identifiedReliability Needs reported in the RNA. The ultimate approval of those projects lies withregulatory agencies such as the FERC, the NYDPS, environmental permitting agencies,and local governments. The NYISO monitors the progress and continued viability ofproposed market and regulated projects to meet identified needs, and reports itsfindings in annual plans. Figure B-1 below summarizes the RPP and Figure B-2summarizes the CARIS which collectively comprise the CSPP process.The CRP will form the basis for the next cycle of the NYISO's economic planningprocess. That process will examine congestion on the New York bulk power system andthe costs and benefits of alternatives to alleviate that congestion.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentB-2 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesNYISO Reliability Planning ProcessNYISO Develops Power Flow Base Case RepresentationsNYISOPerformsFrom the FERC 715 Case (oATRA Network )Id5Ca e f iCases Meet Standards for Base Cases ( No Violations)NYIS PerNYISO Applies Base Case Screens Removing Projects to A ScenariosI Develop the BN e as D ses over the Ten Year Period b CDevelopedNYISO Works with TOe to Mitigate Local Proble y ilMeet Reliabili Nees And Reporte Actions in RNA iNYISO APprfovas of BPTFs for Security Assessment NY'SO PerformsP Violations Identified Reauyste R e-Id No Violatio s Identified Needed*" IF not,
  • T T oT I de teria Deficiency (Needs) iI Develop Compensatory MWpMVAR eliablityPlanoCRP] I to remove Deficiency .YS PeL&CoTablScreeningNYISO Performs Transfer Limit Analysis for Resource Adequacy Assessment AndIdentifies Needs as Deficiency in LOLE Criteria by MARS MARS LOLE &Develop Compensatory MWs to Remove Deficiency ArmSNYISO Reviews LTPs as They Relate to BPTFs to Determine Whether They WillMeet Reliability Needs and Evaluate Alternatives from a Regional PerspectiveI NYISO Publicizes Reliability Needs AssessmentSNYISO Issues Request for SolutionsMarket-Based Resoonses i Regulated Responses*Generation s Trnmsion*DSM o May consider alternatives*Merchant Transmsin
  • TO & nonTO proposalsNYISO Evaluates Market Based Responses, Regulated Responses and TO Updates ITo Determine Whether They Will Meet the Identified Reliability Me1edsIINYIS FomultesComprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP)T N° viablettimely market or regulated solution to an Identified needI Board Approval of Plan (CRP) I I "Gap"' Solutions by Týei~v~................ o .............. I I Board Approval of Plan (CRP) Is eg at- Lon eurL mlNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentB-3 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesAppendix C -Load and Energy Forecast 2014-2024C-1. SummaryIn order to perform the 2014 RNA, a forecast of summer and winter peak demands andannual energy requirements was produced for the years 2014 -2024. The electricity forecast isbased on projections of New York's economy performed by Moody's Analytics in January 2014.The forecast includes detailed projections of employment, output, income and other factors fortwenty three regions in New York State. This appendix provides a summary of the electricenergy and peak demand forecasts and the key economic input variables used to produce theforecasts. Table C-1 provides a summary of key economic and electric system growth rates from2003 to 2024.In June 2008, the New York Public Service Commission issued its Order regarding theEnergy Efficiency Portfolio Standard. This proceeding set forth a statewide goal of a cumulativeenergy reduction of about 26,900 GWh. The NYISO estimates the peak demand impacts to beabout 5500 MW. This goal is expected to be achieved by contributions from a number of stateagencies, power authorities and utilities, as well as from federal codes and building standards.Table C-1: Summary of Economic & Electric System Growth Rates -Actual & ForecastAverage Annual Growth I2003-2008 2008-2013 2014-2019 2019-2024Total Employment 0.70% 0.52% 0.93% 0.21%Gross State Product 1.58% 1.85% 2.47% 1.75%Population 0.08% 0.34% 0.19% 0.14%Total Real Income 2.53% 1.59% 2.77% 2.25%Weather Normalized Summer Peak 1.40% -0.10% 1.04% 0.63%Weather Normalized Annual Energy 1.11% -0.36% 0.14% 0.17%NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentC-1 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesC-2. Historic OverviewThe New York Control Area (NYCA) is a summer peaking system and its summer peakhas grown faster than annual energy and winter peak over this period. Both summer and winterpeaks show considerable year-to-year variability due to the influence of peak-producingweather conditions for the seasonal peaks. Annual energy is influenced by weather conditionsover the entire year, which is much less variable than peak-producing conditions.Table C-2 shows the NYCA historic seasonal peaks and annual energy growth since 2001.The table provides both actual results and weather-normalized results, together with annualaverage growth rates for each table entry. The growth rates are averaged over the period 2003to 2013.Table C-2: Historic Energy and Seasonal Peak Demand -Actual and Weather-NormalizedAnnual Energy -GWhWeatherActual I NormalizedYear20032004200520062007200820092010201120122013158,130160.211167.,207162,237167,339165,613158,777163,505163,330162,843157,523160,832163,015163,413166073166,468161,908161,513162,628163,458Summer Peak -MWWeatherActual Normalized30,333 31,41028,433 31,40132,075 33,06833,939 32,99232,169 33,44432,432 33,67030,844 33,06333,452 32,45833,865 33,01932,547 33,10633,956 33,5021.13% 0.65%WeatherYear Actual Normalized2003-04 25,262 24,8492004-05 25,541 25,0062005-06 24,947 24,7702006-07 25,057 25,0302007-08 25,021 25,4902008-09 24,673 25,0162009-10 24,074 24,5372010-11 24,654 24,4522011-12 23,901 24,6302012-13 24,658 24,6302013-14 25,738 24,610Winter Peak -MW163,493 163,4730.33%0.37%0.19%-0.10%NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentC-2 DRAFT -For Discussion PurposesC-3. Forecast OverviewTable C-3 shows historic and forecast growth rates of annual energy for the differentregions in New York. The Upstate region includes Zones A -I. The NYCA's two locality zones,Zones J (New York City) and K (Long Island) are shown individually.Table C-3: Annual Energy and Summer Peak Demand -Actual & ForecastYear20032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242003-132014-242003-082008-132014-192019-24Annual Enery -GhUpstate J K NYCARegion85,223 50,829 21,960 158,01285,935 52,073 22,203 160,21190,253 54,007 22,948 167,20886,957 53,096 22,185 162,23889,843 54,750 22,748 167,34188,316 54,835 22,461 165,61283,788 53,100 21,892 158,78085,469 55,114 22,922 163,50586,566 54,059 22,704 163,32987,051 53,487 22,302 162,84088,084 53,316 22,114 163,51487,456 53,498 22,207 163,16187,602 53,284 22,328 163,21487,983 53,402 22,522 163,90787,870 53,144 22,590 163,60487,987 53,046 22,720 163,75388,515 52,940 22,850 164,30589,089 52,969 23,043 165,10188,993 52,727 23,110 164,83089,113 52,622 23,240 164,97589,222 52,517 23,370 165,10989,600 52,556 23,565 165,7210.3% 0.5% 0.1% 0.3%0.2% -0.2% 0.6% 0.2%0.7% 1.5% 0.5% 0.9%-0.1% -0.6% -0.3% -0.3%0.2% -0.2% 0.6% 0.1%0.2% -0.1% 0.6% 0.2%Summer Coincident Peak -MWUpstate J K NYCARegion15,100 10240 4,993 30,33314,271 9,742 4,420 28,43316,029 10,810 5,236 32,07517,054 11,300 5,585 33,93915,824 10,970 5,375 32,16916,223 10,979 5,231 32,43315,416 10,366 5,063 30,84516,408 11,213 5,832 33,45316,558 11,374 5,935 33,86716,608 10,722 5,109 32,43916,847 11,456 5,653 33,95616,621 11,643 5,402 33,66616,711 11,907 5,448 34,06616,850 12,070 5,492 34,41216,996 12,238 5,532 34,76617,120 12,421 5,570 35,11117,296 12,549 5,609 35,45417,369 12,638 5,649 35,65617,453 12,747 5,690 35,89017,560 12,836 5,731 36,12717,647 12,945 5,777 36,36917,730 13,029 5,821 36,5801. 1% 1. 1% 1.2% 1. 1%0.6% 11.1% 0.7% 0.8%1.4% 1.4% 0.9% 1.3%0.8% 0.9% 1.6% 0.9%0.8% 1.5% 0.8% 1.0%0.5% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6%NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentC-3 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesC-4. Forecast MethodologyThe NYISO methodology for producing the long term forecasts for the Reliability NeedsAssessment consists of the following steps.Econometric forecasts were developed for zonal energy using monthly data from 2000through 2013. For each zone, the NYISO estimated an ensemble of econometric models usingpopulation, households, economic output, employment, cooling degree days and heatingdegree days. Each member of the ensemble was evaluated and compared to historic data. Thezonal model chosen for the forecast was the one which best represented recent history and theregional growth for that zone. The NYISO also received and evaluated forecasts from ConEdison and LIPA, which were used in combination with the forecasts we developed for Zones H,I, J and K.The summer & winter non-coincident and coincident peak forecasts for Zones H, I, J andK were derived from the forecasts submitted to the NYISO by Con Edison and LIPA. For theremaining zones, the NYISO derived the summer and winter coincident peak demands from thezonal energy forecasts by using average zonal weather-normalized load factors from 2000through 2013. The 2014 summer peak forecast was matched to coincide with the 2014 ICAPforecast.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentC-4 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesC-4.1. Demand Side InitiativesThe Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (EEPS) is an initiative of the Governor of NewYork and implemented by the state's Public Service Commission. The goal of the initiative is toreduce electric energy usage by 15 percent from 2007 forecasted energy usage levels in theyear 2015 (the 15x15 initiative), for a reduction of 26,880 GWh by 2015.The NYS PSC directed a series of working groups composed of all interested parties tothe proceeding to obtain information needed to further elaborate the goal. The NYS PSC issuedan Order in June 2008, directing NYSERDA and the state's investor owned utilities to developconservation plans in accordance with the EEPS goal. The NYS PSC also identified goals that itexpected would be implemented by LIPA and NYPA.The NYISO has been a party to the EEPS proceeding from its inception. As part of thedevelopment of the 2014 RNA forecast, the NYISO developed an adjustment to the 2014econometric model that incorporated a portion of the EEPS goal. This was based upondiscussion with market participants in the Electric System Planning Working Group. The NYISOconsidered the following factors in developing the 2014 RNA base case:" NYS PSC-approved spending levels for the programs under its jurisdiction, includingthe Systems Benefit Charge and utility-specific programs* Expected realization rates, participation rates and timing of planned energyefficiency programs" Degree to which energy efficiency is already included in the NYISO's econometricenergy forecast* Impacts of new appliance efficiency standards, and building codes and standards" Specific energy efficiency plans proposed by LIPA, NYPA and Consolidated EdisonCompany of New York, Inc. (Con Edison)* The actual rates of implementation of EEPS based on data received fromDepartment of Public Service staff* Projected impact of customer-sited solar photovoltaic installationsOnce the statewide energy and demand impacts were developed, zonal level forecastswere produced for the econometric forecast and for the base case.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentC-5 DRAFT- For Discussion Purposes* Zone D's average energy and peak demand growth is based on the last four years of the forecast, after industrial load in thiszone is expected to return from a curtailment.Figure C-1: Zonal Energy Forecast Growth Rates -2014 to 2024Annual Peak Demand Growth Rates by Zone1.50%1.25%1.00%-0.75%0% t0.50%0.25%0.00%A B C D5 E F G H I J K NYCA-0.25%-0.50%Figure C-2: Zonal Summer Peak Demand Forecast Growth Rates -2014 to 2024NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentC-6 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesTable C-4: Annual Energy by Zone -Actual & Forecast (GWh)Year A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA2003 15,942 9,719 16,794 5,912 6,950 11,115 10,451 2,219 6,121 50,829 21,960 158,0122004 16,102 9,888 16,825 5,758 7,101 11,161 10,696 2,188 6,216 52,073 22,203 160,2112005 16,498 10,227 17,568 6,593 7,594 11,789 10,924 2,625 6,435 54,007 22,948 167,2082006 15,998 10,003 16,839 6,289 7,339 11,337 10,417 2,461 6,274 53,096 22,185 162,2382007 16,258 10,207 17,028 6,641 7,837 11,917 10,909 2,702 6,344 54,750 22,748 167,3412008 15,835 10,089 16,721 6,734 7,856 11,595 10,607 2,935 5,944 54,835 22,461 165,6122009 15,149 9,860 15,949 5,140 7,893 10,991 10,189 2,917 5,700 53,100 21,892 158,7802010 15,903 10,128 16,209 4,312 7,906 11,394 10,384 2,969 6,264 55,114 22,922 163,5052011 16,017 10,040 16,167 5,903 7,752 11,435 10,066 2,978 6,208 54,059 22,704 163,3292012 15,595 10,009 16,117 6,574 7,943 11,846 9,938 2,930 6,099 53,487 22,302 162,8402013 15,790 9,981 16,368 6,448 8,312 12,030 9,965 2,986 6,204 53,316 22,114 163,5142014 15,837 10,011 16,342 6,027 8,153 11,993 9,979 2,957 6,157 53,498 22,207 163,1612015 15,870 10,005 16,372 6,042 8,167 12,043 10,025 2,946 6,132 53,284 22,328 163,2142016 15,942 10,025 16,441 6,072 8,214 12,128 10,062 2,953 6,146 53,402 22,522 163,9072017 15,913 9,993 16,423 6,066 8,233 12,148 10,040 2,938 6,116 53,144 22,590 163,6042018 15,925 9,988 16,447 6,075 8,277 12,201 10,038 2,931 6,105 53,046 22,720 163,7532019 15,942 9,985 16,475 6,493 8,319 12,256 10,026 2,927 6,092 52,940 22,850 164,3052020 16,012 10,009 16,553 6,721 8,395 12,334 10,042 2,927 6,096 52,969 23,043 165,1012021 15,988 9,980 16,546 6,711 8,431 12,345 10,008 2,916 6,068 52,727 23,110 164,8302022 15,998 9,979 16,583 6,717 8,480 12,391 9,999 2,910 6,056 52,622 23,240 164,9752023 16,007 9,979 16,615 6,722 8,524 12,439 9,989 2,903 6,044 52,517 23,370 165,1092024 16,060 10,009 16,696 6,744 8,608 12,525 10,004 2,905 6,049 52,556 23,565 165,721NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentC-7 DRAFT -For Discussion PurposesTable C-5: Summer Coincident Peak Demand by Zone -Actual & Forecast (MW)Year A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA2003 2,510 1,782 2,727 671 1,208 2,163 2,146 498 1,395 10,240 4,993 30,3332004 2,493 1,743 2,585 644 1,057 1,953 2,041 475 1,280 9,742 4,420 28,4332005 2,726 1,923 2,897 768 1,314 2,164 2,236 592 1,409 10,810 5,236 32,0752006 2,735 2,110 3,128 767 1,435 2,380 2,436 596 1,467 11,300 5,585 33,9392007 2,592 1,860 2,786 795 1,257 2,185 2,316 595 1,438 10,970 5,375 32,1692008 2,611 2,001 2,939 801 1,268 2,270 2,277 657 1,399 10,979 5,231 32,4332009 2,595 1,939 2,780 536 1,351 2,181 2,159 596 1,279 10,366 5,063 30,8452010 2,663 1,985 2,846 552 1,437 2,339 2,399 700 1,487 11,213 5,832 33,4532011 2,556 2,019 2,872 776 1,447 2,233 2,415 730 1,510 11,374 5,935 33,8672012 2,743 2,107 2,888 774 1,420 2,388 2,242 653 1,393 10,722 5,109 32,4392013 2,549 2,030 2,921 819 1,540 2,392 2,358 721 1,517 11,456 5,653 33,9562014 2,674 2,054 2,896 703 1,434 2,374 2,290 689 1,507 11,643 5,402 33,6662015 2,688 2,062 2,916 705 1,449 2,405 2,309 684 1,493 11,907 5,448 34,0662016 2,710 2,077 2,942 707 1,464 2,437 2,324 688 1,501 12,070 5,492 34,4122017 2,733 2,093 2,972 710 1,483 2,475 2,336 688 1,506 12,238 5,532 34,7662018 2,748 2,103 2,993 715 1,499 2,503 2,347 694 1,518 12,421 5,570 35,1112019 2,756 2,110 3,009 789 1,512 2,529 2,355 702 1,534 12,549 5,609 35,4542020 2,763 2,112 3,020 793 1,523 2,547 2,363 706 1,542 12,638 5,649 35,6562021 2,769 2,115 3,033 797 1,536 2,570 2,370 709 1,554 12,747 5,690 35,8902022 2,773 2,117 3,044 801 1,547 2,595 2,377 724 1,582 12,836 5,731 36,1272023 2,777 2,121 3,055 805 1,558 2,624 2,383 730 1,594 12,945 5,777 36,3692024 2,780 2,124 3,067 809 1,572 2,649 2,388 734 1,607 13,029 5,821 36,580NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentC-8 0DRAFT -For Discussion PurposesTable C-6: Winter Coincident Peak Demand by Zone -Actual & Forecast (MW)Year A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA2003-04 2,433 1,576 2,755 857 1,344 1,944 1,720 478 981 7,527 3,647 25,2622004-05 2,446 1,609 2,747 918 1,281 1,937 1,766 474 939 7,695 3,729 25,5412005-06 2,450 1,544 2,700 890 1,266 1,886 1,663 515 955 7,497 3,581 24,9472006-07 2,382 1,566 2,755 921 1,274 1,888 1,638 504 944 7,680 3,505 25,0572007-08 2,336 1,536 2,621 936 1,312 1,886 1,727 524 904 7,643 3,596 25,0212008-09 2,274 1,567 2,533 930 1,289 1,771 1,634 529 884 7,692 3,570 24,6732009-10 2,330 1,555 2,558 648 1,289 1,788 1,527 561 813 7,562 3,443 24,0742010-11 2,413 1,606 2,657 645 1,296 1,825 1,586 526 927 7,661 3,512 24,6542011-12 2,220 1,535 2,532 904 1,243 1,765 1,618 490 893 7,323 3,378 23,9012012-13 2,343 1,568 2,672 954 1,348 1,923 1,539 510 947 7,456 3,399 24,6582013-14 2,358 1,645 2,781 848 1,415 1,989 1,700 625 974 7,810 3,594 25,7382014-15 2,382 1,575 2,608 858 1,323 1,905 1,554 538 935 7,529 3,530 24,7372015-16 2,391 1,577 2,615 860 1,325 1,914 1,564 538 934 7,537 3,540 24,7952016-17 2,399 1,580 2,621 863 1,327 1,925 1,568 540 939 7,544 3,550 24,8562017-18 2,406 1,583 2,628 862 1,332 1,935 1,572 539 937 7,552 3,560 24,9062018-19 2,413 1,587 2,636 863 1,338 1,947 1,576 540 937 7,559 3,570 24,9662019-20 2,423 1,591 2,645 934 1,345 1,961 1,580 540 938 7,567 3,580 25,1042020-21 2,433 1,596 2,654 937 1,355 1,972 1,583 542 941 7,574 3,590 25,1772021-22 2,444 1,602 2,667 936 1,365 1,985 1,589 542 940 7,582 3,600 25,2522022-23 2,455 1,608 2,679 936 1,377 2,000 1,597 542 940 7,590 3,610 25,3342023-24 2,468 1,617 2,692 937 1,389 2,017 1,607 542 941 7,597 3,620 25,4272024-25 2,484 1,628 2,709 939 1,402 2,037 1,618 543 942 7,605 3,630 25,537NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentC-9 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesAppendix D -Transmission System Security and ResourceAdequacy AssessmentThe analysis performed during the Reliability Needs Assessment requires thedevelopment of base cases for transmission security analysis and for resource adequacyanalysis. The power flow system model is used for transmission security assessmentand the development of the transfer limits to be implemented in the Multi-AreaReliability Simulation (MARS) model. A comprehensive assessment of the transmissionsystem is conducted through a series of steady-state power flow, transient stability, andshort circuit studies.In general, the RNA analyses indicated that the bulk power transmission systemcan be secured under N-i conditions, but that transfer limits for certain key interfacesmust be reduced below their thermal limits, in order to respect voltage criteria.However, a reduction in transfer limits on a limiting interface can result in higher LOLE,and/or needs occurring earlier than they otherwise would. To quantify this potentialimpact, LOLE analysis was conducted for the RNA base case, a case modeling voltagelimited interfaces using the higher thermal limits (NYCA Thermal), and also a casewithout any internal NYCA transmission limits (NYCA Free Flow). These cases weresimulated to demonstrate the impact that transmission limits have on the LOLE results.The results from this analysis are reported in Table 4-7.The MARS model was used to determine whether adequate resources would beavailable to meet the NYSRC and NPCC reliability criteria of one day in ten years (0.1days/year). The results showed a deficiency in years 2019 -2024 (See Section 4.2.3 ofthis report.) The MARS model was also used to evaluate selected scenarios (Section 4.3)and it was used to determine compensatory MW requirements for identified ReliabilityNeeds (See Section 4.2.5).NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-1 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesD-1 2014 RNA Assumption MatrixD-1.1 Assumption Matrix for Resource Adequacy AssessmentParameter 204IRM Model Assumptions Basis for IRM 2014 RNA Model ChangeT ý Recommended q RecommendationLoad ParametersForecast based onOctober 1, 2013 forecast: examination of 2013 2014 Gold Book, NYCA loadsPeak Load NYCA 33,655 MW, NYC weather normalized peaks. similar to Oct 2013 forecast, NYC11,740 MW, LI 5,461 MW Top three external Area and LI lowerpeak days aligned withNYCAMultiple Load Shapes Model Same, Multiple Load ShapesLoad Shape using years 2002, 2006, and See white paper Model using years 2002, 2006,2007 and 2007Based on collected data andLoad Forecast Zonal model updated to input from LIPA, Con Ed, SameUncertainty reflect current data and NYISO. (Seeattachment A)Capacity ParametersExisting 2013 Gold Book values. Use 2014 Gold Book, capacity similarGenerating Unit min (DMNC vs. CRIS) capacity 2013 Gold Book publication to 2013 Gold BookCapacities valueUnits built since the 2013Gold Book and those non- Consistent with Inclusion Rules,Proposed New 769 W of c ity wa renewable units with capacity repowered or returnedNon-Wind Units repowered or returned to Interconnection to service plus Taylor BiomassAgreements signed by included in the base caseAugust 1.Retirement 164 MW retirements Policy 5 guidelines on 2014 Gold Book Section IV, notUnits* reported, See Attachment B3 retirement disposition in modeled in the base caseIRM studies2014 Gold Book Section IV,Cayuga modeled 2015 and 2016only. Not modeled in the baseMothball Units* case: Dunkirk 1, 2, 3, and 4,9/10/2012, TC Ravenswood GT7, 3/13/2014, and Selkirk I & II,9/1/2014ICAP IneligibleForced Outage N/AUnitsForced Outage Modeled in the base case withUnits EFOR reflecting the outageFive-year (2008-20i2) GADS T. Rates representing theForced and data for each unit Equivalent Forced Outagerepresented. Those units with Rates (EFORd) during Update for most recent five yearPartial Outage less than five years -use demand periods over the period, 2009-2013Ratesrepresentative data. See most recent five-yearattachments C and C1 period (2008-2012)Based on schedules received Updated schedules,Planned Outages by the NYSIO and adjusted for currently, data from last Samehistory year is being usedNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-2 DRAFT- For Discussion Purposes2014 IRM Model Assumptions Basis for IRMParameter Recommended Recommendation 2014 RNA Model ChangeSummer Nominal 50 MW -dividedMaintenance equally between upstate and Review of most recent data SamedownstateOperational historyCombustion Derates based on temperature indicates the derates are in- SameTurbine Derates correction curves provided line with manufacturer'scurvesRenewable units based onProposed New No new wind, See Attachment RPS agreements, 2014 Gold Book IV, no new windWind Units B1 interconnection Queue and unitsICS inputNumber decrease due to a(2013 IRM) forecast not(201 IRM forcastnot 2014 Gold Book Section III andWind Resources Wind Capacity -1366.6 MW participating in NY Capacity IVmarket (Marble RiverWind).Actual hourly plant output ofWind Shape the 2012 calendar year. Testing results and White SameSummer Peak Hour availability Paperof 17%Based on collected hourlySolar Capacity of 31.5 MW solar data, Summer Peak 2014 Gold Book, as reflected inSolar Resources plus 12.5 MW of new units. Hour capacity factor based Load ForecastSee Attachment B-2 on June 1 -Aug 31, hoursHB14 -HB18Review of unit productionNon-NYPA and hydrological conditionsHydro Resources Derated by 45% including recognized Sameforecasts (i.e. NOAA)Grandfathered amounts: PJM Grandfathered Rights,Capacity -1080 MW, HQ- 1090 MW,Capacity -1080 t MW, e H s -1090MW, ETCNL, and other FERC Modeled same as in 2012 RNAPurchases All contracts model as identified rightsequivalent contractsThese are long termLong Term firm sales (279 ThsarlogtmCapacity Sales MW) federally monitoredcontractsUDRs No new UDRs Updated to most current UDRsTopology ParametersBased on 2013 OperatingStudy, 2013 OperationsEngineering VoltageAll changes reviewed and Studies, 2013Interface Limits commented on by TPAS. See Comprehensive Planning ted analsAttachment E. Process, and additionalanalysis includinginterregional planninginitiatives2014 Gold Book Section VII thatare consistent with the inclusionrules Firm projects in-servicenNone Identified s n O rvie within three years are modeled,Transmission NnIdtiedmodels and NYISO review sc sTT 21) ieMlsuch as TOTS (2016), Five MileRoad (2015), Mainesburg (2015),Farmers Valley (2016), etc.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-3 DRAFT -For Discussion Purposes2014 IRM Model Assumptions Basis for IRMParameter Recommended Recommendation 2014 RNA Model ChangeAll existing Cable EFORs Same transition rate as providedCable Forced updated for NYC and LI to Sase Transition stat overOutage Rates reflect most recent five-year Based on TO analysis by TO and held constant overhistory ten yearsEmergency Operating Procedure ParametersJuly 2014 -1195 MW based Those sold for the programon registrations and modeled discounted to historic 2014 Gold Book, registrationSpecial Case as 758 MW of effective availability. Summer values CAP is similar to IRM but UCAPResources capacity. Monthly variation calculated from July 2013based on historical experience registrations (see(no Limit on number of calls) attachment F).July 2013- 93.9 MW Those sold for the programregistered model as 12.8 MW discounted to historicin July and proportional to availability. Summer values CAP and UCAP regbotimlEDRP Resources monthly peak load in other calculated from July 2013 ICAP and UCAP are both similarmonths. registrations and forecast to IRMLimit to five calls per month growth.721 MW of non-SCR/non- Based on TO information,Other EOPs EDRP resources measured data, and NYISO Updated as availableSee Attachment D forecastsExternal Control Areas ParametersLoad and Capacity data LOLE adjusted to between 0.1PJM provided by PJM/NPCC CP-8, and 0.15 for every year oftenand may be adjusted per year oftenNYSRC Policy 5 year periodLoad and Capacity data LOLE adjusted to between 0.1ISONE provided by PJM/NPCC CP-8, and 0.15 for every year of tenand may be adjusted perNYSRC Policy 5Load and Capacity data LOLE adjusted to between 0.1HQ provided by PJM/NPCC CP-8, and 0.15 for every year of tenand may be adjusted per year perio nNYSRC Policy 5Load and Capacity data LOLE adjusted to between 0.1IESO provided by PJM/NPCC CP-8, and 0.15 for every year of tenand may be adjusted per year perio nNYSRC Policy 5All NPCC Control Areas andReserve Sharing PJM interconnection indicate Per NPCC CP-8 WG Samethat they will share reservesequally among all membersMiscellaneousMARS Model Version 3.16.5 Per benchmark testing and Version 3.18Version ICS recommendationEnvironmental No estimated impacts based An analysis of generator Updated to most recent NYSDECInitiatives on review of existing rules and plans to comply with new BTA determinationretirement trends regulations in 2014*Treatment of retired or mothballed units for purposes of RNA modeling: Any generating units that,pursuant to the PSC Orders in Case 05-E-0889, have provided a notice of Retirement, Mothball, etc., bythe study lock-down date, were assumed not to be available for the RNA study period.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-4 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesD-1.2 Assumption Matrix for Transmission Security AssessmentParameter,-' Md e, ing'Asu m...onsSr q e "Peak Load NYCA baseline coincident summer peak 2014 Gold BookforecastConEd: voltage varyingLoad model 2014 FERC 715 filingRest of NYCA: constant powerSystem Per updates received through Databank NYISO RAD Manual, 2014 FERC 715representation process (Subject to RNA base case filinginclusion rules)Inter-area Consistent with ERAG MMWGinterchange interchange schedule 2014 FERC 715 filing, MMWGschedulesInter-area Consistent with applicable tariffs and 2014 FERC 715 filingcontrollable tie known firm contracts or rightsschedulesConsistent with ConEdison operating 2014 FERC 715 filing, ConEdIn-city series reactors protocol (All series reactors in-service protocolfor summer)SVCs, FACTS Set at zero pre-contingency; allowed to NYISO T&D Manualadjust post-contingencyTransformer & PAR Taps allowed to adjust pre-contingency; 2014 FERC 715 filingtaps fixed post-contingencySwitched shunts Allowed to adjust pre-contingency; 2014 FERC 715 filingfixed post-contingencyFault current analysis Per Fault Current Assessment Guideline NYISO Fault Current Assessmentsettings GuidelinePower flow: PSS/E v32.2.1, PSS/MUSTv11.0, TARA v735Model Version Dynamics: PSS/E v32.2.1Short Circuit: ASPEN v12.2NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-5 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesD-2 RNA Power Flow Base Case Development and Thermal Transfer Limit ResultsD- 2.1 Development of RNA Power Flow Base CasesThe base cases used in analyzing the performance of the transmission systemwere developed from the 2014 FERC 715 filing power flow case library. The loadrepresentation in the power flow model is the summer peak load forecast reported inthe 2014 Gold Book Table 1-2a baseline forecast of coincident peak demand. Thesystem representation for the NPCC Areas in the base cases is from the 2013 Base CaseDevelopment (BCD) libraries compiled by the NPCC SS-37 Base Case Developmentworking group. The PJM system representation was derived from the PJM RegionalTransmission Expansion Plan (RTEP) planning process models. The remaining modelsare from the Eastern Interconnection Reliability Assessment Group (ERAG) MultiregionalModeling Working Group (MMWG) 2013 power flow model library.The 2014 RNA base case model of the New York system representation includesthe following new and proposed facilities:1. TO LTPs for non-bulk transmission facilities and NYPA transmission plans for non-bulk power facilities which are reported to the NYISO as firm transmission planswill be included,2. TO bulk power system projects not in-service or under construction will beincluded if:a. the project is the regulated solution triggered in a prior year, orb. the project is required in connection with any projects and plans that areincluded in the Study Period base case, orc. the project is part of a TO LTP or the NYPA transmission plan, and reported tothe NYISO as a firm transmission plan(s), and is expected to be in service within3 years, and has an approved SRIS or an approved SIS (as applicable), and hasreceived NYPSC certification (or other required regulatory approvals andreviews).3. Other projects that are in-service or under construction will be included,4. Other projects not already in-service or under construction will be included andmodeled at the contracted-for capacity if they have:a. an approved SRIS or an approved SIS (as applicable), andb. a NYPSC certificate, or other required regulatory approvals and complete reviewunder the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") where the NYPSCsiting process is not applicable, andc. an executed contract with a credit worthy entity for at least half of the projectcapacity.The RNA base case does not include all projects currently listed on the NYISO'sinterconnection queue or those shown in the 2014 Gold Book. It includes only thosewhich meet the screening requirements for inclusion. The firm transmission plansincluded in 2014 RNA base case are included in Table D-1 below.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-6 DRAFT -For Discussion PurposesTable D-1: Firm Transmission Plans included in 2014 RNA Base CaseI ExpectedLine In-Service Nominal Voltage Thermal Ratings Project Description / Class Year /Transmission Length Date/Yr in kV # of Conductor Size Type ofOn ConstructionOwner Terminals in Miles Prior to Year Operating Design ckts Summer WinterCHGECHGECHGECHGECHGECHGECHGECHGECHGECHGEConEdConEdConEdConEdConEdConEdConEdConEdConEdConEdLIPALIPANGRIDNGRIDNGRIDNGRIDNGRIDNCRIDNGRIDNGRIDNGRIDNGRIDNGRIDNGRIDNorth CatskillPleasant ValleyTodd HillHurley AveSaugertiesSt. PoolHigh FallsKerhonksonModenaGalevilleDunwoodie SouthDunwoodie SouthGoethalsRock TavernGoethalsGowanusGoethalsGoethalsGoethalsGreenwoodHoltsville DRSSRandall AveDunkirkRomePorterHomer CityHomer CityFeura BushTodd HillFishkill PlainsSaugertiesNorth CatskillHigh FallsKerhonksonHonk FailsGalevilleKerhonksonDunwoodie SouthDunwoodie SouthGoethalsSugarloafGowanusFarragutUnden Co-GenLinden Co-GenLinden Co-GenGreenwoodWest BusWildwoodDunkirkRomePorterStolle RoadFive Mile Rd (New Station)Series Reactor S 2014 1155.53 W 2015 1155.23 W 2015 11511.40 S 2020 11512.46 S 2020 1155.61 S 2020 11510.03 S 2020 1154.97 S 2020 1154.62 S 2020 1158.96 S 2020 115Phase shifter S 2014 138Phase shifter S 2014 138Reconfiguration S 2014 34513.70 S 2016 34512.95 S 2016 3454.05 S 2016 345-1,50 S 2016 3451.50 S 2016 3451.50 S 2016 345Reconfiguration S 2018 138N/A S 2014 138N/A S 2014 138Cap Bank W 2014 115W 2014 115W 2014 115-204.11 S 2015 345151.11 5 2015 34553.00 S 2015 345-65.69 S 2015 11558.30 S 2015 1151151151151151151151151151151151381383453453453453453453451381381381151151153453453451151151 1280 15601 1280 15631 1280 15631 1114 13591 1114 13591 1114 .13591 1114 13592 1114 13591 1114 13591 1114 13592 Nominal 132 MVA1 Nominal 300 MVAN/A N/A1 1811 MVA 1918 MVA2 632 MVA 679MVA2 800MVA 844MVA1 2504 25041 1252 12521 1252 1252N/A N/A-150 MVAR 150 MVAR-150 MVAR 150 MVAR1 67 MVAR 67 MVAR-N/A N/AN/A N/A1 1013 12001 1013 12001 1013 12002 584 7082 129MVA 156MVA-478MVA 590MVA2 129MVA 156MVA1 478MVA 590MVA1 1105 1284Reactor impedance increase from 12% to 16%Rebuild line with 1033 ACSRRebuild line with 1033 ACSR1-795 ACSR1-795 ACSR1-795 ACSR1-795 ACSR1-795 ACSR1-795 ACSR1-795 ACSRPAR RetirementPAR ReplacementReconfiguration2-1590 ACSRAdditional CoolingAdditional CoolingFeeder SeperationFeeder SeperationFeeder SeperationReconfigurationDynamic Reactive Support System (DRSS)Dynamic Reactive Support System (DRSS)Capacitor Bank 2 -33.3 MVARStation RebuildRebuild 115kV StationNew Five Mile substationNew Five Mile substationNew Five Mile substationNew Five Mile substationNew Five Mile substationNew Five Mile substationNew Five Mile substationReplace Transformer795 ACSROHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHUGUGUGUGUGOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHFive Mile Rd (New Station) Stolle RoadGardenville Homer HillGardenvilie Five Mile Rd (New Station)Five Mile Rd (New Station) Five Mile Rd (New Station)Five Mile Rd (New Station) Homer HillClay ClayRotterdam Bear Swampxfmr8.00xfmr-43.64S 2015 345/115 345/115S 2015 115 115S 2015 345/115 345/115S 2015 230 230NGRID RotterdamNGRID Eastover Road (New Station)Eastover Road (New Station) 23.20Bear Swamp 21.88S 2015 230 230 1S 2015 230 230 11114 1284 Rotterdam-Bear Swamp #E205 Loop (0.8 miles new)1105 1347 Rotterdam-Bear Swamp #E205 Loop (0.8 miles new)NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-7 0DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesExpectedUne In-Service Nominal Voltage Thermal Ratings Project Description/ Class Year/Transmission Length Date/Yr in kV # of Conductor Size Type ofI ConstructionOwner Terminals in Miles Prior to Year Operating Design ckts Summer WinterNGRID Eastover Road (New Station) Eastover Road (New Station) Xfmr S 2015 230/115 230/115 1 345MVA 406MVA TransformerNGRIDLuther ForestNGRID Luther ForestNGRID Eastover Road (New Station)NGRID BattenkillNGRID BattenkillNGRID Eastover Road (New Station)NGRID/NYSE Homer CityNGRID/NYSE Homer CityNGRID/NYSE Farmers ValleyNGRID ClayNGRID ClayNYPA MosesNYPA MosesNYPA MosesNYPA MosesNYPA MosesNYPA MarcyNYPA EdicNYPA FraserNYPA NiagaraNYPA NiagaraNYPA Station 255 (New Station)NYPA Dysinger TapNYPA Dysinger TapNYPA Station 255 (New Station)NYSEG MeyerNYSEG Wood StreetNYSEG Ashley RoadNYSEG Big TreeNYSEG Cooaers CornersNorth Troy -18.30 S 2015Eastover Road (New Station) 17.50 S 2015North Troy 2.60 S 2015North Troy -22.39 S 2015Eastover Road (New Station) 21.59 S 2015North Troy 2.60 S 2015Five Mile Rd (New Station) -151.11 S 2016Farmers Valley 120.00 S 2016Five Mile Rd (New Station) 31.00 S 2016Dewitt 10.24 W 2017Teall 12.75 W 2017Willis -37.11 S 2014Willis 37.11 S 2014Willis 37.11 S 2014Moses Cap Bank W 2014Moses Cap Bank W 2015Coopers Corners Series Comp 5 2016Fraser Series Comp 5 2016Coopers Corners Series Camp 5 2016Rochester -70.20 W 2016Station 255 (New Station) 66.40 W 2016Rochester 3.80 W 2016Rochester -44.00 W 2016Station 255 (New Station) 40.20 W 2016Rochester 3.80 W 2016Meyer Cap Bank 5 2014Katonah 11.70 W 2014Ashley Road Cap Bank W 2014Big Tree Cap Bank W 2014Coopers Corners Shunt Reactor W 2014115115115115115115345345345115115230230230115115345345345345345345345345345115115115115345115 1 937 1141 1033.5 ACSR115 1 937 1141 Luther Forest-North Troy Loop (0.9 miles new)115 1 937 1141 Luther Forest-North Troy Loop (0.9 miles new)115 1 916 1118 605 ACSR115 1 937 1141 Battenkill-North Troy Loop (0.9 miles new)115 1 916 ills Battenkill-North Troy Loop (0.9 miles new)345 1 1013 1200 New Five Mile substation345 1 1013 1200 New Farmer Valley substation345 1 1013 1200 New Farmer Valley substation115 1 193MVA 245MVA Reconductor 4/0 CU to 795ACSR115 1 220 MVA 239MVA Reconductor 4/0 CU to 795ACSR230 2 876 1121 795 ACSR230 1 876 1121 795 ACSR230 1 876 1121 795 ACSR115 1 100 MVAR 100 MVAR Cap Bank Installation to Replace Moses Synchronous Condensers115 1 100 MVAR 100 MVAR Cap Bank Installation to Replace Moses Synchronous Condensers345 1 1776 MVA 1793 MVA Installation of Series Compensation on UCC2-41345 1 1793 MVA 1793 MVA Installation of Series Compensation on EF24-40345 1 1494 MVA 1793 MVA Installation of Series Compensation on FCC33345 1 2177 2662 2-795 ACSR345 1 2177 2662 2-795 ACSR345 1 2177 2662 2-795 ACSR345 1 2177 2662 2-795 ACSR345 1 2177 2662 2-795 ACSR345 1 2177 2662 2-795 ACSR115 1 18 MVAR 18 MVAR Capacitor Bank Installation115 1 775 945 477 ACSR115 1 150 MVAR 150 MVAR Capacitor Bank (DOE)115 1 50 MVAR 50 MVAR Capacitor Bank (DOE)345 1 200 MVAR 200 MVAR Shunt Reactor InstallationNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGWatercure RoadGoudeyJennisonHomer CityWatercure RoadMainesburgWood StreetWatercure RoadAES WestoverAES OneontaWatercure RoadMainesburgHomer CityCarmelofmr W 2015 345/230 345/230 1 426 MVA 494 MVAreconfig W 2014 115 115 -N/A N/Areconfig W 2014 115 115 N/A N/A-177.00 S 2015 345 345 1 1549 155226.00 S 2015 345 345 1 1549 1552151.00 S 2015 345 345 1 1549 15521.34 W 2015 115 115 1 775 945Transformersubstation separationsubstation separation2156 ACR2156 ACR2156 ACR477 ACSRNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-8 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesI ExpectedLine In-Service Nominal Voltage Thermal Ratings Project Description / Class Year /ransmission Length Date/Yr in kV # of Conductor Size Type ofConstructionOwner Terminals in Miles Prior to Year Operating Design ckts Summer WinterNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGNYSEGO&RO&RO&RO&RO&RO&RO&RO&RO&RO&RO&RO&RO&RRGERGERGERGERGERGERGERGERGERGERGERGERGERGERGERGECarmelFraserWood StreetElbridgeGardenvilleKlinekill TapStephentownColliersColliersCarmelRamapoNew HempsteadHartleySummit (RECO)RamapoSugarloafLittle TorO&R's Line 26BurnsHarings Corner (RECO)West Nyack (NY)RamapoMontvale (RECO)Station 69Station 67Station 251MortimerStation 251Station 23Station 23Station 42Station 168Station 262Station 33Station 262Station 255 (New Station)KatonahCoopers CornersWood StreetState StreetGardenvilleKlinekillStephentownColliersColliersCarmelSugarloafSugarloafSugarloafSterling ForestCorporate DriveTappan (NY)Harings Corner (RECO)SugarloafStation 69Station 418Station 251Station 251Station 33Station 23Station 23Station 23Station 168Station 262Station 262Station 23Rochester13.0421.80xfmr14.50xfmr<10xfmrxfmrxfmrxfmr16.00Cap BankCap BankCap Bank16.00xfmrCap Bankxfmr5.007.0017.00Cap BankCap Bank3.5xfmr10.98xfmrxsmrS 2016 115 115 1 1079 10795 2016 345 345 1 2500 3000S 2016 345/115 345/115 1 280 MVA 300 MVAW 2016 115 115 1 250 MVA 305 MVAS 2017 230/115 230/115 1 200 MVA 225 MVAW 2017 115 115 1 n=124MVA >=150MVAW 2017 115/34.5 115/34.5 1 37 MVA 44MVAW 2019 115/46 115/46 1 42MVA 55MVAW 2019 115/46 115/46 1 63MVA 75MVAW 2019 115/46 115/46 1 80MVA 96MVAS 2014 138 345 1 1089 1298S 2014 138 138 1 32MVAR 32MVARS 2014 69 69 1 32 MVAR 32 MVARW 2015 69 69 1 32MVAR 32MVARS 2016 345 345 1 3030 3210S 2016 345/138 345/138 1 400 MVA 400 MVAS 2016 138 138 1 32 MVAR 32 MVARS 2016 138/69 138/69 1 175 MVA 175 MVAS 2016 138 138 1 1980 2120S 2015 69 69 1 1096 1314W 2019 69 138 1 1604 1723W 2020 138 138 1 1980 2120S 2021 69 69 1 32MVAR 32MVARS 2014 115 115 1 20 MVAR 20MVARW 2014 115 115 1 1255 1255W 2014 115/34.5 115/34.5 2 30 MVA 33.8 MVAW 2014 115 115 2 1396 1707W 2014 115 115 2 1396 17075 2015 115/34.5 115/34.5 2 75 MVA 84 MVAS 2015 15/11.5/11 5/11.5/1, 2 75 MVA 64 MS/Aconvert 46kV to 115kVACCR 1742-19 ReconductorTransformer1033 ACSRTransformer477 ACSRTransformerTransformerTransformerTransformer2-1590 ACSRCapacitor bankCapacitor bankCapacitor bank2-1590 ACSRTransformerCapacitor bankTransformer1272 ACSSThree-way switch station795 ACSS1272 ACSSCapacitor bankCapacitor Bank (DOE)New 115kV LineTransformerNew 115kV LineNew 115kV LineTransformerTransformerPhase ShifterTransformerTransformerUnderground CableUnderground Cable2-795 ACSRTransformerNew 115kV LineNew 115kV LineOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHPhase Shifter 5 2015 115 115 1 253 MVA 285 MVAxfmr 5 2015 115/34.5 115/34.5 1 100 MVA 112 MVAxfmr S 2015 115/34.5 115/34.5 1 56 MVA 63 MVA2.97 W 2015 115 115 1 2008 24091.46 W 2015 115 115 1 2008 24093.80 W 2016 345 345 1 2177 2662xfmr W 2016 345/115 345/115 2 400 MVA 450 MVA9.60 W 2016 115 115 1 1506 180711.10 W 2016 115 115 1 1506 1807UGUGOHOHOH+UGStation 255 (New Station) Station 255 (New Station)Station 255 (New Station) Station 418Station 255 (New Station) Station 23NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-90 DRAFT -For Discussion PurposesD-2.2 Emergency Thermal Transfer Limit AnalysisThe NYISO performed analyses of the RNA base case to determine emergencythermal transfer limits for the key interfaces to be used in the MARS resource adequacyanalysis. Table D-1 reports the emergency thermal transfer limits for the RNA basesystem conditions:Table D-1: Emergency Thermal Transfer LimitsInterface 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Dysinger East 2200 1 2150 1 2100 1 2075 1 2050 1Volney East 5650 2 5650 2 5650 2 5650 2 5650 2Moses South 2650 3 2650 3 2650 3 2650 3 2650 3Central East MARS 4025 4 4500 5 4500 5 4500 5 4500 5F toG 3475 6 3475 6 3475 6 3475 6 3475 6UPNY-SENY MARS 5150 6 5600 6 5600 6 5600 6 5600 6Ito J (Dunwoodie South MARS) 4400 7 4400 7 4400 7 4400 7 4400 7i to K(Y49/Y50) 1290 8 1290 8 1290 8 1290 8 1290 8Limiting Facility Rating Contingency1 Huntley-Gardenville 230 kV (80) 755 Huntley-Gardenville 230 kV (79)2 Oakdale-Fraser 345kV 1380 Edic-Fraser 345kV3 Marcy 765/345 T2 transformer 1971 Marcy 765/345 TI transformer4 New Scotland-Leeds 345kV 1724 New Scotland-Leeds 345kV5 Porter-Rotterdam 230kV 560 Porter-Rotterdam 230kV6 Leeds-Pleasant Valley 345 kV 1725 Athens-Pleasant Valley 345 kV7 Mott Haven-Rainey 345 kV 786 Pre-disturbance8 Dunwoodie-Shore Rd 345 kV 653 Pre-disturbanceTable D-la: Dynamic Limit TablesOswego Complex Units*Year Interface All available any 1 out any 2 out any 3 out any 4 outCentral East MARS 3250 3200 3140 3035 29202015CE Group 4800 4725 4640 4485 4310Central East MARS 3100 3050 2990 2885 27702016-2024CE Group 5000 4925 4840 4685 4510* 9 Mile Point 1, 9 Mile Point 2, Fitzpatrick, Oswego 5, Oswego 6, Independence (Modeled as one unit inMARS)NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-10 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesHuntley/ Dunkirk UnitsYear Interface All available any I out any 2 out any 3 out 4 out2015 Dysinger East 2950 2650 2200 1575 950Zone AGroup 3450 2850 2300 1550 7752016 Dysinger East 2900 2600 2150 1525 900Zone AGroup 3425 2825 2275 1525 7502017 Dysinger East 2850 2550 2100 1475 850Zone AGroup 3400 2800 2250 1500 7252018 Dysinger East 2825 2525 2075 1450 825Zone AGroup 3375 2775 2225 1475 7002019 Dysinger East 2800 2500 2050 1425 800Zone AGroup 3350 2750 2200 1450 675* Huntley 67, Huntley 68, Dunkirk 3, Dunkirk 4Barrett Steam units (l and 2)Year Interface Both available Any 1 out Both outLI Sum 297 260 1442015-2024CE-LIPA (towards Zone J) 510 403 283Staten Island Units*AK 3 on, and anyone of AK 2,Linden Cogen 1or Linden Cogen Any 2 (or more)Year Interface All available 2 out AK3 out out2015 Dummy Zone J3 to J 200 500 700 815Staten Island Units*Year Interface All available Any out2016-2024 Dummy Zone J3 to 1 600 815* Arthur Kill 2, Arthur Kill 3, Linden Cogen (Modeled as 2 units in MARS)PSEG units*Year Interface All available any I out Any 2 out All out2015-2024 Dummy Zone J2 to J 1000 600 500 400PJM East to Dummy Zone J2 1000 600 500 4000* Hudson 2, Bergen 2 CC, Linden 2 CC (PJM)Northport UnitsYear Interface All available Any out2015-2024 Norwalk CT to K (NNC) 388 428NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-11 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesD-3 2014 RNA MARS Model Base Case DevelopmentThe system representation for PJM, Ontario, New England, and Hydro Quebecmodeled in the 2014 RNA base case was developed from the NPCC CP-8 2012 SummerAssessment. In order to avoid overdependence on emergency assistance from theexternal areas, the emergency operating procedure data was removed from the modelfor each External Area. In addition, the capacity of the external areas was furthermodified such that the LOLE value of each Area was a minimum value of 0.10 andcapped at a value of 0.15 through the year 2024. The external area model was thenfrozen for the remaining study years (2015 -2024). Because the load forecast in theNYCA continues to increase for the years 2015 -2024, the LOLE for each of the externalareas can experience increases despite the freeze of external loads and capacity.The topology used in the MARS model is represented in Figures D-1 and D-2 forthe year 2015, and Figures D-3 and D-4 for the year 2016. The internal transfer limitsmodeled are the summer emergency ratings derived from the RNA Power Flow casesdiscussed above. The external transfer limits are developed from the NPCC CP-8Summer Assessment MARS database with changes based upon the RNA base caseassumptions.NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-12 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesFigure D-1: MARS Topology for Year 2015NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-13 0DRAFT -For Discussion PurposesJoint interface to monitorflow balan'e(PJM East to RECO) + (PJM East to J2) + (PJM East to J3) + (PJM East to J4) = 3075 MWFigure D-2: PJM-SENY MARS Topology for Year 2015NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-14 DRAFT- For Discussion Purposesw-NYCA zonal interfaces '1,500 Dynam ic internal tansfer liNYCA zonal connections 1,500 NYCA internal transfer limitsExternalconneclions 1o External tansfer limitsStandard Grouping NYCA zone*** Grouping used formonitoring "Dummy"zoneforanalysisFigure D-3: MARS Topology for Year 2016NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-15 oDRAFT -For Discussion PurposesJoint interface to monitorflow balahice(PJM East to RECO) + (PJM East to J2) + (PJM East to J3) + (PJM East to J4) = 3075 MWFigure D-4: PJM-SENY MARS Topology for Year 2016NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-16 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesD-4 Short Circuit AssessmentTable D-2 provides the results of NYISO's short circuit screening test. Individual breakerassessment (IBA) is required for any breakers whose rating is exceeded by the maximumfault current. Either NYISO or the Transmission Owner may complete the IBA.Table D-2: 2014 RNA Fault Current Analysis Summary TableNominal Lowest Rated 2014 RNA IBA Breaker(s)TO MaximumName kV Circuit Breaker nub Bus Fault Required OverdutiedAcademyAdirondackAES SomersetAlpsAstoria EastAstoria WestAstoria AnnexAthensBarrettBowline 2Bowline 1BrookhavenBuchanan N.Buchanan S.BuchananStony CreekCanandaiaguaChases LakeClarks CornersClayClayCoopers CornersCoronaDewittDuleyDunwoodie No.Dunwoodie So.DunkirkDunwoodieEast 13thEast 179th3452303453451381383453451383453451383453451382302302303451153453451383452301381382303451381386325324063456350.257.84040376340404040404046.749326340404040296363632 32.65 9.64 17.95 17.52 52.22 46.62 47.45 33.93 49.36 27.66 27.83 27.12 29.72 392 15.94 9.54 6.55 9.14 11.75 365 32.84 17.22 52.55 18.97 7.42 34.52 30.75 9.92 50.62 482 48.6NNNNNNNNNNNNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-17 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesSubstation Nominal Lowest Rated 2014 RNA IBA Breaker(s)TO MaximumName kV Circuit Breaker number Bus Fault Required OverdutiedEast 75 STEast FishkillE RiverEastviewEdicEast Garden CityEast Garden CityElbridgeELWOOD 1ELWOOD 2FarragutFitzpatrickFox HillsFresh KillsFresh KillsFraserFreeportGardenvilleGilboaGoethalsGowanusGreenlawnGreenwoodHaupagueHellgateHigh SheldonHillsideHolbrookHoltsgtHudson EHuntleyHurley AvenueIndependenceJamaicaLadentownLafayetteLeedsLake SuccessMarcyMarcy138345691383453451383451381383453451383451383451382303453453451381381381382302301381381382303453451383453453451383457656350506341.663804056.656.6633740634029.66331.2406363636363634028.652.2636330.530.444.563634037.757.863632 9.12 38.92 502 36.95 32.77 25.43 70.55 163 38.53 38.22 61.87 41.42 33.72 36.12 27.14 19.23 35.95 21.67 252 29.52 28.33 29.22 49.83 22.52 42.84 10.54 13.23 493 45.42 39.45 26.69 17.15 38.42 49.26 40.45 17.85 34.53 38.77 31.97 9.8NNNNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-18 DRAFT -For Discussion PurposesSubstation Nominal Lowest Rated 2014 RNA IBA Breaker(s)TO MaximumName kV Circuit Breaker number Bus Fault Required OverdutiedMassenaMeyerMiddletown TapMillwoodMillwoodMott HavenNewbridge RoadNewbridge RoadNiagaraNiagara ENiagara WNine Mile Point 1NorthportNew Scotland 77BNew Scotland 99BOakdaleOakwoodOswegoPackardPatnodePilgrimPleasant ValleyPorterPorterPort JeffersonPleasantvilleQueensbridgeRaineyRamapoReynolds RoadRiverheadRobinson RoadRockTavernRosetonRotterdam 66HRotterdam 77HRotterdam 99HRulandRyanSouth Ripley7652303451383453451383453452302303451383453453451383452302301383451152301383451383453453451382303453452302302301382302306328.66340636380406363635056.241.532.929.657.844.348.663636341.118.46363636363406334.457.96339.423.623.46363407 7.94 7.17 18.62 19.42 44.82 51.33 69.43 8.67 33.87 56.87 56.85 43.43 60.85 315 314 12.83 28.35 32.45 43.77 9.43 60.22 40.45 41.35 19.63 32.72 222 44.82 58.42 455 14.83 19.14 14.49 31.49 35.45 13.35 13.25 13.33 45.97 10.65 9.6NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-19 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesSubstation Nominal Lowest Rated 2014 RNA IBA Breaker(s)ITO MaximumName kV Circuit Breaker number Bus Fault Required Overdutied!South Mahwah-A 345 40 6 35 IN NSouth Mahwah- B 345 ! 40 6 34.7 N NStation 80 345 32 8 17.7 N NStation 122 345 32 B 16.7 N NSpringbrookTR N7 138 63 2 26.9 N NSpringbrookTRS6 138 63 -i 2 29.1 N NScriba 345 -55.3 5 46.8 N NSherman Creek 138 63 45.5 N NShore Road 345j 63 3 I3278 N NShore Road1 138 57.8 3 48.2 N N3 N NShorehaml 138 52.2 3 28.2 N NSprain Brook 345 63 2 51.9 N NSt. Lawrence 230 37 .L 33.7 N NStolle Road 345 32 4 14.2 N NStolle Road 230 28.6 4 5.1 N NStoneyridge 230 40 4 7.1 IN NSyosset 138 38.9 3 34.3 N NTremontl 138 63 { N N132 42.7Tremont2 138 63 2 42.6 N NMotthaven 138 50 2 13.4 N NVernon East 138 63 2 44.3 N NVernon West 138 63 2 34.9 N NValley Stream 138 63 3 53.7 N NVolney 345 45.1 5 36.5 N NWest 49th Street 345 63 .2 52.7 N NWadngrvl 138 56.4 3 26.1 N NWatercure 230 26.4 4 13.2 N NWatercure 345 29.6 NWeathersfield 230 40 4 9.1 N NWildwood 138 63 3 28.2 N NWillis 230 37 7 I 12.7 N [ NNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-20 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesTables D-3 provides the results of NYISO's IBA for Fitzpatrick 345kV, Porter 230 kV,Astoria West 138 kV, Porter 115 kV, and Northport 138 kV.Table D-3: NYISO IBA for 2014 RNA StudyFitzpatrick 345 kVCircuit Breaker Rating 3LG 2LG I LG I Overdut,10042 37 kA 32.4 34.5 34.1 NAstoria W. 138 kVCircuit Breaker Rating 3LG 2LG 1LG Overdut,GIN 45 38.9 42.38 44.15 NG2N 45 38.9 42.38 44.15 NNorthport 138 kVCircuit Breaker Rating 3LG 2LG 1LG Overdutb1310 56.2 52.02 52.5 50.98 N1320 56.2 52.04 52.08 50.96 N1450 56.2 49.01 50.83 51.82 N1460 56.2 26.97 29.38 30.86 N1470 56.2 31.94 32.43 32.67 NEast River 69 kVCircuit Breaker Rating 3LG 2LG 1LG Overdut53 50 42.8 44.9 46.1 N63 50 44.9 44.8 46.1 N73 50 42.7 44.9 46.1 N83 50 42.8 45.5 47.1 NGGT-2 50 39.7 41.6 42.8 NGen6 50 39.5 42.2 43.8 NNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-21 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesPorter 115 kVBREAKER DUTY P DUTYA BKRCAPA OVERDUTYRiO LN1 102.1 43911.4 43000 YR100 TB3 85.1 36595.3 43000 NR130 LN13 103 44307.7 43000 YR20LN2 102.1 43910.7 43000 YR200 TB4 82.2 35336.9 43000 NR30LN3 101.8 43753.4 43000 YR40LN4 101.7 43713.7 43000 YR50 LN5 101.7 43732.8 43000 YR60LN6 103.1 44312.4 43000 YR70LN7 101.1 43468.7 43000 YR80LN8 102 43874.6 43000 YR8105 BUSTLE 87.7 41846.5 47714.9 NR90LN9 103.1 44317.5 43000 YPorter 230 kVBREAKER DUTY P DUTY A BKR CAPA OVERDUTYRI1O B-11 109.1 26023.6 23857.4 YR120 B-12 109.1 26023.6 23857.4 YR15 B-TB1 109.1 26023.6 23857.4 YR170 B-17 109.1 26023.6 23857.4 YR25 B-TB2 109.1 26023.6 23857.4 YR300 B-30 54.2 21686.3 40000 NR310 B-31 54.2 21686.3 40000 NR320 B-30 109.1 26023.6 23857.4 YR825 31-TB2 104.2 24870.9 23857.4 YR835 12-TB1 105.1 25082.5 23857.4 YR845 11-17 104.1 24825.9 23857.4 YNYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-22 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesD-5 Transmission Security Violations of the 2014 RNA Base CaseZone OwnerMonitored ElementNormal LTE STERating Rating Rating(MVA) (MVA) (MVA)First ContingencySecond ContingencyN.Grid Packard-Huntley (#77) 230 (Packard-Sawyer)N.Grid Packard-Huntley (#78) 230 (Packard-Sawyer)N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#79) 230 (Huntley-Sawyer)N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 (Huntley-Sawyer)N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 (Huntley-Sawyer)N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 (Huntley-Sawyer)N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 (Huntley-Sawyer)N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 (Huntley-Sawyer)N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 (Huntley-Sawyer)N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 (Huntley-Sawyer)N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 (Huntley-Sawyer)N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 (Huntley-Sawyer)N.Grid Huntley-Gardenville (#80) 230 (Huntley-Sawyer)RGE Pannell 345/115 1TRRGE Pannell 345/115 1TRRGE Pannell 345/115 1TRRGE Pannell 345/115 2TRRGE Pannell 345/115 2TRRGE Pannell 345/115 2TRRGE Pannell 345/115 2TRRGE Pannell-Quaker (#914) 115RGE Pannell-Quaker (#914) 115RGE Pannell-Quaker (#914) 115N.Grid Clay 345/115 1TRN.Grid Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd)N.Grid Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd)N.Grid Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd)N.Grid Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd)N.Grid Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd)N.Grid Clay-Dewitt (#3) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd)N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115556556566566566566566566566566566566566228228228228228228228207.1207.1207.1478116116116116116116116116116116644 704644 746654 755654 755654 755654 755654 755654 755654 755654 755654 755654 755654 755282 336282 336282 336282 336282 336282 336282 336246.9 284.8246.9 284.8246.9 284.8637 794120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145HUNTLEY -PACKARD 78 230HUNTLEY -PACKARD 77 230HUNTLEY -GARDENVILL 80 230HUNTLEY -GARDENVILL 79 230ROBINSON -STOLLRD 65 230NIAGARA -ROBINSON 64 345LEEDS -HURLEY 301 345ATHENS -PV 91 345HQ-NY 765LEEDS -PV 92 345OS -EL -LFYTE 17 345NIAGARA -ROBINSON 64 345ROBINSON -STOLLRD 65 230GEN:GINNAGEN:GINNAGEN:GINNAGEN:GINNAGEN:GINNAGEN:GINNAGEN:GINNAGEN:GINNAGEN:GINNAGEN:GINNAOS -EL -LFYTE 17 345CLAY -DEW 13 345OS -EL -LFYTE 17 345CLAY -DEW 13 345CLAY -DEW 13 345CLAY -DEW 13 345OS -EL -LFYTE 17 345SB:OSWER985SB:LAFA_ELBB:ELBRIDGEOS -EL -LFYTE 17 345SB:ROB1230SB:ROB1230SB:ROB1230SB:ROB1230HUNTLEY -GARDENVILL 79 230HUNTLEY -GARDENVILL 79 230HUNTLEY -GARDENVILL 79 230HUNTLEY -GARDENVILL 79 230HUNTLEY -GARDENVILL 79 230HUNTLEY -GARDENVILL 79 230HUNTLEY -GARDENVILL 79 230T:78&79T:78&79SB:PANN34S_1X12282SB:ROCH_2T8082PANL 345/115 2TRSB:PANN345_3T12282SB:ROCH_2T8082PANL 345/115 1TRSB:PANN34S53802PANL 345/115 3TRSB:PANN345_1X12282SB:PANN34S_3T12282SB:CLAY345_R130SB:OSWE_R985CLAY -DEW 13 345T:17&11B:ELBRIDGEOS -EL -LFYTE 17 345SB:CLAY345_R925N/AN/AN/AN/A2015 2019 2024Flow Flow Flow(%) (%) (%)100.75100.73101.54101.06 102.72100.47 106.6S -106.54103.79103.33103.32103.32102.82102.79102.56131.56103.97103.84131.56103.97103.84103.54120.41100.73100.73111.53 118.77104.57104.06102.89102.87102.87102.71121.61 135.18 139.48121.51 133.23 139.79105.72 119.2 122.53105.72 119.2 122.53NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment0D-23 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesZone OwnerMonitored ElementNormal LTE STERating Rating Rating(MVA) (MVA) (MVA)N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Lockheed Martin (#14) 115N.Grid Clay-Teall (#10) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd-Pine Grove)N.Grid Clay-Teall (#10) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd-Pine Grove)N.Grid Clay-Teall (#10) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd-Pine Grove)N.Grid Clay-Teall (#10) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd-Pine Grove)N.Grid Clay-Teall (#10) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd-Pine Grove)N.Grid Clay-Teall (#10) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd-Pine Grove)N.Grid Clay-Teall (#10) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd-Pine Grove)N.Grid Clay-Teall (#10) 115 (Clay-Bartell Rd-Pine Grove)N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 (Euclid-Woodward)N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 (Euclid-Woodward)N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 (Euclid-Woodward)N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 (Euclid-Woodward)N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 (Euclid-Woodward)N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 (Euclid-Woodward)N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 (Euclid-Woodward)N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 (Euclid-Woodward)N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 (Euclid-Woodward)N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 (Euclid-Woodward)N.Grid Clay-Woodard (#17) 115 (Euclid-Woodward)N.Grid S. Oswego-Clay (#4) 115 (S. Oswego-Whitaker)N.Grid S. Oswego-Clay (#4) 115 (S. Oswego-Whitaker)N.Grid S. Oswego-Clay (#4) 115 (S. Oswego-Whitaker)N.Grid S. Oswego-Clay (#4) 115 (S. Oswego-Whitaker)N.Grid S. Oswego-Clay (#4) 115 (S. Oswego-Whitaker)116116116116116116116116116116116116116116116116116116116116116116174174174174174174174174174174174104104104104104120120120120120120120120120120120120120120120120120120120120120120174174174174174174174174174174174104104104104104145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145145174174174174174174174174174174174104104104104104First ContingencyELBRIDGE 345/115 1TRT:17&11ELBRIDGE 345/115 1TROS -EL -LFYTE 17 345CLAY -WOOD 17 115CLAY -WOOD 17 115IFYTE -CLARKCRNS 36A 345ELBRIDGE 345/115 1TROS -EL -LFYTE 17 345CLAY -WOOD 17 115CLAY -WOOD 17 115ELBRIDGE 345/115 1TRELBRIDGE 345/115 1TRHUNTLEY -GARDEN VILL 79 230CLAY -TEAL 11 115CLAY -TEAL 11 115CLAY -TEAL 11 115DEWITT 345/115 2TRDEWITT 345/115 2TRDEWITT 345/115 2TRCLAY -TEAL 11 115CLAY -DEW 13 345SB:LAFAELBCLAY -LM 14 115CLAY -LM 14 115GEN:GINNANIAGARA -ROBINSON 64 345EDIC -FRASER 345 SCROBINSON -STOLLRD 65 230HUNTLEY -GARDENVILL 79 230OS -EL -LFYTE 17 345PANL -CLAY PC-1 345PANL -CLAY PC-2 345CLAY 345/115 1TROSW -VOL 12 345CLAY 345/115 2TRCLAY 345/115 1TRCLAY 345/115 2TRSecond ContingencyN/AN/ABase CaseBase CaseSB:LAFA_ELBSB:OSWE_R985SB:OSWE_R985SB:CLAY115_R845SB:CLAY115_R845B:ELBRIDGEOS -EL -LFYTE 17 345CLAY -WOOD 17 115S:CLAY115_WOOD_17SB:OSWE_R985SB:DEW1345_R220SB:DEWI345R915SB:DEW1345_R130SB:CLAY115_R855CLAY -TEAL 11 115S:CLAY115_TEAL_11DEWITT 345/115 2TRSB:OSWE_R985N/ASB:LAFA_ELBSB:OSWE_R985SB:LAFA_ELBSB:LAFA_ELBSB:LAFA_ELBSB:LAFAELBSB:LAFA_ELBSB:CLAY115_R865SB:LAFA_ELBSB:LAFA_ELBSB:CLAY345_R130T:17&11SB:CLAY345_R35SB:CLAY345_R60SB:CLAY345_R2602015 2019 2024Flow Flow FlowN%) (%) (%)105.3 118.66 121.9104.98 118.4 121.43-119.63 122.96-119.14 120.84137.49 169.93 180.03136.45 169.38 176.78127.59 149.95 158.11123.88 155.12 159.98121.84 154.98 157.7119.37 151.94 157.77119.37 151.94 157.77118.63 148.2 153.03118.63 148.2 153.03118.51 142.91 143.55109.2 -109.18109.17107.41106.88106.88105.34103.87--105.15119.2 126.66113.05 118.41110.13 111.87108.52 108.45107.88 112.72107.67 107.96106.9 108.4106.49 108.46106.18 112.4106.17 112.45109.56 112.9S -107.75100.01 103.54S -102.35S -102NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-24 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesZone OwnerC N.GridC N.GridC N.GridC NGridC N.GridC N.GridC N.GridE N.GridE N.GridE N.GridE N.GridE N.GridE N.GridE N.GridE N.GridE N.GridE N.GridE N.GridE N.GridF N.GridE N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridF N.GridMonitored ElementS. Oswego-Clay (#4) 115 (S. Oswego-Whitaker)S. Oswego-Clay (#4) 115 (S. Oswego-Whitaker)S. Oswego-Clay (#4) 115 (S. Oswego-Whitaker)Oakdale 345/115 2TROakdale 345/115 2TROakdale 345/115 2TROakdale 345/115 3TRPorter-Oneida (#7) 115 (Porter-W. Utica)Porter-Oneida (#7) 115 (Porter-W. Utica)Porter-Oneida (#7) 115 (Porter-W. Utica)Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 (Porter-Kelsey)Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 (Porter-Kelsey)Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 (Porter-Kelsey)Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 (Porter-Kelsey)Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 (Porter-Kelsey)Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 (Porter-Kelsey)Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 (Porter-Kelsey)Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 (Porter-Kelsey)Porter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 (Porter-Kelsey)New Scotland 345/115 1TRPorter-Yahnundasis (#3) 115 (Porter-Kelsey)New Scotland 345/115 1TRNew Scotland 345/115 1TRNew Scotland 345/115 1TRNew Scotland 345/115 ITRNew Scotland 345/115 ITRNew Scotland 345/115 1TRReynolds 345/115Reynolds 345/115Reynolds 345/115Reynolds 345/115Reynolds 345/115Reynolds 345/115Reynolds 345/115Rotterdam 230/115 7TRRotterdam 230/115 7TRRotterdam 230/115 7TRNormal LTE STERating Rating Rating(MVA) (MVA) (MVA)104104104428428428428116116116116116116116116116116116116458116458458458458458458459459459459459459459300300300104 104104 104104 104556 600556 600556 600556 600120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145120 145570 731120 145570 731570 731570 731570 731570 731570 731562 755562 755562 755562 755562 755562 755562 755355 402355 402355 402First ContingencyOS -EL -LFYTE 17 345CLAY 345/115 2TRCLAY 345/115 1TROKDLE 345/115 3TRFRASER 345/115 2TRWATERCURE 345/230 1TROKDLE 345/115 2TROS -EL -LFYTE 17 345CLAY -DEW 13 345PTR YAHN 115OS -EL -LFYTE 17 345CLAY -DEW 13 345CLAY 345/115 1TROS -EL -LFYTE 17 345CLAY 345/115 1TRCLAY 345/115 2TRCLAY -DEW 13 345CLAY -DEW 13 345CLAY -DEW 13 345GEN:BETHSTMPTR TRMNL 115GEN:BETHSTMGEN:BETHSTMN.SCOT77 345/115 2TRGEN:BETHSTMGEN:BETHSTMN.SCOT99 -LEEDS 94 345GEN:BETHSTMEASTOVER -BEARSWMP 230EASTOVER 230/115 1XTRGEN:BETHSTMN.SCOT77 345/115 2TRN.SCOT77 345/115 1TRLEEDS -HURLEY 301 345EASTOVER 230/115 1XTRROTTERDAM 230/115 1XTRROTTERDAM 230/115 3XTRSecond ContingencySB:CLAY345_R130SB:CLAY345_R80SB:CLAY345_R45Base CaseSB:OAKD345_31-B322SB:OAKD345_B3-3222Base CaseSB:CLAY345_R130SB:OSWER985SB:OSWER985SB:CLAY34S_R130SB:OSWE_R985SB:CLAY345_R130SB:CLAY345_R925SB:OSWE_R985SB:OSWE_R985B:ELBRIDGEOS -EL -LFYTE 17 345T:17&11Base CaseS:PTR11S_SCHLRB:N.S._77N.SCOT77 345/115 2TRG:BETHSTMS:Reynolds-Rey 345/115S:EMPIREB:N.S._77Base CaseG:BETHSTMGEN:BETHSTMN.SCOT77 345/115 1TRGEN:BETHSTMGEN:BETHSTMALPS -REYNOLDS 1 345SB:ROTT_230_R84ROTTERDAM 230/115 3XTRROTTERDAM 230/115 1XTR2015 2019 2024Flow Flow Flow(%) (%) (%)101100.96100.87102.85 103.75103.2 105.42102.88 ----102.22101.87 104.16S -104.73101.06 -106.37 117.17 118.53104.82 115.54 119.01100.43 113.63 113.46-108.25 108.91107.77 108.23107.53 108.02106.13 108.79106.13 108.79105.85 108.52S -106.05S -110.12110.56 115.54 146.76106 110.45 128.17108.85 125.99S -120.76119.66111.99107.06 108.49 127.15--126.12121.86120.57117.66115.31101.44123.31 112.59 122.44--116.41S -116.32NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-25 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesZone OwnerF-G N.GridF-G N.GridF-G N.GridF-G N.GridMonitored ElementAthens-Pleasant Valley (#91) 345Athens-Pleasant Valley (#91) 345Leeds-Pleasant Valley (#92) 345Leeds-Pleasant Valley (#92) 345Normal LTE STERating Rating Rating(MVA) (MVA) (MVA)1331 1538 17241331 1538 17241331 1538 17241331 1538 1724First ContingencyLEEDS -PV 92 345LEEDS -PV 92 345ATHENS -PV 91 345ATHENS -PV 91 345Second ContingencyT:41&33T:34&42T:41&33T:34&422015 2019 2024Flow Flow Flow(%N (%) (%N102.98100.74103.2100.94NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-26 DRAFT- For Discussion PurposesZone OwnerF-G N.GridF-G N.GridF-G N.GridF-G N.GridMonitored ElementAthens-Pleasant Valley (#91) 345Athens-Pleasant Valley (#91) 345Leeds-Pleasant Valley (#92) 345Leeds-Pleasant Valley (#92) 345Normal LTE STERating Rating Rating(MVA) (MVA) (MVA)1331 1538 17241331 1538 17241331 1538 17241331 1538 1724First ContingencyLEEDS -PV 92 345LEEDS -PV 92 345ATHENS -PV 91 345ATHENS -PV 91 345Second ContingencyT:41&33T:34&42T:41&33T:34&422015 2019 2024Flow Flow Flow(%) (%) (%N102.98100.74103.2100.94NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs AssessmentD-26

.1 Lbuited l tatts 1$n teWASHINGTON, DC 20510September 18, 2014

Dear Reader:

As colleagues on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, it is our privilege tohelp shape the focus and direction of the United States' energy policies. Through both rigorousanalysis and practical experience, we believe energy is good, and that access to affordable energyis essential.Among affordable energy's many benefits is the ability to heat our homes in winter, cool them insummer, and to accomplish with the flip of a switch tasks that took previous generations hours ofback-breaking labor. The modem conveniences associated with affordable energy have enabledAmericans to make more effective use of our most valuable commodity -our time. In turn, theyhave made our daily lives easier, to say nothing of the material comforts they provide and thehigh standard of living they enable. They have also freed us to pursue a variety of interests,including more formal education and careers.We have come a long way. But we must also recognize that affordable energy is hardlyguaranteed -and hardly universal. The lack of affordable energy disproportionally impactsminorities and the working poor, and many families feel the sting of high energy costs. Far toooften, residents from our home states of Alaska and South Carolina stop us on the street or writeletters detailing their heartbreaking struggle with rising energy prices.In Aniak, Alaska, a foster mother shared her bill for five gallons of stove oil. She simply couldnot afford to heat her home and provide other essentials for her children. Her receipt graphicallyillustrates her plight and resonates with us, as no parent should be forced to decide betweenhome heating and food for the family.A woman from McClellanville, South Carolina, recently explained how she diligently takesonline surveys to get an extra $25 for groceries -canned food and a small packet of meat -and isstill consistently a few hundred dollars short of making rent and paying utilities.We hear these stories from our home states every day, and even the national press, such as theLos Angeles Times, periodically tells their stories:"Holy Jiminy Christmas, what we're going through," said Dora Napoka, 49, the librarianat the village school [in Tuluksak, Alaska]. "It's like we have to choose between six gallons of stove oil or six gallons of gas to go out and get the firewood -or does my babyneed infant milk? Which one is more important?"Many of these troubling stories involve the elderly or disabled -those living on fixed incomeswho struggle over whether to spend their precious dollars on much-needed, quality of lifemedicine or increasing utility bills, like a woman from Columbia, South Carolina recentlyrevealed.These are just a small sampling of the real life, everyday pain that too many in our home statesand around the country are experiencing. Most are not looking for a handout, they're asking for ahand up -an opportunity to work hard, prosper, and change their life for the better. Yet even aslight increase in energy prices could be devastating to their future aspirations.Another tragic story caone from Lancaster, South Carolina where a woman agonizes overwanting nothing more than to have a good paying job to help pay the rent and power bills. Shehas to spend so much on her household utilities that she might soon be unable to keep hervehicle, which will make getting ajob that much more difficult.The Mayor of North Pole, Alaska, highlighted how affordable energy can impact a state'seconomy in a letter to the editor of the Anchorage Daily News:"If our residents can't spend extra money because every month, especially in the winter,they're scrimping just to pay for heating and lighting their homes, then many of ourbusinesses will also be hurting for lack of sales [...] If a store cuts back or goes out ofbusiness, then people are out of work, making it even more difficult for them to pay foressential heat and electricity, and that exacerbates the economic downturn!"These real-life stories and experiences -along with many others not listed here -compelled us towork together to devise a method to measure the extent of this problem. We are pleased to offerin this paper several new tools, the Indicators of Energy Insecurity (IEIs), which can be used toquantify certain effects of rising household energy costs. As we seek to understand theconsequences of higher energy costs, the JEls will enable us to estimate how many families arepushed below the poverty line, how many lose a significant portion of their spendable budget,and how many are forced to spend more than 10 percent of their income on home energy.It is important to remember that the individuals and families facing these circumstances becauseof energy costs are more than just numbers on a chart. These are people: our friends, ourneighbors, our coworkers, and our fellow citizens. It should be our goal to keep energyaffordable, and ensure that they never face the harsh choice between paying for householdenergy or other basic necessities.

We hope this paper will initiate a new discussion about American energy insecurity and thedangers associated with rising household energy costs. We welcome your engagement on thisimportant issue, and look forward to a renewed effort to ensure that the benefits of affordableenergy flow to more -and ultimately all -Americans.Sincerely,Lisa MurkowskiUnited States SenatorTim ScottUnited States Senator PLENTY AT STAKE:INDICATORS Or AMERICAN ENERGY INSECURITYSummary" A foundational pillar of our American way of life is access to affordable energy. Todaynearly all Americans can obtain electricity, home heating and cooling, cooking fuels,refrigeration, potable water, and communications connectivity. The domestic productionand availability of natural gas, oil, nuclear power, coal, hydropower, wind, solar, andother renewables provides Americans with energy security, the access to uninterruptableenergy sources at an affordable price.* However, too many Americans suffer from energy insecurity; they cannot afford theenergy required to heat or cool their homes or secure other basic needs such asrefrigeration. These Americans are still too often faced with harsh choices betweenpaying for energy and paying for food, medical care, and other necessities." The Indicators of Energy Insecurity (IEIs) described in this paper are intended to enablepolicyrnakers to consider, in quantitative terms, how a specific action will affectAmericans living in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and thus provide a newway to evaluate public policies and other events that impact energy prices. When energyprices rise, the lEls can be used to quantify:o The number of households that experience a significant decrease in spendablebudget;o The number of households pushed below the poverty line; ando The average household energy burden, expressed as a percentage of average grossincome.* The JEls illuminate a critical goal -affordability- that must be incorporated in ournation's energy policies.* Some of the critical findings of this initial use of the IEls on approximately 1.35 millionU.S. Census Bureau records are that a 10 percent increase in household energy costsleads to approximately:o 840,000 people across the U.S. being pushed into poverty;o 7 million additional people across the U.S. spending over 10 percent of their grosshousehold income on home energy; ando 65 percent of all families spending additional money on home energy that couldbe used to buy between one and three weeks' worth of groceries.A 10 percent increase in energy costs is certainly possible, as evidenced by a 110 percentincrease in electricity prices in Australia in recent years and a 15 percent increase inelectricity prices in Germany from early 2011 to early 2013. Additionally, Fairbanks,Alaska, experienced a 66 percent increase in heating oil costs over the past seven years.* Poorer households are naturally more sensitive to increases in energy costs and are at fargreater risk of energy insecurity.I PLENTY AT STAKE:INDICATORS OF AMERICAN ENERGY INSECURITYThe American quality of life continues to be the envy of nations around the world. While manydifferent factors contribute to it, a foundational pillar is our access to affordable energy. Todaynearly all Americans can obtain electricity, home heating and cooling, clean cooking fuels,refrigeration, potable water, and communications connectivity. All of these services in turn relyon basic energy resources such as natural gas, oil, nuclear power, coal, hydropower, wind, solar,and other renewables. The domestic availability and production of those resources providesAmericans with energy security, the access to uninterruptable energy sources at an affordableprice. 1Even in the land of energy plenty, however, too many Americans suffer from energy insecurity;they cannot afford the energy required to heat or cool their homes or secure other basic needssuch as refrigeration. These Americans, while not suffering from extreme "energy poverty,"2 arestill too often faced with harsh choices between paying for energy and paying for food, medicalcare, and other basic needs. Their plight forces us to confront two important questions: What isthe social cost of increased energy prices? And, conversely, what is the social benefit of lowerenergy prices?This paper addresses those questions and provides three ways of quantifying the impacts ofrising energy costs on American households and families. When energy prices rise, theIndicators of Energy Insecurity (1Els) introduced here can be used to quantify:I. The number of households that experience a significant decrease in spendable budget;2. The number of households pushed below the poverty line; and3. The average household energy burden, expressed as a percentage of average grossincome.international Energy Agency and Energy Security as a Grand Strategy (Report from the Energy Security as aGrand Strategy Workshop, May 7-8, 2012. Editors Pamela i. Sydelko, Sheila R. Ronis, and Leah B. Guzowski.Published by Argonne National Laboratory, May 2013).Although this paper focuses on American energy insecurity, global energy poverty is a more severe and even morechallenging problem. Defined as a lack of access to electricity and clean cooking fuels by the International EnergyAgency (hltp://www.iea.org/topicslenergypoverty/), global energy poverty impacts more than one billion peoplearound the world. It is associated with a dramatically lower quality of life than we are fortunate to enjoy inAmerica, as those without reliable access to energy face heightened risks of disease, malnourishment, and prematuredeath. The lack of access to energy also inhibits economic growth. It bears noting, in the context of this paper, thatmany of the federal policies that are relevant for addressing energy poverty are complementary to those associatedwith energy insecurity. Increasing domestic production of hydrocarbons, for example, and encouraging energyexports to help other nations can not only help moderate if not push down energy prices at home, but also reduce theU.S. trade deficit and create domestic jobs, all of which ameliorate the challenges of energy insecurity.2 The IEls are intended to enable policymakers to see clearly, in quantitative terms, how a specificaction will affect Americans living in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and thus providea new way to evaluate public policies and other events that impact energy prices. The IEIsillustrate real-world impacts that rising energy prices have on domestic households, includinghow many Americans will face energy insecurity or outright poverty. Fundamentally, the IEIsilluminate a critical goal -affordability -that must be incorporated in our nation's energypolicies.3Defining Enerev InsecurityA useful definition of energy insecurity comes not from American law, but from Great Britain'sWarm Homes and Energy Conservation Act. It defines energy insecurity to include both fuelpoverty, the inability to pay for the heating or cooling required to maintain a home at areasonable temperature,4 and the loss of access to electricity through cessation of service due tonon-payment or other factors.Energy insecurity causes stress for many Americans on a day-to-day basis and negativelyimpacts increasing portions of the population as energy prices rise. Energy price increases can ofcourse be deliberate, as a result of policies, or unexpected, such as those that resulted from addeddemand for heating during last winter's "polar vortex" events.5 Residential electricity prices forthe first half of 2014, a period impacted by the "polar vortex," had the highest year-over-yearincrease since 2009, with overall prices up 3.2 percent and New England's prices up 11.9percent.6Individuals and families experiencing energy insecurity commonly make sacrifices to reducetheir costs, such as: 7* Reducing other household spending by making trade-offs, which can include thediminished ability to buy food or to pay for medical care and education;" Increasing debt, which can include being late on payments to energy suppliers orincreased borrowing from other lenders;3 See, e.g., Energy 20/20: A Visionfor America's Energy Future, Senator Lisa Murkowski, February 4, 2013,http://www.energv.senate.gov!public/index.cfm/documents-republicans.4 Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act, http://www.legislation.gov.uklukpga/2000/3 l/section/l/enacted.5 Propane Supply, Energy Information Administration (ETA) Administrator Adam Sieminski, briefing to the U.S.Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, January 28, 2014.6 U.S. Energy Information Administration, August 2014 Electric Power Monthly.7 Wallace, A., A. Wright, and P. Fleming, Fuel poverty and household energy efficiency in England. Institute ofEnergy and Sustainable Development, De Montfort University, January 2008, and Urge-Vorsatz, D., and S.T.Herrero, Employment, energy security and fuel poverty implications of the large-scale, deep retrofitting of theHungarian building stock, Presented at TEA Fuel Poverty Workshop: Evaluating the Co-Benefits of Low-IncomeWeatherisation Programmes, Dublin, Ireland, January 2011.3

" Switching fuels to less expensive albeit less convenient and with greater emissionsoptions (e.g., from oil to firewood);" Maintaining low or high indoor temperatures when heating or cooling, respectively; and" Closing off rooms or sections of a residence to avoid heating or cooling those areas.The effects of these sacrifices are heightened odds of food insecurity, more frequent relocations,poorer health, decreased educational achievement, and reduced productivity.8Fairbanks, Alaska, is one example of a community that faces energy insecurity challenges.Located in the interior part of the State, its winter temperatures are extremely cold: the averagehigh temperature in January is just three degrees Fahrenheit, while the lowest winter temperatureever recorded is -66 degrees Fahrenheit (not including wind chill).9 Clearly, local residents'ability to heat their homes is critical. In recent years, however, the cost of heating oil inFairbanks has increased dramatically (66 percent between June 2007 and January 2014).10 Asprices have risen, the household energy burden of local residents has increased significantly. Tohelp lower their energy bills, more people have shifted to burning wood for space heating. Thishas impacted the population in several ways, all of which have had adverse effects on humanhealth. "While Alaska may appear to be a special case, home heating plays a significant role in energyconsumed throughout the United States: over 40 percent of total household energy consumptionis for space heating. Other household energy spending breaks down at about 35 percent forlighting, appliances, and electronics; 18 percent for water heating; and six percent for air* Cook, J., Frank, D., 2008, Food security, poverty, and human development in the United States, Annals of the NewYork Academy of Sciences 1136, 193-209.; Frank, D.A., Heat or Eat: Children's Health Watch, Presented at lEAFuel Poverty Workshop: Evaluating the Co-Benefits of Low-Income Weatherisation Programmes, Dublin, Ireland,January 2011; Boardman, B., Quality of life benefits (problems) that are hard to measure Presented at TEA FuelPoverty Workshop: Evaluating the Co-Benefits of Low-Income Weatherisation Programmes, Dublin, Ireland,January 2011; and Home Energy Affordability Gap: 2011, Connecticut Legislative Districts, Prepared for OperationFuel, Bloomfield, Connecticut, by Colton, R.D. of Fisher, Sheehan & Colton, Belmont, Massachusetts, December2011.9 htto://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/`grRh/USAKO083.'0 Calculated from heating oil number one prices obtained from the Alaska Fuel Price Report: Current CommunityConditions January 2014, published by the State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and EconomicDevelopment, Division of Community and Regional Affairs and Current Community Conditions: Fuel Prices AcrossAlaska, June 2007 Update, published by the State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and EconomicDevelopment Division of Community Advocacy, Research and Analysis Section.11 Switching to firewood also increased the time required to heat homes (wood collection, preparation, etc.), and ledto increased wood smoke emissions. These emissions have decreased air quality in the city; EPA has declared thecity in non-attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter. NAAQSare intended to protect the health of United States citizens.4 conditioning.12 Given that most Americans use those services every day, if not every hour,household energy costs ultimately represent a sizeable expense.According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the average household "spent$1,945 on heating, cooling, appliances, electronics, and lighting in 2012 [...] 2.7% of householdincome."13 Energy costs for people above and below the poverty line are very similar in absolutedollars, but, not unexpectedly, wealthier households spend a smaller percentage of their incomeon energy than poorer households.14 Poorer households are naturally more sensitive to increasesin energy costs and are at far greater risk of energy insecurity.Indicators of Energy InsecurityNew ways to quantify Americans who are in or at risk of energy insecurity are needed to assessthe impacts of potential increases in home energy costs.15 Accordingly, the following sectionsdetail three methods for quantifying the effects of energy costs on household budgets, thenumber of families in poverty, and the average household energy burden. The detailed analysisbehind these conclusions can be found in Appendix 1.Household Budget CutsAn obvious way to map the available household budget after energy costs is to subtract energyspending from gross income. If energy costs increase, the money required to pay those costscomes out of the budget available for other essential needs. Given the essential nature of energy,the associated price increases often crowd-out or eliminate other household essentials includingfood, clothing, medical care, and education.Figures I and 2 show the direct impacts of increasing household energy costs on family budgets.(Note that we are illustrating the IEI methodology in these figures for South Carolina, which,along with Alaska, is representative of the nation as a whole.) Figure 1 shows the share ofhouseholds paying more for energy for various ranges of energy price increases. For example, a10 percent increase in household energy costs results in over 80 percent of all families spendingan additional $100-$500 per year on energy. If energy costs rise 50 percent, nearly 90 percent of12EIA, Today in Energy, March 7,2013, http:/iwww.¢iaegov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10271. Data from 2009.13 ETA, Today in Energy, April 18, 2013, http://www.eia,gov/todavinenergy/detail.cfm?id= 10891.14 Home Energy Affordability Gap: 2011, Connecticut Legislative Districts, Prepared for Operation Fuel,Bloomfield, Connecticut, by Colton, R.D. of Fisher, Sheehan & Colton, Belmont, Massachusetts, December 2011." The IEls do not encompass transportation costs, which consume an additional portion of each household'sincome. Transportation costs are significant; for example, the Energy Information Administration reported that"Gasoline expenditures in 2012 for the average U.S. household reached $2,912, or just under 4% of income beforetaxes." (EMA, Today in Energy, February 4, 2013, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfin?id--983 1). The costsincluded within the lEls are those associated with fuels and electricity for heating and cooling, cooking, heatingwater, lighting, using appliances, and other non-transportation usages.5 More American Family Budgets Impacted as Energy Costs IncreaseIncreased Dollar Costs per Household as a Function of Percent Increase In Household Energy Costs(South Carolina)8S0-S2o0 0S100-$250 Szso2SSO0 0Ssoo.SoWo mSIOOO-S2500 MS25OM-S500o m> SQ0o1008070160~15s040A.3020101% 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% .50%Plercut Increase In Household EnuCoftsFigure 1. Increase in share of ho usehl~ds spending more on the energy budget as afunction of increasesin energy costs.households would be spending an additional $500-$2500 per year. It bears noting that a 50percent increase in energy costs is certainly possible, as evidenced by a 1 10 percent increase inelectricity prices recorded in Australia in recent years. 16 Similarly, Germany and the U.K. saw a15 and 22 percent increase in electricity prices, respectively, from the first half of 2011 to thefirst half of 2013.'Figure 2 illustrates the household budget impacts from Figure I in terms of the reduction in theaverage grocery budget for a famnily of four." Figure 2 shows that a small increase in energycosts can have a dramatic impact on a family's food budget. A 10 percent increase in energycosts equates to an amount equal to what the household would spend on groceries over a one tothree week period.16 http://www. foxnews .com/lworld./201 3/09/06`/a-ýýýustralian-voters-angery-over-hiizh-clectricity-bi IIs-ready-to-punish-o ._ ___Euopseahol missioulb Eospedigat, additiooeuon~al 0-20 pceroa eurttt yexoar.It earsnd ot'in lea Half-15earl2 ereticraei electricity anpa rcs is afo eric2s, respetively fr3 th8eUfrsth ofr kh20 YB Itonth.Using the U.S. Department of Agriculture thrifty food plan, the tightest budget plan at $149.90 per week. Thethrifty plan was chosen because it most represents the budgets of those who have the least to spend.6 American Families Have Less Food Available When Energy Costs IncreaseNumber of Weeks of Food a Family of Four Could Purchase with the Money Used to Pay IncreasedEnergy Costs as a Function of the Percent increase in Household Energy Costs (South Carolina)0 < I week of groceries 03 1-2 weeks of groceries U 2-3 weeks of groceries 0 3-4 weeks of groceries0 4-6 weeks of groceries

  • 6-8 weeks of groceries 0 >8 weeks of groceries1too909070160503020100% 1111- ill.1% 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%Percent Increase In Household Energy Costsigure2. Share of households with specified number of weeks of groceries eliminated by money used topay higher energy costs. (Grocery budgetfrom USDA thrifty plan, family offour.)Pushing Households Below The Poverty LineAnother way to look at the impacts of increasing energy costs is to quantify how many familiesare pushed below the poverty line as household budgets are saddled by additional energy costs.Figure 3 shows, on a state-by-state basis, the number of individuals falling below the povertyline in the United States when home energy costs are increased by 10 percent. Taken as a whole,more than 300,000 additional households with over 840,000 Americans would be pushed belowthe poverty line. A 10 percent increase in energy costs was chosen because it is realistic, andcould be the result of the enactment of public policies, shifting market conditions, or unexpectedevents. Higher increases are also possible.As with the household budget cut described above, Southeastern states are more significantlyimpacted than the rest of the country.7 Americans Entering Povertyh, 562-3,176h1 3,176-8,653L 8,653-15,017h 15,017-23,65623,656-79,346lure 3. Number of people pushed below the poverty line as home energy costs increase by 10 percent., SF48 IHousehold Energy BurdenThe third 1E1 for illustrating the impacts of energy costs on households is to calculate theincrease in a household's energy burden, which can help predict increasing levels of energyinsecurity.Figure 4 shows the average household energy burden in each state as a percentage of totalhousehold income.19 As might be expected, the areas with the highest shares of families inenergy insecurity correspond closely with the areas of the highest percentage of families facing asignificant budget cut or being forced into poverty due to an increase in home energy costs.These household budgets are already stressed so any additional energy costs resulting fromincreasing energy prices substantially impacts them.Importantly, there are a significant number of households in energy insecurity that are not belowthe poverty line (Figures 5 and 6). This can be seen when the share of households with energyinsecurity (i.e., high energy burdens) is divided into two categories based on the poverty line.The first category shows the energy burden only for households below the poverty line (Figure5); the second shows energy burdens for households above thepoverty line (Figure 6).It is noteworthy that the percentages of households in each category are very similar tbr moststates. The Southern states have higher percentages of households in both poverty and energyinsecurity than the rest of the country. The Northeastern states have higher percentages ofhouseholds in energy insecurity but not in poverty, compared to households in both energyinsecurity and poverty. States on the West Coast have lower percentages of households inenergy insecurity, both in and not in poverty, than the rest of the country.Almost three million households or 7 million people will enter energy insecurity across thecountry if household energy costs increase by 10 percent. For example, the total would beapproximately 19,000 and 132,000 households in Alaska and South Carolina, respectively.19 Household Energy Burden = Household Energy Costs x 100HEouseehold Income9 Percent of Households withHigh Household Energy Burdenhk 10-14hi 14-16 Aj 16-18h 18-22h, 22-30Figure 4. A map showing the spatial distribution of the percentage of households with a high householdenergy burden (spending more than ten percent of household gross income on home energy) in each statein 2012. The colors represent different quintiles of energy insecurity, with states depicted in red havingthe highest incidence of energy insecurity.I0 Percent of Households withHigh Household Energy Burdenin Povertyb1 5-7hi7-8~8-9hll 9-12h 12-18 ,8.A*'dFigure 5. The spatial distribution of households in each state with high household energy burdens and inpoverty, expressed as a percentage of total households.II Percent of Households withHigh Household Energy Burdenthat Are Not in Povertyhhhh4-66-88-99-1111-16'4 .00SFigure 6. The spatial distribution of households in each state with high household energy burdens thatare not in poverty, again expressed as a percentage of total households.Clearly, rising household income reduces the impact of current or increasing energy costs. Asshown in Figures 7 and 8, households with incomes just above the poverty level are mostimpacted by changes in household energy costs.12 Small Increase in Energy Costs Sends Significant Number ofNon-impoverished Households into Energy InsecurityHouseholds with High Household Energy Burden (Inltily and After a 10 Percent Increase In HomeEnergy Costs) as a Function of Household Income (South Carolina)90000m Ik m L ...... ..... L l ....... ....I80006 70000J5000040000110000000N Noumbe r pf 14USehoin Witl nI High ousenolo nenBurden6 Numberof Households w~h HighHouseholdEnoBurden after 10 Porcenfl Incefase In Energy CostsS dp d dp dp ? ?d 9 dp dp OP OP d%_P P' JP 4 t " '0 'P P P lipMNN9% ;.7prayMEYFigure 7. The distribution of households with energy insecurity as measured by high household energyburdens but not in poverty as afiuction of household income for South Carolina for the original case(blue) and a 10 increase in energy costs (red). South Carolina demonstrates the impact of cooling costson energy insecurity.13 Small Increase in Energy Costs Sends Significant Number ofNon-Impoverished Households into Energy InsecurityHouseholds with High Hous ld Ene Burden (Initially and After a 10 Percent Increue In HomeEnergy Costs) as e Function of Household Income (Aladm)U Number of HouS1owids with HWh HOusehold EnergyBurdenI ,1m. fU.WTUW nut k.,9000W100Burden after 10 Peroent increase in Energy COMtJ7000I:J300011000li0 i-f dp )4P Op 4P 01 sfý ;P ' o N ,N N 4Nil- -0,, 9 Iq" P .SIP ' .P ,9 9 e .,mhold kxomeFigure 8. The distribution of households with energy insecurity, as measured by high household energy,but not in poverty as a function of household income for Alaskafor the original case (blue) and a 10increase in energy costs (red). Alaska shows a larger number of households with high household energyburdens, even at higher household income levels. The extreme climate ofAlaska may be responsible forthis effect; it is expensive to heat a dwelling to a comfortable temperature when the outside temperaturecan fall to -60 degrees Fahrenheit. The cost offuels is also higher in Alaska than in most other parts ofthe country.The Path ForwardAs indicators of energy insecurity, the IEls described in this paper provide new methods forestimating how increases in energy costs will affect the population of a specific state as well asthe country as a whole. The methods introduced here demonstrate that increasing householdenergy costs have a broad and significant adverse effect on the poor and near-poor members ofAmerican society. Any policy proposal that would tend to increase the cost of energy shouldtherefore be fully evaluated for its impact on energy insecurity, in order to give policymakers acomplete picture of its potential consequences. Pushing more families into poverty triggers anumber of significant socioeconomic issues, including increased government spending and agrowing dependence on government social and safety net programs.14 There are of course numerous ways to mitigate impacts of energy cost increases. The firstapproach includes encouraging -or at least not actively disadvantaging -the supply of low-costsources of electricity and heating fuels, and taking steps to minimize cost increases arising fromemerging energy resources. It can also include financial assistance for qualifying households,although given the history of the federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program(LIHEAP) program20 and the federal government's budget challenges, expecting substantiallymore funding from the federal government to pay higher energy costs for qualifying householdsis not realistic. Naturally, however, the preferred circumstance is for energy to be affordable andthe economy to be strong, enabling citizens to heat and cool their homes without having todepend on federal assistance for such basic needs.It bears noting that programs to increase energy efficiency and promote conservation can beviable ways to mitigate energy insecurity. However, some caution is needed here given that aprogram that works in Columbia, South Carolina, may not be effective in Bettles, Alaska, andvice versa. And, more relevant to the thesis of this paper, some programs intending to bringdown household energy costs do not directly benefit, and in some cases may disadvantage, low-income households. To use Fairbanks, Alaska, as an example, citizens who took advantage of anenergy rebate program designed to improve the efficiency of the housing stock were financiallysecure and could afford the up-front costs associated with the program. Some families interestedin the program could not participate in it because they were unable to secure a loan for the up-front energy efficiency improvement costs even though those costs would have been refunded bythe program.The foregoing discussion should prompt a number of key questions at the federal level:" How best can federal policy help relieve energy insecurity for the American people?" How can federal policy help decrease (or inhibit increases) in the cost of electricity andother household energy sources?* How can federal policy help decrease the cost of energy in remote communities?* What are the barriers to the deployment of less expensive energy sources in Alaska, othersparsely populated states or regions, and other regions, such as the southeast, where theincidence of energy insecurity is high?* What are the roles and effects of direct federal assistance?20 Spar, K., Federal Benefits and Services for People with Low Income: Programs, Policy, and Spending, FY2008-FY2009, Congressional Research Service Report R41625, January 3!, 201 i. LIHEAP is administered by theDepartment of Health and Human Services. The number of households receiving heating assistance in 2009 wasapproximately 7.4 million (heating or winter crisis assistance) with roughly 900,000 more receiving coolingassislance. This number represents 23.7 percent of federally eligible households.15

" Understanding that the current LIHEAP program only serves fewer than 24 percent ofhouseholds eligible for assistance and has limited money for weatherization, how canpeople in poverty improve the weatherization of their housing stock? And,* How can federal policy more effectively help people suffering an unexpected spike infuel prices due to circumstances beyond their control (e.g., heating costs from the polarvortex that forced people not normally in energy insecurity into that category)?Federal, state, and local governments, as well as other non-governmental organizations, havemany options to help households decrease their energy insecurity. As households move out ofenergy insecurity, their improved financial situation will allow them to mitigate the adverseconsequences associated with it: they can eat better, afford their medication, send their childrento school, and purchase more goods and services. For these reasons, it is important to remainvigilant about keeping energy costs low and lowering them where possible. We can and shoulddecrease energy insecurity in the United States so that all Americans can enjoy an even higherquality of life.16 Appendix 1: MethodologyData Set -American Community SurveyThe American Community Survey (ACS) is an ongoing, mandatory, statistical survey thatsamples a small subset of U.S. households each year in every state and the District of Columbiato determine community characteristics and eligibility for federal programs. 21 Among thehousehold characteristics collected by the survey are the number of people in the household,number of children under six, number of people over 65, type of housing unit (rental, singlefamily house, trailer, etc.), and infonnation on rent and mortgages. For this analysis the keyvariables in the ACS housing data set are: 1) the annual household income including all salaries,wages, tips, social security, welfare payments and public assistance, retirement benefits, survivoror disability pensions, rental incomes, interest, dividends, royalties, and any other sources ofincome (HINCP), and 2) the amount of money each household spends on energy in the form ofelectricity (ELEP), gas (GASP), and other fuels (FULP). The households considered in theanalysis are living in non-vacant, non-group homes that are either rented or owned by thehousehold, so families living in apartments, duplexes, attached and detached single familyhomes, mobile homes, trailers, and boats are all included in the analysis. Over 1.35 millionrecords from 2012 that include data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia were used toperform the analyses.Groceries -United States Department of Agriculture Thrifty Food PlanThe Official USDA Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home at Four Levels, U.S. Average, June 2014document provides the basis for quantifying how much money a family spends to providenutritious meals made at home. 23 The Food Plans give four different price levels for a weeklyfood cost for a family of four (the thrifty plan, the low-cost plan, the moderate-cost plan, and theliberal plan) based on differences in the specific foods and quantities of foods in each plan.Because the people most impacted by the rising cost of energy will be those with the leastdisposable income, the thrifty plan ($149.90 per week for a family of four of two adults between19 and 50 years old and two children, one of whom is between 6 and 8 years old and the other ofwhom is between 9 and II years old), the most inexpensive food plan, was selected for theanalyses. For the specific foods and quantities of foods in the Thrifty Food Plan, see ThriftyFood Plan, 2006.2421 https:f/www.census.gov/acs/www/2 ELEP and GASP are given on a per month basis while FULP is given on an annual basis."3http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/usda food_plans cost of food/CostofFoodJun2014.pdf24Thrifty Food Plan, 2006, Report CNPP-19 by Andrea Carlson, Mark Lino, WenYen Juan, Kenneth Hanson, and P.Peter Basiotis, of the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (except for Dr. Hanson who is with the EconomicResearch Service), U.S. Department of Agriculture, April 200717 Poverty- United States Department of Health & Human Services 2014 Poverty GuidelinesThe income levels for each state used to determine if a household is in poverty are the povertyguidelines updated periodically by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.25 For2014, the guidelines are as follows:2014 POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR THE48 CONTIGUOUS STATESAND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIAPersons in Povertyfamily/household guideline.For families/households with more than 9persons, add $4,060 for each additional person.i 1$11,670_2 115,7303 119,790i423,850ý5 127,910!6 131,970;7 36,030ý8 140,0902014 POVERTY GUIDELINES FORALASKAPersons in Povertyfamily/household guideline:For families/households with more than 8persons, add $5,080 for each additional person.1 ]$14,58012 19,660:3 24,7404 129,820i5 134,900i6 139,980;7 45,060.8 50,14025 http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/[ 4poverty,cfi18 2014 POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR HAWAIIPersons in Povertyfamily/household guideline,For families/households with more than 8'persons, add $4,670 for each additional person.i 1$13,420.2 18,090!3 122,760 .J.4 27,430I5 32,100;6 36,770:7 141,440 I.8 46,110While the U. S. Department of Health & Human Services includes energy costs when itestablishes poverty guidelines, the poverty thresholds were not developed as an itemized budgetwith specific dollar amounts for each type of household expenditure category.CalculationsThe following calculations are performed for every data record that meets the non-vacant, non-group home criteria for inclusion in the analyses. For several analyses, the number ofhouseholds meeting a criterion, such as "driven into poverty," in each data file is determined byapplying the formula to each household in the data file and then counting the number ofhouseholds that meet the criterion. The number of households meeting a criterion can also bedivided by the number of total households in the data file to determine the percentage ofhouseholds meeting that criterion.Household energy costs for a year = [(ELEP + GASP)* 12] + FULPIncrease in energy costs in dollars = Household energy costs x% increase 1n costIncrease in energy costs in weeks of groceries = increase in energy costs in dollarscost per week of groceriesHousehold in poverty if HINCP < poverty guideline for number of people in the household19 Household with revised income in poverty if (HINCP- increase in energy costs in dollars) <poverty guideline for number of people in the householdNumber of households driven into poverty = number of households with revised income inpoverty -number of households in povertyHousehold Energy Burden = Household Energy Costs .100Household income20

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML14304A701&oldid=721403"