National Academies Press: OpenBook

Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs (2006)

Chapter: Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis

« Previous: Appendix E Paying for Reliability in Deregulated Markets
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×

F
Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis

Samuel M. Fleming1

This appendix contains the following:

1

Samuel M. Fleming is a member of the Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×

APPENDIX F-1
THE NYISO APPROACH

The Comprehensive Reliability Planning Process (CRPP) recently completed by NYISO represents a major advance in planning. It is a stakeholder process, described along with its criteria, organization, and approval process in the Reliability Needs Assessment (RNA) Support Document (NYISO, 2005, pp. 1-6). Below are the main points of the CRPP relating to this committee’s charge:

  • The reliability of the electrical generation and transmission system in the New York Control Area (NYCA) would be inadequate beginning in 2009 if, as is the case historically, thermally constrained transmission limits control transmission.1 The reliability criterion of loss-of-load expectation (LOLE) for the NYCA reaches 0.160 by 2009, and thus exceeds the New York State Reliability Council (NYSRC) criterion of LOLE of 0.1 or less.

  • The projected inadequate reliability by 2009 is a consequence of the factors listed below, in spite of new resources of about 2,890 megawatts (MW) coming online between 2005 and 2007 (including the 660 MW Neptune high-volt-age direct current (HVDC) cable from the Pennsylvania-Jer-sey-Maryland (PJM) Independent System Operator into Long Island). These compounding factors are as follows:

    • Projected load growth in southeastern New York State;

    • Increased electrical demand over the past decade of 5,000 MW in southeastern New York, only one-fourth of which was matched by net additions to generating capacity or load reduction downstate;

    • Scheduled retirements by early 2008 of about 2,250 MW of generating capacity and changes in neighboring power systems; and, consequently

    • Greater past reliance and higher projected reliance on a complex and aging transmission system.

  • The state’s transmission system is increasingly characterized by congestion, especially during summer peak loads, at the Upstate New York-Southeast New York (UPNY/ SENY) transmission interface, where power generated in northern and western New York state is transmitted toward the high-load centers in southeastern New York, especially New York City, Long Island, and, increasingly, Westchester County (NYCA Zones J, K, and I, respectively)—and by the complexity of the transmission system within New York City. Consideration of transmission transfer constraints, particularly at the UPNY/SENY interface (just north of Pleasant Valley, New York), is thus a key aspect of considering the projected reliability of the alternating current (AC) transmission system.

  • The New York Power Authority’s (NYPA’s) Poletti Unit 1 (Zone J, 885 MW) represents 39 percent, and Lovett Units 3, 4, and 5 (Zone G, 431 MW) represent 19 percent of the scheduled retirements of generating capacity by early 2008. Thus Poletti 1 and the Lovett Station’s units together total 1,315 MW and represent 58 percent of the scheduled retirements by mid-2008.

  • Addition of a corrective resource—an additional 250 MW of generating capacity in New York City (Zone J), beyond NYISO’s Initial Base Case—would be needed by 2009 to meet the NYCA LOLE criterion of 0.1. The additional generating capacity needed downstate increases to 1,250 MW by 2010 and to 1,500 MW by 2011.

  • Reactive power deficiencies in the Lower Hudson Valley (LHV) mean, however, that voltage-constraint limits2 in the transmission system, if not corrected, would control the reliability situation, rather than thermal transmission constraints. In this situation, the projected NYCA LOLE reaches 0.395 by 2008 and 2.43 by 2010. The impact if voltage constraints were to control—and if only adding more generation capacity were to be considered— would therefore be that an additional 500 MW of generating capacity would be needed in New York City (Zone J) by 2008, increasing to 1,750 MW downstate in Zones I through K by 2010 (unless an additional 1,500 MW were added in Zone J alone by 2010) (see NYISO, 2005).

  • The retirements of Lovett Station Units 2, 3, and 4 and Poletti Unit 1 by early 2008 therefore also result in the need in 2008 for a resource to correct reactive power, some 335 megavars (Mvar) of static VAR compensation (SVC) at Ramapo Substation (southern Zone G). By 2010, some 1,000 Mvar of SVC capacity would be needed downstate, 500 Mvar at Ramapo and 500 Mvar at Sprain Brook (southern Zone I). The inadequate NYCA system reliability beginning in 2008 or 2009 exists without the additional consideration of the hypothetical retirement of Units 2 and 3 of the Indian Point Energy Center that presently supply 2,138 MW of power and about 1,000 Mvar of reactive power downstate.

  • A brief scenario analysis describes the impact on NYCA system reliability of the hypothetical early retirement of the Indian Point Units 2 and 3 in 2008 and 2010, respectively. In this early-retirement scenario, the LOLE for the

1

Thermal limits relate to avoidance of overheating the transmission lines, a condition causing the lines to sag, and in some instances to touch vegetation, causing outages.

2

Voltage drop in the AC system must be tightly limited to maintain frequency and synchronous operation and to avoid physical damage both to generating equipment and equipment served as load.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×

NYCA in 2010 is projected to be 3.5 days per year, which is 35 times higher than the NYSRC requirement.3

The final NYISO Reliability Needs Assessment report was issued December 21, 2005; the solicitation for market-based solutions was issued December 22, 2005, along with criteria for evaluating the viability of proposed market-based solutions. Responses were due February 15, 2006. Proposed solutions are to be evaluated, and decisions will result in issuance of the final NYISO Comprehensive Reliability Plan in July 2006.

Because of the complexity of the generation and transmission system in New York State and its interconnected regions, a reliability analysis is quite elaborate. It is thus important to appreciate the issues addressed, as well as the logic and sequence of the approach to the problem. To anticipate some of the considerations and results discussed below, one should also recognize that while the regions in the Northeast are electrically interconnected, the inter-region power-transfer capability is, at present, about 5 percent of the peak electrical loads of the region. Thus, the ability of surrounding regions to supply power to the NYCA under emergency conditions, while quite important, is still rather limited.

The main elements of the NYISO (2005) study addressed the adequacy of the system to provide reliable power resources, requiring both enough generating capacity and the capability to transmit the power to the load centers. Adequate generation (or additional capacity required, if needed) was addressed first, and then possible limitations of the transmission system that were identified.

First, the NYCA LOLEs up to 2010, for the first 5 years of an (NYISO) Initial Base Case, are calculated, assuming no transmission system transfer limitations within the NYCA system. This “Free Flow Transmission” case indicates only whether the projected installed generating capacity would be sufficient to satisfy the projected load demand. Next a recalculation is made of the LOLE for the NYCA when the transmission limits internal to the NYCA are imposed. This calculation indicates whether the projected NYCA transmission system in the Initial Base Case is adequate to deliver the projected electricity generation to the various load zones within the NYCA. (Generally, power flows west to east in upstate New York, then southeast to New York City and Long Island.)

If the simulated system failed to meet the LOLE criterion of 0.1 day per year for the NYCA, additional combined-cycle generation units with 250 MW capacity were assumed to be added until the LOLE criteria were satisfied. Generally, these natural-gas-fired units were assumed to be added to the zone(s) having too high an LOLE. This calculation showed a minimum additional generating capacity needed to meet the New York State reliability criteria.

A simplified transmission screening study was then carried out. The NYISO then performed a power-flow analysis, focusing only on the voltage and thermal performance of the bulk power transmission system as well as performing a limited transfer analysis of some 16 New York power system interfaces. The objective of this part of the screening analysis was to identify the regions or corridors requiring any significant transmission-system upgrades in order to meet system reliability criteria. In particular, the goal was to determine which transmission reinforcement areas could provide the most system performance benefit, over the broadest range of possible system future conditions. Multiple scenarios representing different possible system conditions (e.g., generation, load, transmission variations) were evaluated.4

To account for the effects of “short circuits,” a fault duty study was then performed using the ASPEN design code to determine the impact of the 2013 maximum generation scenario on local circuit breakers.5 Following the analysis of the Initial Base Case, scenarios were simulated using test cases that combine variations in installed generation, load forecasts, transmission system transfer capabilities, and available assistance from neighboring systems. These scenarios were simulated to determine their impact on the reliability of the NYCA system and hence the adequacy of the transmission system.

The Initial Base Case and sensitivity analyses performed by NYISO also include the addition of illustrative and hypothetical “compensatory resources,” zone by zone, that might be used to correct projected capacity deficits in each zone of the system and/or to make up for inadequate transmission line capacity or transmission transfer limits at the intertie points. Also included is a screening-level, macro system

3

NYISO identified additional system planning issues. These include (1) Wind and Renewable Additions to Meet Renewable Portfolio Standards; (2) Environmental Compliance Issues Including NYS Acid Deposition Reduction Program, the Clean Water Act Cooling Water Intake Best Available Technology, new Source Review, Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), Clean Air Mercury Rule, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), Regional Haze Rule; (3) Generation Expansion; (4) Retirement of Existing Generation; (5) Transmission Owner Plans; (6) Fuel Availability/Diversity; (7) Impact of New Technologies; (8) Load Forecast Uncertainty; and (9) Neighboring System Plans.

4

From NYISO (2005), p. 35. A comprehensive transmission reliability analysis is far more complex, as discussed in the Draft Report. Such comprehensive reliability analysis considers many more factors, and can include dynamic (time-dependent) simulations. For very complex systems therefore, such comprehensive dynamic transmission analysis requires massive computing power and computer run times, and thus is considered too expensive for initial screening studies. NYISO notes that some far more sophisticated dynamic analyses may be performed annually, while others may be performed only as specific circumstances arise.

5

From NYISO (2005), pp. 37-38.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×

view that identifies undesirable or unacceptable conditions identified from the modeling and tentative corrective actions.

One such example identified early during the NYISO screening study is large region-to-region flows of electricity, out of upstate New York to New England, with loopback flows of power back to deficit zones in New York, notably the high-load zones of southeastern New York, especially (but not limited to) New York City (Zone J) and Long Island (Zone K). Essentially, the large power loop flow could be corrected by adjusting the transmission transfer limits across the various transmission interties within the NYCA. An assumption of “Alternate Transmission Constraints” at the in-terties within the NYCA by NYISO for its study resulted in a proposed, “Modified Transmission System Topology” within the NYCA.

This summary of the NYISO approach to the in-state system analysis provided the framework for the committee’s study, using the same reliability model. The NYISO results are in NYISO (2005).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×

APPENDIX F-2
NOTES ON THE MARS-MAPS SIMULATIONS

The committee sought and received in September 2005 substantial then-current draft information from NYISO. The committee also contracted with General Electric International (GE) to run the Multi-Area Reliability Simulation (MARS) program. This model simulates, using a transportation model and Monte Carlo simulation, the electrical generation and transmission system of the New York Control Area (NYCA), interconnected with the four contiguous electrical power systems in the northeastern United States and eastern Canada.

The MARS software is the same system reliability screening tool approved by the New York State Reliability Council and used by NYISO in its Comprehensive Reliability Planning Process (CRPP) and Reliability Needs Assessment (RNA) studies (NYISO, 2005). The databases used by GE and NYISO for the MARS analysis differed, however, in that the NYISO database contains commercially proprietary data. Other differences are discussed in Chapter 5.

Projecting Impacts on NYCA System Operation and Economics

In addition to the MARS analyses for system reliability, GE used its Multi-Area Production Simulation (MAPS) program to examine the impacts of the several scenarios on NYCA systemwide operations and economics, as well as the impacts on a portion of the interconnected regional power systems (specifically, part of the PJM system and the Independent System Operator-New England [ISO-NE] system). Below are main points of how the MAPS simulation works with MARS, and the results produced by this simulation.

MAPS operates in conjunction with MARS to assess, for systems where MARS projects that reliability criteria are met, the operational and economic characteristics of the entire interconnected system. MARS is a “transportation” model, commonly referred to as a “bubble and stick” model, connecting generation and loads in the grid—that is, connecting with direct-current (DC)-like flows the sources and sinks of power. The MAPS software, however, models the electrical system in greater detail, examining the flow on each transmission line for every hour of the simulation, recognizing both normal and security-related transmission constraints.

MAPS adjusts the operation of each generating unit in the system to meet the electrical generation requirements of the specific scenario being modeled, also considering the transmission constraints noted. MAPS calculates the annual variable operating cost (VOC) of producing electricity systemwide, and iterates, adjusting the operation of each unit in the system, to determine the minimum annual VOC systemwide. The variable cost of producing electricity is dominated by fuel costs, but it also includes variable operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, unit start-up costs (say, going from a cold start and ramping up to full electrical output), and the variable cost of emission credits consumed, where required.1

Having established the minimum systemwide annual VOC, MAPS then provides for the Northeast Region, the NYCA, and each pricing (load) zone in New York (see Figure 1-3 in Chapter 1), the corresponding wholesale price of electricity, airborne emissions, and the mix of fuels used in generating electricity. Iterative use of the MARS reliability simulations in conjunction with MAPS for the different scenarios thus provides a preliminary basis for comparing both reliability and trends of economic impacts among the illustrative scenarios posed by the committee.

Note that the scenario analyses reported here are an early stage of analysis for hypothetical options. Additional analysis, using more sophisticated analytical tools, would be required to develop an optimized, defensible plan for Indian Point replacement options. Such an analysis was beyond the scope of the committee’s charge.

NOTE: In this Appendix F-2 only, the “NYISO Initial Base Case” corresponds to “Base Case” in the draft NYISO Reliability Needs Assessment dated October 10, 2005. It assumes thermal transmission constraints control, and it employed the “Alternate New England Transmission Constraints” on the assumption that substantial loop flow of power into New England, then back into New York south of the Upstate New York/Southeast New York (UPNY/SENY) interface would be limited. The issue of what transmission constraints are appropriate has been appealed to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the New York State Reliability Council by upstate power generators. The committee’s studies assumed the use of the “Alt. NE Transmission Constraints,” but the committee obviously takes no position on the merit of the appeals before the regulatory commissions. The NYISO “Base Case” assumed in its Final Report dated December 21, 2005, corresponds to voltage constraints controlling, and leads to the requirement to correct reactive power in the Lower Hudson Valley.

1

Some perspective on how the variable cost of operation relates to the total cost of production of electricity is provided by comparing the contribution of variable and fixed costs of operation. These vary for different kinds of units. A modern, high-efficiency, gas-fired combined-cycle unit having a heat rate as low as 6,700 Btu/kWh has a Battery Limits Capital Cost as low as $525/kW installed. The corresponding Non-Fuel Operating Cost is typically $3.30/MWh (Hinkle et al., 2005). Numbers reported later for the variable costs of operation—due mainly to the cost of fuel—are of the order of $20/MWh. Therefore, in this instance, variable costs represent roughly 85 percent of total operating cost. In New York City, both fuel and capital costs of construction can be markedly higher than in other markets. Project-by-project analysis is required, in any event, which is obviously very closely-held competitive information.Finally, note with respect to the recovery of the capital cost of new additions to capacity, that NYISO also runs the installed capacity market (ICAP) in New York that is designed to allow generators of electricity to recover part of their capital costs. Consideration is also being given currently to establishing a capacity market in New York, as a further evolution of deregulating electricity markets.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Perspectives on MARS and MAPS Simulations

Since MAPS minimizes the projected systemwide operating cost of producing electricity, which in turn tends to be dominated by fuel costs, the fuel prices assumed dominate the economic outputs from this model. Consistent with past practice, GE incorporated current data from Platts,2 which provided a reference 2008 cost of natural gas of $5.1/million Btu (MBtu), decreasing to $4.2/MBtu by 2015 (both in dol-lars-of-the-year, projected future value).

To assess the impact of higher fuel prices, a brief sensitivity study was made, using a 2008 natural gas price of $7.8/ MBtu (decreasing to $7.0 by 2015). In comparison, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy reports natural gas prices to electric power consumers in New York rising from $6 to $7 in 2004 to $7.3 to $9.3/thousand cubic feet (1,000 cubic feet of natural gas is almost exactly equivalent to 1 million Btu) through August 2005 (DOE, 2005). The price of natural gas in NYISO is already higher than the high-fuel-price scenario in this case, even before the recent additional gas price volatility introduced by Hurricane Katrina. As noted in the report, the De-cember 21, 2005, spot price of natural gas at Henry Hub (the central point for natural gas futures trading in the United States) was $13.55/MBtu, with a New York City gate premium of $1.11/MBtu (prices have subsequently dropped considerably). The consequences of high gas prices and volatility in the projections have been explored, but the results on cost are believed to be highly uncertain.

In evaluating the results of the MAPS analyses, it is recommended that readers should (1) appreciate that price assumptions for natural gas are low in comparison with present NYISO prices, even for the “high-fuel-price” cases; (2) look for trends and percentage changes (rather than the absolute values of, say, wholesale price of electricity); and (3) keep in mind the relative changes in prices of fuels and the tendencies noted above that are inherent in the assumptions made for the higher-fuel-price sensitivity cases.

The NYISO Initial Base Case

The generating units incorporated in the NYISO database used for the modeling were used to develop a baseline case that included the present generation and transmission system, allowing over the next 10 years for known scheduled retirements of generating capacity, and adding the firmly committed generation and transmission additions and upgrades that are projected to occur throughout the study period. The source for the data for the existing system was the MARS database maintained by NYISO staff for use in determining the annual installed reserve margin (IRM). The elec trical load and generation capacity were updated through the 2005-2015 study period based on data from the 2005 load and capacity data report issued by NYISO. Similar reports for the neighboring systems were referenced for updating the data in those regions (NYISO, 2005, p. 35).

For the NYISO (2005) reliability analysis, the NYISO planning staff adopted a somewhat conservative approach, in that only those additions to capacity or transmission were included that (simply stated here) are presently in service, are under construction, or have been certified and are under contract with a credit-worthy entity. For the NYISO Initial Base Case, this translates to the resources that include the following:

  • Six new generation projects adding 2,228 MW of new capacity.

  • Scheduled retirements of 2,363 MW of generating capacity.3

  • Twenty-two other proposed generation projects total-ing some 6,765 MW of proposed capacity are listed in the report. These proposed projects are at various earlier stages of project formation, and thus do not meet the NYISO criteria for inclusion in its Initial Base Case.

  • Eleven additions to transmission capacity are included, all rather small with the exception of the Neptune transmission project, connecting the PJM Control Area to Long Island with a DC line of 600 MW capacity. Transmission operator (TO) projects on non-bulk power facilities are included.

The resources also include the existing fleet of generating units in the NYCA and parts of three contiguous areas in the Northeast region. The Initial Base Case for the NYISO is shown in Table F-2-1.

For the committee’s analyses, the units scheduled for retirement that are included in the NYISO Initial Base Case are removed from the database at an appropriate time, and additional generating units are added through time to meet the requirements of each scenario being modeled. Thus, several points should be kept in mind in reviewing results produced by the various MAPS analyses, particularly in the late years of the 10-year study period. First, the presently-known capacity retirements are accounted for, consistent with those in the NYISO Initial Base Case, the last of which is in 2008. But as discussed in Chapter 3 of the present report and noted by NYISO, some older units in the present generating fleet may be impacted in the future by new environmental regulations. Thus, some of the existing units may require future addition of emissions-control equipment, or face curtailment of operations, or may even be retired.

2

Base case data set, Quarter 1, 2005, published by Platts, a Division of McGraw-Hill Companies. See http://www.platts.com/Analytic%20 Solutions/BaseCase/index.xml. Accessed November 2005.

3

Retirements in the Initial Base Case do not include either Indian Point Unit 2 or Unit 3, but these possibilities are treated briefly in scenario analyses, subsequent to the NYISO Initial Base Case.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×

TABLE F-2-1 NYISO Initial Base Case Capacity Details Adopted for the MARS Analysis

Proposed Projects for Inclusion in Study Base Cases - Load Flow

In-service

MW Capacity

Status

CRPS

ATBA

ATRA

CATR

CRPS

I. Generation

Dates

Summer

Winter(**)

 

2010

2010

2010

2010

2015

 

A. Additions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ConEd-East River Repowering

I/S

298

 

I/S

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

NY PA-Poletti Expansion

2006/01

500

 

UC

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

SCS Energy-Astoria Energy

2006/04

500

 

UC

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

PSEG-Bethlehem

2005/07

770

828

UC

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

Calpine-Bethpage 3

2005/05

79.9

 

UC

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

Pinelawn-Pinelawn Power 1

2005/05

79.9

 

UC

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

ANP-Brookhaven Enery Center

2009/Q2

560

 

 

 

X

X

X

 

 

 

SCS Energy-Astoria Energy

2007/Q2

500

 

 

 

X

X

X

 

 

 

NYC Energy-Kent Ave2

007/06

79.9

 

 

 

X

X

X

 

 

 

LMA-Lockport II

2007/Q2

79.9

 

 

 

X

X

X

 

 

 

Calpine-JFK Expansion

2006/06

45

 

 

 

X

X

X

 

 

 

Reliant-Repowering Phases 1

2010/Q2

535.8

593.7

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

Reliant-Repowering Phases 2

2011/Q3

535.8

593.7

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

SEI-Bowline Point 3 (Mirant)

2008/Q2

750

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

Bay Energy

2007/06

79.9

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

Entergy-Indian Point 2 Uprate

I/S

1078

 

I/S

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

Entergy-Indian Point 3 Uprate

I/S

1080

 

I/S

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

Fortistar-VP

2007/Q2

79.9

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

Fortistar-VAN

2007/Q2

79.9

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

Key Span-Spagnoli Rd CC

2008-09

250

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

Chautauqua Windpower

2006/11

50

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

Besicorp-Empire State Newsprint

2007/Q2

603

660

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

Flat Rock Windpower

2005/12

198

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

Flat Rock Windpower

2006/12

123.75

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

Calpine-Wawayanda

2008/Q2

500

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

Global Winds-Prattsburgh

2006/10

75

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

ECOGEN-Prattsburgh Wind Farm

2006/07

79

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

Constellation-Ginna Plant Uprate

2006/11

610

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

PSEG Cross Hudson Project

2008

550

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

Liberty Radial Interconnection to NYC

2007/05

400

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

B. Retirements

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NYPA-Poletti 1

2008/02

885.3

885.7

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

RG&E-Russell

2007/12

238

245

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

ConEd-Waterside 6,8,9

2005/07

167.2

167.8

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

PSEG-Albany

2005/02

312.3

364.6

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

NRG-Huntley 63,64

2005/11

60.6

96.8

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

NRG-Huntley 65,66

2006/11

166.8

170

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

Mirant-Lovett 5

2007/06

188.5

189.7

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

Mirant-Lovett 3,4

2008/06

242.5

244

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

Astoria 2

2010/Q2

175.3

181.3

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

Astoria 3

2011/Q3

361

372.4

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

Hudson Ave. 10

2004/10

65

 

 

X

X

X

X

X

II. Transmission

 

Miles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. Additions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PSEG-Bergen (new)-W. 49th St.345kV Cable

2008

7.50

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

AE Neptune PJM –LIDC Line (600 MW)

2007

65.00

UC

X

 

X

X

X

 

 

LIP A-Duffy Convrtr Sta-Newbridge Rd. 345kV

2007/S

1.70

UC

X

 

X

X

X

 

 

LIP A-Newbridge Rd. 345kV-138kV (2-Xfmrs)

2007/S

N/A

UC

X

 

X

X

X

 

 

LIP A-E. Garden City-Newbridge Rd. 138kV

2007/S

4.00

UC

X

 

X

X

X

 

 

LIP A-Ruland Rd.-Newbridge Rd. 138kV

2007/S

9.10

UC

X

 

X

X

X

 

 

Rochester Transmission-Sta. 80 & various

2008/F

N/A

UC

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

Liberty Radial Interconnection to NYC-230kV

2007

0.62

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

ConEd-Dunwoodie-Sherman Crk 138kV

2005/W

7.80

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

LIP A-Riverhead-Canal(new) 138kV Operation

2005/S

16.40

UC

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

LIP A-E. Garden City-Supr.Condr. Sub. 138kV

2006/S

0.38

UC

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

LIP A-Northprt-Norwalk Hrbr. 138kVReplcmnt(2)

2006/S

11.00

UC

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

ConEd-Mott Havn-Dunwoodie 345kV Rec.(2)

2007/S

9.99

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

ConEd-Mott Havn-Rainey 345kV Rec. (2)

2007/S

4.08

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

ConEd-Sherman Crk 345kV-138kV (2-Xfmrs)

2007/S

N/A

 

 

X

X

X

 

 

 

ConEd-Sprin Brk-Sherman Crk 345kV

2007/S

10.00

 

 

X

X

X

 

 

 

LIP A- Holtsville GT-Brentwood 138kV (2)

2007/S

12.40

UC

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

LIP A-Brentwood-Pilgram 138kV Operation

2007/S

4.60

UC

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

LIP A-Sterling-Off Shore Wind Farm 138kV

2008/S

8.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O & R-Ramapo-Tallman 138kV Rec.

2007/S

3.24

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

O & R-Tallman-Burns 138kV

2007/S

6.08

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

LIP A-Riverhead-Canal 138kV

2010/S

16.40

 

 

X

X

X

 

 

 

CHG & E-Hurley Ave-Saugerties 115kV

2011/W

11.11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHG & E-Pleasant Valley-Knapps Corners115kV

2011/W

17.70

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHG & E-Saugerties-North Catskill 115kV

2012/W

12.25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Besicorp-Reynolds Rd. 345kV

2007/S

9.00

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

Spagnoli Rd.-Ruland Rd. 138kV

2008/S

1.00

 

 

 

X

X

 

Rev.#4-5/31/05

 

 

CRPS: Comprehensive Reliability Planning Study

 

UC: Under construction

 

 

 

 

 

ATBA: Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment

 

I/S: In-Service

 

 

 

 

 

ATRA: Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CATR: Comprehensive Area Transmission Review

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(**)

If Winter ratings are not available, the NYISO will use the summer ratings by default.

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOURCE: NYISO (2005).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×

No detailed attempt was made to optimize the schedule of illustrative additions to capacity to meet load growth and compensate for scheduled capacity retirements. GE and the committee recognize that in some of the scenarios posed, the LOLE projections are lower than required. This means that the illustrative capacity requirements are assumed to be online earlier than needed. In turn this means that the schedule for additions of new capacity could likely be relaxed somewhat through optimization studies beyond the scope of this committee’s charge.

Given the scope of the present study, no attempt was made to adjust the MARS and MAPS databases to account for uncertainty in future changes. Such hypothetical considerations could be modeled and included in another analysis, of course, but the effort required to do so is great, and well beyond the scope of this study. (See footnote 4 in Appendix F-1 and footnote to Table F-2-2.)

As a consequence, the older generating units in the NYCA that are not presently scheduled for retirement remain in the MAPS database and are considered operable-as-is today in scenarios running through 2015. An obvious caveat in interpreting MAPS results for the 2013-2015 timeframe is that this assumption may not be accurate; and if it is not, some caution should be used in interpreting the MAPS results for

TABLE F-2-2 Electricity Generation Load and Capacity Representing NYISO Initial Base Case

Category

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Steam Turbine (Oil)

1649

1649

1649

1649

1649

1649

1649

1649

1649

1649

164

Steam Turbine (Oil & Gas)

9074

9074

9074

8120

8120

8120

8120

8120

8120

8120

812

Steam Turbine (Gas)

1067

1067

1067

1067

1067

1067

1067

1067

1067

1067

106

Steam Turbine (Coal)

3597

3597

3242

2830

2830

2830

2830

2830

2830

2830

283

Steam Turbine (Wood)

39

39

39

39

39

39

39

39

39

39

3

Steam Turbine (Refuse)

264

264

264

264

264

264

264

264

264

264

26

Steam (PWR Nuclear)

2544

2544

2639

2639

2639

2639

2639

2639

2639

2639

263

Steam (BWR Nuclear)

2610

2610

2610

2610

2610

2610

2610

2610

2610

2610

261

Pumped Storage Hydro

1409

1409

1409

1409

1409

1409

1409

1409

1409

1409

140

Internal Combustion

119

119

119

119

119

119

119

119

119

119

11

Conventional Hydro

4488

4488

4488

4488

4488

4488

4488

4488

4488

4488

448

Combined Cycle

7041

8041

8041

8041

8041

8041

8041

8041

8041

8041

804

Jet Engine (Oil)

527

527

527

527

527

527

527

527

527

527

52

Jet Engine (Gas & Oil)

173

173

173

173

173

173

173

173

173

173

17

Combustion Turbine (Oil)

1414

1414

1414

1414

1414

1414

1414

1414

1414

1414

141

Combustion Turbine (Oil & Gas)

1428

1428

1428

1428

1428

1428

1428

1428

1428

1428

142

Combustion Turbine (Gas)

1284

1284

1284

1284

1284

1284

1284

1284

1284

1284

128

Wind

47

47

47

47

47

47

47

47

47

47

4

Other

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

UDR

330

330

990

990

990

990

990

990

990

990

99

Non UDR

2755

2755

2755

2755

2755

2755

2755

2755

2755

2755

275

Special Case Resources

975

975

975

975

975

975

975

975

975

975

97

Demand Response Programs

269

269

269

269

269

269

269

269

269

269

26

NYCA Demand

31960

32400

32840

33330

33770

34200

34580

34900

35180

35420

3567

Required Capability

37395

37915

38434

39012

39531

40039

40487

40865

41195

41478

4177

Total NYCA Capability

38772

39772

39512

38146

38146

38146

38146

38146

38146

38146

3814

Reserve Margin

21%

23%

20%

14%

13%

12%

10%

9%

8%

8%

7%

*Capacity based on Summer Capability

NOTE:

• NYCA Reserve Margin in this table does not include either Special Case Resources (975 MW of callable demand under NYISO Emergency Operating procedures) or Unforced Delivery Rights (UDR, corresponding to two HVDC cables, the Cross Sound Cable (330 MW), and the Neptune Cable (660 MW) in and beyond 2007.

• The 2006 NYISO Load and Capacity Report (2006 Gold Book) was issued on May 3, 2006, and is available at https://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/ services/planning/planning_data_reference_documents/2006_goldbook_public.pdf. Accessed March 2006.

• The 2006 document shows that peak load rojections are higher than above (+3 percent for 2008). NYISO notes proposed net additions to resources of 2,244 MW by 2008 with which the present reserve margin requirement of 18 percent would be met through 2010. (Note that 900 MW of these 2,244 MW are upstate, and 160 MW of that is wind, so the impact on projected NYCA LOLE is less obvious.)

SOURCE: NYISO (2005).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×

the late years. Also, a detailed model of all Northeast regional generating and transmission capacity does not now exist and is a goal of a regional planning task force. Providing the capability to project to 2015 would be an added challenge if the regional capacity were to be examined.

The scenarios considered in this study add considerable new NYCA generation based on modern gas-fired combined-cycle units that have a low heat rate, thus require less natural gas per megawatt-hour (MWh) produced, and consequently result in lower operating costs. However, no assumption is made in the MAPS database used regarding comparable addition of more fuel-efficient units in adjacent areas in the Northeast region. So, it is assumed implicitly that the generating fleet in the adjacent areas continues to use less fuel-efficient generation well into the future. Thus, even for less efficient gas-fired units, gas consumption is higher per megawatt-hour produced, with a corresponding higher cost of production. Consequently, the new low-cost generation assumed for the NYCA could displace higher-cost generation in other areas. This might tend to lower the price-increase impact of retiring Indian Point, and could reduce imports of electricity from the adjacent areas in favor of increased generation in the NYCA. If so, the total annual variable cost of generation would increase in the NYCA, since total generation in the NYCA increases. Similarly, the generator fuel mix could be influenced, in both the NYCA and the adjacent region.

As discussed in Chapter 2, the load growth in New York State over the past 11 years has been south of the UPNY/ SENY transmission interface (located north of Pleasant Valley). Further, since 2001, the Lower Hudson Valley (LHV— Zones G, H, and I) has experienced the fastest rate of growth, and is projected to experience a high rate of growth (2.38 percent per year) for the period 2004-2015. Load growth in New York City and Long Island is projected to grow substantially more slowly than in the past 10 years, 1.19 percent for New York City (down from 2.61 percent over the past 10 years), and 1.62 percent in Long Island (down from 3.27 percent growth over the past 10 years). Furthermore, greater reliance on the electrical transmission system is reflected in the fact that from 1994 through the summer of 2005, load growth in southeastern New York State has been about 5,400 MW, while capacity additions there (1,550 MW) and demand reduction (270 MW) sum to only 1,820 MW over the same period. Additions to capacity or load reduction therefore have been only 34 percent of peak-load growth over the last 11 years. These changes evidently have been accounted for in the analysis, but they create an uncertainty in the system requirements for future years.

Throughout this study, the committee used Alternative New England Transmission Transfer Limits developed by NYISO (2005). Consequently the committee’s projections of resources needed to correct reliability to meet the LOLE standard of 0.1 are slightly higher than NYISO’s, perhaps by 200 MW.4

Readers therefore should bear in mind that, while comparisons among various illustrative scenarios assumed by the committee are judged to be qualitatively valid, the precise magnitude and timing of compensatory resources required are hypothetical. In addition, the data in graphs and tabulations in the report and this appendix should be considered in terms of two significant figures, and it should be recalled that the timing of additions to capacity is not optimized. Given the exploratory nature of the analysis, it is recommended that readers focus on comparative trends, not on absolute values of price projections.

Perspective on Reactive Power

The use of the thermal-constraint transmission model is, roughly to first order, equivalent to assuming that reactive power corrections would be made in a timely manner in the Lower Hudson Valley. If not, the voltage-constraint model of NYISO would require greater additions to generating capacity—or a correspondingly higher aggregate mix of additional generating capacity, additions to transmission capacity, and/or energy-efficiency and demand-reduction measures.

In the committee’s opinion, the essential local corrections to reactive power—on the order of 2,000 Mvar in the Lower Hudson Valley—would most likely be made in a timely manner. Corrections to reactive power are less costly than additions to generation, are often installable at existing substations, and require less lead time because of lower mechanical complexity and ease of permitting. If carried out, the committee expects that correction of the reactive power shortfall would drive the system back toward a situation in which thermal transfer limits control transmission. The committee therefore focused on situations where thermal transmission transfer limits limit system reliability, recognizing that local corrections to reactive power flow also must be made, as NYISO has determined.

The committee did not assess the specifics of the need for corrections to reactive power, but this obviously would be required, particularly in light of the analyses reflected in the NYISO (2005) report. The committee also did not analyze in any detail the cost of corrections to reactive power. There are a number of ways to make such corrections, important technical advances have been made in recent years, and such corrections are presently being made within the NYCA and New York City. O’Neill (2004) provided a recent briefing

4

The committee saw no need to make the analyses agree perfectly, recognizing they are preliminary. Much refinement and additional analysis will be required to fully understand the implications of retiring Indian Point.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×

on some aspects of reactive power in which the capital cost of a static VAR compensator (SVC) or a Statcom is stated to be in the range of $50/kvar, and that of a synchronous condenser is about $35/kvar. All three of these devices have fast dynamic response. So as a rough order of magnitude, the capital cost of a 1,000 Mvar correction at $50/kvar would be about $50 million. In comparison, capital cost of a 1,000 MW power plant, at a cost of order $1,000 per kW installed, is on the order of $1 billion. So as a rough rule of thumb, the cost of correcting 1 Mvar of reactive power is about 5 percent or so of the cost of replacing 1 MW of real power.

It might be possible to use the existing generators at Indian Point Units 2 and 3 as synchronous condensers after retiring the nuclear reactors. As synchronous condensers (see Gerstenkorn, 2004, p. 271), the generators could add reactive power (but not real power) to the transmission system. However, there might be no significant advantage to doing so, as the capital cost of a synchronous condenser is about $35/kvar O’Neill (2004). Replacing the 1,000 Mvar of reactive power supplied by Indian Point Units 2 and 3 with a new synchronous condenser in the area would cost only about $35 million.

Preliminary Screening Analysis

The committee’s initial reliability analysis was intended to scope the amount of compensation that would be necessary to replace Indian Point. It is included here (but not in the final GE report to the committee or in Chapter 5) to illustrate how the committee reached its final scenarios. The capacity resource compensation hypothesized in the committee’s preliminary screening case included 150 MW of additional energy-efficiency and demand-reduction measures by 2007, added 3,510 MW by 2010, and a total 3,740 MW of new capacity, energy-efficiency, and demand-reduction measures by 2015. As noted, these illustrative capacity additions were limited to proposed generation projects that were not mature enough from a permitting or financing standpoint to meet the NYISO (2005) criteria for inclusion in its Initial Base Case assessment. The committee adjusted the timing of additions somewhat arbitrarily to meet 2010 or 2015 objectives. The additions are illustrative only of capacity that would be required, and no suggestion is made or implied that the “projects” or their timing constitute financially feasible, practical options, or that other projects would not be reactivated, or others proposed later.

In sum, the committee’s screening analysis showed first that, with the additional compensatory resource capacity assumed, the early-retirement scenario still resulted in an NYCA LOLE of 0.103 in 2010, increasing to 0.585 by 2013. For retirement at the end of current licenses, the NYCA LOLE slightly exceeded the required 0.1 beginning in 2013 as Indian Point Unit 2 is shut down and reached 1.39 in 2015, when Indian Point Unit 3 is shut down. Thus, the additional capacity compensation assumed in the screening case analysis would not alone accommodate either the early shutdown or an end-of-license shutdown of Indian Point Units 2 and 3. The analysis then continued with the Reference Case and following scenarios, as given in Table F-2-9 and following and discussed in Chapter 5.

Tabulated Results of MARS Calculations

Tables F-2-3 through F-2-23 are a compendium of the results from the GE MARS modeling of the various scenarios examined during this study. The tables provide sufficient numerical detail to provide insight into the changes by geographic region, and the compensatory resources introduced, given each of the scenarios adopted by the committee. The comparisons generally should be made relative to the Reference Case assumed by the committee as a baseline for meeting LOLE requirements, meeting load growth and scheduled retirements of capacity (without retiring Indian Point).

TABLE F-2-3 NYISO Initial Base Case—Qualifying Additions to Capacity (MW)

Year

Qualifying Additions to Capacity (Zone, MW)

Zone G

Zone H

Zone I

Zone J

Zone K

Rest of State (ROS)

Yearly Total (MW)

2005

ConEd East River Repowering (J, 298, in service); Astoria Energy (J, 500); Calpine Bethpage 3 (K, 79.9); Pinelawn Power I (K, 79.9); PSEG Bethlehem (ROS, 770)

 

 

 

798

160

770

1,728

2006

NYPA Poletti Expansion (J, 500)

 

 

 

500

 

 

500

2007

Neptune HVDC Cable (PJM to K, 600)

 

 

 

 

600

 

600

2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

2010

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Totals

 

0

0

0

1,298

760

770

2,828

NOTE: New York Control Area load zones as shown in Figure 1-3. Neptune Cable is reported later at 660 MW. Abbreviations are defined in Appendix C.

SOURCE: Derived from NYISO (2005).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×

TABLE F-2-4 Committee’s Screening Study—Early Shutdown with Assumed Compensation from Planned NYCA Projects and Added Energy-Efficiency and Demand-Side-Management Measures (MW)

Year

Qualifying Additions to Capacity (Zone, MW)

Zone G

Zone H

Zone I

Zone J

Zone K

Rest of State

Statewide EE and DSM Measures

Yearly Total, MW

Cumulative Additions Beyond NYISO Initial Base Case

Cumulative Additions from 2005

2005

ConEd East River Repowering (J, 298, in service); Astoria Energy (J, 500); Calpine Bethpage 3 (K, 79.9); Pinelawn Power I (K, 79.9); PSEG Bethlehem (ROS, 770)

 

 

 

798

160

770

 

1,728

 

 

2006

NYPA Poletti Expansion (J, 500)

 

 

 

500

 

 

 

500

 

 

2007

Neptune HVDC Cable (PJM to K, 600)

 

 

 

 

600

 

150

750

150

2,978

2008

Reliant Astoria Repowering I (J, 367); Reliant Astoria Repowering II (J, 173); SCS Astoria Energy II (J, 500); LIPA Caithness CC (K, 383); LIPA LI Sound Wind (K, 150); EE (100); DSM (50)

 

 

 

1,040

533

 

150

1,723

1,873

4,701

2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

1,873

4,701

2010

Calpine Wawayanda (G, 540); Mirant Bowline Point 3 (G, 750); EE (250); DSM (100)

1,290

 

 

 

 

 

350

1,640

3,513

6,341

2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

3,513

6,341

2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

3,513

6,341

2013

EE (75); DSM (75)

 

 

 

 

 

 

150

150

3,663

6,491

2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

3,663

6,491

2015

EE (50); DSM (25)

 

 

 

 

 

 

125

125

3,788

6616

Totals

 

1,290

0

0

2,338

1,293

770

925

6,616

3,788

6,616

NOTE: New York Control Area load zones as shown in Figure 1-3. Abbreviations are defined in Appendix C.

SOURCE: Hinkle et al., personal communication, September 2005.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×

TABLE F-2-5 Committee’s Screening Study—End-of-License Shutdown with Assumed Compensation from Planned NYCA Projects and Added Energy-Efficiency and Demand-Side-Management Measures (MW)

Year

Qualifying Additions to Capacity (Zone, MW)

Zone G

Zone H

Zone I

Zone J

Zone K

Rest of State

Statewide EE and DSM Measures

Yearly Total, MW

Cumulative Additions Beyond NYISO Initial Base Case

Cumulative Additions from 2005

2005

ConEd East River Repowering (J, 298, in service); Astoria Energy (J, 500); Calpine Bethpage 3 (K, 79.9); Pinelawn Power I (K, 79.9); PSEG Bethlehem (ROS, 770)

 

 

 

798

160

770

 

1,728

 

 

2006

NYPA Poletti Expansion (J, 500)

 

 

 

500

 

 

 

500

 

 

2007

Neptune HVDC Cable (PJM to K, 600)

 

 

 

 

600

 

150

750

150

2,978

2008

SCS Astoria Energy II (J, 500); LIPA Caithness CC (K, 383); LIPA LI Sound Wind (K, 150); EE (100); DSM (50)

 

 

 

500

533

 

150

1,183

1,333

4,161

2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

1,333

4,161

2010

Astoria Repowering I (J, 367); Calpine Wawayanda (G, 540); Mirant Bowline Point 3 (G, 750); EE (250); DSM (100)

1,290

 

 

367

 

 

350

2,007

3,340

6,168

2011

Astoria Repowering II (J, 173)

 

 

 

173

 

 

 

173

3,513

6,341

2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

3,513

6,341

2013

EE (75); DSM (75)

 

 

 

 

 

 

150

150

3,663

6,491

2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

3,663

6,491

2015

EE (50); DSM (25)

 

 

 

 

 

 

75

75

3,738

6,566

Totals

 

1,290

0

0

2,338

1,293

770

875

6,566

3,738

6,566

NOTE: New York Control Area load zones as shown in Figure 1-3. Abbreviations are defined in Appendix C.

SOURCE: Hinkle et al., personal communication, September 2005.

TABLE F-2-6 NYISO Initial Base Case with Alternate New England Transmission Constraints— Projected NYCA Reliability Loss-of-Load Expectation (LOLE) and Reserve Margin

 

LOLE Results

NYISO Initial Base Case

2008

2010

2013

2015

ZONE A

0

0

0

0

ZONE B

0

0

0

0

ZONE C

0

0

0

0

ZONE D

0

0

0

0

ZONE E

0

0

0

0

ZONE F

0

0

0.001

0.002

ZONE G

0.001

0.017

0.103

0.291

ZONE H

0.001

0.008

0.017

0.018

ZONE I

0.058

0.617

2.464

4.401

ZONE J

0.095

0.785

2.618

4.473

ZONE K

0.051

0.418

1.888

3.526

NYCA

0.122

0.966

3.164

5.21

NYCA Capacity @ Peak Unit of Measure

37,039

37,039

37,039

37,039

NYCA Peak Load Unit of Measure

33,330

34,200

35,180

35,671

Special Case Resources (SCRs) Unit of Measure

975

975

975

975

NYCA Reserve Margin (%)

14%

11%

8%

7%

NOTE: New York Control Area load zones as shown in Figure 1-3. LOLEs were calculated using SCRs (975 MW) and UDRs (HVDC Cables—990 MW). NYCA Reserve Margin reported includes SCRs, but not UDRs. Abbreviations are defined in Appendix C.

SOURCE: Hinkle et al., personal communication, September 2005.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×

TABLE F-2-7 Committee’s Screening Study: Impact on Reliability and Reserve Margins of Shutting Down Indian Point Without Adding Compensatory Resources: Comparison of the NYISO Initial Base Case with Early-Shutdown and End-of-Current-License Shutdown Cases

 

NYISO Initial Base Case, Using Alternate New England Transmission Constraints (Draft v.2 RNA Report)

Early Shutdown: IP2 Shutdown 1/1/08, IP3 Shutdown 1/1/10; No Compensatory Resources Added

End-of-License Shutdown: IP2 Shutdown 1/1/13, IP3 Shutdown 1/1/15; No Compensatory Resources Added

 

Predicted Reliability (LOLE)

Predicted Reliability (LOLE)

Predicted Reliability (LOLE)

 

2008

2010

2013

2015

2008

2010

2013

2015

2008

2010

2013

2015

Zone A

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Zone B

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Zone C

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Zone D

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Zone E

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Zone F

0

0

0.001

0.002

0

0

0.002

0.002

0

0

0.002

0.002

Zone G Hudson Valley

0.001

0.017

0.103

0.291

0.003

0.302

0.876

1.967

0.001

0.017

0.339

1.967

Zone H Millwood

0.001

0.008

0.017

0.018

0.035

5.568

8.913

10.77

0.001

0.008

0.377

10.77

Zone I Dunwoodie

0.058

0.617

2.464

4.401

0.323

5.956

9.582

11.554

0.058

0.617

5.914

11.554

Zone J New York City

0.095

0.785

2.618

4.473

0.292

4.927

7.701

9.742

0.095

0.785

5.071

9.742

Zone K Long Island

0.051

0.418

1.888

3.526

0.226

5.456

8.344

10.528

0.051

0.418

4.595

10.528

NYCA

0.122

0.966

3.164

5.21

0.4

6.338

10.074

12.061

0.122

0.966

6.444

12.061

NYCA Capacity @ Peak Unit of Measure

37,039

37,039

37,039

37,039

36,077

36,086

35,086

35,086

37,039

37,039

36,077

35,086

NYCA Peak Load Unit of Measure

33,330

34,200

35,180

35,671

33,330

34,200

35,180

35,671

33,330

34,200

35,180

35,671

Special Case Resources (SCRs) Unit of Measure

975

975

975

975

975

975

975

975

975

975

975

975

NYCA Reserve Margin (%)

14%

11%

8%

7%

11%

8%

3%

1%

14%

11%

5%

1%

NOTE: IP2, Indian Point Unit 2; IP3, Indian Point Unit 3; see Appendix C for definitions of abbreviations. LOLEs were calculated using SCRs (975 MW) and UDRs (HVDC Cables—990 MW). NYCA Reserve Margin reported includes SCRs, but not UDRs.

SOURCE: Hinkle et al., personal communication, September 2005.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×

TABLE F-2-8 Committee’s Screening Study: Impact on Reliability and Reserve Margins of Shutting Down Indian Point and Adding Compensatory Resources from Announced Projects, Beyond NYISO Initial Base Case (Table F-2-3): Comparison of Early Shutdown and End-of-Current-License Shutdown

 

Early Shutdown With Compensatory Resources Added: IP2 Shutdown 1/1/08, IP3 Shutdown 1/1/10

End-of-License Shutdown With Compensatory Resources Added: IP2 Shutdown 1/1/13, IP3 Shutdown 1/1/15

 

Predicted Reliability (LOLE)

Predicted Reliability (LOLE)

 

2008

2010

2013

2015

2008

2010

2013

2015

Zone A

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Zone B

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Zone C

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Zone D

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Zone E

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

 

Zone F

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Zone G Hudson Valley

0.001

0

0.002

0.004

0

0

0

0.004

Zone H Millwood

0.005

0.082

0.477

1.192

0

0

0.019

1.192

Zone I Dunwoodie

0.019

0.091

0.533

1.269

0.007

0.002

0.082

1.269

Zone J New York City

0.011

0.053

0.297

0.724

0.009

0.002

0.057

0.724

Zone K Long Island

0.01

0.032

0.267

0.649

0.003

0.001

0.051

0.649

NYCA

0.023

0.103

0.585

1.393

0.013

0.003

0.106

1.393

NYCA Capacity @ Peak Unit of Measure

37,650

37,949

37,949

37,949

38,034

39,729

38,940

37,949

NYCA Peak Load Unit of Measure

33,039

33,568

34,402

34,820

33,039

33,568

34,402

34,820

Special Case Resources (SCRs)

975

975

975

975

975

975

975

975

NYCA Reserve Margin (%)

17%

16%

13%

12%

18%

21%

16%

12%

NOTE: IP2, Indian Point Unit 2; IP3, Indian Point Unit 3; see Appendix C for definitions of abbreviations. LOLEs were calculated using SCRs (975 MW) and UDRs (HVDC Cables—990 MW). NYCA Reserve Margin reported includes SCRs, but not UDRs.

SOURCE: Hinkle et al., personal communication, September 2005.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×

TABLE F-2-9 Reference Case: Illustrative Additional Resources Beyond the NYISO Initial Base Case to Meet Load Growth and Scheduled Retirements and Ensure Reliability Criteria Are Met, and Including Reliability Results If Indian Point Is Closed Without Further Compensation

Year

Reference Case—Illustrative Additions (Zone, MW)

Zone G, MW

Zone H, MW

Zone I, MW

Zone J, MW

Zone K, MW

Rest of State (ROS)

Yearly Generating Capacity Added

Cumulative Additions Above CRPP, Initial Base Case (MW)

NYCA LOLE, Reference Case

LOLE for Early Shutdown (2008, 2010), No Further Compensation, Case b1

LOLE for EOL Shutdown (2013, 2015), No Further Compensation, Case c1

2008

SCS Astoria Energy (J, 500); Caithness (K, 383); Long Island Wind (K, 150 MW)

 

 

 

500

398

 

898

898

0.021

0.104

0.021

2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

898

 

 

 

2010

Bowline Point (G, 750)

750

 

 

 

 

 

750

1,648

0.069

1.352

0.069

2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

1,648

 

 

 

2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

1,648

 

 

 

2013

Wawayanda (G, 540); Generic Combined Cycle (H, 580)

540

580

 

 

 

 

1,120

2,768

0.104

1.323

0.333

2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

2,768

 

 

 

2015

Reliant Astoria Repower I (J, 367); Reliant Astoria Repower II (J, 173)

 

 

 

540

 

 

540

3,308

0.102

1.480

1.480

Totals, 2008-2015

1,290

580

0

1,040

398

0

3,308

3,308

 

 

 

NOTE: Wind is credited with 10 percent availability, or 15 MW. NYISO did not include wind in reliability analyses. The Neptune Cable (2007, K, 600 MW) is carried elsewhere in the GE analysis as a UDR. Its capacity has been upgraded to 660 MW in the final NYISO RNA. Also GE uses UDRs in calculating LOLE, but reported Reserve Margins are calculated using generating capacity and SDRs (975 MW) only. For defintions of zones, see Table F-2-7. Abbreviations are defined in Appendix C.

SOURCE: Hinkle et al. (2005).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×

TABLE F-2-10 Early Shutdown of Indian Point with Compensatory Resources, Case b2

Year

Capacity Additions (Zone, MW)

Zone G, MW

Zone H, MW

Zone I, MW

Zone J, MW

Zone K, MW

Rest of State (ROS)

Total for year, MW

Capacity Above CRPP, Initial Base Case, MW

Energy Efficiency, MW

Demand Side Management, MW

Cumulative Peak Demand Reduction, MW

Cumulative Resources, Capacity + Load Reduction, MW

NYCA LOLE After Compensation

2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100

50

 

 

 

2008

Reference Case plus Reliant Astoria Repower I&II (J, 540)

 

 

 

1,040

398

 

1,438

1,438

100

50

291

1,729

0.023

2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

1,438

 

 

 

 

 

2010

Bowline (G, 750); Wawayanda (G, 540); Transgas Energy(J, 1100)

1,290

 

 

1,100

 

 

2,390

3,828

250

100

632

4,460

0.011

2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

3,828

 

 

 

 

 

2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

3,828

 

 

 

 

 

2013

Generic Combined Cycle (H, 580)

 

580

 

 

 

 

580

4,408

75

75

778

5,186

0.032

2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

4,408

 

 

 

 

 

2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

4,408

50

25

850

5,258

0.101

Totals

 

1,290

580

0

2,140

398

0

4,408

 

575

300

 

 

 

 

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×

TABLE F-2-11 End-of-Current-License Shutdown of Indian Point with Compensatory Resources, Case c2

Year

Capacity Additions (Zone, MW)

Zone G, MW

Zone H, MW

Zone I, MW

Zone J, MW

Zone K, MW

Rest of State (ROS)

Total for year, MW

Capacity Above CRPP, Initial Base Case, MW

Energy Efficiency, MW

Demand Side Management, MW

Cumulative Peak Demand Reduction, MW

Cumulative Resources, Capacity + Load Reduction, MW

NYCA LOLE After Compensation

2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100

50

 

 

 

2008

Same as Reference Case

 

 

 

500

398

 

898

898

100

50

291

1,189

0.013

2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

898

 

 

 

898

 

2010

Reliant Astoria Repower I (J, 367); Bowline (G, 750); Wawayanda (G, 540)

1,290

 

 

367

 

 

1,657

2,555

250

100

632

3,187

0.006

2011

Reliant Astoria Repower II (J, 173)

 

 

 

173

 

 

173

2,728

 

 

 

2,728

 

2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

2,728

 

 

 

2,728

 

2013

Generic Combined Cycle (H, 580)

 

580

 

 

 

 

580

3,308

75

75

778

4,086

0.036

2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

3,308

 

 

 

3,308

 

2015

Transgas Energy (J, 1100)

 

 

 

1,100

 

 

1,100

4,408

50

25

851

5,259

0.101

Totals

 

1,290

580

0

2,140

398

0

 

4,408

375

200

851

5,259

 

NOTE: For definitions of zones, see Table F-2-7. Abbreviations are defined in Appendix C.

NYCA demand same as Table F-2-10.

SOURCE: Hinkle et al. (2005).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×

TABLE F-2-12 Early Shutdown of Indian Point with High-Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) Cable, Case b3

Year

Capacity Additions (Zone, MW)

Zone G, MW

Zone H, MW

Zone I, MW

Zone J, MW

Zone K, MW

Rest of State (ROS)

Yearly Total, MW

Capacity Above CRPP, Initial Base Case, MW

Energy Efficiency, MW

Demand Side Management, MW

Cumulative Peak Demand Reduction, MW

Cumulative Resources, Capacity + Load Reduction, MW

NYCA LOLE After Compensation

2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100

50

 

 

 

2008

Reference plus Reliant Astoria Repower (J, 540)

 

 

 

1,040

398

 

1,438

1,438

100

50

291

1,729

 

2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

1,438

 

 

 

 

 

2010

Bowline Point (G, 750), Wawayanda (G, 540), Transgas Energy (J, 300)

1,290

 

 

300

 

 

1,590

3,028

250

100

632

3,660

 

2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

3,028

 

 

 

 

 

2012

1000 MW HVDC Line, Zone E to G

1,000

 

 

 

 

 

1,000

4,028

 

 

 

 

 

2013

Generic Combined Cycle (H, 580)

 

580

 

 

 

 

580

4,608

75

75

778

5,386

 

2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

4,608

 

 

 

 

 

2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

4,608

50

25

850

5,458

0.098

Totals

 

2,290

580

0

1,340

398

0

 

4,608

575

300

 

 

 

NOTE: For definitions of zones, see Table F-2-7. Abbreviations are defined in Appendix C.

SOURCE: Hinkle et al. (2005).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×

TABLE F-2-13 End-of-Current-License Shutdown of Indian Point with Compensatory Resources Including 1,000 MW HVDC Transmission Lines, Case c3

Year

Capacity Additions (Zone, MW)

Zone G, MW

Zone H, MW

Zone I, MW

Zone J, MW

Zone K, MW

ROS

Yearly Total, MW

Capacity Above CRPP, Initial Base Case, MW

Energy Efficiency, MW

Demand Side Management, MW

Cumulative Peak Load Reduction, MW

Cumulative Resources, Capacity + Load Reduction, MW

NYCA LOLE After Compensation

2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100

50

 

 

 

2008

Same as Reference Case

 

 

 

500

398

 

898

898

100

50

291

1,189

 

2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

2010

Reliant Astoria Repower I (J, 367); Bowline Point (G, 750); Wawayanda (G, 540)

1,290

 

 

367

 

 

1,657

1,657

250

100

632

2,289

 

2011

Reliant Astoria Repower II (J, 173)

 

 

 

173

 

 

173

1,830

 

 

 

 

 

2012

1000 MW HVDC Line, Zone E to Zone G

1,000

 

 

 

 

 

1,000

2,830

 

 

 

 

 

2013

Generic Combined Cycle (H, 580)

 

580

 

 

 

 

580

3,410

75

75

778

4,188

 

2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

3,410

 

 

 

 

 

2015

Transgas Energy (J, 300)

 

 

 

300

 

 

300

3,710

50

25

850

4,560

0.098

Totals

 

2,290

580

0

840

0

0

 

3,710

375

200

 

 

 

NOTE: For definitions of zones, see Table F-2-7. Abbreviations are defined in Appendix C.

SOURCE: Hinkle et al. (2005).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×

TABLE F-2-14 Early Shutdown of Indian Point with Higher Efficiency and Demand-Side Management, Case b4

Year

Capacity Additions (Zone, MW)

Zone G, MW

Zone H, MW

Zone I, MW

Zone J, MW

Zone K, MW

ROS

Yearly Total, MW

Capacity Above CRPP, Initial Base Case, MW

Energy Efficiency, MW

Demand Side Management, MW

Cumulative Peak Load Reduction EE/DSM, MW

Cumulative Resources, Capacity + Load Reduction, MW

NYCA LOLE After Compensation

2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2008

Reference Case plus Reliant Astoria Repower I&II (J, 540)

 

 

 

1,040

398

 

1,438

1,438

 

 

 

 

2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

1,438

 

 

 

 

2010

Bowline Point (G, 750); Wayawanda (G, 540)

1,290

 

 

 

 

 

1,290

2,728

 

 

 

 

2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

2,728

 

 

 

 

2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

2,728

 

 

 

 

2013

Generic Combined Cycle (H, 580)

 

580

 

 

 

 

580

3,308

 

 

 

 

2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

3,308

 

 

 

 

2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

3,308

1,200

800

 

 

0.082

Totals

 

1,290

580

0

1,040

398

0

 

3,308

1,200

800

1,951

5,259

 

NOTE: For definitions of zones, see Table F-2-7. Abbreviations are defined in Appendix C.

NYCA Demand, MW

SOURCE: Hinkle et al. (2005).

Reference Case b4 Savings

2008 33,330

2010 34,200

2013 35,180

2015 35,670 33,719 1,951

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×

TABLE F-2-15 End-of-Current-License Shutdown of Indian Point with Higher Efficiency and Demand-Side Management, Case c4

Year

Capacity Additions (Zone, MW)

Zone G, MW

Zone H, MW

Zone I, MW

Zone J, MW

Zone K, MW

ROS

Yearly Total, MW

Capacity Above CRPP, Initial Base Case, MW

Energy Efficiency, MW

Demand Side Management, MW

Cumulative Peak Load Reduction EE/DSM, MW

Cumulative Resources, Capacity + Load Reduction, MW

NYCA LOLE After Compensation

2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2008

Same as Reference Case

 

 

 

500

398

 

898

898

 

 

 

898

 

2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

898

 

 

 

 

 

2010

Reliant Astoria Repower I (J, 367); Bowline Point (G, 750); Wayawanda (G, 540)

1,290

 

 

367

 

 

1,657

2,555

 

 

 

2,555

 

2011

Reliant Astoria Repower II (J, 173)

 

 

 

173

 

 

173

2,728

 

 

 

 

 

2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

2,728

 

 

 

 

 

2013

Generic Combined Cycle (H, 580)

 

580

 

 

 

 

580

3,308

 

 

 

3,308

 

2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

3,308

 

 

 

 

 

2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

3,308

1,200

800

1,951

5,259

0.082

Totals

 

1,290

580

0

1,040

398

0

 

3,308

1,200

800

1,951

5,259

 

NOTE: For definitions of zones, see Table F-2-7. Abbreviations are defined in Appendix C.

NYCA Demand, MW

SOURCE: Hinkle et al. (2005).

Reference Case c4 Savings

2008 33,330

2010 34,200

2013 35,180

2015 35,670 33,719 1,951

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×

TABLE F-2-16 Early Shutdown Without Compensatory Resources Beyond the Reference Case—Impact on NYCA Reliability (Loss-of-Load Expectation) and Reserve Margin, Case b1

 

Loss-of-Load Expectation

Zone

2008

2010

2013

2015

A

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

B

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

C

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

D

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

E

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

F

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

G

0.002

0.012

0.001

0.008

H

0.013

1.132

1.030

1.217

I

0.083

1.232

1.163

1.325

J

0.071

0.968

1.043

0.974

K

0.041

0.366

0.525

0.820

NYCA

0.104

1.352

1.323

1.480

NYCA Capacity @ Peak Unit

37,110

36,869

37,994

38,534

NYCA Peak-Load Unit

33,330

34,200

35,180

35,671

Special Case Resources (SCRs)

975

975

975

975

NYCA Reserve Margin (%)

14%

11%

11%

11%

NOTE: LOLEs were calculated using SCRs (975 MW) and UDRs (HVDC Cables—990 MW). NYCA Reserve Margin reported includes SCRs, but not UDRs. For zones see Table F-2-7. Abbreviations are defined in Appendix B.

SOURCE: Hinkle et al. (2005).

TABLE F-2-17 End-of-Current-License Shutdown Without Compensatory Resources Beyond the Reference Case—Impact on NYCA Reliability (Loss-of-Load Expectation) and Reserve Margin, Case c1

 

Loss-of-Load Expectation

Zone

2008

2010

2013

2015

A

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

B

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

C

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

D

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

E

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

F

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

G

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.008

H

0.000

0.002

0.039

1.217

I

0.012

0.031

0.217

1.325

J

0.016

0.056

0.354

0.974

K

0.006

0.016

0.124

0.082

NYCA

0.021

0.069

0.333

1.480

NYCA Capacity @ Peak Unit

38,072

38,822

38,985

38,534

NYCA Peak-Load Unit

33,330

34,200

35,180

35,671

Special Case Resources (SCRs)

975

975

975

975

NYCA Reserve Margin (%)

17%

16%

14%

11%

NOTE: LOLEs were calculated using SCRs (975 MW) and UDRs (HVDC Cables—990 MW). NYCA Reserve Margin reported includes SCRs, but not UDRs. For zones see Table F-2-7. Abbreviations are defined in Appendix B.

SOURCE: Hinkle et al. (2005).

TABLE F-2-18 Committee’s Reference Case—Impact on NYCA Reliability (Loss-of-Load Expectation) and Reserve Margin

 

Loss-of-Load Expectation

Zone

2008

2010

2013

2015

A

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

B

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

C

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

D

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

E

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

F

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

G

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

H

0.000

0.002

0.001

0.002

I

0.012

0.031

0.021

0.033

J

0.016

0.056

0.087

0.067

K

0.006

0.016

0.027

0.051

NYCA

0.021

0.069

0.104

0.102

NYCA Capacity @ Peak Units

38,072

38,822

39,947

40,487

NYCA Peak-Load Units

33,330

34,200

35,180

35,671

Special Case Resources (SCRs)

975

975

975

975

NYCA Reserve Margin (%)

17%

16%

16%

16%

NOTE: LOLEs were calculated using SCRs (975 MW) and UDRs (HVDC Cables—990 MW). NYCA Reserve Margin reported includes SCRs, but not UDRs. For zones see Table F-2-7. Abbreviations are defined in Appendix B.

SOURCE: Hinkle et al. (2005).

TABLE F-2-19 Early Shutdown with Additional Compensatory Resources—Impact on NYCA Reliability and Reserve Margin, Case b2

 

Loss-of-Load Expectation

Zone

2008

2010

2013

2015

A

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

B

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

C

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

D

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

E

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

F

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

G

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.001

H

0.004

0.009

0.020

0.070

I

0.018

0.009

0.024

0.082

J

0.012

0.004

0.011

0.031

K

0.010

0.005

0.022

0.069

NYCA

0.023

0.011

0.032

0.101

NYCA Capacity @ Peak Units

37,650

39,049

39,629

39,629

NYCA Peak-Load Units

33,039

33,568

34,402

34,820

Special Case Resources (SCRs)

975

975

975

975

NYCA Reserve Margin (%)

17%

19%

18%

17%

NOTE: LOLEs were calculated using SCRs (975 MW) and UDRs (HVDC Cables—990 MW). NYCA Reserve Margin reported includes SCRs, but not UDRs. For zones see Table F-2-7. Abbreviations are defined in Appendix B.

SOURCE: Hinkle et al. (2005).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×

TABLE F-2-20 End-of-Current-License Shutdown with Additional Compensatory Resources—Impact on NYCA Reliability and Reserve Margin, Case c2

 

Loss-of-Load Expectation

Zone

2008

2010

2013

2015

A

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

B

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

C

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

D

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

E

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

F

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

G

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.001

H

0.000

0.000

0.007

0.070

I

0.006

0.001

0.023

0.082

J

0.009

0.004

0.020

0.031

K

0.003

0.001

0.019

0.069

NYCA

0.013

0.006

0.036

0.101

NYCA Capacity @ Peak Units

38,072

39,729

39,520

39,629

NYCA Peak-Load Units

33,039

33,568

34,402

34,820

Special Case Resources (SCRs)

975

975

975

975

NYCA Reserve Margin (%)

18%

21%

18%

17%

NOTE: LOLEs were calculated using SCRs (975 MW) and UDRs (HVDC Cables—990 MW). NYCA Reserve Margin reported includes SCRs, but not UDRs. For zones see Table F-2-7. Abbreviations are defined in Appendix B.

SOURCE: Hinkle et al. (2005).

TABLE F-2-21 Additional Compensatory Resources, Including 1,000 MW North-South HVDC Transmission Line—Impact on NYCA Reliability and Reserve Margin, Cases b3 and c3

Zone

Case b3 2015

Case c3 2015

A

0.000

0.000

B

0.000

0.000

C

0.000

0.000

D

0.000

0.000

E

0.000

0.000

F

0.000

0.000

G

0.000

0.000

H

0.066

0.066

I

0.084

0.084

J

0.047

0.047

K

0.059

0.059

NYCA

0.098

0.098

NYCA Capacity @ Peak Units

38,829

38,829

NYCA Peak-Load Units

34,820

34,820

Special Case Resources (SCRs)

975

975

NYCA Reserve Margin (%)

14%

14%

NOTE: LOLEs were calculated using SCRs (975 MW) and UDRs (HVDC Cables—990 MW). NYCA Reserve Margin reported includes SCRs, but not UDRs. For zones see Table F-2-7. Abbreviations are defined in Appendix B.

SOURCE: Hinkle et al. (2005).

TABLE F-2-22 Additional Compensatory Resources, Including Higher Energy Efficiency and Demand-Side-Management Penetration—Impact on NYCA Reliability and Reserve Margin, Cases b4 and c4

Zone

Case b4 2015

Case c4 2015

A

0.000

0.000

B

0.000

0.000

C

0.000

0.000

D

0.000

0.000

E

0.000

0.000

F

0.000

0.000

G

0.000

0.000

H

0.061

0.061

I

0.072

0.072

J

0.040

0.040

K

0.038

0.038

NYCA

0.082

0.082

NYCA Capacity @ Peak Units

38,529

38,529

NYCA Peak-Load Units

33,719

33,719

Special Case Resources (SCRs)

975

975

NYCA Reserve Margin (%)

17%

17%

NOTE: LOLEs were calculated using SCRs (975 MW) and UDRs (HVDC Cables—990 MW). NYCA Reserve Margin reported includes SCRs, but not UDRs. For zones see Table F-2-7. Abbreviations are defined in Appendix B.

SOURCE: Hinkle et al. (2005).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×

TABLE F-2-23 Projected Impact on the Annual Variable Cost of Operation for the Northeast Region, NYCA, and Zones H Through K: All Scenarios, 2008 2105, Including Percentage Change from Benchmark of 2008 NYISO Initial Base Case

 

Annual Cost of Operation

Change from 2008 NYISO Initial Base Case

 

2008 ($ millions)

2010 ($ millions)

2013 ($ millions)

2015 ($ millions)

2008 (%)

2010 (%)

2013 (%)

2015 (%)

Benchmark of 2008 NYISO Initial Base Case

3 Pool

13,169

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NYISO

3,129

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zone H

97

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zone I

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zone J

1,094

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zone K

327

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference Case

3 Pool

13,098

13,269

13,193

14,363

–0.5

0.8

0.2

9.1

NYISO

3,091

3,121

3,056

3,271

–1.2

–0.2

–2.3

4.5

Zone H

97

97

221

224

0.4

0.3

128.2

131.1

Zone I

0

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

Zone J

1,072

994

877

1,008

–2.1

–9.1

–19.8

–7.9

Zone K

344

308

274

286

5.1

–5.7

–16.3

–12.5

Early Shutdown with Compensation, Case b2

3 Pool

13,323

13,685

13,578

14,780

1.2

3.9

3.1

12.2

NYISO

3,301

3,668

3,523

3,783

5.5

17.2

12.6

20.9

Zone H

49

1

131

138

–49.8

–99.2

34.7

41.8

Zone I

0

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

Zone J

1,282

1,490

1,383

1,526

17.2

36.2

26.4

39.5

Zone K

367

368

333

368

12.2

12.4

1.8

12.6

End-of-License Shutdown with Compensation, Case c2

3 Pool

13,054

13,138

13,330

14,780

–0.9

–0.2

1.2

12.2

NYISO

3,058

3,069

3,177

3,783

–2.3

–1.9

1.5

20.9

Zone H

97

97

175

138

0.4

0.3

80.8

41.8

Zone I

0

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

Zone J

1,057

928

1,012

1,526

–3.4

–15.2

–7.5

39.5

Zone K

331

254

285

368

1.2

–22.4

–12.9

12.6

Higher Fuel Prices—Reference Case

3 Pool

16,000

16,125

16,749

18,379

21.5

22.5

27.2

39.6

NYISO

4,039

4,045

4,358

4,636

29.1

29.3

39.3

48.2

Zone H

97

97

292

299

0.4

0.4

201.3

208.0

Zone I

0

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

Zone J

1,552

1,402

1,388

1,570

41.8

28.1

26.9

43.6

Zone K

495

459

447

464

51.3

40.4

36.8

41.9

Higher Fuel Prices—Early Shutdown with Compensation

3 Pool

16,366

16,796

17,405

19,132

24.3

27.5

32.2

45.3

NYISO

4,377

4,881

5,096

5,522

39.9

56.0

62.9

76.5

Zone H

49

1

208

221

–49.8

–99.2

114.6

128.1

Zone I

0

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

Zone J

1,858

2,090

2,107

2,374

69.9

91.0

92.6

117.0

Zone K

556

560

536

644

70.0

71.3

64.0

96.8

Higher Fuel Prices—End-of-License Shutdown with Compensation

3 Pool

15,934

15,929

17,007

19,132

21.0

21.0

29.1

45.3

NYISO

3,986

3,950

4,598

5,522

27.4

26.2

47.0

76.5

Zone H

97

97

253

221

0.4

0.3

160.7

128.1

Zone I

0

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

Zone J

1,531

1,301

1,622

2,374

39.9

18.9

48.2

117.0

Zone K

479

352

467

644

46.6

7.7

42.8

96.8

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×

 

Annual Cost of Operation

Change from 2008 NYISO Initial Base Case

 

2008 ($ millions)

2010 ($ millions)

2013 ($ millions)

2015 ($ millions)

2008 (%)

2010 (%)

2013 (%)

2015 (%)

Early Shutdown with Compensation and HVDC Line, Case b3

3 Pool

 

 

13,506

14,701

 

 

2.6

11.6

NYISO

 

 

3,279

3,500

 

 

4.8

11.9

Zone H

 

 

129

134

 

 

33.1

38.6

Zone I

 

 

0

0

 

 

 

 

Zone J

 

 

1,080

1,186

 

 

–1.3

8.4

Zone K

 

 

285

320

 

 

–12.8

–2.2

EOL Shutdown with Compensation and HVDC Line, Case c3

3 Pool

 

 

13,284

14,701

 

 

0.9

11.6

NYISO

 

 

3,085

3,500

 

 

–1.4

11.9

Zone H

 

 

173

134

 

 

78.5

38.6

Zone I

 

 

0

0

 

 

 

 

Zone J

 

 

919

1,186

 

 

–16.0

8.4

Zone K

 

 

245

320

 

 

–8,341.2

–815.3

Early Shutdown with Compensation and High EE/DSM, Case b4

3 Pool

 

 

 

14,650

 

 

 

11.2

NYISO

 

 

 

3,527

 

 

 

12.7

Zone H

 

 

 

135

 

 

 

39.1

Zone I

 

 

 

0

 

 

 

 

Zone J

 

 

 

1,242

 

 

 

13.5

Zone K

 

 

 

346

 

 

 

5.7

EOL Shutdown with Compensation, High EE/DSM, Case c4

3 Pool

 

 

 

14,650

 

 

 

11.2

NYISO

 

 

 

3,527

 

 

 

12.7

Zone H

 

 

 

135

 

 

 

39.1

Zone I

 

 

 

0

 

 

 

 

Zone J

 

 

 

1,242

 

 

 

13.5

Zone K

 

 

 

346

 

 

 

5.7

NOTE: LOLEs were calculated using SCRs (975 MW) and UDRs (HVDC Cables—990 MW). NYCA Reserve Margin reported includes SCRs, but not UDRs. For zones see Table F-2-7. Abbeviations are defined in Appendix C.

SOURCE: Hinkle et al. (2005).

REFERENCES

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2005. Annual Energy Outlook 2005, Table 38. Energy Information Administration. Washington, D.C.

Forte, Michael (Chief Engineer for Planning, Consolidated Edison). 2005. Presentation to the committee at its meeting in White Plains, N.Y. April 15.

Gerstenkorn, D. 2004. “Synchronous Condenser: An Idea Whose Time Has Come.” In G.C. Casazza and J.A Loehr, eds., The Evolution of Electric Power Transmission Under Deregulation: Selected Readings. IEEE.

Hinkle, Gene, G. Jordan and M. Sanford, 2005. Report to National Research Council for An Assessment of Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs. GE Energy, December 27.

NYISO (New York Independent System Operator). 2005. Comprehensive Reliability Planning Process Supporting Document and Appendices for the Reliability Needs Assessment. NYISO, Albany, N.Y., December 21.

O’Neill, Richard. 2004. “Reactive Power: Is it Real? Is It in the Ether?” Paper presented at the Harvard Electric Policy Group, Austin, Tex., December 2.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis." National Research Council. 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11666.
×
Page 168
Next: Appendix G Demand-Side Measures »
Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $60.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, many in the New York City area have become concerned about the possible consequences of a similar attack on the Indian Point nuclear power plants—located about 40 miles from Manhattan, and have made calls for their closure. Any closure, however, would require actions to replace the 2000 MW of power supplied by the plants. To examine this issue in detail, the Congress directed DOE to request a study from the NRC of options for replacing the power. This report presents detailed review of both demand and supply options for replacing that power as well as meeting expected demand growth in the region. It also assesses institutional considerations for these options along with their expected impacts. Finally, the report provides an analysis of scenarios for implementing the replacement options using simulation modeling.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!