ML11348A128
| ML11348A128 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/13/2011 |
| From: | Lanzalotta P Lanzalotta & Associates |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 21536, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML11348A128 (23) | |
Text
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter J. Lanzalotta Contention NYS-37 1
UNITED STATES 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3
x 4
In re:
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR; 50-286-LR 5
License Renewal Application Submitted by ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 6
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, DPR-26, DPR-64 7
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and 8
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
December 13, 2011 9
x 10 PRE-FILED WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF 11 PETER J. LANZALOTTA 12 REGARDING CONTENTION NYS-9-33-37 13 On behalf of the State of New York (NYS or the State),
14 the Office of the Attorney General hereby submits the following 15 testimony by Peter J. Lanzalotta regarding Contention NYS-9 16 37 (consolidated as NYS-37).
17 Q.
Please state your full name.
18 A.
Peter J. Lanzalotta.
19 Q.
By whom are you employed and what is your position?
20 A.
I am a Principal with Lanzalotta & Associates LLC.
21 Q.
Please summarize your educational and professional 22 qualifications.
23 NYS000047 Submitted: December 14, 2011
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter J. Lanzalotta Contention NYS-37 2
A.
I have worked for more than 30 years as an electric 1
utility employee and as a consultant on electric system planning 2
and operating matters, as well as various other electric-3 utility-related areas. I have a BS in Electric Power 4
Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and an MBA in 5
Finance from Loyola College. I am a registered as a 6
professional engineer in Connecticut and Maryland. I have 7
appeared as an expert witness on electric utility reliability, 8
planning, operation, and rate matters in more than 100 9
proceedings in 22 states, the District of Columbia, the 10 Provinces of Alberta and Ontario, and before the Federal Energy 11 Regulatory Commission and U. S District Court. A copy of my 12 Curriculum Vitae (CV) has been previously submitted in these 13 proceedings in support of New York States contention, NYS-37 14 (ML110680290) and is provided again, herewith, as Exh.NYS000097:
15 Lanzalotta CV.
16 Q.
I show you what has been marked as Exhibit NYS000098.
17 Do you recognize that document?
18 A.
Yes. It is a copy of my expert declaration, dated 19 February 1, 2011 (2011 Lanzalotta Decl.) (ML110680290),
20 submitted in support of New York States contention, NYS-37, 21 setting forth my analysis of the FSEISs consideration of New 22 York States transmission grid, reliability issues, and 23
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter J. Lanzalotta Contention NYS-37 3
purchased electrical power. The declaration accurately reflects 1
my analysis and opinions.
2 Q.
What is the purpose of your testimony?
3 A.
The purpose of this testimony is to address aspects of 4
the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (final 5
SEIS or FSEIS) for Indian Points Units 2 and 3 (NUREG 1437, 6
Supplement 38) dated December 2010 and address the issues, 7
comments, and assumptions related to electric transmission 8
system planning and electric system reliability contained 9
therein.
10 The FSEIS looks at the consequences of the no-action 11 alternative to relicensing by relying, in part, on the findings 12 and conclusions in the discussion of alternatives in the FSEIS 13 at FSEIS § 8.3. See FSEIS § 8.2, p. 8-22. I have also reviewed 14 and analyzed that section of the FSEIS and identified the 15 deficiencies in the consideration of purchased electrical power, 16 transmission constraints, and the need for power as these relate 17 to the no-action alternative.
18 Q.
Have you reviewed materials in preparation for your 19 testimony?
20 A.
Yes. In addition to the FSEIS, I have also reviewed 21 Exh.NYS000056, the Indian Point Retirement Options, Replacement 22 Generation, Decommissioning/Spent Fuel Issues, and Local 23
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter J. Lanzalotta Contention NYS-37 4
Economic/Rate Impacts, report prepared for the County of 1
Westchester and the County of Westchester Public Utility Service 2
Agency, by Levitan & Associates, Inc. (June 2005) (2005 Levitan 3
Report), Exh.NYS000055, the National Research Council of the 4
National Academy of the Sciences Committee on Alternatives to 5
the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric 6
Power Needs (June, 2006) (2006 National Research Council),
7 the primary study Staff rely on in the FSEIS with respect to 8
energy alternatives, as well as a number of New York Independent 9
System Operator (NYISO)and New York State Reliability Council 10 (NYSRC) documents that address electric system reliability 11 planning and electric system reliability needs in New York. I 12 have also reviewed my prior declaration, and the studies and 13 data referenced therein.
14 Q. Mr. Lanzalotta I show you Exhibits NYS000055-56, 15 NYS000058, NYS000072, NYS000075, NYS000099 through NYS000103 and 16 NYS000111. Do you recognize these documents?
17 A. Yes. These are true and correct copies of the 18 documents that I referred to, used, and/or relied upon in 19 preparing my prior declaration in this proceeding and this 20 testimony. In some cases where the document was extremely long 21 and only a small portion is relevant to my testimony, an excerpt 22
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter J. Lanzalotta Contention NYS-37 5
of the document is provided. If it is only an excerpt that is 1
noted on the first page of the Exhibit.
2 Q. What is the source of those materials?
3 A. Many are documents prepared by government agencies, 4
peer reviewed articles, or documents prepared by Entergy or the 5
utility industry.
6 Q. How do these documents relate to the work that you do 7
as an expert in forming opinions such as those contained in this 8
testimony?
9 A. These documents represent the type of information that 10 persons within my field of expertise reasonably rely upon in 11 forming opinions of the type offered in this testimony.
12 Q.
Please summarize your testimony.
13 A.
The FSEIS provides little or no useful information on 14 whether or to what extent the capabilities of New York States 15 existing electric transmission system and related facilities 16 will support or limit the various alternatives discussed in 17 Section 8 of the FSEIS and thus what will occur if Indian Point 18 is not relicensed. The FSEIS uses outdated assumptions 19 regarding the availability of transmission system capacity 20 additions from new transmission projects that exaggerate the 21 difficulties of siting, getting approvals, and constructing such 22 new transmission projects, and wholly ignores significant 23
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter J. Lanzalotta Contention NYS-37 6
developments in New York States electricity markets, energy 1
policies, and transmission grid since 2006. These result in the 2
FSEIS referring to the potential transmission capacity from a 3
project that has been halted, such as the New York Regional 4
Interconnect (NYRI), with large presumptive environmental 5
impacts, and ignoring other potential sources of transmission 6
capacity, potentially with fewer environmental impacts, that are 7
successfully progressing, such as the Hudson Transmission 8
Partners (HTP) transmission line into NYC. The FSEIS raises 9
the possibility of transmission capacity limitations, which 10 could constrain the transmission systems ability to move 11 replacement power into the NYC area if Indian Point is not 12 relicensed, but then assumes, with no meaningful analysis of New 13 York States current electricity transmission grid system, that 14 any such limitations will be relieved by the construction of 15 large infrastructure projects or by locating the alternatives 16 near to downstate loads. Thus, the FSEISs discussion of the 17 alleged problems that would arise if Indian Point were not 18 relicensed is not supported by a current, site-specific, factual 19 analysis of the ability of the transmission grid to support any 20 or all of the measures that have occurred or are likely to occur 21 if Indian Point is not relicensed.
22
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter J. Lanzalotta Contention NYS-37 7
Q.
You state that the FSEIS uses outdated assumptions 1
regarding the availability of transmission system capacity 2
additions from new transmission projects that wholly ignore 3
significant developments in New York States electricity 4
markets, energy policies, and transmission grid in recent years.
5 Please discuss.
6 A.
The FSEIS refers to various transmission projects to 7
add electric transmission capacity into the NYC area, some of 8
which are not proceeding and are, therefore, not relevant to 9
Indian Point at all, and it fails to address other projects that 10 will add transmission capacity into NYC. For example, the FSEIS 11 incorrectly asserts that NYRI is still seeking approval to build 12 a 190 mile transmission line from upstate New York to the lower 13 Hudson Valley as illustrative of the potential for new 14 transmission in congested areas of New York State, FSEIS § 15 8.3.2. p.8-40, lines 24-25, even though NYRI formally withdrew 16 its application in 2009. See Exh.NYS000075: April 2009 NYS PSC 17 Case Correspondence.
18 The FSEIS appears to ignore the approval of the Hudson 19 Transmission Partner Line. Exh.NYS000072: Sept. 15, 2010 NYS 20 PSC Order. This 345 kV line will connect Pennsylvania, New 21 Jersey, Maryland grid (PJM) to midtown Manhattan, running 22 between the Bergen Substation in Ridgefield, New Jersey and 23
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter J. Lanzalotta Contention NYS-37 8
terminating at Consolidated Edison substations. It is expected 1
to initially provide 320 MW of firm capacity from PJM to New 2
York City, with the potential to provide 660 MW of firm capacity 3
if necessary investments are made to upgrade PJM facilities. In 4
the Order approving this line, the New York State Public Service 5
Commission (NY PSC) stated that 6
System reliability is enhanced by the HTP facility...
7 Examined systematically, there are two real possibilities 8
in the future that warrant our careful consideration in 9
rendering a decision to certificate the HTP facility.
10
[One] serious possibility involves the Indian Point nuclear 11 power facilities located in Westchester. A segment of the 12 States population remains deeply concerned about the 13 safety of having a nuclear facility as close as this one is 14 to a major metropolitan area. Indeed, as a party in the 15 Nuclear Regulatory Commissions relicensing proceeding for 16 the Indian Point facilities, the State has opposed the 17 extension of the plants operating licenses. Also, 18 environmentalists remain active in pursuing updates and 19 modifications to this facility to lessen its current 20 impacts on the environment. We find that the HTP facility 21 will assist in maintaining system reliability in the event 22 that one or both of the Indian Point plants close.
23
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter J. Lanzalotta Contention NYS-37 9
Exh.NYS000111: Sept. 15, 2010 NYS PSC Order, p. 44 1
(emphasis added).
2 Q.
Are there any transmission-related developments that 3
are potentially related to the continued operation of Indian 4
Point that are not addressed in the FSEIS?
5 A.
Yes. In addition to those already discussed, there 6
are a number of additional transmission-related developments 7
that are relevant to the subject of potential impacts of license 8
denial that are not addressed in the FSEIS. These developments 9
include additional transmission capacity either has been 10 installed, is in the process of being installed, or has been 11 approved to be installed in the New York Control Area, Zones H, 12 I, J, or K. For example, the FSEIS has failed to consider the 13 following recent transmission system developments: (1) The 14 Neptune Cable links the Long Island to New Jersey and energy 15 sources in the PJM area. It provides up to 660 megawatts of 16 transmission capacity into Long Island (Zone K); (2) In 17 addition, trans-Hudson and trans-Arthur Kill connections and 18 interconnection upgrades are in the New York ISO interconnection 19 queue. These projects currently include the Brookfield Power 20 U.S. Harbor Cable Project II (200 MW), and the East Coast Power 21 LLC interconnection upgrade (300 MW; Linden, Staten Island); (3) 22 a new transmission link between New York and New Jersey has been 23
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter J. Lanzalotta Contention NYS-37 10 proposed. The 550 MW Harbor Cable Project and Generating 1
Portfolio would provide a full controllable transmission pathway 2
from generating sources in New Jersey to New York City.
3 The 2005 Levitan & Associates study, upon which NRC Staff 4
relies throughout the FSEIS, identified three possible 5
transmission alternatives to the retirement of Indian Point 6
Units 2 and 3. The first would include the construction of two 7
physically separate 500 kV circuits between the Capitol District 8
around Albany to the downstate grid in New York City. Each of 9
the circuits would be controllable and would be able to transmit 10 1,000 MW of power for a total of 2,000 MW; Exh. NYS000056: 2005 11 Levitan Study at pp. 35-36. The second transmission alternative 12 identified by Levitan & Associates would be to upgrade the 13 existing 345 kV New Scotland-Leeds circuit and the 345 kV Leeds-14 Pleasant Valley circuit, and construct a new 345 kV line from 15 New Scotland to Pleasant Valley. This would increase the 16 Upstate New York (UPNY) - South End New York (SENY) 17 interface transfer capability by approximately 600 MW. Id at pp.
18 36-37. The third transmission alternative would be to convert 19 the existing 345 kV Marcy-New Scotland circuit to a double 20 circuit and to rebuild the New Scotland station to a breaker-21 and-a-half design. This would increase the Central-East 22 transfer capability by approximately 650 MW and increase the 23
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter J. Lanzalotta Contention NYS-37 11 transmission capability into New York City by approximately 450 1
MW. Id. at p. 37.
2 Levitan & Associates also identified a fourth transmission 3
alternative that would upgrade the interconnections between New 4
York and the PJM grid system by re-conductoring the existing 5
transmission paths from Ramapo to Buchanan and/or constructing a 6
new dedicated (overhead or underground) transmission line from 7
Ramapo to Buchanan. However, Levitan & Associates were unsure 8
of the amount by which this alternative would increase the Total 9
East transfer capability into New York State.
10 The FSEIS ignored all of the above developments, including 11 those mentioned in the 2005 Levitan Report upon which it relied, 12 as well as ignoring developments since 2006 that drastically 13 alter the transmission picture and focused instead on large 14 scale illustrative projects with large presumed environmental 15 impacts, but with little or no relevance to Indian Point, some 16 of which have been cancelled.
17 Q.
What is the relevance of these developments and 18 projects to the issue of replacement power and/or Staffs 19 assumptions regarding purchased electricity?
20 A.
Developments and projects such as these provide i) 21 potential sources of electric power to replace Indian Point, and 22 ii) additions to current transmission capacity potentially 23
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter J. Lanzalotta Contention NYS-37 12 useful in helping allow electric power generated elsewhere to be 1
used to replace Indian Point.
2 Q.
You state that the FSEISs discussion of the costs and 3
benefits of the no-action alternative is not supported by a 4
current, site-specific, factual analysis of the ability of the 5
transmission grid to support any or all of the power sources 6
that can be used if Indian Point is not relicensed. Please 7
discuss.
8 A.
The shortcomings of the FSEIS analysis of the need for 9
and the availability of energy supply if Indian Point is not 10 relicensed is demonstrated in a number of ways. For example, 11 the FSEIS fails to acknowledge that electric transmission system 12 adequacy planning addresses the interplay between forecasted 13 peak load, transmission system capacity, electric generation 14 capacity and location, and demand response peak load reduction.
15 There are a number of questions as to the level of projected 16 peak load demand that should be considered when the assessing 17 the viability or availability of replacement capacity for Indian 18 Points generation if the units are not relicensed.
19 After looking at projected electric load growth, as well as 20 at existing and proposed generating resources, the NYISOs 2009 21 Comprehensive Review of Resource Adequacy found that the 22 anticipated capacity supply (42,536 MW) will exceed the 23
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter J. Lanzalotta Contention NYS-37 13 forecasted peak load (34,309 MW) (this includes the required 1
reserve margin of 18% for the 2010-2011 Capability Year) by 2
2,051 MW in 2014. Exh. NYS000099: 2010 NYISO NYCA Resource 3
Adequacy at p. 1. According to the NYISO, there were three 4
reasons for this: reductions in peak load due to the recession 5
and to the New York Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standards 6
(EEPS), an increase in generation additions and Special Case 7
Resources (customer pledges to cut energy usage on demand), and 8
fewer planned generator retirements. Id.
9 However, in calculating this 2,051 MW capacity surplus in 10 2014, the NYISO used the original 2009 load and capacity data 11 (Gold Book) forecast. If the revised 2009 Gold Book forecast 12 is used, instead, as it should be, the anticipated capacity 13 supply of 42,536 MW will exceed the forecasted peak load of 14 33,594 MW in 2014 by a total of 8,942 MW, or 2,895 MW more than 15 the required 18 percent reserve margin.
16 Moreover, the revised 2009 Gold Book forecast assumes that 17 only a portion of the 15x15 energy efficiency goal will be 18 achieved. Exh. NYS000058: 2010 NYISO RNA Report at p. 9. A 19 more recent NYISO forecast in its 2010 Reliability Needs 20 Assessment Final Report, issued in September 2010, shows what 21 the projected impact would be of achieving 100 percent of the 22 15 by 15 energy efficiency goal by 2015. As a consequence, 23
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter J. Lanzalotta Contention NYS-37 14 this 2010 RNA 15x15 forecast projects significantly lower peak 1
demands for New York State.
2 Lastly, NYISO Demand Response programs, which enlist 3
electricity customers to conserve power in response to system 4
conditions, are effectively reducing the need for additional 5
capacity. One of the NYISO Demand Response programs, called 6
Special Case Resources, currently has registrations of 2,251 MW 7
for 2010, an increase of 315 MW from the previous year. Exh.
8 NYS000100: 2010 NYISO Gold Book at p. 6.
9 Staffs failure to seriously consider information about New 10 Yorks energy conservation sector from other credible sources is 11 also fatal to the FSEISs analysis of New Yorks energy markets 12 and infrastructure. The FSEIS fails to take into account that 13 energy efficiency and energy conservation programs (collectively 14 referred to as demand-side management or DSM) have become a 15 fully integrated, and critical element of New York States 16 energy market, energy planning mechanisms, and energy 17 infrastructure. Thus, the FSEISs conclusion that new capital 18 investments will be needed to address reliability and 19 transmission constraints in a no-action scenario, FSEIS § 9.1.2.
20 (Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments), is 21 contrary to more recent developments in the States transmission 22 planning process, which gives equal weight to generation, 23
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter J. Lanzalotta Contention NYS-37 15 transmission, and DSM in the planning of transmission and energy 1
services. As a result of the above, the FSEIS overstates the 2
potential economic costs of the no-action scenario.
3 Q.
Does the FSEIS raise concerns about the stability of 4
the downstates transmission grid as a potential constraint on 5
replacement power?
6 A.
Yes it does.
7 Q.
Please describe how the FSEIS deals with transmission 8
grid stability as a constraint to replacement capacity in the 9
event that the Indian Point generating units are shut down.
10 A.
The FSEIS raises the possibility of transmission grid 11 stability problems caused by a lack of reactive power if the 12 Indian Point generating units are shut down, to suggest the 13 alleged indispensability of the Indian Point units, but fails to 14 study this possibility and potential remedies, and nonetheless 15 bases its analysis on one potential remedy, the possibility of 16 operating the IP generators as synchronous condensers, to the 17 exclusion of other remedies, such as capacitors, static var 18 compensators (SVCs), and static synchronous compensators 19 (STATCOMs). The FSEIS first addresses reactive power at 8-22, 20 and states:
21 This SEIS does not assess the specifics of the need 22 for corrections to reactive power that would be 23
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter J. Lanzalotta Contention NYS-37 16 required to support generation alternatives if Indian 1
Point Units 2 and Indian Point Units 3 were shut down.
2 Reactive power (i.e., power stored in magnetic fields 3
throughout the power grid) is essential for the smooth 4
operation of the transmission grid because it helps 5
hold the voltage to desired levels. It may be 6
possible to use the existing generators at IP2 and IP3 7
as a source of reactive power even if IP2 and IP3 are 8
shut down. As synchronous condensers, the 9
generators could add reactive power (but not real 10 power) to the transmission system (National Research 11 Council 2006). Because it is assumed that the 12 generators would be operated as synchronous condensers 13 only until the reactive power could be supported by 14 new, real replacement power generation, their 15 operation is not considered as a significant 16 contributor to the impacts described below. Further, 17 as a shut-down nuclear power plant may not be 18 decommissioned for many years after shutdown, the 19 continued operation of IP2 and IP3 generators would 20 not necessarily slow or impede decommissioning 21 activities.
22 FSEIS, at p. 8-22.
23
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter J. Lanzalotta Contention NYS-37 17 The FSEIS fails to evaluate the impact of IP closure on 1
reactive power supplies while admitting that the generator 2
portion of the IP units could be operated separately, after 3
retirement of the nuclear reactor and steam generation portions 4
of IP, as synchronous condensers. The FSEIS further opines 5
that:
6 Issues of electrical grid stability that may result 7
from an Indian Point shutdown would be addressed by 8
the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO).
9 NYISO has indicated that Indian Point plays an 10 important role in electric reliability and supply in 11 downstate New York, and has also indicated a potential 12 need for Indian Points generators to continue 13 operating as synchronous condensers in the event that 14 the reactors themselves shut down. (A synchronous 15 condenser is required to provide the necessary 16 reactive power loading for electric grid operation.)
17 FSEIS, Appendix A, p. A-151.
18 The above NRC response to a public comment (FSEIS, Appendix 19 A, p. A-151) states that a synchronous condenser is required to 20 provide reactive power needed by the electric grid and again 21 suggests the alleged indispensability of the Indian Point units.
22 Here again, the FSEIS fails to acknowledge that electric 23
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter J. Lanzalotta Contention NYS-37 18 transmission system adequacy planning addresses the interplay 1
between forecasted peak load, transmission system capacity, 2
electric generation capacity and location, and demand response 3
peak load reduction.
4 In fact, as noted above, synchronous condensers are only 5
one means of supplying reactive power to the electric system.
6 Other reactive power sources include various capacitors, SVCs 7
(static var compensators), STATCOMS (static synchronous 8
compensators), and in-service electric generating units. These 9
various options cover a wide range of potential costs, space 10 requirements, lead-time requirements, and operating flexibility 11 and capabilities.
12 Moreover, I have reviewed NYISOs most recent Reliability 13 Needs Assessment and Comprehensive Reliability Planning 14 documents and find no indication that NYISO has indicated a 15 potential need for Indian Points generators to operate as 16 synchronous condensers in the event that the reactors themselves 17 are shut down.
18 In response to issues of electrical grid stability issues 19 related to the retirement of one or both of the Indian Point 20 units, the New York ISO is required to issue a timely call for 21 market based and regulated backstop solutions to ensure the 22 continued, safe, reliable operation of the New Yorks electrical 23
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter J. Lanzalotta Contention NYS-37 19 transmission grid. The call for market based and regulated 1
backstop solutions will involve participation from market 2
participants, based on the forecasted load demands, current 3
transmission capacity, generation capacity, and demand side 4
management programs available at the time the units are 5
scheduled to retire. Generation, transmission, and demand 6
response proposals can be considered in this process as 7
legitimate solutions to meet these needs. Therefore, it is 8
premature for the FSEIS to assume that the Indian Point units 9
will be used as synchronous condensers in the event they are 10 retired from generation, or that it is necessary to run the 11 Indian Point units as synchronous condensers in order to support 12 replacement capacity in the event the units are not relicensed.
13 Simply put, the Indian Point units are not indispensible from 14 the perspective of grid stability; in the event the units are 15 retired, NYISO is required to implement market based and/or 16 regulated backstop solutions to ensure grid stability. NYISOs 17 response is likely to involve a mixture of generation, 18 transmission enhancements, and/or demand response measures 19 commensurate with the actual need, if any, for additional grid 20 support at the time the Indian Point Unit 3 retires in 2015.
21
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter J. Lanzalotta Contention NYS-37 20 Q.
Please discuss the implications of the fact that the 1
FSEIS does not address that the Indian Point units will retire 2
18 months apart and how the FSEIS addresses that fact.
3 A.
The FSEIS does not present any analysis of the 4
separate retirements of Indian Point 2 in 2013 and of Indian 5
Point 3 in 2015, but rather focuses on their combined 6
retirements as if a single event. This obscures the fact that 7
no reliability concerns have been explicitly associated with the 8
retirement of Indian Point 2 (which retires in 2013).
9 Q.
Do you have any comment as to whether or not Staff is 10 accurate when they rely on a 2006 Department of Energy study to 11 conclude that Zones H, I, J, and K are critical congestion 12 areas and that this situation will continue indefinitely? FSEIS 13
§ 8.3, p. 8-27.
14 A.
Yes. Reliance on the 2006 DOE Congestion Study is 15 problematic as the 2006 DOE Congestion Study and subsequent 16 National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor (NIETC) 17 designations have since been vacated because DOE failed to 18 properly consult with the affected States in conducting the 19 Congestion Study and failed to comply with the requirements of 20 NEPA. Exh. NYS000101: Wilderness Society et al. U.S. Department 21 of Energy (9th Cir. No. 08-71074) (Failure to consult was not 22 harmless error under the APA). I note that the State of New 23
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter J. Lanzalotta Contention NYS-37 21 York has previously objected to NRC Staffs reliance on this 1
study in Contention 33 because Staff failed to acknowledge that 2
this DOE decision was the subject of judicial challenge. See 3
Contention NYS-9-33 at ¶ 15 (ML090690303). While it is clear 4
that the transmission system in and around NYC is heavily loaded 5
under certain circumstances, it is by no means clear that these 6
circumstances reflect system conditions that are expected to 7
continue unabated into the future.
8 Based on the belief that Zones H, I, J, and K are critical 9
congestion areas Staff erroneously concluded that replacing 10 Indian Points capacity with purchased electrical power would 11 require 2,100 MW of new transmission construction. In fact, as 12 discussed earlier, lowered demand load forecasts and recent 13 enhancements to New Yorks transmission grid, including the 14 recently approved HTP line, suggest that purchased electrical 15 power could replace all of Indian Points generating capacity 16 without the construction of an additional 2,100 MW of 17 transmission line capacity.
18 Q.
Do you have any concluding remarks?
19 A.
Yes. The FSEISs conclusion that substantial new 20 capital investments will be needed to address reliability and 21 transmission constraints in the event the Indian Point Units are 22 retired ignores the developing realities of utility planning, 23
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter J. Lanzalotta Contention NYS-37 22 which give equal weight to generation, transmission, and demand-1 side management. The FSEIS ignores substantial developments in 2
the downstate market that reduce the need to implement 3
corrective measures if the units are retired. As a result, it 4
substantially overstates the potential constraints on 5
replacement power, and overstates the potential economic costs 6
of a retirement scenario.
7 Q.
Does this conclude your testimony?
8 A.
Yes.
9 I have reviewed all the exhibits referenced herein. True 10 and accurate copies are attached.
11