ML12276A479

Entergy Pre-Filed Evidentiary Hearing Exhibit ENT000585, NYISO, 2012 Reliability Need Assessment (Sept. 18, 2012)

ML12276A479
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	08/08/2012
From:	Entergy Nuclear Operations, ISO New England Inc
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 23566, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Download: ML12276A479 (97)

Text

ENT000585 Submitted: October 2, 2012 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment New York Independent System Operator FINAL DRAFT REPORT August 8, 2012

Caution and Disclaimer The contents of these materials are for information purposes and are provided as is without representation or warranty of any kind, including without limitation, accuracy, completeness or fitness for any particular purposes. The New York Independent System Operator assumes no responsibility to the reader or any other party for the consequences of any errors or omissions.

The NYISO may revise these materials at any time in its sole discretion without notice to the reader.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment i August 2012

Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................6

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 10

2. Summary of Prior CRPs ............................................................................................ 12

3. RNA Base Case Assumptions, Drivers and Methodology ...................................... 15

3.1. Annual Energy and Summer Peak Demand Forecasts ..................................... 16

3.2. Forecast of Special Case Resources ................................................................ 21

3.3. Resource Additions ........................................................................................... 21

3.4. Local Transmission Plans ................................................................................. 21

3.5. Resource Retirements ...................................................................................... 24

3.6. Base Case Peak Load and Resource Ratios .................................................... 24

3.7. Methodology for the Determination of Needs .................................................... 26

4. Reliability Needs Assessment .................................................................................. 28

4.1. Overview ........................................................................................................... 28

4.2. Reliability Needs for Base Case ........................................................................ 28

4.2.1. Transmission Security Assessment ............................................................... 28

4.2.2. Short Circuit Assessment............................................................................... 32

4.2.3 Transmission and Resource Adequacy Assessment ..................................... 33

4.2.4 System Stability Assessment .............................................................................. 36

4.2.5 Reliability Needs Summary ................................................................................. 36

4.3. Scenarios .......................................................................................................... 40

4.3.1 Forecast Scenarios ........................................................................................ 41

4.3.3 Zonal Capacity at Risk ........................................................................................ 44

4.3.4 All Coal Generation Retirement ..................................................................... 45

5. Impacts of Environmental Program Initiatives ........................................................ 46

5.1. Environmental Regulations ............................................................................... 46

5.1.1 Selection of Major Environmental Program Initiatives .................................... 48

5.1.2 Reliability Impact Assessment Methodology .................................................. 50

5.2. Summary of Impact Assessment ...................................................................... 56

6. Observations and Recommendations ...................................................................... 57

7. Historic Congestion ................................................................................................... 58

Appendix A - Reliability Needs Assessment Glossary .................................................. A-1

Appendix B - The Reliability Planning Process ............................................................. B-1

Appendix C - Load and Energy Forecast 2013-2022 .................................................... C-1

Appendix D - Transmission System Security and Resource Adequacy Assessment ... D-1

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment ii August 2012

Table of Tables Table 2-1: Current Status of Tracked Market-Based Solutions & TOs Plans in the 2008 CRP* ............... 13

Table 2-2: Proposed New Generation per 2012 Gold Book ....................................................................... 14

Table 2-3: Class Year 2011 and 2012 New Generation Projects ............................................................... 14

Table 3-1: 2012 RNA Forecast and Scenarios ........................................................................................... 18

Table 3-2: Comparison of 2010 & 2012 RNA Base Case Forecasts .......................................................... 19

Table 3-3: Unit Additions ............................................................................................................................. 21

Table 3-4: Firm Transmission Plans included in 2012 RNA Base Case (from 2012 Gold Book) ............... 22

Table 3-5: Retired and Proposed Units Retirements .................................................................................. 24

Table 3-6: NYCA Peak Load and Resource Ratios 2013 through 2022 .................................................... 25

Table 3-7: 2010 RNA to 2012 RNA Load and Capacity Comparison ......................................................... 25

Table 4-1: 2012 RNA Transmission Security Violations ............................................................................. 30

Table 4-2: 2012 RNA Over-duty Breaker Summary Table ......................................................................... 33

Table 4-3: Transmission System Thermal Transfer Limits for Key Interfaces in MW................................. 34

Table 4-4: Transmission System Voltage Transfer Limits for Key Interfaces in MW.................................. 34

Table 4-5: Transmission System Base Case Transfer Limits for Key Interfaces in MW ............................ 34

Table 4-6: NYCA LOLE for the 2012 RNA Study Base Case* ................................................................... 35

Table 4-7: External Area LOLE for the 2012 RNA Study Base Case ......................................................... 35

Table 4-8: NYCA LOLE from the 2010 RNA Study Base Case .................................................................. 35

Table 4-9: Summary of the LOLE Results - Base, Thermal and Free Flowing Sensitivities ................... 36

Table 4-10: Summary of Transmission Security Violations ........................................................................ 37

Table 4-11: Compensatory MW Additions .................................................................................................. 38

Table 4-12: Compensatory MW Additions for 2013 through 2022 ............................................................. 39

Table 4-13: Indian Point Plant Retirement LOLE Results........................................................................... 43

Table 4-14: Base Case and Scenario Case LOLEs ................................................................................... 45

Table 5-1: New York Sate Emission Allocations under the Cross State Air Pollution Rule ........................ 55

Table 5-2: Summary of NYCA Impact Assessment .................................................................................... 56

Table C-1: Summary of Econometric & Electric System Growth Rates - Actual & Forecast ................... C-1

Table C-2: Historic Energy and Seasonal Peak Demand - Actual and Weather-Normalized .................. C-2

Table C-3: Annual Energy and Summer Peak Demand - Actual & Forecast ........................................... C-3

Table C-4: Regional Economic Growth Rates of Key Economic Indicators ............................................. C-7

Table C-5: Annual Energy by Zone - Actual & Forecast (GWh) ............................................................ C-10

Table C-6: Summer Coincident Peak Demand by Zone - Actual & Forecast (MW) .............................. C-11

Table C-7: Winter Coincident Peak Demand by Zone - Actual & Forecast (MW) ................................. C-12

Table D-1: Emergency Thermal Transfer Limits ....................................................................................... D-2

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment iii August 2012

Table D-2: 2012 RNA Fault Current Analysis Summary Table................................................................. D-6

Table D-3: IBA for 2012 RNA Study ......................................................................................................... D-9

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment iv August 2012

Table of Figures Figure 3-1(a): 2012 Base Case Forecast and Scenarios - Annual Energy................................................ 20

Figure 3-1(b): 2012 Base Case Forecast and Scenarios - Summer Peak Demand .................................. 20

Figure 5-1: New York Power Plant Emissions 1999-2011 .......................................................................... 46

Figure 5-2: New York Power Plant Heat Rates 1999-2011 ........................................................................ 47

Figure 5-3: MATS NYCA Gas/Oil Capacity................................................................................................. 53

Figure B-1: NYISO Reliability Planning Process....................................................................................... B-4

Figure B-2: Economic Planning Process .................................................................................................. B-5

Figure C-1: Annual Employment Growth Rates ........................................................................................ C-4

Figure C-2: Annual Change in Population by Region ............................................................................... C-5

Figure C-3: Annual Growth Rates of Income, Real Domestic Output and Employment .......................... C-6

Figure C-4: Zonal Energy Forecast Growth Rates - 2012 to 2022 ........................................................... C-9

Figure C-5: Zonal Summer Peak Demand Forecast Growth Rates - 2012 to 2022 ................................. C-9

Figure D-1: Development of the 2012 MARS Topology ........................................................................... D-4

Figure D-2: 2012 PJM-SENY MARS Model.............................................................................................. D-5

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment v August 2012

Executive Summary The 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment (RNA) provides a long-range reliability assessment of both resource adequacy and transmission security of the New York bulk power system conducted over a ten-year Study Period (2013-2022). The RNA evaluates the New York Bulk Power Transmission Facilities to determine if Reliability Criteria are not met, and identifies Reliability Needs if they are not met. Solutions will be requested to mitigate any identified needs and maintain system reliability throughout the Study Period.

Reliability Needs were not identified in the 2009 and 2010 RNAs due to increased generation resources and the reduced load forecast resulting from the economic recession. Increased participation in the NYISOs demand response program also contributed to a reliable system.

The system represented in the 2012 RNA (Base Case) includes existing and certain eligible planned generation and transmission facilities which are currently under construction. The Base Case model includes all existing generation facilities that did not file their intention to retire or mothball with the NYSPSC prior to April 15, 2012. Several existing generation resources, totaling 1,792 MW, did submit a notice prior to April 15, 2012 of their intent to retire or mothball and these units were removed from the RNA Base Case.

Reliability Needs A Reliability Need is defined as a potential violation of Reliability Criteria which requires transmission security and resource adequacy assessments. Transmission security is the ability of the power system to withstand disturbances such as electric short circuits or unanticipated loss of system elements. Resource adequacy is the ability of the electric system to supply the aggregate electrical demand and energy requirements at all times, taking into account scheduled and unscheduled outages of system elements. This RNA identifies Reliability Needs beginning in 2013 based on transmission security needs, and by 2020 based on resource adequacy needs.

Transmission Security: The NYISO has identified potential transmission security violations on BPTF (bulk power transmission facilities) throughout the study period.

Some violations occur as early as 2013 as the result of the additions made in late 2010 to the NYISOs BPTF list rather than due to any significant system changes since the 2010 RNA. Because Reliability Needs arise in Zones B, C, and G within the first five years of the study period (2013-2017) as a result of identified transmission security violations, the TOs in those zones must provide Updated Local Transmission Plans or detailed Regulated Backstop Solutions to address these violations. The Responsible TOs are National Grid, RGE, and Orange & Rockland.

The study also found a transmission security violation in 2022 in Zone F. However the violation could be resolved by solution(s) that respond to the resource adequacy deficiencies identified for 2020 - 2022.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 6 August 2012

It is also expected that National Grid will present an updated Local Transmission Plan (LTP) for Zone A to address underlying local system transmission security issues that were observed by National Grid in its studies. The NYISO, when developing the RNA Base Case, modeled two 250 MW units as a generic solution in the Base Case which resolved the local system issues and no bulk system issues were observed. The modeling of the generic solutions is provided for in the CRPP Manual and the size of the blocks is consistent with the size used in other planning studies. The NYISO expects that National Grids updates to its LTP will resolve the underlying local issues, which would leave no corresponding Bulk Power Transmission issues in Zone A. In the absence of such LTP updates in time for issuance of the 2012 Comprehensive Reliability Plan, the NYISO may identify Reliability Needs on the Bulk Power Transmission Facilities in Zone A, for which market based and regulated solutions will be requested. If an imminent threat to reliability is found, the NYISO will consult with the New York Department of Public Service and request gap solutions to be provided.

Resource Adequacy: The 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment for the New York State Bulk Power System indicates that the Bulk Power Transmission Facilities as modeled violates the 0.1 days per year reliability criterion starting in 2020 and extending through 2022. The Reliability Needs identified for resource adequacy in 2020 through 2022 can be satisfied through the addition of resources in the form of generic compensatory MWs in Zones G through K below the UPNY/SENY interface. Because the NYISO identifies a resource adequacy need in 2020 in Zones G through K, the TOs in these Zones are designated as Responsible TOs for purposes of proposing Regulated Backstop Solutions for the second five years of the ten-year planning period (2018-2022) and presenting updated LTPs as applicable. The Responsible TOs are Orange & Rockland, Central Hudson, New York State Electric and Gas, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (ConEdison), and LIPA. Although NYISO does not designate NYPA as a Responsible TO, the NYISO expects that NYPA will work with the other TOs on resolving the identified needs on a voluntary basis.

There are several reasons this years RNA found Reliability Needs related to resource adequacy by 2020 while the 2010 RNA did not:

1. Generation Capacity - Generation modeled for 2020 is about 1,000 MW less;

2. Load Forecast - The baseline load forecast for 2020 is slightly (200 MW) higher; and

3. Special Case Resources (SCRs) - projections for 2020 are about 100 MW less.

Scenario Analyses The NYISO has conducted scenario analyses in order to test the robustness of the Base Case and the corresponding needs assessment studies. Scenarios are variations on key assumptions in the RNA Base Case to assess the impact of possible changes in circumstances that could impact the NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 7 August 2012

system reliability. In some scenarios, potential violations of Reliability Criteria were identified and in others, deficiencies may be resolved; however, in accordance with Attachment Y of the OATT, the results of a scenario cannot be used to determine additional Reliability Needs for which solutions must be sought. The findings under the scenario conditions are:

1. The High Load (Econometric) Forecast Scenario reveals that reliability violations would occur as soon as 2017 at the higher peak load levels which do not account for the projected energy efficiency reductions included in the Base Case.

2. The Low Load (15 x 15 Achievement) Scenario demonstrates that LOLE levels would not exceed 0.1 by 2022 if the State energy efficiency goals are fully met.

3. Reliability violations would occur in 2016 if the Indian Point Plant were to be retired at the latter of the two units current license expiration dates using the Base Case load forecast assumptions. In addition to the LOLE violations, transmission analysis demonstrated thermal violations per applicable Reliability Criteria. Under stress conditions, the voltage performance on the system without Indian Point would be degraded. To relieve the transmission security violations, load relief measures would be required for Zones G through K.

4. The Zonal Capacity at Risk Scenario looked at how much capacity could be removed from downstate Zones J and K, lower-Hudson Valley Zones G-H-I, and upstate Zones A through F while maintaining the LOLE requirement. The study did not attempt to assess a comprehensive set of potential scenarios that might arise from specific unit retirements. In all zones, transmission security analyses would need to be performed to determine the precise reliability impact and to test the impact from specific unit retirements to the transmission system operations. This can be particularly important around congested interfaces. The analysis considered 2017 and 2022. The results showed that in 2017 it may be possible to remove approximately 750 MW from Zone J, or 500 MW from Zone K, or 750 MW from the combined Zones of G-H-I, without violating the resource adequacy criterion, but not simultaneously from all these Zones. For the combined Zones A-F, removal of up to 3,000 MW of capacity would not cause a resource adequacy violation. However the reliability of the transmission system and the transmission systems transfer capability were not studied under this scenario. For 2022, the Base Case showed an LOLE violation that would require 750 MW in compensatory MW in Southeast New York (SENY). The scenario modeled the addition of 750 MW in Zone J and then determined that between 500 and 750 MW could be removed from combined Zones A-F without violating the resource adequacy criterion.

5. The Coal Plant Retirement Scenario analyzed resource adequacy without any of the existing coal-fired generating units by the end of 2015. The results showed that the year of need (showing an LOLE value greater than 0.1) would be 2019, which is one year earlier than the base case results.

In summary, the NYISO has identified multiple Reliability Needs during the ten year RNA study period (2013-2022), assuming that all modeled transmission and generation facilities, including Indian Point, remain in service in New York from 2013 through 2022. Therefore, requests for market based and regulated solutions to address Reliability Needs will be issued by NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 8 August 2012

the NYISO as the first step in the development of the 2012 Comprehensive Reliability Plan. The NYISO, in accordance with Attachment Y of the OATT, will evaluate the solutions which are received and will issue a 2012 CRP Report as required. Moreover, the NYISO will look for updates to the National Grid LTP concerning Zone A in preparing its Comprehensive Reliability Plan.

The NYISO will continue monitoring and evaluating the progress of new market based projects interconnecting to the bulk power system, the development and installation of local transmission facilities, the status of mothballed facilities, the continued implementation of State energy efficiency programs, participation in the NYISO demand response programs, and the impact of new and proposed environmental regulations on the existing generation fleet. This monitoring is an essential component of NYISOs reliability planning processes and is key to the determinations that will be made in the CRP. Should the NYISO determine that conditions have changed during its preparation of the CRP or later in its planning cycle, it will determine whether market-based solutions that are currently progressing are sufficient to meet the resource adequacy and transmission security needs of the New York power grid. New capacity resources which are under development may further improve and help maintain the reliability of the bulk power system if they become operational. Similarly, system changes such as new, unanticipated retirements, could result in future Reliability Criteria violations and could generate future Reliability Needs depending on their timing and location. The NYISO will address any newly identified Reliability Need and may, if necessary, issue a request for gap solutions.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 9 August 2012

1. Introduction The Reliability Needs Assessment (RNA) is developed by the NYISO in conjunction with Market Participants and all interested parties as its first step in the Comprehensive System Planning Process (CSPP). It is the foundation study used in the development of the NYISOs Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP). The RNA is performed to evaluate electric system reliability, for both transmission security and resource adequacy, over a ten year study period. If the RNA identifies any violation of Reliability Criteria for Bulk Power Transmission Facilities (BPTF) the NYISO will report a Reliability Need, quantified by an amount of compensatory megawatts (MW) and/or megavars (MVAr).

In addition, after approval of the RNA, the NYISO will request market-based and alternative regulated proposals from interested parties to address the identified Reliability Needs, and designate one or more Responsible Transmission Owners to develop a Regulated Backstop Solution to address each identified need. This document reports the 2012 RNA findings for the Study Period 2013-2022.

Continued reliability of the bulk power system during the Study Period depends on a combination of additional resources provided by market-based solutions in response to market forces, by Other Developers, and by the electric utility companies which are obligated to provide reliable and adequate service to their customers. To maintain the systems long-term reliability, those resources must be readily available or in development to meet future needs. Just as important as the electric system plan is the process of planning itself. Electric system planning is an ongoing process of evaluating, monitoring and updating as conditions warrant. Along with addressing reliability, the CSPP is also designed to provide information that is both informative and of value to the New York wholesale electricity marketplace.

Proposed solutions that are submitted in response to an indentified Reliability Need are evaluated in the CRP report and must satisfy Reliability Criteria. However, the solutions submitted to the NYISO for evaluation in the CRP do not have to be in the same amounts of compensatory MW/MVAr or the locations reported in the RNA. There are various combinations of resources and transmission upgrades that could meet the needs identified in the RNA. The reconfiguration of transmission facilities and/or modifications to operating protocols identified in the solution phase could result in changes and/or modifications of the needs identified in the RNA.

This report begins with an overview of the CSPP. The 2010 Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP) and prior reliability plans are then summarized. The report continues with a summary of the 2012 RNA Base Case assumptions and methodology and reports the RNA findings for 2013 - 2022. Detailed analyses, data and results underlying the modeling assumptions are contained in the Appendices.

In addition to assessing the Base Case conditions, the RNA analyzes certain scenarios to test the robustness of the system and the conditions under which needs would arise.

Attention is given to risks that may give rise to Reliability Needs, including higher and NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 10 August 2012

lower peak loads, Indian Point Plant retirement, zonal capacity at risk, and retirement of all NYCA coal generation.

The NYISO will prepare and issue its 2012 CRP based upon this 2012 RNA report.

The NYISO will continue to monitor the progress of the market-based solutions submitted in earlier CRPs and projects that have met the NYISOs Base Case inclusion rules for this RNA. In addition, the NYISO will continue to monitor the various assumptions that are reflected or impact the RNA Base Case to assess whether these projects are progressing as expected and whether any delays or changes in system conditions are likely to adversely impact system reliability. These base case assumptions include, but are not limited to, the measured progress towards achieving the State energy efficiency program standards, the impact(s) of ongoing developments in State and Federal environmental regulatory programs on existing power plants, the status of plant re-licensing efforts, and the development of transmission owner projects identified in the Local Transmission Plans (LTPs).

For informational purposes, this RNA report also provides the marketplace with the latest historical information available for the past five years of congestion via a link to the NYISOs website. The 2012 CRP will be the foundation for the 2013 Congestion Assessment and Resource Integration Study (CARIS). A more detailed evaluation of system congestion is presented in the CARIS. The NYISO completed its second CARIS economic planning assessment of future congestion in March 2012.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 11 August 2012

2. Summary of Prior CRPs This is the sixth RNA since the NYISOs planning process was approved by FERC in December 2004. The first three RNA reports identified Reliability Needs and the first three CRPs (2005-2007) evaluated the market-based and Regulated Backstop Solutions submitted in response to those identified needs. The 2005 CRP was approved by the NYISO Board of Directors in August 2006, and identified 3,105 MW of resource additions needed through the 10-year Study Period ending in 2015. Market solutions totaled 1200 MW, with the balance provided by updated Transmission Owners (TOs) plans. The second CRP was approved by the NYISO Board of Directors in September 2007 and identified 1800 MW of resource additions needed over the 10-year Study Period ending in 2016. Proposed market solutions totaled 3007 MW, in addition to updated Transmission Owners (TOs) plans. The third CRP was approved by the NYISO Board of Directors in July 2008, and identified 2350 MW of resource additions needed through the 10-year Study period ending in 2017. Market solutions totaling 3,380 MW were submitted to meet these needs. The NYISO did not trigger any Regulated Backstop Solutions to meet previously identified Reliability Needs.

The 2009 CRP, approved by the NYISO Board of Directors in May 2009, and the 2010 CRP, approved by the NYISO Board of Directors in January 2011, indicated that the system was reliable and no solutions were necessary in response to their respective 2009 and 2010 RNAs. Therefore, market solutions were not requested. The primary reasons that no needs were identified in the 2009 and 2010 RNAs, as compared to the 2008 RNA, were: 1) an increase in generation and transmission facilities, 2) a decrease in the energy forecast due to the Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard Order (EEPS), and

3) an increase in Special Case Resources (SCRs).1 Although the 2009 and 2010 CRPs did not identify any needs, as a risk mitigation measure, the NYISO has continued to monitor the market-based solutions submitted for the 2008 CRP.

Table 2-1 presents the market solutions and TOs plans that were submitted in response to previous requests for solutions and were included in the 2008 CRP. The table also indicates that 1815 MW of solutions are either in-service or are still being reported to the NYISO as moving forward with the development of their projects.

It should be noted that there are a number of other projects in the NYISO interconnection study queue which are also moving forward through the interconnection process, but have not been offered as market solutions in this process. Some of these additional generation resources have either accepted their cost allocation as part of a Class Year Facilities Study process or are currently included in the 2011 or 2012 Class Year Facilities Studies. These projects are listed in Tables 2-2 and 2-3. Tables 2-1, 2-2, 3-3, and 3-4; report the projects that meet the RNA Base Case inclusion rules. The 1

Comparisons between the 2010 RNA and the 2012 RNA models can be found in Table 3-2 (load forecast differences) and Table 3-7 (differences in load, capacity and SCRs). Additionally the 2012 RNA models the addition of the HTP transmission line between New Jersey and Manhattan (Table 2-1) and the addition of the Marble River Wind Farms (Table 2-2).

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 12 August 2012

listings of other Class Year Projects can be found along with other non-modeled transmission and non-modeled generator re-rating projects in the 2012 Gold Book.

http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/services/planning/planning_data_reference_docu ments/2012_GoldBook.pdf Table 2-1: Current Status of Tracked Market-Based Solutions & TOs Plans in the 2008 CRP*

Included in NYISO Original In-Project Type Submitted MW Zone Current Status 2012 RNA Queue # Service Date Base Case Resource Proposals Gas Turbine 201 and CRP 2005, CRP 2007, NRG Astoria Re- 520 J June 2010 New Target June 2014 No 224 CRP 2008 Powering Empire Generation Placed in Service 69 CRP 2008 635 F Q1 2010 September 2010 Yes Project Transmission Proposals CRP 2007, CRP 2008 Back-to-Back and was an alternative 660 Q2 2011 New Target Q2 2013 HVDC, AC Line 206 PJM - J Yes regulated proposal in PJM Queue O66 Article VII approved HTP CRP 2005 under construction TOs' Plans Placed in Service ConEd M29 Project 153 CRP 2005 N/A J May 2011 Yes February 2011

• 2009 and 2010 CRPs did not generate any tracked projects NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 13 August 2012

Table 2-2: Proposed New Generation per 2012 Gold Book NAME Included in QUEUE PLATE CRIS CLASS OWNER / OPERATOR STATION UNIT ZONE DATE* SUMMER UNIT TYPE 2012 RNA POS. RATING (MW) YEAR Base Case (MW)

Completed Class Year Facilities Study 232 Bayonne Energy Center, LLC** Bayonne Energy Center J 2012/05 500.0 512.0 500.0 Dual Fuel 2009 Yes 147 NY Windpower, LLC West Hill Windfarm C 2012/09 31.5 31.5 31.5 Wind Turbines 2006 No 161 Marble River, LLC Marble River Wind Farm D 2012/10 83.0 83.0 83.0 Wind Turbines 2006 Yes 171 Marble River, LLC Marble River II Wind Farm D 2012/10 132.2 132.2 132.2 Wind Turbines 2006 Yes 197 PPM Roaring Brook, LLC / PPMR Roaring Brook Wind E 2012/12 78.0 0.0 78.0 Wind Turbines 2008 No 263 Stony Creek Wind Farm , LLC Stony Creek Wind Farm C 2012/12 94.4 88.5 94.4 Wind Turbines 2010 No 237 Allegany Wind, LLC Allegany Wind A 2013/08 72.5 0.0 72.5 Wind Turbines 2010 No 166 Cape Vincent Wind, LLC St. Lawrence Wind Farm E 2013/09 79.5 79.5 79.5 Wind Turbines 2007 No 207 BP Alternative Energy NA, Inc. Cape Vincent E 2013/09 210.0 0.0 210.0 Wind Turbines 2008 No 119 ECOGEN, LLC Prattsburgh Wind Farm C 2013/12 78.2 78.2 78.2 Wind Turbines 2003-05 No 222 Noble Ball Hill Windpark, LLC Ball Hill Windpark A 2014/Q1 90.0 90.0 90.0 Wind Turbines 2009 No

• Proposed In-Service Date is taken from NYISO interconnection queue

• • Unit became fully operational in June 2012 Table 2-3: Class Year 2011 and 2012 New Generation Projects NAME Included in QUEUE PLATE CRIS OWNER / OPERATOR STATION UNIT ZONE DATE* SUMMER UNIT TYPE 2012 RNA POS. RATING (MW)

Base Case (MW)

Class 2011 Generation Projects 349 Taylor Biomass Energy, LLC Taylor Biomass G 2012/Q4 22.5 TBD 19.0 Solid Waste No 198 New Grange Wind Farm, LLC Arkwright Summit Wind Farm A 2013/09 79.8 TBD 79.8 Wind Turbines No 169 Alabama Ledge Wind Farm, LCC Alabama Ledge Wind Farm B 2013/10 79.8 TBD 79.8 Wind Turbines No 201 NRG Energy Berrians GT J 2014/06 200.0 TBD 200.0 Combined Cycle No 224 NRG Energy, Inc. Berrians GT II J 2014/06 90.0 TBD 50.0 Combined Cycle No 310 Cricket Valley Energy Center, LLC Cricket Valley Energy Center G 2015/09 1136.0 TBD 1019.9 Combined Cycle No 251 CPV Valley, LLC CPV Valley Energy Center G 2016/05 690.6 TBD 677.6 Combined Cycle No Class 2012 Generation Projects Candidates 189 PPM Energy, Inc. Clayton Wind E 2013/10 126.0 TBD 126.0 Wind Turbines No 322 Rolling Upland Wind Farm, LLC Rolling Upland Wind E 2014/12 59.4 TBD 59.4 Wind Turbines No 26 NRG Energy, Inc. Berrians GT II J 2016/06 290.0 TBD 250.0 Combined Cycle No Other Non Class Year Generation Projects 284 Broome Energy Resources, LLC Nanticoke Landfill C 2012/12 1.6 0.0 1.6 Methane No 264 RG&E Seth Green B 2013/Q1 2.8 0.0 2.8 Hydro No 338 RG&E Brown's Race II B 2013/Q1 8.3 0.0 8.3 Hydro No 204A Duer's Patent Project, LLC Beekmantown Windfarm D 2013/06 19.5 19.5 19.5 Wind Turbines No 180A Green Power Cody Road C 2013/Q4 10.0 10.0 10.0 Wind Turbines No

• Proposed In-Service Date is taken from NYISO interconnection queue NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 14 August 2012

3. RNA Base Case Assumptions, Drivers and Methodology The NYISO has established procedures and a schedule for the collection and submission of data and for the preparation of the models used in the RNA. The NYISOs CSPP procedures are designed to allow its planning activities to be performed in an open and transparent manner and to be aligned and coordinated with the related activities of the NERC, NPCC, and NYSRC. The assumptions underlying the RNA were reviewed at the Transmission Planning Advisory Subcommittee (TPAS) and the Electric System Planning Working Group (ESPWG). The Study Period analyzed in the 2012 RNA is the 10-year period from 2013 through 2022 for both the Base Case and Scenarios.

The RNA Base Case consists of the first Five Year Base Case and the system representations for the second five years of the Study Period as required by Attachment Y of the tariff. All studies and analyses in the RNA Base Case reference a common energy forecast, which is the Baseline Forecast from the NYISO 2012 Load and Capacity Data Report, also known as the Gold Book. The Baseline Forecast is an econometric forecast with an adjustment for statewide energy efficiency programs. This forecast is the 2012 RNA Base Case forecast.

The Five Year Base Case was developed in accordance with NYISO Procedures using projections for the installation and retirement of generation resources and transmission facilities that were developed in conjunction with market participants and Transmission Owners. These are included in the Base Case beginning with the FERC 715 filing and consistent with base case inclusion screening process provided in the CRPP Manual. Further, resources that choose to participate in markets outside of New York are modeled as contracts, thus removing their available capacity for meeting resource adequacy requirements in New York.

The NYISO developed the system representation for the second five years of the Study Period by starting with the first Five Year Base Case plus:

x The most recent data from the 2012 Gold Book x The most recent versions of NYISO reliability analyses and assessments provided for or published by NERC, NPCC, NYSRC, and neighboring control areas x Information reported by neighboring control areas such as power flow data, forecasted energy, significant new or modified generation and transmission facilities, and anticipated system conditions that the NYISO determines may impact the bulk power transmission facilities (BPTF) x Market Participant input, and x Changes in the MW and MVAr components of the load model made to maintain a constant power factor.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 15 August 2012

The 2012 RNA 2013 - 2022 Base Case model of the New York bulk power system includes the following new and proposed facilities and forecasts in the Gold Book:

x TO projects on non-bulk power facilities included in the FERC 715 Cases x LTPs identified in the 2012 Gold Book as firm plans and meeting Base Case inclusion rules x Facilities that have accepted their Attachment S cost allocations and are in service or under construction as of April 1, 2012 x Facilities that have obtained a NYS PSC Certificate (or other regulatory approvals and SEQRA review) and an approved System Reliability Impact Study (SRIS) and an executed contract with a credit-worthy entity x Transmission upgrades related to any projects and facilities that are included in the RNA Base Case, as defined above x Facility re-ratings and uprates x Noticed retirements2 x The forecasted level of Special Case Resources for Summer 2012 (SCR)

Tables 3-3 and 3-4 show those new projects which meet the screening requirements for inclusion.

The NYISO develops reliability scenarios for the first five years and second five years of the Study Period pursuant to Section 31.2.2.5 of Attachment Y of the OATT.

The NYISO also conducts sensitivity analyses pursuant to Section 31.2.2.6 of Attachment Y to determine whether Reliability Needs previously identified can be mitigated through alternate system configurations or operational modes.

3.1. Annual Energy and Summer Peak Demand Forecasts There are three primary load forecasts modeled in the 2012 RNA. The first forecast is an econometric forecast of annual energy and peak demand. The second forecast, which is used for the 2012 RNA Base Case, includes a reduction to the econometric forecast reflecting a portion of the goal of the statewide energy efficiency initiative, including the programs authorized by the New York State Public Service Commission (NYSPSC) Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (EEPS). The third forecast is the low load scenario as reflected by a 15 percent energy efficiency achievement by 2015, which 2

Pursuant to the PSC Orders in Case 05-E-0889, some generators have provided, by the RNA lock down date, either a notice of their intention to or their notice of Retirement, Mothball, protective layup, etc. For the purposes of this study the NYISO has assumed that all of these units will not be available for the period of the RNA study beginning once the applicable PSC notice period runs. A listing of these units can be found in Table 3-5.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 16 August 2012

represents full achievement of the statewide energy goal by 2015. Additional information on the Base Case load forecast and underlying economic data is contained in Appendix C.

The NYISO has been a party to the NYSPSC EEPS proceeding from its inception and is a member of the Evaluation Advisory Group which is responsible for advising the NYDPS on the methods to be used to track program participation and measure the program costs, benefits, and impacts on electric energy usage. In conjunction with the input from market participants at the ESPWG, the NYISO developed energy forecasts for the potential impact of the EEPS over the 10-year planning period. The following factors were considered in developing the 2012 RNA Base Case forecast:

x NYSPSC-approved spending levels for the programs under its jurisdiction, including the Systems Benefit Charge and utility-specific programs x Expectation of the fulfillment of the investor-owned EEPS program goals by 2018, and continued spending for NYSERDA programs through 2022 x Expected realization rates, participation rates and timing of planned energy efficiency programs x Degree to which energy efficiency is already included in the NYISOs econometric energy forecast x Impacts of new appliance efficiency standards, and building codes and standards x Specific energy efficiency plans proposed by LIPA, NYPA and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) x The actual rates of implementation of EEPS, based on data received from Department of Public Service staff.

Table 3-1 below summarizes the 2012 RNA econometric forecast, the 2012 RNA Base Case forecast and the 2012 RNA 15 x 15 scenario forecast. Table 3-2 shows a comparison of the Base Case forecasts and energy efficiency program impacts contained in the 2010 RNA and the 2012 RNA. The 2012 RNA 15x15 scenario forecast is based on achievement of the full statewide energy efficiency goal of 26,880 GWh by 2015, as deducted from the 2015 forecast prepared in 2008, after allowances for certain energy efficiency programs already put in place by state utilities. The NYISO set this 2015 forecast level at 157,380 GWh in prior RNAs.

The 2012 projection of these energy efficiency program impacts was discussed with all market participants during multiple meetings of the Electric System Planning Working Group (ESPWG) during the first quarter of 2012. The ESPWG accepted the projection of impacts used in the 2012 RNA Base Case forecast in accordance with procedures established for the RNA.

Figures 3-1 and 3-2 present actual and weather-normalized historical data and forecasts of annual energy and summer peak demand for the 2012 RNA.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 17 August 2012

Table 3-1: 2012 RNA Forecast and Scenarios Annual GWh 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2012 High Load Scenario 165,578 168,089 170,480 172,675 174,818 176,146 178,087 180,079 182,406 184,269 185,813 2012 RNA Base Case 163,659 164,627 165,340 166,030 166,915 166,997 168,021 169,409 171,176 172,514 173,569 2012 15x15 Scenario 161,332 160,004 158,687 157,380 158,219 158,297 159,267 160,583 162,258 163,526 164,526 Energy Impacts of EE Programs Cumulative GWh 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2012 RNA Base Case 1,919 3,462 5,140 6,645 7,903 9,149 10,066 10,670 11,230 11,755 12,244 2012 15x15 Scenario 4,246 8,085 11,793 15,295 16,599 17,849 18,820 19,496 20,148 20,743 21,287 Annual MW 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2012 High Load Scenario 33,638 34,320 34,846 35,361 35,791 36,224 36,729 37,187 37,627 38,130 38,554 2012 RNA Base Case 33,295 33,696 33,914 34,151 34,345 34,550 34,868 35,204 35,526 35,913 36,230 2012 15x15 Scenario 32,822 32,750 32,549 32,372 32,556 32,750 33,051 33,370 33,675 34,042 34,342 Summer Peak Demand Impacts of EE Programs Cumulative MW 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2012 RNA Base Case 343 624 932 1,210 1,446 1,674 1,861 1,983 2,101 2,217 2,324 2012 15x15 Scenario 816 1,570 2,297 2,989 3,235 3,474 3,678 3,817 3,952 4,088 4,212 NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 18 August 2012

Table 3-2: Comparison of 2010 & 2012 RNA Base Case Forecasts Comparison of Base Case Energy Forecasts - 2010 & 2012 RNA (GWh)

Annual GWh 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2010 RNA Base Case 160,358 160,446 161,618 163,594 164,556 165,372 166,472 167,517 169,132 171,161 173,332 2012 RNA Base Case 163,659 164,627 165,340 166,030 166,915 166,997 168,021 169,409 171,176 172,514 173,569 Change from 2010 RNA 2,041 1,033 784 658 443 -520 -1,111 -1,752 -2,156 NA NA Comparison of Base Case Peak Forecasts - 2010 & 2012 RNA (MW)

Annual MW 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2010 RNA Base Case 33,025 33,160 33,367 33,737 33,897 34,021 34,193 34,414 34,672 34,986 35,334 2012 RNA Base Case 33,295 33,696 33,914 34,151 34,345 34,550 34,868 35,204 35,526 35,913 36,230 Change from 2010 RNA -72 -41 17 130 152 136 196 218 192 NA NA Comparison of Energy Impacts from Statewide Energy Efficiency Programs - 2010 RNA & 2012 RNA (GWh)

Cumulative GWh 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2010 RNA Base Case 976 2,860 4,997 6,765 8,413 9,914 11,355 12,327 13,040 13,379 13,684 2012 RNA Base Case 976 2,860 4,779 6,322 8,000 9,505 10,763 12,009 12,926 13,530 14,090 14,615 15,104 Change from 2010 RNA -219 -444 -413 -409 -592 -318 -114 151 406 NA NA Comparison of Peak Impacts from Statewide Energy Efficiency - 2010 RNA & 2012 RNA (MW)

Cumulative MW 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2010 RNA Base Case 174 491 825 1,107 1,388 1,675 1,954 2,151 2,311 2,415 2,510 2012 RNA Base Case 174 491 834 1,115 1,423 1,701 1,937 2,165 2,352 2,474 2,592 2,708 2,815 Change from 2010 RNA 9 8 35 25 -17 14 41 59 82 NA NA NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 19 August 2012

Annual Energy - Actual, Normal & Forecasts (GWh) 190,000 185,000 180,000 175,000 170,000 165,000 160,000 155,000 150,000 145,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Actual Normal Econometric Base Case 15x15 Figure 3-1(a): 2012 Base Case Forecast and Scenarios - Annual Energy



Summer Peak Demand - Actual, Normal & Forecasts (MW) 40,000 39,000 38,000 37,000 36,000 35,000 34,000 33,000 32,000 31,000 30,000 29,000 28,000 27,000 26,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Actual Normal Econometric Base Case 15x15 Figure 3-1(b): 2012 Base Case Forecast and Scenarios - Summer Peak Demand NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 20 August 2012

3.2. Forecast of Special Case Resources The 2012 RNA special case resource levels are based on the 2012 Gold Book value of 2165 MW. Unlike the 2010 RNA, the 2012 RNA models the same projected zonal levels of SCR resources totaling 2165 MW for each of the ten years 2013 - 2022.3 The MARS program calculates the SCR values for each hour based on the ratio of hourly load to peak load.

3.3. Resource Additions Table 3-3 presents the unit additions and uprates represented in the RNA Base Case.

Table 3-3: Unit Additions Queue Total

1. Unit Name 2012 2013 2014 MW New Thermal Units 232 Bayonne Energy (May 2012) 500 500 New Thermal Units Sub-Total 500 0 0 500 New Wind 161 Marble River Wind I (Oct 2012) 83 83 171 Marble River Wind II (Oct 2012) 132 132 New Wind Sub-Total 0 215 0 215 Unit Uprates 216 Nine Mile Point II (June 2012) 96 96 127A Munnsville Wind Power (Dec 2013) 6 6 Unit Uprates Sub-Total 96 0 6 102 Grand Total 596 215 6 818 Note: MW values represent the lesser of Capacity Resource Integration Service (CRIS) and Dependable Maximum Net Capability (DMNC) values.

3.4. Local Transmission Plans As part of the LTPP, Transmission Owners presented their Local Transmission Plans (LTPs) to the NYISO and Stakeholders in the fall of 2011.4 In April 2012, the NYISO reviewed the LTPs and included them in the 2012 Gold Book. Table 3-4 presents the list of 2012 Gold Book firm transmission plans that were included in the RNA Base Case.

3 In the 2010 RNA, the 2010 Gold Book projected SCR MWs for 2011 were assigned to 2020 and then scaled back to 2011 based on the projected peak load ratios.

4 Consolidated Edison presented an update to their LTP in February 2012 to accommodate the announced mothballing of Astoria Units 2 & 4.

LTPs can be found at http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/services/planning/process/ltpp/index.jsp NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 21 August 2012

Table 3-4: Firm Transmission Plans included in 2012 RNA Base Case (from 2012 Gold Book)

Expected Line Service Nominal Voltage Thermal Ratings

• Project Description / Class Year / Type Transmission Length Date/Yr in kV # of Conductor Size of Construction Queue Pos. Owner Terminals miles (1) Prior to (2) Year Operating Design ckts Summer Winter Merchant 206 Hudson Transmission Partners Bergen 230 kV (New Jersey) West 49th Street 345kV 2013 345 345 660 MW 660 MW back- to- back AC/DC/AC converter, 345 kV AC cable 2008 351 Linden VFT, LLC (3) PSE&G 230kV Goethals 345kV via Linden Cogen 345kV TBD 345 345 15 MW 15 MW Variable Frequency Transformer (Uprate) 2011 Firm Plans (included in 2012 Base Cases)

CHGE E. Fishkill E. Fishkill xfmr #2 S 2012 345/115 345/115 1 439 MVA 558 MVA Transformer #2 (Standby)

ConEd Astoria Annex Astoria East xfmr/Phase shifter S 2012 345/138 345/138 1 241 MVA 288 MVA xfmr/Phase shifter -

NYSEG Meyer Meyer Cap Bank S 2012 115 115 1 15 MVAR 15 MVAR Capacitor Bank Installation -

NYSEG (4) Wood Street Carmel 1.34 S 2012 115 115 1 775 945 477 ACSR OH NYSEG (4) Wood Street Katonah 11.70 S 2012 115 115 1 775 945 477 ACSR OH NGRID (5) Greenbush Hudson -26.43 S 2012 115 115 1 648 800 605 ACSR, 350 CU OH NGRID (5) Greenbush Klinekill Tap 20.30 S 2012 115 115 1 648 800 605 ACSR, 350 CU OH NGRID (5) Klinekill Tap Hudson 6.13 S 2012 115 115 1 648 800 605 ACSR, 350 CU OH O&R Harriman - - S 2012 69 69 1 16 MVAR 16 MVAR Capacitor Bank (DOE) -

O&R Snake Hill - - S 2012 138 138 1 32 MVAR 32 MVAR Capacitor Bank (DOE) -

O&R Bowline Bowline - S 2012 345 345 1 - - By-pass switch OH RGE Station 180 Station 180 Cap Bank S 2012 115 115 1 10 MVAR 10 MVAR Capacitor Bank Installation -

RGE Station 128 Station 128 Cap Bank S 2012 115 115 1 20 MVAR 20 MVAR Capacitor Bank Installation -

NYPA (5) Willis Duley -24.38 W 2012 230 230 1 996 1200 1-795 ACSR OH NYPA (5) Willis Patnode 9.11 W 2012 230 230 1 996 1200 1-795 ACSR OH NYPA (5) Patnode Duley 15.27 W 2012 230 230 1 996 1200 1-795 ACSR OH O&R Ramapo Sugarloaf 16.00 W 2012 138 345 1 1089 1298 2-1590 ACSR OH RGE Station 42 Station 124 Phase Shifter W 2012 115 115 1 230 MVA 230 MVA Phase Shifter RGE Station 67 Station 418 3.50 W 2012 115 115 1 245 MVA 299 MVA New 115kV Line OH ConEd (6) Vernon Vernon Phase Shifter S 2013 138 138 1 300 MVA 300 MVA Phase Shifter -

LIPA Shore Road Lake Success 8.72 S 2013 138 138 2 1045 1203 3500 AL UG LIPA (5) Shoreham Brookhaven -7.30 S 2013 138 138 1 1851 2373 2300AL OH LIPA (5) Shoreham Wildwood 1.00 S 2013 138 138 1 1851 2373 2300AL OH LIPA (5) Wildwood Brookhaven 6.30 S 2013 138 138 1 1851 2373 2300AL OH LIPA (5) Holbrook Holtsville GT -0.32 S 2013 138 138 1 3124 3996 2-1750 AL OH LIPA (5) Holbrook West Bus 0.20 S 2013 138 138 1 3124 3996 2-1750 AL OH LIPA (5) West Bus Holtsville GT 0.12 S 2013 138 138 1 3124 3996 2-1750 AL OH LIPA (5) Sill Rd Holtsville GT -9.47 S 2013 138 138 1 3124 3996 2-1750 AL OH LIPA (5) Sill Rd West Bus 9.35 S 2013 138 138 1 3124 3996 2-1750 AL OH LIPA (5) West Bus Holtsville GT 0.12 S 2013 138 138 1 3124 3996 2-1750 AL OH LIPA (5) Pilgrim Holtsville GT -11.86 S 2013 138 138 1 2087 2565 2493 ACAR OH LIPA (5) Pilgrim West Bus 11.74 S 2013 138 138 1 2087 2565 2493 ACAR OH NYSEG Watercure Road Watercure Road xfmr S 2013 345/230 345/230 1 426 MVA 494 MVA Transformer O&R New Hempstead - - S 2013 138 138 1 32 MVAR 32 MVAR Capacitor bank -

RGE Station 124 Station 124 Phase Shifter S 2013 115 115 2 230 MVA 230 MVA Phase Shifter RGE Station 124 Station 124 SVC S 2013 115 115 1 200 MVAR 200 MVAR SVC NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 22 August 2012

Expected Line Service Nominal Voltage Thermal Ratings

• Project Description / Class Year / Type Transmission Length Date/Yr in kV # of Conductor Size of Construction Queue Pos. Owner Terminals miles (1) Prior to (2) Year Operating Design ckts Summer Winter NYPA (7) Moses Willis -37.11 W 2013 230 230 2 876 1121 795 ACSR OH NYPA (7) Moses Willis 37.11 W 2013 230 230 1 876 1121 795 ACSR OH NYPA (7) Moses Willis 37.11 W 2013 230 230 1 876 1121 795 ACSR OH LIPA (8) Riverhead Wildwood 10.63 S 2014 138 138 1 1399 1709 1192ACSR OH NYSEG Klinekill Tap Klinekill <10 S 2014 115 115 1 >=124 MVA >+150 MVA 477 ACSR OH NGRID Lockport Mortimer 56.18 S 2014 115 115 1 TBD TBD 115 kV line Replacement -

O&R Little Tor - - S 2014 138 138 1 32 MVARS 32 MVARS Capacitor bank -

O&R O&R's Line 26 Sterling Forest xfmr S 2014 138/69 138/69 1 175 MVA 175 MVA Transformer O&R Burns Nanuet 2.6 S 2014 69 69 1 1604 1723 795 ACSS OH O&R Burns Corporate Drive 4 S 2014 138 138 1 1604 1723 795 ACSS OH NYSEG Coopers Corners 345 kV Sub Coopers Corners 345 kV Sub Shunt Reactor W 2014 345 345 1 150 MVAR 150 MVAR Shunt Reactor Installation -

O&R Hartley - - W 2014 69 69 1 32 MVAR 32 MVAR Capacitor bank -

O&R Summit (PJM) - - W 2014 69 69 1 32 MVARS 32 MVARS Capacitor bank -

LIPA Riverhead Canal 16.40 S 2015 138 138 1 846 973 2368 KCMIL (1200 mm²) Copper XLPE UG NGRID Spier Rotterdam 32.70 S 2015 115 115 1 TBD TBD New/Separate Circuit w/Twin-795 ACSR south end OH O&R Tappan - - S 2015 69 69 1 32 MVAR 32 MVAR Capacitor bank -

CHGE (9) Pleasant Valley Todd Hill 5.60 W 2015 115 115 1 1280 1563 Rebuild line with 1033 ACSR OH CHGE (9) Todd Hill Fishkill Plains 5.23 W 2015 115 115 1 1280 1563 Rebuild line with 1033 ACSR OH NYSEG Elbridge State Street 14.50 W 2016 115 115 1 250 MVA 305 MVA 1033 ACSR OH CHGE Hurley Ave Saugerties 11.11 S 2018 115 115 1 1114 1359 1-795 ACSR OH CHGE Saugerties North Catskill 12.25 S 2018 115 115 1 1114 1359 1-795 ACSR OH O&R Sugarloaf Shoemaker 7.00 W 2018 69 138 2 1062 1141 397 ACSS OH CHGE (10) St. Pool High Falls 5.63 S 2020 115 115 1 1114 1359 1-795 ACSR OH CHGE (10) High Falls Kerhonkson 10.03 S 2020 115 115 1 1114 1359 1-795 ACSR OH CHGE (10) Kerhonkson Honk Falls 4.97 S 2020 115 115 2 1114 1359 1-795 ACSR OH CHGE (10) M odena Galeville 4.62 S 2020 115 115 1 1114 1359 1-795 ACSR OH CHGE (10) Galeville Kerhonkson 8.96 S 2020 115 115 1 1114 1359 1-795 ACSR OH (1) Line Length Miles - negative values indicate removal of Existing Circuit being tapped (6) The Facility is partially in Service pending total upgrade. The last outage for the Vernon East 138 kV ring upgrade will occur in Fall 2012 (2) S = Summer Peak Period W = Winter Peak Period (7) Project involves tower separation which results in the elimination of the double circuit tower contingency This reconfiguration is associated with the Linden VFT project that was (3) Queue Position 125 and is the responsibility of the Developer, Linden VFT, (8) Upgrade of existing 69 kV to 138 kV operation LLC.

(4) 115 kv operation as opposed to previous 46 kV operation (9) Reconductoring of Existing Line (5) Segmentation of Existing Circuit (10) Upgrade of existing 69 kV to 115 kV operation

• Thermal Ratings in Amperes, except where labeled otherwise.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 23 August 2012

3.5. Resource Retirements Table 3-5 below presents the retired and proposed unit retirements as of April 15, 2012 which were represented in the 2012 RNA Base Case. The MW values represent the lesser of CRIS and DMNC MW values as shown in the 2010 and 2012 Gold Books.

Table 3-5: Retired and Proposed Units Retirements 2010 2012 Gold Retired Proposed Unit Book Units Retirements Barrett 07 17 0 Beebee GT 14 15 Binghamton Cogen 41 41 Ravenswood GT 3-4 33 32 Astoria 2* 177 177 Astoria 4* 376 376 Gowanus 1* 117 134 Gowanus 4* 122 134 Far Rockaway ST 04* 107 107 Glenwood ST 04* 117 115 Glenwood ST 05* 116 109 Astoria GT 10* 17 18 Astoria GT 11* 17 16 Dunkirk 1* 77 75 Dunkirk 2* 76 75 Dunkirk 3* 187 185 Dunkirk 4* 187 185 Total MW 265 1527** 1792

• Units provided notice prior to April 15 of mothballing or intent to mothball (units providing notice after April 15 of intent to mothball or to withdraw notice will be modeled as appropriate in the CRP)

• • Capacity values do not add exactly due to rounding.

3.6. Base Case Peak Load and Resource Ratios The announced unit retirements as of April 15, 2012 along with the new resource additions that met the base case inclusion rules, when combined with the existing generation in the 2012 Gold Book, resulted in the 2012 RNA Base Case Peak Load and Resource Ratios found in Table 3-6 below.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 24 August 2012

Table 3-6: NYCA Peak Load and Resource Ratios 2013 through 2022 Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Peak Load (MW)

NYCA* 33,696 33,914 34,151 34,345 34,550 34,868 35,204 35,526 35,913 36,230 Zone J* 11,680 11,830 11,985 12,095 12,200 12,400 12,570 12,725 12,920 13,050 Zone K* 5,643 5,667 5,710 5,723 5,756 5,797 5,843 5,900 5,965 6,038 Resources (MW)

Capacity** 40,240 40,196 40,196 40,196 40,196 40,196 40,196 40,196 40,196 40,196 SCR 2,165 2,165 2,165 2,165 2,165 2,165 2,165 2,165 2,165 2,165 NYCA Total 42,405 42,361 42,361 42,361 42,361 42,361 42,361 42,361 42,361 42,361 Res./Load Ratio 125.8% 124.9% 124.0% 123.3% 122.6% 121.5% 120.3% 119.2% 118.0% 116.9%

Capacity** 9,269 9,269 9,269 9,269 9,269 9,269 9,269 9,269 9,269 9,269 SCR 540 540 540 540 540 540 540 540 540 540 Zone J Total 9,809 9,809 9,809 9,809 9,809 9,809 9,809 9,809 9,809 9,809 Res./Load Ratio *** 84.0% 82.9% 81.8% 81.1% 80.4% 79.1% 78.0% 77.1% 75.9% 75.2%

Res.& UDR/Load Ratio**** 92.2% 91.0% 89.9% 89.0% 88.3% 86.8% 85.7% 84.6% 83.4% 82.5%

Capacity** 5,208 5,208 5,208 5,208 5,208 5,208 5,208 5,208 5,208 5,208 SCR 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 Zone K Total 5,366 5,366 5,366 5,366 5,366 5,366 5,366 5,366 5,366 5,366 Res./Load Ratio *** 95.1% 94.7% 94.0% 93.8% 93.2% 92.6% 91.8% 91.0% 90.0% 88.9%

Res.& UDR/Load Ratio**** 112.6% 112.2% 111.3% 111.1% 110.4% 109.6% 108.8% 107.7% 106.6% 105.3%

• NYCA load values represent Baseline Coincident Summer Peak Demand. Zones J & K load values represent Summer Non-Coincident Peak Demand.

• • NYCA Capacity values include resources electrically internal to NY, Additions, Reratings, Retirements, and Net Purchases and Sales. Zones J and K Capacity values do not include Net Purchases and Sales or the use of UDRs for confidentiality reasons. Capacity values include the lesser of CRIS and DMNC values

• • • The Res/Load Ratio (without net purchases and sales) is not representative of the locational capacity available for meeting the Locational Minimum Installed Capacity Requirements (LCR) as described in the NYISO Installed Capacity Manual.

• • • • The Res+UDR/Load Ratio includes the UDR capacity associated with modeled facilities for the zone without regard to elections made for contract usage on those UDRs.

Table 3-7 below presents the comparison between the 2010 RNA and 2012 RNA in NYCA Peak Load forecast, SCRs, capacity and retirements. For 2020, the 2012 RNA Peak Load forecast increased by 192 MW, while the overall NYCA capacity and SCRs decreased by 1,043 MW and 86 MW respectively.

Table 3-7: 2010 RNA to 2012 RNA Load and Capacity Comparison 2010 RNA 2012 RNA 2012 RNA Horizon Year 2020 Horizon Year 2020 Year 2020 Delta MW Year 2022 Load 35,334 35,526 192 36,230 SCR 2,251 2,165 -86 2,165 Capacity without SCRs 41,239 40,196 -1,043 40,196 NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 25 August 2012

3.7. Methodology for the Determination of Needs Reliability Needs are defined by the OATT in terms of total deficiencies relative to Reliability Criteria determined from the assessments of the BPTFs performed for this RNA. There are two different steps to analyzing the reliability of the BPTFs. The first is to evaluate the security of the transmission system; the second is to evaluate the adequacy of the system, subject to the security constraints. The NYISOs planning procedures include both security and adequacy assessments. The transmission adequacy and the resource adequacy assessments are performed together.

Transmission security is the ability of the power system to withstand sudden disturbances and/or the unanticipated loss of system elements and continue to supply and deliver electricity. Compliance with security criteria is assessed deterministically. Security is a deterministic concept, with potential disturbances being treated with equal likelihood in the assessment. These disturbances (single contingency and multiple contingencies) are explicitly defined in the reliability rules as design criteria contingencies. The impacts when applying these design criteria contingencies are assessed to ensure no thermal loading, voltage or stability violations will arise. These design criteria contingencies are sometimes referred to as N-1 or N-1-1. In addition, the NYISO performs a short circuit analysis to determine that the system can clear faulted facilities reliably under short circuit conditions. The NYISO Guideline for Fault Current Assessment is used in this study.

Resource adequacy is the ability of the electric systems to supply and deliver the total quantity of electricity demanded at any given time taking into account scheduled and unscheduled outages of system elements. Resource adequacy considers the transmission systems, generation resources, and other capacity resources, such as demand response. Resource adequacy assessments are performed on a probabilistic basis to capture the randomness of system element outages. A system is adequate if the probability of having sufficient transmission and generation to meet expected demand is equal to or less than the systems standard, which is expressed as a Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE). The New York State bulk power system is planned to meet a LOLE that, at any given point in time, is less than or equal to an involuntary load disconnection that is not more frequent than once in every 10 years, or 0.1 events per year5. This requirement forms the basis of New Yorks Installed Reserve Margin (IRM) requirement.

If Reliability Needs are identified, the amount of compensatory MW required for the New York Control Area (NYCA), in appropriate locations to resolve the need (by load zone), are reported. Compensatory MW amounts are determined by adding generic 250 MW generating units to zones to address the zone-specific 5

RNA Study results are rounded to two decimal places. A result of exactly 0.01, for example, would correspond to one event in one hundred years.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 26 August 2012

needs. The compensatory MW amounts and locations are based on a review of binding transmission constraints and zonal LOLE in an iterative process to determine when Reliability Criteria are satisfied. These additions are used to estimate the amount of resources generally needed to satisfy Reliability Needs.

The compensatory MW additions are not intended to represent specific proposed solutions. Resource needs could potentially be met by other combinations of resources in other areas including generation, transmission and demand response measures. Due to the differing natures of supply and demand-side resources and transmission constraints, the amounts and locations of resources necessary to match the level of compensatory MW needs identified will vary. Resource needs could be met in part by transmission system reconfigurations that increase transfer limits, or by changes in operating protocols. Operating protocols could include such actions as using dynamic ratings for certain facilities, operating exceptions, or special protection systems.

The procedure to quantify compensatory MWs is to address potential bulk system transmission security violations that were identified. This translation is performed by first calculating transfer distribution factors (TDF) on the overloaded facilities. The transfer used for this calculation is created by injecting power at possible locations that will unload the facility, and reducing power at an aggregate of existing generators outside of the area. The amount of MW for the best location resulting in the lowest amount of MW needed will be reported for this RNA. In instances where generic building blocks are utilized in the base case to address local violations that also mitigate bulk violations, compensatory MWs were not quantified.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 27 August 2012

4. Reliability Needs Assessment 4.1. Overview Reliability is defined and measured through the use of the concepts of security and adequacy. Security is assessed through a power flow analysis that checks for Transmission Security design criteria violations. Transmission Adequacy and Resource Adequacy are assessed with the use of General Electrics Multi Area Reliability Simulation (MARS) software package. This is done through the application of interface transfer limits and a probabilistic simulation of the outages of capacity and transmission resources.

4.2. Reliability Needs for Base Case Below are the principal findings of the 2012 RNA for the 2013-2022 Study Period including: transmission security assessment; short circuit assessment; resource and transmission adequacy assessment; system stability assessments; and scenario analyses.

4.2.1. Transmission Security Assessment A Reliability Needs Assessment requires analysis of the security of the Bulk Power Transmission Facilities (BPTFs). For this 2012 RNA, NYISO used a BPTF list that included all facilities classified as a part of the Bulk Power System (BPS) in accordance with NPCC A-10 criteria.

The NYISO performed AC contingency analysis of the BPTFs to test for thermal and voltage violations under pre- and post- contingency conditions (per NERC Standards TPL-001, -002, and -003, NPCC Directory #1, and NYSRC Reliability Rules) using Siemens PTI PSSE, PSSMUST and PowerGEM TARA programs. More extensive analysis was performed for critical contingency evaluation and transfer limit evaluation using the power-voltage (P-V) curve approach as described in NYISO Transmission Planning Guideline #2-0 using the Siemens PTI PSSE (Rev. 32) software package. The impact of the status of critical generators on transfer limits was also quantified and utilized in the MARS analysis. To assist in its assessment, the NYISO also reviewed many previously completed transmission security assessments.

Transmission security assessments that were performed in response to the announced intent to mothball Dunkirk and as part of this RNA found that certain N-1 and N-1-1 BPTF contingency outages in Zone A prevented the power flow from solving and other contingencies produced thermal and voltage violations on BPTF and non-BPTF in that zone for each year of the study period. In order to solve the power flow cases as part of this RNA, various generic solution types, sizes, and NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 28 August 2012

interconnection points could have been employed. While an actual solution may include only transmission or a combination of transmission, generation at various interconnection points, demand response, and reactive compensation, for ease of study and without attempting to optimize or predict what the actual solution should be, two 250 MW blocks (500 MW total) of generic generation facilities were assumed to be interconnected to the BPTF and non-BPTF in Zone A. With the generic generation facilities modeled, the power flow solved for each contingency evaluated and no BPTF violations were found in Zone A. National Grid has finished studying transmission security implications due to the Dunkirk Generating Plant mothballing however, National Grid has not completed its examination of all potential solutions that would address the mothballing of Dunkirk. The results from that examination are not expected before this RNA is completed.

Methodology The NYISO performed the transmission security testing required for the RNA Base Case throughout the study period (2013 - 2022). The testing was performed according to NPCC and NYSRC criteria and included the ability of the BPTF to meet transmission design criteria following the design criteria contingency (N-1). The same contingency analysis was also performed with critical facility outages (N-1-1). N-1 testing was performed as part of base case review, thermal and voltage criteria testing, and the identification of critical facilities and critical contingencies. Each of the first contingencies were further studied as critical facility outages as part of the N-1-1 analysis.

As part of the N-1-1 analysis, individual N-1 cases were created by removing a critical generator, transmission circuit, transformer, series or shunt compensating device, or HVdc pole from the base case. Using the automated process from PowerGEMs TARA, a set of corrective actions was developed with the objective of eliminating violations in the post-contingency cases for each N-1 case, such that when design contingencies (NERC Category B or C contingencies; NPCC Design Criteria; NYSRC Table A design contingencies) were tested on the N-1 case, there would be no post-contingency thermal or voltage violations on the BPTF.

Next, N-1-1 contingency analysis was performed by modeling critical facility outages followed by testing of NPCC and NYSRC Design Criteria contingencies (consistent with NERC Categories B and C).

NYISO monitored applicable limits of the New York State BPTF in accordance with NYSRC Reliability Rules. All results assume that all necessary existing generation resources, and where available, phase angle regulator and HVDC controls have been called upon to mitigate potential violations.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 29 August 2012

Results The transmission security analysis identified thermal violations in five locations on the BPTF for which sufficient corrective actions could not be identified: RG&E Station 80 345 kV (Zone B); RG&E Pannell 345 kV (Zone B); National Grid Clay 115 kV (Zone C); National Grid Leeds -

Pleasant Valley 345 kV corridor (Zones F & G); and O&R 345/138 kV transformers at Ramapo 345 kV Substation (Zone G). The results are shown in Table 4-1.

Several of the violations, listed above and described below, result from the modification made in late 2010 to the NYISOs BPTF list to include all BPS facilities, rather than due to any significant system changes since the 2010 RNA.

Table 4-1: 2012 RNA Transmission Security Violations LTE STE 2013 2017 2022

Rating Rating MVA MVA MVA

Zone Owner MonitoredFacility (MVA) (MVA) Flow Flow Flow 1stContingency 2ndContingency B RG&E Sta.80345/115#T1 276 300 365 346 353 L/OSta.80Transformer Sta.80stuckbreaker B RG&E Sta.80345/115#T3 276 300 357 343 350 L/OSta.80Transformer Sta.80stuckbreaker B RG&E Pannell345/115#T3 265 275 284 280 274 L/OGinna Sta.80stuckbreaker C NatGrid ClayTeall115#10 120 145 123 123 128 L/OClayDewitt345 Oswegostuckbreaker F NatGrid LeedsPV345 1538 1724 N/A N/A 1576 L/ORosetonE.Fishkill345 L/OAthensPV345 F NatGrid AthensPV345 1538 1724 N/A N/A 1560 L/ORosetonE.Fishkill345 L/OLeedsPV345 G O&R Ramapo345/138#1300 607 688 806 825 872 L/OCoopCornerMidRockTav345 Ramapostuckbreaker G O&R Ramapo345/138#1300 607 688 664 676 727 L/OW.Haverstraw345/138 Ramapostuckbreaker G O&R Ramapo345/138#1300 607 688 659 650 704 L/OCoopCornerMidRockTav345 Tower67/68 G O&R Ramapo345/138#2300 607 688 806 825 872 L/OCoopCornerMidRockTav345 Ramapostuckbreaker G O&R Ramapo345/138#2300 607 688 664 676 727 L/OW.Haverstraw345/138 Ramapostuckbreaker G O&R Ramapo345/138#2300 607 688 659 650 704 L/OCoopCornerMidRockTav345 Tower67/68 RG&Es Station 80 includes four 345 kV transmission connections and four 345/115 kV transformers that serve the Rochester area. Starting in 2013, the T1 345/115 kV transformer would be loaded at 132% of its long term emergency (LTE) rating for loss of the T5 transformer followed by a stuck breaker that results in the loss of transformers T2 and T3.

Similarly, the T3 345/115 kV transformer would be loaded at 129% of its LTE rating starting in 2013 for loss of the T1 transformer followed by a stuck breaker that results in the loss of transformers T2 and T5. The overloads on T1 and T3 are caused by the loss of three sources (i.e.,

transformers) to the 115 kV system.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 30 August 2012

RG&Es Pannell station includes four 345 kV transmission connections and three 345/115 kV transformers that serve the Rochester area. Similar to the violations identified at Station 80, starting in 2013 the Pannell T3 transformer would be loaded at 107% of its LTE rating for loss of the Ginna generating unit followed by a stuck breaker at Station 80 that results in the loss of Station 80 transformers T2 and T5. The overload of the Pannell T3 transformer is caused by the loss of three sources (i.e.,

generator and two transformers) to the 115 kV system.

National Grids Clay 115 kV station includes eight 115 kV transmission connections and two 345/115 kV transformers that serve the Oswego and Syracuse areas. Starting in 2013, the Clay-Teall #10 115 kV line would be loaded at 103% of its LTE rating for loss of Clay-Dewitt 345 kV followed by a stuck breaker at Oswego 345 kV that results in the loss of Oswego-Elbridge-Lafayette 345 kV line (including Elbridge 345/115 kV transformer) and Oswego T7 345/115 kV transformer. This overload is due to power flowing from north to south on the 115 kV system after the loss of the two north-to-south 345 kV paths in that area.

National Grids Leeds - Pleasant Valley 345 kV corridor includes two 345 kV lines from north to south: Leeds - Pleasant Valley and Leeds

- Athens - Pleasant Valley. Starting in 2022, each of these lines would be over LTE ratings for two combinations of N-1-1 contingencies. The most severe contingency pair would cause the Leeds - Pleasant Valley 345 kV line to be loaded at 102% of it LTE rating for loss of the Roseton - East Fishkill 345 kV line followed by the loss of the Athens - Pleasant Valley 345 kV line. Similarly, the Athens - Pleasant Valley 345 kV line would be loaded at 101% of it LTE rating for loss of the Roseton - East Fishkill 345 kV line followed by the loss of the Leeds - Pleasant Valley 345 kV line. These overloads are due to load growth and a reduction in generation in the Lower Hudson Valley and New York City areas. As noted in Section 3.5, 1,218 MW of generation is considered retired in Zones J and K, and as noted in Appendix C, peak load growth in Zones G through K is 2,514 MW from 2012 to 2022. These two factors have also resulted in an LOLE deficiency in 2020. The root cause of both the LOLE and N-1-1 deficiencies are accordingly the same and addressing the LOLE deficiency in 2020 would also address the transmission overloads in 2022.

Therefore, there is no need to separately address this transmission security deficiency at this time.

ConEdisons Ramapo substation includes six 345 kV transmission connections and two O&R 345/138 kV transformers that serve the O&R service area. Starting in 2013 the NYISO observed that post-contingency flows on either of the 345/138 kV O&R transformers could reach 132% of the LTE thermal limit for three combinations of NYSRC N-1-1 design criteria contingencies. The most severe contingency combines the loss of a 345/138kV transformer supply into the O&R system, and the subsequent NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 31 August 2012

loss of two additional sources due to a stuck breaker. O&R has indicated that it is reviewing its LTP to ensure that it addresses these overloads by 2016.6 For all other N-1-1 contingency combinations that were evaluated, corrective actions were identified for each N-1 outage condition such that there were no other post-contingency thermal or voltage violations on the BPTF.

4.2.2. Short Circuit Assessment Performance of a transmission security assessment includes the calculation of symmetrical short circuit current to ascertain whether the circuit breakers in the system would be subject to fault current levels in excess of their rated interrupting capability. The analysis was performed for the year 2017 reflecting the study conditions outlined in Sections 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6. The calculated fault levels would be constant over the second five years because no new generation or transmission is modeled in the RNA for second five years, and the methodology for fault duty calculation is not sensitive to load growth. The detailed results are presented in Appendix D of this report.

In general, fault current levels in the NYCA system decreased compared to the 2010 RNA due to major system changes including generator retirements and additional series reactors in service. However ,

there are three stations owned by National Grid which could experience over-duty breakers. These results are due to re-ratings of circuit breakers that have resulted in lower interrupting capabilities. Table 4-2 summarizes over-duty breakers at each station. National Grid reports that plans to make the necessary facility upgrades are in place. For Scriba 345 kV, breaker replacements will be completed by the end of 2012. For Porter 115 kV, breaker replacements will be completed in 2015. For Porter 230 kV, the breaker replacements will be completed in 2016.

6 ConEd/O&R have informed the NYISO of their intention to pursue with NPCC a reevaluation of the BPS classification of the Ramapo 345/138 kV transformers.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 32 August 2012

Table 4-2: 2012 RNA Over-duty Breaker Summary Table Number of Over-Station kV Breaker ID duty Breaker(s)

Scriba 345 8 R90,R100,R200,R210,R250,R915,R935,R945 Porter 230 9 R110,R120,R15,R170,R25,R320,R825,R835,R845 Porter 115 10 R10,R130,R20,R30,R40,R50,R60,R70,R80, R90 4.2.3 Transmission and Resource Adequacy Assessment The 2012 RNA Base Case Peak Load forecast was utilized in the analysis to determine transmission system transfer limits. Tables 4-3, 4-4 and 4-5 below provide the thermal and voltage transfer limits for the major NYCA interfaces. For comparison purposes, the 2010 RNA transfer limits are presented. Relatively small differences occur as the result of load increases and generator retirements in NYCA and external systems.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 33 August 2012

Table 4-3: Transmission System Thermal Transfer Limits for Key Interfaces in MW 2012 RNA study 2010 RNA study Interface 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2022 2013 2014 2015 Dysinger East 2925 2975 2975 2975 2975 Same as 2017 3200 3175 3175 West Central 1600 1675 1675 1675 1675 Same as 2017 1850 1900 1900 Central East less PV-20 plus Fraser-Gilboa 3375 3425 3425 3425 3475 Same as 2017 3475 3475 3400 F to G 3475 3475 3475 3475 3475 Same as 2017 3475 3475 3525 UPNY-SENY (MARS) 5150 5150 5150 5150 5150 Same as 2017 5400 5400 5475 I to J 4350 4400 4400 4400 4400 Same as 2017 4350 4350 4400 I to K 1290 1290 1290 1290 1290 Same as 2017 1290 1290 1290 Table 4-4: Transmission System Voltage Transfer Limits for Key Interfaces in MW 2012 RNA study 2010 RNA study Interface 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2022 2013 2014 2015 Dysinger East 2725 2900 2875 2900 2875 Same as 2017 2725 2725 2875 West Central 1500 1575 1575 1550 1575 Same as 2017 1475 1475 1575 Central East less PV-20 plus Fraser-Gilboa 3250 3350 3350 3350 3350 Same as 2017 3375 3350 3350 UPNY-ConEd 5150 5210 5210 5210 5210 Same as 2017 5475 5475 5605 I to J & K 5210 5160 5160 5160 5160 Same as 2017 5290 5290 5470 Table 4-5: Transmission System Base Case Transfer Limits for Key Interfaces in MW

 2012 RNA study 2010 RNA study Interface 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2022 2013 2014 2015 Dysinger East 2725 V 2900 V 2875 V 2900 V 2875 V Same as 2017 2725 V 2725 V 2875 V West Central 1500 V 1575 V 1575 V 1550 V 1575 V Same as 2017 1475 V 1475 V 1575 V Central East less PV-20 plus Fraser-Gilboa 3250 V 3350 V 3350 V 3350 V 3350 V Same as 2017 3375 V 3350 V 3350 V F to G 3475 T 3475 T 3475 T 3475 T 3475 T Same as 2017 3475 T 3475 T 3525 T UPNY-SENY (MARS) 5150 T 5150 T 5150 T 5150 T 5150 T Same as 2017 5400 T 5400 T 5475 T I to J 4350 T 4400 T 4400 T 4400 T 4400 T Same as 2017 4350 T 4350 T 4400 T I to K 1290 T 1290 T 1290 T 1290 T 1290 T Same as 2017 1290 T 1290 T 1290 T I to J & K 5210 C 5160 C 5160 C 5160 C 5160 C Same as 2017 5290 C 5290 C 5470 C Note: T=Thermal, V=Voltage, C=Combined The results of the 2012 RNA Base Case studies show that the LOLE for the NYCA does not exceed 0.1 until the year 2020 and the LOLE continues to increase through 2022. The LOLE results for the entire 10-year RNA Base Case are presented in Table 4-6. All results are rounded to two decimal places.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 34 August 2012

Table 4-6: NYCA LOLE for the 2012 RNA Study Base Case*

 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

AreaA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AreaB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 AreaC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AreaD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AreaE 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AreaF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AreaG 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 AreaH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 AreaI 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.16 0.22 AreaJ 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.16 0.23 AreaK 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.15 NYCA 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.11 0.17 0.24

• Note: 0 represents an LOLE less than 0.001. An LOLE value of 0.00 represents a rounded value such as 0.001 through 0.004.

In order to avoid over-dependence on emergency assistance from external areas, emergency operating procedures in the external areas are not modeled. Capacity of the external systems is further adjusted so that the interconnected LOLE value of the external areas (Ontario, New England, Hydro Quebec, and PJM) is not less than 0.10 and not greater than 0.15 through the year 2014 and then the load and generation are frozen in the remaining years. The external area LOLE values for the Base Case are illustrated in Table 4-7. The modifications required to establish these LOLE values are described in Appendix D.

Table 4-7: External Area LOLE for the 2012 RNA Study Base Case Area/Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 NE 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 ONT 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 HQ 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 PJM 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 Table 4-8 illustrates the NYCA LOLEs from the 2010 RNA Study.

Table 4-8: NYCA LOLE from the 2010 RNA Study Base Case Area/Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 NYCA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 35 August 2012

4.2.4 System Stability Assessment The 2010 NYISO Comprehensive Area Transmission Review (CATR), which was completed in June 2011, is the most recent CATR. An Interim Review was performed in 2011 and will be performed in 2012. The 2010 CATR was performed for the study year 2015 and included the required RNA stability assessments. The BPTF includes all the facilities designated by the NYISO to be part of the bulk power system as defined by the NPCC and additional non-BPS facilities.

The CATR found that the planned New York State BPTFs are in conformance with the applicable North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)

Reliability Standards, NPCC Transmission Design Criteria and NYSRC Reliability Rules. The stability analyses were conducted as required in the NPCC and the NYSRC reliability criteria and rules and show no stability issues for summer peak load or light load conditions.

4.2.5 Reliability Needs Summary After determining that the LOLE criterion would be exceeded beginning in 2020, the LOLE for the bulk power system for those years was calculated with two additional parameters. The first additional parameter is NYCA Thermal with all NYCA internal transfer limits set at thermal (not voltage) limits to determine whether the system was adequate to deliver generation to the loads. The second parameter, the NYCA Free Flow, was performed with all NYCA internal transfer limits removed. Table 4-9 presents a summary of the results.

Table 4-9: Summary of the LOLE Results - Base, Thermal and Free Flowing Sensitivities

 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

NYCA 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.11 0.17 0.24 NYCA

Thermal 0.11 0.17 0.24 NYCA

FreeFlow         0.04 0.05 NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 36 August 2012

In general, an LOLE result above 0.1 days per year indicates that additional resources are required to maintain reliability and identifies that there are Reliability Needs. The results indicate the first year of need for resource adequacy is 2020 for the RNA base case. The Reliability Needs can be resolved by adding capacity resources downstream of the transmission constraints or by adding transmission reinforcement. The first year of need for the free flowing sensitivity case is beyond 2022, and therefore there is no statewide deficiency.

Table 4-10 below presents a summary of the transmission security violations expressed as an overload amount in relation to a facility rating. Since there are violations starting in 2013 in zones B,C, and G, there are Reliability Needs in the First Five year Period.

Table 4-10: Summary of Transmission Security Violations LTERating 2013 2017 2022

Zone Owner MonitoredFacility (MVA) Loading Loading Loading

B RG&E Sta.80345/115#T1 276 132% 125% 128%

B RG&E Sta.80345/115#T3 276 129% 124% 127%

B RG&E Pannell345/115#T3 265 107% 106% 103%

C NatGrid ClayTeall115#10 120 103% 103% 107%

F NatGrid LeedsPV345 1538 N/A N/A 102%

F NatGrid AthensPV345 1538 N/A N/A 101%

Ramapo345/138

G O&R #1300 607 133% 136% 144%

Ramapo345/138

G O&R #1300 607 109% 111% 119%

Ramapo345/138

G O&R #1300 607 109% 107% 116%

Ramapo345/138

G O&R #2300 607 133% 136% 144%

Ramapo345/138

G O&R #2300 607 109% 111% 119%

Ramapo345/138

G O&R #2300 607 109% 107% 116%

Compensatory MWs Once the Reliability Needs are initially identified as future deficiencies in meeting reliability criteria, the NYISO translates those deficiencies into compensatory MWs that could satisfy the needs. This translation provides further information to the marketplace on the magnitude of the resources that are required to meet bulk power system reliability needs. The NYISO provides these calculations for illustrative purposes only. The calculations are not meant to reflect specific facilities or types of resources that may be offered as Reliability NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 37 August 2012

Needs solutions. Accordingly, compensatory MWs may reflect either generation capacity, demand response or transmission additions.

As explained in Section 3.7, the minimum compensatory MWs were developed for the violation identified in Table 4-10. Table 4-11 summarizes the results.

Table 4-11: Compensatory MW Additions 2013 Minimum 2017 Minimum 2022 Minimum

MVA Compensatory MVA Compensatory MVA Compensatory

Zone MonitoredFacility Overload MW Overload MW Overload MW

B Sta.80345/115#T1 89 245 70 193 77 212

B Sta.80345/115#T3 81 223 67 185 75 204

B Pannell345/115#T3 19 46 15 36 9 22

C ClayTeall115#10 3 4 3 4 8 

F LeedsPV345 N/A  N/A  38 89

F AthensPV345 N/A  N/A  22 52

G Ramapo345/138#1300 199 304 218 334 265 405

G Ramapo345/138#1300 57  69  117 

G Ramapo345/138#1300 52  43  98 

G Ramapo345/138#2300 199 304 218 334 265 405

G Ramapo345/138#2300 57  69  117 

G Ramapo345/138#2300 52  43  98 

For resource adequacy deficiencies, the amount and location of the compensatory MWs is determined by testing combinations of generic 250 MW combined cycle generating units located in various load zones until the NYCA LOLE is reduced to 0.1 days per year or less. A unit size of 250 MWs was chosen because this unit size is consistent with nominal power rating of combined cycle unit power blocks that have been observed in practice and provides reasonable step sizes for simulation purposes. If an LOLE violation is, to some extent, caused by a frequently constrained interface, locating compensatory MWs upstream of that load zone will result in a higher level of required compensatory MWs to meet resource adequacy. It is also recognized that solutions such as combustion turbine generating units and demand-side management (DSM) solutions can be added in much smaller increments.

The results of the MARS simulations for the RNA study case and scenarios provide information that can be used to guide the compensatory MW analyses. It should be noted that there may be other combinations of compensatory MWs that would also meet the statewide reliability criteria. It is not the intent of this analysis to identify preferred locations or combinations for potential solutions.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 38 August 2012

The purpose of the analyses is not only to show the level of compensatory MWs needed to meet the LOLE criterion but also the importance of the location of the compensatory MWs. Not all alternatives tested were able to achieve an LOLE of less than or equal to 0.1 days per year. By 2022, a total of 750 MWs are required to compensate for retiring units and load growth. Also included in the table is the amount of compensatory MWs needed for the transmission security needs, implemented in blocks of 250 MW generic generation for comparative purposes. The security compensatory MWs are presented in conjunction with the adequacy compensatory MWs to determine if there are synergistic benefits for mitigating both deficiencies with capacity additions.

Table 4-12: Compensatory MW Additions for 2013 through 2022 Alternative Year A B G J K NYCA LOLE 2013 A1 2013 250 250 N/A 2013 A2 2013 500 500 N/A 2013 A3 2013 500 500 N/A 2013 A4 2013 500 500 1000 N/A 2013 A5 2013 500 500 N/A 2017 A1 2017 500 500 N/A 2020 A1 2020 250 250 0.08 2020 A2 2020 500 500 0.06 2020 A3 2020 250 250 500 0.05 2020 A4 2020 250 250 500 0.06 2020 A5 2020 500 0 500 0.06 2020 A6 2020 250 0 250 0.08 2020 A7 2020 100 100 0.11 2021 A1 2021 500 500 0.09 2021 A2 2021 250 250 500 0.09 2021 A3 2021 250 250 500 0.09 2021 A4 2021 250 250 500 0.12 2021 A5 2021 500 0 500 0.09 2022 A1 2022 750 750 0.09 2022 A2 2022 250 500 750 0.10 2022 A3 2022 500 250 750 0.09 2022 A4 2022 250 250 250 750 0.13 2022 A5 2022 500 250 750 0.10 Review of the LOLE results indicates that there is a necessary minimum amount of compensatory MWs that must be located in Zone J because of the existing transmission constraints into that zone. Potential solutions could also include a combination of additional transmission north of Zone J and resources located within Zone J. Further examination of the results reveals that the constraining hours of UPNY/SENY and the Zone K exports (from Zone K to Zones I and J) are increasing over the study period. These constraints require that NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 39 August 2012

a minimum amount of compensatory MWs must be located in Zones G, H, or I in addition to the minimum MWs amount in Zone J. Although the effectiveness of compensatory MWs located in Zones A through F and Zone K diminishes as the transmission constraints to the deficient zones become more binding, these compensatory MWs will provide benefit by helping to mitigate the statewide LOLE violations. Due to the lumpiness of the 250 MW block resource additions and the non-linearity of the results, comparisons of the effectiveness of different compensatory MW locations are difficult. There was no attempt to optimize the amount of compensatory MW located in a specific area in this report.

It should be noted that the above findings are based upon the bulk power transmission system as modeled in the RNA Base Case. The NYISO will evaluate any proposed solutions to increase transfer capability during the development of the 2012 CRP.

The Regulated Backstop Solutions may take the form of alternative solutions of possible resource additions and system changes. Such proposals will provide an estimated implementation schedule so that trigger dates could be determined by the NYISO for purposes of beginning the regulatory approval and development processes for the backstop solutions if market solutions do not materialize in time to meet the reliability needs.

The NYISOs market rules recognize the need to have defined quantities of capacity specifically located on Long Island, within New York City and available as dedicated resources to the NYCA as a whole so that the system can perform reliably. The NYISO has implemented a capacity market that is designed to procure and pay for at least the minimum requirements in each area. If these mechanisms work as intended and continue to require resources at the same levels as in the past, they should result in the addition of new resources to meet most or all of the New York City and Long Island needs identified in this RNA.

4.3. Scenarios Scenarios are variations on the RNA Base Case to assess the impact of possible changes in key study assumptions which, if they occurred, could change whether there could be Reliability Criteria violations on the NYCA system during the study period. The following scenarios were evaluated as part of the RNA:

1. High Load (Econometric) Forecast

2. Low Load ( full 15 x 15 achievement) Forecast

3. Indian Point Plant Retirement

4. Zonal Capacity at Risk

5. All Coal Generation Retirement NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 40 August 2012

4.3.1 Forecast Scenarios 4.3.1.1 High Load (Econometric) Forecast The RNA Base Case forecast includes energy reduction impacts associated with statewide energy efficiency programs.

The Econometric Forecast Scenario excludes these energy efficiency program impacts from the peak forecast and is shown in Table 3-1 (a). It projects a higher peak load in 2022 than the Base Case forecast by 2324 MW. Since the peak load in the econometric forecast is higher than the Base Case, the probability of violating the LOLE criterion increases.

The results indicate the LOLE would be 0.09 in 2016 and would increase to 0.16 by 2017 under the high load scenario. If the high load forecast were to materialize, the year of need for resource adequacy would be advanced by three years from 2020 in the base case to 2017 in the high load scenario.

Transmission security analysis (N-1 and N-1-1) was performed for the 2022 econometric forecast using a linear powerflow solution. The results show that the increased load growth across the state aggravates the violations identified in the RNA Base Case and causes new overloads throughout the state. The most significant effect of the increased load is on the transmission paths that make up the UPNY-SENY interface, with marginal overloads on Marcy South and loading on Leeds - Pleasant Valley and Athens - Pleasant Valley increased by 33%. New Scotland -

Leeds, Leeds - Hurley, and Leeds - Athens 345 kV lines were also overloaded by 4% to 12%. In addition, increased load levels in Long Island caused marginal overloads on Dunwoodie - Shore Rd 345 kV (Y50) and certain 138 kV transmission lines.

4.3.1.2 Low Load (full 15 x 15 achievement) Forecast The low load forecast for this scenario is the 2012 RNA 15 x 15 forecast, as shown in Table 3-1. The low load forecast projects a peak demand 1851 MW lower than the 2012 RNA Base Case in the year 2020, and by 2022, the peak demand is 1888 MW lower than the base forecast.

This low load scenario shows that the LOLE for 2020 would be 0.01 and the 2022 LOLE would be 0.04, thus avoiding the LOLE violations noted in the base case and avoiding the projected overloads in 2022 on the Leeds/Athens - Pleasant Valley circuits.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 41 August 2012

4.3.2. Indian Point Plant Retirement Scenario Reliability violations of transmission security and resource adequacy criteria would occur in 2016 if the Indian Point Plant were to be retired by the end of 2015 (the latter of the current license expiration dates) using the Base Case load forecast assumptions.

The Indian Point Plant has two base-load units (2060 MW) located in Zone H in Southeastern New York, an area of the State that is subject to transmission constraints that limit transfers in that area as demonstrated by the reliability violations in the Base Case and Econometric Forecast Scenario. Southeastern New York, with the Indian Point Plant in service, currently relies on transfers to augment existing capacity, and load growth or loss of generation capacity in this area would aggravate those transfer limits.

Transmission security analysis (N-1 and N-1-1) was performed for the 2016 and 2022 Base Case load forecasts using a linear powerflow solution. The results show that the shutdown of the Indian Point Plant exacerbates the transfer capability across the UPNY-SENY interface, with Leeds - Pleasant Valley and Athens

- Pleasant Valley 345 kV lines loaded to 124% of their LTE rating in 2016 and 158% in 2022 following N-1-1 transmission contingencies. Along the parallel Marcy South corridor, the Fraser

- Coopers Corners and Rock Tavern - Ramapo 345 kV lines are each loaded to over 110% of their LTE ratings in 2022 following N-1-1 transmission contingencies. Additionally, the Roseton -

East Fishkill 345 kV line, which can impact UPNY-SENY, is loaded to 107% of its normal rating in 2022 due to lack of available system adjustments necessary to reduce flow following a single contingency. Compensatory megawatts would be necessary in Zones G, H, I, J, or the western portion of K to mitigate these overloads. For example, compensatory megawatts amounting to 1000 MW in 2016 and 2425 MW in 2022 located at Dunwoodie/Sprain Brook or points south would alleviate these overloads.7 Transfer limit analysis was performed with both Indian Point units out-of-service (i.e. beginning 2016), and it was assumed all other generation capacity in Zones G through I would 7

The amount of compensatory megawatts in Zones G, H, or I necessary to alleviate the transmission security overloads may increase depending on the specific location of the compensatory resource.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 42 August 2012

be fully dispatched, supporting Southeastern New York load. The analysis shows that, under typical load conditions, the ability to transfer power to Zone J and Zone K would be limited by the upstream UPNY-SENY interface. If the Indian Point Plant were to be retired and new generation interconnected below the UPNY-SENY interface without proper system reinforcement, the UPNY-ConEd and I to J and K interface may be constrained by voltage or thermal limits.

Furthermore, as reported in the 2010 RNA, under stress conditions the voltage performance on the system without the Indian Point Plant would be degraded. In all cases, power flows replacing the Indian Point generation cause increased reactive power losses in addition to the loss of the reactive output from the plant. It would be necessary to take emergency operations measures, including load relief8 to eliminate the transmission security violations in Southeastern New York.

For the Base Case load forecast, LOLE was 0.48 in 2016, a significant violation of the 0.1 days per year criterion. Beyond 2016, due to annual load growth the LOLE continues to escalate for the remainder of the Study Period reaching an LOLE of 3.63 days per year in 2022. As shown in Table 4-13, the low load forecast causes the LOLE violation to be deferred to 2018, while the high (econometric) load forecast results in significantly higher LOLE violations in 2016 and 2022.

Table 4-13: Indian Point Plant Retirement LOLE Results Year Year 2016 2022 Sensitivity LOLE LOLE Base Case load forecast 0.48 3.63 Low (15 x 15) load forecast 0.07 0.80 High (Econometric) load forecast 1.50 9.37 8

According to the NYISO Emergency Operations Manual, Load Relief Capability is described as including measures such as: voltage reduction, load shedding, and other curtailment measures such as interruptible customers and public appeals.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 43 August 2012

4.3.3 Zonal Capacity at Risk The Base Case LOLE does not exceed 0.10 until 2020. Scenario analyses were performed to determine the reduction in zonal capacity which would cause the NYCA LOLE to exceed 0.10 in 2017 and 2022.

Since the base case LOLE for 2022 exceeded the LOLE limit, compensatory MW were added in Zone J to bring the NYCA LOLE to within 0.1. Capacity was then removed from Zones A-F to determine how many MW could be removed without exceeding the 0.1 LOLE for NYCA.

For study purposes, nine of the eleven zones comprising the NYCA were aggregated as A-F and G-H-I, but the scenario considered Zones J and K separately. The overall capacity in these groupings was de-rated in increments of 250 MW until the NYCA LOLE exceeded 0.10.

The NYISO did not model the potential impacts within those zones or superzones. Therefore no internal transmission problems were evaluated.

The results do not indicate whether or not the transmission system could support some or all of the capacity de-rates nor does it indicate whether even a single generating unit can be removed without violating transmission system security. Transmission security analyses would need to be performed for any contemplated unit shutdown to avoid transmission security violations.

In separate studies for 2017, the levels of capacity removed in those zones without violating NYCA LOLE are: Zone J at 750 MW, or Zone K at 500 MW, or Zones G-I at 750 MW total. These capacities cannot be removed simultaneously. For superzone A-F, up to 3000 MW of capacity could be removed in 2017 without an LOLE violation.

For 2022, after adding 750 compensatory MW to Zone J, it was determined that between 500 and 750 MW of capacity could be removed from superzone A-F without an LOLE violation.

While the zones at risk analysis may suggest a maximum level of capacity that can be removed without LOLE violations, in reality lower amounts of capacity removal are likely to result in reliability issues at specific transmission locations. The removal of capacity and its impact on the reliability of the transmission system and the transmission systems transfer capability are highly location dependent. The study did not attempt to assess a comprehensive set of potential scenarios that might arise from specific unit retirements. Therefore, capacity removal from any of these zones should be further studied and verified according to the specific capacity locations in the transmission network. Additional transmission security analysis such as N-1-1 analysis would need to be performed for any contemplated plant retirement in any zone.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 44 August 2012

4.3.4 All Coal Generation Retirement After extensive discussion with stakeholders, the decision was made by the NYISO to perform a resource adequacy scenario which models the retirement of all NYCA coal generation by year-end 2015.

While the performance of any scenario in the RNA does not indicate that it will occur, stakeholders agreed that coal units have been under economic pressure due to the reduction in natural gas prices and the resulting impact on market prices. Other factors such as higher operating costs and additional costs anticipated due to future environmental regulations may contribute to coal plant retirements.

No transmission security analyses were performed for this scenario since reliability studies for plant retirement would have to be performed on a plant by plant basis.

The coal plant retirement studies show that the NYCA LOLE would exceed 0.1 in 2019, at least one year earlier than in the base case.

Other results included 0.06 LOLE in 2016, 0.10 LOLE in 2018, 0.17 LOLE in 2020, and 0.44 LOLE in 2022. As with the base case, individual zone LOLE exceedances occurred in the latter years in Zones I, J, and K for the coal retirement scenario.

Table 4-14 below summarizes the LOLE results for the Base Case and for the studied years in Scenarios 1, 2, and 5.

Table 4-14: Base Case and Scenario Case LOLEs

 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

NYCABASE 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.11 0.17 0.24 HighLoad 0.06 0.09 0.16 LowLoad 0.01 0.04 CoalRetired 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.17 0.44 NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 45 August 2012

5. Impacts of Environmental Program Initiatives 5.1. Environmental Regulations New York has a long history in the active development of environmental policies and regulations that govern the permitting, construction and operation of power generation and transmission facilities. Currently New Yorks standards for permitting new generating facilities are among the most stringent in the nation. The combination of tighter environmental standards, coupled with competitive markets administered by the NYISO since 1999, has resulted in the retirement of older plants equaling approximately 4000 MW of capacity, and the addition of over 9,300 MW of new efficient generating capacity. In turn, these changes have led to marked reduction of power plant emissions and a significant improvement in the efficiency of the generation fleet. Figures 5-1 and 5-2 show the New York State power plant emissions and heat rates from 1999 through 2011.

Figure 5-1: New York Power Plant Emissions 1999-2011 NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 46 August 2012

Figure 5-2: New York Power Plant Heat Rates 1999-2011 Notwithstanding the progress towards achieving New Yorks clean energy and environmental goals, various environmental initiatives are either in place or pending that will affect the operation of the existing fleet. Environmental initiatives that may affect generation resources may be driven by either or both of the State and Federal programs. Since the prior RNA, the USEPA has promulgated several regulations that will affect most of the thermal fleet of generators in NYCA. Similarly, NYSDEC has undertaken the development of several regulations that will apply to most of the thermal fleet in New York.

One of the purposes of the RNA is to identify possible future outcomes that could lead to insufficient resources in the NYS Power System to satisfy applicable Reliability Criteria. Such a situation may result from the previously unplanned retirement of a significant amount of capacity provided by existing resources. The purpose of the development of this Environmental Scenario is to gain insight into the population of resources that are likely to be faced with major capital investment decisions in order to achieve compliance with several evolving environmental program initiatives. The premise of this analysis is that the risk of previously unplanned retirements is related to two factors: first, the capital investment decisions resource owners need to make in order to achieve compliance with the new regulatory program requirements, and second, the recent change in the relative attractiveness of gas versus coal has challenged the viability of some former baseload units. The goal of this analysis is to identify when and where these risks could occur on the New York Power System.

This analysis estimates levels of capacity that will need to undertake retrofits to achieve compliance with the selected suite of environmental initiatives. The identification and timing of these potential risks will help to inform the NYISO and State policy makers of the potential impacts to system reliability caused by the newly adopted and/or proposed environmental regulations. Of equal importance, the results will also provide useful information about future opportunities to developers of new clean efficient generation resources or aggregators of special case resources.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 47 August 2012

5.1.1 Selection of Major Environmental Program Initiatives Five environmental initiatives are sufficiently broad in application and have requirements that potentially may require retrofitting environmental control technologies to an extent that generator owners will likely need to address the retirement versus retrofit question. These environmental initiatives are: (i) NYSDECs Reasonably Available Control Technology for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx RACT);, (ii) Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) to address regional haze; (iii) Best Technology Available (BTA) for cooling water intake structures;,(iv) the USEPAs Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), and (v) the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) addressing interstate transport of criteria air pollutants.

5.1.1.1 Reasonably Available Control Technology for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx RACT)

NYS DEC finalized new regulations for the control of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from fossil fueled power plants (Part 227-2). The regulations establish presumptive emission limits for each type of fossil fueled generator and each fuel used in an electric generator in New York that has a capacity greater than 25MW. Compliance options include averaging emissions with lower emitting units, fuel switching, and installing emission reduction equipment such as low NOx burners or combustors, selective catalytic reduction units, or retirement. Generators were required to file permit applications and a RACT analysis with NYSDEC by January 1, 2012. Compliance with approved plans is required by July 1, 2014.

5.1.1.2 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

NYS DEC recently promulgated a new regulation Part 249, Requirements for the Applicability, Analysis, and Installation of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Controls. The regulation applies to fossil fueled electric generating units built between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977 and is necessary for New York State to comply with provisions of the federal Clean Air Act that are designed to improve visibility in National Parks. The regulation requires an analysis to determine the impact of an affected units emissions on visibility in national parks. If the impacts are greater than a prescribed minimum, then NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 48 August 2012

emission reductions must be made at the affected unit. Emissions control of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) may be necessary. Compliance Plans were filed with NYSDEC in October 2011. The compliance deadline is January 2014. USEPA recently announced that several of the submitted plans required additional reductions.

5.1.1.3 Mercury Air Toxics Standard (MATS)

USEPA announced the final rule in December, 2011. (The proposed rule had been known as the Maximum Achievable Control Technology -MACT Rule for Hazardous Air Pollutants.(HAPS)) The rule establishes limits for acid gases, Hydrogen Chloride (HCl), Hydrogen Fluoride (HF), Mercury (Hg), and Particulate Matter. Alternative limits were also established. MATS limits will apply to coal and/or oil-fired generators. The compliance date is March 2015. NYSDEC may provide an additional year to comply if necessary. Further, reliability critical units can qualify for another year to achieve compliance if retrofitting emissions control technology is required or if the reliability improvement project will take an additional year to comply.

In addition, NYS DEC has promulgated Part 246: Mercury Reduction Program for Coal-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, which establishes emission limitations that are currently in effect in New York to reduce mercury emissions. Phase II of this regulation requires additional reductions for coal fired boilers in 2015. The Phase II emission limitations are more stringent than the USEPA MATS limits.

5.1.1.4 Best Technology Available (BTA)

NYS DEC has finalized its policy document Best Technology Available (BTA) for Cooling Water Intake Structures. The policy applies to plants with design intake capacity greater than 20 million gallons/day and prescribes reductions in fish mortality. The proposed policy establishes performance goals for new and existing cooling water intake structures. The performance goals call for the use of wet, closed-cycle cooling systems at existing generating facilities. The policy provides some limited relief for plants with historical capacity factors less than 15%. The policy is applied at the time that the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit is renewed which is theoretically a five year period.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 49 August 2012

Once the NYSDEC has made a determination of what constitutes BTA for a facility, the Department will consider the cost of the technology to determine if the costs are wholly disproportionate to the environmental benefits to be gained with BTA.

5.1.1.5 Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)

The USEPA finalized the rule in December. The rule is designed to reduce emissions of SO2, Annual NOx and Ozone Season NOx from fossil fueled power plants in 28 central and eastern states. The regulation is implemented through the use of emission allowances and limited trading programs. The regulation establishes emission budgets for each affected state. The emission budget is then divided on a pro-rata basis determined by historic heat input for existing facilities. There are set asides to provide allowances to new fossil generators. The use of emission allowances is expected to increase offering prices for generation from affected facilities.

The final rule was placed under a stay by a federal District Court. But for the action of the courts, the rule would be in effect currently with another reduction in the SO2 cap scheduled for 2014. While this rule is currently the subject of litigation, we have chosen to include it in our analysis.

CSAPR is USEPAs revision of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) which was vacated by the US Supreme Court. In doing so, the Court ordered that CAIR remain in effect until such time as replacement rule is implemented. In December when the District Court stayed the CSAPR rule, it ordered that CAIR be reinstated. CAIR as promulgated requires significant reductions in allowable emissions scheduled for 2015. Because the federal Clean Air Act provides for reductions in interstate air pollutant transport, it is reasonable to assume that a national interstate program will be in effect for limiting emissions of SO2 and NOx via a cap and trade program in the early part of the ten-year planning horizon. The CSAPR rule will be used to evaluate the potential impacts of that program.

5.1.2 Reliability Impact Assessment Methodology Several of the evolving environmental initiatives described above have sufficient definition of potential requirements, are generally widespread in effect, and are expected to require compliance actions in the earlier portion of the planning period. Some of these programs either individually or taken together could require substantial additional capital investment. The programs are estimated to impact 31,710 MW of capacity in the NYCA or 81% of the installed generating capacity listed in the 2012 NYISO Gold Book and used to meet the electricity needs of New York consumers.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 50 August 2012

Each of the four programs has been examined to estimate the amount and location of capacity that will need to retrofit environmental control technology to comply with the new regulation.

5.1.2.1 NOx RACT Impact Assessment The NYISO retained GE to conduct a detailed study about the types and costs of control technology necessary to comply with the proposed regulation. The study found that [a] total of 72 units or 9515 MW of capacity was identified as needing some type of control mechanism or equipment modification to comply with the proposed standard. Capital costs of compliance were estimated to be approximately in the range of $100-300 million. The study concluded that the costs to comply with this regulation would reduce operating margin for affected generators but taken alone would not generally lead to situations where those margins would become negative.

Generators were required to file permit applications and a RACT analysis with NYSDEC by January 1, 2012. Compliance with approved plans is required by July 1, 2014. The available plans have been reviewed.

Several generators have requested that their submittals be considered Competitive Business Information. NYSDEC has denied these requests.

The resolution of this issue may extend beyond the time of this study.

Reviewing the plans that are public, it is seen that approximately 27,000 MW of capacity is subject to this rule of which generating units of approximately 6000 MW of capacity are involved in emission reduction projects. Some of these projects are underway and the balance should be able to be accomplished prior to the July 2014 compliance date.

5.1.2.2 BART Impact Assessment The results of the visibility analysis are used to determine the emission reductions that may be necessary for SO2, NOx, and PM.

USEPA has established a presumptive set of emission limits for 8600 MW of affected units. Appendix E contains a detailed listing of affected units, the majority of which are located in SENY. The majority of these units are large oil fired units that have gas as an alternate fuel. Many of these units do not have state of the art emission control systems.

The NOx control measures for BART generally were consistent with the results of the NOx RACT study. NYS DEC has established a reasonableness test of $5500/ton reduced. Capital expenditures for this program would be of the same order of magnitude as the NOx RACT program.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 51 August 2012

BART compliance plans were filed with NYSDEC in October 2010. NYSDEC has reviewed these plans and is in the process of issuing amended Title V stationary source permits. USEPA must also review and approve these plans. It has announced that two of the proposed plans will need to be revised based on alternative limits that EPA has proposed as being more appropriate.

Historic emissions and inventories of installed emission control equipment have been reviewed to estimate the level of additional emission reductions required. Most of the affected capacity can with optimum operation of existing environmental control equipment and/or fuel switching, comply with the emission limits. Several small units have chosen to retire representing a capacity loss of less than 50 MW. Other plants will achieve the required emission reductions through the use of cleaner fuels, while others are undertaking retrofit projects.

Approximately 1800 MW of capacity may be required to undertake a major emissions reduction project or switch to cleaner fuels. Five units may be required to retrofit environmental control technology. According to the Federal Register (April 25, 2012 pages 24794 to 24827), they are Northport 1, 2, 3, & 4 and Danskammer 4.

5.1.2.3 MATS Impact Assessment USEPA announced the final rule for MATS for fossil fired electric generators in December. The regulations apply to coal and oil fueled electric generators greater than 25 MW. Units with 10,300 MW of capacity in NY will be affected by this regulation.

USEPA established a subcategory for limited use oil-fired generators. Units that maintain a capacity factor on oil that is less than 8%

will be more lightly regulated. As shown in Figure 5-3, no oil fired EGUs exceeded the 8% Capacity Factor, while firing oil in 2009 and 2010.

While these units will remain subject to MATS, it is not expected that significant emission control retrofit projects will be required at these units.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 52 August 2012

MATSNYCAGas/OilCapacity 7,000 6,000

) 5,000 W

M

(

C 4,000 N

M D

r e 3,000 m

m u

S 2,000 1,000 0

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 CapacityFactor>8% EstimatedOilCapacityFactor>8%

Figure 5-3: MATS NYCA Gas/Oil Capacity The coal fired generators subject to MATS are also subject to NYS DEC Part 246 Phase 2 regulations for limitations on mercury emission.

These regulations are more stringent than USEPAs MATS. The review of potential impacts for coal units focused on emissions of particulate matter (PM) and acid gases in the form of HCL. Alternative emission limits are also provided for Non-Hg Metals and SO2. Historic emissions and inventories of installed emission control equipment have been reviewed to estimate the level of additional emission reductions required. With optimum operation of existing environmental control equipment and/or fuel switching, most of the affected coal capacity can comply with the emission limits.

5.1.2.4 BTA Impact Assessment NYS DECs BTA policy will require the use of closed cycle cooling systems at plants that currently have open cycle cooling systems with some limited relief for sites that cannot physically accommodate cooling towers, generators with historical capacity factors below 15%, and where the expense of a closed cooling water system is wholly disproportionate compared to the environmental benefits to be gained.

Several sites have gained limited relief.

NYS DEC has made twelve BTA determinations of which two determinations required the use of closed cycle cooling systems.

Although the number of impacted MWs is unknown, for study purposes the NYISO shows a range from 4000 MW to 7000 MW. This program will require capital investments that are one to two orders of magnitude NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 53 August 2012

greater than the cumulative costs for the other environmental initiatives examined. Consequently, the BTA program has the greatest potential to lead to previously unplanned retirements.

5.1.2.5 CSAPR Impact Assessment The CSAPR rule applies to most of the fossil fueled fleet with nameplate capacity greater than 25 MW. The rule will require the use of allowances in numbers equivalent to actual emissions for SO2, Annual NOx, and for Ozone Season NOx. The budget for each of the states in the program has been established by USEPA through the use of long range transport models to identify sources and sinks for impact of emissions on areas in other states. The budget of allowances for each of the three categories is distributed on a pro-rata basis developed on historic heat input at affected units. A small set-aside is established for new units and recently retired units to continue to receive allowances for a limited time period. The rule calls for a two phase reduction of SO2 while the limits for Annual NOx and Ozone Season NOx are fixed. The program limits the amount of allowances that can be obtained through trading with generator owners in other states. The total of the budget plus traded allowances is known as the Assurance Level. Should a states emissions exceed the Assurance Level then two additional allowances would need to be surrendered for the excess emissions. This penalty would be prorated across all emitters.

Historic emissions and inventories of installed emission control equipment have been reviewed to estimate the level of additional emission reductions required. As detailed in Table 5-1 below, with optimum operation of existing environmental control equipment and/or fuel switching, New York State should be able to operate within the Assurance Level.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 54 August 2012

Table 5-1: New York Sate Emission Allocations under the Cross State Air Pollution Rule New York State [1] Emission Allocations under the Cross State Air Pollution Rule 2012 SO2 2014 SO2 Annual NOX Ozone Season NOX A Allocation for Units Proposed to be In-Service 28,395 21,301 17,342 8,318 Retired Unit [2] + Non-EGU Allocations [3]

B 7,175 5,704 3,946 1,844

+ Miscellaneous [4]

C New Unit Set-Aside [5] 726 551 434 207 D Total Allocation (A+B+C) 36,296 27,556 21,722 10,369 Trading Variablility for 2014 E N/A 4,960 3,910 2,177 18% Annual, 21% Ozone Season F 2014 Assurance Level (D+E) N/A 32,516 25,632 12,546 Historic Emissions 2011 Emissions from Units Proposed to be In-G 34,512 18,980 9,379 Service Estimated 2011 In-Service Unit Emissions -

Best Demonstrated Performance H 15,660 14,172 7,313 2011 Actual Heat Input

• Lowest Annual Emission Rate from 2006-2011 I 2011 "New Unit" Emissions [5] 11 134 58

[1] Linden Cogeneration Facility is not included.

Retired Units Include: Poletti, Project Orange, Greenidge, Westover, Ogdensburg Cogen, Astoria Generating ST2 and 4, Glenwood ST

[2]

4 and 5, Far Rockaway ST4, and Dunkirk 1-4

[3] Three (3) Consolidated Edison Steam System Boilers were given allocations.

[4] EPA calculation and rounding error.

New Unit allocations will be given to: Empire Generating and SCS Astoria II. Any remaining new unit set-aside will be reallocated

[5]

among existing generators.

Table 5.2 below identifies the new environmental requirements that will become effective in the near term and the amounts of capacity that will be affected by each of these regulations. In addition, the quantities of capacity and number of units that have announced or are expected to undertake environmental control projects to achieve compliance are also tabulated.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 55 August 2012

5.2. Summary of Impact Assessment Table 5-2: Summary of NYCA Impact Assessment by Program Approximate

Compliance Potential

Program Description Goal Status Capacity

Deadline Retrofits

Affected

Limitsemissionsof

NOxRACT nitrogenoxides Toreduce

(NOx)fromfossil emissionsfrom

Reasonably fueledpowerplants theaffected

Available byestablishing generatorsby 26,700MW 6,000MW

Control Ineffect July2014

presumptivelimits 50%,from58,000 (238Units) (23Units)

Technologyfor foreachtypeof TonsperYear

Oxidesof fossilfueled (TPY)to29,000

Nitrogen generatorandfuel TPY

used.

Requiresananalysis Tolimitemissions

todeterminethe thatmayimpact

impactofcertain visibilityin

BART affectedunits nationalparks.

emissions.Ifthe Emissionscontrol 8,600MW 1,800MW

BestAvailable impactsaregreater ofsulfurdioxide Ineffect January2014

Retrofit thanaprescribed (SO2),nitrogen (19Units) (5Units)

Technology minimum,then oxides(NOx)and

emissionreductions particulate

mustbemadeatthe matter(PM)may

affectedunit. benecessary.

Tolimit

Establisheslimitsfor emissions,under

MATS HazardousAir thefederalClean

Pollutants(HAP). AirAct,ofcertain 10,300MW 400MW

MercuryandAir Ineffect March2015

Willapplytocoal substances (28Units) (2Units)

ToxicsStandard andoilfired classifiedas

generators. hazardousair

pollutants.

Wouldapplyto Toestablish

BTA powerplantswith performance

designintake goalsfornewand

BestTechnology capacitygreater existingcooling 16,900MW 4,400to

Availablefor UponPermit

than20million waterintake Ineffect

CoolingWater Renewal (39Units) 7,300MW

gallons/dayand structures,and

Intake prescribes theuseofwet,

Structures reductionsinfish closedcycle

mortality. coolingsystems.

LimitsEmissionsof

Attainand

SO2andNOxFrom

maintainair

CSAPR PowerPlants Implementation

qualityconsistent 25,000MW 2,400MW

GreaterThan25MW isstayedwhile Jan.2012and

CrossStateAir withNation

in28EasternStates theruleisin Jan.2014 (156Units) (11Units)

PollutionRule AmbientAir

throughtheuseof litigation

Quality

emissionallowances

Standards.

withlimitedtrading.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 56 August 2012

6. Observations and Recommendations The 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment for the New York State Bulk Power System indicates that the system as modeled violates the 0.1 days per year reliability criterion starting in 2020 and extending through 2022. In addition, there are transmission security violations that are identified throughout the study period with some violations occurring in 2013. The NYISOs analysis of the 2012 RNA Base Case, scenarios, and the compensatory MW identified for the resource adequacy deficiencies and transmission security violations indicate that there are various combinations of proposed resource additions and system expansions that could locate in different NYISO Load Zones to address the Reliability Needs (listed in Section 4.2.5). Following Board approval and release of the 2012 RNA, the NYISO will seek market-based solutions and request Regulated Backstop Solutions and alternative regulated solutions to the identified Reliability Needs in accordance with Section 31.2.3.2 Attachment Y.

Since there are Reliability Needs in Zones B, C, and G within the first five years of the study period (2013-2017) as a result of identified transmission security violations, the TOs in those zones are the Responsible TOs (i.e., National Grid, RGE, and Orange & Rockland). Some of these Reliability Needs have been identified for the first time as the result of the recent additions to the BPTF list, and detailed Regulated Backstop Solutions will be required from these Responsible TOs for evaluation in the 2012 CRP. Given the limited time between the identification of the Reliability Needs in this RNA Report and their occurrence in 2013, it is uncertain as to when the near term solutions can be put in place. It is also expected that National Grid will present an updated Local Transmission Plan for Zone A for consideration in the 2012 Comprehensive Reliability Plan to address underlying transmission security issues that were observed by National Grid in its studies and by the NYISO when developing the RNA Base Case.

The Reliability Needs for resource adequacy in 2020 through 2022 can be satisfied through the addition of compensatory MWs in Zones G through K below the transmission constraint on the UPNY/SENY interface. Because there is a resource adequacy need in 2020 in Zones G through K, the TOs in these zones are designated as Responsible TOs (i.e., Orange & Rockland, Central Hudson, New York State Electric and Gas, Con Edison, and LIPA) for purposes of proposing Regulated Backstop Solutions for the second five years (2018-2022). Although NYISO does not designate NYPA as a Responsible TO, the NYISO expects that NYPA will work with the other TOs on resolving the identified needs on a voluntary basis.

The NYISO will continue monitoring and evaluating the progress of new market based projects interconnecting to the bulk power system, the development and installation of local transmission facilities, additional notices of intent to mothball or rescinding of intent to mothball facilities, the status of mothballed facilities, the continued implementation of State energy efficiency programs, participation in the NYISO demand response programs, and the impact of new and proposed environmental regulations on the existing generation fleet as part of the NYISOs reliability planning processes and in light of the determinations that will be made in the CRP. Should the NYISO determine that conditions have changed during its preparation of the NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 57 August 2012

CRP or later in its planning cycle, it will conduct analyses to determine if a Reliability Need has arisen in accordance with the parameters and conditions of the prior RNA, or if an imminent threat to reliability is presented. The NYISO would address any newly identified Reliability Need and would, if necessary, issue a request for Gap Solutions.

7. Historic Congestion Appendix A of Attachment Y of the NYISO OATT states: As part of its Comprehensive System Planning Process, the NYISO will prepare summaries and detailed analysis of historic congestion across the New York Transmission System. This will include analysis to identify the significant causes of historic congestion in an effort to help Market Participants and other stakeholders distinguish persistent and addressable congestion from congestion that results from onetime events or transient adjustments in operating procedures that may or may not recur. This information will assist Market Participants and other stakeholders to make appropriately informed decisions. The detailed analysis of historic congestion can be found on the NYISO Web site.9 9

http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/services/planning/documents/index.jspdocs=nyiso-historic-congestion-costs/congested-elements-reports NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 58 August 2012

Appendices A-D NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment 59 August 2012

Appendix A - Reliability Needs Assessment Glossary Term Definition 10-year Study 10-year period starting with the year after the study is dated and Period: projecting forward 10 years. For example, the 2012 RNA covers the 10-year Study Period of 2013 through 2022.

Adequacy: Encompassing both generation and transmission, adequacy refers to the ability of the bulk power system to supply the aggregate requirements of consumers at all times, accounting for scheduled and unscheduled outages of system components.

Alternative Regulated solutions submitted by a TO or other developer in Regulated response to a solicitation by the NYISO, if the NYISO Responses: determines that it has not received adequate market-based solutions to satisfy the Reliability Need.

Annual An assessment, conducted by the NYISO staff in cooperation Transmission with Market Participants, to determine the System Upgrade Reliability Facilities required for each generation and merchant Assessment transmission project included in the Assessment to interconnect (ATRA): to the New York State Transmission System in compliance with Applicable Reliability Requirements and the NYISO Minimum Interconnection Standard.

Annual The NYISO, in its role as Planning Coordinator, is responsible Transmission for providing an annual report to the NPCC Compliance Review (ATR): Committee in regard to its Area Transmission Review in accordance with the NPCC Reliability Compliance and Enforcement Program and in conformance with the NPCC Design and Operation of the Bulk Power System (Directory #1).

Best Available NYS DEC regulation, required for compliance with the federal Retrofit Clean Air Act, applying to fossil fueled electric generating units Technology built between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977. Emissions (BART): control of SO2, NOx and PM may be necessary for compliance.

Compliance deadline is January 2014.

Best Technology Proposed NYS DEC policy establishing performance goals for Available (BTA): new and existing electricity generating plants for Cooling Water Intake Structures. The policy would apply to plants with design intake capacity greater than 20 million gallons/day and prescribes reductions in fish mortality. The performance goals call for the use of wet, closed-cycle cooling systems at existing generating plants.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment A-1 August 2012

Term Definition Bulk Power Transmission facilities that are system elements of the bulk Transmission power system which is the interconnected electrical system Facility (BPTF): within northeastern North America comprised of system elements on which faults or disturbances can have a significant adverse impact outside of the local area.

Capability Period: The Summer Capability Period lasts six months, from May 1 through October 31. The Winter Capability Period runs from November 1 through April 30 of the following year.

Capacity: The capability to generate or transmit electrical power, or the ability to reduce demand at the direction of the NYISO.

Capacity Resource CRIS is the service provided by NYISO to interconnect the Integration Service Developers Large Generating Facility or Merchant (CRIS): Transmission Facility to the New York State Transmission System in accordance with the NYISO Deliverability Interconnection Standard, to enable the New York State Transmission System to deliver electric capacity from the Large Generating Facility or Merchant Transmission Facility, pursuant to the terms of the NYISO OATT.

Class Year: The group of generation and merchant transmission projects included in any particular Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment [ATRA], in accordance with the criteria specified for including such projects in the assessment.

Clean Air Rule proposed by the U.S. EPA to reduce Interstate Transport Interstate Rule of Fine Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone. CAIR provides a (CAIR): federal framework to limit the emission of SO2 and CO2.

Comprehensive The biennial process that includes evaluation of resource Reliability Planning adequacy and transmission system security of the states bulk Process (CRPP): electricity grid over a 10-year period and evaluates solutions to meet those needs. The CRPP consists of two studies: the RNA, which identifies potential problems, and the CRP, which evaluates specific solutions to those problems.

Comprehensive A biennial study undertaken by the NYISO that evaluates Reliability Plan projects offered to meet New Yorks future electric power (CRP): needs, as identified in the Reliability Needs Assessment (RNA).

The CRP may trigger electric utilities to pursue regulated solutions to meet Reliability Needs if market-based solutions will not be available by the need date. It is the second step in the Comprehensive Reliability Planning Process (CRPP).

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment A-2 August 2012

Term Definition Comprehensive A transmission system planning process that is comprised of System Planning three components: 1) Local transmission planning; 2)

Process (CSPP): Compilation of local plans into the Comprehensive Reliability Planning Process (CRPP), which includes developing a Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP); 3) Channeling the CRP data into the Congestion Assessment and Resource Integration Study (CARIS)

Congestion The third component of the Comprehensive System Planning Assessment and Process (CSPP). The CARIS is based on the Comprehensive Resource Reliability Plan (CRP).

Integration Study (CARIS):

Congestion: Congestion on the transmission system results from physical limits on how much power transmission equipment can carry without exceeding thermal, voltage and/or stability limits determined to maintain system reliability. If a lower cost generator cannot transmit its available power to a customer because of a physical transmission constraint, the cost of dispatching a more expensive generator is the congestion cost.

Contingencies: Contingencies are individual electrical system events (including disturbances and equipment failures) that are likely to happen.

Dependable The sustained maximum net output of a generator, as Maximum Net demonstrated by the performance of a test or through actual Capability operation, averaged over a continuous time period as defined in (DMNC): the ISO Procedures. The DMNC test determines the amount of Installed Capacity used to calculate the Unforced Capacity that the Resource is permitted to supply to the NYCA.

Electric System A NYISO governance working group for Market Participants Planning Work designated to fulfill the planning functions assigned to it. The Group (ESPWG): ESPWG is a working group that provides a forum for stakeholders and Market Participants to provide input into the NYISOs Comprehensive System Planning Process (CSPP),

the NYISOs response to FERC reliability-related Orders and other directives, other system planning activities, policies regarding cost allocation and recovery for regulated reliability and/or economic projects, and related matters.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment A-3 August 2012

Term Definition Energy Efficiency A statewide program ordered by the NYSPSC in response to Portfolio Standard the Governors call to reduce New Yorkers' electricity usage by (EEPS): 15% of 2007 forecast levels by the year 2015, with comparable results in natural gas conservation.

Federal Energy The federal energy regulatory agency within the U.S.

Regulatory Department of Energy that approves the NYISOs tariffs and Commission regulates its operation of the bulk electricity grid, wholesale (FERC): power markets, and planning and interconnection processes.

FERC 715: Annual report that is required by transmitting utilities operating grid facilities that are rated at or above 100 kilovolts. The report consists of transmission systems maps, a detailed description of transmission planning Reliability Criteria, detailed descriptions of transmission planning assessment practices, and detailed evaluation of anticipated system performance as measured against Reliability Criteria.

Five Year Base The model representing the New York State power system over Case: the first five years of the Study Period.

Forced Outage: An unanticipated loss of capacity, due to the breakdown of a power plant or transmission line. It can also mean the intentional shutdown of a generating unit or transmission line for emergency reasons.

Gap Solution: A solution to a Reliability Need that is designed to be temporary and to strive to be compatible with permanent market-based proposals. A permanent regulated solution, if appropriate, may proceed in parallel with a Gap Solution.

Gold Book: Annual NYISO publication of its Load and Capacity Data Report.

Market Monitoring A consulting or other professional services firm, or other similar Unit: entity, retained by the NYISO Board pursuant to Market Service Tariff Section 30.4, Attachment O - Market Monitoring Plan.

Installed Capacity A generator or load facility that complies with the requirements (ICAP): in the Reliability Rules and is capable of supplying and/or reducing the demand for energy in the NYCA for the purpose of ensuring that sufficient energy and capacity are available to meet the Reliability Rules.

Installed Reserve The amount of installed electric generation capacity above Margin (IRM): 100% of the forecasted peak electric consumption that is required to meet New York State Reliability Council (NYSRC) resource adequacy criteria. Most studies in recent years have indicated a need for a 15-20% reserve margin for adequate NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment A-4 August 2012

Term Definition reliability in New York.

Interconnection A queue of transmission and generation projects (greater than Queue: 20 MW) that have submitted an Interconnection Request to the NYISO to be interconnected to the states bulk electricity grid.

All projects must undergo three studies - a Feasibility Study (unless parties agree to forgo it), a System Reliability Impact Study (SRIS) and a Facilities Study - before interconnecting to the grid.

Load Pocket: Areas that have a limited ability to import generation resources from outside their areas in order to meet reliability requirements.

Local The Local Transmission Owner Plan, developed by each Transmission Plan Transmission Owner, which describes its respective plans that (LTP): may be under consideration or finalized for its own Transmission District.

Local The first step in the Comprehensive System Planning Process Transmission (CSPP), under which transmission owners in New Yorks Owner Planning electricity markets provide their local transmission plans for Process (LTPP): consideration and comment by interested parties.

Loss of load LOLE establishes the amount of generation and demand-side expectation resources needed - subject to the level of the availability of (LOLE): those resources, load uncertainty, available transmission system transfer capability and emergency operating procedures

- to minimize the probability of an involuntary loss of firm electric load on the bulk electricity grid. The states bulk electricity grid is designed to meet an LOLE that is not greater than one occurrence of an involuntary load disconnection in 10 years, expressed mathematically as 0.1 days per year.

Lower Hudson The southeastern section of New York, comprising New York Valley: Control Area Load Zones G (lower portion), H and I. Greene, Ulster, Orange, Dutchess, Putnam, Rockland and Westchester counties are located in those Load Zones.

Market-Based Investor-proposed projects that are driven by market needs to Solutions: meet future reliability requirements of the bulk electricity grid as outlined in the RNA. Those solutions can include generation, transmission and Demand Response Programs.

Market Participant: An entity, excluding the NYISO, that produces, transmits sells, and/or purchases for resale capacity, energy and ancillary services in the wholesale market. Market Participants include:

customers under the NYISOs tariffs, power exchanges, TOs, primary holders, load serving entities, generating companies and other suppliers, and entities buying or selling transmission congestion contracts.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment A-5 August 2012

Term Definition Mercury and Air In December, 2011 USEPA announced the final rule (previously Toxics Standards known as the MACT rule). The rule applies to oil and coal fired (MATS): generators and establishes limits for HAPs, acid gases, Mercury (Hg),

and Particulate Matter (PM). Compliance is required by March 2015.

National Ambient Limits, set by the EPA, on pollutants considered harmful to Air Quality public health and the environment.

Standards (NAAQS):

New York Control The area under the electrical control of the NYISO. It includes Area (NYCA): the entire state of New York, and is divided into 11 zones.

New York State The agency that implements New York State environmental Department of conservation law, with some programs also governed by federal Environmental law.

Conservation (NYSDEC):

New York Formed in 1997 and commencing operations in 1999, the Independent NYISO is a not-for-profit organization that manages New Yorks System Operator bulk electricity grid - an 11,016-mile network of high voltage (NYISO): lines that carry electricity throughout the state. The NYISO also oversees the states wholesale electricity markets. The organization is governed by an independent Board of Directors and a governance structure made up of committees with Market Participants and stakeholders as members.

New York State The New York State Department of Public Service, as defined Department of in the New York Public Service Law, which serves as the staff Public Service for the New York State Public Service Commission.

(DPS):

New York State The New York State Public Service Commission, as defined in Public Service the New York Public Service Law.

Commission (NYSPSC):

New York State A corporation created under the New York State Public Energy Research Authorities law and funded by the System Benefits Charge and Development (SBC) and other sources. Among other responsibilities, Authority NYSERDA is charged with conducting a multifaceted energy (NYSERDA): and environmental research and development program to meet New York State's diverse economic needs, and administering state System Benefits Charge, Renewable Portfolio Standard, and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard programs.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment A-6 August 2012

Term Definition New York State A not-for-profit entity that develops, maintains, and, from time-Reliability Council to-time, updates the Reliability Rules which shall be complied (NYSRC) with by the New York Independent System Operator ("NYISO")

and all entities engaging in electric transmission, ancillary services, energy and power transactions on the New York State Power System.

North American A not-for-profit organization that develops and enforces Electric Reliability reliability standards; assesses reliability annually via 10-year Corporation and seasonal forecasts; monitors the bulk power system; and (NERC): educates, trains, and certifies industry personnel. NERC is subject to oversight by the FERC and governmental authorities in Canada.

Northeast Power A not-for-profit corporation responsible for promoting and Coordinating improving the reliability of the international, interconnected bulk Council (NPCC): power system in Northeastern North America.

Open Access Document of Rates, Terms and Conditions, regulated by the Transmission FERC, under which the NYISO provides transmission service.

Tariff (OATT): The OATT is a dynamic document to which revisions are made on a collaborative basis by the NYISO, New Yorks Electricity Market Stakeholders, and the FERC.

Order 890: Adopted by FERC in February 2007, Order 890 is a change to FERCs 1996 transmission open access regulations (established in Orders 888 and 889). Order 890 is intended to provide for more effective competition, transparency and planning in wholesale electricity markets and transmission grid operations, as well as to strengthen the Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) with regard to non-discriminatory transmission service. Order 890 requires Transmission Providers - including the NYISO - to have a formal planning process that provides for a coordinated transmission planning process, including reliability and economic planning studies.

Outage: Removal of generating capacity or transmission line from service either forced or scheduled.

Peak Demand: The maximum instantaneous power demand averaged over any designated interval of time, which is measured in megawatts (MW). Peak demand, also known as peak load, is usually measured hourly.

Reasonably Revised regulations recently promulgated by NYSDEC for the Available Control control of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from fossil fueled Technology for power plants. The regulations establish presumptive emission Oxides of Nitrogen limits for each type of fossil fueled generator and fuel used as (NOx RACT): an electric generator in NY. The NOx RACT limits are part of the State Implementation Plan for achieving compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment A-7 August 2012

Term Definition Reactive Power Facilities such as generators, high voltage transmission lines, Resources: synchronous condensers, capacitor banks, and static VAr compensators that provide reactive power. Reactive power is the portion of electric power that establishes and sustains the electric and magnetic fields of alternating-current equipment.

Reactive power is usually expressed as kilovolt-amperes reactive (kVAr) or megavolt-ampere reactive (MVAr).

Regional A cooperative effort by nine Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states Greenhouse Gas (not including New Jersey or Pennsylvania) to limit greenhouse Initiative (RGGI): gas emissions using a market-based cap-and-trade approach.

Regulated Proposals required of certain TOs to meet Reliability Needs as Backstop outlined in the RNA. Those solutions can include generation, Solutions: transmission or Demand Response. Non-Transmission Owner developers may also submit regulated solutions. The NYISO may call for a Gap Solution if neither market-based nor Regulated Backstop Solutions meet Reliability Needs in a timely manner. To the extent possible, the Gap Solution should be temporary and strive to ensure that market-based solutions will not be economically harmed. The NYISO is responsible for evaluating all solutions to determine if they will meet identified Reliability Needs in a timely manner.

Reliability Criteria: The electric power system planning and operating policies, standards, criteria, guidelines, procedures, and rules promulgated by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC), and the New York State Reliability Council (NYSRC),

as they may be amended from time to time.

Reliability Need: A condition identified by the NYISO in the RNA as a violation or potential violation of Reliability Criteria.

Reliability Needs A bi-annual report that evaluates resource adequacy and Assessment transmission system security over a 10-year planning horizon, (RNA): and identifies future needs of the New York electric grid. It is the first step in the NYISOs CSPP.

Renewable Proceeding commenced by order of the NYSPSC in 2004 which Portfolio Standard established goal to increase renewable energy used in New (RPS): York State to 25% (or approximately 3,700 MW) by 2013.

Responsible The Transmission Owner(s) or TOs designated by the NYISO, Transmission pursuant to the NYISO CSPP, to prepare a proposal for a Owner regulated solution to a Reliability Need or to proceed with a (Responsible TO): regulated solution to a Reliability Need. The Responsible TO will normally be the Transmission Owner in whose Transmission District the NYISO identifies a Reliability Need.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment A-8 August 2012

Term Definition Security: The ability of the power system to withstand the loss of one or more elements without involuntarily disconnecting firm load.

Southeastern New The portion of the NYCA comprised of the transmission districts York (SENY): of Con Edison and LIPA (Zones H, I, J and K).

Special Case A NYISO Demand Response program designed to reduce Resources (SCR): power usage by businesses and large power users qualified to participate in the NYISOs ICAP market. Companies that sign up as SCRs are paid in advance for agreeing to cut power upon NYISO request.

State NYS law requiring the sponsoring or approving governmental Environmental body to identify and mitigate the significant environmental Quality Review Act impacts of the activity/project it is proposing or permitting.

(SEQRA)

State A plan, submitted by each State to the EPA, for meeting specific Implementation requirements of the Clean Air Act, including the requirement to Plan (SIP): attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Study Period: The 10-year time period evaluated in the RNA.

System Reliability A study, conducted by the NYISO in accordance with Applicable Impact Study Reliability Standards, to evaluate the impact of a proposed (SRIS) interconnection on the reliability of the New York State Transmission System.

System Benefits An amount of money, charged to ratepayers on their electric Charge (SBC): bills, which is administered and allocated by NYSERDA towards energy-efficiency programs, research and development initiatives, low-income energy programs, and environmental disclosure activities.

Transfer The amount of electricity that can flow on a transmission line at Capability: any given instant, respecting facility ratings and reliability rules.

Transmission Limitations on the ability of a transmission facility to transfer Constraints: electricity during normal or emergency system conditions.

Transmission A public utility or authority that owns transmission facilities and Owner (TO): provides Transmission Service under the NYISOs tariffs Transmission An identified group of Market Participants that advises the Planning Advisory NYISO Operating Committee and provides support to the Subcommittee NYISO Staff in regard to transmission planning matters (TPAS): including transmission system reliability, expansion, and interconnection Unforced Capacity Unforced capacity delivery rights are rights that may be granted NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment A-9 August 2012

Term Definition Delivery Rights to controllable lines to deliver generating capacity from locations (UDR): outside the NYCA to localities within NYCA.

Upstate New York The NYCA north of Con Edison's transmission district (UPNY):

Weather Adjustments made to neutralize the impact of weather when Normalized: making energy and peak demand forecasts. Using historical weather data, energy analysts can account for the influence of extreme weather conditions and adjust actual energy use and peak demand to estimate what would have happened if the hottest day or the coldest day had been the typical, or normal, weather conditions. Normal is usually calculated by taking the average of the previous 30 years of weather data.

Zone: One of the eleven regions in the NYCA connected to each other by identified transmission interfaces and designated as Load Zones A-K.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment A-10 August 2012

Appendix B - The Reliability Planning Process This section presents an overview of the NYISOs reliability planning process followed by a summary of the 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 CRPs and their current status10. A detailed discussion of the reliability planning process, including applicable Reliability Criteria, is contained in NYISO Manual 26 entitled: Comprehensive Reliability Planning Process Manual,11 which is posted on the NYISOs website.

The NYISOs reliability planning process, also known as Comprehensive Reliability Planning Process (CRPP) is an integral part of the NYISOs overall Comprehensive System Planning Process (CSPP). The CSPP planning process is comprised of the Local Transmission Planning Process (LTPP), the CRPP, and the Congestion Assessment and Resource Integration Study (CARIS). Each CSPP cycle begins with the LTPP. As part of the LTPP, local Transmission Owners perform transmission studies for their BPTFs in their transmission areas according to all applicable criteria. Links to the Transmission Owners LTPs can be found on the NYISOs website 12. The LTPP provides inputs for the NYISOs reliability planning process. During the CRPP process, the NYISO conducts the Reliability Needs Assessment (RNA) and Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP). The RNA evaluates the adequacy and security of the bulk power system over a 10-year Study Period. In identifying resource adequacy needs, the NYISO identifies the amount of resources in megawatts (known as compensatory megawatts) and the locations in which they are needed to meet those needs. After the RNA is complete, the NYISO requests and evaluates first market-based solutions, then Regulated Backstop Solutions and alternative regulated responses that address the identified Reliability Needs. This step results in the development of the NYISOs CRP for the 10-year Study Period. The CRPP provides inputs for the NYISOs economic planning process known as CARIS. CARIS Phase 1 examines congestion on the New York bulk power system and the costs and benefits of alternatives to alleviate that congestion. During CARIS Phase 2, the NYISO will evaluate specific transmission project proposals for regulated cost recovery.

The NYISOs reliability planning process is a long-range assessment of both resource adequacy and transmission reliability of the New York bulk power system conducted over five-year and 10-year planning horizons. There are two different aspects to 10 The first CRP was entitled the 2005 Comprehensive Reliability Plan, while the second CRP, released the following year, was entitled the 2007 Comprehensive Reliability Plan. A year was skipped in the naming convention because the title of the first CRP, which covered the Study Period 2006-2015, designated the year the study assumptions were derived, or 2005, but for the second CRP a different year designation convention was adopted, which identified the first year of the Study Period. The latter naming convention continues to be applied to the 2008, 2009 and 2010 CRP documents. However, the original naming convention is used for the 2012 CRP and subsequent CRP documents. Thus, the study period for the 2012 RNA is 2013 - 2022.

11 http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/documents/manuals/planning/CRPPManual120707.pdf.

12 http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/services/planning/process/ltpp/index.jsp NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment B-1 August 2012

analyzing the bulk power systems reliability in the RNA: adequacy and security.

Adequacy is a planning and probabilistic concept. A system is adequate if the probability of having sufficient transmission and generation to meet expected demand is equal to or less than the systems standard, which is expressed as a loss of load expectation (LOLE).

The New York State bulk power system is planned to meet an LOLE that, at any given point in time, is less than or equal to an involuntary load disconnection that is not more frequent than once in every 10 years, or 0.1 days per year. This requirement forms the basis of New Yorks installed reserve margin (IRM) resource adequacy requirement.

Security is an operating and deterministic concept. This means that possible events are identified as having significant adverse reliability consequences, and the system is planned and operated so that the system can continue to serve load even if these events occur. Security requirements are sometimes referred to as N-1 or N-1-1. N is the number of system components; an N-1 requirement means that the system can withstand single disturbance events (e.g., generator, bus section, transmission circuit, breaker failure, double-circuit tower) without violating thermal, voltage and stability limits or before affecting service to consumers. An N-1-1 requirement means that the Reliability Criteria apply after any critical element such as a generator, a transmission circuit, a transformer, series or shunt compensating device, or a high voltage direct current (HVDC) pole has already been lost. Generation and power flows can be adjusted by the use of 10-minute operating reserve, phase angle regulator control and HVDC control and a second single disturbance is analyzed.

The CRPP is anchored in the market-based philosophy of the NYISO and its Market Participants, which posits that market solutions should be the preferred choice to meet the identified Reliability Needs reported in the RNA. In the CRP, the reliability of the bulk power system is assessed and solutions to Reliability Needs evaluated in accordance with existing Reliability Criteria of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Northeast Power Coordinating Council, Inc. (NPCC), and the New York State Reliability Council (NYSRC) as they may change from time to time. These criteria and a description of the nature of long-term bulk power system planning are described in detail in the applicable planning manual, and are briefly summarized below. In the event that market-based solutions do not materialize to meet a Reliability Need in a timely manner, the NYISO designates the Responsible TO or Responsible TOs to proceed with a Regulated Backstop Solution in order to maintain system reliability. Market Participants can offer and promote alternative regulated responses which, if determined by NYISO to help satisfy the identified Reliability Needs and by regulators to be more desirable, may displace some or all of the Responsible TOs Regulated Backstop Solutions13. Under the CRPP, the NYISO also has an affirmative obligation to report historic congestion across the transmission system. In addition, the draft RNA is provided to the Market Monitoring Unit for review and consideration of whether market rules changes are necessary to address an identified failure, if any, in one of the NYISOs competitive markets. If market failure is identified as the reason for the lack of market-based solutions, the 13 The procedures for reviewing alternative regulated solutions for a reliability need are currently being discussed in NYPSC Case 07-E-1507.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment B-2 August 2012

NYISO will explore appropriate changes in its market rules with its stakeholders and Independent Market Advisor. The CRPP does not substitute for the planning that each TO conducts to maintain the reliability of its own bulk and non-bulk power systems.

The NYISO does not license or construct projects to respond to identified Reliability Needs reported in the RNA. The ultimate approval of those projects lies with regulatory agencies such as the FERC, the NYS PSC, environmental permitting agencies, and local governments. The NYISO monitors the progress and continued viability of proposed market and regulated projects to meet identified needs, and reports its findings in annual plans. Figure B-1 below summarizes the CRPP and Figure B-2 summarizes the CARIS which collectively comprise the CSPP process.

The 2012 CRP will form the basis for the next cycle of the NYISOs economic planning process. That process will examine congestion on the New York bulk power system and the costs and benefits of alternatives to alleviate that congestion.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment B-3 August 2012

NYISO Reliability Planning Process NYISO Develops Power Flow Base Case Representations Databank/FERC From the FERC 715 Case ( ATRA Network )

715 Cases Cases Meet Standards for Base Cases ( No Violations)

NYISO Applies Base Case Screens Removing Projects to Scenarios Developed Develop the Base Cases over the Ten Year Period LTP NYISO Works with TOs to Mitigate Local Problems And Reports Actions in RNA NYISO Performs Contingency Analysis of BPTFs for Security Assessment NYISO Performs Security Screening Violations Identified Analysis if x Identify if Transfer Related No Violations Identified Needed x IF not, x Identify as Criteria Deficiency (Needs) x Develop Compensatory MW/MVAR to remove Deficiency NYISO Performs L&C Table Screening NYISO Performs Transfer Limit Analysis for Resource Adequacy Assessment And Identifies Needs as Deficiency in LOLE Criteria by MARS MARS LOLE &

Compensatory Develop Compensatory MWs to Remove Deficiency MW NYISO Reviews LTPs as They Relate to BPTFs to Determine Whether They Will Meet Reliability Needs and Evaluate Alternatives from a Regional Perspective Approval of Reliability Needs Assessment NYISO to Publicize Reliability Needs Assessment NYISO Issues Request for Solutions Market-Based Responses Regulated Responses x Generation x Transmission x DSM x May consider alternatives x Merchant Transmission x TO & non-TO proposals NYISO Evaluates Market-Based Responses, Regulated Responses and TO Updates To Determine Whether They Will Meet the Identified Reliability Needs NYISO Formulates Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP)

No viable/timely market or regulated solution to an identified need Board Approval of Plan (CRP) Gap Solutions by TOs Board Approval of Plan (CRP)

NYISO Triggers Regulated Backstops if Required Figure B-1: NYISO Reliability Planning Process NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment B-4 August 2012

NYISO Comprehensive System Planning Process (CSPP) Economic Planning Process (CARIS)

Approved Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP)

NYISO Develops System Model for CARIS Studies NYISO Identifies Congestion and Proposed Solutions x Considers All Resource Types NYISO Performs Benefit/Cost Analysis x NYCA-Wide Production Cost Savings NYISO Issues Draft CARIS Report x Benefit/Cost Results x Additional Metrics x Scenarios Committee Review and Action Board Approval of CARIS NYISO to Publicize CARIS Figure B-2: Economic Planning Process NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment B-5 August 2012

Appendix C - Load and Energy Forecast 2013-2022 C-1. Summary In order to perform the 2012 RNA, a forecast of summer and winter peak demands and annual energy requirements was produced for the years 2013 - 2022. The electricity forecast is based on projections of New Yorks economy performed by Moody's Analytics in January 2012. The forecast includes detailed projections of employment, output, income and other factors for twenty three regions in New York State. This appendix provides a summary of the electric energy and peak demand forecasts and the key economic input variables used to produce the forecasts. Table C-1 provides a summary of key economic and electric system growth rates from 2001 to 2022.

In June 2008, the New York Public Service Commission issued its Order regarding the Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard. This proceeding set forth a statewide goal of a cumulative energy reduction of about 26,900 GWh. The NYISO estimates the peak demand impacts to be about 5500 MW. This goal is expected to be achieved by contributions from a number of state agencies, power authorities and utilities, as well as from federal codes and building standards.

The NYISO included fifty-six percent of the goal by the year 2022 in the 2012 RNA Base Case, including achievements obtained during the years 2009 through 2011.

Table C-1: Summary of Econometric & Electric System Growth Rates - Actual & Forecast Average Annual Growth Economic Indicators 2001-2006 2006-2011 2012-2017 2017-2022 Total Employment 0.44% 0.04% 1.82% 0.58%

Gross State Product 2.83% 0.85% 2.73% 2.25%

Population 0.18% 0.21% 0.30% 0.27%

Total Real Income 3.19% 0.10% 2.75% 1.91%

Weather Normalized Summer Peak 2.06% 0.02% 0.74% 0.95%

Weather Normalized Annual Energy 1.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.77%

Shares of Total Employment Employment Trends 2006 2011 2017 2022 Business, Services & Retail 53.6% 53.3% 53.3% 53.0%

Health, Education, Government 35.5% 37.4% 37.8% 38.3%

Manufacturing, Agriculture & Construction 10.9% 9.2% 9.0% 8.7%

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment C-1 August 2012

C-2. Historic Overview The New York Control Area (NYCA) is a summer peaking system and its summer peak has grown faster than annual energy and winter peak over this period. Both summer and winter peaks show considerable year-to-year variability due to the influence of peak-producing weather conditions for the seasonal peaks. Annual energy is influenced by weather conditions over an entire year, which is much less variable than peak-producing conditions.

Table C-2 shows the NYCA historic seasonal peaks and annual energy growth since 2001.

The table provides both actual results and weather-normalized results, together with annual average growth rates for each table entry. The growth rates are averaged over the period 2001 to 2011.

Table C-2: Historic Energy and Seasonal Peak Demand - Actual and Weather-Normalized Annual Energy - GWh Summer Peak - MW Winter Peak - MW Weather Weather Weather Year Actual Actual Years Actual Normalized Normalized Normalized 2001 155,241 154,780 30,982 30,000 2001-02 22,798 NA 2002 158,508 156,613 30,664 30,302 2002-03 24,454 24,294 2003 158,012 158,030 30,333 30,576 2003-04 25,262 24,849 2004 160,211 160,772 28,433 31,401 2004-05 25,541 25,006 2005 167,208 164,139 32,075 33,068 2005-06 24,947 24,770 2006 162,238 162,703 33,939 32,992 2006-07 25,057 25,030 2007 167,341 166,047 32,169 33,444 2007-08 25,021 25,490 2008 165,612 166,471 32,432 33,670 2008-09 24,673 25,016 2009 158,780 161,234 30,844 33,063 2009-10 24,074 24,537 2010 163,505 161,570 33,452 32,458 2010-11 24,652 24,452 2011 163,330 162,672 33,865 33,019 2011-12 23,901 24,630 0.51% 0.50% 0.89% 0.96% 0.47% 0.15%

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment C-2 August 2012

C-3. Forecast Overview Table C-3 shows historic and forecast growth rates of annual energy for the different regions in New York. The Upstate region includes Zones A - I. The NYCA's two locality zones, Zones J (New York City) and K (Long Island) are shown individually.

Table C-3: Annual Energy and Summer Peak Demand - Actual & Forecast Annual Energy - GWh Summer Coincident Peak - MW New New Upstate Long Upstate Long Year York NYCA York NYCA Region Island Region Island City City 2001 84,241 50,277 20,723 155,241 15,146 10,602 4,900 30,648 2002 85,608 51,356 21,544 158,508 15,271 10,321 5,072 30,664 2003 85,223 50,829 21,960 158,012 15,100 10,240 4,993 30,333 2004 85,935 52,073 22,203 160,211 14,271 9,742 4,420 28,433 2005 90,253 54,007 22,948 167,208 16,029 10,810 5,236 32,075 2006 86,957 53,096 22,185 162,238 17,054 11,300 5,585 33,939 2007 89,843 54,750 22,748 167,341 15,824 10,970 5,375 32,169 2008 88,316 54,835 22,461 165,612 16,222 10,979 5,231 32,432 2009 83,788 53,100 21,892 158,780 15,415 10,366 5,063 30,844 2010 85,469 55,114 22,922 163,505 16,407 11,213 5,832 33,452 2011 86,566 54,060 22,704 163,330 16,557 11,373 5,935 33,865 2012 86,991 53,663 23,005 163,659 16,355 11,500 5,440 33,295 2013 87,194 54,094 23,339 164,627 16,461 11,680 5,555 33,696 2014 87,167 54,753 23,420 165,340 16,505 11,830 5,579 33,914 2015 87,174 55,234 23,622 166,030 16,544 11,985 5,622 34,151 2016 87,385 55,756 23,774 166,915 16,616 12,095 5,634 34,345 2017 87,439 55,725 23,833 166,997 16,684 12,200 5,666 34,550 2018 87,676 56,306 24,039 168,021 16,762 12,400 5,706 34,868 2019 88,053 57,096 24,260 169,409 16,882 12,570 5,752 35,204 2020 88,483 58,086 24,607 171,176 16,993 12,725 5,808 35,526 2021 88,887 58,772 24,855 172,514 17,121 12,920 5,872 35,913 2022 89,234 59,118 25,217 173,569 17,236 13,050 5,944 36,230 2001-11 0.3% 0.7% 0.9% 0.5% 0.9% 0.7% 1.9% 1.0%

2012-22 0.3% 1.0% 0.9% 0.6% 0.5% 1.3% 0.9% 0.8%

2001-06 0.6% 1.1% 1.4% 0.9% 2.4% 1.3% 2.7% 2.1%

2006-11 -0.1% 0.4% 0.5% 0.1% -0.6% 0.1% 1.2% 0.0%

2012-17 0.1% 0.8% 0.7% 0.4% 0.4% 1.2% 0.8% 0.7%

2017-22 0.4% 1.2% 1.1% 0.8% 0.7% 1.4% 1.0% 1.0%

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment C-3 August 2012

C-4. Trends Affecting Electricity in New York C-4.1. 2012 Employment Forecast The 2012 employment forecast projects modest growth through 2013, higher growth through 2016, then reduced growth rates through 2022.

Annual Employment Growth Rates Historic & Forecast 5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

-1% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

-2%

-3%

-4%

-5%

Business & Retail Health, Education & Government Total Figure C-1: Annual Employment Growth Rates NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment C-4 August 2012

C-4.2. 2012 Population Forecast The 2012 population forecast projects slower population growth in every region of the state than during the period from 2000 to 2010. While all growth rates remain positive throughout the forecast horizon, population growth from 2013 onward is slower than in the period from 2009 to 2012.

Annual Population Growth Rates Historic & Forecast 1.5%

1.0%

0.5%

0.0%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

-0.5%

NYC Long Island Upstate Figure C-2: Annual Change in Population by Region NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment C-5 August 2012

C-4.3. 2012 Forecasts of Real Output, Real Income, Employment Three key economic trends in the state are measured by real gross domestic output, total income, and employment. Real gross domestic output measures the prosperity of business, while real income and employment are indicative of the prosperity of households and wage-earners. The period from 2004 to 2007 showed significant growth in all these metrics. The recession caused them to decline substantially through 2009, and to only begin to recover in 2010.

The 2012 forecast projects real economic output growth in the range of 2% through 2022. Real income growth has a similar pattern to output. Employment turns positive but is only growing at a rate of about 0.3%. All indices are characterized by faster growth in the near term followed by slower growth in the long term.

Growth Rates of Key Economic Indicators Historic & Forecast 10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

-2%

-4%

-6%

Income Real Domestic Output Employment Figure C-3: Annual Growth Rates of Income, Real Domestic Output and Employment NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment C-6 August 2012

C-4.4. Regional Economic Trends Table C-4 provides a summary of historic and forecast growth rates of economic and demographic data for the state and for the Upstate and Downstate regions. Economic drivers for Long Island and New York City are somewhat higher than for the Upstate region, typical of forecast trends in prior Reliability Needs Assessments.

Table C-4: Regional Economic Growth Rates of Key Economic Indicators New York State New York City Average Annual Growth Average Annual Growth Economic Indicators 2001-2011 2012-2022 Economic Indicators 2001-2011 2012-2022 Total Employment 0.2% 1.2% Total Employment 0.3% 1.3%

Gross Product 1.8% 2.5% Gross Product 1.8% 2.9%

Population 0.2% 0.3% Population 0.2% 0.3%

Real Income 1.6% 2.3% Real Income 1.8% 3.1%

Upstate Regions Long Island Average Annual Growth Average Annual Growth Economic Indicators 2001-2011 2012-2022 Economic Indicators 2001-2011 2012-2022 Total Employment 0.3% 1.1% Total Employment 0.0% 1.1%

Gross Product 1.8% 1.8% Gross Product 2.2% 2.5%

Population 0.2% 0.3% Population 0.2% 0.3%

Real Income 1.5% 1.2% Real Income 1.4% 2.8%

C-5. Forecast Methodology The NYISO methodology for producing the long term forecasts for the Reliability Needs Assessment consists of the following steps.

Econometric forecasts were developed for zonal energy using monthly data from 2000 through 2011. For each zone, the NYISO estimated an ensemble of econometric models using population, households, economic output, employment, cooling degree days and heating degree days. Each member of the ensemble was evaluated and compared to historic data. The zonal model chosen for the forecast was the one which best represented recent history and the regional growth for that zone. The NYISO also received and evaluated forecasts from Con Edison and LIPA, which were used in combination with the forecasts we developed for Zones H, I, J and K.

The summer & winter non-coincident and coincident peak forecasts for Zones H, I, J and K were derived from the forecasts submitted to the NYISO by Con Edison and LIPA. For the remaining zones, the NYISO derived the summer and winter coincident peak demands from the zonal energy forecasts by using average zonal weather-normalized load factors from 2000 through 2011. The 2012 summer peak forecast was matched to coincide with the 2012 ICAP forecast.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment C-7 August 2012

C-5.1. Energy Efficiency Initiatives The Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (EEPS) is an initiative of the Governor of New York and implemented by the state's Public Service Commission. The goal of the initiative is to reduce electric energy usage by 15 percent from 2007 forecasted energy usage levels in the year 2015 (the 15x15 initiative), for a reduction of 26,880 GWh in 2015.

The NYS PSC directed a series of working groups composed of all interested parties to the proceeding to obtain information needed to further elaborate the goal. The NYS PSC issued an Order in June 2008, directing NYSERDA and the state's investor owned utilities to develop conservation plans in accordance with the EEPS goal. The NYS PSC also identified goals that it expected would be implemented by LIPA and NYPA.

The NYISO has been a party to the EEPS proceeding from its inception. As part of the development of the 2012 RNA forecast, the NYISO developed an adjustment to the 2012 econometric model that incorporated a portion of the EEPS goal. This was based upon discussion with market participants in the Electric System Planning Working Group. The NYISO considered the following factors in developing the 2012 RNA Base Case:

x NYS PSC-approved spending levels for the programs under its jurisdiction, including the Systems Benefit Charge and utility-specific programs x Expectation of the fulfillment of the investor-owned EEPS program goals by 2018, and continued spending for NYSERDA programs through 2022 x Expected realization rates, participation rates and timing of planned energy efficiency programs x Degree to which energy efficiency is already included in the NYISOs econometric energy forecast x Impacts of new appliance efficiency standards, and building codes and standards x Specific energy efficiency plans proposed by LIPA, NYPA and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) x The actual rates of implementation of EEPS based on data received from Department of Public Service staff The resulting adjusted econometric forecast included approximately 56% of the entire EEPS goal by the year 2022. Once the statewide energy and demand impacts were developed, zonal level forecasts were produced for the econometric forecast and for the Base Case.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment C-8 August 2012

Annual Average Energy Growth Rates by Zone 1.50%

1.25%

1.00%

0.75%

0.50%

0.25%

0.00%

A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA

-0.25%

Figure C-4: Zonal Energy Forecast Growth Rates - 2012 to 2022 Annual Average Summer Peak Growth Rates by Zone 1.50%

1.25%

1.00%

0.75%

0.50%

0.25%

0.00%

A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA Figure C-5: Zonal Summer Peak Demand Forecast Growth Rates - 2012 to 2022 NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment C-9 August 2012

Table C-5: Annual Energy by Zone - Actual & Forecast (GWh)

Year A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA 2002 16,355 9,935 16,356 6,450 7,116 11,302 9,970 2,162 5,962 51,356 21,544 158,508 2003 15,942 9,719 16,794 5,912 6,950 11,115 10,451 2,219 6,121 50,829 21,960 158,012 2004 16,102 9,888 16,825 5,758 7,101 11,161 10,696 2,188 6,216 52,073 22,203 160,211 2005 16,498 10,227 17,568 6,593 7,594 11,789 10,924 2,625 6,435 54,007 22,948 167,208 2006 15,998 10,003 16,839 6,289 7,339 11,337 10,417 2,461 6,274 53,096 22,185 162,238 2007 16,258 10,207 17,028 6,641 7,837 11,917 10,909 2,702 6,344 54,750 22,748 167,341 2008 15,835 10,089 16,721 6,734 7,856 11,595 10,607 2,935 5,944 54,835 22,461 165,612 2009 15,149 9,860 15,949 5,140 7,893 10,991 10,189 2,917 5,700 53,100 21,892 158,780 2010 15,903 10,128 16,209 4,312 7,906 11,394 10,384 2,969 6,264 55,114 22,922 163,505 2011 16,017 10,040 16,167 5,903 7,752 11,435 10,066 2,978 6,208 54,060 22,704 163,330 2012 15,902 10,032 16,146 6,561 7,796 11,458 10,105 2,917 6,074 53,663 23,005 163,659 2013 15,892 10,037 16,126 6,612 7,816 11,466 10,181 2,941 6,123 54,094 23,339 164,627 2014 15,859 9,995 16,116 6,631 7,799 11,453 10,142 2,975 6,197 54,753 23,420 165,340 2015 15,815 9,949 16,114 6,667 7,779 11,456 10,143 2,998 6,253 55,234 23,622 166,030 2016 15,794 9,935 16,165 6,691 7,785 11,487 10,186 3,031 6,311 55,756 23,774 166,915 2017 15,770 9,922 16,194 6,736 7,792 11,498 10,192 3,027 6,308 55,725 23,833 166,997 2018 15,765 9,919 16,235 6,766 7,806 11,534 10,218 3,060 6,373 56,306 24,039 168,021 2019 15,780 9,918 16,307 6,815 7,805 11,597 10,265 3,102 6,464 57,096 24,260 169,409 2020 15,790 9,923 16,387 6,866 7,805 11,665 10,317 3,154 6,576 58,086 24,607 171,176 2021 15,802 9,936 16,471 6,901 7,808 11,746 10,376 3,193 6,654 58,772 24,855 172,514 2022 15,809 9,954 16,548 6,936 7,812 11,834 10,436 3,212 6,693 59,118 25,217 173,569 NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment C-10 August 2012

Table C-6: Summer Coincident Peak Demand by Zone - Actual & Forecast (MW)

Year A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA 2002 2,631 1,842 2,787 777 1,252 2,073 2,076 498 1,335 10,321 5,072 30,664 2003 2,510 1,782 2,727 671 1,208 2,163 2,146 498 1,395 10,240 4,993 30,333 2004 2,493 1,743 2,585 644 1,057 1,953 2,041 475 1,280 9,742 4,420 28,433 2005 2,726 1,923 2,897 768 1,314 2,164 2,236 592 1,409 10,810 5,236 32,075 2006 2,735 2,110 3,128 767 1,435 2,380 2,436 596 1,467 11,300 5,585 33,939 2007 2,592 1,860 2,786 795 1,257 2,185 2,316 595 1,438 10,970 5,375 32,169 2008 2,611 2,001 2,939 801 1,268 2,270 2,277 657 1,399 10,979 5,231 32,432 2009 2,595 1,939 2,780 536 1,351 2,181 2,159 596 1,279 10,366 5,063 30,844 2010 2,663 1,985 2,846 552 1,437 2,339 2,399 700 1,487 11,213 5,832 33,452 2011 2,556 2,019 2,872 776 1,446 2,233 2,415 730 1,510 11,373 5,935 33,865 2012 2,691 2,003 2,853 780 1,365 2,295 2,268 682 1,418 11,500 5,440 33,295 2013 2,694 2,016 2,859 788 1,371 2,308 2,301 689 1,435 11,680 5,555 33,696 2014 2,689 2,017 2,864 791 1,369 2,314 2,306 700 1,455 11,830 5,579 33,914 2015 2,680 2,015 2,868 794 1,366 2,323 2,319 707 1,472 11,985 5,622 34,151 2016 2,677 2,018 2,883 797 1,367 2,337 2,340 713 1,484 12,095 5,634 34,345 2017 2,674 2,022 2,894 803 1,370 2,348 2,352 720 1,501 12,200 5,666 34,550 2018 2,674 2,027 2,906 807 1,373 2,362 2,366 722 1,525 12,400 5,706 34,868 2019 2,680 2,032 2,925 813 1,375 2,383 2,386 742 1,546 12,570 5,752 35,204 2020 2,685 2,039 2,946 819 1,377 2,406 2,408 751 1,562 12,725 5,808 35,526 2021 2,691 2,048 2,968 824 1,379 2,431 2,431 762 1,587 12,920 5,872 35,913 2022 2,696 2,057 2,988 828 1,381 2,458 2,454 771 1,603 13,050 5,944 36,230 NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment C-11 August 2012

Table C-7: Winter Coincident Peak Demand by Zone - Actual & Forecast (MW)

Year A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA 2002-03 2,418 1,507 2,679 925 1,223 1,903 1,590 437 927 7,373 3,472 24,454 2003-04 2,433 1,576 2,755 857 1,344 1,944 1,720 478 981 7,527 3,647 25,262 2004-05 2,446 1,609 2,747 918 1,281 1,937 1,766 474 939 7,695 3,729 25,541 2005-06 2,450 1,544 2,700 890 1,266 1,886 1,663 515 955 7,497 3,581 24,947 2006-07 2,382 1,566 2,755 921 1,274 1,888 1,638 504 944 7,680 3,505 25,057 2007-08 2,336 1,536 2,621 936 1,312 1,886 1,727 524 904 7,643 3,596 25,021 2008-09 2,274 1,567 2,533 930 1,289 1,771 1,634 529 884 7,692 3,570 24,673 2009-10 2,330 1,555 2,558 648 1,289 1,788 1,527 561 813 7,562 3,443 24,074 2010-11 2,413 1,606 2,657 645 1,296 1,825 1,586 526 927 7,661 3,512 24,652 2011-12 2,220 1,535 2,532 904 1,243 1,765 1,618 490 893 7,323 3,378 23,901 2012-13 2,369 1,556 2,568 913 1,276 1,826 1,603 545 929 7,613 3,634 24,832 2013-14 2,364 1,556 2,564 919 1,275 1,823 1,616 551 941 7,691 3,629 24,929 2014-15 2,356 1,548 2,562 920 1,267 1,817 1,610 558 955 7,798 3,608 24,999 2015-16 2,347 1,541 2,561 925 1,261 1,814 1,611 564 966 7,881 3,582 25,053 2016-17 2,341 1,538 2,569 927 1,257 1,816 1,618 570 978 7,968 3,567 25,149 2017-18 2,335 1,536 2,572 933 1,254 1,815 1,618 571 981 7,981 3,557 25,153 2018-19 2,332 1,535 2,578 936 1,253 1,817 1,623 577 993 8,069 3,552 25,265 2019-20 2,332 1,534 2,589 942 1,249 1,824 1,631 585 1,007 8,174 3,555 25,422 2020-21 2,332 1,534 2,601 949 1,246 1,833 1,639 594 1,024 8,307 3,568 25,627 2021-22 2,332 1,536 2,613 953 1,244 1,843 1,648 601 1,035 8,399 3,590 25,794 2022-23 2,331 1,538 2,625 957 1,242 1,854 1,658 604 1,041 8,442 3,616 25,908 NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment C-12 August 2012

Appendix D - Transmission System Security and Resource Adequacy Assessment The analysis performed during the Reliability Needs Assessment requires the development of Base Cases for power flow analysis and for resource adequacy analysis. The power flow system model is used for transmission security assessment and the development of the transfer limits to be implemented in the Multi-Area Reliability Simulation (MARS) model. A comprehensive assessment of the transmission system is conducted through a series of steady-state power flow, transient stability and short circuit studies.

In general, the RNA analyses indicated that the bulk power transmission system can be secured under N-1 conditions, but that transfer limits for certain key interfaces must be reduced below their thermal limits, in order to respect voltage criteria. However, a reduction in transfer limits on a limiting interface can result in higher LOLE, and/or needs occurring earlier than they otherwise would. To quantify this potential impact, LOLE analysis was conducted for the RNA Base Case, a case modeling voltage limited interfaces using the higher thermal limits, and also a case without any internal NYCA transmission limits.

These cases were simulated to demonstrate the impact that transmission limits have on the LOLE results. The results from this analysis are reported in Table 4-9.

The MARS model was used to determine whether adequate resources would be available to meet the NYSRC and NPCC reliability criteria of one day in ten years (0.1 days/year). The results showed a deficiency in years 2020 - 2022 (See Section 4.2.3 of this report.) The MARS model was also used to evaluate selected scenarios (Section 4.3) and it was used to determine compensatory MW requirements for identified Reliability Needs (See Section 4.2.5).

D-1 RNA Power Flow Base Case Development and Thermal Transfer Limit Results D- 1.1 Development of RNA Power Flow Base Cases



The base cases used in analyzing the performance of the transmission system were developed from the 2012 FERC 715 filing power flow case library. The load representation in for the power flow model is the summer peak load forecast reported in the 2012 Gold Book Table 1-2a baseline forecast of coincident peak demand. The system representation for the NPCC Areas in the base cases is from the 2011 Base Case Development (BCD) libraries compiled by the NPCC SS-37 Base Case Development working group. The PJM system representation was derived from the PJM Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP) planning process models. The remaining models are from the Eastern Interconnection NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment D-1 August 2012

Reliability Assessment Group (ERAG) Multiregional Modeling Working Group (MMWG) 2011 power flow model library.

The 2012 RNA Base Case model of the New York system representation includes the following new and proposed facilities:

x TO projects on non-bulk power facilities included in the FERC 715 Cases and reported in the 2012 Gold Book as firm plans x TO projects impacting bulk power facilities that are expected to be in-service by summer 2015 x Facilities that have accepted their Attachment S cost allocations and are in service or under construction as of April 1, 2012 x Facilities that have obtained a NYS PSC Certificate (or other regulatory approvals and SEQRA review) and an approved System Reliability Impact Study (SRIS) and an executed contract with a credit-worthy entity.

x Facility reratings and uprates x Scheduled retirements/mothball The RNA Base Case does not include all projects currently listed on the NYISOs interconnection queue or those shown in the 2012 Gold Book. It includes only those which meet the screening requirements for inclusion.

D-1.2 Emergency Thermal Transfer Limit Analysis The NYISO performed analyses of the RNA Base Case to determine emergency thermal transfer limits for the key interfaces to be used in the MARS resource adequacy analysis. Table D-1 reports the emergency thermal transfer limits for the RNA base system conditions:

Table D-1: Emergency Thermal Transfer Limits 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Dysinger East 2925 1 2975 1 2975 1 2975 1 2975 1 West Central 1600 1 1675 1 1675 1 1675 1 1675 1 Moses South 2650 2 2625 3 2625 3 2625 3 2625 3 Volney East 5675 4 5650 4 5650 4 5650 4 5650 4 Total East MARS 5900 5 5900 6 5900 6 5900 6 5950 6 Central East less PV-20 plus Fraser-Gilboa 3375 5 3425 5 3425 5 3425 5 3475 5 F to G 3475 7 3475 7 3475 7 3475 7 3475 7 UPNY-SENY MARS 5150 7 5150 7 5150 7 5150 7 5150 7 I to J 4350 8 4400 8 4400 8 4400 8 4400 8 I to K 1290 9 1290 9 1290 9 1290 9 1290 9 Limiting Facility Rating Contingency 1 Wethersfield-Meyer 230 kV 430 Pre-disturbance NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment D-2 August 2012

Chateauguay-Massena and Massena-2 Moses-Adirondack 230 kV 440 Marcy 765 kV 3 Marcy 765/345 T2 transformer 1971 Marcy 765/345 T1 transformer 4 Oakdale-Fraser 345kV 1380 Edic-Fraser 345kV 5 New Scotland-Leeds 345kV 1724 New Scotland-Leeds 345kV 6 Fraser-Coopers Corners 345 kV 1207 Pre-disturbance 7 Leeds-Pleasant Valley 345 kV 1725 Athens-Pleasant Valley 345 kV 8 Mott Haven-Rainey 345 kV 1196 Mott Haven-Rainey 345 kV Limiting Facility Rating Contingency 1 Wethersfield-Meyer 230 kV 430 Pre-disturbance 2 Moses-Adirondack 230 kV 440 Chateaguay-Massena and Massena-Marcy 765 kV 3 Marcy 765/345 T2 transformer 1971 Marcy 765/345 T1 transformer 4 Oakdale-Fraser 345kV 1380 Edic-Fraser 345kV 5 New Scotland-Leeds 345kV 1724 New Scotland-Leeds 345kV 6 Fraser-Coopers Corners 345 kV 1207 Pre-disturbance 7 Leeds-Pleasant Valley 345 kV 1725 Athens-Pleasant Valley 345 kV 8 Mott Haven-Rainey 345 kV 1196 Mott Haven-Rainey 345 kV 9 Dunwoodie-Shore Rd 345 kV 653 Pre-disturbance D-2 2012 RNA MARS Model Base Case Development The system representation for PJM, Ontario, New England, and Hydro Quebec modeled in the 2012 RNA Base Case was developed from the NPCC CP-8 2012 Summer Assessment. In order to avoid overdependence on emergency assistance from the external areas, the emergency operating procedure data was removed from the model for each External Area. In addition, the capacity of the external areas was further modified for modeling consistency by implementing the NYSRCs Policy 5 such that the LOLE value of each Area was a minimum value of 0.10 and capped at a value of 0.15 through the year 2014. The external area model was then frozen for the remaining study years (2015 - 2022). Because the load forecast in the NYCA continues to increase for the years 2015 - 2022, the LOLE for each of the external areas can experience increases despite the freeze of external loads and capacity.

The topology used in the MARS model is represented in Figures D-1 and D-2. The internal transfer limits modeled are the summer emergency ratings derived from the RNA Power Flow cases discussed above. The external transfer limits are developed from the NPCC CP-8 Summer Assessment MARS database with changes based upon the RNA Base Case assumptions.

NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment D-3 August 2012

Transmission System Representation changes for 2013 IRM Study/2012 RNA - Summer Emergency Ratings (MW)

New York Control Hy dro 1200 Q uebec Phase 2 (HQ ) 100 Highgate Area (NYCA) 1912 1,000 Total East 250 6750   1999 0 1,500 1850 Cedars Vermont 1 190 D 0 1400 IE S O 3250 800 300 1600

( On tario) 300 F NY / NE Central MA 1300 Moses South 1400   1400 1999 800 1770/1500/1350 Dysinger 2650 Western MA 1700 West Athens-East Central Volney 1999 3475 Gilboa 1999 1999 East Marcy South B E A 2725 1300 C 5675 Ne w England 1600 1700 G

800 600 550 200 1999 4800  3400 800 CE Group UPNY/CE UPNY/SENY Connecticut 5150 5150 300 330 PJM Central H Norwalk Millwood South CT 550 8400 200 5700 1999 1015 428 8450 City & East LI Sum PJM 7500 5210 1465   344/260 / 144 West PJM East 850 I

5500 530 PJM South 428 / 388 660 1999 1290 6500 West K

330 Cross Sound Dunwoodie Controllable Line PJM Mid-Atlantic South 4350 175 660 See Next Slide Neptune NYCA zonal interfaces J Controllable Line 510/ 403/ 283 NYCA zonal connections 1,500 NYCA internal transfer limits  199 Astoria East 1344 External connections Generation 99,999 

LI West 1,500 External transfer limits Standard Grouping A NYCA zone Grouping used for monitoring A Dummy zone for analysis Figure D-1: Development of the 2012 MARS Topology NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment D-4 August 2012

Transmission System Representation changes for 2013 IRM Study/2012 RNA - Summer Emergency Ratings (MW) 2012 PJM-SENY MARS Model Joint interface to monitor flow 1000 G

PJM NYCA 0 H

1000 I RECO 1000/600/

1000 1000 500/400 400 J

Dummy 1000 Zone (J2) 0 1000 800/320/200 660 PJM 800 500 Dummy Zone (J3)

East A Line + VFT K 500 660 HTP 660 Dummy 660 Zone (J4)

Neptune Controllable Line (PJM East to RECO) + (J2 to J) + (PJM East to J3) + (PJM East to J4) = 2000 MW With the retirement of Hudson 1 and other changes in 2011 PJM RTEP, it was determined that this total interface can be supported to a flow of 2000 MW. This interface grouping contains those interfaces with the Bold hash mark. MARS will distribute this flow accordingly. This will change when additional transmission and generation comes into service in 2014 and 2015 up to 2340.

Figure D-2: 2012 PJM-SENY MARS Model NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment D-5 August 2012

D-3 Short Circuit Assessment Table D-2 provides the results of NYISOs short circuit screening test.

Individual Breaker Assessment (IBA) is required for any breakers whose rating is exceeded by the maximum fault current. Results of the IBA performed by the NYISO or the Transmission Owner are shown in Table D-4.

Table D-2: 2012 RNA Fault Current Analysis Summary Table Substation Lowest Nominal Rated Maximum IBA Circuit Phase Name kV Breaker Current Required (kA) (kA) (Y/N)

Marcy 765 63 9.7 N Massena 765 63 7.8 N Academy 345 63 32.4 N AES Somerset 345 32 17.9 N Alps 345 40 17.5 N AstoriaAnnex 345 63 45.1 N Athens 345 48.8 34.1 N Bowline 1 345 40 26.9 N Bowline 2 345 40 26.7 N Buchanan N. 345 63 28.8 N Buchanan S. 345 40 38.5 N Clay 345 49 32.9 N Coopers Corners 345 32 15.6 N Dewitt 345 40 18.9 N Dunwoodie 345 63 50.4 N East Fishkill 345 63 39.4 N East Garden City 345 63 25.3 N Edic 345 40 32.2 N Elbridge 345 40 16.1 N Farragut 345 63 57.7 N Fitzpatrick 345 37 41.4 Y Fraser 345 29.6 17.3 N Fresh Kills 345 63 26.6 N Gilboa 345 40 25.3 N Goethals N. 345 63 26.4 N Goethals S. 345 63 27.3 N Gowanus N. 345 63 27.7 N Gowanus S. 345 63 27.7 N Hurley Avenue 345 40 17.2 N Independence 345 41.9 38.5 N Ladentown 345 63 38.9 N Lafayette 345 40 17.9 N Leeds 345 36.6 34.7 N NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment D-6 August 2012

Marcy 345 63 31.4 N Middletown Tap 345 63 17.1 N Millwood 345 63 44.6 N Mott Haven 345 63 48.5 N New Scotland 345 32.4 31.4 N Niagara 345 63 34 N Nine Mile Point 1 345 50 43.5 N Oakdale 345 29.6 12.2 N Oswego 345 40.6 32.5 N Pleasant Valley 345 63 41.2 N Pleasantville 345 63 21.9 N Rainey 345 63 54.7 N Ramapo 345 63 42.2 N Reynolds Road 345 40 14.8 N Rock Tavern 345 50 26.4 N Roseton 345 63 34.7 N Scriba 345 38.4 46.9 Y Shore Road 345 63 27.7 N South Mahwah- B 345 40 33.5 N South Mahwah-A 345 40 33.1 N Sprain Brook 345 63 51.7 N Station 122 345 32 16.8 N Station 80 345 32 16.9 N Stolle Road 345 32 3.9 N Volney 345 44.8 36.6 N Watercure 345 29.6 8.2 N West 49th Street 345 63 49.8 N West Haverstraw 345 none 28.2 n/a Adirondack 230 25 9.6 N Chases Lake 230 40 9.1 N Dunkirk 230 28 15.2 N Gardenville 230 31.8 22.7 N Hillside 230 28.6 12.2 N Huntley 230 30.6 27.1 N Meyer 230 28.6 6.6 N Niagara 230 63 57.3 N Oakdale 230 none 6.2 n/a Packard 230 47.1 43.9 N Porter 230 18 19.5 Y Robinson Road 230 34.4 14.5 N Rotterdam 230 23.5 12.7 N South Ripley 230 39.9 9.1 N St. Lawrence 230 37 33.2 N Stolle Road 230 28.6 13.9 N Watercure 230 26.4 12.2 N Willis 230 37 12.2 N Astoria East 138 63 48.4 N Astoria West 138 45 45.3 Y NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment D-7 August 2012

Barrett 138 59.2 48.3 N Brookhaven 138 35.4 26.5 N Buchanan 138 40 15.8 N Corona 138 63 48.1 N Dunwoodie No. 138 40 34.2 N Dunwoodie So. 138 40 30.5 N East 13th 138 63 47 N East 75t ST 138 63 10.9 N East 179th 138 63 48.3 N East Garden City 138 80 70.9 N Eastview 138 63 36.7 N Fox Hills 138 40 31.7 N Freeport 138 63 34.4 N Fresh Kills 138 40 35.7 N Greenwood 138 63 44.2 N HG 138 63 41.7 N Holbrook 138 52.2 48.2 N Hudson E 138 63 38.1 N Jamaica 138 63 46.7 N Lake Success 138 57.8 38.4 N Millwood W 138 20 19.3 N Motthaven 138 50 13.3 N Newbridge Road 138 80 72 N Northport 138 56.2 59.9 Y Pilgrim 138 63 59.3 N Port Jefferson 138 63 32.2 N Queensbridge 138 63 43.5 N Riverhead 138 63 17.8 N Ruland 138 63 45.2 N SB TR N7 138 63 26.8 N SB TR S6 138 63 28.9 N Sherman Creek 138 63 45.3 N Shore Road 138 57.8 47.8 N Shoreham 138 52.2 25.4 N Tremont 138 63 42.5 N Valley Stream 138 57.8 52.1 N Vernon East 138 63 42.7 N Vernon West 138 63 34.5 N Clay 115 44.8 36.4 N Porter 115 37.9 41.2 Y E River 69 50 49.7 N NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment D-8 August 2012

Tables D-3 provides the results of NYISOs IBA for Farragut 345kV, Fitzpatrick 345kV, Astoria West 138kV, Northport 138 kV, and National Grids IBA for Porter 115kV, Porter 230 kV, and Scriba 345kV.

Table D-3: IBA for 2012 RNA Study ASTORIA WEST 138 KV Breaker ID Rating (kA) 1LG (kA) 2LG (kA) 3LG (kA) Overduty G1N 45 42.81 41.11 37.84 N G2N 45 42.81 41.11 37.84 N FITZPATRICK 345 kV Breaker ID Rating (kA) 1LG (kA) 2LG (kA) 3LG (kA) Overduty 10042 37 34.06 34.39 32.52 N NORTHPORT 138 kV Breaker ID Rating (kA) 1LG (kA) 2LG (kA) 3LG (kA) Overduty 1310 56.2 50.074 50.309 51.515 N 1320 56.2 50.051 50.314 51.53 N 1450 56.2 50.98 50.002 48.552 N 1460 56.2 30.745 29.545 26.863 N 1470 56.2 32.377 32.142. 31.681 N PORTER 115 kV Breaker ID Rating (kA) Phase Current (kA) Overduty R10 LN1 43.0 44.7 Y R100 TB3 43.0 37.2 N R115 TB1 63.0 44.8 N R125 TB2 63.0 44.8 N R130 LN13 43.0 45.0 Y R20 LN2 43.0 44.7 Y R200 TB4 43.0 35.9 N R30 LN3 43.0 44.5 Y R40 LN4 43.0 44.4 Y R50 LN5 43.0 44.4 Y R60 LN6 43.0 45.0 Y R70 LN7 43.0 44.2 Y R80 LN8 43.0 44.6 Y R8105 BUSTIE 47.7 42.6 N R90 LN9 43.0 45.0 Y NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment D-9 August 2012

PORTER 230 kV Breaker ID Rating (kA) Phase Current (kA) Overduty R110 B-11 23.9 26.4 Y R120 B-12 23.9 26.4 Y R15 B-TB1 23.9 26.4 Y R170 B-17 23.9 26.4 Y R25 B-TB2 23.9 26.4 Y R300 B-30 40.0 22.0 N R310 B-31 40.0 22.0 N R320 B-30 23.9 26.4 Y R825 31-TB2 23.9 25.2 Y R835 12-TB1 23.9 25.4 Y R845 11-17 23.9 25.2 Y SCRIBA 345 kV Breaker ID Rating (kA) Phase Current (kA) Overduty R100 B-10 50.0 56.0 Y R200 B-20 50.0 56.0 Y R210 B-21 50.0 56.0 Y R230 B-23 63.0 56.0 N R250 B-25 50.0 56.0 Y R90 B-9 50.0 56.0 Y R915 9-20 50.0 54.7 Y R925 B-23 63.0 56.0 N R935 10-21 50.0 53.9 Y R945 B-25 50.0 56.0 Y NYISO 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment D-10 August 2012