Comparative Evaluation of Alternating Current Transmission Upgrade Alternatives

421 Pages·2015·12.62 MB·English

by  Graham Jesmer

Comparative Evaluation of Alternating
Current Transmission Upgrade
Alternatives
________________________________________________________________

New York State Department of Public Service
Trial Staff Final Report

Cases 12-T-0502, 13-E-0488, 13-T-0454, 13-T-0455,
13-T-0456, 13-M-0457, and 13-T-0461

September 22, 2015

GRAHAM JESMER
Assistant Counsel

ANDREA CERBIN
Assistant Counsel

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
State of New York
Department of Public Service
Three Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12222-1350
(518)-473-4628
CASE 12-T-0502, et al. FINAL TRIAL STAFF REPORT
Table of Contents
GLOSSARY OF SUBSTATION & SWITCHYARD ABBREVIATIONS............ vii
OTHER ACRONYMS.............................................. viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................. ix
Background .................................................. xi
Environmental Compatibility ............................... xiii
Electric System Impacts .................................... xvi
Comparative Evaluation Results and Recommendations ......... xix
INTRODUCTION................................................... 1
BACKGROUND..................................................... 1
PROCEDURAL HISTORY............................................. 8
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS........................................... 15
Initial Comments ............................................ 15
Reply Comments .............................................. 22
Cost Estimates ............................................ 22
Responses to Intervenor Comments .......................... 24
Post Interim Report Comments & Letters ...................... 26
SCENARIO DESCRIPTIONS & GENERAL INFORMATION................... 27
General Information Regarding Proposed Scenarios ............ 28
Creation of New ROW ....................................... 28
Expansion of Existing ROW ................................. 29
Reconductoring Method ..................................... 29
Replacement of Existing Facilities ........................ 30
Trenching and Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) ....... 30
Water Body Crossing Methods ............................... 32
General Information Regarding Environmental Review .......... 32
ii
CASE 12-T-0502, et al. FINAL TRIAL STAFF REPORT
General Information Regarding Substations and Equipment Located
in Substations .............................................. 36
General Information Regarding Cost Estimates ................ 37
NAT Scenarios and Impacts ................................... 39
Scenario 1: ED-FR; NS-LD-PV ............................... 39
Scenario 2: ED-FR; NS-LD-PV Alt 1 ......................... 41
Scenario 3: ED-FR; NS-LD-PV; Series Compensation on FR-G;
Loop Existing M-CC 345 kV to FR ........................... 43
Scenario 4: ED-FR; NS-PV Alt 2; Series Compensation on FR-G;
Loop Existing M-CC 345 kV to FR; Series Compensation on M-NS;
Series Compensation on ED-NS .............................. 43
Scenario 5: ED-FR; NS-KN-PV Alt 2; Series Compensation on FR-
G; Loop M-CC 345 kV; ED-PR-KN Circuit as Proposed by Others 45
NAT Costs by Scenario: Including Corrective Assumptions ... 46
NYTOs Scenarios and Impacts ................................. 47
Scenario 6: KN-PV via CH-PV ............................... 48
Scenario 7: LD-PV(R) ...................................... 49
Scenario 8: HA ............................................ 50
Scenario 9: NS-LD(R); LD-PV via CH-PV ..................... 50
Scenario 10: O-FR; ED-NS; KN-PV via CH-PV ................. 51
Scenario 11: ED-NS; KN-PV via CH-PV ....................... 54
Scenario 12: ED-NS; NS-LD-PV(R) ........................... 54
Scenario 13: ED-NS; HA .................................... 55
Scenario 14: ED-NS; NS-LD(R); LD-PV via CH-PV ............. 55
NextEra Scenarios and Impacts ............................... 56
Scenario 15: Thruway ED-LD-PV ............................. 56
iii
CASE 12-T-0502, et al. FINAL TRIAL STAFF REPORT
Scenario 16: M-PR-PR-R, GB-KN-CH-PV, Marcy Southern 1 ..... 61
Scenario 17: M-PR, PR-R, PR-NS-KN, GB-KN, KN-CH-PV Marcy
Southern Route 2 .......................................... 63
Scenario 18: M-OH with GB-KN-CH-PV Marcy North ............ 64
Scenario 19A: GB-KN-CH-PV ................................. 66
Scenario 19B: O-F ......................................... 66
NextEra Costs by Scenario: Including Corrective Assumptions 68
Boundless Scenarios and Impacts ............................. 68
Scenario 20: Athens Generating–LD–PV(R); LD–HA(R); CPV–RT(R);
RS–EF ..................................................... 70
Scenario 21: LD–HA(R); CPV–RT(R); RS–EF ................... 72
Boundless Costs by Scenario: Including Corrective Assumptions
.......................................................... 72
Generation Alternative ...................................... 72
REV Alternative ............................................. 73
ANALYSIS...................................................... 75
Description of Process Undertaken by Trial Staff and
NYISO/Brattle ............................................... 75
Public Policy Need .......................................... 76
Reduced Production Costs Resulting from Congestion Relief . 76
Improved Preparedness for Impacts of Generator Retirements 78
Enhanced Reliability ...................................... 79
Reduced Costs of Meeting the Renewable Portfolio Standard
(RPS) ..................................................... 79
Reduced Capacity Resource Costs ........................... 80
Enhanced Incentives to Develop New Efficient Generation
Upstate ................................................... 81
iv
CASE 12-T-0502, et al. FINAL TRIAL STAFF REPORT
Reduced Environmental Emissions and Improved Health Impacts 82
Avoided Refurbishment Costs of Aging Transmission ......... 82
Increased Tax Receipts from Increased Infrastructure
Investment ................................................ 84
Increased Employment ...................................... 85
Enhanced Resiliency/Storm Hardening ....................... 85
Enhanced Planning and Operational Flexibility ............. 86
Other Potential Benefits .................................. 86
Fuel Diversity ............................................ 88
Costs of Achieving Benefits ............................... 89
MAPS and Power Flow Analysis ................................ 91
MAPS/Power Flow Review Process and Brattle Role ........... 92
Overview of Economic Impact Analysis ..................... 101
Brattle's Economic Analysis .............................. 106
Brattle’s Results ........................................ 108
Sufficiency of Need ........................................ 111
Environmental Impact Analysis and Ranking .................. 112
Ranking Method ........................................... 112
Project Evaluation ....................................... 119
Noise Impacts ............................................ 121
Coastal Zones, Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance, and
Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Considerations ... 122
Post Interim Report Comments & Letters Filed by Scenic Hudson
......................................................... 133
Environmental Rankings ..................................... 140
Innovative Technologies .................................... 146
v
CASE 12-T-0502, et al. FINAL TRIAL STAFF REPORT
North American Transmission .............................. 147
Boundless ................................................ 150
NextEra .................................................. 150
NYTOs .................................................... 151
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION RESULTS & RECOMMENDATIONS............. 153
CONCLUSION................................................... 163
TABLES & APPENDICIES

vi
CASE 12-T-0502, et al. FINAL TRIAL STAFF REPORT
GLOSSARY OF SUBSTATION & SWITCHYARD ABBREVIATIONS
Substation/Switchyard Abbreviation
Churchtown CH
Coopers Corners CC
CPV Tap CPV
East Fishkill EF
Edic ED
Fraser FR
Gilboa G
Greenbush GB
Hurley Avenue HA
Knickerbocker KN
Leeds LD
Marcy M
New Scotland NS
Oakdale O
Orchard Hill OH
Pleasant Valley PV
Princetown PR
Rock Tavern RT
Roseton RS
Rotterdam R

vii
CASE 12-T-0502, et al. FINAL TRIAL STAFF REPORT
OTHER ACRONYMS
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AFUDC Allowance for Funds Used During Construction
GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard
REC Renewable Energy Credit
UPNY Upstate New York
LBMP Locational Based Marginal Prices
LCR Locational Capacity Requirements
IRM Installed Reserved Margin
RSSA Reliability Support Services Agreements
PCA Production Cost Savings
MAPS Multi Area Production Simulation Software
TCC Transmission Congestion Contracts
NYPA New York Power Authority
SASS Scenic Area Statewide Significance
NYISO New York Independent System Operator
CARIS Congestion Assessment and Resource Integration
Study
EIPC Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative
JCSP Joint Coordinated System Plan
DOE United States Department of Energy
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Ag&Mkts New York Department of Agriculture and Markets
REV Reforming the Energy Vision
HVSEC Hudson Valley Smart Energy Coalition
OCCA Otsego County Conservation Association
VOM Variable Operations and Maintenance
viii
CASE 12-T-0502, et al. FINAL TRIAL STAFF REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In this Final Report, Staff of the Department of
Public Service (Trial Staff) completes a comparative evaluation
of twenty-two transmission proposals and several non-
transmission alternatives and concludes that the Public Service
Commission should proceed to significantly enhance New York
State’s bulk electric system by endorsing a specific portfolio
of electric transmission upgrade projects. The infrastructure
investments proposed by Trial Staff have an estimated
construction cost of approximately $1.2 billion and will
increase the bulk power transfer capability between Upstate and
Downstate New York by approximately 1,000 megawatts, meeting the
original goals for these proceedings. The developers that
competed in the comparative evaluation offered many different
ideas as to how best to upgrade the electric grid. Similarly,
the public interest parties that participated ensured that
environmental impacts and system alternatives would be given due
consideration. All of the information provided contributed
greatly to Trial Staff being able to devise a portfolio that
meets a variety of needs and strikes a beneficial balance
between the many competing interests including, among others:
transfer capability; cost; electric system impacts, emissions
reductions, and production cost impacts; need to acquire
additional rights-of-way; the application of innovative
technologies; environmental compatibility; and visual impacts.
In particular, many of the proposals and critiques were
responsive to the Governor's call for transmission solutions
that maximize the re-use of existing rights-of-way so as to
minimize impacts on the sensitive landscapes of New York such as
in the Mohawk and Hudson Valleys. In that regard, Trial Staff's
recommended portfolio successfully avoids the opening of new
ix
CASE 12-T-0502, et al. FINAL TRIAL STAFF REPORT
transmission rights-of-way and also avoids a new crossing of the
scenic Hudson River by a new power line.
Trial Staff concludes that the Commission should find
and determine that there is a need for the identified portfolio
of projects driven by Public Policy Requirements, including the
need to: reduce transmission congestion so that large amounts of
power can be transmitted to regions of New York where it is most
needed; reduce production costs through congestion relief;
reduce capacity resource costs; improve market competition and
liquidity; enhance system reliability, flexibility, and
efficiency; improve preparedness for and mitigation of impacts
of generator retirements; enhance resiliency/storm hardening;
avoid refurbishment costs of aging transmission; take better
advantage of existing fuel diversity; increase diversity in
supply, including additional renewable resources; promote job
growth and the development of new efficient generation resources
Upstate; reduce environmental and health impacts through
reductions in less efficient electric generation; reduce costs
of meeting renewable resource standards; increase tax receipts
from increased infrastructure investment; enhance planning and
operational flexibility; obtain synergies with other future
transmission projects; and relieve gas transportation
constraints. Such a finding will trigger a solicitation and
review of transmission solutions by the New York Independent
System Operator (NYISO) with the potential for selected
transmission developers to obtain cost recovery for their
development and construction costs from the beneficiaries of the
transmission upgrades through a NYISO tariff mechanism regulated
by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

x