DOCSLIB.ORG

Generation Interconnection System Impact Study Report for PJM

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Generation Interconnection System Impact Study Report for PJM Generation Interconnection System Impact Study Report For PJM Generation Interconnection Request Queue Position AA1-106 Grover II 34.5kV April 2016 Preface The intent of the System Impact Study is to determine a plan, with approximate cost and construction time estimates, to connect the subject generation interconnection project to the PJM network at a location specified by the Interconnection Customer. As a requirement for interconnection, the Interconnection Customer may be responsible for the cost of constructing: Network Upgrades, which are facility additions, or upgrades to existing facilities, that are needed to maintain the reliability of the PJM system. All facilities required for interconnection of a generation interconnection project must be designed to meet the technical specifications (on PJM web site) for the appropriate transmission owner. In some instances an Interconnection Customer may not be responsible for 100% of the identified network upgrade cost because other transmission network uses, e.g. another generation interconnection or merchant transmission upgrade, may also contribute to the need for the same network reinforcement. The possibility of sharing the reinforcement costs with other projects may be identified in the Feasibility Study, but the actual allocation will be deferred until the System Impact Study is performed. The System Impact Study estimates do not include the feasibility, cost, or time required to obtain property rights and permits for construction of the required facilities. The project developer is responsible for the right of way, real estate, and construction permit issues. For properties currently owned by Transmission Owners, the costs may be included in the study. General IMG Development, LLC, the Interconnection Customer (IC), has proposed a natural gas generating facility located in Tioga County, PA. The installed facilities will have a total capability of 19.9 MW with 19.9 MW of this output being recognized by PJM as capacity. The proposed in-service date for this project is December 2016. This study does not imply a Pennsylvania Electric Company (Penelec) commitment to this in-service date. Attachment facilities and local upgrades (if required) along with terms and conditions to interconnect AA1-106 will be specified in a separate two party Interconnection Agreement (IA) between Penelec and the Interconnection Customer as this project is considered FERC non- jurisdictional per the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT). From the transmission system perspective, no network impacts were identified as detailed below. Point of Interconnection AA1-106 will interconnect with the Penelec distribution system along a 34.5kV circuit from the Grover substation. © PJM Interconnection 2016. All rights reserved. 2 AA1-106 Grover II 34.5kV Cost Summary The AA1-106 project will be responsible for the following costs: Description Total Cost Transmission Owner facilities $ 585,100 Allocation for New System Upgrades $ 0 Contribution for Previously Identified Upgrades $ 373,200 Total Costs $ 958,300 © PJM Interconnection 2016. All rights reserved. 3 AA1-106 Grover II 34.5kV Transmission Owner Scope of Work Description Cost Tax (if Total Cost applicable) Grover SS. Install transfer trip & synchronizing $ 199,600 $ 62,000 $ 261,600 relaying on 34.5kV Canton line exit to accommodate generation interconnection. Canton SS. Install transfer trip & synchronizing $ 154,900 $ 48,100 $ 203,000 relaying on 34.5kV Grover line exit to accommodate generation interconnection. Region Line Tap on Canton 34.5 kV line AA1-106 $ 66,800 $ 20,200 $ 87,000 Point of Interconnection. Interconnection Metering $ 26,100 $ 7,900 $ 34,000 RTU programming for connection to the First $ 7,500 $ 2,500 $ 10,000 Energy SCADA and relay support for the generation installation. Engineering Oversight and Commissioning - FE $ 130,200 $ 39,300 $ 169,500 Construction (No-OTB) - FE-7 Total Attachment Cost Estimate $ 585,100 $ 180,000 $ 765,100 Schedule Based on the scope of the FE direct connection, it is expected to take approximately one (1.0) year from the signing of a Connection Service Agreement to complete the installation required for the AA1-106 Project. This includes a preliminary payment that compensates FE for the first three months of the engineering design work that is related to the construction of a new AA1-106 Interconnecting tap pole and the associated equipment of the Penelec 34.5 kV line to this site. It also assumes that the Interconnection Customer will provide the property for the attachment tap pole and all right-of-way, permits, easements, etc. that will be needed. A further assumption is that there will be no environmental issues with any of the new properties associated with this project, that there will be no delays in acquiring the necessary permits for implementing the defined direct connection and network upgrades, and that FE will allow all distribution system outages when requested. The required network upgrades are estimated to take approximately 18 months to complete. Interconnection Customer Requirements In addition to the FE facilities, the Interconnection Customer will also be responsible for meeting all criteria as specified in the applicable sections of the "FE Requirements for Transmission Connected Facilities" document including: 1. The purchase and installation of the minimum required FE generation interconnection relaying and control facilities. This includes over/under voltage protection, over/under frequency protection, and zero sequence voltage protection relays. © PJM Interconnection 2016. All rights reserved. 4 AA1-106 Grover II 34.5kV 2. The installation of a Penelec provided 34.5 kV interconnection metering instrument transformer. FE will provide the ratio and accuracy specifications based on the customer load and generation levels. 3. The installation of a Penelec provided revenue class meter for each unit to measure the power delivered in compliance with the FE standards. 4. The purchase and installation of supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) equipment to provide information in a compatible format to the FE Transmission System Control Center. 5. The establishment of dedicated communication circuits for SCADA report to the FE Transmission System Control Center. 6. A compliance with the FE and PJM generator power factor and voltage control requirements. 7. The execution of a back-up service agreement with the electric distribution company to serve the customer load supplied from the AA1-106 generation project interconnection point when the units are out-of-service. This assumes the intent of the Interconnection Customer is to net the generation with the load. 8. The rough grade of the property for the AA1-106 Interconnection 34.5 kV tap pole and an access road for the delivery of equipment to this site. The above requirements are in addition to any metering and telecommunications required by PJM as specified in PJM Manuals M-01 and M-14D System Protection Analysis An analysis was conducted to assess the impact of the Grover II (AA1-106) Project on the system protection requirements in the area. The results of this review show that the following relay additions will be required: Proposed single line diagrams show the Interconnection Customer constructing a generation facility they call “Pine Hill” tapping Penelec’s 34.5kV Grover - Canton circuit at pole 3U998. The 34.5kV interconnection proposal will require the Interconnection Customer to meet applicable "Technical Requirements" as outlined in First Energy's document titled “Technical Requirements for the Interconnection of Customer-Owned Generation to the FirstEnergy Distribution System". (See link, shown at ‘Notes’, below) Protection requirements are included in the "Technical Requirements" document. Meeting the protection requirements for this application will include (but not be limited to): Voltage and synch check FirstEnergy designed, provided, & installed, at the Interconnection Customer’s expense, modifications to add 34.5kV system line protection, voltage and synchronism checking equipment on the following Penelec circuit breakers (CBs) and reclosers. This work may include adding line potential transformers and associated protective relays and/or relay programming at each location. • 34.5kV Canton CB at Grover substation © PJM Interconnection 2016. All rights reserved. 5 AA1-106 Grover II 34.5kV • 34.5kV Grover CB at Canton substation (dwgs show line PT/relaying-existence needs field verified) • 34.5kV Penelec's Liberty Recloser at Penelec pole # 2C787 Anti-islanding protection Also, meeting the protection requirements for anti-islanding protection will involve installation of a Direct Transfer Trip (DTT) system. The Interconnection Customer, at their expense, shall provide overall system equipment design, procurement and installation (except for the connection to Penelec equipment as covered below). The DTT system type shall be subject to FirstEnergy's approval. The DTT system shall include transmitter equipment & receiver equipment, and communication channel. The transmitter equipment, so as to receive 34.5kV CB/Recloser status at Penelec's Substations and at Penelec's 34.5kV Line Recloser location, will be located, by the Interconnection Customer, in local proximity to each of these Penelec devices. Hardware, which will provide CB/Recloser status to the DTT transmitters, will be designed, provided by, and installed by FirstEnergy, at the Interconnection Customer’s expense. The receiver equipment shall be
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Testimony of Evelyn Robinson, Managing Partner – State Government Policy PJM Interconnection, L.L.C March 4, 2021
    Before the Indiana Senate Utilities Committee Testimony of Evelyn Robinson, Managing Partner – State Government Policy PJM Interconnection, L.L.C March 4, 2021 For Public Use Testimony of Evelyn Robinson, Managing Partner – State Government Policy Introduction Good day Chairman Koch, Ranking Member Perfect and esteemed members of the Utilities Committee. My name is Evelyn Robinson, and I am the Managing Partner within the State Government Policy Department at PJM Interconnection, L.L.C (“PJM”). Thank you for having me today. I am here before this committee to speak on PJM’s role as a regional transmission organization (“RTO”) and to discuss PJM’s winter preparedness and performance during the recent cold weather event. As an RTO, PJM’s primary focus is the reliable operation of the nation’s largest electric grid for 65 million people in 13 states and Washington, D.C. – including portions of Indiana. As illustrated in Figure 1 of my testimony, our service territory extends from New Jersey to Illinois, encompassing the Indiana/Michigan electric utility portion of the AEP transmission zone. This scale allows us to provide reliable electric service from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi River; from the Great Lakes to the Outer Banks. Figure 1. Map of PJM Footprint Like the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (“MISO”), PJM is situated within what is called the Eastern Interconnection, one of the three major electric grids in the continental United States. As illustrated in Figure 2 below, the Eastern Interconnection, the Western Interconnection and the Texas Interconnection typically operate independent of each other. The Eastern Interconnection extends from the Atlantic coast to the Rocky Mountains and operates as one harmonized machine.
    [Show full text]
  • News Release
    NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PJM Board of Managers Approves Proposal to Address Capacity Market Reform Decision Shows Successful Conclusion in Stakeholder Process (Valley Forge, PA – July 8, 2021) – PJM Interconnection’s Board of Managers has approved a proposal to address long-standing concerns with the Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR) in the PJM capacity market. Following presentations on nine proposals from PJM and its stakeholders, the PJM proposal received the highest sector-weighted vote by members. The PJM Board selected the proposal because it accommodates state policy and self-supply business models, addresses attempted exercises of buyer-side market power, and creates a sustainable market design by keeping clearing prices consistent with supply and demand fundamentals. The PJM proposal achieved broad consensus under a unique, accelerated stakeholder process, called the Critical Issue Fast Path (CIFP). This was the first time the PJM Board has employed the CIFP process, an alternative to the normal stakeholder process designed to expeditiously resolve issues that are contentious or time sensitive. “In the first-ever use of the CIFP process, stakeholders have successfully tackled a complex issue in a compressed time frame, achieving both a workable solution and broad consensus behind that solution,” said PJM President and CEO Manu Asthana. “This proposal ensures that our capacity market accommodates state policy and self-supply business models, avoids customer costs of double-procurement, addresses attempted exercises of buyer-side market power, and creates a sustainable market design by keeping clearing prices consistent with supply and demand fundamentals,” Asthana said. PJM expects to work diligently to make a FERC filing with the goal of incorporating the changes into the 2023/2024 Delivery Year Base Residual Auction, to be held in December 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio State Report
    Ohio State Report July 2017 www.pjm.com PJM©2017 Table of Contents 1. Planning • Generation Portfolio Analysis • Transmission Analysis • Load Forecast 2. Markets • Capacity Market Results • Market Analysis 3. Operations • Emissions Data www.pjm.com 2 PJM©2017 Executive Summary (July 2017) • Existing Capacity: Natural gas represents approximately 34 percent of the total installed capacity in Ohio while coal represents approximately 56 percent. This differs from PJM where natural gas and coal are relatively even at 35 and 34 percent respectively. • Interconnection Requests: Natural gas represents approximately 86 percent of new interconnection requests in Ohio. • Deactivations: Approximately 94.6 MW of capacity in Ohio retired in 2016. This represents more than 24 percent of the 392 MW that retired RTO-wide in 2016. • RTEP 2016: Ohio RTEP 2016 projects total more than $160 million in investment. Approximately 44 percent of that represents supplemental projects. • Load Forecast: Ohio load growth is nearly flat, averaging between .1 and .5 percent per year over the next 10 years. This aligns with PJM RTO load growth projections. www.pjm.com 3 PJM©2017 Executive Summary (July 2017) • 2020/21 Capacity Market: Compared to the PJM footprint, Ohio’s distribution of generation, demand response and energy efficiency is similar. • 6/1/14 – 5/31/17 Performance: Ohio’s average daily locational marginal prices were consistently at or below PJM average daily LMPs. Coal resources represented 44 percent of generation produced in Ohio while imports averaged 25 percent. • Emissions: 2016 carbon dioxide emissions are slightly up from 2015; sulfur dioxides are slightly down while nitrogen oxides continue to hold flat from 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • State Interconnection Regulations: Scope and Screens
    State Interconnection Regulations: Scope and Screens Table of Contents Introduction and Disclaimer ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Scope of Local Regulations on Interconnection Procedures .......................................................................................... 3 Delaware (Delaware Code, Title 26. Public Utilities, Chap. 1 Public Service Commission)....................................... 3 Indiana (Indiana Administrative Code, Title 170, Rule 4.3 “Customer-Generator Interconnection Standards” .......... 4 Illinois (IL Administrative Code, Title 83, Chapter I, Subchapter c, Part 466) ............................................................ 4 Maryland (Code of Maryland, Title 20, Subtitle 50, Chapter 20.50.09) ...................................................................... 4 Michigan (Public Service Commission, “Electric Interconnection and Net Metering Standards”) .............................. 5 New Jersey (NJ Administrative Code, Title 14, Chapter 5) ........................................................................................ 5 Ohio (OH Administrative Code, Title 4901, Chapter 22) ............................................................................................ 5 Pennsylvania (PA Code Title 52, Chapter 75) ........................................................................................................... 6 Virginia (VA Administrative Code, Title 20, Agency 5, Chapter
    [Show full text]
  • Application of East Kentucky Power Cooperative
    COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the Matter of: APPLICATION OF EAST KENTUCKY POWER ) COOPERATIVE, INC. TO TRANSFER ) CASENO. FUNCTIONAL CONTROL OF CERTAIN ) 2012-00169 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES TO PJM ) INTERCONNECTION, LLC ) ___1-ORDER On May 3, 2012, East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. (“EKPC”) filed an application seeking approval, pursuant to KRS 278.2 18, to transfer functional control of certain transmission facilities to the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”) effective June 1, 2013. EPKC is organized under KRS Chapter 279 as an electric generating and transmission cooperative and is a utility subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.’ Intervention in this case was requested by, and granted to: the Attorney General’s Office, Rate Intervention Division (“AG”); PJM; Gallatin Steel Company (“Gallatin Steel”); and Kentucky Utilities Company and Louisville Gas and Electric Company (“KU/LG&E”). By Order dated June 7, 2012, the Commission established a procedural schedule for this case which included two rounds of discovery on EKPC, the opportunity for intervenors to file testimony, one round of discovery on intervenors, and a public hearing. Informal conferences were held at the Commission’s offices on October 12, ’ KRS 279 210(1) 19, and 26, 2012. A public hearing was held at the Commission’s offices on November 7, 2012, and EKPC has requested the Commission to issue a decision in this case by December 31, 2012, to provide adequate time for EKPC to complete the preliminary steps needed to accomplish the transfer of control by June I,2013. Standard of Re- EKPC’s application is subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction under KRS 278.218, which governs a change in ownership or control of assets of an electric utility where those assets have an original book value of $1,000,000 or more.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 Northeast Coordinated Electric System Plan ISO New England, New York ISO and PJM
    Final 03-27-09 2008 Northeast Coordinated Electric System Plan ISO New England, New York ISO and PJM Contributors: ISO-NE: M. Henderson, J. Platts, W. Henson, M. Garber NYISO: J. Adams, J. Buechler, P. Carney, W. Lamanna PJM: P. McGlynn, M. Nix, G. Velummylum, M. Osman Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... 1 2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 5 3. SUMMARIES OF RTOS’ SYSTEM PLANS ...................................................................................... 6 3.1 ISO-New England 2008 Regional System Plan .................................................................................. 6 3.2 NYISO 2008 Comprehensive Reliability Plan ................................................................................... 7 3.3 PJM 2007 Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP) ............................................................... 8 3.4 New Interconnections between the ISO/RTOs ................................................................................... 8 3.5 Links to the Regional Plans ................................................................................................................ 8 4. SUMMARIES OF INTERREGIONAL STUDIES ............................................................................ 10 4.1 Loss-of-Source Analyses .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 105 Ferc ¶ 61, 251 United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    20031125-3087 Issued by FERC OSEC 11/25/2003 in Docket#: ER03-262-007 105 FERC ¶ 61, 251 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Pat Wood, III, Chairman; William L. Massey, and Nora Mead Brownell. The New PJM Companies Docket Nos. ER03-262-007 American Electric Power Service Corp. ER03-262-008 On behalf of its operating companies ER03-262-009 Appalachian Power Company Columbus Southern Power Company Indiana Michigan Power Company Kentucky Power Company Kingsport Power Company Ohio Power Company, and Wheeling Power Company Commonwealth Edison Company, and Commonwealth Edison Company of Indiana, Inc. The Dayton Power and Light Company, and PJM Interconnection, LLC American Electric Power Company Docket Nos. EC98-40-000 and ER98-2770-000 Central and South West Corporation ER98-2786-000 ORDER MAKING PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND GIVING PUBLIC NOTICE AND SETTING MATTER FOR PUBLIC HEARING UNDER PURPA SECTION 205(A) (Issued November 25, 2003) 1. In this order, the Commission takes the following actions: (A) Pursuant to Section 203(b) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),1 in supplement to its orders approving the merger of American Electric 116 U.S.C. § 824b (2000). 20031125-3087 Issued by FERC OSEC 11/25/2003 in Docket#: ER03-262-007 Docket No. ER03-262-001, et al. - 2 - Power Company with Central and South West Corporation (CSW),2 the Commission finds that, to secure the maintenance of adequate service and the coordination in the public interest of facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, American Electric Power Company-East (AEP or AEP-East)3 must fulfill its voluntary commitment to join a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO), namely, PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM).
    [Show full text]
  • Application of East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc
    COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the Matter of: APPLICATION OF EAST KENTUCKY ) POWER COOPERATIVE, INC. FOR A ) CASE NO. DECLARATORY ORDER CONFIRMING ) 2017-00129 THE EFFECT OF KENTUCKY LAW AND ) COMMISSION PRECEDENT ON RETAIL ) ELECTRIC CUSTOMERS' PARTICIPATION ) IN WHOLESALE ELECTRIC MARKETS ) ORDER On March 13, 2017, East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. ("EKPC") filed a verified application, pursuant to 807 KAR 5:011 , Sections 14 and 19, for a declaratory order addressing the legality of retail electric customers to participate in wholesale electric markets. Specifically, EKPC requests the Commission to declare that: 1. Under Kentucky law and Commission precedent, retail electric customers within EKPC's service territory are barred from participating in PJM's wholesale markets, either directly or indirectly through a third party, unless through a tariff or special contract approved by the Commission; and 2. Energy-efficiency resource providers within EKPC's service territory may participate in the PJM Capacity Market only pursuant to a Commission approved tariff or special contract, specifically to ensure that other retail electric customers within EKPC's service territory are not: (a ) unfairly or unlawfully disadvantaged and discriminated against; {b) subjected to inefficient service; and (c) forced to unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably subsidize the energy-efficiency resource provider's participation in the PJM wholesale market; and 3. PJM is subject to the Commission's jurisdiction to enforce its prior Orders in cases in which PJM has been granted voluntary intervention and has given acknowledgements and consents; 1 and 4. PJM's decision to allow one or more retail energy-efficiency resource providers located within EKPC's service territory to participate in its Capacity Market in a manner inconsistent with Commission precedent is unlawful, unreasonable and a violation of Kentucky law; and 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft 2017 Northeastern Coordinated System Plan Do Not Quote Or Cite
    D R A F T 2017 Northeastern Coordinated System Plan ISO New England, New York ISO, and PJM March 14, 2018 Draft 2017 Northeastern Coordinated System Plan Do not quote or cite. Contents Figures .......................................................................................................................................................................... iv Tables ........................................................................................................................................................................... iv Preface ................................................................................................................................................................... v 1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 1 2. Interregional Transmission Planning and Cost-Allocation Requirements ........................................................... 4 2.1 Interregional Coordination Requirements ..................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Cost-Allocation Requirements ....................................................................................................................... 5 3. Implementation of the Interregional Planning Process ...................................................................................... 7 3.1 PJM ...............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Supply – Demand Forecast Report for 2017 – 2026
    Public Service Commission of West Virginia Electric Supply – Demand Forecast Report for 2017 – 2026 Issued February 2017 201 Brooks Street P.O. Box 812 Charleston, WV 25323 1-800-344-5113 Chairman Michael A. Albert Commissioner Brooks F. McCabe, Jr. Commissioner Kara Cunningham Williams 1 Executive Summary The major generation-owning electric utility systems in West Virginia have completed major acquisitions of generation in recent years. At the same time, several older generating facilities have been retired. Cancellation of long-standing capacity agreements with affiliates has occurred, which has contributed to the need for alternative capacity resources. Appalachian Power Company (APCo) and Wheeling Power Company (WPCo) will have marginally adequate capacity for summer requirements in the near future, but will have low reserve margins in the next several years and may have low winter reserve margins during the forecast period. Monongahela Power Company (MPC) and Potomac Edison (PE) also have adequate capacity for summer requirements in the near future, but reserve margins will gradually shrink, becoming negative during the forecast period. If implemented, new EPA standards to limit carbon emissions from existing power plants will affect generation resources. As those standards are proposed, it is likely that generating utilities in West Virginia will need to modify existing generation to meet the EPA goals on both an interim and final basis. Because the timing and extent of rules implementing the EPA standard are unknown at this time, the impacts of any carbon limitations are not included in this report. The Presidential election in November 2016 will likely have a significant impact on the EPA, including how its standards may affect the electric utility and coal industries.
    [Show full text]
  • Kentucky State Report
    Kentucky State Report July 2017 www.pjm.com PJM©2016 Table of Contents 1. Planning • Generation Portfolio Analysis • Transmission Analysis • Load Forecast 2. Markets • Capacity Market Results • Market Analysis 3. Operations • Emissions Data www.pjm.com 2 PJM©2017 Executive Summary (July 2017) • Existing Capacity: Coal represents approximately 55 percent of the total installed capacity in the PJM portion of Kentucky while natural gas represents approximately 42 percent. This differs from PJM where natural gas are relatively even at 35 and 34 percent respectively. • Interconnection Requests: Natural gas represents 93 percent of new interconnection requests in Kentucky. • Deactivations: 147 MW of capacity in Kentucky retired in 2016. This compares to 392 MW of capacity retirements PJM-wide during the same year. • RTEP 2016: Kentucky RTEP 2016 projects total nearly $49 million of investment. Over half represents baseline-type projects. • Load Forecast: Kentucky load growth is nearly flat, averaging between 0.3 and 0.5 percent per year over the next 10 years. This aligns with PJM RTO load growth projections. www.pjm.com 3 PJM©2016 Executive Summary Cont. (July 2017) • 2020/21 Capacity Market: Only the Eastern Kentucky Power Cooperative transmission zone portion of Kentucky load participates in the capacity market. Compared to the PJM footprint, the distribution of generation, demand response, and energy efficiency in the EKPC zone is similar. • 6/1/2014 – 5/31/2017 Market Performance: Kentucky’s average daily locational marginal prices were consistent with the PJM average daily LMPs. • Emissions: 2016 carbon dioxide emissions are slightly up from 2015; sulfur dioxides saw a significant year-over-year drop; nitrogen oxides hold flat from 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Northeastern Coordinated System Plan ISO New England, New York ISO, and PJM
    2019 Northeastern Coordinated System Plan ISO New England, New York ISO, and PJM FINAL April 28, 2020 2019 Northeastern Coordinated System Plan Contents Contents ........................................................................................................................................................ ii Figures .......................................................................................................................................................... iii Tables ........................................................................................................................................................... iii Preface ......................................................................................................................................................... iv Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... v 1. Interregional Transmission Planning and Cost-Allocation Requirements ................................................ 1 1.1 Interregional Coordination Requirements ................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Cost-Allocation Requirements ......................................................................................................................... 2 2. Implementation of the ISO/RTO Planning Processes................................................................................ 3 2.1 PJM ..............................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]