GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project and Supplement

Appendix E

Navigant/Guidehouse Study: GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project and Supplement

Appendix E.1

Navigant/Guidehouse April 2020 GHG Report

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project Prepared for Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC

Submitted by: Navigant Consulting, Inc. n/k/a Guidehouse (Navigant) 1200 19th Street NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036

202.973.2400 navigant.com

April 2020

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...... 1 1. Astoria Replacement Project ...... 3 2. Environmental Regulations Driving Change in New York ...... 5 2.1 The CLCPA ...... 5 2.2 NYSDEC Ozone Season NOx Emission Limits for Simple Cycle and Regenerative Combustion Turbines (6 NYCRR 227-3) ...... 5 3. New York State’s Power System ...... 7 3.1 History and Overview ...... 7 3.2 Current New York Supply Mix ...... 8 4. New York’s Future Resource Mix ...... 9 4.1 New York City Retirements ...... 9 4.2 New York City Load Requirements ...... 10 4.3 Future Resource Mix Statewide and in New York City ...... 10 5. GHG Reductions from the Astoria Replacement Project ...... 14 5.1 Direct Emissions Reductions ...... 14 5.2 Indirect GHG Reductions from the Astoria Replacement Project ...... 18

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc., n/k/a Guidehouse Inc. (“Navigant”) for Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC (“Astoria”). The work presented in this report represents Navigant’s best professional judgment based on the information available at the time this report was prepared. Navigant is not responsible for the reader’s use of, or reliance upon, the report, nor any decisions based on the report. NAVIGANT MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. Readers of the report are advised that they assume all liabilities incurred by them, or third parties, as a result of their reliance on the report, or the data, information, findings and opinions contained in the report.

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC (“Astoria”) is proposing to modify its previously permitted 1,040 MW project to replace twenty four nearly 50-year-old Pratt & Whitney (“P&W”) combustion turbines and seven recently retired Westinghouse combustion turbines at Astoria with a new, state-of-the-art, H-class simple cycle combustion turbine generator (“CTG”) (the “Astoria Replacement Project” or the “Project”). The need for the Replacement Project is driven by the anticipated impacts of climate change policies and regulatory frameworks that are pushing modernization and decarbonization of the New York Independent System Operator (“NYISO”) and especially the New York City generation fleet.

The purpose of this report is to describe the greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions impacts of the Astoria Replacement Project and to describe how the Project is consistent with the New York State Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (“CLCPA”). Based on the GHG reductions that will result from the Project, it is consistent with the attainment of the Article 75 GHG emission limits.

The CLCPA requires the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) to implement regulations, pursuant to the CLCPA and Article 75 of the New York Environmental Conservation Law (“ECL”), that reduce GHG emissions 40% (from 1990 levels) by 2030 and 85% by 2050. It also requires the New York Public Service Commission (“NYPSC”) to implement a program to meet the targets of 70% of electricity to be sourced from renewable generation by 2030 and obtain a statewide zero-emissions electrical system by 2040. While these regulations and programs have not yet been developed by NYSDEC or NYPSC, Section 7(2) of the CLCPA requires all state agencies to consider whether the decision to issue permit(s) is inconsistent with or will interfere with the attainment of the GHG emission limits established in ECL Article 75.

This analysis evaluates the impact of the Project on statewide GHG emissions based on full compliance with the CLCPA’s targets and limits.1 The results show that the Project is consistent with the CLCPA and provides significant GHG reduction, while minimizing costs and maximizing benefits to New York via the following mechanisms: • Direct reduction through displacement of older, less efficient generation in New York City. This also includes reduction in GHG emissions due to extraction and transmission of fossil fuels imported into the state. • Indirect reduction by providing required quick start and fast ramping capacity to maintain reliability in New York City. This allows New York to avoid the installation of very large amounts of marginal capacity from energy storage, the cost savings of which can be applied to accelerate procurement of additional renewable resources including significant amounts of offshore wind.

Figure 1 shows the annual direct and indirect GHG emissions reductions due to the Project based on (i) comparing emissions from the Project with emissions from replacement generation that would be required without the Project and (ii) additional renewable generation that can be added to the system from cost savings attributable to the Project. The cumulative reductions through 2035 is nearly 5 million tons of GHG. Post-2035, emissions are still reduced by the Project, but the quantity depends on how the system

1 All figures and charts are from Navigant analysis, unless otherwise noted.

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

ultimately reaches full decarbonization and whether (and when) the Project starts to generate electricity using hydrogen fuel.

Figure 1. GHG Benefits of Astoria Replacement Project

Source: Navigant Analysis

Building the Project is also consistent with the long-term targets and goals of the CLCPA, which require 70% of electricity statewide to be sourced from renewables by 2030, shifting to zero-carbon emission generation by 2040, as the Project’s CTG technology is already capable of being converted to use zero- emission hydrogen as fuel once it becomes commercially available in sufficient quantities via a commercial delivery system such as the existing natural gas pipeline system.

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

1. ASTORIA REPLACEMENT PROJECT

The Astoria Replacement Project is being developed at the approximately 15.7-acre Astoria Gas Turbine Facility (“the Facility”) located at 31-01 20th Ave., Astoria, Queens County, New York, situated within a large 600+ acre complex (referred to as the “Astoria ConEd Complex”) shown in Figure 2. The Facility currently consists of 31 older, dual-fuel (natural gas and ultra-low sulfur kerosene) combustion turbine generators including 24 Pratt & Whitney turbines and seven retired Westinghouse turbines, with a combined nameplate rating of 646 megawatts (“MW”).

Astoria is proposing to modify its previously approved project. The Project will replace the 50-year-old P&W and previously retired Westinghouse CTGs at the Facility with a new, state-of-the-art, dual fuel, simple cycle combustion turbine generator unit. The proposed replacement unit (General Electric 7HA.03 or equivalent) has a nominal generator output of approximately 437 MW.

All of the existing units, with the exception of one P&W Twin Pac (consisting of two combustion turbines and a single generator), will be permanently shut down once the new unit has completed its shakedown period. The two remaining P&W turbines will remain operational to make the site black-start capable until replaced by an approximately 24 MWe battery energy storage system (“BESS”).

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

Figure 2. Astoria Replacement Project Site Location

Source: AECOM

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

2. ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS DRIVING CHANGE IN NEW YORK

Environmental regulations and policies are causing significant shifts in the resource and generation mix in New York. The GHG emission reduction requirements and renewable targets and decarbonization goals laid out in the CLCPA provide the framework for procuring future electric generators and drive the long- term shift away from thermal resources towards zero-emission energy capacity. Stricter regulations lowering plant emissions are also important drivers behind retirements across New York State, including within New York City.

Section 2 describes the two main environmental policies that focus on reducing GHG emissions and decarbonizing New York state and New York City’s generation fleet over the next 20 years.

2.1 The CLCPA

In June 2019, the New York legislature passed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, which was then signed into law by Governor Cuomo in July. The CLCPA requires the NYSDEC to implement regulations, pursuant to the CLCPA and Article 75 of the ECL, that reduce GHG 40% (from 1990 levels) by 2030 and 85% by 2050. Statewide GHGs are defined in the CLCPA as the total annual emissions of GHGs produced within the state and GHGs produced outside of the state that are associated with the generation of electricity imported into the state and the extraction and transmission of fossil fuels imported into the state.2 NYSDEC has yet to determine the 1990 baseline or promulgate the regulations required under the CLCPA.

Section 7(2) of the CLCPA requires all state agencies to consider whether the decision to issue permit(s) is inconsistent with or will interfere with the attainment of the GHG emission limits established in ECL Article 75.

The CLCPA also requires the NYPSC to implement a program to meet the targets of 70% of electricity to be sourced from renewable generation by 2030 and obtaining a statewide zero-emissions electrical system by 2040. This replaces the previous Clean Energy Standard (CES), which had set a target of 50% renewables by 2030. The CLCPA also formalizes New York’s existing renewables targets: 6 GW of distributed solar by 2025 and 9 GW of offshore wind by 2035.

New York’s aggressive environmental policies are pointing to $0/MWh marginal cost generation driving the market for the next ten years. For the purposes of this report, Navigant assumes full compliance with the decarbonization goals established by the CLCPA by 2030 and continued growth in renewables through 2040, but the analysis does include some variances in the specific resource mix to meet those goals. If successfully implemented, the CLCPA will result in widespread expansion of renewable and zero-carbon generation in the state.

2.2 NYSDEC Ozone Season NOx Emission Limits for Simple Cycle and Regenerative Combustion Turbines (6 NYCRR 227-3)

The NYSDEC has adopted stricter regulations that lower allowable NOx emissions from simple cycle and regenerative combustion turbines (“SCCT”) during the ozone season to help address Clean Air Act (“CAA”)

2 New York State Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

requirements and ozone nonattainment. The enactment of the Ozone Season NOx Emission Limits for Simple Cycle and Regenerative Combustion Turbines (6 NYCRR 227-3) phases in control requirements for SCCTs from 2023 to 2025. Specifically, the new rule sets a NOx emission limit of 100 parts per million (ppm) for all affected units by May 1, 2023. The limit is further reduced two years later to 25 ppm for units using gaseous fuels and to 42 ppm for units burning distillate oil or other liquid fuels. The existing, aging fleet of combustion turbine peaking units, can account for more than a third of the state's daily power plant NOx emissions when they run. The impact of this policy is expected to be the near-term retirement of 1,510 MW of capacity in New York City that must be replaced in order to maintain system reliability.

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

3. NEW YORK STATE’S POWER SYSTEM

3.1 History and Overview

New York is situated in the Northeast Power Coordinating Council region and has a mature, deregulated power market, with an established independent system operator (NYISO) and retail choice. The NYISO is an independent, not-for-profit system operator, and its service area is coterminous with New York State. It manages more than 400 market participants, schedules and dispatches over 500 electric power generators, and manages the flows on 11,173 miles of transmission lines on an hourly basis. Peak demand in the NYISO region reached 31,900 MW in 2018 with generation capability of 39,066 MW. NYISO consists of 11 load zones shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: NYISO Load Zone Map

Source: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

3.2 Current New York Supply Mix

The current resource mix in NYISO is diverse and relies primarily on nuclear, hydro and gas and oil units for generation, as seen in Figure 4. While technologically diverse, the current fleet is only about 37% decarbonized, and a significant amount of existing gas and oil generation will need to be replaced by renewables to reach New York’s decarbonization goals. Nuclear units make up only 14% of capacity but provided 32% of generation in 2018 due to low variable costs. This will decline when Indian Point retires in 2020 and 2021. Similarly, conventional hydro units account for 11% of generation capacity while providing 21% of 2018 generation. Gas and gas/oil (dual fuel) units make up 58% of total generation capacity but accounted for only 41% of 2018 generation due to higher marginal costs.

Figure 4: NYISO 2018 Installed Capacity and Generation by Fuel Type

Source: Navigant Analysis

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

4. NEW YORK’S FUTURE RESOURCE MIX

The resource mix in New York and specifically New York City will need to change drastically over the next 20 years to meet the aggressive renewable targets and emissions reductions limits of the CLCPA, while maintaining reliable electric service. Navigant’s forecast assumes that these targets and limits are met and includes large increases in renewable resources statewide.

As part of decarbonization, New York regulators passed new rules further restricting emission limits for thermal plants and incentivizing the phase out of older, less efficient peaking plants. Navigant’s analysis involved assessing the current NYISO system and modeling the future changes to the resource mix to comply with the new policy targets and regulatory and environmental requirements.

New York City, as a large transmission constrained load center, causes complex challenges in completing the decarbonization. There will be a large amount of local capacity that will retire and need to be replaced. There also needs to be enough flexibility and long-term backstop to maintain operation and reliability even when variable generation from renewables is not available. In particular, the backstop generation will need to be available to operate as renewable generation varies by the hour, day and season.

The following sections describe the on-going changes and requirements in New York City and the broader NYISO over the next 20 years. As discussed in Section 5, decarbonizing New York City given its concentrated load, limited space for development, and transmission constraints is a key challenge, and a focus of the benefits of the Astoria Replacement Project.

4.1 New York City Retirements

Expected retirements in New York City are shown in Table 1 below. Approximately 1.5 GW of aging gas- and oil-fired combustion turbine (“CT”) capacity, mostly used for peaking needs, is forecast to retire by 2026 due to stricter NOx emissions regulations. The replacement of aging thermal peaking capacity is one of the fundamental challenges facing New York City and its future ability to reliably meet peak needs and the CLCPA targets.

Table 1. NYC Plant Retirements (MW)

CT Gas CT Oil 2024 209 132 2025 905 137 2026 127 0 Source: Navigant Analysis

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

4.2 New York City Load Requirements

Peak load in New York City is forecast to gradually rise from ~11.9 GW in 2020 to 14.6 GW by 2040, as seen in Figure 5.3 As New York City’s load increases and thermal capacity retires, there will be challenges to meeting the City’s reliability needs with the necessary peaking capacity. Overall reserve margins4 are expected to drop significantly in 2021 and 2022 primarily due to the retirement of the Indian Point nuclear units. In our analysis, this capacity is anticipated to be quickly replaced with a variety of resources, including a notable amount of utility solar and offshore wind that is forecast to be online in the mid-2020s as New York moves towards its decarbonization targets. Energy efficiency and demand-side resources will also contribute to meeting this demand but the overall need for generation capacity will remain.

Figure 5. NYC Peak Demand (MW)

Source: Navigant Analysis

4.3 Future Resource Mix Statewide and in New York City

Navigant’s forecast of capacity additions and retirements (shown in Figure 6) incorporates announced and generic solar and wind additions, which, if permitted and constructed as expected, are anticipated to help New York meet its obligations under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (“RGGI”) and the CLCPA.

3 Unlike the NYISO Gold Book, these peak load values are prior to incorporating the impacts from energy efficiency and demand response. 4 Reserve margin is the capacity needed in addition to expected peak load to provide a backstop in case of even higher load combined with unit outages. Sufficient reserve margin must be maintained to sustain system reliability.

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

The steady addition of distributed solar throughout the forecast, driven by the CLCPA’s goal of 6 GW of photovoltaic solar by 2025, further helps to meet reserve margin targets. Approximately 3.5 GW of rooftop solar is forecast to come online through 2030 as a key element of decarbonization.

Navigant forecasts 6.4 GW of offshore wind by 2035 connecting to New York City and Long Island, which is significant given that none of New York’s electricity currently comes from offshore wind. Battery storage will play an increasingly important role as New York decarbonizes. It will help smooth the variability of intermittent solar and wind generation and shift generation to meet peak system needs as aging thermal peakers are retired due to stricter emissions regulations.

The two nuclear generators at Indian Point Units 2 and 3 are set to retire in 2020 and 2021, respectively, with a combined capacity of 2,045 MW. Approximately 1.5 GW of aging CT capacity, mostly used for peaking needs, is forecast to retire by 2026 due to stricter NOx emissions regulations in New York. Accordingly, the long-term build-out of new generation in our analysis also includes generic CTs and combined cycle combustion turbine generators as required to maintain both statewide and locational capacity requirements.

The replacement of the CT capacity is one of the central challenges facing New York City and its ability to maintain reliable operation of the system. Further discussion regarding the operation, flexibility and emissions of replacement capacity is provided in the following report sections.

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

Figure 6. NYISO Capacity Additions and Retirements (MW)

Source: Navigant Analysis

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

The supply curve in Figure 7 below was created by taking all units in New York City and ordering them from least to most expensive cost of dispatch. This chart provides an illustrative method to determine economic merit order of units and the relative positioning of units versus demand. The supply curve shows that the Astoria Replacement Project is more efficient and therefore lower on the supply stack than other more GHG intensive, existing peaking combustion turbines.

Figure 7. New York City Supply Curve - 2025

Source: Navigant Analysis

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

5. GHG REDUCTIONS FROM THE ASTORIA REPLACEMENT PROJECT

5.1 Direct Emissions Reductions

5.1.1 Evaluation Methodology

In order to assess the operations of the Astoria Replacement Project within the NYISO market, Navigant used its propriety dispatch optimization model, The Electric Value Model (“EVM”), to dispatch the new unit against future market conditions. These market conditions were created using PROMOD IV (“Promod”), a widely adopted production cost model.

Promod incorporates demand, generating operational characteristics, fuel prices, emissions prices, and transmission grid constraints to simulate system hourly operation in order to minimize the total operating cost while ensuring that generation and load are matched. The security constrained unit commitment and security constrained economic dispatch that are performed by the model are designed to mimic system operator commitment and dispatch. The key outputs of the simulation are the hourly details of system operation including generation by unit and the hourly locational marginal prices at each node. The key assumptions that were utilized in the model are discussed in Section 2.

Navigant then performed the dispatch of the Astoria Replacement Project given its specific unit characteristics provided by Astoria. Key characteristics provided included variable non-fuel operating and maintenance costs, ramp rate, minimum up and down time, seasonal capacity values, and heat rates. EVM generates a single unit’s dispatch based on input forecast prices.

The emissions reduction was calculated by taking the hour by hour dispatch of the Astoria Replacement Project and determining which unit or units would have come online to replace that generation in each operating hour. The replacement generation was determined by looking at all resources within New York City and determining the least cost units that were not already generating. The emissions from the Astoria Replacement Project were then compared to the emissions of the replacement generation that would have been required had the Astoria Replacement Project not been available.

It is important to note that these estimates are conservative. As discussed in Section 5.1.4, natural gas production and transportation results in methane emissions that increase the GHG impacts of natural gas generation in the power sector. Since the Astoria Replacement Project replaces less efficient generation and reduces overall natural gas usage, it also reduces the GHG impacts from the extraction and transmission of natural gas imported into the state.

5.1.2 Forecasted Astoria Replacement Project Operation

The results from the dispatch analysis show that the Astoria Replacement Project is expected to have a wide variation in capacity factors through 2035, seen in Figure 8 below. As the NYISO system is forecast to integrate larger amounts of renewable resources, Astoria’s capacity factor declines as the remaining energy needs on the system decrease. Notably, a large drop is forecast to occur in the mid-2020s due to offshore wind coming online and the replacement of several combustion turbines with new energy storage systems due to stricter NOx emissions regulations. Post-2031, the reserve margins fall in NY Zone J, which results in an uptick in capacity factor for Astoria.

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

Figure 8. Astoria Replacement Project Capacity Factor

Source: Navigant Analysis

While the generation output of the Astoria Replacement Project declines over time as offshore wind is added to the system, it remains a key resource in providing valuable services needed for the reliable operation of the system especially with the addition of a significant amount of renewables. One such reliability and economic benefit is a result of the dual-fuel capability of the Project. This allows the Astoria Replacement Project to both help (i) mitigate energy prices during severe winter weather when fuel prices can spike and (ii) provide fuel security when natural gas must be prioritized for residential and commercial heating use instead of electric generation.

Due to the intermittency and covariance of renewable resource output, namely wind and solar, the capacity value of these resources decreases as more of any single technology type is added to a system. This is discussed in further detail in Section 5.2.2. As renewable resources continue to represent an increasingly larger portion of the New York City capacity mix, the Astoria Replacement Project serves as a critical capacity resource to maintain locational capacity requirements. Additionally, the changing net demand shape (electric demand net of renewable resource supply) also causes new and exacerbated stresses on the system as levels of renewable penetration are increased. High renewable systems have been shown to need both (1) additional quick response capability to account for unexpected variations in renewable generation, and (2) additional fast ramping capability to meet times of the day when renewable resources are not typically available. A modern combustion turbine resource such as the Astoria Replacement Project is well equipped to provide both of these services due to its quick start and its fast ramping capability. Sufficient quick start and fast ramping capabilities are key for a reliable transition to a high-renewable system.

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

5.1.3 Direct GHG Reduction from the Project

The Project provides direct reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. GHG emissions are reduced because the Astoria Replacement Project is significantly more efficient than other generation in New York City. Following commercial operation of the Project, generation from less efficient units will be directly displaced by generation from this Project.

Figure 9. GHG Emissions with and without Astoria Replacement Project

Source: Navigant Analysis; Arrows show reduction in GHG emissions with addition of Astoria Replacement Project.

Figure 9 shows both the annual emissions with and without the Astoria Replacement Project and Table 2 summarizes the annual emission reductions from the addition of the Project. The analysis shows an initial savings of over 150,000 tons of CO2 in 2024. The direct GHG emissions from the Project trends downward as more renewable resources enter the system. However, as discussed in Section 5.2, indirect GHG emissions reductions from the Project rise significantly as the Project provides the capacity necessary to bring additional renewable resources on-line.

Over time, as overall system resources trend toward a zero-carbon emissions rate, the Astoria plant will operate at much lower capacity factors and serve primarily as a low-cost flexible resource to aid in system reliability and renewable integration. As the amount of renewables integration increases, the relative cost savings of capacity procured from the Astoria Replacement Project compared to equivalent capacity value procured from battery storage alone could be used to accelerate the construction of 543 MW of offshore wind resulting in an indirect GHG benefit of ~1M tons per year. For more detail, refer to Section 5.2.

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

Table 2. Annual Direct GHG Emissions Reduction with Astoria Replacement Project Cumulative Emissions Emissions Reduction Year Reduction (000 Tons) 2023 151 151 2024 154 305 2025 108 413 2026 84 497 2027 82 579 2028 86 665 2029 91 756 2030 75 830 2031 65 896 2032 95 991 2033 82 1,073 2034 78 1,151 2035 72 1,223 Source: Navigant Analysis

5.1.4 Lifecycle Emissions for Natural Gas Generation

The direct emissions reductions calculated in Section 5.1.3 are conservative. Production and transportation of natural gas results in methane emissions, which are a potent GHG. The Astoria Replacement Project reduces overall natural gas generation by replacing the generation of less efficient units. This means the methane emissions from extracting natural gas and transmitting it to New York are also avoided, which increases the GHG benefit of the Project. Figure 10 shows the National Energy Technology Lab’s estimate of the additional GHG emissions due to the natural gas production and transportation lifecycle. It increases the total emissions from natural gas by ~5%.

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

Figure 10. Lifecycle Emissions of Generating Technologies

Source: Presentation on Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Natural Gas and Power Generation, National Energy Technology Lab, 2015

5.2 Indirect GHG Reductions from the Astoria Replacement Project

5.2.1 Requirements for a Power System Consistent with the CLCPA

The CLCPA targets decarbonization for the entire New York power system, but the biggest challenge will be how to complete the transition to 100% zero-carbon energy while maintaining the reliable operation of the power system in New York City especially given the size of the local demand, as well as the transmission constraints that limit the flow of power from elsewhere on the system. Article 75 of the ECL requires GHG be reduced 40% (from 1990 levels) by 2030 and 85% by 2050; and, the NYPSC to implement a program to meet the targets of 70% of electricity to be sourced from renewable generation by 2030 and shifting to a statewide electrical demand system of zero-emissions by 2040. Successfully and cost effectively meeting the CLCPA standards, targets and goals will require that the in-city power

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

supply maintain sufficient levels of capacity to respond to unexpected outages, dips in renewable generation, or unexpectedly high local load.

Wind and solar power are intermittent resources in that their output varies with changes in weather patterns. Since electricity systems must always maintain balance between supply and demand across the system, this means that there must be resources that can respond (either by increasing generation or by decreasing generation) when there is a change in power supply from renewables. Solar power also varies through the day predictably as the sun rises and sets leading to large ramping requirements (increase or decrease) in the morning and evening that must be met by dispatchable system resources. Finally, renewable generation may have low availability over extended periods and there must be generation that can make up the difference over that entire period.

At a high level, there will need to be sufficient in-city generation or transmission capability to maintain system reliability as renewable resources are added to the system. Geographic and technological diversity of renewable generation resources helps mitigate these challenges, but there will still be a need for dispatchable generation, such as the Astoria Replacement Project, to ensure that the balance is maintained. • Capacity Reserve – ensuring that there is sufficient generation capacity to meet unexpected peaks or unexpected outages. • Energy Balance – ensuring that generation is always available to meet supply. • Flexible Operations – ensuring that dispatchable generation levels can be changed either up or down quickly in response to changing system needs.

5.2.2 Error! Reference source not found.Flexible Gas Generation to Maximize GHG Reductions

The CLCPA requires both GHG emissions to be reduced and decarbonization of the electrical system, in the most cost-effective manner. This provides an important role for gas generation to support the system as new technologies develop to ensure customer rates do not rise more than is necessary. The Astoria Replacement Project can fill this role and provide a flexible, cost effective, low capacity factor resource that supports a reduction in GHG emissions and overall decarbonization of the system, while maintaining system reliability.

Maintaining capacity reserve is particularly challenging in a high renewable system, as the effective ability of renewable resources to provide capacity declines as the penetration of those resources on the system increases. This concept is known as effective load carrying capacity (“ELCC”). Figure 11 from the NYISO Grid in Transition Study5 shows the impact of this dynamic. The result is that capacity requirements must be made up by other firm technologies (dispatchable and non-interruptible).

5 https://www.nyiso.com/documents/20142/2224547/Reliability-and-Market-Considerations-for-a-Grid-in-Transition- 20191220%20Final.pdf/61a69b2e-0ca3-f18c-cc39-88a793469d50

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

Figure 11. ELCC of Wind and Solar

Source: Brattle Group, NYISO Grid in Transition Study (2020)

Each technology option for the New York City power system can help meet one or more of the above system requirements. The challenge for determining the most cost-effective path to meet the standards and targets of the CLCPA is how to balance technology choices with their capabilities and system needs.

In any CLCPA consistent resource plan for the New York electrical system, battery energy storage systems (battery storage or BESS) will be a very large component of the resource mix statewide and within New York City. BESS can provide all the needs of the system described in the previous section and is particularly equipped to ensure the system can respond to variations in renewable generation in a timely manner. However, the limiting factor for storage is the length of time a resource can provide power to the system before needing to be recharged. As BESS penetration increases, net peak periods flatten and longer discharge durations are required to provide the same capacity value that was provided by shorter duration resources when the system had less overall BESS penetration. This dynamic is described in the NYISO Grid in Transition Study and shown in Figure 12. The issue is that as the duration of a battery system increases, so do the capital costs and hence the costs that will be passed on to ratepayers.

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

Figure 12. Declining Marginal Capacity Value of Storage

Source: Brattle Group, NYISO Grid in Transition Study (2020)

Keeping a small amount of gas generation on the system with a low capacity factor and low direct GHG emissions; has high capacity value and significantly lowers system cost. The savings from keeping this thermal generation rather than focusing on only batteries for capacity can be used to accelerate procurement of additional zero-carbon energy.

For example, the NYISO Grid in Transition Study assumes the following capital costs6:

Table 3. Technology Capital Costs

L-I Battery Combustion Offshore (1 hr duration) Turbine Wind ($/kW) 2020 $347 $1,274 $4,369 2030 $234 $1,154 $3,251 Source: NYISO Grid in Transition Study, 2020

A 4-hour duration battery is needed to provide full capacity in 2020 which has a capital cost of $1,388 vs. $1,274 for the combustion turbine. However, using current technologies and expected technology costs, if New York City replaces roughly half of current peaking resources (~3,000 MW) with battery storage, the

6 Assumes 3% increase for downstate battery storage compared to upstate and 43% increase for combustion turbine downstate compared to upstate as reported in EIA’s AEO 2020 Capital Cost Assumptions Report.

GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

penetration of battery storage would be close to 25% for the city’s capacity resources. In this case, consistent with Figure 12, even 8-hour duration batteries only count for 30% of their nameplate capacity. The battery storage cost per kW of firm capacity is thereby:

$234/kWh * 8 (hr duration) * (100/30) = $6,240/kW

The $6,240/kW for BESS compares with a cost of only $1,154/kW for a combustion turbine to provide the same capacity value to the system, a savings of more than 80 percent.

As described in Section 5.1.2, the Astoria Replacement Project is expected to have a low capacity factor after 2030 due to the expected addition of BESS and renewable resources to the system. With a 10% capacity factor, the direct emissions of the Project are ~200,000 tons per year. While a battery would not have these direct emissions, they would not be able to provide the same level of indirect GHG emission reductions that the Astoria Project can. If the savings from using the Astoria Replacement Project as capacity versus a battery are used to accelerate renewables, an additional 543 MW of offshore wind could be procured. Assuming a conservative 50% capacity factor, this results in ~2,400 GWh of generation per year from thermal resources that can be replaced with the additional wind. The GHG benefit of this is ~1,000,000 tons per year, which dwarfs the direct emissions from the Astoria Replacement Project.

The Astoria Replacement Project uses a modern, highly flexible combustion turbine, so it can also support the system in maintaining sufficient flexibility when it is operating. This means that it does not have to be directly supplemented with energy storage to provide those capabilities.

5.2.3 The Role of the Astoria Replacement Project Post - 2040

One important implication of battery storage being derated as a capacity resource as penetration increases is there needs to be technological advances over the next 20 years to fully decarbonize the power system in a cost-effective manner. It is not yet clear what technologies will emerge, but one key option includes converting gas generation to hydrogen fuel. The turbine technology selected by the Astoria Replacement Project is capable of being converted to use hydrogen in the future instead of natural gas or fuel oil. This positions the Project to operate post 2040 within a zero-carbon electric grid (consistent with the CLCPA) while continuing to provide multiple benefits to the bulk power system.

Appendix E.2

Navigant/Guidehouse February 2021 GHG Supplement

Supplement to GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project Prepared for Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC

Submitted by: Guidehouse, Inc. 1200 19th Street NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 guidehouse.com

February 2021

Supplement to GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...... 1 1. Astoria Replacement Project ...... 4 2. New York’s Future Resource Mix ...... 5 2.1 New York City Retirements ...... 5 2.2 New York City Load Requirements ...... 6 2.3 Future Resource Mix Statewide and in New York City ...... 6 3. GHG Reductions from the Astoria Replacement Project ...... 9 3.1 Direct Emissions Reductions ...... 9 3.1.1 Evaluation Methodology ...... 9 3.1.2 Forecasted Astoria Replacement Project Operation ...... 10 3.1.3 Direct GHG Reduction from the Project ...... 11 3.2 Indirect GHG Reductions from the Astoria Replacement Project ...... 12 3.2.1 The Role of the Astoria Replacement Project Post - 2040...... 13

Supplement to GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared by Guidehouse Consulting, Inc., (“Guidehouse”),1 for Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC (“Astoria”). The work presented in this report represents Guidehouse’s professional judgment based on the information available at the time this report was prepared. Guidehouse is not responsible for the reader’s use of, or reliance upon, the report, nor any decisions based on the report. GUIDEHOUSE MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. Readers of the report are advised that they assume all liabilities incurred by them, or third parties, as a result of their reliance on the report, or the data, information, findings and opinions contained in the report.

1Guidehouse was formerly known as Navigant Consulting.

Supplement to GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC (“Astoria”) is proposing to modify its previously permitted 1,040 MW project to replace twenty four nearly 50-year-old Pratt & Whitney (“P&W”) combustion turbines and seven recently retired Westinghouse combustion turbines at Astoria with a new, state-of-the-art, H-class simple cycle combustion turbine generator (“CTG”) (the “Astoria Replacement Project” or the “Project”). The P&W units are set to retire by May 2023. The need for the Replacement Project is driven by the anticipated impacts of climate change policies and regulatory frameworks that are pushing modernization and decarbonization of the New York Independent System Operator (“NYISO”) and especially the New York City generation fleet.

The purpose of this report is to supplement the June 17, 2020 GHG Impacts of the Astoria Replacement Project report describing the greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions impacts of the Astoria Replacement Project and how the Project is consistent with the New York State Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (“CLCPA”). This report revises the June 17, 2020 report based on comments from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) and incorporates Guidehouse’s latest forecast for capacity additions and retirements, as well as an updated load forecast. Based on the GHG reductions that will result from the Astoria Replacement Project, it is consistent with the State’s attainment of the Article 75 GHG reductions, and 6 NYCRR 496 Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emission limits for 2030 and 2050.

The CLCPA requires the NYSDEC to implement regulations, pursuant to the CLCPA and Article 75 of the New York Environmental Conservation Law (“ECL”), that reduce Statewide GHG emissions 40% (from 1990 levels) by 2030 and 85% by 2050. NYSDEC finalized the 2030 and 2050 Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emission limits in the 6 NYCRR 496 regulations on December 30, 2020. The 2030 statewide limit is 245.87 million metric tons of CO2e, and the 2050 limit is 61.47 million metric tons CO2e. The CLCPA also requires the New York Public Service Commission (“NYPSC”) to implement a program to meet the targets of 70% of electricity to be sourced from renewable generation by 2030 and obtain a statewide zero-emissions electrical system by 2040. While the CLCPA regulations and programs have not yet been fully developed by NYSDEC or NYPSC, Section 7(2) of the CLCPA requires all state agencies to consider whether the decision to issue permit(s) is inconsistent with or will interfere with the attainment of the GHG emission limits established in ECL Article 75 and Part 496.

This analysis evaluates the impact of the Project on statewide GHG emissions based on full compliance with the CLCPA’s targets and limits.2 The results show that the Project is consistent with the CLCPA and provides significant GHG emission reductions. The Project minimizes costs and maximizes benefits to New York via the following mechanisms: • Direct GHG reductions through displacement of older, less efficient generation. The Project also causes a reduction in upstream GHG emissions associated with the extraction and transmission of the fuels that the displaced units would otherwise use.3 • Indirect GHG reductions by providing required quick start and fast ramping capacity to maintain reliability in New York City. This allows New York to avoid the installation of very large amounts

2 All figures and charts are from Guidehouse analysis, unless otherwise noted. 3 Quantification of the GHG emission reductions caused by the Project that are associated with the extraction and transmission of fossil-fuels that would otherwise occur from the operation of the displaced units, is not included in this report.

Supplement to GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

of marginal capacity from energy storage, the cost savings of which can be applied to accelerate procurement of additional renewable resources including significant amounts of offshore wind.

Figure 1 shows the annual direct and indirect GHG emissions reductions due to the Project based on (i) comparing emissions from the Project with emissions from replacement generation that would be required without the Project4 and (ii) additional renewable generation that can be added to the system from cost savings attributable to the Project. The cumulative reduction of GHG emissions caused by the Project through 2035 is approximately 5.3 million tons. Post-2035, emissions are still reduced by the Project, but the quantity depends on how the New York electric system ultimately reaches full decarbonization and whether (and when) the Project starts to generate electricity using green hydrogen fuel.

Figure 1. GHG Benefits of Astoria Replacement Project

Source: Guidehouse Analysis; Note: 2023 includes June – December 2023 only.

Table 1. Emissions Reduction from Astoria Replacement Project

Astoria Replacement Project Avoided CO2 (000 Tons)

4 In all analyses, the existing Astoria generating units are assumed to retire in May 2023. As a result, the GHG emission reduction benefits from the Replacement Project do not include any credit from the retirement of the existing units.

Supplement to GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

Direct Emissions Reduction Indirect Year Emissions From Imported New York Reduction Electricity 2023 72 0.09 2024 88 0.05 2025 57 0.03

2026 38 0.14

2027 40 0.04 2028 18 0.05 2029 27 -0.02 2030 21 0.00 476 2031 15 0.05 646

2032 19 -0.04 792

2033 7 0.10 979 2034 13 0.08 961 2035 5 -0.02 990

Source: Guidehouse Analysis. Note: 2023 includes June – December 2023 only.

The Project is also consistent with the long-term electricity targets and goals of the CLCPA, which require 70% of electricity statewide to be sourced from renewables by 2030, shifting to zero-carbon emission generation by 2040.The Project will enable additional renewables to be added to the system and the Project’s CTG technology is capable of being converted to use green hydrogen as fuel once it becomes available in sufficient quantities via a commercial delivery system such as the existing natural gas pipeline system.

Supplement to GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

1. ASTORIA REPLACEMENT PROJECT

All of the existing units, with the exception of one P&W Twin Pac (consisting of two combustion turbines and a single generator), will be permanently shut down once the new unit has completed its shakedown period. The two remaining P&W turbines will remain operational solely to provide black-start capability until replaced by an approximately 24 MWe battery energy storage system (“BESS”).

Figure 2. Astoria Replacement Project Site Location

Source: AECOM

Supplement to GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

2. NEW YORK’S FUTURE RESOURCE MIX

The resource mix in New York and specifically New York City will need to change drastically over the next 20 years to meet the aggressive renewable targets and emissions reductions limits of the CLCPA, while maintaining reliable electric service. Guidehouse’s forecast assumes that these targets and limits are met, and includes large increases in renewable resources statewide.

In addition to the CLCPA and its implementing regulations, New York also promulgated 6 NYCRR 227-3 (known as the Peaker Rule) further restricting oxides of nitrogen (“NOx”) emission from simple cycle combustion turbines thereby incentivizing the phase out of older, less efficient peaking plants starting in 2023. Guidehouse’s analysis involved assessing the current NYISO system and modeling the future changes to the resource mix to comply with the new policy targets and regulatory and environmental requirements. As such, this analysis assumes the existing Astoria generating units are not in operation after May 1, 2023 and that the Project will begin commercial operation in June 2023.

New York City, as a large transmission constrained electricity load center, causes complex challenges in meeting New York’s decarbonization goals. There will be a large amount of local peaking capacity that will retire and need to be replaced. There also needs to be enough flexibility and long-duration backup to maintain operation and reliability of the electric system even when variable generation from renewables is not available. In particular, this backstop generation will need to be available to operate as renewable generation varies by the hour, day and season.

The following sections describe the on-going changes and requirements in New York City and the broader NYISO over the next 20 years. As discussed in Section 3, decarbonizing New York City given its concentrated load, limited space for development, and transmission constraints is a key challenge, and a focus of the benefits of the Astoria Replacement Project.

2.1 New York City Retirements

Expected retirements of existing electric generating units in New York City are shown in Table 2 below. Approximately 1.5 GW of aging gas-and oil-fired combustion turbine (“CT”) capacity, mostly used for peaking needs, is forecast to retire by 2026 due to stricter NOx emissions regulations. The replacement of peaking capacity provided by these aging units is one of the fundamental challenges facing New York City and its future ability to reliably meet peak needs while also meeting the CLCPA targets.

Table 2. NYC Plant Retirements (MW)

CT Gas CT Oil 2022 155 122 2023 387 0 2024 101 117 2025 75 15 2026 523 15 Source: Guidehouse Analysis

Supplement to GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

2.2 New York City Load Requirements

Peak load in New York City is forecast to gradually rise from ~11.9 GW in 2020 to 14.6 GW by 2040, as seen in Figure 3.5 As New York City’s load increases and aging capacity retires, there will be challenges to meeting the City’s reliability needs with the necessary peaking capacity. Overall reserve margins6 are expected to drop significantly in 2021 and 2022 primarily due to the retirement of the Indian Point nuclear units. In our analysis, this capacity is anticipated to be replaced with a variety of resources, including a notable amount of utility solar and offshore wind that is forecast to be online in the mid-2020s as New York moves towards its decarbonization targets. Energy efficiency and demand-side resources will also contribute to meeting this demand but the overall need for generation capacity will remain.

Figure 3. NYC Peak Demand (MW)

Source: 2020 NYISO Gold Book (Issued April 2020)

2.3 Future Resource Mix Statewide and in New York City

Guidehouse’s forecast of capacity additions and retirements (shown in Figure 4) incorporates announced and generic solar and wind additions, which, if permitted and constructed as expected, are anticipated to help New York meet its CLCPA and Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (“RGGI”) obligations.

Guidehouse forecasts that most of the additions over the study period are solar (utility PV and rooftop), wind (onshore and offshore) and battery energy storage systems (“BESS”). For battery energy storage, Guidehouse expects near-term projects to be built for 4 hours of energy duration, transitioning to 6 hour batteries in 2027 and 8 hours in 2031.The build forecast also includes generic natural gas fired CTs coming online in downstate zones from 2022 until 2024, which are needed to replace aging CTs and meet local reserve margin targets in the short-term.

5 Unlike the NYISO Gold Book, these peak load values are prior to incorporating the impacts from energy efficiency and demand response; Guidehouse used gross peak load in its supply and demand forecast. 6 Reserve margin is the capacity needed in addition to expected peak load to provide a backstop in case of even higher load combined with unit outages. Sufficient reserve margin must be maintained to sustain system reliability.

Supplement to GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

Guidehouse forecasts approximately 13.3 GW of utility and rooftop solar additions and 2 GW of energy storage by 2030 to comply with CLCPA mandates. In order to maintain reliability and balance large amounts of renewables, longer duration storage will be needed as renewables make up more of NYISO’s generation capacity mix. Longer-duration storage will be needed to provide the same grid capabilities that shorter-duration batteries previously did. 7 GW of offshore wind is expected to come online in New York City and Long Island by 2035. In terms of retirements, the second nuclear generator at Indian Point 3 (1,025 MW) is set to go offline in 2021, approximately 1.5 GW of CT and ST fossil-fueled generating capacity in New York City is expected to retire by 2026.

The replacement of the CT capacity is one of the central challenges facing New York City and its ability to maintain reliable operation of the system, particularly with the increase in intermittent renewables that are expected to be added. Further discussion regarding the operation, flexibility and emissions of replacement capacity is provided in the following report sections.

Figure 4. NYISO Capacity Additions and Retirements (MW)

Source: Guidehouse Analysis

Supplement to GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

The supply curve in Figure 5 below was created by taking all units in New York City and ordering them from least to most expensive cost of dispatch. This chart provides an illustrative method to determine economic merit order of units and the relative positioning of units versus demand. The supply curve shows that the Astoria Replacement Project is more efficient and therefore lower on the supply stack than other more GHG-intensive existing generation in the area.

Figure 5. New York City Supply Curve - 2025

Source: Guidehouse Analysis

Supplement to GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

3. GHG REDUCTIONS FROM THE ASTORIA REPLACEMENT PROJECT

3.1 Direct Emissions Reductions

3.1.1 Evaluation Methodology

In order to assess the operations of the Astoria Replacement Project within the NYISO market, Guidehouse used its propriety dispatch optimization model, The Electric Value Model (“EVM”), to dispatch the new unit against future market conditions. These market conditions were created using PROMOD IV (“Promod”), a widely adopted production cost model.

Guidehouse then performed the dispatch of the Astoria Replacement Project given its specific unit characteristics provided by Astoria. Key characteristics provided included variable non-fuel operating and maintenance costs, ramp rate, minimum up and down time, seasonal capacity values, and heat rates. EVM generates a single unit’s dispatch based on input forecast prices.

The emissions reduction was calculated by taking the hour by hour dispatch of the Astoria Replacement Project and determining which unit or units would have come online to replace that generation in each operating hour. The replacement generation was determined by looking at all resources able to supply the electricity needed and determining the least cost units that were not already generating. The existing Astoria units were not considered as replacement generation, since they are assumed to be shutdown prior to the Project beginning commercial operation. The emissions from the Astoria Replacement Project were then compared to the emissions of the replacement generation that would have been required had the Astoria Replacement Project not been available.

As part of the direct emissions reductions analysis, Guidehouse calculated the GHG reduction due to displacement of imported electricity that the Project would replace. We took the difference in imports from the Astoria Replacement Project Case and the Base Case and multiplied it by the Import Marginal Emission Intensity (IMEI) of 0.49 Tons CO2/MWh. The IMEI corresponds to the average emission intensity of gas plants that operate at a lower than 60% capacity factor – consistent with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) carbon accounting framework used to estimate the GHG emission reductions between cases.

It is important to note that the estimates in this report are conservative. As discussed previously, natural gas production and transportation results in emissions that increase the GHG impacts of natural gas generation in the power sector. Since the Astoria Replacement Project replaces less efficient generation and reduces overall natural gas usage, it also reduces the GHG impacts from the extraction and transmission of natural gas imported into the state. The impact of the Project on reducing these upstream emissions are not included in this report.

Supplement to GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

3.1.2 Forecasted Astoria Replacement Project Operation

The results from the dispatch analysis show that the Astoria Replacement Project is expected to have a wide variation in capacity factors through 2035, seen in Figure 6 below. As the NYISO system is forecast to integrate larger amounts of renewable resources, Astoria’s capacity factor declines as the remaining energy needs on the system decrease. Nevertheless, the Astoria Replacement Project still replaces the operation of more GHG-intensive existing electric generators resulting in GHG emission reductions.

Figure 6. Astoria Replacement Project Capacity Factor

Source: Guidehouse Analysis. Note: 2023 includes June – December 2023 only.

While the generation output of the Astoria Replacement Project declines over time as offshore wind is added to the system, it remains a key resource in providing valuable services needed for the reliable operation of the electric system especially with the addition of a significant amount of renewables. One such reliability and economic benefit is a result of the dual-fuel capability of the Project. This allows the Astoria Replacement Project to both help (i) mitigate energy prices during severe winter weather when fuel prices can spike and (ii) provide fuel security when natural gas must be prioritized for residential and commercial heating use instead of electric generation.

Due to the intermittency and covariance of renewable resource output, namely wind and solar, the capacity value of these resources decreases as more of any single technology type is added to a system. As renewable resources continue to represent an increasingly larger portion of the New York City capacity mix, the Astoria Replacement Project serves as a critical capacity resource to maintain locational capacity requirements. Additionally, the changing net demand shape (electric demand net of renewable resource supply) also causes new and exacerbated stresses on the system as levels of renewable penetration are increased. High renewable systems have been shown to need both (1) additional quick response capability to account for unexpected variations in renewable generation, and (2) additional fast ramping capability to meet times of the day when renewable resources are not typically available. A modern combustion turbine resource such as the Astoria Replacement Project is well equipped to provide both of these services due

Supplement to GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

to its quick start and its fast ramping capability. Sufficient quick start and fast ramping capabilities are key for a reliable transition to a high-renewable system.

3.1.3 Direct GHG Reduction from the Project

The Project provides direct reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. GHG emissions are reduced because the Astoria Replacement Project is significantly more efficient than other generation capable of supplying electricity to New York City. Following commercial operation of the Project, generation from less efficient units will be directly displaced by generation from this Project.

Figure 7. GHG Emissions with and without Astoria Replacement Project

Source: Guidehouse Analysis; Arrows show reduction in GHG emissions with addition of Astoria Replacement Project. Note: 2023 includes June – December 2023 only.

Figure 7 shows both the annual emissions with and without the Astoria Replacement Project and Table 3 summarizes the annual emission reduction from the addition of the Project to the electric system. The analysis shows an initial savings of 72,000 tons of direct CO2 in 2023. The direct GHG emissions reduction from the Project trends downward as more renewable resources enter the system. However, as discussed in Section 3.2, indirect GHG emissions reductions from the Project rise significantly as the Project provides the capacity necessary to bring additional renewable resources on-line.

Supplement to GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

Table 3. Annual Direct GHG Emissions Reduction with Astoria Replacement Project Cumulative Emissions Emissions Reduction Year Reduction (000 Tons) 2023 72 72 2024 88 161 2025 57 218 2026 38 256 2027 40 296 2028 18 314 2029 27 341 2030 21 362 2031 15 377 2032 19 396 2033 7 403 2034 13 416 2035 5 421 Source: Guidehouse Analysis. Note: 2023 includes June – December 2023 only.

3.2 Indirect GHG Reductions from the Astoria Replacement Project

This section discusses the challenges that will be faced by New York to complete full decarbonization as required by the CLCPA and the sizable indirect GHG emission reductions that can be realized from using the Astoria Replacement Project as a marginal capacity resource in the 2030’s. At a high level, there will need to be sufficient in-city generation or transmission capability to maintain system reliability as renewable resources are added to the system. Geographic and technological diversity of renewable generation resources helps mitigate these challenges, but there will still be a need for dispatchable generation, such as the Astoria Replacement Project, to ensure that the balance is maintained.

Maintaining cost effective reliability is challenging due to the nature of the capacity reserve requirement whereby the marginal capacity resources on any system are largely needed for peak periods and emergency purposes and have relatively low capacity factors. In a system with fossil fuel generation, this role is often played by aging thermal units or combustion turbines that operate infrequently, but provide needed electricity during system contingencies and peak periods of demand. In a system with a significant share of energy storage providing this capacity, the marginal capacity resources will require longer duration capability to provide the same capacity value. The result is deration of the capacity value of battery storage, and BESS becomes significantly more expensive as you continue to grow the amount of BESS that is part of the system capacity mix. Keeping a small amount of gas generation on the system with a low capacity factor and low GHG emissions; has high capacity value and significantly lowers system cost. The savings from keeping this thermal generation rather than focusing on only batteries for capacity can be used to accelerate procurement of additional zero-carbon energy.

Supplement to GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project

As described in Section 3.1.2, the Astoria Replacement Project is expected to have a low capacity factor after 2030 due to the expected addition of BESS and renewable resources to the system. With a 2.5% capacity factor, the direct emissions of the Project are ~21,000 tons per year. While a battery would not have these direct emissions, they would not be able to provide the same level of indirect GHG emission reductions that the Astoria Project can. If the savings from using the Astoria Replacement Project as capacity versus a battery are used to accelerate renewables, an additional 543 MW of offshore wind could be procured. Assuming a conservative 50% capacity factor, this results in ~2,400 GWh of generation per year from thermal resources that can be replaced with the additional wind. The GHG benefit of this is ~1,000,000 tons per year, which dwarfs the direct emissions from the Astoria Replacement Project.

3.2.1 The Role of the Astoria Replacement Project Post - 2040

One important implication of battery storage being de-rated as a capacity resource as penetration increases is that there needs to be technological advances over the next twenty years to fully decarbonize the power system in a cost-effective manner. It is not yet clear what technologies will emerge, but one key option includes converting natural gas generation to green hydrogen fuel. The turbine technology selected by the Astoria Replacement Project is capable of being converted to use hydrogen in the future instead of natural gas or fuel oil. This positions the Project to operate post 2040 within a zero-carbon electric grid (consistent with the CLCPA) while continuing to provide multiple benefits to the bulk power system.

Due to the lack of availability of green hydrogen fuel pricing and the unknown operational parameters of how the Astoria Project would dispatch by running on hydrogen, Guidehouse can only offer limited insights on the 2050 operation of the hydrogen-fired Project. Based on available data, Guidehouse projects that the annual average capacity factor for the Project operating on green hydrogen after 2040 would be ~1.3%, with a few starts in the shoulder months and a moderate amount of generation during the summer peak period in July 2050.

Appendix F

Air Emissions Supporting Information Astoria Replacement Project Existing Facility Annual GHG Emissions Existing P&W Turbine Direct Emissions from Baseline Period May 2015 - April 2017 CO2 (tons) CH4 (tons) N2O (tons) CO2e (tons) 24 P&W Turbines 41,718.1 0.8095 0.0864 Part 496 GWP20 41,809

CO2 from EPA Clean Air Markets Division (ECMPS) CH4/N2O calculated using Part 98 Table C-2 default factors converted from kg/MMBtu to lb/MMBtu

Baseline CH4 factor N2O Factor MMBtu lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu Natural Gas 684,685.65 0.00220 0.00022 Kerosene 16,559.05 0.00661 0.00132 total heat input 701,244.70

Indirect upstream fuel GHG emissions

Natural Gas Upstream Natural Gas Factor Natural gas indirect lb/MMBtu emissions (tons) CO2 24.82 8,497 CH4 0.36 122 N2O 0.000298 0.1 CO2e 54.88 18,789

Kerosene Upstream Kerosene Indirect GHG lb CO2e/MMBtu from baseline CO2 20.51 170 CH4 0.22 1.8 N2O 0.00042 0.0035 CO2e 38.97 323

Total Upstream NG Kerosene Total CO2 ton/yr 8,497 170 8,667 CH4 ton/yr 122 1.8 124 N2O ton/yr 0.1 0.003 0.11 CO2e based GWP20 18,789 323 19,112

Indirect vehicle GHG emissions Light Total indirect Commercial Short Haul vehicle GHG Passenger Cars Trucks Diesel Truck emissions days/year 365 365 365 Commuting trips/day 20 9 1 Commuting miles/round trip 40 50 50 Tons CO2/year 148.315 106.738 35.831 290.9 Tons CH4/year 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003 Tons N2O/year 0.00000002 0.00000003 0.000002 0.000002 GWP20 Tons CO2e/year 148.4 106.8 36.0 291

Existing Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e, tons tons tons tons GWP20 Direct / P&W Units 41,718 0.81 0.086 41,809 Indirect / Upstream 8,667 124.02 0.106 19,112 Indirect / Mobile 291 0.003 0.000002 291 Total Existing 50,676 124.83 0.192 61,212

6 NYCRR §496.5 CO2 CH4 N2O Part 496 GWP20 1 84 264

Astoria Replacement Project DSEIS Appendix F - Air Emissions Supporting Information Existing Facility Annual GHG Page 1 of 15 February 2021 Astoria Replacement Project Project Maximum Annual GHG Emissions CTG SS NG NG SU/SD SS ULSD ULSD SU/SD Total CO2 441,382 24,355 234,045 12,377 712,160 CH4 8 0 10 1 18.77 N2O 1 0 2 0 2.88 CO2e based on Part 496 20-yr GWP 442,299 24,405 235,347 12,446 714,497

Emergency Engines EG FP#1 FP#2 Heat Input (MMBtu/hr) 5.00 1.17 1.78 Hours/year 500 500 500 CO2 204 48 73 CH4 0.0083 0.0019 0.0029 N2O 0.0017 0.0004 0.0006 CO2e based on Part 496 20-yr GWP 205 48 73

Fugitives CH4 107.56 SF6 0.00083 CO2e based on Part 496 20-yr GWP 9,050

Project Total Direct Emissions CTG EG FP#1 FP#2 Fugitives Total CO2 712,160 204 48 73 0 712,484 CH4 18.77 0.008 0.002 0.003 107.56 126.34 N2O 2.88 0.0017 0.0004 0.0006 0 2.88 SF6 - - - - 0.00083 0.00083 CO2e based GWP20 714,497 205 48 73 9,050 723,872

Project Fuel Use Natural Gas MMBtu/yr 7,939,520 Diesel MMBtu/yr 3,033,631

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e lb/MMBtu Project Upstream Fuel Emission Factors lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu GWP20 Natural Gas 24.82 0.36 0.00030 54.88 Diesel 24.02 0.26 0.00049 45.63

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e lb/MMBtu Total Project Upstream Fuel Emissions tons/yr tons/yr tons/yr GWP20 Natural Gas 98,531 1,417 1.18 217,880 Diesel 36,438 388 0.75 69,219 Total 134,969 1,805 1.93 287,099

6 NYCRR §496.5 CO2 CH4 N2O SF6 Part 496 GWP20 1 84 264 17,500

Astoria Replacement Project DSEIS Appendix F - Air Emissions Supporting Information Project Maximum Annual GHG Page 2 of 15 February 2021 Astoria Replacement Project Project Estimated/Expected Future Annual Emissions Estimated Future Annual Totals 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2023-2035 Avg. 4.4% Capacity Factor 19.5% 10.6% 7.6% 5.0% 5.0% 2.4% 3.3% 2.5% 1.9% 2.4% 1.0% 1.8% 0.5% 1.4% 0.9% 1.1% 0.8% 2023-2035 Total Pot. GWh 47,080 Potential Generation (GWh) 2,188 3,749 3,738 3,738 3,738 3,749 3,738 3,738 3,738 3,749 3,738 3,738 3,738 3,749 3,738 3,738 3,738 2023-2035 Total GWh 2,075 Total Generation (GWh) 427 397 283 185 188 91 123 95 72 89 37 69 18 52 33 40 30 Turbine Startups 14 40 27 18 18 11 14 12 9 7 5 6 5 5 4 4 5 Turbine Hours of Operation 1,328 1,136 821 535 520 254 352 271 201 265 104 206 43 157 90 115 80 Turbine Fuel Used (MMBtu) 4,107,153 3,763,258 2,700,482 1,768,396 1,775,619 864,548 1,176,780 904,826 682,199 856,182 353,432 662,250 168,268 500,708 312,055 379,231 279,308 Turbine CO2 Emission (metric tons) 221,694 203,131 145,765 95,454 95,844 46,666 63,520 48,840 36,823 46,215 19,077 35,747 9,083 27,027 16,844 20,470 15,076 Emergency Engine Hours (hr/yr/engine) @ 1 hr/week 30 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52

Turbine SU/SD Emission Factors 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 Total MMBtu/SU+SD 1,951 Turbine SU/SD Totals: MMBtu from SU/SD 27,314 78,040 52,677 35,118 35,118 21,461 27,314 23,412 17,559 13,657 9,755 11,706 9,755 9,755 7,804 7,804 9,755 NOx lb/SU+SD 253 NOx SU/SD (tons) 1.8 5.1 3.4 2.3 2.3 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 CO lb/SU+SD 240 CO SU/SD (tons) 1.7 4.8 3.2 2.2 2.2 1.3 1.7 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 VOC lb/SU+SD 72 VOC SU/SD (tons) 0.5 1.4 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 PM lb/SU+SD 15.7 PM SU/SD (tons) 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SO2 lb/SU+SD 3.20 SO2 SU/SD (tons) 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H2SO4 lb/SU+SD 2.10 H2SO4 SU/SD (tons) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CH4 lb/SU+SD 5.02 CH4 SU/SD (tons) 0.04 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 N2O lb/SU+SD 0.50 N2O SU/SD (tons) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Turbine Steady-State Emission Factors Turbine Steady-State Emissions 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 MMBtu 4,079,839 3,685,218 2,647,805 1,733,278 1,740,501 843,087 1,149,466 881,414 664,640 842,525 343,677 650,544 158,513 490,953 304,251 371,427 269,553 NOx lb/MMBtu 0.00920 NOx (tons) 18.8 17.0 12.2 8.0 8.0 3.9 5.3 4.1 3.1 3.9 1.6 3.0 0.7 2.3 1.4 1.7 1.2 CO lb/MMBtu 0.00784 CO (tons) 16.0 14.4 10.4 6.8 6.8 3.3 4.5 3.5 2.6 3.3 1.3 2.6 0.6 1.9 1.2 1.5 1.1 VOC lb/MMBtu 0.00256 VOC (tons) 5.2 4.7 3.4 2.2 2.2 1.1 1.5 1.1 0.9 1.1 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.3 PM lb/MMBtu 0.0073 PM (tons) 14.9 13.5 9.7 6.3 6.4 3.1 4.2 3.2 2.4 3.1 1.3 2.4 0.6 1.8 1.1 1.4 1.0 SO2 lb/MMBtu 0.00140 SO2 (tons) 2.9 2.6 1.9 1.2 1.2 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 H2SO2 lb/MMBtu 0.00092 H2SO4 (tons) 1.9 1.7 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 CH4 lb/MMBtu 0.00220 CH4 (tons) 4.50 4.06 2.92 1.91 1.92 0.93 1.27 0.97 0.73 0.93 0.38 0.72 0.17 0.54 0.34 0.41 0.30 N2O lb/MMBtu 0.00022 N2O (tons) 0.45 0.41 0.29 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.13 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.03

CTG 2023-35 Avg Total Annual Turbine Emissions: tons/year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 8.7 NOx 20.5 22.0 15.6 10.3 10.3 5.3 7.1 5.6 4.2 4.8 2.2 3.8 1.4 2.9 1.9 2.2 1.9 7.6 CO 17.7 19.2 13.6 9.0 9.0 4.6 6.2 4.9 3.7 4.1 1.9 3.3 1.2 2.5 1.7 1.9 1.7 2.4 VOC 5.7 6.2 4.4 2.9 2.9 1.5 2.0 1.6 1.2 1.3 0.6 1.0 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.5 5.6 PM 15.0 13.8 9.9 6.5 6.5 3.2 4.3 3.3 2.5 3.1 1.3 2.4 0.6 1.8 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.1 SO2 2.9 2.7 1.9 1.2 1.3 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.7 H2SO4 1.9 1.7 1.3 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 90,547 CO2 244,376 223,914 160,679 105,220 105,649 51,441 70,018 53,837 40,591 50,943 21,029 39,404 10,012 29,792 18,567 22,564 16,619 1.68 CH4 4.53 4.16 2.99 1.96 1.96 0.96 1.30 1.00 0.76 0.95 0.39 0.73 0.19 0.55 0.35 0.42 0.31 0.17 N2O 0.45 0.42 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.13 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.03 90,733 CO2e Part 496 GWP20 244,876 224,373 161,008 105,435 105,866 51,546 70,162 53,948 40,674 51,047 21,072 39,485 10,033 29,853 18,605 22,611 16,653

Emergency Generator 2023-35 Avg Em. Generator Engine Emissions: tons/year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 Heat Input (MMBtu) 149.85 259.74 259.74 259.74 259.74 259.74 259.74 259.74 259.74 259.74 259.74 259.74 259.74 259.74 259.74 259.74 259.74 0.021 NOx 0.012 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.108 CO 0.064 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.006 VOC 0.003 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.0009 PM 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0002 SO2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00003 H2SO4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 20.5 CO2 12.217 21.176 21.176 21.176 21.176 21.176 21.176 21.176 21.176 21.176 21.176 21.176 21.176 21.176 21.176 21.176 21.176 0.001 CH4 0.0005 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.00017 N2O 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 20.6 CO2e Part 496 GWP20 12.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3

Astoria Replacement Project DSEIS Appendix F - Air Emissions Supporting Information Project Est. Future Emissions Page 3 of 15 February 2021 Astoria Replacement Project Project Estimated/Expected Future Annual Emissions Estimated Future Annual Totals 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2023-2035 Avg. 4.4% Capacity Factor 19.5% 10.6% 7.6% 5.0% 5.0% 2.4% 3.3% 2.5% 1.9% 2.4% 1.0% 1.8% 0.5% 1.4% 0.9% 1.1% 0.8% 2023-2035 Total Pot. GWh 47,080 Potential Generation (GWh) 2,188 3,749 3,738 3,738 3,738 3,749 3,738 3,738 3,738 3,749 3,738 3,738 3,738 3,749 3,738 3,738 3,738 2023-2035 Total GWh 2,075 Total Generation (GWh) 427 397 283 185 188 91 123 95 72 89 37 69 18 52 33 40 30 Turbine Startups 14 40 27 18 18 11 14 12 9 7 5 6 5 5 4 4 5 Turbine Hours of Operation 1,328 1,136 821 535 520 254 352 271 201 265 104 206 43 157 90 115 80 Turbine Fuel Used (MMBtu) 4,107,153 3,763,258 2,700,482 1,768,396 1,775,619 864,548 1,176,780 904,826 682,199 856,182 353,432 662,250 168,268 500,708 312,055 379,231 279,308 Turbine CO2 Emission (metric tons) 221,694 203,131 145,765 95,454 95,844 46,666 63,520 48,840 36,823 46,215 19,077 35,747 9,083 27,027 16,844 20,470 15,076 Emergency Engine Hours (hr/yr/engine) @ 1 hr/week 30 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52

Fire Pump #1 2023-35 Avg Em. Fire System Pump Engine #1: tons/year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 Heat Input (MMBtu) 35.24 61.07 61.07 61.07 61.07 61.07 61.07 61.07 61.07 61.07 61.07 61.07 61.07 61.07 61.07 61.07 61.07 0.026 NOx 0.015 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.032 CO 0.019 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.001 VOC 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 PM 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.00004 SO2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00001 H2SO4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.82 CO2 2.873 4.979 4.979 4.979 4.979 4.979 4.979 4.979 4.979 4.979 4.979 4.979 4.979 4.979 4.979 4.979 4.979 0.0002 CH4 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.00004 N2O 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.8 CO2e Part 496 GWP20 2.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Fire Pump #2 2023-35 Avg Em. Fire System Pump Engine #2: tons/year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 Heat Input (MMBtu) 53.46 92.66 92.66 92.66 92.66 92.66 92.66 92.66 92.66 92.66 92.66 92.66 92.66 92.66 92.66 92.66 92.66 0.039 NOx 0.023 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.034 CO 0.020 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.0012 VOC 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 PM 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.0001 SO2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00001 H2SO4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.3 CO2 4.358 7.555 7.555 7.555 7.555 7.555 7.555 7.555 7.555 7.555 7.555 7.555 7.555 7.555 7.555 7.555 7.555 0.0003 CH4 0.0002 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.00006 N2O 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 7.3 CO2e Part 496 GWP20 4.4 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6

Project Total 2023-35 Avg Total Facility Expected Emissions: tons/year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 8.77 NOx 20.60 22.11 15.69 10.34 10.38 5.36 7.15 5.66 4.29 4.85 2.30 3.84 1.45 2.98 1.99 2.30 1.96 7.75 CO 17.78 19.43 13.80 9.14 9.16 4.81 6.37 5.08 3.87 4.32 2.13 3.45 1.40 2.71 1.85 2.12 1.84 2.93 VOC 6.23 6.66 4.87 3.37 3.38 1.98 2.48 2.07 1.68 1.84 1.13 1.56 0.89 1.31 1.04 1.13 1.03 5.57 PM 15.00 13.77 9.88 6.47 6.50 3.17 4.31 3.32 2.50 3.14 1.30 2.43 0.62 1.84 1.15 1.39 1.03 1.07 SO2 2.89 2.65 1.90 1.25 1.25 0.61 0.83 0.64 0.48 0.60 0.25 0.47 0.12 0.35 0.22 0.27 0.20 0.7 H2SO4 1.90 1.75 1.25 0.82 0.82 0.40 0.55 0.42 0.32 0.40 0.16 0.31 0.08 0.23 0.14 0.18 0.13 90,580 CO2 244,395 223,948 160,712 105,253 105,683 51,474 70,052 53,871 40,625 50,977 21,063 39,438 10,046 29825.84 18600.97 22597.96 16652.53 1.68 CH4 4.53 4.16 2.99 1.96 1.97 0.96 1.30 1.00 0.76 0.95 0.39 0.73 0.19 0.56 0.35 0.42 0.31 0.169 N2O 0.45 0.42 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.13 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.0000 SF6 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 90,766 CO2e Part 496 GWP20 244,896 224,407 161,042 105,469 105,900 51,580 70,196 53,982 40,708 51,081 21,106 39,519 10,067 29,887 18,639 22,644 16,687

Astoria Replacement Project DSEIS Appendix F - Air Emissions Supporting Information Project Est. Future Emissions Page 4 of 15 February 2021 Astoria Replacement Project Project Estimated/Expected Future Annual Emissions Estimated Future Annual Totals 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2023-2035 Avg. 4.4% Capacity Factor 19.5% 10.6% 7.6% 5.0% 5.0% 2.4% 3.3% 2.5% 1.9% 2.4% 1.0% 1.8% 0.5% 1.4% 0.9% 1.1% 0.8% 2023-2035 Total Pot. GWh 47,080 Potential Generation (GWh) 2,188 3,749 3,738 3,738 3,738 3,749 3,738 3,738 3,738 3,749 3,738 3,738 3,738 3,749 3,738 3,738 3,738 2023-2035 Total GWh 2,075 Total Generation (GWh) 427 397 283 185 188 91 123 95 72 89 37 69 18 52 33 40 30 Turbine Startups 14 40 27 18 18 11 14 12 9 7 5 6 5 5 4 4 5 Turbine Hours of Operation 1,328 1,136 821 535 520 254 352 271 201 265 104 206 43 157 90 115 80 Turbine Fuel Used (MMBtu) 4,107,153 3,763,258 2,700,482 1,768,396 1,775,619 864,548 1,176,780 904,826 682,199 856,182 353,432 662,250 168,268 500,708 312,055 379,231 279,308 Turbine CO2 Emission (metric tons) 221,694 203,131 145,765 95,454 95,844 46,666 63,520 48,840 36,823 46,215 19,077 35,747 9,083 27,027 16,844 20,470 15,076 Emergency Engine Hours (hr/yr/engine) @ 1 hr/week 30 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52

Project Upstream NG Emissions: tons/year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 Project Upstream GHG from lb/MMBtu Natural Gas MMBtu/yr 4,107,153 3,763,258 2,700,482 1,768,396 1,775,619 864,548 1,176,780 904,826 682,199 856,182 353,432 662,250 168,268 500,708 312,055 379,231 279,308 Natural Gas 24.820 CO2 Upstream GHG from Natual Gas 50,971 46,703 33,513 21,946 22,036 10,729 14,604 11,229 8,466 10,625 4,386 8,219 2,088 6,214 3,873 4,706 3,466 0.3570 CH4 Upstream GHG from Natual Gas 733 672 482 316 317 154 210 161 122 153 63 118 30 89 56 68 50 0.0003 N2O Upstream GHG from Natual Gas 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54.88 CO2e GWP20 Upstream GHG from Natual Gas 112,710 103,273 74,108 48,529 48,727 23,725 32,294 24,831 18,721 23,496 9,699 18,174 4,618 13,741 8,564 10,407 7,665

Project Upstream GHG from Project Upstream Diesel Emissions: tons/year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 Diesel lb/MMBtu Diesel MMBtu/yr 238.55 413.48 413.48 413.48 413.48 413.48 413.48 413.48 413.48 413.48 413.48 413.48 413.48 413.48 413.48 413.48 413.48 24.02 CO2 Upstream GHG from Diesel 2.87 4.97 4.97 4.97 4.97 4.97 4.97 4.97 4.97 4.97 4.97 4.97 4.97 4.97 4.97 4.97 4.97 0.26 CH4 Upstream GHG from Diesel 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 N2O Upstream GHG from Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.63 CO2e GWP20 Upstream GHG from Diesel 5.44 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43

Upstream GHG Emissions from Extraction and Transmission of Project Fuel 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2023-2039 Avg tons CO2 18,891 Total Project Upstream CO2 50,973 46,708 33,518 21,951 22,041 10,734 14,609 11,234 8,471 10,630 4,391 8,224 2,093 6,219 3,878 4,711 3,471 2023-2039 Avg tons CH4 272 Total Project Upstream CH4 733 672 482 316 317 154 210 162 122 153 63 118 30 89 56 68 50 2023-2039 Avg tons N2O 0.227 Total Project Upstream N2O 0.61 0.56 0.40 0.26 0.26 0.13 0.18 0.14 0.10 0.13 0.05 0.10 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.04 2023-2039 Avg tons CO2e 41,771 CO2e GWP20 Total Project Upstream Emissions 112,716 103,282 74,117 48,538 48,737 23,735 32,303 24,840 18,731 23,505 9,708 18,183 4,627 13,750 8,573 10,416 7,674

Upstream GHG Emissions from Extraction and Transmission of Displaced Unit Fuel 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2023-35 Avg (tons) lb/MMBtu Displaced Units heat input, MMBtu 5,277,931 5,209,686 3,591,586 2,386,406 2,432,913 1,155,775 1,613,304 1,234,309 929,190 1,161,339 448,742 872,594 246,962 522,766 522,766 522,766 522,766 25,356 24.820 CO2 Upstream GHG from Natual Gas 65,500 64,653 44,572 29,616 30,193 14,343 20,021 15,318 11,531 14,412 5,569 10,829 3,065 6,488 6,488 6,488 6,488 365 0.3570 CH4 Upstream GHG from Natual Gas 942 930 641 426 434 206 288 220 166 207 80 156 44 93 93 93 93 0.305 0.0003 N2O Upstream GHG from Natual Gas 0.79 0.78 0.54 0.36 0.36 0.17 0.24 0.18 0.14 0.17 0.07 0.13 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 56,069 54.885 CO2e GWP20 Upstream GHG from Natual Gas 144,839 142,966 98,562 65,489 66,765 31,717 44,273 33,872 25,499 31,870 12,315 23,946 6,777 14,346 14,346 14,346 14,346 Used natural gas upstream emission factors for displaced units

Upstream GHG Emissions Difference from Displaced Units Due to Project 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2023-2039 Avg tons CO2 6,465 CO2 Upstream GHG from Natual Gas 14,527 17,945 11,054 7,665 8,152 3,609 5,412 4,084 3,060 3,782 1,178 2,605 972 269 2,610 1,776 3,016 2023-2039 Avg tons CH4 93 CH4 Upstream GHG from Natual Gas 209 258 159 110 117 52 78 59 44 54 17 37 14 4 38 26 43 2023-2039 Avg tons N2O 0.078 N2O Upstream GHG from Natual Gas 0.17 0.22 0.13 0.09 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.04 2023-2039 Avg tons CO2e 14,298 CO2e GWP20 Upstream GHG from Natual Gas 32,124 39,684 24,445 16,950 18,028 7,983 11,970 9,032 6,769 8,365 2,606 5,763 2,150 596 5,773 3,930 6,672

Astoria Replacement Project DSEIS Appendix F - Air Emissions Supporting Information Project Est. Future Emissions Page 5 of 15 February 2021 Astoria Replacement Project Project Estimated/Expected Future Annual Emissions Estimated Future Annual Totals 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2023-2035 Avg. 4.4% Capacity Factor 19.5% 10.6% 7.6% 5.0% 5.0% 2.4% 3.3% 2.5% 1.9% 2.4% 1.0% 1.8% 0.5% 1.4% 0.9% 1.1% 0.8% 2023-2035 Total Pot. GWh 47,080 Potential Generation (GWh) 2,188 3,749 3,738 3,738 3,738 3,749 3,738 3,738 3,738 3,749 3,738 3,738 3,738 3,749 3,738 3,738 3,738 2023-2035 Total GWh 2,075 Total Generation (GWh) 427 397 283 185 188 91 123 95 72 89 37 69 18 52 33 40 30 Turbine Startups 14 40 27 18 18 11 14 12 9 7 5 6 5 5 4 4 5 Turbine Hours of Operation 1,328 1,136 821 535 520 254 352 271 201 265 104 206 43 157 90 115 80 Turbine Fuel Used (MMBtu) 4,107,153 3,763,258 2,700,482 1,768,396 1,775,619 864,548 1,176,780 904,826 682,199 856,182 353,432 662,250 168,268 500,708 312,055 379,231 279,308 Turbine CO2 Emission (metric tons) 221,694 203,131 145,765 95,454 95,844 46,666 63,520 48,840 36,823 46,215 19,077 35,747 9,083 27,027 16,844 20,470 15,076 Emergency Engine Hours (hr/yr/engine) @ 1 hr/week 30 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52

Project Indirect vehicle GHG emissions 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 Passenger Car Commuting trips/day 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Passenger Car Commuting miles/round trip 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 2023-2039 Avg tons CO2 108 Passenger Car Commuting Tons CO2/year 65.2 111.5 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.5 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.5 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.5 111.2 111.2 111.2 2023-2039 Avg tons CH4 0.0007 Passenger Car Commuting Tons CH4/year 0.0004 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 2023-2039 Avg tons N2O 0.000008 Passenger Car Commuting Tons N2O/year 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2023-2039 Avg tons CO2e 108 Passenger Car Commuting Tons CO2e/year 65.3 111.6 111.3 111.3 111.3 111.6 111.3 111.3 111.3 111.6 111.3 111.3 111.3 111.6 111.3 111.3 111.3 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 Light Commercial Diesel Truck deliveries/day 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Light Commercial Diesel Truck miles/round trip 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 2023-2039 Avg tons CO2 57 Truck Tons CO2/year 34.8 59.5 59.3 59.3 59.3 59.5 59.3 59.3 59.3 59.5 59.3 59.3 59.3 59.5 59.3 59.3 59.3 2023-2039 Avg tons CH4 0.0004 Truck Tons CH4/year 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 2023-2039 Avg tons N2O 0.000005 Truck Tons N2O/year 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2023-2039 Avg tons CO2e 57 Truck Tons CO2e/year 34.8 59.5 59.3 59.3 59.3 59.5 59.3 59.3 59.3 59.5 59.3 59.3 59.3 59.5 59.3 59.3 59.3 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 Short Haul Diesel Truck deliveries/day 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Short Haul Diesel Truck miles/round trip 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 2023-2039 Avg tons CO2 35 Truck Tons CO2/year 21.0 35.9 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.9 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.9 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.9 35.8 35.8 35.8 2023-2039 Avg tons CH4 0.0016 Truck Tons CH4/year 0.0010 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 2023-2039 Avg tons N2O 0.00002 Truck Tons N2O/year 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2023-2039 Avg tons CO2e 35 Truck Tons CO2e/year 21.1 36.1 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.1 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.1 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.1 36.0 36.0 36.0 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2023-2039 Avg tons CO2 200 Total indirect vehicle CO2 emissions (ton/yr) 121.0 206.9 206.4 206.4 206.4 206.9 206.4 206.4 206.4 206.9 206.4 206.4 206.4 206.9 206.4 206.4 206.4 2023-2039 Avg tons CH4 0.003 Total indirect vehicle CH4 emissions (ton/yr) 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 2023-2039 Avg tons N2O 0.00003 Total indirect vehicle N2O emissions (ton/yr) 0.00002 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 2023-2039 Avg tons CO2e 200 Total indirect vehicle CO2e emissions (ton/yr) 121.1 207.2 206.6 206.6 206.6 207.2 206.6 206.6 206.6 207.2 206.6 206.6 206.6 207.2 206.6 206.6 206.6

6 NYCRR §496.5 CO2 CH4 N2O Part 496 GWP20 1 84 264

Astoria Replacement Project DSEIS Appendix F - Air Emissions Supporting Information Project Est. Future Emissions Page 6 of 15 February 2021 Astoria Replacement Project GHG Emissions Reductions and Value of Carbon

Direct, Indirect, and Upstream GHG Emissions Reductions Caused by the Project (000 tons)

Total Annual Direct Direct Direct Total Direct Indirect Upstream Upstream Upstream Total Upstream Dir. + Indir. + Cumulative GHG CO2e Upst. GHG CO2 CH4 N2O GHG CO2e GHG CO2 CH4 N2O GHG CO2e CO2e Direct GHG Indirect GHG Upstream GHG Total 2023 72.09 0.0013 0.00013 72 0 14.5 0.21 0.00017 32 104 72 0 32 104 2024 88.05 0.0016 0.00016 88 0 17.9 0.26 0.00022 40 128 160 0 72 232 2025 57.03 0.0010 0.00010 57 0 11.1 0.16 0.00013 24 82 218 0 96 314 2026 38.14 0.0007 0.00007 38 0 7.7 0.11 0.00009 17 55 256 0 113 369 2027 40.04 0.0007 0.00007 40 0 8.2 0.12 0.00010 18 58 296 0 131 427 2028 18.05 0.0003 0.00003 18 0 3.6 0.05 0.00004 8 26 314 0 139 453 2029 26.98 0.0005 0.00005 27 0 5.4 0.08 0.00006 12 39 341 0 151 492 2030 21.00 0.0004 0.00004 21 476 4.1 0.06 0.00005 9 506 362 476 160 998 2031 15.05 0.0003 0.00003 15 646 3.1 0.04 0.00004 7 668 377 1,122 167 1,666 2032 18.96 0.0003 0.00003 19 782 3.8 0.05 0.00005 8 809 396 1,904 175 2,476 2033 7.10 0.0001 0.00001 7 979 1.2 0.02 0.00001 3 989 403 2,883 178 3,464 2034 13.08 0.0002 0.00002 13 961 2.6 0.04 0.00003 6 980 416 3,844 184 4,444 2035 4.98 0.0001 0.00001 5 990 1.0 0.01 0.00001 2 997 421 4,834 186 5,441 2036 8.39 0.0000 0.00000 8 977 0.3 0.00 0.00000 1 986 430 5,811 186 6,427 2037 8.39 0.0002 0.00002 8 977 2.6 0.04 0.00003 6 991 438 6,787 192 7,418 2038 8.39 0.0002 0.00002 8 977 1.8 0.03 0.00002 4 989 447 7,764 196 8,407 2039 8.39 0.0003 0.00003 8 977 3.0 0.04 0.00004 7 992 455 8,741 203 9,398 2040

The average of 2033-2035 is used for years 2036-2039 based on similar estimated Project capacity factor. 2036-2039 upstream emissions are based on 2033-2035 average for displaced uints and calculations for the Project.

Astoria Replacement Project DSEIS Appendix F - Air Emissions Supporting Information GHG Reductions & Val. of Carbon Page 7 of 15 February 2021 Value of Carbon

GHG Reduction Benefit, $, thousands 17-year Cumulative Benefit 3% discount 2% discount 1% discount CO2 $3,292,736 $7,056,093 $21,299,432 CH4 $33,158 $55,689 $119,690 N2O $543 $1,175 $3,428 Total GHG Benefit $3,326,437 $7,112,956 $21,422,550

GHG Reduction Benefit, $, thousands Net Present Value (2021) 3% discount 2% discount 1% discount CO2 $2,457,713 $5,889,236 $19,615,330 CH4 $23,233 $43,333 $101,576 N2O $417 $993 $3,104 Total GHG NPV $2,481,363 $5,933,561 $19,720,009

Value of Carbon calculated in accordance with NYSDEC guideance document "Establishing a Value of Carbon Guidelines for State Agencies " https://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/56552.html

Astoria Replacement Project DSEIS Appendix F - Air Emissions Supporting Information GHG Reductions & Val. of Carbon Page 8 of 15 February 2021 CO2 Emissions Reduction Benefits from Displaced Units (000 mt) CO2 Reduction Benefit Caused by the Project, CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 $, thousands CO2 Discount Rate, $/mt Direct Imp. Elec. Indirect Upstream Year Total Cumulative 3% discount 2% discount 1% discount 3% 2% 1% 2023 65 0.08 0 13.2 78.6 79 $4,400 $10,215 $33,631 56 130 428 2024 80 0.05 0 16.3 96.2 175 $9,960 $23,065 $75,311 57 132 431 2025 52 0.03 0 10.0 61.8 236 $13,953 $31,691 $102,404 59 134 433 2026 34 0.13 0 7.0 41.6 278 $16,683 $37,537 $121,231 60 135 436 2027 36 0.04 0 7.4 43.7 322 $19,628 $44,083 $140,936 61 137 438 2028 16 0.05 0 3.3 19.6 341 $21,168 $47,458 $150,567 62 139 441 2029 24 -0.02 0 4.9 29.4 371 $22,990 $52,284 $164,268 62 141 443 2030 19 0.00 432 3.7 454.6 825 $52,825 $117,204 $368,121 64 142 446 2031 14 0.05 586 2.8 602.5 1,428 $92,811 $205,611 $639,679 65 144 448 2032 17 -0.04 709 3.4 730.1 2,158 $142,422 $315,054 $971,057 66 146 450 2033 6 0.09 888 1.1 895.6 3,054 $204,588 $448,872 $1,383,258 67 147 453 2034 12 0.07 872 2.4 886.0 3,940 $271,831 $586,998 $1,792,511 69 149 455 2035 5 -0.02 898 0.9 903.5 4,843 $339,017 $731,308 $2,218,139 70 151 458 2036 8 0.05 886 0.2 893.9 5,737 $407,325 $877,756 $2,639,006 71 153 460 2037 8 0.05 886 2.4 896.0 6,633 $484,206 $1,021,476 $3,064,429 73 154 462 2038 8 0.05 886 1.6 895.2 7,528 $557,087 $1,174,399 $3,500,613 74 156 465 2039 8 0.05 886 2.7 896.4 8,425 $631,842 $1,331,081 $3,934,271 75 158 467

17-year Cumulative Benefit $3,292,736 $7,056,093 $21,299,432 Net Present Value (2021) $2,457,713 $5,889,236 $19,615,330

Guidehouse CO2 converted from 000 tons to 000 metric tons CO2 discount rates based on Appendix to NYSDEC Value of Carbon guidance document. https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/vocfapp.pdf The average of 2033-2035 is used for years 2036-2039 based on similar estimated Project capacity factor. Net Present Value based on 2021 CO2 social cost at discount rates of $53/mt @ 3%, 127$/mt @ 2%, and $421/mt @ 1%.

Astoria Replacement Project DSEIS Appendix F - Air Emissions Supporting Information GHG Reductions & Val. of Carbon Page 9 of 15 February 2021 CH4 Emissions Reduction Benefits from Displaced Units (000 mt) CH4 Reduction Benefit Caused by the Project, $, CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 thousands CH4 Discount Rate, $/mt Direct Indirect Upstream Year Total Cumulative 3% discount 2% discount 1% discount 3% 2% 1% 2023 0.0012 0 0.1895 0.1907 0.1907 $315 $568 $1,311 1,654 2,980 6,872 2024 0.0014 0 0.2342 0.2356 0.4263 $759 $1,299 $2,971 1,781 3,047 6,970 2025 0.0009 0 0.1442 0.1451 0.5714 $1,018 $1,779 $4,038 1,781 3,113 7,067 2026 0.0006 0 0.1000 0.1006 0.6721 $1,197 $2,140 $4,822 1,781 3,184 7,175 2027 0.0007 0 0.1064 0.1070 0.7791 $1,486 $2,537 $5,673 1,908 3,256 7,282 2028 0.0003 0 0.0471 0.0474 0.8265 $1,577 $2,751 $6,108 1,908 3,328 7,390 2029 0.0004 0 0.0706 0.0711 0.8975 $1,827 $3,051 $6,729 2,036 3,399 7,497 2030 0.0003 0.0 0.0533 0.0536 0.9512 $1,937 $3,302 $7,233 2,036 3,471 7,604 2031 0.0002 0.0 0.0399 0.0402 0.9914 $2,018 $3,516 $7,644 2,036 3,547 7,711 2032 0.0003 0.0 0.0494 0.0497 1.0410 $2,252 $3,771 $8,139 2,163 3,622 7,818 2033 0.0001 0.0 0.0154 0.0155 1.0565 $2,285 $3,906 $8,373 2,163 3,697 7,925 2034 0.0002 0.0 0.0340 0.0342 1.0907 $2,498 $4,115 $8,761 2,290 3,773 8,032 2035 0.0001 0.0 0.0127 0.0128 1.1035 $2,527 $4,246 $8,981 2,290 3,848 8,139 2036 0.0000 0.0 0.0035 0.0035 1.1070 $2,676 $4,350 $9,135 2,417 3,929 8,252 2037 0.0002 0.0 0.0341 0.0343 1.1413 $2,759 $4,576 $9,548 2,417 4,009 8,366 2038 0.0001 0.0 0.0232 0.0233 1.1646 $2,963 $4,762 $9,876 2,544 4,089 8,480 2039 0.0002 0.0 0.0394 0.0396 1.2043 $3,064 $5,022 $10,348 2,544 4,170 8,593

17-year Cumulative Benefit $33,158 $55,689 $119,690 Net Present Value $23,233 $43,333 $101,576

CH4 discount rates based on Appendix to NYSDEC Value of Carbon guidance document. https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/vocfapp.pdf The average of 2033-2035 is used for years 2036-2039 based on similar estimated Project capacity factor. Net Present Value based on 2021 CH4 social cost at discount rates of $1,527/mt @ 3%, $2,848/mt @ 2%, and $6,676/mt @ 1%.

Astoria Replacement Project DSEIS Appendix F - Air Emissions Supporting Information GHG Reductions & Val. of Carbon Page 10 of 15 February 2021 N2O Emissions Reduction Benefits from Displaced Units (000 mt) N2O Reduction Benefit Caused by the Project, N2O N2O N2O N2O N2O $, thousands N2O Discount Rate, $/mt Direct Indirect Upstream Year Total Cumulative 3% discount 2% discount 1% discount 3% 2% 1% 2023 0.00012 0 0.00016 0.0003 0.0003 $6 $13 $40 20,356 46,823 144,560 2024 0.00014 0 0.00020 0.0003 0.0006 $12 $29 $89 20,356 47,522 145,825 2025 0.00009 0 0.00012 0.0002 0.0008 $18 $40 $121 21,628 48,220 147,090 2026 0.00006 0 0.00008 0.0001 0.0010 $21 $47 $143 21,628 48,958 148,409 2027 0.00006 0 0.00009 0.0002 0.0011 $24 $56 $168 21,628 49,697 149,727 2028 0.00003 0 0.00004 0.0001 0.0012 $27 $60 $179 22,900 50,435 151,045 2029 0.00004 0 0.00006 0.0001 0.0013 $30 $66 $197 22,900 51,173 152,364 2030 0.00003 0.00 0.00004 0.0001 0.0014 $33 $71 $210 24,172 51,911 153,682 2031 0.00002 0.00 0.00003 0.0001 0.0014 $34 $75 $221 24,172 52,663 154,998 2032 0.00003 0.00 0.00004 0.0001 0.0015 $36 $80 $234 24,172 53,416 156,313 2033 0.00001 0.00 0.00001 0.0000 0.0015 $39 $82 $239 25,445 54,168 157,629 2034 0.00002 0.00 0.00003 0.0000 0.0016 $40 $86 $249 25,445 54,921 158,944 2035 0.00001 0.00 0.00001 0.0000 0.0016 $42 $88 $254 26,717 55,673 160,260 2036 0.00000 0.00 0.00000 0.0000 0.0016 $42 $90 $257 26,717 56,456 161,588 2037 0.00002 0.00 0.00003 0.0000 0.0016 $44 $94 $267 26,717 57,239 162,917 2038 0.00001 0.00 0.00002 0.0000 0.0017 $47 $97 $274 27,989 58,023 164,246 2039 0.00002 0.00 0.00003 0.0001 0.0017 $48 $102 $286 27,989 58,806 165,575

17-year Cumulative Benefit $543 $1,175 $3,428 Net Present Value $417 $993 $3,104

N2O discount rates based on Appendix to NYSDEC Value of Carbon guidance document. https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/vocfapp.pdf The average of 2033-2035 is used for years 2036-2039 based on similar estimated Project capacity factor. Net Present Value based on 2021 N2O social cost at discount rates of $19,084/mt @ 3%, $45,426/mt @ 2%, and $142,031/mt @ 1%.

Astoria Replacement Project DSEIS Appendix F - Air Emissions Supporting Information GHG Reductions & Val. of Carbon Page 11 of 15 February 2021 Emissions Reductions Benefits Caused by the Project - Calculation of Direct CH4 and N2O

Displaced Displaced DirectDisplaced Direct Units Units Project Difference Units Project Difference MMBtu mt CH4 mt CH4 mt CH4 mt N2O mt N2O mt N2O 2023 5,277,931 5.278 4.112 1.165 0.528 0.411 0.116 2024 5,209,686 5.210 3.778 1.432 0.521 0.378 0.143 2025 3,591,586 3.592 2.711 0.881 0.359 0.271 0.088 2026 2,386,406 2.386 1.776 0.611 0.239 0.178 0.061 2027 2,432,913 2.433 1.783 0.650 0.243 0.178 0.065 2028 1,155,775 1.156 0.869 0.286 0.116 0.087 0.029 2029 1,613,304 1.613 1.183 0.431 0.161 0.118 0.043 2030 1,234,309 1.234 0.910 0.324 0.123 0.091 0.032 2031 929,190 0.929 0.686 0.243 0.093 0.069 0.024 2032 1,161,339 1.161 0.860 0.302 0.116 0.086 0.030 2033 448,742 0.449 0.356 0.092 0.045 0.036 0.009 2034 872,594 0.873 0.665 0.207 0.087 0.067 0.021 2035 246,962 0.247 0.171 0.076 0.025 0.017 0.007 2036 522,766 0.523 0.504 0.019 0.052 0.050 0.002 2037 522,766 0.523 0.315 0.208 0.052 0.032 0.021 2038 522,766 0.523 0.382 0.141 0.052 0.038 0.014 2039 522,766 0.523 0.282 0.241 0.052 0.028 0.024

Displaced unit heat input based on Guidehouse analysis. The average of 2033-2035 is used for years 2036-2039 based on similar estimated Project capacity factor. To be conservative, displaced unit CH4 and N2O are based on same natural gas combustion emission factors as the Project, 0.00092 lb CH4/MMBtu and 0.0022 lb N2O/MMBtu, respectively.

Astoria Replacement Project DSEIS Appendix F - Air Emissions Supporting Information GHG Reductions & Val. of Carbon Page 12 of 15 February 2021 Astoria Replacement Project Upstream Natural Gas factors Exhibit F-1 Exhibit F-31 Appalachai Gathering / Transmission Transmission Total kg/MJ n Shale Processing Storage Distribution CO2e (Part Boosting Station Pipeline Production 496 GWP20) CO2 1.36E-03 3.36E-03 1.33E-03 4.61E-03 4.41E-07 1.40E-07 1.02E-05 1.07E-02 CH4 2.10E-05 4.56E-05 1.38E-05 3.62E-05 1.56E-06 6.71E-06 2.86E-05 1.53E-04 0.0236 N2O 2.46E-09 4.58E-12 4.73E-09 1.21E-07 3.06E-13 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.28E-07

Upstream GHG from Natural Gas based on Exhibit F-1 Appalachian-Shale Production, gathering & boosting and Exhibit F-31 for processing, Transmission station, storage & pipeline, and distribution from NETL Report "Life Cycle Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction and Power Generation" (DOE/NETL-2019/2039). All values are on a higher heating value (HHV) basis.

Appalachai Gathering / Transmission Transmission lb/MMBtu n Shale Processing Storage Distribution Total CO2e (Part Boosting Station Pipeline Production 496 GWP20) CO2 3.1634 7.8154 3.0936 10.7229 0.0010 0.0003 0.0237 24.8204 CH4 0.0488 0.1061 0.0321 0.0842 0.0036 0.0156 0.0665 0.3570 54.885 N2O 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003

Factors converted from kg/MJ to lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu = kg/MJ *1000 g/kg * (1.055056 kJ/Btu / 1000 kJ/MJ )*1000000 Btu/MMBtu / 453.59 g/lb

Upstream Petroleum factors

Diesel Kerosene (Jet Fuel) 21 g CO2e/MJ (LHV) 18 g CO2e/MJ (LHV) 18,315 diesel LHV (Btu/lb) 18,487 kerosene LHV (Btu/lb) 19,604 diesel HHV (Btu/lb) 19,862 kerosene HHV (Btu/lb) 19.62 g CO2e/MJ (HHV) 16.75 g CO2e/MJ (HHV) 45.63 lb CO2e/MMBtu(HHV) - Non-Part 496 20-yr GWPs 38.97 lb CO2e/MMBtu(HHV) - Non-Part 496 20-yr GWPs 24.02 lb CO2/MMBtu(HHV) 20.51 lb CO2/MMBtu(HHV) 0.26 lb CH4/MMBtu(HHV) 0.22 lb CH4/MMBtu(HHV) 0.0005 lb N2O/MMBtu(HHV) 0.0004 lb N2O/MMBtu(HHV) 45.63 lb CO2e/MMBtu(HHV) - 20-yr GWPs 38.97 lb CO2e/MMBtu(HHV) - 20-yr GWPs

Upstream GHG from Diesel and Kerosene (Jet) based on Well-to-Tank PADD1 Table SI-45 (20-year GWP) from Supporting Information from Environmental Science & Technology 2017, 51, 2, 977-981 "Updating the U.S. Life Cycle GHG Petroleum Baseline to 2014 with Projections to 2040 Using Open-Source Engineering-Based Models" https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.est.6b02819/suppl_file/es6b02819_si_001.pdf Emission factors provided in the reference document are on a lower heating value basis (LHV). LHV and HHV basis estimated using values from Engineering Toolbox https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-higher-calorific-values-d_169.html Factors converted from LHV basis to HHV basis g/MJ (HHV) = g/MJ (LHV) * LHV (Btu/lb) / HHV (Btu/lb) Factors converted from g/MJ to lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu = g/MJ * (1.055056 kJ/Btu / 1000 kJ/MJ )*1000000 Btu/MMBtu / 453.59 g/lb CO2e based on GWPs which are slightly higher than Part 496. Values presented are not adjusted for this discrepancy.

Individual GHG components (CO2, CH4, N2O) are calculated based on fractional contribution to CO2e and Part 496 GWP20, based on below lb CO2/MMBtu (HHV) = lb CO2e/MMBtu (HHV) * 0.5264 / 1 lb CH4/MMBtu (HHV) = lb CO2e/MMBtu (HHV) * 0.47074 / 84 lb N2O/MMBtu (HHV) = lb CO2e/MMBtu (HHV) * 0.00285 / 264

Individual GHG Fractions are based on values from Table 35 of ICF Analysis of heating oil for New York/New Jersey/Pennsylvania https://noraweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/GHG-Resource-Analysis-for-residential-Boilers-Final-Report-9-7-08-2.pdf That analysis used GWPs of 23 for CH4 and 296 for N2O. These values are used to derive individual species from the values presented in Table 35.

Values from Table 35 as CO2e GHGs as Individual Species GHGs as Part 496 GWP20 Individual GHG Fraction from CO2e 24.75 lb CO2/MMBtu as CO2e 24.75 lb CO2/MMBtu 24.75 lb CO2e/MMBtu 0.52642 CO2 fraction of CO2e 6.06 lb CH4/MMBtu as CO2e 0.2635 lb CH4/MMBtu 22.132 lb CO2e/MMBtu 0.47074 CH4 fraction of CO2e 0.15 lb N2O/MMBtu as CO2e 0.00051 lb N2O/MMBtu 0.1338 lb COe/MMBtu 0.00285 N2O fraction of CO2e

Astoria Replacement Project DSEIS Appendix F - Air Emissions Supporting Information Upstream Factors Page 13 of 15 February 2021 Astoria Replacement Project Construction Emissions - Off-Road Diesel Engines

Engine GHG Equipment category Technology Equipment CO CH N O tons of CO e Equipment Description based on 2 4 2 2 Type HP tons tons tons (Part 496 NONROAD classification GWP20) 110 Ton Hydro Crawler Cr Cranes T4 320 109.46 1.64E-03 1.17E-02 112.68 150 Ton Lift Crawler Lift Cr Cranes T2 270 57.52 8.64E-04 6.16E-03 59.22 250 Ton Lift Crawler Lift Cr Cranes T2 365 259.18 3.89E-03 2.77E-02 266.82 300 Ton Lift Crawler Lift Cr Cranes T3 365 146.84 2.20E-03 1.57E-02 151.17 600 Ton Lift Crawler Lift Crane Cranes T3 680 88.91 1.33E-03 9.51E-03 91.53 600 Ton Lift Crawler Lift Crane Cranes T3 326 42.62 6.40E-04 4.56E-03 43.88 Gantry Crane Cranes T4 680 123.14 1.85E-03 1.32E-02 126.77 45 Ton Cherry Picker-Long Te Aerial Lift T2 223 258.03 3.29E-03 5.67E-02 273.27 Cat D4 Dozer Crawler Tractor T4 132 38.68 5.74E-04 3.01E-03 39.52 Cat D6 Dozer Crawler Tractor T4 257 76.03 1.13E-03 5.93E-03 77.69 Cat 305 Mini Excavator Tractor/Loader/Backhoe T4 40.2 3.37 3.85E-05 7.37E-04 3.56 Cat 326 Excavator Tractor/Loader/Backhoe T4 203 87.09 1.11E-03 1.91E-02 92.21 Cat 450 Backhoe/Loader Rubber Tire Loader T4 143 17.96 2.67E-04 1.40E-03 18.35 10,000 Lb Capacity Lull Rough Terrain Forklift T4 115 41.08 6.10E-04 3.20E-03 41.98 Cat 950 Front End Loader Rubber Tire Loader T4 241 234.06 3.47E-03 1.82E-02 239.17 Cat 966 Front End Loader Rubber Tire Loader T4 286 536.37 7.96E-03 4.18E-02 548.08 26' Scissor Lift (500 Lb Cap Aerial Lift T4 24.8 17.44 2.00E-04 3.82E-03 18.47 120' Artic/Tele Boom Manli Aerial Lift T4 74.2 38.33 4.39E-04 8.39E-03 40.58 135' Artic/Tele Boom Manli Aerial Lift T4 74.2 73.21 8.38E-04 1.60E-02 77.51 150' Articulating Boom Lift Aerial Lift T4 99.8 36.25 4.15E-04 7.94E-03 38.38 185' Straight Boom Lift Aerial Lift T4 99.8 11.57 1.32E-04 2.53E-03 12.25 40' Artic/Tele Boom Lift Aerial Lift T4 49 70.38 8.05E-04 1.54E-02 74.51 60' Artic/Tele Boom Manlif Aerial Lift T4 49 31.56 3.61E-04 6.91E-03 33.41 80' Artic/Tele Boom Manlif Aerial Lift T4 67 35.99 4.12E-04 7.88E-03 38.10 Cat Cs56 Roller Roller T4 156 64.00 9.50E-04 4.99E-03 65.40 Walk Behind Double Drum Roll Roller T4 8.3 4.86 6.50E-05 3.79E-04 4.97 Junttan PM-20 Bore/Drill Rigs T2 300 63.36 9.51E-04 6.78E-03 65.23 Construction Period Total Emissions 2,567 0.04 0.32 2,655

Astoria Replacement Project DSEIS Appendix F - Air Emissions Supporting Information Construction Engines Page 14 of 15 February 2021 Astoria Replacement Project Construction Emissions - On-Road Vehicles

Construction Construction Construction Construction Period Period Period Period On-Road Vehicles MOVES link description Total Total Total Total tons CO2 tons CH4 tons N2O tons CO2e Allianz M450 Sweeper Truck Single Unit Short-haul Truck 0.19 0.00 0.0000 0.19 Automobile-Sedan Passenger Car 3.45 0.00 0.0000 3.45 Construction Personnel - EPC Passenger - Monthly BasisCar 1,191.33 0.01 0.0001 1,191.99 Construction Personnel - NRG Passenger- Monthly Basis Car 72.23 0.00 0.0000 72.27 Construction Personnel - OEM Passenger- Monthly Basis Car 34.73 0.00 0.0000 34.75 Boom Truck (18-22T) Combination Short-haul Truck 1.24 0.00 0.0000 1.25 Mechanics Truck Light Commercial Truck 0.41 0.00 0.0000 0.41 Pick Up Truck Passenger Truck 2.15 0.00 0.0000 2.15 Truck Tractor Combination Short-haul Truck 1.49 0.00 0.0000 1.49 Transit Van Extended Ford Light Commercial Truck 0.51 0.00 0.0000 0.52 Water Truck-3 Axle (4,000 Gal) Single Unit Short-haul Truck 0.74 0.00 0.0000 0.74 Underground Single Unit Long-haul Truck 38.84 0.00 0.0000 38.98 GTG Combination Long-haul Truck 109.26 0.00 0.0000 109.48 SCR Combination Long-haul Truck 67.60 0.00 0.0000 67.73 BOP Combination Long-haul Truck 108.99 0.00 0.0000 109.19 S. Wall Single Unit Long-haul Truck 5.62 0.00 0.0000 5.64 State Electric Light Commercial Truck 2.35 0.00 0.0000 2.35 Steel Combination Short-haul Truck 1.91 0.00 0.0000 1.91 Tank Single Unit Long-haul Truck 2.34 0.00 0.0000 2.35 Bldgs Single Unit Short-haul Truck 0.66 0.00 0.0000 0.66 Crane Mat Combination Short-haul Truck 11.52 0.00 0.0000 11.54 Cranes Combination Short-haul Truck 14.97 0.00 0.0000 15.00 Equip Single Unit Short-haul Truck 5.18 0.00 0.0000 5.20 Misc Single Unit Long-haul Truck 33.93 0.00 0.0000 34.05 Dumpsters Single Unit Short-haul Truck 11.84 0.00 0.0000 11.89 Construction Period Total tons CO2e 1,723.48 0.02 0.0002 1,725.18

Astoria Replacement Project DSEIS Appendix F - Air Emissions Supporting Information Const. On-Road Vehicles Page 15 of 15 February 2021

Appendix G

Public Participation Supporting Information

Appendix G.1

Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan Prepared for: Prepared by: Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC AECOM April 2020

Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan Turbine Replacement Project

Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC Astoria, Queens County, New York

AECOM Astoria Replacement Project Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan i

Contents

1.0 Introduction ...... 1-1 Project Overview ...... 1-1 Overview of Enhanced PPP Requirements ...... 1-3

2.0 2010 Enhanced Public Participation Plan ...... 2-1

3.0 Supplemental Outreach Efforts ...... 3-1 Identification of Stakeholders ...... 3-1 Distribution and Posting of Project Information...... 3-1 Public Information Meetings ...... 3-1 Document Repositories ...... 3-2 Progress Reports ...... 3-3 Certification of Completion ...... 3-3

List of Appendices

Appendix A 2010 Enhanced Public Participation Plan

Appendix B Stakeholder List

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Astoria Facility Location ...... 1-2

April 2020 AECOM Astoria Replacement Project Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan ii

List of Acronyms

CTG combustion turbine generator

CPCN Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity

CP-29 NYSDEC Commissioner Policy 29 - Environmental Justice and Permitting

DEIS draft environmental impact statement

DPS New York State Department of Public Service

ENB Environmental Notice Bulletin

FEAF full environmental assessment form

FEIS final environmental impact statement

GE General Electric

MWe electrical megawatts

NYC New York City

NYISO New York Independent System Operator

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

PEJA potential environmental justice area

Plan Enhanced Public Participation Plan

P&W Pratt & Whitney

PSC New York State Public Service Commission

SEQRA New York State Environmental Quality Review Act

SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement

SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

ULSD ultra-low sulfur distillate

ULSK ultra low sulfur kerosene

UWUA Utility Workers Union of America

April 2020 AECOM Astoria Replacement Project Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan 1-1

1.0 Introduction

Project Overview Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC (“Astoria”) is proposing to modify its previously approved project (the “Replacement Project” or “Project”) and replace existing natural gas and liquid fuel fired turbines at the Astoria Gas Turbine Generating Facility (“Facility”) with a new state-of-the-art simple cycle combustion turbine. The Facility is located on a 15-acre site at 31-01 20th Ave., Astoria, Queens County, New York (see Figure 1-1) and is situated within a large 600+ acre complex (referred to as the “Astoria ConEd Complex”), which is home to several power generating facilities, as well as barge delivery facilities, a liquefied natural gas plant, a decommissioned wastewater treatment plant, and other miscellaneous energy and utility scale operations. This area has been the site of energy and electricity generating, transmission, distribution and associated energy activities since the 1890s and remains exclusively a major electric generating and manufacturing complex.

The Facility currently consists of 31 older, peaking-only gas and oil-fired combustion turbines including 24 Pratt & Whitney (“P&W”) turbines and seven previously retired Westinghouse turbines, with a combined nameplate rating of 646 electrical megawatts (“MWe”). The Project, as modified, will replace the nearly 50-year-old P&W and Westinghouse turbines at the Facility with a new state-of-the-art simple cycle dual-fuel peaking combustion turbine generator (“CTG”). The Project will include a new CTG which will be a highly efficient, quick start, fast-ramping, General Electric (“GE”) H-Class 7HA.03 or equivalent unit that has a nominal generator output of approximately 437 MWe. The new CTG will fire natural gas as the primary fuel with limited ultra-low sulfur distillate (“ULSD”) liquid fuel for backup. The Project will also include a ULSD-fired emergency generator, and two ULSD-fired emergency fire water pumps. The Project is planned to be operational in 2023 following a construction period starting in 2021.

All of the existing units, with the exception of one P&W Twin Pac (consisting of two combustion turbines and a single generator), will be permanently shut down once the Project has completed its shakedown period. The two remaining P&W turbines will remain operational to make the site black-start capable until replaced by an approximately 24 MWe battery energy storage system. The P&W Twin Pac uses natural gas as its primary fuel with ultra low-sulfur kerosene (“ULSK”) as backup.

In 2009, Astoria proposed to replace the existing CTGs with a 1040 MWe combined cycle combustion turbine project. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”), Title IV and Title V air permit applications, and a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“SPDES”) application were submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) in 2009. NYSDEC issued the SPDES and air permits, accepted the Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) and issued a findings statement in the fall of 2010. In addition, the New York State Public Service Commission (“PSC”) issued a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (“CPCN”) and a SEQRA findings statement in the spring of 2011. However, the Project was not constructed at that time due to prevailing market conditions.

April 2020 AECOM Astoria Replacement Project Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan 1-2

Figure 1-1 Astoria Facility Location

April 2020 AECOM Astoria Replacement Project Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan 1-3

At this time, Astoria is submitting applications to modify the Facility’s Air Title V/Title IV permits and SPDES permit in support of its modifications to the Replacement Project. The Project’s prior environmental review under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) will also be supplemented by NYSDEC as lead agency. Therefore, Astoria also is submitting a full environmental assessment form as part of the supplemental SEQRA review.

The Astoria Facility is located in an area of northwest Queens that has been designated by NYSDEC as a Potential Environmental Justice Area (“PEJA”). A PEJA is a minority or low-income community that may bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies. Where a PEJA is identified by the preliminary screen, the applicant is required to submit a written enhanced public participation plan (“Enhanced PPP”) as part of its complete application. As such, in accordance with NYSDEC Commissioner Policy CP-29, Environmental Justice and Permitting (“CP-29”), in 2009, Astoria prepared and implemented an Enhanced PPP in order to inform the interested public with regard to the Project. The Enhanced PPP was approved by NYSDEC on February 27, 2009 and was updated on February 15, 2010.

This document supplements the Enhanced PPP and is being submitted in compliance with CP-29 along with the applications for permit modifications and full environmental assessment form.

Overview of Enhanced PPP Requirements In accordance with CP-29, Section V.D, an Enhanced PPP must demonstrate that the applicant will:

1. Identify stakeholders to the proposed action, including residents adjacent to the proposed action site, local elected officials, community-based organizations and community residents located in a potential environmental justice area; 2. Distribute and post written information on the proposed action and permit review process. The applicant shall present information in an easy-to-read, understandable format, using plain language and, if appropriate, public notice materials shall be translated into language(s) other than English for comprehension by non-English speaking stakeholders; 3. Hold public information meetings to keep the public informed about the proposed action and permit review status. Meetings should be held throughout the permit review process at locations and times convenient to the stakeholders to the project; 4. Establish easily accessible document repositories in or near the potential environmental justice area to make available pertinent project information, including but not limited to: application material, studies, reports, meeting presentation materials and media releases. The applicant may also establish a repository on the internet.

In addition, the applicant is required to submit progress reports that summarizes: all progress to-date in implementing the plan; all substantive concerns raised to-date; all resolved and outstanding issues; the components of the plan yet to be implemented; and an expected time line for completion of the plan.

Upon completion of an Enhanced PPP, the applicant is required to submit written certification that it has complied with the plan as well as a final report detailing all of the activities that occurred pursuant to its Enhanced PPP. The certification must be submitted to NYSDEC prior to a final decision on the (permit) application(s).

April 2020 AECOM Astoria Replacement Project Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan 2-1

2.0 2010 Enhanced Public Participation Plan

As part of the prior permitting of the Project, Astoria prepared an Enhanced PPP in accordance with the directives of CP-29. The Enhanced PPP was submitted to NYSDEC for review in February 2009. An acceptance letter from NYSDEC was received on February 27, 2009. The Enhanced PPP was updated in February 2010. A copy of this 2010 Plan is included as Appendix A (attached).

Throughout its implementation of the Enhanced PPP, Astoria undertook an extensive public outreach. Over the period from October 2008 through January 2010, Astoria held three public meetings and approximately eighteen (18) meetings with community organizations, environmental groups, government agencies and elected officials, formally and informally, to obtain feedback on potential community concerns regarding the Project.

Based on the foregoing, NYSDEC determined that Astoria’s public outreach was consistent with CP- 29. (FEIS, Section 4.10.5).

April 2020 AECOM Astoria Replacement Project Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan 3-1

3.0 Supplemental Outreach Efforts

Given the passage of time, Astoria is hereby supplementing its Enhanced PPP for purposes of providing additional opportunities for interested stakeholders to be informed about, and involved in, NYSDEC’s review of Astoria’s proposed modifications to the Project (“Supplemental Enhanced PPP”).

Identification of Stakeholders Astoria developed a comprehensive list of stakeholders for the Supplemental Enhanced PPP. The stakeholder list identified two groups of stakeholders:

• A primary list, consisting of the following:

o residents/neighborhood groups adjacent to the Astoria site; o community boards, community leaders, civic and recreational organizations, environmental and business groups; o people who have expressed an interest in the Replacement Project by attending public meetings, writing, or calling; o people who have expressed an interest in similar projects or in projects affecting the same neighborhood or community; o neighborhood religious establishments; and o elected officials who live in and/or represent the community of concern. • A secondary list, consisting of the following:

o elected officials who represent the greater municipal and state legislative areas (mayor, NYC Comptroller, State Assembly or Senate member); o appropriate federal, state, and local government personnel; o municipal clerks and public works department staff; and o local media.

Astoria has updated the prior stakeholder list for the Project as part of this Supplemental Enhanced PPP. This updated stakeholder list is provided in Appendix B (attached).

Distribution and Posting of Project Information

Astoria previously prepared a public meeting presentation and a factsheet for the Replacement Project. As part of this Supplemental Enhanced PPP, Astoria will update both documents to reflect the proposed modifications to the Project. These documents will be made available to interested stakeholders and the public at the repository(ies) identified in Section 3.4 of this document.

Key Project documents will also be included in the Project repository(ies) identified in Section 3.4.

In addition, in coordination with NYSDEC, Astoria will make available in its document repository(ies) any public notices for the Project required by Part 617 and 621 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations.

Public Information Meetings In addition to the prior three public informational meetings Astoria held for the Replacement Project, Astoria will also hold one additional public informational meeting to inform the public about the proposed

April 2020 AECOM Astoria Replacement Project Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan 3-2

modifications to the Project and the status of its applications to modify the Facility’s existing permits, including NYSDEC’s supplemental environmental review under SEQRA. The public informational meeting will be held at a time convenient to Project stakeholders. It will be scheduled to avoid important meetings and events that are regularly held or already scheduled within the community and will not conflict with national or religious holidays or locally important observances.

Given the current coronavirus public health crisis, the required social distancing measures implemented at the state and federal level and workforce reduction directives for non-essential businesses, Astoria anticipates that it will conduct its additional public informational meeting virtually. A virtual meeting will enable stakeholders and other interested parties to learn about and ask questions concerning Astoria’s proposed modifications to the Project, while at the same time protecting the public from further spread of the coronavirus. Should the current crisis conclude prior to the time in which Astoria holds its public informational meeting, it will schedule its public informational meeting at a location convenient to Project stakeholders.

Notifications for Astoria’s public informational meeting and NYSDEC’s required meetings, which will include the date, time and either instructions for audio and visual participation or meeting location, will be placed on the Project website and, to the extent feasible, at the library repositories for the Project. Notifications also will be distributed to the Stakeholder List found in Appendix B, with the Project Factsheet, and will be noticed in at least two local papers (such as, the local editions of The Queens Chronicles or The Queens Gazette).

Document Repositories In order to provide the public useful information about the Replacement Project and to meet its agreement with NYSDEC regarding public participation, Astoria will make key Project documents available to the public.

Due to the current coronavirus public health crisis, Astoria will re-establish an online repository. This website will be a resource for all public documents, fact sheets, meeting notices, presentations, and progress reports. It will be updated as new documents become available.

Should the current crisis conclude prior to permit issuance, Astoria will work with the following organizations to re-establish the prior document repositories used for the Project, which included:

The Queens Public Library The Astoria Branch 14-01 Astoria Boulevard Long Island City, NY 11102

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region 2 47-40 21st Street Long Island City, New York 11101

Christopher M. Hogan Chief, Major Project Management Unit New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits 625 Broadway - 4th Floor Albany, New York 12233-1750 Ph: (518) 402-9167 Fax: (518) 402-9168 [email protected]

April 2020 AECOM Astoria Replacement Project Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan 3-3

(Note: The Steinway Branch located at 21-45 31st Street, which was previously used as a document repository for the Project, is currently closed for renovations.)

Progress Reports Astoria will prepare quarterly progress reports for submission to NYSDEC regarding its implementation of this Plan. These progress reports will summarize:

1. All progress to-date in implementing this Plan; 2. All substantive concerns raised to-date; 3. All resolved and outstanding issues; 4. The components of the Plan yet to be implemented; and 5. An expected timeline for completion of the Plan.

Astoria’s progress reports will be placed in Astoria’s document repository(ies) identified in Section 3.4.

Certification of Completion Upon completion of the Plan, Astoria will submit a certification to NYSDEC that it has completed the Plan. Astoria will also submit a final report detailing its subsequent Supplemental Enhanced PPP activities for incorporation in the final SEIS.

April 2020

Appendix A

2010 Enhanced Public Participation Plan

April 2020

NRG ENERGY, INC. ASTORIA REPOWERING PROJECT

ENHANCED PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN As Required By NYSDEC COMMISSIONER’S POLICY GUIDANCE CP-29

NRG Astoria Gas Turbine Power, LLC Queens County 31-01 20th Avenue Long Island City, NY 11105

Prepared by:

Air Resources Group, LLC

6281 Johnston Road Albany, NY 12203

Approved by NYSDEC February 27, 2009 Updated February 15, 2010

Table of Contents

Page

Introduction 1

Project Description 1

Recent Public Outreach Activities 2

Project Information Sources and Repositories 4

Information Plan 5

Report on Progress to Date 6

Future Community Outreach Efforts 6

Appendices

A. Public Meeting Notice for November 12, 2008 scoping meeting

B. Community Board One letter announcing meeting of the Environmental Protection Committee to review the Astoria Repowering Project; Community Board One Approved Resolution Supporting Repowering Project

C. CHOKE endorsement letter

D. NRG Astoria Repowering Project Public Meeting Presentation and the Project Factsheet

E. NRG Astoria Stakeholders mailing list

F. Notice of and Final Work Scope for the DEIS, NYSDEC Environmental Notice Bulletin, December 24, 2008

G. PSC Working Group VIII schedule and Strawman document describing agreement on work scope. NRG and its consultants participate in Working Group VIII.

Public Participation Plan

Introduction

Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc., (“NRG”) proposes to fully repower its site in Astoria, Queens County, NY (“NRG Facility”). The project (referred to as “Repowering Project” or “Repowered Facility”) will convert the current peaking facility to intermediate generation with quick start capability and, therefore, enhance the reliability of electricity supplied to New York City while significantly improving air quality. NRG seeks public input to its Repowering Project through this Public Participation Plan ("PPP").

Since acquiring this site from ConEd in 1999, NRG has reached out to community leaders and interested parties to discuss the NRG Facility. In 2001, NRG received a permit from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) for a proposed addition to the NRG Facility known as Berrians Unit 1 (“Berrians”). That small 79 MW unit has not been built as NRG has moved its efforts to a full repowering of the facility. During the permitting of Berrians, NRG initiated a broad community information program and prepared an Environmental Assessment Statement (“EAS”) of the project to provide all parties information of the Berrians proposal. The Berrians application and EAS information started the outreach that is now fully directed at this Repowering Project to replace all of the 40-year-old units at the NRG Facility with four new state-of-the-art units. Upon approval of this Repowering Project and the issuance of the necessary permits, NRG expects to relinquish the Berrian’s permit.

Project Description

The NRG Facility is located on a 15-acre parcel within the larger 600-acre Astoria ConEd Complex and houses 31 simple cycle, 40-year-old peaking units with a total capacity of 600 MW. The Repowering Project will be completed in two phases: In Phase I, NRG will replace seven Westinghouse turbines with two 260 MW state-of-the-art combined cycle trains; then NRG will replace the 24 Pratt & Whitney turbines with two additional combined cycle trains in Phase II. The design for the new combined cycle units is based on a proprietary NRG design, known as CC-FAST. This design utilizes the proven General Electric PG7241FA turbines in its CC-FAST units. Phase I is expected to come on line in 2013 and Phase II is expected to follow in 2015. The Repowering Project will replace the old 600 MW of peaking-only capacity with 1040 MW of highly efficient, ultra-low emissions, generating capacity. Like the peaking units, the new units will still have quick-start capability for demand shifts and system reliability.

The new units will have state-of-the-art emissions control systems comprised of selective catalytic reduction (“SCR”), low NOx burner, turndown software, oxidation catalyst,

Page 1 of 7

primary fuel – natural gas, and backup fuel – ultra-low sulfur fuel oil. The stacks will be at good engineering practice (GEP) stack height of approximately 250 feet, thereby improving emissions dispersion. Emissions from the Repowered Facility are expected to be significantly lower and the facility will experience a significant increase in available electric output. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”) scoping document details the tasks necessary to provide the NYSDEC with sufficient information to complete the required reviews under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and for issuing permits for construction and operation of the new equipment. The initial public meeting on the DEIS scope was held on Wednesday November 12, 2008 (see attached Appendix A for Public Meeting Notice). The comment period for the DEIS scope closed on Wednesday November 26, 2008. The NYSDEC issued its final work scope for the DEIS in the Environmental Notice Bulletin on Wednesday December 24, 2008.

The NRG Facility is located in an area of northwest Queens that has been mapped by NYSDEC as a Potential Environmental Justice Area. As such, in accordance with NYSDEC policy, i.e., Commissioner Policy CP-29, Environmental Justice and Permitting (“CP-29”), NRG is providing this Enhanced Public Participation Plan in order to inform the interested public with regard to the Repowering Project. Information and documents regarding the Repowering Project can be found at the local libraries, on the NRG website, and through the NYSDEC. The dissemination and availability of such information is further discussed in the sections Project Information Sources and Repositories and Project Information Plan below.

NRG Energy, Inc., the parent company for Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC, is an international energy provider with a diversified energy portfolio. NRG has nearly 23,000 MW of generating capability in North America and has 44 generating facilities worldwide. In New York State, NRG operates major generating facilities at Astoria, Arthur Kill, Dunkirk, Huntley, and Oswego. The NRG portfolio of facilities is a diverse array of equipment and fuels with most capacity base loaded for day-to-day, full-time operations. The Repowering Project will provide dramatic benefits for the environment and for electric reliability.

Recent Public Outreach Activities

• On October 10, 2008, NRG representatives provided Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr.’s office an update to the repowering project. • On October 17, 2008, NRG representatives and its consultant met with members of Citizens Helping Organize a Kleaner Environment (“CHOKE”) to present the repowering project and discuss its impacts and benefits to the community. • On October 17, 2008, NRG representatives met with the United Community Civic Association to present the project. • On October 30, 2008, NRG representatives met with the Queens Chamber of Commerce. The purpose of the meeting was to update the Chamber regarding the repowering project. Page 2 of 7

• On October 30, 2008, NRG representatives met with Borough President Helen Marshall to provide an update of the repowering project. • On October 30, 2008, NRG representatives and its consultant presented the repowering project to the Environmental Protection Committee for Community Board One. (See attached Appendix B for the Community Board letter to Community Board members.) • Also on October 30, 2008, NRG representatives met with the Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”) in New York City and discussed the repowering project among a range of environmentally beneficial issues. • On November 3, 2008, NRG and its consultant met again with members of CHOKE to present the repowering project and discuss its impacts and benefits to the community. CHOKE subsequently voted to formally endorse the project and sent a letter stating its full endorsement to the NYSDEC. (See attached Appendix C for CHOKE letter.) • On Wednesday, November 12, 2008, the NYSDEC held two public meetings for the purpose of eliciting comments on NRG’s DEIS work scope. A total of six speakers offered comment. None were in opposition and none were offering substantive comments on the DEIS work scope. The public comment period closed formally on November 26, 2008. A project factsheet was developed in conjunction with the NYSDEC and was provided to attendees at the public meeting. The factsheet was provided in English, Greek, and Spanish at the public meeting. A copy of the public meeting presentation and the factsheet is provided in Appendix D (attached) and can be found on the NRG Repowering Project website and at the library repositories for the project. • On Tuesday, January 20, 2009, NRG representatives made another project status presentation to Community Board One. • On February 6, 2009, NRG representatives separately provided Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr.’s office, Borough President Helen Marshall, Community Board One representatives and Assemblyman Gianaris’s office an update to the repowering project. • On April 9, 2009, NRG representatives held a public update meeting at Ricardo’s Restaurant • On February 17, 2009, Community Board One approved resolution to support the Repowering Project. See attached Appendix B. • On April 22, 2009, NRG representatives provided New York State Department of Public Service staff an update on the project • On May 13, 2009, NRG representatives provided a project update to Assemblyman Gianaris, Paul Decotis, Deputy Secretary of Energy for Governor Paterson, and Gary Brown, Public Service Commission Chairman • On August 3, 2009, NRG representatives provided a project update to New York City Economic Development Corporation staff • On September 22, 2009, NRG representatives provided a project update to New York State Department of Public Service staff • On October 6, 2009, NRG representatives provided New York City Industrial Development Agency staff a project update

Page 3 of 7

• On November 19, 2009, NRG representatives provided a project update to Tom Congdon, Deputy Secretary of Energy for Governor Paterson • On January 19, 2010, NRG representatives provided a project update to New York State Department of Public Service staff

Project Information Sources and Repositories

In order to provide the public useful information about the project and to meet its agreement with the NYSDEC regarding public participation, NRG has established several information repositories.

The Queens Public Library The Steinway Branch 21-45 31st Street Long Island City, NY 11105 and The Astoria Branch 14-01 Astoria Boulevard Long Island City, NY 11102

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region 2 47-40 21st Street Long Island City, New York 11101

Stephen Tomasik, Project Manager Division of Environmental Permits New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway - 4th Floor Albany, New York 12233-1750 Ph: (518) 486-9955 Fax: (518) 402-9168 [email protected]

NRG also maintains the key project documents on a project website at: http://www.nrgenergy.com/news-center/astoria/documents.htm. This website will be a resource for all public documents, fact sheets, meeting notices, presentations, and progress reports. It will be updated as new documents become available.

Page 4 of 7

Information Plan

The initial draft of this Public Participation Plan was submitted in February 23, 2009, and approved by NYSDEC on February 27, 2009. It will continue to be updated as necessary.

NRG will continue its outreach to the community and to interested stakeholders in the community. During the development of the scoping document, NRG and NYSDEC worked together to develop a lengthy stakeholders list. That list was used for the initial mailings of the scoping announcement by the NYSDEC. The initial stakeholders list will continue to be refined so that the community stakeholders that want and need information will be aware of the project status. See attached Appendix E for the Stakeholders List.

As the repowering approval process involves a range of decisions including the SEQRA environmental impact assessment and issuance of permits, NRG will continue to outreach and provide information to the stakeholders. The website will be used to provide notice of newly scheduled public information meetings. Previous information submissions for the Berrians Project Environmental Assessment Statement will be added to the online information along with the DEIS and permit application for the Repowering Project. .

An important aspect of the Public Participation Plan is the role that local elected officials necessarily serve in providing key input to a large project of this nature. NRG has and will continue to maintain contact with local elected officials. Community Board One serves as the primary focus for these elected officials and will be an important continuing player in the Repowering Project. NRG has requested and Community Board One has provided a Board endorsement of the project in the form of a resolution passed by the Community Board One members (see attached Appendix E ).

NRG will prepare periodic progress reports typically on a quarterly basis to apprise the community of developments with respect to the permitting process and other regulatory matters. These progress reports will be made available to stakeholders on NRG’s website, through mailings, and through the repositories. As a large scale provider of electricity in the New York marketplace, NRG is constantly in communication with elected officials at the local, state, and federal level with respect to its New York operations. To the extent that such communications may be specifically directed at the Repowering Project, NRG will include a brief summary of these contacts in the progress report following such contacts.

NRG is actively interested in the efforts of the Mayor of New York City to implement PlaNYC 2030. This planning effort encompasses a sweeping review of New York City’s long-term energy needs and the quality of its environment. NRG believes that its Repowering Project meets the goals expressed in the city’s plan. NRG has and will continue to communicate with the Mayor’s office and city officials with regard to PlaNYC 2030.

Page 5 of 7

Similarly, the Public Service Commission ("PSC"), the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, the NYSDEC, and the New York Independent System Operator have enormous roles to play in the long-term efforts to provide affordable, reliable, and environmentally sound energy supplies to the residents and businesses of New York. NRG has always maintained an active role in these efforts in order to assure that its electric generating assets are able to meet the present and future needs of businesses and residents in New York. In fact, the Repowering Project is an essential step in moving NRG’s New York generating capabilities into the future.

Report on Progress to Date

As of December 31, 2008, NRG had submitted its proposed work scope for the DEIS and had held its required public meeting (two were actually held) to present the work scope in concert with the NYSDEC. No significant adverse comments were received at the public meetings. Six speakers asked to speak and offered statements. CHOKE provided a formal written endorsement of the project to the NYSDEC. Subsequent to the scoping meeting, NRG held follow-up meetings with the NYSDEC and the New York State Department of Health (“NYSDOH”) regarding the analysis of relevant and available community health data (“Health Outcome Data Analysis”) which was incorporated into the DEIS. The NYSDEC issued the final work scope for the DEIS on Wednesday, December 24, 2008. See the attached Appendix F for the NYSDEC Environmental Notice Bulletin, Notice of Final Work Scope, and the Final Work Scope. NRG submitted an air permit application for this Repowering Project to the NYSDEC and a DEIS in support of the permit in February 2009. NYSDEC accepted the application and DEIS as complete for purposes of review on February 27, 2009. It is anticipated that NYSDEC will issue a draft permit and release the DEIS for public review and comment via notice in the ENB in March 2010 . A formal public meeting, also to be noticed in the ENB, will be held as required by CP-29 to present the DEIS and permit applications to the public.

Future Community Outreach Efforts

NRG plans to contact CHOKE and other community organizations and elected officials to provide a project update in advance of the public hearing on the DEIS and draft permit.

After the formal public hearing on the DEIS and draft permit, NRG may host public information meetings on the project, as necessary, throughout the Repowering Project. The meeting announcements will be displayed at the two Queens Library repositories, on the NRG website, at the local fire departments, or will be noticed in at least two local papers (such as, the local editions of The Queens Chronicles or The Queens Gazette). Meeting notices will also be mailed to stakeholders at least three weeks prior to each meeting. Any factsheets prepared will be included. An example notice of meeting to stakeholders is included in the attached Appendix A .

Page 6 of 7

Filings with the PSC for a Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience (CPCN) and additional approvals will be undertaken likely in April 2010. These documents will be provided on NRG's Repowering Project website, in the repositories and, as a matter of public record, on the PSC website.

Upon completion of the Public Participation Plan, NRG will submit a certification to the NYSDEC that it has completed the PPP and will submit a report detailing its PPP activities for incorporation in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

As previously noted, public participation materials, factsheets, and meeting notices will be placed in the two Queens Library information repositories noted above and on NRG's website http://www.nrgenergy.com/news-center/astoria/documents.htm.

Page 7 of 7

Appendix A

Community Meeting NRG Energy Repowering Project

Opportunity to provide input into the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Hosted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Wednesday, November 12, 2008 at 4:00 pm and at 7:00 pm Riccardo’s Restaurant, 21-01 24th Avenue, Astoria, New York 11102

The NRG Astoria Repowering Project will: • Replace 31 turbines (all more than 35 years old) with 4 new turbines in two phases. • Reduce overall emissions of most pollutants by improving electric generating efficiency and adding state-of- the-art emissions controls. • Remove the existing 31 short stacks and replace with four (4) much taller stacks, which will improve air dispersion of emissions while meeting U.S. EPA good engineering practices. This will significantly reduce local air quality impacts. • Dramatically reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions that occur during a high energy demand day by reducing operation of older high emissions peaking turbines. • Provide highly reliable electricity to the local market.

What Happens at a Scoping Meeting? • You will hear a short overview of the project and why New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has issued a Positive Declaration, an official statement that a project requires a more complete analysis of potential environmental impacts. • You can make oral comments to the DEC on the Positive Declaration and the Scoping Document, which defines which issues will be studied in the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). • You can present written comments to the DEC at the meeting or anytime before the close of the comment period on November 26, 2008. • You can discuss the project informally with DEC and NRG representatives.

Scoping Issues: • DEC has determined that the applicant (NRG) must prepare a DEIS for this project, which will be based on work previously done by NRG for a project (Berrians) approved in 2001, but not built. • The DEIS will present such things as: o A detailed air quality analysis. o An environmental justice and health data outcome analysis for any affected environmental justice communities. o Energy Impacts. o Socioeconomic Impacts. o Water quality impacts. o The full description of study issues is presented in the Scoping Document.

Information and Contacts: • Public Information Repositories, including the draft Scope are located at: o The Steinway Branch, NYS Library, 21-45 31st St., Long Island City, NY 11105 o The Astoria Branch, NYS Library, 14-01 Astoria Blvd., Long Island City, NY 11102 o http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6061.html

• The DEC contact is: Stephen Tomasik, Project Manager NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits 625 Broadway – 4th Floor Albany, NY 12233-1750 PH: (518) 586-9955; FAX: (518) 402-9168

• NRG will maintain documents on its project website at http://www.nrgenergy.com/news-center/astoria/documents.htm

Appendix B

Helen Marshall, City ofNew York President, Queens Community Board #1, Queens Karen Koslowitz, American Museum ofMoving Image Deputy Borough President 36-01 35th Avenue Vinicio Donato, Chairperson Astoria, N.Y. 11106 Lucille T. Hartmann, Tel: 718-786-3335, Fax: 718-786-3368 District jt"Janager

EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMORANDUM BOARD MEMBERS (conI.) Vinicio Donato Chairperson TO: All Members ofthe Environmental Rose Anne Alafogiannis Joseph Guarino Committee and All other interested George Alexiau First Vice Chairperson Gus Antonopoulos George L. Stamatiades Board Members Edward Babor Second Vice Chairperson Juanita Brathwaite Nonna Nieves-Bias Ann Bruno 17lird Vice Chairperson FROM: Vinicio Donato and Joan Asselin Gerald Caliendo Joanna D'Elia John A. Scourakis Dolores DeCrescenzo Execufive Secretary' RE: New NRG Energy Plant Mary Dcmakos Peter Pallos Demetrios K. Dcmctrios Sergeant-ai-Arms Elizabeth Erion DATE: October 17, 2008 Salvatore Gagliardo Anthony Gigantiello COMMITfEES & Pauline Jannelli CllAffiPERSONS Jerry KrB Frances Luhmann-McDonald Airporl Access An Environmental Committee meeting has been Anthony L Mardach Rosemarie Povcromo scheduled for, Thursday October 30, 2008, 6PM at the William Melnick Capable Disabled Kevin Mullarkey Daniel Aliberti Long Island City Library located at 37-44 21 Street. Stella Nicolaou Annie Norman Consumer A..ffairs Joseph Risi Jr. Rose Marie Poveromo The NRG Power Plant located at 31-01 20 Avenue is Gus Prentzas Education seeking approval from the State to replace and upgrade Tholllas Ryan Linda Perno Rlldolfo Sarchese Environmental Protection the existing generators. The current capacity is 600 mw; Aravella Simotas Joan Asselin the new capacity will be 1040 mw. Dennis Syntilas Health& Social Senices/ Judy Trilivas Senior Patrick A Weide Jean Marie D'Al1eva Please make every effOli to attend. Mannie Wilsoll John P. Ziedonis Housing MaryO'Ham In order to provide sufficient space, we ask that you IndllstriallCommercial Julian Wager call the office ifyou will be present. Parks & Recreation/ Cultural A.ffairs/OTB Thank you. Richard Khuzami Public Saftty cc: Hon. Joseph Crowley Antonio Meloni Hon. Carolyn Maloney Transportation Hon. George Onorato Robert Piazza Hon. Michael Gianaris Youth Jose Batista Hon. Catherine Nolan Zoning & Variance Hon. Margaret Markey John Carusone Hon. Eric Gioia Hon Peter Vallone, Jr Mr. Glen Lennaud. NRG

Boundaries: North: East River, Bowery Bay - East 82 St., Brooklyn-Queens Expressway~ South: Queens Plaza No" Northern Blvd" LIRR Tracks ~ West: East River

Appendix C

UJ!j).l!dQ.fDM~~QJ)Ii, CJ-I.OJ<.E. Ml!ijjJ}~)~ GJ*:-mtiii@; cJ!.

~.qm~@~~ \iltJl:·1?~,

IIflJI,!#H\rJ;\!Jf,!.t£ l(,,~~\W;·~.li-

~~~Ql~~~. November 20, 2008 ~"l1A:w.~,

Q4J'~~~~,·'«IJ.RIlI1.' Rt,(..IlT;qJ!J*SAAJ;'l.mJl~;

~mbAr-WJ:lW1~JI$; Stephen Tomasik, Project Manager Ccoidii'mfuigCc'imcifor Cooperative, NYS Dept. ofEnvironmental Conservation Ruth Langbert Division ofEnvironmental Permits Federation ofNew York Housing fl Coopero.liv~~ 625 Broadway - 4 ' Floor Greg Cmhon Albany, NY 12233-1750 North Queensview Homes, Inc. NltJlony J, Gigantiello Jr.

Queellsview Inc. Alexander Smltoro.

HANAC StlIvroula Joannidis RE: NRG Energy Repowering Project

AstoJiaIDilmars Homeowners & Tenants Association Rodolfo Smx:hese

Hallet's Cove Dear Mr. Tomasik: Michael Digilio

Ravenswood Residents A~socialion I am writing on behalf of the members of the Coalition Helping Organize A Carol Wilkins Kleaner Environment (C.H.O.K.E), a grassroots coalition of residential and civic Dutch Kills Civic Association 13obWilsoll associations representing over 450,000 households in New York City.

Qlleensbridge Tenan1s Association Nina Adarlls The formation of our organization was precipitated by the onslaught of several RMA - Non Profit Housing John Cmncroll new power plants that had been proposed to be built in and around Queens,

West Queens Greens significantly elevating the risks of greater air pollution burdens on what is already Gordon Bastion one of the most heavily polluted areas in the country. In addition to heavy vehicle The West Queens Independent Democratic CIllb traffic endemic to most dense urban areas, Queens currently provides over 80 Kate Bremlml percent of electricity for the City of New York, two of the largest airports in the Astoria Civic Associatioll John Pellittori country, and several congested highways crisscrossing the borough.

Italian Americans Por Better Government Mario J)'elia We have worked closely with NRDC, NYPIRG and others to raise public

Woodside House,~ Resident awareness of critical air pollution problems and to encourage policymakers to take Association Ann Cotton steps that will improve, not diminish the quality of our air. We believe our

NYC Friends ofClearwaler organization has made a difference on these issues by bringing a strong, well DarbyTO'i'll1send informed local voice to policy debates and the news media. Our successes have Tamincnt RD.C. GloriaAloise included the agreement with NYPA to close their old power plant by 2010 and an

Roosevelt Island Residents Air Study ofQueens by Synapse Energy. Association Diedre Breslin

Noble-Street Block Associatioll Our organization understands that New York City requires more electricity in the PattiChoy future and new power plants promise to be much cleaner than the older variety that City Lights Association Friends ofGantry Park are in operation. Weare supporting NRG's Energy Repowering Project this 0011 Donoldson

Sierra Chlb Claudia Shillingherg J,lJm.i;ttQji"D.iJcCt;~Q;:~ C.H.OJ

R"Jh,l".M_~.li1!:' v.:lmJlr,~'.41?J;lk

J).(j):),~<\X:I1Wf#1< '~~~£\;t_Q;

l\tJtiR:~t.~, project fills our mission statement "No new power plants be built unless their Q,Q!!

l'tlel)ll.lAA"filJ;ElW~W>; and/or installation of other equipment that results in the reduction of current Cooidiiiiitiiig 'Co\U\ClI'O:( Cooperatives overall pollution levels." Ruth Langbert

Feden'ltion ofNew York Housing Cooperatives NRG's Repowering Project will eliminate an older dirtier plant, double the Greg Carlson generating capacity and significantly reduce pollution in Astoria Queens and the North Queensview Homes, Inc. Anthony J. Gigantiello JI. City ofNew York.

Queensview lnc, Alexander Sant(ln'l We believe that this project should not only be supported but supercede any other HANAC Stavroula Joannidis ''NEW PLANT" and expedited if possible. It will make an immediate

Ast

Hallet's O:>ve Michael Digilio We hope that you consider our support ofthis project. Ravenswood Residents Association Carol Wilkins

Dutch Kills Civic As$ociation Bob Wilson

Queenshridge Tenants A~sociation Nina Adams

RMA - Non Profit Housing John Cameron

West Queens ('>1oon$ Gordon Bastion

The West Queens Independent Democratic Club Kale Brennan

Astoria Civic Association John Pcllittori

Italian Americans For Better Government Mario O'elia

Woodside Houses Resident Association Ann Cotton

NYC Friends ofCleanvater DarhyTol\'Tt$elld

Taminent R.D.C Gloria Aloise

Roosevelt Island Residents Association Dieillc Breslin

Nohle-SIIee! Block Associalion Patti Choy

Cily Lights Association Friends ofGalltry Park Don DOlloldson

Sierra Club Claudia Shillingberg

Appendix D

NRG Astoria In-City Repowering

November 2008 NRG’s Astoria Site Project Overview

Adds 440 MW net capacity Phase II (enough to power 35,000 homes) Phase I − Phase I – Retire 100 MW (2010) – Add 520 MW (2012) − Phase II – Retire 500 MW – Add 520 MW

Replaces 1970’s vintage oil-fired generation with state-of-the-art power − Provides dual fuel, black start, voltage support and quick start reserves

Reduces on-site peak-day air 1,200 emissions by 98% 1,000 800

600

Fully compliant with PlaNYC MW 400 548 MW − Displaces CO2 equivalent of 185,000 cars each year 200 − Provides new modern capacity - − Increases efficiency of NYC generation Existing Phase I (2012) Phase II (2014) GT5-13 Pratts 2-4 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4

Adds needed power while improving New York City’s environment The Transition

NRG’s Astoria site today Today 600 MW oil/gas 31 total units 14,500 to 18,667 Btu/kWh HR

Phase I 1020 MW gas/oil Retires 100 MW Westinghouse Two units (520 MW) commissioned 26 total units

Phase II 1040 MW gas/oil Retires 500 MW Pratts Two units (520 MW) commissioned 4 total units

NRG’s Astoria site after Phase I NRG’s Astoria site after Phase II On-Site Environmental Benefits

Annual Emissions Impact - NRG Astoria Site Astoria Site Impacts 1600 1400 Reduces peak-day onsite emissions by 98% 1200 1000

800 Reduces NOx emissions by 1,300 tons per year 600 400

Annual Emissions (tons) 200 Replaces oil with gas as 0 primary fuel NOx CO Partic ulate SO2 Current Astoria Repowered Astoria Uses less fuel to produce same amount of power Peak Demand Day Emissions - NRG Astoria Site 50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000 Emitted lbs/day 10,000

0 NOx CO Particulate SO2 Current Astoria Repowered Astoria Environmental Benefits to Metro NY

Annual Emissions Impact - Metropolitan NYC In-City Impacts 40,000 Displaces over 15% 35,000 emissions that cause acid rain 30,000 and ozone pollution 25,000 20,000

15,000 Reduces 3,300 tons NOx each year 10,000

Annual Emissions (tons) Emissions Annual 5,000 Significant reductions to 0 pollutants responsible for NOx CO Particulate SO2 smog and global warming Before Repowering After Repowering

Peak Demand Day Emissions - Metropolitan NYC

600

500

400

300

200 Emissions (tons) Emissions

100

0 NOx CO Particulate SO2 Greenhouse Gas Reductions

Avoided CO2 Avoided CO2 Total: Displaces 1 million tons of carbon annually (On-Peak) (Off-Peak) Avoided CO2 2012 327,232 39,747 366,979 2013 557,095 52,487 609,582 Achieves 14% of targeted PlaNYC 2015 2014 928,564 99,376 1,027,941 reductions 2015 1,045,583 86,101 1,131,685 2016 912,029 - 912,029 Equivalent to taking 185,000 cars off the 2017 947,668 - 947,668 road 2018 1,089,299 22,857 1,112,156 2019 1,122,302 15,701 1,138,004 Displaces air emissions that cause acid rain 2020 970,895 4,062 974,957 and ozone pollution ASTORIA REPOWERING Project Powering New York with NRG

Powering New York City with Advanced Natural Gas Generation

Planning for New York City of Tomorrow

In April 2007, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced an initiative—known as PlaNYC—to strengthen the city’s urban environment and create a “greener” New York.

The initiative—developed as a call to action to address the needs of a growing, vibrant city—focuses on improving air and water quality, and land use within the five boroughs while encouraging sensible, sustainable growth.

A large part of PlaNYC focuses on New York City’s energy challenges:

NRG’s Astoria Plant • The average NYC power plant was built in 19771 • Annual energy growth in New York City is 130 megawatts (MW)2 NRG’s new Astoria units would • $3 billion (23%) increase in annual energy bills utilize efficient “combined 3 NRG Astoria Site expected by 2015 cycle” technology coupled with Quick Facts • 4.6 million tons carbon dioxide (CO2) will be added to the the ability to reach 75% of its 4 environment by 2015 to meet growing energy demands total generating capacity in 10 Today minutes. While achieving this 600 Megawatts Improving our air— flexibility, the new Astoria site After Repowering NRG’s response to PlaNYC’s challenge will also add roughly 400 MW of energy capacity (enough to 1,040 Megawatts NRG is proposing to repower its existing power generation power 320,000 homes) while units located in Astoria, New York (built in 1969) with reducing onsite peak-day air modernized, clean and efficient natural gas units that emissions by approximately produce more energy with dramatically fewer emissions. 90%.

The proposal is part of NRG’s RepoweringNRG effort, which “Repowering” Astoria will: calls for major, environmentally responsible investment in new and revitalized power plants. • Reduce onsite peak day emissions by 90% • Displace less efficient units, thereby reducing Repowered generation in Astoria helps provide energy greenhouse gas emissions by 1,000,000 tons each year reliability to New York City while substantially reducing (equivalent to removing 185,000 cars from America’s environmental impact—aligning with PlaNYC’s goals. This roadways). plays an even greater role in helping keep the lights on in the • Improve efficiency by over 50% city while significantly improving our air, particularly during • Retire 600 MW of 1970 vintage, oil & natural gas fired the hottest and coldest days of the year. units

1 The City of New York; PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York; April, 2007 2 New York Independent System Operator; The Comprehensive Reliability Plan 2007; Sept 18, 2007 3 The City of New York; PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York; April, 2007 4 Ibid ASTORIA REPOWERING Project Powering New York with NRG

• Replace the oldest units first in a two-phased approach Why Astoria? • Add 1,040 MW of higher efficiency, natural gas-fueled Finding the perfect place to build a power plant is challenging units due to the need for key infrastructure nearby. Important considerations are: access to natural gas, water requirements, Improving efficiency, keeping costs low ability to transport power where it’s needed, and other factors. Consider the difference between a 1970’s Chrysler and a new Toyota Prius. Over the years we have seen dramatic changes There are limited sites within New York City that can in automobile engine efficiency. The same is true of power accommodate new power plants—and they are typically plants. where power plants currently exist. NRG’s Astoria facility is one such site. The average power plant in New York City is 30 years old and is substantially less efficient than the newest power plant technology available today. Twenty-first century power plants operate at superior levels of efficiency and emissions rates compared to the average plant of yesterday.

The new site would be state-of-the-art and high efficiency, using less fuel to generate energy and producing fewer Why repower Astoria? emissions—resulting in lower energy costs. • Emits 98% fewer peak-day air emissions than current Astoria facility • Replaces older technology units with new, efficient technology Annual emissions impact—Metropolitan NYC • Reduces key emissions

40,000 • Meets the needs of New York’s growth 35,000 r-- --- > Adds new capacity—enough to 30,000 power 320,000 homes 25,000 - > 56% more efficient production of r-- 20,000 - electricity 15,000 f-- r--.--- - • Fully compliant with New York City Mayor 10,000 I- - Michael Bloomberg’s 2007 plan—known 5,000 I-- - - as PlaNYC—to displace greenhouse gas Annual Emissions (tons) 0 emissions and meet growing demand for NOx CO Particulate SO2 • Before Repowering After Repowering energy

Peak demand day emissions—Metropolitan NYC

600

500

400 For more information, contact: 300

200 211 Carnegie Center 100 Princeton, NJ 08540 Annual Emissions (tons) 609.524.4500 0 I Ir 1 NOx CO Particulate SO 2 www.nrgenergy.com • Before Repowering• • After Repowering

Appendix E

NRG Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC Repowering Project Stakeholders List, NYSDEC October 24, 2008

Hon. Michael Bloomberg Mayor of the City of New York City Hall New York, NY 10007

Hon. Charles Schumer U.S. Senate 757 Third Avenue, Room 1702 New York, NY 10017

Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton U.S. Senate 780 Third Avenue, Suite 2601 New York, NY 10017

Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney US House of Representatives 1651 Third Avenue, Ste. 311 New York, NY 10128

Hon. Charles B. Rangel US House of Representatives 163 West 125th Street, Room 737 New York, NY 10027

Hon. George Onorato NYS Senator 28-11 Astoria Blvd Long Island City, NY 11102

Hon. Toby Ann Stavisky NYS Senator 144-36 Willets Point Blvd. Flushing, NY 11357

Hon. Michael Gianaris NYS Assemblymember 21-77 31st Street, Ste. 107 Astoria, NY 11105

Hon. Peter Vallone Jr. NYC Councilmember 22-45 31st St. Astoria, NY 11105

Hon. Helen Marshall Queens Borough President 120-55 Queens Blvd Kew Gardens, NY 11424

Amanda M. Burden, Director NYC Department of City Planning 22 Reade Street New York, NY 10007

Robert Kulikowski, Director Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination 253 Broadway, 14th Floor New York, NY 10007

Emily Lloyd Commissioner NYC Department of Environmental Protection 59-17 Junction Boulevard Flushing, NY 11373

John Wuthenow Office of Environmental Planning & Assessment NYC Department of Environmental Protection 59-17 Junction Boulevard Flushing, NY 11373

Community Board 1 Queens 36-01 35th Avenue Astoria, NY 11106 Attn: Mr. Vincio Donato, Chairman

Community Board 1 Queens 36-01 35th Avenue Astoria, NY 11106 Attn: Mr. George Delis

St. Irene Chrysovalantou Nursery & Kindergarten 36-07 23 Ave Astoria, NY 11105

Kid Krazy Early Childhood Development Center Annex 21-35 21 Ave Astoria, NY 11105

BFFY Steinway Senior Center 20-43 Steinway St Astoria, NY 11105

The Hellenic Link Inc. 38-11 Ditmars Blvd Ste. 278 Astoria, NY 11105

Kefalos Society of America Inc. 2043 Steinway St. Astoria, NY 11105

Reserve Officers Association of the United States 2139 38th St. Astoria, NY 11105

Project Pegasus International Inc 3811 Ditmars Blvd Astoria, NY 11105

Sullogos Nomou Magnisias Argonayte Ltd. 3811 Ditmars Blvd 119 Astoria, NY 11105

National Coalition of Physicians for Healthcare Awareness Inc 2202 Steinway St. Astoria, NY 11105

Polish Navy Veterans Association of America Inc. 2208 Steinway St. Astoria, NY 11105

Northwestern Queens Community Action Center Inc 2219 35th St. Astoria, NY 11105

Astoria Restoration Association 3128 Ditmars Blvd. Astoria, NY 11105

Astoria Islamic Center Inc. 2221 33rd St. Astoria, NY 11105

Syllogos Kreton Minos Inc. 2227 33rd St. Astoria, NY 11105

Federation of Italian-American Organizations of Queens Inc. 29-21 21st Ave Astoria, NY 11105

Federation of Hellenic Societies of Greater New York Inc. 2251 29th St. Astoria, NY 11105

Queens Philharmonic 2028 27th St. Astoria, NY 11105

Sons of Italy in America 2037 28th St Astoria, NY 11105

Catholic War Veterans of the USA Inc 1 Astoria Post 21 43 29th St Astoria, NY 11105

Giannitsa Association Megas Alexandros Inc 2226 23rd St. Astoria, NY 11105

Greek American Broadcasting Info & Cultural Activities Corporation 20 12 20th St. Astoria, NY 11105

Kiwanis International 2131 Shore Blvd Astoria, NY 11105

Bangladesh American Association for Rehabilitation in New York 2363 Steinway St. Astoria, NY 11105

Pancyprian Association Inc 2315 31st St. Astoria, NY 11105

Greek American Home Owners of New York Inc. 2324 31st St. Astoria, NY 11105

Cephalonian Association Aenos Inc. 23 17 29th St. Astoria, NY 11105

The Peoples Museum 2227 Crescent St. Astoria, NY 11105

Zoodohos Pighi of Andros Society Inc 2119 28th St. Astoria, NY 11105

Cypreco of America Inc 2350 27th St. Astoria, NY 11105

Church of Christ Holy Spirit Science of Mind World Mission Inc. 2106 35th St Apt. 5F Astoria, NY 11105

Grace Bible Church 2257 37th St. Astoria, NY 11105

Peniel Baptist Church Inc. 1954 38th St. Astoria, NY 11105

Sacred Patriarchal & Stavropegial Orothodox Monastary of St. Irene 3607 23rd Avenue Astoria, NY 11105

Muslim American Society of Queens 3513 23rd Avenue Astoria, NY 11105

Free Apostolic Church of Pentecost 2047 Steinway St. Astoria, NY 11105

Islamic Congress Church 2128 33rd St. Astoria, NY 11105

Astoria Homeowners, Tenants and Business Civic Association 21-20 49th Street Astoria, NY 11105 Tel: (718) 721-3690

Central Astoria Local Development Corp. 28-27 Steinway Street Astoria, NY 11103 Attn: Julian Wager, President

Greater Astoria Historical Society 35-20 Broadway, 4th Floor Long Island City, NY 11106 Tel: (718) 278-0700

ARROW (Astoria Residents Reclaiming Our World) 39-45 49th Street Sunnyside, 11104 Attn: Ms. Sandra Robishaw

Astoria/LIC Waterfront Parks C/O Karen Overton Astoria LIC Catalyst Coordinator 35-30 35th Street Astoria, NY 11106 Tel: (718) 706-8044 Email: [email protected]

Green Shores C/O Katie Elman 25-11 34th Street, Apt. 3F Astoria, NY 11103 Tel: (917) 497-6273 Email: [email protected]

UPROSE 166A 22nd Street Brooklyn, NY 11232

El Diario La Prensa 1 Metrotech Center, 18th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201

New York Daily News 450 West 33rd Street New York, NY 10001

Western Queens Gazette 42-16 34th Avenue Long Island City, NY 11101

Times Ledger Newspapers 41-02 Bell Blvd, 2nd Floor Bayside, NY 11361 Tel:(718) 229-0300

Queens Chronicle P.O. Box 74-7769 Rego Park, NY 11374 Tel:(718) 205-8000

International Brotherhood of Teamsters 3609 21st Avenue Astoria, NY 11105

Excavators’ 731 Property Corp (Excavators Union Local 731) 3411 35th Avenue Astoria, NY 11106 Tel: (718) 706-0720

Blasters, Drill Runners & Miners Local 29 4302 Ditmars Blvd Astoria, NY 11105

United Contractors Alliance 21-77 31st Street Astoria, NY 11105

Iron Workers Locals 40 & 36 Joint 35-23 36th Street Astoria, NY 11106 Tel: (718) 433-4195

Cement and Concrete Workers Union Local #20 3636 33rd Street Astoria, NY 11106

Local 807 Labor-Management Health Pension Funds 3243 49th Street Astoria, NY 11103 Utility Workers Union of America 5 West 37th Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10018 Tel: (718) 575-4400 Fax: (718) 575-3852

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) 158-11 Harry Van Arsdale Ave. 4th Floor Flushing, NY 11365 Tel: (718) 591-4000 Fax: (718) 380-8998

Communications Workers of America AFL-CIO (CWA) 28 10 Astoria Boulevard Long Island City, NY 11102

Asbestos Workers Union Local 12 2110 Newtown Avenue Astoria, NY 11102

Local 891 3641 28th Street Long Island City, NY 11106

United Piano Workers Union Local 102 2810 Astoria Blvd Long Island City, NY 11102

Appendix F

ENB - Region 2 Notices 12/24/2008 Notice of Availability New York County (Queens) - The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC), as lead agency, has issued a Final Scoping Document for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to be prepared for the proposed Astoria Gas Turbine Power, LLC - Repowering Project. The Final Scoping Document is available for public review at the NYS DEC office listed below, and is also available online on the NYS DEC website: http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6061.html. It is also available for review locally at the NYS DEC - Region 2 Office, 47-40 21st Street, Long Island City, New York, the Queens Public Library - Steinway Branch, 21-45 31st Street, Long Island City, New York, and the Queens Public Library - Astoria Branch, 14-01 Astoria Boulevard, Long Island City, New York.

The action involves the proposal by NRG to repower the Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC facility. The repowering project will be conducted in two phases. Phase 1 will consist of replacement of the seven operating 35 + year old Westinghouse peaking turbines (approximately 120 MW capacity) with two new state-of-the-art, intermediate operating systems (approximately 520 MW total) provided by either General Electric or Siemens. Phase 2 of the proposed project will consist of replacing the 24, more than 35 + year old, Pratt & Whitney turbines (approximately 480 MW capacity) with two additional state-of-the-art turbines. Thus, the repowering will result in the replacement of the 600 MW capability of the 35 + year old electric generating capacity with new state-of-the-art units capable of producing 1040 MW. The project is located at 31-01 20th Avenue in Queens, New York.

Contact: Stephen Tomasik, NYS DEC, Division of Environmental Permits, 625 Broadway, 4th Floor, Albany, NY 12233-1750, Phone: (518) 486-9955, E-mail: [email protected]. NRG Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC -- Repowering Project State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Final Scoping Document for Draft Environmental Impact Statement December 24, 2008

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has prepared this Final Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to be prepared for a site repowering project (the “Proposed Project”) sponsored by NRG Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC (“Astoria”), owner of the Astoria Generating Station (the “Station”). Phase I of the proposed action involves replacement of existing electrical generation units with two 260 MW Siemens SCC6-5000F combustion turbines, or functionally equivalent state-of-the-art quick start turbines. Phase II proposes to replace additional existing units with two additional combustion turbines (for a total of four units). Because the specific type of replacement turbine has not yet been identified, all analyses will assume the more conservative values of the potential choices.

Purpose of Scoping and the SEQR Process

On December 17, 2007, the DEC received an Application for a Title V Air Permit from Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC for development of the Proposed Action. DEC determined that the Project was a Type I Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”). Accordingly [pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617.6(b)(3)] on April 8, 2008, DEC circulated a Lead Agency Coordination Letter and Environmental Assessment Statement form Part 1 to all other Involved Agencies. In this correspondence, DEC indicated its intention to act as Lead Agency for the purpose of a coordinated SEQRA review of the Proposed Action. No objections were made to DEC acting as Lead Agency by any of the Involved Agencies; therefore, DEC determined that it will be the Lead Agency for the SEQRA review of this action on October 8, 2008. The applicant will submit a modified application for a two-phase project.

On October 8, 2008, DEC, as Lead Agency, determined that the Proposed Project may have the potential for a significant adverse environmental impact on the environment and that a DEIS must be prepared. Also pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617.8, DEC required Public Scoping for the Proposed Action. Public Scoping under 6 NYCRR §617.8 is the process by which the Lead Agency, in cooperation with the public and involved or interested agencies, identifies potentially significant adverse impacts that should be considered in a DEIS.

DEC provided opportunity for written comments on the Draft Scope to be submitted until November 26, 2008. Additionally, a public scoping meeting was conducted on November 12, 2008, at Riccardo's Restaurant, 21-01 24th Avenue, Astoria, New York, to elicit comments from interested members of the community. Public scoping sessions were conducted at 4 PM and 7 PM. Three statements were made at the 4 PM meeting, generally in support of the re-powering project, with one commenter recommending that the project sponsor look for ways to help the community become more "green." This comment resulted in an addition to the Final Scope in Section 20. Two statements were made at the 7 PM meeting, generally in support of the repowering project. In addition, two written statements were received by DEC, both generally in favor of the proposed re-powering.

As part of the Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) process and in accordance with 6 NYCRR §617.8, this Final Scoping document has been prepared under the review of DEC. It identifies and describes the range of environmental studies to be conducted to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. This document is being distributed by DEC to the public and all involved and interested agencies for review and comment. Copies of this Final Scope of Work are available for review at the following locations:

New York State DEC Region 2 Office 47-40 21st Street Long Island City, New York 11101

Queens Public Library The Steinway Branch 21-45 31st Street Long Island City, New York 11105

Queens Public Library The Astoria Branch 14-01 Astoria Boulevard Long Island City, New York 11102

This Final Scope of Work can be viewed and downloaded from the NRG Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC website, http://www.nrgenergy.com/news-center/astoria/documents.htm, or the DEC Division of Environmental Permits website, http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6061.html.

Contacts regarding this project are:

Stephen M. Tomasik, Project Manager New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits 625 Broadway, 4th Floor Albany, NY 12233-1750 Ph: (518) 486-9955 Fax: (518) 402-9168

Thomas Coates NRG Energy, Inc. 261 Washington Boulevard Oswego, NY 13126 315-349-2231

David Alexander, Environmental Consultant to NRG Air Resources Group LLC 6281 Johnston Road Albany, NY 12203 518-452-7000

E. Gail Suchman, Esq., Counsel to NRG Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038-4982 212-806-6656

Executive Summary of Scoping Issues

The Proposed Project, as outlined below, will incorporate a two-phase development process. In Phase I approximately 120 MW of 1970-vintage uncontrolled Westinghouse oil-fired peaking turbines will be retired and demolished. This capacity will be replaced with approximately 520 MW of new state-of-the-art combustion turbines. In Phase II approximately 480 MW of 1970- vintage Pratt & Whitney capacity will be retired. This Pratt & Whitney capacity will then be replaced with approximately 520 MW of new state-of-the-art combustion turbines. Thus, the two-phase project will result in the replacement of the existing approximately 600 MW of peaking only capacity with 1040 MW of state-of-the-art turbines with ultra low emissions and dual fuel firing capability. The units will be constructed within the boundaries of the existing Station. This project lies within the overall Astoria complex, which is the site of several existing power generation facilities and has been occupied by power generating plants since at least 1904.

The Proposed Project will result in more efficient electricity production (greater than 48% efficiency for the proposed units as compared to approximately 35% efficiency for the existing units) and dramatically reduced emissions at the Station. In addition, the project will provide greater electric generation capability in megawatts per hour and more available hours per year. Depending on dispatch and contract needs, the new units will be able to operate for more than 7000 hours per year per turbine, in comparison to just a few hundred hours per year per turbine for the existing units, thus providing a far more reliable electric supply to the grid. The new units will provide more reliable power output in an intermediate operating mode -- they can be used both as peaking units and as base loaded units. Additionally, the new units will provide 10- minute rapid start capability nearly equivalent to black start units. The new turbines included in the Proposed Project have high thermal efficiencies and ultra-low emissions potential. Unlike the existing turbines, the new turbines will be equipped with state-of-the-art emissions controls and continuous emissions monitoring equipment. The new units will substantially reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (“NOx”), as compared to the current units, and overall significantly reduce emissions on High Energy Demand Days (“HEDD”). Other measurable operating and emissions parameters will be improved. Air quality impacts will be assessed using DEC approved air quality modeling protocols.

Stack height will be between 220 and 250 feet for each of the stacks based on a good engineering practice (“GEP”) analysis and design criteria for the new equipment. These stacks will replace the shorter individual stacks being used for the existing turbines. The Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) has reviewed and approved the stack height application.

An Environmental Justice Analysis consistent with Commissioner’s Policy 29 and a Health Outcome Data Analysis consistent with the July 21, 2008, New York State Department of Health (“DOH”) draft protocol will be performed to address community impacts. Construction and traffic impacts will be minimized by using barge delivery for some large equipment and reducing truck traffic consistent with the local Astoria traffic management plan.

Noise impacts for the new equipment profile and for construction will be analyzed and mitigated as necessary. Nearby facilities are large power plants and industrial operations. Residential properties lie more than 0.4 miles from the project site.

The Proposed Project will require approvals from the New York Public Service Commission (“PSC”) including the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (“CPCN”) under Article 68 of the Public Service Law. Other than building permits and various non- discretionary local approvals, the Proposed Project is not subject to New York City discretionary approvals and, thus, is subject to review under SEQRA. A Title V Air Permit modification to be issued by the DEC will be required. Other associated air permit approvals such as Acid Rain and NOx Budget will accompany the Title V Permit modification.

Project Purpose and Public Need

The DEIS will describe the public need for the Proposed Project. The advanced age (+35 years) of the existing turbines at the Station necessitates repowering to improve the reliability of delivery of electric services to the New York Independent System Operator (“NYISO”). The DEIS will discuss in more detail the NYISO’s estimates for future generating capacity needs and reliability and the manner in which the Proposed Project will address the NYISO’s needs. The DEIS will also discuss the Proposed Project’s consistency and fit within the New York City’s Energy and Emissions Plan components of PlaNYC.

Project Description

The Proposed Project will be conducted at the Station, which is located at 31-01 20th Ave., Long Island City, Queens County, New York 11105. Phase I of the Proposed Project consists of the replacement of seven Westinghouse turbines (rated at 239 mmBtu/hr or 345 mmBtu/hr each and totaling about 120 MW) with two state-of-the-art turbines capable of providing more than 520 MW of electricity and equipped with low NOx combustors, Selective Catalytic Reduction (“SCR”), carbon monoxide (“CO”) oxidation catalysts, and continuous emissions monitors. The two new units (the “Phase I units”) will be placed on the portion of the facility already paved and occupied by the Westinghouse turbines. Each Phase I turbine will provide considerably more energy output per unit of emissions than the old Westinghouse turbines and will have rapid ramp capability of approximately 140 MW output in 10 minutes. Although the Phase I units will operate primarily on natural gas, they will have a limited oil firing capability as required by the NYISO in the event of a natural gas curtailment. The Phase I units are expected to be operational no earlier than summer 2012.

Phase II will replace all 24 of the Pratt & Whitney turbines (rated at 255 mmBtu/hr each) with an additional two new units capable of producing a combined total of approximately 520 MW electric output (the “Phase II units”). Upon expected completion in 2014, the Station will consist of four new turbines with an aggregate rated output capacity of approximately 1040 MW. The Proposed Project description in the DEIS will include the existing site conditions, physical setting, and overview of the construction of the new equipment.

Since the Proposed Project will be completed in two separate phases, the existing turbines in the associated project phase will be removed prior to the construction of the new turbines for the applicable phase. The Pratt & Whitney turbines are expected to remain fully on-line and available during the Phase 1 construction. Construction will take approximately 24 months for each phase, with Phase I commencing no earlier than summer 2010 and Phase II commencing no earlier than summer 2012. General construction issues and equipment laydown will be addressed in the DEIS.

The technology selection is currently under review by the project sponsor. Two turbine technology options are currently being considered for deployment for the Proposed Project. The first, referred to as the Siemens Flex10™ configuration, would utilize the Siemens SCC6-5000F configured in a “1x1” combined cycle arrangement. The Flex10™ unit will have rapid ramp capability of approximately 140 MW output in as little as 10 minutes. The projected heat rate of the Flex10™ is expected to be 8,000 btu/kWh.

The second turbine technology being considered would be General Electric’s (“GE”) widely used 7FA technology, arranged in a “1x1” combined cycle setup. The GE technology is expected to also have rapid ramp capability of approximately 140 MW in as little as 10 minutes. The projected heat rate of the GE technology also is expected to be at or below 8,000 btu/kWh.

Both technology configurations will operate primarily on natural gas, but will have a limited oil firing capability to serve the critical hours and days when natural gas availability in New York City is at its lowest, up to 100 hours per year. The units would be equipped with low NOx combustors, SCR, and CO oxidation catalysts as well as emission monitors. NRG expects that the performance of both technologies will not materially differ, and that the final technology selection will be based on unit operating performance, availability, and key environmental factors. The high efficiency for either technology selection allows for more electric output per million Btus of fuel burned as opposed to the existing units.

Regulatory Reviews and Approvals

The applicable regulatory approvals and reviews required for the Proposed Project are listed below. Briefly summarized, a Title V Air Permit modification is required, approvals are required from the PSC including CPCN approvals, and permits are required from New York City agencies for construction, demolition building permits, sewer and water use, and others. These permits/approvals will be identified and discussed in more detail in the DEIS with reference to the responsible agency.

• Title V Air Permit Modification, 6 NYCRR Part 201 and associated air permit elements (such as PSD BACT review, NSR LAER review, Acid Rain Permit, NOx Budget, etc.)

• New York City Certificate of Operation, 15 RCNY, Chapter 2 • Increase in water use and sewer discharge approval from New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) • FAA stack height and Notice of Proposed Construction (issued by the FAA on 02/12/2008) • CPCN to be issued by the PSC pursuant to Article 68 of the New York Public Service Law • SPDES permit modification for storm water surface discharge from construction activity • 6 NYCRR Part 750 • Triennial Air Certificate from NYCDEP • Chemical Bulk storage registration for ammonia tanks, 6 NYCRR Part 596-599 • Fire Department of New York storage permit for aqueous ammonia • Modifications to the existing Coast Guard Response Plan and MARSEC • Waterfront Revitalization Program Consistency Review • Retirement Notice to Public Service Commission

Air Quality Impacts and Benefits of Repowering

The Phase I units, totaling approximately 520 MW, will replace seven existing Westinghouse turbines. The Westinghouse turbines are nearly 40 years old, operate as peaking turbines only, burn fuel oil only, and operate with no air pollution controls. The Westinghouse turbines have low thermal efficiencies as compared to the high efficiency of the new units. The new units have the capability to quick start and ramp to approximately 140 MW in 10 minutes assuring a reliable electric supply to the grid, if needed, in a fast reaction mode. Issues relating to the air quality review include:

• The new turbines have ultra-low NOx emissions capability and can meet a 9 ppm NOx level at the downstream side of the turbine before add-on controls. • With add-on SCR the units can achieve 2 ppm NOx emissions rates when firing natural gas. SCR is widely recognized throughout the country as the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (“LAER”) add-on technology for the new turbines. • The project will dramatically reduce High Energy Demand Day (HEDD) emissions from the seven Westinghouse and 24 Pratt & Whitney units. The new turbines can reduce potential NOx emissions on a typical HEDD (e.g., 8/3/2006) from as much as 22 tons per day to less than one ton per day and still provide over four times as much power to the grid. Because high ozone concentrations in the Northeast Corridor often coincide with highest electricity demand, the use of new ultra-low NOx-emitting turbines can be used to displace electricity from higher NOx emitting facilities in the region, thus, meeting DEC’s HEDD commitments under the Ozone Transport Commission’s HEDD Memorandum of Understanding signed by New York State. • The project will dramatically reduce the total NOx annual emissions as compared to the emissions from the seven Westinghouse and 24 Pratt & Whitney units and will dramatically reduce the Maximum Annual Potential (“MAP”) emissions for NOx as

compared to the permitted MAP for the existing turbines. The existing Westinghouse and Pratt & Whitney turbines have no emissions controls. Emissions reductions from the existing units will be used as offsets for the new units. • The new units will allow for the migration of the facility to ultra low sulfur diesel oil for the limited potential hours on oil during natural gas curtailments. Thus, emissions of SO2 and PM2.5 will be reduced by combusting the natural gas and ultra low sulfur fuels instead of higher sulfur fuel oil. • CO and volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”) emissions will be minimized and controlled better than with the current turbines by the more combustion efficient new turbines (in excess of 48% thermal efficiency for the new equipment as opposed to the existing equipment) and by destruction in the add-on oxidation catalyst. • Startup and shutdown emissions will be significantly minimized due to the rapid startup ramp capability of the new turbines as compared to the existing units. • The project will result in a small net increase or decrease in other pollutants as compared to the actual emissions from the existing turbines, which will be provided in the DEIS, and significantly lower emissions as compared to the MAP emissions for the existing turbines. • The new units will result in avoided greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to more than 100,000 cars by 2012 and substantially more as Phase II equipment comes on line in 2014. • The new turbines and emissions control devices will be equipped with continuous emission monitoring systems (“CEMS”). • GEP stack heights will improve dispersion as opposed to the existing short stacks and will reduce localized air quality impacts attributable to contributions from the turbine emissions. • Preliminary modeling of the project shows that no air quality impacts will exceed significance levels. Formal modeling is necessary to confirm the preliminary results. Proposed air modeling protocol has been submitted to DEC. The final agency approved protocol will be used to conduct the formal modeling. • Extensive cumulative air quality impact analyses have been performed for recent projects in New York City including an analysis for the Berrians application. These previous air quality studies have demonstrated their project compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards for regulated pollutants (CO, SO2, NOx, and PM-10). These previous studies will be used to overview and compare the air quality impacts from the Astoria Proposed Project. • Astoria will surrender the previously-approved Berrians Project Permit upon issuance of the permit approvals for the two-phase Proposed Project. Surrendering the Berrians Project permit removes additional approved emissions from the facility's maximum annual permitted potential to emit and, therefore, provides a future net air quality benefit through avoidance of the Berrian’s project emissions.

Scope of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)

The DEIS will provide an analysis of the significant adverse and beneficial impacts of the Proposed Project and an analysis of the alternatives to the Proposed Project. Where applicable, the DEIS will reference information included in an Environmental Assessment Statement (EAS) 7

prepared for a prior proposal at the site, the Berrians Unit 1 Project (the “Berrians Project”). The full text of the Berrians Project EAS will be included as an appendix to the DEIS. The DEIS will include the following elements:

• Unavoidable adverse impacts • Alternatives • Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources • Cumulative impacts • Growth inducing aspects • Effects on the use and conservation of energy resources

The section of the DEIS addressing existing conditions, potential impacts, and mitigation measures will be structured to present the following:

• existing conditions of the Station and its operation, • potential impacts of the Proposed Project, including benefits, and • mitigation measures for significant adverse impacts.

This analysis will be supplemented with visual aids including maps, photos, charts, graphs, and figures. Appropriate references will be provided.

The scope of the DEIS is set forth below.

1. Geology, Soils and Topography

These resources were analyzed in the previously proposed Berrians Project. Station, The DEIS will include a summary of the prior EAS discussion of these resources, with the full EAS discussion incorporated by reference. To the extent that the Proposed Project’s impacts are substantially different from the Berrians Project’s impacts, those elements will be addressed in the DEIS.

2. Water Resources

The Station currently operates under State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“SPDES”) permits for storm water and an NYCDEP sewer use permit. The impacts of the Proposed Project will be addressed as to modification of the water use and discharge requirements. Estimates of water usage changes and anticipated discharges to surface waters and the city sewer system will be identified. As noted in the Berrians Project’s EAS, no wetlands or seasonal streams are in the immediate vicinity of the Station; therefore, these resources will not be discussed in this DEIS. Floodplains will be identified and an assessment of potential project related impacts, if any, will be provided.

3. Biological, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology

Because the Proposed Project is located at an existing developed and operating power plant property, it is anticipated that adverse ecological impacts will be avoided. An assessment of ecological impacts, if any, will be addressed in the DEIS.

4. Climate and Air Quality

Air quality remains one of the most significant issues for the community and permitting remains one of the most time consuming approval elements for power plant projects. This section will present the air permit application documents, the air quality impact analysis including modeling, and the measures undertaken by NRG to mitigate air quality impacts for this project. Key elements of this analysis have been previously noted in the Scoping Document, but include the following: • The equipment will include ultra low NOx turbines with add-on controls. • All old, uncontrolled turbines currently in operation at the site will be shutdown for this project. • The shutdown of old equipment will be used in offsetting new turbine emissions. • Primary fuel of the new turbines will be natural gas. • The new equipment will allow the Station to switch to ultra low sulfur diesel for limited periods of oil firing during natural gas curtailments and shortages. • The Proposed Project will result in LAER for non-attainment pollutants and Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for most attainment pollutants. • The Proposed Project will result in a net decrease in the NOx MAP for each of the Proposed Project’s phases. • The new turbines will meet GEP stack height requirements to improve dispersion and eliminate short stack dispersion concerns. • Substantial combustion efficiency improvements will result from the Proposed Project including improved production output and avoided greenhouse gas emissions. • The Proposed Project’s dramatically reduced emissions will provide benefits for DEC’s HEDD Program by offsetting emissions from less efficient facilities. • The emission reductions to be achieved through repowering the Station with the new equipment are consistent with New York City’s PlaNYC goals. • A discussion of PM2.5 offsets will be included in the DEIS. • A discussion of greenhouse gas emissions (implicated in climatic change) will be provided. This discussion will include emissions estimates and mitigation measures for carbon dioxide (CO2) where appropriate. A review of expected regulatory standards being developed by the DEC for electric generating unit efficiency will be included. In addition, implications of potential sea level rise at the NRG Astoria site due to climate change will be discussed and potential mitigation measures will be presented.

5. Aesthetic/Visual Resources

The Proposed Project will eliminate all of the Westinghouse and Pratt & Whitney stacks (31 total) and replace those with no more than four GEP stacks. Aesthetic/visual impacts for this project will be addressed by the DEIS.

6. Historic, Cultural and Archaeological Resources

The Berrians Project’s EAS contained a detailed analysis of the archaeological and cultural resources of the area. As noted here and in the Berrians Project’s EAS, the Proposed Project is to be located on the currently operational and paved portion of the Station. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation has confirmed in writing (by letter dated April 15, 2008) that the Proposed Project “…will have No Adverse Impact upon cultural resources in or eligible for inclusion in the State and National Register of Historic Places.” Thus, no further analysis of this issue is necessary for the DEIS.

7. Noise

The applicant currently is performing a noise impact assessment and modeling using accepted protocols and methodologies. This review is consistent with the DEC Program Policy - Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts DEP-00-1. Information from the manufacturer, along with other noise information sources, such as the Power Plant Construction Noise Guide, EPA publications, and others, will be consulted. Noise impacts will be assessed for both the construction activities on site as well as permanent normal operations. The results of this analysis will be compared to local and city noise ordinances and regulations. Any significant noise impacts affecting the community requiring mitigation will be addressed with project design changes including, as necessary, equipment modifications, layout changes, and noise reduction measures.

8. Traffic/Transportation

The Proposed Project will require the removal of existing equipment and the installation of new equipment. Some of the larger equipment can be delivered by barge. However, truck delivery will also be necessary. These will be addressed in the DEIS. Astoria and its contractors will make use of existing local transportation plans to minimize impacts to the community during construction. With a 24-month construction period expected for each of Phase I and II, the construction impacts will cover an extended period and will be specifically noted and addressed. Traffic issues during normal operation following completion of construction and equipment startup will be no different than those impacts experienced historically for normal plant operations and, thus, only construction period impacts will be further evaluated.

9. Socioeconomics

A socioeconomic discussion was included in the EAS for the Berrians Project and will be updated for the Proposed Project. Job creation and labor impacts will be addressed along with estimates of impact to local businesses. Tax impacts and benefits will also be identified. Additionally, the benefits of a significantly more reliable and more efficient electric generating facility in place of 35+ year old equipment will be included, such as lower energy costs for consumers as well as the addition of more reliable generation capacity in New York City.

10. Environmental Justice

Consistent with the DEC Commissioner’s Policy 29, Astoria must prepare an Environmental Justice (“EJ”) Analysis and Public Information Program (the “EJ Plan”). Astoria will include in the EJ analysis a discussion of the health outcome data review using the July 21, 2008, draft protocol prepared by the DOH and the DEC and as reviewed with those agencies in a pre-application meeting of September 26, 2008. Astoria maintains effective communications with the community and has already initiated outreach with local public policy officials regarding this repowering project. The EJ Plan will be implemented in a timely manner to provide the community with information on the benefits and potential impacts of the Proposed Project. In addition, the EJ Plan will include a review of the Astoria, Queens Community surrounding the project area. Project information meetings and resource materials are being provided to the community.

11. Public Safety

The Station is located within the security restricted Astoria Complex. Additionally, the Station has its own security and access restrictions, including fencing, and is continuously monitored by cameras and security patrols. Since the Station’s employee roster will be minimally different after repowering, the public safety impacts are expected to be minimal, if any. Public safety issues were addressed with the Berrians Project and, to the extent that those impacts are expected to change with this repowering, will be addressed further in the DEIS.

12. Community Facilities and Services

The impacts on community services and facilities will be addressed in the DEIS. For example, the plant’s existing fire, spill, and emergency response procedures may require modification as a result of the repowering project. The existing facilities have been operational for more than 35 years with the current equipment configuration. Local community fire departments and emergency service providers will be consulted in assessing these impacts and in making appropriate adjustments to planning documents.

13. Communications Facilities

The current turbines are surrounded by large power generating facilities and other heavy industry. Tall stacks and large buildings and structures exist immediately adjacent and surrounding the project site. According to the FAA records, numerous buildings and stacks are present within one nautical mile of LaGuardia that are over 100 feet in height. To the extent that the repowering project equipment might adversely impact communications facilities uniquely, these impacts will be identified and discussed in the DEIS.

14. Land Use and Zoning

The current Station is fully developed with the old Westinghouse and Pratt & Whitney electric generating units. The repowering project will not impact the site land use or zoning, but will solely focus on upgrading the generating equipment. No changes in zoning are expected to be required. No further review of this issue is required.

15. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

The DEIS will identify significant adverse impacts that may occur despite mitigation measures and will compare the benefits and consequences of these unavoidable adverse impacts.

16. Alternatives Analysis

6 NYCRR § 617.9(b)(5)(v) requires that the DEIS include an analysis of the range of reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Project. The alternatives to be evaluated include: an alternate project site, an alternate size and equipment profile, simple cycle peaking vs. intermittent combined cycle, and “the no action” alternative. Additionally, the alternatives analysis will include a discussion of a "Phase I only" alternative. The evaluation and comparison will include a quantitative and qualitative comparison of unavoidable impacts associated with each alternative.

17. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

This section of the DEIS will discuss the commitment and consumption of human and natural resources as a consequence of the project.

18. Cumulative Impacts

The applicant’s proposal to replace existing equipment with new state-of-the-art low emissions equipment can be expected to provide some net air quality benefits. The DEIS will discuss the potential for cumulative impacts such as air quality benefits. The DEIS will identify and discuss both adverse and positive cumulative benefits. The potential for, and

impact of future electric generation projects, or expansion of the proposed project, will also be addressed. Based on information obtained from existing publicly available data, the DEIS will also discuss impacts from other major sources of air pollution in addition to electric generating facilities in the vicinity of the NRG Astoria facility.

19. Growth Inducing Aspects

The DEIS will discuss the potential for the Proposed Project to provide growth inducements in the project area. The DEIS will contain a discussion of current and projected energy demand and supply for the project area. Both the NYISO projects and PlaNYC 2030 will be discussed, as well as the State Energy Plan, if available at the time the DEIS is prepared.

20. Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources

As the Proposed Project is an energy project, it will clearly affect the use and conservation of energy resources. The Proposed Project is configured to provide increased electric output (as compared to the current operations) with natural gas as the primary fuel. Ultra low sulfur diesel fuel is proposed for a very limited time in the event of natural gas curtailments or shortages. The DEIS will discuss the Proposed Project’s use of energy resources, its efficiency expectations, as well as its proposed outputs. In addition, the DEIS will discuss possible green building techniques, renewable/conservation energy strategies, and other potential opportunities to ways to help the community become more "green."

Documents and References to Accompany the DEIS

• The Berrians Unit 1 Project Environmental Assessment Statement, December 2001. • The new turbine project plan layout and description for Phase I and Phase II. • Descriptions of the equipment to be used. • The Title V Permit Modification Application covering both Phase I and Phase II. • The Air Quality Modeling Protocol and results for both Phase I and Phase II. • Prior cumulative impact air quality information relevant to this project. Air quality analysis may be referenced for other relevant projects in the NYC area. • The Noise Assessment Results. • The Environmental Justice Plan including the health outcome data analysis. • Relevant Agency correspondence, such as: o FAA Notice of Proposed Construction 2/12/2008 including topographic map o New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation letter dated March 10, 2008 o NYPA letter dated May 13, 2008, requesting interested agency status. o PSC letter dated June 4, 2008, with initial comments and questions. o DEC letters to interested/affected agencies and responses. • The list of firms and persons responsible for preparing the DEIS and accompanying project materials.

Appendix G NRG representatives and its consultant are actively involved in the Environmental Justice Advisory Group for the Public Service Commission (“PSC”) known as Working Group VIII (“WG VIII”) of the Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard. WG VIII has been meeting regularly for several months with a charter from the PSC Administrative Law Judges to provide recommendations prior to a full report being submitted to the PSC. WG VIII is focused on the issues that affect peaking unit operation and electric system reliability and its impacts on minority and low-income communities. The WG VIII is comprised of generating facility owners, the NYSDEC, the PSC, NYSERDA, the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), environmental justice and community action groups, and others.

STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE THREE EMPIRE STATE PLAZA, ALBANY, NY 12223-1350 Internet Address: http://www.dps.state.ny.us

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

GARRY A. BROWN PETER McGOWAN Chairman General Counsel PATRICIA L. ACAMPORA MAUREEN F. HARRIS JACLYN A. BRILLING ROBERT E. CURRY JR. Secretary Commissioners

CASE 07-M-0548 - Proceeding on Motion of the Commission Regarding an Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard

December 17, 2008

TO ACTIVE PARTIES:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of upcoming schedules and processes to elicit comments on the work and recommendations of Working Groups V, VII, and VIII. Although not all the dates are in place, we wanted to respond today to parties’ inquiries concerning scheduling, with the upcoming holidays and the schedules concerning comments on energy efficiency program filings looming. We assure you that no additional deadlines in this docket will affect your holidays. We are well aware of the strains on resources posed by successive comment deadlines and we are attempting to avoid overlapping with the schedule established by the December 12, 2009 letter to parties from Paul Agresta concerning Fast Track programs. We remind you that by its Notice Soliciting Comments (issued November 21, 2008), the Commission established a comment schedule for the NYSERDA Strategy for Enhanced Energy Codes and Appliance Standards in New York, filed and served on October 15, 2008. The Notice provides for parties to submit comments on the NYSERDA proposal no later than January 12, 2009, and reply comments no later than January 19, 2009. Because January 19, 2009 is a holiday (Martin Luther King, Jr. Day), comments may be submitted the following day. We intend to issue a more detailed ruling at year’s end, establishing a process and schedule for comments on the final reports of Working Groups V and VII, the demand reduction section of Working Group VIII’s report, and the proposals for scope and schedule made by the environmental justice section of Working Group VIII’s report and subsequent filings. We appreciate parties’ patience with these shifting schedules and wish you all a happy holiday.

Rudy Stegemoeller Eleanor Stein Administrative Law Judges

Case 07-M-0548 Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard

Working Group VIII – Demand Response and Peak Reduction

Technical Study Group and Advisory Committee

Proposed Scope of Work

December 3, 2008

Introduction

Certain low income neighborhoods in New York, and very often communities of color, are host to peak generation facilities that are among the higher emitting units in the state. These units are posited to have negative health impacts on the local population. Working Group VIII (WG VIII) was given two charges related to environmental justice (EJ) issues1. First, WG VIII was asked to consider the need for a study to assess health impacts on communities that host peak generation facilities to a disparate extent. Secondly, WG VIII was asked to evaluate whether the output from such units could be partially or fully replaced or displaced with clean demand response, load shifting technologies and energy efficiency (collectively ‘demand-side management’ (DSM) resources). Working Group VIII requires technical assistance to evaluate whether specific generators can be replaced or their operations reduced. Therefore, per the recommendation of WG VIII, this Technical Study Group (TSG) was established to investigate the practicality of the second charge and report the results to an advisory committee which will consist of members from WG VIII and other interested parties. The purpose of this Scope of Work is to describe the charge to the TSG and Advisory Committee, reference the list of criteria developed by Working Group VIII for use by the TSG in its initial assessment, summarize the data to be collected and evaluated by the TSG and provide a list of deliverables and schedule for this effort.

Overview of the Charge to the TSG

The TSG will consist of staff from the New York State Department of Public Service, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), New York Independent Operator (NYISO), Consolidated Edison Company (Con Ed), New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and Sustainable South Bronx. The TSG will conduct an initial assessment to determine whether output from any of the simple-cycle turbines2 located within a half-mile of an EJ community could potentially

1 “Procedural Ruling concerning EEPS Design Issues”, July 3, 2008. Case Number: 07-M-0548. Page 4. 2 In general, the simple-cycle turbines under review have a capacity factor less than 10 percent during the ozone season and do not have post-combustion controls.

1 impact air quality within the EJ community and be partially or fully replaced or displaced with clean DSM resources. The scope of the initial assessment by the TSG is limited to data collection, review, and analysis to gain an understanding of: 1) the role each facility plays for providing reliable operation of the electric delivery system; and 2) the environmental impacts from each facility. No system reliability modeling will be conducted by the TSG3. The analysis being conducted by the TSG has not been conducted before in any jurisdiction. Therefore, the TSG will detail their process and results of their work in a final report that will be delivered to the Advisory Committee. Also in the report, the TSG will indentify the simple-cycle turbines, if any, that could be partially or fully replaced or displaced with clean DSM resources without adversely impacting reliability4. The proposed due date for the report was December 1, 2008. The TSG is requesting an extension to April 3, 2009 to complete this assessment and prepare a report to the Advisory Committee.

Overview of the Charge to the Advisory Committee

The Advisory Committee will consist of members from Working Group VIII and other interested parties. Representatives of EJ organizations and generators will be invited to participate in the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee will be the governing body for this study and will: 1) further consider the two Working Group VIII charges relating to environmental justice (EJ) issues that are identified earlier in this document; 2) assist in securing and reviewing information provided by and to the TSG ; 3) evaluate a range of potential recommendations that may address the two charges, including those referenced by Working Group VIII in its report to the ALJs, dated October 17, 2008; and 4) provide a final recommendations report to the ALJs. The proposed due date for the recommendations report was December 1, 2008. The Advisory Committee is requesting an extension to May 15, 2009 to prepare the final recommendations report to the ALJs.

List of Criteria for use in the TSG’s Initial Assessment

Working Group VIII developed a list of seven criteria for the TSG to use in the assessment:

1. emissions from the units (NOx and PM); 2. actual or modeled impacts of the emissions on ambient air quality to the identified EJ communities; 3. role of the facilities for providing the reliable operation of the transmission system; 4. electricity generated (MWh/year and MWh/ozone day);

3 System reliability modeling may be recommended as a future activity in the final report to the administrative law judges assigned to this case. 4 The report is expected to provide a preliminary assessment of the characteristics (magnitude, location, time frame) of DSM resources that will be required. This assessment may include sensitivity analyses on the penetration of clean DSM resources.

2 5. number of residents within a half-mile of the facilities; 6. age of the units; and 7. future plans for the units.

The TSG will consider these and other criteria as necessary and appropriate to complete the assessment.

Data Needed to Conduct the Initial Assessment

The data to be collected for the assessment are summarized in Table 1. The members of the TSG may use all or subsets of the data presented in Table 1, or other data as necessary. To the maximum extent possible, three year data sets will be used. The data will be processed into spreadsheets and other formats requested by TSG members.

Deliverables and Schedule

In the October 17, 2008 WG VIII report, the proposed due date for submitting the final report and recommendations was December 1, 2008. However, such a due date does not allow sufficient time to conduct the assessment and develop the recommendations.

The following schedule is proposed for the TSG assessment and submission of the final report to the ALJs and Advisory Committee:

Date Deliverable

November 21, 2008 Submittal of the Scope of Work to Advisory Committee and ALJs.

January 22, 2009 Completion of data collection tasks.

February 4, 2009 Completion of data processing tasks.

February 18, 2009 TSG Meeting

February 25, 2009 Initial draft of report to Advisory Committee (internal draft to TSG members).

March 4, 2009 Submit report to Advisory Committee

March 18, 2009 Advisory Committee Meeting

April 2, 2009 Finalize report to the Advisory Committee.

3 April 3, 2009 Submit report to the Advisory Committee.

The TSG will meet periodically via teleconference on an as needed basis.

The following schedule is proposed for the Advisory Committee meetings and submission of the final recommendations report to the ALJs. Meetings will be held via teleconferences from 1:00 pm to 2:30 pm on the following dates:

December 10, 2008 January 7, 2009 January 21, 2009 February 3, 2009 February 17, 2009 March 11, 2009 March 25, 2009 April 7, 2009 April 22, 2009 May 6, 2009

The final recommendations report will be submitted to the ALJs on May 15, 2009.

4 Table 1. Data to be Collected

Description Level of Detail Criterion Source Emissions Data Annual, Facility, 1 NYSDEC NOx, PM Hourly for each unit, 1, 2 EPA Clean Air NOx, SO2 Markets Division (CAMD) Annual, Facility, 1, 2 EGRID NOx, SO2 Stack Parameters 2 Title V Permit (height, flowrates) Applications (NYSDEC) Generation Data Annual, Facility 3, 4 EGRID Hourly for each unit 3, 4 CAMD Nameplate Rating Unit 4, 6 Ozone Transport and Age Commission, Title V Permits Reliability Role Facility, Unit 3 NYISO, Con Ed Demographic Data Define EJ 5 U. S. Census communities, Bureau, number of people NYSDEC living within 0.5 miles of facility Future Plans for Facility, Unit 7 Facility Owners Facilities

Appendix B

Stakeholder List

April 2020 AECOM Astoria Replacement Project Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan

PRIMARY LIST

I. Residents/neighborhood groups adjacent to the Facility

1. Astoria Restoration Association 3128 Ditmars Blvd, Astoria, NY 11105

2. Kefalos Society of America Inc. 2043 Steinway St, Astoria, NY 11105

3. Please see item II below for additional names.

II. Community boards, community leaders, civic and recreational organizations, environmental and business groups

1. Community Board 1 Queens 36-01 35th Avenue, Astoria, NY 11106

2. Queens Chamber of Commerce 75-20 Astoria Blvd, Suite 140 Jackson Heights, NY 11370

3. Greek American Home Owners Association 2324 31st St. Astoria, NY 11105

4. Central Astoria Local Development Corp 28-27 Steinway Street Astoria, NY 11103

5. United Community Civic Association 2232 81st St, East Elmhurst, NY 11370

6. Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York 71 W 23rd St #501, New York, NY 10010

7. Kid Krazy Early Childhood Development 21-35 21 Ave Astoria, NY 11105

8. Dellamonica-Steinway Senior Center 20-43 Steinway St. Astoria NY, 11105

9. The Hellenic Link Inc. 38-11 Ditmars Blvd Ste. 278 Astoria, NY 11105

10. Reserve Officers Association of the US 2139 38th St. Astoria, NY 11105

11. Project Pegasus International Inc 3811 Ditmars Blvd Astoria, NY 11105

12. Sullogos Nomou Magnisias Argonayte Ltd. 3811 Ditmars Blvd 119 Astoria, NY 11105

13. Polish Navy Veterans Association of America Inc. 2208 Steinway St. Astoria, NY 11105

April 2020 AECOM Astoria Replacement Project Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan

14. National Coalition of Physicians for Healthcare Awareness 2202 Steinway St. Astoria, NY 11105

15. Astoria Restoration Association 3128 Ditmars Blvd. Astoria, NY 11105

16. Northwestern Queens Community Action Center Inc. 2219 35th St. Astoria, NY 11105

17. Syllogos Kreton Minos Inc. 2227 33rd Street Astoria, NY 11105

18. Federation of Italian-American Organizations of Queens Inc. 29-21 21st Ave Astoria, NY 11105

19. Federation of Hellenic Societies of Greater New York Inc. 2251 29th St., Astoria, NY 11105

20. Queens Philharmonic 2028 27th St. Astoria, NY 11105

21. Sons of Italy in America 2037 28th St Astoria, NY 11105

22. Catholic War Veterans of the USA Inc 1 Astoria Post 21 43 29th St Astoria, NY 11105

23. Giannitsa Association Megas Alexandros Inc 2226 23rd St. Astoria, NY 11105

24. Greek American Broadcasting Info & Cultural Activities Corporation 20 12 20th St. Astoria, NY 11105

25. Kiwanis International 2131 Shore Blvd Astoria, NY 11105

26. Bangladesh American Association for Rehabilitation in New York 2363 Steinway St. Astoria, NY 11105

27. Cephalonian Association Aenos Inc. Cephalonian Association Aenos Inc. 23 17 29th St. Astoria, NY 11105

28. The Peoples Museum 2227 Crescent St. Astoria, NY 11105

29. Zoodohos Pighi of Andros Society Inc 2119 28th St. Astoria, NY 11105

30. Cypreco of America Inc 2350 27th St. Astoria, NY 11105

31. Astoria Homeowners, Tenants and Business Civic Association 21-20 49th Street Astoria, NY 11105

32. Greater Astoria Historical Society 35-20 Broadway, 4th Floor Long Island City, NY 11106

April 2020 AECOM Astoria Replacement Project Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan

33. UPROSE 166A 22nd Street Brooklyn, NY 11232

34. International Brotherhood of Teamsters 3609 21st Avenue Astoria, NY 11105

35. Excavators’ 731 Property Corp (Excavators Union Local 731) 3411 35th Avenue Astoria, NY 11106

36. Blasters, Drill Runners & Miners Local 29 4302 Ditmars Blvd Astoria, NY 11105

37. United Contractors Alliance 21-77 31st Street Astoria, NY 11105

38. Iron Workers Locals 40 & 36 Joint 35-23 36th Street Astoria, NY 11106

39. Cement and Concrete Workers Union Local #20 3636 33rd Street Astoria, NY 11106

40. Local 807 Labor-Management Health Pension Funds 3243 49th Street Astoria, NY 11103

41. Utility Workers Union of America 5 West 37th Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10018

42. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) 158-11 Harry Van Arsdale Ave. 4th Floor Flushing, NY 11365

43. Communications Workers of America AFL-CIO (CWA) 28 10 Astoria Boulevard Long Island City, NY 11102

44. Asbestos Workers Union Local 12 2110 Newtown Avenue Astoria, NY 11102

45. Local 891 3641 28th Street Long Island City, NY 11106

46. United Piano Workers Union Local 102 2810 Astoria Blvd Long Island City, NY 11102

47. Astoria LIC Catalyst Coordinator 35-30 35th Street Astoria, NY 11106

III. People who have expressed an interest in the project by attending public meetings, writing, or calling

Note: This list to be developed and modified as Astoria proceeds with the modification of the Project, based on attendance at public meetings or responses to other outreach/communications.

April 2020 AECOM Astoria Replacement Project Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan

IV. People who have expressed an interest in similar projects or in projects affecting the same neighborhood or community

1. Natural Resources Defense Council 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011

2. NYC Environmental Justice Alliance 115 West 30th Street, Suite 1110B, New York, NY 10001

3. Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter New York Field Office 116 John St, Floor 31, New York, NY 10038-3300

4. New York City Asthma Partnership 2 Lafayette Street, Box CN 36A, New York, NY 10007

5. Council on the Environment of NYC 51 Chambers Street, Room 228, New York NY 10007

6. Clean Air NY 342 Broadway, Suite 404, New York, NY 10013

7. ARROW (Astoria Residents Reclaiming Our World) 39-45 49th Street, Sunnyside, 11104

8. Astoria/LIC Waterfront Parks 35-30 35th Street, Astoria, NY 11106

9. Green Shores 25-11 34th Street, Apt. 3F, Astoria, NY 11103

V. Neighborhood religious establishments

1. Astoria Islamic Center Inc. 2221 33rd St., Astoria, NY 11105

2. Grace Bible Church 2257 37th St., Astoria, NY 11105

3. Peniel Baptist Church Inc. 1954 38th St., Astoria, NY 11105

4. Sacred Patriarchal & Stavropegial Orthodox Monastery of St. Irene 3607 23rd Avenue, Astoria, NY 11105

5. Muslim American Society of Queens 3513 23rd Avenue, Astoria, NY 11105

6. Free Apostolic Church of Pentecost 2047 Steinway St., Astoria, NY 11105

7. Islamic Congress Church 2128 33rd St., Astoria, NY 11105

April 2020 AECOM Astoria Replacement Project Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan

VI. Elected officials who live in and/or represent the community of concern

1. NYS Senator Jessica Ramos 32-37 Junction Blvd., East Elmhurst, NY 11369

2. NYS Assembly Member Aravella Simotas 24-08 32nd Street, Suite 1002A, Astoria, NY 11102

3. NYC Council Member Costa Constantinides 31-09 Newtown Ave, Suite 209, Astoria, NY 11102

4. Queens Borough President (To be elected June 23) 120-55 Queens Boulevard, Kew Gardens, NY 11424

5. Congress Member Carolyn B. Maloney 31-19 Newtown Ave., Astoria, NY 11102

6. Congress Member Alexandria Ocasio Cortez 74-09 37th Avenue Suite 305, Jackson Heights, NY 11372

April 2020 AECOM Astoria Replacement Project Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan

SECONDARY CONTACT LIST

I. Elected officials who represent the greater municipal and state legislative areas (Mayor, NYC Comptroller, State Assembly or Senate member)

1. NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio Mayor of the City of New York City Hall, New York, NY 10007

2. NYC Comptroller Scott Stringer NYC Comptroller One Centre Street, New York, NY 10007

3. US Senator Chuck Schumer 780 Third Avenue, Suite 2301, New York, NY 10017

4. US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand 780 Third Avenue, Suite 2601, New York, NY 10017

5. NYS Senator Toby Ann Stavisky 144-36 Willets Point Blvd., Flushing, NY 11357

II. Appropriate federal, state, and local government personnel

1. NYS Governor’s Office Governor of New York State NYS State Capitol Building, Albany, NY 12224

2. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 47-40 21st Street, Long Island City, NY 11101

3. Mayor’s Office of Sustainability 253 Broadway, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10007

4. Mayor's Office of Environmental Coordination 253 Broadway, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10007

5. NYC Department of City Planning 22 Reade Street, New York, NY 10007

6. NYC Department of Environmental Protection 59-17 Junction Boulevard, Flushing, NY 11373

7. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene 2 Lafayette Street, Box CN 36A, New York, NY 10007

III. Municipal clerks and public works department staff

1. NYC Economic Development Corporation One Liberty Plaza, 165 Broadway, 14th Floor - Mailroom, New York, NY 10006

2. NYC Industrial Development Agency One Liberty Plaza, 165 Broadway, 14th Floor - Mailroom, New York, NY 10006

Note: This list also overlaps with some of the offices listed in Section 1(b)(ii) above.

April 2020 AECOM Astoria Replacement Project Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan

IV. Local media

1. Queens Chronicle P.O. Box 74-7769, Rego Park, NY 11374

2. Queens Tribune 174-15 Horace Harding Expressway, Fresh Meadows, NY 11365

3. Queens Courier 38-15 Bell Blvd, Bayside, NY 11361

4. Western Queens Gazette 42-16 34th Avenue, Long Island City, NY 11101

5. LIC/Astoria Journal 69-60 Grand Avenue, Maspeth, NY 11378

6. New York Daily News 450 West 33rd Street, New York, NY 10001

7. Times Ledger Newspapers 41-02 Bell Blvd, 2nd Floor, Bayside, NY 11361

April 2020 Appendix G.2

Public Information Meeting July 16, 2020 Astoria Replacement Project

Public Information Meeting

July 16, 2020

• Inform the public about proposed modifications to the previously approved Astoria Replacement Project

• Provide the status of applications to modify the Facility’s existing permits

• Identify opportunities for public participation in the process including NYSDEC’s supplemental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)

• Introductions

• Public Meeting Webcast Process

• Astoria Replacement Project Overview

• Status of Environmental Review and Opportunities for Public Participation

• Project Benefits

• Questions and Comments

This presentation is available at www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com

• Need for Virtual Public Meeting

• Live Presentation followed by interactive questions and comments:

• For those on the phone, press *1 on your phone and the moderator will add you to the queue

• For those on the webcast, click the “Ask a Question” tab at the top right of your computer screen. Enter your question in the box and then hit submit.

• Participants will be required to provide name and residential address

• Comments are welcome through August 3rd

• By Email: [email protected]

• By Phone: (718) 274-5180 and leave a message

Kandi S. Terry – NRG, Director of Government Affairs Leads government affairs for NRG’s retail and generation businesses in New York and New England. Mrs. Terry earned a Masters of Science degree from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and has almost 25-years of government experience.

Tom Atkins – NRG, Vice President of Development Responsible for North American electric generation and energy storage development projects. Mr. Atkins earned a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering degree from Cornell University and is a licensed professional engineer in the State of New York with over 35 years of experience in the power industry.

Shawn Konary – NRG, Senior Director, Environmental Responsible for environmental permitting, policy, and regulatory matters. Mr. Konary earned a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, a Master of Business Administration from Boston University and has over 30 years of experience in the environmental and energy industry.

Brian McCabe – NRG, Senior Director, Development Responsible for generation development projects in the northeast, including energy storage. Mr. McCabe earned Bachelor of Science and Master of Business Administration degrees from Vanderbilt University and has over 20 years of experience in the energy industry.

Peter Valberg, Ph.D, ATS – Gradient, Principal Dr. Valberg is responsible for human health risk assessment and inhalation toxicology. Dr. Valberg has a Ph.D. in Physics and an M.S. in human physiology from Harvard University. He has over 30 years of experience providing air quality expertise, and is the author of more than 100 scientific articles on biological effects of environmental exposures.

▪ The Astoria Con Ed Complex has hosted major energy infrastructure for over 100 years ▪ NRG purchased the 15 acre Astoria Gas Turbines site from Con Edison in 1999 ▪ The site currently consists of: ▪ 500 MW of 1970 vintage Pratt & Whitney FT4 units and ▪ 144 MW of retired Westinghouse units ▪ The Facility provides essential reliability service to NYC (dual fuel peaking, contingency support and system restoration)

Astoria Con Ed Complex NRG Astoria Gas Turbines

Astoria Con Ed Complex Existing Astoria Gas Turbines

▪ As approved in 2010, the Project consisted of replacing the existing generation at the site with four combined cycle units capable of generating 1,040 MW ▪ Due to market conditions, the Project was not constructed at that time

▪ As proposed in 2020, the Project consists of replacing the existing generation at the site with a single peaking unit capable of generating 437 MW featuring: ▪ State of the art technology offering the greatest efficiency available in its class ▪ Dual fuel, fast ramping unit which can start in under ten minutes, with highly flexible operating characteristics ▪ Latest emission controls (DLN 2.6e, Hot SCR and Oxidation Catalyst) ▪ Black start capability initially supported by an existing unit, then transitioning to a 24 MW battery energy storage system

Original Permitted Project Proposed Modified Project

Project Size 1,040 MW 437 MW

Technology Combined Cycle (Intermediate Duty) Simple Cycle (Peaking Duty)

Incorporates Battery Energy Storage? No Yes

Capable of System Restoration? No Yes

The Proposed Project Modification: ▪ Decreases the project size by 58%

▪ Modernizes the project technology

▪ Further reduces air emissions

▪ Addresses identified reliability shortfalls in NYC in a timely manner

▪ Incorporates Battery Energy Storage into the project design

▪ Minimizes the footprint of the project, allowing for future stand alone energy storage installations

▪ Provides system restoration capability

▪ Can convert to carbon-free hydrogen fuel by 2040

▪ New York State Siting Board Decision – June 12, 2019 ▪ NYSDEC Permit Modification Package submitted – April 27, 2020 • Title V – Air Permit • SPDES – Water Discharge Permit • SEPPP – Public Participation Plan • SEQRA – Environmental Impact Statement ▪ Comment period for Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) Scope noticed in July 1, 2020 Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB) • Comments due to NYSDEC by July 31, 2020 ▪ Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Amendment to be filed with NYPSC in Q3 2020

▪ Maximizes Greenhouse Gas Reductions at the Minimum Cost • Project incorporates the most advanced and efficient equipment available in the marketplace • Project will result in nearly 5M tons1 of cumulative GHG reductions through 2035 • Equivalent of taking 64,000 cars off the road (or 9% of all registered cars in Queens County) • Project displaces less efficient generating units, reducing region-wide natural gas demand • Improves air quality by reducing onsite emission rates up to 99% per hour ▪ Facilitates the Interconnection of Additional Renewable Resources (9,000 MW Offshore Wind, 6,000 MW Solar PV Goals) • “The addition of renewable resources … will create a more dynamic grid, where supply is heavily influenced by weather conditions. This necessitates … adding flexible resources to balance intermittent renewables. These flexible attributes include … fast response rates and the ability to startup and shutdown quickly and frequently.” NYISO Power Trends 2019 ▪ Contributes to New York’s energy storage goals (3,000 MW by 2030)

▪ Capable of generating Zero Carbon Electricity by 2040 • Project technology is capable of conversion to hydrogen fuel use

1 Source:© [year] Navigant NRG Energy, Consulting Inc. All rights report; reserved. GHG Impacts/ Proprietary of Astoria and Confidential Replacement Information Project. April 2020. 10 Additional State & Local Benefits

▪ Economic Benefit • Over 500 jobs and $156 million in economic benefits to the State of New York during the construction period • Over 70 jobs and $170 million in economic benefits to the State of New York from operations and maintenance spending through 2040 • Near term investment of over $350 million of private capital in New York state

▪ Consumer Benefits • Reduces the cost of electricity for New York consumers through energy and capacity cost savings in the NYC load zone • Project does not require any subsidy from NY ratepayers or taxpayers

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process

• All comments must be submitted to the NYSDEC by July 31, 2020 via the following email address: [email protected]

• NYSDEC Contact for the Project:

Christopher M. Hogan NYSDEC - Division of Environmental Permits 625 Broadway - 4th Floor Albany, NY 12233-1750 Phone: (518) 402-9151 E-mail: [email protected]

Additional opportunities for public comment will occur during the permit process

Questions or comments may be provided to the Project Applicant via phone, email or regular mail through August 3, 2020 and will be addressed during the SEPPP process

• Phone: (718) 274-5180 • Email: [email protected] • Mail: Astoria Replacement Project, PO Box 7, Albany, NY 12201-0007

Participants may ask questions or provide comments by: • Phone: Press *1 to get added to the queue • Webcast: Click the “Ask a Question” tab at the top right of your computer screen. Enter your question in the box and then hit submit. • Email: [email protected]

SEPPP Progress Report August 2020

1.0 Report on Progress to Date

In the Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan (SEPPP), which was submitted to the NYSDEC in April 2020, Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC (“Astoria”) agreed to submit quarterly reports summarizing its progress related to the implementation of the plan. Since the submission of the SEPPP, Astoria has held approximately sixteen (16) meetings with community organizations, environmental groups, government agencies and elected officials, both formally and informally, to obtain feedback on potential community concerns regarding the Replacement Project. In addition, Astoria held an additional public meeting on July 16, 2020 to (i) Inform the public about proposed modifications to the previously approved Astoria Replacement Project, (ii) provide the status of applications to modify the Facility’s existing permits and (iii) identify opportunities for future public participation in the process including NYSDEC’s supplemental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). While the Replacement Project itself is not in a residential area, it is in a potential environmental justice area (PEJA) designated by NYSDEC. As such, Astoria has undertaken the SEPPP consistent with CP-29 and NYSDEC’s April 24, 2020 Guidance on Commissioner’s Policy 29 During the COVID-19 Public Health Crisis. Astoria will continue to implement the SEPPP by providing information to the public until all approvals and/or permits are obtained for the Replacement Project.

Project Information In advance of the public information meeting discussed in Section 1.2 below, Astoria prepared a factsheet on the project in several languages including English, Greek, Spanish and Bengali. These factsheets are available on Astoria’s website, www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com, along with a number of other important project documents. Copies of the factsheets are provided in Appendix A.

Public Meeting Given the current coronavirus public health crisis, the required social distancing measures implemented at the state and federal level and workforce reduction directives for non-essential businesses, Astoria conducted its additional public informational meeting virtually. On July 16, 2020, Astoria hosted a virtual public information meeting on the Project from 7:00-9:00 PM. The public meeting was noticed on the Astoria online repository and in two local newspapers (The Queens Chronicles and The Queens Gazette) three weeks prior to the meeting. Meeting notices were also mailed to the project’s comprehensive stakeholder list fifteen days prior to the meeting, along with a copy of the NYSDEC July 1, 2020 ENB Notice of Positive Declaration and Public Scoping. A copy of the legal notices, informational stakeholder flyer, public meeting presentation and a summary of the public meeting are provided in Appendix B. Participants were provided an opportunity to view the virtual public meeting by computer or to listen to an audio of the public information meeting by telephone. Interested parties were also provided an opportunity to provide comments to the public meeting by email, voicemail, or by US postal mail until August 3, 2020.

Recent Supplemental Public Outreach Activities Astoria’s recent public outreach activities for the Replacement Project are summarized below.

• On June 27, 2017, Astoria representatives met separately with New York City (“NYC”) Council member Costa Constantinides and NYS Assembly member Aravella Simotas. • On June 27, 2017, Astoria representatives provided NYS Senator Michael Gianaris with an update on the Replacement Project. • On June 28, 2017, Astoria representatives met with NYC Office of Sustainability.

August 2020

• On June 28, 2017, Astoria representatives met with NYS Senator Gianaris and Chief of Staff. • On June 29, 2017, Astoria representatives met with NYS Assembly member Simotas and Chief of Staff. • On July 20, 2017, Astoria representatives led a plant visit with the City’s Office of Sustainability. • On August 2, 2017, NYS Assembly member Simotas, NYS Senator Gianaris, and NYC Council member Constantinides cosigned a letter to the PSC providing support for the Replacement Project. • On August 14, 2017, Susanne DesRoches, NYC Mayor’s office of Recovery and Resiliency, cosigned a letter to the PSC providing support for the Replacement Project. • On October 18, 2018, Astoria representatives participated in an Astoria Development Meeting with the Utility Workers Union of American (“UWUA”) Local 1-2 held at the Piccola Restaurant in Astoria. • On November 19, 2018, Astoria representatives met with the NYC Mayor’s Staff and Office of Sustainability. • On November 19, 2018, Astoria representatives met with NYS Governor’s Office and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (“NYSERDA”) to provide an update on the Project and the status of the Petition before the PSC regarding the non-applicability of Article 10 to the Replacement Project (“Petition”). • On December 4, 2018, Astoria representatives met with NYS Senator Gianaris and NYS Assembly member Simotas to discuss the pending declaratory ruling on the Petition before the Siting Board. • On December 10, 2018, Astoria representatives had a project update meeting with NYC Council member Constantinides. • On January 10, 2019, Astoria representatives met with the PSC Policy Director to discuss the Energy Storage decision and its impact on the Petition. • On March 11, 2019, Astoria representatives met with NYS Assembly member Simotas to provide her with an update on the status of the Petition. • On March 19, 2019, Astoria representatives met with the New York State Department of Public Service (“DPS”) staff to discuss the pending declaratory ruling on the Petition before the Siting Board. • On March 19, 2019, Astoria representatives and UWAU met separately with NYS Senator Gianaris, NYS Senator Kevin Parker, NYS Senator Jessica Ramos, and NYS Governor’s Energy Staff. • On March 25, 2019, Astoria representatives attended a meeting with Queens Community Board 1. • June 5, 2019, Astoria representatives met to provide New York Independent System Operator’s (“NYISO’s”) Chief Operating Officer, Vice President of Market Opportunities and Vice President of Planning an update on the Replacement Project. • On January 24, 2020, Astoria representatives met with NYC Mayor's Staff Office of Sustainability to provide an update on the Replacement Project. • On May 8, 2020, Astoria representatives held a Webex meeting with NYC Mayor's Staff Office of Sustainability and Department of Environmental Protection to provide an update on the Replacement Project. • On May 11, 2020, Astoria representatives provided NYS Senator Gianaris with a project update. • On May 14, 2020, Astoria representatives had a Webex project update meeting with Staff for NYC Council member Constantinides.

August 2020

• On May 18, 2020, Astoria representatives held a Webex meeting with Acting Queens Borough President, Sharon Lee discuss the Replacement Project. • On May 19, 2020, Astoria representatives held a Webex meeting with NYS Senator Ramos to discuss the Replacement Project. • On May 21, 2020, Astoria representatives provided a project update to Jessica Scott within the Governor’s Energy and Environmental Deputy Secretary’s Office. • On May 22, 2020, Astoria representatives held a Webex meeting with the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York. • On June 1, 2020, Astoria representatives held a Webex meeting with Queens Chamber of Commerce. • On June 11, 2020, Astoria representatives held a Webex meeting with the NYS League of Conservation Voters. • On June 15, 2020, Astoria representatives held a Webex meeting with Queens Community Board 1. • On June 16, 2020, Astoria representatives held a Webex meeting with the National Resources Defense Council. • On June 17, 2020, Astoria representatives held a Webex meeting with the Regional Planning Association. • On July 9, 2020, Astoria representatives held a teleconference with senior leadership from Utility Workers Union of America Local 1-2. • On July 16, 2020 Astoria Representatives held a virtual public information meeting for the purpose of educating the community, answering questions and soliciting comments on the Astoria Replacement Project. • On July 28, 2020, Astoria representatives held a Webex meeting with Antonella Di Saveria, the Environmental Protection Committee Chair for Queens Community Board 1. • On July 28, 2020, Astoria representatives held a Webex meeting with Ali Zaidi, the Deputy Secretary for Energy & Environment and Chairman of Climate Policy & Finance for the Office of Governor Cuomo.

Website and Repository On June 24, 2020, Astoria made available for public access a website www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com which includes an overview of the project, as well as an online repository of major project documents. In early June, Astoria reached out to the Astoria Branch of the Queens Public Library with the goal of establishing a repository at the branch. The Astoria Branch of the Queens Public Library recently advised Astoria that the branch is able to accept documents for the repository. Astoria plans to deliver materials for the repository to the branch in the near future.

The repository available on the website includes, but is not limited to, the following types of project documents:

• Permitting documents related to the 2010 project, including the DEIS, FEIS, and Findings Statement; • Permitting documents related to the 2020 Replacement Project, including the SEIS scoping document, SEPPP, FEAF, air permit application, and SPDES application; • Project factsheets; and • Project rendering and visual impact presentation.

Future Community Outreach Efforts Astoria plans to continue to contact key community organizations and elected officials to provide project updates as the permit process continues and will also address comments and concerns of interested stakeholders as they arise. We will also ensure that project materials are available at the Astoria Branch of the Queens Public Library shortly.

August 2020

Stakeholder List On July 1, 2020, Astoria mailed the notice of the Virtual Public Meeting, as well as the NYSDEC Environmental Notice Bulletin, to the stakeholder list included in Astoria’s Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan. Both documents are included in Appendix B. Mailings were returned as undeliverable for three of the addresses on the stakeholder list. Astoria will attempt to update our mailing addresses or, if appropriate, remove these stakeholders from future mailings.

August 2020 Astoria Replacement Project Enhanced Public Participation Plan 1-1

Appendix A

Astoria Replacement Project Factsheets

August 2020 ASTORIA REPLACEMENT PROJECT

Overview

NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG) is taking measures to fight climate change while minimizing costs and maximizing benefits to New QUICK FACTS York through the Astoria Replacement Project. In 2023, NRG plans to retire the 50-year-old power generators at our Astoria Generating Station (Astoria) and replace them with state-of- Replaces 646 MW of aging the-art technology that will reduce peak air emission rates by up equipment with 437 MW of to 99%, while reliably providing power when New Yorkers need it modern technology most. NRG is simply updating a project that has already been fully approved by the state. The new technology is capable of being converted to use zero-emission hydrogen as fuel, once it Provides more than $325 million is commercially available in sufficient quantities. worth of economic benefit to the State of New York The NRG Astoria Replacement Project will: • Maintain dependable electric service in New York City by addressing a known reliability shortfall identified by Con Edison and the independent system operator (NYISO) Improves air quality • Cumulatively reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 5 million tons through 2035 • Create more than 1,000 job-years and $156 million in economic benefits to the State of New York during the construction period Improves grid reliability • Create more than 1,200 job-years and $170 million in economic benefits to the State of New York from O&M spending through 2040 • Replace older units with state-of-the-art technology, Potential to be converted to increasing efficiency by 36% hydrogen fuel in the future • Provide sufficient energy to power up more than 375,000 homes

*based on 2014 levels CLEANER, FASTER, MORE RELIABLE With the retirement of the Indian Point nuclear facility and the pending retirement of a number of in-city peaking units, the need for new generation is urgent. Both NYISO and Con Edison have identified local reliability shortfalls in the Astoria area. This project will help provide New York City with dependable energy by allowing our existing Astoria units to retire, resulting in substantially reduced emissions, particularly during the hottest and coldest days of the year.

ASTORIA MOBILE BATTERY STORAGE PROJECT In addition to the proposed replacement project, NRG is currently building a 1.5 MW/4 MWh mobile battery storage project in partnership with Con Edison to be based at the Astoria site. This mobile battery storage project is the first step in our plans to add significant energy storage to the Astoria facility. The “Storage on Demand” project, scheduled to be operational by summer 2021, is part of Governor Cuomo’s Reforming the Energy Vision program. The mobile battery trailers can go where needed to help meet peak loads, or respond to local emergency needs.

ASTORIA — THERE WHEN NEEDED • Hurricane Sandy (October 29 – November 4, 2012): Astoria units were dispatched for 580 Astoria is typically called upon to operate for system hours to support local power needs. On October reliability 35 to 40 times per year. However, during 31 alone, ten Astoria units were dispatched times of crisis and exceptional need, Astoria has continuously between 15-21 hours each. been indispensable in keeping the city running: • 2003 Northeast Blackout (August 14-16, 2003): • COVID-19 response: The dedicated staff at NRG Astoria units were dispatched for 353 hours to maintains 24/7 plant availability, ensuring reliable provide critical power immediately following the service for New York City during the pandemic. In blackout at various times over three days to addition, NRG recently pledged $25,000 to support support local power needs. Queens first responders and hospital workers. • 9/11 (September 11-12, 2001): Astoria units • Con Edison Transformer Explosion (December were dispatched for 31 hours to support local 27-28, 2018): NRG Astoria units were dispatched power needs. for 23 consecutive hours following Con Edison’s • Hurricane Irene (August 26-29, 2001): Astoria nearby substation incident. units were dispatched for 22 hours over four days • Polar Vortex (January 2-29, 2014): Astoria units to support local power needs. were dispatched for 291 hours to support local power needs. While these were the events people remember, the need for local additional power can arise at any time.

For more information, please email: [email protected] nrg.com

NRG and the plus signs are registered servicemarks of NRG Energy, Inc. NRG is a registered trademark of NRG Energy, Inc. © 2020 NRG Energy, Inc. All rights reserved. 500212045 PROYECTO DE REEMPLAZO ASTORIA

NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG) está tomando medidas para combatir el cambio climático, minimizando los costos y maximizando los beneficios para New DATOS RÁPIDOS York a través del Proyecto de Reemplazo Astoria. En 2023, NRG planea retirar los generadores de energía de 50 años de nuestra Estación de Generación Astoria (Astoria) y reemplazarlos con tecnología de vanguardia Sustituye 646 MW de equipos que reducirá las tasas máximas de emisión de aire hasta en un 99%, a la antiguos con 437 MW de vez que proporcionará energía confiable cuando los neoyorquinos más la tecnología moderna necesiten. NRG simplemente está modernizando un proyecto que ya ha sido completamente aprobado por el estado. La nueva tecnología es capaz de convertirse para utilizar hidrógeno de emisión cero como combustible una Proporciona más de 325 vez que esté disponible comercialmente en cantidades suficientes. millones de dólares en beneficios económicos al El Proyecto de Reemplazo Astoria de NRG: Estado de New York • Mantendrá un servicio eléctrico confiable en la ciudad de New York al abordar un conocido déficit de confiabilidad identificado por Con Edison y el operador de sistemas independiente (NYISO) Mejora la calidad del aire • Reducirá acumulativamente las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero (GHG, por sus siglas en inglés) en 5 millones de toneladas hasta 2035 • Creará más de 1,000 trabajos-año y $156 millones de beneficios económicos para el Estado de New York durante el periodo de Mejora la confiabilidad de la red construcción • Creará más de 1,200 trabajos-año y $170 millones de beneficios económicos para el estado de New York en gastos de operación y mantenimiento hasta 2040 Potencial de convertirse a • Reemplazará las unidades más antiguas con tecnología de vanguardia, combustible de hidrógeno en aumentando la eficiencia en un 36% el futuro • Proporcionará energía suficiente para alimentar a más de 375,000 hogares MÁS LIMPIO, MÁS RÁPIDO, MÁS CONFIABLE

Con el retiro de la instalación nuclear Indian Point y con el retiro pendiente de una serie de unidades de maximización en la ciudad, la necesidad de una nueva generación es urgente. Tanto NYISO como Con Edison han identificado deficiencias de confiabilidad local en el área de Astoria. Este proyecto ayudará a proporcionar energía confiable a la Ciudad de New York al permitir que nuestras unidades Astoria existentes se retiren, lo que resultará en una reducción sustancial de emisiones, particularmente durante los días más calurosos y fríos del año.

PROYECTO DE ALMACENAMIENTO EN BATERÍA MÓVIL ASTORIA

Además del proyecto de reemplazo propuesto, NRG está construyendo actualmente un proyecto de almacenamiento en baterías móviles de 1.5 MW/4 MWh en asociación con Con Edison, que se basará en el sitio de Astoria. Este proyecto de almacenamiento en baterías móviles es un primer paso en nuestros planes de agregar un almacenamiento de energía significativo a las instalaciones de Astoria. El proyecto de “almacenamiento a pedido”, que está programado para funcionar el verano de 2021, forma parte del programa Reforma de la Visión Energética del Gobernador Cuomo. Los remolques de baterías móviles pueden ir donde sea necesario para ayudar a satisfacer las cargas máximas o responder a las necesidades de emergencia locales

ASTORIA, LISTO CUANDO SEA NECESARIO • Huracán Sandy (29 de octubre – 4 de noviembre de 2012): Las unidades Astoria fueron despachadas durante Astoria es típicamente llamado a operar para la confiabilidad 580 horas para apoyar las necesidades locales de energía del sistema 35 a 40 veces por año. Sin embargo, durante eléctrica. Solo el 31 de octubre, diez unidades Astoria tiempos de crisis y de necesidad excepcional, Astoria ha sido fueron despachadas continuamente de 15-21 horas indispensable para mantener la ciudad en funcionamiento: cada una. • Respuesta al COVID-19: El personal dedicado de NRG • Apagón del Noreste 2003 (14 - 16 de agosto de 2003): mantiene la disponibilidad de la planta 24/7, asegurando Las unidades Astoria fueron despachadas durante 353 un servicio confiable para la ciudad de New York durante horas para proporcionar energía crítica inmediatamente la pandemia. Además, NRG recientemente prometió después del apagón en varias ocasiones durante tres días $25,000 para apoyar a personal de emergencia y para apoyar las necesidades locales de energía eléctrica. trabajadores hospitalarios de Queens. • 9/11 (3 -12 de septiembre de 2001): Las unidades Astoria • Explosión de transformador de Con Edison (27 - 28 de fueron despachadas durante 31 horas para apoyar las diciembre de 2018): Las unidades NRG Astoria fueron necesidades locales de energía eléctrica. despachadas durante 23 horas consecutivas después del • Huracán Irene (26 - 29 de agosto de 2001): Las unidades incidente de la subestación cercana de Con Edison. Astoria fueron despachadas por 22 horas durante cuatro • Vórtice polar (2 - 29 de enero de 2014): Las unidades días para apoyar las necesidades locales de energía Astoria fueron despachadas durante 291 horas para eléctrica. apoyar las necesidades locales de energía eléctrica.

Aunque estos fueron los eventos que la gente recuerda, la necesidad local de energía adicional puede surgir en cualquier momento.

[email protected] nrg.com

NRG and the plus signs are registered servicemarks of NRG Energy, Inc. NRG is a registered trademark of NRG Energy, Inc. © 2020 NRG Energy, Inc. All rights reserved. 500212045 ΈΡΓΟ ΑΝΤΙΚΑΤΆΣΤΑΣΗΣ ΑΣΤΌΡΙΑ

Η NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG) λαμβάνει μέτρα για αντιμετώπιση της κλιματικής αλλαγής, καθώς ελαχιστοποιεί του κόστος και ΣΥΝΟΠΤΙΚΆ ΓΕΓΟΝΌΤΑ μεγιστοποιεί το όφελος για τη Νέα Υόρκη μέσω του Έργου Αντικατάστασης Αστόρια. Το 2023 η NRG σκοπεύει να αποσύρει τους 50ετείς παραγωγούς ηλεκτρικής ενέργειας στον σταθμό ηλεκτροπαραγωγής μας στην Αστόρια («Αστόρια») και να τους Αντικαθιστά 646 MW παλαιού αντικαταστήσει με τεχνολογία αιχμής που θα μειώσει τα ποσοστά εξοπλισμού με 437 MW εκπομπών στον αέρα έως και 99%, ενώ παρέχει ρεύμα αξιόπιστα σύγχρονης τεχνολογίας. στους Νεοϋορκέζους όταν το χρειάζονται περισσότερο. Η NRG απλώς ενημερώνει ένα έργο που έχει ήδη εγκριθεί πλήρως από το κράτος. Με την καινούργια τεχνολογία υπάρχει δυνατότητα Προσφέρει αξία πάνω από μηδενικών εκπομπών με το υδρογόνο ως καύσιμο όταν θα είναι $325 εκατομμυρίων σε εμπορικά διαθέσιμο σε επαρκείς ποσότητες. οικονομικές παροχές στην πολιτεία της Νέας Υόρκης Το Έργο Αντικατάστασης Αστόρια της NRG προσφέρει τα εξής: • Διατηρεί αξιόπιστη ηλεκτροδότηση στην πόλη της Νέας Υόρκης, αντιμετωπίζοντας τη γνωστή έλλειψη αξιοπιστίας Βελτιώνει την ποιότητα που προσδιόρισε η εταιρεία Con Edison και ο ανεξάρτητος του αέρα διαχειριστής συστήματος (NYISO) • Μειώνει, αθροιστικά, τα αέρια του θερμοκηπίου κατά 5 εκατομμύρια τόνους έως το 2035 • Δημιουργεί παραπάνω από 1.000 έτη εργασίας και $156 εκατομμύρια σε οικονομικά οφέλη για την πολιτεία της Νέας Βελτιώνει την αξιοπιστία Υόρκης κατά τη διάρκεια της περιόδου κατασκευής του δικτύου • Δημιουργεί παραπάνω από 1.200 έτη εργασίας και $170 εκατομμύρια σε οικονομικά οφέλη για την πολιτεία της Νέας Υόρκης από δαπάνες λειτουργίας και συντήρησης έως το 2040 Δυνατότητα μετατροπής • Αντικαθιστά παλαιές μονάδες με τεχνολογία αιχμής, αυξάνοντας σε καύσιμο υδρογόνο στο την αποδοτικότητα κατά 36% μέλλον • Παράσχει επαρκή ενέργεια για ηλεκτροδότηση σε πάνω από 375.000 σπιτικά ΚΑΘΑΡΌΤΕΡΑ, ΤΑΧΎΤΕΡΑ, ΠΙΟ ΑΞΙΌΠΙΣΤΑ

Με τη διακοπή λειτουργίας του πυρηνικού εργοστασίου στο Ίντιαν Πόιντ και εν αναμονή της διακοπής λειτουργίας ορισμένων επιμέρους μονάδων εντός πόλης, η ανάγκη για νέα ηλεκτροδότηση επείγει. Τόσο ο ανεξάρτητος διαχειριστής συστήματος (NYISO) όσο και η εταιρεία Con Edison έχουν εντοπίσει τοπικές ελλείψεις στην αξιοπιστία στην περιοχή Αστόρια. Το έργο αυτό θα βοηθήσει στην παροχή αξιόπιστης ενέργειας για την πόλη της Νέας Υόρκης, επιτρέποντας στις υπάρχουσες μονάδες της Αστόρια να αποσυρθούν, με αποτέλεσμα σημαντικά μειωμένες εκπομπές, ιδιαίτερα κατά τις πιο ζεστές και πιο κρύες ημέρες του έτους.

ΈΡΓΟ ΑΠΟΘΉΚΕΥΣΗΣ ΚΙΝΗΤΏΝ ΜΠΑΤΑΡΙΏΝ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΑΣΤΌΡΙΑ

Εκτός από το προτεινόμενο έργο αντικατάστασης, η NRG κατασκευάζει σήμερα έναν χώρο αποθήκευσης κινητών μπαταριών 1,5 MW/4 MWh σε συνεργασία με την Con Edison στην εγκατάσταση Αστόρια. Αυτό το έργο αποθήκευσης κινητών μπαταριών είναι ένα πρώτο βήμα στα σχέδιά μας να προσθέσουμε σημαντική αποθήκευση ενέργειας στο εργοστάσιο της Αστόρια. Το έργο «Αποθήκευση κατά παραγγελία», που έχει προγραμματιστεί να τεθεί σε λειτουργία έως το καλοκαίρι του 2021, αποτελεί μέρος του προγράμματος Μεταρρύθμισης του Ενεργειακού Οράματος του κυβερνήτη Κουόμο. Τα τρέιλερ κινητών μπαταριών μπορούν να μεταβούν όπου χρειάζεται για να παράσχουν ενέργεια σε απαιτήσεις αιχμής ή να ανταποκριθούν σε τοπικές ανάγκες έκτακτης ανάγκης.

ΑΣΤΌΡΙΑ – ΠΑΡΕΥΡΊΣΚΕΤΑΙ ΌΠΟΤΕ ΧΡΕΙΆΖΕΤΑΙ • Τυφώνας Σάντι (29 Οκτωβρίου - 4 Νοεμβρίου 2012): Οι μονάδες της Αστόρια απεστάλησαν για 580 ώρες για Το Αστόρια καλείται να ανταποκριθεί με αξιοπιστία του υποστήριξη των τοπικών ενεργειακών αναγκών. Στις συστήματος 35 έως 40 φορές ετησίως. Ωστόσο, σε 31 Οκτωβρίου και μόνο, δέκα μονάδες της Αστόρια περιόδους κρίσης και εξαιρετικής ανάγκης, το Αστόρια ήταν αποστέλλονταν συνεχώς, από 15-21 ώρες η καθεμία. πρωτεύουσας σημασίας στη διατήρηση λειτουργίας της πόλης: • Γενική διακοπή ρεύματος βορειοανατολικά, 2003 (14-16 Αυγούστου 2003): Οι μονάδες της Αστόρια • Απόκριση στον COVID-19: Το αφοσιωμένο απεστάλησαν για 353 ώρες για παροχή ηλεκτρισμού προσωπικό της NRG διατηρεί συνεχή διαθεσιμότητα αμέσως μετά τη γενική διακοπή ρεύματος σε διάφορες του εργοστασίου επί 24ώρου βάσης, εξασφαλίζοντας χρονικές στιγμές σε διάρκεια περιόδου τριών ημερών για αξιόπιστη εξυπηρέτηση των αναγκών της πόλης της Νέας στήριξη των τοπικών ενεργειακών αναγκών. Υόρκης στη διάρκεια της πανδημίας. Επιπλέον, η NRG • 11 Σεπτεμβρίου (11-12 Σεπτεμβρίου 2001): Οι μονάδες πρόσφερε πρόσφατα $25.000 για υποστήριξη ατόμων της Αστόρια απεστάλησαν για 31 ώρες για υποστήριξη πρώτων βοηθειών και εργαζομένων σε νοσοκομεία. των τοπικών ενεργειακών αναγκών. • Έκρηξη μετασχηματιστή της Con Edison (27-28 • Τυφώνας Αϊρίν (26-29 Αυγούστου 2001): Οι μονάδες Δεκεμβρίου 2018): Οι μονάδες της NRG στην Αστόρια της Αστόρια απεστάλησαν για 22 ώρες σε διάστημα απεστάλησαν για 23 συνεχόμενες ώρες μετά το τεσσάρων ημερών για υποστήριξη των τοπικών περιστατικό στον κοντινό υποσταθμό της Con Edison. ενεργειακών αναγκών. • Πολική δίνη (2-29 Ιανουαρίου 2014): Οι μονάδες της Αστόρια απεστάλησαν για 291 ώρες για υποστήριξη των τοπικών ενεργειακών αναγκών. Ενώ αυτά ήταν τα γεγονότα που θυμούνται οι άνθρωποι, η ανάγκη για επιπλέον ηλεκτρισμό τοπικά μπορεί να προκύψει ανά πάσα στιγμή.

[email protected] nrg.com

NRG and the plus signs are registered servicemarks of NRG Energy, Inc. NRG is a registered trademark of NRG Energy, Inc. © 2020 NRG Energy, Inc. All rights reserved. 500212045 অ্যাস্টরিয়া প্রতিস্থাপন প্রকল্প

NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG) অ্যাস্টরিয়া প্রতিস্থাপন প্রকল্পের মাধ্যমে নিউ ই붼র্কের ব্য붼 সংকোচন এবং সর্বাধিক সুবিধা প্রদান করেই জলবায়ু পরিবর্তনের বিরুদ্ধে কুইক ফ্যাক্টস লড়াইয়ের ব্যবস্থা গ্রহণ করছে। 2023 সালে NRG আমাদের অ্যাস্টরিয়া জেনারেটিং স্টেশনে (অ্যাস্টরিয়া) 50 বছরের পুরনো বিদ্যুৎ জেনারেটরকে অবসরে পাঠিয়ে সেগুলিকে অত্যাধুনিক প্রযুক্তি দিয়ে প্রতিস্থাপন করার পরিকল্পনা করেছে যা পিক 437 MW এর আধুনিক প্রযুক্তি দিয়ে 99% সময়ে বায়ু নির্গমনের হারকে পর্যন্ত কমিয়ে দেবে, একই সাথে বিশ্বস্ততার 646MW এর পুরনো যন্ত্রপাতি সাথে নিউ ই붼র্কবাসীদেরকে পাওয়ার সরবরাহ করবে যখন তাদের এটির সবচেয়ে বেশি প্রতিস্থাপন করে প্রয়োজন। NRG কেবলমাত্র একটি প্রকল্পকে আপডেট করছে যা ইতোমধ্যে স্টেটের দ্বারা সম্পূর্ণ অনুমোদিত হয়েছে।নতুন প্রযুক্তিটি বাণিজ্যিকভাবে পর্যাপ্ত পরিমাণে পাওয়া গেলে সেটি শূন্য-নির্গমন হাইড্রোজেনকে জ্বালানি হিসেবে ব্যবহারে রূপান্তরিত হতে সক্ষম হবে। নিউ ই붼র্ক স্টেটকে $325 মিলি붼নের বেশি অর্থনৈতিক সুবিধা প্রদান করে

NRG এর অ্যাস্টরিয়া প্রতিস্থাপন প্রকল্প যা যা করবে: • কন এডিসন (Con Edison) এবং স্বাধীন সিস্টেম অপারেটর (NYISO) দ্বারা চিহ্নিত একটি নির্ভরযোগ্যতা ঘাটতি মোকাবেলা붼 নিউ ই붼র্ক সিটিতে নির্ভরযোগ্য বাতাসের গুণমান উন্নত করে বৈদ্যুতিক সেবা বজা붼 রাখবে • 2035 সালের মধ্যে গ্রীনহাউস গ্যাসের (GHG) নির্গমন 5 মিলি붼ন টন পর্যন্ত কমিয়ে আনবে • নির্মাণকালীন সময়ে নিউ ই붼র্ক স্টেটে 1,000 এর বেশি চাকরি-বছর এবং $156 মিলি붼ন অর্থনৈতিক সুবিধাসমূহ তৈরি করবে গ্রিডের নির্ভরযোগ্যতা উন্নত করে • 2040 সাল জুড়ে O&M এর খরচ থেকে নিউ ই붼র্ক স্টেটে 1,200 এর বেশি চাকরি-বছর এবং $170 মিলি붼ন অর্থনৈতিক সুবিধাসমূহ তৈরি করবে • 36% পর্যন্ত দক্ষতা বাড়িয়ে পুরনো ইউনিটসমূহকে অত্যাধুনিক প্রযুক্তি দিয়ে প্রতিস্থাপন করবে ভবিষ্যতে হাইড্রোজেন জ্বালানিতে রূপান্তরিত হওয়ার সম্ভাবনা • 375,000 এরও বেশি বাড়িতে বিদ্যুৎ সরবরাহের জন্য পর্যাপ্ত শক্তি সরবরাহ করবে আরো পরিষ্কার, আরো দ্রুত, আরো নির্ভরযোগ্য ইন্ডিয়ান পয়েন্ট পারমাণবিক ফ্যাসিলিটির অবসরে যাওয়া এবং সিটির বেশ কয়েকটি পিকিং ইউনিটের পরে অবসরে যাওয়ার সম্ভাবনার কারণে, নতুন জেনারেশন অতি প্রয়োজনী붼। NYISO এবং কন এডিসন উভ붼ই অ্যাস্টরিয়া অঞ্চলে স্থানী붼 নির্ভরযোগ্যতার ঘাটতিকে চিহ্নিত করেছেন। এই প্রকল্পটি আমাদের বিদ্যমান অ্যাস্টরিয়া ইউনিটগুলিকে অবসরে পাঠিয়ে নিউ ই붼র্ক সিটিকে নির্ভরযোগ্য শক্তি সরবরাহ করতে সহা붼তা করবে, যার ফলে নির্গমন যথেষ্ট পরিমাণে হ্রাস পাবে, বিশেষত বছরের উষ্ণতম এবং শীতলতম দিনে।

অ্যাস্টরিয়া মোবাইল ব্যাটারি স্টোরেজ প্রকল্প

প্রস্তাবিত প্রতিস্থাপন প্রকল্পের পাশাপাশি NRG বর্তমানে কন এডিসনের অংশীদার হয়ে অ্যাস্টরিয়া সাইট ভিত্তিক একটি 1.5 মেগাওয়াট /4MWh মোবাইল ব্যাটারি স্টোরেজ প্রকল্প তৈরি করছে। এই মোবাইল ব্যাটারি স্টোরেজ প্রকল্পটি অ্যাস্টরিয়া ফ্যাসিলিটিতে উল্লেখযোগ্য শক্তি সঞ্চ붼 করার জন্য আমাদের পরিকল্পনার প্রথম পদক্ষেপ। 2021 গ্রীষ্মের মধ্যে কার্যকর হওয়ার জন্য নির্ধারিত “স্টোরেজ অন ডিমান্ড” প্রকল্পটি গভর্নর কুওমোর এনার্জি ভিশন প্রোগ্রামের সংস্কারের একটি অংশ।মোবাইলের ব্যাটারি ট্রেলারগুলি পিক সময়ের চাপ সামলাতে সহা붼তা করতে বা স্থানী붼 জরুরি প্রয়োজনে সহা붼তা করতে যেখানে প্রয়োজন সেখানে যেতে পারে।

অ্যাস্টরিয়া - সেখানে যখন প্রয়োজন • হারিকেন স্যান্ডি (অক্টোবর 29 – নভেম্বর 4, 2012): স্থানী붼 বিদ্যুতের প্রয়োজনে সহা붼তা করতে 580 ঘণ্টার জন্য অ্যাস্টরিয়া অ্যাস্টরিয়াকে সাধারণত প্রতি বছর 35 থেকে 40 বার সিস্টেমের ইউনিটগুলি প্রেরণ করা হয়েছিল। শুধুমাত্র 31 অক্টোবরেই, দশটি নির্ভরযোগ্যতা সংক্রান্ত কাজের জন্য প্রয়োজন হ붼। তবে সংকট অ্যাস্টরিয়া ইউনিটের প্রতিটি টানা 15-21 ঘণ্টার জন্য প্রেরণ করা এবং ব্যতিক্রমী প্রয়োজনের সম붼, সিটিকে অবিরত রাখার ক্ষেত্রে হয়েছিল। অ্যাস্টরিয়া অপরিহার্য: • 2003 এর নর্থইস্ট ব্ল্যাকআউট (আগস্ট 14-16, 2003): ব্ল্যাকআউটের পর তাৎক্ষণিক সংকটকালীন শক্তি সরবরাহ করতে • COVID-19 প্রতিক্রিয়া: মহামারির সময়ে নিউ ই붼র্ক সিটির জন্য তিন দিনের বেশি ধরে বিভিন্ন সময়ে 353 ঘণ্টার জন্য অ্যাস্টরিয়া নির্ভরযোগ্য সেবা নিশ্চিত করে NRG এর নিবেদিত কর্মীরা 24/7 ইউনিটগুলি প্রেরণ করা হয়েছিল। প্ল্যান্টের উপলভ্যতা বজা붼 রাখে। এছাড়াও,NRG সম্প্রতি কুইন্সের ফার্স্ট রেসপন্ডার ও হাসপাতালের কর্মীদের সহা붼তার জন্য $25,000 • 9/11 (সেপ্টেম্বর 11-12, 2001): স্থানী붼 বিদ্যুতের প্রয়োজনে প্রতিশ্রুতি দিয়েছে। সহা붼তা করতে 31 ঘণ্টার জন্য অ্যাস্টরিয়া ইউনিটগুলি প্রেরণ করা হয়েছিল। • কন এডিসন ট্রান্সফর্মার এক্সপ্লোশন (ডিসেম্বর 27-28, 2018): কন এডিসনের নিকটস্থ সাবস্টেশনের ঘটনার পর টানা 23 ঘণ্টার জন্য • হারিকেন আইরিন (আগস্ট 26-29, 2001): স্থানী붼 বিদ্যুতের NRG অ্যাস্টরিয়া ইউনিটগুলি প্রেরণ করা হয়েছিল। প্রয়োজনে সহা붼তা করতে 4 দিন ধরে 22 ঘণ্টার জন্য অ্যাস্টরিয়া ইউনিটগুলি প্রেরণ করা হয়েছিল। • পোলার ভর্টেক্স (জানুয়ারি 2-29, 2014): স্থানী붼 বিদ্যুতের প্রয়োজনে সহা붼তা করতে 291 ঘণ্টার জন্য অ্যাস্টরিয়া ইউনিটগুলি প্রেরণ করা হয়েছিল। এই ঘটনাগুলি লোকেরা মনে রাখলেও, যেকোনো সম붼 স্থানী붼 অতিরিক্ত শক্তির প্রয়োজন হতে পারে।

[email protected] nrg.com

NRG and the plus signs are registered servicemarks of NRG Energy, Inc. NRG is a registered trademark of NRG Energy, Inc. © 2020 NRG Energy, Inc. All rights reserved. 500212045 Astoria Replacement Project Enhanced Public Participation Plan

Appendix B

Public Meeting Materials

August 2020 Virtual Public Meeting Astoria Replacement Project

Opportunity to provide input on the Astoria Replacement Project Hosted by Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC (a subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc.)

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Governor’s Executive Order 202, the public information meeting will be held virtually. Details are below.

Thursday, July 16, 2020, 7-9 p.m.

To view online, visit www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com. Scroll to and click the Webcast link near the top and fill out the brief form.

To listen by phone toll-free, call (877) 359-9508, enter ID# 1790419

Astoria Replacement Project Application Summary

As previously approved, the Astoria Replacement Project will replace the existing power generating units at the Astoria Facility. The Project is now being modified to reduce the size of the Facility (437 MWe vs 1040 MWe) and incorporate a state-of-the-art generating unit which requires modifications of the Facility’s existing New York State Department of Environmental Conservation air and water permits. With this modification, this critical infrastructure project will:

• Reduce the total generating capability of the site while lowering air emission rates by up to 99% per hour; and

• Support New York’s leading efforts to fight climate change by significantly reducing net greenhouse gas emissions with technology that will be fully convertible to zero-carbon fuel in the future.

Information and Contacts

• Project documents can be found at www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com.

• Interested stakeholders are invited to submit questions or comments via phone, email, or regular mail through August 3, 2020 at: (718) 274-5180 [email protected] or Astoria Replacement Project, PO Box 7, Albany, NY 12201-0007

Key Virtual Meeting Details • • The meeting is July 16th, 2020, from 7-9 p.m. You can join the meeting via phone or web link:

Phone: (877) 359-9508, Conference ID 1790419 Web: www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com Scroll to and click the Webcast link near the top and fill out the brief form. YOU ARE INVITED TO A PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING ABOUT THE ASTORIA REPLACEMENT PROJECT Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC, a subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc., has submitted an application to modify its previously approved project and replace existing combustion turbines at the Astoria Gas Turbine Generating Facility with a new state-of-the-art simple cycle combustion turbine. The Facility is located on a 15-acre site at 31-01 20th Ave., Astoria, Queens County, New York. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Governor’s Executive Order 202, the public information meeting will be held virtually.

Date: July 16, 2020 Time: 7:00 – 9:00 pm Webcast Link: https://edge.media-server.com/mmc/p/dhnjtrfk Participant Toll-Free Dial-In Number: (877) 359-9508 Conference ID: 1790419 YOUR ATTENDANCE IS IMPORTANT • Learn more about the Project • Ask questions and comment on the Project • Discuss your concerns • Learn about the environmental review process and opportunities for public comment Attendees are encouraged to submit questions throughout the meeting and time will be set aside at the end to answer questions. Questions or comments concerning the Project also may be submitted via email, phone, or regular mail until August 3, 2020 to: Astoria Replacement Project P.O. Box 7 Albany, NY 12201-0007 [email protected] (718) 274-5180 An online document repository containing Project materials has been established at www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - ENB Region 2 Notices 7/1/2020

Positive Declaration and Public Scoping New York County (Queens) - Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC (Astoria) proposes to modify its previously approved replacement project. In accordance with the June 12, 2019 Declaratory Ruling of the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment, Case No. 17-F-0451, the replacement project does not require a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need under Article 10 of the Public Service Law (PSL), as it is exempt under PSL § 162(4)(d). The replacement project therefore remains subject to the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC), as SEQR lead agency, has determined that a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS) must be prepared. Written comments on the draft scope will be accepted until July 31, 2020.

Project Description The existing facility has a total generating capacity of 646 MW (nameplate rating) and currently consists of 24 dual fuel simple cycle units. (There are also 7 retired units still existing at the facility). The proposed replacement facility will consist of one quick start generator with a generating capacity of 437 MWs. The new facility will be primarily fired on natural gas but will have the capability of firing on ultra low sulfur liquid fuel as back up. Initially, the facility will maintain two of the old simple cycle units for black start capabilities until they receive approval from the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to install and operate a battery storage facility onsite. The project is located at 31-01 20th Avenue in Queens, New York.

Previous SEQR Review and NYS DEC Permits Astoria previously proposed to replace all of the units at the existing facility and was subject to a review pursuant to SEQR with the NYS DEC serving as lead agency for the coordinated review of the project. The project was the subject of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Accepted: April 16, 2010) and Final EIS (Accepted September 22, 2010). As lead agency, NYS DEC issued a Findings Statement (October 4, 2010) concluding that all potential environmental impacts had been minimized or mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.

All NYS DEC permits were issued at the time the Findings Statement was issued. The project was never constructed, and the existing facility continues to operate in accordance with its existing permits. Current SEQR Review Astoria seeks to modify its previously approved replacement project. In accordance with the June 12, 2019 Declaratory Ruling of the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment, the replacement project remains subject to the requirements of SEQRA. NYS DEC, as lead agency for the current proposed replacement project is requiring the preparation of a Draft SEIS. The draft scoping document reflects that the environmental review for the modified project will include analyses from the original Draft EIS. The Draft SEIS will include updated analyses to assess potential impacts as a result of any project differences, changes in the environmental setting, newly discovered information, or changes in circumstances related to the project.

Document Availability and Public Participation Meeting The Draft EIS and Final EIS previously completed for the project are available at the Astoria new project's website www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com. The draft scoping document is also available for review at this website.

Astoria will be conducting a virtual Public Participation Meeting on July 16, 2020. The meeting will provide the public an opportunity to learn about the replacement project and the environmental review process. Details for the meeting can be found at the project website. Astoria will not be accepting comments on the draft scoping document at this meeting. All comments on the draft scope are required to be submitted in writing by the identified due date.

Comments on the draft scoping document must be submitted in writing by July 31, 2020. All comments must be submitted to the following email address: [email protected]

Contact: Christopher M. Hogan, NYS DEC - Division of Environmental Permits, 625 Broadway, 4th Floor, Albany, NY 12233-1750, Phone: (518) 402-9151, E-mail: [email protected]. Astoria Replacement Project

Public Information Meeting

July 16, 2020

• Inform the public about proposed modifications to the previously approved Astoria Replacement Project

• Provide the status of applications to modify the Facility’s existing permits

• Identify opportunities for public participation in the process including NYSDEC’s supplemental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)

• Introductions

• Public Meeting Webcast Process

• Astoria Replacement Project Overview

• Status of Environmental Review and Opportunities for Public Participation

• Project Benefits

• Questions and Comments

This presentation is available at www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com

• Need for Virtual Public Meeting

• Live Presentation followed by interactive questions and comments:

• For those on the phone, press *1 on your phone and the moderator will add you to the queue

• For those on the webcast, click the “Ask a Question” tab at the top right of your computer screen. Enter your question in the box and then hit submit.

• Participants will be required to provide name and residential address

• Comments are welcome through August 3rd

• By Email: [email protected]

• By Phone: (718) 274-5180 and leave a message

Astoria Con Ed Complex NRG Astoria Gas Turbines

Astoria Con Ed Complex Existing Astoria Gas Turbines

Original Permitted Project Proposed Modified Project

Project Size 1,040 MW 437 MW

Technology Combined Cycle (Intermediate Duty) Simple Cycle (Peaking Duty)

Incorporates Battery Energy Storage? No Yes

Capable of System Restoration? No Yes

The Proposed Project Modification: ▪ Decreases the project size by 58%

▪ Modernizes the project technology

▪ Further reduces air emissions

▪ Addresses identified reliability shortfalls in NYC in a timely manner

▪ Incorporates Battery Energy Storage into the project design

▪ Minimizes the footprint of the project, allowing for future stand alone energy storage installations

▪ Provides system restoration capability

▪ Can convert to carbon-free hydrogen fuel by 2040

▪ Capable of generating Zero Carbon Electricity by 2040 • Project technology is capable of conversion to hydrogen fuel use

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process

• All comments must be submitted to the NYSDEC by July 31, 2020 via the following email address: [email protected]

• NYSDEC Contact for the Project:

Christopher M. Hogan NYSDEC - Division of Environmental Permits 625 Broadway - 4th Floor Albany, NY 12233-1750 Phone: (518) 402-9151 E-mail: [email protected]

Additional opportunities for public comment will occur during the permit process

Questions or comments may be provided to the Project Applicant via phone, email or regular mail through August 3, 2020 and will be addressed during the SEPPP process

• Phone: (718) 274-5180 • Email: [email protected] • Mail: Astoria Replacement Project, PO Box 7, Albany, NY 12201-0007

Summary of the Virtual Public Meeting for the Astoria Replacement Project

Date: July 16, 2020 from 7:00 – 9:00pm EST

Background On July 16, 2020, Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC and representatives of NRG Energy, Inc. hosted an online public meeting to discuss the Astoria Replacement Project (“Project”). The meeting was well attended by ninety participants via an internet Webex connection included on the project’s website and another twenty-eight participants by telephone. The participants included representatives from the environmental justice community, environmental advocacy groups, government employees, community organizations, local residents, labor organizations and plant employees. Astoria provided an overview of the project, its benefits and the current permitting process status and concluded the presentation by inviting participants to provide comments to the NYSDEC on the draft scope for the supplemental environmental impact statement, encouraged future questions and comments and urged viewers to visit the website to learn more, and to stay posted for future updates. Astoria also informed attendees that the project website will continue to be updated with additional project information.

During the live questions and comments period, a significant number of substantive questions, concerns and supporting remarks were offered by participants. The substantive questions, comments and how Astoria addressed them are summarized below.

• Several participants commented on power system reliability given the increased demand for energy in the local Astoria load pocket. Specifically, one commenter remarked how the need for energy has evolved in Queens due to the coronavirus pandemic and argued that projects such as this provide support to both businesses and residents as they confront increased energy demands. • There were several questions on the Project’s consistency with the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (“CLCPA”). Astoria noted the Project would result in a significant reduction in total system greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the Project supports the integration of substantial new intermittent renewable resources (i.e. wind and solar) in support of the CLCPA’s targets for renewable energy. Astoria also noted that the project will use a highly efficient, state-of-the-art technology which is capable of using zero carbon hydrogen fuel which would allow operation of the project beyond 2040. • There were several questions and comments related to renewable energy alternatives in combination with energy storage to meet demand – the response noted that although Astoria believes battery storage can play a significant role going forward, the technology is not at a stage where it can fully replace peaking projects. Astoria referenced a study produced by E3 in July 2019 in conjunction with the Department of Public Service, NYSERDA, LIPA, NYISO, NYSDEC and Con Edison which analyzed the potential for energy storage to repower or replace peaking units in New York State. The study concluded, even assuming 8-hour duration battery storage technology, only 11% of existing peaker plants could be replaced. Additionally, Astoria explained that the site of the proposed facility is too small for wind or solar, so replacing the existing units with meaningful amounts of wind or solar power is not technically feasible either.

The public comment period closed on August 3, 2020, and no additional questions were received. The project received three separate letters of support from the New York State and Greater New York Laborers-Employers Cooperation and Education Trusts, the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York & Vicinity, and a member of the Utility Workers of America Local 1-2.

August 2020

Appendix G.4

SEPPP Progress Report November 2020

Astoria Replacement Project Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan

1.0 Report on Progress to Date

In the Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan (SEPPP) submitted to the NYSDEC in April 2020, Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC (“Astoria”) agreed to submit quarterly reports summarizing its progress related to the implementation of the plan. Astoria submitted the first quarterly report to the NYSDEC on August 27, 2020. As detailed in that report, since the submission of the SEPPP Astoria has held numerous meetings with community organizations, environmental groups, government agencies and elected officials to obtain feedback including potential community concerns regarding the Replacement Project. In addition, Astoria held an additional public participation meeting on July 16, 2020 to (i) inform the public about proposed modifications to the previously approved Astoria Replacement Project, (ii) provide the status of applications to modify the Facility’s existing permits and (iii) identify opportunities for future public participation in the process including NYSDEC’s supplemental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).

Astoria has undertaken the SEPPP consistent with CP-29 and NYSDEC’s April 24, 2020 Guidance on Commissioner’s Policy 29 During the COVID-19 Public Health Crisis. As detailed in this second quarterly report, Astoria has continued to implement the SEPPP by providing information to the public, responding to public and media inquiries and also seeking to understand issues of importance to the neighboring community. Astoria will continue its implementation of the SEPPP until all approvals and/or permits are obtained for the Replacement Project.

Supplemental Public Outreach Activities Since 1st Quarterly Progress Report Astoria previously established multiple ways that the public could inquire about the Project, including a project dedicated email address, telephone number and P.O. Box. Since the first quarterly report, Astoria continues to keep these avenues of communication open. By way of example, Astoria has responded directly to inquiries from members of the general public to the email address dedicated to this project, including a graduate student at New York University and an energy-policy analyst, transport economist, and environmental activist in New York City.

Astoria has also responded to multiple media requests for interviews and comments regarding the Project, including Politico, New York Times, and several Queens-based outlets.

Further, Astoria recently completed an extensive Harris poll about the Project, that involved asking 1,200 New York City residents, weighted heavily in Queens, various questions about the Project. The purpose was to determine the issues of importance to the public, specifically focusing on residents living near the Project. The poll revealed that the general public overwhelmingly supports the Project, even when factoring in opposition viewpoints.

Website and Repository On June 24, 2020, Astoria made available for public access a website www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com which includes an overview of the Project, as well as an online repository of major project documents. The website has been regularly updated over the last quarter as project documents are completed and submitted to various agencies. Since the first quarterly report, additional documents have been added to the website, including:

1. the first quarterly report for the SEPPP; 2. the Joint Petition to Amend the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity; 3. the Final Scoping Document for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; and 4. the second revision of the Title V Air Permit Application for Significant Modification. Astoria Replacement Project Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan

With respect to a physical repository, as previously reported, the Astoria Branch of the Queens Public Library reopened following closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic and became available to accept documents. Astoria, therefore, re-established a physical repository of major project documents in August 2020 at the Astoria Branch of the Queens Public Library at 14-01 Astoria Blvd, Astoria, NY 11102. This repository was updated in November 2020 to include additional, recent Project documents.

Appendix G.5

Public Information Meeting January 21, 2021

Astoria Replacement Project

Public Information Meeting

January 21, 2021

0 Public Meeting Agenda

• Introductions

• Public Meeting Webcast Process

• Astoria Replacement Project Overview

• Status of Environmental Review and Opportunities for Public Participation

• Project Benefits

• Questions and Comments

This presentation is available at www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com

1 Public Meeting Teleconference Process

• Need for Virtual Public Meeting

• Live Presentation followed by interactive questions and comments:

• For those on the phone, press *1 on your phone and the moderator will add you to the queue

• For those on the webcast, click the “Ask a Question” tab at the top right of your computer screen. Enter your question in the box and then hit submit.

• Participants will be required to provide name and residential address

• Comments may be sent:

• By Email: [email protected]

• By Phone: (718) 274-5180 and leave a message

2 Meet the Speakers

Kandi S. Terry – NRG, Director of Government Affairs Leads government affairs for NRG’s retail and generation businesses in the East Region. Mrs. Terry earned a Masters of Science degree from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and has almost 25-years of government experience.

3 NRG Astoria Facility Today

▪ The Astoria Con Ed Complex has hosted major energy infrastructure for over 100 years ▪ NRG purchased the 15 acre Astoria Gas Turbines site from Con Edison in 1999 ▪ The site currently consists of: ▪ 500 MW of 1970 vintage Pratt & Whitney FT4 units and ▪ 144 MW of retired Westinghouse units (recently removed from site) ▪ The Facility provides essential reliability service to NYC (dual fuel peaking, contingency support and system restoration)

Astoria Con Ed Complex NRG Astoria Gas Turbines

Astoria Con Ed Complex Existing Astoria Gas Turbines

4 Replacement Project (2010)

▪ As approved in 2010, the Project consisted of replacing the existing generation at the site with four combined cycle units capable of generating 1,040 MW ▪ Due to changing market conditions, the Project was never built

5 Modified Replacement Project (2020)

6 Project Comparison (2010 vs 2020)

Original Permitted Project Proposed Modified Project

Project Size 1,040 MW 437 MW

Technology Combined Cycle (Intermediate Duty) Simple Cycle (Peaking Duty)

Incorporates Battery Energy Storage? No Yes

Capable of System Restoration? No Yes

The Proposed Project Modification: ▪ Decreases the project size by 58%

▪ Modernizes the project technology

▪ Further reduces air emissions

▪ Resolves identified reliability shortfalls in NYC in a timely manner

▪ Incorporates Battery Energy Storage into the project design

▪ Minimizes the footprint of the project, allowing for future stand alone energy storage installations

▪ Provides system restoration capability

▪ Capable of being converted to green hydrogen fuel by 2040

7 Status of Current Permitting Process

▪ NYSDEC Permit Modification Package submitted – April 27, 2020 • Title V – Air Permit • SPDES – Water Discharge Permit • SEPPP – Public Participation Plan • Full Environmental Assessment Form ▪ Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Amendment filed with NYPSC – September 3, 2020 ▪ Final Scope for Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) approved – September 18, 2020 ▪ Next Step: Notice of Complete Application from NYSDEC followed by Public Comment Period

8 Replacement Project Supports New York's Climate Agenda

▪ Maximizes Greenhouse Gas Reductions at the Minimum Cost • Project incorporates the most advanced and efficient equipment available in the marketplace at no cost to NYC electricity customers • Project will result in nearly 5M tons1 of cumulative GHG reductions through 2035 • Equivalent of taking 84,500 cars off the road (or 12% of all registered cars in Queens County) • Project displaces less efficient generating units, reducing region-wide natural gas demand • Improves air quality by reducing onsite emission rates up to 99% per hour ▪ Facilitates the Interconnection of Additional Renewable Resources (9,000 MW Offshore Wind, 6,000 MW Solar PV Goals) • “To balance lower capacity factor, intermittent resources, and shorter-duration resources like energy storage, bulk power system operators will require a full portfolio of resources that can be dispatched in response to any change in real- time operating conditions to maintain bulk power system reliability.” - NYISO Power Trends 2019 ▪ Contributes to New York’s energy storage goals (3,000 MW by 2030)

▪ Capable of generating Zero Carbon Electricity by 2040 • Project technology is capable of conversion to green hydrogen fuel

1 Source: Guidehouse Consulting; GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project. April 2020. 9 Additional State & Local Benefits

▪ Economic Benefit • Creates more than 500 local jobs and $156 million in economic benefits to the State of New York during the construction period • Creates more than 70 local jobs and $170 million in economic benefits to the State of New York from operations and maintenance spending through 2040 • Near term investment of over $350 million of private capital in New York state

▪ Lowers Electricity Rates for NYC Ratepayers • The Project will reduce the cost of electricity for New York consumers by over $1.3 billion in the first 5 years of operation • Project does not require any subsidy from NY ratepayers or taxpayers

10 Astoria Replacement Project Polling Results Role of Natural Gas

Potential Energy Sources Support Energy Policies

We must focus only on 100% 68% renewable sources of energy like wind and solar power. 26%

We must focus on renewable sources of energy like wind and 38% solar power, but ALSO allow 56% technology that efficiently uses natural gas.

We don’t need to focus on Reduce air Block new energy renewable energy options/Not 17% pollution by relying projects that will sure more on natural rely on natural gas. gas.

When it comes to upgrading New York Support/Oppose Astoria City power plants, should we… Replacement Project 78% Act now and reliably produce power using both cleaner natural gas technology AND renewable sources 60%

Wait until the technology is available to reliably produce power from 100% renewable sources of 27% energy. There is currently no consensus on when this technology 10% will be available. Support Oppose Not Sure 13%

11 Opportunities for Further Public Participation

There will be an additional opportunity for public comment when NYSDEC issues the Notice of Complete Application

Questions or comments may be provided to the Project Applicant via phone, email or regular mail

• Phone: (718) 274-5180 • Email: [email protected] • Mail: Astoria Replacement Project, PO Box 7, Albany, NY 12201-0007

Questions or comments may also be provided to the NYSDEC via the phone, email or regular mail

• Phone: (518) 402-9151 • Email: [email protected] • Mail: Chris Hogan, NYS DEC – Division of Environmental Permits, 625 Broadway, 4th Floor, Albany, NY 12233-1750

More information can be found at: www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com 12 13 End of Presentation

14 Appendix G.6

SEPPP Progress Report February 2021 Astoria Replacement Project Enhanced Public Participation Plan 1-2

1.0 Report on Progress to Date

In the Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan (SEPPP) submitted to the NYSDEC in April 2020, Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC (“Astoria”) agreed to submit quarterly reports summarizing its progress related to the implementation of the plan. Astoria submitted the second quarterly report to the NYSDEC on November 24, 2020. As detailed in that report, since the submission of the SEPPP Astoria has held numerous meetings with community organizations, environmental groups, government agencies and elected officials to obtain feedback from project stakeholders on issues of potential concern to the community regarding the Replacement Project. Moreover, Astoria has held two additional public participation meetings (July 16, 2020 and January 21, 2021) to (i) inform the public about proposed modifications to the previously approved Astoria Replacement Project, (ii) provide the status of applications to modify the Facility’s existing permits, and (iii) identify opportunities for future public participation in the process including NYSDEC’s supplemental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).

Astoria has undertaken the SEPPP consistent with CP-29 and NYSDEC’s April 24, 2020 Guidance on Commissioner’s Policy 29 During the COVID-19 Public Health Crisis. As detailed in this third quarterly report, Astoria has continued to implement the SEPPP by providing information to the public, responding to public and media inquiries and also seeking to understand issues of importance to the neighboring community and other interested stakeholders. Astoria will continue its implementation of the SEPPP until all approvals and/or permits are obtained for the Project.

Supplemental Public Outreach Activities Since 2nd Quarterly Progress Report Astoria previously established multiple ways that the public could inquire about the Project, including a project dedicated email address, telephone number and P.O. Box. Since the second quarterly report, Astoria continues to keep these avenues of communication open.

As discussed above, Astoria held a second public participation meeting on January 21, 2021 to provide an update on the Replacement Project’s progress, and to obtain feedback from interested stakeholders. In accordance with Section 3.3 of the SEPPP and April 24, 2020 Guidance on Commissioner’s Policy 29 During the COVID-19 Public Health Crisis, the meeting was noticed in two local newspapers (the Queens Chronicle on both December 30, 2020 and January 7, 2021 and the Queens Gazette on January 6, 2021) and mailed to all of the stakeholders identified in Appendix B of the SEPPP. A copy of the public meeting presentation, the notice and proofs of publication, as well as a summary of the public participation meeting are included in Appendix A to this quarterly report.

Astoria has also responded to more than a dozen media requests for interviews and comments regarding the Project, primarily from Queens-focused outlets.

Further, in October 2020, Astoria completed an extensive Harris poll about the Project, that involved asking 1,200 New York City residents, weighted heavily in Queens, various questions about the Project. The purpose was to determine the issues of importance to the public, specifically focusing on residents living near the Project. The poll revealed that the general public overwhelmingly supports the Project, even when factoring in opposition viewpoints. A memo prepared by Harris is included in Appendix B.

Since the submission of the last quarterly report, Astoria has held several additional meetings with government agencies and elected officials, formally and informally, to educate newly elected officials on the project and discuss the current status of applications to modify the Facility’s existing permits and identify opportunities for future public participation in the process. These meetings are summarized below:

February 2021 Astoria Replacement Project Enhanced Public Participation Plan 1-3

• On December 22, 2020, Astoria representatives held a WebEx meeting with NYC Council member Constantinides to provide an update on the Project; • On January 21, 2021, Astoria Representatives held a second virtual public information meeting for the purpose of educating the community, answering questions and soliciting comments on the Astoria Replacement Project. • On January 28, 2021, Astoria representatives held a WebEx meeting with State Senator Jessica Ramos and her staff to provide an update on the Project. • On February 11, 2021, Astoria representatives held a WebEx meeting with Queens Borough President Donovan Richards and his staff to provide an overview and update on the Project’s permitting status. • On February 25, 2021, Astoria representatives held a project update WebEx meeting with NYS Governor’s Energy Staff, including Carrie Gallagher, the Acting Deputy Secretary for Energy & Environment. • On February 26, 2021, Astoria representatives held a WebEx meeting with NYS Assembly member Zohran Mamdani to provide an update on the Project.

Further, in January and February 2021, Astoria sent two direct mail pieces to all African American, Latino and 55+ Astoria households. The correspondence provided residents with information about the Project and its benefits as well as the link to the Project website in order to facilitate residents access to more detailed information about the Project, including our online repository of project documents.

In June 2020, Astoria made available for public access a website www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com which includes an overview of the Project, as well as an online repository of major project documents. The website has been regularly updated as project documents are completed and submitted to various agencies. Since the second quarterly report, additional documents have been added to the website, including:

1. the second quarterly report for the SEPPP; 2. the Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation from the Federal Aviation Administration dated December 23, 2020; and 3. the presentation for the SEPPP public informational meeting held on January 21, 2021.

With respect to a physical repository, as previously reported, the Astoria Branch of the Queens Public Library reopened following closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic and became available to accept documents. Astoria, therefore, re-established a physical repository of major project documents in August 2020 at the Astoria Branch of the Queens Public Library at 14-01 Astoria Blvd, Astoria, NY 11102. This repository will be updated in February 2021 to include additional, recent Project documents.

February 2021 Astoria Replacement Project Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan

Appendix A

Public Meeting Materials

February 2021 Astoria Replacement Project Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan

Summary of the Virtual Public Meeting for the Astoria Replacement Project

Date: January 21, 2021 from 7:00 – 10:00pm EST

Background On January 21, 2021, Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC and representatives of NRG Energy, Inc. hosted its second virtual public meeting to discuss the Astoria Replacement Project (“Project”). The meeting was well attended by nearly 200 people in all. More than 100 participated via an online webcast which allowed participants to view the Power Point and submit comments. Another 90+ people attended via the telephone where they could ask questions verbally. All information about the meeting was included on the project website as well and comments were also accepted via the Project’s dedicated email address. Each participant was provided time to comment or ask a question. Elected officials were given priority, followed by Astoria and Queens residents. Participants included local politicians, representatives from the environmental justice community, environmental advocacy groups, government employees, community organizations, local residents, labor organizations and plant employees.

Astoria provided an overview of the Project, its benefits and the current permitting process status and encouraged future questions and comments and urged viewers to visit the website to learn more, and to stay posted for future updates. Astoria also informed attendees that the Project website will continue to be updated with additional project information. The meeting, scheduled for two hours, was extended an extra hour to allow adequate time for all participants to provide comment or ask questions. As a result, every attendee who sought to comment or ask a question was able to do so.

• Participants asked for clarification on the temporary and permanent jobs created by the Replacement Project. Astoria clarified that the project would result in approximately 500 jobs, including high paying union jobs, during the construction period. The Project will also require 10-20 long-term fulltime employees at the site after construction along with indirect support from jobs such as snowplowing and landscaping. • Astoria was also asked to expand on the potential use of green hydrogen at the site. Astoria clarified that the technology chosen for the Project could be capable of operating on up to 100% green hydrogen in 2040, based on its discussions with the General Electric Company. • Similar to the previous public information meeting, there were several questions and comments related to renewable energy alternatives in combination with energy storage to meet demand – the response noted that although NRG Energy, Inc. believes battery storage can play a significant role going forward, the technology is not at a stage where it can fully replace peaking projects. Astoria discussed its review of alternatives at the site, including energy storage, wind and solar. Astoria explained that the site of the proposed facility is too small for wind or solar, so replacing the existing units with meaningful amounts of wind or solar power is not technically feasible. Astoria has active interconnection requests with the NYISO for energy storage at the site and will continue those development efforts.

February 2021

YOU ARE INVITED TO A PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING ABOUT THE ASTORIA REPLACEMENT PROJECT

Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC, a subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc., has submitted an application to modify its previously approved project and replace existing combustion turbines at the Astoria Gas Turbine Generating Facility with a new state-of-the-art simple cycle combustion turbine. The Facility is located on a 15-acre site at 31-01 20th Ave., Astoria, Queens County, New York.

In light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Governor’s Executive Order 202, the public information meeting will be held virtually.

Date: January 21, 2021

Time: 7:00 – 9:00 pm

Webcast Link: https://edge.media-server.com/mmc/p/wd73k4vy Participant Toll-Free Dial-In Number: (877) 359-9508 Conference ID: 7840617

YOUR ATTENDANCE IS IMPORTANT

• Learn more about the Project • Ask questions and comment on the Project • Discuss your concerns • Learn about the environmental review process and opportunities for public comment

Attendees are encouraged to submit questions throughout the meeting and time will be set aside at the end to answer questions. Questions or comments concerning the Project also may be submitted via email, phone, or regular mail to:

Astoria Replacement Project P.O. Box 7 Albany, NY 12201-0007 [email protected] (718) 274-5180

An online document repository containing Project materials has been established at www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com.

Second Virtual Public Meeting Astoria Replacement Project

Learn about the Astoria Replacement Project with an opportunity to ask questions and provide comments Hosted by Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC (a subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc.)

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Governor’s Executive Order 202, the public information meeting will once again be held virtually. Details are below.

Thursday, January 21st, 2021, 7-9 p.m.

To view online, visit www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com. Scroll to and click the Webcast link near the top and fill out the brief form.

To listen, ask questions or provide comments during the meeting, call toll free (877) 359-9508, enter ID# 7840617

Astoria Replacement Project Application Summary

As previously approved, the Astoria Replacement Project will replace the existing power generating units at NRG’s Astoria Facility. The Project is now being modified to reduce the size of the Facility (from 1040 MW to 437 MW) and incorporate a state-of-the-art generating unit which requires modifications of the Facility’s existing New York State Department of Environmental Conservation air and water permits. This critical infrastructure project will:

• Reduce the total generating capability of the site while lowering air emission rates by up to 99% per hour, resulting in cleaner air immediately; • Support New York’s leading efforts to fight climate change by significantly reducing net greenhouse gas emissions with technology that will be fully convertible to zero-carbon fuel in the future; • Create hundreds of new good-paying jobs in Queens; and • Resolve known reliability issues on the electric grid.

According to a Harris poll, more than three-fourths of NYC residents support the Project

Information and Contacts

• Project documents can be found at www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com

• Interested stakeholders may also submit questions or comments following the meeting via phone, email, or regular mail: (718) 274-5180, [email protected], or Astoria Replacement Project, PO Box 7, Albany, NY 12201-0007

Key Virtual Meeting Details • • The meeting is January 21st, 2021, from 7-9 p.m. You can join the meeting via phone or web link:

Phone: (877) 359-9508, Conference ID 7840617 Web: www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com ি�তীয় ভাচু쇍 য়াল জন সভা অ뷍া�িরয়া �িত�াপন �ক�

�� িজ�াসা করার ও মতামত �দান করার সুেযাগ সহ অ뷍া�িরয়া �িত�াপন �ক� স�েক쇍 জানুন (সহায়ক সং�া ﶟঅ뷍া�িরয়া গ뷍াস টারবাইন পাওয়ার LLC (NRG এ ন া ি জ쇍 , ইনক -এর এক

COVID-19 মহামাির এবং গভন쇍েরর িনব쇍াহী আেদশ 202 এর কারেণ, জন তথ뷍 সভা আেরা একবার ভাচু쇍 য়ািল অনুি�ত হেব। িব�ািরত িনেচ েদওয়া হেলা।

বহ�িতবারৃ , 21 জানুয়াির 2021, স�뷍া 7টা- রাত 9টা

অনলাইেন েদখেত িভিজট কর‍ন www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com. পূরণ করন। ﶟল কের উপের ওেয়বকা� িলে� যান ও েসখােন ি�ক করন এবং সংি�� ফম쇍�

সভার সময় কথা শ‍নেত, �� িজ�াসা করেত বা মতামত �দান করেত িনেচর েটাল ি� ন�ের কল কর‍ন (877) 359-9508, ID িলখুন# 7840617

অ뷍া�িরয়া �িত�াপন �ক� আেবদেনর সারসংে�প

েত িবদ뷍মান িবদু뷍ৎ উৎপাদনকারীﶟপূেব쇍র অনুেমাদন অনুযায়ী, অ뷍া�িরয়া �িত�াপন �ক� NRG-এর অ뷍া�িরয়া ফ뷍ািসিল র আকার েছাট করার জন뷍 (1040 MW হেত 437ﶟেক এখন ফ뷍ািসিলﶟ�ইউিনটগেলােক �িত�ািপত করেব। �ক র িবদ뷍মান িনউﶟঅত뷍াধুিনক উৎপাদনকারী ইউিনট যু� করার জন뷍 পিরবত쇍ন করা হে� যার জন뷍 ফ뷍ািসিল ﶟMW) এবং এক ইয়ক쇍 ে�ট িডপাট쇍েম� অব এনভায়রনেম�াল কনজােভ쇍শন এয়ার অ뷍া� ওয়াটার পারিমেটর সংেশাধন �েয়াজন। এই :ﶟ�গর�পূণ쇍 অবকাঠােমা �ক

• বায়ু িনগ쇍মেনর হার �িত ঘ�ায় 99% পয쇍� কিমেয় আনার পাশাপািশ েমাট উৎপাদন �মতা �াস করেব, যার ফেল �ত পির�ার বায়ু ৈতির হেব; • �যুি�র সাহােয뷍 েনট ি�নহাউজ গ뷍াস িনগ쇍মনেক উে�খেযাগ뷍 হাের �াস করার মাধ뷍েম - যা ভিবষ뷍েত স�ূণ쇍 শূন뷍- কাব쇍ন �◌ালািনেত র‍পা�িরত হেব- িনউ ইয়েক쇍র �ধান জলবায়ু িবেরাধী লড়াইেক সহায়তা করেব; • 嗁ইে� শত শত নতুন ভােলা-েবতেনর চাকিরর সুেযাগ ৈতির করেব; এবং • ৈবদু뷍িতক ি�েড িনভ쇍রেযাগ뷍তা স�িক쇍ত �াত সমস뷍াগ‍েলার সমাধান করেব।

হ뷍ািরস জিরপ অনুসাের, িতন-চতুথ쇍াংেশরও েবিশ NYC বািস�া এই �ক�েক সমথ쇍ন কেরন। ﶟএক

তথ뷍 ও েযাগােযাগ

• �কে�র নিথ www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com ওেয়বসাইেট পাওয়া যােব

:র পের �� বা ম�ব뷍 জমা িদেত পােরনﶟআ�হী ে�কেহা�াররা েফান, ইেমল বা িনয়িমত ডাকেযােগও সভা • (718) 274-5180, [email protected], বা Astoria Replacement Project, PO Box 7, Albany, NY 12201-0007

ভ া চু쇍 য়াল সভা সং�া� মলূ িব�ািরত তথ뷍 • জানুয়াির 2021, স�뷍া 7টা - রাত 9টায় অনুি�ত হেব। আপিন েফান বা ওেয়ব িলে�র মাধ뷍েম সভায় 21 ﶟসভা • েযাগদান করেত পােরন:

েফান: (877) 359-9508, কনফাের� ID 7840617 ওেয়ব: www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com Δεύτερη Εικονική Δημόσια Συνάντηση Έργο Αντικατάστασης Αστόρια

Μάθετε σχετικά με το Έργο Αντικατάστασης Αστόρια με μια ευκαιρία να διατυπώσετε ερωτήσεις και να παρέχετε σχολιασμό Φιλοξενείτε από την Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC (μια θυγατρική της NRG Energy, Inc.)

Εξαιτίας της πανδημίας COVID-19 και το εκτελεστικό διάταγμα 202 του κυβερνήτη, η δημόσια συνάντηση ενημέρωσης θα διεξαχθεί εικονικά για άλλη μια φορά. Οι λεπτομέρειες παρατίθενται παρακάτω.

Πέμπτη, 21 Ιανουαρίου 2021, 7-9 μ.μ.

Για διαδικτυακή παρακολούθηση, επισκεφθείτε www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com. Κυλήστε προς και κάντε κλικ στον σύνδεσμο Webcast κοντά στην κορυφή και συμπληρώστε την σύντομη φόρμα.

Για να ακούσετε, να διατυπώσετε ερωτήσεις ή να παρέχετε σχολιασμό κατά την διάρκεια της συνάντησης, καλέστε χωρίς χρέωση (877) 359-9508, εισάγετε ID# 7840617

Περίληψη της Εφαρμογής του Έργου Αντικατάστασης Αστόρια

Προηγουμένως εγκεκριμένο, το Έργο Αντικατάστασης Αστόρια θα αντικαταστήσει τις υπάρχουσες γεννήτριες ενέργειας στις εγκαταστάσεις της NRG στην Αστόρια. Το Έργο τώρα τροποποιείται για την μείωση του μεγέθους των Εγκαταστάσεων (από 1040 MW σε 437 MW) και να ενσωματώνει μια μονάδα γεννήτριας τελευταίας τεχνολογίας που απαιτεί τροποποιήσεις των αδειών αέρα και υδάτων της Υπηρεσίας Διατήρησης του Περιβάλλοντος της Νέας Υόρκης της υπάρχουσας Εγκατάστασης. Το κρίσιμο έργο υποδομής θα:

• Μειώνει την συνολική ικανότητα παραγωγής της τοποθεσίας ενώ θα μειώνει τους ρυθμούς εκπομπής αέρα έως και 99% ανά ώρα, με αποτέλεσμα να είναι καθαρότερος ο αέρας αμέσως. • Να υποστηρίζει της ηγετικές προσπάθειες της Νέας Υόρκης να καταπολεμήσει την κλιματική αλλαγή με την σημαντική μείωση των καθαρών εκπομπών αερίου του θερμοκηπίου με τεχνολογία που θα είναι πλήρως μετατρέψιμη σε καύσιμα με μηδέν διοξείδιο στο μέλλον. • Να δημιουργήσει χιλίαδες νέες με καλές αποδοχές εργασίες στο Queens, και • Να επιλύει γνωστά ζητήματα αξιοπιστίας του ηλεκτρικού πλέγματος.

Σύμφωνα με τη δημοσκόπηση Harris, άνω των τριών τετάρτων των κατοίκων της Νέας Υόρκης υποστηρίζουν το Έργο.

Πληροφορίες και Στοιχεία Επικοινωνίας

• Τα έγγραφα του Έργου βρίσκονται σε www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com

• Ενδιαφερόμενα εμπλεκόμενα μέρη με συμφέροντα μπορούν επίσης να υποβάλλουν ερωτήσεις ή να διατυπώσουν σχόλια μέσω τηλεφώνου, ηλεκτρονικής ταχυδρομικής διέυθυνσης, ή κανονικού ταχυδρομείου: (718) 274-5180, [email protected], ή Astoria Replacement Project, PO Box 7, Albany, NY 12201-0007

Σημαντικές Λεπτομέρειες της Εικονικής Συνάντησης • • Η συνάντηση είναι την 21 Ιανουαρίου 2021 από τις 7-9 μ.μ. Μπορείτε να συμμετέχετε μέσω τηλεφώνου ή μέσω συνδέσμου δικτύου:

Τηλέφωνο: (877) 359-9508, Συνάντηση ID 7840617 Διαδίκτυο: www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com Segunda reunión pública virtual Proyecto de Reemplazo de Astoria

Conoce sobre el Proyecto de Reemplazo de Astoria con la oportunidad de hacer preguntas y proporcionar comentarios Organizado por Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC (una subsidiaria de NRG Energy, Inc.)

Debido a la pandemia de COVID-19 y la Orden Ejecutiva 202 del Gobernador, la reunión de información pública se realizará nuevamente de manera virtual. Los detalles se encuentran a continuación.

Jueves 21 de enero de 2021, de 7 a 9 p.m.

Para verlo en línea, visita www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com. Desplázate hasta el enlace de Webcast cerca de la parte superior, haz clic y completa el breve formulario.

Para escuchar, hacer preguntas o proporcionar comentarios durante la reunión, llama sin cargo al (877) 359-9508, ingresa ID# 7840617

Resumen de la solicitud del Proyecto de Reemplazo de Astoria

Como se aprobó anteriormente, el Proyecto de Reemplazo de Astoria reemplazará las unidades generadoras de energía existentes en la Planta Astoria de NRG. El Proyecto ahora se está modificando para reducir el tamaño de la Instalación (de 1040 MW a 437 MW) e incorporar una unidad generadora de última generación que requiere modificaciones de los permisos de aire y agua del Departamento de Conservación Ambiental del Estado de Nueva York existentes en la Instalación. Este proyecto de infraestructura crítica:

• Reducirá la capacidad de generación total del sitio a la vez que disminuye las tasas de emisión de aire hasta en un 99% por hora, lo que resulta en un aire inmediatamente más limpio; • Apoyará los principales esfuerzos de Nueva York para combatir el cambio climático reduciendo significativamente las emisiones netas de gases de efecto invernadero con tecnología que será totalmente convertible en combustible sin carbono en el futuro; • Creará cientos de nuevos empleos bien remunerados en Queens; y • Resolverá problemas conocidos de confiabilidad en la red eléctrica.

Según una encuesta de Harris, más de las tres cuartas partes de los residentes de la ciudad de Nueva York apoyan el Proyecto.

Información y contactos

• Los documentos del proyecto se pueden encontrar en www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com

• Las partes interesadas también pueden enviar preguntas o comentarios después de la reunión por teléfono, correo electrónico o correo postal: (718) 274-5180, [email protected], o Astoria Replacement Project, PO Box 7, Albany, NY 12201-0007

Detalles clave de la reunión virtual • • La reunión es el 21 de enero de 2021, de 7 a 9 p.m. Puedes unirte a la reunión por teléfono o mediante un enlace web:

Teléfono: (877) 359-9508, ID de conferencia 7840617 Página web: www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com Astoria Replacement Project

Public Information Meeting

January 21, 2021

0 Public Meeting Agenda

• Introductions

• Public Meeting Webcast Process

• Astoria Replacement Project Overview

• Status of Environmental Review and Opportunities for Public Participation

• Project Benefits

• Questions and Comments

This presentation is available at www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com

1 Public Meeting Teleconference Process

• Need for Virtual Public Meeting

• Live Presentation followed by interactive questions and comments:

• For those on the phone, press *1 on your phone and the moderator will add you to the queue

• For those on the webcast, click the “Ask a Question” tab at the top right of your computer screen. Enter your question in the box and then hit submit.

• Participants will be required to provide name and residential address

• Comments may be sent:

• By Email: [email protected]

• By Phone: (718) 274-5180 and leave a message

2 Meet the Speakers

3 NRG Astoria Facility Today

▪ The Astoria Con Ed Complex has hosted major energy infrastructure for over 100 years ▪ NRG purchased the 15 acre Astoria Gas Turbines site from Con Edison in 1999 ▪ The site currently consists of: ▪ 500 MW of 1970 vintage Pratt & Whitney FT4 units and ▪ 144 MW of retired Westinghouse units (recently removed from site) ▪ The Facility provides essential reliability service to NYC (dual fuel peaking, contingency support and system restoration)

Astoria Con Ed Complex NRG Astoria Gas Turbines

Astoria Con Ed Complex Existing Astoria Gas Turbines

4 Replacement Project (2010)

5 Modified Replacement Project (2020)

6 Project Comparison (2010 vs 2020)

Original Permitted Project Proposed Modified Project

Project Size 1,040 MW 437 MW

Technology Combined Cycle (Intermediate Duty) Simple Cycle (Peaking Duty)

Incorporates Battery Energy Storage? No Yes

Capable of System Restoration? No Yes

The Proposed Project Modification: ▪ Decreases the project size by 58%

▪ Modernizes the project technology

▪ Further reduces air emissions

▪ Resolves identified reliability shortfalls in NYC in a timely manner

▪ Incorporates Battery Energy Storage into the project design

▪ Minimizes the footprint of the project, allowing for future stand alone energy storage installations

▪ Provides system restoration capability

▪ Capable of being converted to green hydrogen fuel by 2040

7 Status of Current Permitting Process

8 Replacement Project Supports New York's Climate Agenda

▪ Capable of generating Zero Carbon Electricity by 2040 • Project technology is capable of conversion to green hydrogen fuel

1 Source: Guidehouse Consulting; GHG Impacts of Astoria Replacement Project. April 2020. 9 Additional State & Local Benefits

10 Astoria Replacement Project Polling Results Role of Natural Gas

Potential Energy Sources Support Energy Policies

We must focus only on 100% 68% renewable sources of energy like wind and solar power. 26%

We must focus on renewable sources of energy like wind and 38% solar power, but ALSO allow 56% technology that efficiently uses natural gas.

We don’t need to focus on Reduce air Block new energy renewable energy options/Not 17% pollution by relying projects that will sure more on natural rely on natural gas. gas.

11 Opportunities for Further Public Participation

There will be an additional opportunity for public comment when NYSDEC issues the Notice of Complete Application

Questions or comments may be provided to the Project Applicant via phone, email or regular mail

• Phone: (718) 274-5180 • Email: [email protected] • Mail: Astoria Replacement Project, PO Box 7, Albany, NY 12201-0007

Questions or comments may also be provided to the NYSDEC via the phone, email or regular mail

• Phone: (518) 402-9151 • Email: [email protected] • Mail: Chris Hogan, NYS DEC – Division of Environmental Permits, 625 Broadway, 4th Floor, Albany, NY 12233-1750

More information can be found at: www.cleanerpowerforastoria.com 12 13 End of Presentation

14 Astoria Replacement Project Supplemental Enhanced Public Participation Plan

Appendix B

Harris Poll Memo

February 2021 This memo highlights key results from a representative online poll of 1,242 New York City voters conducted by The Harris Poll from September 18 to October 1, 2020. l l l l New Yorkers identify the economy (34%), More than 3-in-4 New Yorkers (78%) jobs (30%), crime (26%), healthcare (25%), support the Astoria Replacement Project and housing (21%) as the city’s top two based on this description: issues, far outpacing climate change/the “The Astoria Generating Station is one of environment (13%) and energy (2%). While New York City’s roughly 15 “peaker” plants at least two-thirds say environmental — which produce extra power when the city policies are important in a vacuum, these needs it, like during a heatwave or major issues fall to the bottom of their priorities storm. They run primarily on natural gas. list when compared to other issues, even Currently, the company that owns the Astoria Generating Station is proposing to replace among self-identified liberal New Yorkers. the 50-year-old power generators with newer and cleaner technology at no cost to l l taxpayers.” When it comes to energy policy, more than l l half of New Yorkers (56%) want to focus on Support decreases slightly after voters hear both renewables AND other technology, arguments on both sides but close to 3-in-4 including natural gas. Only 26% argue for New Yorkers remain supportive. an energy strategy that is exclusively 100% renewable. l l Support for the Astoria New Yorkers worry about cost and Replacement Project After reliability when it comes to relying more the Following heavily on 100% renewable energy. Supporters say: Reliability is the most important goal for Replacing the 50-year-old power gen- Overall - 73 erators with new natural gas technology energy policy. will reduce air emissions rates by up (80% call it extremely/very important). to 99%. This will immediately improve air quality in the plant’s surrounding neighborhoods, while ensuring a more Cost is another important factor: a plurality reliable supply of electricity for New York City. Moreover, the new technolo- (39%) don’t want to pay any extra on their gy can be converted to use zero carbon electric bill for 100% renewable energy, hydrogen fuel when that technology is and only 12% are willing to pay available in the future. significantly more. Opponents say: This is a half measure that will not do enough to protect the community from dirty air or move us to renewable l l energy sources that are better for the environment. This plant will still be Natural gas can be part of the solution Strongly - 30 operating on fossil fuels that pollute the – 68% of New Yorkers support relying air quality in Queens, which leads to more on natural gas in order to reduce air higher rates of asthma and other health concerns. pollution. Moreover, 60% of voters believe we need to act now and upgrade power Overall - 15 plants with the technology we have 13 (including natural gas). Only 27% say we Strongly - 4 should wait for 100% renewable technology. Support Oppose Not Sure

Appendix H

Supporting Information for EJ/HOD Analyses and COVID-19 Litterature Review

Appendix H.1

EJ/HOD Demographic Data

Table 4.10.3

Potential Environmental Justice Areas Census Data Census Tract 103 Census Tract 105 Census Tract 107 Census Tract 111 Census Tract 113 Comparable Block Group 4 Block Group 1 Block Group 1 Block Group 1 Block Group 1 Block Group 2 Queens County Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total Population1 1,001 100 1,042 100 119 100 1,619 100 1,686 100 2,325 100 2,229,379 100 Age Distribution1 <5 61 6.1 72 6.9 7 5.9 93 5.7 93 5.5 130 5.6 142,716 6.4 5 - 19 135 13.5 269 25.8 33 27.7 236 14.6 187 11.1 418 18.0 421,681 18.9 20 - 64 686 68.5 608 58.3 69 58.0 1,086 67.1 1,168 69.3 1,570 67.5 1,381,940 62.0 65+ 119 11.9 93 8.9 10 8.4 204 12.6 238 14.1 207 8.9 283,042 12.7 Total 1,001 100 1,042 100 119 100 1,619 100 1,686 100 2,325 100 2,229,379 100.0 Race/Ethnicity1 One race 920 91.9 907 87.0 118 99.2 1,360 84.0 1,559 92.5 2,121 91.2 2,093,209 93.9 White 549 54.8 487 46.7 89 74.8 878 54.2 1,206 71.5 1,010 43.4 982,725 44.1 African- American 10 1.0 141 13.5 0 0.0 20 1.2 10 0.6 65 2.8 446,189 20.0 American Indian/Alaskan 3 0.3 7 0.7 0 0.0 3 0.2 17 1.0 14 0.6 11,077 0.5 Asian 329 32.9 71 6.8 18 15.1 212 13.1 218 12.9 699 30.1 391,500 17.6 Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 1,331 0.1 Some Other Race 29 2.9 201 19.3 11 9.2 244 15.1 108 6.4 333 14.3 260,387 11.7 Two or More Races 81 8.1 135 13.0 1 0.8 259 16.0 127 7.5 204 8.8 136,170 6.1 Total Minority 452 45.2 555 53.3 30 25.2 741 45.8 480 28.5 1,315 56.6 1,246,654 55.9 Hispanic/Latino AND Not Hispanic/Latino by Race1 Hispanic or Latino 149 14.9 415 39.8 40 33.6 426 26.3 355 21.1 772 33.2 556,605 25.0 Not Hispanic or Latino 853 85.2 627 60.2 79 66.4 1,193 73.7 1,331 78.9 1,553 66.8 1,672,774 75.0 Not Hispanic or Latino White Alone 462 46.2 340 32.6 61 51.3 712 44.0 988 58.6 647 27.8 732,895 32.9 Total Minority * 539 53.8 702 67.4 58 48.7 907 56.0 698 41.4 1,678 72.2 1,496,484 67.1 Income2 Median household income 1999 ($) 37,115 12,908 4,792 38,088 31,049 24,707 42,439 Persons below poverty 1999 235 23.5 506 48.6 114 95.8 216 13.3 474 28.1 720 31.0 321,102 14.4

* Total Minority as defined by the New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation Commissioner’s Policy 29: African-American, American Indian/Alaskan, Asian, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Some Other Race, Two or More Races, and the ethnicity Hispanic or Latino. It is calculated by subtracting the Not Hispanic or Latino - White Alone from the Total Population. 1 U.S. Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data 2 U. S. Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data 1/23/2009

Astoria Replacement Project as Modified in 2020 Identification of Potential Environmental Justice Areas Located in Queens County within the 1-mile Study Area

Poverty Threshold 23.59 % Minority Threshold 51.1 %

Persons below Poverty Minority Population Geography (based on 2018 ACS Daa) (based on 2010 Decennial) PEJA based on PEJA? PEJA? Exceeding Poverty Block (% at or above (% at or above and/or Minority Tract Group County Number Percent 23.59%) Number Percent 51.1%) Threshold 97 1 Queens 30 6.1 NO 144 25.4 NO NO 97 2 Queens 55 5.2 NO 361 29.6 NO NO 97 3 Queens 93 10.5 NO 166 20.0 NO NO 97 4 Queens 108 8.4 NO 241 25.0 NO NO 101 1 Queens 150 9.7 NO 418 32.6 NO NO 101 2 Queens 39 4.3 NO 382 30.1 NO NO 103 1 Queens 260 17.7 NO 329 34.2 NO NO 103 2 Queens 109 15.8 NO 255 30.2 NO NO 103 3 Queens 115 9.7 NO 429 36.4 NO NO 103 4 Queens 30 4.5 NO 493 51.9 YES YES 105 1 Queens 245 21.5 NO 574 60.1 YES YES 105 2 Queens 307 33.2 YES 674 66.2 YES YES 105 3 Queens 151 11.7 NO 804 55.8 YES YES 105 4 Queens 169 16.8 NO 464 56.0 YES YES 111 1 Queens 325 17.8 NO 848 50.8 NO NO 111 2 Queens 70 5.4 NO 447 32.4 NO NO 113 1 Queens 61 4.9 NO 458 33.1 NO NO 113 2 Queens 206 9.0 NO 1,043 58.1 YES YES 113 3 Queens 84 9.1 NO 247 23.4 NO NO 115 1 Queens 178 10.0 NO 684 38.3 NO NO 115 2 Queens 18 2.4 NO 121 22.4 NO NO 117 1 Queens 58 6.5 NO 243 28.4 NO NO 117 2 Queens 120 17.6 NO 306 34.2 NO NO 117 3 Queens 132 9.4 NO 387 32.9 NO NO 117 4 Queens 92 11.5 NO 248 26.9 NO NO 119 1 Queens 156 20.7 NO 238 32.7 NO NO 119 2 Queens 86 12.7 NO 287 29.5 NO NO 121 1 Queens 53 4.2 NO 276 23.0 NO NO 121 2 Queens 113 13.2 NO 240 27.7 NO NO 123.01 1 Queens 72 6.6 NO 373 29.6 NO NO 123.01 2 Queens 144 13.4 NO 173 19.4 NO NO 123.01 3 Queens 14 1.9 NO 136 17.9 NO NO Astoria Replacement Project as Modified in 2020 Determination of Similar Zip Codes in Queens

Is Zip Code PopulationPopulation Density Population Queens 2010 Density within +/ 10% of Zip Bronx 2010 Density (1) 2 (2) 2 (1) 2 (3) 2 Zip Codes Population Area (mi ) (#people/mi ) Code 11105? Zip Codes Population Area (mi ) (#people/mi ) 11004 14,016 0.949 14,769 NO 10454 37,337 1.048 35,627 11005 1,806 0.183 9,869 NO 10455 39,665 0.713 55,631 11101 25,484 2.604 9,786 NO 10474 12,281 1.529 8,032 11102 34,133 0.789 43,261 NO (3) Source: https://www.zip-codes.com/county/ny-bronx.asp 11103 38,780 0.711 54,543 NO 11104 27,232 0.388 70,186 NO 11105 36,688 1.682 21,812 YES Astoria 11106 38,875 0.855 45,468 NO 11109 3,523 0.050 70,460 NO Population 11120 0 0 N/A N/A Manhattan 2010 Density (1) 2 (4) 2 11351 0 0 N/A N/A Zip Codes Population Area (mi ) (#people/mi ) 11352 0 0 N/A N/A 10035 33,969 1.424 23,855 11354 54,878 2.178 25,197 NO (4) Source: https://www.zip-codes.com/city/ny-new-york.asp 11355 85,871 1.735 49,493 NO 11356 23,438 1.577 14,862 NO Population 11357 39,150 2.811 13,927 NO 2010 Density (1) 2 (5) 2 11358 37,546 1.949 19,264 NO NYC Counties Population Area (mi ) (#people/mi ) 11359 0 0 N/A N/A Bronx County 1,385,108 42.03 32,955 11360 18,884 1.393 13,556 NO Kings County 2,504,700 70.61 35,472 11361 28,606 1.766 16,198 NO New York County 1,585,873 22.96 69,071 11362 17,823 2.531 7,042 NO Queens County 2,230,722 109.24 20,420 11363 6,988 0.860 8,126 NO Richmond County 468,730 58.48 8,015 11364 34,555 2.468 14,001 NO Total 8,175,133 303.32 26,952 11365 42,252 2.499 16,908 NO (5) Source: https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/2006/table02.htm 11366 13,532 1.093 12,381 NO 11367 41,047 2.355 17,430 NO 11368 109,931 2.630 41,799 NO 11369 38,615 1.090 35,427 NO 11370 39,688 1.490 26,636 NO 11371 0 0 N/A N/A 11372 66,636 0.741 89,927 NO 11373 100,820 1.522 66,242 NO 11374 43,600 0.943 46,235 NO 11375 68,733 1.989 34,557 NO 11377 89,830 2.537 35,408 NO 11378 34,981 2.577 13,574 NO 11379 34,821 2.075 16,781 NO 11380 0 0 N/A N/A 11381 0 0 N/A N/A 11385 98,592 3.616 27,265 NO 11386 0 0 N/A N/A 11405 0 0 N/A N/A 11411 18,556 1.168 15,887 NO 11412 34,882 1.647 21,179 YES Saint Albans 11413 38,912 3.104 12,536 NO 11414 26,148 2.312 11,310 NO 11415 19,341 0.566 34,171 NO 11416 24,861 0.662 37,554 NO 11417 28,967 1.119 25,887 NO 11418 36,256 1.632 22,216 YES Richmond Hill 11419 47,211 1.119 42,190 NO 11420 44,354 2.077 21,355 YES South Ozone Park 11421 39,127 1.290 30,331 NO 11422 30,425 2.004 15,182 NO 11423 29,987 1.415 21,192 YES Hollis 11424 0 0 N/A N/A 11425 0 0 N/A N/A 11426 17,590 1.349 13,039 NO 11427 23,593 1.581 14,923 NO 11428 19,168 0.832 23,038 YES Queens Village 11429 25,105 1.294 19,401 NO 11430 184 6.999 26 NO 11431 0 0 N/A N/A 11432 60,809 2.149 28,296 NO 11433 32,687 1.549 21,102 YES Jamaica 11434 59,129 3.268 18,093 NO 11435 53,687 1.529 35,112 NO 11436 17,949 0.793 22,634 YES Jamaica 11437 0 0 N/A N/A 11439 0 0 N/A N/A 11451 0 0 N/A N/A 11499 0 0 N/A N/A 11690 0 0 N/A N/A 11691 60,035 2.753 21,807 YES Far Rockaway 11692 18,540 1.003 18,485 NO 11693 11,916 0.986 12,085 NO 11694 20,408 1.336 15,275 NO 11695 0 0 N/A N/A 11697 4,079 2.595 1,572 NO Notes: (1) Source: 2010 Decennial Census, data.census.gov, 2010: DEC Summary File 1, Table P1 (2) Source: https://www.zip-codes.com/county/ny-queens.asp Astoria Replacement Project as Modified in 2020 Demographic Profile of Community of Concern and Comparison Zip Code Areas Part 2: Similar Zip Code Area (+/- 10% Population Density of 11105) 11412 11418 11420 11423 11428 11433 11436 11691 Total Total Statistic Value % Value % Value % Value % Value % Value % Value % Value % Value % Total Population(1) 34,882 36,256 44,354 29,987 19,168 32,687 17,949 60,035 275,318 Land area (mi2)(2) 1.646 1.633 2.078 1.411 0.833 1.552 0.788 2.834 12.8 Population/mi2 21,186 22,201 21,345 21,254 23,021 21,062 22,783 21,185 21,552 No. of households(7) 11,039 10,938 13,159 9,787 5,558 10,519 5,581 20,594 87,175

Sex(1) Male 15,589 44.7 18,172 50.1 21,457 48.4 14,160 47.2 9,289 48.5 14,819 45.3 8,379 46.7 28,160 46.9 130,025 47.2 Female 19,293 55.3 18,084 49.9 22,897 51.6 15,827 52.8 9,879 51.5 17,868 54.7 9,570 53.3 31,875 53.1 145,293 52.8

Age Distribution(1) <5 1,956 5.6 2,482 6.8 2,557 5.8 1,632 5.4 1,138 5.9 2,205 6.7 1,133 6.3 5,414 9.0 18,517 6.7 5 - 14 4,479 12.8 4,751 13.1 5,960 13.4 3,490 11.6 2,316 12.1 4,746 14.5 2,532 14.1 9,326 15.5 37,600 13.7 15 - 19 2,728 7.8 2,577 7.1 3,428 7.7 2,100 7.0 1,338 7.0 2,718 8.3 1,449 8.1 4,851 8.1 21,189 7.7 20 - 44 11,684 33.5 14,069 38.8 16,188 36.5 10,374 34.6 6,841 35.7 11,520 35.2 6,268 34.9 19,902 33.2 96,846 35.2 45 - 64 9,359 26.8 9,048 25.0 11,820 26.6 8,494 28.3 5,489 28.6 7,677 23.5 4,632 25.8 13,130 21.9 69,649 25.3 65+ 4,676 13.4 3,329 9.2 4,401 9.9 3,897 13.0 2,046 10.7 3,821 11.7 1,935 10.8 7,412 12.3 31,517 11.4

Race/Ethnicity One Race(3) 33,931 97.3 33,358 92.0 39,589 89.3 27,627 92.1 17,476 91.2 31,346 95.9 17,038 94.9 57,662 96.0 258,027 93.7 White 487 1.4 13,398 37.0 6,902 15.6 4,587 15.3 4,373 22.8 1,719 5.3 693 3.9 18,605 31.0 50,764 18.4 Black or African-American 32,100 92.0 3,955 10.9 14,452 32.6 12,702 42.4 4,683 24.4 24,602 75.3 13,590 75.7 30,103 50.1 136,187 49.5 American Indian & Alaska Native 126 0.4 445 1.2 749 1.7 350 1.2 173 0.9 401 1.2 207 1.2 475 0.8 2,926 1.1 Asian 365 1.0 7,547 20.8 8,921 20.1 5,902 19.7 5,120 26.7 1,637 5.0 1,159 6.5 1,197 2.0 31,848 11.6 Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 10 0.0 74 0.2 92 0.2 45 0.2 41 0.2 26 0.1 18 0.1 62 0.1 368 0.1 Some Other 843 2.4 7,939 21.9 8,473 19.1 4,041 13.5 3,086 16.1 2,961 9.1 1,371 7.6 7,220 12.0 35,934 13.1 Two or more races(3) 951 2.7 2,898 8.0 4,765 10.7 2,360 7.9 1,692 8.8 1,341 4.1 911 5.1 2,373 4.0 17,291 6.3 Total Minority (Race)(4) 34,395 98.6 22,858 63.0 37,452 84.4 25,400 84.7 14,795 77.2 30,968 94.7 17,256 96.1 41,430 69.0 224,554 81.6 Hispanic or Latino(5) 2,056 5.9 15,471 42.7 9,865 22.2 5,011 16.7 4,833 25.2 5,290 16.2 2,155 12.0 15,134 25.2 59,815 21.7 (5) Not Hispanic or Latino - White alone 188 0.5 6,755 18.6 3,167 7.1 2,820 9.4 2,071 10.8 323 1.0 185 1.0 13,455 22.4 28,964 10.5 Total Minority (Race/Ethnicity)(6) 34,694 99.5 29,501 81.4 41,187 92.9 27,167 90.6 17,097 89.2 32,364 99.0 17,764 99.0 46,580 77.6 246,354 89.5

Income Median household income 2018 ($)(7) 78,517 66,570 67,932 70,266 73,699 51,521 75,242 46,147 63,073 Persons below poverty 2018(8) 3,077 8.3 5,629 14.7 5,825 12.1 2,817 9.1 1,597 8.4 6,206 17.1 2,213 11.1 13,848 21.4 41,212 14.0 Persons above poverty 2018 34,217 32,574 42,478 28,038 17,317 30,184 17,768 50,747 253,323 Total population 2018(8) 37,294 38,203 48,303 30,855 18,914 36,390 19,981 64,595 294,535

Notes: (1) Source: 2010 Decennial, data.census.gov, DEC Summary File 1, Table P12 (2) Sources: zip codes - https://www.zip-codes.com/county/; county zip codes - https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/2006/table02.htm (3) Source: 2010 Decennial, data.census.gov, DEC Summary File 1, Table P3 (4) Sum of the values for One Race Alone (excluding White alone) plus Two or More Races (5) Source: 2010 Decennial, data.census.gov, DEC Summary File 1, Table P5 (6) Total Minority as defined by the New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation Commissioner's Policy 29: African-American, American Indian/Alaskan, Asian, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Some Other Race, Two or More (7) Source: American Community Survey data, data.census.gov, Table S1901, 2018: ACS 5-year Estimates (8) Source: American Community Survey data, data.census.gov, Table S1701, 2018: ACS 5-year Estimates Astoria Replacement Project as Modified in 2020 Demographic Profile of Community of Concern and Comparison Zip Code Areas Part 3: Surrounding Zip Code Area 11102 11103 11370 11377 Total Statistic Value % Value % Value % Value % Value % Total Population(1) 34,133 38,780 39,688 89,830 202,431 Land area (mi2)(2) 0.789 0.711 1.490 2.547 5.537 Population/mi2 43,261 54,543 26,636 35,269 36,560 No. of households(7) 13,072 15,665 7,993 31,400 68,130

Sex(1) Male 17,040 49.9 19,375 50.0 24,539 61.8 45,234 50.4 106,188 52.5 Female 17,093 50.1 19,405 50.0 15,149 38.2 44,596 49.6 96,243 47.5

Age Distribution(1) <5 1,692 5.0 1,710 4.4 1,751 4.4 5,114 5.7 10,267 5.1 5 - 14 3,152 9.2 2,932 7.6 3,258 8.2 9,312 10.4 18,654 9.2 15 - 19 1,788 5.2 1,640 4.2 2,993 7.5 4,823 5.4 11,244 5.6 20 - 44 17,155 50.3 20,504 52.9 18,804 47.4 39,152 43.6 95,615 47.2 45 - 64 6,828 20.0 8,060 20.8 9,344 23.5 21,551 24.0 45,783 22.6 65+ 3,518 10.3 3,934 10.1 3,538 8.9 9,878 11.0 20,868 10.3

Race/Ethnicity One Race(3) 32,732 95.9 37,369 96.4 38,361 96.7 85,434 95.1 193,896 95.8 White 19,025 55.7 26,325 67.9 16,550 41.7 34,036 37.9 95,936 47.4 Black or African-American 3,347 9.8 740 1.9 7,044 17.7 3,060 3.4 14,191 7.0 American Indian & Alaska Native 302 0.9 220 0.6 266 0.7 799 0.9 1,587 0.8 Asian 5,223 15.3 5,520 14.2 6,719 16.9 32,899 36.6 50,361 24.9 Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 20 0.1 20 0.1 37 0.1 36 0.0 113 0.1 Some Other 4,815 14.1 4,544 11.7 7,745 19.5 14,604 16.3 31,708 15.7 Two or more races(3) 1,401 4.1 1,411 3.6 1,327 3.3 4,396 4.9 8,535 4.2 Total Minority (Race)(4) 15,108 44.3 12,455 32.1 23,138 58.3 55,794 62.1 106,495 52.6 Hispanic or Latino(5) 10,346 30.3 9,582 24.7 16,451 41.5 33,745 37.6 70,124 34.6 (5) Not Hispanic or Latino - White alone 14,596 42.8 21,747 56.1 9,208 23.2 18,670 20.8 64,221 31.7 Total Minority (Race/Ethnicity)(6) 19,537 57.2 17,033 43.9 30,480 76.8 71,160 79.2 138,210 68.3

Income Median household income 2018 ($)(7) 64,067 71,437 65,098 57,010 62,630 Persons below poverty 2018(8) 5,345 17.5 4,324 12.0 3,335 13.2 9,683 11.2 22,687 12.8 Persons above poverty 2018 25,168 31,720 21,931 76,392 155,211 Total population 2018(8) 30,513 36,044 25,266 86,075 177,898

Study Area - 11105 Similar Zip Code Areas(9) Surrounding Zip Code Areas(10) Queens NYC 2020 Modified Project 2010 Project 2020 Modified Project 2010 Project 2020 Modified Project 2010 Project 2020 Modified Project 2010 Project 2020 Modified Project 2010 Project Statistic Value % Value % Value % Value % Value % Value % Value % Value % Value % Value % Total Population(1) 36,688 42,117 275,318 328,732 202,431 2,230,722 2,229,379 8,175,133 8,008,278 Land area (mi2)(2) 1.632 1.632 12.8 12.42 5.537 109.24 303.32 Population/mi2 22,481 26,543 21,552 26,468 36,560 20,420 20,409 26,952 26,403 No. of households(7) 15,363 16,982 87,175 121,213 68,130 779,234 782,646 3,154,103 3,022,477

Sex(1) Male 17,881 48.7 20,934 49.7 130,025 47.2 156,769 47.7 106,188 52.5 1,079,803 48.4 1,073,568 48.2 3,882,544 47.5 3,794,204 57.4 Female 18,807 51.3 21,183 50.3 145,293 52.8 171,963 52.3 96,243 47.5 1,150,919 51.6 1,155,811 51.8 4,292,589 52.5 4,214,074 52.6

Age Distribution(1) <5 1,640 4.5 2,198 5.2 18,517 6.7 20,698 6.3 10,267 5.1 132,464 5.9 142,716 6.4 517,724 6.3 540,878 6.8 5 - 14 2,718 7.4 3,935 9.4 37,600 13.7 39,623 12.1 18,654 9.2 247,172 11.1 283,989 12.7 941,313 11.5 1,091,131 13.6 15 - 19 1,417 3.9 2,126 5.0 21,189 7.7 19,387 5.9 11,244 5.6 139,096 6.2 137,692 6.2 535,833 6.6 520,641 6.5 20 - 44 17,898 48.8 19,272 45.8 96,846 35.2 131,456 40.0 95,615 47.2 849,284 38.1 897,264 40.2 3,189,717 39.0 3,221,132 40.2 45 - 64 8,018 21.9 8,761 20.8 69,649 25.3 72,540 22.1 45,783 22.6 576,560 25.8 484,676 21.7 1,997,388 24.4 1,695,839 21.1 65+ 4,997 13.6 5,825 13.8 31,517 11.4 45,028 13.7 20,868 10.3 286,146 12.8 283,042 12.7 993,158 12.1 937,857 11.7

Not a Required Race/Ethnicity Component of (3) One Race 35,388 96.5 38,478 91.4 258,027 93.7 308,339 93.8 193,896 95.82010 Analysis 2,129,809 95.5 2,093,209 93.9 7,849,232 96.0 7,614,319 95.1 White 27,698 75.5 29,469 70.0 50,764 18.4 172,262 52.4 95,936 47.4 886,053 39.7 982,725 44.1 3,597,341 44.0 3,576,385 44.7 Black or African-American 797 2.2 816 1.9 136,187 49.5 26,015 7.9 14,191 7.0 426,683 19.1 446,189 20.0 2,088,510 25.5 2,129,672 26.6 American Indian & Alaska Native 98 0.3 139 0.3 2,926 1.1 1,349 0.4 1587 0.8 15,364 0.7 11,077 0.5 57,512 0.7 41,289 0.5 Asian 4,119 11.2 4,437 10.5 31,848 11.6 65,948 20.1 50,361 24.9 511,787 22.9 391,500 17.6 1,038,388 12.7 787,047 9.8 Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 21 0.1 36 0.1 368 0.1 241 0.1 113 0.1 1,530 0.1 1,331 0.1 5,147 0.1 5,430 0.1 Some Other 2,655 7.2 3,581 8.5 35,934 13.1 42,524 12.9 31,708 15.7 288,392 12.9 260,387 11.7 1,062,334 13.0 1,074,406 13.4 Two or more races 1,300 3.5 3,639 8.6 17,291 6.3 20,393 6.2 8,535 4.2 100,913 4.5 136,170 6.1 325,901 4.0 393,959 4.9 Total Minority (Race)(4) 8,990 24.5 12,648 30.0 224,554 81.6 156,470 47.6 106,495 52.6 1,344,669 60.3 1,246,654 55.9 4,577,792 56.0 4,431,803 55.3 Hispanic or Latino(5) 7,210 19.7 8,525 20.2 59,815 21.7 81,959 24.9 70,124 34.6 613,750 27.5 556,605 25.0 2,336,076 28.6 2,160,554 27.0 (5) Not Hispanic or Latino - White alone 23,674 64.5 25,114 59.6 28,964 10.5 137,740 41.9 64,221 31.7 616,727 27.6 732,895 32.9 2,722,904 33.3 2,801,267 35.0 Total Minority (Race/Ethnicity)(6) 13,014 35.5 17,003 40.4 246,354 89.5 190,992 58.1 138,210 68.3 1,613,995 72.4 1,496,484 67.1 5,452,229 66.7 5,207,011 65.0

Income Median household income 2018 ($)(7) 73,959 38,674 63,073 42,957 62,630 64,987 42,439 62,972 38,293 Persons below poverty 2018 3,969 10.6 6,785 16.2 41,212 14.0 45,490 14.1 22,687 12.8 295,165 13.0 321,102 21.2 1,570,754 18.9 1,668,938 21.2 Persons above poverty 2018(8) 33,379 35,146 253,323 278,012 155,211 472,429 1,882,204 912,284 6,185,592 (8) Total population 2018 37,348 41,931 294,535 323,502 177,898 2,272,240 2,203,306 8,304,816 7,854,530

Notes: (1) Source for 2020 Modified Project: 2010 Decennial, data.census.gov, DEC Summary File 1, Table P12; data for 2010 Project: Section K, Appendix A, Table 1 of the February 16, 2010 Updated DEIS (2) Sources: zip codes - https://www.zip-codes.com/county/; county zip codes - https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/2006/table02.htm (3) Source for 2020 Modified Project: 2010 Decennial, data.census.gov, DEC Summary File 1, Table P3; source for 2010 Project: Section K, Appendix A, Table 1 of the February 16, 2010 Updated DEIS (4) Sum of the values for One Race Alone (excluding White alone) plus Two or More Races (5) Source for 2020 Modified Project: 2010 Decennial, data.census.gov, DEC Summary File 1, Table P5; source for 2010 Project: Section K, Appendix A, Table 1 of the February 16, 2010 Updated DEIS (6) Total Minority as defined by the New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation Commissioner's Policy 29: African-American, American Indian/Alaskan, Asian, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Some Other Race, Two or More Races, and the ethnicity Hispanic or Latino. It is calculated by subtracting the Not Hispanic or Latino - White Alone from the Total Population. (7) Source for 2020 Modified Project: American Community Survey data, data.census.gov, Table S1901, 2018: ACS 5-year Estimates; source for 2010 Project: Section K, Appendix A, Table 1 of the February 16, 2010 Updated DEIS (8) Source for 2020 Modified Project: American Community Survey data, data.census.gov, Table S1701, 2018: ACS 5-year Estimates; source for 2010 Project: Section K, Appendix A, Table 1 of the February 16, 2010 Updated DEIS (9) Similar zip codes are those with population densities within +/ 10% of the population density for zip code 11105; for the 2010 project - zip codes 11354, 11375, 11385, 11417, 11428, and 11432; for the 2020 Modified project - zip codes 11412, 11418, 11420, 11423, 11428, 11433, 11436, and 11691 (10) Data for zip codes surrounding Study Area zip code (11105) is a required component of the 2020 analysis per updated NYSDOH guidance; it was not required for the 2010 analysis; for the 2020 Modified Project - zip codes 11102, 11103, 11370, and 11377; note that zip code 11371 qualifies as a surrounding zip code, but this zip code is for LaGuardia International Airport and there are no data for this zip code Astoria Replacement Project Health Outcome Data Analysis by Zip Code - Asthma Rates Comparison of 2010 Project and 2020 Modified Project

Note: NYSDOH guidance has changed from 2010 in that data for emergency room visists are used instead of hospital discharges; data for hospital discharges are provided for comparison to 2010 Project

Age Part 1: Zip Code 11105 Project NYSDOH Group Hospital Year Data Years Population(1) Rate(2) (years) Discharges 2010 2004-2006 28 2,036 45.8 0-4 2020 2012-2014 ND(6) ND ND 2010 2004-2006 43 7,453 19.2 0-17 2020 2012-2014 20 5,602 11.9 2010 2004-2006 61 27,990 7.3 18-64 2020 2012-2014 64 25,703 8.3 2010 2004-2006 47 6,064 25.8 65+ 2020 2012-2014 72 4,948 48.5 Total 2010 2004-2006 151 41,507 12.1 (All Ages) 2020 2012-2014 156 36,254 14.4 Age Part 2: Zip Codes with Population Density similar to 11105 Project NYSDOH Group Hospital 95% CI 95% CI Year Data Years Population(1) Rate(2,5) Rate Ratio(3) (years) Discharges Lower (4) Upper (4) 2010 2004-2006 480 20,371 78.5 0.58 0.39 0.84 0-4 2020 2012-2014 ND ND ND ND ND ND 2010 2004-2006 841 72,982 38.4 0.50 0.36 0.67 0-17 2020 2012-2014 812 68,646 39.4 0.30 0.18 0.47 2010 2004-2006 912 214,985 14.1 0.51 0.39 0.66 18-64 2020 2012-2014 890 177,678 16.7 0.50 0.38 0.63 2010 2004-2006 471 50,467 31.1 0.83 0.61 1.10 65+ 2020 2012-2014 426 33,851 41.9 1.16 0.90 1.46 Total 2010 2004-2006 2,224 338,434 21.9 0.58 0.49 0.68 (All Ages) 2020 2012-2014 2,128 280,175 25.3 0.61 0.51 0.71 Age Part 3: Zip Codes Surrounding 11105 Project NYSDOH Group Hospital 95% CI 95% CI Year Data Years Population(1) Rate(2,5) Rate Ratio(3) (years) Discharges Lower (4) Upper (4) 2010 2004-2006 Not a required component of 2010 analysis 0-4 2020 2012-2014 ND ND ND ND ND ND 2010 2004-2006 Not a required component of 2010 analysis 0-17 2020 2012-2014 197 36,303 18.1 0.66 0.40 1.02 2010 2004-2006 Not a required component of 2010 analysis 18-64 2020 2012-2014 413 134,190 10.3 0.81 0.62 1.03 2010 2004-2006 Not a required component of 2010 analysis 65+ 2020 2012-2014 265 22,184 39.8 1.22 0.95 1.53 Total 2010 2004-2006 Not a required component of 2010 analysis (All Ages) 2020 2012-2014 875 192,678 15.2 0.93 0.79 1.08 Age Part 4: Queens Co. Project NYSDOH Group Hospital 95% CI 95% CI Year Data Years Population(1) Rate(2,5) Rate Ratio(3) (years) Discharges Lower (4) Upper (4) 2010 2004-2006 3,140 148,758 70.4 0.65 0.43 0.94 0-4 2020 2012-2014 2,044 142,538 47.8 NA NA NA 2010 2004-2006 5,653 500,766 37.6 0.51 0.37 0.69 0-17 2020 2012-2014 3,895 468,712 27.7 0.43 0.26 0.66 2010 2004-2006 5,544 1,447,109 12.8 0.57 0.44 0.73 18-64 2020 2012-2014 4,828 1,518,239 10.6 0.78 0.60 1.00 2010 2004-2006 2,860 293,725 32.5 0.80 0.58 1.06 65+ 2020 2012-2014 2,870 307,610 31.1 1.56 1.22 1.96 Total 2010 2004-2006 14,057 2,241,600 20.9 0.60 0.51 0.71 (All Ages) 2020 2012-2014 11,593 2,300,198 16.8 0.89 0.76 1.05 Age Part 5: New York City Project NYSDOH Group Hospital 95% CI 95% CI Year Data Years Population(1) Rate(2,5) Rate Ratio(3) (years) Discharges Lower (4) Upper (4) 2010 2004-2006 15,684 592,905 88.2 0.52 0.35 0.75 0-4 2020 2012-2014 11,957 555,881 71.7 NA NA NA 2010 2004-2006 30,012 1,939,504 51.6 0.37 0.27 0.50 0-17 2020 2012-2014 23,877 1,788,539 44.5 0.27 0.16 0.41 2010 2004-2006 36,171 5,214,261 23.1 0.31 0.24 0.40 18-64 2020 2012-2014 31,893 5,536,979 19.2 0.43 0.33 0.55 2010 2004-2006 13,712 989,432 46.2 0.56 0.41 0.74 65+ 2020 2012-2014 14,540 1,072,271 45.2 1.07 0.84 1.35 Total 2010 2004-2006 79,895 8,143,197 32.7 0.38 0.32 0.45 (All Ages) 2020 2012-2014 70,310 8,400,239 27.9 0.54 0.46 0.63

Notes: (1) Population based on rate and number of hospital discharges. Population = Discharges/Rate/3(years)*10000 (NYSDOH 2014). (2) Hospitalizations per 10,000 over 2012-2014 (3) Rate in zip code 11105 is numerator, rate in comparison area is denominator. Rate ratio for all ages is an age-adjusted standardized rate ratio, using the 3 age groups, as calculated by NYSDOH (2014). (4) Confidence intervals (CI) calculated by NYSDOH asthma spreadsheet. (5) Part 2 and Part 3 Rates calculated based on total discharges and total population for all comparison zip codes. Rate = Discharges/3(years)/Population*10000 (NYSDOH 2014). (6) Data for this age group not provided on NYSDOH website Astoria Replacement Project as Modified in 2020 Health Outcome Data Analysis by Zip Code - Cancer Incidence Comparison of 2010 Project and 2020 Modified Project

No. of No. of Standard 95% CI 95% CI Cancer Site Project Year Cases Cases Incidence Lower(2) Upper(2) Observed Expected Ratio(1) Part 1: Zip Code 11105 2010 70 67 1.05 0.82 1.33 Colorectal Cancer (Male) 2020 49 56 0.87 0.64 1.15

2010 39 65 0.60 0.42 0.82 Colorectal Cancer (Female) 2020 48 55 0.88 0.65 1.16

2010 123 145 0.85 0.71 1.02 Breast Cancer (Female) 2020 125 154 0.81 0.68 0.97

2010 73 83 0.88 0.69 1.11 Lung & Bronchus Cancer (Male) 2020 62 79 0.79 0.60 1.01

2010 52 68 0.76 0.57 1.00 Lung & Bronchus Cancer (Female) 2020 28 71 0.39 0.26 0.57

2010 95 160 0.59 0.48 0.73 Prostate Cancer 2020 106 177 0.60 0.49 0.72

Part 2: Zip Codes with Population Density similar to 11105

2010 442 490 0.90 0.82 0.99 Colorectal Cancer (Male) 2020 306 296 1.03 0.92 1.16

2010 518 558 0.93 0.85 1.01 Colorectal Cancer (Female) 2020 324 335 0.97 0.86 1.08

2010 1,128 1,151 0.98 0.92 1.04 Breast Cancer (Female) 2020 804 991 0.81 0.76 0.87

2010 460 598 0.77 0.70 0.84 Lung & Bronchus Cancer (Male) 2020 336 413 0.81 0.73 0.91

2010 423 563 0.75 0.68 0.83 Lung & Bronchus Cancer (Female) 2020 312 438 0.71 0.64 0.80

2010 889 1,184 0.75 0.70 0.80 Prostate Cancer 2020 1,176 952 1.24 1.17 1.31

Part 3: Zip Codes Surrounding 11105 (not a required component of 2010 analysis)

Colorectal Cancer (Male) 2020 201 219 0.92 0.80 1.05

Colorectal Cancer (Female) 2020 210 224 0.94 0.81 1.07

Breast Cancer (Female) 2020 517 667 0.78 0.71 0.84

Lung & Bronchus Cancer (Male) 2020 276 300 0.92 0.81 1.04

Lung & Bronchus Cancer (Female) 2020 195 292 0.67 0.58 0.77

Prostate Cancer 2020 465 690 0.67 0.61 0.74

Part 4: Queens Co.

2010 3,100 3,286 0.94 0.91 0.98 Colorectal Cancer (Male) 2020 2,785 2,888 0.96 0.93 1.00

2010 3,301 3,536 0.93 0.90 0.97 Colorectal Cancer (Female) 2020 2,930 3,071 0.95 0.92 0.99

2010 7,229 7,453 0.97 0.95 0.99 Breast Cancer (Female) 2020 7,489 8,781 0.85 0.83 0.87

2010 3,346 4,037 0.83 0.80 0.86 Lung & Bronchus Cancer (Male) 2020 3,207 4,022 0.80 0.77 0.83

2010 2,792 3,684 0.76 0.73 0.79 Lung & Bronchus Cancer (Female) 2020 2,854 3,993 0.71 0.69 0.74

2010 7,124 8,653 0.82 0.80 0.84 Prostate Cancer 2020 8,134 9,112 0.89 0.87 0.91

Part 5: New York City

2010 10,273 10,618 0.97 0.95 0.99 Colorectal Cancer (Male) 2020 9,504 9,476 1.00 0.98 1.02

2010 11,294 11,731 0.96 0.95 0.98 Colorectal Cancer (Female) 2020 10,166 10,378 0.98 0.96 1.00

2010 25,575 25,359 1.01 1.00 1.02 Breast Cancer (Female) 2020 26,789 30,131 0.89 0.88 0.90

2010 11,313 13,065 0.87 0.85 0.88 Lung & Bronchus Cancer (Male) 2020 11,215 13,194 0.85 0.83 0.87

2010 9,763 12,241 0.80 0.78 0.81 Lung & Bronchus Cancer (Female) 2020 10,239 13,505 0.76 0.74 0.77

2010 26,007 29,050 0.90 0.88 0.91 Prostate Cancer 2020 28,608 30,050 0.95 0.94 0.96

Notes: (1) The number of observed cases is the numerator and the number of expected cases is the denominator. (2) Confidence intervals (CI) calculated by NYSDOH (2014) cancer spreadsheet. Data Source: New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH), New York State Cancer Registry. Data for 2005-2009. https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/cancer/registry/zipcode/index.htm

References: NYSDOH 2014. Updated Guidance for Health Data Review and Analysis Relating to NYSDEC Environmental Justice Requirements for CP-29 and 6 NYCRR 487. Section IV, Cancer Spreadsheet. https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/investigations/environmental_justice/docs/new_guidance_ej_rev2017.pdf Appendix H.2

COVID-19 Literature Review

Memorandum

To: Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC Date: February 12, 2021

From: Christopher M. Long, Sc.D., DABT Peter A. Valberg, Ph.D. Julie C. Lemay, MPH

Subject: Additional Information on COVID-19: Commentary on Preliminary Epidemiology Studies Reporting Links Between Ambient PM2.5 Levels and COVID-19 Mortality Rates

Commentary on Preliminary Epidemiology Studies Reporting Links Between Ambient PM2.5 Levels and COVID-19 Mortality Rates

Is PM2.5 Air Pollution a Risk Factor for COVID-19 Severity?

It has been hypothesized that ambient air pollution generally, and PM2.5 specifically, may be a risk factor for COVID-19 severity, including a higher risk of mortality. Such hypotheses are based on reported statistical correlations between air pollution levels and many of the pre-existing conditions that have been associated with poor prognosis and death in COVID-19 patients (e.g., respiratory and cardiovascular disease, asthma, diabetes), as well as study findings suggesting that air pollution exposure may impair early immune responses to infection (Wu et al., 2020). A growing number of epidemiological studies have investigated statistical associations between long- and short-term ambient air pollutant exposure levels and COVID-19 mortality rates, including the Adhikari and Yin (2020) study, which focused on Queens, New York City, and other nationwide studies (e.g., Wu et al., 2020). Interestingly, the methodologies used in many of these preliminary epidemiologic investigations have recently been carefully critiqued, and several major shortcomings common to many of the analyses have been identified (Villeneuve and Goldberg, 2020; Heederik et al., 2020).

We discuss below the Wu et al. (2020) study, which has garnered attention due to its findings that purportedly link nationwide long-term ambient PM2.5 concentrations (averaged from 2000 to 2016) with worsened COVID-19 outcomes (deaths up to and including June 18, 2020). The Wu et al. (2020) study was initially published as a non-peer-reviewed preprint released by researchers at the T.H. Chan Harvard School of Public Health on April 7 2020, was updated and released again in non-peer-reviewed preprint from on April 27, 2020, and then was published as a final peer-reviewed paper in November 2020 after extensive modification.

With our discussion of the final peer-reviewed version of the Wu et al. (2020) study, we illustrate that the available studies addressing COVID-19 and air pollution are highly limited at the present time, relying on uncertain and rapidly evolving datasets combined with our currently poor understanding of COVID-19 transmission, infection, progression, and outcome. Findings from these studies should thus be viewed as

th One Beacon Street, 17 Floor, Boston, MA 02108 | 617-395-5000 | www.gradientcorp.com

preliminary and uncertain, and it remains highly premature to draw conclusions from them on the significance of air pollution as a potential risk factor for worsened COVID-19 outcomes relative to a myriad of other recognized or hypothesized risk factors related to the locale (including population density, availability of diagnosis, treatment, and intensive care) and the individual (including age, lifestyle [e.g., occupation involving more human contact], male sex, obesity, underlying heart, lung, liver, and kidney disease, and blood type). Wu et al. recognized the major methodological limitations to their study and the large uncertainties in their findings, describing it as a "preliminary investigation" and calling for follow-up investigations "as more and higher-quality COVID-19 data become available."

Wu et al. (2020) conducted an ecological study (i.e., a cross-sectional study with only county-level data and no data on individuals) to examine the association between long-term average PM2.5 levels and COVID- 19 death rates for most (over 3,000) counties across the entire United States (US). PM2.5 concentrations were first estimated monthly at 0.01° × 0.01° grid resolution by combining satellite, modeled, and monitored PM2.5 data in a geographically weighted regression; then, the gridded PM2.5 data were averaged across the years 2000-2016 and aggregated to the county level using area-weighting. It should be noted that PM2.5 concentrations calculated in this fashion are not directly representative of individual/personal PM2.5 exposures. Rates of COVID-19 death were measured as the ratio of cumulative number of COVID- 19 deaths for each county (reported by the CDC and state health departments, cumulative June 18, 2020, and normalized by county-level population size. Wu et al. (2020) acknowledged that more rigorous statistical analyses could have been conducted with individual-level data on COVID-19 deaths, but that such person-by-person data were not available to them.

A large number of statistical analyses, which included a main set of analyses as well as more than 80 additional sensitivity analyses, was performed to investigate the statistical association between COVID-19 mortality rates and long-term ambient PM2.5 levels. Statistical models included adjustment for 20 county- level variables as potential confounders, a population size offset, and a random intercept by state to account for potential correlation in data for counties within the same state. The 20 potential confounding factors included: days since first COVID-19 case reported, population density, percent of the population ≥65 years of age, percent of the population 45-64 years of age, percent of the population 15-44 years of age, percent living in poverty, median household income, percent Black, percent Hispanic, percent of the adult population with less than a high school education, median house value, percent of owner-occupied housing, percent obese, percent current smokers, rate of hospital beds, average daily temperature and relative humidity for summer (June-September) and winter (December-February) for each county, and days since issuance of stay-at-home order for each state. All of the potential confounders used county-level statistics and were not based on individual-level data.

In the first version of the paper, Wu et al. (2020) reported that an increase of 1 µg/m3 in long-term average PM2.5 was statistically significantly associated with a 15% increase in the COVID-19 death rate (mortality rate ratio [MRR] = 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.25). However, with an expanded dataset and some methodological refinements, the effect size of this association was reduced by about half in the second 3 pre-print version of the paper, in which an increase of 1 µg/m in long-term average PM2.5 was marginally statistically significantly associated with an 8% increase in the COVID-19 death rate (MRR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.02-1.15). In the final peer-reviewed publication that included additional data, an increase of 1 µg/m3 in long-term average PM2.5 was statistically significantly associated with an 11% increase in the COVID- 19 death rate (MRR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.06-1.17).

As acknowledged by the study authors themselves, the study by Wu et al. (2020) is a preliminary exploration based on very limited knowledge and data for COVID-19 that hinder the accuracy of the outcome (COVID-19 mortality) assessment. It is subject to the accuracy with which COVID-19 deaths have been captured, including inaccuracies in reporting and deaths occurring before case identification by testing or by symptoms. Importantly, the outcome assessment approach in the study is not consistent with

the study hypothesis. As an infectious disease, COVID-19 affects the population's health from two important, but distinct, aspects: 1) progression within an individual (i.e., from exposure, to infection, to having the disease, to death), and 2) transmission (i.e., from exposure to infection, to development of infectiousness, to transmission to others).

Wu et al. (2020) observed that "It has been hypothesized that because long-term exposure to PM2.5 adversely affects the respiratory and cardiovascular system and increases mortality risk, it may also exacerbate the severity of COVID-19 symptoms and worsen the prognosis of this disease." This hypothesis focuses specifically on progression. However, Wu et al. measured the outcome as the number of cumulative COVID-19 deaths out of the population size (i.e., population mortality rate), as opposed to out of the number of COVID-19 patients (case fatality rate). Both progression and transmission contribute to COVID- 19 mortality, and contrasts in COVID-19 population mortality across counties could be attributable to differences in person-to-person disease transmission probability, for which variation across counties may be correlated with the spatial variations of PM2.5 concentration (e.g. because of population density), thus confounding the study results.

A key limitation of the Wu et al. (2020) study is its ecological study design; in fact, this is described as a "severe limitation" by Wu et al. Since all the data on PM2.5 exposure, on outcome, and on confounders were collected at the aggregate (county and state) level and no individual level data were available, the study results are subject to the ecological fallacy (i.e., an observed association at the county level does not represent the actual association at the individual level), and no causal inference can be made. For example, one individual's COVID-19 death may have been counted in a county that is different from the county where his/her PM2.5 exposure occurred between 2000 and 2016. Also, variations in individuals' personal choices within a county (e.g., washing hands, social distancing, and wearing masks) that could have affected their likelihood of contracting or dying from COVID-19 cannot be captured. Other important methodological limitations include the potential for substantial exposure measurement error, due to lack of monitored PM2.5 data, limited validity of modeled PM2.5 with varied accuracy across regions, the reliance on a single-pollutant model and no control for other co-pollutants, and potential error associated with between-area mobility and within-area variation.

Wu et al. (2020) found that a number of the county-level covariates that they included in their analyses were stronger predictors of COVID-19 mortality rate than PM2.5 levels, including population density, days since the first COVID-19 case was reported, median household income, percent of owner-occupied housing, percent of the adult population with less than high school education, age distribution, and percent of Black residents. As acknowledged by Wu et al., there is the potential for residual confounding given that these area-level confounders may not adequately represent the features of individual COVID-19 patients. In addition, there could be unaccounted confounding (i.e., residual confounding) by real-time events (e.g., church services, house parties, conferences, spring break gatherings, cruise trips) and response measures (e.g., policies on social distancing and mask-wearing), which can directly affect COVID-19 progression and transmission (and therefore mortality) and for which variations across counties may be correlated with spatial variations of PM2.5 concentrations. Lastly, while the authors adjusted for number of hospital beds as of 2019, these data are limited in capturing the availability of medical resources given the many real-time response measures that were undertaken regarding hospital resources.

In conclusion, the results of the Wu et al. (2020) study must be interpreted with caution, as the research on the association between PM2.5 exposure and COVID-19 mortality, and probably any research on COVID- 19 to date, is very much in its infancy, given the lack of reliable COVID-19 prevalence, infectivity, and mortality data and the short amount of time that has elapsed since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak. There are important study limitations, as well as numerous confounding variables and sources of potential bias that can impact study findings. Wu et al. (2020) compiled a large table summarizing the strengths and limitations of ecological regression analyses like that of their study, highlighting the need for follow-up

studies when individual-level data on COVID-19 outcomes for large populations become available. Wu et al. (2020) concluded, "Increasing the scientific rigor of research in this area requires access to representative, individual-level data on COVID-19 health outcomes, including information about patients' residential address, demographics, and individual-level confounders."

Lengthy commentaries from scientists pointing to major shortcomings in some of the early COVID-19 studies and providing recommendations for follow-up studies have already been published (e.g., Villeneuve and Goldberg, 2020; Heederik et al., 2020). These commentaries highlight how the ecological study design is especially susceptible to potential confounding, and how associations for aggregate data are not equivalent to causation on an individual-level. In their commentary, Villeneuve and Goldberg (2020) concluded, "Our review of the design features of the studies that have disseminated their findings indicates that all studies had significant weaknesses that preclude them from providing insight about a causal association between historical or current levels of ambient air pollution and rates of mortality or secondary infections in either the SARS or COVID-19 pandemic."

It also bears mentioning that there are already inconsistent findings among the small body of epidemiological studies probing the potential linkage between COVID-19 and air pollution. For example, a recent study led by researchers at Emory University's Rollins School of Public Health reported statistically significant associations between long-term (2010-2016) county-level exposures to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and county-level COVID-19 case-fatality and mortality rates, but no significant associations between long- term exposures to either PM2.5 or ozone (O3) and COVID-19 death outcomes (Liang et al., 2020). Highlighting notable study strengths that included use of both single- and multi-pollutant models, analyses using case-fatality rates, and control for spatial trends and residual autocorrelation, Liang et al. (2020) concluded, "PM2.5 was not associated with COVID-19 case-fatality rate across all single- and multi- pollutant models, indicating that it may have less impact on biological susceptibility to severe COVID-19 outcomes compared to NO2." Adhikari and Yin (2020) investigated the short-term effects of PM2.5, O3, and meteorological factors on COVID-19 cases and deaths in Queens County, New York City, finding that increasing daily average PM2.5 concentration was statistically significantly associated with reductions in both new confirmed COVID-19 cases and new COVID-19 deaths.

Thus, it remains very premature to draw reliable conclusions regarding the potential role of ambient air pollutants such as PM2.5 on COVID-19 infectiousness and severity from these preliminary, contradictory, and evolving research results. It is clearly an active area of research where some inconsistent associations have been reported to date, and no causal linkages between air pollution and severity of COVID-19 outcomes have been established.

References

Adhikari, A; Yin, J. 2020. "Short-term effects of ambient ozone, PM2.5, and meteorological factors on COVID-19 confirmed cases and deaths in Queens, New York." Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17(11):4047. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17114047.

Heederik, DJJ; Smit, LAM; Vermeulen, RCH. 2020. "Go slow to go fast: A plea for sustained scientific rigour in air pollution research during the COVID-19 pandemic." Eur. Respir. J. 56 (1): 2001361. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01361-2020.

Liang, D; Shi, L; Zhao, J; Liu, P; Sarnat, J; Gao, S; Schwartz, J; Liu, Y; Ebelt, S; Scovronick, N; Chang, HH. 2020. "Urban air pollution may enhance COVID-19 case-fatality and mortality rates in the United States." Innovation (NY) 1(3): 100047. doi: 10.1016/j.xinn.2020.100047.

Villeneuve, PJ; Goldberg, MS. 2020. "Methodological Considerations for Epidemiological Studies of Air Pollution and the SARS and COVID-19 Coronavirus Outbreaks." Environ. Health. Perspec. doi: 10.1289/EHP7411.

Wu, X; Nethery, RC; Sabath, MB; Braun, D; Dominici, F. 2020. "Air pollution and COVID-19 mortality in the United States: Strengths and limitations of an ecological regression analysis." Sci. Adv. 6 (45): eaba4049. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abd4049.

Appendix I

Noise Monitoring and Modeling

Figure 1 – Community Noise Monitoring Locations

Table 1 – Ambient Noise Measurements (in dBA)[1]

Receptor Representative Average Level (Leq) [2] Time Period Site Address Weekday Weekend AM 54.3 59.5 (7:00 to 8:00 AM) Ralph Demarco Midday 58.2 Park, corner of 20th (11:00 AM to 1:00 PM) 59.5 N1 Ave and Shore PM 59.2 60.0 Blvd (4:00 to 6:00 PM) Early Morning 50.9 N/A (5:00 to 7:00 AM) AM 65.0 63.1 (7:00 to 8:00 AM) Midday 68.4 63.4 Corner of 20th Ave (11:00 AM to 1:00 PM) N2 and 23rd St PM 63.8 65.0 (4:00 to 6:00 PM) Early Morning 59.7 N/A (5:00 to 7:00 AM) AM 66.3 59.8 (7:00 to 8:00 AM) Midday 65.7 60.7 Corner of 20th Ave (11:00 AM to 1:00 PM) N3 and 31st St PM 64.7 61.5 (4:00 to 6:00 PM) Early Morning 60.2 N/A (5:00 to 7:00 AM) [1] Twenty (20) minute spot measurements were performed to determine existing noise levels at the three sensitive receptor locations shown on Figure 1. Measurements were conducted during weekdays between August 20, 2019 and August 21, 2019 and one Saturday on August 31, 2019.

[2] These are the same sensitive receptor locations evaluated in support of the 2010 DEIS.

N/A: Data were not collected since ambient noise during quiet late-night hours between weekend and weekday is not anticipated to have a noticeable change.

Table 2 Predicted Increase of Sound Levels and Comparison with NYSDEC and CEQR Incremental Noise Significance Levels

Measured Early NYSDEC CEQR Project Morning Noise Noise Sound Ambient Cumulative Increase Increase Increase Level Sound Sound Over Significant Significance Noise (Leq, Level Level Ambient Level Level Receptor dBA) (Leq, dBA) (Leq, dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) N-1 47.5 50.9 52.5 1.6 6 3

N-2 48.2 59.7 60.0 0.3 6 3

N-3 46.7 60.2 60.4 0.2 6 3

Appendix J

WRP Consistency Assessment Form and Coastal Zone Assessment

Appendix J.1

WRP Consistency Assessment Form Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC

Shawn Konary

31-01 20th Avenue

617-529-3874 [email protected]

Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC ("the Applicant"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc., (“NRG”), is proposing to modify its previously approved project (“Replacement Project” or “Project”) and replace 24 existing natural gas and liquid fuel fired combustion turbine generators (“CTG”) at the Astoria Gas Turbine Generating Facility (“Astoria” or “Facility”) with a single new state-of-the-art simple cycle CTG. The proposed replacement unit (General Electric 7HA.03) has a nominal generator output of approximately 437 MWe. The new CTG will fire natural gas as the primary fuel with limited firing of ultra-low sulfur distillate (“ULSD”) liquid fuel. The Project will also include a ULSD-fired emergency generator for safe shutdown and two ULSD-fired emergency fire system pumps. In addition, the Project will utilize the two existing ultra low-sulfur kerosene (“ULSK”) tanks to store ULSD for the new CTG. All of the existing units, with the exception of one P&W Twin Pac (consisting of two combustion turbines and a single generator), will be permanently shut down once the new unit has completed its shakedown period. The remaining P&W Twin Pac will remain operational solely to maintain black-start capability for the site until replaced by an approximately 24 MWe battery energy storage system. A new 7,500-gallon ULSK tank will be used to fuel the P&W Twin Pac retained for black-start.

The Project’s purpose is to modernize the Facility with state-of-the-art technology in order to alleviate identified reliability shortfalls in NYC; increase generation efficiency; reduce air emissions; facilitate the interconnection of additional renewable resources; help New York State and New York City achieve their climate change limits, targets and goals, including reducing GHG emissions; contribute to energy storage goals; and continue to provide system restoration capability. Queens Queens Block 850, Lot 1

31-01 20th Avenue

East River

see attached.

see attached. see attached

see attached.

Robert Patrick

804 Carnegie Center; Princeton NJ 08540

713-537-5498 [email protected]

10/23/20

CAF Attachment

Permits & Approvals

State

• NYSDEC: Title IV Air Permit Modification • NYSDEC: Title V Air Permit Modification • NYSDEC: Industrial SPDES Permit Modification • NYSDEC: Chemical Bulk Storage Registration • NYS PSC: Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Amendment

City • NYC DEP: Certificate of Operation for Fuel-Burning Equipment • NYC DOB: Building Permit, and Floodplain Development Permit • FDNY: storage permit for aqueous ammonia and bulk oil storage, fire protection system permit, and Battery Energy Storage System Letter of No Objection Federal • FAA: Notice of Proposed Construction for new stack

Appendix J.2

Berrians Coastal Zone Assessment APPENDIXH

Assessment of Coastal Zone Management

46 J COASTAL ZONE ASSESSMENT

A1161'U COASTAL ZONE ASSESSMENT

1.1 Introduction

The area in which the proposed Berrians Unit 1 project is located in Astoria Queens is located within the New York State Coastal Management Zone. Accordingly, the Berrians project will need to be reviewed for state consistency with the New York State Coastal Zone Management Program (NYSCMP), which was established in 1981 by the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act (Article 42 of the Executive Law) and is administered by the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS), under the Authority ofthe Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972.

The principal function of the NYSCMP is to provide a framework for government decision-making in the coastal area. The Coastal Management Program is based on 44 policies which are grouped into 10 categories that address: 1) Development; 2) Fish and Wildlife; 3) Flooding and Erosion; 4) Public Access; 5) Recreation; 6) Historic Resources; 7) Visual Quality; 8) Agricultural Lands; 9) Energy and Ice Management; and 10) Water and Air Resources.

Article 42 of the Executive Law requires state agency actions within the coastal zone to be undertaken in a manner that is consistent with the State's coastal area policies, or a J State approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). ALWRP is a refinement of the State's coastal policies, developed jointly by the State and a municipality. In 1982, New York City received approval from the state for its LWRP, which was based on federal coastal zone policies. New York City's LWRP contains 12 policies relating to local issues, in addition to guidelines for local application of the State's 44 policies. Although New York City has prepared and adopted an updated LWRP, upon information and belief, it has not yet been approved by the NYSDOS. The discussion below relates to the 1982 LWRP.

1.2 Project Description

The proposed facility is a simple-cycle natural gas or distillate fuel fired peaking facility providing electricity to the New York distribution system. The proposed facility would be limited to generating a maximum net output of79.9 megawatts (MW) in simple-cycle mode. The Berrians project would serve a vital public need by providing extra electric power during periods of peak demand and would improve system reliability in the event that any existing facilities are unexpectedly unavailable.

A detailed Project Description is provided in the Environmental Assessment Statement.

1.3 Analysis of Waterfront Policies

The following discussion identifies applicable state and local coastal policies and describes the effects ofthe proposed Berrians project on those policies.

Al1l>l9.1 - 2-

Development Policies:

Policy 1: Restore, Revitalize, and Redevelop Deteriorated and UnderutiIized Waterfront Areas For Commercial, Industrial, Cultural, Recreational and Other Compatible Uses

The construction and operation of the Berrians project is consistent with this policy. The proposed development site lies within an area designated for the development of industrial uses, such as the proposed facility, and is currently underutilized. The proposed development site is entirely within the property boundaries of the existing NRG Astoria Gas Turbine site. Other energy production and transmission related facilities are located on the larger property. Therefore, the proposed facility would enhance the economic benefit of this underutilized site while providing an essential public service by providing extra electric power and increasing system reliability on Long Island during periods of peak demand.

Moreover, in consideration of past and present land uses within the proposed project area, which include the existing' generation and transmission related facilities, the proposed Berrians project is appropriate for this location.

.J New York City Policy A: Improve Urban Shorelines by Maintaining, Removing or Recycling Waterfront Structures (piers, Docks, Wharves, etc.) in Accordance with Waterfront Development Policies and Plans. Identify Alternative Uses for UnderutiIized Waterfront Structures.

No waterfront structures will be constructed or removed as part of the proposed Berrians project. The policy therefore does not apply to the project.

Policy 2: Facilitate The Siting Of Water-Dependent Uses and Facilities On Or Adjacent To Coastal Waters

This policy is not applicable to the construction and operation of the proposed Berrians project. The proposed project site is not located at the water's edge. Moreover, the proposed facility would not displace any existing or preclude the future development ofwater-dependent uses.

New York City Policy B: Improve Channels as Necessary to Maintain and Stimulate Economic Development.

The proposed Berrians project will not result in the alteration of any navigation channels, and as a result, this policy does not apply to the proposed Berrians project.

A.l161U - 3 -

) Policy 3: Further Develop the State's Major Ports of Albany, Buffalo, New York, Ogdensburg and Oswego as Centers of Commerce and Industry, and Encourage the Siting, in These Port Areas, Including Those Under the Jurisdiction of State Public Authorities, of Land Use and Development Which Is Essential To, or in Support Of, the Waterborne Transportation ofCargo and People

This policy is not applicable to the construction and operation of the proposed Berrians project. The proposed Berrians project will not adversely impact New York maritime commerce.

Policy 4: Strengthen the Economic Base of Smaller Harbor Areas by Encouraging the Development and Enhancement of Those Traditional Uses and Activities Which Have Provided Such Areas with Their Unique Maritime Identity

This policy is not applicable to the construction and operation of the proposed Berrians project.

Policy 5: Encourage The Location Of Development In Areas Where Public Services and Facilities Essential To Such Development Are Adequate

The proposed Berrians project is consistent with this policy. The proposed site lies ) within an area designated for the development of industrial uses, such as the proposed Berrians project. Specifically, the site already has electrical transmission infrastructure, natural gas delivery infrastructure and existing fuel oil storage capacity that will be necessary to make the peaking station fully operational. Siting the proposed facility immediately adjacent to existing power facilities provides the proposed project the ability to utilize the existing infrastructure attendant to these facilities, thereby minimizing the acreage of land required to be disturbed and associated impacts.

Policy 6: Expedite Permit Procedures in Order to Facilitate the Siting of Development Activities at Suitable Locations

The proposed project site is an appropriate location for the proposed facility. Therefore, consistent with this policy, it is appropriate to expedite permit review procedures.

Fish and Wildlife Policies:

Policy 7: Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats Will Be Protected, Preserved, and Where Practical, Restored So As To Maintain Their Viability As Habitats

The proposed Berrians project is not located within, or affects, any areas designated as "Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats." The nearest

A.ZJ61'1.1 - 4-

) designated significant coastal habitat is North and South Brother Island located over 4,000 feet northeast of the proposed Berrians project site. Considering the distance, the Berrians project will not adversely affect the viability of the habitat. Additionally, the proposed facility will not jeopardize the water quality of the Sound with thermal or chemical contamination. Therefore, no impacts to significant coastal habitat areas will result from the project and the proposed Berrians facility complies with this policy.

Policy 8: Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources In The Coastal Area From The Introduction Of Hazardous Wastes and Other Pollutants Which Bio-Accumulate In The Food Chain Or Which Cause Significant Sublethal Or Lethal Effect On Those Resources

The proposed Berrians project will not use chemical additives that contain constituents that would bio-accumulate in the State's coastal fish and wildlife resources at levels that cause mortality or create physiological or behavioral disorders. For those operations and maintenance activities at the proposed Berrians project that require use of hazardous materials, appropriate storage, transport, treatment and disposal will occur in accordance with Federal and State ordinances. Discharges associated with the proposed Berrians project would ) comply with applicable laws and regulations and would not degrade water quality criteria. The proposed Berrians project is therefore consistent with this policy. No discharge will result ...

Policy 9: Expand Recreational Use Of Fish and Wildlife Resources In Coastal Areas By Increasing Access To Existing Resources, Supplementing Existing Stocks, and Developing New Resources

This policy is not applicable to the construction and operation of the proposed Berrians project. It is within a currently existing industrial area for which access to the public is limited as a result ofelectric generation and transmission activities at the site. The proposed Berrians project would not affect existing recreational, fish, and wildlife resources in the coastal zone.

Policy 10: Further Develop Commercial Finfish, Shellfish and Crustacean Resources in the Coastal Area by Encouraging the Construction of New, or Improvement of Existing On-shore Commercial Fishing Facilities, Increasing Marketing of the State's Seafood Products, Maintaining Adequate Stocks, and Expanding Aquaculture Facilities

This policy is not applicable to the construction and operation of the proposed Berrians project. The proposed Berrians project would not develop or impact existing commercial fishing facilities, nor would the proposed Berrians project adversely impact finfish, shellfish, or crustacean resources.

A.!7619.1 - 5 -

) Flooding and Erosion Hazard Policies:

Policy 11: Buildings and Other Structures Will Be Sited In The Coastal Area So As To Minimize Damage To Property and The Endangering Of Human Lives Caused By Flooding and Erosion

The proposed Berrians project site is not located within a designated Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. Coastal erosion and flooding has not been a concern regarding the existing facilities in the Astoria complex. The proposed Berrians project will comply with all federal, state, and local floodplain requirements. The proposed project is located within the 100- and 500-year floodplains of the East River, and as such, the Berrians project will be designed to comply with the floodproofmg standards of the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA"). According to FEMA, the IDO-year floodplain elevation in the project area is 13 feet above sea level (ASL). Designs for the facility indicate that the site and project elevation will be located at elevation approximately 17 ASL. The proposed facility, therefore, is consistent with this policy.

New York City Policy C: Provide Shorefront Protection Against Coastal Erosion Hazards Where There is Public Benefit and Public Use Along Non-Public Shores.

J This policy is not applicable to the proposed Berrians project, as the project is not located along the shorefront, but is ratherinland, there is no public use along the shorefront in the area, and public access would, in fact, conflict with the operation ofthe entire Astoria complex and be detrimental to the public welfare.

New York City Policy D: Provide Technical Assistance for the Identification and Evaluation of Erosion Problems, as well as the Development of Erosion Control Plans along Privately-Owned Eroding Shores.

This policy is not applicable to the proposed Berrians project, as the project is not located along the shorefront.

New York City Policy E: Implement Public and Private Structural Flood and Erosion Control Projects Only When:

• Public Economic and Environmental Benefits Exceeds Public Economic and Environmental Costs; • Non-Structural Solutions are Proven to be Ineffective and Cost Prohibitive; • Projects are Compatible with Other Coastal Management Goals and Objectives, including Aesthetics, Access and Recreation; • Adverse Environmental Impacts are Minimized; • Natural Protective Features are not Impaired; and • Adjacent (downdrift) Shorelines are not Adversely Affected - 6-

This policy is not applicable to the proposed Berrians project, as the project is not a structural flood or erosion control project.

Policy 12: Activities or Development in the Coastal Area Will Be Undertaken So as to Minimize Damage to Natural Resources and Property from Flooding and Erosion by Protecting Natural Protective Features Including Beaches, Dunes, Barrier Islands and Bluffs

This policy is not applicable to the construction and operation of the proposed Berrians project. The proposed Berrians project would not impact natural protective features including beaches, dunes, barrier islands and bluffs

Policy 13: The Construction or Reconstruction of Erosion Protection Structures Shall Be Undertaken Only If They Have a Reasonable Probability of Controlling Erosion for at Least Thirty Years as Demonstrated in Design and Construction Standards And/or Assured Maintenance or Replacement Programs

This policy is not applicable to the construction and operation of the proposed Berrians project. Construction or reconstruction oferosion protection structures as contemplated by this policy is not proposed.

Policy 14: Activities and Development, Including The Construction Or Reconstruction Of Erosion Protection Structures, Shall Be Undertaken So That There Will Be No Measurable Increase In Erosion Or Flooding At The Site OfSuch Activities Or Development, Or At Other Locations.

The construction and operation of the proposed Berrians project would not result in an increase in erosion or flooding of the proposed project site or surrounding lands. The site is currently developed as a paved area used for storage of miscellaneous equipment, and therefore, there will be no increase in impervious area at the site. There would be no increase in peak discharge leaving the proposed project site as a result ofproposed facility structures.

Policy 15: Mining, Excavation Or Dredging In Coastal Waters Shall Not Significantly Interfere With The Natural Coastal Processes Which Supply Beach Materials To Land Adjacent To Such Waters and Shall Be Undertaken In A Manner Which Will Not Cause An Increase In Erosion Of Such Land

This policy is not applicable to the construction and operation of the proposed Berrians project because no mining, excavation or dredging is proposed.

Policy 16: Public Funds Shall Only Be Used for Erosion Protective Structures Where Necessary to Protect Human Life, and New Development Which Requires a Location Within or Adjacent to an Erosion Hazard Area to Be Able to Function, or

.oJ761~1 - 7 -

) Existing Development; and Only Where the Public Benefits Outweigh the Long Term Monetary and Other Costs Including the Potential for Increasing Erosion and Adverse Effects on Natural Protective Features

This policy is not applicable to the construction and operation of the proposed Berrians project because the proposed action does not include the construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures as contemplated by this policy, nor public funding.

Policy 17: Non-Structural Measures To Minimize Damage To Natural Resources and Property From Flooding and Erosion Shall Be Used Whenever Possible

The proposed Berrians project will be constructed to ensure that flooding does not damage proposed site improvements, as it will be constructed at elevations greater than that required by FEMA. Therefore, the proposed Berrians project is consistent with this policy.

General Policies:

Policy 18: To Safeguard The Vital Economic, Social and Environmental Interests Of The State and Of Its Citizens, Proposed Major Actions In The Coastal Area Must Give Full Consideration To Those Interests, and To The Safeguards Which The State Has Established To Protect Valuable Coastal Resource Areas

The proposed Berrians project has been sited, designed and would be constructed and operated in a manner that safeguards coastal resources and the environment. Economic interests related to New York City and its waterfront, such as commercial or recreational fisheries, navigation and transportation of goods and services, and recreational activities, would not be affected by the proposed Berrians project. The existing water quality would be maintained. The proposed Berrians project, therefore, is consistent with this policy.

Public Access Policies:

Policy 19: Protect, Maintain, and Increase The Level and Types Of Access To Public Water-Related Recreation Resources and Facilities

The proposed Berrians project would not adversely impact existing access to public water-related recreation resources and facilities in the vicinity of the proposed project site. The proposed Berrians project would be located on private lands for which public access is restricted due to the nature ofthe activities on the site. Access to local recreation areas along the shore would not be impacted.

Policy 20: Access To The Publicly-Owned Foreshore and To Lands Immediately Adjacent To The Foreshore Or The Waters Edge That Are Publicly-Owned Shall

Al761'J.1 - 8 -

) Be Provided and It Shall Be Provided In A Manner Compatible With Adjoining Uses

This policy is not applicable to the proposed Berrians project, because the proposed development site does not include the water's edge nor is it located immediately adjacent to the any publicly owned foreshore. No change in public access to the foreshore or waters edge of the East River will result from development ofthe proposed Berrians project.

Policy 21: Water-Dependent and Water-Enhanced Recreation Will Be Encouraged and Facilitated, and Will Be Given Priority Over Non-Water-Related Use Along The Coast

This policy is not applicable to the proposed Berrians project. The proposed Berrians project would not interfere with any existing or preclude the development of future water dependent, water-related or recreational uses along the East River in the vicinity ofthe proposed project site.

New York City Policy F: Priority Shall be Given to the Development of Mapped Parklands and Appropriate Open Space Where the Opportunity Exists to Meet the Recreational Needs of: ) • Immobile Use Groups; and • Communities without Adequate Waterfront Park Space and/or Facilities

This policy is not applicable to the proposed Berrians project. Public access to the East River shorefront is currently offered at Astoria Park, located approximately one mile south of the project site. In addition, the recreation facilities located on Randall's Island, approximately one mile west of the project site, also provides access for these groups.

New York City Policy G: Maintain and Protect New York City Beaches to the Fullest Extent Possible.

This policy is not applicable to the proposed Berrians Project.

Policy 22: Development, When Located Adjacent To The Shore, Will Provide For Water-Related Recreation, Whenever Such Use Is Compatible With Reasonably Anticipated Demand For Such Activities, and Is Compatible With The Primary Purpose OfThe Development

This policy is not applicable to the proposed Berrians project because the proposed project site does not include the water's edge. Furthermore, the primary purpose of the development, the generation of electricity, is inherently incompatible with recreational use ofthe site.

".1161~_1 - 9-

) Historic and Scenic Resources Policies: Policy 23: Protect, Enhance and Restore Structures, Districts, Areas Or Sites That Are Of Significance In The History, Architecture, Archaeology Or Culture Of The State, Its Communities, Or The Nation

The proposed Berrians project will not impact historic or cultural resources.

New York City Policy H: Insure Ongoing Maintenance of all Waterfront Parks and Beaches to Promote Full Use ofSecure, Clean Areas with Fully Operable Facilities.

This policy is not applicable to the proposed Berrians project.

Policy 24: Prevent Impairment OfScenic Resources OfStatewide Significance

This policy is not applicable to the construction and operation of the proposed Berrians projec.t as the proposed development site is not located in the vicinity of any designated Scenic Area ofStatewide Significance.

Policy 25: Protect, Restore Or Enhance Natural and Man-Made Resources Which Are Not Identified As Being Of Statewide Significance, But Which Contribute To ) The Overall Scenic Quality OfThe Coastal Area

The scenic quality of the East River in the site vicinity, including the existing views from the neighboring communities located adjacent to the site, are currently impacted by the existing industrial land uses in the vicinity ofthe proposed project site. These facilities include existing generation and transmission facilities on the larger Astoria complex. By siting the proposed Berrians project within an existing generation complex, in an area of limited scenic value, important resources that contribute to the overall scenic quality of the coastal area in other areas are indirectly protected.

Policy 26: Conserve and Protect Agricultural Lands in the State's Coastal Area

This policy is not applicable to the construction and operation of the proposed Berrians project because there are not any agricultural lands within the proposed project vicinity.

Energy andIce Management Policies:

Policy 27: Decisions On The Siting and Construction Of Major Energy Facilities In The Coastal Area Will Be Based On Public Energy Needs, Compatibility Of Such Facilities With The Environment, and The Facility's Need For A Shorefront Location - 10-

) Public Energy Needs. The proposed Berrians project is not a "major energy facility" within the meaning of Article X of the Public Service Law. Nonetheless, the proposed Bemans project will address to the public energy needs in the region. Specifically, because oftransmission constraints, the New York City area is one of two regions in the state (the other being Long Island) to have a locational based installed capacity requirement. Power demand in the New York City metropolitan area is rising faster than the generating capability, and the proposed Bemans project will assist in addressing the need for generation capacity in New York City and will result in improved system reliability.

Compatibility with the Environment. The proposed Berrians project has been sited and designed and would be constructed and operated in a manner that safeguards coastal resources and the environment. Existing air quality, water quality, land uses, cultural resources and historic structures, and the local roadway network within the coastal zone would not be significantly adversely affected. As described in the attachments to the EAS, air emissions from the Bemans project would not cause a violation of national or New York State ambient air quality standards. Stringent emission control requirements, which apply to the proposed project, would ensure that local air quality would not be affected. The proposed facility's impact on local air quality was assessed through the application of air quality dispersion models. The results of these studies show that maximum plant ) impacts would be insignificant by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) definition. Threatened, endangered, or sensitive plant and wildlife species would not be impacted by the proposed Bemans project. In no case are significant adverse environmental impacts expected from development of the proposed Berrians project.

Facility's Need for a Shorefront Location. As previously described, the project is not located adjacent to the water's edge, but rather, is located inland of the East River, within an existing electric generating complex. The proposed Bemans project site is uniquely situated to meet peak energy needs as the site already has electrical transmission infrastructure fuel oil capacity would be necessary to make the peaking station fully operational.

As illustrated above, the proposed Bemans project is consistent with this policy.

New York City Policy I: Siting of Liquefied and Substitute Natural Gas Facilities, Including Those Associated with the Tankering of Such Gas, Shall Take into Consideration State and National Energy Needs, Public Safety Concerns, and the Necessity of Shorefront Location.

The proposed Bemans project does not involve the Siting of Liquefied or Substitute Natural Gas Facilities, and therefore, this policy is inapplicable to the proposed Berrians project. Nonetheless, the proposed Bemans project will meet pressing local energy demands. The siting of the proposed Bemans project was - II -

based upon the site's proximity to infrastructure, and there are no adverse J environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project.

Policy 28: Ice Management Practices Shall Not Interfere with the Production of Hydroelectric Power, Damage Significant Fish and Wildlife and Their Habitats, or Increase Shoreline Erosion or Flooding

This policy is not applicable to the construction and operation of the proposed Berrians project because no interferences with Hydroelectric power, fish and wildlife, their habitats or increase in shoreline erosion or flooding is proposed.

Water andAir Resources Policies:

Policy 29: Encourage the Development of Energy Resources on the Outer Continental Shelf, in Lake Erie and in Other Water Bodies, and Ensure the Environmental Safety ofSuch Activities

This policy is not applicable to the construction and operation of the proposed Berrians project, because the proposed action does not involve· the proposed development of energy resources on the Outer Continental Shelf, in Lake Erie, or in other water bodies within the coastal zone.

Policy 30: Municipal, Industrial, and Commercial Discharge Of Pollutants, Including But Not Limited To, Toxic and Hazardous Substances, Into Coastal Waters Will Conform To State and National Water Quality Standards

The proposed Berrians project would not discharge pollutants in contravention of applicable water quality criteria. The proposed Berrians project does not involve any wastewater discharge. The proposed facility, therefore, is consistent with this policy.

Policy 31: State Coastal Area Policies and Management Objectives of Approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs Will Be Considered While Reviewing Coastal Water Classifications and While Modifying Water Quality Standards; However, Those Waters Already Over-burdened with Contaminants Will Be Recognized as Being a Developmental Constraint

This policy is not applicable to the construction and operation of the proposed Berrians project, as the proposed action does not involve the review of Coastal Water Classifications or the modification of Water Quality Standards.

Policy 32: Encourage the Use of Alternative or Innovative Sanitary Waste Systems in Small Communities Where the Costs ofConventional Facilities Are Unreasonably High, Given the Size of the Existing Tax Base ofThese Communities

Al7b19.1 - 12-

This policy is not applicable to the construction and operation of the proposed Berrians project because sanitary wastes from the proposed facility would use existing sanitary fixtures within the NRG Astoria Gast Turbine complex to meet all potable and sanitary needs.

Policy 33: Best Management Practices Will Be Used To Ensure The Control Of Storm Water Runoff and Combined Sewer Overflows Draining Into Coastal Waters

The proposed Berrians project is consistent with this policy. The operation ofthe proposed Berrians project would not result in an increase in erosion or flooding of the proposed project site or surrounding lands.

During construction, appropriate sedimentation and erosion control measures, including the use of stabilized construction exits and hay bale and/or silt fences, would be implemented as necessary to ensure that sedimentation run-off from construction areas is minimized and does not leave the proposed project site or impact nearby waters ofthe state.

Policy 34: Discharge of Waste Materials into Coastal Waters from Vessels Subject to State Jurisdiction into Coastal Waters Will Be Limited So as to Protect Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitats, Recreational Areas and Water Supply Areas

This policy is not applicable to the construction and operation of the proposed Berrians project because the proposed Berrians project does not propose the discharge ofwaste materials into coastal waters from vessels.

Policy 35: Dredging and Dredge Spoil Disposal in Coastal Waters Will Be Undertaken in a Manner That Meets Existing State Dredging Permit Requirements, and Protects Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitats, Scenic Resources, Natural Protective Features, Important Agricultural Lands, and Wetlands

This policy is not applicable to the construction and operation of the proposed Berrians project. No dredging or disposal ofdredged materials is proposed as part ofthe proposed project.

Policy 36: Activities Related To The Shipment and Storage Of Petroleum and Other Hazardous Materials Will Be Conducted In A Manner That Will Prevent Or At Least Minimize Spills Into Coastal Waters; All Practicable Efforts Will Be Undertaken To Expedite The Cleanup Of Such Discharges; and Restitution For Damages Will Be Required When These Spills Occur

The shipment and storage of petroleum, chemicals, and other hazardous materials used during the operation of the proposed Berrians project will be handled in a manner consistent with measures employed at the NRG Astoria Gas Turbine complex, and in compliance with federal, state, and local laws. - 13-

)

Policy 37: Best Management Practices Will Be Utilized To Minimize The Non-Point Discharge OfExcess Nutrients, Organics and Eroded Soils Into Coastal Waters

Operation of the proposed Berrians project would not result in the discharge of excess nutrients or organics into coastal waters. Implementation of best management practices as described in Policies 14 and 33 above, would ensure that sedimentation run-off from construction areas is minimized and does not leave the proposed development site or impact coastal waterways. The proposed facility, therefore, is consistent with this policy

Policy 38: The Quality and Quantity Of Surface Waters and Groundwater Supplies, Will Be Conserved and Protected, Particularly Where Such Waters Constitute The Primary Or Sole Source OfWater Supply

The proposed Berrians project site is not located over a sole source aquifer, nor will it derive any quantity of water from a sole source aquifer. Therefore, this policy does not apply to the construction or operation of the proposed Berrians project.

) Policy 39: The Transport, Storage, Treatment and Disposal Of Solid Wastes, Particularly Hazardous Wastes, Within Coastal Areas Will Be Conducted In Such A Manner So As To Protect Groundwater and Surface Water Supplies, Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitats, Recreation Areas, Important Agricultural Land, and Scenic Resources

The proposed Berrians project will comply with this policy. The proposed facility would not result in the generation of significant amounts of solid or hazardous wastes. A licensed contractor or qualified personnel would handle the transport, storage, treatment and disposal ofsolid wastes associated with the operation of the proposed facility. Areas used for the unloading or storage of fuels, on-site chemical solvents, or lubricants would have adequate containment facilities to protect the proposed facility and surrounding areas in the event of an accidental spill.

New York City Policy J: Adopt End-use Plans for Landfill Areas that Specify the Following: • Final Capacity; • Final Contours; • Leachate, Erosion and Gas Control Systems; • Revegetation Strategies; and • Interim Review Schedules

A21619 I - 14 -

The proposed Berrians project does not involve a landfill area. Therefore, this J policy is inapplicable to the proposed Berrians project.

New York City Policy K: Curtail Illegal Dumping Throughout the Coastal Zone and Restore Areas Scarred by this Practice.

The proposed Berrians project is consistent with this policy, as project is within an existing industrial electric generation site, which has security fencing, thus deterring illegal dumping activities.

New York City Policy L: Encourage Energy Development from Waste and Waste Landfills.

This policy is inapplicable to the proposed Berrians project, as the project does not involve energy development from waste and waste landfills.

Policy 40: Effluent Discharged From Major Steam Electric Generating and Industrial Facilities Into Coastal Waters Will Not Be Unduly Injurious To Fish and Wildlife and Shall Conform To State Water Quality Standards

The proposed Berrians project would not discharge pollutants in contravention of applicable water quality criteria. The proposed facility, therefore, is consistent with this policy. No additional effluent discharge will result from the project ...,

Policy 41: Land Use Or Development In The Coastal Area Will Not Cause National Or State Air Quality Standards To Be Violated

The proposed facility is consistent with this policy. As described in the air permit applications and other information submitted with the EAS, air emissions from the proposed Berrians project would not cause a violation of national or New York State ambient air quality standards. Stringent emission control requirements, which apply to the proposed project, would ensure that local air quality would not be affected. In addition, operating limits would be implemented so that annual emissions of all air pollutants do not exceed "major stationary source" thresholds as defined in 40 CFR 52.21. Moreover, the proposed facility's impact on local air quality was assessed through the application ofair quality dispersion models. The results of these studies show that maximum plant impacts would be insignificant by the USEPA definition. The proposed facility, therefore, will not have adverse impacts on air quality.

Policy 42: Coastal Management Policies Will Be Considered Ifthe State Reclassifies Land Areas Pursuant to Prevention of Significant Deterioration Regulations of the Federal Clean Air Act

1t..!71>19.1 - 15 -

This policy is not applicable to the construction and operation of the proposed Berrians project as the proposed action does not involve the reclassification of land areas pursuant to Prevention of Significant Deterioration Regulations of the Federal Clean Air Act.

Policy 43: Land Use Or Development In The Coastal Area Must Not Cause The Generation OfSignificant Amounts OfAcid Rain Precursors: Nitrates and Sulfates

The proposed Berrians project would fire natural gas as its primary fuel, and low sulfur distillate oil as a backup fuel. The proposed facility would therefore not generate a significant amount of acid rain precursors. As discussed above in Policy # 41, the proposed project would not have an adverse impact on air quality.

Policy 44: Preserve and Protect Tidal and Freshwater Wetlands and Preserve The Benefits Derived From These Areas

The proposed Berrians project will not adversely impact tidal and freshwater wetlands. No freshwater or tidal wetlands have been identified at or immediately adjacent to the proposed project site.

Based on its operation as a simple-cycle facility, any wastewater generated from the proposed facility will be collected/contained in storage tanks and trucked offsite to licensed treatmentlhandling facilities. Operation ofthe proposed facility would not result in the discharge of pollutants to waters of the state in contravention of applicable water quality criteria. Therefore, tidal wetlands that may exist along the East River within the proposed project area would not be impacted by the proposed facility.

Al1619.1

Appendix K

Modeling Results Concentration Isopleths

Appendix L

Information from General Electric Regarding Use of Green Hydrogen

GE Gas Power Systems

GE 7HA.03 gas turbine’s hydrogen capability and technology roadmap

Executive Summary

In August 2020, the General Electric Company entered into a contract with NRG Berrians East Development LLC to supply a Frame 7HA.03 simple cycle combustion turbine as part of the Astoria Replacement Project. This turbine will employ GE’s most advanced combustion system known as DLN 2.6e. This combustion system evolved from work completed as part of the US Department of Energy’s Advanced IGCC/Hydrogen Gas Turbine program1. As further discussed in this update, with the addition of several balance of plant systems it is technically feasible for the Astoria Replacement Project to immediately use a blend of hydrogen fuel up to 10 percent. In addition, GE has identified a technical path to develop combustion systems for the 7HA.03 turbine enabling the use of 100% hydrogen fuel over the next 15 to 20 years.

Introduction

As part of the US Department of Energy’s Advanced IGCC/Hydrogen Gas Turbine program, GE developed a low NOx hydrogen combustion system. This new combustion system was based on the operating principle of small scale jet-in-crossflow mixing of the fuel and air streams. This fuel nozzle features miniaturized tubes which function as “fast” mixers enabling premixed combustion for gaseous fuels with higher reactivity (ethane, propane, hydrogen, etc.). During this program, multiple pre-mixing configurations were tested at the GE Global Research Center in combustion nozzle test facility as well as at GE’s Gas Turbine Technology Lab.

Due to the advanced premixing capability of this technology, it became an element of GE’s DLN 2.6e combustion system, which first became available on the 9HA gas turbine. The timeline for this effort, including the DOE program is shown in Figure 1. Note that the first commercial DLN 2.6e combustion system shipped in 2018; these units are expected to enter commercial operation in 2021.

Due to interest in low-carbon power for future power plants, the hydrogen capability of the DLN 2.6e combustion system was evaluated. Results of preliminary testing indicated that this combustion system has capability to operate on fuels containing over 50% (by volume) hydrogen.

1 This effort was sponsored by the US Department of Energy under Cooperative Agreement DE-FC26-05NT42564.

February 2, 2021

GE Gas Power Systems

The potential for using this combustion system for 100% hydrogen are discussed in this document.

Figure 1 - Timeline for development of DLN 2.6e combustion system

THE PATH TO 100% HYDROGEN

This section presents a technical path, based on today’s information, to a DLN gas turbine combustion system capable of reliable operation on 100% hydrogen fuel in a maturity period of approximately 15-20 years from now. Considerations and challenges that have been learned in recent projects involving hydrogen fuel are discussed, followed by a description of the potential phases of the development towards 100% H2 along with the anticipated technology building blocks. As new experience is acquired during development of advanced combustion systems at GE Power, the exact path to a high hydrogen combustion system is subject to change in the future.

Technology Stages

Technology stages required for a combustion system capable of reliable operation on 100% hydrogen fuel is divided into three main stages based on known or expected limitations of architectures and components. Today, based on laboratory testing and analysis, GE’s fielded and proven DLN 2.6e combustion system available for 7HA gas turbines has the capability to operate up to 50% hydrogen by volume in natural gas with minimal modifications to the turbine itself. Supporting systems, however, will need to be either installed or upgraded for the turbine to operate on hydrogen. One such example of an additional system that would need to be installed is a hydrogen blending system upstream of the gas turbines. Other examples of upgrades needed would be the fuel handling equipment, piping sizing and materials, and enclosure ventilation. Additionally, changes to the gas turbine control software, flame detectors, fire protection and area classification will be required at higher levels of H2. More details of the three development stages are shown below.

February 2, 2021

GE Gas Power Systems

Technology Stage 1

Stage 1 equipment takes the hydrogen capability from 0% to 10% by volume, which is expected to take advantage of capability of H2 gas fuel delivery systems in the next few years. The key scope item for stage 1 is a hydrogen blending system skid that would be placed upstream of the gas turbine fuel connection. This fuel blending skid system includes stop/control valves, advanced flow meters and high-fidelity gas analyzers. For concentrations of H2 above 5%, advanced purge and nitrogen-based sealing systems will be required. In addition, enclosure ventilation and fire protection systems will need to be upgraded. Enhanced controls will need to be installed as well.

Technology Stage 2

Stage 2 technology would provide capability up to 50% hydrogen by volume. This stage builds on Stage 1 scope including the use of the DLN 2.6e combustion system but focuses on an upgraded fuel delivery system. This would include upgraded materials for the gas fuel system, as well as advanced flame sensors and the protection system. For concentrations of H2, above 25%, he fuel piping systems will need to be enlarged, and next generation gas detection systems would be installed. Controls will again need to be upgraded for Stage 2.

Technology Stage 3

Based on testing conducted during the DOE development program, the DLN 2.6e combustion architecture is capable of operation with >50% hydrogen by volume, but additional development is needed to take that capability up to 100% hydrogen by volume. Stage 3 would employ an evolution of the 2.6e combustion technology with components redesigned to manage thermal loads and combustion dynamics. Items to be addressed or modified in Stage 3 would include:

- Fuel nozzle orifice sizing and/or injector length - Installation of materials (e.g. alloys, ceramic matrix composites, or thermal barrier coatings) to support potentially higher flame temperatures - Inclusion of aerodynamic features on premixing system to manage flame location. - Cooling system in premixer to allow flashback / flame holding tolerant operation for a period. - An advanced diagnostics and controls system to monitor for any combustion operability issues associated with 100% hydrogen combustion.

Moving from stage 2 (50% H2) directly to the higher hydrogen levels of stage 3 (near 100% H2) would most likely involve a complete replacement of the combustion system in the gas turbine.

In addition to the combustion system, additional upgrades would be necessary on the fuel delivery system. At higher levels of H2 these would potentially include additional fuel and cooling circuits with supporting balance of plant equipment. Controls would also be upgraded to incorporate the Stage 3 technology.

February 2, 2021

GE Gas Power Systems

Of course, using hydrogen for the Astoria Replacement Project also depends on producing and delivering sufficient quantities of the fuel to the site. As outlined on the table 1 below, the amount of hydrogen supply required will vary between 350,000 scf/hour for a 10% blend to 12,740,000 scf/hour for 100% hydrogen operation. Furthermore, achieving a zero-carbon electric system will require the hydrogen to be produced by an electrolysis system powered by renewable energy. Based on current technology, one hour of operation with a 10% blend of green hydrogen will require approximately 51 MWh, while one hour of operation on 100% green hydrogen would require about 1,825 MWh.

CO2 Electrolyzer H2 Flow Rates H2% reduction input Electricity water ft3/hour ft3/day Nm3/hour kg/hour % (MW) (gallons/hour)

5 150,000 3,680,000 4,300 400 1.2% 22 900

10 350,000 8,350,000 9,900 800 2.8% 51 2,000

15 580,000 13,960,000 16,500 1,400 4.8% 85 3,300

20 850,000 20,310,000 24,000 2,000 6.9% 124 4,900

25 1,140,000 27,290,000 32,200 2,700 9.3% 166 6,500

30 1,450,000 34,830,000 41,100 3,500 11.9% 212 8,300

50 2,970,000 71,250,000 84,100 7,200 24.2% 435 17,000

100 12,470,000 299,210,000 353,000 30,100 100.0% 1,825 71,600 Table 1 – Expected Hydrogen Consumption for GE 7HA at Berrians East

February 2, 2021

Appendix M

ConEd TRACE Project and Navigant/Guidehouse Memo

Appendix M.1

ConEd TRACE Project

M-1

Proposed Con Edison TRACE Project

Con Edison has proposed the installation of a 6-mile-long, 345/138kV Phase Angle Regulator (“PAR”) controlled feeder between the Rainey and Corona substations (the “TRACE Project”)1. In part, the TRACE Project seeks to address certain local reliability issues caused by the pending retirement of the existing NRG Astoria Gas Turbines on Con Edison jurisdictional non-Bulk Power Transmission Facilities (“non- BPTF”).

As proposed, “[t]he new feeder will electrically connect [Con Edison]’s 345kV Rainey substation with its Corona 138kV substation, increasing transfer capability by approximately 300 MW[.]” It will also “create a 345 to 138 kV off-ramp that enables … existing and future renewable supply to access the load.”2 Con Edison forecasts construction will begin in the second half of 2021, with an estimated In-Service date of May 2023, but indicates engineering, design and permitting activities have not yet commenced and may trigger SEQRA which could involve the preparation of an environmental impact statement.3

Con Edison’s TRACE Project proposal will use ratepayer funding with a preliminary capital cost estimate of $275M. In addition, it points out that while the TRACE Project will resolve local reliability needs, it does not “solve all reliability needs to permit the complete elimination of peakers in New York City (i.e., bulk power reliability needs remain)”4.

Reliability

Similar to the Replacement Project, Con Edison reports that the TRACE Project resolves the local non- BPTF transmission security issues in the Astoria East/Corona 138kV TLA from 2023 through 2030.

Reliability issues also occur on NYISO jurisdictional Bulk Power Facilities (“BPTF”) in the New York City 345kV TLA which include a 340 MVA dynamic instability issue starting in 2023 and growing from 1,020 MVA in 2025 to 1,390 MVA in 2030, which the TRACE Project does not address.

In addition, the TRACE Project does not provide black start capability which is required to restore electric service in New York City in the event of a total system outage. It is also noted that the TRACE Project does not address transmission congestion from the rest of the state into Zones J and K and thus would not, by itself, expand the capability to import renewable energy into New York City.

Socioeconomics

The proposed TRACE Project will be a ratepayer funded project. Its $275M capital cost will be directly borne by New York ratepayers.

Since the proposed TRACE Project does not add any electric generating capability within Zone J, it will not reduce capacity prices for electricity customers in New York City. However, it does result in an estimated $190,000 per year in reduced energy charges.5

1 See December 30, 2020 Petition of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. For Approval to Recover Costs of Certain Transmission Reliability and Clean Energy Projects, PSC Case 19-E-0065 (“Con Edison Petition”). While Con Ed has proposed a total of three Transmission Reliability and Clean Energy (“TRACE”) Projects, this analysis only addresses the Rainey to Corona project. 2 Con Edison Petition, at p. 17. 3 Con Edison Petition, at A-2. 4 Con Edison Petition, at p. 22. 5 February 23, 2021 Navigant/Guidehouse Memorandum (Appendix M.2), pg 3.

April 2021 M-2

Environmental Impacts

The TRACE Project involves the installation of a 6-mile high voltage underground cable using a trench and conduit system running through city streets in the heart of Queens. As the exact route of the feeder has not been identified, the nature and extent of potential environmental impacts are not yet fully known. Any impacts, particularly during construction, are expected to occur in and around the city streets of Queens. Con Edison has noted, to date, only that street opening permits will be required and potentially other state or local permits or approvals, which may trigger an environmental review under SEQRA.6

With respect to greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, the proposed TRACE Project is forecast to result in total cumulative direct GHG emission reductions of 67,000 tons from 2023 – 2035.7

Conclusion

A diversified portfolio approach, which includes both the TRACE Project and the Replacement Project, is necessary to fully address the identified reliability issues in New York City, maximize the reduction of both direct and indirect GHG emissions at minimal cost helping New York and New York City achieve their climate limits, targets and goals, facilitate a stable and orderly restoration of system power in the event of a partial or complete disruption of service and provide significant cost savings to electricity customers in New York City. A summary of the benefits of the two projects is included in Table M-1.

6 Con Edison Petition, at A-2. 7 February 23, 2021 Navigant/Guidehouse Memorandum (Appendix M.2), pg 1.

April 2021 M-3

Table M-1 Benefits of TRACE Project, Replacement Project and Portfolio

Portfolio TRACE Project Replacement (TRACE + Project Replacement Project) Addresses near-term 138kV local reliability shortfall in Astoria East TLA X X X (non-BPTF) by 2023[1]

Addresses longer-term 345kV reliability X X shortfall in NYC (BPTF)

Opens pathway into constrained X X Transmission Load Areas

Reduces GHG emissions from 2023- X X X 2035 (67,000 ton (5,266,000 ton (5,273,000 ton reduction) reduction) [3] reduction)

Reduces direct GHG emissions X X X from 2023-2035 (67,000 ton (421,000 ton (429,000 ton reduction)[2] reduction) reduction)

Reduces indirect GHG emissions from 2023-2035 by X X facilitating the integration of renewable energy resources (4,844,000 ton (4,844,000 ton with long-term, long duration reduction) reduction) backup power

Provides system restoration service X X

Contributes to energy storage goals X X

Provides energy market savings to X X X electricity customers in NYC (13 year total)[4] $2.4 Million $83.5 Million $85 Million

Provides capacity market savings to X X electricity customers in NYC (5 year >$1.5 Billion >$1.5 Billion total)[4]

Notes: [1] Assumes timely completion of projects. [2] Table 1 in Navigant/Guidehouse Memorandum (Appendix M.2), pg 2. [3] Does not include upstream emission reductions from extraction and transportation of fuel, which, if included, would result in approximately 186,000 tons more direct GHG emission reductions. See Table 3.2- 1 of this DSEIS. [4] Table 2 in Navigant/Guidehouse Memorandum (Appendix M.2), pg 3.

April 2021

Appendix M.2

Navigant/Guidehouse Memo

NRG Memo – Greenhouse Gas and New York City Ratepayer Impacts from Con Edison’s TRACE Project

February 23, 2021

The purpose of this memo is to evaluate the GHG impacts from the installation of Con Edison’s proposed Phase Angle Regulator (“PAR”) Controlled feeder between the 345kV Rainey substation and the 138kV Corona substation (the “TRACE Project”)1. The proposed TRACE Project would be a new PAR controlled 6-mile underground feeder that will address constraints on the Astoria East/Corona 138kV boundary feeders. Although Con Ed has not yet commenced the necessary permitting, it has proposed a commercial operation date in May 2023.

Guidehouse analyzed two additional scenarios:

1. Only the TRACE Project is constructed and operational by May 2023 and the existing Astoria Gas Turbines are retired in May 2023 and not replaced; and 2. Both the TRACE Project and the Astoria Gas Turbine Replacement Project (“Replacement Project”) are constructed and operational by May 2023 and the existing Astoria Gas Turbines are retired in May 2023.

For this evaluation, the same analytical process was used as in the January 2021 Supplement to GHG Impacts of the Astoria Replacement Project and the January 2021 Supplement to Economic Development Benefits of the Proposed Astoria Replacement Project including assumptions for New York City generation retirements, updated load forecast, future resource mix and overall evaluation methodology.

GHG Reductions

The Trace Project is a new feeder that would address forecasted transmission security deficiencies on the Astoria East/Corona 138kV boundary feeders, with commercial operation targeted for Summer 2023. It would also open a 300 MW pathway into the load pocket, potentially enabling additional renewable generation to be delivered to the area in the future. The TRACE Project allows generators within NYISO Zone J to operate more efficiently allowing for reductions in the dispatch of carbon-emitting thermal peaker plants to meet peak demand and maintain reliability in high renewable development scenarios. However, in a baseline scenario the TRACE Project only has a minimal impact on GHG emissions resulting in an approximately 5,000-ton annual average direct CO2 emission reduction from 2023 - 2035. There are also no indirect emission reduction benefits because the TRACE Project does not facilitate the interconnection of additional intermittent renewable resources by providing needed backup supply nor provide economic capacity to New York City.

If the system is dispatched solely to reduce overall costs, then it is possible the local transmission congestion relief the TRACE Project is expected to provide could drive slight increases in GHG emissions due to instances where a generator is dispatched with relatively higher emissions rates and lower fuel and VOM costs. However, for this analysis Guidehouse has assumed the New York system operator will consider emissions, as well as system costs, in determining future dispatch and that the TRACE project will

1 Con Edison has proposed three distinct TRACE Projects for New York City. This analysis only addresses the 6-mile underground PAR controlled feeder between Rainey and Corona.

never be responsible for GHG increases. It also noted, the TRACE Project would not address the transmission congestion from the rest of the state into zones J and K and thus would not expand the capability to import renewable energy produced in zones A-I to New York City or Long Island.

As described in the January 2021 Supplement to GHG Impacts of the Astoria Replacement Project , the addition of the Replacement Project dramatically increases overall GHG benefits by both (1) directly reducing GHG emissions through displacement of older, less efficient generation in New York City, including a reduction in GHG emissions due to extraction and transmission of fossil fuels imported into the state, and (2) indirectly reducing GHG emissions by providing required quick start and fast ramping capacity to maintain reliability in New York City which allows New York to avoid the installation of large amounts of marginal capacity from energy storage, the cost savings of which can be applied to accelerate procurement of additional renewable resources including significant amounts of offshore wind. The Project, therefore, is forecasted to cause a cumulative direct, upstream and indirect reduction in GHG emissions through 2035 of over 5,000,000 tons.

The Replacement Project provides these significant GHG reductions, both with and without the TRACE Project. A summary of the expected GHG emission reductions for the Replacement Project, TRACE Project and both combined, are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of GHG Benefits in New York State Astoria Replacement Project + Astoria Replacement Project TRACE Only Case TRACE Case (000 Short Tons)

Direct Indirect Cumulative Direct Indirect Cumulative Direct Indirect Cumulative Emission Emission Emission Emission Emission Emission Emission Emission Emission Reductions Reductions Reductions Reductions Reductions Reductions Reductions Reductions Reductions

2023 72 72 20 0 20 72 72 2024 89 161 0 0 20 89 161 2025 57 218 18 0 38 57 218 2026 39 257 17 0 55 39 257 2027 40 297 12 0 67 40 297 2028 18 315 0 0 67 18 315 2029 27 342 0 0 67 31 346 2030 21 476 839 0 0 67 21 476 843 2031 15 646 1,500 0 0 67 15 646 1504 2032 19 792 2,311 0 0 67 19 792 2315 2033 7 979 3,297 0 0 67 7 979 3301 2034 13 961 4,271 0 0 67 13 961 4275 2035 5 990 5,266 0 0 67 8 990 5273

New York City Ratepayer Benefits

Capacity Market

To assess the impact of the TRACE Project on capacity prices in New York City, prices were forecasted using the latest demand curve with and without the project. However, since the TRACE Project does not increase supply resources in New York City, it is not forecast to have any material impact on capacity prices. Alternatively, the Replacement Project provides 437 MW of new economic supply to New York City which will result in lower prices in the capacity market. These capacity savings are calculated by multiplying the reduction in capacity prices and the difference in cleared capacity in New York Zone J as shown in Figure 11 of the January 2021 Supplement to Economic Development Benefits of the Proposed Astoria Replacement Project . The average reduction in New York Zone J capacity prices from the Replacement Project from Summer 2023 to Winter 2027/28 is approximately $2.67/kW-month (in 2020$), resulting in a total nominal capacity cost savings of over $1.5 billion over the first five years of its operation.

Energy Market

Construction of the TRACE Project will cause modest impacts on energy prices in New York City, resulting in an annual average energy price decrease of about $0.01/MWh. This results in an expected $2.41 million total energy cost savings, averaging $0.19 million per year over the period 2023 to 2035. Construction of both the TRACE Project and the Astoria Replacement Project results in a decrease in New York City energy prices of $0.13/MWh, resulting in $85 million in energy cost savings over the forecast period with an annual average savings of $6.54 million (in real 2020$).

A summary of the expected New York City ratepayer benefits from the Replacement Project, TRACE Project and both combined, are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of New York City Ratepayer Benefits

Value Added Benefits Categories (2020 USD Millions) Astoria Replacement Astoria Replacement + TRACE Only Case Project TRACE Case NYC Ratepayer Benefits – Capacity Cost Savings $1,549 $0.56 $1,549 (5-year Total) NYC Ratepayer Benefits – Energy Cost Savings $83.50 $2.41 $85.03 (13-year Total)

Note: Energy and capacity cost savings represented as nominal total value.