LAW OFFICES ^K^COVED' v* ER.DGE & D.AMONO, P.C. ^iSf I5TH FLOOR 0SEC-FILES-A,L8ANY 47 7 MADISON AVENUE : NEW YORK. NY I0022-5802 2001 SEP 27 PM \ U2
HEATHER M. FUSCO (2I2I 702-5400 • (212) 702-5411 [email protected] TELECOPIER (2I2) yOS-S^SO
September 24, 2001 Ccm-eAO
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Hon. Walter T. Moynihan Office of Hearings and ADR, New York State Public Service Commission Three Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12233-1350
Hon. Daniel P. O'Connell Office of Hearings and Mediation Services N YS Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway, ls! Floor Albany, NY 12233-1550
Re: Case 00-F-0566 - Application of Brookhaven Energy, LP For a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need to Construct and Operate a 580 MW Gas-fired Combined Cycle Electric Generating Plant in the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, New York
Dear Judge Moynihan and Judge O'Connell:
Enclosed please find an original of Brookhaven Energy Limited Partnership's Opposition to PPL Global, LLC's Motion to Intervene in the above-referenced Article X proceeding.
Five copies of the Opposition are being sent to Secretary Deixler via first class mail. Copies are also being served upon all active parties via first class mail.
WASHINGTON. DC BALTIMORE. MD NEW YORK, NY FORT LEE. NJ SACRAMENTO. CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P. C^^ ^P Hon. Walter T. Moynihan September 24, 2001 Page 2
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
^MJUHK- ^MCG Heather M. Fusco Associate
Enclosure
cc: Hon. Janet Hand Deixler (via First Class Mail) Active parties (via First Class Mail)
N:\I9\64\10360\ltr\hmfPPLopposition.wpd CASE 00-F-0566 BROOKHAVEND^K\ ENERGY LIMITED PARTNERSHf ACTIVE PARTY LIST (AS OF 8/30/01)
ROBERT CHARLEBOIS WILLIAM R. HOWELL VICE PRESIDENT CHAIR AMERICAN NATIONAL POWER, INC. NYS ENERGY RESEARCH AND 65 Boston Post Road West DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Suite 300 Corporate Plaza West Marlborough, MA 01752 2 86 Washington Avenue Ext. Tel: (631) 205-9741 Albany, NY 12203 Fax: (508) 786-7201 KIMBERLY A. HARRIMAN, ESQ. ERIN M. CROTTY STAFF COUNSEL COMMISSIONER 3 Empire State Plaza NYS DEPARTMENT OF Albany, NY 12223-1350 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Tel: (518) 474-6513 62 5 Broadway Fax: (518) 473-7081 14th Floor E-mail: kimberly_harriman Albany, NY 12233 dps,state.ny.us Tel: (518) 402-8540 Fax: (518) 402-8541 NANETTE J. ESSEL E-mail: emcrotty® CO-PRESIDENT gw.dec.state.ny.us YAPHANK TAXPAYERS & CIVIC ASSOCIATION WILLIAM G. LITTLE P.O. Box 3 92 ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY Yaphank, NY 119 8 0 NYS DEPARTMENT OF Tel: (631) 854-1500 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Fax: (631) 924-7193 5 0 Wolf Road E-mail: [email protected] Albany, NY 12233 HERMAN A. STUHL CHARLES A. GAR6AN0 ATTN: ENVIRONMENTAL BUREAU COMMISSIONER NEW YORK INSTITUTE OF LEGAL EMPIRE STATE DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CORPORATION P.O. Box 3 98 63 3 Third Avenue Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 New York, NY 10017 Tel: (914) 245-8400 Fax: (914) 245-7660 DR. DONALD R. DAVIDSEN E-mail: [email protected] COMMISSIONER NYS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE JEFFREY A. BRUNER AND MARKETS GENERAL COUNSEL 1 Winners Circle PAUL W. DIEHL, SENIOR ATTORNEY Albany, NY 12235 IROQUOIS PIPELINE OPERATING COMPANY DR. JOHN HAWLEY One Corporate Drive, Suite 600 NYS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Shelton, Connecticut 06484 Corning Tower Tel: (203) 925-7200 Empire State Plaza Fax: (203) 926-8829 Albany, NY 12237 CASE 00-F-0566 ^ft As of^fco/01
JERRY MONTROSE MICHAEL G. MURPHY, ESQ. SEF IDUSTRIES INC. BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C. 1041 Third Ave., 2nd Floor 4 77 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10021 15th Floor Tel: (212) 688-0180 New York, NY 10022 Fax: (212) 758-6118 Tel: (212) 702-5436 Fax: (212) 702-5450 JOHN W. DAX E-mail: [email protected] COHEN, DAX & KOENIG, P.C. 90 State Street, Suite 1030 PETER QUINN Albany, New York 122 07 675 Tanglewood Road Tel: (518) 432-1002 West Islip, NY 11795 Fax: (518) 432-1028 Tel: (631) 587-3396 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: Same (call first) E-mail: [email protected] GORDIAN RAACKE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NANCY C. CIANFLONE CITIZENS ADVISORY PANEL GAS MARKETING & SALES DIVISION 2316 Main Street, P.O. Box 789 KEYSPAN ENERGY Bridgehampton, NY 11932 One MetroTech Center Tel: (631) 537-8282 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Fax: (631) 537-4680 Tel: (718) 403-2505 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: (718) 596-7802 E-mail: ncianflone@ SHIRLEY A. PHILLIPS keyspanenergy.com NIXON PEABODY LLP Omni Plaza, Suite 900 JEFFREY L. FUTTER, ESQ. 30 South Pearl Street KEYSPAN CORPORATION Albany, New York 12207 One MetroTech Center Tel: (518) 427-2654 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Fax: (518) 427-2666 Tel: (718) 403-3013 E-mail: sphillips® Fax: (718) 403-2698 nixonpeabody.com E-mail: jfutter@ keyspanenergy.com ELLEN A. REDMOND INTERNATIONAL BORTHERHOOD ROBERT J. CIMINO, ESQ. OF ELECTICAL WORKERS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK LOCAL UNION 1049 DEPARTMENT OF LAW 74 5 Kings Highway P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788-4197 Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099 Tel: (516) 234-1800 Tel: (631) 853-4049 Fax: (516) 234-1034 Fax: (631) 853-5169 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: robert.cimino@ CO.suffolk.ny.us STEPHEN L. GORDON, ESQ. BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C. 477 Madison Avenue 15th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 702-5410 Fax: (212) 702-5450 E-mail: [email protected]
-2- CASE 00-F-0566 ^^ As of ^Bo/Ol
ANTHONY J. GREY, PH.D. CYNTHIA R. CLARK, ESQ. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR KEYSPAN CORPORATION BUREAU OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE One MetroTech Center ASSESSMENT Brooklyn, NY 11201 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT Tel: (718) 403-3022 OP HEALTH Fax: (718) 403-2698 Flanigan Square, Room 330 E-mail: cclark® 547 River Street keyspanenergy.com Troy, NY 12180-2216 Tel: (518) 402-7800 JOHN M. ARMENTANO, ESQ. Fax: (518) 402-7819 FARRELL FRITZ, P.C. E-mail: ajgOl® EAB Plaza, West Tower health.state.ny.us 14th Floor Uniondale, NY 11556 DAVID W. QUIST, ESQ. Tel: (516) 227-0700 SENIOR ATTORNEY Fax: (516) 227-0777 DIVISION OF LEGAL AFFAIRS E-mail: jarmentano® NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT farrellfritz.com OF HEALTH Room 2417 TIMOTHY P. SHEEHAN, ESQ. Corning Tower Building ADAMS, DAYTER & SHEEHAN, LLP Albany, NY 12237 39 North Pearl Street Tel: (518) 486-1896 Albany, NY 12207 Fax: (518) 473-2019 Tel: (518) 463-3385 E-mail: dwqOl® Fax: (518) 463-3440 health.state.ny.us E-mail: [email protected] (For Long Island Power KEVIN GLEASON Authority) EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION BUREAU OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE STANLEY B. KLIMBERG, ESQ. ASSESSMENT LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard OF HEALTH Suite 403 547 River Street, Room 330 Uniondale, NY 11553 Troy, NY 12180-2216 Tel: (516) 222-7700 Tel: (518) 402-7815 Fax: (518) 402-7819 JOHN T. EVERS E-mail: akg02® THE BUSINESS COUNCIL OF health.state.ny.us NEW YORK STATE, INC. 152 Washington Avenue NANCY C. CIANFLONE, MANAGER Albany, NY 12210-2289 GAS MARKETING & SALES DIVISION Tel: (518) 465-7511 KEYSPAN ENERGY Fax: (518) 465-4389 One MetroTech Center E-mail: [email protected] Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (718) 403-2505 G.S. PETER BERGEN, ESQ. Fax: (718) 596-7802 7 Beachway E-mail: ncianflone® Port Washington, NY 11050 keyspanenergy.com Tel: (516) 767-8816 Fax: (516) 944-6648 E-mail: pbergen® optonline.net
-3-
l STATE OF NEW YORK BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT -X IN THE MATTER
-of the- Case No. 00-F-0566
Application of Brookhaven Energy Limited Partnership for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need to Construct and Operate a 580 Megawatt Natural Gas-Fired Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine Electric Generating Plant in the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, New York
-X
BROOKHAVEN ENERGY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP'S OPPOSITION TO PPL GLOBAL. LLC'S MOTION TO INTERVENE
Brookhaven Energy Limited Partnership ("Brookhaven Energy") respectfully submits this opposition to PPL Global, LLC's (PPL) Motion to Intervene in the above-titled matter.
INTRODUCTION
On September 13, 2001, PPL filed a Motion to intervene as-of-right and become an active party participant in the matter of Brookhaven Energy's application. The New York Board on
Electric Generation Siting and the Environment ("Siting Board") should not grant the PPL's
Motion because it is untimely. Additionally, PPL fails to demonstrate that it is a party to a certification proceeding pursuant to any specific section of New York Public Service Law
("PSL") § 166 or that the issue that it seeks to address is relevant and material to this Article X proceeding. PPL's Motion should be denied. POINT I
PPL'S MOTION IS UNTIMELY
PPL's Motion to intervene should not be granted because it is untimely. Although PPL has not identified which paragraph of § 166 it seeks to gain party status under, the time for filing a notice of intervention under any of the paragraphs occurs within forty-five days after the date given in the published notice as the date for filing of the application. See PSL §§166 (IXhHl).1
In this case, the date that the application was filed, as published in the notification, was June 25,
2001. Therefore, all requests to intervene were due by August 9, 2001. Since PPL's Motion was not filed within that time, its Motion must be denied.
POINT II
PPL IS NOT ENTITLED TO INTERVENE IN THIS PROCEEDING BECAUSE IT IS NOT A PARTY TO THE CERTIFICATION PROCEEDING AS DEFINED IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE LAW
Even if it is not untimely, the PPL's Motion must be denied because it does not qualify for party status. In Section 166, the New York Public Service Law defines all of the entities that are parties to a certification proceeding. In addition to certain named state agencies and the applicant, the statute designates four categories of entities or individuals that are entitled to party status as-of-right if certain criteria are met. See PSL §§ 166 (l)(h) - (k). They include: (1) municipalities in which the proposed facility is to be constructed; (2) residents of those
1 PPL cites to 16 NYCRR § 4.3 (c), the general administrative procedures of the Public Service Commission, which states that permission to intervene after a hearing has commenced may be sought and granted at any time. However, the more specific Article X time limitations are applicable in this proceeding. municipalities; (3) any non-profit corporation or association organized "to promote conservation or natural beauty, to protect the environment, personal health or other biological values, to preserve historical sites, to promote consumer interests, to represent commercial or industrial groups or to promote the orderly development of any area in which the facility is to be located ..
.;" and (4) municipalities (or residents thereof) located within a five mile radius of the proposed facility. See PSL §§ 166 (l)(h) - (k).
In addition. Article X sets forth two additional categories that may be granted party status only upon Siting Board approval. These permissive categories include: (1) any municipality (or resident thereof) which the Siting Board finds in its discretion to have an interest in the proceeding because of the potential environmental impacts on such municipality or person; and (2) such other person or entity as the Siting Board may deem appropriate. See PSL §§166
(l)(l)-(m).
PPL does not qualify to be a party as-of-right to an Article X certification proceeding. It is not a municipality or a resident of a municipality in which the proposed facility is to be constructed. See PSL §§ 166 (l)(h), (i). The proposed facility site is in Brookhaven, New York and PPL is located in Smithtown, New York. See PPL's Motion f 1. Neither is PPL a non- profit corporation or a resident of a municipality located within five miles of the proposed
Project as defined in PSL § 166 (l)(j) & (k). PPL owns, operates and develops competitive electric generation facilities and is not a non-profit corporation. See PPL's Motion f 2.
Smithtown, the municipality where PPL's proposed project is located, is approximately 15-20 miles from the proposed Project site in Brookhaven. See PPL's Motion ^ 3. No facilities related to the Project will be constructed in Smithtown and there are no alternative sites for the Project in
3 Smithtown. Thus, PPL does not qualify for party status as-of-right under Article X.
PPL is not eligible for permissive party status either. PPL has failed to demonstrate that it satisfies the first permissive category because it does not describe the potential environmental impacts it will suffer as a result of this Project. See PSL § 166 (1)(1). Instead, PPL insists that the stipulations governing the scope of studies for its project, which are only under negotiation, may require it to study certain cumulative impacts of its Project and the Brookhaven Energy
Project. See PPL's Motion ^ 4. PPL claims that these cumulative impacts include "a number of environmental media,... the bulk transmission system, and ... competitive electric markets."
Id- What PPL is required to analyze in support of its project is irrelevant to the development of the record in this proceeding. It may be that certain cumulative impacts are to be addressed in the PPL proceeding because PPL is behind Brookhaven Energy in the Article X process, but that does mean that those same cumulative impacts should be addressed in the Brookhaven Energy proceeding, which appears to underlie PPL's interest here.
PPL then tries to bolster its "interest" in this proceeding by specifically arguing that the
"Brookhaven Energy Project may impact transmission capacity on many of the same lines and interfaces as the KPE Project, and may also utilize such capacity on other parts of the LIPA bulk transmission system." See PPL's Motion f 5. This argument does not withstand scrutiny. As with the Article X process, PPL is also behind Brookhaven Energy on the NYISO Interconnect
Study Queue. See Exhibit 1 (Brookhaven Energy at No. 32; PPL at No. 43). Further, PPL's
Interconnect Study Report states that the Brookhaven Energy Project was included in the PPL modeling. See ej*., Exhibit 2 at 13, 15. The Interconnect Studies for both Projects have already been approved by the NYISO Operating Committee. Thus, the impacts of both Projects have
4 already been studied in accordance with NYISO's requirements. PPL should not be allowed to utilize the Brookhaven Energy proceeding as a vehicle for disrupting NYISO's orderly consideration of new interconnections to the bulk transmission system.
In further support of its Motion, PPL articulates vague and amorphous "interests," which purportedly support its argument for being granted active party status. See PPL Motion f 6.
First, it repeats its cumulative impact argument, which is only appropriate for consideration in the PPL proceeding. Second, PPL argues that opponents to its project have suggested that the
Brookhaven Energy Project be evaluated as an alternative site for the PPL project. Not only is that not an Article X requirement (16 NYCRR § 1001.2(d)(2)), but it also does not have relevance to this proceeding.
Finally, PPL argues that evidence adduced at the Brookhaven Energy hearing may impact the PPL application. Perhaps that is true, but that argument, in such vague terms, could be made of any Article X proceeding and is not a basis for granting PPL's late Motion to intervene.
Similarly, the Siting Board should not grant PPL party status under PSL § 166 (l)(m).
POINT III
PPL FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ITS INTERVENTION IS LIKELY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPLETE RECORD
In deciding whether to exercise its discretionary authority to grant an entity party status under PSL §§166 (l)(l)-(m), the Siting Board must determine that the entity has demonstrated that it "is likely to contribute to the development of a complete record." See 16 NYCRR
§ 4.3(c)(1). In this case, PPL admits that it does not seek to contribute to the development of a complete record. Instead, PPL states that it "does not plan to proffer evidence or participate in examination of witnesses unless it is necessary to do so to protect the interests of PPL..." PPL's
Motion Tf 7. PPL goes on to say that "PPL Global reserves their right to raise substantive issues during the course of these proceedings should it be necessary or desirable to do so to protect the interests of PPL Global." PPL's Motion ^ 8. Therefore, PPL currently has no plans of contributing to the record and its Motion should be denied. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, PPL Global, LLC's Motion and Petition should be denied in all respects.
Dated: September £K, 2001 New York, New York
Respectfully submitted.
Stephen U. Gordon, Esq. Michael G. Murphy, Esq. Heather M. Fusco, Esq. BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C. IS"1 Floor 477 Diamond Avenue New York, NY 10022-5802 (212)702-5400
Attorneys for BROOKHAVEN ENERGY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
N:\19\64\10360\plg\hmfbrookhaven response PPL.wpd • NYISO Transmission and Interconnection Study Queue (Updated: 9/07/2001) Page lofll
Date of Request / Requested by/ Study Type of 1 Priority Application Customer Proposed Project Lead Stud/ Study Description/Objectives Study Status N/A NYISO N/A NYISO NTRA 2000 Transmission Reliability Completed - Assessment - Assessment of the Approved by the NPCC Reliability of the Planned NYS Bulk Power TFCP 9/28/00. Transmission System in Year 2006. N/A NYISO N/A NYISO NTRA 2001 Transmission Reliability In Progress - Initial Assessment - Assessment of the Draft Report Due • Reliability of the Planned NYS Bulk Power 9/13/01. Transmission System in Year 2006. 2 9/15/99 TPAS N/A NYISO RS Reactive Resource Adequacy Study - On Hold - New Work Assess Adequacy of Reactive Resources Plan Under Throughout NYS Under Extreme Weather Development. Peak Load Conditions. 3 N/A NYISO N/A NYISO TPS Regional Transmission Planning Study In Progress - Regional - Studies to Evaluate the Need and Benefits Transmission of Transmission Reinforcements from a Constraints Under Regional Perspective and to Develop a Study by the NPCC Consolidated Transmission Plan. CP-10 Working Group. 4 N/A IITF N/A TOs TPS 2001 Baseline Plan Study - Studies to In Progress - TOs Develop a Hypothetical "Baseline Evaluating Baseline Transmission Plan" for Purposes of Needs/ Plans. Determining Cost Allocation of System Oven/iew Due 9/13/01 Upgrades for New Interconnections. 5 4/27/98 Athens Athens -1080 MW Generation NMPC/ SRIS Reliability Assessment of the Proposed Completed - Generating Co. Plant and Station to Connect to NYISO Athens Generation Interconnection. Approved by the OC (PG&E) Leeds-Pleasant Valley 91 Line. 2/16/00. 4/27/98 PSEG Bethlehem Energy Center - NMPC SRIS Reliability Assessment of the Proposed Initially Approved by the r Repowering of the Albany Bethlehem Energy Center Project. Re- OC 2/16/00. Generation Plant to Increase evaluation of PSEG's Revised Re-Evaluation Capacity by 350 MW. Proposal. Approved 5/23/01. 7 7/20/98 LI PA 330 MW DC Tie-line Between New LI PA/ IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Completed - Haven, CT, and Shoreham, Long KeySpan the Proposed CT-LI DC Tie-line and Approved by the OC Island, NY Associated Transmission Upgrades. 1/17/01. 8 9/28/98 NYPA Marcy Convertible Static NYPA FS Detailed Design and Development of Phase 1 Completed - Compensator (CSC) with Shunt Operating Strategies for the Marcy Approved by the OC N Capacitors at Oakdale, Edic, and CSC Project. 6/20/00. ' New Scotland. Phase 2 in Progress. 9 1/28/99 Sithe Energies Tome Valley - 860 MW Generation CONED IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Inactive - Customer Plant and Station to Connect to the Proposed Tome Valley Generation Considering Changes Ramapo Station. Interconnection. to Proposal. NYISO Transmission and Interconnection Study Queue (Updated: 9/07/2001) Page 2 of 11
Date of Request/ Requested by/ Study Type of Priority1 Application Customer Proposed Project Lead Stud/ Study Description/Objectives Study Status 10 2/17/99 Sunset Energy 520 MW Generation Plant to CONED IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Completed - Fleet Connect to Gowanus Station. the Proposed SEF Generation Approved by the OC Interconnection. 9/21/00. 11 2/23/99 Ramapo 1100 MW Generation Plant to CONED IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Completed - Energy (ANP) Connect to Ramapo Station. the Proposed Ramapo Energy Approved by the OC Generation Interconnection. 12/11/00. "l2 2/23/99 CONED iS Withdrawn Flortrir Pnrn fh^i Drv\rM-\c>Cirl firooow Dciint flnnnr^i'mn West Haveretraw Station. Interconnection. 13 2/23/99 Millennium Two Generation Projects, 160 MW CONED IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Inactive - Study Scope Power and 320 MW, to Connect to the Proposed Millennium Generation Approved by the OC. Generating Co. Hellgate/Bruckner Station. Interconnections. 14 3/25/99 East Coast Four Generation Projects: 20, 70, CONED IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Inactive - Customer Power - Linden 160, and 160 MW; to Connect to the Proposed East Coast Power - Considering Changes Venture Goethals Station. Linden Generation Interconnections. to Proposal. 15 4/13/99 AEP Resources 600 MW AC Tie-line Between New LIPA/ IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Inactive Service Co. Haven, CT, and Shoreham, Long KeySpan the Proposed CT-LI AC Tie-line and Island, NY Associated Transmission Upgrades. 16 4/15/99 ABB 1075 MW Generation Plant to CONED IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Inactive - Customer Development Connect to the Hellgate/Bruckner the Proposed ABB Oak Point Yard Addressing Comments Corp. Station. Generation Interconnection. on Study Report. 17 4/21/99 KeySpan 270 MW Generation Plant to CONED IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Completed - Energy Connect to Ravenswood Station. the Proposed KeySpan/ Ravenswood Approved by the OC Generation Interconnection. 1/17/01. 4/30/99 NYPA Poletti Expansion - Project to CONED IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Completed - r Increase Generation Plant the Proposed Poletti Generation Approved by the OC Capacity by 500 MW. Expansion Interconnection. 4/23/01. 19 5/7/99 SEFCO / 79.9 MW Generation Plant to CONED IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Completed - NYC Energy Connect to Kent Ave. Station the Proposed Kent Ave. Generation Approved by the OC Interconnection. 7/18/01. 20 5/17/99 KeySpan Spagnoli Road Generating Station LIPA/ IS Reliability Assessment of the Proposed Completed - Energy - 250 MW Combined-Cycle KeySpan KeySpan Spagnoli Road CC Approved by the OC Generating Unit to Connect to the Generation Interconnection. 8/22/01. Ruland Road Station. 21 5/17/99 KeySpan Shoreham Generating Station - LIPA/ IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Inactive - Study Scope Energy 250 MW Combined-Cycle KeySpan the Proposed KeySpan Shoreham CC Approved by the OC. Generating Unit to Connect to the Generation Interconnection. Shoreham 8Z Station. NYISO Transmission and Interconnection Study Queue (Updated: 9/07/2001) Page 3 of 11
Date of Request / Requested by/ Study Type of Priority1 Application Customer Proposed Project Lead Stud/ Study Description/Objectives Study Status 22 6/10/99 Calpine Eastern Wawayanda Energy Center - 500 NYPAI S Design and Reliability Assessment of Completed - Corporation MW Generation Plant to Connect the Proposed Calpine/ Wawayanda Approved by the OC to the Coopers Comers-Rock Generation Interconnection 7/18/01. Tavem Lines. 6/25/99 Calpine Eastern Sullivan County Power Project - NYPAI S Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending - Revised Corporation 1080 Generation Plant to Connect the Proposed Sullivan County Project Scope Under Review f to the Coopers Comers-Rock Generation Interconnection. by TPAS. Tavem Lines. 24 7/13/99 Orion Power Astoria Repowering - 499 MW CONED IS Design and Reliability Assessment of In Progress - Study Generation Plant to Connect to the Proposed Astoria Generating Co. Report Scheduled for Astoria Station. Generation Interconnection. NYISO Review. 25 8/10/99 Con Edison East River Repowering - Project to CONED IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Completed - Increase Generation Plant the Proposed East River Repowering Approved by the OC Capacity by 288 MW. Interconnection. 12/11/00. 26 8/20/99 Twin Tier Twin Tier - 520 MW Generation NYSEG IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Inactive - Study Scope Power Plant and Station to Connect to the the Proposed Twin Tier Generation Approved by the OC. Watercure-Oakdale 31 Line. Interconnection. 27 9/8/99 KeySpan Spagnoli Road Generating Station LIPA/ IS Reliability Assessment of the Proposed Inactive - Study Scope Energy - 79.9 MW GT Unit to Connect to KeySpan KeySpan Spagnoli Road GT Approved by the OC. the Ruland Road Station. Generation Interconnection. 28 10/13/99 Mirant Bowline Point Unit 3 - 750 MW CONED IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Completed - Generating Unit to Connect to the the Proposed Bowline Point 3 Approved by the OC West Haverstraw Station. Generation Interconnection. 1/17/01. 29 10/26/99 Con Edison Middletown Station to Connect to NYISO FS Develop an Estimate of the TCCs Pending One of the Coopers Comers-Rock attributable to the Middletown 1 Tavem lines, and Middletown- Transmission Project. Shoemaker Line. 30 10/29/99 Heritage LLC Heritage - 800 MW Generation NMPC IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Completed - (Sithe Plant to Connect to Independence the Proposed Heritage Generation Approved by the OC Energies) Station Interconnection. 11/21/00. 31 11/16/99 Astoria Energy, Astoria Energy - 1000 MW CONED IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Completed - LLC Generation Plant to Connect to the Proposed Astoria Energy Approved by the OC (SCS Energy) Astoria Station. Generation Interconnection. 12/11/00. 32 11/22/99 American Brookhaven Energy LLP - 580 MW ANP IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Completed - X National Power, Generation Plant to Connect to the the Proposed ANP Brookhaven Energy Approved by the OC Inc. Holbrook-Brookhaven Line (LIPA). Generation Interconnection. 8/22/01. 33 11/30/99 Glenville 810 MW Generation Plant to NMPC IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Completed - Energy Park Connect to Rotterdam Station. the Proposed Glenville Generation Approved by the OC Interconnection. 1/17/01. NYISO Transmission and Interconnection Study Queue (Updated: 9/07/2001) Page 4 of 11
Date of Request/ Requested by/ Study Type of Priority1 Application Customer Proposed Project Lead Stud/ Study Description/Objectives Study Status 34 1/11/00 York Research North First Street - 500 MW TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Corporation Generation Plant to Connect to the Proposed North First Street Con Edison Transmission System Generation Interconnection. (connection point TBD). 1/12/00 1st Rochdale Gotham Power Cooperative (Bronx CONED IS Design and Reliability Assessment of In Progress - Study Cooperative 1) - 79 MW Generation Plant to the Proposed Gotham Power - Bronx 1 Scope Approved by the •" Group Connect to the Parkchester/ Generation Interconnection. OC. Tremont Station (Con Edison). 36 1/21/00 Atlantic Energy Project Neptune Phase 1 -1200 ABB IS, SIS Design and Reliability Assessment of In Progress - Study LLC MW Bi-Polar HVDC Tie-line the Interconnection of the Proposed Report Under Review Between Maritimes and NYC. Neptune Tie-line. by NYISO. 37 1/28/00 Caithness Kitchen - 750 MW Generation TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Energy LLC Plant to Connect to the Riverhead- the Proposed Caithness Kitchen Brookhaven-Holbrook transmission Generation Interconnection. corridor (LI PA). 38 2/1/00 KeySpan Far Rockaway Power Station TBD IS Reliability Assessment of the Proposed Pending Energy Extension - 79 MW GT Unit to KeySpan Far Rockaway Extension Connect to the Far Rockaway Generation Interconnection. Station (LIPA). 39 2/1/00 KeySpan E. F. Barrett Generating Station TBD IS Reliability Assessment of the Proposed Pending Energy Extension - 79 MW GT Unit to KeySpan Barrett Extension Generation Connect to the Barrett Station Interconnection. (LIPA). 40 2/1/00 KeySpan Riverhead Generating Station - 79 LIPA/ IS Reliability Assessment of the Proposed Inactive - Study Scope Energy MW GT Unit to Connect to the KeySpan KeySpan Riverhead Generation Approved by the OC. Riverhead Station. Interconnection. 41 2/1/00 KeySpan Southampton Generating Station LIPA/ IS Reliability Assessment of the Proposed Inactive - Study Scope Energy Extension - 79 MW GT Unit to KeySpan KeySpan Southampton Extension Approved by the OC. Connect to the Southampton Generation Interconnection. Station. 42 2/1/00 PP&L Global, Holbrook Energy - 300 MW TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Inc. Generation Plant to Connect to the the Proposed PP&L Holbrook Energy Holbrook Station (LIPA). Generation Interconnection. 43 2/1/00 PP&L Global, PPL Kings Park - 300 MW PP&L IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Completed - X Inc. Generation Plant to Connect to the the Proposed PPL Kings Park Approved by the OC Pilgrim Station (LIPA). Generation Interconnection. 5/23/01. 44 2/1/00 PP&L Global, Ruland Energy - 300 MW TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Inc. Generation Plant to Connect to the the Proposed PP&L Ruland Energy Ruland Road Station (LIPA). Generation Interconnection. NYISO Transmission and Interconnection Study Queue (Updated: 9/07/2001) Page 5 of 11
Date of Request / Requested by/ Study Type of Priority1 Application Customer Proposed Project Lead Stud/ Study Description/Objectives Study Status 45 2/1/00 PP&L Global, Freeport Energy -100 MW TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Inc. Generation Plant to Connect to the the Proposed PP&L Freeport Energy Freeport STA4F Substation (LIPA). Generation Interconnection. 46 2/3/00 PP&L Global, Brookhaven Energy LLC - 300 MW TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Inc. Generation Plant to Connect to the the Proposed PP&L Brookhaven 1 Brookhaven Station (LIPA). Energy Generation Interconnection. W47 2/9/00 GenPower LLC GenPower - 800 MW HVDC Radial GenPower IS Design and Reliability Assessment of In Progress - Study Line from Nova Scotia to the West the Proposed GenPower HVDC Tie- Scope Approved by the 49th St. Station (Con Edison). line. OC. 48 2/10/00 PP&L Global. PPL Kings Park Expansion - 300 PP&L IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Inactive - Study Scope Inc. MW Additional Generation to the Proposed PPL Kings Park Approved by the OC. Connect to the Pilgrim Station Generation Expansion. (LIPA). 49 2/10/00 PP&L Global, Brookhaven Energy Expansion - TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Inc. 300 MW Additional Generation to the Proposed PP&L Brookhaven Connect to the Brookhaven Station Energy Generation Expansion. (LIPA). 50 2/10/00 AES Long AESSmithtown -510 MW TBD IS, SIS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Island LLC Generation Plant to Connect to the Interconnection and Transmission LIPA Transmission System Reinforcements for the Proposed AES (connection point TBD). Smithtown Generation Plant. 51 2/15/00 KeySpan Wading River Generating Station TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Energy Extension -150 MW Combined- the Proposed KeySpan Wading River Cycle Unit to Connect to the Extension Generation Interconnection. Wading River 8R Station (LIPA). f52 3/6/00 Nia Mo Energy Fort Drum Expansion - Project to TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Markets/ Black Increase Generation Plant the Proposed Fort Drum Generation River Power Capacity by 25 - 50 MW. Expansion. 53 3/7/00 TransEnergle CT-Ruland, LI DC Tie-line - 300 TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending US MW DC Tie-line Between the Proposed TransEnergle Ruland DC Connecticut and the Ruland Tie-line Interconnection. Station (LIPA). 54 3/7/00 TransEnergle CT-Pilgrim, LI DC Tie-line - 300 TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending US MW DC Tie-line Between the Proposed TransEnergle Pilgrim DC Connecticut and the Pilgrim Station Tie-line Interconnection. (LIPA). NYISO Transmission and Interconnection Study Queue (Updated: 9/07/2001) Page 6 of 11
Date of Request/ Requested by/ Study Type of Priority1 Application Customer Proposed Project Lead Stud/ Study Description/Objectives Study Status 55 3/14/00 Canastota Wind Fenner Wind Energy Facility -10- NMPC IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Completed - Power (AREC) 50 MW Wind Generation Facility to the Proposed Fenner Wind Energy Approved by the OC Connect to the Fenner-Whitman Generation Interconnection. 6/20/01. 115 kV Line (NMPC). 3/17/00 1st Rochdale Gotham Power Cooperative TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Cooperative (Brooklyn 1) - 79 MW Generation the Proposed Gotham Power - r Group Plant to Connect to the Kent Ave. Brooklyn 1 Generation Interconnection. Station (Con Edison). 57 3/21/00 Flat Rock Flat Rock Windpower - 25-100 MW TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Windpower Wind Generation Facility to the Proposed Flat Rock Windpower (AREC) Connect to the Lowville-Boonville Generation Interconnection. 115 kV Line (NMPC). 58 3/23/00 Mirant Lovett Unit #3 Repowering - 204 TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of In Progress - Study MW GT Unit. the Proposed Lovett Unit #3 Scope Being Submitted Generation Interconnection. to the OC. 59 3/23/00 Mirant HillbumUnit#2-79.9MWGT TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Unit, Followed by Conversion to the Proposed Hillbum Unit #2 CC Unit, Increasing Unit Capacity Generation Interconnection. by 40 MW. 60 ^1/19/00 TSO 4S Withdrawn U=C
61 5/8/00 Project Orange Project Orange - 420 MW TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Associates, LP Generation Plant to Connect to the the Proposed Project Orange Temple St. 115 kV Station Generation Interconnection. (NMPC). 62 5/11/00 Lewis Staley LSA Station A - 650 MW TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Associates, Inc. Generation Plant to Connect to the the Proposed LSA Station A Homer City-Stolle Rd. 345 kV line. Generation Interconnection. 63 5/12/00 Lewis Staley LSA Station B - 600 MW TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Associates, Inc. Generation Plant to Connect to the Proposed LSA Station B One of the Dunkirk-Gardenville 230 Generation Interconnection. kV lines (NMPC). 64 5/15/00 Fortistar - Lockport II Generating Station - NYSEG IS Design and Reliability Assessment of In Progress - Study Lockport 79.9 MW Generating Unit to the Proposed Fortistar Lockport II Report Under Review Merchant Connect to the Harrison 115 kV Generation Interconnection. by NYISO. Associates Substation (NYSEG). NYISO Transmission and Interconnection Study Queue (Updated: 9/07/2001) Page 7 of 11
Date of Request/ Requested by/ Study Type of Priority1 Application Customer Proposed Project Lead Stud/ Study Description/Objectives Study Status 65 6/2/00 TransEnergie Langlois Converter - 100 MW DC NMPC SRIS Reliability Assessment of the Proposed In Progress - Study HQ Link Between the HQ System and Langlois DC Interconnection. Scope Approved by the the Cedar Rapids 115 kV Tie-lines OC. with NMPC. 6/21/00 Titan Wallkill Energy-1080 MW TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Development, Generation Plant to Connect to the the Proposed Wallkill Energy r LLC Coopers Corners-Rock Tavern Generation Interconnection. Lines (NYPA). 67 6/23/00 PP&L Global, Ruland Energy Expansion - 300 TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Inc. MW Additional Generation to the Proposed PP&L Ruland Energy Connect to the Ruland Road Generation Expansion. Station (LIPA). 68 7/14/00 Besicorp- Empire State Newsprint Project - BesiCorp IS Design and Reliability Assessment of In Progress - Study Empire 660 MW Generation Plant to the Proposed Besicorp-Empire Report Scheduled for Connect to the Reynolds Road Generation Interconnection. NYISO Review. Station (NMPC). 69 8/18/00 Orion Power Astoria Repowering Phase 2 - 800 Orion IS Design and Reliability Assessment of In Progress - Study MW Additional Generation to the Proposed Astoria Generating Co. Report Scheduled for Connect to Astoria Station. Phase 2 Interconnection. NYISO Review. 70 9/8/00 Mill Creek Wind Mill Creek Wind Plant - 35-50 MW NMPC SRIS Reliability Assessment of the Proposed Pending Plant, LLC Wind Generating Unit to Connect Mill Creek Wind Plant Generation to the Lowville 115 kV Substation. Interconnection. 71 9/8/00 Fortistar Power Island Generating Station - 79.9 TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Marketing, LLC MW Generating Unit to Connect to the Proposed FPM Island Generating the Fresh Kills 138 kV Substation Station Interconnection. (Con Edison). 72 9/8/00 Fortistar Power Island Generating Station #2 - 500 TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Marketing, LLC MW Generating Unit to Connect to the Proposed FPM Island Generating the Fresh Kills 138 kV Substation Station #2 Interconnection. (Con Edison). 73 10/10/00 FPL Energy, Oceanside Energy Center - 560 TBD SRIS Reliability Assessment of the Proposed Pending LLC MW Generation Plant to Connect FPL Oceanside Generation to the Barrett Station (LIPA). Interconnection. 74 10/17/00 1st Rochdale Gotham Power Cooperative (Bronx TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Cooperative II) - 79 MW Generation Plant to the Proposed Gotham Power - Bronx II Group Connect to the Hellg ate/Bruckner Generation Interconnection. Station (Con Edison). NYISO Transmission and Interconnection Study Queue (Updated: 9/07/2001) Page 8 of 11
Dafe of Request / Requested by/ Study Type of Priority1 Application Customer Proposed Project Lead Stud/ Study Description/Objectives Study Status 75 10/30/00 Calpine Eastern Waterford - 530 MW Generation NMPC IS Design and Reliability Assessment of In Progress - Study Corporation Plant to Connect to the NMPC 230 the Proposed SkyGen/ Waterford Report Scheduled for or 115 kV System. Generation Interconnection. NYISO Review. 76 11/17/00 Titan Dover Energy - 1000 MW TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Development, Generation Plant to Connect to the the Proposed Titan/ Dover Energy LLC PI. Valley-Long Mt. (NY-CT) Tie- Generation Interconnection. > line. 77 12/4/00 KeySpan Ravenswood Repowering-Phase 1 TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Ravenswood - 440 MW Repowering Project at the Proposed KeySpan/ Ravenswood Services, LLC the Ravenswood Gen Station. Repowering Interconnection. 78 12/5/00 NYPA Hariem River Yards - 79.9 MW NYPA SRIS Reliability Assessment of the Proposed Completed - Generation Plant to Connect to the NYPA/ Harlem River Yards Generation Approved by the OC Hell Gate 138 kV Station (Con Interconnection. 4/23/01. Edison). 79 12/5/00 NYPA Hell Gate - 79.9 MW Generation NYPA SRIS Reliability Assessment of the Proposed Completed - Plant to Connect to the Hell Gate NYPA/ Hell Gate Generation Approved by the OC 138 kV Station (Con Edison). Interconnection. 4/23/01. 80 12/5/00 NYPA Vemon Blvd - 79.9 MW NYPA SRIS Reliability Assessment of the Proposed Completed - Generation Plant to Connect to the NYPA/ Vernon Generation Approved by the OC Vemon 138 kV Station (Con Interconnection. 4/23/01. Edison). 81 12/5/00 NYPA N First St and Grand Ave - 44 MW NYPA SRIS Reliability Assessment of the Proposed Completed - Generation Plant to Connect to the NYPA/ N First St and Grand Ave Approved by the OC Vemon-Greenwood 138 kV Line Generation Interconnection. 4/23/01. (Con Edison). u u W 82 12/5/00 NYPA 23' St and 3' Ave - 79.9 MW NYPA SRIS Reliability Assessment of the Proposed Completed - Generation Plant to Connect to the NYPA/ 23rd St and 3rd Ave Generation Approved by the OC Gowanus 138 kV Station (Con Interconnection. 4/23/01. Edison). 83 12/5/00 NYPA Fox Hills -44 MW Generation NYPA SRIS Reliability Assessment of the Proposed Completed - Plant to Connect to the Fox Hills NYPA/ Fox Hills Generation Approved by the OC 138 kV Station (Con Edison). Interconnection. 4/23/01. 84 1/15/01 NRG Northeast NRG Astoria - 79.9 MW CONED SRIS Reliability Assessment of the Proposed In Progress - Study Generating, Replacement Generation Project NRG/Astoria Replacement Generation Scope Approved by the LLC Connected at the Astoria 138 kV Project. OC. Station (Con Edison). NYISO Transmission and Interconnection Study Queue (Updated: 9/07/2001) Page 9 of 11
Date of Request / Requested by/ Study Type of Priority1 Application Customer Proposed Project Lead Stud/ Study Description/Objectives Study Status 85 2/26/01 Titan Buchanan Energy - 500 MW TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Development, Generation Plant to Connect to the the Proposed Buchanan Energy LLC Buchanan 345 kV Station (Con Generation Interconnection. Edison). 2/26/01 Titan Halfmoon Energy - 500 MW TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Development, Generation Plant to Connect to the the Proposed Halfmoon Energy r LLC Rotterdam-Bear Swamp 230 kV Generation Interconnection. Line (NMPC). 87 3/15/01 Atlantic Energy Project Neptune Phase 2-1200 ABB IS, SIS Design and Reliability Assessment of In Progress - Study LLC MW Bi-Polar HVDC Tie-line the Interconnection of the Proposed Report Scheduled for Between PJM and NYC. Neptune Tie-line. NYISO Review. 88 3/20/01 Fortistar, LLC Fortistar VP - 79.9 MW Generating TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of In Progress - Study Unit to Connect to the Fresh Kills the Proposed Fortistar VP Generation Scope Approved by the 345 or 138 kV Stations (Con Interconnection. OC Edison). 89 3/20/01 Fortistar, LLC Fortistar VAN-79.9 MW TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of In Progress - Study Generating Unit to Connect to the the Proposed Fortistar VAN Generation Scope Approved by the Goethals or Fresh Kills 345 or 138 Interconnection. OC. kV Stations (Con Edison). 90 4/18/01 PG&E/ Liberty N/A TBD SIS Study to Evaluate a Request for 300 Pending - Study Scope Generating MW of Firm Point-to-Point Service Under Review. Company, LLC From Linden, NJ to NYC. 91 5/1/01 Amerada Hess Redhook Energy - 79.9 MW TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of In Progress - Study Corp. Generation Plant to Connect to the the Proposed Hess Brooklyn Terminal Scope Approved by the Con Edison 138 kV System. Generation Interconnection. OC. f 92 5/11/01 PSEG Power PSEG Power In-City Project - TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of In Progress - Study Development, 2500 MW New Generation Located the Proposed PSEG Power In-City Scope Approved by the LLC in NJ to Radially Connect to the Project Interconnection. OC. W49th Street Station (Con Edison). 93 5/22/01 Atlantic Energy Project Neptune Phase 2A - 750 ABB SRIS Reliability Assessment of the Proposed In Progress - Study LLC MW Bi-Polar HVDC Tie-line Project Neptune Phase 2A Scope Approved by the Between PJM and the Newbridge Interconnection. OC. Road Station (LIPA). 94 5/29/01 Calpine Eastern C3T, Inc. JFK Expansion - 45 MW TBD SRIS Reliability Assessment of the Proposed In Progress - Study Corporation Expansion of the JFK Generation Calpine C3T, Inc. JFK Generation Scope Approved by the Plant at the Jamaica Station (Con Expansion Interconnection. OC. Edison). NYISO Transmission and Interconnection Study Queue (Updated: 9/07/2001) Page 10 of 11
Date of Request / Requested by/ Study Type of Priority1^ Application Customer Proposed Project Lead Stud/ Study Description/Objectives Study Status 95 6/15/01 NYSEG South Glens Falls Expansion - 40. TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Solutions MW Generating Unit to Connect to the Proposed South Glens Falls the Mohican-Butler 115 kV Line Expansion Generation Interconnection. (NMPC). 6/22/01 TransEnergie PJM-New York City HVDC - 990 TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of In Progress - Study US Ltd. MW HVDC Tie-line Between PJM the Proposed TransEnergie PJM-NYC Scope Approved by the r and the W49th St or Farragut HVDC Interconnection. OC. Stations (Con Edison). 97 6/28/01 CHG&E Rock Tavem Transformer - 200 TBD SRIS Reliability Assessment of the Proposed Pending MVA 345/115 kV Transformer to 2nd Rock Tavern Transformer Connect in Parallel to the Existing Interconnection. Rock Tavem Transformer. 98 7/2/01 Titan Blooming Grove Power - 500 MW TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Development, Generation Plant to Connect to the the Proposed Blooming Grover Power LLC Rock Tavem-Ramapo 345 kV Line Generation Interconnection. (Con Edison). 99 7/13/01 Northeast NU CT-LI HVDC Cable - 660 MW TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Utilities Service HVDC Tie-line Between the Proposed NU CT-LI HVDC Cable Company Connecticut and the Shore Road Interconnection. Station (LIRA). 100 7/23/01 Entergy Power Indian Point Energy Center - 400 TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of In Progress - Study Gen Corp. MW Generation Plant to Connect the Proposed Indian Point Energy Scope Approved by the to the Buchanan 345 kV Station Center Generation Interconnection. OC. (Con Edison). k 101 8/15/01 Arcadian East Coast HVDC - 2400 MW TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Mercantile HVDC from Marcy (NYPA), 1200 the Proposed East Coast HVDC Holding Ltd. MW to PJM, 1200 MW to Connect Interconnection. to W49th St or Farragut (ConEd). 102 8/24/01 PG&E/ Liberty Jupiter PJM-NYC Cable - 1200 TBD IS Design and Reliability Assessment of Pending Generating MW DC or AC Tie-line Between the Proposed Jupiter Interconnection. Company, LLC PJM and the W49th St or Farragut Stations (Con Edison). NYISO Transmission and Interconnection Study Queue (Updated: 9/07/2001) Page 11 of 11 Notations: 1. Priority: Transmission and Interconnection studies are prioritized in accordance with Section 19C of the NYISO Open Access Transmission Tariff (NYISO OATT) and Section 4 of the NYISO Transmission Expansion and Interconnection Manual. The priority of each study requested by a Customer is based upon the date of submittal of the request or application to the NYISO or Transmission Owner. The submittal dates of studies requested before the effective date of the NYISO OATT were determined in accordance with the application procedures of the individual Transmission Owners. The NYISO assigns priority to transmission studies or reliability assessments initiated by the NYISO, or requested by the NYSRC or the PSC, as it deems appropriate.
Types of Studies: NTRA - NYISO Transmission Reliability Assessment (Assessment of the Reliability of the NYS Transmission Plan) RS - Reliability Study (A Reliability Assessment of a General Nature) TPS - Transmission Planning Study (A Study to Evaluate or Develop a Statewide or Regional Transmission Plan) SRIS - System Reliability Impact Study (Reliability Assessment of a Proposed Transmission or Generation Project) IS - Interconnection Study (Includes Interconnection Design and System Reliability Impact Study) ROS - Reinforcement Options Study (A Study to Develop a Limited Number of Illustrative Reinforcement Options) SIS - System Impact Study (A Study to Identify Specific Transmission Reinforcements Needed to Comply with a Customer Request) FS - Facilities Study (A Study to Develop a Detailed Design and Cost Estimate for New or Modified Facilities for a Specific Transmission Expansion or Upgrade) isg
NIXON PEABODY LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Omni Plaza, Suite 900 30 South Pearl Street Albany, New York 12207-3497 (518)427-2650 Fax: (518)427-2666
Richard M. Cogen Direct Dial: (518) 427-2665 E-Mail: [email protected]
September 13,2001
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Hon. Walter T. Moynihan Presiding Examiner New York State Department of Public Service Three Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223-1350
Re: Case No. 00-F-0566 - Application of Brookhaven Energy Limited Partnership for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need to Construct and Operate a 580 Megawatt Electric Generating Facility in the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County.
Dear Judge Moynihan:
Enclosed please find an original Motion to Intervene on behalf of PPL Global, LLC in the above-referenced Article X proceeding.
Five copies of the Motion to Intervene are being filed with the Secretary. Copies are also being served via first class mail upon all active parties.
Very truly yours.
n c.'fr -— Richard M. Cogen
Enclosures
cc: L-'-Hon. Janet Hand Deixler, Secretary Active Party List (attached)
A26003.I
ALBANV. NV • BOSTON, MA • BUFFALO, NY • GARDEN CITY, NY • HARTFORD. CT • MANCHESTtR, NH • McLEAN, VA • NEW YORK, NY • PROVIDENCE, Rl • ROCHESTER, NY • WASHINGTON, DC -
• • CASE 00-F-0566 BROOKHAVEN ENERGY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ACTIVE ] PARTY LIST (AS OF 8/30/01)
ROBERT CHARLEBOIS WILLIAM R. HOWELL VICE PRESIDENT CHAIR AMERICAN NATIONAL POWER, INC. NYS ENERGY RESEARCH AND 65 Boston Post Road West DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Suite 300 Corporate Plaza West Marlborough, MA 01752 286 Washington Avenue Ext. Tel: (631) 205-9741 Albany, NY 12203 Fax: (508) 786-7201 KIMBERLY A. HARRIMAN, ESQ. ERIN M. CROTTY STAFF COUNSEL COMMISSIONER 3 Empire State Plaza NYS DEPARTMENT OF Albany, NY 12223-1350 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Tel: (518) 474-6513 625 Broadway Fax: (518) 473-7081 14th Floor E-mail: kimberly_harriman Albany, NY 12233 dps.state.ny.us Tel: (518) 402-8540 Fax: (518) 402-8541 NANETTE J. ESSEL E-mail: emcrotty® CO-PRESIDENT gw.dec.state.ny.us YAPHANK TAXPAYERS & CIVIC ASSOCIATION WILLIAM G. LITTLE P.O. Box 392 ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY Yaphank, NY 1198 0 NYS DEPARTMENT OF Tel: (631) 854-1500 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Fax: (631) 924-7193 5 0 Wolf Road E-mail: [email protected] Albany, NY 12233 HERMAN A. STUHL CHARLES A. GARGANO ATTN: ENVIRONMENTAL BUREAU COMMISSIONER NEW YORK INSTITUTE OF LEGAL EMPIRE STATE DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CORPORATION P.O. Box 398 633 Third Avenue Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 New York, NY 10017 Tel: (914) 245-8400 Fax: (914) 245-7660 DR. DONALD R. DAVIDSEN E-mail: [email protected] COMMISSIONER NYS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE JEFFREY A. BRUNER AND MARKETS GENERAL COUNSEL 1 Winners Circle PAUL W. DIEHL, SENIOR ATTORNEY Albany, NY 12235 IROQUOIS PIPELINE OPERATING COMPANY DR. JOHN HAWLEY One Corporate Drive, Suite 600 NYS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Shelton, Connecticut 06484 Corning Tower Tel: (203) 925-7200 Empire State Plaza Fax: (203) 926-8829 Albany, NY 12237 -
• CASE 00-F-0566 As of 8/30/01
JERRY MONTROSE MICHAEL G. MURPHY, ESQ. SEE IDUSTRIES INC. BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C. 1041 Third Ave., 2nd Floor 477 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10021 15th Floor Tel: (212) 688-0180 New York, NY 10022 Fax: (212) 758-6118 Tel: (212) 702-5436 Fax: (212) 702-5450 JOHN W. DAX E-mail: [email protected] COHEN, DAX & KOENIG, P.C. 90 State Street, Suite 1030 PETER QUINN Albany, New York 12207 675 Tanglewood Road Tel: (518) 432-1002 West Islip, NY 11795 Fax: (518) 432-1028 Tel: (631) 587-3396 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: Same (call first) E-mail: [email protected] GORDIAN RAACKE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NANCY C. CIANFLONE CITIZENS ADVISORY PANEL GAS MARKETING & SALES DIVISION 2316 Main Street, P.O. Box 789 KEYSPAN ENERGY Bridgehampton, NY 11932 One MetroTech Center Tel: (631) 537-8282 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Fax: (631) 537-4680 Tel: (718) 403-2505 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: (718) 596-7802 E-mail: ncianflone® SHIRLEY A. PHILLIPS keyspanenergy.com NIXON PEABODY LLP Omni Plaza, Suite 900 JEFFREY L. PUTTER, ESQ. 30 South Pearl Street KEYSPAN CORPORATION Albany, New York 12207 One MetroTech Center Tel: (518) 427-2654 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Fax: (518) 427-2666 Tel: (718) 403-3013 E-mail: sphillips@ Fax: (718) 403-2698 nixonpeabody.com E-mail: jfutter@ keyspanenergy.com ELLEN A. REDMOND INTERNATIONAL BORTHERHOOD ROBERT J. CIMINO, ESQ. OF ELECTICAL WORKERS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK LOCAL UNION 1049 DEPARTMENT OF LAW 745 Kings Highway P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788-4197 Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099 Tel: (516) 234-1800 Tel: (631) 853-4049 Fax: (516) 234-1034 Fax: (631) 853-5169 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: robert.cimino@ CO.Suffolk.ny.us STEPHEN L. GORDON, ESQ. BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C. 477 Madison Avenue 15th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 702-5410 Fax: (212) 702-5450 E-mail: [email protected]
-2- 1
• • CASE 00-F-0566 As of 8/30/01
ANTHONY J. GREY, PH.D. CYNTHIA R. CLARK, ESQ. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR KEYSPAN CORPORATION BUREAU OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE One MetroTech Center ASSESSMENT Brooklyn, NY 112 01 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT Tel: (718) 403-3022 OF HEALTH Fax: (718) 403-2698 Flanigan Square, Room 33 0 E-mail: cclark® 547 River Street keyspanenergy.com Troy, NY 12180-2216 Tel: (518) 402-7800 JOHN M. ARMENTANO, ESQ. Fax: (518) 402-7819 FARRELL FRITZ, P.C. E-mail: ajgOl® EAB Plaza, West Tower health.state.ny.us 14th Floor Uniondale, NY 11556 DAVID W. QUIST, ESQ. Tel: (516) 227-0700 SENIOR ATTORNEY Fax: (516) 227-0777 DIVISION OF LEGAL AFFAIRS E-mail: jarmentano® NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT farrellfritz.com OF HEALTH Room 2417 TIMOTHY P. SHEEHAN, ESQ. Corning Tower Building ADAMS, DAYTER & SHEEHAN, LLP Albany, NY 12237 39 North Pearl Street Tel: (518) 486-1896 Albany, NY 12207 Fax: (518) 473-2019 Tel: (518) 463-3385 E-mail: dwqOl® Fax: (518) 463-3440 health.state.ny.us E-mail: [email protected] (For Long Island Power KEVIN GLEASON Authority) EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION BUREAU OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE STANLEY B. KLIMBERG, ESQ. ASSESSMENT LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard OF HEALTH Suite 403 547 River Street, Room 330 Uniondale, NY 11553 Troy, NY 12180-2216 Tel: (516) 222-7700 Tel: (518) 402-7815 Fax: (518) 402-7819 JOHN T. EVERS E-mail: akg02@ THE BUSINESS COUNCIL OF health.state.ny.us NEW YORK STATE, INC. 152 Washington Avenue NANCY C. CIANFLONE, MANAGER Albany, NY 12210-2289 GAS MARKETING & SALES DIVISION Tel: (518) 465-7511 KEYSPAN ENERGY Fax: (518) 465-4389 One MetroTech Center E-mail: eversj®nysnet.net Brooklyn, NY 112 01 Tel: (718) 403-2505 G.S. PETER BERGEN, ESQ. Fax: (718) 596-7802 7 Beachway E-mail: ncianflone® Port Washington, NY 11050 keyspanenergy.com Tel: (516) 767-8816 Fax: (516) 944-6648 E-mail: pbergen® optonline.net
-3- m x cr rvD KINGS PARK ENERGY, LLC
300 MW Combustion Turbine Facility
SYSTEM RELIABILITY INTERCONNECTION STUDY
Located in Kings Park Town of Smithtown, NY
April 2001
Prepared for Kings Park Energy, LLC SRJS Report for Kings J^Energy,flBtr LLC
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Kings Park Energy, LLC (formerly PPL Kings Park, LLC), herein after referred to as Kings Park Energy Project or the Project, has conducted a study to assess the impact of the proposed 300 MW simple-cycle generating facility on the New York Bulk Power System.1 The unit is designed to operate during peak and mid-level load periods and will consist of six gas turbines (General Electric LM6000 units). The facility will connect to Long Island Power Authority's (LIPA) Pilgrim substation using underground cables operating at 138 kV. Since the filing of the SRIS scope, the expected in-service date of the Project was delayed from the summer of 2002 to the summer of 2003.
The analysis conducted included an assessment of facilities required to interconnect with the LIPA transmission system based on LIPA's current system reinforcements plans for year 2002 as base conditions. The delay of the plant to 2003 would have no material impacts on the results of the study. Based on the analysis, no additional bulk system reinforcements, other than selected circuit breakers and terminal equipment would be necessary to interconnect the Project to the LIPA system. The proposed mitigation will consist of the replacement of four 138 kV circuit breakers at Northport (1) and at Pilgrim (3) to eliminate fault duty overloads; as well the addition of a new 138 kV breaker at Pilgrim and upgrading the terminal equipment on two local 69 kV circuits so as not to limit the conductor rating.
In modeling the addition of the Kings Park Energy Project some generation on Long Island was modified rather than through reduction or additions to imports as stated in the Scope. This was done based on discussions with LIPA and was changed since the scenarios requested by LIPA were set to determine extreme flow conditions across the internal Long Island interfaces. LIPA concurs that this is reasonable, that they also do this in performing the studies and does not affect the results of the study but rather is more realistic.
1 The scope of the System Reliability Impact Study (SRIS) for the Kings Park Energy facility, which was approved by New York Independent System Operator's (NYISO) TPAS and Operating Committee, called for the review of the addition of 300 MW and a 300 MW expansion at the site for a total of 600 MW. Because of transmission constraints identified by this SRIS, the addition of only six units with a nominal combined rating of 300 MW is being considered in this report. 5/15/01 " 2 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings i^^jiergy, LLC ^^
Based on the conditions studied, the interconnection of the proposed Kings Park Energy Project with the proposed upgrades will not have a significant adverse impact on the LIPA system or New York State transfer capability. The facility also complies with LIPA's local reliability rules.
The benefits from the project include: (1) helping meet Long Island's capacity needs; (2) providing additional fast start operating reserves; and (3) providing effectively additional phase angle control to LIPA's Northport interconnection to Connecticut. The study was conducted with review by and concurrence of LIPA and KeySpan Energy staff.
Kings Park Energy, LLC and its team members that were involved in this study would like to express its sincere appreciation to the staff at KeySpan Energy, Long Island Power Authority and the New York Independent System Operator that assisted us in this analysis. Their cooperation, guidance, comments and reviews were greatly appreciated.
5/15/01 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings ffjEnergy, LLC ^P
Table of Contents
Executive Summary Section 1. Introduction 6 Section 2. Description of the Project 6 Section 3. Criteria, Methodology and Assumptions 7 3. A. Objective 8 3. B. Technical Approach 8 3.C. Study Year 8 3. D. Steady-State Assessment 9 3. E. Short Circuit Assessment 10 3. F. Stability Assessment 11 3. G. Data and Model Development 11 3. G. 1. Power Flow Model 11 3. G. 2. Short Circuit Model 13 3. G. 3. Stability Model 14 3. G. 4. Interface Power Flows 15 3. G. 5. Dynamic Models 15 3. H. Operating Criteria 17 3. H. 1. Steady State Analysis 17 3. H. 2. Short Circuit Analysis 18 3. H. 3. Stability Analysis 18 Section 4. Assessment of the Conceptual Design and Interconnection of Proposed Facilities 20 4. A. Compliance with Design Standards 20 4. B. Adverse Impact on Operation of System 20 Section 5. Assessment of Impact on Bulk Power System 21 5. A. Impact on Reliability of the Bulk Power System 21 5. A. 1. Thermal Analysis 21 5. A. 2. Voltage Analysis 27 5. A. 3. Stability Analysis 29 5. B. Transfer Limits 43 5. B. 1. East of Holbrook 44 5. B. 2. Newbridge East 45 5. B. 3. Long Island to New England Transfer Limits 47 5. B. 4. Other NYISO Transfer Limits 48 5. B. 5. Transfer Limit Summary 48 5. C. Load Interconnection 48 5. D. Special Protection Systems 48 5. E. Additional Extreme Contingencies 48 5. F. Local Reliability Rules 49 Section 6. Impact on Pre-Existing Facilities and Equipment 50 6. A. Results of Short Circuit Analysis 50 6. B. Critical Clearing Times 54 6. C. Performance of Auto-reclosing 54 6. D. Project Benefits 55 6. D. 1. Ancillary Services - Operating Reserve 55 5/15/01 4 Report_fmal.doc SRJS Report for Kings ^^Energy, LLC V V
6. D. 2. Phase Angle Control 55 Section 7. Conclusions and Recommendations 55 Section 8. Appendices 57
Attachment - SRIS Scope
5/15/01 Report_final.doc SRJS Report for Kings ^fcinergy, LLC
Section 1. Introduction
The purpose of this study, as identified in the scope of the System Reliability Impact Study (SRJS) is to evaluate the impact of the proposed addition of up to 600 MW of generation plant to be located at the Kings Park site on Townline Rd in Kings Park, in the Town of Smithtown, Long Island New York. PP&L Global (PPL), a subsidiary of PPL Corporation, has changed the name from Pilgrim Energy to Kings Park Energy, LLC. Throughout this document, the project is referred to as Kings Park Energy Project or the Project. It is proposed that the facility would be interconnected to the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) grid. The study assesses the impact of the project on the reliability of the New York and adjoining regions bulk power transmission system with emphasis on the Long Island transmission system
Because of the findings of this study. Kings Park Energy, LLC is now proposing to develop only a nominal 300MW simple cycle power plant. Power Technologies, Inc. (PTI) was contracted by Kings Park Energy, LLC to provide a system impact study adequate for approval of the NYISO and ultimate inclusion in a New York Article 10 filing. The SRIS Scope is attached at the end of this document for easy reference. Kings Park Energy, LLC has filed a Preliminary Scoping Statement with the New York Board on Electric Generation and Siting on December 19, 2000.
The proposed interconnection plans for Kings Park Energy Project, interconnecting with the LIPA transmission system at 138 kV at the Pilgrim substation, is shown in Appendix A.
Section 2. Description of the Project
The Kings Park Energy Project consists of six simple-cycle gas turbines (General Electric LM 6000). Each generator will have a nominal capability of 50 MW for a combined capacity of 300 MW. Because the electrical output is affected by temperature, during summer peak periods it was assumed for modeling purposes that the capability was 52 MW for a total plant size of 312 MW. Each generator is rated at 71 MVA.
The generators are connected in pairs by generator step-up transformers to a 138 kV bus at the Kings Park site. The Kings Park Energy Project bus is connected to LIPA's Pilgrim station by a 138 kV underground cable. A single line of the interconnection is provided in Appendix A.
5/15/01 Report_final.doc SRJS Report for Kings ^^Energy,l^Energy, LLC ^^
Between the Kings Park Energy Project site and LIPA's Pilgrim station, the project will rely on underground cables operating at 138 kV. The cables will be installed in the existing Northport to Pilgrim right of way. LIPA, KeySpan Energy and Kings Park Energy, LLC are continuing to work on the final design arrangements. Any changes that may emerge from this process are to facilitate the most practical interconnection as well as allow for future changes that may be required by LIPA along LIPA's right of way and will not have a major change in any of the electrical characteristics of the project. The underground cables will be terminate at LIPA's Pilgrim station and will be connected to two new 138 kV breakers in a breaker and a half configuration at that site. This arrangement continues the recent modifications that LIPA has done to increase the reliability at the station.
This report summarizes the system impact study of the Kings Park Energy Project that involves load flow studies, contingency analysis (thermal and voltage), transfer limit analysis, short circuit and stability simulations. The impact assessment focuses on the 2002 conditions. Thermal and voltage analysis is done for summer, winter peak, and off peak conditions. Stability analysis is done for summer peak and off peak conditions. Further, KeySpan Energy staff performed the fault duty analysis contained in this report. The entire study was done in close cooperation with LIPA, the connecting transmission owner (CTO) and KeySpan Energy which helped define the scope of study and provided base cases and other important inputs for the study.
Section 3. Criteria, Methodology and Assumptions
As required by the NYISO and specified in the SRIS Scope, all studies were performed in conformance with the applicable Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC), New York State Reliability Council (NYSRC), NYISO and local utility planning standards and design criteria using system representations derived from current 2000 FERC 715 Filing library load flows and/or NYISO approved NPCC system representations for the year 2002. All analysis and results were reviewed and have received concurrence by LIPA. As specified in the approved SRJS Scope, two approved generation projects in the New York area preceded the Kings Park Energy Project on the NYISO Study List at the time of the approval of the scope, namely the Athens Plant (1080 MW) and the Bethlehem plant (350 MW). Other potential Long Island projects have been included in the representations used in the analysis as specified in Appendix A of the SRIS Scope. In addition, this analysis includes the recently proposed New York Power
5/15/01 7 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings ^^Energy, LLC Mm
Authority's (NYPA) Brentwood facility. As a sensitivity, proposed units in the neighboring Consolidated Edison area were added to test the impact on the Kings Park Energy Project.
This report summarizes the system impact of the Project on the New York area for review by the appropriate New York review committees.
3. A. Objective The Objective of the study is to evaluate the impact of the Kings Park Energy Project on the . power system on Long Island and on the bulk transmission system in the study area. At the time of the approval of the SRIS Scope, Kings Park Energy Project was projected to be operational as early as the Summer 2002, and this was the basis for the analysis. The expected date has now been delayed until the summer of 2003. The change in date has no material impact on the results of this study. Further, load growth on the Island could reduce some of the level of line loadings, specifically those lines delivering power from eastern Long Island towards the center of the Island, e.g.. East of Holbrook Interface.
3. B. Technical Approach This study included load flow studies using contingency analysis tools to determine thermal and voltage performance, short circuit and stability simulations.
Computer models for load flow and stability simulations are used to identify the impact on the thermal capacity, voltage performance, transfer capability, short circuit level and transient stability of the LIPA system. Simulations were performed with PTI's commercial software packages: Power System Simulator for Engineering (PSS/E) and Managing and Utilizing System Transmission (MUST).
3. C. Study Year As noted previously, the study year is 2002, as dictated by the projected in-service date for the Kings Park Energy Project, with summer, winter and off peak conditions considered. The delay of the project to 2003 will not have a material affect on the results of this study and could possibly improve the results due to higher load growth as well as additional transmission reinforcements on Long Island.
5/15/01 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings ^PEnergy, LLC ^
3. D. Steady-State Assessment Steady state assessment is based on modeling the power system with power flow simulations. A set of conditions was identified at the beginning of the study. The Kings Park Energy Project is in service in all of the cases. The proposed HVDC tie between New Haven, Connecticut and Shoreham, New York could have an impact on the thermal performance of electric system when considering the proposed Kings Park Energy Project. There are concerns with power flowing in either direction (west to east and east to west on Long Island). Summer peak, winter peak and off-peak conditions were tested. As requested by KeySpan Energy2, the Northport generation was assumed to be 1,440 MW and the Norwalk Harbor to Northport 138 kV tie was assumed to deliver 200 MW to Long Island in the summer and winter peak load cases. The combinations of these conditions resulted in twelve base case conditions, as noted below.
1. Summer peak load and heavy western Long Island generation (light eastern Long Island generation) without the HVDC tie 2. Summer peak load and heavy western Long Island generation (light eastern Long Island generation) with the HVDC tie 3. Summer peak load and heavy eastern Long Island generation (light western Long Island generation) without the HVDC tie 4. Summer peak load and heavy eastern Long Island generation (light western Long Island generation) with the HVDC tie 5. Winter peak load and heavy western Long Island generation (light eastern Long Island generation) without the HVDC tie 6. Winter peak load and heavy western Long Island generation (light eastern Long Island generation) with the HVDC tie 7. Winter peak load and heavy eastern Long Island generation (light westem Long Island generation) without the HVDC tie 8. Winter peak load and heavy eastern Long Island generation (light westem Long Island generation) with the HVDC tie 9. Off peak load and heavy eastern Long Island generation (light westem Long Island and very light Northport generation) without the HVDC tie 10. Off peak load and heavy eastern Long Island generation (light westem Long Island and very light Northport generation) with the HVDC tie
2 KeySpan Energy staff acted on behalf of LIPA. 5/15/01 9 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings UPtnergy, LLC mm
11. Off peak load and 1440 MW of Northport generation (other Long Island is reduced to compensate for the reduction in Northport generation) without the HVDC tie 12. Off peak load and 1440 MW of Northport generation (other Long Island is reduced to compensate for the reduction in Northport generation) with the HVDC tie
Each load flow case was evaluated with two contingency analysis simulations to verify that there were no thermal and/or voltage constraints. The outage of every 345, 138 and 69 kV branch was evaluated one at a time. In addition, a list of stuck breaker and other multiple element outages, as provided by KeySpan Energy, was evaluated. The outage of each generator was simulated since each generator is attached to the system by a branch. The MUST program was used to evaluate the amount of additional power that could be transferred out of the King Park Energy Project when all of the contingencies were simulated. The ACCC activity in PSS/E was used to evaluate all of the contingencies without changing the transfer levels.
The Long Island system is currently connected to the rest of the power system by five transmission circuits (two at 345 kV and 3 at 138 kV). Phase angle regulators (PAR) control four of these circuits. The system operator can completely control the flow on all of the tie lines by use of the PARs and generation level on Long Island. The new proposed DC circuit at Shoreham, a 6,h interconnection, would also be controlled.
As specified in the SRIS Scope and as requested by LIPA/KeySpan Energy, in general the additional generation on Long Island was used to reduce imports into western Long Island and reduce loading on all of the interfaces over which these imports must flow. Because of the extreme flows that were being modeled, rather than normal dispatch conditions, it was agreed with KeySpan Energy/LIPA that partial changes in generation in the opposite region (i.e., not effecting the flow measurement) would be appropriate. For example, to measure east to west limits all units in the eastern end of Long Island were dispatched at their maximum capacities. Further Northport and New England imports were maximized. As a result, generation in western Nassau was partially reduced in conjunction with the reduction in imports. LIPA concurs that this approach has no impact on the results of the testing and is what they model as well.
3. E. Short Circuit Assessment Short circuit assessment was used to evaluate the effect of interconnecting the Kings Park Energy Project on the fault duty levels of individual breakers at all 34.5 kV, 46 kV, 69 kV, 115 kV, 138
5/15/01 10 Report_final.doc SR1S Report for Kings ^pEnergy, LLC kV, 138 kV, 230kV, and 345 kV substations for all utilities in New York State, as well as PJM- ISO and ISO New England (ISO-NE). KeySpan Energy, on behalf of LIPA, the connecting Transmission Owner, performed the analysis. The analysis was conducted using the Classical Method for three phase and single-phase faults. KeySpan Energy, LIPA and the NYISO have accepted the method for conducting fault duty calculations in system reliability impact studies for proposed generating facilities. The methodology assumes: ?? All generation is in service ?? All transmission lines are in service ?? All bus voltages are set at unity (1 + jO). ?? All bus voltage phase angle differences are ignored. ?? Off-nominal ratio and phase shift of all transformers are neglected. ?? All shunt loads and other paths to ground are ignored except for generator internal impedances, transformer grounding paths, and shunt loads in the zero-sequence.
Short circuit analysis included three phase and single phase to ground faults and is performed using Activities ASCC in PSS/E. The analysis is discussed in Section 6A.
3. F. Stability Assessment The stability assessment involves time simulation of conditions following an initial disturbance and includes the automatic actions and responses of dynamic devices in the power system.
The objective of stability assessment is to determine if an acceptable steady-state can be reached following credible disturbances. The analysis evaluates the transient stability performance for normal and extreme criteria contingencies in accordance with NPCC and NYISO (previously NYPP, i.e.. New York Power Pool) criteria and standards.
The analyses were carried out using PTI's PSS/E Dynamic Software Package.
3. G. Data and Model Development
3. G. 1. Power Flow Model The base cases model 2006 conditions were provided by NYISO. The Long Island model, provided by KeySpan Energy, was used to replace the Long Island model in the NYISO base case. The Long Island summer peak load was scaled to match the amount recommended by
5/15/01 Jl Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings # nergy, LLC
KeySpan Energy. Since the Long Island system is radial from the rest of the system, the 2006 load was maintained for the rest of the system. In the model, the total load (including losses) on Long Island is 4,780 MW for summer peak, 3,333 MW winter peak and 2,274 MW for off peak. Because of the various generation scenarios required to evaluate the direction of power flow on Long Island and the addition of the HVDC tie at Shoreham, changes were made to the total generation on Long Island. Although modeled as a generator in the load flow, the HVDC is treated as a tie. The LIPA system losses, as modeled, vary with the generation pattern and load level. For the summer peak conditions, with maximum east to west flows, the losses increase from 97 MW to 110 MW with the addition of the Kings Park Energy Project. This represents a heavily stressed system. The power flows are plotted in Appendix B.
The Kings Park Energy Project consists of six simple-cycle gas turbines (GE LM 6000). The generators are connected in pairs to generator step-up transformers to a 138 kV bus at the Kings Park site. The Kings Park Energy Project bus is connected to the Pilgrim bus (load flow bus number 75056) by a 138 kV underground cable. Single line diagrams of the Kings Park site as well as interconnection at Pilgrim are provided in Appendix A. The interconnecting cable impedance was estimated from existing data for the Pilgrim to Northport cable. Tables 3-1,3-2 and 3-3 contain modeling information for the Kings Park Energy Project that was used to assess its impact.
Table 3-1 Kings Park Energy Generator Parameters Parameter (Each Unit) Gas Turbine
Maximum MW (Pm„) 52
Minimum MW (Pmin) 10' Rated MVA 71 Rated kV 13.8
Maximum MVAR (QmM) 26
Minimum MVAR (Qmin) -10
1. Prain is assumed to be 20 percent of P„
5/15/01 12 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings m nergy, LLC
Table 3-2 Kings Park Energy Generator Step-up Transformer Parameters Description Parameter Rating 120 MVA Rated High Voltage 138 kV Rated Low Voltage 13.8 kV Impedance (100 MVA Base) .Ol+j.10 No-Load Taps +2.5%, 5%
Table 3-3 Kings Park Energy Interconnecting Transmission Line Parameters kV (L-L) Length Base MVA Rating R X B 138 4 miles 100 445 0.0012 0.0055 0.1915
3. G. 2. Short Circuit Model KeySpan Energy using their analytical models did the short circuit analysis. The study included the proposed Kings Park Energy Project, as well as other proposed facilities: ANP Brookhaven, Enron Far Rockaway, NYPA's Brentwood, Spagnoli Road and the HVDC tie at Shoreham. Section 6A discusses the various scenarios evaluated and the results. The parameters for the Kings Park Energy Project are included in Table 3.4.
The negative and zero sequence impedance values of the generator step up transformers are assumed to be the same as their positive sequence impedance values as shown in Table 3-5 for the Kings Park Energy Project. The transformers are also assumed to be delta connected and ungrounded on the generator side and wye connected and solidly grounded on the transmission system side. This is consistent with LIPA's Interconnection Guide requirement. Information on the connecting transmission line is provided in Table 3.6.
5/15/01 13 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings mTCiiiergy, LLC
Table 3-4 Kings Park Energy Generator Sequence Data Description Generator Parameters (on machine base of 71 MVA) Positive Sequence Reactance Xi 0.15 Negative Sequence Reactance X2 0.15 Zero Sequence Reactance Xo 0.15
Table 3-5 Kings Park Energy Negative and Zero Sequence Generator Step-up Transformer Impedances Sequence Base R X MVA Negative 100 0.01 0.10 Zero 10O 0.01 0.10
Table 3-6 Kings Park Energy Negative and Zero Sequence Transmission Line Impedances kV (L-L) Sequence Base R X MVA 138 Negative 100 0.0012 0.0055 138 Zero 100 0.0012 0.0055
For the short circuit calculations, the single line to ground and three phase fault currents were calculated at those substation buses where an impact was noted. These included 69 kV, 138 kV and 345 kV buses in the LIPA system using activity ASCC in the PSS/E program.
3. G. 3. Stability Model As indicated previously, the Long Island representation in the NYISO stability 2006 case was modified. The model for Long Island was replaced with a model provided by KeySpan Energy. This was required because the NYISO representation did not include a detailed model of Long Island. Based on discussions with KeySpan Energy staff the load on Long Island was deemed to
5/15/01 14 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings Wr Energy, LLC ^^
represent the estimated 2002 summer peak due to recent load growth since the case was originally prepared. The light load case uses the 2006 load data.
The ANP Brookhaven, Spagnoli Road GT and Spagnoli Road CC projects were added to the model.
3. G. 4. Interface Power Flows Dispatch scenarios were established based on discussions with LIPA and KeySpan Energy. Generation on Long Island was adjusted to stress the Long Island system for the base case. This resulted in increased generation on Long Island and reduced tie flows. Generation was reduced in upstate New York and Consolidated Edison to balance the generation increases on Long Island.
Given this modified base condition, to model the addition of the Kings Park Energy Project some generation on Long Island was modified rather than through reduction or additions to imports as stated in the Scope. The Long Island generation that was modified was on the same side of the interface as where the import would have been modified, resulting in the same impact at the interface. This was done based on discussions with LIPA and was changed since the scenarios requested by LIPA were set to determine extreme flow conditions across the internal Long Island interfaces. LIPA concurs that this is reasonable, that they also do this in performing the studies and does not affect the results of the study but rather is more realistic.
In the summer peak load case, eastern Long Island generation was increased to its maximum allowable value of about 1,800 MW and Northport generation was set at 1,440 MW.
3. G. 5. Dynamic Models The dynamic models for the entire system were provided by NYISO. Generators without complete dynamics data were represented as negative loads using Activity GNET in PSS/E. NYISO provided the list of generators to be modeled in this simplified manner.
For the Kings Park Energy Project, the data used were obtained from the report for PPL Global's Wallingford Project (Connecticut). The proposed Wallingford plant consists of five GE LM 6000 units. The Dynamic Model system representation is provided in Table 3-7.
For the ANP Brookhaven units, the data were obtained from publicly available reports that have modeling information for other units that use the proposed ABB units. The data for the Spagnoli 5/15/01 15 Report_final.cloc SRIS Report for Kings Wk:nergy, LLC
Road GT plant were estimated by scaling the data for the 52 MW Kings Park Energy Project units to 39.5 MW units for the Spagnoli Road units. The Spagnoli Road CC plant was modeled by using the data for the Bridgeport Energy. The GT data were used directly and the ST data were scaled to have a total plant capability of 250 MW.
Table 3-7 Dynamic Models Generator Excitation Governor Power Plant Model System Model Model Kings Park GENROE IEEET2 IEEESGO
Appendix P provides details for the Kings Park Energy Project plant dynamic models, the response tests, and the load flow plots for the summer and light load stability cases. The equipment data are in Appendix C.
Initial Response Test for Dynamics Model In order to verify the validity of the dynamic data provided, the dynamic simulation was performed using the system without a disturbance for 15 seconds. The results of this test showed no drifts in the machine angles. The results are presented in Appendix P. The performance of the original data without any disturbance showed no drifts.
Most of the contingencies simulated were three phase stuck breaker events. The system is operated to withstand these Extreme Contingencies. In Table 3-8, the time sequence for stuck breaker contingencies is provided. All times are given from the point of fault inception.
5/15/01 16 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings i^Energy,^Ptr LLC
Table 3-8 Time Sequence for Stuck Breaker Contingency Time (cycles) Switching Sequence 0.0 Fault on bus 5.0 Local non-failed breaker and remote breaker(s) open Back-up breakers open (as a result of breaker failure 9.0 protection operation)
3. H. Operating Criteria All study work was performed in accordance with the "NPCC Basic Criteria for the Design and Operation of Interconnected Power Systems" and the "NY ISO Standards" as outlined in the approved SRIS Scope. The various criteria are discussed in the following sections.
3. H. 1. Steady State Analysis The following steady state criteria were applied to the assessment: Under normal conditions, the power flow in any 69 kV or 138 kV transmission line or transformer should not exceed its normal rating (Rate A). A number of 69 kV facilities were identified by KeySpan Energy as being associated with serving of local load, these facilities are not considered limiting elements in the study. Under contingency conditions, which include the loss of any single 69 kV or 138 kV element, stuck breaker conditions resulting in the loss of two or more elements and loss of two circuits sharing a common structure, the power flow in any circuit should not exceed its Long-Term Emergency rating.
System voltage was evaluated to insure that voltages remained within normal operating ranges. Discussion with LIPA/KeySpan Energy staff indicated that the critical area of concern for the LIPA system was high voltage in the Northport and Pilgrim area during light load periods. This is created by the line charging from the underground cables in the region. Since the Kings Park Energy Project was to be connected to the system using an underground cable, the concern was that additional charging current during light load conditions with the Kings Park Energy Project offline could raise voltages. It was determined that if the cable charging were below 20 MVAR, as tested in the SRIS, the system would not be adversely affected.
5/15/01 17 Report_finaI.doc SRIS Report for Kings ^^fenergy, LLC *P
3. H. 2. Short Circuit Analysis KeySpan Energy assessed the impact of Kings Park Energy Project on LIPA's substation circuit breakers for LIPA. KeySpan Energy investigated the impact of the facility on all stations to determine the increase in currents. An individual breaker-by-breaker assessment was then performed for the stations where the total fault duty increased by over one percent over existing conditions assuming new various other new facilities were installed. Any breaker that exceeded its rating was then identified as a requiring a potential upgrade.
3. H. 3. Stability Analysis In accordance with KeySpan Energy practice, three phase faults with a stuck breaker (Extreme Contingencies) were simulated to provide an overall assessment of stability performance. Where the simulations were stable, single line to ground stuck breaker and three phase normally cleared faults were not simulated.
Since the three phase stuck breaker contingencies are Extreme Contingencies, it is only necessary to show that they do not result in a disturbance that spreads throughout the system.
In addition, a number of circuits share double circuit towers. The criteria requires testing of "single line to ground faults on different phases of adjacent circuits on multiple circuit structures". If both circuits were terminated at a common bus, it would be possible to simulate these disturbances as a two line to ground fault. Since some of these circuits are not on adjacent structures, more severe three phase faults were used.
The contingencies listed in Table 3-9 were simulated. They are those recommended by KeySpan Energy.
5/15/01 ]8 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings ^p-inergy, LLC
Table 3-9 Stability Contingencies Fault No. Location Remote Bus Circuit No. Failed Breaker Three Phase Stuck Breaker Contingencies 1 Pilgrim Ruland 662 Pilgrim 1420 2 Northport Pilgrim 677 Pilgrim 1390 3 Pilgrim Newbridge 563 Pilgrim 1430 4 Pilgrim Ruland 662 Pilgrim 1320 4A Pilgrim Kings Park - Pilgrim #1 Bus 4B Pilgrim Kings Park - Pilgrim #2 Bus 5 Northport Elwood 678 Northport 1420 6 Northport Elwood 681 Northport 1440 7 Northport Pilgrim 677 Northport 1380 8 Northport Pilgrim 672 Northport 1370 9 Northport Pilgrim 679 Northport 1390 10 Elwood Greenlawn 673 Elwood 1380 Double Circuit Tower Faults 11 Pilgrim Ruland 661 & 662 - Newbridge 563 12 Pilgrim Ruland to 882 Holbrook 13 Ruland Newbridge 561 & 562 Three Phase Stuck Breaker Contingencies 14 Pilgrim 69 kV Bus Fault Pilgrim 6640 15 Pilgrim 69 kV Bus Fault Pilgrim 6630 16 Pilgrim Holtsville 881 Pilgrim 1380 17 Pilgrim Northport 679 Pilgrim 1360 18 Pilgrim Newbridge 563 Pilgrim 1360 19 Pilgrim Northport 672 Pilgrim 1360 20 Pilgrim Northport 672 Pilgrim 1300 21 Holbrook Pt Jefferson 862 Holbrook 1350 22 Holbrook Wadding River 884 Holbrook 1330 23 Northport Bus #3 Northport 1460 24 Newbridge E.G.C. 463 Newbridge 1380 25 Newbridge E.G.C. 462 Newbridge 1310 26 Ruland 138/69 Ruland 1340 27 Ruland Newbridge 562 Ruland 1350 28 Ruland 138/69 Ruland 1330 Bus Fault 29 Holtsville GT Double Circuit Tower Fault Holbrook Ruland 30 882 & 881 Holtsville Pilgrim
5/15/01 19 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings ^^Energy, LLC ^P
A number of the three phase stuck breaker contingencies (Extreme Contingencies) result in system separation. When run with the single line to ground and three phase normally cleared faults, the system exhibits stable behavior.
The complete description of the stability analysis is in Section 5. A and the swing curves are in Appendices P, Q, R and S.
Section 4. Assessment of the Conceptual Design and Interconnection of Proposed Facilities
As noted in the NYISO's SRIS Criteria and Procedures, considering that the detailed design and engineering of the proposed facilities normally would occur sometime after the SRIS, the assessment of compliance for certain aspects of the project will necessarily be done later. The main areas of detailed design that would normally be reviewed at a later time include the protection systems and any dynamic control systems associated with the project.
4. A. Compliance with Design Standards Based on this study and review by LIPA/KeySpan Energy, NYISO staff, the Kings Park Energy Project will comply with all applicable NERC, NPCC, and NYSRC design standards. In addition, the project will also comply with the LIPA Local Reliability Rules. Approval of the SRIS does not preclude the possibility of future conditions, as envisioned under the NYISO requirements, which may, at times limit output of the Kings Park Energy Project or any other generating plant in the system so that the system reliability and security will be maintained The Kings Park Energy Project will comply with the appropriate design standards due to any future changes that may result from the Article X or other processes. This would include the design and coordination of relaying with LIPA and NYISO as appropriate.
4. B. Adverse Impact on Operation of System Evaluation of the thermal, voltage, stability and short circuit impacts indicated that given the proposed changes to the system the addition of the Kings Park Energy Project would not adversely affect the operation of the power system. In addition, to LIPA System Reinforcement Plan, which is unrelated to the Kings Park Energy Project, the changes to the system relate to: ?? Addition of new 138 kV circuit breaker at Pilgrim and 69 kV terminal upgrades to eliminate potential thermal overloads - Section 5.A
5/15/01 20 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings ^^ftnergy, LLC ^^
?? Replacements of existing 138 kV circuit breakers due to increased fault currents - See Short Circuit Assessment, Section 6.A In addition, the Kings Park Energy Project will provide additional system benefits as noted in Section 6.D.
Further, the Kings Park Energy Project will also be operated in accordance with the NYISO's operational procedures and limits through its day-ahead Security Constrained Unit Commitment (SCUC) and real time Security Constrained Dispatch (SCD)
Section 5. Assessment of Impact on Bulk Power System
5. A. Impact on Reliability of the Bulk Power System This section provides an assessment of the impact of the Kings Park Energy Project on the bulk power system from the standpoint of system performance based on the thermal, voltage and stability criteria specified previously.
5. A. 1. Thermal Analysis This section discusses the evaluation of the thermal performance of all pertinent system components impacted by the Project, such as transmission cables, transmission lines, and transformers during normal and emergency conditions established in accordance with the criteria indicated above, to ensure that these components operate within their rated load capabilities. The system was tested at three load levels (summer peak, winter peak and light load). Generation was biased to provide for east to west or west to east flows to stress the LIPA system as appropriate based on the direction of KeySpan Energy and LIPA staff. In the light load case, heavy Northport generation was also evaluated. The generation biases were reviewed with KeySpan Energy, and they concur that they adequately stress the system and represent the proper approach for assessing the impact on the LIPA transmission system.
A few contingency overloads were shown to be associated with the addition of the Kings Park Energy Project when the system was tested at maximum generation levels. Most of the contingency overloads are associated with supplying the local load on Long Island or the local Port Jefferson transmission configuration.
Although the entire transmission system was modeled, the critical study area was defined by KeySpan Energy as all of the 138 kV portion of the system on Long Island and the 69 kV portion
5/15/01 21 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings l^PEnergy,l^TEnergy, LLC *^ of the system between Ruland Road and Holbrook (i.e., central Long Island.) All of the 69 and 138 kV facilities were removed from service one element at a time. These are reported in the ACCC results as Contingency Single with a number. Key Span Energy also requested about 100 multiple element contingencies. All of these contingencies were simulated for each base case. All of the 69 and 138 kV facilities in the study area were monitored.
The contingency file used to run the simulations is contained in Appendix H.
5. A. 1. a. Summer Peak Load Conditions
Heavy Eastern Long Island Generation Heavy generation in eastern Long Island results in a power flow from east to west on Long Island. This generation includes the new proposed 330 MW HVDC tie from East Shore (CT) to Shoreham (NY). The generation is limited to about 1,800 MW on peak. The transfer limit is defined by the power flowing over the East of Holbrook interface. This level results in the total transfer capacity across the limit being utilized while allowing all of the existing LIPA generation to be dispatched at their DMNC ratings. In addition, the Northport power plant was set at a generation level of 1,440 MW and 200 MW being imported on the cable from Norwalk, Connecticut. The system was tested with the Kings Park Energy Project out of service and then the Kings Park Project is placed in service at a rating of 312 MW.
The ACCC results are contained in Appendix 1-1. Included before the ACCC results is a listing of the Long Island generation that is in service (the generation is included with every ACCC output). One and six of the contingencies show overloads, with and without the Kings Park Project, respectively. The following is a discussion of the results that are based in part on discussions with KeySpan Energy.
The loss of the single circuit line between Pilgrim and Brentwood results in a small overload on both circuits on the double circuit line. This is reported as single contingency 166. This overload shows up both with (100.5% LTE) and without (102% LTE) the Kings Park Energy Project. One of the 44 MW gas turbine generators proposed for Brentwood reduces the loading on these lines below LTE.
5/15/01 22 Reporl_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings I^Energy,^^fenergy, LLC ^^
The loss of the Massapequa-Sterling 69kV circuit causes an overload on the Ruland Rd-South Farmingdale 2 69kV circuit (109% LTE) with the Kings Park Energy Project in service (contingency 195). This overload will be corrected by upgrading the line terminals to provide full conductor capability for the circuit. The circuit is presently rated 134/144/144 MVA (Normal/LTE/STE). By fixing the terminal limitations the line can be up-rated to the conductor rating of 134/185/319 MVA. The line loading would be less than the new LTE rating.
The loss of the Ruland Rd-South Farmingdale2 69kV circuit causes an overload on the Massapequa-Sterling 69kV circuit (102% LTE) with the Kings Park Energy Project in service (contingency 205). This overload will be corrected by the upgrading of the line teiminals to provide full conductor capability for the circuit. The circuit is presently rated 132/144/144 MVA (Normal/LTE/STE). By fixing the terminal limitations, the line can be up-rated to the conductor rating of 132/162/179 MVA. The line loading would be less than the new LTE rating.
Failure of the Pilgrim 1370 circuit breaker causes an overload on the Pilgrim to Ruland Road 138 kV circuit #662. The failure of this circuit breaker clears a bus and radially connected facilities. This contingency is reported as contingency 57. Based on discussion with KeySpan Energy, the limit will be removed by adding a circuit breaker at Pilgrim. A breaker could be added to double up the 1370 circuit breaker or to connect the Pilgrim-Ruland Road circuit #661 to the number 2 bus. The study assumes that the circuit #661 will be connected to the number 2 bus. As part of the engineering for the addition of the plant, the better location for the circuit breaker will be determined. A preliminary arrangement is shown in the Pilgrim substation diagram that is included in Appendix A
There were two contingencies that caused overloads in the PTI analysis. The first is loss of the Elwood2 to Northport2 138kV circuit (single 88) that results in an overload on the Oakwood to Syosset 138kV line. The second is the loss of the double circuit Pilgrim-Ruland Rd line (contingency 96) that results in an overload on the Bethpage to Newbridge section of the Pilgrim to Newbridge circuit. KeySpan Energy resolved these overloads by making minor adjustments in the phase angle regulators at Northport and Pilgrim. As such no equipment upgrades or additions are required for these.
5/15/01 23 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings ^^inergy, LLC ^^
Minimum Eastern Long Island Generation with and without Kings Park This scenario tests the ability of LIPA's transmission system to deliver power from western Long Island towards central and eastem Long Island. At KeySpan Energy's direction, this was modeled by increasing imported power from LIPA's interconnections to Con Edison as well as increasing generation located in western Long Island. In addition, the Northport power plant was dispatched at 1,440 MW and 200 MW was imported to Long Island from Connecticut over the Northport tie. With this dispatch, the minimum level of generation required in eastem Long Island can be evaluated. The ACCC results indicate that under these conditions, all of the power from the Kings Park Energy Project could be transferred to the Long Island load center without any major impact. The results of this analysis are shown in Appendix 1-2. The overloads on the Pilgrim to Brentwood double circuit line are slightly higher for the west to east flow. The new NYPA gas turbine at Brentwood relieves these overloads. None of the other contingencies show any overloads with the reinforcements proposed in the base expansion plan in-service.
5. A. 1. b. Winter Peak Load Conditions This section presents the results of the winter peak thermal analysis.
Heavy Eastern Long Island Generation with and without Kings Park Without Kings Park Energy Project, generation was adjusted in Eastem Long Island and at Northport until there are no overloads exporting power from the eastem and central portions of Long Island. The Kings Park Energy Project generation was placed in service at 312 MW, and ANP Brookhaven was reduced 120 MW from the case without the Kings Park Energy Project due to transmission restrictions that limit the flow from Northport and Pilgrim westward. The ACCC results are shown in Appendix 1-3.
None of the contingencies show any overloads with the reinforcements proposed in the base expansion plan in-service.
Minimum Eastern Long Island Generation with and without Kings Park For this scenario, the generation was reduced in Eastem Long Island to 510 MW with an additional 330 MW on the HVDC cable from East Shore, CT. For the case with the Kings Park Energy Project, 312 MW of generation was added. Generation was reduced north of Consolidated Edison. The ACCC results are shown in Appendix 1-4.
5/15/01 24 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings I^Pnergy, LLC ^
None of the contingencies show any overloads with the reinforcements proposed in the base expansion plan in-service.
5. A. 1. c. Light Load Conditions Three cases analyzed the impact of Kings Park Energy Project during light load conditions, approximately 2,275 MW. Generation on Long Island was modified to reflect the lower load levels based on directions from KeySpan Energy staff. During these lower load level periods, with an excess of generation, generation would be controlled by LIPA and NYISO dispatch procedures (e.g., security constrained unit commitment system and the real-time Security Constrained Dispatch).
Heavy Eastern Long Island Generation with and without Kings Park This scenario was performed to test the transfer from eastern Long Island to the central load region. As such, eastern Long Island generation was set at 1,111 MW with an additional 330 MW on the HVDC cable from East Shore, CT, for a total of approximately 1,440 MW. The Ft Jefferson units 3 and 4 have been reduced to about 167 MW each. Northport I and 2 are out of service. Northport 3 and 4 are at 280 MW each. This maximized the east to west flows. At this point, due to the lower load level, there is excess generation that cannot be dispatched. To study the impact of generation at the Kings Park Energy site, the Project was placed in service at 312 MW. Due to transmission restrictions that limit the flow from Northport and Pilgrim westward, 310 MW of generation was reduced at Northport. The ACCC results are shown in Appendix 1-5.
None of the contingencies show any overloads with the reinforcements proposed in the base expansion plan in-service.
Full Northport Generation with and without Kings Park Full generation was run at Northport. Other generation on Long Island was reduced, and about 240 MW were exported from Long Island when the Kings Park Energy Project was not in service. When the Kings Park Energy Project was added at 312 MW, the generation at Barrett was reduced by 20 MW. The export from Long Island is about 500 MW.
None of the contingencies indicate any overloads. The ACCC results are shown in Appendix 1-6.
5/15/01 25 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings ^PEnergy,Wrenergy, LLC ^J
Low Long Island Generation with and without Kings Park The system was tested with four Northport units on at 100 MW each and the total Long Island generation at 1,440 MW. This resulted in an import of 810 MW without the Kings Park Energy Project. The addition of 312 MW of generation at the Kings Park Energy Project reduced the import to 490 MW. No overloads were detected for any of the contingencies tested.
The ACCC results are in Appendix 1-7.
5. A. 1. d. Summary The following is a list of the system reinforcements in the base expansion plan through 2002. These reinforcements are included in the simulations. Based on this analysis, only terminal up- ratings and a circuit breaker are required to interconnect the Kings Park Energy Project. During non-peak periods, NY1SO and LIP A control of the system, via dispatch of the power plants as well as phase shifter control
Current LIPA Reinforcement Plan to 2002
?? Riverhead-Wildwood 69 kV circuit 69-955 - Replace OCB - New summer normal/LTE/STE rating 77/92/97 MVA ?? Greenlawn-Wolfliill 69 kV circuit 69-667 - Reconductor - New summer normal/LTE/STE rating 132/162/179 MVA ?? Babylon-Brightwaters 69 kV circuit 69-771 - Reconductor - New summer normal/LTE/STE rating 132/162/179 MVA ?? Babylon-West Babylon 69 kV circuit 69-766 - Reconductor - New summer normal/LTE/STE rating 132/162/179 MVA ?? Commack-Pilgrim 69 kV circuit 69-674 - Reconductor - New summer normal/LTE/STE rating 106/126/137 MVA ?? Brookhaven-Moriches 69 kV circuit 69-855 - Reconductor - New summer normal/LTE/STE rating 132/162/179 MVA ?? Eastport-Moriches 69 kV circuits 69-855 - Replace OCB - New summer normal/LTE/STE rating 132/162/179 MVA ?? Central Islip - Hauppauge 138 kV circuit 138-889 - Replace disconnect - New summer normal/LTE/STE rating 242/371/442 MVA
5/15/01 26 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings NBrEnergy, LLC ^^
?? Central Islip - Ronkonkoma-Holbrook 138 kV circuits 138-883 and 138-875 - Replace OCB, CT and wave trap - New summer normal/LTE/STE rating 431/563/636 MVA ?? Brookhaven-William Floyd 69 kV circuit 69-850 - Re-conductor - New summer normal/LTE/STE rating 106/126/137 MVA ?? Add second 138-69 kV step Down Transformer at Brookhaven ?? Ruland Road 138 kV Ring Bus - Convert Ruland Road 138 kV buses into ring configuration ?? Pilgrim-Brentwood 69 kV circuit 69-765 - Re-conductor - New summer normal/LTE/STE rating 240/240/240 MVA
5. A. 2. Voltage Analysis This section discuses the evaluation of the voltage performance of the system during normal and emergency conditions to ensure that established voltage limits are maintained at all pertinent systems buses. Both peak and off-peak system load conditions will be analyzed. Emergency conditions examined will include the most severe contingencies established in accordance with the criteria above and as discussed below. The voltage conditions will be evaluated prior to and following those contingencies.
In performing thermal analysis, voltage conditions were monitored. However, discussion with LIPA/KeySpan Energy staff indicated that the critical area of concern for the LIPA system was high voltage in the Northport and Pilgrim area during light load periods. This is created by the line charging from the underground cables in the region. Since the Kings Park Energy Project is to be connected to the system using an underground cable, concern that additional charging during light load conditions with the Kings Park Energy Project off line could raise voltages. It was determined that if the cable charging levels were below 20 MVAR, as tested in the SRIS, the system would not be adversely affected.
Summaries comparisons of the impact of the Kings Park Energy Project on the LIPA system voltage are provided in Appendix J. These indicate the relative change in bus voltages between the LIPA system with and without the Kings Park Energy Project when the impact was greater than 0.001 per unit.
Eight scenarios are included that cover: ?? Summer Peak East to West and West to East Transfers
5/15/01 27 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings WrEnergy,WmEnergy, LLC ^^
?? Winter Peak East to West and West to East Transfer ?? Light Load East to West Transfer, High Northport Generation, Low Northport Generation, and Transmission Line Only (Kings Park Energy Project not operating)
These cases show the minimal impact of the Kings Park Energy Project on system voltages. Busses with the largest change in value are either the Kings Park Energy Project's bus or other generator exit busses where generation was changed in order to test transfers. Further, the light load case, Appendix J-8, which reflects the impact of only the new transmission line and the unit not operating, was tested. This scenario was the greatest concern by LIPA due to potential line charging. The changes are also minor, with the voltages at the Pilgrim 138 kV bus changing less than 0.5%.
With respect to voltages pre- and post-contingency, discussions with the NY1SO and LIPA indicated that comparisons of voltages for selected summer peak extreme contingency cases would be suitable to show that voltages are acceptable. The following three extreme cases were compared:
Contingency Description 85 Holbrook to Ruland Rd. and Holtsville to Pilgrim (#138-882 & #138-881) 92 Pilgrim to Newbridge and Ruland Rd. to Holbrook (#138-563 & #13-882) 96 Pilgrim to Ruland Rd. Double Circuit (#138-661 & #138-662)
The results are presented in Appendix K. The comparison indicates that even for the extreme cases, the changes in pre- to post-contingency voltages for the scenarios with and without the Kings Park Energy Project are minimal. As noted above, the largest change is at the Kings Park Energy Project bus and is due to the Kings Park Energy Project's generators being in either on or off.
Preliminary design specifications of the proposed interconnection indicate that the line charging from the new cables will be less than 19 MVAR. (This is based on the use of paired 2500 kcm cables.) The actual cables that are installed as well as other modifications to the actual layout and design of the interconnection based on resulting from discussions with LIPA and KeySpan Energy suggest that the net impact would be lower, to the point that the level of line charging
5/15/01 28 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings rtBrEnerey,BPrEnergy, LLC ^^ after the installation of Kings Park Energy Project facilities would be essentially equal to what exists currently. As such, it was determined that there would be no adverse impact on system voltage. ^
The Kings Park Energy Project shall have the generators designed to provide appropriate reactive support in accordance with the LIPA Interconnect Guide for Independent Power Producers. The expected design indicates a power factor of 85 percent, with the ability to adjust and regulate voltage.
5. A. 3. Stability Analysis The SRIS Scope specifies that an evaluation must be done of the transient stability performance of the Kings Park Energy Project with the interconnected system during and after the most severe system disturbances established in accordance with the above criteria. Both peak and off-peak system load conditions will be evaluated as appropriate for the following contingencies including but not limited to: i) permanent three phase fault on any generator, transmission circuit, or bus section, with normal clearing; ii) permanent phase to ground fault on any generator, transmission circuit, transformer or bus section, with delayed fault clearing; iii) loss of any element without a fault; iv) a permanent phase to ground fault on a circuit breaker, with normal fault clearing; and v) loss of a double circuit tower.
In addition, system stability during and after the following extreme contingencies, as appropriate, [which exceed in severity the contingencies i) through v) above] will be analyzed to determine that there are no effects that may cause widespread system disturbance including but not limited to: vi) loss of the entire capability of a generating station: vii) loss of all lines emanating from a generating station, switching station or substation; viii) a permanent three phase fault on any generator, transmission circuit, transformer or bus section, with delayed fault clearing; and ix) the sudden loss of a large load or major load center. These extreme contingency cases are discussed within this section, rather than Section 5.E.
5/15/01 29 Report_final.doc SRJS Report for Kings I^^uiergy,I^pEnergy, LLC ^P
In addition, the proposed testing will evaluate the critical clearing times for the new and existing units in the vicinity of the project.
The following sections discuss the analysis performed and the results of that analysis.
Stability analysis was conducted for the Kings Park Energy Project using Summer Peak and Light Load conditions. The study was conducted using the methods and contingencies recommended by LIPA and KeySpan Energy Staff. A total of 32 contingencies, as identified in Table 3.9, were simulated. In general to test the system, it was agreed that rather than testing normal contingencies, e.g., a line to ground fault, a better approach would be to test three phase faults with stuck breakers. This is considered to be an extreme contingency. If these cases were stable, then the less severe faults could be assumed to be stable. Thus, 27 simulations which would normally be tested only as line to ground faults were tested as three phase faults with a stuck circuit breaker which are considered to be extreme contingencies. Five simulations that were tested as normal contingencies consisted of four double circuit tower faults simulations that result in the loss of both circuits and one bus fault. In addition, three extreme contingency simulations of the loss of an entire substation were simulated (i.e., Ruland Rd, Northport and Holbrook).
A number of the three phase stuck breaker cases result in the system separating across Long Island. These contingencies were further evaluated by simulating single line to ground and three phase faults with normal clearing (Normal Contingencies) to show that the system met the applicable criteria.
Based on discussion with KeySpan Energy staff, the simulations were performed for summer peak and light load conditions. (See Appendix P for load flow plots for the scenarios studied.) Further the scenarios were tested with and without the proposed new HVDC interconnection at Shoreham.
Each of these scenarios is discussed below.
5. A. 3. a. Summer Peak The following sections discuss the results of the summer peak load tests. These were performed with and without the HVDC interconnections
5/15/01 30 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings mmnergy, LLC
Without HVDC Light Model Incorporated All the 32 contingencies reported in 3.H.3 were tested for stability. Table 5-1 summarizes the results of the stability simulations. The swing curves for these simulations are in Appendix Q-l. Of these cases, four cases resulted in unstable conditions.
Table 5-1 Summer Peak Load Stability Cases • Without HVDC
No Contingency Result Plot Reference No. 1 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on circuit to Ruland Rd. 662, Stable C1 _peakload_nohvdcjout breaker 1420 at Pilgrim fails 2 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Northport 677, Stable C2_peakload_nohvdcjOut breaker 1390 at Pilgrim fails 3 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on circuit to Newbridge 563, Stable C3_peakload_noh vdc out breaker 1430 at Pilgrim fails 4 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on circuit to Ruland Rd. 662, Stable C4_peaktoad_nohvdcout breaker 1320 at Pilgrim fails 4A 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on generator lead to Kings Stable C4A_pealdoad_nohvdc.out Park, #1 bus breaker at Pilgrim fails 4B 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on generator lead to Kings Stable C4B_peakload_nohvdcx>ut Park, #2 bus breaker at Pilgrim fails 5 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Elwood 678, Stable C5_peakload_nohvdcDut breaker 1420 at Northport fails 6 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Elwood 681, Stable C6_peakIoad_nohvdcjout breaker 1440 at Northport fails 7 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Pilgrim 677, Stable C7_peakload_nohvdcjout breaker 1380 at Northport fails 8 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Pilgrim 672, Stable C8_peakload_nohvdc.out breaker 1370 at Northport fails 9 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Pilgrim 679, Stable C9_peakload_nohvdcx)ut breaker 1390 at Northport fails 10 3-phase fault at Elwood on circuit to Greenlawn 673, Stable C10_peakload_nohvdcout breaker 1380 at Elwood fails 11 Double circuit tower fault at Pilgrim on circuit to Stable Cl l_peakload_nohvdcDut Ruland Rd. 661,662 12 Double circuit tower fault at Pilgrim on circuit to Stable C12_peakload_nohvdcout Newbridge 563, Ruland to Holbrook 882 13 Double circuit tower fault at Ruland Rd. on circuit to Stable C13_peakload_nohvdcDut Newbridge 563 14 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 69kV bus #2, breaker 6640 Stable Contingency 14peaknohvdc.out fails 15 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 69kV bus #1, breaker 6630 Stable Contingency 1 Speaknohvdc.out fails 16 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Holtsville Stable Contingency 16peaknohvdc.out 881, breaker 1380 at Pilgrim fails 17 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Northport Unstable - See Contingency 17peaknohvdc.out 679, breaker 1360 at Pilgrim fails discussion 18 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on l38kV circuit to Newbridge Stable Contingency 18peaknohvdc.out 563, breaker 1370 at Pilgrim fails 19 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Northport Stable Contingency 19peaknohvdc.out 672, breaker 1350 at Pilgrim fails 20 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Northport Unstable - See Contingency20peaknohvdc.out 672, breaker 1300 at Pilgrim fails discussion 21 3-phase fault at Holbrook on 138kV circuit to Port Jeff Unstable - See Contingency2 Ipeaknohvdc.out 862, breaker 1350 al Holbrook fails discussion 22 3-phase fault at Holbrook on 138kV circuit to Wading Unstable - See Contingency22peaknohvdc.out 884, breakers 1330 at Holbrook fails discussion 5/15/01 31 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings mwEnergy, LLC
No Contingency Result Plot Reference No. 23 3-phase fault at Northport on 138kV bus #3, breakers Stable Contingency23peaknohvdc.out 1460 at Northport fails 24 3-phase fault at Newbridge on 138kV circuit to E.G.C. Stable Contingency24peaknohvdc.out 463, breaker 1380 at Newbridge fails 25 3-phase fault at Newbridge on 138kV circuit to E.G.C. Stable Contingenc25peaknohvdcx5ut 462, breaker 1310 at Newbridge fails 26 3-phase fault at Ruland on 138kV circuit to Ruland Stable Contingency26peaknohvdc.out 138/69, breaker 1340 at Ruland fails 27 3-phase fault at Ruland on 138kV circuit to Newbridge Stable Contingency27peaknohvdc.out 562, breaker 1350 at Ruland fails 28 3-phase fault at Ruland on 138kV circuit to Ruland Stable Contingency28peaknohvdcDut 138/69, breaker 1330 at Ruland fails 29 Bus fault at Holts GT on 138kV circuit to Holts GT Stable Contingency29peaknohvdc.out 138 N/A 30 Double-circuit fault at Holbrook/HoltsGT on 138kV Stable Contingency30peaknohvdc.out circuit to Ruland 882 N/A, Pilgrim 881, Holbrook 13 8/69 #2
The following two cases caused the system to split across Long Island:
1. # 17 - A 3-phase delayed clearing fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit .to Northport 679, breaker 1360 at Pilgrim fails 2. # 20 - A 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Northport 672, breaker 1300 at Pilgrim fails
The two contingencies identified below will result in the generators at Holtsville to run out of step: 3. #21 - A 3-phase fault at Holbrook on 138kV circuit to Port Jeff 862, breaker 1350 at Holbrook fails 4. #22 - A 3-phase fault at Holbrook on 138kV circuit to Wading 884, breakers 1330 at Holbrook fails The following section presents further analysis of these contingencies.
Analysis of Extreme Contingencies with Unstable Results - HVDC Light Not in Service Further analysis of the preceding cases was performed to determine if normal contingencies produced stable results. The swing curves for these simulations are included in Appendix Q-2 and Q-3 as discussed below.
5/15/01 32 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings WFEnergy,IWEnergy, LLC ^^
Contingency 17 A 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Northport 679, breaker 1360 at Pilgrim fails The following circuits would be expected to open and cause Long Island system to split ?? 138kV circuit from Holbrook to Ruland Road Furthermore, the single line to ground fault with a stuck breaker results in stable system performance. The three-phase fault with normal clearing also resulted in stable system performance. The swing curves for these cases are shown in Appendix Q-2 and Q-3 respectively.
Contingency 20 A 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Northport 672, breaker 1300 at Pilgrim fails The following circuits would be expected to open and cause Long Island system to split. ?? 138kV circuit from Holbrook to Ruland Road Furthermore, the single line to ground fault with a stuck breaker results in stable system performance. The three-phase fault with normal clearing also resulted in stable system performance. The swing curves for these cases are shown in Appendix Q-2 and Q-3 respectively.
Contingency 21 A 3-phase fault at Holbrook on 138kV circuit to Port Jeff 862, breaker 1350 at Holbrook fails As a result the following is expected to occur: ?? Holtsville machine out-of step ?? Holtsville units would be expected to trip due to out of step conditions and separate its generation from the rest of the system. Furthermore, the single line to ground fault with a stuck breaker results in stable system performance. The three-phase fault with normal clearing also resulted in stable system performance. The swing curves for these cases are shown in Appendix Q-2 and Q-3 respectively.
Contingency 22 A 3-phase fault at Holbrook on 138kV circuit to Wading 884, breakers 1330 at Holbrook fails As a result the following occurs: ?? Holtsville machine out-of step ?? Holtsville units would be expected to trip due to out of step conditions and separate its generation from the rest of the system.
5/15/01 33 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings^P#. Energy, LLC •
Furthermore, the single line to ground fault with a stuck breaker results in stable system performance. The three-phase fault with normal clearing also resulted in stable system performance. The swing curves for these cases are shown in Appendix Q-2 andQ-3 respectively.
Loss of Substation Extreme Contingencies The loss of the Ruland Road, Northport and Holbrook substations were only simulated with the HVDC tie in service as discussed in the next section. This was deemed reasonable since there was no major difference between the two scenarios, as confirmed by discussion with LIPA and KeySpan Energy Staff. Further, in some cases the case with the tie was slightly more severe.
Summer Peak - with HVDC Light Model Incorporated As in the preceding section, all of the 32 contingencies reported in 3.H.3 were tested for stability. Table 5-2 summarizes the results of the stability simulations. The swing curves for these simulations are in Appendix Q-l.
Of the 32 contingencies, ten cases resulted in unstable conditions.
Table 5-2 Summer Peak Load Stability Cases- With HVDC No Contingency Result Plot Reference No. 1 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on circuit to Ruland Stable C1 _peakload_whvdc.out Rd. 662, breaker 1420 at Pilgrim fails 2 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Stable C2_peakload_whvdc.out Northport 677, breaker 1390 at Pilgrim fails 3 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on circuit to Newbridge Stable C3_peakload_whvdc.out 563, breaker 1430 at Pilgrim feils 4 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on circuit to Ruland Unstable - See C4_peakload_whvdc.out Rd. 662, breaker 1320 at Pilgrim fails discussion 4A 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on generator lead to Stable C4A_peakload_whvdc.out Kings Park, #1 bus breaker at Pilgrim feils 4B 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on generator lead to Unstable - See C4B_peakload_whvdc.out Kings Park, #2 bus breaker at Pilgrim fails discussion 5 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Elwood Stable C5_peakload_whvdc.out 678, breaker 1420 at Northport fails 6 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Elwood Stable C6_peakload_whvdc.out 681, breaker 1440 at Northport fails 7 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Pilgrim Stable C7_peakload_whvdc.out 677, breaker 1380 at Northport fails 8 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Pilgrim Unstable - See C8_peakload_whvdc.out 672, breaker 1370 at Northport fails discussion 9 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Pilgrim Stable C9_peakload_whvdc.out 679, breaker 1390 at Northport fails 10 3-phase fault at Elwood on circuit to Greenlawn Stable C10_peakload_whvdc.out 673, breaker 1380 at Elwood fails II Double circuit tower fault at Pilgrim on circuit Stable Cl l_peakload_whvdc.out to Ruland Rd. 661, 662
5/15/01 34 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings WBrEmergy, LLC
No Contingency Result Plot Reference No. 12 Double circuit tower fault at Pilgrim on circuit Stable C12_peakload_whvdc.out to Newbridge 563, Ruland to Holbrook 882 13 Double circuit tower fault at Ruland Rd. on Stable C13_peakload_whvdc.out circuit to Newbridge 563 14 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 69kV bus #2, Stable C14_peakload_whvdc.out breaker 6640 fails 15 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 69kV bus #1, Stable Contingency 15peakwhvdc.out breaker 6630 fails 16 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Unstable - See Contingency 16peakwhvdc.out Holtsville 881, breaker 1380 at Pilgrim fails discussion 17 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Unstable - See Contingency 17peakwhvdc.out Northport 679, breaker 1360 at Pilgrim fails discussion 18 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on l38kV circuit to Unstable - See Contingency 18peakwhvdc.out Newbridge 563, breaker 1370 at Pilgrim fails discussion 19 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Unstable - See Contingency 19peakwhvdc.out Northport 672, breaker 1350 at Pilgrim fails discussion 20 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Unstable - See Contingency20peakwhvdc.out Northport 672, breaker 1300 at Pilgrim fails discussion 21 3-phase fault at Holbrook on 138kV circuit to Unstable - See Contingency21 peakwhvdc.out Port Jeff 862, breaker 1350 at Holbrook fails discussion 22 3-phase fault at Holbrook on 138kV circuit to Unstable - See Contingency22peakwhvdc.out Wading 884, breakers 1330 at Holbrook fails discussion 23 3-phase fault at Northport on 138kV bus #3, Stable Contingency23peakwhvdc.out breakers 1460 at Northport fails 24 3-phase fault at Newbridge on 138kV circuit to Stable Contingency24peakwhvdc.out E.G.C. 463, breaker 1380 at Newbridge fails 25 3-phase fault at Newbridge on l38kV circuit to Stable Contingenc25peakwhvdcflut E.G.C. 462, breaker 1310 at Newbridge fails 26 3-phase fault at Ruland on 138kV circuit to Stable Contingency26peakwhvdc.out Ruland 138/69, breaker 1340 at Ruland fails 27 3-phase fault at Ruland on 138kV circuit to Stable Contingency27peakwhvdaout Newbridge 562, breaker 1350 at Ruland fails 28 3-phase fault at Ruland on 138kV circuit to Stable Contingency28peakwhvdc.out Ruland 138/69, breaker 1330 at Ruland fails 29 Bus fault at Holts GT on 138kV circuit to Holts Stable Contingency29peakwhvdc.out GT138N/A 30 Double-circuit.fault at Holbrook/HoltsGT on Stable Contingency30peakwhvdc.out l38kV circuit to Ruland 882 N/A, Pilgrim 881, Holbrook 138/69 #2
Analysis of Extreme Contingencies with Unstable Results - HVDC Light in Service The following paragraphs discuss the aialysis of the extreme contingencies that had unstable results. In certain cases, where data was readily available, additional information regarding the possible events is provided.
Contingency 4 A 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on circuit to Ruland Rd. 662, breaker 1320 at Pilgrim fails The following circuits would be expected to open and separate the unstable generation from the rest of the system. ?? 138kV circuit from Holbrook to Ruland Road
5/15/01 35 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings n^KtrIWEnergy, LLC
Furthermore, the single line to ground fault with a stuck breaker results in stable system performance. The three-phase fault with normal clearing results in stable system performance. The swing curves for these cases are shown in Appendix Q-2 and Q-3 respectively.
Contingency 4B A 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on generator lead to Kings Park, #2 bus breaker at Pilgrim fails
Further analysis was performed that indicated that the single line to ground fault with a stuck breaker results in stable system performance. The three-phase fault with normal clearing results also resulted in stable system performance. The swing curves for these cases are shown in Appendix Q-2 and Q-3 respectively.
Contingency 8 A 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Pilgrim 672, breaker 1370 at Northport fails Further analysis was performed that indicated that the single line to ground fault with a stuck breaker results in stable system performance. The three-phase fault with normal clearing results also resulted in stable system performance. The swing curves for these cases are shown in Appendix Q-2 and Q-3 respectively.
Contingency 16 A 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Holtsville 881, breaker 1380 at Pilgrim fails
The following circuits would be expected to open to cause Long Island system to split. ?? 138kV circuit from Holbrook to Ruland Road Further analysis was performed that indicated that the single line to ground fault with a stuck breaker results in stable system performance. The three-phase fault with normal clearing results also resulted in stable system performance. The swing curves for these cases are shown in Appendix Q-2 and Q-3 respectively.
Contingency 17 A 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Northport 679, breaker 1360 at Pilgrim fails
Further analysis was performed that indicated that the single line to ground fault with a stuck breaker results in stable system performance. The three-phase fault with normal clearing results 5/15/01 36 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings W|KIW Energy, LLC ^^ also resulted in stable system performance. The swing curves for these cases are shown in Appendix Q-2 and Q-3 respectively.
Contingency 18 A 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Newbridge 563, breaker 1370 at Pilgrim fails
Further analysis was performed that indicated that the single line to ground fault with a stuck breaker results in stable system performance. The three-phase fault with normal clearing results also resulted in stable system performance. The swing curves for these cases are shown in Appendix Q-2 and Q-3 respectively.
Contingency 19 A 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Northport 672, breaker 1350 at Pilgrim fails
Further analysis was performed that indicated that the single line to ground fault with a stuck breaker results in stable system performance. The three-phase fault with normal clearing results also resulted in stable system performance. The swing curves for these cases are shown in Appendix Q-2 and Q-3 respectively.
Contingency 20 A 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Northport 672, breaker 1300 at Pilgrim fails
Further analysis was performed that indicated that the single line to ground fault with a stuck breaker results in stable system performance. The three-phase fault with normal clearing results also resulted in stable system performance. The swing curves for these cases are shown in Appendix Q-2 and Q-3, respectively. Note these cases are identical to Contingency 19 when tested with normal clearing.
Contingency 21 A 3-phase fault at Holbrook on 138kV circuit to Port Jeff 862, breaker 1350 at Holbrook fails
Further analysis was performed that indicated that the single line to ground fault with a stuck breaker results in stable system performance. The three-phase fault with normal clearing results
5/15/01 37 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings JWEnergy,Wren LLC also resulted in stable system performance. The swing curves for these cases are shown in Appendix Q-2 and Q-3 respectively.
Contingency 22 A 3-phase fault at Holbrook on 138kV circuit to Wading 884, breakers 1330 at Holbrook fails
The following events are expected to occur. ?? Brookhaven machine out-of step The following circuits would be expected to open and separate the unstable generation from the rest of the system. ?? The Brookhaven 138/21 kV Gen. Transformer No. I & 2 ?? The Brookhaven units would be expected to trip due to out of step conditions and separate its generation from the rest of the system. Further analysis was performed that indicated that the single line to ground fault with a stuck breaker results in stable system performance. The three-phase fault with normal clearing results also resulted in stable system performance. The swing curves for these cases are shown in Appendix Q-2 and Q-3 respectively.
Loss of Substation Extreme Contingencies The loss of the Ruland Road, the largest load center, and Northport, the largest generation station, substations were simulated. The swing curves for these simulations are in Appendix Q-4. The cases were run with and without the Kings Park Energy Project units in service. The results of these simulations show stable system response, which was similar in the cases with and without the Kings Park Energy Project for each contingency.
Kings Park Energy, LLC also performed an analysis of loss of the Holbrook substation, another major station. The results of that case indicated that units in eastern Long Island were expected to be unstable. Given that this is a major 138 kV station that power from plants in eastern Long Island (e.g.. Port Jefferson) are connected to, this is expected. As an extreme contingency, no mitigation for this case is necessary.
5/15/01 38 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings mkinergy, LLC
Addition of Other Generating Facilities Kings Park Energy, LLC also investigated the potential impact of the addition of additional units in the Consolidated Edison region to the study results. Given the uncertainty surrounding which units will be completed, Kings Park Energy, LLC modeled the addition of approximately 3,000 MW of new generation. Generic units that were added were 1,000 MW of simple cycle gas turbines, and 2,000 MW of combined cycle units (i.e., approximately four 500 MW plants). To test the impact on Long Island, three phase faults with normal clearing time were performed at Ruland Road, Long Island's major load station with the Kings Park Energy Project in service. The results of the test, which are included in Appendix Q- 5, indicate that there is no significant impact due to the addition other than the relative starting angle.
5. A. 3. b. Light Load Conditions As in the preceding simulations, the 32 contingencies were tested with a light system load. Based on discussions with KeySpan Energy, two dispatch schemes that varied the level of generation at Northport were done. These are referred to as: ?? Low Northport generation ?? High Northport generation Each of these is discussed in the following sections.
Light Load - Low Northport Generation The simulations were run with and without HVDC light modeled. All the contingencies were stable. Table 5 3 summarizes the results of the stability simulations. The swing plots are in Appendix R-l.
Table 5-3 Light Load Stability Cases - Low Northport Generation With and Without HVDC Interconnection
No Contingency Result Plot Reference No. 1 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on circuit to Ruland Stable C IJite 1 load_nohvdc.out Rd. 662, breaker 1420 at Pilgrim fails Cl_litelload_whvdc.out 2 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Stable C2_lite 1 load_nohvdc.out Northport 677, breaker 1390 at Pilgrim fails C2_lite 1 load_wh vdcout 3 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on circuit to Newbridge Stable C3Jite 1 load_nohvdc.out 563, breaker 1430 at Pilgrim fails C3_lite 1 load_whvdc.out 4 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on circuit to Ruland Stable C4_l ite 1 load_nohvdc.out Rd. 662, breaker 1320 at Pilgrim fails C4_lite 1 load_wh vdcout 4A 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on generator lead to Stable C4AJitel load_nohvdc.out Kings Park, # 1 bus breaker at Pilgrim fails C4A_lite 1 load_whvdc.out 5/15/01 39 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings HRjnergy, LLC
No Contingency Result Plot Reference No. 4B 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on generator lead to Stable C4BJitel load_nohvdcx)ut Kings Park, #2 bus breaker at Pilgrim fails C4B_lite 1 load_whvdcjOut 5 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Elwood Stable C5_lite 1 load_nohvdc.out 678, breaker 1420 at Northport fails C5_lite 1 load_whvdc£iut 6 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Elwood Stable C6Jitel load_nohvdc.out 681, breaker 1440 at Northport fails C6_litel load_whvdc.out 7 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Pilgrim Stable C7_litelload_nohvdc.out 677, breaker 1380 at Northport fails C7Jite 1 load_whvdc.out 8 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Pilgrim Stable C8_litel load_nohvdc.out 672, breaker 1370 at Northport fails CSJite 1 Ioad_whvdc.out 9 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Pilgrim Stable C9_lite 1 load_nohvdc.out 679, breaker 1390 at Northport fails C9 lite 1 load whvdc.out 10 3-phase fault at Elwood on circuit to Greenlawn Stable C1 OJite 1 load_nohvdc.out 673, breaker 1380 at Elwood fails C1 OJite 1 load_whvdc.out 11 Double circuit tower fault at Pilgrim on circuit Stable Cl IJitelload_nohvdc.out toRulandRd661,662 Cl l_litelload_whvdc.out 12 Double circuit tower fault at Pilgrim on circuit Stable C12Jite 1 load_nohvdc.out to Newbridge 563, Ruland to Holbrook 882 C12_litel load_whvdc.out 13 Double circuit tower fault at Ruland Rd. on Stable C13Jitelload_nohvdc.out circuit to Newbridge 563 C13_lite 1 load_whvdc.out 14 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 69kV bus #2, Stable C14_lite 1 load_nohvdc.out breaker 6640 fails C14 lite 1 load whvdc.out 15 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 69kV bus #1, Stable Contingencylite 15nohvdcjout breaker 6630 fails Contingencylite 1 Swhvdc.out 16 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Stable Contingencylite 16nohvdcjout Holtsville 881, breaker 1380 at Pilgrim fails Contingencylite 16whvdc.out 17 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Stable Contingencylite 17nohvdcjOUt Northport 679, breaker 1360 at Pilgrim fails Contingencylite 17whvdc.out 18 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Stable Contingencylite 1 Snohvdcout Newbridge 563, breaker 1370 at Pilgrim fails Contingencylite 1 Swhvdc.out 19 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Stable Contingencylite 19nohvdcout Northport 672, breaker 1350 at Pilgrim fails Contingencylite 19whvdc.out 20 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on l38kV circuit to Stable Contingencylite20nohvdcx)ut Northport 672, breaker 1300 at Pilgrim fails Contingencylite20whvdc.out 21 3-phase fault at Holbrook on 138kV circuit to Unstable - See Contingencylite21 nohvdcout Port Jeff 862, breaker 1350 at Holbrook fails discussion Contingencylite21 whvdc.out 22 3-phase fault at Holbrook on 138kV circuit to Stable Contingency lite22nohvdcjOut Wading 884, breakers 1330 at Holbrook ftils Contingencylite22whvdc.out 23 3-phase fault at Northport on 138kV bus #3, Stable Contingencylite23nohvdcout breakers 1460 at Northport fails Contingencylite23whvdc.out 24 3-phase fault at Newbridge on 138kV circuit to Stable Contingencylite24nohvdcout E.G.C. 463, breaker 1380 at Newbridge fails Contingencylite24whvdc.out 25 3-phase fault at Newbridge on 138kV circuit to Stable Contingencylite25nohvdcjout E.G.C. 462, breaker 1310 at Newbridge fails Contingencylite25whvdc.out 26 3-phase fault at Ruland on 138kV circuit to Stable Contingencylite26nohvdcjOUt Ruland 138/69, breaker 1340 at Ruland fails Contingencylite26whvdc.out 27 3-phase fault at Ruland on 138kV circuit to Stable Contingencylite27nohvdc£)ut Newbridge 562, breaker 1350 at Ruland fails Contingencylite27whvdc.out 28 3-phase fault at Ruland on 138kV circuit to Stable Contingencyiite28nohvdC;0ut Ruland 138/69, breaker 1330 at Ruland fails Contingency! ite2 Swhvdc.out 29 Bus fault at Holts GT on 138kV circuit to Holts Stable Contingencylite29nohvdcout GT138N/A Contingencylite29whvdc.out 30 Double-circuit fault at Holbrook/HoltsGT on Unstable - See Contingencylite30nohvdcjout 138kV circuit to Ruland 882, Pilgrim 881, discussion Contingencylite30whvdc.out Holbrook 138/69 #2
5/15/01 40 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings ^^Energy,I^Ftnergy, LLC ^^
Analysis of Extreme Contingencies with Unstable Results-Low Northport Generation The following paragraphs discuss the analysis of the one extreme contingency that had unstable results.
Contingency 21 A 3-phase fault at Holbrook on 138kV circuit to Port Jeff 862, breaker 1350 at Holbrook fails The following events are expected to occur: ?? Port Jefferson machine out-of step ?? Port Jefferson would be expected to trip due to out of step conditions and separate its generation from the rest of the system.
Furthermore, the single line to ground fault with a stuck breaker results in stable system performance. The three-phase fault with normal clearing also results in stable system performance. The swing curves for these cases are shown in Appendix R-2 and R-3 respectively.
Contingency 30 A Double-circuit fault at Holbrook/HoltsGT on 138kV circuit to Ruland 882, Pilgrim 881, Holbrook 138/69 #2
Results of the testing of contingency 30 indicated that there was little to no damping. The addition of the HVDC tie greatly reduces the swing. This situation also existed without the Kings Park Energy Project (See Appendix R-4).
Light Load - High Northport Generation As in the preceding cases the system was tested under light load conditions, except that Northport was tested assuming high levels of generation. The simulations were run with and without HVDC light modeled. All the contingencies were stable. Table 5-4 summarizes the results of the stability simulations. The swing plots are in Appendix S.
5/15/01 41 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings (PE:iiergy, LLC
Table 5-4 Light Load Stability Cases - High Northport Generation With and Without HVDC Interconnection
No Contingency Result Plot Reference No. 1 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on circuit to Ruland Stable Contingencylite21 whvdc.out Rd. 662, breaker 1420 at Pilgrim fails Contingencylite21 nohvdcout 2 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Stable Contingencylite22whvdc.out Northport 677, breaker 1390 at Pilgrim fails Contingencylite22nohvdcjout 3 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on circuit to Stable Contingencylite23whvdc.out Newbridge 563, breaker 1430 at Pilgrim fails Contingencylite23nohvdcjout 4 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on circuit to Ruland Stable Contingencylite24whvdc.out Rd. 662, breaker 1320 at Pilgrim fails Contingencylite24nohvdcout 4A 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on generator lead to Stable Contingency lite24awhvdc.out Kings Park, #1 bus breaker at Pilgrim fails Contingencylite24anohvdc.out 4B 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on generator lead to Stable Contingencylite24bwhvdc.out Kings Park, #2 bus breaker at Pilgrim fails Contingencylite24bnohvdcjout 5 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Stable Contingencylite25whvdc.out Elwood 678, breaker 1420 at Northport fails Contingencylite25nohvdcx)ut 6 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Stable ContingencyIite26whvdc.out Elwood 681, breaker 1440 at Northport fails Contingencylite26nohvdcx>ut 7 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Stable Contingency! ite27whvdc.out Pilgrim 677, breaker 1380 at Northport fails Contingencylite27nohvdcjout 8 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Stable Contingencylite28whvdc.out Pilgrim 672, breaker 1370 at Northport fails Contingencylite28nohvdc.out 9 3-phase fault at Northport on circuit to Stable Contingencylite29whvdc.out Pilgrim 679, breaker 1390 at Northport fails Contingencylite29nohvdcjout 10 3-phase fault at Elwood on circuit to Stable Contingencylite21 Owhvdcout Greenlawn 673, breaker 1380 at Elwood fails Contingency lite21 Onohvdcjout 11 Double circuit tower fault at Pilgrim on Stable Contingencylite21 Iwhvdcout circuit to Ruland Rd. 661, 662 Contingencylite21 Inohvdcout 12 Double circuit tower fault at Pilgrim on Stable Contingencylite212whvdcx)ut circuit to Newbridge 563, Ruland to Contingencylite212nohvdcout Holbrook882 13 Double circuit tower fault at Ruland Rd. on Stable Contingencylite213 whvdcout circuit to Newbridge 563 Contingencylite213nohvdcjout 14 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 69kV bus #2, Stable Contingencylite214whvdcjout breaker 6640 fails Contingency lite214nohvdcjout 15 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 69kV bus #1, Stable Contingencylite215whvdc.out breaker 6630 fails Contingency lite215nohvdcout 16 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Stable Contingencylite216whvdcx>ut Holtsville 881, breaker 1380 at Pilgrim fails Contingency lite216nohvdcjout 17 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Stable Contingencylite217whvdc.out Northport 679, breaker 1360 at Pilgrim fails Contingency lite217nohvdcjout 18 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Stable Contingencylite218whvdc.out Newbridge 563, breaker 1370 at Pilgrim fails Contingency lite218nohvdcout 19 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Stable ContingencyIite219whvdcx)ut Northport 672, breaker 1350 at Pilgrim fails Contingencylite219nohvdcjout 20 3-phase fault at Pilgrim on 138kV circuit to Stable Contingency! ite220whvdc.out Northport 672, breaker 1300 at Pilgrim fails Contingencylite220nohvdc.oit 21 3-phase fault at Holbrook on 138kV circuit Stable Contingencylite221 whvdcout to Port Jeff 862, breaker 1350 at Holbrook Contingency lite221 nohvdcout fails 22 3-phase fault at Holbrook on l38kV circuit Stable Contingencylite222whvdcx)ut to Wading 884, breakers 1330 at Holbrook Contingencylite222nohvdcout fails 23 3-phase fault at Northport on 138kV bus #3, Stable Contingency!ite223whvdcjout breakers 1460 at Northport fails Contingency lite223nohvdcDut 24 3-phase fault at Newbridge on 138kV circuit Stable Contingencylite224whvdcout to E.G.C. 463, breaker 1380 at Newbridge Contingency !ite224nohvdcjout 5/15/01 42 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings Mfcnergy, LLC •
No Contingency Result Plot Reference No. fails 25 3-phase fault at Newbridge on 138kV circuit Stable Contingencylite225whvdc.out to E.G.C. 462, breaker 1310 at Newbridge Contingencylite225nohvdc.out fails 26 3-phase fault at Ruland on I38kV circuit to Stable Contingencylite226whvdcjout Ruiand 138/69, breaker 1340 at Ruland fails Contingency lite226nohvdcx)ut 27 3-phase fault at Ruland on 138kV circuit to Stable Contingencylite227whvdc.out Newbridge 562, breaker 1350 at Ruland fails Contingency bte227nohvdcDut 28 3-phase fault at Ruland on 138kV circuit to Stable Contingencylite228whvdcjOut Ruland 138/69, breaker 1330 at Ruland fails Contingency lite228nohvdcDut 29 Bus fault at Holts GT on l38kV circuit to Stable Contingencylite229whvdcx)ut Holts GT138 N/A Contingency lite229nohvdcjout 30 Double-circuit fault at Holbrook/HoltsGT on Stable Contingencylite230whvdc.out l38kV circuit to Ruland 882 N/A, Pilgrim Contingencylite230nohvdc.out 881, Holbrook 138/69 #2
Analysis of Extreme Contingencies with Unstable Results - Low Northport Generation As noted above all of the cases were stable for the extreme contingencies. As such, no further testing of less stressful normally cleared single or three-phase faults were tested.
5. B. Transfer Limits As stated in the SRIS Scope, the analysis will determine the impact, if any, of the Kings Park Energy Project on the normal and emergency transfer limits of the following interfaces, if applicable: LIPA transmission interfaces; Consolidated Edison cable system; UPNY-Con Ed; Central East; Total East; PJM-NY; and NE-NY. In each case, sufficient analysis will be conducted to determine the most limiting of the thermal, voltage or stability limits.
Because of the location of the Kings Park Energy Project on LIPA's transmission system and the desire to determine deliverability rather than just a minimum interconnection, KeySpan Energy and LIPA requested that the impact be analyzed in a manner that is more stringent than normal testing procedures. First, Kings Park Energy Project is located in the central load pocket of LIPA' system which is in between LIPA's two internal interfaces that LIPA uses to measure the ability to deliver power within Long Island. Further, because of the ability to regulate transmission lines using phase angle regulators, specific dispatch scenarios as discussed in the Thermal Section were deemed appropriate and required by LIPA. Additional information on the two interfaces is discussed below.
5/15/01 43 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings ^^fenergy,^PEnergy, LLC ^^
5. B. 1. EastofHolbrook The East of Holbrook interface is a major LIPA transmission interface internal to Long Island and the LIPA transmission system. Unlike NYISO transmission interfaces that measure the sum of the flow across transmission lines, LIPA measures the interface as the sum of generation that can be delivered from generation located east of the Holbrook substation. This is done because of the use of phase-shifters on the LIPA system and for the ease for LIPA system operators. In terms of transmission lines, it could be viewed as an interface line that was drawn north and south across Long Island just west of Holbrook. (Appendix M includes a listing of these lines as well as the flows on the lines with and without the Kings Park Energy Project.) The generation that is included in the definition consists of LIPA facilities such as Wading River, Port Jefferson and Holtsville facilities. It would also include NYPA's Flynn plant, as well as any power imported over the new proposed HVDC tie at Shoreham. In general, the 138 kV lines heading west from Holbrook to Pilgrim limit the flow. (See Contingency 30 in Table 3.9) However, there are 69 kV lines that are located on the north and south shores of Long Island that also support the flow across the interface. LIPA optimizes these flows through the use of the Pilgrim PAR. With the addition of the proposed DC interconnection at Shoreham, KeySpan Energy has noted that the transfer capability of the interface will be fully utilized, and this conclusion has been verified by this study.
The Kings Park Energy Project is located west of this interface but is influenced by the power that flows across the interface and proceeds westward to Pilgrim and further west. To insure that Kings Park Energy Project would not adversely impact the flow of power, from a deliverability standpoint, LIPA requested that the units in the east first be dispatched at their maximum levels for both the with and without cases, rather than using normal dispatch levels. This approach also allowed optimization of the power through the use of the Pilgrim PAR.
Table 5-5 indicates the transfer limit across the interface with and without the Kings Park Energy Project in terms of the normal LIPA definition for the interface, i.e., the total generation east of Holbrook including any import from the HVDC tie. KeySpan Energy and LIPA concur with these values. (See Appendix M for transmission line flow information.)
This interface and the impact of the Kings Park Energy Project are discussed in the preceding thermal analysis section (5.A.1). The Kings Park Energy Project was reduced from 600 MW to 300 MW in part because of the power that is flowing across that interface.
5/15/01 44 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings Sfcnergy, LLC
Table 5-5 Transfer Limit Holbrook East
Without With Change Kings Park Kings Park Energy Energy Eastern LI generation MW 1,474 1,474 0 Import to LI from Shoreham 330 330 0 HVDC tie MW Total MW 1,804 1,804 0 Limiting Contingency Contingency 30 - L/O double circuit Same 138 kV lines: Holbrook- Ruland and Holtsville- Pilgrim Limiting Lines 138 kV Holbrook to Pilgrim PAR, and Same various North and South Shore 69 kV lines that parallel the 138 kV circuit (See Appendix M for listing)
Note: Also assumes that Northport is at 1,440 MW with 200 MW being imported into Long Island over Northport tie
5. B. 2. Newbridge East In summary, analysis determined that the Kings Park Energy Project would have no adverse effect on the amount of power that could be delivered across LIPA's internal Newbridge East transfer limit. LIPA uses the Newbridge East interface to measure the amount of power that can be transferred from generators as well as imports over the LIPA and NYPA ties to Con Edison in western Long Island. Like the East of Holbrook interface discussed above, LIPA measures the flow based on the total amount (MW) of generation and import rather than the sum of the flows across specific transmission lines. In terms of transmission lines, it could be viewed as an interface drawn north and south across Long Island just west of the Newbridge station. This includes several 138 kV lines as well as numerous 69 kV circuits. (See Appendix M for a listing of the lines.) The thermal analysis section, (5. A) discusses the analysis.
Table 5-6 provides additional information about the interface.
5/15/01 45 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings mtiMFEnergy, LLC
Table 5-6 Transfer Limit Newbridge East
Without With Change Kings Park Kings Park Energy Energy Western LI generation MW 1,263 1,018 -245 Western Imports MW 662 649 -13 Total MW 1,925 1,667 -258 Limiting Contingency See discussion See discussion NA below below Limiting Lines See discussion See discussion NA below below
Note: Also assumes that Northport is at 1,440 MW with 200 MW being imported into Long Island over Northport tie
Analysis indicates that Kings Park Energy Project has minimal impact on the amount of power that can be delivered from the west to the east even though Table 5-6 shows a reduction. This is because of the location of the interface relative to the geographic layout of Long Island and the dispatch scenario. In testing the flows across the interface, it was required that Northport, which is located east of the interface in the central region where the Kings Park Energy Project is also located, be dispatched at 1,440 MW and 200 MW imported over the interconnection. As the Kings Park Energy Project generation was dispatched, the only generation available (i.e., units east of Holbrook) was reduced to near its minimum allowable levels. This is shown in the first column of Table 5.6.
Under these conditions, given that there is limited amount of load to the east, as noted above the existing generation east of Holbrook must be turned off in the east as power from the Kings Park Energy Project is added. Further, because of limitations on the lines from Pilgrim to Holbrook (These are the same lines and contingencies as discussed for Holbrook East above, but now in reverse.) a limited amount of generation must be maintained in the East. With the dispatch of the Kings Park Energy Project, additional generation is added to the region east of Newbridge. Given no additional load to serve, the desire to keep Northport on, and the minimum level of generation required in eastern Long Island, power from the west (or alternatively Northport) must be reduced. That is, the reduction in import or generation is offset by the addition of power from
5/15/01 46 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings MrEnergy,W^Energy, LLC ^^ the Kings Park Energy Project. This is shown by the reduction in the transfer limit in the TableS- 6. It was possible however, to reduce the Holtsville Gas turbines by approximately 50 MW, which means that with the Kings Park Energy Project, an additional 50 MW could be transferred to the east from the central region with the Kings Park Energy Project units in service.
The values in Table 5-6 however, do not represent the actual levels of power that could be transferred across the interface if the transfer of power was required due to lack of available generation, at Northport and at the Kings Park Energy Project, or because of market based dispatch. KeySpan Energy has estimated that the total interface capacity is approximately 2,283 MW both with and without the Kings Park Energy Project. The limiting condition is the loss of the 138 kV East Garden City - Carle Place double circuit. The limiting element is the 138 kV East Garden City to Newbridge (Circuit #2, 138-463.)
Thus although, it appears to be a reduction, the Kings Park Energy Project has no adverse impact on the Newbridge East interface and when dispatched could increase the power flow towards the eastern end.
5. B. 3. Long Island to New England Transfer Limits Long Island is currently connected to the New England at Northport via a 138 KV interconnection that is controlled by a PAR. In addition, LIPA is proposing to add a new HVDC tie from Shoreham to New Haven. The analysis of the Kings Park Energy Project was performed to insure that there was no impact on the interface. With respect to the existing tie, the scenarios were modeled assuming that 200 MW was imported over the interconnection based on directions from LIPA. This is combination with the Northport generation represents the maximum import capacity. For this reason, the Northport station was modeled at 1,440 MW rather than its DMNC rating. This limit is based on the exit capacity of the lines exiting from Northport towards Pilgrim and Elwood exits. This represents a total "Northport and Import" delivery rating of 1,640 MW during peak load periods. This transfer limit reflects the recent improvements (e.g., dynamic cable ratings and substation breaker additions) to the Northport exits that LIPA has recently added. To insure that the Kings Park Energy Project has no impact on the import, that same level of import and generation was maintained in the assessment of the Kings Park Energy Project.
Similarly, with respect to the new HVDC tie, it was assumed that the full capacity was maintained with and without the Kings Park Energy Project during the testing of the East of
5/15/01 47 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings IWEnergy,WrEnergy, LLC ^^
Holbrook interface described above. The Kings Park Energy Project does, however, raise the relative phase angle on Long Island when in operation. As described in Section 6.D. Project Benefits, the PAR on the Northport tie can not restrict the imports at all times due to the addition of new generation in New England. By raising the relative phase angle on Long Island, additional control is provided to the LIPA system to prevent inadvertent flows onto the system. As such, the Kings Park Energy Project has a beneficial benefit to the interface.
5. B. 4. Other NYISO Transfer Limits Because of the location of the Kings Park Energy Project on Long Island and the fact that it had no impact on the amount of power that could be transferred from western Nassau eastward towards the middle of Long Island and east (See 5. B. 2), it was determined that there would be no effect on the transfer limits of interfaces off Long Island. As such, analysis of the Consolidated Edison cable system, UPNY-Con Ed, Central East, Total East, PJM-NY, and NE- NY and other NYISO interfaces was determined to be not applicable.
5. B. 5. Transfer Limit Summary Because of the location of the Kings Park Energy Project in LIPA's central load pocket area, the Project does not affect the NYISO interfaces or adversely impact LIPA's own internal transfer limits. The transfer limits within LIPA's system are thermally limited. The Kings Park Energy Project was tested for stability and voltage using extreme contingencies and with maximum dispatch levels as discussed in the section. No stability or voltage limitations were noted. Based on discussions with Key Span Energy and LIPA staff no further investigation was deemed necessary.
5. C. Load Interconnection As this project is not a load interconnection, this section is not applicable.
5. D. Special Protection Systems No special protection systems are being proposed by this facility; as such, this section is not applicable.
5. £. Additional Extreme Contingencies Additional extreme contingencies that were performed included the loss of a major substation (without a fault) with and without the Kings Park Energy Project in service. The substations that
5/15/01 4g Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings MRMK Energy,Enerev, LLC ^^ were simulated, as suggested by KeySpan Energy staff, were the major stations on Long Island and included: ?? Ruland Road (load serving and several transmission circuits) ?? Holbrook In addition the loss of Northport, the largest generating station and several transmission circuits was analyzed. A discussion of the results of these analyses are provided in the preceding Section 5.A .3.
5. F. Local Reliability Rules Local reliability rules are stated in the New York State Reliability Council document - Initial Rules for Planning and Operating the New York State Power System-Sep. 10,1999. Regarding the rules it defines them as follows: Reliability rules of the individual Transmission Owners which are based on meeting specific reliability concerns in limited areas of the BPS, including but not limited to special conditions that apply to nuclear plants, such as NRC licensing requirements, or the New York City Metropolitan Area.
Further, Section 3.2.6 Local Reliability Rules ("LRR") indicates that: All Local Reliability Rules that have been adopted by the NYSRC shall apply in the assessment of transmission capability and determination of transmission adequacy for reliability purposes. These Local Reliability Rules are listed in Appendix C
With Respect to LIPA's transmission system, Appendix C of the document, includes the following:
5. LIPA LOSS OF GENERATOR GAS SUPPLY Considering the loss of gas supply as a single contingency that will impact the electric power system, the number of gas-fired generators must be limited above critical system load levels. Above 3200 MW, 2 Northport units can be gas fired. At peak loads. Port Jefferson 3-4 gas operation must be restricted. Exceeds Minimum Criteria
Discussions with KeySpan Energy and LIPA indicate that the basis of the rule is that if the gas supply from Iroquois was to fail or to be closed and more than the stated Northport units were
5/15/01 49 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings IT^KMrEnergy, E LLC
operating on gas, the Long Island system would collapse because of the lack of voltage support. Essentially, the Northport units could continue to stay connected for about 15 minutes before they would disconnect. During that time, they could continue to produce reactive support. Loss of this support, since Northport is the major station, would lead to the collapse of the system.
It was noted that the loss of the Kings Park Energy Project while using gas would contribute to the collapse of the system- presumably three units, i.e., the Kings Park Energy Project plus the two Northport units -but again only at peak loads, as noted above. Thus, the Kings Park Energy Project would need to be on oil or to be able to switch to oil within 15 minutes. Given that the Kings Park Energy Project would be able to switch to oil while operating, this requires on site oil, no further investigation was determined to be necessary. Kings Park Energy, LLC has agreed to provide LIPA with a letter certifying this capability if needed.
Section 6. Impact on Pre-Existing Facilities and Equipment
This section addresses the impact of the Kings Park Energy Project on pre-existing facilities and equipment. This includes short circuit analysis, critical clearing times, and performance of auto- reclosing systems as applicable.
6. A. Results of Short Circuit Analysis The potential impacts of the proposed new generating facility on the fault duty levels on the NYISO, PJM and NEISO facilities were evaluated. The analysis was conducted using the Classical Method for three phase and single -phase faults. This method has been accepted by the NYISO for the conduct of fault current calculations in system reliability impact studies for proposed new generating facilities. The methodology assumes:
?? All generating units are in service. ?? All transmission lines are in service ?? All series reactors, if any, are in service. ?? Loads, shunts and line capacitance are not modeled. ?? A pre-fault flat start power representation is assumed (unity operating voltages, unity transformer taps, etc.)
5/15/01 50 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings ^^Energy, LLC ^^
As specified in the SRIS Scope, the system model included all currently existing facilities, and the following proposed units expected to be in service by 2002; 1. Athens - 1080 MW 2. Bethlehem - 350 MW 3. LIPA HVDC Tie - New Haven to Shoreham, 330 MW 4. ENRON - Far Rockaway - 79 MW 5. ANP - Brookhaven - 580 MW 6. KeySpan Energy - Spagnoli Road - 79 MW
Additional sensitivity cases were run to analyze the impact of: NYPA Brentwood 79 MW generating plant The ANP 580 MW generating plant LIPA 330 MW HVDC tie ENRON Far Rockaway 79 MW KeySpan Energy Spagnoli 79 MW
Kings Park Energy, LLC notes that the addition of additional new units in Consolidated Edison territory should not have a material impact on the results of this study. Consolidated Edison is preparing a global solution to address the addition of new units in southern New York. This ultimate solution will be designed to mitigate the increase in short circuit current due to the additions in that area which in turn would reduce the impact on other areas as well.
To identify the extent of the short circuit impact on other substations, KeySpan Energy first performed an analysis to identify those substations that see the largest increases in fault current. These substations are shown in Table 6-1.
5/15/01 51 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings MrEnMrEnergy, LLC
Table 6-1 Impact on Station Fault Current Levels
3 Phase Fault Single Phase Substation KA % Increase KA % Increase Pilgrim 138 kV 59.6 10.5% 51.7 6.0% Northport 138 kV (Pilgrim side) 58.5 7.7% 60.2 5.3% Ruland Road 138 kV 40.7 2.5% 38.0 1.6% Northport 138 kV (Elwood side) 40.4 2.1% 43.7 1.5% Hauppauge 138 kV 21.5 1.9% 17.1 1.0% Pilgrim 69 kV 36.6 1.8% 36.2 1.2% Elwood 138 kV 35.6 1.8% 35.4 1.2% Holtsville GT 138 kV 42.1 1.5% 39.2 1.0% Holbrook 138 kV 43.7 1.5% 41.6 1.0% Greenlawn 138 kV 28.6 1.3% 22.0 0.6% Oakwoodl38kV 27.6 1.2% 20.3 0.6% Note: Fault current levels shown are in kilo-amperes symmetrical with the Kings Park Project added. (Case 3 - As specified in SRIS plus Brentwood)
The impact of the proposed project on all other substations was less than 1 percent. This result was used as a guide to select the stations for which a detailed breaker fault duty analysis would be performed. In addition, KeySpan Energy selected other stations to investigate including Newbridge Road and the 69kV busses at the 138 KV stations where a potential impact was noted. Table No. 1 in Appendix FD, shows all of the stations that were analyzed in detail.
Five cases were studied to determine the effect of proposed new generating units. The first three cases are: 1. Existing No new units assumed to be installed on Long Island and no 330 MW HVDC tie. 2. SRIS Scope As specified in Appendix A. 3. SRIS + Brentwood SRIS Appendix A plus a Brentwood 79 MW plant3.
3 In November 2000, LIPA and NYPA announced plans to install a single LM 6000 unit at Brentwood. For conservatism, the analysis performed assumes that two units are added. 5/15/01 52 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings WBf Energy, LLC
In addition, two other sensitivity cases were performed to determine the impact of other plants on the fault duty levels with and without the Kings Park Energy Project.
4. SRIS w/o ANP SRIS Appendix A assumed installed except ANP, (no Brentwood Units). 5. SRIS Alternate SRIS Appendix A assumed installed except ANP and KeySpan Energy's Spagnoli, but including the Brentwood 79 MW plant.
The cases above were selected to assess the potential impact on the need to upgrade breakers. The results of this analysis are included in Appendix FD, Table 1.
The Kings Park Energy Project will result in up to four 138 kV circuit breakers at Northport and Pilgrim exceeding their existing interrupting capabilities:
?? Pilgrim breaker 1310 55 KA line 138-661 to Ruland Road ?? Pilgrim breaker 1320 55KA line 138-662 to Ruland Road ?? Pilgrim breaker 1410 15000 MVA line 138-871 to Hauppauge ?? Northport breaker 1400 55KA Northport GT
Table Nos. 2 & 3 of Appendix FD lists the nameplate ratings of all of the circuit breakers at these two substations. (In the case of the Pilgrim station, these are the only lower rated breakers at the station, the remaining breakers being rated at 63 KA). The proposed mitigation plan is to replace these breakers with 63 KA breakers, similar to what exists at these stations. This would increase the rating by approximately 15% eliminating the overloads.
In addition, the Kings Park Energy Project will cause a minimal increase, no greater than 0.5%, on the fault duty on several of the 69 kV breakers at the Holbrook substation. Depending on the assumptions of future units that are installed, breakers at these stations may be overstressed. However, with the addition of the LIPA DC tie, the Kings Park Energy Project and a 79 MW unit at Brentwood, the Holbrook breakers are not over stressed in the near term (See Case 5). Note that the cases assumed two new units at Brentwood, while only one is currently being installed. This would reduce the fault levels. Kings Park Energy, LLC will continue to work with LIPA and KeySpan Energy staff to monitor the impact of the facility to determine if any mitigation is needed.
5/15/01 53 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings flBPEnergy,flBmiergy, LLC ^^
Table No. 4 of Appendix FD indicates the effect of the Kings Park Energy Project on the level of short circuit current at the various interconnection substations in the LIPA territory. The table shows the symmetrical short circuit current with and without the Kings Park Energy Project. The increases range from 0.1 to 0.3 kA, less than 1 percent, at all interconnection points except at the Pilgrim side of the main Northport station bus, where the increase is as much as 8.3 percent over existing conditions. The impact on ISO-NE is much lower due to the added impedance of the phase shifter on the Northport interconnection line and the cable to Connecticut itself. As shown, in Table 4, the fault current level increase drops to less than 1.4 percent at Northport on the Connecticut side of the Northport Norwalk Harbor phase shifter. Further, KeySpan Energy determined that the impact diminishes to 0.9 percent at the New England side of the cable for a 3- phase fault and 0.6 percent for a single-phase fault. Because of the rapid decrease in the fault duty levels further from the Kings Park Energy Project and the minimal impact at LIPA's interconnection with NYISO and ISONE, KeySpan Energy determined that no further analysis was required at any other locations or of other utility systems. Analysis of three phase and single phase faults was also deemed appropriate for determining the impact of the Kings Park Energy Project on station equipment and that analysis of two phase line to ground faults was not necessary.
In summary, other than the identified breakers, no other impacts are expected from the installation of the Kings Park Energy Project and its impact on other facilities including lower voltage breakers or on other utilities is not material. Kings Park Energy, LLC will continue to work with LIPA and KeySpan Energy to monitor any other possible mitigation needs.
6. B. Critical Clearing Times The stability analysis considered the clearing times that LIPA currently has in place. No modifications to the current practice were determined to be needed because of the Kings Park Energy Project.
6. C. Performance of Auto-reclosing Because of the use of underground cables to connect the facility to the electric grid, no reclosing facilities are planned to be installed with the Kings Park Energy Project. No modifications to LIPA's system are expected. As such, there is no expected impact on the system for the addition of the Kings Park Project given its relative size and location to other units on the LIPA system.
5/15/01 54 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings rtWEnergy,SBrEnergy, LLC ^^
To the extent reclosing equipment already exists on Long Island these features were taken into consideration. KeySpan Energy agrees that there is no need to perform further analysis.
6. D. Project Benefits In addition to providing needed energy, capacity and a new competitive energy source to Long Island, the location and type of project provide two additional benefits to Long Island and the NYISO. These relate to operating reserves and improvement to the phase angle control of LIPA's phase shifter to Connecticut at Northport.
6. D. 1. Ancillary Services - Operating Reserve The KeySpan Energy GT/CT units under contract to LIPA are a major source of operating reserve due to their quick start capability. These include the units at Holbrook and Wading River. In the past year, the dispatch and need for these units to be available were the center of controversy between KeySpan Energy/LIPA and the NYISO. Because of the design of the unit and their rapid start capability the Kings Park Energy Project will provide additional operating reserves to Long Island when not dispatched to provide energy.
6. D. 2. Phase Angle Control KeySpan Energy has indicated that due to the addition of new units in New England, there are many hours during the year when the phase shifter on the Northport interconnection runs out of angle (i.e., even at its maximum angle the phase shifter cannot control the flow to maintain the desired level.) This leads to additional undesired power entering Long Island (e.g., loop flow.) The addition of the Kings Park Energy Project will increase the relative system phase angle on the LIPA system when the unit is operating. This in turn reduces the necessary angle that is required to block power from entering Long Island at Northport. Sensitivity cases indicate that given the same conditions with and without the Kings Park Energy Project, the angle improvement at Northport is approximately 10 degrees during summer peak periods. The actual gain will depend on whether the Kings Park Energy Project is dispatched as well as the operation of other units on Long Island and in Connecticut.
Section 7. Conclusions and Recommendations
In summary, the analysis conducted included an assessment of facilities required to interconnect with the LIPA transmission system based on LIPA's current system reinforcements plans for year
5/15/01 55 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings MFEnergy,Mrenerey, LLC ^P
2002 as base conditions. The delay of the plant to 2003 would have no material impacts on the results of the study. As a result of the study, no additional bulk system reinforcements, other than selected circuit breakers and terminal equipment were determined necessary to interconnect the Project to the LIPA system. At this time they include: the upgrading of four existing breakers to 63KA at Northport and Pilgrim substations to eliminate short circuit overloads; as well the addition of a new 138 kV breaker at Pilgrim and upgrading the terminal equipment on two local 69 kV circuits so as not to limit the conductor rating. Based on the conditions studied, the interconnection of the proposed Kings Park Energy Project with the proposed upgrades will not have a significant adverse impact on the LIPA system or New York State transfer capability. The facility complies with applicable NYISO criteria as well as LIPA's local reliability rules.
The project provides benefits including helping to meet Long Island's capacity needs, providing additional fast start operating reserves, and effectively provides additional phase angle control to LIPA's Northport interconnection to Connecticut. The study was conducted with review and concurrence of LIPA and Key Span Energy staff. The Kings Park Energy Project will comply with all applicable NERC, NPCC, and NYSRC design standards. In addition, the project will also comply with the LIPA Local Reliability Rules.
Additional review and analysis may be required as more detailed information becomes available for the Kings Park Energy Project as well as changes in the LIPA system or other proposed units. Kings Park Energy, LLC will work with LIPA, KeySpan Energy, the NYISO, the NYDPS and other interested parties in the future as determined to be necessary.
5/15/01 56 Report_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings!Wr•*Energy, Energy, LLC ^m
Section 8. Appendices
Appendix A - Plan of Interconnection - Description and one-line diagrams of Kings Park site and Pilgrim station. Appendix B - Plots of Load flow cases Appendix C - Kings Park Energy Generator Specifications Appendix D - Placeholder only Appendix E - Placeholder only Appendix F - Placeholder only Appendix FD - Short Circuit Analysis Results Appendix G - Placeholder only Appendix H - Subsystem, Monitoring and Contingency Files for Voltage and Contingency Analysis Appendix I - Contingency and Voltage Analysis for various cases Appendix J - Voltage Comparisons Appendix K - Contingency Voltage Information Appendix L - Placeholder only Appendix M - Long Island Transmission Interfaces Appendix N - Placeholder only Appendix O - Placeholder only Appendix P - PSS/E Dynamic Model Parameters of Kings Park Energy Plant, Rotor Test Results and Load Flow Plots Appendix Q - Stability Plots for Summer 2002 Appendix R - Stability Plots for Light Load Case with Low Northport Generation Appendix S - Stability Plots for Light Load Case with High Northport Generation
5/15/01 57 Reporf_final.doc SRIS Report for Kings WfMBP Energy, LLC ^F
Attachment
Kings Park Energy NYISO SRIS Scope
Approved by: TPAS June 26, 2000 Operating Committee: July 19, 2000
5/15/01 58 Report_final.doc Study Scope System Reliability Impact Study PPL Kings Park, LLC
June 30, 2000
1 Statement of Purpose The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of the proposed addition of up to 600 MW of generation, PPL Kings Paric, LLC (the Project), to be located in the town of Smithtown, Long Island. PP&L Global has renamed Pilgrim Energy to PPL Kings Park, LLC and this document confirms, herein, that the project will be referred to as such in the future. The facility is proposed to interconnect to the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) grid. The study will assess the impact on the reliability of the bulk power transmission system with emphasis on the Long Island transmission system
2 Background PP&L Global has submitted two Transmission and Interconnection Study requests to the NYISO with respect to the Pilgrim Energy site. The first is for the addition of 300 MW, Pilgrim Energy, (NYISO Queue Position 42) and the second is the expansion of the site to include the Pilgrim Energy Expansion 300 MW (Queue Position 47). This study will evaluate the two requests as PPL Kings Park, LLC in one study. It is expected that the facility would connect to LIPA's Pilgrim 138 kV substation through the addition of a new underground transmission cable between the site and the Pilgrim substation, using the existing 138 kV right of way (ROW) between the Northport power station and Pilgrim substation. The anticipated in service date is mid-2002.
The following outlines the scope of analysis to be completed in order to obtain the necessary approvals from the NYISO and other parties, leading to the submission of an Article X filing with the New York Public Service Commission (NYPSC).
3 Analysis The system impact study will consist of an evaluation of the addition of up to 600 MW of generating facilities at the PPL Kings Park, LLC site to be connected to
1 Study Scope System Reliability Impact Study PPL Kings Park, LLC
June 30, 2000
the Pilgrim 138 kV station using new underground cable(s). (NYSIO Queue #42 and 47). The study will determine the impact of these projects by conducting planning studies described below. The study will include the necessary technical analyses (Thermal, Voltage, Short Circuit and Stability) to evaluate the impact of the interconnection of the Project on the LIPA system. New York Independent System Operator ("NYISO") system and the Independent System Operator New England ("ISONE") system and Pennsylvania-Jersey-Maryland ("PJM-ISO") systems. Both peak (summer) and off-peak (winter) load conditions will be investigated, and extreme contingency scenarios will be evaluated at various load level in accordance with the "NPCC Basic Criteria for the Design and Operation of Interconnected Power System", the NYISO Transmission Expansion and Interconnection Manual and LIPA's interconnection criteria and planning criteria. The analysis will include the currently available data regarding the requirements of these systems, and the study will be done in consultation with Central Hudson, Consolidated Edison, LIPA, NYPA, Niagara Mohawk, NYSEG, Orange and Rockland, Rochester Gas & Electric, ISONE, and PJM-ISO. This study will consider any new facilities ahead of this project in the NYISO Queue. The Interconnection Study will also include the new facilities to be installed by the Project including the circuit connection between the Project site and LIPA Substation as well as any other system upgrades required. b. Interconnection Plan The analysis will determine an interconnection plan, including one-line diagrams, to integrate the PPL Kings Park, LLC generating plant with LIPA's system. c. Evaluation of Impact on Transfer Limits and Transfer Capability The analysis will determine the impact, if any, of the Project on the normal and emergency transfer limits of the following interfaces, if applicable: LIPA transmission interfaces. Consolidated Edison cable system, UPNY-Con Ed, Study Scope System Reliability Impact Study PPL Kings Park, LLC
June 30, 2000
Central East, Total East, PJM-NY, and NE-NY. In each case, sufficient analysis will be conducted to determine the most limiting of the thermal, voltage or stability limits. d. Thermal Analysis Evaluate the thermal performance of all pertinent system components impacted by the Project, such as transmission cables, transmission lines, and transformers during normal and emergency conditions established in accordance with the criteria indicated above, to ensure that these components operate within their rated load capabilities. Both peak and off-peak system load conditions will be analyzed. e. Voltage Analysis Evaluate the voltage performance of the system during normal and emergency conditions to ensure that estabhshed voltage limits are maintained at all pertinent systems buses. Both peak and off-peak system load conditions will be analyzed Emergency conditions examined will include the most severe contingencies estabhshed in accordance with the criteria above and as discussed below. The voltage conditions will be evaluated prior to and following those contingencies.
PPL Kings Park, LLC shall have the generators designed to provide appropriate reactive support in accordance with the LIPA Interconnect Guide for Independent Power Producers. f. Stability Analysis Evaluate the transient stability performance of the Project with the interconnected system during and after the most severe system disturbances estabhshed in accordance with the criteria above. Both peak and off-peak system load conditions will be evaluated as appropriate for the following contingencies including but not limited to: Study Scope System Reliability Impact Study PPL Kings Park, LLC
June 30, 2000
i) Permanent three phase fault on any generator, transmission circuit, or bus section, with normal clearing; ii) Permanent phase to ground fault on any generator, transmission circuit, transformer or bus section, with delayed fault clearing; in) loss ofany element without a fault; iv) and a permanent phase to ground fault on a circuit breaker, with normal fault clearing v) loss ofa double circuit tower.
In addition, system stability during and after the following extreme contingencies, as appropriate, (which exceed in severity the contingencies (i) through (v) above) will be analyzed to determine that there are no effects that may cause widespread system disturbance including but not limited to: - vi) loss of the entire capability of a generating station, vii) loss of all lines emanating from a generating station, switching station or substation, viii) a permanent three phase fault on any generator, transmission circuit, transformer or bus section, with delayed fault clearing, and ix) the sudden loss of a large load or major load center.
In addition, the proposed testing will evaluate the critical clearing times for the new and existing units in the vicinity of the project g. Short Circuit Analysis Evaluate the effect of interconnecting the Project on the fault duty levels of individual breakers at all 34.5kV, 46kV, 69kV, 115kV, 138kV, 230kV and 345kV ^F Study Scope ^W System Reliability Impact Study PPL Kings Park, LLC
June 30, 2000
substations for Central Hudson, Consolidated Edison, LIFA, NYPA, Niagara Mohawk, NYSEG, Orange and Rockland, Rochester Gas & Electric, PJM-ISO and ISONE, if applicable. (It is anticipated that only the LIFA area and selected stations in neighboring regions will need to be reviewed.) The analysis will be performed using the Classical Method, in accordance with the criteria listed above and be performed for summer peak conditions only. Fault duties will be expressed in symmetrical interrupting values, and will include simulations for three types of faults: i. three phase-to-ground fault; ii. two phase-to-ground fault; and iii. single phase-to-ground fault.
Where the ratings of the existing breakers are not adequate to interrupt the fault duties determined, alternate measures will be investigated. h. Auto-reclosing Auto-reclosing will be investigated for its appropriateness for this project. i. Extreme Contingency Analysis Assessment i. Discuss significant load flow studies showing the base case and post-fault conditions for the most severe contingencies tests, as specified in Section 7.0 of the NPCC's Basic Criteria, entitled "Extreme Contingency Assessment" Report and LIPA contingencies on the most severe contingencies tested, ii. Discuss significant stability studies showing the effect of contingencies, as specified in Section 7.0 of the NPCC's Basic Criteria, entitled "Extreme Contingency Assessment" Report and LIPA contingencies on the most severe contingencies tested. Study Scope System Reliability Impact Study PPL Kings Park, LLC
June 30, 2000
4 Load Flow Base Cases Load flow base cases used in the study shall be the summer 2002 and winter peak (2002/2003) periods based on the latest available NYISO/NPCC data base, modified as necessary to incorporate known changes and as noted below. The following are the base cases to be used in the study: a. Summer peak without the PPL Kings Park, LLC project and with other new projects as proposed according to Appendix A. b. Case "a" with PPL Kings Park, LLC facility. c. Winter peak without the PPL Kings Park, LLC project and with other new projects as proposed according to the Appendix A. d. Case "c" with the PPL Kings Park, LLC facility. e. Summer off-peak without the PPL Kings Park, LLC project and with other new projects as proposed according to Appendix A. f Case "e" with the PPL Kings Park, LLC facility.
Modifications to the above may be explored and/or sensitivity studies will be performed, if the projects in the queue result in unsatisfactory reliability prior to the addition of the PPL Kings Park, LLC facility as well as to study the impact of the addition of other plants.
5 Assumptions a. Re-dispatchinR of the generation For analysis purposes, the PPL Kings Park, LLC project will displace generation from units located outside the LIRA system. b. Modeling of Control Devices Phase angle regulators (PARs), switched shunts and LTC transformers will be modeled as regulating facilities under pre-contingency conditions, and as non- regulating facilities under post-transient contingency conditions. Study Scope # System Reliability Impact Study PPL Kings Park, LLC
June 30, 2000
c. Transfer Locations In order to determine transfer limits, it is necessary to vary the power flow across the interfaces(s) under study by increasing generation at one or more locations on one side of the interface, and decreasing generation by a like amount at one or more locations on the other side of the interface. The assumed locations for increasing and decreasing generation for evaluating transfer limits of the various interfaces will be as follows:
Interface Location for Location for Increasing Decreasing Generation Generation NYPP- LIPA 30% Downstate 100% Long Island 70% Upstate LIPA- NYPP 100% Long Island 70% Downstate 30% Upstate
6 Results and Recommendations A report will be prepared, following the report outline specified in the NYISO Transmission Planning Guideline No. 1-0. ^Pi Study Scope ^Pf System Reliability Impact Study PPL Kings Park, LLC
June 30, 2000
APPENDIX A
Baseline Assumptions for the PPL Kings Park LLC Project (*)
In accordance with the NYISO Proposed SRIS Criteria and Procedures, the baseline assumptions include all currendy existing facilities and the following proposed units:
1. Athens- 1080 MW 2. Bethlehem - 350 MW
In addition, the base line case shall include:
3. LIPA DC Tie - Shoreham to New Haven - 300 MW 4. ENRON - Far Rockaway Barge - 79 MW 5. Brookhaven Energy (ANP- Brookhaven) - 580 MW 6. KeySpan - Spagnoli Road - 79 MW GT
(*) All listed units are included in the short circuit analysis. Thermal, voltages, and stabihty analyses may include, if required, all the above units.
In addition the Applicant may perform sensitivity studies that include the addition of other proposed facilities.