DOCSLIB.ORG

1 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Best Available Retrofit Technology Determination Facility Northport Po

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Best Available Retrofit Technology Determination Facility Northport Po New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Best Available Retrofit Technology Determination Facility Northport Power Station Huntington, NY Location Suffolk County Permit ID 1-4726-00130 Fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants Source Category of more than 250 mmBtu/hr heat input I. Introduction The above referenced facility contains at least one emission source that falls under the requirements of the federal Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) rule under 40 CFR Part 51 and Appendix Y, and the New York State BART regulation as codified under 6 NYCRR Part 249. These requirements affect an emission source which fulfills the following criteria: 1. Falls within one of 26 specific source categories, 2. Was not in operation prior to August 7, 1962 and was in existence on August 7, 1977, or underwent reconstruction between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977, and 3. Has a potential to emit (collectively, with other emission sources at the facility which fulfill items 1 and 2) of 250 tons per year or more of any visibility-impairing pollutant. In accordance with BART requirements, each BART-eligible facility performed a BART analysis of controls for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. This analysis took into account such factors as the cost of controls, energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any existing pollution control technology in use at the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology. This document summarizes the reasoning behind the Department’s BART determination, including the level of controls and emission limits that constitute BART for this facility’s eligible emission source(s). Each analysis and BART determination was submitted to the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) for their review in accordance with Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements. Comments received from the FLMs on this determination will be included with its official submission to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Department has modified this facility’s Title V permit to include the enforceable BART limits. The modifications were noticed in New York State’s Environmental Notice Bulletin on December 7, 2011. Upon completion of this public notice period, the modified permit was submitted to EPA for review on February 7, 2012. The final modified permit was issued on March 27, 2012. This permit is now being submitted to EPA as a revision to the New York Regional Haze SIP. 1 II. BART Analysis Summary National Grid submitted a BART analysis for the Northport Power Station dated September 27, 2010 to the Department. The following emission sources had previously been identified as BART-eligible and were therefore included in the analysis: Boiler No. 1 – Emission Unit U-00001; Emission Source ES001 Boiler No. 2 – Emission Unit U-00002; Emission Source ES003 Boiler No. 3 – Emission Unit U-00003; Emission Source ES005 Boiler No. 4 – Emission Unit U-00004; Emission Source ES007 • These four units are identical Combustion Engineering tangentially-fired steam electric boilers rated at 3,695 mmBtu/hr heat input. These units are primarily natural gas fired, with backup oil firing capability. A summary of the analysis’ findings for each pollutant follows: • SO2 The Northport facility primarily burns natural gas, which results in negligible SO2 emissions. The facility is currently permitted to burn oil with a maximum sulfur content of 1.0 percent for Units 1 through 3, and 0.75 for Unit 4. National Grid commits to limiting the fuel sulfur content of Units 1 through 4 to 0.7 percent. National Grid notes that this low-sulfur fuel is below the 1.0 percent sulfur limit in oil referenced by the Appendix Y guidance. Aside from the economic aspects of switching to lower-sulfur oil, National Grid cites additional technical issues with the delivery methods which complicate lower-sulfur alternatives. This unit is required to burn oil at times, as required by local reliability rule I-R5 (the “minimum oil burn” rule) which states that “the NYS bulk power system shall be operated so that a loss of a single gas facility does not result in the uncontrolled loss of electric load within the Long Island zone.” For this reason the facility is unable to accept a permit condition limiting the amount of oil burned in order to further reduce SO2 emissions, as such a limit would detract from the operational flexibility needed to meet the reliability requirement. The amount of oil burned is a factor of load level and the number of units online, though real-time conditions may arise that require variations from the scheduled operation. • NOx In 2006 and 2007, National Grid began the evaluation of NOx control technologies in anticipation of future regulatory requirements (i.e. the Clean Air Interstate Rule and revisions to NOx RACT regulations). The primary technologies evaluated were selective catalytic reduction (SCR), selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR), and separated overfire air (SOFA). 2 SCR was the first add-on technology to be evaluated because it offers the greatest potential NOx reductions. One issue with SCR technology is that effectiveness degrades with non-steady state operation, and this unit is no longer a base load unit but rather a load following unit. Additionally, structural problems and physical constraints on each unit would impede construction—because space is limited at the Northport facility, the SCR units would potentially have to be suspended, also adding cost. Previous estimates put the cost of an SCR unit at $100M, but a more conservative value of $70M was used for the cost analysis. Based on a 100 percent capacity factor, the cost effectiveness of this unit would be $11,000 per ton of NOx reduced; based on actual load and emission forecasts for each unit, cost effectiveness would be approximately $27,000 per ton. SNCR was also investigated during this time period, and had been evaluated in the mid 1990’s as well. The resulting finding was that SNCR produced benefits no greater than that of SOFA, with additional operational constraints. The ineffectiveness of SNCR (with vendor quotes of control efficiency no higher than 20 percent) was in large part due to the load-following operation of the boilers; SNCR is much more effective for base load units in which the temperature profile inside the boiler is held constant. National Grid is proposing SOFA as BART for Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, to be operating on each boiler by January 1, 2014. National Grid is committing to NOx emission rates of 0.20 lb/mmBtu on oil and 0.10 lb/mmBtu on gas, for compliance on a 24-hour average basis. Because National Grid selected the most stringent NOx control option that was technically and economically feasible, they did not proceed with a visibility analysis. • PM Each of the four units at Northport is currently equipped with electrostatic precipitators (ESP). National Grid notes there is no feasible or cost-effective PM control technology available beyond an ESP for a natural gas-fired unit utilizing low sulfur oil as a backup fuel, and therefore request the current control be considered BART. III. BART Determination The Department finds that the following shall constitute BART for Northport Power Station Units 1 through 4: • SO2 The Department accepts National Grid’s commitment to lowering its permitted fuel sulfur limit from 1.0 to 0.7 weight percent for Units 1 through 4. This is in line with the guidance provided by EPA for sulfur in fuel of 1.0 percent or less by weight (Appendix Y, Section IV.E.4, “SO2 limits for Utility Boilers”). EPA also notes in the BART rule that “the most appropriate control option for oil-fired EGUs, regardless of capacity, is to set limits on the sulfur content of the fuel oil burned in the unit” (70 FR 39133). 3 It should also be noted that the Department is pursuing a regulatory revision to Part 225-1 to lower the acceptable fuel sulfur limit to 0.5 percent statewide (not including New York City, Nassau County, and the lower Hudson Valley area, which are already subject to more stringent limits). This revision is tentatively scheduled to be effective for 2014. The Department has made owners aware of this upcoming requirement and indicated it may supersede BART limits such as the 0.7 percent limit recommended by National Grid for Northport Units 1 through 4. National Grid has committed to “comply with any future, more stringent requirements under Part 225-1.” • NOx The Department accepts National Grid’s commitment to install SOFA on Units 1 through 4 as BART for NOx. Other options were ruled out due to economic infeasibility (SCR) or lesser control efficiency (SNCR). National Grid is committing to NOx emission rates of 0.20 lb/mmBtu on oil and 0.10 lb/mmBtu on gas, for compliance on a 24-hour average basis. • PM The Department accepts that no additional controls beyond the existing ESPs are necessary for compliance with BART for PM. The facility’s 0.1 lb/mmBtu particulate emission limit will remain in place. 4 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annual Disclosure Report
    ANNUAL DISCLOSURE REPORT of the LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY (FISCAL YEAR 2020) This Annual Disclosure Report does not constitute an offer to sell or solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. The information set forth herein has been furnished by the Authority and LIPA and includes information obtained from other sources, all of which are believed to be reliable. The information and expressions of opinion contained herein are subject to change without notice and nothing herein shall, under any circumstances, create any implication that there has been no change in the affairs of the Authority, LIPA, PSEG, PSEG Long Island, National Grid or Exelon since the date hereof. Such information and expressions of opinion are made for the purpose of providing information to prospective investors and are not to be used for any other purpose or relied on by any other party. This Annual Disclosure Report contains statements which, to the extent they are not recitations of historical fact, constitute “forward-looking statements.” In this respect, the words “estimate,” “project,” “anticipate,” “expect,” “intend,” “believe” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. A number of important factors affecting the Authority’s and LIPA’s business and financial results could cause actual results to differ materially from those stated in the forward-looking statements. References to website addresses presented herein are for informational purposes only and may be in the form of a hyperlink solely for the reader’s convenience. Unless specified otherwise, such websites and the information or links contained therein are not incorporated into, and are not part of, this Annual Disclosure Report.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019-2028 Comprehensive Reliability Plan
    2019-2028 Comprehensive Reliability Plan A Report from the New York Independent System Operator Draft Report for April 12, 2019 ESPWG/TPAS Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................... 7 RELIABILITY PLANNING PROCESS FINDINGS FOR 2019-2028 ................................................................................................ 8 Finding One – Resource Adequacy .............................................................................................. 8 Finding Two – Transmission Security ........................................................................................... 8 Finding Three – Plan Risk Factors and Highlights of Potential Developments ......................... 8 PEAKER RULE SCENARIO .................................................................................................................................................... 14 Con Edison Assessment ............................................................................................................. 15 Year 2023 ...................................................................................................................................................... 16 Year 2025 .....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • E,XTENSIONS of REMARKS SENATOR JENNINGS RANDOLPH Our Citizens and the Quality of Our En­ Anticipated, However, and in Recent DISCUSSES INADEQUACY of the Vironment
    September 2, 1970 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 30753 E,XTENSIONS OF REMARKS SENATOR JENNINGS RANDOLPH our citizens and the quality of our en­ anticipated, however, and in recent DISCUSSES INADEQUACY OF THE vironment. years, there was a reluctance in many FEDERAL RESEARCH, DEVELOP­ Securing adequate supplies of fuels, cases to develop alternative sources of oil MENT, AND DEMONSTRATION EF­ particularly coal, for the next 5 years is or coal production. The required new FORTS ON METHOD TO CONTROL one of the most pressing problems facing mines were not capitalized and opened AND ABATE POLLUTION RESULT­ many electric utilities. to the extent originally envisioned. This ING FROM FUELS AND ENERGY During the past 18 months fuel stocks is part of the fuels crisis that has PRODUCTION-THE ENVIRON­ have reportedly slipped from sufficient developed. MENT IMPACT OF FUELS AND EN­ coal for at least 90 days' operation to Abundant supplies of coal and other ERGY PRODUCTION ARE UNAC­ quantities sufficient for only about 40 fossil fuels are in the ground; our short­ CEPTABLE days' operation. The causes contributing coming is our capacity to extract these to this serious problem were reported in resources from the earth and convert the April 18 issue of Business Week mag­ them into electricity and deliver the en­ HON. JENNINGS RANDOLP~ azine. They include a willingness of the ergy to the ultimate consumer. OF WEST VIRGINIA Japanese to pay high coal prices, a short­ Accustomed to doubling electric gen­ IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES age of railway hopper cars, wildcat erating capacity every decade, we have Tuesday, September 1, 1970 strikes, and the impact of the Coal Mine lost sight of the fact that today this Health and Safety Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Via Hand Delivery
    J ATTORNEYS AT LAW\ PLLC 1600 LAIDLEYTOWER EO.BOX 553 CHARLESTON,WESTVIRGINIA 25322 *TELEPHONE 304-340-1000 *TELECOPIER: 304-340-1 I30 wJacksonkelkcorn DIRECT TELEPHONE: (304) 340-1214 DIRECT TELECOPIER (304) 340-1080 E-Mail: snchambersldiacksonkellv.com State Bar No. 694 May 26,2009 Via Hand Delivery Ms. Sandra Squire Executive Secretary Public Service Commission of West Virginia 201 Brooks Street Charleston, West Virginia 25301 Re: CASE NO. 09-0360-E-CS Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of an Electric Wholesale Generating Facility and Related Transmission Support Line of Less than 200 kV and Associated Interconnection Facilities in Mineral County, West Virginia. Dear Ms. Squire: Enclosed for filing on behalf of Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC in the above-styled case are an original and twelve copies of Direct Testimony of the following: 1. James D. Barnes 2. Randall A. Childs 3. Terrence J. DeWan 4. David Friend 5. Paul Kerlinger 6. Kathryn M. Kuranda 7. William E. Llewellyn 8. Jeffrey H. Maymon 9. Mike Sponsler 10. Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. {C1547103.1} Clarksburg, WV Martinsburg, WV Morgantown, WV Wheeling, WV Denver, CO Lexington, KY Pittsburgh, PA Washington, D.C. Ms. Sandra Squire May 26,2009 Page 2 Please advise if you have any questions. Sincerely, SNC/dmb Enclosures cc: John R. Auville, Esq. (w/enc.) Bradley W. Stephens, Esq. (wlenc.) Vincent Trivelli, Esq. (w/enc.) James M. Cookman (w/enc.) David K. Friend (w/enc.) Jennie Henthorn (w/enc.) {C 1453 103.1} PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON Case No.
    [Show full text]
  • Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country
    September 2005 Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country NCPIRG Education Fund Made in the U.S.A. Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country September 2005 NCPIRG Education Fund Acknowledgements Written by Supryia Ray, Clean Air Advocate with NCPIRG Education Fund. © 2005, NCPIRG Education Fund The author would like to thank Alison Cassady, Research Director at NCPIRG Education Fund, and Emily Figdor, Clean Air Advocate at NCPIRG Education Fund, for their assistance with this report. To obtain a copy of this report, visit our website or contact us at: NCPIRG Education Fund 112 S. Blount St, Ste 102 Raleigh, NC 27601 (919) 833-2070 www.ncpirg.org Made in the U.S.A. 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary...............................................................................................................4 Background: Toxic Mercury Emissions from Power Plants ..................................................... 6 The Bush Administration’s Mercury Regulations ................................................................... 8 Findings: Power Plant Mercury Emissions ........................................................................... 12 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by State........................................................................ 12 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by County and Zip Code ............................................... 12 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by Facility.................................................................... 15 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by Company
    [Show full text]
  • Piscivory and Prey Size Selection in Young- Of-The-Year Bluefish: Predator Preference Or Size-Dependent Capture Success?
    MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Vol. 114: 59-69,1994 Published November 3 Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1 Piscivory and prey size selection in young- of-the-year bluefish: predator preference or size-dependent capture success? Francis Juanes*,David 0. Conover Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New York. Stony Brook. New York 11794-5000, USA ABSTRACT: Young-of-the-year bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix become piscivorous at a very small size/age. When feeding on Atlantic silversides Menidia menidia in the laboratory, bluefish forage in groups and, unlike many other piscivores, tend to attack their prey tail-first. Attack distances, times and velocities as well as attack rates were not size-dependent Handling tlmes and attack success rates, howcver, were strongly determined by both predator and prey slze When given a choice of silverside sizes, all bluefish sizes consumed primarily small prey. These results suggest that bluefish attack all prey sizes upon encounter but capture primarily small prey. Size selectivity may be a passive process mediated by differential size-based capture success KEY WORDS: Piscivory . Prey size selection Foraging theory . Capture success . Bluefish INTRODUCTION prey are preferentially consumed (Brooks & Dodson 1965, Werner & Hall 1974), while others have shown As fish grow they tend to broaden the size range of the reverse (Bence & Murdoch 1986, Walton et al. prey items they ingest, thus increasing the average 1992). Confer & O'Bryan (1989) demonstrated that size size of prey consumed. This increase in prey size has selectivities of planktivorous fish depend on whether been attributed to ontogenetic (and often allometric) feeding is averaged over short or long time periods.
    [Show full text]
  • Norwalk Power Economic Impact Analysis City of Norwalk & Manresa Association
    NORWALK POWER ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF NORWALK & MANRESA ASSOCIATION FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT Photo Credit: Geoffrey Steadman 12/14/18 Table of Contents Introduction...........................................................................1 Summary of Findings................................................................3 Section 1: Context and Reuse Planning....................................7 Section 2: Site Characteristics & History.................................11 Section 3: Remediation Analysis.............................................19 Section 4: Natural Resources..................................................31 Section 5: Economic Development Profile...............................37 Section 6: Community Perspective........................................45 Section 7: Development Constraints......................................53 Section 8: Reuse Options........................................................59 Section 9: Remedial Strategies & Cost Estimate...................77 Section 10: Recommended Redevelopment Concepts.........81 Section 11: Implementation Plan...........................................91 Appendix................................................................................95 Introduction Manresa Island is comprised of two parcels that occupy approximately 144 acres of Norwalk’s shoreline. In 1960, a power plant was commissioned on the southern parcel by Connecticut Light & Power. The plant begun operations as a coal fired plant but was converted to oil in 1972. In 1999, the
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between Cooling Water Capacity Utilization, Electric
    New York State Department of Environmental Conservation The Relationship between Cooling Water Capacity Utilization, Electric Generating Capacity Utilization, and Impingement and Entrainment at New York State Steam Electric Generating Facilities Technical Document William C. Nieder, Biologist II (Ecology) Steam Electric Unit Bureau of Habitat Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources Albany, NY 12233 July 2010 Citations This report was prepared by: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Bureau of Habitat Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233 This report is a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Technical Document and should be cited in the literature in the following manner: Nieder, W.C. 2010. The Relationship between Cooling Water Capacity Utilization, Electric Generating Capacity Utilization, and Impingement and Entrainment at New York State Steam Electric Generating Facilities. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Technical Document. Albany, NY. July 2010. Page 1 of 27 Abstract Throughout New York State, many industrial facilities operate cooling water intake structures and use large volumes of surface waters for cooling machinery or for condensing steam. The steam electric generating industry uses the largest percentage of this cooling water: up to 17 billion gallons per day. The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and 6 NYCRR § 704.5 requires that the location, design, construction and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the “best technology available” (BTA) to minimize adverse environmental impact (i.e., impingement and entrainment). Understanding the relationship between cooling water use, electric generation and the associated adverse environmental impact is critical to determining how this impact can be minimized by managing flow and generation at a facility.
    [Show full text]
  • South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (The Applicant), Columbia, South Carolina, for the Virgil C
    A - - i SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This Final Environmental Statement was prepared by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing. 1. This action is administrative. 2. The proposed action is the issuance of a construction permit to the South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (the Applicant), Columbia, South Carolina, for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit I (the Summer Station), a power reactor located in Fairfield County, S.C., 26 miles northwest of Columbia, S.C., and 1 mile east of the Broad River, near Parr, South Carolina (Docket No. 50-395). Unit I will employ a pressurized water reactor to produce up to 2775 megawatts thermal (MWt). A steam turbine-generator will use this heat to provide 900 MW (net) of electrical power capacity. A "stretch" power level of 2914 MWt is considered in the assessments contained in this statement. The exhaust steam will be cooled and condensed by once-through flow of water from Monticello Reservoir, a 6800-acre reservoir to be created by the Applicant for operating a proposed pumped storage hydroelectric station near the nuclear station. Although the Summer Station is to be constructed as a closely related part of the Applicant's pumped storage project, for the purpose of this statement only the environmental impacts of construction and operation at the nuclear generating station are evaluated. At this time, the Federal Power Commission is conducting an environmental review of the construction and operation of the Fairfield Pumped Storage Hydrostation (FPC No. 1894). These two environmental statements, together, will cover the overall environmental impact of the construction and operation of the conglomerate.
    [Show full text]
  • LONG ISLAND SOUND Coastal Management Program
    LONG ISLAND SOUND Coastal Management Program your coast, your future The preparation of the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program was financially aided by a federal grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. The New York State Coastal Management Program is administered by the New York State Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization, 41 State Street, Albany, New York 12231. January 1999 Table of Contents List of Tables .............................................................iv List of Maps ..............................................................iv INTRODUCTION ......................................................... 1 Chapter 1 CHARTING the COURSE .............................................. 3 A VISION FOR LONG ISLAND SOUND ................................. 3 The Developed Coast .............................................. 3 The Natural Coast ................................................. 4 The Public Coast .................................................. 5 The Working Coast ................................................ 6 IMPLEMENTING THE VISION ......................................... 6 Chapter 2 LONG ISLAND SOUND COASTAL BOUNDARY ......................... 7 Chapter 3 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 13 THE DEVELOPED COAST ............................................ 13 Developed Coast
    [Show full text]
  • Information for Vpdes Permit Renewal Application Clean
    GP Big Island, LLC INFORMATION FOR VPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 316(B) COMPLIANCE VPDES PERMIT VA0003026 Big Island Mill – Big Island, VA October 2019 Revised November 2019 Information for VPDES Permit Renewal Application - CWA Section 316(b) Compliance GP Big Island, LLC – Big Island, VA VPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION INFORMATION FOR 316(B) COMPLIANCE Prepared for: GP Big Island, LLC Todd R. Boykin, PE (VA) 9363 Lee Jackson Highway Principal Engineer Big Island, VA 24526 Prepared by: Arcadis U.S., Inc. 9954 Mayland Drive Suite 2400 Richmond Virginia 23233 Tel 804 740 0181 Fax 804 217 8292 Date: October 2019 Revised November 2019 This document is intended only for the use of the individual or entity for which it was prepared and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this document is strictly prohibited. arcadis.com Information for VPDES Permit Renewal Application - CWA Section 316(b) Compliance GP Big Island, LLC – Big Island, VA CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 1 2 SOURCE WATER PHYSICAL DATA [§122.21(r)(2)] ........................................................................... 3 2.1 Description of the Source Water Body............................................................................................ 3 2.1.1 James River ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Approval of the Annual Report to the Board on the Resource Planning, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Policy
    FOR CONSIDERATION July 25, 2018 TO: The Board of Trustees FROM: Thomas Falcone REQUEST: Approval of the Annual Report to the Board on the Resource Planning, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Policy Requested Action The Board of Trustees of the Long Island Power Authority (the “Board”) is requested to adopt a resolution finding that the Long Island Power Authority and its subsidiary, LIPA (collectively the “Authority”) have complied with the Board Policy on Resource Planning, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (the “Policy”) for the period since the last annual review, and approving the annual report for the Policy, which resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. Background By Resolution No.1372, dated July 26, 2017, the Board adopted the Policy. The Policy sets objectives for resource planning, power supply procurement, portfolio management, and energy efficiency programs t hat support the Authority’s mission and the State’s clean energy goals. The Policy also establishes regular performance reporting by Staff to enable the Board to assess performance against the objectives of the Policy. Compliance with the Policy Staff concludes that the Authority has complied with the objectives of the Policy for the period since the last annual review for the reasons set forth below. Planning The Policy states “Planning for and maintaining a power supply portfolio that meets applicable New York State Independent System Operator (NYISO) and New York State Reliability Council requirements, environmental standards, and the State’s Clean Energy Standard” and “Updating the Integrated Resource Plan (“IRP”) to reassess system needs, when such updates are necessary, but no less often than every five years.” • Pursuant to the IRP reviewed by the Board in July 2017, Long Island capacity reserves are expected to exceed the NYISO’s minimum capacity requirement through 2035 without adding new resources.
    [Show full text]