Cohen & Dax, P.E

Home , Osborne Apartments, Webster Hotel

,y:, ..,- - (.-.::)~ Y u'£" ()~....J

Cohen & Dax, P.e. ATTORNEYS

90 State Street, Suite 1030 Jeffrey C. Cohen Albany, New York 12207 John W. Dax www.cohendax.com

Telephone: (518) 432-1002 Facsimile: (518)432-1028

Service via facsimile and email not accepted

,•.. _~ February 22,2008 ,"" , ; -'

Via Hand Delivery .: ,) f0 ) Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary NYS Department of Public Service Three Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223-1350

Re: Case 08-T-0034 - Hudson Transmission Partners, LLC Application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need

Dear Secretary Brilling:

Hudson Transmission Partners ("HTP") makes this submission to supplement its Application, dated and filed on Jan 15,2008, and to withdraw the motion filed on the same date by which HTP sought (i) a waiver ofthe requirements of Sections 85-2.9(d)(2) and 86.10 ofthe Commission's rules, (ii) confirmation that the proposed facility is in a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor and (iii) permission to delay the filing of the System Reliability Impact Study ("SRIS") required by Section 88.4(a)(4). This submission is also responsive to your letter dated February 13, 2008.

By its January 15 motion (noticed for comment in a ruling dated February 4, 2008), HTP sought relief from the requirements to include in the Application cost information (Section 86.10) and maps showing the archeological, historic, and other resources within a two mile corridor as required by Section 86.3(a)(l)(iii), as modified by Section 85-2.9(d)(2). With the attachments to this letter, HTP supplements its Application in both those regards, submitting herewith Figure 4-6A, and Table 4-6A and a new Exhibit 9. HTP also sought permission to delay the submittal of the SRIS as approved by the Transmission Planning Advisory Committee ("TP AS") of the New York Independent System Operator ("NYISO"). With this letter, HTP is submitting the SRIS, which was approved by TPAS on February 21,2008. HTP is also supplementing its application with the submission of a new page Exhibit E-3-9; new Figures E-3-1(c), E-3 Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary NYS Department of Public Service February 22,2008 Page 2

I(d) and E-3-2; and new Figure E-4-1. Finally, we enclose a corrected cover page to Exhibit E-4 and a corrected page E-4-1.

New page E-3-9 and Figures E-3-1 and E-3-2 provide the information identified in Item I of your February 13 letter. Figure E-4-1 provides the drawing identified in Item 2. Figure 4-6A and Table 4-6-A provide the information discussed in Item 3. Exhibit 9 provides the information discussed in Item 5. HTP is withdrawing the request discussed in Item 4. The SRIS, discussed in Item 6 of your February 13 letter, is enclosed.

HTP is submitting Exhibit 9 in redacted form, consistent with the Commission's rules governing the treatment of records that a submitting party seeks to have protected from public disclosure under the Freedom ofInformation Law (Public Officers Law, Section 84, et seq.). HTP is submitting a request to the Administrative Law Judge William Bouteiller for a determination that the redacted information included in Exhibit 9 is confidential information eligible for protection from public disclosure; a copy ofthat request is enclosed.

With the Application thus supplemented, HTP no longer seeks waiver of, or permission to delay complying with, any requirements governing the contents of applications pursuant to Article VII of the Public Service Law. As a consequence, HTP is withdrawing its January 15 motion.

Proof of service of this letter and attachments on the parties listed on the attached service list is enclosed.

JWD:lmm

Enclosures

cc: Attached Service List Service List for HTP Supplemental Filing 2/22/2008

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg Scott M. Stringer, Manhattan Borough President City Hall 1 Centre Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10007 New York, NY 10007

Pete Grannis, Commissioner Elizabeth Hohenstein NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12223-1011 Albany, NY 12223-1011

William Little, Esq. Pat Foye, Downstate Chair NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Empire State Development Corp. 625 Broadway 633 Third Avenue Albany, NY 12223-1011 New York, NY 10017-6706

Patrick M. Hooker, Commissioner Hon. Lorraine Cortes-Vasquez, Secretary of State NYS Dept. of Agriculture and Markets NYS Department of State 1DB Airline Drive 41 State Street Albany, NY 12235 Albany, NY 12231-0001

Jeff Zappieri Assemblyman Richard N. Gottfried NYS Department of State 75th Assembly District Division of Coastal Resources 242 West 27th Street 41 State Street New York, NY 10001 Albany, NY 12231-0001

Carol Ash, Commissioner Senator Thomas K. Duane NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and 29th Senate District Historic Preservation 322 Eighth Avenue, Suite 1700 Empire State Plaza, Agency Bldg. New York, NY 10001 Albany, NY 12238

Douglas Currey, Director, Region 11 Donna K. Hintz, Esq. NYS Dept. of Transportation NYS Dept. of Transportation Hunters Point Plaza Office of Legal Affairs, Legal Services Div. 47-40 21st Street 50 Wolf Road Long Island City, NY 11101 Albany, NY 12232 Service List for HTP Supplemental Filing 2/22/2008

New York Public Library John Bhagwandin, Branch Librarian History & Social Sciences Dept., 5th Floor Mid-Manhattan Library 127 East 58th Street 455 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10022 New York, NY 10016

Jean-Daniel Noland, Chairman Hon. Christine C. Quinn, Speaker Manhattan Community Board NO.4 District 3 Council Member 330 W. 42nd Street, 26th Floor 224 West 30th Street, Suite 1206 New York, NY 10036 New York, NY 10001

John Beck, Section Manager, Transmission Planning Jeffrey L Riback, Esq., Assistant General Counsel Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. 4 Irving Place, Room 1450S 4 Irving Place, Room 1820 New York, NY 10003 New York, NY 10003

James de Waal Malefyt, Staff Project Manager Richard M. Cogen, Esq. NYS Dept. of Public Service Nixon Peabody LLP Office of Electricity & Environment 30 South Pearl Street 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12207 Albany, NY 12223-1350

Christopher Hocker,Vice President, Planning David G. Drexler, Esq., Assistant Counsel Hudson Transmission Partners, LLC NYS Dept. of Public Service 501 Kings Highway East 3 Empire State Plaza Suite 300 Albany, NY 12223 Fairfield, Connecticut 06825

William Bouteiller, Administrative Law JUdge NYS Dept. of Public Service 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223 NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER

-of the-

Application of Hudson Transmission Partners, LLC for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Case No. 08-T- 0034 Public Need for a 345 Kilovolt SubmarinelUnderground Electric Transmission Link Between Manhattan and New Jersey

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

Amelia K. Butler, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

I am over the age of 18, I am not a party to this action, and I am employed by the law firm of Cohen & Dax, P.C., 90 State Street, Suite 1030, Albany, New York 12207.

On February 22,2008, I caused to be delivered a true and correct copy of the Supplement to Application of Hudson Transmission Partners, LLC for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need, which includes new and corrected figures and exhibit pages as follows: Figure 4-6A, Table 4-6A, Exhibit 9, Exhibit E-3-9, Figures E-3-I(c), E 3-1(d) and E-3-2, and Figure E-4-1, the cover page to Exhibit E-4, page E-4-1, and the System Reliability Impact Study, to the persons at the addresses shown on the attached list.

Service was accomplished by First Class Mail or personal service, as indicated on the attached service list.

I declare, under penalty ofperjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: February 22, 2008

Sworn to before me this nd 22 ~~I/~~~~~~ew York Reg. No. 02DA6131341 Qualified i ,?Iu bia Counfy Notary Public: Service List for HTP Supplemental Filing 2/22/2008

Scott M. Stringer, Manhattan Borough President Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg 1 Centre Street, 19th Floor City Hall New York, NY 10007 New York, NY 10007 Service via 1" Class Mail Service via t" Class Mail

Pete Grannis, Commissioner Elizabeth Hohenstein NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12223-1011 Albany, NY 12223-1011 Service via 1" Class Mail Service via 1" Class Mail

William Little, Esq. Pat Foye, Downstate Chair NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Empire State Development Corp. 625 Broadway 633 Third Avenue Albany, NY 12223-1011 New York, NY 10017-6706 Service via t" Class Mail Service via t" Class Mail

Patrick M. Hooker, Commissioner Hon Lorraine Cortes-Vasquez, Secretary of State NYS Dept. of Agriculture and Markets NYS Department of State 1OB Airline Drive 41 State Street Albany, NY 12235 Albany, NY 12231-0001 Service via t" Class Mail Service via t" Class Mail

Carol Ash, Commissioner Senator Thomas K Duane NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and 29th Senate District Historic Preservation 322 Eighth Avenue, Suite 1700 Empire State Plaza, Agency Bldg. 1 New York, NY 10001 Albany, NY 12238 Service via 1" Class Mail Service via 1" Class Mail

Douglas Currey, Director, Region 11 Donna K. Hintz, Esq. NYS Dept. ofTransportation NYS Dept. ofTransportation Hunters Point Plaza Office of Legal Affairs, Legal Services Div. 47-40 21st Street 50 Wolf Road Long Island City, NY 11101 Albany, NY 12232 Service via t" Class Mail Service via 1" Class Mail Service List for HTP Supplemental Filing 2/22/2008

New York Public Library John Bhagwandin, Branch Librarian History & Social Sciences Dept., 5th Floor Mid-Manhattan Library 127 East 58th Street 455 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10022 New York, NY 10016 Service via 1" Class Maif Service via t" Class Maif

John Beck, Section Manager, Transmission Planning Jeffrey L. Riback, Esq., Assistant General Counsel Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. 4 Irving Place, Room 1450S 4 Irving Place, Room 1820 New York, NY 10003 New York, NY 10003 Service via t" Class Maif Service via 1st Class Maif

Richard M. Cogen, Esq. James de Waal Malefyt, Staff Project Manager Nixon Peabody LLP NYS Dept. of Public Service 30 South Pearl Street Office of Electricity & Environment Albany, NY 12207 3 Empire State Plaza Service via r Class Maif Albany, NY 12223-1350 Personal Service

William Bouteiller, Administrative Law Judge NYS Dept. of Public Service 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223 Personal Service Cohen & Dax, P.C. ATTORNEYS

90 State Street, Suite 1030 Jeffrey C. Cohen Albany, New York 12207 John W. Dax www.cohendax.com

Telephone: (518) 432-1002 Facsimile: (518) 432-1028

Service via facsimile and email not accepted

February 22, 2008

Hon. William Bouteiller Administrative Law Judge NYS Department of Public Service Three Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223-1350

Re: Case 08-T-0034 - Hudson Transmission Partners, LLC Application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need

Dear Judge Bouteiller:

1 am writing on behalf of Hudson Transmission Partners, LLC ("HTP"), the applicant in the above-identified proceeding to request that certain information being submitted as part of its application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need be afforded the trade secret protection provided by the Commission's rules (16 NYCRR §§ 6-1.3 and 6-1.4) and Public Officers Law § 87(2). The enclosed information, for which trade secret protection is sought, is being provided only to you, consistent with the Commission's rules.

Section 86.10 of the Commission's rules requires that an applicant provide, in Exhibit 9 to its application, a detailed estimate ofthe total capital costs ofthe proposed facility. HTP has prepared the attached cost estimate and is submitting it, with the cost figures redacted, as part of its application.

The cost figures are confidential commercial information that should be exempt from public disclosure. HTP is a "commercial enterprise" (POL § 87(2)(d» formed to develop, build and operate a competitive electric transmission facility. The capital that will finance its construction will not be supplied by ratepayers of regulated utilities. Revenues will be derived from the sale oftransmission rights negotiated at arms length Hon. William Bouteiller Administrative Law Judge NYS Department ofPublic Service February 22,2008 Page 2

with its customer, the New York Power Authority. The information in its entirety is known only to HTP.

HTP's ability to secure revenues adequate to cover its costs, including the costs of servicing capital raised in the public capital markets, is dependent in part on HTP maintaining the confidentiality ofthose matters, including its own costs, that commercial enterprises operating in a competitive environment customarily keep confidential. In addition to preserving its ability to negotiate with its customers, HTP also faces competition from other proposed transmission proj ects, and in the larger context of energy supply, HTP faces merchant generating prospects. Divulging confidential information concerning its costs would disadvantage HTP in this competitive market by providing information that would enhance the negotiating position ofits customer, and the ability ofcompetitors to understand Neptune's cost structure and, hence, their ability to compete for the resources required to design, build and construct similar facilities. The need to protect such information from disclosure given the competitive nature of the electric industry has been previously acknowledged. See NYS Electric and Gas Corp. v. NYS Energy Planning Bd., 221 AD2d 121 (3d Dept 1996); see also PSC Trade Secret 07 1 Determination on Appeal of Trade Secret Determination (March 16, 2007) at p. 5 (finding that HTP and Cross Hudson Corporation are competitors), and at p. 6 (concluding that a party seeking protection need only establish that disclosure would be likely to cause substantial competitive injury). , For the foregoing reasons, HTP requests that you afford Exhibit 9 protection from disclosure pursuant to Sections 6-1.3 and 6-1.4 ofthe Commission's rules. I~II . ," . 'I'.' ' , " e~PI'ect,.','fully f'U~~itte~I,;,' " ' ," ,/! I ,,! f' 'II <; // J/ :") i i/ I ,'/i;li) /···-1,1 :j! J \ A,' ii~!,!,if"'h i I, I !L" '-. \...... -: 1'.\/ I . ,,-,' i / \ ,'v\ 1,,-,/ ! John -Ix. Dax ~. . .

JWD:lmm

Enclosure , • ~·:.~7~r~~ I />;.. ,: -wutcr I pI,",!; • E' ,"-I , ,:-',~ t:<..<,<:<, " .." .:.. / or,or"I' .....~' <'I'~liro\,nd ,,, / r~,~ # 51 ~ ...... ~ nn l'NI~\lf' 'tlj~/'1'rY t 2'- • /' /''J.' (01.. I , > ~t~,~"".o

~ / 4t~ I , ~ , ,/ ,T~ f(2~

'9/'",t. ' "

'. • , " ""> .?;7,~I~i.·'iIi« 71 ! Table 4-6A: Known Archaeological, Geologic, Historical or Scenic Areas, Parks or Untouched Wilderness within One Mile of the Project in New York

GISID NAME TYPE

I 1 Navarre BLDG Recreation Areas I 2 1407 Broadway Realtv BLDG Recreation Areas 3 Nynex BLDG Recreation Areas 4 Grace Plaza Recreation Areas 5 Interchem BLDG Recreation Areas 6 1166 Ave of the Americas Recreation Areas 7 Stevens Tower Recreation Areas 8 1585 Broadway Recreation Areas 9 McGraw Hill BLDG Recreation Areas 10 750 7th Ave Recreation Areas 11 1633 Broadwav Recreation Areas 12 1700 Broadway Recreation Areas 13 1251 Ave of the Americas Recreation Areas 14 Time - Life BLDG Recreation Areas 15 Sperry Rand BLDG Recreation Areas 16 Penney BLDG Recreation Areas 17 888 7th Ave Recreation Areas 1 Riverside Park Parks 2 CentraI Pa rk Parks 1 Madison SauareGarden Stadium or Arena 1 Mount Moriah Cemetery Cemeteries 2 Fairview Cemetery Cemeteries 1 Edoewater Commons Commons 1 EL ESTERO Shipwrecks 2 UNKNOWN Shipwrecks 3 UNKNOWN Shipwrecks 4 UNKNOWN Shipwrecks 5 OBSTRUCTION Shipwrecks 6 UNKNOWN Shipwrecks 7 UNKNOWN Shipwrecks 8 UNKNOWN Shipwrecks 9 UNKNOWN Shipwrecks 10 UNKNOWN Shipwrecks 11 OBSTRUCTION Shipwrecks I 12 OBSTRUCTION Shipwrecks 13 OBSTRUCTION Shipwrecks 14 OBSTRUCTION Shipwrecks 15 UNKNOWN Shipwrecks I 16 UNKNOWN Shipwrecks 17 OBSTRUCTION Shipwrecks

18 OBSTRUCTION Shipwrecks I 19 OBSTRUCTION Shipwrecks 20 OBSTRUCTION Shipwrecks 21 UNKNOWN Shipwrecks 22 OBSTRUCTION Shipwrecks 1 Centra I Pa rk Historic Polygon 2 American Museum of Natural Historv Historic Potvcon 3 Alcoa Edgewater Works Historic (Polyqon 4 Radio Citv Music Hall Historic Polygon 5 Hackensack Water Company Complex Historic Polvcon 6 Mott Avenue Control House Historic PolYGon

Table 4-6A Page 1 of 3 Table 4-6A: Known Archaeological, Geologic, Historical or SCenic Areas, Parks or Untouched Wilderness within One Mile of the Project in New York

GISID NAME TYPE 7 Central Park West Historic District Historic Polyqon) 8 Ford Motor Comoany Edoewater Assembly Plant Historic (Polvoon 9 Riverside Park and Drive Historic (Polvqon 10 Rockefeller Center Historic Polygon 11 Manhattan Avenue--West 120th--123rd Streets Historic District Historic Polvoon) 1 BINGHAMTON (ferryboat) Historic Point) 2 KESTREL (steam yacht) Historic Point 3 Beacon Theater and Hotel Historic Point 4 Casa Italina Historic Point 5 Central Savinos Bank Historic (Point 6 Dorilton Historic (Point 7 Pomander Walk District Historic Point 8 Red House Historic Point 9 Stables at 167, 169 and 171 West 89th Street Historic Point 10 Studio Apartments Historic Point 11 IRT Broadwav Line Viaduct Historic Point 12 West 73rd-74th Street Historic District Historic Point 13 Level Club Historic Point 14 Mecca Temole Historic Point 15 Sofia Warehouse Historic Point 16 Film Center Building Historic Point 17 Webster Hotel Historic Point 18 Carneqie Hall Historic Point 19 Dakota Aoartments Historic Point 20 Pupin Physics Laboratories, Columbia University Historic Point 21 Hotel Gerard Historic Point 22 Riverside Drive-West 80th-81st Streets Historic District Historic Point 23 Lamb's Club Historic Point 24 Candler Buildinq Historic Point 25 Belnord Apartments Historic Point 26 Aothoro Aoartments Historic Point 27 Knickerbocker Hotel Historic Point 28 Town Hall Historic Point 29 Ansonia Hotel Historic Point 30 West End Colieqiate Church and Colleqiate School Historic Point 31 Union Theoloqical Seminary Historic (Point) 32 Rice, Isaac L., Mansion Historic Point) 33 Control House on 72nd Street Historic (Point 34 Riverside-West 105th Street Historic District Historic Point 35 West 76th Street Historic District Historic Point 36 Claremont Stables Historic Point 37 American Fine Arts Society Historic Point 38 Alwyn Court Aoartments Historic Point 39 Church of Notre Dame and Rectory Historic Point 40 New York Cancer Hosoital Historic Point 41 Association Residence Nursinq Home Historic Point 42 Schinasi House Historic Point 43 General Grant National Memorial Historic Point 44 U.S. General Post Office Historic Point 45 USS INTREPID (aircraft carrier) Historic Point 46 Public School 9 Historic Point)

Table 4-6A Page 2 of 3 Table 4-6A: Known Archaeological, Geologic, Historical or SCenicAreas, Parks or Untouched Wilderness within One Mile of the Project in New York

GIS 10 NAME TYPE 47 Low Memorial Library, Columbia University Historic(Point 48 New Amsterdam Theater Historic Point 49 US Post Office--Old Chelsea Station Historic (Point 50 Congregation B'nai Jeshurun Synagogue and Community House Historic Point 51 McGraw-Hili Buildina Historic Point 52 Church of St. Marythe Virain Complex Historic Point 53 USS EDSON (DD-946) Historic Point 54 Verdi, Giuseppe, Monument Historic Point 55 Church of St. Paul the Apostle Historic Point 56 Osborne Apartments Historic Point 57 Times Square Hotel Historic Point 58 Delta Psi, Alpha Chapter Historic Point 59 St. Michael's Church Historic Point 60 Sullivan, Ed, Theater Historic Point 61 International House Historic Point 62 St. Ignatius of Antioch Episcopal Church Historic Point 63 Father Francis D. Duffy Statue and Duffy Sauare Historic (Point)

Table 4-6A Page 3 of 3 HUDSON TRANSMISSION PARTNERS LLC

THE HUDSON PROJECT

EXHIBIT 9 - COST OF PROPOSED FACILITY

PREPARED PURSUANT TO SECTION 86.10 EXHIBIT 9 COST OF PROPOSED FACILITY

REDACTED PURSUANT TO 16 NYCRR 6-1.3

The Hudson Project is being developed, and will be financed and constructed, on an independent basis with no guarantee of cost recovery and with no utility ratemaking recovery; HTP will bear 100 percent of construction and operation risks. For the purposes of facilitating project financing, the facility will be constructed on the basis of a fixed price, Engineering-Procurement-Construction (EPe) contract. Therefore, a detailed breakdown of individual cost items is not available.

Capital costs for the Hudson Transmission Project, shown below, are based on estimates received from the designated principal contractors for the facility, Siemens (manufacturing and installation of converter station) and Prysmian Cables and Systems (manufacturing and installation of transmission cables), as well as other significant costs known to HTP.

Note that an estimate of costs for interconnection with the PJM system has not yet been finalized and is the subject of ongoing studies by PJM, and therefore is not shown in the estimates below.

Item Estimated Cost REDACTED Converter Station, Ridgefield, NJ (equipment and construction)

Electric Cables (manufacturing and installation)

Real Estate

Interconnection, NYISO'

Development Costs (permitting, legal, and consulting services)

Indirect Costs (insurance, taxes and interest during construction)

Total:

1 This cost represents a current estimate subject to change at completion of the Facilities Study.

Copvnqht © ESS Group, rnc., 2008 Page 9-1 g:\hudson transmission partners (014)\article vii'(apphcaticn supplements'iexhibit 9redacted cost of proposed facility.doc Exhibit E-3 - Underground Construction Supplemented February, 2008

E-3.4 Cable Design Standards

HTP will design and install all cable System Equipment in accordance with the follOWing:

• IEC 62067 - Power cables systems - Cables with extruded insulation and their accessories for rated voltages above 150 kV (Um = 170 kV) up to 500 kV (Um = 550 kV) - Test methods and requirements.

• IEC 60287 and subsequent amendments - Calculation of the continuous current rating of cables (100% load factor)

• IEC 60228 - Conductors of insulated cables

• IEC 60229 - Test on cables over sheaths which have a special protective function and are applied by extrusion

• IEC 60811 - Insulating and sheathing materials of electric and optical cables Common test method - Methods specific to elastomeric compounds - Ozone resistance, hot set and mineral oil immersion test

• IEC 60853 - calculation of the cyclic and emergency current rating of cables

• IEC 60859 - Cable connection for gas insulated metal enclosed SWitchgear for rated voltages of 72.5 kV and above

• IEC 60949 - Calculation of thermally permissible short-circuit currents, taking into account non-adiabatic heating effects

• ELECTRA 189: Recommendation for tests of power transmission DC cables for a rated voltage up to 800 kV

• ELECTRA 171: Recommendation for mechanical tests on Sub-marine cables

• II It~~'Fll I I I , I I I I , r I ~ 1 1 I J Ii! i t:+ " ! ! ! ! !, I I I ! I I I I l:'~" 1 II I .....=1 ~ '" , I ~ -- .- --- -~ ---- -,i- -

TYPICAL PROFILE - TEMPORARY COFFERDAM TO HOD OPERATIONS AREA ON 52n<;I S1

HORIZONTAL SCALE' ,"",140' IlERTICAL SCALE' '"=140'

r;"'-':j r'O:~26~ r:':6'j ra~ ~'''~ (~~ , i ~O I i /\ ') \ 62"D)',,, ID 4" ID -: / I FIBER OPTIC HOD/\.\ FIBER OPTIC BOR[H~~~ ~ / TSO ~ T8D I~_____ CONDUIT I I I BOREHOLE ' CONDUIT (TYP.) CABLE H H (TYP.) 'a CONDUIT CABLE 0;., (TYP.) CONDUIT :d (1W) ~/ DETAIL (0) DETAIL (b) < , I ~ (Source: Prysmian) (Source: Prysmion) ~~ -: 3-, NOTE. 1 DEPENDING UPON n« CONSTRUCTABILITY OF THE AREA, AND FINAL LOCATlor, OF EXISTING UTlLlTIES, <" IT IS ESTIMAlt:O THAT EITHER 3 BOREHOLES OF APPROXIMATELY 20"-26"(5[[ DETAil (0), OR ONE , BOREHOLE or APPROXIMATELY 48"_50· (SEE DETAIL (b) 'MLL BE USED ~ 2 FINAL DESIGN/ DIMENSIONS TO BE PROVlDED IN EM & CP

Hudson Transmission Partners, lie Typical HOD Profile ~ The Hudson Project The HUdson Project I · ~-- FlgU"" ....Con... llalltll ss-re (THE PARTICULAR DESIGN OF THE DUCT W 52nd STREET BANK EXITING THE VAULT, AS ILLUSTRATED IN THE INCLUDED SECTIONS. WILL VARY AS NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE SUBSURFACE ~ 2'-6" - 3'-0" COVER (MIN,) CONDITIONS EXISTING GRADE I / TRAN VI OUIPME~ VAULT \ IoITION ULT T I E3 -t c) \ DUCTB NK ~ - HDD (SEE FIGURE EQUIPME T VAULT WILL ONTAIN/ 'c.. FINAL DEPTI- OF CONCRETE UCT THE FLul PRESSURI ZAII N FACILITIES ""~ ~ FOR THE SUBMARINE PO liON OF THE ""EM & CP txrsnsc rao " CABLE S STIEM 1 I I I TYPICAL eeon - UPLAND INSTA LA TION PROFILE I ~O ~~NTAL SCALE 1 }=20' rt.RTICAL SCALE; 1 }=20' I I I I I I I I "'N: -,"~Ilf~r

_II, ,*-_ -cr. .vru -~c:E 'l' :l"-'~ I :.:..,,[ :"tt~"--tT J """""'""''I'"'' __ 01' I~ ..'~" 'u~ // '"' .. ". . -.a,.c!! "_., --....-----,------r-----f ., I,' l' [~ , J ••' ,J.rH ~.~ -+';l,I.H....'l ' -c _I';I~ Ii .r .'.. _""""" '"~,, --;C7:-,j!"••~,~_~~~ tR~ _(=~.~" 11,") -1--\'" filM f~"--'-r T1-'''*" rl -- ltlM~l~" Hlo.. ,,~. ~W~"i]~;~:~J&t(-l+1? '~~ s -,.'.1-1;' v. "t.JW'lJ,lo'l·, I'" ;;;."''''';/ «' -;::;.~ ...... _ li -' ,..... :u eN: ~ ~~:';!!,...... ,..,' ~r;,~::;: ~, -0"',.,,_""','.... ~ r'~ :. "j /I '.. \ , ' TP'l't: COlIDUtTror.ro

~ / ~ .~.~ ,I rP"JC CColltlUTTroR I / / ~ '. ,.' ( ,~" 1 "• wtJ:I'....l 'IC.! ....•~ "''i~ ';I',.;:t~ :j 0.:::---+- ...:..,< _ :r: ,lh5r~ )~)-- ~ i: (;--1·""""""-, r ~J-r-~v:i~' ~"t- 12, 1_ 0 _ 1 --',TJ >C] -v-m ~1-G7 ,,~ , u IT 197/1" rtPlCAl TREFOIL DUCT BANK CONFIGURATION 1 ',1".1\1' °1 J'llI'f (Source: Prysrmcn} ,-......

~I"li;;WI'+El(;HT OOCT BAI\( rtPlCAl VERTICAL nucr BANK CONFIGURATION (Source: Pr)'Smion) TYPICAL HORIZONTAL oucr BANK CONFIGURATION (Source: Prysmion) NOTE: 1. FINAL DESIGN/ DIMENSIONS TO BE PROV1DED IN EM &: CP ~

HudsonTransmissionParblers. LtC Typical Upland Installation Proftle ~I.•.• The HudsooProject The Hudson Project '--' ""'"'~ FlgU", Consultio .. u 5caIe: Ao> 5I-ow<> E3-1d ~

HUDSON RIVER LEGEND: WITHIN LIMITS OF FEDERAL CHANNEL I A cable Placement: (Approximate) B WIthin Navigation Channel = 17' A OUtsIde Navigation O'annel = 12' I ASSUMED RIVER BOTTOM I B cable Placement Cover (Minimum) WithinNavigation Channel = 15' 17' 15'(Min) Outside Navtgation OIannel = 10' • ======'======IF"'======PROPOSED CABLE SYSTEM

(3) 345kV cables, and 1 Aber Opticcable c (See oetanj C CablesettlementConfiguration 0,8> Detail

HUDSON RIVER ~~~'~W,te, U"e~"~~ .._~ +- oursror uurrs OC ecce"" C",,"', A B j~ ~~~~ --~:.:,"~ J j ASSUMED RIVER BOTTOM ,- 12' 10'(Min) AB'I 1~3 Powercables I 1======~ and 1 Fiber Optic Cable PROPOSED CABLE SYSTEM InTrench Created by Jet Plow

Source: Prysrnlan Power cables& Systems

, ~

Hudson Transmission Partners, lie TypIcal Jet Plow Embedment Charadlerlstks, WJ The Hudson Project section & ProfIle Within and OUtsIde Umlts of Federal ClMnnei _ 1 _ntl_ figuee I C""..ltant:5 5caIe: N.T.$. E3-2 DATE: Feb 20, 2008 - 9:03AM fiLENAME: H:\H149-Hudson\005 Article VII Application\fiqure E4-1_rev01.dwa - s: !; """""'ClOA ...... C'Ct' • ...,RC'Ct' Spr,B~.'f' "". ----l1~~~rn SF.,,:,,:,? "'" '"I :. , , ;; ~~-- I , I , ~~~'l : ~?:~' , ~ I ;1 £ ~r--- ~II ""~ I I '00 n • ~'~9: ~;,',,',r •• 0 Ell S1 "~ .,..J, I i; I -a ~y./ o ~mr " mg'· ~ + ::c + ~~~'.'-' .,,,,, fr :-"KOr ",c -o o P,,'OMll 'i • "'" 1Rl .1..£7 'J ••" .,.", .";;T ,> "'. "IT' '" '0 ,,/g"~14 ,.,,, " ".... I "/;"'"" J>;7'-J~~?' e•" "''1' "",,, a, o ;S fC7/E~Tl R;l'ii~T4l' ourIH~-r. n;~,,,,,-,, J FlT."IIIIl':'G T 1 "f" ~'Jn-sOtl:' -~ 50" ~L I ~"t I ~t, ,,- 1\~lJf~r--~, :: :f~:, ':j ~~ ~~, I'm: '"" ~ ~3 J. .""6 ".'Jb 'i' ~~ - T1W

Hudson Transmission Partners, LLC Interconnection ofthe Hudson Project The Hudson Project with Con Edison W. 49th Street Substation

Engineers ScIentists Fi9ure Consultants E4-1 HUDSON TRANSMISSION PARTNERS LLC

THE HUDSON PROJECT

EXHIBIT E-4 - ENGINEERING JUSTIFICATION

PREPARED PURSUANT TO SECTION 88.4 EXHIBIT E-4 - ENGINEERING JUSTIFICATION

E-4.1 Relationship to Existing Networks

The Project facilities consist of three major components: a 660,000 kilowatt (660 MW) high voltage direct current (HVDC) converter station; a 1,800 foot long, 230 kilovolt, alternating current (230 kV AC) electric power cable connecting the HVDC facility to the PJM System at the Public Service Electric and Gas Bergen Substation; and a 7 mile 345 kV AC underground/submarine three phase electric power cable interconnecting the HVDC Converter Station to the NY-ISO system at Con Edison's W 49th Street Substation. The HVDC Converter Station and PJM AC interconnecting cable are both located in the Borough of Ridgefield, New Jersey and the W 49th Street Substation is located in the New York City borough of Manhattan.

The 230 kV AC, three phase interconnecting cable system between the Bergen Substation and the HVDC Converter Station facility will reside in an underground three-conduit system installed using horizontal directional drilling (HOD) technology.

The 345 kV AC, three phase cable interconnecting the HVDC Converter Station with New York will be buried in upland rights of way obtained through negotiated easements with the CSX and New York, Susquehanna & Western (NYS&W) Railroad and private property owners between Ridgefield and Edgewater, New Jersey. In Edgewater, the AC cable enters the bed of the Hudson River via an underground, three-conduit system installed using HDD technology. Figure E4-1 shows the relationship of the Hudson Facility to the existing electric network.

The HVDC Converter Station in Ridgefield, New Jersey will be comprised of a main bUilding to house the solid-state, HVDC converter valves, system control and protection devices and auxiliary power supplies; outdoor electrical switches, capacitors and reactors to support the HVDC process and provide electrical harmonic filtering; gas insulated SWitchgear (GIS) and underground cabling to interconnect the various station components; and other secondary components necessary to ensure safe and reliable system operation

The converter station facilities will be designed, manufactured, installed, and tested by Siemens. AC cables will be designed, manufactured and installed by Prysmian. Both companies have extensive international HVDC transmission experience. All facilities will be constructed in accordance with the National Electric Safety Code and applicable ANSI standards.

Final details of the New York interconnection will conform to the requirements of the NY-ISO System Reliability Impact and Facility Studies.

E-4.2 Reliability and Economic Benefits

The Hudson Transmission Project will use HVDC technology in a "back-to-back" configuration. Energy delivered at the PJM AC system interconnection (at 230 kV) will be converted at the Ridgefield, New Jersey Converter Station to HVDC using solid-state electronics and immediately converted back to AC for delivery to New York (at 345 kV), all in a single process. Using a single site, the "back-to-back" conversion process eliminates the need to site an HVDC converter station in the space-limited NYC area, while still offering the benefits of an HVDC technology interconnection:

Power Grid Engineering & Markets

Third DRAFT Report system Reliability Impact Stud~ Hudson Transmission Project

Prepared for Hudson Transmission Partners

Prepared by James V. Mitsche Manos Obessis Johnny Willis

February 11, 2008 Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IV 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 3. STUDY ASSUMPTIONS 4 3.1 Study Area 4 3.2 Base Case Conditions 4 3.3 Modeling Assumptions 6 34 Study Methodology 6 4. POWER FLOW ANALYSIS 8 4.1 Thermal Analysis 8 4.1.1 Normal (pre-contingency) conditions 9 4.1.2 Contingency Conditions 11 4.2 Voltage Analysis 12 4.2.1 Normal (pre-contingency) conditions 12 4.2.2 Contingency conditions 15 4.3 PAR and Wheel Analysis 19 5. STABILITY ANALYSIS 21 5.1 Modeling 21 5.2 Design Contingencies 21 5.3 Critical Clearing Time Simulations 22 6. SHORT CIRCUIT ANALYSIS 23 7. EXTREME CONTINGENCY ANALySiS 24 7.1 Steady State Analysis 24 7.2 Stability Analysis 25 B. INTERFACE TRANSFER LIMIT ANALYSIS 27 8.1 Thermal Analysis 27 8.2 Voltage Analysis 28 8.3 Stability Analysis 29 84 Summary of Transfer Limits 30 9. PRELIMINARY INTERCONNECTION COST ESTIMATES 31 10. CONCLUSIONS 32

t41~'f!. PowerGEM ii ., Power Gnd Engineering & Markets Appendix A: Scope of Work Appendix B: List of N-1-1 and Loss of Generation Contingencies Appendix C: Steady State Analysis: Without Project Appendix D: Steady State Analysis: With Project Appendix E: PAR and Wheel Impact Results Appendix F: Summer Peak Stability Results Appendix G: Light Load Stability Results Appendix H: Short Circuit Results and Model Appendix I: Extreme Contingency Steady State Results Appendix J: Extreme Contingency Stability Results Appendix K: Interface Transfer Analysis: Thermal Results Appendix L: Interface Transfer Analysis: Voltage Results Appendix M: Interface Transfer Analysis: Stability Results Appendix N: Stability Model Appendix 0: Critical Clearing Time Stability Plots

PowerGEM iii Power Grid Engineering & Markets EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PowerGEM, LLC has conducted a study to evaluate the impact of the proposed 660 MW HVDC Hudson Transmission Project (HTP) transmission line from the Bergen 230 kV substation in the PJM control area to the West 49 th Street 345 kV substation in Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc.'s (ConEd) service territory. This System Reliability Impact Study (SRIS) was performed in accordance with the NYISO SRIS criteria and procedures. HTP will consist of a back-to-back HVDC facility located in Ridgefield, New Jersey, utilizing a submarine 345 kV AC cable system to interconnect with ConEd's West 491h Street 345 kV substation. The project has a proposed in-service date of second quarter 2011. Power flow models representing 2011 summer and winter peak conditions were used for the steady state analysis. 2011 summer peak and light load conditions were studied for stability performance. Voltages and flows were monitored in NYCA zones I, J, and K (Study Area), as specified in the scope of work. Over 1100 contingencies were simulated in the study area, including several particular to HTP. The study included testing for selected extreme contingencies in the vicinity of the HTP New York connection point (i.e., West 49'" street station). Stability, short circuit, and critical clearing times for the network in the vicinity of the West 49 station were also analyzed. This SRIS evaluated the HTP impact on controlling the ConEd wheel through New Jersey for summer and winter peak conditions. PJM network changes to accommodate HTP, which are not yet decided, were not included in the power flow models. The study also calculated the impact of the project on transfer limits on the Dunwoodie South, UPNY - ConEd, ConEd Cable and PJM interfaces.

RESULTS Thermal and Voltage Performance • Analysis results indicate that HTP had an incremental but not adverse effect on thermal performance and did not introduce any new overloads in the study area. • HTP contributed to pre-existing low voltages in the network underlying the West 49th Street connection point. • HTP did not adversely impact the ability to control the Wheel or cause PAR control problems in the Study Area. • HTP did not have a significant impact on thermal or voltage performance under extreme contingency conditions. Stabilitv Analysis • Stability analysis indicates that HTP does not have a negative impact on the stability of the bulk power system or other local generation for the design contingencies and extreme contingencies tested. • HTP had no effect on critical clearing times in the vicinity of the project connection point.

PowerGEM iv Power Grid Engineering & Markets Short Circuit • HTP had no adverse short circuit impact. Though fault currents increased due to HTP, no circuit breaker upgrades are required. Transfer Analysis • Transfer analysis results show that HTP increased interface transfer capabilities when total (closed) interfaces were measured. The project caused a small transfer capability decrease of the Dunwoodie South and ConEd Cable open interfaces, due to voltage performance. The decrease was found to be due to dispatch assumptions used in the study.

CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this SRIS, under the NYISO, NPCC, and NERC study criteria and procedures and with the HTP line operated according to the NYISO policies and procedures, we find that HTP does not degrade system reliability or adversely impact the operation of the power system. Based on the analysis results, no System Upgrade Facilities are required for the project to interconnect to the NYS transmission system. The Attachment Facilities required to interconnect HTP are estimated at a non-binding, good faith total cost of $9 million. This estimate does not include the costs for any facilities that may be identified as needed in PJM studies. We recommend the approval of this SRIS by NYISO and its committees.

PowerGEM v ''i' Power Grid Engineering & Markets 1. INTRODUCTION

Hudson Transmission Partners has proposed a 660 MW HVDC transmission line between PSEG's Bergen 230 kV station and ConEd's West 49 th street 345 kV station in New York City. The Hudson Transmission Project (HTP) will consist of a back-to-back HVDC facility, located in Ridgefield, New Jersey, followed by a submarine AC cable system to connect to the West 49th Street 345 kV substation. The project will be operated such that 660 MW flows from PJM to NYISO. HTP has a proposed in-service date of second quarter 2011. This report presents the analysis results for the project's System Reliability Impact Study (SRIS). The objectives of the analysis were to assess the impact of the project on • the reliability of the NYISO bulk power system, including potentially Affected Systems, • the reliability of the local network, and • transmission interface transfer limits. The study was performed in accordance with the NYISO SRIS criteria and procedures and applicable reliability and design standards, study guidelines, procedures and practices. The study included steady state (thermal and voltage), stability, extreme contingency, and short circuit analysis. Analysis was performed on models with and without the project in order to evaluate the impact of the project on the bulk and local power network, and on bulk power system transmission interfaces. The scope of work for the study approved by the NYISO Operating Committee on October 11, 2007 was provided by the NYISO and is included as Appendix A.

~ PowerGEM 1 ., Power Grid Engineering & Markets 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Hudson Transmission Project (HTP) is a 660 MW HVDC transmission line between PSEG's Bergen 230 kV station and ConEd's West 49th street 345 kV station in New York City. It will consist of a back-to-hack HVDC facility, located in Ridgefield, New Jersey, followed by a submarine AC cable system to connect to the West 49th Street station. The project will be operated such that 660 MW flows from PJM to NYISO. The Project involves the construction of a back-to-hack (that is, conversion equipment located in the same station) AC-DC-AC converter station in Ridgefield, New Jersey, the installation of a new 230 kV AC link to the Bergen station, also in Ridgefield, and a new 345 kV AC electric transmission cable system across the Lower Hudson River from New Jersey to New York with the capacity to transmit 660 MW. This cable system will transmit power from the proposed converter station in Ridgefield, NJ to the existing ConEd's West 49th Street station in midtown Manhattan, New York. The cable system will include approximately eight miles of buried transmission cable, approximately four miles of which will be installed beneath the Hudson River. The proposed submarine cable will be a self-contained fluid filled (SCFF) cable system and the upland cable will be a cross linked polyethylene (XLPE) cable system. Figure 2-1 shows a schematic diagram of the proposed interconnection point at the PJM Bergen 230 kV substation. Network upgrades and additions within the PJM system are presently under study by PJM. The PJM network changes to accommodate power flows to the Hudson Transmission Project are expected to be significant but are yet undecided. The PJM developments are not represented in the models used for this study. The impact of these changes on the New York system are expected to be minimal as the Project is a DC connection in parallel with the present PAR controlled interfaces. Figure 2-2 shows a schematic diagram of the proposed interconnection point in New York at the ConEd West 49'h Street 345 kV substation. Contingency analysis of stuck breaker and fault clearing at West 49'h Street assumed the configuration shown.

~:. PowerGEM 2 .. Power Grid Engineering & Markets To Leonia Bergen 230 kV (PJM)

To West 49th Street (ConEd) To North Bergen

To AOSand G10 Hoboken

Figure 2-1. Hudson Transmission Project proposed interconnection (PJM terminal)

To Bergen 230 kV

..... 0.0000 •••• 0 •• 0 ••••••• 0 •••••••••••••••

West 49- Street

345 kV Substation Added for HTP dashed : J.( west Side x····· ,NB1 • "0;' :X.··.~ T1 T5 Configuration with Hudson Transmission Project (Queue 206) Installed M52 M55 Sp''llinbrook 13'"SI B

X represents SF6 Disconnects

M54 M51 13'" St A Spralnbrook

'------'-----c;;> T3

Figure 2-2. Hudson Transmission Project proposed interconnection (New York terminal)

PowerGEM 3 Power Grid Engineering & Markets 3. STUDY ASSUMPTIONS

The analysis in this study proceeded in accordance with the methodology and subject to the assumptions and study parameters outlined in this section.

3.1 Study Area The primary focus of the study was to assess the impact of the Project on the network in proximity to the West 49th Street interconnection point as well as on the NYS bulk power system in zones I (Dunwoodie), J (New York City) and K (Long Island) that are most likely to be affected by the project. These parts of the interconnected power network are collectively referred to as "study area" in the remainder of this report.

3.2 Base Case Conditions The NYISO provided a set of study data, including load flow cases and accompanying files, which represented projected loading and system conditions for the year 2011. Two cases were considered in the study: Case A: Base case without the Project. The models for this case included the baseline system as well as the proposed projects listed in Appendix A of the Study Scope. The short circuit model represented all projects as being in-service. All generation was dispatched in accordance with standard NYISO practices. Case B: Case A with HTP modeled in-service. HTP was modeled in-service at full output, displacing existing generation in New York City. Summer peak, winter peak, and light load models were provided for each one of the above cases, Table 3-1 lists the descriptions of the load flow cases used in the study.

Table 3-1. List of study cases Case Name Description Used For SPOFF Summer peak, without Project Thermal and voltage contingency analysis, stability testing, Interface limits SPON Summer peak, with Project Thermal and voltage contingency analysis, stability testing, Interface limits WPOFF Winter peak, without Project Thermal and voltage contingency analysis WPON Winter peak, with Project Thermal and voltage contingency analysis LLOFF Light load, without Project Stability Testing LLON Light Load, with Project Stability Testing

In all cases the M51, M52, 71 and 72 series reactors were in service. Flow on the Neptune HVDC line was 656 MW.

PowerGEM 4 Power Grid Engineering & Markets PowerGEM made the following changes on the original cases provided by the NYISO: • Ratings were updated in the ConEd service territory using data provided by NYISO. • For the summer peak conditions(SPOFF and SPON cases), the Dunwoodie phase angie regulator MW set point was changed from a range of 90 to 100 MW to 85 to 95 MW. This change sets this PAR at the same range as in the most recent FERC 715 power flow case, as specified in the SRIS scope. • Under winter peak conditions with the project in service (WPON case), overloads were noted on cables importing power into zone K (Long Island) under contingency conditions. To relieve such overloads and further stress conditions within zone J, this case was redispatched to increase Northport unit 2 dispatch by 100 MW with a corresponding reduction of generation of 100 MW at Ravenswood unit 2. Table 3-2 summarizes the New York dispatch changes used in this study to accommodate the 660 MW Project, after the dispatch adjustment described above. Table 3-3 shows the flows on the Y49 (Sprainbrook - East Garden City) and Y50 (Dunwoodie - Shore Road) cables in the power flow cases supplied by NYISO, and after the case changes described above.

Table 3-2. Dispatch chanaes to accommodate the HTP project (In MW) Summer Peak

". ", HTP Out HTP In Difference Poletti GT1 150 60 -90 Poletti GT2 150 60 -90 Poletti STG 160 60 -100 Transgas 1 190 o (off) -190 Transqas 2 190 o (off) -190 Total -660 Winter Peak .; HTP Out HTP In Difference Arthur Kill 2 180 80 -100 Arthur Kill 3 298 238 -60 Barrett 1 176 146 -30 Barrett 2 176 146 -30 Northport 2 315 215 -100 Northport 3 315 115 -200 Ravenswood 2 330 230 -100 NYPA 108 90 50 -40 Total -660

As a sensitivity test, a summer peak case, with HTP displacing Astoria 3 and 4 generation instead of Poletti generation, was developed and tested for changes in thermal and voltage performance under pre-contingency and contingency conditions. Sirnulatlon results were substantially identical for this different dispatch assumption.

PowerGEM 5 Power Grid Engineering & Markets Table 3.3 Pre-contingent Zone I to Zone K Flows

Summer

Y49 (Sprainbrook - East Garden City 345 kV) Y50 (Dunwoodie - Shore Road 345 kV)

Winter HTPln Y49 (Sprainbrook - East Garden City 345 kV) 6385 Y50 (Dunwoodie - Shore Road 345 kV) 525.7

The net reactive flow for HTP was 3 MVAr at the New Jersey end of the AC cable and 68 MVAr at the New York end for summer conditions. For winter conditions the reactive flow was 9 and 63 MVAr at the New Jersey and New York cable terminations respectively. Additional load flow cases were developed in the course of the study to address particular aspects of the SRIS. Such cases will be discussed and changes will be outlined in the corresponding sections.

3.3 Modeling Assumptions In accordance with standard NYISO analysis practices, phase shifters, switched shunts, and LTC transformers were allowed to regulate in pre-contingency conditions; they were locked (non-regulating) in post-contingency conditions. SVC and FACTS devices in NYS were set to zero reactive power output pre-contingency, but were allowed to regulate up to their full output post-contingency. In order to determine interface transfer levels, the analysis simulated generation transfers, in accordance to standard proportions in various sending and receiving subsystems, as used in NYISO planning and operating studies.

3.4 Study Methodology The following analyses were performed as part of this SRIS and results are presented in subsequent sections of this report: • Power flow analysis, to assess the impact of the Project on branch loadings and bus voltages in the study area. Power flow analysis was also conducted to evaluate the fiow and balance of the A. S, C, J, and K lines and PAR performance in controlling the Wheel through New Jersey to New York. • Stability analysis, to determine the impact of the Project on system performance within the study area. • Short circuit analysis, to evaluate the impact of the Project on system protection and adequacy of existing circuit breakers.

PowerGEM 6 Power Grid Engineering & Markets • Extreme contingency analysis, to evaluate representative extreme contingencies within the study area . • Interface transfer analysis, to determine the impact of the project on transfer limits of applicable intra-area and inter-area system interfaces.

PowerGEM 7 • Power Grid Engineering & Markets 4. POWER FLOW ANALYSIS

Power flow analysis was conducted with and without the Project, for summer and winter peak loading conditions, to evaluate the impact of HTP on the local as well as the bulk power system. The analysis was performed using Siemens PTl's PSSE and MUST software. The analysis considered normal or pre-contingency (all lines in) conditions, as well as post contingency conditions. The list of contingencies used in the study comprised of a) NYISO design contingencies covering the study area, b) contingencies covering the network in the vicinity of the New York interconnection point, c) selected contingencies for key New York facilities outside the study area, and d) single element contingencies covering the entire study area, for all transmission elements at 100 kV or higher. Definitions for the design contingencies and the contingencies used in the feasibility analysis were provided by the NYISO. Local contingency definitions and some n-1-1 contingencies were provided by ConEd. In addition, contingent loss of the two largest Zone J generators was simulated for the summer and winter cases. The details of the n-1-1 and generation contingencies are provided in Appendix B. As specified in the study scope, phase shifters, switched shunts, and LTC transformers were allowed to regulate pre-contingency, but were locked/fixed post-contingency. SVC and FACTS devices were set to approximately zero reactive power output pre-contingency, per standard NYISO practice. Power flow analysis focused on zones I (Dunwoodie), J (New York City), and K (Long Island), collectively referred to as the "study area". All transmission elements in the study area rated at 69 kV or higher were checked for thermal overloads against their Rate Nnormal (pre contingency conditions), or Rate B/LTE (design and local contingency conditions) ratings. Rate C/STE was used in the analysis for cables in the NYC area, as appropriate. All system buses in the study area rated at 115 kV or higher, includinq buses close to the New York connection point (West 49" Street 345 kV), were monitored for voltage violations. Specific pre- and post-contingency voltage limits were observed for the bulk power system buses in the study area, as specified in Appendix A-3 of the NYISO Transmission & Dispatching Operations Manual. Otherwise, pre- and post-contingency voltage limits of 0.95 to 1.05 pu were used in the study area to identify voltage violations. Appendices C and D list the study area flows and voltages with and without the Project respectively, for summer and winter peak load conditions. For information, the flow percentage of rating is shown for both long term emergency (LTE - rate B) and for short term emergency (STE - rate C) ratings. These appendices show several overloads in both pre-Project and post Project conditions. It is expected that these pre-existing conditions and, likewise, the post project overloads are remedied by PAR adjustments, operating procedures, or generation dispatch or connection point changes.

4.1 Thermal Analysis Summer peak and winter peak system conditions were compared for the cases with and without the project, to evaluate the impact of HTP on the thermal behavior of the network.

PowerGEM 8 Power Grid Engineering & Markets 4.1.1 Normal (pre-contingency) conditions Table 4-1 shows the changes in zone J 345 kV flows for summer peak conditions with and without HTP. Table 4-2 shows the same for winter conditions. The inclusion of the Project primarily reduced Sprainbrook to West 491h Street flows and increased flows from West 491h to East 15th Street.

Table 4-1. Pre-contingency zone J 345 kV flows, with and without HTP (summer peak) Pre-Contingency Zone J 345 kV Flows and HTP Effect Summer Peak

Branch Ratinq HTP Out HTPln chanue 4989 HUDSON1 34574328 FARRGUT1 345 519.0 400.0 400.0 0.0 5039 HUDSON2 34574329 FARRGUT2 345 497.0 400.0 400.0 0.0 5193 HDSN INV 345 74514 HUDSONDC 345 684.0 00 662.1 662.1 5202 L1NVFT4 34574315 COGNTECH 345 500.0 298.5 298.5 0.0 74315 COGNTECH 345 74335 GOTHLS S 345 595.0 351.2 351.2 0.0 74322 E15ST 4534574327 FARRAGUT 345 666.0 -384.7 -75.1 309.7 74322 E15ST 4534574354 W 49 ST 345 861.0 60.8 -250.9 -311.7 74323 E15ST 46 345 74327 FARRAGUT 345 693.0 -381.3 -74.0 307.3 74323 E15ST 4634574354 W 49 ST 345 861.0 577 -251.7 -309.5 74324 E15ST 4734574327 FARRAGUT 345 398.0 -69.8 -67.9 1.9 74325 E15ST 4834574327 FARRAGUT 345 616.0 -3321 -329.3 2.8 74327 FARRAGUT 345 74330 FGT-HUD9 345 391.0 38.5 38.5 -0.1 74327 FARRAGUT 345 74336 GOWANUSN 345 687.0 -132.5 -157.0 -245 74327 FARRAGUT 345 74337 GOWANUSS 345 687.0 -142.6 -165.9 -233 74327 FARRAGUT 345 74875 TRANSTAP 345 661.0 -527.6 -315.2 2124 74332 FR KILLS 345 74333 GOTHLS N 345 1034.0 -1.7 -25.0 -23.3 74332 FR KILLS 345 74335 GOTHLS S 345 968.0 -419.0 -395.7 23.3 74333 GOTHLS N 34574336 GOWANUSN 345 529.0 272.7 297.2 245 74335 GOTHLS S 345 74337 GOWANUSS 345 529.0 282.8 306.1 233 74345 RAINEY 34574691 S BRONX 345 795.0 -411.6 -409.2 24 74345 RAINEY 34574875 TRANSTAP 345 661.0 249.5 148.0 -101.5 74348 SPRBROOK 345 74351 TREMONT 345 521.0 258.3 258.3 0.0 74348 SPRBROOK 345 74897 SHCRK 345 521.0 60.1 601 0.0 74354 W 49 ST 34574514 HUDSONDC 345 684.0 0.0 -661.8 -661.8 74354 W 49 ST 34574567 REACM51 345 8610 -576.8 -556.7 20.1 74354 W 49 ST 34574568 REACM52 345 8610 -576.8 -556.7 20.1 74650 REAC71 34574691 S. BRONX 345 795.0 560.0 557.5 -2.5 74651 REAC72 34574691 S. BRONX 345 795.0 560.0 557.5 -25 74875 TRANSTAP 345 74876 TRANSGAS 345 1200.0 -470.6 -282.5 188.1 74876 TRANSGAS 34574873 GSUMID1 345 500.0 -376.2 00 376.2 74876 TRANSGAS 345 74874 GSUMID2 345 500.0 -396.1 -396.1 0.0

PowerGEM 9 Power Grid Engineering & Markets Table 4-2. Pre-continaencv zone J 345 kV flows, with and without HTP (winter peak) Branch Raling HTP Out HTP In Change 4989 HUDSON1 34574328 FARRGUT1 345 549.0 400.0 400.0 00 5039 HUDSON2 34574329 FARRGUT2 345 543.0 4000 400.0 00 5193 HDSN INV 345 74514 HUDSONDC 345 684.0 0.0 662.1 662.1 5202 L1NVFT4 34574315 COGNTECH 345 500.0 298.5 2965 0.0 74315 COGNTECH 345 74335 GOTHLS S 345 902.0 467.5 4675 0.0 74322 E15ST 4534574327 FARRAGUT345 832.0 -417.9 -192.8 225.0 74322 E15ST 4534574354 W 49 ST 345 920.0 199.0 -27.0 -226.1 74323 E15ST 46 345 74327 FARRAGUT 345 855.0 -414.7 -191.4 223.3 74323 E15ST 46 345 74354 W 49 ST 345 9200 195.9 -28.5 -224.4 74324 E15ST 4734574327 FARRAGUT345 597.0 -0.4 12 16 74325 E15ST 4834574327 FARRAGUT345 768.0 -225.4 -222.8 26 74327 FARRAGUT 345 74330 FGT-HUD9 345 463.0 -37.3 -37.6 -0.3 74327 FARRAGUT345 74336 GOWANUSN 345 765.0 -2860 -256.3 29.7 74327 FARRAGUT345 74337 GOWANUSS 345 765.0 -3057 -275.8 298 74327 FARRAGUT345 74875 TRANSTAP 345 661.0 -175.4 -51.3 124.1 74332 FR KILLS 345 74333 GOTHLS N 345 1350.0 305.9 2760 -29.9 74332 FR KILLS 345 74335 GOTHLS S 345 1022.0 -409.3 -439.3 -30.0 74333 GOTHLS N 34574336 GOWANUSN 345 600.0 504.5 474.8 -29.7 74345 RAINEY 34574691 S BRONX 345 855.0 -159.8 -64.9 94.9 74345 RAINEY 345 74875 TRANSTAP 345 661.0 124.0 -10.0 -134.0 74348 SPRBROOK 345 74351 TREMONT 345 604.0 391.2 391.2 00 74348 SPRBROOK345 74897 SHCRK 345 521.0 200 20.0 0.0 74354 W 49 ST 34574567 REACM51 345 819.0 -2783 -172.5 105.8 74354W 49 ST 34574568 REACM52 345 819.0 -278.3 -172.5 105.8 74650 REAC71 34574691 S. BRONX 345 855.0 269.3 174.0 -95.3 74651 REAC72 34574691 S. BRONX 345 855.0 269.3 1740 -95.3 74875TRANSTAP 345 74876 TRANSGAS 345 1200.0 -96.9 -96.9 00 74876TRANSGAS 345 74873 GSUMID1 345 500.0 -158.8 -158.9 -0 1

Table 4-3 lists transmission elements in the entire study area overloaded under summer and winter normal (all lines in) conditions with changes in flow more than 1 MVA without and with the Project. Overloads introduced by the Project are highlighted.

Introduction of the project did not result in any significant changes in the loading of the local or bulk power system for pre-contingency conditions. One new pre-contingency overload in the Astoria pocket was deemed unrelated to Project operation and was likely introduced due to the dispatch assumed in the case provided. This new condition can be mitigated by redispatch, PAR adjustment, or generator connection switching at the Astoria West 138 kV substation.

Table 4-3. Protect effect on pre-continqencv overloads, in MVA (Delta flow> 1 MVA) Summer Transmission Element RatinQ HTP Out HTP In chanQe SPRBROOK 345 DUN SO T 138 7 311 324.4 320.2 -4.2 ASTORIAW 138 HG 6 138 1 177 172 177.2 5.2 new Winter None

PowerGEM 10 Power Grid Engineering & Markets 4.1.2 Contingency Conditions More than 1100 design and local contingencies were evaluated for summer and winter peak load conditions, using AC contingency analysis. Table 4-4 lists transmission elements overloaded under summer and winter contingency conditions with flow changes more than 1 MVA without and with the Project.

Table 4-4. Project effect on post-continqency overloads, in MVA (Delta flow> 1 MVA) Summer Transmission Element Continoencv Ratina HTP Out HTPln chanae FARRAGUT 345 TRANSTAP 345 1 SB:FARR_345_11W 758 1075.1 784.5 -290.6 SPRBROOK 345 DUN SO T 138 7 SB:DUNW_345_6 440 460.3 4591 -1.2 SPRBROOK 345 DUN SO T 138 7 TWR:W89&W90 440 510.4 5126 2.2 ASTORIAW 138 HG 5 138 1 ASTORIAW 138 HG 6 138 1 277 344.9 356.9 12 ASTORIAW 138 HG 6 138 1 ASTORIAW 138 HG 5 1381 249 344.5 356.5 12 DUN SO 138 DUN SO T 138 1 TWR:W89&W90 440 491.3 493.3 2 E179ST 138 HG 1 138 1 E179 ST 138 HG 4 138 1 272 286.7 289.3 2.6 E179 ST 138 HG 4 138 1 E179 ST 138 HG 1 1381 272 286.7 289.3 2.6 FR-KILLS 138 WILOWBK1 138 1 FR-KILLS 138 W1LOWBK2 138 1 316 3229 324.1 1.2 FR-KILLS 138 WILOWBK2 138 1 FR-KILLS 138 WILOWBK1 1381 316 3271 328.3 1.2 E15ST 45345 FARRAGUT 3451 n-1-1 M51 M52 893 9395 616.8 -322.7 E15ST 46 345 FARRAGUT 3451 n-1-1 M51 M52 914 932.4 612 -320.4 FARRAGUT 345 TRANSTAP 345 1 n-1-1 M51 M52 758 835.3 618.4 -216.9 FARRAGUT 345 TRANSTAP 345 3 n-1-1 61 62 758 835.3 4907 -344.6 RAINEY 345 TRANSTAP 345 3 n-1-1 61 62 758 8873 698.4 -188.9 Winter Transmission Element cenuncencv Ratina HTP Out HTPln chanae L1NVFT4345 COGNTECH 345 1 BUS:GOETHALS_S_345 500 665.9 666.1 0.2 L1NVFT4345 COGNTECH 345 1 SB:GTHL_345_S0UTH_8>6 500 666.4 666.7 03 COGNTECH 345 GOTHLS S 345 1 COGNTECH 345 GOTHLS S 345 2 902 9082 907.8 -0.4 COGNTECH 345 GOTHLS S 345 2 COGNTECH 345 GOTHLS S 345 1 902 908.2 9078 -0.4 GOTHLS S 345 GOWANUSS 345 1 FR KILLS 345 GOTHLS S 345 1 807 841.7 8352 -6.5 GOTHLS S 345 GOWANUSS 345 1 SB:FRES_345_1 807 847.3 840.6 -6.7 GOTHLS S 345 GOWANUSS 345 1 SB:FRES_345_3 807 847.5 839.1 -8.4 GOTHLS S 345 GOWANUSS 345 1 TWR:21&22 807 842.7 839.7 -3 SPRBROOK 345 DUN SO T 138 7 TWR:W89&W90 440 454.6 464.1 9.5 NWBRG 345 NEWBRGE 138 1 NWBRG 345 NEWBRGE 1382 585 746.7 675.3 -71.4 NWBRG 345 NEWBRGE 138 2 NWBRG 345 NEWBRGE 138 1 585 746.7 675.3 -71.4 BABYLON 690 W.BABYLN 69.0 1 BRENTWD 138 BRNTWD3 69.01 144 157.6 166.5 8.9

The Project introduced no new overloads under contingency conditions in the summer or winter peak simulations. Some pre-existing overloads were slightly increased; however, such increases were not near the Project point of interconnection and were likely due to the assumed dispatch to accommodate the project, rather than a direct effect of the project itself.

PowerGEM 11 Power Grid Engineering & Markets Table 4-4 results show that no overloads were found under n-1-1 conditions with HTP in service. Without HTP in service n-1-1 violations were found. It is expected that these pre existing conditions can be mitigated by turning on zone J GTs, but this was not evaluated because these overloads were remedied, not aggravated, with the Project in service.

4.2 Voltage Analysis Summer peak and winter peak system conditions were compared for the cases with and without the Project to evaluate the impact of HTP on voltage profiles throughout the network. Impacts are considered as long as the voltage difference with and without the Project is more than 0.5 % (0.005 per unit) decrease in low voltages or increase in high voltages.

4.2.1 Normal (pre-contingency) conditions Tables 4-5 and 4-6 show principal pre-contingency voltages for summer and winter peak conditions respectively, with and without HTP. Comparing voltage levels for these buses as well as the entire study area indicates that HTP does not introduce any new voltage violations on the bulk or local transmission network under pre-contingency conditions. No pre-contingency voltages with or without the project were outside limits.

~,'""" " PowerGEM 12 ,~ Power Grid Engineering & Markets Table 4-5. HTp·trnoact on ore-contin encv zone J 345 kV voltages (summer peak) Bus HTP Out HTPln Chanae 74315 COGNTECH 345 1.0470 1.0472 0.0002 74316 DUNWODIE 345 1.0045 1.0059 0.0014 74317 E VIEW1 345 10086 10100 00014 74318 E VIEW2 345 1.0015 1.0030 0.0015 74319 E VIEW3 345 1.0014 1.0029 0.0015 74320 E VIEW4 345 1.0014 1.0029 0.0015 74322 E15ST 45345 1.0293 1.0290 -0.0003 74323 E15ST 46345 1.0293 1.0290 -0.0003 74324 E15ST 47 345 1.0304 1.0296 -0.0008 74325 E15ST 48345 1.0297 1.0290 -0.0007 74327 FARRAGUT 345 1.0307 1.0300 -0.0007 74328 FARRGUT1 345 1.0375 1.0358 -00017 74329 FARRGUT2 345 1.0389 1.0373 -0.0016 74330 FGT-HUD9 345 1.0305 1.0297 -0.0008 74332 FR KILLS 345 1.0467 1.0470 00003 74333 GOTHLS N 345 10468 1.0471 0.0003 74334 GOTHLS R 345 1.0318 1.0349 0.0031 74335 GOTHLS S 345 1.0469 1.0472 0.0003 74336 GOWANUSN 345 1.0442 1.0442 00000 74337 GOWANUSS 345 10486 10486 0.0000 74342 PL VILLE 345 1.0032 1.0050 0.0018 74343 PL VILLW 345 1.0010 1.0028 00018 74345 RAINEY 345 1.0376 1.0359 -0.0017 74348 SPRBROOK 345 1.0048 1.0062 0.0014 74349 REACBUS 345 1.0075 10090 0.0015 74351 TREMONT 345 10038 10053 0.0015 74354 W 49 ST 345 1.0280 1.0287 0.0007 74383 GOETHALS 345 1.0320 1.0320 00000 74514 HUDSONDC 345 1.0358 1.0295 -0.0063 74567 REACM51 345 1.0334 1.0341 0.0007 74568 REACM52 345 10334 1.0341 00007 74593 W49 ST 1 138 1.0144 1.0151 0.0007 74594 W49 ST 2138 1.0152 1.0159 0.0007 74595 W49 ST 3138 10145 1.0151 0.0006 74596 W49 ST 4138 1.0163 1.0169 0.0006 74597 W49 ST 5138 10132 1.0139 0.0007 74650 REAC71 345 1.0401 1.0387 -00014 74651 REAC72 345 1.0401 1.0387 -0.0014 74691 S. BRONX 345 1.0392 1.0376 -00016 74834 BRGN SWS 345 1.0313 1.0313 0.0000 74873 GSUMID1 345 1.0430 1.0353 -0.0077 74874 GSUMID2 345 1.0413 1.0397 -0.0016 74875 TRANSTAP 345 1.0364 1.0348 -0.0016 74876 TRANSGAS 345 10372 1.0353 -0.0019 74897 SHCRK 345 10058 1.0073 0.0015 79579 ASTOR345 345 10429 1.0429 0.0000 75000 SHORE RD 345 1.0014 1.0255 0.0242 79607 DVNPT NK 345 1.0112 1.0126 0.0014

PowerGEM 13 Power Grid Engineering & Markets Table 4-6. HTP impact on nre-contin encv zone J 345 kV voltaaes (winter peak) Bus HTP Out HTPln Chanae 74315 COGNTECH 345 1.0336 1.0352 00016 74316 DUNWODIE 345 1.0161 1.0184 0.0023 74317 E VIEW1 345 1.0190 1.0210 0.0020 74318 E VIEW2 345 1.0148 1.0167 0.0019 74319 E VIEW3 345 1.0147 10166 00019 74320 E VIEW4 345 1.0147 1.0166 0.0019 74322 E15ST 45345 1.0313 1.0361 0.0048 74323 E15ST 46345 1.0313 1.0361 00048 74324 E15ST 47345 1.0318 1.0362 0.0044 74325 E15ST 48 345 1.0315 10360 00045 74327 FARRAGUT 345 1.0319 1.0364 0.0045 74328 FARRGUT1 345 1.0397 1.0414 0.0017 74329 FARRGUT2 345 1.0410 1.0425 0.0015 74330 FGT-HUD9 345 1.0319 1.0363 0.0044 74332 FR KILLS 345 1.0328 1.0344 0.0016 74333 GOTHLS N 345 1.0307 1.0323 00016 74334 GOTHLS R 345 10105 10119 0.0014 74335 GOTHLS S 345 1.0334 1.0350 00016 74336 GOWANUSN 345 1.0267 1.0288 0.0021 74337 GOWANUSS 345 10335 1.0356 0.0021 74342 PL VILLE 345 1.0163 1.0178 0.0015 74343 PL VILLW 345 1.0148 1.0163 0.0015 74345 RAINEY 345 10336 1.0374 00038 74348 SPRBROOK 345 1.0157 10181 0.0024 74349 REACBUS 345 1.0156 1.0182 00026 74351 TREMONT 345 1.0146 1.0170 0.0024 74354 W 49 ST 345 1.0305 10360 00055 74567 REACM51 345 1.0309 1.0357 0.0048 74568 REACM52 345 1.0309 10357 0.0048 74593 W49 ST 1138 1.0168 1.0158 -0.0010 74594 W49 ST 2138 10186 10174 -00012 74595 W49 ST 3138 1.0158 10148 -0.0010 74596 W49 ST 4138 1.0158 10201 0.0043 74597 W49 ST 5138 1.0143 10185 0.0042 74650 REAC71 345 1.0372 1.0405 0.0033 74651 REAC72 345 1.0372 1.0405 00033 74691 S. BRONX 345 1.0354 1.0391 00037 74873 GSUMID1 345 1.0410 10444 0.0034 74874 GSUMID2 345 1.0343 1.0382 0.0039 74875 TRANSTAP 345 1.0337 1.0377 0.0040 74876 TRANSGAS 345 1.0343 1.0382 00039 74897 SHCRK 345 1.0174 1.0197 0.0023 75000 SHORE RD 345 1.0144 1.0141 -0.0002 79607 DVNPT NK 345 1.0170 1.0199 0.0029

~ PowerGEM 14 ..~ PowerGridEngineering & Markets 4.2.2 Contingency conditions More than 1100 design and local contingencies were evaluated for summer and winter peak load conditions, using AC contingency analysis. Table 4-7 shows low voltages in the study area for summer peak conditions for all instances where introduction of the Project changes voltages by more than 0.5% (0.005 per unit). Complete results are provided in Appendices C and D.

Table 4-7. HTP imoact on low voltaaes, summer oeak (imoact > 0.5%) . ; .. Per Unit Voltaae Bus# Bus Name KV Continaencv Descriotion Summer Out Summer In Chanae Comment 74440 E75 ST-l 138 SB:RAIN_345_2E 09533 0.9480 -00053 new 74526 RAINEY2E 138 74587 74441 E75 ST-2 138 Wll0E75C 138 1 0.8301 0.8245 -0.0056 74441 E75 ST-2 138 SBRAIN_345_2E 0.8559 08489 -0.0070 74441 E75 ST-2 138 SB:RAIN_345_3E 0.8597 0.8533 -0.0064 74524 PLYM 1 138 SB:RAIN_345_2E 0.8563 0.8493 -00070 74524 PLYM 1 138 SB:RAIN_345_3E 0.8601 08537 -0.0064 74526 RAINEY2E 138 74587 74580 Wll0l&6 138 Wll0E75C 1381 0.8303 0.8246 -00057 74580 Wll0l&6 138 SBRAIN_345_2E 0.8559 0.8490 -0.0069 74580 Wll0l&6 138 SBRAIN_345_3E 0.8597 0.8533 -0.0064 74582 Wll03&8 138 SB:RAIN_345_2E 0.9493 09439 -0.0054 74586 Wll0E75B 138 SB:RAIN_345_2E 0.9537 0.9483 -0.0054 new 74526 RAINEY2E 138 74587 74586 Wll0E75B 138 Wll0E75C 1381 08302 0.8245 -0.0057 74586 Wll0E75B 138 SB:RAIN_345_2E 0.8559 08490 -0.0069 74586 Wll0E75B 138 SB:RAIN_345_3E 0.8597 08533 -0.0064 74589 W42ST1&9 138 SBW_49_345_8 0.8762 0.8642 -00120 74590 W42ST3&7 138 SB:W_49_345_2 0.8505 0.8451 -0.0054 74596 W49 ST 4 138 SBW_49_345_2 0.8505 0.8451 -0.0054 74597 W49 ST5 138 SBW_49_345_8 0.8763 08643 -00120 74598 W54 TRl 138 SBW_49_345_8 0.8763 08643 -00120 74599 W54 TR2 138 SB:W_49_345_2 0.8505 0.8451 -0.0054 74603 W65ST1&6 138 SBW_49_345_8 0.8760 0.8640 -0.0120 74604 W65ST2&5 138 SB:W_49_345_2 08503 0.8449 -0.0054 74775 RIVERTR1 138 SB:W_49_345_8 08763 0.8643 -0.0120 74776 RIVERTR2 138 SB:W_49_345_2 0.8506 0.8452 -0.0054 74878 W50-TAP 138 SBW 49 345 2 0.8505 0.8451 -00054

PowerGEM 15 Power Grid Englneerin9 & Markets Table 4-7. HTP im act on low voltaaes, summer oeak (hnoact > 0.5%) continued

Bus # Bus Name KV Continaencv Descrintion Summer Out Summer In Chanae Comment 74416 E75#2XT1 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9516 09459 -0.0057 new 74425 E75#2XT3 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9516 0.9459 -0.0057 new 74445 F/S38M12 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9505 09452 -00053 new 74447 F/S38M14 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9512 09459 -0.0053 new 74679 E111T1 138 loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 09518 0.9481 -0.0057 new 74681 SBNXT2 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9517 0.9460 -0.0057 new 74683 MOTTR2 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9516 0.9459 -0.0057 new 74685 E111T3 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9518 0.9461 -0.0057 new 74687 SBNXT4 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 09517 0.9460 -00057 new 74689 MOTTR4 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9516 0.9459 -0.0057 new 74417 E75#2XT2 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 09516 0.9459 -0.0057 new 74426 E75#2XT4 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9516 0.9459 -0.0057 new 74678 SBNXT1 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9517 09460 -0.0057 new 74680 MOTTR1 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9516 0.9459 -00057 new 74682 E111T2 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 andRavenswood 3 0.9518 0.9461 -0.0057 new 74684 SBNXT3 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9517 0.9460 -0.0057 new 74686 MOTTR3 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9516 0.9459 -0.0057 new 74688 E111T4 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9518 0.9461 -0.0057 new 74395 E29-T1 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9398 0.9347 -00051 74397 E29-T3 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.94 0.9349 -0.0051 74405 BRNVL1&9 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9348 0.9294 -0.0054 74407 BRNVL3&7 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9343 0.9289 -0.0054 74434 E13 ST 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 09417 09366 -0.0051 74441 E75 ST-2 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9373 0.9308 -0.0065 74450 FAR-PLY1 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9469 09415 -0.0054 74452 FAR-PLY3 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 09311 0.9258 -0.0053 74454 FGT/BRT1 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9433 0.9379 -0.0054 74456 FGT/BRT3 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 09428 09374 -0.0054 74458 FGT/HAT1 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9312 0.9259 -0.0053 74464 FGTIHAT7 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9466 09412 -0.0054 74524 PLYM 1 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 09469 0.9415 -0.0054 74528 RAINEY7E 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9368 0.9301 -0.0067 74534 SEAPT 4 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9442 0.9390 -0.0052 74536 SEPRT-T2 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9494 0.9442 -0.0052 74538 SEPRT-T4 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9442 09390 -0.0052 74540 SEPRTDM2 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9494 0.9441 -0.0053 74552 TDCTR-A 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9482 0.9430 -0.0052 74583 W110410 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9358 0.9293 -0.0065 74586 W110E75B 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.935 0.9284 -0.0066 74620 E13-DUM 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9414 0.9363 -0.0051 74622 E13-M22 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9401 0.9350 -0.0051 74624 E13-M24 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 09405 0.9354 -00051 74626 E36-T2 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9403 0.9352 -0.0051 74628 E36-T4 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9401 0.9350 -0.0051 74396 E29-T2 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 09395 0.9344 -0.0051 74398 E29-T4 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9399 0.9348 -00051

~ PowerGEM 16 ,~~ Power Grid Engineering & Markets Table 4-7. HTP impact on low voltages, summer peak (impact> 0.5%) continued Bus# Bus Name KV Contingency Description Summer Out Summer In Change Comment 74406 BRNVL2&6 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 09341 0.9287 -00054 74408 BRNVL4&8 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 09346 0.9292 -0.0054 74440 E75 ST-1 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9348 09281 -0.0067 74444 F/S38M11 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.95 0.9447 -0.0053 74448 F/S38M15 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0946 0.9408 -0.0052 74451 FAR-PLY2 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0946 0.9406 -0.0054 74453 FAR-PLY4 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9466 0.9412 -0.0054 74455 FGT/BRT2 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9428 09374 -0.0054 74457 FGT/BRT4 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9434 09380 -00054 74459 FGT/HAT2 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9462 0.9409 -00053 74463 FGT/HAT6 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9469 0.9415 -0.0054 74527 RAINEY3W 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9392 09328 -0.0064 74532 RAINEY9E 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9423 0.9360 -0.0063 74535 SEPRT-T1 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 09487 0.9434 -0.0053 74537 SEPRT-T3 138 loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9482 0.9430 -0.0052 74539 SEPRTDM1 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9486 0.9433 -0.0053 74551 TDCTR SP 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 09443 09391 -0.0052 74553 TRCTR-B 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9487 0.9434 -00053 74555 TRCTR-D 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9494 09442 -0.0052 74582 W1103&8 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9325 0.9258 -0.0067 74584 W1105&9 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9404 0.9342 -0.0062 74613 9EDUM 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.943 0.9371 -00059 74621 E13-M21 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9403 09352 -0.0051 74623 E13-M23 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9406 0.9355 -0.0051 74625 E36-T1 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 09404 0.9353 -0.0051 74627 E36-T3 138 Loss of Ravenswood 1 and Ravenswood 3 0.9399 0.9348 -0.0051

Examination of these results shows that HTP caused new low voltages and contributes to some pre-existing summer peak low voltage problems for stuck breaker contingencies. Turning on Rainey GTs 7E and 8 remediated all new stuck breaker voltage violations introduced by the Project. Low voltages underlying the West 49 th Street connection point for stuck breaker contingencies at West 49'h Street with HTP in service are expected to be remediated by the same measures needed to remediate pre-existing low voltage conditions. HTP caused new low voltages and contributes to some pre-existing summer peak low voltage problems for loss of the two largest generators (Ravenswood 1 and 3) in summer peak conditions. Turning on Rainey GTs 7E and 8 and Arthur Kill 3 (at minimum MW output) remediated all new and existing voltage violations caused by two generator outages. With HTP in service, dispatch of Arthur Kill 3 is not required if taps are allowed to change post contingency. The Project did not contribute to any high voltage conditions in summer peak conditions. Tables 4-8 and 4-9 respectively show low and high voltages in the study area for winter peak conditions, for all instances where introduction of the Project changes voltages by more than 0.5% (0.005 per unit). Complete results are provided in Appendices C and D.

PowerGEM 17 Power Grid Engineering & Markets Table 4-8. HTP impact on low voltaqes, winter peak (impact> 0.5% Bus# Bus Name KV Continoenev Deseriotion HTP Out HTP In Chanae Comment 74336 GOWANUSN 345 SER:41&25 0.8622 08568 -00054 74477 GOWNUSn 138 SER41&25 09297 0.9239 -0.0058 74589 W42ST1&9 138 SBW_49_345_8 09339 09264 -0.0075 75000 SHORE RD 345 SBDUNW_345_6 0.9575 0.9474 -0.0101 new 75000 SHORE RD 345 TWR:W89&W90 0.9562 0.9464 -0.0098 new

Table 4-9. HTP impact on hiqh voltaqes, winter peak (imt act> 0.5% Bus# Bus Name KV Conlinaenev Deseriotion HTP Out HTP In Chanae Comment 74446 F/S38M13 138 SB:FARR_345_7W 10882 1.0934 00052 74446 F/S38M13 138 FGT/HAT5 138 HUD 3 1381 1.0175 1.052 00345 new 74446 F/S38M13 138 HUD 3138 WATER ST 27.01 1.0176 1.0531 0.0355 new 74446 F/S38M13 138 RAINEY2E 138 W110E75C 138 1 10152 10504 0.0352 new 74446 F/S38M13 138 RAINEY7E 138 W110E75B 1381 1.0156 1.0509 0.0353 new 74446 F/S38M13 138 RAINEY7W138W110E75A 1381 1.0156 1.0508 0.0352 new 74554 TRCTR-C 138 SB:FARR_345_7W 10881 10933 0.0052 74611 8E DUM 138 RAINEY 345 8W DUM 1388 1.0342 10532 0.0190 new 74611 8EDUM 138 RAINEY8W 138 VERNON-W 138 1 10343 1.0533 0.0190 new 74611 8E DUM 138 RAINEY8W 138 8W DUM 1381 1.0342 1.0532 0.0190 new 74611 8EDUM 138 SB:RAIN_345_8W 1.0317 1.0507 0.0190 new 74611 8E DUM 138 SB:RAIN 345 9W 10335 1.0525 00190 new

Examination of these results shows that HTP contributes to a single winter peak pre-existing low voltage problem in the underlying network in the vicinity of the West 49th Street substation (bus W42ST 1&9) for stuck breaker number 8 contingency at West 49th Street. Two new low voltage instances occurred with HTP included, but both are on the tie lines into Long Island, suggesting that these low voltages are the result of the assumed generation redispatch in Long Island to include the Project. The winter peak simulation with HTP included resulted in new high voltages in the 138 kV system underlying the Rainey and Farragut substations. As these locations are distant from the HTP New York connection point, these high voltages violations are likely related to generation redispatch in this vicinity to include HTP rather than a direct impact of HTP itself. In conclusion, the Project contributed to pre-existing low voltages in the network underlying the West 49th Street connection point. Voltage violations were introduced elsewhere in the study area, primarily due to power flow modeling assumptions with the Project included.

~r PowerGEM 18 ~ir Power Grid Engineering & Markets 4.3 PAR and Wheel Analysis The study work scope specifies that the impact of the HTP project on the ABCJK PAR schedule (the "Wheel") will be assessed. Any impact on the ABCJK line flows and PAR schedules would primarily be due to the withdrawal of 660 MW in the PJM system at the Bergen 230 kV substation and the resultant flow changes in the PJM system. Actual impact is expected to be very dependent on network changes contemplated by PJM as a result of their studies of the Project. PJM study results and studies of alternative network upgrades in New Jersey are preliminary, but all involve significant PJM network changes. The expected PJM changes were not included in the network model used for this study. Analysis of the impact of PJM network changes on New York reliability were beyond the study scope. Nevertheless, an analysis of the impact of the Project on ABCJK line flows and PAR control capability was performed using the network models provided by NYISO. Tables 4-10 and 4-11 show the PAR control and wheel line (ABCJK) flows and wheel balance for the network models with and without the Project. Complete results are provided in Appendix E. As shown in Tables 4-10 and 4-11, the system, as modeled in the cases provided by NYISO, can not maintain the wheel at 1000 MW (an imbalance of 57 MW) due to the tap control limit on the Goethals PAR in summer peak conditions. Inclusion of the Project led to further wheel imbalance (an increase for 57 to 105 MW), but did not lead to any other PAR control problems. The wheel was maintained with and without the Project for winter peak conditions. All other PARS in the Study Area were able to control flow for summer and winter peak, with or without HTP.

Table 4-10. PARs anqle control be fore redispatc h Summer Hudson Out Summer Hudson In Winter Hudson Out Winter Hudson In Over Over Over Angle Angle Over Angle Angle Angle Angle Pars max min AnQle Limit? Anale limit? AnQle Limit? An.,. Limit? 'GOTHLS R' 25 -25 -25 YES -25 YES -138 NO -12.9 NO 'LIN SHF' 25 -25 -5.9 NO 0.2 NO -11 NO -6 NO 'WALD FAIR' 35 -35 -25 NO -20.6 NO -31.4 NO -265 NO 'WALD HAWTH' 30 -30 -23.6 NO 194 NO -28.3 NO -24 NO 'WALD-HILL' 32 -32 -24 NO -19.1 NO -30.1 NO -24 NO

Table 4-11. A,B,C,J,K balance and flows be f ore re isoatch Summer Summer Winter Hudson Hudson Hudson Winter BuS# BusName Volt BuS# BusName Volt CKT Normal LTE STE Out In Oul Hudson In 4 SIB 9 fWDSONl 345 743:'6 r.l\RF.GUTl 345 1 519 699 930 400 a 400 a 4000 400.0 ~9% LINDEN :::,:J 437; GOE:::'liALS 230 1 511 708 736 275.5 323,6 200.3 200.3 S039 HUDSON2 34 :, 74329 fAR?GLlT2 34') 1 497 705 930 400.0 400.0 4000 4000 5028 Wp.LDWICK :3 45 79302 SMAH\';A:~1 315 1 602 905 -445,7 -445.7 -464.7 -464.7 5028 W;'.LDW]';K 34 S 79303 SMAHWAH.:' }4 :, 1 589 898 -573.1 ~573 1 -535.9 -535.9

Balance 56.7 104.8 ·0,3 -0.3

To better analyze the impact of the Project on the Wheel, the summer peak cases were redispatched, increasing Arthur Kill 3 generation and decreasing PJM unit A4, as shown in Appendix E, Table E-3. To insure that this redispatch did not affect other study results, the

PowerGEM 19 Power Grid Engineering & Markets change in voltages and flows was simulated. No impacts relevant to the studies of the Project were detected, as reported in Appendix E. Tables 4-12 and 4-13 show the PAR control and wheel line (ABCJK) flows and wheel balance for the network models with and without the Project for summer peak conditions, after the above described redispatch. Complete results are provided in Appendix E. These results show that the Project does not negatively impact the ability to control the Wheel.

Table 4-12. PARs anqle control after redisnatch (summer peak) Summer Hudson Out Summer Hudson In Pars Angle max Angle min Over Angle Over Angle Angle Limit? Anale Limit? 'GOTHLS R' 25 -25 -20.7 NO -16.1 NO 'LIN SHF' 25 -25 -5.1 NO -1 NO 'WALD-FAIR' 35 -35 -19.9 NO -12.6 NO 'WALD-HAwrH' 30 -30 -186 NO -115 NO 'WALD-H ILL' 32 -32 -19 NO -11.1 NO

Table 4-13. A,B,C,J,K balance and flows after redispatch (summer peak) Summer Summer Bus# BusName Volt Bus# BusName Volt CKT Normal LTE STE Hudson Out Hudson In 4989 HUDSONl 345 74328 FARRGUTI 345 1 519 699 930 400.0 400.0 4996 LINDEN 230 74371 GOETHALS 230 1 511 708 736 2004 2004 5039 HUDSON2 345 74329 FARRGUT~ 345 1 497 705 930 400.0 400.0 5028 WALDWICK 345 79302 SMAHvli'.Hl 345 1 602 905 -445.5 -445.1 50.28 WALDWICK 345 79303 SMAHWAH2 345 1 589 898 -573.3 -573.8

Balance -18.4 -18.4

In conclusion, the HTP project did not negatively impact the ability to control the ABCJK flows and the Wheel. No other PAR control problems occurred in the Study Area with or without HTP. Based on the analysis results, it is concluded that the project does not cause any new adverse thermal overloads or voltage violations on the local and bulk power network. The project meets all applicable NERC, NPCC, and NYSRC design standards.

PowerGEM 20 Power Grid Engineering & Markets 5. STABILITY ANALYSIS

Simulations and analysis were conducted to observe the impact of the project on system stability for summer peak load and light load cases. For the summer peak stability analysis, the network models used in the steady state analysis were also used in the stability analysis. For light load, the generation dispatch was as provided in the NYISO database.

5.1 Modeling The stability database for summer peak load and light load conditions, including the stability model for the project, were provided by NYISO. Power flow and stability models in PSSE format for HTP are provided in Appendix N.

5.2 Design Contingencies The following bulk power system design contingencies in the region of the project were simulated:

Table 5-1. Stabilitv bulk svstem desion continqencies NYISO Design Stability Contingencies for HTP 10 Description TE10 SLG/STK@RAMAPO-ROCKTAVERN/STK T-77-94-2/CLR Y94 TE40 3PH@RAMAPO-2 RAMAPO-WALDWICK 69/J3410+70/K3411 TE42 3PH@RAMAPO 500KV/BRANCHBURG-RAMAPO#5018/N.C. UCD3 * 3PH@SPRAIN BK-LIO TOWER(2-1956) MILLWOOD-SPRAIN BROOK UC06 SLG/STK @ DUNWOODIE - PVLE W9D I STK#8 CLR RAINEY#72 UC11 SLG/STK@SPRAINBROOK-TREMONT/STK RNS6/CLEAR W93!W79 UC12 ** SLG/STK@RAMAPO-BRANCHBURG/STKT-150D-W72-2/CLR W72 UC19 3PH@MILLWOOD-LIOTOWER (2-1961) MILLWOOD-SPRAINBROOK UC20 *** 3PH@DUNWOODIE-LIOTOWER(2-1938) PLEASANTVILLE*DUNWD UC25 3PH @ RAVENSWOOD#3 - TRIP GEN.@ 4.5 UC26 LLG LlO TOWER LADENTOWN-W.HAVERSTRAW IREJ BOWLINE • this contingency IS the same as TE03 •• this contingency is the same as TE12 *** this contingency is the same as TE20

These are standard NYISO contingencies, and NYISO provided command files for simulating these contingencies in the stability analysis. In addition to these contingencies, a steady-state simulation was conducted to verify that the stability model remains steady in the absence of a disturbance. PSSE command files for these contingencies are provided in Appendix N.

~ PowerGEM 21 ., Power Grid Engineering & Markets These contingencies were simulated both with and without HTP. Plots for summer peak conditions are in Appendix F, while plots for light load conditions are in Appendix G. One-line diagrams showing base case flows in the HTP area are also included. The stability of the HTP project itself is not an issue since it is a transmission project rather than a new generator. Rather, the issue is the impact of HTP on the stability of other system generators. The performance of the bulk power system and local transmission system was similar when comparing response with and without the Project. The system was stable for all contingencies, both in terms of transient stability and damping.

5.3 Critical Clearing Time Simulations To provide a measure of the impact of HTP on critical clearing time, the stability of the system for slow clearing three-phase faults was simulated. The fault clearing time was increased in 1.0 cycle increments until at least one generator became transiently unstable. No transmission elements were tripped following fault clearing. A fault at the West 49'h Street 345 kV substation was simulated since that is the point of interconnection for HTP. In addition, a fault at the Sprainbrook 345 kV station was simulated to provide a measure of the impact of HTP at a station more electrically distant. The results are summarized in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2. Summarv 0 f cntica.. I cleanna time resu ts LLL-G fault location Status of HTP West 49'h Street 345 kV Sprainbrook 345 kV Off 16 cycles (1) 15 cycles (2) On 16 cycles (1) 15 cycles (2) 1. For a 17 cycle fault duration, the Transgas generation was transiently unstable. 2. For a 16 cycle fault duration, the Indian Point 3 generator was transiently unstable.

The results indicate that HTP had no effect on critical clearing time for the faults examined.

PowerGEM 22 Power Grid Engineering & Markets 6. SHORT CIRCUIT ANALYSIS

The short circuit analysis was conducted with the Aspen One-Liner software using a database provided by the NYISO. The database included a pre-HTP case and a case with HTP added. The short circuit calculations were based on the NYISO Guideline for Fault Current Assessment. Three-phase-to ground, two-phase-to-ground, and one-phase-to-ground faults were applied to buses included in the study area as defined in the scope of work. Table 6-1 summarizes the short circuit resuits for which the impact of HTP project increased the short circuit current by at least 100 amperes (0.1 kA). For those buses, the table shows the lowest circuit breaker interrupting rating. More details on the short circuit results are contained in Appendix H, as well as the HTP short circuit model. The HVDC line itself does not contribute to fault currents. Thus, there is no change to the three phase fault currents. However, the converter transformers are grounded and thus provide a path for zero sequence currents, leading to an increase in line-to-ground and double-line-to-ground faults.

Table 6-1. Project short circuit imoact, total bus fau t current Hudson Transmission Optional Interconnection Study: Short Circuit Results Buses with change of at least +0.1 kA

Hudson Off Hudson On KV BUS Lowest Bkr. Ratin AREA ZONE 3L.G(kA) 2LG(kA) 1LG(kA) 3LG(kA) 2LG(kA) 1LG(kA) Change 73.5 HUDSON DC oat a 2 10 oat a oat a oat a 14.586 13.513 11.480 not app 735 HUDSONDC trt oat a 2 10 nol eco. not aOD. oat 14.586 12.631 0.000 oat a 138 E 13 5T 63.0 2 10 44.749 45930 46,071 44.749 46009 46287 0.216 138 E15TR12M dummy bus 2 10 44.239 45.396 45,522 44.239 45,474 45.733 0211 138 E15TR13M dumm bus 2 10 43725 44.854 44.965 43.724 44.931 45.172 0.207 345 E15ST 45 dummy bus 2 10 47,082 48.726 45.262 47.081 49103 46.172 0.377 345 E15ST 46 dummy bus 2 10 47.082 48.859 45.201 47.081 49.237 46.104 0.378 345 E15$T 47 dumm bus 2 10 46.302 47.867 44.222 46301 48.204 44 855 0.337 345 E15$T 48 dumm bus 2 10 46.162 47882 43.917 46162 48.223 44.550 0.341 345 FARRAGUT 63.0 2 10 51.071 52.995 51.600 51070 53.445 52482 0.450 345 HUDSON INV not eon 2 10 not aDP not aPD not eoo. 32.934 35.537 33320 not aDD. 345 HUDSON TRANS not a 2 10 oat a not a oat a 35.718 38.722 36025 not eco. 345 Moll Haven dumm bus 2 10 45.070 46477 41.904 45.069 46.695 42.222 0.218 345 POLElTl 80.0 7 10 39.209 40.193 34.689 39.208 40.397 35080 0.204 345 RAINEY 63.0 2 10 50.118 51.742 50.177 50.117 52.090 50.677 0.348 345 RAINEY-FARAG Trans as bus withdrawn 2 10 50.781 52578 51.358 50.781 52.970 51.960 0.392 345 RAV-3 DU0702 630 2 10 48792 50.345 48.896 48791 50.674 49.367 0329 345 RAV-3 DU070S 63.0 2 10 48.791 50.344 48.895 48.791 50673 49.366 0.329 345 TR13 DM1 dumm bus 2 10 8.771 29.087 15.324 8.771 30,160 15437 1,073 345 TR14 DUl dumm bus 2 10 8.528 28.261 14.856 8.528 29.308 14.963 1.047 345 TRANSGAS Transaas bus withdrawn 2 10 50.167 51.893 50.743 50.166 52.279 51.326 0.387 345 W49 ST 63.0 2 10 44.728 46.066 41,714 44727 46413 43.017 0.347

No buses for which HTP had an impact of at least 0.1 kA had total fault currents that exceeded the lowest breaker rating for associated substations. Therefore, the analysis indicates that HTP would not require any circuit breaker replacements.

~ PowerGEM 23 .., Power Grid Engineering & Markets 7. EXTREME CONTINGENCY ANALYSIS

Representative extreme contingencies within the study area were evaluated for summer peak conditions to assess the impact of the project. Per NPCC Basic Criteria, the objective of the extreme contingency analysis is "... to obtain an indication of system strength, or to determine the extent of a widespread system disturbance, even though extreme contingencies do have low probabilities of occurrence". System performance requirements are thus less stringent for extreme contingencies. Widespread cascading outages, infeasible voltage patterns, or system separations are not acceptable grid responses to these events. Any violations revealed by extreme contingency analysis with or without the addition of the HTP project are reported, but are not required to be resolved by system upgrades.

7.1 Steady State Analysis Eight extreme contingencies were tested, with and without HTP. Contingency descriptions are listed in Table 7-1. All extreme contingency testing used the peak load summer conditions described in Section 3.2.

Table 7- 1 . L'IS t of extreme con rmoencies EC# Description 22 LOSS OF RAMAPO SUBSTATION 25 LOSS OF MILLWOOD SUBSTATION 26 LOSS OF R.OW. SOUTH OF MILLWOOD 27 LOSS OF ASTORIA GENERATION 28 LOSS OF RAVENSWOOD GENERATION 36 3PH/STK@RAMAPO-ROCKTAVERN/STK T-77-94-2, TRIP RAM-ROCK & RAM BUCH + TA-5 XFMR W49 LOSS OF 49th STREET

All extreme contingencies tested converged; detailed output results are included in Appendix I. System response was similar with or without HTP and the project impact was minimal. Table 7 2 presents a summary of violations following the extreme contingencies tested.

~ PowerGEM 24 ,¥" Power Grid Engineering & Markets Table 72 Extreme Con f maencv AI'StdSttRnarvsis ea~v ae esu ItS s ummarv Numberof Number of Hi h Number of Low Voltages V~ta es Number of Flows> Numberof voltages Overloads Decreased by g > 0 5'1. (0 005 Increasedby 100% Rating > 1.05 or < .95 PU increaed by > ~th 1% with HTPin pui HTP > 0.5% (0.005 WI PUj with In HTP In Extreme Contingency HTP Out HTPIN HTP Out HTPIN EC22 3 3 18 16 0 0 0 EC25 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 EC26 1 1 6 5 0 0 0 EC27 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 EC28 0 1 124 215 1 119 0 EC36 3 3 8 5 0 0 0 W49 0 0 16 12 0 0 0

Inclusion of the Project contributed to low voltages for loss of the Ravenswood generation (EC28). Moreover, the reduction in reactive supply from the Transgas units 1 and 2 when HTP is included aggravates the voltage control following this extreme contingency. The project did not have any significant impact following any other extreme contingency.

7.2 Stability Analysis The following bulk power system extreme contingencies in the region of the project were simulated:

Table 73- L'ist 0 f extreme sta blI ltv contincencies EC# Description 22 LOSS OF RAMAPO SUBSTATION 25 LOSS OF MILLWOOD SUBSTATION 26 LOSS OF R.O.W SOUTH OF MILLWOOD 27 LOSS OF ASTORIA GENERATION 28 LOSS OF RAVENSWOOD GENERATION 36 3PH/STK@RAMAPO-ROCKTAVERNISTKT-77-94-2, TRIP RAM-ROCK & RAM-BUCH + TA-5 XFMR W49 NO FAULT LOSS OF WEST 49TH STREET 345 KV SUBSTATION

Except for contingency W49, these are standard NYISO contingencies, and NYISO provided command files for simulating them in the stability analysis. These contingencies were simulated both with and without the project. Plots for summer peak conditions simulated are in Appendix J. Command files for the contingencies are provided in Appendix N.

~ PowerGEM 25 .., Power Grid Engmeenng & Markets The system was stable for all contingencies, both in terms of transient stability and damping. System performance with and without HTP was similar.

PowerGEM 26 PowerGrid Engineering & Markets 8. INTERFACE TRANSFER LIMIT ANALYSIS

Interface transfer limit analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of the project on the normal and emergency transfer limits of the UPNY-ConEd (UC), Ounwoodie South (OS), ConEd Cable (CC) and PJM-NY (PN) interfaces. The original interface definitions provided by the NYISO were modified for consistency with the underlying power flow cases with HTP included. The HTP project was added to the closed interface definitions. The analysis was performed for summer peak load conditions.

8.1 Thermal Analysis Thermal transfer limit analysis is based on OC (linear) power flow analysis and was performed using Siemens PTI MUST software. Power transfers were simulated between sending and receiving subsystems, appropriately selected for each interface. For the UC, OS and CC interfaces, power transfers originated in upstate NYCA/Ontario region (source) and ended in the NYC/L1 area (sink). Power apportionment within each sending/receiving system was in accordance to standard proportions, as used in NYISO planning and operating studies. Normal and emergency transfer limits were calculated for each interface. A normal interface transfer limit is the transfer level where a) a branch flow reaches its normal rating, under pre contingency conditions, or b) a branch flow reaches its LTE rating following any design contingency. An emergency interface transfer limit is the transfer level where a) a branch flow reaches its normal rating, under pre-contingency conditions, or b) a branch flow reaches its STE rating following a single line, multi-element, or generator outage. OS and CC normal limits are based on cable STE ratings when post-contingency flows are limiting. Normal and emergency transfer limits are presented in Table 8-1. Output results from the transfer analysis are included in Appendix K.

Table 8-1. Thermal normal and emer enc transfer limits Normal limits Emergency limits HTP off HIP on Difference HTP off HTP on Difference UPNY - ConEd (op) 3938 (a) 3934 (a) -4 5081 (b) 5077 (b) -4 UPNY - ConEd (cl) 6398 (a) 7104 (a) 706 7540 (b) 8246 (b) 706 Dunwoodie South (op) 4764 (c) 4731 (c) -33 4787 (d) 4754 (d) -33 Dunwoodie South (cl) 7223 (c) 7901 (e) 678 7247 (d) 7924 (d) 677 ConEd Cable (op) 3949 (e) 3915 (e) -34 3973 (d) 3939 (d) -34 ConEd Cable (cl) 5321 (c) 5999 (c) 678 5345 (d) 6022 (d) 677 PJM-NY' 3466 (e) 4131 (e) 665 3612 (f) 4270 (f) 658 (a) Rock Tavern - Ramapo 345 kV(LTE: 1890 MW) for SIN:430 (UO Roseton-Fishkill345 kV& Sugarloaf-Rock Tavern 115 kV) (b) Rock Tavern - Ramapo 345 kV(STE' 2169 MW) forUO Roseton-Fishkill 345 kV (c) Rainey - S. Bronx 345 kV#4 (STE: 1201 MW) forSBRain_345_2E (d) Rainey - S. Bronx 345 kV#4 (STE: 1201 MW) forLlO Rainey - S. Bronx 345 kV#3 (e) E. Towanda-Hillside 230 kV (LTE: 531 MW) forSERHCWC/NWES (LiO Homer City - Watercure 345 kV & E. Sayre - N. Waverly 115 kV) mHomer City - Watercure 345 kV(normal 755 MW) .... 1000 MW on Ramapo phase shifting transformers, in indicated direction

PowerGEM 27 Power Grid Engineering & Markets HTP has only minimal impact on open interface thermal transfer limits. Closed interface limits increase by about the amount of the flow on HTP. The project does not adversely impact thermal transfer limits.

8.2 Voltage Analysis Voltage transfer limit analysis was performed for UPNY-ConEd, Dunwoodie South and ConEd Cable interfaces using Siemens PTI PSS/E software. A series of power flow cases were created modeling increasing transfers, using generation shifts similar to those used in the thermal analysis (i.e., from Ontariolupstate New York region to NYC/LI area). Selected contingencies, listed in Table 8-2, were applied at each transfer level to determine voltage stability. As the transfer across an interface is increased, the voltage-constrained limit is determined to be the lesser of a) the pre-contingency interface flow where the post-contingency voltage falls below the OP-1 post-contingency limit, or b) 95% of the pre-contingency interface flow at the "nose" of the post-contingency PV curve. Since the 'nose' of the curve can not be exactly pinpointed, the 95% rule is applied to the last transfer level where the case seems to reach a stable solution.

Table 8-2. List 0 f continoencies f or vo tage trans f er limit anaivsrsI. description code description code L/O Ravenswood #3 log09 LlO TWR Y881Y94 uc18 LlO Marcy South S. ce08 LlO TWR W89!W90 uc20 LlO TWR 34/42 S ce19 LlO TWR F30/F31 uc21 LlO N. Scotland bus - Alps te32 LlO TWR 67/68 uc26 L/O 5018 te42 LlO TWR W97!W98 uc33 LlO TWR Y861Y87 uc02

Voltage transfer limits are presented in Table 8-3. The table only shows one set of limits; since limits in all instances were defined by the 95% of voltage collapse criterion, normal and emergency limits were the same. Additional details in the form of P-V curves for selected contingencies and buses are included in Appendix L.

Table 8-3. Voltaqe transfer limits (in MW) Interface HTP Off HTP On Difference UPNY - ConEd (op) 4231 (a) 4214 (a) -17 UPNY - ConEd (e1) 6729 (a) 7353 (a) 624 Dunwoodie South (op) 4028 (a) 3954 (a) -74 Dunwoodie South (cl) 6531 (a) 7066 (a) 535 ConEd Cable (op) 3254 (a) 3175 (a) -79 ConEd Cable (e1) 4725 (a) 5257 (a) 532 (a) LlO TWR 67/68 (uc26)

PowerGEM 28 Power Grid Engineering & Markets As mentioned earlier in the report, some units in the NYC area were turned off in order to accommodate the HTP project, thus reducing the MVAR availability in the case with HTP. To better assess the impact of the HTP project on the Dunwoodie South and ConEd Cable transfer limits, a sensitivity transfer analysis was performed. Whereas in the original transfer analysis two TransGas units were switched off in the case with HTP, as shown in Table 3-2, in the sensitivity analysis, only one TransGas unit was switched off and MW output was reapportioned on the TransGas units being modeled online (i.e., the total MW output of the TransGas plant was the same in the sensitivity analysis as in the original analysis). Using these sensitivity cases,the Dunwoodie South and ConEd Cable transfer limits were found to be at least equal in the case with HTP on as in the case without HTP. Therefore, it can be concluded that the dispatch modeling assumptions used in the original analysis contributed to the reduction of the Dunwoodie South and ConEd Cable transfer limits shown in Table 8-3. The HTP project is not found to adversely impact interface voltage transfer limits.

8.3 Stability Analysis NYISO Transmission Planning Guideline #3-0 requires that stability analysis be conducted to insure that the system is stable at 111% (or more) of the controlling transfer limit based on transmission loading (thermal) or voltage. For HTP, post-contingency voltage is in all but one case the more limiting aspect of system performance. Cases were developed without and with HTP to meet this requirement. As is standard practice for evaluating the intra-state interfaces required for this SRIS, generation was increased in upstate New York and decreased in the New York City area to achieve the required transfer levels. Because of very low base case voltages in the pre-contingency system for these very high transfer levels, additional capacitors were added at the Rock Tavern 345 kV (200 MVAr) and Dunwoodie 345 kV (400 MVAr) buses. (This is a practice also sometimes used in NYISO system evaluations). The voltage limits and the transfers in the cases used to evaluate stability performance are summarized in Table 8-4 for the interfaces of interest. The same contingencies shown in Table 5-1 were simulated. The system was stable for all contingencies both pre-HTP and post-HTP. Thus stability performance does not limit transfers for the UPNY-ConEd and Dunwoodie South interfaces analyzed.

PowerGEM 29 PowerGrid Engineering & Markets in cases for transfer limit anal sis HTP Off Voltage-based Stability Margin Stability Case Transfer Transfer Limit Test Case Transfer as % of Voltage Limit UPNY - ConEd (0) 4231 4798 113.4% UPNY - ConEd (c) 6729 7487 111.3% Dunwoodie South (0) 4028 4590 113.9% Dunwoodie South (c) 6531 7280 111.5% HTPOn Voltage-based Stability Margin Stability Case Transfer as Transfer Limit Test Case Transfer % of Voltage Limit UPNY - ConEd (0) 4214 4768 113.1 % UPNY - ConEd (c) 7353 8099 110.1% Dunwoodie South (0) 3954 4551 115.1% Dunwoodie South (c) 7066 7882 111.5%

Plots of system response for each of the contingencies are in Appendix M.

8.4 Summary of Transfer Limits A summary of the impact of the HTP project on transfer limits for summer peak conditions, based on the analyses reported in this section, is provided in Table 8-5.

Table 8-5. Summary of HTP impact on summer peak transfer limits Normal Emergency HTP off HTPon Delta HTP off HTP on Delta UPNY - ConEd (op) 3938 (T) 3934 (T) -4 4231 (V) 4214 (V) -17 UPNY - ConEd (cl) 6398 (T) 7104 (T) 706 6729 (V) 7353 (V) 624 Dunwoodie South (op) 4028 (V) 3954 (V) -74 4028 (V) 3954 (V) -74 Dunwoodie South (e1) 6531 (V) 7066 (V) 535 6531 (V) 7066 (V) 535 ConEd Cable (op) 3254 (V) 3175 (V) -79 3254 (V) 3175 (V) -79 ConEd Cable (cl) 4725 (V) 5257 (V) 532 4725 (V) 5257 (V) 532 PJM-NY' 3466 (T) 4131 (T) 665 3612 (T) 4270(T) 658 .analysis limited to thermal loading T- thermal limit, V-voltage limit

Transfer analysis results show that HTP increased transfer capabilities when total (closed) interfaces were measured. The project caused a small transfer capability decrease of the Dunwoodie South and ConEd Cable open interfaces, based on voltage performance. The decrease was found to be due to the dispatch assumptions used in the study, rather than the inclusion of the HTP project.

PowerGEM 30 Power Grid Engineering & Markets 9. PRELIMINARY INTERCONNECTION COST ESTIMATES

The developer's cost estimate for the New York attachment facilities is $9 million. No system upgrade facilities (SUF's) are recommended by this study.

PowerGEM 31 Power Grid Engineering & Markets 10. CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of the Hudson Transmission Project on the reliability of the bulk and local power system in the NYCA zones I, J, and K. Based on the available data, network modeling assumptions, and the analysis performed, the following conclusions have been reached: • Introduction of HTP did not result in any adverse changes in the loading of the local or bulk power system for pre-contingency conditions. One new pre-contingency overload in the Astoria pocket was deemed unrelated to Project operation and was likely due to the dispatch assumed in the case provided. This new condition can be mitigated by redispatch, PAR adjustment, or generator connection SWitching at the Astoria West 138 kV substation. • HTP did not introduce any new overloads under contingency conditions in summer or winter peak simulations. Some pre-existing overloads were slightly increased; however, such increases were not nearby the Project point of interconnection indicating that the increases were due to the assumed dispatch changes in order to accommodate the Project, rather than a direct effect of the Project itself. • The Project contributed to some pre-existing low voltages in the 138 kV network underlying the HTP West 49th Street connection point. Voltage violations were introduced elsewhere in the study area, likely due to power flow modeling assumptions with the Project included, were found to be remediated by redispatch and turning on GTs in Zone J. • The inclusion of the HTP project did not adversely impact the control of the ABCJK flows and the Wheel, or cause a control problem with other Study Area PARs. • The stability performance of the bulk power system and local transmission system was similar when comparing response with and without HTP. The system was stable for all contingencies, both in terms of transient stability and damping. • Study results indicate that HTP had no effect on critical clearing lime for the faults examined. • No buses for which HTP had an impact of at least 0.1 kA had a total fault current that exceeded the lowest breaker rating for the associated substation. Therefore, the analysis indicates that HTP would not require any circuit breaker replacements. • System response under extreme contingency conditions was similar with or without HTP and the project impact was minimal. The system was stable for all extreme contingencies, both in terms of transient stability and damping. • Transfer analysis results show that HTP increased transfer capabilities when total (closed) interfaces were measured. The project caused small transfer capability decrease of the Dunwoodie South and ConEd Cable open interfaces, due to voltage performance. The decrease was found to be due to dispatch assumptions used in the study. Stability performance did not limit transfers for the UPNY-ConEd and Dunwoodie South interfaces analyzed. • The Attachment Facilities required to interconnect HTP are estimated at a non-binding, good faith total cost of $9 million. This estimate does not include the costs for any facilities that may be identified as needed in PJM studies.

~..:.. PowerGEM 32 ....~ Power Grid Engineering & Markets Based on the results of this SRIS, under the NYISO, NPCC, and NERC study criteria and procedures and with the HTP line operated according to the NYISO policies and procedures, we find that HTP does not degrade system reliability or adversely impact the operation of the power system.

~ PowerGEM 33 ~ Power Grid Engineering & Markets