AC Transmission
Public Policy Transmission Need
FAQ
April 13, 2016
Introduction
This frequently-asked-questions (FAQ) document summarizes questions received and answers
provided by the NYISO with regard to the AC Transmission Public Policy Transmission Need (PPTN),
for which solution proposals are due on April 29, 2016. Additional questions received by the NYISO
prior to April 7, 2016, will be answered by April 13 and will be posted in an updated FAQ document.
Questions received on or after April 7 will not be answered until after April 29, 2016.
Key References
NYISO point of contact for the Public Policy Transmission Planning Process:
PublicPolicyPlanningMailbox@nyiso.com
NYISO point of contact for developer qualification:
DeveloperQualification@nyiso.com
Public Policy Transmission Planning Process Manual and attachments (Manuals > Planning):
http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets operations/documents/manuals guides/index.jsp
Project Solicitation:
http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/markets operations/services/planning/Planning Studies/P
ublic Policy Documents/Public Policy Notices/AC Transmission PPTN Solution Solicitation 201602-29.aspx
Baseline Results Presentation:
http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/markets operations/services/planning/Planning Studies/P
ublic Policy Documents/AC Transmission PPTN/NYISO AC transmission TechConf 2015-1008v2.pdf
1
1. If a developer proposes a single Public Policy Transmission Project for Segments A and B combined,
with one fee and one deposit, can NYISO select just Segment A or just Segment B from that
combined proposal? Or should a developer submit separate proposals with separate fees and
deposits for Segment A and for Segment B?
NYISO Response:
The NYISO will not modify project proposals. If a Developer were to propose one solution to both
Segments A and B, the NYISO would only consider the proposal in its entirety and would not select
portions for only Segment A or Segment B. If a Developer is proposing solutions to both Segments A and
B, and wishes to maintain flexibility to be selected for either one segment or both segments, then the
Developer should submit a proposal for Segment A and a separate proposal for Segment B. Each
proposal individually would be required to meet the project information and submittal requirements and
fees as set forth in the tariff.
2. If a developer is proposing both Segments A and B as a combined project, would NYISO require an
interconnection request that has both A and B combined? Or would two individual interconnection
requests for A and B be sufficient?
NYISO Response:
As stated in the solicitation letter, a Developer is separately responsible for complying with applicable
interconnection requirements, but is not required to satisfy these requirements by April 29, 2016.
Pursuant to a FERC directive in the NYISO’s Order No. 1000 proceeding, the NYISO filed new Transmission
Interconnection Procedures on March 22, 2016, with an effective date of April 1, 2016, which applies to
proposed Public Policy Transmission Projects. The new Transmission Interconnection Procedures will
include rules to transition proposed transmission projects from the existing interconnection and
transmission expansion processes into the Transmission Interconnection Procedures. If the Developer has
not already submitted its proposed Public Policy Transmission Project into the current interconnection or
transmission expansion processes, the NYISO encourages the Developer to submit a Transmission
Interconnection Application.
From the standpoint of the Public Policy Transmission Planning Process, it would be preferable for an
interconnection request and corresponding studies to directly correspond to the project or projects
proposed together or separately in the Public Policy Transmission Planning Process. This approach will
enable the NYISO to evaluate the project interconnection and related cost information for each proposed
project.
2
3. At the March 7 ESPWG, a presentation was made by the NYISO on the AC Transmission PPTN. Slide
3 of that presentation identified the scope of solutions for each segment. In the Segment A
description, it identifies a “345 kV connection to Rotterdam”. Whereas, the PSC Order states that
two new 230 kV lines from Princetown into Rotterdam is an acceptable option. Please clarify what
the relevant bullet on Slide 3 is intending.
NYISO Response:
Slide 3 of the March 7 presentation to ESPWG is a high level description. As noted on the slide, see the
NYPSC Order for full descriptions of the segments related to the Public Policy Transmission Need.
4. Is NYISO using MUST or TARA software for the study?
NYISO Response:
NYISO will be using MUST for the thermal transfer limit calculations and TARA for the voltage transfer
limit calculations.
5. At what UPNY-SENY transfer level did the Shoemaker-Chester 138 kV line show up in the base case
analysis following the Rock Tavern – Ramapo tower 77&76 contingency?
NYISO Response:
In the baseline, the Shoemaker-Chester 138 kV line was not more limiting than the Leeds-Pleasant Valley
345 kV line at the baseline limit of 5,113 MW. However, analysis indicates that if not for the LeedsPleasant Valley 345 kV limit, the Shoemaker-Chester 138 kV line would be limiting for the tower
contingency loss of Rock Tavern – Ramapo 345 kV circuits #76 and #77 at an UPNY/SENY transfer level of
5,128 MW.
6. Does the NYISO expect Developers to provide a high level design, environmental routing information
and potential impact calculations and cost estimates for the upgrades to Coopers Corners – Rock
Tavern and Shoemaker – Sugarloaf transmission lines as part of their proposal?
NYISO Response:
No, that information will be provided in due time by the facility owners identified in the NYPSC Order.
7. Cricket Valley Energy Center is not yet in-service, but the NYPSC has approved its Article X. Please
confirm that Developers are to assume that Cricket Valley Energy Center is out of service.
NYISO Response:
Cricket Valley Energy Center is not assumed to be in-service in the baseline case, which is based upon the
2014 Comprehensive Reliability Plan.
3
8. The FitzPatrick Nuclear Station has announced its intent to retire, but it is currently in-service.
Please confirm whether Developers are to assume that the FitzPatrick plant is in-service.
NYISO Response:
The FitzPatrick plant is assumed to be in-service in the baseline case, which is based upon the 2014
Comprehensive Reliability Plan.
9. Since the request is specifically for projects that will increase the Central East and/or UPNY/SENY
transfer limits, can you describe how you will evaluate generation projects submitted as a potential
solution?
NYISO Response:
A proposed generation solution would be added to the powerflow model and modeled as in-service. The
proposed generator would be dispatched at its full output and the dispatch of generators upstream of
the subject interface (Central East or UPNY/SENY) would be reduced uniformly by the corresponding
amount. The transfer limit calculations would then be performed in accordance with the methodology
applied for the baseline.
10. In performing transfer analysis on the baseline case, the contingency “T:34&42B_CE18/UC30”
causes a transformer overload at W.WDB115 to W.WDBR69. Is this a limiting element for the
UPNY/SENY interface, and if not, how should such an overload be treated?
NYISO Response:
The West Woodbourne 115/69 kV transformer is not an ISO-secured facility. Non-ISO-secured facilities
are monitored for post-contingency loading to short term emergency (STE) ratings. Consistent with the
NYISO Emergency Operations Manual, if a non-ISO-secured facility exceeds STE for post-contingency
conditions, a sensitivity assessment would be performed to determine whether or not the loss of the nonISO-secured facility would cause cascading outages of other facilities. The West Woodbourne
transformer does not result in cascading; therefore it does not limit UPNY/SENY transfers.
4
11. What bus is triggering the currently observed base case voltage limitation of 2725 MW for Central
East? What transfer level is the issue occurring at? It appears that the transfer levels are being
rounded to the closest increment of 25 MW, is that correct?
NYISO Response:
The 2725 MW limitation is for post-contingency voltage collapse (no particular bus). The limit is rounded
down to the nearest 25 MW increment (i.e. 2742 would become 2725, not 2750).
The post-contingency voltage collapse limit is determined based on 95% of the interface flow at the
collapse point. Central East collapse point was found at 2886 MW; 95% of that flow is what is defined as
the interface limit. For more detail on how the NYISO determines voltage-based transfer limits, see
Attachment G in:
http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/markets operations/documents/Manuals and Guid
es/Manuals/Planning/tei mnl.pdf
12. NYISO evaluation criteria states that “the NYISO will assume that project schedules begin January 1
of a given year following the NYISO selection and NYPSC Article VII siting approval (i.e., project
schedules need not account for the timing of the NYISO or NYPSC processes)”. Can NYISO provide
clarification on this statement?
NYISO Response:
Developers must provide milestone project schedules in terms of “Year One”, “Year Two”, etc., assuming
that as of January 1 of Year One, the NYISO has completed its selection process and the NYPSC has
granted a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need for a major transmission facility
under Article VII of the New York State Public Service Law. This does not include the completion and
approval of the environmental management and construction plan (EM&CP) or any other necessary
regulatory approvals (e.g. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).
13. The NYISO solicitation states that “the Developer must submit at least two project cost estimates, as
required by the NYPSC Order”. Please confirm that the Developer is required to submit only one
application fee of $10,000 and only one study deposit of $100,000 for all cost estimate alternatives
that are applicable to proposed projects which are electrically the same.
NYISO Response:
That is correct. As stated in the solicitation letter, the Developer of a Public Policy Transmission Project
must include with its submittal: (i) an executed study agreement, which can be found in Attachment E to
the Manual, (ii) a non-refundable application fee of $10,000, and (iii) a study deposit of $100,000. As
also stated in Attachment II to the solicitation letter, the Developer must submit at least two project cost
estimates for each Public Policy Transmission Project as required by the NYPSC Order.
5
14. The transmission evaluation criteria state that the selection process shall not use the percentage
rates applied to account for contingency and revenue requirements as a distinguishing factor
between Public Policy Transmission Projects. Will the NYISO nonetheless require these components
as part of the cost estimate?
NYISO Response:
Yes, the NYPSC Order states that all Developers should account for contingencies and revenue
requirements at the percentage rates provided in the Trial Staff report as a placeholder for the actual
rates.
15. The sufficiency minimum criteria states that the cost estimate should not exceed the NYPSC trial
staff adjusted estimate. Does the NYISO intend to apply this criterion on a cost line item basis or on
a total segment cost basis for segments A and B?
NYISO Response:
The criteria will be applied on a total segment cost basis, referencing the cost estimates documented in
Appendix E of the NYPSC Order.
16. Can the NYISO provide the DPS AC Transmission cost estimate template and a working version of the
DPS AC Transmission revenue requirement spreadsheet?
NYISO Response:
Yes, the NYISO has posted the two DPS spreadsheets under Public Policy Documents > AC Transmission
PPTN at:
http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets operations/services/planning/planning studies/index.jsp
The spreadsheets are provided as information for Developers. Developers are not required to submit the
spreadsheets with their project information, but may include them if they choose.
17. Section 31.4.8.1.2 of Attachment Y states that in the evaluation of cost per MW, the ISO will
“…determine the present worth, in dollars, of the total capital cost of the proposed solution in
current year dollars”. What assumptions will NYISO use in this calculation? Which cost estimate will
NYISO use to determine the evaluation of cost per MW or benefit/cost ratios?
NYISO Response:
The NYISO’s independent consultant will develop an independent cost estimate for each Public Policy
Transmission Project, taking into consideration all information submitted by the Developer. The
independent consultant will recommend how to address different components, such as allowance for
funds used during construction (AFUDC). The NYISO will use the independent consultant’s cost estimates
for calculating cost per MW and benefit/cost ratios. An annual revenue requirement will be calculated
6
based on the capital cost and a carrying charge rate consistent with the most recent CARIS phase 1
study. The carrying charge rate reflects generic figures for a return on investment, federal and state
income taxes, property taxes, insurance, fixed O&M, and depreciation. The present worth is calculated
by using a discount rate of 6.843% which is the current weighted average cost of capital for the New York
Transmission Owners as determined in the most recent CARIS Phase 1 study.
18. For the assumptions regarding securing rights-of-way and the transfer of property to be demolished,
what cost should be assumed by the Developer? For the useful life assumption, what depreciable
life should be assumed by Developer?
NYISO Response:
The Developer should submit cost estimates and depreciable life that it deems reasonable. The NYISO’s
independent consultant will review the submitted information and develop an independent
determination for each Public Policy Transmission Project.
19. Will the NYISO accept supplemental project information, including revised estimates, after the
viability and sufficiency phase is completed, but prior to the commencement of the project
evaluation phase?
NYISO Response:
Consistent with the NYISO OATT and the Public Policy Transmission Planning Process Manual, the
solicitation letter states, “a Developer proposing a Public Policy Transmission Project or an Other Public
Policy Project must submit the project information required in Attachment B of the Manual for the NYISO
to analyze the project’s viability and sufficiency. A Developer proposing a Public Policy Transmission
Project must also submit the project information required in Attachment C of the Manual for the NYISO’s
project evaluation and selection, as well as the additional information required by the NYPSC Order as
described in the attached “Sufficiency Criteria and Additional Information” document.”
As project information is reviewed by the NYISO throughout the evaluation process, the NYISO may
request clarification to project information or request additional project information. A Developer is
required to respond within 15 days of such a request.
7
20. Can Developers assume that the upgrades to Coopers Corners – Rock Tavern and Shoemaker –
Sugarloaf transmission lines will be constructed by the incumbent transmission provider? Please
confirm that 1) these cost estimates are the responsibility of the local transmission provider and are
not required as part of the Developer cost estimates, and 2) the chosen Developer will be required
to pay for these upgrades.
NYISO Response:
The NYPSC Order states that Developers shall include the upgrade costs in their cost estimates at the
same level as the cost estimates for the upgrades provided in the Trial Staff report as a placeholder for
the actual costs.
The NYPSC Order also states that the local Transmission Owners shall work with the Developer of any
selected transmission solution for Segment B and shall be reimbursed by the Developer of the Segment B
transmission solution for the actual reasonable costs to design, obtain approvals and perform the
upgrades. Please refer to the NYPSC Order for a complete statement of its requirements.
21. The NYPSC Order specifically requested certain Developers to propose solutions such that costs
incurred in preparing a proposed solution in response to the NYPSC’s request will be recoverable
under the NYISO tariff. With respect to recovery of preparation costs, can the NYISO describe the
process for recovery of those costs?
NYISO Response:
OATT Section 31.4.3.2 provides that the NYPSC may request a Developer to propose a Public Policy
Transmission Project to ensure that there will be a response to a Public Policy Transmission Need. The
provision further provides that the cost incurred by the Developer in preparing a proposed transmission
solution in response to this request will be recoverable under the NYISO Tariffs. In accordance with this
provision, the NYPSC has requested in its December 17, 2015, Order that certain applicants in the AC
Transmission proceeding submit their proposed projects in response to the NYISO’s request for solutions
to the AC Transmission Public Policy Transmission Need, so that the applicants’ cost incurred in preparing
the proposed solution is recoverable under the NYISO Tariffs.
A Developer that has proposed a project in response to a request by the NYPSC is eligible to recover its
project preparation costs in one of two ways. If the Developer’s project is selected as the more efficient
or cost-effective transmission solution, the Developer will be eligible for full recovery of all reasonably
incurred costs, including its project development costs, in the manner set forth in OATT Sections 31.4 and
31.5 for a selected project. If, on the other hand, the Developer’s project is not selected, the Developer
will coordinate with the NYISO on a case-by-case basis for the recovery through the NYISO Tariffs of the
Developer’s project preparation costs as approved by FERC.
8
22. How will NYISO take into consideration information submitted by the Developer if the independent
consultant cost estimate will be used? Will the independent consultant take into consideration
differences in revenue requirement from the most recent CARIS phase 1 study? How will the
present value of the revenue requirement be used given that the independent consultant’s cost
estimate will be used for the calculation of cost per MW and benefit to cost ratios?
NYISO Response:
The NYISO’s independent consultant will consider all information submitted by each Developer in its
development of the independent cost estimate. An annual revenue requirement will be calculated based
on the independent cost estimate and a carrying charge rate consistent with the most recent CARIS
Phase 1 study. The NYISO will use the present worth calculated from the independent cost estimate for
calculating cost per MW and benefit/cost ratios.
23. How will the Athens SPS be modeled?
NYISO Response:
In the baseline, the Athens Special Protection System (SPS) is assumed to be in-service through June 2024
and out-of-service following that. In NYISO’s evaluation of any proposed solution to Segment B, the
Athens SPS will be assumed to be retired upon the in-service date of the proposed solution.
9