Longest submarine DC cable at 360 miles (580 km). It joins Norway and the Netherlands. 450 kV. The cost was approximately 708 million US dollars.
If they can place 360 miles of DC cable, then NYRI should be able to bury their 190 miles of DC cable.
http://www.tennet.org/english/tennet/publications/corporate_brochures/norned.aspx &
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorNed
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Tenet Netherland Standard
0.4 microTesla
http://www.tennet.org/english/images/Magnetic%20fields_tcm15-6244_tcm43-11590.pdf
This standard is also for AC lines (not static lines)??
http://www.tennet.org/english/images/Magnetic%20fields_tcm15-6244_tcm43-11590.pdf
This standard is also for AC lines (not static lines)??
NRPB to ICNIRP guidelines March 2004
According to this cached document NRPB decided to follow ICNRP guidelines March 2004.
The NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines are the same for occupational exposure. The main difference is that for the public, the ICNIRP levels are a factor of five lower.
“The detailed scientific analysis by NRPB staff supports the recommendation by ICNIRP that exposure guidelines for members of the public should be more restrictive than for workers. This allows for a greater sensitivity to adverse health effects in the general population than for the working population. Increases in sensitivity may occur in infants and children, individuals being treated with medication, and those in the later years of life. The ICNIRP recommendation of a reduction factor of five in the basic restriction for members of the public compared with workers is appropriate.”
From the table:
94 NRPB: 1600 microTesla
98 ICNIRP Occupational: 500 microTesla
98 ICNIRP Public: 100 microTesla
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:mD5gpLirpLEJ:www.emfs.info/issue_NRPBlimits2004.asp+NRPB+(2004)&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
These standards are for AC lines???
The NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines are the same for occupational exposure. The main difference is that for the public, the ICNIRP levels are a factor of five lower.
“The detailed scientific analysis by NRPB staff supports the recommendation by ICNIRP that exposure guidelines for members of the public should be more restrictive than for workers. This allows for a greater sensitivity to adverse health effects in the general population than for the working population. Increases in sensitivity may occur in infants and children, individuals being treated with medication, and those in the later years of life. The ICNIRP recommendation of a reduction factor of five in the basic restriction for members of the public compared with workers is appropriate.”
From the table:
94 NRPB: 1600 microTesla
98 ICNIRP Occupational: 500 microTesla
98 ICNIRP Public: 100 microTesla
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:mD5gpLirpLEJ:www.emfs.info/issue_NRPBlimits2004.asp+NRPB+(2004)&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
These standards are for AC lines???
DC Standards from NYRI Application
400 Gauss or 40 milliTesla is the limit (reference NRPB 2004 & ICNIRP 1994)
This does match this ICNIRP document (see page 24/25 of 39) for static fields. http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947415497
Magnetic Field (Conversion - Tesla and Gauss)
1 Tesla = 10,000 Gauss
1 milliTesla = 10 Gauss
1 microTesla = .01 Gauss=10 milliGauss
0.1 microTesla=1 milliGauss
0.4 microTesla = 4 milliGauss
1 milliTesla = 10 Gauss
1 microTesla = .01 Gauss=10 milliGauss
0.1 microTesla=1 milliGauss
0.4 microTesla = 4 milliGauss
DOE Electricity Advisory Committee (EAC)
http://www.oe.energy.gov/eac.htm
Draft Reports on: http://www.oe.energy.gov/1158.htm
Electricity Supply Adequacy
Smart Grid
Energy Storage Technologies
Ch 4 of the Electricity Supply report discussion transmission
http://www.oe.energy.gov/DocumentsandMedia/DRAFT_Chapter_4_Supply_Adequacy_Report_as_of_10-31-08.pdf
Committee Roster (http://www.oe.energy.gov/DocumentsandMedia/EAC_Roster_as_of_10-20-08.pdf)
From our area----includes National Grid, GE, Mr. Robert Thomas from Cornell http://www.ece.cornell.edu/peo-detail.cfm?NetID=rjt1
Draft Reports on: http://www.oe.energy.gov/1158.htm
Electricity Supply Adequacy
Smart Grid
Energy Storage Technologies
Ch 4 of the Electricity Supply report discussion transmission
http://www.oe.energy.gov/DocumentsandMedia/DRAFT_Chapter_4_Supply_Adequacy_Report_as_of_10-31-08.pdf
Committee Roster (http://www.oe.energy.gov/DocumentsandMedia/EAC_Roster_as_of_10-20-08.pdf)
From our area----includes National Grid, GE, Mr. Robert Thomas from Cornell http://www.ece.cornell.edu/peo-detail.cfm?NetID=rjt1
Nuclear Plant Permit - Nine Mile Point
Nine Mile Point, New York (UniStar Nuclear, Constellation)
On September 30, 2008, UniStar filed a COL Application with the NRC.UniStar Nuclear (A joint venture of Constellation and AREVA NP, formed by Electricite de France (EDF)) announced on 27 October 2005 its intent to file a COL with the NRC for several nuclear power plants. Sites under consideration included Constellation's existing nuclear power site at Nine Mile Point, New York. According to an EDF communiqué de presse, a COL application has been filed but a final decision on whether to proceed with construction upon approval has not been made. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Public Service Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be invited to participate in reviewing the project. As of this posting, the application was not yet available for on-line review by the public.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactorcom.html
On September 30, 2008, UniStar filed a COL Application with the NRC.UniStar Nuclear (A joint venture of Constellation and AREVA NP, formed by Electricite de France (EDF)) announced on 27 October 2005 its intent to file a COL with the NRC for several nuclear power plants. Sites under consideration included Constellation's existing nuclear power site at Nine Mile Point, New York. According to an EDF communiqué de presse, a COL application has been filed but a final decision on whether to proceed with construction upon approval has not been made. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Public Service Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be invited to participate in reviewing the project. As of this posting, the application was not yet available for on-line review by the public.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactorcom.html
FERC 5 Myths
From a FERC presentation (11/11) http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/siting/trans-siting-present.pdf
Five myths
1. Eminent domain will be the primary method used to acquire ROW
2. FERC will not hold local community meetings
3. FERC will not consider alternatives to proposed routes
4. Landowners will be denied a role and not be protected
5. FERC will not consider the State record
My rebuttals:
#1---The basic process is that there are negotiations, and if there is no settlement, then eminent domain is used. But knowing that eminent domain can be used against you, what choice do you really have not to negotiate?
#2---Instead of Utica, they held the NIETC public comments in Rochester
#3-#5---I read through hundreds of comments on the NIETC process---from utilities to public service commission comments to public citizen comments. I don't believe FERC made one (not one) single change to their plans based on any of those comments.
Actions (& inactions) mean more than words.
slide 3/14--The NYRI project does not cross state borders. I've never understood why FERC can overrule a project located wholly within the state of New York.
Five myths
1. Eminent domain will be the primary method used to acquire ROW
2. FERC will not hold local community meetings
3. FERC will not consider alternatives to proposed routes
4. Landowners will be denied a role and not be protected
5. FERC will not consider the State record
My rebuttals:
#1---The basic process is that there are negotiations, and if there is no settlement, then eminent domain is used. But knowing that eminent domain can be used against you, what choice do you really have not to negotiate?
#2---Instead of Utica, they held the NIETC public comments in Rochester
#3-#5---I read through hundreds of comments on the NIETC process---from utilities to public service commission comments to public citizen comments. I don't believe FERC made one (not one) single change to their plans based on any of those comments.
Actions (& inactions) mean more than words.
slide 3/14--The NYRI project does not cross state borders. I've never understood why FERC can overrule a project located wholly within the state of New York.
Cobble Beach Golf Links
Google Earth Picture-----GPS Coordinates N44 40 25 W80 55 10
The satellite picture is old; the course is still under construction. It's gotten 2 reviews so far (one good--5 stars and one not so good---3 stars).
The "not so good" one:
David Kalsom and NIMBY
NYRI apparently brought their public relations rep to the recent public meetings, Mr. David Kalsom.
The NIMBY word is used once again in this article. NYRI is always arguing that their project should be judged on its merits, yet they rely on NIMBY instead of facts and serious conversations with local officials.
http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081007/NEWS/810070315/-1/NEWS
The NIMBY word is used once again in this article. NYRI is always arguing that their project should be judged on its merits, yet they rely on NIMBY instead of facts and serious conversations with local officials.
http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081007/NEWS/810070315/-1/NEWS
Saturday, November 8, 2008
2008 New York State Rail Plan - working draft
NYSW is a Class II railroad. (pg 45/174) and operates 261 miles of track (46/174)
"Class II Regional railroads have annual revenues between $40 million and $319.3 million or provide at least 350 miles of service" (45/174)
"Class II Regional railroads have annual revenues between $40 million and $319.3 million or provide at least 350 miles of service" (45/174)
NYSW & NYSDOT
The below "quote" is from a blog. I can't find any proof however, that the numbers are correct. (could FOIL NYSDOT?) It wouldn't surprise me, of course, that NYSW managed to collect million(s) of dollars of public money for services not rendered.
According to the state DOT, "since June 2006, NYS&W has made no attempt to restore the line to service and such failure violates several provisions of the various contracts."The petition cites the railroad for failing to maintain the track, not seeking the Commissioner's approval before filing the notice to discontinue service and for not making arrangements to reimbursement the NYSDOT for approximately $1.29 million in project costs.The railway currently has 13 contracts (six for "track and structure rehabilitation" and seven for "highway/railroad structure rehabilitation") open with the NYSDOT related to the Utica Branch, which includes the stretch of track along which they are seeking to discontinue use. These contracts total more than $13 million in taxpayer dollars. http://biglittlerr.blogspot.com/2008/10/dl-utica-branch-nydot-nys-warring-in.html
Here is the official document w/ respect to NYSDOT. http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readingroom.nsf/ba3eef33238a6ded852574fc000e394e/1a7676359e76d034852574d4005322e4?OpenDocument
According to the state DOT, "since June 2006, NYS&W has made no attempt to restore the line to service and such failure violates several provisions of the various contracts."The petition cites the railroad for failing to maintain the track, not seeking the Commissioner's approval before filing the notice to discontinue service and for not making arrangements to reimbursement the NYSDOT for approximately $1.29 million in project costs.The railway currently has 13 contracts (six for "track and structure rehabilitation" and seven for "highway/railroad structure rehabilitation") open with the NYSDOT related to the Utica Branch, which includes the stretch of track along which they are seeking to discontinue use. These contracts total more than $13 million in taxpayer dollars. http://biglittlerr.blogspot.com/2008/10/dl-utica-branch-nydot-nys-warring-in.html
Here is the official document w/ respect to NYSDOT. http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readingroom.nsf/ba3eef33238a6ded852574fc000e394e/1a7676359e76d034852574d4005322e4?OpenDocument
NYSW Discontinuance (Not Abandonment)
Official decision on NYSW's petition to discontinue service of the section between Chenango Forks and Sherburne. Docket AB_286_5_X
Per footnote #1:
NYS&W states that it will use the discontinued line for rail car storage and other private uses. NYS&W also states that the title to the property is currently held by the Broome and Chenango County Industrial Development Authorities.
http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/ReadingRoom.nsf/83fd59cf17adc80785256559007ba132/22757dacc1f13dd5852574b000549d93?OpenDocument
Also related:
http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/ReadingRoom.nsf/705d4c20f59a9d6185256555002ceb83/0840a3b7a9f56cc7852574dc0046e682?OpenDocument
Per footnote #1:
NYS&W states that it will use the discontinued line for rail car storage and other private uses. NYS&W also states that the title to the property is currently held by the Broome and Chenango County Industrial Development Authorities.
http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/ReadingRoom.nsf/83fd59cf17adc80785256559007ba132/22757dacc1f13dd5852574b000549d93?OpenDocument
Also related:
http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/ReadingRoom.nsf/705d4c20f59a9d6185256555002ceb83/0840a3b7a9f56cc7852574dc0046e682?OpenDocument
Friday, November 7, 2008
Green Power Workshop 2003 McLeese
See cost/capacity factors, page 18/20
http://www.pollutionprobe.org/whatwedo/GPW/toronto/presentations/mcleese.pdf
Access Capital's Website
http://www.access-capital.com/
http://www.pollutionprobe.org/whatwedo/GPW/toronto/presentations/mcleese.pdf
Access Capital's Website
http://www.access-capital.com/
Web Cast Participants-NIETC-May 23, 2007
Rob McLeese
Richard Muddiman
NYRI
http://www.energetics.com/NIETCpublicmeetings/pdfs/NY_WEBCAST_List_5-23-07.pdf
Access Capital Corp.
Richard Muddiman
NYRI
http://www.energetics.com/NIETCpublicmeetings/pdfs/NY_WEBCAST_List_5-23-07.pdf
Rob McLeese: Let There Be "No" Light
Remarks by Glenna Carr Chair Independent Electricity System Operator, Feb. 2006 (pg 4/14)
"Supply was never interrupted last summer. The IESO didn’t let the lights flicker
… as Rob McLeese – the Chair of the Toronto Board of Trade’s Electricity Task
Force, noted recently in the Toronto Star. Rob was quoted as saying that one of
the biggest mistakes the IESO made last summer was in keeping the lights on.
Rob’s point of course was that there is nothing like a blackout to make people
realize the severity of the supply situation, particularly in Toronto. While you
may be right Rob, I trust you will be pleased to hear the IESO’s number one
priority is to keep the lights on."
http://www.ieso.ca/imowebpub/200602/GCarr_Notes_OEA_Feb_01_06.pdf
"Supply was never interrupted last summer. The IESO didn’t let the lights flicker
… as Rob McLeese – the Chair of the Toronto Board of Trade’s Electricity Task
Force, noted recently in the Toronto Star. Rob was quoted as saying that one of
the biggest mistakes the IESO made last summer was in keeping the lights on.
Rob’s point of course was that there is nothing like a blackout to make people
realize the severity of the supply situation, particularly in Toronto. While you
may be right Rob, I trust you will be pleased to hear the IESO’s number one
priority is to keep the lights on."
http://www.ieso.ca/imowebpub/200602/GCarr_Notes_OEA_Feb_01_06.pdf
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Public Corporation & FOIL, NYRI Incorporation Date
Apparently NYRI is not (nor will be) a public corporation; however, I'm leaving the links and descriptions.
"New York Regional Interconnect Inc. is a New York corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York." http://www3.dps.state.ny.us/PSCWeb/PIOWeb.nsf/a89c0117705349e7852573e0007a0a57/e70c1ca1d196fabc852573f7005fcc0a/$FILE/001_Matter%20of%20Application.pdf
Definitions of public corporation. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:Public+Corporation&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
According to this link, a New York State Public Corporation is subject to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/freedomfaq.htm#subject
This data shows NYRI as a "domestic business corporation" incorporated April 28, 2005. Richard Muddiman is still listed as CEO. http://appsext8.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=3206977&p_corpid=3197852&p_entity_name=%4E%65%77%20%59%6F%72%6B%20%52%65%67%69%6F%6E%61%6C%20%49%6E%74%65%72%63%6F%6E%6E%65%63%74&p_name_type=%41&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0
More explanation here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_public_benefit_corporations
Public Authorities Control Board http://www.osc.state.ny.us/pubauth/whatisboard.htm
"New York Regional Interconnect Inc. is a New York corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York." http://www3.dps.state.ny.us/PSCWeb/PIOWeb.nsf/a89c0117705349e7852573e0007a0a57/e70c1ca1d196fabc852573f7005fcc0a/$FILE/001_Matter%20of%20Application.pdf
Definitions of public corporation. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:Public+Corporation&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
According to this link, a New York State Public Corporation is subject to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/freedomfaq.htm#subject
This data shows NYRI as a "domestic business corporation" incorporated April 28, 2005. Richard Muddiman is still listed as CEO. http://appsext8.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=3206977&p_corpid=3197852&p_entity_name=%4E%65%77%20%59%6F%72%6B%20%52%65%67%69%6F%6E%61%6C%20%49%6E%74%65%72%63%6F%6E%6E%65%63%74&p_name_type=%41&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0
More explanation here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_public_benefit_corporations
Public Authorities Control Board http://www.osc.state.ny.us/pubauth/whatisboard.htm
Cobble Beach and Willis McLeese
Rob Mcleese and his father built a brand new golf course in Ontario. Here is a picture of the patriarch himself, accepting an award for the best new golf course 2007. (Ref: http://www.cobblebeachgolflinks.com/press_article.php?id=6)
Here is a picture of the club house. Do you see any transmission lines anywhere? If there are no significant visual impacts and no degradation of property values why did they apparently bury all their power lines? (Ref: http://www.cobblebeachgolflinks.com/)
What's good for the goose is definitely not good for the gander.
If I carried my anti-NYRI sign and paced outside the front entrance of the club house, I would probably be arrested for trespassing and kicked (ungraciously) out of Canada. But apparently NYRI can take my United States property by eminent domain against my own wishes and I still get to pay taxes on that property.
Three other links/descriptions: http://www.golf-south.net/ON-Cobble0808.htm & http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/246637 & http://www.fyilondon.com/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?x=articles&p=193196&s=golf
Here is a picture of the club house. Do you see any transmission lines anywhere? If there are no significant visual impacts and no degradation of property values why did they apparently bury all their power lines? (Ref: http://www.cobblebeachgolflinks.com/)
What's good for the goose is definitely not good for the gander.
If I carried my anti-NYRI sign and paced outside the front entrance of the club house, I would probably be arrested for trespassing and kicked (ungraciously) out of Canada. But apparently NYRI can take my United States property by eminent domain against my own wishes and I still get to pay taxes on that property.
Three other links/descriptions: http://www.golf-south.net/ON-Cobble0808.htm & http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/246637 & http://www.fyilondon.com/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?x=articles&p=193196&s=golf
NIMBY Teshmont
Another accusation of NIMBY, this time by the Canadian company Teshmont. I doubt anyone from Teshmont has actually been here in upstate New York and walked the 190-miles that will be impacted by their line. I doubt if they have actually talked to anyone potentially impacted by their design. I doubt they attended any public hearings. Ref: http://pnwer.dataweb.com/tables/jointables/meetingparticipantjoin/files/presentation/Stegger.pdf (page 8/11)
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Friday, April 4, 2008
Pictures from NYISO 2006 Annual Report
We get this in upstate NY
So that this can occur?????
Turn off some lights!!!!!
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Original Pegasus Project Info
Here is a link to the Original Pegasus Project, officially called the Niagara Reinforcement Interconnection Project.
NYRI never mentions this former ghost self; somehow when you legally become a "new" company you become a new "entity", and all older versions of yourself are completely wiped out of existence.
NYRI never mentions this former ghost self; somehow when you legally become a "new" company you become a new "entity", and all older versions of yourself are completely wiped out of existence.
Interestingly the map doesn't even show the railroad route properly.
The map shows interconnection capacities. "1200 MW w/ Quebec which could be easily upgraded to 2000 MW."
NYRI Requests 13.5% ROE
On February 12, 2008, NYRI asked FERC for a guaranteed 13.5% rate of return on equity. The FERC Docket # is EL08-39.
Mr. Singer made a grammatical mistake on his March 28, 2008 submittal (rebuttal of all the intevenor protests). Page 29/49 (in ant event instead of "in any event"). I guess even Mr-Perfect-Barbie's Ken-Lawyer doesn't catch every typo.
With CD rates now less than inflation rates, and stock funds actually headed downwards many of us are essentially losing money (purchasing power). Wouldn't it be nice if the average US citizen could get a 13.5% guaranteed rate of return?
Mr. Singer made a grammatical mistake on his March 28, 2008 submittal (rebuttal of all the intevenor protests). Page 29/49 (in ant event instead of "in any event"). I guess even Mr-Perfect-Barbie's Ken-Lawyer doesn't catch every typo.
With CD rates now less than inflation rates, and stock funds actually headed downwards many of us are essentially losing money (purchasing power). Wouldn't it be nice if the average US citizen could get a 13.5% guaranteed rate of return?
Saturday, March 29, 2008
NYRI Underground Typical Section
This typical section is misleading (not typical) because it shows a completely flat area on either side of the railroad. In reality, the railroad is often banked w/ steep slopes on one or both sides. I've added the red line to help illustrate the point. If the underground cable is to be placed at the bottom of the slope will it still be located within the existing right-of-way?Also, the undeground cables will not be located beneath the railroad bed, so it needs to be located on one side or the other. Which side will it be?
What is the plan when the railroad is on a bridge structure? Go around the existing abutments?
The answers to these basic questions do not appear to be in the license application.
ref: http://www3.dps.state.ny.us/PSCWeb/PIOWeb.nsf/a89c0117705349e7852573e0007a0a57/e70c1ca1d196fabc852573f7005fcc0a/$FILE/Exhibit%20E-3_FINAL_02-04-08.pdf
Alternative #7 Revive Empire Connection Project
2000 MW DC line for $750 million (2004$). Much less expensive than NYRI's project and shorter.
Alternative #6 Replace Marcy-South w/ 765 KV 5000MW Line
http://www.aep.com/about/i765project/default.asp
Build a 765 KV line AC line parallel to the existing Marcy-South line. Based on info from the above link, this new line would probably be able to carry 4000-5000 Megawatts. Take down the old Marcy-South Line and give the right-of-way back to the property owners.
It would be best to replace the existing line w/ the new one on the same location; however, it may be that they can't shut down the existing line for replacement.
This alternative may be 1/3 the cost of the NYRI project since the AC-DC converter stations wouldn't have to be built?
Build a 765 KV line AC line parallel to the existing Marcy-South line. Based on info from the above link, this new line would probably be able to carry 4000-5000 Megawatts. Take down the old Marcy-South Line and give the right-of-way back to the property owners.
It would be best to replace the existing line w/ the new one on the same location; however, it may be that they can't shut down the existing line for replacement.
This alternative may be 1/3 the cost of the NYRI project since the AC-DC converter stations wouldn't have to be built?
Friday, March 28, 2008
Upper Limit of Transmission Constraint Shadow Cost
http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/documents/newsletters/connection/Connection_winter08_03272008.pdf see page 5
"Instituting an upper limit ($4,000 per megawatt-hour) in
transmission constraint shadow costs to avoid operationally
ineffective dispatch."
I believe that NYRI is making it's economic case in part because NYISO congestion costs are set very, very high. $4,000 per megawatt hour (=$4.00 per kilowatt-hr). My own electric bill averages only $0.14 per kw-hour.
I think that the maximum congestion pricing should be set at $0.40 per kw-hr ($400 per megawatt-hr) since that is the upper price that solar photovoltaic systems cost.
"Instituting an upper limit ($4,000 per megawatt-hour) in
transmission constraint shadow costs to avoid operationally
ineffective dispatch."
I believe that NYRI is making it's economic case in part because NYISO congestion costs are set very, very high. $4,000 per megawatt hour (=$4.00 per kilowatt-hr). My own electric bill averages only $0.14 per kw-hour.
I think that the maximum congestion pricing should be set at $0.40 per kw-hr ($400 per megawatt-hr) since that is the upper price that solar photovoltaic systems cost.
Congestion Cost Metrics
http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/services/planning/congestion_costs/misc/congestion_metrics_042505.pdf
Can anyone make any sense of this document?????????
Four different metrics were developed? Only one is used?
Is this the same model that the feds use?
How does it work?
If NYRI is using these metrics to justify building their transmission line, there needs to be transparency as to how this congestion pricing works.
Can anyone make any sense of this document?????????
Four different metrics were developed? Only one is used?
Is this the same model that the feds use?
How does it work?
If NYRI is using these metrics to justify building their transmission line, there needs to be transparency as to how this congestion pricing works.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
NYPA CSC Installation 2004
The New York Power Authority (NYPA) installed a CSC (convertible static compensator) near the Marcy Substation. The CSC allows operators to switch 200 MW from one transmission line to another.
The CSC cost $54 million dollars, and according to the NYPA president they did not anticipate ever recovering this money----:
"In that regard, I should note that we have no assurance as to when—if ever—we’ll recover our investment in the CSC through transmission congestion contracts. But—as a public entity—we recognized an obligation to demonstrate this technology without delay so others could adapt it to their own systems." http://www.nypa.gov/press/speeches/2005/50912a.htm
If $54 million dollars is such a high price for 200 MW how can NYRI's project ($2.1 billion for 1200 MW) be economically feasible?
The CSC cost $54 million dollars, and according to the NYPA president they did not anticipate ever recovering this money----:
"In that regard, I should note that we have no assurance as to when—if ever—we’ll recover our investment in the CSC through transmission congestion contracts. But—as a public entity—we recognized an obligation to demonstrate this technology without delay so others could adapt it to their own systems." http://www.nypa.gov/press/speeches/2005/50912a.htm
If $54 million dollars is such a high price for 200 MW how can NYRI's project ($2.1 billion for 1200 MW) be economically feasible?
Friday, March 21, 2008
Transportation Corporation Law (TCP)
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS
NYRI would use this law for authority and power to build their transmission line. See Article 2, 11 (powers). This law was modified right before Pataki left office. The wording is "atypical". See below:
7. Subdivisions three and three-a of this section shall not apply to any merchant transmission company which: (a) commences and ends in the state of New York; (b) through its employees, agents, representatives, or assigns, has represented in testimony that the construction of such power transmission lines will increase electric rates in any part of the state; and (c) which applied for and did not receive an early designation as a national interest electric transmission corridor under an act of congress commonly known as the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Number 3 says that consent of the local municipality is required (see below). Could it be that our local municipalities actually have a choice, or did Article VII take that choice away?
3. An electric corporation and a gas and electric corporation shall have power to generate, acquire and supply electricity for heat or power in cities, towns and villages within this state, and to light the streets, highways and public places thereof, and the public and private buildings therein; and to make, sell or lease all machines, instruments, apparatus and other equipments therefor, and for transmitting and distributing electricity, to lay, erect and construct suitable wires or other conductors, with the necessary poles, pipes or other fixtures in, on, over and under the streets, avenues, public parks and places in such cities, towns or villages, with the consent of the municipal authorities thereof, and in such manner and under such reasonable regulations, as they may prescribe.
NYRI would use this law for authority and power to build their transmission line. See Article 2, 11 (powers). This law was modified right before Pataki left office. The wording is "atypical". See below:
7. Subdivisions three and three-a of this section shall not apply to any merchant transmission company which: (a) commences and ends in the state of New York; (b) through its employees, agents, representatives, or assigns, has represented in testimony that the construction of such power transmission lines will increase electric rates in any part of the state; and (c) which applied for and did not receive an early designation as a national interest electric transmission corridor under an act of congress commonly known as the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Number 3 says that consent of the local municipality is required (see below). Could it be that our local municipalities actually have a choice, or did Article VII take that choice away?
3. An electric corporation and a gas and electric corporation shall have power to generate, acquire and supply electricity for heat or power in cities, towns and villages within this state, and to light the streets, highways and public places thereof, and the public and private buildings therein; and to make, sell or lease all machines, instruments, apparatus and other equipments therefor, and for transmitting and distributing electricity, to lay, erect and construct suitable wires or other conductors, with the necessary poles, pipes or other fixtures in, on, over and under the streets, avenues, public parks and places in such cities, towns or villages, with the consent of the municipal authorities thereof, and in such manner and under such reasonable regulations, as they may prescribe.
Alternative #5 - Demand Side Management
The old word for "demand side management" was "conservation".
If society was serious about it, we could reduce our electrical usage through conservation. More public awareness, more encouragement to buy "energy star" appliances, etc.
If society was serious about it, we could reduce our electrical usage through conservation. More public awareness, more encouragement to buy "energy star" appliances, etc.
NYSW
Home page of the New York Susquehanna and Western Railroad.
The current president is Nathan Fenno. Mr. Fenno was the lawyer for NYSW for many years, and must have taken over after Walter Rich died.
http://www.nysw.com/overview.htm
The current president is Nathan Fenno. Mr. Fenno was the lawyer for NYSW for many years, and must have taken over after Walter Rich died.
http://www.nysw.com/overview.htm
Thursday, March 20, 2008
NYISO Interconnection Queue
This link takes you to NYISO's interconnection queue for proposed projects.
#191-Active----NYRI's current project
#137-Withdrawn--Conjunction (Empire Connection), DC; 2000MW
#103-Withdrawn--Pegasus Project (Niagara Reinforcement)---(NYRI's trial #1)
http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/services/planning/nyiso_interconnection_queue/nyiso_interconnection_queue.pdf
#191-Active----NYRI's current project
#137-Withdrawn--Conjunction (Empire Connection), DC; 2000MW
#103-Withdrawn--Pegasus Project (Niagara Reinforcement)---(NYRI's trial #1)
http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/services/planning/nyiso_interconnection_queue/nyiso_interconnection_queue.pdf
NYRI's New Economic Impact Analysis
NYRI's new economic impact analysis relies on 2 models--GE MAPS and NEEM.
http://www3.dps.state.ny.us/PSCWeb/PIOWeb.nsf/a89c0117705349e7852573e0007a0a57/6d78e12c2735cdd7852573f8006effd5/$FILE/Appendix%20U_FINAL_02-07-08.pdf
The NEEM model actually acts like a crystal ball and magically adds generation when needed. The "surprising" result is that if you run an HVDC line from upstate to downstate with NYRI's project, more generation is added upstate since construction costs are cheaper to build upstate.
If the NYRI project is built, the NEEM model puts coal plants in Regions A-E instead of in Region F (Capital District)---see Tables 4,5, & 6. So not only does Region A-E get the negative impact of the NYRI project, we also get to apparently host new coal-generating plants. And you'll note that we do not get the more expensive, "clean" coal plants, we just get the cheapy "conventional" coal plants. I suspect this whole "crystal-balling of new coal plants" wouldn't mesh with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).
From page 13:
Close examination of this table shows that chief among these differences is that IGCC and conventional coal capacity added in the Capital and Downstate bubbles under the Base Case scenario shifts to the Upstate bubble (zones A-E) under NYRI. The reason for this is that NYRI’s impact on transmission flows, the locational supply/demand balance, and locational prices alters the economics of investments in new generating capacity in some locations relative to others. The NEEM analysis showed that, in general, the Project improves the economics of investments in upstate zones relative to those in downstate zones. As we will discuss below, the resulting shift in capacity investments has significant implications for the impact of the Project on electricity costs.
I believe there is an error in this paragraph because I see no shift of IGCC (integrated gasification combined cycle).
http://www3.dps.state.ny.us/PSCWeb/PIOWeb.nsf/a89c0117705349e7852573e0007a0a57/6d78e12c2735cdd7852573f8006effd5/$FILE/Appendix%20U_FINAL_02-07-08.pdf
The NEEM model actually acts like a crystal ball and magically adds generation when needed. The "surprising" result is that if you run an HVDC line from upstate to downstate with NYRI's project, more generation is added upstate since construction costs are cheaper to build upstate.
If the NYRI project is built, the NEEM model puts coal plants in Regions A-E instead of in Region F (Capital District)---see Tables 4,5, & 6. So not only does Region A-E get the negative impact of the NYRI project, we also get to apparently host new coal-generating plants. And you'll note that we do not get the more expensive, "clean" coal plants, we just get the cheapy "conventional" coal plants. I suspect this whole "crystal-balling of new coal plants" wouldn't mesh with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).
From page 13:
Close examination of this table shows that chief among these differences is that IGCC and conventional coal capacity added in the Capital and Downstate bubbles under the Base Case scenario shifts to the Upstate bubble (zones A-E) under NYRI. The reason for this is that NYRI’s impact on transmission flows, the locational supply/demand balance, and locational prices alters the economics of investments in new generating capacity in some locations relative to others. The NEEM analysis showed that, in general, the Project improves the economics of investments in upstate zones relative to those in downstate zones. As we will discuss below, the resulting shift in capacity investments has significant implications for the impact of the Project on electricity costs.
I believe there is an error in this paragraph because I see no shift of IGCC (integrated gasification combined cycle).
Monday, March 17, 2008
Alternative #5 - Solar Photovoltaics
New York could follow California's lead with their own "million solar roof initiative".
Below is an excerpt from Appendix G-4 of the "Indian Point Replacement Study"http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11666&page=176:
NYSERDA's Solar Electric Initiative http://www.powernaturally.org/Programs/Solar/incentives.asp
Below is an excerpt from Appendix G-4 of the "Indian Point Replacement Study"http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11666&page=176:
The estimated technical potential for rooftop installations in the New York City area (Hudson Valley, New York City, and Long Island) in 2025 is 18-20 GW (NYSERDA, 2003; Navigant Consulting, 2004).
The existing subsidy programs for PV systems in New York are well subscribed, indicating that accelerated PV deployment is quite possible. Current installed system prices are about $8/W in New York State, with a $4/W buy-down, leaving a final cost to the consumer of about $4/W. If financed over the life of a system (30 years) at a 6 percent interest rate (~4 percent real interest rate after tax benefits) the levelized cost of energy from such a PV system would be about 13.5¢/kWh. With current average residential electricity prices above 20¢/kWh in New York City, an investment in a PV system could look attractive to many consumers.NYSERDA's Solar Electric Initiative http://www.powernaturally.org/Programs/Solar/incentives.asp
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Overhead Transmission Conductor Types
ACCR ---Aluminum Conductor Composite Reinforced
ACSR - Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced
ACAR - Aluminum Conductor Alloy Reinforced
ref:
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/EMD_ACCR/ACCR_Home/
http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/staff/alvin/ee35t/notes/Transmission-Line-Construction.html
ACSR - Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced
ACAR - Aluminum Conductor Alloy Reinforced
ref:
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/EMD_ACCR/ACCR_Home/
http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/staff/alvin/ee35t/notes/Transmission-Line-Construction.html
NYISO Gold Book
NYISO 2007 Load and Capacity Data contains details on generators, load and transmission. http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/services/planning/planning_data_reference_documents/2007_GoldBook_PUBLIC.pdf
Alternative #4 - Off-Peak Cooling Systems
Where feasible retrofit existing buildings with Off-Peak Cooling Systems.
During the night electricity is used to freeze water. During the day, the ice is used to cool the building. http://www.calmac.com/benefits/
During the night electricity is used to freeze water. During the day, the ice is used to cool the building. http://www.calmac.com/benefits/
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative - RGGI
New York State is a member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Intiative (RGGI). http://www.rggi.org/index.htm
The goal is to limit greenhouse gasses through a cap and trade program. As explained on the site:
A Cap-and-Trade Program would cap the total amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to meet a specific environmental target. GHG emissions would be allocated to individual companies. The total number of emission permits (also known as allowances) allocated adds up to the total emissions cap for the region.
A Cap-And-Trade Permit System controls the right to emit by setting a cap, but allows companies to trade permits. This provides flexibility to companies with differing abilities to reduce emissions in a cost-effective manner. For example, if Company A has a variety of low-cost emissions reduction opportunities, it may have surplus permits available to sell. Company B, however, may not have enough permits to account for its expected emissions. Company B may choose to purchase surplus permits on the market to cover excess emissions instead of paying fines. At the end of the year, permits are submitted to the government. The requirement to reduce GHG emissions creates a demand for permits.
The goal is to limit greenhouse gasses through a cap and trade program. As explained on the site:
A Cap-and-Trade Program would cap the total amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to meet a specific environmental target. GHG emissions would be allocated to individual companies. The total number of emission permits (also known as allowances) allocated adds up to the total emissions cap for the region.
A Cap-And-Trade Permit System controls the right to emit by setting a cap, but allows companies to trade permits. This provides flexibility to companies with differing abilities to reduce emissions in a cost-effective manner. For example, if Company A has a variety of low-cost emissions reduction opportunities, it may have surplus permits available to sell. Company B, however, may not have enough permits to account for its expected emissions. Company B may choose to purchase surplus permits on the market to cover excess emissions instead of paying fines. At the end of the year, permits are submitted to the government. The requirement to reduce GHG emissions creates a demand for permits.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Alternative #3 - Complete Neptune Phase II
Phase I of the Neptune project was apparently completed 2007. It will provide 660 MW using HVDC underwater (submarine) cable from PJM to Long Island. http://www.neptunerts.com/default.asp?Ss=5&Pg=5
I didn't know there were other phases. But according to this document on page 68 (http://www.caem.org/website/pdf/Grid_Final.pdf):
Phase II is to connect Canada and New York City. Phases III/IV would provide feeders from Phase II to Boston and Portland, ME.
I didn't know there were other phases. But according to this document on page 68 (http://www.caem.org/website/pdf/Grid_Final.pdf):
Phase II is to connect Canada and New York City. Phases III/IV would provide feeders from Phase II to Boston and Portland, ME.
NY Unplugged
I don't agree with many of the conclusions of this report, but there is some good data (all obtained by government sources). http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/sr_06-08.pdf
There is a list of average electricity retail rates for every state (Table 1; page 2; year of data missing?). NY is ranked 3rd; I would say it's tied w/ Connecticut, which is ranked 2nd. Hawaii gets the honor of being #1.
On Table 2, page 3 there is a breakdown of retail prices for residential, commercial, and industrial sectors by service Region. I personally don't think that residential rates should be higher than commercial/industrial rates. Must the average person always subsidize the business sector? (as I write, the Federal Govt is having to step in to bail out Bear Stearns).
Figure 3 shows sources of electricity generation. It implies that all the generation comes from New York State, but some of the coal generation probably comes from PJM imports, and some of the hydro is probably from Canada.
And in the footnotes (#31), some cost data per kw-hr by source:
Nuclear (2-6 cents)
Wind (6-7 cents)
Solar (9-37 cents)
The NYRI transmission project is mentioned, implying that it' s needed but "NIMBYism" and "parochial objections" are causing problems. This author obviously has not done his homework on the NYRI project, since every kw-hr that flows through the NYRI line would cost 9 cents, which is almost equal to the average retail rate for the United States (9.44 cents--See Table 1).
I e-mailed the author, and asked him to do some more research about the NYRI project. I've done this a couple of times when I see such one-sided reporting, and invited the authors/reporters to come actually visit our area. So far, none have taken me up on the offer.
There is a list of average electricity retail rates for every state (Table 1; page 2; year of data missing?). NY is ranked 3rd; I would say it's tied w/ Connecticut, which is ranked 2nd. Hawaii gets the honor of being #1.
On Table 2, page 3 there is a breakdown of retail prices for residential, commercial, and industrial sectors by service Region. I personally don't think that residential rates should be higher than commercial/industrial rates. Must the average person always subsidize the business sector? (as I write, the Federal Govt is having to step in to bail out Bear Stearns).
Figure 3 shows sources of electricity generation. It implies that all the generation comes from New York State, but some of the coal generation probably comes from PJM imports, and some of the hydro is probably from Canada.
And in the footnotes (#31), some cost data per kw-hr by source:
Nuclear (2-6 cents)
Wind (6-7 cents)
Solar (9-37 cents)
The NYRI transmission project is mentioned, implying that it' s needed but "NIMBYism" and "parochial objections" are causing problems. This author obviously has not done his homework on the NYRI project, since every kw-hr that flows through the NYRI line would cost 9 cents, which is almost equal to the average retail rate for the United States (9.44 cents--See Table 1).
I e-mailed the author, and asked him to do some more research about the NYRI project. I've done this a couple of times when I see such one-sided reporting, and invited the authors/reporters to come actually visit our area. So far, none have taken me up on the offer.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Energy Pricing in New York
Here is a simple explanation of "Energy Pricing in New York" from the Independent Power Producers of New York (IPPNY). All bidders are paid the amount of the highest selected bidder; therefore, the more efficient generators make more profit. http://www.ippny.org/files/pdfs/Energy_Pricing.pdf
IPPNY is a proponent of the market-based approach that NY uses. I'm not so sure, because NY has higher electricity prices than every other state except Hawaii and Connecticut. I've asked a lot of people why that is. Most say that it's because we don't use much coal, but I'm not convinced yet. NY has a lot of hydro/nuclear, which is relatively cheap.
The market-based approach began in 1999 with the formation of NYISO. Before that the New York Power Pool (NYPP) was the overall operator. The excerpt below makes it sound like there are benefits to the switch, but they can't seem to quantify who got these benefits, so again, I'm not convinced that the market-based approach is any better than the previous system:
http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/documents/regulatory/filings/2007/03/nyiso_anlyss_grp_rprt_031307.pdf
"Given these benefits, then who has experienced them: consumers? owners of power plants? others? This question is not easy to answer, and our report has not attempted to determine in detail how these benefits have been allocated among various entities in New York and elsewhere." (see page 3)
Why the "and elsewhere". There are benefits that went outside New York State?????
IPPNY is a proponent of the market-based approach that NY uses. I'm not so sure, because NY has higher electricity prices than every other state except Hawaii and Connecticut. I've asked a lot of people why that is. Most say that it's because we don't use much coal, but I'm not convinced yet. NY has a lot of hydro/nuclear, which is relatively cheap.
The market-based approach began in 1999 with the formation of NYISO. Before that the New York Power Pool (NYPP) was the overall operator. The excerpt below makes it sound like there are benefits to the switch, but they can't seem to quantify who got these benefits, so again, I'm not convinced that the market-based approach is any better than the previous system:
http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/documents/regulatory/filings/2007/03/nyiso_anlyss_grp_rprt_031307.pdf
"Given these benefits, then who has experienced them: consumers? owners of power plants? others? This question is not easy to answer, and our report has not attempted to determine in detail how these benefits have been allocated among various entities in New York and elsewhere." (see page 3)
Why the "and elsewhere". There are benefits that went outside New York State?????
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Organizations and Links
NYISO-New York Independent System Operator-http://www.nyiso.com/public/index.jsp
NYPSC-New York Public Service Commission-http://www.dps.state.ny.us/index.html
NYPA-New York Power Authority-http://www.nypa.gov/
NYSERDA-Energy Research and Development Authority-http://www.nyserda.org/default.asp
NPCC-Northeast Power Coordinating Council -http://www.npcc.org/
NYSRC-New York State Reliability Council-http://www.nysrc.org/
FERC-Federal Energy Regulatory Commission-http://www.ferc.gov/
DOE-Department of Energy-http://www.energy.gov/
NYRI Application 2008-http://www3.dps.state.ny.us/PSCWeb/PIOWeb.nsf/A89C0117705349E7852573E0007A0A57/E70C1CA1D196FABC852573F7005FCC0A?OpenDocument
NYRI Application 2006-http://www.udpc.net/application/ & http://www.udpc.net/articlevii.html
NYPSC-New York Public Service Commission-http://www.dps.state.ny.us/index.html
NYPA-New York Power Authority-http://www.nypa.gov/
NYSERDA-Energy Research and Development Authority-http://www.nyserda.org/default.asp
NPCC-Northeast Power Coordinating Council -http://www.npcc.org/
NYSRC-New York State Reliability Council-http://www.nysrc.org/
FERC-Federal Energy Regulatory Commission-http://www.ferc.gov/
DOE-Department of Energy-http://www.energy.gov/
NYRI Application 2008-http://www3.dps.state.ny.us/PSCWeb/PIOWeb.nsf/A89C0117705349E7852573E0007A0A57/E70C1CA1D196FABC852573F7005FCC0A?OpenDocument
NYRI Application 2006-http://www.udpc.net/application/ & http://www.udpc.net/articlevii.html
Aternative #2 - Flow Cell Batteries
One of the big problems with the electric grid is that the electricity has to be produced immediately as demand warrants. Since the demand for electricity varies, a lot of excess capacity has to be built to handle the peaks. Ways are needed to store energy/electricity.
One way to store energy is a "pumped storage" system. During periods when demand is low and excess energy is available water from a lower reservoir is pumped to a higher reservoir. When electricity is critically needed (peak demand) the water is run through turbines to generate electricity. There is at least one pumped storage facility in New York State http://www.nypa.gov/facilities/blengil.htm , but adding new ones are problematic because few people want new lakes (& flooded land areas).
Here is an interesting article on using very large batteries to store enough energy to actually power the grid for a few hours. The price is $2 million per megawatt. $2.1 billion dollars would buy 1050 MW of batteries. http://www.terrawatts.com/battery-grid.html
One way to store energy is a "pumped storage" system. During periods when demand is low and excess energy is available water from a lower reservoir is pumped to a higher reservoir. When electricity is critically needed (peak demand) the water is run through turbines to generate electricity. There is at least one pumped storage facility in New York State http://www.nypa.gov/facilities/blengil.htm , but adding new ones are problematic because few people want new lakes (& flooded land areas).
Here is an interesting article on using very large batteries to store enough energy to actually power the grid for a few hours. The price is $2 million per megawatt. $2.1 billion dollars would buy 1050 MW of batteries. http://www.terrawatts.com/battery-grid.html
Alternative #1 - Re-conductor Rather than Rebuild
There are probably several hundred alternatives to the NYRI project which would result in the same goal. In no particular order, here is #1.
Investigate the replacement of all existing transmission lines w/ 3M's ACCR Conductor (ACCR ---Aluminum Conductor Composite Reinforced). ACCR is lighter and sags less than many of the existing lines; therefore, capacity can be increased. Existing poles can be used. http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/EMD_ACCR/ACCR_Home/
As Tom Simpson, Eastern Region Account Manager, 3M's High Capacity Conductor Team put it in his slide presentation of October 31, 2007 "Re-conductor Rather Than Rebuild" (17/35)
http://www.aceny.org/pdfs/fall2007_conference/3M%20ACCR%20Presentation%20for%20ACE%20NY%20Meeting%2031OCT2007.pdf
Costs for a re-conductor appear to be under $400,000 per mile (see slide 20/35). For $2.1 billion dollars (NYRI's estimated cost), over 5,000 miles of transmission line could be upgraded.
Let's Re-conductor Rather than Build New through Beautiful Valleys of Upstate New York
Investigate the replacement of all existing transmission lines w/ 3M's ACCR Conductor (ACCR ---Aluminum Conductor Composite Reinforced). ACCR is lighter and sags less than many of the existing lines; therefore, capacity can be increased. Existing poles can be used. http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/EMD_ACCR/ACCR_Home/
As Tom Simpson, Eastern Region Account Manager, 3M's High Capacity Conductor Team put it in his slide presentation of October 31, 2007 "Re-conductor Rather Than Rebuild" (17/35)
http://www.aceny.org/pdfs/fall2007_conference/3M%20ACCR%20Presentation%20for%20ACE%20NY%20Meeting%2031OCT2007.pdf
Costs for a re-conductor appear to be under $400,000 per mile (see slide 20/35). For $2.1 billion dollars (NYRI's estimated cost), over 5,000 miles of transmission line could be upgraded.
Let's Re-conductor Rather than Build New through Beautiful Valleys of Upstate New York
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
NYSW Blues
The NYRI project probably wouldn't be in existence without it's agreement w/ NYSW.
NYSW is closing the Ontrack's Orange Express in Syracuse. $8 million in public money (1994) was spent for a train that wasn't used much. At $4 per ticket, 570 people per game and assuming 25 games per year the railroad only brought in approximately $57,000 per year, or $741,000 over 14 years. By my very rough calculations the government essentially subsidized each $4 ticket by about $35. ($7 million/200,000 trips in 14 years) http://www.syracuse.com/articles/news/index.ssf?/base/news-13/12052260325370.xml&coll=1&thispage=1
As if NYSW hasn't caused enough damage to the Sauquoit Valley area with the NYRI deal, they're apparently trying to get New Hartford to pay $30,000 for railroad-crossing rental fees now that the PILOT program is expired and NYSW is apparently back on the payrolls (or are they----is Oneida County Industrial Development Agency still listed as the primary owner for tax purposes?) http://newhartfordnyonline.blogspot.com/2008/01/people-who-live-in-glass-houses.html
It would be interesting to see how much income NYSW derived from actually transporting something by train versus money derived from government agencies. Many people argue for privatization, but at least w/ government-provided service there is perhaps the opportunity to trace the money flow. And, although early in the story, it looks like it's the money flow (and the apparent hiding of the money flow) that may lead to the NY governor's downfall.
NYSW is closing the Ontrack's Orange Express in Syracuse. $8 million in public money (1994) was spent for a train that wasn't used much. At $4 per ticket, 570 people per game and assuming 25 games per year the railroad only brought in approximately $57,000 per year, or $741,000 over 14 years. By my very rough calculations the government essentially subsidized each $4 ticket by about $35. ($7 million/200,000 trips in 14 years) http://www.syracuse.com/articles/news/index.ssf?/base/news-13/12052260325370.xml&coll=1&thispage=1
As if NYSW hasn't caused enough damage to the Sauquoit Valley area with the NYRI deal, they're apparently trying to get New Hartford to pay $30,000 for railroad-crossing rental fees now that the PILOT program is expired and NYSW is apparently back on the payrolls (or are they----is Oneida County Industrial Development Agency still listed as the primary owner for tax purposes?) http://newhartfordnyonline.blogspot.com/2008/01/people-who-live-in-glass-houses.html
It would be interesting to see how much income NYSW derived from actually transporting something by train versus money derived from government agencies. Many people argue for privatization, but at least w/ government-provided service there is perhaps the opportunity to trace the money flow. And, although early in the story, it looks like it's the money flow (and the apparent hiding of the money flow) that may lead to the NY governor's downfall.
Monday, March 10, 2008
NYRI Lobbyist
Thanks to another blogger who found this on Project Sunlight http://www.sunlightny.org/snl1/app/index.jsp (browse lobbyists, type in NYRI under client name,view report) Project Sunlight is a "public integrity" site initiative by the NYS Attorney General's office.
NYRI's state lobbyist is BOLTON ST. JOHNS, LLC
They were paid $180,000 for the year 2007.
For fairness, NYRI should give matching amounts of money to those who oppose their project, so they can get their own lobbyists.
I believe the federal government is allowing NYRI to recoup even lobbyist costs.
I would have rather seen $180,000 go elsewhere.
NYRI's state lobbyist is BOLTON ST. JOHNS, LLC
They were paid $180,000 for the year 2007.
For fairness, NYRI should give matching amounts of money to those who oppose their project, so they can get their own lobbyists.
I believe the federal government is allowing NYRI to recoup even lobbyist costs.
I would have rather seen $180,000 go elsewhere.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Phase 1 Study Comments
COMMENTS ON NYSERDA’S PHASE 1 STUDY OF
WIND POWER IMPACTS ON TRANSMISSION SYSTEM PLANNING
BY ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
March 18, 2004
CONCLUSION (pages 7 & 8)
The Attorney General urges the Commission to move forward with the design of an RPS for New York’s energy needs, that will achieve the goal of 25% renewable electricity by 2013. The Phase 1 Reliability Report establishes that the addition of substantial amounts of windpower generation anticipated to result from implementation of the RPS can be accommodated by the existing New York transmission system.
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/telecommunications/filings/ag_phase1_reliability_comment.pdf
WIND POWER IMPACTS ON TRANSMISSION SYSTEM PLANNING
BY ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
March 18, 2004
CONCLUSION (pages 7 & 8)
The Attorney General urges the Commission to move forward with the design of an RPS for New York’s energy needs, that will achieve the goal of 25% renewable electricity by 2013. The Phase 1 Reliability Report establishes that the addition of substantial amounts of windpower generation anticipated to result from implementation of the RPS can be accommodated by the existing New York transmission system.
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/telecommunications/filings/ag_phase1_reliability_comment.pdf
Monday, March 3, 2008
Megawatts to Kilowatt-Hours
My monthly electric bill shows an average charge of 14 cents per kilowatt-hour (kw-hr). That 14 cents includes generation, profit, and transmission from the generator to the house.
To calculate the kw-hrs carried by the NYRI transmission line multiply the nameplate rating * the capacity factor * 365 days per year *24 hours per day * 1000 kilowatts per megawatt
1200*.36*365*24*1000=3,784,320,000 kw-hrs.
At 14 cents per kw-hour the retail price is $530 million per year.
Now, let's calculate how much NYRI must make to get their guaranteed 13.5% profit. Transmission lines are depreciated over 15 years. If you use a 15-yr planning horizon, an initial cost of $2.1 billion, and a 13.5% rate-of-return, $333 million per year for 15 years is needed to recover initial costs (Find A given P factor). That doesn't include operating and maintaining the line so let's add another $2 million for an even $335 million per year.
$335 million divided by 3,784,320,000 kw-hours is 9 cents per kw-hr.
That 9 cents per kw-hr does not include generation or the transmission infrastructure from a substation to a house.
To calculate the kw-hrs carried by the NYRI transmission line multiply the nameplate rating * the capacity factor * 365 days per year *24 hours per day * 1000 kilowatts per megawatt
1200*.36*365*24*1000=3,784,320,000 kw-hrs.
At 14 cents per kw-hour the retail price is $530 million per year.
Now, let's calculate how much NYRI must make to get their guaranteed 13.5% profit. Transmission lines are depreciated over 15 years. If you use a 15-yr planning horizon, an initial cost of $2.1 billion, and a 13.5% rate-of-return, $333 million per year for 15 years is needed to recover initial costs (Find A given P factor). That doesn't include operating and maintaining the line so let's add another $2 million for an even $335 million per year.
$335 million divided by 3,784,320,000 kw-hours is 9 cents per kw-hr.
That 9 cents per kw-hr does not include generation or the transmission infrastructure from a substation to a house.
Nameplate Rating and Capacity Factor
Most articles list nameplate ratings. NYRI's nameplate is 1200 MW. Using the nameplate rating is misleading because different generators (and even transmission lines) don't operate at the nameplate rating for very long. To adjust nameplate (theoretical) ratings to actual real-life ratings, a capacity factor is used.
Wind turbines have a fairly low capacity factor because the wind isn't always blowing, the wind isn't blowing at a speed high enough to operate at maximum, or because the wind is blowing but the electricity isn't needed. According to this NYSERDA document, inland wind turbines have an effective capacity as low as 10% during the summer peak load period. Offshore turbines have a capacity factor of 40%.
http://www.nyserda.org/publications/wind_integration_report.pdf (page 7.15).
The capacity factor for the NYRI transmission line is 36% during peak demand hours (see page 2.5 of Appendix P of NYRI's 2006 PSC submittal----http://www.udpc.net/application/AppendixP.pdf This implies that over a year, the capacity factor would be even less than 36%.
The documents I've referenced have 2 authors that are common between the two reports.
I would estimate that people have about a 50% capacity factor. We're awake only 67% of the time. Of that 67% we're not always productive because we're watching tv, daydreaming, napping, etc.
Wind turbines have a fairly low capacity factor because the wind isn't always blowing, the wind isn't blowing at a speed high enough to operate at maximum, or because the wind is blowing but the electricity isn't needed. According to this NYSERDA document, inland wind turbines have an effective capacity as low as 10% during the summer peak load period. Offshore turbines have a capacity factor of 40%.
http://www.nyserda.org/publications/wind_integration_report.pdf (page 7.15).
The capacity factor for the NYRI transmission line is 36% during peak demand hours (see page 2.5 of Appendix P of NYRI's 2006 PSC submittal----http://www.udpc.net/application/AppendixP.pdf This implies that over a year, the capacity factor would be even less than 36%.
The documents I've referenced have 2 authors that are common between the two reports.
I would estimate that people have about a 50% capacity factor. We're awake only 67% of the time. Of that 67% we're not always productive because we're watching tv, daydreaming, napping, etc.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Thruway Corridor
NYRI says the Thruway is not an option, but it's unclear whether they're talking about the Thruway right-of-way or the Thruway Corridor. This is a picture of the Thruway Corridor. It looks like a pretty large corridor to me. The four placemarks are the Thruway, Barge Canal, CSX Railroad, and the Mohawk River. 
This is a picture of the New York Susquehanna and Western (NYSW) railroad. Those are large trees on either side of the railroad tracks w/ pasture or cultivated land beyond. Does this look like a "utility" corridor to you?
LBMP
Locational Based Marginal Pricing - LBMP
New York State's electrical energy cost structure relies on a complicated economic model pricing system that probably very few people truly understand. The basic idea is that low-cost energy is obtained first, medium-priced energy is obtained next, and high-priced electricity is obtained only when absolutely needed. The end result is that many of the expensive oil-fired generators in the NYC area aren't used that often, to the point that they have trouble making enough money to stay in business.
The system is supposed to "signal" when generators are needed in certain areas, but it hasn't been working as intended (in part because Article X is defunct). Hence the drive to bring energy in from everywhere else---------upstate New York, New Jersey, Canada, etc. I'm sure if New York City could beam energy in from Mars, they would do so.
The model worked so poorly that new "spinoff" models were developed to include the idea of reliability and congestion. Now we have models on top of models, with groups on top of groups. The benefit of this whole system is that everything is so complicated that everyone can blame someone else if something should go wrong.
The best link I have found so far in explaining how we got to this point is here http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11666&page=124
New York State's electrical energy cost structure relies on a complicated economic model pricing system that probably very few people truly understand. The basic idea is that low-cost energy is obtained first, medium-priced energy is obtained next, and high-priced electricity is obtained only when absolutely needed. The end result is that many of the expensive oil-fired generators in the NYC area aren't used that often, to the point that they have trouble making enough money to stay in business.
The system is supposed to "signal" when generators are needed in certain areas, but it hasn't been working as intended (in part because Article X is defunct). Hence the drive to bring energy in from everywhere else---------upstate New York, New Jersey, Canada, etc. I'm sure if New York City could beam energy in from Mars, they would do so.
The model worked so poorly that new "spinoff" models were developed to include the idea of reliability and congestion. Now we have models on top of models, with groups on top of groups. The benefit of this whole system is that everything is so complicated that everyone can blame someone else if something should go wrong.
The best link I have found so far in explaining how we got to this point is here http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11666&page=124
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
NIMBY and NOPE
NIMBY: Not in My Backyard and NOPE: Not on Planet Earth
NYRI officials like to throw around the NIMBY word.
Q. How do you view the immense criticism the power line has generated?
NYRI officials like to throw around the NIMBY word.
Q. How do you view the immense criticism the power line has generated?
A. Most of it isn't opposed to the project, just the specific route, you know NIMBY. http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080204/NEWS/802040317
It's a cheap shot because the issues are much more complex, and because those who throw those words around would be the first to NIMBY if they were impacted.
Gov. Spitzer is the one who throws around the NOPE word (http://www.bcnys.org/whatsnew/2000/0925energy.htm). Gov. Spitzer has told our area that the NYRI project won't be built. But I suspect he's known about the NYRI project much longer than any of us who will actually be impacted by it. http://www.nysun.com/article/67421
It's a cheap shot because the issues are much more complex, and because those who throw those words around would be the first to NIMBY if they were impacted.
Gov. Spitzer is the one who throws around the NOPE word (http://www.bcnys.org/whatsnew/2000/0925energy.htm). Gov. Spitzer has told our area that the NYRI project won't be built. But I suspect he's known about the NYRI project much longer than any of us who will actually be impacted by it. http://www.nysun.com/article/67421
Steve Mitnick
Mr. Mitnick was Conjunction LLC's CEO http://www.morganenergy.com/artsingle.php?040401
The Conjunction Project was to bring 1,000 MW to the New York City area on an 138-mile AC line, and was to cost $700 million. Do I need to point out that this project would have brought the same amount of electricity to the NYCA at a third of the price of the NYRI project?
Mr. Mitnick was also involved with the study of
Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs (2006) ---see page 82. This report discusses the NYRI project, but not by name.
Mr. Mitnick was hired by Gov. Spitzer as Assistant Secretary to the Governor for Energy and Telecommunications on January 5, 2007, but resigned on August 3, 2007 apparently over a controversy which is best read in this attorney general's "Report on the Investigation of Two Allegations Relating to the Public Service Commission"
http://www.ig.state.ny.us/pdfs/Investigation%20of%20Two%20Allegations%20Relating%20to%20the%20Public%20Service%20Commission.pdf
My favorite company, Energy East, is mentioned again:
"On January 24, 2007, Governor Spitzer announced the nomination of Angela Beddoe as chairperson of the PSC. At the time, Beddoe was Vice President for Public Affairs at Energy East Management Corporation, a utility regulated by the PSC. While Beddoe’s confirmation was pending before the Senate, Energy East and its affiliates were involved in at least 38 cases pending before the PSC.
Energy East has had a contentious relationship with the PSC and DPS. In March 2006, after an adverse decision from the PSC regarding a rate increase, a subsidiary of Energy East purchased full-page advertisements in several papers criticizing the DPS. The advertisement termed the auditors at the agency "junior accounting staff." "
The Conjunction Project was to bring 1,000 MW to the New York City area on an 138-mile AC line, and was to cost $700 million. Do I need to point out that this project would have brought the same amount of electricity to the NYCA at a third of the price of the NYRI project?
Mr. Mitnick was also involved with the study of
Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs (2006) ---see page 82. This report discusses the NYRI project, but not by name.
Mr. Mitnick was hired by Gov. Spitzer as Assistant Secretary to the Governor for Energy and Telecommunications on January 5, 2007, but resigned on August 3, 2007 apparently over a controversy which is best read in this attorney general's "Report on the Investigation of Two Allegations Relating to the Public Service Commission"
http://www.ig.state.ny.us/pdfs/Investigation%20of%20Two%20Allegations%20Relating%20to%20the%20Public%20Service%20Commission.pdf
My favorite company, Energy East, is mentioned again:
"On January 24, 2007, Governor Spitzer announced the nomination of Angela Beddoe as chairperson of the PSC. At the time, Beddoe was Vice President for Public Affairs at Energy East Management Corporation, a utility regulated by the PSC. While Beddoe’s confirmation was pending before the Senate, Energy East and its affiliates were involved in at least 38 cases pending before the PSC.
Energy East has had a contentious relationship with the PSC and DPS. In March 2006, after an adverse decision from the PSC regarding a rate increase, a subsidiary of Energy East purchased full-page advertisements in several papers criticizing the DPS. The advertisement termed the auditors at the agency "junior accounting staff." "
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Decommissioning Costs
Decommissioning costs need to be included as a line item in the NYRI estimate.
http://www3.dps.state.ny.us/PSCWeb/PIOWeb.nsf/a89c0117705349e7852573e0007a0a57/e70c1ca1d196fabc852573f7005fcc0a/$FILE/Exhibit%209_FINAL_2-14-08.pdf
Money should be placed in some sort of reserve fund to take down all the structures when no longer in use. Any substructures should be removed to 4' below the existing subgrade.
There are too many abandoned industrial sites already, and many companies don't have a stellar record of cleaning up after themselves. Harbor Point in Utica (old coal gasification plant now owned by National Grid) is still heavily contaminated. The PCB contamination of the Hudson River by GE is another example to learn from http://www.epa.gov/hudson/
http://www3.dps.state.ny.us/PSCWeb/PIOWeb.nsf/a89c0117705349e7852573e0007a0a57/e70c1ca1d196fabc852573f7005fcc0a/$FILE/Exhibit%209_FINAL_2-14-08.pdf
Money should be placed in some sort of reserve fund to take down all the structures when no longer in use. Any substructures should be removed to 4' below the existing subgrade.
There are too many abandoned industrial sites already, and many companies don't have a stellar record of cleaning up after themselves. Harbor Point in Utica (old coal gasification plant now owned by National Grid) is still heavily contaminated. The PCB contamination of the Hudson River by GE is another example to learn from http://www.epa.gov/hudson/
NYSW Abandonment?
NYSW filed a notice of abandonment for the NYSW railroad portion in Madison and Chenango Counties in September of 2006. http://www.stb.dot.gov/filings/all.nsf/7ea069ce3bbeac2e852573fa000602da/d98a7e7778db57e78525722c00638889/$FILE/218107.PDF
"In accordance with the regulations of the Surface Transportation Board at 49 C.F.R. Part 1152, the following is a description of the lines of railroad, as classified and depicted on the abovemap, which The New York, Susquehanna and Western.Railway Corporation anticipates will be the subject of an abandonment or discontinuance application to be filed within three years(Category 1):"
There doesn't appear to be any mention of this in the NYRI Application (although I haven't read through everything). How can you use the railroad to haul all the materials to build the project if it's abandoned? Who would take over the railroad, and who would maintain it?
"In accordance with the regulations of the Surface Transportation Board at 49 C.F.R. Part 1152, the following is a description of the lines of railroad, as classified and depicted on the abovemap, which The New York, Susquehanna and Western.Railway Corporation anticipates will be the subject of an abandonment or discontinuance application to be filed within three years(Category 1):"
There doesn't appear to be any mention of this in the NYRI Application (although I haven't read through everything). How can you use the railroad to haul all the materials to build the project if it's abandoned? Who would take over the railroad, and who would maintain it?
Monday, February 25, 2008
NY Sells its Infrastructure
National Grid (English/Wales) merged with Niagara Mohawk in 2000. National Grid merged with KeySpan in 2007 http://www.nationalgridus.com/information/index.asp Now Energy East may merge with Iberdrola (Spain) http://www.dps.state.ny.us/Case_07-M-0906.html. There's speculation that Iberdrola may be subject to a hostile takeover from a French company before they even complete their merger w/ Energy East http://www.dps.state.ny.us/07M0906/07M0906MotPstpn2-5.pdf.
Remember Energy East is the company that still lists Walter Rich on their board of directors even though he has been dead for 6 months. http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=104038&p=irol-govmanage Being alive must not be a prerequisite for the job.
It wasn't too long ago that there was a boycott on "French" fries, and terrorist talk is never-ending, but no one seems to be too worried that foreign companies essentially have control of our electrical infrastructure.
When I talked to a NYSPSC person about this issue, s/he said "would you rather have all those rich NIMO executives spending massive amounts of money on food/wine/lodging?" I said, "well now all those rich English/Wales executives will be spending massive amounts of money on food/wine/lodging ---but not in the US."
Remember Energy East is the company that still lists Walter Rich on their board of directors even though he has been dead for 6 months. http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=104038&p=irol-govmanage Being alive must not be a prerequisite for the job.
It wasn't too long ago that there was a boycott on "French" fries, and terrorist talk is never-ending, but no one seems to be too worried that foreign companies essentially have control of our electrical infrastructure.
When I talked to a NYSPSC person about this issue, s/he said "would you rather have all those rich NIMO executives spending massive amounts of money on food/wine/lodging?" I said, "well now all those rich English/Wales executives will be spending massive amounts of money on food/wine/lodging ---but not in the US."
Sunday, February 24, 2008
NYSW Former President
Walter Rich was the former president of the New York Susquehanna and Western Railroad (NYSW). He died August 9, 2007 (apparently from pancreatic cancer), and was a friend of Sherwood Boehlert. http://www.legacy.com/TimesUnion-Albany/Obituaries.asp?Page=Lifestory&PersonId=92386126 & http://www.coopercrier.com/news/stories/2007/08/16/ccrich.html
Some thought Mr. Rich was a great businessman, but I'm not sure why. From what I could tell, he made a lot of money off the taxpayers for services not rendered--see "$400,000 For a Train that Never Came" http://www.syracuse.com/articles/news/index.ssf?/base/news-12/11947752197340.xml&coll=1&thispage=1
Mr. Rich was also on the board of directors of Energy East http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=104038&p=irol-govmanage and the chair of the corporate responsibility committee. (wonder when Energy East is going to update their web site?---their corporate board must not be very active). Energy East is the parent company of NYSEG, RG&E, CMP & others) http://www.energyeast.com/OurCompanies/default.html
Obvious to those of us living along the railroad track, train traffic was sparse and NYSW was not making money. Therefore, NYSW made a deal (PILOT program) w/ the County Industrial Development Agencies (IDA's) which went something like this----- The IDA's would own the railroad track; NYSW would lease the railroad for $1; NYSW would not pay taxes; and NYSW could buy the railroad back for $1. Even though the IDA's were (& are?) owners of the track, NYSW makes an agreement (option) w/ NYRI (&/or Pegasus-Niagara Reinforcement?) for property rights for a significant sum of money, which increases every year. Apparently the IDA's were not aware of the NYSW/NYRI agreement. The PILOT program officially expired in 2003, but unofficially, it appears that the PILOT program just continued on it's merry way until the NYRI project became public.
I'm fuzzy on the details, but I do know this. Walter Rich tells some of us that these types of utility options occur all the time; and most of the projects don't get built anyway. He thought the poles would only be about 40' tall, and he is going to talk to the NYRI folks and see if they can lower the poles.
A businessman like Mr. Rich didn't know the difference between a low-voltage line and a 190-mile lateral 400-kv HVDC line? He didn't know that the project would cost over $1 billion dollars? He thoughtlessly signed off on an agreement that would impact thousands?
Shame on you Mr. Rich. You weren't a very good neighbor.
Some thought Mr. Rich was a great businessman, but I'm not sure why. From what I could tell, he made a lot of money off the taxpayers for services not rendered--see "$400,000 For a Train that Never Came" http://www.syracuse.com/articles/news/index.ssf?/base/news-12/11947752197340.xml&coll=1&thispage=1
Mr. Rich was also on the board of directors of Energy East http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=104038&p=irol-govmanage and the chair of the corporate responsibility committee. (wonder when Energy East is going to update their web site?---their corporate board must not be very active). Energy East is the parent company of NYSEG, RG&E, CMP & others) http://www.energyeast.com/OurCompanies/default.html
Obvious to those of us living along the railroad track, train traffic was sparse and NYSW was not making money. Therefore, NYSW made a deal (PILOT program) w/ the County Industrial Development Agencies (IDA's) which went something like this----- The IDA's would own the railroad track; NYSW would lease the railroad for $1; NYSW would not pay taxes; and NYSW could buy the railroad back for $1. Even though the IDA's were (& are?) owners of the track, NYSW makes an agreement (option) w/ NYRI (&/or Pegasus-Niagara Reinforcement?) for property rights for a significant sum of money, which increases every year. Apparently the IDA's were not aware of the NYSW/NYRI agreement. The PILOT program officially expired in 2003, but unofficially, it appears that the PILOT program just continued on it's merry way until the NYRI project became public.
I'm fuzzy on the details, but I do know this. Walter Rich tells some of us that these types of utility options occur all the time; and most of the projects don't get built anyway. He thought the poles would only be about 40' tall, and he is going to talk to the NYRI folks and see if they can lower the poles.
A businessman like Mr. Rich didn't know the difference between a low-voltage line and a 190-mile lateral 400-kv HVDC line? He didn't know that the project would cost over $1 billion dollars? He thoughtlessly signed off on an agreement that would impact thousands?
Shame on you Mr. Rich. You weren't a very good neighbor.
Wind Potential
The NY wind potential map @ a 50m height can be found here http://www.awstruewind.com/files/NY_spd50m.pdf
We looked it up yesterday, zoomed in on the transmission lines, and lo and behold, the proposed NYRI HVDC line appears to be shown on the map. The project hasn't been approved, yet it shows up on this map? The legend doesn't list it as a "proposed" line, either.
The proposed AEP project http://www.aep.com/newsroom/interstateProject.asp appears to be on the West Virginia map too (looks like a slightly different location, but how many 700+KV lines can there be?)
With respect to NY renewable energy generation, the two areas with the largest potential are the southeastern shores of Long Island and Lake Ontario. And yet, a proposed 140 MW wind turbine farm off the coast of Long Island has been cancelled due to high costs. I would point out that 3 of these projects could be built w/ the cost of the one NYRI project.
For the smaller wind farms sprouting up in upstate New York, energy flows to the closest source of demand; only excess would be available for elsewhere. How much excess electricity generated from these wind turbines will be available during the hot, dog days of summer when the peak load typically occurs? And unlike owners impacted by the turbines that get income each year and are essentially sharing in the project’s profit (approximately $2-9K per turbine per year), no adjacent property owners of transmission towers get that same benefit.
We looked it up yesterday, zoomed in on the transmission lines, and lo and behold, the proposed NYRI HVDC line appears to be shown on the map. The project hasn't been approved, yet it shows up on this map? The legend doesn't list it as a "proposed" line, either.
The proposed AEP project http://www.aep.com/newsroom/interstateProject.asp appears to be on the West Virginia map too (looks like a slightly different location, but how many 700+KV lines can there be?)
With respect to NY renewable energy generation, the two areas with the largest potential are the southeastern shores of Long Island and Lake Ontario. And yet, a proposed 140 MW wind turbine farm off the coast of Long Island has been cancelled due to high costs. I would point out that 3 of these projects could be built w/ the cost of the one NYRI project.
For the smaller wind farms sprouting up in upstate New York, energy flows to the closest source of demand; only excess would be available for elsewhere. How much excess electricity generated from these wind turbines will be available during the hot, dog days of summer when the peak load typically occurs? And unlike owners impacted by the turbines that get income each year and are essentially sharing in the project’s profit (approximately $2-9K per turbine per year), no adjacent property owners of transmission towers get that same benefit.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
NYRI President #2
NYRI's #2 President is Chris Thompson ---a real man w/ a real face http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080204/NEWS/802040317
The ACI site still has him listed as Sr. Vice President of NYRI on his CV http://www.aciinc.net/Thompson.html (you would think that ACI would have a better web site----it looks pretty lame. Plus, can you trust a company when they don't update their website after they've changed presidents?---let's just say I'm not impressed).
Mr. Thompson is supposed to be an engineer, but he doesn't have a PE after his name, so I'm assuming he's not licensed (not unusual, but......).
He's also the Sr. Vice President of ACI and his contact info is here http://www.aciinc.net/Contact.html
Wonder if Mr. Thompson lives next to any transmission lines? I googled the address but the satellite image is old; it shows no houses. I looked for signs of transmission lines, but didn't find them, but then again, the image is old.
I don't exactly agree w/ many of his statements he gave to the record online, but that's another blog.
The ACI site still has him listed as Sr. Vice President of NYRI on his CV http://www.aciinc.net/Thompson.html (you would think that ACI would have a better web site----it looks pretty lame. Plus, can you trust a company when they don't update their website after they've changed presidents?---let's just say I'm not impressed).
Mr. Thompson is supposed to be an engineer, but he doesn't have a PE after his name, so I'm assuming he's not licensed (not unusual, but......).
He's also the Sr. Vice President of ACI and his contact info is here http://www.aciinc.net/Contact.html
Wonder if Mr. Thompson lives next to any transmission lines? I googled the address but the satellite image is old; it shows no houses. I looked for signs of transmission lines, but didn't find them, but then again, the image is old.
I don't exactly agree w/ many of his statements he gave to the record online, but that's another blog.
NYRI President #1
What happened to Richard Muddiman, the former Canadian president of NYRI? He seems to have been replaced with Chris Thompson, who lives in the US.
I was never sure Richard Muddiman was a real person. He never made a public appearance. He has almost no web presence. Did he ever attend an energy conference and make a presentation? Was he ever on any board? Did he ever make a positive contribution to society? Does he have a face?
I talked to two people who had met him; he did not seem to make a very positive impression (not too surprising).
I did find this: http://www3.dps.state.ny.us/pscweb/WebFileRoom.nsf/0/F8CC0F2C235DACB385256E16006BFD73/$File/doc11304.pdf?OpenElement
Mr. Muddiman was president of the Pegasus project (the trial version of the NYRI project---- the line was to connect all the way to NYC--to the West 49th Street Substation of Consolidated Edison). I wonder why PSEG and Neptune objected to participation by Pegasus Power?
My hope is that Mr. Muddiman is "walking the talk" and living next to his very own transmission line w/ megahigh towers. And of course, he would have paid top dollar for this property because transmission lines don't impact property values. And he has no doubts that those high voltage lines are safe and won't impact his children's current or future health.
I was never sure Richard Muddiman was a real person. He never made a public appearance. He has almost no web presence. Did he ever attend an energy conference and make a presentation? Was he ever on any board? Did he ever make a positive contribution to society? Does he have a face?
I talked to two people who had met him; he did not seem to make a very positive impression (not too surprising).
I did find this: http://www3.dps.state.ny.us/pscweb/WebFileRoom.nsf/0/F8CC0F2C235DACB385256E16006BFD73/$File/doc11304.pdf?OpenElement
Mr. Muddiman was president of the Pegasus project (the trial version of the NYRI project---- the line was to connect all the way to NYC--to the West 49th Street Substation of Consolidated Edison). I wonder why PSEG and Neptune objected to participation by Pegasus Power?
My hope is that Mr. Muddiman is "walking the talk" and living next to his very own transmission line w/ megahigh towers. And of course, he would have paid top dollar for this property because transmission lines don't impact property values. And he has no doubts that those high voltage lines are safe and won't impact his children's current or future health.
NYRI: Reality Check
http://www.nyri.us/pdfs/Reference/NYRI_Project_Update.pdf (pg 22 of 24)
NYRI has ben committed to the state process from day one and continues to work with the New York PSC through the Article VII process.
Of course NYRI is committed to the state process; by law, they must go through the state process. But that doesn't mean they won't go to DOE/FERC to get this project approved.
NYRI submitted a request to the Department of Energy (DOE) on March 9, 2006 that “the Department consider NYRI’s proposed transmission corridor for early designation as a NIETC”. http://www.oe.energy.gov/DocumentsandMedia/nyri.pdf
NYRI submitted their application to the New York State Public Service Commission (NYPSC) on May 31, 2006 .
NYRI should be required to provide a detailed list of lobbyists and historical contacts to all public officials (local, state and federal) concerning the NYRI (& Pegasus) project.
NYRI is a New York company headquartered in Albany that has Canadian investors. NYRI’s activities will be heavily regulated by the NYPSC and the FERC.
Who are the investors and why the secrecy? Does it make any sense for a private company with unknown investors (of unknown citizenship) to be able to use the power of eminent domain on private US landowners?
NYRI’s proposed line and the alternative routes studied do not require that any home be taken by this project. However, like every linear infrastructure project, e.g., the NYS Thruway, some use of eminent domain could be necessary, and would come in the form of easements over property. The NYPSC recognizes the need to use eminent domain to ensure that energy requirements are met. NYRI would provide fair or above market value for such easements.
Unlike a highway or natural gas line in which the adjacent property owners have access to the resource, the proposed NYRI project will not provide power to any community or business along its length; it is a committed line between two substations. Unlike a public, not-for-profit state agency, NYRI is a for-profit company.
NYRI has ben committed to the state process from day one and continues to work with the New York PSC through the Article VII process.
Of course NYRI is committed to the state process; by law, they must go through the state process. But that doesn't mean they won't go to DOE/FERC to get this project approved.
NYRI submitted a request to the Department of Energy (DOE) on March 9, 2006 that “the Department consider NYRI’s proposed transmission corridor for early designation as a NIETC”. http://www.oe.energy.gov/DocumentsandMedia/nyri.pdf
NYRI submitted their application to the New York State Public Service Commission (NYPSC) on May 31, 2006 .
NYRI should be required to provide a detailed list of lobbyists and historical contacts to all public officials (local, state and federal) concerning the NYRI (& Pegasus) project.
NYRI is a New York company headquartered in Albany that has Canadian investors. NYRI’s activities will be heavily regulated by the NYPSC and the FERC.
Who are the investors and why the secrecy? Does it make any sense for a private company with unknown investors (of unknown citizenship) to be able to use the power of eminent domain on private US landowners?
NYRI’s proposed line and the alternative routes studied do not require that any home be taken by this project. However, like every linear infrastructure project, e.g., the NYS Thruway, some use of eminent domain could be necessary, and would come in the form of easements over property. The NYPSC recognizes the need to use eminent domain to ensure that energy requirements are met. NYRI would provide fair or above market value for such easements.
Unlike a highway or natural gas line in which the adjacent property owners have access to the resource, the proposed NYRI project will not provide power to any community or business along its length; it is a committed line between two substations. Unlike a public, not-for-profit state agency, NYRI is a for-profit company.
NYRI Project
No one should underestimate the size, scope, cost, and complexity of the NYRI project.
To put it into perspective, compare the cost of the NYRI project ($2.1 billion) to the original “Big Dig” estimate ($2.6 billion) http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10629
And for all that money, not one kw-hr of electricity would be generated.
To put it into perspective, compare the cost of the NYRI project ($2.1 billion) to the original “Big Dig” estimate ($2.6 billion) http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10629
And for all that money, not one kw-hr of electricity would be generated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
