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

Ref: http://www.w2agz.com/Documents/Albany%20Presentation%20(Web%20Version).pdf

2000 MW DC line for $750 million (2004$). Much less expensive than NYRI's project and shorter.

Existing Transmission Grid

Ref: http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/newsroom/press_releases/2007/CRP_2007_supportingdocument_final_091807.pdf

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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).

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:

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

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

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/

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.

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.

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.

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?????

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.