http://www.nycedc.com/NewsPublications/Studies/MasterElectricTransmissionPlanforNYC/Documents/MasterElectricTransmissionPlanforNYC.pdf
Finally a document that actually looks at various alternatives. The NYRI project was included, and according to the document, it has the highest total cost of all alternatives evaluated (see page 17 of 248).
The economic "winner" is to construct a 500 MW combined-cycle powerplant by 2019. The economic "loser" is the NYRI project.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
NYRI off the NYISO Queue
NYRI is off the NYISO queue. http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/services/planning/nyiso_interconnection_queue/nyiso_interconnection_queue.xls
The project was 191, and is no longer listed.
The project was 191, and is no longer listed.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
CARIS Info
CARIS (Congestion Analysis and Resource Integration Study)
http://www.nyiso.com/public/services/planning/caris.jsp
http://www.nyiso.com/public/services/planning/caris.jsp
ABB STARS Presentation
STARS---New York State Transmission Assessment and Reliability Study (4/7/09).
Phase I/II is to be completed August 2009.
http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/services/planning/stars/STARS_presentation_for_April_TPAS.pdf
Phase I/II is to be completed August 2009.
http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/services/planning/stars/STARS_presentation_for_April_TPAS.pdf
Friday, April 10, 2009
Combine High Speed Rail and Transmission Line?
I suspect there will be a push for another transmission line between upstate and downstate in the coming years. If nothing else, there seems to be no plan for replacing existing transmission lines as they age. If they were to have to restring (&/or replace towers) on Marcy-South could they even afford to shut it down for a while?----I doubt it; at least not during the summer months.
Let's hope someone is looking at win-win scenarios. How about getting federal funding for a combination of a high speed rail system and some type of underground transmission line that can carry another 1,000 MW or so (with designed provisions for a future upgrade to a 2nd line----for once let's intelligently plan for expansion w/o chaos).
Surely by combining these projects, there could be some sharing of costs----site work, engineering, construction, etc.
Here is a link to California's High Speed Rail Authority. Estimated cost for 800 miles is $45 billion. (Buffalo to NYC is 400 miles.)
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/
Another link to historical considerations of high speed rail for NY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_high-speed_rail
2005 Study on High Speed Rail in NY. The picture above comes from this source.
There are disadvantages; a thorough study would be needed.
2009 New York State Energy Plan-Interim Report
http://www.nysenergyplan.com/presentations/NYS%20Energy%20Plan%20-%20Interim%20Report%20-%20March%2031%202009-web.pdf
These reports are always short on details:
Hints of expanding the transmission system are included.
"Physical and operational limitations. Currently, the bulk transmission system in New York can move about 3,050 megawatts of power between the western and northern portion of the State into the Hudson Valley and can move about 5,150 megawatts from the lower Hudson Valley into New York City and Long Island. There is insufficient transmission to move all the available power from upstate New York, Ontario, Quebec and New England at all times to the major load centers in New York. Given the concentrated load in New York City and Long Island, these areas are subject to locational capacity requirements.11 New York City needs to maintain generation resources within the City equal to at least 79 percent of its peak load and Long Island must maintain generation resources equal to at least 97 percent of its peak load to ensure reliability. Increased transmission into either of these areas could reduce these locational requirements. "
"Given that market and public policy demands are likely to place a premium on the capabilities of the State’s high-voltage transmission grid over the planning horizon and beyond, the 2009 Energy Plan will suggest steps that can be taken toward its expansion and modernization."
"For example, certain customers within a 30-mile radius of the Niagara facility qualify for an allocation of Niagara hydropower that has, for decades, been priced at approximately 1.07 cents per kilowatt-hour."
Exactly which "certain customers" are getting NYPA electricity? I hope whoever is getting electricity at 1 cent per kw-hr is not wasting it because it's so cheap. Upstate New York should have requested a similar deal when the Marcy-South transmission line was built.
I think there needs to be much more transparency as to who is paying what price. There's tons of data on NYISO's site, but the basic info is hidden.
These reports are always short on details:
Hints of expanding the transmission system are included.
"Physical and operational limitations. Currently, the bulk transmission system in New York can move about 3,050 megawatts of power between the western and northern portion of the State into the Hudson Valley and can move about 5,150 megawatts from the lower Hudson Valley into New York City and Long Island. There is insufficient transmission to move all the available power from upstate New York, Ontario, Quebec and New England at all times to the major load centers in New York. Given the concentrated load in New York City and Long Island, these areas are subject to locational capacity requirements.11 New York City needs to maintain generation resources within the City equal to at least 79 percent of its peak load and Long Island must maintain generation resources equal to at least 97 percent of its peak load to ensure reliability. Increased transmission into either of these areas could reduce these locational requirements. "
"Given that market and public policy demands are likely to place a premium on the capabilities of the State’s high-voltage transmission grid over the planning horizon and beyond, the 2009 Energy Plan will suggest steps that can be taken toward its expansion and modernization."
"For example, certain customers within a 30-mile radius of the Niagara facility qualify for an allocation of Niagara hydropower that has, for decades, been priced at approximately 1.07 cents per kilowatt-hour."
Exactly which "certain customers" are getting NYPA electricity? I hope whoever is getting electricity at 1 cent per kw-hr is not wasting it because it's so cheap. Upstate New York should have requested a similar deal when the Marcy-South transmission line was built.
I think there needs to be much more transparency as to who is paying what price. There's tons of data on NYISO's site, but the basic info is hidden.
Drumming Grouse
I heard a grouse drumming today near the NYSW railroad. Not many times have I heard a grouse drumming.
There's a lot of wildlife near the railroad. A lot of animals use it as a pathway, and there is a lot of brush and trees nearby to provide habitat. Much of that habitat would have been wiped (cleared) out if the NYRI project had gone through.
There were lots of tables in the NYRI project application, but the loss of the "drumming grouse" was not well conveyed.
There's a lot of wildlife near the railroad. A lot of animals use it as a pathway, and there is a lot of brush and trees nearby to provide habitat. Much of that habitat would have been wiped (cleared) out if the NYRI project had gone through.
There were lots of tables in the NYRI project application, but the loss of the "drumming grouse" was not well conveyed.
Levelizing Costs
I received this comment:
"You're missing the bigger point. Look at prices upstate versus downstate on nyiso.com. New transmission from upstate to downstate would cause electricity prices to levelize somewhat upstate/downstate.Because of the huge population unbalance, each 100% rise in energy costs upstate would result in roughly a 20% reduction in costs downstate. That would cause a political volcano of unprecedented proportion.I don't believe that there exists the political courage to levelize power costs. By the way, the same political issue is what killed the proposed merger between ISO NE and NYISO. It would have caused prices to rise in New England and to drop in NY."
I did not know that there had been a proposed merger between ISO NE and NYISO.
With respect to levelizing costs, I would argue that before we levelize electricity costs let's levelize incomes. And the New York City area would say let's levelize the cost of living before we levelize incomes. And we could go on and on...
I read once that if we averaged incomes throughout the globe, that everyone would have about the same income as the average person in Bangladesh. It's probably true since I think about 2 billion people live on $2 per day. That's depressing since Bangladesh is pretty poor.
I once went to a presentation on Bangladesh. Many in Bangladesh don't have clean water sources and were using surface water, which can be easily contaminated. With good intentions, wells were provided to help alleviate the problem, but no one knew that some of the groundwater had natural levels of arsenic. Low-level arsenic poisoning causes significant health problems. The speaker had been part of a group that tested many of the wells. As a warning they painted those that had high levels of arsenic. Sickness via arsenic or sickness via contaminated surface water. Not much of a choice.
"You're missing the bigger point. Look at prices upstate versus downstate on nyiso.com. New transmission from upstate to downstate would cause electricity prices to levelize somewhat upstate/downstate.Because of the huge population unbalance, each 100% rise in energy costs upstate would result in roughly a 20% reduction in costs downstate. That would cause a political volcano of unprecedented proportion.I don't believe that there exists the political courage to levelize power costs. By the way, the same political issue is what killed the proposed merger between ISO NE and NYISO. It would have caused prices to rise in New England and to drop in NY."
I did not know that there had been a proposed merger between ISO NE and NYISO.
With respect to levelizing costs, I would argue that before we levelize electricity costs let's levelize incomes. And the New York City area would say let's levelize the cost of living before we levelize incomes. And we could go on and on...
I read once that if we averaged incomes throughout the globe, that everyone would have about the same income as the average person in Bangladesh. It's probably true since I think about 2 billion people live on $2 per day. That's depressing since Bangladesh is pretty poor.
I once went to a presentation on Bangladesh. Many in Bangladesh don't have clean water sources and were using surface water, which can be easily contaminated. With good intentions, wells were provided to help alleviate the problem, but no one knew that some of the groundwater had natural levels of arsenic. Low-level arsenic poisoning causes significant health problems. The speaker had been part of a group that tested many of the wells. As a warning they painted those that had high levels of arsenic. Sickness via arsenic or sickness via contaminated surface water. Not much of a choice.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Suspend versus Withdraw
NYRI used the word suspend instead of withdraw. This of course implies a temporary respite versus "ending the quest".
The judge basically told NYRI that they would have to start all over again if they decided to reapply. I'm assuming this means they would have to rehold all their public meetings.
I'll feel better when they take the project off the NYISO queue.
The judge basically told NYRI that they would have to start all over again if they decided to reapply. I'm assuming this means they would have to rehold all their public meetings.
I'll feel better when they take the project off the NYISO queue.
Monday, April 6, 2009
NYISO White Paper - Transmission Expansion in New York State
http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/documents/white_papers/transmission_11202008.pdf
How to pay for transmission:
1-Everyone pays (postage stamp rate)
2-User pays
"New York has a long history of upstate versus downstate disputes over infrastructure, and transmission is a part of that history. Simply put, upstate interests typically do not want to host, and much less pay for, facilities designed primarily to serve downstate interests. Meanwhile, downstate interests are not willing to fund (and bear the cost recovery risk for) 100% of the cost of facilities located upstate. Projects that have circumvented this cost allocation roadblock, such as the New York State Thruway and NYPA’s state-wide transmission network, were state-sponsored projects that will be difficult to repeat in today’s political and siting environment."
I'm not sure why the Thruway is included. The Thruway is used by all; I don't think upstate New York is opposed to the Thruway.
No one in upstate NY got benefits out of the NYRI project. (Well there was a one-time $30 million proposed community fund--but a one-time amount spread over 200 miles was practically worthless--since impacts were so horrendous).
Part of the problem is that everyone wants to mix systems. Let's use the capitalist system so that NYRI can be enticed to build and make the big bucks. But when it comes to private property owners let's switch to eminent domain (your property get's to be taken to benefit all). Let's not have it both ways. If upstate land and right-of-way is so valuable then let's (both communities and individuals) be allowed to get the big bucks too.
We're mixing up systems in the banking industry too. Banks get to use free market capitalism until they gamble all the money away, then the switch is made to socialism so that everyone pays to shore up the banks.
Inherently unfair and inconsistent systems----they'll never work. They also demoralize everyone.
How to pay for transmission:
1-Everyone pays (postage stamp rate)
2-User pays
"New York has a long history of upstate versus downstate disputes over infrastructure, and transmission is a part of that history. Simply put, upstate interests typically do not want to host, and much less pay for, facilities designed primarily to serve downstate interests. Meanwhile, downstate interests are not willing to fund (and bear the cost recovery risk for) 100% of the cost of facilities located upstate. Projects that have circumvented this cost allocation roadblock, such as the New York State Thruway and NYPA’s state-wide transmission network, were state-sponsored projects that will be difficult to repeat in today’s political and siting environment."
I'm not sure why the Thruway is included. The Thruway is used by all; I don't think upstate New York is opposed to the Thruway.
No one in upstate NY got benefits out of the NYRI project. (Well there was a one-time $30 million proposed community fund--but a one-time amount spread over 200 miles was practically worthless--since impacts were so horrendous).
Part of the problem is that everyone wants to mix systems. Let's use the capitalist system so that NYRI can be enticed to build and make the big bucks. But when it comes to private property owners let's switch to eminent domain (your property get's to be taken to benefit all). Let's not have it both ways. If upstate land and right-of-way is so valuable then let's (both communities and individuals) be allowed to get the big bucks too.
We're mixing up systems in the banking industry too. Banks get to use free market capitalism until they gamble all the money away, then the switch is made to socialism so that everyone pays to shore up the banks.
Inherently unfair and inconsistent systems----they'll never work. They also demoralize everyone.
Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study (EWITS)
Some links to the Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study (EWITS)
Study to be completed mid-2009
http://www.uwig.org/Denver/Corbus.pdf
http://www.westconnect.com/filestorage/nrel_corbus_lew_madrid_052608.pdf
http://www.interiso.com/public/meeting/20081211/a_ncsp_ipsac.pdf
Study to be completed mid-2009
http://www.uwig.org/Denver/Corbus.pdf
http://www.westconnect.com/filestorage/nrel_corbus_lew_madrid_052608.pdf
http://www.interiso.com/public/meeting/20081211/a_ncsp_ipsac.pdf
NYISO Wind Integration Study
NYISO is studying how to integrate larger amounts of wind. One of the issues they're looking at is whether and how much transmission might be needed.
http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/committees/bic_miwg/meeting_materials/2008-10-10/Wind_Integration_Study_Status_Report.pdf
http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/committees/bic_miwg/meeting_materials/2008-10-10/Wind_Integration_Study_Status_Report.pdf
End of the Beginning
Our area is still vulnerable to proposed transmission lines. The Clark Energy Center is the hub of a large network and is the brain behind New York's grid. Our area has a long, linear right-of-way in the form of the NYSW railroad &/or the Thruway &/or the Marcy-South line. There are those that will push to build generators (whether nuclear, coal or wind) upstate because it's (supposedly) cheaper or because they just don't want to build it downstate.
This is the end of the beginning. We'll need to keep on top of issues.
This is the end of the beginning. We'll need to keep on top of issues.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Bank of America
Bank of America was my bank (but only because I was with Fleet and Bank of America bought Fleet several years ago) After the economic debacle I decided to move to another bank. Only a few banks account for the majority of credit default swaps, and Bank of America is one of them. Not that I'm an economist (and maybe the whole system would have fallen apart), but personally, I think all five of these "too-big-for-their-britches" banks should have been allowed to fail or forced to break into smaller entities:
I finally chose a semi-local bank and set up an account. Later I find that this bank accepted TARP money, so maybe I chose the wrong one, but it's closer to where I live, so I justified my choice by saying it makes more sense with respect to transportation sustainability. Interestingly enough, the bank personnel I talked to seemed to have no idea that their bank accepted any TARP money, so that's probably not a good sign either, but frankly I was tired of moving accounts around.
I filled out a new direct-deposit form. The person who took my form said I wasn't the only person opting out of Bank of America. So I'm hoping that millions of us are "quietly" voting by deciding to take our accounts elsewhere.
- JP Morgan
- Bank of America
- Goldman-Sachs
- Citigroup
- HSBC
I finally chose a semi-local bank and set up an account. Later I find that this bank accepted TARP money, so maybe I chose the wrong one, but it's closer to where I live, so I justified my choice by saying it makes more sense with respect to transportation sustainability. Interestingly enough, the bank personnel I talked to seemed to have no idea that their bank accepted any TARP money, so that's probably not a good sign either, but frankly I was tired of moving accounts around.
I filled out a new direct-deposit form. The person who took my form said I wasn't the only person opting out of Bank of America. So I'm hoping that millions of us are "quietly" voting by deciding to take our accounts elsewhere.
NYISO CARIS Procedure
From beginning to end, published accounts raise more questions than they answer.
NYRI suspends their process because FERC wouldn't overturn a NYISO procedure? Actually I'm privately shocked ---I always figured FERC and NYISO had been highly lobby-lubricated---and why would NYRI blame the very agencies that would have allowed them to build their project???? Their usual blame went to all of us potentially impacted by the project (we were just NIMBYism people). The whole thing makes no sense.
I looked and looked at the NYISO site for this supposed procedure but couldn't find it. But thanks to Googling (their search engine is remarkably efficient) I finally found details here: http://www.dps.state.ny.us/06-T-0650_NYRI_Testimony_NYISO.html -------NYISO CARIS process
Benefits must outweigh costs (10-year planning horizon). 80% of the beneficiaries must then vote for the project. Costs would be borne by the beneficiaries (I'm assuming CONED and LIPA).
Why would NYRI spend millions of money on a project without first getting the support of the very entities that would be served by their "product----i.e. electricity to downstate"? This also makes no sense.
NYRI suspends their process because FERC wouldn't overturn a NYISO procedure? Actually I'm privately shocked ---I always figured FERC and NYISO had been highly lobby-lubricated---and why would NYRI blame the very agencies that would have allowed them to build their project???? Their usual blame went to all of us potentially impacted by the project (we were just NIMBYism people). The whole thing makes no sense.
I looked and looked at the NYISO site for this supposed procedure but couldn't find it. But thanks to Googling (their search engine is remarkably efficient) I finally found details here: http://www.dps.state.ny.us/06-T-0650_NYRI_Testimony_NYISO.html -------NYISO CARIS process
Benefits must outweigh costs (10-year planning horizon). 80% of the beneficiaries must then vote for the project. Costs would be borne by the beneficiaries (I'm assuming CONED and LIPA).
Why would NYRI spend millions of money on a project without first getting the support of the very entities that would be served by their "product----i.e. electricity to downstate"? This also makes no sense.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Quarterly Derivative Fact Sheet
Now that NYRI has pulled it's plug, I guess I'll blog about other things every once in a while.
The office of the comptroller of currency (OCC) keeps track of bank derivatives. http://www.occ.treas.gov/deriv/deriv.htm
The 4th quarter of 2008 is found here http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2009-34a.pdf The derivatives they're tracking consist mostly of credit default swaps (98%---see page 6 of 33).
1. (page 1/33) Derivatives were $200 trillion (notational value----which supposedly does not exactly represent credit risk) in the 4th quarter of 2008. The population of the United States is about 308 million; 308 million times $600,000 is approximately $200 trillion. Hmm---that calculation doesn't make me feel good.
2. Look at the table on page 25/33. The last column lists the ratio of credit exposure to capital ratio. The top 5 banks have #'s from 179 to 1056.
The office of the comptroller of currency (OCC) keeps track of bank derivatives. http://www.occ.treas.gov/deriv/deriv.htm
The 4th quarter of 2008 is found here http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2009-34a.pdf The derivatives they're tracking consist mostly of credit default swaps (98%---see page 6 of 33).
1. (page 1/33) Derivatives were $200 trillion (notational value----which supposedly does not exactly represent credit risk) in the 4th quarter of 2008. The population of the United States is about 308 million; 308 million times $600,000 is approximately $200 trillion. Hmm---that calculation doesn't make me feel good.
2. Look at the table on page 25/33. The last column lists the ratio of credit exposure to capital ratio. The top 5 banks have #'s from 179 to 1056.
NYRI Pulls Their Own Plug
Today, NYRI apparently pulled their own plug http://www.nyri.us/bm/news/press/nyri-suspends-its-participation-in-ny-state-transm.shtml
Their stated reason is too much financial risk. Who knows what the real reasons are? I never had any confidence in anything they said. Their site engineering studies were poor. Did anyone really believe NYRI's claim that electricity prices would go down after their project was built?
However, a new project could always be proposed. There's still a permit for a nuclear power plant in Oswego. This is try #2 (First Pegasus; Second NYRI). There might be a try #3 (wonder what other catchy name can be thought up by some high-level advertising firm?).
The real question--------who were the people behind this project? The project didn't appear out of thin air. They are so powerful they kept their identities hidden. There is something scary about that.
Their stated reason is too much financial risk. Who knows what the real reasons are? I never had any confidence in anything they said. Their site engineering studies were poor. Did anyone really believe NYRI's claim that electricity prices would go down after their project was built?
However, a new project could always be proposed. There's still a permit for a nuclear power plant in Oswego. This is try #2 (First Pegasus; Second NYRI). There might be a try #3 (wonder what other catchy name can be thought up by some high-level advertising firm?).
The real question--------who were the people behind this project? The project didn't appear out of thin air. They are so powerful they kept their identities hidden. There is something scary about that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
