New York ISO

Reliability Needs Assessment

A Report by the
New York Independent
System Operator

November 2020
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................ 1
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................... 7
2. OVERVIEW OF RELIABILITY PLANNING PROCESS CHANGES ............................................................................................. 10
3. SUMMARY OF PRIOR COMPREHENSIVE RELIABILITY PLANS............................................................................................ 12
4. REGULATORY POLICY ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................................................... 14
Peaker Rule: Ozone Season Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) Emission Limits for Simple Cycle and
Regenerative Combustion Turbines..................................................................................... 15

Indian Point Deactivation ..................................................................................................... 18

New York City Residual Oil Elimination ................................................................................ 18

Carbon Dioxide Performance Standards for Major Electric Generating Facilities ............... 19

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) ......................................................................... 19

Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) ............................................... 20

Accelerated Renewable Energy Growth and Community Benefit Act .................................. 20

5. BASE CASE ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 22

Annual Energy and Summer Peak Demand Forecasts ........................................................ 23

2020 RNA Resource Additions and Removals..................................................................... 30

Bulk Transmission Projects.................................................................................................. 34

Local Transmission Plans .................................................................................................... 34

Base Case Peak Load and Resources ................................................................................. 35

6. BASE CASE RELIABILITY ASSESSMENTS.............................................................................................................................. 39

Overview............................................................................................................................... 39

Methodology for the Determination of Needs...................................................................... 39

Transmission Security Base Case Assessments.................................................................. 41

Steady-State Assessments ............................................................................................................................. 41

System Stability Assessments ........................................................................................................................ 44
Short Circuit Assessments.............................................................................................................................. 54
Transmission Owner Local Criteria Violations ............................................................................................... 54

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | ii

 Resource Adequacy Base Case Assessments ..................................................................... 59

Resource Adequacy Model ............................................................................................................................ 59

Resource Adequacy Base Case Results .......................................................................................................... 66
Base Case Key Findings....................................................................................................... 69

7. BASE CASE VARIATION SCENARIOS ................................................................................................................................... 71

High Load Forecast Scenario ............................................................................................... 72

Zonal Resource Adequacy Margin (ZRAM) ........................................................................... 73

Status-Quo Scenario ............................................................................................................ 74

8. 70X30 SCENARIO ................................................................................................................................................................ 76

Scope ................................................................................................................................... 76

Assumptions......................................................................................................................... 78

Load Assumptions ......................................................................................................................................... 79

Renewable Mix Assumptions......................................................................................................................... 80
External areas................................................................................................................................................ 82
Resource Adequacy Methodology and Results.................................................................... 82

Step 1: Renewable Mix on Two Load Levels .................................................................................................. 82

Step 2: Capacity Removal .............................................................................................................................. 83
Sensitivity: Nuclear Generation Retirement ................................................................................................. 89
Sensitivity: Energy Storage Resources ........................................................................................................... 90
Sensitivity: Resolve Local Transmission Constraints ...................................................................................... 92
Transmission Security Methodology and Results ................................................................ 92

Key Findings of the 70x30 Scenario.................................................................................... 95

9. RELIABILITY COMPLIANCE OBLIGATIONS AND ACTIVITIES............................................................................................... 97

NPCC/NYSRC Area Transmission Reviews .......................................................................... 99

NERC Planning Assessments (TPL-001) ............................................................................ 101

Resource Adequacy Compliance Efforts ............................................................................ 102

10. NEW YORK GRID ASSESSMENTS AND INITIATIVES ......................................................................................................... 104

A Grid In Transition: Reliability Gap Analysis...................................................................... 106

11. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................... 108

12. NEXT STEPS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 111
APPENDIX

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | iii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Summary of Reliability Needs (Compensatory MW/MVA)........................................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Resource Mix in the 70x30 ‘Base Load’ Case at Reliability Criterion ............................................................................ 5
Figure 3: Resource Mix in 70x30 ‘Scenario Load’ Case at Reliability Criterion ............................................................................ 5
Figure 4: The NYISO’s Comprehensive System Planning Process (CSPP) ..................................................................................... 7
Figure 5: Current Status of Tracked Market-Based Solutions and TOs’ Plans ........................................................................... 13
Figure 6: Summary Table of Key Environmental Regulations and Energy Policies .................................................................... 14
Figure 7: Status Change due to DEC Peaker Rule, Zone G ......................................................................................................... 17
Figure 8: Status Change due to DEC Peaker Rule, Zone J .......................................................................................................... 17
Figure 9: Status Change due to DEC Peaker Rule, Zone K.......................................................................................................... 18
Figure 10: 2020 RNA Load and Energy Forecast: Baseline Forecast, and Baseline with BtM Solar PV Forecasts Added Back In
................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 11: 2020 RNA Load and Energy for High Load Scenario: High Load Scenario Forecast, and High Load Scenario Forecast
with BtM Solar PV Added Back In .............................................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 12: Comparison of 2018 RNA & 2020 Baseline Forecasts ............................................................................................... 27
Figure 13: 2020 Baseline and High Load Scenario Energy Forecasts with Solar PV Added Back ............................................... 28
Figure 14: 2020 Baseline and High Load Energy Scenario Summer Peak Demand Forecasts with Solar PV Added Back ......... 28
Figure 15: 2020 Baseline Annual Energy Forecast Impacts ....................................................................................................... 29
Figure 16: 2020 Baseline Summer Peak Demand Forecast Impacts .......................................................................................... 29
Figure 17: Forecast of BtM Solar PV Coincident Summer Peak Demand Reductions (MW) ..................................................... 30
Figure 18: Proposed Projects Included in the 2020 RNA Base Case .......................................................................................... 31
Figure 19: 2020 RNA Generation Deactivations Assumptions................................................................................................... 32
Figure 20: Existing Plants Impacted by DEC’s Peaker Rule (Additional Details on Peakers Status by Ozone Season are in
Section 4) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 21: NYCA Peak Load and Resources 2024 through 2030 ................................................................................................ 36
Figure 22: Total Capacity/ Load Ratios (%) ICAP vs UCAP for 2030 ........................................................................................... 37
Figure 23: NYCA Load and Resources Comparison with the 2019 - 2028 CRP........................................................................... 38
Figure 24: 2020 RNA Zone J Load and Capacity Comparison with the 2019 - 2028 CRP ........................................................... 38
Figure 25: Steady State Transmission Security N-1-1 Violations ............................................................................................... 42
Figure 26: Steady State Transmission Security N-1-1-0 Violations ............................................................................................ 43
Figure 27: NYC 345/138 kV TLA – Approximate Projection for Year 2025................................................................................. 43
Figure 28: NYC 345/138 kV TLA – Approximate Projection for Year 2030................................................................................. 44
Figure 29: Dynamic Stability Criteria N-1 Violations .................................................................................................................. 46
Figure 30: Dynamic Stability Criteria N-1-1 Violations (L/O Ravenswood 3 as First Level Event).............................................. 47
Figure 31: New York City (NYC) 345 kV Bus Voltage Recovery .................................................................................................. 50

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | iv

Figure 32: High Side of GSU Voltage .......................................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 33: Generator Synchronism ............................................................................................................................................ 52
Figure 34: Description of Dynamic MVA Added to System........................................................................................................ 54
Figure 35: Astoria East/ Corona 138 kV TLA .............................................................................................................................. 55
Figure 36: Astoria East/ Corona 138 kV TLA Deficiency ............................................................................................................. 55
Figure 37: Astoria East/Corona 138 kV Load Duration Curve for 2023...................................................................................... 56
Figure 38: Astoria East/Corona 138 kV Load Duration Curve for 2030...................................................................................... 56
Figure 39: Greenwood/Fox Hills 138 kV TLA.............................................................................................................................. 57
Figure 40: Greenwood/Fox Hills 138 kV TLA Deficiency ............................................................................................................ 57
Figure 41: Greenwood/Fox Hills 138 kV TLA Load Duration Curve for 2025 ............................................................................. 58
Figure 42: Greenwood/Fox Hills 138 kV TLA Load Duration Curve for 2030 ............................................................................. 58
Figure 43: Transmission System Thermal Emergency Transfer Limits ....................................................................................... 61
Figure 44: Transmission System Voltage Emergency Transfer Limits ........................................................................................ 61
Figure 45: Transmission System Base Case Emergency Transfer Limits .................................................................................... 61
Figure 46: 2020 RNA Topology Years 4-10 (2024 -2030) ........................................................................................................... 63
Figure 47: Topology Year 1 (2021) ............................................................................................................................................. 64
Figure 48: Topology Year 2- 3 (2022- 2023) ............................................................................................................................... 65
Figure 49: NYCA Resource Adequacy Results ............................................................................................................................ 66
Figure 50: 2020 RNA Zone J Load and Capacity Comparison with the 2019 – 2028 CRP .......................................................... 67
Figure 51: Compensatory MW Additions for Resource Adequacy Violations ........................................................................... 67
Figure 52: NYCA Free Flow Simulation Results .......................................................................................................................... 69
Figure 53: 2020 Gold Book NYCA High Load vs. Baseline Summer Peak Forecast..................................................................... 72
Figure 54: 2020 Gold Book Zone J High Load vs. Non-coincident Summer Peak Forecast ........................................................ 73
Figure 55: 2020 RNA Resource Adequacy High Load Scenario NYCA LOLE Results ................................................................... 73
Figure 56: Zonal Resource Adequacy Margin (MW) .................................................................................................................. 74
Figure 57: 2020 RNA Resource Adequacy Status-quo Scenario NYCA LOLE Results ................................................................. 75
Figure 58: 2020 RNA Transmission Security Status-quo Scenario Results ................................................................................. 75
Figure 59: Summer Energy and Peak Demand Forecast Zonal Distribution .............................................................................. 79
Figure 60: Load and Energy Comparison between the 2019 and 2020 Gold Book Forecasts ................................................... 80
Figure 61: Renewable Mix Assumptions for each Load Level.................................................................................................... 80
Figure 62: Storage Zonal MW Distribution ................................................................................................................................ 82
Figure 63: Resource Mix in the 70x30 ‘Base Load’ Case before Capacity Removal .................................................................. 83
Figure 64: Resource Mix in the 70x30 ‘Scenario Load’ Case before Capacity Removal............................................................ 83
Figure 65: ZRAM Results on the Initial 70x30 Cases .................................................................................................................. 84
Figure 66: Fossil Removal Based on 70x30 ‘Base Load’ Scenario Cases .................................................................................... 84

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | v

Figure 67: NYCA Resource Mix in 70x30 ‘Base Load’ Case at Criterion ..................................................................................... 85
Figure 68: Zone J Resource Mix in 70x30 ‘Base Load’ Case at Criterion .................................................................................... 85
Figure 69: Zone K Resource Mix in 70x30 ‘Base Load’ Case at Criterion ................................................................................... 85
Figure 70: 70x30 ‘Base Load’ Load and Capacity Totals, ICAP vs. UCAP .................................................................................... 86
Figure 71: Fossil Removal Based on 70x30 ‘Scenario Load’ ....................................................................................................... 86
Figure 72: NYCA Resource Mix in 70x30 ‘Scenario Load’ Case at Criterion ............................................................................... 87
Figure 73: Zone J Resource Mix in 70x30 ‘Scenario Load’ Case at Criterion .............................................................................. 87
Figure 74: Zone K Resource Mix in 70x30 ‘Scenario Load’ Case at Criterion ............................................................................. 87
Figure 75: 70x30 ‘Scenario Load’ Load and Capacity Totals, ICAP vs UCAP ............................................................................... 88
Figure 76: Nuclear Retirement Sensitivity based on 70x30 “Base Load” Case .......................................................................... 89
Figure 77: Nuclear Retirement Sensitivity based on 70x30 “Scenario Load” Case .................................................................... 90
Figure 78: Storage Sensitivity Fossil MW Removed by Age to Exceed LOLE.............................................................................. 91
Figure 79: 4-Hour vs. 8-Hour Energy Storage Sensitivity ........................................................................................................... 92
Figure 80: 70x30 Scenario Transmission Security Case Assumptions (‘Base Load’ Case).......................................................... 93
Figure 81: N-1-1 Thermal Load Criteria Violations..................................................................................................................... 94
Figure 82: List of NERC Standards for Planning Coordinators and Transmission Planners........................................................ 98
Figure 83: Description of NERC TPL-001 Planning Assessment Study Cases ........................................................................... 102

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A - 2020 Reliability Needs Assessment Glossary
Appendix B - The Reliability Planning Process
Appendix C - Load and Energy Forecast 2021-2030
Appendix D - Resource Adequacy and Transmission System Security Assessments
Appendix E - Additional Exploratory Scenario Analysis
Appendix F - Historic Congestion

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | vi

Executive Summary
This 2020 Reliability Needs Assessment (RNA) provides an evaluation and review of the reliability of
the New York bulk electric grid through 2030, considering forecasts of peak power demand, planned
upgrades to the transmission system, and changes to the generation mix over the next ten years. The RNA
assesses an actionable “base case” set of assumptions, as well as various scenarios that are provided for
information. This RNA base case includes projected impacts driven by limitations on generator emissions,
while the scenarios include an in-depth look at certain policy goals from the Climate Leadership and
Community Protection Act (CLCPA). The RNA also discusses the reliability risks associated with the
cumulative impact of environmental laws and regulations, which may affect the availability and flexibility
of power plant operation.

COVID-19 Impacts on Demand

The coronavirus outbreak has had a significant impact on New York’s economy due to reductions in
commercial and industrial activity as New Yorkers adjust their lives by working from home and limiting
social interaction. Due to the rapidly evolving nature of the pandemic, the demand forecasts utilized in this
study reflect the NYISO’s perspective as of April 2020. The sudden departure from historical behavioral
patterns caused by New York’s response to COVID-19 is unprecedented and creates unique challenges to
forecasting the state’s energy needs. As the situation evolves and more data becomes available, the NYISO
will continue to monitor these forecasts and adjust course accordingly. As further described in the “Next
Steps” section, following approval of the RNA by the Board and prior to any solicitation of solutions, the
NYISO will consider updates to the peak load forecasts and determine to what extent the forecasts impact
any identified system needs.

Actionable Reliability Needs

This 2020 RNA has identified violations or potential violations of reliability criteria (“Reliability
Needs”) in the base case throughout the entire study period (2024-2030) due to dynamic instability,
transmission overloads, and resource deficiencies.1 The issues identified are primarily driven by a
combination of forecasted peak demand and the assumed unavailability of certain generation in New York
City affected by the “Peaker Rule.”

In 2019, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation adopted a regulation to limit
nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from simple-cycle combustion turbines (referred to as the “Peaker

1Effective May 1, 2020, the scope of the RNA is limited to years 4-10 of the planning horizon while the NYISO Short-Term Reliability
Process is responsible for years 1-3 and also assesses years 4-5.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 1

Rule2,”). Combustion turbines known as “peakers” typically operate to maintain bulk power system
reliability during the most stressful operating conditions, such as periods of peak electricity demand. Many
of these units also maintain transmission security by supplying energy within certain constrained areas of
New York City and Long Island — known as load pockets. The Peaker Rule, which phases in compliance
obligations between 2023 and 2025, will impact turbines located mainly in the lower Hudson Valley, New
York City, and Long Island. The Peaker Rule required all impacted plant owners to file compliance plans by
March 2, 2020. The plans indicate approximately 1,500 MW of peaker capability would be unavailable
during the summer by 2025 to comply with the emissions requirements. A subset of those generators
would be unavailable starting in 2023.

With the peakers unavailable, the bulk power transmission system could not securely and reliably
serve the forecasted load in New York City (Zone J) throughout the study period. Following the initial
phase of the Peaker Rule in 2023, instability of the grid may occur due to a lack of dynamic reactive power
capability and inertia available to parts of the New York City grid. These reliability issues include low
transient voltage response, loss of generator synchronism, and undamped voltage oscillations. With full
implementation of the Peaker Rule in 2025, several 345 kV circuits in the Con Edison service territory
would not meet transmission security requirements equating to a deficiency of 700 MW and increasing to
at least 1,075 MW by 2030. The duration of the deficiencies range from nine hours in 2025 (3,853 MWh) to
12 hours in 2030 (7,672 MWh). Similar transmission deficiencies would also occur within pockets of Con
Edison’s non-bulk system (138 kV), ranging in duration from 10 to 14 hours.

In addition to the transmission security issues, overall resource adequacy deficiencies in Zone J would
begin in 2027 and increase to at least 350 MW through 2030. Resource adequacy is the ability of the
electric systems to supply the aggregate electrical demand and energy requirements of the customers at all
times, taking into account scheduled and reasonably expected unscheduled outages of system elements.
The NYISO performs resource adequacy assessments on a probabilistic basis to capture the random nature
of system element outages. The New York system is deemed to have sufficient resources if the probability
of an unplanned disconnection of firm load (loss of load expectation, or “LOLE”) is equal to or less than the
standard of once in every 10 years or 0.1 events per year.

Figure 1 below quantifies each Reliability Need through the study period in terms of generic
compensatory resources, in megawatts (MW) or megavolt-amperes (MVA). Compensatory MW/MVA
amounts are determined by adding generic “perfect capacity” resources to NYISO zones or substations to
effectively satisfy the needs. “Perfect capacity” is a term used to describe resources that are always able to

2
https://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/116131.html

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 2

produce energy on demand, without any limitations due to factors such as equipment failures or lack of
fuel, without energy duration limitations, and without consideration of transmission security or interface
impacts. Actual resources would need to be larger in order to achieve the same impact as perfect-capacity
resources. The Reliability Needs could be met by combinations of solutions including generation,
transmission, energy efficiency, demand response measures, or changes in operating protocols. All
Reliability Needs occur within Con Edison’s transmission district in New York City (Zone J). Therefore,
Con Edison is the Responsible Transmission Owner for regulated backstop solutions, as defined by the
NYISO OATT.

Figure 1: Summary of Reliability Needs (Compensatory MW/MVA)

Bulk Facilities Non-Bulk Facilities

Study Year Resource Transmission Dynamic ConEdison ConEdison
Adequacy Loading Instability Astoria East/ Greenwood/Fox
(Zone J, MW) (Zone J, MW) (Zone J, MVA) Corona 138 kV Hills 138 kV
(MW) (MW)
2024 below criterion below criterion 490 115 below criterion
2025 below criterion 700 1,020 110 360
2026 below criterion 760 1,080 115 350
2027 100 820 1,140 120 360
2028 150 900 1,210 125 360
2029 300 990 1,300 170 370
2030 350 1,075 1,390 180 370

In addition to the base case set of assumptions and findings, the RNA provides an assessment of risks
to the bulk electric grid under certain scenarios to inform stakeholders and policymakers of potential
alternate outcomes. Scenarios are variations on key base case assumptions such as higher load forecast,
capacity removal, or deviations from assumed system plans. If they occurred, the events analyzed in the
scenarios could change the timing, location, or degree of reliability issues identified in the base case. Each
of these variations of the base case for this 2020 RNA indicates potential increased risks of reliability
criteria violations in the future. The scenarios include higher peak load than forecasted, additional
generator retirements, and “status quo” in which major transmission and generation plans fail to come to
fruition.

70x30 Scenario
The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) mandates that New York consumers
be served by 70% renewable energy by 2030 (70x30). The CLCPA includes specific technology based
targets for distributed solar (6,000 MW by 2025), storage (3,000 MW by 2030), and offshore wind (9,000
MW by 2035), and ultimately establishes that the electric sector will be emissions free by 2040. Significant
shifts are expected in both the demand and supply sides of the electric grid, and these changes will affect

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 3

how the power system is currently planned and operated. Beginning with the 2019 Congestion Assessment
and Resource Integration Study (CARIS), the NYISO conducted a production cost simulation of a “70x30”
scenario of two potential load levels and corresponding resource mixes in order to examine potential
system constraints, generator curtailments, and other operational limitations. This 2020 RNA, along with
the Climate Change Impact and Resilience Study, build upon the findings of the 2019 CARIS, and provide
further insight focusing on system reliability aspects, such as transmission security and resource adequacy.

As policymakers advance the implementation plan of the CLCPA, the NYISO assessments are intended
to complement their efforts, and are not intended to define the specific steps that must be taken to achieve
the policy goals. Additional refinements in assumptions, models, and methods in the following years will be
necessary as more information becomes available from the perspective of policy implementation.

This 70x30 scenario utilizes the same load forecasts and renewable resource mixes from the 2019
CARIS 70x30 scenario. Approximately 110 sites of land-based wind, offshore wind, and utility-scale solar
were added to the system model along with additional behind-the-meter solar across the system. Initial
resource adequacy simulations did not identify a measurable loss-of-load expectation in either the higher
energy ‘Base Load’ case or lower energy ‘Scenario Load’ case. This result indicates a significant surplus of
generation resources in the model, equivalent to an installed capacity margin of 210% for the Base Load
case and 235% for the Scenario Load case.

In an electric grid with such excess capacity resources, it is reasonable to expect less efficient
generation would retire. For this scenario, the NYISO conducted an age-based retirement analysis by
removing fossil fuel generators, starting with the oldest, until the New York system is at the resource
adequacy reliability criteria. This age-based method is a simple analytical approach as a proxy to represent
unit retirements that may occur as surplus resources increase over time. In reality, many factors will affect
specific generator status decisions. For the Base Load case approximately 2,800 MW of fossil generation
could be removed before the resource adequacy criteria is exceeded, resulting in an installed capacity
margin of 191.8%. For the Scenario Load case the installed capacity margin is 173.4% following
approximately 12,300 MW of fossil generation removals. Additional analysis demonstrated that alleviating
renewable generation pocket transmission constraints, while beneficial from an energy perspective as
demonstrated in the 2019 CARIS, would not materially impact the reliability-based need for additional
generation resources. Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the resulting resource mix for each case.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 4

Figure 2: Resource Mix in the 70x30 ‘Base Load’ Figure 3: Resource Mix in 70x30 ‘Scenario Load’
Case at Reliability Criterion Case at Reliability Criterion

Hydro Hydro
7% 10%
Fossil
Fossil Wind 26%
35% 25% Wind
29%
Pumped
Storage
3% Solar
Solar 25%
Pumped 25% Nuclear
Storage 8%
2% Nuclear
6%

The NYISO also conducted sensitivity analysis of these resource mixes for the retirement of the nuclear
fleet, and for the consideration of energy storage resources. Retirement of nuclear plants would result in
less surplus capacity and therefore more conventional generation (currently fossil-fueled) would need to
be retained in order to maintain a reliable system. Energy storage resources may provide a benefit to the
system from a reliability standpoint by assisting in meeting peak load (benefits depending on the size,
location, and duration of capacity shortfalls), thus allowing for additional fossil units to be retired. Energy
storage resources with a duration longer than four hours would provide additional benefit to the system.

The NYISO performed transmission security analysis for the 70x30 Base Load case considering various
load levels and coincident intermittent renewable resource generation for a sample hours throughout the
year. The results conclude that certain transmission constraints are observed during times of high
renewable output, while other constraints would occur under peak load conditions if the intermittent
renewable resources are not generating. Dispatchable resources would be needed to fill the gaps created
when intermittent renewable resources are not producing energy. Even with a large amount of installed
capacity of renewable resources, there would still be a need for significant dispatchable generation to meet
reliability requirements at various times throughout the year, including peak load. To maintain system
transmission security, approximately 750 MW of dispatchable resources would be needed in addition to
the 24,700 MW of dispatchable resources remaining in the model (i.e. after age-based removals and
peakers).

The NYISO will continue to monitor and track system changes. Subsequent studies, such as the
Comprehensive Reliability Plan, the next Reliability Planning Process and Economic Planning Process
cycles, and the Climate Change Impact and Resilience Study, will build upon the findings of this 70x30
scenario.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 5

Next Steps
The RNA is the first step of the NYISO Reliability Planning Process. Following NYISO Board approval of
the RNA, additional steps are taken, as necessary, to mitigate the identified Reliability Needs. These steps
are undertaken to minimize unnecessary solicitations of solutions to the Reliability Needs. Under this
process, the NYISO requests updates to the status of proposed projects such as Local Transmission Owner
Plans (LTPs), proposed generation and transmission, and demand response. As part of this step, the NYISO
will consider updates that meet the inclusion rules, and if necessary, will solicit solutions to the remaining
Reliability Needs. The NYISO would then proceed to assess the viability and sufficiency of each of the
solutions, as well as to evaluate and select the more efficient and cost effective transmission solution(s) to
satisfy the needs, leading to the development of the Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP).

The Comprehensive Reliability Plan provides the plan to maintain system reliability and documents
the solutions determined to be viable and sufficient to meet any identified Reliability Needs. If applicable,
the Comprehensive Reliability Plan ranks any regulated transmission solutions submitted for the Board to
consider for selection of the more efficient or cost effective transmission project. If built, the selected
transmission project is eligible for cost allocation and recovery under the NYISO’s tariff. Other non-
transmission solutions, if built, will recover their cost under state law, such as through retail tariffs
established by the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) and the rates established by the New
York Power Authority and the Long Island Power Authority.

Additionally, the needs identified in the Short Term Reliability Process in year 1 through year 3 will be
addressed in the applicable quarterly Short Term Assessment of Reliability (STAR), while the needs
identified in years 4 and 5 will only be addressed using the Short-Term Reliability Process if the identified
Reliability Need cannot timely be addressed through the Reliability Planning Process.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 6

1. Introduction
This report sets forth the NYISO’s 2020 RNA and scenario findings for the newly redefined Study
Period of years 4 through 10 (i.e., years 2024 through 2030). The RNA is the first of two main components
of the Reliability Planning Process, which is one of the three processes that comprise the NYISO’s
Comprehensive System Planning Process (see Figure 4). The RNA is performed to evaluate electric system
reliability according to resource adequacy and transmission security criteria over the Study Period.

Figure 4: The NYISO’s Comprehensive System Planning Process (CSPP)

The RNA is developed by the NYISO in conjunction with stakeholders and all interested parties as the
first step in the Reliability Planning Process. The RNA assesses the reliability of the New York Bulk Power
Transmission Facilities (BPTFs) as the foundation study used in the development of the NYISO
Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP). Two major study types are performed: resource adequacy and
transmission security, over the RNA Study Period (i.e., year 4 through year 10, 2024-2030). If the RNA
identifies any violation of reliability criteria3 for BPTFs, the NYISO will report a Reliability Need quantified
by an amount of compensatory megawatts (MW) in a location that would resolve that need. After the

3 A condition identified by the NYISO in the RNA as a violation or potential violation of Reliability Criteria as defined by the OATT.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 7

NYISO’s Board approval of the RNA and if any Reliability Needs are left after the post-RNA Base Case
updates process, the NYISO will solicit market‐based solutions, designate one or more Responsible
Transmission Owners (TOs) to develop regulated backstop solutions to address each identified Reliability
Need, and solicit alternative regulated solutions from interested parties.

The CRP details the NYISO’s plan for continued reliability of the BPTFs during the Study Period and
identifies additional resources, or combinations of resources, that resolve any identified criteria violations
in the RNA. New or proposed resources included in the CRP may be provided by market‐based solutions
developed in response to market forces, and by the request for solutions. If the market does not adequately
respond, reliability will be maintained by either regulated backstop solutions developed by the Responsible
TOs, which are obligated to provide reliable service to their customers, or alternative regulated solutions
being developed by Other Developers. To maintain the long‐term reliability of the BPTFs, these additional
resources must be readily available or in development at the appropriate time to address the identified
need.

Proposed solutions that are submitted in response to an identified Reliability Need are evaluated in
the development of the CRP and must satisfy reliability criteria. However, the solutions submitted to the
NYISO for evaluation in the CRP do not have to be in the same amounts of MW or locations as the
compensatory MW reported in the RNA. There are various combinations of resources and transmission
upgrades that could meet the needs identified in the RNA. The reconfiguration of transmission facilities
and/or modifications to operating protocols identified in the solution phase could result in changes and/or
modifications of the needs identified in the RNA.

This report begins by highlighting the changes to the Reliability Planning Process recently
implemented in the NYISO’s tariffs and procedures. Next, this report summarizes the prior Reliability
Planning Process findings and reliability plans. The report continues with a summary of the load and
resource forecast for the RNA Study Period, the RNA Base Case assumptions and methodology, and the RNA
findings. Detailed analyses, data and results, and the underlying modeling assumptions are contained in the
appendices.

Along with addressing reliability, the Reliability Planning Process is also designed to provide
information that is both informative and of value to the New York wholesale electricity marketplace and
federal and state policymakers. For informational purposes, this RNA report reviews activities related to
environmental regulatory programs and other relevant developments. The RNA report also provides the
latest historical information for the past five years of congestion, and related data is posted on the NYISO’s
website.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 8

 An overview of the Reliability Planning Process is illustrated in Figure 2 in Appendix B and is
described in the Reliability Planning Process Manual.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 9

2. Overview of Reliability Planning Process Changes
The current Reliability Planning Process was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) and its requirements are contained in Attachment Y of the NYISO’s Open Access Transmission Tariff
(OATT). A detailed process description is contained in the Reliability Planning Process Manual.

In 2019, a major planning process was carved out of the Reliability Planning Process and defined as
the Short-Term Reliability Process (STRP). This process was approved by the FERC and its requirements
are contained in Attachments Y and FF of the NYISO’s OATT. With this process in place, the Reliability
Planning Process’s Study Period changes from a year 1 to year 10 analysis, into a year 4 to year 10 look
ahead. At the same time, the STRP evaluates year 1 through year 5 from the Short Term Assessment of
Reliability (STAR) Start Date, with a focus on Short-Term Reliability Needs arising in years 1 through 3 of
the Study Period. Each quarterly STRP concludes if the STAR or Generator Deactivation Assessment does
not identify a STRP Need, and states whether a STRP Need will be addressed in the Reliability Planning
Process or in the STRP.

Short-Term Reliability Process Needs that arise in the Near-Term (within three years) will be
addressed using the Short-Term Reliability Process (STRP). Short-Term Reliability Process Needs that are
not Near-Term needs on the BPTF will only be addressed using the STRP if an identified Reliability Need
cannot timely be addressed through the ISO’s Reliability Planning Process. If the Reliability Need is handled
through the STRP, the NYISO will solicit market-based solutions of all types, a regulated transmission
solution(s), and service offers from Generators, as appropriate. The NYISO will select a solution(s)
consistent with the STRP process which may include selecting Generators to remain in service under
temporary reliability must run (RMR) agreements until the transmission solution is complete.

One of the changes to the Reliability Planning Process, which was first implemented in the 2016 RNA, is
providing initial (“1st pass”) RNA results to stakeholders, usually in June of the first year of the biennial
planning process. The stakeholders can provide project updates focused on reducing or eliminating the
initial Reliability Needs, such as:

 Updated LTPs
 Changes in BPTFs
 Changes in available resources such as generating unit status or authority to operate
in current equipment configuration past a date certain (e.g., due to a new or amended
environmental laws or regulations) 4

4 This change was implemented in the RPP Manual in 2019.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 10

  Changes in load forecast or demand response resources.
If the NYISO determines that an update does not meet the inclusion rules and/or does not impact the
preliminary Reliability Need, the NYISO will not incorporate the change into the final RNA Base Case.

After the NYISO Board of Directors approves the RNA Report, and before NYISO issues a solicitation for
regulated backstop, market-based, and alternative regulated solutions, the NYISO will request updated
LTPs, NYPA transmission plans, and other5 status updates relevant to reducing, or eliminating, the
Reliability Needs, as timely received from Market Participants, Developers, TOs, and other parties. Changes
that would tend to increase the scope of Reliability Needs after the RNA lockdown date will be handled in
the STRP or a future RNA, as appropriate. The NYISO will then request solutions for the remaining
Reliability Needs, if any.

The 2018 version of the Reliability Planning Process Manual reflected a change in the “RNA Base Case
Development Process” section, mainly related to the Base Case inclusion rules applicable to proposed
projects, and also to the treatment of generation deactivations in the RNA Base Case. Specifically, additional
considerations were added in 2019 to reflect situations in which a Generator Owner lacks authority to
operate in its current equipment configuration past a date certain (e.g., due to a new or amended
environmental law or regulation).

Further details of the Reliability Planning Process and STRP are contained in Appendix B of this
report, and also in the Reliability Planning Process Manual located on the NYISO website.

5 This change was implemented in the RPP Manual in 2019.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 11

3. Summary of Prior Comprehensive Reliability Plans
This RNA is the tenth RNA the NYISO has conducted since the reliability planning process was initially
approved by FERC in December 2004. The first three RNA reports identified Reliability Needs and the first
three CRPs (2005-2007) evaluated the market-based and regulated backstop solutions submitted in
response to those identified needs. The 2009 RNA and the 2010 RNA indicated that the system did not
exhibit any violations of applicable reliability criteria. Accordingly, the NYISO did not solicit solutions under
the Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP) process. The 2012 RNA identified Reliability Needs, and the 2012
CRP evaluated market-based and regulated solutions in response to those needs.

The 2014 RNA identified both resource adequacy and transmission security related Reliability Needs,
which were subsequently eliminated by the system updates received during the 2014 CRP process.

The 2016 RNA identified two transmission security Reliability Needs beginning in 2017: the New York
State Electric & Gas Corp. (NYSEG) Oakdale 345/115 kV transformer, and the Long Island Power Authority
(LIPA) East Garden City to Valley Stream 138 kV line. Subsequent to the October 2016 approval of the RNA,
and prior to the start of the CRP, NYSEG and LIPA provided updates to their LTPs. With these updates the
two identified Reliability Needs were resolved, and there was no solicitation of solutions under the 2016
Reliability Planning Process cycle.

The 2018 RNA concluded that the New York State Bulk Power Transmission Facilities will meet all
applicable reliability criteria over the 2019 through 2028 study period.

The NYISO has not previously triggered any regulated backstop solutions to meet previously-identified
Reliability Needs due to changes in system conditions and the sufficiency of market solutions coming into
service.

Figure 5, below, presents the market solutions and TOs’ plans that were submitted in response to
previous requests for solutions.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 12

Figure 5: Current Status of Tracked Market-Based Solutions and TOs’ Plans

Included in
Original I/S Proposal Target the 2020
Queue # Project Submitted Zone
Date Type I/S RNA Final
Base Case
339 RG&E Station 255 CRP 2012 B N/A TO Plan W 2020 Yes
National Grid Clay-Teall
N/A CRP 2012 C N/A TO Plan W2020 Yes
#10 115kV
NYSEG Terminal
upgrades, on Stolle Road-
N/A RNA 2016 A 2019 TO Plan I/S Yes
Gardenville 230 kV Line
#66
RG&E Terminal
upgrades, on Clay-
N/A RNA 2016 C 2019 TO Plan S2019 Yes
Pannell PC1 and PC2
345 kV lines.
NYSEG Oakdale
345/115 kV 3rd
N/A transformer and CRP 2016 C 2021 TO Plan W2021 Yes
substation
reconfiguration.
National Grid
N/A CRP 2014 C 2017 TO Plan W2020 Yes
Clay-Dewitt #3 115kV
Orange and Rockland
West Haverstraw
N/A RNA 2018 G S2021 TO Plan S2021 Yes
345/138 kV transformer
addition
Brookhaven to Edwards
Ave 138 kV line ratings
N/A increase, addressing the RNA 2018 K 2019 TO Plan S2019 Yes
overload in Eastern Long
Island from Y2028

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 13

4. Regulatory Policy Activities
At the federal, state, and local levels, public policy initiatives are shaping the grid of the future. How the
grid is operated to maintain reliability and economic efficiency while achieving these policies requires
careful and informed operations, market design, and planning. From this perspective, the NYISO is
examining a number of public policy initiatives, and engaging stakeholders and policymakers to identify the
challenges and opportunities these initiatives may present to bulk power system reliability and efficiency.

Two initiatives in particular will lead to large changes in the type of resources available to serve the
demand in New York. First, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
“Peaker Rule” requires significant emission reductions from older high-emitting gas turbines, or “peakers,”
such that affected units may be unavailable as early as 2023. The RNA base case accounts for potential
impacts from the unavailable generation.

Second, the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) is a state law shaping
how energy will be supplied in New York State. The CLCPA calls for growing the portion of consumed
energy served by renewable resources to 70% by 2030. Looking beyond 2030, the CLCPA requires a
zero-emission grid by 2040. The RNA 70x30 Scenario in conjunction with other studies being performed by
the NYISO, such as the Climate Change Impact & Resilience Study, takes an initial review of the reliability
implications of the CLCPA targets.

Figure 6: Summary Table of Key Environmental Regulations and Energy Policies

PUBLIC POLICY POLICYMAKING PUBLIC POLICY PUBLIC POLICY

INITIATIVE ENTITIES GOALS IMPLICATIONS
“Peaker Rule” New York State Department of Reduce ozone-contributing DEC rule impacts approximately
Environmental Conservation pollutants associated with 3,300 MW of peaking unit
Ozone Season Oxides of (DEC) New York State-based peaking capacity in New York State. The
Nitrogen (NOx) unit generation. Compliance NYISO is analyzing compliance
Emissions Limits for obligations phased in between plans through its Reliability Needs
simple cycle and 2023 and 2025 Assessment (RNA) to determine
regenerative combustion whether they give rise to reliability
turbines needs. Current compliance plans
indicate 1,500 MW of capability
will be unavailable in 2025.
Indian Point Agreement between Deactivate Indian Point units 2 The NYISO issued a deactivation
New York State and Entergy and 3 by 2020 and 2021, assessment finding no reliability
Deactivation respectively need associated with deactivation
of Indian Point’s 2,311 MW
assuming the addition of certain
expected resources. Subsequently,
unit 2 deactivated on April 30,
2020. Unit 3 is scheduled to
deactivate in April 2021

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 14

 PUBLIC POLICY POLICYMAKING PUBLIC POLICY PUBLIC POLICY
INITIATIVE ENTITIES GOALS IMPLICATIONS
New York City City of New York Eliminate combustion of fuel oil 2,946 MW of installed
Residual Oil numbers 6 and 4 in New York City by capacity affected by rule
2020 and 2025, respectively
Elimination
CO2 Performance New York State Establish restrictions on carbon As of April 2020, all coal-fired
Department of dioxide emissions for fossil fuel- generation facilities supplying the
Standards Environmental fired facilities in New York by 2020 bulk power system deactivated.
for Major Electric Generating
Facilities Conservation (DEC) NYISO generator deactivation
assessments found no reliability
needs associated with these
deactivations

Regional Greenhouse New York and other Reduce carbon dioxide emissions The NYS DEC proposed to expand
RGGI states cap by 30% from 2020 to 2030 and applicability in NYS to generators
Gas Initiative (RGGI)
expand applicability to currently of 15 MW or greater, whereas
exempt “peaking units” below current rules do not apply to
current 25 MW threshold generators less than 25 MW

Climate Leadership New York State Public Service 6,000 MW of distributed solar Transformation of the power
Commission, New York State installed by 2025, 185 trillion grid, necessitating examination of
and Community
Energy Research and BTU reduction in total energy market structures, planning
Protection Act Development Authority, consumption, including processes, flexible load, and
New York State Department of electrification to reduce fossil investment in bulk power system
Environmental Conservation, fuel use in buildings by 2025, infrastructure
Climate Action Council 3,000 MW of storage installed
by 2030, 70% of load supplied
by renewable resources by
2030, 9,000 MW of Offshore
Wind Installed by 2035, 100%
of load supplied by zero-
emissions resources by 2040
NYS Accelerated Office of Renewable Energy Siting Provides for an accelerated path for Intended to help accelerate siting
(ORES) within the NYS Department the permitting and construction of of eligible renewable resources in
Renewable Energy
of State, New York State Public renewable energy projects instead of support of state policy goals.
Growth and Community Service Commission, New York State through the Article 10 power plant Intended to establish new
Benefit Act Energy Research and Development siting law. Requires a comprehensive transmission investment priorities to
Authority (NYSERDA) study to identify cost-effective facilitate the achievement of state
distribution, local and bulk electric policies
system upgrades to support the state's
climate goals, and filing of
the study with the New York State
Public Service Commission

Peaker Rule: Ozone Season Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) Emission Limits for Simple Cycle and Regenerative
Combustion Turbines
In December 2019, the DEC issued requirements to reduce emissions of smog-forming pollutants from
peaking generation units. Combustion turbines known as “peakers” typically operate to maintain bulk
power system reliability during the most stressful operating conditions, such as periods of peak electricity
demand. In addition, these units are often called upon at any time, seven days a week and 24 hours a day,
to be able to respond to contingencies or other near real time changes on the electric system. By being

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 15

available on call, the peakers provide value to system reliability even when not actually generating power.
Many of these units also maintain transmission security by supplying energy within certain areas of New
York City and Long Island — known as load pockets. Load pockets represent transmission-constrained
geographic areas where electrical demand can only be served by local generators due to transmission
limitations during certain operational conditions.

The Peaker Rule6, which phases in compliance obligations between 2023 and 2025, will affect
approximately 3,300 MW of simple-cycle turbines located mainly in the lower Hudson Valley, New York
City and Long Island. The rule required peaking unit owners to submit compliance plans to the DEC in
March 2020. These generator compliance plans informed the NYISO’s 2020 Reliability Needs Assessment
(RNA) base case assumptions for years 2024-2030. The proposed plans are also being examined in the
NYISO Short-Term Reliability Process for the years 2021-2025. The rule provides a phased reduction in
emission limits, in 2023 and 2025, during the ozone season (May 1-September 30) and allows several
options for achieving compliance with the new lower limits applicable during the ozone season.

Compliance plans submitted to the NYSDEC were provided to the NYISO for assessment and inclusion
in the base case. The plans indicate approximately 1,800 MW of nameplate capacity (approximately 1,500
MW of net operating capability) are proposed to ultimately be unavailable during the summer to comply
with the emissions requirements. Remaining units stated either that they comply with the emission limits
as currently operated, or proposed equipment upgrades to achieve the emissions limits. A summary of the
individual generator plans is provided in the Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9.

The regulations include a provision to allow an affected generator to continue to operate up to two
years, with a possible further two-year extension, after the compliance deadline if the generator is
designated by the NYISO or the local transmission owner as needed to resolve a reliability need until a
permanent solution is in place.

6 https://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/116131.html

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 16

Figure 7: Status Change due to DEC Peaker Rule, Zone G

Units Nameplate CRIS (MW) Capability (MW) 2023 2023 2024 2024 2025 2025
MW Ozone non-Ozone Ozone non-Ozone Ozone non-Ozone
Season Season Season Season Season Season
Summer Winter Summer Winter May 2023 - October May 2024 - October May 2025 - October
September 2023 - April September 2024 - April September 2025 - April
2023 2024 2024 2025 2025 2026
Coxsackie GT 22 20 26 20 24 O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S

South Cairo 22 20 26 18 23 O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S

Unavailable MW = 43 40 52 38 46
Impacted MW
O/S - Out-of-service

Figure 8: Status Change due to DEC Peaker Rule, Zone J

Units Nameplate CRIS (MW) Capability (MW)

2023 2023 2024 2024 2025 2025
MW Ozone non-Ozone Ozone non-Ozone Ozone non-Ozone
Season Season Season Season Season Season
Summer Winter Summer Winter May 2023 - October May 2024 - October May 2025 - October
September 2023 - April September 2024 - April September 2025 - April
2023 2024 2024 2025 2025 2026
Astoria GT1 16 16 21 14 19 I/S I/S I/S I/S O/S I/S

Gowanus 1&4 (1-1 320 279 364 274 365 O/S I/S O/S I/S O/S I/S
through 1-8, and 4-1
through 4-4)
Gowanus 2&3 (2-1 320 300 391 278 373 I/S I/S I/S I/S O/S I/S
through 2-8 and 3-1
through 3-8)
Narrows 1&2 (1-1 352 309 404 287 380 I/S I/S I/S I/S O/S I/S
through 1-8, and 2-1
through 2-8)
Ravenswood GTs (01, 10, 69 50 64 41 57 O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S
11)
Arthur Kill GT1 20 17 22 12 15 I/S I/S I/S I/S O/S O/S

Astoria GTs (2-1 through 558 504 621 415 543 O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S
2-4, 3-1 through 3-4, 4-1
through 4-4)
Con Ed 59th St 17 15 20 16 20 I/S I/S I/S I/S O/S O/S

Con Ed 74th St 37 39 49 35 41 O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S

Con Ed Hudson Ave 5 16 15 20 14 20 O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S

Unavailable MW 779 506 779 506 1,385 533

(Summer Capability)
Available MW (Summer 606 880 606 880 0 852
Capability)
Impacted MW 1,725 1,544 1,975 1,385 1,834
O/S - Out-of-service
I/S - In-service

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 17

Figure 9: Status Change due to DEC Peaker Rule, Zone K

Units Nameplate CRIS (MW) Capability (MW) 2023 2023 2024 2024 2025 2025
MW Ozone non-Ozone Ozone non-Ozone Ozone non-Ozone
Season Season Season Season Season Season
Summer Winter Summer Winter May 2023 - October May 2024 - October May 2025 - October
September 2023 - April September 2024 - April September 2025 - April
2023 2024 2024 2025 2025 2026
Glenwood GT1 16 14.6 19.1 11.4 14.5 O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S

Northport GT 16 13.8 18.0 11.7 15.1 O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S

Port Jefferson GT1 16 14.1 18.4 12.9 16.6 O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S O/S

Unavailable MW = 48 42.5 55.5 36.0 46.2

Impacted MW
O/S - Out-of-service

I/S - In-service

Notes:
1. The service pattern in the last two columns repeats in subsequent years of the RNA Study Period
2. Other compliance plans were submitted in addition to what is shown on this table. The table lists the plants with compliance plans that resulted in
a change of status (i.e., as also listed in the 2020 Gold Book Table IV-6)

Indian Point Deactivation

On January 9, 2017, Entergy and New York State announced an agreement to close Indian Point units 2
and 3 in 2020 and 2021, respectively. Following receipt of a deactivation notice from Entergy on November
13, 2017, the NYISO evaluated the proposed deactivation as part of the required generator deactivation
assessments it performs for proposed generator retirements. In its analysis, the NYISO assumed that
certain power plants then under construction would enter into service. Based on the study’s assumptions,
the NYISO concluded that the proposed Indian Point deactivation did not result in a Reliability Need.
Subsequent reliability planning studies have not altered this outlook. Additional resources identified in the
assessment have entered into service, including the CPV Valley and Cricket Valley generators, and, on April
30, 2020, the Indian Point unit 2 deactivated. The NYISO anticipates that Indian Point unit 3 will deactivate
by April 30, 2021 without causing a Reliability Need.

New York City Residual Oil Elimination

New York City passed legislation in December 2017 to prohibit the combustion of fuel oil Numbers 6
and 4 within utility boilers in New York City by 2020 and 2025, respectively. The rule is expected to impact
2,946 MW nameplate of generation in New York City. Many Generators in New York City that are connected
to the local gas distribution network are required to maintain alternative fuel combustion capabilities and
storage capacity.

In addition, the New York State Reliability Council (NYSRC) has a minimum oil-burn requirement rule
that is intended to maintain electric system reliability in the event of gas supply interruptions.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 18

 Generators have taken steps to convert their facilities to comply with the law. While oil accounts for a
relatively small percentage of the total energy production in New York State, it is often called upon to fuel
generation during critical periods, such as a gas pipeline break, when severe cold weather limits access to
or increases the price of natural gas. Dual-fuel capability serves as both an important tool in meeting
reliability and an effective economic hedge against high natural gas prices during periods of high demand
for natural gas.

Carbon Dioxide Performance Standards for Major Electric Generating Facilities

The DEC adopted regulations that limit carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired
generators beginning in 2021. As a result, approximately 860 MW of coal-fired generation exited the
market by April 2020, eliminating coal-fired generation as a supply resource on the bulk power system in
the state. New York’s coal-fired generation accounted for less than 1% of the total energy produced in the
state in 2019. The NYISO assessed these deactivations and concluded7 that they would not result in
reliability needs.

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)

RGGI is a multi-state carbon dioxide emissions cap-and-trade initiative requiring affected fossil fuel
generators to procure carbon dioxide emissions allowances. The costs for these allowances are factored
into the costs of operating fossil fuel-fired generators. Suppliers seek to recover these costs through
competitive offers in the wholesale electricity markets. Through this initiative, each participating state
determines a set number of allowances, the majority of which are collectively auctioned to generators or
other stakeholders. The level of available allowances is established in advance and lowered over time to
encourage generators to invest in emissions reduction strategies.

The New York State DEC issued proposed RGGI regulations that would cap New York’s carbon dioxide
emissions at approximately 21 million tons by 2030.8 In 2019, New York generators emitted
approximately 24.6 million tons of carbon dioxide. The proposed rule seeks to expand applicability to
certain generators of 15 MW or greater, whereas currently RGGI rules do not apply to generators less than
25 MW nameplate. New Jersey re-joined the initiative in 2020, Virginia will be joining in 2021, and
Pennsylvania has pending legislation to join RGGI. The expansion of the RGGI region and anticipated

7 See ‘Generator Deactivation Assessments’ at https://www.nyiso.com/cspp:

Cayuga 1 and 2 Generator Deactivation Assessment (Retirement)
Somerset Generator Deactivation Assessment
Cayuga 1 Generator Deactivation Assessment
8 https://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/120061.html

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 19

changes to program design features may affect the dynamics of CO2 emission allowance costs and
availability going forward. Tighter requirements through RGGI, however, are not likely to trigger reliability
concerns because of program design features such as the Cost Containment Reserve and multi-year
compliance periods.

Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA)

On July 18, 2019, the CLCPA was signed into law, codifying the following measures:

■ 70% of electricity delivered in New York State must be derived from renewable
resources by 2030;
■ 100% of the electricity consumed in New York State must be derived from
zero-emissions resources by 2040;
■ 9,000 MW of offshore wind installed by 2035;
■ 6,000 MW of distributed solar energy resources installed by 2025; and
■ 3,000 MW of energy storage installed by 2030.
The CLCPA created a 22-member Climate Action Council (CAC) to establish a roadmap for how the
state will work towards these goals. The CAC will develop many of the implementation details of the
CLCPA. The CLCPA establishes that the CAC should develop a draft scoping plan by the end of 2022 and
deliver a final plan to the Governor and the Legislature by the end of 2023.

Accelerated Renewable Energy Growth and Community Benefit Act

In an effort to speed up the siting and construction of large-scale clean energy projects, New York State
approved the Accelerated Renewable Energy Growth and Community Benefit Act in April 2020. The act
provides an accelerated path for permitting and constructing renewable energy projects by establishing a
new Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES) within the New York State Department of State.

The act also directs the New York State Department of Public Service, in consultation with NYSERDA,
the New York Power Authority (NYPA), the Long Island Power Authority, the investor-owned utilities, and
the NYISO, to conduct a comprehensive study to identify cost-effective distribution, local and bulk electric
system upgrades to support the state’s climate and clean energy policies. This State Power Grid Study is
targeted to be completed by end of 2020. The PSC has commenced a proceeding leading to a transmission
investment plan utilizing the NYISO’s Public Policy Process to select projects, while enabling the PSC to
designate NYPA, either on its own or with others, to carry out projects needed expeditiously to achieve the
CLCPA goals.9 NYPA and DPS Staff have petitioned the PSC proposing criteria for ranking transmission

9 http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterCaseNo=20-E-0197&submit=Search

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 20

needs to qualify as Priority Projects. NYPA has proposed the “Northern NY Project” and the “Western NY
Energy Link” as meeting these criteria.10

10See http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId={DEEEB5EF-4676-49AD-B8E7-C72681D99C49} and

http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId={C36465AD-E0AE-4823-86B4-183810F247B2}

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 21

5. Base Case Assumptions
The NYISO has established procedures and a schedule for the collection and submission of data and for
the preparation of the models used in the RNA. The Reliability Planning Process procedures are designed to
allow planning activities to be performed in an open and transparent manner. The Reliability Planning
Process is conducted under a defined set of rules that are aligned and coordinated with the related
planning activities of the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC), the Northeast Power
Coordinating Council (NPCC), and the New York State Reliability Council (NYSRC). The assumptions
underlying the RNA were reviewed at the ESPWG and TPAS and are shown in Appendix D of this report.

This section highlights the key assumptions and modeling data updates for the RNA. These include the
load forecast model, the forecasted level of special case resources, the change in generation resource status,
LTPs, and bulk power transmission projects. As described above, the newly defined RNA Study Period is
from 2024 (year 4) through 2030 (year 10).

Both the transmission security and resource adequacy studies in the RNA Base Case use a peak
demand and energy forecast originating from the baseline forecast reported in the 2020 Gold Book. The
baseline forecast from the 2020 Gold Book is derived from energy and peak models that are built based on
projections of end-use intensities and economic variables. End-use intensities modeled include those for
lighting, refrigeration, cooking, heating, cooling, and other plug loads. The baseline forecast includes the
projected impacts of energy efficiency programs, building codes and standards, distributed energy
resources, behind-the-meter energy storage, behind-the-meter solar photovoltaic power, electric vehicle
usage, and electrification of heating and other end uses. Economic variables considered include gross
domestic product (GDP), households, population, and commercial and industrial employment. The baseline
forecast also considers the near-term economic impacts of reduced energy consumption resulting from the
state’s response to COVID-19. For the resource adequacy study, the baseline load forecast was modified by
removing the behind-the-meter solar PV impacts in order to model the solar PV explicitly as a generation
resource to account for the intermittent nature of its availability.

The RNA Base Cases were developed in accordance with NYISO procedures using projections for the
installation and deactivation of generation resources and transmission facilities that were developed in
conjunction with Market Participants and TOs:

■ For the transmission security evaluations, the power flow RNA Base Case uses the NYISO 2020
FERC 715 filing as a starting point, adding and removing resources consistent with the base
case inclusion screening process provided in Section 3 of the Reliability Planning Process
Manual. Representations of neighboring systems are derived from interregional transmission

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 22

 planning coordination conducted under the Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC)
and the Eastern Interconnection Reliability Assessment Group (ERAG) Multiregional Modeling
Working Group (MMWG) processes, and pursuant to the Northeast ISO/RTO Planning
Coordination Protocol.

■ For the resource adequacy evaluations, the models are developed starting with prior resource
adequacy models, and are updated with information from the 2020 Gold Book and historical
data, with the application of the inclusion rules. Information on modeling of neighboring
systems is based on the input received from the NPCC CP-8 working group.

Annual Energy and Summer Peak Demand Forecasts

This section reports the baseline forecast, the high load scenario forecast, the behind-the-meter solar
PV forecast, and the baseline forecast with projected behind-the-meter solar PV added back. These
forecasts are fully detailed in the 2020 Gold Book. The baseline forecast reflects the expected impacts of
energy efficiency, distributed energy resources, and behind-the-meter solar PV on annual energy use and
peak loads. The high load scenario forecast reflects faster adoption of electric vehicles and other
electrification, and slower adoption of behind-the-meter solar PV and energy efficiency measures. The
baseline energy forecast reflects a moderate recession due to COVID-19 impacts, and assumes typical
economic growth in the year 2022 and beyond. The high load scenario energy forecast reflects a slight
recession and assumes somewhat higher than typical economic growth in the year 2022 and beyond.
The baseline and high load scenario peak forecasts do not account for any potential economic impacts
associated with COVID-19. The baseline forecast, which already reflects the solar PV behind-the-meter
reductions, was modified to add back those impacts. The modified baseline forecast is used for the resource
adequacy study to model behind-the-meter solar PV as a generating resource.

The demand-side management impacts included or accounted for in the 2020 Base Case forecast
derive from actual and projected spending levels and realization rates for state-sponsored programs such
as the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), Clean Energy Standard (CES), the Clean
Energy Fund (CEF), the NY-SUN initiative, the energy storage initiative, and earlier programs developed as
part of the Reforming the Energy Vision (REV) proceedings. The NYISO reviewed and discussed with
Market Participants, during meetings of the ESPWG and TPAS, projections for the potential impact of
energy efficiency, solar PV, electric vehicles, and other demand-side management impacts over the Study
Period. The factors considered in developing the 2020 RNA Base Case forecast are included in Appendix C
of this report.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 23

 The assumptions for the 2020 economic growth, energy efficiency program impacts, and behind-the-
meter solar PV impacts were also discussed with Market Participants during meetings of the ESPWG and
TPAS in March and April of 2020. The ESPWG and TPAS reviewed and discussed the assumptions used in
the 2020 RNA Base Case forecast in accordance with procedures established for the RNA.

The baseline energy forecast for the 2020 RNA is lower than the 2018 RNA baseline forecast, including
a 4.2% decline in 2020 and 1.7% decline in 2028. The baseline peak forecast for the 2020 RNA is also lower
than the 2018 RNA baseline forecast, including a 1.4% decline in 2020 and 1.1% decline in 2028. The
lower energy forecasts are attributed to both economic factors and the continued impact of energy
efficiency and behind-the-meter solar PV.

Figure 10 on the next page summarizes the three forecasts used in the 2020 RNA. Figure 12 shows a
comparison of the baseline forecasts and energy efficiency program impacts contained in the 2018 RNA
and the 2020 RNA. Figure 13 and Figure 14 present actual, weather-normalized forecasts of annual energy
and summer peak demand for the 2020 RNA. Figure 15 and Figure 16 present the NYISO’s projections of
annual energy and summer peak demand in the 2020 RNA for energy efficiency, distributed generation,
and behind-the-meter solar PV.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 24

Figure 10: 2020 RNA Load and Energy Forecast: Baseline Forecast, and Baseline with BtM Solar PV Forecasts Added Back In

Baseline and Adjusted Baseline Energy Forecasts

Annual GWh 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
2020 End-Use Energy Forecast 154,380 158,431 161,852 162,477 163,897 165,132 166,331 167,305 168,188 168,789 169,249
-- Energy Efficiency and Codes & Standards 1,885 3,959 6,200 8,599 11,081 13,582 15,937 18,057 19,921 21,563 23,016
-- BtM Solar PV 2,631 3,274 3,899 4,563 5,193 5,738 6,205 6,591 6,893 7,130 7,289
-- BtM Non-Solar Distributed Generation 1,252 1,416 1,059 940 818 852 877 900 931 956 973
+ Storage Net Energy Consumption 19 43 67 99 130 160 189 221 254 281 309
+ Electric Vehicle Energy 199 345 538 781 1,085 1,456 1,889 2,407 3,031 3,765 4,506
+ Non-EV Electrification 190 457 815 1,289 1,884 2,591 3,337 4,163 5,055 5,997 6,988
2020 Gold Book Baseline Forecast 149,020 150,627 152,114 150,544 149,904 149,167 148,727 148,548 148,783 149,183 149,774
+ BtM Solar PV 2,631 3,274 3,899 4,563 5,193 5,738 6,205 6,591 6,893 7,130 7,289
2020 RNA Base Case Forecast 1 151,651 153,901 156,013 155,107 155,097 154,905 154,932 155,139 155,676 156,313 157,063

Baseline and Adjusted Baseline Summer Peak Forecasts

Annual MW 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
2020 End-Use Peak Demand Forecast 33,319 33,599 33,978 34,220 34,555 34,861 35,208 35,524 35,848 36,108 36,324
-- Energy Efficiency and Codes & Standards 296 591 943 1,322 1,709 2,108 2,488 2,825 3,116 3,360 3,579
-- BtM Solar PV 555 707 841 986 1,102 1,204 1,287 1,351 1,392 1,411 1,411
-- BtM Non-Solar Distributed Generation 218 251 189 169 148 154 158 164 170 174 177
-- BtM Storage Peak Reductions 5 14 26 44 63 91 125 159 206 250 292
+ Electric Vehicle Peak Demand 40 68 103 147 201 261 333 418 513 625 748
+ Non-EV Electrification 11 25 46 72 104 146 187 230 279 327 379
2020 Gold Book Baseline Forecast 2 32,296 32,129 32,128 31,918 31,838 31,711 31,670 31,673 31,756 31,865 31,992
+ BtM Solar PV 555 707 841 986 1,102 1,204 1,287 1,351 1,392 1,411 1,411
2020 RNA Base Case Forecast 1 32,851 32,836 32,969 32,904 32,940 32,915 32,957 33,024 33,148 33,276 33,403

1For the resource adequacy study, the Gold Book baseline load forecast was modified by removing the behind-the-meter solar PV impacts in order to model the solar PV
explicitly as a generation resource to account for the intermittent nature of its availability.
2 The transmission security power flow RNA base cases use this Gold Book baseline forecast.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 25

Figure 11: 2020 RNA Load and Energy for High Load Scenario: High Load Scenario Forecast, and High Load Scenario Forecast with BtM Solar PV
Added Back In

High Load Scenario and Adjusted High Load Scenario Energy Forecasts
Annual GWh 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
2020 High Load End-Use Energy Forecast 157,619 160,258 164,181 164,969 166,559 167,968 169,339 170,492 171,550 172,327 172,962
-- Energy Efficiency and Codes & Standards 2,021 4,234 6,612 9,111 11,635 13,768 15,078 15,950 16,557 17,037 17,511
-- BtM Solar PV 2,560 3,079 3,645 4,233 4,794 5,301 5,716 6,052 6,298 6,479 6,612
-- BtM Non-Solar Distributed Generation 1,252 1,416 1,059 940 818 852 877 900 931 956 973
+ Storage Net Energy Consumption 19 43 67 99 130 160 189 221 254 281 309
+ Electric Vehicle Energy 199 345 538 781 1,085 1,456 1,889 2,407 3,031 3,765 4,506
+ Non-EV Electrification 389 996 1,890 2,815 3,897 5,122 6,462 7,873 9,362 10,907 12,588
2020 Gold Book High Load Scenario 152,393 152,913 155,360 154,380 154,424 154,785 156,208 158,091 160,411 162,808 165,269
+ BtM Solar PV 2,560 3,079 3,645 4,233 4,794 5,301 5,716 6,052 6,298 6,479 6,612
2020 RNA High Load Scenario 3 154,953 155,992 159,005 158,613 159,218 160,086 161,924 164,143 166,709 169,287 171,881

High Load Scenario and Adjusted High Load Scenario Summer Peak Forecasts
Annual MW 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
2020 High Load Scenario End-Use Peak Demand 33,452 33,912 34,500 34,778 35,156 35,501 35,887 36,244 36,613 36,915 37,174
-- Energy Efficiency and Codes & Standards 313 629 1,000 1,396 1,791 2,142 2,372 2,534 2,641 2,720 2,800
-- BtM Solar PV 539 658 779 904 1,006 1,101 1,176 1,229 1,260 1,271 1,268
-- BtM Non-Solar Distributed Generation 218 251 189 169 148 154 158 164 170 174 177
-- BtM Storage Peak Reductions 5 14 26 44 63 91 125 159 206 250 292
+ Electric Vehicle Peak Demand 52 85 126 183 248 328 426 537 671 828 994
+ Non-EV Electrification 23 57 111 163 227 300 381 468 555 648 749
2020 Gold Book High Load Scenario 32,452 32,502 32,743 32,611 32,623 32,641 32,863 33,163 33,562 33,976 34,380
+ BtM Solar PV 539 658 779 904 1,006 1,101 1,176 1,229 1,260 1,271 1,268
2020 RNA High Load Scenario 3 32,991 33,160 33,522 33,515 33,629 33,742 34,039 34,392 34,822 35,247 35,648

3 The high load scenario forecast will be used for the high load resource adequacy scenario.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 26

Figure 12: Comparison of 2018 RNA & 2020 Baseline Forecasts

1For the resource adequacy study, the Gold Book baseline load forecast was modified by removing the behind-the-meter solar PV impacts in order to model the solar PV
explicitly as a generation resource to account for the intermittent nature of its availability.
2 2016 Gold Book values have been adjusted to include only those impacts from 2018 forward, so as to compare directly to the 2018 Gold Book values.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 27

Figure 13: 2020 Baseline and High Load Scenario Energy Forecasts with Solar PV Added Back

Annual Energy - Actual, Weather Normalized, and Forecasts with BtM Solar PV Added Back (GWh)
174000
172000
170000
168000
166000
164000
162000
160000
158000
156000
154000
152000
150000
148000
2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030
Actual Weather Normalized RNA Base Case RNA High Load Scenario

Figure 14: 2020 Baseline and High Load Energy Scenario Summer Peak Demand Forecasts with Solar PV Added
Back

Summer Peak Demand - Actual, Weather Normalized, and Forecasts with BtM Solar PV Added Back (MW)
37000

36000

35000

34000

33000

32000

31000

30000

29000

28000
2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

Actual Weather Normalized RNA Base Case RNA High Load Scenario

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 28

Figure 15: 2020 Baseline Annual Energy Forecast Impacts

Figure 16: 2020 Baseline Summer Peak Demand Forecast Impacts

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 29

 For the 2020 RNA resource adequacy assessments, the NYISO uses behind-the meter (BtM) solar PV
production data. For General Electric’s Multi Area Reliability Simulations (GE-MARS) modeling, the BtM
solar PV component is added back in the baseline forecast in order to discretely model the BtM solar PV.
The load shapes used in the study were adjusted from the historic shapes to a shape that meets the
forecasted zonal peak, NYCA peak, Zones G through J Locality peak, and NYCA Energy Forecast. The
combination of the load shapes with the solar shapes results in a set of net load shapes that, at time of
NYCA peak, meets the baseline forecast. Discretely modeling BtM solar PV as a resource provides for
flexibility to adjust the amount of resource available across the system.

Figure 17: Forecast of BtM Solar PV Coincident Summer Peak Demand Reductions (MW)

2020 RNA Resource Additions and Removals

Since the 2019-2028 CRP assumptions were finalized, new resources have been added to the system,
some deactivation notices have been withdrawn and the associated facilities have returned to the system,
and some other resources have been removed from the 2020 RNA Base Case:

 A total of approximately 543 MW of proposed generation (wind and solar) has been added to
the 2020 RNA Base Case as compared with the 2019 - 2028 CRP;

 A total of approximately 2,582 MW of generation have been removed as compared with the
2019 – 2028 CRP Base Case either due to being in a deactivated state (e.g., retired, mothballed,
or in an ICAP-Ineligible Forced Outage (IIFO), or proposed to retire or mothball), or as
operationally impacted by the DEC Peaker Rule.

The comparison of generation status between the 2019 – 2028 CRP and 2020 RNA is detailed in Figure
18, Figure 19, and Figure 20. The MW values represent the Capacity Resources Interconnection Service
(CRIS) MW values from the 2020 Gold Book.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 30

 The 2020 RNA special case resource11 (SCR) MW levels are based on the 2020 Gold Book value of 1,282
MW, adjusted for their performance for the resource adequacy evaluations. Transmission security analysis,
which evaluates normal transfer criteria, does not consider SCRs.

Figure 18: Proposed Projects Included in the 2020 RNA Base Case

Queue # Project Name Zone Point of Summer 2020 RNA

Interconnection Peak (MW) Commercial
Operation Date
Proposed Transmission Additions, other than Local Transmission Owner Plans
Q545A* Empire State Line A Dysinger - Stolle n/a 6/2022
345kV
556 Segment A Double Circuit E,F Edic - New Scotland n/a 12/2023
345kV
543 Segment B Knickerbocker- F,G Greenbush - n/a 12/2023
Pleasant Valley 345 kV Pleasant Valley
345kV
430 Cedar Rapids Transmission D Dennison - Alcoa 80 10/2021
Upgrade 115kV
System Leeds-Hurley SDU F,G Leeds- Hurley SDU n/a summer 2021
Deliverability 345kV
Upgrades*
Proposed Generations Additions
387* Cassadaga Wind A Dunkirk - Moon 126.5 12/2021
Station 115 kV
396 Baron Winds C Hillside - Meyer 238.4 12/2021
230kV
422 Eight Point Wind Energy Center B Bennett 115kV 101.8 12/2021

505 Ball Hill Wind A Dunkirk - 100.0 12/2022

Gardenville 230kV
546 Roaring Brook Wind E Chases Lake 79.7 12/2021
Substation 230kV
678 Calverton Solar Energy Center K Edwards Substation 22.9 12/2021
138kV
MW Additions from 2019-2028 CRP 543
Total MW generation additions 669
*
also included in the 2019-2028 CRP Base Cases

Note: * Also included in the 2019-2028 CRP Base Cases

11The term “Special Case Resource” is defined in Section 2.19 of Market Services Tariff and also in the Appendix A of this
report (Glossary)

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 31

Figure 19: 2020 RNA Generation Deactivations Assumptions

2020 Gold Book Table Owner/ Operator Plant Name Zone CRIS 2020 RNA 2019-2028
Base Case CRP Base
Status* Case Status
International Paper Company Ticonderoga F 7.6 part of SCR part of SCR
program program
Helix Ravenswood, LLC Ravenswood 09 J 21.7 out out
Binghamton BOP, LLC Binghamton C 43.8 out out
Helix Ravenswood, LLC Ravenswood 2-1 J 40.4 out out
Table IV-3: Deactivated
Ravenswood 2-2 J 37.6
Units with Unexpired CRIS
Ravenswood 2-3 J 39.2
Rights Not Listed in Existing
Ravenswood 2-4 J 39.8
Capacity Table III-2
Ravenswood 3-1 J 40.5
Ravenswood 3-2 J 38.1
Ravenswood 3-4 J 35.8
Cayuga Operating Company, LLC Cayuga 2 C 154.7 out out
Lyonsdale Biomass, LLC Lyonsdale E 20.2 out in
Exelon Generation Company LLC Monroe Livingston B 2.4 out in
Innovative Energy Systems, Inc. Steuben County LF C 3.2 out in
Table IV-4: Deactivated
Consolidated Edison Co. of NY, Inc Hudson Ave 4 J 13.9 out in
Units Listed in Existing
New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Auburn - State St C 5.8 out in
Capacity Table III-2
Cayuga Operating Company, LLC Cayuga 1 C 154.1 out in
Consolidated Edison Co. of NY, Inc Hudson Ave 3 J 16.0 out in
Albany Energy, LLC Albany LFGE F 4.5 out in
Table IV-5: Notices of Somerset Operating Company, LLC Somerset A 686.5 out in
Proposed Deactivations as National Grid West Babylon 4 K 49.0 out in
of March 15, 2020 Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing, LLC Indian Point 2 H 1,026.5 out out
Indian Point 3 1,040.4
Change in deactivation since 2019 - 2028 CRP** 956
Total 2020 RNA MW assumed as deactivated** 3,522
change in status
*Consistent with deactivation dates
** does not include peaker retirements

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 32

Figure 20: Existing Plants Impacted by DEC’s Peaker Rule (Additional Details on Peakers Status by Ozone Season are in Section 4)

2020 Gold Book Table Owner/ Operator Plant Name** Zone CRIS 2020 RNA Base 2019-2028
Case Status CRP Base
(Deactivate Case Status
starting from)
Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. Coxsackie GT G 19.9 2023 in
South Cairo 1 G 19.8
Consolidated Edison Co. of NY, Inc. 74 St. GT 1 & 2 J 39.1 2023 in
Hudson Ave 5 15.1
59 St. GT 1 15.4 2025
Helix Ravenswood, LLC Ravenswood 01 J 8.8 2023 in
Ravenswood 10 21.2
Ravenswood 11 20.2
National Grid Glenwood GT 1 K 14.6 2023 in
Table IV-6: Proposed Status Northport GT 13.8
Change to Comply with DEC Port Jefferson GT 01 14.1
Peaker Rule NRG Power Marketing, LLC Astoria GT 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4 J 165.8 2023 in
Astoria GT 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4 170.7
Astoria GT 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4 167.9
Arthur Kill GT1 16.5 2025
Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus 1-1 through 1-8 J 138.7 Winter -only 2023 in
Gowanus 4-1 through 4-8 140.1
Astoria GT 01 15.7 Winter-only 2025
Gowanus 2-1 through 2-8 152.8
Gowanus 3-1 through 3-8 146.8
Narrows 1-1 through 2-8 309.1
Additional total 2020 RNA MW assumed as out of service 1,626
change in status

Note: NYSDEC’s Part 227-3 applies to all simple cycle gas turbines with nameplates equal to or greater than 15 MW. Thus, all simple cycle generators are
subject to the rule and all owners of these machines were required to submit compliance plans to the NYSDEC. The compliance plans consist of
statements that the generator; (i) already complies with the new NOx limits, (ii) will retire, (iii) will limit operation during the ozone season, and/or (iv) will
retrofit emission control technology to meet the emission limits of the new rule. If the plant owners submitted compliance plans that state that the
generator will able to operate within the new NOx limits during the ozone season, these generators remain in service in the 2020 RNA base case.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 33

 In addition to the projects that met the 2020 RNA inclusion rules (listed in Figure 18), a number of
other projects are progressing through the NYISO’s interconnection process. Some of these additional
generation resources either have accepted their cost allocation as part of a prior Class Year Facilities Study
process, or are included in the Class Year 2019 Facilities Study, or are candidates for future interconnection
facilities studies. These projects are listed in the 2020 Gold Book and also in Appendix D.

Bulk Transmission Projects

The notable bulk transmission projects that met the inclusion rules and are modeled in the 2020 RNA
Base Case are:

 The NextEra Empire State Line Project that was selected by the NYISO Board of Directors in
October 2017 to address the Western New York Public Policy Transmission Need. This project
includes a new 345 kV circuit and phase angle regulator (PAR) that will alleviate constraints in
the Niagara area. The planned in-service date for this project is June 2022.

 The Segment A, AC Transmission joint project, by LS Power and New York Power Authority
(NYPA) that was selected by the NYISO Board of Directors in April 2019. The project includes a
new double-circuit 345 kV line between Edic and New Scotland substations, two new 345 kV
substations at Princetown and Rotterdam, two new 345 kV lines between Princetown to
Rotterdam substations, and retirement of the existing Porter to Rotterdam 230 kV lines. The
planned in-service date is December 2023.

 The New York Transco Segment B, AC Transmission project, also was selected by the NYISO
Board of Directors in April 2019. The project includes a new double-circuit 345/115 kV line
from a new Knickerbocker 345 kV switching station to the existing Pleasant Valley substation,
50% series compensation on the Knickerbocker to Pleasant Valley 345 kV line, and retirement
of 115 kV lines between Greenbush and Pleasant Valley substations. The planned in-service
date is December 2023.

Local Transmission Plans

As part of the NYISO’s Local Transmission Planning Process, the New York TOs present their Local
Transmission Owner Plans (LTPs) to the NYISO and stakeholders during ESPWG and TPAS meetings. The
firm transmission plans presented in the LTPs and reported as firm in the 2020 Gold Book are included in
the 2020 RNA Base Case, with consideration for their in-service dates. A summary of these projects is
reported in Appendix D of this report.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 34

 Base Case Peak Load and Resources
The 2020 RNA Base Case models the existing generation as adjusted for the unit deactivations listed in
the 2020 Gold Book, and along with the new resource additions that met the base case inclusion rules set
forth in Section 3 of the Reliability Planning Process Manual. This capacity is summarized in Figure 21 on
the next page, along with the baseline peak load, capacity net purchases and the special case resources
(SCRs).

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 35

Figure 21: NYCA Peak Load and Resources 2024 through 2030

Year 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Peak Load (MW) - Gold Book 2020 NYCA Baseline
NYCA* 31,838 31,711 31,670 31,673 31,756 31,865 31,992
Zone J* 11,557 11,552 11,609 11,667 11,747 11,836 11,924
Zone K* 4,853 4,768 4,692 4,651 4,658 4,670 4,690
Zone G-J* 15,733 15,715 15,772 15,831 15,916 16,015 16,116

Resources ( ICAP MW)

NYCA Capacity** 37,155 36,551 36,551 36,551 36,551 36,551 36,551
Net Purchases & Sales 1,954 1,954 1,954 1,954 1,954 1,954 1,954
SCR 1,282 1,282 1,282 1,282 1,282 1,282 1,282
Total Resources 40,391 39,787 39,787 39,787 39,787 39,787 39,787
Capacity/Load Ratio 116.7% 115.3% 115.4% 115.4% 115.1% 114.7% 114.2%
Cap+NetPurch/Load Ratio 122.8% 121.4% 121.6% 121.6% 121.3% 120.8% 120.4%
Cap+NetPurch+SCR/Load Ratio 126.9% 125.5% 125.6% 125.6% 125.3% 124.9% 124.4%

Zone J Capacity** 8,795 8,190 8,190 8,190 8,190 8,190 8,190

Cap+fullUDR+SCR/Load Ratio 83.0% 77.8% 77.4% 77.0% 76.5% 75.9% 75.3%

Zone K Capacity** 5,213 5,213 5,213 5,213 5,213 5,213 5,213

Cap+fullUDR+SCR/Load Ratio 128.8% 131.1% 133.2% 134.4% 134.2% 133.8% 133.3%

Zone G-J Capacity** 13,509 12,904 12,904 12,904 12,904 12,904 12,904
Cap+fullUDR+SCR/Load Ratio 91.7% 88.0% 87.7% 87.3% 86.9% 86.3% 85.8%

Year 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Resources (UCAP MW)***
NYCA Capacity** 32,467 31,947 31,947 31,947 31,947 31,947 31,947
Cap+NetPurch+SCR/Load Ratio 110.9% 109.7% 109.8% 109.8% 109.5% 109.1% 108.7%

Zone J Capacity** 8,122 7,602 7,602 7,602 7,602 7,602 7,602

Cap+fullUDR+SCR/Load Ratio 75.2% 70.7% 70.3% 70.0% 69.5% 69.0% 68.5%

Zone K Capacity** 4,728 4,728 4,728 4,728 4,728 4,728 4,728

Cap+fullUDR+SCR/Load Ratio 118.4% 120.5% 122.5% 123.5% 123.4% 123.0% 122.5%

Zone G-J Capacity** 12,322 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802
Cap+fullUDR+SCR/Load Ratio 82.4% 79.2% 78.9% 78.6% 78.2% 77.7% 77.2%

Notes:
*NYCA load values represent baseline coincident summer peak demand. Zones J and K load values represent non-coincident
summer peak demand. Aggregate Zones G-J values represent the G-J locality peak.
**NYCA Capacity values include resources electrically internal to NYCA, additions, re-ratings, and retirements (including proposed
retirements and mothballs). Capacity values reflect the lesser of CRIS and DMNC values. NYCA resources include the net purchases
and sales as per the Gold Book. Zonal totals include the full Unforced Capacity Deliverability Rights (UDRs) for those capacity zones.
• SCR: forecasted MW ICAP value from the 2020 Gold Book.
• Wind, solar, run-of river and landfill gas summer capacity is counted as 100% of nameplate rating.

*** For UCAP calculation, EFORd from GE-MARS output file are used for thermal units. For renewables, installed capacity
intermittent resources derating factors (received from IMO team) are used.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 36

Figure 22: Total Capacity/ Load Ratios (%) ICAP vs UCAP for 2030

Zone ICAP UCAP Delta

ICAP-UCAP
NYCA 124.4% 108.7% 15.7%
J 75.3% 68.5% 6.9%
K 133.3% 122.5% 10.8%
G-J 85.8% 77.2% 8.5%

Notes:
1. Total Capacity = Capacity* + full UDR + SCR
2. *Capacity = lesser of (CRIS, DMNC). NYCA resources include the net purchases and sales as per the Gold Book.
3. ICAP = Installed Capacity
4. UCAP = Unforced Capacity (takes into consideration generation unavailability)
5. UCAP calculation:
 For thermal units, average capacity derating factors from the MARS output are used
 For renewables, installed capacity intermittent resources derating factors are used

As shown in the Figure 21, the total NYCA capacity margin, which is defined as capacity above the
baseline load forecast, varies between 24% and 27%. Figure 22 shows a comparison between the total
ICAP and total UCAP for 2030; the difference reflects generation unavailability for the resource mix
assumed in the RNA Base Case for year 2030.

Figure 23 shows the relative decrease in the capacity margin, by comparing the details of the capacity
margins for year 10 between the 2020 RNA (2030) and the 2019-2028 CRP (2028). The analysis reveals
two observations:

■ Negative net margin shows deterioration in the relative capability to serve load, when comparing
the two studies assumptions; and

■ Compared to the 2019 CRP, the system has less overall net resources.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 37

Figure 23: NYCA Load and Resources Comparison with the 2019 - 2028 CRP

Study Year 10 2020 RNA 2019 - 2028 CRP Delta

(2030) (2028)
Baseline1 Load 31,992 32,469 -477
Total Resources 2 39,787 41,875 -2,089
Net Margin: Change in (netCapacity - netLoad) -1,612

Notes:
1. Includes the reductions due to projected energy efficiency programs, building codes and standards, distributed
energy resources and behind-the-meter solar photovoltaic resources; it also reflects expected impacts (increases)
from projected electric vehicle usage.
2. Includes the total SCRs, and net capacity purchases and sales from the applicable Gold Book.

Figure 24: 2020 RNA Zone J Load and Capacity Comparison with the 2019 - 2028 CRP

Study Year 10 2020 RNA 2019 - 2028 CRP Delta

(2030) (2028)
Baseline1 Load 11,924 11,429 495
2
Capacity 8,190 9,562 -1,372
Net Margin: Change in (netCapacity - netLoad) -1,867

Notes:
1. Includes the reductions due to projected energy efficiency programs, building codes and standards, distribution
energy resources and behind-the-meter solar photovoltaic power; it also reflects expected impacts (increases)
from projected electric vehicle usage.
2. Does not include the total SCRs, and UDRs from the applicable Gold Book.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 38

6. Base Case Reliability Assessments

Overview
This section provides the methodology and results for the resource adequacy and transmission
security of the New York BPTF over the RNA Study Period. If any reliability criteria violations are identified,
the NYISO identifies Reliability Needs. Violations of the criteria are translated into MW or MVAr amounts to
provide a relative quantification of the Reliability Needs, and to support the development of solutions in the
CRP.

Methodology for the Determination of Needs

The OATT defines Reliability Needs in terms of total deficiencies relative to reliability criteria
determined from the assessments of the BPTF performed in the RNA. There are two steps to analyzing the
reliability of the BPTF. The first is to evaluate the security of the transmission system. The second is to
evaluate the resource and transmission adequacy of the system, subject to the security constraints.

Transmission security is the ability of the power system to withstand disturbances, such as electric
short circuits or unanticipated loss of system elements, and continue to supply and deliver electricity.
Transmission security is assessed deterministically with potential disturbances being applied without
concern for the likelihood of the disturbance in the assessment. These disturbances (single-element and
multiple-element contingencies) are categorized as the design criteria contingencies, which are explicitly
defined in the reliability criteria. The impacts resulting from applying these design criteria contingencies
are assessed to determine whether thermal loading, voltage, or stability violations will occur. In addition,
the NYISO performs a short circuit analysis to determine if the system can clear faulted facilities reliably
under short circuit conditions. The NYISO’s “Guideline for Fault Current Assessment12” describes the
methodology for that analysis.

The analysis for the transmission security assessment is conducted in accordance with NERC
Reliability Standards, NPCC Transmission Design Criteria, and the NYSRC Reliability Rules. Contingency
analysis is performed on the BPTF to evaluate thermal and voltage performance under design contingency
conditions using the Siemens PTI PSS®E and PowerGEM TARA programs. Generation is dispatched to
match load plus system losses, while respecting transmission security. Scheduled inter-area transfers
modeled in the base case between the NYCA and neighboring systems are held constant.

12 Attachment I of Transmission, Expansion and Interconnection Manual.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 39

 For the RNA, over 1,000 design criteria contingencies are evaluated under N-1, N-1-0, and N-1-1
normal transfer criteria conditions to provide that the system is planned to meet all applicable reliability
criteria. To evaluate the impact of a single event from the normal system condition (N-1), all design criteria
contingencies are evaluated including: single element, common structure, stuck breaker, generator, bus,
and HVDC facilities contingencies. An N-1 violation occurs when the power flow on the monitored facility is
greater than the applicable post-contingency rating. N-1-0 and N-1-1 analyses evaluate the ability of the
system to meet design criteria after a critical element has already been lost. For N-1-0 and N-1-1 analysis,
single element contingencies are evaluated as the first contingency. The second contingency (N-1-1)
includes all applicable design criteria contingencies evaluated under N-1 conditions. Certain areas of the
Con Edison system are designed and operated for the occurrence of a second contingency. This type of
combination can be described as N-1-1-0. For N-1-1-0 analysis, after the second contingency occurs,
systems adjustments are allowed to secure the system back to normal ratings. This requirement to plan for
a second contingency in the Con Edison system is contained in the NYSRC Reliability Rules, Rule G.1.
Accordingly, a violation of the N-1-1-0 criterion on the BPTFs in Con Edison district will be identified as
Reliability Need in the NYISO’s Reliability Needs Assessment.

The process of successive contingency testing (such as N-1-1) allows for corrective actions including
generator re-dispatch, PAR adjustments, and HVDC adjustments between the contingencies. For example,
for N-1-1 analysis allowable system adjustments occur between the first (N-1-0) and second (N-1-1)
contingencies. These corrective actions prepare the system for the next contingency by reducing the flow
to normal rating after the first contingency. An N-1-0 violation occurs when the flow cannot be reduced to
below the normal rating following the first contingency. An N-1-1 violation occurs when the facility is
reduced to below the normal rating following the first contingency, but the power flow following the
second contingency exceeds the applicable post-contingency rating.

Resource adequacy is the ability of the electric system to supply the aggregate electrical demand and
energy requirements of the customers at all times, taking into account scheduled and reasonably expected
unscheduled outages of system elements. Resource adequacy considers the transmission systems,
generation resources, and other capacity resources, such as demand response. The NYISO performs
resource adequacy assessments on a probabilistic basis to capture the random natures of system element
outages. If a system has sufficient transmission and generation, the probability of an unplanned
disconnection of firm load is equal to or less than the system’s standard, which is expressed as a loss of load
expectation (LOLE). The New York State bulk power system is planned to meet an LOLE that, at any given
point in time, is less than or equal to an involuntary firm load disconnection that is not more frequent than
once in every 10 years, or 0.1 events per year. This requirement forms the basis of New York’s Installed

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 40

Reserve Margin (IRM) requirement and is analyzed on a statewide basis.

If Reliability Needs are identified, various amounts and locations of compensatory MW required for
the NYCA to satisfy those needs are determined to translate the criteria violations to understandable
quantities. Compensatory MW amounts are determined by adding generic capacity resources to NYISO
zones to effectively satisfy the needs. The compensatory MW amounts and locations are based on a review
of binding transmission constraints and zonal LOLE determinations in an iterative process to determine
various combinations that will result in reliability criteria being met. These additions are used to estimate
the amount of resources generally needed to satisfy Reliability Needs. The compensatory MW additions are
not intended to represent specific proposed solutions. Resource needs could potentially be met by other
combinations of resources in other areas including generation, transmission and demand response
measures.

Due to the different types of supply and demand-side resources, and also due to transmission
constraints, the amounts and locations of resources necessary to match the level of compensatory MW
needs identified will vary. Reliability Needs could be met in part by transmission system reconfigurations
that increase transfer limits, or by changes in operating protocols. Operating protocols could include such
actions as using dynamic ratings for certain facilities, invoking operating exceptions, or establishing special
protection systems.

The procedure to quantify compensatory MW for BPTF transmission security violations is a separate
process from calculating compensatory MW for resource adequacy violations. This quantification is
performed by first calculating transfer distribution factors on the overloaded facilities. The power transfer
used for this calculation is created by injecting power at existing buses within the zone where the violation
occurs, and reducing power at an aggregate of existing generators outside of the area.

Transmission Security Base Case Assessments

The following discussion reviews the main findings of the 2020 RNA transmission security
assessments (steady state, stability and short circuit assessments) applicable to the Base Case conditions
for the Study Period.

Steady-State Assessments
The RNA requires analysis of the security of the BPTF throughout the Study Period. The BPTF, as
defined in this assessment, include all of the facilities designated by the NYISO as a Bulk Power System
(BPS) element as defined by the NYSRC and NPCC, as well as other transmission facilities that are relevant
to planning the New York State transmission system. To assist in the assessment, the NYISO reviewed

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 41

previously completed transmission security assessments and used the most recent FERC Form No. 715
power flow cases. The NYISO filed those cases with FERC on April 1, 2020 with updates to the models as
described in earlier sections of this report.

For the 2020 RNA transmission security assessment, several transmission security violations (i.e.,
Reliability Needs) were identified for the Study Period. The transmission security Reliability Needs include
both thermal loading criteria violations on the BPTF. For the thermal loading violations, several 345 kV
circuits in the Con Edison service territory are overloaded under N-1-1 conditions beginning in year 2025
and increasing through 2030. Additionally, the Con Edison 345 kV system has 345 kV circuit overloads
under N-1-1-0 conditions beginning in 2025 and increasing through 2030. Figure 25 summarizes of the
worst overload for each BPTF element with a thermal criteria violation under N-1-1 conditions.
Appendix D provides the details of additional contingency combinations that also result in thermal criteria
violations for these BPTFs. Figure 26 provides a summary of the BPTF thermal criteria violations under N-
1-1-0 conditions. No BPTF steady state voltage violations are observed for this assessment.

Figure 25: Steady State Transmission Security N-1-1 Violations

Zone Owner Monitored Element Normal Contingency 1st Contingency 2nd Contingnecy 2025 2030
Rating Rating Summer Summer
(MVA) (MVA) Peak Flow Peak Flow
(%) (%)
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 Sprainbrook- Tower F38 & F39 - 112
345 kV (51) Dunwoodie 345 kV
(W75)
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 Sprainbrook- Tower F38 & F39 - 112
345 kV (52) Dunwoodie 345 kV
(W75)
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Loss of Ravenswood 3 Dunwoodie-Mott 110 118
345 kV (71) Haven 345 kV (72)
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Loss of Ravenswood 3 Dunwoodie-Mott 108 116
345 kV (72) Haven 345 kV (71)
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey 785 925 Mott Haven-Rainey Loss of Ravenswood - 108
West 345 kV (Q12) 345 kV (Q11) 3
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey 785 925 Mott Haven-Rainey Loss of Ravenswood - 108
East 345 kV (Q11) 345 kV (Q12) 3
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 345 518 738 Loss of Ravenswood 3 Stuck Breaker at 102 130
kV (26) Goethals 5
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 518 738 Loss of Ravenswood 3 Gowanus - Goethals 103 130
345kV (25) 345 kV (26)

I ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodi 366 423 Loss of Ravenswood 3 Tower W89 & W90 106 109
e 345/138 kV (N7)
I ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodi 309 438 Loss of Ravenswood 3 Tower W89 & W90 103 107
e 345/138 kV (S6)
I ConEd Dunwoodie 345/138 310 388 Loss of Ravenswood 3 Sprainbrook/Dunwo - 106
kV (W73) odie 345/138 kV
(N7)

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 42

Figure 26: Steady State Transmission Security N-1-1-0 Violations

Zone Owner Monitored Element Normal Contingency 1st Contingency 2nd Contingnecy 2025 2030
Rating Rating Summer Summer
(MVA) (MVA) Peak Flow Peak Flow
(%) (%)
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Loss of Ravenswood 3 Dunwoodie-Mott 132 149
345 kV (71) Haven 345 kV (72)
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 Loss of Ravenswood 3 Dunwoodie-Mott - 106
345 kV (51) Haven 345 kV (72)
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 Loss of Ravenswood 3 Dunwoodie-Mott - 106
345 kV (52) Haven 345 kV (72)

Considering the utilization of all available PAR controls, the observed maximum deficiency (i.e.,
compensatory MW) for the New York City 345/138 kV Transmission Load Area (TLA) in 2025 is 700 MW.
Based on the load duration curve shown in Figure 27, the deficiency in 2025 may be observed for
approximately nine hours (3,853 MWh). This deficiency increases to 1,075 MW in 2030 and may be
observed for approximately 12 hours (7,672 MWh) as shown in Figure 28.

Figure 27: NYC 345/138 kV TLA – Approximate Projection for Year 2025

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 43

Figure 28: NYC 345/138 kV TLA – Approximate Projection for Year 2030

Steady State Compensatory MW

Transmission security compensatory MW amounts are determined by adding generic resources to
combinations of locations of need. The compensatory MW additions are not intended to represent specific
solutions, as the impact of specific solutions can depend on the type of the solution and its location on the
grid. Rather, the compensatory MW provide a generic order-of-magnitude measure to guide the
formulation of solutions. Transmission security needs could potentially be met by combinations of
solutions including generation, transmission, energy efficiency, and demand response measures.

The BPTF transmission security violations begin at 700 MW in year 2025 and increase in magnitude
through year 2030. The maximum observed compensatory MW amount needed to address the BPTF
thermal issues described above is 1,075 MW in 2030.

System Stability Assessments

The dynamic stability Reliability Needs are observed for the entire study period. Dynamic stability
issues observed prior to 2024 will be evaluated in the Short-Term Reliability Process. The criteria
violations include transient voltage response violations, loss of generator synchronism, and undamped
voltage oscillations. The transient voltage response violations arise on transmission facilities owned by Con
Edison in its Transmission District and extend into areas adjacent to its service territory. The loss of
generator synchronism is observed in generators within or near the Astoria and Greenwood load pockets,
and is primarily driven by the transient voltage response in the local area. The undamped voltage
oscillations are also primarily in the Con Edison area and are primarily driven by the reduction in dynamic

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 44

reactive capability and MW to serve the load. The reduction in system inertia may also play a role in the
undamped voltage oscillations. For a few N-1-1 events observed, system collapse occurs due to the low
voltages. Figure 29 provides a summary of the generator synchronism and transient voltage response
dynamic stability criteria Reliability Needs under N-1 and Figure 30 provides a summary for N-1-1
violations.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 45

Figure 29: Dynamic Stability Criteria N-1 Violations

Dynamic Stability Criteria N-1 Violations (1), (2)

2024 2025 2030
Contingency Generator Transient Generator Transient Generator Transient
Contingency Description
Name Synchronism Voltage Synchronism Voltage Synchronism Voltage
Response Response Response
ConEd08 Fault at E. 13th St. 138 kV with stuck non-BPTF non-BPTF non-BPTF
breaker 4E
ConEd12 Fault at Freshkills 138 kV with L/O x non-BPTF
Arthur Kill 2
ConEd13 Fault at Freshkills 138 kV with stuck non-BPTF
breaker BT1-2
ConEd14 Fault at Greenwood 138 kV with L/O x non-BPTF
Gowanus 345/138 (T2) kV and PAR
ConEd15 Fault at Greenwood 138 kV with stuck non-BPTF x non-BPTF x non-BPTF
breaker 7S
ConEd16 Fault at Hellgate 138 kV with stuck non-BPTF non-BPTF
breaker 5
ConEd25-Q461- Fault at E. 13th St. 138 kV with stuck non-BPTF non-BPTF non-BPTF
Q462 breaker
UC11 Fault at Sprainbrook 345 kV and L/O non-BPTF BPTF & non-BPTF x BPTF & non-BPTF
Sprainbrook - Tremont (X28) 345 kV and
Buchanan - Sprainbrook (W93/W79)
345 kV
UC25A Fault at Ravenswood 3 345 kV and L/O BPTF & non-BPTF x BPTF & non-BPTF x BPTF & non-BPTF
Ravenswood 3
UC25B Fault at Rainey 345 kV and L/O 60L 345 x BPTF & non-BPTF x BPTF & non-BPTF
kV circuit
UC048A_Q510 Fault at Gowanus 345 kV and L/O x non-BPTF x non-BPTF
Gowanus 345/138 kV 14TR
UC049_Q510 Fault at Gowanus 345 kV with stuck non-BPTF x non-BPTF
breaker 14
UC5_Q510 Fault at Farragut 345 kV with stuck non-BPTF
breaker 11W

Notes:
(1). Non-BPTF issues are reported for information only.
(2). Dynamic issues observed prior to 2024 will be evaluated in the Short-Term Reliability Process.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 46

Figure 30: Dynamic Stability Criteria N-1-1 Violations (L/O Ravenswood 3 as First Level Event)

Dynamic Stability Criteria N-1-1 Violations (L/O Ravenswood 3 as First Level Event) (1), (2)
2024 2025 2030
Contingency Generator Transient Generator Transient Generator Transient
Contingency Description Synchronism Voltage Synchronism Voltage Synchronism Voltage
Name
Response Response Response
ConEd01 Fault at Astoria East 138 kV non-BPTF
with stuck breaker 3E
ConEd02 Fault at Astoria West 138 kV non-BPTF
and L/O Astoria CC1 and CC2
ConEd03 Fault at Astoria West 138 kV non-BPTF
with stuck breaker 2N
ConEd08 Fault at E. 13th St. 138 kV non-BPTF non-BPTF non-BPTF
with stuck breaker 4E
ConEd12 Fault at Freshkills 138 kV non-BPTF x non-BPTF
with L/O Arthur Kill 2
ConEd13 Fault at Freshkills 138 kV x non-BPTF
with stuck breaker BT1-2
ConEd14 Fault at Greenwood 138 kV non-BPTF x non-BPTF
with L/O Gowanus 345/138
(T2) 345 kV and PAR
ConEd15 Fault at Greenwood 138 kV non-BPTF x non-BPTF x non-BPTF
with stuck breaker 7S
ConEd16 Fault at Hellgate 138 kV with non-BPTF x BPTF & non-
stuck breaker 5 BPTF
ConEd20 Fault at Queensbridge 138 non-BPTF
kV with stuck breaker 7E
ConEd23_Q510 Fault at Farragut 345 kV with x BPTF & non-
L/O bus tie BPTF
ConEd25-Q461- Fault at E. 13th St. 138 kV non-BPTF non-BPTF non-BPTF
Q462 with stuck breaker

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 47

 Dynamic Stability Criteria N-1-1 Violations (L/O Ravenswood 3 as First Level Event) (1), (2)
2024 2025 2030
Contingency Generator Transient Generator Transient Generator Transient
Contingency Description Synchronism Voltage Synchronism Voltage Synchronism Voltage
Name
Response Response Response
TE02-UC02 Fault at E. Fishkill 345 kV BPTF
with L/O E. Fishkill -
Pleasantville 345 kV and
Dunwoodie - Pleasantville
345 kV lines
TE03-UC03 Fault at Sprainbrook 345 kV BPTF & x BPTF & non-
and L/O Sprainbrook - non-BPTF BPTF
Millwood (W64/W99,
W79/W93) 345 kV
TE20-UC20 Fault at Dunwoodie 345 kV BPTF & x BPTF & non-
and L/O Dunwoodie - non-BPTF BPTF
Pleasantville (W89 and W90)
345 kV
UC11 Fault at Sprainbrook 345 kV BPTF & x BPTF & System
and L/O Sprainbrook - non-BPTF non-BPTF Collapse
Tremont (X28) 345 kV and
Buchanan - Sprainbrook
(W93/W79) 345 kV
UC19 Fault at Millwood 345 kV and non-BPTF BPTF & non-
L/O Millwood - Sprainbrook BPTF
(W82/W65 and W85/W78)
345 kV
UC25A Fault at Ravenswood 3 345 x BPTF & System
kV and L/O Ravenswood 3 non-BPTF Collapse
UC25B Fault at Rainey 345 kV and non-BPTF x BPTF & System
L/O 60L 345 kV circuit non-BPTF Collapse
UC32_Q510 Fault at Farragut 345 kV and x BPTF & non-
L/O Farragut - Rainey (61) BPTF
345 kV
UC33_Q510 Fault at Farragut 345 kV and x BPTF & non-
L/O Farragut - Rainey (62) BPTF
345 kV
UC34_Q510 Fault at Farragut 345 kV and x BPTF & non-
L/O Farragut - Rainey (63) BPTF
345 kV

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 48

 Dynamic Stability Criteria N-1-1 Violations (L/O Ravenswood 3 as First Level Event) (1), (2)
2024 2025 2030
Contingency Generator Transient Generator Transient Generator Transient
Contingency Description Synchronism Voltage Synchronism Voltage Synchronism Voltage
Name
Response Response Response
UC35_Q510 Fault at Farragut 345 kV and x BPTF & non-
L/O Farragut - E. 13th St. BPTF
(45) 345 kV
UC36_Q510 Fault at Farragut 345 kV and x BPTF & non-
L/O Farragut - E. 13th St. BPTF
(46) 345 kV
UC37_Q510 Fault at Farragut 345 kV and x
L/O Farragut - E. 13th St.
(47) 345 kV
UC38_Q510 Fault at Farragut 345 kV and x BPTF & non-
L/O Farragut - E. 13th St. BPTF
(48) 345 kV
UC39_Q510 Fault at Farragut 345 kV and x BPTF & non-
L/O B3402 (modeled out-of- BPTF
service in base case)
UC048A_Q510 Fault at Gowanus 345 kV non-BPTF x non-BPTF x BPTF & non-
and L/O Gowanus 345/138 BPTF
kV 14TR
UC049_Q510 Fault at Gowanus 345 kV x non-BPTF x non-BPTF
with stuck breaker 14
UC57_Q510 Fault at Farragut 345 kV x BPTF & non-
(near 63 line) with stuck BPTF
breaker 11W
UC5_Q510 Fault at Farragut 345 kV non-BPTF x BPTF & x BPTF & non-
(near B44 line) with stuck non-BPTF BPTF
breaker 11W

Notes:
(1). Non-BPTF issues are reported for information only.
(2). Dynamic issues observed prior to 2024 will be evaluated in the Short-Term Reliability Process

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 49

 Figure 31 shows the transient voltage response for a 345 kV bus in the Con Edison service territory
that passes the stated criteria as observed in assessments that have the peaker units in-service, as
compared to the response observed with the peaker units out-of-service. To pass the transient voltage
response criteria, the post-fault value must settle to at least 0.9 p.u. voltage five seconds after the fault has
cleared for most Transmission Owners. The PSEG Long Island Criteria is to settle to at least 0.9 p.u. voltage
one second after the fault has cleared. When the transient voltage response fails the stated criteria (as
shown in Figure 31) this is referred to as fault induced delayed voltage recovery (FIDVR). FIDVR events
are driven by end-use load behavior and load composition, primarily the induction motor loads. One of the
causes of FIDVR is the stalling of induction motors due to low voltages. When an induction motor stalls, the
motors draws excessive reactive power from the grid and require five to six times their typical steady-state
running current in this locked-rotor condition,13 which can eventually lead to a significant loss of
generation and load.

Figure 31: New York City (NYC) 345 kV Bus Voltage Recovery

During a fault, the observed voltage drop at a bus depends on the location of the fault on the system

13 https://www.nerc.com/docs/pc/tis/FIDVR_Tech_Ref%20V1-2_PC_Approved.pdf

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 50

relative to the bus and the amount of time the fault remains on the system before it is cleared by protective
relaying actions. Following the clearing of a fault on the system by protection system actions, the bus
voltage and generator rotor usually enter an oscillatory period. The generator excitation system controls
the generator terminal voltage to improve and stabilize the voltages. Nevertheless, depending on the
severity of voltages and generator size, the voltages may or may not stabilize. Generator rotor swings after
a fault are caused by the accumulation of energy, i.e. an imbalance between electrical power and
mechanical power, during the fault. After the clearing of the fault, the generator rotor swings (or
“oscillations”) dissipate that accumulated energy over time. For a stable system response, these oscillations
damps out over time to an acceptable post-fault value. For an unstable system response, the system may
observe unacceptable damping, system separation, cascading, and generating units losing synchronism
with the system.

As shown in Figure 29 and Figure 30, several contingencies result in loss of generator synchronism
with the transmission system. A primary driver to the loss of synchronism for these machines is the
sustained low voltages following the clearing of the fault. Examples of low voltages as observed from the
high-side of the generator step-up (GSU) transformer are shown in Figure 32 in response to a contingency.
As can be seen in Figure 32, the sustained low voltages are also observed at the high side of the GSU and
remain in the NERC PRC-024 “may trip” zone. In this example, due to the sustained low voltages an
equilibrium point for the generators is not reached, and the generators lose synchronism with the system.
As shown in Figure 33, Generator 1 loses synchronism and trips off line at about 3.5 seconds and Generator
2 goes out of synchronism and trips off line at about 10 seconds. The rotor angles plotted in Figure 33 are
relative to the system average rotor angle.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 51

Figure 32: High Side of GSU Voltage

Figure 33: Generator Synchronism

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 52

 Stability Compensation
In the pre-fault (N-0) system condition, voltages are maintained with various static (e.g. fixed and
switched shunt devices, transmission circuits) and dynamic (e.g. Generators, FACTS devices, STATCOMS)
reactive resources maintaining voltages within prescribed ranges. Manual adjustments to these devices
occur as load and other system conditions change in order to maintain the required voltage level.

During the dynamic simulation timeframe, sufficient dynamic reactive resources to sustain transient
voltage support during the natural swings of the system are crucial. Generally, the system response to these
swings to maintain voltage comes from generator excitation system response, STATCOMs, static VAr
compensators (SVCs), wind and solar plant voltage controls, and other fast-acting resources.14 While pre-
contingency voltages can be maintained using static reactive resources, the dynamic system response
timeframe focuses primarily on dynamic reactive capability due to the transient nature of large power and
voltage swings and the short response time required.

The BPTF dynamic stability criteria violations compensatory values are measured by modeling
fictitious generators at the Farragut 345 kV, Astoria East 138 kV, and Greenwood North 138 kV buses with
a MW size determined by the compensatory MW for thermal violations. Focusing on the event combination
of the loss of Ravenswood 3 followed by event UC11 (as one of the more severe events), reactive capability
was added to the fictitious generators to the point where the BPTF transient voltage violations, sustained
oscillations, and generator synchronism criteria violations are no longer observed. Figure 34 provides a
description of dynamic compensation needed to address the event combination of the loss of Ravenswood
3 followed by event UC11. The impact of the added dynamic reactive capability is highly non-linear and
other event combinations and the location of the fictitious generators may cause significant variance to the
values stated in Figure 34.

14https://www.nerc.com/comm/PC_Reliability_Guidelines_DL/Reliability%20Guideline%20-
%20Reactive%20Power%20Planning.pdf

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 53

Figure 34: Description of Dynamic MVA Added to System

Dynamics Compensatory Resource Values (1)

Machine MVA Pgen (MW)
Location 2024 2025 2030 2024 2025 2030
Farragut 345 kV 350 400 700 0 230 525
Astoria East 138 kV 140 170 225 110 110 180
Greenwood North 138 kV 0 450 465 0 360 370
Total 490 1,020 1,390 110 700 1,075

Notes:
(1). BPTF dynamic issues observed prior to 2024 will be evaluated in the Short-Term Reliability Process

Short Circuit Assessments

The required short circuit assessment in the RNA includes the calculation of symmetrical short circuit
current to ascertain whether the circuit breakers at stations connecting the BPTF could be subject to fault
current levels in excess of their rated interrupting capability. The analysis was performed for 2025 (year
5), reflecting the study conditions outlined in the Section 5. The calculated fault levels do not change
significantly after year 5 in the Study Period as no new generation or transmission changes are modeled in
the RNA, and the methodology for fault duty calculation is not sensitive to load growth. For this assessment
no over-dutied circuit breakers were identified. The detailed results of the short circuit assessment are
provided in Appendix D of this report.

Transmission Owner Local Criteria Violations

As described in the following sections, Con Edison and Central Hudson each identified transmission
security issues in their service territory on their non-BPTF system. The local non-BPTF criteria violations
identified below are provided for information only, as the RNA identifies only BPTF Reliability Needs.

Central Hudson Assessment

Central Hudson currently owns and operates two 25 MVA (nameplate) combustion turbines that are
subject to the DEC Peaker Rule, namely the Coxsackie and South Cairo generators. Both of these generators
provide local substation reserve capacity for transformer outages and post-contingency voltage support for
the Westerlo transmission loop. Without these generators, there is no reserve capability for local
transformer outages and the Westerlo loop is voltage constrained. These transmission security issues
would begin in 2023 and continue through the study period.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 54

 Con Edison Assessment
The transmission security criteria violations observed in the Con Edison service territory are primarily
due to deficiencies that are observed in the Astoria East/Corona 138 kV Transmission Load Area (TLA) and
the Greenwood/Fox Hills 138 kV TLA.

Astoria East/Corona 138 kV TLA

Figure 35 shows the high-level topology of the Astoria East/Corona 138 kV TLA. The boundary feeders
for this TLA include the feeders from the Hell Gate, Astoria Annex, Rainey, and Jamaica substations.

Figure 35: Astoria East/ Corona 138 kV TLA

In 2023, thermal overloads are observed on the Astoria East/Corona 138 kV TLA boundary feeders,
which are designed to a second contingency (N-1-1-0) based on the applicable Con Edison local design
criteria.

Considering the utilization of all available phase angle regulator (PAR) controls, the maximum
observed deficiency (i.e., compensatory MW) within this TLA ranges from 110 MW in 2023 to 180 MW in
2030 as shown in Figure 36. As shown in Figure 37 and Figure 38, the Astoria East/Corona 138 kV TLA
does not peak with the coincident system peak. Based on the load duration curves shown in Figure 37 and
Figure 38, the TLA may be deficient over 10 hours (659 MWh) on a peak day in 2023, increasing to 13
hours (1,461 MWh) on a peak day in 2030.

Figure 36: Astoria East/ Corona 138 kV TLA Deficiency

Year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Deficiency (MW) 110 115 110 115 120 125 170 180

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 55

Figure 37: Astoria East/Corona 138 kV Load Duration Curve for 2023

Figure 38: Astoria East/Corona 138 kV Load Duration Curve for 2030

Greenwood/Fox Hills 138 kV TLA

Figure 39 shows the high-level topology of the Greenwood/Fox Hills 138 kV TLA. The boundary
feeders for this TLA include the feeders from the Vernon, Gowanus, and Fresh Kills substations.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 56

Figure 39: Greenwood/Fox Hills 138 kV TLA

In 2025, thermal overloads and voltage violations are observed on the Greenwood/Fox Hills 138 kV
TLA boundary feeders in the steady state (N-0) condition, which are exacerbated under N-1 and N-1-1
conditions.

Considering the utilization of all available PAR controls, the maximum observed deficiency (i.e.,
compensatory MW) within this TLA of 360 MW in 2025 to 370 MW in 2030 as shown in Figure 40. Based
on the load duration curve shown in Figure 41, the TLA may be deficient over 14 hours (3,571 MWh) over a
14 hour period on a peak day in 2025. The load duration curve for 2030 in Figure 42 shows that while the
amount of hours that the TLA is deficient does not increase compared to 2025, due to the increased
deficiency on peak, the total MWh of the deficiency increases to 3,696 MWh.

Figure 40: Greenwood/Fox Hills 138 kV TLA Deficiency

Year 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Deficiency (MW) 360 350 360 360 370 370

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 57

Figure 41: Greenwood/Fox Hills 138 kV TLA Load Duration Curve for 2025

Figure 42: Greenwood/Fox Hills 138 kV TLA Load Duration Curve for 2030

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 58

 Resource Adequacy Base Case Assessments
The following discussion reviews the main findings of the 2020 RNA resource adequacy assessments
applicable to the Base Case conditions for the Study Period.

Resource Adequacy Model

The NYISO conducts its resource adequacy analysis using the GE-MARS software package, which
performs probabilistic simulations of outages of capacity and select transmission resources. The program
employs a sequential Monte Carlo simulation method and calculates expected values of reliability indices
such as LOLE (days/year) and includes load, generation, and transmission representation. Additional
modeling details and links to various stakeholders’ presentations are in the assumptions matrix, Appendix
D. In determining the reliability of a system, there are several types of randomly occurring events that are
taken into consideration. Among these are the forced outages of generation and transmission, and
deviations from the forecasted loads.

Generation Model
The NYISO models the generation system in GE-MARS using several types of units. Thermal units
considerations include: random forced outages as determined by Generator Availability Data System
(GADS) — calculated EFORd and the Monte Carlo draw, scheduled and unplanned maintenance, and
thermal derates. Renewable resource units (i.e., solar PV, wind, run-of-river hydro and landfill gas) are
modeled using five years of historical production data. Co-generation units are also modeled using a
capacity and load profile for each unit.

Load Model
The load model in the NYISO GE-MARS model consists of historical load shapes and load forecast
uncertainty (LFU). The NYISO uses three historical load shapes in the GE-MARS model (2002, 2006 and
2007) in seven different load levels using a normal distribution. LFU is applied to every hour of these
historical shapes and each of the seven load levels are run through the GE-MARS model.

External Areas Model

The NYISO models the four external Control Areas interconnected to the NYCA; (ISO-New England,
PJM, Ontario and Quebec). The transfer limits between the NYCA and the external areas are set in
collaboration with the NPCC CP-8 Working Group and are shown in the MARS Topology Figure 46.
Additionally, the probabilistic model used in the 2020 RNA to assess resource adequacy employs a number
of methods aimed at preventing overreliance on support from the external systems. These include
imposing a limit of 3,500 MW to the total emergency assistance from all neighbors, modeling simultaneous
peak days, and modeling the long-term purchases and sales with neighboring control areas.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 59

 MARS Topology
The NYISO models the amount of power that could be transferred across the system in GE-MARS using
interface transfer limits applied to the connections between the GE-MARS areas 15 (“bubble-and-pipe”
model).

Summary of major GE-MARS topology changes16 (as compared with the 2019-2028 CRP):

 Marion-Farragut 345kV cables (B and C) assumed out-of-service

 71, 72, M51, M52 series reactors assumed bypassed after deactivation of Indian Point Unit Nos.
2 and 3

 Rainey – Corona transmission project in-service impacting J to K limits

 AC Transmission Public Policy Segment A and B Projects added starting January 2024

 Removal of Cedars bubble/tie to Zone D model; adding the MW from the bubble to the HQ to D
tie limit.

 Updates to Zone K Imports/Exports

 Somerset retirement impacts

 The external areas model for PJM and ISO-NE were simplified by consolidating the five PJM
areas (bubbles) into one, and the eight ISO-NE areas into one.

The emergency transfer criteria limits used in the GE-MARS model were developed from an
assessment of analysis of the 2020 RNA power flow base cases, and analysis performed for other studies.
Figure 43, Figure 44 and Figure 45 provide the thermal and voltage emergency transfer limits for the major
NYCA interfaces. The 2018 RNA transfer limits are presented for comparison purposes.

15 No generation pockets in Zone J and Zone K are modeled in detail in MARS.

16 Links to related stakeholders’ presentations are in the Appendix D, assumptions matrix.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 60

Figure 43: Transmission System Thermal Emergency Transfer Limits

2020 RNA 2018 RNA

Interface For information only Study Years: 2024 - 2030 Study Years: 2019 - 2028
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2030 2021 2022 2023 2028
Dysinger East 1700 2200 2200 2200 2200 2200 1700 2300 2300 2300
Central East MARS 4450 4450 4450 4925 4925 4925 4450 4450 4450 4450
E to G (Marcy South)* 1750 1750 1750 2300 2300 2300 2275 2275 2275 2275
F to G 3475 3475 3475 5400 5400 5400 3475 3475 3475 3475
UPNY-SENY MARS* 5250 5250 5250 7150 7150 7150 5600 5600 5600 5600
I to J 4350 4350 4350 4350 4350 4350 4400 4400 4400 4400
I to K (Y49/Y50) 1293 1293 1293 1293 1293 1293 1293 1293 1293 1293

Notes:
Grey italic font: Limit was not calculated
*change in limit between 2018 RNA and 2020 RNA is due to different modeling method used in GE-MARS. Additional topology
changes details are in Appendix D.

Figure 44: Transmission System Voltage Emergency Transfer Limits

2020 RNA 2018 RNA

Interface For information only Study Years: 2024 - 2030 Study Years: 2019 - 2028
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2030 2021 2022 2023 2028
Dysinger East 2850 2850 2850 2850 2850 2850 2800 2900 2900 2900
Central East MARS 3100 3100 3100 3925 3925 3925 3100 3100 3100 3100
Central East Group 5000 5000 5000 5650 5650 5650 5000 5000 5000 5000
UPNY-ConEd 7000 7000 7000 7375 7375 7375 6250 6250 6250 6250
I to J & K 5825 5825 5825 6200 6200 6200 5600 5600 5600 5600

Note: Grey italic font: Limit was not calculated

Figure 45: Transmission System Base Case Emergency Transfer Limits

2020 RNA 2018 RNA

Interface For information only Study Years: 2024 - 2030 Study Years: 2019 - 2028
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2030 2021 2022 2023 2028
Dysinger East 1700 T 2200 T 2200 T 2200 T 2200 T 2200 T 1700 T 2300 T 2300 T 2300 T
Central East MARS 3100 V 3100 V 3100 V 3925 V 3925 V 3925 V 3100 V 3100 V 3100 V 3100 V
Central East Group 5000 V 5000 V 5000 V 5650 V 5650 V 5650 V 5000 V 5000 V 5000 V 5000 V
E to G (Marcy South) 1750 T 1750 T 1750 T 2300 T 2300 T 2300 T 2275 T 2275 T 2275 T 2275 T
F to G 3475 T 3475 T 3475 T 5400 T 5400 T 5400 T 3475 T 3475 T 3475 T 3475 T
UPNY-SENY MARS 5250 T 5250 T 5250 T 7150 T 7150 T 7150 T 5600 T 5600 T 5600 T 5600 T
I to J 4350 T 4350 T 4350 T 4350 T 4350 T 4350 T 4400 T 4400 T 4400 T 4400 T
I to K (Y49/Y50) 1293 T 1293 T 1293 T 1293 T 1293 T 1293 T 1293 T 1293 T 1293 T 1293 T
I to J & K 5643 T 5643 T 5643 T 5643 T 5643 T 5643 T 5600 C 5600 C 5600 C 5600 C

Notes:
Grey italic font: Limit was not calculated
T - Thermal, V - Voltage, C – Combined

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 61

 There are large increases in transfer capability modeled starting in year 2024 in the 2020 RNA. The
increases reflect the impact of including the AC Transmission Public Policy projects. Comparing limits in
year 2023 to year 2024, increases are represented to the thermal limits of 550 MW for the E to G interface,
1,925 MW for the F to G interface, and 1,900 MW for the UPNY-SENY MARS interface. There are also
increases to the voltage limits of 825 MW for the Central East MARS interface, 650 MW for the Central East
Group interface, and 375 MW for the UPNY-Con Ed interface.

The NYISO modeled a decrease in the thermal transfer limit for Dysinger East of 100 MW primarily
due to the retirement of the Somerset generation unit in Zone A.

Comparing the transfer limits reported for year 2021 through 2023 to the previous RNA, there is an
increase of 750 MW on the UPNY-Con Ed voltage limit for the 2020 RNA. The primary cause for this
increase is a change in the study assumption for the operation of the series reactors on the Dunwoodie –
Mott Haven 345 kV cables (71, 72) and the Sprain Brook – W. 49th Street cables (M51, M52). For the 2020
RNA, these series reactors were modeled as bypassed. This study assumption also resulted in a decrease of
50 MW in the I to J interface thermal limit.

The E to G interface thermal limit was modeled using a dynamic limit table in the 2020 RNA MARS
topology. The interface limit ranged from 1750 MW to a maximum of 2250 MW based on the availability of
the CPV Valley generation units. Starting in year 2024 the dynamic limit table was replaced with a single
interface limit of 2300 MW. The increase in the limit is the result of transmission facility upgrades included
in the AC Transmission Public Policy projects. Similarly, the UPNY-SENY MARS interface was modeled
using a dynamic limit table ranging from 5100 MW to a maximum of 5350 MW. With the large increase in
transfer capability when including the AC Transmission projects in 2024, the model was simplified by using
a single limit of 7150 MW, and does not constrain the flow of power in the GE-MARS simulation.

The topology used in the GE-MARS model for the 2020 RNA Base Case is represented in Figure 46.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 62

Figure 46: 2020 RNA Topology Years 4-10 (2024 -2030)

2040 1200 1400

HQ PHASE II

100
CHAT EGUAY

1000

2665
1770
ON-NY

300 300 0
IESO D
1650

1300 1600
2000

1700 200
2650
CENTRAL EAST GROUP 0
ZONE A
GROUP
2200 1600 1500 5650 3925 800 800
A DYSINGER
B C VOLNEY-EAST
E CENTRAL-EAST
F ISONE
WEST-CENTRAL
EAST 1400 1400
330
550 600 300 800
3400 1600 414
2650
5650

MARCY SOUTH

CAPITAL-HUDV
UPNYSENY

7150

5400
G
1000
PJM-G
GROUP
Notes
150
1. PJM to NY emergency assistance (EA)
1045 assumption for calculating the PJM-NY Western
ties, PJM-G Group, and ABC Line Group flow
7375 distribution limit: 1500MW
330
PJM
PJM 8450 2. NYCA EA simultaneous import limit: 3,500 MW
WESTERN TIES
RECO H I CSC
425
MILLWOOD SOUTH 3. External areas representation based upon
515
information received from the NPCC CP-8 WG
DUNWOODIE Y49/
& Y49/Y50 Y50
GROUP

5643
CONED-
1000 4350 LIPA 1293 404
660 HTP 660
200 300
660 220 1613 Legend
550 105 Interface
PJMW PJM J2 J K
BC LINES
0 505 JAMAICA TIES Unidirectional Interface
320
315 Interface w/ Dynamic Ratings
J3
660 500 315 815 660
Interface Group
315 134
LI WEST
Interface Group w/ Dynamic Ratings
315 Monitoring Interface Group
315
VFT NYCA EA Interface Group Marker

NEPT xx “Dummy Bubble” i.e. no load

660
NOTE: An interface is considered to not have a
MW limitation if no number is specified

Additionally, for information only, Figure 47 and Figure 48 represent the initial three years preceding the newly-defined RNA Study Period.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 63

Figure 47: Topology Year 1 (2021)

2040 1200 1400

HQ PHASE II

100
CHAT EGUAY

1000

2665
1690
ON-NY

150 150 0
IESO D
1650

1300 1600
1850

1700 200
2650
CENTRAL EAST GROUP 0
ZONE A
GROUP
1700 1600 1300 5650 3100 800 800
A DYSINGER
B C VOLNEY-EAST
E CENTRAL-EAST
F ISONE
WEST-CENTRAL
EAST 1400 1400
330
550 600 300 800
3400 1600 414
1850
5000

MARCY SOUTH

CAPITAL-HUDV
UPNYSENY DL

5250

3475
G
1000
PJM-G
GROUP
Notes
150
1. PJM to NY emergency assistance (EA)
1045 assumption for calculating the PJM-NY Western
ties, PJM-G Group, and ABC Line Group flow
7000 distribution limit: 1500MW
330
PJM
PJM 8450 2. NYCA EA simultaneous import limit: 3,500 MW
WESTERN TIES
RECO H I CSC
425
MILLWOOD SOUTH 3. External areas representation based upon
515
information received from the NPCC CP-8 WG
DUNWOODIE Y49/
& Y49/Y50 Y50
GROUP

5643
CONED-
1000 4350 LIPA 1293 404
660 HTP 660
200 300 660 220 1613 Legend
550 105 Interface
PJMW PJM J2 J K Unidirectional Interface
BC LINES JAMAICA TIES
0 505 320
Interface w/ Dynamic Ratings
315
J3
660 500 315 815 660 Interface Group
315 134 Interface Group w/ Dynamic Ratings
LI WEST
315 Monitoring Interface Group
315
VFT NYCA EA Interface Group Marker

NEPT xx “Dummy Bubble” i.e. no load

660
NOTE: An interface is considered to not have a
MW limitation if no number is specified

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 64

Figure 48: Topology Year 2- 3 (2022- 2023)

2040 1200 1400

HQ PHASE II

100
CHAT EGUAY

1000

2665
1770
ON-NY

300 300 0
IESO D
1650

1300 1600
2000

1700 200
2650
CENTRAL EAST GROUP 0
ZONE A
GROUP
2200 1600 1500 5650 3100 800 800
A DYSINGER
B C VOLNEY-EAST
E CENTRAL-EAST
F ISONE
WEST-CENTRAL
EAST 1400 1400
330
550 600 300 800
3400 1600 414
2650
5000

MARCY SOUTH

CAPITAL-HUDV
UPNYSENY DL

5250

3475
G
1000
PJM-G
GROUP
Notes
150
1. PJM to NY emergency assistance (EA)
1045 assumption for calculating the PJM-NY Western
ties, PJM-G Group, and ABC Line Group flow
7000 distribution limit: 1500MW
330
PJM
PJM 8450 2. NYCA EA simultaneous import limit: 3,500 MW
WESTERN TIES
RECO H I CSC
425
MILLWOOD SOUTH 3. External areas representation based upon
515
information received from the NPCC CP-8 WG
DUNWOODIE Y49/
& Y49/Y50 Y50
GROUP

5643
CONED-
1000 4350 LIPA 1293 404
660 HTP 660
200 300 660 220 1613 Legend
550 105 Interface
PJMW PJM J2 J K Unidirectional Interface
BC LINES JAMAICA TIES
0 505 320
Interface w/ Dynamic Ratings
315 J3
660 500 315 815 660 Interface Group
315 134 Interface Group w/ Dynamic Ratings
LI WEST
315 Monitoring Interface Group
315
VFT NYCA EA Interface Group Marker

NEPT xx “Dummy Bubble” i.e. no load

660
NOTE: An interface is considered to not have a
MW limitation if no number is specified

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 65

 Resource Adequacy Base Case Results
The 2020 RNA Base Case resource adequacy studies shows that the LOLE for the NYCA is at or above
the criterion of 0.1 days/year starting 2026. The NYCA LOLE results are presented in Figure 49 below.

Figure 49: NYCA Resource Adequacy Results

Study Year NYCA Area J Peak RNA Base

Baseline Load (MW) Case
Summer Peak (Non- NYCA LOLE
Load (MW) coincident) (days/year)

2024 31,838 11,557 0.04

2025 31,711 11,552 0.08
2026 31,670 11,609 0.10
2027 31,673 11,667 0.12
2028 31,756 11,747 0.13
2029 31,865 11,836 0.17
2030 31,992 11,924 0.19

Note: NYCA load values represent baseline coincident summer peak demand.
Zones J and K load values represent non-coincident summer peak demand.
Aggregate Zones G-J values represent the G-J peak demand.

The LOLE is at or above the criterion of one day in 10 years, or 0.1 days per year, starting year 6
(2026) of the RNA Study Period, and increases through year 10 (2030). Therefore, the NYISO identifies
resource adequacy Reliability Needs starting in 2027 (with 2026 being at the 0.10 days/year criterion).

The deficiencies identified in this 2020 RNA are driven by the compound effect of increasing load
forecast (e.g., +495 MW in 2030) and loss of generation in Zone J (e.g., –1,372 MW in 2030) see Figure 50.
Compared to the 2019 - 2028 CRP, the system has less overall net resources. The Base Case models reflect
the application of the generator compliance plans for the DEC’s Peaker Rule to affected plants in New York
City (Zone J), Long Island (Zone K), and Hudson Valley (Zone G). In Figure 50, the negative net margin
shows deterioration in the relative capability to serve load, when comparing the assumptions in the two
studies.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 66

Figure 50: 2020 RNA Zone J Load and Capacity Comparison with the 2019 – 2028 CRP

Study Year 10 2020 RNA 2019 - 2028 CRP Net Delta

(Y2030) (Y2028)

Baseline1 Load 11,924 11,429 495

Capacity2 8,190 9,562 -1,372
Net Margin: Change in (netCapacity - netLoad) -1,867

Notes:
1. Includes the reductions due to projected energy efficiency programs, building codes and standards,
distribution energy resources and behind-the-meter solar photovoltaic power; it also reflects expected
impacts (increases) from projected electric vehicle usage.
2. Does not includes the total SCRs, and UDRs from the Gold Book.

Resource Adequacy Compensatory MW

Resource adequacy compensatory MW amounts are determined by adding generic “perfect capacity”
resources to each zone individually, or in combinations of zones, to address the shortfall.

“Perfect capacity” is capacity that is not derated (e.g., due to ambient temperature or unit
unavailability caused by factors such as equipment failures or lack of fuel), not subject to energy duration
limitations, and not tested for transmission security or interface impacts. Actual resources would need to
be larger in order to achieve the same impact as perfect-capacity resources.

The compensatory MW additions are not intended to represent specific solutions, as the impact of
specific solutions can depend on the type of the solution and its location on the grid. Rather, the
compensatory MW levels provide a generic order-of-magnitude measure to guide solutions. Resource
needs could potentially be met by combinations of solutions including generation, transmission, energy
efficiency, and demand response measures.

Figure 51: Compensatory MW Additions for Resource Adequacy Violations

Study NYCA LOLE Zones for Additions

Year (dy/yr) Only in A-F Only in G-I Only in J Only in K
2024 0.04 - - - -
2025 0.09 - - - -
2026 0.10 - - - -
2027 0.12 700 700 100 not feasible
2028 0.14 1,600 1,650 150 not feasible
2029 0.17 not feasible not feasible 300 not feasible
2030 0.19 not feasible not feasible 350 not feasible

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 67

 Observations:

 Adequate compensatory MW must be located within, or injected into, Zone J because of

transmission constraints into Zone J observed starting in 2029. This result is exemplified by
the fact that no compensatory MW in any of the other NYCA zones will help bring the LOLE
back below 0.1 days/year.

 Potential solutions to address the 350 compensatory MW resource adequacy deficiency in

Zone J by 2030 (100 MW in 2027) could include a combination of additional transfer capability
into Zone J and/or resources located within Zone J, and/or demand-side solutions. However,
solutions would also need to address the Zone J local17 transmission load area deficiencies
identified in the transmission security evaluations.

Transmission Limit Relaxation Sensitivity

To determine if transmission reinforcements would be beneficial, a “NYCA free flow” test was
executed. A free flow simulation is one in which NYCA LOLEs are determined without considering any
transmission transfer limitations within the NYCA system. This provides an indication of whether any LOLE
violations identified are purely resource related or if they are caused by limitations in the transmission
system.

Following removal of the NYCA internal limits, the NYCA LOLE decreased to well below the criterion
throughout the Study Period. This result indicates that there is no statewide resource deficiency and that
transmission reinforcement to inject resources into Zone J is a potential option to resolve the identified
resource adequacy Reliability Need.

The results are in Figure 52 below, and indicate that transmission improvements can also eliminate
the LOLE violations.

17 No local transmission load area limits are modeled for the resource adequacy assessment – deficiencies at this local level are
identified in the transmission security assessments.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 68

Figure 52: NYCA Free Flow Simulation Results

Study Year RNA Base Case Free Flow Case

NYCA LOLE NYCA LOLE
(days/year) (days/year)

2024 0.04 0.02

2025 0.08 0.03
2026 0.10 0.03
2027 0.12 0.03
2028 0.13 0.03
2029 0.17 0.04
2030 0.19 0.04

The NYISO performed additional topology limits variations to identify relieving which interfaces helps
the most. This information provides additional insights to support solutions development:

 Increasing the transfer limits on the interface between Zones I and J only (I_to_J or Dunwoodie
South interface): An increase of 450 MW resolved the needs in 2030. This value is larger than
the identified Compensatory MW value of 350 MW because the I_to_J interface is not always
fully available due to partial outage states.

 Modeling the I_to_J (Dunwoodie South) interface with no limit: The NYCA LOLE decreased to
0.05 days/year in 2030, which is close to the 0.04 days/year NYCA free flow result. This result
confirms that Zone J is the critical area in the GE-MARS analysis RNA Base Case, and that any
injection from any interface into Zone J would mitigate the resource adequacy zonal deficiency.

Additional free flow variations results are in Appendix D.

Beyond adding capacity or decreasing load in Zone J, increasing the interface limits into Zone J would
mitigate or fully address the resource adequacy deficiency. However, solutions would also need to address
the Zone J local18 transmission load area deficiencies identified in the transmission security evaluations.

Base Case Key Findings

 The dynamic stability Reliability Needs are observed for the entire Study Period. Following the
initial phase of the Peaker Rule in 2023, instability of the grid may occur due to a lack of
dynamic reactive power capability and inertia available to parts of the New York City grid. The
criteria violations include transient voltage response violations, loss of generator synchronism,

18 No local transmission load area limits are modeled for the resource adequacy assessment – deficiencies at this local level are identified in the
transmission security assessments.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 69

 and undamped voltage oscillations.

 With full implementation of the Peaker Rule in 2025, several 345 kV circuits in the Con Edison
service territory would also be overloaded equating to a deficiency of 700 MW and increasing
to at least 1,075 MW by 2030. The duration of the deficiency ranges from nine hours in 2025
(3,853 MWh) to 12 hours in 2030 (7,672 MWh).

 Similar transmission deficiencies would also occur within pockets of Con Edison’s non-bulk
system (138 kV), ranging in duration from 10 to 14 hours.

 The system exceeds the LOLE criterion of one day in 10 years, or 0.1 days per year, starting in
2027, and increasing through 2030. Therefore, the NYISO identifies resource adequacy
Reliability Needs starting 2027.

 The deficiencies identified in this 2020 RNA are driven by the compound effect of the
increasing load forecast (i.e., +495 MW in 2030) and loss of generation in Zone J (i.e., –1,372
MW in 2030).

 Potential solutions to address the 350 compensatory MW resource deficiency in Zone J by

2030 (100 MW in 2027) could include a combination of increased transfer capability into Zone
J and/or resources located within Zone J, and/or demand-side solutions. However, solutions
would also need to address the Zone J local19 transmission load area deficiencies identified in
the transmission security evaluations.

19 No local transmission load area limits are modeled for the resource adequacy assessment – deficiencies at this local level are identified in the
transmission security assessments.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 70

7. Base Case Variation Scenarios
The NYISO, in conjunction with stakeholders and Market Participants, developed reliability scenarios
pursuant to Section 31.2.2.5 of Attachment Y of the OATT. Scenarios are variations on the preliminary (1st
pass) RNA Base Case to assess the impact of possible changes in key study assumptions which, if they
occurred, could change the timing, location, or degree of violations of reliability criteria on the NYCA
system during the Study Period, and are presented for information only. There were no changes between
the preliminary RNA Base Case and the final Base Case. RNA scenarios are provided for information only,
and do not lead to Reliability Needs identification or mitigation. The NYISO evaluated the following
scenarios as part of this RNA, with an identification of the type of assessment performed:

1. High Load Forecast Scenario – Resource Adequacy

• The 2020 Gold Book High Load forecast were used for the resource adequacy analysis.

2. Zonal Resource Adequacy Margins (ZRAM) - Resource Adequacy

• Identification of the maximum level of zonal MW capacity that can be removed without
either causing NYCA LOLE violations, or exceeding the zonal capacity.

3. “Status-quo” Scenario - Transmission Security and Resource Adequacy

• Removal of proposed major transmission and generation projects assumed in the RNA
Base Case.

Additionally, the NYISO proposed to perform two exploratory scenarios, further detailed in Appendix E:

4. Further Simplified External Areas Model20 - Resource Adequacy

• Starting with the simplified external model described in footnote 20 and also in the
assumptions matrix in Appendix D, removing all load and generation from external
areas along with removing interfaces between external areas, followed by inserting
fixed amounts of capacity in each external area.

5. Different Load Shape - Resource Adequacy

• The RNA Base Cases use historical load shapes from 2002, 2006, and 2007 for resource

20During the 2020 RNA, the External Areas Model for the RNA Base Case was simplified to consolidate five PJM (mid-Atlantic) areas into a single area
and eight ISO-NE areas into a single area.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 71

 adequacy analysis. The Climate Change Phase 1 study developed forward-looking
hourly load shapes. Load shapes will continue to be discussed with the Load Forecast
Task Force and other stakeholders.

The results of the scenarios 1-3 are summarized in the following sections; the exploratory scenarios 4
and 5 are in the Appendix E; the 70x30 scenarios are in Section 8 below.

High Load Forecast Scenario

The RNA Base Case forecast includes impacts associated with projected energy reductions coming
from statewide energy efficiency and behind-the-meter solar PV programs. The High Load Forecast
scenario excludes these energy efficiency program impacts from the peak forecast, resulting in the higher
forecast levels. The comparison of the High and Baseline forecasted loads is provided in the Figure 53
below. There is an increase of 2,388 MW in the peak load in 2030, as compared to the Base Case forecast.
Given that the peak load in the High Load forecast is higher than in the Base Case, the probability of
violating the LOLE criterion increases, and violations would occur starting in 2025. The NYCA LOLE results
are in Figure 55.

Figure 53: 2020 Gold Book NYCA High Load vs. Baseline Summer Peak Forecast

Year High Load Baseline Load Delta

(High Load -
Baseline Load)
2024 32,623 31,838 785
2025 32,641 31,711 930
2026 32,863 31,670 1,193
2027 33,163 31,673 1,490
2028 33,562 31,756 1,806
2029 33,976 31,865 2,111
2030 34,380 31,992 2,388

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 72

Figure 54: 2020 Gold Book Zone J High Load vs. Non-coincident Summer Peak Forecast

Year High Load Baseline Load Delta

(High Load -
Baseline Load)
2024 11,751 11,557 194
2025 11,775 11,552 223
2026 11,884 11,609 275
2027 12,009 11,667 342
2028 12,158 11,747 411
2029 12,315 11,836 479
2030 12,467 11,924 543

Figure 55: 2020 RNA Resource Adequacy High Load Scenario NYCA LOLE Results

Study Year 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

2020 RNA Base Case 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.17 0.19
High Load Scenario 0.07 0.15 0.19 0.26 0.35 0.49 0.63

This scenario indicates that if expected energy efficiency and peak load reduction programs do not
materialize at expected levels, the criterion violations would be observed two years earlier, starting in
2025.

Zonal Resource Adequacy Margin (ZRAM)

The RNA Base Case results show that the LOLE is at the resource adequacy criterion in 2026 and
exceeds 0.10 days/year starting in 2027.

Scenario analyses were performed to determine the amount of capacity in each zone that could be
removed before the NYCA LOLE reaches 0.10 days/year, and offer another relative measure of how close
the system is from violating reliability criteria. This simulation is applicable to any RNA Study Years that
have LOLE levels that are below criterion, i.e., from 2024 through 2026. The NYISO reduced capacity one
zone at a time to determine when violations occur, in the same manner as the compensatory “perfect” MW
are added to mitigate resource adequacy violations, but with the opposite impact. The zonal resource
margin analysis is summarized in Figure 56.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 73

Figure 56: Zonal Resource Adequacy Margin (MW)

Study Year 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

LOLE 0.04 0.09 0.10* 0.12 0.14 0.17 0.19
Zone A -850 -400 -50 - - - -
Zone B -850 -400 -50 - - - -
Zone C -1,500 -400 -50 - - - -
Zone D -1,500 -400 -50 - - - -
Zone E EZR -400 -50 - - - -
Zone F -1,500 -400 -50 - - - -
Zone G -1,500 -400 -50 - - - -
Zone H EZR EZR -50 - - - -
Zone I EZR EZR -50 - - - -
Zone J -450 -50 0 - - - -
Zone K -1,400 -550 -150 - - - -
Zones A-F -1,500 -400 -50 - - - -
Zones G-I -1,500 -400 -50 - - - -

Note: EZR - exceeds zonal resources (i.e., all generation can be removed without causing a violation)

*LOLE for year 2026 is 0.097

The ZRAM assessment identifies a maximum level of capacity that can be removed from each zone
without causing NYCA LOLE criterion violations. However, the impacts of removing capacity on the
reliability of the transmission system and on transfer capability are highly location dependent. Thus, in
reality, lower amounts of capacity removal are likely to result in reliability issues at specific transmission
locations. The NYISO did not attempt to assess a comprehensive set of potential scenarios that might arise
from specific unit retirements. Therefore, actual proposed capacity removal from any of these zones would
need to be further studied in light of the specific capacity locations in the transmission network to
determine whether any additional violations of reliability criteria would result. Additional transmission
security analysis, such as N-1-1 analysis, would need to be performed for any contemplated plant
retirement in any zone.

Status-Quo Scenario
This scenario evaluates the reliability of the system under the assumption that no major transmission
or generation projects come to fruition within the RNA Study Period. This includes the removal of all
proposed transmission and generation projects that have met 2020 RNA Base Case inclusion rules and
removal of generators that require modifications to comply with the DEC’s Peaker Rule.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 74

 The results of this scenario are in the Figure 57:

Figure 57: 2020 RNA Resource Adequacy Status-quo Scenario NYCA LOLE Results

Study Year 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Base Case 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.17 0.19
Status-quo Scenario 0.07 0.13 0.14 0.17 0.19 0.23 0.25

From a resource adequacy perspective, this scenario indicates that if expected generation and
transmission projects are not built, the criterion violation advances by two years to 2025.

The steady state transmission security results show, as compared to the RNA base case, additional
overloads are observed under N-1-1 conditions in the Orange and Rockland and the Con Edison service
territories. No additional voltage issues were observed. The results of the steady state transmission
security N-1-1 evaluation of the BPTF for this scenario are shown in Figure 58.

Figure 58: 2020 RNA Transmission Security Status-quo Scenario Results

Zone Owner Circuit Observed in

RNA Base
Results
G O&R Chester-Shoemaker 138 kV (27)
G O&R Chester-Sugarloaf 138 kV (28)
G O&R Shoemaker-Shoemaker Tap (29)
G O&R Middletown Tap/Shoemaker Tap 345/138 kV
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook- W49th St 345 kV (51) X
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook- W49th St 345 kV (52) X
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 345 kV (71) X
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 345 kV (72) X
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 345/138 kV (N7) X
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 345/138 kV (S6) X
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie 345/138 kV (W73) X
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey West 345 kV (Q12) X
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey East 345 kV (Q11) X
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 345 kV (26) X
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 345kV (25) X
J ConEd Farragut 345/138 kV (TX8)
J ConEd Farragut 345/138 kV (TX9)

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 75

8. 70x30 Scenario
The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) mandates that New York consumers
be served by 70% renewable energy by 2030 (70x30). The CLCPA includes specific technology based
targets for distributed solar (6,000 MW by 2025), storage (3,000 MW by 2030), and offshore wind (9,000
MW by 2035), and ultimately establishes that the electric sector will be emissions free by 2040. Significant
shifts are expected in both the demand and supply sides of the electric grid, and these changes will affect
how the power system is currently planned and operated. To assist the evaluation of these impacts, the
2019 CARIS 70x30 scenario kicked-off the assessment using production cost simulation tools to provide a
“first look.” Focusing on the impact to energy flows, the NYISO modeled these policy targets for the year
2030 in order to examine potential system constraints, generator curtailments, and other operational
limitations.

Subsequent studies, such as this 2020 RNA scenario, as well as the Climate Change Impact and
Resilience Phase II Study, build upon the findings of the 2019 CARIS scenario, and provide further insight
focusing on system reliability aspects such as transmission security and resource adequacy.

As policymakers advance the implementation plan of the CLCPA, the NYISO assessments are intended
to complement their efforts, and are not intended to define the specific steps that must be taken to achieve
the policy goals. Additional refinements in assumptions, models, and methods in the following years will be
necessary as more information becomes available from policy implementation perspectives and simulation
methods and models perspectives.

Scope
This 70x30 Scenario consists of a series of cases to study the potential reliability impact of several
renewable energy mix and load levels assumptions. This study does not define the formula to calculate the
percentage of renewable energy relative to end-use energy, (i.e., how to account for 70% renewable energy
for the “70 by 30” target). As policymakers advance on the implementation plan of CLCPA, this NYISO
assessment is intended to complement their efforts, and is not intended to define the specific steps that
must be taken to achieve the policy goals. Instead, the findings are intended to provide insight into the
resource adequacy and transmission security reliability impacts of two load levels and their corresponding
renewable resources mix evaluated in the 2019 CARIS Phase I study. The goal of the analysis is to augment
the CARIS insights on congestion and curtailments with reliability perspectives.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 76

 A number of key modeling assumptions and approaches may have major impact on the results. To help
readers understand the scope of this assessment, considerations that are outside of the scope of this
analysis are described below:

1. Percentage of renewable energy relative to end-use energy: This study does not define the
formula to calculate the percentage of renewable energy relative to end-use energy, (i.e., how to
account for 70% renewable energy for the 70 by 30 or 70x30 target). Rather, two potential
renewable build-out levels were defined and modeled in the 2019 CARIS study, (and used in
this study), for corresponding load levels to approximate the potential future resource mix in
2030.

2. Renewable mix modeling

I. Siting and sizing: New renewable generators are modeled as interconnecting to 115 kV
or greater bus voltage levels, guided by the NYISO Interconnection Queue. There are
many alternative possible interconnection points, but this assessment assumes a single
approach for sizing and siting of renewable generation. Impacts of siting generators at
lower voltage buses are outside the scope of this study. Nevertheless, the NYISO
recognizes that constraints at the distribution level will affect the downstream
constraints, which may change the energy flows at the higher voltage level.

II. Operational constraints: Renewable resources are modeled as 8,760 hourly resource
shapes for the resource adequacy MARS simulations. These generation profiles are
synthetically generated resource shapes constructed using publicly available data and
tools. This deterministic modeling approach will not capture the uncertainty involved
with particular renewable resources.

Also, this analysis does not consider potential reliability impacts due to:

 Changes on the transmission system as a result of the resource additions or

subtractions;

 Unit commitment, ramp rate constraints, and other production cost modeling
techniques;

 Sub-hourly variation in renewable generation.

3. Transmission system modeling: These scenarios are not an interconnection level assessment
of the renewable buildouts, and do not review detailed engineering requirements, capacity
deliverability, or impact to the New York system reserve margin. Also, for the resource

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 77

 adequacy evaluations, the MARS topology was only slightly changed to restrict flows from Zone
K to Zone J, due to DEC Peaker Rule related unit retirement assumptions. No other change was
implemented to reflect the impacts of any modification simulated in the scenarios, such as the
addition of renewable resources, and the removal of fossil-fueled units.

4. External area representation: As the neighboring regions develop their own plans to achieve
higher renewable generation penetration, those regions’ demand, generation supply, and
transmission system may change. At the time of this report, the plans for NYISO’s neighboring
regions are taking shape. The external area representation remains consistent with the RNA
Base Case. An, exception is the HQ’s model, where import from Hydro Quebec (HQ) to Zone D is
modeled as a unit in MARS with hourly MW shape from the CARIS output into Zone D along
with the addition of a 1,310 MW proxy tie from Hydro Quebec (HQ) to Zone J. If the neighboring
areas increase their renewable generation, it is possible that the renewable curtailment
amounts assumed in the New York system from this analysis are underestimated.

5. COVID-19 impacts: Due to the rapidly evolving nature of the pandemic, the impacts to the load
forecast and other economic indicators are difficult to predict, and are not included in these
scenarios.

Assumptions
The RNA 70x30 Scenario assumptions are based on the 2019 CARIS 70x30 renewable resource mix
and associated load forecasts. The 2019 CARIS assumptions were based on the 2019 Gold Book, and used GE
MAPS for production cost simulations, and its findings are intended to provide insight of the extent to
which transmission constraints may prevent the delivery of renewable energy to New York consumers.
The RNA 70x30 Scenarios is intended to supplement the 2019 CARIS 70x30 analysis of congestion and
resource curtailment by providing insights on potential reliability impacts.

The 2019 CARIS 70x30 Scenario assessed two load levels labeled as ‘Base Load’ and ‘Scenario Load’
(described below). The production cost simulation utilized an hourly load profile for each of the load levels,
and the simulation output provided an hourly dispatch profile for the two renewable resource mixes. The
hourly dispatch profiles take into consideration transmission constraints that cause curtailments, as
identified and described in the 2019 CARIS report. That simulation output is utilized in this RNA scenario to
the resource adequacy and transmission security models, as applicable.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 78

 The scenario cases also reflect removal of all of the peaker units, including those which subsequently
provided compliance plans, affected by the DEC Peaker Rule in 2023 and 2025. For consistency with the
2019 CARIS 70x30 Scenario, the scenario cases includes removal of those peakers kept in service in the
RNA Base. This includes removal of 1,232 MW of peaking generators from Zone K.

Load Assumptions
Two load models from the 2019 CARIS 70x30 Scenario are used for the RNA 70x30 Scenario:

1. ‘Base Load’, representing a higher energy shape (153 TWh) and a higher peak forecast
(31,303 MW); the 2002 load shape (8,760 hours) was scaled up to 2028 energy forecast
from the 2019 Gold Book. The same load shape was used for all MARS load levels; and

2. ‘Scenario Load’, representing lower energy shape (136 TWh) and a lower peak forecast
(25,312 MW); the CARIS-developed load shape was scaled to match CARIS 70x30 ‘Scenario
Load’ energy and peak demand forecast. The same load shape was used for all MARS load
levels.

Figure 59: Summer Energy and Peak Demand Forecast Zonal Distribution

70x30 Base Load A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA

Net Load Energy (GWh) 14,590 9,695 15,394 5,337 7,095 11,312 9,544 2,807 5,881 51,749 19,608 153,012
Net Load Peak (MW)* 2,537 1,937 2,653 718 1,264 2,197 2,174 637 1,405 11,589 4,730 31,303
+ BtM-PV at Zonal Peak (MW) 368 60 556 13 518 584 246 35 35 352 102 2,757
Total Load Peak (MW) 2,905 1,997 3,209 731 1,782 2,781 2,420 672 1,440 11,941 4,832 34,060

70x30 Scenario Load A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA

Net Load Energy (GWh) 13,034 7,757 12,626 5,101 5,694 9,654 7,911 2,848 5,952 46,354 19,026 135,958
Summer Net Load Peak (MW)* 2,112 1,417 2,171 651 1,052 1,988 1,912 625 1,385 9,129 3,914 25,312
+ BtM-PV at Summer Zonal Peak (MW) 77 16 0 0 0 0 22 2 5 64 24 269
Total Summer Load Peak (MW) 2,189 1,433 2,171 651 1,052 1,988 1,934 627 1,390 9,193 3,938 25,581
Winter Net Load Peak (MW)* 2,234 1,310 2,264 740 1,246 1,934 1,607 636 1,065 7,344 3,841 23,779
+ BtM-PV at Winter Zonal Peak (MW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Winter Load Peak (MW) 2,234 1,310 2,264 740 1,246 1,934 1,607 636 1,065 7,344 3,841 23,779

Note: *Non-coincident zonal peak

Because the 2019 CARIS assumptions are based on the 2019 Gold Book, Figure 60 is a comparison of
the 2019 and 2020 Gold Book loads, for information.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 79

Figure 60: Load and Energy Comparison between the 2019 and 2020 Gold Book Forecasts

Energy (GWh) A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA

70x30 Base Load 14,590 9,695 15,394 5,337 7,095 11,312 9,544 2,807 5,881 51,749 19,608 153,012
2020 GB Y2030 13,931 9,461 15,371 5,925 7,176 11,293 8,713 2,994 5,566 49,450 19,894 149,774

Energy Delta (GWh) A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA

70x30 Base Load - 659 234 23 -588 -81 19 831 -187 315 2,299 -286 3,238
2020 GB Y2030

Summer Non-Coincident A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA

Peak (MW) Coincident Peak
70x30 Base Load 2,537 1,937 2,653 718 1,264 2,197 2,174 637 1,405 11,589 4,730 31,303
2020 GB Y2030 2,748 2,004 2,813 734 1,318 2,353 2,139 660 1,494 11,924 4,690 31,992

Summer Non-Coincident A B C D E F G H I J K NYCACoincident

Peak Delta (MW) Peak
70x30 Base Load - -211 -67 -160 -16 -54 -156 35 -23 -89 -335 40 -689
2020 GB Y2030

Coincident peak demand is the projected zonal load during the date and hour of the NYCA system-wide
peak. The NYCA coincident peak typically occurs in late afternoon during July or August. Non-coincident
peak demand is the projected maximum load for each individual zone across a year or season.

Renewable Mix Assumptions

For the two load levels assessed in the 2019 CARIS 70x30 Scenario, the NYISO assumed a renewable
resource mix distributed across the state by zone. This RNA 70x30 Scenario models the same zonal
renewable resource distribution. The nameplate capacity of the renewable resource mix is provided in
Figure 61 below.

Figure 61: Renewable Mix Assumptions for each Load Level

70x30 'Base Load Case' (Nameplate MW) 70x30 'Scenario Load Case' (Nameplate MW)
Zone/Type OSW LBW UPV BTM-PV Zone/Type OSW LBW UPV BTM-PV
A - 2,286 4,432 995 A - 1,640 3,162 995
B - 314 505 298 B - 207 361 298
C - 2,411 2,765 836 C - 1,765 1,972 836
D - 1,762 - 76 D - 1,383 - 76
E - 2,000 1,747 901 E - 1,482 1,247 901
F - - 3,592 1,131 F - - 2,563 1,131
G - - 2,032 961 G - - 1,450 961
H - - - 89 H - - - 89
I - - - 130 I - - - 130
J 4,320 - - 950 J 4,320 - - 950
K 1,778 - 77 1,176 K 1,778 - 77 1,176
Total 6,098 8,772 15,150 7,542 Total 6,098 6,477 10,832 7,542

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 80

 Additional modeling details, by type:

o Land-based wind (LBW): Hourly dispatch profiles (MWh shapes) are applied from CARIS
simulation output, including curtailments observed in the production simulation, for each of
the two load shapes. CARIS used the 2009 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
hourly data as input.

o Off-shore wind (OSW): Hourly dispatch profiles (MWh shapes) are applied from CARIS
simulation output, including curtailments observed in the production simulation, for each of
the two load shapes. CARIS used the 2009 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
hourly data as input.

o Utility-scale PV (UPV): Hourly dispatch profiles (MWh shapes) are applied from CARIS
simulation output, including curtailments observed in the production simulation, for each of
the two load shapes. CARIS used the 2017 production data for existing plants and the 2006
NREL hourly data for new plants as input.

o Behind-the-Meter PV (BtM PV): Hourly dispatch profile (MWh shapes) are applied from
CARIS simulation output, for each of the two load shapes. The CARIS behind-the-meter solar
profiles are based on hourly shapes created using NREL’s PV Watt tool.

Storage Assumptions

A four-hour battery storage is modeled in each NYISO zone, using the newly developed GE MARS
Energy Limited Resource Type 4 (EL4) model.21 The scenario assumes the same zonal MW distribution
modeled in the 2019 CARIS 70x30 scenario, as shown in the Figure 62 below. In these simulations, the EL4
units discharge their MW when the system is deficient, and recharge their energy when the system has an
excess of capacity. Units are modeled with a maximum energy discharge per day of four times their
maximum hourly discharge value. This paradigm allows the unit to discharge fully in four hours, or for
longer if not at full discharge. Also, at this time, only 100% roundtrip efficiency can be modeled in MARS,
which does not account for losses in charge/discharge cycle.

21 The MARS Energy Limited Resource type 4 (EL4) unit was introduced in the GE MARS version 3.29.1499 to better reflect battery behavior.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 81

Figure 62: Storage Zonal MW Distribution

Zone MW
A 150
B 90
C 120
D 180
E 120
F 240
G 100
H 100
I 100
J 1,320
K 480
NYCA 3,000

External areas
PJM, Ontario and ISO-NE are modeled using same method as 2020 RNA Base Case. Imports from Hydro
Quebec (HQ) to Zone D are modeled as a generator in MARS with an hourly MW shape from the CARIS
output. Consistent with the CARIS assumptions, the model for this 70x30 Scenario includes a generic HVDC
tie from HQ directly to Zone J, capable of 1,310 MW. The generic HVDC tie is modeled as a generator in
MARS with an hourly MW shape from the CARIS output.

Resource Adequacy Methodology and Results

GE’s MARS program is used for resource adequacy analysis of the 70x30 Scenario. The GE MARS tool
employs a sequential Monte Carlo simulation method, and calculates, on an area and system basis, standard
reliability indices such as daily and hourly LOLE (days/year and hours/year). New MARS cases were
developed based on the assumptions described above, and sensitivities were performed to better
understand the impact of various factors. The three steps described above are detailed in the following
pages.

Step 1: Renewable Mix on Two Load Levels

Model the 70x30 ‘Base Load’ and ‘Scenario Load’ along with their corresponding renewable resources
mix output and calculate NYCA LOLE.

These initial resource adequacy simulations did not identify a measurable LOLE in either the ‘Base
Load’ or ‘Scenario Load’ 70x30 cases. This result occurs because large amounts of additional renewable
generation were modeled to meet the 70% energy goal, while retaining in the models the existing fossil fuel

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 82

generators; which in turn leads to an increase in the available generation. In addition, the transmission
system model (MARS topology) was not revised to reflect the potential impacts of increasing the
penetration of renewable resources.

Figure 63 and Figure 64 below show the resource mix for the two load levels with the renewables
added and no fossil removal.

Figure 63: Resource Mix in the 70x30 Figure 64: Resource Mix in the 70x30
‘Base Load’ Case before Capacity Removal ‘Scenario Load’ Case before Capacity Removal

Hydro
7%

Fossil Wind
38% 24%

Solar
24%

Pumped
Storage
2% Nuclear
5%

Step 2: Capacity Removal

Additional simulation were performed to gauge the sensitivity of the system to capacity removal. Two
types of removals are simulated, with results in the figures below:

 A Zonal Resource Adequacy Margin (ZRAM) analysis: ZRAM analysis identifies the amounts of
generic “perfect capacity” resources that can be removed from a zone while still meeting the
LOLE criterion. “Perfect capacity” is capacity that is not derated (e.g., due to ambient
temperature or unit unavailability caused by factors such as equipment failures or lack of fuel),
not subject to energy duration limitations, and not tested for transmission security or interface
impacts. Actual resources would need to be larger in order to achieve the same impact as
perfect-capacity resources.

 An age-based retirement analysis where fossil units are removed from the model, starting with
the oldest, until the New York system is at LOLE criteria. This age-based approach is a simple
analytical approach as a proxy to represent unit retirements that may occur as surplus
resources increase. In reality many factors will affect specific generator status decisions.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 83

Figure 65: ZRAM Results on the Initial 70x30 Cases

Cases NYCA LOLE ZONE A ZONE B ZONE C ZONE D ZONE E ZONE F ZONE G ZONE H ZONE I ZONE J ZONE K
Base Case 0.19 ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ 350 ∞
70x30 Base Load Case 0.00 -2,400 EZR -5,200 -1,750 EZR -7,200 -5,400 EZR EZR -1,500 -1,250
70x30 Scenario Load Case 0.00 -3,550 EZR -5,550 -1,750 EZR EZR EZR EZR EZR -4,200 -1,400

Notes:
• Negative numbers indicate the amount of MW that can be removed from a zone (one zone at a time in this case) without
causing a violation. For instance, NYCA LOLE reaches 0.1 days/year when 1,500 MW of “perfect capacity” is removed from
Zone J in the ‘Base Load’ Case.
• EZR - exceeds zonal resources: i.e., all generation from the respective zone can be removed without causing a NYCA LOLE
violation.
• The generation pockets in Zone J and Zone K are not modeled in detail in MARS, and the values identified here may be
larger as a result.

The ZRAM analysis results show that many of the zones in the NYCA can have all internal resources
removed without causing a violation of the LOLE criterion (i.e., those labeled ‘EZR’), a result pointing to the
large renewable additions upstate.

Figure 66: Fossil Removal Based on 70x30 ‘Base Load’ Scenario Cases

Total Thermal Capacity Left (MW) Cumulative Capacity Removed (MW)

Cases Zone J Zone K Other Total Zone J Zone K Other Total NYCA
(Age >=) Zones Zones LOLE
Total 8,190 3,962 15,012 27,165 0 0 0 0 0.00
70 6,978 3,564 14,616 25,160 1,212 398 396 2,005 0.02
68 6,601 3,371 14,616 24,590 1,589 591 396 2,575 0.05
67* 6,386 3,360 14,616 24,364 1,804 602 396 2,801 0.11
67 6,236 3,360 14,616 24,214 1,954 602 396 2,951 0.15

Notes:
• Case 67: most, but not all units 67 and older were retired in this case.
• Case 67*: a special evaluation of Case 67 where the marginal unit was derated, instead of fully removed, to obtain an
LOLE closer to 0.1 days/year.

The age-based analysis for the ‘Base Load’ scenario identifies that the removal of generators at least 67
years old would reduce the total capacity by 2,951 MW, which would exceed the LOLE criterion. An
additional analysis was performed to bring the LOLE closer to the 0.1 days/year criterion by derating the
capacity of the marginal unit (Case 67*), which identifies that the NYCA will exceed the LOLE criterion once
2,801 MW have been removed from the system, of which 1,804 MW is from Zone J. The age-based fossil
removal method has the effect to primarily remove the units from Zones J and K, accelerating the rate of
LOLE reaching its criterion violation. Because Zone J is driving the LOLE at criterion, and not upstate
generation, additional fossil generation can be removed from the upstate zones without affecting the LOLE
at criterion.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 84

 Figure 67, Figure 68 and Figure 69 below show the resources mix for NYCA, Zone J and Zone K
respectively, with the renewables added and fossil removal up to the point of an LOLE criterion violation
for 70x30 ‘Base Load’ case. The fossil generation percentages are calculated based on the minimum of CRIS
and DMNC, while solar and wind generation are based on nameplate rating.

Figure 67: NYCA Resource Mix in 70x30 ‘Base Load’ Case at Criterion

Hydro
7%

Fossil Wind
35% 25%

Solar
Pumped 25%
Storage
2% Nuclear
6%

Figure 68: Zone J Resource Mix in 70x30 ‘Base Load’ Figure 69: Zone K Resource Mix in 70x30 ‘Base
Case at Criterion Load’ Case at Criterion

Wind
Wind
40% 34%
Fossil Fossil
60% 64%

Solar
1%

Figure 70 shows a comparison between the total installed capacity and unforced capacity for 70x30
Base Load case when the system is close to LOLE criterion. To bring the model to criterion, approximately
2,800 MW of fossil generation were removed resulting in an installed capacity margin of 191.8%,
equivalent to an unforced capacity margin of 114%. Out of 2,800 MW, approximately 1,800 MW were
removed from Zone J, resulting in installed capacity margin of 92% in Zone J, equivalent to unforced
capacity margin of 61%.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 85

Figure 70: 70x30 ‘Base Load’ Load and Capacity Totals, ICAP vs. UCAP

70x30 'Base Load' 70x30 'Base Load'

(ICAP) (UCAP)1
NYCA Totals
Load (net of BtM Solar) 31,303 31,303
Renewable Additions (offshore&land wind, utility solar) 30,020 7,861

Total capacity in the 70x30 model before age-based removal2 62,837 38,322
Total thermal capacity in the 70x30 model before age-based removal 27,165 25,444
Total fossil units in the 70x30 model before age-based capacity removal 23,822 22,175
Total nuclear in the 70x30 model before age-based capacity removal 3,343 3,269
Age-based fossils removed to get to 0.1 LOLE ("model at criterion") 3 2,801 2,629
Total capacity ("model at criterion") 60,036 35,693
Capacity/ Load Ratio 191.8% 114.0%
NY_J Totals
Load (net of BtM Solar) 11,589 11,589
Total capacity in 70x30 Case 12,510 8,761
Total fossil units in 70x30 model before age-based fossil removal 8,190 7,602
Age-based fossils removed to get to 0.1 LOLE ("model at criterion")3 1,804 1,701
Total capacity ("model at criterion") 10,706 7,060
Capacity/Load Ratio 92.4% 60.9%
NY_K Totals
Load (net of BtM Solar) 4,730 4,730
Total capacity in 70x30 Case 5,782 4,400
Total fossil units in 70x30 model before fossil removal 3,962 3,745
Age-based fossils removed to get to 0.1 LOLE ("model at criterion") 3 602 579
Total capacity ("model at criterion") 5,180 3,821
Capacity/Load Ratio 109.5% 80.8%

Notes
1. UCAP calculation:
 For thermal units, MARS EFORd data is used.
 For renewables, UCAP is calculated based on the average output during peak hours.
2. Reflects additional peaker removal in Zone K.
3. Calculated based on 70x30 ‘Base Load’ Case 67.*

Figure 71: Fossil Removal Based on 70x30 ‘Scenario Load’

Total Thermal Capacity Left (MW) Cumulative Capacity Removed (MW)

Cases Zone J Zone K Other Total Zone J Zone K Other Total NYCA
(Age >=) Zones Zones LOLE
Total 8,190 3,962 15,012 27,165 0 0 0 0 0.00
50 4,354 1,541 11,228 17,124 3,836 2,421 3,784 10,041 0.03
40 4,354 1,393 10,247 15,995 3,836 2,569 4,765 11,170 0.07
39 4,354 1,349 10,197 15,901 3,836 2,613 4,815 11,264 0.09
38 3,563 1,325 9,935 14,824 4,627 2,637 5,077 12,341 0.11

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 86

 The age-based analysis for the “Scenario Load” shows that the removal of generators at least 38 years
old would cause NYCA to exceed the LOLE criterion. This equates to a removal of 12,341 MW from the
system, with the zonal distribution shown in Figure 71. The age-based fossil removal method has the effect
of primarily removing units from Zones J and K, accelerating the rate of reaching the LOLE criterion.
Because mainly Zone K deficiencies are driving the LOLE at criterion in this scenario, additional fossil
generation can be removed from the upstate zones without affecting the LOLE at criterion.

Figure 72, Figure 73 and Figure 74 below show the resource mix for NYCA, Zone J and Zone K
respectively, with the renewables added and fossil removal until an LOLE violation results for 70x30
Scenario Load case. The fossil generation percentages are calculated based on minimum between CRIS and
DMNC, while solar and wind generation are based on nameplate rating.

Figure 72: NYCA Resource Mix in 70x30 ‘Scenario Load’ Case at Criterion

Hydro
10%
Fossil
26%
Wind
29%
Pumped
Storage
3% Solar
25%
Nuclear
8%

Figure 73: Zone J Resource Mix in 70x30 ‘Scenario Figure 74: Zone K Resource Mix in 70x30 ‘Scenario
Load’ Case at Criterion Load’ Case at Criterion

Fossil Fossil
Wind
45% 42%
Wind 56%
55%

Solar
2%

Figure 75 shows a comparison between the total installed capacity and unforced capacity for 70x30
Scenario Load case when the system is close to LOLE criterion violation. To bring the model to criterion,

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 87

approximately 12,350 MW of fossil generation were removed resulting in an installed capacity margin of
173.4%, equivalent to an unforced capacity margin of 103.7%. Out of 12,350 MW, approximately 4,600
MW and 2,650 MW were removed from Zone J and Zone K, respectively resulting in installed capacity
margin of 97% in Zone J and 80% in Zone K.

Figure 75: 70x30 ‘Scenario Load’ Load and Capacity Totals, ICAP vs UCAP

70x30 'Scenario Load' 70x30 'Scenario Load'

(ICAP) (UCAP)1
NYCA Totals
Load (net of BtM Solar) 25,312 25,312
Renewable Additions (offshore&land wind, utility solar) 23,407 6,082
Total capacity in the 70x30 model before age-based fossil removal2 56,224 36,543
Total thermal capacity in the 70x30 model before age-based removal 27,165 25,444
Total fossil units in the 70x30 model before age-based capacity removal 23,822 22,174
Total nuclear in the 70x30 model before age-based capacity removal 3,343 3,269
Age-based fossils removed to get to 0.1 LOLE ("model at criterion") 3 12,341 10,295
Total capacity ("model at criterion") 43,883 26,246
Capacity/ Load Ratio 173.4% 103.7%
NY_J Totals
Load (net of BtM Solar) 9,129 9,129
Total capacity in 70x30 Case 13,460 8,759
Total fossil units in 70x30 model before age-based fossil removal 8,190 7,602
Age-based fossils removed to get to 0.1 LOLE ("model at criterion") 3 4,627 4,152
Total capacity ("model at criterion") 8,833 4,607
Capacity/Load Ratio 96.8% 50.5%
NY_K Totals
Load (net of BtM Solar) 3,914 3,914
Total capacity in 70x30 Case 5,782 4,391
Total fossil units in 70x30 model before fossil removal 3,962 3,745
Age-based fossils removed to get to 0.1 LOLE ("model at criterion")3 2,637 2,502
Total capacity ("model at criterion") 3,145 1,889
Capacity/Load Ratio 80.3% 48.3%

Notes
1. UCAP calculation:
• For thermal units, MARS EFORd data is used.
• For renewables, UCAP is calculated based on the average output during peak hours.
2. Reflects additional peaker removal in Zone K.
3. Calculated based on 70x30 ‘Scenario Load’ Case 38.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 88

 Sensitivity: Nuclear Generation Retirement
As a sensitivity analysis for this capacity removal step, the nuclear units are removed from the system,
which equates to the removal of 3,343 MW summer capacity, all located upstate. In this analysis, first the
nuclear generation is removed, followed by the fossil plants removal by age until the LOLE criterion is
violated. This exercise identifies how much fossil MW can be removed before exceeding the criterion. It is
important to note these nuclear units may continue in operation beyond 2030 and this sensitivity analysis
should not be interpreted as forecasting any deactivation.

Figure 76: Nuclear Retirement Sensitivity based on 70x30 “Base Load” Case

Total Thermal Capacity Left (MW) Cumulative Capacity Removed (MW)

Cases Zone J Zone K Other Total Zone J Zone K Other Total NYCA
(Age >=) Zones Zones LOLE
Total 8,190 3,962 11,669 23,822 0 0 **3,343 3,343 0.00
70 6,978 3,564 11,273 21,817 1,212 398 3,739 5,348 0.02
68 6,601 3,371 11,273 21,247 1,589 591 3,739 5,918 0.06
67* 6,386 3,360 11,273 21,021 1,804 602 3,739 6,144 0.11
67 6,236 3,360 11,273 20,871 1,954 602 3,739 6,294 0.17

Notes:
• Case 67: most, but not all units 67 and older were retired in this case.
• Case 67*: a special evaluation of Case 67 where the marginal unit was derated instead of fully removed
to obtain an LOLE closer to 0.1 days/year.
• **3,343: the amount of nuclear MW removed in the sensitivity.

Observations:

 The removal of the nuclear units did not significantly affect the LOLE results on the case before the
age-based fossil removals, because the addition of upstate renewable resources outweigh the loss
of nuclear capacity.

 The results previously identified in the age-based retirement analysis on the ‘Base Load’ case were
effectively unchanged by the removal of the nuclear units. Specifically, the 3,343 MW of retirement
of the upstate nuclear units does not significantly impact the NYCA LOLE results because the needs
are driven by downstate capacity deficiencies. It is important to note that other benefits of existing
generation, such as voltage and stability support, were not captured in this resource adequacy
simulation.

 NYCA meets the LOLE criterion with 5,918 MW removed, of which 2,575 MW fossil (5,918 - 3,343 =
2,575).

 NYCA exceeds the LOLE criterion when 6,144 MW are removed (at 67*), of which 3,343 MW are
nuclear units, and 2,801 MW are fossil-fueled units.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 89

Figure 77: Nuclear Retirement Sensitivity based on 70x30 “Scenario Load” Case

Total Thermal Capacity Left (MW) Cumulative Capacity Removed (MW)

Cases Zone J Zone K Other Total Zone J Zone K Other Total NYCA
(Age >=) Zones Zones LOLE
Total 8,190 3,962 11,669 23,822 0 0 **3,343 3,343 0.00
50 4,354 1,541 7,885 13,781 3,836 2,421 7,127 13,384 0.04
45 4,354 1,541 7,010 12,906 3,836 2,421 8,002 14,259 0.07
41 4,354 1,526 7,002 12,883 3,836 2,436 8,010 14,282 0.08
40 4,354 1,393 6,904 12,652 3,836 2,569 8,108 14,513 0.14

Observations:

 NYCA meets the LOLE criterion in 2030 with 14,282 MW of existing generation removed.

• 14,282 – 3,343 nuclear = 11,170 MW fossil removed with nuclear units out of service,
versus 11,264 MW fossil removed when nuclear units are modeled in service.

 As a result of the removal of nuclear units, the removal of 14,513 MW of thermal generation would
exceed the LOLE criterion. Of that amount, 11,170 MW is from fossil fuel generators.

Sensitivity: Energy Storage Resources

One of the New York’s CLCPA goals is to add 3,000 MW of energy storage resources by 2030. In this
sensitivity, the storage resources are distributed across the NY system, and the age-based removal is
simulated on both the initial 70x30 analysis from Step 1, and on the nuclear retirement sensitivity. Four-
hour duration storage resources are assumed, using the MARS EL4 model.

For each of the two load cases, with the model at the LOLE criterion, the NYISO added storage based on
the zonal distribution utilized in the CARIS 70x30 Scenario, and recalculated the NYCA LOLE to determine
impact on resource adequacy.

Figure 78 identifies the amount of fossil fuel generation that is removed from the system to exceed the
LOLE criterion.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 90

Figure 78: Storage Sensitivity Fossil MW Removed by Age to Exceed LOLE

Fossil MW Removed to Reach LOLE

Criterion Violation
Nuclear 3,343 MW
In-Service Nuclear
Out-Of-Service
Without ESRs 2,801 2,801
Base Load' case
With 3000 MW ESRs 3,062 3,037
Scenario Load' Without ESRs 12,341 11,170
scenario case With 3000 MW ESRs 13,133 11,550

Note: the values in this table should not be used to approximate the Effective Load Carrying Capability (ELCC) of storage
resources because the analysis was not conditioned to perform this type of analysis.

On the ‘Base Load’ cases, the benefit of the energy storage resources is limited to around 250 MW (i.e.,
with additional storage, and with or without the existing nuclear units, around 260 MW of additional fossil
can be removed to reach NYCA LOLE violation).These effects occur mainly because of the location of the
capacity shortfalls (in Zones J and K), due to the storage resource allocation (1,320 MW in Zone J and 480
MW in Zone K), and due to the duration of the events, with many longer than four hours.

For the Scenario Load cases, the energy storage resources have additional benefits. Specifically, with
existing nuclear units in-service, and the additional storage resources in service, approximately 800 MW of
additional fossil can be removed to reach LOLE violation. With existing nuclear units out of service, and the
additional storage resources in service, approximately 380 MW of additional fossil can be removed to reach
LOLE violation.

An additional simulation was performed to gauge the impact of using an eight-hour EL4 model on the
‘Base Load’ scenario. When comparing with the four-hour model, a lot more (e.g. approximately 1,450 MW
for this specific simulation) fossil generation is removed until the LOLE criterion is exceeded. Results are
shown in the Figure 79 below.

To better quantify the locational benefit of energy storage resources, a simulation was performed on
the Base Load case that evaluated only modeling the Zone J resources. The results are consistent with those
in Figure 78, indicating that for the modeled system energy storage resources are most effective in Zone J.
This result is driven largely by the location of unit retirements in this scenario.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 91

Figure 79: 4-Hour vs. 8-Hour Energy Storage Sensitivity

Fossil MW Removed to Reach LOLE

Criterion Violation (Nuclear in-
service)
4-hour ESR 8-hour ESR
Without ESRs 2,801 2,801
'Base Load' case
With 3000 MW ESRs 3,062 4,516

Sensitivity: Resolve Local Transmission Constraints

The production cost analysis performed in CARIS showed that renewable resources were curtailed due
to local transmission bottlenecks. As part of the resource adequacy analysis, the NYISO modeled the output
renewable shapes, including the CARIS-simulated curtailments, in the initial analysis. This sensitivity
analyzes the impact of modeling the input renewables shapes with no curtailment reflected.

The use of non-curtailed renewables does not significantly affect the resource adequacy results. This
output demonstrates that alleviating the local constraints that caused the curtailments, while beneficial
from an annual energy production perspective as shown in CARIS, does not offset the need for dispatchable
generation to meet reliability requirements at peak load.

Transmission Security Methodology and Results

The purpose of this assessment is to identify reliability risks focusing on the steady-state thermal
loading on the BPTF for N-1 and N-1-1 conditions. The transmission security assessment for 70x30 models
six different output levels of intermittent renewable resources and load levels. The basis for the load and
renewable resource mix is the 70x30 Base Load case. Figure 80 shows the load level for each case along
with the assumption for land-based wind, off-shore wind, and solar. For the solar dispatch, both the
behind-the-meter and in front of the meter solar are dispatched to the same percentage. Dispatchable
resources are needed to fill the gaps created when intermittent renewable resources are not producing
sufficient power to serve load. The amount of dispatchable resources included in the transmission security
base case is approximately 24,700 MW (after age-based removals and peaker removals).

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 92

Figure 80: 70x30 Scenario Transmission Security Case Assumptions (‘Base Load’ Case)

Case Load (Net Load including BtM solar Land-Based Wind Off-Shore Wind Solar
Case #
reductions, MW) (% of Pmax) (% of Pmax) (% of Pmax)
1 Day Peak Load (30,000) 10 20 45
2 Evening Peak Load (31,100) 0 0 0
3 Light Load (12,500 MW) 15 45 0
4 Light Load (12,500 MW) 0 0 0
5 Shoulder Load (21,500 MW) 0 0 40
6 Shoulder Load (21,500 MW) 15 45 40

The age-based fossil removals for the Base Load resource adequacy scenario, with no energy storage
resources (ESR), are also modeled in this assessment, including the removal of units that were in service
prior to January 1, 1963. This removal amounts to a total of 2,586 MW summer capability. The 2,586 MW
removal is utilized in the transmission security analysis, as it is the last point of generation removal prior to
observing resource adequacy LOLE violations.

The pairings of similar load levels (e.g., Cases 1 & 2, Cases 3 & 4, and Cases 5 & 6) with different levels
of renewable resource penetration shows that a balance in load and generation is achievable (i.e., the case
was able to match load plus losses with the available generation under N-0). While transmission security
analysis for this assessment does not consider an 8,760-hour type of load and generation variety, the six
cases considered cover, within reasonable bounds, load levels that can be seen for many hours. For all
cases (except Case 2), the renewable generation mix shown in Figure 80 was selected based on
observations from the CARIS 70x30 ‘Base Load’ results for similar load levels. Case 2 reflects the potential
for an evening peak load assuming no MW output from the wind and solar resources. The evening peak
load reflects approximately 93% of the peak load observed during the day peak with no output from the
behind-the-meter solar. For this assessment, after peaker generation removals and age-based removals,
both 10-minute and 30-minute operating reserve levels were maintained by utilizing the remaining
synchronous generation.

Case 1 and Case 2 result in N-1 thermal loading criteria violations. These violations are observed on
the Rainey 345/138 kV (8W) (both Case 1 and Case 2) and the Rainey 345/138 kV (8E) (Case 1 only)
transformers. These violations are primarily driven by local load pocket deficiencies created by the age-
based generation removals. No N-1 thermal loading criteria violations are observed in Cases 3, 4, 5, or 6.

Case 1 and Case 2 have N-1-1 thermal loading criteria violations. These violations are summarized in
Figure 81. In addition to the transmission security issues observed in the RNA Base Case, overloads are

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 93

observed in the O&R and PSEG-LI service territories.

The thermal loading issues indicate transmission constraints that may occur with high renewable
output, as well under peak load conditions without these resources. To secure the transmission system,
additional dispatchable resources would be needed. To maintain system transmission security,
approximately 750 MW of dispatchable resources would be needed in addition to the 24,700 MW of
dispatchable resources remaining in the model (i.e. after age-based removals and peakers). This
assessment did not consider the potential duration of the deficiencies or the sudden loss of all off-shore
wind. Rather, contingency events for renewable resources only considered loss of resources due to
electrical faults. For all cases, the NYISO locational reserves requirements were achieved by utilizing
dispatchable generation.

Figure 81: N-1-1 Thermal Load Criteria Violations

Zone Owner Circuit Observed in Case 1 Case 2

RNA Base
Results
G O&R Shoemaker-Shoemaker Tap (29) x x
G O&R Middletown Tap/Shoemaker Tap 345/138 kV x x
J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 345 kV (51) x x x
J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 345 kV (52) x x x
J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 345 kV (71) x x x
J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 345 kV (72) x x x
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey West 345 kV (Q12) x x x
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey East 345 kV (Q11) x x x
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 345 kV (26) x x
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 345kV (25) x x
J ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 345/138 kV (N7) x x x
J ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 345/138 kV (S6) x x x
J ConEd Rainey West - Farragut East 345 kV (61) x x
J ConEd Rainey 345/138 kV (8W) x x
J ConEd Rainey 345/138 kV (8E) x
K LIPA Dunwoodie - Shore Rd 345 kV (Y50) x
K LIPA Kings - Pilgrim 138 kV (880) x
K LIPA Kings - West Bus 138 kV x
K LIPA Elwood 2 - Greenlawn 138kV (138-673) x
K LIPA Valley Stream 2 - East Garden City 2 138 kV x
K LIPA Syosset - Greenlawn 138 kV (138-676) x
K LIPA Syosset - Oakwood 138 kV (138-675) x
K LIPA Northport 3 - Pilgrim 138 kV (138-679) x
K LIPA Northport 1 - Pilgrim 138 kV (138-677) x
K LIPA Elwood 1 - Northport 2 138 kV (138-681) x

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 94

 Key Findings of the 70x30 Scenario
As policymakers advance an implementation plan for the CLCPA, this assessment is intended to
complement their efforts and provide information about possible challenges. The 70x30 RNA scenario
builds on the 2019 CARIS 70x30 scenario to model state-mandated policy goals, and supplements the 2019
CARIS Key Findings.

1. Adding renewables: The NYCA system represented in cases with the renewable resource mix
added is reliable with a significant surplus of resources when not taking into consideration
potential retirements.

2. Surplus generation: Depending on load, approximately 10% (70x30 Base Load) - 45% (70x30
Scenario Load) of fossil plants could be removed before exceeding LOLE criterion. The age-
based approach to remove fossil plants results in concentrating the removal in zones that had
the least amount of generation surplus. The total fossil removal also depends on other factors
such as unit unavailability, maintenance and location.

3. Nuclear sensitivity: Retirement of nuclear plants would result in less surplus capacity and
therefore more conventional generation (currently fossil-fueled) would need to be retained in
order to maintain a reliable system.

4. Energy storage resources: Energy storage resources may provide a benefit to the system
from a reliability standpoint by assisting in meeting peak load (subject to limitations identified
in this report), thus allowing for additional fossil units to be retired. Resources with a duration
longer than four hours would provide additional benefit to the system.

5. Curtailments due to local constraints: Alleviating the local transmission constraints that
cause renewable curtailments, while beneficial from an annual energy production perspective
as shown in CARIS, would not significantly offset the need for conventional generation to meet
system demands reliably.

6. Dispatchable generation: Even with a high output from intermittent renewable resources,
there is still a need for significant amounts of dispatchable generation to meet reliability
requirements at various times throughout the year, including peak load. Dispatchable
resources would be needed to fill the gaps created when intermittent renewable resources are
not producing energy. Even with a large amount of installed capacity of renewable resources,
there would still be a need for significant dispatchable generation to meet reliability
requirements at various times throughout the year, including peak load. To maintain system

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 95

 transmission security, approximately 750 MW of dispatchable resources would be needed in
addition to the 24,700 MW of dispatchable resources remaining in the model (i.e. after age-
based removals and peakers).

7. Additional Resource Adequacy Considerations: The resource adequacy simulations did not
consider potential reliability impacts due to:

 Intra-zonal constraints on the transmission system;

 Changes on the transmission system as a result of the resource additions or

subtractions; and

 Unit commitment, ramp rate constraints, and other production cost modeling
techniques.

8. Transmission security thermal considerations: Thermal loading issues are observed in the
peak load case with a high penetration of land-based wind, off-shore wind, and solar, as well as
in a peak case without these resources. Dispatchable resources beyond those identified in
resource adequacy would be needed in the downstate area to address thermal reliability
criteria violations.

The NYISO will continue to monitor and track system changes. Subsequent studies, such as the
Comprehensive Reliability Plan, the Climate Change Impact and Resilience Study, and future economic and
public policy planning studies will build upon the findings of this 70x30 Scenario. To inform policymakers,
investors and other stakeholders as implementation unfolds, these forward-looking studies will provide
further assessment of the CLCPA.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 96

9. Reliability Compliance Obligations and Activities
The Reliability Needs Assessment is not the only NYISO work product or activity related to reliability
planning. The purpose of this section is to discuss the NERC Planning Coordinator and Transmission
Planner obligations fulfilled by the NYISO as well as the other NPCC and NYSRC planning compliance
obligations. The NYISO has various compliance obligations under NERC, NPCC, and the NYSRC. The
periodicity of these requirements varies amongst the standards and requirements. While achieving
compliance with all NERC, NPCC, and NYSRC obligations is critical to ensuring the continued reliability of
the transmission system, this section primarily discusses in some detail the planning compliance
requirements that closely align with this Reliability Needs Assessment. The full details of the compliance
obligations are found within the reliability standards and requirements themselves. Publically available
results for the compliance activities listed below are found on the NYISO website under Planning –
Reliability Compliance22.

The purpose of the NERC Reliability Standards is to “define the reliability requirements for planning
and operating the North American bulk power system and are developed using a results-based approach
that focuses on performance, risk management, and entity capabilities.” The objective of NPCC Directory #1
and the NYSRC Reliability Rules and Compliance Manual are to provide a “design-based approach” to
design and operate the bulk power system to a level of reliability that will not result in the loss or
unintentional separation of a major portion of the system from any of the planning and operations
contingencies with the intent of avoiding instability, voltage collapse and widespread cascading outages.
Figure 82 shows the various NERC Standards with requirements applicable to the NYISO as a NERC
registered Planning Coordinator and/or Transmission Planner. The NPCC planning compliance obligations
are primarily located in NPCC Regional Reliability Reference Directory #1 Design and Operation of the Bulk
Power System. The NYSRC planning compliance obligations are located in the Reliability Rules and
Compliance Manual.

Fundamental to any reliability study is the accuracy modeling data provided by the entities
responsible for providing the data. The data requirements for the development of the steady state,
dynamics, and short circuit models is provided in the NYISO Reliability Analysis Data Manual (RAD
Manual).23 This data primarily comes from compliance with NERC MOD standards. Much of this data is
collected through the annual database update process outlined in the RAD Manual and the annual FERC
Form 715 filing to which the transmitting utilities certify, to the best of their knowledge, the accuracy of the

22 https://www.nyiso.com/planning-reliability-compliance
23 https://www.nyiso.com/documents/20142/2924447/rel-anl-data-mnl.pdf

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 97

data. Additional compliance obligations provide for the accuracy of the modeling data through comparison
to actual system events (e.g., MOD-026, MOD-026, and MOD-033).

Following the completion of the annual database update, these databases are used for study work such
as the Reliability Planning Process, and for many other compliance obligations such as those listed in
Figure 82. Planning studies similar to the Reliability Planning Process include the NPCC/NYSRC Area
Transmission Reviews (ATRs) and the NERC TPL-001 assessments.

Figure 82: List of NERC Standards for Planning Coordinators and Transmission Planners

Standard Title Purpose

Name
FAC-002 Facility Interconnection Studies To study the impact of interconnecting new or materially
modified Facilities to the Bulk Electric System.
FAC-010 System Operating Limits To ensure that System Operating Limits (SOLs) used in the
Methodology for the Planning reliable planning of the Bulk Electric System (BES) are
Horizon determined based on an established methodology or
methodologies.
FAC-013 Assessment of Transfer To ensure that Planning Coordinators have a methodology for,
Capability for the Near-Term and perform an annual assessment to identify potential future
Transmission Planning Horizon Transmission System weaknesses and limiting Facilities that
could impact the Bulk Electric System's (BES) ability to reliably
transfer energy in the Near-Term Transmission Planning
Horizon.
FAC-014 Establish and Communicate To ensure that System Operating Limits (SOLs) used in the
System Operating Limits reliable planning and operation of the Bulk Electric System
(BES) are determined based on an established methodology
or methodologies.
IRO-017 Outage Coordination To ensure that outages are properly coordinated in the
Operations Planning time horizon and Near-Term
Transmission Planning Horizon.
MOD-020 Providing Interruptible Demands To ensure that assessments and validation of past events and
and Direct Control Load databases can be performed, reporting of actual demand data
Management Data to System is needed. Forecast demand data is needed to perform
Operators and Reliability future system assessments to identify the need for system
Coordinators reinforcement for continued reliability. In addition to assist a
proper real-time operating, load information related to
controllable Demand-Side Management programs is needed.
MOD-026 Verification of Models and Data To verify that the generator excitation control system or plant
for Generator Excitation Control volt/var control function model (including the power system
System or Plant Volt/VAR Control stabilizer model and the impedance compensator model) and
Functions the model parameters used in dynamic simulations accurately
represent the generator excitation control system or plant
volt/var control function behavior when assessing Bulk
Electric System (BES) reliability.
MOD-027 Verification of Models and Data To verify that the turbine/governor and load control or active
for Turbine/Governor and Load power/frequency control model and the model parameters,
Control or Active used in dynamic simulations that assess Bulk Electric System
Power/Frequency Control (BES) reliability, accurately represent generator unit real
Functions power response to system frequency variations.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 98

 Standard Title Purpose
Name
MOD-031 Demand and Energy Data To provide authority for applicable entities to collect Data,
energy and related data to support reliability studies and
assessments to enumerate the responsibilities and
obligations of requestors and respondents of that data.
MOD-032 Data for Power System Modeling To establish consistent modeling data requirements and
and Analysis reporting procedures for development of planning horizon
cases necessary to support analysis of the reliability of the
interconnected transmission system.
MOD-033 Steady State and Dynamic To establish consistent validation requirements to facilitate
System Model Validation the collection of accurate data and building of planning
models to analyze the reliability of the interconnected
transmission system.
PRC-002 Disturbance Monitoring and To have adequate data available to facilitate analysis of Bulk
Reporting Requirements Electric System (BES) Disturbances
PRC-006 Automatic Underfrequency Load To establish design and documentation requirements for
Shedding automatic underfrequency load shedding (UFLS) programs to
arrest declining frequency, assist recovery of frequency
following underfrequency events and provide last resort
system preservation measures.
PRC-006- Automatic Underfrequency Load The NPCC Automatic Underfrequency Load Shedding (UFLS)
NPCC Shedding regional Reliability Standard establishes more stringent and
specific NPCC UFLS program requirements than the NERC
continent-wide PRC-006 standard. The program is designed
such that declining frequency is arrested and recovered in
accordance with established NPCC performance requirements
stipulated in this document.
PRC-010 Undervoltage Load Shedding To establish an integrated and coordinated approach to the
design, evaluation, and reliable operation of Undervoltage
Load Shedding Programs (UVLS Programs).
PRC-023 Transmission Relay Loadability Protective relay settings shall not limit transmission
loadability; not interfere with system operators' ability to take
remedial action to protect system reliability and; be set to
reliably detect all fault conditions and protect the electrical
network from these faults.
PRC-026 Relay Performance During Stable To ensure that load-responsible protective relays are expected
Power Swings to not trip in response to stable power swings during non-Fault
conditions.
TPL-001 Transmission System Planning Establish Transmission system planning performance
Performance Requirements requirements within the planning horizon to develop a Bulk
Electric System (BES) that will operate reliably over a broad
spectrum of System conditions and following a wide range of
probable Contingencies.
TPL-007 Transmission System Planned Establish requirements for Transmission system planned
Performance for Geomagnetic performance during geomagnetic disturbance (GMD) events.
Disturbance Events

NPCC/NYSRC Area Transmission Reviews

The NPCC/NYSRC Area Transmission Reviews (ATRs) are performed on an annual basis to
demonstrate that conformance with the performance criteria specified in NPCC Directory #1 and the
NYSRC Reliability Rules. The ATR is prepared in accordance with NPCC and NYSRC procedures that require

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 99

the assessment to be performed annually, with a Comprehensive Area Transmission Review performed at
least every five years. Either an Interim or an Intermediate review can be conducted between
Comprehensive reviews, as appropriate. In an Interim review, the planning coordinator summarizes the
changes in planned facilities and forecasted system conditions since the last Comprehensive review and
assesses the impact of those changes. No new analysis are required for an Interim review. An Intermediate
review covers all the elements of a Comprehensive review, but the analysis may be limited to addressing
only significant issues, considering the extent of the system changes. In the ATRs, the NYISO assesses the
BPTF for a period four to six years in the future (the NYISO evaluates year five of the Study Period). The
most recent NYISO Comprehensive ATR (2015) was completed in June 2016.24 The most recent annual
ATR (2019)25 evaluated study year 2024 and found that the planned system through year 2024 conforms
to the reliability criteria described in the NYSRC Reliability Rules and NPCC Directory #1. The 2020 ATR,
currently underway, is a Comprehensive review, to be completed mid-2021. Seven assessments are
required as part of each ATR.

The first assessment evaluates the steady state and dynamics transmission security. For instances
where the transmission security assessments results indicate that the planned system does not meet the
specified criteria, a corrective action plan is incorporated to achieve conformance. As part of the ATRs, and
also for compliance with NERC FAC-013, thermal, voltage, and stability transfer limits are performed to
identify the limiting constraints for power transfers. The most resent ATR found no steady state or
dynamics transmission security criteria violations.

For the second assessment, steady state and dynamics analysis are conducted to evaluate the
performance of the system for low probability extreme contingencies. The purpose of the extreme
contingency analysis is to examine the post contingency steady state conditions, as well as stability,
overload, cascading outages, and voltage collapse, to obtain an indication of system robustness and to
determine the extent of any potential widespread system disturbance. In instances where the extreme
contingency assessment concludes there are serious consequences, the NYISO evaluates implementing a
change to design or operating practices to address the issues.

The extreme contingency analysis included in the most recent ATR concludes that the system
remained stable during most events and showed no thermal overloads over short-term emergency (STE)
ratings or significant voltage violations on the BPTF. For the events that did show voltage, thermal, or
dynamics issues, these events were local in nature (loss of local load or reduction of location generation)

24 https://www.nyiso.com/planning-reliability-compliance
25 https://www.nyiso.com/documents/20142/1397660/2019-NYISO-Interim-ATR-Final.pdf

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 100

and did not result in a widespread system disturbance.

The third assessment evaluates extreme system conditions that have a low probability of occurrence
such as high peak load conditions (e.g., 90th percentile load) resulting from extreme weather or the loss of
fuel supply from a given resource (e.g., loss of all gas units under winter peak load). The extreme system
conditions evaluate various design criteria contingencies to evaluate the post contingency steady state
conditions, as well as stability, overload, cascading outages and voltage collapse. The evaluation of extreme
contingencies indicate system robustness and determine the extent of any potential widespread system
disturbance. In instances where the extreme contingency assessment concludes that there are serious
consequences, the NYISO evaluates implementing a change to design or operating practices to address the
issues. For the extreme system conditions evaluated in the most recent ATR, the assessment found no
steady state or dynamics transmission security criteria violations.

The fourth assessment evaluates the breaker fault duty at BPTF buses. The most recent ATR found no
over-dutied breakers on BPTF buses.

The fifth assessment evaluates other requirements specific to the NYSRC Reliability Rules including an
evaluation of the impacts of planned system expansion or configuration facilities on the NYCA System
Restoration Plan and Local Area Operation Rules for New York City Operations, loss of gas supply – New
York City, and loss of gas supply – Long Island.

The sixth assessment is a review of Special Protection Systems (SPSs). This review evaluates the
designed operation and possible consequences of failure to operate or mis-operation of the SPS within the
NYCA.

The seventh assessment is a review of requested exclusions to the NPCC Directory #1 criteria.

NERC Planning Assessments (TPL-001)

The NERC TPL-001 assessment (Planning Assessment) is performed annually. The purpose of the
Planning Assessment is to demonstrate conformance with the applicable NERC transmission system
planning performance requirements for the NYCA Bulk Electric System (BES). The Planning Assessment is
a coordinated study between the NYISO and New York Transmission Owners.

The required system conditions to evaluate for this assessment include planned system
representations over a 10-year study period for a variety of system conditions. Figure 83 provides a
description of the steady state, dynamics, and short circuit cases required to be evaluated in the Planning
Assessment.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 101

Figure 83: Description of NERC TPL-001 Planning Assessment Study Cases

Case Description Steady State Dynamics Short Circuit

System Peak Load (Year 1 or 2) x

System Peak Load (Year 5) x x x
1
System Peak Load (Year 10) x x
System Off-Peak Load (One of the 5 years) x x
System Peak Load (Year 1 or 2) Sensitivity x
System Peak Load (Year 5) Sensitivity x x
System Off-Peak Load (One of the 5 years) Sensitivity x x
Notes:
1. Only required to be assessed to address the impact of proposed material generation additions or changes in that
timeframe.

The steady state and dynamics transmission security analyses evaluate the New York State BES to
meet the applicable criteria. As part of this assessment, the unavailability of major transmission equipment
with a lead time of more than a year is also assessed. The fault duty at BES buses are evaluated in the
short-circuit representation. When the steady state, dynamics, or short circuit analysis indicates an
inability of the system to meet the performance requirements in the standard, a corrective action plan is
developed addressing how the performance requirements will be met. Corrective action plans are
reviewed in subsequent Planning Assessments for continued validity and implementation status.

For each steady state and dynamics case, the Planning Assessment evaluates the system response to
extreme contingencies. Similar to the ATR, when the Planning Assessment extreme contingency analysis
concludes there is cascading caused by an extreme contingency, the NYISO evaluates possible actions
designed to reduce the likelihood or mitigate the consequences and adverse impacts.

The most recent NERC Planning Assessment for compliance with TPL-001 was completed in June
2020. As this study contains Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII), it is not posted on the NYISO
website. Generally, the results of this study are consistent with the ATR studies. Given that the study scope
of this assessment is different from the ATR is different (because the ATR evaluates the BPTF while the TPL
evaluates the BES), criteria violations were observed. The corrective action plans for criteria violations are
generally addressed in the affected Transmission Owner’s LTP and/or the proposed transmission facilities
listed in Section 7 of the Load and Capacity Data Report.

Resource Adequacy Compliance Efforts

NPCC’s Directory 1 defines a compliance obligation for the NYISO, as Resource Planner and Planning
Coordinator, to perform a resource adequacy study evaluating a five-year planning horizon. The NYISO

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 102

delivers a report every year under this study process to verify the system against the one-day-in-ten-years
loss of load expectation (LOLE) criterion, usually based on the latest available RNA/CRP results and
assumptions. The New York Area Review of Resource Adequacy completed reports are available at:
https://www.nyiso.com/planning-reliability-compliance.

NYSRC Reliability Rules have recently added a requirement26 that the NYISO deliver a Long Term
Resource Adequacy Assessment report every RNA year, and an annual update in the non-RNA years. The
NYISO will first implement this requirement after finalizing the 2020 RNA.

The NYISO is also actively involved in other activities such as the NERC’s annual Long Term Reliability
Assessment (LTRA), along with its biennial Probabilistic Assessment (ProbA), performed by NERC with the
input from all the NERC Regions and Areas, as well as NPCC’s Long Range Adequacy Overview (LROA).

26 NYSRC Reliability Rule A.3, R.3.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 103

10. New York Grid Assessments and Initiatives
Clean energy policies are reshaping the grid in unprecedented ways. New York’s electric industry is
transforming from a grid that is powered by traditional synchronous, controllable generation to more non-
emitting, weather-dependent intermittent resources and distributed generation. The increase in the
intermittent and distributed generation, along with the related penetration of inverter-based technology,
creates new challenges. The wholesale markets in New York are continuing to evolve to provide the price
and investment signals necessary to reflect system needs and to incent resources capable of resolving those
needs.

The NYISO is forecasting higher growth in energy usage, which can be attributed in part to the
increasing impact of electric vehicle usage and other electrification (i.e., conversion of home heating,
cooking, water heating, and other end-uses from fossil-fuel based systems to electric systems) especially in
the later years of the planning horizon. Significant load-reducing impacts are expected to occur due to
energy efficiency initiatives and the growth of distributed behind-the-meter energy resources, such as solar
PV. The relative behind-the-meter solar impact on peak declines over time as the summer peak is expected
to shift slightly further into the evening.

The NYISO has initiated a number of assessments of the impacts of various policies, including:

• 2019 Congestion Assessment and Resource Integration Study (“CARIS”), Phase I – The
NYISO’s congestion assessment under the Economic Planning Process. The recent study
contains a 70x30 scenario; one of the key findings is that renewable generation pockets are
likely to develop throughout the state as the existing transmission grid would be overwhelmed
by the significant renewable capacity additions. The results support the conclusion that
additional transmission expansion, at both bulk and local levels, will be necessary to efficiently
deliver renewable energy to New York consumers.

• Climate Change Study Phase I: Long Term Load Impacts – This study was performed by the
NYISO in collaboration with Itron. The core finding is that temperatures are rising across New
York and will have a significant impact on electric grid demand.

• Climate Change Study Phase II: Reliability and Resiliency - The NYISO retained the Analysis
Group (AG) to develop/analyze resource mixes to serve load under the CLCPA 2040 state goals
and then analyze various climate change-related scenarios that could impact the electric
system. One reasoned approach to gain an understanding of the challenges that may be faced
was to develop book-end type resource mixes where one of the key variables is increasing the

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 104

 major interface capability versus the status quo. Using these bookend resource mixes, analysis
can be performed and conclusions developed that can then be interpolated for mixes between
the bookends. As the major interface capability is increased, the levels of land-based wind and
upstate solar resources that can be incorporated into the system will increase. This increase in
the capability of the transmission system from upstate to downstate will allow the output from
significant increases in those renewable resources located upstate to serve load downstate.
The Analysis Group also analyzed scenarios to determine the reliability impacts of heat waves,
cold spells, droughts, and severe storms. One of the conclusions of the AG work is the need for
significant amounts of a dispatchable emission-free resource in the downstate area. A key
driving factor in terms of the amount of generation resource buildout needed is the CLCPA
2040 forecast from the Climate Change Phase 1 study. This load forecast shows a significantly
higher winter peaking load level when compared to the summer peak, and therefore the
resource mix needed to meet the winter peak demand.

• Climate Change Study Phase III: Markets – to be initiated in 2021

• Reliability and Market Considerations For A Grid In Transition: The NYISO initiated a white
paper followed by assessments focusing on potential market enhancements. The NYISO
supports reliability through three complementary markets: energy, ancillary services, and
capacity. Each market addresses distinct reliability needs through competitive market pricing
that benefits New York consumers while reducing costs. Together, energy, ancillary services,
and capacity market revenues provide economic signals for new investment, retirement
decisions, and participation by demand response providers. The Grid in Transition looked into
how the wholesale markets in New York can continue to provide the pricing and investment
signals necessary to reflect system needs and to incent resources capable of resolving those
needs.

In addition to these NYISO initiatives, the State of New York is engaging in its own analysis of the
future needs of the electric transmission system. The Accelerated Renewable Energy Growth and
Community Benefit Act (the “Act”)27 enacted in 2020 calls for the New York State Department of Public
Service (DPS) to “undertake a comprehensive study for the purpose of identifying distribution upgrades,
local transmission upgrades, and bulk transmission investments that are necessary or appropriate to
facilitate the timely achievement of the CLCPA targets.”28 The Act states that the DPS will conduct that

27 L. 2020, ch. 58, Part JJJ, § 7(5).

28 Id., § 7(2).

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 105

study in consultation with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (“NYSERDA”),
the Power Authority of the State of New York (NYPA), the Long Island Power Authority (“LIPA”), the New
York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO), and the utilities.29 The NYISO is providing technical
support and input for the study.

A Grid In Transition: Reliability Gap Analysis

As part of the Grid in Transition white paper, the NYISO conducted a reliability gap analysis to identify
ways in which the transition towards intermittent resources could lead to operational circumstances that
may violate system reliability requirements. The analysis included potential areas that the NYISO must be
prepared to address in order to continue to meet mandatory reliability standards, such as:

■ Maintaining ability to balance load and generation: Balancing high levels of intermittent
generation with system demand that may be difficult to forecast in
real-time operations.

■ Maintaining 10-minute operating reserves: High levels of intermittent resources may result
in challenges to maintaining sufficient 10-minute operating reserves and disturbance-control
performance requirements.

■ Maintaining total 30-minute operating reserves: High levels of intermittent resources may
lead to challenges in meeting operating reserve requirements in response to longer-term
variations in generation levels from intermittent generation.

■ Maintaining ability to meet daily energy requirements: Reliance on high levels of

intermittent resources and limited energy storage resources may present challenges to meeting
control-performance requirements and daily energy requirements in real-time operations.

■ Maintaining reliable transmission operations: It may become difficult to forecast system

and locational demand requirements in real time when operating under high levels of
intermittent generation.

■ Maintaining black start capability: The NYISO may be challenged to effectively restore the
system within expected timeframes following a blackout given a system with high levels of
intermittent generation.

■ Maintaining voltage support capability: The NYISO may be challenged to meet voltage
performance requirements with high levels of intermittent generation.

■ Maintaining frequency response capability: The NYISO may be challenged to meet frequency
performance requirements for a power system with high levels of intermittent generation.

29 Id.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 106

 ■ Maintaining resource adequacy: The NYISO may be challenged to maintain acceptable levels
of resource adequacy.

■ Maintaining the ability to manage supply resource outage schedules: The NYISO may be
challenged to manage supply resource maintenance outage scheduling.

These concepts will continued to be explored in the 2021-2030 Comprehensive Reliability Plan and
numerous other reliability studies in the near future. None of the identified potential reliability gaps
relative to intermittent resources represent near-term concerns. However, the challenge for the NYISO is to
design and implement a portfolio of market products, reliability planning, and operational enhancements
that facilitate achievement of clean energy policies while maintaining system reliability through the
competitive wholesale electricity markets. There may also be a need for review of established reliability
criteria to address reliability gaps that may arise due to the changing system operating characteristics as
New York transitions to a zero emission resource mix.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 107

11. Observations and Recommendations
This 2020 Reliability Needs Assessment (RNA) assesses the resource adequacy and transmission
security of the New York Control Area (NYCA) Bulk Power Transmission Facilities (BPTF) from study
year30 4 (i.e., 2024) through year 10 (i.e., 2030), which constitutes the Study Period of this RNA.

This 2020 Reliability Needs Assessment finds that there are Reliability Needs on the Bulk Power
Transmission Facilities during the Study Period due to both resource adequacy and transmission security
reliability criteria violations. The deficiencies identified are mainly due to the compound effect of load
forecast increases and the assumed loss of generation in Zone J (New York City), affected by the
Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) Peaker Rule.

In 2020, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation adopted a regulation to limit
nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from simple-cycle combustion turbines (“Peaking Units”) (referred to as
the “Peaker Rule”). The Peaker Rule required all impacted plant owners to file compliance plans by March
2, 2020. NYISO considered the affected Generators’ compliance plans in the development of the 2020
Reliability Needs Assessment Base Case.

From the resource adequacy perspective, the Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE) is at or above New York
State Reliability Council’s (NYSRC’s) and Northeast Power Coordinating Council’s (NPCC’s) criterion of one
day in 10 years, or 0.1 days per year, starting in year 6 (2026) of the RNA Study Period, and increasing
through year 10 (2030). Therefore, the NYISO identifies resource adequacy Reliability Needs starting in
2027, with the year 2026 being at the resource adequacy criterion with an LOLE of 0.10 days/year.

The transmission security Reliability Needs include both thermal loading criteria violations on the
BPTF as well as dynamic stability criteria violations. For thermal loading, several 345 kV circuits in the Con
Edison service territory are overloaded under N-1-1 conditions beginning in year 2025 and increasing
through 2030. Additionally, the Con Edison 345 kV system has violations of an NYSRC local reliability rule
to design and operate 345 kV transmission system for the occurrence of a second contingency (N-1-1-0).
The 345 kV circuit overloads under N-1-1-0 conditions in Zone J begin in 2025 (with a deficiency of 700
MW) and increasing through 2030 (with a deficiency of 1,075 MW). The duration of the deficiency ranges

30 In 2019 the NYISO proposed to stakeholders creating a Short-Term Reliability Process (“STRP”) to evaluate and address reliability impacts
resulting from both Generator deactivations and other drivers of Reliability Needs that are identified in a quarterly Short-Term Assessment of
Reliability study. The NYISO made a tariff filing at FERC to create the STRP in February 2020, requesting a May 1, 2020 effective date. The FERC
accepted the NYISO filing on April 30, 2020, and the first quarterly STAR commenced on July 15, 2020. The 2020 RNA also incorporates the effects
of these tariff changes by assessing Reliability Needs in years 4-10 of the Study Period, while the STRP assesses five years from its start date, with a
focus on addressing needs in years 1-3 of the Study Period.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 108

from 9 hours in 2025 (3,853 MWh) to 12 hours in 2030 (7,672 MWh).

The dynamic stability criteria Reliability Needs are observed for the entire Study Period. The criteria
violations include violations of transient voltage response, loss of generator synchronism, and undamped
voltage oscillations. The transient voltage response violations arise on transmission facilities owned by Con
Edison in its Transmission District but extending into areas adjacent to their service territory. The loss of
generator synchronism is observed in generators within or near the Astoria and Greenwood load pockets
and is primarily driven by the transient voltage response violations in the local area.

In addition, the 2020 Reliability Need Assessment analyzes risks to the BPTF under certain scenarios to
inform NYISO stakeholders when developing projects, as well as informing policy makers when
formulating state policy.

The results of the 2020 Reliability Need Assessment scenarios indicate that a higher load level, or
proposed projects assumed in service in the Reliability Need Assessment Base Case not materializing, or
additional removal of capacity, could cause additional Reliability Needs, or Reliability Needs that occur
earlier.

In addition to the above-referenced scenarios, the NYISO also discusses the reliability risks associated
with the cumulative impact of environmental laws and regulations, which may affect the flexibility in plant
operation and may make fossil-fueled plants energy-limited resources.

A number of recent state policies and initiatives, along with various Department of Environmental
Conservation rulemakings are underway that have the potential to significantly change the resource mix in
the New York Control Area. These include the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA),
the Accelerate Renewable Energy Growth and Community Benefit Act, the Clean Energy Standard, the
Offshore Wind Master Plan, the Large-Scale Renewable Program, the Zero Emission Credits Program for the
James A. FitzPatrick, R.E Ginna and Nine Mile Point nuclear power plants, and the implementation of the
DEC Peaker Rule. The NYISO will continue to monitor these and other developments to determine whether
changing system resources and conditions could impact the reliability of the Bulk Power Transmission
Facilities.

As part of its ongoing Reliability Planning Process, the NYISO monitors and tracks the progress of
market-based projects and regulated backstop solutions, together with other resource additions and
retirements, consistent with its obligation to protect confidential information under its Code of Conduct.
Among other things, the NYISO closely follows: 1. units interconnecting through the NYISO’s
interconnection processes; 2. the development and installation of local transmission facilities; 3. additions,

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 109

mothballs or retirements of generators; 4. the status of mothballed/retired facilities; 5. the continued
implementation of New York State energy efficiency programs, solar PV installations, new wind facilities,
new storage facilities, and other additions due to the Clean Energy Standard and the CLCPA; 6. participation
in the NYISO demand response programs; and 7. the implementation of the DEC Peaker Rule and other new
and proposed environmental regulations that affect the existing generation fleet.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 110

12. Next Steps
This 2020 Reliability Needs Assessment finds that there are Reliability Needs on the Bulk Power
Transmission Facilities during the Study Period (i.e., 2024-2030) due to both resource adequacy and
transmission security Reliability Criteria violations. All Reliability Needs occur within Con Edison’s
transmission district in New York City (Zone J). Therefore, Con Edison is the Responsible Transmission
Owner, as defined by the NYISO OATT. The following are the next steps to be taken in the Reliability
Planning Process.

RNA Base Case Update: Following NYISO Board approval, additional steps are taken to further
minimize unnecessary solicitations. The process allows the NYISO to update the RNA Base Case by
considering status changes of proposed projects such as Local Transmission Owner Plans (LTPs), proposed
generation and transmission, and load forecast or demand response. As part of this step, the NYISO would
consider only those updates that may reduce or eliminate the Reliability Needs and that met the inclusion
rules. This would include any updates to the peak load forecast based on the NYISO’s current
understanding of residual impacts from COVID-19.

Solution Solicitation and Initial Review: If any Reliability Needs remain after these Base Case
updates, the NYISO will solicit market-based solutions, regulated backstop solutions, and alternative
regulated solutions to address the remaining Reliability Needs. The interested and qualified Developers
and Other Developers, as well as the Responsible Transmission Owner(s) can submit solutions within 60
calendar days from the solicitation. The Responsible Transmission Owner(s) must submit regulated
backstop solution(s) to address the Reliability Needs identified in their service territory, which can be
generation, transmission, demand side or combinations. Any Transmission Owner or Other Developer can
submit an alternative regulated solution and any Developer can submit a market-based solution. The
NYISO will review the solutions for completeness.

Viability and Sufficiency Assessments: The NYISO will evaluate whether each proposed solution is
viable and is sufficient to satisfy the identified Reliability Need by the need date. The proposed solutions
may include multiple components and resource types. When evaluating proposed solutions to Reliability
Needs from any Developer, all resource types – generation, transmission, demand response, or a
combination of these resource types – will be considered on a comparable basis as potential solutions to
the Reliability Needs identified. All solutions will be evaluated in the same general timeframe.

Establishment of Trigger Date of Proposed Regulated Solutions: Upon receipt of all proposed
regulated solutions pursuant to OATT Section 31.2.5.1, the NYISO will notify all Developers if any
Developer has proposed a lead time for the implementation of its regulated solution that could result in a

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 111

Trigger Date for the regulated solution within 36 months of the date of the ISO’s presentation of the
Viability and Sufficiency Assessment to the ESPWG. The NYISO will independently analyze the lead time
proposed by each Developer for the implementation of its regulated solution. The NYISO will use the
Developer’s estimate and the NYISO’s analysis to establish the NYISO Trigger Date for each regulated
solution. The NYISO will also establish benchmark lead times for proposed market-based solutions.

Viability and Sufficiency Report: The NYISO will present its Viability and Sufficiency Assessment to
stakeholders, interested parties, and the NYDPS for comment and will indicate at that time whether any of
the proposed regulated solutions found to be viable and sufficient will have a Trigger Date within 36
months of the date of the NYISO’s presentation of the Viability and Sufficiency Assessment to the ESPWG.

Evaluation and Selection of Proposed Regulated Transmission Solutions: If the NYISO determines
that the Trigger Date of any Developer’s proposed regulated solution that was found to be viable and
sufficient will occur within 36 months of the date of the NYISO’s presentation of the Viability and
Sufficiency Assessment to the ESPWG, the NYISO will request that all Developers of regulated transmission
solutions that the NYISO determined were viable and sufficient submit to the NYISO their project
information, as applicable, for: (i) a proposed regulated backstop transmission solution, or (ii) a proposed
alternative regulated transmission solution.

The Comprehensive Reliability Plan documents the NYISO’s findings regarding the viability and
sufficiency of solutions, the trigger dates of regulated solutions, and any recommendations that
implementation of regulated solutions is necessary to maintain system reliability. The draft CRP will reflect
any input from the NYDPS. If the CRP cannot be completed in the two-year planning cycle, the NYISO will
notify stakeholders and provide an estimated completion date and an explanation of the reasons the
additional time is required. The NYISO will include in the draft CRP the list of Developers that qualify and
will identify the proposed solutions that it has determined are viable and sufficient to satisfy the identified
Reliability Need(s) by the need date. The NYISO will identify in the CRP the regulated backstop solution
that the NYISO has determined will meet the Reliability Need by the need date and the Responsible
Transmission Owner. If the NYISO determines at the time of the issuance of the CRP that sufficient market-
based solutions will not be available in time to meet a Reliability Need, and finds that it is necessary to take
action to ensure reliability, it will state in the CRP that the development of regulated solutions (regulated
backstop or alternative regulated solution) is necessary.

Short-Term Reliability Process: Additionally, the needs identified in the Short-Term Reliability
Process in year 1 through year 3 will be addressed in the applicable quarterly Short-Term Assessment of
Reliability (STAR), while the needs identified in years 4 and 5 will only be addressed using the Short-Term

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 112

Reliability Process if the identified Reliability Need cannot timely be addressed through the Reliability
Planning Process.

2020 Reliability Needs Assessment | 113

 New York ISO
A Report by the
New York Independent
System Operator

APPENDICES

2020 Reliability Needs

Assessment (RNA)

November 2020
Table of Contents
APPENDIX A - 2020 RELIABILITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT GLOSSARY ............................................................................................. 1
APPENDIX B - THE RELIABILITY PLANNING PROCESS ................................................................................................................. 8
APPENDIX C - LOAD AND ENERGY FORECAST 2021-2030 ........................................................................................................ 13
Historical Overview ................................................................................................................ 13

Forecast Overview ................................................................................................................. 14

Forecast Methodology ........................................................................................................... 16

Forecast Results.................................................................................................................... 16

APPENDIX D - RESOURCE ADEQUACY AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM SECURITY ASSESSMENTS ............................................ 24

2020 RNA Assumptions Matrix ............................................................................................. 25

Assumptions Matrix for Transmission Security Assessment ................................................. 35

Summary of Proposed Generation and Transmission Assumptions ..................................... 36

RNA Power Flow Base Case Development ............................................................................ 41

2020 RNA MARS Model Base Case Development ................................................................ 54

Emergency Thermal Transfer Limit Analysis for Resource Adequacy Assessments ............. 54

Additional “Free Flow” MARS Simulations Observations....................................................... 57

2020 RNA Short Circuit Assessment..................................................................................... 59

2020 RNA Transmission Security Violations ......................................................................... 66

APPENDIX E – ADDITIONAL EXPLORATORY SCENARIO ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 87

Further Simplified External Areas Model ............................................................................... 87

Different Load Shape - Resource Adequacy only .................................................................. 91

APPENDIX F - HISTORIC CONGESTION ...................................................................................................................................... 92

2020 RNA - Appendices | iii

List of Figures
Figure 1: NYISO’s Comprehensive System Planning Process (CSPP) .......................................................................................... 11

Figure 2: NYISO RPP ................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 3: Historical Energy and Seasonal Peak Demand - Actual and Weather-Normalized ..................................................... 13

Figure 4: Annual Energy and Average Growth – Actual and Forecast ....................................................................................... 14

Figure 5: Actual and Forecast Seasonal Peak Demand and Average Growth, and LFU Multipliers ........................................... 15

Figure 6: Gold Book Baseline Energy Forecast Growth Rates - 2020 to 2030 ........................................................................... 17

Figure 7: 2028 Energy Forecast Comparison between 2018 Gold Book and 2020 Gold Book .................................................. 17

Figure 8: Gold Book Baseline Summer Coincident Peak Demand Forecast Growth Rates – 2020 to 2030 ............................... 18

Figure 9: 2028 Summer Peak Forecast Comparison between 2018 Gold Book and 2020 Gold Book ....................................... 18

Figure 10: Annual Energy by Zone - Actual and 2020 Gold Book Baseline Forecast (GWh) ...................................................... 19

Figure 11: Summer Coincident Peak Demand by Zone - Actual and 2020 Gold Book Baseline Forecast (MW)........................ 20

Figure 12: Winter Coincident Peak Demand by Zone - Actual and 2020 Gold Book Baseline Forecast (MW) .......................... 21

Figure 13: 2020 Gold Book Behind-the-Meter Solar PV Baseline Annual Energy Reductions by Zone (GWh) .......................... 22

Figure 14: 2020 RNA Base Case Annual Energy Forecast with BTM Solar PV Added Back (GWh)............................................. 22

Figure 15: 2020 Gold Book Behind-the-Meter Solar PV Baseline Summer Coincident Peak Demand Reductions by Zone (MW)
................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23

Figure 16: 2020 RNA Base Case Summer Coincident Peak Demand Forecast with BTM Solar PV Added Back (MW) .............. 23

Figure 17: Generation Additions by Year ................................................................................................................................... 36

Figure 18: Deactivations and Peaker Rule Status Change by Year............................................................................................. 36

Figure 19: NYCA and Zone J Summaries .................................................................................................................................... 37

Figure 20: Additional Proposed Generation Projects from the 2020 Gold Book ....................................................................... 38

Figure 21: Additional Proposed Transmission Projects from the 2020 Gold Book .................................................................... 41

Figure 22: Firm Transmission Plans included in 2020 RNA Base Case ....................................................................................... 43

Figure 23: Emergency Thermal Transfer Limits (MW) ............................................................................................................... 54

Figure 24: Dynamic Limit Tables (MW) ...................................................................................................................................... 55

Figure 25: 2018 RNA and 2020 RNA UPNYSNY Dynamic Limit Table ......................................................................................... 56

2020 RNA - Appendices | iv

Figure 26: E to G Dynamic Limit Table ....................................................................................................................................... 57

Figure 27: UPNYSNY Topology Diagram in 2018 RNA and 2020 RNA ........................................................................................ 57

Figure 28: Free Flow Variations Results and Observations........................................................................................................ 58

Figure 29: 2020 RNA Fault Current Analysis Summary Table for 2025 System Representation ............................................... 59

Figure 30: Transmission Security N-1-1 Violations of the 2020 RNA Base Case ........................................................................ 67

Figure 31: Transmission Security N-1-1-0 Violations of the 2020 RNA Base Case ..................................................................... 75

Figure 32: BPTF Bus List for Transient Voltage Response N-1 Violation .................................................................................... 76

Figure 33: BPTF Bus List for Transient Voltage Response N-1-1 Violation ................................................................................. 80

Figure 34: Amount of Assistance Needed in the Simulation through Time............................................................................... 88

Figure 35: NYCA LOLE Response to Emergency Assistance ....................................................................................................... 89

Figure 36: Emergency Assistance Profiles Tested ...................................................................................................................... 89

Figure 37: Base Emergency Assistance Level: 2400 MW ........................................................................................................... 90

Figure 38: Base Emergency Assistance Level: 2700 MW .......................................................................................................... 90

Figure 39: Base Emergency Assistance Level: 3000 MW ........................................................................................................... 91

2020 RNA - Appendices | v

Appendix A - 2020 Reliability Needs Assessment Glossary

Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment (ATRA): An Review submitted to NPCC by the ISO pursuant to NPCC
assessment, conducted by the NYISO staff in cooperation requirements. (Source: Attachment Y of OATT definitions)
with Market Participants, to determine the System Upgrade
CARIS: The Congestion Assessment and Resource Integration
Facilities required for each generation project and Class Year
Study for economic planning developed by the ISO in
Transmission Project included in this Assessment to
consultation with the Market Participants and other
interconnect to the New York State Transmission System in
interested parties pursuant to Section 31.3 of this
compliance with Applicable Reliability Standards and the
Attachment Y. (Source: NYISO OATT)
NYISO Minimum Interconnection Standard. (Source:
Attachment S of OATT) Clean Energy Standard (CES): State initiative for 70% of
electricity consumed in New York State to be produced from
Area Transmission Review (ATR): The NYISO, in its role as
renewable sources by 2030.
Planning Coordinator, is responsible for providing an annual
report to the NPCC Compliance Committee in regard to its Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA):

Area Transmission Review in accordance with the NPCC State statute enacted in 2019 to address and mitigate the

Reliability Compliance and Enforcement Program and in effects of climate change. Among other requirements, the law

conformance with the NPCC Design and Operation of the Bulk mandates that; (i) 70% of energy consumed in New York

Power System. (Source: NPCC Directory #1) State be sourced from renewable resources by 2030, (ii)
greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by 40% by
Baseline Forecast: The baseline forecasts from the NYISO’s
2030, (iii) the electric generation sector must be zero
Gold Book report the expected NYCA load, and include the
greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, and (iv) greenhouse gas
projected impacts of energy efficiency programs, building
emissions across all sectors of the economy must be reduced
codes and standards, distributed energy resources, behind-
by 85% by 2050. (Source: 2019 CARIS Phase I)
the-meter energy storage, behind-the-meter solar
photovoltaic power (solar PV), electric vehicle usage, and Contingencies: An actual or potential unexpected failure or

electrification of heating and other end uses. The baseline outage of a system component, such as a generator,

forecasts are used in the RNA Base Cases for determining transmission line, circuit breaker, switch, or other electrical

Bulk Power Transmission Facilities Reliability Needs for the element. A contingency also may include multiple
RNA Study Period. (Source: 2020 Gold Book) components, which are related by situations leading to
simultaneous component outages. (Source: NYSRC Reliability
Best Technology Available (BTA): NYS DEC policy establishing
Rules)
performance goals for new and existing electricity generating
plants for Cooling Water Intake Structures. The policy applies Dependable Maximum Net Capability (DMNC): The sustained

to plants with design intake capacity greater than 20 million maximum net output of a Generator, as demonstrated by the

gallons/day and prescribes reductions in fish mortality. The performance of a test or through actual operation, averaged

performance goals call for the use of wet, closed-cycle over a continuous time period as defined in the ISO

cooling systems at existing generating plants. (Source: Procedures. (Source: OATT Definitions)

Section 316(b), Clean Water Act, United States Electric System Planning Work Group (ESPWG): The Electric
Environmental Protection Agency) System Planning Work Group, or any successor work group or

New York State Bulk Power Transmission Facility (BPTF): The committee designated to fulfill the functions assigned to the

facilities identified as the New York State Bulk Power ESPWG in this tariff. (Source: Attachment S of OATT)

Transmission Facilities in the annual Area Transmission

2020 RNA - Appendices | 1

Emergency Transfer Criteria: It is intended that the NYS Bulk contains the 180th day of its Forced Outage but may be
Power System be operated within Normal Transfer Criteria at extended if the Market Participant has Commenced Repair of
all times insofar as possible. However, in the event that its Generator. (Source: Market Services Tariff-MST-
adequate facilities are not available to supply firm load within Definitions)
Normal Transfer Criteria, emergency transfer criteria may be
Gold Book: Annual NYISO publication of its Load and Capacity
invoked. Under emergency transfer criteria, transfers may be
Data Report.
increased up to, but not exceed, emergency ratings and limits
as follows: Installed Capacity (ICAP): External or Internal Capacity, in
increments of 100 kW that is made available pursuant to
a. Pre-contingency line and equipment loadings may be
Tariff requirements and ISO Procedures (Source: NYISO’s
operated up to LTE ratings for up to four (4) hours, provided
MST Definitions).
the STE ratings are set appropriately. Otherwise, pre-
contingency line and equipment loadings must be within Installed Capacity Requirement (ICR): The annual statewide

normal ratings. Pre-contingency voltages and transmission requirement established by the NYSRC in order to ensure

interface flows must be within applicable pre-contingency resource adequacy in the NYCA. (Source: NYSRC Reliability

voltage and stability limits. Rules)

b. Post-contingency line and equipment loadings within STE Installed Reserve Margin (IRM): The amount of installed

ratings. Post-contingency voltages and transmission interface electric generation capacity above 100% of the forecasted

flows within applicable post-contingency voltage and stability peak electric demand that is required to meet NYSRC

limits. (Source: NYSRC Reliability Rules) resource adequacy criteria. Most studies in recent years have
indicated a need for a 15-20% reserve margin for adequate
Fault: An electrical short circuit. (Source: NYSRC Reliability
reliability in New York.
Rules)
Local Transmission Plan (LTP): The Local Transmission Owner
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC): The Federal
Plan, developed by each Transmission Owner, which
Energy Regulatory Agency within the U.S. Department of
describes its respective plans that may be under
Energy that approves the NYISO’s tariffs and regulates its
consideration or finalized for its own Transmission District.
operation of the bulk electricity grid, wholesale power
(Source: Attachment Y of OATT)
markets, and planning and interconnection processes.
Local Transmission Planning Process (LTPP): The Local
FERC Form 715: An annual report that is required by
Planning Process conducted by each Transmission Owner for
transmitting utilities operating grid facilities that are rated at
its own Transmission District. (Source: Attachment Y of OATT)
or above 100 kV. The report consists of transmission systems
maps, a detailed description of transmission planning Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE): The probability (or risk) of

Reliability Criteria, detailed descriptions of transmission disconnecting any firm load due to resource deficiencies shall

planning assessment practices, and detailed evaluation of be, on average, not more than once in ten years. Compliance

anticipated system performance as measured against with this criterion shall be evaluated probabilistically, such

Reliability Criteria. that the loss of load expectation (LOLE) of disconnecting firm
load due to resource deficiencies shall be, on average, no
Forced Outage: An unscheduled inability of a Market
more than 0.1 day per year. This evaluation shall make due
Participant’s Generator to produce Energy that does not meet
allowance for demand uncertainty, scheduled outages and
the notification criteria to be classified as a scheduled outage
deratings, forced outages and deratings, assistance over
or de-rate as established in ISO Procedures. If the Forced
interconnections with neighboring control areas, NYS
Outage of a Generator starts on or after May 1, 2015, the
Transmission System emergency transfer capability, and
Forced Outage will expire at the end of the month which

2020 RNA - Appendices | 2

capacity and/or load relief from available operating also oversees the state’s wholesale electricity markets. The
procedures. (Source: NYSRC Reliability Rules) organization is governed by an independent Board of
Directors and a governance structure made up of committees
Market Monitoring Unit: “Market Monitoring Unit” shall mean
with Market Participants and stakeholders as members.
the consulting or other professional services firm, or other
similar entity, retained by the Board, as specified in Section New York State Department of Public Service (NYDPS): As
30.4.2 of Attachment O, that is responsible for carrying out defined in the New York Public Service Law, it serves as the
the Core Market Monitoring Functions and the other staff for the New York State Public Service Commission.
functions that are assigned to it in Attachment O. The Market
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
Monitoring Unit shall recommend Tariff and market rule
(NYSERDA): A corporation created under the New York State
changes, but shall not participate in the administration of the
Public Authorities law and funded by the System Benefits
ISO’s Tariffs, except as specifically authorized in Attachment
Charge (SBC) and other sources. Among other
O. (Source: Attachment O of MST)
responsibilities, NYSERDA is charged with conducting a
Market Participant: An entity, excluding the ISO, that multifaceted energy and environmental research and
produces, transmits, sells, and/or purchase for resale development program to meet New York State's diverse
Unforced Capacity, Energy or Ancillary Services in the economic needs, and administering state System Benefits
Wholesale Market. Market Participants include: Transmission Charge, Renewable Portfolio Standard, energy efficiency
Customers under the ISO OATT, Customers under the ISO programs, the Clean Energy Fund, and the NY-Sun Initiative.
Services Tariff, Power Exchanges, Transmission Owners,
New York State Public Service Commission (NYPSC): The New
Primary Holders, LSEs, Suppliers and their designated
York State Public Service Commission is the decision making
agents. Market Participants also include entities buying or
body of the New York State Department of Public Service.
selling TCCs. (Source: MST Definitions)
The PSC regulates the state's electric, gas, steam,
New York Control Area (NYCA): New York Control Area (NYCA): telecommunications, and water utilities and oversees the
The Control Area that is under the control of the ISO which cable industry. The Commission has the responsibility for
includes transmission facilities listed in the ISO/TO setting rates and ensuring that safe and adequate service is
Agreement Appendices A-1 and A-2, as amended from time- provided by New York's utilities. In addition, the Commission
to-time, and generation located outside the NYS Power exercises jurisdiction over the siting of major gas and electric
System that is subject to protocols (e.g., telemetry signal transmission facilities.
biasing) which allow the ISO and other Control Area
NY-Sun Initiative: A program initiated by Governor Cuomo in
operator(s) to treat some or all of that generation as though it
2012 and administered by NYSERDA for the purpose of
were part of the NYS Power System. (Source: MST
obtaining more than 6,000 MW-DC of behind-the-meter solar
Definitions)
PV by the end of 2023.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
New York State Reliability Council (NYSRC): An organization
(NYSDEC): The agency that implements the New York State
established by agreement among the Member Systems of the
Environmental Conservation Law, with some programs also
New York Power Pool (the “NYSRC Agreement”). (Source:
governed by federal law.
OATT Definitions)
New York Independent System Operator (NYISO): Formed in
Normal Transfer Criteria: Under normal transfer criteria,
1997 and commencing operations in 1999, the NYISO is a
adequate facilities are available to supply firm load with the
not-for-profit organization that manages New York’s bulk
bulk power transmission system within applicable normal
electricity grid — an over 11,000-mile network of high voltage
ratings and limits as follows:
lines that carry electricity throughout the state. The NYISO

2020 RNA - Appendices | 3

a. Pre-contingency line and equipment loadings within normal Transmission Providers — including the NYISO — to have a
ratings. Pre-contingency voltages and transmission interface formal planning process that provides for a coordinated
flows within applicable pre-contingency voltage and stability transmission planning process, including reliability and
limits. economic planning studies.

b. Post-contingency line and equipment loadings within Order 1000: The Final Rule entitled Transmission Planning
applicable emergency (LTE or STE) ratings. Post-contingency and Cost Allocation by Transmission Owning and Operating
voltages and transmission interface flows within applicable Public Utilities, issued by the Commission on July 21, 2011,
post-contingency voltage and stability limits. in Docket RM10-23-001, as modified on rehearing, or upon
appeal. (See FERC Stats & Regs. ¶ 31,323 (2011) (Order No.
All contingencies listed in Table B2 “NYSRC Planning Design
1000), on reh’g and clarification, 139 FERC ¶ 61,132 (Order
Criteria: Contingency Event, “in the reliability rules apply
No. 1000-A), on reh’g and clarification, 141 FERC ¶ 61,044
under normal transfer criteria. (Source: NYSRC Reliability
(2012) (Order No. 1000- B). (Source: Attachment Y of OATT)
Rules)
Outage: The forced or scheduled removal of generating
Normal Transfer Limit: The maximum allowable transfer is
capacity or a transmission line from service.
calculated based on thermal, voltage, and stability testing,
considering contingencies, ratings, and limits specified for Peak Demand: The maximum instantaneous power demand,
normal conditions. The normal transfer limit is the lowest measured in megawatts (MW), and also known as peak load,
limit based on the most restrictive of these three maximum is usually measured and averaged over an hourly interval.
allowable transfers. (Source: NYSRC Reliability Rules)
Queue Position: Queue position shall mean the order of a
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC): The valid Interconnection Request, Study Request, or
North American Electric Reliability Council or, as applicable, Transmission Interconnection Application relative to all other
the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. (Source: pending Requests, that is established based upon the date
OATT Definitions) and time of receipt of the valid Interconnection Request by
NYISO, unless specifically provided otherwise in an applicable
Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC): The Northeast
transition rule set forth in Attachment P, Attachment X or
Power Coordinating Council, or any successor organization.
Attachment Z to the ISO OATT. (Source: Attachment X of
(Source: Attachment Y of OATT)
OATT)
Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT): Document of Rates,
Rating: The operational limits of an electric system, facility, or
Terms and Conditions, regulated by the FERC, under which
element under a set of specified conditions.
the NYISO provides transmission service. The OATT is a
dynamic document to which revisions are made on a i. Normal Rating: The capacity rating of a transmission facility
collaborative basis by the NYISO, New York’s Electricity that may be carried through consecutive twenty- four (24)
Market Stakeholders, and the FERC. hour load cycles.

Order 890: Adopted by FERC in February 2007, Order 890 is ii. Long Time Emergency (LTE) Rating: The capacity rating of a
a change to FERC’s 1996 transmission open access transmission facility that can be carried through infrequent,
regulations (established in Orders 888 and 889). Order 890 non- consecutive four (4) hour periods.
is intended to provide for more effective competition,
iii. Short Time Emergency (STE) Rating: The capacity rating of
transparency and planning in wholesale electricity markets
a transmission facility that may be carried during very
and transmission grid operations, as well as to strengthen
infrequent contingencies of fifteen (15) minutes or less
the Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) with regard to
duration. (Source: NYSRC Reliability Rules)
non-discriminatory transmission service. Order 890 requires
Reasonably Available Control Technology for Oxides of

2020 RNA - Appendices | 4

Nitrogen (NOx RACT): Regulations promulgated by NYSDEC Reliability Rules)
for the control of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from
Reliability Criteria: The electric power system planning and
fossil fuel-fired power plants. The regulations establish
operating policies, standards, criteria, guidelines, procedures,
presumptive emission limits for each type of fossil fueled
and rules promulgated by the North American Electric
generator and fuel used in an electric generator in NY. The
Reliability Corporation (NERC), Northeast Power Coordinating
NOx RACT limits are part of the State Implementation Plan for
Council (NPCC), and the New York State Reliability Council
achieving compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
(NYSRC), as they may be amended from time to time.
Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. (Source: 6 NYCRR Part 227-2)
(Source: Attachment Y of OATT definition)
Reactive Power Resources: Facilities such as generators, high
Reliability Need: A condition identified by the ISO as a
voltage transmission lines, synchronous condensers,
violation or potential violation of one or more Reliability
capacitor banks, and static VAr compensators that provide
Criteria. (Source: Attachment Y of OATT definition)
reactive power. Reactive power is the portion of electric
power that establishes and sustains the electric and Reliability Needs Assessment (RNA): The Reliability Needs

magnetic fields of alternating-current equipment. Reactive Assessment as approved by the ISO Board under this

power is usually expressed as kilovolt-amperes reactive Attachment. (Source: Attachment Y of OATT definition)

(kVAr) or megavolt-ampere reactive (MVAr). Reliability Planning Process (RPP): The process set forth in

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI): A cooperative this Attachment Y by which the ISO determines in the RNA

effort by a group of Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states to limit whether any Reliability Need(s) on the BPTFs will arise in the

power sector greenhouse gas emissions using a market- Study Period and addresses any identified Reliability Need(s)

based cap-and-trade approach. (Source: in the CRP, as the process is further described in Section

https://www.rggi.org/) 31.1.2.2. (Source: Attachment Y of OATT)

Reliability: The degree of performance of the bulk electric Reliability Solutions:

system that results in electricity being delivered to customers i. Alternative Regulated Solutions (ARS): Regulated solutions
within accepted standards and in the amount desired. submitted by a TO or other developer in response to a
Reliability may be measured by the frequency, duration, and solicitation for solutions to a Reliability Need identified in an
magnitude of adverse effects on the electric supply. Electric RNA.
system reliability can be addressed by considering two basic
ii. Gap Solution: A solution to a Reliability Need that is
and functional aspects of the electric system — adequacy and
designed to be temporary and to strive to be compatible with
security.
permanent market-based proposals. A permanent regulated
i. Adequacy: The ability of the electric systems to supply the solution, if appropriate, may proceed in parallel with a Gap
aggregate electrical demand and energy requirements of Solution. Note: The NYISO may call for a Gap Solution to an
their customers at all times, taking into account scheduled imminent threat to reliability of the Bulk Power Transmission
and reasonably expected unscheduled outages of system Facilities if no market-based solutions, regulated backstop
elements. Note: Adequacy encompasses both generation and solutions, or alternative regulated solutions can meet the
transmission. Reliability Needs in a timely manner.

ii. Security: The ability of the electric system to withstand iii. Market-Based Solutions: Investor-proposed projects that
disturbances such as electric short circuits or unanticipated are driven by market needs to meet future reliability
loss of system elements. The ability of the power system to requirements of the bulk electricity grid as outlined in the
withstand the loss of one or more elements without RNA. Those solutions can include generation, transmission
involuntarily disconnecting firm load. (Source: NYSRC and demand response Programs.

2020 RNA - Appendices | 5

iv. Regulated Backstop Solutions: Proposals required of Short-Term Reliability Process Need: A Generator
certain TOs to meet Reliability Needs as outlined in the RNA. Deactivation Reliability Need or a condition identified by the
Those solutions can include generation, transmission or ISO in a STAR as a violation or potential violation of one or
demand response. Non-Transmission Owner developers may more Reliability Criteria on the BPTF.
also submit regulated solutions. (Source: Attachment Y of
Short-Term Reliability Process Solution: A solution to address
OATT)
a Short-Term Reliability Process Need, which may include (i)
Responsible Transmission Owner (Responsible TO): The an Initiating Generator, (ii) a solution proposed pursuant to
Transmission Owner or Transmission Owners designated by Section 38.4, or (iii) a Generator identified by the ISO
the ISO, pursuant to Section 31.2.4.3, to prepare a proposal pursuant to Section 38.5.
for a regulated backstop solution to a Reliability Need or to
Short-Term Assessment of Reliability Start Date: The date on
proceed with a regulated solution to a Reliability Need. The
which the ISO next commences a STAR after the ISO issues a
Responsible Transmission Owner will normally be the
written notice to a Market Participant pursuant to Section
Transmission Owner in whose Transmission District the ISO
38.3.1.4 indicating that the Generator Deactivation Notice for
identifies a Reliability Need and/or that owns a transmission
its Generator is complete. If a Market Participant’s Generator
facility on which a Reliability Need arises. (Source:
enters into an ICAP Ineligible Forced Outage pursuant to
Attachment Y of OATT definitions)
Section 5.18.2.1 of the ISO Services Tariff, then the Short-
RNA Study Period: The seven-year time period encompassing Term Assessment of Reliability Start Date is the date on
years 4 through 10 following the year in which the RNA is which the ISO next commences a STAR; except (i) when the
conducted, which is used in the RNA and the CRP. For ISO determines that it should commence a stand alone
example, the 2020 RNA covers the 7-year Study Period of Generator Deactivation Assessment based on the potential
2024 through 2030. (Source: Attachment Y of OATT for an immediate reliability need to arise (see Section
definitions with STAR). 38.3.4), or (ii) when the ISO is able to and elects to add a
Generator that is in an ICAP Ineligible Forced Outage to a
Short-Term Assessment of Reliability (STAR): The ISO’s
STAR that has already begun. Under either exception [(i) or
assessment, in coordination with the Responsible
(ii)], the Short-Term Assessment of Reliability Start Date is the
Transmission Owner(s), of whether a Short-Term Reliability
date on which the Generator entered an ICAP Ineligible
Process Need will result from a Generator becoming Retired,
Forced Outage. (Source: Attachment Y, Section 38.1)
entering into a Mothball Outage, a Generator being
unavailable due to an ICAP Ineligible Forced Outage, or from Special Case Resource (“SCR”): Demand Side Resources
other changes to the availability of Resources or to the New whose Load is capable of being interrupted upon demand at
York State Transmission System. The ISO performs STARs on the direction of the ISO, and/or Demand Side Resources that
a quarterly basis, commencing on the dates specified in ISO have a Local Generator, which is not visible to the ISO’s
Procedures. Market Information System and is rated 100 kW or higher,
that can be operated to reduce Load from the NYS
Short-Term Reliability Process: The process set forth in this
Transmission System or the distribution system at the
Attachment FF by which the ISO evaluates and addresses the
direction of the ISO. Special Case Resources are subject to
reliability impacts resulting from both: (i) Generator
special rules, set forth in Section 5.12.11.1 of this ISO
Deactivation Reliability Need(s), and/or (ii) other Reliability
Services Tariff and related ISO Procedures, in order to
Needs on or affecting the BPTFs that are identified in a STAR.
facilitate their participation in the Installed Capacity market
The Short-Term Reliability Process evaluates reliability needs
as Installed Capacity Suppliers. (Source: NYISO MST Tariff
in years one through five of the ten-year Study Period, with a
Definitions)
focus on needs in years one through three.
System Benefits Charge (SBC): An amount of money, charged

2020 RNA - Appendices | 6

to ratepayers on their electric bills, which is administered and Weather Normalized: Adjustments made to normalize the
allocated by NYSERDA towards energy-efficiency programs, impact of weather when making energy and peak demand
research and development initiatives, low-income energy forecasts. Using historical weather data, energy analysts can
programs, and environmental disclosure activities. account for the influence of extreme weather conditions and
adjust actual energy use and peak demand to estimate what
Transfer Capability: The measure of the ability of
would have happened if the hottest day or the coldest day
interconnected electrical systems to reliably move or transfer
had been the typical, or “normal,” weather conditions.
power from one area to another over all transmission
“Normal” is usually calculated by taking the average of the
facilities (or paths) between those areas under specified
previous 20 years of weather data.
system conditions.
Zone: One of the eleven regions in the NYCA connected to
Transmission Constraints: Limitations on the ability of a
each other by identified transmission interfaces and
transmission system to transfer electricity during normal or
designated as Load Zones A-K.
emergency system conditions.

Transmission Owner (TO): A public utility or authority that

owns transmission facilities and provides Transmission
Service under the NYISO’s tariffs

Unforced Capacity: The measure by which Installed Capacity

Suppliers will be rated, in accordance with formulae set forth
in the ISO Procedures, to quantify the extent of their
contribution to satisfy the NYCA Installed Capacity
Requirement, and which will be used to measure the portion
of that NYCA Installed Capacity Requirement for which each
LSE is responsible (Source: Market Services Tariff (MST)
Definitions).

Unforced Capacity Deliverability Rights: Unforced Capacity

Deliverability Rights (UDRs) are rights, as measured in MWs,
associated with (i) new incremental controllable transmission
projects, and (ii) new projects to increase the capability of
existing controllable transmission projects that have UDRs,
that provide a transmission interface to a Locality. When
combined with Unforced Capacity which is located in an
External Control Area or non-constrained NYCA region either
by contract or ownership, and which is deliverable to the
NYCA interface in the Locality in which the UDR transmission
facility is electrically located, UDRs allow such Unforced
Capacity to be treated as if it were located in the Locality,
thereby contributing to an LSE’s Locational Minimum
Installed Capacity Requirement. To the extent the NYCA
interface is with an External Control Area the Unforced
Capacity associated with UDRs must be deliverable to the
Interconnection Point (Source: MST Definitions)

2020 RNA - Appendices | 7

Appendix B - The Reliability Planning Process
This appendix presents an overview of the NYISO’s Reliability Planning Process (RPP). A detailed
discussion of the RPP, including applicable Reliability Criteria, is contained in NYISO Manual titled
“Reliability Planning Process Manual 26,” which is posted on the NYISO’s website.

The NYISO RPP is an integral part of the NYISO’s overall Comprehensive System Planning Process
(CSPP). The CSPP is comprised of four components:

■ Local Transmission Planning Process (LTPP),

■ Reliability Planning Process (RPP), along with the newly defined quarterly Short Term
Reliability Process (STRP)

■ Congestion Assessment and Resource Integration Study (CARIS), and

■ Public Policy Transmission Planning Process.

As part of the LTPP, local Transmission Owners perform transmission security studies for their BPTFs
in their transmission areas according to all applicable criteria. Links to the Transmission Owner’s LTPs can
be found on the NYISO’s website. The LTPP provides inputs for the RPP and STRP.

During the RPP, the NYISO conducts the Reliability Needs Assessment (RNA) and Comprehensive
Reliability Plan (CRP). The RNA evaluates the resource adequacy and transmission security of the bulk
power system over the RNA study period (i.e. year 4 through year 10). In identifying resource adequacy
needs, the NYISO identifies the amount of resources in megawatts (known as “compensatory megawatts”)
and the locations in which they are needed to meet those needs. After the RNA is complete, the NYISO
requests and evaluates market-based solutions, regulated backstop solutions, and alternative regulated
solutions that address the identified Reliability Needs. This step results in the development of the CRP for
the seven-year study period (i.e., year 4 through year 10).

The RPP is a long-range assessment of both resource adequacy and transmission reliability of the New
York bulk power system conducted over a seven-year planning horizon. There are two different aspects to
analyzing the bulk power system’s reliability in the RNA: adequacy and security. Adequacy is a planning
and probabilistic concept. A system is adequate if the probability of having sufficient transmission and
generation to meet expected demand is equal to or less than the system’s standard, which is expressed as a
loss of load expectation (LOLE). The New York State bulk power system is planned to meet an LOLE that, at
any given point in time, is less than or equal to an involuntary load disconnection that is not more frequent

2020 RNA - Appendices | 8

than once in every 10 years, or 0.1 days per year. This requirement forms the basis of New York’s installed
reserve margin (IRM) resource adequacy requirement.

Transmission Security is an operating and deterministic concept. N-1 events are evaluated to assess
their impact on the system, as viewed from the normal (or ‘N’) system condition. N-1-0 and N-1-1 analysis
evaluates the ability of the system to meet design criteria after a critical element has already been lost. An
N-1or N-1-1 violation occurs when the power flowing through a transmission element exceeds its
applicable rating (thermal violation) or the voltage at a bus exceeds its specified range (voltage violation).

Certain areas of the Con Edison system are designed and operated for the occurrence of a second
contingency. This type of combination can be described as N-1-1-0. For N-1-1-0 analysis, after the second
contingency occurs, systems adjustments are allowed to secure the system back to normal ratings. The Con
Edison planning criteria are contained in the NYSRC Reliability Rules, Rule G.1. Accordingly, a violation of
the N-1-1-0 criterion on the BPTFs in the Con Edison Transmission District will be identified as a Reliability
Need in the NYISO’s Reliability Needs Assessment.

The RPP is anchored in the market-based philosophy of the NYISO and its Market Participants, which
posits that market solutions should be the preferred choice to meet the identified Reliability Needs
reported in the RNA. In the CRP, the reliability of the bulk power system is assessed and solutions to
Reliability Needs evaluated in accordance with existing Reliability Criteria of the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Northeast Power Coordinating Council, Inc. (NPCC), and the New York
State Reliability Council (NYSRC) as they may change from time to time. These criteria and a description of
the nature of long-term bulk power system planning are described in detail in the applicable planning
manual, and are briefly summarized below. In the event that market-based solutions do not materialize to
meet a Reliability Need in a timely manner, the NYISO designates the Responsible TO or Responsible TOs or
developer of an alternative regulated solution to proceed with a regulated solution in order to maintain
system reliability. The NYISO may provide regulated cost recovery for transmission solutions constructed
to meet a Reliability Need. Under the RPP, the NYISO also has an affirmative obligation to report historic
congestion across the transmission system. In addition, the draft RNA is provided to the Market Monitoring
Unit for review and consideration of whether market rules changes are necessary to address an identified
failure, if any, in one of the NYISO’s competitive markets. If market failure is identified as the reason for the
lack of market-based solutions, the NYISO will explore appropriate changes in its market rules with its
stakeholders and Independent Market Monitor. The RPP does not substitute for the planning that each TO
conducts to maintain the reliability of its own bulk and non-bulk power systems.

2020 RNA - Appendices | 9

 The NYISO does not license or construct projects to respond to identified Reliability Needs reported in
the RNA. The ultimate approval of those projects lies with regulatory agencies such as the FERC, the
NYPSC/NYDPS, environmental permitting agencies, and local governments. The NYISO monitors the
progress and continued viability of proposed market and regulated projects to meet identified needs, and
reports its findings in annual plans.

In 2019, a major planning process was carved out of the RPP and defined as the Short-Term Reliability
Process (STRP). This process was approved by the FERC and its requirements are contained in
Attachments Y and FF of the NYISO’s OATT. With this process in place, the RPP’s Study Period changes from
a year 1 to year 10 analysis, into a year 4 to year 10 look ahead. At the same time, the STRP evaluates year 1
through year 5 from the Short Term Assessment of Reliability (STAR) Start Date, with a focus on Short-
Term Reliability Needs arising in years 1 through 3 of the Study Period.

Consistent with Section 38.2 of the OATT, Short-Term Reliability Process Needs that arise within three
years of the later of (a) the conclusion of the 365 day prior notice period for that is described in Section
38.3.1.1 of the OATT for Generator Deactivation Reliability Needs, or (b) the posting of a completed Short-
Term Assessment of Reliability (STAR) for other Reliability Needs on the BPTF, will be addressed using the
Short-Term Reliability Process.

Short-Term Reliability Process Needs that arise in the Near Term (within three years) will be
addressed using the Short-Term Reliability Process (STRP). Short-Term Reliability Process Needs that are
not Near-Term needs on the BPTF (years 4 through 5) will only be addressed using the STRP if an
identified Reliability Need cannot timely be addressed through the ISO’s Reliability Planning Process. If
the Reliability Need is handled through the STRP, the NYISO will solicit market-based solutions of all types,
a regulated transmission solution(s), and service offers from Generators, as appropriate. The NYISO will
select a solution(s) consistent with the STRP process which may include selecting Generators to remain in
service under temporary Reliability Must Run (RMR) agreements until the transmission solution is
complete.

STRP Needs that arise more than three years after the later of (x) the conclusion of the 365 day prior
notice period for Generator Deactivation Reliability Needs, or (y) the posting of a completed STAR for other
Reliability Needs on the BPTF, will only be addressed using the STRP if the identified Reliability Need
cannot timely be addressed through the RPP set forth in this Attachment Y.

The CRP also provides inputs for the NYISO’s economic planning process known as CARIS. CARIS
Phase 1 examines congestion on the New York bulk power system and the costs and benefits of alternatives
to alleviate that congestion. During CARIS Phase 2, the NYISO evaluates specific transmission project

2020 RNA - Appendices | 10

proposals for regulated cost recovery.

Another component of the CSPP is the Public Policy Transmission Planning Process. Under this
component, interested entities propose, and the NYPSC identify, transmission needs driven by Public Policy
Requirements. The NYISO then requests that interested entities submit proposed solutions to the Public
Policy Transmission Need(s) identified by the NYPSC. The NYISO evaluates the viability and sufficiency of
the proposed solutions to satisfy the identified Public Policy Transmission Need. Upon a confirmation by
the NYPSC that a need for a transmission solution still exists, the NYISO then evaluates and may select the
more efficient or cost-effective transmission solution to the identified need. The NYISO develops the Public
Policy Transmission Planning Report containing its findings regarding the proposed solutions. This report
is reviewed by NYISO stakeholders and approved by the Board of Directors.

In concert with each of the NYISO’s regional planning processes, interregional planning is conducted
with NYISO's neighboring control areas in the United States and Canada under the Northeastern ISO/RTO
Planning Coordination Protocol. The NYISO participates in interregional planning and may consider
Interregional Transmission Projects in its regional planning processes.

Figure 1 summarizes the CSPP and Figure 2 summarizes the RPP process.

Figure 1: NYISO’s Comprehensive System Planning Process (CSPP)

2020 RNA - Appendices | 11

Figure 2: NYISO RPP

NYISO’s RPP Major Steps

Transmission Owners develop and present the LTP

Start RNA Base NYISO develops the RNA Base Case representations according to the inclusion rules for the Study Period
Case (i.e.: year 4 through year 10 following the year in which the RNA is conducted)

If local issues are identified in the Base Case, NYISO works with TOs to mitigate local problems and reports
the actions in RNA report

NYISO performs transmission security assessment of BPTFs

NYISO performs resource adequacy assessment

If reliability criteria violations are identified, develop compensatory MW to satisfy the Reliability Needs (RN)

NYISO releases preliminary (’1st pass’) Reliability Needs Assessment

RNA
Base Case NYISO determines if preliminary RN should be updated to include system updates that may reduce/eliminate
Updates RNs such as: capacity resources, BPTF, and TO LTP updates; inclusion rules are applied

NYISO completes Reliability Needs Assessment, finalizes report, and obtains Board approval
Post-RNA
Base Case NYISO determines if RN should be updated to include system updates that may reduce/eliminate RNs such as:
Updates capacity resources, BPTF, and TO LTP updates; inclusion rules are applied

Start CRP NYISO solicits solutions to satisfy the Reliability Needs, if any left from the above re-evaluation

Market Based Solution: Regulated Solutions:

• Qualified Developers may submit Market Based solutions that • Responsible Transmission Owners must submit Regulated
includes generation, demand side management, or merchant Backstop Solutions; and
transmission • Qualified Developers may submit Alternative Regulated Solutions

CRP
Base Case NYISO performs its Viability and Sufficiency Assessment of the proposed solutions to determine if they
Updates adequately address the Reliability Needs by the need date

NYISO determines that the proposed solutions will not satisfy the
NYISO determines that the proposed solutions will satisfy the needs Reliability Needs and evaluates whether or not the STAR can
and Gap Solutions are not required
If STAR cannot address the Needs, initiate a Gap Process

NYISO determines that the earliest Trigger Date NYISO determines that the earliest Trigger Date
for the longest lead time regulated project is for the longest lead time regulated project is
NYISO solicits Gap Solutions
within 36 months of the viability and sufficiency beyond 36 months of the viability and sufficiency
determination determination

NYISO requests additional project data and will

NYISO will not select the more efficient or cost
select the more efficient or cost effective NYISO evaluates and determines the Gap
effective regulated transmission solution in the
regulated transmission solution in the current Solutions to relieve imminent threats
current planning cycle
planning cycle

NYISO formulates the Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP)

NYISO Board approves the Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP)

NYISO triggers a regulated solution if required to meet a Reliability Need

Notes:
* If an immediate threat to the reliability of the power system is identified, a Gap Solution outside of the normal RPP cycle may be requested by the NYISO Board.

2020 RNA - Appendices | 12

Appendix C - Load and Energy Forecast 2021-2030

Historical Overview
In order to perform the 2020 RNA, a forecast of summer and winter peak demands and annual energy
requirements was produced for the years 2020 - 2030. The New York Control Area (NYCA) is a summer
peaking system and is expected to remain a summer peaking system over the study period. In longer term,
the NYISO may become a winter peaking system in the mid-2030s due to increasing electrification
primarily via heat pumps and electric vehicles. Both summer and winter peaks show considerable year-to-
year variability due to the influence of peak-producing weather conditions for the seasonal peaks. Annual
energy is also influenced by weather conditions over the entire year. However, the resulting variation in
annual energy levels is relatively lower.

Figure 3 below reports the NYCA historic seasonal peaks and annual energy growth since 2010. The
table provides both actual results and weather-normalized results, together with annual average growth
rates for each table entry. The growth rates are averaged over the period 2010 to 2019.

Figure 3: Historical Energy and Seasonal Peak Demand - Actual and Weather-Normalized

Annual Energy - GWh Summer Peak - MW Winter Peak - MW

Year Actual Weather Actual Weather Winter Actual Weather
Normalized Normalized Normalized
2010 163,505 161,513 33,453 32,458 2010-11 24,654 24,452
2011 163,329 162,628 33,867 33,019 2011-12 23,901 24,630
2012 162,840 163,458 32,439 33,106 2012-13 24,659 24,630
2013 163,514 163,473 33,956 33,502 2013-14 25,739 24,610
2014 160,059 160,576 29,782 33,291 2014-15 24,648 24,500
2015 161,572 159,884 31,139 33,226 2015-16 23,319 24,220
2016 160,798 159,169 32,075 33,225 2016-17 24,164 24,416
2017 156,370 156,795 29,699 32,914 2017-18 25,081 24,265
2018 161,114 158,445 31,861 32,512 2018-19 24,727 24,114
2019 155,832 155,848 30,397 32,357 2019-20 23,253 24,123
-0.53% -0.40% -1.06% -0.03% -0.65% -0.15%

2020 RNA - Appendices | 13

 Forecast Overview
Figure 4 below shows historical and forecast growth rates of annual energy for five different regions in
New York and in total. The 5 regions are Zones A to E, Zones F and G, H and I, Zone J, and Zone K. Figure 5
shows historical and forecast growth rates of summer and winter peak demand for the same 5 regions. The
corresponding load forecast uncertainty values for each of 5 regions are also included.

Figure 4: Annual Energy and Average Growth – Actual and Forecast

Annual Energy - GWh

Year A to E F&G H&I J K NYCA
2010 54,458 21,778 9,233 55,114 22,922 163,505
2011 55,879 21,501 9,186 54,059 22,704 163,329
2012 56,238 21,784 9,029 53,487 22,302 162,840
2013 56,899 21,995 9,190 53,316 22,114 163,514
2014 55,132 21,844 8,974 52,541 21,568 160,059
2015 54,548 22,487 9,146 53,485 21,906 161,572
2016 54,286 22,273 8,995 53,653 21,591 160,798
2017 52,938 21,492 8,859 52,266 20,815 156,370
2018 55,210 22,340 8,878 53,360 21,326 161,114
2019 53,089 21,403 8,792 52,003 20,545 155,832
2020 51,275 20,635 8,277 48,964 19,869 149,020
2021 52,181 20,801 8,364 49,242 20,039 150,627
2022 52,856 20,887 8,450 49,715 20,206 152,114
2023 52,821 20,694 8,376 48,835 19,818 150,544
2024 52,808 20,532 8,372 48,628 19,564 149,904
2025 52,705 20,371 8,371 48,433 19,287 149,167
2026 52,561 20,230 8,388 48,444 19,104 148,727
2027 52,368 20,113 8,415 48,562 19,090 148,548
2028 52,170 20,036 8,453 48,777 19,347 148,783
2029 51,990 19,997 8,505 49,115 19,576 149,183
2030 51,864 20,006 8,560 49,450 19,894 149,774

Average Annual Growth - Percent

Period A to E F&G H&I J K NYCA
2010-19 -0.28% -0.19% -0.54% -0.64% -1.21% -0.53%
2020-30 0.11% -0.31% 0.34% 0.10% 0.01% 0.05%
2010-14 0.31% 0.08% -0.71% -1.19% -1.51% -0.53%
2014-19 -0.75% -0.41% -0.41% -0.21% -0.97% -0.53%
2020-25 0.55% -0.26% 0.23% -0.22% -0.59% 0.02%
2025-30 -0.32% -0.36% 0.45% 0.42% 0.62% 0.08%

2020 RNA - Appendices | 14

Figure 5: Actual and Forecast Seasonal Peak Demand and Average Growth, and LFU Multipliers

Summer Coincident Peak - MW Winter Coincident Peak - MW

Year1 A to E F&G H&I J K NYCA A to E F&G H&I J K NYCA
2010 9,483 4,738 2,187 11,213 5,832 33,453 8,617 3,411 1,453 7,661 3,512 24,654
2011 9,670 4,648 2,240 11,374 5,935 33,867 8,434 3,383 1,383 7,323 3,378 23,901
2012 9,932 4,630 2,046 10,722 5,109 32,439 8,885 3,462 1,457 7,456 3,399 24,659
2013 9,859 4,750 2,238 11,456 5,653 33,956 9,047 3,689 1,599 7,810 3,594 25,739
2014 8,212 4,069 1,917 10,567 5,017 29,782 8,789 3,481 1,491 7,481 3,406 24,648
2015 9,196 4,445 1,962 10,410 5,126 31,139 8,182 3,357 1,342 7,274 3,164 23,319
2016 9,437 4,451 2,028 10,990 5,169 32,075 8,534 3,416 1,447 7,482 3,285 24,164
2017 8,450 4,095 1,941 10,241 4,972 29,699 8,745 3,650 1,439 7,822 3,425 25,081
2018 8,985 4,568 2,024 10,890 5,394 31,861 8,504 3,684 1,475 7,674 3,390 24,727
2019 8,708 4,404 1,965 10,015 5,305 30,397 8,088 3,322 1,321 7,398 3,124 23,253
2020 9,269 4,519 2,077 11,316 5,115 32,296 8,392 3,462 1,351 7,551 3,374 24,130
2021 9,245 4,482 2,073 11,300 5,029 32,129 8,429 3,457 1,360 7,630 3,327 24,203
2022 9,235 4,457 2,081 11,397 4,958 32,128 8,490 3,462 1,385 7,847 3,290 24,474
2023 9,219 4,431 2,074 11,362 4,832 31,918 8,549 3,465 1,401 7,984 3,251 24,650
2024 9,206 4,412 2,076 11,395 4,749 31,838 8,613 3,473 1,427 8,202 3,229 24,944
2025 9,189 4,394 2,072 11,390 4,666 31,711 8,667 3,481 1,456 8,432 3,215 25,251
2026 9,172 4,382 2,079 11,446 4,591 31,670 8,715 3,491 1,492 8,720 3,217 25,635
2027 9,158 4,373 2,087 11,504 4,551 31,673 8,754 3,502 1,525 8,971 3,236 25,988
2028 9,149 4,371 2,095 11,583 4,558 31,756 8,789 3,518 1,560 9,259 3,278 26,404
2029 9,145 4,373 2,107 11,670 4,570 31,865 8,830 3,539 1,603 9,591 3,325 26,888
2030 9,147 4,381 2,118 11,757 4,589 31,992 8,875 3,569 1,647 9,934 3,363 27,388

Average Annual Growth - Percent Average Annual Growth - Percent

Period A to E F&G H&I J K NYCA A to E F&G H&I J K NYCA
2010-19 -0.94% -0.81% -1.18% -1.25% -1.05% -1.06% -0.70% -0.29% -1.05% -0.39% -1.29% -0.65%
2020-30 -0.13% -0.31% 0.20% 0.38% -1.08% -0.09% 0.56% 0.30% 2.00% 2.78% -0.03% 1.27%
2010-14 -3.53% -3.73% -3.24% -1.47% -3.69% -2.86% 0.50% 0.51% 0.65% -0.59% -0.76% -0.01%
2014-19 1.18% 1.59% 0.50% -1.07% 1.12% 0.41% -1.65% -0.93% -2.39% -0.22% -1.71% -1.16%
2020-25 -0.17% -0.56% -0.05% 0.13% -1.82% -0.36% 0.65% 0.11% 1.51% 2.23% -0.96% 0.91%
2025-30 -0.09% -0.06% 0.44% 0.64% -0.33% 0.18% 0.48% 0.50% 2.50% 3.33% 0.90% 1.64%

Load Forecast Uncertainty Multipliers Load Forecast Uncertainty Multipliers

Bin A to E F&G H&I J K A to E F&G H&I J K
Bin 1 116.02% 117.17% 113.56% 110.73% 116.38% 112.22% 112.22% 112.22% 112.22% 112.22%
Bin 2 111.11% 111.70% 109.46% 107.33% 111.97% 107.77% 107.77% 107.77% 107.77% 107.77%
Bin 3 105.70% 105.70% 104.06% 102.89% 105.98% 103.69% 103.69% 103.69% 103.69% 103.69%
Bin 4 100.00% 99.36% 97.68% 97.67% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Bin 5 94.22% 92.89% 90.66% 91.91% 91.88% 96.69% 96.69% 96.69% 96.69% 96.69%
Bin 6 88.58% 86.48% 83.35% 85.86% 82.34% 93.76% 93.76% 93.76% 93.76% 93.76%
Bin 7 83.28% 80.33% 76.06% 79.79% 75.52% 91.22% 91.22% 91.22% 91.22% 91.22%

1 Years listed reflect the NYISO capability year; For example, the year 2010 reflects the winter period spanning 2010-2011

2020 RNA - Appendices | 15

 Forecast Methodology
In addition to developing load forecasts for each of the load zones, the NYISO received and evaluated
forecasts from all Transmission Owners, which were used in combination with the forecasts the NYISO
developed. The NYISO employs a multi-stage process to develop load forecasts for each of the eleven zones
within the NYCA.

In the first stage, baseline energy and peak models are built based on projections of end-use intensities
and economic variables. End-use intensities modeled include those for lighting, refrigeration, cooking,
heating, cooling, and other plug loads. Appliance end-use intensities are generally defined as the product of
saturation levels (average number of units per household or commercial square foot) and efficiency levels
(energy usage per unit or a similar measure). End-use intensities specific to New York are estimated from
appliance saturation and efficiency levels in both the residential and commercial sectors. These intensities
include the projected impacts of energy efficiency programs and improved codes and standards. Economic
variables considered include Gross Domestic Product (GDP), households, population, and commercial and
industrial employment. Projected long-term weather trends from the NYISO Climate Change Impact Study
Phase I are included in the end-use models.

In the second stage, the incremental impacts of additional policy-based energy efficiency, behind-the-
meter solar PV and distributed generation are deducted from the forecast; and the incremental impacts of
electric vehicle usage and other electrification are added to the forecast. The impacts of net electricity
consumption of energy storage units due to charging and discharging are added to the energy forecasts,
while the peak reducing impacts of behind-the-meter energy storage units are deducted from the peak
forecasts. In the final stage, the NYISO aggregates load forecasts by Zone. The 2020 summer peak forecast is
the 2020 ICAP forecast.

Forecast Results
Figure 6 through Figure 16 include information on the 2020 Baseline forecast specific to the 2020 RNA
look ahead period. Annual energy, summer, and winter peak forecasts and the corresponding average
annual growth rates are provided for reference along with comparisons to the 2018 RNA baseline forecast
used (Gold Book forecasts). Behind-the-meter impacts on summer peak reductions and total zonal peak
requirements (demand and solar PV) are also provided.

2020 RNA - Appendices | 16

Figure 6: Gold Book Baseline Energy Forecast Growth Rates - 2020 to 2030

Energy Growth by Zone - 2020 to 2030 (GWh)

1,200
1,107

1,000

800 754

600
486

400 325

189
200
25
0
A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA
-7 -42
-200 -156

-400 -351 -349

-473
-600

Figure 7: 2028 Energy Forecast Comparison between 2018 Gold Book and 2020 Gold Book

2028 Energy Forecast Change - 2020 GB less 2018 GB (GWh)

1,000

157 37
0
A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA
-78 -68 -67 -48 -411
-438
-1,000 -767
-978

-2,000

-2,482
-3,000

-4,000

-5,000
-5,143

-6,000

2020 RNA - Appendices | 17

Figure 8: Gold Book Baseline Summer Coincident Peak Demand Forecast Growth Rates – 2020 to 2030

Summer Peak Demand Growth by Zone - 2020 to 2030 (MW)

500 441
400

300

200
111
100
39
2
0
A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA
-100 -21 -32 -65
-90 -90 -73

-200

-300
-304
-400

-500
-526
-600

Figure 9: 2028 Summer Peak Forecast Comparison between 2018 Gold Book and 2020 Gold Book

2028 Summer Peak Demand Forecast Change - 2020 GB less 2018 GB (MW)
400
289
300

200

100
9 16
0
A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA
-13 -15 -25 -5
-100 -43
-52
-200 -179
-300

-400

-500

-600

-700
-695 -713
-800

2020 RNA - Appendices | 18

Figure 10: Annual Energy by Zone - Actual and 2020 Gold Book Baseline Forecast (GWh)

Year A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA
2010 15,903 10,128 16,209 4,312 7,906 11,394 10,384 2,969 6,264 55,114 22,922 163,505
2011 16,017 10,040 16,167 5,903 7,752 11,435 10,066 2,978 6,208 54,059 22,704 163,329
2012 15,595 10,009 16,117 6,574 7,943 11,846 9,938 2,930 6,099 53,487 22,302 162,840
2013 15,790 9,981 16,368 6,448 8,312 12,030 9,965 2,986 6,204 53,316 22,114 163,514
2014 15,890 9,902 16,347 4,835 8,158 12,010 9,834 2,886 6,088 52,541 21,568 160,059
2015 15,761 9,906 16,299 4,441 8,141 12,422 10,065 2,847 6,299 53,485 21,906 161,572
2016 15,803 9,995 16,205 4,389 7,894 12,298 9,975 2,856 6,139 53,653 21,591 160,798
2017 15,261 9,775 15,819 4,322 7,761 11,823 9,669 2,883 5,976 52,266 20,815 156,370
2018 15,894 10,090 16,561 4,670 7,995 12,375 9,965 2,807 6,071 53,360 21,326 161,114
2019 14,872 9,715 15,809 4,825 7,868 11,829 9,574 2,816 5,976 52,003 20,545 155,832
2020 14,282 9,468 15,182 4,818 7,525 11,449 9,186 2,669 5,608 48,964 19,869 149,020
2021 14,441 9,602 15,400 5,154 7,584 11,542 9,259 2,774 5,590 49,242 20,039 150,627
2022 14,540 9,697 15,578 5,431 7,610 11,612 9,275 2,847 5,603 49,715 20,206 152,114
2023 14,446 9,665 15,557 5,622 7,531 11,531 9,163 2,876 5,500 48,835 19,818 150,544
2024 14,367 9,643 15,558 5,777 7,463 11,475 9,057 2,899 5,473 48,628 19,564 149,904
2025 14,280 9,616 15,538 5,875 7,396 11,420 8,951 2,919 5,452 48,433 19,287 149,167
2026 14,196 9,585 15,514 5,930 7,336 11,375 8,855 2,935 5,453 48,444 19,104 148,727
2027 14,111 9,547 15,478 5,950 7,282 11,337 8,776 2,949 5,466 48,562 19,090 148,548
2028 14,038 9,510 15,438 5,948 7,236 11,312 8,724 2,963 5,490 48,777 19,347 148,783
2029 13,976 9,479 15,399 5,935 7,201 11,296 8,701 2,977 5,528 49,115 19,576 149,183
2030 13,931 9,461 15,371 5,925 7,176 11,293 8,713 2,994 5,566 49,450 19,894 149,774

2020 RNA - Appendices | 19

Figure 11: Summer Coincident Peak Demand by Zone - Actual and 2020 Gold Book Baseline Forecast (MW)

Year A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA
2010 2,663 1,985 2,846 552 1,437 2,339 2,399 700 1,487 11,213 5,832 33,453
2011 2,556 2,019 2,872 776 1,447 2,233 2,415 730 1,510 11,374 5,935 33,867
2012 2,743 2,107 2,888 774 1,420 2,388 2,242 653 1,393 10,722 5,109 32,439
2013 2,549 2,030 2,921 819 1,540 2,392 2,358 721 1,517 11,456 5,653 33,956
2014 2,227 1,617 2,574 527 1,267 2,033 2,036 584 1,333 10,567 5,017 29,782
2015 2,632 1,926 2,705 557 1,376 2,294 2,151 617 1,345 10,410 5,126 31,139
2016 2,672 2,008 2,812 561 1,384 2,328 2,123 636 1,392 10,990 5,169 32,075
2017 2,439 1,800 2,557 502 1,152 2,032 2,063 607 1,334 10,241 4,972 29,699
2018 2,391 1,947 2,747 600 1,300 2,378 2,190 631 1,393 10,890 5,394 31,861
2019 2,367 1,841 2,592 603 1,305 2,224 2,180 652 1,313 10,015 5,305 30,397
2020 2,662 1,948 2,728 583 1,348 2,352 2,167 647 1,430 11,316 5,115 32,296
2021 2,641 1,943 2,719 613 1,329 2,329 2,153 646 1,427 11,300 5,029 32,129
2022 2,626 1,941 2,715 640 1,313 2,313 2,144 646 1,435 11,397 4,958 32,128
2023 2,610 1,938 2,711 663 1,297 2,297 2,134 646 1,428 11,362 4,832 31,918
2024 2,597 1,936 2,708 682 1,283 2,285 2,127 647 1,429 11,395 4,749 31,838
2025 2,585 1,935 2,705 693 1,271 2,276 2,118 647 1,425 11,390 4,666 31,711
2026 2,575 1,933 2,702 699 1,263 2,271 2,111 648 1,431 11,446 4,591 31,670
2027 2,569 1,932 2,700 700 1,257 2,269 2,104 648 1,439 11,504 4,551 31,673
2028 2,567 1,930 2,698 699 1,255 2,271 2,100 649 1,446 11,583 4,558 31,756
2029 2,569 1,928 2,697 696 1,255 2,274 2,099 649 1,458 11,670 4,570 31,865
2030 2,572 1,927 2,696 694 1,258 2,279 2,102 649 1,469 11,757 4,589 31,992

2020 RNA - Appendices | 20

Figure 12: Winter Coincident Peak Demand by Zone - Actual and 2020 Gold Book Baseline Forecast (MW)

Year A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA
2010-11 2,413 1,606 2,657 645 1,296 1,825 1,586 526 927 7,661 3,512 24,654
2011-12 2,220 1,535 2,532 904 1,243 1,765 1,618 490 893 7,323 3,378 23,901
2012-13 2,343 1,568 2,672 954 1,348 1,923 1,539 510 947 7,456 3,399 24,659
2013-14 2,358 1,645 2,781 848 1,415 1,989 1,700 625 974 7,810 3,594 25,739
2014-15 2,419 1,617 2,689 725 1,339 1,925 1,556 537 954 7,481 3,406 24,648
2015-16 2,253 1,486 2,469 667 1,307 1,861 1,496 453 889 7,274 3,164 23,319
2016-17 2,295 1,600 2,573 671 1,395 1,867 1,549 530 917 7,482 3,285 24,164
2017-18 2,313 1,533 2,766 735 1,398 2,012 1,638 506 933 7,822 3,425 25,081
2018-19 2,107 1,566 2,668 747 1,416 2,066 1,618 534 941 7,674 3,390 24,727
2019-20 2,100 1,460 2,482 741 1,305 1,854 1,468 479 842 7,398 3,124 23,253
2020-21 2,227 1,559 2,525 751 1,330 1,899 1,563 493 858 7,551 3,374 24,130
2021-22 2,229 1,556 2,531 782 1,331 1,899 1,558 494 866 7,630 3,327 24,203
2022-23 2,240 1,557 2,547 810 1,336 1,907 1,555 498 887 7,847 3,290 24,474
2023-24 2,251 1,559 2,561 836 1,342 1,914 1,551 501 900 7,984 3,251 24,650
2024-25 2,266 1,564 2,576 858 1,349 1,925 1,548 505 922 8,202 3,229 24,944
2025-26 2,281 1,569 2,588 873 1,356 1,936 1,545 509 947 8,432 3,215 25,251
2026-27 2,296 1,575 2,598 883 1,363 1,948 1,543 513 979 8,720 3,217 25,635
2027-28 2,310 1,581 2,605 890 1,368 1,959 1,543 517 1,008 8,971 3,236 25,988
2028-29 2,325 1,587 2,610 893 1,374 1,971 1,547 522 1,038 9,259 3,278 26,404
2029-30 2,342 1,594 2,616 897 1,381 1,984 1,555 527 1,076 9,591 3,325 26,888
2030-31 2,360 1,602 2,624 901 1,388 1,999 1,570 532 1,115 9,934 3,363 27,388

2020 RNA - Appendices | 21

Figure 13: 2020 Gold Book Behind-the-Meter Solar PV Baseline Annual Energy Reductions by Zone (GWh)

Year A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA
2020 199 95 261 18 202 431 363 49 64 335 614 2,631
2021 282 125 345 20 285 529 436 57 71 397 727 3,274
2022 384 158 437 24 381 631 505 63 78 460 778 3,899
2023 505 194 533 28 488 733 566 68 86 526 836 4,563
2024 635 230 622 34 592 831 614 72 93 588 882 5,193
2025 766 264 700 40 687 918 652 76 99 644 892 5,738
2026 885 294 762 48 766 992 681 77 105 694 901 6,205
2027 988 318 810 57 825 1,052 702 77 110 742 910 6,591
2028 1,069 337 846 66 868 1,096 716 79 115 782 919 6,893
2029 1,132 351 870 74 900 1,132 727 79 119 817 929 7,130
2030 1,178 360 889 83 922 1,158 736 80 120 825 938 7,289

Figure 14: 2020 RNA Base Case Annual Energy Forecast with BTM Solar PV Added Back (GWh)

Year A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA
2020 14,481 9,563 15,443 4,836 7,727 11,880 9,549 2,718 5,672 49,299 20,483 151,651
2021 14,723 9,727 15,745 5,174 7,869 12,071 9,695 2,831 5,661 49,639 20,766 153,901
2022 14,924 9,855 16,015 5,455 7,991 12,243 9,780 2,910 5,681 50,175 20,984 156,013
2023 14,951 9,859 16,090 5,650 8,019 12,264 9,729 2,944 5,586 49,361 20,654 155,107
2024 15,002 9,873 16,180 5,811 8,055 12,306 9,671 2,971 5,566 49,216 20,446 155,097
2025 15,046 9,880 16,238 5,915 8,083 12,338 9,603 2,995 5,551 49,077 20,179 154,905
2026 15,081 9,879 16,276 5,978 8,102 12,367 9,536 3,012 5,558 49,138 20,005 154,932
2027 15,099 9,865 16,288 6,007 8,107 12,389 9,478 3,026 5,576 49,304 20,000 155,139
2028 15,107 9,847 16,284 6,014 8,104 12,408 9,440 3,042 5,605 49,559 20,266 155,676
2029 15,108 9,830 16,269 6,009 8,101 12,428 9,428 3,056 5,647 49,932 20,505 156,313
2030 15,109 9,821 16,260 6,008 8,098 12,451 9,449 3,074 5,686 50,275 20,832 157,063

2020 RNA - Appendices | 22

Figure 15: 2020 Gold Book Behind-the-Meter Solar PV Baseline Summer Coincident Peak Demand Reductions by Zone (MW)

Year A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA
2020 34 18 49 4 35 89 78 11 12 74 151 555
2021 49 24 67 4 51 111 96 13 14 90 188 707
2022 67 30 85 5 70 132 111 15 16 106 204 841
2023 88 37 104 5 91 152 125 16 18 122 228 986
2024 112 43 123 6 112 171 135 17 19 136 228 1,102
2025 136 49 138 8 131 187 142 17 21 148 227 1,204
2026 158 55 150 9 147 199 146 17 22 158 226 1,287
2027 176 59 158 11 159 208 147 17 23 168 225 1,351
2028 190 62 162 12 165 214 147 17 24 175 224 1,392
2029 199 63 164 14 168 216 145 16 24 180 222 1,411
2030 203 63 163 15 169 215 143 16 24 180 220 1,411

Figure 16: 2020 RNA Base Case Summer Coincident Peak Demand Forecast with BTM Solar PV Added Back (MW)

Year A B C D E F G H I J K NYCA
2020 2,696 1,966 2,777 587 1,383 2,441 2,245 658 1,442 11,390 5,266 32,851
2021 2,690 1,967 2,786 617 1,380 2,440 2,249 659 1,441 11,390 5,217 32,836
2022 2,693 1,971 2,800 645 1,383 2,445 2,255 661 1,451 11,503 5,162 32,969
2023 2,698 1,975 2,815 668 1,388 2,449 2,259 662 1,446 11,484 5,060 32,904
2024 2,709 1,979 2,831 688 1,395 2,456 2,262 664 1,448 11,531 4,977 32,940
2025 2,721 1,984 2,843 701 1,402 2,463 2,260 664 1,446 11,538 4,893 32,915
2026 2,733 1,988 2,852 708 1,410 2,470 2,257 665 1,453 11,604 4,817 32,957
2027 2,745 1,991 2,858 711 1,416 2,477 2,251 665 1,462 11,672 4,776 33,024
2028 2,757 1,992 2,860 711 1,420 2,485 2,247 666 1,470 11,758 4,782 33,148
2029 2,768 1,991 2,861 710 1,423 2,490 2,244 665 1,482 11,850 4,792 33,276
2030 2,775 1,990 2,859 709 1,427 2,494 2,245 665 1,493 11,937 4,809 33,403

2020 RNA - Appendices | 23

Appendix D - Resource Adequacy and Transmission System Security
Assessments
The analysis performed during the Reliability Needs Assessment requires the development of base
cases for transmission security analysis and for resource adequacy analysis. The power flow system model
is used for transmission security assessment and also for the development of the transfer limits to be
implemented in the Multi-Area Reliability Simulation (MARS) model. The NYISO conducts comprehensive
assessment of the transmission system through a series of steady-state power flow, transient stability, and
short circuit studies.

The NYISO used the MARS model to determine whether adequate resources would be available to
meet the NYSRC and NPCC reliability criteria of one day in ten years (0.1 days/year). The results identify
LOLE violations, and details are in the Section 6 of the RNA report.

The MARS model was also used to evaluate selected scenarios.

2020 RNA - Appendices | 24

 2020 RNA Assumptions Matrix
# Parameter 2018 RNA/CRP 2020 RNA 2020 RNA 70x30
(2018 GB) (2020 GB) Scenario Case
Study Period: 2019 -2028 Study Period: 2024(y4) - Study Period:
2030 (y10) 2030
Load Parameters
1 Peak Load Adjusted 2018 Gold Book Similar method 2 variations, same as the
Forecast NYCA baseline peak load two CARIS 70x30
forecast. Scenarios:
1. RNA 70x30 NYCA High
The GB 2018 baseline peak Load, similar to
load forecast includes the CARIS’s Case Labeled
impact (reduction) of ‘Base Load’
behind-the-meter (BtM)
solar at the time of NYCA 2. RNA 70x30 NYCA Low
peak. For the Resource Load, similar to
Adequacy load model, the CARISs Case Labeled
deducted BtM solar MW “Scenario Load”
was added back to the
NYCA zonal loads, which
then allows for a discrete
modeling of the BtM solar
resources.
2 Load Shapes Used Multiple Load Shape Similar method Single year load shape that
MARS Feature includes BtM taken directly
(Multiple Load from CARIS 70x30 Case
Shapes) 8,760 hour historical load original load (losses not
shapes were used as base included)
shapes for LFU bins:
Bin 1: 2006
Bin 2: 2002
Bins 3-7: 2007

Peak adjustments on a
seasonal basis.

For the BtM Solar

adjustment, the BtM shape
is added back to account
for the impact of the BtM
generation on both on-peak
and off-peak hours.

3 Load Forecast Used updated summer LFU Updated via Load Forecast Same as 2020 RNA Base
Uncertainty (LFU) values for the 11 NYCA Task Force (LFTF) process Case
zones.
Reference: April 13 2020
LFTF presentation:
https://www.nyiso.com/doc
uments/20142/11883362
/LFU_Summary.pdf
Generation Parameters

2020 RNA - Appendices | 25

# Parameter 2018 RNA/CRP 2020 RNA 2020 RNA 70x30
(2018 GB) (2020 GB) Scenario Case
Study Period: 2019 -2028 Study Period: 2024(y4) - Study Period:
2030 (y10) 2030
1 Existing 2018 Gold Book values. Similar method Same as 2020 RNA Base
Generating Unit Use summer min Case
Capacities (DMNC vs. CRIS).
Use winter min
(DMNC vs. CRIS).
Adjusted for RNA inclusion
rules.

2 Proposed New GB2018 with Inclusion Similar method Off-shore wind, land-based
Units Inclusion Rules Applied wind and utility scale PV
Determination added to align with CARIS
70x30 Case Renewable
Resources mix

3 Retirement, GB2018 with Inclusion Similar method Units that are retired in
Mothballed Units, Rules Applied 2020 RNA Base Case.
IIFO
Additionally, all unit
impacted by DEC’s Peaker
Rule were removed to align
with CARIS 70x30 Case
assumptions

4 Forced and Partial Five-year (2013-2017) Similar method Same as 2020 RNA Base
Outage Rates GADS data for each unit Case
represented. Those units
with less than five years –
use representative data.

Transition Rates
representing the Equivalent
Forced Outage Rates
(EFORd) during demand
periods over the most
recent five-year period

For new units or units that

are in service for less than
three years, NERC 5-year
class average EFORd data
are used.
5 Planned Outages Based on schedules Similar method Same as 2020 RNA Base
received by the NYISO and Case
adjusted for history
6 Summer Nominal 50 MW None Same as 2020 RNA Base
Maintenance (25 in J and 25 in K) Case

2020 RNA - Appendices | 26

# Parameter 2018 RNA/CRP 2020 RNA 2020 RNA 70x30
(2018 GB) (2020 GB) Scenario Case
Study Period: 2019 -2028 Study Period: 2024(y4) - Study Period:
2030 (y10) 2030
7 Combustion Derate based on Similar method Same as 2020 RNA Base
Turbine Derates temperature correction Case
curves

For new units: used data for

a unit of same type in same
zone, or neighboring zone
data.
8 Existing Landfill New method: Similar method Same as 2020 RNA Base
Gas Plants Actual hourly plant output Case
over the period 2013-2017.
Program randomly selects a
LFG shape of hourly
production over the 2013-
2017 for each model
replication.

Probabilistic model is
incorporated based on five
years of input shapes, with
one shape per replication
randomly selected in the
Monte Carlo process.
9 Existing Wind Units Actual hourly plant output Similar method 8,760 hourly shapes
(>5 years of data) over the period 2013-2017. based on output profile
from CARIS 70x30 case.
Probabilistic model is
incorporated based on five Notes:
years of input shapes with 1. CARIS 70x30 case
one shape per replication output profile captures
being randomly selected in curtailments observed
Monte Carlo process
in the CARIS MAPS
simulations
2. CARIS 70x30 case
wind shape input
based on 2009 NREL
data.

10 Existing Wind Units For existing data, the actual Similar method 8,760 hourly shapes
(<5 years of data) hourly plant output over the based on output profile
period 2013-2017 is used. from CARIS 70x30 case.

For missing data, the Notes:

nameplate normalized 1. CARIS 70x30 case
average of units in the output profile captures
same load zone is scaled by curtailments observed
the unit’s nameplate rating.
in the CARIS MAPS
simulations
2. CARIS 70x30 case
wind shape input

2020 RNA - Appendices | 27

# Parameter 2018 RNA/CRP 2020 RNA 2020 RNA 70x30
(2018 GB) (2020 GB) Scenario Case
Study Period: 2019 -2028 Study Period: 2024(y4) - Study Period:
2030 (y10) 2030
based on 2009 NREL
data.

11a Proposed Land Inclusion Rules Applied to Similar method 8,760 hourly shapes
based Wind Units determine the generator based on output profile
status. from CARIS 70x30 case.

The nameplate normalized Notes:

average of units in the 1. CARIS 70x30 case
same load zone is scaled by output profile captures
the unit’s nameplate rating. curtailments observed
in the CARIS MAPS
simulations
2. CARIS 70x30 case
wind shape input
based on 2009 NREL
data.

11b Proposed Offshore N/A N/A 8,760 hourly shapes

Wind Units based on output profile
from CARIS 70x30 case.

Notes:
1. CARIS 70x30 case
output profile captures
curtailments observed
in the CARIS MAPS
simulations
2. CARIS 70x30 case
wind shape input
based on 2009 NREL
data.

12a Existing The 31.5 MW Upton Similar method 8,760 hourly shapes
Utility-scale Solar metered solar capacity: based on output profile
Resources probabilistic model chooses from CARIS 70x30 case.
from 5 years of production
data output shapes Notes:
covering the period 2013- 1. CARIS 70x30 case
2017 (one shape per output profile captures
replication is randomly curtailments.
selected in Monte Carlo 2. CARIS 70x30 case
process.)
existing utility scale PV
shape input based on
Y2017 historical data.

2020 RNA - Appendices | 28

 # Parameter 2018 RNA/CRP 2020 RNA 2020 RNA 70x30
(2018 GB) (2020 GB) Scenario Case
Study Period: 2019 -2028 Study Period: 2024(y4) - Study Period:
2030 (y10) 2030
12b Proposed Inclusion Rules Applied to Similar method 8,760 hourly shapes
Utility-scale Solar determine the generator based on output profile
Resources status. from CARIS 70x30 case.
Notes:
The nameplate normalized 1. CARIS 70x30 case
average of units in the output profile captures
same load zone is scaled by curtailments.
the unit’s nameplate rating.
2. CARIS 70x30 case
future utility scale PV
shape input based on
2006 NREL data.

13 Projected The large projection of New Method: 8,760 hourly shape from
BtM Solar increasing retail (BtM) solar Will use 5-year of inverter CARIS 70x30 output.
Resources installations over the 10- production data.
year period require a Note: CARIS BtM solar
discrete model with detailed Probabilistic model is profile based on hourly
hourly performance. incorporated based on five shape created using
years of input shapes with NREL’s PV Watt tool.
New method: one shape per replication
A 8,760 hourly shape was being randomly selected in
created by using NREL’s PV Monte Carlo process
Watt 1 tool.
MARS will randomly select a Reference: April 6, 2020
daily shape from the current TPAS/ESPWG meeting
month for each day of each materials
month of each replication.

14 Existing BTM-NG New category: Similar method Same as 2020 RNA Base
Program These are former load Case
modifiers to sell capacity
into the ICAP market.
Modeled as cogen type 2
unit in MARS. Unit capacity
set to CRIS value, load
modeled with weekly
pattern that can change
monthly.

15 Existing Small New method: Similar method Same as 2020 RNA Base
Hydro Resources Actual hourly plant output Case
over the period 2013-2017.
Program randomly selects a
hydro shape of hourly
production over the 5-year
window for each model
replication. The randomly

1 NREL’s PVWatts Calculator, credit of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/NREL/Alliance (Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC).

2020 RNA - Appendices | 29

 # Parameter 2018 RNA/CRP 2020 RNA 2020 RNA 70x30
(2018 GB) (2020 GB) Scenario Case
Study Period: 2019 -2028 Study Period: 2024(y4) - Study Period:
2030 (y10) 2030
selected shape is multiplied
by their current nameplate
rating.

16 Existing Large Probabilistic Model based Similar method Same as 2020 RNA Base
Hydro on 5 years of GADS data. Case

Transition Rates
representing the Equivalent
Forced Outage Rates
(EFORd) during demand
periods over the most
recent five-year period
(2013-2017). Methodology
consistent with thermal unit
transition rates.
17 Proposed Energy N/A N/A Utilize MARS Energy
Storage Storage model, which
allows for charging and
discharging, and also
includes temporal
constraints (e.g.,
hours/days or
hours/month)

Transaction - Imports / Exports

1 Capacity Grandfathered Rights and Similar method Same as 2020 RNA Base
Purchases other awarded long-term Case except for imports
rights from HQ, see HQ section
for additional information.
Modeled using MARS
explicit contracts feature.
Add 1310 MW HVDC
connection between HQ
and Zone J

2 Capacity Sales These are long-term Similar method Same as 2020 RNA Base
contracts filed with FERC. Case

Modeled using MARS

explicit contracts feature.
Contracts sold from ROS
(Zones: A-F). ROS ties to
external pool are derated by
sales MW amount

2020 RNA - Appendices | 30

 # Parameter 2018 RNA/CRP 2020 RNA 2020 RNA 70x30
(2018 GB) (2020 GB) Scenario Case
Study Period: 2019 -2028 Study Period: 2024(y4) - Study Period:
2030 (y10) 2030
3 FCM Sales Model sales for known Similar method Same as 2020 RNA Base
years Case

Modeled using MARS

explicit contracts feature.
Contracts sold from ROS
(Zones: A-F). ROS ties to
external pool are derated by
sales MW amount
4 UDRs Updated with most recent Similar method Same as 2020 RNA Base
elections/awards Case
information (VFT, HTP,
Neptune, CSC)

5 EDRs N/A New category: Not modeled (see HQ

Cedars Uprate 80 MW. section for additional
Increased the HQ to D by 80 information)
MW.

Note: the Cedar bubble has

been removed and its
corresponding MW was
reflected in HQ to D limit.

References:
1. March 16, 2020
ESPWG/TPAS
2. April 6, 2020
TPAS/ESPWG

6 Wheel-Through n/a New category: Not modeled (see HQ

Contract 300 MW HQ through NYISO section for additional
to ISO-NE. Modeled as firm information)
contract. Reduced the
transfer limit from HQ to
NYISO by 300 MW and
increased the transfer limit
from NYISO to ISO-NE by
300 MW.

MARS Topology: a simplified bubble-and-pipe representation of the transmission system

0 Summary of major topology Same as 2020 RNA Base

changes (as compared Case + LIPA topology
with the 2018-2019 RPP): updates for the 70x30
Link1)-7); Link8)-9); scenario additional (to the
Link10) Base Case) peakers
removal

2020 RNA - Appendices | 31

# Parameter 2018 RNA/CRP 2020 RNA 2020 RNA 70x30
(2018 GB) (2020 GB) Scenario Case
Study Period: 2019 -2028 Study Period: 2024(y4) - Study Period:
2030 (y10) 2030
1) Marion-Farragut 345kV
cables (B and C)
assumed out of service
2) 71, 72, M51, M52
series reactors
assumed by-passed
after deactivation of
Indian Point
3) Moses – St. Lawrence
(L33P) tie line assumed
out of service
4) Rainey – Corona
transmission project in
service impacting J to K
limits
5) UPNY-SENY
simplification 2021-
2023 before the
addition of AC PPTPP
projects
6) AC PPTPs Segment A
and B Projects Added
starting 2024
7) Removal of Cedars
bubble/tie to Zone D
model; adding the MW
from the bubble to the
tie HQ to D tie limit.
8) Removal of PJM-SENY
Group Interface
9) Updates to Zone K
Imports/Exports
10) Somerset retirement
impacts
11) The external areas
model for PJM and ISO-
NE were simplified by
consolidating the 5 PJM
areas (bubbles) into
one, and the 8 ISO-NE
areas into one.

1 Interface Limits Developed by review of Similar method Same as 2020 RNA Base
previous studies and Case

2020 RNA - Appendices | 32

 # Parameter 2018 RNA/CRP 2020 RNA 2020 RNA 70x30
(2018 GB) (2020 GB) Scenario Case
Study Period: 2019 -2028 Study Period: 2024(y4) - Study Period:
2030 (y10) 2030
specific analysis during the
RNA study process

2 New Transmission Based on TO- provided firm Similar method Same as 2020 RNA Base
plans (via Gold Book 2018 Case
process) and proposed
merchant transmission;
inclusion rules applied

3 AC Cable Forced All existing cable transition Similar method Same as 2020 RNA Base
Outage Rates rates updated with data Case
received from ConEd and
PSEG-LIPA to reflect most
recent five-year history
4 UDR unavailability Five-year history of forced Similar method Same as 2020 RNA Base
outages Case

Emergency Operating Procedures

1 Special Case SCRs sold for the program Similar method but with 15 Same as 2020 RNA Base
Resources discounted to historic calls/year Case
availability (“effective
capacity”). Summer values Note: also, combined the
calculated from the latest two SCR steps (generation
available July registrations, and load zonal MW)
held constant for all years
of study. 5 calls/month

2 EDRP Resources 2018 Gold Book with Not modeled: the values are Same as 2020 RNA Base
effective capacity modeled. less than 2 MW. Case

Resources sold for the

program and discounted to
historic availability.
Summer values calculated
from July 2018 registrations
and forecast growth. Values
held constant for all years
of study.

3 Other EOPs Based on TO information, Similar method Same as 2020 RNA Base
measured data, and NYISO Case
forecasts
External Control Areas

2020 RNA - Appendices | 33

 # Parameter 2018 RNA/CRP 2020 RNA 2020 RNA 70x30
(2018 GB) (2020 GB) Scenario Case
Study Period: 2019 -2028 Study Period: 2024(y4) - Study Period:
2030 (y10) 2030
1 PJM As per RNA Procedure New model: Same as 2020 RNA Base
External model (load, Simplified model: The 5 PJM Case
capacity, topology) provided MARS areas (bubbles) were
by PJM/NPCC CP-8 WG. PJM consolidated into one
is a 5-zone model. LOLE of
pool adjusted to be
between 0.10 and 0.15
days per year by adjusting
capacity pro-rata in all
areas.
2 ISONE As per RNA Procedure New model: Same as 2020 RNA Base
External model (load, Simplified model: The 8 ISO- Case
capacity, topology) provided NE MARS areas (bubbles)
by PJM/NPCC CP-8 WG. were consolidated into one
LOLE of pool adjusted to be
between 0.10 and 0.15
days per year by adjusting
capacity pro-rata in all
areas.
3 HQ As per RNA Procedure Similar method HQ bubble not modeled for
External model (load, consistency with CARIS.
capacity, topology) provided Imports from HQ modeled
by PJM/NPCC CP-8 WG. as injections based upon
LOLE of pool adjusted to be usage profile from MAPS
between 0.10 and 0.15 analysis. No flows between
days per year by adjusting HQ and IESO or ISONE.
capacity pro-rata in all
areas.
4 IESO As per RNA Procedure Similar method Same as 2020 RNA Base
External model (load, Case
capacity, topology) provided
by PJM/NPCC CP-8 WG.
LOLE of pool adjusted to be
between 0.10 and 0.15
days per year by adjusting
capacity pro-rata in all
areas.
5 Reserve Sharing All NPCC Control Areas Similar method Same as 2020 RNA Base
indicate that they will share Case
reserves equally among all
members before sharing
with PJM.
6 NYCA Emergency Implemented a statewide Similar method Implemented a statewide
Assistance Limit limit of 3,500 MW (excluding assistance from
HQ) limit of 3,500 MW

Miscellaneous

1 MARS Model Version 3.22.6 3.29.1499 3.29.1499

Version

2020 RNA - Appendices | 34

 Assumptions Matrix for Transmission Security Assessment
2020 RNA
Transmission Security 2020 RNA 70x30
Parameter Scenario Case Source
Studies Modeling Study Period: 2030
Assumptions
Peak Load NYCA baseline coincident NYCA baseline coincident 2020 Gold Book
summer peak forecast, summer peak forecast for
which already includes EE 2030 with adjustments to
and DG (including solar) BTM Solar in accordance with
reductions. the CARIS 70x30 Base Load.
Load Model ConEd: voltage varying No Change 2020 FERC 715 filing

Rest of NYCA: constant No Change

power
System Representation Per updates received No Change NYISO RAD Manual, 2020
through Databank process FERC 715 filing
(Subject to RNA base case
inclusion rules).
Inter-area Interchange Consistent with ERAG No Change 2020 FERC 715 filing,
Schedules MMWG interchange MMWG
schedule.
Inter-area Controllable Tie Consistent with applicable No Change 2020 FERC 715 filing
Schedules tariffs and known firm
contracts or rights.
In-City Series Reactors Consistent with ConEdison No Change 2020 FERC 715 filing, Con
operating protocol. Edison protocol
Note: series reactors on
71, 72, M51, and M52 are
modeled by-passed with
Y49, 41, and 42 series
reactors modeled in-
service.
SVCs, FACTS Set at zero pre- No Change NYISO T&D Manual
contingency; allowed to
adjust post-contingency
Transformer & PAR taps Taps allowed to adjust pre- No Change 2020 FERC 715 filing
contingency; fixed post-
contingency.
Switched Shunts Allowed to adjust pre- No Change 2020 FERC 715 filing
contingency; fixed post-
contingency.
Fault Current analysis Per Fault Current No Change NYISO Fault Current
settings Assessment Guideline. Assessment Guideline

2020 RNA - Appendices | 35

 Summary of Proposed Generation and Transmission Assumptions
The figures below summarize similar information from the report, depicted in different ways.

Figure 17: Generation Additions by Year

Summer of Year New unit Addition Zone MW Total Additions

(Summer)
Y2021 - - 0 0
Y2022 Cassadaga Wind A 126 126
Baron Winds C 238 364
Eight Point Wind Enery Center B 101 466
Roaring Brook Wind E 80 545
Calverton Solar Energy Center K 23 568
Y2023 Ball Hill Wind A 100 668
Y2024 - - 0 668
Y2025 - - 0 668
Y2026 - - 0 668
Y2027 - - 0 668
Y2028 - - 0 668
Y2029 - - 0 668
Y2030 - - 0 668

Figure 18: Deactivations and Peaker Rule Status Change by Year

Summer of Year Retired Unit Zone MW Total Removal

(Summer)
Y2021 Somerset A 676 676
Albany LFG F 5 681
Indian Point 2 H 1,012 1,692
West Babylon K 49 1,741
Indian Point 3 H 1,036 2,778
Y2022 - - 0 2,778
Y2023 Zone A A 0 2,778
Zone G G 38 2,816
Zone J J 773 3,589
Zone K K 36 3,625
Y2024 - - 0 3,625
Y2025 Zone A A 0 3,625
Zone G G 0 3,625
Zone J J 605 4,230
Zone K K 0 4,230
Y2026 - - 4,230
Y2027 - - 4,230
Y2028 - - 4,230
Y2029 - - 4,230
Y2030 - - 4,230

2020 RNA - Appendices | 36

Figure 19: NYCA and Zone J Summaries

NYCA (MW)
Additions Reratings Deactivations Net capacity Summer
Year
Coincident
Baseline Load
Y2021 0 0 2,778 37,334 32,129
Y2022 568 0 2,778 37,902 32,128
Y2023 668 0 3,625 37,155 31,918
Y2024 668 0 3,625 37,155 31,838
Y2025 668 0 4,230 36,551 31,711
Y2026 668 0 4,230 36,551 31,670
Y2027 668 0 4,230 36,551 31,673
Y2028 668 0 4,230 36,551 31,756
Y2029 668 0 4,230 36,551 31,865
Y2030 668 0 4,230 36,551 31,992

Zone J (MW)
Year Additions Reratings Deactivations Net capacity Peak Load
Y2021 0 0 0 9,568 11,300
Y2022 0 0 0 9,568 11,397
Y2023 0 0 773 8,795 11,362
Y2024 0 0 773 8,795 11,395
Y2025 0 0 1,378 8,190 11,390
Y2026 0 0 1,378 8,190 11,446
Y2027 0 0 1,378 8,190 11,504
Y2028 0 0 1,378 8,190 11,583
Y2029 0 0 1,378 8,190 11,670
Y2030 0 0 1,378 8,190 11,757

The additional proposed projects from the Interconnection Queue are shown in Figure 20 and Figure
21.

2020 RNA - Appendices | 37

Figure 20: Additional Proposed Generation Projects from the 2020 Gold Book

Queue Owner/ Operator Proposed Generator Project Zone Proposed Date* Requested Summer
CRIS (MW)1 (MW)
Completed Class Year Facilities Study
387 Cassadaga Wind, LLC Cassadaga Wind A Dec-20 126.0 126.5
396 Baron Winds, LLC Baron Winds C Dec-20 300.0 238.4
422 NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Eight Point Wind Enery Center B Dec-20 101.2 101.8
363 Anbaric Development Parners, LLC Poseidon Offshore K Jan-21 500.0 500.0
349 Taylor Biomass Energy Montgomery, LLC Taylor Biomass G Apr-21 19.0 19.0
505 RES America Development Inc. Ball Hill Wind A Dec-22 100.0 100.0
393 NRG Berrians East Development, LLC Berrians East Replacement J Feb-23 508.0 431.0
Completed CRIS Requests
430 HQUS Cedar Rapids Transmission Upgrade D Oct-21 80.0 N/A
Class Year 2019
618 North Park Energy, LLC High River Solar F Nov-20 90.0 90.0
519 Canisteo Wind Energy LLC Canisteo Wind C Dec-20 290.7 290.7
531 Invenery Wind Development LLC Number 3 Wind Energy E Dec-20 105.8 105.8
546 Atlantic Wind, LLC Roaring Brook Wind E Dec-20 79.7 79.7
579 Bluestone Wind, LLC Bluestone Wind E Dec-20 124.2 124.2
617 North Park Energy, LLC Watkins Glen Solar C Dec-20 50.0 50.0
678 LI Solar Generation, LLC Calverton Solar Energy Center K Dec-20 22.9 22.9
683 KCE NY 2, LLC KCE NY 2 G Jun-21 200.0 200.0
535 sPower Development Company, LLC Riverhead Expansion K Oct-21 36.0 36.0
644 Hecate Energy Columbia County 1, LLC Columbia County 1 F Oct-21 60.0 60.0
495 Mohawk Solar LLC Mohawk Solar F Nov-21 90.5 90.5
571 Heritage Renewables, LLC Heritage Wind A Nov-21 200.1 200.1
591 Geronimo Energy, LLC High Top Solar C Nov-21 20.0 20.0
629 Silver Lake Solar, LLC Silver Lake Solar C Nov-21 24.9 24.9
637 Flint Mine Solar LLC Flint Mine Solar G Nov-21 100.0 100.0
706 High Brigde Wind, LLC High Brigde Wind E Nov-21 100.8 100.8
560 Atlantic Wind, LLC Deer River Wind E Dec-21 100.0 100.0
594 North Park Energy, LLC NW Energy C Dec-21 60.0 60.0
595 North Park Energy, LLC SW Energy A Dec-21 100.0 100.0
596 Invenergy Wind Development LLC Alle Catt II Wind A Dec-21 339.8 339.8
619 North Park Energy, LLC East Point Solar F Dec-21 50.0 50.0
697 Helix Ravenswood, LLC Ravenswood Energy Storage 1 J May-22 129.0 129.0
698 Helix Ravenswood, LLC Ravenswood Energy Storage 2 J May-22 129.0 129.0
746 Energy Storage Resouces, LLC Peconic River Energy Storage K Jun-22 150.0 150.0
620 North Park Energy, LLC North Side Solar D Nov-22 180.0 180.0
718 Cortland Energy Center,LLC Cortland Energy Center C Nov-22 50.0 50.0
720 North Light Energy Center, LLC North Light Energy Center C Nov-22 80.0 80.0
721 Excelsior Energy Center, LLC Excelsior Energy Center A Nov-22 280.0 280.0
612 Deepwater Wind South Fork, LLC South Fork Wind Farm K Dec-22 96.0 96.0
695 Deepwater Wind South Fork, LLC South Fork Wind Farm II K Dec-22 40.0 40.0
704 Bear Ridge Solar, LLC Bear Ridge Solar A Dec-22 100.0 100.0
791 Danskammer Energy LLC Danskammer Energy Center G Oct-23 88.9 595.5
276 EDF Renewables Development, Inc. Homer Solar Energy Center C Dec-23 90.0 90.0
668 North Bergen Liberty Generating, LLC Liberty Generating Alternative J Feb-24 1,172.0 1,171.0
737 Equinor Wind US LLC Empire Wind J Dec-24 816.0 816.0
738 Equinor Wind US LLC Empire Wind II K Dec-24 816.0 816.0
Gowanus Gas Turbine Facility
778 Astoria Generating Company LP J May-24 0.0 549.0
Repowering

2020 RNA - Appendices | 38

 Queue Owner/ Operator Proposed Generator Project Zone Proposed Date* Requested Summer
CRIS (MW)1 (MW)
CRIS Requests
Innovative Energy Systems, LLC Fulton County Landfill F Oct-20 3.2 N/A
Seneca Energy II, LLC Ontario Landfill B Oct-20 3.6 N/A
BSC Owner LLC Spring Creek Tower J Oct-20 8.0 N/A
Energy Storage Resources, LLC Eagle Energy Storage J Nov-21 20.0 N/A
Gernonimo Energy, LLC Blue Stone Solar G Jul-21 20.0 N/A
Energy Storage Resources, LLC Queen City Energy Storage K Sep-21 19.2 N/A
Strata Storage, LLC Groundvault Energy Storage J Nov-21 12.5 N/A
Strata Storage, LLC Stillwell Energy Storage J Nov-21 10.0 N/A
Strata Storage, LLC Cleancar Energy Storage J Nov-21 15.0 N/A
KCE NY 14, LLC KCE NY 14 G Sep-20 20.0 N/A
Hannacroix Solar Facility, LLC Hannacroix Solar G Oct-20 3.2 N/A
RWE Solar Development, LLC Monsey 44-6 G May-20 5.0 N/A
RWE Solar Development, LLC Monsey 44-2 G May-20 5.0 N/A
RWE Solar Development, LLC Monsey 44-3 G May-20 5.0 N/A
RWE Solar Development, LLC Cuddebackville Battery G Jan-22 10.0 N/A
RWE Solar Development, LLC Jewett Avenue J May-22 20.0 N/A
KCE NY 18, LLC KCE NY 18 G Jun-21 20.0 N/A
Yonkers Grid, LLC Yonkers Grid J Sep-22 20.0 N/A
King's Plaza Energy LLC King's Plaza J Oct-20 6.0 N/A
Gravity Renewables, Inc Dahowa Hydroelectric F Oct-20 10.5 N/A
Enel Green Power North America, Inc. Cuddebackville G May-22 10.0 N/A
734 ELP Ticonderoga Solar, LLC ELP Ticonderoga Solar F May-21 20.0 N/A
741 Bluestone Wind, LLC Bluestone Battery Storage E Aug-20 10.0 N/A
744 Granada Solar LLC Magruder Solar G Dec-20 20.0 N/A
756 Rising Solar, LLC Rising Solar II G Nov-21 20.0 N/A
770 KCE NY 8a LLC KCE NY 8a G May-20 20.0 N/A
804 KCE NY 10, LLC KCE NY 10 A Sep-20 20.0 N/A
Future Class Year Candidates
520 EDP Renewables North America Rolling Upland Wind E Oct-19 72.6 72.6
468 Apex Clean Energy LLC Galloo Island Wind C Dec-19 110.4 110.4
523 Dunkirk Power, LLC Dunkirk Unit 2 A Apr-20 75.0 75.0
524 Dunkirk Power, LLC Dunkirk Unit 3 & 4 A Apr-20 370.0 370.0
496 Renovo Energy Center, LLC Renovo Energy Center C Jun-20 480.0 480.0
372 Dry Lots Wind, LLC Dry Lots Wind E Dec-20 33.0 33.0
445 Lighthouse Wind, LLC Lighthouse Wind A Dec-20 201.3 201.3
526 Atlantic Wind, LLC North Ridge Wind D Dec-20 100.0 100.0
624 Franklin Solar, LLC Franklin Solar D Dec-20 150.0 150.0
686 Invenergy Solar Development North America LLC Bull Run Solar Eneryg Center D Dec-20 170.0 170.0
693 Renovo Energy Center, LLC Renovo Energy Center Uprate C Apr-21 515.0 515.0
498 ESC Tioga County Power, LLC Tioga County Power C May-21 550.0 550.0
740 Oakdale Battery Storage LLC Oakdale battery Storage C Aug-21 120.0 120.0
474 EDP Renewables North America North Slope Wind D Oct-21 200.0 200.0
466 Atlantic Wind, LLC Bone Run Wind A Dec-21 132.0 132.0
574 Atlantic Wind, LLC Mad River Wind E Dec-21 450.0 450.0
745 Energy Storage Resources, LLC Huckleberry Ridge Energy G Apr-22 100.0 100.0
699 Helix Ravenswood, LLC Ravenswood Gas J Jun-22 238.5 238.5
719 East Ling Energy Center East Light Energy Center F Nov-22 40.0 40.0
497 Invenergy Wind Development LLC Bull Run D Dec-22 303.6 303.6
521 Invenergy NY, LLC Bull Run II Wind D Dec-22 145.4 145.4
449 Stockbridge Wind, LLC Stockbridge Wind C Oct-23 72.6 72.6

2020 RNA - Appendices | 39

 Queue Owner/ Operator Proposed Generator Project Zone Proposed Date* Requested Summer
CRIS (MW)1 (MW)
Other Non Class Year Generators
775 Puckett Solar, LLC (Conti) Puckett Solar E Apr-20 20.0 20.0
570 Hecate Energy, LLC Albany County F Jun-20 20.0 20.0
598 Hecate Energy, LLC Albany County II F Jun-20 20.0 20.0
581 SED NY Holdings LLC Hills Solar E Jul-20 20.0 20.0
584 SED NY Holdings LLC Dog Corners Solar C Aug-20 20.0 20.0
586 SED NY Holdings LLC Watkins Rd Solar E Aug-20 20.0 20.0
735 ELP Stillwater Solar LLC ELP Stillwater Solar F Aug-20 20.0 20.0
638 Pattersonville Solar Facility, LLC Pattersonville F Oct-20 20.0 20.0
759 KCE NY 6, LLC KCE NY 6 A Oct-20 20.0 20.0
590 Duke Energy Renewables Solar, LLC Scipio Solar C Nov-20 20.0 20.0
592 Duke Energy Renewables Solar, LLC Niagara Solar B Nov-20 20.0 20.0
513 Stoney Creek Energy, LLC Orangeville C Dec-20 20.0 20.0
572 Hecate Energy Greene 1 LLC Greene County 1 G Dec-20 20.0 20.0
573 Hecate Energy Greene 2 LLC Greene County 2 G Dec-20 10.0 10.0
575 Little Pond Solar, LLC Little Pond Solar G Dec-20 20.0 20.0
589 Duke Energy Renewables Solar, LLC North Country Solar E Dec-20 15.0 15.0
621 Blue Stone Solar Energy, LLC Saugerties Solar G Dec-20 20.0 20.0
649 CR Fuel Cell, LLC Clare Rose K Dec-20 13.9 13.9
669 SED NY Holdings LLC Clay Solar C Dec-20 20.0 20.0
670 SED NY Holdings LLC Skyline Solar E Dec-20 20.0 20.0
682 Grissom Solar, LLC Grissom Solar F Dec-20 20.0 20.0
748 Regan Solar, LLC (Conti) Grissom Solar II F Dec-20 20.0 20.0
564 Rock District Solar, LLC Rock District Solar F Apr-21 20.0 20.0
565 Tayandenega Solar, LLC Tayandenega Solar F Apr-21 20.0 20.0
730 Darby Solar, LLC CS Easton Solar 1 F Mar-21 20.0 20.0
731 Branscomb Solar, LLC CS Easton Solar 2 F Mar-21 20.0 20.0
768 Janis Solar, LLC Janis Solar C Mar-21 20.0 20.0
545 Sky High Solar, LLC Sky High Solar C May-21 20.0 20.0
666 Martin Rd Solar LLC Martin Solar A Oct-21 20.0 20.0
715 EDF Renewables Development, Inc. Suffragette Solar C Nov-21 20.0 20.0
487 LI Energy Storage System, LLC Far Rockawary Battery Storage K Dec-21 20.0 20.0
597 Hecate Energy Greene County 3 LLC Greene County 3 G Dec-21 20.0 20.0
650 BRT Fuel Cell, LLC Brookhaven Rail Terminal K May-22 18.5 18.5
667 Bakerstand Solar LLC Bakerstand Solar A Oct-22 20.0 20.0
included in the 2020 RNA Base Case
included in the 2019 - 2028 CRP

* Generation projects that met 2020 RNA Inclusion Rule are assumed to be in-service one year later than 2020 GB Proposed Date
to reflect the potential impact of Covid-19 on construction and completion.

2020 RNA - Appendices | 40

Figure 21: Additional Proposed Transmission Projects from the 2020 Gold Book

Queue Owner Terminals

Proposed Merchant Transmission Projects
506 Empire State Connector Corp. Marcy 345kV Gowanus 345kV
631, 15 Transmission Developers Inc. Hertel 735kV (Quebec) New Scotland, Astoria Annex 345kV
458,15 Transmission Developers Inc. Hertel 735kV (Quebec) Astoria Annex 345kV
Proposed TIP Projects (included in FERC 715 Base Case)
430 Empire State Connector Corp. Dennison Alcoa
545A NextEra Energy Transmission NY Dysinger (New Station) East Stolle (New Station)
545A NextEra Energy Transmission NY Dysinger  (New Station) Dysinger  (New Station)
556 NGRID Porter Rotterdam
556 NGRID Porter Rotterdam
556 NGRID Edic New Scotland
556 NAT/NYPA/NGRID Edic Rotterdam
556 NAT/NYPA Rotterdam Princetown
556 NAT/NYPA Edic Princetown
556 NAT/NYPA Princetown New Scotland
556 NGRID Princetown New Scotland
543 NGRID Greenbush Hudson
543 NGRID Hudson Pleasant Valley
543 NGRID Schodack Churchtown
543 NGRID Churchtown Pleasant Valley
543 NGRID Milan Pleasant Valley
543 NGRID Lafarge Pleasant Valley
543 NGRID North Catskill Milan
543 O&R Shoemaker, Middle Sugarloaf, Chester
543 NGRID New Scotland Alps
543 New York Transco Schodack Churchtown
543 New York Transco Churchtown Pleasant Valley
543 NGRID Lafarge Churchtown
543 NGRID North Catskill Churchtown
543 New York Transco Knickerbocker Pleasant Valley
543 New York Transco Knickerbocker Knickerbocker
543 NGRID Knickerbocker New Scotland
543 NGRID Knickerbocker Alps
543 New York Transco Shoemaker Sugarloaf
543 New York Transco Shoemaker, Middle Sugarloaf, Chester
included in the 2020 RNA Base Case
included in the 2019 - 2028 CRP

RNA Power Flow Base Case Development

The NYISO developed the 2020 RNA Base Cases used to analyze the performance of the transmission
system from the 2020 FERC 715 filing power flow case library. The load representation in the power flow
model is the summer peak load forecast reported in the 2020 Gold Book Table 1-3a baseline forecast of
coincident peak demand. The system representation for the NPCC Areas in the base cases is from the
2019 Base Case Development libraries compiled by the NPCC SS-37 Base Case Development working

2020 RNA - Appendices | 41

group. The NYISO derived the PJM system representation from the PJM Regional Transmission Expansion
Plan (RTEP) planning process models. The remaining models are from the Eastern Interconnection
Reliability Assessment Group (ERAG) Multiregional Modeling Working Group (MMWG) 2019 power flow
model library.

The NYISO utilized the RNA Base Case inclusion rules to screen the projects and plans for inclusion or
exclusion from the 2020 RNA Base Case. The NYISO revised the RNA Base Case inclusion rules as set forth
in Section 3 of the Reliability Planning Process Manual (Manual 26).

Specifically, the 2020 RNA Base Case does not include all projects currently listed on the NYISO’s
interconnection queue or those shown in the 2020 Gold Book. Rather, it includes only those which met the
screening requirements, as shown in the Figure 18 of the main report. The generation deactivation
assumptions are reflected in Figure19 and Figure 20 of the main report. The firm transmission plans
included in the RNA Base Case are listed in Figure 22 on the next page.

2020 RNA - Appendices | 42

Figure 22: Firm Transmission Plans included in 2020 RNA Base Case

In-Service Nominal Voltage

Thermal Ratings (4)
Transmission Line Length in Date/Yr in kV # of
Terminals Project Description / Conductor Size
Owner Miles ckts
Prior to (2) Year Operating Design Summer Winter

Firm Plans (5) (included in FERC 715 Base Case)

ConEd Jamaica Jamaica Reconfiguration In-Service 2019 138 138 N/A N/A Reconfiguration

ConEd East 13th East 13th xfmr In-Service 2019 345 345 N/A N/A Replacing xfmr 10 and xfmr 11
Street Street
ConEd Gowanus Gowanus xfmr In-Service 2019 345 345 N/A N/A Replacing xfmr T2

ConEd East 13th East 13th Reconfiguration In-Service 2019 345 345 N/A N/A Reconfiguration (xfmr 10 -xfmr 11)
Street Street
ConEd Rainey Corona xfmr/Phase In-Service 2019 345/138 345/138 1 268 MVA 320 MVA xfmr/Phase shifter
shifter
LIPA Far Rockaway Far Rockaway Reconfiguration In-Service 2019 34.5 34.5 N/A N/A Reconfigure 34.5 kV switchgear

LIPA Elwood Elwood Breaker In-Service 2019 138 138 N/A N/A Install double bus tie - Operate Normally
Open
LIPA Canal Southampton 5.20 In-Service 2019 69 69 1 1107 1169 2500 kcmil XLPE CU

LIPA Deer Park Deer Park - W 2019 69 69 1 N/A N/A Install 27 MVAR Cap Bank

LIPA MacArthur MacArthur - W 2019 69 69 1 N/A N/A Install 27 MVAR Cap Bank

LIPA West East Garden -2.92 In-Service 2019 69 69 1 1158 1245 477 ACSS
Hempstead City
LIPA West Hempstead 0.97 In-Service 2019 69 69 1 1158 1245 477 ACSS
Hempstead
LIPA Hempstead East Garden 1.95 In-Service 2019 69 69 1 1158 1245 477 ACSS
City
LIPA Pilgrim West Bus -11.86 In-Service 2019 138 138 1 2087 2565 2493 ACAR

LIPA West Bus Kings 8.25 In-Service 2019 138 138 1 2087 2565 2493 ACAR

LIPA Pilgrim Kings 4.81 In-Service 2019 138 138 1 2087 2565 2493 ACAR

NGRID Golah Golah Cap Bank In-Service 2019 115 115 1 18MVAR 18MVAR Capacitor Bank

NGRID Falls Park Schodack(NG) 17.33 In-Service 2019 115 115 1 186 MVA 227 MVA Loop for NYSEG Sub Will Reconfigure NG
Line #14 Into Two New Lines
NGRID Falls Park Churchtown 9.41 In-Service 2019 115 115 1 175 MVA 206 MVA Loop for NYSEG Sub Will Reconfigure NG
Line #14 Into Two New Lines

2020 RNA - Appendices | 43

 In-Service Nominal Voltage
Transmission Line Length in # of Thermal Ratings (4)
Terminals Date/Yr in kV Project Description / Conductor Size
Owner Miles ckts
Prior to (2) Year Operating Design Summer Winter
NGRID Batavia Batavia Cap Bank In-Service 2019 115 115 1 30MVAR 30MVAR Second Capacitor Bank

NGRID Battenkill Eastover Road -22.72 In-Service 2019 115 115 1 937 1141 New Schaghticoke Switching Station

NGRID Battenkill Schaghticoke 14.31 In-Service 2019 115 115 1 937 1141 New Schaghticoke Switching Station
(New Station)
NGRID Schaghticoke Eastover Road 8.41 In-Service 2019 115 115 1 937 1141 New Schaghticoke Switching Station
(New Station)
NGRID Mohican Luther Forest -34.47 In-Service 2019 115 115 1 937 1141 New Schaghticoke Switching Station

NGRID Mohican Schaghticoke 28.13 In-Service 2019 115 115 1 937 1141 New Schaghticoke Switching Station
(New Station)
NGRID Ohio St Ohio St In-Service 2019 115 115 N/A N/A New Distribution Station at Ohio Street

NGRID Albany Steam Greenbush 6.14 In-Service 2019 115 115 2 1190 1527 Reconductor Albany - Greenbush 115kV
lines 1 & 2
NGRID Schodack Churchtown -26.74 In-Service 2019 115 115 1 937 1141 Line removal tapped by Falls Park Project

NGRID Sodeman Rd Sodeman Rd In-Service 2019 115 115 N/A N/A New Distribution Station at Sodeman Road

NGRID Dewitt Dewitt In-Service 2019 115 115 N/A N/A New Distribution Station at Dewitt

NGRID Luther Forest Schaghticoke 6.34 In-Service 2019 115 115 1 1280 1563 New Schaghticoke Switching Station
(New Station)
NGRID Seneca Seneca - In-Service 2019 115/22 115/22 - 50MVA 50MVA Damage/Failure on TR2

NGRID Mortimer Mortimer Reconfiguration In-Service 2019 115 115 1 N/A N/A Reconfiguration of Station

NGRID Mohican Butler 3.50 S 2019 115 115 1 TBD TBD Replace 3.5 miles of conductor w/min
336.4 ACSR
NYSEG Wood Street Carmel 1.34 In-Service 2019 115 115 1 261 MVA 261 MVA 477 ACSR

NYSEG Flat Street Flat Street xfmr In-Service 2019 115/34.5 115/34.5 2 40MVA 45.2MVA Transformer #2

NYSEG Falls Park In-Service 2019 115/34.5 115/34.5 Tap to interconnect NG Line #14
115/34.5kV
NYSEG Falls Park Falls Park xfmr In-Service 2019 115/34.5 115/34.5 1 62 MVA 70 MVA Transformer #1

2020 RNA - Appendices | 44

 In-Service Nominal Voltage
Transmission Line Length in # of Thermal Ratings (4)
Terminals Date/Yr in kV Project Description / Conductor Size
Owner Miles ckts
Prior to (2) Year Operating Design Summer Winter
RGE Station 42 Station 23 Phase Shifter In-Service 2019 115 115 1 253 MVA 253 MVA Phase Shifter

RGE Station 23 Station 23 xfmr In-Service 2019 115/11.5/1 115/11.5/ 2 75 MVA 84 MVA Transformer
1.5 11.5
RGE Station 23 Station 23 xfmr W 2019 115/34.5 115/34.5 2 75 MVA 84 MVA Transformer

CHGE North Chelsea North Chelsea xfmr S 2020 115/69 115/69 1 564 728 Replace Transformer 1

CHGE Fishkill Plains East Fishkill 2.05 S 2020 115 115 1 995 1218 1-1033.5 ACSR

CHGE North Catskill North Catskill xfmr W 2020 115/69 115/69 2 560 726 Replace Transformer 4 & 5

ConEd Buchanan Buchanan Reconfiguration S 2020 345 345 N/A N/A Reconfiguration (bus work related to
North North decommissioning of Indain Point 2)
LIPA Meadowbrook East Garden -3.11 S 2020 69 69 1 458 601 4/0 CU
City
LIPA East Garden Lindbergh 2.50 S 2020 69 69 1 575 601 750 kcmil CU
City
LIPA Lindbergh Meadowbrook 2.11 S 2020 69 69 1 458 601 4/0 CU

LIPA Elmont Floral Park -1.59 S 2020 34.5 34.5 1 644 816 477 AL

LIPA Elmont Belmont 1.82 S 2020 34.5 34.5 1 342 457 2/0 CU

LIPA Belmont Floral Park 2.04 S 2020 34.5 34.5 1 644 816 477 AL

LIPA MacArthur - Cap Bank S 2020 69 69 1 27MVAR 27 MVAR Capacitor bank

NGRID Rosa Rd Rosa Rd - S 2020 115 115 N/A N/A Install 35.2MVAR Cap Bank at Rosa Rd

NGRID Rotterdam Curry Rd 7 S 2020 115 115 1 808 856 Replace 7.0 miles of mainly 4/0 Cu
conductor with 795kcmil ACSR 26/7
NGRID Elm St Elm St xfmr S 2020 230/23 230/23 1 118MVA 133MVA Add a fourth 230/23kV transformer

NGRID West Ashville West Ashville S 2020 115 115 N/A N/A New Distribution Station at West Ashville

NGRID Spier Rotterdam -32.74 S 2020 115 115 1 1168 1416 New Lasher Rd Switching Station
(#2)
NGRID Spier Lasher Rd 21.69 S 2020 115 115 1 1168 1416 New Lasher Rd Switching Station
(New Station)

2020 RNA - Appendices | 45

 In-Service Nominal Voltage
Transmission Line Length in # of Thermal Ratings (4)
Terminals Date/Yr in kV Project Description / Conductor Size
Owner Miles ckts
Prior to (2) Year Operating Design Summer Winter
NGRID Lasher Rd Rotterdam 11.05 S 2020 115 115 1 2080 2392 New Lasher Rd Switching Station
(New Station)
NGRID Spier Luther Forest -34.21 S 2020 115 115 1 916 1070 New Lasher Rd Switching Station
(#302)
NGRID Spier Lasher Rd 21.72 S 2020 115 115 1 916 1118 New Lasher Rd Switching Station
(New Station)
NGRID Lasher Rd Luther Forest 12.49 S 2020 115 115 1 990 1070 New Lasher Rd Switching Station
(New Station)
NGRID Rotterdam Rotterdam - S 2020 115 115 2 N/A N/A Install Series Reactors at Rotterdam
Station on lines 17 & 19
NGRID Huntley Lockport 6.9 S 2020 115 115 2 1303 1380 Replace 6.9 miles of 36 and 37 lines

NGRID Two Mile Two Mile S 2020 115 115 N/A N/A New Distribution Station at Two Mile Creek
Creek Creek
NGRID Maple Ave Maple Ave S 2020 115 115 N/A N/A New Distribution Station at Maple Ave

NGRID Randall Rd Randall Rd S 2020 115 115 N/A N/A New Distribution Station at Randall Road

NGRID GE Geres Lock 7.14 S 2020 115 115 1 785 955 Reconductoring 4/0CU & 336 ACSR to 477
ACCR (Line #8)
NGRID Gardenville Gardenville - S 2020 - - - - - Rebuild of Gardenville 115kV Station to full
115kV 115kV breaker and a half
NGRID Rotterdam Woodlawn 7 S 2020 115 115 1 Replace 7.0 miles of mainly 4/0 Cu
conductor with 795kcmil ACSR 26/7
NGRID Gardenville Gardenville xfmr S 2020 230/115 230/115 - 347 MVA 422 MVA Replacement of 230/115kV TB#4
230kV 115kV stepdown with larger unit
NGRID Oswego Oswego - W 2020 115 115 N/A N/A Rebuild of Oswego 115kV Station

NYPA Fraser Annex Fraser Annex SSR Detection S 2020 345 345 1 1793 MVA 1793 MVA MSSC SSR Detection Project

NYPA Niagara Rochester -70.20 W 2020 345 345 1 2177 2662 2-795 ACSR

NYPA Somerset Rochester -44.00 W 2020 345 345 1 2177 2662 2-795 ACSR

NYPA Niagara Station 255 66.40 W 2020 345 345 1 2177 2662 2-795 ACSR
(New Station)
NYPA Somerset Station 255 40.20 W 2020 345 345 1 2177 2662 2-795 ACSR
(New Station)
NYPA Station 255 Rochester 3.80 W 2020 345 345 2 2177 2662 2-795 ACSR
(New Station)

2020 RNA - Appendices | 46

 In-Service Nominal Voltage
Transmission Line Length in # of Thermal Ratings (4)
Terminals Date/Yr in kV Project Description / Conductor Size
Owner Miles ckts
Prior to (2) Year Operating Design Summer Winter
NYPA Niagara 230 Niagara 230 Breaker W 2020 230 230 1 N/A N/A Add a new breaker
kV kV
NYPA Niagara 230 Niagara 115 Autotransforme S 2020 230 115 1 240 MVA 240 MVA Replace Niagara AT #1
kV kV r
NYPA Astoria 138 kV Astoria 13.8 Astoria CC GSU W 2020 138 18 1 234 234 Astoria CC GSU Refurbishment
kV Refurbishment
NYSEG Watercure Watercure xfmr W 2020 345/230 345/230 1 426 MVA 494 MVA Transformer #2 and Station
Road Road Reconfiguration
NYSEG Willet Willet xfmr W 2020 115/34.5 115/34.5 1 39 MVA 44 MVA Transformer #2

NYSEG Coddington E. Ithaca (to 8.07 W 2020 115 115 1 307 MVA 307 MVA 665 ACCR
Coddington)
O&R West Nyack West Nyack Cap Bank S 2020 138 138 1 - - Capacitor Bank

O&R Harings Corner Closter (RECO) 3.20 S 2020 69 69 1 1098 1312 UG Cable
(RECO)
O&R Ramapo Ramapo xfmr S 2020 345/138 345/138 1 731 731 -

RGE Station 122- Station 122- S 2020 345 345 1 1314 MVA- 1314 MVA- Relay Replacement
Pannell-PC1 Pannell-PC1 LTE LTE
RGE Station 262 Station 23 1.46 W 2020 115 115 1 2008 2008 Underground Cable

RGE Station 33 Station 262 2.97 W 2020 115 115 1 2008 2008 Underground Cable

RGE Station 262 Station 262 xfmr W 2020 115/34.5 115/34.5 1 58.8MVA 58.8MVA Transformer

RGE Station 255 Rochester 3.80 W 2020 345 345 1 2177 2662 2-795 ACSR
(New Station)
RGE Station 255 Station 255 xfmr W 2020 345/115 345/115 1 400 MVA 450 MVA Transformer
(New Station) (New Station)
RGE Station 255 Station 255 xfmr W 2020 345/115 345/115 2 400 MVA 450 MVA Transformer
(New Station) (New Station)
RGE Station 255 Station 418 9.60 W 2020 115 115 1 1506 1807 New 115kV Line
(New Station)
RGE Station 255 Station 23 11.10 W 2020 115 115 1 1506 1807 New 115kV Line
(New Station)
CHGE Hurley Avenue Leeds Static S 2021 345 345 1 2336 2866 21% Compensation
synchronous
LIPA Valley Stream East Garden 7.36 S 2021 138 138 1 1171 1171 2000 SQMM XLPE
City

2020 RNA - Appendices | 47

 In-Service Nominal Voltage
Transmission Line Length in # of Thermal Ratings (4)
Terminals Date/Yr in kV Project Description / Conductor Size
Owner Miles ckts
Prior to (2) Year Operating Design Summer Winter
LIPA Amagansett Montauk -13.00 S 2021 23 23 1 577 657 750 kcmil CU

LIPA Amagansett Navy Road 12.74 S 2021 23 23 1 577 657 750 kcmil CU

LIPA Navy Road Montauk 0.26 S 2021 23 23 1 577 657 750 kcmil CU

LIPA Riverhead Wildwood 10.63 S 2021 138 138 1 1399 1709 1192ACSR

LIPA Riverhead Canal 16.49 S 2021 138 138 1 1000 1110 2368 KCMIL (1200 mm²) Copper XLPE

LIPA Deer Park - Cap Bank S 2021 69 69 1 27MVAR 27 MVAR Capacitor bank

NGRID Clay Dewitt 10.24 S 2021 115 115 1 220MVA 268MVA Reconductor 4/0 CU to 795ACSR

NGRID Clay Teall 12.75 S 2021 115 115 1 220 MVA 268MVA Reconductor 4/0 CU to 795ACSR

NGRID Gardenville Gardenville xfmr S 2021 230/115 230/115 - 347 MVA 422 MVA Replacement of 230/115kV TB#3
230kV 115kV stepdown with larger unit
NGRID Huntley 115kV Huntley - S 2021 230 230 - N/A N/A Rebuild of Huntley 115kV Station
115kV
NGRID Mortimer Mortimer xfmr S 2021 115 115 50MVA 50MVA Replace Mortimer 115/69kV Transformer

NGRID Mortimer Mortimer - S 2021 115 115 N/A N/A Second 115kV Bus Tie Breaker at
Mortimer Station
NGRID New New - S 2021 115 115 N/A N/A New Bethlehem 115/13.2kV station
Bethlehem Bethlehem
NGRID New Cicero New Cicero S 2021 115 115 N/A N/A New Distribution Station at New Cicero

NGRID Mountain Lockport 0.08 S 2021 115 115 2 174MVA 199MVA Mountain-Lockport 103/104 Bypass

NGRID Royal Ave Royal Ave - S 2021 115/13.2 115/13.2 - - - Install new 115-13.2 kV distribution
substation in Niagara Falls (Royal Ave)
NGRID Niagara Packard 3.4 W 2021 115 115 1 344MVA 449MVA Replace 3.4 miles of 192 line

NYPA Moses 230 kV Adirondack Series S 2021 230 230 - ±13.2kV ±13.2kV Voltage Source Series Compensation
230 kV Compensation
NYPA St. Lawrence St. Lawrence xfmr S 2021 230/115 230/115 1 TBD TBD Replacement of St. Lawrence
230kV 115kV AutoTransformer #2
NYPA Plattsburg 230 Plattsburg xfmr W 2021 230/115 230/115 1 249 288 Refurbishment of Plattsburgh Auto
kV 115 kV Transformer #1

2020 RNA - Appendices | 48

 In-Service Nominal Voltage
Transmission Line Length in # of Thermal Ratings (4)
Terminals Date/Yr in kV Project Description / Conductor Size
Owner Miles ckts
Prior to (2) Year Operating Design Summer Winter
NYPA Astoria Annex Astoria Annex Shunt Reactor W 2021 345 345 2 TBD TBD

O&R Lovett 345 kV Lovett xfmr S 2021 345/138 345/138 1 562 MVA 562 MVA Transformer
Station (New
O&R Little Tor - Cap Bank S 2021 138 138 1 32 MVAR 32 MVAR Capacitor bank

O&R Deerpak Port Jervis 2 S 2021 69 69 1 1604

O&R Westtown Port Jervis 7 S 2021 69 69 1 1604

O & R/ConEd Ladentown Buchanan -9.5 S 2021 345 345 1 3000 3211 2-2493 ACAR

O & R/ConEd Ladentown Lovett 345 kV 5.5 S 2021 345 345 1 3000 3211 2-2493 ACAR
Station (New
O & R/ConEd Lovett 345 kV Buchanan 4 S 2021 345 345 1 3000 3211 2-2493 ACAR
Station (New
CHGE St. Pool High Falls 5.61 W 2022 115 115 1 1010 1245 1-795 ACSR

CHGE High Falls Kerhonkson 10.03 W 2022 115 115 1 1010 1245 1-795 ACSR

CHGE Modena Galeville 4.62 W 2022 115 115 1 1010 1245 1-795 ACSR

CHGE Galeville Kerhonkson 8.96 W 2022 115 115 1 1010 1245 1-795 ACSR

CHGE Hurley Ave Saugerties 11.40 W 2022 69 115 1 1114 1359 1-795 ACSR

CHGE Kerhonkson Kerhonkson xfmr W 2022 115/69 115/69 1 564 728 Add Transformer 3

CHGE Kerhonkson Kerhonkson xfmr W 2022 115/69 115/69 1 564 728 Add Transformer 4

CHGE Rock Tavern Sugarloaf 12.10 W 2022 115 115 1 N/A N/A Retire SL Line

CHGE Sugarloaf NY/NJ State 10.30 W 2022 115 115 2 N/A N/A Retire SD/SJ Lines
Line
NGRID South Oswego Indeck (#6) - S 2022 115 115 1 - - Install High Speed Clearing on Line #6

NGRID Porter Porter - S 2022 230 230 N/A N/A Porter 230kV upgrades

NGRID Watertown Watertown S 2022 115 115 N/A N/A New Distribution Station at Watertown

2020 RNA - Appendices | 49

 In-Service Nominal Voltage
Transmission Line Length in # of Thermal Ratings (4)
Terminals Date/Yr in kV Project Description / Conductor Size
Owner Miles ckts
Prior to (2) Year Operating Design Summer Winter
NGRID Golah Golah xfmr S 2022 69 69 50MVA 50MVA Replace Golah 69/34.5kV Transformer

NGRID Niagara Packard 3.7 S 2022 115 115 1 344MVA 449MVA Replace 3.7 miles of 191 line

NGRID Lockport Mortimer 56.5 S 2022 115 115 3 - - Replace Cables Lockport-Mortimer #111,
113, 114
NGRID Niagara Packard 3.7 W 2022 115 115 2 344MVA 449MVA Replace 3.7 miles of 193 and 194 lines

NGRID Gardenville Big Tree 6.3 W 2022 115 115 1 221MVA 221MVA Gardenville-Arcade #151 Loop-in-and-out of
NYSEG Big Tree
NGRID Big Tree Arcade 28.6 W 2022 115 115 1 129MVA 156MVA Gardenville-Arcade #151 Loop-in-and-out of
NYSEG Big Tree
NGRID Coffeen Coffeen - S 2022 115 115 - TBD TBD Terminal equipment replacements

NGRID Browns Falls Browns Falls - S 2022 115 115 - TBD TBD Terminal equipment replacements

NGRID Taylorville Taylorville - S 2022 115 115 - TBD TBD Terminal equipment replacements

NYPA Niagara 345 Niagara 230 xfmr W 2022 345/230 345/230 1 TBD TBD Replacement of Niagara AutoTransformer
kV kV #3
NYSEG South Perry South Perry xfmr W 2022 115/34.5 115/34.5 1 59 MVA 67 MVA Transformer #3

NYSEG South Perry South Perry xfmr W 2022 230/115 230/115 1 246 MVA 291 MVA Transformer

NYSEG Fraser Fraser xfmr W 2022 345/115 345/115 1 305 MVA 364 MVA Transformer #2 and Station
Reconfiguration
NYSEG Fraser 115 Fraser 115 Rebuild W 2022 115 115 N/A N/A Station Rebuild to 4 bay BAAH

NYSEG Delhi Delhi Removal W 2022 115 115 N/A N/A Remove 115 substation and terminate
existing lines to Fraser 115 (short distance)
NYSEG Erie Street Erie Street Rebuild W 2022 115 115 Station Rebuild
Rebuild Rebuild
NYSEG Big Tree Road Big Tree Road Rebuild W 2022 115 115 Station Rebuild

NYSEG Meyer Meyer xfmr W 2022 115/34.5 115/34.5 2 59.2MVA 66.9MVA Transformer #2

O&R Ramapo (NY) South 5.50 W 2022 138 138 2 1980 2120 1272 ACSS
Mahwah
RGE Station 168 Mortimer (NG 26.4 W 2022 115 115 1 145 MVA 176 MVA Station 168 Reinforcement Project
Trunk #2)

2020 RNA - Appendices | 50

 In-Service Nominal Voltage
Transmission Line Length in # of Thermal Ratings (4)
Terminals Date/Yr in kV Project Description / Conductor Size
Owner Miles ckts
Prior to (2) Year Operating Design Summer Winter
RGE Station 168 Elbridge (NG 45.5 W 2022 115 115 1 145 MVA 176 MVA Station 168 Reinforcement Project
Trunk # 6)
RGE Station 127 Station 127 xfmr W 2022 115/34.5 115/34.5 1 75MVA 75MVA Transformer #2

CHGE Saugerties North Catskill 12.46 W 2023 69 115 1 1114 1359 1-795 ACSR

NGRID Cortland Clarks 0.2 S 2023 115 115 1 147MVA 170MVA Replace 0.2 miles of 1(716) line and
Corners series equipment
NGRID Maplewood Menands 3 S 2023 115 115 1 220 MVA 239 MVA Reconductor approx 3 miles of 115kV
Maplewood – Menands #19
NGRID Maplewood Reynolds 3 S 2023 115 115 1 217 MVA 265 MVA Reconductor approx 3 miles of
115kV Maplewood – Reynolds Road #31
NGRID Elm St Elm St - S 2023 230/23 230/23 - 118MVA 133MVA Replace TR2 as failure

NGRID Packard Huntley 9.1 W 2023 115 115 1 262MVA 275MVA Walck-Huntley #133, Packard-Huntley
#130 Reconductor
NGRID Walck Huntley 9.1 W 2023 115 115 1 262MVA 275MVA Walck-Huntley #133, Packard-Huntley
#130 Reconductor
NGRID Kensington Kensington - W 2023 115/23 115/23 - 50MVA 50MVA Replace TR4 and TR5
Terminal Terminal
NGRID Malone Malone - S 2023 115 115 - TBD TBD Station Rebuild

NGRID Taylorville Boonville - S 2023 115 115 - TBD TBD Install series reactors on the 5 and 6 lines.
Size TBD
NYPA Moses Adirondack 78 S 2023 230 345 2 1088 1329 Replace 78 miles of both Moses-
Adirondack 1&2
NYPA Niagara 345 Niagara 230 xfmr W 2023 345/230 345/230 1 TBD TBD Replacement of Niagara AutoTransformer
kV kV #5
NYSEG Gardenville Gardenville xfmr W 2023 230/115 230/115 1 316 MVA 370 MVA NYSEG Transformer #3 and Station
Reconfiguration
NYSEG Wood Street Wood Street xfmr W 2023 345/115 345/115 1 327 MVA 378 MVA Transformer #3

O&R Burns West Nyack 5.00 S 2023 138 138 1 940 940 UG Cable

O&R Shoemaker Pocatello 2.00 W 2023 69 69 1 1604 1723 795 ACSS

O&R Sugarloaf Shoemaker 12.00 W 2023 69 138 2 1062 1141 397 ACSS

ConEd Hudson Ave New Vinegar xfmrs/PARs/Fe S 2024 138/27 138/27 N/A N/A New Hudson Ave Distribution Switching
East Hill eders Station

2020 RNA - Appendices | 51

 In-Service Nominal Voltage
Transmission Line Length in # of Thermal Ratings (4)
Terminals Date/Yr in kV Project Description / Conductor Size
Owner Miles ckts
Prior to (2) Year Operating Design Summer Winter
ConEd Farragut Farragut Reconfiguration S 2024 138 138 N/A N/A Install PASS Breaker

NGRID Dunkirk Laona - S 2024 115 115 2 N/A N/A Remove series reactors from New Road
Switch Station and install new to Moons
Switch Station
NGRID Laona Moons - S 2024 115 115 2 N/A N/A Remove series reactors from New Road
Switch Station and install new to Moons
Switch Station
NGRID Golah Golah Reconfiguration S 2024 115 115 - - Add a Golah 115kV bus tie breaker

NGRID Dunkirk Dunkirk - S 2024 115 115 N/A N/A Rebuild of Dunkirk 115kV Station

NGRID Gardenville Dunkirk 20.5 S 2024 115 115 2 1105 1346 Replace 20.5 miles of 141 and 142 lines

NGRID Homer Hill Homer Hill - S 2024 115 115 - 116MVA 141MVA Homer Hill Replace five OCB

NGRID Inghams Saint 2.94 W 2024 115 115 1 1114 1359 Reconductor 2.94mi of 2/0 + 4/0 Cu (of
Johnsville 7.11mi total) to 795 ACSR
NGRID Inghams Inghams Breaker W 2024 115 115 - 2000 2000 Add series breaker to Inghams R15
115kV 115kV (Inghams - Meco #15 115kV)
NGRID Schenectady Rotterdam 0.93 W 2024 69 115 1 1114 1359 Reconductor 0.93mi of 4/0 Cu + 336.4
International ACSR (of 21.08mi total) to 795 ACSR
NGRID Rotterdam Schoharie 0.93 W 2024 69 115 1 1114 1359 Reconductor 0.93mi of 4/0 Cu (of 21.08mi
total) to 795 ACSR
NYSEG Westover 115 Westover Removal W 2024 115 115 N/A N/A Remove 115 substation and terminate
existing lines to Oakdale 115 (short
distance)
O&R Montvale - Cap Bank S 2024 69 69 1 32 MVAR 32 MVAR Capacitor bank
(RECO)
O&R Ramapo Sugarloaf 17.00 W 2024 138 138 1 1980 2120 1272 ACSS

O&R Burns Corporate 5.00 W 2024 138 138 1 1980 2120 1272 ACSS
Drive
RGE Station 418 Station 48 7.6 W 2024 115 115 1 175 MVA 225 MVA New 115kV Line

RGE Station 82 Station 251 W 2024 115 115 1 400MVA 400MVA Line Upgrade
(Upgrade Line
RGE Mortimer Station 251 1.00 W 2024 115 115 1 400MVA 400MVA Line Upgrade
(Upgrade Line
LIPA Southampton Deerfield 4.00 S 2025 69 138 1 1171 1171 2000 SQMM XLPE

NGRID Stoner Rotterdam 9.81 W 2025 115 115 1 1398 1708 Reconductor 9.81mi of 4/0 Cu + 336.4
ACSR (of 23.12mi total) to 1192.5 ACSR

2020 RNA - Appendices | 52

 In-Service Nominal Voltage
Transmission Line Length in # of Thermal Ratings (4)
Terminals Date/Yr in kV Project Description / Conductor Size
Owner Miles ckts
Prior to (2) Year Operating Design Summer Winter
NGRID Meco Rotterdam 9.81 W 2025 115 115 1 1398 1708 Reconductor 9.96mi of 4/0 Cu + 336.4
ACSR (of 30.79mi total) to 1192.5 ACSR
LIPA Syosset Shore Rd 11.00 S 2026 138 138 1 1171 1171 2000 SQMM XLPE

LIPA Syosset Shore Rd Phase Shifter S 2026 138 138 1 TBD TBD Phase Shifter

NGRID Niagara Gardenville 26.3 S 2026 115 115 1 275MVA 350MVA Packard-Erie / Niagara-Garenville
Reconfiguration
NGRID Packard Gardenville 28.2 S 2026 115 115 2 168MVA 211 MVA Packard-Gardenville Reactors, Packard-
Erie / Niagara-Garenville Reconfiguration
NGRID Mortimer Pannell 15.7 S 2026 115 115 2 221MVA 270MVA

NGRID/NYSE Erie St Gardenville 5.5 S 2026 115 115 1 139MVA 179MVA Packard-Erie / Niagara-Garenville
G Reconfiguration, Gardenville add breakers
O&R West Nyack West Nyack - S 2026 138 138 1 Station Reconfiguration

O&R West Nyack Harings 7.00 W 2026 69 138 1 1604 1723 795 ACSS
(NY) Corner (RECO)

2020 RNA - Appendices | 53

 2020 RNA MARS Model Base Case Development

The NYISO developed the system representations for PJM, Ontario, New England, and Hydro Quebec
modeled in the 2020 RNA Base Case from the NPCC CP-8 2020 Summer Assessment. To avoid
overdependence on emergency assistance from the external areas, the emergency operating procedure
data was removed from the model for each external area. In addition, the capacity of the external areas was
further modified such that the LOLE value of each external area was a minimum value of 0.10 and capped at
a value of 0.15 throughout Study Period.

The topology used in the MARS model RNA Base Case is located in Figures 28 to 30 in the body of the
report. The internal transfer limits modeled are the summer emergency ratings derived from the RNA
power flow cases discussed above. The NYISO developed external transfer limits from the NPCC CP-8
Summer Assessment MARS database with changes based upon the RNA Base Case assumptions.

Emergency Thermal Transfer Limit Analysis for Resource Adequacy Assessments

The NYISO performed analyses of the RNA Base Cases to determine emergency thermal transfer limits
for the key interfaces used in the MARS resource adequacy analysis. Figure 23 below reports the
emergency thermal transfer limits for the RNA base system conditions.

Figure 23: Emergency Thermal Transfer Limits (MW)

Interface 2025

Dysinger East 2200 1

Moses South 2650 2
Central East MARS 4925 3
F to G 5400 3
I to J 4350 4
I to K (Y49/Y50) 1293 5

Limiting Facility Rating Contingency

1 Niagara - Dysinger 345 kV 1685 Niagara - Dysinger 345 kV

2 Chases Lake - Porter 230 KV 516 Chateaugay - Massena - Marcy 765 kV
3 New Scotland - Knickerbocker 345 kV 1423 Pre-disturbance
4 Mott Haven - Rainey 345 kV 785 Pre-disturbance
5 Dunwoodie - Shore Rd. 345 kV 653 Pre-disturbance

2020 RNA - Appendices | 54

Figure 24: Dynamic Limit Tables (MW)

Oswego Complex Units*

Any 5 (or
Year Interface All available Any 1 out Any 2 out Any 3 out Any 4 out more) out
Central East MARS 3100 3050 2990 2885 2770 2645
2021 - 2023
Central East Group 5000 4925 4840 4685 4510 4310
Central East MARS 3925 3875 3815 3710 3595 3470
2024 - 2030
Central East Group 5650 5575 5490 5335 5160 4960
* 9 Mile Point 1, 9 Mile Point 2, FitzPatrick, Oswego 5, Oswego 6, Independence (Modeled as one unit in MARS)

Year Interface Barrett Steam units (1 and 2)

Both available Any 1 out Both out

All Con Ed-LIPA (towards Zone J) 220 200 130

Year Interface Northport Steam 1 - 4

All available Any out

All Norwalk CT to Zone K (NNC) 260 404

Year Interface Arthur Kill 2, Arthur Kill 3, Linden Cogen

All available Any AK 2 or AK 3 out Any 2 out
Linden out
All A Line & VFT (towards Zone J) 200 500 700 815

Year Interface CPV Valley units

Both available Any 1 out Both out

2021 - 2023 E to G (Marcy South) 1750 2000 2250

Units Available
UPNYSNY
Year CPV Valley Cricket Athens
Limit (MW)
Valley
5250 2 3 3
5100 2 3 2
5350 1 3 3
5200 2 2 3
2021- 2023
5150 2 1 3
5250 1 1 3
5100 2 0 3
5350 All other conditions

The method for modeling the UPNY-SENY interface in the MARS topology was changed for the 2020
RNA. However, the changes apply to years 2021 through 2023, which are not included in the 2020 RNA
study period. Beginning in year 2024, the UPNY-SENY interface is modeled as a single limit because of the
large increases in transfer capability resulting from addition of the AC Transmission projects.

2020 RNA - Appendices | 55

 In the 2018 RNA MARS topology, the UPNY-SENY interface was modeled in a non-standard way
because of limitations of the MARS program. For study years 2021 through 2023 in the 2018 RNA, a
fictitious interface (UPNYSNY2) was modeled that included the generation output from the Cricket Valley
and CPV Valley plants. A set of dynamic limit tables was applied to UPNYSNY2 to control the flow across the
traditional UPNY-SENY interface. This modeled required having the Cricket Valley and the CPV Valley
plants in their own MARS areas separate from Zone G. The MARS program was subsequently updated to
simplify the model for the 2020 RNA. With these program updates, the interface limits can simply be
applied to the traditional UPNY-SENY MARS interface, which eliminates the need to define the fictitious
interface. It also allows the two plants to be modeled directly in Zone G, which avoids MARS treating them
differently than the other units in Zone G. The UPNYSNY2 limits were replaced with UPNY-SENY MARS
limits for the 2020 RNA, as shown in Figure 25.

Figure 25: 2018 RNA and 2020 RNA UPNYSNY Dynamic Limit Table

2020 RNA 2018 RNA Units Available

Year
UPNY-SENY UPNYSNY2 CPV Valley Cricket Athens
MARS Limit Limit Valley
5250 6950 2 3 3
5100 6750 2 3 2
5350 6700 1 3 3
5200 6550 2 2 3
2021- 2023
5150 6150 2 1 3
5250 5950 1 1 3
5100 5800 2 0 3
5350 6600 All other conditions

The E to G (Marcy South) interface was also updated for the 2020 RNA. In the 2018 RNA, a joint
interface, CPV + Marcy Group, was utilized to capture the impact of the CPV Valley plant on the E to G
interface. A flow calculation on the joint interface effectively reduced the limit on E to G by 90% of the CPV
Valley plant output. For the 2020 RNA, this model was replaced with a DLT model applied to the E to G
interface as shown in Figure 26. The joint interface and flow calculation were removed and the CPV Valley
units were modeled directly in Zone G instead of as a separate MARS area.

2020 RNA - Appendices | 56

Figure 26: E to G Dynamic Limit Table

E to G CPV Valley
1750 2
2000 1
2250 0

The modeling changes resulted in flows and LOLE results that were extremely close when the models
were tested and compared. The new simplified models are more straightforward to implement, maintain
and verify in the MARS database.

Figure 27: UPNYSNY Topology Diagram in 2018 RNA and 2020 RNA

2018 RNA (Study Year 2021) 2020 RNA Draft (Study Year 2021)
CENTRAL EAST GROUP
CENTRAL EAST GROUP

3100 3100
E F E CENTRAL-EAST
F
CENTRAL-EAST

3400 1600
3400 1600

5000 5000
MARCY SOUTH
GILBOA ATHENS

CAPITAL-HUDV
MARCY SOUTH

CAPITAL-HUDV

UPNYSENY DL
UPNYSENY

5600

3475
3475

5600 5250

CPV VEC CRICKET

VALLEY
CPV + MARCY 6950
GROUP
2275
UPNYSNY2

G G
PJM-G
PJM-G
GROUP
GROUP
150 150

1045 1045

Additional “Free Flow” MARS Simulations Observations

To determine if transmission reinforcements would be beneficial, a “NYCA free flow” test was
executed, with results in the body of the report. A “free flow” simulation is one in which NYCA LOLEs are
determined without considering any transmission transfer limitations within the NYCA system. This
provides an indication of whether any LOLE violations identified are purely resource related or if they are
caused by limitations in the transmission system.

When removing the NYCA internal limits, the NYCA LOLE decreased to below the criterion level
throughout the Study Period, indicating that there is no statewide resource deficiency. It also showed that
transmission reinforcement, which would provide an injection into Zone J where the deficiency is located,

2020 RNA - Appendices | 57

is a potential option to resolve the identified resource adequacy Reliability Need.

Additional topology limits variations were performed to identify which specific interface transfer
capability increases help the most, and to provide additional insights. The table below summarizes those
simulations.

Figure 28: Free Flow Variations Results and Observations

Case 2030 NYCA Notes

LOLE
(days/year)
Base Case 0.187 I to J (Dunwoodie South) at 4350 MW
G to H (UPNY-ConEd) at 7375 MW

Removing 0.14 Increasing limit J to J3 from 200 MW to 815 MW for most loss
dynamic limit of load events.
from J_to_J3 However, only 420 MW can flow on the interface because the
ABC interface limitations.
I_to_J +450 MW 0.097 Minimum of +450MW on Dunwoodie South to bring LOLE just
below 0.1 days/year

I_to_J unlimited 0.053 5,660 MW max flow on I to J observed in this MARS simulation

G_to_H & I_to_J 0.049 If Dunwoodie-South is unlimited, then UPNY-ConEd unlimited

unlimited also has a positive impact on further decreasing the NYCA
LOLE
B&C Cabes in 0.116 Allowing for additional 210 MW into J has a positive effect of
decreasing the NYCA LOLE; however, LOLE still above its
criterion of 0.1 days/year
Free Flow 0.042 All NYCA internal limits removed – brings the NYCA LOLE to
significantly lower values

2020 RNA - Appendices | 58

 2020 RNA Short Circuit Assessment
Figure 29 below provides the results of NYISO’s short circuit screening test for year 5 (2025) of the
Study Period. Individual Breaker Analysis (IBA) is required for any breakers the ratings of which were
exceeded by the maximum bus fault current. Either NYISO or the responsible Transmission Owner
performed the analyses.

Figure 29: 2020 RNA Fault Current Analysis Summary Table for 2025 System Representation

Lowest
Nominal Maximum
Breaker IBA Breaker(s)
Substation Voltage Owner Bus Fault
Rating Required Overdutied
(kV) (kA)
(kA)
ACADEMY 345 63.0 Con Ed 35.0 N N
ADIRONDACK 230 32.4 N. Grid 10.5 N N
AES SOMERSET 345 40.0 NYSEG 16.7 N N
ALPS 345 39.0 N. Grid 17.4 N N
ALPS_EAST 345 N/A 2 N. Grid 7.9 N N
ALPS_PAR 1 345 N/A2 N. Grid 7.9 N N
ALPS_PAR 2 345 N/A2 N. Grid 7.9 N N
ASTE-ERG 138 63.0 Con Ed 49.7 N N
ASTE-WRG 138 63.0 Con Ed 49.7 N N
ASTORIA W-N 138 63.0 Con Ed 43.6 N N
ASTORIA W-S 138 63.0 Con Ed 43.6 N N
AstoriaAnnex 345 63.0 NYPA 44.8 N N
ATHENS 345 49.0 N. Grid 35.0 N N
BARRETT1 138 63.0 LIPA 48.8 N N
BARRETT2 138 63.0 LIPA 48.9 N N
BAYONNE 345 50.0 Con Ed 25.3 N N
BOONVILLE 115 23.0 N. Grid 10.8 N N
BOWLINE 2 345 40.0 O&R 26.8 N N
BOWLINE1 345 40.0 O&R 27.0 N N
BRKHAVEN 138 63.0 LIPA 26.8 N N
BUCH138 138 40.0 Con Ed 15.5 N N
BUCHANAN N 345 63.0 Con Ed 25.1 N N
BUCHANAN S 345 63.0 Con Ed 37.1 N N
C.ISLIP 138 38.9 LIPA 27.6 N N
CANANDAIGUA 230 40.0 NYSEG 8.5 N N
CARLE PL 138 63.0 LIPA 39.0 N N
CHASES LAKE 230 39.0 N. Grid 9.6 N N
CHURCHTOWN 115 21.4 NYSEG 8.3 N N

2
Future station with no LCB rating yet.

2020 RNA - Appendices | 59

 Lowest
Nominal Maximum
Breaker IBA Breaker(s)
Substation Voltage Owner Bus Fault
Rating Required Overdutied
(kV) (kA)
(kA)
CLARKS CNRS 345 40.0 NYSEG 11.6 N N
CLARKS CNRS 115 40.0 NYSEG 17.4 N N
CLAY 345 49.0 N. Grid 33.7 N N
CLAY 115 45.0 N. Grid 38.7 N N
COOPERS CRN 345 40.0 NYSEG 19.0 N N
COOPERS CRN4 115 22.6 NYSEG 14.9 N N
COOPERS CRN8 115 23.1 NYSEG 14.9 N N
CORONA-N 138 63.0 Con Ed 49.4 N N
CORONA-S 138 63.0 Con Ed 49.4 N N
CRICKET VLLY 345 63.0 Con Ed 37.5 N N
DEWITT 345 39.0 N. Grid 18.9 N N
DEWITT 115 39.0 N. Grid 29.6 N N
DOLSON AVE 345 63.0 NYPA 20.7 N N
DUFFY AVE 345 58.6 LIPA 8.2 N N
Duley 230 40.0 NYPA 7.6 N N
DUN NO 138 40.0 Con Ed 35.5 N N
DUN NO S6 138 63.0 Con Ed 29.5 N N
DUN SO 138 40.0 Con Ed 30.9 N N
DUN SO N7 138 63.0 Con Ed 26.8 N N
DUNKIRK 230 33.0 N. Grid 10.1 N N
DUNWOODIE 345 63.0 Con Ed 59.6 N N
E FISHKILL 345 63.0 CH 44.6 N N
E FISHKILL 115 40.0 CH 24.2 N N
E13 ST 138 63.0 Con Ed 48.6 N N
E13ST 45 345 63.0 Con Ed 53.7 N N
E13ST 46 345 63.0 Con Ed 53.7 N N
E13ST 47 345 63.0 Con Ed 52.2 N N
E13ST 48 345 63.0 Con Ed 51.7 N N
EASTOVER 230 230 49.0 N. Grid 10.8 N N
EASTOVER N 115 49.0 N. Grid 25.3 N N
EASTVIEW 138 63.0 Con Ed 37.0 N N
EDIC 345 39.0 N. Grid 36.5 N N
EGC PAR 345 63.0 NYPA 9.9 N N
EGC-1 138 80.0 LIPA 65.3 N N
EGC-2 138 80.0 LIPA 65.3 N N
ELBRIDGE 345 40.0 N. Grid 16.0 N N
ELBRIDGE D 115 49.0 N. Grid 26.6 N N
ELWOOD 1 138 63.0 LIPA 38.3 N N

2020 RNA - Appendices | 60

 Lowest
Nominal Maximum
Breaker IBA Breaker(s)
Substation Voltage Owner Bus Fault
Rating Required Overdutied
(kV) (kA)
(kA)
ELWOOD 2 138 63.0 LIPA 38.0 N N
FARRAGUT 345 63.0 Con Ed 57.9 N N
FITZPATRICK 345 37.0 NYPA 41.1 Y N
FIVE MILE RD 345 49.0 N. Grid 7.7 N N
FIVE MILE RD 115 49.0 N. Grid 14.4 N N
FRASER 345 40.0 NYSEG 19.3 N N
FRASER 115 40.0 NYSEG 19.0 N N
FREEPORT 138 63.0 LIPA 34.2 N N
FRESH KILLS 345 63.0 Con Ed 26.8 N N
FRESH KILLS 138 40.0 Con Ed 32.1 N N
GARDEN (NM) 34.5 21.0 N. Grid 17.5 N N
GARDENVILLE 115 42.0 N. Grid 40.8 N N
GARDENVILLE1 230 31.0 N. Grid 20.2 N N
GILBOA 345 345 50.0 NYPA 25.3 N N
GLNWD NO 138 63.0 LIPA 43.4 N N
GLNWD SO 138 63.0 LIPA 43.0 N N
GOTHLS 345 63.0 Con Ed 29.6 N N
GOWANUS 345 63.0 Con Ed 28.7 N N
GREENLWN 138 63.0 LIPA 28.3 N N
HAUPAGUE 138 63.0 LIPA 21.5 N N
High Sheldon 230 40.0 NYSEG 10.3 N N
HILLSIDE #4 115 21.1 NYSEG 19.0 N N
HILLSIDE #8 115 22.0 NYSEG 19.0 N N
HILLSIDE 230 230 35.9 NYSEG 14.4 N N
HILLSIDE#4 34.5 21.7 NYSEG 18.1 N N
HOLBROOK 138 63.0 LIPA 47.9 N N
HOLTSGT-GTs 138 63.0 LIPA 44.1 N N
HUNTLEY 68 230 30.0 N. Grid 17.4 N N
HUNTLEY 70 230 50.0 N. Grid 17.4 N N
HURLEY 345 40.0 CH 18.7 N N
HURLEY AVE 115 37.9 CH 16.6 N N
INDEPENDENCE 345 44.0 N. Grid 39.0 N N
JAMAICA 138 63.0 Con Ed 47.6 N N
KNICKERBOCKR 345 40.0 N. Grid 27.6 N N
LADENTOWN 345 63.0 O&R 39.1 N N
LAFAYETTE 345 40.0 N. Grid 17.8 N N
LCST GRV 138 63.0 LIPA 38.0 N N
LEEDS 345 37.0 N. Grid 35.8 N N

2020 RNA - Appendices | 61

 Lowest
Nominal Maximum
Breaker IBA Breaker(s)
Substation Voltage Owner Bus Fault
Rating Required Overdutied
(kV) (kA)
(kA)
LHH WHITE 115 38.1 N. Grid 11.8 N N
LKE SCSS1 138 63.0 LIPA 37.5 N N
LOVT 138 40.0 O&R 28.7 N N
LOVT_345 345 63.0 O&R 35.7 N N
MARCY 345 345 63.0 NYPA 35.1 N N
MARCY 765 765 63.0 NYPA 10.2 N N
MASSENA 765 765 63.0 NYPA 7.9 N N
MEYER 230 40.0 NYSEG 8.4 N N
MEYER 115 18.9 NYSEG 11.9 N N
MEYER 34.5 21.7 NYSEG 11.4 N N
MHTX2 138 50.0 Con Ed 13.8 N N
Midd Tap 345 63.0 CH 19.2 N N
MILLR PL 138 63.0 LIPA 14.6 N N
MILLWOOD 345 63.0 Con Ed 46.1 N N
MILLWOOD 138 138 40.0 Con Ed 19.0 N N
MOTT HAVEN 345 63.0 Con Ed 55.2 N N
NEWBRID 138 80.0 LIPA 64.9 N N
NEWBRIDG 345 58.6 LIPA 8.4 N N
NIAGARA 345 345 63.0 NYPA 33.5 N N
NIAGRA E 115 115 42.2 NYPA 37.1 N N
NIAGRA E 230 230 63.0 NYPA 53.8 N N
NIAGRA W 115 115 42.2 NYPA 27.9 N N
NIAGRA W 230 230 63.0 NYPA 53.8 N N
NMP#1 345 50.0 N. Grid 42.7 N N
NMP#2 345 50.0 N. Grid 43.6 N N
NRTHPRT1 138 63.0 LIPA 59.4 N N
NRTHPRT1-2 138 63.0 LIPA 59.4 N N
NRTHPRT2 138 63.0 LIPA 59.4 N N
NRTHPRT3 138 63.0 LIPA 45.2 N N
NRTHPRT4 138 63.0 LIPA 45.2 N N
NSCOT 77B 345 39.0 N. Grid 38.0 N N
NSCOT 99B 345 39.0 N. Grid 37.8 N N
NSCOT33 115 49.0 N. Grid 43.6 N N
NSCOT77 115 48.0 N. Grid 43.5 N N
NSCOT99 115 49.0 N. Grid 43.5 N N
OAKDALE 115 40.0 NYSEG 27.1 N N
OAKDALE 34.5 23.0 NYSEG 19.4 N N
OAKDALE 345 345 40.0 NYSEG 12.7 N N

2020 RNA - Appendices | 62

 Lowest
Nominal Maximum
Breaker IBA Breaker(s)
Substation Voltage Owner Bus Fault
Rating Required Overdutied
(kV) (kA)
(kA)
OAKWOOD 138 63.0 LIPA 27.4 N N
ONEIDA EAST 115 23.0 N. Grid 13.3 N N
ONEIDA WEST 115 23.0 N. Grid 13.3 N N
OSWEGO 345 44.0 N. Grid 32.5 N N
OSWEGO M3 115 40.0 N. Grid 21.2 N N
PACKARD 2&3 230 49.0 N. Grid 39.5 N N
PACKARD 4&5 230 49.0 N. Grid 39.5 N N
PACKARD 6 230 49.0 N. Grid 39.6 N N
PACKARD NRTH 115 62.0 N. Grid 29.5 N N
PACKARD STH 115 58.0 N. Grid 26.3 N N
Patnode 230 63.0 NYPA 10.5 N N
PILGRIM 138 63.0 LIPA 57.6 N N
PL VILLE 345 63.0 Con Ed 22.5 N N
PL VILLW 345 63.0 Con Ed 22.8 N N
PLATTSBURGH 115 20.3 NYPA 16.9 N N
PLEASANT VAL 115 37.9 CH 24.5 N N
PLTVLLEY 345 63.0 Con Ed 51.5 N N
PORTER 230 21.0 N. Grid 17.6 N N
PORTER 115 59.0 N. Grid 38.8 N N
PT JEFF 138 63.0 LIPA 31.7 N N
Q396BRNPSU 230 40.0 NYSEG 7.6 N N
Q505_POI 230 50.0 N. Grid 8.7 N N
Q545A_DYSING 345 50.0 TransCo 22.0 N N
Q545A_ESTSTO 345 50.0 TransCo 8.9 N N
Q545A_PAR 345 50.0 TransCo 9.5 N N
Q546_230_TRA 230 40.0 N. Grid 8.8 N N
Q556 NS66K 345 50.0 N. Grid 37.9 N N
Q556 Rott345 345 N/A 3 N. Grid 25.5 N N
Q556_Prince 345 N/A3 N. Grid 30.5 N N
RAINEY 345 63.0 Con Ed 57.2 N N
RAMAPO 345 63.0 Con Ed 44.1 N N
REYNOLDS 345 39.0 N. Grid 15.1 N N
REYNOLDS RD 115 63.0 N. Grid 40.3 N N
RIVERHD 138 63.0 LIPA 17.2 N N
RNKNKOMA 138 63.0 LIPA 35.8 N N
ROBINSON RD. 230 43.1 NYSEG 13.8 N N

3
Future station with no LCB rating yet.

2020 RNA - Appendices | 63

 Lowest
Nominal Maximum
Breaker IBA Breaker(s)
Substation Voltage Owner Bus Fault
Rating Required Overdutied
(kV) (kA)
(kA)
ROBINSON RD. 115 37.9 NYSEG 17.6 N N
ROBINSON RD. 34.5 21.9 NYSEG 8.8 N N
ROCK TAV 115 39.6 CH 25.2 N N
ROCK TAVERN 345 63.0 CH 34.1 N N
Roseton 345 63.0 CH 38.3 N N
ROSLYN 138 63.0 LIPA 29.1 N N
ROTTERDAM66H 230 39.0 N. Grid 11.1 N N
ROTTERDAM77H 230 23.0 N. Grid 11.1 N N
ROTTERDAM99H 230 23.0 N. Grid 11.1 N N
RULND RD 138 63.0 LIPA 43.6 N N
Ryan 230 40.0 NYPA 10.8 N N
S OSWEGO 115 37.0 N. Grid 20.8 N N
S RIPLEY 230 40.0 N. Grid 9.0 N N
S013A 115 37.6 RGE 25.8 N N
S080 345kV 345 40.0 RGE 19.9 N N
S080 922 115 40.0 RGE 16.9 N N
S082 B2 115 40.0 RGE 37.4 N N
S082 B3 115 40.0 RGE 37.3 N N
S122 345 40.0 RGE 18.3 N N
S122 B1 115 50.0 RGE 33.1 N N
S255 345 63.0 RGE 19.7 N N
S255 115 40.0 RGE 22.0 N N
SCHUYLER 115 23.0 N. Grid 15.0 N N
SCRIBA 345 54.0 N. Grid 46.4 N N
SCRIBA C 115 40.0 N. Grid 10.5 N N
SCRIBA D 115 40.0 N. Grid 10.4 N N
SECT 11 138 63.0 Con Ed 42.7 N N
SECT 12 138 63.0 Con Ed 42.7 N N
SHORE RD 345 63.0 LIPA 28.9 N N
SHORE RD1 138 57.8 LIPA 46.8 N N
SHORE RD2 138 57.8 LIPA 46.7 N N
SHOREHAM1 138 63.0 LIPA 27.2 N N
SHOREHAM2 138 63.0 LIPA 27.2 N N
SILLS RD1 138 63.0 LIPA 31.5 N N
SMAH 138 40.0 RECO 25.3 N N
SPRAINBROOK 345 63.0 Con Ed 60.0 N N
ST LAWRN 115 115 40.6 NYPA 38.8 N N
ST LAWRN 230 230 32.4 NYPA 32.2 N N

2020 RNA - Appendices | 64

 Lowest
Nominal Maximum
Breaker IBA Breaker(s)
Substation Voltage Owner Bus Fault
Rating Required Overdutied
(kV) (kA)
(kA)
STOLLE 115 23.9 NYSEG 19.8 N N
STOLLE ROAD 345 40.0 NYSEG 8.8 N N
STOLLE ROAD 230 40.0 NYSEG 13.7 N N
STONEYRIDGE 230 40.0 NYSEG 8.0 N N
STONY CREEK 230 40.0 NYSEG 9.3 N N
SUGLF 345TAP 345 63.0 CH 25.6 N N
SYOSSET 138 63.0 LIPA 33.0 N N
Teall A 115 39.0 N. Grid 26.9 N N
Teall B 115 39.0 N. Grid 26.9 N N
TERMINAL 115 23.0 N. Grid 16.0 N N
VALLEY 115 39.0 N. Grid 8.3 N N
VERNON-E 138 63.0 Con Ed 45.5 N N
VERNON-W 138 63.0 Con Ed 32.7 N N
VLY STRM1 138 63.0 LIPA 54.9 N N
VLY STRM2 138 63.0 LIPA 55.1 N N
VOLNEY 345 45.0 N. Grid 36.5 N N
W 49 ST 345 63.0 Con Ed 54.1 N N
WADNGRV1 138 56.4 LIPA 25.1 N N
WATERCURE230 230 40.0 NYSEG 14.4 N N
WATERCURE345 345 40.0 NYSEG 9.4 N N
WATKINS 115 39.0 N. Grid 8.4 N N
Wethersfield 230 40.0 NYSEG 9.1 N N
WHAV 138 40.0 O&R 29.2 N N
WILDWOOD 138 63.0 LIPA 27.0 N N
WILLIS 230 230 40.0 NYPA 13.5 N N
WOOD ST. 115 40.0 NYSEG 19.7 N N
WOODARD 115 23.0 N. Grid 15.6 N N
YAHNUNDASIS 115 16.0 N. Grid 6.6 N N

2020 RNA - Appendices | 65

 2020 RNA Transmission Security Violations
The NYISO identified Reliability Needs resulting from the transmission security evaluations. The
transmission security Reliability Needs include both thermal loading criteria violations on the BPTF as well
as dynamic stability criteria violations. For thermal loading, several 345 kV circuits in the Con Edison
service territory are overloaded under N-1-1 conditions beginning in year 2025 and increasing through
2030. Additionally, the Con Edison 345 kV system has 345 kV circuit overloads under N-1-1-0 conditions
beginning in 2025 and increasing through 2030. For N-1-1, Figure 30 shows the state transmission
security violations for the top 10 contingency combinations. For N-1-1-0, Figure 31 only reports the
controlling contingency combination of the loss of Ravenswood 3 followed by Dunwoodie — Mott Haven
(72) 345 kV.

The NYISO observed dynamic stability criteria Reliability Needs for the entire study period. The
criteria violations include transient voltage response violations and loss of generator synchronism. The
transient voltage response violations are primarily in the Con Edison area but extend into areas adjacent to
their service territory. The loss of generator synchronism is observed in generators within or near the
Astoria and Greenwood load pockets, and is primarily driven by the delayed voltage recovery in the local
area. Figure 32 and Figure 33 shows the BPTF buses with transient voltage response violations and the
earliest year that each bus manifests the criteria violations for a given contingency.

2020 RNA - Appendices | 66

Figure 30: Transmission Security N-1-1 Violations of the 2020 RNA Base Case

Transmission Security N-1-1 Violations of the 2020 RNA Base Case

Zone Owner Monitored Element Normal Contingency 1st Contingency 2nd Contingency 2025 2030
Rating Rating Summer Summer
(MVA) (MVA) Peak Flow Peak Flow
(%) (%)
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 Sprainbrook- Tower F38 & F39 - 112
345 kV (51) Dunwoodie 345 kV
(W75)
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 Loss of Stuck breaker at W - 104
345 kV (51) Ravenswood 3 49th St 5
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 Loss of Astoria Stuck breaker at W - 103
345 kV (51) Energy 2 49th St 5
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 Bayonne-Gowanus Stuck breaker at W - 102
345 kV (51) 345 kV (G27) 49th St 5
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 Loss of Bayonne Stuck breaker at W - 102
345 kV (51) 49th St 5
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 Farragut-Gowanus Stuck breaker at - 102
345 kV (51) 345 kV (42) Sprainbrook RS4
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 Dunwoodie-Mott Stuck breaker at - 102
345 kV (51) Haven 345 kV (71) Sprainbrook RS4
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 Dunwoodie-Mott Stuck breaker at - 102
345 kV (51) Haven 345 kV (72) Sprainbrook RS4
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 Loss of Stuck breaker at - 102
345 kV (51) Ravenswood 3 Sprainbrook RS4
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 Loss of Astoria Stuck breaker at - 102
345 kV (51) Energy 2 Sprainbrook RS4
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 Sprainbrook- Tower F38 & F39 - 112
345 kV (52) Dunwoodie 345 kV
(W75)
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 Farragut-Gowanus Stuck breaker at - 102
345 kV (52) 345 kV (42) Sprainbrook RS5
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 Dunwoodie-Mott Stuck breaker at - 102
345 kV (52) Haven 345 kV (71) Sprainbrook RS5
J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 Dunwoodie-Mott Stuck breaker at - 102
345 kV (52) Haven 345 kV (72) Sprainbrook RS5
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 Loss of Stuck breaker at - 102
345 kV (52) Ravenswood 3 Sprainbrook RS5

2020 RNA - Appendices | 67

 Transmission Security N-1-1 Violations of the 2020 RNA Base Case
Zone Owner Monitored Element Normal Contingency 1st Contingency 2nd Contingency 2025 2030
Rating Rating Summer Summer
(MVA) (MVA) Peak Flow Peak Flow
(%) (%)
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 Loss of Astoria Stuck breaker at - 102
345 kV (52) Energy 2 Sprainbrook RS5
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 Bayonne-Gowanus Stuck breaker at - 101
345 kV (52) 345 kV (G27) Sprainbrook RS5
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 Loss of Bayonne Stuck breaker at - 101
345 kV (52) Sprainbrook RS5
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 - - - -
345 kV (52)
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 - - - -
345 kV (52)
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Loss of Dunwoodie-Mott 110 118
345 kV (71) Ravenswood 3 Haven 345 kV (72)
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Loss of Stuck breaker at Mott 110 118
345 kV (71) Ravenswood 3 Haven 7
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Loss of Stuck breaker at Mott 110 118
345 kV (71) Ravenswood 3 Haven 3
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Loss of Stuck breaker at 107 115
345 kV (71) Ravenswood 3 Dunwoodie 8
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Dunwoodie-Mott Loss of Ravenswood 3 109 114
345 kV (71) Haven 345 kV (72)
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Dunwoodie-Shore Stuck breaker at - 104
345 kV (71) Road 345 kV (Y50) Dunwoodie 7
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Freshkills 345/138 Dunwoodie-Mott - 102
345 kV (71) kV (TB1) Haven 345 kV (72)
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Freshkills 345/138 Stuck breaker at Mott - 102
345 kV (71) kV (TB1) Haven 3
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Freshkills 345/138 Stuck breaker at Mott - 102
345 kV (71) kV (TB1) Haven 7
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Bayonne-Gowanus Dunwoodie-Mott - 102
345 kV (71) 345 kV (G27) Haven 345 kV (72)

2020 RNA - Appendices | 68

 Transmission Security N-1-1 Violations of the 2020 RNA Base Case
Zone Owner Monitored Element Normal Contingency 1st Contingency 2nd Contingency 2025 2030
Rating Rating Summer Summer
(MVA) (MVA) Peak Flow Peak Flow
(%) (%)
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Loss of Bayonne Dunwoodie-Mott - 102
345 kV (71) Haven 345 kV (72)
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Sprainbrook-W Stuck breaker at 101 101
345 kV (71) 49th St 345 kV Sprainbrook RS4
(51)
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Sprainbrook-W Stuck breaker at 101 101
345 kV (71) 49th St 345 kV Sprainbrook RS5
(52)
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Loss of Dunwoodie-Mott 108 116
345 kV (72) Ravenswood 3 Haven 345 kV (71)
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Loss of Stuck breaker at Mott 108 116
345 kV (72) Ravenswood 3 Haven BTE
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Loss of Stuck breaker at Mott 108 116
345 kV (72) Ravenswood 3 Haven 2
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Dunwoodie-Mott Loss of Ravenswood 3 108 114
345 kV (72) Haven 345 kV (71)
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Loss of Stuck breaker at 105 113
345 kV (72) Ravenswood 3 Dunwoodie 3
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Dunwoodie-Shore Stuck breaker at - 103
345 kV (72) Road 345 kV (Y50) Dunwoodie 5
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Dunwoodie-Mott Stuck breaker at - 102
345 kV (72) Haven 345 kV (71) Sprainbrook RS4
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Dunwoodie-Mott Stuck breaker at - 102
345 kV (72) Haven 345 kV (71) Sprainbrook RS5
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Freshkills 345/138 Dunwoodie-Mott - 101
345 kV (72) kV (TB1) Haven 345 kV (71)
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Freshkills 345/138 Stuck breaker at Mott - 101
345 kV (72) kV (TB1) Haven BTE
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott Haven 785 925 Freshkills 345/138 Stuck breaker at Mott - 101
345 kV (72) kV (TB1) Haven 2
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey 785 925 Mott Haven-Rainey Loss of Ravenswood 3 - 108
West 345 kV (Q12) 345 kV (Q11)

2020 RNA - Appendices | 69

 Transmission Security N-1-1 Violations of the 2020 RNA Base Case
Zone Owner Monitored Element Normal Contingency 1st Contingency 2nd Contingency 2025 2030
Rating Rating Summer Summer
(MVA) (MVA) Peak Flow Peak Flow
(%) (%)
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey 785 925 - - - -
West 345 kV (Q12)
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey 785 925 - - - -
West 345 kV (Q12)
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey 785 925 - - - -
West 345 kV (Q12)
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey 785 925 - - - -
West 345 kV (Q12)
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey 785 925 - - - -
West 345 kV (Q12)
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey 785 925 - - - -
West 345 kV (Q12)
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey 785 925 - - - -
West 345 kV (Q12)
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey 785 925 - - - -
West 345 kV (Q12)
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey 785 925 - - - -
West 345 kV (Q12)
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey East 785 925 Mott Haven-Rainey Loss of Ravenswood 3 - 108
345 kV (Q11) 345 kV (Q12)
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey East 785 925 Loss of Stuck breaker at - 101
345 kV (Q11) Ravenswood 3 Rainey 4W
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey East 785 925 Loss of Stuck breaker at - 101
345 kV (Q11) Ravenswood 3 Rainey 7W
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey East 785 925 - - - -
345 kV (Q11)
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey East 785 925 - - - -
345 kV (Q11)
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey East 785 925 - - - -
345 kV (Q11)
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey East 785 925 - - - -
345 kV (Q11)

2020 RNA - Appendices | 70

 Transmission Security N-1-1 Violations of the 2020 RNA Base Case
Zone Owner Monitored Element Normal Contingency 1st Contingency 2nd Contingency 2025 2030
Rating Rating Summer Summer
(MVA) (MVA) Peak Flow Peak Flow
(%) (%)
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey East 785 925 - - - -
345 kV (Q11)
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey East 785 925 - - - -
345 kV (Q11)
J ConEd Mott Haven-Rainey East 785 925 - - - -
345 kV (Q11)
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 345 518 738 Loss of Stuck Breaker at 102 130
kV (26) Ravenswood 3 Goethals 5
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 345 518 738 Loss of Gowanus - Goethals - 128
kV (26) Ravenswood 3 345 kV (25)
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 345 518 738 Loss of Stuck Breaker at - 128
kV (26) Ravenswood 3 Goethals 3
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 345 518 738 Loss of Stuck Breaker at - 127
kV (26) Ravenswood 3 Goethals 9
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 345 518 738 Loss of Stuck Breaker at - 114
kV (26) Ravenswood 3 Gowanus 6
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 345 518 738 Sprainbrook-W Stuck Breaker at - 110
kV (26) 49th St 345 kV Goethals 5
(51)
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 345 518 738 Sprainbrook-W Stuck Breaker at - 110
kV (26) 49th St 345 kV Goethals 5
(52)
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 345 518 738 Sprainbrook-W Stuck Breaker at - 108
kV (26) 49th St 345 kV Goethals 3
(51)
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 345 518 738 Sprainbrook-W Stuck Breaker at - 108
kV (26) 49th St 345 kV Goethals 3
(52)
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 345 518 738 Sprainbrook-W Gowanus - Goethals - 108
kV (26) 49th St 345 kV 345 kV (25)
(51)
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 345 518 738 Sprainbrook-W Gowanus - Goethals - 108
kV (26) 49th St 345 kV 345 kV (25)
(52)

2020 RNA - Appendices | 71

 Transmission Security N-1-1 Violations of the 2020 RNA Base Case
Zone Owner Monitored Element Normal Contingency 1st Contingency 2nd Contingency 2025 2030
Rating Rating Summer Summer
(MVA) (MVA) Peak Flow Peak Flow
(%) (%)
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 518 738 Loss of Gowanus - Goethals 103 130
345kV (25) Ravenswood 3 345 kV (26)
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 518 738 Loss of Stuck Breaker at 102 130
345kV (25) Ravenswood 3 Goethals 8
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 518 738 Sprainbrook-W Gowanus - Goethals 101 111
345kV (25) 49th St 345 kV 345 kV (26)
(51)
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 518 738 Sprainbrook-W Gowanus - Goethals 101 111
345kV (25) 49th St 345 kV 345 kV (26)
(52)
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 518 738 Sprainbrook-W Stuck Breaker at - 110
345kV (25) 49th St 345 kV Goethals 8
(51)
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 518 738 Sprainbrook-W Stuck Breaker at - 110
345kV (25) 49th St 345 kV Goethals 8
(52)
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 518 738 Dunwoodie-Mott Gowanus - Goethals - 107
345kV (25) Haven 345 kV (72) 345 kV (26)
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 518 738 Dunwoodie-Mott Stuck Breaker at - 107
345kV (25) Haven 345 kV (72) Goethals 8
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 518 738 Dunwoodie-Mott Gowanus - Goethals - 106
345kV (25) Haven 345 kV (71) 345 kV (26)
J ConEd Goethals-Gowanus 518 738 Dunwoodie-Mott Stuck Breaker at - 105
345kV (25) Haven 345 kV (71) Goethals 8
I ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 366 423 Loss of Tower W89 & W90 106 109
345/138 kV (N7) Ravenswood 3
I ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 366 423 Dunwoodie-Mott Tower W89 & W90 - 105
345/138 kV (N7) Haven 345 kV (71)
I ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 366 423 Dunwoodie-Mott Tower W89 & W90 - 105
345/138 kV (N7) Haven 345 kV (72)
I ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 366 423 Freshkills 345/138 Tower W89 & W90 - 105
345/138 kV (N7) kV (TB1)
I ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 366 423 Gowanus 345/138 Tower W89 & W90 - 104
345/138 kV (N7) kV (14TR)

2020 RNA - Appendices | 72

 Transmission Security N-1-1 Violations of the 2020 RNA Base Case
Zone Owner Monitored Element Normal Contingency 1st Contingency 2nd Contingency 2025 2030
Rating Rating Summer Summer
(MVA) (MVA) Peak Flow Peak Flow
(%) (%)
I ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 366 423 Sprainbrook-W Tower W89 & W90 - 104
345/138 kV (N7) 49th St 345 kV
(51)
I ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 366 423 Sprainbrook-W Tower W89 & W90 - 104
345/138 kV (N7) 49th St 345 kV
(52)
I ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 366 423 Bayonne-Gowanus Tower W89 & W90 - 104
345/138 kV (N7) 345 kV (G27)
I ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 366 423 Loss of Bayonne Tower W89 & W90 - 104
345/138 kV (N7)
I ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 366 423 Freshkills 345/138 Tower W89 & W90 - 104
345/138 kV (N7) kV (TA1)
I ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 309 438 Loss of Tower W89 & W90 103 107
345/138 kV (S6) Ravenswood 3
I ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 309 438 Farragut-Gowanus Tower W89 & W90 - 106
345/138 kV (S6) 345 kV (42)
I ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 309 438 Sprainbrook-W Tower W89 & W90 - 105
345/138 kV (S6) 49th St 345 kV
(51)
I ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 309 438 Sprainbrook-W Tower W89 & W90 - 105
345/138 kV (S6) 49th St 345 kV
(52)
I ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 309 438 Bayonne-Gowanus Tower W89 & W90 - 105
345/138 kV (S6) 345 kV (G27)
I ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 309 438 Loss of Bayonne Tower W89 & W90 - 105
345/138 kV (S6)
I ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 309 438 Gowanus 345/138 Tower W89 & W90 - 104
345/138 kV (S6) kV (14TR)
I ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 309 438 Freshkills 345/138 Tower W89 & W90 - 103
345/138 kV (S6) kV (TA1)
I ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 309 438 Dunwoodie-Shore Tower W89 & W90 - 102
345/138 kV (S6) Road 345 kV (Y50)
I ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 309 438 Dunwoodie-Mott Tower W89 & W90 - 102
345/138 kV (S6) Haven 345 kV (71)

2020 RNA - Appendices | 73

 Transmission Security N-1-1 Violations of the 2020 RNA Base Case
Zone Owner Monitored Element Normal Contingency 1st Contingency 2nd Contingency 2025 2030
Rating Rating Summer Summer
(MVA) (MVA) Peak Flow Peak Flow
(%) (%)
I ConEd Sprainbrook/Dunwoodie 309 438 Dunwoodie-Mott Tower W89 & W90 - 102
345/138 kV (S6) Haven 345 kV (72)
I ConEd Dunwoodie 345/138 kV 310 388 Loss of Sprainbrook/Dunwood - 106
(W73) Ravenswood 3 ie 345/138 kV (N7)
I ConEd Dunwoodie 345/138 kV 310 388 Loss of Stuck breaker at - 106
(W73) Ravenswood 3 Sprainbrook RN3
I ConEd Dunwoodie 345/138 kV 310 388 Loss of Stuck breaker at - 106
(W73) Ravenswood 3 Sprainbrook RN4
I ConEd Dunwoodie 345/138 kV 310 388 Loss of Stuck breaker at - 106
(W73) Ravenswood 3 Sprainbrook RN5
I ConEd Dunwoodie 345/138 kV 310 388 Loss of Stuck breaker at - 106
(W73) Ravenswood 3 Sprainbrook RN6
I ConEd Dunwoodie 345/138 kV 310 388 - - - -
(W73)
I ConEd Dunwoodie 345/138 kV 310 388 - - - -
(W73)
I ConEd Dunwoodie 345/138 kV 310 388 - - - -
(W73)
I ConEd Dunwoodie 345/138 kV 310 388 - - - -
(W73)
I ConEd Dunwoodie 345/138 kV 310 388 - - - -
(W73)

2020 RNA - Appendices | 74

Figure 31: Transmission Security N-1-1-0 Violations of the 2020 RNA Base Case

Transmission Security N-1-1-0 Violations of the 2020 RNA Base Case

Zone Owner Monitored Element Normal Contingency 1st Contingency 2nd Contingency 2025 Summer 2030 Summer
Rating Rating Peak Flow (%) Peak Flow (%)
(MVA) (MVA)
I/J ConEd Dunwoodie-Mott 785 925 Loss of Ravenswood Dunwoodie-Mott 132 149
Haven 345 kV (71) 3 Haven 345 kV (72)
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 Loss of Ravenswood Dunwoodie-Mott - 106
345 kV (51) 3 Haven 345 kV (72)
I/J ConEd Sprainbrook-W49th St 844 1029 Loss of Ravenswood Dunwoodie-Mott - 106
345 kV (52) 3 Haven 345 kV (72)

2020 RNA - Appendices | 75

Figure 32: BPTF Bus List for Transient Voltage Response N-1 Violation

Bus Bus Name Base Area Area Name Owner Earliest Year of Contingency Events which result in
Number kV Num Name observed transient transient voltage response violations
voltage response for this bus (See Note Below)
violations
126249 26T 345 10 NYC CONED 2030 (2), (3)
126262 BUCHANAN N 345 8 MILLWOOD CONED 2025 (2), (3)
126263 BUCHANAN S 345 8 MILLWOOD CONED 2025 (1), (2), (3)
126265 COGNTECH 345 10 NYC CONED 2030 (2), (3)
126266 DUNWOODIE 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2025 (1), (2), (3)
126267 E VIEW 2N 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2025 (2), (3)
126268 E VIEW 1N 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2025 (1), (2), (3)
126269 E VIEW 2S 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2025 (1), (2), (3)
126270 E VIEW 1S 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2025 (1), (2), (3)
126272 E13ST 45 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (3)
126273 E13ST 46 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (3)
126274 E13ST 47 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (3)
126275 E13ST 48 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (3)
126277 FARRAGUT 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (3)
126280 FARRAGUT TX9 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (3)
126282 FRESH KILLS 345 10 NYC CONED 2030 (2), (3)
126283 GOTHLS 345 10 NYC CONED 2030 (2), (3)
126284 GOTHLS R 345 10 NYC CONED 2030 (2)
126285 GOW R4 345 10 NYC CONED 2030 (2), (3)
126286 GOW R16 345 10 NYC CONED 2030 (2), (3)
126287 GOWANUS 345 10 NYC CONED 2030 (2), (3)
126291 MILLWOOD 345 8 MILLWOOD CONED 2025 (1), (2), (3)
126292 PL VILLE 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2025 (1), (2), (3)
126293 PL VILLW 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2025 (1), (2), (3)
126295 RAINEY 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (3)
126298 SPRAINBROOK 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2025 (1), (2), (3)

2020 RNA - Appendices | 76

 Bus Bus Name Base Area Area Name Owner Earliest Year of Contingency Events which result in
Number kV Num Name observed transient transient voltage response violations
voltage response for this bus (See Note Below)
violations
126299 REACBUS 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2025 (1), (2), (3)
126301 TREMONT 345 10 NYC CONED 2025 (2), (3)
126304 W 49 ST 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (3)
126305 WOOD A 345 8 MILLWOOD NYSEG 2030 (2), (3)
126306 WOOD B 345 8 MILLWOOD NYSEG 2025 (1), (2), (3)
126319 WOOD C 345 8 MILLWOOD NYSEG 2025 (1), (2), (3)
126342 W74 TAP 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2025 (1), (2), (3)
126343 W73 TAP 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2025 (1), (2), (3)
126517 REACM51 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2025 (1), (2), (3)
126518 REACM52 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2025 (1), (2), (3)
126590 GOWANUS 41SR 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (3)
126591 GOWANUS 42SR 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (3)
126600 REAC71 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2025 (1), (2), (3)
126601 REAC72 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2025 (1), (2), (3)
126641 MOTT HAVEN 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (3)
126642 RAINEY WEST 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (3)
126643 RAINEY EAST 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (3)
126644 FARRAGUT WES 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (3)
126645 FARRAGUT EAS 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (3)
126847 ACADEMY 345 10 NYC CONED 2025 (1), (2), (3)
126865 RAV3 60M 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (3)
126866 RAV3 60L 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2)
127100 B44 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (3)
128248 ANNTRHIGH 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (3)
128252 BAYONNE 345 10 NYC CONED 2030 (2), (3)
128315 Q516GSU_HV 345 10 NYC CONED 2030 (2), (3)
128699 MILLW345_C1 345 8 MILLWOOD CONED 2025 (1), (2), (3)

2020 RNA - Appendices | 77

 Bus Bus Name Base Area Area Name Owner Earliest Year of Contingency Events which result in
Number kV Num Name observed transient transient voltage response violations
voltage response for this bus (See Note Below)
violations
128700 MILLW345_C2 345 8 MILLWOOD CONED 2025 (1), (2), (3)
128701 ASTOR REAC 345 10 NYC NYPA 2024 (1), (2), (3)
128702 BAYO_XFMR_HV 345 10 NYC CONED 2030 (2), (3)
128822 E.G.C.-1 345 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (1), (2), (3)
128823 E.G.C.-2 345 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (1), (2), (3)
128824 EGC DUM 345 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (1), (2), (3)
128825 EGC PAR 345 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (1), (2), (3)
128830 HMP HRBR 345 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (1), (2), (3)
128835 SHORE RD 345 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2024 (1), (2), (3)
128842 NEPTCONV 345 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (2), (3)
128847 NWBRG 345 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (2), (3)
129202 BARRETT1 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2030 (2), (3)
129203 BARRETT2 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2030 (2), (3)
129204 BRRT PH 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2030 (2), (3)
129205 BRTGT1-8 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2030 (2), (3)
129206 BRTGT9-12 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2030 (2), (3)
129233 VLY STRM 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (2), (3)
129234 VLY STRM2 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (2), (3)
129235 V STRM P 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2024 (1), (2), (3)
129247 L SUCS 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (1), (2), (3)
129248 L SUCS2 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (1), (2), (3)
129249 L SUCSPH 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2024 (1), (2), (3)
129265 CARLE PL 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (2), (3)
129270 E.G.C. 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2030 (2), (3)
129271 E.G.C.-2 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2030 (2), (3)
129276 FREEPORT 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2030 (2), (3)
129281 GLNWD GT 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (1), (2), (3)

2020 RNA - Appendices | 78

 Bus Bus Name Base Area Area Name Owner Earliest Year of Contingency Events which result in
Number kV Num Name observed transient transient voltage response violations
voltage response for this bus (See Note Below)
violations
129282 GLNWD NO 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (1), (2), (3)
129283 GLNWD SO 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (1), (2), (3)
129288 ROSLYN 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (1), (2), (3)
129293 SHORE RD 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (1), (2), (3)
129294 SHORE RD2 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (1), (2), (3)
129305 LCST GRV 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2030 (2)
129310 NEWBRGE 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2030 (2), (3)
130758 WOODA345 345 8 MILLWOOD NYSEG 2030 (2), (3)
130759 WOODB345 345 8 MILLWOOD NYSEG 2025 (1), (2), (3)
130877 WOODC345 345 8 MILLWOOD NYSEG 2025 (1), (2), (3)
135222 WOOD D 345 8 MILLWOOD NYSEG 2030 (2), (3)
146874 LOVETT345 ST 345 7 HUDSON O&R 2030 (2), (3)
147829 ASTOR345 345 10 NYC NYPA 2024 (1), (2), (3)
147857 DVNPT NK 345 9 DUNWOODIE NYPA 2025 (1), (2), (3)
148707 AST_E_2 345 10 NYC NYPA 2025 (1), (2), (3)

Notes:
Event (1) UC11
Event (2) UC25A
Event (3) UC25B

2020 RNA - Appendices | 79

Figure 33: BPTF Bus List for Transient Voltage Response N-1-1 Violation

Bus Bus Name Base Area Area Name Owner Earliest Year of observed Contingency Events which result in
Number kV Num Name transient voltage response transient voltage response violations
violations for this bus (See Note Below)
126249 26T 345 10 NYC CONED 2025 (4), (5), (6), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13),
(14), (15), (19)
126262 BUCHANAN N 345 8 MILLWOOD CONED 2025 (5), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14),
(15), (19)
126263 BUCHANAN S 345 8 MILLWOOD CONED 2025 (2), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (19)
126265 COGNTECH 345 10 NYC CONED 2025 (4), (5), (6), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13),
(14), (15), (19)
126266 DUNWOODIE 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18),
(19)
126267 E VIEW 2N 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2025 (2), (5), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (18), (19)
126268 E VIEW 1N 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2024 (2), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (18), (19)
126269 E VIEW 2S 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2024 (2), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (18), (19)
126270 E VIEW 1S 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11),
(12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18), (19)
126272 E13ST 45 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (14), (15), (16), (18), (19)
126273 E13ST 46 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (15), (16), (18), (19)
126274 E13ST 47 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18),
(19)
126275 E13ST 48 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (16), (18), (19)
126277 FARRAGUT 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (13), (14), (15), (16)

2020 RNA - Appendices | 80

 Bus Bus Name Base Area Area Name Owner Earliest Year of observed Contingency Events which result in
Number kV Num Name transient voltage response transient voltage response violations
violations for this bus (See Note Below)
126280 FARRAGUT TX9 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18),
(19)
126282 FRESH KILLS 345 10 NYC CONED 2025 (4), (5), (6), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13),
(14), (15), (19)
126283 GOTHLS 345 10 NYC CONED 2025 (4), (5), (6), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13),
(14), (15), (19)
126284 GOTHLS R 345 10 NYC CONED 2030 (15), (19)
126285 GOW R4 345 10 NYC CONED 2025 (2), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (19)
126286 GOW R16 345 10 NYC CONED 2025 (2), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (19)
126287 GOWANUS 345 10 NYC CONED 2025 (2), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (19)
126290 LADENTWN 345 7 HUDSON CONED 2030 (19)
126291 MILLWOOD 345 8 MILLWOOD CONED 2024 (2), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (19)
126292 PL VILLE 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2024 (2), (4), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (19)
126293 PL VILLW 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2024 (2), (4), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (19)
126295 RAINEY 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18),
(19)
126298 SPRAINBROOK 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18),
(19)
126299 REACBUS 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (19)
126301 TREMONT 345 10 NYC CONED 2025 (1), (2), (4), (5), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11),
(12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18), (19)

2020 RNA - Appendices | 81

 Bus Bus Name Base Area Area Name Owner Earliest Year of observed Contingency Events which result in
Number kV Num Name transient voltage response transient voltage response violations
violations for this bus (See Note Below)
126304 W 49 ST 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18),
(19)
126305 WOOD A 345 8 MILLWOOD NYSEG 2025 (4), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13),
(14), (15), (19)
126306 WOOD B 345 8 MILLWOOD NYSEG 2024 (2), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (19)
126319 WOOD C 345 8 MILLWOOD NYSEG 2025 (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (19)
126342 W74 TAP 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11),
(12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18), (19)
126343 W73 TAP 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11),
(12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18), (19)
126517 REACM51 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18),
(19)
126518 REACM52 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18),
(19)
126590 GOWANUS 41SR 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18),
(19)
126591 GOWANUS 42SR 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18),
(19)
126600 REAC71 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18),
(19)
126601 REAC72 345 9 DUNWOODIE CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18),
(19)

2020 RNA - Appendices | 82

 Bus Bus Name Base Area Area Name Owner Earliest Year of observed Contingency Events which result in
Number kV Num Name transient voltage response transient voltage response violations
violations for this bus (See Note Below)
126641 MOTT HAVEN 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18),
(19)
126642 RAINEY WEST 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18),
(19)
126643 RAINEY EAST 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18),
(19)
126644 FARRAGUT WES 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18),
(19)
126645 FARRAGUT EAS 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18),
(19)
126847 ACADEMY 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18),
(19)
126865 RAV3 60M 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18),
(19)
126866 RAV3 60L 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18),
(19)
127100 B44 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11),
(12), (13), (14), (15), (16)
128248 ANNTRHIGH 345 10 NYC CONED 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18),
(19)
128252 BAYONNE 345 10 NYC CONED 2025 (4), (5), (6), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13),
(14), (15), (19)

2020 RNA - Appendices | 83

 Bus Bus Name Base Area Area Name Owner Earliest Year of observed Contingency Events which result in
Number kV Num Name transient voltage response transient voltage response violations
violations for this bus (See Note Below)
128315 Q516GSU_HV 345 10 NYC CONED 2025 (4), (5), (6), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13),
(14), (15), (19)
128699 MILLW345_C1 345 8 MILLWOOD CONED 2024 (2), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (19)
128700 MILLW345_C2 345 8 MILLWOOD CONED 2024 (2), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (19)
128701 ASTOR REAC 345 10 NYC NYPA 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18),
(19)
128702 BAYO_XFMR_HV 345 10 NYC CONED 2025 (4), (5), (6), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13),
(14), (15), (19)
128822 E.G.C.-1 345 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17),
(18), (19)
128823 E.G.C.-2 345 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17),
(18), (19)
128824 EGC DUM 345 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17),
(18), (19)
128825 EGC PAR 345 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17),
(18), (19)
128830 HMP HRBR 345 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17),
(18), (19)
128835 SHORE RD 345 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17),
(18), (19)
128842 NEPTCONV 345 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (15), (19)

2020 RNA - Appendices | 84

 Bus Bus Name Base Area Area Name Owner Earliest Year of observed Contingency Events which result in
Number kV Num Name transient voltage response transient voltage response violations
violations for this bus (See Note Below)
128847 NWBRG 345 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (15), (19)
129202 BARRETT1 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (11), (15), (19)
129203 BARRETT2 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (11), (15), (19)
129204 BRRT PH 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (4), (5), (6), (9), (19)
129205 BRTGT1-8 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (11), (15), (19)
129206 BRTGT9-12 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (11), (15), (19)
129233 VLY STRM 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (19)
129234 VLY STRM2 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (19)
129235 V STRM P 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2024 (2), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (19)
129247 L SUCS 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2024 (2), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (19)
129248 L SUCS2 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2024 (2), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (19)
129249 L SUCSPH 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2024 (2), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (19)
129265 CARLE PL 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(15), (19)
129270 E.G.C. 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (4), (5), (6), (9), (15), (19)
129271 E.G.C.-2 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (4), (5), (6), (9), (15), (19)
129276 FREEPORT 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (4), (5), (6), (9), (19)
129281 GLNWD GT 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2024 (2), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (19)
129282 GLNWD NO 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2024 (2), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (19)
129283 GLNWD SO 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2024 (2), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (19)
129288 ROSLYN 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (19)

2020 RNA - Appendices | 85

 Bus Bus Name Base Area Area Name Owner Earliest Year of observed Contingency Events which result in
Number kV Num Name transient voltage response transient voltage response violations
violations for this bus (See Note Below)
129293 SHORE RD 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2024 (2), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (19)
129294 SHORE RD2 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2024 (2), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (19)
129310 NEWBRGE 138 11 L ISLAND LIPA 2025 (5), (6), (9), (19)
130758 WOODA345 345 8 MILLWOOD NYSEG 2025 (3), (4), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (19)
130759 WOODB345 345 8 MILLWOOD NYSEG 2024 (2), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (19)
130877 WOODC345 345 8 MILLWOOD NYSEG 2025 (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (19)
135222 WOOD D 345 8 MILLWOOD NYSEG 2025 (4), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13),
(14), (15), (19)
146874 LOVETT345 ST 345 7 HUDSON O&R 2025 (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (19)
147829 ASTOR345 345 10 NYC NYPA 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18),
(19)
147857 DVNPT NK 345 9 DUNWOODIE NYPA 2024 (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11),
(12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (19)
148707 AST_E_2 345 10 NYC NYPA 2024 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18),
(19)

Notes:
Event (1) ConEd16 Event (6) UC11 Event (11) UC33_Q510 Event (16) UC39_Q510
Event (2) ConEd23_Q510 Event (7) UC19 Event (12) UC34_Q510 Event (17) UC048A_Q510
Event (3) TE02-UC02 Event (8) UC25A Event (13) UC35_Q510 Event (18) UC57_Q510
Event (4) TE03-UC03 Event (9) UC25B Event (14) UC36_Q510 Event (19) UC5_Q510
Event (5) TE20-UC20 Event (10) UC32_Q510 Event (15) UC38_Q510

2020 RNA - Appendices | 86

Appendix E – Additional Exploratory Scenario Analysis
Additional to the scenarios described in the body of the RNA report, the NYISO performed two
exploratory scenarios:

1. Further Simplified External Areas Model - Resource Adequacy only

• Starting with the simplified external model described in footnote 8 and also in the
assumptions matrix in Appendix D, the NYISO removed all load and generation from
external areas along with removing interfaces between external areas, followed by
inserting fixed amounts of capacity in each external area.

2. Different Load Shape - Resource Adequacy only

• The Resource Adequacy Base Cases use historical load shapes from 2002, 2006, and
2007. The Climate Change Phase 1 study developed forward-looking hourly load
shapes. This exploratory scenario identified that additional collaboration with the
Load Forecast Task Force and other stakeholders will be initiated, to identify if and
how future-looking load shapes would better represent an ever-changing system.

Further Simplified External Areas Model

During the 2020 RNA, the External Areas Model for the RNA Base Case was simplified to consolidate
five PJM (mid-Atlantic) areas into a single area and eight ISO-NE areas into a single area.

This further simplified scenario evaluates an alternative model for the external, non-NYCA, regions in
the MARS model. Starting in this RNA, the NYISO simplified the representation of each external region so
that they are represented by a single area, as shown in Figure 46. in the main report. This scenario expands
on this work by evaluating if additional simplifications to the external region model can be made while
maintaining consistent results.

To achieve this objective, the NYISO performed the following actions in each external region to
simplify the representation and to model a system in which the NYCA receives no emergency assistance:

- Removing all load and generation from each external region;

- Remove pool-to-pool ties between external regions; and

- Disable the ability of UDRs to return from the host external region, while still allowing
emergency assistance over the interface if the resource is otherwise unavailable.

2020 RNA - Appendices | 87

 With the baseline set, the NYISO evaluated the impact of adding fixed, always-available capacity
resources to each of the external regions. This analysis revealed the NYCA LOLE was not particularly
sensitive to capacity additions in any one region (e.g., adding 600 MW in New England yielded a similar
result to adding 600 MW in Ontario), subject to transfer limit constraints (e.g., New England could not
provide more than 1,400 MW total).

The next phase of this analysis evaluated the impact of modeling discrete capacity combinations in
each external region, as shown in Figure 34. For low levels of total assistance, the results aligned with the
single area adjustments previously discussed (i.e., the 1,200 MW cumulative result was similar to adding
1,200 MW to PJM or New England). Figure 34 also includes the observed NYCA LOLE for 2030, when
compared to the Base Case results (0.186), between 2,400 and 2,700 MW of always-available assistance
replace the external model. The amount of assistance needed through time increased. See Figure 35,
showing the 2024 Base Case result (0.016) using between 1,800 and 2,100 MW of assistance.

Figure 34: Amount of Assistance Needed in the Simulation through Time

Case ID HQ IESO ISONE PJM Total 2030 NYCA

LOLE (dy/yr)
Case 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.812
Case 1 300 0 0 0 300 0.652
Case 2 300 300 300 300 1,200 0.354
Case 3 300 400 400 400 1,500 0.292
Case 4 300 500 500 500 1,800 0.248
Case 5 300 600 600 600 2,100 0.216
Case 6 300 700 700 700 2,400 0.194
Case 7 300 800 800 800 2,700 0.18
Case 8 300 900 900 900 3,000 0.171
Case 9 300 1,000 1,000 1,000 3,300 0.166

2020 RNA - Appendices | 88

Figure 35: NYCA LOLE Response to Emergency Assistance

NYCA LOLE Repsonse to Emergency Assistance, by Year

0.25 1500 MW
1800 MW
2100 MW
0.20 2400 MW
2700 MW
NYCA LOLE (dy/yr)

3000 MW
0.15 Base Case

0.10

0.05

0.00
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

The next, and final, phase of this exploratory analysis was to apply derates to the amount of available
emergency assistance based upon the Area K load, as a proxy for NYCA Load. The derates were applied by
utilizing MARS functionality for ambient temperature derates to thermal units. This approach allows for
the simplified model to mimic the original model by having potentially less assistance available in the
higher load levels. Two derate profiles were tested, shown in Figure 36, on the 2,400, 2,700, and 3,000 MW
assistance cases Figure 37 to Figure 39, respectively.

Figure 36: Emergency Assistance Profiles Tested

EA Derate Profiles
1.05
Derate 1
1
Derate 2
Capacity Derate

0.95

0.9

0.85

0.8

0.75
0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15
NYCA Load (p.u. of Peak Load)

2020 RNA - Appendices | 89

Figure 37: Base Emergency Assistance Level: 2400 MW

NYCA Response for 2400 MW of Base EA, by Year

No Derate Derate 1 Derate 2 BaseCase

0.25

0.20
NYCA LOLE (dy/yr)

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Figure 38: Base Emergency Assistance Level: 2700 MW

NYCA Response for 2400 MW of Base EA, by Year

No Derate Derate 1 Derate 2 BaseCase

0.25

0.20
NYCA LOLE (dy/yr)

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

2020 RNA - Appendices | 90

Figure 39: Base Emergency Assistance Level: 3000 MW

NYCA Response for 3000 MW of Base EA, by Year

No Derate Derate 1 Derate 2 BaseCase

0.25

0.20
NYCA LOLE (dy/yr)

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

The NYISO intends to continue refining this analysis with discussion at the Electric System Planning
Working Group and other stakeholder forums, as applicable in order to determine potential changes.

Different Load Shape - Resource Adequacy only

The Resource Adequacy Base Cases use historical shapes from 2002, 2006, and 2007, a practice
established in the 2014 RNA. These shapes were selected to represent differing weather conditions, 2006
for extreme hot weather, 2002 for consistent but not extreme weather, and 2007 for typical weather.
These shapes are aligned with the load forecast uncertainly levels, 2006 associated with the highest, 2002
with the second highest, and 2007 associated with the remaining uncertainty levels. Prior to the 2014 RNA,
resource adequacy analysis was performed using only the 2002 reference shape.

In 2019, the NYISO engaged in the Climate Change Phase 1 Study to develop a set of future-looking
hourly load shapes considering various energy efficiency and climate goals. The outputs from the Phase 1
study feeds into the Phase 2 study, which is analyzing reliability impact issues with a potential 2040 power
system. The NYISO will continue to explore building on the work from the Climate Change studies for
application in future resource adequacy analysis, and intends to collaborate with the Load Forecasting Task
Force and other stakeholders’ forums, as applicable in order to determine potential changes to be studied.

2020 RNA - Appendices | 91

Appendix F - Historic Congestion
Appendix A of Attachment Y of the OATT states:

As part of its CSPP, the ISO will prepare summaries and detailed analysis of historic and projected
congestion across the NYS Transmission System. This will include analysis to identify the significant
causes of historic congestion in an effort to help Market Participants and other interested parties
distinguish persistent and addressable congestion from congestion that results from onetime events or
transient adjustments in operating procedures that may or may not recur. This information will assist
Market Participants and other stakeholders to make appropriately informed decisions.

The historic congestion information can be found on the NYISO website:

https://www.nyiso.com/ny-power-system-information-outlook (Congested Elements Reports)

Also, information on the NYISO’s Economic Planning Studies can be found here:

https://www.nyiso.com/library (Planning Reports, Economic Planning Studies (CARIS))

2020 RNA - Appendices | 92