A STUDY OF EMISSIONS AND COST MINIMIZATION FOR THE NEW YORK STATE POWER SYSTEM AND A MAPPING BETWEEN PTID AND EIA FACILITY CODES

Transcription

1 A STUDY OF EMISSIONS AND COST MINIMIZATION FOR THE NEW YORK STATE POWER SYSTEM AND A MAPPING BETWEEN PTID AND EIA FACILITY CODES A Design Project Report Presented to the Engineering Division of the Graduate School Of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering (Electrical) By Abigail J. Krich Project Advisor: Professor Robert J. Thomas Degree Date: August

2 Abstract Master of Electrical Engineering Program Cornell University Design Project Report Project Title: A STUDY OF EMISSIONS AND COST MINIMIZATION FOR THE NEW YORK STATE POWER SYSTEM AND A MAPPING BETWEEN PTID AND EIA FACILITY CODES Author: Abigail J. Krich Abstract: As concerns over acid rain, global warming, and asthma are increasingly in the public eye, regulations on emissions reductions from electricity generation have become increasingly stringent. There are many methods for emissions reductions requiring capital expenditures and moderate to long lead times. There is also a method for immediate, capital-free reductions through a modified dispatching method that minimizes emissions, possibly while obeying certain cost constraints, rather than minimizing costs only while obeying certain emissions constraints. The New York Power System is explored in this project and a variety of plant data from publicly available and non-publicly available sources is compiled and used in preliminary attempts at different emissions minimization and economic dispatch methods for the State. The cost penalties for the various options and the emissions reductions that can e achieved are explored. Report Approved by Project Advisor: Date: 2

3 Table of Contents 1. The New York State Power System 2. Emissions 2.1. Carbon dioxide 2.2. Sulfur Dioxide 2.3. Nitrogen Oxides 2.4. Mercury 3. Intermittency of Renewable Generators 4. The Data Sets 4.1. FERC Form 715 Data from the NYISO 4.2. EPA s egrid 4.3. NYISO Load and Capacity Data 4.4. New York State Generator Data Provided by Professor Thomas 4.5. Master s of Engineering Design Project by Ivan Francisco Cabral Trujillo 4.6. Seams Model 4.7. TCC Auction Data 5. Data Quality control egrid 6. Estimating generator marginal costs 7. Mapping PTID to EIA Codes 8. Lambda Search on egrid Data 9. PowerWorld Software 10. PowerWorld Economic Dispatch Solutions 11. Conclusions 12. References List of Figures Figure 1 - New York State electricity generation by fuel type, Src: 3

4 Figure 2 - U.S. electricity generation by fuel type, Src: Figure 3 - Map showing zonal loads and interface flows in New York State. Src: Figure 4 - Real Time zonal locational based marginal pricing showing New York zones. Src: Figure 5 - Forecast zonal loads showing typical summer daily load profile. Src: Figure 6 - Net summer generator capacity from 1993 to Src: Figure 7 - Planned nameplate capacity additions by fuel type from 2005 through Src: Figure 8 - New York State NOx, SOx, and CO2 emissions contributions by fuel type in Src: Figure 9 - NYISO tie-line map and summary of seams project model data Figure 10 - Fuel costs as a percentage of electric utility operating costs. Src: Figure 11 - Average fuel/total operation and maintenance expense ratio for major U.S. investor owned utilities in Src: Figure 12 - Comparison of total cost for various loads, optimizations Figure 13 - Comparison of total CO2 emissions for various loads, optimizations Figure 14 - Comparison of total SO2 emissions for various loads, optimizations Figure 15 - Comparison of total NOx emissions for various loads, optimizations List of Tables Table 1 - Bus count and bus voltages from NYISO 10 year light load base case data file. Table 2 - Barrett plant data from various sources Table 3- Holtsville plant data from various sources Table 4 - Union Ave/Flynn station data from a variety of sources 4

5 Table 5 - Niagara County generator data from various sources Table 6 - Moses station data from various sources Table 7 - Gilboa station data from various sources Table 8 - Longlane and Feurabush generator data from various sources Table 9 - Independence station data from various sources Table 10 - Carr St station data from various sources Table 11 - JFK station data from various sources. The first PTID is from the PTID map file, the second is from the NYISO capacity report. Though they do not match, the generators appear to be the same. Table 12 - "Extra" generation in the seams model and its location Table 13 - Average fuel costs by fuel type calculated by two different methods Table 14 - PTID to EIA Code Map Table 15 - egrid generators sorted by calculated marginal cost. The yellow line shows the marginal unit for summer base load, the blue line for winter peak load, and the red line for summer peak load 5

6 1. The New York State Power System New York state is served by eight major New York Transmission Owners (NYTO s). They are Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Long Island Power Authority, New York Power Authority, New York state Electric and Gas Corporation, Niagara Mohawk -A National Grid Company, Orange & Rockland Utilities Inc., and Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation. When the State s power system was deregulated in the late 90 s, the previously vertically integrated utilities had to divest themselves of their generation assets. Now, the NYTO s own the power lines but the power itself comes from energy service companies which own the generation assets. To manage the deregulated system, Independent System Operators (ISO s) were sanctioned by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the purpose of managing the transmission component of the restructured power system. The ISO owns no generation, transmission, or load, and is thus an independent, unbiased body that can run the system fairly in theory. According to their website, the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) exercises operational control over most of the State s transmission facilities to maintain short term reliability, administer the ISO Transmission Tariff and implement and operate New York s Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS). They were formed in 1998 when New York s electric power industry was restructured, formed out of what was then the New York Power Pool. The NYPP was initially created by New York s eight largest electric utilities following the Northeast Blackout of 1965 to reduce the probability of another major power outage. As numbers of non-utility generators grew due to FERC rulings, the NYPP made moves towards open, nondiscriminatory access to the transmission system by forming the NYISO. Their mission was to facilitate fair and open competition in the wholesale power market and create an electricity commodity market in which power is purchased and sold on the basis of competitive bidding. [1] The NYISO serves the state of New York, 47,225 square miles of territory with 19,160,000 people. The total load in 2004 was 160,209 GWh. It is a summer peaking 6

7 system with a summer record peak load of 32,075 MW in 2005 and a winter record peak load of 25,540 MW. The NYISO manages 10,775 miles of high voltage transmission lines at voltages of 115 kv, 138 kv, 230 kv, 345 kv, and 765 kv. They model over 335 generators in the State of New York feeding power into those lines and require 37,524 MW of installed capacity to operate the system reliably [1]. The fuel mix of generators in New York does not follow the U.S. norm of roughly half coal. Shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 respectively are the New York and U.S. electricity generation breakdowns by fuel type. Nuclear and hydro both contribute to New York State s power significantly above the national average. Figure 1 - New York State electricity generation by fuel type, Src: 7

8 Figure 2 - U.S. electricity generation by fuel type, Src: The NYISO uses a hybrid nodal-zonal method for determining market prices for electricity. While generators are paid based on the locational based marginal price (LBMP) at their particular node, loads are charged the average nodal price in their zone. The NYISO has divided the state into 15 zones for the purposes of determining these zonal prices [10]. New York is also interesting in the distribution of the load and generation centers throughout the state. Figure 3 shows the zones the State s power system has been broken into along with the load and interface flows mid day on July 22, What can be seen is that over half of the State s demand is in the areas around New York City and Long Island. This puts a significant strain on the transmission system as the cheaper power produced Upstate is brought down to the city. The transmission lines bringing power downstate frequently become congested and cause significant nodal price differences between Upstate and Downstate. At the time this figure was created, the flow on the interface between Upstate NY and the ConEd region around New York City was 3 GW, almost the full load of Long Island. 8

9 Figure 3 - Map showing zonal loads and interface flows in New York State. Src: What this disparity leads to is significant price differences throughout the State. Figure 4 shows the real time zonal locational based marginal prices for the regions of the state. Long Island has the most expensive power at almost $80/MWh while the western region has a price just under $53. The congestion on the lines causes generators to be dispatched out of their economic order based on their location. Even if all the power for New York City and Long Island could be produced more cheaply in Western and Northern New York, due to limitations on transfer capacity, the City cannot utilize all of it but rather must turn on more expensive generators closer by that are connected to uncongested lines. What can also be seen in Figure 3 is the interfaces between New York State and the surrounding power systems. PJM to the south, ISO New England (ISONE) to the east, Hydro Quebec (HQ) to the North, and Ontario Independent Market Operator (IMO) to the West. 9

10 Figure 4 - Real Time zonal locational based marginal pricing showing New York zones. Src: The typical load pattern in New York is shown in Figure 5. For July 22, 2006 it shows the predicted load throughout the day for each of four zones of the State. While the load itself varies between zone, the pattern is typical. It shows load decreasing from about 9pm through 5am, increasing until about 11am, remaining stable and then slightly decreasing around 6pm with a small increase around 8pm. Even at the low point at night, there is still power being consumed, This is considered the base load and can be supplied by generators that produce power less expensively and do not change their output level easily. The generation needed to make up for the difference between daytime and nighttime load would be considered load following and is typically provided by generators that can change their output over a period of tens of minutes to an hour. The very high points of the load would be supplied by peaking generators. These are typically the most expensive and only run a small fraction of the time but are necessary to supply the load at peak times. If one were to look at the actual load, it would not appear as smooth a curve as this predicted load. The small variations and 10

11 quick changes would need to be supplied by regulating generators, or regulating services from generators that are already running. As there is no storage in the system, electricity supply must match demand or voltage and frequency instabilities will occur. Figure 5 - Forecast zonal loads showing typical summer daily load profile. Src: 2. Emissions The standard approach to reducing emissions is to clean the emissions out of the flue gases. This has an associated cost and varying level of effectiveness. An alternate approach is to build new power plants with lower emissions rates. Error! Reference source not found. and Figure 7 show the US net summer capacity by fuel type and the predicted capacity additions by fuel type. Though carbon emissions are a growing concern and it can be seen that coal plant capacity has decreased over the last few years, it is predicted that coal fired power plants will quickly resume being built again. Though it is not clear exactly how this prediction was made, our electricity demand keeps rising and coal is the most abundant domestic fossil fuel source. The State of New York is supporting development of a variety of renewable energy projects for this reason precisely. As the renewable energy generation is typically 11

12 more costly than traditional generation, there is again an additional cost associated with this method of reducing emissions. A third approach to emissions reduction would be to dispatch existing plants based on either an emissions cap or through an emissions minimization scheme. Rather than the standard method of dispatching plants based primarily on minimizing costs, this method would minimize emissions from plants while considering the same security and reliability constraints observed by the cost minimization dispatch. Because the generators are no longer being dispatched based on their economics, more expensive but cleaner generators will be turned on sooner and higher than they might have in the classic approach. This associated cost would be the cost penalty of reducing emissions in this manner. Of the three options, this last options would have the least lead time for implementation if the State of New York wanted to reduce emissions as quickly as possible. It is the only method that does not require new construction to implement. Later sections of this paper describe this method in further detail and its possible results for New York. Figure 6 - Net summer generator capacity from 1993 to Src: 12

13 Figure 7 - Planned nameplate capacity additions by fuel type from 2005 through Src: Figure 8 shows the contribution to three New York State emissions by fuel type. Each of these emissions is regulated and mitigated in a different manner. 13

14 Figure 8 - New York State NOx, SOx, and CO2 emissions contributions by fuel type in Src: Carbon dioxide Though not currently regulated in the United States, the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by other developed nations and the increasing concern about global climate change have led the electric power industry to include carbon dioxide emissions caps in many of their forecasts. Different fuels emit different levels of carbon dioxide. While coal used to produce electricity releases approximately million metric tons of carbon dioxide per quadrillion Btu, petroleum emits roughly and natural gas emits only [2]. Even this is simplistic, as different types of coal have different compositions and thus lead to varying emissions rates. According to the EIA Annual Energy Report, carbon dioxide emissions for coal can range from 201 pounds per million BTU for Iowa Bituminous coal up to 218 for North Dakota Lignite coal [6]. The egrid database 14

15 accounts for the sourcing of fuel due to its reporting of MBtu and tons of emissions. Hydro, nuclear, and wind or solar clearly do not emit any carbon dioxide. 2.2 Sulfur Dioxide Both the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the Clean Air Act Ammendments of 1990 (CAA90) limit sulfur dioxide emissions in New York State. CAIR limits the annual nationwide SO2 emissions to 3.6 million tons beginning in 2010 and 2.5 million tons starting in Currently, generators must comply with CAAA90. The DOE assumes utilities will comply with the CAAA90 by retrofitting units with flue gas desulfurization equipment, transferring or purchasing sulfur emissions allowances, operating high sulfur coal units at a lower capacity utilization rate, or switching to lowsulfur fuels. Flue Gas Desulfurization units (FGD) are estimated to cost between $179/kW for a 700MW coal plant and $282/kW for a 300MW coal plant [2]. 2.3 Nitrogen Oxides EPA has developed a two-phase nitrogen oxide program, the first phase applied in 1996 and the second in Uncontrolled emissions rates for coal fired boilers is between 0.6 and 1.0 pounds NOx per million Btu. The new standards are 0.11 pounds per million Btu for conventional coal, 0.02 for advanced coal or combined cycle, and 0.08 for combustion turbines. In addition, the EPA has capped emissions in 22 Eastern and Midwestern states in the summer. New York has an emissions cap of thousand tons per summer season. Various technologies are available to reduce NOx emissions. Examples would be advanced overfire air, selective catalytic reduction, and slagging. The amount that these are able to reduce NOx emissions are 30%, 70%, and 20% respectively. Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) can remove nitrogen oxides from flue gases at a cost of $92/kW for a 700MW plant and $116/kW for a 300MW plant. 15

16 2.4 Mercury The Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) establishes a cap-and-trade program for mercury emissions. The regulation specifies a limit of 38 tons beginning in 2010 and 15 tons beginning in Equipment to remove mercury from flue gas is estimated to cost $4-$60 per kw of capacity depending upon the technique used [2]. 3. Intermittency of Renewable Generators Geothermal electricity generation has a high capacity factor similar to fossil fuel plants at 0.95, landfill gas follows at 0.90, and biomass follows behind at All other renewables are intermittent by season or even by day, and cannot be scheduled in the same manner as traditional generators. Least-cost hydro facilities in the North West have capacity factors of 0.64, solar thermal plants have 0.31 capacity factors, excellent wind sites have capacity factors of approximately 0.44 and photovoltaic capacity factors hit a high around 0.21 [2]. Though there are efforts with the New York State Renewable Portfolio Standard to increase the fraction of electricity generated in New York by renewable energy sources to 25% by 2013, there are many operational hurdles that must be dealt with to achieve this. Intermittency and relatively low capacity factors for these generators is the main concern of the NYISO. 4. The Data Sets 4.1 FERC Form 715 Data from the NYISO Any transmission utility that operates integrated transmission facilities at or above 100kV must file form number 715 with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on an annual basis. It provides information about potential transmission capacity and known constraints [7]. In addition to transmission maps and one-line diagrams FERC form 715 submissions include solved power flow base cases 16

17 that the utility would ordinarily use as the starting point for its transmission planning studies. The data contained in FERC form 715 is considered Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) and is thus no longer made publicly available. The NYISO makes the portion of its form 715 that they do not consider to be restricted information available on their website. This consists mainly of an introduction and section headers with no content. To gain access to the maps, diagrams, and base cases, one must apply for authorization and pay a small fee in addition to signing a non disclosure agreement. For that reason, I am unable to include any data or maps contained in the FERC form 715 information, though there is discussion of how this data correlates with other data sources. Part 2 of the FERC Form 715 report contains power flow base cases. NYISO included six base cases in their 2005 filing: a winter 2004/2005 weak load, summer 2005 peak load, spring 2010 light load, summer 2010 peak load, winter 2010/2011 peak load, and summer 2015 peak load. For purposes of this report, we were able to obtain the summer 2010 peak load and a spring 2010 light load base cases. These cases represent the planned transmission system and forecasted system conditions based on NYISO simulations and approved generation and transmission facility upgrades or construction. The summer peak load represents a coincident statewide peak load. This is lower than the sum of peak loads in each of the State s regions because the individual peak loads generally do not occur at the same time. The spring light load represents a load level equal to 45% of the statewide coincident summer peak load level [8]. As stated in the NYISO filing, the power flow base cases are in RAWD data format of the Power Technologies, Inc. (PTI) Power System Simulator for Engineering (PSS/E) load flow program (version 28). The cases have been solved using the fixedslope decoupled Newton iterative algorithm with stepping transformer taps, area interchange and phase shifters engaged, switched shunts and DC line taps unlocked, and VAR limits applied immediately. As required by FERC, the NYISO provides a data dictionary containing a listing of bus names and numbers from the summer 2010 peak load case with corresponding full names for each bus. There is also a second data dictionary containing the Energy 17

18 Information Administration (EIA) plant codes for the generating plants and the full names of the associated generators. This data dictionary was not initially provided with out data, and could have relieved many hours of work attempting to correlate abbreviated bus names in data files with the EIA codes provided in the EPA files described below. Two weeks before finishing this project, these data dictionaries were provided. While they proved useful in better understanding some of the more obscure name abbreviations, the names between the two lists do not match so it did not relieve the effort of creating a map between the various data sets. A one-line diagram showing the major transmission lines and substations is included for each of the eight NYTO s. Additionally, a map of the New York Power Pool from 1993 is included without any modification. While these diagrams and maps contain a significant amount of information, they proved to be less than helpful in this project. The naming conventions on the maps and diagrams do not match the naming conventions used in the data files making it incredibly difficult to identify components between the two. While line voltages are included on the map, line limits are not. Given the original purpose of this project to perform an OPF on the New York State power system, line limits are a critical component. The software package we had for use on this project is the PowerWorld software described in a separate section of this report. The educational package we had access to has a limit of 7,000 buses. Even the full version of PowerWorld has a 60,000 bus limit. The raw data file provided by the NYISO with base case information contained 45,542 buses of which 5,544 were marked as generator buses. We were not able to open this file with our limited version of PowerWorld given the size. Due to this constraint, the only analysis done with this data was in Excel. Even to import this data into Excel was tricky due to Excel s limit on number of lines it will import. The data first had to be opened in a text editor and saved as a text only file. It then had to be imported into Excel in 40,000 line increments and separated into different worksheets. Interpreting the data from the raw data file proved to be difficult without knowledge of PSS/E, the program that generated the file. PTI does not publish user s manuals and after contacting them, they were not willing to share a user s manual with me for the purposes of interpreting the meaning of the data in the file I had been given. 18

19 However, I was able to obtain a PSS/E manual from a colleague and use that to determine the meaning of the fields in the various sections. Once the data was in Excel, another concern with the data arose. As mentioned above, the base case included 5,544 generator buses while there are only approximately 350 generating plants in the State. We have not been able to determine thus far what the discrepancy is and why so many buses in the base case are labeled as generators. It is possible that some generating plants have multiple connection points accounting for increased numbers of generator buses. It is also possible that each generator is modeled in the base case, some generating plants having more than half a dozen generators. Even this would not account for the number of generator buses in the base case, as there are a total of roughly 750 generators in the State. We have hypothesized that other possibilities are that loads involved in a demand response program could be modeled as generators, though we have not confirmed this nor do we believe the demand response program in the State to be this large. We were further concerned with the large total number of buses in the base case. While it should only have covered transmission facilities, we thought that given the number of buses it might go all the way to the distribution level. After counting the data, we found the distribution of bus voltage levels shown in Table 1. 12,604 of the buses were found to be under 69kV. Some buses had a zero voltage listing and one even had a voltage of 2,636 a bus name SWPACAP5. It is difficult to believe that any bus in New York State has a voltage this high, making it difficult to interpret this data set without the program in which it was created or an explanation from its creator. Though this data set is likely the most complete and accurate in terms of modeling the State s power system, it proved to be of little use due to the lack of a document allowing for identification of buses and generators and due to its size being too large for the software package we had. 19

20 Table 1 - Bus count and bus voltages from NYISO 10 year light load base case data file. # buses 45,542 # gen buses 5,544 # buses under 69kV 12,604 # buses 69kV or greater 32,930 # buses 115kV or greater 21,438 # buses 138kV or greater 14,210 # buses 150kV or greater 7,041 # buses 230kV or greater 4,253 # buses 345kV or greater 1,441 # buses 400kV or greater 476 lowest voltage bus 0 highest voltage bus 2, EPA s egrid The EPA s Emissions & Generation Resources Integrated Database (egrid) was the data set that let to this project s formulation. According to their website, egrid is a database that provides information on the air quality attributes of almost all of the electric power generated in the United States. egrid integrates 24 different federal data sources on power plants and power companies from three federal agencies: the EPA, the EIA, and FERC. Broken down by generating stations, boilers, and generators and with dozens of fields for each component, there is a wealth of information about the generators. For every power plant in the country, egrid provides a detailed emissions profile covering total and per MWh emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides, carbon dioxide, and mercury. Also of use, egrid provides fuel type and heat rate for each plant as well as breakdowns by fuel for multi-fuel plants. Multiple years of data are available but this project focused only on the most recent data available, the 2000 data set. Data through 2004 is scheduled to be posted in the Fall of Initially sorting the data to include only those plants in New York State, egrid shows there to be 319 generating plants in the State with 785 generators. For each generator or plant it gives the plant name and the EIA plant code to ensure the data can be matched with outside sources. The total capacity of New York generators listed in 20

21 egrid is 38,503MW. egrid lists only nameplate capacity, not summer and winter ratings. 4.3 NYISO Load and Capacity Data Each year the NYISO publishes a Load & Capacity Data report. Prior to the NYISO s formation, the NYPP published a similar report in print form. The Load & Capacity Data report presents the NYISO forecasts of peak load, energy requirements and emergency demand response program, existing generating capacity and planned changes, existing and proposed transmission, and normal power transfer limits. This report is available to download from the NYISO website. The 2005 report was used in this study, though the 2006 report has been released in the meantime. Section III, Existing Generating Capacity as of April 1, 2005 lists all generators in the State (hereafter referred to as the NYISO list) by name and owner along with their location by town, in service date, summer and winter capacity, generator type and fuel type. It also has incomplete information on the net energy produced by the generator the previous year. All generators are assigned a PTID by the NYISO which is given in the NYISO list. The PTID is an identification number used in the ORACLE based Database Management System used by the NYISO. There is no publicly available mapping to correlate PTID s with the bus numbers used in the form 715 power flow cases. Correlating the generators on the NYISO list with those on the egrid list was not an easy task given that they do not contain a common identification scheme. Names are often changed as plant ownership changes and the same plant may be referred to by multiple names based on their ownership, location, or given name. To complicate matters further, the names are often given as abbreviations. The majority of time spent on this project was spent attempting to create maps between the plants in the various data sets, a task that seems frivolous given that the NYISO surely has a map between their PTID s and the EIA identification codes. The efforts at creating such a map between the data sets is described in its own section. 21

22 The total summer capacity in the NYISO list is 37,548MW while the winter capacity is 39,655MW. This is slightly below and above what is listed in the egrid data, making it a seemingly complete and reasonable set. 4.4 New York State Generator Data Provided by Professor Thomas Professor Thomas had a spreadsheet of data compiled by his graduate students presumably from the previous NYPP annual capacity reports. The list contains 332 generators, just under half of the number listed by egrid. 157 of those generators were not able to be matched with egrid generators based only on name, size, and fuel type. 67 generators have average heat rates listed; an incomplete listing of average heat rates was given in the NYPP data books. While the majority of the heat rates were within 20% of those given by egrid, there are a number of anomalies. The Keyspan oil generating plant in Suffolk County has a heat rate listed by egrid of 1,175,566 whereas the heat rate given in this data set is 15,256. I can only presume that there was a data entry error in the egrid data for this plant. Then there is the Shoemaker natural gas plant in Orange County that has a heat rate of 19,000 in this data set and one of 27,681 given by egrid. Neither one seems implausible though they are very different. Glenwood gas oil fired plant in Nassau County has a similar situation with heat rates listed as 17,197 and 24,915. Given the disparities and incompleteness, I did nothing more with this data set than make these comparisons. 4.5 Master s of Engineering Design Project by Ivan Francisco Cabral Trujillo In 1999, Ivan Cabral completed a Master s of Engineering project entitled Using Negative Generators to Model Elastic Loads and Maximize Social Welfare Using a Standard Optimal Power Flow under the advising of Professor Robert Thomas. As part of the project, Ivan used data from the New York Power Pool to create a oneline diagram of the system for several load cases and used some of those cases to conduct power flow simulations. The one-line diagrams were created in the PowerWorld 22

23 software package. Professor Thomas shared the PowerWorld files with me as a possible source of system data for this project. In his design project report [4], Ivan expresses the difficulty that he had in obtaining complete system data. Though the data file he had obtained from the NYPP contained information on six areas, the one-line diagram contained explicit data only for the NYPP area. This single area was thus the only area that appears in his PowerWorld representation. Most of the transmission lines in his original data set from the NYPP did not contain line limit information. Only the NYPP lines had restrictions given, making accurate determinations of all line violations impossible. Ivan was also given economic data consisting of bid information for generators and loads. However, only 247 of the generators had economic information. Of those, only 235 had identifying PTID information that allowed for them to be matched with the generators in the case files. The total number of generators in the case files was 1,304. The economic information provided drastically fell short of being complete. Any generators without economic information in PowerWorld are automatically assigned a default power curve. To deal with this, for the generators without given economic information, Ivan fixed their power output and operating costs. While I was hoping to be able to build from Ivan s work, the difficulty of filling in the missing information in his model was immense. The first task of matching buses, lines, and generators in his model with the data I had been given was next to impossible to do completely. Even were it possible, Ivan s model had roughly 30,000 buses, making entry of missing information by hand an unreasonable task. 4.6 Seams Model As part of a research project with the NYISO, the E3RG research group run by Professor Thomas was given a model (the seams model) of the power system of New York and surrounding areas by the NYISO for late 2003 capacity and loads. The purpose of the original project was to look at issues of how the various ISO s and utilities interfaced with each other and how power flowed over the seams between the various systems. 23

24 The seams model contains 3,058 buses, 1340 generators, 2,946 loads, 7,177 lines and transformers, 12 control areas, and 22 zones. It has a system load of 384,804MW and a New York State load of 19,838MW, half way between the base load and the winter peak. Figure 9 was a diagram created as part of this seams project showing the tie lines between NYISO and the surrounding areas as well as the number of buses used to represent each. The NYISO is represented using 846 buses and 42 tie lines connecting New York to the neighboring areas. Figure 9 - NYISO tie-line map and summary of seams project model data Along with the seams project files was an Excel file named Gen_PTID_BUS.xls which appears to map the seams project bus numbers to NYISO PTID numbers. Opening this file and comparing it with the generator information spreadsheet created by PowerWorld from the seams project they are very similar, almost identical. Most of the names and buses match up, but there are a few discrepancies. For example, the PowerWorld-generated generator information lists the Farrckwy plant as the only 24

25 generator at bus 9. The Gen_PTID_BUS file lists a second generator at bus 9 labelled FPL_FAR_ROCK_GT2. In the Generated-generated list, there is no generator by this name at all. There are 312 generators in New York given in the seams model. Initially, adding up the generators in the NYISO area in the seams data set, the total capacity comes to 57,486MW. This is far too high to be reasonable, roughly 40% higher than the reality of just under 40,000MW. Upon further inspection, the Marcy bus is given a max MW capacity of 9,999MW in the seams model. This is clearly the swing bus, not a ten gigawatt generator. Removing the Marcy bus from the calculation, the model counts 47,487MW of capacity. This value is closer, but still about 8,000MW higher than reasonable. The following discussion details where this extra generation was identified and the process of correlating generators from the seams model with those of the other data sources. All generators in PowerWorld are identified by their bus number, name, and ID. The ID for the vast majority of the units is numeric. The first generator on the bus gets an ID of one. If there is a second or third generator of the same name on the same bus, it receives a two or a three for its ID. If multiple generators in a plant are connected to the same bus, this would be the case. However, there are a select number of generators with an alphabetical ID s. Some are labeled consecutively from A through L. Another seven have an ID of T. If only the generators with an ID of T are also excluded, the capacity comes to 41,103MW. If all alphabetical ID generators are excluded, the capacity comes to 39,101, right in the reasonable range. It is possible that excluding these generators is the appropriate thing to do. First examining the Barrett plant, Table 2 shows the relevant data from the PowerWorld model, the matching PTID s from the GenPTID_BUS.xls file, and the winter capability listed by NYISO in their 2005 capacity report. The total Barrett capacity according to the seams model is 1,024MW. The winter capacity listed by NYISO is 756MW and the summer capacity listed by NYISO is 709MW. The capacity listed by egrid for the 14 generators at the Barrett plant is 661MW. Obviously there is not an exact number we can assume to be correct but it is clear the seams model is overestimating. All generators but the D and L generators roughly match the NYISO 25

26 listed capacity. D and L are the only two generators with an open status in the seams model meaning that these generators were not turned on. I am unsure of the connection, though it is interesting. If D and L were both set to the NYISO listed capacity, the Barrett capacity in the seams model would become 754MW, right where it should be. Table 2 - Barrett plant data from various sources Barrett Generator Info From Seams Powerworld Model Winter capability (MW Bus No. Name ID Status Max MW PTID from GenPTIDBUS.xls from NYISO list) 2 BARRETT 1 Closed BARRETT 1 Closed BARRETT A Closed BARRETT B Closed BARRETT C Closed BARRETT D Open BARRETT E Closed BARRETT F Closed BARRETT G Closed BARRETT H Closed BARRETT I Closed BARRETT J Closed BARRETT K Closed BARRETT L Open Next the Holtsville plant is examined in the same way. Table 3 shows that all but generators E and J closely match the capacity values listed by the NYISO. Generator E is listed in the seams model as 323MW but by NYISO as 63.8MW. The seams model capacity, the NYISO winter capacity, the NYISO summer capacity, and the egrid capacity for the full plant are respectively 1,184MW, 648MW, 527MW, and 567MW. Again, generators E and J are the only ones listed as open in the seams model. If these were set to the NYISO vales, the plant would be in line with the external data. Table 3- Holtsville plant data from various sources Holtsville Generator Info From Seams Powerworld Model Winter capability (MW Bus No. Name ID Status Max MW PTID from GenPTIDBUS.xls from NYISO list) 15 HOLTSVLE A Closed HOLTSVLE B Closed HOLTSVLE C Closed HOLTSVLE D Closed HOLTSVLE E Open HOLT_8KU F Closed HOLT_8KU G Closed HOLT_8KU H Closed HOLT_8KU I Closed HOLT_8KU J Open

27 There is a generator in the seams model with the name UnionAve and the ID K. This is interesting given that it does not appear to have any relation to another generator so one would expect it to have the ID of 1. Matching the bus numbers, Gen_PTID_BUS.xls shows this to be a plant named NYPA_HOLTSVILL, explaining why it has an ID of K. Matching the PTID between this file and the NYISO capacity list shows this to be a plant named Flynn in the town of Holtsville. Both the seams and NYISO winter capacity are reasonably close to each other at 184MW and 165MW respectively as shown in Table 4. Table 4 - Union Ave/Flynn station data from a variety of sources Flynn Generator Info From Seams Powerworld Model Winter capability (MW Bus No. Name ID Status Max MW PTID from GenPTIDBUS.xls from NYISO list) 1432 UNIONAVE K Closed The remaining seven alphabetic ID generators in the seams model in the NYISO area have the ID of T. Exploring the first one leads to quite a few complications. It is named Niagara and has a capacity listing of 3,044MW. Table 5 shows this generating unit as well as all others in Niagara County. By matching PTID s and bus numbers, AES Somerset is found to be labeled Kintigh in the seams model. Model City Energy is found to be labeled Sandborn. Lockport Cogen appears to be both the generators labeled Lockport and Harsnrad. With these matches made, the generating capacity matches up between the model and the NYISO listings. 27

28 Table 5 - Niagara County generator data from various sources Niagara County Generator Info From Seams Powerworld Model PTID from Winter capability Bus No. Name ID Status Max MW NYISO name GenPTIDBUS.xls (MW from 359 KINTIGH 1 Closed 693 Somerset SANDBORN 1 Closed 5.67 Model City Energy HARSNRAD 1 Closed 205 Lockport Cogen LOCKPORT 1 Closed PACKARD 1 Closed 40 American Ref-Fuel 1 and PACKARD 1 Closed 95? 23895? 427 PACKARD 2 Closed 56.9 WPS Niagara MORTIMER 1 Closed 3 Glenwood1-3, Oak Orchard, Waterport NIAGARA 1 Closed 86 Lewiston PS NIAGARA 2 Closed 84 Moses Niagara NIAGARA 1 Closed NIAGARA 2 Closed NIAGARA 1 Closed NIAGARA T Closed NIAGARA 1 Closed NIAGARA 1 Closed NIAGARA 1 Closed NIAGARA 1 Closed 573 Brascan Power - Hydraulic Race The generators labeled Packard in the seams model match by bus and PTID with American Ref Fuel 1 and 2 and WPS Niagara. The first Packard unit on bus 426 matches exactly with the two American Ref-Fuel units. There are two Packard generators listed at 95, and 57MW on bus 427 while there is only one matching PTID for WPS Niagara listed at 50MW. I would assume it matches with the second of the two Packard units, leaving the first one unidentified. The Mortimer generator in the seams model matches by bus and PTID as well as rough size with Glenwood 1 through 3, Oak Orchard, and Waterport 1 and 2. Bus 405 of the seams model has Niagara 1 and 2 at 86 and 84MW. This matches by PTID with both the Lewiston PS unit at 240MW and the Moses Niagara unit at 2,433MW. There are also eight other units named Niagara in the seams model at other buses with no matching PTID summing to 5,716MW. One of these eight has an ID of T. If that is removed, the seven remaining sum to 2,672MW. My assumption is that both Niagara units at bus 405 match the Lewiston PS unit and the seven remaining numerically identified Niagaras match Moses Niagara. The Niagara T unit appears to be some kind of rough total Niagara value. All units labeled Niagara in the seams model besides the Niagara T unit sum to 2,842MW, just shy of the 3,044MW listed by the Niagara T unit. 28

29 The last generator listed by NYISO in Niagara County is Brascan Power s Hydraulic Race. I am unable to find any match for it in the seams model by PTID or name but as it is only 2.3MW it is not a concern. Moving on to the next generator with a T ID we get to Moses. Table 6 shows that there are two Moses generators with zero capacity, four with capacity of 247 each and the T unit with capacity of 952. Only one of the four has a matching PTID for St. Lawrence FDR listed at 855MW. The four equally-sized units have a total capacity of 989 in the seams model, roughly the size of the St Lawrence unit and the T ID unit. This appears to match the Moses Power Dam unit in the egrid listings, rated at 912MW. This all appears to follow the pattern that the T generator is a summary or total for the station. Table 6 - Moses station data from various sources Moses Generator Info From Seams Powerworld Model PTID from Winter Bus No. Name ID Status Max MW NYISO name GenPTIDBUS.xls capability 515 MOSES 1 Open 0 unlisted 516 MOSES 1 Open 0 unlisted 519 MOSES T Closed 952 unlisted 520 MOSES 1 Closed St Lawrence - FDR MOSES 1 Closed unlisted 522 MOSES 1 Closed unlisted 523 MOSES 1 Closed unlisted The Gilboa seams plant is the next with a T ID. Table 7 shows a similar pattern where it has four units with roughly equivalent rating that add to 1,057MW while the fifth, T ID, generator has a rating of 1,057MW. The four units have PTID s that match each of them to same sized generators in the NYISO capacity data. The T ID generator has no matching PTID. egrid lists the Blenheim-Gilboa plant as 1,000MW, matching up well. Table 7 - Gilboa station data from various sources Gilboa Generator Info From Seams Powerworld Model PTID from Winter Bus No. Name ID Status Max MW NYISO name GenPTIDBUS.xls capability 591 GILBOA 1 Closed Blenheim GILBOA 1 Closed Blenheim GILBOA 1 Closed Blenheim GILBOA T Open 1057 unlisted 595 GILBOA 1 Closed Blenheim

30 The Feurabush generator in the seams model does not follow any kind of pattern. Four Feurabush generators on one bus match with the PTID for the Selkirk 2 plant rated at 325MW in winter but only 268MW in summer. The four Feurabush units add to 280MW, including the T ID one rated at 15MW. Selkirk-1 s PTID matches with the Longlane unit in the seams model. Their ratings do not coincide though, Selkirk-1 being 112MW and Longlane being only 7 as seen in Table 8. Table 8 - Longlane and Feurabush generator data from various sources Selkirk Generator Info From Seams Powerworld Model PTID from Winter Bus No. Name ID Status Max MW NYISO name GenPTIDBUS.xls capability 600 LONGLANE 1 Closed 7 Selkirk FEURABSH 2 Closed 65 Selkirk FEURABSH 3 Closed FEURABSH 4 Closed FEURABSH T Closed 15 The Independence generator in the seams model does not follow any pattern either. Listed at 1,102MW it matches perfectly with the Sithe Independence generator in the NYISO capacity data at 1,082MW as shown in Table 9. Table 9 - Independence station data from various sources Independence Generator Info From Seams Powerworld Model PTID from Winter Bus No. Name ID Status Max MW NYISO name GenPTIDBUS.xls capability 1391 INDPDNCE T Closed 1102 Sithe_Independence ,082 The four Carr St generators in the seams model on bus 1423 match with the Carr St E Syr generator in the NYISO capacity report as shown in Table 10. The NYISO listing for the unit is 105MW. The first three seams units total 103MW and the fourth, T ID one, is rated at 103MW as well. This follows the pattern of the T being a summary unit. Table 10 - Carr St station data from various sources Carr St Generator Info From Seams Powerworld Model PTID from Winter Bus No. Name ID Status Max MW NYISO name GenPTIDBUS.xls capability 1423 CARR_ST 1 Closed 41 Carr St - E Syr CARR_ST 2 Closed CARR_ST 3 Closed CARR_ST T Closed

31 The last T ID unit follows no previous pattern. The JFK Airport unit rated at 110MW and shown in Table 11 has a matching PTID that is not found in the NYISO listings. However, the JFK units in the NYISO listings are rated at 117MW and have a PTID also not found in the Gen_PTID_BUS.xls file. I can only assume these are the same units. Table 11 - JFK station data from various sources. The first PTID is from the PTID map file, the second is from the NYISO capacity report. Though they do not match, the generators appear to be the same. JFK Generator Info From Seams Powerworld Model PTID from Winter Bus No. Name ID Status Max MW NYISO name GenPTIDBUS.xls capability 1424 JFK_APT T Closed KIAC GT (JFK) 23541/ Because there is no consistent pattern to deal with the alphabetical ID generators, I cannot assume it is appropriate to simply remove them all. For that reason, I went forward with an attempt to do a rather complete reconciliation between the seams generators and the NYISO capacity list using the PTID_BUS.xls file to match between the two sets and reference the egrid data. There were of course some exceptions that were difficult or not able to be precisely matched. Either the bus numbers did not match between the seams file and the PTID_BUS.xls file or the PTID s given did not match those of the NYISO list. The issues that arose during the matching of seams generators with the other data sets are detailed below. STA_162 in the seams file is the Allegany Cogen in the PTID file. The NYISO lists two units in the Allegany cogen that sum to the size listed for STA_162. The first is a natural gas combustion turbine, the second is a waste heat only turbine. These are clearly coupled and combining their heat rates to model as one unit is reasonable. In a similar way, it appears that both the Allegheny 8 and Allegheny 9 hydro units are represented by the single Langdon generator in the seams model. The Waterside 6, 8, and 9 plants in the NYISO list are represented by the single Waterside generator in the seams model. 31

32 The Danskammer 5 and 6 plants are represented by the single Danskammer Diesel generator in the seams model. STA_5 in the seams model, given as 107MW, is labeled Station 5_misc _hydro in the PTID file. This would indicate that it is a conglomeration of many small hydro units. The PTID given matches the MillsMills unit in the NYISO file, a 200kW hydro. When looking at the PTID s around that one in the NYISO file, most are small hydro units without a matching PTID in the model, supporting the conglomeration idea. However, adding the consecutive, unmatched hydro together only sums to 52MW, half what we are looking for. The Sturgeon 1, 2, and 3 plants are represented by the single sturgeon pool generator in the seams file. The Dashville 1 and 2 units are represented by the single Ohioville unit in the seams file. By bus number, the Bordercity generator in the seams model matches the NEG Central Seneca unit in the PTID file. This PTID matches it to the Seneca Falls 1 generator in the NYISO file, but this has only a capability of 1.6MW while the Bordercity unit has a capability of 7MW. Additionally, the next 16 small hydro units in the NYISO file have no match in the seams model. In total, these 17 hydro units in the NYISO file have a capability of 46MW. The Milliken 1 unit in the seams model represents both the Cayuga IC 1 and 2 units in the NYISO file. Fourteen small units in a variety of counties do not have a matching PTID with anything in the seams model. These units, mostly hydro but a few other fuels as well sum to 12.6MW of capacity. The Mongaup unit in the seams model represents the Rio, Mongaup 1, 2, 3, and 4, and Swinging Bridge 1 and 2 units in Sullivan County. Twenty seven small hydro units in a variety of locations do not have matching generators in the seams model by PTID. They sum to 44MW. 32

33 The HQ_GEN_CEDARS plant in the PTID file does not match any generator in the seams model or the NYISO list. The Mulbryny plant in the seams model represents the Mechanicvill 1 and 2 plants. The Ashokan plant in the seams model represents the Ashokan 1 and 2 hydro units. The Kensico unit in the seams model represents the Kensico 1, 2, and 3 hydro units. The Derfield unit represents the Jarvis 1 and 2 hydro units in the NYISO list. The Pearlrvr plant in the seams model represents both the Lederle1 and the Lederle 2 generators from the NYISO list. The Greenwd plant in the seams model represents both York-Warbasse units in the NYISO list. The Lindn_cg plant in the seams model represents the eight CogenTech- Linden units in the NYISO list. The Harsnrad unit in the seams model represents the four Lockport Cogen units in the NYISO list. The N.End unit in the seams model represents the Saranace Energy 1, 2, and 3 units in the NYISO list. The Hyatt unit in the seams model represents the Seneca Energy 1 and 2 units in the NYISO list. The Saranac plant in the seams model represents the Lower Saranac 1, 2, and 3 units in the NYISO list. The Kent Fl unit in the seams model represents the Alice Falls 1 and 2 units in the NYISO list. The Packard unit in the seams model represents the American Ref Fuel 1 and 2 units in the NYISO list. The N. Troy unit in the seams model represents the Crescent 1, 2, 3, and 4 units in the NYISO list. The Fulton unit in the seams model represents the twenty two small hydro units in Onondaga and Oswego Counties. 33

34 The Lighthse unit in the seams model represents six small hydro units in St. Lawrence County. The Brownsfls unit in the seams model represents seventeen small hydro units in St. Lawrence County. The Mortimer unit in the seams model represents six small hydro units in the County of Orleans. The Blackrvr unit in the seams model represents sixteen small hydro units in Jefferson County. The Taylorvl plant in the seams model represents twenty four small hydro units in Herkimer and Lewis counties. The Edic/PTR plant in the seams model represents four hydro units in Herkimer and Oneida Counties. The Ingham E plant in the seams model represents six small hydro units in Fulton and Herkimer Counties. The Spierfls unit in the seams model represents 14 small hydro units in Saratoga and Warren Counties. The Shorehm unit in the seams model represents the Shoreham GT3 and GT4 units in the NYISO list. The two Hickling generators are listed as having a capability of 0kW on the NYISO capacity list. The seams model shows them as having a combined capacity of 83MW while the egrid report shows the Hickling plant as having a capacity of 70MW. The egrid data shows that the Hickling plant produced power in While it is possible that between 2000 and 2005 the plant was turned off, for the purposes of this study, we will leave the plant included. The NYISO rates the four E Hampton generators to 30MW total. egrid shows the East Hampton plant to have a capacity of 27MW corroborating the magnitude suggested by NYISO. Two of the E Hampton generators listed by NYISO match up with seams generators, but two are left without a match. The two seams E Hampton generators, actually labeled Buell, have a 34

35 combined capacity of 31MW. It is reasonable to assume that these two represent the four E Hampton generators. The third Buell generator in the seams model is rated at 6MW and matches by PTID with Greenport GT1, rated at 55MW in the NYISO list. There are three other Greenport generators listed by NYISO that are not given a PTID but sum to 5MW. These run on fuel oil, as does the 6MW Greenport unit listed by egrid. We will assume that this is the correct match. The Montauk generators, totaling 6MW of fuel oil capacity are not represented in the seams model even though there is an entry for them in the PTID file. The egrid file confirms it to be a 6MW plant that operated in However, due to the small size of the plant, it is reasonable to ignore it in this project. The Danskamr unit in the seams model is rated at 18MW but matches the West Delaware unit in the NYISO list rated at 7.6MW. egrid rates this unit at 7.5MW. The PTID file names this CH_MISC_IPPS, leading one to believe that this is a representation of the Delaware plant and other IPPs. However, there are no unrepresented plants in Sullivan County based on egrid, so we will set the plant equal to 7.5MW. The three Brentwod generators in the seams model appear to match the Richard M Flynn plant in the egrid data. There is no plant by the name of Brentwood in the egrid database, but the Richard M Flynn is the only unmatched generator in the correct county with the same fuel type that happens to be of the same capacity. The Islip waste to energy facility in the NYISO list appears to be the Huntington Resource Recovery unit in the egrid data. An example of a generator that could never be matched by name alone is the Fort Drum generator as listed in the seams, PTID, and NYISO files. There is no Fort Drum listed in the egrid data but there is a Black River Power LLC Electric Generation Facility of the same size and fuel type, the only one in the county, that appears to be the perfect match given that the PTID file lists Fort Drum as a cogen. 35

36 In Nassau County, egrid has three plants labeled Plant No 1, Plant No 2, and TBG Cogen. These could not be matched with anything in the seams or NYISO lists until the owner was considered. Once the owner of Plant No 1 and 2 was determined to be the village of Freeport, it was clear that this was the plant labeled Freeport by NYISO. Once the TBG cogen was understood to be owned by Calpine, it was clear that this was the Calpine Bethpage plant in the NYISO list. The Goodyear Lake Plant is listed by egrid as being in Otsego county whereas NYISO registers it in Oswego County and does not give it a PTID. The 3.2MW generator named Macedon in the seams model matches the NEG Central_High_Acres plant in the PTID file which matches the 3.2MW High Acres plant in Wayne County in the NYISO report. The High Acres Gas Recovery plant in neighboring Monroe County, rated at 3.2MW is assumed to be the corresponding plant in the egrid file. Similarly, the 60MW Walck Rd plant in the seams file matches with the Oxbow plant in the PTID and the NYISO file. NYISO lists this plant in Erie County at 59MW while egrid lists it as being in neighboring Niagara county at 55MW. It is assumed these are all the same plant. The 42MW Ticonderg plant in the seams model, IP_Ticonderoga in the PTID file is unmatched in the NYISO listings. The 42MW Ticonderoga Mill plant in Essex County, owned by International Paper appears to be the correct match in the egrid file. The Eastview plant in the seams model does not match any plant by bus/ptid or name in any other data set. It is difficult to determine which plant is its match. The Eastview plant is only listed at 1MW, so no matter what decision is made, it is of little consequence. The EFishkil plant is in the same situation. The Foxhills plant in the seams model is named Pouch by NYISO. This generator is definitively not in the egrid database given that it is found in the EIA dictionary with an EPA identification number not found in egrid. Upon inspection of the NYISO records, the Pouch plant did not begin 36

37 operations until 2001, after the egrid data currently available. By year of operation, fuel type, and size, the Stony Brook plant is the best match and will be used in this model for emissions purposes. There is no match to the Queensbridge station in either the NYISO listings or the egrid. Queensbridge is the location of the Ravenswood power plants. In web searches, I was not able to identify any power plants in Queensbridge besides Ravenswood. For the purposes of this study, and given that the seams model lists Queensbridge at only 6MW and places it less than five buses away from the Ravenswood plant, we will assign it the same characteristics as the Ravenswood plant. While the Langdon plant in the seams model, labeled Allegheny 8 by NYISO by the matching bus and PTID, is not found in the egrid files, it is a hydro plant according to the NYISO. We thus know the emissions and it is not critical to determine a heat rate. It and the Allegheny 9 plant are thus set to match the Prospect Hydro emissions, that being a similarly sized hydro unit. The Fraser power plant in the seams model does not match any other items in the other data files, but its capacity is set to zero in the seams file, making this irrelevant. The Gardenville plant has no matching generator in the other files either. It will be matched with the neighboring bus s emissions due to the fact that it is only rated at 1MW and does not make very much of a difference. It is matched with AES Westover. The 4MW Hancock plant in the seams model has no apparent match. However, the town of Hancock is located in Delaware County. There is an un-matched 7MW hydro facility named West Delaware Hydro Plant in the egrid database. We will assume these are a match. The Auburn State Street plant is not listed in the egrid database. I was able to confirm the small hydro plant s existence through web research. It will also be matched with the Prospect plant from egrid. 37

38 The 5.5MW Lancaster plant in the seams model appears to be the Lancaster Landfill Gas plant in Lancaster, NY in Erie County. This makes it a match with the 5.6MW LFG plant in Erie County given in egrid. The Athens generating station in the seams file was surprisingly not matched by an egrid generator. This was surprising given the 1080MW capacity of the plant. Upon further investigation, the Athens Generating Station did not commence generation until the later part of 2003, well after the 2000 egrid data. It is a natural gas fired plant located in the town of Athens, Green County, NY. It will be matched with the Sithe Independence plant, the best match among the options in terms of size, fuel, and date of construction. The Kent Ave station did not commence operation until late summer 2001 and is thus not available in the egrid system yet. Indeck Olean is the best match for size, date of construction, and fuel type so it will be used to model emissions. The 1MW Pawling plant in the seams model can only be assumed to be related to Pawling, NY of Duchess County. As egrid has no listings for Dutchess County, this generator will be treated as a small hydro unit for the purposes of this study. The Linden Cogen Tech plant began operation in 1992 and should therefore be in the egrid data. However, it is located in Linden, NJ which is why it was not initially identified in the egrid database. It and the Crossroads plant in Mahwah are the only NJ plants that are part of the NYISO system. The Fenner and Wethersfield wind plants did not begin operation until the end of 2000 and 2001 and are thus not included in the egrid data. Again, they do not have any emissions so they can be treated as the Madison wind project. Marcy, listed by seams as a 1500MW plant and a 9999MW plant is not a plant at all. The PTID file matches it to something called NYISO_LBMP_Reference. Marcy, NY, near Utica, is the site of the Marcy Substation and the Frederick R. Clark Energy Center. This is where the New York Power Authority s Energy Control Center is located. It is the juncture 38

39 of five high voltage transmission lines. I can only assume that the Marcy generators listed here are proxies for other pieces of the system when only the NYPA area is modeled. After all of this reconciliation, 7451MW of extra generation in the seams file in the NYISO area has been identified. This is detailed in Table 12. When this extra generation is removed from the seams model, the total generation left in the NYISO area is 40,036MW, very close to the actual installed capacity. Table 12 - "Extra" generation in the seams model and its location Generator Extra MW Marcy 9999 Marcy 1500 Barrett E 135 Barett L Holtsville E Holtsville J 265 Niagara T 3044 Moses T 952 Gilboa T 1057 Carr St T 103 Total TCC Auction Data Given the difficulties of correlating system data between various sources and the problems associated with the NYISO base case being too large, I was advised by a friend working at the NYISO of another available model of the State s power system that is smaller in size. This model is used in the Transmission Congestion Contract (TCC) auctions performed by the NYISO. The data for these auctions, TAD (TCC Auction Data), is made available to market participants wishing to take part in the TCC auctions. The TAD consists of the power flow case used as the starting point for an Initial TCC Auction. Also provided in PSS/E raw data format, the TAD model has roughly 3,000 buses, a very reasonable number for the New York power system and a reasonable number to deal with semi-manually. 39

40 Following the procedures on the NYISO website for requesting TAD, I filled out an application for the data and signed a non-disclosure agreement. The manager of auxiliary market operations for the NYISO responded to my request for TAD data with the following statement TAD information is provided only to market participants with business interests in the TCC Market because of the sensitive nature of the information. TAD includes system diagrams that are also considered Critical Infrastructure Information with limited distribution opportunities. It is for those reasons that I regret to inform you we cannot honor your request. Given that I had already been given all of the system diagrams and a more complete model of the state power system from the FERC Form 715 filing, this response seemed unreasonable. Professor Thomas had further discussions with the NYISO regarding this matter and as of the time of this report, the NYISO lawyers were still reviewing whether or not they could share this data with us. 5. Data Quality control egrid The West Babylon plant was registering bizarrely high costs in my model. Going back to the original egrid data, I uncovered what must have been an error in their data. The total net generation for the 52MW plant was listed as 33MWh and the heat input as 38,793MMBtu giving a net heat rate of 1,175,566Btu/kWh. This is not a reasonable heat rate, even for an old oil fired power plant. The ozone season net generation is listed as 1,175MWh, it would be impossible for this to be higher than the total net generation for the year. The average ratio of ozone season generation to total annual generation for all plants in NY is 0.5. For this reason, I have set the annual net generation for the West Babylon plant to be 2,350MWh giving a net heat rate of 16,508MMBtu/MWh, a reasonable value. Similarly, I corrected for what I must assume to be an error in the Shoreham plant with the annual net generation listed as -57MWh while the ozone season net generation is listed at 451MWh. I assume the total generation to be 902MWh and the net heat rate to thus be 29,254MMBtu/MWh. This is high, but in the correct magnitude. 40

41 The 74 th Street station is perplexing. It gives an annual net generation of -65MWh and an ozone season net generation of only 20MWh. For an annual heat input of 9,850,258MMBtu, this is not reasonable. Even correcting this to 40MWh for the year, it comes to 274,925,750MMBtu/MWh. The 74 th Street plant is very similar in appearance to the 59 th Street oil-fired station, so it will be assigned the heat rate from that plant. The Greenport plant is even more vexing. Rated at 7MW, egrid reports a heat input of 379MMBtu and a net generation of -255MWh. The ozone season net generation is similarly -106Mwh. When the individual generators making up the Greenport plant are examined, egrid labels their annual generation as n/a. Given the small size of the plant and the oddity of this data, it will be set to the same values as the Montauk plant, a similar 6MW oil fired plant. The 74 th Street and the Shoreham plants both have erroneous emissions data with negative emissions rates for NOX, SO2, and CO2. These will be disregarded and the plants assumed to have zero emissions to compensate. 6. Estimating Generator Marginal Costs According to EIA statistics on U.S. investor-owned electric utility revenue and expense from 1993 through 2004 [11], fuel costs as a percentage of total electric utility operating expenses dropped rather steadily from 1993 through 2001 and then started rising again. In 1993 it was roughly 21% whereas in 2001 it was only 14%. As this study is only looking at generator marginal cost, not total utility operating expenses, many expenses are not relevant to this study. Removing expenses such as transmission and distribution, purchased power, customer accounts and service, and sales is likely more representative of what the actual generator s expenses are. Calculating the fuel cost as a percentage of the maintenance, depreciation, and taxes only is likely a reasonable ratio for generators and comes out to a range of 30% to 36% depending upon the year. The trend of these two percentages over the years is shown in Figure

42 Figure 10 - Fuel costs as a percentage of electric utility operating costs. Src: This does not tell us anything about the type of generator though. Clearly, a natural gas fired peaking plant would have a different fuel cost to total expense ratio than a hydro plant. 42

43 Figure 11 - Average fuel/total operation and maintenance expense ratio for major U.S. investor owned utilities in Src: Figure 11 shows that 25.1% of nuclear plant operation and maintenance cost is due to fuel purchases whereas fuel for fossil steam plants accounts for 76.4% of expenses. Hydro has a zero fuel cost and gas turbines and internal combustion generators have an average fuel cost of 90.2% of expenses. An EIA article on challenges facing fuel suppliers in a restructured electric power industry confirms that nuclear fuel accounts for roughly one quarter of a nuclear plant s operating costs [5]. Because generation costs from hydro and other electric generators with zero fuel cost cannot be determined based upon a heat rate and a ratio of fuel cost to total cost, we must look at the cost per generation numbers for these types of plants. The total operation and maintenance costs of hydro facilities from IOU s in 2004 was 8.69 mils per kilowatthour. To ensure that the scaling gives reasonable numbers for the other generators, it is important to note that nuclear generators reported a cost of mils per kwh, fossil steam a cost of mils per kwh, and gas turbines and small scale generators a cost of 50.1 mils per kwh. Of this, 4.58, 18.21, and 45.2 respectively were their fuel costs in mils per kwh [3]. 43

44 Table 13 gives a summary of calculated fuel costs used in the rest of this study, broken down in the same way that egrid classifies fuel types. The Fuel Cost in dollars per million Btu s is sourced from the EIA s July 2006 Monthly Energy Review and 2005 Annual Energy Review. Both use 2005 annual average values. The average operating cost in dollars per MWh is from the EIA Energy Annual report based on category of generator for 2004 annual averages. Because fuel costs increased significantly from 2004 to 2005, a scaling factor was introduced to convert the 2004 operating costs to equivalent 2005 operating costs where the scaling factor is the change in that particular fuel cost from 2004 to The adjusted net heat rates given are averages for the various fossil fuel generators. The adjustment made is for the combined heat and power (CHP) units. The adjustment was made using egrid s CHP plant electric allocation factors. These factors are uses by egrid in its emissions allocations to account for what portion of the heat input should be allocated for electricity. The same was done to allocate costs here. Using the given fuel costs and the adjusted heat rates, the cost for fuel alone in dollars per MWh is calculated for the fossil fuel units. Finally the average total operating costs for fossil fuel units are calculated using a scaling factor based on what percentage of operating costs are accounted for by fuel costs as described above. Table 13 - Average fuel costs by fuel type calculated by two different methods Fuel Type Description Fossil Fuel Cost 2005 ($/ MMBtu)* Average Operating Cost (2004$/ MWh)** Scaling factor from 2004 fuel cost to 2005* Average Operating Cost Scaled to (2005$/MWh) Average Adjusted Net Heat Rate (Btu/MWh) Average Fossil Fuel Cost based on Heat Rate ($/MWh) Average Operating Cost based on Heat Rate ($/MWh) BIT Coal , BL Water COL Coal , DFO Distillate Fuel Oil , GAS Natural Gas , LFG Landfill Gas MSW Municipal Solid Waste MWC Refuse (solid waste) NG Natural Gas , NUC Nuclear OG Solid Waste OIL Oil , RFO Residual Fuel Oil , UR Nuclear WAT Water WDS Wood WND Wind WT Water Fossil Data from EIA Table Nuclear data from EIA table * ** From EIA's 2004 Energy Annual, table

45 As can be seen, the average operating costs calculated using fuel costs, heat rates, and factors to account for non-fuel operating costs vary significantly from those given by the EIA for country-wide investor owned utility costs. In the case of coal, the calculated costs appear to be lower than the EIA average reported costs. In the case of natural gas, the costs are almost identical. But in the case of oil, the calculated costs are more than double. To account for these differences yet still account for the heat rate information provided by egrid to determine relative operating costs for units of the same fuel type, the average operating cost for each unit will be assigned by using the calculated value scaled so that the mean value for that fuel type matches the EIA reported national average. 7. Mapping PTID to EIA Codes As described briefly in the NYISO Load and Capacity Data section, the majority of time spent on this project was spent attempting to match generators in one data set with generators in another data set. The two most complete data sets I was able to obtain were egrid and the NYISO Load and Capacity Data, both publicly available. egrid s emissions data was the catalyst for this project. It lists the EIA facility code for every generating station. NYISO on the other hand identifies its generating stations using a PTID number. Though the NYISO must have a map between their PTID s and the EIA facility codes, they do not make it publicly available. In fact, in doing research online, I found multiple references in technical papers studying the New York power system lamenting the lack of any publicly available document to correlate PTID s and EIA codes. Though it was not the intention to create such a map at the commencement of this project, such a map had to be created in the course of the work. I had available a model of the power system in New York and surrounding areas in PowerWorld format. Along with this was a file correlating bus numbers from this model with PTID s. It was over 90% complete, though contained many errors and omissions. Using this, I was able to match the generators in the model with the generators listed by the NYISO. This filled in 45

46 a great amount of information about each of the plants such as location, fuel type, and owner. The goal was to assign costs and emissions data to each generator in the model, so one further step had to be made to then match the egrid generators to the seams model generators. The additional information in the NYISO listings as well as the name variations among the three data sets just mentioned made this mapping possible though arduous. What follows is as accurate a map between NYISO listed generators and EIA facility codes as I was able to produce. There are still multiple omissions and surely a handful of mismatched generators, but it very closely complete. It is important to note that this map was made using publicly available information and over a hundred of hours of work. 46

47 Table 14 - PTID to EIA Code Map NYISO Ref No. Owner/Operator NYISO Station Name PTID Town Winter Capacity Cnty (kw) egrid Station Name EIA Code 1001 AES Corp. Cayuga Lansing AES CAYUGA AES Corp. Cayuga Lansing AES CAYUGA AES Corp. Cayuga IC Lansing AES CAYUGA AES Corp. Cayuga IC Lansing AES CAYUGA AES Corp. Greenidge Torrey AES GREENIDGE AES Corp. Greenidge Torrey AES GREENIDGE AES Corp. Hickling Corning AES HICKLING LLC AES Corp. Hickling Corning AES HICKLING LLC AES Corp. Jennison Bainbridge 17 0 AES JENNISON LLC AES Corp. Jennison Bainbridge 17 0 AES JENNISON LLC AES Corp. Somerset Somerset AES SOMERSET LLC AES Corp. Westover Union AES WESTOVER AES Corp. Westover Union AES WESTOVER Athens Generating Company, LP Athens Athens SITHE INDEPENDENCE STATION Athens Generating Company, LP Athens Athens SITHE INDEPENDENCE STATION Athens Generating Company, LP Athens Athens SITHE INDEPENDENCE STATION Boralex Fourth Branch (Mohawk Paper) FOURTH BRANCH HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY Boralex NYS Dam Waterford NEW YORK STATE DAM HYDRO Boralex Sissonville Potsdam SISSONVILLE HYDROELECTRIC Boralex Warrensburg WARRENSBURG HYDROELECTRIC Brascan Power - NY Carr St.-E. Syr Dewitt CARR STREET GENERATING STATION Brascan Power - NY Hydro Services LLC Various (Listed below) 1023 Brascan Power - NY Newton Falls 1 - Lower not listed 1024 Brascan Power - NY Newton Falls 2 - Upper not listed 1025 Brascan Power - NY Newton Falls 3 - Upper not listed 1026 Brascan Power - NY Newton Falls 4 - Upper not listed 1027 Brascan Power - NY Hydraulic Race HYDRAULIC RACE Brascan Power - NY Baldwinsville TRIGEN SYRACUSE ENERGY CORP Brascan Power - NY Baldwinsville not listed 1030 Brascan Power - NY Fulton FULTON Brascan Power - NY Fulton FULTON Brascan Power - NY Granby GRANBY Brascan Power - NY Granby GRANBY Brascan Power - NY Minetto MINETTO Brascan Power - NY Minetto MINETTO Brascan Power - NY Minetto MINETTO Brascan Power - NY Minetto MINETTO Brascan Power - NY Minetto MINETTO Brascan Power - NY Oswego Falls E OSWEGO FALLS EAST Brascan Power - NY Oswego Falls E OSWEGO FALLS EAST Brascan Power - NY Oswego Falls E OSWEGO FALLS EAST Brascan Power - NY Oswego Falls W OSWEGO FALL WEST Brascan Power - NY Oswego Falls W OSWEGO FALL WEST Brascan Power - NY Oswego Falls W OSWEGO FALL WEST Brascan Power - NY Varick VARICK Brascan Power - NY Varick VARICK Brascan Power - NY Varick VARICK Brascan Power - NY Varick VARICK Brascan Power - NY Allens Falls ALLENS FALLS Brascan Power - NY Chasm CHASM Brascan Power - NY Chasm CHASM Brascan Power - NY Chasm CHASM HYDRO PARTNERSHIP Brascan Power - NY Franklin FRANKLIN Brascan Power - NY Franklin FRANKLIN Brascan Power - NY Hogansburg not listed 1056 Brascan Power - NY Macomb MACOMB Brascan Power - NY Parishville PARISHVILLE Brascan Power - NY Piercefield PIERCEFIELD Brascan Power - NY Piercefield PIERCEFIELD Brascan Power - NY Piercefield PIERCEFIELD Brascan Power - NY Bennetts Bridge BENNETTS BRIDGE Brascan Power - NY Bennetts Bridge BENNETTS BRIDGE Brascan Power - NY Bennetts Bridge BENNETTS BRIDGE Brascan Power - NY Bennetts Bridge BENNETTS BRIDGE Brascan Power - NY Lighthouse Hill LIGHTHOUSE HILL Brascan Power - NY Lighthouse Hill LIGHTHOUSE HILL Brascan Power - NY Browns Falls BROWNS FALLS Brascan Power - NY Browns Falls BROWNS FALLS Brascan Power - NY Eel Weir EEL WEIR Brascan Power - NY Eel Weir EEL WEIR Brascan Power - NY Eel Weir EEL WEIR Brascan Power - NY Flat Rock FLAT ROCK Brascan Power - NY Flat Rock FLAT ROCK Brascan Power - NY Heuvelton HEUVELTON Brascan Power - NY Heuvelton HEUVELTON Brascan Power - NY Oswegatchie not listed 1077 Brascan Power - NY Oswegatchie not listed 1078 Brascan Power - NY South Edwards SOUTH EDWARDS Brascan Power - NY South Edwards SOUTH EDWARDS Brascan Power - NY South Edwards SOUTH EDWARDS Brascan Power - NY South Edwards SOUTH EDWARDS Brascan Power - NY Talcville TALCVILLE Brascan Power - NY Talcville TALCVILLE Brascan Power - NY Glenwood GLENWOOD Brascan Power - NY Glenwood GLENWOOD Brascan Power - NY Glenwood GLENWOOD Brascan Power - NY Oak Orchard not listed 1088 Brascan Power - NY Waterport WATERPORT Brascan Power - NY Waterport WATERPORT Brascan Power - NY Beebee Island BEEBEE ISLAND HYDRO PLANT Brascan Power - NY Beebee Island BEEBEE ISLAND HYDRO PLANT Brascan Power - NY Black River BLACK RIVER Brascan Power - NY Black River BLACK RIVER Brascan Power - NY Black River BLACK RIVER Brascan Power - NY Deferiet DEFERIET Brascan Power - NY Deferiet DEFERIET Brascan Power - NY Deferiet DEFERIET NEW YORK Brascan Power - NY Herrings HERRINGS Brascan Power - NY Herrings HERRINGS Brascan Power - NY Herrings HERRINGS Brascan Power - NY Kamargo KAMARGO Brascan Power - NY Kamargo KAMARGO Brascan Power - NY Kamargo KAMARGO Brascan Power - NY Sewalls SEWALLS Brascan Power - NY Sewalls SEWALLS Brascan Power - NY Belfort BELFORT Brascan Power - NY Belfort BELFORT

48 1108 Brascan Power - NY Belfort BELFORT Brascan Power - NY Eagle EAGLE Brascan Power - NY Eagle EAGLE Brascan Power - NY Eagle EAGLE Brascan Power - NY Eagle EAGLE Brascan Power - NY Effley EFFLEY Brascan Power - NY Effley EFFLEY Brascan Power - NY Effley EFFLEY Brascan Power - NY Effley EFFLEY Brascan Power - NY Elmer ELMER Brascan Power - NY Elmer ELMER Brascan Power - NY High Falls HIGH FALLS Brascan Power - NY High Falls HIGH FALLS Brascan Power - NY High Falls HIGH FALLS Brascan Power - NY Moshier MOSHIER Brascan Power - NY Moshier MOSHIER Brascan Power - NY Soft Maple SOFT MAPLE Brascan Power - NY Soft Maple SOFT MAPLE Brascan Power - NY Taylorville TAYLORVILLE Brascan Power - NY Taylorville TAYLORVILLE Brascan Power - NY Taylorville TAYLORVILLE Brascan Power - NY Taylorville TAYLORVILLE Brascan Power - NY Prospect PROSEPECT Brascan Power - NY Trenton Falls TRENTON FALLS Brascan Power - NY Trenton Falls TRENTON FALLS Brascan Power - NY Trenton Falls TRENTON FALLS Brascan Power - NY Inghams INGHAMS Brascan Power - NY Inghams INGHAMS Brascan Power - NY Beardslee BEARDSLEE Brascan Power - NY Beardslee BEARDSLEE Brascan Power - NY Ephratah EPHRATAH Brascan Power - NY Ephratah EPHRATAH Brascan Power - NY Ephratah EPHRATAH Brascan Power - NY Ephratah EPHRATAH Brascan Power - NY Blake BLAKE Brascan Power - NY Five Falls FIVE FALLS Brascan Power - NY Rainbow Falls RAINBOW FALLS Brascan Power - NY South Colton SOUTH COLTON Brascan Power - NY Stark STARK Brascan Power - NY Colton COLTON Brascan Power - NY Colton COLTON Brascan Power - NY Colton COLTON Brascan Power - NY East Norfolk EAST NORFOLK Brascan Power - NY Hannawa Falls HANNAWA Brascan Power - NY Hannawa Falls HANNAWA Brascan Power - NY Higley HIGLEY Brascan Power - NY Higley HIGLEY Brascan Power - NY Higley HIGLEY Brascan Power - NY Higley HIGLEY Brascan Power - NY Norfolk NORFOLK Brascan Power - NY Norwood NORWOOD Brascan Power - NY Raymondville RAYMONDVILLE Brascan Power - NY Sugar Island SUGAR ISLAND Brascan Power - NY Sugar Island SUGAR ISLAND Brascan Power - NY Yaleville YALEVILLE Brascan Power - NY Yaleville YALEVILLE Brascan Power - NY E J West E J WEST Brascan Power - NY E J West E J WEST Brascan Power - NY Feeder Dam FEEDER DAM HYDRO PLANT Brascan Power - NY Feeder Dam FEEDER DAM HYDRO PLANT Brascan Power - NY Feeder Dam FEEDER DAM HYDRO PLANT Brascan Power - NY Feeder Dam FEEDER DAM HYDRO PLANT Brascan Power - NY Feeder Dam FEEDER DAM HYDRO PLANT Brascan Power - NY Sherman Island SHERMAN ISLAND Brascan Power - NY Sherman Island SHERMAN ISLAND Brascan Power - NY Sherman Island SHERMAN ISLAND Brascan Power - NY Sherman Island SHERMAN ISLAND Brascan Power - NY Spier Falls SPIER FALLS Brascan Power - NY Spier Falls SPIER FALLS Brascan Power - NY Stewarts Bridge STEWARTS BRIDGE Brascan Power - NY Johnsonville JOHNSONVILLE Brascan Power - NY Johnsonville JOHNSONVILLE Brascan Power - NY Schaghticoke SCHAGHTICOKE Brascan Power - NY Schaghticoke SCHAGHTICOKE Brascan Power - NY Schaghticoke SCHAGHTICOKE Brascan Power - NY Schaghticoke SCHAGHTICOKE Brascan Power - NY School Street Cohoes SCHOOL STREET Brascan Power - NY School Street Cohoes SCHOOL STREET Brascan Power - NY School Street Cohoes SCHOOL STREET Brascan Power - NY School Street Cohoes SCHOOL STREET Brascan Power - NY School Street Cohoes SCHOOL STREET Brascan Power - NY Schuylerville SCHUYLERVILLE Calpine Energy Service LP Bethpage Bethpage TBG COGEN Calpine Energy Service LP Bethpage GT Bethpage TBG COGEN Calpine Energy Service LP KIAC GT 01 (JFK) Jamaica KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT COGEN FACILITY Calpine Energy Service LP KIAC GT 02 (JFK) Jamaica KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT COGEN FACILITY Calpine Energy Service LP KIAC ST 01 (JFK) Jamaica KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT COGEN FACILITY Calpine Energy Service LP Stony Brook Stony Brook STONY BROOK COGENERATION PLANT Canastota Wind Power, LLC Fenner Wind Power Fenner MADISON WINDPOWER Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. Coxsackie GT Coxsackie WEST COXSACKIE Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. Dashville Rifton DASHVILLE Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. Dashville Rifton DASHVILLE Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. DCCRA Poughkeepsie DUTCHESS COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. Groveville Mills x Beacon noot listed 1202 Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. High Falls Marbletown HIGH FALLS Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. Millpond x Catskill not listed 1204 Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. Montgomery West x Montgomery not listed 1205 Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. Neversink Grahamsville NEVERSINK Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. Salisbury Mills x Salisbury Mills not listed 1207 Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. South Cairo Cairo SOUTH CAIRO Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. Sturgeon Rifton STURGEON Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. Sturgeon Rifton STURGEON Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. Sturgeon Rifton STURGEON Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. Wallkill x Shwangunk not listed 1212 Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. Wappingers Falls Wappingers WAPPINGER FALLS HYDROELECTRIC Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. West Delaware Grahamsville WEST DELAWARE TUNNEL PLANT CHI Energy Wethersfield Wind Power Wethersfield MADISON WINDPOWER Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc. 59 St. GT Manhattan TH STREET Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc. 74 St. GT Manhattan TH STREET Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc. 74 St. GT Manhattan TH STREET

49 1218 Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc. East River Manhattan EAST RIVER Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc. East River Manhattan EAST RIVER Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc. Hudson Ave 10 (Ret. 10/01/04) Brooklyn 47 0 HUDSON AVENUE Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc. Hudson Ave Brooklyn HUDSON AVENUE Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc. Hudson Ave Brooklyn HUDSON AVENUE Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc. Hudson Ave Brooklyn HUDSON AVENUE Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc. Waterside Manhattan WATERSIDE Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc. Waterside Manhattan WATERSIDE Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc. Waterside Manhattan WATERSIDE Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc. Brooklyn Navy Yard Brooklyn BROOKLYN NAVY YARD COGENERATION PARTNERS L P Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc. York-Warbasse Brooklyn WARBASSE COGEN FACILITY Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc. York-Warbasse Brooklyn WARBASSE COGEN FACILITY Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc. Cogen Tech-Linden Linden NJ LINDEN COGEN PLANT Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc. Cogen Tech-Linden Linden NJ not listed??? 1232 Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc. Cogen Tech-Linden Linden NJ not listed??? 1233 Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc. Cogen Tech-Linden Linden NJ not listed??? 1234 Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc. Cogen Tech-Linden Linden NJ not listed??? 1235 Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc. Cogen Tech-Linden Linden NJ not listed??? 1236 Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc. Cogen Tech-Linden Linden NJ not listed??? 1237 Consolidated Edison of NY, Inc. Cogen Tech-Linden Linden NJ not listed??? 1238 Constellation Power Source American Ref-Fuel AMERICAN REF FUEL CO OF NIAGARA LP Constellation Power Source American Ref-Fuel AMERICAN REF FUEL CO OF NIAGARA LP Constellation Power Source Chateaugay Power Chateaugay CHATEAUGAY POWER STATION Constellation Power Source Ginna Ontario GINNA Constellation Power Source High Acres Fairport HIGH ACRES GAS RECOVERY Constellation Power Source Monroe Livingston Scottsville MONROE LIVINGSTON GAS RECOVERY Constellation Power Source Nine Mile Pt Scriba NINE MILE POINT Constellation Power Source Nine Mile Pt Scriba NINE MILE POINT Dynegy Power Inc. Danskammer Newburgh DANSKAMMER Dynegy Power Inc. Danskammer Newburgh DANSKAMMER Dynegy Power Inc. Danskammer Newburgh DANSKAMMER Dynegy Power Inc. Danskammer Newburgh DANSKAMMER Dynegy Power Inc. Danskammer Newburgh DANSKAMMER Dynegy Power Inc. Danskammer Newburgh DANSKAMMER Dynegy Power Inc. Roseton Newburgh ROSETON Dynegy Power Inc. Roseton Newburgh ROSETON Entergy Nuclear Fitzpatrick Scriba FITZAPATRICK Entergy Nuclear Indian Pt Buchanan INDIAN POINT Entergy Nuclear Indian Pt GT Buchanan INDIAN POINT Entergy Nuclear Indian Pt GT Buchanan INDIAN POINT Entergy Nuclear Indian Pt GT Buchanan INDIAN POINT Entergy Nuclear Indian Pt Buchanan INDIAN POINT Equus Power 1, LP Freeport CT Freeport PLANT NO Florida Power & Light Far Rockaway GT Far Rockaway FAR ROCKAWAY Florida Power & Light Far Rockaway GT Jamaica Bay FAR ROCKAWAY Freeport, Village of Freeport 1-1 x Freeport PLANT NO Freeport, Village of Freeport 1-2 x Freeport PLANT NO Freeport, Village of Freeport 1-3 x Freeport PLANT NO Freeport, Village of Freeport 1-4 x Freeport PLANT NO Freeport, Village of Freeport 2-1 (Ret. 04/01/04) x Freeport 59 0 PLANT NO Freeport, Village of Freeport 2-2 (Ret. 04/01/04) x Freeport 59 0 PLANT NO Freeport, Village of Freeport 2-3 x Freeport PLANT NO Freeport, Village of Freeport CT Freeport PLANT NO Fulton Cogen Associates, L.P. Fulton Cogen Fulton FULTON COGENERATION ASSOCIATES Greenport, Village of Greenport IC 4 x Greenport GREENPORT Greenport, Village of Greenport IC 5 x Greenport GREENPORT Greenport, Village of Greenport IC 6 x Greenport GREENPORT Hawkeye Energy Greenport GT Greenport ??? 1276 Indeck-Corinth LP Indeck-Corinth Corinth INDECK CORINTH ENERGY CENTER Indeck-Olean LP Indeck-Olean Olean INDECK OLEAN ENERGY CENTER Indeck-Oswego LP Indeck-Oswego Oswego INDECK OSWEGO ENERGY CENTER Indeck-Yerkes LP Indeck-Yerkes Tonawanda INDECK YERKES ENERGY CENTER Innovative Energy Systems Model City Energy Lewiston SENECA ENERGY Innovative Energy Systems Ontario LFGE Canandaigua not listed 1282 Innovative Energy Systems Seneca Energy Seneca Falls SENECA ENERGY Innovative Energy Systems Seneca Energy Seneca Falls SENECA ENERGY Jamestown, City of Jamestown 5 x Jamestown S A CARLSON Jamestown, City of Jamestown 6 x Jamestown S A CARLSON Jamestown, City of Jamestown 7 x Jamestown S A CARLSON KeySpan Ravenswood, Inc. Ravenswood ST Queens RAVENSWOOD KeySpan Ravenswood, Inc. Ravenswood ST Queens RAVENSWOOD KeySpan Ravenswood, Inc. Ravenswood ST Queens RAVENSWOOD KeySpan Ravenswood, Inc. Ravenswood CC Queens RAVENSWOOD KeySpan Ravenswood, Inc. Ravenswood Queens RAVENSWOOD KeySpan Ravenswood, Inc. Ravenswood Queens RAVENSWOOD KeySpan Ravenswood, Inc. Ravenswood Queens RAVENSWOOD KeySpan Ravenswood, Inc. Ravenswood Queens RAVENSWOOD KeySpan Ravenswood, Inc. Ravenswood Queens RAVENSWOOD KeySpan Ravenswood, Inc. Ravenswood Queens RAVENSWOOD KeySpan Ravenswood, Inc. Ravenswood Queens RAVENSWOOD KeySpan Ravenswood, Inc. Ravenswood Queens RAVENSWOOD KeySpan Ravenswood, Inc. Ravenswood Queens RAVENSWOOD KeySpan Ravenswood, Inc. Ravenswood Queens RAVENSWOOD KeySpan Ravenswood, Inc. Ravenswood Queens RAVENSWOOD KeySpan Ravenswood, Inc. Ravenswood Queens RAVENSWOOD KeySpan Ravenswood, Inc. Ravenswood Queens RAVENSWOOD KeySpan Ravenswood, Inc. Ravenswood Queens RAVENSWOOD KeySpan Ravenswood, Inc. Ravenswood Queens RAVENSWOOD KeySpan Ravenswood, Inc. Ravenswood Queens RAVENSWOOD KeySpan Ravenswood, Inc. Ravenswood Queens RAVENSWOOD KeySpan Generation, LLC Barrett ST Island Park BARRETT KeySpan Generation, LLC Barrett ST Island Park BARRETT KeySpan Generation, LLC Barrett GT Island Park BARRETT KeySpan Generation, LLC Barrett GT Island Park BARRETT KeySpan Generation, LLC Barrett GT Island Park BARRETT KeySpan Generation, LLC Barrett GT Island Park BARRETT KeySpan Generation, LLC Barrett GT Island Park BARRETT KeySpan Generation, LLC Barrett GT Island Park BARRETT KeySpan Generation, LLC Barrett GT Island Park BARRETT KeySpan Generation, LLC Barrett GT Island Park BARRETT KeySpan Generation, LLC Barrett GT Island Park BARRETT KeySpan Generation, LLC Barrett GT Island Park BARRETT KeySpan Generation, LLC Barrett GT Island Park BARRETT KeySpan Generation, LLC Barrett GT Island Park BARRETT KeySpan Generation, LLC East Hampton E Hampton EAST HAMPTON KeySpan Generation, LLC East Hampton E Hampton EAST HAMPTON KeySpan Generation, LLC East Hampton E Hampton EAST HAMPTON KeySpan Generation, LLC East Hampton GT E Hampton EAST HAMPTON KeySpan Generation, LLC Far Rockaway ST Far Rockaway FAR ROCKAWAY KeySpan Generation, LLC Glenwood GT Glenwood GLENWOOD GAS

50 1328 KeySpan Generation, LLC Glenwood GT Glenwood GLENWOOD GAS KeySpan Generation, LLC Glenwood GT Glenwood GLENWOOD GAS KeySpan Generation, LLC Glenwood GT Glenwood GLENWOOD KeySpan Generation, LLC Glenwood GT Glenwood GLENWOOD GAS KeySpan Generation, LLC Glenwood ST Glenwood GLENWOOD KeySpan Generation, LLC Glenwood ST Glenwood GLENWOOD KeySpan Generation, LLC Holtsville Holtsville HOLTSVILLE KeySpan Generation, LLC Holtsville Holtsville HOLTSVILLE KeySpan Generation, LLC Holtsville Holtsville HOLTSVILLE KeySpan Generation, LLC Holtsville Holtsville HOLTSVILLE KeySpan Generation, LLC Holtsville Holtsville HOLTSVILLE KeySpan Generation, LLC Holtsville Holtsville HOLTSVILLE KeySpan Generation, LLC Holtsville Holtsville HOLTSVILLE KeySpan Generation, LLC Holtsville Holtsville HOLTSVILLE KeySpan Generation, LLC Holtsville Holtsville HOLTSVILLE KeySpan Generation, LLC Holtsville Holtsville HOLTSVILLE KeySpan Generation, LLC Montauk Montauk MONTAUK KeySpan Generation, LLC Montauk Montauk MONTAUK KeySpan Generation, LLC Montauk Montauk MONTAUK KeySpan Generation, LLC Northport Northport NORTHPORT KeySpan Generation, LLC Northport Northport NORTHPORT KeySpan Generation, LLC Northport Northport NORTHPORT KeySpan Generation, LLC Northport Northport NORTHPORT KeySpan Generation, LLC Northport GT Northport NORTHPORT KeySpan Generation, LLC Port Jefferson 1 x Port Jefferson PORT JEFFERSON KeySpan Generation, LLC Port Jefferson 2 x Port Jefferson PORT JEFFERSON KeySpan Generation, LLC Port Jefferson Port Jefferson PORT JEFFERSON KeySpan Generation, LLC Port Jefferson Port Jefferson PORT JEFFERSON KeySpan Generation, LLC Port Jefferson GT Port Jefferson PORT JEFFERSON KeySpan Generation, LLC Port Jefferson GT P Jefferson PORT JEFFERSON KeySpan Generation, LLC Port Jefferson GT P Jefferson PORT JEFFERSON KeySpan Generation, LLC S Hampton South Hampton SOUTH HAMPTON KeySpan Generation, LLC Shoreham Shoreham SHOREHAM KeySpan Generation, LLC Shoreham Shoreham SHOREHAM KeySpan Generation, LLC Southold Southold SOUTHOLD KeySpan Generation, LLC Wading River Shoreham WADING RIVER KeySpan Generation, LLC Wading River Shoreham WADING RIVER KeySpan Generation, LLC Wading River Shoreham WADING RIVER KeySpan Generation, LLC West Babylon West Babylon WEST BABYLON Long Island Power Authority Babylon (RR) Babylon BABYLON RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY Long Island Power Authority Hempstead (RR) Hempstead AMERICAN REF FUEL CO OF HEMPSTEAD Long Island Power Authority Huntington Huntington HUNTINGTON RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY Long Island Power Authority Islip(RR) Ronkonkoma MAC ARTHUR WASTE TO ENERGY FACILITY Long Island Power Authority Oceanside (LF) Oceanside OCEANSIDE LANDFILL Long Island Power Authority Trigen-NDEC Garden City TRIGEN NASSAU ENERGY CORP Long Island Power Authority Yaphank (LF) Yaphank ??? 1374 Long Island Power Authority E. Northport (LF) x East Northport NORTHPORT Long Island Power Authority Oyster Bay (LF) x Bethpage OYSTER BAY ENERGY PARTNERS LP Long Island Power Authority Smithtown (LF) x Smithtown SMITHTOWN ENERGY PARTNERS LP Long Island Power Authority South Oaks Hosp x Amityville SOUTH OAKS HOSPITAL Lyonsdale BioMass Lyonsdale Power Lyonsdale LYONSDALE POWER CO LLC Mirant Corporation Bowline West Haverstraw BOWLINE POINT Mirant Corporation Bowline West Haverstraw BOWLINE POINT Mirant Corporation Grahamsville Grahamsville GRAHAMSVILLE Mirant Corporation Hillburn GT Hillburn HILLBURN Mirant Corporation Lovett Tomkins Cove LOVETT Mirant Corporation Lovett Tomkins Cove LOVETT Mirant Corporation Lovett Tomkins Cove LOVETT Mirant Corporation Mongaup Forestburg MONGAUP Mirant Corporation Mongaup Forestburg MONGAUP Mirant Corporation Mongaup Forestburg MONGAUP Mirant Corporation Mongaup Forestburg MONGAUP Mirant Corporation Rio Glen Spey MONGAUP Mirant Corporation Shoemaker GT Middletown SHOEMAKER Mirant Corporation Swinging Bridge Forestburg MONGAUP Mirant Corporation Swinging Bridge Forestburg MONGAUP National Energy & Gas Trans. Inc. Madison Wind Power Madison MADISON WINDPOWER New York Power Authority Ashokan Ashokan ASHOKAN New York Power Authority Ashokan Ashokan ASHOKAN New York Power Authority Blenheim Gilboa NY BLENHEIM-GILBOA New York Power Authority Blenheim Gilboa NY BLENHEIM-GILBOA New York Power Authority Blenheim Gilboa NY BLENHEIM-GILBOA New York Power Authority Blenheim Gilboa NY BLENHEIM-GILBOA New York Power Authority Brentwood Brentwood RICHARD M FLYNN New York Power Authority Crescent Crescent CRESCENT New York Power Authority Crescent Crescent CRESCENT New York Power Authority Crescent Crescent CRESCENT New York Power Authority Crescent Crescent CRESCENT New York Power Authority Flynn Holtsville HOLTSVILLE New York Power Authority Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION New York Power Authority Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION New York Power Authority Harlem River Bronx not in egrid 1410 New York Power Authority Harlem River Bronx not listed 1411 New York Power Authority Hellgate Bronx not in egrid 1412 New York Power Authority Hellgate Bronx not listed 1413 New York Power Authority Jarvis Hinckley JARVIS (HINCKLEY) New York Power Authority Jarvis Hinckley JARVIS (HINCKLEY) New York Power Authority Kensico Kensico KENSICO New York Power Authority Kensico Kensico KENSICO New York Power Authority Kensico Kensico KENSICO New York Power Authority Kent Brooklyn INDECK OLEAN ENERGY CENTER New York Power Authority Lewiston PS Niagara Falls LEWISTON New York Power Authority Moses Niagara Niagara Falls MOSES NIAGARA New York Power Authority Poletti Queens POLETTI New York Power Authority Pouch Staten Island STONY BROOK COGENERATION PLANT New York Power Authority St Lawrence - FDR Massena MOSES POWER DAM New York Power Authority Vernon Blvd Queens RAVENSWOOD New York Power Authority Vernon Blvd Queens New York Power Authority Vischer Ferry Vischer Ferry VISCHER FERRY New York Power Authority Vischer Ferry Vischer Ferry VISCHER FERRY New York Power Authority Vischer Ferry Vischer Ferry VISCHER FERRY New York Power Authority Vischer Ferry Vischer Ferry VISCHER FERRY New York Power Authority ADG FC x Yonkers not listed 1431 New York Power Authority Bronx Zoo x Bronx BRONX ZOO New York Power Authority Photovoltaic x Yonkers not listed 1433 New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Alice Falls Ausable ALICE FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Alice Falls Ausable ALICE FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Allegheny Kittanning PROSEPECT New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Allegheny Kittanning PROSEPECT New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Auburn - State St Auburn PROSEPECT

51 1438 New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Cadyville Schuyler Falls CADYVILLE New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Cadyville Schuyler Falls CADYVILLE New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Cadyville Schuyler Falls CADYVILLE New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. High Falls Saranac HIGH FALLS New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. High Falls Saranac HIGH FALLS New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. High Falls Saranac HIGH FALLS New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Kent Falls Schuyler Falls KENT FALLS New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Kent Falls Schuyler Falls KENT FALLS New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Kent Falls Schuyler Falls KENT FALLS New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Mill C Plattsburgh MILL C New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Mill C Plattsburgh MILL C New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Mill C Plattsburgh MILL C New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Rainbow Falls Ausable RAINBOW FALLS New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Rainbow Falls Ausable RAINBOW FALLS New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Mechanicville Stillwater UPPER MECHANICVILLE New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Mechanicville Stillwater UPPER MECHANICVILLE New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Indeck-Silver Springs Silver Springs INDECK SILVER SPRINGS ENERGY CENTER New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Lockport Cogen Pr Lockport LOCKPORT ENERGY ASSOC LP LOCKPORT COGEN FACIL New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Lockport Cogen Pr Lockport LOCKPORT ENERGY ASSOC LP LOCKPORT COGEN FACIL New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Lockport Cogen Pr Lockport LOCKPORT ENERGY ASSOC LP LOCKPORT COGEN FACIL New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Lockport Cogen Pr Lockport LOCKPORT ENERGY ASSOC LP LOCKPORT COGEN FACIL New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Saranac Energy Plattsburgh SARANAC FACILITY New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Saranac Energy Plattsburgh SARANAC FACILITY New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Saranac Energy Plattsburgh SARANAC FACILITY New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Lower Saranac Schuyler Falls LOWER SARANAC HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Lower Saranac Schuyler Falls LOWER SARANAC HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Lower Saranac Schuyler Falls LOWER SARANAC HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Walden Hydro Walden WALDEN New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. AA Dairy x Ithaca not listed 1467 New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Auburn - Mill St. x Auburn ? 1468 New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Auburn - No. Div.St x Auburn ? 1469 New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Chasm Hydro x Chateaugay CHASM New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Cowee x Berlin not listed 1471 New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Croton Fall Hydro x North Salem not listed 1472 New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Goodyear Lake x Milford GOODYEAR LAKE PLANT New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Harris Lake x Newcomb HARRIS LAKE New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Montville Falls x Moravia ? 1475 New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Triton x Chateaugay CHATEAUGAY HIGH FALLS HYDRO New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Waterloo 2 x Waterloo not listed 1477 New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Waterloo 3 x Waterloo not listed 1478 New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. Waterloo 4 x Waterloo not listed 1479 NFR Power, Inc. Energy Systems North East North East WARBASSE COGEN FACILITY Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(1) Adir HY-Hudson Falls Hudson Falls HUDSON FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(1) Adir HY-South Glens Falls Moreau SOUTH GLENS FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(1) Adir-Resource Recovery ADIRONDACK RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(1) CHI-Lachute LACHUTE HYDRO LOWER Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(1) DD Corp-Dolgeville Dolgeville DOLGEVILLE HYDROELECTRIC Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(1) Fortis Energy - Philadelphia x PHILADELPHIA Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(1) Fortis Energy - Moose River MOOSE RIVER Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(1) General Mills Inc GENERAL MILLS INC BUFFALO Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(1) Glen Park Assoc GLEN PARK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(1) International Paper - Curtis Corinth HUDSON RIVER MILL Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(1) International Paper - Palmer Corinth CURTIS PALMER HYDROELECTRIC Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(1) Little Falls Hydro Little Falls LITTLE FALLS HYDRO Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(1) Onondaga County ONONDAGA COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(1) Oxbow Power- N.Tonawanda N Tonawanda OXBOW POWER OF NORTH TONAWANDA NEW YORK INC Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(1) Pyrites Assoc Canton PYRITES PLANT Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Adams Hydro x 45 0 not listed 1496 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Algon.-Burt Dam Assoc not listed 1497 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Algon.-Christine.Falls not listed 1498 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Algon.-Cranberry. Lake x not listed 1499 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Algon.-Forresport not listed 1500 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Algon.-Herkimer HERKIMER Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Algon.-Hollow Dam Power x HOLLOW DAM POWER CO PARTNERSHIP Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Algon.-Kayuta not listed 1503 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Algon.-Ogdensburg x not listed 1504 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Algon.-Otter Creek x not listed 1505 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Azure Mnt. Pwr Co x not listed 1506 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Beaver Falls #1 x 49 0 BEAVER FALLS I Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Beaver Falls #2 x BEAVER FALLS II Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Bellows Towers x not listed 1509 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Black River Hyd# Port Leyden PORT LEYDEN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Black River Hyd# Port Leyden BLACK RIVER HYDRO ASSOCIATES Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Black River Hyd# Port Leyden BLACK RIVER HYDRO ASSOCIATES Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Boralex - Middle Falls Easton MIDDLE FALLS HYDROELECTRIC Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Cal Ban Power Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Cellu-Tissue Corp - Natural Dam x Natural Dam 89 6 CELLU TISSUE CORP NATURAL DAM MILL Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Champlain Spinner not listed 1516 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) CHI Dexter Hydro Dexter DEXTER PLANT Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) CHI Diamond Is HY Watertown DIAMOND ISLAND PLANT Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) CHI Fowler Fowler not listed 1519 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) CHI Hailsboro # Hailsboro HAILESBORO 4 PLANT Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) CHI Hailsboro # Hailsboro HAILESBORO 4 PLANT Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) CHI Hailsboro # Hailsboro HAILESBORO 4 PLANT Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) CHI Theresa Hydro Theresa THERESA PLANT Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Chittenden Falls not listed 1524 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) City of Oswego (H.D.) PHOENIX HYDRO PROJECT Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) City of Utica - Sand Road not listed 1526 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) City of Utica -Trenton Falls not listed 1527 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) City of Watertown CITY OF WATERTOWN Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) City of Watervliet NORMANSKILL HYDRO PROJECT Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Cons. HY-Victory VICTORY MILLS Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Copenhagen Assoc. x Copenhagen COPENHAGEN PLANT Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Cottrell Paper Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Empire HY Partner x not listed 1533 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Finch Pruyn x FINCH PRUYN CO INC Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Fort Miller Assoc FORT MILLER HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Fortis Energy - Diana x DIANA HYDROELECTRIC Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Franklin Hydro FRANKLIN Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Green Island Power Authority x Green Island GREEN ISLAND Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Hampshire Paper x HAMPSHIRE PAPER CO INC Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Hewittville Hydro x HEWITTVILLE HYDROELECTRIC Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Hollings&Vose-Center x CLARKS MILL UPPER Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Hollings&Vose-Lower x CLARKS MILL UPPER Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Hollings&Vose-Upper x CLARKS MILL UPPER Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Hoosick Falls not listed 1544 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Hydrocarbon-Algny not listed 1545 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Indian Falls HY x not listed 1546 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Kings Falls x not listed 1547 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Laidlaw Energy Ellicottville 9 0 LAIDLAW ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL INC

52 1548 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Laidlaw Energy Ellicottville 9 0 LAIDLAW ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL INC Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Laquidara-Long Falls x LONGFALLS FACILITY Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Lyonsdale Assoc. (Burrows) Lyons Falls LYONSDALE ASSOCIATES Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Mechanicville x UPPER MECHANICVILLE Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) MM Albany Energy x ALBANY LANDFILL Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Mt. Ida Assoc MT IDA HYDROELECTRIC Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Newport HY Assoc NEWPORT HYDRO Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Northbrook - Lyons Falls P&P x not listed 1556 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Nottingham High School not listed 1557 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Onondaga Energy Partners ONONDAGA ENERGY PARTNERS LP Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Oswego County OSWEGO COUNTY ENERGY RECOVERY Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Oswego HY Partners (Phoenix) TRIGEN SYRACUSE ENERGY CORP Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Riverrat Glass&Electric not listed 1561 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Sandy Hollow HY x not listed 1562 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Seneca Limited not listed 1563 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Stevens&Thompson Paper Co DAHOWA HYDRO Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Stillwater Assoc. x STILLWATER RESERVOIR HYDRO Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Stillwater HY Partners STILLWATER HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Synergics - Middle Greenwich CARVER FALLS Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Synergics - Union Falls UNION FALLS Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Synergics - Upper Greenwich CENTER FALLS Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Tannery Island x TANNERY ISLAND POWER CO Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Town of Wells Wells not listed 1571 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Unionville Hydro x UNIONVILLE HYDRO PROJ 2499 NY Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Valatie Falls ? 1573 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Valley Falls Assoc VALLEY FALLS HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Village of Gouverneur not listed 1575 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Village of Potsdam x not listed 1576 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) Village of Saranac Lake x not listed 1577 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) West End Dam Assoc. x WEST END DAM HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(2) William Allen x 53 1 not listed 1579 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Bannertown P&L x 35 2 not listed 1580 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Begent, H.A. x 65 1 not listed 1581 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Bergan, W.C. x not listed 1582 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Blenheim Wind Power x not listed 1583 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Chapman, Jerry x not listed 1584 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Devine, W.T. x not listed 1585 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Dibble, C. x 37 4 not listed 1586 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Fitzpatrick, R. x 57 2 not listed 1587 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Hamond, E. x 57 2 not listed 1588 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Hedrick, Robert x not listed 1589 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Helmer, Paul x 75 4 not listed 1590 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Hess, Jos.& Kath. x not listed 1591 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Higgins, W.J. x 37 4 not listed 1592 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Hurd, Dr. D.W. x not listed 1593 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Lewandowski, Paul x 69 5 not listed 1594 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Marsden, Russel x 75 2 not listed 1595 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Prossner, D.M. x 65 1 not listed 1596 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Ryan, Robert x not listed 1597 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Schiefer, M. x Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Staples, Gary D. x not listed 1599 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Stellone, Gerald x 83 4 not listed 1600 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Tallmon, Larry x not listed 1601 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Van Strander, J.M x 65 1 not listed 1602 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Weber, Richard x Champion 45 4 not listed 1603 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Wind Development x not listed 1604 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Woodin, D. x 9 1 WETHERSFIELD Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(3) Zingler, Rudy x 73 5 not listed 1606 NRG Power, Inc. Arthur Kill ST Staten Island ARTHUR KILL GENERATION STATION NRG Power, Inc. Arthur Kill ST Staten Island ARTHUR KILL GENERATION STATION NRG Power, Inc. Arthur Kill GT Staten Island ARTHUR KILL GENERATION STATION NRG Power, Inc. Astoria GT Queens ASTORIA GAS TURBINES NRG Power, Inc. Astoria GT Queens ASTORIA GAS TURBINES NRG Power, Inc. Astoria GT Queens ASTORIA GAS TURBINES NRG Power, Inc. Astoria GT Queens ASTORIA GAS TURBINES NRG Power, Inc. Astoria GT Queens ASTORIA GAS TURBINES NRG Power, Inc. Astoria GT Queens ASTORIA GAS TURBINES NRG Power, Inc. Astoria GT Queens ASTORIA GAS TURBINES NRG Power, Inc. Astoria GT Queens ASTORIA GAS TURBINES NRG Power, Inc. Astoria GT Queens ASTORIA GAS TURBINES NRG Power, Inc. Astoria GT Queens ASTORIA GAS TURBINES NRG Power, Inc. Astoria GT Queens ASTORIA GAS TURBINES NRG Power, Inc. Astoria GT Queens ASTORIA GAS TURBINES NRG Power, Inc. Astoria GT Queens ASTORIA GAS TURBINES NRG Power, Inc. Astoria GT Queens ASTORIA GAS TURBINES NRG Power, Inc. Astoria GT Queens ASTORIA GAS TURBINES NRG Power, Inc. Astoria GT Queens ASTORIA GAS TURBINES NRG Power, Inc. Astoria GT Queens ASTORIA GAS TURBINES NRG Power, Inc. Astoria GT Queens ASTORIA GAS TURBINES NRG Power, Inc. Astoria GT Queens ASTORIA GAS TURBINES NRG Power, Inc. Dunkirk Dunkirk DUNKIRK GENERATING STATION NRG Power, Inc. Dunkirk Dunkirk DUNKIRK GENERATING STATION NRG Power, Inc. Dunkirk Dunkirk DUNKIRK GENERATING STATION NRG Power, Inc. Dunkirk Dunkirk DUNKIRK GENERATING STATION NRG Power, Inc. Dunkirk IC 2 x Dunkirk DUNKIRK GENERATING STATION NRG Power, Inc. Huntley Tonawanda 29 0 HUNTLEY GENERATING STATION NRG Power, Inc. Huntley Tonawanda 29 0 HUNTLEY GENERATING STATION NRG Power, Inc. Huntley Tonawanda HUNTLEY GENERATING STATION NRG Power, Inc. Huntley Tonawanda HUNTLEY GENERATING STATION NRG Power, Inc. Huntley Tonawanda HUNTLEY GENERATING STATION NRG Power, Inc. Huntley Tonawanda HUNTLEY GENERATING STATION NRG Power, Inc. Huntley IC 1 x Tonawanda HUNTLEY GENERATING STATION NRG Power, Inc. Ilion Ilion INDECK ILION ENERGY CENTER NRG Power, Inc. Oswego Oswego OSWEGO HARBOR POWER NRG Power, Inc. Oswego Oswego OSWEGO HARBOR POWER NRG Power, Inc. Oswego IC 1 x Oswego OSWEGO HARBOR POWER NRG Power, Inc. Oswego IC 2 x Oswego OSWEGO HARBOR POWER NRG Power, Inc. Oswego IC 3 x Oswego OSWEGO HARBOR POWER NYSEG Solutions, Inc. Carthage Energy Carthage CARTHAGE ENERGY LLC NYSEG Solutions, Inc. South Glens Falls Energy S Glens Falls SOUTH GLENS FALLS ENERGY LLC Onondaga Cogeneration, LP Onondaga Cogen ONONDAGA COGENERATION Orange and Rockland Utilities Buttermilk Falls x Highland Falls not listed 1650 Orange and Rockland Utilities Intl. Crossroads x Mahwah NJ not listed 1651 Orange and Rockland Utilities Landfill G.Part19 x Goshen ORANGE COUNTY NEW YORK Orange and Rockland Utilities Middletown LFG x Goshen MIDDLETOWN LFG LTD CONVERSION SITE 2& PP&L EnergyPlus Co. Pilgrim GT Pilgrim RICHARD M FLYNN PP&L EnergyPlus Co. Pilgrim GT Pilgrim RICHARD M FLYNN PP&L EnergyPlus Co. Shoreham GT Shoreham SHOREHAM PP&L EnergyPlus Co. Shoreham GT Shoreham SHOREHAM PSEG Power New York Inc. Albany 1 (Ret. 10/04/04) Bethlehem 1 0 ALBANY GENERATING STATION

53 1658 PSEG Power New York Inc. Albany 2 (Ret. 03/01/05) Bethlehem 1 0 ALBANY GENERATING STATION PSEG Power New York Inc. Albany 3 (Ret. 03/01/05) Bethlehem 1 0 ALBANY GENERATING STATION PSEG Power New York Inc. Albany 4 (Ret. 03/01/05) Bethlehem 1 0 ALBANY GENERATING STATION Reliant Energy Astoria Queens ASTORIA GENERATING STATION Reliant Energy Astoria Queens ASTORIA GENERATING STATION Reliant Energy Astoria Queens ASTORIA GENERATING STATION Reliant Energy Astoria Queens ASTORIA GENERATING STATION Reliant Energy Astoria GT Queens 81 0 ASTORIA GENERATING STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Gowanus Brooklyn GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION Reliant Energy Narrows Brooklyn NARROWS GENERATING STATION Reliant Energy Narrows Brooklyn NARROWS GENERATING STATION Reliant Energy Narrows Brooklyn NARROWS GENERATING STATION Reliant Energy Narrows Brooklyn NARROWS GENERATING STATION Reliant Energy Narrows Brooklyn NARROWS GENERATING STATION Reliant Energy Narrows Brooklyn NARROWS GENERATING STATION Reliant Energy Narrows Brooklyn NARROWS GENERATING STATION Reliant Energy Narrows Brooklyn NARROWS GENERATING STATION Reliant Energy Narrows Brooklyn NARROWS GENERATING STATION Reliant Energy Narrows Brooklyn NARROWS GENERATING STATION Reliant Energy Narrows Brooklyn NARROWS GENERATING STATION Reliant Energy Narrows Brooklyn NARROWS GENERATING STATION Reliant Energy Narrows Brooklyn NARROWS GENERATING STATION Reliant Energy Narrows Brooklyn NARROWS GENERATING STATION Reliant Energy Narrows Brooklyn NARROWS GENERATING STATION Reliant Energy Narrows Brooklyn NARROWS GENERATING STATION Rensselaer Cogeneration, LLC Rensselaer Cogen Rensselaer RENSSELAER COGEN Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. Allegany GT Hume ALLEGANY COGEN Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. Allegany ST Hume ALLEGANY COGEN Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. Mills Mills Fillmore WISCOY Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. Mt Morris Mt Morris MT MORRIS Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. Station Rochester ROCHESTER Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. Station Rochester ROCHESTER Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. Station Rochester ROCHESTER Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. Station Rochester ROCHESTER Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. Station Rochester ROCHESTER Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. Wiscoy Fillmore WISCOY Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. Wiscoy Fillmore WISCOY Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. Beebee GT Rochester ROCHESTER Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. Station Rochester ROCHESTER Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. Russell Greece ROCHESTER Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. Russell Greece ROCHESTER Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. Russell Greece ROCHESTER Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. Russell Greece ROCHESTER Rockville Centre, Village of Charles P Keller Rockville Centre CHARLES P KELLER Rockville Centre, Village of Charles P Keller Rockville Centre CHARLES P KELLER Rockville Centre, Village of Charles P Keller Rockville Centre CHARLES P KELLER Rockville Centre, Village of Charles P Keller Rockville Centre CHARLES P KELLER Rockville Centre, Village of Charles P Keller Rockville Centre CHARLES P KELLER Rockville Centre, Village of Charles P Keller Rockville Centre CHARLES P KELLER Rockville Centre, Village of Charles P Keller Rockville Centre CHARLES P KELLER Rockville Centre, Village of Charles P Keller Rockville Centre CHARLES P KELLER Select Energy NY, Inc. Fort Drum Watertown BLACK RIVER POWER LLC ELECTRIC GENERATION FACILITY Project Orange Associates Project Orange Syracuse PROJECT ORANGE ASSOCIATES LP Project Orange Associates Project Orange Syracuse PROJECT ORANGE ASSOCIATES LP Selkirk Cogen Partners, L.P. Selkirk Selkirk SELKIRK COGEN PARTNERS LP Selkirk Cogen Partners, L.P. Selkirk Selkirk SELKIRK COGEN PARTNERS LP Seneca Falls Power Seneca Falls Seneca Falls SENECA ENERGY Seneca Falls Power Seneca Falls Seneca Falls SENECA ENERGY Seneca Falls Power Seneca Falls Seneca Falls SENECA ENERGY Sithe Energies Inc. Sithe-Batavia Batavia SENECA POWER PARTNERS LP Sithe Energies Inc. Sithe-Independence Scriba SITHE INDEPENDENCE STATION Sithe Energies Inc. Sithe-Massena Massena MASSENA POWER PLANT Sithe Energies Inc. Sithe-Ogdensburg Ogdensburg OGDENSBURG Sithe Energies Inc. Sithe-Sterling Sherrill STERLING ENERGY FACILITY TransAlta Binghamton Cogen Binghamton BINGHAMTON TransCanada Power Marketing, Ltd. Fort Orange Castleton FORT ORANGE FACILITY TRANSCANADA POWER Trigen Corporation Trigen-Syracuse Syracuse TRIGEN SYRACUSE ENERGY CORP Wheelabrator Westchester, LP Wheelabrator Westchester Peekskill BUCHANAN WPS Energy WPS-Beaver Falls Beaver Falls BEAVER FALLS WPS Energy WPS-Niagara Niagara NIAGARA FALLS WPS Energy WPS-Syracuse Syracuse SYRACUSE Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Lederle Pearl River LEDERLE LABORATORIES Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Lederle Pearl River LEDERLE LABORATORIES Multiple iterations of mappings were attempted prior to this fairly successful one. As is clear from some examples sited in the seams data section and looking through this, the names are very frequently different between the data sources. Attempts at 53

54 matching plants by name alone, the only cross-referenceable data available from some sources, is not possible. 8. Lambda search on egrid Data Sorting the egrid generator listings by the calculated marginal costs, it is easy to use the most basic of economic dispatches, the lambda search method, to determine the dispatch were line constraints not a concern. Table 15 shows the egrid generators sorted in order of increasing calculated marginal costs, assuming that bids are placed at generator marginal costs for plants full capacity. In reality, reserve margins are needed to ensure system stability in case of faults so generators would not all be supplying 100% of their capacity. For the purposes of this study, reserve requirements will be ignored. Additionally, real system dispatches cannot be done for a snapshot in time in isolation. One must consider the current state of the generators and the projected load demand. Base load units such as coal and nuclear plants must operate for a minimum amount of time after being started up and must remain off for a specified duration before being restarted. A unit commitment step would need to be performed to determine which generators to turn on and which to turn off based on costs, current state, unit characteristics, and forecasted demand. For the purposes of this study, only isolated snapshots will be considered, understanding that this would be a very real limitation in real operations. Additional constraints that must be considered during unit commitment are crew constraints, must run unit constraints, and fuel and hydro constraints. Crew constraints refers to the fact that at a single plant, it is possible that multiple generators cannot be started simultaneously because there is a finite staff resource to go through the start up procedures. Some units are designated as must run units either based on system needs at the time of year or based on political requirements. For example, wind power plants are operated as must run generators in New York. When the wind blows and they produce power, the ISO must manage the system to accept that power. In turn, the must run wind plants always bid zero and are not involved in market speculation. They are 54

55 price takers, not price setters. At times there are units with fuel constraints or hydro units with water resource constraints. Either lack of fuel or water can cause the unit to run at lower than desired levels or a need to burn or run through the fuel or water may cause the units to run at a higher level than otherwise. These present very difficult additions to unit commitment decision algorithms. Methods for unit commitments include priority list schemes, dynamic programming, and Lagrange relaxation. With each of these methods, as more factors are considered and the algorithms become more complex, the need for timely operation must be kept in mind. As computing power continues to grow, more elaborate and often improved methods for unit commitment can be realized. For the purposes of this study, the unit commitment step will not be considered and a simple snapshot economic dispatch will be determined. The yellow line shows the marginal unit for a summer day s base load of roughly 15,000MW in the simple lambda search economic dispatch. The Northport oil generator, at a marginal cost of $32.42/MWh sets the price that generators are paid. All generators with bids below Northport are taken for their full output and paid the marginal unit s bid. The marginal unit then supplies the remaining demand. All units with bids over Northports are rejected. Similarly, the blue line shows the peak winter demand recorded in New York, 25,540MW. The red line, farther down, shows the new summer peak demand of 33,879MW, recorded at 4pm on August 1, 2006 during the writing of this report. This broke the previous all time demand record of 32,075MW from the summer of August 2, 2006 is predicted to have an even higher peak load. 55

56 Table 15 - egrid generators sorted by calculated marginal cost. The yellow line shows the marginal unit for summer base load, the blue line for winter peak load, and the red line for summer peak load Plant generator capacity (MW) Plant primary fuel Fossil Fuel Cost 2005 ($/MMBtu) CHP plant electric allocation factor Adjusted Heat Rate to account for CHP (Btu/kWh) Fossil Fuel Cost based on Heat Rate ($/MWh) Operating Cost based on Heat Rate ($/MWh) Average Operating Cost Using Heat Rate Scaled to Match National Average ($/MWh) Plant annual NOx output emission rate Plant annual SO2 output emission rate Plant annual CO2 output emission rate (lbs/mwh) Plant name (lbs/mwh) (lbs/mwh) OSWEGO COUNTY ENERGY RECOVERY 3.64 MSW CORNELL UNIVERSITY CENTRAL HEATING PLANT 7.59 BIT , , DEFERIET NEW YORK 8.11 BIT , , BUFFALO PAPERBOARD CORP 1.50 NG , TICONDEROGA MILL BL , YALEVILLE 0.73 WAT N/A BEAVER FALLS II 1.00 WAT N/A MACOMB 1.00 WAT N/A PORT LEYDEN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 1.00 WAT N/A HOLLOW DAM POWER CO PARTNERSHIP 1.00 WAT N/A CLARKS MILL UPPER 1.01 WAT N/A CELLU TISSUE CORP NATURAL DAM MILL 1.02 WAT N/A HEUVELTON 1.04 WAT N/A CLARK MILLS LOWER 1.07 WAT N/A DIAMOND ISLAND PLANT 1.20 WAT N/A NORMANSKILL HYDRO PROJECT 1.20 WAT N/A FULTON 1.25 WAT N/A CENTER FALLS 1.27 WAT N/A HERKIMER 1.28 WAT N/A THERESA PLANT 1.30 WAT N/A TALCVILLE 1.34 WAT N/A GOODYEAR LAKE PLANT 1.40 WAT N/A HAILESBORO 4 PLANT 1.49 WAT N/A BEAVER FALLS I 1.50 WAT N/A ELMER 1.50 WAT N/A GLENWOOD 1.50 WAT N/A SCHUYLERVILLE 1.55 WAT N/A CHASM HYDRO PARTNERSHIP 1.60 WAT N/A CHATEAUGAY HIGH FALLS HYDRO 1.70 WAT N/A VICTORY MILLS 1.70 WAT N/A NEWPORT HYDRO 1.83 WAT N/A STILLWATER RESERVOIR HYDRO 1.85 WAT N/A CORNELL HYDRO 1.87 WAT N/A DIANA HYDROELECTRIC 1.88 WAT N/A TANNERY ISLAND POWER CO 1.88 WAT N/A NORWOOD 2.00 WAT N/A RAYMONDVILLE 2.00 WAT N/A SEWALLS 2.00 WAT N/A WAPPINGER FALLS HYDROELECTRIC 2.00 WAT N/A BELFORT 2.04 WAT N/A ALICE FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 2.10 WAT N/A OSWEGO FALL WEST 2.26 WAT N/A FRANKLIN 2.30 WAT N/A MIDDLE FALLS HYDROELECTRIC 2.30 WAT N/A PARISHVILLE 2.40 WAT N/A WALDEN 2.45 WAT N/A VALLEY FALLS HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY 2.50 WAT N/A UNION FALLS 2.60 WAT N/A EEL WEIR 2.70 WAT N/A PIERCEFIELD 2.70 WAT N/A SOUTH EDWARDS 2.88 WAT N/A WARRENSBURG HYDROELECTRIC 2.90 WAT N/A EFFLEY 2.96 WAT N/A EAST NORFOLK 3.00 WAT N/A HEWITTVILLE HYDROELECTRIC 3.00 WAT N/A MT IDA HYDROELECTRIC 3.00 WAT N/A SISSONVILLE HYDROELECTRIC 3.00 WAT N/A UNIONVILLE HYDRO PROJ 2499 NY 3.00 WAT N/A LYONSDALE ASSOCIATES 3.00 WAT N/A COPENHAGEN PLANT 3.30 WAT N/A LONGFALLS FACILITY 3.33 WAT N/A CHASM 3.35 WAT N/A FOURTH BRANCH HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY 3.35 WAT N/A FORESTPORT 3.40 WAT N/A HAMPSHIRE PAPER CO INC 3.48 WAT N/A PHOENIX HYDRO PROJECT 3.50 WAT N/A STILLWATER HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT 3.50 WAT N/A PHILADELPHIA 3.65 WAT N/A OGDENSBURG 3.75 WAT N/A LACHUTE HYDRO LOWER 3.80 WAT N/A MONGAUP 4.00 WAT N/A DEXTER PLANT 4.30 WAT N/A ALLENS FALLS 4.40 WAT N/A HIGLEY 4.48 WAT N/A OSWEGO FALLS EAST 4.50 WAT N/A TAYLORVILLE 4.50 WAT N/A WEST END DAM HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 4.50 WAT N/A NORFOLK 4.50 WAT N/A WATERPORT 4.65 WAT N/A HYDRAULIC RACE 4.69 WAT N/A HIGH FALLS 4.80 WAT N/A JOHNSONVILLE 4.80 WAT N/A SUGAR ISLAND 4.80 WAT N/A DOLGEVILLE HYDROELECTRIC 5.00 WAT N/A FORT MILLER HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY 5.00 WAT N/A SWINGING BRIDGE I 5.00 WAT N/A EPHRATAH 5.10 WAT N/A LACHUTE HYDRO UPPER 5.20 WAT N/A HERRINGS 5.40 WAT N/A KAMARGO 5.40 WAT N/A BLACK RIVER HYDRO ASSOCIATES 5.70 WAT N/A BLACK RIVER 6.00 WAT N/A FEEDER DAM HYDRO PLANT 6.00 WAT N/A FLAT ROCK 6.00 WAT N/A GREEN ISLAND 6.00 WAT N/A EAGLE 6.05 WAT N/A INGHAMS 6.40 WAT N/A LOWER SARANAC HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY 6.70 WAT N/A SWINGING BRIDGE WAT N/A HANNAWA 7.20 WAT N/A LIGHTHOUSE HILL 7.50 WAT N/A WEST DELAWARE TUNNEL PLANT 7.50 WAT N/A BEEBEE ISLAND HYDRO PLANT 8.00 WAT N/A

57 MINETTO 8.00 WAT N/A MOSHIER 8.00 WAT N/A PYRITES PLANT 8.20 WAT N/A VARICK 8.80 WAT N/A GRANBY WAT N/A RIO WAT N/A DAHOWA HYDRO WAT N/A DEFERIET WAT N/A NEW YORK STATE DAM HYDRO WAT N/A MOOSE RIVER WAT N/A LITTLE FALLS HYDRO WAT N/A SCHAGHTICOKE WAT N/A SOUTH GLENS FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT WAT N/A BLAKE WAT N/A SOFT MAPLE WAT N/A BROWNS FALLS WAT N/A PROSEPECT WAT N/A GRAHAMSVILLE WAT N/A SOUTH COLTON WAT N/A TRENTON FALLS WAT N/A BEARDSLEE WAT N/A E J WEST WAT N/A RAINBOW FALLS WAT N/A STARK WAT N/A FIVE FALLS WAT N/A BENNETTS BRIDGE WAT N/A SHERMAN ISLAND WAT N/A STEWARTS BRIDGE WAT N/A COLTON WAT N/A GLEN PARK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT WAT N/A HUDSON FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT WAT N/A SCHOOL STREET WAT N/A SPIER FALLS WAT N/A CURTIS PALMER HYDROELECTRIC WAT N/A MT MORRIS WT N/A WISCOY WT N/A CARVER FALLS 1.90 WT N/A RAINBOW FALLS 2.64 WT N/A ROCHESTER WT N/A KENSICO 3.00 WT N/A HIGH FALLS 3.24 WT N/A ASHOKAN 4.76 WT N/A DASHVILLE 4.80 WT N/A CADYVILLE 5.53 WT N/A MILL C 6.05 WT N/A ROCHESTER WT N/A CITY OF WATERTOWN 8.12 WT N/A JARVIS (HINCKLEY) 9.00 WT N/A CRESCENT WT N/A VISCHER FERRY WT N/A KENT FALLS WT N/A STURGEON WT N/A HIGH FALLS WT N/A UPPER MECHANICVILLE WT N/A NEVERSINK WT N/A ROCHESTER WT N/A LEWISTON WT N/A MOSES POWER DAM WT N/A BLENHEIM-GILBOA WT N/A MOSES NIAGARA WT N/A FINCH PRUYN CO INC BL , KODAK PARK SITE BIT , , TATE&LYLE NORTH AMERICAN SUGARS INC NG , , AMERICAN REF FUEL CO OF NIAGARA LP MWC , HUDSON AVENUE OIL , , S A CARLSON COL , , TRIGEN SYRACUSE ENERGY CORP BIT , , WATERSIDE GAS , , MIDDLETOWN LFG LTD CONVERSION SITE 2& LFG , DUTCHESS COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY 9.20 MSW , COGENT LITTLE FALLS GP 4.50 NG , , FITZAPATRICK NUC N/A INDIAN POINT NUC N/A LACKAWANNA FACILITY OG , , GINNA UR N/A INDIAN POINT UR N/A NINE MILE POINT UR N/A BABYLON RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY MWC , FULTON COGENERATION ASSOCIATES NG , NEW YORK UNIVERSITY CENTRAL PLANT 8.21 NG , , SENECA ENERGY LFG , HUDSON RIVER MILL NG , , DUNKIRK GENERATING STATION BIT 1.54 N/A 9, , AES SOMERSET LLC BIT 1.54 N/A 9, , NIAGARA FALLS BIT 1.54 N/A 9, , GREENPORT 6.97 OIL 6.48 N/A 9, , MONTAUK 6.00 OIL 6.48 N/A 9, , AES CAYUGA BIT 1.54 N/A 10, , HUNTLEY GENERATING STATION BIT 1.54 N/A 10, , PROJECT ORANGE ASSOCIATES LP NG , NORTHPORT OIL 6.48 N/A 10, , AES GREENIDGE BIT 1.54 N/A 11, , WADING RIVER OIL 6.48 N/A 10, , U S GYPSUM OAKFIELD 5.80 NG , DANSKAMMER COL 1.54 N/A 10, , PORT JEFFERSON OIL 6.48 N/A 11, , LOVETT BIT 1.54 N/A 11, , ROCHESTER COL 1.54 N/A 10, , AES WESTOVER BIT 1.54 N/A 11, , BLACK RIVER POWER LLC ELECTRIC GENERATION FACILITY BIT 1.54 N/A 12, , EAST HAMPTON OIL 6.48 N/A 12, , ROSETON OIL 6.48 N/A 13, , BROOKLYN NAVY YARD COGENERATION PARTNERS L P NG , WARBASSE COGEN FACILITY NG ,

58 AES HICKLING LLC BIT 1.54 N/A 14, , NORTH SHORE TOWERS 8.85 NG , HOLTSVILLE OIL 6.48 N/A 14, , ST MARYS HOSPITAL 1.20 NG , , AG ENERGY LP NG , BRONX ZOO 3.79 NG , SOUTH CAIRO OIL 6.48 N/A 14, , HONEYWELL FARMS INC 4.45 NG , TH STREET OIL 6.48 N/A 15, , TH STREET OIL 6.48 N/A 15, , , ,529, STARRETT AT SPRING CREEK TOTAL ENERGY PLANT NG , , ALBANY LANDFILL 1.90 LFG N/A 10, AES JENNISON LLC BIT 1.54 N/A 15, , BEAVER FALLS NG , , CHATEAUGAY POWER STATION WDS N/A 13, LAIDLAW ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL INC 5.58 NG , WETHERSFIELD 6.60 WND N/A MADISON WINDPOWER WND N/A WEST BABYLON OIL 6.48 N/A 16, , , LYONSDALE POWER CO LLC WDS N/A 13, ALLEGANY COGEN GAS , HIGH ACRES GAS RECOVERY 3.20 LFG N/A 11, SOUTH OAKS HOSPITAL 1.33 NG , , ROCHESTER OIL 6.48 N/A 16, , MOHAWK VALLEY LANDFILL GAS RECOVERY 1.60 LFG N/A 11, BINGHAMTON NG 8.2 N/A 5, TRIGEN NASSAU ENERGY CORP NG , LFG ENERGY INC 5.60 LFG N/A 12, EAST RIVER GAS , , BASSETT HEALTHCARE 2.40 DFO N/A 10, , MONROE LIVINGSTON GAS RECOVERY 3.20 LFG N/A 12, LINDEN COGEN PLANT NG , SMITHTOWN ENERGY PARTNERS LP 0.72 LFG N/A 13, HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY 2.34 NG , OYSTER BAY ENERGY PARTNERS LP 0.72 LFG N/A 13, OCEANSIDE LANDFILL 2.16 LFG N/A 13, ONONDAGA ENERGY PARTNERS LP 0.72 LFG N/A 13, INDECK YERKES ENERGY CENTER NG , COCA COLA BOTTLING CO OF NEW YORK 1.93 NG , , BUCHANAN OIL 6.48 N/A 19, , RICHARD M FLYNN GAS 8.2 N/A 9, , SITHE INDEPENDENCE STATION NG , KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT COGEN FACILITY NG , INDECK OSWEGO ENERGY CENTER NG , INDECK SILVER SPRINGS ENERGY CENTER NG , SOUTH GLENS FALLS ENERGY LLC NG , , SELKIRK COGEN PARTNERS LP NG , INDECK CORINTH ENERGY CENTER NG , ENTENMANNS ENERGY CENTER 5.45 NG , , NEW YORK METHODIST HOSPITAL 1.88 NG , , WESTCHESTER RESCO MWC N/A 15, AMERICAN REF FUEL CO OF HEMPSTEAD MWC N/A 15, ONONDAGA COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY MWC N/A 15, FORT ORANGE FACILITY TRANSCANADA POWER NG , SARANAC FACILITY NG , ORANGE COUNTY NEW YORK 3.00 LFG N/A 15, LOCKPORT ENERGY ASSOC LP LOCKPORT COGEN FACIL NG , TBG COGEN NG , STONY BROOK COGENERATION PLANT NG , , BARRETT GAS 8.2 N/A 10, , INDECK ILION ENERGY CENTER NG , SENECA POWER PARTNERS LP NG , OXBOW POWER OF NORTH TONAWANDA NEW YORK INC NG , ADIRONDACK RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY MWC N/A 17, HUNTINGTON RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY MWC N/A 17, GENERAL MILLS INC BUFFALO 3.80 NG , , INDECK OLEAN ENERGY CENTER NG , ALBANY GENERATING STATION RFO 7.12 N/A 12, , ONONDAGA COGENERATION NG , , LUTHERAN MEDICAL CENTER 1.63 NG , , SYRACUSE NG 8.2 N/A 8, , POLETTI GAS 8.2 N/A 11, , GLENWOOD GAS OIL 6.48 N/A 24, , CHARLES P KELLER GAS 8.2 N/A 11, , SOUTH HAMPTON OIL 6.48 N/A 25, , CARR STREET GENERATING STATION NG 8.2 N/A 8, , OSWEGO HARBOR POWER RFO 7.12 N/A 13, , GLENWOOD GAS 8.2 N/A 11, , RENSSELAER COGEN NG 8.2 N/A 8, , FAR ROCKAWAY GAS 8.2 N/A 11, , MASSENA POWER PLANT NG 8.2 N/A 9, , CARTHAGE ENERGY LLC NG 8.2 N/A 9, , SHOREHAM OIL 6.48 N/A 29, , GOWANUS GAS TURBINES STATION DFO N/A 17, , WEST COXSACKIE GAS 8.2 N/A 14, , RAVENSWOOD NG 8.2 N/A 11, , PLANT NO OIL 6.48 N/A 32, , ROCHESTER GAS 8.2 N/A 15, , ST JOHNS RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL 0.60 NG , , WATCHTOWER EDUCATIONAL CENTER 2.25 NG 8.2 N/A 11, , MAC ARTHUR WASTE TO ENERGY FACILITY MSW N/A 26, , STERLING ENERGY FACILITY NG , , ASTORIA GENERATING STATION NG 8.2 N/A 12, , ARTHUR KILL GENERATION STATION NG 8.2 N/A 12, , BOWLINE POINT NG 8.2 N/A 12, , LEDERLE LABORATORIES NG , , HARRIS LAKE 1.75 OIL 6.48 N/A 39, , SOUTHOLD OIL 6.48 N/A 42, , ASTORIA GAS TURBINES NG 8.2 N/A 15, , NARROWS GENERATING STATION NG 8.2 N/A 18, , HILLBURN NG 8.2 N/A 19, , SHOEMAKER NG 8.2 N/A 27, , PLANT NO OIL 6.48 N/A 169, , The Northeast Power Coordinating Council, NPCC, sets capacity reserve requirements for the purposes of maintaining electric power system reliability. The New York State Reliability Council determined that an installed reserve capacity of 18% over the New York Control Area summer peak load is required to meet NPCC reliability 58

59 criteria [9]. The above shows a reserve capacity of only 5,092MW, 15% of the peak load and below the reserve requirements. Figure 12 through Figure 15 show comparisons of the total system cost and total system emissions rates given the three load scenarios: summer base load, winter peak, and summer peak. The same lambda search method has been used in all of these scenarios, but instead of minimizing cost as is typically done, the alternate optimizations sort the plants based on their emissions rates. This was done for NOx, SO2, and CO2. Though egrid contains mercury emissions data, it is incomplete so this was not done for mercury. Figure 12 - Comparison of total cost for various loads, optimizations 59

60 What can be seen in Figure 12 is that the costs do not increase linearly between the different optimizations as the load increases. For example, at the base load the SO2 minimization has the highest cost yet at the peak summer load the CO2 minimization is the most costly. In the cost minimization strategy, the total cost is $288,861/hr for the base load and $1,450,648/hr for the peak summer load. At the light load level, it is equally costly to minimize for each of the three emissions types, with the cost rising to roughly $400,000/hr. At the higher loads, it appears that NOx is the least costly to minimize through redispatching while CO2 is the most costly. In all cases, minimizing any of the emissions rather than cost proves to increase the total system cost by 25-85%. Figure 13 - Comparison of total CO2 emissions for various loads, optimizations 60

61 Figure 13 shows that the minimum carbon dioxide emissions can drop from 16,027lbs/h in the cost minimization strategy to 3,102 in the CO2 minimization strategy in the light load scenario. As the load increases though, there are fewer gains to be made by minimizing carbon dioxide as more and more plants must be dispatched no matter what is minimized. In the base load case, minimizing the carbon emissions can cut the CO2 emissions roughly in third as compared with the cost minimization strategy. Figure 14 - Comparison of total SO2 emissions for various loads, optimizations 61

62 Figure 14 shows that minimizing for cost results in far higher sulfur emissions than minimizing for any emission except carbon dioxide at the highest load level. In the base load case, the sulfur emissions are almost 2000 times higher in the cost minimized dispatch than if sulfur were itself minimized. Figure 15 - Comparison of total NOx emissions for various loads, optimizations Figure 15 shows something similar for nitrogen oxide emissions, though not to the same degree. Nitrogen dioxide emissions can be reduced by a factor of seventeen through their minimization as compared with a simple cost minimization. The least cost solution in every case also has the highest emissions for all three pollutants. Revisiting Figure 12, it becomes clear that at low load levels, immense improvement can be made for relatively little cost by redispatching based on pollution minimization as compared with the incremental decrease in pollution. While the cost of the electricity increases by a factor of 1.32 in the NOx emissions reduction case, the emissions are reduced by a factor of The cost goes up by a factor of 1.49 while the SOx goes down by a factor of 1,943 when it is minimized. Granted, these are large increases in electricity prices for a state that already has some of the highest cost electricity in the country. Emissions control technology costs are in fact less costly and can achieve better results at the higher load levels. 62

63 9. PowerWorld Software This project used the PowerWorld Simulator Version 10.0 OPF university license software package. PowerWorld simulator (PowerWorld) is designed to allow for a graphical user interface while performing powerful operations on power system data. It has a power flow solution capability of up to 60,000 buses in the corporate version though the academic version is limited to 7,000 buses. When one-line diagrams are created for or with the underlying power flow information, a user may visualize many aspects of the power system s operation. PowerWorld can perform economic dispatches, area transaction economic analysis, power transfer distribution factor computation, short circuit analysis, and contingency analysis. A very small portion of PowerWorld s capability was used for this project. 10. PowerWorld Economic Dispatch Solutions The original seams case in PowerWorld was exported from the PowerWorld simulator into Microsoft Excel where generator capacity and cost values were edited as described above. These records were then re-imported into PowerWorld and the case run under an economic dispatch. All New York generators were set to a piecewise linear cost model with the one point defined being the marginal cost identified above and the generator s rated capacity. No fixed costs were included and no variation in cost due to percent of the unit dispatched was accounted for. Unlike the lambda search method used above with the egrid data and associated calculated costs, the PowerWorld simulator is able to account for a variety of complicating issues. It models the whole region around New York so that power flows between areas can be represented. New York does not operate as an island, and it is more realistic to model it in the context of a greater system. While the economic dispatch does not enforce line constraints, it does account for line losses. There are various real and reactive power losses associated with moving power over transmission lines which the lambda search method does not address. 63

64 In the economic dispatch done using the edited generator and cost data, the system-wide losses amounted to 4,174MW. The total cost of generation in New York in the economic dispatch is $450,590/hr. The lossless lambda search in the egrid data for this load would have given a system cost of $429,269/hr. This makes very good sense. The PowerWorld solution had to account for a higher load due to losses but was in the ballpark of the lambda search method. 11. Conclusions While it has been interesting to explore emissions minimization through alternative dispatching methods, it is clear from the cost information here that an absolute minimization of emissions by alternative dispatches without regards to other factors is far more expensive than flue gas treatments. However, this has shown that there is a vast opportunity available for emissions reductions through redispatching, and it is likely that a hybrid method involving a minimization of both costs and target emissions could prove to be advantageous. 12. References [1] About Us. New York Independent System Operator. [2] Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2006 with projections to Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. March DOE/EIA- 0554(2006). [3] Average Operating Expenses for Major U.S. Investor-Owned Electric Utilities, Table 8.2. Electric Power Annual with data for Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. November

65 [4] Cabral, Ivan F. T. Using Negative Generators to Model Elastic Loads and Maximize Social Welfare Using a Standard Optimal Power Flow. A Design Project Report Presented to the Engineering Division of the Graduate School of Cornell University. January [5] Challenges of Electric Power Industry Restructuring for Fuel Suppliers. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. November, [6] Electric Power Annual Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. DOE/EIA-0348(2004). November [7] Form 715 Annual Transmission Planning and Evaluation Report Instructions Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. OMB No February [8] New York State Independent System Operator Annual Transmission Planning and Evaluation Report. FERC Form No April [9] NYISO Load and Capacity Data New York Independent System Operator. [10] Raikar, Santosh and Marija Ilic, Assessment of Transmission Congestion for Major Electricity Markets in the US February Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Laboratory. Energy Laboratory Publication # MIT EL WP. [11] Revenue and Expense Statistics for Major U.S. Investor-Owned Electric Utilities, Table 8.1. Electric Power Annual with data for Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. November