nyiso operating study summer 2017 · and are intended as a guide to system operation. ... nyiso...
TRANSCRIPT
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 2
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................. 5
PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
SYSTEM OPERATING LIMIT (SOL) METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 6
STUDY PARTICIPANTS ........................................................................................................................................ 7
SYSTEM REPRESENTATION AND BASE STUDY ASSUMPTIONS .............................................................................. 7
System Representation ....................................................................................................................... 7
Generation Resource Changes .............................................................................................................................. 8
Transmission Facilities Changes ............................................................................................................................ 8
System Representation ....................................................................................................................... 8
DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................................................... 9
Resource Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 9
Load and Capacity Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 9
Cross-State Interfaces ...................................................................................................................... 10
Transfer Limit Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 10
Athens SPS........................................................................................................................................................... 11
Sensitivity Testing ............................................................................................................................................... 12
West Woodbourne Transformer ......................................................................................................................... 12
ConEd – LIPA Transfer Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 12
Transfer Limits for Outage Conditions ................................................................................................................ 13
Transient Stability and Voltage transfer Limits ................................................................................................... 13
Thermal Transfer Capabilities with Adjacent Balancing Areas ...................................................... 14
New York – New England Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 15
New York ‐ PJM Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 17
Ontario – New York Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 18
TransÉnergie–New York Interface ....................................................................................................................... 19
SUMMARY OF RESULTS – THERMAL TRANSFER LIMIT ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 21
TABLE 1.a – NYISO CROSS-STATE INTERFACE THERMAL TRANSFER LIMITS - SUMMER 2017 ALL
LINES I/S ................................................................................................................................................... 22
TABLE 1.b – NYISO CROSS-STATE INTERFACE THERMAL TRANSFER LIMITS - SUMMER 2017 ALL
LINES I/S ................................................................................................................................................... 23
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 3
TABLE 2.a – NYISO to ISO-NE INTERFACE THERMAL TRANSFER LIMITS - SUMMER 2017 ALL
LINES I/S ................................................................................................................................................... 24
TABLE 2.b – ISO-NE to NYISO INTERFACE THERMAL LIMITS - SUMMER 2017 ALL LINES I/S .... 25
TABLE 3.a – NYISO to PJM INTERFACE THERMAL TRANSFER LIMITS - SUMMER 2017 ALL LINES
I/S 26
TABLE 3.b – PJM to NYISO INTERFACE THERMAL TRANSFER LIMITS - SUMMER 2017 ALL LINES
I/S 28
TABLE 4 – IESO to NYISO INTERFACE THERMAL TRANSFER LIMITS - SUMMER 2017 ALL LINES
I/S 30
TABLE 5 – NYISO to IESO INTERFACE THERMAL TRANSFER LIMITS – SUMMER 2017ALL LINES
I/S 32
APPENDIX A – SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT INTERCHANES ASSUMED FOR TRANSFER LIMITS STUDIES ................. 33
APPENDIX B – SUMMER 2017 BASE CASE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................... 36
APPENDIX C – POWER FLOW TRANSCRIPTION DIAGRAM ................................................................................... 38
APPENDIX D – RATINGS OF MAJOR TRANSMISSION FACILITIES IN NEW YORK .................................................... 39
APPENDIX E – INTERFACE DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................. 67
APPENDIX F – ANNOTATED MUST OUTPUT ....................................................................................................... 72
APPENDIX G – TRANSFER LIMIT SENSITIVITY GRAPHS ........................................................................................ 73
APPENDIX H – COMPARSION OF TRANSFER LIMITS SUMMER 2017 VS. 2016 ...................................................... 81
APPENDIX I – DISTRIBUTION FACTORS ............................................................................................................... 85
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 4
Executive Summary
Thisstudyisconductedasaseasonalreviewoftheprojectedthermaltransfercapabilityfor
thesummer2017capabilityperiod.ThisstudyisperformedtofulfilltheNERCrequirementsR2of
FAC‐013andR11ofTOP‐002‐2a.Thestudyevaluatestheprojectedinternalandexternalthermal
transfercapabilitiesfortheforecastedloadanddispatchconditionsstudied.Theevaluatedlimits
areshowninTables1through5.Differencesintheevaluatedinternalinterfacelimitsfromsummer
2016tosummer2017areshownonpage11.Internalinterfaceshavechangedduetothenetwork
alterationsintheNewYorkControlArea(NYCA)andmodelingassumptions.Theeliminationofthe
1000MWConEdison–PJMWheelandtheimplementationofa400MWOperationalBaseFlow1has
causedaredistributionofflowsintheHudsonvalleyarea.Thisisthemaincausefortheincreasein
theUPNY‐ConEdlimitto4,900MWandadecreaseintheTotalEastthermaltransferlimitto4,900
MW.Differencesintheevaluatedexternalinterfacelimitsfromsummer2016tosummer2017are
shownonpage14.Externalinterfacelimitsareessentiallyunchangedfromthesummer2016,with
theexceptionofPJM‐NYISOandIESO‐NYISOwhicharelimitedto1,475MWand2,025MW,
respectively.ThemodelingoftheRamapoPAR3500out‐of‐serviceisthemaincauseforthe
reductioninPJM‐NYISOthermaltransferlimits.Allowingthemarkettosecurethe230kV
constraintsallowsfortheincreaseintheIESO‐NYISOthermaltransferlimit.
1 “Operational Base Flow” or “OBF” is defined in Section 35.2.1 of the currently effective NYISO/PJM Joint Operating Agreement, (Attachment CC to the NYISO OATT).
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 5
INTRODUCTION
Thefollowingreport,preparedbytheOperatingStudiesTaskForce(OSTF)atthedirection
andguidanceoftheSystemOperationsAdvisorySubcommittee(SOAS),highlightsthethermal
analysisevaluationforthesummer2017capabilityperiod.Thisanalysisindicatesthat,forthe
summer2017capabilityperiod,theNewYorkinterconnectedbulkpowersystemcanbeoperated
reliablyinaccordancewiththe"NYSRCReliabilityRulesforPlanningandOperatingtheNewYork
StatePowerSystem"andtheNYISOSystemOperatingProcedures.
Transferlimitscitedinthisreportarebasedontheforecastedloadanddispatchassumptions
andareintendedasaguidetosystemoperation.Changesingenerationdispatchorloadpatterns
thatsignificantlychangepre‐contingencylineloadingsmaychangelimitingcontingenciesor
limitingfacilities,resultinginhigherorlowerinterfacetransfercapabilities.
SystemOperatorsshouldmonitorthecriticalfacilitiesnotedintheincludedtablesalongwith
otherlimitingconditionswhilemaintainingbulkpowersystemtransferswithinsecureoperating
limits.
PURPOSE
Thepurposeofthestudyistodetermine:
Thetotaltransfercapabilities(TTC)betweenNYISOandadjacentareasincludingIESO,PJMandISO‐NEfornormalconditionsinthesummer/winterperiods.TheTTCiscalculatedbasedonNERCTPL‐001‐4CategoryP1andP2contingenciesandasetofselectedCategoryP4,P5andP7contingencies.
TheTTCbetweenNYISOandadjacentareasincludingIESO,PJMandISO‐NEforemergencyconditionsinthesummer/winterperiods.TheTTCiscalculatedbasedonNERCTPL‐001‐4CategoryP1andP2contingencies.
ThisstudyisbeingperformedtofulfillNERCrequirements,whichincludeRequirementR2of
FAC‐013andRequirementR11ofTOP‐002‐2aasquotedbelow.
“FAC‐013‐2—EstablishandCommunicateTransferCapabilitiesRequirementR2:
TheReliabilityCoordinatorandPlanningAuthorityshalleachprovideitsinter‐regionaland
intra‐regionalTransferCapabilitiestothoseentitiesthathaveareliability‐relatedneedforsuch
TransferCapabilitiesandmakeawrittenrequestthatincludesaschedulefordeliveryofsuch
TransferCapabilitiesasfollows:
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 6
R2.1.TheReliabilityCoordinatorshallprovideitsTransferCapabilitiestoitsassociated
RegionalReliabilityOrganization(s),toitsadjacentReliabilityCoordinators,andtothe
TransmissionOperators,TransmissionServiceProvidersandPlanningAuthoritiesthatworkinits
ReliabilityCoordinatorArea.
R2.2.ThePlanningAuthorityshallprovideitsTransferCapabilitiestoitsassociatedReliability
Coordinator(s)andRegionalReliabilityOrganization(s),andtotheTransmissionPlannersand
TransmissionServiceProvider(s)thatworkinitsPlanningAuthorityArea.”
“TOP‐002‐2b—NormalOperationsPlanningRequirementR11:
TheTransmissionOperatorshallperformseasonal,next‐day,andcurrent‐dayBulkElectric
SystemstudiestodetermineSystemOperatingLimits(SOLs).NeighboringTransmissionOperators
shallutilizeidenticalSOLsforcommonfacilities.TheTransmissionOperatorshallupdatethese
BulkElectricSystemstudiesasnecessarytoreflectcurrentsystemconditions;andshallmakethe
resultsofBulkElectricSystemstudiesavailabletotheTransmissionOperators,Balancing
Authorities(subjecttoconfidentialityrequirements),andtoitsReliabilityCoordinator.”
System Operating Limit (SOL) Methodology
“NYSRCReliabilityRulesforPlanningandOperatingtheNewYorkStatePowerSystem”isthe
documentedmethodologyforuseindevelopingSystemOperatingLimits(SOLs)withintheNYISO
ReliabilityCoordinatorArea.NYSRCReliabilityRulesrequirecompliancewithall�NorthAmerican
ElectricReliabilityCorporation(NERC)StandardsandNortheastPowerCoordinatingCouncil
(NPCC)StandardsandCriteria.RuleCofthatdocumentaddressesasthecontingenciestobe
evaluatedandtheperformancerequirementstobeapplied.RuleCalsoincorporatestheNYISO
StabilityLimitGuideline–RefertoAttachmentH,NYISOTransmissionPlanningGuideline#3‐1,
“GuidelineforStabilityAnalysisandDeterminationofStability‐BasedTransferLimits”oftheNYISO
“TransmissionExpansionandInterconnectionManual”.
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 7
STUDY PARTICIPANTS
First Last Company First Last CompanyHoa Fu PSEG Long Island* David Mahlmann NYISO
Anie Philip PSEG Long Island* Robert Golen NYISO
Amrit Singh PSEG Long Island* De Dinh Tran NYISO
Jalpa Patel PSEG Long Island* Raj Dontireddy NYISO
Robert Eisenhuth PSEG Long Island* Roleto Mangonon O&R
John Hastings National Grid Ruby Chan Central Hudson
Jeffery Maher National Grid Richard Wright Central Hudson
Christopher Falanga National Grid Akim Faisal Central Hudson
Daniel Head ConEd Yuri Smolanitsky PJM
Mohammed Hossain NYPA Daniel Sohm IESO
Abhilash Gari NYPA Farzad Farahmand IESO
Larry Hochberg NYPA Isen Widjaja IESO
Brian Gordon NYSEG Ovidiu Vasilachi IESO
Robert King NYSEG George Fatu IESO
Jence Mandizha NYSEG Hardeep Kandola IESO
Dean LaForest ISO-NE Edward Davidian IESO
Bilgehan Donmez ISO-NE Bryan Hartwell IESO
Elizabeth Forehand ISO-NE
*Agent for LIPA
SYSTEM REPRESENTATION AND BASE STUDY ASSUMPTIONS
System Representation
TherepresentationwasdevelopedfromtheNYISODataBankandassumestheforecast
summercoincidentpeakloadof33,178MW.TheotherNPCCBalancingAreasandadjacent
RegionalrepresentationswereobtainedfromtheRFC‐NPCCsummer2017ReliabilityAssessment
powerflowbasecaseandhasbeenupdatedtoreflectthesummer2017capabilityperiod.Thebase
casemodelincludes:
TheNYISOTransmissionOperatorarea
AllTransmissionOperatorareascontiguouswithNYISO
Allsystemelementsmodeledasinservice
Allgenerationrepresented
PhaseshiftersintheregulatingmodeinaccordancewiththeNYISOAvailableTransferCapabilityImplementationDocument(ATCID)
TheNYISOLoadForecast
TransmissionFacilityadditionsandretirements
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 8
GenerationFacilityadditionsandretirements
RemedialActionScheme(RAS)modelswherecurrentlyexistingorprojectedforimplementationwithinthestudiedtimehorizon.
SeriescompensationforeachlineattheexpectedoperatinglevelunlessspecifiedotherwiseintheATCID.
FacilityRatingsasprovidedbytheTransmissionOwnerandGeneratorOwner
Generation Resource Changes
Thestatusanddispatchlevelofgenerationrepresentedinthisanalysisisareasonable
expectationbasedontheinformationavailableatthetimeofthestudy.Thosemodeling
assumptionsincorporateknownunitoutagestatus.Theinter‐Areaschedulesrepresentedinthe
studybasecasearesummarizedinAppendixA.Thefollowingtableshowsgenerationdeactivations
andadditionssincethesummer2016capabilityperiod:
Deactivations
Cayuga1 ‐150 MWCayuga2 ‐150 MW
TotalRetirements ‐300MWAdditions
Greenidge#4(Return‐to‐service) 106MWJerichoRiseWindFarm(Nameplate) 78 MW
TotalAdditions 184MW
Transmission Facilities Changes
Significantfacilitychangessincethesummer2016capabilityperiodinclude:
ModelingRamapoPAR3500out‐of‐service
ModelingtheDunkirk–SouthRipley(68)230kVlineout‐of‐service
ModelingtheHudsonTransmissionProject–W49thSt.(Y56)345kVlineout‐of‐service
AdditionoftheDolsonAve.345kVsubstation
DolsonAve.isbeingaddedonthe345kVCoopersCorners–RockTavern(CCRT‐42)line.The
newstationwillchangetheTotalEastinterfacedefinitionbyreplacingtheCoopersCorners–Rock
Tavern(CCRT‐42)linewiththeCoopersCorners–DolsonAve(CCDA42)line.
System Representation
TheSiemensPTIPSS™MUSTandPSS™Esoftwarepackageswereusedtocalculatethethermal
limitsbasedonNormalandEmergencyTransferCriteriadefinedinthe“NYSRCReliabilityRulesfor
PlanningandOperatingtheNewYorkStatePowerSystem".Thethermaltransferlimitspresented
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 9
havebeendeterminedforalltransmissionfacilitiesscheduledinserviceduringthesummer2017
period.
Theschedulesusedinthebasecasepowerflowforthisanalysisassumedanetflowof400MW
fromPublicServiceElectric&Gas(PSE&G)toConsolidatedEdisonviathePARtransformers
controllingtheHudson–FarragutandLinden–Goethalsinterconnections,and400MWonthe
SouthMahwah–WaldwickcircuitsfromConsolidatedEdisontoPSE&G,controlledbythePARsat
Waldwick.TheHopatcong–Ramapo500kV(5018)circuitisscheduledinaccordancewiththe
"Market‐to‐MarketCoordinationProcess",August14,2013.Forthesummer2017basecase,the
scheduleforthetieis380MWfromPJMtoNewYork.ThefourOntario–MichiganPARsare
modeledin‐serviceandscheduledtoa0MWtransfer.Theseschedulesareconsistentwiththe
scenariosdevelopedintheRFC‐NPCCInter‐RegionalReliabilityAssessmentforsummer2017,and
theMMWGsummer2016powerflowbasecases.TheseriesreactorsontheDunwoodie–Mott
Haven(71and72),theFarragut–Gowanus(41and42)345kV,theSprainBrook–W.49thSt.
(M51andM52)345kV,Packard–Sawyer(77and78)230kVcables,aswellastheE.179thSt.–
HellGate(15055)138kVfeederarein‐serviceinthebasecase.TheseriesreactorsontheSprain
Brook–EastGardenCity(Y49)345kVcableareby‐passed.TheseriescapacitorsontheMarcy–
CoopersCorners(UCC2‐41)345kV,theEdic–Fraser(EF24‐40)345kVandtheFraser–Coopers
Corners(33)345kVcablesarein‐serviceinthebasecase.
TheNYISONiagaragenerationwasmodeledusinga50‐50splitonthe230kVand115kV
generators.ThetotaloutputfortheNiagarafacilitywasmodeledat2,100MW.TheOntarioNiagara
generationwasmodeledatanoutputof1,300MW.
DISCUSSION
Resource Assessment
Load and Capacity Assessment
Theforecastpeakdemandforthesummer2017capabilityperiodis33,178MW2.Thisforecast
isapproximately182MW(0.55%)lowerthantheforecastof33,360MWforthesummer2016
capabilityperiod,and778MW(2.29%)lowerthantheall‐timeNewYorkControlArea(NYCA)
seasonalpeakof33,956MW,whichoccurredonJuly19,2013.
2 Forecast Coincident Peak Demand (50th percentile baseline forecast)
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 10
TheInstalledCapacity(ICAP)requirementforthesummerperiodis39,150MWbasedonthe
NYSRC18.0%InstalledReserveMargin(IRM)requirementforthe2017CapabilityYear.NYCA
generationcapacityforsummer2017is38,581MW,andnetexternalcapacitypurchasesof2,533
MWhavebeensecuredforthesummerperiod.Thecombinedcapacityresourcesrepresenta23.9%
marginabovetheforecastpeakdemandof33,178MW.Thesevaluesweretakenfromthe2016
Load&CapacityDatareportproducedbytheNYISO,locatedat:
http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/markets_operations/services/planning/Documents_
and_Resources/Planning_Data_and_Reference_Docs/Data_and_Reference_Docs/2016_Load__Capaci
ty_Data_Report.pdf
Theequivalentforcedoutagerateis4.83%,andincludesforcedoutagesandde‐ratingsbased
onhistoricalperformanceofallgenerationintheNYCA.Forsummer2016,theequivalentforced
outagerateassumedwas4.80%.
Cross-State Interfaces
Transfer Limit Analysis
Thisreportsummarizestheresultsofthermaltransferlimitanalysesperformedonpower
systemrepresentationmodelingtheforecastpeakloadconditionsforsummer2017.Normaland
emergencythermallimitswerecalculatedaccordingtoNormalandEmergencyTransferCriteria
definitionsinthe“NYSRCReliabilityRulesforPlanningandOperatingtheNewYorkStatePower
System".FacilityratingsappliedintheanalysiswerefromtheonlineMWratingsintheEMS,and
aredetailedinAppendixD.
Figure1presentsacomparisonofthesummer2017thermaltransferlimitstosummer2016
thermaltransferlimits.Changesintheselimitsfrompreviousyearsareduetochangesinthebase
caseloadflowgenerationandloadpatternsthatresultindifferentpre‐contingencylineloadings,
changesinlimitingcontingencies,orchangesincircuitratings,orlinestatus.AppendixHpresentsa
summarycomparisonofCross‐Statethermaltransferlimitsbetweensummer2017and2016,with
limitingelement/contingencydescriptions.Significantdifferencesinthesethermaltransferlimits
arediscussedbelow.
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 11
Figure1–Cross‐StateThermalTransferLimits
TotalEastinterfacethermaltransferlimitdecreased450MW.Thisismainlyduetothe
redistributionoflineflowscausedbytheeliminationofthe1000MWConEdison–PJMWheeland
theimplementationofa400MWOperationalBaseFlow.
UPNY‐ConEdinterfacethermaltransferlimithasincreased725MW.Thisismainlyduetothe
redistributionoflineflowscausedbytheeliminationofthe1000MWConEdison–PJMWheeland
theimplementationofa400MWOperationalBaseFlow.AcomparableUPNY‐SENYthermal
transferlimitwouldbe5,000MWforthesamelimitingelementandcontingencyasUPNY‐ConEd.
Athens SPS
In2008,aSpecialProtectionSystem(SPS)wentin‐serviceimpactingthethermalconstrainton
theLeedstoPleasantValley345kVtransmissioncorridor.TheSPSisdesignedtorejectgeneration
attheAthenscombined‐cycleplantifeithertheLeedstoPleasantValley345kV(92)circuitorthe
AthenstoPleasantValley345kV(91)circuitareout‐of‐serviceandtheflowontheremaining
circuitisabovetheLTErating.GenerationatAthenswillbetrippeduntiltheflowisbelowtheLTE
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 12
rating,theout‐of‐servicecircuitrecloses,ortheremainingcircuittrips.ThisSPSisexpectedtobe
activewhenthereisgenerationon‐lineattheAthensstation,andwillallowtheNYCAtransmission
systemtobesecuredtotheSTEratingofthe91lineforthelossofthe92line,andvice‐versa,for
normaloperatingconditions.TheSPSincreasesthenormalthermallimittomatchtheemergency
thermallimitacrosstheUPNY‐ConEdoperatinginterfacewhenthe91or92isthelimitingcircuit.
TheTable1“Emergency”limitfortheUPNY‐ConEdinterfacecanbeinterpretedasthe“Normal”
limit,whentheAthensSPSisactive.
Sensitivity Testing
ThethermallimitspresentedinSection6weredeterminedusingthebaseconditionsand
schedules.Theeffectsofvariousintra‐andinter‐Areatransfersorgenerationpatternsinthe
systemarepresentedinAppendixG.Certaingraphsindicatethattheremaynotbeameasurable
sensitivitytothespecificvariablecondition(summerpeakload),orthesensitivitymayoccurat
transferlevelsaboveothertransferconstraints(e.g.,voltageortransientstabilitylimitations).This
analysisdemonstrateshowtheparticularconstraint(thermaltransferlimits)mayrespondto
differentconditions.
West Woodbourne Transformer
TheTotal‐Eastinterfacemaybelimitedatsignificantlylowertransferlevelsforcertain
contingenciesthatresultinoverloadingoftheWestWoodbourne115/69kVtransformer.Should
theWestWoodbournetiebethelimitingfacility,itmayberemovedfromservicetoallowhigher
Total‐Easttransfers.Over‐currentrelaysareinstalledatWestWoodbourneandHonkFallsto
protectforcontingencyoverloads.
ConEd – LIPA Transfer Analysis
NormaltransfercapabilitiesweredeterminedusingthebasecasegenerationdispatchandPAR
settingsasdescribedinAppendixB.Emergencylimitsaredispatchdependant,andcanvarybased
ongenerationandloadpatternsintheLIPAsystem.
Foremergencytransfercapabilityanalysis,thePARscontrollingtheLIPAimportwere
adjustedtoallowformaximumtransfercapabilityintoLIPA:
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 13
ConEd–LIPAPARSettings
Normal Emergency
Jamaica–LakeSuccess138kV ‐200MW 115MW
Jamaica–ValleyStream138kV ‐100MW 120MW
SprainBrook–E.GardenCity345kV 637MW 637MW
ISO‐NE–LIPAPARSettings
NorwalkHarbor–Northport138kV 100MW 286MW
ThePARschedulesreferencedaboveandtheConEd‐LIPAtransferassessmentassumethe
followinglossfactorsandoilcirculationmodesindeterminationofthefacilityratingsforthe345
kVcables:
Y49hasa70%lossfactorinslowoilcirculationmode.
Y50hasa70%lossfactorinrapidcirculationmode.
EmergencyTransferviathe138kVPAR‐controlledJamaicatiesbetweenConEdisonandLIPA
ConEdisonandLIPAhavedeterminedpossibleemergencytransferlevelsviatheJamaica‐
ValleyStream(901)138kVandJamaica‐LakeSuccess(903)138kVPAR‐controlledtiesthatcould
beusedtotransferemergencypowerbetweenthetwoentitiesduringpeakconditions.The
emergencytransferlevelswerecalculatedinbothdirections,forsystempeakloadconditionswith
alltransmissionlinesinserviceandallgenerationavailableforfullcapacity.
ConEdtoLIPAemergencyassistance
BasedonanalysisofhistoricalconditionsperformedbyLIPAandConEdison,ConEdison
anticipatesbeingabletosupplyatotalflowupto235MWofemergencytransferfromConEdison
toLongIsland,ifrequested,viatheties.
LIPAtoConEdemergencyassistance
LIPAanticipatedbeingabletosupplyatotalflowupto505MWofemergencytransferfrom
LongIslandtoConEdison,ifrequested,viathetiesunderidealconditions(i.e.alllinesand
generationin‐service,importsviaNeptune,NNCandCSC).
Transfer Limits for Outage Conditions
TransferlimitsforscheduledoutageconditionsaredeterminedbytheNYISOSchedulingand
MarketOperationsgroups.TheNYISOReal‐TimeDispatchsystemmonitorstheEHVtransmission
continuouslytomaintainthesecureoperationoftheinterconnectedEHVsystem.
Transient Stability and Voltage transfer Limits
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 14
TheinterfacetransferlimitsshowninSection6aretheresultsofathermaltransferlimit
analysisonly.Transientstabilityandvoltageinterfacetransferlimitsforalllinesin‐serviceandline
outageconditionsaresummarizedandavailablethroughtheNYISOwebsitelocatedat:
http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/market_data/reports_info/index.jsp
Thermal Transfer Capabilities with Adjacent Balancing Areas
Figure2–Inter‐AreaThermalTransferCapabilities3
ThermaltransferlimitsbetweenNewYorkandadjacentBalancingAreasalsoaredetermined
inthisanalysis.Thesetransferlimitssupplement,butdonotchange,existinginternaloperating
limits.Theremaybefacilitiesinternaltoeachsystemthatmayreducethetransferlimitsbetween 3 TE-NY transfer capabilities shown in Figure 2 are not thermal transfer limits; for more information see Section 5.3.D
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 15
BalancingAreas.Reductionsduetothesesituationsareconsideredtobetheresponsibilityofthe
respectivereliabilityauthority.Someofthesepotentiallimitationsareindicatedinthesummary
tablesby“[ReliabilityCoordinating]Facility”limits,whichsupplementthe“DirectTie”limits
betweentheBalancingAreas.TransferconditionswithinandbetweenneighboringBalancingAreas
canhaveasignificanteffectoninter‐andintra‐Areatransferlimits.Coordinationbetween
BalancingAreasisnecessarytoprovideoptimaltransferwhilemaintainingthereliabilityand
securityoftheinterconnectedsystems.
PJM–NewYorkinterfacethermaltransferlimitdecreased600MW.Thisismainlyduetothe
modelingoftheRamapoPAR3500out‐of‐service.
IESO–NewYorkinterfacethermaltransferlimitincreased275MW.Theselimitsaresensitive
toloadinZoneAandflowtowardPJMontheDunkirk‐Erie230kVtie.Generationdispatchalso
affectsthesystemconstraintsasitaffectstheflowsonthe230kVsystem.Allowingthemarketto
securethe230kVconstraintsallowsfortheincreaseinthermaltransferlimit.
New York – New England Analysis
New England Transmission/Capacity Additions
Transmission
Forthesummer2017studyperiod,therearenomajorprojectscomingintoservicethatwill
impacttheNewYork–NewEnglandtransmissioncapability.Threenotabletransmissionelements
thatcameintoservicearetheSouthington345kV4C‐5TA‐2seriescircuitbreaker,theNorthfield
345/115kVautotransformerfeedingintotheErving115kVsubstation,andanadditional230/115
kVtransformeratBearSwamp.
ThenewSouthington345kV4C‐5TA‐2circuitbreakerinstalledin‐serieswiththeexisting4C‐
5T‐2CBrendersthepreviouslyhonoredstuckbreakercontingencyinvalid.Thistopology
modificationresultsinanidenticallimitingcontingencyandcorrespondinglimitingelement
associatedwiththeNE‐NYtransmissioncapabilityundernormalandemergencyoperating
conditions.
TheNorthfield345/115kVautotransformer,connectedtotheErving115kVsubstationviathe
1604Line,functionsasanadditionalpowerflowsourceintothePittsfieldareawithinWesternMA.
ThecommissioningofthisnewautotransformerdidnotimpacttheNewYork–NewEngland
transmissioncapability.
TheadditionalBearSwamp230/115kVtransformerfunctionsasaparalleltransmission
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 16
elementtoanexistingpowerflowsourceintothePittsfieldarea.Theinstallationofthisnew
transformeryieldsnoimpacttotheNewYork–NewEnglandtransmissioncapability.
Capacity
IntheNewEnglandControlArea,fromApril2017throughSeptember2017,nomajor
generationadditionsareanticipated.BraytonPointStation(BRA1‐4)isscheduledtoretireinMay
2017.Thegeneratingfleetiscomprisedofthreecoalburningturbinesandonedual‐fueloilor
naturalgasburningturbinerepresentinganetgenerationcapacityofapproximately1,600MW.
Thermal Transfer Limit Analysis
ThetransferlimitsbetweentheNYISOandISONewEnglandfornormalandemergency
transfercriteriaaresummarizedinSection6,Table2.
Cross-Sound Cable
TheCross‐SoundCableisanHVdcmerchanttransmissionfacilityconnectingtheNewHaven
Harbor345kV(UnitedIlluminating,ISO‐NE)stationandShoreham138kV(LIPA,NYISO)station.It
hasadesigncapacityof330MW.ThisfacilityisnotmeteredaspartofNYISO–ISO‐NEinterface,
andHVdctransfersareindependentoftransfersbetweentheNYISOandISO‐NE.
Smithfield – Salisbury 69 kV
CHG&EandNortheastUtilitieswilloperatetheSmithfield‐Salisbury69kV(FV/690)line
normallyclosed.Themaximumallowableflowonthislineis31MVAbasedonlimitationsinthe
NortheastUtilities69kVsystem.WhentheISO‐NEtoNYISOtransferisgreaterthanapproximately
400MW,however,thelinewillbeopened,duetopostcontingencylimitswithintheNortheast
Utilitiessystem.TheFV/690linehasdirectionalover‐currentprotectionthatwilltriptheFV/690
LineintheeventofanoverloadwhentheflowisintoNortheastUtilities,noprotectionexiststhat
willtriptheFV/690LineintheeventofanoverloadwhentheflowisintoNYISO.
Northport – Norwalk Harbor Cable Flow
FlowontheNNCNorwalkHarbortoNorthport,facilityiscontrolledbyaphaseangle‐
regulating(PAR)transformeratNorthport.Assystemconditionsvarythescheduledflowonthe
NNCmaybeusedtooptimizetransfercapabilitybetweentheBalancingAreas.Thethermaltransfer
limitsarepresentedinTable2fordifferentPARscheduleassumptionsontheNorthport–Norwalk
Harborinterconnection.ExhibitsinAppendixGgraphicallydemonstratetheoptimizationof
transfercapabilitybyregulatingtheflowontheNorthport‐NorwalkHarbortie.
Whitehall – Blissville 115 kV
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 17
Thephaseangleregulatoronthiscircuitwillcontrolpre‐contingencyflowbetweenthe
respectivestations.VELCO,NationalGrid,ISO‐NEandNYISOdevelopedajointoperating
procedure.Fortheanalyses,thepre‐contingencyscheduleis25MWfromBlissville(ISO‐NE)to
Whitehall(NYISO).ThescheduledflowmaybeadjustedtoprotecttheNationalGridlocal115kV
transmissionsouthofWhitehallfor345kVcontingencyeventsinsouthernVermont.
Plattsburgh – Sand Bar 115 kV (i.e. PV20)
ThephaseangleregulatingtransformerattheVELCOSandBarsubstationwasmodeled
holdingapre‐contingencyflowofapproximately100MWonthePV20tie.Thismodeling
assumptionwaspremiseduponcommonoperatingunderstandingsbetweenISO‐NEandtheNYISO
givenlocaloperatingpracticeontheMoses–Willis–Plattsburgh230kVtransmissioncorridor.
ISO‐NE’sanalysisexaminedandconsideredNewEnglandsystemlimitationsgiventhismodeling
assumptionanddidnotexaminegenerationdispatch/systemperformanceontheNewYorkside
ofthePV20tieforthisanalysis.
New York - PJM Analysis
Thermal Transfer Limit Analysis
ThetransferlimitsfortheNewYork‐PJMinterfacearesummarizedinSection6,Table3.The
phaseangleregulatingtransformerscontrollingtheHopatcong–Ramapo5018500kVcircuitare
usedtomaintainflowatthenormalratingoftheRamapo500/345kVtransformer.
Dunkirk-South Ripley (68) 230 kV Tie
GenerationretirementsinSouthwesternNYandincreasedflowsintoPJMviatheDunkirk–
SouthRipley(68)230kVlinehasputNYintoapositionwheretherearereliabilityconcernsinthe
local115kVnetwork.AsaresulttheNYISOandPJMhavedevelopedanoperatingdocumentthat
allowsoperationoftheDunkirk‐SouthRipleylinetomaintainreliabilityinboththePJMandNYISO
systems.PJMandNYISOcontinuetoexploresolutionstoreturntooperationwiththelinein
service.
Opening of PJM - New York 115 kV Ties as Required
ThenormalcriteriathermaltransferlimitspresentedinSection6weredeterminedforanall
linesin‐servicecondition.The115kVinterconnectionsbetweenFirstEnergyEastandNewYork
(Warren–Falconer,NorthWaverly–EastSayre,andLaurelLake–Westover)maybeopenedin
accordancewithNYISOandPJMOperatingProceduresprovidedthatthisactiondoesnotcause
unacceptableimpactonlocalreliabilityineithersystem.Over‐currentprotectionisinstalledonthe
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 18
Warren‐FalconerandtheNorthWaverly–EastSayre115kVcircuits;eitherofthesecircuits
wouldtripbyrelayactionforanactualoverloadcondition.Thereisnooverloadprotectiononthe
LaurelLake‐Westovercircuit,butitmaybeopenedbyoperatoractionifthereisanactualorpost‐
contingencyoverloadcondition.However,openingtheLaurelLake–Westovertiecouldpotentially
causelocalthermalandpre‐andpost‐contingencyvoltageviolationsforthe34.5kVdistribution
systemwithinFirstEnergyEasttransmissionzone.Sensitivityanalysisperformedindicatedthat
thethermalandvoltageconditionswereexacerbatedforconditionsthatmodeledhigh
simultaneousinterfaceflowsfromNYtoPJMandNYtoOntario.
DC Ties
NeptuneDCtieisexpectedtobeavailableatfullcapability,660MW.HudsonTransmission
Project(HTP)DCtieisexpectedtobeavailableatfullcapabilityforthesummer2017,660MW,but
wasmodeledasoutofservice.
Variable Frequency Transformer (VFT) Tie
TheVariableFrequencyTransformerTieisatransmissionfacilityconnectingtheLinden230
kV(PSEG,PJM)toLinden345kV(ConEd,NYISO).Forthesummer2017,LindenVFTwillhave330
MWfirmwithdrawalrightand300MWfirminjectionrightsintoPJMmarket.
Elimination of ConEdison – PJM Wheel and Implementation of 400 MW Operational Base Flow
AsofMay1st,2017anewprotocolhasbeenimplementedtosetdesiredflowonthe
Hopatcong‐Ramapo(5018)500kV,Ramapo‐WaldwickKandJ345kV,Linden‐GoethalsA230kV,
Marion‐FarragutC345kVandHudson‐FarragutB345kVlines,basedonthescheduledPJM‐NYSIO
ACinterchangeandRECOload.ThechangewasimplementedduetoConEdrequesttoterminate
non‐confirmingwheelingservicethathasbeenhistoricallymodeledasafixed1,000MWflowfrom
NYSIOtoPJMovertheJKinterfaceandfromPJMtoNYSIOovertheABCinterface.
Ontario – New York Analysis
Thermal Transfer Limit Analysis
ThethermaltransferlimitsbetweentheNYISOandOntario’sIndependentElectricitySystem
Operator(IESO)BalancingAreasfornormalandemergencytransfercriteriaarepresentedintables
4and5.ThethermaltransferlimitsfromOntariotoNYweredeterminedat80%ofZoneAload,
100%ofZoneAload,all‐in‐service,andwithline68(Dunkirk‐SouthRipley)plusline171(Warren‐
Falconer)outofservice.TheNYISONiagaragenerationwasmodeledatanoutputof2,100MW.
TheOntario–NewYorktiesatSt.Lawrence,L33PandL34P,werecontrollingto0MWinall
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 19
fourscenarios.Theinterconnectionflowlimitacrossthesetiesis300MW,aspresentedinTable4.3
“InterconnectionTotalTransferCapability(TTC)Limits”fromthedocument“OntarioTransmission
System”availableat:
http://ieso.ca/-/media/files/ieso/document-library/planning-forecasts/18-month-
outlook/onttxsystem_2016dec.pdf
Transient Stability Limitations
TransientstabilitylimitsfortheNYISO‐IESOinterconnectionarereportedin"NYPP‐OH
TRANSIENTSTABILITYTESTINGREPORTonDIRECTTIETRANSFERCAPABILITY‐OCTOBER
1993"availableat:
http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/market_data/reports_info/operating_
studies/NOH‐1/NYPP‐OH_1993.PDF
Ontario – Michigan PARs
AllofthePARsonthefourtransmissionlinesinterconnectingOntarioandMichiganarein
serviceandregulating.Forthisstudy,thePARswerescheduledtoregulateat0MW.
Impact of the Queenston Flow West (QFW) Interface on the New York to Ontario Transfer Limit
TheQFWinterfaceisdefinedasthesumofthepowerflowsthroughthe230kVcircuitsoutof
Beck.QFWisthealgebraicsumofthefollowing:
TotalgenerationintheNiagarazoneofOntarioincludingtheunitsattheBeck#1,#2&PumpGeneratingStations,ThoroldandDecewFallsGS
Thetotalloadinthezone
TheimportfromNewYork
ForagivenQFWlimit,theimportcapabilityfromNewYorkdependsonthegeneration
dispatchandtheloadintheNiagarazone.TheOntarioNiagaragenerationissetto1,300MW.The
importcapabilityfromNewYorkcanbeincreasedbydecreasinggenerationintheOntarioNiagara
zone,increasingdemandintheOntarioNiagarazone,orboth.
TransÉnergie–New York Interface
ThermaltransferlimitsbetweenTransÉnergie(Hydro‐Quebec)andNewYorkarenotanalyzed
aspartofthisstudy.RespectingtheNYSRCandNYISOoperatingreserverequirements,the
maximumallowabledeliveryintotheNYCAfromTransÉnergieontheChateauguay–Massena
(MSC‐7040)765kVtieislimitedto1310MW.Howeverinreal‐timethetotalflowislimitedto1800
MW;theadditionalflowisa“wheel‐through”transactiontoanotherBalancingAuthorityArea.
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 20
MaximumdeliveryfromNYCAtoQuebeconthe7040lineis1000MW.
TheDennisonScheduledLinerepresentsa115kVdual‐circuittransmissionlinethat
interconnectstheNewYorkControlAreatotheHydro‐QuebecControlAreaattheDennison
Substation,nearMassena,NY.TheLinehasanominalnorthtosouthcapacityof190MWin
summer,intoNewYork,andanominalsouthtonorthcapacityof100MWintoQuebec.
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 21
SUMMARY OF RESULTS – THERMAL TRANSFER LIMIT ANALYSIS
Table1–NYISOCROSSSTATEINTERFACETHERMALLIMITS
Table1.a
a. DysingerEast
b. UPNY–ConEd
c. SprainBrook–DunwoodieSo.
d. ConEd–LIPATransferCapability
Table1.b–MSC‐7040FlowSensitivity
a. CentralEast
b. TotalEast
c. MosesSouth
Table2.a–NYISOtoISO‐NEINTERFACETHERMALTRANSFERLIMITS
Northport‐NorwalkFlowSensitivity
Table2.b–ISO‐NEtoNYISOINTERFACETHERMALTRANSFERLIMITS
Northport‐NorwalkFlowSensitivity
Table3.a–NYISOtoPJMINTERFACETHERMALTRANSFERLIMITS
3‐115kVTiesI/SandO/S
Table3.b–PJMtoNYISOINTERFACETHERMALTRANSFERLIMITS
3‐115kVTiesI/SandO/S
Table4–IESOtoNYISOINTERFACETHERMALTRANSFERLIMITS
ZoneASystemSensitivity
Table5–NYISOtoIESOINTERFACETHERMALTRANSFERLIMITS
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 22
TABLE 1.a – NYISO CROSS-STATE INTERFACE THERMAL TRANSFER LIMITS - SUMMER 2017
ALL LINES I/S
DysingerEast UPNY‐ConEd1
SprainBrookDunwoodie‐So.
ConEd–LIPATransferCapability
NORMAL 1025(1) 4900 (3) 4200(5) 875(7)
EMERGENCY 1725(2) 5625 (4) 4225 (6) 1500(8)
LIMITINGELEMENT RATING LIMITINGCONTINGENCY
(1) Niagara–Packard(61)230kV @STE4 846MW L/O Niagara–Packard(62)230kVBeck–Packard(BP76)230kV
(2) Young–Huntley(133)115kV @STE 206MW L/O Buffalo–Huntley(130)115kV
(3) Leeds–PleasantValley(92)345kV @LTE 1538MW L/O Athens–PleasantValley(91)345kV
(4) Leeds–PleasantValley(92)345kV @STE 1724MW L/O Athens–PleasantValley(91)345kV
(5) MottHaven–Rainey(Q11)345kV @MTE2 1066MW L/O (SB:RAIN345_4W)MottHaven–Rainey(Q12)345kVRainey345/138kVTransformer3WRainey–East75St.138kV
(6) Dunwoodie–MottHaven(71)345kV @NORM 707MW Pre‐ContingencyLoading
(7) Dunwoodie–ShoreRd.(Y50)345kV @LTE 914MW3 L/O (SBRNS2@SprainBrook345kV)SprainBrook–EastGardenCity(Y49)345kVSprainBrook–Academy(M29)345kV
(8) Dunwoodie–ShoreRd.(Y50)345kV @NORM 653MW3 Pre‐ContingencyLoading
Note1:SeeSection5.2.BfordiscussiononAthensSPS2:TheratingusedforcablecircuitsduringSCUCreliabilityanalysisistheaverageoftheLTEandSTErating(MTERating).3:LIPAratingforY50circuitisbasedon70%lossfactorandrapidoilcirculation.4:DysingerEastlimitusedtheNYSRCRulesExceptionNo.13–PostContingencyFlowsonNiagaraProjectFacilities
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 23
TABLE 1.b – NYISO CROSS-STATE INTERFACE THERMAL TRANSFER LIMITS - SUMMER 2017
ALL LINES I/S
MSC‐7040FLOW800MW
MSC‐7040FLOW1310MW
MSC‐7040FLOW1600MW
CENTRALEAST
NORMAL 2625 (1) 2625 (1) 2625 (1)
EMERGENCY 2750 (2) 2750 (2) 2750 (2)
TOTALEAST
NORMAL 4900 (3) 4900 (3) 4900 (3)
EMERGENCY 5300(4) 5300(4) 5300(4)
MOSESSOUTH1,2
NORMAL 2225 (5) 2550 (5) 2550(8)
EMERGENCY 2225 (6) 2700(7) 2675 (7)
LIMITINGELEMENT RATING LIMITINGCONTINGENCY
(1) Fraser–CoopersCorners(33)345kV @LTE 1721MW L/O Marcy–FraserAnnex(UCC2‐41)345kV(SeriesCapacitor)Porter–Rotterdam(31)230kV
(2) Fraser–CoopersCorners(33)345kV @STE 1793MW L/O Marcy–FraserAnnex(UCC2‐41)345kV(SeriesCapacitor)
(3) Roseton–EastFishkill(RFK305)345kV
@LTE 2666MW L/O RockTavern–Ramapo(77)345kVRockTavern–Sugarloaf(76)345kVRamapo–Sugarloaf(76)345kVSugarloaf345/138kVTransformer
(4) CoopersCorners–MiddletownTAP(CMT34)345kV
@STE 1793MW L/O CoopersCorners–DolsonAve.(CCDA42)345kV
(5) Moses–Adirondack(MA2)230kV @LTE 386MW L/O Chateauguay–Massena(MSC‐7040)765kVMassena–Marcy(MSU1)765kVandTransÉnergiedelivery
(6) BrownsFalls–Taylorville(4)115kV @STE 134MW L/O Chateauguay–Massena(MSC‐7040)765kVMassena–Marcy(MSU1)765kVandTransÉnergiedelivery
(7) Marcy765/345kVT2Transformer @STE 1971MW L/O Marcy765/345kVT1Transformer
(8) Marcy–Edic(UE1‐7)345kV @LTE 1650MW L/O Marcy–FraserAnnex(UCC2‐41)345kV(SeriesCapacitor)ChasesLake–Porter(11)230kV
Note
1:MosesSouthlimitusedtheNYSRCRulesExceptionNo.10–PostContingencyFlowsonMarcyAT‐1Transformer2:MosesSouthlimitusedtheNYSRCRulesExceptionNo.12–PostContingencyFlowsonMarcyTransformerT2
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 24
TABLE 2.a – NYISO to ISO-NE INTERFACE THERMAL TRANSFER LIMITS - SUMMER 2017 ALL
LINES I/S
NewYorktoNewEngland
DIRECTTIE NYISOFACILITY ISO‐NEFACILITY
Northport–Norwalk100MW
NORMAL 1725(1) 2875 (3) 3025(4)
EMERGENCY 2250(2) 2875 (3) 3125(5)
Northport–Norwalk0MW
NORMAL 1675(1) 2925 (3) 3050(4)
EMERGENCY 2225(2) 2925 (3) 3150(5)
NOTE
1:TheNorthport–NorwalkHarbor(NNC)flowispositiveinthedirectionoftransfer2:TheNorthport–NorwalkHarbor(NNC)lineisnolongerpartoftheNewYork–NewEnglandInterfaceDefinition
LIMITINGELEMENT RATING LIMITINGCONTINGENCY
(1) PleasantValley–LongMountain(398)345kV @LTE 1313MW L/O MillstoneG324.0kV
(2) PleasantValley–LongMountain(398)345kV @STE 1596MW L/O MillstoneG324.0kV
(3) ReynoldsRd–Greenbush(9)115kV @STE 398MW L/O NewScotland–Alps(2)345kV
(4) Berkshire–Northfield(312)345kV @LTE 1697MW L/O PleasantValley–LongMountain(398)345kV
(5) Berkshire–Northfield(312)345kV @STE 1793MW L/O PleasantValley–LongMountain(398)345kV
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 25
TABLE 2.b – ISO-NE to NYISO INTERFACE THERMAL LIMITS - SUMMER 2017 ALL LINES I/S
NewEnglandtoNewYork
DIRECTTIE NYISOFACILITY ISO‐NEFACILITY
Norwalk–Northport@0MW
NORMAL 1825(1) 1550(5)
EMERGENCY 2050(2) 1500(5)
Norwalk–Northport@100MW
NORMAL 1850(1) 1600(5)
EMERGENCY 1975(3) 1600(5)
Norwalk–Northport@200MW
NORMAL 1425(4) 1650(5)
EMERGENCY 1500(3) 1650(5)
NOTE
1:TheNorthport–NorwalkHarbor(NNC)flowispositiveinthedirectionoftransfer2:TheNorthport–NorwalkHarbor(NNC)lineisnolongerpartoftheNewEngland–NewYorkInterfaceDefinition
LIMITINGELEMENT RATING LIMITINGCONTINGENCY
(1) PleasantValley–LongMountain(398)345kV @LTE 1313MW L/O Alps–Berkshire(393)345kVBerkshire–NorthfieldMount(312)345kVNorthfieldMount–Vernon(381)345kVBerkshire345/115kVTransformer
(2) PleasantValley–LongMountain(398)345kV @NORM 1135MW Pre‐ContingencyLoading
(3) Northport–NorwalkHarbor(NNC)138kV @STE 532MW L/O PleasantValley–LongMountain(398)345kV
(4) Northport–NorwalkHarbor(NNC)138kV @LTE 518MW L/O PleasantValley–LongMountain(398)345kVPleasantValley–EastFishkill(F37)345kV
(5) NorwalkJunction–ArchersLane(3403D)345kV @LTE 850MW L/O LongMountain–FrostBridge(352)345kV
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 26
TABLE 3.a – NYISO to PJM INTERFACE THERMAL TRANSFER LIMITS - SUMMER 2017 ALL
LINES I/S
DIRECTTIE
NYISOFACILITY
PJMFACILITY
DIRECTTIE
NYISOFACILITY
PJMFACILITY
OneRamapoPARIn‐service(16%Transfer) TwoRamapoPARsIn‐service(32%Transfer)
NORMAL 1200(1) 1200(2)3 1225(3)4 1175(14) 1375(1) 1375(2)3 1425(3)4 1350(14)
3‐115‐O/S 1675(6) 1175(2)3 1175(3) 4 1300 (15) 2450(10) 1325(2)3 1325 (3) 4 1450(15)
EMERGENCY 1200(1) 2725(4)3 1450(5)4 1175(14) 1375(1) 2900(9)3 1650(5)4 1350(14)3‐115‐O/S 2750(7) 2425(4)3 1400 (5) 4 1325 (16) 2825(11) 2550(4)3 1550 (5) 4 1475(16)
Dunkirk‐SouthRipley(68)230kVOut‐of‐service
NORMAL 1150(1) 1500(2)3 1275(3)4 1125(14) 1300(1) 1625(2)3 1425(3)4 1275(14)3‐115‐O/S 1525(6) 1575(2)3 1275 (3)4 1225 (15) 1625(6) 1675(2)3 1375(3)4 1300(15)
EMERGENCY 1150(1) 3475(8)3 1475(5)4 1125(14) 1300(1) 3625(8)3 1625(5)4 1275(14)3‐115‐O/S 2400(7) 3050(8)3 1475(5)4 1250 (16) 2325(12) 2775(13)3 1575(5)4 1350 (16)
LIMITINGELEMENT RATING LIMITINGCONTINGENCY
(1) Goudey–LaurelLake(952)115kV @STE 108MW
Pre‐ContingencyLoading
(2) Packard–Sawyer(77)230kV @LTE 644MW L/O Packard–Sawyer(78)230kVSawyer–Huntley(78)230kVNiagara–Packard(61)230kVPackard230/115kVTransformer
(3) Packard–NiagaraBoulevard(181‐922)115kV
@STE 206MW L/O Packard–Sawyer(77)230kVSawyer–Huntley(77)230kVPackard–Sawyer(78)230kVSawyer–Huntley(78)230kVSawyer230/23kVTransformers
(4) SouthRipley–Dunkirk(68)230kV @STE 475MW L/O Hopatcong–Branchburg(5060)500kV
(5) Packard–NiagaraBoulevard(181‐922)115kV
@NORM 160MW Pre‐ContingencyLoading
(6) Hillside–EastTowanda(70)230kV @LTE 531MW L/O LibertyGeneration
(7) Hillside–EastTowanda(70)230kV @STE 630MW L/O HopeCreekGen#1
(8) Watercure–Oakdale(31)345kV @STE 1076MW L/O Hopatcong–Branchburg(5060)500kV
(9) SouthRipley–Dunkirk(68)230kV @STE 475MW L/O Waldwick345/230kVTransformer
(10) Hillside–EastTowanda(70)230kV @LTE 531MW L/O SusquehannaGen#1
(11) Hillside–EastTowanda(70)230kV @STE 630MW L/O SusquehannaGen#2
(12) Hillside–EastTowanda(70)230kV @STE 630MW L/O Mainesburg345/115kVTransformer
(13) Hillside–Watercure(69)230kV @STE 657MW L/O Mainesburg345/115kVTransformer
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 27
(14) Oxbow–NorthMeshoppen230kV @NORM 478MW Pre‐ContingencyLoading
(15) Canyon–EastTowanda230kV @EMER 574MW L/O Marcy–FraserAnnex(UCC2‐41)345kV(SeriesCapacitor)Fraser–CoopersCorners(33)345kV(SeriesCapacitor)
(16) Canyon–EastTowanda230kV @EMER 574MW L/O Towanda–NorthMeshoppen115kV
NOTE
1:EmergencyTransferCapabilityLimitsmayhaverequiredlineoutagesasdescribedinSection5.3.B.2:PARscheduleshavebeenadjustedinthedirectionoftransfer.3:InternalSecuredLimit:LimittosecureinternaltransmissionelementsthataresecuredwithpricingintheNYISOmarkets(typically230kVandabove)4:InternalNon‐SecuredLimit:LimittosecureinternaltransmissionelementsthatarenotsecuredwithpricingintheNYISOmarkets(typically115kV)
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 28
TABLE 3.b – PJM to NYISO INTERFACE THERMAL TRANSFER LIMITS - SUMMER 2017 ALL
LINES I/S
DIRECTTIE
NYISOFACILITY
PJMFACILITY
DIRECTTIE
NYISOFACILITY
PJMFACILITY
OneRamapoPARIn‐service(16%Transfer) TwoRamapoPARsIn‐service(32%Transfer)
NORMAL 1150(1) 2525(2)3 1650(3)4 2325(4) 1625(1) 2950(2)3 2125(3)4 2800(4)
3‐115‐O/S 1675(7) 2000(2)3 2025 (3)4 1875(10) 2125 (7) 2450(2)3 2525 (3)4 2300(10)
EMERGENCY 1350(5) 2525(2)3 2075(6)4 2325(4) 1775(5) 2950(2)3 2525(6)4 2800(4)3‐115‐O/S 1925(8) 2000(2)3 2400 (9)4 1875(10) 2375 (8) 2450(2)3 2925 (9)4 2300(10)
Dunkirk‐SouthRipley(68)230kVOut‐of‐service
NORMAL 925(5) 3050(11)3 1575(3)4 1800(10) 1375(5) 4050(15)3 2050(3)4 2225(10)3‐115‐O/S 1475(7) 2075(13)3 1900 (3)4 1300(10) 1975 (7) 2575(13)3 2450(3)4 2300(10)
EMERGENCY 925(5) 3125(12)3 1950(6)4 1800(10) 1375(5) 4050(16)3 2425(6)4 2225(10)3‐115‐O/S 1700(8) 2550(14)3 2225 (9)4 1300(10) 2200 (8) 3050(14)3 2775(9)4 2300(10)
LIMITINGELEMENT RATING LIMITINGCONTINGENCY
(1) NorthWaverly–EastSayre(956)115kV @STE 143MW L/O Hillside–EastTowanda(70)230kVHillside–Watercure(69)230kVHillside230/115kVTransformer
(2) SouthRipley–Dunkirk(68)230kV @LTE 475MW L/O PierceBrook–FiveMileRd.(37)345kV
(3) NorthWaverly–Lounsberry115kV @STE 143MW L/O Watercure–Oakdale(31)345kVOakdale–ClarksCorner(36)345kV
(4) Lenox–NorthMeshoppen115kV @NORM 136MW Pre‐ContingencyLoading
(5) Falconer–Warren(171)115kV @STE 140MW L/O PierceBrook–FiveMileRd.(37)345kV
(6) NorthWaverly–Lounsberry115kV @STE 143MW L/O Watercure–Oakdale(31)345kV
(7) Hillside–EastTowanda(70)230kV @LTE 531MW L/O Watercure–Mainesburg(30)345kV
(8) Hillside–EastTowanda(70)230kV @STE 630MW L/O Watercure–Mainesburg(30)345kV
(9) Jennison–Kattelville(943)115kV @NORM 110MW Pre‐ContingencyLoading
(10) PierceBrook–FarmersValley115kV @EMER 191MW L/O PierceBrook–HomerCity(48)345kV
(11) Hillside–Watercure(69)230kV @LTE 637MW L/O Watercure–Mainesburg(30)345kV
(12) Hillside–Watercure(69)230kV @STE 657MW L/O Watercure–Mainesburg(30)345kV
(13) Watercure–Oakdale(71)230kV @LTE 400MW L/O Watercure–Oakdale(31)345kVOakdale–ClarksCorner(36)345kV
(14) Watercure–Oakdale(71)230kV @STE 440MW L/O Watercure–Oakdale(31)345kV
(15) Watercure–Oakdale(31)345kV @LTE 1074MW L/O Lenox–NorthMeshoppen115kV
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 29
(16) Watercure–Oakdale(31)345kV @STE 1076MW L/O Hopatcong–Ramapo(5018)500kV
NOTE
1:EmergencyTransferCapabilityLimitsmayhaverequiredlineoutagesasdescribedinSection5.3.B.2:PARscheduleshavebeenadjustedinthedirectionoftransfer.3:InternalSecuredLimit:LimittosecureinternaltransmissionelementsthataresecuredwithpricingintheNYISOmarkets(typically230kVandabove)4:InternalNon‐SecuredLimit:LimittosecureinternaltransmissionelementsthatarenotsecuredwithpricingintheNYISOmarkets(typically115kV)
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 30
TABLE 4 – IESO to NYISO INTERFACE THERMAL TRANSFER LIMITS - SUMMER 2017 ALL LINES
I/S
DIRECTTIE
NYISOFACILITY
IESOFACILITY
DIRECTTIE
NYISOFACILITY
IESOFACILITY
100%ZoneALoad(2,653MW) 80%ZoneALoad(2,122MW)*
NORMAL 1900(1) 250(2)3 925(3)4 2200(4) 2000(1) 1500(2)3 2025(10)4 2200(4)
EMERGENCY 2250(5) 1575(6)3 1325(7)4 2625 (8) 2400(9) 2850 (6)3 2275(11)4 2625 (8)
Dunkirk‐SouthRipley(68)230kV&Warren‐Falconer(171)115kVOut‐of‐service
NORMAL 1925(1) 475(2)3 950(3)4 2200(4) 2025(1) 1825(2)3 2100(10)4 2500(12)EMERGENCY 2300(5) 1950(6)3 1400(7)4 2750(13) 2425(9) 2350(6)3 2350(11)4 2750 (13)
LIMITINGELEMENT RATING LIMITINGCONTINGENCY
(1) Beck–Niagara(PA27)230kV @LTE 460MW L/O Beck–Niagara(PA301)345kV
(2) Niagara–Packard(61)230kV @STE1 846MW L/O Niagara–Packard(62)230kVBeck–Packard(PB76)230kV
(3) Packard–NiagaraBoulevard(181‐922)115kV
@STE 206MW L/O Packard–Sawyer(77)230kVSawyer–Huntley(77)230kVPackard–Sawyer(78)230kVSawyer–Huntley(78)230kVSawyer230/23kVTransformers
(4) Allanburg–MountHope(Q30M)230kV @STE 392MW L/O Beck–Middleport–Beach(Q24HM)230kVBeck–Middleport–Beach(Q29HM)230kV
(5) Beck–Niagara(PA27)230kV @NORM 400MW Pre‐ContingencyLoading
(6) Packard–Sawyer(77)230kV @STE 746MW L/O Packard–Sawyer(78)230kV
(7) Young–Huntley(133)115kV @STE 206MW L/O Buffalo–Huntley(130)115kV
(8) MiddleportT6(500kV/230kV) @NORM 750MW Pre‐ContingencyLoading
(9) Beck–Niagara(PA27)230kV @STE 558MW L/O Beck–Niagara(PA301)345kV
(10) Niagara230/115kVTransformer @STE1 288MW L/O Packard–Sawyer(77)230kVSawyer–Huntley(77)230kVPackard–Sawyer(78)230kVSawyer–Huntley(78)230kVSawyer230/23kVTransformers
(11) Niagara230/115kVTransformer @NORM 192MW Pre‐ContingencyLoading
(12) Allanburg–MountHope(Q30M)230kV @LTE 392MW L/O Beck–Allanburg(Q35M)230kV
(13) Allanburg–MountHope(Q30M)230kV @NORM 370MW Pre‐ContingencyLoading
Note
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 31
1:Ontario‐NYISOlimitusedtheNYSRCRulesExceptionNo.13–PostContingencyFlowsonNiagaraProjectFacilities2:*ZoneALoadisapproximately8%ofthetotalNYCALoad.2,122MWofZoneALoadwouldequatetoaNYCALoadof26,530MW3:InternalSecuredLimit:LimittosecureinternaltransmissionelementsthataresecuredwithpricingintheNYISOmarkets(typically230kVandabove)4:InternalNon‐SecuredLimit:LimittosecureinternaltransmissionelementsthatarenotsecuredwithpricingintheNYISOmarkets(typically115kV)
NYISO Operating Study Summer 2017 | 32
TABLE 5 – NYISO to IESO INTERFACE THERMAL TRANSFER LIMITS – SUMMER 2017ALL LINES
I/S
DIRECT
TIENYISO
FACILITYIESO
FACILITY1
NORMAL 1625(1) 900(2)
EMERGENCY 2225 (3) 1175 (4)
LIMITING ELEMENT RATING LIMITING CONTINGENCY
(1) Beck–Niagara(PA27)230kV @LTE 460MW L/O Beck – Niagara (PA 301) 345 kV
Beck – Allanburg (Q28A) 230 kV
Beck #2 units 19 & 20 + Thorold GS
(2) Allanburg–MountHope(Q30M)230kV @STE 392MW L/O Beck–Middleport–Beach(Q24HM)230kVBeck–Middleport–Beach(Q29HM)230kV
(3) Beck–Niagara(PA27)230kV @STE 558MW L/O Beck–Niagara(PA302)345kV
(4) Beck–Hannon(Q29HM)230kV @NORM 415MW Pre‐ContingencyLoading
Note
1:ThislimitcanbeincreasedbyreducinggenerationorincreasingdemandintheNiagarazoneofOntario.SeeSection5.3.C.d.fordiscussion.