RENSSELAER, N.Y. — NYISO and adjacent grids will likely be able to serve load throughout summer based on historical performance of generation and transmission infrastructure, the ISO reported last week.

However, an unlikely scenario of extreme heat could pose challenges for system capacity reserves, if not the system itself, according to the ISO’s Summer 2017 Capacity Assessment.

Under a baseline scenario in which this summer’s load peaks at 33,178 MW, NYISO expects to have a capacity margin of 386 MW, down 746 MW from the 2016 baseline forecast. The positive margin represents the amount of surplus generation available after factoring in peak load plus a required 2,620 MW of operating reserves.

Under extreme weather conditions — the 90th percentile forecast — the ISO predicts a capacity shortfall of 1,924 MW, compared with a 1,191-MW shortfall in last summer’s forecast.

“That’s taking the 90th percentile peak forecast, which is a very large peak, adding 2,620 of reserve requirement, saying that’s the requirement on a day-ahead basis, and then comparing it to that available capacity,” Wes Yeomans, NYISO vice president of operations, said during a May 31 meeting of the Management Committee.

Despite the expected deficiency under those conditions, the ISO expects it could avoid involuntary load curtailments by relying on up to 3,083 MW of demand resources available under emergency procedures.

NYISO activated demand response during its all-time summer peak of 33,956 MW in July 2013, which would have hit 34,900 MW without DR, Yeomans said.

Yeomans explained that the 90th percentile projection slightly exceeds NYISO’s all-time high. For an extreme heatwave, the capacity requirement would reach 38,000 MW.

“If we compare that against the capacity resources assuming 4,800 MW of derates — and we may or may not have that amount in a very hot heatwave — on paper we would be short on capacity by about 1,900 MW … but we have at least 3,000 MW of emergency operating procedures we would activate to make up that difference,” he said. (See New York Geared for 2017 Summer Load.)

MC Approves Funding 2nd PAR at Ramapo

The Management Committee approved a Tariff modification to fund Consolidated Edison’s replacement and operation of the Ramapo 3500 phase angle regulator, destroyed in a fire last June, as well as the operating expenses for the existing PAR at the substation close to the New Jersey border. The estimated $5.5 million in annual costs will be allocated statewide across all New York load-serving entities, but they would be reimbursed with any monies eventually paid by PJM, PJM transmission owners or refunded by Con Ed.

Mark Younger of Hudson Energy Economics asked for a definite commitment from either Con Ed or NYISO on the timeline for installation.

Jane Quinn of Con Ed said that upon an affirmative vote, the company will begin moving the PAR into place, which should take three to four weeks. Installation should take an additional eight to 10 weeks.

“We anticipate having the PAR, absent contingencies, in place on or around September 15,” Quinn said. (See “Con Edison Gets Approval to Install 2nd PAR at Ramapo,” NYISO Business Issues Committee Briefs.)

Market Participants to Review Monitor’s Performance

Shaun Johnson, NYISO director of market mitigation, asked market participants to join in an annual review of the Market Monitoring Unit’s performance.

NYISO last year signed a three-year contract with Potomac Economics to perform monitoring functions through March 31, 2019. The MMU’s duties include ensuring that the markets administered by NYISO function efficiently and appropriately, as well as identifying market violations, market design flaws and market power abuses. The Monitor also produces annual and quarterly State of the Market reports assessing the performance of the New York electrical markets.

The budget for the MMU for 2017 is $3.5 million, up $400,000 over last year. Most of the additional costs cover additional work related to cybersecurity and new requirements mandated by reliability-must-run and FERC Order 1000 filings.

One participant said that Potomac sometimes shows up at FERC and protests what NYISO is doing.

“Something just seems at odds there, that we’re paying a company $3.5 million a year and we’re fighting with them at FERC,” he said.

Such action is part of the duties of an MMU, according to NYISO, and one thing FERC cited in a recent review of the SPP Monitor was the lack of reporting on disagreements with the grid operator.

Tariff Changes on Tx Cost Recovery

The Management Committee approved proposed Tariff revisions to add a mechanism to recover and remit costs associated with regulated transmission projects eligible under the ISO’s Congestion Assessment and Resource Integration Study or the public policy transmission planning process. Following board approval in July, the revisions to the cost recovery mechanism for regulated transmission projects under Rate Schedule 10 — and related amendments to the Tariff’s Attachment Y — would be filed with FERC under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act.

The Rate Schedule 10 revisions establish a new regulated transmission facilities charge (RTFC) to LSEs, with payments allocated to developers of such projects.

John P. Buechler, NYISO regulatory policy adviser, said the revisions do not in any way “affect or change the cost allocation provisions, which, relevant to our transmission planning process, are in Attachment Y, Section 31.5.”

Eligible projects include:

• Regulated backstop transmission solutions proposed by a responsible transmission owner;
• An alternative solution NYISO selects as a more efficient or cost-effective solution to a reliability need;
• A regulated transmission gap solution proposed by a responsible TO;
• An alternative regulated transmission gap solution determined by an appropriate state regulatory agency;
• An approved regulated economic transmission project;
• A public policy transmission project selected by NYISO;
• Costs incurred by a developer in preparing a proposed transmission solution in response to a request by the Public Service Commission or Long Island Power Authority; and
• The portion of an interregional transmission project selected by NYISO in the Comprehensive System Planning Process that is allocated to the NYISO region.

NYISO will calculate and bill an RTFC separately for each eligible project.

NYISO to Enhance Buyer-side Mitigation

The committee approved proposed Market Services Tariff changes to improve inflation forecasting and how mothballed units are treated in the capacity and energy forecast used to make buyer-side mitigation determinations.

The committee recommended that the Board of Directors authorize revisions to buyer-side mitigation rules in the Market Services Tariff, which would then be filed with FERC under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act.

In FERC docket ER13-1380, filed in 2013 to create NYISO’s G-J locality, the commission determined that such an enhancement was outside the scope of the docket but encouraged the ISO to work with stakeholders on the issue.

NYISO analyst Lorenzo Seirup presented the rationale for mitigation enhancements and said that, since the topic first arose in 2013, “we discussed this ad nauseam and also had a vote that failed and then a vote that passed — that’s the 30-second highlights.”

The proposal would include in the forecasts existing units as well as additional units, “which is the more complicated” category, Seirup said. Units that would be excluded are those transferring their capacity resource interconnection service (CRIS) or that have expired CRIS.

Additional units include mothballed facilities, units under forced outages, retired units and those in similar condition with unforced capacity deliverability rights. These additional units either must have CRIS or show positive indicators of repair or have a new present value greater than $0 in the “inclusion test” performed for resources that have the ability to re-enter the market under more favorable conditions.

The Tariff changes on inflation would call for use of the most recently published 10-year inflation projections from the Survey of Professional Forecasters, or if no longer available, a similar source to identify net cost of new entry projected for the mitigation study period, and the price on the installed capacity demand curve projected for such a period.

— Michael Kuser