Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs ALTERNATIVES TO THE Indian Point Energy Center FOR MEETING NEW YORK ELECTRIC POWER NEEDS Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs Board on Energy and Environmental Systems Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu
OCR for page R2
Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report and the study on which it is based were supported by Contract No. DE-AT01-04TD45037 (Task Order No. 6) from the U.S. Department of Energy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number: 0-309-10172-7 Cover: The transmission network links generating plants, including Indian Point, with demand centers in all parts of New York State. Map courtesy of the New York State Independent System Operator. Indian Point Energy Center image courtesy of Entergy Corporation. Available in limited supply from: Board on Energy and Environmental Systems National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Keck W934 Washington, DC 20001 202-334-3344 Additional copies available for sale from: The National Academies Press 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Lockbox 285 Washington, DC 20055 800-624-6242 or 202-334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area) http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2006 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R4
Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs This page intially left blank
OCR for page R5
Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs COMMITTEE ON ALTERNATIVES TO INDIAN POINT FOR MEETING ENERGY NEEDS LAWRENCE T. PAPAY, NAE,1 Consultant, Chair DAN E. ARVIZU, National Renewable Energy Laboratory JAN BEYEA, Consulting in the Public Interest PETER BRADFORD, Bradford Brook Associates, Ltd. MARILYN A. BROWN, Oak Ridge National Laboratory ALEXANDER E. FARRELL, University of California, Berkeley SAMUEL M. FLEMING, Consultant GEORGE M. HIDY, Envair/Aerochem JAMES R. KATZER, NAE, Consultant PARKER D. MATHUSA, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority TIMOTHY MOUNT, Cornell University FRANCIS J. MURRAY, JR., Consultant D. LOUIS PEOPLES, Nyack Management Company, Ltd. WILLIAM F. QUINN, Argos Utilities LLC DAN W. REICHER, New Energy Capital Corporation JAMES S. THORP, NAE, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University JOHN A. TILLINGHAST, NAE, Tillinghast Technology Interests, Inc. Project Staff Board on Energy and Environmental Systems (BEES) ALAN CRANE, Study Director DUNCAN BROWN, Senior Program Officer (part time) JAMES J. ZUCCHETTO, Director, BEES PANOLA GOLSON, Program Associate Consultants General Electric International, Inc. Optimal Energy, Inc. 1 NAE, National Academy of Engineering.
OCR for page R6
Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs BOARD ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS DOUGLAS M. CHAPIN, NAE,1 MPR Associates, Inc., Chair ROBERT W. FRI, Resources for the Future (senior fellow emeritus), Vice Chair RAKESH AGRAWAL, NAE, Purdue University ALLEN J. BARD, NAS,2 University of Texas, Austin DAVID L. BODDE, Clemson University PHILIP R. CLARK, NAE, GPU Nuclear Corporation (retired) MICHAEL L. CORRADINI, NAE, University of Wisconsin, Madison E. LINN DRAPER, JR., NAE, American Electric Power, Inc. (emeritus) CHARLES GOODMAN, Southern Company DAVID G. HAWKINS, Natural Resources Defense Council MARTHA A. KREBS, California Energy Commission DAVID K. OWENS, Edison Electric Institute WILLIAM F. POWERS, NAE, Ford Motor Company (retired) TONY PROPHET, Carrier Corporation MICHAEL P. RAMAGE, NAE, ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company (retired), MAXINE SAVITZ, NAE, Honeywell, Inc. (retired) PHILIP R. SHARP, Harvard University SCOTT W. TINKER, University of Texas, Austin Staff JAMES J. ZUCCHETTO, Director DUNCAN BROWN, Senior Program Officer (part time) ALAN CRANE, Senior Program Officer MARTIN OFFUTT, Senior Program Officer DANA CAINES, Financial Associate PANOLA GOLSON, Program Associate JENNIFER BUTLER, Financial Assistant 1 NAE, National Academy of Engineering. 2 NAS, National Academy of Sciences.
OCR for page R7
Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs Preface The Indian Point Energy Center, with two operational nuclear reactors, is in a densely populated region about 40 miles north of midtown Manhattan. On September 11, 2001, one of the hijacked planes flew past the plant on the way to the World Trade Center. This incident heightened concerns that a terrorist attack on the reactors or the spent fuel pools might cause a catastrophic release of radioactivity and led to calls for the plant to be closed. The Indian Point Energy Center is a vital part of the system supplying electricity to the New York City region. Any significant interruption of power to New York City also could have serious consequences, as shown by the relatively brief blackout that occurred in August 2003. The system delivering power to New York City consumers must be highly reliable, and that depends on having adequate generating capacity available. This dichotomy led the U.S. Congress to request a study from the National Academies on potential options for replacing the energy services provided by Indian Point. The request, initiated by Representative Nita M. Lowey of New York’s 18th District, was directed to the U.S. Department of Energy, which in turn arranged for the study with the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies. The NRC established the Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs to conduct the study. Committee members were selected from industry, academia, national laboratories, and other organizations for their expertise on electric power technology and systems and on issues specific to New York. Biographical sketches of the committee members are presented in Appendix A. The committee was charged with fulfilling the following statement of task: The National Academies’ National Research Council will form a committee to review options for replacing current electric power generation from the Indian Point Energy Center (New York) nuclear facilities with alternative means for meeting electric power demand and associated energy services. The study may include consideration of fossil-fuel-based options (e.g., coal-fired or natural-gas-fired power generation), renewable-energy-based options (e.g., wind, solar, biomass), imports of required electrical energy, and energy efficiency measures, or some combination thereof. The study should include an assessment of the pros and cons of the alternatives to the continued operation of the Indian Point nuclear power plants. The study will not result in the choice of an option but will compare options based on the criteria adopted by the committee. In 2005, the committee met twice in Washington, D.C., and once in White Plains, New York, to gather information from public sources. The committee was particularly interested in the feasibility of implementing the various options on a scale sufficient to replace the 2,000 megawatts of electric power now produced by Indian Point and to address the resulting economic, environmental, and societal impacts. It procured the services of General Electric International, Inc., to model the New York electric system and how the options would affect reliability. It also contracted with Optimal Energy, Inc., to detail the efficiency improvements that could be made in the New York City area, based on its statewide assessment for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. The committee also met twice in closed session to discuss results and progress on this report and held numerous conference calls. Details of the meetings are provided in Appendix B. The report focuses exclusively on options for replacing current electric power generation and ancillary services from Indian Point. In accordance with the original request, it does not examine the potential for terrorist attacks on Indian Point, nor their probability of success or possible consequences. It makes no recommendations as to whether Indian Point should be closed or how that decision could be implemented. The overriding goal of the study was to evaluate the options that are available to meet electric power demand and to pro-
OCR for page R8
Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs vide the other services required to maintain the reliability of the electric system should a decision be made to close the Indian Point plant. This report presents the committee’s findings. It is the result of a great deal of effort on the part of many highly qualified experts. I greatly appreciate the efforts by the committee members and their enthusiasm, dedication, and insights in conducting this study and preparing the report. The committee operated under the auspices of the NRC Board on Energy and Environmental Systems and is grateful for the able assistance of James Zucchetto, Alan Crane, Panola Golson, and Duncan Brown of the NRC staff. Lawrence T. Papay, Chair Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs
OCR for page R9
Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs Acknowledgments The Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs is grateful to the many individuals who contributed their time and effort to the National Academies’ National Research Council (NRC) study. The presentations at committee meetings provided valuable information and insight on energy options and constraints in the New York area. The committee thanks the following individuals who provided briefings: Beth Tritter, Office of Congresswoman Nita M. Lowey, Philip Overholt, U.S. Department of Energy, John Kucek, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Lawrence Pakenas, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, John Plunkett, Optimal Energy, Inc., Randall Swisher, American Wind Energy Association, Harry Vidas, Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., Philip Fedora, Northeast Power Coordinating Council, Bill Quinn, Argos Utilities, LLC, Juanita Haydel, ICF Consulting, Michael R. Kansler, Entergy Nuclear Northeast, Steve Mitnick, Conjunction, LLC, Howard Tarler, New York State Department of Public Service, The Honorable Andrew J. Spano, Westchester County Executive, The Honorable Michael Kaplowitz, Westchester County Board of Legislators, Bruce Biewald, Synapse Energy Economics, Inc., Alex Matthiessen, Riverkeeper, Fred Zalcman, Pace Law School Energy Project, Garry Brown, New York Independent System Operator, Michael Forte, Consolidated Edison, Carl Seligson, Economic and Strategic Consultant, N.Z. Shilling, GE, and Paul A. DeCotis, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of the independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: David Bodde, Clemson University, William L. Chameides (NAS), Environmental Defense, Douglas M. Chapin (NAE), MPR Associates, Inc., Michehl R. Gent, Summit Power, Leonard S. Hyman, RJ Rudden Associates, Paul Komor, University of Colorado, Gerald L. Kulcinski, University of Wisconsin, Harold N. Scherer, Jr. (NAE), Board of Directors, New York Independent System Operator, Robert J. Thomas, Cornell University, Harry Vidas, Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., Carl Weinberg, Weinberg Associates, and Irvin L. (Jack) White, formerly with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by George Hornberger (NAE), University of Virginia. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accor-
OCR for page R10
Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs dance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. The committee offers special thanks to Mark Sanford, Gene Hinkle, and Gary Jordan at GE Energy and to John Adams and William Lamanna at the New York Independent System Operator for their efforts on the committee’s scenario analysis. The committee also benefited from an analysis of energy efficiency opportunities by John Plunkett and Optimal Energy, Inc. The committee is also very appreciative of the contributions of Erin Hogan, Paul DeCotis, and John Spath of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority; Benjamin Sovacool of Oak Ridge National Laboratory; and Lynn Billman, Robert Margolis, Brian Parsons, Ralph Overend, Rich Bain, Phil Shepherd, and Walter Short of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
OCR for page R11
Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs Contents ABSTRACT 1 SUMMARY AND FINDINGS 3 1 INTRODUCTION 8 Background, 8 Electricity Supply and Demand, 8 The Indian Point Energy Center: Description and Role, 14 Community Concerns, 14 Criteria for Evaluating Replacement Options, 15 Conduct of the Study, 16 Organization of the Report, 17 References, 17 2 DEMAND-SIDE OPTIONS 18 Demand Growth in the Indian Point Service Area, 18 Potential of Demand-Side Options, 20 Definition of Demand-Side Options and Measures of Potential, 21 Current Programs Operating in the Indian Point Territory, 23 The Potential for Additional Energy-Efficiency Improvements, 26 The Potential for Future Demand Response, 27 The Potential for Expanded Combined Heat and Power, 29 The Potential for Expanded Distributed Photovoltaics, 29 Summary, 30 Impediments to Demand-Side Programs, 31 References, 33 3 GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION OPTIONS 35 Existing Generating Capacity, 35 Potential New Generating Capacity, 36 Technologies Considered, 36 Overall Considerations, 40 Electrical Transmission, 40 Existing Transmission, 40 New Transmission, 41 Reliability and Reactive Power, 42 Reliability, 42 Reactive Power, 43 References, 43
OCR for page R12
Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs 4 INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS AND CHANGING IMPACTS 44 Regulation, Finance, and Reliability, 44 The New York State Electricity Market, 44 The Permitting Process with Article X, 50 Social Concerns, 51 Environmental Regulation, 51 Energy Security, 56 Socioeconomic Factors Including Indirect Costs to the Public, 56 References, 57 5 ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS FOR MEETING ELECTRICAL DEMAND 59 The NYISO Starting Point, 59 The Committee’s Reference Case, 60 Replacement Scenarios, 62 Results of Reliability Analyses, 63 Operational and Economic Impacts, 66 Analytical Considerations, 67 Fuel Diversity: Impact on NYCA Reliance on Natural Gas for Generating Electricity, 68 Projected Impact on the Wholesale Price of Electricity, 69 Impact on the Annual Variable Cost of Producing Electricity, 71 Sensitivity to Higher Fuel Prices, 72 Comparing the Results with Criteria, 73 References, 74 APPENDIXES A Committee Biographical Information 77 B Presentations and Committee Meetings 82 C Acronyms 84 D Supply Technologies 86 D-1 Cost Estimates for Electric Generation Technologies, 87 D-2 Zonal Energy and Seasonal Capacity in New York State, 2004 and 2005, 94 D-3 Energy Generated in 2003 from Natural Gas Units in Zones H Through K, 104 D-4 Proposed Pipeline Projects in the Northeast of the United States, 105 D-5 Coal Technologies, 106 D-6 Generation Technologies—Wind and Biomass, 110 D-7 Distributed Photovoltaics to Offset Demand for Electricity, 118 E Paying for Reliability in Deregulated Markets 124 F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis 144 F-1 The NYISO Approach, 145 F-2 Notes on the MARS-MAPS Simulations, 148 G Demand-Side Measures 169 G-1 Demand Reduction, 170 G-2 Estimating the Potential for Energy-Efficiency Improvements, 171 G-3 Estimating Demand-Response Potential, 175 G-4 Estimating Photovoltaics for Demand Reduction, 176 1 Appendixes D through G are reproduced on the CD-ROM that contains the full report but are not included in the printed report owing to space limitations.
OCR for page R13
Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs Tables, Figures, and Boxes TABLES 2-1 Weather-Normalized Annual Electricity Use, Past and Forecast, in Giga-watt-Hours per Year, for Three New York Regions and Statewide, Selected Years from 1993 Through 2015, 19 2-2 Weather-Normalized Summer Peak Power, Past and Forecast, in Mega-watts, for Three New York Regions and Statewide, Selected Years from 1993 Through 2015, 19 2-3 Current Photovoltaic (PV)-Related Policies in New York State, 24 2-4 Committee Estimation of the Potential of Energy-Efficiency Programs in New York Control Area Zones I, J, and K, Selected Years Between 2007 and 2015 (MW), 27 2-5 Committee Estimation of Potential Peak Reduction from Demand-Response Programs in New York Control Area Zones I, J, and K, Selected Years Between 2007 and 2015 (MW), 29 2-6 Committee Estimation of Potential Peak Reduction from Combined Heat and Power in New York Control Area Zones I, J, and K, Selected Years Between 2007 and 2015 (MW), 29 2-7 Committee Estimation of Potential Peak Reduction from Photovoltaics in New York Control Area Zones I, J, and K, Selected Years Between 2007 and 2015, 30 3-1 Approximate (Noncoincident) Summer Peak Load and Capacity in New York State, by Region, 35 3-2 Potential Generating Technologies Considered by the Committee for Replacing Indian Point, 37 3-3 Nominal Transfer Capability Between New York Regions, 41 4-1 Estimated Future Emission Allowance Prices, 54 4-2 Annual Costs for Allowances to Replace Indian Point Generation, Without CO2 Control (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Baseline Scenario, No CO2 Control), 55 4-3 Annual Costs for Allowances to Replace Indian Point Generation with CO2 Control (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Reference Scenario), 55 5-1 NYISO Base Case Peak Load and Known New York Control Area (NYCA) Resources, 60 5-2 Additional Generating Capacity Assumed in Reference Case, 61
OCR for page R14
Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs 5-3 Capacity Additions Assumed for Cases b2 and c2, 64 5-4 Summary of Illustrative Resources Assumed to Maintain NYCA Reliability, 64 5-5 Results of Reliability Analyses, 65 5-6 Benchmark of the Consumption of Natural Gas, Coal, and Oil for 2005 and 2008: Annual Fuel Consumption in Trillion Btu, 69 5-7 Projected Impact on Electrical Generation Based on Natural Gas for 2008 to 2015, with Sensitivity to Fuel Price, 69 5-8 MAPS-Projected Impact on Electricity Wholesale Price, 70 5-9 Projected Impact on Annual Variable Operating Cost, 72 D-1-1 Summary Cost Estimates: Total Cost of Electricity (in 2003 U.S. dollars per kilowatt-hour) for Generating Technologies Examined by the Committee, 87 D-1-2 Cost Components for Electricity Generation Technologies, 88 D-1-3a Energy Information Administration National Average Cost Estimates (2003 dollars), 89 D-1-3b Energy Information Administration National Average Cost Estimates (2003 dollars), 90 D-1-4a Energy Information Administration Regional Cost Estimates (2003 dollars), 91 D-1-4b Energy Information Administration Regional Cost Estimates (2003 dollars), 92 D-1-5 University of Chicago National Average Cost Estimates (2003 dollars), 92 D-1-6 University of Chicago Regional Cost Estimates for the New York Control Area (2003 dollars), 93 D-1-7 New York City Fuel Prices ($/MMBtu), 93 D-2-1 Summary of Summer and Winter Capacity, Energy Production, and Energy Requirements in the New York Control Area, by Zone, 94 D-2-2 Summer Zonal Capacity, by Fuel, 2004 and 2005, 95 D-2-3 Winter Zonal Capacity, by Fuel, 2004 and 2005, 96 D-2-4 Annual Energy Production, by Fuel, 2004 and 2005, 97 D-2-5 Summary of New York Control Area Generation Facilities’ Energy Production by Fuel Type as of January 1, 2005, 98 D-2-6 Summary of New York Control Area Generation Facilities’ Winter Capacity, by Fuel Type, as of January 1, 2005, 99 D-2-7 Summary of New York Control Area Generation Facilities’ Summer Capacity, by Fuel Type, as of January 1, 2005, 100 D-2-8 Summary of New York Control Area Generation Facilities’ Energy, by Fuel Type, as of January 1, 2004, 101 D-2-9 Summary of New York Control Area Generation Facilities’ Winter Capacity, by Fuel Type, as of January 1, 2004, 102 D-2-10 Summary of New York Control Area Generation Facilities’ Summer Capacity, by Fuel Type, as of January 1, 2004, 103 D-3-1 Natural Gas Consumption for Electricity in Zones H Through K, 2003, 104 D-3-2 Natural Gas Consumption for Electricity in Zones H Through K, 2004, 104 D-3-3 Estimated Natural Gas (NG) Consumption of a 2,000 MW Combined-Cycle Unit with a 95 Percent Capacity Factor, 104 D-5-1 Electricity Cost from Coal with Emissions Controls, 108 D-6-1 Estimate of Potential Impact of Renewable Generation Technologies on Indian Point Service Area, 111 D-6-2 Quantitative Estimates of Wind Potential in Indian Point Zones, 113
OCR for page R15
Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs D-6-3 Biomass Potential Applicable to Indian Point, 115 D-7-1 Estimated Distributed Photovoltaics in the Indian Point Service Area in the Accelerated Deployment Scenario, 118 D-7-2 Current and Projected Distributed PV Cost (2005 dollars), 120 D-7-3 Current PV Related Policies in New York State, 121 D-7-4 Accelerated PV Deployment Scenario for New York (2005 dollars), 123 E-1 Locational ICAP Requirements and Installed Capacity for NYCA in 2005-2006, 130 E-2 The Capacity Factors in 2003 of Major Generating Units in New York City and Long Island, 135 E-3 New Generating Units Proposed for the NYCA in 2004, 141 E-4 New Generating Units Proposed for the NYCA in 2005, 142 F-2-1 NYISO Initial Base Case Capacity Details Adopted for the MARS Analysis, 150 F-2-2 Electricity Generation Load and Capacity Representing NYISO Initial Base Case, 151 F-2-3 NYISO Initial Base Case—Qualifying Additions to Capacity (MW), 153 F-2-4 Committee’s Screening Study—Early Shutdown with Assumed Compensation from Planned NYCA Projects and Added Energy-Efficiency and Demand-Side-Management Measures (MW), 154 F-2-5 Committee’s Screening Study—End-of-License Shutdown with Assumed Compensation from Planned NYCA Projects and Added Energy-Efficiency and Demand-Side-Management Measures (MW), 155 F-2-6 NYISO Initial Base Case with Alternate New England Transmission Constraints—Projected NYCA Reliability Loss-of-Load Expectation (LOLE) and Reserve Margin, 155 F-2-7 Committee’s Screening Study: Impact on Reliability and Reserve Margins of Shutting Down Indian Point Without Adding Compensatory Resources: Comparison of the NYISO Initial Base Case with Early-Shutdown and End-of-Current-License Shutdown Cases, 156 F-2-8 Committee’s Screening Study: Impact on Reliability and Reserve Margins of Shutting Down Indian Point and Adding Compensatory Resources from Announced Projects, Beyond NYISO Initial Base Case (Table F-2-3): Comparison of Early Shutdown and End-of-Current-License Shutdown, 157 F-2-9 Reference Case: Illustrative Additional Resources Beyond the NYISO Initial Base Case to Meet Load Growth and Scheduled Retirements and Ensure Reliability Criteria Are Met, and Including Reliability Results If Indian Point Is Closed Without Further Compensation, 158 F-2-10 Early Shutdown of Indian Point with Compensatory Resources, Case b2, 159 F-2-11 End-of-Current-License Shutdown of Indian Point with Compensatory Resources, Case c2, 160 F-2-12 Early Shutdown of Indian Point with High-Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) Cable, Case b3, 161 F-2-13 End-of-Current-License Shutdown of Indian Point with Compensatory Resources Including 1,000 MW HVDC Transmission Lines, Case c3, 162 F-2-14 Early Shutdown of Indian Point with Higher Efficiency and Demand-Side Management, Case b4, 163
OCR for page R16
Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs F-2-15 End-of-Current-License Shutdown of Indian Point with Higher Efficiency and Demand-Side Management, Case c4, 164 F-2-16 Early Shutdown Without Compensatory Resources Beyond the Reference Case—Impact on NYCA Reliability (Loss-of-Load Expectation) and Reserve Margin, Case b1, 165 F-2-17 End-of-Current-License Shutdown Without Compensatory Resources Beyond the Reference Case—Impact on NYCA Reliability (Loss-of-Load Expectation) and Reserve Margin, Case c1, 165 F-2-18 Committee’s Reference Case—Impact on NYCA Reliability (Loss-of-Load) Expectation and Reserve Margin, 165 F-2-19 Early Shutdown with Additional Compensatory Resources—Impact on NYCA Reliability and Reserve Margin, Case b2, 165 F-2-20 End-of-Current-License Shutdown with Additional Compensating Resources—Impact on NYCA Reliability and Reserve Margin, Case c2, 166 F-2-21 Additional Compensatory Resources, Including 1,000 MW North-South HVDC Transmission Line—Impact on NYCA Reliability and Reserve Margin, Cases b3 and c3, 166 F-2-22 Additional Compensatory Resources, Including Higher Energy Efficiency and Demand-Side-Management Penetration—Impact on NYCA Reliability and Reserve Margin, Cases b4 and c4, 166 F-2-23 Projected Impact on the Annual Variable Cost of Operation for the Northeast Region, NYCA, and Zones H Through K: All Scenarios, 2008-2015, Including Percentage Change from Benchmark of 2008 NYISO Initial Base Case, 167 G-1-1 Economic Potential: Annual Savings (in megawatt-hours) for Top Eight Residential Energy-Efficiency Measures—Zones J and K, 2007, 2012, and 2022, 170 G-1-2 Economic Potential: Annual Savings (in megawatt-hours) for Top Ten Commercial Energy-Efficiency Measures—Existing Construction End Use in Zones J and K, 2007-2022, 170 G-4-1 Current and Projected Distributed PV Cost, 177 G-4-2 Accelerated PV Deployment Scenario for the New York City Area, 177 FIGURES S-1 New York Control Area load zones, 4 1-1 The New York Control Area high-voltage transmission network, 10 1-2 Average daily load and peak hour load in New York City, 11 1-3 New York Control Area load zones, 12 1-4 Generating capacity in the NYCA, by fuel type, 2005, 13 1-5 Capability of generating plants by NYCA zone and generator type, 13 2-1 Past and projected trends in real residential electricity price in New York state relative to 1980, 20 2-2 Effects of demand-reduction programs on daily power demand, 21 2-3 Global photovoltaic market evolution, by market segment, 1985 to 2004, 23 2-4 Phased-in programmable potential for expanded demand-side options in the Indian Point service territory (in megawatts of peak reduction), 30
OCR for page R17
Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs 4-1 Projections made by NYISO in 2004 and 2005: summer reserve margin for generating capacity in the New York Control Area, 49 5-1 NYISO reliability projections, 61 5-2 Approximate additional resources needed, 63 5-3 Impact on NYCA reliability loss of load (LOLE) of shutting down Indian Point without additional resources beyond the reference case, 63 5-4 Capacity assumed to meet load growth and compensate for retiring Indian Point, 66 5-5 Loss-of-load expectation after compensation, 66 5-6 Projected reserve margin for End-of-License (EOL) Shutdown of Indian Point with Compensation (Case c2), 67 D-4-1 Proposed Northeast pipeline projects, 105 D-5-1 Emissions control options for coal-fired generation, 106 D-5-2 Past and projected U.S. emissions from fossil power generation, 1965 to 2030, 107 D-5-3 Types of power plants, 108 D-7-1 Global PV market evolution by market segment, 1985 to 2004, 119 D-7-2 An accelerated PV market development path for New York (all estimates are 2005 dollars), 122 E-1 North American additions in historical perspective, 126 E-2 Locational installed capacity requirements for Long Island and New York City for 2005-2006, 130 E-3 Average total cost of production (in dollars per megawatt-hour generated) for a representative peaking unit, 132 E-4 Daily zonal spot prices ($/MWh), January 2000 to July 2005, for New York City in the balancing (real-time) market at 2:00 p.m. on the first day of each month shown, 133 E-5 Average price-duration curves in the balancing market for May-April in New York City (in dollars per megawatt-hour) for 2000-2001, 2002-2003, and 2004-2005, 134 E-6 Projections made in 2004 and 2005 of the summer reserve margin for generating capacity in the New York Control Area, 140 G-4-1 Accelerated PV market development path for the New York City area, 178 BOXES 1-1 Keeping Competitive Markets Operating, 9 4-1 The Cost of Replacing Indian Point: In Theory, 45 4-2 The Cost of Replacing Indian Point: In Practice, 46 5-1 Reliability Criteria, 60 5-2 Multi-Area Reliability Simulation (MARS) Model, 62 5-3 Multi-Area Production Simulation (MAPS) Software Model, 68
OCR for page R18
Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs This page intially left blank