10 Krey Boulevard, Rensselaer, NY 12144

Ph: 518.356.6000 | Fax: 518.356.8899

February 24, 2020

By Electronic Delivery

Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

Re: New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER20-____-000;
New Capacity Zone Study Report

Dear Secretary Bose:

In accordance with the requirements of Section 5.16.4 of the New York Independent

System Operator, Inc. (“NYISO”) Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff

(“Services Tariff”), the NYISO hereby submits a report describing the results of the recently

completed New Capacity Zone (“NCZ”) study (“NCZ Study”).1 The 2019/2020 NCZ Study did not identify any constrained Highway interfaces. Accordingly, tariff revisions to establish a NCZ are not required at this time.

I.Overview of NCZ Study and Results

Section 5.16 of the Services Tariff requires the NYISO to conduct a NCZ Study in

conjunction with the periodic reviews of the ICAP Demand Curves.2 The NYISO performs the NCZ Study to determine whether any Highway interfaces are constrained. If the NCZ Study
identifies any constrained Highway interfaces, Section 5.16 requires the NYISO to develop and propose tariff revisions to implement a NCZ. If, however, the NCZ Study does not identify any constrained Highway interfaces, Section 5.16.4(b) requires the NYISO to file such determination with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission”), together with a report
summarizing the results of the NCZ Study.

The NYISO conducted the 2019/2020 NCZ Study in accordance with the procedures and
methodology set forth in Section 5.16 of the Services Tariff. The NYISO reviewed the NCZ
Study inputs and assumptions with stakeholders at the September 24, 2019 NYISO Installed
Capacity Working Group meeting.3 Following completion of the assessment, the NYISO posted

1 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning specified in the Services Tariff and the NYISO Open Access Transmission Tariff.

2 The NYISO conducts periodic reviews of the ICAP Demand Curves every four years in accordance with the requirements of Section 5.14.1.2.2 of the Services Tariff.

3 See Section 5.16.1.2 of the Services Tariff.

Website: www.nyiso.com | LinkedIn: NYISO | Twitter: @NewYorkISO

Honorable Kimberly D. Bose February 24, 2020

Page 2

the NCZ Study report to its website on January 3, 2020.4 The NYISO subsequently discussed the report with stakeholders at the January 8, 2020 NYISO Installed Capacity Working Group meeting. Stakeholders did not express any opposition to the report.5

As indicated in the study report included as Attachment I to this filing, the 2019/2020

NCZ Study did not identify any constrained Highway interfaces.6 Therefore, no tariff revisions
to implement a NCZ are required at this time. In accordance with the requirements of Section

5.16.4(b), the NYISO submits this filing to apprise the Commission of this determination and provide a copy of the report summarizing the results of the 2019/2020 NCZ Study.

II.Communications and Correspondence

Please direct all communications and service in this proceeding to:

Robert E. Fernandez, Executive Vice President & General Counsel Karen G. Gach, Deputy General Counsel

Raymond Stalter, Director, Regulatory Affairs
*Garrett E. Bissell, Senior Attorney
New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

10 Krey Boulevard

Rensselaer, NY 12144

Telephone: 518-356-6000
Email: gbissell@nyiso.com

*Person designated for receipt of service.

III.Service

The NYISO will send an electronic link to this filing to the official representative of each
of its customers, each participant on its stakeholder committees, the New York State Public
Service Commission, and the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities. The NYISO will also post
the complete filing on its website at www.nyiso.com.

4 See Section 5.16 of the Services Tariff.

5 In accordance with the requirements of Section 5.16.1.3 and 5.16.4 of the Services Tariff, the NYISO also provided the Market Monitoring Unit an opportunity to provide feedback. The Market Monitoring Unit did not express any objections to the report.

6 See NYISO, 2019/2020 New Capacity Zone Study (December 2019) at 13-14.

Honorable Kimberly D. Bose February 24, 2020

Page 3

IV.Conclusion

The NYISO respectfully requests that the Commission accept this informational filing.
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Garrett E. Bissell

Garrett E. Bissell
Senior Attorney

New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

cc:Anna Cochrane

James Danly
Jignasa Gadani
Jette Gebhart
Kurt Longo
John C. Miller
David Morenoff
Daniel Nowak
Larry Parkinson
Douglas Roe
Frank Swigonski
Eric Vandenberg
Gary Will

2019/2020 New Capacity Zone
Study

A Report by the

New York Independent System Operator

December 2019

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................................2

1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................3

2. NEW CAPACITY ZONE STUDY METHODOLOGY.............................................................................3

2.1 Background.........................................................................................................................................3

2.2 Transfer Capability Across Highway Interfaces............................................................................3

3. NCZ STUDY CASE MODELING AND ASSUMPTIONS.......................................................................5

3.1 NCZ Study Assumption Matrix.......................................................................................................5

3.2 NCZ Study Base Case Creation........................................................................................................6

3.2.1 Load Modeling.....................................................................................................................6

3.2.2 NYCA Generator Modeling................................................................................................7

3.2.3 External System Imports Modeling...................................................................................9

3.3 Balancing Generation and Load.....................................................................................................12

4. NCZ STUDY RESULTS.....................................................................................................................13

5. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................................14

2019/2020 New Capacity Zone Study | 2

1. Introduction

The New Capacity Zone (NCZ)1 Study is performed to determine whether any Highway interface(s) are constrained, which would trigger the Services Tariff requirement to file tariff revisions with the
Commission to establish a NCZ(s).

The previous (2015/2016) NCZ Study, which was performed for the 2020 Summer Capability Period, did not find any Highway interfaces constrained that would trigger the Services Tariff requirement to file tariff revisions with the Commission to establish a NCZ.

This 2019/2020 NCZ Study was performed for the 2024 Summer Capability Period and, since none of
the Highway interfaces were found to be constrained, the conclusion of this 2019/2020 NCZ Study is also
that there is no need to trigger the Services Tariff requirement to propose tariff revisions to establish a
NCZ.

2. New Capacity Zone Study Methodology

2.1 Background

The NCZ Study is a deliverability study that is performed in accordance with the procedures and methodology set forth in Section 5.16 of the Services Tariff.

The NCZ Study rules require that it be performed using in large part the Deliverability test

methodology in Attachment S of the OATT to determine if there is a constrained Highway interface into one or more Load Zones.

The scope of the NCZ Study is limited to the evaluation of Deliverability across the Highways, and not Byways in accordance with Section 5.16.1 of the Services Tariff.2 The methodology for evaluating and measuring Deliverability across the Highways is described below.

2.2 Transfer Capability Across Highway Interfaces

The NCZ Study was conducted by testing the transfer capability across the Highway interfaces within
the Rest of State (ROS) Capacity Region (Load Zones A through F) and across the UPNY-ConEd Highway
interface located within the Lower Hudson Valley (LHV) Capacity Region (Load Zones G through I). For the

1 Terms with initial capitalization used but not defined herein have the meaning set forth in the Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff (Services Tariff), and if not defined therein, then as set forth in the Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT).

2 Section 5.16.1 of the Services Tariff sets forth the NCZ Study Methodology.

2019/2020 New Capacity Zone Study | 3

ROS, generation-to-generation shifts are simulated for combinations of Load Zones within the Capacity Region, increasing generation “upstream” of an interface and reducing generation “downstream” of that interface (as such terms are used in the definition of “Highway” in Attachment S of the OATT). Transfer limit assessment determines the ability of the network to deliver capacity from generation in one (or
more) surplus zone(s) to other deficient zone(s) within the Capacity Region. The transfer capability across the UPNY-ConEd interface is evaluated by increasing generation upstream of the interface (Load Zone G) and decreasing generation downstream of the interface (Load Zones H and I).

In the actual transfer limit assessment, all transmission facilities within the New York Control Area
(NYCA) are monitored. Contingencies tested in the transfer limit assessment include all “emergency
transfer criteria” contingencies defined by the applicable Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC)
Basic Design and Operating Criteria and New York State Reliability Council (NYSRC) Reliability Rules.

The concept of “first contingency incremental transfer capability” (FCITC) is used in the determination of deliverable capacity across ROS Highway interfaces within the Capacity Region. The FCITC measures the amount of generation in the exporting zone that can be increased to load the interface to its
transmission limit.3 It is the additional generation capacity that could be exported from a given zone(s) above the base case dispatch level.

a. All generators in the exporting zone(s) are uniformly increased (scaled) in proportion to their
maximum power limits (Pmax) while all generators in the importing zone(s) are decreased
uniformly in proportion to the difference between their initial generation dispatch level (Pgen)
and their minimum power limits (Pmin). The FCITC and Highway transmission constraint(s)
for the exporting zone(s) are noted for each export/import combination.

b. The net generation available4 is compared to the FCITC Highway transmission constraint(s)
for the exporting zone(s) transfer. If the net generation available upstream is greater than the
calculated FCITC, that amount of generation above the FCITC is considered to be constrained
or “bottled” capacity and may not be fully deliverable under all conditions. (Byway constraints
normally evaluated in an interconnection study are not evaluated in the NCZ Study.)

If the net generation available upstream is less than the FCITC (that is, there is not sufficient
available generation upstream to reach the transmission limit,) the difference is an indication
of the available “transfer capability” to accommodate additional generation resources in the

3 The amount of such generation is described in Services Tariff § 5.16.1.1.1, and in Table 1.

4 The “net generation available” in any defined exporting zone is the difference between the sum of the zonal generators’ Pmax and the sum of the zonal generators’ actual MW output.

2019/2020 New Capacity Zone Study | 4

upstream area.

3. NCZ Study Case Modeling and Assumptions

This section of the report describes the assumptions and base case conditioning steps of the NCZ Study, consistent with Section 5.16.1 of the Services Tariff. (See the presentation titled “New Capacity Zone Study (NCZ) Inputs and Assumptions” presented by the NYISO at the September 24, 2019 Installed Capacity Working Group meeting.5)

3.1 NCZ Study Assumption Matrix

The NCZ Study case setup utilizes results from various studies and reports. The sources for the parameters used in the NCZ Study are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Parameters Established in Other Studies and Reports

#ParameterDescriptionReference

NYCA Minimum Installed Capacity Requirement
to achieve LOLE less than 0.1 day per year, which
is based on the NYCA Installed Reserve Margin
(IRM) identified by the New York State Reliability

3Locational Capacity Requirementsand for the G-J Localityapproved by Operating Committee on January 17, 2019)

Load model

NCZ Study Capability Period peak demand

forecast contained in the ISO’s most recent Load

4Peak Load Forecastand Capacity Data report (i.e., “Gold Book”)2024 Summer peak load conditions from 2019 Gold Book

The impact to IRM due to uncertainty relative to

5Load Forecast Uncertaintyforecasting NYCA loads2019 NYSRC IRM report

Generator model

Generators with Capacity Resource

Interconnection Service (“CRIS”) and

transmission facilities with Unforced Capacity

#ParameterDescriptionReference

security pursuant to OATT Attachment S

Factor used to convert ICAP to Unforced Capacity

(UCAP) based on derated generator capacity

8UCAP Derate Factor (UCDF)incorporating historic availability2019 NYSRC IRM report and 2019 NYISO LCR report

Units retaining CRIS rights for three years after

being considered “deactivated” unless the ability

to transfer those rights has been exercised orGenerator units deactivated before September 1, 2016 are

9Deactivated CRIS unitsexpiredremoved

Transmission model

Identified as existing in the ISO’s most recent

10Existing transmission facilities

Firm plans for changes to transmission
11 facilities by TOs

System Upgrade Facilities and System
12 Deliverability Upgrades

Load and Capacity Data report

Planned changes of facilities in the ISO’s most recent Load and Capacity Data report that are scheduled to be in-service prior to the 2024 Summer Capability Period

Facilities associated with planned projects
identified in (7) above, except that System

Deliverability Upgrades will only be modeled if
the construction is triggered 2019 Gold Book

14other New York Capacity RegionsLI consistent with the IRM and the LCRs-ROS to LI: 820 MW

3.2 NCZ Study Base Case Creation

The NCZ Study base case is a five-year look-ahead. The base case originates from the 2019 NYISO FERC 715 2024 Summer peak load case, and then is customized to meet the specific requirements of Section 5.16.1 of the Services Tariff. The conditioning steps are applied to the modeling of load, NYCA generation, and external system import/export.

3.2.1 Load Modeling

The Load forecast used in the NCZ Study base case is the coincident 2024 Summer firm peak load before reductions for the Emergency Demand Response Program. The following adjustments for “load forecast uncertainty” (LFU) are applied to each of the 4 (four) Capacity Regions:

ROS9.82%

LHV8.39%

NYC5.40%

LI7.10%

Table 1A shows a summary of baseline peak load forecast, plus LFU.

Table 1A: Summary of 2024 Summer Peak Load Forecast Assumptions (MW)

2019/2020 New Capacity Zone Study | 6

Capacity RegionBaselineLFUTotal

ROS10,9781,07812,056

LHV4,1873514,538

NYC11,48762012,107

LI4,8703465,216

3.2.2 NYCA Generator Modeling

The initial CRIS capability and available capacity resources are determined as follows:

CRIS (MW) capability of existing generating units, as listed in the 2019 Gold Book and

proposed generating units with CRIS that accepted their cost allocation in a prior Class Year are modeled in the NCZ Study base case.

CRIS Expiration: Units deactivated for more than 3 years lose their CRIS rights pursuant to

Section 25.9.3.1 of Attachment S of the OATT. The CRIS for a facility is modeled in the NCZ Study base case unless that CRIS will expire prior to the NCZ Study Start Date (September 1, 2019). As a result, units deactivated before September 1, 2016 are not modeled in the NCZ Study base case. Units deactivated after September 1, 2016 are modeled as in-service using their respective CRIS levels as set forth in the 2019 Gold Book.

The Pmax data for each respective resource within the NCZ Study base case is the CRIS value

derated by applicable equivalent forced outage rate, as detailed below. This step incorporates

the ICAP/ UCAP translation of different generators resources and Capacity Regions.

•Derates applied to certain specific types of generation resources are as follows:

○ Small hydro47.33%

○ Large hydro1.94%

○ Land-based Wind82.57%

○ Landfill Gas24.65%

○ Solar50.13%

○ Offshore Wind38.00%

•Derates for other resources not within the categories identified above are applied to

the aggregate of all remaining generation (“Uniform Capacity”) within the Capacity

Region. The following ICAP/UCAP translation factors for each Capacity Region were

utilized for the NCZ Study (these values are consistent with the 2019 NYSRC IRM

2019/2020 New Capacity Zone Study | 7

study):

○ Rest of State (ROS)3.74%

○ Lower Hudson Valley (LHV)9.35%

○ New York City (NYC)9.67%

○ Long Island (LI)9.50%

 The “derated capacity,” or Pmax, is available to supply load and losses within each Capacity
Region and adjacent Capacity Region(s). When power transfers are simulated, all generation
in the exporting area is uniformly increased in proportion to its Pmax.

 Table 2 and Table 3 below summarize the capacity resource assumptions used for the NCZ
Study.

Table 2: Summary of Capacity by Resource Type (MW)

“Uniform” is the CRIS capacity related with any generator that is not in a technology-specific group listed in Table 2.

2019/2020 New Capacity Zone Study | 8

Grand Total95.094,629.51190.00642.5238.1031,639.33439.4637,674.02

Each derate column is the amount of capacity after reduction based on the application of the applicable derate factor, using, as
applicable, the specified technology-specific derating factor or the specified ICAP/UCAP translation factor for the Capacity Region.
In other words, the data presented in Table 3 represents the capacity values specified in Table 2 as adjusted to account for the
applicable UCDF.

3.2.3 External System Imports Modeling

The initial generation and interchange schedules for the NYCA and the four New York Capacity Regions6 are determined as follows:

External Generation Source

1. Inter-Area external interchange schedules include the following grandfathered long-term firm
power transactions for the NCZ Study base case year (2024):

a. External CRIS Right: Quebec (via Chateauguay) to NY:1,110 MW

b. Existing Transmission Capacity for Native Load (ETCNL):

PJM to NYSEG:1,080 MW

2. Generating capacity associated with firm export commitments are represented as follows:

a. NYPA to AMP-Ohio, PA-RECs183 MW

b. NYPA to ISO-NE (Vermont)84 MW

6 Schedules representing short-term external ICAP are not modeled in this assessment; deliverability of external ICAP is determined

during the annual process of setting import rights.

2019/2020 New Capacity Zone Study | 9

3. Grandfathered external firm capacity import rights:

a. ISO-NE to NY0 MW

b. Ontario (IESO) schedule0 MW

4. Generator reactive (MVAr) capabilities as determined by applicable NYSRC, NPCC, and NERC

requirements, and NYISO procedures.

5. Wheeling contracts:

a. ROS to NYC via ABC/JK through PJM0 MW

b. ROS to NYC via Lake Success/Valley Stream through LIPA287 MW

c. ROS to LIPA via Northport Norwalk Cable through ISO-NE0 MW

The total external generation resources including items (1) through (5) are summarized in Table .

Table 4: Summary of External Generation Resources (MW)

Capacity RegionsROS ImportLHV ImportNYC ImportLI ImportNYCA

External Regions(A-F)(G-I)(J)(K)

Ontario00000

HQ1,19070001,190

PJM8978000897

ISO NE-84000-84

Total External Generation Source2,0030002,003

ROS and LHV Direct MW Transfer

Actual base case interchange schedules between New York Capacity Regions are consistent with the

IRM and the LCRs:

 ROS (A-F) supply to New York City through LHV (G-I):2,770 MW

 ROS (A-F) supply to Long Island through LHV (G-I):820 MW

(Y49/Y50 flow including the 287 MW wheeling contract is scheduled to 820 MW)

 LHV (G-I) supply to New York City:300 MW

7 ROS import from HQ is the sum of External CRIS right 1,110 MW via Chateauguay and 80 MW External-to-ROS Deliverability Rights
associated with the Cedar Rapids Transmission Project.

8 ROS import from PJM is the sum of ETCNL 1,080 MW into NYCA and 183 MW NYPA export to AMP-Ohio and PA-RECs (1,080-183 = 897
MW).

2019/2020 New Capacity Zone Study | 10

Unforced Capacity Deliverability Rights and External-to-ROS Deliverability Rights

Transmission projects with UDRs and External-to-ROS Deliverability Rights (EDRs) are represented at
their respective UDR and EDR capacity from the external area into the respective NYCA Capacity Region.

 Linden VFT to New York City315 MW

 Cross-Sound Cable to Long Island330 MW

 Neptune HVDC to Long Island660 MW

 Hudson Transmission Project to New York City660 MW

 Cedar Rapids Transmission Project80 MW

The total import of each Capacity Region is summarized in Table 5. As derived from the external

resources, Tables 6 and 7 detail the NY-PJM scheduled flows.

Table 5: Summary of External Resources into Capacity Regions (MW)

Table 7: PJM - New York Scheduled Flows

PJM - New York Scheduled FlowsMW

PJM to ROS (A - F):

46% of PJM to NY Net Interchange (0.46 * 897)412

20% of RECO Load (0.20 * 387)77

Total Scheduled Flow to ROS via the zones A and C tie-lines489

PJM to LHV (to Zone G):

32% of PJM to NY Net Interchange via 5018 tie (0.32 * 897)287

80% of RECO Load via the 5018 tie (0.80 * 387)310

J&K ties (0 MW Wheel and 15% of PJM to NY Net Interchange) (0.15 * 897)135

RECO Load delivered from LHV-387

Total Scheduled Flow to LHV via the Zone G tie-lines345

PJM to NYC (to Zone J)

ABC ties (0 MW Wheel and 7% of PJM to NY Net Interchange, B&C out) (0.07 * 897)63

Total PJM to New York Flows (489 + 345 + 63)897

3.3 Balancing Generation and Load

This step balances the supply of resources and demand of loads and losses. All CRIS generation within each Capacity Region is placed in-service and scaled proportional to the ratio of its Pmax to the sum of the Pmax in the respective exporting or importing zone(s) or Capacity Region. Actual generation is
proportionally scaled (up or down) to match the demand.9

Phase Angle Regulators (PARs) controlling external tie lines are set consistent with the NYISO-PJM
Joint Operating Agreement (see Attachment CC of the OATT) and applicable operating procedures and
agreements.

UDRs are converted into proxy generators while the amount of external resources remains the same.

9 Demands include load (including load forecast uncertainty), transmission losses, and external schedule commitments

2019/2020 New Capacity Zone Study|12

4. NCZ Study Results

Deliverability tests were performed for each of the five Highway interfaces located within the ROS

Capacity Region and for the UPNY-ConEd Highway interface located within the LHV Capacity Region. The
deliverability tests within the ROS Capacity Region (Load Zones A through F) are evaluated from west-to-
east and north-to-south by exporting from one (or more) zones (exporting zones) to the remaining
zone(s) within the ROS Capacity Region. The deliverability test for the UPNY-ConEd Highway within the
LHV Capacity Region (Load Zones G through I) is evaluated by exporting from Load Zone G to Load Zones
H and I.

The level of deliverability across each Highway interface is measured as either Additional

Transmission Capacity (i.e., deliverability “headroom”), or Bottled Generation Capacity, which is

calculated as the FCITC of the interface less the amount of net available capacity in the exporting zone(s). A summary of the Highway interface deliverability analysis for the NCZ Study case is presented in Table 8. As shown in the table, all Highway interfaces were determined to have Additional Transmission Capacity and, therefore, passed the Highway deliverability test.

Table 8: Highway Deliverability Test

UPNY-ConEdGHI3,2892,2781,011(6)

Notes:

*FCITC is the incremental transfer limit corresponding to the most limiting constraint in the Highway interface analysis @“Net Available Capacity” is the excess UCAP in the exporting zone(s) available for export

(1) Mortimer - Lawler 115 kV ckt 2 STE 158 MW L/O Mortimer - Lawler 115 kV ckt 1

(2) Dysinger - New Rochester 345 kV ckt 2 STE 1685 MW L/O Dysinger - New Rochester 345 kV ckt 1

(3) Adirondack B2 - Porter 230-kV ckt 1 @ STE 560 MW L/O Chateauguay-Massena, Massena-Marcy 765-kV w. Rej. HQ-NY

(4) Edic 345 kV - Porter 230 kV ckt 1 @ STE 637 L/O Moses E - Moses W 230 kV ckt 1

(5) Porter2 - Rotrdm.2 230-kV ckt 2 @ STE 560 MW L/O Porter2 - Rotrdm.2 230-kV ckt 1

(6) Lovett - Buchanan S 345 kV ckt 1 @ STE 2531 MW L/O Buchanan N - Ramapo 345 kV ckt 1

2019/2020 New Capacity Zone Study | 13

5. Conclusion

All of the Highway interfaces were found to have positive Additional Transmission Capacity, i.e., none of the Highway interfaces were found to be constrained. The conclusion of this 2019/2020 NCZ Study is
that there is no need to trigger the Services Tariff requirement for the filing of tariff revisions to establish a NCZ. In accordance with the Services Tariff, the NYISO will file its determination with the Commission on or before March 31, 2020.10

10 See Services Tariff Section 5.16.4(b).

2019/2020 New Capacity Zone Study|14