NYISO Tariffs --> Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) --> 25 OATT Attachment S - Rules To Allocate Responsibility For --> 25.6 OATT Att S Cost Allocation Methodology For ERIS
The cost of System Upgrade Facilities is first allocated between Developers and Connecting Transmission Owners, in accordance with the rules that are discussed below in this Section 25.6.1.
25.6.1.1The cost of System Upgrade Facilities is allocated between Developers and Connecting Transmission Owners based upon the results of an Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment of the five-year need for System Upgrade Facilities. The Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment, as described in these rules, will be conducted by the NYISO staff in cooperation with Market Participants. No Market Participant will have decisional control over any determinative aspect of the Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment. The NYISO and its staff will have decisional control over the entire Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment. If, at any time, the NYISO staff decides that it needs specific expert services from entities such as Market Participants, consultants or engineering firms for it to conduct the Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment, then the NYISO will enter into appropriate contracts with such entities for such input. As it conducts each Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment, the NYISO staff will provide regularly scheduled status reports and working drafts, with supporting data, to the Operating Committee to ensure that all affected Market Participants have an opportunity to contribute whatever information and input they believe might be helpful to the process. Each completed Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment will be reviewed and approved by the Operating Committee. Each Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment is reviewable by the NYISO Board of Directors in accordance with provisions of the Commission-approved ISO Agreement.
25.6.1.1.1The purpose of the Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment is to identify the System Upgrade Facilities that Transmission Owners are expected to need during the five-year period covered by the Assessment to reliably meet the load growth and changes in the load pattern projected for the New York Control Area, with cost estimates for the System Upgrade Facilities.
The procedure used to identify the System Upgrade Facilities will ensure that New York State Transmission System facilities are sufficient to reliably serve existing load and meet load growth and changes in load patterns in compliance with NYSRC Reliability Rules, NPCC Basic Design and Operating Criteria, NERC Planning Standards, NYISO rules, practices and procedures, and the Connecting Transmission Owner criteria included in FERC Form No. 715 (collectively “Applicable Reliability Requirements”). The procedure will use the Applicable Reliability Requirements in effect when the Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment is commenced. The procedure will be:
25.6.1.1.1.1.1The NYISO staff will first develop the Existing System Representation.
25.6.1.1.1.1.2The NYISO staff will then utilize the Existing System Representation to develop existing system improvement plans with each Transmission Owner. These improvement plans will use NYISO data from the annual NYISO Load and Capacity Data Report to project system load growth and changes in load patterns, including those that reflect demand side management, and will identify the System Upgrade Facilities needed year-by-year for the existing system to reliably serve projected load in the Transmission Owner’s Transmission District for a five-year period. The NYISO staff will integrate these existing system improvement plans into the Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment to ensure that the System Upgrade Facilities needed for a five-year period are identified on a New York State Transmission System-wide basis. The Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment will identify each anticipated System Upgrade Facility project, its estimated cost, its anticipated in-service date, and the status of the project (in construction, budget approval received, budget approval pending).
25.6.1.1.1.1.3The NYISO will identify in the Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment the System Upgrade Facilities needed to reliably meet projected load growth and changes in load pattern without the interconnection of any proposed Developer projects, except for those proposed projects included in the Existing System Representation pursuant to Section 25.5.5.
25.6.1.1.1.1.4NYISO staff will perform thermal, voltage, and stability analyses, as appropriate, to determine the normal and emergency transfer capabilities of the statewide existing system.
25.6.1.1.1.1.5NYISO staff will perform resource reliability analysis of the existing system to verify that the existing system meets Applicable Reliability Requirements. The results of this analysis will be reported for the entire state and for each of the New York zones.
25.6.1.1.1.1.6If the transmission and generation facilities included in the Existing System Representation, combined with previously approved and accepted System Upgrade Facilities, are insufficient to meet Applicable Reliability Requirements on a year by year basis, then the NYISO staff will develop feasible generic solutions that satisfy the Applicable Reliability Requirements, in accordance with Section 25.6.1.2, below.
25.6.1.1.1.1.7If the existing system meets Applicable Reliability Requirements, the NYISO staff will perform short circuit analysis to determine whether there is sufficient interrupting capability in the existing system. If there are any breaker overloads, the NYISO staff will determine the System Upgrade Facilities needed to mitigate the short circuit overloads.
25.6.1.1.1.1.8A reassessment of Sections 25.6.1.1.1.1.4 through 25.6.1.1.1.1.6 shall be reassessed and, to the extent required by Good Utility Practice, repeated if the improvement plan impacts the transmission transfer capability of the system. The results of the short circuit analysis will be treated in the same manner as the results of thermal, voltage and stability analyses for all purposes under these cost allocation rules.
25.6.1.1.1.1.9Each Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment conducted by NYISO staff will be reviewed and approved by the Operating Committee, and its effectiveness will be subject to the approval of the Operating Committee. In its report to the Operating Committee, the NYISO shall explain its reasons for all of its recommendations.
25.6.1.1.1.1.10Each most recently completed Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment will be reviewed the following year by the NYISO staff and updated, as necessary, following the criteria and procedures described herein.
25.6.1.2In developing solutions as required by Section 25.6.1.2.6, the NYISO will, as it develops its own generic solutions, also utilize the following procedures.
25.6.1.2.1The NYISO will first select as generic solutions proposed Class Year Developer projects sufficient to meet Applicable Reliability Requirements on a year by year basis. If a proposed Class Year Developer project is larger than necessary, the NYISO shall select that portion or segment of the project that is sufficient to meet but not exceed Applicable Reliability Requirements. If the proposed Developer project is not capable of being segmented or if the Developer project cannot meet Applicable Reliability Requirements on a year by year basis, the NYISO shall not select it.
25.6.1.2.2If the generation and transmission facilities included in the Existing System Representation, together with any proposed Developer projects that qualify as solutions pursuant to Section 25.6.1.2.1, above, are not sufficient to meet Applicable Reliability Requirements, the NYISO shall complete the development of its own generic solutions, taking into account any generic solutions proposed pursuant to Section 25.6.1.2.3, below, for inclusion in the ATBA.
25.6.1.2.3Market Participants may also propose generic solutions for inclusion in the ATBA. The Market Participant proposing such solutions shall provide the NYISO with all data necessary for the NYISO to determine the feasibility of such proposed generic solutions.
25.6.1.2.4The NYISO shall develop and consider alternative sets of proposed generic solutions that fairly represent the range of feasible solutions to Applicable Reliability Requirements.
25.6.1.2.5The NYISO shall determine the feasibility of additional generic solutions developed pursuant to Sections 25.6.1.2.2, 25.6.1.2.3 and 25.6.1.2.3, according to the following criteria:
25.6.1.2.5.1The NYISO shall select only solutions that are based on proven technologies that have actually been licensed and financed, are under construction or have already been built in similar locations.
25.6.1.2.5.2The NYISO shall select as additional generic solutions only units and facilities that can reasonably be placed in service in time to meet Applicable Reliability Requirements on a year by year basis. In making this determination, the NYISO shall consider the size and type of facility, access to fuel, access to transmission facilities, transmission upgrade requirements, construction time, and Good Utility Practice.
25.6.1.2.6The NYISO will submit its proposed generic solutions and the alternatives that it considered to Market Participants and to an independent expert for review and will make the results of the expert’s review available to Market Participants. The independent expert shall review the feasibility of the proposed generic solutions developed pursuant to Sections 25.6.1.2.2, 25.6.1.2.3 and 25.6.1.2.3, and of generic solutions based on the segmentation of any Class Year developer projects under Section 25.6.1.2.1, according to the criteria set forth in Section 25.6.1.2.5.
25.6.1.2.6.1If the independent expert concludes that one or more generic is not feasible, the NYISO shall eliminate that solution from further review.
25.6.1.2.6.2If the NYISO does not adopt the expert’s recommendations, it will state in its report to the Operating Committee its reasons for not adopting those recommendations.
25.6.1.2.7Subject to Section 25.6.1.2.7, below, in the event that more than one generic solution or set of solutions satisfies the feasibility requirement of Section 25.6.1.2.7, the NYISO shall compare the System Upgrade Facilities that would be necessary to interconnect each such generic solution and shall adopt the solution that is most consistent with Good Utility Practice. For these purposes, in comparing alternative solutions, a generic solution that satisfies sub-load pocket deficiencies shall normally be selected first.
25.6.1.2.7.1The NYISO shall be responsible for determining whether any generic solution or proposed Developer Project meets Applicable Reliability Requirements.
25.6.1.3With the exception of those upgrades that were previously allocated to, and accepted by Developer projects as a part of the Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment in the Final Decision Round of previous Class Years, Developers are not responsible for the cost of any System Upgrade Facilities that are identified in the Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment, or any System Upgrade Facilities that resolve in whole or in part a deficiency in the system identified in the Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment.
25.6.1.4Developers are responsible for 100% of the cost of the System Upgrade Facilities, not already identified in the Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment that are needed as a result of their projects, and required for their projects to reliably interconnect to the transmission system in a manner that meets the NYISO Minimum Interconnection Standard. The System Upgrade Facilities necessary to accommodate Developer projects will be determined by the Interconnection Facilities Studies and the Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment. The criteria and procedures that will be followed to conduct the Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment are discussed below.
25.6.1.4.1If a Connecting Transmission Owner or Developer elects to construct System Upgrade Facilities that are larger or more extensive than the minimum facilities required to reliably interconnect the proposed project, and are reasonably related to the interconnection of the proposed project, then the Connecting Transmission Owner or Developer is responsible for the cost of those System Upgrade Facilities in excess of the minimum System Upgrade Facilities required by the Developer projects. If there is Headroom associated with these larger System Upgrade Facilities and a Developer of any subsequent project interconnects and uses the Headroom within ten years of its creation, such subsequent Developer shall pay the Connecting Transmission Owner or the Developer for this Headroom in accordance with these rules, including Section 25.8.7, below.
25.6.1.5The System Upgrade Facilities cost for which a Developer is responsible will be determined on a “net” basis; that is, the Developer’s System Upgrade Facilities cost will be determined net of the benefits, or System Upgrade Facility cost reductions, that result from the construction and operation of its project and the related upgrades. The net cost responsibility of a Developer will not be less than zero. Also, the cost responsibility of the Connecting Transmission Owner for System Upgrade Facilities will be no greater than it would have been without the Developer’s project. Specifically, the Connecting Transmission Owner shall not be required to pay (in total) more than 100% of the cost of installing a specific piece of equipment.
25.6.1.5.1The purpose of this approach is to allocate to the Developer the responsibility for the cost of the net impact of its project on the needs of the transmission system for System Upgrade Facilities. Thus, a Developer is responsible for the cost of the System Upgrade Facilities that are required by, or caused by, its project. A Developer is not responsible for the cost of System Upgrade Facilities that would be required anyway, without the construction of its project. If a Developer’s project reduces the cost of System Upgrade Facilities that would be required anyway, that beneficial cost reducing impact will be recognized.
25.6.1.5.2The net System Upgrade Facilities cost and cost reduction benefits of a Developer’s project are determined by NYISO staff comparing and netting the results of an Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment with the corresponding Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment in accordance with these rules.
25.6.1.5.3The net System Upgrade Facilities cost and cost reduction benefits of a Developer’s project are comprised of those costs and cost reduction benefits caused by (1) the construction of System Upgrade Facilities not contained in the Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment, and (2) eliminating or reducing the need for the construction of System Upgrade Facilities contained in the Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment, due to the construction of System Upgrade Facilities associated with the proposed project.
25.6.1.5.4The Developer’s net cost responsibility will be determined using constant dollars. That is, when netting the cost of System Upgrade Facilities required for its project, as identified in the Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment, with those identified in the Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment, the cost of System Upgrade Facilities in the out-years of the Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment and the out-years of the Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment will be discounted to a current year value for netting. The cost of out-year System Upgrade Facilities will be discounted to a current value using the weighted average cost of capital of the Connecting Transmission Owner.
The Developers’ share of the cost of System Upgrade Facilities is allocated among Developers based upon the NYISO Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment. The Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment will be conducted by NYISO staff to ensure New York State Transmission System compliance with Applicable Reliability Requirements. The NYISO staff will conduct the Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment, as described in these rules, in cooperation with Market Participants. No Market Participant will have decisional control over any determinative aspect of the Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment. The NYISO and its staff will have decisional control over the entire Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment. If, at any time, the NYISO staff decides that it needs specific expert services from entities such as Market Participants, consultants or engineering firms for it to conduct the Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment, then the NYISO will enter into appropriate contracts with such entities for such input. As it conducts each Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment, the NYISO staff will provide regularly scheduled status reports and working drafts, with supporting data, to the Operating Committee to ensure that all affected Market Participants have an opportunity to contribute whatever information and input they believe might be helpful to the process. Each completed Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment will be reviewed and approved by the Operating Committee. Each Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment is reviewable by the NYISO Board of Directors in accordance with the provisions of the Commission-approved ISO Agreement. The Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment will begin on March 1 each year, with a planned completion date six months after that.
25.6.2.1The Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment for each Class Year will identify the System Upgrade Facilities required for all Class Year projects, with cost estimates for the System Upgrade Facilities. The System Upgrade Facilities identified through the Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment will only be those System Upgrade Facilities that are not already included in an Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment.
25.6.2.3Each Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment will update the results of Interconnection System Reliability Impact Studies that have previously been performed for certain proposed interconnection projects.
25.6.2.3.1Subject to the additional requirements in Sections 25.6.2.3.2 - 25.6.2.3.4, below, a Large Facility is eligible to have its Interconnection System Reliability Impact Study updated, and its project included in the ATRA for a given year (a “Class Year”), if on or before March 1 (i) the Operating Committee has approved the Interconnection System Reliability Impact Study for the project, and (ii) the regulatory milestone has been satisfied, provided that the time period described in either Section 25.6.2.3.2 or 25.6.2.3.3, below, as applicable, are met. To satisfy the regulatory milestone, an applicable regulatory body (e.g., local, state, or federal) must determine on or before March 1 that the permitting application submitted to site and construct the Large Facility is complete, as described below:
25.6.2.3.1.1The Developer must obtain or achieve at least one of the following regulatory determinations or actions for the Large Facility:
25.6.2.3.1.1.1In connection with the Large Facility’s air or water permit application, either (i) a notice of determination of completeness mailed to the applicant by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 621.6(c), as may be amended from time to time, or public notice of a complete application in the Environmental Notice Bulletin, or (ii) in the absence of such notices, a demonstration that the permit application is deemed to be complete pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 621.6(h), as may be amended from time to time.
25.6.2.3.1.1.2A negative declaration issued for the Large Facility by the lead agency pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”).
25.6.2.3.1.1.3Under SEQRA, either (i) a determination by the lead agency, documented in minutes or other official records, that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Large Facility is adequate for public review, (ii) a notice of completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project issued by the lead agency pursuant to SEQRA, or (iii) public notice of completion in the Environmental Notice Bulletin.
25.6.2.3.1.1.4For a Large Facility that is a Merchant Transmission Facility, a determination pursuant to Article VII that the Article VII application filed for the Merchant Transmission Facility is in compliance with Public Service Law §122.
25.6.2.3.1.1.5A Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Large Facility filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”) and its implementing regulations.
25.6.2.3.1.1.6A final Finding of No Significant Impact for the project issued by the lead agency pursuant to NEPA and its implementing regulations.
25.6.2.3.1.2A Large Facility located outside New York State will satisfy the regulatory milestone by achieving Section 25.6.2.3.1.1.5 or 25.6.2.3.1.1.6, above, or by satisfying a milestone comparable to that specified in Section 25.6.2.3.1.1.1 through 25.6.2.3.1.1.4, above, under applicable permitting laws.
25.6.2.3.1.3In the event that none of the permitting processes referred to in Section 25.6.2.3.1.1 and 25.6.2.3.1.2 apply to the Large Facility, the Large Facility will be considered to have satisfied the regulatory milestone and will qualify for Class Year entry as of the date the Operating Committee approved the Large Facility’s Interconnection System Reliability Impact Study.
25.6.2.3.1.4After a Large Facility’s Interconnection System Reliability Impact Study is approved by the Operating Committee and until the NYISO confirms that the Large Facility has satisfied the regulatory milestone, the Developer must inform the NYISO each year, within five business days of March 1, whether or not the Large Facility has satisfied the regulatory milestone described above. If a project fails to inform the NYISO by this date, the Interconnection Request of the project will be deemed to be withdrawn in accordance with Section 3.6 of the Large Facility Interconnection Procedures contained in Attachment X.
25.6.2.3.2Except as provided in Section 25.6.2.3.3, a project must satisfy the regulatory milestone described in Section 25.6.2.3.1, above, within two years of the Operating Committee’s approval of the Interconnection System Reliability Impact Study for the project. If a project fails to satisfy the regulatory milestone within this time period, the Interconnection Request of the project will be deemed to be withdrawn in accordance with Section 30.3.6 of the Large Facility Interconnection Procedures contained in Attachment X.
25.6.2.3.3Projects in the interconnection queue with an Interconnection System Reliability Impact Study approved by the Operating Committee as of January 17, 2010 that have not satisfied the regulatory milestone described in Section 25.6.2.3.1, above, as of January 17, 2010, will have two years from that date to satisfy the regulatory milestone. If such a project fails to satisfy the regulatory milestone within this time period, the Interconnection Request of the project will be deemed to be withdrawn in accordance with Section 30.3.6 of the Large Facility Interconnection Procedures contained in Attachment X.
25.6.2.3.4Once a project has satisfied the eligibility criteria specified in Section 25.6.2.3.1 or Attachment Z for inclusion in the Class Year ATRA, then the project may enter up to two, but no more than two, of the next three consecutive Class Year ATRAs. The first Class Year for which a project qualifies will count as the first of the three consecutive Class Year ATRAs.
25.6.2.3.4.1Except as provided in Section 25.6.2.3.4.3, the project must accept its System Upgrade Facilities cost allocation and post required security for Energy Resource Interconnection Service from a Class Year ATRA that is no later than the first to occur of either (i) the second Class Year ATRA the project enters, or (ii) the third consecutive Class Year that starts after the project satisfies the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the Class Year ATRA. If the project fails to accept its System Upgrade Facilities cost allocation and post security by this deadline, the Interconnection Request of the project will be deemed to be withdrawn in accordance with Section 30.3.6 of the Large Facility Interconnection Procedures contained in Attachment X.
25.6.2.3.4.2Except as provided in Section 25.6.2.3.4.3, below, if a project has not accepted its System Upgrade Facilities cost allocation and posted required security for Energy Resource Interconnection Service from either the first or second Class Year that starts after the project satisfies the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the Class Year ATRA and has not entered both the first and second such Class Year ATRA, then the project must enter the third Class Year ATRA (by executing the Interconnection Facilities Study Agreement and providing the required data and deposit). If the developer fails to do so within the timeframes specified in Attachments X or Z, as applicable, the Interconnection Request of the project will be deemed to be withdrawn in accordance with Section 30.3.6 of the Large Facilities Interconnection Procedures contained in Attachment X.
25.6.2.3.4.3A project that was a member of a completed Class Year but did not accept its System Upgrade Facilities cost allocation and post any required security as of January 17, 2010 will be able to enter any one of the three consecutive Class Year ATRAs starting after that date. If the project enters one of these Class Year ATRAs and fails to accept its System Upgrade Facilities cost allocation and post required security, the Interconnection Request of the project will be deemed to be withdrawn in accordance with Section 30.3.6 of the Large Facility Interconnection Procedures. If the project has not entered either the first or second such Class Year, then the project must enter the third Class Year ATRA (by executing the Interconnection Facilities Study Agreement and providing the required data and deposit). If the developer fails to do so within the timeframes specified in Attachments X or Z, as applicable, the Interconnection Request of the project will deemed to be withdrawn in accordance with Section 30.3.6 of the Large Facilities Interconnection Procedures.
25.6.2.4The Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment will update Interconnection System Reliability Impact Study results in accordance with the Interconnection Facilities Study procedures in Section 30.8 of the Large Facility Interconnection Procedures in Attachment X to the NYISO OATT.
25.6.2.5For interconnection projects included in each Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment, the Interconnection System Reliability Impact Study updated results will specify the impact of each project in the Class Year on the reliability of the transmission system, that is, the pro rata contribution of each project in the Class Year to each individual System Upgrade Facilities identified in the updates.
25.6.2.5.1In the case of a new System Upgrade Facility that has a functional capacity not readily measured in amperes or other discrete electrical units, such as a System Upgrade Facility dedicated to system protection, the pro rata impact of each project in the Class Year on the reliability of the transmission system will be based upon the number of projects in the Class Year contributing to the need for the new System Upgrade Facility. The pro rata impact of each project in the Class Year needing such a new System Upgrade Facility will be equal. Accordingly, the pro rata contribution of each of the projects to the need for the new System Upgrade Facility will be equal to (1/a), where “a” is the total number of projects in the Class Year needing the new System Upgrade Facility.
25.6.2.5.2In the case of a new System Upgrade Facility that has a capacity readily measured in amperes or other discrete electrical units, the impact of each project in the Class Year will be stated in terms of its pro rata contribution to the total electrical impact on each individual System Upgrade Facility in the Class Year of all projects that have at least a de minimus impact, as described in Section 25.6.2.6.1 of these rules. The contribution to electrical impact will be measured in various ways depending on the nature of the transmission problem primarily causing the need for the individual System Upgrade Facility.
25.6.2.5.2.1Contribution to short circuit current for interrupting duty beyond the rating of equipment.
25.6.2.5.2.2Contribution to MW loading on the critical element for thermal overloads under the test conditions that cause the need for a System Upgrade Facility. MW contribution will be calculated by multiplying the associated distribution factor by the declared maximum MW of the project. The distribution factor is calculated by pro rata displacement of New York System load by the added generation.
25.6.2.5.2.3Contribution to voltage drop on the most critical bus for voltage problems. A critical bus will be defined as representative for voltage conditions during a specific contingency. The pro rata impact of each project is measured as the ratio of the voltage drop at the critical bus caused by the project when none of the other projects are represented, to the voltage drop at the critical bus when all of the projects in the Class Year are represented.
25.6.2.5.2.4Contribution to transient stability problems as measured by the fault current calculated for the most critical stability test that is causing the need for the System Upgrade Facility.
25.6.2.6For each individual electrical impact standard listed in subsections 6.(a)(1) through 6.(a)(4) below, a Developer will not be responsible for the cost associated with a corresponding System Upgrade Facility if its project’s contribution is less than the de minimus impacts defined below. The costs of projects that would otherwise have been allocated to certain Developer’s projects but for the sub-de minimus impact exemption, shall be allocated 100 percent to the other Developers in the Class Year according to their pro rata contribution.
25.6.2.6.1De minimus impact is defined in terms of any one of the factors listed below in this subsection. Examples of computations used to determine de minimus impact are shown in ISO Procedures.
25.6.2.6.1.1Short Circuit Contribution: Equal to or greater than 100 amperes of the existing rating of the equipment that needs to be replaced.
25.6.2.6.1.2Thermal Loadings: Equal to or greater than 10 MW on the most limiting monitored element under the most critical contingency that is causing the need for transmission improvements.
25.6.2.6.1.3Voltage Effects: Equal to or greater than 2% of the voltage drop occurring with all Class Year projects at the most critical bus.
25.6.2.6.1.4Stability Effects: Equal to or greater than 100 amperes of the fault current for the most critical stability test that is causing the need for the System Upgrade Facility.
25.6.2.7The pro rata contribution of each project in the Class Year to each of the System Upgrade Facilities identified in the Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment.
25.6.2.7.1First, in accordance with Section 25.6.1.5 of these rules, the total cost of System Upgrade Facilities identified in the Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment is compared and netted with the total cost of System Upgrade Facilities identified in the Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment. If the total cost of System Upgrade Facilities identified in the Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment does not exceed the total cost of System Upgrade Facilities identified in the Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment, then there is no cost to be allocated among Class Year Developers.
25.6.2.7.2If the total cost of System Upgrade Facilities identified in the Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment does exceed the total cost of System Upgrade Facilities identified in the Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment by some amount, then this amount (“Overage Cost”) is a cost to be allocated among Class Year Developers. Appendix One to this Attachment S sets out an example of an allocation of Overage Cost among Class Year Developers.
25.6.2.7.3The Overage Cost represents a percentage of the total cost of System Upgrade Facilities identified in the Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment (“Overage Cost Percentage”).
25.6.2.7.4Each System Upgrade Facility identified in the Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment has a cost specified for it in the Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment.
25.6.2.7.5The pro rata contribution of each project in the Class Year to a System Upgrade Facility identified in the Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment represents a percentage contribution to the need for that System Upgrade Facility (“Contribution Percentage”).
25.6.2.7.6An individual Developer’s pro rata responsibility for the cost of each System Upgrade Facility identified in the Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment is the product of (a) the Overage Cost Percentage; (b) the Developer’s Contribution Percentage for the particular System Upgrade Facility; and (c) the cost of the particular System Upgrade Facility as specified in the Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment.
25.6.2.7.7If the least cost solution identified is to install one System Upgrade Facility (e.g., a series reactor) rather than replacing a number of System Upgrade Facilities (e.g., breakers), the NYISO staff will determine each Developer’s Contribution Percentage by calculating what each Developer’s pro rata contribution would have been on the System Upgrade Facilities not replaced (e.g., breakers) and applying that percentage to the System Upgrade Facility that is installed (e.g., series reactor).
Effective Date: 6/30/2010 - Docket #: ER10-1657-000 - Page 1