30.04.2014 Views

Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Power - New York Power ...

Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Power - New York Power ...

Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Power - New York Power ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

(with a decrease in nighttime production), <strong>of</strong>fsetting expensive oil-fired generation<br />

anticipated at <strong>the</strong> time. The combined expansion would have also provided for<br />

an increase in peaking capacity available from <strong>the</strong> Project.<br />

This original expansion plan was changed when it was determined that<br />

performing an upgrade <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> RMNPP units was possible and would be more<br />

economic than an expansion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> RMNPP. It was also recognized that an<br />

upgrade would extend <strong>the</strong> life <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> original 1961 vintage machinery, and<br />

improve <strong>the</strong> operating efficiency <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> equipment. This plan was included in<br />

NYPA’s 1987 FERC filing for a license amendment.<br />

By <strong>the</strong> early 1990s <strong>the</strong> forecasts for oil prices had decreased, and it was<br />

recognized that <strong>the</strong>re was little need for peaking capacity in Western <strong>New</strong> <strong>York</strong>.<br />

Accordingly, in August 1993, <strong>the</strong> Authority filed an application with FERC to<br />

remove <strong>the</strong> LPGP expansion plan from <strong>the</strong> license. Staff had also determined<br />

that an expansion <strong>of</strong> LPGP, while feasible, would contribute no additional firm<br />

capacity and would be uneconomic. FERC granted NYPA’s request to remove<br />

<strong>the</strong> LPGP expansion plan from <strong>the</strong> license in December 1993.<br />

Mr. Russell devotes much attention to <strong>the</strong> claimed benefits <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> work that was<br />

<strong>the</strong> subject <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>1987 License Amendment, despite this fundamental change to<br />

<strong>the</strong> Niagara Project Upgrade. By focusing on <strong>the</strong> supposed “increase in 330<br />

megawatts” <strong>of</strong> peaking capacity, Mr. Russell (at 13) ignores that <strong>the</strong> LPGP<br />

upgrade, <strong>the</strong> source for <strong>the</strong> increase that was predicted at that time, was later<br />

cancelled. 6<br />

By 1993, when <strong>the</strong> first <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> RMNPP units was disassembled and upgraded,<br />

<strong>the</strong> overhaul and life extension requirements <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> RMNPP units had become<br />

6 Later in his testimony, Mr. Russell (at 14 n.5) acknowledges that <strong>the</strong> LPGP upgrade was<br />

cancelled, but this does nothing to correct his earlier statements about <strong>the</strong> expectation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 330<br />

MW <strong>of</strong> increased peaking capacity, which was premised on <strong>the</strong> planned, but later cancelled,<br />

LPGP upgrade.<br />

10

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!