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

as explained more fully below. This mistaken assumption is apparently the
premise behind NYAPP’s claim that the Niagara Project Upgrade costs were
imprudent.
An increase in nameplate capacity refers to the ability of the generation
equipment to provide power, provided that sufficient flows are available.
Contrary to NYAPP’s assertions, increasing installed (or nameplate capacity) is a
necessary condition, but does not itself provide an increase in firm capacity. The
quantity of firm capacity depends upon the flows available from the Niagara
River.
The RMNPP upgrade’s increase in nameplate capacity (i.e. the nominal 325 MW
per Mr. Russell), does not, of itself, increase firm capacity. A peaking capacity
increase would have been realized had the LPGP expansion been constructed,
which was also intended to increase on-peak period production. However, the
LPGP expansion would not have increased firm capacity, even if it had been
constructed. Nevertheless, the RMNPP upgrade continued since overhaul and
life extension requirements required it. The cost differences for new
transformers, turbines and other equipment would not be significant for either the
original or upgraded nameplate capacity values, so the upgrade work continued
with the higher equipment ratings. The higher ratings do provide increased
operational flexibility, and in the event a unit was forced out of service today,
there is a greater likelihood that customer loads could be met. The upgraded
units also provide an efficiency improvement. 10 But, as explained above, NYPA
never intended for increased firm capacity to arise solely from the upgrades that
were performed.
10 As noted above, the Niagara Study which addresses this matter, is not subject to review in this
rate proceeding.
13