Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
REGULATION OF GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS
APPENDIX F
POWER
REPORT TO THE
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
BY THE
INTERNATIONAL GREAT LAKES LEVELS BOARD
(UNDER THE REFERENCE OF OCTOBER 7,1974)
DECEMBER 7,1973
SYNOPSIS
This appendix p resents the resu l t s o f the s tud ies of t h e e f f e c t s o f r e g u l a t i o n on hydroe lec t r i c power generation. These studies were undertaken by the In t e rna t iona l Grea t Lakes Levels Board which was es t ab l i shed by t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission on December 2 , 1964.
The purpose of the s tudies was t o determine the economic e f f e c t of changes i n l e v e l s and flows as a r e s u l t o f r e g u l a t i o n on the genera- t i on o f hydroe lec t r i c power on the connect ing channels of the Great Lakes and on t h e S t . Lawrence River.
The methodologies used i n e v a l u a t i n g t h e e f f e c t o f t h e v a r i o u s r egu la t ion p l ans i nd ica t e t he bene f i t s o r l o s ses r e su l t i ng from changes i n l e v e l s and flows t o t h e h y d r o e l e c t r i c power generat ion for energy and c a p a c i t y i n a l l systems where these types of e lectr ic power could be considered. Because t h e h y d r o e l e c t r i c i n s t a l l a t i o n s o f Hydro Quebec a r e r e s t r i c t e d a t t h e time of maximum system load by ice condi t ions, no eva lua t ion of capac i ty was made. The methods used i n t h e e v a l u a t i o n s were those used in cur ren t economic s tud ie s by t he power e n t i t i e s i n v o l v - ed. The conditions expected i n the in te rconnec ted New York S t a t e and Ontar io HydrQ systems i n 1985 were used i n t h e a n a l y s i s .
The regula t ion p lans des igna ted SO-901, SEO-33, SEO-42P, SMHO- 11 and SMHEO-38 were s e l e c t e d by t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Great Lakes Levels Board and evaluated with respect to the basis-of-comparison condi t ions. These eva lua t ions a re p rovided in th i s appendix .
The r e s u l t s o f t h e e n t i r e s t u d i e s as well as the f i nd ings and conclusions are p rov ided i n t he In t e rna t iona l Great Lakes Levels Board's report, Regulation of Great Lakes Water Levels.
F- i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REGULATION OF GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS
APPENDIX F
POWER
SYNOPSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF APPENDICES
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
1.2 Organization
1.3 Procedure of Power Study
Section 2
ST. MARYS RIVER POWER PLANTS
2.1 General Description 2.1.1 Canadian Power Plants 2.1.2 United States Plants
2.2 Assumptions 2.2.1 General 2.2.2 Canadian Plants 2.2.3 United States Plants
2.3 Methodology for Determining Capacity and Energy Output 2.3.1 Canadian Plants 2.3.2 United States Plants
Page
F-i
F-ii
F-vi
F-ix
F-xi
F- 1
F- 1
F- 1
F- 3 F- 3 F- 3
F-5 F- 5 F-5 F-6
F-6 F-6 F- 14
F-ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
Page
Section 3
NIAGARA RIVER POWER PLANTS
3.1 General Description 3.1.1 Canadian Plants 3.1.2 United States Plants
3.2 Methodology for Determining Energy and Peak Capacity Output 3.2.1 Assumptions 3.2.2 Basic Data 3.2.3 Derived Data 3.2.4 Total Energy Output Computations f o r Canadian Plants 3.2.5 Total Energy Output Computations for United States
3.2.6 Peak Capacity Output Computations for Canadian Plants 3.2.7 Peak Capacity Output Computations f o r United States
Plants
Plants
F- 16 F- 16 F- 19
F-19 F- 19 F- 19 F- 20 F- 22 F- 29
F-46 F- 50
Section 4
MOSES-SAUNDERS (ST. LAWRENCE) POWER PLANTS
4.1 General Description F-53
4.2 Methodology for Determining Energy and Peak Capacity F-53 4.2.1 Assumptions F-53 4.2.2 Basic Data F-54 4.2.3 Derived Data F-54 4.2.4 Determination of Capacity of St. Lawrence Plants F-58 4.2.5 Determination of Total Daytime and Total Nighttime F-61
Energy Outputs
Section 5
BEAUHARNOIS-CEDARS (ST. LAWRENCE) POWER PLANTS
5.1 General Description F-62
5.2 Methodology for Determining Energy Output at Beauharnois- F-64 Cedars Power Plants 5.2.1 Assumptions F-64 5.2.2 Basic Data F-64 5.2.3 Derived Data F-64 5.2.4 Computation of Power Output F-69
F-iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
Page
Section 6
DETERMINATION OF UNIT ENERGY AND CAPACITY VALUES
6.1 Energy and Capacity Values F- 73
6.2 Upper Michigan System F- 73
6.3 Ontario System F- 74 6.3.1 1985 Ontario East Load F- 74 6.3.2 1985 Ontario East System F-75 6.3.3 Determination and Evaluation of System Peak Increments F-77 6.3.4 Evaluation of System Energy Increments F- 77
6.4 New York System F- 78 6.4.1 Determination of the Value of Energy in New York F- 78 6.4.2 Determination of the Value of Peak Capacity in F- 79
New York
6.5 Quebec System 6.5.1 General 6.5.2 Determination of Capacity and Energy Values
Section 7
EVALUATION OF REGULATION PLANS
7.1 General
7.2 Lakes Superior and Ontario Regulation Plans 7.2.1 Province of Ontario 7.2.2 Province of Quebec 7.2.3 New York State 7.2.4 Upper Michigan
7.3 Lakes Superior, Erie and Ontario Regulation Plan (SEO) 7.3.1 Province of Ontario 7.3.2 Province of Quebec 7.3.3 New York State 7.3.4 Upper Michigan
7.4 Lakes Superior, Erie and Ontario Plan with Erie Partially Regulated (SEO-42P) 7.4.1 Province of Ontario 7.4.2 Province of Quebec 7.4.3 New York State 7.4.4 Upper Michigan
F- 84 F- 84 F-84
F-85
F-85 F-87 F-87 F-87 F-92
F-92 F-92 F-96 F-96 F-96
F-96
F- 103 F- 103 F- 103 F- 103
F-iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont 'd)
Page
7.5 Lakes Superior , Michigan-Huron and Ontario Regulation Plan (SMHO) 7.5.1 Province of Ontar io 7.5.2 Province of Quebec 7.5.3 New York S t a t e 7.5.4 Upper Michigan
7.6 Lakes Superior, Michigan-Huron, Erie and Ontario Regulation Plan (SMHEO) 7.6.1 Province of Ontar io 7.6.2 Province of Quebec 7.6.3 New York S t a t e 7.6.4 Upper Michigan
ANNEX A POWER SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS AND ASSOCIATES
F- 105
F- 105 F-105 F- 105 F-111
F-111
F-111 F-111 F-118 F-118
F-122
F-v
LIST OF TABLES
Tab le
F- 1
F- 2
F-3
F-4
F-5
F-6
F- 7
F-8
F-9
F- 10
F- 11
F-12
F- 13
F- 14
F- 15
Hydroelectric Plants in Canada Using Outflow from Lake Erie
Assumed 1985 Non-Power Flow Diversions
Estimated 1985 Non-Power Flow Requirements
Maximum Permissible Discharge at Beauharnois and Cedars Power Plants
Energy and Capacity Values Used for Evaluating Effects of Regulation Plan on Hydroelectric Power Generation
Estimated Load - Mw
Generation Inventory 1985 - Ontario East System
Forced Outage Rates
Projected Inventory on Generation in the New York System in 1985
Effects of Plan SO-901 on Power - Annual Energy Value ($1,000)
Regulation Plan SO-901 Compared to Basis-of-Comparison Ontario System - Value of Difference in Average Daytime and Nighttime Energy Production and in 1985 Peak Load Meeting Capability
Regulation Plan SO-901 Compared to Basis-of-Comparison Ontario System . Average Monthly Energy Production and 1985 Peak Load Meeting Capability
Regulation Plan SO-901 Compared to Basis-of-Comparison Hydro Quebec - Beauharnois and Cedars Plants Average Monthly and Annual Energy Outputs and Annual Value of Energy Difference
Regulation Plan SO-901 Compared to Basis-of-Comparison New York State System - Value of Average Monthly and Annual Energy Production
Regulation Plan SO-901 Compared to Basis-of-Comparison New York State System - Load Carrying Capacity with Fixed Non-Power Authority Generation
Page
F- 16
F-54
F-66
F-67
F- 73
F- 74
F- 76
F-81
F-82
F- 86
F-88
F- 89
F-90
F-91
F-93
F-vi
LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)
Table
F- 16
F- 17
F-18
F- 19
F- 20
F- 21
F-22
F- 23
F-24
F-25
F- 26
F-27
Regulation Plan SO-901 Compared to Basis-of-Comparison U.S. Plants at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan - Average and Minimum Power Outputs and Annual Values of Capacity and Energy Differences
Effects of Plan SEO-33 on Power - Annual Energy Value ($1,000)
Regulation Plan SEO-33 Compared to Basis-of-Comparison Ontario System - Value of Difference in Average Daytime and Nighttime Energy Production and in 1985 Peak Load Meeting Capability
Regulation Plan SEO-33 Compared to Basis-of-Comparison Ontario System - Average Monthly Energy Production and 1985 Peak Load Meeting Capability
Regulation Plan SEO-33 Compared to Basis-of-Comparison Hydro Quebec - Beauharnois and Cedars Plants Average Monthly and Annual Energy Outputs and Annual Value of Energy Difference
Regulation Plan SEO-33 Compared to Basis-of-Comparison New York State System - Value of Average Monthly and Annual Energy Production
Regulation Plan SEO-33 Compared to Basis-of-Comparison New York State System - Load Carrying Capacity with Fixed Non-Power Authority Generation
Regulation Plan SEO-33 Compared to Basis-of-Comparison U.S. Plants at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan - Average and Minimum Power Outputs and Annual Values of Capacity and Energy Differences
Effects of Plan SEO-42P on Power - Annual Energy Value ($1,000)
Effects of Plan SMHO-11 on Power - Annual Energy Value ($1,000)
Regulation Plan SMHO-11 Compared to Basis-of-Comparison Ontario System - Value of Difference in Average Daytime and Nighttime Energy Production and in 1985 Peak Load Meeting Capability
Regulation Plan SMHO-11 Compared to Basis-of-Comparison Ontario System - Average Monthly Energy Production and 1985 Peak Load Meeting Capability
Page
F-94
F-95
F-97
F-98
F-99
F- 100
F-101
F- 102
F- 104
F- 106
F- 107
F- 108
F-vii
LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)
Tab 1 e
F- 28
F- 29
F- 30
F-31
F- 32
F-33
F- 34
F-35
F- 36
F-37
F-38
Regulation Plan SMHO-11 Compared to Basis-of-Comparison Hydro Quebec - Beauharnois and Cedars Plants Average Monthly and Annual Energy Outputs and Annual Value of Energy Difference
Regulation Plan SMHO-11 Compared to Basis-of-Comparison New York State System - Value of Average Monthly and Annual Energy Production
Regulation Plan SMHO-11 Compared to Basis-of-Comparison New York State System - Load Carrying Capacity with Fixed Non-Power Authority Generation
Regulation Plan SMHO-11 Compared to Basis-of-Comparison U.S. Plants at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan - Average and Minimum Power Outputs and Annual Values of Capacity and Energy Differences
Effects of Plan SMHEO-38 on Power - Annual Energy Value ($1,000)
Regulation Plan SMHEO-38 Compared to Basis-of-Comparison Ontario System - Value of Difference in Average Daytime and Nighttime Energy Production and in 1985 Peak Load Meeting Capability
Regulation Plan SMHEO-38 Compared to Basis-of-Comparison Ontario System - Average Monthly Energy Production and 1985 Peak Load Meeting Capability
Regulation Plan SMHEO-38 Compared to Basis-of-Comparison Hydro Quebec - Beauharnois and Cedars Plants Average Monthly and Annual Energy Outputs and Annual Value of Energy Difference
Regulation Plan SMHEO-38 Compared to Basis-of-Comparison New York State System - Value of Average Monthly and Annual Energy Production
Regulation Plan SMHEO-38 Compared to Basis-of-Comparison New York State System - Load Carrying Capacity with Fixed Non-Power Authority Generation
Regulation Plan SMHEO-38 Compared to Basis-of-Comparison U.S. Plants at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan - Average and Minimum Power Outputs and Annual Values of Capacity and Energy Differences
Page
F- 109
F- 110
F-112
F-113
F-114
F-115
F-116
F-117
F- 119
F- 120
F-121
F-viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
F- 1 S t . Marys River a t S a u l t S t e . Marie
Page
F-4
F- 2 S t . Marys River F a l l from Lake Superior a t Marquette t o C.H.S . Gauge 011
F-3 St. Marys'River Backwater Slopes C.H.S. Gauge 011 t o Great Lakes Powerhouse Forebay for Various Diversions
F-4 S t . Marys River Gauge Relationship between C.H.S. Gauge 012 and Great Lakes Powerhouse Tai lwater
F- 5 S t . Marys River Backwater Slopes Lake Huron t o C.H.S. Gauge 012 January - March
F-6 St. Marys River Backwater Slopes Lake Huron t o C.H.S. Gauge 012 April - December
F- 7 S t . Marys River Total Output from Canadian Plants Based on Gross Head a t Great Lakes Power Corporation P lan t
F- 8 Plan of Niagara River - Lake Erie t o Lake Ontar io
F-9 Niagara River - Detail Locat ion of Hydroelectr ic Power P lan t s and Diversion Works
F-10 Total Energy Output (Av.Mw) fo r In f low to Grass I s l and Pool
F-11 Niagara River Diversion to S.A.B. No. 1 and 2 versus Grass I s l and Pool Level f o r Canal Crossover Level 540.0 between Tunnels and Power Canal
F-12 Niagara River S.A.B. No. 2 Tailwater Elevat ion versus Niagara River Flow
F-13 S i r Adam Beck - Niagara G.S. No. 1 and 2 Estimated Unit Fall - Discharge Relationship Material Dock (Gauge 5) t o Canal Crossover Gauge a t Two Tunnels and Power Canal (After Rehabi l i ta t ion)
F-14 Niagara River Flow Past Cont ro l S t ruc ture wi th a l l Gates Closed versus Grass I s l and Pool Elevation
F-15 Niagara River Adjustment t o Average Monthly Energy Output of Present Canadian Power P lan ts for Dai ly Mean Flow Deviat ion versus Inf low to Grass Island Pool
F-8
F-9
F-10
F-11
F- 1 2
F- 13
F-17
F- 18
F-23
F- 25
F- 26
F-27
F-28
F- 30
F-ix
LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd
Figure Page
F-16 Niagara River Daily Energy Gain or Loss from Operation F- 31 of S.A.B. No. 2 Pump G.S. versus Inflow to Grass Island Pool
F- 17 to PASNY Energy-Flow Relationship January - December F-28
F-29 Total Peak Output versus Inflow to Grass Island Pool
F-30 Niagara River Tailwater Elevation at S.A.B. No. 2 at Time of Peak versus Inflow to Grass Island Pool
F-31 Backwater Slopes Lake Ontario to Moses-Saunders Powerhouse Open Water Conditions
F-32 Backwater Slopes Lake Ontario to Moses-Saunders Powerhouse Ice Cover Conditions
F-33 Tailwater Stage-Discharge Curve
F-34 Average Economy Factor for Moses-Saunders Plants versus Gross Head (Best Efficiency Operating Range)
F-35 Combined Moses-Saunders Plant Output - Discharge Relationship
F-36 Plan of Soulange Section of St. Lawrence River
F-37 Discharge Relationship between Lake St. Francis Outflow and Lake Ontario Outflow
F-38 Relationship between Total Lake St. Francis Outflow and Elevation of Upper Beauharnois Lock
F-39 Stage-Discharge Relationship for Lake St. Louis
F-40 Power Output-Head-Discharge Relationship for Beauharnois Powerhouse
F-41 Power Output-Discharge Relationship for Cedars Powerhouse
F- 33 to F-44
F-47
F-49
F-55
F-56
F-57
F-59
F-60
F-63
F-65
F-68
F- 70
F- 71
F- 72
F-X
LIST OF APPENDICES (bound separately)
APPENDIX A - HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS
A detailed description of the hydrology and hydraulics of the Great Lakes system, including an outline of the "state of knowledge" of the various factors which govern its water supply and affect the response of the system to its supply.
APPENDIX B - LAKE REGULATION
A documentation of the studies related to the regulation of all the Great Lakes and various combinations of them and a presentation of an array of plans for regulating the levels of these combinations.
APPENDIX C - SHORE PROPERTY A documentation of the methodology developed to estimate in economic terms the effects of changes in water level regimes on erosion and inundation of the shoreline, marine structures and water intakes and sewer outfalls, and of the detailed evaluations of selected regulation plans.
APPENDIX D - FISH, WILDLIFE AND RECREATION A documentation of the methodology developed to assess the effects on fish, wildlife and recreation of changes in water level and outflow regimes and of the detailed evaluations of the effects of selected regulation plans on these interests.
APPENDIX E - COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION A documentation of the methodology applied in the assessment of the potential benefit or loss to shipping, using the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence navigation system, as a consequence of changes in lake level regimes and the evaluation of the economic effects on navigation of regime changes that would take place under selected regulation plans.
APPENDIX F - POWER A documentation of the methodology applied in the assessment of the effects of regulatory hydroelectric power production at installations on the outlet rivers of the Great Lakes and of the detailed evaluation of the economic effects of selected regulation plans on the capacity and energy output of these installations in terms of the costs to the associated power systems.
APPENDIX G - REGULATORY WORKS A description of the outlet systems of the lakes, problems to be faced in providing new regulatory facilities at the outlets, site investigations carried out, design criteria and methods used, environmental factors considered, and design and cost estimates of engineering works required for selected regulation plans.
F-xi
Sect ion 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
By t h e terms of the Reference of October 7 , 1964, t h e Governments of Canada and the Un i t ed S t a t e s r eques t ed t he In t e rna t iona l Jo in t Commission I f . . . to determine whether measures within the Great Lakes Basin can be taken i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t t o r e g u l a t e f u r t h e r t h e l e v e l s of the Grea t Lakes o r any of them and the i r connec t ing waters so as t o reduce the extremes of stage which have been experienced, and ... for the purpose of bringing about a more bene f i c i a l r ange o f s t age fo r , and improvement in: (a) domestic water supply and sani ta t ion; (b) naviga- t ion ; (c ) water for power and indus t ry ; (d) f lood cont ro l ; (e ) agr i - c u l t u r e ; ( f ) f i s h and wildlife; (g) recreation; and (h) other benef ic ia l publ ic purposes1f . The In te rna t iona l Grea t Lakes Levels Board was e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission on December 2 , 1964, t o i n i t i a t e and d i r e c t t h e s t u d i e s r e q u i r e d t o answer t h e Reference.
This Appendix forms p a r t o f t h e f i n a l r e p o r t o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Great Lakes Levels Board t o t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, dated December 7, 1973. I t dea l s w i th hydroe lec t r i c power i n s t a l l a t i o n s on the connecting channels of the Great Lakes and on t h e S t . Lawrence River and eva lua te s va r ious r egu la t ion p l ans i n terms of t h e i r e f f e c t s on capac i ty and energy output of the installations and the monetary value of any changes i n t h e s e two components.
1 . 2 Organization
The In te rna t iona l Grea t Lakes Levels Board s e t up a Working Committee on January 6 , 1965, to assemble the da ta , o rganize f ie ld a c t i v i t i e s and conduct studies necessary t o answer t h e Reference. The Working Committee e s t a b l i s h e d Subcommittees for each of the major phases of the s tudy . The Power Subcommittee was composed o f s i x members.
A l i s t of those people who have cont r ibu ted to the work o f t he Subcommittee i s p rov ided i n Annex ' A I .
The Power Subcommittee's assignment was t o develop the necessary methodology t o e v a l u a t e t h e e f f e c t o f r egu la t ion on h y d r o e l e c t r i c power generat ion and to make the necessary economic eva lua t ions .
1.3 Procedure of Power Study
One o f t h e i n t e r e s t s t h a t would be a f fec ted by regulat ion of any o r a l l of the Grea t Lakes is h y d r o e l e c t r i c power s i n c e s u c h i n s t a l l a t i o n s a re l oca t ed on a l l t he i n t e rna t iona l connec t ing and ou t l e t channe l s o f t h e Great Lakes except the S t .Cla i r -Det ro i t Rivers .
F- 1
Determina t ion of the e f fec ts o f regula t ion on h y d r o e l e c t r i c power i n s t a l l a t i o n s u t i l i z i n g t h e l e v e l s and flows of the Great Lakes system, under the basis-of-comparison condition and under the selected regulat ion plans for var ious combinat ions of lakes (SO, SEO, SMHO, SMHEO) has been ca r r i ed ou t by t h e Power Subcommittee.
The de te rmina t ion o f t he e f f ec t o f a r egu la t ion p l an on hydro- e l e c t r i c power i n s t a l l a t i o n s is gene ra l ly d iv ided i n to two p a r t s ; t h e e f f e c t on dependable capacity and energy output; and second, the mone- t a ry eva lua t ion o f any changes i n t h e s e two components, as measured by e f f e c t s on e l e c t r i c s y s t e m c o s t s . Because Beauharnois and Cedars (Quebec) are run -o f - r ive r p l an t s , on ly t he e f f ec t s on energy production were evaluated. I t was cons ide red t ha t fo r pu rposes o f t h i s s tudy sys t em ana lys i s fo r t hese p l an t s would not be necessary. The year 1985 was chosen f o r u s e i n t h e power s tud ies because o f the uncer ta in ty o f f u e l c o s t s which limits t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f p r o j e c t i o n s .
In de te rmining the e f fec t o f a r egu la t ion p l an on h y d r o e l e c t r i c power output , the resu l t s o f opera t ion under the p lan was compared with resu l t s under a basis-of-comparison condi t ion. Specif ical ly , the basis- o f -compar ison cons is t s , in par t , o f Lakes Superior and Ontar io regula ted acco rd ing t o t he methods p r e s e n t l y i n e f f e c t which a r e t h e September 1955 Modified Rule of 1949 and plan 1958-D re spec t ive ly , and Lakes Michigan-Huron and Er ie unregula ted . The o u t l e t c o n d i t i o n s f o r Lake Huron a re t hose o f 1933 o r 1962 depending on the p lan be ing eva lua ted and f o r Lake Er i e , 1955. For the basis-of-comparison and each regula- t i o n p l a n , it was assumed t h a t t h e above conditions, modified by present d i v e r s i o n s i n t o and out o f the lakes, and by the es t imated 1985 naviga- t i o n f low requirements for lockages past the control s t ructures , would apply a t a constant ra te over the 68-year s tudy per iod (1900-1967) . A complete description of the basis-of-comparison i s g iven i n t he main r e p o r t . The est imated 1985 navigation requirements were based on t h e t r ad i t i ona l nav iga t ion s eason and did not a l low for the requirements of winter navigat ion.
This appendix presents the methods employed by t h e Subcommittee f o r computing and evaluating the effects of the var ious regula t ion p lans under load and power supp ly cond i t ions e s t ima ted t o ob ta in i n 1985, on a l l r e l a t e d e x i s t i n g h y d r o e l e c t r i c i n s t a l l a t i o n s i n Canada and the United S t a t e s on t h e S t . Marys River a t Saul t Ste . Marie , on the Niagara River near Niagara Falls and on t h e S t . Lawrence River near Cornwall and Beauharnois.
The e x i s t i n g i n s t a l l a t i o n s i n v o l v e d i n t h i s s t u d y h a v e a t o t a l ins ta l led capac i ty o f 7 ,969 ,180 k i lowat t s (kw) of which 4,807,580 kw a r e i n Canada and 3,161,600 kw a re i n t he Un i t ed S t a t e s . The est imated power supp l i e s r equ i r ed i n New York S t a t e and the Ontar io Hydro System t o meet a n t i c i p a t e d peak loads plus reserves in 1985 amount t o 41,038 megawatts (Mw) and 35,726 Mw, respec t ive ly .
F- 2
Sect ion 2
ST. MARYS RIVER POWER PLANTS
2.1 General Description
The S t . Marys River forms t h e o u t l e t o f Lake Superior . From Whitefish Bay, a t the eas t end of Lake S u p e r i o r , t h e r i v e r f l o w s i n a g e n e r a l s o u t h e a s t d i r e c t i o n t o Lake Huron, a distance of approximately 70 miles . From i t s headwater on Whitefish Bay t o i t s o u t l e t on Lake Huron, t h e r i v e r f a l l s a b o u t 22 feet, most of which (20 f e e t ) o c c u r s i n t h e mile long St . Marys Rapids a t Sau l t S t e . Marie, Michigan and Ontario. A t Saul t Ste . Marie , var ious man-made f a c i l i t i e s have been constructed s i n c e 1887. Since 1921 these have enabled complete control of the out- flow from Lake Superior and cons i s t o f nav iga t ion l ocks , hydroe lec t r i c power p l a n t s and compensating works. A l l water f lowing out of Lake Super ior th rough the S t . Marys River must pass through one of these f a c i l i t i e s . The general arrangement of plants and water level gauges used in the computa t ion a re shown on Figure F-1.
2 .1 .1 Canadian Power P lan t s
There are two p l a n t s on the Canadian s ide o f the S t . Marys River; one h y d r o e l e c t r i c p l a n t owned by the Grea t Lakes Power Corporation and t h e o t h e r a hydrau l i c p l an t d r iv ing a groundwood mill owned by t h e Abit ibi Pulp and Pape: Company. Both p l a n t s employ t h e same d ive r s ion canal and have an average gross head of 20 f e e t . Water requirements f o r t h e s e two p l a n t s p r i o r t o 1970 amount t o approximately 25,000 cfs. In 1970 , i n s t a l l a t ion o f an 8,000 horsepower e l e c t r i c motor a t the Abit ibi Plant e l iminatna the use of direct hydraul ic-powered woodgrinders , which r e s u l t e d i n a decrease of about 7,000 cfs in water requirement for power product ion on the Canadian s ide o f the r iver . However, t h e p l a n t i s s t i l l used to d i scha rge water from Lake Superior as requi red . The Great Lakes Power Corporat ion 's p lant has 28 u n i t s and a t o t a l i n s t a l l e d capac i ty o f 21,500 kw.
2 . 1 . 2 United States Plants
There are two hydroe lec t r i c power p l an t s l oca t ed on the United S t a t e s s i d e o f t h e S t . Marys River. The United States Government p l a n t , which con ta ins fou r un i t s i s loca ted a t the foo t o f t he fa l l s , has a total capaci ty of 16,000 kw. The p l an t a l so has one un i t l oca t ed a t t h e head o f t he f a l l s w i th a total capaci ty of 2 ,300 kw; a l l water used i s taken from t h e same diversion canal and totals approximately 12,700 cfs a t p lan t capac i ty . The Edison Saul t E lec t r ic Company p lan t , l oca t ed below t h e r a p i d s , i s served by a 2 1 / 2 mile long diversion canal. This p lan t has a t o t a l c a p a c i t y o f 41,300 kw a t a head of 20 f e e t w i t h a water usage of approximately 30,500 cfs a t r a t ed p l an t capac i ty .
F- 3
F-4
w~<{
~w'(i)
~:J:L
~!
I-~
<
{.21
a:
u.w>ir:
(J)>
-~~~
2.2 Assumptions
The assumptions adopted for computing the total energy and peak capac i ty ou tpu t s fo r any given regulated mean monthly Lake Superior out- flow and l e v e l and corresponding Lake Huron level are given i n t h e fol lowing subsect ions.
2 .2 .1 General
The est imated 1985 navigation f low requirements by months and h a l f - months a r e :
March Apri 1
May June J u l y August September October November December
- 2nd h a l f 100 cfs - 1st h a l f 400 c f s
2nd ha l f 1 ,100 c fs 1 ,500 cfs 1 ,600 cfs 1 ,700 cfs 1,700 c f s 1 ,500 cfs 1,500 c f s 1,200 c f s
- 1st half 1 ,100 cfs
As the regulat ion per iods are monthly, the es t imated navigat ion f low requi rements for March, April and December have been averaged t o t h e nea res t 100 c f s as 0 c f s f o r March, 800 cfs f o r A p r i l and 600 c f s f o r December.
2 .2 .2 Canadian P lan t s
(1) Both p l an t s a r e ope ra t ed on a run -o f - r ive r bas i s ; hence , i n any month, peak capac i ty and t h e r a t e a t which energy i s genera ted a re the same .
(2) The w a t e r a v a i l a b l e f o r Canadian use i s taken as t h e l e s s e r of t he maximum capaci ty of Canadian plants of 26,500 cfs o r the Canadian share computed as :
Qo - P, - 5,000 2 Qc -
- + 5,000 c f s
Q = Canadian Diversion C
where Qo = Lake Superior mean monthly flow i n cfs
Qm = Estimated 1985 navigation flow requirement +2,000 cfs spi l l through compensat ing works
assumed t o b e a v a i l a b l e t o Canadian plant only. 5,000 c f s = average Long Lake-Ogoki Diversion. This d ivers ion
(3) Head los ses fo r va r ious r eaches of t h e S t . Marys River would be the same as those tha t occur red dur ing the per iod 1950 through 1964 f o r which da i ly i n fo rma t ion i s a v a i l a b l e .
F-5
(4) The Abitibi Pulp and Paper Company hydraulic-powered ground- wood mill would be a v a i l a b l e f o r o p e r a t i o n .
2 .2 .3 Uni ted S ta tes P lan ts
(1) The permiss ib le d ivers ion by U.S. p l a n t s is assumed t o b e t h e g rea t e r o f t he two amounts computed as:
Qo - a - 5,000
2 Qus - - or
Qus - Qo - Qm - Qc -
where 8, = United States Diversion
Qo, Qc, and Qm a r e as de f ined i n Sec t ion 2 . 2 . 2
2 . 3 Methodology for Determining Capacity and Energy Output
The method used t o compute power output from the St. Marys River plants has been developed by Ontar io Hydro and t h e U.S. Army Corps of Engineers i n coope ra t ion w i th t he Great Lakes Power Corporation and the Edison Sault Power Company. The methods ou t l ined below compute the ou t - pu t f rom the ex is t ing fac i l i t i es under the bas i s -of -compar ison condi - t i o n s o f l e v e l s and flows, and the ou tput which would r e s u l t had a given regula t ion p lan been in opera t ion over the same per iod . The general approach employed i s as follows:
(1) Determine the head loss between Lake Superior and the forebay o f t he p l an t s t o ob ta in fo rebay l eve l .
(2) Determine the head loss between the tai lrace of the plants and Lake Huron t o o b t a i n t a i l w a t e r l e v e l .
(3) Compute head on t h e p l a n t s as t h e d i f f e rence between forebay and t a i l w a t e r l e v e l s .
(4) Compute the permiss ib le power d ive r s ion by the procedure out l ined in assumption 2 . 2 .
(5) Determine t o t a l o u t p u t from output-head-discharge curves. Details a re g iven i n t he fo l lowing subsec t ions of t h e methods employed f o r computing t o t a l o u t p u t and the de r iva t ion o f t he va r ious r e l a t ion - sh ips .
2.3.1 Canadian Plants
The head loss r e l a t ionsh ips fo r t he va r ious r eaches o f t he S t . Marys River were determined from the following mean monthly recorded level and f low data f o r the per iod January 1950 t o December 1964: d ivers ions through each Canadian plant and water levels of Lake Superior a t Marquette, Michigan, Lake Huron a t Harbor Beach, Michigan and S t . Marys
F-6
River a t Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS) gauges 011 and 012, p l an t forebays and plant ta i l races .
(1) Head lo s s Lake Super ior to CHS gauge 011: Two r e l a t i o n s were required; one for the ice cover per iod, January to March, and the o the r f o r t h e open water per iod , Apr i l to December. The curves are shown on Figure F-2 and their equat ions are: for January-March, Q = 135,115JF and f o r April-December, Q = 187,07OJF, where F is f a l l o r head loss in feet .
(2) Head l o s s CHS gauge 011 to Grea t Lakes Power p l an t (GLP) forebay: A s ing le r e l a t ionsh ip fo r each d ive r s ion r a t e i s app l i cab le t o a l l months and is shown on Figure F-3. The equat ion of the uni t f a l l r e l a t i o n is :
Mean Water Surface E l = 594.27 + .0002611 x 4 fi
Also shown on Figure F-3 is the d ivers ion from which maximum power can be generated for low l e v e l s a t CHS gauge 011.
(3) Head los s between headwater levels of the two p lan t s : A gauge r e l a t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e A b i t i b i mill headwater was on the average about 0.1 foot lower than GLP plant headwater.
(4) Head loss between tailwater leve ls o f the two p lan t s : A gauge r e l a t i o n o f t h e mean monthly levels during the months i n which discharge through the Abit ibi mill was greater than 6 ,000 cfs indicated that the mill tailwater averaged about 0.7 foot higher than the GLP p l an t t a i l - water.
(5) Head lo s s GLP p l a n t t a i l r a c e t o CHS gauge 012: Head lo s s determined by gauge relation derived from mean levels during the months i n which t h e t o t a l Canadian power d ivers ion was grea te r than 24,000 cfs, Figure F-4. The relat ion appeared t o be independent of season.
(6) Head lo s s CHS gauge 012 t o Lake Huron: Head losses determined by u n i t f a l l re la t ionships between levels a t CHS gauge 012 and Lake Huron a t Harbor Beach, Michigan and Lake Super ior ou t f low for the i ce cover per iod January to March, and f o r t h e open water period, April to December. These r e l a t i o n s are shown on Figure F-5 and Figure F-6. The equat ions are :
January to March: Mean Water Surface Elevation = 571.07 + .0001463 x 4 JF A p r i l t o December: Mean Water Surface Elevation = 569.10 + .0001489 x 4 fi
The to ta l ou tput -d ischarge-head re la t ionship for the p resent Canadian power plants has been der ived from da ta suppl ied by the Great Lakes Power Corporation, and i s shown on Figure F-7.
F- 7
0.6
0.5
0.L
t;
z_ LL 0.:
W LL
h
v
J -I
LL a
0.:
0.
0.0
BASED ON RECORCED MONTHLY MEAN VALUES, JANUARY 1950- DECEMBER 1964
J I I I L" 30 40 50 60 70
I I I I I I
80 go 100 110 120 " "
LAKE SUPERIOR OUTFLOW (Q)-THOUSANDS OF C.F.S.
Figure F-2 ST. MARYS RIVER FALL FROM LAKE SUPERIOR AT MARQUETTE TO CHS GAUGE 011
F- 8
601 m m Dl v 4
n 2 I
1
W cn 0’ 60C LL I
? 0
cn W Y J
a
a + 599 Q W LL u k
Z
k
a
0
2 598 a 1 W
LT W c s n a W I
597
596 1 I I I I 597 598 599 600
1 60 1 602
WATER SURFACE ELEV. AT C.H.S. GAUGE Oll-IGLD(1955)
Figure F-3
GREAT LAKES POWERHOUSE FOREBAY FOR VARIOUS DIVERSIONS ST. MARYS RIVER BACKWATER SLOPES CHS GAUGE 011 TO
F- 9
WATER SURFACE ELEV. AT C.H.S. GAUGE 012"IGLD(1955)
Figure F-4 ST. MARYS RIVER GAUGE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHS
GAUGE 012 AND GREAT LAKES POWERHOUSE TAILWATER
F- 10
v)
0 I
0
I-
F- 11
I 2 582 0 W W 3 Q W + I 0; 581 I-
?1 a I F N
s 1 W
579
19 I I I I I I I 16 17 18 19 20 21
GROSS HEAD IN FEET 22
Figure F-7 ST. MARYS RIVER TOTAL OUTPUT FROM CANADIAN PLANTS BASED ON GROSS HEAD AT GREAT LAKES POWER CORPORATION PLANT
F- 13
The headwater and ta i lwater levels used are those o f the GLP p l a n t and are based on average head difference between this p l a n t and t h e mill. I t has been estimated that the head a t the A b i t i b i m i l l i s 0 . 8 f o o t l e s s t h a n t h a t a t t h e GLP p l a n t .
The A b i t i b i mill was considered to generate 12,500 hp from 7,200 c f s a t a gross head of 18 fee t . This head corresponds t o 1 8 . 8 f e e t a t t h e GLP p l a n t ; t h e p l a n t e f f i c i e n c y b a s e d on 18.8 foot head i s 81.4% (provided by GLP). This e f f i c i e n c y was appl ied to 12 ,500 hp (9,325 kw) to de t e rmine t he quan t i ty o f wa te r r equ i r ed by t h e mill o v e r t h e f u l l range of expected heads. The GLP plant uses the remainder of the en t i t l emen t o f wa te r ava i l ab le at an ove ra l l e f f i c i ency o f 63% ( spec i f i ed by GLP). The r e s u l t a n t o v e r a l l power r e l a t e d t o head f o r a range of to ta l d ivers ion be tween 20,500 and 26,500 c f s is shown on Figure F-7.
2 .3 .2 Uni ted S ta tes P lan ts
Head Loss Relationship: The head ava i lab le a t each plant was determined as the d i f fe rence in e leva t ion be tween the two lakes , less t h e l o s s from Lake Superior to the plant forebay, and the loss from t h e p l a n t t a i l w a t e r t o Lake Huron. The r e l a t i o n s h i p s employed were as follows :
(1) Head l o s s from Lake Superior to Southwest Pier gauge, located i n t h e p r o x i m i t y of t he en t r ance t o t he Ed i son Sau l t E lec t r i c Company power cana l ,
F a l l = 0.0037143 Qo x - 0.06572
(2) Head l o s s f o r U.S. S l i p gauge (USS), l o c a t e d n e a r t h e t a i l r a c e f o r t h e E d i s o n S a u l t p l a n t , t o Lake Huron
Qo = 1930 (USS - 569.50)1'5 x (Fa l l - 0.09)o '2
dur ing the ice per iod and
Qo = 1605 (USS - 567.20)1-5 x (Fa l l - 0.09)0 '4
dur ing the open water per iod .
(3) Head l o s s from Southwest Pier gauge t o U.S. S l i p gauge is used t o compute t h e losses through the two power p l an t s . The loss through the Edison Saul t p lan t i s computed by sub t r ac t ing t he head l o s s i n t he canal from t h e SWP-USS l o s s . The l o s s i n t h e c a n a l i s l imi t ed t o 3 .5 f e e t by t h e power company t o keep excess ive ve loc i t ies from damaging t h e canal walls. The head loss in the Edison Saul t power canal was determined from:
Head l o s s = 27,800 Q206 / '(SWP - 568.97)5'2
where Q i s the canal f low in thousands of cfs
SWP i s water su r face e l eva t ion a t Southwest Pier gauge.
F-14
For the U.S. Government p l an t , t he head l o s s cons i s t s of the r i v e r l o s s from Southwest P i e r gauge t o t h e r e g u l a t i n g w o r k s , t h e l o s s i n t h e head race to the plant forebay, the l o s s i n t h e t a i l r a c e and t h e r i v e r l o s s from t h e t a i l r a c e t o U.S. S l i p gauge. The discharge through the Government p l a n t is p r a c t i c a l l y c o n s t a n t a t about 12,700 c f s and accord ingly there i s no var ia t ion o f head loss in the head race o r t a i l r a c e due to discharge. There i s a sma l l va r i a t ion i n head l o s s i n t h e t a i l r a c e which i s r e l a t e d t o t h e r i v e r s t a g e below the r ap ids . No accura t e r e l a t ionsh ips between t h e r i v e r l o s s e s and the r iver f lows have been es tabl ished but they are very small i n magnitude compared t o t h e overal l head. The v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e s e small lo s ses have i n s ign i f i can t e f f e c t on the eva lua t ion of the var ious regula t ion p lans . For the purposes o f the p resent eva lua t ions , the r iver losses and head and t a i l - r ace l o s ses were assumed c o n s t a n t a t 0.6 f o o t .
Total Output Relationships: The to t a l ou tpu t r e l a t ionsh ips fo r each of t he Un i t ed S t a t e s p l an t s are as follows:
(a) Power output by U.S. Government p l a n t
P = 1055 H - 2890 for va lues o f H of 21.5 o r l e s s
P = 4280 H - 75H2 - 27,560 f o r v a l u e s of H of 21.5 o r more
where P i s a power o u t p u t i n kw f o r an assumed cons tan t p lan t water use of 12,700 cfs and H i s the net head on t h e p l a n t i n feet.
(b) Power output by Edison Sault plant
Pa = 0.701 (62H - 200 + (89.5H - 39)Q) when Q i s less than 18.16 + 0.59H
w k en Q exceeds 18.16 + 0.59H P = Pa - 103 (Q - 18.16 - 0.59H) 1.6
PC = Pb - 70.1 (Q - 20.16 - 0.59H) 1.6 when Q exceeds 20.16 + 0.59H and H exceeds 17
In t he above r e l a t i o n s , Pa, Pb and PC a r e t h e power o u t p u t s i n kw, Q i s the p l an t wa te r u se i n t housands o f c f s , and H i s the net head on the p l a n t i n f e e t .
F- 15
Sect ion 3
NIAGARA RIVER POWER PLANTS
3.1 General Description
The outflow from Lake Erie which is u t i l i z e d f o r power i s d ive r t ed t o t h e v a r i o u s h y d r o e l e c t r i c p l a n t s by means o f t h e Welland Canal and by s e v e r a l s t r u c t u r e s from the Niagara River a t t he Grass Island Pool about a mile above Niagara Falls. P l a n t s i n Canada are served from both sources, whereas in t he Un i t ed S t a t e s d ive r s ion is t o t a l l y from t h e Niagara River a t t h e Grass Is land Pool , Figure F-8 shows the genera l location of the Niagara River and Figure F-9 shows t h e d e t a i l l o c a t i o n s of d ive r s ion s t ruc tu res and hydroe lec t r i c power p l a n t s a t Niagara Falls.
3.1.1 Canadian Plants
There are e ight hydroe lec t r ic power p l a n t s on t h e Canadian s i d e of the Niagara River which t a k e t h e i r water e i t h e r d i r e c t l y from t h e r i v e r o r from Lake Erie v i a t h e Welland Ship Canal. Table F - 1 l i s t s t h e p l a n t s , t h e s o u r c e o f t h e i r water supply, number o f u n i t s , r a t e d head and instal led capaci ty . In the power s tud ie s i t has been assumed t h a t t h e Rankine p l an t which is owned and operated by the Canadian Niagara Power Company (a U.S. -owned company) will no t be i n ope ra t ion in 1985.
TABLE F-1
HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS IN CANADA USING OUTFLOW FROM LAKE E R I E
Source of P lan t Water Supply
DeCew Falls No. 1 DeCew Falls No. 2 S i r Adam Beck No. 1 S i r Adam Beck No. 2 Pumping S ta t ion and Generating Station Ontario Power Toronto Power Canadian Niagara Power Co. (Rankine)
Welland Canal Welland Canal Niagara River Niagara River Niagara River Niagara River Niagara River Niagara River
Niagara River
No. o f Units
6 2
10 16 6 6
1 2 7
11
Rated Head ( f e e t )
266 283
291-301 291-301 60-85 50-75 205 134
126
I n s t a l l e d Capacity
( kw)
31,900 115,200 40 3,900
1,223,600
176,700 101,500 64,000
94,700
F- 16
Figure F-8 PLAN OF NIAGARA RIVER-LAKE ERIE TO LAKE ONTARIO
F- 17
TUNNEL NO. 1
ISLAND POOL
G.S. No. 2 INTAKES CHI PPAWA
MATERIAL DOCK
ROBERT MOSES PLANT
LEWISTON PUMPING- GENERATING PLANT
SCALE IN FEET - - H 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Figure F-9 NIAGARA RIVER-DETAIL LOCATION OF HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANTS AND DIVERSION WORKS
3.1.2 United States Plants
The ex i s t ing Un i t ed S t a t e s hydroe lec t r i c p l an t s are the Robert Moses Niagara Power P lan t and the Lewiston Pumping-Generating Plant. These p lan ts have 13 and 1 2 un i t s r e spec t ive ly w i th r a t ed heads o f 300 and 85 f e e t . Their i n s t a l l e d c a p a c i t i e s a r e 1950 megawatts and 240 megawatts r e s p e c t i v e l y . Both p l a n t s are owned and operated by the Power Au thor i ty o f t he S t a t e o f New York.
3 . 2 Methodology for Determining Energy and Peak Capacity Output
This section presents the assumptions and methods developed by Ontario Hydro and the Power Authority of t h e S t a t e o f New York f o r computing energy and peak capacity outputs obtainable from Canadian and Uni ted S ta tes hydroe lec t r ic power p l an t s i n t he N iaga ra a r ea . These methods are used to compute the ou tpu t s which would b e a v a i l a b l e from ex i s t ing f ac i l i t i e s w i th bas i s -o f - compar i son Lake Erie outflows, and t h e o u t p u t s which would b e a v a i l a b l e from e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s w i t h t h e Lake Erie outf lows which r e s u l t from the va r ious r egu la t ion p l ans .
3.2.1 Assumptions
(1) For any Grass Is land Pool in f low the d ivers ion en t i t l ements f o r Canada and the Uni ted S ta tes would be determined from the equat ions given in 3 .2 .3 (4) .
(2) The o r d e r o f p r i o r i t y i n which t h e Canadian plants were assumed t o u s e t h e a v a i l a b l e d i v e r s i o n i s DeCew, S i r Adam Beck (SAB) Nos. 1 and 2 and the pumping-generat ing s ta t ions, Ontar io Power and Toronto Power.
(3) The Niagara Falls flow requirements as set f o r t h i n t h e I n t e r - na t iona l Niagara Trea ty o f 1950 would b e complied with. These consist of a flow of not less than 100,000 cfs ove r t he fa l l s between the hours of 8 : O O A.M. EST t o 1O:OO P.M. EST from April 1 through September 15 and between the hours of 8:OO A.M. EST and 8:OO P.M. EST from September 16 through October 1, o r EDT whenever it i s i n e f f e c t i n e i t h e r c o u n t r y at Niagara Fa l l s . The flow over the f a l l s a t any o t h e r time t o b e a minimum of 50,000 cfs .
3.2.2 Basic Data
Except as noted below, the data used i n these computations are g iven in Volume 2 Coordinated Basic Data of Appendix "B" Lake Regula- t ion :
(1) Mean monthly recorded Lake Erie outflows (1900-1967).
(2) Mean monthly Lake Erie out f lows resu l t ing from r e g u l a t i o n p l ans (1900- 1967).
F- 19
(3) The mean daily Niagara River recorded flows a t Buffalo given in Table 5 o f t he r epor t on Lake Erie Outflows 1860 t o 1964, dated June 1965 by the Coordinat ing Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data and as coordinated by the In te rna t iona l Niagara Committee through 1967.
(4) The mean monthly recorded Welland Canal diversions from Lake Er ie as g iven in Table 1 of the Coordinating Committee 's report on t h e above report through 1967.
(5) The recorded mean monthly Lake Erie outflows given in Table 7 of t he above report through 1967.
(6) Niagara River monthly mean loca l in f low from the above.
(7) Head lo s ses and d ive r s ion capab i l i t i e s fo r t he wa te r supp ly tunnels and canals were de te rmined by ac tua l f ie ld t es t s .
(8) Diversion capabi l i t ies and power output - f low r e l a t ions fo r each plant were determined from f i e l d tests augmented by ope ra t ing experience.
3.2.3 Derived Data
Depending upon the r egu la t ion p l an be ing eva lua ted and operating experience, adjustments were made t o t h e d a t a as follows:
(1) Lake E r i e mean dai ly basis-of-comparison and regula ted outflows :
Mean d a i l y Lake Erie basis-of-comparison outflows and mean d a i l y outflows from those regulation plans for which no control structure would be requi red a t t h e l a k e o u t l e t were derived from mean d a i l y recorded Niagara River flows at Buffalo by adding to t hese f l ows t he appropr ia te mean monthly recorded Welland Canal diversion and the difference between basis-of-comparison and recorded mean monthly Lake Er ie ou t f lows , o r the difference between the regulated and recorded mean monthly outflows. As mean da i ly r eco rded r i ve r f l ows a r e ava i l a - b l e on ly s ince J anua ry 1, 1926, t h e p e r i o d f o r which basis-of-compari- son o r regula ted mean d a i l y Lake Erie outflows can be computed i s from t h i s d a t e t o December 31, 1964 (39 y e a r s ) . The f low data used in these computa t ions a re ident i f ied in Sec t ion 3 .2 .2 (3 ,4 ,5) .
Mean d a i l y Lake Erie outf lows from t r i a l r egu la t ion p l ans which would r equ i r e a c o n t r o l s t r u c t u r e a t t h e l a k e o u t l e t were considered t o b e t h e same as t h e mean monthly regulated outflows. As t h e peak outputs computed from these ou t f lows are t o b e compared with the peak outputs computed from mean daily basis-of-comparison outflows , only those regulated outf lows from January 1, 1926 t o December 31, 1964 were considered.
F-20
(2) Niagara River f low into the Grass Island Pool: Mean d a i l y o r mean monthly Niagara River flows into the Grass Island Pool were derived from corresponding Lake Erie outflows by subtracting the Welland Ship Canal and New York S t a t e Barge Canal assuming navigation flow requirements as of 1985 and a constant f low of 6,400 cfs to the DeCew power p l a n t s , a d j u s t i n g f o r t h e effect of Welland Ship Canal flow variations on Niagara River flow and adding local Niagara River inflow. The ne t ad jus tmen t s t o Lake Erie outflows each month a re :
January February March Apr i l
June J u l y August September October November December
May
3,300 cfs 3,600 c f s 2,900 c f s 6,700 c f s
10,500 c f s
10,800 c f s
10,600 cfs 10,500 c f s 9,800 c f s 5,200 cfs
10,900 cfs
10,900 cfs
The sources o f the ad jus tments a re as fol lows:
(a) The monthly and half-monthly Welland Ship Canal and New York S t a t e Barge Canal flows f o r t h e p r o j e c t e d 1985 navigation requirements.
(b) Adjustments f o r t h e e f f e c t on Niagara River flows of monthly v a r i a t i o n s i n Welland Canal navigation flows, developed by Ontario Hydro.
(c) The Niagara River monthly mean local inf lows, given on page 13 of the Coordinating Committee's Report on Lake Erie Outflows, 1860-1964.
( 3 ) Determination of flproperfl Grass I s l and Pool l e v e l : The "proper" level of Grass Island Pool depends on flow and i s computed from the bas i c equa t ion
(Q - 160,000) l 'Properll level = 559.91 + 0.302 io,ooo
where Q is the Niagara River f low into the pool in cfs . The "proper" level is t h e l e v e l which i s determined from the 1953 f low- leve l re la t ionship . This equa t ion i s g iven i n t he In t e rna t iona l J o i n t Commission's 1953 Report on the Preservat ion and Enhancement of Niagara Falls. Allowance f o r t h e e f f e c t o f a q u a t i c weeds, t h e growth of which var ies dur ing the year , i s made by adding t o t h e r e s u l t o f t h i s e q u a t i o n a number which ranges from 0 to 0.32 foot depending on t h e month. This s e t of monthly adjustments w a s developed by analysis of severa l years of r ecen t ope ra t ing r eco rds .
F-21
(4) The d i v e r s i o n e n t i t l e m e n t s f o r Canada and the United States f o r power gene ra t ion fo r any Grass I s l and Pool inflow are based on Article 111, Niagara Diversion Treaty,, 1950:
Canadian enti t lement = 1 / 2 (Grass Island Pool Inflow
U.S. en t i t l emen t = 1 / 2 (Grass Island Pool Inflow
- Falls flow + 6400 - 5000)
These equations add the 6400 cfs used a t t h e DeCew p l a n t s t o t h e t o t a l power water ava i lab le and reserve the approximately 5000 cfs Long Lake- Ogoki d i v e r s i o n i n t o Lake Superior for Ontar io Hydro use.
3 .2 .4 To ta l Energy Output Computations f o r Canadian Plants
The energy outputs obtainable from the Canadian power p l a n t s during daytime and nighttime hours were computed monthly over t h e period January 1900 t o December 1967 for the basis-of-comparison and for each regula t ion p lan . Daytime energy was c o n s i d e r e d t o b e t h a t generated between 7 : O O A.M. and 1 1 : O O P.M. and nighttime energy, that generated between 1 1 : O O P.M. and 7:OO A.M. The method of computing these daytime and nighttime energy outputs for each month o f t h e 68- year per iod i s descr ibed in the fol lowing paragraphs:
(1) Total energy output in average megawatts i s obtained from a r e l a t i o n s h i p between Niagara River flows into 'Grass I s l and Pool des- c r ibed in Sec t ion 3 .2 .3 (2) and the ava i lab le energy ou tput . This r e l a t i o n s h i p is de r ived fo r two per iods; tour is t season days and tour i s t season n ights o r non- tour i s t season and shown g raph ica l ly on Figure F-10. For the touris t season, two values of energy output are obta ined , one for tour i s t hours (14 or 1 2 hours/day) and another one fo r non- tou r i s t hour s (10 o r 12 hours/day). Each o f t h e r e l a t i o n - ships has been derived by computing energy output for 20 t o 25 flows which represent the expected f low range.
(2) The o rde r o f p r io r i ty o f t he p l an t s is as descr ibed in 3 .2 .1 (4 ) .
(3) The d i v e r s i o n t o DeCew i s cons idered to be cons tan t a t 6400 cfs. Gibson and Moody Lakes provide some forebay s torage so t h e daytime energy has been taken as 156 Mw f o r 16 hours per day and night- time energy has been taken as 81 Mw f o r 8 hours per day.
(4 ) The d i v e r s i o n t o t h e SAB p l a n t s was taken as t h e d i v e r s i o n a v a i l a b l e a f t e r 6,400 cfs were a l l o t t e d t o DeCew o r the f low tha t can be d iver ted th rough the Beck tunnels and canals with a given Grass I s l and Pool level and a forebay level of 540 fee t (assumed normal minimum opera t ing leve l ) , whichever is t h e lesser. The d ive r s ion capac i ty o f t h e SAB tunnels and canals for a given head var ies with the season.
F-22
2000
1900
1800
1700
z 2 1600 > a
1500 3 a 5 1400 0 >.
1300 W Z W
1200 a - ? 1100 Z a
cn 0 -J 1000 a I- O
N w
- ? 1100 Z 0-
cn d -J 1000 a 0 I-
N w
t= 900
800
700
600
LEGEND PRESENT CONTROL STRUCTURE (i.e. LAKE ERIE NOT REGULATED)
" EXTENDED CONTROL STRUCTURE (i.e. LAKE ERIE REGULATED)
NON-TOURIST SEASON
TOURIST SEASON NIGHTS AND
TOURIST SEASON DAYS
NOTE ENERGY VALUES FROM CURVES REQUIRE ADJUSTMENTS FOR: 1. DAILY FLOW DEVIATION FROM MONTHLY MEAN (FOR PRESENT CONTROL STRUCTURE ONLY)
3. MAXIMIZING DECEW ENERGY 2 . SAB #2 PUMPING-GENERATING PLANT OPERATION
INFLOW TO GRASS ISLAND POOL-1000's CFS BASES 1. MEAN NIAGARA RIVER WEED EFFECT 2. MINIMUM S.A.B. NO. 2 FOREBAY 540.0 3. S.A.B. NO. 2 TW. ELEV. BASED ON MEAN LAKE ONTARIO ELEVATION 244.5 4. ONTARIO POWER G.S. CAPACITY 8,300 CFS. (12 UNITS) 5. TORONTO POWER G.S. CAPACITY 9,000 CFS. (7 UNITS) 6. CANADIAN NIAGARA POWER OUT OF SERVICE
NIAGARA AREA PRESENT CANADIAN POWER PLANTS
The d ive r s ion was read from Figure F-11 which gives maximum SAB d ive r s ion ra te f o r a given Grass Is land Pool l eve l .
(5) If t h e water a v a i l a b l e t o t h e SAB plants exceeds the capac i ty of i t s d i v e r s i o n f a c i l i t i e s , t h e n SAB forebay level was assumed t o b e 540 feet and i t d i v e r t s t o f u l l c a p a c i t y . If t h e water a v a i l a b l e is less, the forebay leve l w i l l be above 540 feet and w a s computed by use of t h e u n i t f a l l r e l a t i o n s h i p shown on Figure F-13.
(6) The SAB tailwater l e v e l was obtained from the curve on Figure F-12 r e l a t ing r i ve r f l ow and tailwater l e v e l f o r an average Lake Ontar io l eve l 3f 244.5.
(7) Gross head on t h e SAB p l a n t s was computed as t h e d i f f e r e n c e between the forebay level computed as desc r ibed i n item (5) and t h e t a i l w a t e r l e v e l computed as desc r ibed i n item (6) .
( 8 ) The SAB component of the energy output shown on Figure F-10 was computed from the f l ow d ive r t ed t o SAB, item (4), and the g ross head, item ( 7 ) . An economy factor of 22.0 kw/cfs a t a gross head of 291.0 feet is t y p i c a l f o r t h e SAB p l a n t .
(9) The d i v e r s i o n a v a i l a b l e t o t h e O n t a r i o Power p l a n t i s t h e allowable Canadian diversion less t h e d i v e r s i o n s t o t h e DeCew and SAB p l a n t s less the Canadian share of any additional water t h a t i s required, under cer ta in r iver f lows , to main ta in the p roper l eve l o f Grass I s l and Pool. Figure F-14 shows the re la t ion between f low past the control s t ruc ture and the l eve l o f the Pool . I t has been assumed that if t h e f low around the end of the control s t ructure i s less than shown on the cu rve , t he d i f f e rence will be suppl ied equal ly by Ontar io Hydro and t h e Power Author i ty o f the S ta te o f New York (PASNY). I t i s assumed t h a t the Ontar io Power p lan t can take a l l o f t h e a v a i l a b l e d i v e r s i o n up t o i t s capaci ty (8300 cfs) . Outputs from the Ontar io Power p l a n t were computed as 12.6 kwh f o r each cfs hour d iver ted .
(10) The d ive r s ion ava i l ab le t o t he Toron to Power p l a n t i s t h a t no t u t i l i zed by On ta r io Power. The quan t i ty t h a t it d i v e r t s is t h e lesser o f t h e a v a i l a b l e d i v e r s i o n o r i t s d ive r t ing capab i l i t y o f 9000 cfs. Outputs from the Toronto Power p l a n t were computed as 7 .1 kwh f o r each cfs hour d ive r t ed .
(11) Total energy outputs shown on Figure F-10 are the sum of the ou tpu t s o f t he i nd iv idua l p l an t s desc r ibed i n items (8,9 and 10) . The g raph ica l r e l a t ionsh ips are t y p i c a l of average o r normal cond i t ions . Other fac tors which affect the energy outputs but which could not be inc luded r ead i ly i n g raph ica l form were t r e a t e d as adjustments and are described under items 12,13,14.
(121 For the basis-of-comparison and regulat ion plans not requir ing a c o n t r o l s t r u c t u r e a t Lake Erie o u t l e t , t h e lake outflows would vary somewhat e r r a t i c a l l y d u r i n g t h e month. Since f lows higher than cer ta in llmits r e s u l t i n d i m i n i s h i n g e f f i c i e n c y i n t h e u s e o f water d i v e r t e d
F- 24
NOTE: THIS CURVE WAS COMPUTED FROM
SHOWN ON Figure F-12 UNIT-FALL DISCHARGE RELATIONSHIP
FOR TOURIST AND NON-TOURIST SEASONS.
TOTAL DIVERTED FLOW-S.A.B. NO. 1 & .2 THOUSANDS OF CFS
Figure F-11 NIAGARA RIVER DIVERSION TO S.A.B. NO. 1 AND 2 VERSUS GRASS ISLAND POOL
LEVEL FOR CANAL CROSSOVER LEVEL 540.0 BETWEEN TUNNELS AND POWER CANAL
F- 25
25 1 .O
h m m
2 250.0
E I
0
2 N
Z
4 4 249.0
a u)
I-
a
a
a
W l-
3 - +
247.0
246.C
COMPUTED FROM M.W.S.=225.256 -I- ,20164 X l o 3 Q/ fi BASED ON MONTHLY MEAN OBSERVED LEVELS AND FLOWS
JULY 1967 RELATIONSHIP BASED ON LAKE ONTARIO ELEVATION 244.5 IGLD (1955).
FOR THE MONTHS APR.TO DEC.PERIOD-APRIL 1961 TO
I I I I I I I I 1 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
NIAGARA RIVER FLOW-THOUSANDS OF C.F.S. DOWNSTREAM S.A.B.
Figure F - I 2 NIAGARA RIVER S.A.B. NO. 2 TAILWATER ELEVATION VERSUS NIAGARA RIVER FLOW
559
558
557
f 556 i- 3
n a
z 555 9 I? 2 554
I
a 551
5 z a 550
NOTES: RELATIONSHIP IS BASED ON RELATIONSHIP SHOWN
DEC. 17/64 WHICH INCLUDES THE EFFECT OF REHABILITATING THE QUEENSTON POWER CANAL TO INCREASE THE CAPACITY BY AN ESTIMATED 6500 CFS. AT MATERIAL DOCK ELEV. OF 561.0’ AND CROSSOVER
ON ONTARIO HYDRO DWG. NF 28-8-2500 DATED
ELEV. AT 538.0’ FOR TOURIST AND NON-TOURIST SEASON
549 -
548 - I I I I I I I
12,400 12,600 12,800 13,000 13,200 13,400 13,600 13,800 14,000 14,200 14,400 14,600 14,800 15,000 15,200 15,400
Q W F Figure F-13
SIR ADAM BECK-NIAGARA G.S. NO. 1 AND 2 ESTIMATED UNIT FALL-DISCHARGE RELATIONSHIP MATERIAL DOCK (GAUGE 5 ) TO CANAL CROSSOVER GAUGE AT TWO TUNNELS AND POWER CANAL (AFTER REHABILITATION)
C
F- 28
f o r power, the energy output available from the mean monthly flow may not be equivalent to the energy output avai lable f rom the individual dai ly f lows which produced that par t icular mean monthly flow, The co r rec t ion fo r each month r e l a t e d t o Grass Island Pool inflow was developed from an analysis of f low variations that are typical of each calendar month. These relationships are shown in F igu re F-15.
(13) 131 Mw of DeCew output were inc luded in the p repara t ion of Figure F-10. Daytime energy from t h i s p l a n t a v e r a g e s 25 Mw more than daily average output and nighttime energy averages 50 Mw less than da i ly average .
(14) An adjustment for SAB # 2 Pumping-Generating plant operati-on was made which r e s u l t e d i n a ga in i n t o t a l day t ime ene rgy and l o s s i n to ta l n ight t ime energy . These ga ins and losses , re la ted to Niagara River flow, are shown on Figure F-16. I t i s assumed t h a t t h e SAB # 2 pump s t o r a g e r e s e r v o i r i s f i l l e d each night and the water fully uti . l ized during the following day.
(15) The t o t a l daytime energy i s computed as the sum of the e n e r g y f o r t o u r i s t and non-tourist hours between 7:OO A.M. and 1 1 : O O P.M. from Figure F-10 co r rec t ed as desc r ibed i n items 12,13, p lus the dayt ime energy re leased f rom the reservoir for the appropriate season as descr ibed in i tem 14.
(16) Nighttime energy i s t h e sum of the energy for the per iod between 1 1 : O O P.M. and 7 : O O A . M . , which are a l l non-touris t hours for a l l months o f t h e y e a r , computed from Figure F-10 and co r rec t ed as desc r ibed i n items 1 2 and 1 3 less the n ight t ime energy s tored in the r e se rvo i r fo r t he app ropr i a t e s eason as desc r ibed i n item 14.
(17) Total daytime and nighttime energy outputs in a month were de termined by mul t ip ly ing the da i ly energy for each ca tegory by the number of days i n t h e month.
3.2.5 Total Energy Output Computations for United States Plants
The energy outputs obtainable from the U.S. PASNY power p l a n t s during daytime and nighttime hours were computed f o r t h e b a s i s - o f - comparison and f o r each regula t ion p lan for a range of Lake Erie out- f lows for each month of the year over the per iod January 1900 through December 1967. The energy avai lable for the basis-of-comparison and each regula t ion p lan was d iv ided i n to weekday daytime, weekday n igh t - time and weekend components. Trial dispatches have been made o f energy sources into load duration curves representing Sunday, average weekday, peak weekday and Saturday load conditions projected for ea.ch month f o r New York State i n 1985. These dispatches indicated that the weekday loads can be divided into high and low load per iods. For a l l months the high load per iod has a durat ion of about 14 hours and t h e low load per iod has a duration of about 10 hours. The weekend loads have a lower marginal unit energy cost than the weekday low load per iod. The marginal cost of energy for each of these per iods for each month i s desc r ibed i n Sec t ion 6.
F- 29
+2 t
-16
- 18 I I I I I I I I 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
NET INFLOW-GRASS ISLAND POOL-THOUSANDS OF C.F.S. Figure F-15
NIAGARA RIVER ADJUSTMENT TO AVERAGE MONTHLY ENERGY OUTPUT OF PRESENT CANADIAN POWER PLANTS FOR DAILY MEAN FLOW DEVIATION VERSUS INFLOW TO GRASS ISLAND POOL
5500
vj LL I z 5 v) v)
9 5000 a 0
5 a c3 > c3 CL W Z W
5 4500 a n -
NIGHT TIME LOSS NON-TOURIST """"----- """- ---""" TOURIST
INFLOW TO GRASS ISLAND POOL-THOUSANDS C.F.S.
Figure F- 16 N!AGARP, RlVER DA!LY ENERGY GA!N OR LOSS FROM OPERATION
OF S.A.B. NO. 2 PUMP G.S. VERSUS INFLOW TO GRASS ISLAND POOL
The pr inc ipa l d i f fe rence be tween the method used t o compute t h e various energy components from Canadian p l a n t s and those from U.S. p l a n t s arises from t h e f a c t t h a t it i s s a t i s f a c t o r y t o c o n s i d e r t h a t Ontario Hydro's pumped s t o r a g e r e s e r v o i r is f i l l e d and emptied daily, b u t f o r t h e PASNY pumped s t o r a g e t h i s would n o t b e s a t i s f a c t o r y . The method of computing the daytime, nighttime and weekend energy outputs from PASNY f a c i l i t i e s is descr ibed in the fol lowing:
(1) For each calendar month the to ta l energy ou tputs in average Mw were computed f o r 20 t o 2 5 Grass Island Pool inflows, which repre- sen t the expec ted f low range . For touris t season months, two values of energy output for each f low were computed, One of these va lues a p p l i e s t o t h e t o u r i s t h o u r s and t h e o t h e r v a l u e a p p l i e s t o non- t o u r i s t h o u r s . The re la t ionship be tween Grass Island Pool inflow and t h e t h r e e classes of energy outputs for each calendar month are shown on Figure$ F-17 t o F-28 .
(2 ) U.S. en t i t l ement for each Grass Island Pool inflow was computed as desc r ibed i n 3 . 2 . 3 ( 4 ) .
(3) The Grass Is land Pool level was r e l a t e d t o t h e flow as desc r ibed i n 3 . 2 . 3 (3).
(4) The waterways head loss between Grass Island Pool and the forebay canal was computed from t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p H = Q /K 2
f
where H = f r i c t i o n h e a d l o s s f
Q = PASNY d ive r s ion ra te expressed i n thousands of cfs
K = waterways roughness factor which varies month by month as indicated by two years of hourly operating measurements.
(5) The canal forebay level was computed as Grass Island Pool l e v e l l e s s waterways head l o s s .
(6) The energy outputs shown on Figures F-17 t o F - 2 8 assume a Moses p l a n t t a i l r a c e e l e v a t i o n o f 250.0. This provides a gross head on t h e Moses p lan t equa l to the d i f fe rence be tween the forebay leve l desc r ibed i n i tem (5) and 250 .O .
(7) The Moses energy outputs shown on Figures F-17 t o F - 2 8 were computed from t h e d i v e r s i o n t o Moses, i n item ( 2 ) and gross head, ( i tem ( 6 ) ) , u s ing t he t u rb ine -gene ra to r ou tpu t cha rac t e r i s t i c s de t e r - mined by Gibson t e s t s .
F -32
7 6
72
68
6 4
60
56
52
48 a a a 44
a I
z 0 0
LT
0
Z -
? 40
2 3E f > 0 E 3; W z W
2E
2L
2c
1f
1:
E
I
1
NOTE: DAYTIME=14 HR. NO UNITS ON SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE
WEEKDAY
/
\.
I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I ) 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
GRASS ISLAND POOL INFLOW, TCFS Figure F-17
PASNY ENERGY-FLOW RELATIONSHIP JANUARY
F- 33
76
72
68
64
60
56
52
48 a a Q a 44 5 a $, 40 I
2
0’ 0 2 36 5
a 32 > L7 w Z w
2E
24
2c
1E
li
e
L
(
NOTE: “
DAYTIME=14 HR. NO UNITS ON SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE
WEEKDAY TOTAL ----“WEEKEND DAY TOTAL
” WEEKDAY DAYTIME
” WEEKDAY NIGHTTIME
\.
GRASS ISLAND POOL INFLOW, TCFS Figure F - I 8
PASNY ENERGY-FLOW RELATIONSHIP FEBRUARY
F- 34
7 6
72
68
64
60
56
52
48
a a
CY a a 4 4 2
a
I
5 36
-
I 9 40
0 0
f >. (I) 5 32 z W
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
c
NOTE: DAYTIME=14 HR. 1 LPGP UNIT ON SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE
WEEKDAY TOTAL “----WEEKEND DAY TOTAL
WEEKDAY DAYTIME
- WEEKDAY NIGHTTIME
RESERVOIR RELEASE
\ 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
GRASS ISLAND POOL INFLOW, TCFS
PASNY ENERGY-FLOW RELATIONSHIP MARCH Figure F- 1 9
F- 35
7 6
72
68
64
60
56
52
48 a a a a 44
@i
2 0 0
a z -
$ 4c
2 3c z a 3; > a W z W
2t
21
2(
1(
1:
I
NOTE: DAYTIME=14 HR. 1 RMNPP UNIT ON SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE
WEEKDAY TOTAL\
/ /
7 -WEEKEND DAY TOTAL
WEEKDAY DAYTI ME
/WEEKDAY NIGHTTIME
/
RELEASE
GRASS ISLAND POOL INFLOW, TCFS Figure F- 20
PASNY ENERGY-FLOW RELATIONSHIP APRIL
F- 36
0- 76
72
68
64
60
56
52
48 a [L <
44 9 rr x 4 0
Z
z 0
36
z & 32 LL W Z W
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
a
NOTE: DAYTIME=14 HR. 1 LPGP UNIT ON SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE
/ / ,WEEKEND DAY TOTAL
/ WEEKDAY DAYTIME \-
WEEKDAY NIGHTTIME 0-
"-
I I I I 1 I I I I I I 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
- GRASS ISLAND POOL INFLOW TCFS
Figure F-21 PASNY ENERGY-FLOW RELATIONSHIP MAY
F-37
7 6
72
68
6 4
60
56
52
48 U a 2 44 - Z
l i = 4c z 0 0 2 3f
: 3; z > -
W Z W
2E
21
2(
1t
1:
I
I
NOTE: DAYTIME=14 HR. 1 LPGP UNIT ON SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE
/
TOTAL
DAY TI ME
/ WEEKDAY NIGHTTIME
/
I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I , 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
GRASS ISLAND POOL INFLOW, TCFS Figure F-22
PASNY ENERGY-FLOW RELATIONSHIP JUNE
F-38
7 6
72
68
64
6 0
56
52
48
a 0:
4 4 - Z
a
2
5 3 6
5 40
0
z > 2 32 W Z W
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
NOTE: DAYTIME=14 HR. NO UNITS ON SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE
WEEKDAY TOTA
/'
/I' " - W E E K E N D DAY TOTAL
. ' WEEKDAY DAYTIME
/ WEEKDAY NIGHTTIME
/
7". 3000 MWHR EKDAY RESERVOIR
\.
RELEASE
\
GRASS ISLAND POOL INFLOW, TCFS Figure F-23
PASNY ENERGY-FLOW RELATIONSHIP JULY
F- 39
76
72
68
64
60
56
52
48 a a LL
4 4 - z rr 5 40 I
8 f $: 36
> a E 32 z W
28
24
20
16
12
e
4
C
NOTE: DAYTIME=14 HR. NO UNITS ON SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE
/
TOTAL
DAYTIME
/ WEEKDAY NIGHTTIME
/
7.” 3000 MWHR
r - - RESERVOIR RELEASE
\. \
I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
GRASS ISLAND POOL INFLOW, TCFS Figure F- 24
PASNY ENERGY-FLOW RELATIONSHIP AUGUST
F-40
7 6
7 2
68
6 4
60
56
52
4 8 a a rr 0
Z Q: 4 4
$ 40 a
E 0 0 2 36 Z > 0 LL 32 W z W
-
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
C
NOTE: DAYTIME=14 HR. 1 RMNPP UNIT ON SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE
WEEKDAY
DAYTIME
/ WEEKDAY NIGHTTIME
/
RESERVOIR REL .EASE
I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
GRASS ISLAND POOL INFLOW, TCFS Figure F-25
PASNY ENERGY-FLOW RELATIONSHIP SEPTEMBER
F-41
76
72
68
6 4
60
56
52
48 4 a a c3
Z 5 44
u I g 40
0 0 2 3E f t u W Z W
a: 32
2E
24
2c
1 E
1;
E
I
(
NOTE: DAYTIME=14 HR. 1 RMNPP UNITON SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE /
/
DAY TOTAL
WEEKDAY
WEEKDAY DAYTIME
/ WEEKDAY NIGHTTIME
/
RELEASE
I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
GRASS ISLAND POOL INFLOW, TCFS Figure F- 26
PASNY ENERGY-FLOW RELATIONSHIP OCTOBER
F-42
7 6
72
68
64
60
56
52
48
a a 2 44 - Z
mi $ 40 2
5 36 0
f >.
32 W Z W
2 8
24
20
16
12
8
4
0 I
"
EKEND DAY TOTAL
- - WEEKDAY
NOTE: DAYTIME=14 HR. 1 LPGP UNIT ON SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE
DAY1 7 ME
0 c-"
RESERVOIR RELEASE
\ I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
GRASS ISLAND POOL INFLOW, TCFS Figure F-27
PASNY ENERGY-FLOW RELATIONSHIP NOVEMBER
F-43
76
72
68
64
60
56
52
48
a a
P & I 40
d 44
Z
z 0
36
f >
32 W Z w
2E
2L
2c
I f
1:
t
I
NOTE: DAYTIME=14 HR. NO UNITS ON SCHEDULED MA1 NTENANCE
WEEKDAY DAYTIME
I I I I I I I 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
GRASS ISLAND POOL INFLOW, TCFS Figure F- 28
PASNY ENERGY-FLOW RELATIONSHIP DECEMBER
F- 44
(8) The maximum amount of water that can be discharged through a Moses p l a n t u n i t f o r h i g h h e a d is con t ro l l ed hy t he m a x i m u m permissible generator output which is consideTed t o be 190 Mw. For gross heads less than 304 f e e t , t h e maximum uni t d i scharge i s c o n t r o l l e d b y t h e f u l l gate f low. The cana l forebay e leva t ion was assumed t o b e l i m i t e d t o a minimum of 540.0.
(9) Thir teen Moses p l a n t u n i t s were cons ide red t o be ava i l ab le each month, except during April, September and October when only twelve u n i t s were cons idered to be ava i lab le to a l low for main tenance .
(10) The maximum d i v e r s i o n t o Moses was the f l ow tha t would load t h e a v a i l a b l e Moses u n i t s t o 190 Mw o r t o f u l l g a t e d i s c h a r g e o r produce a canal forebay level of 540.0, whichever is t h e l e a s t .
(11) The magnitude of Lewiston Pump-Generator p l a n t r e l e a s e s which can be made and the r a t e of night t ime r iver f low that can be converted to dayt ime energy by the use o f th i s fac i l i ty depends on the Grass Island Pool level, inflow and the corresponding Moses d ive r s ion . The amounts of daytime energy releases from the reservoir and night t ime ene rgy s to red i n t he r e se rvo i r fo r t he r ange o f Grass Island Pool inflows are a l s o shown on Figures F-17 t o F-28. Reservoir releases cannot exceed the difference between the maximum discharge capacity of t h e a v a i l a b l e Moses u n i t s and t h e a v a i l a b l e r i v e r d i v e r s i o n s f o r more than an hour o r two without wasting water available for power, Hence, for high f lows the dayt ime energy re leased f rom the reservoir i s controlled by the margin between Moses d ischarge capac i ty and d i v e r s i o n s . Reservoir releases, of course, cannot exceed the discharge capacity of t h e Lewiston-Pump-Generating uni t s ava i lab le . S ince the Lewis ton Pumped Storage Reservoir is used on a weekly cycle, it i s t h e p r a c t i c e t o limit t h e n e t r e s e r v o i r drawdown in energy terms on a weekday t o a n average not exceeding about 3000Mwh. For days when the f low i s above the p reva i l ing average , the ne t drawdown would be more. Thus, t h e daytime energy released from t h e r e s e r v o i r f o r low flows was con t ro l l ed by t he maximum Lewiston discharge capacity when gene ra t ing o r t he maximum t o t a l n i g h t t i m e pumping, p lus pe rmis s ib l e ne t da i ly s to rage draf t less pump-generation cycle loss, whichever was smaller .
(12) For the basis-of-comparison and regulation plans Rot r e - q u i r i n g a c o n t r o l s t r u c t u r e a t Lake Er i e ou t l e t , t he ou t f low would vary somewhat e r r a t i c a l l y d u r i n g t h e month. I n o r d e r t o o b t a i n t h e daytime and nighttime energy outputs from the Authori ty 's Niagara f a c i l i t i e s f o r a given mean monthly flow, the sum of Moses and Lewiljton daytime output and the Moses less Lewiston pumping energy for n ight - time output have been taken from the appropriate Figures F-17 t o F-28 f o r 5 t o 95 percent dura t ion f lows in 10 percent increments for the flow d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r t h a t p a r t i c u l a r mean monthly flow, The average of energy outputs for these ten duration increments has been computed and t abu la t ed as the daytime and nighttime energy versus mean monthly Grass Is land in f lows for uncont ro l led Lake Er ie . In o rder to account f o r a l l hours of the week, the Saturday and Sunday energy ava i lab le from a p a r t i c u l a r Grass Is land Pool inf low was decreased by the amount
F-45
which would be needed to ref i l l Lewiston pumped s t o r a g e r e s e r v o i r for tha t f l ow.
(13) For r egu la t ion p l ans r equ i r ing con t ro l l ed Lake Erie outflows, the daytime energy output for a given mean monthly flow was found by adding the Moses plant energy output to the Lewiston pump s to rage daytime output. The n ight t ime ou tput was found by subtract ing the Lewiston pumping energy from t h e Moses nighttime energy, These values and the energy ava i lab le over a weekend may b e r e a d d i r e c t l y from Figures F-17 t o F-28 f o r a given flow.
The f i g u r e s r e f e r r e d t o above were developed e a r l y i n t h e s t u d y and a r e p r e s e n t e d h e r e i n t o g r a p h i c a l l y i l l u s t r a t e t h e methodology of energy evaluation. For the later studies, computer programs were u t i l i z e d which used the same log ic as the g raphica l method, but reduced the amount of t ime requi red to eva lua te a given sequence of flows.
(14) The a c t u a l Moses p l a n t t a i l w a t e r l e v e l depends upon Lake Ontario level and f low in the lower Niagara River. Therefore, the energy output for a given month was determined as described above and then ad jus ted by adding or subtract ing 1/300th of the total energy f o r each foot by which the computed Moses tailwater w a s below o r above elevation 250.0. The Moses p l a n t t a i l w a t e r was computed as descr ibed i n 3 . 2 . 4 ( 6 ) , p l u s a cons tan t 2 .0 fee t to a l low for the typ ica l s lope between the SAB and Moses p l a n t s .
3.2.6 Peak Capacity Output Computations for Canadian Plants
The t o t a l peak capacity obtainable from Canadian p l a n t s depends pr imar i ly upon the f l ow ava i l ab le fo r power d ive r s ion . The output of i n t e r e s t i s t h a t o b t a i n a b l e a t t h e t i m e o f s y s t e m d a i l y peak power demand. S ince t he ava i l ab le d ive r s ions and head vary with time, peak capac i ty ob ta inable i s inhe ren t ly a p robab i l i t y va r i ab le t ha t can be expressed conveniently in terms of the percent o f days for which t h e ava i lab le ou tput exceeds spec i f ied va lues , This representat ion of peak capac i ty ava i lab le versus percent o f time is analogous t o t h e familiar flow duration curve. The method of computing the peak capacity i s descr ibed in the fol lowing paragraphs.
(1) The peak capacity from the Canadian plants has been re la ted t o Grass I s l and Pool inf low for each season, touris t and non-touris t . These r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e shown g raph ica l ly on Figure F-29. Each of the cu rves o f t h i s f i gu re was der ived by computing t h e c a p a c i t y f o r 20 t o 25 flows covering the expected flow range.
(2) The d i v e r s i o n s a v a i l a b l e t o Canada f o r each flow were computed as desc r ibed i n Sec t ion 3 .2 .3 (4).
(3) The d ispa tch o f water to the var ious p lan ts was as descr ibed in Sec t ion 3 .2 .4 (5 ,9 ,10) .
F-46
2400 - 2300 -
2200 -
2100 - s 2000- I I 5 1900 - a I -
$ 1800
a -
s
1700 - z
$ 1600 -
z 5 1500 - 2 a I-
a
?1
P 4 1400-
1300 -
1200 -
1100 -
CURVES APPLY TO PRESENT AND EXTENDED CONTROL STRUCTURE
NOTE PEAK VALUES FROM CURVES DO NOT REQUIRE ADJUSTMENTS.
looo:o i o $0 lA0 l:o A0 1;o 1:o 1:o l k l:o A0 1;o 2Ao 2:o 2:o 2;o 210 2:o 2Lo 2:o 2Ao 2Ao A 0 3fo INFLOW TO GRASS ISLAND POOL-1000's CFS
1. MEAN NIAGARA RIVER WEED EFFECT BASES
2. MINIMUM S.A.B. NO. 2 FOREBAY 540.0 3. S.A.B. NO. 2TW. ELEV. BASED ON MEAN LAKE ONTARIO ELEVATION 244.5 4. ONTARIO POWER G.S. CAPACITY 8,300 CFS. (12 UNITS) 5. TORONTO POWER G.S. CAPACITY 9,000 CFS. (7 UNITS) 6. CANADIAN NIAGARA POWER OUT OF SERVICE
NIAGARA AREA CANADIAN POWER PLANTS
Figure F-29 TOTAL PEAK OUTPUT VERSUS INFLOW TO GRASS ISLAND POOL
(4) The SAB plan t forebay leve l was determined from Figure F-13, Page F-27, u s ing Grass Is land Pool level corresponding to tke flow as descr ibed in Sect ion 3 .2 .3 (3) and the divers ion dispatched to the Beck p l a n t , b u t was l i m i t e d t o a minimum level of 540.0.
(5) The SAB p l a n t t a i l w a t e r l e v e l was determined from Figure F-30 which r e l a t e s t h e tailwater l e v e l a t t he time of peak and the inflow to Grass Is land Pool . This re la t ionship was computed from Figure F-12, Page F-26, in xhich an average Lake Ontar io e levat ion of 244.5 was assumed.
(6) Gross head on t h e SAB p l a n t s f o r peak capacity computations was the d i f fe rence be tween the forebay leve l , item (4 ) , and t h e t a i l - water l eve l , item (5 ) .
(7) Combined SAB and pump-generating station peak capacity was computed as t h e maximum output tha t can be genera ted for 35 minutes over time of system peak demand and i s based on computations made a t 5- minute intervals over a period of one t o one-and-one-half hours. The SAB d ive r s ion and forebay elevation a t the beginning of the peaking period were computed as in 3.2.4 (4) and 3.2.4 (5) r e s p e c t i v e l y , and t h e Beck ta i lwater e leva t ion dur ing the peaking per iod was computed as i n item (5). I t was assumed tha t the pump-genera t ing s ta t ion would be operated a t maximum ou tpu t w i th an i n i t i a l s to rage r e se rvo i r e l eva - t i o n o f 615 .
(8) Ontario Power p lan t peak capac i ty ou tputs were computed i n t h e same way as described for energy computations, 3.2.4 (9).
(9) Toronto Power p lan t peak capac i ty ou tputs were computed i n t h e same way as described for energy computations, 3.2.4 (10).
(10) The to t a l peak capac i ty ava i l ab le from the Canadian plants f o r a given flow is t h e sum of t he above ou tpu t s . I t i s t h i s sum versus Grass Island Pool flow which is shown on Figure F-29 f o r t o u r i s t and non-touris t seasons requirements for Niagara Falls flows.
(11) For each month t h e Grass Island Pool inflows which would be exceeded for cer ta in percentage of days have been selected for the basis- of-comparison condition and for each regulation plan. The percentages s e l e c t e d were 5 t o 85 p e r c e n t i n 10 percent increments and 86 t o 100 pe rcen t i n one percent increments . For each of these f lows, the peak capacity has been taken from Figure F-30. In this manner, available capac i ty versus percent o f days for each calendar month f o r each flow condition to be studied has been developed. These computations cover the dai ly basis-of-comparison f lows for the per iod January 1926 through December 1964 and a similar pe r iod fo r each r egu la t ion p l an . The period January 1926 through December 1964 was used s ince da i ly Niagara River flows were on ly ava i l ab le a f t e r 1925.
F-48
X
2
v
zr;
c\i
9
N
N
m
9
5: N
9
rn * N
(SS6I)al31--UV3d
30 3W
ll IV Z 'ON 'E
'V'b IV
'A313 tl31V
MllW
l
F-49
3.2.7 Peak Capacity Output Computations. for Uni ted S ta tes P lan ts
The peak capactty obtainab.le from the Niagara Power P ro jec t o f t h e Power Authori ty of t h e S t a t e o f New York a t any time depends upon flow a v a i l a b l e f o r power d ive r s ion , ne t head on t he p l an t s , number of g e n e r a t i n g u n i t s a v a i l a b l e f o r s e r v i c e a f te r allowance for maintenance or forced ou tages , and the amount of water tha t can be r e l eased from t h e pumped s t o r a g e r e s e r v o i r . The ou tpu t o f i n t e re s t i s the peak capac i ty ob ta inable a t t h e time of the system dai ly peak demand. Since each of the above factors which determined the daily peak capacity obta inable var ies th rough time, peak capacity is inhe ren t ly a probabi- l i t y va r i ab le t ha t can be expres sed conven ien t ly i n terms of the percent of days f o r which the ava i lab le ou tput exceeds spec i f ied va lues . To compute t h e peak capac i ty ava i lab le versus time, r e l a t i o n s h i p s which e x i s t among the de te rmining fac tors , such as t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between f low ava i l ab le fo r power divers ion and net head, must be t aken i n to account and each of the independent factors must be expressed in terms of p robabi l i ty o f percent o f time. The effect o f r egu la t ion would be t o change the f l ow du ra t ion ava i l ab le fo r power d ive r s ion . The method of computing the peak capacity is descr ibed in the fol lowing paragraphs.
(1) Grass Is land Pool in f low dura t ion l i s t ings for each ca lendar month for the basis-of-comparison and each r e g u l a t i o n p l a n were pre- pared f rom the dai ly or monthly data as d e s c r i b e d i n 3 . 2 . 3 ( 2 ) .
(2) The d ive r s ion ava i l ab le t o t he Un i t ed S t a t e s fo r any given Grass Island Pool inflow was computed as desc r ibed i n 3 . 2 . 3 (4). The percent of time each divers ion would b e a v a i l a b l e was developed from t h e Grass I s l and Pool inf low durat ion data .
(3) Maximum Niagara Power P ro jec t ou tpu t is reached when a l l avai lable Lewiston Pumped Generat ing uni ts are operated as generators a t maximum o u t p u t , F o r c r i t i c a l power system conditions, the pump generators would be used to help carry the dai ly peak load even i f t h i s meant d i v e r t i n g less water from the Niagara River than the U.S. e n t i t l e - ment a t t h e time. For peak loads of one or two hours dura t ion , opera t ing experience has shown that it is u s u a l l y p o s s i b l e t o s t o r e such unused water temporarily in the upper Niagara River. For very low flow c o n d i t i o n s , t h e maximum Niagara power output is l imi t ed by t he amount of water which can b e d i v e r t e d from the Niagara River.
(4 ) The amount of water which can be withdrawn from t h e pwnped- s t o r a g e r e s e r v o i r and t h e amount o f power which can be generated a t the pump-generating plant depends upon t h e water l e v e l p r e v a i l i n g i n t h e r e s e r v o i r , A rev iew of opera t ing records ind ica ted the su i tab i l i ty o f t he fo l lowing r e se rvo i r l eve l -p robab i l i t y r e l a t ionsh ip :
F-50
Reservoir Water Probabi l i ty o f Being a t Tabulated Surface Elevat ion Elevat ion a t Time o f System Daily
peak Load
650 .O 645.0 640.0 635.0
45% 40 % 10%
5%
(5) I t is e s t a b l i s h e d e l e c t r i c u t i l i t y p r a c t i c e t o p r o v i d e per iodic and sys temat ic p revent ive main tenance for a l l generat ing u n i t s , The pe rcen t o f time each o f t h e 25 u n i t s a t Niagara would be out of service for maintenance depends upon the maintenance interval , t h e number o f s h i f t s worked by maintenance personnel and the number of sh i f t s requi red per un i t to per form the necessary work , Present p r a c t i c e is an annual maintenance interval a t t h e Lewiston p l a n t and an 18-month i n t e r v a l a t t h e Moses p l a n t , which requires about 52 s h i f t weeks o f un i t ou tage time per year to comple te the work on a l l 25 u n i t s . Tr ia l computer runs indicate that the least in te r fe rence wi th Niagara peak power output would occur i f the maintenance work f o r b o t h p l a n t s were operated on a two s h i f t p e r day b a s i s w i t h t h e Moses maintenance being accomplished in April , September and October and the Lewiston maintenance being accomplished in March, May, June and July. This maintenance schedule was used th roughout for bo th the bas i s -of - comparison and each regulation plan.
(6) Average uni t forced ou tage r a t e on each hydroelectr ic genera t ing un i t was assumed t o b e 0.5% in accordance with the United S ta tes Nat iona l Power Survey recommendations. With th i s ou tage rate, the p robabi l i ty o f each poss ib le combina t ion of genera t ing un i t s be ing i n s e r v i c e was ca l cu la t ed ,
(7) For a g iven r e se rvo i r l eve l , t he maximum p r o j e c t c a p a b i l i t y is computed f o r a l l combinat ions of avai lable divers ions and forced uni t ou tages ,
(8) The canal forebay level was computed as desc r ibed i n 3.2.5 [4,5).
(9) The ne t r e se rvo i r head was computed as one o f t h e r e s e r v o i r water l e v e l s g i v e n i n t h e t a b u l a t i o n i n item (4) , less the cana l forebay leve l descr ibed in item (8).
(10) The maximum power and discharge from Lewiston Pump- Generating plant were computed using the above net head for each combina t ion of un i t s in se rv ice .
(11) The discharge from Lewiston Pump-Generating p l a n t was added t o d i v e r s i o n s a v a i l a b l e from the r i ve r . Th i s is t h e maximum amount of water ava i l ab le fo r t he Rober t Moses Niagara power p lan t and may be more than can be used by t h e p l a n t , If t h e d i v e r s i o n from t h e r i v e r
F-51
and maximum Lewiston discharge exceeded the f low required for maximum Moses p l an t gene ra t ion , t he f l ow to be d ive r t ed from th.e river was reduced u n t i l m a x i m u m Moses p l an t gene ra t ion was achieved. If the sum of Lewiston pump s to rage d i sd i a rge and flaw- a v a i l a b l e from t h e r i v e r was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o l o a d a l l Moses u n i t s t o f u l l gate discharge, then flow was c o n t r o l l i n g , and computation w a s made t o determine the highest output which can be achieved for that f low.
(12) The tailwater l e v e l a t Moses power p l a n t was computed as f o r t h e Beck p lan t descr ibed in 3 .2 .6 (5) and 2.0 f e e t was added t o t h e SAB tailwater e l eva t ion t o a l l ow fo r t he t yp ica l s lope be tween t he Beck and Moses p l a n t s .
(13) The Moses p lan t ou tput was computed for each combination of a v a i l a b l e water, gross head and uni ts avai lable .
(14) Moses and Lewiston power outputs were added t o o b t a i n maximum pro jec t capac i ty .
(15) For each combination of r ive r f l ow, un i t s ava i l ab le and e f f ec t ive r e se rvo i r wa te r l eve l , t he maximum pro jec t capac i ty was computed as described above, The p robab i l i t y o f t he p ro j ec t ou tpu t be ing con t ro l l ed by any g iven s e t o f cond i t ions is the product of t h e independent p robabi l i t i es o f Lake Er i e ou t f lows , r e se rvo i r l eve l and the un i t ou tage conf igu ra t ion which r e s u l t e d i n t h a t power.
(16) The output cor responding to each poss ib le se t o f Er ie ou t - f lows , reservoi r l eve l and un i t ou tage was computed i n sequence unt i l a l l p o s s i b i l i t i e s were covered. The r e s u i t i n g c a p a c i t i e s were arranged i n o r d e r and t h e i r p r o b a b i l i t i e s a c c u m u l a t e d t o o b t a i n a peak capacity ve r sus t he pe rcen t of days such capacity would b e a v a i l a b l e . I n t h i s manner, a v a i l a b l e peak capaci ty versus percent of days for each calendar month for each f low condi t ion s tudied w a s developed. These computations used the daily basis-of-comparison f lows for the period January 1926 through December 1964 for the basis-of-comparison and f lows for a similar per iod for each regula t ion p lan .
F-52
Sect ion 4
MOSES-SAUNDERS (ST. LAWRENCE) POWER PLANTS
4 .1 General Description
There are two h y d r o e l e c t r i c power p l a n t s i n t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Sec t ion of t h e S t . Lawrence River: The Robert H . Saunders Generating S t a t i o n o f Ontar io Hydro and the Robert Moses Power Dam o f t he Power Authori ty of the S t a t e o f New York. The rated head of both plants i s 81 f e e t and each plant has 16 units and a t o t a l i n s t a l l e d c a p a c i t y o f each p lan t i s 912,000 kw.
4.2 Methodology for Determining Energy and Peak Capacity
The peak and energy outputs obtainable from the Saunders plant and Moses p l a n t were computed monthly (ha l f monthly f o r A p r i l and December) over the 68-year per iod January 1900 t o December 1967. Monthly o r h a l f - monthly energy outputs were divided into daytime (16 hours/day) and nighttime (8 hours/day) generation. The method of computing t h e t o t a l daytime and nighttime energy outputs and the total peak outputs each month o r half-month i s descr ibed in the fo l lowing subsec t ions .
4.2.1 Assumptions
The assumptions adopted for computing the daytime energy, nighttime energy and capaci ty outputs for any given regulated mean monthly Lake Ontario outflow and level combination are as follows:
(1) As t h e maximum opera t ing e f f ic ienc ies o f the Saunders and Moses (St. Lawrence) u n i t s a r e e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same, t h e t o t a l o r combined energy and peak capacity outputs from both plants were computed and divided equally between them.
(2) The 1985 non-power flow diversions would cons is t o f the est imated 1985 navigat ion requirements , the es t imated 1985 Cornwall Canal requirements, and the Massena Canal requirements, which were assumed t o be the same as those of 1963-66. They a r e summarized i n Table F-2. The Massena and Cornwall canals bypass the power dam t o supply water for municipal requirements and minimum flushing purposes fo r wa te r qua l i t y cond i t ions . The Cornwall municipal requirement i s l e s s t han 5 cfs and fo r pu rposes o f t h i s s tudy i s neglected.
(3) The navigation season extends from April 15 to December 15.
(4) The dai ly peaking and weekly ponding t e s t limits authorized by t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission on a y e a r - t o - y e a r b a s i s a r e i n e f f e c t .
F-53
TABLE F-2
ASSUMED 1985 NON-POWER FLOW DIVERSIONS
Month
January February March April (1-15)
May June Ju ly August September October November December (1-15)
(16-30)
(16-31)
Cornwall and Wiley-Dondero Canals
(c fs )
0 0
500
2,400 2,700 2,800 2,700 2,600 2,600 2 600 2,700 1,600
0
1,200
Municipal Water Re qui remen t s Massena Canal
(c fs )
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 40 40 40 40 30 30 30
~~~ ~~
Total (cfs)
30 30
5 30 1,230 2,430 2,730 2,830 2,740 2,640 2 640 2,640 2,730 1,630
30
4.2.2 Basic Data
The basic data used are those presented in the Coordinated Basic Data as Volume 2 t o Appendix rfBf'.
4.2.3 Derived Data
(1) Backwater s lopes from Moses-Saunders forebay t o Lake Ontario: For the open water season (Apri l to December) backwater slopes were de- r ived from a u n i t f a l l r e l a t i o n s h i p between Oswego and the forebay, developed from observed levels and lake outflows over the period May 1959 t o J u l y 1966. The backwater slope curves are shown on Figure F-31.
For the ice cover season (January to March) t h e backwater slopes were based on the resu l t s o f des ign s tud ies and model t e s t s . They a r e shown on Figure F-32.
(2) Tailwater s tage-discharge re la t ions: These re la t ions have been der ived for both open water and ice cover seasons from mean d a i l y records of the Saunders and Moses plants ta i lwater e levat ions (averaged) and total plant discharge over the period June 1961 to September 1966. They a r e shown in g raph ica l form on Figure F-33.
F-54
r 246
245
244
h m m 0 v 4
6 -! c?
243 W v)
0 3
I K W B B 2 242
0 a 2
z l-
J W
_J
248 WATER SURFACE ELEVATION AT LAKE ONTARIO (OSWEGO) I.G.L.D.(1955)
Figure F-31
MOSES-SAUNDERS POWERHOUSE OPEN WATER CONDlTlONS BACKWATER SLOPES LAKE ONTARIO TO
F-55
240
239
5; 238 m 0, - v
9 -! r? I - 237
3 0 I W U
z g k a
II a
236
+ > w -l W
u;l ’ 235
234
233
232,
W.S. ELEV. AT LAKE ONTARIO I.G.L.D.(1955)
Figure F-32 BACKWATER SLOPES LAKE ONTARIO TO
MOSES-SAUNDERS POWERHOUSE ICE COVER CONDITIONS
F-56
160.0 r NOTE:
DISCHARGE IS COMBINED FLOW RECORDED THROUGH PLANTS TAILWATER IS AVERAGE OF MOSES-SAUNDERS TAILWATER ELEVATIONS.
154.0 1 I I I I 1 I I I 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
DISCHARGE-THOUSANDS OF C.F.S.
Figure F-33 TAILWATER STAGE-DISCHARGE CURVE
(3) Moses-Saunders t o t a l power-discharge-head relations: For the maximum e f f i c i ency ope ra t ing r ange ( t o t a l p l an t d i scha rges o f l e s s t han about 280,000 c f s ) a r e l a t i o n between the average economy fac to r o f t he two p l a n t s and gross head was derived from uni t performances actual ly a t t a i n e d i n normal operat ion. This re la t ion is shown graphica l ly on Figure F-34. For the opera t ing range beyond b e s t e f f i c i e n c y ( t o t a l p l a n t d i scharges g rea te r than about 280,000 c f s ) a f ami ly o f cu rves r e l a t ing t o t a l p l a n t o u t p u t t o d i s c h a r g e f o r a range of gross heads between 74 and 88 f e e t was der ived from u n i t r a t i n g t a b l e s . These curves are shown on Figure F-35.
4.2.4 Determination of Capacity of St . Lawrence P lan t s
(1) The Moses-Saunders forebay elevation, applicable to both day- time and nighttime energy and to peak, was determined from backwater s lope cu rves r e l a t ing Lake Ontar io l eve l and ou t f low to forebay leve l . The Lake Ontario levels and outflows used i n the determinat ions were the regula ted mean monthly or half-monthly values g i v e n i n t h e b a s i c d a t a . The forebay leve l was l i m i t e d t o a maximum e leva t ion o f 242.0 and a minimum e l e v a t i o n o f 234.0.
(2) The to ta l p lan t d i scharge for peak de te rmina t ion was computed as t h e Lake Ontar io regula ted mean monthly or half-monthly outf low, less t he e s t ima ted 1985 non-power flow d ivers ions , p lus 30,000 c f s up t o a t o t a l of 280,000 cfs during the navigat ion season (Apri l second half to December f irst h a l f ) o r p l u s 38,000 c f s up t o a t o t a l o f 300,000 c f s during the non-navigat ion season (December second ha l f to Apr i l f i r s t h a l f ) . The to t a l p l an t d i scha rges fo r day t ime and nighttime energy determinat ions were computed as the Lake Ontar io regula ted ou t f lows less t he e s t ima ted 1985 non-power f low divers ions, p lus 15,000 cfs during the daytime or minus 30,000 c f s du r ing t he n igh t t ime . The e f f e c t o f weekly ponding upon energy production during the non-navigation season was ignored because it was not cons idered to be , s ign i f icant .
(3) Moses-Saunders tailwater e l k v a t i o n s f o r computing peak output and daytime and nighttime energy outputs were determined from tailwater s tage-d ischarge re la t ions , F igure F-33, u s ing t he appropr i a t e t o t a l p lan t d i scharge ob ta ined as in i t em (2) .
(4) Gross heads for computing peak output and daytime and nighttime energy outputs were determined by s u b t r a c t i n g from the forebay e leva t ions obta ined in i t em (2) t he app ropr i a t e t a i lwa te r e l eva t ion ob ta ined i n i t em (3)
(5) Total capaci ty output was determined from a family of curves r e l a t i n g t o t a l p l a n t o u t p u t , d i s c h a r g e and head or, i f the coord ina te of head and discharge does not f a l l w i t h i n t h e limits of these curves , by reading from the curve (Figure F-34) re la t ing average economy f a c t o r (kw/cfs) to g ross head , the appropr ia te economy f a c t o r and mul t ip ly ing it by t h e t o t a l p l a n t d i s c h a r g e . The peak output of the Saunders plant or t h e Moses p l a n t was one h a l f o f t h e t o t a l peak output.
F-58
6.6
6.5
6.4
6.3
6.2
LL 0
Q 6.0
u.
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.4 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
GROSS HEAD-FEET Figure F-34
AVERAGE ECONOMY FACTOR FOR MOSES-SAUNDERS PLANTS VERSUS GROSS HEAD (BEST EFFICIENCY OPERATING RANGE)
DERIVED FROM UNIT RATING TABLES / 1950
1900
1850
I 5 1800 n I- 3 0 I- z 15 n 2 1750 I- 2
1700
1650
1600
290 300 3 10 TOTAL PLANT FLOW-THOUSANDS OF CFS
320 -I 330
Figure F-35 COMBINED MOSES-SAUNDERS PLANT OUTPUT- DISCHARGE RELATIONSHIP
F-60
4 .2 .5 Determination of Total Daytime and Total Nighttime Energy outputs
Total daytime and total nighttime energy outputs in Mw-hrs were determined in the same manner as t o t a l peak output us ing the appropr ia te plant discharges and gross heads. These outputs were mul t ip l i ed by t h e number of hours i n t h e month o r half-month that daytime o r night t ime energy i s produced (day - 16 hours x number o f days, n ight - 8 hours x number of days) and the resul tant values divided by two to g ive t he daytime energy and the nighttime energy in Mw-hrs generated by the Saunders plant or the Moses p l a n t .
F-61
Sect ion 5
BEAUHARNOIS-CEDARS (ST. LAWRENCE) POWER PLANTS
5.1 General Description
The Beauharnois-Cedars developments are in Canada, in that part of t h e S t . Lawrence R i v e r r e f e r r e d t o as the Soulanges section. This comprises the 15-mile stretch between Lake St . Franc is and Lake S t . Louis i n which t h e r e i s a to ta l d rop of 82 f e e t . The drop occurs in th ree ser ies o f rap ids separa ted by in te rvening pools o f smooth water. A t t h e o u t l e t o f Lake St. Francis are the Coteau Rapids which ex tend fo r one mile and f a l l 20 f e e t i n t o a fou r -mi l e s t r e t ch o f smooth water reaching to the head of Cedars Rapids. Over the next two miles , the Cedars Rapids f a l l 35 f e e t i n t o a smooth s e c t i o n which flows four miles t o t h e Cascades Rapids which discharge into Lake St . Louis , a f a l l o f 27 f e e t .
To ha rness t he ene rgy o f t he wa te r i n t h i s t u rbu len t r each , con t ro l dams were constructed a t t h e e x i t from Lake St . Franc is to a l low the flow t o be diver ted from the na tu ra l channe l i n to a canal excavated on the south shore cal led the Beauharnois Power and Navigation Canal. After passing through the Beauharnois Canal and the 80-foot drop a t t h e Beauharnois Powerhouse, s i t u a t e d a t t h e o u t l e t end of the canal , the water i s d i scha rged i n to Lake St. Louis. Figure F-36 shows t h e r e l a t i o n - sh ip o f t he cana l t o t he S t . Lawrence River.
The canal i s 15 miles long and 3,300 feet wide, and the average depth i s more than 30 f e e t .
The navigation channel which is 600 f e e t wide and has a minimum depth of 27 feet i s loca ted a long t he l e f t bank o f t he cana l . Two locks permi t naviga t ion to pass from t h e c a n a l t o Lake S t . Louis.
The Cedars Generating Station came i n t o s e r v i c e i n 1914 with a capaci ty of 81,000 ki lowatts from n ine un i t s . O the r un i t s were added a s r equ i r ed un t i l t he p l an t r eached i t s present capacity of 162,000 k i lowa t t s from 18 u n i t s i n 1924. A t t h a t time, it was the l a rges t hydro- e l e c t r i c g e n e r a t i n g s t a t i o n i n t h e w o r l d .
I t was planned to construct the Beauharnois powerhouse i n t h r e e stages to keep pace with growing demand on the e l ec t r i ca l sys t em. Designed t o have a capacity of 538,400 kilowatts from 14 genera t ing u n i t s , t h e f i r s t s t a g e r a p i d l y t o o k form and by t h e end of 1932, four u n i t s and two a u x i l i a r y u n i t s were i n s e r v i c e .
On August 25, 1951 t h e first units of the second stage were brought i n t o s e r v i c e and a l l 1 2 u n i t s were i n o p e r a t i o n by t h e end of 1953 t o b r i n g t o t a l c a p a c i t y a t Beauharnois t o 1,021,760 kilowatts.
The f irst generat ing uni t of Beauharnois 3 came i n t o s e r v i c e i n June 1959, with the last u n i t i n s t a l l e d i n e a r l y 1961.
F-62
I
Figure F-36 PLAN OF SOULANGE SECTION OF ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
The Beauharnois powerhouse now has 36 t u r b i n e s f o r a t o t a l c a p a c i t y of 1,574,000 kilowatts, excluding the two a u x i l i a r y u n i t s .
5.2 Methodology for Determining Energy Output a t Beauharnois-Cedars Power P lan t s
The following assumptions, data and computation method were used i n the determination of the energy output a t the Beauharnois-Cedars power p l a n t s .
5.2.1 Assumptions
The Cedars Generating Station was assumed t o have a minimum economic flow of 10,000 c f s and constant head of 42.5 feet.
5.2.2 Basic Data
The basic data comprise monthly mean outflows of Lake Ontario and Lake S t . Louis from the Coordinated Basic Data, Volume 2 , Appendix rcB1r .
5.2.3 Derived Data
(1) Lake St . Francis outf low i s derived from a l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between Lake Ontario outflow and Lake St. Francis outflow (Figure F-37), which i n e f f e c t , combined Lake Ontar io outf low with the local inf low downstream t o Lake S t . F ranc i s .
(2) The d iv i s ion o f t he Lake St. Francis outflow between Beauharnois-Cedars, Beauharnois navigation locks and water which is u n a v a i l a b l e f o r power product ion due t o seepage, overflow, etc. , was as follows :
The sum of the navigation requirements and the estimated water l o s ses was sub t r ac t ed from t h e monthly mean Lake St . Francis outf low (Table F-3). Since it was cons idered tha t a flow of 10,000 cfs a t Cedars Generating Station i s t h e minimum economic flow, t h i s f i g u r e was sub t r ac t ed from t h e t o t a l a v a i l a b l e d i s c h a r g e . The remaining avai lable discharge was compared t o t h e maximum permiss ib le d i scharge a t Beauhar- nois, (Table F-4). Should the calculated Beauharnois discharge exceed the permiss ib le d i scharge , the d i f fe rence i s t r ans fe r r ed t o Ceda r s giving a Cedars discharge of 10,000 cfs p l u s t h i s d i f f e r e n c e . S i m i l a r l y , the ca lcu la ted d i scharge a t Cedars was compared t o t h e maximum permis- sible discharge (Table F-4). Should the calculated Cedars discharge exceed the permissible discharge, then the calculated discharge was reduced to t he va lue o f t he pe rmis s ib l e d i scha rge , and the excess water was s p i l l e d .
(3) The working head for Beauharnois was determined as follows:
The e l eva t ion o f t he Upper Beauharnois Lock was determined from a r e l a t i o n s h i p between the upper lock levels and the corresponding Lake S t . Francis discharges (Figure F-38) and the e l eva t ion of Lake S t Louis was determined from the Lake St . Louis s tage-discharge re la t ionship
F-64
310
290
270
2
s?
3
V m
250
LC c 3 0 0 a 2 230 z 0 W Y -I U
2 10
190
170 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 3 10
LAKE ST. FRANCIS OUTFLOW x 103 CFS
Y=IAKE ONTARIO OUTFLOW CFSx103 X=LAKE ST. FRANCIS OUTFLOW CFS X 103
1 3 10
Figure F-37 DISCHARGE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAKE ST. FRANCIS
OUTFLOW AND LAKE ONTARIO OUTFLOW
F-65
TABLE F-3
ESTIMATED 1985 NON-POWER FLOW REQUIREMENTS AT BEAUHARNOIS-CEDARS
Month
January
February
March
Apri 1
May
June
J u l y
August
September
October
November
December
Navigation Requirement (cfs)
0
0
45 0
1650
2400
2500
2400
2300
2300
2300
2400
700
Other Require- ments ( c f s )
750
750
750
875
875
875
875
875
875
875
875
750
Total (cfs)
750
750
1200
2525
3275
3375
3275
3 175
3175
3175
3275
1450
Average Annual 1620 830 2450
F-66
TABLE F-4
MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE DISCHARGE AT BEAUHARNOIS AND CEDARS POWER PLANTS
Month
January
February
March
Apri l
May
June
J u l y
August
September
October
Nov emb er
December
Annual Average
Beauharnois (cfs)
160,000
185 , 000
185,000
250,000
250 , 000
250,000
250,000
250 , 000
250,000
250,000
250,000
185,000
226 , 250
Cedars (cfs)
30,000
50 , 000
50,000
60 , 000
60,000
60 , 000
60 , 000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
50,000
55,000
F-67
X=ELEVATION Y =OUTFLOW CFS x 103
50 151.40 151.00 150.60 150.20 149.80 149.40 149.00 ELEVATION OF UPPER BEAUHARNOIS LOCK IGLD (1955)
Figure F-38 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TOTAL LAKE ST. FRANCIS
OUTFLOW AND ELEVATION OF UPPER BEAUHARNOIS LOCK
F-68
which comprised two r e l a t i o n s h i p s : one f o r t h e open water per iod Apr i l t o November i n c l u s i v e , and one fo r t he w in te r pe r iod December t o March (Figure F-39).
The d i f f e r e n c e between the e l eva t ion o f t he Upper Beauharnois Lock and Lake S t . Louis gives the head a t Beauharnois.
(4) The power-discharge-head relationship for Beauharnois was based on recorded values of head, discharge and equiva len t power output f o r t h e y e a r s 1962, 1963 and 1964 (Figure F-40).
(5) A s t r a i g h t l i n e r e l a t i o n s h i p was used i n r e l a t i n g C e d a r s power o u t p u t t o d i s c h a r g e , a t a mean head of 42.5 feet (Figure F-41).
5.2.4 Computation of Power Output
Given the monthly mean outflows from Lake Ontar io and Lake St-Louis, the fol lowing data were computed for each month:
(1) Lake St . Francis outf low, f rom the re la t ionship between Lake St . Franc is and Lake Ontario outflows (Figure F-37).
(2) The d iv i s ion o f Lake St. Francis outflow between the Beauhar- no i s and Cedars plants i s descr ibed in 5 .2 .3 (2) .
(3) The Beauharnois forebay elevation i s obtained f rom the re la t ion- ship between the Lake St . Francis outf low and the e levat ion a t the Upper Beauharnois Lock (Figure F-38).
(4) The Beauharnois tailwater e l eva t ion , from t h e Lake St. Louis s tage-discharge re la t ionship (Figure F-39) .
(5) The gross head a t Beauharnois i s obtained by s u b t r a c t i n g t h e tailwater e leva t ion f rom the forebay e leva t ion .
(6) Power output a t Beauharnois is obtained by us ing the power- head-d i scha rge r e l a t ionsh ip fo r tha t p l a n t , and a t Cedars by us ing i t s power-discharge re la t ionship determined for an average head of 42.5 feet (Figures F-40 and F-41).
F-69
m
4 0
X
F- 70
1450 -
1350 -
1250 -
r’ 1 II
I- 3 5 1150- 0 a 3 w
1050 -
950 -
H=78.0. (Y + 841)’=(X + 11,513)’- (11,546)’
CURVES PLOTTED FROM RECORDED DATA
850 I I 150 170 190 2 10 230 250 270
FLOW AT BEAUHARNOISX 103 CFS
Figure F-40 POWER OUTPUT-HEAD-DISCHARGE RELATIONSHIP FOR BEAUHARNOIS POWERHOUSE
Y=OUTPUT MW X=FLOW CFS X 103
F- 71
0
m
m
* 0
* m
m 0
m m
N
0
N
Lo 4
El m
c9 0
N
F- 72
Sect ion 6
DETERMINATION OF UNIT ENERGY AND CAPACITY VALUES
6 . 1 Energy and Capacity Values
I n t h e l i g h t o f v e r y l a r g e i n c r e a s e s i n t h e c o s t s o f f u e l f o r thermal power genera t ion dur ing recent years , there is cons iderable un- cer ta in ty assoc ia ted wi th the long term c o s t of f u e l and the va lue o f ene rgy and capac i ty i n t he fu tu re . Because meaningful projections of these va lues i n the fu ture cannot be made, i t was dec ided tha t cur ren t (1971) r a the r t han p ro j ec t ed power c o s t s would be used to eva lua te the r e g u l a t i o n p l a n s . The energy and capacity values used in the study for eva lua t ing t he e f f ec t s o f r egu la t ion on the hydroe lec t r i c power genera- t i o n a r e shown i n Table F-5.
TABLE F-5
ENERGY AND CAPACITY VALUES USED FOR EVALUATING EFFECTS OF REGULATION PLAN ON HYDROELECTRIC POWER GENERATION
Energy Values (mi l l s pe r kwh)
Day Night Week-End
Upper Michigan 8.0 8 .O *** New York S t a t e 8.4 7.1 5.3 Ontar io 4.5 4.4 *** Quebec 6 .0 6 .O ***
22.70 18.00 15.00 **
*Values based on 19 71 c o s t s . **Ice condi t ions limit the flow a t the t ime the system experiences
peak loads. ***Weekend va lues no t appl icable .
6 .2 Upper Michigan System
Generating faci l i t ies owned o r c o n t r o l l e d by Edison S a u l t E l e c t r i c Company a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t t o meet the needs of the area served and the Company purchases power from Consumers Power Company with which it is
F- 73
interconnected, Evaluations of regulation plans were on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n power product ion by t h e e x i s t i n g h y d r o e l e c t r i c power p l a n t s on t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s s i d e o f S t . Marys River between any. regula- t i o n p l a n and the basis-of-comparison would b e i d e n t i c a l t o t h e d i f f e r - ence in power purchases from Consumers Power Company between t h e b a s i s - of-comparison and t h e r e g u l a t i o n p l a n .
6 .3 Ontar io System
In p rev ious s ec t ions t he methods were given for de te rmining the peak and energy production that would r e su l t i n t he On ta r io Grea t Lakes h y d r o e l e c t r i c p l a n t s from the basis-of-comparison and t h e appl ica t ion of var ious regula t ion p lans , From these computations the incremental peak (capacity) and energy a t t h e s e p l a n t s from the r egu la - t i o n p l a n s as compared to the basis-of-comparison were determined. As a l l t h e s e p l a n t s do now, and will do i n 1985, f eed i n to t he On ta r io g r id , it is t h e e f f e c t on the Ontar io system that must be assessed in evalua- t i n g from a power s t andpo in t t he bene f i t o r o the rwise o f t he r egu la t ion p l a n s . Thus t h e e f f e c t s a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l p l a n t s must be evaluated and t h e n e t e f f e c t on the system determined.
6 .3 .1 1985 Ontario East Load
I n e v a l u a t i n g t h e e f f e c t o f a r egu la t ion p l an on t h e 1985 system it was necessary to predict the composi t ion of that system. To do t h i s t h e n a t u r e and magnitude of the 1985 load,must first be es t imated and t h e s y s t e m s e l e c t e d t o s u i t t h i s l o a d . The year 1985 was considered t o i n c l u d e t h e p e r i o d J u l y 1, 1985 t o June 30, 1986, as a l l new equip- ment was assumed t o b e i n o p e r a t i o n by J u l y 1 i n any y e a r , On t h i s bas i s t he e s t ima ted 1985 load i s shown in Table F-6.
TABLE F-6
ESTIMATED LOAD (Mw)
Most Probable Most Probable Time Period Peak Demand I n t e r r u p t i b l e F i r m Peak Demand
Ju ly 1985 21,380 Dec . 1985 28,020 Feb . 1986 26,700 May 1986 23,860
350 350 350 350
21,030 27,670 26,350 23,510
F- 74
I t was a l s o assumed tha t t he p re sen t s easona l and hour ly pa t t e rn of load would cont inue to apply in the per iod Ju ly 1985 t o June 1986. The Great Lakes- Power Company p l a n t on t h e S t . Marys River was assumed, fo r t he pu rposes o f t he s tudy , t o be i n t he On ta r io East system as any de f i c i enc ie s must be made up from th is sys tem.
6.3.2 1985 Ontar io East System
I n s e l e c t i n g a power sys tem to meet t h e 1985 load, it was necessary to p red ic t the composi t ion and charac te r i s t ics of the system and the r e se rves t ha t will be necessary a t t h a t t i m e ,
To a r r i v e a t t h e 1985 system, a program for generation development a d d i t i o n a l t o t h a t i n e x i s t e n c e a s o f December 1968 was synthes ized to the year 1985. The gene ra t ion e s t ima ted t o be i n s e rv i ce i n 1985 comprised a l l ex i s t ing gene ra t ion , gene ra t ion a l r eady committed f o r construction and new h y d r o e l e c t r i c and thermal uni ts , The l a t t e r were 750 megawatt and 1,000 megawatt coa l - f i r ed and nuc lea r un i t s r e spec t i - ve ly .
In determining the capaci ty required i n 1985, the following c r i t e r i a and assumptions were observed:
(1) The lo s s o f l oad p robab i l i t y i n any month i n 1985 should not be greater than one day i n t e n y e a r s .
Note: The loss of load computation follows the method descr ibed in the publ ica t ion "Appl ica t ion of P robab i l i t y Methods t o Generation Capacity Problems", A I E E Subcommittee on Appl ica t ion of Probabi l i ty Methods - Transaction 1960.
Since the highest load months a r e December-January, these months may be expec ted t o gove rn t he i n s t a l l a t ion , However, p rovis ion must be made f o r a l l required scheduled maintenance so tha t the loss o f load proba- b i l i t y i n t h e o t h e r months does not exceed the cr i ter ion of one day i n ten years ,
(2) A l l new generat ion would be i n ope ra t ion by Ju ly 1, 1985.
(3) In the loss of load probabi l i ty computat ions, the load d i s t r ibu t ion cu rve fo r December-January was based only on normal working day peak loads, and the d i s t r ibu t ion cu rve o f ava i l ab le ou tpu t from g e n e r a t i n g s t a t i o n s was computed taking into account forced outages of thermal uni ts and t h e v a r i a t i o n i n power ou tpu t o f t he S t , Marys, Niagara and St. Lawrence p l a n t s .
(4) The forced ou tage ra tes o f thermal un i t s in success ive years o f ope ra t ion a r e assumed to be :
F- 75
First Second “hi rd Year Year Year -
1. A l l thermal un i t s 537 Mw and smaller 8% 6% 4%
2. For a l l 750 and 1,000 Mw thermal uni ts 12.5% 8.75% 5%
(5) I t was assumed t h a t t h e r e is complete correspondence between the peak outputs o f t h e S t . Marys, Niagara and S t , Lawrence plants ; i . e . , the coincident peak output of t h e S t . Marys and S t , Lawrence p l a n t s was high o r low at t h e same time t h a t t h e peak output of t h e Niagara plants was high o r low,
( 6 ) I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e r e l i a b i l i t y c r i t e r i a i n ( l ) , an excess of capaci ty was required roughly equal to the largest uni t scheduled for s e r v i c e e a c h y e a r ( i , e . , t o p r o t e c t a g a i n s t one new u n i t f a i l i n g t o meet i t s i n - s e r v i c e d a t e ) ,
As a resu l t o f these computa t ions , the 1985 Ontar io East system inventory of generat ion i s given in Table F-7.
TABLE F-7
GENERATION INVENTORY 1985 - ONTARIO EAST SYSTEM
Type Capacity of Ex i s t ing Capacity of Units Units - December 1968 t o b e Added
(Mw) (Mw)
Combustion Turbines and Diesel 321 S t . Lawrence and Niagara 2,962 A l l o the r hydrau l i c , i nc lud ing
pump-generating stations and purchases 2,823
Coal-fired thermal 3,653 Nuclear thermal 180
9,939
70
968 8,729
16,020 25,787
Total i.n 1985 35,726
F- 76
6 . 3 . 3 Determination and Evaluation of System Peak Increments
The assessment of any regulat ion plan as compared t o t h e b a s i s - o f - comparison from a peak power s t andpo in t , was determined by comparing the load meet ing capabi l i ty o f the sys tem in each case . If the load meet- ing capabi l i ty of the system under a p lan o f regula t ion dur ing the c r i t i c a l l o a d p e r i o d was grea te r than for the bas i s -of -compar ison , then t h e i n s t a l l e d c a p a c i t y of the system could be reduced by a l i k e amount and the va lue o f t he r educ t ion c r ed i t ed t o t he r egu la t ion p l an , The load meeting capabili ty of the system was defined as the load tha t can b e c a r r i e d d u r i n g t h e c r i t i c a l l o a d p e r i o d o f December-January i n t h e Ontario system, with a lo s s o f l oad p robab i l i t y o f one day i n t e n y e a r s having regard f o r the forced outage rates of the var ious components and t h e r e s e r v e s d e t a i l e d i n S e c t i o n 6 . 3 . 2 above. As the peak d i f fe rences are gene ra l ly small i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e s y s t e m c a p a c i t y , it was necessary t o make a prec ise computa t ion to ach ieve va l id compar isonsc As t h e 1985 Ontar io East system arr ived a t i n S e c t i o n 6 . 3 . 2 was synthesized by the addi t ion o f l a rge b locks o f capac i ty , it n e c e s s a r i l y was somewhat g rea t e r i n l oad mee t ing capab i l i t y t han t he 1985 load. Therefore, for determination of increments of peak capacity for the basis-of-comparison and regula t ion p lans , the p rec ise load meet ing capabi l i ty o f the sys tem descr ibed in 6 . 3 . 2 was computed and d i f fe rences o r increments esta- b l i shed , In each case the determinat ion of load meet ing capabi l i ty was based on a s tudy of the durat ion curve of such capabi l i ty during the c r i t i ca l December-January pe r iod . The corresponding durat ion curves dur ing o ther months o f t he yea r were a l s o examined to ensu re t ha t , even with reduced loads, a more c r i t i c a l p e r i o d d i d n o t e x i s t b e c a u s e of scheduled maintenance. A computer program was developed for this s tudy.
Based on the r e su l t s o f t he above s tudy , a load meeting capabi.lity was es tab l i shed for the bas i s -of -compar ison and for the var ious regu- l a t i o n p l a n s from which d i f fe rences o r increments were determined. In the Ontar io system these were evaluated a t $15.00 p e r kw p e r annum which was 1971 c o s t .
I t should be emphasized that the determinat ion of re la t ively small peak differences in very large systems i s beyond the accuracy of the s tudy methods and , therefore , the resu l t s in absolu te va lues cannot be accurate . However, as t h e same method was a p p l i e d t o t h e b a s i s - o f - comparison and a l l regula t ion p lans , the d i f fe rences thus de te rmined may be r easonab ly r ep resen ta t ive o f t he d i f f e rences i n ab i l i t i e s o f t he regula t ion p lan to p rovide sys tem peak capac i ty .
6 . 3 . 4 Evaluation of System Energy Increments
For each month o f 1985, t he gene ra t ion ava i l ab le fo r l oad ing purposes was determined, having in mind scheduled maintenance. Estima- tes were made of the load dura t ion curves for a l l hours in each of three groups of days; working days, Saturdays and Sundays. Loading was then a l loca t ed t o t he va r ious gene ra t ion sou rces fo r each o f t he above groups of days, i n each month o f t he yea r , f o r selected sets of coincident energy outputs from the hydroe lec t r ic p lan ts . This p rocedure
F-77
was followed for the basis-of-comparison and each regula t ion p lan , to produce the lowest thermal cost . The value of incremental energy from t h e h y d r o e l e c t r i c p l a n t s i n e a c h o f t h e s e p e r i o d s was determined from the va lue o f d i sp laced thermal o r nuc lear p lan ts , and weighted va lues for dayt ime and night t ime per iods in each month were then obtained. The r e s u l t i n g v a l u e s of incremental energy throughout the year, based on 1971 costs, are 4.5 mills/kwh for daytime (16 hours/day) and 4.4 mills/kwh for nighttime (8 hours/day) . 6.4 New York System
I n t h i s s e c t i o n are presented the methods developed by the Power Authority of t h e S t a t e o f New York (PASNY), t h e U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Power Commission f o r computing the value of energy and power obtainable from hydroelectric power p l a n t s i n t h e United States which use the waters of the Niagara and St . Lawrence Rivers , The basis-of-comparison of the energy and peak capacity that would r e s u l t from a r epe t i t i on o f bas i s -o f - compar i son supp l i e s t o t he Great Lakes i s as desc r ibed i n Sec t ion 1 .3 .
For a given regulat ion plan, the energy and peak capaci t ies were those which would result from t h e same suppl ies and d ivers ions bu t with l e v e l s and ou t f lows con t ro l l ed by t he ru l e s o f t ha t r egu la t ion p l an .
I t should be emphasized that these methods were developed f o r t h e purpose of determining the economic benefit or loss which would r e s u l t from implementing each of the regulation plans in comparison with the basis-of-comparison. Thus, interest i s focused upon the change i n value of energy and capacity which would accompany such regula t ion r a the r t han upon t h e a b s o l u t e v a l u e o f t h e t o t a l o u t p u t s .
A l l energy and capac i ty eva lua t ions for th i s s tudy were made wi th in the framework of the es t imated demand f o r e lectr ical power and the generating equipment that is e x p e c t e d t o b e a v a i l a b l e t o meet t h i s demand i n 1985.
6.4.1 Determination of the Value of Energy i n New York
(1) An inventory of a l l ex i s t ing un i t s and a l is t of a l l f u t u r e u n i t s e x p e c t e d t o b e i n s e r v i c e t o s u p p l y t h e New York power system requirement in 1985 was prepared.
( 2 ) The expected cost o f energy from each of these generat ing sources was assigned from experience and judgement.
(3) The value of week-day daytime, week-day nighttime and week-end energy for each month was developed by dispatches of t h e a v a i l a b l e sys tem energy sources in to typ ica l da i ly load pa t te rns for each month. These dispatches in New York included both Niagara and St, Lawrence ava i lab le energy . The average un i t va lue o f the hydroe lec t r ic energy was taken as t h e cost t h a t would accrue i f a similar amount of energy were produced by the least expensive opt ion avai lable with the system
F- 78
reserve equipment, The estimated unit value of energy for each month fo r each o f t hese t h ree ca t egor i e s is shown on Table F-5.
(4) The energy for a p a r t i c u l a r monthly flow was obtained from assumation of the fol lowing: the avai lable week-day daytime energy fo r a month times i t s e s t ima ted ave rage pe r un i t va lue p lus t he a v a i l a b l e week-day night t ime energy for a month times i t s est imated average per un i t va lue p lus the ava i lab le week-end energy for a month times its es t ima ted ave rage pe r un i t va lue .
(5) The sum of a l l the monthly values for total PASNY S t . Lawrence energy under plan 1958-D, when divided by 65 (number of years on record) gives the average annual PASNY S t . Lawrence energy va lue for the bas i s - of-comparison. The basis-of-comparison energy value for the U.S. Niagara p l a n t s was de termined by apply ing the appropr ia te un i t va lues to the energy quant i t ies p rev ious ly de te rmined for the 5 , 15 , 25 , e tc . , percent dura t ion f requencies for each ca lendar month under the bas i s - of-comparison. The ave rage o f t he r e su l t i ng va lues was the average annual energy value for the basis-of-comparison.
( 6 ) The same procedure outl ined above in (5) was used t o e v a l u a t e energy for each regulat ion plan, based on the ene rgy quan t i t i e s de t e r - mined under the regime of levels and f lows prescribed by the p l an eva lua ted .
(7) The annual average energy benefi t or detr iment of a given r egu la t ion p l an was the difference between the energy value for that p lan and the energy value for the basis-of-comparison.
6 . 4 . 2 Determination of the Value of Peak Capacity i n t h e New York System
(1) The computations described in i tems 3 and 4 of Sect ion 6 .4 .1 provided peak capac i ty dura t ion l i s t ings from Niagara and the Moses S t . Lawrence p ro jec t s r e spec t ive ly . In view of t he s t rong i n t e rde - pendence between the flows a t t h e two p r o j e c t s and hence i n t he i r peak capac i ty , t he peak capaci ty ordinates of the two p r o j e c t s were added for each dura t ion to ob ta in a composite peak capacity versus duration. This process was followed t o o b t a i n t h e peak capac i ty dura t ion l i s t ing for the basis-of-comparison and for each regula t ion p lan .
(2) A r e g u l a t i o n p l a n c o u l d a f f e c t t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f peak power by d i f f e r e n t amounts for var ious percentages o f time. This being the ca se , a method was r e q u i r e d t o a p p r a i s e t h e i n f l u e n c e t h i s v a r i a b l e effect could have upon t h e New York power system.
(3) The growth of power demand i n New York is expec ted to requi re cont inua l addi t ions o f genera t ing units to the sys tem. The amount of capac i ty that would b e needed to p rov ide a s a t i s f a c t o r y l e v e l o f s e r v i c e is dependent t o a degree upon t h e amount o f power which is l i k e l y t o b e a v a i l a b l e from Niagara and St. Lawrence a t t he t ime o f each day's peak load. The c r i t e r i o n f o r s a t i s f a c t o r y s e r v i c e p r e s e n t l y
F- 79
in use by the utilities is that the probability of coincident outages large enough to impair meeting system loads should not exceed one day in ten years. The effect of changing peak capacity durations available from Niagara and St. Lawrence from those available for the basis-of- comparison t o those which would be available from the flows of a given regulation plan could be condensed to a single megawatt quantity by focusing attention on the amount of generating capacity other than Niagara and St. Lawrence that would be needed to secure the desired degree of service reliability in the state. The difference in the generating capacity needed for a given regulation plan in comparison with the capacity needed for the basis-of-comparison was a measure of effect on generating plant investment that would be saved by adopting that regulation plan with all other conditions unchanged.
(4) Computation of the total generation required to satisfactorily supply the estimated 1985 New York power demands was carried out as
Estimates were prepared of the expected power require- ment in the state for 1985. These estimates were made by the Federal Power Commission in collaboration with the electric utilities serving New York State. These data include expected peak load for each month, load patterns f o r twelve bi-hourly periods for each peak week-day, average week-day, Saturday and Sunday, distributions of the maximum daily peak loads within each month and annual peak load for each year between 1970 and 1985.
An inventory of all existing generators presently exist- ing in New York State was prepared. Units which were expected to be retired before 1985 were removed from the inventory and all announced new units were added to the inventory. The total generating capacity shown on the updated inventory in Table F-9, of course, does not pro- vide enough capacity to carry the estimated 1985 peak load. Beyond the completion of the last announced new unit the addition of 500, 750 and 1,000 megawatt units has been assumed at a rate which would provide a normal reserve margin about the estimated annual peak load each year. In this way, a projection of the generators ex- pected to be operating in New York State in 1985 has been prepared. This projection provided the size, age, and type of all such generators in service. These data permit assignment of a typical forced outage rate to each unit in accordance with Table F-8. The data on this table are the recommendations of the New York Power Pool except that the outage rates for hydroelectric units were taken from the U.S. National Power Survey since it was based upon much broader experience with respect to hydro- electric units.
F-80
TABLE F-8
FORCED OUTAGE RATES IN NEW YORK SYSTEM
Type
Fossil Fuel
Nuc 1 ear Fue 1
Size (Mw)
0- 150 151- 300 301- 500 501- 800 801-1100
0- 500 501- 800 801-1100
Gas Turbine and All sizes Internal Combustion
Hydroelectric All sizes
Forced Outage Rate (%)
Immature Units (First 3 Years) Mature Units
7 .O 8.0 9.0
6.0 7 . 0 8 .O
4 . 0
2.0 3.5 4.5 5.3 6 .O
3.0 3.5 4 .O
2 .o
0.5
F-81
TABLE F-9
PROJECTED INVENTORY OF GENERATION IN THE NEW YORK SYSTEM IN 1985
SPe Internal Combustion
Gas Turbine
Small Hydro
Power Authori ty State of New York Hydroelectr ic P lan t s
Foss i l Thermal
Nuclear
Pumped Storage
Capaci ty of Exis t ing Capacity of Units Units Not Ret i red (Mw) t o be Added (Mw)
93 27
154 416
855
3,102
11,494
2 75
3,742
16,080
4.800
TOTAL IN 1985
15,973
41,038 Mw
25,065
F-82
The outage rate was thus assigned to each generator and with the individual outage rate assigned, the total system generator listing, except Niagara and St. Lawrence, was analyzed for the probability of coincident forced outages of all possible magnitudes. These outages were subtracted from the total capacity to obtain a load carrying capacity versus probability of the capacity not affected by Great Lakes flows and levels.
The above load carrying capacity-probability is merged with the St. Lawrence Niagara output-probability des- cribed in Section 3.2.7 (16) to obtain the total load carrying capacity in New York State versus probability.
The probability of generating capacity available f o r service was compared with the probability of peak load for a particular calendar month to determine what pro- bability exists of load exceeding available generation.
If this probability analysis showed that available gene- ration would be inadequate to carry the load more fre- quently than one day in ten years, more generating capacity was indicated and another unit o r a larger unit was inserted into the projected generator installation. This analysis proceeded by successive trials until each calendar month was supplied with enough generating capacity to meet the expected loads with the probability of loss of load because of insufficient generation limited to almost exactly one day in ten years.
The amount of generation required varies with the monthly power demands. Of course, during months of relatively light power requirements, the capacity not needed t o carry load can be taken out of service for maintenance.
The capacity finally required must be adequate to carry the 1985 annual and monthly peak load as well as provide enough time for maintenance of all units. The U.S. National Power Survey indicates that 8 1/2% of the time should be allowed for scheduled maintenance outages. If the variation in monthly peak loads does not automatically provide enough maintenance time, then equipment above that needed to meet the annual peak load would be required to permit the necessary maintenance outages.
' total generating capacity needed in New York to carry the 1985 loads with a given regulation plan as compared to the generation needed to carry the loads with the same degree of reliability for the basis-of-comparison indicates the amount of generating capacity that would not have to be provided if that particular regulation plan were put into effect. The dollar value of this saving was computed as the difference in kilowatts times the cost of providing an equivalent amount of capacity of a comparable nature f o r the New York State system.
F-83
6.5 Quebec System
6.5.1 General
In this section the method of estimating power values from the effects of Great Lakes regulation on St. Lawrence River generating stations in Quebec was based on information supplied by the Quebec Hydroelectric Commission.
6.5.2 Determination of Capacity and Energy Values
(1) Capacity - At Beauharnois, the flow in the canal must be reduced to approximately 160,000 cfs during the ice forming period each winter. At Cedars, a flow of 30,000 cfs is the maximum permitted during the ice forming period. The dependable capacity of the Beau- harnois and Cedars powerhouses during the time of the maximum load demand on the Quebec system is, therefore, limited by ice forming conditions rather than by upstream regulation. For this reason, no power evaluation was made with respect to dependable peak capacity.
(2) Energy - With respect to energy, however, a redistribution of flow from upstream regulation may increase or decrease total energy output for the Beauharnois and Cedars stations. The reasons for this are related to the fact that Beauharnois Generating Station has a rated head of 80 feet, and flows in excess of 250,000 cfs must be diverted to the Cedars Station with a head of only 42 feet. Thus, outflows from Lake Ontario upstream in excess of 250,000 cfs will be utilized at a lower head with resulting lower energy production. The value of loss or gain in energy to Hydro-Quebec at the Beauharnois and Cedars Stations was assumed at 6.0 mills/kwh.
F- 84
Sect ion 7
EVALUATION OF REGULATION PLANS
7 .1 General
T h i s s e c t i o n p r e s e n t s t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e d e t a i l e d e v a l u a t i o n s made by t h e Power Subcommittee of t h e s e v e r a l s e l e c t e d r e g u l a t i o n p l a n s f o r the lake combinations Superior-Ontario (SO) regulated, Superior-Erie- Ontar io (SEO) regulated, Superior-Michigan-Huron-Ontario (SMHO) regulated and Superior-Michigan-Huron-Erie-Ontario (SMHEO) regu la t ed . Each p lan was eva lua ted acco rd ing t o t he methodology o u t l i n e d i n Sec t ions 2 and 6 using the basis-of-comparison as descr ibed i n Sec t ion 1 .3 .
For t he eva lua t ions i n t h i s s ec t ion , t he d i f f e ren t sys t em conf i - gura t ions and the d i f fe ren t eva lua t ion methods developed are unlikely t o produce s imilar system response to regulat ion. The b e n e f i t s o r l o s s e s a r e shown i n t h e d e t a i l e d e v a l u a t i o n t a b l e s . I t is emphasized t h a t t h e b e n e f i t s o r l o s s e s shown must be considered in terms o f t he s ize o f the sys tem o r i n terms of the total energy produced.
Changes in capac i ty o f 10 t o 30 Mw a r e n e g l i g i b l e i n a system load of 30,300 t o 40,000 Mw. However when cons ider ing the Upper Michigan system the magnitude of the changes due to regulation i s about 6 percent o f to ta l ou tput va lue . No eva lua t ion was made of capac i ty in the case o f the Beauharnois and Cedars p l a n t s s i n c e t h e i r a b i l i t y t o meet maximum load demand i n December i s l imited by f low re s t r i c t ions du r ing i ce fo rma t ion r a the r t han r egu la t ion .
7 . 2 Lakes Superior and Ontario Regulation Plans
The p l a n o f r e g u l a t i o n s e l e c t e d f o r d e t a i l e d e v a l u a t i o n i s design- a t e d SO-901. The r e s u l t s o f t h i s e v a l u a t i o n a r e shown on Tables F-10 t o F-16. The ne t annual e f fec t on power generat ion i s a bene f i t o f about $640,000. This effect varies between power systems. The annual loss of $160,000 for the Upper Michigan system is s i g n i f i c a n t i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e r e l a t i v e l y small l o c a l power system involved. However, t h e t o t a l a n n u a l b e n e f i t s o f $460,000 and $260,000 f o r t h e New York S t a t e and Ontar io systems are small i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e s i z e o f t h e respect ive systems, Similar ly , the annual increase in energy of p l an SO-901 t o t h e Beauharnois-Cedars r e s u l t s i n a bene f i t o f $80,000 which is small compared t o t h e t o t a l power generated.
The fol lowing is a review of the effects of plan SO-901 on each o f t he power systems involved. These effects are summarized in Table F-10.
F-85
I: lo
n
0 0 0 .L
0 z
r( 0
Q, I
z T 4 a
000
MOM
In M
lco
4
0
0,
3
I w
b4
a
N In IPJ
I L
..
$ ":
3 a
L 0
k
w E
0000
MOO*
a TJ. *(In
.d
cdo m
u
0000
om
am
0 0 010
a
F-86
7.2.1 Province of Ontario
Determination of energy outputs from the Ontario plants was made for each month o f t h e p e r i o d 1900 t o 1967 assuming first the bas i s -o f - comparison and then regulation by p l an SO-901 r e s p e c t i v e l y i n effect throughout the per iod. The average daytime and nighttime monthly energy outputs over the per iod were computed f o r t h e R . H . Saunders plant on t h e S t . Lawrence River , fo r the Niagara area p l a n t s and f o r t h e S t . Marys River p lan ts . The average annual energy production from the three g roups o f p lan ts for bo th the bas i s -of -compar ison and p lan SO-901 and t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s are shown in equ iva len t do l l a r va lues i n Tab le F-11 . The to t a l ave rage ene rgy bene f i t t o t he On ta r io p l an t s from p lan SO-901 i s $140,000.
The effect on the Ontar io system capaci ty of regulat ion plan SO-901 was ana lyzed us ing the loss o f load probabi l i ty method. The resu l t s (Tables F-11 and F-12) i n d i c a t e t h a t p l a n SO-901 would produce a ga in in peak capac i ty on the system of 8 Mw, which has an equivalent annual value of $120,000.
7.2.2 Province of Quebec
The ca lcu la ted annual benef i t shown on Table F-13 of plan SO-901 t o t h e Quebec system is $80,000. Most o f t h e effects r e s u l t i n g from a change i n Lake Super ior regula t ion would b e e s s e n t i a l l y d i s s i p a t e d by t he i n t e rven ing l akes and by the regula t ion of Lake Ontario under p l an 1958-D before they reach the Beauharnois and Cedars plants and any b e n e f i t would be co inc iden ta l w i th t he supp l i e s t o t he i n t e rven ing lakes.
7.2.3 New York S t a t e
Energy ou tputs f rom ex is t ing major hydro ins ta l la t ions in New York S t a t e were determined for the spectrum of levels and f lows which occurred on Lakes Erie and Ontario from 1900 through 1967, for both basis-of-comparison conditions and for p lan SO-901.
December 1970 un i t va lues fo r ene rgy , i n do l l a r s pe r Mwh, were a p p l i e d t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e i n c r e m e n t a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n e n e r g y o u t p u t between SO-901 and t he bas i s -o f - compar i son , fo r t h ree d i s t i nc t pe r iods o f time; weekday daytime, weekday nighttime and weekends. These values are shown in Table F-5.
The d o l l a r v a l u e s of d i f fe rences in energy under p lan SO-901 fo r t h e S t . Lawrence plant and Niagara plants are shown in Table F-14. The to ta l average annual benef i t to energy product ion for New York p l a n t s would be $220,000.
F-87
TABLE F-11
REGULATION PLAN SO-901 COMPARED TO BASIS-OF-COMPARISON
ONTARIO SYSTEM
VALUE OF DIFFERENCE I N AVERAGE DAYTIME AND NIGHTTIME ENERGY PRODUCTION AND IN 1985 PEAK LOAD MEETING CAPABILITY
($1 Daytime Nighttime
7 Month S t . Lawrence Niagara S t . Marys To ta l S t . Lawrence Niagara St . Marys Tota l 00 00
January + 2,200 + 6,700 0 + 8,900 + 2,200 + 3,300 0 + 5,500 February + 2,000 + 8,100 0 +10 , 100 + 1,000 + 4,000 0 + 5,000 March + 4,500 + 6,700 0 +11,200 + 2,200 + 3,300 0 + 5,500 Apri 1
June May
0 + 8,600 0 + 8,600 0 + 3,200 0 + 3,200
+ 2,200 + 4,300 -2,200 + 4,300 0 + 3,200 -1,100 + 2,100 + 4,500 + 6,700 -2,200 + 9,000 + 3,300 + 3,300 -1,100 + 5,500
J u l y + 2,200 + 2,200 0 + 4,400 + 1,100 + 4,400 0 + 5,500 August + 2,200 + 4,500 0 + 6,700 - 1,100 + 4,400 0 + 3,300 September 0 + 4,300 0 + 4,300 - 1,100 + 3,200 0 + 2,100 October 0 + 6,700 +2,200 + 8,900 - 3,300 + 4,400 +1,100 + 2,200 November 0 + 8,600 0 + 8,600 - 3,200 + 5,300 0 + 2,100 December 0 + 8,900 0 + 8,900 0 + 4,400 0 + 4,400
Total +19,800 +76,300 -2,200 +93,900 + 1,100 +46,400 -1,100 +46,400
Total , Day and Night: St . Lawrence +$20,900 Niagara +$122,700 S t . Marys -63,300 = A l l +$140,300 Value of D i f f e rence i n 1985 Peak and Load Meeting Capability = +$120,000 (December)
TABLE F- 1 2
REGULATION PLAN SO-901 COMPARED TO BASIS-OF-COMPARISON
ONTARIO SYSTEM
AVERAGE MONTHLY ENERGY PRODUCTION AND 1985 PEAK LOAD MEETING CAPABILITY
Month
January February March Apri 1 May June Ju 1 y August September October November December
January February March Apri 1 May June Ju ly August September October November December January February March Apri 1 May June Ju ly August September October November December
Average Daytime Energy Average Nighttime Energy
Basis-of- Plan Basis-of- Plan Plants a t Comparison SO-901 Diff. Comparison SO-901 Dif f .
(Av. Mw) N I AGARA 1,874
1,862 1,900 1,611 1,678 1,682 1,650 1,624 1,607 1,590 1,874 1,896
ST. LAWRENCE 682 704 71 1 768 782 794 80 3 80 7 799 778 755 74 2
ST. MARYS 26 25 24 26 27 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
(Av. Mw) (Av. Mw) 1,877 1,866 1,903 1,615 1,681 1,684 1,651 1,626 1,609 1,593 1,878 1,900
683 705 713 76 8 784 795 804 808 799 778 755 742 26 25 24 26 26 27 28 28 28 29 28 28
+3 +4 +3 +4 +3 + 2 +1 +2 + 2 +3 +4 +4 +1 +1 + 2 0 + 2 +1 +1 +1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
-1 -1
0 0 0
+1 0 0
(Av. Mw) (Av. Mw) (Av. Mw) 842 829 869 898 932 9 39 924 913 890 863 84 1 865 558 5 83 594 653 677 699 708 710 694 663 637 6 16
26 25 24 26 27 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
845 833 872 901 935 94 2 928 91 7 89 3 86 7 846 86 9 560 584 596 65 3 680 699 709 709 693 660 6 34 6 16
26 25 24 26 26 27 28 28 28 29 28 28
+3 +4 + 3 + 3 +3 +3 +4 +4 +3 +4 +5 +4 +2 +1 +2
0 + 3
0 +1 -1 -1 -3 -3 0 0 0 0 0
-1 -1
0 0 0
+1 0 0
1985 PEAK LOAD MEETING CAPABILITY (Mw)
Month Basis-of-Comparison Plan SO-901 Diff. December 30,300 30,308 +8
F- 89
TABLE F-13
REGULATION PLAN SO-901 COMPARED TO BASIS-OF-COMPARISON
HYDRO QUEBEC
BEAUHARNOIS AND CEDARS PLANTS AVERAGE MONTHLY AND ANNUAL ENERGY OUTPUTS
AND ANNUAL VALUE OF ENERGY DIFFERENCE
Month
January February March Apri 1 May June
J u l y August September
October November December
(Av. kw)
Basis-of- Comparison
1,054,963 1,238,232 1,233,102
1,372,873 1,389,331 1,425,972
1,456,472 1,475,436 1,476,512
1,449,882 1,411,165 1,204,020
Plan SO-901
1,055,024 1,240,160 1,235,697
1,376,288 1,395,287 1,428,553
1,459,748 1,477,646 1,476,473
1,447,379 1,408,890 1,240,822
Annua 1 1,351,997 1,353,497
@ 6 mil ls /kwh benefi t = $80,000
Difference
61 +1,928 +2,595
+3,415 +5,956 +2,581
+3,276 +2,210 - 39
-2,503 -2,275 + 802
+1,500
F-90
TABLE F-14
REGULATION PLAN SO-901 COMPARED TO BASIS-OF-COMPARISON
NEW YORK STATE SYSTEM
VALUE OF AVERAGE MONTHLY AND ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTION
($1,000) Niagara Plants
Basis-of- Plan -IY Month Comparison so-901 Diff. (0 P
January 8,981 9,009 28 February 8,407 8,442 35 March 9,661 9,732 71 Apri 1 7,780 7,765 - 15
June 8 , 199 8,176 - 2 3
Ju ly 8, 387 8,379 - 8 August 8 , 163 8,158 - 5 September 7,460 7,473 13
October 7,542 7,538 - 4 November 7,757 7,807 50 December 8,889 8,920 - 31
May 8,632 8,629 - 3
S t . Lawrence P lan t s Basis -of - Comparison
3,493 3,433
3 , 793 4,019 3,875
3,847
4,143 4,162 3 , 804 3,976 3,155 3,600
Plan so-901
3,498 3,437
3,793 4,032 3,877 4,156 4,164 3,803 3,974 3,154 3,600
3,862
D i f f .
5 4
15 0
13 2
13 2
- 1 - 2 - 1
0
Average Annual Benefit i n $1,000 170 50
Table F-15 shows t h e improvement t o Power Authority capacity under SO-901. The average excess capaci ty of 13 Mw under SO-901 i n d i c a t e s t h a t w i t h t h i s p l a n i n e f fec t , the overa l l sys tem would b e r e q u i r e d t o i n s t a l l 1 3 Mw less than it would under basis-of-comparison condi- t i o n s . A t t h e 1971 rates assumed f o r Power Author i ty f inanc ing , the ind ica ted sav ings would be $240,000 per year.
As shown in Table F-10 , the to ta l average annual benef i t to the New York State system under plan SO-901 would be $460,000.
7.2.4 Upper Michigan
Plan SO-901 produces an increase in the per iod of time during which the f lows would be equa l t o o r above 70,000 c fs . This excess water cannot be u t i l i zed by the p resent p lan ts . This p lan reduces t h e time the f lows are below 70,000 c f s , The two changes combine t o produce an average energy loss of $130,000. A small capac i ty loss ($30,000) r e s u l t s from an inc rease i n t he pe r iod o f time t h a t t h e f l o w s are a t a minimum. The r e s u l t a n t t o t a l l o s s o f $160,000 (Table F-16) represents about 6% o f t h e t o t a l o u t p u t v a l u e .
7.3 Lakes Superior , Er ie and Ontar io Regulat ion Plan (SEO)
The following paragraphs present a summary o f t h e d e t a i l e d economic eva lua t ion of p lan SEO-33 as compared to t he bas i s -o f - compar i son fo r t he power i n t e r e s t s .
The ove ra l l annua l ne t bene f i t t o power generation due t o p l a n SEO-33 was computed t o b e $310,000; however, not a l l of the power systems involved real ize benefi ts . There would b e an annual loss of $160,000 t o t h e Upper Michigan system which would be significant in r e l a t i o n t o t h e r e l a t i v e l y small l o c a l power system involved. The annual e f fec t on the Beauharnois and Cedars plants of the Quebec system would be a benefit of $10,000. There would b e t o t a l a n n u a l benefits of $240,000 and $220,000 for the New York State system and the Ontar io system respect ively. A summary of the effects of plan SEO-33 on power i s provided in Table F-17.
S ince the p lan SEO-901 i s e s s e n t i a l l y t h e SO-901 r e g u l a t i o n p l a n with dredging in the Niagara River to permanent ly lower Lake Erie levels , the Niagara River f lows are t h e same as SO-901. The b e n e f i t t o power would b e e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same as SO-901 and no d e t a i l e d eva lua t ion for power was made.
7 .3 .1 Province o f Ontar io
Determination of energy output from the Ontario plants was made for each month o f t h e p e r i o d o f r e c o r d f o r f irst t h e b a s i s - o f - comparison and then plan SEO-33. The average daytime and nighttime monthly energy outputs over the period of record were computed f o r t he R . H . Saunders plant a t t h e S t . Lawrence River , fo r the Niagara area p l a n t s a n d t h e S t . Marys River p lan t . The average annual energy product ion f rom the three groups of plants for both the basis-of-
F-92
TABLE F-15
REGULATION PLAN SO-901 COMPARED TO BASIS-OF-COMPARISON
NEW YORK STATE SYSTEM
LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY WITH FIXED NON-POWER AUTHORITY GENERATION
Basis-of-Comparison 1985 Monthly
Peak Load Excess Month (Mw) (Mw) (Mw)
January 34,432 36,522 2,090 February 33,489 37,049 3,560 March 32,011 37,05 1 5,040 Apri 1 May June
31,018 36,538 5,520 32,771 37,171 4,400 35,299 36,819 1,520
J u l y 34,790 37,290 2,500 August 34,756 36,864 2,108 September 35,048 36,768 1,720 October 33,245 36,711 3,466 November 35,739 36,689 950 December 37,099 37,089 - 10
Annual Excess Capacity i n Mw-months
Di f f e rence i n Annual Excess Capacity i n Mw-months (SO-901 less Basis-of-Comparison)
Average Monthly Excess Capaci ty Difference in Mw
32,864
Plan SO-901
36,526 37,055 37,011 36,548 37,209 36,849
37,319 36,886 36,788 36,735 36,699 37,097
2,094 3,566 5,000 5,530 4,438 1,550 2,529 2,130 1,740
3,490 960
-2
33,025
161
13
Average Annual Benefi t $241,000
F-93
TABLE F-16
REGULATION PLAN SO-901 COMPARED TO BASIS-OF-COMPARISON
U.S. PLANTS AT SAULT STE. MARIE, MICHIGAN
AVERAGE AND MINIMUM POWER OUTPUTS AND ANNUAL VALUES OF CAPACITY AND ENERGY DIFFERENCES
Average Power Output (kw) Minimum Power Output (kw)
Bas is -of - Plan Month Comparison SO-901
January 46,452 43,286 February 45,399 43,766 March 45,157 42,361
Apri l 46,241 43,245 May 45,058 44,212 June 45,671 45,026 J u l y 46,452 45,129 August 47,020 45,768 September 48,003 46,849 October 48,465 46,590 November 48,571 46,504 December 48,821 46,342
Average 46,776 44,923
Gain (+)
Loss (-) Comparison or Basis-of-
-3,166 35,725 -1,633 34,754 -2,796 34,706 -2,996 34,245 - 846 34,864 - 645 35,342
-1,323 36,885 -1,252 37,243 -1,154 37,452 - 1,875 37,648 -2,067 38,185 -2,479 36,047
-1,853 36,091
Average Minimum Capacity @ $22.70/kw = -1,291 x 22.70
Average Annual Energy @ $8/Mwh
Gain (+) Plan o r so-901 L o s s (-)
36,435 + 710 36,058 +1,304 35,708 +1,002 34,621 + 376 33,208 -1,656 32,967 -2,375
33,329 -3,556 33,916 -3,327 34,857 -2,595 35,145 -2,503 35,329 -2,856 36,027 - 20
34,800 -1,291
- - -$ 29,306 (-$ 30,000)
= -1,853 X 8.76 X 8 = - $129,858 (-$130,000)
Tota l ( loss) (-$160,000)
F-94
TABLE F-17
EFFECTS OF PLAN SEO-33 ON POWER
Sys tem
Ontar io S t . Lawrence
crl Niagara u) st. Marys VI MTAL
Quebec Beauharnois Cedars
TOTAL
New York S t a t e S t . Lawrence Niagara
MTAL
Nameplate Capacity
(kw)
912,000 2,116,800
31,000 3,059,800
1,585,780 1621 000
1,747,780
912,000 2,190,000 3,102,000
(Annual Energy Value - $1,000)
Difference Between Plan Annual SEO-33 and Annua 1 To ta l
Basis-of- Basis-of- Capacity Net Comparison Plan SEO-33 Comparison Benefi t Benefi t
28,360 28,270 - 90 57,040 57,140 + 100
1,050 1,050 0 86,450 86,460 + 10
-
71,060 71,070 + 10 - + 10
45,300 45,160 -140 99,860 99,730 -130
145,160 144,890 - - 270
- +2 10
- 0
+220
- + 10
+5 10 +240 -
Upper Michigan 59,600 3,280 3,150 -130 - 30 - 160
TOTAL 7,969,180 305,950 305,570 +690 +310 - -380
-
comparison and plan SEO-33 and t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s were computed i n terms of megawatt-hours and equivalent dollar value in Tables F-18 and F-19. The to t a l ave rage annua l ene rgy bene f i t t o t he On ta r io p l a n t s from p lan SEO-33 would be $10,000 only, a b e n e f i t a t Niagara of $100,000 being almost eliminated by a l o s s a t t h e S t . Lawrence of $90,000.
The eva lua t ion o f t he effect of plan SEO-33 on the capac i ty o f the Ontario system shows a ga in in peak capac i ty of 14 Mw, which has an equivalent annual value of $210,000.
7.3.2 Province of Quebec
The ca lcu la ted annual effect of plan SEO-33 on the Beauharnois and Cedars p lan ts o f the Quebec system was a $10,000 benefit (Table F-20). The Lake Ontar io maximum outflow remained unchanged and the frequency of high and low outflows was so l i t t l e changed that energy product ion was v i r t u a l l y unchanged (a gain of $10,000) .
7.3.3 New York S t a t e
The to ta l average annual loss from p lan SEO-33 (Table F-21) t o energy product ion for New York S t a t e p l a n t s would be $270,000, which is divided about equally between St. Lawrence and Niagara plants.
Under plan SEO-33, t h e o v e r a l l S t a t e o f New York power system would b e r e q u i r e d t o i n s t a l l 28 Mw less add i t iona l capac i ty t han it would i f the basis-of-comparison conditions continued (Table F-22). A t t h e rates c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e f o r PASNY f inanc ing , the ind ica ted savings would b e $507,000 p e r y e a r . The ne t ga in t o t he sys t em would b e $237,000.
7.3.4 Upper Michigan
There is an increase in the f requency of low S t . Marys River flows under plan SEO-33 which produced an average annual energy loss in the Upper Michigan system of $130,000 and a small capaci ty loss of $30,000 (Table F-23). The r e s u l t a n t t o t a l l o s s o f $160,000 represents about s i x percent of t h e t o t a l Upper Michigan system energy value.
7.4 Lakes Superior , Erie and Ontario Plan with Erie Par t ia l ly Regula ted (SEO-42P)
The following paragraphs present a summary of the de ta i led econo- mic eva lua t ion of p lan SEO-42P as compared to the basis-of-comparison.
The o v e r a l l a n n u a l n e t b e n e f i t t o power generat ion due t o p l a n SEO-42P was computed to be $10,000. There would be an annual loss of $160,000 t o t h e Upper Michigan system which would be significant in r e l a t i o n t o t h e r e l a t i v e l y small l o c a l power system involved. The annual e f fec t on the Beauharnois and Cedars plants of the Quebec system would be a loss of $10,000. There would b e t o t a l a n n u a l b e n e f i t s
F-96
TABLE F-18
REGULATION PLAN SEO-33 COMPARED TO BASIS-OF-COMPARISON
ONTARIO SYSTEM
VALUE OF DIFFERENCE IN AVERAGE DAYTIME AND NIGHTTIME ENERGY PRODUCTION AND IN 1985 PEAK LOAD MEETING CAPABILITY
Daytime Nighttime ?J Month S t . Lawrence Niagara S t . Marys Tota l S t . Lawrence Niagara St . Marys Total a 4
January -13,400 + 75,900 0 + 62,500 + 5,500 +38,200 0 + 43,700 February -24,400 + 38,600 0 + 14,200 -13,900 +19,900 0 + 6,000 March -15,600 -165,200 0 - 180,800 -12,000 -88,400 0 -100,400
Apri 1 -47,500 - 75,600 0 -123,100 -37,000 -11,600 0 - 48,600
June +30,200 - 4,300 -2,200 + 23,760 - 2,100 + 6,300 -1,100 - 7,900
Ju ly +49 ~ 100 + 82,600 0 +131,700 +51,300 +22,900 0 + ' 74,200 August +11,200 +118,300 0 +129,500 +17,500 +24,000 0 + 41,500 September - 19,400 + 30,200 0 + 10,800 0 + 1,100 0 + 1,100
October -20,100 + 33,500 +2,200 + 15,600 - 3,300 + 6,500 +1,100 + 4,300 November -10,800 - 69,100 0 - 79,900 - 1,100 -39,100 0 - 40,200 December 0 + 51,300 0 + 51,300 - 2,200 +25,100 0 + 22,900
May 0 - 31,200 0 - 31,200 - 17,500 + 6,500 0 - 11,000
Total -60,700 + 85,000 0 + 24,300 -25,800 +11,400 0 - 14,400
Total , Day and Night: St. Lawrence -$86,500 Niagara +$96,400 St. Marys 0 = A l l +$9,900 Value of Difference i n 1985 Peak and Load Meeting Capability = +$210,000 (December)
TABLE F-19
REGULATION PLAN SEO-33 COMPARED TO BASIS-OF-COMPARISON
ONTARIO SYSTEM
AVERAGE MONTHLY ENERGY PRODUCTION AND 1985 PEAK LOAD MEETING CAPABILITI
Average Daytime Energy Average Nighttime Energy
Month P lan ts a t
January NIAGARA February March Apr i 1
June J u l y August September October November December January ST. LAWRENCE February March Apri 1 May June Ju ly August September October November December January ST. MARYS
May
February March Apri 1 May June J u 1 y August September October November December
Basis-of- Plan Basis-of- Plan Comparison SEO-33 Diff. Comparison SEO-33 D i f f .
(Av. Mw) 1,874 1,862 1,900 1,611 1,678 1,682 1,650 1,624 1,607 1,590 1,874 1,896
682 704 711 768 782 794 803 807 799 778 75 5 742
2 6 25 24 26 27 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
(Av. Mw) (Av. Mw) 1,908 1,881 1,826 1,576 1,664 1,680 1,687 1,677 1,621 1,605 1,842 1,919
676 692 704 746 782 808 825 812 790 769 750 742
2 6 25 24 26 27 27 28 28 28 29 28 28
+34 +19 - 74 - 35 -14 - 2 +37 +5 3 +14 +15 - 32 +23 - 6 -12 - 7 -22
0 +14 +22 + 5 - 9 - 9 - 5
0 0 0 0 0 0
- 1 0 0 0
+ 1 0 0
(Av. Mw) 842 829 869 898 932 9 39 924 913 890 86 3 841 865
558 583 594 653 677 699 70 8 710 694 66 3 637 616
26 25 24 26 27 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
(Av. Mw) (Av. Mw)
877 849 788 887 938 945 945 9 35 89 1 869 804 888 553 569 5 83 618 661 697 755 726 694 660 6 36 614
26 25 24 26 27 27 28 28 28 29 28 28
+ 35 +20 -81 -11 + 6 + 6 +21 +22 + 1 + 6 - 37 +23 - 5 - 14 -11 - 35 -16 - 2 +47 + 16
0 - 3 - 1 - 2 0 0 0 0 0
- 1 0 0 0
+ l 0 0
1985 PEAK LOAD MEETING CAPABILIlY (Mw) Month Basis-of-Comparison Plan SEO-33 Diff. December 30,419 30,433 + 14
F-98
TABLE F-20
REGULATION PLAN SEO-33 COMPARED TO BASIS-OF-COMPARISON
HYDRO QUEBEC
BEAUHARNOIS AND CEDARS PLANTS AVERAGE MONTHLY AND ANNUAL ENERGY OUTPUTS
AND ANNUAL VALUE OF ENERGY DIFFERENCE
Month
January February March Apri 1 May June
Ju ly August September October November December
Annual
(Av. kw)
Basis-of- Comparison Plan SEO-33
1,054,963 1,054,757 1,238,232 1,231,636 1,233,102 1,222,214 1,372,873 1,334,561 1,389,331 1,394,934 1,425,972 1,454,009
1,456,472 1,493,743 1,475,436 1,489,294 1,476,512 1,468,938
1,449,882 1,440,944 1,411,165 1,402,887 1,204,020 1,237,447
1,351,997 1,352,114
Difference
- 206 - 6,596 -10,888 -38,312
5,603 28,037 37,271 13,858
- 7,574
- 8,938 - 8,278 - 2,573
+ 117
@ 6 mil ls /kwh benefi t = $10,000
F-99
TABLE F-21
REGULATION PLAN SEO-33 COMPARED TO BASIS-OF-COMPARISON
NEW YORK STATE SYSTEM
VALUE OF AVERAGE MONTHLY AND ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTION
($1, ooo> Niagara P lan ts
Basis-of- Plan ‘rl Month Comparison SEO-33 Diff.
0 January 8,981 9,155 174 t-L 0
February 8,407 8,512 105 March 9,661 8,929 -732 Apri 1 7,780 7,494 -286 May 8,632 8,468 -164 June 8,199 8,153 - 46
J u l y 8,387 8,664 2 77 August 8,163 8,502 339 September 7,460 7,558 98 October 7,542 7,649 107 November 7,757 7,571 - 186 December 8,889 9,075 186
Average Annual Benefit i n $1,000 -128
-
S t . Lawrence P lan t s Basis-of- Plan Comparison SEO-33 Diff.
3,943 3,434 3,849 3,794 4,019 3,875 4,143 4,162 3,806 3,976 3,155 3,601
3,463 - 30 3,368 - 66 3,801 - 48 3,658 -136 3,992 - 27 3,923 48 4,304 161 4,208 46 3,774 - 32
3,938 - 38 3,138 - 1 7 3,598 - 3
- 142
TABLE F-22
REGULATION PLAN SEO-33 COMPARED TO BASIS-OF-COMPARISON
NEW YORK STATE SYSTEM
LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY WITH FIXED NON-POWER AUTHORITY GENERATION
Basis-of-Comparison 1985 Monthly
Peak Load Month (Mw) (Mw)
January February March Apri 1 May June
J u l y August September
34,432 33,489 32,011 31,018 32,771 35,299 34,790 34,756 35,048
36,522 37,049 37,051 36,538 37,171 36,819 37,290 36,864 36,768
October 33,245 36,711 November 35,739 36,689 December 37,099 37,089
Annual Excess Capacity i n Mw-months
Difference i n Annual Excess Capacity i n Mw-months (SEO-33 less Basis-of-Comparison)
Average Monthly Excess Capacity Difference i n Mw
Excess 0
2,090 3,560 5,040 5,520 4,400 1,520 2,500 2,108 1,720
3,466 950 - 10
32,864
Plan SEO-33
36,540 37,067 37,029 36,568 37,231 36,889 37,368 36,922 36,798
36,755 36,677 37,055
2,108 3,578 5,018 5,550 4,460 1,590 2,578 2,166 1,750
3,510 938 -44
33,202
338
28
Average Annual Benefit $507,000
F- 101
TABLE F-23
REGULATION PLAN SEO-33 COMPARED TO BASIS-OF-COMPARISON
U.S. PLANTS AT SAULT STE. MARIE, MICHIGAN
AVERAGE AND MINIMUM POWER OUTPUTS AND ANNUAL VALUES OF CAPACITY AND ENERGY DIFFERENCE
Average Power Output (kw) Minimum Power Output (kw)
Basis-of- Plan Month Comparison SEO-33
January 45,698 42,515 February 44,720 42,921 March 44,407 41,393 Apri 1 44,989 42,609 k Y 43,857 42,540 June 44,471 43,984
J u l y 45,237 44,089 August 45,739 44,109 September 46,774 45,911 October 47,250 45,571 November 47,376 45,520 December 47,597 45,229
Average 45,676 43,866
Gain (+)
Loss (-) Comparison o r Basis-of-
-3,183 35,094 -1,799 33,893 -3,014 33,855 -2,380 33,289 - 1,317 33,775 - 487 34,250 -1,148 35,905 -1,630 36,256 - 863 35,393 -1,679 36,600 -1,856 37,136 -2,368 35,110
-1,810 35,130
Average Minimum Capacity @ $22.70/kw = -1,189 x 22.70
Average Annual Energy @ $8/Mwh
Gain (+) Plan o r SEO-33 Loss (-)
35,707 + 613 35,406 +1,513 35,036 +1,181
33,775 + 486 32,249 -1,426 32,002 -2,248 32,368 -3,537 32,978 -3,278 33,905 -2,488
34,274 -2,326 34,450 -2,686 35,138 + 28
33,941 -1,189
- - - $ 26,990 (-$ 30,000)
-1,810 X 8.76 X 8 = - $126,845 (-$130,000)
Total (loss) (-$160,000)
F-102
o f $120,000 and $60,000 f o r t h e New York Sta te sys tem and the Ontar io sys tem, respec t ive ly . A summary o f t h e e f f e c t s of p l an SEO-42P on power i s provided in Table F-24.
7 .4 .1 Province of Ontar io
The to t a l ave rage annua l ene rgy bene f i t t o t he On ta r io p l an t s from plan SEO-42P would be $40,000, a b e n e f i t a t Niagara of $70,000 being decreased by a l o s s a t t h e S t . Lawrence of $30,000. No l o s s would occur as a r e s u l t o f r e g u l a t i o n p l a n SEO-42P t o t h e Canadian plants on the S t . Mays River.
The resu l t s o f the eva lua t ion of peak capac i ty ind ica te tha t .p lan SEO-42P would produce a g a i n i n peak capaci ty on the Ontario system of $20,000. I t should be emphasized that the d e t e c t i o n o f a gain of t h i s magnitude i n a 1985 system totall ing over 30,000 Mw i n s t a l l e d c a p a c i t y i s beyond the accuracy of s tudy methods and, therefore , the gain i s i n r e a l i t y n e g l i g i b l e . However, as t h e same method i s a p p l i e d t o b o t h t h e basis-of-comparison and plan SEO-42P, the difference thus determined is cons ide red t o be r easonab ly r ep resen ta t ive of t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e r e g u l a - t i o n method t o improve peak capac i ty .
7.4.2 Province of Quebec
The ca lcu la ted annual e f fec t o f p lan SEO-42P on the Beauharnois and Cedars plants of the Quebec system was a loss of $10,000. The frequency of high and low outflows was so l i t t l e changed that energy production was v i r t u a l l y unchanged (a loss of $10,000) .
7.4.3 New York S t a t e
The to t a l ave rage annua l bene f i t from p lan SEO-42P t o energy product ion for New York S t a t e p l a n t s is $10,000 which r e s u l t s from a l o s s t o S t , Lawrence of $50,000 and a ga in to Niagara o f $60,000.
Capac i ty-dura t ion tab les were deve loped for major hydro p lan ts in New York State ref lect ing the f low condi t ions under basis-of-comparison and p l an SEO-42P. Under p l an SEO-42P t h e o v e r a l l S t a t e o f New York power system would b e r e q u i r e d t o i n s t a l l less add i t iona l capac i ty t han it would i f the basis-of-comparison conditions continued. A t t h e rates (1971) ava i lab le for PASNY f inanc ing the ind ica ted sav ings would b e $110,000 p e r y e a r . The n e t b e n e f i t would the re fo re be $120,000.
7.4.4 Upper Michigan
There is an increase in the f requency of low S t . Marys Ri,ver flows under plan SEO-42P s i n c e t h e r e g u l a t i o n is similar t o SO-901. This produced an average annual energy loss in the Upper Michigan system of $130,000 and a small capac i ty l o s s ($30,000). The r e s u l t a n t t o t a l l o s s of $160,000 represents about s i x pe rcen t o f t he t o t a l Upper Michigan system energy value.
F- 103
TABLE F-24
EFFECTS OF PLAN SEO-42P ON POWER
Sys tem
Ontario S t . Lawrence Niagara S t . Marys
TOTAL
Quebec Beauharnois Cedars
TOTAL
New York S t a t e S t . Lawrence Niagara
TOTAL
Upper Michigan
TOTAL
(Annual Energy Value - $1,000)
Difference Between Annual Plan SEO-42P Annual Total and Basis-of- Capacity Net Comparison Benefit Benefit
- 30 + 70
0 + 40 -
- 50 + 60 + m -130
- 80
+ 2 0
- 10 -
+ 60 "
- 10 -
+m +120
- 30 -160
+" -
+ 10
F-104
7.5 Lakes Superior, Michigan-Huron and Ontario Regulation Plan (SMHO)
The following paragraphs present a summary o f t he de t a i l ed econo- mic eva lua t ion o f p l an SMHO-11 wi th respec t to the bas i s -of -compar ison f o r t h e power i n t e r e s t s .
The o v e r a l l a n n u a l n e t l o s s t o power gene ra t ion due t o p l an SMHO-11 was computed t o b e $10,000, although not a l l o f t h e power systems real ize losses . There would be an annual loss of $160,000 t o t h e Upper Michigan system which would b e s i g n i f i c a n t i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e r e l a t i v e l y small l o c a l power system involved, and an annual loss o f $600,000 t o Beauharnois and Cedars plants of the Quebec system. There would be to t a l annua l bene f i t s o f $600,000 and $150,000 f o r t h e New York Sta te sys tem and the Ontar io system respect ively. These are small i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e s ize of the systems. A summary of the effects of plan SMHO-11 on power is provided in Table F-25.
7.5.1 Province of Ontario
Determination of energy output from the Ontario plants was made f o r each month of the per iod of record for bo th the bas i s -of -compar ison and plan SMHO-11. The average daytime and nighttime monthly energy outputs over the per iod of record were computed f o r t h e R . H . Saunders p l a n t o n t h e S t . Lawrence River , fo r the Niagara a rea p lan ts and for t h e S t . Marys R ive r p l an t . The average annual energy production from the th ree g roups o f p lan ts for bo th the bas i s -of -compar ison and p l an SMHO-11 and t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s were computed i n terms of megawatt-hours and equivalent dollar value. There would be an average annual energy b e n e f i t t o t h e O n t a r i o p l a n t s a t Niagara from plan SMHO-11 of $100,000 and an average annual energy loss a t S t . Lawrence o f $150,000 f o r a ne t annual loss of $50,000 (Table F-26).
The resu l t s o f eva lua t ion of peak capac i ty on the Ontario system (Table F-27) indicated that plan SMHO-11 would produce a gain of 13 Mw,
which has an equivalent annual value of $200,000.
7.5.2 Province of Quebec
The ca lcu la ted annual e f fec t o f p lan SMHO-11 on the Beauharnois and Cedars p l an t s o f t he Quebec system (Table F-28) was a lo s s o f $600,000. Th i s l o s s r e su l t ed from an inc rease i n t he pe rcen t o f time during the winter months that Lake Ontario outflows exceeded the usable capacity of the two p l a n t s ,
7.5.3 New York S t a t e
The to ta l average annual benef i t of p l an SMHO-11 t o energy product- ion for New York S t a t e p l a n t s is $290,000 and is der ived from a $500,000 annual benefi t a t Niagara and a $210,000 annual loss a t t h e S t . Lawrence (Tab l e F- 29) .
F- 105
TABLE F-25
EFFECTS OF PLAN SMHO-11 ON POWER
v I
CI 0 0
Ontario S t . Lawrence Niagara S t . Marys
TOTAL
Quebec Beauharnois Cedars
TOTAL
New York S t a t e S t . Lawrence Niagara
TOTAL
Upper Michigan
TOTAL
(Annual Energy Value - $1,000)
Difference Between Plan Annual
Nameplate SMHO-11 and Annual T o t a l Capacity Basis-of- Basis-of- Capacity Net
(kw) Comparison Plan SMHO-11 Comparison Benefi t Benefi t
912,000 28,360 28,210 -150 2,116,800 57,040 57,140 +loo
31,000 1,050 1,050 0 3,059,800 86,450 86,400 - 50
1,585,780 71,060 70,460 -600
1,747,780 -600 162,000
912,000 45,300 45,090 2,190,000 99,860 3,102,000 145,160
100; 360 145,450
-210 +so0 +290 -
+zoo
0
+150
-600
- +310 +600
59,600 3,280 3,070 -210 - 30 - 240
7,969,180 ' 305,950 305,380 -5 70 +480 - 90
TABLE F-26
REGULATION PLAN SMHO-11 COMPARED TO BASIS-OF-COMPARISON
ONTARIO SYSTEM
VALUE OF DIFFERENCE IN AVERAGE DAYTIME AND NIGHTTIME ENERGY PRODUCTION AND I N 1985 PEAK LOAD MEETING CAPABILITY
Daytime Nighttime
7 - Month S t . Lawrence Niagara S t . Marys T o t a l S t . Lawrence Niagara St. Marys Tota l
.I January +29,000 + 4,500 0 +33,500 +15 , 300 + 3,300 0 +18 , 600 February +28 , 500 +so , 800 0 +79 , 300 +16 , 900 +25 , 900 0 +42,800 March + 6,700 +49,100 0 +55 , 800 +33,800 +25 , 100 0 +58 , 900
+ 0
Apri 1 May June
-21,600 +43,200 0 +2 1,600 -20,100 +13,700 0 - 6,400 -22,300 -13,400 -2,200 -11,100 -21 , 800 + 6,500 -1 , 100 - 16 , 400 -25 , 900 - 4,300 -2 , 200 -32,400 -20 , 100 + 3,200 -1 , 100 -18,000
J u 1 y -22,300 - 8,900 0 -31 , 200 -19,600 + 3,300 0 -16,300 August -17,900 -13,400 0 -31 , 300 -25 , 100 + 1,100 0 -24,000 September -21 , 600 -19,400 0 -41 , 000 -30 , 600 - 2,100 0 -32,700
October -20,100 -26,800 +2,200 -44,700 -22,900 - 5,500 +1,100 -27,300 November -17,300 -17,300 0 -34,600 -20,100 - 9,500 0 -29,600 December +42 , 400 -24,600 0 +17,800 +30,600 -13,100 0 +17,500
Tota l -62 , 400 +46,300 -2,200 -18,300 -83 , 700 +51,900 -1,100 -32 , 900
Tota l , Day and Night: St. Lawrence -$146,100 Niagara +$98,200 S t . Marys -$3,300 = A l l -$51,200 Value of Difference in 1985 Peak Load Meeting Capabili ty = +$195,000 (December)
TABLE F-27
REGULATION PLAN SMHO-11 COMPARED TO BASIS-OF-COMPARISON
ONTARIO SYSTEM
AVERAGE MONTHLY ENERGY PRODUCTION AND 1985 PEAK LOAD MEETING CAPABILITY
Average Daytime Energy Average Uighttime Energy
Basis-of- Plan Basis-of- Plan Month Plants A t Comparison SMHO-11 Diff. Comparison SMHO-11 Diff.
January NIAGARA February March Apri 1 May June Ju ly August September October November December January ST. LAWRENCE February March Apri 1 May June Ju ly August September October November December January ST. MARYS February March Apri 1 May June Ju ly August September October November December
. (Av . Mw) 1,874 1,862 1,900 1,611 1,678 1,682 1,650 1,624 1,607
1,874 1,896
682 704 71 1 76 8 782 794 80 3 807 799, 778 755 742
26 25 24 26 27 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
1,590
(Av. MG) (Av. Mw) (Av. Mw) (Av. Mw) (Av. Mw) 1,876 1,887 1,922 1,631 1,684 1,680 1,646 1,618 1,598 1,578 1,866 1,885
695 718 714 75 8 772 782 793 799 789 769 74 7 76 1 26 25 24 26 26 27 2 8 28 28 29 28 28
+ 2 +25 +22 +20 + 6 - 2 - 4 - 6 - 9 -12 - 8 -11 +13 +14 + 3 -10 -10 -12 - 10 - 8 - 10 - 9 - 8 +19
0 0 0 0
- 1 - 1
0 0 0
+ 1 0 0
84 2 829 869 89 8 9 32 9 39 924 913 890 863 84 1 865
558 583 594 65 3 677 699 708 710 694 66 3 637 616
26 25 24 26 27 28 28 28 28 28 28 2 8
845 855 892 911 938 942 927 914 888 85 8 832 853 5 72 600 625 634 65 7 680 690 68 7 665 642 618 644
26 25 24 26 26 27 28 28 28 29 28 28
+ 3 +26 +23 +13 + 6 + 3 + 3 + 1 - 2 - 5 - 9 -12 +14 +17 +31 - 19 -20 - 19 -18 -23 -29 -2 1 - 19 +28
0 0 0 0
- 1 - 1
0 0 0
+ 1 0 0
1985 PEAK LOAD MEETING CAPABILITY (Mw) Month Basis-of-Comparison Plan SMHO-11 Dif f . December 30,419 30,432 +13
F- 108
TABLE F-28
REGULATION PLAN SMHO-11 COMPARED TO BASIS-OF-COMPARISON
HYDRO QUEBEC
BEAUHARNOIS AND CEDARS PLANTS AVERAGE MONTHLY AND ANNUAL ENERGY OUTPUTS
AND ANNUAL VALUE OF ENERGY DIFFERENCE
Month
January February March
Apri 1 May June
J u l y August September October November December
Annua 1
(Av. kw)
Basis-of- Comparison
1 ,054 ,963 1 ,238 ,232 1 ,233 ,102 1 ,372 ,873 1 ,389 ,331 1 ,425 ,972 1 ,456 ,472 1 ,475 ,436 1 ,476 ,512 1 ,449 ,882 1 ,411 ,165 1 ,204 ,020
1,351,997
Plan SMHO-11
1 ,054 ,432 1,242,218 1 ,217 ,433
1 ,369 ,105 1 ,383 ,643 1 ,407 ,251 1 ,439 ,016 1 ,465 ,819 1 ,457 ,436 1 ,430 ,225 1 ,390 ,691 1 ,232 ,391
1,340,805
Difference
- 531 + 3,986 -15,669 - 3,768 - 5 ,688 -18,721 - 17,456 - 9 ,617 -19,076 -19,657 -20 ,474 - 7,629
-11,192
@ 6 mills/kwh benefit = -$590,000
F-109
TABLE F-29
REGULATION PLAN SMHO-11 COMPARED TO BASIS-OF-COMPARISON
NEW YORK STATE SYSTEM
VALUE OF AVERAGE MONTHLY AND ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTION
Niagara Plants ($1,000) Basis-of- P l a n Comparison SMHO- 11 Diff.
n January 8,981 8,994 13
o February 8,407 8,610 203 March 9,661 9,941 280 Apri 1 7,780 7,897 117 May 8,632 8,713 81 June 8,199 8,214 15
J u l y 8,387 8,394 7 August 8,163 8,137 - 26 September 7,460 7,472 12 October 7,542 7,522 - 20 November 7,757 7,685 72 December 8,889 8,781 - 108
P
S t . Lawrence P lan ts
Basis-of - Plan Comparison SMHO-11 Diff.
3,493 3,434 3,849 3,794 4,019 3,875 4,143 4,162 3,806
3,565 72 3,509 75 3,912 63 3,727 -67 3,949 - 70 3,804 - 71 4,077 -66 4,093 -69 3,729 -77
3,976 3,908 -68 3,155 3,108 -47 3,601 3,711 110
Average Annual Benef i t i n $1,000 502 -215
Under p l an SMHO-11, t h e o v e r a l l S t a t e o f New York power system would b e r e q u i r e d t o i n s t a l l 17 Mw l e s s a d d i t i o n a l c a p a c i t y t h a n it would i f the basis-of-comparison conditions continued (Table F-30). A t t h e rates (1971) a v a i l a b l e f o r PASNY f inanc ing , the ind ica ted savings would be $310,000 p e r y e a r . I t must be emphas ized tha t in an expected system total l ing over 40,000 Mw, a gain of the magni tude of 17 Mw is v i r t u a l l y n e g l i g i b l e . The ne t ga in would the re fo re be $600,000.
7.5.4 Upper Michigan
There i s an increase in the f requency of low S t . Marys River flows under plan SMHO-11 which would produce an average annual energy l o s s i n t h e Upper Michigan system of $130,000 and a small capac i ty loss $30,000 (Table F-31). The r e s u l t a n t t o t a l l o s s of $160,000 r ep resen t s abou t s ix pe rcen t o f t he t o t a l Upper Michigan system energy value.
7.6 Lakes Superior, Michigan-Huron, Erie and Ontario Regulation Plan (SMHEO)
The following paragraphs present a summary o f t h e d e t a i l e d economic eva lua t ion of p lan SMHEO-38 as compared to t he bas i s -o f - compar i son fo r t he power i n t e r e s t s .
The o v e r a l l a n n u a l n e t b e n e f i t t o power generat ion due t o p l a n SMHEO-38 was computed t o b e $90,000; however, not a l l o f the power systems involved rea l ize benef i t s , There would be an annual loss of $140,000 t o t h e Upper Michigan system which would be significant in r e l a t i o n t o t h e r e l a t i v e l y small l o c a l power system involved, The annual effect on the Beauharnois and Cedars plants of the Quebec system would b e a loss of $80,000. There would b e t o t a l a n n u a l b e n e f i t s of $110,000 and $190,000 f o r t h e New York Sta te sys tem and the Ontar io system, respect ively. These are small i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e s i ze of t h e systems. A summary of the effects of p lan SMHEO-38 on power i s provided in Tab le F-32.
7 . 6 . 1 Province of Ontario
There would be an average annual energy loss to the Ontar io plants from p lan SMHEO-38 of $10,000 occurring a t S t . Lawrence and S t . Marys (Table F-33).
The r e s u l t s o f e v a l u a t i o n o f p e a k c a p a c i t y on the Ontar io system (Table F-34) indicate that p lan SMHEO-38 would produce a gain of 14 Mw , which has an equivalent annual value of $210,000.
7.6.2 Province of Quebec
The ca lcu la ted annual effect of plan SMI-EO-38 on the Beauharnois and Cedars plants of the Quebec system (Table F-35) was a loss o f $80,000. This loss resulted from an i nc rease i n t he pe rcen t o f time dur ing t he w in te r months t h a t Lake Ontario outflows exceeded the usable flow capacity of the two p l a n t s .
F-111
TABLE F-30
REGULATION PLAN SMHO-11 COMPARED TO BASIS-OF-COMPARISON
NEW YORK STATE SYSTEM
LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY WITH FIXED NON-POWER AUTHORITY GENERATION
Basis-of-Comparison Plan SMHO-11 1985 Monthly
Peak Load- Month (Mwl
January 34,432 36,522 February 33,489 37,049 March 32,011 37,051 Apri 1
June May
31,018 36,538 32,771 37,171 35,299 36,819
J u l y 34,790 37,290 August 34,756 36,864 September 35,048 36,768 October 33,245 36,711 November 35,739 36,689 December 37,099 37,089
Annual Excess Capacity i n Mw-months
Dif fe rence in Annual Excess Capaci ty in Mw-months (SMHO-11 less Basis-of-Comparison)
Average Monthly Excess Capaci ty Difference in Mw
Average Annual Benefi t
Excess (Mw)
2,090 3,560 5,040 5,520 4,400 1,520
2,500 2,108 1,720 3,466
950 - 10
32,864
Excess (Mw)
36,530 37,065 37,021 36,568 37,211 36,843
37,308 36,875 36,788 36,731 36,729 37,097
2,098 3,576 5,010 5,550 4,440 1,544
2,518 2,119 1,740 3,486
990 -2
33,069
205
17
$308,000
TABLE F-31
REGULATION PLAN SMHO-11 COMPARED TO BASIS-OF-COMPARISON
U.S. PLANTS AT SAULT STE. MARIE, MICHIGAN
AVERAGE AND MINIMUM POWER OUTPUTS AND ANNUAL VALUES OF CAPACITY AND ENERGY DIFFERENCES
Average Power Outnut fkwl
Month
January February March Apri 1 May June
J u l y August September
October November December
Average
Basis-of- Plan Comparison SMHO-11
45,698 42,411 44,720 42,983 44,407 42,218 44,989 41,843 43,857 42,783 44,471 43,327
45,237 43,354 45,739 43,748 46,774 46,277
47,250 45,417 47,376 45,828 47,597 44,937
45,676 43,761
Gain (+) or
Loss (-)
-3,287 -1,737 -2,189
-3,146 -1,074 -1,144
-1,883 -1,991 - 497
-1,833 -1,548 -2,660
-1,915
Minimum Power Output (kw)
Gain (+) Basis-of- Plan or Comparison SMHO-11 Loss (-)
35,094 35,541 + 447 33,893 35,424 +1,531 33,855 35,031 +1,176 33,289 33,965 + 676
32,250 31,981 -2,269
35,905 32,345 -3,560 36,256 32,940 -3,316 36,393 33,849 -2,544
36,600 34,194 -2,406 37,136 34,335 -2,801 35,110 34,956 - 154
33,775 32,245 -1,530
35,130 33,900 -1,230
Average Minimum Capacity @ $22.70/kw = -1,230 x 22.70 = - $ 27,921 (-$ 30,000)
-$134,203 (-$130,000) Average Annual Energy @ $8/Mwh = -1,915 x 8.76 x 8 =
Tota l ( l o s s ) (-$160,000)
F-113
TABLE F-32
EFFECTS OF PLAN SMHEO-38 ON POWER
System
A Ontario v
w P S t . Lawrence
Niagara S t . Marys
TOTAL
Quebec Beauharnois Cedars
TOTAL
Nameplate Capacity
(kw)
912,000 2,116,800
31,000 3,059,800
1,585,780
~ ~~
(Annual Energy Value - $1,000)
Difference Between Plan Annual SMHEO-38 and Annual Total
Basis-of- Basis-of- Capacity Net Comparison Plan SMHEO-38 Comparison Benefi t Benefi t
28 , 360 57,040 1 , 050
86,450
28 , 350 - 10 57,040 0
0 - 10 -
71 , 060 70 , 980 - 80
- 80 ~~
New York S t a t e S t . Lawrence Niagara
TOTAL
912 , 000 2,190,000 3,102,000
45,300 45 , 320 99 , 860 99,660
145 , 160 144 , 980
+ 20 - 200 -180 -
+2 10
0
- +200
0
- 80
+290 +110
Upper Michigan 59 , 600 3,280 3,160 -120 - 20 -140
TOTAL 7,969,180 305 , 950 305,560 -390 +4 80 + 90
TABLE F-33
REGULATION PLAN SMHEO-38 COMPARED TO BASIS-OF-COMPARISON
ONTARIO SYSTEM
VALUE OF DIFFERENCE IN AVERAGE DAYTIME AND NIGHTTIME ENERGY PRODUCI'ION AND I N 1985 PEAK LOAD MEETING CAPABILITY
crl I Daytime Nighttime F Month S t . Lawrence Niagara St . Marys T o t a l S t . Lawrence Niagara St . Marys Tota l F
VI - January + 4,400 +125,000 0 +129,400 + 3,300 +63,300 0 +66,600 February +12,200 +140,300 0 +152,500 + 6,000 +71,600 0 +77,600 March +40,200 + 87,000 0 +127,200 +17,500 +44,700 0 +62,200
Apri 1 +30,200 + 45,400 0 + 75,600 +14,800 +19,000 0 +33,800
June - 6,500 - 47,500 0 - 54,000 - 2,100 -12,700 0 -14,800
Ju ly -11,200 - 8,900 0 - 20,100 - 2,200 - 3,300 0 - 5,500 August -15,600 - 58,000 0 - 73,600 -13,100 -22,900 0 - 36,000 September -21,600 -114,SOC 0 -136,100 -31,700 -41,200 0 -72,900
October -22,300 - 84,800 0 -107,100 -24,000 -31,600 0 -55,600 November -21,600 - 73,400 0 - 95,000 -21,100 -39,100 0 -60,200 December +22,300 - 4,500 - 0 + 17,800 + 9,800 - 3,300 - 0 + 6,500
k Y +13,400 - 44,600 0 - 31,200 + 9,800 - 4,400 0 + 5,400
Total +23,900 - 38,500 0 - 14,600 - 33,000 +40,100 0 + 7,100
Total , Day and Night: St. Lawrence -$9,100 Niagara +$1,600 St. Marys 0 = A l l -$7,500
Value of Difference i n 1985 Peak Load Meeting Capabili ty = +$210,000 (December)
TABLE F-34
REGULATION PLAN SMHEO-38 COMPARED TO BASIS-OF-COMPARISON
ONTARIO SYSTEM
AVERAGE MONTHLY ENERGY PRODUCTION AND 1985 PEAK LOAD MEETING CAPABILITY
Average Daytime Energy Average Nighttime Energy Basis-of- Plan Basis-of- Plan
Month P lan ts a t Comparison SMHEO-38 3iff . Comparison SMHEO-38 D i f f .
January N I AGAW February March Apri 1 May June Ju ly August September October November December
January ST. LAWRENCE February March Apri 1 May June J u l y August September October November December
January ST. MARYS February March Apri 1 May June J u l y August September October November December
(Av. Mw)
1,874 1,862 1,900 1,611 1,678 1,682 1,650 1,624 1,607 1,590 1,874 1,896
682 704 711 76 8 782 794 80 3 807 799 778 755 742
26 25 24 26 27 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
(Av. Mw) (Av. Mw) (Av. Mw)
1,930 1,931 1,939 1,632 1,658 1,660 1,646 1,598 1,554 1,552 1,840 1,894
684 710 729 782 788 79 1 798 800 789 768 745 75 2
26 25 24 26 26 27 27 28 28 28 28 28
+56 +69 + 39 + 2 1 -20 -22 - 4 - 26 -53 -38 - 34 - 2
+ 2 + 6 +18 +14 + 6 - 3 - 5 - 7 - 10 - 10 -10 +10
0 0 0 0
- 1 - 1 - 1
0 0 0 0 0
842 829 869 898 932 939 924 913 890 863 84 1 865
55 8 583 5 94 65 3 677 699 708 710 694 66 3 637 616
26 25 24 26 27 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
(Av. Mw) (Av. Mw)
900 90 1 910 9 16 928 928 92 1 892 85 1 834 804 86 2
56 1 5 89 610 667 6 86 697 706 698 664 64 1 617 625
26 25 24 26 26 27 27 28 28 28 28 28
+58 +72 +41 +18 - 4 -12 - 3 - 2 1 -39 -29 - 37 - 3 + 3 + 6 +16 +14 + 9 - 2 - 2 -12 - 30 -22 -20 + 9
0 0 0 0
- 1 - 1 - 1
0 0 0 0 0
1985 PEAK LOAD MEETING CAPABILITY (Mw)
Month Basis-of-Comparison Plan SMHEO-38 Diff.
December 30,419 30,433 +14 F- 116
TABLE F-35
REGULATION PLAN SMHEO-38 COMPARED TO BASIS-OF-COMPARISON
HYDRO QUEBEC
BEAUHARNOIS AND CEDARS PLANTS AVERAGE MONTHLY AND ANNUAL ENERGY OUTPUTS
AND ANNUAL VALUE OF ENERGY DIFFERENCE
Month
January February March
Apri 1 May June
Ju ly August September
October November December
Annual
(Av. kw)
Basis-of- Comparison
1,054,963 1,238,232 1,233,102 1,372,873 1,389,331 1,425,972 1,456,472 1,475,436 1,476,512
1,449,882 1,411,165 1,204,020
1,351,997
Plan SMHEO-38
1,055,024 1,249,456 1,238,567 1,405,874 1,405,484 1,422,469 1,447,126 1,464,172 1,453,610
1,432,638 1,391,117 1,240,201
1,350,478
Difference
+ 61 +11,224 + 5,465 +33,001 +16,153 - 3,503 - 9,346 -11,264 -22,902
- 17,244 -20,048 + 181
- 1,519
@ 6 mil ls /kwh benefi t = -$80,000
F-117
7.6.3 New York S t a t e
There would be a to ta l average annual loss in energy product ion f o r New York State plants of $180,000, a l l of which would occur a t Niagara (Table F-36) .
Under p l an SMHEO-38, t h e o v e r a l l S t a t e of New York power system would b e r e q u i r e d t o i n s t a l l 1 6 Mw less a d d i t i o n a l c a p a c i t y t h a n it would i f the basis-of-comparison conditions continued (Table F-37). A t t h e rates c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e f o r PASNY f inanc ing , t he i nd ica t ed savings would be $290,000 per year. I t must be emphasized that in an expec ted sys tem to ta l l ing over 40,000 Mw, a gain of the magnitude of 16 Mw i s v i r t u a l l y n e g l i g i b l e . The n e t b e n e f i t would t h e r e f o r e b e $110,000.
7.6.4 Upper Michigan
There would be an increase in the frequency of low S t . Marys River flows under plan SMHEO-38 which would produce an average annual e n e r g y l o s s i n t h e Upper Michigan system of $120,000 and a small c a p a c i t y l o s s ($20,000) (Table F-38). The r e s u l t a n t t o t a l l o s s o f $140,000 r ep resen t s abou t fou r pe rcen t o f t he t o t a l Upper Michigan system energy value.
F-118
TABLE F-36
REGULATION PLAN SMHEO-38 COMPARED TO BASIS-OF-COMPARISON
NEW YORK STATE SYSTEM
VALUE OF AVERAGE MONTHLY AND ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTION
Month 7 c, w January
February March Apri 1 May June Ju 1 y August September
Niagara Plants I$1,0001
Basis-of- Plan Comparison
8,981 8,407 9,661 7,780 8,632 8,199 8,387 8,163 7,460
SMHEO- 3 8
9,380 8,982
10,005 7,869 8,438 8,047 8,310 7,926 7,133
D i f f .
39 9 5 75 344
89 -194 .-152 - 77 -237 -327
October 7,542 7,271 -271 November 7,757 7,484 -273 December 8,889 8,811 - 78
Average Annual Benefit i n $1,000 -202
St. Lawrence P lan t s Bas is -of - Plan Comparison SMHEO-38 D i f f .
3,493 3,434 3,849 3,794 4,019 3,875 4,143 4,162 3,806 3,976 3,155 3,601
3,506 13 3,464 30 3,947 98 3,867 73 4,0S6 37 3,862 -13 4,122 - 2 1 4,116 - 46 3,728 - 78 3,902 - 74 3 , 101 -54 3,652 51 -
+16
TABLE F-37
REGULATION PLAN SMHEO-38 COMPARED TO BASIS-OF-COMPARISON
NEW YORK STATE SYSTEM
LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY WITH FIXED NON-POWER AUTHORITY GENERATION
Basis-of-Comparison 1985 Monthly
January 34,432 36,522 2,090 February 33,489 37,049 3,560 March 32,011 37,051 5,040 Apri 1 May June
31,018 36,538 5,520 32,771 37,171 4,400 35,299 36,819 1,520
J u 1 y 34,790 37,290 2,500 August 34,756 36,864 2,108 September 35,048 36,768 1,720 October 33,245 36,711 3,466 November 35,739 36,689 95 0 December 37,099 37,089 -10
Annual Excess Capacity i n Mw-months
Dif fe rence in Annual Excess Capaci ty in Mw-months (SMHEO-38 less Basis-of-Comparison)
Average Monthly Excess Capacity Difference i n Mw
32,864
Plan SMHEO-38
36,546 37,077 37,075
36,598 37,201 36,829
37,310 36,834 36,738
36,721 36,723 37,105
2,114 3,588 5,064
5,580 4,430 1,530
2,520 2,078 1,690
3,476 984 6
33,060
196
16
Average Annual Benefi t $294,000
F-120
TABLE F-38
REGULATION PLAN SMHEO-38 COMPARED TO BASIS-OF-COMPARISON
U.S. PLANTS AT SAULT STE. MARIE, MICHIGAN
AVERAGE AND MINIMUM POWER OUTPUTS AND ANNUAL VALUES OF CAPACITY AND ENERGY DIFFERENCE
Average Power Output (kw) Minimum Power Output (kw)
Gain (+) Gain (+)
Month Comparison SMHEO-38 Loss (-) Comparison SMHEO-38 Loss (-) Basis-of- Plan or Basis-of- Plan or
January February March Apri 1 May June J u l y August September October November December
45,698 44,720 44,407
44,989 43,857 44,471 45,237 45,739 46,774 47,250 47,376 47,597
42,536 43,460 42,574 42,919 42,197 42,965 43,736 44,703 46,206 45,043 46,119 45,308
-3,162 -1,260 -1,833 -2,070 - 1,660 -1,506 -1,501 -1,036 - 568 -2,207 -1,257 -2,289
35,094 33,893 33,855 33,289 33,775 34,250 35,905 35,256 36,393 36,600 37,136 35,110
35,883 35,709 35,174 34,133 32,351 32,088 32,399
33,904 34,484 34,680 36,169
32,975
+ 789 +1,816 +1,319 + 844 -1,424 -2,162
-3,506 -3,281 -2,489 -2,116 -2,456 + 59
Average 45,676 43,980 - 1,696 35,130 34,079 -1,051
Average Minimum Capacity (3 $22.70/kw = -1.051 x 22.70 = -$ 23,858 (-$ 20,000)
Average Annual Energy @ $8/Mwh = 1,696 x 8.76 x 8 = -$118,856 (-$120,000)
Total (loss) (-$140,000)
F- 1 2 1
NAME -
*M. Abelson
*G. Berry
*J.B. Bryce
*A. Coniglio
*B.G. DeCooke
*J . Hebson J.D.A. Keefe
*J.P. Marion
*J. Morgan
*N.P. Persoage
*F. Santerre
"J.H. Spellman
R. Brisebois
R.C. Wilshaw
R.L. Pentland
D . R. Cuthbert R. Walker
*J. Weinrub
*D.F. Witherspoon
* Member
ANNEX A
POWER SUBCOMMITTEE
MEMBERS AND ASSOCIATES
AGENCY
U.S. Department of
Power Auth. of the New York
PERIOD OF SERVICE From To " -
the Interior 3/67 COMPLETION
State of 7/65 12/72
Hydro Electric Power Comm. of Ontario
Power Auth. of the State of New York
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Federal Power Commission
Environment Canada
Hydro-Quebec
U.S. Department of the Interior
Environment Canada
Hydro-Quebec
U.S. Federal Power Commission
Hydro-Quebec
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
Hydro Electric Power Corn
8/65
1/73
3/ 73
1/72
1/72
8/65
7/65
3/68
3/70
7/65
3/ 70
1/72
1/67
3/ 73
8/65
COMPLETION
COMPLETION
COMPLETION
COMPLETION
COMPLETION
3/70
9/68
1/71
COMPLETION
COMPLETION
COMPLETION
COMPLETION
2/73
COMPLETION
COMPLETION of Ontario
U.S . Army Corps of
Environment Canada
Engineers 7/65 3/ 73
1/71 COMPLETION
F-122
![CONFIDENTIAL ONTARIO REGULATION EMERGENCY … · 2020-04-03 · CONFIDENTIAL Until made ONTARIO REGULATION made under the [Bilingual] REG2020.0227.e 16 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND CIVIL](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5ed099bce2e54a5410126266/confidential-ontario-regulation-emergency-2020-04-03-confidential-until-made-ontario.jpg)
