Comments on 2050 Transmission Study


Dated: May 6, 2022

Posted in: , ,

Authored by:

To:                  ISO-NE

From:             NESCOE (contact: Dorothy Capra)

Re:                  2050 Transmission Study Comments

Date:               May 6, 2022



On April 14, 2022, ISO-NE presented to NESCOE interim results of the 2050 Transmission Study.  At the end of the presentation, ISO-NE asked for NESCOE feedback on several items.  This memo is in response to that request.

Response to Questions

Below is the response to each question ISO-NE presented, along with an additional request.

  • Which 51 GW 2050 Winter Evening Peak sensitivity (with or without wind relocation) should be used as the basis for the primary set of solutions?

The question that comes to mind is “How feasible is this wind relocation?”  If this is really a feasible option, then relocating the wind seems to be the obvious way to start on developing solutions.  On the other hand, if this is just a way to make a problem smaller but really can’t be done then we shouldn’t be considering it.

  • Is the ISO’s overall approach to solutions development reasonable?

Yes, the overall approach is reasonable.

  • Is there a desire for solutions to overloads in the original 2050 Summer Daytime Peak snapshot (rather than the 2050 Summer Daytime Peak Sensitivity)?

No, there is not a desire to develop solutions for the original snapshot.

  • Is the use of per-mile cost assumptions acceptable for certain upgrades?

This assumption seems reasonable, especially for reconductoring or line rebuilds for which there is experience and costs are well-known.

  • What is the level of detail expected for cost estimates?

Detailed cost estimates would be especially useful for facilities where costs may not be well-known, which could include those in need of an upgrade of voltage level or that are in a shared right of way. For most or all other facilities, excepting any lines having construction peculiarities or that are of particular interest to stakeholders, the use of per-mile costs to produce generalized estimates would be acceptable so as to not unduly increase the time and expenditure required to complete the estimation work. It should be a shared goal of NESCOE and ISO-NE to avoid wherever possible the potential for onlookers to confuse precision for accuracy, or prognosis for certainty.


We appreciate ISO-NE’s work on the study and the request for feedback. We’d like ISO-NE’s help with one other important aspect of the preliminary study results. We request that ISO-NE investigate the possibility of estimating the duration of overloads, especially on those lines where it appears that overloads could be transient. Upgrading a line to avoid a short overload is likely not the most economic solution for consumers. Please let us know if talking through the overload duration open question would be helpful.