Utility 2.

0 Long Range Plan

Prepared for Long Island Power Authority

July 1, 2014







Table of Contents

Section 1: Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Key Objectives of PSEG Long Island Utility 2.0 ............................................................. 1-5
1.3 Summary of Programs ........................................................................................................ 1-6
1.4 Benefit/Cost Test Criteria ................................................................................................... 1-7
1.5 PSEG Long Island Experience .......................................................................................... 1-8
1.6 Investment Recovery Model .............................................................................................. 1-9
1.7 Stakeholder Participation ................................................................................................. 1-11
1.8 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 1-12
Section 2: Utility 2.0 Emerging in the Industry ................................................................................... 2-1
2.1: Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2: New York State Clean Energy Initiatives ........................................................................ 2-3
2.3: System Planning Goals and Emerging Resource Needs ............................................ 2-5
2.3.1: Emerging Resource Needs .............................................................................. 2-6
2.3.2: Hardening and Resiliency Upgrades ............................................................ 2-11
2.3.3: Smart Grid and Customer-Facing Technologies ........................................ 2-12
2.3.4: Energy Storage and Electric Vehicles .......................................................... 2-13
Section 3: PSEG Long Island Utility 2.0 Plan .................................................................................... 3-1
3.1: Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Utility 2.0 Investments ......................................................................................................... 3-3
3.2.1 Programmable Thermostat Program Modernization and Expansion .......... 3-3
3.2.2: Targeted Solar PV Expansion ......................................................................... 3-7
3.2.3 Residential Home Energy Management .......................................................... 3-9
3.2.4 Incremental Energy Efficiency Expansion ..................................................... 3-13
3.2.5 Energy Conservation Program for Hospitals................................................. 3-16
3.2.6 Energy Efficiency Expansion on the Rockaways ......................................... 3-18
3.2.7 Combined Heat and Power.............................................................................. 3-22
3.2.8 Geothermal Heating & Cooling ....................................................................... 3-25
3.3 Capital Budget Investments ............................................................................................. 3-28




3.3.1 South Fork Improvements................................................................................ 3-28
3.3.2 Large Customer Advanced Metering Initiative .............................................. 3-36
Section 4: Long-Term Vision ................................................................................................................ 4-1
Section 5. Stakeholder Outreach ......................................................................................................... 5-1
Appendix A .............................................................................................................................................. A-1
Appendix B ............................................................................................................................................... B-1
Appendix C ............................................................................................................................................... C-1







Tables and Figures

Table 1.1: PSEG Long Island Utility 2.0 Long Range Plan........................................... 1-7
Table 2.1: PSEG Long Island Projects and Investments ............................................ 2-10
Table 3.1: PSEG Long Island Programmable Thermostat Program ............................. 3-3
Table 3.2: Programmable Thermostat Program Modernization & Expansion Illustrative
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 3-7
Table 3.3: Targeted Solar PV Expansion Illustrative Summary ................................. 3-9
Table 3.4: Behavioral Energy Efficiency Programs .................................................... 3-13
Table 3.5: Savings achieved by LIPA and PSEG Long Island Energy Efficiency
Programs .................................................................................................................... 3-14
Table 3.6: Incremental Energy Efficiency Illustrative Summary ............................... 3-15
Table 3.7: PSEG Long Island Hospital Customers Observations .............................. 3-17
Table 3.8: Hospital Outreach Program Illustrative Summary ................................... 3-17
Table 3.9: Energy Efficiency Expansion on the Rockaways Illustrative Summary .. 3-21
Table 3.10: Sample CHP Incentive Programs ............................................................ 3-22
Table 3.11: PSEG Long Island Potential CHP Customer Segments .......................... 3-24
Table 3.12: PSEG Long Island CHP Program Savings .............................................. 3-24
Table 3.13: Potential GHP Installation Plan ............................................................... 3-27
Table 3.14: Potential GHP Installation Plan by Type of Customers ........................... 3-27
Table 3.15: South Fork Design Options ..................................................................... 3-31
Table 3.16: Estimated Capital and Net Present Value of Revenue Requirements of
South Fork Improvements .......................................................................................... 3-33
Table 3.17: Elements of Utility 2.0 and Going Forward Recommendations ............... 3-35
Table 3.18: Summary of AMI Deployment .................................................................. 3-37


Figure 2.1: Long Island Control Area Peak Loads (MW) and Growth (%) .................... 2-6
Figure 2.2: 2013 Hourly LIPA Load Duration ................................................................ 2-7
Figure 2.3: LIPA Load Factors ..................................................................................... 2-8
Figure 3.1: South Fork Peak Load Growth ................................................................. 3-28
Figure 3.2: South Fork Transmission Expansion Plan................................................ 3-29
Figure 3.3: South Fork Load Growth vs Utility 2.0 Resources .................................... 3-32







1




1-1

Section 1: Executive Summary
1.1 Introduction
PSEG Long Island (PSEG Long Island) submits this Utility 2.0 Long Range Plan
(Utility 2.0 Plan or Plan) in accordance with Public Authorities Law Section 1020-
f(ee) and the Amended and Restated Operations Services Agreement (OSA) dated
December 31, 2013, for approval by the Long Island Power Authority (the Authority or
LIPA) and review by the New York State Department of Public Service (DPS). The
OSA requires that PSEG Long Island submit this inaugural Utility 2.0 Plan no later than
July 1, 2014, and annually thereafter.
PSEG Long Island, as the Authoritys Service Provider, is committed to building an
industry leading electric company dedicated to providing the people of Long Island and
the Rockaways with exceptional customer service, best-in-class reliability and storm
response, and a strong level of involvement in the communities in which its customers
and employees live and work. This proposed Utility 2.0 Plan serves as the first in a
series of annual long-range capital and operating plans contemplated by the Public
Authorities Law and the OSA to help facilitate this objective.
While the Authority and New York State have been among our countrys leaders in
clean energy initiatives (discussed more fully in Section 2), PSEG Long Island believes
that there remains untapped potential for targeted investments in demand side
management. This includes increasing the use of energy efficiency, direct load control
(DLC) demand response, and distributed energy resources (DER) such as
distributed generation.

Long Island is a summer peaking system, primarily driven by residential cooling load.
The peak drives power generation capacity needs and system investment decisions.
Improving the energy efficiency of end use equipment (e.g., lighting, air conditioners,
chillers and other equipment) can be the most cost-effective energy resource and
provide significant savings for customers. Energy Efficiency resources can also be
effective solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and were acknowledged as
one of the building blocks for emissions reductions in the Environmental Protection
Agencys recent Clean Power Plan announcement.
1
DLC can be a cost-effective

1
Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units
40 CFR Part 60 (June 2, 2014)



1-2

resource that specifically addresses peak demand, thereby improving system efficiency
and providing a broader benefit in helping to avoid the costs of alternative solutions that
are otherwise borne by all customers.

This Utility 2.0 Plan proposes targeted and programmatic investments with a focus on
improving energy efficiency and reducing peak load to address emerging capacity and
system needs across Long Island and in load pockets, particularly for customer
segments that are often underserved, such as hospitals, low-income multifamily
housing, and municipalities. We believe that there may be the potential to displace
currently planned generation expansion through a reassessment of resource needs
coupled with accelerating investments behind the meter at customer facilities in more
energy efficient equipment with direct load control capability. This potential could be
incorporated into a planning update scheduled for this fall and further assessed at that
time.

As discussed further below, PSEG Long Island (or an affiliate) is prepared to invest up
to $200M in these programs. This investment would be incremental to the continued
funding of existing energy efficiency and renewable programs. We seek to implement
these investments from 2015 through 2018 and allow PSEG Long Island to incorporate
the demand savings from this program into current resource planning. Our proposal
would incorporate cost recovery into the next rate case and defer repayment by the
Authority for PSEG Long Island investments until 2016, supporting the current rate
freeze. PSEG Long Island would amortize repayment over an extended period of time
to mitigate rate impacts of the investments, which we expect to keep minimal and would
be more than offset by cost savings. We may also explore the potential to reshape a
portion of the existing energy efficency and renewable programs.

As required by the OSA and the Public Authorities Law, each year we will update the
Utility 2.0 Plan and, as needed, refine the approach based on our experience,
developing State and regulatory policies, input from a broad set of stakeholders, and
ongoing development of new technologies. PSEG Long Island proposes to continue to
provide periodic program reports to the Authority Trustees, and to utilize a third party to
assess the deemed savings of projects and report on the effectiveness of the overall
program.

Customers depend on reliable electric service more than they ever have before as
electricity is an essential commodity of our economy and society. Meeting customer
demands for greater reliability and resiliency, while providing broader and better
customer services and being a good steward of the environment, all at an affordable
cost, is a significant challenge. This proposed Utility 2.0 Plan was requested by New



1-3

York leaders who believe in the need for a new approach and advanced this direction
through the LIPA Reform Act, and commenced a number of state-wide and local
initiatives to improve service delivery for customers, transition to a more customer-
centric utility business model and establish a market where third parties can provide
cost effective offerings. Examples include:
the current three year distribution rate freeze for PSEG Long Island customers;
the implementation of recommendations from the 2013 management audit;
the implementation of a number of operational best practices by PSEG Long
Island;
a number of efforts underway to achieve strong reliability standards and improve
reliability, resiliency, storm response, and customer service;
the update of the integrated resource plan to assess generation supply needs on
Long Island;
existing programs established by the Authority to promote energy efficiency,
renewables, and demand response;
new revenue models and requests for proposals for renewable generation that are
being reviewed by the Authority with assistance from PSEG Long Island; and
the broad-reaching Reforming the Energy Vision (REV) proceeding recently
initiated by the New York Public Service Commission (PSC).
This proposed Utility 2.0 Plan can build upon these initiatives in several significant
respects:
Accelerating and expanding investments in energy efficiency and other DER to
help defer or displace investments in fossil generation that may otherwise be
needed in the near-term, thereby lowering emissions and customers total bills.
Targeting opportunities to specific areas to help defer or displace the need for
certain investments, considering DER on equal footing (i.e., cost, reliability and
local customer needs) with traditional resources.
Broadening participation to underserved customer segments facing unique barriers
to investing in potentially valuable energy efficient equipment and appliances.
Despite the significant potential economic benefits from energy savings, some
customers are unable to invest capital in new equipment. PSEG Long Island
believes that reaching these customers with efficiency solutions is the next step in
providing universal access to utility customers.

The support of the leadership and vision of the State of New York has been, and will
continue to be, a guiding force in this process. We will continue to work collaboratively
and seek to align with energy policy and initiatives supported by the Authority, the PSC,
and the government of the State of New York. PSEG Long Island is an active party in



1-4

the REV proceeding and intends to continue to collaborate with the Authority and New
York leaders as they reconsider the responsibilities of investor-owned electric utilities
and integrate DER into system operations and planning. We believe that there can be
an ongoing role for the utility as the distribution system platform provider that integrates
various DER options and facilitates benefits to all customers. See Section 4 for more
discussion of our long-term vision for Utility 2.0.

We also believe that much can be done to develop a market of third party providers
offering energy services and products to customers. Therefore, in parallel to our Utility
2.0 Plan and the ongoing REV proceeding, we will launch a process to work with
leading energy service companies, demand side management companies and
contractors, third party supply retailers, and other market participants to consider
approaches to broaden customer energy options, incorporate cost-effective advanced
technology, and further develop markets for innovative energy services on Long Island.
We have already opened the dialogue with several third party providers to review the
present market pricing construct and, drawing from this input, we propose investments
in this Utility 2.0 Plan that can fairly and cost-effectively meet resource and customer
needs. We believe that this investment program managed by PSEG Long Island will
help develop markets.

As discussed further below, we will also work with communities, businesses,
environmental groups, and other stakeholders to gain their input on this Plan and
subsequent implementation.




1-5

1.2 Key Objectives of PSEG Long Island Utility 2.0

The following guiding principles were applied in the development of this Utility 2.0 Long
Range Plan.

Integrate Utility 2.0 solutions into PSEG Long Islands long-term system and
capital planning for transmission, distribution and supply.
Resource diversity Consider alternative design options to meet reliability and
resource requirements. Evaluate distributed resources on equal footing to
traditional investments, depending on their applicability, cost-effectiveness,
enhanced customer services, and contribution to fulfilling State energy policy.
Mitigate customer bill impacts Prioritize appropriate design solutions that address
reliability needs using resources with the lowest total cost. Consider total customer
bill impacts in planning for both participating and nonparticipating customers.
System modernization Incorporate, where technologically tested, commercially
reliable, and cost effective, advanced power controls for transmission and
distribution facilities, technology-based energy efficiency and distributed resources,
real-time power monitoring equipment, and integrated communications systems.
Identify potential means to improve the efficiency of the generation portfolio on
Long Island, in conjunction with our reassessment of the Authoritys integrated
resource plan.
Empower customers with energy choices tailored to their needs and preferences.
Providing options Provide information to customers regarding electricity use,
usage patterns, prices, and energy reduction tools to aid in better management of
energy consumption. Facilitate automated customer responses that take
advantage of market signals and optimize customer preferences.
Universal access Enable participation in energy efficiency and other programs
where behind-the-meter services benefit both participant and non-participant
customers. Ensure universal access for new services, following a core principle in
the delivery of traditional electric service.
Customer engagement Enhance customers understanding of alternative design
solutions to maintain reliability and system efficiency. Reach out to communities
and customers for feedback in planning processes.

Enhance system efficiency and resiliency to maintain a reliable system at an
affordable cost.
Develop a cleaner and more efficient electric system Deploy distributed
resources where they are economic and where they improve the operational
efficiency of the power system, particularly during peak. Increase the utilization



1-6

rate of the existing delivery infrastructure and minimize the need for new
generation plants to mitigate impacts on customer bills.
Enhance reliability and resilency Reduce the frequency and duration of customer
outages with self-healing distribution feeders, real-time monitoring and grid
network controls, and other advanced technologies.

Support development of a sustainable market for clean energy investments.
Target difficult market segments Invest directly where market solutions do not
reach certain customer segments that have difficulty participating in existing
programs.
Develop pricing framework for DER - Work with various stakeholders to develop a
market for enhanced energy servies. Consider the value of these services to the
utility and establish pricing approaches that providers and customers fairly.
Create green jobs on Long Island Enlist local workforce and contractors to
implement the proposed programs.
1.3 Summary of Programs

This Utility 2.0 Plan is focused on improving energy efficiency and reducing peak load to
address emerging resource and system needs across Long Island and in targeted load
pockets. PSEG Long Island is prepared to invest up to $200M in these programs over a
four-year period from 2015 2018. Our proposed investments include a mix of energy
efficiency, distributed generation, renewables, and direct load control programs that are
designed to result in peak demand savings to benefit the Authority and all its customers,
as well as energy savings and incentives that directly benefit participants. We designed
programs to encourage participation from customer segments that face barriers to
existing clean energy programs, such as low income customers, public agencies, and
hospitals.

We also include two capital budget investment programs for the Authority. First, we
endorse a plan for the South Fork load pocket that will add distributed supply and
demand-side resources. The favorable economics of these targeted improvements in
the South Fork is based on the deferral of costly transmission upgrades and peaking
generation. Second, we propose a targeted deployment of Advanced Metering
Infrastructure (AMI) to large commercial and industrial customers that will enable peak
demand savings through additional visibility of energy end use and enhanced metering
data.




1-7

These investments are summarized in Table 1.1 below and described fully in Section 3
of the Plan. The figures are illustrative and preliminary; the actual investments could be
greater or lesser than any particular program cited below and will only be made to the
extent that the program satisfies the benefit-to-cost criteria described below and in more
detail in Appendix A.


Table 1.1: PSEG Long Island Utility 2.0 Long Range Plan
1.4 Benefit/Cost Test Criteria

PSEG Long Island proposes to assess the cost-effectiveness of these investments
against their alternatives using the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test. This test
considers the costs borne by the program administrator, in this case PSEG Long Island,
including capital costs, administrative costs, and customer incentives. PSEG Long
Island recommends that a PAC test result of 1.1 be used as the benefits-to-cost criteria
Annual
Demand
Savings
Annual
Energy
Savings
Total
Investment
Program Description (MW) (MWh) ($M)
2
Programmable Thermostat
Program Modernization and
Expansion
Enhance existing direct load control program with modern technology and
increase customer participation. Also, test smart plug technology through a
pilot program targeting residential room air conditioning units.
100 2,700 $60
Targeted Solar PV Expansion
Provide incentives to commercial behind-the-meter solar PV, targeting Long
Island customers unable to access existing incentives.
30 100,000 $45
Residential Home Energy
Management
Provide targeted home energy reports and guidance to customers to reduce
demand; 250,000 customers targeted.
10 25,000 $8
Incremental Energy Efficiency
Expansion
Target additional opportunities for cost effective technology and underserved
customers.
10 41,200 $30
Energy Conservation Program for
Hospitals
Design and offer energy efficiency retrofit program tailored for hospital
customers.
5 28,000 $30
Energy Efficiency Expansion on the
Rockaways
Offer energy efficiency enhancements for low-income multi-family housing, public
facilities, and other customers on the Rockaways.
5 21,500 $13
Combined Heat & Power
Provide incentives for commercial CHP installations, targeting Long Island
customers unable to access existing incentives.
5 39,000 $5
Geothermal Heating and Cooling Expand rebates for geothermal heating and cooling systems. 5 7,800 $9
170 265,200 $200
South Fork Improvements
3
Proceed with various energy efficiency, distributed generation, and direct load
control investments, potential combined with battery storage, to defer needed
transmission and peaking generation.
TBD TBD TBD
Large Customer Advanced
Metering Initiative
Deploy advanced metering to 25,000 customers representing over 20% of the
electric load on Long Island.
15 45,000 $15
Capital Budget Investment 15 45,000 $15
185 310,200 $215
PSEG Long Island Utility 2.0 Long Range Plan
1
Utility 2.0 Investment
GRAND TOTAL
3. South Fork will also include many other facets that are not included in the above table because they will be paid over many years from fuel and
purchased power charges. Some examples include potential installation of solar PV resulting from Clean Solar Initiative II and the 280 MW Renewable
RFP. Moreover, additional peaking and storage resources may be selected as a result of the Generation, Energy Storage, and Demand Response RFP.
PSEG Long Island can be available as backstop developer to the extent that the competitive markets do not provide sufficient solar PV and battery
resources.
2. PSEG Long Island proposes to finance up to $200M of the proposed Utility 2.0 Plan. This would not include the South Fork Improvements or Large
Customer Advanced Metering Initiative. PSEG Long Island proposes that these two projects would be included in the capital budget.
Notes:
1. These figures are illustrative, preliminary, and rounded. More detailed information on costs, benefits, and economic screening are provided in
Appendix A.



1-8

as long as the investments benefits-to-cost ratio meets or exceeds 1.1, it would be
implemented.
2


The PSC uses the total resource cost test (TRC) as a cost-effectiveness metric for
energy efficiency programs implemented by New Yorks investor owned utilities. This
test is similar to the PAC test but also includes the full incremental cost of upgrading
equipment. PSEG Long Island also considered the Total Resource Cost (TRC) as a
point of reference (see Appendix A).

The primary value of these investments are the avoided costs of generation capacity
and energy. For our preliminary cost-effectiveness screening, we considered recent
benchmark studies used by the Authority to evaluate current energy efficiency and
renewable programs. The benchmark studies determined the costs of capacity and
energy procured through a power purchase agreement with a new combined cycle gas
turbine power plant. Such an investment represents the next real marginal unit of
supply that the Authority would otherwise need. We also considered data from NYISO
markets in our analysis as additional reference. In addition to the avoided cost of
capacity and energy, where investments in DER can be a viable alternative to meeting
reliability needs we will consider the net present value of deferring distribution
investments.

More detail on the PAC test and other elements of our proposed cost-effectiveness
screening is included in Appendix A.
1.5 PSEG Long Island Experience

As the Authoritys Service Provider, PSEG Long Island is responsible for developing,
implementing, and integrating cost-effective advanced energy investments. In this
case, PSEG Long Island can apply its valuable experience implementing clean energy
investments. Our utility affiliate, Public Service Electric & Gas Company (PSE&G) has
invested nearly $300 million in energy efficiency and demand response programs in just
the past five years, helping reduce energy bills for a wide range of residential and
commercial customers. Programs include the award-winning Hospital Efficiency and
Residential Multifamily Efficiency programs, both of which provide deep energy retrofits
at no upfront cost to the customer with zero-interest on-bill repayment. PSE&G has
also invested approximately $700 million in securing over 150 MW of small-scale (<2

2
The reason for using 1.1 rather than 1.0 is to account for the fact that a new supply resource would likely
improve system heat rate.



1-9

MW) solar through its Solar Loan Program, which provides capital and certainty to
customers deploying distributed solar, and its Solar 4 All Program, which invests in
utility-owned centralized solar PV systems installed on PSE&G property and
underutilized third party sites such as brownfields and landfills.

Similarly, the Authority has made significant and award-winning investments in energy
efficiency, demand response and renewable energy projects through its Clean Energy
Initiative, Efficiency Long Island Initiative, Solar Pioneer and Entrepreneur Program,
Backyard Wind, Long Island and Eastern Long Island utility-scale solar projects, and
Clean Solar, Clean Solar II and Clean Renewable feed-in tariff initiatives. PSEG Long
Island has access to the same professionals that successfully implements these
programs and can utilize those teams and best practices in its implementation of the
Utility 2.0 Plan. See Section 2 for more extended discussion of Long Islands past and
existing clean energy programs.
1.6 Investment Recovery Model

As part of this Plan, PSEG Long Island (or an affiliate) proposes to invest up to $200
million of its capital from 2015 2018. This investment would be incremental to the
continued funding of existing energy efficiency and renewable programs. Investment by
PSEG in Utility 2.0 end use measures and cost recovery are specifically contemplated
by the OSA. This approach provides the Authority with low cost funding for these
programs without having to further increase its debt.

PSEG Long Island proposes to align investment recovery with the upcoming Authority
rate case in 2015. There will be no rate increases associated with this Utility 2.0 Plan
until 2016, and we expect rate impacts to be minimal and offset by the anticipated
benefits of the program, including avoided cost of alternative capacity and energy
investments, and reduced peak demand and energy consumption. Any investment
would be cost effective, as measured by the PAC test, and in the best economic interest
of the Authoritys ratepayers.

This Utility 2.0 Plan is designed to lower total customer bills from what they otherwise
would have been by lowering energy usage and deferring and/or avoiding the cost of
supply and system investments that would otherwise be needed. These investments
will be made only if they meet or exceed cost-effectiveness criteria and lower overall
system costs. PSEG Long Island also foresees that some of the rebate-focused
elements of the current energy efficiency and renewable programs could be reduced as
the focus shifts towards a more targeted approach with deeper retrofits and programs
that better serve other customer segments, allowing for much of the program to be



1-10

covered through current rates. While the investment may marginally increase customer
rates after the current rate freeze, we expect total costs to be lower than they otherwise
would have been.

PSEG Long Island has developed two alternative investment recovery models both
driven by customer savings for consideration by the Authority:

1. Performance Driven Investment Recovery Model. In this case, PSEG Long
Island proposes a performance-driven approach using our low-cost capital, with
returns aligned with other New York utilities, as envisioned by the OSA. PSEG
Long Island would establish a base repayment schedule based on the approved
size of the program and agreed-upon rate of return. This rate could increase or
decrease based upon the cost-effectiveness of the program relative to a pre-
determined target, as measured by the PAC test and verified by an independent
third-party. Both the increase and decrease could be capped so that the return
would not exceed an agreed upon threshold. The incentive payment would be
adjusted based on the level of savings achieved. Appendix B contains a draft term
sheet for this proposal and illustrative repayment schedule and performance
multiplier.

2. Savings Driven Investment Recovery Model. This case is an interim step
towards valuing distributed resources more directly, an objective of the current
REV proceeding. PSEG Long Island would be compensated based upon the
deemed demand and energy savings of the program over the estimated life of the
equipment, using the rates for avoided capacity and energy to value the
investment. Deemed savings would be determined up front with verification from
an independent third party. To the extent that the investment also deferred or
displaced distribution investments, then that value would also be considered.
Overall program returns that exceeded an agreed-upon threshold would be shared
with customers, aligning incentives. Appendix C contains a draft term sheet for
this proposal, proposed avoided costs from the Authoritys benchmark studies, and
an illustrative sharing mechanism.

In either investment recovery model, PSEG Long Island would recover its investment
over an extended time frame that represents the average expected useful life of the
equipment. This long-term recovery will flatten the rate impact of this acceleration of
energy efficiency solutions. Long-term recovery of energy efficiency investments is a
significant departure from the Authoritys current treatment of energy efficiency
investments, currently recovered in the same year as costs through an on-bill
surcharge. The current policy may disadvantage clean energy spending that would



1-11

impact annual bills disproportionally to capital investments amortized over a longer
term.

In summary, PSEG Long Islands proposition to invest its own capital in Utility 2.0:
accelerates savings from energy efficiency and peak demand reductions to help
avoid other more costly investments;
obviates the need for the Authority to expand its debt levels to finance these
programs;
spreads the costs over an extended period, reflecting the estimate useful life of
the underlying equipment and thereby mitigating any rate impact;
defers recovery until 2016, respecting the current rate freeze;
aligns incentives for PSEG Long Island and customers around the cost-
effectiveness of the programs;
in the case of the performance driven approach, uses our low-cost capital , with
returns aligned with other New York utilities, as envisioned by the OSA; and
in the case of the savings driven approach, is an interim step towards valuing
distributed resources more directly, an objective of the current REV proceeding.

In order to implement PSEG Long Islands proposed investment program, the OSA will
need to be supplemented. Draft term sheets containing the principal terms and
conditions for each of the proposed investment recovery models can be found at
Appendix B and Appendix C of this Plan. The final term sheets will require the review of
the State Comptroller, in accordance with the State Finance Law, reviewed by the DPS,
and approval by the Authoritys Board of Trustees.
1.7 Stakeholder Participation

We look forward to feedback from our many stakeholders on this process. As required
by the OSA, PSEG Long Island will hold a public technical conference on July 24, 2014.
This will be an opportunity to communicate these proposed initiatives and to receive
public input. We plan to hold additional stakeholder meetings in the second half of 2014
as needed. Our community outreach will spread across Long Island, and specifically in
the South Fork and Rockaway communities that we target for investment in the Plan.
We intend to establish relationships with leading demand-side management providers,
energy service companies, and other third-party market participants to help implement
this Utility 2.0 Plan and provide insight to future Utility 2.0 plans. We will also continue
to work with the Authority, the DPS, the New York State administration, and other State
and local interested parties as they review this proposed Utility 2.0 Plan. See Section 5
of the Plan for further discussion.



1-12

1.8 Conclusion

This is PSEG Long Islands inaugural Utility 2.0 Long Range Plan. We believe that our
proposed investments can provide a significant opportunity to meet Long Islands
customer needs and policy objectives. There are many opportunities within reach and
several imminent decisions regarding the long-term energy supply mix. Taking action
on this Utility 2.0 Plan by the end of 2014 will enable the program to be incorporated
into budgeting decisions required around the turn of the year, and projected demand
savings to be incorporated into PSEG Long Islands upcoming review of the integrated
resource plan. Expedited action will also provide sufficient lead time prior to the
potential need for significant capacity in the summer of 2018.
This Plan will meet the initial challenge of increasing the prevalence of customer-based
energy solutions in Long Island and expediting the process of integrating new
distributed products and services into utility planning and business models. We believe
these investments are no regrets investments that can be economically favorable to
their alternatives and help meet New York goals related to improving system efficiency
and avoiding emissions while controlling customer costs.
Our Plan precedes the REV proceeding, but this proposal offers a natural fit and can
evolve as that broader process advances. We will return each year with a report on the
implementation of the Plan, including a progress report, scope refinement, and update
on efforts to use this investment proposal to lead development of markets for innovative
energy services on Long Island. We seek to align with both REV and related PSC
proceedings, and recently proposed Federal efforts to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. We will work with New York and local leaders to refine the specifics of this
proposal and develop future efforts.
In sum, we believe the proposed investments in this Utility 2.0 Long Range Plan can
provide sustainable value to our customers and Long Island.




2-1

2 Section 2: Utility 2.0 Emerging in the Industry
2.1: Introduction

Long Islands electric grid is an interconnected network of power plants, transmission
lines, substations and distribution feeders that delivers electricity to customers. While
the grid continues to meet customer demand for safe, reliable, affordable electricity
service, customers expectations are changing as:

Demand for reliability has never been greater as customers are reliant on
electricity for an increasing number of everyday functions.
Customers are becoming more comfortable with real-time information through
web-based platforms and applications on smartphones and tablets.
Technology improvements and policy support is driving interest and more
opportunity for energy efficiency, demand response, and distributed generation,
creating new value propositions for customers and third-party energy service
providers.
Growing concern about climate change is driving support for low or no emission
generation resources and end-use efficiency.
Strong focus on containing customer costs through greater control of energy use,
and options for alternative supply and energy services.
Ongoing utility infrastructure investment needs.

This evolving landscape requires modernization of the electric grid to meet the changing
needs of customers, regulators and policy makers, and the changing nature of electric
utilities. The industry has described the Utility of the Future or Utility 2.0 as an
evolution with a focus on grid resiliency and reliability while integrating energy
efficiency, smart grid technologies, and distributed energy resources (DER), including
demand response, distributed generation, and energy storage. Critical to the
achievement of these goals is the underlying technology and market stimulating
innovation in utility planning and operations. Key segments of interest to the U.S. utility
industry are:
Energy Efficiency and Demand Side Management: Energy efficiency
programs yield both energy and demand savings, while demand response
programs yield reductions in peak demand and during emergency events.
Energy efficiency can permanently reduce demand and demand response
typically produces peak or load reductions on an as-required basis.



2-2


High-yield energy efficiency has been realized through retrofit and replacement of
lighting, heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, and other
building systems. Next generation energy efficiency programs can capitalize on
the untapped potential of behavioral energy efficiency, by providing customers with
better access to energy use information and appliance controls communicating
through web-based platforms on smart phones and tablets. McKinsey & Company
estimates significant opportunity as 16-20% of residential energy use is dedicated
to comfort-providing resources that could be better managed by providing
information and feedback to customers, and automating appliance and building
systems to accommodate customer needs and preferences.
3


Distributed Generation: Solar PV has become an increasingly prevalent source
of behind-the-meter generation due to its improving costs and technical efficiency.
Solar PV is also supported by various subsidies including Federal tax credits and
State funding, and net metering policies. If these subsidies continue and/or
technology costs decline as efficiencies improve, solar PV could become a greater
part of the supply mix. Interest in other distributed generation sources fueled by
natural gas, such as combined heat power systems, have renewed due to the
lower costs of natural gas and the ability to maintain service during disruptions of
utility service. Given Long Islands geographic constraints and relatively high retail
energy costs, distributed sources can potentially be competitive.

Smart Grid: Over the last few years, U.S. utilities have selectively deployed digital
technology to include near-real time monitoring and controls, and smart metering
infrastructure with two-way communications. This was supported by the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) Smart Grid Investment Grant program, which
awarded a total of $4.4 billion to 100 U.S. utilities in 2009. The Authority and its
partners, including the State University of New York at Farmingdale and Stoney
Brook, received a grant through this program currently being implemented along
the Route 110 Corridor. This DOE program allowed the awardees to implement
pertinent smart grid technologies on a large scale, often for entire service areas. It
also allowed U.S. electric utilities to obtain critical knowledge in the design and
management of smart grid programs, and to begin realizing the potential of smart
grid innovations to help utilities and customers to make better decisions on energy
consumption. Smart grid solutions and advanced metering infrastructure (AMI)

3
Sizing the potential of behavioral energy-efficient initiatives in the U.S. residential market McKinsey &
Company (November 2013).



2-3

hold the promise of enhanced operations, integration of distributed generation,
reduced costs, and increased reliability.
2.2: New York State Clean Energy Initiatives

The New York Public Service Commission (PSC) oversees implementation of
initiatives supporting clean energy and grid modernization, and opportunities for
investor-owned utilities to implement programs toward these goals.

In an order issued in April 2014, the PSC initiated the Reforming the Energy Vision
(REV) proceeding reaffirming the overarching policy objective of reliable access to
electric power at just and reasonable rates through regulatory frameworks that stimulate
innovation and economic investment in an environmentally sound manner.
4
The PSC
identified core policy outcomes to be achieved through a comprehensive redesign of
clean energy programs, including:

Customer knowledge and tools that support effective management of their total
energy bill
Market animation and leverage of ratepayer contributions
System wide efficiency
Fuel and resource diversity
System reliability and resiliency
Reduction of carbon emissions
5


The REV proceeding builds on three previous PSC Orders directing reform of New
Yorks clean energy initiatives:
Reallocation of Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) funds to support customer-
sited solar PV in support of the Governors NY-Sun Initiative. The PSC also
requested that the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA) develop a process to procure solar PV in megawatt blocks with
declining incentives for incremental blocks toward a program goal, and a Statewide
approach coordinating NYSERDAs, the New York Power Authoritys, and the
Authoritys programs.
6


4
Proceeding on Motion of the Commission in Regard to Reforming the Energy Vision, Case 14-M-0101.
Order Instituting Proceeding (April 25, 2014).
5
The PSC subsequently added this as a core policy objective, as recommended by DPS staff.
6
Proceeding on Motion of the Commission Regarding a Retail Renewable Portfolio Standard, Case 03-E-
0188, Order Authorizing NYSERDA to Redesign of the Solar Photovoltaic Programs to a megawatt block




2-4

Alignment of clean energy investment programs, including reform of New Yorks
Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (EEPS). The PSC concluded that [T]he
time has arrived for a fundamental refocus of, not only the system benefit
programs, but also comprehensive consideration of how our regulatory paradigm
and the retail and wholesale market designs either effectuate or impede progress
of our policy objectives underlying these programs.
7

Reallocation of clean energy program funds to the New York Green Bank, a
NYSERDA-administered initiative with the goal to help clean energy technologies
gain economies of scale and attract private capital through various public/private
capital arrangements.
8


Also relevant to the Utility 2.0 Plan, in 2009, the PSC established minimum functional
requirements for AMI, and later in the year DPS staff filed a proposed benefit-cost
framework for AMI investments.
9
In 2011, the PSC issued a smart grid policy statement
informed by comments from stakeholders and establishing several goals including
enhancing reliability, controlling costs, reducing environmental impacts, empowering
customers, enabling greater demand response, and accommodating new electric
technologies.
10


PSEG Long Island has considered these Orders and proceedings as guidance for
development of the proposed Utility 2.0 Plan.





structure; Reallocation of Main-Tier Unencumbered Funds; and work with the Authority and NYPA
(December 19, 2013).
7
Proceeding on Motion of the Commission Regarding Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard, Case 07-M-
0548, Order Approving EEPS Program Changes (December 26, 2013).
8
Petition of New York State Energy Research and Development Authority to Provide Initial Capitalization
for the New York Green Bank, Case 13-M-0412, Order Establishing New York Green Bank and Providing
Initial Capitalization (December 19, 2013).
9
In the Matter of Advanced Metering Infrastructure, Case 09-M-0074, Advanced Metering Infrastructure,
Notice Seeking Comment and Proposed Framework (April 14, 2009).
10
Proceeding on Motion of the Commission Regarding Smart Grid Systems and Modernization of the
Electric Grid, Case 10-E-0285, Regulatory Policies Regarding Smart Grid Systems and the
Modernization of the Electric Grid, Smart Grid Policy Statement ( August 19, 2011).



2-5

2.3: System Planning Goals and Emerging Resource Needs

The Authoritys Electric Resource Plan 2010 2020 outlines emerging issues and goals
that, as Service Provider, PSEG Long Island has the responsibility to review and
address.
11
Some key planning issues include:

Increased need for improved electricity system reliability and storm hardening
Clean energy investments;
Increasingly diversified portfolio of generation resources to maintain flexibility in
meeting load;
Supply need to satisfy Statewide Installed Capacity Requirement and Long Island
Locational Capacity Requirements; and
Modernizing the aging generation fleet on Long Island to improve generation
efficiency and reduce environmental impacts of providing power to Long Island.


11
Long Island Power Authority Electric Resource Plan 2010 -2020 (February 2010)



2-6

2.3.1: Emerging Resource Needs

The Authoritys resource needs depend on the growth and character of load on Long
Island. As shown in Figure 2.1, the Authoritys most recent forecast shows load growth,
prior to energy efficiency and renewables, to be about 1.8% per year from 2015 2024.
With existing programs in place to encourage energy efficiency, peak load growth is
about 1.1% per year, or about 613 MW over that period. The projected peaks continue
to grow despite efforts to support the general trend of improving energy efficiency and
adding renewable generation capacity.


Figure 2.1: Long Island Control Area Peak Loads (MW) and Growth (%)




2-7

The peak growth is driven by residential air conditioning loads, as Long Island is a
summer peaking system and residential customers represent the majority of the
summer sales base. As shown in Figure 2.2, the system peaked in 2013 at 5,655 MW.
Peak demand days coincided with a heat wave in July 2013, also driving peak demand
in the NYISO. Approximately 1,000 MW of incremental peak load is required for less
than 100 hours per year, but the system must be built to reliably meet peak demand at
any time. Managing peak demand thus becomes paramount to maintaining reliable
service and controlling customer costs.


Figure 2.2: 2013 Hourly LIPA Load Duration




2-8

Since peak demand continues to grow, the Authority faces investing in assets with low
utilization rates to meet peak demand. The historical trend and forecast of declining
load factor, which represents the utilization of system assets, is shown in Figure 2.3. As
of 2013, weather normalized system coincident load factor is down to 44.6%.
12
Over
the past ten years, contributions to the system load factor have been increasing from
residential and small commercial customers with below average load factors, and
decreasing from larger commercial and industrial customers with higher load factors.
This partly reflects Long Islands transition toward a more affluent, service oriented
economy over the past ten years, as the decline in manufacturing jobs and increase in
education and health services jobs has lowered the average annual energy intensity per
employee.


Figure 2.3: LIPA Load Factors


12
The data reflects the Authoritys Installed Capacity (ICAP) load as assigned by the NYISO, i.e., load
supplied to the Authoritys bundled customers and also retail access customers supplied under the Long
Island Choice program. Excluded are the loads for the Authoritys BNL Hydro and Recharge NY
customers (less than 1% of the Authority peak load) which are supplied directly from dedicated NYPA
resources under relatively recent arrangements.



2-9

The Authority has taken several measures and issued requests for proposals (RFP) to
meet supply needs emerging in 2018. The Authority has also made significant
investments towards meeting its clean energy goals. Table 2.1 provides a summary of
these activities, including:

The Authoritys Clean Energy Initiative (CEI) deployed significant energy
efficiency measures, as well as distributed solar and demand response, resulting in
170 MW peak load reduction. In 2009, the Authority established a new goal to
meet 520 MW of emerging demand with energy efficiency investments. According
to the latest report from independent evaluation contractor Opinion Dynamics
these programs have resulted in 196 MW of demand reduction through 2013.
Load reductions have been achieved via programs including energy efficient
products, appliance exchanges, direct install of residential and commercial energy
conservation measures, and efficiency ratings for new homes and other
construction.
The Authoritys Solar Entrepreneur and Pioneer rebate programs have incentivized
approximately 8,500 systems and 75 MW of customer-sited solar PV, representing
over 1.2% of peak load. In addition, the Authority purchases the power from
Brookhaven National Laboratory for the 32 MW Long Island Solar Farm, and is
supporting approximately 17MW of solar PV carports in Suffolk County for the
Eastern Long Island Solar Project.
PSEG Long Islands Programmable Thermostat Program deploys direct load
control demand response using smart thermostats to control central air
conditioners on peak demand days to reduce peak demand on the system. The
program also incorporates controllable pool pumps. The program was called on
two occasions during July 2013 and achieved about 35 MW of peak demand
reduction each time. Clean Solar Initiative feed-in tariff (CSI I) offered in July
2012 was made available to solar PV systems over 100 kW (i.e. customer-sited
scale) on a first come, first served basis for up to 50 MW of capacity system wide.
The Authority then offered a second solicitation (CSI II) for up to 100 MW system-
wide, with individual projects not to exceed 2 MW. CSI II offered 20-year power
purchase agreements to solar projects at a single clearing price, and the full 100
MW cleared the RFP process. A Clean Renewable Energy Initiative has
subsequently been offered for up to 20 MW with proposals due August 29, 2014.
A supply RFP to Provide Electric Capacity, Energy & Ancillary Services (supply
RFP) resulted in selecting the Caithness Long Island II LLC combined cycle plant
in August 2013. This contract is still being negotiated.
A recent RFP for New Generation, Energy Storage and Demand Response
Resources (GSDR) solicited supply both system-wide and in specific load
pockets. Bidding closed in March 2014 and selection is targeted for 2014.



2-10

An RFP for 280MW of New, On-Island, Renewable Capacity and Energy
(renewable supply RFP) solicited for eligible resources at a minimum 2 MW (i.e.
utility scale), to support renewable energy goals in tandem with the feed-in tariff.
Bidding closed in March 2014 and selection is targeted for 2014.


Table 2.1: PSEG Long Island Projects and Investments

Program Projects
Completion
Date
Status
Renewable Portfolio
Over 8,500 PV systems rebated.
NYSERDA to provide $60M
2017 Supported 75 MW by 2013
Programmable
Thermostat DLC
Program
Controllable central air conditioning
and pool pumps
2018 35MW delivered in 2013
RFP to Provide Electric
Capacity, Energy &
Ancillary Services
Selection of Caithness II combined
cycle plant
2018 Contract under negotiation
280 MW Renewable
RFP
Resources including offshore and
land-based wind, solar PV, landfill
gas, and fuel cells
2018 Proposals under review
250 MW total capacity including up to
50MW energy storage for East End
880 MW total including up to 100 MW
energy storage for EF Barrett &
Holtsville
Up to 500 MW total, including peaking
generation, energy storage, and
demand response for rest of island
CSI I selected 50 MW at $0.22/kWh 50MW in progress
CSI II selected 100 MW at
$0.1688/kWh.
100MW selected
Proposals under review
Clean Solar Initiative
(CSI)
2033
Commercial / Residential EE
Commercial - Direct Install Programs
Residential - Energy Efficiency
Products, Cool Homes, Residential
Energy Affordability Partnership,
Home Performance with ENERGY
STAR, Home Performance Direct,
Residential New Homes
RFP for New
Generation, Energy
Storage, and Demand
Response Resources
2019
Resource Planning Steps Taken by The Authority
Clean Energy Initiative 2009 170 MW peak load reduction
Efficiency Long Island 2018
520 MW goal
196 MW savings by 2013



2-11

2.3.2: Hardening and Resiliency Upgrades

Since 2007, the Authority has invested over $125 million in hardening its system to
address major storms, hurricanes, flooding, high winds, and ice. Following Hurricane
Irene and Superstorm Sandy, the Authority revisited its storm hardening policy to focus
on prevention, survivability, and recovery. Storm hardening and resiliency initiatives
already underway include:

All critical transportation crossings are on target to be hardened to withstand 130
mph winds by the end of 2014.
All ASU locations are on target to be hardened for the same wind strengths by the
end of 2018.
Flood surge zones are taken into account when designing new substations and
modifying/expanding existing infrastructure.
Since 2007, approximately 1,700 miles of distribution circuit trim is completed
annually.
Use of innovative alternatives to undergrounding transmission and distribution lines
in flood and surge zones. PSEG Long Island is pursuing use of overhead
distribution facilities in flood prone areas where tree coverage is limited. This
eliminates risk of flooding and debris damage.
Selected underground and pad mounted equipment in flood prone areas is being
replaced with submersible equipment to protect distribution equipment from storm
surge damage.
PSEG Long Island has a pole inspection program that is evaluating poles over an
11 year period, to inspect and replace inadequate poles and equipment.
The hardware and equipment on poor performing distribution and transmission
lines are inspected and upgraded as part of Circuit Improvement Programs.
Along the Route 110 Corridor, distribution automation systems will be used to
manage the scope of outages and speed reconfiguration and restoration.
Long term plans are under development to permanently protect substations in
flood zones; in the interim, temporary trap bags or barrier systems have been
installed around the perimeter of 12 substations to address the impact on
equipment of substations flooded by Hurricane Sandy.
Associated with Hurricane Sandy repair efforts the Authority has also received grant of
$700M from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to address hardening and
resiliency. The grant will support several projects. PSEG Long Island will elevate 12
substations damaged during Sandy. The mitigation work has already started at six of
the stations Arverne, Far Rockaway, Rockaway Beach, Long Beach, Park Place and



2-12

Woodmere. Transmission lines damaged by Sandy will be strengthened to minimize
the interruption of important transportation corridors due to falling conductors, and
rebuild portions of damaged transmission lines. The installation of additional automatic
sectionalizers will improve the resiliency of the system by reducing the number of
customers impacted by a single line outage. The new devices will be intelligent devices
that will be less reliant on operator interface to restore customer load. Also, mainline
distribution circuits damaged during Sandy will be rebuilt with some combination of
overhead and underground solutions expected to maximize the benefit of this
investment.
PSEG Long Island is also currently in the process of implementing a new Outage
Management System which, together with new processes, will improve storm response
and outage restoration.
2.3.3: Smart Grid and Customer-Facing Technologies

The Authority has made investments in smart grid technology to improve management
of the distribution system, including automated response to disturbances and outages.
Since the late 1990s, the Authority installed 1,400 Automatic Sectionalizing Units that
allow remote monitoring of the distribution feeder lines, quick isolation of damaged
sections on the distribution lines, and the rerouting of power to undamaged lines.
These measures reduce customer outage durations and system outage durations,
which in turn improves reliability and customer satisfaction.

With Federal funding assistance, the Authority installed about 7,500 smart meters and
related communications equipment in several pilot project demonstrations. The Route
110 Corridor Smart Grid Project included installing smart meters capable of two-way
communication between the customer and PSEG Long Island. Several benefits are
realized because of these smart meters such as ease of access to billing data, more
granular data regarding energy usage, and improved outage information.

We have also implemented several best practices related to customer service, from
basic processes that have improved the average speed of answer and lowered the call
abandonment rate, to raising satisfaction from addressing customer inquiries to
technological solutions, such as an Interactive Voice Response system which is being
implemented this year.




2-13

2.3.4: Energy Storage and Electric Vehicles

The Authority has supported demonstrations of battery storage technology including
projects at the Long Island Bus facility in Garden City, batteries associated with a
photovoltaic substation on Fire Island, and a residential demonstration model in
Farmingdale. In addition, there are about 1,700 electric and electric hybrid vehicles in
the Authoritys electric service territory.
13
The Authority was a leader in providing
rebates for the purchase of electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. The Authority,
along with PSEG Long Island, continues to be involved in activities related to supporting
the market launch of electric vehicles on Long Island, including vehicle testing
programs, charging station installations, and rebate programs. Further support for
energy storage technology may result from the recent GSDR, which had specific energy
storage targets for the East End, EF Barrett, and Holtsville areas, as well as potential for
energy storage across the system.

13
Data provided by New York State Department of Motor Vehicles as of January 1, 2014.



3-1

3 Section 3: PSEG Long Island Utility 2.0 Plan
3.1: Introduction

In this Utility 2.0 Plan, PSEG Long Island proposes to invest up to $200M in energy
efficiency, direct load control, distributed solar PV, and over programs a four-year period
from 2015 2018. In addition, we include a plan for the South Fork load pocket that will
add distributed supply and demand-side resources. We also include a targeted
deployment of AMI. In all of these investments, the focus is on improving energy
efficiency and reducing peak load, as well as increasing participation from distributed
resources.

Please note that the savings and investments described in this section are preliminary.
We provide program sizing estimates based on PSEG Long Island and PSE&G
experience with clean energy programs, load research and other internal data, and
knowledge gained through interviews and information requests from vendors and
potential program partners. Our estimates represent illustrative target savings that will
deviate based on DPS review and Authority approval of different components of the
Utility Plan. Actual costs may vary based on subsequent competitive bidding process to
procure implementation program managers, equipment vendors, and contractors.

PSEG Long Island proposes to assess the cost-effectiveness of these investments
against their alternatives using the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test. This test
considers the costs borne by the program administrator, in this case PSEG Long Island,
including capital costs, administrative costs, and customer incentives. PSEG Long
Island recommends that a PAC test result of 1.1 be used as the benefits-to-cost criteria
as long as the investments benefits-to-cost ratio meets or exceeds 1.1 it would be
implemented.
14


The PSC uses the total resource cost test (TRC) as a cost-effectiveness metric for
energy efficiency programs implemented by New Yorks investor owned utilities. While
PSEG Long Island has considered the TRC test (see Appendix A), we favor using the
PAC test for this Plan for several reasons:


14
The reason for using 1.1 rather than 1.0 is to account for the fact that a new supply resource would
likely improve system heat rate.



3-2

With the PAC test, the rebate is set at a level that is cost-effective for PSEG Long
Island and the customer can decide whether or not to pay the incremental cost.

The PAC test implicitly accounts for externalities because customers willingness to
pay is proportional to their perceived overall benefit, including environmental
benefit, customer comfort, and customer convenience. While the TRC can be
modified to include externalities, it can be difficult to quantify those benefits.

The PAC test can limit rate impacts because it provides an incentive to achieve the
same results with lower costs. The TRC considers customer incentives a pass-
through cost with no effect on the benefits-to-cost ratio.

All costs in the PAC test flow through electric rates. The test is analogous to
supply-side resource acquisition where all costs flow through rates to customers.
Our proposal to amortize costs over the expected life of equipment (i.e. eight to
twelve years) would bring supply and demand side resources even closer into
alignment.

PSEG Long Island estimated the benefits of Utility 2.0 as the net present value of the
avoided capacity and energy costs resulting from the measure or program undertaken.
The avoided costs were developed in a benchmark study blending four proposals for
combined-cycle gas turbine generating units received in response to the Authoritys
supply RFP in 2011. The values were updated in January 2013 with more recent bid
evaluation information and natural gas prices. The benchmark study has been used by
the Authority to screen the existing energy efficiency and renewable energy program
portfolio.
More detail on the PAC test and other elements of our proposed cost-effectiveness
screening is included in Appendix A.





3-3

3.2 Utility 2.0 Investments

PSEG Long Island has developed a number of programs focused on providing
immediate benefits of peak demand savings, as well as energy savings and other cost
savings. PSEG Long Island or an affiliate is prepared to finance up to $200M of these
Utility 2.0 investments through supplements to its existing OSA with the Authority.
3.2.1 Programmable Thermostat Program Modernization
and Expansion

Background

Direct Load Control (DLC) programs demonstrate significant benefits such as peak
load reductions, optimization of generation resources, and increased asset utilization.
The ability to cycle participant equipment permits the utility to call on DLC resources
more often than interruptible resources and provides improved load management
capabilities during extreme peak loads and emergencies.

PSEG Long Islands Programmable Thermostat Program provides participants with a
controllable thermostat and uses a one-way pager signal to remotely cycle (i.e., switch
off) air conditioning units and pool pumps. The DLC program originated in 2001 and
achieved 35 MW peak demand reduction in 2013.

PSEG Long Island Programmable Thermostat Program
Customer Segment Total
Customers
DLC Participants Participation
Rate
Residential with CAC 400,000 21,969 5.4%
Small C&I (<100kW) 100,000 6,265 6.3%
Residential with pool
pumps
150,000 1,468 1.0%
Table 3.1: PSEG Long Island Programmable Thermostat Program
Note: Based upon a 2011 Long Island population survey, we conclude that there are 40% (400,000)
customers with Central Air Conditioning (CAC) units and more than 500,000 customers with one or



3-4

more room air conditioners.
15
Also, we believe there are 150,000 pool pumps on Long Island based on
our prior experience with DLC.

However, the 35MW delivered in 2013 may not be available going forward. The
equipment used in the DLC program has exceeded its useful life and has begun to
experience a higher failure rate. Equipment will need to be replaced in the near term to
ensure that the load reductions are achieved, and some innovations to consider include:
New thermostat technologies coupled with two-way communications provide better
control and monitoring of DLC programs to the utilities. The technology is readily
available from several vendors and can be integrated with customers wireless-
enabled smart phones and tablets.
When the Authoritys original DLC program was implemented, the market offered
DLC hardware only, and the Authority was responsible for equipment installation,
program marketing, analysis of results, and customer service. Several different
options now exist to engage one turn-key contractor to provide all equipment and
services in one bundled package.
In the past, DLC programs and their communications networks were vendor
proprietary and hence more costly. OPENADR protocol, implemented in the last
five years, ensures uniform communication protocol for all DLC devices. This
inter-operability requirement, capable of integrating multiple devices and
communications systems from different vendors, promotes innovations and
competition.
Using two-way communication systems, it is now widespread to have verifiable
measurements at aggregate levels as well as at customer levels.
PSEG Long Island Proposal

PSEG Long Island proposes to modernize and expand the Programmable Thermostat
Program to provide up to 100 MW of peak demand reduction to the Authority, including
retaining the existing 35 MW demonstrated in 2013 and adding an incremental 65 MW
to the program. Legacy participants would receive replacement thermostat equipment
to enhance tracking participation and results validation. We also plan to work with
leading DLC program vendors and develop an RFP to add central air conditioning and
pool pump participants to the program. We intend to allow customer incentives to
encourage participation and recognize the value of this distributed resource. We target

15
2011 Long Island Population Survey the Authority.
http://www.lipower.org/pdfs/company/pubs/popsurvey/popsurvey11.pdf




3-5

activating the program for approximately 27 to 45 hours annually (i.e., 6 to 11 days, for
an average of 4 hours a day).

As a related pilot program, PSEG Long Island proposes to test smart plugs capable of
monitoring and controlling plug-in appliances, with a focus on capability to cycle room
AC units for peak reduction and overall energy savings. Smart plugs control demand,
monitor energy use, and allow a utility or third party aggregator control center to
measure and verify energy consumption reduction. The technology can facilitate
expanded participation by customer segments that rely on room AC units (e.g.,
apartment dwellings). Considering that this is an evolving technology, we propose a
limited pilot to prove the technology potential.

In addition to enrolling customers across the service area, PSEG Long Island would
seek to target DLC where incremental load relief would defer costly distribution projects.
This would represent additional benefits of the program. Conceptually, we could deploy
DLC where load reduction, peak load characteristics, number of times DLC measures
will be needed annually, and likely reliability impact and duration of the deferment
provide sufficient capability. This concept would be a step to directly integrate
distributed resources into our system planning responsibilities.

Illustrative Market & Results

PSEG Long Island envisions enrollment in end use measures similar to the existing
DLC program:

Central Air Conditioning
PSEG Long Island would enroll residential and small business controllable central
air conditioning (CAC) systems, as it currently does, with advanced thermostat
equipment. We expect an average 1.1 kW load reduction for residential
customers, based on a recent survey of 23 utility DLC programs with residential
and small business customers.
16
This figure is also consistent with our existing
residential customer performance, though our small business customers exhibit a
slightly higher load reduction of 1.3 kW.

To reach the goals of the Utility 2.0 Plan, PSEG Long Island will have to improve
from its current 4% participation rate in its DLC program. For comparison, the
same utility survey found DLC program participation rates ranging from 5% to 40%,
with 10% to 15% participation rates for utilities similar in size to PSEG Long Island.

16
Hot or Not: DLC Program Benchmarks E-Source. Spring 2012.



3-6

A recent survey conducted by ORC International in New Jersey for 450 residential
customers concluded that 13% customer enrollment rate is achievable when the
program offers a one-time incentive of $50, and the rate will increase to 19% if
$100 is offered.
17


Based on this analysis, PSEG Long Island will assume 11% - 15% participation
rate of residential CAC. For small business CAC, we assume 8% - 10%
participation rate, which represents a slight improvement over current participation
of that segment.

Pool Pumps
There are approximately 150,000 pools on Long Island and 1,500 pools, or 1%,
participate in our DLC program. Because controllable pool pumps do not impact
customer comfort, we believe higher participation is achievable and assume a high
participation rate of 20% participation, or 30,000 pools.

Smart Plug Room AC Units
PSEG Long Island also proposes a pilot program deploying smart plug technology
for residential room AC units. Smart Plugs are devices that consumers can plug
into electric outlets, and then plug their appliances into, in order to receive device-
level power measurement and enable programmable energy use of plug-in
appliances. Users can take advantage of data collected by smart plugs to actively
manage their energy use and participate in demand response and DLC programs.
Our goal will be to deploy 1,000 smart plugs and monitor energy reductions to
determine future potential of this technology.
The exact size of the program will be based upon the cost of equipment, customer
incentives, participation rates, and other factors. These will be better understood
through an RFP for the program, but below are our target load reduction goals.










17
Cool Customer Program Response Final Report. ORC International. March 2013.



3-7

Programmable Thermostat Program Modernization & Expansion
Illustrative Summary
MW Target Technology Metrics Customers
Participation
Rate**
70 MW
Residential
CAC
1.1kW/customer 60,000 15%
10MW
Small Business
CAC
1.3kW/customer 8,000 8%
20MW Pool Pumps 0.678kW/pool 30,000 20%
N/A Smart Plug* 0.2kW/customer 1,000 N/A
Total Savings:
100 MW / 2,700 MWh
Total Cost:
$60M
PAC B/C
Ratio:
3.7
*These figures are illustrative, preliminary, and rounded. More detailed information on costs, benefits,
and economic screening are provided in Appendix A.
**This rate is the targeted participation rate of the customers who are eligible rather than total residential
customers. For example, residential customer CAC would target the 400,000 customers with CAC, and
for the minimum 70 MW load reduction we would need approximately 15% of these customers to
participate.
Table 3.2: Programmable Thermostat Program Modernization & Expansion Illustrative Summary

Next Steps

Obtain approvals for DLC program modernization and expansion
Collect market intelligence and capabilities from DLC vendors
Develop scope and timeline for DLC program
Incorporate distribution system planning needs for specific load centers, as
feasible
Issue RFP for vendor and program support
3.2.2: Targeted Solar PV Expansion

Background
The Authority has historically incentivized the deployment of solar PV and renewable
energy projects through a variety of programs including the Clean Solar Initiatives (CSI
and CSI II), the Clean Renewable Energy Initiative, support for utility-scale solar
projects, the 280MW renewable supply RFP, the Solar Pioneer and Entrepreneur
Programs, the Backyard Wind program, and the Solar Thermal program. PSEG Long
Island believes potential remains to support behind-the-meter solar PV projects hosted
by commercial customers.



3-8

PSEG Long Island Proposal
PSEG Long Island proposes a program targeting behind-the-meter solar PV projects
greater than 200kW, but less than 2,000 kW. Solar PV projects within this size range
and located in NYISOs Zone K are not currently eligible for incentives offered by the
New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA), or the
Authority. We envision an incentive design similar to the NYSERDA NY-Sun
Competitive PV Program. Successful applicants would receive an up-front payment
along with two performance payments in order to encourage the installation of high
performing systems. Qualified applicants would be competitively selected based on the
incentive bid received. PSEG Long Island customers could participate in the program
directly or serve as hosts for project owners.
We also propose tailoring these incentives to system planning needs. We would also
consider providing a premium value for peak capacity. As discussed in our Rockaways
proposal, we could include a premium incentive to west-facing projects that provide high
capacity value coincident with peak demand.

Illustrative Market & Results

PSEG Long Island is in a position to build on the solar PV incentives established by the
Authority. The application submittal period for CSI II closed January 31, 2014, and the
offering was significantly oversubscribed, with over 227MW of capacity responding to
the call for 100MW. Many of the unsuccessful applicants could potentially reconfigure
their projects to interconnect behind the meter and participate in the proposed program.
However, successful applicants to either CSI would not be permitted to participate in the
proposed program. Customer-sited solar projects would benefit from the proposed
incentive from PSEG Long Island coupled with Federal incentives and net-metering. All
of these benefits would improve the economics and success rate of customer-sited
solar projects.

We believe our program could support 60 MW
DC
of nameplate capacity by 2017,
equating to approximately 30 MW
AC
of peak demand due to the mismatch between
peak solar output mid-day and peak demand later in the afternoon.










3-9

Targeted Solar PV Expansion
Illustrative Summary
Total Savings:
30MW / 100,000 MWh
Total Cost:
$45M
PAC B/C Ratio:
3.9
*These figures are illustrative, preliminary, and rounded. More detailed information on costs, benefits,
and economic screening are provided in Appendix A.
Table 3.3: Targeted Solar PV Expansion Illustrative Summary

Next Steps
Obtain approval for Solar PV Expansion
Collect market intelligence and capabilities from solar vendors
Solicit for specific project proposals including siting and sizing
3.2.3 Residential Home Energy Management

Background

Behavioral energy efficiency is an extension of customer education and outreach
programs. Behavioral programs combine the insights of behavioral science and
consumer marketing with advanced technologies to change energy end use patterns
and encourage purchases of energy efficiency products and services.
18
Peer
comparison feedback drives the reduction in energy usage. Typically, participants
receive regular reports of their energy consumption along with a usage benchmark
based on attributes that may include home square footage and type of appliances and
equipment in the home. Participants also typically receive suggestions for managing
energy end use, and may be directed to value-added services or other energy efficiency
offerings.
Many utilities have implemented behavioral science energy efficiency programs in the
last decade. The traditional approach has included a pilot program of several thousand
customers, followed in many cases by expanded offerings. Below is a summary of
some examples:


18 Residential Energy Efficiency: It's the Behavior, Stupid. Energy Central. May 11, 2009.



3-10

A 2009 study conducted by Yale Law School examined large-scale applications of
behavioral energy efficiency. Customers were provided feedback and peer
comparison data. The study noted resulting reductions in energy consumption of
2.0% at Sacramento Municipal Utility District and 1.2% at Puget Sound Energy.
19


An initial study of PPL Electrics residential customer behavior-based program
indicated that the average peak demand savings were about 0.07 kW per home,
for a total peak reduction of about 6.5 MW.
20
PPL sent home energy reports to
approximately 100,000 residential customers with above-average electricity use
between June 2010 and May 2013. The reports encouraged customers to adopt
energy savings measures, many of which would also reduce the utilitys system
peak. Hourly energy-use data were collected between June and September 2012
for a sample of these participating customers and a control group.

A recent evaluation of National Grids Residential Building Practices and
Demonstration Program, approved by the PSC in 2010, found 2.3% energy
savings as a result of providing customers home energy reports, peer
comparisons, and ideas on energy efficiency, from May 2011 to December 2012.
21

The evaluated savings were significantly higher than expected.

Central Hudsons Home Energy Reporting Program was also approved by the PSC
in December 2010.
22
The program tested the effectiveness of home energy
reporting for 100,000 customers over a 15-month period. Enrolled customers
received information about their energy use and education about low-cost
measures, practices, or behaviors to reduce end use.

Baltimore Gas & Electric (BGE) launched a Behavioral Demand Response
program in summer of 2013 to 300,000 residential customers, sending millions of

19 Prof. Ian Ayers et al. Evidence from Two Large Field Experiments that Peer Comparison Feedback
Can Reduce Residential Energy Usage. July 16, 2009.
20 Are You Leaving Peak Demand Savings on the Table? Estimates of Peak-Coincident Demand
Savings from PPL Electrics Residential Behavior-Based Program. Working Paper. James Stewart and
Pete Cleff. November 18, 2013.
21 National Grid Residential Building Practices and Demonstration Program Evaluation. DMV KEMA
Energy and Sustainability. January 15, 2014. (submitted to DPS in Case 07-M-0548)
22
Proceeding on Motion of the Commission Regarding Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard, Case 07-M-
0548, Order on Rehearing Granting Petition for Rehearing (December 3, 2010)



3-11

personalized multi-channel messages to customers before and after peak events.
BGE plans to expand this program to all 1.1M electricity customers by 2015.
23


PSEG Long Island Proposal
PSEG Long Island proposes a behavioral energy efficiency program that would deploy
an energy information platform to residential customers. The program would be a first
step on Long Island to empowering mass market customers to manage their energy use
by enhancing visibility of energy consumption data and peer benchmarks. There are a
variety of approaches that leverage behavior, but best practice combines the following
elements:
Personalized Information. Providing customer bill information, including an
analysis of the homes energy use during the previous 24 months and analysis of
energy use in the current year compared to the previous year. Hardware,
software, and in-home energy audits can communicate actionable information to
the consumer.
Social Pressure. Comparison of the homes energy use with approximately 100
similar neighbors. This information provides customers with a benchmark point of
reference to consider when optimizing their energy use.
Contextual Feedback. Bi-monthly reporting including bill analysis and other forms
of feedback to influence household energy behavior. A typical report provides
easy-to-interpret graphics and charts that show customers energy usage,
comparison to similar customers, and suggestions to lower energy consumption.
The program can utilize a variety of technology and communications strategies,
providing customers with online access to energy reports also accessible via smart
phones and tablets. Suggested action steps and custom tips for reducing energy
use will be provided, as well as marketing for PSEG Long Island energy efficiency
and demand reduction programs.
PSEG Long Island proposes to send six bi-monthly reports to its select customers to
enhance the visibility of their consumption data and improve management of their
energy use.


23
A web-based dialogue on the power of engaging customers to save money while managing peak
demand. Ruth Kiselewich, Director, DSM Programs at BGE. Found at
http://www.peakload.org/?page=DRDialogueBGE



3-12

Illustrative Market & Results

We propose to offer this program to select residential customers based upon certain
pre-screening criteria. We will work with a competitively-selected program
implementation provider to determine customer eligibility criteria, which may include:
Above-average energy use. A threshold of 10,000 kWh/year can identify
customers with higher potential for energy efficiency and peak demand reductions.
Geographic locations. Customers in areas identified by PSEG Long Island as
exhibiting demonstrated needs to reduce peak loads.
Existing or planned smart meters. Smart meters would provide hourly data and
measurement and verification of results.
Billing history. Customers with billing history at the same address for the
previous 12 months exhibit stability in data collection.

Most behavioral energy efficiency programs value their savings by benefit to customers
of avoided energy costs. Independent third party evaluations have typically determined
energy savings of 0.5% - 2%. For our illustrative market sizing, we target 0.5% energy
savings. Using PPLs program as a guide, we assumed that a goal of 0.04kW demand
savings per targeted customer is reasonable.
24
We would phase in participation
annually to reach a cumulative total of 250,000 residential customers enrolled in the
program.


24
We consulted with a behavioral DR vendor that validated this assumption.



3-13

Residential Home Energy Management
Illustrative Summary
Year Cumulative Number
of Customers**
Demand
Savings
Energy Savings
2015 50,000*** (2 reports each) 0 0
2016 150,000 (6 reports each) 6 MW 15,000 MWh
2017 250,000 (6 reports each) 10 MW 25,000 MWh
2018 250,000 (6 reports each) 10 MW 25,000 MWh
Total 250,000 customers 10 MW 25,000 MWh
Total Savings:
10MW / 25,000 MWh
Total Cost:
$8M
PAC B/C Ratio:
1.3
*These figures are illustrative, preliminary, and rounded. More detailed information on costs, benefits,
and economic screening are provided in Appendix A.
**These are total cumulative customers in the program in the stated year.
*** Assuming approval to begin at the beginning of 2015, and considering time for solicitation of proposals
and start-up, these customers would be enrolled by end of 2015. There would be no savings in 2015.
Table 3.4: Behavioral Energy Efficiency Programs

Next Steps
Approval of home energy management program
RFP and vendor selection
Vendor software integration with PSEG Long Island customer information systems
Targeted customer selection, in consultation with selected vendor
Design specific messages and finalize messaging
Benefit measurement and validation of program success
3.2.4 Incremental Energy Efficiency Expansion

Background

PSEG Long Island manages and implements the Authoritys existing energy efficiency
programs, targeting 520 MW demand savings and a ten-year investment of $917 million
from 2009 2018. These programs have resulted in energy and capacity savings of
about 1.0% demand and 1.3% energy savings annually.





3-14


Historic Energy Efficiency Savings
Residential Commercial / Industrial Totals
Year MW MWh MW MWh MW MWh
2010 17.0 95,156 10.6 47,580 27.6 142,736
2011 17.6 100,078 16.5 70,809 34.1 170,887
2012 23.3 128,110 28.0 116,046 51.3 244,156
2013 28.7 159,295 28.7 116,260 57.4 275,555
Totals 86.6 482,639 83.8 350,695 170.4 833,334
Table 3.5: Savings achieved by LIPA and PSEG Long Island Energy Efficiency Programs

However, energy efficiency programs in Massachusetts, Arizona, Rhode Island, and
Vermont currently expect 2% demand reductions, and Illinois, Maryland, Maine,
Minnesota, Colorado and Indiana expect to exceed 1.5% demand reductions.
25
Higher
level of savings may be achievable on Long Island given that energy efficiency is not
close to reaching saturation in terms of 2012 technologies, and new technologies are
already making 2012 technologies obsolescent.
PSEG Long Island Proposal

We propose to develop an energy efficiency program that will result in savings
incremental to the existing offerings available on Long Island. Incremental savings can
be achieved by a combination of increased incentives for measures that produce large
demand savings, designing programs to increase participation by traditionally
underserved customers, and aggressive marketing.

We anticipate developing deep retrofit projects with energy conservation measures
identified by investment grade audits, such as HVAC unit and lighting replacement to
bring to current efficiency standards. The program could also include appliance
recycling and direct install projects focused on peak demand savings. For example, we
envision a targeted program exchanging efficient room AC units (equipped with
technology to enable direct load control), refrigerators, and dehumidifiers that meet our
cost effectiveness test thresholds.



25
Change is in the Air: How States Can Harness Energy Efficiency to Strengthen the Economy and
Reduce Pollution, ACEEE Report E1401, April 2014.



3-15

Estimated Market & Results

Our target customer segments may include multi-family buildings, including government
housing authorities. Long Island communities support government-assisted housing
authorities in Hempstead, Long Beach, North Hempstead, and Oyster Bay, for a total
load of approximately 5 MW. There are another 25 multi-family residential
developments with approximately 11.5 MW of load. PSEG Long Island would explore
potential to improve 90 nursing home facilities across Long Island, including 28 homes
with average loads in excess of 200 kW representing approximately 5.6 MW of total
loads. Based on these data points, we believe approximately 10 MW of savings is a
reasonable goal.

Incremental Energy Efficiency
Illustrative Summary
Total Savings:
10 MW / 41,200 MWh
Total Cost:
$30M
PAC B/C Ratio:
1.6
*These figures are illustrative, preliminary, and rounded. More detailed information on costs, benefits,
and economic screening are provided in Appendix A.
Table 3.6: Incremental Energy Efficiency Illustrative Summary

Next Steps:
Obtain approval to pursue incremental energy efficiency opportunities
Develop new or modified programs targeted for specific customer segments
Develop outreach and marketing plans with the customers and contractor base
Actively market the program
Regularly monitor the progress and develop corrective action plans




3-16

3.2.5 Energy Conservation Program for Hospitals

Background

One of PSEG Long Islands central Utility 2.0 principles is maintaining universal access,
but certain Long Island customers are unable to participate in clean energy programs.
Hospitals are one such underserved customer segment. Hospitals are critical facilities
that provide a valuable service to the public, and energy savings from any programs
would indirectly benefit the public through lower costs. But hospital customers find it
difficult raising capital to finance the upfront costs of clean energy investments,
regardless of cost-effectiveness and energy saving potential, preventing them from
improving efficiency.

PSEG Long Island Proposal

PSEG Long Island proposes an energy efficiency program designed to reach out to
hospital customers with peak load greater than 1 MW. Typically, these large customers
have participated in existing programs to improve lighting, and represent further
potential for demand savings through deep retrofit of energy-intensive equipment.

The program would be designed consistent with an existing program successfully
implemented by our New Jersey utility affiliate, Public Service Electric & Gas
(PSE&G), since 2008. The PSE&G program invests in upgrades at New Jersey
hospitals resulting in peak load reduction, energy savings, and lower energy bills for its
participants. Eligible hospitals receive a free investment grade audit (IGA) of their
facilities. The Program is limited to in-patient hospitals and other in-patient medical
facilities that operate twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. PSE&G and an
engineering contractor review the IGA with the customer to identify cost effective energy
conservation measures that may include lighting, HVAC, humidification, ventilation,
motors, energy management systems, and other energy consuming equipment. All
energy conservation measures identified by the IGA as having a simple payback of 15
years or less are considered eligible investments. The customer is responsible for
soliciting and selecting an installation contractor, and managing implementation.
PSE&G covers the upfront costs of the project and the customer repays their cost
share, interest free, through on-bill financing. These costs are at least offset by the
energy savings.






3-17

Illustrative Market & Results
PSEG Long Island has 10 hospitals with peak load higher than 1 MW for a total load of
83 MW. Several of these hospitals have utilized the existing energy efficiency rebate
programs on Long Island to finance lighting upgrades. In recent discussions with some
hospital customers, which will remain anonymous, we determined the following:

PSEG Long Island Hospital Customers Observations
Hospital No. 1 Goal to reduce annual energy budget through aggressive energy
conservation plans
Hospital No. 2 Economic issues have prevented it from replacing old equipment
Hospital No. 3 Looking to replace chiller in next year or two
Hospital No. 4 Exploring the need for new chillers
Hospital No. 5 Very focused on energy efficiency certification and would benefit
from deep retrofit
Hospital No. 6 Exploring the need for replacement chillers
Table 3.7: PSEG Long Island Hospital Customers Observations

Based on our experience in New Jersey and our knowledge of hospital customers on
Long Island, PSEG Long Island assumes a 50% participation rate and 10% peak load
reductions as a result of this program. Though the actual savings are dependent on the
level of participation and the economics of each individual project, we assume at least 5
MW of demand savings is achievable through this program.

Hospital Outreach Program
Illustrative Summary
Total Savings:
5 MW / 28,000 MWh
Total Cost:
$30M
PAC B/C Ratio:
1.2
*These figures are illustrative, preliminary, and rounded. More detailed information on costs, benefits,
and economic screening are provided in Appendix A.
Table 3.8: Hospital Outreach Program Illustrative Summary





3-18

Next Steps
Obtain approval for Hospital program
Develop customer outreach and marketing plans with the customers and
contractor base
Establish audit IGA Framework and PSEG Long Island review framework
Actively market the program using PSEG Long Island large customer management
staff
Regularly monitor the hospital installation applications and progress, develop
corrective action plans if the installation progress is below the annual targets
3.2.6 Energy Efficiency Expansion on the Rockaways

Background

The Rockaways include residential neighborhoods, public services (e.g. hospitals,
wastewater treatment plants), and a cluster of six New York City Housing Authority
(NYCHA) public housing developments. Superstorm Sandy devastated parts of the
Rockaways, particularly Rockaway West and Breezy Point. New York City and New
York State have planned disaster recovery support for the neighborhoods. PSEG Long
Island recognizes the need for targeted investment in rebuilding these communities
stronger and smarter than before. Since the Rockaways have limited generation and
transmission interconnections, distributed energy resources may have significant
benefits to customers in this region.

PSEG Long Island Proposal

PSEG Long Island proposes a targeted investment program in load reduction for the
Rockaways. Our program includes energy efficiency modernization and solar PV
installation, both of which may aid Rockaway customers in managing their electricity
bills. The Rockaways have a significantly higher percentage of customers unable to
utilize PSEG Long Island energy efficiency and renewable programs. By offering
targeted investment programs to these customers, PSEG Long Island can foster
universal access to clean energy programs. The load reduction also has potential to
improve PSEG Long Islands readiness to meet distribution system reliability criteria for
the Rockaways.

Our program approach includes an appliance replacement program in which
participants would receive replacements of lighting and eligible energy efficient
appliances including room AC units and refrigerators. New appliances would be Energy



3-19

Star certified to adhere to modern efficiency standards. Outdated models would be
collected to ensure the program results in energy savings rather than additions.

Another component would be a direct install program to commercial customers, with a
focus on lighting for relatively low cost, high impact savings. Commercial customers
would be eligible for a free investment grade audit of their facility, review of potential
energy conservation measures, and project management assistance. The program can
leverage the existing Small Business Direct Install Program and target Rockaway
commercial customers.

We also propose to include solar PV as part of a targeted program in the Rockaways.
Despite prior incentive programs, only nominal amounts of solar have been installed on
the Rockaway peninsula. PSEG Long Island proposes incentives for solar PV projects
located in this region consisting of systems greater than 200 kW, but less than 1,000
kW. We would also consider providing a premium value for peak capacity by incenting
west-facing solar, which has higher production later in the day, coincident with peak
demand.
26


Participants can benefit from this incentive along with the Federal Business Energy
Investment Tax Credit (ITC) eligible for solar systems placed in service before
December 31, 2016. Qualified applicants would be competitively selected based on
their incentive bid in dollars per kilowatt hour ($/kWh) payable in periodic
installments. PSEG Long Island electric customers may participate in the program
directly or serve as hosts for project owners. Local municipal entities could potentially
benefit from electricity savings by partnering with power purchase agreement providers
able to efficiently monetize the Federal ITC.

Illustrative Market & Results
While we propose that our program be open to all PSEG Long Island electric customers
in the Rockaways, we have also discussed establishing public-private partnerships with
NYCHA and the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services
(DCAS). Both have a number of facilities and significant load in the Rockaways, and
share similar clean energy goals with the Authority. Based on preliminary analysis we
have developed the following illustrative plan:



26
Installed Capacity Manual. New York Independent System Operator. May 2014.



3-20

Room AC
NYCHA has approximately 4,000 housing units in the Rockaways and there are
over 3,000 room AC units registered by residents. The majority of these AC units
are likely older and inefficient models. Working with NYCHA, we could replace
each unit with a more efficient model. We expect to replace all of the registered
NYCHA units, plus some unregistered units. In addition, DCAS conducted a
facility survey estimating over 500 room AC units at schools, administrative
buildings, and other facilities. Likely, many are eligible for replacement. Our
program would also be open to Rockaways residential customers with room AC
units we expect there is significant potential from multiple large multi-family
housing buildings in the Rockaways.

Additionally, PSEG Long Island would require that new room AC units come
equipped to participate in our proposed DLC smart plug pilot, as described above.
Customers could receive the option to provide PSEG Long Island direct load
control capability.

Refrigerators
NYCHA has over 6,000 refrigerator units registered at its developments in the
Rockaways. While the age of individual units is unknown, NYCHAs records
indicate that the last major replacement took place in the late 1990s. PSEG Long
Island would consider opening this program to other residential customers in the
Rockaways to the extent replacing their appliances would result in cost-effective
savings.

Residential Lighting
PSEG Long Island and NYCHA could market and implement a light bulb exchange
program, as well as a direct install program for lighting within residencies and
building common areas. Residents would exchange incandescent bulbs for more
efficient products. The program may also be successful at other multi-family
housing buildings in the Rockaways.

Commercial Lighting
Several customers have taken advantage of the existing Small Business Direct
Install program offered, leading to approximately 1% energy savings via 3% small
business customer participation. We would extend this direct install lighting
program to small business customers in the Rockaways as a complement to
existing energy efficiency programs. This commercial lighting program would
target customer facilities to accelerate meeting the remaining potential in the
Rockaways. DCAS may be a partner in this program. Based on preliminary



3-21

discussions, DCAS facilities could support commercial lighting retrofit potential in
schools and other government buildings if we are able to meet their needs.

Solar
Sizing for the solar component of this program ultimately depends on response to
a competitive solicitation, but we estimate that our program would support 2 MW of
nameplate capacity, or 1 MW of peak demand. At this time, PSEG Long Island
has at least 25 commercial electric customers located in the Rockaway peninsula
with a peak demand in excess of 200 kW. In addition, DCAS recently conducted a
technical review of their properties and determined that they could collectively host
in excess of 2 MW.
The market potential and costs of our Rockaways program are subject to change, but
based on discussions with NYCHA and DCAS, as well as internal analysis of the load in
the area, we have developed the potential below:
Energy Efficiency Expansion on the Rockaways
Illustrative Summary
MW Target Customer Types Metrics Targeted count
1.5 Room A/C Replacement 0.2kW/customer 7,500
0.5 Refrigerators 0.9kW/customer 6,000
1.0 Residential Lighting 0.1 kW/customer 10,000
1.5 Commercial Lighting 1kW/customer 1,500
1.0 Solar Installations N/A N/A
Total Savings:
5.5 MW /
21,500 MWh
Total Cost:
$14M
PAC B/C Ratio:
1.8
*These figures are illustrative, preliminary, and rounded. More detailed information on costs, benefits,
and economic screening are provided in Appendix A.
Table 3.9: Energy Efficiency Expansion on the Rockaways Illustrative Summary

Next Steps
Obtain approvals for Rockaway Expansion program
RFP for turn-key work, including equipment procurement, replacement and
installation and program management, develop detailed costs estimates and
schedules




3-22

3.2.7 Combined Heat and Power

Background
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems use well-established technology for
sequential generation of electric and thermal energy from a single fuel source, such as
natural gas. In most CHP systems, a prime-mover reciprocating engine coupled to a
generator produces electricity. The prime-mover also produces heat, which can be
recovered from exhaust gases and used to produce steam and/or hot water in facilities
with round-the-clock occupancy and reasonably steady electrical and thermal loads.
Unlike traditional backup generators, CHP systems typically operate continuously at or
near rated output over the equipment lifetime. Because of their ability to operate
reliably when grid-supplied power is not available, the installation of CHP systems is
encouraged by the Federal government and State regulatory agencies.
27

Sample CHP Incentive Programs
Entity
Capacity
Range (kW)
Incentive
($/kW)
Incentive
($/kWh)
Incentive Cap

NJ State
</= 500 $2,000 $0
$2M, 30%-40% of Project
Cost
>500 1,000 $1,000 $0

>1,000 3,000 $550 $0
$3M, 30% of Project Cost

>3,000 $350 $0

NYSERDA - Upstate All $600 $0.10**
$1.5M, 50% of Project Cost
NYSERDA -
Downstate*
All $750 $0.10**

PHI (MD only) All $250 $0.07*** $2M, 50% of Project Cost

* For NY City and Westchester County: the program is for CHP systems <1.3 MW (PON 2568);
For Nassau and Suffolk Counties: the program is for CHP systems >1.3 MW (PON 2701)
** Incentive is based on performance over a 24-month period
*** Incentive is based on performance over an 18-month period
Table 3.10: Sample CHP Incentive Programs


27
On August 30, 2012, President Obama signed an Executive Order that directed certain federal
executive departments and agencies to develop programs and policies to promote investment in industrial
energy efficiency and CHP. States that encourage CHP installations include New York, California,
Massachusetts, and Maryland.



3-23

CHP incentive programs achieve significant energy and demand savings. Customer
load characteristics, high electricity prices, low natural gas fuel prices, and public
incentives all factor into CHP economics.

PSEG Long Island Proposal
PSEG Long Island will consider offering incentives to install CHP for systems of 1.3MW
or below. Systems of this size on Long Island are excluded from the existing CHP
programs offered by NYSERDA. A capacity incentive based upon the installed capacity
of generator and a production incentive proportional to the actual energy savings
produced by the system could support certain projects. The capacity incentive could be
paid in installments based on a project achieving certain milestones (i.e., signing
contracts, beginning construction, commercial operation). The production incentive
could be available during the first 18 months of operation. The actual incentive
structure would be determined through further information gathering and analysis.
To further benefit from added reliability of CHP, the incentive could be increased if the
CHP system supports critical infrastructure. We would define critical facilities as those so
vital to health and safety that disruption of service could jeopardize the health, safety or
security of the service area and its residents. Examples of critical infrastructure include
nursing homes, public safety facilities (e.g., police, fire, hospital, emergency
management), water and wastewater utilities, and communication facilities.

PSEG Long Island customer representatives would meet with customers to provide an
assessment of CHP feasibility and arrange for developers to provide proposals. A key
program measure for CHP is overall efficiency, which must be at least 65%. The level
of marketing and customer education efforts will be reviewed annually and modulated
as necessary based upon the level of CHP enrollments and MW savings realized.
Illustrative Market & Results
Our primary target market segments, their range of peak loads and target size are
shown in Fig. 21:




3-24



PSEG Long Island Potential CHP Customer Segments
Customer Segments Peak Load Customers
Large nursing homes 150-250 kW 50-75
Large industrial plants with 24/7 operation 500 - 4000 kW 15-20
Colleges and universities with dormitories 2,000-4,000 kW 15-20
Refrigerated warehouses and supermarkets 500-1500 kW 250-275
Large hotels with year-around high occupancy rates 500-3,000 kW 8-12
Large federal, state, local-govt. facilities, 24/7
occupancy (e.g., prisons, police stations)
500-2,500 kW 100-150
Table 3.11: PSEG Long Island Potential CHP Customer Segments

The proposed program size is 5 MW, though the actual program will be determined
based upon project economics and customer participation.

Combined Heat & Power
Illustrative Summary
Project Size
(kW)
Number of
Projects
Demand Savings
(MW)
Energy Savings
(MWh)
100 3 0.30 2,340
200 3 0.60 4,680
400 4 1.60 12,480
750 2 1.50 11,700
1,000 1 1.00 7,800
Total 13 5.00 39,000
Total Savings:
5MW / 39,000 MWh
Total Cost:
$5M
PAC B/C Ratio:
8.1

*These figures are illustrative, preliminary, and rounded. More detailed information on costs, benefits,
and economic screening are provided in Appendix A.
Table 3.12: PSEG Long Island CHP Program Savings






3-25

Next Steps
Deepen the economic analysis and assess the incentives required relative to other
resources
Obtain approvals for the program proposal and the incentive levels
Develop marketing plans for the customers and contractors
Regularly monitor the CHP installation applications and progress, develop
corrective action plans if the sign-up and installation progress is below the target
3.2.8 Geothermal Heating & Cooling

Background
Geothermal heating and cooling offers a unique opportunity for peak load reductions
because the technology uses natural heat to provide heating, cooling, and often, water
heating. Geothermal Heat Pumps (GHP) use 25% to 50% less electricity than
conventional heating or cooling systems. This translates into a GHP using one unit of
electricity to move three units of heat from the earth. According to the U.S. DOE, GHP
can reduce energy consumption up to 44% compared with air-source heat pumps and
up to 72% compared with electric resistance heating with standard air-conditioning
equipment.
28
GHPs also improve humidity control by maintaining about 50% relative
indoor humidity, making GHPs very effective in humid areas. Retrofitting traditional
HVAC equipment with a GHP system reduces peak demand and increases electricity
use at a home or business in the winter, typically displacing fuel oil with more efficient
geothermal heating. The net result is an improvement in electric system load factor and
a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and may lower customers heating costs.
A typical PSEG Long Island residential customer uses approximately 10,000 kWh
annually and has an average peak demand of 4 kW.
29
The GHP system could reduce
total electric and fossil fuel energy consumption for space heating, cooling, and water-
heating by an estimated 4,500 to 5,000 kWh energy savings and 1.5 kW demand
savings for a typical residential customer.
30


28
Choosing and Installing Geothermal Heat Pumps. U.S. Department of Energy.
http://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/choosing-and-installing-geothermal-heat-pumps. Accessed June
25, 2014.
29
Summary: Recent Trends in Residential Electricity, 2008. Long Island Power Authority.
30
Using the Climatemaster GHP calculator for Geothermal Heat Pump Costs, we conclude 55%
energy savings for the following typical GHP retrofit for a 2,500 Sq. ft. house in NY with an Air Source
Heat Pump (ASHP) and average leakage and appliance efficiency for space heating, space cooling, and
water heating when the ASHP is replaced by a GHP system.




3-26

Geothermal is, however, significantly more expensive than conventional HVAC. The
installation costs range from $25,000 to $40,000 per GHP unit. The current federal
income tax credits for a GHP installation cover 30% of the costs. While this tax credit is
scheduled to expire at the end of 2016, this federal program could be extended and
continue to provide support for this technology.
The Authority currently offers rebates for geothermal units. The residential customer
rebate is $1,500 per heat pump (regardless of size, for units >25 energy efficiency rating
(EER)). The commercial customer rebate for installations up to 11.25 tons per unit is
$750 or $1,000 per ton depending upon the efficiency of the heat pump. Larger
programs are evaluated on a case-by-case basis based upon projected energy savings,
cooling loads and in the case of a retrofit, oil consumption. PSEG Long Island budgets
about 200 rebates annually and we have met these goals since 2011.
PSEG Long Island Proposal

Based upon program experience and feedback from local contractors, increasing the
rebate levels would stimulate the GHP market in Long Island. PSEG Long Island
proposes expanding the geothermal incentive program to develop GHP in excess of
existing program goals. PSEG Long Island proposes to:
Increase the residential rebate. Considering that most of the units are 3-4 tons,
we propose an average rebate of $2,250 per system. This amounts to
approximately 8% - 10% of the net costs (i.e. after the tax credits) and would
reduce the overall cost by approximately 40%.
Increase the commercial rebate. Offer commercial customers a rebate of $900
or $1,200 per ton depending on the efficiency of the GHP. With average size of
GHP units at 8 tons, we anticipate an average rebate of $9,000 per customer. This
would reduce GHP cost by approximately 35% - 40%, depending upon unit size.
Customer education. Targeted customer education and marketing programs will
be offered in conjunction with the GHP contractors. This will highlight the benefits
of GHP and energy savings.
Illustrative Market & Results
Considering the lead time needed for customer education and contractor marketing, we
propose the following GHP installation plan:




3-27


Potential GHP Installation Plan
Year Number of Customers
2015 300-400
2016 400-600
2017 500-800
2018 500-900
Table 3.13: Potential GHP Installation Plan

Geothermal Heating and Cooling
Illustrative Summary
Type of
Customers
Target
Quantity
Average
Rebate
Average kW
Savings
Targeted MW
Savings
Residential 1,500-2500 $2,250 1.5kW 2.3-3.7MW
Commercial 200-400 $9,000 4.0kW 0.8-1.6MW
Total Savings:
5 MW / 7,800 MWh
Total Cost:
$10M
PAC B/C Ratio:
2.2
*These figures are illustrative, preliminary, and rounded. More detailed information on costs, benefits,
and economic screening are provided in Appendix A.
Table 3.14: Potential GHP Installation Plan by Type of Customers
Next Steps:
Obtain approvals for the incentive levels
Develop marketing plans with the customers and contractor base
Develop education materials and informational outreach plan
Regularly monitor the GHP installation applications and progress





3-28

3.3 Capital Budget Investments

As part of PSEG Long Islands Utility 2.0 Plan, we propose that the Authority make
certain capital investments. We have evaluated these investments for cost-
effectiveness based on their resulting benefits of peak demand savings and deferred
system upgrades and find them to be economically beneficial to the Authority and Long
Island customers.
3.3.1 South Fork Improvements
The East End of Long Island represents the highest load growth region on Long Island
(Figure 3.1). The existing transmission consists of a 69 kV and 23 kV system supplied
by four 69 kV circuits - three from the South Fork and one from the North Fork. Given
that the area is a narrow peninsula traditional routes for transmission supplies to the
area are limited.

Figure 3.1: South Fork Peak Load Growth

PSEG Long Island has determined that a series of transmission reinforcements would
be required on the South Fork of Long Island from 2017 2022 (Figure 3.2).
Approximately $97 million (2012$) in conventional infrastructure was identified as being



3-29

required by 2017 with an additional $197 million through 2022 for a total of
approximately $294M. These costs consist primarily of new underground transmission
cables and substation work. This capital reinforcement plan also requires continued
reliance on the existing East End generation being available and able to provide its full
capacity. However , these units are aging and becoming less reliable as time goes on,
and they are less efficient and more polluting than modern generating units.


Figure 3.2: South Fork Transmission Expansion Plan

The area is extremely sensitive to local load conditions and is reliant on approximately
92 MW of generation, half of which were installed in the 1960s, on peak days for
thermal and voltage support. Even with all generation available and online, the area
requires special operating procedures to ensure reliability is maintained at the
forecasted peak so as not to collapse the entire South Fork upon contingency. For
2013, in order to satisfy voltage criteria, generation on the East End was required when
the South Fork reached 182 MW and special operating procedures were employed at a
load level of 258 MW. Moreover these levels could be lower if any infrastructure is
unavailable, such as the existing dynamic support systems at Canal and East Hampton
substations.
Prior to PSEG Long Islands role as service provider, the Authority developed a plan to
allow deferral of the transmission through the use of a series of alternatives: plans for
expanded energy efficiency and direct load control in the South Fork, a locational
premium included in the Clean Solar Initiative II (CSI II) for 40 MW of solar PV in the
South Fork, and energy storage options through the recent RFP for New Generation,



3-30

Energy Storage and Demand Response Resources (GSDR).
31,

32
Although the results
of CSI II and the recent supply RFP are under review, and the RFP for energy efficiency
and DLC is still in development, PSEG Long Island believes these resources can defer
the need for transmission and peaking capacity on the South Fork.
Our recommended approach includes deployment of energy efficiency, DLC, solar PV,
and energy storage, to better optimize power supply planning, all in complement with
the Authoritys GSDR. Our Plan builds upon the original the Authority concept with
other Utility 2.0 concepts such as microgrids, battery storage, and improved
transmission resiliency. Each component, as shown in Table 3.15, follows our guiding
principles including empowering customers, enhancing reliability and resiliency,
minimizing new infrastructure investments, and increasing utilization of system
infrastructure.
33


31
CSI II provides fixed payments for electricity produced by approved photovoltaic systems over a fixed
period of time. The program operates under a sell-all arrangement, where the full amount of energy
production from the facility is sold to the utility (i.e., no on-site use). Systems from 100 kW to 2 MW that
were not connected to the grid prior to the program's conditional acceptance period (on or around
February 28, 2014) are eligible to participate. The program offers a 20-year contract at a rate determined
through the Clearing Price Auction. A total of up to 100 MW of new solar generation will be supported by
CSI II. The system size is determined as the lesser of the sum of the AC rated output of all inverters, or
the PTC rating of the system multiplied by the inverter efficiency. Projects must be connected to the
Authority grid at the distribution level, defined as 13.2 kV or below.
32
The Authoritys RFP for New Generation, Energy Storage, and Demand Response Resources was
issued October 18, 2013, and closed March 31, 2014. the Authority solicited for three different blocks of
resources: Block #1 included up to 250 MW of peaking generation or energy storage (up to 50 MW) in the
East End; Block #2 included up to 880 MW of peaking generation and energy storage (up to 100 MW) in
the EF Barrett and Holtsville areas; Block #3 included up to 500 MW of peaking generation, energy
storage, and demand response system-wide. Proposals are currently under review.
33
This table is illustrative of a possible solution focused on deferring transmission investments. The
GSDR RFP is focused on two objectives; deferring transmission and replacing an aging generator fleet.
The GSDR RFP may result in a recommendation to procure different amounts, timing, and location of
resources. It is also possible that some of the peaking generation resources needs identified in the table
may be procured through future solicitations.



3-31


South Fork Design Options
Plan Components Target Completion
Clean Solar Initiative II 21.6MW (selected)
34
2016
Energy Efficiency - DLC 13 MW 2018
Peaking RFP I 10 MW Montauk/Navy Rd and
15 MW Alternate Site to be determined
2019
Microgrid for additional resiliency 2019
Battery Storage
1
2.5 MW 2019
Peaking RFP
2,3
- 25 MW S. Hampton 2021
Peaking RFP
2,3
- 25 MW S. Hampton and
Deerfield
2023
Peaking RFP
2,3
- 25 MW Buell 2025
Peaking RFP
2,3
- 25 MW Buell 2027
Notes:
1. Battery Storage, due to its relative cost, is included only as an alternative in case of difficulties in
achieving DLC and solar targets.
2. To the extent additional Solar, Energy Efficiency, and DLC can be achieved the need date for the
peaking generation can be deferred or eliminated.
3. The results of the GSDR RFP may result in different timing, location and sizes of generation
additions.
Table 3.15: South Fork Design Options

PSEG Long Island considered these components in different combinations and
modeled the costs of these Utility 2.0 scenarios to compare with the base option of
transmission reinforcements. The Utility 2.0 scenarios resulted in positive net present
value (NPV) of savings each time. In addition, the Utility 2.0 Plan addresses all three
of PSEG Long Islands resiliency efforts by improving prevention, survivability and
recovery. Results of this proposal will provide information to guide similar design

34
The original CSI II called for a $0.07 premium to be paid to solar projects in the South Fork if the 40
MW was achieved. Under the terms of the offering, the clearinghouse auction evaluated applications in
order of increasing pricing toward a total of 100 MW to determine the Final Clearinghouse Price which
was $0.1688 per kWh for the 20 year term. Following conclusion of the review of the proposals 21.6 MW
was selected in the South Fork. As such, no premium payment is included in our analysis.



3-32

solutions that are being considered across Long Island as deemed applicable and cost
effective.
The following Figure 3.3 depicts the illustrative expansion of resources under the Utililty
2.0 Plan. The chart shows projected future load growth and the emerging suplpy need
in 2016. The resource additions maintain the transmission loading to beneath the
transfer limit.

Figure 3.3: South Fork Load Growth vs Utility 2.0 Resources

Table 3.16 shows our economic analysis of the different scenarios, comparing
installation of transmission lines (Scenario 1) to two approaches developed by PSEG
Long Island (Scenarios 2 and 3).
35


35
Economic evaluation of the South Fork project followed different assumptions than other Utility 2.0
investments to better reflect the specific benefits of alternative options to a significant transmission
upgrade project.



3-33

Scenario 2 assumes that the 21.6 MW of solar selected under CSI II comes to fruition,
and combines that distributed generation with energy efficiency, DLC, and the ability to
operate as a microgrid. In addition, with the implementation of alternative resources
under Scenario 2, PSEG Long Island can phase-in the potential 125 MW peaking
generation units selected from the GSDR, optimizing the supply timing and increasing
the benefits of the proposals. If the results of the supply RFP can be arranged such that
approximately 25 MW can be installed every other year starting in 2019 through 2027,
the electric load growth can be met at a lower cost.
36
This phasing approach was
included as part of Scenarios 2 and 3, and could result in potential savings of about $2
million in NPVRR in 2016 dollars for the period 2016 through 2035.


Table 3.16: Estimated Capital and Net Present Value of Revenue Requirements of South Fork
Improvements

Scenario 3 includes battery storage to help meet the load demand requirements. Given
its cost, Scenario 3 is being considered as a back-up to the recommended approach
(i.e., Scenario 2). The benefit of adding battery storage is to levelize demands due to
intermittency of the solar PV resources, meet higher than anticipated loads, and act as
a backstop in case demand peaks later in the day when solar PV, energy efficiency, and
DLC may not be available. Results show that the addition of 2.5 MW of battery storage
reduces the benefit from $2 million in Scenario 2 to a penalty of about $24 million in
Scenario 3. The battery, however, may turn out to be a good choice if the required
amount of load reduction through energy efficiency and DLC cannot be obtained.

36
Scenarios 2 and 3 are illustrative plans with one primary objective deferral of transmission and
assume that aging (i.e., 40-year-old or more) generation will remain reliable and viable throughout the
plan. The Authoritys current GSDR RFP will also assess replacement of the existing aging fleet of
generation.
Scenario Comment Capital ($s) B/C Ratio Total
Delta From
Reference Case B/C Ratio
1) Reference (Transmission only) Case Reference plan $294 N/A $298 Base N/A
2) Utility 2.0 - 21.6 MW Solar, Phased Peaking Units, 13
MW DLC (Amortized) & Microgrid/Resiliency
LIPA RFP case adjusted for solar RFP
results and phased peaking units,etc.
$172 1.7 $295 ($2) 1.0
3) Utility 2.0 - 21.6 MW Solar, Phased Peaking Units, 13
MW DLC, Microgrid/Resiliency & 2.5 MW Battery
Case 3 with addition of 2.5 MW battery
to supplement DLC and solar
$187 1.6 $322 $24 0.9
Notes:
Above are sample scenarios for future and will vary depending on response and ability to change RFP, results from DLC, Solar etc.
Capital is total expenditures in 2012 dollars and does not reflect timing of expenditures; NPV of RR based on 2016-2035 period.
Transmission plan includes 138 to 33 kV reinforcements to Riverhead and east to Montauk
Costs and sites for peaking units are preliminary estimates and subject to response to RFP , reflects estimated fuel penalty
Case 2 & 3 assumes energy efficiency/DLC and/or battery is funded by PSEG & Investor with 10 & 15 year amortization periods, respectively.
Millions of $s
NPV of RR (2016$)
Estimated Capital and Net Present Value of Revenue Requirements of South Fork Improvements



3-34

Enhanced Resiliency Microgrid Potential
PSEG Long Island also notes the potential for demonstration of enhanced resiliency in
the South Fork that can be enabled incorporating large scale microgrid concepts in the
South Fork. One application of microgrid is the implementation of distributed generation
on radial systems such as East End of Long Island.
Currently there are approximately 40 MW of generating units built in the 1960s and
1970s operating on the East End. These units are in need of replacement. One of the
goals of the GSDR is to secure a combination of peaking generation and energy
storage to add up to 250 MW of capacity on the East End. Energy storage units at
several locations on the South Fork are intended to store excess renewable energy until
it is needed at peak times. The energy storage resources could also assist black start
resources by serving as a load. If these resources obtain black start capability, this
initiative could result in the implementation of a large-scale microgrid application on
East End that comprises both North and South Fork system.
Installation of 10 MW of new units that would interconnect with the Montauk substation
(or future Navy Road substation) and in turn feed the Hero and Culloden Point
substations could be expanded to create a microgrid. With a combined peak load of
approximately 17 MW, the installation of resources that have black start capability, load
following, and voltage controls, would allow for the operation of the area as an
independent system. Besides helping to meet loads during normal peak periods, in the
event of regional power outage or outage of the transmission lines to the west of
Montauk substation, generation connected to Montauk could be used to pick up a
portion of the area load. It could also directly feed Hero and Culloden Pt. substations or
help pick up those loads through distribution ties. Other sectionalizing devices would
need to be added. The costs of these microgrid attributes have been included in the
scenarios described above.
PSEG Long Island Proposal
PSEG Long Island proposes to act as backstop provider of South Fork Improvements.
To the extent that efforts to obtain adequate solar resources in the region from the
market are unsuccessful, PSEG Long Island would finance solar resources in the South
Fork to make up any shortage. In addition, PSEG Long Island can finance the costs of
the DLC and energy efficiency, under the other Utility 2.0 Plan proposals, with
incentives and marketing tailored for the South Fork. PSEG Long Island may also be
available to develop the battery storage in the South Fork, if the approximately 13 MW
of DLC needed in the South Fork is unavailable and an investor-financed storage



3-35

project does not emerge.
37
These investments would be evaluated and the investment
recovered similarly to the other Utility 2.0 investments described earlier in the Plan.
Implementation Plan:
The following Table 3.17 summarizes the South Fork proposal.


Table 3.17: Elements of Utility 2.0 and Going Forward Recommendations


37
Since the Authority was not successful in reaching its 40MW solar PV target for the South Fork in the
CSI II program, PSEG Long Island looked at ways to address these lower values including incentivizing
and/or mandating west facing solar, which has a higher output later in the day when demand in the South
Fork peaks, as well as additional DLC. In order to ensure that the solar projects were still installed, PSEG
Long Island also investigated whether the RFP terms could be modified such that the developers would
continue to receive a price premium even though the 40 MW was not achieved. However, in discussions
with the Authority, changes to the terms of the RFP are not allowed.
Strategy Action
Target /
Result
Recommendation
Maximize Solar on East End CSI II with 40 MW goal for East End 21.6 MW Select developers for solar PV
Maximize Solar (continued) 280 MW Renewable RFP TBD
Consider the benefits of additions on South
Fork during evaluation of RFP. Consider
issuance of offering(s) to include west
facing feature to maximize capacity benefit.
Distributed Generation
Generation, Energy Storage, and
Demand Response RFP
Emerging need must be
met by 2019
Consider options for staging additions and
sequencing the locations of capacity
selection to optimize transmission deferral
Energy Efficiency/DLC Utility 2.0 Programs
13 MW need is identified
to complement solar PV
Modernize and expand DLC and energy
efficiency under Utility 2.0 and target
offerings to customers on South Fork.
Microgrid/Resiliency
Generation, Energy Storage, and
Demand Response RFP
Potential independent
island capability
Incorporate ASU and other controls to
create microgrid.
Elements of Utility 2.0 and Going Forward Recommendations
Assess need for battery storage and sizing
of storage during evaluation of RFP.
Storage
Generation, Energy Storage, and
Demand Response RFP
RFP responses under
review



3-36

3.3.2 Large Customer Advanced Metering Initiative

Electric utilities across the U.S. have successfully deployed Advanced Metering
Infrastructure (AMI) and associated communications infrastructure to provide prompt
and improved information to customers and improve operational efficiencies. By July
2013, almost 46 million customers in the U.S. will have some type of smart meter
installed.
38

The Authority has 7,500 smart meters currently operational as part of programs to
collect interval consumption data as part of the Route 110 Corridor Project and at
Hauppauge Industrial Park. In addition, the Authority replaced meters on Fire Island
damaged during Superstorm Sandy with AMI. Communication systems, installed to
support the 7,500 smart meters, include radios and repeaters which send energy
consumption data to the PSEG Long Island Meter Data Management System
(MDMS). This communication network is scalable and can be expanded as more
smart meters are added in the aforementioned geographical locations or in new
locations in Long Island.
PSEG Long Island recommends that the Authority expand its AMI investments in a
phased approach to get to approximately 25,000 smart meters installed. In addition, we
recommend expanding the AMI communication network to cover the entire service area.
This will provide ready infrastructure to expand new smart meter installations on a
selective basis based upon pre-determined criteria.
As we explain, the customers targeted for this program represent approximately 2% of
customers but over 20% of load. Generally, these are large commercial customers with
significant load that would benefit from enhanced access to meter data (see Table
3.18).


38
Report on Smart Meters Deployment. The Edison Foundation. August 2013.




3-37

Summary of AMI Deployment
AMI Deployment Benefits
6,000 Large C&I customers (Large
customers representing 20% of
load)
Improve load management tools and capabilities at
customer level, with better and faster data
Improve utility program offerings such as demand
response programs with enhanced understanding
of customer load and usage pattern
6,000 accounts with chronic long-
term estimates
Access difficult to reach customer meter locations.
Improvement in the read rate performance by an
estimate average of 0.75% - 1%.
Improve customer satisfaction with accurate data
(scheduled monthly reads)
7,500 net-metered customers
Offer enhanced functionalities for improved
monitoring and controls
Improve distribution network planning and power
quality with accurate and near-real time information
3,950 retail choice customers
with accurate billing
Provide accurate load settlements for retail-choice
customers
Improve accounting of energy sales and energy
consumption at the customer levels
155 ReCharge NY customers
Provide accurate load settlements for NYPA
program customers
Improve accounting of energy sales and energy
consumption at the customer levels
Table 3.18: Summary of AMI Deployment

Large customers would be provided a web-based load monitoring system with improved
information access and decision tools to lower energy consumption, shift the
consumption patterns and lower overall costs. One study conducted by Lockheed
Martin for its facilities concluded that these tools yielded greater than 3% energy
savings due to near-real time monitoring capabilities. We conservatively target energy
and demand savings of 1% for this program.

Smart meters can provide PSEG Long Island with improved understanding of the load
flows and consumption patterns of the net metered customers and enhance integration
of solar PV installations. Lacking visibility on the power quality impact of solar PV at the
feeder and the substation basis, PSEG Long Island engineers take a conservative
approach to allowed solar PV levels. An accurate and real-time availability of customer
solar data and its impact on the distribution system may allow PSEG Long Island to
integrate higher amounts of solar PV to the electric system.



3-38

AMI provides a technical foundation for improved load management and enables
customer participation in demand response and other programs, where the cost of
metering has been a barrier to entry. Better load research and the ability to see detailed
customer energy usage profiles can facilitate improved demand side offerings, program
design and supportive rate structures. Demand response participation can be validated
by AMI data collection and provide PSEG Long Island planners with better confidence in
distributed energy resources.
PSEG Long Island also proposes that the Authority scale the existing communication
network to cover the entire service area. This facilitates integration of new smart meters
with the existing MDMS. The scalable communication network can facilitate additional
smart meter installations on a selective basis as more distributed resources are
integrated into PSEG Long Island operations. Installing the communication network for
the entire service area will ensure consistent system design and improved performance
for the radio and wireless networks.
Preliminary cost estimates for this project, including meters, communications
infrastructure, and installation costs, are approximately $12M. Assuming five-year
useful life of the meters and corresponding 1% demand savings, and using the same
cost effectiveness test screening methodology as other Utility 2.0 programs, PSEG
Long Island estimates the AMI program is net positive. It is important to note the AMI
investment is a foundation for further investment and education both to PSEG Long
Island and its customers on the value of time sensitive end-use data and analysis.
These benefits are difficult to quantify.




4-1

4 Section 4: Long-Term Vision

The proposed near-term investments in this inaugural Utility 2.0 Plan are intended to
increase energy efficiency and the use of direct load control and distributed resources
on Long Island. We believe these programs will result in lower customer bills near-term
by avoiding costs of capacity, energy, and system upgrades that may otherwise be
needed. This could include currently planned resource needs that represent a
significant cost to customers. These investments would also give a head-start in cost-
effectively meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets proposed by the EPA.

On a longer time horizon, this Plan can be a first step to transition the Authority into a
utility of the future. We believe this includes traditional responsibilities to provide safe,
reliable, and resilient service to customers by deploying a diverse set of cost effective
resources that maintain affordability and further reduce emissions. It may also include
expanding the utilitys role to integrate distributed resources and facilitate third-party and
customer participation in markets for energy services. In its Report and Proposal filed
in the REV Proceeding, DPS describes a Distribution System Platform Provider
(DSPP) that will actively coordinate customer activities so that the utilitys service
area as a whole places more efficiency demands on the bulk system, while reducing the
need for expensive investments in the distribution system as well.
39
PSEG Long Island
agrees with DPS that the distribution utility is best suited as the DSPP. We believe the
DSPPs role will include integrating DER solutions, facilitating a market for DER,
participating in markets for energy solutions along with third party providers, and
ensuring that all customers realize benefits.

We believe the combined approach of near-term investments by PSEG Long Island and
the Authority and long-term development of a robust energy services market can
provide long-term value for customers. In the near-term, utility planning efforts can
identify cost-effective energy efficiency and distributed resources to be considered on
equal footing with conventional resources. PSEG Long Island believes it is critical to
target specific projects that can be deferred with alternative cost-effective resources.
This way, resources will be deployed in a prudent manner that facilitates integration and
avoids inefficient planning and investment.


39
Proceeding on Motion of the Commission in Regard to Reforming the Energy Vision, Case 14-M-0101,
Order Instituting Proceeding (April 25, 2014)



4-2

Developing a market for third party providers is important. Customers will benefit from
broad options for innovative services. But participation by third parties and customer-
sited resources adds significant complexity to system planning and operations. The
transition to utility of the future will require responsible deployment of technologies that
enhance information sharing between customers and the utility, and add capabilities for
customers to manage their energy use and costs.

In achieving the long-term transition envisioned in the REV proceeding, the traditional
roles of the utility, its customers, and third party suppliers will evolve:

Utility responsibilities will expand to include enabling customer participation
and balancing distributed energy resources.

The utility will retain traditional responsibilities including grid interconnection, basic utility
service, metering and billing, and customer data management. Planning and operations
functions will continue to be core utility functions as well. Least cost planning can be
best implemented by a centralized utility that has natural advantages including
economies of scale and access to data. Planning and operations will need to adapt to
manage and integrate decentralized electricity production as customer-sited resources
are added to the system. The utility should be incented to focus on maintaining
reliability with the lowest cost resource, including end use efficiency, direct load control,
or other options.

An important role for the utility will be ensuring universal access to programs. Certain
customer segments lack the resources to invest in energy services despite the potential
economic benefits. Universal access is a basic tenet of utility service and as new
options become available it will be important that all customers share in the benefits.
The utility can enable participation by providing low cost, patient capital that affords
customers the financial flexibility to implement cost effective measures. This philosophy
guides our proposals for hospital customers and customers in the Rockaways.

The utility will also seek opportunities to expand behind the meter with products and
services. The utility has a direct relationship with customers and experience with
analysis of consumption that will help design tailored energy options. As examples, the
investments and programs implemented by the Authority as well as PSEGs New Jersey
utility affiliate, PSE&G, have successfully provided customers with energy efficiency
programs, solar PV incentives, and other energy services. As noted in this Plan, we
believe that PSEG Long Island can more broadly apply these concepts and extend to
Long Island customers innovative energy service offerings.




4-3

Utility 2.0 should also create new applications of advanced technologies that address
the peak demand that drives so many capital budgeting decisions. For example, AMI
and improved communications instantaneously, automatically, and remotely provides
utilities with useful information that enhance operations, asset management, and
customer billing. All of this improves the customer experience. Advanced meters
measure bi-directional power flow and provide real-time signals that enhance the value
of energy end use management and enable participation in demand response
programs.

Utilities will experience more demands from customers seeking to add advanced
technologies to the power system. For example, some critical facilities and other
customers requiring uninterrupted electric service (e.g. hospitals, data centers, and
emergency services) are exploring enhanced resiliency through backup generation,
energy storage, and microgrids to maintain service through significant utility service
disruptions. Each customer will have its own unique set of requirements. PSEG Long
Island can help customers understand the complexities and the unique requirements of
advanced technologies.

Customers will benefit from enhanced energy service options and, in some
cases, new opportunities to provide supply- and demand-side resources.

Utility 2.0 has the potential to enhance customers energy choices in a significant way
not experienced since restructured energy markets provided energy supply choices
varied by fuel source, contract tenure, and other factors. New technologies will add
capabilities to manage energy end use and costs, and to participate in markets directly
or through programs offered by utilities and third party providers.

However, the reality is that most customers lack the tools and sophistication to
meaningfully manage their energy use. Enhancing the customer experience starts with
providing additional data to customers on their end use energy consumption.
Benchmarks and, potentially, real-time information and analysis are critical. Just as
important is providing tools and resources to analyze this data and act on energy
services opportunities. For customers to participate they must understand the
capabilities and limitations of demand side management and the capacity for the utility
system to integrate distributed resources. When consumers shift from load to power
generation it creates new challenges for utility planners managing a portfolio of diverse
system resources.

Likewise, customers will need the ability to realize the appropriate value of demand and
energy savings to invest properly. Value should be determined in such a way that



4-4

avoids providing undue competitive advantages to certain resources and/or
technologies. Rate tariffs can be redesigned to ensure that a modern grid successfully
integrates disaggregated resources and maintains reliable core services at fair and
reasonable cost. Rates that signal the time-of-use value of energy end use
management will be needed to enable proper valuation of customer resources. When
customers can value the price differential between peak and off-peak periods, they will
be incented to respond accordingly.
Issues of equality will become priority with widespread deployment of distributed
resources. Cross subsidization of programs by non-participating customers is an issue
that will be more important to address as some customers are unable or unwilling to
invest in distributed resources. Net metering is a good example of this issue; under
some net metering rules, distributed generation is compensated for excess energy at
full retail rates. Customers able to take advantage can avoid the full cost of their bill
although they benefit from utility services. Tariffs should ensure that all customers that
benefit from utility service pay their fair share of costs, and that utilities are
compensated for their role in ensuring reliability of service, as well as any expanded role
they are expected to hold in the future.

Third party providers will monetize the value of distributed resources and
provide value and services to customers.

Energy service companies (ESCOs) and other third party providers will expand from
retail supply offerings to more value added and demand side offerings as customers
demand these services. Many customers facing the new and complicated responsibility
of managing energy consumption data may seek consultation with third parties that can
provide consultation, directly manage end use, or otherwise monetize the value of
energy savings. A robust market of third party providers will enhance the innovation
offerings available to customers.

The relationship between utilities and ESCOs will be critical to providing customers with
a broad set of energy options. Utilities and ESCOs will need to determine how to share
in the responsibility of serving customers. Ultimately, it will be the utilitys responsibility
to maintain distribution service and communicate with its customers. Customer-sited
generation resources will need to be managed to maintain reliability of the distribution
system, necessitating direct contact between the utility and the party managing the
resource (i.e., customer or ESCO).



5-1

5 Section 5. Stakeholder Outreach

Throughout development of this Plan, PSEG Long Island has engaged with various
stakeholders in New York and on Long Island to try to develop a proposal that is
consistent with the needs of our customers, the Authority, and New York State. We will
solicit feedback to refine this plan and optimize its implementation and our commitment
to stakeholder input will remain a primary objective of subsequent annual reviews of this
initial proposal.

PSEG Long Island plans to hold a Technical Conference on our Utility 2.0 Plan on July
24, 2014. The purpose of the Conference will be to describe the Plan and receive
comments on our proposed scope of work, timeline and rate impact from interested
stakeholders. In addition, we can hold additional forums as appropriate to engage
community leadership, residents, and businesses on the opportunities and incorporate
their feedback into the development of executable plans. The meetings may be across
Long Island, and could also be located in the Rockaways and South Fork load pockets,
which have been identified for targeted investments in our proposal due to their
location-specific needs.

The Environmental Advisory Committee established as required per the OSA has been
engaged since early drafts of this proposal to comment on the direction of our
recommendations. This Committee will receive quarterly updates on progress of PSEG
Long Islands energy efficiency and renewable investments throughout the life of the
program.

Our approach to public outreach will continue throughout subsequent annual updates to
the Utility 2.0 Plan. PSEG Long Island will be proactive in engaging customers and
educating them on their energy use and the options to contain costs through efficiency
investments. When reliability needs are identified, we will review the need with the
community and present various solution options, including Utility 2.0 concepts and
traditional solutions. Our goal is to clearly communicate the reliability, affordability,
environmental, and community considerations of the investments that PSEG Long
Island and the Authority make in Long Island.




A-1

6 Appendix A
Cost Effectiveness Tests
Assumptions, Methodology, and Results
Introduction
PSEG Long Island has maintained a focus on the cost effectiveness of program
investments in its proposed Utility 2.0 Plan. Cost effectiveness is a measure of the
investments relative economic performance and attractiveness. The process of
evaluating cost effectiveness includes estimating the net present value of benefits and
program costs over the expected useful life of the measure and/or program. For our
purposes, benefits include the avoided costs of capacity and energy resulting from the
program. In the case of the South Fork Improvements program, the evaluation includes
capital investments deferred or displaced by a Utility 2.0 solution. Generally, costs
include some combination of measure costs, labor/installation costs (as applicable),
customer financial incentives, and administrative costs, as described below.
Cost Effectiveness Tests
Utility regulators have several cost effectiveness tests to choose from in evaluating
energy efficiency and other clean energy investments. The difference in tests is the
scope of costs included in the calculation some tests limit the scope to the perspective
of the utility or program administrator while others incorporate participant and other
customer costs.
PSEG Long Island measured two cost effectiveness tests to screen the Utility 2.0
programs: the Program Administrator Cost test and the Total Resource Cost test. We
are in favor of using the Program Administrator Cost test to evaluate the economic
viability of Utility 2.0 programs, and we describe our rationale below, as well as a high
level description of each test.
1. Program Administrator Cost (PAC) Test Also known as the Utility Cost Test
(UCT), this test incorporates costs incurred by the utility or program administrator
(in this case, PSEG Long Island). This includes measure costs, labor and
installation (where applicable), customer incentives, and program overhead costs
(e.g. program administration, marketing). This test provides a clear picture of
whether the program is balanced from the perspective of utility or program
administrator. The PAC test does not include customer benefits of avoided fuel


A-2

costs (e.g. home heating oil), water savings, or other externalities, and does not
include customer share of investment in energy conservation measures.

2. Total Resource Cost (TRC) Test Also known as the All-Ratepayer Test, the
TRC compares the value of avoided costs to the full costs of energy conservation
measures, including labor and installation costs and program administration costs
incurred by the utility and/or program administrator and the full incremental cost of
upgrading equipment incurred by participant customers. A TRC ratio greater than
1.0 indicates that the investment results in lower resource costs for the utility and
lower average energy costs for both participant and non-participant customers.

Importantly, the TRC considers customer incentives provided by the utility and/or
program administrator to be pass-through transfer of costs, netting out of the total
costs included in the test. This practice ignores the incentive level needed to drive
investment and creates a situation where participant customers may receive
unbalanced benefits from the program.

PSEG Long Islands favors using the PAC Test for its Utility 2.0 Plan for several
reasons:
With the PAC test, the rebate is set at a level that is cost-effective for PSEG Long
Island and the customer can decide whether or not to pay the incremental cost.

The PAC test implicitly accounts for externalities because customers willingness
to pay is proportional to their perceived overall benefit, including environmental
benefit, customer comfort, and customer convenience. While the TRC can be
modified to include externalities, it can be difficult to quantify those benefits.

The PAC test can limit rate impacts because it provides an incentive to achieve
the same results with lower costs. The TRC considers customer incentives a
pass-through cost with no effect on the benefits-to-cost ratio.

All costs in the PAC test flow through electric rates. The test is analogous to
supply-side resource acquisition where all costs flow through rates to customers.
Our proposal to amortize costs over the expected life of equipment (i.e. eight to
twelve years) would bring supply and demand side resources even closer into
alignment.




A-3

Cost Effectiveness Test Assumptions
Study assumptions are grounded in the experience of PSEG Long Island staff and other
research conducted in development of the Utility 2.0 Plan, including interviews and data
requests of subject matter experts from demand response providers, energy service
companies, technology providers, and energy service program managers at our New
Jersey utility affiliate, PSE&G. However, our assumptions should be considered
preliminary and subject to change as actual costs and program economics will depend
on approval of the Utility 2.0 Plan and solicitation of pricing from equipment vendors and
installation contractors.
Program Benefits
Avoided Costs of Capacity & Energy
The benefits of Utility 2.0 are the net present value (NPV) of the avoided supply
costs specifically energy and capacity savings resulting from the measure or
program undertaken. The value of avoided costs were developed in a benchmark
study blending four proposals for combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) generating
units received in 2011 in response to the Authoritys RFP to Provide Electric
Capacity, Energy & Ancillary Services (supply RFP). The values were updated in
January 2013 with more recent bid evaluation information and natural gas prices. A
sample is provided below:

For the benchmark study, the cost of a 20-year power purchase agreement was
modelled, with all power plant construction costs included in the capacity charge,
along with the estimated cost of electrical interconnection and system upgrades.
The CCGT plant was assumed to operate at an 86.5% annual capacity factor and a
6,904 BTU/kWh heat rate. Environmental costs were included to the extent required
to comply with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative requirements and other
permits. These assumptions are consistent with the manner in which the Authority
would be expected to procure its next unit of base load capacity.


A-4

Historically, the Authority used a baseload CCGT as the reference case for
establishing capacity and energy savings for the screening of its Efficiency Long
Island portfolio. Primarily, this was because the Electric Resource Plan called for
the next segment of capacity to be from a CCGT plant for purposes of meeting the
Authoritys energy resource mix. The decision was also supported because the size
of the Efficiency Long Island portfolio (i.e., 520 MW) and its associated load factor
are greater than what would be expected of a peaking unit, and more comparable to
a CCGT. Similarly, the proposed size (i.e. 185 MW) and annual load factor (i.e.,
~18%) of the proposed Utility 2.0 Plan is not comparable to a peaking plant. While
the potential load factor of our proposed Utility 2.0 investment is well below the
anticipated capacity factor of a new CCGT (i.e., 86.5%), it is also well above the
anticipated capacity factor of a peaking plant (i.e., 1.0 - 5.0%). Moreover, based on
recent bids, capacity cost for peaking plants is not significantly lower than CCGT
plants on Long Island.
Capacity & Energy Savings
The resulting savings from Utility 2.0 programs are estimated based on PSEG Long
Island experience and research and analysis of energy conservation measures.
Assumed achievable annual savings for each program are as follows:



A-5



Annual
Capacity (kW)
Annual
Energy (kWh)
Utility 2.0 Investments

DLC Expansion & Modernization 100,000 2,700,000
Energy Efficiency Expansion at Rockaways

Residential Lighting 1,000 9,071,462
Residential Room Air Conditioning 1,500 424,181
Residential Refrigerators 550 2,672,956
Commercial Solar 1,000 2,823,529
Commercial Direct Install Lighting 1,500 6,512,174
Rockaways Total 5,550 21,504,302
Hospital Energy Conservation Program 5,000 28,000,000
Solar PV (over 200kW) 28,510 80,498,735
Residential Home Energy Management 10,000 25,000,000
Geothermal Heating & Cooling 5,000 7,820,000
Combined Heat & Power 5,000 39,000,000
Incremental Energy Efficiency

Energy Efficient Products 3,000 21,381,000
Cool Homes 2,000 1,622,000
CEP Mid-market 5,000 18,155,000
Incremental EE Total 10,000 41,158,000
Total Utility 2.0 169,060 245,681,037
Capital Budget Investments

South Fork Improvements

Scenario 3 - Solar PV and DLC TBD TBD
Scenario 4 - Solar PV, DLC, and Energy
Storage
TBD TBD
Large Customer AMI 15,000 45,000,000
Total Capital Budget 15,000 45,000,000
Utility 2.0 Overall 184,060 290,681,037










A-6

Program Costs
The other half of the PAC test equation is the NPV of the program costs including cost
of measures, labor, incentives, and administration. Again, these costs are estimated
based on our experience, research of similar programs in the industry, and primary
research with subject matter experts. These preliminary cost estimates would differ
from actual costs of programs procured through RFP from implementation contractors.
Some points to consider:

Measure costs include equipment costs only.
Labor costs are included in cases where it is expected that PSEG Long Island
and/or an implementation contractor would provide the service. For example,
we may procure local contractors in the Rockaways to aid in installation of
energy efficiency equipment.
Incentive costs represent the expected level of financial support needed to
encourage customer participation. These are generally estimated based on
PSEG Long Island experience with existing programs and feedback from
electric customers.
Administration costs are assumed at 5% of total program costs for programs
that would be similar in nature to existing energy efficiency and renewables
programs. For the proposed Combined Heat & Power program we assume
10% to be conservative given the lack of history with CHP within the
company.



A-7



Program Cost
(2015$)
Utility 2.0 Investments

DLC Expansion & Modernization $63,000,000
Energy Efficiency Expansion at Rockaways

Residential Lighting $585,954
Residential Room Air Conditioning $2,967,629
Residential Refrigerators $2,781,450
Commercial Solar $3,750,000
Commercial Direct Install Lighting $3,195,089
Rockaways Total $13,280,122
Hospital Energy Conservation Program $28,104,925
Solar PV (over 200kW) $42,764,953
Residential Home Energy Management $8,400,000
Geothermal Heating & Cooling $9,450,000
Combined Heat & Power $5,000,000
Incremental Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficient Products $9,000,000
Cool Homes $6,000,000
CEP Mid-market $15,000,000
Incremental EE Total $30,000,000
Total Utility 2.0 $200,000,000
Capital Budget Investments
South Fork Improvements

Scenario 3 - Solar PV and DLC TBD
Scenario 4 - Solar PV, DLC, and Energy Storage TBD
Large Customer AMI $12,000,000
Total Capital Budget $12,000,000
Utility 2.0 Overall $212,000,000





A-8

Expected Useful Life of Measures
Savings are assumed to extend over the useful life of measures, with future benefits
discounted to NPV in the cost effectiveness test calculation. The expected useful life of
energy conservation measures is a key input to this analysis.

Measure Life
(Years)
Utility 2.0 Investments

DLC Expansion & Modernization 10
Energy Efficiency Expansion at Rockaways

Residential Lighting 6.5
Residential Room Air Conditioning 12
Residential Refrigerators 15
Commercial Solar 25
Commercial Direct Install Lighting 16
Rockaways Total N/A
Hospital Energy Conservation Program 20
Solar PV (over 200kW) 25
Residential Home Energy Management 20
Geothermal Heating & Cooling 20
Combined Heat & Power 20
Incremental Energy Efficiency

Energy Efficient Products 10
Cool Homes 18
CEP Mid-market 16
Incremental EE Total N/A
Total Utility 2.0 N/A
Capital Budget Investments

South Fork Improvements

Scenario 3 - Solar PV and DLC TBD
Scenario 4 - Solar PV, DLC, and Energy Storage TBD
Large Customer AMI 5
Total Capital Budget N/A




A-9

Discount Rate
Utility 2.0 investments have been discounted using a rate of 7.5%. The Large Customer
AMI program has been discounted using a rate of 5.5%. The South Fork Improvements
were evaluated using appropriate discount rates for individual components of the
Proposal (see below).
Test Results

Levelized Costs
PA Ratio TRC Ratio $/kWh $/kW
Utility 2.0 Investments

DLC Expansion & Modernization 3.7 3.7 $3.40 $91.78
Energy Efficiency Expansion at
Rockaways

Residential Lighting 5.9 5.9 $0.01 $124.83
Residential Room Air Conditioning 1.4 1.4 $0.90 $255.77
Residential Refrigerators 1.1 1.1 $0.12 $572.91
Commercial Solar 1.5 0.8 $0.12 $336.42
Commercial Direct Install Lighting 2.5 2.5 $0.05 $233.01
Rockaways Total 1.8 1.5 $0.08 $288.63
Hospital Energy Conservation Program 1.2 0.9 $0.10 $551.37
Solar PV (over 200kW) 3.9 0.8 $0.05 $134.57
Residential Home Energy Management 1.3 1.3 $0.13 $323.01
Geothermal Heating & Cooling 2.4 1.4 $0.12 $185.39
Combined Heat & Power 8.1 1.7 $0.01 $98.09
Incremental Energy Efficiency

Energy Efficient Products 1.6 1.0 $0.06 $437.06
Cool Homes 1.3 0.6 $0.38 $309.09
CEP Mid-market 1.7 1.0 $0.09 $328.17
Incremental EE Total 1.6 0.9 $0.09 $350.01
Total Utility 2.0 2.9 1.2 $0.09 $152.11
Capital Budget Investments
South Fork Improvements
Scenario 3 - Solar PV and DLC 1.0
N/A Scenario 4 - Solar PV, DLC, and Energy
Storage
0.9
Large Customer AMI 2.3 2.3 $0.07 $197.73
Total Capital Budget N/A
Utility 2.0 Overall N/A

As described below, the South Fork Improvements PAC ratio represents the benefit of
savings due to change in NPV of revenue requirement compared to a transmission-only
base case, and capital cost associated with applicable investments. The TRC is not
applicable to the South Fork Improvements analysis.


A-10

Levelized costs are presented for illustrative purposes but there is an important
limitation to its use as a comparison metric. In most cases, levelized costs are not the
accurate representation of the actual cost of delivered savings. Energy conservation
measures that deliver substantial amounts of both energy and capacity savings have
two value streams resulting from the same total project costs. However, in the
derivation of the levelized cost, the full cost is compared to only one stream of value at a
time (i.e., capacity or energy). This results in the levelized cost being substantially
higher than actual.
South Fork Analysis
The South Fork program was analyzed using conventional utility investment methods.
This is appropriate as the program is being offered as an alternative to a typical utility
transmission investment required to meet reliability standards. The results are similar to
the PAC test.
For comparison purposes the net present value of revenue requirement (NPVRR) from
the alternatives was used. The Utility 2.0 solutions include solar PV, energy efficiency,
direct load control, and energy storage to reduce demand in the area and defer the
need date of transmission improvements. The costs of these alternatives based on the
type of investment and life were included in the analysis of NPVRR.
The starting point or reference case was the expansion of the transmission system on
the South Fork. This entailed transmission investments of approximately $294 million
(in 2012$) from 2017 through 2022. Using a discount rate of 5.5%, the analysis yielded
an estimated NPVRR of $298 million (2016$) for the 2016-2035 period.
For Scenario 2, the recommended plan, we used projected marginal market capacity
prices to represent the avoided cost resulting from load reduction. Implicit in the prices
is a 17% reduction in reserve requirement resulting from the reduced demand. That is,
the capacity prices reflect an increase of 17% over projected capacity market prices to
reflect the increased savings from avoidance of the reserve requirement. We also
included the effects of incremental cost of capital and reduced capacity factor for
distributed solar PV units versus combined cycle, as well as the cost of energy
efficiency and direct load control net of avoided capacity costs. For energy efficiency
and direct load control it was assumed that PSEG Long Island would make the
investments and allow amortization over a 10 year period. For solar PV, no incremental
costs or benefits were included as it was assumed that the Plan includes relocation of
units that would have been installed elsewhere on the system. Scenario 3 results in
reduced capital expenditures of $172 million (2012$) with a NPVRR of $295 million
(2016$), and a Benefit to Cost ratio of 1.0.


A-11

Scenario 3 includes the potential installation of 2.5 MW of battery storage. Storage is
currently not expected to be economic and results in a penalty compared to the
proposed Scenario 2. It would be installed only if the demand reductions cannot be
achieved using other methods. Our analysis assumes that any required storage would
be competitively bid and privately developed, with PSEG acting as a back-stop provider
if a third party provider fails to emerge.
Alternative Assumptions and Results
PSEG Long Island also considered the NYISOs capacity market demand curve as
additional reference for capacity pricing. The NYISO uses an administratively-
determined cost of new entry (CONE) of a reference unit (i.e. peaking unit), and nets
out the expected energy and ancillary services revenues to arrive at the value needed
to incent construction of the unit (Net CONE). Because we need a 25-year forecast of
avoided costs for the Utility 2.0 Plan, we escalated the three-year NYISO demand curve
values by a rate consistent with the assumptions of the benchmark study. Below is a
sample of the avoided costs weve derived using NYISOs capacity market demand
curve:

However, there are a few drawbacks with using the NYISO demand curve as an
alternative means of estimating avoided capacity and energy costs. First, as noted, the
NYISO demand curve only estimates prices for the next three years, rather than the 25-
year period required for evaluation of energy efficiency and renewable programs.
Second, the Authoritys resource procurement is generally driven by its on-Island
capacity requirements, and there is limited on-Island capacity available in the markets to
meet this need. This is opposed to its statewide requirements that can be met through
2015 $153.63 $0.06
2016 $157.01 $0.07
2017 $158.22 $0.07
2018 $159.48 $0.08
2019 $160.76 $0.08
2020 $162.09 $0.09
2021 $163.45 $0.09
2022 $164.85 $0.09
2023 $166.28 $0.10
2024 $167.76 $0.10
2025 $169.28 $0.10
2026 $170.85 $0.11
Sample of Avoided Costs
(2015 2026)
NYISO
Year
Energy
($/kWh)
Capacity
($/kW-yr)


A-12

the capacity markets. Third, by tariff the NYISO demand curve must represent a
peaking unit regardless of whether new planned energy resources include a baseload
CCGT plant. Therefore, the NYISO demand curve significantly undervalues capacity
relative to actual bids received as part of the supply RFP and the more recent RFP for
New Generation, Energy Storage and Demand Response Resources.
Using this alternative avoided costs assumption in place of those in the benchmark
study, and holding constant all other assumptions of program costs, measure life, and
discount rates, we arrive at the following cost effectiveness test results for Utility 2.0
investments and the Large Customer AMI program:


A-13




Levelized Costs
PA Ratio TRC Ratio $/kWh $/kW
Utility 2.0 Investments
DLC Expansion & Modernization 1.9 1.9 $3.40 $91.78
Energy Efficiency Expansion at Rockaways

Residential Lighting 5.3 5.3 $0.01 $124.83
Residential Room Air Conditioning 0.8 0.8 $0.90 $255.77
Residential Refrigerators 0.9 0.9 $0.12 $572.91
Commercial Solar 1.2 0.6 $0.12 $336.42
Commercial Direct Install Lighting 2.1 2.1 $0.05 $233.01
Rockaways Total 1.4 1.2 $0.08 $288.63
Hospital Energy Conservation Program 1.1 0.8 $0.10 $551.37
Solar PV (over 200kW) 3.0 0.6 $0.05 $134.57
Residential Home Energy Management 0.9 0.9 $0.13 $323.01
Geothermal Heating & Cooling 1.5 1.0 $0.12 $185.39
Combined Heat & Power 7.9 1.6 $0.01 $98.09
Incremental Energy Efficiency

Energy Efficient Products 1.4 0.9 $0.06 $437.06
Cool Homes 0.8 0.4 $0.38 $309.09
CEP Mid-market 1.3 0.8 $0.09 $328.17
Incremental EE Total 1.2 0.7 $0.09 $350.01
Total Utility 2.0 2.0 0.8 $0.09 $152.11
Capital Budget Investments
South Fork Improvements*

Scenario 3 - Solar PV and DLC 1.0
N/A
Scenario 4 - Solar PV, DLC, and Energy
Storage
0.9
Large Customer AMI 1.7 1.7 $0.07 $197.73
Total Capital Budget N/A
Utility 2.0 Overall N/A
*See above for detail above regarding economic analysis specific to the South Fork Improvements.


B-1

7 Appendix B
PSEG Long Island
Utility 2.0 Long Range Plan
Summary of Principal Terms and Conditions
This Term Sheet is intended to provide a summary of the principal terms and conditions of a proposed
amendment (the Amendment) to the Amended and Restated Operations Services Agreement (the
OSA) between the Long Island Lighting Company d/b/a LIPA, a New York corporation (LIPA), and
PSEG Long Island LLC (the Service Provider), dated December 31, 2013, to give effect to the Long Range
Plan (as defined in the OSA). This Term Sheet has been prepared for discussion purposes only and does
not create any legal obligation. Capitalized terms have the meanings assigned to them in the OSA unless
otherwise defined.
Utility 2.0 Capital Expenditures: Under the Long Range Plan, the Servicer Provider or its affiliate
will invest an agreed amount of capital from 2015 through 2018
in targeted programmatic investments related to the Utility 2.0
Long Range Plan, including in energy efficiency, demand
response, distributed generation and related programs within the
Service Area (the Utility 2.0 Capital Expenditures).
The Utility 2.0 Capital Expenditures will be treated as capital
improvement expenditures under the OSA and will be budgeted
as a Capital Budget under the OSA (such portion of the Capital
Budget relating to Utility 2.0 Capital Expenditures, the Utility
2.0 Capital Budget).
As compensation for Utility 2.0 Capital Expenditures made by
the Service Provider or its affiliate, LIPA shall make monthly
payments pursuant to an agreed upon payment schedule
(Payment Schedule) starting with the month immediately
following the month in which the Program expenditure is made
but not earlier than the implementation of the rates to be put in
effect pursuant to the rate case to be filed February 1, 2015. The
Utility 2.0 Capital Expenditures will otherwise be treated as
Pass-Through Expenditures under the OSA and subject to the
same payment terms and requirements thereof, including the 3-
month pre-funding requirement.

Utility 2.0 Incentive Payment The Service Provider will be entitled to receive incentive
compensation or obligated to pay penalties in relation to the
performance of the Utility 2.0 program (the Utility 2.0
Incentive Payment). Specifically, the annual rate of Utility 2.0
Incentive Payment will be calculated based on two performance


B-2

factors: Program Cost Effectiveness and Peak MW Savings.
Program Cost Effectiveness: the Program Administrator Cost
(PAC) test will measure the program administrator benefits to
cost ratio. The baseline PAC ratio will be set at 1.1, and the
annual rate of incentive compensation or penalty payable
starting in respect of 2016 on the aggregate amount of Utility
2.0 Capital Expenditures made as of the time of calculation shall
be calculated as follows:
(i) for each 10% of over-performance over the baseline
PAC ratio of 1.1, a multiplier will be applied to the
repayment rate, annually, as illustrated below, up to a
maximum of 1.3x multiplier; or
(ii) for under-performance below the baseline PAC ratio
of 1.1, a multiplier will be applied to the repayment rate,
annually, as illustrated below, down to a maximum of
0.9x multiplier.
Peak MW Savings: in the event the Servicer Provider is entitled
to incentive compensation for over-performance under the
Program Cost Effectiveness formula above (the PCE
formula), the amount calculated under the PCE formula shall
be further adjusted based on the satisfaction rate of the Peak
MW Savings Goal as follows:
(i) If 100% or more of the Peak MW Savings Goal is
met, the Service Provider will be entitled to 100% of the
incentive compensation calculated by the PCE formula;
and
(ii) if less than 100% of the Peak MW Savings Goal is
met, the incentive compensation calculated by the PCE
formula and payable to the Service Provider shall be
decreased on a straight-line basis so that at 80%
satisfaction of the Peak MW Savings Goal, the incentive
compensation amount will be zero. There will be no
penalty for satisfying less than 80% of the Peak MW
Savings Goal.
The Utility 2.0 Incentive Payment amount calculated in
accordance with the above shall otherwise be subject to the
same payment terms and requirements (other than those relating
to the calculation thereof) as the incentive component of the
Management Services Fee under the OSA, and shall be
implemented as an increase or decrease (as applicable) of such
incentive component of the Management Services Fee payable
to the Service Provider on an annual basis.


B-3


Repayment Upon Termination: In the event of termination of the OSA pursuant to Section 8.2,
8.4 or 8.5 of the OSA, in addition to any amounts otherwise
payable by LIPA to the Servicer Provider under the OSA, the
Service Provider shall be entitled to repayment from LIPA of
the discounted cash flows associated with the aggregate Capital
Expenditures made by the Service Provider that remains
unreimbursed by LIPA at the time of the termination of the
OSA.
Three Year Rate Plan: The Service Provider and LIPA shall agree upon the Utility 2.0
Capital Budget and include it in each of the preliminary
Consolidated LIPA Budget to be prepared pursuant to Section
5.2(B)(2) of the OSA, the preliminary Three Year Rate Plan to
be prepared pursuant to Section 6.2(B) of the OSA, the Three
Year Rate Plan to be submitted to the DPS pursuant to Section
6.2(D) of the OSA and the final Consolidated LIPA Budget to
be agreed upon pursuant to Section 6.2(E) of the OSA, in each
case in accordance with the requirements and processes, and
subject to the obligations and dispute resolution provisions, set
forth in the OSA applicable to a Capital Budget.
The fixed compensation and the incentive payments from LIPA
to Service Provider will commence contemporaneously with the
effectiveness of the rates to be implemented in accordance with
the rate case to be filed by February 1, 2015.



B-4

Performance Driven Investment Recovery Model
Illustrative Payment Schedule
Base Payment Schedule
Compensation schedule for $200 million investment for 2015 2018
$MMs Total 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
CapEx (200) (14) (63) (77) (46) - - - - - - - -
Repayment 322 - 7 21 34 40 40 40 40 40 33 20 6
*Rounded numbers

Proposed Performance Multiplier
Potential incentive compensation is based on relative performance as measured by Program
Administrator Cost test (PAC).

PAC Multiplier
<1.1 0.9x
1.1 1.0x
1.2 1.1x
1.3 1.2x
>1.4 1.3x


C-1

8 Appendix C
PSEG-Long Island
Utility 2.0 Long Range Plan
Summary of Principal Terms and Conditions
This Term Sheet is intended to provide a summary of the principal terms and conditions of a proposed
amendment (the Amendment) to the Amended and Restated Operations Services Agreement (the
OSA) between the Long Island Lighting Company d/b/a LIPA, a New York corporation (LIPA), and
PSEG Long Island LLC (the Service Provider), dated December 31, 2013, to give effect to the Long Range
Plan (as defined in the OSA). This Term Sheet has been prepared for discussion purposes only and does
not create any legal obligation. Capitalized terms have the meanings assigned to them in the OSA unless
otherwise defined.
Utility 2.0 Capital Expenditures:






Utility 2.0 Operating Budget:


Under the Long Range Plan, the Servicer Provider or its affiliate
will invest an agreed amount of capital from 2014 through 2018
in targeted programmatic investments related to the Utility 2.0
Long Range Plan, including in energy efficiency, demand
response, distributed generation and related programs within the
Service Area (the Utility 2.0 Capital Expenditures).
The Utility 2.0 Capital Expenditures will be treated as operating
expenditures under the OSA and will be budgeted as an expense
in the Operating and Maintenance Budget (O&M Budget)
under the OSA (such portion of the O&M Budget relating to
Utility 2.0 Capital Expenditures, the Utility 2.0 Operating
Budget).
As compensation for Utility 2.0 Capital Expenditures made by
the Service Provider or its affiliate, LIPA shall make monthly
payments pursuant to an agreed upon payment schedule
(Payment Schedule) starting with the month immediately
following the month in which the Program expenditure is made
but not earlier than the implementation of the rates to be put in
effect pursuant to the rate case to be filed February 1, 2015. The
Utility 2.0 Capital Expenditures will otherwise be treated as
Pass-Through Expenditures under the OSA and subject to the
same payment terms and requirements thereof, including the 3-
month pre-funding requirement.
Utility 2.0 Compensation: The Payment Schedule will be based upon: a rate equal to
$/kw-year peak demand savings and $/kWh energy usage
savings; the savings associated with the Program on a
predetermined basis; and a term equal to the expected life of the


C-2

Program equipment.
To the extent that the return on Service Providers Utility 2.0
Capital Expenditure in a Program, as determined above, exceeds
[___] percent on an annual basis, such excess return amounts
shall be shared between Service Provider and LIPAs retail and
commercial customers. This sharing shall be appropriately
reflected in the Payment Schedule.
The Utility 2.0 Compensation monthly payment amount due
Service Provider, in accordance with the above, shall otherwise
be subject to the same payment terms and requirements (other
than those relating to the calculation thereof) as the annual fixed
component of the Management Service Fee and such payments
shall be added to the monthly amount payable by LIPA pursuant
to Section 5.2(B)(2) of the OSA.
Cost Effectiveness Test: To be eligible for investment by Service Provider the Program
must meet the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test.
Repayment Upon Termination: In the event of termination of the OSA pursuant to Section 8.2,
8.4 or 8.5 of the OSA, in addition to any amounts otherwise
payable by LIPA to the Servicer Provider under the OSA, the
Service Provider shall be entitled to repayment from LIPA of
the discounted cash flows associated with the compensation that
remains unreimbursed by LIPA at the time of the termination of
the OSA.
Three Year Rate Plan: The Service Provider and LIPA shall agree upon the Utility 2.0
O&M Budget and include it in each of the preliminary
Consolidated LIPA Budget to be prepared pursuant to Section
5.2(B)(2) of the OSA, the preliminary Three Year Rate Plan to
be prepared pursuant to Section 6.2(B) of the OSA, the Three
Year Rate Plan to be submitted to the DPS pursuant to Section
6.2(D) of the OSA and the final Consolidated LIPA Budget to
be agreed upon pursuant to Section 6.2(E) of the OSA, in each
case in accordance with the requirements and processes, and
subject to the obligations and dispute resolution provisions, set
forth in the OSA applicable to a O&M Budget.
The compensation payments from LIPA to Service Provider will
commence contemporaneously with the effectiveness of the
rates to be implemented in accordance with the rate case to be
filed by February 1, 2015.




C-3

Savings Driven Investment Recovery Model
Illustrative Payment Details
Proposed Avoided Costs
Savings are calculated as the total avoided capacity and energy costs applied to deemed
savings over estimated useful life of underlying equipment. Also includes the net present value
of any transmission and distribution capital expense deferral, as applicable.
Year Capacity ($/kW-yr) Energy ($/kWh)
2015 $301.24 $0.038
2016 $303.53 $0.043
2017 $305.88 $0.046
2018 $308.31 $0.050
2019 $310.79 $0.054
2020 $313.35 $0.058
2021 $315.98 $0.060
2022 $318.69 $0.061
2023 $321.47 $0.064
2024 $324.33 $0.065
2025 $327.27 $0.067
2026 $330.29 $0.069
Note: Benchmark prices are based on a LIPA study of costs for CCGT procurement on Long Island. Prices above represent 10%
discount to existing energy efficiency and renewable energy program benchmark

Proposed Shared Savings
To the extent that the implied return exceeds thresholds below, the excess return will be shared
accordingly.
ROI Customer PSEG LI
Between 8.0% and 9.0% 50% 50%
Between 9.0% and 10.0% 80% 20%
>10.0% 100% 0%























333 Earle Ovington Blvd.
Suite 403
Uniondale, NY 11553
www.psegliny.com