ConEd queue records

Seven records tied to ConEd's Greenwood substation in Brooklyn all carry the exact same queue figure. Their reported headroom varies significantly though, and two of the seven show zero. A queue-to-capacity ratio only means something if both sides, the numerator and the denominator, describe the same level of the grid, the same kind of resource, and the same reporting period. If any of those are mismatched, the ratio is meaningless.

The queue isn't a value for any one feeder, rather it's for whatever asset those seven feeders share upstream, most likely a common transformer or bus at the substation. Distributed generation projects compete for room on that shared asset, and putting the same figure across every feeder row tied to it is a reasonable way to represent that. It would be a mistake to divide that number back down to the feeder level as if it’s describing feeder-specific pressure.

Any time a field is repeated identically across several records tied to one site, it should be clear what level of the grid produced that number. Feeders sharing a substation share more physical infrastructure than the capacity table lets on. The same logic that made Hollister's seven feeders addable in the first place is the same logic that makes Greenwood's shared queue non-divisible.

ConEd's own hosting capacity map covers installed and queued distributed generation. Reading that queue as new customer load instead of generation requires checking the field definition first. Generation, storage charging, and general load put different kinds of pressure on the same equipment. These capacity numbers cannot be swapped out for one another.

Across the ten sources I pulled for this article, covering close to 4,000 substation records, only ConEd provided queue figures. Everywhere else, the queue is not included. If a developer or consultant cares about a specific site, they would have to go back to the utility's other disclosures or call the utility.