During the June 22, 2021 Planning Subcommittee (PSC) meeting, MISO discussed proposed language changes to BPM-020 for Default Methodology for Selecting TPL P5 Contingencies. Stakeholder feedback is requested on the posted redlines.
Please provide feedback by July 23.
FEEDBACK #1
Proposed Section 4.3.4.2.1:
but to the extent the Transmission Planner selects their own methodology, the MISO role will be limited to simply implementing the TPL P5 contingencies provides to MISO by the Transmission Planner
Proposed Appendix A
MISO as the Planning Coordinator (PC) and/or the applicable Transmission Planner (TP) may add TPL P5 dynamic contingencies to the list above to be evaluated in the TPL Planning Assessments based on specific case-by-case considerations
The Appendix A language is in conflict with Section 4.3.2.2.1 language. Suggest either
FEEDBACK #2
Proposed Appendix A
Step 1: If the Transmission Planner has verified that a specific transmission facility has no protection system single-points of failure or has a documented corrective action plan to resolve the single-point of failure, then no P5 contingency is required for that transmission facility.
The highlighted language should be added to allow self-declared SPF CAPs or eliminate unnecessary analysis and supporting documentation when the SPF is going to be eliminated.
FEEDBACK #3
The applicable entities noted in MOD-032 R2 should be the responsible entities to submit contingency files to MISO resulting from protection system single-point of failure. Requiring TPs to develop and submit the contingency files puts an undue burden on the TP as they might not be the Transmission Owner (TO) or the Generator Owner (GO), In these cases the TP would not be able to produce a contingency file unless provide by the TO or GO. There is no MISO Tariff or BPM language that requires TOs or GOs to supply TPs with contingency files. MOD-032 documentation should require protection system owners, i.e. TOs and GOs to identify single-point of failure locations, develop and supply contingency files to MISO and not the TPs.
Can MISO provide a naming convention for P5 contingencies with each type of SPF as defined in Footnote 13?
MRES would like more clarity on whether Transmission Planners (TPs) will be required to submit contingencies for all categories of contingencies P1-P7 or just P5 contingencies.
However, MRES does agree with MISO in their interpretation that TPs should be the responsible entity for submitting contingency event files for either steady state or stability contingencies. MRES believes that the applicable entities noted in MOD-032 R2 should be the responsible entities to submit contingency files to MISO. Requiring TPs to submit the contingency files puts an undue burden on the TP as they might not be the Transmission Owner (TO) or the Generator Owner (GO) and in those cases the TP would not be able to produce a contingency file unless provide by the TO or GO. There is no MISO Tariff language that requires TOs or GOs to supply TPs with contingency files, which could cause the TP to be non-compliant with BPM-20. MRES believes the entities noted in MOD-032 R2 should supply contingency files to MISO and not the TPs.