MISO Transmission Planning BPM 020 Updates February 16, 2016
Purpose Present final updated BPM 20 language Objectives for Today Purpose and Objectives Briefly discuss posted stakeholder comments and MISO responses Present updated BPM language based on stakeholder comments 2
Stakeholder Comments and MISO Responses MISO received four sets of additional comments which are posted for review. Stakeholder comments are categorized as follows: Substantive comments on proposed BPM language modifications Non-substantive and editorial comments across the entire BPM Correction of errors across the entire BPM The MISO approach to addressing comments was as follows: Substantive comments are addressed on the next two slides. For non-substantive editorial and error correction comments, MISO made the change. 3
Substantive Stakeholder Comments and MISO Responses STAKEHOLDER COMMENT MISO RESPONSE The Transmission Owner sector proposed to incorporate some additional language in the BPM to better codify the use of Transmission Owner s local transmission planning criteria. Planning for a maintenance outage followed by a NERC category P1 contingency undermines the value of outage coordination and the use of other options (e.g., operating guides). Enacting a criteria that will justify redundant investments is unnecessary and financially imprudent. MISO agrees with the additional language and has inserted it into the draft BPM 20 language. MISO continues to believe it is important to plan for maintenance outages in off peak planning cases to ensure the system is designed with sufficient flexibility and robustness to provide options to outage coordination for allowing for planned maintenance. That is, if the system is not planned to account for maintenance outages during periods when maintenance is typically performed (i.e., off peak periods), then there may not be sufficient capability in the system to allow the outage coordination function to approve the outages necessary to perform all of the maintenance. Therefore, MISO has made no revisions to the draft BPM language 4
Substantive Stakeholder Comments and MISO Responses STAKEHOLDER COMMENT MISO RESPONSE Should MISO specify a default out of step angle criterion in Appendix K to determine when a generator pulls out of synchronism? Appendix K defines the MISO default criteria used to define acceptable steady state operation and acceptable stability. Appendix K does not document simulation methodologies such as how generator or line trips are simulated. MISO currently uses the PRC 24 capability curves and actual relay settings to determine generator trips during dynamic events. However, this is a simulation methodology, not a stability criterion. MISO will respect and enforce out of step angle criteria established by individual Transmission Owners within their respective areas, but does not currently use this as a default criteria to define acceptable stability. Therefore, MISO has made not further changes to the draft BPM language. 5
BPM Language Revisions MISO has posted the final version of the draft BPM 020 language including revisions based on the last round of stakeholder comments. The document is redlined against the clean version of the draft BPM 020 language presented to the PSC in December so that stakeholders can easily determine the incremental changes made since December. The goal of this process is to incorporate all of the proposed BPM 020 changes into the next annual review of BPM 020 in late Spring. 6
Next Steps MISO will present the final version of the draft BPM 20 language as posted today to the PAC in March and ask for written feedback from the PAC. 7
Contact Information Matthew H. (Matt) Tackett mtackett@misoenergy.org 8