And even if it’s defined as an N-2 rather than N-1, could always just adjust the planning manual to require mitigations for P7 cont if they don’t already (i.e., rather than change cont definitions, change which cont require mitigations)

I will say, I’ve seen several ISOs and utilities situationally define the loss of a double circuit line as an N-1 cont (common tower) in planning studies (though not in ops) even though technically a common structure is a P7 so I think this is somewhat dependent on region/engineering judgement

easily the worst 😂

Fwiw energy twitter also does not have the juice anymore. It’s so low signal it’s hard to justify even engaging anymore

Yep. And to be fair, I think some of their comments make good points. But also think that some of them miss the mark and would like to see some sort of analysis that explains their position

Maybe they should share that “analysis” then? Have heard them bring up the issue in several meeting and have read their comments but haven’t seen it backed up by much in-depth analysis

Which again is different than what you said lol

Eh, no not really.

And the real point that you’re making here (or should be) is that capacity markets as currently constructed are nonsensical and certainly will need to be reformed

That doesn’t equate to your meme.

And thermal resources are not 100% reliable, which is why you see that dynamic (obviously)

None of NERC’s modeling shows that renewables need 100% backup. Neither does MISO’s RIIA which you do frequently love to site.

Hard to speak in hypotheticals but doubt you’d need the same amount of duplicative cap. After all, this problem is the exact reason the grid was built in the first place. Did you happen to see my tweet ;)

That point was purely to point out that additional transmission capacity actually helps bring new gen online and has compounding effects

The last sentence there misses the mark for me, new Tx has the compounding effect of enabling additional generation. Even firm gen can’t get through an IX queue rn

The BA does not have control over the procurement of gas unless it is a utility that owns their own generation (so not applicable in the RTO regions for sure)

No one here is saying transmission will perform at 100% of nameplate all the time - just like generation doesn’t. But that is diff than saying it has zero reliability value. I suppose along this same vein you think nat gas has zero reliability value without firm gas contracts right?

I didn’t respond to that because that’s not a good indication that interregional lines have ~zero~ reliability value. It’s just an example of a case where they aren’t given winter accreditation (which may even be the right choice in that case, it’s very situational)

Yeah those points are obviously distinct. But I was responding to your assertion that cat is someone who knows what they’re talking about, which I don’t agree with (or maybe they’re are an industry participant and are just bad at it lol)

Electric cat didn’t even know there was a difference between MISO’s current LRTP projects and the prior MVP projects so yeah I’d take their opinion with a grain of salt