NERC Compliance Questionnaire and Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Confidential NonPublic, Do Not Distribute
Compliance Questionnaire and
Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
MOD-030-3 — Flowgate Methodology
Registered Entity:«EntityName»
NCR Number:«NCRID»
Applicable Function(s):
Each TOP that uses the Flowgate Methodology to support the calculation of Available Flowgate Capabilities (AFCs) on Flowgates.
Each TSP that uses the Flowgate Methodology to calculate AFCs Flowgate.
Auditors: «ATLName» (Audit Team Leader)
Disclaimer
NERC developed this Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet (RSAW) language in order to facilitate NERC’s and the Regional Entities’ assessment of a registered entity’s compliance with this Reliability Standard. The NERC RSAW language is written to specific versions of each NERC Reliability Standard. Entities using this RSAW should choose the version of the RSAW applicable to the Reliability Standard being assessed. While the information included in this RSAW provides some of the methodology that NERC has elected to use to assess compliance with the requirements of the Reliability Standard, this document should not be treated as a substitute for the Reliability Standard or viewed as additional Reliability Standard requirements. In all cases, the Regional Entity should rely on the language contained in the Reliability Standard itself, and not on the language contained in this RSAW, to determine compliance with the Reliability Standard. NERC’s Reliability Standards can be found on NERC’s website at Additionally, NERC Reliability Standards are updated frequently, and this RSAW may not necessarily be updated with the same frequency. Therefore, it is imperative that entities treat this RSAW as a reference document only, and not as a substitute or replacement for the Reliability Standard. It is the responsibility of the registered entity to verify its compliance with the latest approved version of the Reliability Standards, by the applicable governmental authority, relevant to its registration status.
The NERC RSAW language contained within this document provides a nonexclusive list, for informational purposesonly, of examples of the types of evidence a registered entity may produce or may be asked to produce to demonstrate compliance with the Reliability Standard. A registered entity’s adherence to theexamples contained within this RSAW does not necessarily constitute compliance with the applicable Reliability Standard, and NERC and the Regional Entity using this RSAW reserves the right to request additional evidence from the registered entity that is not included in this RSAW. Additionally, this RSAW includes excerpts from FERC Orders and other regulatory references. The FERC Order cites are provided for ease of reference only, and this document does not necessarily include all applicable Order provisions. In the event of a discrepancy between FERC Orders, and the language included in this document, FERC Orders shall prevail.
Subject Matter Experts
Identify your company’s subject matter expert(s) responsible for this Reliability Standard. Include the person's title, organization and the requirement(s) for which they are responsible. Insert additional lines if necessary.
Response: (Registered Entity Response Required)
SME Name / Title / Organization / RequirementReliability Standard Language
MOD-030-3 — Flowgate Methodology
Purpose:
To increase consistency and reliability in the development and documentation of transfer capability calculations for short-term use performed by entities using the Flowgate Methodology to support analysis and system operations.
Applicability:
4. Applicability:
4.1.1 Each Transmission Operator that uses the Flowgate Methodology to support the calculation of Available Flowgate Capabilities (AFCs) on Flowgates.
4.1.2 Each Transmission Service Provider that uses the Flowgate Methodology to calculate AFCs on Flowgates.
BA / DP / GO / GOP / IA / LSE / PA / PSE / RC / RP / RSG / TO / TOP / TP / TSPR1 / X
R2 / X
R3 / X
R4 / X
R5 / X
R6 / X
R7 / X
R8 / X
R9 / X
R10 / X
R11 / X
NERC BOT Approval Date: 11/13/2014
FERC Approval Date: 11/19/2015
Reliability Standard Enforcement Date in the United States: 4/01/2011
Questions: As a TOP, do you use the Flowgate Methodology to support the calculation of AFCs on Flowgates? As a TSP, do you use the Flowgate Methodology to calculate AFCs Flowgates?
☐ Yes ☐ No
If Yes, this Standard applies
If No, this Standard does not apply
EntityResponse: (Registered Entity Response Required)
Requirements:
R1. The Transmission Service Provider shall include in its “Available Transfer Capability Implementation Document” (ATCID):
R1.1.The criteria used by the Transmission Operator to identify sets of Transmission Facilities as Flowgates that are to be considered in Available Flowgate Capability (AFC) calculations.
R1.2.The following information on how source and sink for transmission service is accounted for in AFC calculations including:
R1.2.1.Define if the source used for AFC calculations is obtained from the source field or the Point of Receipt (POR) field of the transmission reservation.
R1.2.2.Define if the sink used for AFC calculations is obtained from the sink field or the Point of Delivery (POD) field of the transmission reservation.
R1.2.3.The source/sink or POR/POD identification and mapping to the model.
R1.2.4.If the Transmission Service Provider’s AFC calculation process involves a grouping of generators, the ATCID must identify how these generators participate in the group.
M1.Each Transmission Service Provider shall provide its ATCID and other evidence (such aswritten documentation) to show that its ATCID contains the criteria used by the TransmissionOperator to identify sets of Transmission Facilities as Flowgates and information on howsources and sinks are accounted for in AFC calculations. (R1)
Describe, in narrative form, how you meet compliance with this requirement: (Registered Entity Response Required)
R1 Supporting Evidence and Documentation
Response: (Registered Entity Response Required)
Provide the following:Document Title and/or File Name, Page & Section, Date & Version
Title / Date / Version
Audit Team: Additional Evidence Reviewed:
This section must be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority
Compliance Assessment Approach Specific to MOD-030-3 R1
___Verify the TSP included the following in its ATCID:
___The criteria used by the TOP to identify sets of Transmission Facilities as Flowgates that
are to be considered in AFC calculations.
___Information identifying how source and sink for transmission service is accounted for in
AFC calculations including:
___If the source used for AFC calculation is obtained from the:
___Source field of the transmission reservation
Or
___POR field of the transmission reservation
___If the sink used for AFC calculation is obtained from the:
___Sink field of the transmission reservation
Or
___POD field of the transmission reservation
___The source/sink or POR/POD identification and mapping to the model
___Does the TSP’s AFC calculation process involve a grouping of generation?
If Yes
___Verify the ATCID identifies how the generators participate in the group.
Detailed notes:
R1 Notes Summary RSAW Box
The Notes Summary for ReportR2. The Transmission Operator shall perform the following:
R2.1.Include Flowgates used in the AFC process based, at a minimum, on the following criteria:
R2.1.1. Results of a first Contingency transfer analysis for ATC Paths internal to a Transmission Operator’s system up to the path capability such that at a minimum the first three limiting Elements and their worst associated Contingency combinations with an OTDF of at least 5% and within the Transmission Operator’s system are included as Flowgates.
2.1.1.1. Use first Contingency criteria consistent with those first Contingency criteria used in planning of operations for the applicable time periods, including use of Remedial Action Schemes.
2.1.1.2. Only the most limiting element in a series configuration needs to be included as a Flowgate.
2.1.1.3. If any limiting element is kept within its limit for its associated worst Contingency by operating within the limits of another Flowgate, then no new Flowgate needs to be established for such limiting elements or Contingencies.
R2.1.2.Results of a first Contingency transfer analysis from all adjacent Balancing Authority source and sink (as defined in the ATCID) combinations up to the path capability such that at a minimum the first three limiting Elements and their worst associated Contingency combinations with an Outage Transfer Distribution Factor (OTDF) of at least 5% and within the Transmission Operator’s system are included as Flowgates unless the interface between such adjacent Balancing Authorities is accounted for using another ATC methodology.
2.1.2.1. Use first Contingency criteria consistent with those first Contingency criteria used in planning of operations for the applicable time periods, including use of Remedial Action Schemes.
2.1.2.2. Only the most limiting element in a series configuration needs to be included as a Flowgate.
2.1.2.3. If any limiting element is kept within its limit for its associated worst Contingency by operating within the limits of another Flowgate, then no new Flowgate needs to be established for such limiting elements or Contingencies.
R2.1.3.Any limiting Element/Contingency combination at least within its Reliability Coordinator’s Area that has been subjected to an Interconnection-wide congestion management procedure within the last 12 months, unless the limiting Element/Contingency combination is accounted for using another ATC methodology or was created to address temporary operating conditions.
R2.1.4.Any limiting Element/Contingency combination within the Transmission model that has been requested to be included by any other Transmission Service Provider using the Flowgate Methodology or Area Interchange Methodology, where:
2.1.4.1. The coordination of the limiting Element/Contingency combination is not already addressed through a different methodology, and
-Any generator within the Transmission Service Provider’s area has at least a 5% Power Transfer Distribution Factor (PTDF) or Outage Transfer Distribution Factor (OTDF) impact on the Flowgate when delivered to the aggregate load of its own area, or
-A transfer from any Balancing Area within the Transmission Service Provider’s area to a Balancing Area adjacent has at least a 5% PTDF or OTDF impact on the Flowgate.
-The Transmission Operator may utilize distribution factors less than 5% if desired.
2.1.4.2. The limiting Element/Contingency combination is included in the requesting Transmission Service Provider’s methodology.
R2.2.At a minimum, establish a list of Flowgates by creating, modifying, or deleting Flowgate definitions at least once per calendar year.
R2.3.At a minimum, establish a list of Flowgates by creating, modifying, or deleting Flowgates that have been requested as part of R2.1.4 within thirty calendar days from the request.
R2.4.Establish the TFC of each of the defined Flowgates as equal to:
-For thermal limits, the System Operating Limit (SOL) of the Flowgate.
-For voltage or stability limits, the flow that will respect the SOL of the Flowgate.
R2.5.At a minimum, establish the TFC once per calendar year.
R2.5.1.If notified of a change in the Rating by the Transmission Owner that would affect the TFC of a flowgate used in the AFC process, the TFC should be updated within seven calendar days of the notification.
R2.6.Provide the Transmission Service Provider with the TFCs within seven calendar days of their establishment.
M2.The Transmission Operator shall provide evidence (such as studies and working papers) thatall Flowgates that meet the criteria described in R2.1 are considered in its AFC calculations.(R2.1)
M3.The Transmission Operator shall provide evidence (such as logs) that it updated its list ofFlowgates at least once per calendar year. (R2.2)
M4.The Transmission Operator shall provide evidence (such as logs and dated requests) that itupdated the list of Flowgates within thirty calendar days from a request. (R2.3)
M5. The Transmission Operator shall provide evidence (such as data or models) that it determinedthe TFC for each Flowgate as defined in R2.4. (R2.4)
M6.The Transmission Operator shall provide evidence (such as logs) that it established the TFCsfor each Flowgate in accordance with the timing defined in R2.5. (R2.5)
M7.The Transmission Operator shall provide evidence (such as logs and electroniccommunication) that it provided the Transmission Service Provider with updated TFCswithin seven calendar days of their determination. (R2.6)
Describe, in narrative form, how you meet compliance with this requirement: (Registered Entity Response Required)
R2 Supporting Evidence and Documentation
Response: (Registered Entity Response Required)
Provide the following:Document Title and/or File Name, Page & Section, Date & Version
Title / Date / Version
Audit Team: Additional Evidence Reviewed:
This section must be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority
Compliance Assessment Approach Specific to MOD-030-3 R2
___Verify the TOP performed the following:
___Inclusion of Flowgates used in the AFC process based, at a minimum, on the following
criteria:
___Flowgates are included as results of first Contingency transfer analysis for ATC Paths
internal to a TOP’s system up to the path capability includes at a minimum:
___The first three limiting Elements
___Their worst associated Contingency combinations with an OTDF of at least 5%
___The TOP used first Contingency criteria consistent with those first Contingency
criteria used in planning of operations
___Including RAS
___The TOP used only the most limiting elements in a series configuration
Note: If any limiting element is kept within its limit for its associated worst Contingency by operating within the limits of another Flowgate, then no new Flowgate needs to be established for such limiting elements or Contingencies.
___Flowgates are included as results of first Contingency transfer analysis from all
adjacent BA source and sink combinations up to the path capability includes at a
minimum:
___The first three limiting Elements
___Their worst associated Contingency combinations with an OTDF of at least 5%
___The TOP used first Contingency criteria consistent with those first Contingency
criteria used in planning of operations
___Including RAS
___The TOP used only the most limiting elements in a series configuration
Note: If any limiting element is kept within its limit for its associated worst Contingency by operating within the limits of another Flowgate, then no new Flowgate needs to be established for such limiting elements or Contingencies.
___Any limiting Element/Contingency combination at least within its RC’s Area that has been
subjected to an Interconnection-wide congestion management procedure within the last 12 months, unless:
___The limiting Element/Contingency combination is accounted for using another ATC
methodology
or
___Was created to address temporary operating conditions.
___Any limiting Element/Contingency combination within the Transmission model that has been requested to be included by any other Transmission Service Provider using the Flowgate Methodology or Area Interchange Methodology, where:
___The coordination of the limiting Element/Contingency combination is not already
addressed through a different methodology, and:
___Any generator within the TSP’s area has at least a 5% PTDF or OTDF impact on the Flowgate when delivered to the aggregate load of its own area,
or
___A transfer from any BA within the TSP’s area to a BA adjacent has at least a 5%
PTDF or OTDF impact on the Flowgate.
___The TOP may utilize distribution factors less than 5% if desired.
___The limiting Element/Contingency combination is included in the requesting TSP’s
methodology.
___Established a list of Flowgates by creating, modifying or deleting Flowgate definitions at least
once per calendar year at a minimum.
___Established a list of Flowgates by creating, modifying, or deleting Flowgates that have been
requested as a part of R2.1.4 within thirty calendar days from the request at a minimum.
___Established the TFC of each of the defined Flowgates as equal to:
___The SOL for thermal limits of the Flowgate
___The flow that will respect the SOLs for voltage or stability limits of the Flowgate
___Established the TFC at a minimum once per calendar year unless:
___The TFC was updated within seven calendar days of the notification of a change in the
Rating by the TO that would affect the TFC of a Flowgate
___The TSP was provided with TFCs within seven calendar days of their establishment.
Detailed notes:
R2 Notes Summary RSAW Box
The Notes Summary for ReportR3. The Transmission Operator shall make available to the Transmission Service Provider a Transmission model to determine Available Flowgate Capability (AFC) that meets the following criteria:
R3.1.Contains generation Facility Ratings, such as generation maximum and minimum output levels, specified by the Generator Owners of the Facilities within the model.
R3.2.Updated at least once per day for AFC calculations for intra-day, next day, and days two through 30.
R3.3.Updated at least once per month for AFC calculations for months two through 13.
R3.4.Contains modeling data and system topology for the Facilities within its Reliability Coordinator’s Area. Equivalent representation of radial lines and Facilities161kV or below is allowed.
R3.5.Contains modeling data and system topology (or equivalent representation) for immediately adjacent and beyond Reliability Coordination Areas.
M8. The Transmission Operator shall provide evidence (such as written documentation, logs, models, and data) that the Transmission model used to determine AFCs contains the information specified in R3. (R3)
Describe, in narrative form, how you meet compliance with this requirement: (Registered Entity Response Required)
R3 Supporting Evidence and Documentation
Response: (Registered Entity Response Required)
Provide the following:Document Title and/or File Name, Page & Section, Date & Version
Title / Date / Version
Audit Team: Additional Evidence Reviewed:
This section must be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority
Compliance Assessment Approach Specific to MOD-030-3 R3
___Verify the TOP made available to the TSP a Transmission model to determine AFC that meets
the following criteria:
___Generation Facility Ratings
___Updated once per day for AFC calculations for intra-day, next day and days two through
30
___Updated at least once per month for AFC calculations for months two through 13
___Contains modeling data and system topology for the Facilities within its RC area.
___Contains modeling data and system topology for immediately adjacent and beyond RC
areas.
Detailed notes:
R3 Notes Summary RSAW Box
The Notes Summary for ReportR4. When calculating AFCs, the Transmission Service Provider shall represent the impact of Transmission Service as follows:
-If the source, as specified in the ATCID, has been identified in the reservation and it is discretely modeled in the Transmission Service Provider’s Transmission model, use the discretely modeled point as the source.