Author: Keyur Patil
MISO IBR Modeling Requirements Workshop Update: BPM-015 Appendix I Guidance for DPP-2025+ (March 19, 2026)
This summary explains the MISO IBR workshop on BPM-015 Appendix I: IBR Modeling Requirements, presented on March 19, 2026. The MISO IBR workshop was intended to guide interconnection customers on how to comply with the new modeling requirements for DPP-2025 and later projects, clarify previously submitted stakeholder questions, and note a few corrections to the written Appendix I requirements.
Purpose and Key Takeaways
The primary purpose of the workshop was to explain how developers should meet the new IBR modeling and testing requirements under BPM-015 Appendix I. MISO emphasized that the workshop provides guidance only, and that full compliance must still be based on BPM-15 revision 32, Appendix I. The presentation also clarified that corrections and interpretations were being provided for certain testing assumptions and submission expectations.
Dynamic Model Package Submission Process
MISO outlined a staged submission process for dynamic model packages. At application submission, during DPP study phases, before GIA signing, and before COD as-built submission, developers must provide a progressively complete package of models and reports. Required materials include the generic model, TSAT UDM, PSCAD model, MQT results and benchmark report, and later also a PSS®E UDM plus initial and final parameter verification reports. For DPP-2025 projects, the initial model package is due by June 1, 2026, and a missed deadline results in a deficiency with a 10-day cure period.
Applicability of the New Requirements
The requirements apply to DPP-2025 projects, DPP-2026 and later projects, and certain surplus, replacement, and facility modification review requests. For DPP-2026+ projects that already have a J-number, the package is due before the application window closes; otherwise it must be submitted with the application for it to be considered complete. Facility modification requests in DPP-2025 or later are also covered, with DPP-2025 modifications only needing compliance if the request is made after June 1, 2026.
Model Package Requirements
For DPP-2025 projects, the model package must include a PSS®E-formatted generic model (v35+), a TSAT-compatible UDM (v25+), a PSCAD model (v5.0.0+), passing Model Quality Test results, a benchmark report, and the supporting documentation identified in Appendix I Section I-4. MISO also highlighted that OEM attestations are required to confirm the models represent the planned or installed equipment, and that the models must be validated using evidence such as type tests, factory acceptance tests, or hardware-in-the-loop tests. Documentation must clearly explain the applicability, usage, and capability of each model set.
Review Process After Submission
Once submitted, MISO reviews the dynamic model package for completeness and has 15 days to either validate it or identify deficiencies. The submitted packages will be made available to transmission owners during stability model building, consistent with current model-sharing practice. MISO also stated that it will decide which models are ultimately used in the stability study analysis, based on benchmark reports and optional TO input, and that the selected model may vary by phase depending on study needs.
Model Quality Testing (MQT) Framework
The workshop detailed the required Model Quality Tests, which include: initialization, balanced fault ride-through, small voltage disturbance, small frequency disturbance, high-voltage ride-through, low-voltage ride-through, high-frequency ride-through, low-frequency ride-through, protection verification, short circuit ratio tests, and phase angle tests for PSCAD only. MISO noted that it does not currently provide test kits or templates, but a future MQT tool is expected to standardize testing and reporting.
Test Setup and Initial Conditions
MISO explained that testing is based on a Single-Machine-Infinite-Bus (SMIB) setup. Initial assumptions generally use SCR = 3 and X/R = 5, while GIA and COD stage testing will use site-specific SCR and X/R values supplied by MISO or the transmission owner. Test durations are 30 seconds, and signal profiles are specified where applicable. For plant dispatch conditions, Pmax is defined as the unit output needed to achieve the requested service level at the POI, while Pmin for hybrid resources means only storage should be dispatched. MISO also clarified that for non-storage IBRs, when Qmin is specified in tests, reactive power should be dispatched at 0, despite potentially confusing wording in the appendix.
Testing Clarifications and Corrections
The workshop included several important clarifications. MISO stated that the specified SCR may be ignored for the Small Voltage Disturbance, High Voltage Ride-Through, and Low Voltage Ride-Through tests. It also clarified that padmount tap ratios should remain consistent from one test to another. For the Small Voltage Disturbance test, the voltage profile is intended to be the applied grid source voltage signal, and the plant is expected to resist changes at the POM through reactive power response. For the Small Frequency Disturbance test, MISO corrected the appendix by stating that the initial condition should be 1.0 p.u., and that both Figure 1(a) and 1(b) frequency profiles must be applied for each test.
Figure 1: Frequency Profile at the POM for the SFD tests
Grid-Forming BESS Clarification
MISO clarified that stand-alone BESS with grid-forming controls must meet both the requirements of BPM-15 Section 5.3.7 and the Appendix I tests. In other words, passing the Electranix GFM tests alone is not enough; a stand-alone GFM BESS is still considered an IBR and must also satisfy the broader Appendix I requirements.
Test Report and Benchmarking Expectations
Developers are expected to provide a table summary of results for each test, and all models are expected to pass all applicable tests. MISO noted that exact responses may differ somewhat from model to model, but the comparison must still be documented. Benchmarking plots must place voltage, frequency, active power, and reactive power at the POM on the same plots for all models. Where major discrepancies exist, they must be clearly explained and justified, such as when a control function is unavailable in a generic model and causes behavior to diverge from UDM or EMT results.
Looking Forward
MISO stated that it has selected a vendor for a future MQT/Benchmarking Tool, which is expected to be implemented in Fall 2026. This tool is intended to reduce the need for interconnection customers to manually set up tests and prepare reports. MISO also indicated that this future implementation may require updates to file formatting and naming conventions, and that additional training and guidance will be provided. MISO also expects further consolidation of GFM testing requirements with Appendix I over time.
