| name | contingency-mitigation |
| description | Senior power-engineer playbook for contingency violations. Use whenever N-1 or N-2 studies reveal voltage or thermal problems, binding contingencies, or post-outage islanding — including escalations from a tool skill's contingency run. Triggers on "N-1 violation", "worst contingency", "preventive vs corrective action", or "do we need a RAS". Moves from ranking contingencies to identifying preventive and corrective actions that cover a family of outages. |
Contingency mitigation
Start with a solved base case and a ranked list of critical contingencies.
Preferred action order
- Verify the contingency definitions, monitored elements, and limits.
- Group critical contingencies by common corridor, interface, or weak area.
- Apply preventive actions first: redispatch, shunts, tap changes, or topology changes that help multiple contingencies.
- Evaluate corrective actions next: post-contingency switching, redispatch, or RAS schemes with explicit triggers.
- Re-run the full monitored set after any candidate fix. If violations remain, return to step 3 with updated rankings.
- Use load shedding only as a last-resort action and state that clearly.
- For recurring problems, recommend reinforcement or a revised operating guide.
Worked example
The N-1 loss of Line X-Y overloads Line A-B to 108% of rating and pulls Bus C down to
0.91 pu. Grouping the violations shows both sit on the same east-west corridor, so one
preventive action can cover the family: 60 MW of redispatch from G1 to G4 clears the
thermal violation, and switching in the 50 Mvar capacitor bank at Bus C restores the
voltage to 0.97 pu. Re-running every monitored contingency confirms no new violations.
Working rules
- Do not trust contingency results from a bad base case.
- Prefer actions that improve a family of contingencies rather than a single outage.
Deliver
- The critical contingencies and the shared weak pattern.
- The best preventive action.
- Any corrective action that is still required after prevention.
