Implementation of Dynamic Line Ratings, 10349-10354 [2022-03911]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2022 / Notices
10349
TABLE 1—FEDERAL STUDENT AID APPLICATION COMPONENTS—Continued
Component
Description
Submission method
Electronic Other ...............................
This is a submission done by an FAA, on behalf of the applicant, using the Electronic
Data Exchange (EDE).
Printed FAFSA .................................
The printed version of the PDF FAFSA for applicants who are unable to access the Internet or complete the form using fafsa.gov or the myStudentAid mobile app.
The FAA may be using their mainframe computer or software to facilitate the EDE process.
Mailed by the applicant.
Correcting Submitted FAFSA Information and Reviewing FAFSA Information
fafsa.gov—Corrections ....................
Electronic Other—Corrections .........
Paper SAR—This is a SAR and an
option for corrections.
FAA Access—Corrections ...............
Internal Department Corrections .....
Federal Student Aid Information
Center (FSAIC) Corrections.
SAR Electronic (eSAR) ....................
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
SAR Acknowledgement ...................
Any applicant who has a Federal Student Aid ID (FSA ID)—regardless of how they originally applied—may make corrections.
With the applicant’s permission, corrections can be made by an FAA using the EDE .......
The full paper summary that is mailed to paper applicants who did not provide an e-mail
address and to applicants whose records were rejected due to critical errors during
processing. Applicants can write corrections directly on the paper SAR and mail for
processing.
An institution can use FAA Access to correct the FAFSA form ...........................................
The Department will submit an applicant’s record for system-generated corrections to the
Central Processing System. There is no burden to the applicants under this correction
type as these are system-based corrections.
Any applicant, with their Data Release Number (DRN), can change the postsecondary institutions listed on their FAFSA form or change their address by calling FSAIC.
The eSAR is an online version of the SAR that is available on fafsa.gov to all applicants
with an FSA ID. Notification for the eSAR is sent to students who applied electronically
or by paper and provided a valid e-mail address. These notifications are sent by e-mail
and include a secure hyperlink that takes the user to the fafsa.gov site.
The SAR Acknowledgement is a condensed paper SAR that is mailed to applicants who
applied electronically but did not provide a valid e-mail address.
This information collection also
documents an estimate of the annual
public burden as it relates to the
application process for federal student
aid. The Applicant Burden Model
(ABM) measures applicant burden
through an assessment of the activities
each applicant conducts in conjunction
with other applicant characteristics and,
in terms of burden, the average
applicant’s experience. Key
determinants of the ABM include:
• The total number of applicants that
will potentially apply for federal
student aid;
• How the applicant chooses to
complete and submit the FAFSA form
(e.g., by paper or electronically);
• How the applicant chooses to
submit any corrections and/or updates
(e.g., the paper SAR or electronically);
• The type of SAR document the
applicant receives (eSAR, SAR
acknowledgment, or paper SAR);
• The formula applied to determine
the applicant’s expected family
contribution (EFC) (full need analysis
formula, Simplified Needs Test or
Automatic Zero); and
• The average amount of time
involved in preparing to complete the
application.
The ABM is largely driven by the
number of potential applicants for the
application cycle. The total application
projection for 2023–2024 is based on the
projected total enrollment into postsecondary education for Fall 2023. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Feb 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
ABM is also based on the application
options available to students and
parents. ED accounts for each
application component based on
analytical tools, survey information and
other ED data sources.
For 2023–2024, ED is reporting a net
burden decrease of 3,466,325 hours.
Dated: February 17, 2022.
Kate Mullan,
PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and
Clearance, Governance and Strategy Division,
Office of Chief Data Officer, Office of
Planning, Evaluation and Policy
Development.
[FR Doc. 2022–03868 Filed 2–23–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. AD22–5–000]
Implementation of Dynamic Line
Ratings
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry.
AGENCY:
The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission)
seeks comment on whether and how the
required use of dynamic line ratings
(DLR) is needed to ensure just and
reasonable wholesale rates. The
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Submitted by the applicant.
The FAA may be using their mainframe computer or software to facilitate the EDE process.
Mailed by the applicant.
Submitted by an FAA on behalf of
an applicant.
These corrections are system-generated.
These changes are made directly
in the CPS by an FSAIC representative.
Cannot be submitted for processing.
Cannot be submitted for processing.
Commission further seeks comment on:
Whether the lack of DLR requirements
renders current wholesale rates unjust
and unreasonable; potential criteria for
DLR requirements; the benefits, costs,
and challenges of implementing DLRs;
the nature of potential DLR
requirements; and potential timeframes
for implementing DLR requirements.
DATES: Initial Comments are due April
25, 2022, and Reply Comments are due
May 25, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by
docket number, may be filed in the
following ways. Electronic filing
through https://www.ferc.gov is
preferred.
• Electronic Filing through https://
www.ferc.gov. Documents created
electronically using word processing
software must be filed in acceptable
native applications or print-to-PDF
format, but not in scanned or picture
format.
• Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable
to file electronically may mail
comments via the U.S. Postal Service to:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
Hand-delivered comments or comments
sent via any other carrier should be
delivered to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, MD 20852.
• Instructions: For detailed
instructions on submitting comments,
E:\FR\FM\24FEN1.SGM
24FEN1
10350
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2022 / Notices
see the Comment Procedures Section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel Kheloussi (Technical
Information), Office of Energy Policy
and Innovation, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–
6391, Daniel.Kheloussi@ferc.gov.
Ryan Stroschein (Legal Information),
Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 502–8099, Ryan.Stroschein@
ferc.gov.
In this
Notice of Inquiry (NOI), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) seeks comment on
whether and how the required use of
dynamic line ratings (DLR) 1 is needed
to ensure just and reasonable wholesale
rates. The Commission further seeks
comment on: Whether the lack of DLR
requirements renders current wholesale
rates 2 unjust and unreasonable;
potential criteria for DLR requirements;
the benefits, costs, and challenges of
implementing DLRs; the nature of
potential DLR requirements; and
potential timeframes for implementing
DLR requirements.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
1. On December 16, 2021, the
Commission issued Order No. 881 in
Docket No. RM20–16–000. In that order,
pursuant to section 206 of the Federal
Power Act (FPA), the Commission
revised the Commission’s pro forma
open access transmission tariff (OATT)
and the Commission’s regulations to
improve the accuracy and transparency
of electric transmission line ratings.3
Specifically, the Commission found that
the use of only seasonal and static
temperature assumptions in developing
transmission line ratings would result in
transmission line ratings that do not
accurately represent the transfer
capability of the transmission system.4
The Commission found that inaccurate
transmission line ratings result in unjust
1 A DLR is a transmission line rating that: ‘‘(1)
applies to a time period of not greater than one
hour; and (2) reflects up-to-date forecasts of inputs
such as (but not limited to) ambient air temperature,
wind, solar heating intensity, transmission line
tension, or transmission line sag.’’ Managing
Transmission Line Ratings, Order No. 881, Federal
Register, 87 FR 2244 (Jan. 13, 2022), 177 FERC
¶ 61,179, at P 7 (2021).
2 Consistent with Order No. 881, by ‘‘wholesale
rates,’’ we refer to both rates for the transmission
of electric energy in interstate commerce and rates
for the sale of electric energy at wholesale in
interstate commerce. Id. P 29.
3 Id. P 1.
4 Id. P 3.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Feb 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
and unreasonable Commissionjurisdictional rates.5
2. Accordingly, the Commission
required, among other things and with
limited exceptions: (1) Transmission
providers 6 to use ambient-adjusted
ratings (AARs) 7 as the basis for
evaluation of transmission service
requests that will end within 10 days of
the request and as the basis for their
determination of the necessity of certain
curtailment, interruption, or redispatch
of transmission service anticipated to
occur within those 10 days; (2)
transmission providers to use seasonal
line ratings as the basis for evaluation of
transmission service requests ending
more than 10 days from the date of the
request and as the basis for the
determination of the necessity of
curtailment, interruption, or redispatch
of transmission service that is
anticipated to occur more than 10 days
in the future; and (3) regional
transmission organizations and
independent system operators (RTOs/
ISOs) to establish and maintain the
systems and procedures necessary to
allow transmission owners in their
regions to electronically update
transmission line ratings on at least an
hourly basis (thereby enabling the RTO/
ISO to use DLRs from transmission
owners that voluntarily adopt them).8
3. While acknowledging in Order No.
881 that, in certain situations, using
transmission line ratings that are based
on factors beyond forecasted ambient air
temperatures and the presence or
absence of solar heating—such as
DLRs—may lead to greater accuracy of
transmission line ratings, the
Commission declined to mandate DLR
implementation based on the record in
that proceeding.9 Instead, the
Commission incorporated that record on
5 Id.
6 Consistent with Order No. 881, we use
transmission provider to mean any public utility
that owns, operates, or controls facilities used for
the transmission of electric energy in interstate
commerce. 18 CFR 37.3 (2021). Therefore, unless
otherwise noted, ‘‘transmission provider’’ refers
only to public utility transmission providers.
Furthermore, the term ‘‘public utility’’ as found in
section 201(e) of the FPA means ‘‘any person who
owns or operates facilities subject to the jurisdiction
of the Commission under this subchapter.’’ 16
U.S.C. 824(e).
7 An AAR is a transmission line rating that: ‘‘(1)
applies to a time period of not greater than one
hour; (2) reflects an up-to-date forecast of ambient
air temperature across the time period to which the
rating applies; (3) reflects the absence of solar
heating during nighttime periods where the local
sunrise/sunset times used to determine daytime and
nighttime periods are updated at least monthly, if
not more frequently; and (4) is calculated at least
each hour, if not more frequently.’’ Order No. 881,
177 FERC ¶ 61,179 at P 4.
8 Id. PP 4–9.
9 Id. PP 7–8, 36, 252.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DLRs into the instant proceeding,
Docket No. AD22–5–000, which the
Commission opened to further explore
DLR implementation.
4. The Commission explained that,
unlike AARs, DLRs are based not only
on forecasted ambient air temperatures
and the presence or absence of solar
heating, but also on other weather
conditions, such as wind, cloud cover,
solar heating intensity (instead of only
daytime/nighttime distinctions used in
AARs), and precipitation, and/or on
transmission line conditions such as
tension or sag.10 The Commission
agreed with commenters that
highlighted the benefits to DLR
implementation.11 For example, the
Commission agreed with the Exelon
Corporation (Exelon) that there may be
applications in which DLRs can provide
net benefits to customers, such as when
the limiting element for a transmission
facility experiencing significant
congestion is the conductor and
conditions besides ambient air
temperature have a consistent and
significant impact on the power carrying
capabilities of the line. The Commission
also acknowledged that the use of DLRs
generally allows for greater power flows
than would otherwise be allowed and
that their use can also detect situations
where power flows should be reduced
to maintain safe and reliable operation
and avoid unnecessary wear on
transmission equipment.12
5. Despite the benefits of DLR
implementation, the Commission
recognized that DLR implementation
also presents additional costs and
challenges not found in AAR
implementation, such as costs
associated with placement of sensors,
cybersecurity, and other costs.13 The
Commission found that the record in the
Order No. 881 proceeding, Docket No.
RM20–16–000, was not sufficient for it
to evaluate the relative benefits and
costs and challenges of DLR
implementation.14
II. Discussion
6. We are issuing this NOI to further
explore whether DLR implementation is
required to ensure just and reasonable
wholesale rates. We invite all interested
persons to submit comments and reply
comments on any or all of the questions
listed. Commenters need not answer all
the questions. Commenters should
organize responses consistent with the
structure of the attached questions.
10 Id.
11 Id.
P 7.
P 253.
12 Id.
13 Id.
P 254.
14 Id.
E:\FR\FM\24FEN1.SGM
24FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2022 / Notices
Commenters are also invited to
reference material previously filed,
including in Docket Nos. RM20–16–000
and AD19–15–000, but are encouraged
to avoid repetition or replication of
previous material. Initial comments
must be submitted on or before 60 days
after the date of publication of this NOI
in the Federal Register. Reply
comments must be submitted on or
before 90 days after the date of
publication of this NOI in the Federal
Register.
A. Questions on the Need for DLR
Requirements
7. In Order No. 881, the Commission
found that transmission line ratings
directly affect wholesale rates because
transmission line ratings and wholesale
rates are inextricably linked.15 It
explained that transmission line ratings
represent the maximum transfer
capability on a transmission line,
which, in turn, determines the quantity
of energy that can be transmitted from
suppliers to load. The Commission
explained that, all else equal, as transfer
capability declines, wholesale rates
increase. The Commission also observed
that inaccurate transmission line ratings
can result in underutilization (or
overutilization) of existing transmission
facilities, thereby sending a signal that
there is less (or more) transfer capability
than is truly available.16
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
(Q1) As a threshold matter, even for
transmission lines that incorporate AARs, is
there a need to further increase the accuracy
of transmission lines ratings through the
implementation of DLRs to ensure just and
reasonable wholesale rates? Why or why not?
If yes, please explain whether a requirement
by the Commission to adopt DLRs is needed.
(Q2) What, if any, barriers to DLR
implementation exist today? Are potential
requirements to implement DLRs necessary
to address these existing barriers? Why or
why not?
B. Questions on Potential Criteria for
DLR Requirements
8. Commenters in the Order No. 881
proceeding expressed a range of
opinions on whether and how the
Commission should require the
implementation of DLRs. On one end of
the spectrum, Southwest Power Pool,
Inc.’s Market Monitoring Unit (SPP
MMU) stated that it supported a
requirement for DLR implementation on
all transmission lines.17 Similarly,
Industrial Customer Organizations and
the R Street Institute contended that
DLRs should be required by default,
with exceptions given when justified by
15 Id.
P 30.
16 Id. PP 30, 34.
17 SPP MMU, Comments, Docket No. RM20–16–
000, at 4 (filed Mar. 22, 2021).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Feb 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
cost-benefit analyses.18 On the other
end, many commenters, including
nearly all transmission owners that filed
comments about DLRs, either opposed a
requirement to implement DLRs on all
transmission lines 19 or opposed a DLR
requirement in any form.20
9. Other commenters supported
targeted or limited DLR implementation.
For example, the WATT Coalition
(WATT) and Clean Energy Parties
proposed criteria for requiring DLR
implementation and contended that
such criteria could help overcome
concern about costs of DLRs exceeding
benefits.21 Specifically, WATT
proposed that the Commission require
‘‘sensor-based DLRs’’ on all thermally
limited transmission lines rated 69 kV
or greater when: (1) Market congestion
totaling over $1 million has occurred
within the past year; (2) the
transmission line is identified as being
a constraint projected to have market
congestion over $1 million over the
coming three years as a part of the
current RTO/ISO transmission planning
cycle process, which can be economic
or reliability based; (3) thermally
limited transmission lines show up as
limiting in generator interconnection
system impact studies; or (4) generation
curtailed by more than 10% on average
for one year due to factors that include
transmission line capacity.22
18 R Street Institute, Comments, Docket No.
RM20–16–000, at 3 (filed Mar. 22, 2021); Industrial
Customer Organizations, Comments, Docket No.
RM20–16–000, at 5 (filed Mar. 22, 2021).
19 Arizona Public Service Company, Comments,
Docket No. RM20–16–000, at 8 (filed Mar. 22,
2021); New York Transmission Owners, Comments,
Docket No. RM20–16–000, at 2 (filed Mar. 22,
2021); Indicated PJM Transmission Owners,
Comments, Docket No. RM20–16–000, at 13 (filed
Mar. 22, 2021); Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
Comments, Docket No. RM20–16–000, at 11–12
(filed Mar. 22, 2021).
20 American Electric Power Service Corporation,
Comments, Docket No. RM20–16–000, at 6 (filed
Mar. 22, 2021); Dominion Energy Services Inc.,
Comments, Docket No. RM20–16–000, at 9 (filed
Mar. 22, 2021); Entergy Services LLC, Comments,
Docket No. RM20–16–000, at 14 (filed Mar. 22,
2021); Bonneville Power Administration (BPA),
Comments, Docket No. RM20–16–000, at 6 (filed
Mar. 22, 2021); Exelon, Comments, Docket No.
RM20–16–000, at 3 (filed Mar. 22, 2021);
PacifiCorp, Comments, Docket No. RM20–16–000,
at 5–6 (filed Mar. 22, 2021); National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association and the Large Public
Power Council, Comments, Docket No. RM20–16–
000, at 3 (filed Mar. 22, 2021); MISO Transmission
Owners, Comments, Docket No. RM20–16–000, at
45–46 (filed Mar. 22, 2021); ITC Holdings Corp.,
Comments, Docket No. RM20–16–000, at 14–15
(filed Mar. 22, 2021).
21 WATT, Comments, Docket No. RM20–16–000,
at 10–11 (filed Mar. 22, 2021); Clean Energy Parties,
Comments, Docket No. RM20–16–000, at 7–10 (filed
Mar. 22, 2021); American Clean Power Association
and the Solar Energy Industries Association (ACPA/
SEIA), Comments, Docket No. RM20–16–000, at 9–
10 (filed Mar. 22, 2021).
22 WATT, Comments, Docket No. RM20–16–000,
at 10–11 (filed Mar. 22, 2021).
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10351
(Q3) If the Commission were to require
DLR implementation, should it require the
implementation only on certain transmission
lines, and, if so, what set of criteria should
be considered to identify transmission lines
for DLR implementation? Examples of such
criteria could include congestion,
curtailment levels, voltage levels,
infrastructure, and/or geography/terrain.
Explain why such criteria would identify the
set of transmission lines on which DLRs need
to be implemented in order to produce just
and reasonable wholesale rates.
(Q4) How should transmission lines be
evaluated for whether they satisfy such
criteria, both initially and going forward?
Please estimate the number and proportion of
transmission lines that would likely be
implicated by any criteria you recommend.
(Q5) If the Commission were to require
DLR implementation based on certain
criteria, should the criteria be regularly
reevaluated to ensure such criteria continue
to ensure accurate transmission line ratings,
and, if so, at what interval(s)? How should
such regular reevaluations work practically?
(Q6) If such criteria included the
magnitude of congestion on a transmission
line, what metrics exist that assess the
magnitude of congestion in both or either
RTO/ISO and/or non-RTO/ISO regions? For
any congestion metrics suggested, what data
sources are available?
(Q7) Implementation of the requirements
adopted in Order No. 881 are expected to
change congestion patterns. How should
these congestion pattern changes be
accounted for when considering whether a
transmission line satisfies the criteria
established as part of any potential DLR
requirements?
(Q8) What are the differences, if any,
between RTOs/ISOs and non-RTO/ISO
transmission providers that the Commission
should account for when considering any
DLR requirements?
(Q9) If the Commission were to require
DLR implementation based on certain
criteria, should it require that new
transmission lines be evaluated to determine
whether they must implement DLRs? Are
there any characteristics of new transmission
lines that warrant different criteria?
(Q10) If the Commission were to require
DLR implementation, how should that
requirement be considered in regional
transmission planning and interconnection
processes?
(Q11) If the Commission were to require
DLR implementation based on certain
criteria, what transparency measures should
the Commission require? For example,
should the Commission consider requiring
transmission providers to submit
informational reports that show which
transmission lines meet any determined
criteria for DLR implementation? And/or
should the Commission require transmission
providers to post the same on their Open
Access Same-Time Information System
websites?
C. Questions on the Benefits, Costs, and
Challenges of Implementing DLRs
10. While the Commission in Order
No. 881 highlighted the potential
E:\FR\FM\24FEN1.SGM
24FEN1
10352
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2022 / Notices
benefits of DLR implementation,
including potential increases in the
accuracy of transmission line ratings
and potentially greater power flows, it
recognized that there are costs and
challenges associated with DLR
implementation. Some commenters in
the Order No. 881 proceeding provided
DLR cost estimates, but there was
limited detail around those estimates
and those estimates varied. For
example, BPA asserted that DLR
implementation would require
investment of potentially over $1
million per transmission line in
monitoring equipment, software, and
hardware to submit and host the data.23
MISO Transmission Owners contended
that DLR implementation could cost
between $100,000 and $200,000 per
transmission line, and thus the overall
cost to implement DLRs for all
transmission lines in MISO would be
approximately $1.5 billion.24 SPP
estimated that DLR implementation that
requires an energy management system
(EMS) upgrade would cost transmission
owners up to $1 million and, without
upgrading the EMS, DLR
implementation would cost an
additional $100,000 to $500,000
annually in additional supervisory
control and data acquisition (SCADA)
communications with the reliability
coordinator’s EMS.25
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
(Q12) For any DLR requirement criteria
you identified in response to question Q3
above, please explain and, if possible,
quantify the potential annual gross market
benefits that would be expected to result
from such a requirement.
(a) If possible, please also provide
estimated upper and lower bounds on such
gross market benefit estimations based on
favorable and unfavorable assumptions.
(b) How might these benefits change with
geography/terrain, communication
infrastructure, and transmission path?
(c) To what extent might DLR
implementation shift congestion to new
areas? How would these shifts in congestions
patterns affect the overall benefits of DLR
implementation?
(d) Please describe the method and
assumptions used to estimate gross market
benefits.
(Q13) If you have experience implementing
(or evaluating the implementation of) DLRs,
please describe your experience and, if
applicable, explain your specific DLR design,
installation, and operating decisions, choice
of facilities on which to implement DLRs, the
23 BPA, Comments, Docket No. RM20–16–000, at
6 (filed Mar. 22, 2021).
24 MISO Transmission Owners, Comments,
Docket No. RM20–16–000, at 47 (filed Mar. 22,
2021) (deriving $1.5 billion by estimating $150,000
per line multiplied by 10,000 lines on the MISO
system).
25 SPP, Comments, Docket No. RM20–16–000, at
12 (filed Mar. 22, 2021).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Feb 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
implications for reliability, and how such
DLR implementation affected transmission
transfer capability.
(Q14) What are the expected costs and
challenges of implementing DLRs (separate
from the costs associated with Order No. 881
implementation)?
(a) How are these costs and challenges
divided between initial implementation (e.g.,
sensor purchase and installation, EMS
upgrades, and communications upgrades)
and ongoing operations and maintenance
(e.g., sensor maintenance, communications
maintenance, and forecasting)?
(b) How might these costs and challenges
change with geography/terrain,
communication infrastructure, and
transmission path?
(c) Are there any published reports or
studies assessing the costs, benefits and
challenges of DLR implementation? If so,
please identify and briefly describe these
studies.
(d) Please identify any factors or situations
that might cause DLR implementation to be
prohibitively expensive, and please describe
alternative implementation approaches that
could limit those costs.
(e) Please describe any advantages or
disadvantages related to costs and challenges
to implementing DLRs concurrently with the
requirements of Order No. 881 (as opposed
to after Order No. 881 is implemented). For
example, are the EMS and communication
upgrades required to implement AARs
sufficient to support the use of DLRs?
(Q15) Please describe the cybersecurity
challenges of DLR implementation. What are
the potential impacts to reliable operations if
the digital devices that monitor or
communicate line conditions used for
establishing DLRs are manipulated or
rendered inoperable by a cyber event? What
relevant procedural or technical
cybersecurity controls exist that would
mitigate such risk?
(Q16) If the Commission were to require
DLR implementation, should the
Commission direct NERC to evaluate how
this requirement could introduce new risks
to the reliable operation of the BES and
whether any standards require modification
to address any risks?
D. Questions on the Nature of Potential
DLR Requirements
11. DLRs are generally based on a
combination of real-time measured data
and various forecasts that are used to
compute up-to-date transmission line
ratings. The real-time measured data is
typically gathered using field located
sensors.
12. In their comments in the Order
No. 881 proceeding, WATT suggested a
requirement that transmission providers
implement ‘‘sensor-based DLRs’’ in
certain circumstances (i.e., a
requirement that transmission line
ratings incorporate real-time data from
field-based sensors on weather and/or
transmission line parameters, such as
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
sag, tension or temperature).26
Alternatively, transmission line ratings
could be based on up-to-date forecasts
of additional weather input and/or
transmission line parameter values.
13. The following questions seek
information regarding potential
approaches for a DLR requirement.
(Q17) If the Commission required DLRs in
some circumstances, would it be appropriate
to require transmission providers to calculate
transmission line ratings based on up-to-date
forecasts of additional weather factors
beyond those required in Order No. 881?
Why or why not? If so, please explain what
additional factors (e.g., wind speed, wind
direction, solar irradiance (beyond day/
night)) should be considered in transmission
line rating calculations.
(Q18) To what extent would it be
appropriate to rely on sensor-based
measurements of line parameters 27 such as
line sag, line tension, or conductor
temperature in calculating line ratings, either
in addition to, or in lieu of, forecasted
weather factors described in Q17? In what
circumstances should DLR approaches
augment any sensor-based measurements of
transmission line parameters with weather
forecasts (e.g., from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration or another
weather service)? To what extent are sensorbased measurements of line parameters
useful in determining longer-term forecasted
line ratings (e.g., 2–7 days ahead), rather than
just instantaneous or very short-term
calculations of line ratings? How does the
ability to forecast line ratings compare
between DLR approaches that rely primarily
upon sensor-based measurements of
transmission line parameters and those that
rely upon weather data?
(Q19) Should the Commission consider
sensor-based DLR requirements, such as
those suggested by WATT? If yes, what level
of sensor coverage and performance
requirements for such sensors should be
required? Please explain whether the
Commission would need to specify details
like the types of sensors, how many are
installed, what they measure, and the quality
of their data? Would a sensor-focused
requirement that specifies the types of
technologies potentially become stale as DLR
technologies evolve? Why or why not?
(Q20) In Order No. 881, the Commission
adopted exceptions from the AAR
requirements to ensure the safety and
reliability of the transmission system and for
transmission lines with transmission line
ratings that are not affected by ambient air
temperature or solar heating.28 Please explain
whether the Commission should adopt the
same or similar exceptions for DLR
requirements. Are there any different/other
exceptions from the application of DLR
26 WATT, Comment, Docket No. RM20–16–000,
at 10–11 (filed Mar. 22, 2021); ACPA/SEIA,
Comments, Docket No. RM20–16–000, at 9–10 (filed
Mar. 22, 2021).
27 See, e.g., LineVision, Comments, Docket No.
RM20–16–000, at 2–3 (filed Mar. 22, 2021).
28 Order No. 881, 177 FERC ¶ 61,179 at PP 227–
228.
E:\FR\FM\24FEN1.SGM
24FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2022 / Notices
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
requirements that the Commission should
consider? If so, what are these exceptions?
(Q21) In Order No. 881, the Commission
established requirements for AARs to be
applied to a period not greater than one hour
and for AARs to be updated hourly.29 Is this
time resolution and calculation frequency
also appropriate for DLR requirements or
should an alternative approach be
considered? Why?
(Q22) How might the Commission consider
potential requirements for DLR
implementation on transmission lines that
are on the seam of multiple transmission
provider service territories? What additional
coordination between neighboring
transmission owners and transmission
providers, if any, might be necessary?
(Q23) In Order No. 881, the Commission
required AARs to be used for near-term
transmission service, defined as transmission
service that ends not more than 10 days after
the transmission service request date (i.e.,
within the next 10 days).30
(a) Within what timeframes should the
Commission require transmission providers
to calculate transmission line ratings 31 using
DLRs (on transmission lines for which DLRs
are required)? Does this depend on which
DLR approach (weather-based or line
parameter-based) is used for a particular DLR
implementation?
(b) For which transmission services (e.g.,
hourly point-to-point transmission service,
daily point-to-point transmission service,
weekly point-to-point transmission service,
etc.) should the Commission require the use
of DLRs?
(c) What data on the accuracy of
forecasting wind speed, wind direction, and/
or other DLR variables would support the
DLR implementation timeframes and
transmission services you recommend above
in (a) and (b)?
(Q24) If the Commission were to decide
that a requirement to implement DLR is
appropriate:
(a) Should the Commission limit the
number or proportion of transmission
elements that a transmission provider must
implement DLRs on at any one time, even if
such elements otherwise met the criteria for
a DLR requirement? If so, should such a limit
be based on a number or percentage of
transmission elements, and if so, what
number or percentage?
(b) Should the relevant transmission
element for such a limit be considered
individual transmission lines, or individual
transmission line-miles, or some other unit?
Or, if such a limit is necessary, would some
other approach be better? Explain why you
recommend any particular approach.
(c) Should such a limit be applied each
time a transmission provider is required to
evaluate whether DLRs need to be
29 Id. PP 162, 168. See also Pro Forma OATT
attach. M, AAR Definition.
30 Order No. 881, 177 FERC ¶ 61,179 at P 86.
31 We clarify that we use the phrasing ‘‘require
transmission providers to calculate’’ consistent with
Order No. 881, in which the Commission clarified
‘‘that hourly (or more frequent) querying of ‘lookup tables’ or similar pre-calculated AAR databases
will satisfy the requirement that AARs be calculated
at least each hour.’’ Id. PP 141–142.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Feb 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
implemented on additional transmission
lines (as contemplated below in Q29)?
(Q25) If changed circumstances result in a
transmission line no longer meeting the DLR
criteria, should the transmission provider
continue to be required to use the DLR to
calculate the rating for that line? Please
explain why or why not.
E. Questions on Potential Timeframes
for Implementing DLR Requirements
14. In Order No. 881, the Commission
required AARs to be implemented no
later than three years from the
compliance filing due date.32 The
Commission explained that three years
was consistent with the implementation
schedule most commonly suggested by
transmission owners for AAR
implementation on priority
transmission lines and that three years
would be sufficient time for
transmission owners and transmission
providers to implement changes to their
processes and systems to comply with
the requirements adopted in the final
rule.
(Q26) What would be the appropriate
amount of time, either from your experience
or by your estimation, necessary for each of
the following DLR implementation steps
identified below?
(a) Transmission line identification for
DLR system application.
(b) DLR System design.
i. Field sensors and/or monitoring
equipment design including specification,
procurement, and installation.
ii. Communication infrastructure design,
including specification, procurement, and
installation.
iii. Process coordination between DLR field
data and EMS, including any line rating
database upgrades or necessary
modifications.
iv. DLR system integration and testing.
(c) Any other steps needed to implement
DLR system.
(Q27) Can any of the steps identified in
Q26, be completed concurrently such that the
total estimated DLR installation time might
be faster than the sum of each step? If so,
which steps can be completed concurrently?
How might the implementation of Order No.
881 affect the time needed to implement
DLR?
(Q28) If, after the initial implementation of
DLRs, the transmission provider identifies
additional transmission lines that meet the
DLR criteria, how long would it take to
implement DLRs on those additional
transmission lines?
(Q29) If the Commission required DLRs in
certain situations based on transmission line
criteria, how frequently should transmission
owners consider whether additional lines
might meet the criteria for DLR
implementation? That is, should the
Commission require a periodic restudy of
transmission systems to determine if
additional transmission lines meet the
criteria for DLR implementation? Please
32 Id.
PO 00000
P 361.
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10353
explain why or why not. If, during a periodic
restudy, the transmission provider
determines that additional lines meet the
criteria for DLR implementation, when
should the Commission require the
transmission provider to implement DLRs on
those additional lines?
III. Comment Procedures
15. The Commission invites interested
persons to submit comments on the
matters and issues proposed in this NOI,
including any related matters or
alternative proposals that commenters
may wish to discuss. Comments are due
April 25, 2022 and Reply Comments are
due May 25, 2022. Comments must refer
to Docket No. AD22–5–000 and must
include the commenter’s name, the
organization they represent, if
applicable, and their address.
16. The Commission encourages
comments to be filed electronically via
the eFiling link on the Commission’s
website at https://www.ferc.gov. The
Commission accepts most standard
word-processing formats. Documents
created electronically using wordprocessing software should be filed in
native applications or print-to-PDF
format and not in a scanned or picture
format. Commenters filing electronically
do not need to make a paper filing.
17. Those unable to file electronically
may mail comments via the U.S. Postal
Service to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the
Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand-delivered
comments or comments sent via any
other carrier should be delivered to:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD
20852.
18. All comments will be placed in
the Commission’s public files and may
be viewed, printed, or downloaded
remotely as described in the Document
Availability section below. Commenters
on this proposal are not required to
serve copies of their comments on other
commenters.
IV. Document Availability
19. In addition to publishing the full
text of this document in the Federal
Register, the Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to
view and/or print the contents of this
document via the internet through the
Commission’s Home Page (https://
www.ferc.gov). At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to
the Commission’s Public Reference
Room due to the President’s March 13,
2020 proclamation declaring a National
Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19).
20. From the Commission’s Home
Page on the internet, this information is
E:\FR\FM\24FEN1.SGM
24FEN1
10354
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2022 / Notices
available on eLibrary. The full text of
this document is available on eLibrary
in PDF and Microsoft Word format for
viewing, printing, and/or downloading.
To access this document in eLibrary,
type the docket number excluding the
last three digits of this document in the
docket number field.
21. User assistance is available for
eLibrary and the Commission’s website
during normal business hours from the
Commission’s Online Support at (202)
502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676)
or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov,
or the Public Reference Room at (202)
502–8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email
the Public Reference Room at
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
By direction of the Commission.
Issued: February 17, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022–03911 Filed 2–23–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. ER22–1065–000]
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Rabbitbrush Solar, LLC; Supplemental
Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate
Filing Includes Request for Blanket
Section 204 Authorization
This is a supplemental notice in the
above-referenced proceeding of
Rabbitbrush Solar, LLC’s application for
market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that
such application includes a request for
blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities
and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to
protest should file with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426,
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214
of the Commission’s Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy
of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the
deadline for filing protests with regard
to the applicant’s request for blanket
authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of
future issuances of securities and
assumptions of liability, is March 9,
2022.
The Commission encourages
electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the
FERC Online links at https://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Feb 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
service, persons with internet access
who will eFile a document and/or be
listed as a contact for an intervenor
must create and validate an
eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling
link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
Persons unable to file electronically
may mail similar pleadings to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be
delivered to Health and Human
Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text
of this document in the Federal
Register, the Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to
view and/or print the contents of this
document via the internet through the
Commission’s Home Page (https://
www.ferc.gov) using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link.
Enter the docket number excluding the
last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. At this
time, the Commission has suspended
access to the Commission’s Public
Reference Room, due to the
proclamation declaring a National
Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19), issued
by the President on March 13, 2020. For
assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call
toll-free, (886) 208–3676 or TYY, (202)
502–8659.
Dated: February 17, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
Filings in Existing Proceedings
[FR Doc. 2022–03908 Filed 2–23–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
Combined Notice of Filings
Take notice that the Commission has
received the following Natural Gas
Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Filings Instituting Proceedings
Docket Numbers: RP22–559–000.
Applicants: Chesapeake Energy
Marketing, L.L.C., Continental
Resources, Inc.
Description: Joint Petition For
Temporary Waiver, et al. of Chesapeake
Energy Marketing, L.L.C., et al.
Filed Date: 2/16/22.
Accession Number: 20220216–5106.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/22.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Docket Numbers: RP22–560–000.
Applicants: Vector Pipeline L.P.
Description: Vector Pipeline L.P.
submits Annual Report of Operational
Purchases and Sales.
Filed Date: 2/16/22.
Accession Number: 20220216–5107.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/22.
Docket Numbers: RP22–561–000.
Applicants: Rover Pipeline LLC.
Description: Compliance filing: Rover
2020 AMPS Filing to be effective N/A.
Filed Date: 2/16/22.
Accession Number: 20220216–5196.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/22.
Docket Numbers: RP22–562–000.
Applicants: Rover Pipeline LLC.
Description: Compliance filing: Rover
2021 AMPS Filing to be effective N/A.
Filed Date: 2/16/22.
Accession Number: 20220216–5199.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/22.
Docket Numbers: RP22–563–000.
Applicants: Midcontinent Express
Pipeline LLC.
Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing:
Removal of Expiring Targa Agreement to
be effective 4/1/2022.
Filed Date: 2/17/22.
Accession Number: 20220217–5014.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/1/22.
Any person desiring to intervene or
protest in any of the above proceedings
must file in accordance with Rules 211
and 214 of the Commission’s
Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time on the specified comment date.
Protests may be considered, but
intervention is necessary to become a
party to the proceeding.
Docket Numbers: RP21–1001–005.
Applicants: Texas Eastern
Transmission, LP.
Description: Compliance filing:
TETLP Rate Case Compliance Filing
with EPC 2–2022—RP21–1001–000 to
be effective 2/1/2022.
Filed Date: 2/16/22.
Accession Number: 20220216–5163.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/23/22.
Any person desiring to protest in any
the above proceedings must file in
accordance with Rule 211 of the
Commission’s Regulations (18 CFR
385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the
Commission’s eLibrary system (https://
elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgen
search.asp) by querying the docket
number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed
information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests,
service, and qualifying facilities filings
E:\FR\FM\24FEN1.SGM
24FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10349-10354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03911]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. AD22-5-000]
Implementation of Dynamic Line Ratings
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) seeks
comment on whether and how the required use of dynamic line ratings
(DLR) is needed to ensure just and reasonable wholesale rates. The
Commission further seeks comment on: Whether the lack of DLR
requirements renders current wholesale rates unjust and unreasonable;
potential criteria for DLR requirements; the benefits, costs, and
challenges of implementing DLRs; the nature of potential DLR
requirements; and potential timeframes for implementing DLR
requirements.
DATES: Initial Comments are due April 25, 2022, and Reply Comments are
due May 25, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the
following ways. Electronic filing through https://www.ferc.gov is
preferred.
Electronic Filing through https://www.ferc.gov. Documents
created electronically using word processing software must be filed in
acceptable native applications or print-to-PDF format, but not in
scanned or picture format.
Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically
may mail comments via the U.S. Postal Service to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand-delivered comments or comments sent via
any other carrier should be delivered to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting
comments,
[[Page 10350]]
see the Comment Procedures Section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Kheloussi (Technical
Information), Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202)
502-6391, [email protected].
Ryan Stroschein (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, (202) 502-8099, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this Notice of Inquiry (NOI), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) seeks comment on whether and
how the required use of dynamic line ratings (DLR) \1\ is needed to
ensure just and reasonable wholesale rates. The Commission further
seeks comment on: Whether the lack of DLR requirements renders current
wholesale rates \2\ unjust and unreasonable; potential criteria for DLR
requirements; the benefits, costs, and challenges of implementing DLRs;
the nature of potential DLR requirements; and potential timeframes for
implementing DLR requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A DLR is a transmission line rating that: ``(1) applies to a
time period of not greater than one hour; and (2) reflects up-to-
date forecasts of inputs such as (but not limited to) ambient air
temperature, wind, solar heating intensity, transmission line
tension, or transmission line sag.'' Managing Transmission Line
Ratings, Order No. 881, Federal Register, 87 FR 2244 (Jan. 13,
2022), 177 FERC ] 61,179, at P 7 (2021).
\2\ Consistent with Order No. 881, by ``wholesale rates,'' we
refer to both rates for the transmission of electric energy in
interstate commerce and rates for the sale of electric energy at
wholesale in interstate commerce. Id. P 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Background
1. On December 16, 2021, the Commission issued Order No. 881 in
Docket No. RM20-16-000. In that order, pursuant to section 206 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission revised the Commission's pro
forma open access transmission tariff (OATT) and the Commission's
regulations to improve the accuracy and transparency of electric
transmission line ratings.\3\ Specifically, the Commission found that
the use of only seasonal and static temperature assumptions in
developing transmission line ratings would result in transmission line
ratings that do not accurately represent the transfer capability of the
transmission system.\4\ The Commission found that inaccurate
transmission line ratings result in unjust and unreasonable Commission-
jurisdictional rates.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id. P 1.
\4\ Id. P 3.
\5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Accordingly, the Commission required, among other things and
with limited exceptions: (1) Transmission providers \6\ to use ambient-
adjusted ratings (AARs) \7\ as the basis for evaluation of transmission
service requests that will end within 10 days of the request and as the
basis for their determination of the necessity of certain curtailment,
interruption, or redispatch of transmission service anticipated to
occur within those 10 days; (2) transmission providers to use seasonal
line ratings as the basis for evaluation of transmission service
requests ending more than 10 days from the date of the request and as
the basis for the determination of the necessity of curtailment,
interruption, or redispatch of transmission service that is anticipated
to occur more than 10 days in the future; and (3) regional transmission
organizations and independent system operators (RTOs/ISOs) to establish
and maintain the systems and procedures necessary to allow transmission
owners in their regions to electronically update transmission line
ratings on at least an hourly basis (thereby enabling the RTO/ISO to
use DLRs from transmission owners that voluntarily adopt them).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Consistent with Order No. 881, we use transmission provider
to mean any public utility that owns, operates, or controls
facilities used for the transmission of electric energy in
interstate commerce. 18 CFR 37.3 (2021). Therefore, unless otherwise
noted, ``transmission provider'' refers only to public utility
transmission providers. Furthermore, the term ``public utility'' as
found in section 201(e) of the FPA means ``any person who owns or
operates facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission
under this subchapter.'' 16 U.S.C. 824(e).
\7\ An AAR is a transmission line rating that: ``(1) applies to
a time period of not greater than one hour; (2) reflects an up-to-
date forecast of ambient air temperature across the time period to
which the rating applies; (3) reflects the absence of solar heating
during nighttime periods where the local sunrise/sunset times used
to determine daytime and nighttime periods are updated at least
monthly, if not more frequently; and (4) is calculated at least each
hour, if not more frequently.'' Order No. 881, 177 FERC ] 61,179 at
P 4.
\8\ Id. PP 4-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. While acknowledging in Order No. 881 that, in certain
situations, using transmission line ratings that are based on factors
beyond forecasted ambient air temperatures and the presence or absence
of solar heating--such as DLRs--may lead to greater accuracy of
transmission line ratings, the Commission declined to mandate DLR
implementation based on the record in that proceeding.\9\ Instead, the
Commission incorporated that record on DLRs into the instant
proceeding, Docket No. AD22-5-000, which the Commission opened to
further explore DLR implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id. PP 7-8, 36, 252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The Commission explained that, unlike AARs, DLRs are based not
only on forecasted ambient air temperatures and the presence or absence
of solar heating, but also on other weather conditions, such as wind,
cloud cover, solar heating intensity (instead of only daytime/nighttime
distinctions used in AARs), and precipitation, and/or on transmission
line conditions such as tension or sag.\10\ The Commission agreed with
commenters that highlighted the benefits to DLR implementation.\11\ For
example, the Commission agreed with the Exelon Corporation (Exelon)
that there may be applications in which DLRs can provide net benefits
to customers, such as when the limiting element for a transmission
facility experiencing significant congestion is the conductor and
conditions besides ambient air temperature have a consistent and
significant impact on the power carrying capabilities of the line. The
Commission also acknowledged that the use of DLRs generally allows for
greater power flows than would otherwise be allowed and that their use
can also detect situations where power flows should be reduced to
maintain safe and reliable operation and avoid unnecessary wear on
transmission equipment.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id. P 7.
\11\ Id. P 253.
\12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Despite the benefits of DLR implementation, the Commission
recognized that DLR implementation also presents additional costs and
challenges not found in AAR implementation, such as costs associated
with placement of sensors, cybersecurity, and other costs.\13\ The
Commission found that the record in the Order No. 881 proceeding,
Docket No. RM20-16-000, was not sufficient for it to evaluate the
relative benefits and costs and challenges of DLR implementation.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id. P 254.
\14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Discussion
6. We are issuing this NOI to further explore whether DLR
implementation is required to ensure just and reasonable wholesale
rates. We invite all interested persons to submit comments and reply
comments on any or all of the questions listed. Commenters need not
answer all the questions. Commenters should organize responses
consistent with the structure of the attached questions.
[[Page 10351]]
Commenters are also invited to reference material previously filed,
including in Docket Nos. RM20-16-000 and AD19-15-000, but are
encouraged to avoid repetition or replication of previous material.
Initial comments must be submitted on or before 60 days after the date
of publication of this NOI in the Federal Register. Reply comments must
be submitted on or before 90 days after the date of publication of this
NOI in the Federal Register.
A. Questions on the Need for DLR Requirements
7. In Order No. 881, the Commission found that transmission line
ratings directly affect wholesale rates because transmission line
ratings and wholesale rates are inextricably linked.\15\ It explained
that transmission line ratings represent the maximum transfer
capability on a transmission line, which, in turn, determines the
quantity of energy that can be transmitted from suppliers to load. The
Commission explained that, all else equal, as transfer capability
declines, wholesale rates increase. The Commission also observed that
inaccurate transmission line ratings can result in underutilization (or
overutilization) of existing transmission facilities, thereby sending a
signal that there is less (or more) transfer capability than is truly
available.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Id. P 30.
\16\ Id. PP 30, 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Q1) As a threshold matter, even for transmission lines that
incorporate AARs, is there a need to further increase the accuracy
of transmission lines ratings through the implementation of DLRs to
ensure just and reasonable wholesale rates? Why or why not? If yes,
please explain whether a requirement by the Commission to adopt DLRs
is needed.
(Q2) What, if any, barriers to DLR implementation exist today?
Are potential requirements to implement DLRs necessary to address
these existing barriers? Why or why not?
B. Questions on Potential Criteria for DLR Requirements
8. Commenters in the Order No. 881 proceeding expressed a range of
opinions on whether and how the Commission should require the
implementation of DLRs. On one end of the spectrum, Southwest Power
Pool, Inc.'s Market Monitoring Unit (SPP MMU) stated that it supported
a requirement for DLR implementation on all transmission lines.\17\
Similarly, Industrial Customer Organizations and the R Street Institute
contended that DLRs should be required by default, with exceptions
given when justified by cost-benefit analyses.\18\ On the other end,
many commenters, including nearly all transmission owners that filed
comments about DLRs, either opposed a requirement to implement DLRs on
all transmission lines \19\ or opposed a DLR requirement in any
form.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ SPP MMU, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 4 (filed Mar.
22, 2021).
\18\ R Street Institute, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 3
(filed Mar. 22, 2021); Industrial Customer Organizations, Comments,
Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 5 (filed Mar. 22, 2021).
\19\ Arizona Public Service Company, Comments, Docket No. RM20-
16-000, at 8 (filed Mar. 22, 2021); New York Transmission Owners,
Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 2 (filed Mar. 22, 2021);
Indicated PJM Transmission Owners, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000,
at 13 (filed Mar. 22, 2021); Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 11-12 (filed Mar. 22, 2021).
\20\ American Electric Power Service Corporation, Comments,
Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 6 (filed Mar. 22, 2021); Dominion Energy
Services Inc., Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 9 (filed Mar.
22, 2021); Entergy Services LLC, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000,
at 14 (filed Mar. 22, 2021); Bonneville Power Administration (BPA),
Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 6 (filed Mar. 22, 2021);
Exelon, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 3 (filed Mar. 22,
2021); PacifiCorp, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 5-6 (filed
Mar. 22, 2021); National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and
the Large Public Power Council, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at
3 (filed Mar. 22, 2021); MISO Transmission Owners, Comments, Docket
No. RM20-16-000, at 45-46 (filed Mar. 22, 2021); ITC Holdings Corp.,
Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 14-15 (filed Mar. 22, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Other commenters supported targeted or limited DLR
implementation. For example, the WATT Coalition (WATT) and Clean Energy
Parties proposed criteria for requiring DLR implementation and
contended that such criteria could help overcome concern about costs of
DLRs exceeding benefits.\21\ Specifically, WATT proposed that the
Commission require ``sensor-based DLRs'' on all thermally limited
transmission lines rated 69 kV or greater when: (1) Market congestion
totaling over $1 million has occurred within the past year; (2) the
transmission line is identified as being a constraint projected to have
market congestion over $1 million over the coming three years as a part
of the current RTO/ISO transmission planning cycle process, which can
be economic or reliability based; (3) thermally limited transmission
lines show up as limiting in generator interconnection system impact
studies; or (4) generation curtailed by more than 10% on average for
one year due to factors that include transmission line capacity.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ WATT, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 10-11 (filed
Mar. 22, 2021); Clean Energy Parties, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-
000, at 7-10 (filed Mar. 22, 2021); American Clean Power Association
and the Solar Energy Industries Association (ACPA/SEIA), Comments,
Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 9-10 (filed Mar. 22, 2021).
\22\ WATT, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 10-11 (filed
Mar. 22, 2021).
(Q3) If the Commission were to require DLR implementation,
should it require the implementation only on certain transmission
lines, and, if so, what set of criteria should be considered to
identify transmission lines for DLR implementation? Examples of such
criteria could include congestion, curtailment levels, voltage
levels, infrastructure, and/or geography/terrain. Explain why such
criteria would identify the set of transmission lines on which DLRs
need to be implemented in order to produce just and reasonable
wholesale rates.
(Q4) How should transmission lines be evaluated for whether they
satisfy such criteria, both initially and going forward? Please
estimate the number and proportion of transmission lines that would
likely be implicated by any criteria you recommend.
(Q5) If the Commission were to require DLR implementation based
on certain criteria, should the criteria be regularly reevaluated to
ensure such criteria continue to ensure accurate transmission line
ratings, and, if so, at what interval(s)? How should such regular
reevaluations work practically?
(Q6) If such criteria included the magnitude of congestion on a
transmission line, what metrics exist that assess the magnitude of
congestion in both or either RTO/ISO and/or non-RTO/ISO regions? For
any congestion metrics suggested, what data sources are available?
(Q7) Implementation of the requirements adopted in Order No. 881
are expected to change congestion patterns. How should these
congestion pattern changes be accounted for when considering whether
a transmission line satisfies the criteria established as part of
any potential DLR requirements?
(Q8) What are the differences, if any, between RTOs/ISOs and
non-RTO/ISO transmission providers that the Commission should
account for when considering any DLR requirements?
(Q9) If the Commission were to require DLR implementation based
on certain criteria, should it require that new transmission lines
be evaluated to determine whether they must implement DLRs? Are
there any characteristics of new transmission lines that warrant
different criteria?
(Q10) If the Commission were to require DLR implementation, how
should that requirement be considered in regional transmission
planning and interconnection processes?
(Q11) If the Commission were to require DLR implementation based
on certain criteria, what transparency measures should the
Commission require? For example, should the Commission consider
requiring transmission providers to submit informational reports
that show which transmission lines meet any determined criteria for
DLR implementation? And/or should the Commission require
transmission providers to post the same on their Open Access Same-
Time Information System websites?
C. Questions on the Benefits, Costs, and Challenges of Implementing
DLRs
10. While the Commission in Order No. 881 highlighted the potential
[[Page 10352]]
benefits of DLR implementation, including potential increases in the
accuracy of transmission line ratings and potentially greater power
flows, it recognized that there are costs and challenges associated
with DLR implementation. Some commenters in the Order No. 881
proceeding provided DLR cost estimates, but there was limited detail
around those estimates and those estimates varied. For example, BPA
asserted that DLR implementation would require investment of
potentially over $1 million per transmission line in monitoring
equipment, software, and hardware to submit and host the data.\23\ MISO
Transmission Owners contended that DLR implementation could cost
between $100,000 and $200,000 per transmission line, and thus the
overall cost to implement DLRs for all transmission lines in MISO would
be approximately $1.5 billion.\24\ SPP estimated that DLR
implementation that requires an energy management system (EMS) upgrade
would cost transmission owners up to $1 million and, without upgrading
the EMS, DLR implementation would cost an additional $100,000 to
$500,000 annually in additional supervisory control and data
acquisition (SCADA) communications with the reliability coordinator's
EMS.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ BPA, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 6 (filed Mar. 22,
2021).
\24\ MISO Transmission Owners, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000,
at 47 (filed Mar. 22, 2021) (deriving $1.5 billion by estimating
$150,000 per line multiplied by 10,000 lines on the MISO system).
\25\ SPP, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 12 (filed Mar.
22, 2021).
(Q12) For any DLR requirement criteria you identified in
response to question Q3 above, please explain and, if possible,
quantify the potential annual gross market benefits that would be
expected to result from such a requirement.
(a) If possible, please also provide estimated upper and lower
bounds on such gross market benefit estimations based on favorable
and unfavorable assumptions.
(b) How might these benefits change with geography/terrain,
communication infrastructure, and transmission path?
(c) To what extent might DLR implementation shift congestion to
new areas? How would these shifts in congestions patterns affect the
overall benefits of DLR implementation?
(d) Please describe the method and assumptions used to estimate
gross market benefits.
(Q13) If you have experience implementing (or evaluating the
implementation of) DLRs, please describe your experience and, if
applicable, explain your specific DLR design, installation, and
operating decisions, choice of facilities on which to implement
DLRs, the implications for reliability, and how such DLR
implementation affected transmission transfer capability.
(Q14) What are the expected costs and challenges of implementing
DLRs (separate from the costs associated with Order No. 881
implementation)?
(a) How are these costs and challenges divided between initial
implementation (e.g., sensor purchase and installation, EMS
upgrades, and communications upgrades) and ongoing operations and
maintenance (e.g., sensor maintenance, communications maintenance,
and forecasting)?
(b) How might these costs and challenges change with geography/
terrain, communication infrastructure, and transmission path?
(c) Are there any published reports or studies assessing the
costs, benefits and challenges of DLR implementation? If so, please
identify and briefly describe these studies.
(d) Please identify any factors or situations that might cause
DLR implementation to be prohibitively expensive, and please
describe alternative implementation approaches that could limit
those costs.
(e) Please describe any advantages or disadvantages related to
costs and challenges to implementing DLRs concurrently with the
requirements of Order No. 881 (as opposed to after Order No. 881 is
implemented). For example, are the EMS and communication upgrades
required to implement AARs sufficient to support the use of DLRs?
(Q15) Please describe the cybersecurity challenges of DLR
implementation. What are the potential impacts to reliable
operations if the digital devices that monitor or communicate line
conditions used for establishing DLRs are manipulated or rendered
inoperable by a cyber event? What relevant procedural or technical
cybersecurity controls exist that would mitigate such risk?
(Q16) If the Commission were to require DLR implementation,
should the Commission direct NERC to evaluate how this requirement
could introduce new risks to the reliable operation of the BES and
whether any standards require modification to address any risks?
D. Questions on the Nature of Potential DLR Requirements
11. DLRs are generally based on a combination of real-time measured
data and various forecasts that are used to compute up-to-date
transmission line ratings. The real-time measured data is typically
gathered using field located sensors.
12. In their comments in the Order No. 881 proceeding, WATT
suggested a requirement that transmission providers implement ``sensor-
based DLRs'' in certain circumstances (i.e., a requirement that
transmission line ratings incorporate real-time data from field-based
sensors on weather and/or transmission line parameters, such as sag,
tension or temperature).\26\ Alternatively, transmission line ratings
could be based on up-to-date forecasts of additional weather input and/
or transmission line parameter values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ WATT, Comment, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 10-11 (filed Mar.
22, 2021); ACPA/SEIA, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 9-10
(filed Mar. 22, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. The following questions seek information regarding potential
approaches for a DLR requirement.
(Q17) If the Commission required DLRs in some circumstances,
would it be appropriate to require transmission providers to
calculate transmission line ratings based on up-to-date forecasts of
additional weather factors beyond those required in Order No. 881?
Why or why not? If so, please explain what additional factors (e.g.,
wind speed, wind direction, solar irradiance (beyond day/night))
should be considered in transmission line rating calculations.
(Q18) To what extent would it be appropriate to rely on sensor-
based measurements of line parameters \27\ such as line sag, line
tension, or conductor temperature in calculating line ratings,
either in addition to, or in lieu of, forecasted weather factors
described in Q17? In what circumstances should DLR approaches
augment any sensor-based measurements of transmission line
parameters with weather forecasts (e.g., from the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration or another weather service)? To what
extent are sensor-based measurements of line parameters useful in
determining longer-term forecasted line ratings (e.g., 2-7 days
ahead), rather than just instantaneous or very short-term
calculations of line ratings? How does the ability to forecast line
ratings compare between DLR approaches that rely primarily upon
sensor-based measurements of transmission line parameters and those
that rely upon weather data?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See, e.g., LineVision, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at
2-3 (filed Mar. 22, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Q19) Should the Commission consider sensor-based DLR
requirements, such as those suggested by WATT? If yes, what level of
sensor coverage and performance requirements for such sensors should
be required? Please explain whether the Commission would need to
specify details like the types of sensors, how many are installed,
what they measure, and the quality of their data? Would a sensor-
focused requirement that specifies the types of technologies
potentially become stale as DLR technologies evolve? Why or why not?
(Q20) In Order No. 881, the Commission adopted exceptions from
the AAR requirements to ensure the safety and reliability of the
transmission system and for transmission lines with transmission
line ratings that are not affected by ambient air temperature or
solar heating.\28\ Please explain whether the Commission should
adopt the same or similar exceptions for DLR requirements. Are there
any different/other exceptions from the application of DLR
[[Page 10353]]
requirements that the Commission should consider? If so, what are
these exceptions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Order No. 881, 177 FERC ] 61,179 at PP 227-228.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Q21) In Order No. 881, the Commission established requirements
for AARs to be applied to a period not greater than one hour and for
AARs to be updated hourly.\29\ Is this time resolution and
calculation frequency also appropriate for DLR requirements or
should an alternative approach be considered? Why?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Id. PP 162, 168. See also Pro Forma OATT attach. M, AAR
Definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Q22) How might the Commission consider potential requirements
for DLR implementation on transmission lines that are on the seam of
multiple transmission provider service territories? What additional
coordination between neighboring transmission owners and
transmission providers, if any, might be necessary?
(Q23) In Order No. 881, the Commission required AARs to be used
for near-term transmission service, defined as transmission service
that ends not more than 10 days after the transmission service
request date (i.e., within the next 10 days).\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Order No. 881, 177 FERC ] 61,179 at P 86.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Within what timeframes should the Commission require
transmission providers to calculate transmission line ratings \31\
using DLRs (on transmission lines for which DLRs are required)? Does
this depend on which DLR approach (weather-based or line parameter-
based) is used for a particular DLR implementation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ We clarify that we use the phrasing ``require transmission
providers to calculate'' consistent with Order No. 881, in which the
Commission clarified ``that hourly (or more frequent) querying of
`look-up tables' or similar pre-calculated AAR databases will
satisfy the requirement that AARs be calculated at least each
hour.'' Id. PP 141-142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) For which transmission services (e.g., hourly point-to-point
transmission service, daily point-to-point transmission service,
weekly point-to-point transmission service, etc.) should the
Commission require the use of DLRs?
(c) What data on the accuracy of forecasting wind speed, wind
direction, and/or other DLR variables would support the DLR
implementation timeframes and transmission services you recommend
above in (a) and (b)?
(Q24) If the Commission were to decide that a requirement to
implement DLR is appropriate:
(a) Should the Commission limit the number or proportion of
transmission elements that a transmission provider must implement
DLRs on at any one time, even if such elements otherwise met the
criteria for a DLR requirement? If so, should such a limit be based
on a number or percentage of transmission elements, and if so, what
number or percentage?
(b) Should the relevant transmission element for such a limit be
considered individual transmission lines, or individual transmission
line-miles, or some other unit? Or, if such a limit is necessary,
would some other approach be better? Explain why you recommend any
particular approach.
(c) Should such a limit be applied each time a transmission
provider is required to evaluate whether DLRs need to be implemented
on additional transmission lines (as contemplated below in Q29)?
(Q25) If changed circumstances result in a transmission line no
longer meeting the DLR criteria, should the transmission provider
continue to be required to use the DLR to calculate the rating for
that line? Please explain why or why not.
E. Questions on Potential Timeframes for Implementing DLR Requirements
14. In Order No. 881, the Commission required AARs to be
implemented no later than three years from the compliance filing due
date.\32\ The Commission explained that three years was consistent with
the implementation schedule most commonly suggested by transmission
owners for AAR implementation on priority transmission lines and that
three years would be sufficient time for transmission owners and
transmission providers to implement changes to their processes and
systems to comply with the requirements adopted in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Id. P 361.
(Q26) What would be the appropriate amount of time, either from
your experience or by your estimation, necessary for each of the
following DLR implementation steps identified below?
(a) Transmission line identification for DLR system application.
(b) DLR System design.
i. Field sensors and/or monitoring equipment design including
specification, procurement, and installation.
ii. Communication infrastructure design, including
specification, procurement, and installation.
iii. Process coordination between DLR field data and EMS,
including any line rating database upgrades or necessary
modifications.
iv. DLR system integration and testing.
(c) Any other steps needed to implement DLR system.
(Q27) Can any of the steps identified in Q26, be completed
concurrently such that the total estimated DLR installation time
might be faster than the sum of each step? If so, which steps can be
completed concurrently? How might the implementation of Order No.
881 affect the time needed to implement DLR?
(Q28) If, after the initial implementation of DLRs, the
transmission provider identifies additional transmission lines that
meet the DLR criteria, how long would it take to implement DLRs on
those additional transmission lines?
(Q29) If the Commission required DLRs in certain situations
based on transmission line criteria, how frequently should
transmission owners consider whether additional lines might meet the
criteria for DLR implementation? That is, should the Commission
require a periodic restudy of transmission systems to determine if
additional transmission lines meet the criteria for DLR
implementation? Please explain why or why not. If, during a periodic
restudy, the transmission provider determines that additional lines
meet the criteria for DLR implementation, when should the Commission
require the transmission provider to implement DLRs on those
additional lines?
III. Comment Procedures
15. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this NOI, including any related
matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss.
Comments are due April 25, 2022 and Reply Comments are due May 25,
2022. Comments must refer to Docket No. AD22-5-000 and must include the
commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and
their address.
16. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at https://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word-processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word-processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned or picture format. Commenters filing
electronically do not need to make a paper filing.
17. Those unable to file electronically may mail comments via the
U.S. Postal Service to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary
of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand-
delivered comments or comments sent via any other carrier should be
delivered to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
18. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
IV. Document Availability
19. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (https://www.ferc.gov). At
this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's
Public Reference Room due to the President's March 13, 2020
proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).
20. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this
information is
[[Page 10354]]
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
21. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
[email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at
[email protected].
By direction of the Commission.
Issued: February 17, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03911 Filed 2-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
