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).

The FAA may be using their mainframe computer or software to facilitate the EDE process. 

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.Mailed by the applicant. 

Correcting Submitted FAFSA Information and Reviewing FAFSA Information 

fafsa.gov—Corrections .................... Any applicant who has a Federal Student Aid ID (FSA ID)—regardless of how they originally applied—may make corrections.Submitted by the applicant. 

Electronic Other—Corrections ......... With the applicant’s permission, corrections can be made by an FAA using the EDE ....... The FAA may be using their mainframe computer or software to facilitate the EDE process. 

Paper SAR—This is a SAR and an 

option for corrections.

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.

Mailed by the applicant. 

FAA Access—Corrections ............... An institution can use FAA Access to correct the FAFSA form ........................................... Submitted by an FAA on behalf of 

an applicant. 

Internal Department Corrections ..... 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.

These corrections are system-generated. 

Federal Student Aid Information 

Center (FSAIC) 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.These changes are made directly 

in the CPS by an FSAIC representative. 

SAR Electronic (eSAR) .................... 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.

Cannot be submitted for processing. 

SAR Acknowledgement ................... 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.

Cannot be submitted for processing. 

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 

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 

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 http://www.ferc.gov is 

preferred. 

• Electronic Filing through http://

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, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
10350 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2022 / Notices 

1A 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). 

2Consistent 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. 

5 Id. 

6Consistent 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). 

7An 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. 

10 Id. P 7. 

11 Id. P 253. 

12 Id. 

13 Id. P 254. 

14 Id. 

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. 

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. 

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 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 

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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2022 / Notices 10351 

15 Id. P 30. 

16 Id. PP 30, 34. 

17SPP MMU, Comments, Docket No. RM20–16– 

000, at 4 (filed Mar. 22, 2021). 

18R 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). 19Arizona 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). 

20American 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). 

21WATT, 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). 

22WATT, Comments, Docket No. RM20–16–000, 

at 10–11 (filed Mar. 22, 2021). 

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

(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

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

(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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
10352 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2022 / Notices 

23BPA, Comments, Docket No. RM20–16–000, at 

6 (filed Mar. 22, 2021). 

24MISO 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). 

25SPP, Comments, Docket No. RM20–16–000, at 

12 (filed Mar. 22, 2021). 

26WATT, 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). 

27See, e.g., LineVision, Comments, Docket No. 

RM20–16–000, at 2–3 (filed Mar. 22, 2021). 

28Order No. 881, 177 FERC ¶ 61,179 at PP 227– 

228. 

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

(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. 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2022 / Notices 10353 

29 Id. PP 162, 168. See also Pro Forma OATT 

attach. M, AAR Definition. 

30Order No. 881, 177 FERC ¶ 61,179 at P 86. 

31We 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. 32 Id. P 361. 

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 

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 

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 http://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 (http://

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
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] 

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 http://

www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic 

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 (http://

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. 

[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. 

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. 

Filings in Existing Proceedings 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1