Advanced Transmission Technology: Evaluation Before Procurement

Advanced transmission technology can be part of a transmission project’s alternatives study without becoming an order for new equipment. Buyers need to distinguish a proposal, an enacted requirement, a project-specific approval and a funded purchase.

Pennsylvania provides a useful example of why those distinctions matter. The official record for HB 2223, reviewed October 18, lists House passage on May 4, 2026, by 201-0 and referral to the Senate Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure Committee on May 7. The bill number is 2223, not the 2233 used in our earlier article.

Correction, October 18, 2026: We withdraw this article’s unverified eleven-state mandate count and its claim that the ATT provision became law through the July budget. A budget signing announcement does not establish that a particular provision was enacted. The discussion below describes the checked bill text; it does not establish a current statewide purchasing obligation or a national compliance calendar.

What the Pennsylvania proposal describes

Printer number 3321 addresses transmission siting applications and specified letters of notification before the Pennsylvania PUC. It describes an evaluation report covering existing and proposed transmission infrastructure, including upgrades, reconductoring and reconstruction within the commission’s jurisdiction.

The amended text includes a rebuttable presumption when an applicant supplies ATT analysis. It also describes conditional PUC authority, based on the record and public interest, to require technologies that address the need identified in an application. Its definitions include grid-enhancing technologies and high-performance conductors, with provision for other technologies identified by the commission.

This is proposal language. Before treating it as an operative requirement, obtain the enacted section, effective date and applicable PUC implementation or project order. The standalone bill’s history does not resolve whether similar language moved in a separate measure.

Turn an evaluation into a procurement scope

Our procurement recommendation is to ask the project team for three linked documents: the applicable requirement, the alternatives analysis and the approved implementation scope. A technology’s appearance in a bill or study is insufficient evidence that a particular utility has funded it.

Technology considered	Information to request before an RFQ
High-performance conductor	The corridor constraint, selected conductor design, structure assessment and qualified installation requirements
Dynamic line rating	The rating method, measurement or weather inputs, operating limits, telemetry and control-system integration scope
Power flow control	The network study, intended operating cases, selected device or software function and integration responsibilities
Topology optimization	The study assumptions, permitted switching configurations and operator implementation plan

These are scoping questions, not a universal bill of materials. The responsible engineer and transmission owner need to establish which equipment changes the project actually requires. This article does not support a fixed sensor price, a guaranteed capacity increase or a standard vendor-qualification duration.

FERC Order 881 does not mandate DLR adoption

FERC’s rule announcement requires ambient-adjusted ratings and explicitly distinguishes them from optional dynamic line ratings. Organized market operators must provide systems and procedures that accommodate transmission owners choosing DLR. That accommodation requirement is not an instruction for every owner to buy DLR sensors.

PJM’s hourly AAR implementation is therefore a separate question from a utility’s DLR procurement decision. Our Order 881 analysis explains the implementation evidence and why the cited cooling study is not proof of a measured PJM-wide capacity gain. An RTO implementation date alone does not establish a sensor order, equipment-replacement deadline or remaining nationwide purchasing timetable.

What distribution buyers can verify

For a municipal utility, cooperative or distribution buyer connected to a transmission owner’s system, request the specific project record. An upstream study does not by itself prove additional delivery capacity at your connection, a delayed substation project or an equipment order available to your supplier.

Start with the named facility and responsible owner. Then identify the approval, its conditions and the project schedule. Use those records to decide whether the opportunity concerns engineering work, a pilot, an approved retrofit or a funded equipment purchase. Keep those stages separate in demand forecasts.

The same discipline applies to claims about other states. An advanced transmission technology mandate count needs a consistent definition and an enacted authority for every state counted. Until those records are checked, a list of states should not become a national procurement forecast.

Related reading

• PJM’s Order 881 implementation and the limits of the procurement inference
• Conductor alternatives and procurement comparisons
• Grid Modernization Procurement Guide

The free weekly Feeder follows utility equipment and procurement developments. Subscribe to The Feeder.