Remember FERC's Transmission Incentives inquiry? The ink is hardly dry on the hundreds of initial and reply comments filed at the agency this summer, but the greedy utility industry just can't wait to create an easy way to increase their profits. Or maybe they're not confident that they can twist enough arms at FERC to get their own way and have given up on that in order to pursue another way to get what they want?
In FERC's inquiry released this spring, the agency sought opinions about the security of our transmission system, and ideas about actions it could take to boost security in the form of incentives.
In FERC's inquiry released this spring, the agency sought opinions about the security of our transmission system, and ideas about actions it could take to boost security in the form of incentives.
Security
27. Enhancing the physical and cyber-security of existing jurisdictional transmission facilities, including new facilities, can improve the facilities’ ability to contribute to the reliability of the bulk power system. Addressing the security of the transmission system is a priority of the Commission.
Q 32) Should the Commission incentivize physical and cyber- security enhancements at transmission facilities? If so, what types of security investments should qualify for transmission incentives? What type of incentive(s) would be appropriate?
Q 33) How should the Commission define “security” in the context of determining eligibility for incentive treatment? For example, should the Commission define security based on specific investments or based on performance of delivering increased security of the transmission system?
FERC intends to deal with this issue, although it is questionable whether "security" is a basis for awarding financial incentives under Sec. 219 of the FPA, which is the only existing statute authorizing FERC to award transmission incentives.
So, what the heck is this?
So, what the heck is this?
Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Joe Manchin (D-WV), James Risch (R-ID), Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Angus King (I-ME) introduced last week a bill designed to help strengthen the nation’s electric grid.
The Protecting Resources On The Electric grid with Cybersecurity Technology (PROTECT) Act directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to incentivize cybersecurity investments by electric utilities.
The measure also establishes a grant and technical assistance program for advanced cybersecurity technology at the Department of Energy (DOE).
Key provisions of the bill include directing FERC to issue a rulemaking on rate incentives for advanced cybersecurity technology and establish a grant program at DOE for utilities that are not regulated by FERC to deploy advanced cybersecurity technology.
Our Congress critters have introduced legislation to create a new statute just to deal with security issues. Does this indicate that the critters believe security isn't covered by Sec. 219 and needs a separate mandate? If that's the case, there are a whole bunch of other issues FERC is considering in the context of Sec. 219 that also fall short. Or are they just marching in tune to their campaign donors to speed things up? We all know FERC is going to take its own sweet time on the incentives inquiry. Like a really, really long time. Increased utility profits just can't wait! Does this mean that all the other issues covered in FERC's inquiry will find their own home in separate new legislation? Is FERC going to be left holding a deflated balloon, where all the transmission incentives have migrated away from Sec. 219? Why not amend Sec. 219 instead of creating new legislation? This whole thing makes little sense.
Anyhow... what would this proposed legislation do?
Anyhow... what would this proposed legislation do?
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Commission, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council, and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, shall conduct a study to identify incentive-based, including performance-based, rate treatments for the transmission of electric energy subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission that could be used to encourage—
‘‘(1) investment by public utilities in advanced cybersecurity technology; and
‘‘(2) participation by public utilities in cyberse- curity threat information sharing programs.
So, let me get this straight... in addition to FERC considering this very same issue in its transmission incentives inquiry, it's also going to conduct a taxpayer-funded "study" in consultation with a bunch of other quasi-governmental agencies, some of which actually have the authority to simply order utilities to undertake increased security measures? The Commission itself, as well as NERC, have existing authority to order utilities to undertake security measures to protect their systems. If this was such a big problem, you'd think they'd do so quickly, before China turns the lights off. Instead, we're going to waste money "studying" ways to reward public utilities for protecting their own systems, a duty they already have.
INCENTIVE-BASED RATE TREATMENT.—Not later than 1 year after the completion of the study under subsection (b), the Commission shall establish, by rule, incentive-based, including performance-based, rate treat- ments for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce by public utilities for the purpose of benefitting consumers by encouraging—
‘‘(1) investments by public utilities in advanced cybersecurity technology; and
‘‘(2) participation by public utilities in cyberse- curity threat information sharing programs.
We've got to provide financial "encouragement" for utilities to protect their own systems? Instead of ordering utilities to protect their systems, we're going to pay them extra in order to do so voluntarily? This is nothing more than allowing utilities to set the price at which they agree to be regulated. Ridiculous!
Furthermore, guess who pays the extra incentives? You do, I do, everyone does, in their electric bill. Congress is giving away our money because they believe it "benefits" us. They've even built in a protection for us...
Furthermore, guess who pays the extra incentives? You do, I do, everyone does, in their electric bill. Congress is giving away our money because they believe it "benefits" us. They've even built in a protection for us...
RATEPAYER PROTECTION.—Any rate approved under the rule issued pursuant to this section, including any revisions to that rule, shall be subject to the requirements of sections 205 and 206 that all rates, charges, terms, and conditions—
‘‘(1) shall be just and reasonable; and
‘‘(2) shall not be unduly discriminatory or pref- erential.
Requiring consumers to pay extra to "encourage" utilities to protect their systems, when the same protection could be had by simply ordering utilities to fulfill their obligation to keep their system safe, is not just and reasonable. It's unjust and absurd.
But, we're not done yet!
But, we're not done yet!
ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, and the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council, shall establish a program, to be known as the ‘‘Rural and Municipal Utility Advanced Cybersecurity Grant and Technical Assistance Program’’, to provide grants and technical assistance to, and enter into cooperative agreements with, eligible entities to protect against, detect, respond to, and recover from cybersecurity threats.
While big, corporate, public utilities will benefit from increased rates paid by their consumers who use their systems, small publicly-owned, cooperative and municipal utilities won't be left behind. These small utilities are operated in the interest of their customers and don't turn a profit. Whatever it costs to serve is the price their ratepayers pay. Except with this legislation, these utilities will just be handed some cash to use to provide benefits to their customers. That cash comes out of the U.S. Treasury, that we all pay into. So while public utility customers pay to "secure" their own systems, we all pay to "secure" the small not-for-profit utilities so their customers don't have to shoulder the cost. Does this even make sense? Nope. The cost-causer should pay the costs for service.
Why are all taxpayers paying to secure the systems of small town municipal utilities? Is cyber security that much of an issue that we have to act now and spend a bunch of taxpayer money? If so, just order these utilities to secure their own systems and collect the costs from their ratepayers. No financial incentives to "encourage" them. No taxpayer dollars to get the job done (or be wasted, like a lot of federal grants).
This is utterly ridiculous. Let your Congress critter know you don't support this and want your utility service to be made safe now through regular ratemaking.
Why are all taxpayers paying to secure the systems of small town municipal utilities? Is cyber security that much of an issue that we have to act now and spend a bunch of taxpayer money? If so, just order these utilities to secure their own systems and collect the costs from their ratepayers. No financial incentives to "encourage" them. No taxpayer dollars to get the job done (or be wasted, like a lot of federal grants).
This is utterly ridiculous. Let your Congress critter know you don't support this and want your utility service to be made safe now through regular ratemaking.
RSS Feed