[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 128 (Wednesday, September 17, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Page S11640]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FERC NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Grid Management
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the front page of the Washington
Post recently featured a local graduate student who skillfully mapped
the electronic networks that interconnect every business and industrial
sector in the American economy. The article emphasized how the
information was readily available on the Internet and the associated
security concerns. It also discussed the astonishment and alarm among
industry leaders upon hearing about it.
Early this year, the Department of Homeland Security published two
papers emphasizing the need to secure critical infrastructure from
physical and cyber-attacks, including all aspects of the electric power
infrastructure system. This was clarified further by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on
Standard Market Design, which states, holesale electric grid operations
are highly interdependent, and a failure of one part of the generation,
transmission, or grid management system can compromise the reliability
of a major portion of the grid.
Simply put, experts in the public and private sector, time and time
again, acknowledge the vulnerability of the entire national electric
power infrastructure and that all aspects should be protected. As
blatantly demonstrated by the recent blackouts in the northeastern
United States, the viability of the national power grid is an important
national security concern.
I am concerned, therefore, that a cyber security standard recently
proposed by FERC, which is designed to protect the electric power grid,
exempts rocess control systems, distributed control systems, or
electric relays installed in generating stations, switching stations
and substations from the definition of ``critical cyber assets'' to be
protected.
Despite the clear intent of the Department of Homeland Security and
FERC to protect the power system entirely, the proposed rule calls for
only partial protection. The FERC decision may mean that power
distribution is protected, while power generation remains vulnerable.
Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield for a comment. I have been
made aware that technology exists in the marketplace that is capable of
protecting power generation assets. I am aware of at least one company,
in fact, a Massachusetts company, that has developed software capable
of protecting our power generation assets from cyber attack. If the
technology exists, are we not obligated to protect these assets?
Protecting transmission without protecting generation is like
protecting airports without protecting aircraft. Isn it reasonable,
therefore, to conclude that the entire national power grid, including
generation, should be protected?
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I think the answer is yes. No aspect of the
electric power grid should be exempt from this cyber security standard.
I urge the ranking member to work with us to address this issue during
conference committee consideration of the Energy and Water
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. With my good friend, the
senior Senator from Massachusetts, I ask the Appropriations Committee,
in conference with the House of Representatives, to include a
requirement that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission report to the
committee and the Congress as to why generating infrastructure was
excluded from the proposed rule.
Mr. REID. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for brining this
issue to my attention. I agree that process control systems,
distributed control systems, or electric relays installed in generating
stations, switching stations and substations are indeed critical assets
of the national electric power infrastructure and should not be exempt
from protected assets. I look forward to addressing this issue in
conference committee.
____________________