By Rich Heidorn Jr. and Holden Mann

ATLANTA — Andy Dodge, director of the FERC Office of Electric Reliability, said the commission and NERC are reviewing the more than 70 comments filed in response to their proposal on disclosure of critical infrastructure protection (CIP) violations and will determine their next steps “probably in the next couple months.”

A white paper released in August proposed that NERC CIP Notices of Penalty (NOPs) include a public cover letter disclosing the name of the violator, the standards violated (but not the requirements) and the penalty amount. NERC would submit the remainder of the NOP, containing details on the violation, mitigation activity and potential vulnerabilities to cyber systems, as a nonpublic attachment, for which it would request critical energy/electric infrastructure information (CEII) designation. (See FERC, NERC Propose New CIP Disclosure Rules.)

From 2010 until December 2018, the public version of NERC’s CIP NOPs contained similar information as the confidential submission to FERC but excluded material NERC considered CEII, such as the name of the registered entity. In 2019, NERC began submitting public line-by-line redactions of information claimed as CEII.

The commission initially treats information claimed by NERC as CEII as nonpublic but has reviewed those determinations — and sometimes released additional information — in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The staffs said they reconsidered their approach in response to an increase in FOIA requests.

“Some commenters liked the joint FERC-NERC approach. Some were totally opposed to it,” including some who thought all information should be shared, Dodge said.

Among respondents unsatisfied with the initiative was the Foundation for Resilient Societies, which criticized the proposal for requiring that any violations be fully mitigated before an NOP is submitted. It also disagreed with allowing utilities to request indefinite delays in public disclosure. As a result, “the public may become aware of adverse compliance trends only after a series of catastrophes occur,” the foundation said.

Public Citizen said the proposed disclosure requirements were a step in the right direction. However, the consumer advocacy group said further reforms were needed, including formal protection for whistleblowers and the creation of regional advisory bodies to provide feedback to FERC and NERC at the state level. It also criticized NERC for what it described as an overrepresentation of utility company executives in its leadership, which it said hindered  the independence of the corporation.

At the other end of the spectrum, the MISO Transmission Owners said the level of detail envisioned for the NOPs could be dangerous for the security of the grid, warning that “this type of information could provide roadmaps to bad actors” targeting critical infrastructure assets. If greater transparency is required, the TOs said, the commission could consider indicating the degree of risk posed by the violation rather than the specific standard involved, and disclosing a range of penalties rather than the exact amount assessed.

Echoing this view, a joint filing — by the Edison Electric Institute, American Public Power Association, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Large Public Power Council, Transmission Access Policy Study Group, the Electric Power Supply Association, WIRES, and the Electricity Consumers Resource Council — argued that electric utilities already “have every incentive to protect the reliability of the BPS [bulk power system].”

They noted that most NOPs reported by NERC are the result of utilities voluntarily sharing information with the corporation. “Given that the public would require specialized training and expertise to derive any value from the name of the standard violated … it is not clear what benefit there is in automatic disclosure of this information,” said the group.

Transmission Line Ratings

Dodge also shared staff observations from the commission’s technical conference on transmission line ratings in September (AD19-15). (See FERC Considering Tx Line Rating Rules.)

Staff identified potential benefits of dynamic line ratings (DLRs) and ambient-adjusted ratings (AARs), including:

• increased capacity for integrating renewables;
• reducing congestion and curtailments;
• improved transmission flexibility and situational awareness; and
• increased transparency of line ratings.

Potential challenges to DLRs/AARs include:

• possible reduction in available capacity during summer (when ambient temperatures exceed 104 degrees Fahrenheit) and winter seasons (when ambient temperatures exceed 32 F);
• the fact that ambient condition forecasting is vital to DLR systems and transmission line AARs; and
• AARs may not apply to all transmission lines.

Post-technical conference comments were due Nov. 1. Reply comments are due Nov. 16.