North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Final Notice of Joint Technical Conference, 53882-53885 [2023-17061]

Download as PDF 53882 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 9, 2023 / Notices and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before October 2, 2023. The filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 How To File Protests, Interventions, and Comments There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP23–520–000 in your submission. (1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission’s eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission’s website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on ‘‘eRegister.’’ You will be asked to select the type of filing you are making; first select ‘‘General’’ and then select ‘‘Protest’’, ‘‘Intervention’’, or ‘‘Comment on a Filing’’; or 6 (2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket number CP23–520– 000. To file via USPS: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. To file via any other method: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502–8258 or FercOnlineSupport@ferc.gov. Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail or email (with a link to the document) at: Jennifer R. Rinker, Associate General Counsel, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, 915 N. Eldridge Parkway, Suite 1100, Houston, Texas 77079, or by Jennifer.Rinker@ enbridge.com. Any subsequent submissions by an intervenor must be served on the applicant and all other parties to the proceeding. Contact information for parties can be downloaded from the service list at the eService link on FERC Online. Tracking the Proceeding Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project 6 Additionally, you may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission’s website at VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:19 Aug 08, 2023 Jkt 259001 will be available from the Commission’s Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208– FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ esubscription.asp. Dated: August 3, 2023. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2023–17065 Filed 8–8–23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RD23–2–000] North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Final Notice of Joint Technical Conference best practices and operational preparedness and planning a more resilient grid. We note that discussions at the conference may involve issues raised in proceedings that are currently pending before the Commission. These proceedings include, but are not limited to: Petition for Rulemaking, Docket No. EL23–69–000 Attached to this Final Notice is an agenda for the technical conference, which includes more detail for each panel. Only invited panelists and staff from the Commission and NERC will participate in the panel discussions. Interested parties may listen and observe, and written comments may be submitted after the conference in Docket No. RD23–2–000. The conference will be held in-person at NERC’s headquarters at 3353 Peachtree Road, NE Suite 600 North Tower, Atlanta, GA 30326. Information on travelling to NERC’s Atlanta office is available here. The conference will be open for the public to attend, and there is no fee for attendance. It will be transcribed and webcast. Those observing via webcast may register here. Information on this conference will also be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission’s website, www.ferc.gov, prior to the event. Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to accessibility@ferc.gov, call toll-free (866) 208–3372 (voice) or (202) 208–8659 (TTY), or send a fax to (202) 208–2106 with the required accommodations. The conference will also be transcribed. Transcripts will be available for a fee from Ace Reporting, (202) 347–3700. For more information about this technical conference, please contact Terrance Clingan at Terrance.Clingan@ ferc.gov or (202) 502–8823. For information related to logistics, please contact Lonnie Ratliff at Lonnie.Ratliff@ nerc.net or Sarah McKinley at Sarah.McKinley@ferc.gov or (202) 502– 8004. As announced in the Notice of Joint Technical Conference issued in this proceeding on May 30, 2023, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) and North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) staff will convene a technical conference on August 10, 2023, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time. The purpose of this conference is to discuss physical security of the BulkPower System, including the adequacy of existing physical security controls, challenges, and solutions. The conference will include two parts and four panel discussions. Part 1 will address the effectiveness of Reliability Standard CIP–014–3 (Physical Security) and include two panels on the applicability of CIP–014–3 and minimum levels of physical protection. Part 2 will address solutions beyond Reliability Standard CIP–014–3 and include two panels on physical security Dated: August 3, 2023. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Deputy Secretary. www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project. PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1 Joint Physical Security Technical Conference Agenda Docket No. RD23–2–000 August 10, 2023 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 August 10, 2023 9:00–4:30 p.m. Eastern NERC Atlanta Office, 3353 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 600—North Tower, Atlanta, GA 30326. Welcome and Opening Remarks (9:00– 9:12 a.m.) NERC Antitrust Compliance Guidelines and Commission Staff Disclaimer (9:12–9:15 a.m.) Agenda Introduction and Background (9:15–9:30 a.m.) Commission and NERC staff will provide background information relevant to discussion during the technical conference, including on Reliability Standard CIP–014–3, the current physical security landscape, recent Commission activities on physical security, and the NERC report filed with the Commission in April. Part 1: Effectiveness of Reliability Standard CIP–014–3 Part 1 of the technical conference will focus on Reliability Standard CIP–014– 3, as it is enforced today as well as any potential revisions to the standard resulting in subsequent versions. Panel 1—Applicability (9:30–10:50 a.m.) This panel will explore the facilities subject to Reliability Standard CIP–014– 3. While the NERC report filed with the Commission did not recommend revising the applicability section of the Standard at this time, the report determined that this could change based on additional information. Panelists will discuss whether the applicability section of Reliability Standard CIP–014– 3 identifies the appropriate facilities to mitigate physical security risks to better assure reliable operation of the BulkPower System. Panelists will also discuss whether additional type(s) of substation configurations should be VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:19 Aug 08, 2023 Jkt 259001 studied to determine risks and the possible need for required protections. This panel may include a discussion of the following topics and questions: 1. Is the applicability section of CIP– 014–3 properly determining transmission station/substations to be assessed for instability, uncontrolled separation or cascading within the Interconnection? Specifically, are the correct facilities being assessed and what topology or characteristics should the applicable facilities have to be subject to CIP–014? For example, are there criteria other than those in Section 4.1.1 of CIP–014–3, such as connected to two vs. three other station/substations and exceeding the aggregated weighted value of 3000, changing the weighting value of the table in the applicability section, or including lower transmission voltages? 2. Given the changing threat landscape, are there specific transmission station/substation configurations that should be included in the applicability section of CIP–014– 3, including combinations of stations/ substations to represent coordinated attacks on multiple facilities? What would they be and why? 3. What other assessments (e.g., a TPL–001 planning assessment) may be used to identify an at-risk facility or group of facilities that should be considered for applicability under CIP– 014–3? How stringent are those assessments? Describe any procedural differences between those other assessments and the CIP–014–3 R1 Risk Assessment. Should CIP–014–3 apply to entities other than those transmission owners to which 4.1.1 applies or transmission operators to which 4.1.2 applies? 4. Should potential load loss or generation loss be considered? If so, why, and how would potential impact be determined (e.g., how would potential load loss be determined in advance of running an assessment?)? 5. Should facilities that perform physical security monitoring functions that are not currently subject to CIP– PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 53883 014–3 (e.g., security operation centers) be covered by CIP–014–3 as well? If so, what criteria should be used? Moderators: • Olutayo Oyelade, Supervisory Electrical Engineer, FERC • Kiel Lyons, Senior Manager, Compliance Assurance, NERC Panelists: • Mark Rice, Senior Power Engineer, Pacific Northwest National Lab • Eric Rollison, Assistant Director, Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (Department of Energy) • Adam Gerstnecker, Managing Principal Consultant, Mitsubishi Electric Power Products, Inc. • Jamie Calderon, Manager, NERC • Lawrence Fitzgerald, Director, TRC Companies Break (10:50–11:00 a.m.) Panel 2—Minimum Level of Physical Protection (11:00 a.m.–12:30 p.m.) This panel will discuss the reliability goal to be achieved and based on that goal, what, if any, mandatory minimum resiliency or security protections should be required against facility attacks, e.g., site hardening, ballistic protection, etc. This panel will discuss the scope of reliability, resilience, and security measures that are inclusive of a robust, effective, and risk-informed approach to reducing physical security risks. The panel will also consider whether any minimum protections should be tiered and discuss the appropriate criteria for a tiered approach. This panel may include a discussion of the following topics and questions: 1. What is our reliability goal? What are we protecting against to ensure grid reliability beyond what is required in the current standards? a. What are the specific physical security threats (both current and emerging) to all stations/substations on the bulk electric system? b. As threats are continually evolving, how can we identify those specific threats? c. How do threats vary across all stations/substations on the bulk electric E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1 EN09AU23.036</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 9, 2023 / Notices lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 53884 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 9, 2023 / Notices system? How would defenses against those threats vary? To what extent should simultaneous attacks at multiple sites be considered? 2. Do we need mandatory minimum protections? If so, what should they be? a. Should there be flexible criteria or a bright line? b. Should minimum protections be tiered (i.e., stations/substations receive varying levels of protection according to their importance to the grid)? How should importance be quantified for these protections? c. Should minimum protections be based on preventing instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading or preventing loss of service to customers (e.g., as in Moore County, NC) ? If minimum protections were to be based on something other than the instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading, what burden would that have on various registered entities? If the focus is on loss of service, is it necessary to have state and local jurisdictions involved to implement a minimum set of protections? d. In what areas should any minimum protections be focused? i. Detection? ii. Assessment? iii. Response? 3. To what extent would minimum protections help mitigate the likelihood and/or reliability impact of simultaneous, multi-site attacks? Moderators: • Coboyo Bodjona, Electrical Engineer, FERC • Lonnie Ratliff, Director, Compliance Assurance and Certification, NERC Panelists: • Travis Moran, Senior Reliability and Security Advisor, SERC • Mike Melvin, Director, Exelon representing Edison Electric Institute • Kathy Judge, Director, National Grid representing Edison Electric Institute • Jackie Flowers, Director, Tacoma Public Utilities Lunch (12:30–1:00 p.m.) Part 2: Solutions Beyond CIP–014–3 Part 2 of the technical conference will focus on solutions for physical security beyond the requirements in Reliability Standard CIP–014–3. Panel 3—Best Practices and Operational Preparedness (1:00–2:30 p.m.) This panel will discuss physical security best practices for prevention, protection, response, and recovery. The discussion will include asset management strategies to prepare, incident training preparedness and response, and research and development needs. This panel may include a discussion of the following topics and questions: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:19 Aug 08, 2023 Jkt 259001 1. What is the physical security threat landscape for each of your companies? What best practices have been implemented to mitigate the risks and vulnerabilities of physical attacks on energy infrastructure? 2. What asset management and preparedness best practices have your member companies implemented to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from physical attacks on their energy infrastructure? 3. What research and development efforts are underway or needed for understanding and mitigating physical security risks to critical energy electrical infrastructure? 4. What research and development efforts, including the development of tools, would you like to see the National Labs undertake to assist your companies in addressing physical threats to your critical electrical infrastructure? 5. What do you need or would like to see from the energy industry to improve your ability and accuracy in addressing physical security risks to critical energy electrical infrastructure? 6. What best practices are in place to accelerate electric utility situational awareness of an incident and to involve local jurisdiction responders? 7. What can the federal and state regulators do to assist the energy industry in improving their physical security posture? 8. What training improvements can NERC and the Regional Entities implement to system operators to aid in real-time identification and recovery procedures from physical attacks? 9. What changes could be made to improve information sharing between the federal government and industry? Moderators: • Joseph McClelland, Director, Office of Energy Infrastructure Security, FERC • Bill Peterson, Director, Entity Development & Communication, SERC Panelists: • Vinit Gupta, Vice President, ITC Holdings Corp. • Randy Horton, Director, Electric Power Research Institute • Craig Lawton, Mission Campaign Manager, Sandia National Lab • Michael Ball, National Security and Resiliency Advisor, Berkshire Hathaway Energy • Thomas J. Galloway, Sr., President and CEO, North American Transmission Forum • Scott Aaronson, Senior Vice President, Edison Electric Institute Break (2:30–2:40 p.m.) Panel 4—Grid Planning to Respond to and Recover from Physical and Cyber Security Threats and Potential Obstacles (2:40–4:10 p.m.) PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 This panel will explore planning to respond to and recovery from physical and cyber security threats and potential obstacles to developing and implementing such plans. This discussion will focus on how best to integrate cyber and physical security with engineering, particularly in the planning phase. The panel will discuss whether critical stations could be reduced through best practices and how to determine whether to mitigate the risk of a critical station or protect it. Finally, the panel will consider the implications of the changing resource mix on vulnerability of the grid and its resilience to disruptions. This panel may include a discussion of the following topics and questions: 1. How can cyber and physical security be integrated with engineering, particularly planning? What aspects of cyber and physical security need to be incorporated into the transmission planning process? 2. What modifications could be made to TPL–001 to bring in broader attack focus (e.g., coordinated attack)? What sensitivities or examined contingencies might help identify vulnerabilities to grid attacks? 3. Currently, if a CIP–014–3 R1 assessment deems a transmission station/substation as ‘‘critical’’ that station/substation must be physically protected. Are there best practices for reconfiguring facilities so as to reduce the criticality of stations/substations? 4. When prioritizing resources, how should entities determine which ‘‘critical’’ stations/substations to remove from the list and which to protect? If the project is extensive and may have a long lead time to construct, to what degree does the station/substation need to be protected during the interim period? 5. How will the development of the grid to accommodate the interconnection of future renewable generation affect the resilience of the grid to attack? Will the presence of future additional renewable generation itself add to or detract from the resilience of the grid to physical attack? 6. What are the obstacles to developing a more resilient grid? What strategies can be used to address these obstacles? a. Cost? b. Siting? c. Regulatory Barriers? d. Staffing/training? Moderators: • Terry Clingan, Electrical Engineer, FERC • Ryan Quint, Director, Engineering and Security Integration, NERC Panelists: • Ken Seiler, Vice President, PJM Interconnection E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 9, 2023 / Notices • Tracy McCrory, Vice President, Tennessee Valley Authority • Daniel Sierra, Manager, Burns and McDonnell • Daron Frederick, Chief Information Officer, Arkansas Electric Cooperative • Kent Chandler, Chairman, Kentucky Public Service Commission Closing Remarks (4:10–4:30 p.m.) [FR Doc. 2023–17061 Filed 8–8–23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER23–2554–000] lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Midland Wind, 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 Midland Wind, LLC’s application for marketbased 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 August 23, 2023. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at https:// 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:19 Aug 08, 2023 Jkt 259001 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 (https:// 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. The Commission’s Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502–6595 or OPP@ ferc.gov. Dated: August 3, 2023. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2023–17064 Filed 8–8–23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP23–507–000] Equitrans, L.P.; Notice of Scoping Period Requesting Comments on Environmental Issues for the Proposed Swarts and Hunters Cave Well Replacement Project The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental document, that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Swarts and Hunters Cave Well Replacement Project involving abandonment, construction, and PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 53885 operation of facilities by Equitrans, L.P. (Equitrans) in Greene County, Pennsylvania. The Commission will use this environmental document in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity. This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies regarding the project. As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. This gathering of public input is referred to as ‘‘scoping.’’ The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the environmental document on the important environmental issues. Additional information about the Commission’s NEPA process is described below in the NEPA Process and Environmental Document section of this notice. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00pm Eastern Time on September 1, 2023. Further details on how to submit comments are provided in the Public Participation section of this notice. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission staff will consider all written comments during the preparation of the environmental document. If you submitted comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on June 30, 2023, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP23–507–000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding. This notice is being sent to the Commission’s current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern. E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53882-53885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17061]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RD23-2-000]


North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Final Notice of 
Joint Technical Conference

    As announced in the Notice of Joint Technical Conference issued in 
this proceeding on May 30, 2023, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (Commission) and North American Electric Reliability 
Corporation (NERC) staff will convene a technical conference on August 
10, 2023, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
    The purpose of this conference is to discuss physical security of 
the Bulk-Power System, including the adequacy of existing physical 
security controls, challenges, and solutions. The conference will 
include two parts and four panel discussions. Part 1 will address the 
effectiveness of Reliability Standard CIP-014-3 (Physical Security) and 
include two panels on the applicability of CIP-014-3 and minimum levels 
of physical protection. Part 2 will address solutions beyond 
Reliability Standard CIP-014-3 and include two panels on physical 
security best practices and operational preparedness and planning a 
more resilient grid.
    We note that discussions at the conference may involve issues 
raised in proceedings that are currently pending before the Commission. 
These proceedings include, but are not limited to:

Petition for Rulemaking, Docket No. EL23-69-000

    Attached to this Final Notice is an agenda for the technical 
conference, which includes more detail for each panel. Only invited 
panelists and staff from the Commission and NERC will participate in 
the panel discussions. Interested parties may listen and observe, and 
written comments may be submitted after the conference in Docket No. 
RD23-2-000.
    The conference will be held in-person at NERC's headquarters at 
3353 Peachtree Road, NE Suite 600 North Tower, Atlanta, GA 30326. 
Information on travelling to NERC's Atlanta office is available here. 
The conference will be open for the public to attend, and there is no 
fee for attendance. It will be transcribed and webcast. Those observing 
via webcast may register here. Information on this conference will also 
be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's website, 
www.ferc.gov, prior to the event.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please 
send an email to [email protected], call toll-free (866) 208-3372 
(voice) or (202) 208-8659 (TTY), or send a fax to (202) 208-2106 with 
the required accommodations. The conference will also be transcribed. 
Transcripts will be available for a fee from Ace Reporting, (202) 347-
3700.
    For more information about this technical conference, please 
contact Terrance Clingan at [email protected] or (202) 502-
8823. For information related to logistics, please contact Lonnie 
Ratliff at [email protected] or Sarah McKinley at 
[email protected] or (202) 502-8004.

    Dated: August 3, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.

[[Page 53883]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AU23.036

Joint Physical Security Technical Conference

Agenda

Docket No. RD23-2-000

August 10, 2023

August 10, 2023

9:00-4:30 p.m. Eastern
NERC Atlanta Office, 3353 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 600--North Tower, 
Atlanta, GA 30326.
Welcome and Opening Remarks (9:00-9:12 a.m.)
NERC Antitrust Compliance Guidelines and Commission Staff Disclaimer 
(9:12-9:15 a.m.)
Agenda
Introduction and Background (9:15-9:30 a.m.)

    Commission and NERC staff will provide background information 
relevant to discussion during the technical conference, including on 
Reliability Standard CIP-014-3, the current physical security 
landscape, recent Commission activities on physical security, and the 
NERC report filed with the Commission in April.

Part 1: Effectiveness of Reliability Standard CIP-014-3

    Part 1 of the technical conference will focus on Reliability 
Standard CIP-014-3, as it is enforced today as well as any potential 
revisions to the standard resulting in subsequent versions.

Panel 1--Applicability (9:30-10:50 a.m.)

    This panel will explore the facilities subject to Reliability 
Standard CIP-014-3. While the NERC report filed with the Commission did 
not recommend revising the applicability section of the Standard at 
this time, the report determined that this could change based on 
additional information. Panelists will discuss whether the 
applicability section of Reliability Standard CIP-014-3 identifies the 
appropriate facilities to mitigate physical security risks to better 
assure reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. Panelists will also 
discuss whether additional type(s) of substation configurations should 
be studied to determine risks and the possible need for required 
protections.
    This panel may include a discussion of the following topics and 
questions:
    1. Is the applicability section of CIP-014-3 properly determining 
transmission station/substations to be assessed for instability, 
uncontrolled separation or cascading within the Interconnection? 
Specifically, are the correct facilities being assessed and what 
topology or characteristics should the applicable facilities have to be 
subject to CIP-014? For example, are there criteria other than those in 
Section 4.1.1 of CIP-014-3, such as connected to two vs. three other 
station/substations and exceeding the aggregated weighted value of 
3000, changing the weighting value of the table in the applicability 
section, or including lower transmission voltages?
    2. Given the changing threat landscape, are there specific 
transmission station/substation configurations that should be included 
in the applicability section of CIP-014-3, including combinations of 
stations/substations to represent coordinated attacks on multiple 
facilities? What would they be and why?
    3. What other assessments (e.g., a TPL-001 planning assessment) may 
be used to identify an at-risk facility or group of facilities that 
should be considered for applicability under CIP-014-3? How stringent 
are those assessments? Describe any procedural differences between 
those other assessments and the CIP-014-3 R1 Risk Assessment. Should 
CIP-014-3 apply to entities other than those transmission owners to 
which 4.1.1 applies or transmission operators to which 4.1.2 applies?
    4. Should potential load loss or generation loss be considered? If 
so, why, and how would potential impact be determined (e.g., how would 
potential load loss be determined in advance of running an 
assessment?)?
    5. Should facilities that perform physical security monitoring 
functions that are not currently subject to CIP-014-3 (e.g., security 
operation centers) be covered by CIP-014-3 as well? If so, what 
criteria should be used?
    Moderators:
     Olutayo Oyelade, Supervisory Electrical Engineer, FERC
     Kiel Lyons, Senior Manager, Compliance Assurance, NERC
    Panelists:
     Mark Rice, Senior Power Engineer, Pacific Northwest 
National Lab
     Eric Rollison, Assistant Director, Office of 
Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (Department of 
Energy)
     Adam Gerstnecker, Managing Principal Consultant, 
Mitsubishi Electric Power Products, Inc.
     Jamie Calderon, Manager, NERC
     Lawrence Fitzgerald, Director, TRC Companies
Break (10:50-11:00 a.m.)

Panel 2--Minimum Level of Physical Protection (11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m.)

    This panel will discuss the reliability goal to be achieved and 
based on that goal, what, if any, mandatory minimum resiliency or 
security protections should be required against facility attacks, e.g., 
site hardening, ballistic protection, etc. This panel will discuss the 
scope of reliability, resilience, and security measures that are 
inclusive of a robust, effective, and risk-informed approach to 
reducing physical security risks. The panel will also consider whether 
any minimum protections should be tiered and discuss the appropriate 
criteria for a tiered approach.
    This panel may include a discussion of the following topics and 
questions:
    1. What is our reliability goal? What are we protecting against to 
ensure grid reliability beyond what is required in the current 
standards?
    a. What are the specific physical security threats (both current 
and emerging) to all stations/substations on the bulk electric system?
    b. As threats are continually evolving, how can we identify those 
specific threats?
    c. How do threats vary across all stations/substations on the bulk 
electric

[[Page 53884]]

system? How would defenses against those threats vary?
    To what extent should simultaneous attacks at multiple sites be 
considered?
    2. Do we need mandatory minimum protections? If so, what should 
they be?
    a. Should there be flexible criteria or a bright line?
    b. Should minimum protections be tiered (i.e., stations/substations 
receive varying levels of protection according to their importance to 
the grid)? How should importance be quantified for these protections?
    c. Should minimum protections be based on preventing instability, 
uncontrolled separation, or cascading or preventing loss of service to 
customers (e.g., as in Moore County, NC) ? If minimum protections were 
to be based on something other than the instability, uncontrolled 
separation, or cascading, what burden would that have on various 
registered entities? If the focus is on loss of service, is it 
necessary to have state and local jurisdictions involved to implement a 
minimum set of protections?
    d. In what areas should any minimum protections be focused?
    i. Detection?
    ii. Assessment?
    iii. Response?
    3. To what extent would minimum protections help mitigate the 
likelihood and/or reliability impact of simultaneous, multi-site 
attacks?
    Moderators:
     Coboyo Bodjona, Electrical Engineer, FERC
     Lonnie Ratliff, Director, Compliance Assurance and 
Certification, NERC
    Panelists:
     Travis Moran, Senior Reliability and Security Advisor, 
SERC
     Mike Melvin, Director, Exelon representing Edison Electric 
Institute
     Kathy Judge, Director, National Grid representing Edison 
Electric Institute
     Jackie Flowers, Director, Tacoma Public Utilities

Lunch (12:30-1:00 p.m.)

    Part 2: Solutions Beyond CIP-014-3
    Part 2 of the technical conference will focus on solutions for 
physical security beyond the requirements in Reliability Standard CIP-
014-3.

Panel 3--Best Practices and Operational Preparedness (1:00-2:30 p.m.)
    This panel will discuss physical security best practices for 
prevention, protection, response, and recovery. The discussion will 
include asset management strategies to prepare, incident training 
preparedness and response, and research and development needs.
    This panel may include a discussion of the following topics and 
questions:
    1. What is the physical security threat landscape for each of your 
companies? What best practices have been implemented to mitigate the 
risks and vulnerabilities of physical attacks on energy infrastructure?
    2. What asset management and preparedness best practices have your 
member companies implemented to prevent, protect against, respond to, 
and recover from physical attacks on their energy infrastructure?
    3. What research and development efforts are underway or needed for 
understanding and mitigating physical security risks to critical energy 
electrical infrastructure?
    4. What research and development efforts, including the development 
of tools, would you like to see the National Labs undertake to assist 
your companies in addressing physical threats to your critical 
electrical infrastructure?
    5. What do you need or would like to see from the energy industry 
to improve your ability and accuracy in addressing physical security 
risks to critical energy electrical infrastructure?
    6. What best practices are in place to accelerate electric utility 
situational awareness of an incident and to involve local jurisdiction 
responders?
    7. What can the federal and state regulators do to assist the 
energy industry in improving their physical security posture?
    8. What training improvements can NERC and the Regional Entities 
implement to system operators to aid in real-time identification and 
recovery procedures from physical attacks?
    9. What changes could be made to improve information sharing 
between the federal government and industry?
    Moderators:
     Joseph McClelland, Director, Office of Energy 
Infrastructure Security, FERC
     Bill Peterson, Director, Entity Development & 
Communication, SERC
    Panelists:
     Vinit Gupta, Vice President, ITC Holdings Corp.
     Randy Horton, Director, Electric Power Research Institute
     Craig Lawton, Mission Campaign Manager, Sandia National 
Lab
     Michael Ball, National Security and Resiliency Advisor, 
Berkshire Hathaway Energy
     Thomas J. Galloway, Sr., President and CEO, North American 
Transmission Forum
     Scott Aaronson, Senior Vice President, Edison Electric 
Institute

Break (2:30-2:40 p.m.)
Panel 4--Grid Planning to Respond to and Recover from Physical and 
Cyber Security Threats and Potential Obstacles (2:40-4:10 p.m.)

    This panel will explore planning to respond to and recovery from 
physical and cyber security threats and potential obstacles to 
developing and implementing such plans. This discussion will focus on 
how best to integrate cyber and physical security with engineering, 
particularly in the planning phase. The panel will discuss whether 
critical stations could be reduced through best practices and how to 
determine whether to mitigate the risk of a critical station or protect 
it. Finally, the panel will consider the implications of the changing 
resource mix on vulnerability of the grid and its resilience to 
disruptions.
    This panel may include a discussion of the following topics and 
questions:
    1. How can cyber and physical security be integrated with 
engineering, particularly planning? What aspects of cyber and physical 
security need to be incorporated into the transmission planning 
process?
    2. What modifications could be made to TPL-001 to bring in broader 
attack focus (e.g., coordinated attack)? What sensitivities or examined 
contingencies might help identify vulnerabilities to grid attacks?
    3. Currently, if a CIP-014-3 R1 assessment deems a transmission 
station/substation as ``critical'' that station/substation must be 
physically protected. Are there best practices for reconfiguring 
facilities so as to reduce the criticality of stations/substations?
    4. When prioritizing resources, how should entities determine which 
``critical'' stations/substations to remove from the list and which to 
protect? If the project is extensive and may have a long lead time to 
construct, to what degree does the station/substation need to be 
protected during the interim period?
    5. How will the development of the grid to accommodate the 
interconnection of future renewable generation affect the resilience of 
the grid to attack? Will the presence of future additional renewable 
generation itself add to or detract from the resilience of the grid to 
physical attack?
    6. What are the obstacles to developing a more resilient grid? What 
strategies can be used to address these obstacles?
    a. Cost?
    b. Siting?
    c. Regulatory Barriers?
    d. Staffing/training?
    Moderators:
     Terry Clingan, Electrical Engineer, FERC
     Ryan Quint, Director, Engineering and Security 
Integration, NERC
    Panelists:
     Ken Seiler, Vice President, PJM Interconnection

[[Page 53885]]

     Tracy McCrory, Vice President, Tennessee Valley Authority
     Daniel Sierra, Manager, Burns and McDonnell
     Daron Frederick, Chief Information Officer, Arkansas 
Electric Cooperative
     Kent Chandler, Chairman, Kentucky Public Service 
Commission

Closing Remarks (4:10-4:30 p.m.)

[FR Doc. 2023-17061 Filed 8-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.