House Passes Three Bipartisan Cybersecurity Bills to Protect Critical Infrastructure

Jul 31, 2014

Reading Time : 3 min

NCCIPA directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to coordinate with federal, state and local government entities and, most notably, private entities and critical infrastructure owners and operators to perform numerous cybersecurity improvement tasks. Those tasks include facilitating information sharing, developing resiliency strategies and providing cyber incident response. The bill, introduced by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX), Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), Subcommittee Chairman Patrick Meehan (R-PA) and Subcommittee Ranking Member Yvette Clarke (D-NY), also recognizes the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, a subdivision of DHS established in 2009, as the interface for sharing real-time cyber threat information.

CIRDA aims to enhance cybersecurity research and development, requiring the Secretary to submit to Congress (1) “a strategic plan to guide the overall direction of federal physical security and cybersecurity technology research and development efforts for protecting critical infrastructure” and (2) “a report on the Department’s utilization of public-private research and development consortiums for accelerating technology development for critical infrastructure protection,” both of which must be updated every two years. 

Finally, the Boots-on-the-Ground Act requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to classify and evaluate the individuals performing cybersecurity-related duties, identify weaknesses in the workforce, and develop a workforce strategy including a recruitment plan, 5-year implementation plan, and 10-year projection of needs.

Chairman McCaul noted that one of the primary purposes of the collective legislation was to address the “pre-9/11 mindset when it comes to cybersecurity.”2 Specifically, Chairman McCaul noted that an attack on the nation’s “oil and gas pipelines [or] power grids . . . could cause crippling economic damage and could even cost lives.” Furthermore, DHS has acknowledged both that “[t]he reliance of virtually all industries on electric power and fuels means that all sectors have some dependence on the Energy Sector,” and that “[m]ore than 80 percent of the country’s energy infrastructure is owned by the private sector.”3 Thus, it is significant that these House bills (1) recognize Energy as a “critical infrastructure sector” and (2) aim to utilize public-private sector cooperation to improve the nation’s cybersecurity.

Also, the proponents of the bills contend that they strike the right balance between security and privacy concerns. While any bill that requires information sharing, especially among government and private sector entities, will likely raise privacy concerns, Rep. Meehan was quick to note that these bills have received support from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as both “pro-privacy and pro-security.”4 The ACLU has previously supported the idea that from a transparency perspective, among the various federal agencies, DHS is best suited to handle cybersecurity issues.5


1 The full list of sectors includes:  Chemical; Commercial Facilities; Communications; Critical Manufacturing; Dams; Defense Industrial Base; Emergency Services; Energy; Financial Services; Food and Agriculture; Government Facilities; Health Care and Public Health; Information Technology; Nuclear Reactors, Materials, and Waste; Transportation Systems; and Water and Wastewater Systems. 

2 See Comm. on Homeland Sec., House Passes Bipartisan Legislation to Protect Critical Infrastructure from Cyber Attack (July 28, 2014) (“House Comm. on Homeland Sec. Press Release”).

3 See Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Energy Sector Overview (June 12, 2014), http://www.dhs.gov/energy-sector (emphasis added).

4 See House Comm. on Homeland Sec. Press Release.

5 See Am. Civil Liberties Union, Way to go DHS! And Shame on the Rest of You (Apr. 18, 2014), https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/way-go-dhs-and-shame-rest-you; DHS Cybersecurity: Roles and Responsibilities to Protect the Nation's Critical Infrastructure: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Homeland Sec., 113th Cong. (2013) (statement of Michelle Richardson, Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union), available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM00/20130313/100390/HHRG-113-HM00-Wstate-RichardsonM-20130313.pdf.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

December 5, 2024

On November 27, 2024, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued Venture Global CP2 LNG, LLC,1 an order that sets aside, in part, the Commission’s prior authorization of the CP2 LNG Terminal and CP Express Pipeline Project (collectively, the CP2 Project) under sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). In anticipation of future appellate challenges to its authorization of the CP2 Project, FERC ordered the initiation of a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to assess the CP2 Project’s contribution to cumulative air impacts for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). Accordingly, FERC stated that it would not allow construction to commence on the CP2 Project’s proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal and related feed gas pipeline until the SEIS process concluded and a subsequent order was issued. Concurrent with its Venture Global order, FERC issued a projected schedule for the NEPA process that does not conclude until July 24, 2025. Construction on the CP2 Project had been expected to be imminent, with the project sponsor seeking a partial authorization to proceed with construction only hours prior to Venture Global’s issuance.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

December 5, 2024

On November 27, 2024, in Venture Global, CP2 LNG, LLC,1 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC or Commission) explicitly overruled precedent set in Northern Natural Gas Co.,2 a 2021 decision in which FERC made an affirmative finding that an interstate natural gas pipeline project it was certificating under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) would not make a “significant” contribution to global climate change. Northern Natural is the only FERC decision in which a so-called significance determination was made with respect to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) arising from a FERC-regulated natural gas infrastructure project. In Venture Global, FERC rejected arguments that it needed to follow Northern Natural and assess the significance of GHG emissions in all NGA certificate proceedings to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires federal agencies, including FERC, that perform “major federal actions,” which include issuing NGA section 7 certificates, to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) if the action will “significantly affect[] the quality of the human environment.”3 FERC has been under pressure to fully explain why it has chosen not to apply Northern Natural’s significance analysis in subsequent cases, and that issue is currently before FERC on remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) in Healthy Gulf et al. v. FERC, which reviewed FERC’s approval of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal under NGA section 3.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

December 4, 2024

On November 21, 2024, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued Order No. 1920-A1 addressing requests for rehearing and clarification of FERC’s landmark final rule on transmission planning and cost allocation issued in May 2024. While the Commission largely affirmed the final rule, the order grants rehearing of some of the more controversial aspects of Order No. 1920.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

August 7, 2024

*Thank you to JaKell Larson, 2024 Akin Summer Associate, for her valuable collaboration on this article.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 31, 2024

Interstate oil, liquid and refined products pipelines regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will soon be able to raise their transportation rates (provided they were set using FERC’s popular Index rate methodology) in the wake of a significant new decision by the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) in Liquid Energy Pipeline Association v. FERC (LEPA).

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 29, 2024

On Wednesday, July 24, 2024, the U.S. House of Representative Committee on Energy and Commerce held a Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security hearing to review the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request. Members of the Subcommittee had the opportunity to hear testimony from all five Commissioners, including FERC Chairman Willie Phillips and Commissioner Mark Christie, as well as the three recently confirmed commissioners, David Rosner, Lindsay See and Judy Chang. In addition to their prepared remarks, the five commissioners answered questions on FERC’s mandate to provide affordable and reliable electricity and natural gas services nationwide, while also ensuring it fulfills its primary mission of maintaining just and reasonable rates.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 29, 2024

On July 9, 2024, the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) erred in ordering refunds for certain bilateral spot market transactions in the Western Energy Coordinating Council (WECC) region that exceeded the $1,000/megawatt-hour (MWh) “soft” price cap for such sales.1 Finding FERC failed to conduct a “Mobile-Sierra public-interest analysis” before “altering” those contracts by ordering refunds, the court vacated FERC’s orders and remanded the case to FERC for further proceedings.2

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2024

On June 28, 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which for 40 years required court deference to reasonable agency interpretations of federal statutes in certain circumstances, even when the reviewing court would read the statute differently. The Court ended “Chevron deference” and held that courts “must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” In doing so, the Court upended a longstanding principle of administrative law that is likely to make agency decisions more susceptible to challenge in the courts.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.