Utilities and Regulators Contemplate The Potential Costs Of Enhanced Physical Security

Feb 24, 2014

Reading Time : 1 min

By: Shawn Whites (paralegal)

The security of the electric grid, both cyber- and physical, recently has received much public attention due to publicity surrounding a sniper attack on a California substation (see our blog post on grid security here). But FERC Commissioners John R. Norris and Philip D. Moeller advise against widespread panic and superfluous spending on security measures that could “inadvertently promote the prospect of additional copycat attacks” by publicly highlighting the grid’s areas of vulnerability. In their February 20, 2014 statements (available here and here), both Commissioners acknowledged that there is always room for improving security measures. Commissioner Norris suggested that utilities continue to focus on “modernizing” the grid with the further deployment of phasor measurement units, wide-area management systems, enhanced situational awareness to improve reliability and efficiency, and increased use of microgrids and smart grid technology to improve system resiliency. Norris also championed the planned initiatives between NERC and industry stakeholders as concrete, smart solutions to growing threats. Norris fears, however, that actions such as the erection of physical barriers—called for specifically by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) (statement here)—are “20th century solution[s] for a 21st century problem.”

            Norris’s words of caution are well-timed. It has recently been reported that Dominion Virginia Power is planning to spend up to $500 million on the installation of anti-climb fences and other steel barriers around their most critical infrastructure. In addition, a recent order issued by the New York State Public Service Commission requires that Con Edison invest $1 billion over the next four years to protect its infrastructure from natural threats such as Hurricane Sandy, and human security threats such as the Metcalf incident. While Commissioner Norris conceded that some such measures may be warranted, he highlighted the risk of  “piling up billions in consumer costs in rate base” attempting to protect “400,000 miles of transmission lines and 55,000 substations” with walls and fences.  

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 24, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) directing NYISO and NYISO transmission owners to show cause as to why NYISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,216 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 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.