FERC and NERC Publish Whitepaper on SolarWinds and Related Supply Chain Compromise

Jul 7, 2021

Reading Time : 3 min

On July 6, 2021, the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC) issued a whitepaper entitled “SolarWinds and Related Supply Chain Compromise – Lessons for the North American Electricity Industry.” The whitepaper “describes these major supply chain-related cyber security events and the key actions to take to secure systems”1 and is “intended for electric industry stakeholders and vendors as they consider their next steps in continued response to the SolarWinds cyberattack”2 and “other recently identified cybersecurity vulnerabilities [that] have the potential to compromise electric industry cybersecurity.”3 The whitepaper:

  • “primarily focuses on the significant and ongoing cyber event related to the SolarWinds Orion platform and the related Microsoft 365/Azure Cloud compromise, [and] also addresses vulnerabilities in products such as Pulse Connect Secure, Microsoft’s on-premise Exchange servers, and F5’s BIG-IP;”4
  • “offers key actions to take and key questions to ask to ensure the electricity industry is taking all necessary steps to mitigate compromises related to these incidents and vulnerabilities;”5 and
  • “highlights the need for continued vigilance by the electricity industry related to supply chain compromises and incidents, identifies key elements of adversary tradecraft, highlights specific malwares and tools to remediate, and recommends actions to ensure the reliability and security of the [bulk-power system].”6

With regard to the SolarWinds attack specifically, “[c]onsidering the sophistication, breadth, and persistence” of that attack,7 the whitepaper recommends “electric industry stakeholders fully consider the available diagnostics and mitigation measures to [e]ffectively address the software compromise,” including considering the recommendations in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Emergency Directive 21-01 (directed toward federal agencies) and CISA Alert AA20-352A (directed toward the private sector).8 Such recommendations include “disconnecting affected systems, conducting deep forensics, performing risk analyses, and consulting with CISA before reconnecting [or rebuilding] affected systems.”9 The whitepaper also includes its own specific recommended industry actions, which are extensive and detailed.10

Of particular note, the whitepaper states that “[b]ecause of SolarWinds’ wide use and the adversarial tactics used, even entities that did not install SolarWinds on their networks could still be impacted. For example, the indicators of compromise (IOCs) have been found on networks without SolarWinds. In addition, although SolarWinds may not have been used by entities, their key suppliers may use the product. Should the suppliers be compromised, the supplier in turn could compromise their customers, including those without SolarWinds. In fact, there is evidence technology firms were targeted for this reason.”11 Accordingly, electricity industry participants should carefully review the recommended actions in the whitepaper and the alerts it references and consider implementing those that apply to them.

The whitepaper also notes that “[t]he E-ISAC is working closely with its members, FERC, and other partners in the Canadian and United States governments to produce timely, actionable, and useful defense information for all segments of the electric industry.”12 Going forward, the E-ISAC “anticipates supplementing its current information sharing with new [Cybersecurity Risk Information Sharing Program] capabilities, enhanced cross-border sharing, and collaboration with the U.S. Department of Energy’s office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security and Emergency Response,” and FERC staff “stands ready to assist in the dissemination of actionable information that supports the electric industry in proactively responding to cyber attacks and other cyber vulnerabilities.” The whitepaper is available here. Stay tuned.


1 Whitepaper at 17.

2 Id. at 6.

3 Id. at 13.

4 Id. at 6.

5 Id.

6 Id.

7 Id. at 4.

8 Id. at 4-5.

9 Id. at 5, 9.

10 Id. at 5, 10-18.

11 Id. at 4 (emphasis added).

12 Id. at 17.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

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

© 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.