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

August 15, 2025

On August 8, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an enforcement order in Skye MS, LLC (Skye) and levied a $45,000 civil penalty on an intrastate pipeline operator in Mississippi, resolving an investigation into the operator’s violations of section 311 (Section 311) of the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA). FERC faulted the operator for providing a Section 311 transportation service without timely filing a Statement of Operating Conditions (SOC) and obtaining FERC’s approval for the transportation rates. Section 311 permits intrastate pipelines to transport interstate gas “on behalf of” interstate pipelines without becoming subject to FERC’s more extensive Natural Gas Act (NGA) jurisdiction, but requires the intrastate pipeline to have an SOC stating the rates and terms and conditions of service on file with FERC within 30 days of providing the interstate service. Under the NGPA, Section 311 rates must be “fair and equitable” and approved by FERC. In Skye, FERC stated that the operator began providing Section 311 service on certain pipeline segments in Mississippi in May 2023, following their acquisition from another Section 311 operator, but did not file an SOC with FERC until April 2025. The order ties the penalty to the approximately two-year delay between commencement of the Section 311 service and the SOC filing date. The pipeline operator was also ordered to provide an annual compliance report and to abide by additional verification requirements related to the filing of its FERC Form No. 549D, the Quarterly Transportation & Storage Report for Intrastate Natural Gas and Hinshaw Pipelines.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

August 6, 2025

In Sierra Club v. FERC, No. 24-1199 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 1, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) upheld the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) approval of a 1,000-foot natural gas pipeline segment crossing the United States-Mexico border (the Border Pipeline) under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), rejecting environmental groups’ challenges that FERC improperly limited its analysis under both the NGA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as related to a 155-mile intrastate “Connector Pipeline” constructed upstream of the Border Pipeline in Texas.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 17, 2025

On July 15, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued an order1 proposing to eliminate the soft price cap of $1,000 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for bilateral spot sales in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) that was implemented following the California energy crisis. If adopted, the Commission’s proposal would eliminate the requirement that sellers make a filing with FERC cost justifying spot market sales in excess of the soft price cap, which have become increasingly common in recent years as market conditions have continued to tighten throughout the West. Eliminating the WECC soft price cap would provide sellers that make sales during periods when prices exceed the cap greater certainty that their sales will not be second guessed after the fact.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2025

On June 4–5, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) hosted a commissioner-led technical conference to discuss resource adequacy challenges facing regional transmission organizations and independent system operators (RTO). The conference is a response to the growing concern that multiple RTO regions across the country may not have sufficient supply available in the coming years to meet demand due to resource retirements, the pace of new generation entry and higher load growth arising from the construction of data centers and reindustrialization.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 12, 2025

We are pleased to share the presentation slide deck and a recording of Akin’s recently presented webinar, “Navigating U.S. Policy Shifts in the Critical Minerals Sector.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 10, 2025

On June 4, 2025, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) announced revisions to its procedures for pipeline safety enforcement actions. The changes, outlined in two new policy memoranda from PHMSA’s Office of the Chief Counsel (PHC), aim to enhance due process protections for pipeline operators by clarifying how civil penalties are calculated and expanding the disclosure of agency records in enforcement proceedings.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

May 22, 2025

On May 19, 2025, the Department of Energy (DOE) finalized its 2024 LNG Export Study: Energy, Economic and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports (the 2024 Study) through the release of a Response to Comments on the 2024 Study. The Response to Comments concludes that the 2024 Study, as augmented through public comments submitted on or before March 20, 2025, supporting a finding that liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports serve the public interest. With the comment process complete, DOE will move forward with final orders on pending applications to export LNG to non-free trade agreement (non-FTA) countries.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

May 20, 2025

On Thursday, May 15, the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Freight, Pipelines and Safety held a hearing titled, “Pipeline Safety Reauthorization: Ensuring the Safe and Efficient Movement of American Energy.” The hearing examined legislative priorities for reauthorizing the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).

...

Read More

© 2025 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.