Document ID: FERC-2020-0807-0001
Agency: ferc
Document Type: Notice
Title: Potential Enhancements to the Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards
Posted Date: 2020-06-24T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 122 (Wednesday, June 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37932-37938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13618]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM20-12-000]

Potential Enhancements to the Critical Infrastructure Protection 
Reliability Standards

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of Inquiry.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)

[[Page 37933]]

seeks comment on certain potential enhancements to the currently-
effective Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) Reliability 
Standards. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether the 
CIP Reliability Standards adequately address the following topics: (i) 
Cybersecurity risks pertaining to data security, (ii) detection of 
anomalies and events, and (iii) mitigation of cybersecurity events. In 
addition, the Commission seeks comment on the potential risk of a 
coordinated cyberattack on geographically distributed targets and 
whether Commission action including potential modifications to the CIP 
Reliability Standards would be appropriate to address such risk.

DATES: Initial Comments are due August 24, 2020, and Reply Comments are 
due September 22, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the 
following ways:
     Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents 
created electronically using word processing software should be filed 
in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned 
format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically 
may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20426.
     Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting 
comments, see the Comment Procedures Section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Vincent Le (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, (202) 502-6204, Vincent.Le@ferc.gov.
    Kevin Ryan (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, (202) 502-6840, Kevin.Ryan@ferc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    1. In this Notice of Inquiry (NOI), the Commission seeks comment on 
whether the currently-effective Critical Infrastructure Protection 
(CIP) Reliability Standards adequately address the following topics: 
(i) Cybersecurity risks pertaining to data security, (ii) detection of 
anomalies and events, and (iii) mitigation of cybersecurity events. In 
addition, the Commission seeks comment on the potential risk of a 
coordinated cyberattack on geographically distributed targets and 
whether Commission action, including potential modifications to the CIP 
Reliability Standards, would be appropriate to address such risk.
    2. The Commission-approved CIP Reliability Standards are intended 
to provide a risk-based, defense in depth (i.e., multiple, redundant 
``defensive'' measures) approach to cybersecurity of the bulk electric 
system. Since the approval of the first mandatory CIP Reliability 
Standards in 2008, these standards have been modified on multiple 
occasions to address emerging issues and to improve the cybersecurity 
posture of the bulk electric system.\1\ Yet, new cyber threats continue 
to evolve, and the Reliability Standards should keep pace to maintain a 
robust, defense in depth approach to electric grid cybersecurity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, e.g., Version 5 Critical Infrastructure Protection 
Reliability Standards, Order No. 791, 78 FR 72,755 (Dec. 3, 2013), 
145 FERC ] 61,160 (2013), order on clarification and reh'g, Order 
No. 791-A, 146 FERC ] 61,188 (2014); Revised Critical Infrastructure 
Protection Reliability Standards, Order No. 822, 154 FERC ] 61,037, 
reh'g denied, Order No. 822-A, 156 FERC ] 61,052 (2016); Revised 
Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standard CIP-003-7--
Cyber Security--Security Management Controls, Order No. 843, 163 
FERC ] 61,032 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. With this in mind, Commission staff undertook a review of the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cyber Security 
Framework (NIST Framework), which sets forth a comprehensive, 
repeatable structure to guide cybersecurity activities and to consider 
cybersecurity risks as part of an organization's risk management 
processes of its critical infrastructure.\2\ Commission staff compared 
the content of the NIST Framework with the substance of the CIP 
Reliability Standards, and identified certain topics addressed in the 
NIST Framework that may not be adequately addressed in the CIP 
Reliability Standards. Commission staff further analyzed whether the 
identified topics are within the scope of the CIP Reliability 
Standards.\3\ Commission staff then studied whether the potential 
``gaps'' that are within the scope of the CIP Reliability Standards 
presented a significant risk to bulk electric system reliability. Based 
on this analysis, Commission staff identified the three NIST Framework 
categories that are the subject of this NOI: (i) Cybersecurity risks 
pertaining to data security, (ii) detection of anomalies and events, 
and (iii) mitigation of cybersecurity events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NIST, Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure 
Cybersecurity Version 1.1, Executive Summary at v, https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/CSWP/NIST.CSWP.04162018.pdf.
    \3\ The NIST Framework provisions that pertain to business 
organization activity were not considered appropriate to address in 
the CIP Reliability Standards. For example, the NIST Framework 
provisions that pertain to the Governance Category (ID.GV) were not 
considered appropriate to be addressed in the CIP Reliability 
Standards since they address the policies, procedures, and processes 
to manage and monitor the organization's regulatory, legal, risk, 
environmental, and operational requirements that inform the 
management of cybersecurity risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on the risk of a 
coordinated cyberattack on the bulk electric system and potential 
Commission action to address such risk. In general, bulk electric 
system planning is based on the ability to withstand a system's single 
largest contingency, known as an N-1 event. The Commission has 
questioned whether greater defense in depth is warranted to better 
protect the bulk electric system from a coordinated attack on multiple 
BES Cyber Assets.\4\ The risk of such a coordinated attack may be 
exacerbated by the recent shift from larger, centralized generation 
resources to smaller, more geographically distributed generation 
resources. The Commission seeks comment on the need to address the risk 
of a coordinated cyberattack on the bulk electric system, as well as 
potential approaches to address the matter, such as voluntary or 
mandatory participation in grid exercises, other types of training to 
prepare for a coordinated attack, and modifications to the current 
applicability thresholds in Reliability Standard CIP-002-5.1a that 
would subject additional facilities to the CIP controls that apply to 
medium and/or high impact BES Cyber Assets.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for Critical Infrastructure 
Protection, Order No. 706, 122 FERC ] 61,040, at P 256, order on 
reh'g, Order No. 706-A, 123 FERC ] 61,174 (2008), order on 
clarification, Order No, 706-B, 126 FERC ] 61,229, order on 
clarification, Order No. 706-C, 127 FERC ] 61,273 (2009). NERC 
defines BES Cyber Asset as a ``Cyber Asset that if rendered 
unavailable, degraded, or misused would, within 15 minutes of its 
required operation, misoperation, or non[hyphen]operation, adversely 
impact one or more Facilities, systems, or equipment, which, if 
destroyed, degraded, or otherwise rendered unavailable when needed, 
would affect the reliable operation of the Bulk Electric System.'' 
Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards, http://www.nerc.com/files/glossary_of_terms.pdf.
    \5\ Reliability Standard CIP-002-5.1a (Bulk Electric System 
Cyber System Categorization) requires a registered entity to 
categorize its cyber systems in terms of low, medium, and high 
impact to the grid. These impact ratings determine which 
requirements in NERC Reliability Standards CIP-004 though CIP-013 
apply to BES Cyber Systems. Attachment 1 of the Reliability 
Standards, ``Impact Rating Criteria,'' identifies the criteria for 
identifying cyber systems as low, medium or high impact. For 
example, a control center used to perform the functions of a 
balancing authority for generation equal to or greater than an 
aggregate of 3,000 megawatts (MW) in a single interconnection is 
designated a high impact asset. A control center that performs the 
operations of a generator operator for an aggregate highest rated 
net real power equal to or exceeding 1,500 MW in a single 
interconnection is designated as a medium impact asset.

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

[[Page 37934]]

I. Background

A. CIP Reliability Standards

    5. In January 2008, the Commission issued Order No. 706, which 
approved the first set of mandatory CIP Reliability Standards 
addressing cybersecurity. In Order No. 706, the Commission stated inter 
alia that NERC should look to NIST as a source for improving the CIP 
Reliability Standards. The Commission also indicated that it may 
address the appropriateness of adopting NIST cybersecurity standards in 
the CIP Reliability Standards in a future proceeding:

    The Commission continues to believe--and is further persuaded by 
the comments--that NERC should monitor the development and 
implementation of the NIST standards to determine if they contain 
provisions that will protect the Bulk-Power System better than the 
CIP Reliability Standards. . . . Consistent with the CIP NOPR, any 
provisions that will better protect the Bulk-Power System should be 
addressed in NERC's Reliability Standards development process. The 
Commission may revisit this issue in future proceedings as part of 
an evaluation of existing Reliability Standards or the need for new 
CIP Reliability Standards, . . . .\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Order No. 706, 122 FERC ] 61,040 at P 233.

    Moreover, although Order No. 706 did not directly address the issue 
of a potential coordinated attack on cyber assets, the Commission did 
express concern that focus on the N-1 planning principle may not be 
appropriate in the context of a cybersecurity because an attacker may 
simultaneously attack multiple assets. In particular, the Commission 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
observed:

    While the N minus 1 criterion may be appropriate in transmission 
planning, use of an N minus 1 criterion for the risk-based 
assessment in CIP-002-1 would result in the nonsensical result that 
no substations or generating plants need to be protected from cyber 
events. A cyber attack can strike multiple assets simultaneously, 
and a cyber attack can cause damage to an asset for such a time 
period that other asset outages may occur before the damaged asset 
can be returned to service. Thus, the fact that the system was 
developed to withstand the loss of any single asset should not be 
the basis for not protecting that asset.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id. P 256.

    6. NIST has continued to serve as an important source for the 
improvement of the CIP Reliability Standards. For example, in 2013, the 
Commission issued Order No. 791, which approved the CIP Version 5 
Standards.\8\ The CIP Version 5 Standards adapted a new approach to 
identifying BES Cyber Assets subject to the CIP Standards, categorizing 
such assets as of low, medium and high impact. NERC explained that it 
developed this tiered approach based on a review of NIST cyber security 
standards.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Version 5 Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability 
Standards, Order No. 791, 145 FERC ] 61,160 (2013), order on 
clarification and reh'g, Order No. 791-A, 146 FERC ] 61,188 (2014).
    \9\ See Order No. 791, 145 FERC ] 61,160 at P 14. On August 26, 
2019, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) submitted a 
report to Congress that addressed the completeness of the CIP 
Reliability Standards in comparison to the subject matter addressed 
in the NIST Framework as well as the risks to the electric grid from 
a coordinated cyberattack. GAO, Critical Infrastructure Protection: 
Actions Needed to Address Significant Cybersecurity Risks Facing the 
Electric Grid (Aug. 2019), https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/701079.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The NIST Framework

    7. The NIST Framework was developed in response to Executive Order 
13,636 ``Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity,'' issued on 
February 12, 2013.\10\ The NIST Framework version 1.0 was released in 
February 2014 and revised version 1.1 was released in April 2018. 
Executive Order 13,636 stated that the NIST Framework was designed to 
``reduce cyber risks to critical infrastructure[,] . . . [and] shall 
include a set of standards, methodologies, procedures, and processes 
that align policy, business, and technological approaches to address 
cyber risks[,] . . . [and] incorporate voluntary consensus standards 
and industry best practices to the fullest extent possible.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Exec. Order No. 13,636, 78 FR 11737 (Feb. 19, 2013).
    \11\ Id. at 11741.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. The NIST Framework consists of five Functions that each provide 
a high-level, strategic view of one part of an organization's 
cybersecurity risk management. The five Functions are:
     Identify--Develop the organizational understanding to 
manage cybersecurity risk to systems, assets, data, and capabilities;
     Protect--Develop and implement appropriate safeguards to 
ensure delivery of critical services;
     Detect--Develop and implement appropriate activities to 
identify the occurrence of a cybersecurity event;
     Respond--Develop and implement the appropriate activities 
to take action regarding a detected cybersecurity event; and
     Recover--Develop and implement appropriate activities to 
maintain plans for resilience and to restore any capabilities or 
services that were impaired due to a cybersecurity event.
    9. Each of the five Functions is composed of Categories and 
Subcategories, with the five Functions having a total of 23 Categories 
and 108 Subcategories. Categories are defined as cybersecurity outcomes 
closely tied to programmatic needs and activities. The 23 Categories 
that are organized within the five Functions, are as follows: (1) 
Identify Function (Asset Management, Business Environment, Governance, 
Risk Assessment, Risk Management Strategy, and Supply Chain Risk 
Management); (2) Protect Function (Identity Management and Access 
Control, Awareness and Training, Data Security, Information Protection 
Process and Procedures, Maintenance, and Protective Technology); (3) 
Detect Function (Anomalies and Events, Security Continuous Monitoring, 
and Detection Process); (4) Respond Function (Response Planning, 
Communications, Analysis, Mitigation, and Improvements); and (5) 
Recover Function (Recovery Planning, Improvements, and Communications).

II. Discussion

A. The NIST Framework

1. Analysis
    10. Based on a comparison of the NIST Framework and CIP Reliability 
Standards, Commission staff identified three NIST Framework Categories 
that may not be adequately addressed in the CIP Reliability Standards, 
and thus could reflect potential reliability gaps: (i) Cybersecurity 
risks pertaining to data security, (ii) detection of anomalies and 
events, and (iii) mitigation of cybersecurity events.
a. Data Security Category
    11. The NIST Framework Data Security Category (PR.DS) specifies 
activities to manage information and records (i.e., data) consistent 
with an organization's risk strategy to protect the confidentiality, 
integrity, and availability of information and data. The Data Security 
Category identifies internal controls in eight Subcategories to require 
that: (1) Data at rest is protected (PR.DS-1); (2) data in transit is 
protected (PR.DS-2); (3) assets are formally managed throughout 
removal, transfer, and disposition (PR.DS-3); (4) adequate capacity to 
ensure availability is maintained (PR.DS-4); (5) protections against 
data leaks are implemented (PR.DS-5); (6) integrity checking mechanisms 
are used to verify software, firmware, and information integrity 
(PR.DS-6); (7) the development and testing environment(s) are separate 
from the production environment (PR.DS-7); and (8) integrity checking 
mechanisms

[[Page 37935]]

are used to verify hardware integrity (PR.DS-8).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See NIST Cybersecurity Framework at 32-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Commission staff analysis indicates that two NIST Data Security 
Subcategories may not be adequately addressed in the CIP Reliability 
Standards. First, the Subcategory requiring adequate capacity to ensure 
availability is maintained (PR.DS-4) does not appear to be addressed in 
Reliability Standard CIP-011-2 (Information Protection) or Reliability 
Standard CIP-012-1 (Communications between Control Centers), which 
addresses real-time assessment and real-time monitoring data while 
being transmitted between any applicable control center. Reliability 
Standard CIP-011-2 addresses the confidentiality and integrity of 
medium and high impact BES Cyber System information, but it does not 
address availability of information and does not apply to low impact 
BES Cyber Systems. Reliability Standard CIP-012-1, which has not yet 
gone into effect, augments the data protection controls in the CIP 
Reliability Standard, but it is limited to real-time assessment and 
monitoring data transmitted between control centers.\13\ The loss of 
BES Cyber System information availability could result in a loss of the 
ability to accurately maintain or restore the bulk electric system, 
which could affect reliability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In Order No. 866, the Commission approved Reliability 
Standard CIP-012-1 and also directed NERC to modify the Reliability 
Standard to require protections regarding the availability of links 
and data communicated between control centers. Critical 
Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standard CIP-012-1--Cyber 
Security--Communications Between Control Centers, Order No. 866, 170 
FERC ] 61,031 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. In addition, while integrity checking mechanisms to verify 
software, firmware, and information integrity (PR.DS-6) are partially 
addressed by Reliability Standard CIP-013-1 (Supply Chain Risk 
Management), the requirements do not apply to low impact BES Cyber 
Systems, nor do they apply to information, such as a digital manual 
provided with a software tool, for low, medium, or high impact BES 
Cyber Systems. Not verifying software, firmware, and information 
integrity may allow a malicious actor to bypass existing security 
controls without detection.
    14. In sum, the absence of CIP Reliability Standard requirements 
corresponding to Subcategories PR.DS-4 and PR-DS-6 in the NIST 
Framework could represent a potential gap in the CIP Reliability 
Standards.
b. Anomalies and Events Category
    15. The NIST Framework Anomalies and Events Category (DE.AE) 
identifies security controls to detect anomalous activity and 
understand the potential impact of events. Specifically, the Anomalies 
and Events Category identifies internal controls in five Subcategories 
to require that: (1) A baseline of network operations and expected data 
flows for users and systems is established and managed (DE.AE-1); (2) 
detected events are analyzed to understand attack targets and methods 
(DE.AE-2); (3) event data are aggregated and correlated from multiple 
sources and sensors (DE.AE-3); (4) the impact of events is determined 
(DE.AE-4); and (5) incident alert thresholds are established (DE.AE-
5).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See NIST Cybersecurity Framework at 37-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. Reliability Standard CIP-008-5 (Incident Reporting and Response 
Planning) specifies incident response requirements to mitigate the risk 
to the reliable operation of the bulk electric system resulting from a 
cyber security incident.\15\ This includes a requirement that 
applicable entities have a process to ``identify, classify, and respond 
to Cyber Security Incidents,'' which corresponds to Subcategories 
DE.AE-2 and DE.AE-4.\16\ However, Reliability Standard CIP-008-5 is 
only applicable to medium and high impact BES Cyber Systems. 
Accordingly, there is no requirement, similar to Subcategories DE.AE-2 
and DE.AE-4, for low impact BES Cyber Systems. If a low impact BES 
Cyber System is compromised and an analysis is not performed, the 
compromised low impact BES Cyber System can potentially be used to gain 
access to other BES Cyber Systems, including medium and high impact BES 
Cyber Systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Reliability Standard CIP-008-6, which becomes effective on 
January 1, 2021, expands the current version's scope to include 
Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems and suspicious 
activity, but it does not include low impact BES Cyber Systems.
    \16\ Reliability Standard CIP-008-5, Requirement R1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Mitigation Category
    17. The NIST Framework Mitigation Category (RS.MI) specifies 
activities to prevent the expansion of a cybersecurity event, mitigate 
any effects and resolve the incident. The Mitigation Category 
identifies internal controls in three Subcategories to require that: 
(1) Incidents are contained (RS.MI-1); (2) incidents are mitigated 
(RS.MI-2); and (3) newly identified vulnerabilities are mitigated or 
documented as accepted risks (RS.MI-3).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See NIST Cybersecurity Framework at 42-43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. Reliability Standard CIP-008-5 requires responsible entities to 
document their cybersecurity incident response plans and provide 
evidence of incident response processes or procedures that address 
incident handling. However, Reliability Standard CIP-008-5 does not 
specifically require incident containment or mitigation as discussed in 
Subcategories RS.MI-1 and RS.MI-2.\18\ In addition, Reliability 
Standard CIP-008-5 does not apply to low impact BES Cyber Systems. 
Similarly, while Reliability Standard CIP-010-2 (Configuration 
Management and Vulnerability Assessments) addresses the need to 
mitigate newly identified vulnerabilities for medium and high impact 
BES Cyber Systems consistent with Subcategory RS.MI-3, it does not 
apply to low impact BES Cyber Systems. As noted above, without proper 
containment and mitigation, the compromise of a low impact BES Cyber 
System can potentially be used as a launching point to gain access to 
other BES Cyber Systems, including medium and high impact BES Cyber 
Systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 also does not specifically 
address incident containment or mitigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Request for Comments
    19. The Commission seeks comment on whether the currently effective 
CIP Reliability Standards adequately address aspects of the NIST 
Framework that support bulk electric system reliability and associated 
operational technology (i.e., industrial control systems), as well as 
current and projected cybersecurity risks. As discussed above, there 
may be subcategories in the NIST Framework that are not adequately 
addressed in the CIP Reliability Standards, or addressed only with 
regard to medium and high impact BES Cyber Assets but not low impact 
BES Cyber Assets. While differences between the CIP Reliability 
Standards and the NIST Framework are to be expected, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether the differences identified herein reflect 
potential reliability gaps in the CIP Reliability Standards that should 
be addressed.
    20. Below, we pose questions that commenters should address in 
their submissions. However, commenters need not address every topic or 
answer every question identified below.

    A1. The security controls in the Data Security Category require 
the management of information and records (i.e., data) consistent 
with an organization's risk strategy to protect the confidentiality, 
integrity, and availability of information and data. The Commission 
seeks comment on whether the CIP Reliability Standards adequately 
address

[[Page 37936]]

each data security subcategory as outlined in the NIST Framework 
and, if not, what are possible solutions, and in particular:
     Do the CIP Reliability Standards adequately address 
Data Security Subcategories PR.DS-4 and PR.DS-6 for medium and high 
impact BES Cyber Systems, and if so how?
     Do the CIP Reliability Standards adequately address the 
same Subcategories for low impact BES Cyber Systems, and if so how?
     If the CIP Reliability Standards do not adequately 
address these Subcategories, or any other Data Security 
Subcategories, for either low, medium or high impact BES Cyber 
Systems, explain whether this poses a risk to the reliable operation 
of the Bulk-Power System today and the Bulk-Power System of the near 
future.
    A2. The security controls in the Anomalies and Events Category 
require that anomalous activity is detected and the potential impact 
of events is understood. Furthermore, it requires that detected 
events are analyzed to understand attack targets and methods. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether the CIP Reliability Standards 
adequately address the detection and mitigation of anomalous 
activity as outlined in the NIST Framework and, if not, what are 
possible solutions, and in particular:
     Should low impact BES Cyber Systems be covered by 
Anomalies and Events Subcategories DE.AE-2 and DE.AE-4?
     Do the CIP Reliability Standards adequately address 
Anomalies and Events Subcategories DE.AE-2 and DE.AE-4 for low 
impact BES Cyber Systems, and if so how?
     If the CIP Reliability Standards do not adequately 
address these Subcategories for low impact BES Cyber Systems, 
explain whether this poses a risk to the reliable operation of the 
Bulk-Power System today and the Bulk-Power System of the near 
future.
     If the CIP Reliability Standards do not adequately 
address any other Anomalies and Events Subcategories, for either 
low, medium or high impact BES Cyber Systems, explain whether this 
poses a risk to the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System 
today and the Bulk-Power System of the near future.
    A3. The security controls in the Mitigation Category require 
that newly identified vulnerabilities are mitigated or, 
alternatively, documented as accepted risks. Response activities are 
performed to prevent expansion of an event, mitigate its effects, 
and resolve the incident. The Commission seeks comment on whether 
the CIP Reliability Standards adequately address the mitigation of 
newly identified vulnerabilities as outlined in the NIST Framework 
and, if not, what are possible solutions, and in particular:
     Do the CIP Reliability Standards adequately address 
Mitigation Subcategories RS.MI-1 and RS.MI-2 for low, medium and 
high impact BES Cyber Systems, and if so how?
     Do the CIP Reliability Standards adequately address 
Mitigation Subcategory RS.MI-3 for low impact BES Cyber Systems, and 
if so how?
     If the CIP Reliability Standards do not adequately 
address these Subcategories for low, medium or high impact BES Cyber 
Systems, explain whether this poses a risk to the reliable operation 
of the Bulk-Power System today and the Bulk-Power System of the near 
future.

B. Coordinated Cyberattack Assessment

1. Analysis
    21. As discussed below, this NOI seeks comment on the risk of a 
coordinated cyberattack on the bulk electric system and the potential 
need for Commission action to address such risk.
    22. Since the Commission approved the first mandatory CIP 
Reliability Standards in 2008, the generation resource mix has shifted 
away from larger, centralized generation resources to the expanding 
integration of smaller, geographically distributed generation 
resources. Accordingly, an increasing number of generation resources 
are categorized as low impact BES Cyber Systems, because they do not 
meet the thresholds in Reliability Standard CIP-002-5.1a for medium or 
high impact BES Cyber Systems, and therefore are not required to comply 
with the full suite of CIP Reliability Standards.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Reliability Standard CIP-002-5.1a (Cyber Security--BES 
Cyber System Categorization), Attachment 1 (Impact Rating Criteria).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. In 2008, when the CIP Reliability Standards first became 
effective, it might have been more effective to focus cybersecurity 
protections on larger generation plants than smaller plants. However, 
given the shift to smaller generation resources, it is worth examining 
whether a sophisticated threat actor could initiate a coordinated 
cyberattack targeting geographically distributed generation resources, 
posing an unacceptable risk to bulk electric system reliability. Such a 
coordinated cyberattack would present itself as a ``common mode 
failure,'' which could be similar in risk to a wide-scale disruption to 
fuel supplies, such as an attack on a natural gas pipeline.
    24. Recent publicly available studies and reports have assessed the 
potential reliability impacts of a coordinated cyberattack on 
geographically distributed targets. These sources evaluated the impact 
to the power grid from simultaneous or near simultaneous loss of 
geographically distributed electrical facilities that could result in 
widespread loss of electrical services, including long-duration, large-
scale disturbances. The following three reports highlight the potential 
risks to Bulk-Power System reliability.
    25. First, the NERC's 2019 Supply Chain Risk Assessment, based on 
information obtained through a mandatory data request to industry, 
concludes that a coordinated cyberattack ``could greatly affect [bulk 
electric system] reliability beyond the local area.'' \20\ The Supply 
Chain Risk Assessment examined the nature and complexity of 
cybersecurity supply chain risks, including those associated with low 
impact assets, and it found that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See NERC, Supply Chain Risk Assessment: Analysis of Data 
Collected under the NERC Rules of Procedure Section 1600 Data 
Request, at vi (Dec. 9, 2019) https://www.nerc.com/pa/comp/SupplyChainRiskMitigationProgramDL/SupplyChainRiskAssesmentReport.pdf.

    While [low impact] locations represent a small percentage of all 
transmission stations and substation locations, the combined effect 
of a coordinated cyberattack on multiple locations could affect BES 
reliability beyond the local area. The analysis of third-party 
electronic access to generation resource locations is even more 
concerning. More than 50% of all low impact locations of generation 
resources allow third-party electronic access. As with transmission 
stations and substations, the combined effect of a coordinated 
cyberattack could greatly affect BES reliability beyond the local 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
area.

    Based on this assessment, NERC staff recommended that the Supply 
Chain Reliability Standards should be modified to include low impact 
BES Cyber Systems with remote electronic access connectivity.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id. The NERC Board of Trustees adopted an alternative 
proposal to initiate a project to modify Reliability Standard CIP-
003-8 to include policies for low impact BES Cyber Systems for 
malicious communications and vendor remote access, while continuing 
to evaluate the effectiveness and sufficiency of the supply chain 
risk management Reliability Standards. NERC, Resolution for Agenda 
Item 8.d: Supply Chain Recommendations (February 6, 2020), https://www.nerc.com/gov/bot/Agenda%20highlights%20and%20Mintues%202013/Approved_Resolution_%20Supply%20Chain%20Follow%20Up%20(2-6-
2020).pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. Second, on September 4, 2019, NERC published a Lessons Learned 
document regarding a denial-of-service attack against multiple remote 
generation sites whose BES Cyber Systems are categorized as low impact. 
The document explained that a known vulnerability in the web interface 
of a vendor's firewall was exploited, allowing an unauthenticated 
attacker to cause unexpected reboots of the devices. The reboots 
resulted in a denial of service condition at a low impact control 
center and multiple remote low impact generation sites. This resulted 
in brief communications outages (i.e., less than five minutes) between 
field devices at the generation sites, as well as between the 
generation sites and the control center. Although the cyberattack did 
not cause a disturbance, it met the definition of a coordinated 
cyberattack,

[[Page 37937]]

and it is possible that this was the first coordinated cyberattack on 
the Bulk-Power System. The document recommended that ``[e]ven in cases 
involving low-Impact BES assets, an entity should strive for good cyber 
security policies and procedures'' by considering adopting security 
controls for low impact BES Cyber Assets above those required under the 
CIP Reliability Standards.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ NERC, Lesson Learned Risks Posed by Firewall Firmware 
Vulnerabilities, at 2-3 (Sept. 4, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. Finally, on January 29, 2019, the United States Office of the 
Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) reported to the United States 
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concerning potential nation 
state risks.\23\ Specifically, the ODNI reported that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ ODNI, Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence 
Community (Jan. 29, 2019), https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/2019-ATA-SFR-SSCI.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Russia has the ability to execute cyber attacks in the United 
States that generate localized, temporary disruptive effects on 
critical infrastructure--such as disrupting an electrical distribution 
network for at least a few hours--similar to those demonstrated in 
Ukraine in 2015 and 2016. Moscow is mapping our critical infrastructure 
with the long-term goal of being able to cause substantial damage.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. In addition, ODNI reported that, ``China has the ability to 
launch cyber attacks that cause localized, temporary disruptive effects 
on critical infrastructure--such as disruption of a natural gas 
pipeline for days to weeks--in the United States.'' \25\ ODNI concluded 
that our nation state adversaries and strategic competitors will 
increasingly use cyber capabilities to, among other things, disrupt 
critical infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. The loss of power supply to an Interconnection can and has 
caused instability, uncontrolled separation, and cascading failures. 
Unreliable operations can be caused by either near simultaneous or 
sequential loss of facilities, which cause thermal, voltage, and/or 
stability limits to be violated. Simultaneous or near simultaneous loss 
of multiple facilities under 1,500 MW can cause these effects, which 
has been demonstrated historically \26\ and through simulations.\27\ 
The loss of even a single facility can cause thermal overloads on 
parallel facilities. Combined or sequential losses can trigger safety 
systems such as underfrequency load shedding relays to operate across 
the Interconnection which, in turn, could lead to instability and 
cascading outages. Based on the review of publicly available 
information discussed above, it is possible that such incidents could 
be caused by a coordinated cyberattack on geographically distributed 
targets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See generally U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force, 
Final Report on the August 14 Blackout in the United States and 
Canada: Causes and Recommendations (April 2004), http://www.ferc.gov/cust-protect/moi/blackout.asp.
    \27\ See, e.g., NERC, Frequency Response Initiative Report: The 
Reliability Impact of Frequency Response (October 30, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Request for Comments
    30. The Commission seeks comment on the potential risk of a 
coordinated cyberattack on geographically distributed targets and 
whether modifications to the CIP Reliability Standards, including 
potential modifications to the current MW thresholds, would be 
appropriate to address such risks. In particular, the Commission seeks 
comment regarding the procedures and security controls that are 
currently employed to protect against the potential risk of a 
geographically distributed coordinated cyberattack and whether 
modifications to the CIP Reliability Standards would be appropriate to 
address such risks.

    B1. Are there operating processes and procedures that can be 
used to evaluate, mitigate, protect against, and recover from 
potential geographically distributed coordinated cyberattacks? 
Describe generally the efficiency and effectiveness of these 
operating processes and procedures, including response to and 
recovery from a potential geographically distributed coordinated 
cyberattack.
    B2. Are there security controls that can be used to evaluate, 
mitigate, and protect against potential geographically distributed 
coordinated cyberattacks? Describe generally the efficiency and 
effectiveness of these security controls in mitigating the risk of a 
potential geographically distributed coordinated cyberattack.
    B3. Which, if any, of these processes, procedures, or security 
controls could enhance the currently approved CIP Reliability 
Standards to better address the risk of a geographically distributed 
coordinated cyberattack?
    B4. What future changes to the bulk electric system design could 
affect the potential risks of geographically distributed coordinated 
cyberattacks?
    B5. Are current regional drill exercises and operator training 
effective in preparing to mitigate and recover from a geographically 
distributed coordinated cyberattack?
     Does current initial system operator training, or 
refresher training, either in class or in EMS simulation, include 
training to recognize and respond to a coordinated cyberattack, and 
should that training be required?
     Do system operators and their leadership participate, 
and if so, how often, in regional drills and training exercises that 
simulate coordinated cyberattacks on the Bulk Electric System, and 
should participation in such exercises be required?
     Do system operators and their leadership participate, 
and if so, how often, in regional drills and training exercises that 
simulate coordinated cyberattacks on other critical infrastructure 
in addition to the bulk electric system (i.e., communication 
systems, pipelines, water systems, etc.), and should participation 
in such exercises be mandatory?
     Discuss whether any aspects of drill exercises or 
operating training pertaining to mitigation and recover from a 
geographically distributed coordinated cyberattack should be 
incorporated into the Reliability Standards. In particular, while 
some entities may voluntarily engage in drill exercises or training, 
should this be required of all entities, or specific functional 
categories? Should participation of specific personnel categories or 
leadership be required?
    B6. Describe the effectiveness of industry information sharing 
at mitigating potential geographically distributed coordinated 
cyberattacks?
    B7. Discuss whether the thresholds established in Reliability 
Standard CIP-002-5.1a, Attachment 1, Section 2 are appropriate to 
address the risk of a geographically distributed coordinated 
cyberattack.
     If not, what would be appropriate method or approach to 
identify thresholds to address the risk.
     Alternatively, what additional security controls, if 
implemented, would be appropriate to address the risk?

III. Comment Procedures

    31. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on 
the matters and issues proposed in this notice, including any related 
matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. 
Comments are due August 24, 2020, and Reply Comments are due September 
22, 2020. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM20-12-000, and must 
include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if 
applicable, and their address.
    32. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically 
via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word-processing 
formats. Documents created electronically using word-processing 
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format 
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not 
need to make a paper filing.
    33. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically 
must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20426.
    34. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files 
and may

[[Page 37938]]

be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document 
Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not 
required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

IV. Document Availability

    35. 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 (http://www.ferc.gov) and 
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours 
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. eastern time) at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, 
Washington, DC 20426.
    36. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this 
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is 
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, 
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type 
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in 
the docket number field.
    37. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's 
website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online 
Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at 
ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at 
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Issued: June 18, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-13618 Filed 6-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P