Several months ago, Ted Koppel released a book titled, “Lights Out.” I have not yet read the book but I have read the summaries and watched a few interviews with Ted.
Mr. Koppel believes that the national electric grid relies heavily on the internet. Thus, the grid is vulnerable. He sounds the alarm for terrorist-caused outages lasting weeks, months and even years. He believes Homeland Security doesn’t have a plan, nobody is paying attention and the country is woefully unprepared.
Is our national grid vulnerable? Yes, it is as vulnerable as our transportation system, air traffic control and financial networks that we also count on every day to run the U.S. The more we rely on the internet, the more vulnerable we become in all areas. I don’t believe Mr. Koppel is breaking a big news story here.
I believe Mr. Koppel is inaccurate in his assessments. Protecting the nation’s electric power grid is an industry priority. Daily, utility personnel are monitoring and responding to events big and small on the bulk electric system. Within the industry, there are planning, coordination, response and resiliency activities that consumers and the media don’t see. It’s not a 6 o’clock news story when the system works.
There are mandatory and enforceable cyber security standards for the electric utility industry that other industries simply don’t have. Electric cooperatives and other utilities have willingly worked with the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) on developing these standards.
Grid security is serious business and has been for decades. Yes, there have been failures in the past. In 1965, 30 million people were left in the dark for 5 hours. Then, almost 40 years later in 2003, 50 million people were out of power over an 8 state region. The longest outages in 2003 were 4 days in a few areas. Each time the industry learned valuable lessons that are protecting us today.
Electric cooperatives are supporting legislation that encourages voluntary cyber security information sharing between government and industry. We believe such sharing is critical to addressing threats against our national infrastructure (most of which is owned by private companies). The more actionable intelligence we can get our hands on, the more prepared we can become.
Last year, President Obama signed a massive federal highway bill into law. To help the U.S. electric grid respond to attacks both physical and cyber, this law directs the Secretary of Energy to develop a strategic reserve of transmission equipment, large transformers and mobile substations.
Cyber security standards, equipment reserves and information sharing are just a few of the ways the U.S. is preparing for attacks on the electric grid. Mr. Koppel’s claims that nothing is being done are hollow alarms designed to sell more books.
Nobody can promise 100% security. I am by no means claiming that we have nothing to worry about. I am confident that the electric industry has a proven track record of vigilance, diligence and desire to keep “Lights ON.”
Thank You for doing a great job………
“Electric cooperatives are supporting legislation that encourages voluntary cyber security information sharing between government and industry.”
According to Mr. Kopel, the “voluntary” sharing of information as you reference above is part of the problem, as utility companies often do not voluntarily share critical information; what could possibly be the down-side for the protection of the public for there to be mandatory sharing of information from utility companies when there is a problem detected on the grid?
Mr. Kopel also pointed out that Federal Agencies are ham-strung as the utility industry must essentially approve regulations and when that approval is forthcoming it is typically for regulations that have no enforcement teeth. It seems to me that it is the “tail (utility industry) wagging the dog (government agencies) and the public must essentially rely on the industries self-oversight.
You make a good point. I believe that voluntary sharing might be a solid first step. If sharing is mandatory, everyone will then be fighting over the specific details of what is mandatory. In this debate, we might lose out on valuable information simply due to the definition in the legislation. I am an obviously biased long time industry executive that still believes utilities and the people that operate them will ultimately do the right thing. Thus, voluntary is good enough for me. I would not oppose anything mandatory but again, believe it would create a “great debate” on what is shared that would not be productive.
As far as your second point, I have always advocated for less government intervention. Again, I believe utilities will do the right thing if left to their own devices. Government does need to play a watch dog role to ensure that the proper steps/protections are being completed. Do they really need to micro-manage the industry? I don’t believe so.
Thanks for taking the time to make thoughtful and reasoned comments. It is appreciated.
Tony Anderson
Thank you Tony.
I have heard many alarmist over the years, sometimes they open eyes but often they cause undo panic.
I have confidence in American companies and the American people to prepare and withstand.
I also appreciate our Government’s efforts to set standards. Government is not the bad guy, it just sometimes has bad guys setting policies or standing in the way of good policies.
Thank you for a better explanation of the issue. Mr. Koppel is in the news business and I believe that a calm discussion on and issue is not as interesting (e.g. dog bites man vs. man bites dog). I served on the governors commission of disposal of low level nuclear waste in Michigan about 25 years ago and I had the opportunity to see how opposing parties manipulate the truth to best fit their passion.
Tony,
While I appreciate you addressing this issue, on the minds of many NPR listeners, my first reaction is that I along with millions of others listen when Ted Koppel speaks because of his long track record of award winning investigation and his longer standing record of credibility as a journalist. I truly doubt that selling books is on his list of priorities. If you do read his book you will find his sources are well documented. This isn’t his imagination at work. I’m sincerely asking that you do indeed read the book, check his sources and then respond to this serious problem.
Thanks for sharing this information.
Thank you.
My comment is not on the article, but on the title. “A Ted Attack” sets a negative tone before anyone has even read the article, and implies that Ted Koppel is the focus of your discourse – neither of which appears to be your objective. A better title would have been: “Response to a Ted Alarm,” making it clear you have a rational response, and are not focused on bashing a respected journalist. The word “alarm” would be a neutral description of his book, whereas “attack” is a negative opinion that does not contribute to the discussion. That being said, I am glad that the electric power industry is preparing for all contingencies. As a leader, not a journalist, it never hurts for you to have one of your staff writers review your articles before publication – they might have suggested a more appropriate title.
My bigger concern is the nations ability to turn the electricity back on after a massive solar storm. I’ve heard that there is not the manufacturing capacity anywhere in the world that could rebuild the transformers needed to replace the ones that burn out when the solar storm hits. I would appreciate your thoughts or any “facts” that you might have in regards to this.
While solar storms are real, it is my belief that they only impact DC high voltage transformers responsible for transmitting energy long distances across the country. There are no such transformers in Michigan. Through a recent magazine article, we have learned that the Department of Energy is working on a way to put together some spare units in case of future failures. I will try to attempt to find more research on this matter but solar flares simply aren’t an issue at the Cherryland Electric Cooperative level of electricity distribution.
Cherryland Electric Cooperative is making many distribution system improvements designed to combat these problems and increase service reliability to members. With the implementation of a new program designed to locate failing insulators, Cherryland Electric has reduced its number of blinking lights caused by lightning. More lightning arresters and ground rods are also being placed on the system which redirects lightning strikes away from transformers and insulators.