It’s an unfortunate set of circumstances that leave this chair next to me being empty today. One thing we’ve learned over the last few months is that, because of the important work FERC does and the issues our jurisdiction spans, this agency has moved beyond the time when it got to stay out of the broader political limelight. So, the question for me, then, is how to bring forward, into this new normal, successful approaches to achieve our statutory responsibilities.
We often point out that the vast majority of Commission orders are issued on a unanimous basis. I am proud of that statistic; we all cite it. But here’s the thing. The reality is that on the very hard orders, the decisions about how we will approach important changes to a regulatory framework that is outdated and undermatched for the challenges at hand, we have a less winning record on consensus. That’s okay. That’s our starting reality.
In this brave new world, each commissioner will come with prior perspectives on their approach to managing those challenges. A commissioner may come to this table antagonistic or indifferent to, or even in favor of the energy transition that the markets are driving. The job at hand—attempting to ensure affordability, reliability, and fairness in this broader context of challenges—will sometimes comport and sometimes conflict with those prior perspectives. But the responsibility to aim for these statutory directives remains constant nonetheless.
To be clear—never has the need to figure out how to make progress together been more critical than it is today. Our country faces grave physical and cyber threats to a reliable energy system. Extreme weather is bearing down on that system, which wasn’t designed to withstand its force.
I have been thinking a lot about the best shot this Commission has at facilitating a reliable and affordable energy transition.
First, let’s renew our commitment to technology neutrality. The Federal Power Act was designed to endure in ever evolving circumstances—to require affordability, and more recently reliability—no matter the resources dominating the electricity mix. This requires a willingness to adapt system planning and market rules to a new set of resource characteristics and evolving system needs. And whether the problem be reliability or high costs, it requires consideration of all the tools in the solutions toolbox, no matter how long they’ve been around or whether they fall on the supply or demand side of the ledger.
Second, let’s push to achieve data-driven decision-making. Only when we are willing to look at good data and credible studies, no matter the author, can we address reliability and cost issues in concrete terms on a forward-looking basis. Only when we address reliability and cost issues in concrete terms can we decide whether and how much change is needed, and where any needed change may fall on the spectrum from incremental to wholesale reform.
Pausing on these first two points, we have an important test ahead of us with understanding the lessons learned from the pending Winter Storm Elliott inquiry that the Chairman mentioned. FERC and NERC staff must undertake this inquiry with these principles in mind.
Finally, let’s commit to prioritizing the “public” in public interest. This requires continuing to improve accessibility to our agency. It includes a genuine belief that transparency improves outcomes. It means fairly considering good arguments no matter which stripe the stakeholder who makes them wears. And it means being open to the idea of making changes requested by stakeholders, small and large, because they make our decisions better.
I’m happy to support a productive conversation that the Chairman has announced with representatives from environmental justice groups, Tribes, and others who have concerns about FERC’s permitting and the impact of infrastructure. The only way that can successful is if those representatives have input on the agenda of the forum and have fair representation on the panels at that forum. This Commission has talked a lot about environmental justice for the last couple of years, and ultimately, successful is when input we receive on those issues impacts the decisions that we are making.
E-1
Thanks to Cesar, Seth, and the Team for their work on this item.
I glad to support today’s order directing NERC to address what amounts to a gap in our current cybersecurity standards. As our staff explained well, our existing standards only require monitoring at the perimeter of critical networks but do not require monitoring within those networks should that first line of defense fail. We’ve been watching enough football this week—you can’t win on defense with only your linemen.
If this sounds like common sense, that’s because it is. Our foundational standards are just that – and we must be vigilant to keep that ground floor strong enough by evolving standards to counter the evolving threat. I’m very pleased that we are directing a firm 15-month deadline for NERC to propose a standard for review. As we all know, the reliability standards development and implementation processes take time, but it is imperative that we get this important cybersecurity measure in place as quickly as is feasible.