Whether it’s the flip of a light switch or plugging in your cell phone to charge – never has the reliability of our energy supply been more important to so much in our daily lives. That also means never has energy infrastructure been a greater potential target for an attack or energy security been as important.
It is indisputable that ensuring the reliable and uninterrupted supply of fuels and electricity is absolutely essential to our nation’s economy, security, and the health and safety of its citizens. However, as our energy infrastructure has become more complex and society has grown more dependent on this infrastructure, safeguarding it has become particularly challenging.
Recently reported high-profile attempts by foreign nations to infiltrate our nation’s energy sector, as well as a devastating year for natural disasters in 2017, highlight the need for preparing for and mitigating these real and growing threats. The security and reliability of our energy supply must be at the top of Washington’s agenda, or we could face serious costly and life-threatening consequences.
Since its inception, the Department of Energy (DOE) has performed a vital energy security mission to ensure the supply and delivery of fuels and power in emergencies. Over time, DOE has developed the information tools and technical capacity to respond to emergencies and develop advanced technologies to protect the nation’s energy infrastructure, especially against cyber threats. In recent years, Congress reemphasized DOE’s responsibility to respond to both physical and digital threats against our energy systems through the passage of the FAST Act of 2015. Of course, for DOE to effectively carry out its responsibilities, it must account for each interrelated segment of the nation’s energy infrastructure, including pipelines, which are subject to an array of other federal authorities.
This is why I introduced the Pipeline and LNG Facility Cybersecurity Preparedness Act to address this issue. This legislation requires the Secretary of Energy to establish a program to improve cooperation between federal agencies, states, and industry in order to ensure the safe and dependable flow of energy across the United States. This will help boost both the physical resiliency and cybersecurity of energy pipelines and liquefied natural gas facilities.
The threat of damage from a disaster or an attack on our energy infrastructure is no longer a matter of “if,” but “when.” Congress must act swiftly to provide DOE with the tools it needs to enhance preparedness and protections of our energy systems. It is time to enact legislation that confronts these threats and improves the resiliency and reliability of our nation’s energy infrastructure.
While the federal government should step up efforts to protect our energy infrastructure (and our elections) from foreign interference, the biggest threat to our nation’s economy, security, and the health… Read more »
I recently heard that many of the nation’s pipelines are in the California area cross over the famous San Andreas fault. If this is correct, then one needs to estimate… Read more »
“our nation’s increasing dependence upon natural gas” is a “shale revolution” statement when the enthusiasm for natural gas was based on 2 main premises … • Apparently large-scale gas reserves… Read more »
There is a presumption in some comments that the infrastructure issue should be based on expanding renewables and suppression of natural gas because it is finite and fossil fuels are… Read more »
It is surprising that anyone in this day and age would claim that the use of fossil fuels does not cause a serious climate change problem. Every major scientific academy… Read more »
Dan, we have been down this road before. The analogy that comes to mind is that if your only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail. Your assertions… Read more »
Bill: If you are relying on me to now educate you about the dangers of climate change, you have not been paying attention for the past decade. In any case,… Read more »
Your citation to the national academies link could not be opened. Unless it is a summary of every national academy in the world, you have not been responsive. Your citation… Read more »
Bill: I said every major scientific academy. Here is the link: http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf You like to talk about climate sensitivity, as if the uncertainly range in that parameter somehow makes us… Read more »
This will be my last comment on your silly assertions. To claim that there are only 11 major national academies with Brazil being one is just foolish. More important, I… Read more »
Bill: You claimed that the presumption that “fossil fuels are causing a serious climate change problem” does “not withstand close scrutiny”. When I pointed out that the collective scientific community… Read more »
Dan, one of the reasons for my participating is to see how you will distort me, claim that I said things that I never did, and ignore what I did… Read more »
Bill: I quoted you about fossil fuels and climate change! You then argued about the low end of climate sensitivity again (even though there is only a small chance the… Read more »
Dan, I don’t think that you have ever quoted me correctly because you have your mind made up about what I believe. I have never said that we don’t have… Read more »
Bill: Again, I was quoting you. You said that the presumption that “fossil fuels are causing a serious climate change problem” does “not withstand close scrutiny.” You don’t say that… Read more »
There is so much wrong in what you say about models, the pause, and what I believe. You excel in distortion. Here is what Carl Wunsch–hardly a denier–has to say… Read more »
Bill: So, when I quote you verbatim, I am still misquoting you? Since I only claim to accept the conclusions of the climate science community, your reference (via Judith Curry!)… Read more »
Dan, what I included in the Curry piece, as I clearly stated, was from Carl Wunsch who as I am sure you know is one of the world’s leading oceanographers.… Read more »
There is enough conventional and unconventional natural gas to sustain our use for the rest of this century. The notion that fracking is a money losing proposition long term defies… Read more »
I’m not sure where your numbers come from but if you look at Table 3 in EIA’s latest report on subsidies–subsidy.pdf– you will see that renewables get the most and… Read more »
Please take a look at the last citation in my previous comment … the report I have saved says http://www.priceofoil.org “This study finds that U.S. federal and state governments are… Read more »
You can rely on numbers generated by an advocacy organization but I believe that EIA is one of the most credible sources. Some of the statements in price of oil… Read more »
Mr. O’Keefe … You were not specific in your criticism but here are 2 other citations. UCS, and I, have complained about EIA’s numbers in the past. Me – mostly… Read more »
The problem that I have is that some of the numbers cited in the first article include what are considered standard business deductions. Intangible drilling costs cover normal business expenses… Read more »
Comment to OKeefe Before you go further … I and most other analysis disagree with you. Here is one: “60 Years of Energy Incentives … Analysis of Federal Expenditures for… Read more »
I think that we have taken this as far as possible and will never reach agreement or common ground. You continue to cite private analyses and dismiss government ones that… Read more »
Were we talking about opinion I would totally “agree to disagree”, but we are talking about facts and the reality of their particular derivation so I will just add this… Read more »
Congressman Upton, While it makes sense for the federal government to help coordinate actions to respond to physical and cyber threats on the nation’s energy infrastructure, I agree with Dan… Read more »
Chairman Upton, Many thanks for taking the time to instigate this discussion on OEP and indeed for introducing your important legislation. It is a little disappointing that the discussion so… Read more »
The issues raised are whether the effort put into protecting NG infrastructure would be better placed addressing a much more serious threat to our national security. Many of the people… Read more »
The most serious threat to energy security is the pseudoscientific nature of the global warming models that are used in the establishment of federal and state energy policies. Much of… Read more »
This does not make much sense. You should write objections to the thousands of published peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate change that are supposedly missing the statistical populations you are… Read more »
Dan Miller: Your understanding is mistaken but your mistake is understandable in view of past applications of the equivocation fallacy by the UN-IPCC and others in making global warming arguments.… Read more »