[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 23 (Friday, February 5, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8309-8325]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01986]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 23 / Friday, February 5, 2021 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM21-3-000]

Cybersecurity Incentives

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission is proposing to revise its regulations to
establish rules for incentive-based rate treatments for voluntary
cybersecurity investments by a public utility for or in connection with
the transmission or sale of electric energy subject to the jurisdiction
of the Commission, and rates or practices affecting or pertaining to
such rates for the purpose of ensuring the reliability of the Bulk-
Power System.

DATES: Comments are due April 6, 2021. Also, reply comments are due May
6, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed
electronically at http://www.ferc.gov in acceptable native applications
and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture format. For those
unable to file electronically, comments may be filed by mail or may be
hand-delivered. Mailed comments should be addressed to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand-delivered comments should be delivered
to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852. The Comment Procedures Section of this
document contains more detailed filing procedures.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jessica L. Cockrell (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy
and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Craig W. Barrett (Technical Information), Office of Energy
Infrastructure Security, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Andr[eacute]s L[oacute]pez Esquerra (Technical Information), Office of
Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Adam Batenhorst (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

                                                         Paragraph Nos.

I. Introduction......................................                  1
II. Background.......................................                  5
    A. Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability                  5
     Standards.......................................
    B. NIST Framework................................                 10
    C. Transmission Incentives Notice of Inquiry and                  12
     Rulemaking......................................
    D. Cybersecurity Incentives Policy White Paper...                 14
III. Need for Reform.................................                 17
IV. Discussion.......................................                 20
    A. Cybersecurity Incentives Framework............                 20
    B. Applicable Cybersecurity Investments..........                 21
        1. NERC CIP Incentives Approach..............                 22
        2. NIST Framework Approach...................                 32
    C. Incentives for Cybersecurity Investments......                 38
        1. ROE Adder.................................                 38
        2. Regulatory Asset Incentive................                 40
        3. Other Types of Incentives.................                 47
    D. Application Process...........................                 48
        1. NERC CIP Incentives Approach..............                 50
        2. NIST Framework Approach...................                 54
        3. ROE Adder.................................                 57
        4. Regulatory Asset Incentive................                 58
    E. Implementation................................                 59
        1. Incentive Duration........................                 59
        2. Informational Filing and Verification.....                 61
        3. Confidentiality Considerations............                 74
V. Information Collection Statement..................                 76
VI. Environmental Analysis...........................                 92
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act......................                 93
VIII. Comment Procedures.............................                 97
IX. Document Availability............................                100

I. Introduction

    1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes under sections 205 and 206
of the Federal Power Act (FPA) \1\ to establish rules for incentive-
based rate treatments for voluntary cybersecurity investments \2\ by a
public utility.\3\ These rules would provide cybersecurity incentives
to public utilities that make certain cybersecurity investments that go
above and beyond the requirements of the CIP Reliability Standards,\4\
and materially enhance the cybersecurity posture of the Bulk-Power
System \5\ by enhancing the applicants' cybersecurity posture
substantially above levels required by CIP Reliability Standards, to
the benefit of ratepayers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824d, 824e.
    \2\ Voluntary cybersecurity investments refer to cybersecurity
investments not required to meet mandatory North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC) Critical Infrastructure Protection
Reliability Standards (CIP Reliability Standards).
    \3\ The proposed incentive-based treatments for cybersecurity
investments would also be available to non-public utilities to the
extent that they have Commission-jurisdictional rates.
    \4\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for Critical Infrastructure
Protection, Order No. 706, 73 FR 7367 (Feb. 7, 2008),122 FERC ]
61,040, at P 1, order on reh'g and clarification, Order No. 706-A,
123 FERC ] 61,174 (2008), order on clarification, Order No. 706-B,
74 FR 12544 (Mar. 25, 2009), 126 FERC ] 61,229, order denying
clarification, Order No. 706-C, 74 FR 30067 (June 24, 2009), 127
FERC ] 61,273 (2009).
    \5\ Bulk-Power System is defined by FPA section 215 as
facilities and control systems necessary for operating an
interconnected electric energy transmission network (or any portion
thereof), and electric energy from generation facilities needed to
maintain transmission system reliability. The term does not include
facilities used in the local distribution of electric energy. 16
U.S.C. 825o(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. First, we propose to allow public utilities making certain
cybersecurity investments to request an increase in the rate of return
on equity (ROE) applicable to those capital investments. Such
cybersecurity investments would include investments following specific
CIP Reliability Standards and/or standards and guidelines from the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) \6\ Framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NIST is a part of the U.S. Department of Commerce that
advances measurement science, standards, and technology. It has
developed the voluntary Framework for Improving Critical
Infrastructure Cybersecurity (NIST Framework) to ``address and
manage cybersecurity risk in a cost-effective way based on business
and organizational needs without placing additional regulatory
requirements on businesses.'' NIST, Framework for Improving Critical
Infrastructure Cybersecurity, at v (Apr. 16, 2018), https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/CSWP/NIST.CSWP.04162018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Second, we propose to allow a public utility to seek deferred
cost recovery for certain cybersecurity investments. We propose that
only expenses for activities that go above and beyond actions required
to comply with the CIP Reliability Standards be eligible for these
incentives. Therefore, expenses incurred to comply with mandatory CIP
Reliability Standards that a public utility incurs on a regular or
ongoing basis, or that are incurred prior to the incentive request,
would not be eligible for such regulatory asset treatment. We propose
to allow deferred cost recovery for three categories of expenses: (1)
Expenses associated with third-party provision of hardware, software,
and computing networking services; (2) expenses for training to
implement new cybersecurity enhancements undertaken pursuant to this
rule; and (3) other implementation expenses, such as risk assessments
\7\ by third parties or internal system reviews and initial responses
to findings of such assessments. In all such cases, eligible costs
would be limited to costs associated with implementing cybersecurity
upgrades and would not include ongoing costs including system
maintenance, surveillance, and other labor costs, either in the form of
employee salaries or third-party service contracts. Furthermore, we
propose that the deferred regulatory assets whose costs are typically
expensed should be amortized over a five-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NIST, Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure
Cybersecurity, Version 1.1, at 26 (Apr. 16, 2018), https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/CSWP/NIST.CSWP.04162018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Finally, under the proposed regulations, a public utility
seeking one or more incentive based-rate treatments proposed in the
NOPR must make a filing for Commission approval pursuant to FPA section
205 and receive such approval prior to implementing the proposed
incentives in its Commission-jurisdictional rates.

II. Background

A. Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards

    5. On August 8, 2005, Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act of
2005.\8\ The Energy Policy Act of 2005 added a new section 215 to the
FPA,\9\ which requires a Commission-certified Electric Reliability
Organization to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability
Standards,\10\ including requirements for cybersecurity protection,
which are subject to Commission review and approval. Once approved, the
Reliability Standards may be enforced by the Electric Reliability
Organization subject to Commission oversight, or the Commission can
independently enforce Reliability Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, secs. 1261 et
seq., 119 Stat. 594 (2005).
    \9\ 16 U.S.C. 824o.
    \10\ FPA section 215 defines Reliability Standard as a
requirement, approved by the Commission, to provide for reliable
operation of existing bulk-power system facilities, including
cybersecurity protection, and the design of planned additions or
modifications to such facilities to the extent necessary to provide
for reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. However, the term
does not include any requirement to enlarge such facilities or to
construct new transmission capacity or generation capacity. Id. at
824o(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. On February 3, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 672,\11\
implementing FPA section 215. The Commission subsequently certified
NERC as the Electric Reliability Organization. The Reliability
Standards developed by NERC become mandatory and enforceable after
Commission approval and apply to users, owners, and operators of the
Bulk-Power System, as set forth in each Reliability Standard.\12\ The
CIP Reliability Standards require entities to comply with specific
requirements to safeguard critical cyber assets. These standards are
results-based and do not specify a technology or method to achieve
compliance, instead leaving it up to the entity to decide how best to
comply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Elec. Reliability
Org.; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and Enf't of
Elec. Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, 71 FR 8661 (Feb. 17,
2006), 114 FERC ] 61,104, order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, 71 FR
19814 (Apr. 28, 2006), 114 FERC ] 61,328 (2006).
    \12\ NERC uses the term ``registered entity'' to identify users,
owners, and operators of the Bulk-Power System responsible for
performing specified reliability functions with respect to NERC
Reliability Standards. See, e.g., Version 4 Critical Infrastructure
Protection Reliability Standards, Order No. 761, 77 FR 24594 (Apr.
25, 2012), 139 FERC ] 61,058, at P 46, order denying clarification
and reh'g, 140 FERC ] 61,109 (2012). Within the NERC Reliability
Standards are various subsets of entities responsible for performing
various specified reliability functions. We collectively refer to
these as ``entities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. On January 18, 2008, the Commission issued Order No. 706,\13\
approving the initial eight CIP Reliability Standards, CIP version 1
Standards, submitted by NERC. Subsequently, the Commission has approved
multiple versions of the CIP Reliability Standards submitted by NERC,
partly to address the evolving nature of cyber-related threats to the
Bulk-Power System. On November 22, 2013, the Commission issued Order
No. 791,\14\ approving CIP version 5 Standards, the last major revision
to the CIP Reliability Standards. The CIP version 5 Standards implement
a tiered approach to categorize assets, identifying them as high,
medium, or

low risk to the operation of the Bulk Electric System (BES) \15\ if
compromised. High impact systems include large control centers. Medium
impact systems include smaller control centers, ultra-high voltage
transmission, and large substations and generating facilities. The
remainder of the BES Cyber Systems \16\ are categorized as low impact
systems. Most requirements in the CIP Reliability Standards apply to
high and medium impact systems; however, a technical controls
requirement in CIP-003, described below, applies only to low impact
systems. Since 2013, the Commission has approved new and modified CIP
Reliability Standards that address specific issues such as supply chain
risk management, cyber incident reporting, communications between
control centers, and the physical security of critical transmission
facilities.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Order No. 706, 122 FERC ] 61,040 at P 1.
    \14\ Version 5 Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability
Standards, Order No. 791, 78 FR 72755 (Dec. 13, 2013), 145 FERC ]
61,160 (2013), order on clarification and reh'g, Order No. 791-A,
146 FERC ] 61,188 (2014).
    \15\ In general, NERC defines BES to include all Transmission
Elements operated at 100 kV or higher and Real Power and Reactive
Power resources connected at 100 kV or higher. This does not include
facilities used in the local distribution of electric energy. See
NERC, Bulk Electric System Definition Reference Document, Version 3,
at page iii (August 2018). In Order No. 693, the Commission found
that NERC's definition of BES is narrower than the statutory
definition of Bulk-Power System. The Commission decided to rely on
the NERC definition of BES to provide certainty regarding the
applicability of Reliability Standards to specific entities. See
Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, Order No.
693, 72 FR 16415 (Apr. 4, 2007), 118 FERC ] 61,218, at PP 75, 79,
491, order on reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 72 FR 49717 (July 25, 2007),
120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
    \16\ NERC defines BES Cyber System as ``[o]ne or more BES Cyber
Assets logically grouped by a responsible entity to perform one or
more reliability tasks for a functional entity.'' NERC, Glossary of
Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards, at 5 (2020), https://www.nerc.com/files/glossary_of_terms.pdf (NERC Glossary of Terms).
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-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. Redundancy of affected Facilities, systems,
and equipment shall not be considered when determining adverse
impact. Each BES Cyber Asset is included in one or more BES Cyber
Systems.
     Id. at 4.
    \17\ See, e.g., Order No. 791, 78 FR 72755; Revised Critical
Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards, Order No. 822, 81
FR 4177 (Jan. 26, 2016), 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. The CIP Reliability Standards currently consist of 12 standards
specifying a set of requirements that entities must follow to ensure
the cyber and physical security of the Bulk-Power System. There are 10
currently effective cybersecurity standards and one cybersecurity
standard that has been approved by the Commission and will become
enforceable on July 1, 2022. There is also one physical security
standard, which is not the subject of this NOPR:\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ CIP-014-2--Physical Security: requires entities to identify
and protect transmission stations and transmission substations, and
their associated primary control centers, that, if rendered
inoperable or damaged as a result of a physical attack, could result
in instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading within an
interconnection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     CIP-002-5.1a Bulk Electric System Cyber System
Categorization: requires entities to identify and categorize BES Cyber
Assets for the application of cyber security requirements commensurate
with the adverse impact that loss, compromise, or misuse of those BES
Cyber Systems could have on the reliable operation of the BES.
     CIP-003-8 Security Management Controls: Requires entities
to specify consistent and sustainable security management controls that
establish responsibility and accountability to protect BES Cyber
Systems against compromise that could lead to misoperation or
instability in the BES.
     CIP-004-6 Personnel and Training: Requires entities to
minimize the risk against compromise that could lead to misoperation or
instability in the BES from individuals accessing BES Cyber Systems by
requiring an appropriate level of personnel risk assessment, training,
and security awareness in support of protecting BES Cyber Systems.
     CIP-005-6 Electronic Security Perimeter(s): Requires
entities to manage electronic access to BES Cyber Systems by specifying
a controlled Electronic Security Perimeter in support of protecting BES
Cyber Systems against compromise that could lead to misoperation or
instability in the BES.
     CIP-006-6 Physical Security of Bulk Electric System Cyber
Systems: Requires entities to manage physical access to BES Cyber
Systems by specifying a physical security plan in support of protecting
BES Cyber Systems against compromise that could lead to misoperation or
instability in the BES.
     CIP-007-6 System Security Management: Requires entities to
manage system security by specifying select technical, operational, and
procedural requirements in support of protecting BES Cyber Systems
against compromise that could lead to misoperation or instability in
the BES.
     CIP-008-5 Incident Reporting and Response Planning: \19\
Requires entities to mitigate the risk to the reliable operation of the
BES as the result of a cybersecurity incident by specifying incident
response requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ An update to CIP-008-6 Reliability Standard will become
enforceable on January 1, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     CIP-009-6 Recovery Plans for Bulk Electric System Cyber
Systems: Requires entities to recover reliability functions performed
by BES Cyber Systems by specifying recovery plan requirements in
support of the continued stability, operability, and reliability of the
BES.
     CIP-010-3 Configuration Change Management and
Vulnerability Assessments: Requires entities to prevent and detect
unauthorized changes to BES Cyber Systems by specifying configuration
change management and vulnerability assessment requirements in support
of protecting BES Cyber Systems from compromise that could lead to
misoperation or instability in the BES.
     CIP-011-2 Information Protection: Requires entities to
prevent unauthorized access to BES Cyber System Information by
specifying information protection requirements in support of protecting
BES Cyber Systems against compromise that could lead to misoperation or
instability in the BES.
     CIP-012-1 Communications between Control Centers: \20\
Requires entities to protect the confidentiality and integrity of Real-
time Assessment and Real-time monitoring data transmitted between
Control Centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ CIP-012-1: Communications between Control Centers will be
subject to enforcement by July 1, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     CIP-013-1 Supply Chain Risk Management: Requires entities
to mitigate cybersecurity risks to the reliable operation of the BES by
implementing security controls for supply chain risk management of BES
Cyber Systems.
    9. The CIP Reliability Standards, viewed as a whole, implement a
defense-in-depth approach to protecting the security of BES Cyber
Systems at all impact levels.\21\ The CIP Reliability Standards are
objective-based and allow entities to choose compliance approaches best
tailored to their systems.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Order No. 822, 154 FERC ] 61,037 at 32.
    \22\ Order No. 706, 122 FERC ] 61,040 at 72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. NIST Framework

    10. The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014 (Cybersecurity Act)
\23\ updated the role of the NIST to include identifying and developing
cybersecurity risk frameworks for voluntary use by critical
infrastructure owners and operators. Under the Cybersecurity Act, NIST
must identify a

prioritized, flexible, repeatable, performance-based, and cost-
effective approach, including information security measures and
controls, that may be voluntarily adopted by owners and operators of
critical infrastructure to help them identify, assess, and manage cyber
risks.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 272(e)(1)(A)(i).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 272 (e)(1)(A)(iii). Security Controls is defined
as follows: The management, operational, and technical controls
(i.e., safeguards or countermeasures) prescribed for an information
system to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability
of the system and its information. NIST, Computer Security Resource
Center Glossary, https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/security_controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. As noted above, NIST implements the Cybersecurity Act through
its NIST Framework,\25\ which provides a common organizing structure
for multiple approaches to cybersecurity by assembling standards,
guidelines, and practices that are currently working effectively in
industry.\26\ The Cybersecurity Framework incorporates voluntary
consensus standards and industry best practices to the fullest extent
possible.\27\ The NIST Framework consists of three parts: Framework
Core; Implementation Tiers; and Framework Profiles.\28\ The Framework
Core is a set of cybersecurity activities, outcomes, and informative
references that are common across sectors and critical infrastructure.
Elements of the Framework Core provide detailed guidance for developing
individual Framework Profiles.\29\ Through use of Framework Profiles,
the NIST Framework is designed to help an organization to align and
prioritize its cybersecurity activities with its business/mission
requirements, risk tolerances, and resources. The Implementation Tiers
provide a mechanism for an organization to view and understand the
characteristics of its approach to managing cybersecurity risk, which
is designed to help in prioritizing and achieving cybersecurity
objectives.\30\ The Framework Core consists of five concurrent and
continuous Functions--Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover.
When considered together, these Functions provide a high-level,
strategic view of the lifecycle of an organization's management of
cybersecurity risk.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Version 1.0 of the NIST Framework was released in 2014, and
subsequently replaced with version 1.1 in 2018.
    \26\ NIST, Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure
Cybersecurity, Version 1.1, at v (Apr. 16, 2018), https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/CSWP/NIST.CSWP.04162018.pdf.
    \27\ See Executive Order No. 13636, Improving Critical
Infrastructure Cybersecurity, 78 FR 11737 (Feb. 19, 2013).
    \28\ NIST Framework at v.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Transmission Incentives Notice of Inquiry and Rulemaking

    12. On March 21, 2019, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry
seeking comment on the scope and implementation of its electric
transmission incentives policy \32\ to ensure that the policy continues
to satisfy its obligations under FPA section 219.\33\ The Notice of
Inquiry included numerous questions regarding the Commission's approach
to, and the objectives of, its transmission incentives policy; the
mechanics and implementation of a transmission incentives policy; and
metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of transmission incentives. As
related to this proceeding, the Commission requested comment on whether
it should incent physical and cybersecurity enhancements at
transmission facilities and, if so, what types of security investments
should qualify for transmission incentives.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Inquiry Regarding the Commission's Electric Transmission
Incentives Policy, 166 FERC ] 61,208 (2019) (2019 Notice of
Inquiry).
    \33\ 16 U.S.C. 824s.
    \34\ 2019 Notice of Inquiry, 166 FERC ] 61,208 at P 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. On March 20, 2020, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking on several topics considered in the 2019 Notice of
Inquiry.\35\ In the Transmission Incentives NOPR, the Commission
acknowledged that, although reliability is clearly delineated as a
benefit to be promoted by transmission incentives, there are differing
mandates for promoting reliability under FPA sections 215 and 219.
Further, the Commission stated that cybersecurity is an important part
of reliability and indicated that it would address cybersecurity
incentives independently in a separate, future proceeding.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Electric Transmission Incentives Policy Under Section 219
of the Federal Power Act, 85 FR 18784 (Apr. 2, 2020), 170 FERC ]
61,204, errata notice, 171 FERC ] 61,072 (2020) (Transmission
Incentives NOPR).
    \36\ 2019 Notice of Inquiry, 166 FERC ] 61,208 at P 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Cybersecurity Incentives Policy White Paper

    14. On June 18, 2020, Commission staff issued a white paper to
explore a new framework for providing transmission incentives to public
utilities for cybersecurity investments that produce significant
cybersecurity benefits for actions taken that exceed the requirements
of the CIP Reliability Standards.\37\ In the White Paper, Commission
staff discussed augmenting the current CIP Reliability Standards under
FPA section 215 with an incentive-based framework under FPA section 219
that encourages public utilities to undertake cybersecurity investments
on a voluntary basis. Commission staff reasoned that this framework
would incent a public utility to adopt best practices to protect its
own transmission system as well as improve the security of the BES.
Further, Commission staff stated that the framework could allow the
electric industry to be more agile in monitoring and responding to new
and evolving cybersecurity threats, to identify and respond to a wider
range of threats, and to address threats with comprehensive and more
effective solutions. Commission staff reasoned that an incentive-based
framework would allow a public utility to tailor its request for
incentives to the potential challenges it faces and take responsive
action. Commission staff explained that, in the future, these voluntary
actions taken by public utilities, if proven beneficial, could be the
basis of future CIP Reliability Standards that would be mandatory.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Cybersecurity Incentives Policy White Paper, Notice of
White Paper, Docket No. AD20-19-000 (issued June 18, 2020) (White
Paper).
    \38\ Id. at 12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. Commission staff stated that providing transmission incentives
for cybersecurity investments would require a new framework for the
Commission to evaluate requests from public utilities for transmission
incentives. Commission staff opined that a first necessary step would
be to establish approaches that examine the effectiveness of
cybersecurity investments in enabling the public utility to achieve a
level of protection that exceeds the CIP Reliability Standards and also
enhances the security of its transmission system. Commission staff
stated that a public utility would then be able to identify the
cybersecurity investments for which it seeks transmission incentives
with the Commission evaluating such transmission incentive requests.
    16. In the White Paper, Commission staff provided two potential
approaches for identifying cybersecurity investments eligible for
transmission incentives. The first approach was based on a public
utility voluntarily applying certain CIP Reliability Standard
requirements to transmission facilities that are not subject to those
requirements, e.g., applying all requirements applicable to medium or

high impact systems to low impact systems. The second approach was
based on a public utility voluntarily implementing portions of the NIST
Framework. Commission staff suggested that the two approaches could be
used independently or in combination.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Commission staff noted that, under this potential approach,
although a public utility could request a combination of incentives
for its facility containing multiple assets, each individual asset
would be eligible for only one cybersecurity incentive at a time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Need for Reform

    17. We recognize that the energy sector faces numerous and complex
cybersecurity challenges. These growing threats come at a time of both
great change in the operation of the transmission system and an
increase in the number and nature of attack methods.\40\ Encouraging
utilities to address cybersecurity of the Bulk-Power System is uniquely
important given the degree to which components of the Bulk-Power System
are digitally interconnected with one another and the ever-expanding
risks posed by adversaries create challenges for those tasked with
defending those interconnections from cyber exploitation. In addition,
a cybersecurity breach could have exponential effects on the Bulk-Power
System. As the operating environment continues to change, there is the
potential for increased vulnerabilities and amplification of
cybersecurity threats to the Bulk-Power System. For example, as the
Commission has previously explained, the global supply chain affords
significant benefits to customers, including low cost,
interoperability, rapid innovation, and a variety of product
features.\41\ Despite these benefits, the global supply chain creates
opportunities for adversaries to directly or indirectly affect the
management or operation of companies with potential risks to end users
that could introduce new unintended threats to the system and
necessitate rapid mitigating actions.\42\ Further, the COVID-19
national emergency \43\ prompted many organizations to revise their
operations to support an increased number of remote workers. The rapid
expansion of teleworking capabilities revealed potential
vulnerabilities, and some identified cybersecurity events specifically
targeting remote access network equipment.\44\ It is important that
public utilities make cybersecurity investments to quickly and
effectively address these cybersecurity challenges as well as other
emerging threats. Therefore, the Commission has concluded that, given
the unique importance of protecting the cybersecurity of the Bulk-Power
System, it is appropriate to provide incentives for public utility
cybersecurity investment as proposed in this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See, e.g., Eversource Energy Serv. Co., Comments, Docket
No. Public Law 19-3-000, at 29-30 (filed June 26, 2019) (noting that
market operations are becoming increasingly more complex at the same
time that there is an increasing cybersecurity threat to the
operation and control of the transmission system).
    \41\ See, e.g. Revised Critical Infrastructure Protection
Reliability Standards, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 80 FR 43354,
152 FERC ] 61,054, at PP 61-62 (2015).
    \42\ Supply Chain Risk Management Reliability Standards, Order
No. 850, 165 FERC ] 61,020, at P 2 (2018).
    \43\ The Secretary of Health and Human Services declared a
public health emergency on January 31, 2020, under section 319 of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d), in response to
COVID-19.
    \44\ Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, National
Cyber Awareness System Alerts, COVID-19 Exploited by Malicious Cyber
Actors (Alert AA20-099A) (Apr. 8, 2020), https://us-cert.cisa.gov/
ncas/alerts/
aa20099a#:~:text=Both%20CISA%20and%20NCSC%20are,threat%20to%20individ
uals%20and%20organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. Section 215 of the FPA and the CIP Reliability Standards
promulgated under that statute have served as the Commission's primary
tools for mandating changes to cybersecurity practices within the
electric sector. As required by FPA section 215, the Commission's
mandatory CIP Reliability Standards provide for the reliable operation
of the Bulk-Power System.\45\ Although the CIP Reliability Standards
offer protection of the BES \46\ and improve the baseline cybersecurity
posture of entities,\47\ they have certain limitations. For example, it
can take many months for a new Reliability Standard to be developed
and, once approved, it may be several more months or years before a
Reliability Standard is fully implemented and enforceable.\48\ Further,
the Bulk-Power System relies on the interdependence of connected
networks and equipment; because the CIP Reliability Standards apply to
BES facilities, which are generally 100 kV or higher as identified in
CIP-002, not all cybersecurity systems are covered by these standards.
Thus, while there are limits to how quickly CIP Reliability Standards
can become mandatory and enforceable as well as limits to what the CIP
Reliability Standards can cover, the cybersecurity threats public
utilities face evolve and arise on their own timeframe. For these
reasons, we believe that an effective strategy against emerging
cybersecurity threats includes not only requiring public utilities to
comply with the mandatory CIP Reliability Standards but also
encouraging public utilities to make cybersecurity investments in
addition to those required by the CIP Reliability Standards. We propose
to do this by providing incentives to public utilities that voluntarily
make certain cybersecurity investments above and beyond those
investments required by the CIP Reliability Standards. The Commission
proposes taking a two-prong approach to cybersecurity, which includes
both mandatory CIP Reliability Standards and a cybersecurity incentives
framework. This approach would encourage public utilities to increase
the protection of their systems against cybersecurity threats.
Currently, public utilities may not have the appropriate economic
incentives to invest in cybersecurity measures that go above and beyond
the mandatory CIP Reliability Standards. The cybersecurity incentives
outlined in this NOPR strive to incent public utilities to use known,
effective, and dynamic solutions to cybersecurity threats for the
benefit of ratepayers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ FPA section 215(a)(3) provides that the term reliability
standard means a requirement, approved by the Commission under this
section, to provide for reliable operation of the bulk-power system.
    \46\ Order No. 791, 145 FERC ] 61,160 at PP 2, 41.
    \47\ Order No. 822, 154 FERC ] 61,037 at 2.
    \48\ See, e.g., Am. Elec. Power, Inc., Comments, Docket No.
PL19-3-000, at 13-14 (filed June 26, 2019) (noting that there is a
potential gap between the dynamic threats faced by the energy
industry and the CIP Reliability Standards development and
compliance process, which sets the rules for minimum compliance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. Given that cybersecurity investments can be made to more than a
public utility's transmission system, we find that basing our
incentives framework under this proposal on our transmission incentives
authority under FPA section 219, as considered in the White Paper, may
unnecessarily limit the application of an effective cybersecurity
incentives framework and, thereby, limit possible cybersecurity
investment. Creating an incentive-based approach under FPA sections 205
and 206 that encourages public utilities to undertake cybersecurity
investments on a voluntary basis that are above and beyond the
requirements of the mandatory CIP Reliability Standards better ensures
secure service for ratepayers. This approach would incent a public
utility to adopt cybersecurity practices that would not only better
protect its own systems but also improve the security of the Bulk-Power
System. For example, the expansion of network monitoring provides the
potential integration of all aspects of Bulk-Power System security to
include physical access control, equipment status indicators, and
system performance monitoring. This provides

for improved incident response time, pre-emptive planning, and system
optimization. Further, relying on FPA sections 205 and 206 would allow
public utilities to be more agile in monitoring and responding to new
and unanticipated cybersecurity threats, to identify and respond to a
wider range of threats, and to address threats with comprehensive and
more effective solutions. An incentive-based approach allows a public
utility to tailor its request for incentives to the potential
challenges and responsive actions that it faces. Finally, while we
recognize that granting incentives to a public utility under this
proposal will have an impact on the public utility's rates, we believe
that such impact, over time, will be outweighed by the public utility
having a more secure grid and services for the benefit of ratepayers.

IV. Discussion

A. Cybersecurity Incentives Framework

    20. Pursuant to FPA sections 205 and 206,\49\ we propose to add
Sec.  35.48 to the Commission's regulations to establish rules to
provide incentive-based rate treatments for voluntary cybersecurity
investments made by a public utility for or in connection with the
transmission or sale of electric energy subject to the jurisdiction of
the Commission. FPA sections 205 and 206 give the Commission authority
over the rates of a public utility for or in connection with the
transmission or sale of electric energy subject to the Commission's
jurisdiction.\50\ The Commission's FPA section 205 and 206 authority is
broader than the Commission's authority under FPA section 219. FPA
section 219 requires the Commission to issue a rule that provides
incentive rate treatment for the transmission of electric energy in
interstate commerce by public utilities for the purpose of benefitting
consumers by ensuring reliability and reducing the cost of delivered
power by reducing transmission congestion.\51\ However, in this NOPR
the Commission is proposing to provide incentives for a different
purpose under a different section of the FPA: To provide incentives for
cybersecurity investment not only in transmission facilities but also
for cybersecurity investment in information technology and operational
technology \52\ networks that a public utility uses to provide other
jurisdictional services. Reliance on FPA sections 205 and 206,
therefore, allows for a more comprehensive way to encourage
cybersecurity investment than is available under FPA section 219. We
believe that this comprehensive approach is warranted because
cybersecurity threats to a public utility's system can come in a
variety of forms, such as through a public utility's information
technology and management systems, and not just through a public
utility's systems that directly operate its transmission facilities. In
addition, the means a public utility may need to use to protect against
cybersecurity intrusions that may harm its jurisdictional system may
not be limited to steps to protect the public utility's systems that
run its transmission assets. Incentive ratemaking to encourage
cybersecurity investments for not only those systems that are used to
directly operate a public utility's transmission system but also other
systems used for the provision of jurisdictional services is consistent
with our general ratemaking authority under FPA sections 205 and 206
under which we may depart from cost-of-service ratemaking.\53\ We
believe that this action is appropriate to facilitate increased
cybersecurity investment, and that the resulting rates will be just and
reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 16 U.S.C. 824d(a).
    \50\ 16 U.S.C. 824d(a) (FPA section 205(a) provides that all
rates and charges made, demanded, or received by any public utility
for or in connection with the transmission or sale of electric
energy subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, and all rules
and regulations affecting or pertaining to such rates or charges
shall be just and reasonable); see also FERC v. Elec. Power Supply
Ass'n, 136 S. Ct. 760, 774 (2016) (stating the Commission's FPA
section 205 and 206 jurisdiction extends to practices that directly
affect Commission-jurisdictional rates and that are not otherwise
expressly excluded from the Commission's jurisdiction).
    \51\ 16 U.S.C. 824s(a).
    \52\ Operational technology is defined as programmable systems
or devices that interact with the physical environment (or manage
devices that interact with the physical environment). These systems/
devices detect or cause a direct change through the monitoring and/
or control of devices, processes, and events. Examples include
industrial control systems, building management systems, fire
control systems, and physical access control mechanisms. NIST,
Computer Security Resource Center Glossary, https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/operational_technology.
    \53\ Incentive Ratemaking for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines,
Oil Pipelines, & Elec. Utilities, 61 FERC ] 61,168, at 61,594
(1992); see also Farmers Union Cent. Exchange, Inc. v. FERC, 734
F.2d 1486, 1503-04 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (``In some circumstances, the
contrasting or changing characteristics of regulated industries may
justify the agency's decision to take a new approach to the
determination of `just and reasonable' rates.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Applicable Cybersecurity Investments

    21. We propose to add Sec.  35.48(b) to the Commission's
regulations to authorize incentive-based rate treatments for a public
utility that makes voluntary cybersecurity investments in the Bulk-
Power System, provided that the proposed incentive is just and
reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential.
1. NERC CIP Incentives Approach
    22. We propose to add Sec.  35.48(b)(1) to the Commission's
regulations to provide that a public utility may receive incentive rate
treatment for voluntarily applying identified CIP Reliability Standards
to facilities that are not currently subject to those requirements
(NERC CIP Incentives Approach). Using the existing CIP Reliability
Standards as a framework for providing cybersecurity incentives allows
the Commission to leverage an existing set of baseline cybersecurity
requirements. Further, public utilities and the Commission are already
familiar with the CIP Reliability Standards and encouraging public
utilities to voluntarily apply known standards to additional facilities
will establish a benchmark for determining eligibility for an
incentive.
    23. As discussed above, CIP-002 (Bulk Electric System Cyber System
Categorization) implements a tiered approach to categorizing assets,
requiring an entity to categorize its cyber assets as high, medium, or
low risk to the reliable operation of the BES if compromised. These
impact ratings determine which requirements in the CIP Reliability
Standards CIP-003 though CIP-013 apply to BES Cyber Systems.
    24. The CIP version 5 Standards became enforceable for high and
medium impact BES Cyber Systems on July 1, 2016, and the CIP
Reliability Standards applicable to low impact BES Cyber Systems became
enforceable on April 1, 2020. In approving the CIP version 5 Standards,
the Commission determined that ``categorizing BES Cyber Systems based
on their low, medium, or high impact on the reliable operation of the
BES, with all BES Cyber Systems being categorized as at least low
impact, offers more comprehensive protection of the bulk electric
system'' and that ``the new cybersecurity controls improve the security
posture of responsible entities.'' \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Order No. 791, 145 FERC ] 61,160 at P2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. We propose two ways for a public utility to demonstrate that it
is eligible for a cybersecurity incentive through voluntary investment
in applying the requirements of the CIP Reliability Standards to
additional facilities. Public utilities that choose to request the
proposed incentives under the NERC CIP Incentives Approach will receive
a rebuttable presumption that the investments materially enhance the
security posture of the Bulk-Power System by enhancing the applicants'

cybersecurity posture substantially above levels required by CIP
Reliability Standards to merit an incentive for such cybersecurity
investments.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ We do not propose that NERC will have any role in
monitoring or reviewing the implementation of voluntary incentives
or otherwise participating in this incentives program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Med/High Incentive
    26. We propose to add Sec.  35.48(b)(1)(i) to the Commission's
regulations to allow a public utility to receive incentive rate
treatment for voluntarily applying the requirements for medium or high
impact systems to low impact systems, and/or the requirements for high
impact systems to medium impact systems (Med/High Incentive).
    27. Under the Med/High Incentive, a public utility seeking a
cybersecurity incentive for a facility that is classified as a low
impact BES Cyber System would invest in ways to make that facility meet
all the requirement and sub-requirement protections applicable to
medium or high impact BES Cyber Systems. Also, under the Med/High
incentive, a public utility seeking a cybersecurity incentive for a
facility classified as a medium impact BES Cyber System would invest in
ways to make that facility meet all the requirement and sub-requirement
protections applicable to high impact BES Cyber Systems. The public
utility could choose to apply the medium and/or high impact
requirements to some or all of its low or medium impact BES Cyber
Systems, and would receive incentives only for the investments it makes
to apply the more stringent protections.
b. Hub-Spoke Incentive
    28. We propose to add Sec.  35.48(b)(1)(ii) to the Commission's
regulations to allow a public utility to receive incentive rate
treatment for voluntarily ensuring that all external routable
connectivity \56\ to and from the low impact system connect to a high
or medium impact BES Cyber System (Hub-Spoke Incentive). Under the Hub-
Spoke Incentive, a public utility is eligible for incentives if its
investment applies CIP Reliability Standard security controls inherited
from a high or medium impact BES Cyber System at locations containing
low impact BES Cyber Systems by ensuring all external routable
connectivity to and from the low impact system connect to a high or
medium impact BES Cyber System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ NERC defines external routable connectivity as ``the
ability to access a BES Cyber System from a Cyber Asset that is
outside of its associated Electronic Security Perimeter via a bi-
directional routable protocol connection.'' NERC, Glossary of Terms
Used in NERC reliability Standards (2020), https://www.nerc.com/files/glossary_of_terms.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. Under the Hub-Spoke Incentive, all the cyber communications to
and from a low impact system location must connect to a medium or high
impact BES Cyber System and the cyber communication security controls
required for the medium or high impact BES Cyber System must be
implemented on the low impact system.\57\ Therefore, the cyber
communication would be protected at a higher security level before
being transmitted to or received by the low impact BES Cyber System.
Thus, low impact BES Cyber Systems would inherit the higher security
posture of either the medium or high impact controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See proposed Sec.  35.48(b)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Other Considerations
    30. Nothing in this proposal modifies a public utility's obligation
to comply with all the mandatory NERC Reliability Standard obligations
for its low, medium, and high impact BES Cyber Systems. A public
utility requesting incentive rate treatment for voluntarily applying
the CIP Reliability Standards requirements, as discussed above, will
not be subject to penalties from the Commission for failing to
voluntarily follow the CIP Reliability Standards. However, if the
Commission approves a public utility's request for cybersecurity
incentives pursuant to either the Med/High or Hub-Spoke Incentive and
the public utility subsequently ceases to implement the CIP Reliability
Standards consistent with the order approving the application, we
propose that the public utility would not be able to receive the
incentive for the period during which it is not implementing the CIP
Reliability Standards consistent with the order approving the
application.
    31. Additionally, since the NERC CIP Incentives Approach is based
on a public utility making voluntary cybersecurity investments based on
the CIP Reliability Standards as they exist at the time of the
investment, we propose that the determination of the types of
cybersecurity incentives that a public utility would be eligible for
would reflect the currently enforceable version of the CIP Reliability
Standards at the time the public utility submits a request for
incentives. As discussed in section IV.E.1 (Incentive Duration), where
NERC publicly announces that it is considering making certain
cybersecurity activities or investments mandatory through issuing a
standard authorization request,\58\ a public utility would still be
eligible to receive incentives until the requirements become mandatory
and enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ A standard authorization request is the form used to
document the scope and reliability benefit of a proposed project for
one or more new or modified Reliability Standards or definitions, as
well as document the benefit of retiring one or more approved
Reliability Standards. NERC, Standard Authorization Request (SAR),
https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Pages/SARs.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. NIST Framework Approach
    32. We propose to add Sec.  35.48(b)(2) to the Commission's
regulations to provide that a public utility may receive incentive rate
treatment for implementing certain security controls included in the
NIST Framework (NIST Framework Approach). The Commission would evaluate
a public utility's application for cybersecurity investments that
implement security controls in the NIST Framework to determine whether
the cybersecurity investments go above and beyond the CIP Reliability
Standards and are eligible for incentives. Through the NIST Framework
Approach, public utilities have the flexibility of non-prescriptive
implementation options to go above and beyond the CIP Reliability
Standards.
    33. Although the NIST Framework contains many types of security
controls, we propose to limit eligibility for cybersecurity incentives
to the types of controls that are most likely to provide a significant
benefit to the cybersecurity of Commission-jurisdictional transmission
facilities, not just the BES. In the White Paper, Commission staff
identified five types of security controls included in the NIST
Framework that may be considered for incentives under the NIST
Framework approach: (1) Automated and continuous monitoring; (2) access
control; (3) data protection; (4) incident response; and (5) physical
security of cyber systems. Commission staff also acknowledged that,
given the continuous and rapid changes in cybersecurity risks, the
Commission may need to periodically update the types of security
controls eligible for incentives.\59\ In proposing the NIST Framework
Approach, we propose to initially only consider incentives that fall
within the first type of security controls, automated and continuous
monitoring. For example, continuous monitoring tools that utilize
automated features for pulling information from a variety of sources or
that allow for data consolidation into Security Information and Event
Management tools would

qualify as automated and continuous monitoring security controls.\60\
While this will limit the NIST Framework security controls eligible for
incentives at this time, the Commission considers this to be an
important next step in encouraging cybersecurity investments and may
consider additional security control types in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ White Paper at 19.
    \60\ NIST, Information Security Continuous Monitoring for
Federal Information Systems and Organizations, NIST Special
Publication 800-137, at 13 (Sep. 2011), https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-137.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. Under this proposal, one example of an investment that could
warrant an incentive as automated and continuous monitoring would be
for a public utility to install a dynamic asset management program to
improve its ability to quickly detect and address new or previously
unknown equipment on its network. Unknown and unattended equipment can
present significant vulnerabilities and threats to both the information
technology and operational technology networks. Implementing a process
that automatically and continuously scans the current inventory of
hardware and software across both the information technology and
operational technology networks can identify, block, log and report any
unauthorized access.
    35. Another example of an automated and continuous monitoring
investment eligible for an incentive is the implementation of a dynamic
file analysis program or a ``sandbox.'' One deployment of a sandbox is
as an automated malware detection environment that continuously scans
email attachments and weblinks in the corporate email system for
malicious code. When malicious code is detected, a sandbox blocks
delivery to the end user in real time and automatically issues an alert
to the security team. Malicious code deployed in the sandbox will
potentially be activated when placed there, but it will be isolated
from the information technology and operational technology networks,
thereby protecting the networks while alerting the public utility to
the threat. The deployment of sandboxes enhances the ability of a
public utility to detect and prevent the delivery of malicious code,
disrupts social engineering attacks on users, and tests software for
dangerous behavior. Further, the ability to perform post-incident
forensic triage and analysis enables public utilities to establish the
root causes of an event, identify related vulnerabilities, and mitigate
associated risks in an expedited manner to optimize long-term
operational capabilities.
    36. As discussed below, public utilities seeking an incentive under
this approach would need to show how a cybersecurity investment, for
example, in physical components, software, licensing for cybersecurity
enhancements as well as operational costs such as contracts with
security providers, third-party incident responders, and third-party
security operations centers, allows the public utility to meet NIST
Framework security controls, as identified above, will go above and
beyond the requirements of the CIP Reliability Standards, and
materially enhance the current cybersecurity posture of the Bulk-Power
System by enhancing the applicants' cybersecurity posture substantially
above levels required by CIP Reliability Standards, to the benefit of
ratepayers. As the Commission evaluates incentive applications, we will
remain cognizant of ongoing changes to the CIP Reliability Standards,
the NIST Framework, and underlying referenced security controls.
    37. As with the NERC CIP Incentives Approach, if a public utility
ceases to maintain the cybersecurity posture associated with the
Commission's order approving its NIST Framework Approach incentives
application, the public utility would not be able to receive the
incentive for the period during which it is not implementing the CIP
Reliability Standards as described in the Commission's order approving
its application.

C. Incentives for Cybersecurity Investments

1. ROE Adder
    38. We propose to add Sec.  35.48(c)(1) to the Commission's
regulations to allow a public utility that makes eligible cybersecurity
capital investments, as more fully described above, to request an ROE
adder of 200 basis points (Cybersecurity ROE Incentives) for those
eligible cybersecurity investments. This ROE incentive will encourage
public utilities to proactively make additional investments in
cybersecurity systems. We believe that such a 200-basis point adder is
appropriate to provide a meaningful incentive to encourage public
utilities to improve their systems' cybersecurity. For example, we note
that given the relatively small size of such investments, compared to
conventional transmission projects, the dollar amounts provided under
the incentives should not have a burdensome effect on the public
utility's rates. Yet, the benefit to the system, and ultimately to rate
payers, by this additional investment will provide additional
cybersecurity protections that could have a large impact on the public
utility's system by allowing it to better detect and address
cybersecurity threats to the Bulk-Power System. The total cybersecurity
incentives requested would be capped at the zone of reasonableness.\61\
Additionally, we find that the same expenditures should not be eligible
for both the Cybersecurity ROE Incentives and the Regulatory Asset
Incentives discussed below. Given that regulatory asset treatment is
available to costs that are normally treated as expenses, as discussed
below, we believe that it is unnecessary to incent investment to also
enable deferred costs that would otherwise be expensed to receive this
200 basis-point incentive. We propose that public utilities only be
eligible to receive the Cybersecurity ROE Incentive as a cybersecurity
incentive for capital investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ In the Transmission Incentives NOPR the Commission proposes
that, under FPA section 219, the Commission may approve a rate that
exceeds the zone of reasonableness to further the purposes of that
statutory provision. In this NOPR, however, the Commission is acting
under FPA sections 205 and 206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. Transmission-specific investments based on the NERC CIP
Incentives Approach and the NIST Framework Approach may be eligible for
the Cybersecurity ROE Incentive under this NOPR. In addition, we
propose that enterprise-wide costs--which are not specific to
transmission but a portion of which are recovered through transmission
rates--may also be eligible for incentives if the applicant can
demonstrate how the investment will materially enhance the security
posture of the Bulk-Power System by enhancing the applicants'
cybersecurity posture substantially above levels required by CIP
Reliability Standards, to the benefit of ratepayers. While
cybersecurity systems that are not subject to the CIP Reliability
Standards may be less critical to reliable operations, compromise of
these systems may nevertheless allow access to more critical systems
and therefore we believe that incentivizing the enhanced protection of
these systems is important to the reliability of the Bulk-Power-
System.\62\ Only the conventionally allocated portion of such
investments that flows through to Commission jurisdictional cost-of-
service rates will be eligible for this rate treatment. For instance,
if a public utility seeks an incentive for cybersecurity investment
that it made to its general plant

facilities, both the underlying investments and associated incentives
must be allocated based on conventions of the rates (e.g., the
transmission share using a wages and salaries allocator for general
plant in most transmission cost of service rates). With this
limitation, we seek to ensure that the cybersecurity incentives policy
adheres to the ratemaking principles of beneficiary pays and cost-
causality by limiting a transmission customer's share of incentive
costs to the share of such investments that serve (and is traditionally
allocated to) transmission. We note that the Commission's rules and
regulations in the Uniform System of Accounts \63\ already require
public utilities to maintain records supporting any entries to the
regulatory asset account so that the utility can furnish full
information as to the nature and amount of, and justification for, each
regulatory asset recorded in the account. Therefore, pursuant to our
existing regulations, public utilities must maintain sufficient records
to support the distinction of any expenses that are afforded
incentivized treatment.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ For example, WANNACRY attacked specific servers that were
vulnerable and once the attacker gained access to the server, the
attacker moved to other internal systems to complete the attack.
See, NCCIC, Fact Sheet, What is Wannacry/Wanacryptor?, https://us-cert.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/FactSheets/NCCIC%20ICS_FactSheet_WannaCry_Ransomware_S508C.pdf.
    \63\ See 18 CFR part 101, Account Definition Account 182.3,
Other Regulatory Assets, paragraph D.
    \64\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Regulatory Asset Incentive
    40. We propose to add Sec.  35.48(c)(2) to the Commission's
regulations to allow a public utility to seek deferred cost recovery
pursuant to this NOPR. We believe that, in limited circumstances, it
may be appropriate to allow a public utility to defer recovery of
certain cybersecurity costs that are generally expensed as incurred,
and treat them as regulatory assets, while also allowing such
regulatory assets to be included in transmission rate base (Regulatory
Asset Incentive). Such expenses must be associated with the NERC CIP
Incentives Approach or the NIST Framework Approach investments that
receive Commission approval for ROE incentives. Like the provision of
ROE incentives, discussed above, we propose that only expenses for
activities that go above and beyond the CIP Reliability Standards, as
discussed above, be eligible for incentives. Under this proposal,
expenses that are mandatory, that a public utility incurs on a regular
or ongoing basis, or that are incurred prior to the incentive request,
would not be eligible for such regulatory asset treatment.
    41. More specifically, to implement proposed Sec.  35.48(c)(2) of
the Commission's regulations, we propose to allow deferred cost
recovery for three categories of expenses: (1) Expenses associated with
third-party provision of hardware, software, and computing networking
services; (2) expenses for training to implement new cybersecurity
enhancements undertaken pursuant to this rule; and (3) other
implementation expenses, such as system assessments by third parties or
internal system reviews and initial responses to findings of such
assessments. In all such cases, eligible costs are limited to costs
associated with implementing cybersecurity upgrades and do not include
ongoing costs including system maintenance, surveillance, and other
labor costs, either in the form of employee salaries or third-party
service contracts.
    42. Regarding the first category, certain cost categories, such as
software, that companies traditionally purchased and could capitalize,
are now often procured as services with periodic payments to vendors
that is updated as needed. Therefore, to encourage investment in
cybersecurity, we believe that it would be appropriate to allow public
utilities to defer and amortize eligible costs that are typically
recorded as expense that are associated with third party provision of
hardware, software, and computing and networking services. Pursuant to
our existing regulations, public utilities must maintain sufficient
records to support the distinction of any expenses that are afforded
incentivized treatment.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    43. Regarding the second category, in response to the White Paper,
many commenters stated that training is central to improving
cybersecurity. We agree that such training is critical to successful
implementation of cybersecurity enhancements. Therefore, we propose to
allow public utilities to request the Regulatory Asset Incentive for
training expenses associated with cybersecurity investments made
pursuant to this rule. However, ongoing training expenses, which many
organizations provide to employees regularly, would not be eligible
because such training is an ongoing rather than implementation type of
operating expense for the implementation we seek to incentivize.
Pursuant to our existing regulations, public utilities must maintain
sufficient records to support the distinction of any training expenses
that are afforded incentivized treatment.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    44. Regarding the third category, we believe that there may be
large one-time expenses associated with implementing cybersecurity
upgrades. These may include unusually large internal system evaluations
and assessments or analyses by third parties. These expenses may be
large relative to the size of the capital investments associated with
the cybersecurity upgrades and essential to their proper
implementation. We propose that such expenses not include regularly
scheduled activities that would occur irrespective of the cybersecurity
upgrades. Pursuant to our existing regulations, public utilities must
maintain sufficient records to support the distinction of any expenses
that are afforded incentivized treatment.
    45. Additionally, consistent with the proposal for the ROE
incentive for eligible cybersecurity capital investments, only directly
assigned transmission costs or the conventionally allocated (i.e.,
using the wages and salaries allocator) portion of enterprise-wide
expenses would be eligible the Regulatory Asset Incentive. Applicants
would be required under proposed Sec.  35.48(b) to demonstrate that any
enterprise-wide expenses for which they seek this treatment materially
enhances the cybersecurity of the Bulk-Power System by enhancing the
applicants' cybersecurity posture substantially above levels required
by CIP Reliability Standards, to the benefit of ratepayers.
    46. Finally, we propose in Sec.  35.48(d)(2) that deferred
regulatory assets whose costs are typically expensed should be
amortized over a five-year period. We believe that this duration will
allow incentive recipients a reasonable amount of time to earn a return
on expenditures for which no return is normally allowed. Moreover, the
proposed amortization period generally corresponds to the short
lifespan and depreciation rates of cybersecurity investments.
3. Other Types of Incentives
    47. In this NOPR, we are proposing to grant ROE and deferred cost
recovery incentives. Nonetheless, we recognize that other incentives,
such as construction work in progress, may be warranted to encourage
investment in cybersecurity if adequately supported. To maintain
flexibility under this proposal for other types of incentives under
these new regulations, we propose to add Sec.  35.48(c)(3) to the
Commission's regulations that provides the Commission additional
flexibility to grant a public utility any other incentives, pursuant to
the requirements of this section, that the Commission deems to be just
and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential for
investments undertaken pursuant to

this rule.\67\ We propose to consider applications for other
cybersecurity incentives on a case-by-case basis to determine if they
are just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential
under FPA section 205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ We note that the Commission adopted similar flexibility and
language to consider other proposals in Sec.  35.35(d)(viii) of the
Commission's rules and regulations in Order No. 679. See 18 CFR
35.35(d)(1)(viii); Promoting Transmission Investment through Pricing
Reform, Order No. 679, 71 FR 43293 (Jul. 31, 2006), 116 FERC ]
61,057 (2006), order on reh'g, Order No. 679-A, 72 FR 1152 (Jan. 10,
2007), 117 FERC ] 61,345 (2006), order on reh'g 119 FERC ] 61,062
(2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Application Process

    48. Proposed Sec.  35.48(e) of the Commission's regulations would
require a public utility's request for one or more incentive based-rate
treatments to be made in a filing pursuant to FPA section 205. As
proposed, such a request must include a detailed explanation of how the
public utility plans to implement one or both of the proposed incentive
approaches and the requested rate treatment. We propose that applicants
provide detail on the investments or expenses for which they seek
incentives, as described in more detail below. An applicant would make
a filing showing how its project(s) meet the eligibility requirements
described below. In proposing what showing an applicant must make, we
balance the need for sufficient information to determine if an
applicant is eligible for the incentive against the risk of the
applicant providing potentially sensitive information on cybersecurity
vulnerabilities in its application. We discuss confidentiality concerns
further in section IV.E.3 (Confidentiality Considerations).
    49. Finally, under Sec.  35.48(e) of the proposed regulations, a
public utility seeking one or more incentive based-rate treatments
proposed in the NOPR must make a filing for Commission approval
pursuant to FPA section 205 and receive such approval prior to
implementing the proposed incentives in its Commission-jurisdictional
rates. In order to effectuate the incentives in rates, public utilities
would need to propose in their FPA section 205 filing conforming
revisions to their formula rates, as appropriate, to reflect incentive
rate treatment granted pursuant to these proposed regulations.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Public utilities with stated rates may file under FPA
section 205 to seek incentives as part of a larger rate case or make
a request for single issue ratemaking, which the Commission will
evaluate on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. NERC CIP Incentives Approach
    50. To implement proposed Sec.  35.48(b) of the Commission's
regulations, for capital investments, we propose that an applicant
describe the proposed investments as well as their anticipated cost,
completion date and geographic location. An applicant would also
describe how the proposed investment meets the description of the Med/
High Incentive and/or the Hub-Spoke Incentive.
    51. We propose that applicants describe the implementation and
method of continuing adherence to the actions required to obtain and
maintain the incentive, as described in Sec.  35.48(e)(1) of the
proposed regulations. The applicant would include in its application,
at a minimum, an identification of the scope of assets for which the
public utility is requesting the incentive, and the associated BES
Cyber Systems that will be protected. Specifically, an applicant would
include a list of BES assets for which the public utility is requesting
the incentive, the geographical location of the BES assets, the
function they support, the incentive method the public utility is
requesting for each of the BES assets, the current impact ratings of
the BES assets and the impact level(s) that the assets now meet as a
result of the investment, and a list of BES Cyber Systems associated
with each of the BES assets including details on their use.
    52. Unlike conventional transmission investments, which entail
completion of a physical transmission project, investments under the
NERC CIP Incentives Approach seek to bring BES assets otherwise not
required to be subject to certain cybersecurity requirements to a
higher cybersecurity level, and that higher level must be maintained
for it to continue to provide ratepayer benefits. Consequently, the
Commission proposes that, if an investment that receives a Med/High
Incentive or Hub-Spoke Incentive ceases to meet the requirements of
that incentive, the public utility would be required to update its
cost-of-service rates to reflect this change. In addition, the
Commission or third parties may initiate FPA section 206 proceedings to
revoke such incentives.
    53. In Order No. 791, the Commission recognized that categorizing
BES Cyber Systems based on their low, medium, or high impact on the
reliable operation of the BES, with all BES Cyber Systems being
categorized as at least low impact, offers more comprehensive
protection of the BES than the prior CIP Reliability Standards.\69\ The
Commission also acknowledged that CIP version 5 Standards offer new
cybersecurity controls that will improve the overall security posture
of responsible entities.\70\ Given the Commission's experience with the
CIP Reliability Standards, we propose that an asset-by-asset showing of
benefits is unnecessary because, though the benefits of upgrades may
vary by system, we believe that all upgrades based on the NERC CIP
Incentives Approach materially enhance the cybersecurity posture of the
Bulk-Power System by enhancing the applicants' cybersecurity posture
substantially above levels required by CIP Reliability Standards, to
the benefit of ratepayers, and warrant incentives. Thus, we propose
that a public utility seeking incentives under the NERC CIP Incentives
Approach and that provides the information required under this
application process receive a rebuttable presumption that the
cybersecurity investments materially enhance the cybersecurity of the
Bulk-Power System by enhancing the applicants' cybersecurity posture
substantially above levels required by CIP Reliability Standards to
merit an incentive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Order No. 791, 145 FERC ] 61,160 at P 41.
    \70\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. NIST Framework Approach
    54. In contrast to applications for incentives based on the NERC
CIP Incentives Approach, we propose that a public utility seeking
incentives for cybersecurity investments under the NIST Framework
Approach would not be entitled to a rebuttable presumption and instead
must provide additional information showing that the proposed
investment materially enhances the cybersecurity posture of the Bulk-
Power System by enhancing the applicants' cybersecurity posture
substantially above levels required by CIP Reliability Standards.
However, we request comments on what demonstration an applicant should
be required to make to show that its NIST Framework Approach
investments merit incentives under the FPA section 205 just and
reasonable standard.
    55. Depending on a public utility's existing attributes; namely the
hardware, system configuration, and operating practices that contribute
to its overall cybersecurity posture, and the specific characteristics
of the proposed cybersecurity investments, proposed cybersecurity
investments may or may not materially enhance the cybersecurity posture
of the Bulk-Power System by enhancing the applicants' cybersecurity
posture substantially above levels required by CIP Reliability
Standards to warrant incentives. Under Sec.  35.48(e)(2) of the
Commission's regulations, we propose that an

applicant must describe its current cybersecurity posture, desired
cybersecurity posture, and the quantified risk factors being addressed
through the proposed incentive actions. An application must include
full and detailed explanations of how proposed cybersecurity
investments will materially enhance the cybersecurity of the Bulk-Power
System by enhancing the applicants' cybersecurity posture substantially
above levels required by CIP Reliability Standards, to the benefit of
ratepayers. In assessing whether an application meets the standard for
granting incentives under this NOPR, we propose that the Commission
would review the stated expenditures and level of risk mitigated in
comparison to the public utility's pre-incentivized network
configuration. This judgement will be made on a case-by-case basis. The
application would need to detail the specific components to be
installed, network deployment, sensor configuration, and enterprise
data incorporation as described in the four-step review process,
discussed below.
    56. Consistent with incentive requests under the NERC CIP
Incentives Approach, an applicant seeking incentives under the NIST
Framework Approach would be required to provide detail on the
investments or expenses for which it seeks incentives. For capital
investments, applicants would describe: (1) The required network
components; (2) how the sensors connect to the network; (3) how the
sensors deployment recognizes the specific attributes of the network;
(4) the costs of all investments; and (5) when the costs are expected
to be incurred.
3. ROE Adder
    57. Under Sec.  35.48(e)(3) of the proposed regulations, applicants
requesting an ROE adder of 200 basis points must include the
anticipated cost of the capital investment and identify the Commission-
jurisdictional rate schedules under which they will recover the ROE
adder.
4. Regulatory Asset Incentive
    58. For expenses that the applicant seeks to receive regulatory
asset treatment associated with either ROE incentive-eligible projects
based on either the NERC CIP Incentives Approach or the NIST Framework
Approach, under Sec.  35.48(e)(4) of the proposed regulations, the
applicant must describe and estimate the nature of such expenses, their
costs, and when they are expected to be incurred.\71\ Applicants would
be expected to provide a narrative explanation of how such expenses
meet the description of the Med/High Incentive, the Hub-Spoke Incentive
and/or the NIST Framework Approach. Applicants would then describe
whether the expenses are: (1) Expenses associated with third-party
provision of hardware, software, and computing networking services; (2)
expenses for training to implement new cybersecurity enhancements; or
(3) other transition expenses, such as risk assessments \72\ by third
parties or internal system reviews, and initial responses to findings
of such assessments. An applicant would also be required to describe
the cost, location, and timing of all eligible capital investments and
the cost and timing of all deferred expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ We reiterate that applicants' ongoing costs of operating a
more cybersecure system are not eligible for such incentive
treatment under this NOPR.
    \72\ NIST, Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure
Cybersecurity, Version 1.1, at 26 (Apr. 16, 2018), https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/CSWP/NIST.CSWP.04162018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Implementation

1. Incentive Duration
    59. We propose to add Sec.  35.48(d) to the Commission's
regulations to allow a public utility granted an incentive under this
NOPR to receive that incentive for the lesser of: (1) The depreciation
life of the underlying asset; (2) 10 years from when the cybersecurity
improvements enter service; (3) when the investments or activities that
serve as the basis of that incentive become mandatory pursuant to a
Reliability Standard approved by the Commission; or (4) when the public
utility no longer meets the requirements for receiving the
incentive.\73\ We are seeking to incentivize cybersecurity assets that
primarily include equipment or system modifications that typically have
short depreciation lives. The cybersecurity incentives identified in
this NOPR are intended to apply to technology and systems investments
and not to more long-lived assets like physical structures. Thus, we
believe that most public utilities granted cybersecurity incentives
under this NOPR should receive those incentives for the depreciation
life of the asset. However, for investments with useful lives exceeding
10 years, we propose that the incentive end at the conclusion of 10
years from when the cybersecurity incentives enter service. Although it
is possible that specific components of cybersecurity investments may
feature longer useful lives than 10 years, given the evolving nature of
cybersecurity threats, we find that 10 years is a reasonable
expectation of the principal benefits of the cybersecurity investments,
which should correspond to the investment duration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ FPA section 205 filings revising cost of service rates to
implement incentives must contain language limiting incentive
duration to the lesser of these three eventualities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    60. In addition, we propose that, where cybersecurity investments
are mandatory, cybersecurity incentives are inappropriate and would
only serve to increase ratepayer costs. However, where NERC publicly
announces that it is considering making certain cybersecurity
activities or investments mandatory, through issuing a standard
authorization request, public utilities may receive incentives until
the requirements become mandatory. For a public utility that requests
regulatory asset treatment for costs normally recorded to expenses, if
such expenditures become mandatory, we propose that the public utility
must recover the unamortized portion of expenses through expenses in
rates with no further earning of an incentive return on the regulatory
asset.
2. Informational Filing and Verification
    61. In order to ensure that a public utility receiving incentive
rate treatment has implemented the requirements for the incentive and
to ensure that it continues to adhere to these requirements, we propose
to add Sec.  35.48(f) to the Commission's regulations to require public
utilities to submit annual informational filings with the
Commission.\74\ We propose specific reporting requirements for each of
the NERC CIP Incentives Approach and the NIST Framework Approach below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ These reporting requirements also apply to non-public
utilities that receive cybersecurity incentives through their
Commission-jurisdictional rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    62. The Transmission Incentives NOPR proposes additional reporting
requirements for recipients of transmission incentives under FPA
section 219.\75\ Such additional reporting is likewise appropriate for
cybersecurity upgrades receiving incentives. Accordingly, we propose to
add Sec.  35.48(f) to require that, within 120 days of the completion
of cybersecurity upgrades for which an applicant is granted incentives,
an incentives recipient must make an informational filing and
subsequent informational filings annually thereafter. The annual
informational filings must detail the specific investments that were
made

pursuant to the Commission's approval and the corresponding FERC
account(s) used. In addition, the annual informational filings must
describe what parts of its network were upgraded or expanded (i.e.,
which substations, control centers, automated and continuous monitoring
equipment) in addition to the nature (i.e., describing hardware
purchase) and actual cost of the various capital investments. For
incentives where the Commission allows deferral of expenses as
regulatory assets, annual informational filings should describe such
expenses in sufficient detail to demonstrate that such expenses are
specifically related to implementing the cybersecurity incentives
described in this NOPR and not for ongoing costs including system
maintenance, surveillance, and other labor costs, either in the form of
employee salaries or third-party service contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Transmission Incentives NOPR, 166 FERC ] 61,208 at P 115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    63. We preliminarily find that the proposed reporting requirements
are necessary to provide the Commission with an understanding of the
costs of various types of cybersecurity investments in order to more
precisely target future incentives or other policies. However, based on
the qualities of such investments, as well as the likely higher
sensitivity of the information, we propose to require different
reporting requirements under this proposal than those proposed under
the Transmission Incentives NOPR.
    64. Several aspects of cybersecurity necessitate reporting
different information that the Commission has required for conventional
transmission facilities receiving incentives pursuant to FPA section
219. First, cybersecurity investments are not observable. Unlike
conventional transmission facilities, such as a new transmission line,
it is not readily apparent if, and when, such investments are completed
and serving customers. Therefore, it is important to confirm the
completion of cybersecurity investments by establishing additional
reporting requirements. Second, certain cybersecurity investments may
require public utilities to undertake subsequent actions or make
expenditures to maintain the status for which they receive incentives.
Annual reports enable public utilities to demonstrate that they have
undertaken such actions or expenditures.
    65. Finally, we propose that both the initial and annual
informational filings provide a summary of the costs incurred to
achieve the higher level of security, including supporting
documentation that provides a narrative explanation of the nature of
the expenses proposed for deferred cost recovery, and inclusion in rate
base as a regulatory asset, including the specific accounts (under the
Commission's Uniform System of Accounts) initially charged for the
incurred expenses.
    66. Also, the Commission may conduct periodic verification to
assess cybersecurity investments and expenses for which it has approved
incentives. The Commission could perform such verifications through
multiple means (i.e., directing further informational filings, audits,
etc.). The annual informational filings will inform the Commission on
how and when the additional verification is warranted.
a. NERC CIP Incentives Approach
    67. To demonstrate that a public utility has implemented the
requirements for the Med/High incentive and to ensure that the
recipient continues to adhere to these requirements, we propose that
the informational filing would describe implementation of the enhanced
security controls, as applicable, in all the topics covered by the CIP
Reliability Standards. Below is a table of currently effective and
Commission-approved CIP Reliability Standards and examples of
supporting documentation a public utility may provide to demonstrate
incentive adherence to each CIP Reliability Standard. For the first
informational filing, we would expect the public utility to provide
documents, as indicated below, plus any additional documentation needed
to demonstrate voluntary application of identified CIP Reliability
Standards to facilities that are not currently subject to those
requirements.\76\ For each subsequent annual informational filing, the
public utility would only need to provide an updated version of the
supporting documentation showing any changes from the prior
informational filing as well as information on any period of time
during the reported year where the public utility ceased to voluntarily
apply identified CIP Reliability Standards to facilities that are not
currently subject to those requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ The information requested is similar to the information
FERC staff reviews during a NERC CIP Reliability Standards audit.
    \77\ CIP-002 actions are not eligible for the incentive since it
is a mandatory requirement for all BES assets.
    \78\ CIP-012-1: Communications between Control Centers will be
subject to enforcement on July 1, 2022.

                           Supporting Documentation Demonstrating Incentive Adherence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Topic                             Standard                           Documentation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BES Cyber System Categorization.......  CIP-002 \77\..................  List of the categorization of BES Cyber
                                                                         Systems included in the incentive.
Management Controls...................  CIP-003.......................  Senior Management approval of revised
                                                                         cyber security policies; updates to
                                                                         delegation procedures.
Personnel and Training................  CIP-004.......................  Cyber security training program and
                                                                         quarterly reinforcement; personnel risk
                                                                         assessment program; access management
                                                                         program, and timely access revocation
                                                                         processes.
Electronic Security Perimeters........  CIP-005.......................  Establishment of ESPs and management of
                                                                         electronic access points; remote access
                                                                         management.
Physical Security of BES Cyber Systems  CIP-006.......................  Physical security plans; visitor control
                                                                         program; PACS maintenance and testing
                                                                         procedures.
Systems Security Management...........  CIP-007.......................  Ports and services management; security
                                                                         patch management; malicious code
                                                                         prevention methods; security event
                                                                         monitoring; system access controls.
Incident Reporting and Response.......  CIP-008.......................  Cyber security incident response plan,
                                                                         implementation, and testing procedures.
Backup and Recovery Plans.............  CIP-009.......................  System recovery plans, implementation,
                                                                         and testing procedures.
Configuration Change Management.......  CIP-010.......................  System baseline configurations;
                                                                         configuration monitoring; vulnerability
                                                                         assessment processes.
Information Protection................  CIP-011.......................  Information protection procedures; cyber
                                                                         asset reuse and disposal methods.
Communications between Control Centers  CIP-012 \78\..................  Plans mitigating the risks posed by
                                                                         unauthorized disclosure and
                                                                         unauthorized modification of Real-time
                                                                         Assessment and Real-time monitoring
                                                                         data while being transmitted between
                                                                         any applicable Control Centers; and
                                                                         evidence of the associated security
                                                                         protections implemented and used.

Supply Chain Risk Management..........  CIP-013.......................  Supply chain security risk management
                                                                         plan, implementation, and testing
                                                                         procedures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    68. To demonstrate that a public utility has implemented the
requirements for the Hub-Spoke incentive, we propose that the
informational filing describe the reconfiguration and assets added to
the communication paths to/from locations containing low impact BES
Cyber Systems. For the first annual informational filing, we propose
that the public utility provide documents demonstrating these changes.
For any subsequent annual informational filing, the public utility
would only need to provide an updated version of any supporting
documentation if a change occurred for the previous informational
filing, as well as information on any failure to maintain the
communication paths, and any mitigating actions the public utility
undertook to resolve the problem.
b. NIST Framework Approach
    69. We propose that the reporting requirements to implement
proposed Sec.  35.48(f) of its regulations for the NIST Framework
Approach differ from those under the NERC CIP Incentives Approach. The
Commission would review the informational filings to determine if the
proposed changes meet the requirements for incentives by focusing on
four areas: Acquisition and installation, system connectivity, security
application, and relevance to entity monitoring/response actions. For
each subsequent annual informational filing, the public utility would
only need to provide an updated version of the supporting documentation
showing any changes from the prior informational filing, as well as
information on any period of time during the reported year where the
public utility ceased to continuously implement specific requirements
consistent with the Commission's order approving the application.
    70. Step 1 of the review process addresses the acquisition and
installation of required network components (i.e., high-fidelity
sensors) that meet the proposed security enhancements subject to
incentives. The Commission would require a public utility to confirm
that funds have been expended on the necessary equipment through
documentation such as purchase orders, receipts, licensing agreements,
and installation documentation with specified time periods.
    71. Step 2 of the review process addresses the attainment of
necessary training and personnel for the implementation of the
incentivized action. Training and additional personnel must be
necessary and limited to the implementation of the cybersecurity
equipment within the affected networks. The Commission would require a
public utility to verify training and personnel actions through
documentation such as third-party contractor agreements, training
program curricula, and official job descriptions.
    72. Step 3 of the review process addresses network and sensor node
recognition optimization of system deployment, and strategic
configuration. This step describes how the sensors are connected to a
network and how they substantively improve the visibility and security
of the affected networks. The public utility could demonstrate this
network and sensor node recognition through such items as configuration
files, system logs, configuration settings, and a description of its
location on the affected network.
    73. Step 4 of the review process addresses the incorporation of
sensor nodes in the enterprise level incident monitoring and response
plan. This step verifies that the incentivized action is being
incorporated into monitoring and response actions to impact overall
network security. The utility would need to attest that the information
would be included in operational activities such as incident response
plans, playbooks, and Standard Operating Procedures.
3. Confidentiality Considerations
    74. We recognize that the Commission's cybersecurity incentives
policy must balance the need to maintain the confidentiality of
cybersecurity systems and protocols with the need for transparency in
rates when awarding incentive rates to public utilities for
cybersecurity investments. The Commission balances these considerations
through its confidential \79\ and Critical Energy/Electric
Infrastructure Information (CEII) filing regulations.\80\ These
regulations recognize that intervenors in a Commission proceeding, such
as a proceeding establishing incentive rates, may need access to
information that the applicant believes should be withheld from
disclosure to the general public, in order to participate effectively
in the proceeding. Therefore, the Commission's regulations provide for
any person who is a participant in a proceeding or has filed a motion
to intervene or notice of intervention to make a written request to the
filer for a copy of the complete, non-public version of the document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Section 388.112 of the Commission's regulations specifies
that any person submitting a document to the Commission may request
privileged treatment for some or all of the information contained in
a particular document that it claims is exempt from the mandatory
public disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and
that should be withheld from public disclosure. In particular, Sec.
388.112(b)(2) sets forth procedures for filing and obtaining access
to material that is filed as privileged in any proceeding to which a
right to intervention exists and specifies that if a person files
material as privileged in such proceeding, that person must include
a proposed form of protective agreement with the filing, or identify
a protective agreement that has already been filed in the proceeding
that applies to the filed material. 18 CFR 388.112.
    \80\ Section 388.113 governs the procedures for submitting,
designating, handling, sharing, and disseminating CEII submitted to
or generated by the Commission. Section 388.113(d)(1)(iii) provides
for the person filing material as CEII in a proceeding to which a
right to intervention exists to include a proposed form of
protective agreement. 18 CFR 388.113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    75. Accordingly, we propose that, if a public utility applying for
incentive rate treatment under this rule is concerned that the
information contained in an application for incentives could lead to
the disclosure of confidential information or CEII related to its
cybersecurity systems, the public utility could request protection of
its information pursuant to these procedures. The Commission's
practice, however, is not to allow for the filing of an FPA section 205
rate application under seal. Under this proposal, to the extent an
applicant seeks confidential treatment, we expect that the applicant's
request for such treatment will be specific and limited. If an
applicant requests portions of the application be protected, we expect
that the public portion of an application should contain sufficient
information for ratepayers to judge the rate impact and scope of the
proposed incentives, including the general approach adopted. The
Commission will address such requests

for protection on a case by case basis.\81\ We request comments on the
specific and limited types of information that would be appropriate for
applicants to shield from public disclosure, and any other specific
modifications or additions to the Commission's generally applicable
filing regulations that may be appropriate for the incentives filings
proposed in this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ An applicant or any other person may object to disclosure
generally or to a particular requester, and in such cases the non-
public document will not be provided to the requester until ordered
by the Commission or a decisional authority. 18 CFR
388.112(b)(2)(iv), 388.113(g)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Information Collection Statement

    76. The information collection requirements contained in this NOPR
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\82\ OMB's
regulations require approval of certain information collection
requirements imposed by agency rules.\83\ Upon approval of a collection
of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and expiration
date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this rule will
not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of
information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB
control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
    \83\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    77. This NOPR will establish the Commission's regulations and
policy with respect to the mechanics and implementation of the
Commission's cybersecurity incentives policy and will require an annual
report from the recipients of cybersecurity incentives in order to
demonstrate compliance with the Commission's cybersecurity incentives
regulations and policy.
    78. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive
Director, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426 via email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or telephone
((202) 502-8663).
    79. The Commission solicits comments on the Commission's need for
this information, whether the information will have practical utility,
the accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected or retained,
and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including
the use of automated information techniques.
    80. Please send comments concerning the collection of information
and the associated burden estimates to: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission]. Due to security concerns, comments
should be sent electronically to the following email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments submitted to OMB should refer to
OMB Control Nos.
    81. Please submit a copy of your comments on the information
collections to the Commission via the eFiling link on the Commission's
website at http://www.ferc.gov. If you are not able to file comments
electronically, please send a copy of your comments to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426. Comments on the information collection that
are sent to FERC should refer to RM21-3-000.
    82. Title: Report of Cybersecurity Incentives Investment Activity.
    83. Action: Proposed revision of collections of information in
accordance with RM21-XX-000.
    84. OMB Control Nos.: 1902-0248 (FERC-725B).
    85. Respondents for this Rulemaking: Public Utilities that seek
incentive-based rate treatment for cybersecurity projects.
    86. Frequency of Information Collection: Annually beginning with
the calendar year the Commission grants incentive-based rate treatment.
    87. Necessity of Information: Required to obtain or retain
benefits.
    88. Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the changes and
has determined that such changes are necessary. These requirements
conform to the Commission's need for efficient information collection,
communication, and management within the energy industry. The
Commission has specific, objective support for the burden estimates
associated with the information collection requirements.
    89. The NERC Compliance Registry, as of October 02, 2020,
identifies approximately 319 Transmission Owners in the U.S. that are
subject to this proposed rulemaking.
    90. The Commission estimates that the NOPR would affect the burden
\84\ and cost \85\ as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ ``Burden'' is the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3.
    \85\ Commission staff estimates that respondents' hourly wages
(including benefits) are comparable to those of FERC employees.
Therefore, the hourly cost used in this analysis is $83.00 ($172,329
per year).

                                                    Proposed Changes in NOPR in Docket No. RM21-3-000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   A                            B               C               D                          E                               F
Area of modification                          Number of          Annual          Annual  Average burden hours and cost per     Total estimated burden
                                            respondents       estimated       estimated   response.                             hours and total
                                                              number of       number of                                         estimated cost
                                                          responses per       responses                                        (column D x column E)
                                                             respondent     (column B x
                                                                              column C)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Report of Cybersecurity Incentives Investment Activity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional filers of Report of                       20               1              20  80 hours; $6,640....................  1,600 hours; $132,800.
 Cybersecurity Incentives Investment
 Activity (Annually and Ongoing).
Critical Infrastructure Protection              223,875               1         223,875  9.13 hours; $757.44.................  2,043,026 hours;
 Reliability Standards for FERC-725B                                                                                $169,571,158.
 (unchanged).
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................  ..............  ..............         223,895  ....................................  2,044,626 hours;
                                                                                $169,703,958.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    91. For the purposes of estimating burden in this NOPR, in the
table above, we conservatively estimate annual numbers of the different
possible cybersecurity incentive requests as similar to the historical
high experienced for incentives Orders issued under Section 219. For
example, to date, the Commission has received

approximately 110 incentive requests since Order No. 679 was issued in
2006, and has issued an average of 8 incentives Orders per year, with a
single year high of 21 incentive Orders issued. This estimate is
consistent with our expectation that the cybersecurity incentives are
likely to attract significant interest from the industry. We seek
comment on the estimates in the table above regarding the number of
incentive requests.

VI. Environmental Analysis

    92. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\86\ We
conclude that neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental
Impact Statement is required for this proposed rule under Sec.
380.4(a)(15) of the Commission's regulations, which provides a
categorical exemption for approval of actions under FPA sections 205
and 206 relating to the filing of schedules containing all rates and
charges for the transmission or sale of electric energy subject to the
Commission's jurisdiction, plus the classification, practices,
contracts, and regulations that affect rates, charges, classification,
and services.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats.
& Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987) (cross referenced at 41
FERC ] 61,284).
    \87\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    93. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 \88\ generally requires
a description and analysis of proposed and final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) sets the threshold for what
constitutes a small business. Under SBA's size standards,\89\
Transmission owners all fall under the category of Electric Bulk Power
Transmission and Control (NAICS code 221121), with a size threshold of
500 employees (including the entity and its associates).\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \89\ 13 CFR 121.201
    \90\ The threshold for the number of employees indicates the
maximum allowed for a concern and its affiliates to be considered
small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    94. We estimate that 319 transmission owners are reported in the
NERC registry. Using the list of Transmission Owners from the NERC
Registry (dated October 2, 2020), we estimate that approximately 6% of
those entities may file for incentives.
    95. We estimate additional annual costs associated with the NOPR
(as shown in the table above) of:
     $6,640 per filer for 20 new filers.
     These costs are only incurred on a voluntary basis.
    96. Therefore, the estimated additional annual cost per entity
ranges from $0 to $132,800. According to SBA guidance, the
determination of significance of impact ``should be seen as relative to
the size of the business, the size of the competitor's business, the
number of filers received annually (20), and the impact this regulation
has on larger competitors.'' \91\ We do not consider the estimated cost
to be a significant economic impact. As a result, we certify that the
proposals in this NOPR will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ U.S. Small Business Administration, A Guide for Government
Agencies How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, at 18
(May 2012), https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/rfaguide_0512_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Comment Procedures

    97. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including
any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish
to discuss. Comments are due April 6, 2021. Also, reply comments are
due May 6, 2021. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM20-3-000, and must
include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if
applicable, and their address in their comments.
    98. 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.
    99. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
may mail or hand-deliver an original of their comments. Mailed comments
should be addressed to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary
of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand-
delivered comments should be delivered to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. All
comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may 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.

IX. Document Availability

    100. 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). At
this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's
Public Reference Room due to the President's March 13, 2020
proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).
    101. 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.
    102. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 35

    Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    By direction of the Commission. Chairman Danly and Commissioner
Glick are concurring with a joint separate statement attached.
Commissioner Clements is not participating.

    Issued: December 17, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission is proposing to
amend part 35, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows.

PART 35--FILING OF RATE SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS

0
1. The authority citation for part 35 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42
U.S.C. 7101-7352.

0
2. Section 35.48 is added to read as follows:

Subpart K--Cybersecurity Investment Provisions

Sec.  35.48  Cybersecurity investment.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes rules for incentive-based
rate treatments for voluntarily making cybersecurity investments by a
public utility as described in this subpart.
    (b) Incentive-based rate treatments for cybersecurity investment.
The Commission will authorize incentive-based rate treatments for a
public utility that makes cybersecurity investments under this subpart
that materially enhance the cybersecurity posture of the Bulk-Power
System by enhancing the applicants' cybersecurity posture substantially
above levels required by Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability
Standards, provided that the proposed incentive is just and reasonable
and not unduly discriminatory or preferential. A public utility may
request one or both of the following incentive approaches for those
eligible cybersecurity investments:
    (1) Critical Infrastructure Protection Incentive Approach. A public
utility may receive incentive rate treatment for voluntarily applying
Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards to bulk
electric system facilities that are not currently subject to those
requirements. A public utility will receive a rebuttable presumption
that the investments made pursuant to this Critical Infrastructure
Protection Incentive Approach materially enhance the cybersecurity
posture of the Bulk-Power System to merit an incentive for such
cybersecurity investments. A public utility may receive incentive rate
treatment for the investments as follows:
    (i) Increasing the Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability
Standard security controls for facilities identified as low or medium
impact bulk electric system Cyber Systems by applying the requirements
for medium or high impact systems to low impact systems, and/or the
requirements for high impact systems to medium impact systems; or
    (ii) Ensuring all external routable connectivity to and from the
low impact system connect to a high or medium impact bulk electric
system Cyber System and the cyber communication security controls
required for the medium or high impact bulk electric system Cyber
System must be implemented on the low impact system.
    (2) National Institute of Standards and Technology Framework
Approach. A public utility may receive incentive rate treatment for
implementing certain security controls, identified from time to time
through a Commission issuance, that are included in the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Framework.
    (c) Types of incentive-based rate treatments for cybersecurity
investment. For purposes of paragraph (b) of this section, incentive-
based rate treatment shall be for those eligible cybersecurity
investments and means any of the following:
    (1) An increase in rate of return on equity of 200 basis points;
    (2) Deferred cost recovery; or
    (3) Any other incentives approved by the Commission, pursuant to
the requirements of this section that are deemed to be just and
reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential.
    (d) Incentive duration.
    (1) A return on equity incentive rate treatment approved pursuant
to this section may last the earlier of:
    (i) The depreciation life of the underlying asset;
    (ii) 10 years from when the cybersecurity improvements enter
service;
    (iii) when the investments or activities that serve as the basis of
that incentive become mandatory pursuant to a Reliability Standard
approved by the Commission;
    (iv) or when the public utility no longer meets the requirements
for receiving the incentive.
    (2) A deferred regulatory asset whose costs are typically expensed
should be amortized over a five-year period.
    (e) Incentive Applications. For the purpose of paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this section, a public utility's request for one or more
incentive based-rate treatments, to be made in a filing pursuant to
section 205 of the Federal Power Act, must include a detailed
explanation of the proposed rate treatment and include the following
information:
    (1) For applications under the Critical Infrastructure Protection
Incentive Approach:
    (i) The Bulk Electric System assets for which the public utility is
requesting the incentive;
    (ii) The geographical location of the Bulk Electric System assets;
    (iii) The function the Bulk Electric System assets support;
    (iv) The incentive method the public utility is requesting for each
of the Bulk Electric System assets;
    (v) The current and new impact ratings of the Bulk Electric System