DOCSLIB.ORG

Eastern Interconnection Demand Response Potential

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Eastern Interconnection Demand Response Potential ORNL/TM-2012/303 Eastern Interconnection Demand Response Potential November 2012 Prepared by Youngsun Baek1 Stanton W. Hadley1 Rocío Uría-Martínez2 Gbadebo Oladosu2 Alexander M. Smith1 Fangxing Li1 Paul N. Leiby2 Russell Lee2 1 Power and Energy Systems Group, Oak Ridge National Laboratory 2 Energy Analysis Group, Oak Ridge National Laboratory DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY Reports produced after January 1, 1996, are generally available free via the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Information Bridge. Web site http://www.osti.gov/bridge Reports produced before January 1, 1996, may be purchased by members of the public from the following source. National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 Telephone 703-605-6000 (1-800-553-6847) TDD 703-487-4639 Fax 703-605-6900 E-mail [email protected] Web site http://www.ntis.gov/support/ordernowabout.htm Reports are available to DOE employees, DOE contractors, Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDE) representatives, and International Nuclear Information System (INIS) representatives from the following source. Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Telephone 865-576-8401 Fax 865-576-5728 E-mail [email protected] Web site http://www.osti.gov/contact.html This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. ORNL/TM-2012/303 Power and Energy Systems Group EASTERN INTERCONNECTION DEMAND RESPONSE POTENTIAL Young Sun Baek Stanton W. Hadley Rocio Uria-Martinez Gbadebo Oladosu Alexander M. Smith Fangxing Li Paul N. Leiby Russell Lee Date Published: November 2012 Prepared by OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6283 managed by UT-BATTELLE, LLC for the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 CONTENTS Page CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ v LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ vii! GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................................ viii! ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................................... x! EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... xi! 1. INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................. 1! 2. DEMAND RESPONSE DEFINITIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS ............................................ 3! 3.! REVIEW OF DEMAND RESPONSE ASSESSMENTS ............................................................... 5! 4.! DEMAND RESPONSE ASSESSMENT UPDATES AND ORNL-NADR ANALYSIS ............ 14! ! 4.1 UPDATED DEFINITIONS IN ORNL-NADR ................................................................... 14! ! 4.1 INPUT UPDATING ............................................................................................................ 17! ! 4.1.1 Baseline System Peak Load and Customer Population .......................................... 17! ! 4.1.2 Load and Population Growth Rates ........................................................................ 17! 4.1.3! Critical Peak Average Hourly Load ....................................................................... 18! 4.1.4! Participation Rates in Non-Pricing Programs ......................................................... 19! 4.1.5! Participation Rates in Pricing Programs ................................................................. 22! 4.1.6! Load Reductions per Participant ............................................................................. 24! 4.2 STOCHASTIC! SIMULATION ........................................................................................... 25! 4.2.1! Initial Sensitivity Analysis with the Original NADR Model .................................. 25! ! 4.2.2 Dynamic Pricing Demand Response Specification in the Updated NADR Model 27! 4.2.3! Monte Carlo Simulation of Demand Response under Dynamic Pricing ................ 28! 5. EASTERN !INTERCONNECTION DEMAND RESPONSE SCENARIO ANALYSIS RESULTS! FROM UPDATED! ORNL-NADR ....................................................................................................... 29! ! 5.1 EASTERN INTERCONNECTION (EI) RESULTS ........................................................... 29 5.2 SUMMARY OF MONTE CARLO SIMULATION RESULTS AT EI LEVEL ................ 31! 5.3! REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF DEMAND RESPONSE .............................................. 32! 5.4! REGIONAL RESULT PROFILES ..................................................................................... 37! 5.5! DEMAND RESPONSE SUPPLY CURVE FOR EIPC STUDY ....................................... 51! 6. DEMAND! RESPONSE COSTS ................................................................................................... 54! 6.1! INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 54! ! 6.2 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 54! 6.3! FINDINGS FROM PRIOR STUDIES OF DEMAND RESPONSE .................................. 54! 6.4! METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 57! ! 6.4.1 Assumptions ........................................................................................................... 57! ! 6.4.2 Analysis of AMI Business Cases in Societal Cost Test Framework ...................... 58! 6.5 RESULTS! AND DISCUSSION: ........................................................................................ 60! 6.5.1! Brattle Group Comparison ...................................................................................... 62! ! 6.5.2 EPRI Comparison ................................................................................................... 64! 6.5.3! Discussion of Results according to Other Literature Findings ............................... 65! 7. SYSTEM BEN! EFITS OF DEMAND RESPONSE ...................................................................... 67! 7.1 BENEFIT! CASES FROM DEMAND RESPONSE ........................................................... 67! ! 7.2 DATA AND PROJECTIONS ............................................................................................. 70! 7.3! METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 70! 7.4! RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 71! ! 7.4.1 System Peak Impact ................................................................................................ 72! ! ! ! ! iii 7.4.2 System Reliability Impact ....................................................................................... 74 7.4.3 Generation Cost Impact .......................................................................................... 75 7.4.4! Environmental Impact ............................................................................................ 76! 8. CHALLENGES! TO DEMAND RESPONSE IMPLEMENTATION .......................................... 79! 9. POSSIBLE !NADR RESEARCH ENHANCEMENTS ................................................................. 82! 10.! REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 84! APPENDIX! A. DEMAND RESPONSE LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARIES .................... A-1! APPENDIX! B. STATE-BY-STATE SCENARIO ANALYSIS RESULTS ................................ B-1! APPENDIX C.! BENEFIT-COST TESTS TYPICALLY APPLIED TO DR PROGRAMS ........ C-1! APPENDIX D.! COST AND DEVICE DEPLOYMENT ESTIMATES FOR CENSUS DIVISIONS! IN ORNL-NADR ! ..............................................................................................................................D -1! ! ! iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 1: Potential Reduction in Summer Peak Demand from Demand Response Programs in Eastern Interconnection (GW) ................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2: Dispatchable DR in Eastern Interconnection’s Reliability Councils/NERC Regions (2009-2019) ......................................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Eastern Interconnection Regional Reliability Organizations Sign New Agreement
    Eastern Interconnection Regional Reliability Organizations Sign New Agreement Executive Committee Meeting September 7, 2006 Agenda Item #EC-8b. August 15, 2006 The six regional councils of the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) that form the Eastern Interconnection have signed an agreement to form the Eastern Interconnection Reliability Assessment Group (ERAG). The Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC), Midwest Reliability Organization (MRO), Northeast Power Coordinating Council, Inc. (NPCC), ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RFC), SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC), and Southwest Power Pool (SPP) created ERAG to enhance reliability of the international bulk power system through reviews of generation and transmission expansion programs and forecasted system conditions within the boundaries of the Eastern Interconnection. “A reliability assessment agreement that spans the entire Eastern Interconnection, including portions of Canada, is unprecedented, “ commented Bill Reinke, Chairman of the Regional Managers Committee that designed the agreement. “The agreement demonstrates our continued commitment to reliability, and provides opportunities to study the system from a much broader perspective.” All six regions in the Eastern Interconnection are working with NERC to achieve delegated authority as regional entities for the purpose of proposing reliability standards and enforcing reliability standards consistent with FERC Order 672. These delegated authority agreements will be submitted to FERC for approval. Once granted, the regional entities are expected to create common approaches to compliance and enforcement administration. The new ERAG agreement is one example of how the regions will use common methods to promote compliance with the reliability standards and in turn enhance reliability. ” This agreement reflects the commitment of the regions to work together and with NERC to ensure the reliability of the nation’s bulk power system,” stated Rick Sergel, President and CEO of NERC.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 State of Reliability an Assessment of 2019 Bulk Power System Performance
    2020 State of Reliability An Assessment of 2019 Bulk Power System Performance July 2020 Table of Contents Preface ........................................................................................................................................................................... iv About This Report ........................................................................................................................................................... v Development Process .................................................................................................................................................. v Primary Data Sources .................................................................................................................................................. v Impacts of COVID-19 Pandemic .................................................................................................................................. v Reading this Report .................................................................................................................................................... vi Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... viii Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................................ ix Recommendations......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern Interconnection
    1/31/2020 Eastern Interconnection - Wikipedia Eastern Interconnection The Eastern Interconnection is one of the two major alternating-current (AC) electrical grids in the continental U.S. power transmission grid. The other major interconnection is the Western Interconnection. The three minor interconnections are the Quebec, Alaska, and Texas interconnections. All of the electric utilities in the Eastern Interconnection are electrically tied together during normal system conditions and operate at a synchronized frequency at an average of 60 Hz. The Eastern Interconnection reaches from Central Canada The two major and three minor NERC eastward to the Atlantic coast (excluding Quebec), interconnections, and the nine NERC Regional south to Florida, and back west to the foot of the Reliability Councils. Rockies (excluding most of Texas). Interconnections can be tied to each other via high-voltage direct current power transmission lines (DC ties), or with variable-frequency transformers (VFTs), which permit a controlled flow of energy while also functionally isolating the independent AC frequencies of each side. The Eastern Interconnection is tied to the Western Interconnection with six DC ties, to the Texas Interconnection with two DC ties, and to the Quebec Interconnection with four DC ties and a VFT. The electric power transmission grid of the contiguous United States consists of In 2016, National Renewable Energy Laboratory simulated a 120,000 miles (190,000 km) of lines year with 30% renewable energy (wind and solar power) in 5- operated
    [Show full text]
  • MATTERS Inside This Issue CEO MESSAGE
    AUGUST 2020 “The secret of change is to focus all your energy not on fighting the old, but on building the new.” -Socrates MIDWEST RELIABILITY MATTERS Inside This Issue CEO MESSAGE 3 CEO Message 6 Corporate Values 8 Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program 22 Registration, Certification and Standards 25 Bulk Power System Reliability 26 Tips and Lessons Learned 31 Security Corner 36 MRO Interviews the E-ISAC 43 Strategic Update 45 Industry News and Events Midwest Reliability Matters - August 2020 CEO MESSAGE Leading in Uncertain Times What it means to be fearless MRO has undoubtedly undergone a transformation over the past couple of years. We expanded our footprint and doubled the number of registered entities in our region, increased staff such that more than 50 percent have been with the company two years or less, and made several governance changes, including reworking our organizational group structure and increasing the size of our board (notably 14 of 23 directors joined in 2019 or 2020). On top of all of these changes, we (like many others in the industry) transitioned to fully remote work for much longer than anyone would have predicted as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. All of these changes have happened in my short tenure as President and CEO. Late June marked my two year anniversary serving in this role, and as I reflect back on all that has happened during this time, I find myself wondering, “What does it mean to be a fearless leader?” In considering this question, I happened upon the website www.leadfearlessly.com, which describes fearless leaders as those that embrace change, influence and motivate others to become more fearless, to be open to change, and to grow and adapt.
    [Show full text]
  • Transmission Planning Process and Opportunities for Utility-Scale Solar Engagement Within the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC)
    Transmission Planning Process and Opportunities for Utility-Scale Solar Engagement within the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) Jeff Hein, David Hurlbut, Michael Milligan, Lynn Coles, and Bruce Green NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. Technical Report NREL/TP-5500-51279 November 2011 Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 Transmission Planning Process and Opportunities for Utility-Scale Solar Engagement within the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) Jeff Hein, David Hurlbut, Michael Milligan, Lynn Coles, and Bruce Green Prepared under Task No. SS10.1420 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report 1617 Cole Boulevard NREL/TP-5500-51279 Golden, Colorado 80401 November 2011 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • FERC Issues Report on Frequency Control Requirements for Reliable
    LBNL-2001103 Frequency Control Requirements for Reliable Interconnection Frequency Response Authors: Joseph H. Eto,1 John Undrill,2 Ciaran Roberts,1 Peter Mackin,3 and Jeffrey Ellis3 1 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 2 John Undrill, LLC. 3 Utility Systems Efficiencies, Inc. Energy Analysis and Environmental Impacts Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory February 2018 This work was supported by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Electric Reliability, under interagency Agreement #FERC-16-I-0105, and in accordance with the terms of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’ Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231 with the U.S. Department of Energy. Disclaimer This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. While this document is believed to contain correct information, neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor The Regents of the University of California, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by its trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or The Regents of the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, or The Regents of the University of California. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is an equal opportunity employer.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Summer Reliability Assessment
    2014 Summer Reliability Assessment May 2014 NERC | Summer Reliability Assessment | 2013 i of 45 Preface NERC is an international regulatory authority established to evaluate and improve the reliability of the bulk power system (BPS) in North America. NERC develops and enforces Reliability Standards; annually assesses seasonal and long-term (10- year) reliability; monitors the BPS through system awareness; and educates, trains, and certifies industry personnel. NERC is the electric reliability organization (ERO) for North America, subject to oversight by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and governmental authorities in Canada.1 NERC Reliability Standards are the planning and operating rules that electric utilities follow to support and maintain a reliable electric system. These standards are developed by industry using a balanced, open, fair, and inclusive process accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). While NERC does not have authority to set Reliability Standards for resource adequacy (e.g., reserve margin criteria) or to order the construction of resources or transmission, NERC can independently assess where reliability issues may arise and identify emerging risks. This information, along with NERC recommendations, is then available to policy makers and federal, state, and provincial regulators to support decision making within the electricity sector. NERC prepared the following assessment in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, in which the U.S. Congress directed NERC to conduct
    [Show full text]
  • United States of America Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ) North American Electric Reliability ) Docket No. RR20-__-__ Corporation ) JOINT PETITION OF THE NORTH AMERICAN ELECTRIC RELIABILITY CORPORATION, MIDWEST RELIABILITY ORGANIZATION, NORTHEAST POWER COORDINATING COUNCIL, INC., RELIABILITYFIRST CORPORATION, SERC RELIABILITY CORPORATION, TEXAS RELIABILITY ENTITY, INC., AND WESTERN ELECTRICITY COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF THE REVISED PRO FORMA REGIONAL DELEGATION AGREEMENT AND THE REVISED INDIVIDUAL REGIONAL DELEGATION AGREEMENTS Lisa A. Zell Nina Jenkins Johnston Vice President General Counsel and Senior Counsel Candice Castaneda Corporate Secretary Counsel Midwest Reliability Organization North American Electric Reliability Corporation 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 800 1325 G Street, N.W., Suite 600 St. Paul, MN 55102 Washington, D.C. 20005 (651) 855-1745 (202) 400-3000 (651) 855-1712 – facsimile (202) 644-8099 – facsimile [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Midwest Reliability Organization Counsel for the North American Electric Reliability Corporation Kristin McKeown Kristen M. Senk General Counsel and Corporate Secretary Senior Managing Counsel, Legal and Enforcement Damase Hebert ReliabilityFirst Corporation Director of Enforcement and Compliance 3 Summit Park Drive, Suite 600 Attorney Cleveland, OH 44131 Northeast Power Coordinating Council, Inc. (216) 503-0669 (212) 840-1070 (216) 503-9207 – facsimile (212) 302-2782 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for ReliabilityFirst Corporation Counsel for the Northeast Power Coordinating Council, Inc. Holly A. Hawkins Derrick Davis Vice President, General Counsel & Corporate General Counsel & Corporate Secretary Secretary Texas Reliability Entity, Inc. Rebecca Poulsen 805 Las Cimas Parkway, Suite 200 Senior Legal Counsel Austin, TX 78746 3701 Arco Corporate Drive, Suite 300 (512) 583-4923 Charlotte, NC 28273 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Texas Reliability Entity, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • MRM April 2021
    APRIL 2021 “Spring is proof that there is beauty in new beginnings.” -Matshona Dhliwayo MIDWEST RELIABILITY MATTERS Inside This Issue CEO MESSAGE 3 CEO Message 6 Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program 16 Registration, Certification and Standards 18 Bulk Power System Reliability 27 External and Regulatory Affairs 28 Security Corner 36 Strategic and Financial Update 38 Industry News and Events DISCLAIMER MRO is committed to providing non-binding guidance to industry stakeholders on important industry topics. Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) from MRO’s organizational groups have authored some of the articles in this publication, and the views expressed in these articles are the SMEs and do not represent the opinions and views of MRO. Midwest Reliability Matters - April 2021 CEO MESSAGE Ushering in Spring The season of change and revitalization I recently read a poem by Laura Kelly Fanucci that resonates with me. It articulates the resilience we have collectively experienced over the past year and hope for what the future will bring. May we never again take for granted When this ends, A handshake with a stranger May we find Full shelves at the store That we have become Conversations with neighbors More like the people A crowded theater We wanted to be Friday night out We were called to be The taste of communion We hoped to be A routine checkup And may we stay A school rush each morning That way—better Coffee with a friend For each other The stadium roaring Because of the worst Each deep breath A boring Tuesday -Laura Kelly Fanucci Life itself. 3 CEO MESSAGE It’s hard to believe that more than a year ago we first responded to the global COVID-19 pandemic— prioritizing the health and safety of MRO staff and the continuity of operations—while at the same time providing regulatory relief to allow industry to do the same.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual U.S. Transmission Data Review
    Annual U.S. Transmission Data Review March 2018 United States Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 Annual U.S. Transmission Data Review March 2018 Acknowledgements This report was prepared by the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Technical support was coordinated by Joseph Eto, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), with additional research and support provided by Kristina Hamachi LaCommare and Dana Robson (LBNL). Readers who have questions, comments, or suggestions for future reports in this series should send them to [email protected]. Data for this publication was sourced from documents available as of publication; in some cases draft documents may have been available, but were not included as they were not finalized at the time of this publication. All reference URLs were accurate as of November, 2017. Comments on a draft of this report were provided by: · California ISO (CAISO) · Eastern Interconnection Planning Committee (EIPC) · Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) · ISO New England (ISO-NE) · Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) · Monitoring Analytics · New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) · North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) · Open Access Technology International (OATI) · PJM Interconnection (PJM) · Potomac Economics · Southern Company · Southwest Power Pool (SPP) · U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) · Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) Department of Energy | March 2018 Table of Contents
    [Show full text]
  • MATTERS Inside This Issue CEO MESSAGE
    DECEMBER 2020 “Adopt the pace of nature: her secret is patience.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson MIDWEST RELIABILITY MATTERS Inside This Issue CEO MESSAGE 3 CEO Message 5 External Affairs 6 Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program 9 Registration, Certification and Standards 12 Bulk Power System Reliability 16 Volunteer Recognition Program 18 Security Corner 21 Operational Update 22 Industry News and Events Midwest Reliability Matters - December 2020 CEO MESSAGE A Closing Letter Resiliency in the face of Adversity As I write this end of year letter, I trust that you are healthy and safe wherever you are at the moment. This has been a challenging year for us all, both professionally and personally, and my thoughts and well wishes go out to anyone that has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This year has been one of continuing uncertainty as our Nation and communities grapple with the effects of a global health crisis. Added to the challenges presented by the pandemic were a number of severe weather events that tested the resiliency of the bulk power system and necessitated deployment of mutual assistance networks across North America. Amidst these challenges, and throughout mandatory government shutdowns, corporate safety restrictions, and a paramount shift to remote work, the critical functions of our industry continued with very little interruption. I am incredibly grateful for the hard work and efforts of our industry partners throughout this turbulent time! Also in 2020, racial discrimination confronted us head on with the tragic death of George Floyd in Minneapolis. For MRO, this was in our neighborhood—at many of our doorsteps—adding to the stress and anxiety already experienced with the pandemic.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting the Texas Electric Grid: a Cybersecurity Strategy for ERCOT and the PUCT
    1 Protecting the Texas Electric Grid: A Cybersecurity Strategy for ERCOT and the PUCT Abstract—The electrical system serves as the fundamen- for preparation and prevention, but only if the various tal base of a country’s economic activity, and it is therefore, governmental agencies can work together on a specific a likely target for cyberattacks. As the modern economy continues its evolution towards greater digitization and course of action. interconnectedness, policymakers must outline and enforce Since cyberattacks have not only private but also social regulations protecting those critical assets, without which costs, negative externalities arise, leading to underinvest- the economy would suffer. ment by the private sector in mitigating the costs. In The Texas Interconnection, due to being independently operated and to a large-extent legislated by the state of turn, this proclivity to underinvestment leads to under- Texas, enjoys a simpler regulatory environment than its na- insurement: a 2015 Lloyd’s white paper (Lloyd’s, 2015) tional counterparts. We exploit this relative independence suggests that an ‘Erebos’ malware attack on the eastern to offer policy solutions to better protect Texas against a cyberattack on its electric grid. Specifically, ERCOT and US grid could have a $243 billion impact; even if power the PUCT have the authority and ability to streamline were restored within 24 hours, many places would be and simplify the potentially confusing protocols enforced without power for several weeks. by NERC to make adoption more likely. We also discuss Given the negative externalities of cyberattacks, and grant programs for smaller utilities and the role of cyber- insurance in helping utilities navigate the difficulties in their concomitant underinvestment, the proper role of the understanding the protocols so that compliance can occur.
    [Show full text]