|
Recommendations
to Enhance Energy Security and Improve Federal and State Energy Emergency
Mitigation and Response Capabilities
April
3, 2000
Submitted by the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO)
It is vital that the states and the nation take steps to improve and
enhance our ability to respond to energy emergencies. As this past winter
demonstrated, the nation remains vulnerable to the global oil market and
weather conditions. Moreover, we now face an issue of increasing concern
since the move to more competitive electricity and gas markets-the
reliability of the nation's electricity supply.
NASEO has a longstanding concern with energy emergency preparedness and
response, which is described in Issues 2000: NASEO's National Energy
Issues Agenda (see, Sustain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Strengthen
Energy Emergency Preparedness ), a document that describes NASEO's views
on the top issues priorities of the states. To assist both the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) and the states and territories in strengthening
energy emergency preparedness and response programs, NASEO has developed
the suggested program improvements and recommendations described below.
Improving What Works
NASEO suggests that any initiatives undertaken to improve our readiness to
respond to energy emergencies should build upon and improve existing
programs. The Energy Emergency Information Coordinators (EEIC) Program
helped to provide information exchange during this past winter's problems,
as did a series of regional conference calls. The State Heating Oil and
Propane Program (SHOPP) between EIA and the states provided valuable and
timely information to both states and the federal government and is a good
example of a cooperative program where the benefits far outweigh the
costs. The State Energy Program (SEP) has provisions that require states
to have energy emergency plans, and NASEO recently began working with the
National Petroleum Council to assess the vulnerability of critical
infrastructure in the oil and gas industries to cyber attack.
The energy emergency-related provisions of each of the above efforts
have served the nation well. However, these initiatives have suffered from
a number of reductions in resources, particularly in the area of
state-federal cooperation and planning. NASEO believes that it is
essential to strengthen the SHOPP and EEIC programs in order to ensure the
positive results they delivered this past winter.
Additionally, NASEO believes DOE's energy emergency functions should
reside within the department's Office of Policy. This structure is most
appropriate in that it affords access to essential fossil and energy
efficiency resources within the energy resources cluster. It should be a
part of the energy resources group within DOE
We can build upon and improve our existing capability to meet the needs
of our citizens in responding to energy emergencies. This can best be done
through cooperative and joint efforts of both the state and federal
governments. The following are specific recommendations, developed in
conjunction with NASEO's Energy Data and Energy Security Committee, for
areas that provide the best potential to improve existing programs and
relationships.
- The 1990 statutory rewrite of the State Energy Conservation Program
included energy emergency planning as a mandatory feature at NASEO's
request (P.L. 101-440). NASEO believes that DOE should assess the current
status of states' and territories' energy emergency planning. This
assessment should include information on the scope of the plans' coverage,
energy sources covered, when plans were last updated, state agencies
involved in the plans, and so forth. The results can be used to identify
gaps and needs for emergency preparedness activities at both the state and
federal levels.|
- DOE should work with states and territories to identify tools and
specific contingency plans that can be used by states in energy
emergencies to respond to specific conditions and circumstances. This
should expand on the responses to the fuel oil and propane shortages in
New England and other areas, such as: driver hours' waivers, Jones Act
waivers, temporary environmental waivers, and public information programs
to encourage energy efficiency. The process for releasing federal
emergency funding should also be addressed. This includes emergency
release of Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funding and
potentially other federal aid. It should also include states' actions and
policy initiatives, such as provisions for interruptible natural gas
tariffs to reduce the potential for sudden demand shifts. Model plans and
policies could be developed for states' use.
- DOE, states, and industry representatives need to identify
mitigation measures in the form of policies, tax incentives, voluntary
measures or permanent regulatory changes that will improve the resiliency
of the energy distribution system and enhance supply reliability. The
assessment should identify critical infrastructure vulnerability for all
forms of energy supply and delivery. In the heating fuels industry, for
example, just-in-time delivery has reduced the cushion that protected
customers from short-term supply disruptions. We must work together to
examine creative measures to increase product inventories, whether through
non-legislative or legislative means. Increased market demand without a
corresponding increase in truck transportation, bulk plant facilities,
pipeline capacity and customer storage infrastructures have led to
situations where there have been frequent requests for waivers of federal
driver hour restrictions.
- DOE, State and Territory Energy Offices, and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission should better coordinate their response procedures
with the public utility commissions on emergency procedures covered by
commission rules or orders governing electric and gas utilities and with
the states' emergency management agencies to assure coordination with the
states' disaster plans. Overall, better state-federal coordination needs
to be formulated.
- Electric system reliability is a critical concern of the states. In
light of the department's recent outage report, the state and federal
government (both DOE and FERC) should attempt to convene an ongoing series
of dialogues to develop practical responses. The states are committed to
working with the Department of the issue. This coordination needs to
address the growing interdependency of energy systems. For example, the
use of natural gas for electrical generation leaves open the potential for
a natural gas distribution problem to become an electrical supply problem
or to cause a distillate shortage as a result of fuel switching.
- DOE should work with states to improve the operation of the Energy
Emergency Information Coordinator Program . Information was not always
distributed to states in a timely manner, nor did states always readily
share important information on their supply conditions with the DOE and
surrounding states. Another component of improved coordination and
communication should include internal state government agency
relationships. Some states have good working relationships and
communications between their state energy office, Governor's office,
public utility commission, and state emergency management offices. In
other states the relationships may be less developed. Regional
communication between states can be improved by fuller participation in
the emergency communication procedures outlined in the agreement between
NASEO and DOE .
- States should encourage and work with their gas, electric and
petroleum companies and the associations representing these companies to
identify the vulnerability of critical infrastructure to cyber-attacks.
These systems need to be protected to prevent potential disruption to
energy supply.
- The EIA-NASEO sponsored winter and summer fuel outlook conferences
are designed to provide states and the industry with information to
forewarn of potential problem areas, and it is another good example of
information sharing. DOE should greatly enhance these successful meetings.
With limited additional resources, a larger audience could be served and
benefit from the important information provided by the Energy Information
Administration (EIA) and other experts. EIA and NASEO have a cooperative
agreement to work together to better meet the energy data needs of states
. This has included regional workshops for the effective use of energy
data and efforts to improve the accessibility of state energy data on the
EIA Web site. These efforts have included information on energy market
monitoring and should be continued and enhanced.
- Regional energy emergency planning workshops should be
reestablished. These exercises were held for many years, but have not been
held since the early 1990s. This is a mistake. These workshops should use
a variety of techniques in order to encourage states to review and update
their emergency plans, improve communications and their ability to assess
energy market data to gauge an appropriate level of response. The use of
scenario analysis and simulations are among the techniques that can be
used, but they should not be the only methods employed. Coordination of
planning and building of relationships between states and with the federal
government is an important element of the effort. The assessment of the
status of state contingency planning will be helpful in identifying areas
in need of attention and provide a focus for the workshops. These
workshops should also be seen as evolutionary in nature, building from one
year to the next. The workshops should be seen as a tool for training,
education and enhancing preparedness.
If the workshops were held in a multi-year repeating cycle, they could
be conducted on a regional or national basis. The multi-year cycle could
include a few common elements each year, such as updated threat
assessments or vulnerability analyses. Ideally, we should work to ensure
that two participants from each state and territory energy office
participate in the workshops.
A three-year workshop cycle could include, for example, the following
items:
-Year 1: Regional workshops focusing on state energy emergency plans and
plan development.
-Year 2: A National workshop focusing on communications and coordination
within and among states
and DOE and industry.
-Year 3: Regional workshops devoted to energy emergency exercises. It is
critical that these workshops
have the active involvement of the private sector in both the planning and
participation stages.
Conclusion
It is NASEO's intent for the above recommendations to be a starting point
for discussions with industry, the states, and DOE to strengthen and
improve the nation's energy security initiatives and programs. NASEO and
its state-based Energy Data and Energy Security Committee are committed to
full cooperation with DOE in moving forward on this critical issue.
<
back
to top >
|