More Resources

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) has developed and implemented a number of information systems to support its mission of regulating the natural gas industry, hydroelectric projects, oil pipelines, and wholesale rates for electricity. Because of the increasing frequency and sophistication of cyber attacks, the potential for malicious intrusion and damage to these information technology assets and the information they contain continues to grow. During 2006, the Commission estimated that it spent almost $1 million to protect its $27 million information technology investment from cyber related threats. The importance of maintaining a robust cyber security program is well demonstrated by the debilitating effects that recent attacks on Federal organizations have had on mission performance, agency reputation, and on constituents that have been subjected to compromise of personally identifiable or sensitive data. As required by the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), and consistent with Congress's desire to develop a comprehensive framework to protect the government's information technology operations and assets, the Office of Inspector General is required to perform an annual independent evaluation of the Commission's cyber security program. This evaluation is designed to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of information security policies, procedures, and practices, and compliance with the requirements of the FISMA. This memorandum and the attached report present the results of our 2006 evaluation.

Management Controls over the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Unclassified Cyber Security Program - 2006

Klondike III/Biglow Canyon Wind Integration Project

Klondike III / Biglow Canyon Wind Integration Project, Sherman County, Oregon

Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations

The Department's Security over Personally Identifiable Information

In 2002. the Office of Environmental Management (EM) directed its field organization LO ensure thar the structure of environmental remediation contracts emphasized he completior~o f specific tasks. Many of these tasks were acknowledged to be a,,~ oressive and technologically challenging. As part of this initiative, EM'S field activities at the Hanford Washington site, the Richland Operations Office (Richland) and the Office of River Protection (ORP), incorporated results-oriented work scopes in the~cro ntracts and increased the potential fees that the contractors could earn for completing especially challenging work. Richland, for example, accelerated work on at least ten majrjor projects. It also increased the available fee pool of its contractor, Fluor Hanford, Inc., from approximately $127 million to $180 million for Fiscal Years 2003 - 2006. ORP took similar action by accelerating the schedule to cleanup waste tanks at the Hanford Site and included $72 million in performance incentives in its contract with CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc. (CH2M HILL) to accomplish this and other work.

Performance-Based Contract Incentives at the Hanford Site

The Idaho CAB expresses concern regarding the possibility of recharge upstream of the proposed cap and asks for updates on contaminated plumes