By Fred Marcks

  Much attention has been given to energy security and terrorism, especially recently in light of the proposed Billerica Power Plant. Unfortunately, many people misinterpret legitimate security assessments as examples of exaggerated threats popularized by the politics of the post-September 11 United States. I write this article in the hopes of bringing the conversation back to a productive level with objective descriptions, facts and simple common sense.

  First, it is important to note that terrorists aren't the only ones who can terrorize. Threats against the energy sector are diverse and include energy company employees, disenchanted residents and environmental fanatics. Energy security experts agree that four fundamental justifications motivate threats against energy infrastructure. First, to cause damage to an important element of our economy; Second, disgruntled employees or disenchanted citizens seek retaliation or "to settle a score" over a specific demand, issue or general or personal grievance; Third, a desire to cause a company or government to seem incapable of protecting resources and citizens; and Fourth, a fundamental desire to spread panic by exploiting infrastructure vulnerabilities that impact daily life. People, however, are not the only ones that create tragedy, as was demonstrated by Hurricane Katrina in September 2005. Katrina wreaked havoc on gas/oil refineries and pipelines with costly spillover effects in the regional and national economy. Lastly, a future characterized by energy volatility, resource shortages and conflict virtually guarantees consistent threats to our energy infrastructure.

One of the most significant and relevant security threats is the vulnerability of energy companies' information technology systems. I have elected not to describe in detail the name or operational capacity of this system for security reasons, but consistent industry evidence indicates continued vulnerability. For example, in June 2001, the US National Petroleum Council produced a report, "Securing Oil and Natural Gas Infrastructure in the New Economy," that concluded that the biggest threat to the energy industry was posed by telecommunications and an over-dependence on information technology. Particularly concerning is the ease by which vendors and others outside of energy companies have access to these systems. The report concluded: "Cyber-terrorism could shut down the oil industry, as well as many other business sectors, and that can put you out of business. These are vulnerabilities that the industry needs to address."

  How is this relevant to the Billerica Power Plant? Like other company managers, proponents of the Billerica plant have opted for cost-effective “virtual staffing” via online monitoring. It is the vast use of remotely operated systems that makes these entities so vulnerable, because these systems control flow of fuels, emissions, turbines, chemical storage and pipelines. The energy industry has avoided changes to remote systems as they have helped companies achieved greater efficiencies and higher profits by having off-site computer monitoring instead of technical staff on location. To make matters worse, it is not uncommon for these operating systems to be linked into financial systems, fuel suppliers and transportation vendors. This online linkage may generate cost savings for the company; however, it also makes these systems the weakest link in the cyber-chain. Energy companies have long detected attempts by hackers to break into their operations through these systems. Just because no major disaster has occurred does not mean that they cannot or will not happen.

In 2001, police in the Midwest stopped six men who were exploring energy facility locations and had in their possession photographs and details of a major pipeline system. In an actual incident that same year, a gunshot caused more than 6,800 barrels of crude oil to spill from a major pipeline into the surrounding environment. As a result, the system was shut-down for three and a half days, causing widespread distribution interruptions and increases in the cost of oil. The FBI has issued several warnings about attacks on natural gas pipelines and gas facilities.

  Confirming that people with sinister goals are actively targeting the energy industry's computer systems, the New York Times reported: "computers that control the electric power system around the nation have been probed from the Middle East, and terrorists may have inspected the physical equipment." The Times noted that while nuclear power plants are perhaps the most attractive targets, power plants and pipelines were not far behind. The reality is that federal officials continue to urge energy companies that generate, transmit and distribute electricity to take steps to increase security.

In light of these concerns, managers of energy power plants need to conduct detailed risk assessments to identify and prioritize potential vulnerabilities. According to the proponents of the Billerica Power Plant, no risks exist and they have informed residents and officials that no negative results could occur in case of an accident, act of sabotage or act of vandalism. Having a high-handed attitude towards the safety and well-being of residents and the environment is wrong. Marketing and public-relations efforts have no place in responsible security management discussions. Risk assessments identify potential risks, establish risk boundaries, evaluate ramifications and create prevention plans. None of this has been done to satisfy the many security and environmental concerns raised by opponents of the Billerica project. Instead, proponents of the facility committed to “briefing public-safety personnel about our plans,” which include a worst-case scenario that identifies “no risks.”

Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 7 and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 identified seventeen critical infrastructure and key resource sectors that require protective actions for a terrorist attack or other hazards. Those sectors included: energy; public health; water; information technology; industrial facilities with chemicals and pipeline systems. The Billerica Power Plant represents each of these sectors. What is important to question is why the project was proposed the way it was. The veracity to the claim that “we need more power” is questionable. Massachusetts has a stable (or declining) population and has witnessed significant improvements in conservation. The Merrimack Valley was witnessed 0.04% population growth since 2000. The only organizations lobbying for more growth is the energy industry and the energy management company that has a financial interest in increasing production.

Despite the fact that more environmentally friendly technology exists to meet the demand of increased energy consumption, the proposed Billerica “peaking plant” facility is among the least efficient and most polluting options available. Because peaking plants are run at inconsistent times, developers do not build them to make them as efficient as a base load power plant. In addition, more efficient equipment and fuels cannot be used in peaking plants because fluctuating conditions can strain the equipment. Peaking power plants are typically twice as polluting as base load plants that run constantly and owners of peaking plants often request permission to run the facilities far in excess of their original permit, generating increased and unanticipated emissions. Nitrogen Oxide emissions can be substantial from peaking plants; other pollutants emitted include carbon monoxide, particulate matter, volatile organic compounds and sulfur dioxide.

While some residents are satisfied that the facility will generate electricity by burning natural gas instead of coal, the fact remains that creating electricity by burning fossil-fuels is the wrong direction for Massachusetts. Because natural gas is increasingly used, it has become more expensive and additional imports have been sought. Natural gas imports into the US are expected to grow by at least 8.2% a year over the coming decade. This highly volatile fuel source virtually guarantees that electricity costs will increase exponentially, adding further burdens to already struggling residents saddled with rising costs of living. From a security standpoint, in an era of increased terrorism, creating more opportunities for terrorists to strike our vulnerable energy infrastructure, especially when they are located near residential neighborhoods is a mistake we cannot afford. As we enter an era of limited resources and energy volatility, the archaic and flawed North East Grid, the system that provides our electricity, is in dire need of modernization and technology that will help it function more safely, more effectively and with less impact from traditional energy volatility. The energy industry has already demonstrated that they will continue to build what is most profitable to them. It is up to a robust political process and informed voters to ensure that sustainable facilities such as Grid Energy Storage options are mandated. These opportunities are significantly more environmentally-friendly and are far safer than traditional fossil-fuel plants. These facilities store excess energy during the majority of operation and, during times of peak demand, release electricity into the system. Grid Energy Storage facilities can also use photovoltaic cells to further maximize efficiency and create “free” electricity. For those who remain skeptics this approach or who doubt security risks, a disaster scenario was developed for Massachusetts by James Fay, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A former chairman of the Massachusetts Port Authority and a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Professor Fay remains concerned about energy security. His model predicts large areas of Rhode Island and Massachusetts being devastated by an attack on or accident at a natural gas facility. Specifically, Professor Fay described the vulnerabilities of the transport and storage terminal in Everett, where supplies for the Billerica Plant originate. Even if the facility in Billerica is not targeted specifically, electricity rates would skyrocket if any substantial event occurred at a natural gas facility in the Eastern United States.

  Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, recognizing the potential for economic and physical devastation, stopped natural gas transport and storage in Boston Harbor citing safety concerns. "Everyone should be concerned about it because the Coast Guard, Boston fire department and other agencies do not have the equipment if something did happen with…natural gas. Everyone says there is no problems, but what happens when something does happen?" Menino was quoted as saying at the time of his decision. Joining Menino were representatives of many Boston-area communities who unsuccessfully attempted to stop natural gas operations in the area after September 11, 2001. Professor Fay of MIT agrees. "Federal officials are in a state of denial right now. One must question our own emergency response capabilities if the Mayor of Boston feels that his city is ill-equipped to handle the problem.

Hopefully, this report will provide residents with the beginnings of a complete understanding of this issue, leaving out the biased and money-fueled public relations agenda of the Billerica Power Plant proponents. It is important to remember that they are in business to promote and construct these plants. They seek only to establish and expand their bottom-line. They can use negative labels and tired innuendo to criticize public input and to deflect questions, but the fact remains that their mandate is not to protect you, but to prioritize profits. As a public policy consultant, I am concerned with effectively protecting the hugely important energy sector from the threat of terrorism and, as tragically demonstrated by Hurricane Katrina, natural hazards such as hurricanes. Further, I aim to provide public policy solutions that respect and preserve our environment and quality of life so that you, as voters, feel empowered to facilitate progress in our political system. Teddy Roosevelt argued that protecting our environmental resources was our greatest challenge and that it underlies all other public challenges facing America. In order to preserve our quality of life and the well-being of future generations, we must enact and support sustainability policies that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Considering these facts, I cannot support the Billerica Power Plant because I believe that it is ill-conceived and unsafe. In response, I encourage all residents and town and state officials to work together to ensure that safer, more environmentally-friendly programs be our first priority.