Last month Rep Miller-Meeks (R,IA) introduced HR 7266, the Rural and Municipal Utility Cybersecurity Act. The bill would rewrite 42 USC 18723, the Rural and municipal utility advanced cybersecurity grant and technical assistance program, to update and reauthorize that program. The existing $250 million annual authorization for the program would be extended through 2030.
The existing Rural And Municipal Utility Advances Cybersecurity Grant And Technical Assistance Program was authorized in 2021 by §40124 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (PL 117-58, 135 STAT 953). There is no sunset provision in this statute, but the spending authorization is only included through FY 2026.
Definitions
The revised §18723(a) adds two new definitions:
Both terms were used in the existing language. The term ‘defense critical infrastructure’ was defined parenthetically in §18723(d)(2)(C) by reference to 16 USC 824o-1 which is the codification of the §215A(a) of the Federal Powers Act used as the reference for the definition in this bill.
Other Changes
Most of the other changes made by the proposed language in HR 7266 are editorial (as opposed to substantive) in nature. For example, the new subparagraph (d)(1)(A) adds the phrase “subject to the availability of appropriations” to the existing language.
The one substantive change is made in the wording of subsection (e), protection of information, providing for protecting information from disclosure under federal, State, or local freedom of information acts. The original version allowed for such protections if the Secretary determines that disclosure “could be detrimental to the physical security or cybersecurity of any electric utility or the bulk-power system”. The new version notes that any information shared with program officials “shall be deemed voluntarily shared information and exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the Freedom of Information Act), or any provision of any State, Tribal, or local freedom of information law, open government law, open meetings law, open records law, sunshine law, or similar law requiring the disclosure of information or records.” This takes the protection decision out of the government’s control and makes it a statutory requirement.
Moving Forward
Miller-Meeks, and her two cosponsors, are all members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration. This means that there may be sufficient influence to see the bill considered in Committee. I see nothing in the bill that would engender any organized opposition. I suspect that there would be significant bipartisan support for this bill, which should allow for it to be considered by the full House under the suspension of the rules process. That would mean limited debate, no floor amendments, and it would require a super majority for passage.