Trends in Electricity Prices in Europe: Expect More Volatility

Northeast D.C. Power Outage highlights Pepco substation equipment failure, widespread service disruptions, grid reliability concerns, and restoration efforts, with calls for smart grid upgrades, better communication, and resilient infrastructure to protect residents, schools, and businesses.

Key Points

A Pepco substation failure caused outages, prompting restoration work and plans for smarter, resilient grid upgrades.

✅ Pepco cites substation equipment failure as root cause

✅ Crews prioritized rapid restoration and customer updates

✅ Calls grow for smart grid, resilience, and transparency

A recent power outage affecting Northeast Washington, D.C., has drawn attention to the vulnerabilities within the city’s energy infrastructure. The outage, caused by equipment failure at a Pepco substation, left thousands of residents in the dark and raised concerns about the reliability of electricity services in the area.

The Outage: What Happened?

On a typically busy weekday morning, Pepco, the local electric utility, reported significant power disruptions that affected several neighborhoods in Northeast D.C. Initial reports indicated that around 3,000 customers were without electricity due to issues at a nearby substation. The outages were widespread, impacting homes, schools, and businesses, and reflecting pandemic energy insecurity seen in many communities, creating a ripple effect of inconvenience and frustration.

Residents experienced not only the loss of power but also disruptions in daily activities. Many were unable to work from home, students faced challenges with remote learning, and businesses had to close or operate under limited conditions. The timing of the outage further exacerbated the situation, as it coincided with a period of increased demand for electricity, making efforts to prevent summer outages even more crucial for residents and businesses.

Community Response

In the wake of the outage, local community members and leaders quickly mobilized to assess the situation. Pepco crews were dispatched to restore power as swiftly as possible, but residents were left grappling with the immediate consequences. Local organizations and community leaders stepped in to provide support, especially as extreme heat can exacerbate electricity struggles for vulnerable households, offering resources such as food and shelter for those most affected.

Social media became a vital tool for residents to share information and updates about the situation. Many took to platforms like Twitter and Facebook to report their experiences and seek assistance. This grassroots communication helped keep the community informed and fostered a sense of solidarity during the disruption.

The Utility's Efforts

Pepco’s response involved not only restoring power but also addressing the underlying issues that led to the outage. The utility company communicated its commitment to investigating the cause of the equipment failure and ensuring that similar incidents would be less likely in the future. As part of this commitment, Pepco outlined plans for infrastructure upgrades, despite supply-chain constraints facing utilities nationwide, aimed at enhancing reliability across its service area.

Moreover, Pepco emphasized the importance of communication during outages. The company has been working to improve its notification systems, ensuring that customers receive timely updates about outages and restoration efforts. Enhanced communication can help mitigate the frustration experienced during such events and keep residents informed about when they can expect power to be restored.

Broader Implications for D.C.'s Energy Infrastructure

This recent outage has sparked a larger conversation about the resilience of Washington, D.C.’s energy infrastructure. As the city continues to grow and evolve, the demand for reliable electricity is more critical than ever. Frequent outages can undermine public confidence in utility providers and highlight the need for ongoing investment in infrastructure amid an aging U.S. grid that complicates renewable deployment and EV adoption across the country.

Experts suggest that to ensure a more reliable energy supply, utilities must embrace modernization efforts, including the integration of smart grid technology and renewable energy sources. These innovations can enhance the ability to manage electricity supply and demand, especially during unprecedented demand in the Eastern U.S. when heatwaves strain systems, reduce outages, and improve response times during emergencies.

The Path Forward

In response to the outage, community advocates are calling for greater transparency from Pepco and other utility companies. They emphasize the importance of holding utilities accountable for maintaining reliable service and communicating effectively with customers, while also promoting customer bill-reduction initiatives that help households manage costs. Public forums and discussions about energy policy can empower residents to voice their concerns and contribute to solutions.

As D.C. looks to the future, it is essential to prioritize investments in energy infrastructure that can withstand the demands of a growing population. Collaborations between local government, utility companies, and community organizations can drive initiatives aimed at enhancing resilience and ensuring that all residents have access to reliable electricity.

The recent power outage in Northeast D.C. serves as a reminder of the challenges facing urban energy infrastructure. While Pepco's efforts to restore power and improve communication are commendable, the incident highlights the need for long-term solutions to enhance reliability. By investing in modern technology and fostering community engagement, D.C. can work towards a more resilient energy future, ensuring that residents can count on their electricity service even in times of crisis.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Ports Electric Truck Leasing accelerates zero-emission logistics, cutting diesel pollution at Los Angeles and Long Beach. A $250 million nonprofit plan funds heavy-duty EVs and charging infrastructure to improve air quality and community health.

Key Points

A nonprofit's $250M plan to lease EV trucks at LA/Long Beach ports to cut diesel emissions and improve air quality.

✅ $250M lease program for heavy-duty EVs at LA/Long Beach ports

✅ Cuts diesel emissions; improves air quality in nearby communities

✅ Requires robust charging infrastructure and OEM partnerships

In a significant move towards sustainable transportation, a prominent U.S. nonprofit has announced plans to invest $250 million in leasing electric trucks for operations at California ports. This initiative aims to reduce air pollution and promote greener logistics, responding to the urgent need for environmentally friendly solutions in the transportation sector.

Addressing Environmental Concerns

California’s ports, particularly the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, are among the busiest in the United States. However, they also contribute significantly to air pollution due to the heavy reliance on diesel trucks for cargo transport. These ports are essential for the economy, facilitating trade and commerce, but the environmental toll is considerable. Diesel emissions are linked to respiratory issues and other health problems in nearby communities, which often bear the brunt of pollution.

The nonprofit's investment in electric trucks is a critical step towards mitigating these environmental challenges. By transitioning to electric vehicles (EVs), the project aims to significantly cut emissions from port operations, contributing to California's broader goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality.

The Scale of the Initiative

This ambitious initiative involves leasing a fleet of electric trucks that will operate within the ports and surrounding areas. The $250 million investment is expected to facilitate the acquisition of hundreds of electric vehicles, which will replace conventional diesel trucks used for cargo transport. This fleet will help demonstrate the viability and effectiveness of electric trucks in heavy-duty applications, paving the way for broader adoption.

The plan includes partnerships with established electric truck manufacturers, such as the Volvo VNR Electric platform, and local logistics companies to ensure seamless integration of these vehicles into existing operations. By collaborating with industry leaders, the initiative seeks to establish a model that can be replicated in other major logistics hubs across the country.

Economic and Community Benefits

The introduction of electric trucks is expected to yield multiple benefits, not only in terms of environmental impact but also economically. As these trucks begin operations, and as other fleets adopt electric mail trucks, they will create jobs within the green technology sector, from manufacturing to maintenance and charging infrastructure development. The project is anticipated to stimulate local economies, providing new opportunities in communities that have historically been disadvantaged by pollution.

Moreover, the initiative is poised to enhance public health. By reducing diesel emissions, the nonprofit aims to improve air quality for residents living near the ports, and emerging research links EV adoption to fewer asthma-related ER visits in local communities. This could lead to decreased healthcare costs associated with pollution-related illnesses, benefiting both the community and the healthcare system.

Challenges Ahead

While the initiative is promising, challenges remain. The successful implementation of electric trucks at scale requires a robust charging infrastructure capable of supporting the significant power needs of a large fleet. Additionally, the transition from diesel to electric vehicles involves significant upfront costs, even with leasing arrangements. Ensuring that logistics companies can manage these costs effectively will be crucial for the project's success.

Furthermore, electric trucks currently face limitations in terms of range and payload capacity compared to their diesel counterparts. Continued advancements in battery technology and infrastructure development will be necessary to fully realize the potential of electric vehicles in heavy-duty applications.

The Bigger Picture

This investment in electric trucks aligns with broader national and global efforts to combat climate change. As governments and organizations commit to reducing carbon emissions, initiatives like this one represent crucial steps toward achieving sustainability goals, and ports worldwide are also piloting complementary technologies like hydrogen-powered cranes to decarbonize cargo handling.

California has set ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including a mandate for all new trucks to be zero-emission by 2045. The nonprofit’s investment not only supports these goals, amid ongoing debates over funding priorities in the state, but also serves as a pilot program that could inform future policies and investments in clean transportation.

The $250 million investment in electric trucks for California ports marks a significant milestone in the push for sustainable transportation solutions. By addressing the urgent need for cleaner logistics, this initiative stands to benefit the environment, public health, and the economy. As the project unfolds, it will be closely watched as a potential model for similar efforts across the country and beyond, with developments such as the all-electric berth at London Gateway illustrating parallel advances, highlighting the critical intersection of innovation, sustainability, and community well-being in the modern logistics landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

FPL Hurricane Surcharge explained: restoration costs, Florida PSC review, rate impacts, grid resilience, and transparency after Hurricanes Debby and Helene as FPL funds infrastructure hardening and rapid storm recovery across Florida.

Key Points

A fee by Florida Power & Light to recoup hurricane restoration costs, under Florida PSC review for consumer fairness.

✅ Funds Debby and Helene restoration, materials, and crews

✅ Reviewed by Florida PSC for consumer protection and fairness

✅ Raises questions on grid resilience, transparency, and renewables

In the aftermath of recent hurricanes, Florida Power & Light (FPL) is under scrutiny as it implements a rate surcharge, alongside proposed rate hikes that span multiple years, to help cover the costs of restoration and recovery efforts. The surcharges, attributed to Hurricanes Debby and Helene, have stirred significant debate among consumers and state regulators, highlighting the ongoing challenges of hurricane preparedness and response in the Sunshine State.

Hurricanes are a regular threat in Florida, and FPL, as the state's largest utility provider, plays a critical role in restoring power and services after such events. However, the financial implications of these natural disasters often leave residents questioning the fairness and necessity of additional charges on their monthly bills. The newly proposed surcharge, which is expected to affect millions of customers, has ignited discussions about the adequacy of the company’s infrastructure investments and its responsibility in disaster recovery.

FPL’s decision to implement a surcharge comes as the company faces rising operational costs due to extensive damage caused by the hurricanes. Restoration efforts are not only labor-intensive but also require significant investment in materials and equipment to restore power swiftly and efficiently. With the added pressures of increased demand for electricity during peak hurricane seasons, utilities like FPL must navigate complex financial landscapes, similar to Snohomish PUD's weather-related rate hikes seen in other regions, while ensuring reliable service.

Consumer advocacy groups have raised concerns over the timing and justification for the surcharge. Many argue that frequent rate increases following natural disasters can strain already financially burdened households, echoing pandemic-related shutoff concerns raised during COVID that heightened energy insecurity. Florida residents are already facing inflationary pressures and rising living costs, making additional surcharges particularly difficult for many to absorb. Critics assert that utility companies should prioritize transparency and accountability, especially when it comes to costs incurred during emergencies.

The Florida Public Service Commission (PSC), which regulates utility rates and services, even as California regulators face calls for action amid soaring bills elsewhere, is tasked with reviewing the surcharge proposal. The commission’s role is crucial in determining whether the surcharge is justified and in line with the interests of consumers. As part of this process, stakeholders—including FPL, consumer advocacy groups, and the general public—will have the opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns. This input is essential in ensuring that the commission makes an informed decision that balances the utility’s financial needs with consumer protection.

In recent years, FPL has invested heavily in strengthening its infrastructure to better withstand hurricane impacts. These investments include hardening power lines, enhancing grid resilience, and implementing advanced technologies for quicker recovery, with public outage prevention tips also promoted to enhance preparedness. However, as storms become increasingly severe due to climate change, the question arises: are these measures sufficient? Critics argue that more proactive measures are needed to mitigate the impacts of future storms and reduce the reliance on post-disaster rate increases.

Additionally, the conversation around climate resilience is becoming increasingly prominent in discussions about energy policy in Florida. As extreme weather events grow more common, utilities are under pressure to innovate and adapt their systems. Some experts suggest that FPL and other utilities should explore alternative strategies, such as investing in decentralized energy resources like solar and battery storage, even as Florida declined federal solar incentives that could accelerate adoption, which could provide more reliable service during outages and reduce the overall strain on the grid.

The issue of rate surcharges also highlights a broader conversation about the energy landscape in Florida. With a growing emphasis on renewable energy and sustainability, consumers are becoming more aware of the environmental impacts of their energy choices, and some recall a one-time Gulf Power bill decrease as an example of short-term relief. This shift in consumer awareness may push utilities like FPL to reevaluate their business models and explore more sustainable practices that align with the public’s evolving expectations.

As FPL navigates the complexities of hurricane recovery and financial sustainability, the impending surcharge serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges faced by utility providers in a climate-volatile world. While the need for recovery funding is undeniable, the manner in which it is implemented and communicated will be crucial in maintaining public trust and ensuring fair treatment of consumers. As discussions unfold in the coming weeks, all eyes will be on the PSC’s decision and FPL’s approach to balancing recovery efforts with consumer affordability.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Noncarbon Electricity Investment Strategy helps utilities hedge policy uncertainty, carbon tax risks, and emissions limits by scaling wind, solar, and CCS, avoiding stranded assets while balancing costs, reliability, and climate policy over decades.

Key Points

A strategy for utilities to invest 20-30 percent of capacity in low carbon sources to hedge emissions and carbon risks.

✅ Hedges future carbon tax and emissions limits

✅ Targets 20-30 percent of new generation from clean sources

✅ Reduces stranded asset risk and builds renewables capacity

When utility executives make decisions about building new power plants, a lot rides on their choices. Depending on their size and type, new generating facilities cost hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. They typically will run for 40 or more years — 10 U.S. presidential terms. Much can change during that time.

Today one of the biggest dilemmas that regulators and electricity industry planners face is predicting how strict future limits on greenhouse gas emissions will be. Future policies will affect the profitability of today’s investments. For example, if the United States adopts a carbon tax 10 years from now, it could make power plants that burn fossil fuels less profitable, or even insolvent.

These investment choices also affect consumers. In South Carolina, utilities were allowed to charge their customers higher rates to cover construction costs for two new nuclear reactors, which have now been abandoned because of construction delays and weak electricity demand. Looking forward, if utilities are reliant on coal plants instead of solar and wind, it will be much harder and more expensive for them to meet future emissions targets, even as New Zealand's electrification push accelerates abroad. They will pass the costs of complying with these targets on to customers in the form of higher electricity prices.

With so much uncertainty about future policy, how much should we be investing in noncarbon electricity generation in the next decade? In a recent study, we proposed optimal near-term electricity investment strategies to hedge against risks and manage inherent uncertainties about the future.

We found that for a broad range of assumptions, 20 to 30 percent of new generation in the coming decade should be from noncarbon sources such as wind and solar energy across markets. For most U.S. electricity providers, this strategy would mean increasing their investments in noncarbon power sources, regardless of the current administration’s position on climate change.

Many noncarbon electricity sources — including wind, solar, nuclear power and coal or natural gas with carbon capture and storage — are more expensive than conventional coal and natural gas plants. Even wind power, which is often mentioned as competitive, is actually more costly when accounting for costs such as backup generation and energy storage to ensure that power is available when wind output is low.

Over the past decade, federal tax incentives and state policies designed to promote clean electricity sources spurred many utilities to invest in noncarbon sources. Now the Trump administration is shifting federal policy back toward promoting fossil fuels. But it can still make economic sense for power companies to invest in more expensive noncarbon technologies if we consider the potential impact of future policies.

How much should companies invest to hedge against the possibility of future greenhouse gas limits? On one hand, if they invest too much in noncarbon generation and the federal government adopts only weak climate policies throughout the investment period, utilities will overspend on expensive energy sources.

On the other hand, if they invest too little in noncarbon generation and future administrations adopt stringent emissions targets, utilities will have to replace high-carbon energy sources with cleaner substitutes, which could be extremely costly.

Economic modeling with uncertainty

We conducted a quantitative analysis to determine how to balance these two concerns and find an optimal investment strategy given uncertainty about future emissions limits. This is a core choice that power companies have to make when they decide what kinds of plants to build.

First we developed a computational model that represents the sectors of the U.S. economy, including electric power. Then we embedded it within a computer program that evaluates decisions in the electric power sector under policy uncertainty.

The model explores different electric power investment decisions under a wide range of future emissions limits with different probabilities of being implemented. For each decision/policy combination, it computes and compares economy-wide costs over two investment periods extending from 2015 to 2030.

We looked at costs across the economy because emissions policies impose costs on consumers and producers as well as power companies. For example, they may lead to higher electricity, fuel or product prices. By seeking to minimize economy-wide costs, our model identifies the investment decision that produces the greatest overall benefits to society.

More investments in clean generation make economic sense

We found that for a broad range of assumptions, the optimal investment strategy for the coming decade is for 20 to 30 percent of new generation to be from noncarbon sources. Our model identified this as the best level because it best positions the United States to meet a wide range of possible future policies at a low cost to the economy.

From 2005-2015, we calculated that about 19 percent of the new generation that came online was from noncarbon sources. Our findings indicate that power companies should put a larger share of their money into noncarbon investments in the coming decade.

While increasing noncarbon investments from a 19 percent share to a 20 to 30 percent share of new generation may seem like a modest change, it actually requires a considerable increase in noncarbon investment dollars. This is especially true since power companies will need to replace dozens of aging coal-fired power plants that are expected to be retired.

In general, society will bear greater costs if power companies underinvest in noncarbon technologies than if they overinvest. If utilities build too much noncarbon generation but end up not needing it to meet emissions limits, they can and will still use it fully. Sunshine and wind are free, so generators can produce electricity from these sources with low operating costs.

In contrast, if the United States adopts strict emissions limits within a decade or two, they could prevent carbon-intensive generation built today from being used. Those plants would become “stranded assets” — investments that are obsolete far earlier than expected, and are a drain on the economy.

Investing early in noncarbon technologies has another benefit: It helps develop the capacity and infrastructure needed to quickly expand noncarbon generation. This would allow energy companies to comply with future emissions policies at lower costs.

Seeing beyond one president

The Trump administration is working to roll back Obama-era climate policies such as the Clean Power Plan, and to implement policies that favor fossil generation. But these initiatives should alter the optimal strategy that we have proposed for power companies only if corporate leaders expect Trump’s policies to persist over the 40 years or more that these new generating plants can be expected to run.

Energy executives would need to be extremely confident that, despite investor pressure from shareholders, the United States will adopt only weak climate policies, or none at all, into future decades in order to see cutting investments in noncarbon generation as an optimal near-term strategy. Instead, they may well expect that the United States will eventually rejoin worldwide efforts to slow the pace of climate change and adopt strict emissions limits.

In that case, they should allocate their investments so that at least 20 to 30 percent of new generation over the next decade comes from noncarbon sources. Sustaining and increasing noncarbon investments in the coming decade is not just good for the environment — it’s also a smart business strategy that is good for the economy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Hong Kong Electricity Tariff Increase reflects a projected 1-2% rise as HK Electric and CLP Power shift to cleaner fuel and natural gas, expand gas-fired units and LNG terminals, and adjust the fuel clause charge.

Key Points

An expected 1-2% 2018 rise from cleaner fuel, natural gas projects, asset growth, and shrinking fuel cost surpluses.

✅ Expected 1-2% rise amid cleaner fuel and gas shift

✅ Fuel clause charge and asset expansion pressure prices

✅ HK Electric and CLP Power urged to use surpluses prudently

Hong Kong customers have been asked to expect higher electricity bills next year, as seen with BC Hydro rate increases in Canada, with a member of a government panel on energy policy anticipating an increase in tariffs of one or two per cent.

The environment minister, Wong Kam-sing, also hinted they should be prepared to dig deeper into their pockets for electricity, as debates over California electric bills illustrate, in the wake of power companies needing to use more expensive but cleaner fuel to generate power in the future.

HK Electric supplies power to Hong Kong Island, Lamma Island and Ap Lei Chau. Photo: David Wong

The city’s two power companies, HK Electric and CLP Power, are to brief lawmakers on their respective annual tariff adjustments for 2018, amid Ontario electricity price pressures drawing international attention, at a Legislative Council economic development panel meeting on Tuesday.

HK Electric supplies electricity to Hong Kong Island and neighbouring Lamma Island and Ap Lei Chau, while CLP Power serves Kowloon and the New Territories, including Lantau Island.

Wong said on Monday: “We have to appreciate that when we use cleaner fuel, there is a need for electricity tariffs to keep pace. I believe it is the hope of mainstream society to see a low-carbon and healthier environment.”

Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing believes most people desire a low-carbon environment. Photo: Sam Tsang

But he declined to comment on how much the tariffs might rise.

World Green Organisation chief executive William Yu Yuen-ping, also a member of the Energy Advisory Committee, urged the companies to better use their “overflowing” surpluses in their fuel cost recovery accounts.

Tariffs are comprised of two components: a basic amount reflecting a company’s operating costs and investments, and the fuel clause charge, which is based on what the company projects it will pay for fuel for the year.

William Yu of World Green Organisation says the companies should use their surpluses more carefully. Photo: May Tse

Critics have claimed the local power suppliers routinely overestimate their fuel costs and amass huge surpluses.

In recent years, the two managed to freeze or cut their tariffs thanks to savings from lower fuel costs. Last year, HK Electric offered special rebates to its customers, which saw its tariff drop by 17.2 per cent. CLP Power froze its own charge for 2017.

Yu said the two companies should use the surpluses “more carefully” to stabilise tariffs.

Rise after fall in Hong Kong electricity use linked to subsidies

“We estimate a big share of the surplus has been used up and so the honeymoon period is over.”

Based on his group’s research, Yu believed the tariffs would increase by one or two per cent.

Economist and fellow committee member Billy Mak Sui-choi said the expansion of the power companies’ fixed asset bases, such as building new gas-fired units and offshore liquefied natural gas terminals, a pattern reflected in Nova Scotia's 14% rate hike recently approved by regulators, would also cause tariffs to rise.

To fight climate change and improve air quality, the government has pledged to cut carbon intensity by between 50 and 60 per cent by 2020. Officials set a target of boosting the use of natural gas for electricity generation to half the total fuel mix from 2020.

Both power companies are privately owned and monitored by the government through a mutually agreed scheme of control agreements, akin to oversight seen under the UK energy price cap in other jurisdictions. These require the firms to seek government approval for their development plans, including their projected basic tariff levels.

At present, the permitted rate of return on their net fixed assets is 9.99 per cent. The deals are due to expire late next year.

Earlier this year, officials reached a deal with the two companies on the post-2018 scheme, settling on a 15-year term. The new agreements slash their permitted rate of return to 8 per cent.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Crouching Yeti APT targets energy infrastructure with watering-hole attacks, compromising servers to steal credentials and stage intrusions; Kaspersky Lab links the Energetic Bear group to ICS threats across Russia, US, Europe, and Turkey.

Key Points

Crouching Yeti APT, aka Energetic Bear, is a threat group that targets energy firms using watering-hole attacks.

✅ Targets energy infrastructure via watering-hole compromises

✅ Uses open-source tools and backdoored sshd for persistence

✅ Scans global servers to stage intrusions and steal credentials

A hacker collective known for attacking industrial companies around the world have had some of their infrastructure identified by Russian security specialists.

Kaspersky Lab said that it has discovered a number of servers compromised by the group, belonging to different organisations based in Russia, the US, and Turkey, as well as European countries.

The Russian-speaking hackers, known as Crouching Yeti or Energetic Bear, mostly focus on energy facilities, as seen in reports of infiltration of the U.S. power grid targeting critical infrastructure, for the main purpose of stealing valuable data from victim systems.

Hacked servers

Crouching Yeti is described as an advanced persistent threat (APT) group that Kaspersky Lab has been tracking since 2010.

#google#

Kaspersky Lab said that the servers it has compromised are not just limited to industrial companies. The servers were hit in 2016 and 2017 with different intentions. Some were compromised to gain access to other resources or to be used as intermediaries to conduct attacks on other resources.

Others, including those hosting Russian websites, were used as watering holes.

It is a common tactic for Crouching Yeti to utilise watering hole attacks where the attackers inject websites with a link redirecting visitors to a malicious server.

“In the process of analysing infected servers, researchers identified numerous websites and servers used by organisations in Russia, US, Europe, Asia and Latin America that the attackers had scanned with various tools, possibly to find a server that could be used to establish a foothold for hosting the attackers’ tools and to subsequently develop an attack,” said the security specialists in a blog posting.

“The range of websites and servers that captured the attention of the intruders is extensive,” the firm said. “Kaspersky Lab researchers found that the attackers had scanned numerous websites of different types, including online stores and services, public organisations, NGOs, manufacturing, etc.

Kaspersky Lab said that the hackers used publicly available malicious tools, designed for analysing servers, and for seeking out and collecting information. The researchers also found a modified sshd file with a preinstalled backdoor. This was used to replace the original file and could be authorised with a ‘master password’.

“Crouching Yeti is a notorious Russian-speaking group that has been active for many years and is still successfully targeting industrial organisations through watering hole attacks, among other techniques,” explained Vladimir Dashchenko, head of vulnerability research group at Kaspersky Lab ICS CERT.

Russian government?

“Our findings show that the group compromised servers not only for establishing watering holes, but also for further scanning, and they actively used open-sourced tools that made it much harder to identify them afterwards,” he said.

“The group’s activities, such as initial data collection, the theft of authentication data, and the scanning of resources, are used to launch further attacks,” said Dashchenko. “The diversity of infected servers and scanned resources suggests the group may operate in the interests of the third parties.”

This may well tie into a similar conclusion from a rival security vendor.

In 2014 CrowdStrike claimed that the ‘Energetic Bear’ group was also tracked in Symantec's Dragonfly research and had been hacking foreign companies on behalf of the Russian state.

The security vendor had said the group had been carrying out attacks on foreign companies since 2012, with reports of breaches at U.S. power plants that underscored the campaign, and there was evidence that these operations were sanctioned by the Russian government.

Last month the United States for the first time publicly accused Russia in a condemnation of Russian grid hacking of attacks against the American power grid.

Symantec meanwhile warned last year of a resurgence in cyber attacks on European and US energy companies, including reports of access to U.S. utility control rooms that could result in widespread power outages.

And last July the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) acknowledged it was investigating a broad wave of attacks on companies in the British energy and manufacturing sectors.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News