IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/crtinf/v7y2026i2ne70024.html

Do State Critical‐Infrastructure Laws Reduce Incident Risk? Evidence From a 2010–2025 Fifty‐State Panel

Author

Listed:
  • Jesse R. Humpal

Abstract

Critical infrastructure facilities—including substations, pipelines, water treatment plants, and telecommunications nodes—are engineered to ride through routine technical failures, yet they remain vulnerable to low‐frequency interference by people. Trespass, tampering, vandalism, and ambiguous encounters at facility perimeters rarely cause cascading blackouts, but they consume operator resources, impose costs on law enforcement, and in some cases invite imitation. To address this challenge, US states since the early 2010s have adopted critical‐infrastructure protection (CIP) statutes that criminalize unauthorized conduct at energy facilities while anchoring governance routines such as signage, recurring training, charging checklists, and evidence‐preservation protocols. This article evaluates whether such statutes reduce incident risk in measurable ways. Using a balanced monthly panel of 50 states plus the District of Columbia between 2010 and 2025, estimated with Poisson pseudo‐maximum likelihood under staggered adoption and rich fixed effects, I find that laws in force are associated with a 27 percent reduction in expected incidents (incident rate ratio = 0.731, 95% CI [0.690, 0.773]). Event‐time diagnostics show no detectable pre‐trend differentials (p = 0.972). These findings suggest that statutes operate not primarily by increasing penalty severity but by reinforcing governance mechanisms of certainty, salience, and coordination. I argue that these results make a practical case for pairing statutes with four low‐cost complements: harmonized signage, two short cross‐agency trainings per year, prosecutor‐aligned charging checklists, and a minimal incident dashboard. The analysis contributes to deterrence theory, the econometric study of staggered policies with rare events, and debates on energy security, while offering policymakers a replicable governance playbook. 关键基础设施——包括变电站、管道、水处理厂和电信节点——在设计上能够应对日常技术故障, 但它们仍然容易受到人为低频干扰的影响。擅闯、篡改、破坏、以及在设施周边发生的模糊不清的遭遇虽然很少导致连锁停电, 但会消耗运营资源, 增加执法成本, 并且在某些情况下还会招致模仿。为了应对这一挑战, 自2010年代初以来, 美国各州已通过关键基础设施保护(CIP)法规, 将能源设施内的未经授权行为定为犯罪, 同时强化了诸如标牌、定期培训、收费清单和证据保存协议等管理程序。 本文评估了此类法规是否能以可衡量的方式降低事故风险。本文利用2010年至2025年间50个州和哥伦比亚特区的平衡月度面板数据, 采用泊松伪极大似然法, 在分阶段实施和丰富的固定效应模型下进行估计, 发现已生效的法律与“预期事件发生率降低27%”相关 (事件发生率比=0.731, 95%置信区间[0.690, 0.773]) 。事件发生时的诊断结果显示, 未检测到趋势前的差异(p = 0.972)。这些发现表明, 法律的作用主要不是通过提高处罚力度, 而是通过强化确定性、显著性和协调性等治理机制。我认为, 这些结果为将法律与四项低成本的补充措施相结合提供了切实可行的理由:统一的标牌、每年两次的跨部门短期培训、与检察官一致的起诉清单以及一个简化的事件仪表盘。该分析有助于完善威慑理论、罕见事件分阶段政策的计量经济学研究、以及能源安全方面的讨论, 同时为政策制定者提供可复制的治理方案。 Las infraestructuras críticas—incluidas subestaciones, oleoductos, plantas de tratamiento de agua y nodos de telecomunicaciones—están diseñadas para soportar fallos técnicos rutinarios, pero siguen siendo vulnerables a interferencias de baja frecuencia causadas por personas. Las intrusiones, la manipulación, el vandalismo y los encuentros ambiguos en los perímetros de las instalaciones rara vez provocan apagones en cascada, pero consumen recursos de los operadores, generan costes para las fuerzas del orden y, en algunos casos, propician la imitación. Para abordar este problema, desde principios de la década de 2010, los estados de EE. UU. han adoptado leyes de protección de infraestructuras críticas (CIP, por sus siglas en inglés) que penalizan la conducta no autorizada en las instalaciones energéticas, al tiempo que establecen rutinas de gobernanza como la señalización, la formación periódica, las listas de verificación de cargos y los protocolos de preservación de pruebas. Este artículo evalúa si dichas leyes reducen el riesgo de incidentes de forma cuantificable. Utilizando un panel mensual equilibrado de 50 estados más el Distrito de Columbia entre 2010 y 2025, estimado con pseudo‐máxima verosimilitud de Poisson bajo adopción escalonada y efectos fijos complejos, encuentro que las leyes vigentes se asocian con una reducción del 27% en los incidentes esperados (cociente de tasas de incidentes = 0,731, IC del 95% [0,690, 0,773]). Los diagnósticos de tiempo de evento no muestran diferenciales pre‐tendencia detectables (p = 0,972). Estos hallazgos sugieren que las leyes operan no principalmente aumentando la severidad de las sanciones, sino reforzando los mecanismos de gobernanza de certeza, relevancia y coordinación. Sostengo que estos resultados justifican la conveniencia práctica de combinar las leyes con cuatro complementos de bajo costo: señalización armonizada, dos capacitaciones interinstitucionales breves por año, listas de verificación de cargos alineadas con los fiscales y un panel de control de incidentes mínimo. Este análisis contribuye a la teoría de la disuasión, al estudio econométrico de políticas escalonadas con eventos poco frecuentes y a los debates sobre seguridad energética, a la vez que ofrece a los responsables políticos un modelo de gobernanza replicable.

Suggested Citation

  • Jesse R. Humpal, 2026. "Do State Critical‐Infrastructure Laws Reduce Incident Risk? Evidence From a 2010–2025 Fifty‐State Panel," Journal of Critical Infrastructure Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:crtinf:v:7:y:2026:i:2:n:e70024
    DOI: 10.1002/jci3.70024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/jci3.70024
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/jci3.70024?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:crtinf:v:7:y:2026:i:2:n:e70024. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2693-3101 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.