U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–235PDF 2017

LEADING THE WAY: EXAMINING ADVANCES 

IN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

June 21, 2017 

Serial No. 115–18 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DRAIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

MARK TAKANO, California 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

HON. ANDY BIGGS, Arizona, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon, Ranking 

Member 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

June 21, 2017 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Andy Biggs, Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 

Representatives .................................................................................................... 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamic, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Witnesses: 

Mr. Sebastien De Halleux, Chief Operating Officer, Saildrone Inc. 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

Dr. Neil Jacobs, Chief Atmospheric Scientist, Panasonic Avionics 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 30 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 32 

Dr. Burke Hales, Professor in Ocean Ecology and Biogeochemistry, College 

of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 39 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 41 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 49 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Neil Jacobs, Chief Atmospheric Scientist, Panasonic Avionics ..................... 62 

Dr. Burke Hales, Professor in Ocean Ecology and Biogeochemistry, College 

of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University ............ 65 

(1) 

LEADING THE WAY: EXAMINING ADVANCES 

IN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Andy Biggs 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 

Chairman BIGGS. The Subcommittee on Environment will come 

to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of 

the Subcommittee at any time. 

We welcome you to today’s hearing, which is entitled ‘‘Leading 

the Way: Examining Advances in Environment Technologies.’’ 

All right. I recognize myself to give an opening statement. 

Good morning, and welcome to today’s Environment Subcommittee hearing entitled ‘‘Leading the Way: Examining Advances in Environmental Technologies.’’ First of all, I thank each 

of our excellent panelists for being here today. I’m grateful that 

you’re here. 

For a hearing such as this one, there are many different avenues 

we could explore, but certainly one of undeniable importance is atmospheric monitoring. Without accurate atmospheric monitoring, 

we simply have no good way to predict the weather and, in turn, 

no ability to ensure that citizens are kept out of harm’s way when 

severe weather arises. 

In the federal government, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, is tasked with issuing forecasts that 

inform millions of Americans each day. To make these forecasts, 

NOAA also spends billions of dollars on environmental observation 

and data collection. I have no doubt that NOAA plays a vital role 

in atmospheric monitoring and weather forecasting. But one of the 

questions we need to explore in this hearing is whether it makes 

sense for NOAA to provide all weather data, to be the exclusive 

provider of weather data. 

In the 21st century, the landscape has changed. The federal government isn’t the only game in town, nor, I would argue, should 

it be. Partners in the private sector can and should use their advanced and innovative technologies to better our weather predictions. Unfortunately, NOAA has been reluctant to seek the help 

it needs. In the face of degraded forecasting capabilities and aging 

satellite systems, NOAA has continued to solve all of its problems 

alone, thereby wasting time and government resources. Instead of 

continuing to think inside the government-only box, NOAA needs 

to look to private partners who are ready and willing to help. 

Earlier this year, President Trump signed into law the Weather 

Research and Forecasting Innovation Act, a comprehensive bill to 

increase our weather forecasting capabilities to better protect lives 

and property. I commend Chairman Lamar Smith for his leadership on this bill, as well as the bill’s original sponsor, Vice Chairman Frank Lucas. What I like most about this bill is that it compels NOAA to innovate. For far too long we have relied on outmoded government technologies and systems. Thankfully, the 

Weather Bill dictates that NOAA must partner with the growing 

private sector to test and validate its data in order to enhance our 

nation’s forecasting capabilities. It is my hope that the agency will 

take full advantage of this opportunity. 

Switching gears slightly, we will also hear today about innovative technologies deployed in the oceans and how they can significantly influence a number of areas of our lives as well. As ocean 

researchers engage in a wide variety of tasks, from collecting data 

that feeds into our weather models to taking ocean measurements 
5 

that are used to keep commercial shippers safe, these men and 

women are increasingly using cutting-edge science and technology. 

By partnering with our commercial sector, we can decrease government costs and ensure that data streams continue to flow. As 

President Trump considers new leadership at NOAA, I hope that 

he will select an Administrator who is willing to seriously consider 

the benefits of private innovation. 

I look forward to learning more today about some of the technologies that will lead the way to a better and smarter future, and 

I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Biggs follows:] 
6 
7 
8 

Chairman BIGGS. And I now recognize the gentlewoman from Oregon, the Ranking Member, Mrs. Bonamici—Ms. Bonamici for an 

opening statement. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you to all the witnesses for being here today. 

Federal investment in policies can incentivize and drive the development of new, innovative technologies. And these technologies 

can help us find creative solutions to our most troubling problems. 

We’re fortunate to have with us today three witnesses who have all 

worked with NOAA to bring their technologies to the public. This 

hearing gives us the opportunity to discuss the importance of federal engagement with nonfederal partners. 

One of the great things about new technology is that even small 

innovations can have a large and meaningful effect on our lives. 

Dr. Hales’ Burkolator is an excellent example of this. The 

Burkolator is an autonomous analyzer the size of a piece of carryon luggage that has helped shellfish growers across the Pacific 

Northwest determine the best time to grow larva. The Burkolator 

can determine the oceans’ ability to form the calcium carbonates 

needed for shell formation, and it can be installed on ships. The 

Burkolator is available commercially, and it’s allowed shellfish 

growers to take control of their livelihoods by putting the tools they 

need to be successful at their fingertips. None of this would have 

been possible without the federal research grants that provided the 

initial funding. 

Although the range of technologies we’re discussing in today’s 

hearing is narrowly focused on oceanic and atmospheric observations, it’s important to note that both the EPA and NOAA cover a 

broad range of environmental monitoring and observations that 

would be negatively affected by the President’s proposed budget for 

fiscal year 2018. The President’s proposed budget would cut EPA’s 

state and local air quality management grants by 30 percent, which 

would have a devastating effect on the ability of many state and 

local agencies to adequately maintain their ambient air quality 

monitoring programs. This could lead to negative public health outcomes for many residents. 

Similarly, the proposed cuts to numerous NOAA grant programs 

would severely limit the ability of the agency to meet its mission 

on environmental monitoring and observations. Although I’m looking forward to today’s discussion about new technologies, we must 

remember that fundamental science at federal agencies such as the 

EPA and NOAA are on the chopping block under this Administration. 

As we listen to our witnesses, let’s acknowledge that federal 

agencies play an integral role in funding and accelerating the development of new technology to fit specific needs of niche markets 

or entire sectors. This is the Science Committee, and I want to emphasize how critical it is for Congress to continue to fund basic 

science at both NOAA and the EPA. 

The President’s budget proposes cuts to fundamental scientific 

research funding at EPA’s Office of Research and Development by 

almost 50 percent, and NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Research is slated to be cut by 32 percent. These numbers are unacceptable, and they demonstrate that this Administration lacks an 
9 

understanding or concern about the importance of scientific research and promoting public health and protecting the environment 

and property. 

I’d also like to draw attention to the troubling fact that there 

have been no nominations to fill any appointed positions at NOAA 

since the beginning of this Administration. This vacuum of leadership has left the agency, well, rudderless, pardon the pun, with line 

offices neglected. The mission of NOAA’s line offices are simply too 

important and the stakes too high for us to wait any longer. Our 

Committee must be advocates for NOAA’s role in our economy and 

for the safety of our citizens who rely on their research and data. 

We need to have discussions about the state of science at NOAA 

and the EPA and its leadership, and I hope that we are able to 

have a frank and open conversation about the future of both agencies soon. 

And I want to add, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the Weather 

Forecasting Innovation Act. I was a proud cosponsor of that act and 

worked on it for actually several years, beginning with a former 

Environment Subcommittee Chair, Representative Stewart, and 

then the next Subcommittee Chair Mr. Bridenstine, as well as Mr. 

Lucas. So, we spent a lot of time talking about that bill, and I look 

forward to continuing conversations about its implementation. 

So, again, I look forward to the discussion with our witnesses 

today about the exciting technologies that they are working on, as 

well as the integral role that federal investments play in promoting 

innovation within the realm of environmental monitoring in both 

the private sector and academia. 

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:] 
10 
11 
12 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. 

I am going to introduce—begin introducing our witnesses. Our 

first witness today is Mr. Sebastien de Halleux, Chief Operating 

Officer at Saildrone, Inc. Mr. de Halleux is the recipient of the 

2012 EA Emerging Leaders Award, the 2011 Tech 100 Award, the 

2010 Tech Fellow Award, and the 2003 Booz Allen Professional Excellence Award. He received his master’s degree in civil and environmental engineering from Imperial College London. 

And our second witness is Dr. Neil Jacobs, Chief Atmospheric 

Scientist at Panasonic Avionics. Previously, Dr. Jacobs worked on 

various projects, including NASA’s Earth Systems Science Program, GOES Satellite Imagery, Department of Energy’s Ocean 

Margins Program at the National Weather Service’s Atlantic Surface Cyclone Intensification Index. He received bachelor’s degrees 

in mathematics and physics from the University of South Carolina, 

and an M.S. in air-sea interaction and a Ph.D. in numerical modeling from North Carolina State University. 

I now yield to Ms. Bonamici to introduce our third witness, Dr. 

Burke Hales. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am pleased to welcome to the Committee and introduce Dr. 

Burke Hales, a Professor of Ocean Ecology and Biogeochemistry in 

the College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon 

State University. 

Dr. Burke has an undergraduate degree—excuse me, Dr. Hales 

has an undergraduate degree in chemical engineering and a doctorate in chemical oceanography from the University of Washington. 

Dr. Hales has had many noteworthy accomplishments over the 

course of his career where much of his research has been focused 

on coastal ocean carbon cycles, ocean acidification monitoring, and 

experimental technology. 

Recently, Dr. Hales’ most publicized work has been developing a 

technology called the Burkolator that is used by shellfish farmers 

in Oregon to help them deal with the rising acidity of the ocean. 

And I look forward to hearing more about that in his testimony. 

Thank you to Dr. Hales and the other witnesses for being here 

today, and I yield back. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. de Halleux for 

five minutes to present his testimony. 

Can you please press the mic button? There we go. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. SEBASTIEN DE HALLEUX, 

CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, 

SAILDRONE INC. 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Environment Committee, for providing an opportunity to discuss 

this important topic of environment technology advances. It’s an 

honor to testify in front of your Subcommittee. 

My name is Sebastien de Halleux, and I’m the Chief Operating 

Officer of Saildrone, a company based in Alameda, California. We 

have developed unmanned surface vehicle technologies focused on 

collecting ocean data cost-efficiently, at scale, providing insights 
13 

into systems like weather forecasting, fish stocks, marine life, surface and subsurface maritime traffic. 

Oceans play a key role in our nation’s continued economic growth, contributing an estimated $359 billion in gross domestic 

product. Of all observation, in situ ocean data is critical to understand global systems, yet collecting in situ ocean data is expensive 

because it relies on ships. A government research vessel costs anywhere between $100–200 million to purchase and $35,000 to 

$60,000 a day to operate. 

If I could have slide 1? 

[Slide.] 

The commercial sector has developed cost-efficient—the previous 

slide, please. 

The commercial sector has developed cost-efficient environment 

technology advances in response to this problem, an example of 

which is the Saildrone unmanned surface vehicle, which you can 

see on the slide, capable of missions of up to 12 months using no 

fuel, but wind power alone for propulsion. Each 23-foot-long USV 

carries a suite of sensors monitoring key environmental variables 

covering the atmospheric, surface, and subsurface domains and 

using a persistent satellite communication link to send this data in 

real time back to shore. 

USVs of this type are good for many different government applications and serve as both defense and civilian needs, including 

maritime domain awareness, drug interdiction, weather forecasting, fish stock assessment, and other environmental observations. 

Of course, data quality and cost-efficiencies are key and both 

have been demonstrated over 100,000 nautical miles of missions in 

partnership with NOAA, which has deemed the Saildrones, quote, 

‘‘a platform that is ready for ocean research, missions from the 

tropics to the Arctic,’’ end quote. 

And like many technology advances in the past, Saildrone USVs 

are offered as a fully managed service, including the USV lease, its 

operation, the data management, distribution for fixed daily price 

per USV without requiring expensive up-front investments. And in 

getting the private sector to pay for the expensive infrastructure 

and shouldering the operational risk, this public-private partnership framework provides great value to NOAA. 

Slide 2, please? 

[Slide.] 

NOAA’s current fleet of 16 research and survey ships is currently 

unable to meet the internal demand for days at sea, over 3,000 

unaddressed days at sea in fiscal year 2017 according to NOAA’s 

own fleet plan. This shortage and NOAA’s recognized ocean data 

gaps can be addressed by USV technology, augmenting NOAA’s 

ships, though only for those roles requiring data collection, i.e., the 

long tail of data collection, as higher capabilities will always require actual ships. 

However, despite being a very effective R&D partner, NOAA has 

no clear pathway or budget to move this type of technology innovation from R&D into operation, and therefore, not realizing the associated cost savings. We would recommend that such a pathway to 

operation be better defined. 
14 

The Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act that you 

mentioned stops short of defining a clear public-private partnership 

framework and remains ambiguous in defining the type of data 

that it encourages NOAA to source in the private sector. We would 

recommend that these ambiguous data types be clarified to include 

ocean surface observation, thus encouraging such public-private 

partnerships. 

Yet in spite of the challenges mentioned here, the Nation still 

holds a leadership position and a strategic advantage in environmental observation and the technologies that make those observations possible, reliable, and accurate. U.S. policy and regulatory 

mechanism need to reflect the current status of technology and 

market factors and also anticipate more innovative technological 

developments with an eye towards efficient addressing of mission 

and incentive-creation for U.S. industry. The Nation as a whole 

benefits from such an approach. 

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to express my views 

today, and I’m prepared to answer any question you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. de Halleux follows:] 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. I now recognize Dr. Jacobs for five 

minutes to present his opening statement. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. NEIL JACOBS, 

CHIEF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENTIST, 

PANASONIC AVIONICS 

Dr. JACOBS. Good morning, Chairman Biggs, Ranking Member 

Bonamici, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Neil Jacobs, and I serve as Chief Atmospheric Scientist for Panasonic 

Weather Solutions, a division of Panasonic Avionics Corporation. I 

am honored to be invited to participate in today’s hearing. 

Panasonic is very pleased to continue our longstanding publicprivate partnership to provide TAMDAR data to the National 

Weather Service through the National Mesonet Program, which is 

an example of a successful business model for commercial atmospheric data acquisition. TAMDAR, which stands for tropospheric 

airborne meteorological data reporting, provides real-time observations of wind, temperature, moisture, pressure, icing, and turbulence. These data are downlinked through either Iridium’s lowEarth orbiting satellite network or Panasonic’s high-throughput 

geostationary satellite Ku band network. Once received, they are 

decoded, quality-controlled, and passed on to the National Weather 

Service with a latency of less than 20 seconds. 

The aircraft-based weather observations are assimilated into the 

National Weather Service forecast models, and numerous studies 

have been conducted to document the substantial positive impact 

on predictive skill. Visualization of the raw observations can also 

be used to manually adjust regional forecasts for convective activity 

and precipitation type issued by the National Weather Service forecast offices. 

The icing and turbulence observations can be used to enhance 

aviation situational awareness for both commercial and general 

aviation. These observations are used by the NTSB as a routine 

part of many aviation accident investigations. 

The TAMDAR network is rapidly expanding overseas, and many 

airlines are utilizing both real-time observing systems and forecast 

models to enhance safety, as well as operational efficiency. Additionally, significant fuel savings are realized by the airlines, which 

has the added benefit of greatly reducing the footprint of—the carbon footprint of commercial aviation. 

A miniaturized version of this sensor has been developed for 

UAVs. It is currently in operation on a number of platforms, including NASA’s Ikhana, which is a nonweaponized predator drone 

used for scientific research. The probe has also the capacity to do 

additional sensing such as various air quality metrics. 

In addition to the airborne sensing network, Panasonic is in the 

initial stages of deploying ship-based marine and atmospheric sensing capabilities through ITC Global, which is a Panasonic-owned 

company that supplies broadband to the maritime industry. 

Panasonic is the only private entity in the world with a customdeveloped global weather modeling platform initialized from raw 

observations and completely independent from NCEP-produced 

global model data. This prediction system includes an 80-member 

ensemble in addition to high-resolution deterministic model. The 
31 

global model is designed to assimilate both conventional observations, as well as satellite radiances among other remotely sensed 

data sources, including commercial GNSS radio occultation measurements. Panasonic also runs regional models in air quality dispersion models, which are initialized from boundary conditions provided by our global model. 

The next-generation Panasonic global model will employ the capability to run various dynamic cores, some of which are currently 

being co-developed between public, private, and academic sectors. 

Further advancements are being made for the data assimilation 

system, as well as two-way coupling of an ocean model. As part of 

this development initiative, Panasonic has established a very successful academic-private partnership with multiple universities and 

institutions, including University of Maryland, North Carolina 

State University, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Panasonic funds several programs at these institutions, 

which support faculty and students in STEM-related fields. 

While commercial restrictions are placed on the redistribution of 

Panasonic data and intellectual property, we routinely grant research-only license agreements to universities so that faculty and 

students have free access to our data for educational purposes. At 

Panasonic, we believe it is critical to the structure of public-private 

partnerships such that industry is incentivized to collaborate with 

federal agencies, as this is more convective to the mutual success 

of both sectors. 

A thriving private sector in the weather enterprise can not only 

provide data, products, and services to enhance submission of various federal agencies but can also fast-track applied research and 

innovation through partnerships with the academic sector. 

Since its founding in 1998, Panasonic Weather Solutions has 

worked cooperatively with federal agencies providing its data to 

NOAA and the FAA and at many times at no cost. While we are 

a commercial company responsible to our shareholders, we at 

Panasonic also have another responsibility to help share our technological expertise with the national meteorological agencies 

around the world. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Bonamici, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you again for inviting me to participate 

today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Jacobs follows:] 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you, Dr. Jacobs. 

I now recognize Dr. Hales for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. BURKE HALES, 

PROFESSOR IN OCEAN ECOLOGY AND BIOGEOCHEMISTRY, 

COLLEGE OF EARTH, 

OCEAN AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 

OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY 

Dr. HALES. Thank you, Chairman Biggs, Vice Chair Banks, and 

Ranking Member Bonamici, for the opportunity to speak to you 

today to discuss the importance of federal investment in environmental monitoring systems technology innovation. And thank you, 

Representative Bonamici, for the introduction. 

I study ocean carbon cycles and its boundaries, the sea floor, the 

sea surface, and the land-ocean margins. Throughout my 20-year 

career, I’ve embraced technological development to explore new 

knowledge and real-world solutions with end users in mind. My 

work is supportive of and supported by a number of federally funded monitoring programs, including the National Science Foundation Ocean Observatories Initiative, NOAA’s Integrated Ocean Observing System, and the National Weather Service, as well as the 

NOAA and NASA Earth Observing Satellite programs. While each 

of these programs serve unique objectives, they’re being leveraged 

in the field to drive groundbreaking research in technology innovation. 

For today’s testimony, I will highlight this—I will highlight an 

example of my technology innovation that’s been particular 

impactful in the West Coast for shellfish agriculture. 

In 2007, shellfish hatcheries that support the commercial shellfish aquaculture industry in the U.S. West Coast began to experience failure in the production of the larval shellfish, the seed that 

is sold to commercial growers. Commercially available monitoring 

technology couldn’t identify what was happening or how to remedy 

it. Alan Barton, the Manager at the Whiskey Creek Shellfish 

Hatchery in Netarts Bay, Oregon, contacted me to pursue linkages 

between production failure and bay water carbonate chemistry. 

My measurement, together with his hatchery production records, 

identified the environmental trigger for this seed stock crisis. Exposure of larvae in their first few hours to days of life to waters with 

low favorability for shell development is resulting in stress that 

dramatically reduced seed growth and survival. 

Complexity of this problem and why it demanded new technology 

solutions stems from the variety of ways carbonate chemistry in 

natural waters responds to natural and anthropogenic forces. These 

responses include changes in dissolved carbon dioxide gas, PH, and 

the favorability of waters for carbonate mineral shell formation, 

upon which many shellfish rely. 

The favorability for mineral formation, also known as omega, 

cannot be directly measured but must rather be calculated from 

multiple parallel measurements of carbonate chemistry. In dynamic coastal waters the seemingly simple measurement of PH is 

far more difficult than widely realized and is itself a poor proxy for 

the more critical value of omega. The intake water chemistry could 
40 

previously only be determined adequately by infrequent and costly 

discrete samples that could sometimes take months for analysis, 

leaving hatchery operators blind to the environmental conditions 

that impacted their operations to the greatest extent. 

With technological development, motivated by my own ocean carbon cycle research and supported by grants from National Science 

Foundation and NOAA, I ultimately developed a system and devised sampling protocols with low cost and skill barriers to develop 

data systems for routine service sample analyses. These systems 

allow commercial users to assess real-time carbonate chemistry 

conditions relevant to the production of shellfish seed stock. 

At Whiskey Creek, which was near total collapse in 2007, the installation of the prototype system in 2009 and the development of 

proper approaches to buffering intake seawater operations allowed 

the hatchery to begin to recover. Now, Whiskey Creek is back to 

near total production recovery to pre-crash levels. This work was 

referred to by former NOAA Chief Scientist Rick Spinrad as the 

$100,000 investment that saved a $200-million-per-year industry. 

These systems, first popularized by Netarts Bay oysterman Mark 

Weigardt as the percolator in reference to the bubbling gas separation chamber, could be produced at a cost well under half that of 

instruments at the time used in the research community and provided significantly greater capacity for measurement flexibility 

than any existing technology. 

While the price per instrument is still high, the benefit of the 

knowledge it produces for more efficient commercial operations has 

been embraced by the shellfish industry on the North American Pacific coast. More than 20 systems have been deployed or are in development for deployment in shellfish production facilities and marine laboratories from Carlsbad, California, to Seward, Alaska. 

Further commercialization will continue to reduce unit cost and 

streamline maintenance operations. 

The technology has been commercialized via license by Oregon 

State University to my limited liability corporation and will soon 

be sublicensed to Sunburst Sensors of Missoula, Montana. In addition, the continued generation of research quality monitoring data 

serves the working waterfront stakeholder and oceanographic research communities alike. 

In summary, while there was urgency among the shellfish industry for a Burkolator technology solution, the market was initially 

too small to provide motivation to independently develop a marketdriven prototype from a purely commercial perspective without the 

research-driven environmental monitoring technology development 

that I had already completed. 

This federal- and university-supported innovation pathway represents an ideal model for application of research-driven technological development and unique market needs and, ultimately, 

technology transfer to the commercial sector. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the importance 

of our federal investment in environmental research, monitoring, 

and observation systems and research-led technology investigation. 

I welcome the opportunity to expand on and clarify my comments 

in response to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hales follows:] 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you, Dr. Hales. And I thank each of the 

witnesses for their testimony. 

Members are reminded that committee rules limit questioning of 

the witnesses to five minutes, and the Chair recognizes himself for 

five minutes. 

Dr. Jacobs, I understand that NOAA currently buys a limited 

amount of the data you collect. Can you explain the relationship 

between Panasonic and NOAA? And does NOAA freely distribute 

your proprietary data? 

Dr. JACOBS. The current relationship we have is to sell NOAA a 

subset of our TAMDAR data through the National Mesonet Program. We do put redistribution restrictions on that data both to 

other WMO members, as well as open to the commercial market. 

The reason why we do that is we need the opportunity to sell the 

data to those other government agencies, as well as business customers. If the data were redistributed openly and freely, then we 

wouldn’t have that opportunity and we would have to build that 

into the price that NOAA would pay for the data. 

Chairman BIGGS. I also understand that Panasonic runs its very 

own weather prediction model. How does this model compare to our 

government’s model? And do you think NOAA’s strategy for technology innovation has slowed their ability to create better weather 

forecasts? 

Dr. JACOBS. Our model is somewhat similar to theirs in the data 

assimilation component and the dynamic core. A lot of what differentiates it are things we do in the model as far as the physics. 

There are some other different steps in the data assimilation process. In addition to that, we use not only the observation systems 

that they assimilate, but we have additional observations that we 

assimilate into our model as well. 

As to their timeline, they’re on a pretty robust, slow timeline. I 

think it’s really important for them from my perspective the way 

I see them operate is worried about up-time and reliability, so having transitions to newer models takes a tremendous amount of testing and sometimes several years to test these new upgrades that 

they implement. 

Chairman BIGGS. And for Mr. de Halleux, I understand you have 

partnered with NOAA and the Navy to validate some of the data 

you collect. Is there any indication that the federal government is 

willing to purchase your data on a longer-term contract? 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. This is correct. We currently work with the 

Navy and NOAA on the assessment of the technology. We have a 

five-year agreement with NOAA OAR, and we have been working 

with the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory and the Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center on a rigorous comparison between the 

data quality collected by the Saildrone vehicles and the existing 

NOAA assets, in this case, research vessels and buoys. And the assessment has come back positive. 

And to answer your question, yes, there is willingness of engaging on the longer-term basis but no defined mechanism for transferring the technology from the lab inside NOAA to the line offices. 

Chairman BIGGS. Just—when you say the assessments came 

back positive, can you elaborate on that just for a minute, please? 
50 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. Yes. So, the assessment was essentially a correlation of the data set from existing NOAA assets—ships and 

buoys—and Saildrone technologies equipped with the same instrument located in the same location during the same time frame. So 

physically, it’s called follow the leader where you have USVs and 

500 yards behind a research vessel collecting the exact same data, 

scientists at NOAA have subsequently analyzed the two different 

data sets and found the correlation to be, quote/unquote, ‘‘outstanding’’ in terms of the quality of the data. 

Chairman BIGGS. In your experience, has working with the government been a fast and easy process? And have you found that 

the government seriously considers its private partners for anything more than trial periods? 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. So, to answer the first part of your question, 

yes. Our particular experience with NOAA on the research and development side has been outstanding on all accounts in terms of 

the speed of adoption, the assets that were mobilized for assessing 

new technologies, and the types of missions we’ve performed, which 

have ranged from Arctic exploration to tropical Pacific missions to 

fisheries research missions. 

The second part of your question, the transfer of the technology 

once the assessment is performed, is kind of the point we are at 

right now, and there is a question mark as to how the technology 

gets transferred once it’s been assessed and has matured into recurrent operations. 

Chairman BIGGS. Well, with that in mind, what can we do better? What—where do we need to get better in—you know, such as 

in licensing? How do we improve from your perspective? 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. So—— 

Chairman BIGGS. And I’m not—nobody’s going to hold you to 

this. I just—you know, just get your idea. 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. It’s hard for me to answer that directly. I think 

the improvement is around both the mandate such as the ones that 

are given by the Weather Service and, you know, more precisely 

highlighting the need for public partnerships in those line offices. 

And there’s always, in any scientific organization, reluctance to introduce new technologies because, as you introduce new technologies, you introduce new ways of working. 

And what’s very important to remember is that these technologies are augmenting existing capabilities. As I was saying my 

testimony, ships are required for high-capability missions, which 

require in situ sampling, deployment of assets, things like that. 

But the unaddressed—what we call the long tail of data collection 

is what, you know, needs to be taken care of with new technologies. 

And so defining those frameworks, those public-private partnership 

frameworks is kind of what’s needed to be able to move that forward and with that, you know, the budgets that support those new 

technologies, which NOAA currently does not have. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. Again, thanks to all the witnesses. 

My time is expired. 

I recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Bonamici. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And first, I—before I ask you my questions, I want to note that 

there’s a lot of questions being asked today about NOAA. It would 
51 

have been helpful to have NOAA as well and testimony from them 

about working with these different partners, so I hope that in the 

future we can include NOAA when you’re planning a hearing like 

this where we’re asking lots of questions about working with 

NOAA. 

Dr. Hales, you told that great story about the shellfish industry 

in the Pacific Northwest, and being from the Pacific Northwest, it’s 

very close to home to me, but I want to emphasize that this is an 

issue that affects people across the country. When they go to a restaurant or a grocery store and want to buy shellfish, they want it 

to be there. And I know that that was important work and a really 

great example of how commercial technology can grow out of fundamental scientific research. 

And in telling your story, I think you’ve made it pretty clear that 

the shellfish growers did not have the tools themselves to adapt to 

the changing acidity of the ocean. They needed a tool like the 

Burkolator. And can you answer the question about would you or 

another researcher have had the time and resources necessary to 

build that tool without federal funding, the grants through NSF 

and NOAA? 

Dr. HALES. The short answer is no. Without the prior researchdriven support, this work wouldn’t have happened. I developed individual components of these systems in response to needs from my 

high-resolution, high-frequency sampling systems, and when I was 

contacted by the hatchery industry, most of this work was done on 

a shoestring with existing technology, spare parts and devising 

ways to merge those two measurement capabilities in ways that 

would help the shellfish industry. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And I know, Mr. de Halleux, and— 

I hope I was close in the pronunciation—and Dr. Jacobs, I know 

in your testimony you made it pretty clear that your work is to 

supplement or to augment, not to replace, the work of NOAA, NSF, 

the federal agencies. Can you talk a little bit about how the federal 

government can continue to be an important contributor to technology innovation for the future and what federal investments or 

incentives are most important to help drive commercialization of 

research-driven technology and innovation? Go ahead. 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. So, it’s very important to realize that companies like Saildrone harness the best of the private sector, which is 

rapid iteration of R&D, to solve complex engineering problems very 

cost-efficiently, but we are not scientists, and therefore, our only 

mission is to solve engineering problems to make agencies like 

NOAA and NASA more efficient from a science perspective. And 

therefore, you know, the role of—that NOAA plays is a critical one 

on the science front, and our hope is that, you know, by contribution from the private sector we can accelerate the science to answer 

questions that further the missions of those agencies. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And I know we’ve had conversations 

in this committee about technology transfer and commercialization, 

and I hope we can continue those. 

Dr. Jacobs? 

Dr. JACOBS. I view it as a very good thing to have the opportunity to have a business relationship with NOAA that enables us 

to have a sustainable model but also allows them to advance their 
52 

mission and improve their forecast services to the public. So, I 

think it’s a very—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. Thank you. And again, in this committee 

we’ve had a lot of conversations about data quality and quality assurances, and they’re a priority, I know, for monitoring systems 

and supporting technology, whether publicly or privately owned, for 

research or commercial purposes. So, what role should the federal 

government have to ensure technology and monitoring systems are 

providing users with reliable and accurate data? And can you walk 

us through—I know we don’t have a lot of time, but summarize 

your process for data validation. Dr. Jacobs, would you like to 

start? 

Dr. JACOBS. So, we—this is one reason why we do a lot of internal modeling, because we use our own models to sort of quality 

control the data. So, there’s a pretty elaborate quality control system we have in place that screens the data before we pass it to the 

Weather Service. We pass along those quality control flags with the 

data to them. 

In addition to that, the FAA also funded a four-year data denial 

study with the Weather Service to analyze the impact of our data 

in their models. So, from our perspective, we prefer that NOAA 

sets the bar for data quality and we have to jump over it. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Do you concur? 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. We totally concur, and we let NOAA drive the 

quality definition of both the process and output, and we comply 

with, you know, all the required processes to assure the quality is 

there. It’s of paramount importance, as you stated. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much. And my time’s about to expire. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes Representative Babin for five minutes. 

Mr. BABIN. And I’m from Texas there, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BIGGS. The gentleman from Texas, yes, sir. I’m sorry. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank—— 

Chairman BIGGS. I should have mentioned that. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you. Thank you very much, and thank the witnesses for being here, too. We appreciate it. 

I have several questions for Dr. Jacobs. Does the government 

take full advantage of the technologies that your company provides 

in your opinion? 

Dr. JACOBS. Currently, no. One of the things that they are—don’t 

have access to in real time are the icing and turbulence data. So, 

the National Weather Service, through the Mesonet program, acquires the temperature, wind, pressure, and moisture data, but 

currently, neither the Weather Service or the FAA are receiving 

the icing and turbulence data. 

We do offer to, on a 48-hour delay, make that available, so quite 

often, the NTSB will contact me to do accident investigations if it 

was aviation-related to icing or turbulence. But currently, no one 

sees that data in real-time. 

Mr. BABIN. Well, you would think that they would be interested 

in that information for goodness sakes. Why would the government 

decline to purchase high-quality weather and aviation data that 

could save and protect lives? 
53 

Dr. JACOBS. My guess is it’s budget-related. It’s not that they 

necessarily haven’t declined it; it’s that they haven’t put a solicitation out to receive it. But they are well aware that it exists. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. And then also it appears to me that NOAA is 

averse to changing things. Time and again, we’ve seen them move 

slowly to adopt innovative technologies to better monitor our environment and oftentimes refused to do so without being forced to do 

it legislatively, a mandate. In your opinion, how do we change the 

current paradigm so that NOAA can more effectively and efficiently 

innovate to protect lives and property? And in light of what you 

just said, maybe it’s funding. I assume that we were giving them 

adequate funding, but let me hear what your opinion is. 

Dr. JACOBS. I think a lot of these innovations are rapidly evolving in the private sector, and probably the quickest way to advance 

NOAA’s mission is to harness the capabilities in the private sector 

and let the private sector probably drive the pace. So, setting up 

a sustainable business model of public-private partnership between 

the public sector and private industry would be a pretty way to fast 

track a lot of the innovations coming out of the private sector. 

Mr. BABIN. They also claim that—NOAA also claims to—that 

they are, quote, an ‘‘environmental intelligence agency.’’ In your 

opinion, do you think they act as such? 

Dr. JACOBS. Defining the word intelligence in a way that means 

they are observing and sampling the environment, I suppose so. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Well, does NOAA take full advantage of all the 

technological innovations to better monitor our environment? 

Dr. JACOBS. There are innovations that I’m aware of out there 

that they are not currently using. 

Mr. BABIN. Yes. And then, Mr. de Halleux, can you chime in on 

some of this as well? 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. I think, as I said, that NOAA has—is very good 

at looking at the technologies available and assessing them. I think 

it’s the transfer and the public partnership framework that is missing and the dedication of imagining the future. So, it’s one thing 

to say that a USV can produce same data quality as a ship. It’s 

another to ask what could the technology do for a budget at scale? 

You know, what would a global observatory look like using new 

technologies either on the surface, at high-altitude, or from space? 

And that capability of planning and roadmapping is not always 

taking advantage of the private sector innovation. 

Mr. BABIN. Absolutely. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. Thank you. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms. Hanabusa. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. As you can imagine, 

representing Hawaii, all of your different topics are very important 

to me, especially because if there’s any area in the United States 

that’s very susceptible to oceans as well as weather, I’d like to 

think that it’s us more than anyone else. 

Having said that, Dr. Jacobs, in reading your testimony, one of 

the statements that you made that caught my eye and I’d like for 

you to expand on is on page 3 when you said, ‘‘In addition to passenger and crew safety’’—you’re talking about TAMDAR network— 
54 

‘‘significant fuel savings are realized by the airlines, which has the 

added benefit of greatly reducing the carbon footprint of commercial aviation.’’ Can you explain that? As you know, nobody gets to 

Hawaii primarily unless you’re on a plane, so what do you mean 

by that statement? 

Dr. JACOBS. So, this is another reason why we internally run a 

global model versus relying on NCEP output. We write out the native files from our model on flight levels, and we use the window 

grid from that to optimize the flight routes on assent, descent, and 

cruise. So, if the planes actually have the ability to find more efficient winds to fly through, they can use less fuel, so it’s strictly a 

cost savings from the airlines’ business perspective, but the added 

benefit is reduction in CO2. Ms. HANABUSA. And is this something that the airlines directly— 

but the airlines can’t establish their routes, right? I mean, it’s 

FAA-determined. So, do you sell that information to the FAA or— 

it seems to be that that’s something that needs to be flexible by 

wind patterns as opposed to how I assume that they do it, which 

is to set it and say everybody flies this route. Am I correct? 

Dr. JACOBS. They have an option and it really depends on the 

airspace. For example, in the LaGuardia/JFK airspace, they have 

absolutely no control over where they fly—— 

Ms. HANABUSA. Yes, I don’t think they can move. 

Dr. JACOBS. —but there are quite a few areas, particularly at 

cruise level, where they have choices where they can fly either east 

or west over the pole or they can fly a higher latitude or lower latitude based on the position of the jet stream. And they can also 

choose different flight levels. But they still have to request that 

through ATC before they can file that plan. 

Ms. HANABUSA. I was going to say I think one of the issues that 

this Congress faced last year was the whole issue of how they 

would handle ATC, and it would seem like one of the critical issues 

there was how updated that equipment was. And I’m very curious 

about all these paper things that they put next to their radar so 

I’m not quite sure, so safety, I would assume, would be part of this 

discussion as well. So, Dr.—is it de Halleux? 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. de Halleux. 

Ms. HANABUSA. de Halleux. I was very curious because you do 

DOD-related research, and as you can imagine, DOD is a very critical part of my State. And I also sit on Armed Services. The 

Saildrone is a fascinating technology. I’m curious that when you 

gather information for the DOD using Saildrone, you know, we’ve 

dealt before with the whole concept of dual use in terms of the 

technology that’s gained. Do you have those issues with the information that you collect for DOD, or is that something that’s exclusive within their jurisdiction? 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. So, thank you for pointing out the multi-mission capabilities of the platform. You’re absolutely correct. As a 

platform, it can take both meta-ocean data collection while it’s performing intelligence mission, whether it’s traffic detection or others. And at the moment this is not fully exploited by DOD, although I would point out that DOD have their own meta-ocean 

data collection needs. It has certainly been explored extensively by 

NOAA where the last mission we had six different internal cus-
55 

tomers from identifying waves to collecting meta-ocean data to 

tracking marine mammals to traffic detection. So, multi-mission capability is a possibility. It’s not fully harnessed yet specifically by 

DOD. 

Ms. HANABUSA. But that would be a natural for the Saildrone? 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. Absolutely. All instruments run at all times, 

and therefore, it’s a possibility. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Do they have any issues with U.S. security of the 

data collected? 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. One of the first missions was to integrate and 

to look at the security framework of the data, and it’s not been 

fully integrated into DOD frameworks for this application. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. 

I recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Banks. 

Mr. BANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for holding this Committee hearing this morning. 

This subject is of particular interest to my district in northeast 

Indiana where we have one company, for example, Harris Corporation in Fort Wayne that has roughly 450 engineers and scientists 

making the world’s most advanced weather and environmental satellite instruments for NASA, NOAA, and international customers. 

And as we examine the opportunities in the private sector to partner with the federal government on opportunities in the future, 

this hearing brings to light several important issues that we should 

examine further. 

And to take off of—from where my colleague from Hawaii started 

a moment ago, my question for you, Mr. de Halleux, is you work 

with both NOAA and DOD. Can you expand a little bit on some 

of the differences in attitude or culture and how you develop your 

relationship with both of those federal entities? 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. So, with both we follow the similar process, 

which was, number one, appropriately assessing the technology by 

defining standards of quality. And on the case of DOD it’s around 

intelligence. In the case of NOAA, it’s about environmental variables. And the differences seem to appear that DOD is better 

equipped at transferring operationally assessed technology into operations by linking the technology with the capability with a need 

than NOAA seems to be, although the desire from both sides to use 

the technology is strong. 

Mr. BANKS. So, take that a step forward. What can NOAA 

learned from DOD? 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. I think that studying the capability and trying 

to plan how to use the capability in an operational setting and ultimately, you know, finding the budgets to operationalize it is something that the DOD is very good at and potentially NOAA could be 

inspired by. 

Mr. BANKS. Any specific processes, programs that you’ve dealt 

with the DOD that could be replicated at NOAA that come to 

mind? 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. I think, you know, the idea is to move from a 

research budget line to a program of record, which in NOAA-speak 

is being embedded into a line office and finding a partner or an in-
56 

ternal customer into the line office. That process specifically is 

something which is part of this public-private partnership framework I was talking about. To be very specific, if the OAR labs assess the technology as fit for fish stock assessment, the fisheries organization at NOAA needs to be identified as an internal customer 

and pick up the technology for operation and develop integrated 

survey plans so that the technology can be operationalized. 

Mr. BANKS. Is it—do you think at NOAA—is it an attitude or a 

sentiment that makes it more difficult to get to that recognition of 

the valuable partnership? 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. The big difference is that NOAA functions on 

appropriations whereas DOD has bigger discretionary budgets, and 

I think that’s—you know, that’s the difference as we live it. And 

there is no budget available for the transition, and so the risk approach is more conservative because one technology has to displace 

another or gets further appropriated. 

Mr. BANKS. How many years have you worked with both NOAA 

and DOD? 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. Two-and-a-half years for NOAA, a year-and-ahalf for DOD. 

Mr. BANKS. Okay. Dr. Jacobs, per your testimony, it’s my understanding that there’s been some interest from the government to 

partner with your company on your weather model. Can you describe where those conversations are at this point? 

Dr. JACOBS. There’s a couple different fronts. Some of it deals 

with data assimilation, quality control, various physics schemes 

that we’re using in our global model. There’s also some modules 

that are being developed communitywide for dynamic cores. It’s not 

really a scientific conversation as much as a business model conversation from our perspective. And what we’re dealing with internally as far as the cost-benefit analysis is—the Weather Service 

has a—there’s—the weather enterprise is basically divided into two 

groups. There’s commercial companies that provide data and services to help the Weather Service further their mission, and then 

there’s companies that use inset-produced model output to derive 

data and products. 

And in Panasonic’s case, we compete against those companies on 

the backend. However, if we were to license any type of co-development to help the Weather Service improve their model, we would 

by default be improving the products of our competitors, which use 

inset-produced model outputs, so we’re struggling with how to 

make that balance work. 

Mr. BANKS. Very good. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. 

I—the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have several questions. 

Gentlemen, thank you for being here. 

Dr. Jacobs, just earlier today at the International Supercomputing Conference in Frankfurt, Germany, The Weather Company, 

which is an IBM business, announced a plan to improve weather 

prediction globally via new collaboration with the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research and the National Center for At-
57 

mospheric Research. This represents to me an exciting representation of an era of new technologies emerging every day. 

As a representative of a private sector company yourself who’s 

developed its own weather forecasting model, quite successfully I 

might add, can you speak to the importance of this news? How welcome is competition in your industry? 

Dr. JACOBS. I think this is very exciting news. There’s actually 

several companies that are beginning to run their own global 

weather models. One of the distinctions that I would like to point 

out, though, is that running a global weather model is not particularly the most sophisticated step in the process. The way the process works is you collect observations globally, including satellite 

data. You quality-control it. Then, you do this step called data assimilation. This is the part that you need $100 million supercomputers to produce the initial condition start file. Then, that file is 

used to initialize a global weather model, which in some cases you 

can run on a laptop. 

What Panasonic does is the entire process from observing systems all the way to the model. What most of these other companies 

are doing, which I still think it’s fantastic, is downloading the start 

file produced by the National Weather Service NCEP and using 

that to initialize the model. That sort of gets these companies out 

of having to do a lot of the data assimilation process, which is actually the one that’s computationally expensive to produce. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Regarding harvesting data, Mr. de Halleux, I’m 

very interested in the transition gradually to unmanned surface vehicles. That was a fascinating slide that you presented. Let me ask, 

how many are currently deployed and where? 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. So, we currently have 20 vehicles, and they are 

all in—under research contract with NOAA as part of OAR and 

other research with the DOD. We are currently—we triple the production facility and we’re planning to be producing one a day. 

Mr. HIGGINS. And they are collecting live data right now? 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. They’re collecting live data, yes, they are. 

Mr. HIGGINS. And is—are these SUVs protected from hacking? 

Data collection can impact international narrative on sometimes 

rather contentious subjects like climate change, global warming. 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. So, the hacking protection and data security is 

paramount, and as I was saying, for the DOD, one of the first steps 

was to secure the data path from the vehicle to Iridium back to 

shore, so the answer is yes. On NOAA’s side, data security is a 

wider topic, and the data—the concern there is to make the data 

publicly available for research—— 

Mr. HIGGINS. But you feel like the vehicles themselves are protected from—at the collection site—— 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. At the collection site, one of the—— 

Mr. HIGGINS. —they’re protected from hacking? 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. So, from—in general, which is—and vandalism 

overall, which is how NOAA describes the problem, which is a big 

problem for government assets, which has buoys, which get vandalized by fishermen—— 

Mr. HIGGINS. Right. 
58 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. —and then taken for scrap metal, the fact that 

we are not on a chart and we are very hard to see and we have 

very low rate of signature, it protects them from—— 

Mr. HIGGINS. That’s a valid point. If I could, Mr. Chairman, it’s 

been mentioned today of NOAA’s budget and why they’re not perhaps pursuing private technologies more fully. What I would ask 

this panel, isn’t this problem more related to the increasing budgets for NOAA’s satellite and ship programs? Is this—isn’t this a 

major hurdle that needs to be overcome? Any member of the panel? 

In other words, we have to protect the people’s Treasury, and 

there’s been some discussion regarding NOAA’s not pursuing private technologies, but NOAA’s increased budget for satellite and 

ship programs seems to be in the way. How would you suggest that 

this panel would recommend we move forward with that? 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. I think it’s not so much an increase in budget, 

although you know more budget allows more technology for sure. 

I think the question is what is the technology mix to achieve specific mission objectives? And as we show today, some mission objectives are not reached because of, you know, potentially not being— 

using the optimal mix of available technologies. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, if you would indulge me, I have another question. 

Chairman BIGGS. Without objection. 

Mr. HIGGINS. If you don’t mind, thank you, sir. 

And this relates to perhaps the gentlelady, my colleague from 

Hawaii may be interested. The Fukushima nuclear disaster, they’re 

still dealing with tons and tons, hundreds of tons daily of contaminated water. There’s some discussion they’re having a problem containing it. You know, they’re running out of room, means by which 

to contain it. And there’s some discussion regarding dumping that 

nuclear—that radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean. Are your 

vehicles, are your technologies, sir, from Panasonic, your unmanned vehicles capable of measuring radioactive contamination? 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. So, we are engineers, not scientists. We can 

carry a payload anywhere for very long periods of time at very low 

cost. So, if—I believe there are instruments which can perform the 

assessment you mentioned. In this case, we can, you know, deploy 

them. We do not run the science or the instruments themselves. 

Dr. JACOBS. Our probe has capacity into it to host additional sensors for chemical, biological, and radiation measurements. This 

would be particularly useful on the UAV version—— 

Mr. HIGGINS. Are you currently deployed in the Pacific Ocean 

near Japan? 

Dr. JACOBS. No. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for indulging that question. I think that this subcommittee in particular should be quite 

concerned regarding technologies deployed to measure that potential hazard for the entire world. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. de Halleux, in your testimony, you stated that drones could 

drive down cost of NOAA data collection activities by 90 percent. 

You also agree with NOAA’s assessment that it is a fallacy to as-
59 

sume that technology can replace ships in conducting NOAA’s work 

obviously. In your estimation, how much of NOAA’s weather data 

collection activities could be replaced by private sector drones right 

now? What kind of cost savings do you think could be realized from 

that? 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. Thank you for the question. So, NOAA, as you 

know, has 16 research vessels and survey ships, of which 8, according to NOAA, are due to be retired in the near future and therefore 

makes it very hard to fulfill the mandate because if you want to 

deploy any type of capability, even pushing a simple instrument— 

you know, for example, to assess fish stock over the Bering Sea, 

you need a full research ship to do this. 

In those cases where the only capability required for mission is 

pure data collection, then USVs are uniquely qualified to perform 

those missions at the 90 percent cost efficiency, $2,500 per day 

versus $35,000 per day. But for missions which require high capabilities, including in situ sampling of fish or water or complex onboard analysis, you will always require a ship, and this is where 

we agree with the fact that the mix does need to include ship as 

the bedrock of observation. 

Mr. POSEY. Some of us that watch the History Channel see some 

ships that appear to be NOAA crafts used by treasure hunters and 

other nongovernment entities. Does the government get reimbursed 

for that? 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. I’m not qualified to answer that question. I 

don’t have the facts. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. What rationale does NOAA give for not utilizing private sector capabilities? 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. Those capabilities have been part of NOAA’s 

fleet plan for a while. There is a mention of USVs as a contingency 

measure. And up until now, I believe there was no technology that 

fulfilled the operational needs of NOAA, which have assessed a 

range of different capabilities. And Saildrone seems to be one of the 

first companies that passes the threshold, and there is a strong desire inside NOAA to use more of that technology pertaining to 

problems that we mentioned in the past, which is, you know, questions around the public partnership framework and the availability 

of budgets for those new technologies. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you. Assuming data collection drones from industry become increasingly more capable in the future, what percentage of NOAA’s activities would you estimate could be replaced 

by entirely unmanned systems in the next, say, 5 to 10 years? 

Mr. DE HALLEUX. Again, you know, over the next 5 to ten years, 

NOAA estimates that half the fleet will simply be out of commission due to its age, so that’s a number, you know, even irrespective 

of joint technology which is to be considered. 

The second factor to consider is that the mission and the scope 

of the mission is increasing all the time as, you know, the complexity of the system monitoring and the data collection effort increases. So, I cannot give you a precise number. What I can tell you 

is that you can deploy a global service observation system on a 6- 

by-6-degree resolution with about 1,000 drones. And in comparison, 

there is such a network that already exists subsurface called the 

Argo network, which uses 3-by-3-degree resolution with close to 
60 

4,000 deep-ocean vehicles. So those things have been done. There 

is precedence for deploying unmanned technologies and to answer 

very important questions. Now, does NOAA want to envisage this 

kind of future remains to be discussed. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. I thank each of the witnesses for 

your very interesting testimony and the Members for their questions as well. 

The record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and written questions from Members. 

This hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(61) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
62 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Neil Jacobs 
63 
64 
65 

Responses by Dr. Burke Hales 
66 

Æ