U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

61–770 2011

[H.A.S.C. No. 111–167] 

WIND FARMS: COMPATIBLE WITH 

MILITARY READINESS? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

JUNE 29, 2010 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas, Chairman 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

GLENN NYE, Virginia 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

FRANK M. KRATOVIL, JR., Maryland 

BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

CHARLES K. DJOU, Hawaii 

DAVE SIENICKI, Professional Staff Member 

JAMIE LYNCH, Professional Staff Member 

TOM HAWLEY, Professional Staff Member 

CHRISTINE WAGNER, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2010 

Page 

HEARING: 

Tuesday, June 29, 2010, Wind Farms: Compatible with Military Readiness? ... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 ........................................................................................... 33 

TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 2010 

WIND FARMS: COMPATIBLE WITH MILITARY READINESS? 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Forbes, Hon. J. Randy, a Representative from Virginia, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Readiness ................................................................................ 3 

Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P., a Representative from Texas, Chairman, Subcommittee on Readiness ................................................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Kalinowski, Nancy B., Vice President, System Operations Services, Air Traffic 

Organization, Federal Aviation Administration ................................................ 8 

Robyn, Dr. Dorothy, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Installations and 

Environment, U.S. Department of Defense ....................................................... 4 

Stutzriem, Maj. Gen. Lawrence, USAF, Director, Plans, Policy and Strategy, 

North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command ..................................................................................................................... 7 

Webster, Stu, Co-Chairman of the Siting Committee, American Wind Energy 

Association ............................................................................................................ 9 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Kalinowski, Nancy B. ....................................................................................... 49 

Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P. ..................................................................................... 37 

Robyn, Dr. Dorothy ........................................................................................... 42 

Webster, Stu ..................................................................................................... 56 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Slide: Expected Interference Obscuration at NAS Kingsville ....................... 71 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Conaway ..................................................................................................... 75 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... 75 

Mr. Ortiz ........................................................................................................... 75 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Blumenauer ............................................................................................... 87 

Mrs. Halvorson ................................................................................................. 86 

Mr. Nye ............................................................................................................. 85 

Mr. Ortiz ........................................................................................................... 79 

(1) 

WIND FARMS: COMPATIBLE WITH MILITARY 

READINESS? 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS, Washington, DC, Tuesday, June 29, 2010. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Solomon P. Ortiz 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

READINESS 

Mr. ORTIZ. This hearing will come to order. 

I want to thank our distinguished witnesses for appearing before 

this subcommittee today. 

Today, the Readiness Subcommittee will hear about wind farm 

development and its impact on military readiness. Overall, I am 

committed to renewable energy and the benefit it provides to the 

environment, the economy and, of course, our country. However, 

this project should not be pursued at the expense of military readiness. 

Wind energy is a prime example of renewable energy. And although it is currently only 2 percent of domestic electricity supply, 

it is the fastest growing source of new energy generation in our 

country. 

According to the Department of Energy, the United States has 

enough wind resources to generate electricity for every home and 

business in this Nation, but not all areas are appropriate for wind 

energy development. 

Today, the industry is generating 14 times more wind energy 

across the United States than only 10 years ago. This increase is 

only expected to continue. 

There are a variety of factors that contribute to the growth of 

wind energy, and one of the most prominent being Federal subsidies and stimulus money available to the industry. 

A Department of Energy grant program entitled developers of renewable energy to 30 percent reimbursement of the cost of building 

a facility. Wind power projects were the largest sector, receiving 86 

percent of the nearly $2.6 billion that was disbursed. 

But what stipulations are attached to the funding to protect military readiness? Of course, the interest of our readiness so that we 

can be ready in case that we need to defend ourselves and our allies. 
2 

The rise of wind farms could not be more apparent than in my 

home state of Texas. We lead the country in wind power capacity 

and generate one quarter of the Nation’s entire production, or approximately 9,000 megawatts. This is enough electricity to power 

more than 2.5 million homes for one year. In my district alone, the 

stimulus bill provided more than $440 million in direct contributions to wind farms. 

With the rise of wind energy, industry continues to seek attractive development locations, some of which are too close to military 

installations. A great example of this type of development is in my 

district at the Naval Air Station in Kingsville, Texas. 

As one can see in this slide showing on the screen, wind farms 

will significantly impair the ability of the Kingsville radar system 

to monitor and detect small aircraft like those flown at the Naval 

Air Station. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 71.] 

Mr. ORTIZ. We must ask ourselves, is this a problem? It is a serious problem. Is there anything that we can do to preserve the military capabilities threatened by wind farm development at the 

Naval Air Station in Kingsville and other military bases? In the 

short term, no. Am I concerned? You bet, I am concerned. 

The Department of Defense has increasingly engaged to express 

reservations or objections to potential energy projects based on 

military readiness issues, specifically identifying conflicts with radars and existing training routes. Each application for wind farm 

development is reviewed by the Federal Aviation Administration in 

coordination with the Department of Defense. 

However, I am deeply concerned about the lack of a coordinated, 

well-established review process within the Department of Defense 

to provide timely input for these green energy projects. 

As a committee, we address this concern in the fiscal year 2011 

National Defense Authorization Act and look forward to working 

with the Senate to refine the final language in conference. I don’t 

consider it to be in our government’s best interest to stunt the 

growth of this critical industry, nor to expand wind farm development at the expense of military readiness. 

There are many different facets of this issue and a variety of 

stakeholders. As subsidies continue and the industry continues to 

grow, it is imperative to increase coordination between the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy on these efforts. 

Beyond government coordination, industry as a whole needs to 

take ownership of their role in diminishing the impacts of wind 

farms on military readiness, and increase innovation to reduce conflicts with military radars and training routes. To that end, I want 

to hear what specific actions the government and industry partners 

are taking to, number one, improve the review process, to identify 

mitigation efforts, and invest in research and development solutions. 

I want to conclude my opening statement by restating my commitment to pursue all energy solutions in partnership with the Administration but not, again, at the expense of military readiness. 
3 

Ladies and gentlemen, I think that we have a lot to discuss 

today, and I look forward to hearing you address these important 

issues. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortiz can be found in the Appendix on page 37.] 

The chair at this moment recognizes my good friend from Virginia, Mr. Forbes, for any remarks that he would like to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. J. RANDY FORBES, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM VIRGINIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

READINESS 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, as always, I thank you for your leadership, and I thank all of our witnesses. 

Dr. Robyn, it is great to see you here again. 

General, it is good to have you here with us. 

And to both of our other witnesses, we appreciate your time and 

expertise in coming this morning to testify. 

This is a topic that we are all particularly excited about, especially the possibility of harnessing wind energy, because the chairman and I, I think can both agree that we have an abundance of 

excess wind right here in the Capitol that we would love to use in 

a more beneficial manner. And I know all of you have suggestions 

for us. 

But even if we fail there, I don’t think there is any question that 

the United States needs to do more to develop renewable energy 

sources. And wind farms are the most attractive options for truly 

clean renewable energy. 

Recently, wind farms have grown significantly in popularity, so 

it is important that we take the time to carefully evaluate the 

placement of wind farms around the country because, like a lot of 

things in life, wind farms are a mixed blessing; clean renewable energy but also an impediment, as the chairman has mentioned, to 

military readiness and homeland defense. 

The chairman has also mentioned and our witnesses will also 

cover in some detail wind farm impacts. I share his concerns, 

which were raised in some detail at a subcommittee hearing earlier 

this year. I believe that wind farm development, while important 

to our national energy security posture, must not be allowed to impede military readiness, and I think all of us agree with that. 

The Department of Defense’s real concerns have to do with the 

interference of their defense radar ringing the entire Nation as well 

as the obstructions created on low-level military training routes 

that criss-cross vast areas of the interior United States posed by 

wind farm development. 

As it stands today, the Department lacks a one-stop shop for determining impacts, leading developers to be unsure of where to 

turn. As we have seen, mere proximity to a military installation is 

only the beginning of the story. The most obvious place for DOD 

[Department of Defense] to start is with a streamlined, transparent 

process that provides developers some guidelines for turbine placement and some certainty that their applications will receive a timely and credible review. 

Unfortunately, the current process forces the Federal Aviation 

Administration [FAA] to solicit and represent DOD in the review. 
4 

While the FAA clearly needs to be involved in the placement of 

500-foot tall structures, that agency should not be forced to represent DOD equities. 

I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses on constructive ways to improve the process in order to speed approval of wind 

farms that do not interfere with our national security or military 

readiness. 

And again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for scheduling this hearing. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, sir. 

Today we have a panel of distinguished witnesses representing 

a good cross-section of views, including the Department of Defense, 

the Federal Aviation Administration, and the industrial perspectives. 

Our witnesses include: Dr. Dorothy Robyn. 

Doctor good to see you again. Welcome. 

She is the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations 

and Environment, Department of Defense. 

And Major General Lawrence Stutzriem, Director of Plans, Policy 

and Strategy for North American Aerospace Defense Command and 

the United States Northern Command. 

General, welcome, sir. 

Ms. Nancy Kalinowski. Sounds very Spanish to me. I hope I pronounce it right. She is the Vice President for System Operation 

Services of the Air Traffic Organization in the Federal Aviation Administration. 

And Mr. Stu Webster, Co-Chair of the American Wind Energy 

Association Siting Committee. 

Without objection, the witnesses’ prepared statements will be accepted for the record. 

And Secretary Robyn, welcome. And it is good to see you, and 

you can begin whenever you are ready. 

STATEMENT OF DR. DOROTHY ROBYN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Dr. ROBYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Forbes. 

It is great to be here talking about an issue that General 

Stutzriem and I have spent quite a bit of time dealing with in recent months. It is an important issue. 

As you have explained in your opening statements, wind turbines 

can under some circumstances create interference and clutter that 

reduces the sensitivity and performance of radar, particularly older 

radar. The vast majority of all proposed wind turbines raise absolutely no concerns for the Department of Defense. In a small fraction of cases, however, we do have concerns, and that number could 

grow as wind energy development expands. 

The problem arises in three different contexts. The first involves 

the long-range radars managed by NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command] and U.S. NORTHCOM [Northern Command] to maintain air space surveillance and air defense. 

Second, turbines can affect DOD’s ability to test a new weapons 

system, which requires an electromagnetically pristine environment in which to collect performance data. 
5 

Third, Mr. Chairman, nearest and dearest to your heart, the Department’s training mission can suffer if air traffic control radars 

used to train pilots are degraded by interference. 

Two key factors aggravate what would otherwise be a much more 

limited problem. First is the aging nature of our radar infrastructure. Our long-range radars are particularly old, decades old. Many 

still use analog technology, which has limited ability to filter out 

wind turbine clutter. 

Second, the FAA’s siting review or its OE/AAA [Obstruction 

Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis], process, on which we, the 

Department, rely to identify and prevent potential interference 

problems, is itself a kind of a legacy system. It was developed in 

the 1960s with a focus on airspace safety, and has not been updated to take account of current national security needs and operations. 

Most significant, a developer only has to give the FAA 30 days 

notice of the start of construction of a wind turbine or other object. 

This is generally adequate for the FAA’s purposes, but if we raise 

a concern at that late stage, particularly on something like a large 

wind farm for which the developer has by then gotten environmental permits, typically hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, we can create serious financial and execution challenges for 

the developer. 

The wind turbine radar interference problem is a serious problem, but it is a largely solvable problem. Our country should not 

have to choose between national security and the development of 

renewable energy. The key is to improve our legacy systems, both 

the regulatory one as well as the electromagnetic one. Let me focus 

on three points. 

First and most immediately, the Federal Government needs to 

improve the process for reviewing renewable projects so that potential interference can be identified early and mitigated more easily. 

Toward this end, and consistent with your proposed legislation, we 

are working to stand up a central DOD clearinghouse to which developers can come on a voluntary basis early in the development 

process for our review of a proposed wind energy project. Our goal 

is to create a streamlined, transparent, and layered process, one 

that can approve easy cases quickly and apply increasingly sophisticated tools, analytic tools, to the harder cases. Among other 

things, we are looking at whether we need statutory or other authority in order to protect proprietary project information, which is 

a necessary requirement if we are going to have developers come 

to seek us out. 

Second, key Federal agencies, including DOD, need to realign 

their research and development priorities to give greater attention 

to this issue. Technology must become one of the military’s primary 

means of protection in this domain, just as it is in many other domains. Toward this end, the White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy has recently convened an interagency group to 

develop an R&D [Research and Development] plan in this area. 

And the Air Force recently entered a cooperative R&D agreement 

with Raytheon aimed at identifying hardware and software improvements that will make radar less susceptible to wind turbine 

interference. 
6 

Third, Federal agencies need to look at the current plan for upgrading the older surveillance radar. At least two questions merit 

analysis: One, is the current schedule for upgrading the radar sufficiently aggressive? For example, many of our older long-range 

radar will not go through this upgrade process, called a SLEP, 

Service Life Extension Program, until 2014. And, second, will the 

technology slated for insertion as part of that SLEP process do an 

adequate job of mitigating wind turbine interference? And I will return to that point in a minute. 

To illustrate the importance of technology, let me briefly mention 

a 60-day study by MIT’s [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] 

Lincoln Laboratory which we are releasing a summary of today. It 

was completed last week. They briefed the Department on it Friday 

and yesterday, and we have made a one-page summary available 

to you. And we are in the process of scheduling briefings, which 

will be at the secret level. 

Lincoln Lab focused on a long-range radar in Fossil, Oregon. It 

is called the Fossil ARSR–3. ARSR stands for Air Route Surveillance Radar. Fossil refers to the nearby town in Oregon, not to the 

age of the radar. It is old, but it is not that old. The Department 

asked Lincoln Lab to do this analysis in late April during a controversy that I think you all are familiar with over a proposed 338- 

turbine wind farm project in Oregon, Shepherds Flat. We, the Department, withdrew our initial objection to the project partly, I 

would say, actually largely, in the belief that Lincoln Lab could 

identify ways to mitigate the interference during the period that 

the turbines were being constructed. 

And Lincoln Lab did not let us down. Their options, based on actual experiments they ran on the Fossil radar, range from adjusting the settings to optimize the existing technology to inserting 

new technology, such as an adaptive clutter map that can edit out 

false targets. Some of the technologies that Lincoln Lab believes 

hold promise are scheduled for insertion as part of the 2014 upgrade or SLEP process. 

We are eager to take the Lincoln Lab proposals to the next stage, 

namely, to engineer and demonstrate them in the field. I don’t 

mean to imply they are a silver bullet. They are focused on this one 

particular radar. And the emphasis of our pilot effort would be how 

the new technologies will affect the operation of the radar by 

NORAD and U.S. NORTHCOM. Ideally, we would like to use Fossil, Oregon’s, long-range radar as our test bed, in effect accelerating 

the SLEP, the upgrade improvements that would not otherwise 

take place until 2014. In addition to improving the Oregon radar 

on an accelerated basis, this pilot will yield lessons that we can 

apply to other ARSR–3 radars as part of this process. 

In closing, let me say that to maintain military readiness and 

homeland defense, we must protect our irreplaceable test and 

training ranges and maintain our radar-based surveillance network. At the same time, the Department supports the development 

of wind energy as a means toward greater energy security goals, 

and we ourselves have been a leader in the development of renewable energy. These two sets of goals can and should be compatible. 

I have identified broad changes necessary to reduce many, if not 
7 

all, admittedly not all, conflicts. We look forward to working with 

you to implement these changes in the months ahead. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Robyn can be found in the Appendix on page 42.] 

Mr. ORTIZ. General. 

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. LAWRENCE STUTZRIEM, USAF, DIRECTOR, PLANS, POLICY AND STRATEGY, NORTH AMERICAN 

AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND AND U.S. NORTHERN COMMAND 

General STUTZRIEM. Chairman Ortiz, it is great to see you again, 

sir, Congressman Forbes, and members of the subcommittee. Good 

morning. It is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the 

impact of these wind turbines on homeland defense, and I am 

pleased to accompany Dr. Robyn and to represent the men and 

women of NORAD and U.S. NORTHCOM. 

We are responsible for homeland defense, civil support, security 

cooperation, to defend and secure the United States and its interests. In all domains: air, maritime, land, our focus is on defense of 

the homeland. NORAD provides aerospace warning, aerospace control, and maritime warning in the defense of North America. 

The FAA’s radars provide us the situational awareness and 

threat detection capability we need to defend the Nation’s airspace. 

Under certain circumstances, wind turbines and other radar obstructions cause interference that degrades these radars, and it 

jeopardizes our ability to defend the United States and Canada. 

Of the 214 FAA radars that provide our domestic radar coverage, 

13 currently operate with some form of degradation due to windturbine-induced interference. In 2009, NORAD processed 1,789 

tracks of interest, including an airplane that was stolen from a 

flight school in Thunder Bay, Ontario, and of course the Christmas 

Day attempted bombing on Northwest Flight 253. This year, we 

have already processed over 700 tracks of interest. Each track has 

a unique set of circumstances and demands clear situational 

awareness. Our decision time is measured in minutes. 

We know that our Nation’s future depends upon a strong defense. We also recognize that harnessing alternative energy sources 

is critical to our Nation’s future. We understand the importance of 

projects that enable our Nation’s energy independence, and we 

fully support their development. We review proposals for new developments, such as wind farms, commercial buildings, other structures, and assess whether they will hinder our ability to keep 

North America safe. We provide our assessment to the FAA, who 

then renders a determination of hazard. 

I want to stress that situations where the FAA renders a determination of hazard on our behalf do not occur frequently. In fact, 

we have supported over 87 percent of the 2,196 proposed wind turbines that we have evaluated since 2008. 

I am also pleased today to be joined by the American Wind Energy Association and the FAA, and we, along with other organizations within the Department of Defense and Federal Government, 

are actively engaged with the private-sector alternate energy organizations to identify best practices and improve wind farm siting 

procedures. 
8 

NORAD and U.S. NORTHCOM are committed to participate in 

this interagency process that evaluates proposals for wind farms 

and other developments with the potential to obstruct radar signals. All of this is done with the defense of our homeland as our 

primary consideration. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Ms. Kalinowski, you may go ahead. You are next. 

STATEMENT OF NANCY B. KALINOWSKI, VICE PRESIDENT, 

SYSTEM OPERATIONS SERVICES, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. Thank you very much, Chairman Ortiz, Congressman Forbes, and members of the subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is 

Nancy Kalinowski, and I am the Vice President for System Operations Services for the Federal Aviation Administration. 

My office evaluates the impact of proposed construction on the 

National Airspace System and determines whether it is a hazard 

to air navigation. The FAA’s mission is to ensure the safe and efficient use of aircraft in the National Airspace System. Proponents 

of construction projects must give adequate public notice when the 

proposed structure could impact the safety or the efficiency of the 

National Airspace System. This notice provides the FAA with the 

opportunity to identify the potential aeronautical hazards to minimize any adverse impacts to aviation. The FAA uses an online tool 

that allows the public to file electronically and to track their proposals online. 

We evaluate approximately 100,000 proposed construction filings 

every year, including wind turbines. Wind turbine proposals have 

grown exponentially. In 2003, the FAA received just over 3,000 

wind turbine filings. In the first 6 months of 2010, we have already 

received close to 19,000 wind turbine filings. We expect that number to increase substantially as the country prioritizes renewable 

energy. We have approved over 100,000 wind turbine projects since 

2003. 

Wind turbines present a unique challenge to our agency because 

of the special characteristics and the potential impacts on the airspace and our air navigation facilities. In the case of wind farm 

evaluations, each wind farm, each wind turbine, is evaluated separately. 

The cumulative effect of the wind turbines on navigable airspace 

will obviously be more significant based on the total number of 

wind turbines grouped together. When the wind turbine blades 

spin, and in some instances it is at more than 200 miles per hour, 

the signal can be picked up by radars as clutter. The clutter created by wind turbines can result in the complete loss of primary 

long-range radar detection above a wind turbine farm. When a 

radar system repeatedly sees a return this large from its signal, 

the radar may not be able to detect an actual aircraft in the area. 

Consequently, there are real and significant issues that must be 

evaluated by the government before its approval of wind turbine 

projects. 
9 

How can we address these issues? The Federal Government can 

better serve our interests and those of the energy developers by improving the filing and the communication process. FAA is continually enhancing its public website to improve the filing process and 

to add tools that assist developers with siting wind turbine 

projects. The FAA also hosts a DOD preliminary screening tool that 

allows proponents to assess if their proposed locations for wind turbines would be in an acceptable geographic area in relation to 

radar locations. 

This month, we added a new mapping tool on our website that 

depicts wind turbine determinations issued by the FAA in every 

State. This tool will allow the developers to more easily identify 

areas that are already congested with wind turbines and will also 

identify possible cumulative impact. We have also collaborated with 

the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to develop a dynamic, flexible modeling tool to better analyze the impact of wind 

turbines on long-range radars. 

Currently, proponents are required to file a notice with the FAA 

as early in the planning process as possible but no later than 30 

days before the date of the proposed construction is expected to 

begin. That 30-day time frame has been in place for 45 years, and 

it was appropriate for single stationary structures that the FAA 

largely dealt with in that time and since. We certainly support consideration for requiring earlier notification to seek a more realistic 

time frame for the FAA to evaluate all the valid aeronautical comments, to review all pertinent analytical reports, and to issue determinations that take into account all comments and filings. 

We agree with the Department of Defense in its assertion that 

technological improvements and sound research should go a long 

way to addressing the challenges presented by wind turbines. Better tools and modeling to ascertain the impact of a proposed wind 

farm on specific radar systems plus more advanced cyclical processing to allow the removal of false targets will greatly improve the 

ability to deal with the impact on long-range radars. 

We will continue to work with the National Security Council, 

with the Congress, our partners in the Federal Government, and 

all interested parties to develop these improvements. 

Thank you for the opportunity to describe FAA’s role in this very 

important process. This concludes my statement, and I will be 

happy to answer any of your questions later. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kalinowski can be found in the 

Appendix on page 49.] 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Webster. 

STATEMENT OF STU WEBSTER, CO-CHAIRMAN OF THE SITING 

COMMITTEE, AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION 

Mr. WEBSTER. Chairman Ortiz, Ranking Member Forbes, members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify 

today on behalf of the American Wind Energy Association [AWEA]. 

AWEA represents 2,500 member companies, including project developers, manufacturers, construction firms, transportation providers, and others. My name is Stu Webster. I am Director of Permitting and Environmental for Iberdrola Renewables. 
10 

Iberdrola, which is headquartered in Portland, Oregon, is the 

second largest wind power generator in the United States, with 

more than 3,600 megawatts in operation. We have operating wind 

power projects in more than a dozen States, such as California, including approximately 400 megawatts in Chairman Ortiz’s district 

in Kenedy County, and we appreciate the opportunity to do that. 

Wind energy is a critical national resource. It is domestic, inexhaustible, clean, and affordable. Wind energy is important for our 

national security, energy security, and economic security, as reinforced in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report. But if we 

don’t have a better system for engaging with Federal agencies on 

radar and airspace issues, including improved transparency with 

respect to DOD analysis on impacts and the ability to discuss potential mitigation, then wind projects will continue to be imperiled, 

and we will not be able to meet our Nation’s energy needs. 

The wind energy industry recognizes that, in some instances, depending on location, technology, and radar mission, wind farms can 

impact military operations. However, decades of experience in developing wind farms in the U.S. and around the world have demonstrated that wind turbines, radar, and military training can coexist. The industry has been discussing with DOD, FAA, DOE [Department of Energy], and NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] for several years possible process improvements, including earlier engagement and mitigation options. All 

parties seem motivated now to move beyond talking to implementing those solutions. It is AWEA’s hope that the ongoing White 

House interagency process facilitates implementation of these solutions. 

For the most part, wind power projects proceed without objections from DOD and other Federal agencies. In instances when concerns are initially raised, most are resolved after discussions between developers and the agency of concern. However, as the demand for renewable energy grows, there is a resource strain on reviewing agencies, and concerns raised are impacting the ability of 

wind energy projects to be completed in a timely manner. 

What makes this issue so complicated is that, due to the variety 

of radars, missions, and airspace needs, there is not a silver bullet 

solution that can solve every potential impact. As detailed in the 

appendices in my written testimony, there are many technical mitigation measures, and some of these are available today. 

For example, replacing older radar, as roughly 80 percent of the 

Nation’s radars are from the 1950s to 1980s era, or upgrading software in existing radars has been shown to address concerns and 

accommodate additional wind energy development. This was done 

at Travis Air Force Base in California. And recently, the U.K. 

[United Kingdom] Government and industry announced the purchase of a TPS–77 [Tactical Transportable Radar System] longrange radar that can distinguish between aircraft and wind farms, 

which will free up approximately 3,000 megawatts of wind energy. 

Further, many of these solutions can be achieved at relatively 

low cost. A gap-filling radar that costs just $250,000 allowed hundreds of additional megawatts of wind in Scotland with no decreased levels of detection at the radar. 
11 

In other cases, more research is necessary. For example, there 

has been promising research on stealth composite blades, but the 

technology is not yet validated for U.S. radar systems. Federal investment in mitigation R&D needs to be increased to validate mitigation options. The goal should be to have as many mitigation options as possible, creating a toolbox from which different solutions 

can be pulled depending on the factors at a given location. 

Finally, I want to briefly comment on specific language in the 

House Defense Authorization bill. Industry has generally supported 

the language to establish a single entity that will centralize the review of wind projects within the DOD. This could improve transparency, consistency, and timeliness. 

However, we have concerns with language proposing the establishment of military mission impact zones in which it would be difficult, if not impossible, to site wind farms. 

In my written testimony is a map with red, yellow, green areas. 

The red represents circles drawn around radar assets at 30 miles; 

the yellow, 30 to 90 miles. This type of mapping is a blunt tool that 

can put areas off limits, even if site-specific analysis shows that 

there are no problems. Because of the different kinds of radar, different missions, and varying terrain, among other factors, it would 

likely be unnecessarily restrictive to establish a one-size-fits-all 

rule for siting near a military asset of concern. 

In addition, there is no requirement in the language to balance 

national security needs with also critical energy security needs. 

Prior to designating a military impact zone, the Secretary of Defense should be required to seek public comment on the designation, release as many details justifying the designation as possible, 

explain the expected mission impact from the renewable energy development that led to the designation, and explain any changes to 

operations and technical mitigation options the Department of Defense considered before making the designation. 

Finally, AWEA urges the inclusion of provisions requiring DOD 

to consider mitigation options, such as radar upgrades and replacements, prior to opposing a wind project. And, there needs to be 

more Federal investment in mitigation R&D. We need to solve the 

challenges the industry and the DOD are facing, and not just 

change how we talk about those challenges. These upgrades and replacements will have positive benefits to national security and air 

safety that reach well beyond the wind industry alone. 

The growth necessary to achieve 20 percent or more of our Nation’s electricity from wind, which DOE has determined feasible, is 

unlikely to be achieved without resolving radar and aerospace concerns, and these concerns cannot be resolved without cooperation 

between the wind industry and Federal agencies. 

To that end, AWEA recommends: One, developing an improved 

process for consulting agencies earlier; two, establishing a proactive 

plan for upgrading radars to benefit national security as well as accommodate additional wind energy deployment; and, three, investing in significant research and development. 

I greatly appreciate your time today. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am happy to answer any questions that you 

have. 
12 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Webster can be found in the Appendix on page 56.] 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you. 

As it always happens right in the middle of testimony, we have 

a vote. We have two votes coming up. I am just going to ask one 

question for now. 

Ms. Kalinowski, you mentioned that 100,000 projects have been 

approved. Am I correct? 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Can you tell me how many of these 100,000 projects 

are close to military bases? 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. Not off the top of my head, but I could get that 

information for you. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 75.] 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. In each and every case, the projects that were 

close to military bases or military installations or close to the 

FAA’s long-range radars were coordinated with the military, and 

they had the opportunity to comment on it. In many cases, we were 

able to successfully work with the proponent and with the military 

in order to mitigate the effects on the radar or on the military installation. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Have you all taken into account the old radar system 

that we have that dates back to the 1950s? 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. Yes, we have. And that long-range radar system and the secondary radar system serves the FAA’s mission 

quite well in terms of evaluating the safety and the efficiency on 

the impact of the navigable airspace. It is the DOD’s mission, of 

course, to use the long-range radars for their particular mission for 

the defense of the country. We work with them, and they provide 

resources to us in order to maintain the long-range radar sites to 

ensure that that ability is there for them to complete their mission. 

Mr. ORTIZ. You know, one of the things that we worry about is 

that military installations bring jobs to our districts. We don’t want 

the military or anybody else to come to us with any excuse and tell 

us, you know what, we are going to have to move our base, because 

you are impacted by the wind farms. 

You know, the amount of wind farms dotting the landscape in 

south Texas is quite amazing to the south and to the north. And 

God knows we need the energy because we hope that—we cannot 

continue to be dependent on foreign energy. But my installation at 

Naval Air Station Kingsville is becoming increasingly concerned. 

Should they continue to be concerned, or do you think that we can 

pacify them because we do have a solution to this problem? For 

anybody. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Chairman Ortiz, I will go ahead and address your 

question. The reality is that the wind energy is a broad and diverse 

group of stakeholders that have varying levels of sophistication and 

understanding about how to go about developing a wind project. 

Iberdrola Renewables has 400 megawatts in your district near the 

air station and, as a result of our development efforts, sited that 

facility so that it didn’t pose an impact. 

To the issue at hand today, the projects that are potentially posing or are posing an impact perhaps could be remedied not nec-
13 

essarily just by siting changes alone, but the changes in the mitigation and the technology that is out there. The surveillance community met in October 2008. The wind energy was a minor line item 

in a large agenda that was primarily concerned with the sophistication of the technology that they are currently utilizing, and it 

seems like this is a ripe opportunity to add the political momentum 

that wind energy has to address a much larger and long-standing 

concern with the surveillance community to upgrade their facilities. 

In doing so, issues such as the air station in your district could be 

mitigated and therefore remedied. 

Mr. ORTIZ. You know, we have about less than 3 minutes for the 

next vote. 

Mr. Garamendi, you will be first to ask questions when we come 

back, but I think we should be back soon. It is three votes. We are 

going to recess for a few minutes. And then we will come back. I 

know that your time is very valuable. We will try to come back and 

see if we can continue with this hearing. We are recessed. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. ORTIZ. Now, we are going to continue with our hearing. Let 

me yield to my good friend for any questions he might have. Mr. 

Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, thank you 

to all of the witnesses for your time here today. 

Ms. Kalinowski, you have a very impressive re ́sume ́. You have 

done a lot of things and there are a lot of things on your plate. And 

unfortunately for you, if something goes wrong we find out in a 

very dramatic manner. 

I was excited to hear you mention not once but twice in your testimony about the use of modeling. And I take it that it is modeling 

and simulation that you are utilizing. 

Two questions regarding that. One, are we giving you everything 

you need now to do all of the modeling that you need to accomplish 

your goals? And if not, how can we help you there as a Congress? 

Because I think that is absolutely crucial for you to be able to do. 

And the second thing is, how do developers or individuals who 

are doing some of these projects tap into the modeling that you 

have in at an early stage? Because I know you have probably some 

privacy concerns and some things that you don’t want to allow 

them to know. Is there some way that they can utilize that modeling capability at the front end instead of waiting at the back end 

and finding out, Oh, my gosh, this is having a huge negative impact? 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. Thank you very much for that question, Mr. 

Forbes. I appreciate it. 

We have enjoyed great support from the Congress for our resources and we believe that we are using them efficiently and effectively, and so we do thank you for your support in that department. 

We are also working closely with the Department of Defense and 

the Department of Homeland Security in terms of educating ourselves and improving the modeling that we have to bring to the 

challenges of wind farms and understanding the limitations of 

radar. 

We have been very impressed with the Joint Program Office and 

the work that has been done by the Department of Defense’s office. 
14 

We refer to them as the 84th RADES [Radar Evaluation Squadron]. That is their office that does extensive work and modeling on 

long-range radar and the effect of wind turbines on radar. Our 

technical people, our engineers within the FAA, have been working 

very closely with them to understand the radar and to develop and 

look to the professional community on better modeling and simulation. Thank you. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you. Do we know how many turbines exist 

today? I know you mentioned about 100,000 projects that had been 

approved. Do we know how many actual turbines have been constructed and how many do we predict will be constructed over the 

next 5 years? 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. I mentioned the statistics before. We received 

1,500 cases to look at this week alone. So it is definitely increasing 

in numbers. I know that the Administration and the Department 

of Energy and Mr. Webster’s supporting association, AWEA, have 

hoped that we can move toward energy independence by increasing 

the number. If there are 100,000 today that have been approved, 

I know that their hopes are to go upwards to 800,000 in the future. 

So we are gearing up to make sure that the Department of Defense 

and the FAA can address that kind of influx of cases and to analyze exactly what their impact would be on military readiness. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Webster, do you have any idea currently how 

many turbines we have already constructed? And what is your best 

projection for how many we would expect to have constructed within the next 5 years? 

Mr. WEBSTER. Sir, I don’t think we have an accurate number. We 

can certainly try and estimate that and get back with you and the 

others. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 75.] 

Mr. WEBSTER. I would say that from—this is a very difficult 

issue to address, but the lion’s share of the proposals that are 

brought into the FAA, for example, and other agencies don’t actually become real projects. So while there are 100,000 turbines that 

have been assessed in any given year, we are talking somewhere 

on the order of magnitude less than that coming to fruition. So it 

is a difficult tug and pull, if you will, trying to determine, from an 

agency perspective, what is actually going to become an actual 

project versus what is sort of a touch by the industry to try to determine whether or not there is going to be an impact in that particular area. 

Mr. FORBES. The chairman and I were talking in the break about 

impacts these could have on our bases and other types of things in 

there. I think it would be useful for us. Just like when we are 

doing planning for highways, it is I think a crucial piece of information to know how many cars we think we have on the road and 

how many we would expect to have on the road in 5 years. So if 

you could help us with those numbers, I think it would be useful 

for the committee, even though it is not exact, if we can just get 

our hands around how many we think we have got out there and 

how many is our best estimate of what we will have in the next 

5 years could be useful information for us. 
15 

Dr. Robyn and General, Dr. Robyn made a statement that I certainly do not disagree with. You said that we should not have to 

accept a decrease in military readiness to support national energy 

initiatives, or some paraphrase of that. The problem is, as we all 

know, sometimes just from a timing sequence, even if we have 

enough money, we can’t get things underway; and sometimes with 

the budget concerns we have today, we have a budgetary concern. 

In all of the witnesses’ opinions, do you think that there would 

ever be a time that we should accept a decrease in military readiness to support national energy initiatives? And I don’t care who 

starts, whoever has that opinion, but we would just like your 

thoughts on that. 

Dr. ROBYN. I think it is a mistake to frame the problem that 

way, because I think—— 

Mr. FORBES. Help me. 

Dr. ROBYN. What I said in my statement was the country should 

not and does not have to choose between national security and the 

development of renewable energy. And I think what you have 

heard all of us say is that the two keywords, improving the process, 

which allows for early discussions and increases the chances significantly of working out some sort of mitigation, and the other is 

technology. And there is an overlap, because so far mitigation 

largely means moving the radar to a different place. 

Mitigation also means changes to the radar itself, improvements 

in the software, improvements in the hardware, potentially replacement of the radar. I am not saying that every problem can be 

solved, and even Mr. Webster said there is no silver bullet. But we 

have yet to really bring to bear the potential for technological development or insertion of better technology. 

Mr. FORBES. And, Doctor, I guess then I kind of take back my 

statement where I agreed with you, because I disagree with you. 

Because I think while it may be our goal that the two don’t conflict, 

the real world we live in is that it is not just theory. The real 

world—sometimes it does come down to a conflict, either again because of timing—we just can’t get there quick enough—or because 

of money. So if you can address that. General, do you feel—— 

Dr. ROBYN. Can I just—— 

Mr. FORBES. Sure. 

Dr. ROBYN. Let me address each of those, because when I said 

we ought not have to choose—— 

Mr. FORBES. I agree with you, we shouldn’t have to choose. But 

unfortunately sometimes in this committee—— 

Dr. ROBYN. Timing is critical. I don’t mean to imply that you just 

say ‘‘Okay, we are never going to say no because we can figure out 

how to solve the problem technically.’’ 

So the key to fixing the process is so that you have the time so 

that we can learn about projects early, work with developers to 

come up with a mitigation strategy, whether it involves moving the 

turbines or improving the radar. But timing is absolutely critical. 

The second thing is money. And no one has put this on the table 

yet. I am wishing I had done this in my testimony. These wind energy development projects are—they are big and they involve a lot 

of investment and that is a potential—those developers are a potential source of improvements in the technology. This is something 
16 

that happens in other areas when one person wants to make better 

use of the electromagnetic spectrum and what they are proposing 

would interfere with somebody who is occupying the spectrum; they 

will pay to upgrade their receivers so that their activity doesn’t create interference. That is very common. There is a market for that. 

We need to develop the same kind of thing here. 

Mr. FORBES. I don’t disagree with that. Again, all you guys are 

good guys. It is not a white hat, black hat—these are not trick 

questions. The question, though, at some point that this committee 

just has to keep in mind as our checkoff—and I think it is a fair 

question—is the Department willing to accept decreased military 

readiness to support national energy initiatives? 

It is a fair response to say we hope to have both. It is a fair response to say we need both. It is a fair response to say we hope 

we don’t have to choose between them. But none of those are my 

question. 

My question is if rather it is because of timing or budgets or 

whatever else, beyond any of our controls in here, if we have to 

choose—it is a simple question—would the Department be willing 

to accept a decreased military readiness to support national energy 

initiatives? 

Dr. ROBYN. We haven’t to date, and I don’t think we intend to 

accept a significant level of reduction in military readiness, no. 

Mr. FORBES. General, what was your response? 

General STUTZRIEM. Yes, sir. As you know, I cannot speak for the 

Department of Defense, but as the COCOM [Combatant Commander], I can. We, of course, will always do a very serious and 

detailed operational risk assessment based upon interference that 

may be caused by these wind turbines. And it is clear that in our 

mission, we have to be able to detect and track and, if necessary, 

take action on a track of interest before it injures or hurts American citizens. So in that risk assessment, we will be very sober and 

objective about risk that is unacceptable. 

And in the operational realm, if we have risk that is unacceptable, we have to mitigate that down to an acceptable level. So in 

our part of this process, we will be very forthright with that analysis which we have focused quite a bit in the last few weeks and 

bolstered. 

However, I do also share Dr. Robyn’s comment that some of the 

recent studies in what we see, there is probably a lot of technological pieces out there in the future that can help mitigate that 

risk. We will not as a combatant command have any kind of gap, 

however, that is unacceptably managed. 

Mr. FORBES. General, I am sure you are articulating a lot better 

than I am understanding it. So I don’t want to push you further 

than you can go. Sometimes we have to just come down to hard 

and fast decisions. 

Is it your opinion that we should ever accept a decrease in military readiness to support national energy initiatives? 

General STUTZRIEM. Once again, that is a policy question for the 

Department. But we will always, from the operational level, mitigate that risk in some way. 

Mr. FORBES. General, I will try this one more time. What we are 

told by the Secretary of Defense always, is when we have witnesses 
17 

here, we can ask your personal opinion and we rely on this personal opinion. Again, it is not a trick question. It is something we 

need to know. 

In your personal opinion, should we ever accept—I understand 

we want to mitigate, we want to not be there. But if it comes down 

to it, should we ever accept a decrease in our military readiness to 

support national energy initiatives? 

General STUTZRIEM. Yes, sir. In my opinion, homeland defense is 

our top priority, our mission priority, and that should take precedent. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you. And, Ms. Kalinowski, the same thing. 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. I can certainly speak for the FAA that we 

would not accept the degradation of the safe and efficient use of the 

navigable airspace. I believe that we at this table all want to support a national goal toward energy independence, and that also 

speaks to the Nation’s security. Thank you. 

Mr. FORBES. Fair response. And, Mr. Webster. 

Mr. WEBSTER. I would say that we do as an industry—obviously 

do not want to see significant or adverse impact to our ability as 

a Nation to protect ourselves and do not advocate nor want to promote any notion that the industry feels that it is somehow of higher importance than national security. 

That said, the industry does feel along with our counterparts in 

the agencies, that there are real technical solutions that can be deployed today, and it is just the amount of collective willpower to 

mobilize that technology to resolve these issues so that we do not 

have that adverse impact threshold reached, which to this date, at 

least according to the Concurrent Technologies Corporation’s recent 

report has not been reached. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you all so much for your expertise. And, Mr. 

Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Kissell. 

Mr. KISSELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to our witnesses for being here today. I have a series of questions, more or 

less trying to get an idea in my mind some of the parameters of 

the issues. So I am not even sure I can direct them to one person 

or not. 

But the first question, Ms. Kalinowski, when you talk about 

projects that are being given to us and that you all are reviewing, 

on average how many devices per project, how big of an area are 

these projects? Kind of just the scope of what an average project 

would consist of. 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. Thank you, Congressman. If you are speaking 

of wind farms, we have dealt with wind farms as small as four or 

five wind turbines, but the average is more along the lines of 100 

to 200 wind turbines on up to 500. 

Mr. KISSELL. And these devices, on average, in size—I had read 

some can be as high—tall as 500 feet. What is the average size of 

one of the wind turbines? 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. I think Mr. Webster would probably be a better 

person to ask that question, but we have dealt with them ranging 

from 200 to 400 feet. 

Mr. KISSELL. Mr. Webster, would that be in the neighborhood 

then? 
18 

Mr. WEBSTER. Four hundred to 425 feet. 

Mr. KISSELL. Good. Thank you. 

And, Dr. Robyn, I am going to give these questions to you, and 

then once again feel free to move them to somebody in the best 

place. The issue itself in the radar interference, is it more of an 

issue based upon where the wind farms are and to the number of 

miles to the base? Or is it more of a directional issue; or is it an 

elevation issue; or what creates the situation where some wind 

farms might be a problem and others wouldn’t be? 

Dr. ROBYN. I am an economist, not a physicist. So my understanding is—certainly, you see in many places wind turbines near 

military bases with no issue. It becomes a problem—it is very case 

by case. And it can become a problem—the two key things: line of 

sight, that is an issue. If the turbines are shielded from the radar 

by the terrain, there is not an issue. So, line of sight. And the number of turbines so that you can have 500 turbines that do not create 

an issue. And then when you add another 100, their cumulative 

impact on existing technology, particularly the older radar, can become a problem. 

Mr. KISSELL. And, General, with that said—and once again I 

don’t know where is the best place to ask these questions. So you 

have some farms that could be within a few miles and not be a 

problem and others somewhere else that it could be a problem. Is 

it a difference in the radar between—are they more of an issue for 

long-range radars versus short radars? So is it more specific, and 

can we predict, as the modeling that Mr. Forbes is talking about, 

can we predict where we would have a problem and not have a 

problem? 

General STUTZRIEM. Yes, sir. It does vary from radar type to 

radar type. It is very dependent upon the environment. So, for example, I can speak to simply one piece of this which is once again 

the operations risk assessment. We look at that in terms of what 

is that environment around the radar itself. So once again, depending upon the sophistication or the technology of the radar itself, it 

may deal with that interference better or worse. 

One radar that Dr. Robyn talked about out at Shepherds Flat, 

of course, is an older radar. And it shows a lot of the clutter based 

upon that interference that comes from those wind turbines. 

Mr. KISSELL. My last question. Well, I will see how my time is, 

whether it is my last question. It would seem to me that if you are 

looking at a huge investment and you know this issue is being a 

problem, that you would want to go to whatever authority much 

sooner than 30 days from the time you want to start building this. 

Are we seeing that, that people are coming to us from the initial 

concepts and saying, ‘‘Hey, do you think this is going to be a problem?’’ Are we seeing any of that? 

Mr. WEBSTER. The industry has largely been increasing its level 

of engagement with the agencies much sooner for the past, I would 

say, 4 years, when this issue first arose to a sort of national prominence, if you will. The result of that has been largely unanimous 

recommendation from all of the stakeholders that there is no process to engage in. 

So you have situations where a military facility is engaged by a 

single developer. The military facility makes a recommendation 
19 

that there will not be an adverse impact, and it isn’t until 2 or 3 

years later, when a formal review process by the FAA is undertaken, that a differing opinion by a different entity within the DOD 

says, ‘‘Actually there is an impact.’’ By that time millions, if not billions, of dollars have been invested in that asset. And then, of 

course, you clearly have a national defense question in mind, so it 

creates an automatic tension between the stakeholders that could 

have been resolved if there had been a process in place. 

Mr. KISSELL. Thank you, sir. Thank you, panel. And thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome. I appreciate 

you being here. Just to set the record, I represent a district that 

is in the top three or four in the Nation on wind power generation. 

So please don’t interpret anything I am saying as being anti-wind 

because it is—some of my wind friends have thin skins sometimes. 

Mr. Webster, are all of the sites across the United States fully 

developed and the only ones left to develop are the ones that potentially interfere with military operations? 

Mr. WEBSTER. No. There is a variety. 

Mr. CONAWAY. We have had this conversation this morning as if 

the only ones left out there to be developed were the ones that have 

this potential problem with military readiness. I just want the 

record to show that there are zillions of sites, for lack of a better 

phrase, that have no interference whatsoever, that are available for 

development for the industry. 

Dr. Robyn, you mentioned a very interesting phrase or concept. 

What are the barriers to the system? As an example, you have got 

a developer that wants to put some wind towers in a particular 

place; it gets in front of an older radar set and that radar would 

need to be upgraded to mitigate. 

Are there barriers to allowing the developer to say, in order to 

move this project forward, I will pay to have the radar upgraded 

or whatever mitigation costs are needed to eliminate the problem 

that the military is having? Can that investor or developer group 

fold those costs in, or are there barriers to letting that happen? 

Dr. ROBYN. I think the biggest barrier is that most people 

haven’t thought about it that way. We are not used to thinking of 

operating that way. There may be a technical/legal barrier to us accepting money from a developer. But I think it is—— 

Mr. CONAWAY. I do, too. It is something that a business would 

do all the time. It is not a foreign concept. 

Mr. Webster, you might have your group look at that concept. 

Obviously if the radars are doing the job that we want them to do, 

and a developer comes in and wants to interfere with that, it 

shouldn’t be the responsibility of the taxpayers to upgrade the existing facility to meet the need of that developer. I would think that 

if that site is worthy, then it could fade the costs of the other development. 

General, throughout the NDAA [National Defense Authorization 

Act], there is immense emphasis on the Department of Defense single-handedly eliminating our need for foreign oil. We spend a lot 

of money that way on wind generation, alternative sources, all 

kinds of things. It would be helpful to us as decision makers—because I think the Department of Defense budgets are going to start 
20 

looking a lot flatter than they have in the last 7 or 8 years—to 

know what that delta is. In other words, what would we pay for 

energy the traditional way versus this emphasis that we have gone 

across DOD, what is that delta and what are we trading? Are we 

trading MRAPs [Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles]? Are 

we trading body armor? Are we trading a second engine? What is 

it, so as a policy we can say, okay, this cost, these extra costs to 

the system, that doesn’t have to be there; it is there only because 

of something else. What are we trading for that? What can we use 

that dollar for? Do you have that number, by chance, or is there 

a way to get at it? 

General STUTZRIEM. Sir, I don’t. And, of course, at the combatant 

command, we establish requirements that are processed by the 

Pentagon. I can take that question for the record and route it and 

get you an answer on that. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 75.] 

Mr. CONAWAY. I do think that the Secretary is looking for 100 

billion over the next 5 years, and we ought to know what we are 

trimming out of the 100 billion. 

I had a report yesterday that the Air Force is going to mothball 

the B–1 bombers and 250 fighters under this cost saving hat, not 

for defense, not for capacity, not for anything, just a cost saving 

hat. 

It would be helpful for us as policymakers next year to know 

what the Department is spending on energy that they don’t have 

to spend, but for requirements under the NDAA, particularly in the 

last 3 years. With that, I yield back. 

Dr. ROBYN. Sir, is your question how much are we spending on 

energy? The delta—— 

Mr. CONAWAY. Between what we would have spent but for all of 

this emphasis on renewables and the Department of Defense doing 

a lot of stuff that they don’t have to do. 

Dr. ROBYN. Oh, I would disagree. I was with you up until that. 

Mr. CONAWAY. So you would trade wind power for body armor? 

Dr. ROBYN. We very much look at this. I believe it was General 

Mattis during the Iraq War said, ‘‘Please release us from the tether 

of fuel.’’ And that prompted a Defense Science Board report which 

said we are losing lives and we are spending enormous amounts of 

money to get fuel to forward operating bases. And the cost that we 

pay for fuel is the tip of the iceberg. The real cost is—and our soft 

underbelly is the logistics tail to get that fuel to forward operating 

bases. 

Insofar as we can use renewable in forward operating bases, 

which we are working on, we can reduce that. And in domestic 

bases, which I oversee, we are vulnerable to disruption of the commercial electricity grid and renewable energy combined with energy 

efficiency, smart microgrids, can increase mission assurance. 

Mr. CONAWAY. And that comes in front of other requirements 

that DOD has. We are not making a rational decision because the 

folks out there have just said—that the majority has said over the 

last 3 years, this is an important deal. So you guys have gone down 

that path. 
21 

I have had four-stars tell me that they have to come out of hide 

for all of these extra costs, so they can look green; that it is not 

mission-critical to what they are doing. You are not going to power 

an MRAP with a battery or with a wind—— 

Dr. ROBYN. You are not going to power an MRAP, but renewables have an important—— 

Mr. CONAWAY. You argue with me that the fuel in the battlefield 

is what you are worried about, and I am just saying that is not 

what we are talking about. 

Dr. ROBYN. Generate—a significant amount of the fuel that is 

transported to forward operating bases is used to power generators, 

to heat and cool tents, to operate—— 

Mr. CONAWAY. So we are going to build wind towers in Iraq? 

Dr. ROBYN. I don’t know if it will be wind, but we are absolutely 

spending—— 

Mr. CONAWAY. More money on energy than we would otherwise 

have to spend. 

Dr. ROBYN. We have been running a 270-megawatt geothermal 

plant in China Lake for 20-some years. 

Mr. CONAWAY. And it costs more to do that than to buy the energy out of the grid. 

Mr. ORTIZ. You can go ahead and answer—— 

Dr. ROBYN. I think we disagree here. I think it will cost the Department money up front to develop renewables. It will cost the 

country money up front. Part of that is because we don’t put a 

price on carbon. So we do need to—— 

Mr. CONAWAY. And the science is settled on that, that it is an 

issue? 

Dr. ROBYN. Putting a price on carbon? 

Mr. CONAWAY. Yes. The science is settled on that? 

Dr. ROBYN. I think that is an economic question. There are huge 

externalities from carbon emissions which aren’t captured in the 

price of fossil fuels. But there is the Quadrennial—I point to the 

QDR, the Quadrennial Defense Review, which says that our dependence on fossil fuels, it is a national security issue and it is an 

issue for domestic installations. Renewables are not the silver bullet, but they have an important place. 

Mr. CONAWAY. But you will get me the difference in costs that 

the Department incurs between what they could have done normally versus—— 

Mr. ORTIZ. I think we are going to have time, because we have 

got other members and we will have to have, probably, a second 

round of questions and we will come back to you. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The 

RAND Corporation estimates that about 16 to 18 percent of the 

total defense budget is specifically designed for the purpose of protecting the sea lanes in the Gulf of Hormuz so that we can have 

oil. We are at great risk at any moment of that strait being shut 

down, in which case we would have a very serious problem in 

America. So 16 percent—let’s just say 15 percent. So $120 billion 

a year for that one purpose, according to the RAND Corporation. 

With regard to the issue that we just heard about, it is imperative of every one of our bases to become as self-sufficient for energy 

as possible so as to avoid the problem of a shutdown of the grid. 
22 

This committee has heard testimony on cyberwarfare and the potential problems that it presents to us. It is a very significant issue. 

And spending money on renewables at the base, conservation at 

the bases and other ways of making our bases both domestic and 

international, self-sufficient and not dependent upon the importation of oil arriving at the appropriate moment, is of utmost importance. 

Now, to the issue at hand, which happens to be wind turbines 

and the bases. First of all, I want to thank the industry for the 

work that you are doing in the Travis area, the Fairfield area, and 

the wind energy that is extremely important in that area. You have 

undertaken a joint operation with the Air Force at Travis to find 

ways of dealing with the interference that the wind turbines provide, and you are also providing money to fund the studies, and 

that is the way it should be done. So I thank the industry for that. 

I also want to, Dr. Robyn, if I might, just ask you about efforts 

that are underway to ameliorate the problem that exists with regard to the Travis domestic flight. We are not talking about longrange radars here, but rather those that are specific for flight control at the bases. 

Could you just comment on the work that is being done, some 

studies that are underway? I understand Raytheon and the United 

Kingdom has a study underway. I think there is a Jensen or Jansen report. 

Dr. ROBYN. I am not sure I can speak to Travis in particular. The 

work with Raytheon, you may be referring to the CRDA [Cooperative Research and Development Agreement] that I mentioned in my 

opening remarks. It was something the Air Force entered into just 

recently, a cooperative R&D agreement, the aim of which is to 

identify hardware and software improvements in radar that can reduce wind interference. 

I think that the U.K.—that may be a reference to the TPS, the 

TPS–77 radar, which is a radar that the U.K. feels—it is a Lockheed Martin radar, I believe. There is some evidence to suggest 

that it deals fairly well with wind turbine interference. We have 

not yet looked at that closely. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. If I might just interrupt. It is my understanding 

that the radar systems at Travis are being significantly upgraded 

to deal with the wind turbine—with the wind farm nearby, and 

that it is possible to use enhanced software to achieve the necessary air traffic controls for that. So if you could deliver to me and 

perhaps to the committee a display of the various activities that 

are going on. 

[The information referred to was not available at the time of 

printing.] 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Most of the testimony we have had here today 

concerns long-range radar systems which are quite antiquated in 

most cases. It is pretty hard to move the wind from one location 

to another. But it may be easier to move the radar, particularly if 

it is an older system that is going to get replaced sometime in the 

future, perhaps with the NextGen [Next Generation Air Transportation System] system of traffic, air traffic control coming up. 

So I would like to have some comments on that as well as the 

upgrading and the role of the industry in helping to pay for it, the 
23 

concept that was developed here a few moments ago. I think it is 

an appropriate one. 

So, General, if you would start and then the industry and then 

FAA. And we have 3 seconds. 

General STUTZRIEM. Yes, sir. We work very closely right now 

with a number of Federal agencies, with the developers; when we 

find through our operational risk assessment there is a problem, 

there is kind of conflict. Some of those methods—and I think there 

are a number, besides relocating wind turbines outside of line of 

sight. That would be the most effective. But we can change the 

sighting, the geometry, the spacing to assist in reducing those effects. 

Yes, some tuning of the radars are possible based upon a growth 

in clutter across time and the environment. So simple maintenance 

may help. And, of course, we are seeing more and more, especially 

in the urgencies of looking at technology, that there are probably 

software and hardware fixes that can be inserted in these older radars that could reduce the impact of the wind turbine interference. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Largely there has been some dialogue by the 

stakeholders with respect to moving radars. My understanding is 

that it is largely about as feasible as moving the wind projects 

themselves, which is the other mitigation solution that has often 

has been talked about, both of which I suppose are possible but not 

probable in terms of being effective both cost-wise, as well as technology-wise. 

The radar systems were put in place where they were, because 

they optimized our field of vision from a national defense perspective as well as from an air traffic control perspective. In a similar 

vein, we put the turbines where we do because of the wind being 

present. 

Again, however, there is a number of opportunities that have 

been discoursed for the past few years that allow us the ability to 

upgrade those radars, and possibly R&D technology that can be 

inputted onto the turbine side of the equation to ameliorate the 

problems. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. FAA. 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. Thank you for the question, Congressman. It is 

very expensive to move a long-range radar. Not very feasible at all. 

I think both gentlemen made very good points about that. I think 

our future lies in either a software upgrade, a hardware upgrade, 

or finding other alternatives to essentially mitigate the project. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, in 30 seconds, I do want to just 

make a final comment that the U.S. Air Force together with the 

wind industry, three developers in the Solano area have made significant progress on accommodating additional turbines and the 

safety and the air traffic control at a major, major base, probably 

with flights taking off every 90 seconds or so. 

So it can be done. It is software and it is location of the radars; 

and also, most important of all, a willingness to work together. And 

I thank you for what you have been able to accomplish there. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you. Before I go to the next Member who is 

visiting with us today, let me ask a question now. We were talking 

about at Kingsville a few moments ago. And I know that some of 

you are mitigating some of the circumstances. But I was just won-
24 

dering, Dr. Robyn, can you explain what steps the Department of 

Defense is taking to preserve military readiness across the Nation, 

specifically in Kingsville—and we appreciate the energy that you, 

Mr. Webster, are providing. We need it. God knows that. 

But my two bases hit right in the middle of them. If you are flying in from San Patricio County, I think you see at least, if not 

200, maybe more windmills. And then when you go south going to 

the valley, South Padre Island, you see maybe 3- or 400 of them. 

What is the Department of Defense doing to come up with answers as to how we are going to protect our readiness? Yes, ma’am. 

Dr. ROBYN. I don’t—we have not—I was not aware of the 

Kingsville situation until recently. We have not had—leaving—I 

will come back to that one. But I am not aware that we have had 

an issue with wind turbines and training routes. 

Most training routes, most low-level training routes are on public 

land. The process is easier when it is public land. We get advanced 

warning from BLM [Bureau of Land Management] typically, or the 

public land holder. So we have not—I am told by our personnel and 

readiness folks, that has not been an issue. 

Kingsville, clearly we need to look at that. The process seems to 

have broken down there because the FAA was not—the Navy did 

not object to the proposed turbines as part of the OE/AAA process. 

Nancy can say more about—apparently those radars there are not 

even part of the National Airspace System. They are not in the system at the FAA. So the process broke down. I would like to look 

at it more closely, number one; see whether there are some lessons 

from Travis that we can bring to NAS [Naval Air Station]- 

Kingsville. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Ms. Kalinowski, would you like to respond or give us 

any input or, Mr. Webster, to the same question? 

What I really want to know—and things are moving pretty fast. 

When you say that hundreds of thousands of them are requesting 

authorization to do that, how long will it take for all four of you 

to get together and to come up with a plan? Can you do that? Because this is moving too fast, and it is very costly and readiness 

is at stake. 

But you think you all can get together and come up with maybe 

a solution? I know it is going to be expensive when you talk about 

upgrading or buying new radars. It is going to be very, very expensive. 

When Chairman Gates came down, he says, ‘‘You know what? 

We are going to cut down on defense to the point whether it is 

going to be research and development and other items that we 

need, or whether we are going to have to cut down on health care 

for our service people.’’ So this is a very serious, serious problem. 

How much time do you think you would need to come up with 

a plan that we all can work and sing from the same page, for all 

of you? 

Mr. WEBSTER. From the industry standpoint, we have been advocating for 4 years now that a process of earlier engagement that 

meets the needs of all the stakeholders be developed. I think that 

largely the conversations that we have had with the other stakeholders, both in the public and private sector, have resulted in a 

good laundry list, if you will, of elements that would be contained 
25 

within such a process. And now it is just a matter of actually implementing—more fully developing and implementing that process. 

Dr. ROBYN. Congressmen, the National Security Council initiated 

an interagency process in the wake of the controversy over Shepherds Flat. Shepherds Flat was an unfortunate controversy, but it 

was useful in galvanizing attention. And that is an ongoing process, looking in particular at the FAA siting review process and 

whether and if that needs to be—whether and how that needs to 

be updated to take account of current national security needs and 

operations. 

I think there is a legitimate question as to whether the FAA 

has—whether its authority would include issues related to our 

training and testing routes. So that is something that we are looking at on an interagency basis. 

But I don’t think—I mean—I co-chair a group, a standing group 

focused on protection of our ranges. I don’t think we are—a lot— 

I don’t think this is a big problem in terms of maintaining readiness. I agree that there is a situation at Kingsville that we need 

to look at closely. But I don’t think you will find many examples 

of that. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Let me see if I can get somebody to put the map on 

the screen so you all can see it. And she is going to hand out some 

copies so you can see how it is impacting on at least Kingsville for 

now. 

And another issue that is going to come up now, you see a lot 

of investors coming up and they look at solar panels and they say 

that when they fly, the reflection from these solar panels—and this 

is going to be another issue—impacts on those that are training up 

in the air. So that is going to be another—and they are coming to 

the United States. And, of course, we need all this energy. 

But as you can see—the map that we have and how we are impacted. But I think that the responsibility now lies on DOD, if you 

can come up with a plan, because you are the ones that are being 

impacted. And, of course as team players, we would like to work 

with the rest of you. 

So do you think, Dr. Robyn, that 30 days would be sufficient to 

come up with something that you can give the members of this 

committee? 

Dr. ROBYN. I would like to—there is an interagency process in 

place. I don’t know exactly. So I am a little hesitant to commit to 

30 days. But—— 

Mr. ORTIZ. You will try? 

Dr. ROBYN. Within a fairly short period of time, I think this process will run its course and we can report back to you. 

Mr. ORTIZ. After consultation with the minority, I now ask unanimous consent that Mrs. Halvorson be authorized to question the 

panel members of today’s hearing. If there are no objections, I will 

now recognize Mrs. Halvorson. 

Mrs. HALVORSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the committee for allowing me to ask a couple of questions. And I also 

want to thank you for the work you have done on this issue. 

I just wanted to ask a couple of questions on a proposed wind 

farm in my district, which is Kankakee County, Illinois, which is 

about 45 miles south of Chicago. And it is called K–4, which you 
26 

all know about. And it is close to a radar system located in Joliet, 

Illinois. As a lot of people know, it is a $2 billion project with 310 

proposed turbines. And it also has an ARSR–3 radar, which is the 

one just like Shepherds Flat. And I know that and I feel that the 

Shepherds Flat radar should not be the only site receiving mitigation work and receiving the software upgrades and physical improvements. 

So my question is for Dr. Robyn. What upgrades can you make 

to the ARSR–3 radars nationwide in order for more wind farms 

and radars to coexist? As you know, we have been having major 

problems with this K–4 wind farm project, and you all have been 

so wonderful to work with us to try to make it work. So I am wondering, since we are having the same problems as Shepherds Flat, 

what can we do to make this somehow work with mitigation efforts? 

Dr. ROBYN. Thank you, Congresswoman. And you have been terrific, too, to work with on this issue as well. I think what led to 

the response on Shepherds Flat that was somewhat different is the 

construction was due to begin on May 1, and there was not an opportunity for the Air Force and the developer to go through the 

process that they normally would have. And so that led to the Lincoln Lab study and some other things. We do have that time in 

your district and the RADES—Air Force is looking at how different 

configuration of the turbines could help the problem. 

I agree that the technology has potential. I think we don’t—the 

Lincoln Lab folks looked at a different radar. We can’t assume that 

the same things would work, but it is encouraging. It suggests 

some things. And the pilot will offer us lessons for that. 

Mrs. HALVORSON. So if these upgrades, though, are made, what 

is a realistic time for completion? Because we don’t even hear that 

there are possibilities for upgrades. 

And I think the other problem going forward that other people 

need to realize is this is not a process that anybody thinks of before 

they go and make the decisions with the leaseholders and anybody 

who decides to even put a wind farm in place. 

Also, in regards to the FAA, Shepherds Flat wind farm in Oregon, the FAA originally issued a notice of presumed hazard in 

March. And when the DOD eventually withdrew its objections in 

it to the Shepherds Flat project in late April, a DOD spokesperson 

said that the impact of the project, to the Fossil ARSR–3 radar, 

was not as great as once thought. 

So I think what my issue is—because we have been going back 

and forth with the same issue, the notice of presumed hazard—is 

it possible for this scenario to be the case again for other projects 

elsewhere? Because as you know, the fact is there has been an 

issue with the upgrades not being made since 1990. And that has 

probably been one of the biggest problems with K–4, is how up to 

date is the DOD’s land covering the terrain model data? 

Dr. ROBYN. I cannot speak to the terrain model data. I think it 

is certainly worth doing—taking a look at the—possibly having the 

Lincoln Lab folks look at the Joliet situation. This is the area next 

to Oregon, north central Oregon. This is the area that is of most 

concern. And as you know, this reached a crisis point in 2006 that 

led to some positive developments, but did not go far enough. 
27 

So I think it is worth looking at that. I think there are some improvements, short of the Service Life Extension Program, that may 

be suggested by the Lincoln Lab study. So I think it is worth taking a look at that, but also having the discussions about positioning 

of the turbines continue. 

Mrs. HALVORSON. And my time is up, but I just want to reiterate 

that we are dealing with data from 1990, that it has not been easy 

to tell people that want to invest in communities and create jobs 

and do what they need to, and how do we go back and want to 

mitigate these? So I appreciate all of your help, but we need to do 

more. 

Thank you. I yield back. And thank you so much for the courtesy. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you so much for you joining us today. And 

going back, if I understand correctly, the FAA—review process is 

30 days now? 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. The requirement, Congressman, is for it to be 

filed 30 days before construction begins; however, we strongly encourage all developers to file as early as possible with us, to begin 

the discussions and to begin the education process with the Department of Defense and DHS [Department of Homeland Security]. 

Mr. ORTIZ. So you are satisfied with the 30 days; you can get it 

running in 30 days? 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. You made the suggestion earlier, Chairman, 

that we should consider a much earlier filing process and we very 

much wish to consider that. 

Mr. ORTIZ. I would like for the DOD also to work with us, maybe 

get your team, Madam Secretary, to work and give us an interim 

report within 30 days; and maybe you can work on Kingsville and 

maybe give an additional 30 days, because the people there are 

concerned and rightly so. We have seen where there is a lot of 

jointness going on. And at one time, they would say that Kingsville 

got all the—open skies, you can train, you can do whatever you 

want to do. 

That has changed now. We want to work together. This is why 

I said we can work as a team, those that are creating this energy. 

And rightly so. It has become a tourist spot because people like to 

drive and see all those windmills turning around. And I see people 

because between Corpus Christi and the valley, it is about 110 

miles, and there is nothing but the windmills, cows and horses. So 

it has become an attraction. But at the same time, we don’t want 

it to impact on readiness. 

Let me yield to my good friend, Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, I thank all 

of you for being here. And, Dr. Robyn, when I heard your colloquy 

with Mr. Conaway just a few minutes ago, I just sit back and I ask 

this question. First of all, I premise it the same way that he does, 

that all of us up here support wind industry and what we are doing 

with a lot of our alternative energies. 

But 11 percent of the people in this country approve of this Congress and 89 percent of them disapprove. And the reason most of 

them disapprove is because we come in here and we are good at 

hitting lofty goals. We can state them, we can state them up and 

down here, we can state them from that witness stand; but they 

understand that the devil is always in the details, and over and 
28 

over what we are trying to get up here are the details. And we 

can’t get them because all we get is a restatement of the lofty 

goals. 

We sit back here, and the American people here, drafting legislation in the Senate now, where the drafter of the legislation says, 

‘‘We don’t know how it is going to work or the impact until we pass 

the legislation and get it into effect.’’ And the American people are 

saying, ‘‘My gosh, what are they doing?’’ 

This year the American people are saying, ‘‘Give us the details 

and a budget.’’ And this Congress is saying, ‘‘No, no, no, no, we 

don’t want to give the details, let us talk about lofty goals.’’ 

We won’t do a budget and the American people, 89 percent of 

them are saying, ‘‘Are they crazy up there?’’ The budget is what 

shows the details. 

Last year, the Department of Defense by law had to give us a 

shipbuilding plan so we could see on paper those details about how 

many ships we were building so we could see what actually came 

out last year, the Chinese had more ships than we had in our 

Navy, and we couldn’t get those details from the Department of Defense. 

What Mr. Conaway is asking seems like a simple question—let 

me finish and I will let you respond. You said you disagreed with 

him. He is not asking about which theory we pick or where we are 

going. He is saying, shouldn’t the American people be entitled to 

know the cost differential between buying energy one way, and by 

putting something in a bill that is going to cost us more, so that 

we can determine how many planes we have to give up to do that, 

how many ships we have to give up, how many MRAPs we have 

to give up, how many guns and how many bullets we have to give 

up. Because our warfighters, when they come back, theories don’t 

matter to them. It comes down to do they have that air covered, 

do they have those bullets and do they have these planes—and as 

the chairman said, we are getting realistic discussions now that we 

have got to cut out a lot of those real things, because there is not 

enough money. 

And so the question I come back to is: Why is that such an unreasonable question to say, Can’t we just come back and lay on the 

table the cost differential between doing it one way and doing it another way? Not policy. We can argue the policy. 

Dr. ROBYN. Sir, we were—certainly. Can I give you a plan for 

how we will achieve our goal set by the Congress, codified by the 

Congress, of achieving 25 percent renewable energy consumption 

by our installations by 2025? That is a goal given to us by the Congress. 

Mr. FORBES. Doctor, I am not arguing that the Congress is doing 

everything right. I don’t think that is what Mr. Conaway—what we 

are just saying is—I am sorry. Still, you are giving us goals. And 

what we are saying—we understand we need goals. That is okay 

to have. But what is the—— 

Dr. ROBYN. No, sir. That is a goal that you gave us. 

Mr. FORBES. I am not saying that I am going to rubber-stamp everything Congress does. I am simply saying what Mr. Conaway is 

saying, is whether Congress gives the goal or whether DOD picks 
29 

the goal, what is the cost of the implementation to try to get to the 

goal? 

Because I think you would agree with me at some point—even 

if we look, all of these energy points at some point in time, we are 

coming down to a situation that I have got to pick doing this or 

cutting out airplanes. 

That is what Mr. Conaway just said. The American people need 

to know this is a good goal. But how many ships is it going to cost 

us? How many planes is it going to cost us? Because you may get 

to the end of that goal and it might not have done what you wanted it to do, whereas we know those ships and planes might have. 

So my question is not so much the plan, but the cost. Do you not 

feel that this committee and this Congress and the American people should have the right to know those cost differentials—— 

Dr. ROBYN. I would be happy to lay that out in the context of 

what we think it will save longer term. Last year in a budget briefing, the Army said to me, ‘‘We didn’t have enough money to invest 

in technology to reduce our utility bills, because we were so 

strapped just to pay our utility bills.’’ That is crazy. We should be 

making investments—not just renewable, but energy-saving technology to reduce—we consume 20 billion—we spent $20 billion a 

year on energy, 4 billion of that on facilities. 

Mr. FORBES. Dr. Robyn, I wrote a plan, the New Manhattan 

Project. The Wall Street Journal has seen it and Fox News; all 

thought that was the way we should go to get where you want to 

go. So I am not going to argue the goals. I understand those. 

All Mr. Conaway was asking is: Can you tell us the cost differential between getting energy one way and getting it with all of the 

requirements that we have put in the defense authorization bill? 

And I don’t think we are going to get that figure; any more than 

we got a shipbuilding plan last year, we are going to get a budget 

this year. But I am just simply saying as humbly as I think I can, 

I think it is a reasonable request, and all we get back is a repeating of what goals are. 

Dr. ROBYN. No. I feel like—I am happy to do that if I can show 

you long-term savings and if I can also quantify the benefits to energy independence. 

Mr. FORBES. I think my good friend from Texas would love to 

have you show him anything else if you would just give him the 

cost. 

Dr. ROBYN. Good. The Defense Science Board said in its 2008 report two big things: One, you are not looking at the fully burdened 

cost of fuel on the operational side. The actual cost of fuel is the 

tip of the iceberg. You are ignoring the soft underbelly, the logistics 

tail that it takes to get there. On the facilities side, their big message was you are not taking into account the risk to mission assurance from the vulnerability of the electricity grid. And part of their 

recommendation was increase use of renewables in combination 

with several other things. 

And they made the point, which I have made, that we don’t 

put—we don’t quantify the benefits to mission assurance of this increased energy security. That is a benefit that goes unmeasured. 

Mr. FORBES. And I think—and I don’t want to speak for him. But 

I think my good friend from Texas would be delighted for you to 
30 

put down any other costs that you would want to put down, any 

other projections, as long as you provide the committee with the 

cost of the two differentials. And then argue any way you want to 

go. That is okay. That is fair. It is just sometimes we feel like all 

we get is a restatement of the goals. And nobody ever comes back 

with the detailed costs. 

And that is what Mr. Conaway was asking, I think, fair, to be 

able to say, because at some point in time, at some point in time, 

this chairman is going to have to make a decision in his mark between planes and between bullets and between other things that 

we have in some of these things. And it just helps us to know if 

we can get those details. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. ORTIZ. And this is so important, and this is why I said earlier, we need to work as a team together. The State legislature in 

Texas, as you well know, they meet once every 6 months, every 2 

years. So they knew that we were about to have a problem, but 

they are not in session. So I think that by working together, and 

my question would be to the FAA, what can we do as a committee 

to help improve the application review process on the length of 

time afforded so that you can review? Or do you have the necessary 

authority to get more time to thoroughly review applications to protect military readiness? I mean, do you think that the 30 days that 

you have gives you ample time to do that? Maybe by putting the 

resources together—but this is going to become, believe me, a very 

serious problem, because we haven’t touched yet on solar panels. 

And that is going to become another issue as well. 

And I know, because we have the wind in South Texas, and we 

have the sunshine, and today a hurricane, but investors are wanting to come in and invest on another system, the solar system. But 

can you all work and maybe give us something in 30 days, and if 

it is a little more complicated, maybe 60 days? Do you think we can 

work together on that? 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. Sir, your guidance and your leadership to us is 

probably sufficient. We will certainly take this under consideration. 

It will take formal rulemaking, which, as you well know, takes a 

long time. But what we can do is put on our website and work with 

the proponents of the Wind Energy Association and the individuals 

who wish to bring in both solar energy and wind turbines, to ask 

them voluntarily to come to us as early as possible. We will also 

work with our partners in government to bring forth a proposal for 

the possibility of the ability to work with proponents in confidence 

to protect their ability to not communicate exactly where they want 

to put the wind farms or the solar energy projects to other proponents, but to work with us so that we can better analyze at a 

much earlier stage, as you have encouraged us to do, to determine 

what the impact on national readiness for defense would be. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Madam Secretary Robyn, what can we do to help you? 

Because we are all in the same boat. We want to work with you 

and each member of the panel this morning. What can we do to 

help you? 

Dr. ROBYN. I think, we are—to complement the FAA process, we 

are, as I described, standing up a clearinghouse, a central point of 

contact, a 1–800 Butterball Turkey number, if you will, something 
31 

that makes it easy for developers to come to us early on a voluntary basis. 

We do feel we need, we think the FAA probably needs the formal 

explicit authority to take into account training and test—our training and test missions. We are not—it is not certain that their current authority includes that. 

Nancy mentioned a rulemaking, but some statutory guidance, 

statutory language might help. That is something that this interagency group, led by the National Security Council, is very focused 

on. It is probably—it is one of the single biggest issues. So, certainly at a minimum, within 30 days let you know where that process stands. I think that is the most concrete—that, together with 

this clearinghouse. 

But with respect to training routes in particular, this—give you 

a status report on our thinking on the need for statutory authority. 

We are—it may make sense to try to use the defense bill as a way 

to get that authority if the other relevant committees were willing 

to do that. 

Mr. ORTIZ. And I can assure you that members of this committee 

and the staff will work with you. As you can see, this is the first 

time we had a hearing such as this, and it has been very interesting. I think I have learned a lot. 

And I am going to ask, Mr. Webster, is industry prepared to provide proposals earlier, Mr. Webster? 

Mr. WEBSTER. AWEA and its stakeholders have been working intimately with the public agencies to inform them as to where our 

abilities are present to be as transparent as possible, with the caveat that the industry is a highly competitive industry and, therefore, is not necessarily in unison all the time with each other. It 

is fair to say that this issue has become of prominent importance 

because of the frequency and intensity of the conflagrations that 

have occurred; Shepherds Flat being the most recent but not the 

only one that has reached national prominence. 

The reality is that wind energy is a component to the national 

security of this country. It is a component of stabilization of a 

quickly destabilizing world that we are living in. Fossil fuel has become a major point of conflict that we are constantly and increasingly deploying resources to deal with, either directly or indirectly. 

And wind energy and solar energy and other renewables are a solution, not just for the United States, but for the world. Someone has 

to be the leader in that. The United States has a history of being 

a leader in such initiatives, and we will continue to do so. 

To this particular point, the solutions that can be brought to bear 

today with the political and financial willpower to solve the wind 

industry’s issues with respect to radars would also increase the effectiveness and the efficiency of those same radars to accomplish 

their mission with or without a wind turbine being impacted by it. 

To that end, the economic forces that the industry can bring to 

bear on this issue have been and will continue to be offered to the 

public agencies to resolve this issue, both in a policy framework as 

well as a technological solutions framework. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you so much. 

You know, in the beginning, when we saw the first windmills, 

the concern was for wildlife. Do you remember that? The birds. 
32 

Now, it has moved to another level, readiness. And we are very 

concerned. 

But let me thank each panel member for giving us some great 

insight, that input that you have given us today. And you and us 

are going to work together because this is an urgent matter that 

we need to address. And thank you so much. 

And there being no further questions, this hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

JUNE 29, 2010 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

JUNE 29, 2010 

(37) 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

JUNE 29, 2010 

(71) 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

JUNE 29, 2010 

(75) 

1 ‘‘More Fight-Less Fuel,’’ Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on DoD Energy 

Strategy, February 2008. 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. ORTIZ 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. Although the FAA does not gather or track information on proximity of wind farms to military bases or military installations, we have conducted 

a review of our obstruction evaluation automated system records. This review indicates that during the last 5-year period, 19,972 determined wind turbine/met tower 

proposals were located within a 5-nautical mile radius of long-range radars, military 

and joint use airports, military facilities and military radars, and/or have exceeded 

the parameters of the Military Conflicts program. The Department of Defense sets 

up its own parameters on which information in our automated system it wishes to 

receive, and is also solely in control of the notifications it requires and receives. [See 

page 12.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. FORBES 

Mr. WEBSTER. According to the AWEA 2nd Quarter 2010 market report (http:// 

www.awea.org/publications/reports/2Q10.pdf), over 33,700 wind turbines were installed in the U.S. as of June 2010. With respect to the second part of the question, 

the number of additional wind turbines over the next five years is impossible to predict. The number will depend greatly on market demand and government policy. 

Over just the last few years, installations have varied from 2,385 megawatts in 

2005, to 10,000 megawatts in 2009. Installations in 2010 are expected to be below 

the 2009 numbers. Therefore, I can only give a wide range of possible installations 

over the next five years. This is merely illustrative and is not a prediction: the U.S. 

could install anywhere from 3,000 to 6,000 additional turbines per year. Though, it 

could be less or maybe more depending on market demand and turbine size. [See 

page 14.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. CONAWAY 

General STUTZRIEM. The Department’s investment in renewable and other alternative energy sources is the second part of a twofold strategy. The first part is reducing the demand for traditional energy through conservation and energy efficiency; investments that curb demand are the most cost-effective way to improve an 

installation’s energy profile. The second part—investments designed to expand the 

supply of renewable energy sources on base—is also important. Although the payback period is significantly longer than that for energy efficiency projects, renewable 

energy is key to energy security. When combined with microgrid technology and energy efficiency investments that significantly reduce demand, distributed renewable 

energy sources will allow installations to carry out mission-critical activities and potentially serve as mini-islands that can support restoration of the grid in the event 

of disruption. 

A report of the Defense Science Board highlighted the importance of energy security to the Department. According to the report, DoD’s reliance on a fragile commercial grid to deliver electricity to its installations places the continuity of critical missions at serious and growing risk.1 Most installations lack the ability to manage 

their demand for and supply of electrical power and are thus vulnerable to intermittent and/or prolonged power disruption due to natural disasters, cyberattacks, and 

sheer overload of the grid. 

The changing role of the military’s fixed installations accentuates this concern. Although in the past these installations functioned largely to train and deploy our 

combat forces, increasingly they have a more direct link to combat operations, by 

providing ‘‘reachback’’ support for those operations. For example, we operate Predator drones in Afghanistan from a facility in Nevada and analyze battlefield intelligence at data centers in the United States. Our installations are also becoming 

more important as a staging platform for homeland defense missions. This means 
76 

that power failure at a military base here at home could threaten our operations 

abroad or harm our homeland defense capability. 

Notwithstanding the importance of energy security and the relationship between 

energy security and renewable energy, the DoD in fact spends less per MBTU for 

renewable energy than for electricity from the grid. In 2009, the Department spent 

a total of $3,784 million to buy 220.6 trillion BTUs of facility energy. This averages 

to $17.15 per MBTU. In the same year, the Department spent $62.9 million to buy 

3,726 billion BTUs of renewable energy, which averages to $16.89 per MBTU. 

The figures above for renewable energy do not include production from Government-owned sources of renewable energy, nor do they include production of geothermal energy at China Lake. 

The 270 megawatt geothermal plant at China Lake is one example of a renewable 

energy project that has significantly reduced the Department’s facility energy costs. 

The plant is operated by a private firm under a lease that provides funding back 

to the Navy, which is used to purchase additional power and to invest in other energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. Another example of a highly advantageous renewable energy project is the 14 megawatt photovoltaic plant at Nellis 

AFB. The Nellis solar array was installed by a private company; under the terms 

of the agreement with the company, DoD purchases power from the plant at a steep 

discount as compared to the prevailing energy rate ($22/MWH compared to prevailing $78/MWH). [See page 20.] 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

JUNE 29, 2010 

(79) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ORTIZ 

Mr. ORTIZ. Is the Department willing to accept decreased military readiness to 

support national energy initiatives? 

Dr. ROBYN. No—but it doesn’t have to. According to the data we’ve collected to 

date—primarily centered on the southwestern US—the Department has raised no 

objection to more than 93% of proposed projects. 

Mr. ORTIZ. In Shepherds Flat, Oregon, the FAA, acting in response to DOD’s concerns, issued a proposed notice of hazard with regard to the impact to an air defense 

radar at Fossil, Oregon. After public concerns were considered, the FAA reversed 

the warning and allowed the wind farm development to continue. What is the impact to military readiness and operations as a result of the wind farm development 

at Shepherds Flat? What are the lessons learned from the Shepherds Flat wind 

farm project in the review of future wind farm proposals? 

Dr. ROBYN. After extensive study, we concluded that the risks presented by Shepherds Flat would not be as severe as initially thought. We’ve looked at all the 

known projects that could impact the Fossil radar and have concluded those risks 

are manageable—but we must review future development case-by-case to ensure we 

can continue to manage the operational risk. The major lesson learned is that the 

current regulatory and permitting process for wind farms was not designed with 

homeland defense or military testing and training in mind; we must move to an 

early voluntary notification process so the Department can work with developers 

and localities to find win-win siting and technical solutions. 

Mr. ORTIZ. In response to a wind farm application, how is the Department currently organized to provide timely feedback to the FAA? Which organizations review 

the applications for both readiness and operational equities? Will the Department 

take any steps to reorganize to better review and expedite applications to provide 

timely feedback to the FAA? 

Dr. ROBYN. Until recently, the process was ad hoc, involving case-by-case coordination among the Offices of the Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense for Installations and Environment and for Readiness, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Homeland Defense, the Director of Test and Evaluation, the Joint Staff, the Service 

Secretariats, and the Service Staffs. To streamline and institutionalize the process— 

and to facilitate timely communication with the FAA, other governmental entities, 

and industry—we are creating an Energy Siting Clearinghouse to manage the review process and serve as a ‘‘one-stop shop’’ for all inquiries and staff actions regarding utility-scale generation and transmission projects. I hired the director on 

July 26, and in mid-September we executed contracts to hire staff, procure IT support, and draft the departmental instruction that will govern clearinghouse processes. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Considering the FAA elects not to implement their statutory review 

authority to protect military training routes, what is the Department’s response to 

an obstruction in a military training route corridor? Does the Department need additional authority to protect military training routes or is a degradation in these 

military training routes an acceptable outcome to meet a national energy strategy? 

Dr. ROBYN. The Department is concerned that the statutory and regulatory language underlying the FAA’s authorities may not be sufficiently broad or explicit to 

handle concerns related to our test and training mission; the scope of the OE/AAA 

process may need to be expanded to address those concerns. To explore that issue, 

we’re working with an NSC-led interagency group that includes all parties responsible for safety and security of our air domain. We don’t want to rely solely on the 

FAA, however, nor does the Department want to become a regulator. Instead, we 

are reaching out to local, regional, and industry officials and are working to institutionalize an early voluntary consultation process. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Are there radar improvements or other technological advancements 

that can mitigate the impacts of wind farm development? What are the costs of such 

systems? If the Department determines that an upgrade to a particular radar network is necessary to mitigate a wind farm development proposal, should the Department accelerate the upgrades of certain older radars that are proximate to potential 

wind farm developments on a priority basis, or should the wind farm industry be 
80 

responsible for including the costs associated with radar upgrades as an element of 

the overall wind farm project? 

Dr. ROBYN. There are a number of technological solutions that promise to mitigate 

radar interference, and we’re working with the FAA, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy to determine the costs and relative benefits of various options. First, MIT Lincoln Laboratory identified near-term fixes for surveillance radars, including a new processor 

with an ‘‘adaptive clutter map’’ to edit out false returns. Second, we’re looking at 

other existing technology, such as ‘‘gap-filler’’ radars and replacement radars like 

the TPS–77. Finally, we are increasing the level of R&D in this area and supporting 

an OSTP-led task force that seeks to baseline and harmonize the efforts of various 

agencies on wind turbine-radar interference. DoD will schedule improvements based 

on operational requirements, which are affected by existing and planned wind 

farms. However, given the long lead times associated with programming and budgeting, industry may choose to cost-share to accelerate radar upgrades or replacements. 

Mr. ORTIZ. What level of research and development is the Department investing 

to reduce conflict with wind farm development? How much money is being spent in 

FY10 and FY11? 

Dr. ROBYN. Over the last two years, the Department has spent several million dollars. As this issue has risen, we have worked to increase the Department’s R&D 

spending in FYs 11 and 12, and we are working on a research and development plan 

with our interagency partners in an Office of Science and Technology Policy-led task 

force. The task force’s initial report is due in December 2010. 

Mr. ORTIZ. What guidance has the DOD given installation commanders regarding 

steps required to properly evaluate a wind farm application and what elements 

would be considered an obstruction? 

Dr. ROBYN. In June 2010, the Air Force—as force provider for the majority of the 

homeland surveillance mission—issued interim guidance from the Assistant Secretary for Installations, Environment, and Logistics and the Deputy Chief of Staff 

for Operations, Plans, and Requirements to make installation commanders aware of 

the breadth of the issue and to refer them to its A3 Ranges and Airspace office for 

assistance. Simultaneously, DoD has notified all its Regional Environmental Coordinators, who represent installation commanders to state and regional planners and 

have been working renewable energy issues for the last two to four years, to immediately notify the new Energy Siting Clearinghouse of wind farm plans and applications. Those coordinators will meet in the Pentagon in late October to formalize that 

process. 

Mr. ORTIZ. How does the proliferation of wind farms in and around the United 

States impact your air sovereignty mission? And, what is NORAD’s strategy for 

adapting to the impacts of wind farms? 

General STUTZRIEM. The air sovereignty/air control and air warning missions require NORAD to detect, identify, monitor, and if appropriate, intercept and engage 

potentially hostile aircraft. Wind farms within line-of-sight of radars make it more 

difficult to detect, identify, and monitor non-cooperative aircraft. The primary impacts to the radar vary from an increase in screening from the wind turbines themselves (towers, nacelles and blades) to increased false targets generated by the wind 

turbine blades’ movement (the Doppler motion component), as well as reduced radar 

sensitivity where the severity depends upon the type of radar in question and the 

amount of radar clutter encountered. Each of these very complex impacts cumulatively affects the radar’s overall picture. This picture is what is used to determine 

the ‘‘tracks’’ that allow us to detect, identify, track, intercept and defend North 

American airspace. Some specific operational impacts include: 

—Reduced ability to detect/monitor ‘‘tracks’’—both friendly or with hostile intent 

—Reduced reaction times—diminished detection capability results in earlier decision points for senior leaders and a high potential for zero possibility of affecting an outcome 

—Negation of response options—lack of detection capability results in decreased 

air safety capability and a reduced capability to affect air defense intercepts 

Our strategy is to maintain an acceptable level of air domain awareness by: 

—Better understanding the true impact of wind farms on radars 

—Developing an overall depiction of the impact of existing, developing, planned 

and potential wind farm air domain awareness 

—Working with the FAA to review wind farm project submissions. During the review process, the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron analyzes whether the new 

wind turbines will interfere with the local air surveillance radars. If the wind 
81 

farm project poses a significant degradation to the radar, mitigation recommendations are made to the builder 

—Weighing the risk of individual projects within the context of location and magnitude of the risk and making appropriate recommendations 

—Working with the technical community to identify and assess potential mitigation, and with OSD, the Joint Staff and other partners to gain recourses for required mitigation 

For years, NORAD and USNORTHCOM have worked to maintain wide area surveillance capabilities and improve them to meet future threats. We fully support 

OSD and interagency efforts to improve the coordination process for new wind energy development, as well as the development of new technologies to help us better 

define the operational impacts of wind turbines on our radar systems. 

Mr. ORTIZ. In your estimate, should the Department accept a reduction in military 

readiness to obtain energy production goals? Should the Department accept any risk 

in the air defense mission? How should the Department balance these potentially 

diverging goals? 

General STUTZRIEM. A complete avoidance of risk in any DOD mission, including 

air defense, is not feasible from either a cost or technical perspective. Moreover, risk 

discussions largely fall in relative terms—a large decrease in overall national security risk due to greater energy independence might justify a very small increase in 

air defense risk against a limited threat. Thus, it is important to develop a clear 

understanding of the impact of and potential mitigations for wind energy projects, 

and we will be vigilant in identifying projects we assess as carrying unacceptable 

risk. 

We believe it is possible to obtain alternative energy sources while simultaneously 

conducting our national air defense mission. To do so, multi-department cooperation 

is required to pool our resources to develop the policy and future surveillance infrastructure that will provide national security and renewable energy at the same 

time. We should also continue to explore technical solutions to mitigate wind turbine effects on our current radars. 

Mr. ORTIZ. In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, the Commander of Northern Command has warned this committee of the potential hazards 

associated with wind farms and other types of obstructions. If current rates of windfarm development are sustained for the next five years, what is your assessment 

of the impact of these developments on national defense? 

General STUTZRIEM. The current pace of wind farm development increases the potential that radar signals vital to our ability to protect the national airspace will 

be obstructed. Currently, nearly half of our 200 radars are impacted to some degree 

by wind turbines and 13 experience moderate or significant degradation substantial 

enough for 84 RADES to recommend that NORAD and USNORTHCOM perform a 

more detailed operational analysis. This analysis could result in a request for a determination of hazard through the Federal Aviation Administration’s Obstruction 

Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis Review Process. The actual impact to national 

defense of these radars is dependent upon the location of each radar and support 

that it provides. 

Mr. ORTIZ. What, if any, is the most reasonable method to mitigate wind farms 

and other similar encroachments? 

General STUTZRIEM. DOD’s Report to Congress in 2006 identified the best approach as ‘‘avoid locating the wind turbines in radar line of sight of such radars. 

These mitigations may be achieved by distance, terrain masking or terrain relief 

and requires a case-by-case analysis.’’ In addition, based on recent reporting from 

the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Lincoln Laboratory, there are also technical modifications that can mitigate wind farm effects on our radar infrastructure. 

These include re-optimization of radar settings, modifications to the auxiliary processor with detection editing and adaptive clutter map, and installation of new transmitters/receivers with coherent processing. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Considering the apparent indecision that a developer has with making 

permit applications, would the FAA consider moving the obstruction application 

deadline from 30 days before construction to possibly one year? This could allow the 

developer some certitude with the ordering of capital equipment. 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. The FAA is considering separate regulatory guidelines for wind 

turbine development with notice requirements of 8 months to 1 year before construction. If we pursue regulatory action, it will take a minimum of three years to complete. 

We note, however, that developers frequently wait until the very end of their 

multiyear process before they acquire land rights or leases, and, therefore, do not 

know the exact coordinates or layout of their wind farm. Even if the FAA requires 
82 

notice 1 year in advance, the developer may not be able to provide specific information to allow for an aeronautical study. 

Mr. ORTIZ. How successful is the FAA in managing the deluge of wind turbine 

applications? 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. The FAA believes that it has been successful in managing wind 

turbine applications. We have increased staffing to review the applications, and we 

work routinely with our partner agencies, such as the DOD and DHS, as well as 

with the developers, to reach compromises that do not interfere with aviation safety. 

However, the FAA recognizes there is always room for improvement and seeks to 

evolve our processes to better communicate and coordinate between our agency and 

other entities. 

Mr. ORTIZ. In the FAA’s assessment, how successful is the FAA in coordinating 

with the DOD? What is the current process that FAA pursues to seek DOD comment? How successful is the DOD in providing timely feedback? Considering the 

classified nature of certain DOD missions, how does the nature of these classified 

missions impact the FAA’s ability to evaluate obstructions for their impact to the 

navigable airspace? 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. The FAA is very successful in coordinating with the DOD. We 

have an automated system and each notification goes directly to the DOD for evaluation. The DOD sets up its parameters within the obstruction evaluation Web site, 

and controls who reviews and evaluates proposed construction. Current guidelines 

provide 2 weeks for review and response. However, extension requests are frequent, 

and response times can exceed 30 days for wind turbine evaluations that affect longrange radars. The FAA relies on evaluation and information provided by the DOD. 

Information that is considered classified is not shared with the FAA. The FAA bases 

its evaluation on all the available information and works with the DOD to resolve 

any gaps in information to the extent possible. 

Mr. ORTIZ. In practice, should the DOD have regulatory authority to better manage their concerns and potential impacts to military readiness, in addition to FAA’s 

regulatory authority? Why or why not? 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. The FAA does not believe the DOD needs to have a separate 

regulatory authority to better manage its concerns and impacts to military readiness. A division of the regulatory authority would be unwieldy and create additional 

and unforeseen difficulties in managing and coordinating responses to the same proposals. The current process is able to account for both the FAA’s and the DOD’s separate missions, and continue to evolve our working relationships to improve the 

process when needed. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Would the FAA consider alternative solutions such as a radar relay 

station in an additional location, or additional radar supplements on the far side 

of an offshore wind farm, to mitigate these issues? 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. The FAA is not responsible for procurement of air defense radar 

systems. This responsibility was transferred to the DOD and DHS in 2003 when the 

Long-Range Radar Joint Program Office between the DOD and DHS was established. 

Mr. ORTIZ. During the early stages of wind turbine/wind farm development, does 

the developer consider or take into account homeland defense and homeland security aspects that may become an issue in the development process? Or do they solely 

rely on the DOD process to advise them of a national security impact that may 

occur with this project? 

Mr. WEBSTER. Wind energy developers have to take many factors into account 

when analyzing the viability of a given site, including (not necessarily in this order): 

(1) the wind resource; 

(2) being able to lease the land; 

(3) physical accessibility of the site; 

(4) land use compatibility; 

(5) environmental issues, including potential wildlife impacts; 

(6) access to transmission; 

(7) other resource conflicts, including airspace and radar, cultural resources etc.; 

and 

(8) finding a buyer for the power. 

Any one of these issues can kill a project. Perhaps as few as one out of 10 sites 

a company considers developing will ultimately end up with turbines being constructed. 

Developers generally do talk to local base commanders either directly or through 

specialized consultants, though I am sure there are exceptions, and most also consult DOD’s online tool via the FAA Web site to find out if there are potential conflicts with DOD activities. 
83 

However, to date, the quality of the engagement varies by base. Some bases are 

open to discussions, including discussions of possible mitigation, and others are not. 

Some bases will provide an explanation of their concerns, which is a precursor to 

being able to discuss mitigation, and some will not. For example, Iberdrola Renewables consulted with the Kingsville Navy Air Station several years prior to constructing our Penescal Wind Project, and altered the project’s layout to accommodate a military training route managed by the base. 

Additionally, there is currently no DOD process, per se. Each developer is essentially attempting to determine whether there is an impact or not through various 

means such as those described above, as well as through consultation with contractors who have varying degrees of expertise in such matters. 

In addition, the quality of information fed into the online tool varies. It is my understanding that the Army and Navy have fed only very limited data, if any, into 

the online tool. If industry is missing two-thirds of the picture, that is a problem. 

Additionally, developers are aware that the online tool has incorrect assumptions 

built in. For example, the assumption on the height of the structure is too conservative. Specifically, the tool assumes a 750′ structure to determine line of sight impact when turbines are approximately 400–450′ in height. 

It would also be helpful for industry to be given access to GIS shape files that 

would provide an additional layer of detail to more fully understand the potential 

impacts of development and to consider mitigation options on the wind farm side. 

Mr. ORTIZ. How does your organization coordinate renewable wind energy concerns on homeland defense requirements? And, do you have any suggestions for balancing wind farm developments with the military readiness and operational impacts 

that have been discussed in today’s hearing? 

Mr. WEBSTER. One of AWEA’s missions is to educate the industry about issues 

of concern and to make sure developers are aware of potential resource conflicts like 

airspace and radar. In a variety of workshop and conference sessions over the last 

several years, AWEA has held discussions on issues related to radar and military 

operations, including having speakers from DOD and other federal agencies. 

AWEA also issued a Siting Handbook in 2008, which is available for free on the 

AWEA Web site to anyone who is interested. The handbook contains information on 

the airspace and radar related reviews that are required for wind energy projects. 

So, while AWEA generally does not get involved in individual project siting, 

AWEA does try to make sure our members have the tools they need to engage agencies and address concerns that may arise. 

With respect to balancing, as I detail in my written testimony and in responses 

to some of these additional questions, the wind industry believes that wind turbines 

can and must co-exist with military operations. And, indeed, they have co-existed 

in the U.S. and around the world for many years. But, to improve the likelihood 

of that continuing into the future, AWEA recommends: 

(1) Developing an improved process for consulting agencies earlier; 

(2) Establishing a proactive plan for upgrading radars, which will not only benefit 

national security, but will also accommodate additional wind energy deployment; and 

(3) Investing in significant research and development to upgrade the surveillance 

technology currently in place, much of which is two decades or more old, as 

well as other impact-reduction opportunities such as stealth blades and radar 

gap filling technology. 

Mr. ORTIZ. What is the industry’s responsibility for upgrading air defense radars 

that are impacted by a proposed wind farm development? 

Mr. WEBSTER. The wind industry is willing to share in the cost of some radar upgrades. However, the details need to be negotiated with the relevant agencies. And, 

they will likely have to be worked out on a case-by-case basis with the wind energy 

developers operating in a given area of concern to DOD. 

Generally, from the industry’s point of view, if DOD is already planning to upgrade a radar for national security reasons, and those changes also happen to benefit a specific wind energy project or projects, it would not be reasonable to require 

the project developer(s) to pay for the entire upgrade. On the other hand, if a radar 

upgrade is largely attributable to wind energy development and the developers are 

the primary beneficiaries of the upgrade, then a case can be made for a larger industry cost share responsibility. 

One example from a different context: the interconnection queue process for energy generation facilities. When a generation facility seeks to interconnect to the 

electric transmission grid, the interconnecting utility determines what upgrades to 

the electrical transmission system are needed, and among those upgrades, the difference between which of these are solely benefitting the generation facility and 
84 

which are ‘network upgrades’ that benefit the whole system. The energy generation 

facility is then assigned the costs attributable solely to their project, and in some 

cases they are also assigned a prorated share of these network upgrades. 

In some cases in the past, individual developers have offered funds to pay for a 

radar upgrade. But, DOD had concerns about whether they could accept resources 

from a private entity for this purpose. This legal authority may need to be clarified. 

Finally, the industry has suggested a proactive effort on the part of the industry 

and the agencies to identify radars of concern that coincide with heavy wind resource areas and to come up with a radar-by-radar upgrade plan. The industry 

stands ready to assist in such an effort. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Would the industry support an earlier review period by FAA, beyond 

the 30-day submission prior to construction, to ensure that the wind farm development has cleared the FAA regulatory review? What would be a better time period 

for the federal agencies to complete their regulatory review? 

Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, the industry supports the ability to engage in voluntary consultations with federal agencies earlier than is required under FAA rules. Ideally, 

we would seek a preliminary analysis, including a discussion of mitigation alternatives. At the end of the process, the agencies would then provide their final input 

on a proposed project via the existing FAA obstruction evaluation process. However, 

the industry strongly recommends that such early discussions remain consultative 

and that they not be used as a regulatory decision point. 

Specific suggestions for areas in which we think the review process could be improved are as follows: 

1. Earlier engagement, including preliminary analysis 

The agencies have tended to shy away from early consultations because the 

developers do not have final turbine locations established until very late in the 

development process and because the agencies are resource constrained with respect to conducting turbine evaluations. The agencies prefer to wait until developers’ plans have been finalized before they process applications. 

However, if the agencies conducted a preliminary analysis, in which the developer submitted as much information as possible about the project, such as 

the acreage of the project, the ‘‘four corners’’ of the project using latitude and 

longitude, the approximate number of turbines, and the approximate turbine 

height, then potential problems could be identified much earlier, and solutions 

discussed. In order to conduct preliminary reviews of this type, the resource 

constraints at the agencies would still need to be addressed. The industry may 

be willing to pay some sort of application fee if that would help alleviate some 

of the resource burden. If the agencies are reviewing upwards of 100,000 individual turbine applications per year an application fee would certainly not seem 

unreasonable to cover costs to increase staff resources. 

2. Include mitigation discussions in the preliminary analysis 

In addition, the industry strongly recommends that mitigation discussions be 

required as a part of any early consultation process 

3. Transparent decision making 

In order for mitigation discussions to be meaningful, however, industry needs 

to know the rationale for the agency concerns. Some DOD officials have alluded 

that a primary reason for opposing a project is not an impact the project itself 

has, but rather the perception that once one project encroaches on an asset of 

concern then controlling that space from further encroachment is made more 

difficult. While this concern is understandable, the result is unsustainable and 

unproductive, and creates an unreasonable threshold when evaluating any one 

project. 

4. Protect wind developers’ proprietary information 

As DOD acknowledged in its written testimony, developers are concerned 

about the protection of proprietary information. This is a critical point given the 

highly competitive nature of the industry. Wind companies are extremely sensitive to the possibility that proprietary development plans could fall into the 

hands of competitors. Even worse, there have been instances where local DOD 

officials have taken information voluntarily provided by a developer in early 

consultations and subsequently used it to oppose the project with local permitting authorities before the consultations had run their course. 

There needs to be protection for confidential business information that is 

shared with DOD and limitations on what DOD can do with such information. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Should the DOD accept a degradation in military readiness to support 

national energy goals relating to wind development? 

Mr. WEBSTER. The wind industry respectfully submits that this is a false choice. 

It is our position that there is no need for a trade-off between military readiness 
85 

and deploying wind energy, which itself has national security benefits. To the extent 

there are such concerns today, it is because insufficient resources have been invested in validating the technical mitigation options that would otherwise be available. The appendices in my written testimony detail several of these options that, 

once fully proven effective, should eliminate any concerns about trade-offs. 

Mr. ORTIZ. What research and development is industry providing to support efforts to reduce military readiness conflicts? 

Mr. WEBSTER. AWEA itself is not providing financial resources related to R&D, 

but individual companies are doing so. In addition, AWEA is supporting efforts in 

other ways. 

AWEA has worked with a radar expert to prepare a priority list of R&D the industry would like to see done on a radar-by-radar basis. This list was included as 

an appendix to my written testimony. The list grew out of a meeting the industry 

led with the FAA, DOD, DHS, and NOAA on the sidelines of an FAA conference 

in Las Vegas in September 2008. At that meeting, industry suggested, and all parties agreed, that it would be useful to come up with a joint list of R&D, prioritize 

the list in a way that both industry and agencies agreed with, attach projected dollars needed for each item, and then figure out who would do the research and how 

it would be paid for. 

Industry is willing to share some of the costs associated with R&D, but we would 

like the mechanism and amount to be negotiated with the agencies based on a jointly developed R&D plan. 

In addition, several AWEA members are engaging in research of their own, including wind turbine manufacturers and radar companies. As one example, Vestas 

has been testing stealth blade technology. And, enXco and NextEra Energy Resources signed a cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) with 

the U.S. military to study the impact of wind energy development on Travis Air 

Force Base. Iberdrola Renewables has provided access to operating projects for the 

Department of Energy’s R&D efforts on gap filling radar technology testing. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. NYE 

Mr. NYE. Can you discuss any radar systems or upgrades to existing systems you 

are aware of today that could mitigate long range radar surveillance interference 

caused by wind farms across the country and off the coast of southeastern Virginia? 

Dr. ROBYN. There are a number of technological solutions that promise to mitigate 

radar interference, and we’re working with the FAA, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy to determine the costs and relative benefits of various options such as software changes, 

‘‘gap-filler’’ radars, ‘‘in-fill’’ radars, and replacement surveillance radars. 

Mr. NYE. The UK’s MOD recently purchased the TPS 77 radar to address its long 

range radar wind farm interference after significant research and analysis; do you 

feel that such a system would be suitable for addressing current defense concerns 

off the coast of southeastern Virginia? 

Dr. ROBYN. The TPS–77 is one of the options we’re evaluating in conjunction with 

the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy, and the FAA. 

We’ve sent teams to the UK to talk with the MOD, and we’ve had detailed discussions with Lockheed-Martin regarding the TPS–77. After comparing the TPS–77 to 

other mitigation options for wind farm interference, we’ll determine a way ahead. 

Mr. NYE. Will the DOD be willing to consider additional areas off the coast of Virginia for offshore wind development other than those previously identified for the 

Virginia RFI, if they were able to work with the developers on a case-by-case basis? 

Dr. ROBYN. DoD is working with the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement and coastal state agencies on 

the proposed siting of wind turbines on the outer continental shelf. DoD is a member of the Virginia Offshore Wind Task Force, and the Department has assessed and 

identified lease blocks off the coast of Virginia where, given appropriate restrictions, 

wind turbines would be compatible with Defense activities such as testing, training 

and operations. DoD also meets on an ad hoc basis with the Virginia Governor’s 

Senior Advisor on Energy. We will work with these partners to consider any feasible 

proposal for offshore wind. 

Mr. NYE. Some have suggested that the military should ‘‘train how they will 

fight’’—considering that wind farms are popping up all over the world, it is inevitable that the U.S. military will need to know how to maneuver around them. Does 

this enter the DOD’s consideration when looking at potential locations for wind 

farms off the Virginia coast? 
86 

Dr. ROBYN. The military services require realistic training scenarios, but this does 

not mean that every condition that may be encountered in battle has to be replicated in every training exercise and on every range. It’s essential that our offshore 

ranges remain free of encroachment to allow our forces to train across the full spectrum of air and sea operations. Large areas of sea and air space are required to 

provide safety buffers and maneuver space for at-sea training. For example, we conduct live fire training in areas off the Virginia Capes (VACAPES), and placing wind 

turbines in these live-fire areas would not be compatible with our training activities. 

Additionally, wind turbines sited in our offshore ranges may create electromagnetic 

interference with training and testing activities. Through the Virginia Offshore 

Wind Task Force process we have identified areas where offshore wind can be developed without impacting our training and testing activities. It is true that we will 

have to develop tactics, techniques, and procedures for operations in the vicinity of 

offshore wind turbines, but we must also maintain sufficient unencumbered offshore 

ranges, such as the VACAPES, to accommodate essential training for our naval and 

air forces. 

Mr. NYE. Is the FAA willing to look into new technologies that might be able to 

overcome the concerns that wind turbines might cause interference with radar? 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. Yes, the FAA is investigating technologies that could reduce or 

eliminate the radar interference caused by wind farms. During FY 2010, the FAA 

sponsored a Systems Engineering Trade Study to examine the possible solutions to 

the interference problem. The research project is being conducted by the Georgia Institute of Technology and is nearing completion, with the final report due to the 

FAA by August 30, 2010. The purpose of the trade study was to identify all of the 

possible solutions to the wind farm problem and weigh them against cost, technical 

risk, and time to field. The project brought together technical experts from the U.S. 

Air Force, DHS, and the FAA to provide the technical expertise for the trade study. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. HALVORSON 

Mrs. HALVORSON I wanted to ask about a proposed wind farm in my district in 

Kankakee County, Illinois, near Chicago, called ‘‘K4,’’ that is close to a radar system 

located in Joliet, Illinois. 

K4 is a $2 billion project with 310 proposed wind turbines. The nearby ARSR– 

3 radar is the same as the one near Shepherds Flat. I feel the Shepherds Flat radar 

should not be the only site receiving mitigation work; receiving software upgrades 

and physical improvements. 

My question for Dr. Robyn is: What upgrades can you make to the ARSR–3 radars 

nationwide in order for more wind farms and radars to co-exist? And, if these upgrades are made, what is a realistic timeline for completion? 

Dr. ROBYN. The ARSR–3 radars are part of a nationwide upgrade—a Service Life 

Extension Program—to bring all FPS-series, ARSR–1, ARSR–2, and ARSR–3 systems to a common configuration. According to a study by Lincoln Laboratory, that 

configuration should be able to accept software changes to mitigate wind farm interference, and we’re developing a test plan for the software. We plan to pilot-test the 

hardware-software combination in the next 12–18 months, using the Fossil, OR 

radar as a testbed. Lincoln Lab is currently on track to deliver hardware and software to FAA Oklahoma City for test by the end of January 2011; the lab’s overall 

goal is to have a test system in place at Fossil by April 2011. If the pilot test is 

successful, we can deploy the adaptive clutter map during the Service Life Extension Program; Lincoln Lab has confirmed that the software will be compatible with 

the Joliet radar, and should mitigate wind farm interference from K4. 

Mrs. HALVORSON How up-to-date is DOD’s land cover/terrain modeling data? Is 

DOD looking at areas with the same land cover information as they were in 1990, 

not taking into account any of the new structures that have since been built between radar’s line of sight and existing/proposed wind farm locations? If not, has 

there a reason prohibiting DOD from obtaining newer or more up-to-date land cover/ 

terrain modeling data? 

If you start using data from 2000 or later instead, do you think more wind 

projects would gain approval? 

Dr. ROBYN. DOD has the most current terrain data available, and we’re currently 

double-checking to ensure our wind farm impact modeling uses the most current 

data; we expect to have the re-look complete by the end of October, 2010. However, 

because radar interference is caused by complex factors such as the Doppler effect, 

we don’t expect post-1990 land cover information to significantly change our assessment process. 
87 

Mrs. HALVORSON In regards to the Shepherds Flat wind farm in Oregon, DOD 

originally issued a ‘‘Notice of Presumed Hazard’’ in March. When DOD eventually 

withdrew its objections in to the Shepherds Flat project in late April, a DOD spokesperson said that the impact of the project to the Fossil ARSR–3 radar was not as 

great as once thought. 

Is it possible for this scenario to be the case again for other projects elsewhere? 

Can you provide detail as to what information was available in regards to how this 

particular wind farm was originally thought to be hazardous, and what information 

later came to light that led DOD to retract their objections? 

Dr. ROBYN. As we develop more robust modeling and assessment tools—something 

we’re doing internally and in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy, the FAA, and the Office of Science and Technology 

Policy—our analysis will become more refined and our final assessments may therefore change. As we closely examined the project in April, we concluded that the risks 

presented by Shepherds Flat would not be as severe as initially thought, and extensive study by MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory and a number of DoD entities confirmed 

that conclusion. Furthermore, we were able to apply the Lincoln Lab results to eight 

additional wind farm applications in Oregon and Washington, and those wind farms 

can now receive FAA approval. We have already provided briefings on the Lincoln 

Lab study to various Members of Congress and staff members, and would gladly 

provide you with the same. 

Mrs. HALVORSON More broadly, with the President’s commitment to renewable energy and growing number of wind farm project proposals nationwide, what is the 

department’s long term strategy for co-existence between the nation’s national security and renewable energy needs? 

Dr. ROBYN. In my June testimony, I stated that first, the federal government 

needed to improve the process for reviewing renewable energy projects; second, the 

key federal agencies needed to realign their R&D priorities to give greater attention 

to the issue; and third, those agencies needed to look at the plan for upgrading the 

current surveillance radars. 

Addressing the first point, the Department is standing up an office—an Energy 

Siting Clearinghouse—specifically to address the balance between military readiness 

(which includes operations, testing, and training) and energy independence, which 

are both important facets of national security. The Clearinghouse will coordinate 

among the Offices of the Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense for Installations and 

Environment and for Readiness, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland 

Defense, the Director of Test and Evaluation, the Joint Staff, the Service Secretariats, and the Service Staffs, and will serve as a ‘‘one-stop shop’’ for all inquiries and 

staff actions regarding utility-scale generation and transmission projects. I hired the 

director on July 26, and in mid-September we executed contracts to hire staff, procure IT support, and facilitate timely communication with the FAA, other governmental entities, and industry. 

Regarding R&D priorities, we’re participating in an OSTP-led task force that’s examining the current state of play across the interagency. Its preliminary report— 

a five-page outline of current efforts—is due in December 2010, and will inform our 

future R&D efforts. Finally, we’re working with DHS on the upgrade plan. The first 

step will be to pilot-test Lincoln Laboratory’s recommended mitigation measures 

over the next 12–18 months, using the Fossil, Oregon radar as our ‘‘testbed’’ (this 

improvement would not otherwise occur until 2014–2015, as part of the scheduled 

CARSR upgrade of the Fossil radar). Lincoln Lab is currently on track to deliver 

hardware and software to FAA Oklahoma City for test by the end of January 2011; 

the lab’s overall goal is to have a test system in place at Fossil by April 2011. 

Mrs. HALVORSON. Is there a possibility that DOD might be overestimating the capability of its ARSR–3 radar in its analysis of wind farm projects? If so, what efforts 

might be undertaken to compensate for these misgivings? 

Dr. ROBYN. The ARSR–3 has been in service since the 1970s, and its capabilities 

are well understood. Our current efforts, in conjunction with those of our interagency partners, are focused on developing modeling tools for wind farm impacts 

and assessing a number of technological options for mitigating those impacts. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BLUMENAUER 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Wind energy projects not only supplement a growing demand 

for clean power, they also contribute billions of dollars to the tax base of rural counties in Oregon, create hundreds of jobs for local businesses, and generate income for 

landowners that often is critical to keeping their family farms alive. Unfortunately, 
88 

as demand for wind power continues to grow and more projects spring up around 

the country, conflicts have started to occur. 

Earlier this year, the Department of Defense concerns led to the delay of two wind 

projects in my state due to issues relating to a radar in Fossil, Oregon. These two 

projects were weeks away from commencing construction and developers had already invested a great deal of funding in them when the Department raised these 

concerns. The Department’s initial suggested mitigation proposal was for the two 

developers to move all of their turbines some distance away. This infeasible approach would have terminated the projects and resulted in devastating economic 

losses to our local communities. I was pleased to see that the Department allowed 

the projects (Caithness’ Shepherds Flat and Iberdrola Renewables’ Leaning Juniper 

II wind farms, both in Gilliam County) to proceed this spring. 

Already there are several hundred additional megawatts of wind power planned 

to start construction before the end of 2010 in the same area of Oregon that has 

proximity to the Fossil radar. These projects must stay on deadline for eligibility 

in a grant program established by the ARRA. However, I understand that one of 

the projects slated to begin construction at the end of this year is now being held 

up for the very same concerns Defense Department originally raised when it opposed the Shepherds Flat and Leaning Juniper II projects. In particular, the developer of a nearby project (Iberdrola Renewables’ Montague project) is being told that 

the only acceptable mitigation is to move all the turbines. 

While I recognize and understand the importance of ensuring that military operations are not compromised, I believe we must find a way for the wind industry and 

the military to co-exist. In your testimony, you discussed the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory study that identified and evaluated options 

for mitigating the impact of wind turbines on the QVN radar in Fossil, Oregon. This 

study helped increase the Department’s comfort level with the Shepherd’s Flat 

project and others in the area. Can the techniques recommended by the Lincoln Lab 

study also be used to mitigate the impact of the Montague project? If not, please 

describe the Department’s justification for holding up these additional turbines and 

provide a timeline for addressing the situation. Please also provide my office with 

a full copy of the Lincoln Lab study. 

Dr. ROBYN. At my request, Lincoln Lab analyzed the proposed Montague project 

using the same data/approach it used for Shepherds Flat (the two sites are within 

a mile of one another). The results were the same, and I informed your office of our 

recent decision to green-light Montague, five additional sites in Oregon, and two in 

Washington. The key Lincoln Lab recommendation (Option 2) calls for adding an 

auxiliary processor with an adaptive clutter map. As I said in my oral statement 

on June 29, we hope to do this on a pilot basis over the next 12–18 months, using 

the Fossil, Oregon radar as our ‘‘testbed’’ (this improvement would not otherwise 

occur until 2014–2015, as part of the scheduled CARSR upgrade of the Fossil radar). 

Lincoln Lab is currently on track to deliver hardware and software to FAA Oklahoma City for test by the end of January 2011; the lab’s overall goal is to have a 

test system in place at Fossil by April 2011. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. The Defense Department has acknowledged the national security and strategic challenges associated with global warming and our dependence on 

fossil fuels. I have been impressed by the aggressive actions the Department is undertaking to reduce its own energy use and explore the use of renewable energy. 

It would seem that it is in the Department’s interest to facilitate development of 

the nation’s wind resources. Since wind-radar conflicts appear to be a growing problem, I am pleased that the Department is taking steps to minimize these conflicts, 

including altering and upgrading existing radars. I understand that funding may be 

a hurdle in completing these upgrades. Is there a mechanism for a wind developer 

to contribute funds to the upgrading or relocation of a radar if it will reduce or 

eliminate wind turbine-radar conflicts? If not, does the Department need statutory 

authority to allow contributions from project developers? 

Dr. ROBYN. The Department is not certain it has clear legal authority to accept 

such contributions; we’ve been working with professional staff and NGOs to develop 

language that would clearly grant that authority. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I understand that the FAA currently requires wind project developers to file separate applications for each turbine proposed to be included in a 

project. I’m also told that the FAA discourages developers from submitting applications until the developer has made a final decision as to the exact location of each 

turbine. If true, this approach seems not only burdensome for the FAA and project 

developers, but it doesn’t give developers and the government enough lead-time to 

mitigate late-breaking concerns that are raised by the FAA or DOD. One way to 

provide flexibility and reduce the burdensome nature of processing applications for 

all parties involved may be for the FAA to accept one application per wind project 
89 

with an estimate as to the approximate location, number, and height of all turbines. 

Is this something that the FAA has considered? Would making this change in the 

application process require a change in statute? 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. An aeronautical study looks at the exact coordinates and height 

of the proposed structure and determines if there are any impacts to radar cells. 

If the locations and height of the structure are changed, the impact could be more 

severe and must be analyzed again. If estimates were provided, the FAA and the 

DOD would not have exact data to perform a comprehensive analysis. Some turbines in an area may be acceptable and others may not because of the number of 

radar cells that may be affected. At present, the FAA needs to study each individual 

turbine and not proposed areas. In addition, the DOD cannot study geographic areas 

and must know exact locations to determine impacts to radar. 

A change of this nature would require a regulatory change, as the current regulations require each structure to be filed separately with the FAA. A regulatory 

change would require a minimum of three years to complete. 

Æ