U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

80–856 PDF 2013

THE EMP THREAT: EXAMINING THE 

CONSEQUENCES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CYBERSECURITY, 

INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION, 

AND SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 

Serial No. 112–115 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

PETER T. KING, New York, Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

ROBERT L. TURNER, New York 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, New York 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RON BARBER, Arizona 

MICHAEL J. RUSSELL, Staff Director/Chief Counsel 

KERRY ANN WATKINS, Senior Policy Director 

MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

I. LANIER AVANT, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CYBERSECURITY, INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION, 

AND SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California, Chairman 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Vice Chair 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

PETER T. KING, New York (Ex Officio) 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex Officio) 

COLEY C. O’BRIEN, Staff Director 

ZACHARY D. HARRIS, Subcommittee Clerk 

CHRIS SCHEPIS, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Daniel E. Lungren, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 3 

The Honorable Yvette D. Clarke, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, 

Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 5 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland 

Security: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 4 

The Honorable Laura Richardson, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 3 

WITNESSES 

PANEL I 

Hon. Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress From the State of Arizona: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 14 

PANEL II 

Mr. Joseph McClelland, Director, Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 25 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 27 

Mr. Brandon Wales, Director, Homeland Infrastructure Threat and Risk 

Analysis Conter, Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 31 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 33 

Mr. Michael A. Aimone, Director, Business Enterprise Integration Office of 

the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, 

Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Department of Defense: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 36 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 38 

PANEL III 

Dr. Chris Beck, President, Electric Infrastructure Security Council: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 46 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 47 
Page

IV 

FOR THE RECORD 

The Honorable Daniel E. Lungren, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies: 

Statement of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation ................ 6 

Statement of Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL, Analyst, Amateur Radio Operator, Inventor, U.S. Citizen ............................................................................. 10 

APPENDIX 

Questions From Ranking Member Yvette D. Clarke for Joseph McClellan ....... 53 

Questions From Chairman Daniel E. Lungren for Brandon Wales .................... 54 

Questions From Chairman Daniel E. Lungren for Michael A. Aimone .............. 57 

Questions From Ranking Member Yvette D. Clarke for Chris Beck .................. 59 
(1) 

THE EMP THREAT: EXAMINING THE 

CONSEQUENCES 

Wednesday, September 12, 2012 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CYBERSECURITY, INFRASTRUCTURE

PROTECTION, AND SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m., in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Daniel E. Lungren 

[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lungren, Long, Clarke, Richardson, 

and Richmond. 

Mr. LUNGREN. The Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies will come to order. This subcommittee is meeting 

today to examine the electromagnetic pulse threat. 

I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

The Washington, DC area was recently impacted by a deadly, 

fast-moving storm, called a derecho—a word I had never heard of 

before until I found myself in the midst of it—which is one of the 

most destructive and deadly thunderstorm systems in North American history. It resulted in 22 deaths, widespread damage, and millions of power outages from the Midwest to the Middle Atlantic 

States. 

This derecho provided a glimpse of the kind of destruction—just 

a glimpse of the kind of destruction that would result from an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack. Falling trees and the loss of electric power caused death and destruction from Chicago to Virginia. 

Fortunately, this power outage was short-term, which limited the 

human and economic consequences. 

An EMP is a burst of electromagnetic radiation typically generated by a high-altitude nuclear explosion or a non-nuclear device. 

Nuclear weapon EMPs are most effective when detonated high in 

the altitude above the intended target. Depending on the yield of 

the weapon and the height of the explosion, nuclear EMPs can destroy large portions of the U.S. power and communications infrastructure, we are informed. 

Geomagnetic radiation generated by a naturally occurring solar 

storm can also damage the same infrastructure. An EMP attack 

would destroy the electronics and digital circuitry in the area of impact, thereby denying electric power to our homes, businesses, and 

military. 
2 

Our country is dependent on electricity to power our health, financial, transportation, and business systems. If our power system 

was ever lost for an extended period, according to Dr. William Graham, the chairman of the EMP Commission, it would have catastrophic and lethal consequences for our citizens and the economy. 

It would also potentially degrade our military defenses. 

America’s digital dependence grows every year and we rejoice in 

that. But the fact of the matter is that along with that dependence 

comes our EMP vulnerability. What I mean by that is America has 

gotten used to the digital world. It powers and is implicated in so 

much of our everyday life, that if it were in fact attacked in a serious way, it would result in some cases, unforeseen circumstances. 

What I mean by that is most people don’t think about them. 

Computer simulations carried out in March 2010 by Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory demonstrated that an electromagnetic pulse 

from a nuclear device detonated at high altitude or a powerful solar 

storm could destroy or permanently damage major sections of our 

National power grid. According to this Oak Ridge study, the collapse of our power system could impact 130 million Americans, 

could require 4 to 10 years to fully recover, and could impose economic costs between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. 

The National electric grid has almost no backup capability in the 

event of a power collapse from electromagnetic pulses. According to 

FERC testimony presented this morning, existing bulk power reliability standards don’t even address EMP vulnerabilities. In addition, with most of the Nation’s power system under private ownership, who view an EMP event as unlikely or so we are told, there 

is been little preparation for a long-term power collapse. 

Although the impact of an EMP event has been examined, studied, and debated, I am fearful that little progress seems to have 

been made in mitigating the EMP threat. Although the United 

States has conducted numerous exercises to test our readiness 

against natural events such as hurricanes, we have never conducted an exercise to help us prepare for the severe consequences 

of a National power outage from an EMP event. 

I am informed that the Defense Department takes this seriously 

and, therefore, has taken steps to protect many of their critical infrastructure from an EMP event. Either they are wasting a lot of 

money because it is not a serious event—we should stop them from 

doing it and save us billions of dollars—or it is a serious threat to 

our National defense capabilities, and we ought to look in the same 

way in terms of our domestic capabilities. That is, what sustains 

our standard of living, but in some ways, a way of life for the 

American public. 

I don’t want to be an alarmist on this. I want to be a realist on 

this. That is why we have asked a number of people to testify here 

today, so that we can get our hands around this, at least a little 

better than we have to this point. 

In today’s hearing, we will examine the consequences of an EMP 

attack, and examine whether we are adequately protecting our 

power system and other critical infrastructure from this growing 

vulnerability. My thought is that the more information, the greater 

awareness the American people have and that we as leaders have, 
3 

the better we will be prepared to deal with this, as long as we understand what the true consequences are. 

Okay, and so at this point in time, I would recognize my colleague from California for a statement representing her side of the 

aisle. 

[The statement of Chairman Lungren follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL E. LUNGREN

SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 

The Washington DC area was recently impacted by a deadly fast-moving storm 

called a derecho which was one of the most destructive and deadly thunderstorm 

systems in North American history. It resulted in 22 deaths, widespread damage 

and millions of power outages from the Midwest to the Middle Atlantic States. This 

derecho provided a glimpse of the kind of destruction that would result from an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack. Falling trees and the loss of electric power caused 

death and destruction from Chicago to Virginia. Fortunately, this power outage was 

short-term, which limited the human and economic consequences. 

An EMP is a burst of electromagnetic radiation typically generated by a high-altitude nuclear explosion or a non-nuclear device. Nuclear weapon EMPs are most effective when detonated high in the altitude above the intended target. Depending 

on the yield of the weapon and the height of the explosion, nuclear EMPs can destroy large portions of the U.S. power and communications infrastructure. Geomagnetic radiation generated by a naturally occurring solar storm can also damage 

this same infrastructure. 

An EMP attack would destroy the electronics and digital circuitry in the area of 

impact, denying electric power to our homes, businesses, and military. Our country 

is dependent on electricity to power our health, financial, transportation, and business systems. If our power system was ever lost for an extended period, according 

to Dr. William Graham the chairman of the EMP Commission, it would have catastrophic and lethal consequences for our citizens and the economy. It would also degrade our military defenses. America’s digital dependence grows every year and 

along with that dependence, our EMP vulnerability. 

Computer simulations carried out in March 2010 by Oak Ridge National Laboratories demonstrated that an electromagnetic pulse from a nuclear device detonated 

at high attitude or a powerful solar storm could destroy or permanently damage 

major sections of our National power grid. According to this Oak Ridge Study, the 

collapse of our power system could impact 130 million Americans, require 4 to 10 

years to fully recover and impose economic costs of $1 to $2 trillion. 

The National electric grid has almost no backup capability in the event of a power 

collapse from electromagnetic pulses. According to FERC testimony presented this 

morning, existing bulk power reliability standards don’t even address EMP 

vulnerabilities. In addition, with most of the Nation’s power system under private 

ownership, who view an EMP event as unlikely, there has been little preparation 

for a long-term power collapse. Although the impact of an EMP event has been examined, studied, and debated, little progress seems to have been made in mitigating 

the EMP threat. Although the United States has conducted numerous exercises to 

test our readiness against natural events such as hurricanes, we have never conducted an exercise to help us prepare for the severe consequences of a National 

power outage from an EMP event. 

Today’s hearing will examine the consequences of an EMP attack and whether 

we’re adequately protecting our power system and other critical infrastructure from 

this growing vulnerability. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentle lady from New York, Ms. Clarke, 

for her opening statement. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and those before 

us. 

Before I start my prepared comments, I would like to acknowledge the unfortunate passing of Ambassador Stevens of Libya and 

also the several other Foreign Service personnel members who we 

lost. It is times like these on both sides of the aisle where it really 

doesn’t matter that there is an aisle. We are all here to serve this 

country and we are very grateful for our Foreign Service personnel 
4 

who advocate and, in many instances, implement the policies that 

we have brought forward. So I first would like to do that on behalf 

of all of us. 

Mr. Chairman Lungren and Ranking Member Clarke, it is very 

good and I concur with the Chairman of convening this hearing 

today on the threat of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that the potential impacts that it could have on our critical infrastructure, which 

we witnessed, unfortunately, several months ago. 

I look forward to this hearing from our esteemed panel of witnesses, including our colleague Congressman Trent Franks. 

I also welcome back Chris Beck to this hearing before our subcommittee. It has been a pleasure working with you on this subcommittee, and I look forward to your testimony. 

An electronic magnetic pulse can be caused by solar activity, nuclear explosions, lightning, or other sources. The energy from any 

electromagnetic pulse can damage or destroy electronics, such as 

cell phones, car computers, and computer networks. We have found 

that we depend upon cell phones in times of emergencies. It was 

quite alarming that through this latest storm that we had, the tremendous impact that it had on cell phones. We found them not to 

be immune and to be the sole source of our means of communication. 

Our electric grid is also vulnerable to electromagnetic pulse. The 

EMP that knocks out our electric grid would have a catastrophic 

consequence that could result in lives lost, as well as having a devastating impact on our economy. 

While an EMP attack on our electric grid is a high-impact, lowfrequency event, we need to be cognizant of its consequences. We 

can and should take precautions to make our electronics and our 

grid more resilient to an EMP incident. 

The Department of Homeland Security has not identified EMP as 

a high-risk threat, and thus has not included it in its 15 all-hazards National planning scenarios. I am interested to hear from all 

of our witnesses today whether planning and preparing for an EMP 

attack is appropriate. 

I thank the Chairman and Representative Clarke for holding this 

hearing today. I hope that we can learn forward how we might best 

protect our critical infrastructure against natural and terrorist 

threats. 

Finally, I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask 

unanimous consent that the opening statement of the full committee Ranking Member Mr. Thompson be submitted for the 

record. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Without objection. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER BENNIE G. THOMPSON

SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing on electromagnetic pulse 

threats. I want to welcome our colleague, Mr. Franks, who will testify about his bill, 

H.R. 668, the SHIELD Act, which has been referred to the Energy and Commerce 

Committee, and the Budget Committee. 

I also want to welcome all of our witnesses, but especially Dr. Chris Beck, a 

former staffer of this committee. 
5 

Scientists tell us that a geomagnetic solar storm capable of affecting parts of the 

U.S. electrical grid is an event with a low probability of occurrence. However, if such 

a thing were to occur, it could have a serious impact on our electrical transmission 

system. 

Our witnesses today will be able to shed some light on the probability of such an 

event, and the likelihood and severity of the effects on the electric grid and other 

critical infrastructure. 

But in this time of increasingly tight budgets, we must depend on risk analysis 

to guide us in making the tough decisions about our priorities. 

We know the electric grid is vulnerable to disruption. I am very interested in the 

testimony today, to hear about how the Department of Homeland Security assesses 

the risk of geomagnetic storms and other EMP threats. 

I am pleased that the North American Electric Reliability Corporation has submitted a statement for the record. They are the folks on the ground dealing with 

how the electric industry prepares for grid vulnerabilities, and it is important that 

we listen carefully to their findings. 

Thank you again Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you. The next one, I will hold. Thank 

you, sir. I yield back. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I thank the gentlelady. 

Other Members of the committee are reminded that opening 

statements may be submitted for the record. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Clarke follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER YVETTE D. CLARKE

SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 

Good morning and thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing on our efforts to assess the EMP threat. 

I too, also want to welcome our colleague, Mr. Franks, to the subcommittee. He 

has helped write the road map for addressing the EMP threat, and I am glad he 

is here to discuss his bill. 

I also want to welcome our other witnesses today, and especially Dr. Beck, who 

formerly was the staff director for this subcommittee and is an expert on this matter. Welcome back Chris. I look forward to all the testimony. 

I believe it is important that we find the building blocks for a partnership that 

will bring improvements to the security and reliability of one of our most important 

critical infrastructures, the electric grid. 

This hearing will help give this topic the visibility it deserves. We all know the 

grid plays a fundamental role in our lives, our economy, and way of life. We simply 

cannot afford to lose broad sections of the grid for days, or weeks. 

It is our very reliance on this infrastructure that makes it important to anticipate 

the worst, and there are many scenarios that we should concerned about. 

We are still learning about the significant threat that could come in the form of 

a natural or manmade Electromagnetic Pulse, and we have more to learn about the 

effects of an EMP and geomagnetic disturbances to the grid as well. 

Over the past few years, I have followed with interest Secure Grid exercises that 

The National Defense University has held at Fort McNair. These series of tabletop 

exercises on U.S. electrical grid security have focused on the effects of a major geomagnetic storm on the Nation’s electrical infrastructure. 

With the 12-year peak in solar activity approaching in 2012–2013, there is considerable upturn in interest from Government agencies, including the White House and 

Congress, in understanding the potential impacts if a severe geomagnetic disturbance event should occur. 

Although this is a low-probability event, the consequences of an extended and 

widespread power loss across portions of the country would constitute a serious National emergency. 

To me, one of the largest barriers to Government agency disaster response is 

cross-agency coordination and roles of authority—crucial elements made more difficult when discussing the privately-owned National electrical grid. 

Ultimately, the Secure Grid exercises and other policy discussions work to identify 

preparedness gaps in plans to manage the challenges associated with extended 

power outages, and add urgency to existing efforts to identify technology solutions 

to protect the U.S. grid. 
6 

Hearings such as this serve to highlight areas where the United States and its 

Allies are analyzing the risks that a severe geomagnetic disturbance would present, 

and help us look for international approaches to effectively react to these risks. 

While severe solar storms that create geomagnetic disturbances cannot be prevented, there are tools and opportunities to mitigate and protect the grid from the 

risks of such an event. 

My colleagues on the Homeland Security Committee and I have spent nearly 3 

years identifying and reviewing the security protections that are in place to mitigate 

the effects of any intentional or unintentional attack on the electric system. Our 

goal is to determine whether appropriate protections are in place that would mitigate catastrophic incidents on the grid. 

Our review has required extensive discussions and review with the private sector, 

which owns, operates, and secures the grid. The private sector develops its own security standards and also oversees compliance with these standards. In short, the 

private sector has the responsibility for securing the grid from electromagnetic 

events and cyber attacks. 

I am very pleased to see the statement for the record submitted by the North 

American Electric Reliability Corporation. These are the folks who are closest to the 

electric grid, and they manage an almost impossibly complex flow of energy, not to 

just our 330-plus million people, but also the flow of energy across our 

borders... every day. 

Finally, the U.S. Congress has also acted. In June 2010, the GRID Act passed the 

House of Representatives unanimously. Unfortunately, it stalled in the Senate and 

did not become law. 

The bill would have granted the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission expanded authorities to oversee electromagnetic and cyber protections. 

This Congress, Mr. Franks has introduced a version of the bill, now called the 

SHIELD Act, which is similar to the GRID Act but focuses only on the electromagnetic threat component without the cybersecurity component. 

I am a co-sponsor of that bill, and it is our hope that during the next Congress 

we will get the bill through both Houses and to the President’s desk. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Before I introduce our first witness, I have written 

statements from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and private citizen, Mr. Nicholas Leggett. I ask unanimous 

consent that these two statements may be made a part of the 

record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

STATEMENT OF THE NORTH AMERICAN ELECTRIC RELIABILITY CORPORATION

SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 

The mission of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) is to 

ensure the reliability of the bulk power system of North America and promote reliability, excellence, and accountability in the electric utility industry. In 2007, NERC 

was designated the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) by the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) in accordance with Section 215 of the Federal 

Power Act (FPA), enacted by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. To ensure the reliability 

of the bulk power system, NERC relies on the combined expertise of the North 

American electric power industry. NERC works collaboratively with industry and 

Government experts to address issues impacting the bulk power system, including 

the effects of geomagnetic disturbances. NERC is pleased to provide written comments as requested by the committee to discuss the differences between electromagnetic pulses and geomagnetic disturbances, and provide an update on current 

activities underway to address geomagnetic disturbances. 

ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSES VS. GEOMAGNETIC DISTURBANCES

Geomagnetic disturbances (GMDs) are part of a class of risks called High-Impact, 

Low-Frequency (HILF) events. These events are characterized by their potential to 

impose very large adverse impacts on the electric power system (and other infrastructures in some cases), their infrequent nature, and hence, the industry’s limited 

experience mitigating them. This group of risks includes major disasters such as 

earthquakes, tsunamis, and pandemics. The group also includes man-made phe-
7 

1 Radasky, W. A., ‘‘High-altitude EMP (HEMP) Environments and Effects,’’ NBC Report, 

Spring/Summer 2002, pp. 24–29. 2http://www.nerc.com/files/HILF.pdf. 

3http://www.nerc.com/fileUploads/File/Events%20Analysis/A-2011-05-10-01lGMDlFINAL.pdf. 

4http://www.nerc.com/files/2012GMD.pdf. 

nomena such as electromagnetic pulses (EMPs) caused by high-altitude nuclear 

blasts. 

EMP attacks are often studied alongside, and confused with, GMDs. One reason 

is that a component of an EMP, the E3 wave, is similar to a GMD in its effects; 

however, the E3 wave has a larger magnitude and shorter duration than a GMD, 

and it occurs after the grid has already been exposed to the other more intense components of an EMP, the E1 and E2 waves.1 As with GMD, the E3 component can 

induce currents that couple to transmission lines and drive high-voltage transformers to saturation, potentially disrupting or damaging equipment of the electric 

power delivery system. There are significant differences between EMP and GMD in 

both the nature of the threat, the science behind their impacts, and the scale and 

form of potential solutions. 

EMPs result from nuclear blasts that represent intentional acts of war, something 

first and foremost in the domain of National defense and security. For that reason, 

the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council (ESCC) concluded that NERC should 

focus its efforts on the risk and underlying science behind the naturally-occurring 

phenomenon of GMD. 

OVERVIEW—GEOMAGNETIC DISTURBANCES

Solar magnetic pulses emanate from the sun, causing GMDs on Earth. According 

to space scientists, solar coronal holes and coronal mass ejections are the two main 

categories of solar activity that drive solar magnetic disturbances on Earth. Coronal 

mass ejections create a large mass of charged solar energetic particles that escape 

from the sun’s halo (corona), traveling to Earth in 14 to 96 hours. These high-energy 

particles consist of charged electrons, along with coronal and solar wind ions. 

GMDs are produced when a large coronal mass ejection occurs and is directed at 

Earth. The interaction between the particle cloud and the earth’s magnetic field can 

cause geomagnetically-induced currents to arise on the power system. The intensity 

of the effects on the power system depends on a number of factors such as the polarity of the magnetic structures created by the charged particle cloud, geomagnetic 

latitude of the impacted system, directionality of the disturbance, and geology (electrical conductivity of the ground), as well as power system characteristics such as 

system configuration and power system impedances. 

Geomagnetically-induced currents can be measured directly using monitors attached to the neutral connections of power transformers. The measurements from 

these monitors, along with alerts and warnings issued by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Space Weather Prediction Center 

or the Canadian Space Weather Forecast Centre, can provide the key information 

that a GMD event is imminent or in progress, and can support or trigger preplanned operational decisions and actions. 

NERC AND GMD

In November 2009, NERC and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) held a 2- 

day workshop on HILF event risk to the North American Bulk Power System. The 

proceedings of this workshop and recommendations were documented in a jointly released report in 2010,2 which outlined a plan to address these risks to the bulk 

power system, including proposals for action and options to respond to GMDs. 

Following the release of the NERC and DOE June 2010 assessment, the ESCC, 

chaired by NERC President and CEO Gerry Cauley, developed the Strategic Roadmap to address HILF events through an organized combination of industry-led task 

forces and initiatives, including the formation of a NERC GMD Task Force. FERC 

held a technical conference on GMD in February 2011, and NERC held a workshop 

in April 2011 to develop strategies and plans to address this risk. NERC released 

a NERC Alert 3 to the industry on GMDs in May 2011, providing bulk power system 

owners and operators with immediate operating and planning actions that could be 

taken to mitigate the impact of a large geomagnetic storm. 

NERC issued a Special Reliability Assessment Interim Report on GMDs (Interim 

Report)4 in February 2012. The report highlights the potential for voltage collapse 

and the damage or loss of a limited number of vulnerable transformers across the 

North American bulk power system. Previous examples of the impact of GMDs, such 
8 

5http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=12989318. 

6http://www.nerc.com/docs/pc/gmdtf/GMDlPhasel2lProjectlPlanlAPPROVED.pdf. 

as a 1989 event which led to the fast collapse of the Hydro Que ́bec system, showed 

these effects. The 1989 event left more than 6 million people without power for 9 

hours, demonstrating that severe solar storms represent a serious risk that can 

challenge the reliability of the bulk power system. 

IMPLEMENTING THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS

In May of 2012, NERC filed comments 5 with the FERC addressing the recommendations outlined in the Interim Report. NERC is currently implementing a 

Phase 2 workplan 6 for the reconvened NERC GMD Task Force that outlines the 

specific tasks necessary to support these recommendations. 

NERC is coordinating its efforts on GMD with agencies and other stakeholder 

groups in the United States and Canada such as DOE, NOAA, SpaceWeather Canada, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), the 

U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Canadian Space 

Agency, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the Institute for Electrical 

and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), the North American Transmission Forum, and 

other industry and scientific organizations. These efforts are focused on two key 

areas: (1) Assessing the vulnerability of the North American transformer fleet, using 

power system modeling with space weather simulation and transformer thermal 

characteristics; and (2) surveying the industry for best practices in operations to respond to GMDs and updating the NERC Industry Alert. In tandem with these efforts, and in support of other HILF events, NERC has released a revamped Spare 

Equipment Database to support the sharing of equipment amongst entities in the 

face of a catastrophic event. 

The potential for voltage collapse and the loss of even a limited number of transformers as a result of a GMD is a serious issue that should be addressed to minimize the effects on bulk power system reliability. NERC, through industry groups 

and the membership of the NERC GMD Task Force, is working to provide power 

system planners and operators with the necessary information to develop better design criteria to withstand GMDs, the tools to identify problems that may result from 

GMDs, improved operating procedures to protect reliability in response to GMDs 

event, and mitigating approaches to address impacts of GMDs. The approaches and 

need for action may differ depending on the geomagnetic latitude, geology, as well 

as transformer design and health. 

To supplement the work of the NERC GMD Task Force, NERC, EPRI, DOE, and 

12 industry organizations have funded a collaborative research and development 

project focused on developing and enhancing tools to better prepare and manage effects from strong GMDs. Open-source software to calculate geomagnetically-induced 

current has been developed, and several commercial software vendors are incorporating GMD studies into their power flow packages, so that commonly-used offthe-shelf tools will soon be available for industry planners to study the impact of 

GMD on their systems. Additionally, the recent release of publically available ‘‘1- 

in-100-year’’ wave-forms by NASA will facilitate industry benchmarking and establish common frames of reference for comparative analysis. 

The primary goals of the NERC GMD Task Force in its continuing work are to: 

• Provide industry subject-matter expertise and volunteer industry participation 

as appropriate in the development of tools and practices to study and mitigate 

the effects of GMDs; 

• Motivate, review, and verify (where applicable) the work products of NERC and 

other industry and scientific organizations in support of power system and 

transformer vulnerability assessment, improved operational practices, and information exchange; 

• Augment and finalize the Interim Report on GMD; and 

• Set an industry path forward towards addressing identified vulnerabilities. 

The four key activities to support these goals are: 

1. Vulnerability assessment through system analysis, to enhance system design, 

operating procedures, and mitigation techniques; 

2. Training of planners and operators; 

3. Spare equipment inventory management; and 

4. Development of improved transformer specifications to withstand 

geomagnetically-induced current (GIC). 
9 

1. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT THROUGH SYSTEM ANALYSIS, TO ENHANCE SYSTEM

DESIGN, OPERATING PROCEDURES, AND MITIGATION TECHNIQUES

The conclusions of the 2012 Interim Report on GMDs will be validated through 

detailed vulnerability assessment of the North American grid, undertaken by industry experts with the support of NERC GMD Task Force members, with final results 

being published in 2013. This joint effort will specifically examine transformer vulnerability and will take into consideration the two primary risks to reliability from 

GMDs: Reactive power loss and transformer hot spot heating. These two phenomena 

involve two very different time constants: Seconds for reactive power loss and potential voltage collapse, compared to several minutes for transformer heating. 

NERC has supported the development of publicly-available simulation software to 

support this vulnerability assessment. Commercial software vendors are now 

leveraging this work to incorporate GMD studies into off-the-shelf tools. Transformer reactive power and thermal models are being validated to focus attention on 

the appropriate characteristics of the system. This information will be used to complete the high-level vulnerability assessment which can be used to further industry 

discussion on mitigation strategies. To complete the vulnerability assessment, 

NERC is working with the private sector and with Governmental agencies. For example, the NERC GMD Task Force is working with: • Transformer vendors, to determine the thermal characteristics of hot spot heating due to geomagnetic-induced currents to identify the risk associated with 

specific transformer types; • U.S. Geological Survey and Natural Resources Canada, to improve the ground 

impedance maps of North America, which will improve modeling of the electric 

fields that cause geomagnetically-induced currents; • Interconnection modeling groups, to improve power system models so the effects 

of GMDs on and across grids can be simulated; • NASA and the Canadian Space Agency, to develop a credible basis for GMD scenario development, which can differ based on geology and geomagnetic latitude, 

as well as develop the theoretical maximum GMD; and • The North American Transmission Forum, to support review of confidential information on bulk power system and equipment performance, as well as, to support the vulnerability assessment. 

To support these activities, over the next few months NERC will pursue an industry voluntary data request on the existing transformer fleet to gather the important 

transformer characteristics with respect to the risks to reliability. The data collected 

through this request would remain confidential and would be subject to NERC’s 

Rules of Procedures regarding data confidentiality. If necessary, NERC can make 

a mandatory request for information under Section 1600 of its Rules of Procedure. 

Further, in the next few months, the NERC GMD Task Force will review and update the existing NERC Alert on GMDs, to ensure that the guidance given reflects 

the most recent information. 

2. Training of planners and operators 

NERC will continue to educate industry on GMDs, work with industry to refine 

operator tools and procedures, and have industry consider actions such as preemptively increasing reserves, enabling forced cooling, or taking equipment out of service in advance of a GMD. As part of this transfer of knowledge, it will be vital that 

open-source models are developed to facilitate industry learning, study, and action. 

Further, NERC will also add GMD training as part of its existing Operator Certification program. 

3. Spare equipment inventory management 

The industry continues to demonstrate its commitment to reliability in the response to HILF events. One example is the development of programs to share spare 

equipment in the event of a severe event. NERC’s Spare Equipment Database has 

been upgraded with specific focus on spare transformers. The Spare Equipment 

Database is a voluntary program whereby owners of long lead-time transformers 

would share information about their spare equipment to facilitate potential equipment sharing. 

4. Development of improved transformer specifications to withstand GIC 

As a result of NERC GMD Task Force activities, the IEEE Transformers committee has begun development on a guide on transformer and step response specifications to meet the service conditions related to a GMD, as well as, the magnitude 

and stress cycle due to geomagnetically-induced current that transformers should be 

designed to withstand. This project was initiated at the spring 2012 meeting of the 

IEEE Transformers Committee, and NERC will continue to collaborate with the 
10 

IEEE on the progress of this effort and provide technical expertise as warranted to 

its conclusion. 

Over the next 12 months, the NERC GMD Task Force will continue working with 

experts from across the science and engineering spectrum to develop the tools and 

training necessary for the industry to incorporate GMD study and mitigation as regular planning and operating practice. Just as they prepare for earthquakes, hurricanes, and snowstorms, preparations for GMDs should be a part of the electric industry’s on-going efforts in the future. 

IMPORTANT ROLE FOR THE GOVERNMENT

From an operational perspective, more useful GMD forecasting is needed to support operator action. NOAA and SpaceWeather Canada need to enhance warning 

time frames and granularity of forecasts so industry can take the right action, in 

the most affected parts of North America. To ensure that the agencies can provide 

timely and detailed forecasts, it will be crucial that their efforts in satellite development and replacement, event simulation and prediction, and communications methods to the industry be maintained and enhanced. 

CONCLUSION

Work is underway to address the recommendations for industry in the NERC Special Reliability Assessment Interim Report on GMDs. NERC and its stakeholders 

have made measureable progress toward mitigating the potential reliability impacts 

of GMDs, by characterizing the reliability issues and risk, gathering industry experts to focus on short- and long-term solutions, identifying spare equipment data 

for collection, assessing bulk power system resiliency through improved modeling, 

and alerting industry to potential actions they can take to fortify their systems from 

the risks posed. 

NERC is addressing GMD in an open forum with a transparent process, 

leveraging the expertise of utility members, the scientific community, and equipment manufacturers, to guide the development of the necessary tools and training 

that will enable the industry to determine appropriate responses for its unique but 

interconnected systems. Substantial work remains to further the understanding of 

the impacts from GMDs, to continue improving the scientific methods used in its 

study, to demonstrate solutions, and to support the development as well as implementation of mitigation measures in a cost-effective manner. 

STATEMENT OF NICKOLAUS E. LEGGETT, N3NL, ANALYST, AMATEUR RADIO

OPERATOR, INVENTOR, U.S. CITIZEN

SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 

My name is Nickolaus E. Leggett. I am an analyst, amateur radio operator, commercial radio operator, and an inventor who is resident in Reston, Virginia. I have 

been a Federally-licensed amateur radio operator since the 1960s. My amateur radio 

call sign is N3NL. I am a credentialed electronics technician (ISCET and iNARTE) 

and I am an inventor with three United States Patents—U.S. Patents 3,280,929, 

3,280,930, and 6,771,935. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

My testimony discusses the need to develop protections from the effects of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and solar geomagnetic storms. The first step is to get Governmental agencies to hold public hearings on EMP and suitable protections. 

THE NATURE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE (EMP)

Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a serious threat to the continued existence of the 

United States as a major military, economic, and social power. Indeed, EMP is a 

major threat to the continued existence of the United States in any form. 

High-altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) is the generation of a very intense 

pulse of radio waves using a nuclear weapon or device exploded in space near the 

Earth. The radiation from the nuclear bomb excites and agitates the Earth’s 

ionosphere which generates a large zone of intense radio waves that can disable 

electronic equipment and communications equipment throughout the Nation. Several years ago, the Congress commissioned a detailed study of EMP that can be 

accessed on-line. Refer to Note 1 at the end of this document. 
11 

CONSEQUENCES OF ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE ATTACKS

A HEMP attack consisting of a single high-yield nuclear weapon exploded a couple of hundred miles above the United States would disable electronics and communications through most of the Nation. Most of our Nation’s electronic infrastructure 

uses solid-state electronics and microprocessors that are quite vulnerable to electromagnetic pulse. 

The failure of much of our electronics infrastructure would cause serious problems 

in supplying food, water, electric power, and communications to our population. In 

addition, the functions of business, government, and law enforcement would be 

greatly impaired. Panic, rioting, and the failure of law and order would probably 

occur. 

LACK OF ACTION BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

I have devoted many years of my life to bringing the EMP threat to the attention 

of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Donald J. Schellhardt and I 

have submitted two formal petitions to the FCC calling for a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) 

and a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) on EMP. Refer to Note 4. In addition, we have filed other formal comments with the Commission on this subject. The 

FCC has declined to take any positive action on EMP. 

I am rather puzzled that the FCC refuses to act to protect our communications 

infrastructure from EMP. The subject is certainly interesting and it would be desirable to avoid the great damage that would result from any EMP attack. There is 

ample evidence that EMP is a real and serious threat to the Nation. Certainly, if 

an EMP attack did occur, the Nation would not be friendly towards the decision 

makers who refused to protect against EMP attacks and their consequences. 

HOSTILE NATIONS

We can all easily imagine several nations that would be quite happy if the United 

States were to collapse in response to an EMP attack. In their view, EMP would 

be a rather convenient method for deleting a major competitor. While launching a 

missile with a warhead from a ship is not an easy task, it is certainly easier than 

other methods of eliminating the United States. Also, the structure of the United 

States may become so shattered by an attack that other nations could actually colonize parts of the former United States. 

PROPOSED CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS

The Congress should request or require the FCC to hold rulemaking hearings on 

electromagnetic pulse and effective methods to protect communications equipment 

from it. Probably some form of shielding should be required to protect critical communications equipment. Similarly, Congress could require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to hold hearings on protecting the electric power industry and other energy industries from EMP effects. Similarly, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) should have hearings on EMP impacts on air navigation technology and on the operation of aircraft engines. 

Also, the Congress can consider legislation that would require that critical infrastructure be shielded against EMP. In developing this legislation, the Congress can 

consult with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) that has developed detailed standards on protection of infrastructure from EMP. 

SOLAR GEOMAGNETIC STORMS

Congress also needs to examine the related natural phenomenon of solar geomagnetic storms. This natural phenomenon has a different physics from EMP but 

it is related. An intense solar storm can have a similar comprehensive effect that 

would result in the failure of the electric energy grid and other aspects of the infrastructure. Refer to Note 2. Federal agencies should be required to have hearings on 

solar geomagnetic storms. 

AMATEUR RADIO

Amateur radio can perform local and long-distance communications during and 

after these chaotic events. Congress should establish legislation that would allow 

amateur radio operators to establish minimum-sized amateur radio antennas despite opposition of homeowner associations, condominium managements, and rental 

landlords. 
12 

OUR DUTY

It is in the Nation’s interest that we all work to develop and apply effective protections against EMP attacks. Mr. Schellhardt and I have spent many years on this 

subject. Now Congress needs to move ahead constructively and deal with EMP 

threats. 

APPENDIX A—REFERENCES ON SOLAR GEOMAGNETIC STORMS AND ELECTROMAGNETIC

PULSE

Note 1 

The text of the Congressional Commission to Assess the Threat to the United 

States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack is available at the web site: 

www.empcommission.org. 

This document confirms the serious impact of an EMP attack on the infrastructure of the United States. 

Note 2 

Severe Space Weather Events—Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts— 

A Workshop Report, National Academy of Sciences, National Academies Press, Publication Year 2008, PAPERBACK, ISBN–10:0–309–12769–6, ISBN–13:978–0–309– 

12769–1. 

This document can be accessed on-line at the URL: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?recordlid=12507. 

Note 3 

H. Robert Schroeder, ‘‘Electromagnetic Pulse and Its Implications for EmComm’’, 

QST magazine, November 2009, pages 38 through 41. [The term EmComm refers 

to emergency communication.] 

Note 4 

Petitions to the Federal Communications Commission by Donald J. Schellhardt 

and Nickolaus E. Leggett: 

Docket RM–5528, Request to Consider Requirements for Shielding and Bypassing Civilian Communications Systems from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Effects. 

Docket RM–10330, Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Shield Electronics 

Equipment Against Acts of War or Terrorism Involving Hostile Use of Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP). 

Note 5 

Daniel N. Baker and James L. Green, ‘‘The Perfect Solar Superstorm’’, Sky & Telescope, February 2011, Vol. 121 No. 2, Pages 28–34. 

Note 6 

Publications Dealing with the Protection of Civil Equipment and Systems from 

the Effects of HEMP and HPEM—Issued by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) SC 77C. 

Note 7 

Mark Clayton, ‘‘Is US Ready for a ‘Solar Tsunami’? ‘‘The Christian Science Monitor, June 27, 2011, Page 20. 

Note 8 

H.R. 668, Secure High-voltage Infrastructure for Electricity from Lethal Damage 

Act (SHIELD Act). This bill was introduced on February 11, 2011. This bill addresses the subjects of solar geomagnetic storms and electromagnetic pulse (EMP) impacting the electric power industry. 

Mr. LUNGREN. We are pleased to have several panels of distinguished witnesses before us today. The sole witness of our first 

panel is Congressman Trent Franks. He represents Arizona’s second Congressional district, serves on the Armed Services Committee and the Judiciary Committee, where he currently chairs the 

Constitutional Law Subcommittee. In addition, Congressman 

Franks serves as the co-chair of the Congressional EMP Caucus, 

and has studied this issue for several years. 
13 

The Chairman now recognizes Congressman Franks for his statement. As a witness, you know our routine here—5 minutes and 

your full written statement will be included in the record. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT FRANKS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to 

you, sir. Good morning to Representative Clarke and the other 

Members of the committee. I am especially grateful to be here before you all. 

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to you that I am critically grateful to you for your knowledge and for your commitment to this 

issue. Your opening statement leaves little to add, but I will do my 

best. 

The reality of the potential devastating effects of sufficiently intense electromagnetic pulse on the electronic systems and sources 

of many of our critical defense and National security components 

is well-established, Mr. Chairman. 

As a Nation, we have spent billions of dollars over the years 

hardening our nuclear triad, our missile defense capabilities, and 

numerous other critical elements of our National security apparatus against the effects of electromagnetic pulse, particularly the 

type that might be generated by a high-altitude nuclear warhead 

detonation over our country by one of America’s enemies. 

However, our civilian grid, which the Defense Department relies 

upon for nearly 99 percent of its electricity needs, is completely vulnerable to the same kind of danger. This constitutes an invitation, 

in my opinion, on the part of certain enemies of the United States 

to use the asymmetric capability of EMP against us. There is now 

evidence that such strategies are being considered by certain of 

those enemies. 

We recently witnessed, as you said, Mr. Chairman, the chaos 

that attends a prolonged power outage when the derecho storm impacted the District of Columbia and the surrounding area. Our sick 

and elderly suffered without air conditioning. Grocery stores were 

unable to keep food fresh. Gas lines grew. Thankfully, the derecho 

had only a regional and limited impact. 

In 2004 and 2008, the EMP Commission testified before the 

Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, that the U.S. 

society and economy are so critically dependent upon the availability of electricity that a significant collapse of our grid precipitated by a major natural or manmade EMP event could result in 

catastrophic civilian casualties. This conclusion is echoed by separate reports recently compiled by the DOD, DHS, DOE, NAS, along 

with various other agencies and independent researchers. 

Now I am heartened, Mr. Chairman, by the efforts of DHS to address the vulnerabilities EMP poses to our grid, including the recovery transformer and resilient electric grid projects. However, 

while these projects are well-intentioned and a major positive step 

in the right direction, they do not go far enough to adequately protect our grid and our Nation against a catastrophic, continentalwide EMP event. 

Our first priority should always be National security. To that 

end, I have introduced H.R. 668, the Shield Act, which among other 
14 

things, requires automated hardware-based solutions, rather than 

relying upon procedural safety measures alone to protect our Nation’s major transformers from a cascading, destructive effect catalyzed by a major EMP event. 

According to solar weather experts, there is only a 20- to 30- 

minute warning from the time we can actually predict a solar 

storm may affect us significantly to the time that it actually does. 

This is not enough time to implement procedures that will adequately protect the grid. Furthermore, these predictions are only 

accurate one out of three times. This places a crushing dilemma on 

industry who must decide whether or not to heed the warning with 

the knowledge that a wrong decision, either way, could result in 

the loss of thousands or even perhaps millions of lives and massive 

legal ramifications beyond expression. 

Additionally, while there are those certainly who believe that the 

likelihood of terrorists or rogue nations obtaining nuclear weapons 

and using them in an EMP attack is remote, the recent events of 

the Arab Spring, which our intelligence apparatus did not foresee, 

show us that regimes can change very quickly. Iran’s increasingly 

obvious efforts to gain nuclear weapons should serve as a grave 

and urgent warning to all of us. 

Thankfully, Mr. Chairman and Members, there is a moment in 

the life of every problem, when it is big enough to be seen by reasonable people and still small enough to be solved or addressed. 

You and I live in that moment when there still may be time for 

the free world to address and mitigate the vulnerability that naturally occurring or weaponized EMP represents to the mechanisms 

of our civilization. 

Your actions today to protect America may gain you no fame or 

fanfare in the annals of history. However, it may happen in your 

lifetime that natural, manmade, or other types of EMP may have 

an event so large and have an effect so small that no one but a 

few will recognize that was averted. For the sake of our children 

and future generations, I pray it happens exactly that way. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. God bless you all for hearing this. 

I welcome Ms. Clarke. Thank you, sir. 

[The statement of Mr. Franks follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HONORABLE TRENT FRANKS

Good morning Chairman Lungren, Ranking Member Clarke, and the rest of my 

fellow Members on the committee. I believe the subject of this hearing is one of profound implication and importance to Western civilization, and consequently I hope 

the Members will feel inclined to read my written testimony—and I thank you for 

allowing me to testify here today. 

In our technological advancement, we have now captured the electron and transported its utility into nearly every business, home, and industrial endeavor throughout the civilized world. In so doing, we have advanced our standard of living and 

productivity beyond dreams. But we have also grown profoundly dependent upon 

electricity and its many accoutrements. In keeping with one of humanity’s most reliable hallmarks, we now find among our greatest strengths an unsettling 

vulnerability . . . EMP . . . Electromagnetic Pulse. 

Catalyzed by a major solar storm, a high-altitude nuclear blast, or a non-nuclear, 

device-induced Intentional Electromagnetic Interference, this invisible force of ionized particles has the capability to overwhelm and destroy our present electrical 

power grids and electrical equipment, including electronic communication networks, 

radio equipment, integrated circuits, and computers. 

The reality of the potentially devastating effects of sufficiently intense electromagnetic pulse on the electronic systems/sources of many of our critical defense and 
15 

National security components is well-established, and beyond dispute. We as a Nation have spent billions of dollars over the years hardening our nuclear triad, our 

missile-defense capabilities, and numerous other critical elements of our National 

security apparatus against the effects of electromagnetic pulse, particularly the type 

of electromagnetic pulse that might be generated against us by an enemy. However, 

our civilian grid, which the Defense Department relies upon for nearly 99% of its 

electricity needs, is completely vulnerable to the same kind of danger. This constitutes an invitation on the part of certain enemies of the United States to use the 

asymmetric capability of an EMP weapon against us, and there is now evidence that 

such strategy is being considered by certain of those enemies. 

The effects of geomagnetic storms and electromagnetic pulses on electric infrastructure are well-documented, with nearly every space weather and EMP expert 

recognizing the dramatic disruptions and cataclysmic collapses these pulses can 

bring to electric grids. We all recently witnessed the chaos that ensues a prolonged 

power outage when the derecho storm impacted the District of Columbia. Sick and 

elderly suffered without air conditioning, grocery stores labored to keep food fresh, 

and gas lines grew. Thankfully, the derecho was only regional in its impact and limited in its effects. 

In 2004 and 2008 the EMP Commission testified before The Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, that the U.S. society and economy are so critically 

dependent upon the availability of electricity that a significant collapse of the grid, 

precipitated by a major natural or man-made EMP event, could result in catastrophic civilian casualties. This conclusion is echoed by separate reports recently 

compiled by the DOD, DHS, DOE, NAS, along with various other Government agencies and independent researchers. All came to very similar conclusions. The sobering 

reality is that this vulnerability, if left unaddressed, could have grave, societal-altering consequences. 

I am heartened by the efforts of DHS to address the vulnerabilities EMP poses 

to our grid, including the Recovery Transformer and Resilient Electric Grid Projects. 

However, while these projects are well-intentioned and a positive step forward, they 

do not go far enough to adequately protect our grid and our Nation against a catastrophic, continental-wide EMP event. 

Like many of you, I believe Federal regulation should be very limited. Our first 

National security priority in this instance is to protect our major transformers from 

cascading destruction. To that end, I have introduced the SHIELD Act which, 

among other things, requires automated hardware-based solutions rather than procedural safety measures alone. And the SHIELD Act does not contain cybersecurity 

provisions, leaving the conflicting approaches to that extremely important issue, 

among members of the Senate in particular, to be debated in a separate bill. 

Automated hardware is particularly important when one considers the shortcomings of procedural safety measures alone in response to an EMP event. According to solar weather experts, there is only 20–30 minutes’ warning from the time 

we predict a solar storm may affect us to the time it actually does. This is simply 

not enough time to implement procedures that will adequately protect the grid. Furthermore, these predictions are only accurate one out of three times. This places a 

crushing dilemma on industry, who must decide whether or not to heed the warning 

with the knowledge that a wrong decision either way could result in the loss of 

thousands or even millions of lives and massive legal ramifications beyond expression. 

Mr. Chairman, the phenomenon of natural and man-made electromagnetic pulse 

is not a new one. 

In 1859, English Astronomer Richard Carrington discovered the cause of natural 

EMP when he identified and chronicled a major geomagnetic solar storm which brilliantly intensified the Northern lights and caused the telegraph system, the only 

major electrical system that existed on earth at that time, to go down across the 

planet. The National Academy of Sciences predicts this effect, to a lesser or greater 

degree, will recur globally approximately once every 100 years. 

In 1962, the United States discovered that a high-altitude nuclear blast could generate a more localized electromagnetic pulse of the same intensity as the Carrington 

effect. In an upper atmospheric nuclear test called Starfish Prime, an EMP occurred 

and electric lines were fused and radios and street lights stopped working in Hawaii 

nearly 900 miles away. The residual effects also disabled nearly all major satellites 

systems. 

Because of new understandings of how EMP interacts with the Earth’s electromagnetic field, and that it is intensified over large land mass, we now believe that 

if a warhead with a nuclear yield of just 100 kilotons detonated at an altitude of 

400 kilometers over America’s heartland, the resulting damage to our electric grid 

and infrastructure would be catastrophic across most of the continental United 
16 

States. Such a result would be devastating to our electricity, transportation, water 

and food supply, medical care, financial networks, telecommunication and broadcasting systems and our infrastructure in general. Under such a scenario, both military and productive capability would be devastated. The immediate and eventual 

impact, directly and indirectly, on the human population, especially in major cities, 

is unthinkable. 

It should be remembered that EMP was first considered as a military weapon 

during the ‘‘Cold War’’ as a means of paralyzing U.S. retaliatory forces. 

America’s EMP commission began their 70-page executive summary describing a 

one- or two-missile EMP attack as one of the few threats which look as if it could 

defeat the U.S. military. 

Dr. William Graham, the chairman of the EMP Commission, testified before the 

U.S. House Armed Services Committee, and stated: 

‘‘EMP is one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences. 

‘‘ . . . A determined adversary can achieve an EMP attack capability without having a high level of sophistication. For example, an adversary would not have to have 

long-range ballistic missiles to conduct an EMP attack against the United States. 

Such an attack could be launched from a freighter off the U.S. coast using a shortor medium-range missile to loft a nuclear warhead to high altitude. Terrorists sponsored by a rogue state could potentially execute such an attack without revealing 

their identity.’’ 

Dr. Graham has said that a major catastrophic EMP attack on the United States 

could cause an estimated 70–90 percent of the our Nation’s population to become 

unsustainable. 

It is impossible for me to even wrap my mind around that figure. 

But for terrorists, this is their ultimate goal, and I believe EMP is their ultimate 

asymmetric weapon. In 1988, Osama bin Laden called it a religious duty for alQaeda to acquire nuclear weapons. U.S. Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stated: ‘‘My worst nightmare is terrorists with nuclear 

weapons. Not only do I know they are trying to get them, but I know they will use 

them.’’ 

This is indeed the greatest danger of all. If a rogue state like Iran steps over the 

nuclear threshold, rogue regimes and terrorists the world over will have access to 

these monstrous weapons. 

We do well to remember that Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of international 

terrorism, has practiced launching a mobile ballistic missile from a vessel in the 

Caspian Sea. Iran has also tested high-altitude explosions of the Shahab–III, a test 

mode consistent with an EMP attack, and described the tests as successful. We have 

also discovered an Iranian military journal that included an article recommending 

such a strategy. The article noted that if major Western nations do not learn to defend themselves against EMP attacks, they will be destroyed. 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad again made it clear where he stands on Israel when he 

declared, ‘‘[Israel] is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical 

scene.’’ 

Jewish author, Primo Levi, was once asked what he had learned from the Holocaust. He replied, ‘‘When a man with a gun says he’s going to kill you—believe him.’’ 

At this moment, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a man who, in the 

same breath, both denies the Holocaust ever occurred, and then threatens to make 

it happen again, is arrogantly seeking a gun with which he vows to wipe the state 

of Israel off the map. 

He has also said: ‘‘The time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States 

has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth 

has started.’’ He has said point-blank, ‘‘The wave of the Islamist revolution will soon 

reach the entire world.’’ 

What a happy cheerful, fellow...

Unfortunately, he talks like a man who knows something the rest of us don’t. 

It is not enough, to casually dismiss his fanatical rhetoric. When analyzing the 

nature of any threat, we must always seriously assess two things: A potential enemy’s intent and his corresponding capacity to carry out any such intent. 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his regime have stated very clearly their intent to 

see Israel wiped off the face of the earth and America and the West brought to their 

knees. Nuclear warheads could give them the capacity to effectively proceed in that 

endeavor; and to ignore the incontrovertible fact that Iran is rapidly progressing toward a nuclear weapons capability, is to resign ourselves and our children to live 

and walk in the shadow of nuclear terrorism. 
17 

Mr. Chairman and Members, these things should not surprise us. We are now 65 

years into the nuclear age, and the ominous intersection of jihadist terrorism and 

nuclear proliferation has been inexorably and relentlessly rolling toward America 

and the free world for decades. But, when we add the dimension of asymmetric electromagnetic pulse attacks to that equation, we face a menace that may represent 

the gravest short-term threat to the peace and security of the human family in the 

world today. 

Certainly there are those who believe that the likelihood of terrorists or rogue 

states obtaining nuclear weapons and using them in an EMP attack is remote. It 

may be a reasonable conclusion for the moment. But the recent events of the Arab 

Spring, which our intelligence apparatus did not foresee, show us that regimes can 

change very quickly. Is a regime change in Pakistan possible? Will there be 

blowback from our involvement in Libya? What about the current crisis in Syria? 

Will North Korea ever supply or sell it nuclear technology or warheads to terrorists? 

Will Iran develop or obtain nuclear weapons? Iran’s increasingly obvious efforts to 

gain nuclear weapons should serve as a grave and urgent warning to all of us. 

If terrorists or rogue states do acquire nuclear weapons, hardening our electric 

grid would become a desperate priority for our Nation. However, that process will 

take several years, while a regime change takes only weeks and a missile launch 

only minutes. The fact that we are now 100% vulnerable means we should start securing our electric infrastructure now. Indeed, by reducing our vulnerability we may 

reduce the likelihood that terrorists or rogue states would attempt such an attack. 

We should always remember that 7 decades ago, another murderous ideology 

arose in the world. The dark shadow of the Nazi swastika fell first upon the Jewish 

people of Germany. And because the world did not heed the warnings of men like 

Winston Churchill and respond to that evil in time, it began to spread across Europe until it lit the fires of World War II’s hell on earth which saw atomic bombs 

fall upon cities and over 50 million people dead worldwide. 

History has repeatedly shown humanity to be susceptible to malignant dangers 

that approach inaudibly and nestle among us with innocuous countenance until a 

day of sudden calamity finds us empty-handed, broken-hearted, and without excuse. 

Thankfully, Mr. Chairman and Members, there is a moment in the life of nearly 

every problem when it is big enough to be seen by reasonable people and still small 

enough to be solved. You and I live in that moment when there still may be time 

for the free world to address and mitigate the vulnerability that naturally occurring 

or weaponized EMP represents to the mechanisms of our civilization. 

The challenge to ultimately and fully protect our peoples and nations from all of 

the various perils of natural or man-made electromagnetic pulse will be long and 

lingering. But the time to protect our Nation from the most devastating scenario is 

now; the threat is real, and the implications are sobering. 

America’s Brink Lindsey said it it this way: ‘‘Here is the grim truth: We are only 

one act of madness away from a social cataclysm unlike anything our country has 

ever known. After a handful of such acts, who knows what kind of civilizational 

breakdown might be in store?’’ 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, the first purpose of any government or its leaders is to protect the lives and security of its innocent citizens. The 

failure of this responsibility renders all others meaningless. 

Your actions today to protect America may gain you no fame or fanfare in the 

annals of history. However, it may happen in your lifetime that a natural or manmade EMP event so big has an effect so small that no one but a few will recognize 

the disaster that was averted. For the sake of our children and future generations, 

I pray it happens exactly that way. 

Thank you and God bless all of you. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Congressman Franks. I appreciate the leadership that you have shown in this particular 

area. 

There are some that have suggested that EMP attack or an EMP 

event, if naturally caused, is not that serious—that there is sort of 

an alarmist tone to statements to the public that this is an issue 

about which they should be concerned. How do you respond to 

that? 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, first, in the sincerest way that I can express 

to you, I pray they are correct. I hope that there is just some overreaction on the part of all of us. But I will say to you, if that is 
18 

true, then your seminal point made earlier that the military is 

spending a great deal of unnecessary money hardening our military 

apparatus should be considered carefully. 

There is no question about the reality of the effects of EMP if 

there is a sufficient surge. We have got a great deal of research in 

that regard and to ignore that would be to ignore some of the major 

reports not only by the EMP Commission, but the Department of 

Defense. There are somewhere between six and nine major reports 

now in Government—and I will certainly refer you to the experts 

that will follow me that testify clearly to the danger. 

The challenge before us is to ascertain exactly what that danger 

is. We suggest to you that we don’t know fully what it is. But something that has the potential to have this kind of catastrophic effect 

should be considered carefully. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Where is the failure? Is the failure with the Congress? Is the failure with the Executive branch? Is the failure with 

critical infrastructure owners? If this is as serious as you suggest, 

as some of these reports suggest, the lack of attention to it is something that bewilders me. 

I mean you have been involved in a lot of issues on the Armed 

Services Committee and so forth, and I am trying to figure out 

what is it that is lacking on this issue that does not garner the attention of the American people? In other words, is there a lack of 

consensus about the threat? I mean is there a serious question 

that—from your standpoint—is there a serious question about 

whether this is a serious issue? 

Mr. FRANKS. No, I think, Mr. Chairman, that is probably the 

most important question that we have to ask. I would only suggest 

to you that when the EMP Commission came to the Armed Services Committee in 2004, I had been aware of EMP. My background 

is engineering. I had been aware of it, but I thought it was like 

something that could be catastrophic, but the chances of it happening were so remote. I just didn’t see that happening. 

The testimony was that other nations—there were five nations at 

the time that were developing this as an offensive capability. Certainly, the Soviet Union had a major EMP component in their nuclear strategy. 

So there is a dichotomy here that I don’t exactly understand in 

the military, among our National security experts, there is clear 

consensus of the danger this represents. However, when you go 

over into the civilian areas, it seemed like there is a general, sort 

of a lackadaisical, kind of a—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. Let me ask you about that, because I have found 

most people who are involved in critical infrastructure in the private sector are serious-minded folks. They do recognize the value 

of their assets. In most cases, when I am dealing with them on 

issues, I find them to be forward-thinking and to actually try and 

protect those assets. They articulate that in a way so that they can 

justify certain capital investments to their shareholders or their 

ratepayers. 

Well, let me ask you this: Do you find the attention to the protection of their assets that you believe to be necessary, and if not, why 

as the owners and protectors of those assets, is this not taken more 

seriously? 
19 

Mr. FRANKS. I think that is a good question. It has been something that has bewildered me to a degree. It seemed just a few 

years ago, as this became more well known that there was a more 

serious—or at least a more recognizable response. It seemed like in 

the recent just past last year, there has been sort of a pushback 

in parts of industry. 

My concern is if they have credible, scientific bases for being unconcerned or not addressing it as vigorously as some of us think 

that it should be, then I would adjure them to bring that testimony 

and that evidence to the rest of us. Because I can suggest to you 

that I haven’t seen it. 

It may be that there is some concern on the part of major manufacturers of these large components, transformers and others, that 

are somewhat out of professional pride. That they either don’t want 

to recognize the danger or somehow they feel like that there would 

be some requirement of reengineering of some of these major components if they did. 

But I would suggest that the potential liability here is off the 

charts. The fix here—and this would probably be one of the more 

important points to point out—the fix here is fairly simple, at least 

in terms of protecting our electric-producing grid—not all the elements that are connected to it. That is a huge issue. But at least 

to be able to keep the lights on—electricity coming—that is a fairly 

easy fix. I think this country needs to look at it. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much. 

I recognize the Ranking Member Ms. Clarke for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CLARKE. Let me thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Franks, for your testimony before our subcommittee today. I know how passionate you are about this. We 

share that passion. You are helping to write the road map for addressing the EMP threat speaks to your commitment. 

I wanted to also welcome Dr. Beck, who as a former staffer, a 

staff director for this subcommittee and has also developed an expertise on this matter. So I want to welcome you back, Dr. Beck. 

I believe it is important that we find the building blocks for the 

partnership of which Councilman, excuse me, Congressman Franks 

has articulated this morning. We must bring improvements to the 

security and reliability of one of our most important critical infrastructures, our electric grid. 

I understand that our very reliance on the infrastructure that 

makes it important to anticipate the worst. There are many scenarios that we should be concerned about. We are still learning 

about the significant threat that could come in the form of a natural or manmade electromagnetic pulse and have more to learn 

about the effects of the EMP and geomagnetic disturbances to the 

grid as well. 

Over the past few years, I have followed with interest, Mr. 

Chairman, the secure grid exercises that the National Defense University has held at Fort McNair. These series of tabletop exercises 

in the U.S. electric grid security have focused on the effects of a 

major geomagnetic storm on the Nation’s electrical infrastructure. 

With the 12-year peak in solar activity approaching in 2012–2013, 

there is considerable upturn in interest from Government agencies, 
20 

including the White House and Congress in understanding the potential impacts if a geomagnetic disturbance event should occur. 

Although this is a low-probability event, the consequences of an 

extended and widespread power loss across portions of the country 

would constitute a serious National emergency. To me, one of the 

largest barriers to Government agency disaster response is crossagency coordination, the role of authority—crucial elements made 

more difficult when discussing privately-owned National electric 

grid. Ultimately, the secure grid exercises and other policy discussions work to identify preparedness gaps in plans to manage the 

challenges associated with extended power outages and add urgency to existing efforts to identify technology solutions to protect 

the U.S. grid. 

This hearing serves to highlight areas where the United States 

and its allies are analyzing the risk that a severe geomagnetic disturbance would present, and help us look for international approaches to effectively react to those risks. While severe solar 

storms that create geomagnetic disturbances cannot be prevented, 

there are tools and opportunities to mitigate and protect the grid 

from such risks of such an event. 

My colleagues on the Homeland Security Committee and I have 

spent nearly 3 years identifying and reviewing security protections 

that are in place to mitigate the effects of any intentional or unintentional attack on the electric system. Our goal is to determine 

whether appropriate protections are in place that would mitigate 

catastrophic incidents on the grid. 

Our review has required extensive discussions and review with 

the private sector, which owns, operates, and secures the grid. The 

private sector develops its own security standards and also oversees compliance with these standards. In short, the private sector 

has the responsibility, as has been stated by Congressman Franks, 

for securing the grid from electromagnetic events and cyber attacks. 

I am very pleased to see the statement for the record submitted 

by the North American Reliability Corporation. These are the folks 

who are the closest to the electric grid and they manage an almost 

impossibly complex flow of energy, not just our 330-plus million 

people, but also the flow of energy across our borders every day. 

Finally, the U.S. Congress has acted. In June 2010, the Grid Act 

passed the House of Representatives unanimously. Unfortunately, 

it stalled in the Senate and did not become law. The bill would 

have granted the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission expanded 

authorities to oversee electromagnetic and cyber protections. 

This Congress, Congressman Franks, has introduced the version 

of the bill now called the Shield Act, which is similar to the Grid 

Act, but focuses only on the electromagnetic threat component, 

without the cybersecurity component. I am a cosponsor of the bill. 

It is our hope that during the next Congress, we will get this bill 

through both houses and to the President’s desk. 

So I just wanted to put that on the record. Thank you, again, 

Congressman Franks, for your vigilance. I think this is a very crucial concern. As we look at the modernity of our civil society, we 

must be concerned about unintended consequences from what may 

be solar, geomagnetic, or intentional threat to our electric grid. 
21 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Chairman, if I could just respond to—Ms. 

Clarke has demonstrated tremendous commitment in this area and 

has done some amazing things. I appreciate her work so much. 

I would just leave the committee with this thought. As we have 

challenged those who don’t think or are not significantly convinced 

that this is a threat, weigh on one hand the money that we spend 

in the military to defend against this threat and all of the reports 

that are ubiquitous throughout our Government. On the other 

hand, let us ask the industry to show us why this is not a threat. 

We, as a human family, have been historically, you know, clear 

back in the days of London, when 90 percent of London burned, we 

knew about fire then, but somehow we just kind of didn’t respond 

to it until something critically significant happened. 

So I would encourage the committee, just get the facts. Because 

if it is not a problem, then we can all go home. It is—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Long, do you have any questions for our witness? 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Congressman Franks, the solar flare you spoke about earlier— 

you said solar flares—if I remember what you said right—sometimes you will have 20–30 minutes’ notice before solar flare with 

an accuracy rating of one out of three times, I think you said. 

Mr. FRANKS. Go ahead, please. 

Mr. LONG. Go ahead. 

Mr. FRANKS. Uh, let me try to expand that a little bit. We have 

satellites that give us some indication much sooner than that, 

about 24 hours in advance sometimes that there is a major geo— 

like a CME, which is a chrome mass ejection or it is an effective 

solar flare—that creates a geomagnetic disturbance, which is inevitable. It happens about every 100–105 years, sometimes even more 

frequently. But the major ones are called the Carrington Effect, 

which was named after a gentleman that discovered or essentially 

documented the first major clear demonstration of that type of 

solar storm. 

We have in this society about 24 hours to say, okay, we have one 

coming. But we don’t know if it is going to be severe enough to do 

any damage until about 30 minutes out. Now the problem is, even 

then, when we say, okay, we have 30 minutes and this looks like 

one that could really be serious. It looks like our earth polarity— 

is just right. All of that, as it were, the stars are lining up and this 

could be really bad. But even then, only one out of three times is 

that correct. 

So as an operator, do you shut down the grid to protect it and 

take a chance on risking human life, or do you leave it up and take 

a chance on it being damaged and risk even more human life? 

Mr. LONG. My question was the 20- to 30-minute warning, what 

could be done in that 20–30 minutes. You say shutting it down, I 

suppose. But what if we had 20–30 days or 20–30 months for that 

warning? Let us pretend we had 20–30 months. What steps can be 

taken to mitigate this? Are there things that can be done? 

You gotta keep in mind that most of these—a lot of the infrastructure is privately held, so has there been studies to show what 

will mitigate this? Are there things—back on the farm, every house 
22 

had a lightning rod on it to mitigate the lightning to keep it from 

burning the house down. Are there things to mitigate this if we 

had the sufficient amount of time? 

Mr. FRANKS. You know, you point out probably the perfect example and that is lightning—that lightning is a type of EMP—it is E2. 

The lightning rods redirected the force or the rush of electric energy into the ground, where it wouldn’t damage anything. There 

are what we call nuclear phase blockers that can go before these 

major transformers that would interrupt the electric flow. If there 

was a surge, that it would happen instantaneously. If there was a 

surge, it would keep these transformers from burning themselves 

up. That is one way to mitigate it. 

Mr. LONG. When you say can go before it, what do you mean? 

Mr. FRANKS. These neutral face blockers are, prior to any charge 

going into the transformer, coming out of it—— 

Mr. LONG. So this is hardware that is actually hard laid. 

Mr. FRANKS. That is correct. 

Mr. LONG. Okay, that is what I—— 

Mr. FRANKS. That means if there is no electromagnetic pulse, 

then no one has to shut something down just in case. But if there 

is, then it automatically says no, we are going to interrupt the flow 

to that transformer so that it won’t add to its load that would ultimately cause it to burn up. If it does, those transformers are difficult to replace. 

The challenge, of course, as far as having sufficient warning, is 

that we would have to be able to predict when there is a major 

solar flare—major coronal mass ejection. We haven’t really found 

the science to do that yet. So even—— 

Mr. LONG. Well, if you had it installed ahead of time, you 

wouldn’t need to predict, right? 

Mr. FRANKS. Correct. Correct. But I am saying right now, if you 

base it on procedures alone, where you tell the operators there is 

a big one coming. Shut down manually. At best, they are going to 

have 24 hours general warning. Again, more often, a 30-minute 

warning is just not enough time. 

Mr. LONG. Is the effect the same whether it is an act of God, 

whether it is a solar flare or solar storm that you called the other 

one. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, the act of God as it were—— 

Mr. LONG. Well, yes, but my question is, is it the act of God, 

solar storm, solar flare—is the ramification the same as a manmade act, such as the high-altitude electromagnetic pulse that a 

nuclear device set off at 100 kilometers above the earth would? 

Mr. FRANKS. It is a little bit technical, but I will answer your 

question. The solar storm or the geomagnetic disturbance is primarily E3. It is a slower and it is more damaging to transformers 

and the heavy equipment and things of that nature. Whereas, it 

doesn’t have the E1 and E2. 

Whereas, the lightning—I mean, excuse me—the nuclear-generated electromagnetic pulse, where a nuclear warhead creates a 

gamma ray emission which interacts with the atmosphere and creates a rush of ionized particles toward the earth, it happens to create all three—E1, E2, and E3. So it can damage electrical components of, you know, small transistors, scatter control systems— 
23 

these very delicate systems that are sort of the hallmark of our, 

you know, our electronic advancement in this society. 

So the answer—the effect is, with a nuclear generated EMP, the 

effect is—covers a lot more electronic components. But with the 

geomagnetic—— 

Mr. LONG. Is the fix the same? 

Mr. FRANKS. What is that? 

Mr. LONG. Is the fix the same? You said earlier that the fix is 

simple. Is the fix the same on either—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Yes, if the components that are destroyed—the fix 

is the same, but the GMD affects mostly—— 

Mr. LONG. I am talking about the prevention fix, I guess, not— 

maybe I misunderstood what you meant by fix. 

Mr. FRANKS. Yes, the only thing that the Shield Act—well, I 

won’t say the only thing—but the primary thing that the Shield 

Act addresses is to make sure that our major transformers are 750 

KV corridor are not destroyed, which means that we would be in 

a catastrophic civilizational challenge where we wouldn’t have electricity and wouldn’t be able to perhaps restore it for months or 

even years. That is the worst-case scenario. The Shield is designed 

to prevent that. 

Some of these ancillary damages on cell phones, radios, things 

like that, it is difficult to mitigate against that in a short-term fix. 

We have to harden as we go. But my contention is if we take those 

components as we rebuild them and replace them and harden them 

against EMP, which we can do that. It adds about 10 percent to 

the cost of doing that. Then we can eventually get past this vulnerability. But the main big vulnerability that we have right now is 

the potential damage to our major transformers that could be 

caused by either a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse or GMD. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Time. 

Mr. LONG. But that is preventable. I am way past my time. I 

yield back. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, if you are way past your time, how can you 

yield back? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LUNGREN. The gentlelady from California is recognized for 

approximately 5 minutes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions 

for the Congressman. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Richmond. 

Mr. RICHMOND. I don’t have many, but the thing that I guess 

just draws my attention is the Congressman’s conversation about 

the solar storm. I know that it is termed a 1-in-100-year event. But 

I am from New Orleans, where we get 1-in-100-year events. So I 

would like to be—— 

Just your feeling in your opinion, as someone who has really 

taken the lead on this—I mean, how prepared are we for that 1- 

in-100-year event right now? What things can we do quickly or 

what do we need to put in place so that we start developing either 

criteria, building codes, or codes for or standards for the utility 

companies to make sure that we don’t have the potential to have 

people out of power for years? 
24 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, let me try if I could to address the worst-case 

scenario, which I consider openly to be remote. But it is possible. 

It is that 100-year event you talk about. 

On the military side, in terms of our National security, being 

able to fight back, as it were, our major military apparatus is hardened effectively and we are prepared. The problem is on the civilian side, we are almost completely unprepared. It is just an incredible antithesis here. Our military is critically dependent upon the 

civilian grid for its electricity needs—about 99 percent—and is, according to military sources, their own military mission becomes 

compromised without that source of electricity. 

So our focus needs to—you know, our missile defense systems are 

able actually to fight through a major EMP environment. It can 

have major electromagnetic pulse energy everywhere and they are 

able to fight through it, because they understand that that is exactly the type of environment they would be in, in terms of a nuclear war. 

But the civilian grid right now remains unprotected. In the conferences that Ms. Yvette Clarke and I have attended on occasion, 

the Defense Department has testified that they are in a sort of a 

no-win situation, because they depend on the electric grid, but they 

have no control over how it should be protected. I am fine with 

that. 

The Shield Act allows the private sector to come up with the best 

solution; and if that is good enough, great. I am the last one that 

wants to regulate any industry, but I am the first one that wants 

to pay attention to our National security. If we have standards that 

says we must mitigate or protect against this, which we can do at 

minimal costs—the neutral face blockers that I had mentioned to 

the other gentlemen actually allow the grid to be run at a higher 

capacity, which more than pays for what is a relatively minimal 

cost. I mean, it is in the noise of the cost of our daily generation 

costs. 

So the bottom line is, we are not prepared in our civilian grid. 

We are very prepared to be able to continue to fight a war. But I 

wonder at some point if we have a significant enough impact, how 

much, you know, are we really protecting the country. 

Finally, I would just say that, you know, the worst-case scenario 

is so bad that rather than preparing for it, we must prevent it from 

ever occurring. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LUNGREN. The gentleman yields back. Thank you, Congressman Franks, for your testimony and for your leadership on this 

issue. We appreciate it very much. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you. Thank all of you. 

Mr. LUNGREN. They have it written for me to say, Panel 1 is dismissed. You are Panel 1. 

Mr. FRANKS. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you all very much. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you. Now, I would ask the clerks to prepare for our second panel. 

We have a very distinguished second panel. I thank you all for 

being here. 

Mr. Joseph McClelland is the director of the Office of Electric Reliability at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a position 
25 

to which he was first appointed in September 2007. Mr. McClelland 

came to the Commission with more than 20 years of experience in 

the electric utility industry, holds a Bachelor of Science degree in 

electrical engineering from Penn State. 

Mr. Brandon Wales is the director of the Homeland Infrastructure Threat and Risk Analysis Center at the Department of Homeland Security. In this role, he leads a robust all-hazards analytic 

resource for public and private-sector partners, covering the full 

array of risks and challenges facing the infrastructure community. 

Prior to joining the Department, Mr. Wales served as the principle 

National security advisor to the United States Senator Jon Kyl and 

was a senior associate at the Washington-based foreign policy and 

National security think tank. 

Mr. Michael Aimone is director of Business Enterprise Integration on Intergovernmental Personnel Assignment—Personal Assignment in the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Installations 

and Environment Directorate. That is a long term. We will just say 

you are an expert. How is that? 

Mr. Aimone oversees the efforts by the deputy under secretary 

to modernize and integrate real property, energy, and environmental business information technology systems for the Department of Defense. Mr. Aimone serves as the U.S. Air Force and in 

the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Air Force Reserves for nearly 30 

years, and is widely known as one of the country’s industry leaders 

on energy, security, and sustainable operations. 

We thank you for all being here. Your written submissions are 

made a part of the record. We would ask you to attempt to summarize your testimony within 5 minutes after which time we will have 

the panel subjected to questions by our Members of the subcommittee. So if you would go in the order in which I have introduced you. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH MC CLELLAND, DIRECTOR, OFFICE 

OF ELECTRIC RELIABILITY, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. MCCLELLAND. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the privilege 

to appear before you today to discuss the security of the power grid. 

My name is Joe McClelland. I am the director of the Office of Electric Reliability at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I am 

here today as a Commission staff witness. My remarks do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission or any individual 

commissioner. 

In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress entrusted the Commission with a major new responsibility to oversee mandatory enforceable reliability standards for the Nation’s bulk power system. 

This authority is in section 215 of the Federal Power Act. It is important to note that FERC’s jurisdiction and reliability authority 

under section 15 is limited to, ‘‘the bulk power system,’’ as defined 

in the FPA, which excludes Alaska and Hawaii, as well as the local 

distribution systems. Under this section 215 authority, FERC cannot author or modify reliability standards. We must depend upon 

an electrical reliability organization or ERO to perform this task. 

The Commission selected the North American Electric Reliability 
26 

Corporation, or NERC, as the ERO. The ERO develops and proposes reliability standards or modifications for the Commission’s 

review, which it can then either remand or approve. 

If the commissioner approves the proposed reliability standard, 

it becomes mandatory enforceable in the United States, applying to 

the users, owners, and operators of the bulk power system. If the 

Commission remands a proposed standard, it is sent back to the 

ERO for further consideration. 

In my view, section 215 of the Federal Power Act provides an 

adequate statutory foundation for the ERO to develop most reliability standards for the bulk power system. However, the nature 

of a National security threat by entities intent on attacking the 

United States through vulnerabilities in its electric grids stands in 

stark contrast to other major reliability vulnerabilities that have 

caused regional blackouts and reliability failures in the past, such 

as tree trimming and equipment maintenance practices. Widespread disruption of electric service can quickly undermine the 

United States Government, its military, and the economy, as well 

as endanger the health and safety of millions of its citizens. 

Given the National security dimension to this threat, there may 

be a need to act quickly to protect the grid, to act in a manner 

where action is mandatory rather than voluntary, and to protect 

certain information from public disclosure. 

While the Commission is considering actions that it can take 

under its current authority, this authority may not be sufficient in 

cases where mandatory action is needed to protect the United 

States from physical threats that endanger our Nation’s security. 

One example of a physical threat is an electromagnetic pulse, or 

EMP, event. EMP events can be generated from either a naturally 

occurring or manmade causes. In 2001, Congress established a 

commission to assess the threat from EMP. In 2004, and again in 

2008, the Commission issued its reports. Among the findings in the 

reports, was that a single EMP attack could seriously degrade or 

shut down a large part of the electric power grid. Depending upon 

the attack, significant parts of the electric infrastructure could be, 

‘‘out of service for periods measured in months to a year or more.’’ 

In order to better understand and quantify the effect of EMP on 

the power grid, FERC staff, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Homeland Security sponsored a study by the Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory and their subcontractor Metatech in 

2010. The results of this study support the general conclusion of 

prior studies that EMP events pose substantial risk to equipment 

and operation of the Nation’s power grid, and under extreme conditions, could result in major long-term electrical outages. 

In fact, solar magnetic disturbances are inevitable, with only the 

timing and magnitude subject to variability. The study assessed 

the 1921 solar storm, which has been termed a 1-in-100-year event 

and applied it to today’s power grid. The study concluded that such 

a storm could damage or destroy in excess of 300 bulk power system transformers, interrupting service to 130 million people, with 

some outages lasting for a period of years. 

In February 2012, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation released its interim report, ‘‘Effects of Geomagnetic Disturbances on the Bulk Power System.’’ In it, they concluded that 
27 

the most likely worst-case scenario system impact from a severe 

geomagnetic disturbance is voltage instability and voltage collapse, 

with limited equipment damage and recovery times measured in 

hours or days. 

On April 30, 2012, the Commission held a technical conference 

to discuss issues related to the reliability of the bulk power system, 

as affected by geomagnetic disturbances. The conference explored 

the risks and impacts from geomagnetically-induced currents to 

transformers and other equipment on the bulk power system, as 

well as options for addressing or mitigating risks and impacts. 

The Commission is considering the comments filed after the conference and what actions it can take under its current authority to 

address National security threats to the reliability of our power 

system from EMP. Although the Commission’s current authority allows it to require submission to the ERO of proposed standards to 

address the EMP threat to the United States, it does not allow the 

Commission the ability to author the standards, thereby limiting 

its effectiveness. These types of threats pose an increasing risk to 

the power grid that serves our Nation. The Commission is therefore 

considering actions that it can take under its current authority. 

Any new legislation should address several key concerns, including allowing the Federal Government to take action before a cyber 

or physical National security incident has occurred, ensuring appropriate confidentiality of sensitive information developed under 

new authority, and allowing cost recovery for entities that mitigate 

vulnerabilities and threats. 

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify today. I would 

be happy to answer any questions that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClelland follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH MCCLELLAND

SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the committee: Thank you for 

this opportunity to appear before you to discuss the security of the electric grid. My 

name is Joseph McClelland. I am the director of the Office of Electric Reliability 

(OER) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission). The 

Commission’s role with respect to reliability is to help protect and improve the reliability of the Nation’s bulk power system through effective regulatory oversight as 

established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. I am here today as a Commission staff 

witness and my remarks do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission 

or any individual Commissioner. 

The Commission is committed to protecting the reliability of the Nation’s bulk 

electric system. The Commission is considering actions that it can take under its 

current authority to address National security threats to the reliability of our transmission and power system from electromagnetic pulses. These types of threats pose 

an increasing risk to our Nation’s electric grid, which undergirds our Government 

and economy and helps ensure the health and welfare of our citizens. I will describe 

how limitations in Federal authority may not fully protect the grid against security 

threats due to electromagnetic pulse and summarize the Commission’s oversight of 

the electric grid under section 215 of the Federal Power Act. 

BACKGROUND

In the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), Congress entrusted the Commission with a major new responsibility to oversee mandatory, enforceable reliability 

standards for the Nation’s bulk power system (excluding Alaska and Hawaii). This 

authority is in section 215 of the Federal Power Act. Section 215 requires the Commission to select an Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) that is responsible for 

proposing, for Commission review and approval, reliability standards or modifica-
28 

tions to existing reliability standards to help protect and improve the reliability of 

the Nation’s bulk power system. The Commission has certified the North American 

Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) as the ERO. The reliability standards apply 

to the users, owners, and operators of the bulk power system and become mandatory 

in the United States only after Commission approval. The ERO also is authorized 

to impose, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, penalties for violations of the 

reliability standards, subject to Commission review and approval. The ERO may delegate certain responsibilities to ‘‘Regional Entities,’’ subject to Commission approval. 

The Commission may approve proposed reliability standards or modifications to 

previously approved standards if it finds them ‘‘just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.’’ The Commission itself does 

not have authority to author or modify proposed standards. Rather, if the Commission disapproves a proposed standard or modification, section 215 requires the Commission to remand it to the ERO for further consideration. The Commission, upon 

its own motion or upon complaint, may direct the ERO to submit a proposed standard or modification on a specific matter but it does not have the authority to modify 

or author a standard and must depend upon the ERO to do so. 

Limitations of Section 215 and the Term ‘‘Bulk Power System’’ 

Currently, the Commission’s jurisdiction under section 215 is limited to the ‘‘bulk 

power system,’’ as defined in the FPA, and therefore excludes Alaska and Hawaii, 

including any Federal installations located therein. It also excludes all local distribution facilities, including those facilities connected to defense infrastructure. The 

current interpretation of ‘‘bulk power system’’ also excludes some transmission, including virtually all of the grid facilities in certain large cities such as New York, 

thus precluding Commission action to mitigate cyber or other National security 

threats to reliability that involve such facilities and major population areas. The 

Commission directed NERC to revise its interpretation of the bulk power system to 

eliminate inconsistencies across regions, eliminate the ambiguity created by the current discretion in NERC’s definition of bulk electric system, provide a backstop review to ensure that any variations do not compromise reliability, and ensure that 

facilities that could significantly affect reliability are subject to mandatory rules. 

NERC has recently filed a revised definition of the term bulk power system, and 

the Commission has solicited comments on its proposal to accept NERC’s revised 

definition. However, it is important to note that section 215 of the FPA excludes 

local distribution facilities from the Commission’s reliability jurisdiction, so any revised bulk electric system definition developed by NERC will still not apply to local 

distribution facilities, including those connected to defense infrastructure. 

THE NERC PROCESS

As an initial matter, it is important to recognize how mandatory reliability standards are established. Under section 215, reliability standards must be developed by 

the ERO through an open, inclusive, and public process. The Commission can direct 

NERC to develop a reliability standard to address a particular reliability matter. 

However, the NERC process typically requires years to develop standards for the 

Commission’s review. 

NERC’s procedures for developing standards allow extensive opportunity for 

stakeholder comment, are open, and are generally based on the procedures of the 

American National Standards Institute. The NERC process is intended to develop 

consensus on both the need for, and the substance of, the proposed standard. Although inclusive, the process is relatively slow, open, and unpredictable in its responsiveness to the Commission’s directives. This process requires public disclosure 

regarding the reason for the proposed standard, the manner in which the standard 

will address the issues, and any subsequent comments and resulting modifications 

in the standards as the affected stakeholders review the material and provide comments. NERC-approved standards are then submitted to the Commission for its review. 

The procedures used by NERC are appropriate for developing and approving routine reliability standards. The process allows extensive opportunities for industry 

and public comment. The public nature of the reliability standards development 

process can be a strength of the process. However, it can be an impediment when 

measures or actions need to be taken to address threats to National security quickly, effectively, and in a manner that protects against the disclosure of security-sensitive information. The current procedures used under section 215 for the development and approval of reliability standards do not provide an effective and timely 

means of addressing urgent National security risks to the bulk power system, particularly in emergency situations. Certain circumstances, such as those involving 
29 

National security, may require immediate action, while the reliability standard procedures take too long to implement efficient and timely corrective steps. 

FERC rules governing review and establishment of reliability standards allow the 

agency to direct the ERO to develop and propose reliability standards under an expedited schedule. For example, FERC could order the ERO to submit a reliability 

standard to address a reliability vulnerability within 60 days. Also, NERC’s rules 

of procedure include a provision to develop a new or modified Reliability Standard 

using an expedited reliability standard development process that can be completed 

within 60 days and which may be further expedited by a written finding by the 

NERC board of trustees that an extraordinary and immediate threat exists to bulk 

power system reliability or National security. However, it is not clear NERC could 

meet this schedule in practice. Moreover, faced with a National security threat to 

reliability, there may be a need to act decisively in hours or days, rather than 

weeks, months, or years. That would not be feasible even under the expedited process. In the mean time, the bulk power system would be left vulnerable to a known 

National security threat. Moreover, existing procedures, including the expedited action procedure, could widely publicize both the vulnerability and the proposed solution, thus increasing the risk of hostile actions before the appropriate solutions are 

implemented. 

In addition, a reliability standard submitted to the Commission by NERC may not 

be sufficient to address the identified vulnerability or threat. Since FERC may not 

directly modify a proposed reliability standard under section 215 and must either 

approve or remand it, FERC would have the choice of approving an inadequate 

standard and directing changes, which reinitiates a process that can take years, or 

rejecting the standard altogether. Under either approach, the bulk power system 

would remain vulnerable for a prolonged period. 

Finally, the open and inclusive process required for standards development is not 

consistent with the need to protect security-sensitive information. For instance, a 

formal request for a new standard would normally detail the need for the standard 

as well as the proposed mitigation to address the issue, and the NERC-approved 

version of the standard would be filed with the Commission for review. This public 

information could help potential adversaries in planning attacks. 

PHYSICAL SECURITY AND OTHER THREATS TO RELIABILITY

The existing reliability standards do not extend to physical threats to the grid, 

but physical threats can cause equal or greater destruction than cyber attacks. 

While the Commission is considering actions that it can take under its current authority, this authority may not be sufficient in cases where quick mandatory action 

is needed to protect the United States from the EMP threat or other National security threats to the reliability of our transmission and power system. The Federal 

Government should have no less ability to act to protect against potential damage 

from physical threats to the grid than from cyber attacks. 

One example of a physical threat is an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) event. EMP 

events can be generated from either naturally-occurring or man-made causes. In the 

case of the former, solar magnetic disturbances periodically disrupt the earth’s magnetic field which in turn, can generate large induced ground currents on the electric 

grid. This effect, also termed the ‘‘E3’’ component of an EMP, can simultaneously 

damage or destroy bulk power system transformers over a large geographic area. 

Regarding man-made events, EMP can also be generated by weapons. Equipment 

and plans are readily available that have the capability to generate high-energy 

bursts, termed ‘‘E1’’, that can damage or destroy electronics such as those found in 

control and communication systems on the power grid. These devices can be portable and effective, facilitating simultaneous coordinated attacks, and can be reused, 

allowing use against multiple targets. The most comprehensive man-made EMP 

threat is from a high-altitude nuclear explosion. It would affect an area defined by 

the ‘‘line-of-sight’’ from the point of detonation. The higher the detonation the larger 

the area affected, and the more powerful the explosion the stronger the EMP emitted. The first component of the resulting pulse E1 occurs within a fraction of a second and can destroy control and communication electronics. The second component 

is termed ‘‘E2’’ and is similar to lightning, which is well-known and mitigated by 

industry. Toward the end of an EMP event, the third element, E3, occurs. This 

causes the same effect as solar magnetic disturbances. It can damage or destroy 

power transformers connected to long transmission lines and cause voltage problems 

and instability on the electric grid, which can lead to wide-area blackouts. It is important to note that effective mitigation against solar magnetic disturbances and 

non-nuclear EMP weaponry provides effective mitigation against a high-altitude nuclear explosion. 
30 

1Graham, Dr. William R. et al., Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United 

States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack (2004). 2Dr. John S. Foster, Jr. et al., Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United 

States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack (2008). 3Odenwald, Sten F. and Green, James L., Bracing the Satellite Infrastructure for a Solar 

Superstorm, Scientific American Magazine (Jul. 28, 2008). 

In 2001, Congress established a commission to assess the threat from EMP, with 

particular attention to be paid to the nature and magnitude of high-altitude EMP 

threats to the United States; vulnerabilities of U.S. military and civilian infrastructure to such attack; capabilities to recover from an attack; and the feasibility and 

cost of protecting military and civilian infrastructure, including energy infrastructure. In 2004, the EMP commission issued a report describing the nature of EMP 

attacks, vulnerabilities to EMP attacks, and strategies to respond to an attack.1 A 

second report was produced in 2008 that further investigated vulnerabilities of the 

Nation’s infrastructure to EMP.2 The reports concluded that both electrical equipment and control systems can be damaged by EMP. The reports also pointed out 

how the interdependencies among the various infrastructures could become 

vulnerabilities after an EMP. In particular, they point to the electrical infrastructure’s need of the communication and natural gas infrastructures. 

An EMP may also be a naturally-occurring event caused by solar flares and 

storms disrupting the Earth’s magnetic field. In 1859, a major solar storm occurred, 

causing auroral displays and significant shifts of the Earth’s magnetic fields. As a 

result, telegraphs were rendered useless and several telegraph stations burned 

down. The impacts of that storm were muted because semiconductor technology did 

not exist at the time. Were the storm to happen today, according to an article in 

Scientific American, it could ‘‘severely damage satellites, disable radio communications, and cause continent-wide electrical black-outs that would require weeks or 

longer to recover from.’’3 Although storms of this magnitude occur rarely, storms 

and flares of lesser intensity occur more frequently. Storms of about half the intensity of the 1859 storm occur every 50 years or so according to the authors of the 

Scientific American article, and the last such storm occurred in November 1960, 

leading to world-wide geomagnetic disturbances and radio outages. The power grid 

is particularly vulnerable to solar storms, as transformers are electrically grounded 

to the Earth and susceptible to damage from geomagnetically-induced currents. The 

damage or destruction of numerous transformers across the country would result in 

reduced grid functionality and even prolonged power outages. 

In March 2010, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Oak Ridge) and its subcontractor 

Metatech released a study that explored the vulnerability of the electric grid to 

EMP-related events. This study was a joint effort contracted by FERC staff, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Homeland Security and expanded on 

the information developed in other initiatives, including the EMP commission reports. The series of reports provided detailed technical background and outlined 

which sections of the power grid are most vulnerable, what equipment would be affected, and what damage could result. Protection concepts for each threat and additional methods for remediation were also included along with suggestions for mitigation. The results of the study support the general conclusion that EMP events pose 

substantial risk to equipment and operation of the Nation’s power grid and under 

extreme conditions could result in major long-term electrical outages. In fact, solar 

magnetic disturbances are inevitable with only the timing and magnitude subject 

to variability. The study assessed the 1921 solar storm, which has been termed a 

1-in-100-year event, and applied it to today’s power grid. The study concluded that 

such a storm could damage or destroy up to 300 bulk power system transformers, 

interrupting service to 130 million people for a period of years. 

In February 2012, NERC released its Interim Report: Effects of Geomagnetic Disturbances on the Bulk Power System. In it, NERC concluded that the most likely 

worst-case system impact from a severe geomagnetic disturbance is voltage instability and voltage collapse with limited equipment damage. 

On April 30, 2012, the Commission held a technical conference to discuss issues 

related to reliability of the bulk power system as affected by geomagnetic disturbances. The conference explored the risks and impacts from geomagnetically-induced 

currents to transformers and other equipment on the bulk power system, as well 

as options for addressing or mitigating the risks and impacts. The Commission is 

considering the comments filed after that conference and what actions it can take 

under its current authority to address National security threats to the reliability of 

our transmission and power system from electromagnetic pulses. 

The existing reliability standards do not address EMP vulnerabilities. Protecting 

the electric generation, transmission, and distribution systems from severe damage 
31 

due to an EMP-related event would involve vulnerability assessments at every level 

of electric infrastructure. 

CONCLUSION

Although the Commission’s current authority allows it to require the submission 

by the ERO of proposed standards to address the EMP threat to the United States, 

it does not allow the Commission the ability to author the standard, thereby limiting its effectiveness. The Commission is considering actions that it can take under 

its current authority. This authority, however, does not allow it to author standards 

or to require quick action to protect the United States from the EMP threat or other 

National security threats to the reliability of our transmission and power system. 

Any new legislation should address several key concerns, including allowing the 

Federal Government to take action before a cyber or physical National security incident has occurred, ensuring appropriate confidentiality of sensitive information submitted, developed, or issued under new authority, and allowing cost recovery for 

costs entities incur to mitigate vulnerabilities and threats. 

These types of threats pose an increasing risk to the power grid that serves our 

Nation, which undergirds our Government and economy and helps ensure the 

health and welfare of our citizens. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify 

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

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Wales. 

STATEMENT OF BRANDON WALES, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND INFRASTRUCTURE THREAT AND RISK ANALYSIS CONTER, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. WALES. Thank you, Chairman Lungren, Ranking Member 

Clarke, and distinguished Members of the committee for inviting 

me to address the threat posed by electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, 

to our Nation’s critical infrastructure, and the Department of 

Homeland Security’s preparations to respond to and recover from 

EMP attacks. 

As you mentioned, I am the director of the DHS Homeland Infrastructure Threat and Risk Analysis Center, known as HITRAC, 

which is charged with analyzing risks to the Nation’s critical infrastructure from threats and hazards, both natural and man-made, 

recognizing EMP as a growing threat to the Nation’s digital and 

physical infrastructures and the growing vulnerability of today’s 

microelectronics to that threat. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue. 

As you know, an EMP is the burst of electromagnetic radiation 

created when a nuclear weapon is detonated or when a non-nuclear 

EMP weapon is used. Naturally-occurring solar weather can generate an effect similar to one component of EMP. The consequences 

of an EMP range from temporary system disruptions to permanent 

physical damage and critical service outages. 

Overall, EMP in its various forms can cause widespread disruption and serious damage to electronic devices and networks, including those upon which many critical infrastructures rely, such as 

communication systems, information technology equipment, and 

supervisory control and data acquisition, commonly known as 

SCADA modules. SCADA modules are used in infrastructure, such 

as electric grids, water supplies, and pipelines. The disruption to 

SCADA systems that could result from EMP range from SCADA 

control errors to actual equipment destruction. Secondary effects of 

EMP may harm people through induced fires, electric shocks, and 

disruption of the transportation and critical support systems, such 
32 

as those at hospitals or sites like nuclear power plants and chemical facilities. 

EMP places all critical infrastructure sectors at risk. Those sectors that rely heavily on communications technology, information 

technology, the electric grid, or that uses SCADA system, are particularly vulnerable. The complex interconnectivity among critical 

infrastructure sectors means that an EMP incident that affects a 

single sector will likely affect other sectors, potentially resulting in 

cascading failures. The interdependent nature of all 18 critical infrastructure sectors complicates the impact of the event and recovery from it. 

The Department is working collaboratively, both internally and 

with external stakeholders, to reduce the risk from EMP and solar 

weather. For example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency have exercised scenarios involving EMP and solar weather and 

are developing plans to help address these evolving threats. FEMA 

is also working with States and industry to reduce the risk from 

EMP, notably by deploying new capabilities as part of the integrated public alert and warning system to help keep the public informed and alerted during a major EMP event. 

The National Protection and Program Directorate’s Office of Cybersecurity and Communications has also worked to model and assess EMP effects, and to conduct research and propose solutions to 

understand and mitigate EMP risks. NPPD’s Office of Infrastructure Protection also plays a role in the Department’s work on EMP. 

For example, our office conducted a study in 2010 on EMP’s potential impact on extra-high voltage transformers and recommended 

options for hardening these systems from EMP attacks. 

The Science and Technology Directorate has led much of the Department’s research in the EMP area. Its recovery transformer 

project is intended to increase the resilience of the power grid 

through the development of a prototype extra-high voltage transformer that, unlike traditional transformers, will be able to be 

quickly delivered to a site, reducing potential recovery time by 75 

percent. 

S&T is also working to increase the resilience of the power grid 

through their resilient electric grid project. This project is designed 

to develop an inherently fault-current-limiting high temperature 

super-conducting cable, which can help the electric utilities manage 

fault currents that can cause cascading blackouts and permanent 

damage to electrical equipment. 

The Commission to assess the threat to the United States from 

EMP attack recommended in its final report that DHS play a leading role in spreading knowledge of the nature of prudent mitigation 

preparations for EMP attack to mitigate its consequences. The Department takes that recommendation seriously. We have pursued 

a deeper understanding of the threat and its potential impacts and 

effective mitigation strategies, and a greater level of public awareness and readiness through various communication channels. But 

as we all know, there is more work to be done. 

Thank you for holding this important hearing. I would be happy 

to respond to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wales follows:] 
33 

1Since the 1980s, our power grid control systems and information infrastructures have been 

growing in their reliance on the Ethernet and computers, which are much more vulnerable to 

E1 EMP than previous control and communications systems designs. Likewise, the power grid 

today is much more vulnerable to (E3 EMP) and solar storms than the grid of the 1970s and 

80s due to the increasing network size and evolution to higher operating voltages. 2 ‘‘Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic 

Pulse (EMP) Attack: Critical National Infrastructures,’’ April 2008, page 181. This report presents the results of the Commission’s assessment of the effects of a high-altitude EMP attack 

on our critical National infrastructures and provides recommendations for their mitigation. 3 Aurora-induced phenomena refer to effects like geomagnetically-induced currents in the 

power grid that are caused by solar storms which are associated with increased aurora activity. 

Although there are many different phenomena associated with solar storms, one of the most important is the geomagnetically-induced quasi-dc current flow that can damage our power transmission networks. 4 ‘‘Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic 

Pulse (EMP) Attack: Critical National Infrastructures,’’ April 2008, page vi, ‘‘When a nuclear 

explosion occurs at high altitude, the EMP signal it produces will cover the wide geographic region within the line of sight of the detonation. This broad-band, high-amplitude EMP, when coupled into sensitive electronics, has the capability to produce widespread and long-lasting disruption and damage to the critical infrastructures that underpin the fabric of U.S. society.’’ See 

also: Glasstone, S., P.J. Dolan, ‘‘The Effects of Nuclear Weapons,’’ Chapter XI on EMP, U.S. 

Dept. of Energy, 1977. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRANDON WALES

SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 

Thank you, Chairman Lungren, Ranking Member Clarke, and distinguished 

Members of the committee. It is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss 

the nature of the threat posed by electromagnetic pulse (EMP) to our Nation and 

its critical infrastructure, including its cyber, communications, and electric-grid assets, as well as to discuss the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) preparations to respond to and recover from potential EMP attacks. 

Over the past several decades, the threat to digital and physical infrastructures 

has grown. For example, today’s power grid and information networks are much 

more vulnerable to EMP than those of a few decades ago.1 The Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack recommended in its final report that DHS ‘‘play a leading role in spreading knowledge 

of the nature of prudent mitigation preparations for EMP attack to mitigate its consequences.’’2 The Department takes that recommendation seriously and welcomes in 

cooperation with other Government agencies increasing understanding of this critical topic. 

BACKGROUND

An EMP is the burst of electromagnetic radiation created when a nuclear weapon 

is detonated or when a non-nuclear EMP weapon is used. Naturally-occurring solar 

weather can generate effects similar to one component of an EMP. EMPs can be 

high-frequency, similar to a flash of lightning or a spark of static electricity, or lowfrequency, similar to an aurora-induced phenomenon.3 An EMP can spike in less 

than a nanosecond or can continue longer than 24 hours, depending on its source. 

The consequences of an EMP range from permanent physical damage to temporary 

system disruptions and can result in fires, electric shocks to people and equipment, 

and critical service outages. There are four general classes of EMP. 

High-altitude EMP (HEMP) results from a nuclear detonation typically occurring 

15 or more miles above the Earth’s surface. The extent of HEMP effects depends 

on several factors, including the altitude of the detonation, the weapon yield and 

design, and the electromagnetic shielding, or ‘‘hardening,’’ of assets. One high-altitude burst could blanket the entire continental United States and could cause widespread power outages and communications disruptions and possible damage to the 

electricity grid for weeks or longer.4 HEMP threat vectors can originate from a missile, such as a sea-launched ballistic missile; a satellite asset; or a relatively lowcost balloon-borne vehicle. A concern is the growing number of nation-states that 

in the past have sponsored terrorism and are now developing capabilities that could 

be used in a HEMP attack. 

Source Region EMP (SREMP) is a burst of energy similar to HEMP but differs 

in that it is created when a nuclear weapon detonates at lower altitudes within the 

atmosphere. SREMP can occur when a detonation occurs on or near the ground, as 

would likely be the case of a terrorist nuclear device attack. A SREMP’s electromagnetic field is much more limited in range than that from HEMP; it would only 

affect a delimited geographic area. SREMP can induce very high currents on power 
34 

5 Robert L. Schweitzer, LTG (ret) USA, ‘‘Radio Frequency Weapons: The Emerging Threat and 

Policy Implications,’’ Eagan, McAllister Associates, October 1998; see also: Overview of Evolving 

and Enduring Threats to Information Systems, National Communications System, August 2012. 6 In the last 200 years, only the 1859 and 1921 solar superstorms are believed by experts to 

have exceeded the 4,000 nanoTesla/minute level over the United States. If one of these storms 

were to occur today, many experts believe they would likely damage key elements of the power 

grid and could cause very long-term power outages over much of the United States. 

cables or metallic communications lines near the fireball, and it can send extreme 

spikes of energy great distances from the blast zone along these metal lines, potentially causing fires where these lines meet other infrastructures. In addition, the 

SREMP travels through the air and can damage or disrupt equipment connected to 

Ethernet cables, telephone lines, and power cords out to 70 miles or more. Electronic 

systems not connected to power cords or communications lines, such as a cell phone, 

are generally resistant to SREMP but become useless if the infrastructure that supports them is non-functional. While SREMP is not the primary reason a terrorist 

would detonate a nuclear weapon, it is important to note that all ground-based detonations create SREMP of sufficient magnitude to cause infrastructure disruptions, 

including an improvised nuclear device, a crude nuclear device that could be built 

from the components of a stolen weapon or from using nuclear materials. Given the 

possible impacts of SREMP, such as secondary fires and the disruptions of power, 

communications, and other critical infrastructures, it is an important consideration 

in our Department’s planning to mitigate and respond to this type of attack. 

Unlike HEMP and SREMP, which primarily disrupt Earth-based infrastructures, 

System Generated EMP (SGEMP) is a threat to space-based assets, such as satellites or a space station. SGEMPs originate from a nuclear weapon detonation 

above the atmosphere that sends out damaging X-rays that strike space systems. 

Both SGEMP and HEMP are similar, in that they both originate from a high-altitude burst. The Department’s chief concern with SGEMP and other related highaltitude nuclear effects is that satellite or other space systems that support critical 

communications and navigation services, as well as essential intelligence functions, 

can be immediately disrupted. SGEMP and other related effects could also harm 

systems supporting any astronaut in space. 

The fourth type of EMP is Non-Nuclear EMP, or NNEP. This type of EMP can 

be created by Radio Frequency Weapons (RFWs), devices designed to produce sufficient electromagnetic energy to burn out or disrupt electronic components, systems, 

and networks. RFWs can either be electrically-driven, where they create 

narrowband or wideband microwaves, or they can be explosively driven, where an 

explosive is used to compress a magnetic field to generate the pulse. Multiple nations have used RFWs since the 1960s to disable or jam security, communications, 

and navigation systems; induce fires; and disrupt financial infrastructures. Devices 

that can be used as RFWs have unintentionally caused aircraft crashes and near 

crashes, pipeline explosions, gas spills, computer damage, vehicle malfunctions, 

weapons explosions, and public water system malfunctions.5 The Department believes that much of the mitigation and planning we are doing for other types of 

EMP will help reduce our threat to NNEP. 

SOLAR WEATHER

Solar Weather is created as a result of massive explosions on the sun that may 

shoot radiation towards the Earth. These effects can reach the Earth in as little as 

8 minutes with Solar Flare X-rays or over 14 hours later with a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) plasma hurricane. An extreme CME is the Department’s biggest Solar 

Weather concern. It could create low-frequency EMP similar to a megaton-class nuclear HEMP detonation over the United States, which could disrupt or damage the 

power grid, undersea cables, and other critical infrastructures. The United States 

experiences many solar weather events each year, but major storms that could significantly impact today’s infrastructures are not common but have previously occurred in 1921 and 1859 and possibly in several other years prior to the establishment of the modern power grid. The U.S. Department of Energy and utility owners 

and operators have been focusing on potential threats and steps that utilities can 

take to reduce possible impacts.6 Work is underway in cooperation with a number 

of Federal agencies including the: National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA), Nation Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), United States 

Geological Survey, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, and DHS with 

industry support and participation to ensure this threat is understood. 
35 

7To date, 17 National-level Emergency Alert System radio stations have been protected 

against EMP. Within the next year, another 20 National-level EAS radio stations are planned 

to have EMP protection installed. 

POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Overall, EMP in its various forms can cause widespread disruption and serious 

damage to electronic devices and networks, including those upon which many critical infrastructures rely, such as communication systems, information technology 

equipment, and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) modules. SCADA 

modules are used in infrastructure such as electric grids, water supplies, and pipelines. The disruptions to SCADA systems that could result from EMP range from 

SCADA control errors to actual SCADA equipment destruction. Secondary effects of 

EMP may harm people through induced fires, electric shocks, and disruptions of 

transportation and critical support systems, such as those at hospitals or sites like 

nuclear power plants and chemical facilities. 

EMP places all critical infrastructure sectors at risk. Those sectors that rely heavily on communications technology, information technology, the electric grid, or that 

use a SCADA system are particularly vulnerable. The complex interconnectivity 

among critical infrastructure sectors means that EMP incidents that affect a single 

sector will likely affect other sectors—potentially resulting in cascading failures. The 

interdependent nature of all 18 critical infrastructure sectors complicates the impact 

of the event and recovery from it. 

DHS’S EFFORTS TO STUDY, MITIGATE, AND RESPOND TO EMP ATTACKS

The Department, acting through the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA), the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) and the Science 

and Technology Directorate (S&T), has worked extensively to help recognize EMP 

as a threat to the Nation. Specifically, the Department is working collaboratively, 

both internally and with external stakeholders, in various arenas to reduce risk. For 

example, DHS has exercised scenarios involving both EMP and solar weather and 

is developing plans to help address these evolving threats. Likewise, FEMA and 

other Government agencies are working with States and industry. For example, 

FEMA is deploying new capabilities as part of the Integrated Public Alert and 

Warning System, such as the protected Emergency Alert System Primary Entry 

Point AM and FM radio stations that would be used by the President and key leadership to help keep the public informed and alerted during a major EMP event.7

Both NASA and NOAA are improving and testing their Space Weather warning systems. Many of the Federal Government’s missions rely on satellite imagery, communications satellites, and GPS for their execution. The potential impact of solar 

storms on satellites led Secretary Napolitano to issue the DHS Space Policy on February 3, 2011, which committed the Department to working with both private and 

public-sector partners on increasing the resilience of mission essential functions. 

Two offices within NPPD are at the forefront of understanding and working to 

identify how EMP can impact the homeland security enterprise. First, the Office of 

Cybersecurity and Communications (CS&C) has worked extensively to model and 

assess EMP effects and conduct research and propose solutions to understand and 

mitigate EMP risks. As a result, CS&C has produced many assessments of the risks 

and mitigation options related to EMP. In particular, significant progress has been 

made in the last few years in modeling and understanding the risks of SREMP associated with an improvised nuclear device. 

NPPD’s Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP) also plays a significant role in the 

Department’s work on EMP. IP conducted a study in 2010 on EMP’s potential impact on extra high-voltage (EHV) transformers for the Western United States’ electrical grid. The study included findings about EMP from both artificial and naturally-occurring incidents and recommended options for hardening EHV transformers 

from EMP. 

S&T has led much of the Department’s research in the EMP area and is conducting important work through the Recovery Transformer (RecX) Project to increase the resiliency of the EHV transmission power grid, through the use of more 

mobile and modular transformers. EHV transformers are very large, extremely difficult to transport, and until 2009 primarily manufactured overseas, complicating 

rapid recovery and restoration efforts. This effort has developed a prototype EHV 

transformer that can quickly be deployed to a site, via a series of trailers and semitrucks, and then installed, assembled, and energized rapidly. The prototype RecX 

was demonstrated and installed in the grid at a host utility and is currently undergoing a 1-year observational period to verify its performance. 
36 

Another Departmental effort to increase the resiliency of the power grid is the 

S&T Resilient Electric Grid Project. S&T has developed a power-surge limiting, 

high-temperature, superconducting cable for electric grid resiliency that enables distribution-level substations to interconnect and share power and assets, while helping electric utilities manage power surges arising from a variety of causes that can 

cause cascading blackouts and permanent damage to electrical equipment. The 

interconnection of substations increases the resiliency of the grid by creating multiple paths for power flow. Superconducting cables also provide additional benefits 

such as allowing more power to flow through a smaller cable with lower transmission losses. The cable will be installed for testing and evaluation in Yonkers, NY, 

in 2014. Several approaches to improving the resiliency of the electrical grid are underway both in the United States and abroad that hold promise to reduce the vulnerability of extra large transformers and reduce the threat to the electricity grid. 

CONCLUSION

DHS has pursued a deeper understanding of the EMP threat as well as its potential impacts, effective mitigation strategies, and a greater level of public awareness 

and readiness in cooperation with other Federal agencies and private equipment 

and system owners and operators through various communications channels. However, more work is needed to understand the risk posed by EMP and solar weather 

to all sectors, through direct and cascading impacts. I commend the committee for 

its interest in this key issue and look forward to your questions. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Wales. 

Mr. Aimone. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. AIMONE, DIRECTOR, BUSINESS 

ENTERPRISE INTEGRATION OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY UNDER 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT, OFFICE OF UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR 

ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY, AND LOGISTICS, DEPARTMENT 

OF DEFENSE 

Mr. AIMONE. Thank you, Chairman Lungren, Ranking Member 

Clarke, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee. 

I was asked specifically to address the question of how the Department of Defense would operate during a significant outage of 

the commercial electrical grid. Although today’s hearing is focused 

on the prospect of the EMP event, such an event is only just one 

scenario of a grid outage. DOD, as it has been stated before me, 

is in fact heavily dependent upon the electrical commercial grid. 

The Department has two closely-coordinated sets of activities 

that focus on the need to maintain critical mission activities in the 

event of a commercial outage. One set of these activities, led by our 

Department’s Office of Homeland Defense, is part of the Department’s explicit Mission Assurance Strategy. The other set of activities focused in the Office of the Under Secretary for Installations 

and Environment falls underneath the Facilities Energy Strategy. 

These two strategies are tied together. 

With regards to the Mission Assurance Strategy, the Department 

has long had a major focus on mitigating risks to high-priority 

DOD facilities and infrastructure and the critical global missions 

they support. To that end, DOD recently adopted the Mission Assurance Strategy to focus on enduring operational continuity in an 

all-hazards threats environment. 

This strategy entails a two-track approach. Track I includes inhouse mitigation activities, those efforts that the Department can 

execute largely in-house. Track II of our Mission Assurance Strategy tackles the many challenges to DOD mission execution and re-
37 

quires external collaboration with our partners in the Department 

of Energy, Homeland Security, and industry. 

With regards to the facility’s energy strategy, the Department’s 

fixed installations are traditionally served by—as largely as platforms for training and deployment of forces. But in recent years, 

they have begun to provide direct support to combat operations, 

such as unmanned aerial vehicles flown in Afghanistan from fixed 

installations here in the United States. 

Our fixed installations also serve as staging platforms for humanitarian and Homeland Defense missions. These installations 

are largely dependent on the commercial power grid that is vulnerable to disruptions due to aging infrastructure, weather-related 

events, and potential kinetic and cyber attack. 

Currently, the Department ensures that it can continue its mission-critical activities on base, in the event of a grid outage through 

its fleet of on-site power generation equipment. This equipment is 

connected to essential mission systems. In addition, each installation has standby generators in storage for repositioning as required. 

As further backup to these on-site generation equipment, DOD 

maintains a strategic stockpile of electrical power generators and 

support equipment that is kept in operational readiness. For example, during Hurricane Katrina, the Air Force transported more 

than 2 megawatts of specialized diesel generators from Florida, 

where they were stored, to the Keesler Air Force base in Mississippi to support base recovery. 

Although the Department will continue to maintain its fleet of 

on-site and mobile backup generators, we are also moving aggressively to adopt the next generation micro-grids. Advanced microgrids combined with on-site energy generation and energy storage 

offer a more robust and cost-effective approach to ensuring installation energy security than the current solution of just maintaining 

a fleet of backup generators. 

Advanced micro-grids are a triple play. First, they will facilitate 

and incorporate renewable and other on-site energy generation. 

Second, they will reduce installation energy costs on a day-to-day 

basis by allowing for load balancing and demand response. Third, 

and more importantly, the combination of on-site energy and storage, together with the micro-grid’s ability to manage local energy 

supply and demand will allow an installation to shed the non-essential loads and maintain critical mission loads if the grid should 

go down. 

The Department’s Installation Energy Test bid is funding 10 

demonstrations of micro-grids and storage technologies to evaluate 

benefits and risks of alternative approaches and configurations. 

The test bid is working with multiple vendors so that to allow that 

DOD captures the benefits of competition. 

That ends my prepared remarks. Thank you for holding this important hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aimone follows:] 
38 

1 ‘‘More Fight—Less Fuel,’’ Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on DoD Energy 

Strategy, February 2008. Facility energy is also important because of its high cost. With more 

than 300,000 buildings and 2.2 billion square feet of building space, DoD has a footprint three 

times that of Walmart and six times that of the General Services Administration. Our corresponding energy bill is $4 billion annually—roughly 10 percent of what DoD spends to operate 

and maintain its installation infrastructure. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. AIMONE

SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 

Chairman Lungren and distinguished Members of the subcommittee. Thank you 

for the opportunity to testify. I was asked to address the question of how the Department of Defense (DoD) would operate during a significant outage of the commercial electric power grid. 

Although today’s hearing is focused on the prospect of an electromagnetic pulse 

(EMP) event, such an event is only one scenario for a grid outage. DoD is heavily 

dependent on the commercial electric power grid. The Department has two closely 

coordinated sets of activities that focus on the need to maintain critical mission activities in the event of a commercial grid outage. One set of activities, led by DoD’s 

office of homeland defense, is part of the Department’s explicit ‘‘mission assurance 

strategy.’’ The other set of activities, focused on the Department’s fixed installations 

and led by its Installations and Environment office, falls under DoD’s ‘‘facility energy strategy.’’ 

MISSION ASSURANCE STRATEGY

The Department has long had a major focus on mitigating risks to high-priority 

DoD facilities and infrastructure and the critical global missions they support. Toward that end, DoD recently adopted an explicit Mission Assurance Strategy, which 

is focused on ensuring operational continuity in an all-hazard threat environment. 

This strategy entails a two-track approach. Track I includes ‘‘in-house’’ mitigation 

efforts—activities that the Department can execute largely on its own. A key element is DoD’s Defense Critical Industry Program (DCIP)—an integrated risk management program designed to secure critical assets, infrastructure, and key resources for our Nation. DoD and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) work 

closely together as part of DCIP. Under Track I of the Mission Assurance Strategy, 

DCIP will continue to update the list of DoD’s most critical assets and target them 

for special mitigation efforts through DoD’s budget and other internal processes. 

Track II of our Mission Assurance Strategy tackles the many challenges to DoD 

mission execution that require external collaboration with partners such as the Department of Energy (DOE), DHS, and industry. Given that DoD mission execution 

relies heavily upon the energy surety of the communities surrounding our installations, Defense Industrial Base facilities spread across entire regions, and on private 

sector infrastructure that will collapse without electricity, this two-track approach 

can help meet the challenges to DoD mission assurance that lie far beyond our military bases. 

DOD’S FACILITY ENERGY STRATEGY

DoD’s facility energy strategy is also focused heavily on grid security in the name 

of mission assurance. Although the Department’s fixed installations traditionally 

served largely as a platform for training and deployment of forces, in recent years 

they have begun to provide direct support for combat operations, such as unmanned 

aerial vehicles (UAVs) flown in Afghanistan from fixed installations here in the 

United States. Our fixed installations also serve as staging platforms for humanitarian and homeland defense missions. These installations are largely dependent on 

a commercial power grid that is vulnerable to disruption due to aging infrastructure, weather-related events, and potential kinetic, cyber attack. In 2008, the Defense Science Board warned that DoD’s reliance on a fragile power grid to deliver 

electricity to its bases places critical missions at risk.1

STANDBY POWER GENERATION

Currently, DoD ensures that it can continue mission-critical activities on base 

largely through its fleet of on-site power generation equipment. This equipment is 

connected to essential mission systems and automatically operates in the event of 

a commercial grid outage. In addition, each installation has standby generators in 

storage for repositioning as required. Facility power production specialists ensure 

that the generators are primed and ready to work, and that they are maintained 
39 

and fueled during an emergency. With careful maintenance these generators can 

bridge the gap for even a lengthy outage. As further back up to this installed equipment, DoD maintains a strategic stockpile of electrical power generators and support equipment that is kept in operational readiness. For example, during Hurricane 

Katrina, the Air Force transported more than 2 megawatts of specialized diesel generators from Florida, where they were stored, to Keesler Air Force Base in Mississippi, to support base recovery. 

NEXT GENERATION MICROGRIDS

Although the Department will continue to maintain its fleet of on-site and mobile 

backup generators, we are moving aggressively to adopt next-generation microgrids. 

Advanced microgrids, combined with on-site energy generation (e.g., solar or geothermal) and energy storage, offer a more robust and cost-effective approach to ensuring installation energy security than the current solution (backup generators). 

Although microgrid systems are in use today, they are relatively unsophisticated, 

with limited ability to integrate renewable and other distributed energy sources, little or no energy storage capability, uncontrolled load demands, and ‘‘dumb’’ distribution that is subject to excessive energy losses. By contrast, we envision advanced 

(or ‘‘smart’’) microgrids as local power networks that can utilize distributed energy, 

manage local energy supply and demand, and operate seamlessly both in parallel 

to the grid and in ‘‘island’’ mode. 

Advanced microgrids are a ‘‘triple play’’ for DoD’s installations: First, they will facilitate the incorporation of renewable and other on-site energy generation. Second, 

they will reduce installation energy costs on a day-to-day basis by allowing for load 

balancing and demand response—i.e., the ability to curtail load or increase on-site 

generation in response to a request from the grid operator. Third, and most importantly, the combination of on-site energy and storage, together with the microgrid’s 

ability to manage local energy supply and demand, will allow an installation to shed 

non-essential loads and maintain mission-critical loads if and when the grid goes 

down. 

DoD’s Installation Energy Test Bed, run out of the Department’s Installations and 

Environment office, is funding ten demonstrations of microgrid and storage technologies to evaluate the benefits and risks of alternative approaches and configurations. The Test Bed is working with multiple vendors so as to allow DoD to capture 

the benefits of competition. Demonstrations are underway at Twentynine Palms, CA 

(General Electric’s advanced microgrid system); Fort Bliss, TX (Lockheed Martin); 

Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ (United Technologies); Fort Sill, OK (Eaton); 

and several other installations. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much. I appreciate the testimony 

of all our panelists. You have added to our record in very substantial ways and we appreciate that. 

I will recognize myself to begin with the questioning now. 

Mr. McClelland and Mr. Wales, in the area of dam safety and in 

the area of protection against flooding, we have means by which we 

assess whether a dam is at protection level of 1-in-100-year flood, 

1-in-200-year flood. My area, the Folsom Dam was 1-in-90-year 

flood. We are doing modifications to bring it up to 1-in-200-year 

flood, which is an improvement, but would still leave us behind 

where New Orleans was before Katrina hit. 

But there is an assessment by which you can make those determinations. Do we have a way of determining, with critical infrastructure of the electric grid, whether they are protected against 

the 1-in-100 possibility, the 1-in-200 possibility? Is there a way of 

gauging that sort of thing? If there is, is there a general assessment of where our electric grid is in terms of protecting against 

this 1-in-100 possibility of electromagnetic pulse? 

Mr. MCCLELLAND. I can start with that. There are operational 

procedures in specific parts of the country and monitors in place. 

For instance, in PJM, in the eastern interconnection, if ground current levels reach 10 amps, they start to mitigate. They start to redispatch the units and move power around, so they reduce load on 
40 

some of the transformers. But as far as automatic mitigation efforts, there are very few. 

If an entity puts in a series capacitor, it will block a ground-induced current, so it will mitigate any effects from a solar magnetic 

disturbance. It is not done particularly for GMD. It is done for economic reasons to reduce the losses on the transmission line and increase the throughput, particularly in the western interconnection. 

The far and away, both the electronics aspects and the large power 

equipment, is largely unmitigated from a hardware standpoint. 

I think that is particularly important when you consider some of 

the past events. In 1989, there was a geomagnetic disturbance, a 

solar flare. The whole province of Quebec, 5 million people, was out 

of power in 90 seconds. There was little any operator could have 

done. In fact, there was nothing practically an operator could have 

done to prevent that grid from collapsing. 

The information we have from Zurich is that—and we are trying 

to confirm this with our friends in Quebec—is that that outage 

alone cost $2 billion. 

Mr. LUNGREN. You say there is nothing that could be done. Do 

you mean with current equipment as it was displayed at that time? 

Or are there that could have been done in retrospect? 

Mr. MCCLELLAND. Oh, yes. There are things that could have 

been done. But from an operational standpoint, it happened too 

fast for an operator sitting at a terminal to really realize what was 

occurring. After that event, though, Quebec did protect themselves 

from geomagnetic disturbance and electromagnetic pulse. They did 

put series capacitors in to protect their system. So they have mitigated themselves against this issue. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Wales, Congressman Franks suggested that 

the costs associated with taking some of these measures to protect 

our electric grid in the light of the potential damage would be reasonable. Does that make sense to you? 

Mr. WALES. I would actually defer some of this question to my 

colleague from FERC. But I would say two things. One is, working 

with the private sector, they are going to look at both cost; they are 

also going to look at the potential impact on operations. I think the 

electric sector is a fairly conservative industry. They have a responsibility for ensuring a very high degree of reliability in electric 

power grids. So anytime we turn on the lights, it is 99-plus times, 

it is working. In order to maintain that, they are fairly conservative about new advances in new technology, what gets inserted in 

the grid without sufficient testing and other procedures. 

Over time, I think we are definitely seeing improvements, more 

series capacitors inside of networks to mitigate the risk of geomagnetic disturbances, exploring new technologies that could be 

brought to bear to allow a more resilient grid. 

There is certainly more that the industry can do. I think one last 

point on the cost is, this is an industry that when they want to 

raise costs, have to get permission from numerous utility commissions—utility boards around the country. So when they have to 

pass on potential costs, even ones that may seem minor, they have 

to go request permission from individual utility commissions, one 

at a time. That does have a potential impact on their ability to 
41 

move quickly, raise rates, in order to deploy new and advanced 

technologies. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I would say that costs are difficult to pass on if, 

in fact, the information is not there for people to understand the 

worthiness of the cost commitment. Let me just ask you Mr.—and 

by the way, when you use the word conservative, I am not offended. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. McClelland, in terms of the costs, Congressman Franks suggested that the costs are not out of proportion to 

the damage to be prevented. Is that, in your mind, accurate? 

Mr. MCCLELLAND. Yes. Just to give you a quick example, if we 

go to the Quebec outage again, the cost to society for a relatively 

short outage to 5 million people—I believe the outage was about 9 

hours long—was about $2 billion, estimated by Zurich. Mitigation 

devices that would absolutely block the geomagnetic disturbance effects, so you wouldn’t have to worry if it is a 1-in-100-year event 

or a 1-in-60,000-year event, the Fukushima-Daiichi, the conservative cost is about $500,000 per transformer. If you extrapolate 

that into $2 billion cost for relatively modest losses, I mean, you 

could mitigate 4,000 transformers, which is far and away in excess 

of anything that would need to be done in Quebec. 

The Oak Ridge report, on the other extreme, when it estimated 

severe effect, was $1 trillion to $2 trillion. That is with equipment 

damage. So that one event, even if there is no loss of equipment 

whatsoever, one even could more than pay for the cost of mitigation. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much. 

The Ranking Member is recognized. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Conservatism does has 

its place. 

My first question is to Mr. Wales. I wanted to just get from you 

what your best risk analysis is telling us about the probability of 

a severe geomagnetic disturbance or an EMP that would cause 

widespread damage to the electric grid. 

Mr. WALES. You know, I think the Department would classify 

both of those events as ones that are low likelihood. In the case of 

a solar storm, we are sure that there are solar storms that will hit 

the United States again in the future. Whether that is in 1 year 

or in 10,000 years, we don’t know. 

The potential when you are evaluating the potential impacts of 

those types of events, in particular the challenge of addressing 

what Chairman Lungren mentioned earlier in terms of against the 

1-in-100-year flood, looking at geomagnetic storms is not just a 1- 

in-100-year event, it is what direction is that solar storm—north, 

south, east, west? What is the intensity of that storm, duration, et 

cetera? So all of those factors will come into play when evaluating 

the potential impacts. So in some cases, if it goes in one direction, 

the western interconnect doesn’t have severe outages. If it goes in 

another direction, it may have a severe outage. 

I would also say that some of the information associated with the 

likelihood of an EMP being used would have to be done in a closed 

hearing. But on the whole, we would continue to assess these as 

low-likelihood events. That is not to say that the nature of the im-
42 

pacts associated with them don’t require action, which is why the 

Department is taking those measures where it can. But again, trying to balance those against all the risks that critical infrastructure, including the power grid face every day, requires both interaction with the private sector to build their capacity and ensure 

that they have the right information available to them as they are 

deciding on their own, how to use their scarce resources for security enhancements and to build resilience into these systems. 

Ms. CLARKE. So would you say low likelihood is the equivalent 

of a once-in-10-year event, once-in-100-year event, once-in-500-year 

event? You know, how do we kind of gauge that categorization of 

it? 

Mr. WALES. I think, in general, in the solar storm context, it is 

a little bit easier to determine since there is more frequency in 

which to do analysis on. Those severe solar storms have historically 

been termed a 1-in-100-year event. That is generally considered to 

be a low-likelihood scenario, particularly when that 1-in-100-year 

event may only hit a one piece of the country, may hit—or a larger 

one—we don’t really know. 

I think there is need to do more study for exactly how a solar 

event could impact the infrastructure. While it is likely that there 

will be significant disruption, the key variable is whether there will 

be severe equipment damage that will require long lead times to 

replace. Without that kind of information, it is unclear what type 

of mitigation may be best and be able to assess in more detail what 

the likely consequences and how quickly we can recover. 

Ms. CLARKE. Mr. McClelland, as I understand, there are two 

risks that result from the introduction of a ground-induced current 

from a geomagnetic disturbance to the bulk power system. No. 1, 

damage to the bulk power system assets, like transformers. No. 2, 

loss of reactive power support, which could lead to voltage instability. How does the Commission oversee that operators of the grid 

address these risks in a responsible and comprehensive way? 

Mr. MCCLELLAND. I think you have hit on, sort of, the key differentiation between all the prior bodies of study and the NERC report. The prior bodies of study have said that there would be a significant opportunity for widespread destruction of transformers. 

The NERC report, however, took exception and said that the reactive power requirements of the transformers under these conditions 

would increase significantly, causing the grid to collapse before 

there was any significant damage. The two are very related. 

So the Commission called a technical conference to sort out the 

details. What we did find was an absolute certainty was that no 

one really knows. There was no correlation studies done on the reactive power supply or on the relays and controls themselves, so 

with absolute certainty, no one can say that the grid would collapse. 

In fact, there have been events in 2003 in South Africa, there 

was a low-level GIC current. It was too small to cause reactive 

power requirements to increase on the transformers and yet it destroyed 12 large bulk power system transformers. It took years for 

the South Africans to recover. 

So we know with certainty that is not going to be the case. We 

know in Quebec, although the grid collapsed very quickly, there 
43 

were still transformers lost at St. John’s Bay. So I think that the 

issue, the consensus we did achieve was that grid collapse is absolutely unacceptable in any event, whether it causes a lot of transformers to be damaged or whether it just causes a few transformers. The protection scenario, fortunately, is the same. 

So if the GIC is mitigated, either dampened or blocked—if you 

dampen, you have to pick to what level. If you block, it costs the 

same and you have got certainty associated with it. You won’t have 

to worry about either the reactive power consumption or the destruction of the transformers. It is mitigated. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you. 

Mr. Long. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. Wales, you talked about a study, I think, in an accompanying report earlier. Was that a HITRAC study? Or—— 

Mr. WALES. Yes. 

Mr. LONG. Okay. What would the cost be to implement that proposal that came out of the HITRAC study and accompanying report? 

Mr. WALES. We did not work with industry to assess the explicit 

costs. Some of those recommendations, however, were similar to 

those that were found in the EMP Commission’s report. I will refer 

you to that, but in the EMP Commission and most of the recommendations in the electric power grid section came to a couple 

of billion dollars for a Nation-wide implementation. 

Mr. LONG. It would be what? 

Mr. WALES. A couple of billion dollars for Nation-wide implementation of all of their recommendations related to the electric power 

system. 

Mr. LONG. A couple of billion dollars Nation-wide? 

Mr. WALES. Yes. 

Mr. LONG. Mr. McClelland, didn’t you say that the one event up 

in Canada cost how much? 

Mr. MCCLELLAND. Two billion dollars. Estimated at $2 billion by 

Zurich. 

Mr. LONG. So you are telling me, Mr. Wales, that for $2 billion 

we could implement what we need to do to mitigate this. 

Mr. WALES. It may be higher than $2 billion. It may be closer 

to $4 billion or $5 billion. Some of their costs were per unit, so figuring out exactly how many of those units you would employ, 

where you want to have that level of EMP protection. But based 

upon, again, the EMP Commission’s report contained these cost estimates. 

Mr. LONG. The what now? 

Mr. WALES. The Commission to assess the threat to EMP to the 

United States—that Commission—that is where those cost estimates came from. 

Mr. LONG. It still doesn’t jive to me. So, I mean, if we are asked 

to do something as a Congress in these austere times, it would sure 

be handy if we had some kind of a—and, I mean, just on the surface, thinking that an event in Canada cost $2 billion in Quebec. 

Was that where it was? 

Mr. WALES. Yes. 
44 

Mr. LONG. To think we could go and do everything—put in all the safeguards we need to for $2 billion or $4 billion or $6 billion, 

that doesn’t jive with me. So if we are trying to make decisions 

here and serious discussion, I think that if you all could come back 

with some figures of some type that had a little justification to 

them, it would help us try and help you. 

Mr. Wales, by virtue of how our economy is structured, most electric and other critical infrastructure is privately owned. So No. 1, 

I think we would have to get the figure first, but how do you overcome the challenge of convincing private industry to make that 

type of capital investment. Again, we don’t know what the capital 

investment is yet, but to protect the electric grid. 

Mr. WALES. Historically, DHS has—given the fact that it does 

not have regulatory authority to compel action within the private 

sector for most critical infrastructure sectors—has determined that 

the best way for us to advance the overall mission is to work collaboratively with the industry, provide them with the information 

that they need to better assess how they can increase their protection and enhance their resilience. Using that type of information, 

hopefully, and owners and operators will make the capital investments that are best situated given the potential risk that they may 

face. 

For example, power operators in the southern part of the country 

are less at risk than the northern part of the country to geomagnetic storms. They may take a somewhat different perspective 

when it comes to investments to harden their systems against solar 

or events. But forming—partnerships, working with the industry 

and relevant other Government agencies, like Department of Energy, Department of Defense, FERC, to ensure that all available information is on the table. Any knowledge gained through the studies that we do, the research and development that is done in places 

like S&T and in the private sector are shared and the knowledge 

base is expanded. 

Mr. LONG. Okay. Again, I would like to—you know, with all the 

reporting and the study and everything, if we had some numbers 

that we could—you know, they say, figures lie and liars figure, so 

if we had some decent figures to work with, it would sure help. 

Thanks for being here. 

I am proud to report that I have 30 seconds to yield back. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LUNGREN. I thank the gentleman. So I will use those 30 seconds. 

Mr. Aimone, I feel sorry for you not having any questions directed to you, so I feel compelled to ask you about the micro-grids 

that you were talking about. You referred to that as one of the Defense Department’s approaches to dealing with the potential of a 

loss of energy supply to fix facilities. How do you define micro-grids 

and how far along are you in the development of them? 

Mr. AIMONE. Thank you very much for the question. 

What we are hoping to do with our micro-grid demonstrations— 

and we have one going on today at Twentynine Palms, a U.S. Marine Corps installation in California, as well as an installation in 

Texas at Fort Bliss, and several other of these micro-grid demonstrations—are bringing together, if you will, the ability to take 
45 

the renewable energy resources that are variable in nature—the 

sun is out. These renewable energy sources can provide energy, tie 

these to the electrical loads on the base and operate, if you will, 

the power system of the base as a small electrical grid, separate 

from the Nation’s grid, should that happen to be. 

In fact, what we really want to do is be able to use the best of 

the economics of the National grid when it is available and the 

micro-grid can take a look at economics associated with power production on base and purchasing electrical power off base with regards to the demands that are available that are occurring on the 

installation moment-by-moment and balance those electrically, 

such that demand and supply are achieved as a local grid. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I am not an expert on this, so forgive me. But in 

speaking with some of the operators of electrical systems in California, they have told me how renewable energy sources are the 

most difficult to balance because of the variability—sun, wind, et 

cetera. So maybe I just don’t understand the technology there, but 

it seemed to me if you are creating a micro-grid that is reliant on 

the variabilities of the renewable resources—wind, solar—that is a 

difficult technical challenge and how long a fix is that? 

Mr. AIMONE. Combine our renewable sources that would bring 

energy onto the installation from on-base sources with our demands would be the appropriate energy storage devices. We have 

demonstrations of battery technology that would, if you will, gap 

the difference between what is available from renewable energy 

and the demands required. Also would allow for the on-base generation that exists to be able to be ramped up to meet the needs 

if the storage system is being exhausted, yet the renewable sources 

aren’t available. 

So this is a combination of demand on-base generation and storage. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I appreciate all that, and I appreciate what you 

are doing on that. But does the fact still remain that our fixed installations within the continental United States still rely primarily 

on energy produced from our regular electric grid? 

Mr. AIMONE. That is a true statement. With one caveat, if I may, 

and that caveat is those critical mission loads have those standby 

generators that I was speaking to that have the capability of operating in times of grid outage, such that they could make sure that 

those important mission loads can be achieved. For example—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. So long as the grid outage isn’t beyond the capability of your on-installation energy production. 

Mr. AIMONE. That is a true statement. So testing these generators to make sure that they can meet the needs of the loads during 

a simulated outage, the understanding of how much fuel is required, and when the fuel needs to be provided to those particular 

generators so that you always have a constant supply of fuel. The 

inherent generator itself, if it is well-maintained and operated correctly within the parameters of that generator, will meet that load 

for as long as you have fuel to it. 

So we practice how do we get fuel to those generators in the time 

of an emergency, even if we have to go off-base and find appropriate fuel from other locations. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much. 
46 

Mr. Long, do you have any more questions? 

All right, I want to thank this panel. You have been very, very 

helpful. This is an issue that is timely and timeless and we appreciate your assistance. Thank you very much. 

The sole witness of our final panel today is Dr. Chris Beck, the 

president of the Electric Infrastructure Security Council. Dr. Beck 

is a policy expert in several homeland security-related areas, including critical infrastructure protection, cybersecurity, science and 

technology development, WMD prevention and protection, and 

emerging threat, identification, and mitigation. Dr. Beck holds a 

Ph.D. in physics from Tufts University, a B.S. in physics from Montana State University. Immediately prior to his service at EIS, Dr. 

Beck served as the minority staff director of this very subcommittee. We appreciate your return. 

As you know the rules as well as anybody, your written testimony will be entered into the record and we would ask you to try 

and summarize your testimony in 5 minutes and then we will ask 

questions. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS BECK, PRESIDENT, ELECTRIC 

INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY COUNCIL 

Mr. BECK. Well, thank you, Chairman Lungren. Thank you, 

Ranking Member Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Long. It is good to be 

back before the committee. It is a little disorienting to be on this 

side of the witness table, but I will do the best I can. 

As you mentioned, I started looking at these issues while a member of this committee, and it was because of the seriousness of this 

issue that I moved to the Electric Infrastructure Security Council 

to focus on this issue full-time. So I very much appreciate this committee holding this hearing and giving this issue your attention. 

The Electric Infrastructure Security Council’s mission is to work 

in partnership with Government and corporate stakeholders to host 

National and international education, planning, and communication initiatives to help coordinate infrastructure protection against 

electromagnetic threats. 

We are happy and proud to co-host the Electric Infrastructure 

Security Summit series, the annual international government NGO 

summits on infrastructure security. The third annual summit took 

place on May 14 and 15 this year in the United Kingdom’s houses 

of parliament in London. Ranking Member Clarke was one of the 

U.S. bipartisan co-chairs of this event, along with Representative 

Trent Franks, who you heard from earlier. 

The summit was a gathering of senior government representatives, scientists, and industry executives from 21 countries. The 

conclusions and recommendations that we discussed should be of 

great interest to this committee. I have provided the full summary 

report and my testimony is a quick summary of that. 

We have covered a lot of the ground, so I don’t think I need to 

describe the problem, the severity, or the lack of specificity of the 

timing of these events. The key questions we asked at the Electric—at the summit were, ‘‘Should we respond to these threats?’’ ‘‘If 

so, what is the path forward?’’ ‘‘Who should be involved?’’ ‘‘And how 

broad should our response be?’’ 
47 

‘‘Should we respond’’ was a resounding, ‘‘yes.’’ There is certainly 

enough evidence known and enough identified vulnerability that 

the delegates felt it is time to move forward. 

‘‘What is the path to move forward?’’ A much more difficult question. We arrived at a couple of things. One is to define and apply 

interconnect-wide standards and protection plans and to pursue 

two paths to implementation. One, is validate and implement specific cost-effective protection measures. Two, is to prioritize scope 

and timing of protective measures by expanded hardware and 

interconnect-wide modeling prioritization and data collection. 

‘‘Who should be involved?’’ The sense of the summit participants 

is the broader the community, the better the result that we are 

going to get. So while this issue initially was, as Mr. Wales said, 

identified by the EMP Commission and it was initially looked at as 

a government question, we need participation from government, 

from commercial power suppliers, insurance companies, other 

stakeholders that can each contribute in their own area of expertise. 

‘‘How broad should our scope be?’’ We have discussed both naturally-occurring instances of geomagnetic disturbances and malicious EMP, and the consensus again was that both need to be addressed. 

I am happy to go into any of these points in greater detail as we 

move forward. I would like to note that there appear to be no significant technical or financial barriers to mitigating this threat. 

The technologies needed are well understood and the cost based on 

both government estimates and recent corporate experience is quite 

low. Going back to questions raised by Mr. Long. So I think that 

cost-effective measures are available. 

This concludes my prepared testimony. I look forward to answering any questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Beck follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRIS BECK

SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 

Good morning Chairman Lungren, Ranking Member Clarke, and Members of the 

subcommittee. Thank you for holding this hearing on what I consider to be one of 

the greatest threats to our National and homeland security. As many of you know, 

before I became EIS Council’s President, I worked for this committee, focusing on 

Critical Infrastructure Protection and Science and Technology issues. It was through 

that work that I first became aware of the threats facing our critical electric infrastructures, and I found the issue to be so important that I felt compelled to focus 

on it exclusively. 

The Electric Infrastructure Security Council’s mission is to work in partnership 

with Government and corporate stakeholders to host National and international 

education, planning, and communication initiatives to help coordinate infrastructure 

protection against electromagnetic threats (e-threats). E-threats include naturallyoccurring geomagnetic disturbances (GMD), high-altitude electromagnetic pulses 

(HEMP) from nuclear weapons, and non-nuclear EMP from intentional electromagnetic interference (IEMI) devices. 

EIS Council is also proud to co-host the Electric Infrastructure Security Summit 

Series, the annual international government/NGO summits on infrastructure security. The third annual summit took place on May 14 and 15 this year, in the United 

Kingdom’s Houses of Parliament in London. Ranking Member Clarke was one of the 

U.S. bipartisan co-chairs of that event, along with Rep. Trent Franks. This summit 

was a gathering of senior government representatives, scientists, and industry executives from 21 countries. The conclusions and recommendations that we discussed 
48 

should be of great interest to this committee. The full report has been provided to 

the committee as an addendum to my testimony, and I include the summary here. 

SUMMARY OF MAJOR THEMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defining the Issue 

The Problem.—Developed nations are vulnerable to serious National power grid 

damage from e-threats, both natural and malicious. 

The Severity.—The impact will range from, at minimum, a serious financial and 

economic crisis to, at maximum, a catastrophe that would threaten societal continuity. 

The Timing.—For severe space weather, the most recent events occurred 90 and 

150 years ago, but the precise timing of the next such occurrence, as with all extreme natural disasters, is unknown. For malicious EMP, either local (non-nuclear) 

or sub-continental (nuclear), a strike could be induced by on-going vulnerability coupled with rapidly changing geopolitical realities. 

The Key Questions 

1. Should we respond to e-threats? Should we accept the status quo, and minimize 

near-term costs by accepting growing vulnerability, or begin reducing vulnerability? 

2. If we respond, what is the path? How should we address interconnect-wide 

interdependence, and how should we proceed with implementation? 

3. If we respond, who should be involved? Who should take responsibility to define 

the path, and implement it? 

4. How broad should our response be? Should both GMD and EMP be included? 

The Response: Consensus Recommendations 

1. Should we respond? A common theme of the summit deliberations, broadly accepted in all presentations and discussions, was that the risks associated with severe e-threats are serious, and it is time to begin taking positive actions to protect 

critical infrastructures. 

2. What is the path? The broad consensus of summit presenters and other delegates was that we need to establish interconnect-wide standards and plans. For implementation, we should begin working aggressively to validate and implement specific protection measures, while also pursuing expanded modeling, priority assessment, and planning. More specifically: 

a. Define and apply interconnect-wide standards and protection plans.—We 

should define and apply applicable interconnect-wide e-threat protection standards, through regulatory or other means, and develop implementation plans 

that include prioritized protection for critical assets. 

b. Pursue two paths to implementation.— 1. Validate and implement specific, cost effective protection measures. 

We should thoroughly evaluate protective measures to validate that they 

support the e-threat standards, including both procedural and hardwarebased measures (e.g., transformer or other hardware design upgrades, current 

blockers, series capacitance and power substation IEMI protection). 

If expectations for high effectiveness and low-cost hardware-based protection can be tested and demonstrated, this will become a core approach to mitigation, beginning with development of interconnect-wide protection planning. 

2. Prioritize scope and timing of protective measures by expanded hardware 

and interconnect-wide modeling, prioritization, and data collection. 

We should also pursue a path of data collection, hardware vulnerability 

modeling and grid impact modeling, and define critical, high-value asset protection priorities. This process will guide and prioritize cost-effective implementation measures. It will be even more vital in those cases where more expensive measures are needed. 

3. Who should be involved? The sense of summit presenters and delegates was 

that assembling and implementing a plan for e-threat protection will require the 

broadest possible participation among government agencies, commercial power suppliers, insurance companies and other stakeholders, each contributing in its own domain of authority and expertise. A common theme of all the discussions: The need 

to work toward international partnerships in developing these plans. 

4. Addressing EMP and IEMI: How broad should our scope be? These recommendations, it became clear, will be essential for both aspects of e-threats, both 

natural—Severe Space Weather, and malicious—IEMI and EMP. In fact, another 

common theme at the summit was that, in focusing on space weather, there has 

been insufficient attention given to the needs for protection against malicious EMP 

and IEMI threats. In this regard, all the security-related speakers were quite clear: 

Security forces cannot perform their National security and protection mission with-
49 

out the partnership of commercial power suppliers, who will need to ‘‘expand their 

resilience into a new hazard environment.’’ The hope that the government could 

handle either the natural or malicious threat domain on its own was rejected, with 

the clearest articulation of this reality coming from speakers who represented the 

responsible government departments and agencies. 

This summary of summit consensus-based themes and recommendations reflects 

many detailed comments made in the presentations and discussions during summit 

events. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss any of these points in greater 

detail. 

I should note that there appear to be no significant technical or financial barriers 

to mitigating this threat—the technologies needed are well understood, and the 

cost—based on both government estimates and recent corporate experience—is quite 

low, even in comparison with just existing logistics and maintenance budgets for affected equipment. Rather, the primary needs seem to be for education to increase 

awareness and willingness to address the problem, and for coordination to address 

the complex government and corporate administrative structures of even the most 

critical infrastructures. 

This concludes my prepared testimony, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Dr. Beck. Again, good to 

have you back here. 

Mr. BECK. Thank you. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Maybe I will follow along on Congressman Long’s 

earlier statements. There have been some generalized statements 

about how there is no significant financial barrier—so I guess the 

question I would ask is this, if there is no significant technical or 

financial barriers to mitigating this threat, what is the difficulty? 

I am not trying to cast aspersions on the industry at all. I think 

the industry is, by and large, is one of the primary providers of the 

standard of living we have today and the way of life we have today. 

The consistency and reliability of the systems is actually remarkable when you think about it. It goes to the question—you turn the 

light switch on. It only comes to your attention if it doesn’t go on 

when you turn that light switch. 

We take it for granted. That is the way we live. That is what we 

rely on. That is our expectation. Something so essential to our 

needs would seem to require heightened attention. If it is as apparent as many have suggested and the studies have concluded that 

we have significant vulnerabilities, either natural or man-made, 

the question would be, why aren’t we taking these steps? 

My partial is—and I would ask yours—that we haven’t raised the 

awareness to the level that the public would accept rate increases 

that would allow for the capitalization of the technical fixes that 

are necessary. So that is one of the obligations that I think we 

have. 

But we have talked in general terms about how we have got 

technical fixes and how we have technical fixes within our fiscal 

grasp, I guess I would say. Can you put some meat on the bones 

on that? Can you give us some idea from the work that was done 

at these conferences to suggest the ballpark that Mr. Long asked 

about? Or is there some other gauge that you can give us that 

would show the appropriateness of applying these fixes to the current system? 

Mr. BECK. Yes, I think I can do that. Going back to the original 

question is: What is the disconnect or why don’t we know about 

this? I think part of it is just a question of human nature. It is that 

there are—when you have certain events that don’t happen very 
50 

* The information has been retained in committee files and is available at http:// 

www.eissummit.com/images/upload/conf/media/EISS%20III%20London%20Report.pdf. 

often and they are things that we don’t see, then we fail to plan 

for those. 

When we designed the grid and built it over the last 100 years, 

there wasn’t the consistent level of disruption from solar storms. In 

other words, lower-level solar storms do happen all the time. Any 

time the aurora borealis that you see it—that is, in effect, a geomagnetic disturbance. So there are low-level events all the time. So 

the grid was able to deal with those. We haven’t see the very highlevel events and when the grid wasn’t designed for that purpose, 

there is a certain inertia both mental and physical that comes in 

with saying we designed the grid. I know how this works. We have 

optimized it. We are happy with its performance. Trying to move 

beyond that sometimes is difficult. 

Going to the question of costs—and you mentioned capitalization, 

which I think is important. So taking the EMP Commission report 

estimate of about a billion dollars for mitigation for transformers 

that both Mr. Wales and Mr. McClelland talked about. You take 

that the step further and say, well, the transformer is a 30- to 50- 

year asset. They have a long lifetime, as opposed to other components on the grid, electronics and stuff that are replaced much 

more frequently. 

So if you have a 30-year asset and a billion dollars, you are talk- ing about $33 million or so a year. That breaks down to, you know, 

a few cents per citizen that we would have to pay. So your job and 

your two concerns, especially on this panel, are providing for security and protection of the public; but also you have a fiscal responsibility that you don’t want to stick the citizens with an enormous 

bill that doesn’t make sense. But when you run some of those numbers, especially when you are talking about the transformers and 

the fact that those assets last for a long time, you can spread those 

costs out and make them nearly insignificant to the ratepayer or 

the taxpayer. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Those are your words. I can never say that there 

is an insignificant cost to taxpayers, but I understand the point 

that you make. 

The gentlelady from New York is recognized. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me first 

say, Mr. Chairman, or ask if we could ask for unanimous consent 

that the EIS summit three London report, a summary of the third 

Electric Infrastructure Security summit held this summer in London be placed in the record. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Without objection.* 

Ms. CLARKE. I think its findings and conclusions will benefit the 

record of this hearing. 

Dr. Beck, in your recent London conference, there were representatives from business and industry, in addition to governments. Can you describe the conversations and discussions about 

how the insurance industry is viewing EMP—excuse me—and the 

geomagnetic disturbances in the electric industry? 

Mr. BECK. Yes. This was one of the significant new or differences—thankful one—between the prior conferences that we 
51 

have had. So this was our third summit. The first summit in London was pretty much a government-only event and the second 

one—and you know this very well, Ms. Clarke—we had some expanded participation. We had a half-day where we had industry 

roundtables and we talked to the electric grid operators. 

But Lloyd’s of London, for example, 2010, did a report on space 

weather. So they had been reading the same reports, and so we 

had a panel at the summit and you can see a lot of the highlights 

of that in the report that you just referenced. So the interest is 

there that Lloyd’s insures not just the assets directly, but we 

talked about earlier, the economic disruption overall of a power 

outage. Joe McClelland talked about the $2 billion estimate for the Quebec outage. In the 2003 northeast blackout, not a GMD event, but 

still instructive because it was a power outage of 1–3 days, depending on where you were in that blackout zone. The after-action report was about $14 billion in societal costs. 

So when an insurance company, whether they are insuring an 

electric grid operator and his assets or a major power consumer 

that is manufacturing or any other major player that has insurance, when effects like geomagnetic disturbance impact electric 

grid and the continuous supply of electricity, especially for highprecision manufacturing that really rely on that, there are insurance effects. So the insurance companies looked at this. They said, 

we think that we need to take a deeper dive. 

You know, they didn’t come back with any conclusions. We know 

what GMD costs. We are ready to have a GMD insurance package. 

They are not there yet, but I would recommend to the members 

and staff that the Lloyd’s report would help to give some of those— 

put the meat on the bones, as Mr. Lungren put it. 

Ms. CLARKE. Is the council proposing international standards for 

EMP and the geomagnetic disturbance mitigation? Who would 

oversee such an effort? 

Mr. BECK. The council acts as a host to the discussion, so we are 

summarizing the discussions and recommendations. So I wouldn’t 

say that we are proposing international standards, but those were 

called for by many of the members there. 

So a lot of the, you know, the sophisticated electric grids are located in North America and Europe, northern Europe. So that was 

the bulk of the participants there and so the grids there have some 

interconnection. I mean, the grid doesn’t just end, you know, at the 

border of France, and a brand new grid in Spain. There is some 

crosstalk there, like we have across State lines here. So there is interest there to say, well, we are all, you know, we all have a connection, just like we all have a connection here in the United 

States to each other. 

So a standard or goal to be set for reliability and operation under 

a geomagnetic disturbance or protection modalities for EMP—the 

individual operators recognize that a standard that they could look 

to would be very helpful. Because otherwise, they, you know, look 

at, well, what does the threat mean and I will do my best. I will 

give my best engineering judgment to apply that to my section of 

the grid. But in an interconnected system, you know, you always 

have the question of, well, what if I do something and the guy next 
52 

to me does nothing? Is that worth the investment? Because I am 

still vulnerable and I don’t have any control over that grid next to 

me. 

So that was the point where international standards—or in the 

United States, National standards, or I guess it is a bit broader, 

because we include Canada and parts of Mexico here—but those 

types of standards so that everyone has some common goal and 

common understanding of the issue. Everyone suggested that that 

was very important. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much. I guess Mr. Long has gone. 

So I thank you for your testimony, Mr. Beck. Once again, thank 

you for your participation on this committee in your major staff positions. Congratulations on the Council’s work. 

I thank you and all the other witnesses for the valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. The Members of the 

committee may have some additional questions, as you know, for 

you and the other witnesses. We will ask you to respond to these 

in writing. The hearing record will be held open for 10 days. The 

subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(53) 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER YVETTE D. CLARKE FOR JOSEPH MCCLELLAND

Question 1. Are there any areas—in infrastructure, programs, or research—that 

seem urgently in need of attention regarding a Geomagnetic Disturbance threat? 

If you could affect one change in current arrangements for managing the risks of 

severe space weather and geomagnetic disturbance events, what would that be? 

In other words, what development in the current system of space weather risk 

management would yield the greatest benefit with the least cost? 

Answer. Yesterday, the Commission issued a proposal to address the impacts of 

GMD on the electric grid. This proposal stems from the technical conference held 

by the Commission on April 30 of this year, which explored the risks and impacts 

from geomagnetically-induced currents to transformers and other equipment on the 

bulk power system, as well as options for addressing or mitigating the risks and impacts. 

In the proposed rule discussed above, the Commission proposes to direct the 

North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to submit for approval Reliability Standards that address the impact of geomagnetic disturbances (GMD) on 

the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. The Commission proposes to do 

this in two stages. In the first stage, the Commission proposes to direct NERC to 

file, within 90 days of the effective date of a final rule in this proceeding, one or 

more Reliability Standards that require owners and operators of the Bulk-Power 

System to develop and implement operational procedures to mitigate the effects of 

GMDs consistent with the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. In the second stage, the Commission proposes to direct NERC to file, within 6 months of the 

effective date of a final rule in this proceeding, one or more Reliability Standards 

that require owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System to conduct initial and 

on-going assessments of the potential impact of GMDs on Bulk-Power System equipment and the Bulk-Power System as a whole. Based on those assessments, the Reliability Standards would require owners and operators to develop and implement a 

plan so that instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading failures of the BulkPower System, caused by damage to critical or vulnerable Bulk-Power System 

equipment, or otherwise, will not occur as a result of a GMD. This plan cannot be 

limited to operational procedures or enhanced training alone, but should, subject to 

the needs indentified in the assessments, contain strategies for protecting against 

the potential impact of GMDs based on factors such as the age, condition, technical 

specifications, or location of specific equipment. These strategies could include automatically blocking geomagnetically-induced currents from entering the Bulk-Power 

System, instituting specification requirements for new equipment, inventory management, and isolating certain equipment that is not cost-effective to retrofit. This 

second stage would be implemented in phases, focusing first on the most critical 

Bulk-Power System assets. 

Current GMD forecasting methods provide limited time for operators to react once 

a GMD warning is issued. I am concerned with the short period of time to react 

to a GMD event and the potential consequences of not reacting fast enough. The 

Commission’s proposed rule would first ensure that appropriate operational procedures to mitigate GMD are in place in a relatively short time frame, then turn to 

implementation of a plan so that instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading 

failures of the Bulk-Power System, caused by damage to critical or vulnerable BulkPower System equipment, or otherwise, will not occur as a result of a GMD. 

Question 2. What is FERC currently doing to address EMP and Geomagnetic Disturbance threats? 

Answer. See question 1. 

Question 3. As I understand, there are two risks that result from the introduction 

of ground-induced currents from a geomagnetic disturbance to the bulk power sys-
54 

tem: (1) Damage to the bulk power system assets, like transformers, and (2) Loss 

of reactive power support, which could lead to voltage instability. 

How does the Commission oversee that operators of the grid address these risks 

in a responsible and comprehensive way? 

Answer. The proposed rule issued yesterday would take short-term and long-term 

steps to protect the electric grid from a geomagnetic disturbance. The Commission’s 

proposed two-phase approach recognizes this difference by focusing first on the development of Reliability Standards requiring operational procedures in a relatively 

short time frame. The Commission proposes to give NERC and owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System more time to perform, in the second phase, initial 

and on-going assessments and, based on those assessments, to develop and implement a plan so that instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading failures of the 

Bulk-Power System, caused by damage to critical or vulnerable Bulk-Power System 

equipment, or otherwise, will not occur as a result of a GMD. 

Question 4. NERC has outlined several recommendations in their GMD report— 

what is the Commission’s process or approach to implement or facilitate their recommendations? 

Answer. In addition to proposing that NERC develop Reliability Standards that 

require operational procedures during the first phase, the Commission’s proposal 

also would accept aspects of the ‘‘Initial Actions’’ proposal set forth in NERC’s postTechnical Conference comments. 

Question 5. Do you think each utility should have spare transformers to be prepared in case of a solar Geomagnetic Disturbance event? Who should pay for these 

spare transformers and what is the cost? 

Answer. There should be some spare transformers for the Bulk-Power System to 

recover from geomagnetic disturbances as well as from many other risks (e.g., lightning, voltage surges, and fault conditions). However, spare transformers alone are 

not sufficient to address GMDs. During a GMD, geomagnetically-induced currents 

flowing through transformers cause those transformers to operate in a manner for 

which they are not designed (typically described as half-cycle saturation). As question 3 above notes, two results of this abnormal operation are equipment damage 

and loss of reactive power support. In addition, the affected transformers introduce 

disruptive harmonics into the power grid. The harmonics can be thought of as 

‘‘noise’’ on the power grid. This ‘‘noise’’ can cause switching equipment to misoperate 

(opening or closing when they should not) and other equipment damage, most notably damage to generators. The risks from loss of reactive power support and from 

harmonics would not be mitigated by spare transformers. Steps such as preventing 

half-cycle saturation from occurring would be necessary in order to avoid these 

risks. 

Maintaining spare equipment is a time-tested method of improving electric reliability, and typically is a legitimate cost of providing service. The cost of a spare 

extra-high voltage (EHV, typically over 300kV) transformer varies depending on 

many design features, including the operating voltages and the power rating of the 

transformer. However, a ball-park range would be $10 million to $15 million for a 

typical three-phase EHV transformer. 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN DANIEL E. LUNGREN FOR BRANDON WALES

Question 1. What is DHS’ 90-day, 1-year, and 5-year plan to address the threat 

posed by EMP? 

Answer. Signed March 30, 2011, Presidential Policy Directive–8 (PPD–8) seeks to 

strengthen security and resilience through systematic preparation for threats that 

pose the greatest risk to the Nation. As a part of PPD–8 implementation and from 

a Whole Community approach, the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) is leading the development of a National Planning System (NPS) that integrates planning across all levels of Government and with the private and non-profit 

sectors around key capabilities to address all-hazard threats. This work will result 

in a set of focused planning documents that support the effective delivery of core 

capabilities across the Whole Community to address all-hazards, including those 

posed by Electromagnetic Pulses (EMP) due to space weather or nuclear incidents. 

As a component of PPD–8, the Federal Interagency Operational Plan (FIOP)-Response is an all-hazards plan that describes how the Federal Government supports 

State, local, Tribal, territorial, and insular area efforts to save lives, protect property 

and the environment, and meet basic human needs following an emergency or disaster, such as EMP impacts. The FIOP-Response delineates Federal response roles 

and responsibilities; identifies critical tasks, resources, and sourcing requirements 

necessary to deliver the Response Core Capabilities; and coordinates statutory authorities across governments. 
55 

While this plan is based on a no-notice catastrophic incident that spans multiple 

regions and States, it will also contain incident-specific annexes as required. For example, FEMA has scheduled development of a ‘‘Long-Term Power Outage Annex’’ 

for fiscal year 2014. The FIOP-Response will also be updated 18 months after initial 

signature with quadrennial re-writes thereafter. 

Question 2. The Department of Homeland Security does not include the threat of 

EMP attack in its 15 National Disaster scenarios. Why not? 

How is DHS protecting the homeland against EMP? Is it enough? 

Answer. Under Presidential Policy Directive–8 (PPD–8), the 15 National Planning 

Scenarios were replaced by a new National Preparedness System based on the Strategic National Risk Assessment which identified incidents that posed the greatest 

threat to the Nation. Electromagnetic radiation from space weather was included as 

a National-level event that could test the Nation’s preparednesss. PPD–8 includes 

five integrated National planning frameworks and interagency operational plans. As 

stated under the response to Question No. 1, the Federal Interagency Operational 

Plan (FIOP)-Response is a component of PPD–8. The FIOP-Response is an all-hazards plan that describes how the Federal Government supports State, local, Tribal, 

territorial, and insular area efforts to save lives, protect property and the environment, and meet basic human needs following an emergency or disaster, such as 

those with EMP threats. While this plan is based on a no-notice catastrophic incident that spans multiple regions and States, it will also contain incident-specific annexes as required. For example, FEMA has scheduled development of a ‘‘Long-Term 

Power Outage Annex’’ for fiscal year 2014. The FIOP-Response will also be updated 

18 months after initial signature with quadrennial re-writes thereafter. 

Question 3. By virtue of how our economy is structured, most electric and other 

critical infrastructure is privately owned. How do you overcome the challenge of convincing private industry to make the capital investments required to secure the electric grid? 

Answer. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) works with industry in a 

number of ways to promote appropriate security investments. The National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC) prepares and shares analyses of 

critical infrastructure, including their interdependencies, vulnerabilities, consequences, and other complexities, under the direction of the Office of Infrastructure 

Protection’s Infrastructure Analysis and Strategy Division. 

Additionally, DHS coordinates unclassified and classified briefings and workshops 

for industry and works to analyze their vulnerabilities and demonstrate potential 

impacts and costs if those vulnerabilities are left unaddressed. To facilitate discussions of this type, DHS administers the Critical Infrastructure Private Sector Clearance Program (PSCP). The PSCP sponsors clearances for private-sector partners 

that are responsible for critical infrastructure protection but would not otherwise be 

eligible for a clearance. Through these activities, private-sector partners become better positioned to make more informed security investments. 

Question 4. How much do you or does your agency rely upon data from NOAA’s 

ACE satellite for warnings about naturally-occurring EMPs? 

Question 5. Are you aware that this satellite is well past its expected lifetime, and 

already operating at a severely diminished capacity? 

Answer. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) relies on space 

weather information and warnings from NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center 

(SWPC), which uses data from the ACE satellite. FEMA benefits from the SWPC’s 

real-time monitoring and forecasting of solar and geophysical events, which could 

impact satellites, power grids, communications, navigations, and other systems. 

FEMA is aware of the ACE satellite’s current state and the fiscal year 2014 mission 

planned to replace it. 

Question 6. Are you aware of NOAA’s plans and time line to replace the failing 

ACE spacecraft with the refurbished DSCOVR spacecraft? 

And, the naturally-occurring EMP warning needs of your agency? 

Answer. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is aware of 

NOAA’s plans and time line to replace the ACE spacecraft with DSCOVR. FEMA 

liaisons regularly communicate with the National Weather Service and, more specifically, the Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC). FEMA relies on SWPC’s 

real-time monitoring and forecasting of solar and geophysical events, which could 

impact satellites, power grids, communications, navigations, and other systems. 

NOAA and the SWPC have communicated to FEMA the ACE satellite’s 

vulnerabilities and their plans to address it. 

Question 7. How would your agency’s ability to meet its mission requirements be 

effected if ACE were to completely fail before DSCOVR is operationally on-orbit? 

Answer. Failure of the ACE satellite would only impact the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency’s (FEMA) actual operations if such failure led to delays in crit-
56 

ical information or warnings. To respond to a space weather event, FEMA would 

implement its response plans in accordance with the Stafford Act and the National 

Response Framework. Delays in space weather-related information or warnings 

could theoretically delay implementation of preventative or early response actions. 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER YVETTE D. CLARKE FOR BRANDON WALES

Question 1a. I understand that your office includes analysts from the Office of Infrastructure Protection and the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. 

Could you outline for us how HITRAC creates actionable risk-informed analysis 

for EMP or geomagnetic disturbance threats? 

Question 1b. In other words, what kind of input information, in generally do you 

use in the risk analysis of geomagnetic disturbances or EMP threats? 

Question 1c. To whom would you report this analysis for action on EMP-specific 

threats? 

Answer. There are several reports that analyze the threat posed by electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and geomagnetic disturbances. The 2011 and 2012 National 

Risk Profiles identify what sectors are most at-risk from geomagnetic disturbances 

and what systems are in place to warn of an impending space weather event. A 

2010 HITRAC study performed by the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center analyzed the impact of EMP on extra high-voltage power transformers. 

Additionally, a 2010 National-Level Exercise looking at the effects of an improvised 

nuclear device touched upon the impacts of an EMP from a nuclear attack. At this 

time, the Department of Homeland Security has not performed a comprehensive 

study analyzing how different inputs would change how critical infrastructure is affected. 

Question 2. I see that within Infrastructure Protection, risk analysis, modeling, 

simulation/analysis and incident planning and response are bundled together as 

part of an overall package for Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources protection. 

Are EMP and geomagnetic disturbance considered a discreet separate threat or 

are they combined in an all-hazards analysis approach? 

Answer. Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and geomagnetic disturbance are considered discreet and separate threats. The 2011 and 2012 National Risk Profiles have 

separate Space Weather sections. A National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center report highlighted threats from EMP and geomagnetic disturbance and 

considered them to be separate from other hazards. Also, studies analyzing the impacts from the detonation of a nuclear device include analysis on the effects from 

the resulting EMP. 

Question 3. I understand that within DHS, under the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, the Office of Infrastructure Protection oversees three key elements of 

the Risk Management Frameworks: 

i. Identification of critical infrastructure assets and systems; 

ii. Risk assessment based on event consequences, facility or system 

vulnerabilities, and known or probable threats; and 

iii. Prioritization of CIKR protection activities based on risk. 

How is the U.S. grid identified or described in this framework (or is it identified), 

what are the risk assessment levels, and what prioritization is listed for EMPs and 

geomagnetic disturbances threats to the grid? 

Answer. Electric power is identified as a subsector of the energy sector and includes power plants and the electric grid. Infrastructure, including the electric grid, 

is not prioritized based on electromagnetic pulse or geomagnetic disturbances, but 

rather is based on the National Critical Infrastructure Prioritization Program 

(NCIPP) outlined in the National Infrastructure Protection Plan. NCIPP identifies 

Nationally significant critical assets and systems to enhance decision making related to critical infrastructure protection. Critical infrastructure identified includes 

those that, if destroyed or disrupted, could cause some combination of significant 

casualties, major economic losses, or widespread and long-term disruptions to National well-being and governance capacity. 

Question 4. Do you think each utility should have spare transformers to be prepared in case of a solar geomagnetic disturbance event? Who should pay for these 

spare transformers and what is the cost? 

Answer. The Department has not taken a position on whether utilities should 

have spare transformers and if so who should bear the cost. The Department recognizes that redundancy can add resilience to infrastructure systems. In the event of 

a major electromagnetic pulse or geomagnetic disturbance, the current quantity of 

spare transformers could be insufficient if enough transformers were physically 

damaged. There is no regulatory requirement that utility companies maintain spare 

transformers, though some currently do at their own expense. 
57 

More needs to be learned about the effects of large GMD on major transformers. 

Stockpiling spares would be costly and not easy to do generically since transformer 

needs vary and their massive weight make them difficult to move. 

The DHS Science & Technology Directorate has worked with industry to jointly 

develop a prototype extra high-voltage (EHV) transformer that is easier to transport 

and quicker to energize than conventional EHV transformers to enable rapid recovery from such events. Known as the Recovery Transformer (RecX), a pilot demonstration was successfully conducted in March 2012 in which the RecX was transported, installed, and energized in less than 1 week. The RecX is currently operational in the grid for a 1-year monitoring period. DHS S&T and RecX project partners are working on transition plans for RecX with various stakeholders, including 

Federal partners & private industry. 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN DANIEL E. LUNGREN FOR MICHAEL A. AIMONE

Question 1. How has the U.S. military sought to protect its satellites, weapons, 

and other equipment against an EMP attack? 

Since many U.S. military facilities are dependent on the U.S. electric grid, what 

steps has the U.S. military taken to protect its capabilities in the event of an EMP 

attack? Are these steps relevant to the protection of the U.S. electric grid? 

Answer. Since the 1960s the Department of Defense (DoD) has been conducting 

on-going research focused on defining the nature of the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) 

threat, its effect on systems, and ways to protect both military assets and infrastructure against EMP threats. Mission-critical military systems are required to be hardened against the High-Altitude EMP (HEMP) threat specified in MIL–STD–2169, 

the HEMP threat environment, in accordance with DoDI 3150.09, CBRN Survivability Policy. Although there are several types of EMPs, HEMP is considered to be 

the primary threat to military assets. Military standards for protecting strategic C4I 

ground-mobile systems, fixed facilities, and aircraft have been enacted and standards for protecting maritime assets against nuclear HEMP and satellites against 

other nuclear weapon effects environments are currently being developed. Transportable and mobile military systems are powered by mobile generators which are 

hardened against the HEMP threat. Similarly, military ground (fixed) facilities performing mission-critical functions use EMP-hardened commercial power. If the commercial power source is unavailable (e.g. due to power grid outages), these facilities 

rely on HEMP-hardened backup generators. 

Many EMP hardness protection methods and commercially available protection 

devices are generally applicable for use in protecting elements of the U.S. electric 

grid such as the universal Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) 

equipment which may be susceptible to and should be hardened against early-time 

HEMP. SCADA is a type of industrial control system (ICS). Industrial control systems are computer controlled systems that monitor and control industrial processes 

that exist in the physical world. SCADA is critical to normal functioning of the grid. 

In addition, due to the unique nature of the grid, such as transmission of electric 

power over very long transmission lines containing numerous transformers and 

other high-voltage devices, the grid may be vulnerable to late-time effects of HEMP. 

The DoD’s DTRA recently have been conducted two experimental research efforts 

at the Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory to define the nature and 

extent of late-time EMP effects on typical elements of the power grid and on protecting the grid against late-time HEMP. 

DoD does not harden all military systems, but just those systems deemed to be 

mission-critical that are expected to operate in a nuclear environment. DoDI 

3150.09, CBRN Survivability Policy, is the tool used to identify those systems. 

Question 2. Have the effects of an EMP attack, solar storm, or other long-term 

disruption (such as the derecho) on the civilian recovery sectors (i.e., hospitals, police, fire departments) been adequately investigated and planned for? What about 

similar impacts on DoD assets and missions? 

Answer. Lessons-learned from DoD hardening is applicable to civilian infrastructure, but the civilian infrastructure is not in DoD’s mission space. DoD plans to operate mission-critical systems as necessary without civilian infrastructure. It is 

probably cost-prohibitive to harden all civilian infrastructure but it might be costeffective to harden critical nodes such as SCADA. Overall, DoD has no responsibility 

to harden civilian infrastructure. 

Based on results of past studies and limited HEMP testing, the effects of an EMP 

attack on the civilian recovery sectors (emergency services) may not, in some areas, 

be adequately planned for. The Congressional Commission on EMP Attack on the 

U.S. conducted a HEMP effects study on the emergency services sector in 2002– 

2003. The study, based on site visits, analyses, and limited testing, illustrated the 
58 

effects of plausible HEMP threats and scenarios on typical components of the sector 

including a preliminary vulnerability assessment of HEMP events on Public Safety 

Answering Points (PSAPS). While the PSAP facilities visited had lightning protection, they were not directly protected against the effects of HEMP. Limited HEMP 

testing was performed on actual (or similar) components in PSAP facilities and 

equipment used by the emergency services sector such as computers, hand-held radios, and a police vehicle. 

In general, unhardened DoD assets and computer networks are vulnerable to 

high-level HEMP (e.g. <10kV/m). To the extent that DoD relies on unhardened assets to perform specific missions, these missions are at risk. Strategic missions, in 

general, rely on HEMP-protected assets. Non-strategic missions may rely on 

unhardened assets. 

Question 3a. While the term ‘‘energy security’’ has been in vogue amongst policymakers, it is mainly used in terms of sustainability and alternative energy sources 

(i.e. freedom from foreign oil) rather than resiliency and counter-terrorism applications. Have the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security been directing their 

regulatory attention more towards these issues rather than securing its energy 

sources, particularly electricity, against the effects of a long-term disruption? 

Answer. The Department of Defense defers to the Department of Homeland Security to provide the subcommittee with a description of the status of the U.S. Government’s efforts to plan for EMP, solar storm, or long-term disruption effects on the 

civilian recovery sectors. The Department is largely in a supporting role to the lead 

civilian authorities in any event to mitigate the consequences of or remediate after 

an EMP attack, solar storm, or long-term disruption event in the homeland. DHS 

is the lead agency for National Critical Infrastructure Protection and leads the U.S. 

Government’s contingency response plan efforts to mitigate the consequences of or 

remediate after an EMP attack, solar storm, or long-term disruption event. However, the Department of Defense is a significant stakeholder, and the Department’s 

ability to perform its National security functions is largely dependent upon the reliability and resilience of the commercial electric power grid. 

Question 3b. If so, are there plans to broaden your interpretation of energy security? 

Answer. The Department is pursuing comprehensive energy security strategies 

through the Energy Grid Security Executive Council (EGSEC) co-chaired by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs 

and the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Enviromnent. The 

council is working to improve the security, adequacy, and reliability of electricity 

supplies and related infrastructure key to the continuity of critical defense missions. 

The EGSEC works closely with the Departments of Energy and Homeland Security, 

along with private-sector partners. 

Congress has issued a broader interpretation of energy security in Title 10, Section 2924, which the Department of Defense believes is a good start in defining energy security. This definition includes, ‘‘having assured access to reliable supplies 

of energy and the ability to protect and deliver sufficient energy to meet missionessential requirements.’’ 

The Department’s current facility energy strategy includes enhancing the energy 

security of DoD installations. The DoD Annual Energy Management Report (AEMR) 

for fiscal year 2011 describes the facility energy strategy and includes a chapter describing energy security activities for DoD installations (see Chapter 5 in the fiscal 

year 2011 AEMR). 

The Department’s Installation Energy Management policy in DoDI 4170.11 includes a broader interpretation of energy security (see Enclosure 3, Section 3c. in 

DoDI 4170.11). The Department is in the process of updating this policy to further 

broaden the interpretation of energy security for fixed installations. 

Question 4. How is DoD using the inter-agency system to share its intelligence 

gathering and modeling capability with DHS and its partners to better understand 

potential EMP threats? Is DoD taking advantage of FERC, DoE, and DHS’ planning 

and response capabilities? 

Answer. DoD is using established intelligence community (IC) processes and 

mechanisms to share the results of its intelligence gathering on EMP threats with 

DoE, DHS, and other partners. 

DoD components who are also elements within the IC, such as DIA and (by extension) the Service Intelligence Centers (NASIC, NGIC, aNI) produce assessments on 

different aspects of EMP threats. Completed intelligence analysis on EMP threats 

is shared directly in collaborative efforts and made broadly available through 

Intelink and other collaboration tools. 

As a part of a 65-year partnership on nuclear weapons, DoD collaborates closely 

with DoE and its key laboratories to engage in research of common interest on EMP 
59 

* The information has been retained in committee files and is available at http:// 

www.lloyds.com/lloyds/press-centre/press-releases/2010/11//media/lloyds/reports/360/ 

360%20space%20weather/7311llloydsl360lspace%20weatherl03.pdf. 

and other nuclear-related effects. DoD relies on the deep technical expertise resident 

at DoE labs to supplement DoD’s weapon-specific expertise. Each DoE National lab 

also has a field intelligence element that is responsible for coordinating IC-related 

activities at the lab and assisting with sharing of intelligence products. 

DoD collaborates with DHS on EMP threats as just one of many areas of cooperation on homeland security. DHS has an extensive liaison relationship with NSA and 

an operational coordination relationship with USNORTHCOM. 

Those organizations across DoD, DoE, and DHS that deal with EMP threats are 

well-connected at both the leadership and rank-and-file level, ensuring robust intelligence sharing. 

Question 5. There is a DHS, DoD, and Department of Energy initiative to address 

EMP preparedness and grid reliability issues with private owners and operators. 

When was this partnership developed and what is its current status? 

Answer. The Energy Sector Public-Private Partnership (ES3P) initiative was established in March 2012 by the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense to engage sector stakeholders to understand, and where necessary, improve the energy surety (reliability, security, and 

resiliency) of infrastructure which supports National security missions. ES3P does 

not specifically focus on EMP-related events. 

The goal for the ES3P Joint Working Group (ES3PJWG) is to pull together the 

existing roles, responsibilities, and activities which currently support the Nation’s 

public and privately-owned energy systems. Increasing efficiency through integrated 

activities across larger, interconnected systems should improve energy surety. This 

public-private partnership is intended to be a multi-stage initiative. Specifically, this 

initiative is designed to take a regional approach to the energy surety of critical infrastructure and installations. 

Currently, ES3P is engaged in ‘‘The National Capital Region Initiative,’’ which focuses on DoD mission assurance in the National Capital Region (NCR). Specifically, 

this initiative addresses the energy surety of DoD installations, critical infrastructure, and Defense Industrial Base (DIE) facilities that perform or support DoD critical missions in the NCR. Best practices established in the first stage will be applied 

in other National security mission areas in follow on stages. 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER YVETTE D. CLARKE FOR CHRIS BECK

Question 1. In your recent London Conference, there were representatives from 

business and industry, in addition to governments. 

Could you describe the conversations and discussions about how the insurance industry is viewing EMP and geomagnetic disturbances in the electric industry? 

Answer. The insurance industry is now becoming very active in this area. While 

high-impact, low-frequency (HILF) risks are difficult to handle with traditional, actuarial-style risk analysis, the industry recognizes that the serious consequences resulting from a large EMP/GMD event means that mitigation actions must be taken. 

Insurance companies are very exposed to space weather costs, with the primary expense likely to be contingent business interruption costs, in addition to the need to 

cover direct costs of insured equipment that would be damaged. The EIS Summit 

III report, which I supplied to the committee as an addendum to my testimony summarizes the insurance industry discussions (see pages 30–35). In addition, Lloyd’s 

of London issued a report on Space Weather in 2010, which I am also attaching for 

your convenience.* 

Question 2. Is the council proposing international standards for EMP and geomagnetic disturbance mitigation? Who would oversee such an effort? 

Answer. One of the broad, consensus recommendations that emerged during several of the discussions at our third Electric Infrastructure Security Summit on May 

14–15, 2012, was the need for standards for electrical transformers and other electrical devices on electric grids throughout the world. Standards, whether National 

or international, are necessary to ensure some basic level of protection. Sweden, for 

example, has set a standard for the amount of geomagnetically-induced current 

(GIC) that all transformers on their grid must meet. Such standards allow electric 

grid owners and operators to procure equipment designed with GMD hazards taken 

into account. Without a standard, individual companies are doing the best they can, 

but this approach yields highly varied levels of protection. Because grids are all 

interconnected, ‘‘weak links’’ are present that put the entire system at risk. There 

are a number of approaches to begin developing such standards, including both rel-
60 

evant Government agency efforts and input from industry on best practices and experiences. Whatever the choice, it will be important to have it clearly defined, and 

designed to accept input from all relevant stakeholders and experts. 

Question 3. Electrical systems for countries are structured in different ways, for 

example we know that the system in S. Africa will need GMD protection that may 

vary from another country, and mitigation for GMD will have to be tailored to their 

needs. 

How do you plan to propose international standards if there are so many discreet 

and individual systems that will need specialized mitigation? 

Answer. The most fundamental standards required will refer to maximum tolerable off-nominal grid conditions. In the case of GMD, this would mean a standard 

that would limit maximum GIC flows in extra-high-voltage (EHV) transformers or 

provide corresponding GIC withstand ratings in EHV transformers. Since these are 

transformer-specific approaches, they would be country- and system-independent. 

The country-unique effort would take place in implementing the GMD standard, just 

as it does for implementing other standards, as each country, or coordinated group 

of system operators, works to evaluate—for their system—which approaches to assuring those standards/limits are met are best-suited to different elements of their 

power grid. 

Question 4. If commercial suppliers can produce mitigation devices that address 

protective strategies for expensive electrical equipment, then, what, in your opinion, 

is preventing them from marketing their products if their customers express a need 

for them? 

Answer. There are now three companies in the process of starting to market devices such as GIC current-blockers to customers, along with an increasing and impressive body of test data, which is a critical need to build confidence in their use 

by the energy sector. This marketing process has been slow to start due to the lack 

of any widely applicable standard, either voluntarily self-imposed, or else externally 

mandated. Once such a standard becomes available, and is broadly accepted, marketing of such devices will rapidly accelerate. 

Æ