[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 111-167]
WIND FARMS: COMPATIBLE WITH MILITARY READINESS?
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
JUNE 29, 2010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
61-770 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas, Chairman
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas ROB BISHOP, Utah
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa ROB WITTMAN, Virginia
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
GLENN NYE, Virginia JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio
FRANK M. KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland CHARLES K. DJOU, Hawaii
BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama
JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DAN BOREN, Oklahoma
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia
Dave Sienicki, Professional Staff Member
Jamie Lynch, Professional Staff Member
Tom Hawley, Professional Staff Member
Christine Wagner, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2010
Page
Hearing:
Tuesday, June 29, 2010, Wind Farms: Compatible with Military
Readiness?..................................................... 1
Appendix:
Tuesday, June 29, 2010........................................... 33
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 2010
WIND FARMS: COMPATIBLE WITH MILITARY READINESS?
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Forbes, Hon. J. Randy, a Representative from Virginia, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Readiness.............................. 3
Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P., a Representative from Texas, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Readiness...................................... 1
WITNESSES
Kalinowski, Nancy B., Vice President, System Operations Services,
Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration...... 8
Robyn, Dr. Dorothy, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense,
Installations and Environment, U.S. Department of Defense...... 4
Stutzriem, Maj. Gen. Lawrence, USAF, Director, Plans, Policy and
Strategy, North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S.
Northern Command............................................... 7
Webster, Stu, Co-Chairman of the Siting Committee, American Wind
Energy Association............................................. 9
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Kalinowski, Nancy B.......................................... 49
Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P........................................ 37
Robyn, Dr. Dorothy........................................... 42
Webster, Stu................................................. 56
Documents Submitted for the Record:
Slide: Expected Interference Obscuration at NAS Kingsville... 71
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mr. Conaway.................................................. 75
Mr. Forbes................................................... 75
Mr. Ortiz.................................................... 75
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Blumenauer............................................... 87
Mrs. Halvorson............................................... 86
Mr. Nye...................................................... 85
Mr. Ortiz.................................................... 79
WIND FARMS: COMPATIBLE WITH MILITARY READINESS?
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Readiness,
Washington, DC, Tuesday, June 29, 2010.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Solomon P. Ortiz
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM TEXAS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Mr. Ortiz. This hearing will come to order.
I want to thank our distinguished witnesses for appearing
before this subcommittee today.
Today, the Readiness Subcommittee will hear about wind farm
development and its impact on military readiness. Overall, I am
committed to renewable energy and the benefit it provides to
the environment, the economy and, of course, our country.
However, this project should not be pursued at the expense of
military readiness.
Wind energy is a prime example of renewable energy. And
although it is currently only 2 percent of domestic electricity
supply, it is the fastest growing source of new energy
generation in our country.
According to the Department of Energy, the United States
has enough wind resources to generate electricity for every
home and business in this Nation, but not all areas are
appropriate for wind energy development.
Today, the industry is generating 14 times more wind energy
across the United States than only 10 years ago. This increase
is only expected to continue.
There are a variety of factors that contribute to the
growth of wind energy, and one of the most prominent being
Federal subsidies and stimulus money available to the industry.
A Department of Energy grant program entitled developers of
renewable energy to 30 percent reimbursement of the cost of
building a facility. Wind power projects were the largest
sector, receiving 86 percent of the nearly $2.6 billion that
was disbursed.
But what stipulations are attached to the funding to
protect military readiness? Of course, the interest of our
readiness so that we can be ready in case that we need to
defend ourselves and our allies.
The rise of wind farms could not be more apparent than in
my home state of Texas. We lead the country in wind power
capacity and generate one quarter of the Nation's entire
production, or approximately 9,000 megawatts. This is enough
electricity to power more than 2.5 million homes for one year.
In my district alone, the stimulus bill provided more than $440
million in direct contributions to wind farms.
With the rise of wind energy, industry continues to seek
attractive development locations, some of which are too close
to military installations. A great example of this type of
development is in my district at the Naval Air Station in
Kingsville, Texas.
As one can see in this slide showing on the screen, wind
farms will significantly impair the ability of the Kingsville
radar system to monitor and detect small aircraft like those
flown at the Naval Air Station.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 71.]
Mr. Ortiz. We must ask ourselves, is this a problem? It is
a serious problem. Is there anything that we can do to preserve
the military capabilities threatened by wind farm development
at the Naval Air Station in Kingsville and other military
bases? In the short term, no. Am I concerned? You bet, I am
concerned.
The Department of Defense has increasingly engaged to
express reservations or objections to potential energy projects
based on military readiness issues, specifically identifying
conflicts with radars and existing training routes. Each
application for wind farm development is reviewed by the
Federal Aviation Administration in coordination with the
Department of Defense.
However, I am deeply concerned about the lack of a
coordinated, well-established review process within the
Department of Defense to provide timely input for these green
energy projects.
As a committee, we address this concern in the fiscal year
2011 National Defense Authorization Act and look forward to
working with the Senate to refine the final language in
conference. I don't consider it to be in our government's best
interest to stunt the growth of this critical industry, nor to
expand wind farm development at the expense of military
readiness.
There are many different facets of this issue and a variety
of stakeholders. As subsidies continue and the industry
continues to grow, it is imperative to increase coordination
between the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy
on these efforts.
Beyond government coordination, industry as a whole needs
to take ownership of their role in diminishing the impacts of
wind farms on military readiness, and increase innovation to
reduce conflicts with military radars and training routes. To
that end, I want to hear what specific actions the government
and industry partners are taking to, number one, improve the
review process, to identify mitigation efforts, and invest in
research and development solutions.
I want to conclude my opening statement by restating my
commitment to pursue all energy solutions in partnership with
the Administration but not, again, at the expense of military
readiness.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think that we have a lot to discuss
today, and I look forward to hearing you address these
important issues.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortiz can be found in the
Appendix on page 37.]
The chair at this moment recognizes my good friend from
Virginia, Mr. Forbes, for any remarks that he would like to
make.
STATEMENT OF HON. J. RANDY FORBES, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
VIRGINIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, as always, I thank you for your
leadership, and I thank all of our witnesses.
Dr. Robyn, it is great to see you here again.
General, it is good to have you here with us.
And to both of our other witnesses, we appreciate your time
and expertise in coming this morning to testify.
This is a topic that we are all particularly excited about,
especially the possibility of harnessing wind energy, because
the chairman and I, I think can both agree that we have an
abundance of excess wind right here in the Capitol that we
would love to use in a more beneficial manner. And I know all
of you have suggestions for us.
But even if we fail there, I don't think there is any
question that the United States needs to do more to develop
renewable energy sources. And wind farms are the most
attractive options for truly clean renewable energy.
Recently, wind farms have grown significantly in
popularity, so it is important that we take the time to
carefully evaluate the placement of wind farms around the
country because, like a lot of things in life, wind farms are a
mixed blessing; clean renewable energy but also an impediment,
as the chairman has mentioned, to military readiness and
homeland defense.
The chairman has also mentioned and our witnesses will also
cover in some detail wind farm impacts. I share his concerns,
which were raised in some detail at a subcommittee hearing
earlier this year. I believe that wind farm development, while
important to our national energy security posture, must not be
allowed to impede military readiness, and I think all of us
agree with that.
The Department of Defense's real concerns have to do with
the interference of their defense radar ringing the entire
Nation as well as the obstructions created on low-level
military training routes that criss-cross vast areas of the
interior United States posed by wind farm development.
As it stands today, the Department lacks a one-stop shop
for determining impacts, leading developers to be unsure of
where to turn. As we have seen, mere proximity to a military
installation is only the beginning of the story. The most
obvious place for DOD [Department of Defense] to start is with
a streamlined, transparent process that provides developers
some guidelines for turbine placement and some certainty that
their applications will receive a timely and credible review.
Unfortunately, the current process forces the Federal
Aviation Administration [FAA] to solicit and represent DOD in
the review. While the FAA clearly needs to be involved in the
placement of 500-foot tall structures, that agency should not
be forced to represent DOD equities.
I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses on
constructive ways to improve the process in order to speed
approval of wind farms that do not interfere with our national
security or military readiness.
And again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for scheduling this
hearing. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, sir.
Today we have a panel of distinguished witnesses
representing a good cross-section of views, including the
Department of Defense, the Federal Aviation Administration, and
the industrial perspectives.
Our witnesses include: Dr. Dorothy Robyn.
Doctor good to see you again. Welcome.
She is the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Installations and Environment, Department of Defense.
And Major General Lawrence Stutzriem, Director of Plans,
Policy and Strategy for North American Aerospace Defense
Command and the United States Northern Command.
General, welcome, sir.
Ms. Nancy Kalinowski. Sounds very Spanish to me. I hope I
pronounce it right. She is the Vice President for System
Operation Services of the Air Traffic Organization in the
Federal Aviation Administration.
And Mr. Stu Webster, Co-Chair of the American Wind Energy
Association Siting Committee.
Without objection, the witnesses' prepared statements will
be accepted for the record.
And Secretary Robyn, welcome. And it is good to see you,
and you can begin whenever you are ready.
STATEMENT OF DR. DOROTHY ROBYN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE
Dr. Robyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Forbes.
It is great to be here talking about an issue that General
Stutzriem and I have spent quite a bit of time dealing with in
recent months. It is an important issue.
As you have explained in your opening statements, wind
turbines can under some circumstances create interference and
clutter that reduces the sensitivity and performance of radar,
particularly older radar. The vast majority of all proposed
wind turbines raise absolutely no concerns for the Department
of Defense. In a small fraction of cases, however, we do have
concerns, and that number could grow as wind energy development
expands.
The problem arises in three different contexts. The first
involves the long-range radars managed by NORAD [North American
Aerospace Defense Command] and U.S. NORTHCOM [Northern Command]
to maintain air space surveillance and air defense.
Second, turbines can affect DOD's ability to test a new
weapons system, which requires an electromagnetically pristine
environment in which to collect performance data.
Third, Mr. Chairman, nearest and dearest to your heart, the
Department's training mission can suffer if air traffic control
radars used to train pilots are degraded by interference.
Two key factors aggravate what would otherwise be a much
more limited problem. First is the aging nature of our radar
infrastructure. Our long-range radars are particularly old,
decades old. Many still use analog technology, which has
limited ability to filter out wind turbine clutter.
Second, the FAA's siting review or its OE/AAA [Obstruction
Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis], process, on which we,
the Department, rely to identify and prevent potential
interference problems, is itself a kind of a legacy system. It
was developed in the 1960s with a focus on airspace safety, and
has not been updated to take account of current national
security needs and operations.
Most significant, a developer only has to give the FAA 30
days notice of the start of construction of a wind turbine or
other object. This is generally adequate for the FAA's
purposes, but if we raise a concern at that late stage,
particularly on something like a large wind farm for which the
developer has by then gotten environmental permits, typically
hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, we can create
serious financial and execution challenges for the developer.
The wind turbine radar interference problem is a serious
problem, but it is a largely solvable problem. Our country
should not have to choose between national security and the
development of renewable energy. The key is to improve our
legacy systems, both the regulatory one as well as the
electromagnetic one. Let me focus on three points.
First and most immediately, the Federal Government needs to
improve the process for reviewing renewable projects so that
potential interference can be identified early and mitigated
more easily. Toward this end, and consistent with your proposed
legislation, we are working to stand up a central DOD
clearinghouse to which developers can come on a voluntary basis
early in the development process for our review of a proposed
wind energy project. Our goal is to create a streamlined,
transparent, and layered process, one that can approve easy
cases quickly and apply increasingly sophisticated tools,
analytic tools, to the harder cases. Among other things, we are
looking at whether we need statutory or other authority in
order to protect proprietary project information, which is a
necessary requirement if we are going to have developers come
to seek us out.
Second, key Federal agencies, including DOD, need to
realign their research and development priorities to give
greater attention to this issue. Technology must become one of
the military's primary means of protection in this domain, just
as it is in many other domains. Toward this end, the White
House Office of Science and Technology Policy has recently
convened an interagency group to develop an R&D [Research and
Development] plan in this area. And the Air Force recently
entered a cooperative R&D agreement with Raytheon aimed at
identifying hardware and software improvements that will make
radar less susceptible to wind turbine interference.
Third, Federal agencies need to look at the current plan
for upgrading the older surveillance radar. At least two
questions merit analysis: One, is the current schedule for
upgrading the radar sufficiently aggressive? For example, many
of our older long-range radar will not go through this upgrade
process, called a SLEP, Service Life Extension Program, until
2014. And, second, will the technology slated for insertion as
part of that SLEP process do an adequate job of mitigating wind
turbine interference? And I will return to that point in a
minute.
To illustrate the importance of technology, let me briefly
mention a 60-day study by MIT's [Massachusetts Institute of
Technology] Lincoln Laboratory which we are releasing a summary
of today. It was completed last week. They briefed the
Department on it Friday and yesterday, and we have made a one-
page summary available to you. And we are in the process of
scheduling briefings, which will be at the secret level.
Lincoln Lab focused on a long-range radar in Fossil,
Oregon. It is called the Fossil ARSR-3. ARSR stands for Air
Route Surveillance Radar. Fossil refers to the nearby town in
Oregon, not to the age of the radar. It is old, but it is not
that old. The Department asked Lincoln Lab to do this analysis
in late April during a controversy that I think you all are
familiar with over a proposed 338-turbine wind farm project in
Oregon, Shepherds Flat. We, the Department, withdrew our
initial objection to the project partly, I would say, actually
largely, in the belief that Lincoln Lab could identify ways to
mitigate the interference during the period that the turbines
were being constructed.
And Lincoln Lab did not let us down. Their options, based
on actual experiments they ran on the Fossil radar, range from
adjusting the settings to optimize the existing technology to
inserting new technology, such as an adaptive clutter map that
can edit out false targets. Some of the technologies that
Lincoln Lab believes hold promise are scheduled for insertion
as part of the 2014 upgrade or SLEP process.
We are eager to take the Lincoln Lab proposals to the next
stage, namely, to engineer and demonstrate them in the field. I
don't mean to imply they are a silver bullet. They are focused
on this one particular radar. And the emphasis of our pilot
effort would be how the new technologies will affect the
operation of the radar by NORAD and U.S. NORTHCOM. Ideally, we
would like to use Fossil, Oregon's, long-range radar as our
test bed, in effect accelerating the SLEP, the upgrade
improvements that would not otherwise take place until 2014. In
addition to improving the Oregon radar on an accelerated basis,
this pilot will yield lessons that we can apply to other ARSR-3
radars as part of this process.
In closing, let me say that to maintain military readiness
and homeland defense, we must protect our irreplaceable test
and training ranges and maintain our radar-based surveillance
network. At the same time, the Department supports the
development of wind energy as a means toward greater energy
security goals, and we ourselves have been a leader in the
development of renewable energy. These two sets of goals can
and should be compatible. I have identified broad changes
necessary to reduce many, if not all, admittedly not all,
conflicts. We look forward to working with you to implement
these changes in the months ahead. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Robyn can be found in the
Appendix on page 42.]
Mr. Ortiz. General.
STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. LAWRENCE STUTZRIEM, USAF, DIRECTOR,
PLANS, POLICY AND STRATEGY, NORTH AMERICAN AEROSPACE DEFENSE
COMMAND AND U.S. NORTHERN COMMAND
General Stutzriem. Chairman Ortiz, it is great to see you
again, sir, Congressman Forbes, and members of the
subcommittee. Good morning. It is an honor to appear before you
today to discuss the impact of these wind turbines on homeland
defense, and I am pleased to accompany Dr. Robyn and to
represent the men and women of NORAD and U.S. NORTHCOM.
We are responsible for homeland defense, civil support,
security cooperation, to defend and secure the United States
and its interests. In all domains: air, maritime, land, our
focus is on defense of the homeland. NORAD provides aerospace
warning, aerospace control, and maritime warning in the defense
of North America.
The FAA's radars provide us the situational awareness and
threat detection capability we need to defend the Nation's
airspace. Under certain circumstances, wind turbines and other
radar obstructions cause interference that degrades these
radars, and it jeopardizes our ability to defend the United
States and Canada.
Of the 214 FAA radars that provide our domestic radar
coverage, 13 currently operate with some form of degradation
due to wind-turbine-induced interference. In 2009, NORAD
processed 1,789 tracks of interest, including an airplane that
was stolen from a flight school in Thunder Bay, Ontario, and of
course the Christmas Day attempted bombing on Northwest Flight
253. This year, we have already processed over 700 tracks of
interest. Each track has a unique set of circumstances and
demands clear situational awareness. Our decision time is
measured in minutes.
We know that our Nation's future depends upon a strong
defense. We also recognize that harnessing alternative energy
sources is critical to our Nation's future. We understand the
importance of projects that enable our Nation's energy
independence, and we fully support their development. We review
proposals for new developments, such as wind farms, commercial
buildings, other structures, and assess whether they will
hinder our ability to keep North America safe. We provide our
assessment to the FAA, who then renders a determination of
hazard.
I want to stress that situations where the FAA renders a
determination of hazard on our behalf do not occur frequently.
In fact, we have supported over 87 percent of the 2,196
proposed wind turbines that we have evaluated since 2008.
I am also pleased today to be joined by the American Wind
Energy Association and the FAA, and we, along with other
organizations within the Department of Defense and Federal
Government, are actively engaged with the private-sector
alternate energy organizations to identify best practices and
improve wind farm siting procedures.
NORAD and U.S. NORTHCOM are committed to participate in
this interagency process that evaluates proposals for wind
farms and other developments with the potential to obstruct
radar signals. All of this is done with the defense of our
homeland as our primary consideration.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to answer any
questions you may have.
Mr. Ortiz. Ms. Kalinowski, you may go ahead. You are next.
STATEMENT OF NANCY B. KALINOWSKI, VICE PRESIDENT, SYSTEM
OPERATIONS SERVICES, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Kalinowski. Thank you very much, Chairman Ortiz,
Congressman Forbes, and members of the subcommittee. We
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. My name
is Nancy Kalinowski, and I am the Vice President for System
Operations Services for the Federal Aviation Administration.
My office evaluates the impact of proposed construction on
the National Airspace System and determines whether it is a
hazard to air navigation. The FAA's mission is to ensure the
safe and efficient use of aircraft in the National Airspace
System. Proponents of construction projects must give adequate
public notice when the proposed structure could impact the
safety or the efficiency of the National Airspace System. This
notice provides the FAA with the opportunity to identify the
potential aeronautical hazards to minimize any adverse impacts
to aviation. The FAA uses an online tool that allows the public
to file electronically and to track their proposals online.
We evaluate approximately 100,000 proposed construction
filings every year, including wind turbines. Wind turbine
proposals have grown exponentially. In 2003, the FAA received
just over 3,000 wind turbine filings. In the first 6 months of
2010, we have already received close to 19,000 wind turbine
filings. We expect that number to increase substantially as the
country prioritizes renewable energy. We have approved over
100,000 wind turbine projects since 2003.
Wind turbines present a unique challenge to our agency
because of the special characteristics and the potential
impacts on the airspace and our air navigation facilities. In
the case of wind farm evaluations, each wind farm, each wind
turbine, is evaluated separately.
The cumulative effect of the wind turbines on navigable
airspace will obviously be more significant based on the total
number of wind turbines grouped together. When the wind turbine
blades spin, and in some instances it is at more than 200 miles
per hour, the signal can be picked up by radars as clutter. The
clutter created by wind turbines can result in the complete
loss of primary long-range radar detection above a wind turbine
farm. When a radar system repeatedly sees a return this large
from its signal, the radar may not be able to detect an actual
aircraft in the area. Consequently, there are real and
significant issues that must be evaluated by the government
before its approval of wind turbine projects.
How can we address these issues? The Federal Government can
better serve our interests and those of the energy developers
by improving the filing and the communication process. FAA is
continually enhancing its public website to improve the filing
process and to add tools that assist developers with siting
wind turbine projects. The FAA also hosts a DOD preliminary
screening tool that allows proponents to assess if their
proposed locations for wind turbines would be in an acceptable
geographic area in relation to radar locations.
This month, we added a new mapping tool on our website that
depicts wind turbine determinations issued by the FAA in every
State. This tool will allow the developers to more easily
identify areas that are already congested with wind turbines
and will also identify possible cumulative impact. We have also
collaborated with the Department of Homeland Security in an
effort to develop a dynamic, flexible modeling tool to better
analyze the impact of wind turbines on long-range radars.
Currently, proponents are required to file a notice with
the FAA as early in the planning process as possible but no
later than 30 days before the date of the proposed construction
is expected to begin. That 30-day time frame has been in place
for 45 years, and it was appropriate for single stationary
structures that the FAA largely dealt with in that time and
since. We certainly support consideration for requiring earlier
notification to seek a more realistic time frame for the FAA to
evaluate all the valid aeronautical comments, to review all
pertinent analytical reports, and to issue determinations that
take into account all comments and filings.
We agree with the Department of Defense in its assertion
that technological improvements and sound research should go a
long way to addressing the challenges presented by wind
turbines. Better tools and modeling to ascertain the impact of
a proposed wind farm on specific radar systems plus more
advanced cyclical processing to allow the removal of false
targets will greatly improve the ability to deal with the
impact on long-range radars.
We will continue to work with the National Security
Council, with the Congress, our partners in the Federal
Government, and all interested parties to develop these
improvements.
Thank you for the opportunity to describe FAA's role in
this very important process. This concludes my statement, and I
will be happy to answer any of your questions later. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kalinowski can be found in
the Appendix on page 49.]
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you so much.
Mr. Webster.
STATEMENT OF STU WEBSTER, CO-CHAIRMAN OF THE SITING COMMITTEE,
AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Webster. Chairman Ortiz, Ranking Member Forbes, members
of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify
today on behalf of the American Wind Energy Association [AWEA].
AWEA represents 2,500 member companies, including project
developers, manufacturers, construction firms, transportation
providers, and others. My name is Stu Webster. I am Director of
Permitting and Environmental for Iberdrola Renewables.
Iberdrola, which is headquartered in Portland, Oregon, is
the second largest wind power generator in the United States,
with more than 3,600 megawatts in operation. We have operating
wind power projects in more than a dozen States, such as
California, including approximately 400 megawatts in Chairman
Ortiz's district in Kenedy County, and we appreciate the
opportunity to do that.
Wind energy is a critical national resource. It is
domestic, inexhaustible, clean, and affordable. Wind energy is
important for our national security, energy security, and
economic security, as reinforced in the 2010 Quadrennial
Defense Review Report. But if we don't have a better system for
engaging with Federal agencies on radar and airspace issues,
including improved transparency with respect to DOD analysis on
impacts and the ability to discuss potential mitigation, then
wind projects will continue to be imperiled, and we will not be
able to meet our Nation's energy needs.
The wind energy industry recognizes that, in some
instances, depending on location, technology, and radar
mission, wind farms can impact military operations. However,
decades of experience in developing wind farms in the U.S. and
around the world have demonstrated that wind turbines, radar,
and military training can coexist. The industry has been
discussing with DOD, FAA, DOE [Department of Energy], and NOAA
[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] for several
years possible process improvements, including earlier
engagement and mitigation options. All parties seem motivated
now to move beyond talking to implementing those solutions. It
is AWEA's hope that the ongoing White House interagency process
facilitates implementation of these solutions.
For the most part, wind power projects proceed without
objections from DOD and other Federal agencies. In instances
when concerns are initially raised, most are resolved after
discussions between developers and the agency of concern.
However, as the demand for renewable energy grows, there is a
resource strain on reviewing agencies, and concerns raised are
impacting the ability of wind energy projects to be completed
in a timely manner.
What makes this issue so complicated is that, due to the
variety of radars, missions, and airspace needs, there is not a
silver bullet solution that can solve every potential impact.
As detailed in the appendices in my written testimony, there
are many technical mitigation measures, and some of these are
available today.
For example, replacing older radar, as roughly 80 percent
of the Nation's radars are from the 1950s to 1980s era, or
upgrading software in existing radars has been shown to address
concerns and accommodate additional wind energy development.
This was done at Travis Air Force Base in California. And
recently, the U.K. [United Kingdom] Government and industry
announced the purchase of a TPS-77 [Tactical Transportable
Radar System] long-range radar that can distinguish between
aircraft and wind farms, which will free up approximately 3,000
megawatts of wind energy.
Further, many of these solutions can be achieved at
relatively low cost. A gap-filling radar that costs just
$250,000 allowed hundreds of additional megawatts of wind in
Scotland with no decreased levels of detection at the radar.
In other cases, more research is necessary. For example,
there has been promising research on stealth composite blades,
but the technology is not yet validated for U.S. radar systems.
Federal investment in mitigation R&D needs to be increased to
validate mitigation options. The goal should be to have as many
mitigation options as possible, creating a toolbox from which
different solutions can be pulled depending on the factors at a
given location.
Finally, I want to briefly comment on specific language in
the House Defense Authorization bill. Industry has generally
supported the language to establish a single entity that will
centralize the review of wind projects within the DOD. This
could improve transparency, consistency, and timeliness.
However, we have concerns with language proposing the
establishment of military mission impact zones in which it
would be difficult, if not impossible, to site wind farms.
In my written testimony is a map with red, yellow, green
areas. The red represents circles drawn around radar assets at
30 miles; the yellow, 30 to 90 miles. This type of mapping is a
blunt tool that can put areas off limits, even if site-specific
analysis shows that there are no problems. Because of the
different kinds of radar, different missions, and varying
terrain, among other factors, it would likely be unnecessarily
restrictive to establish a one-size-fits-all rule for siting
near a military asset of concern.
In addition, there is no requirement in the language to
balance national security needs with also critical energy
security needs. Prior to designating a military impact zone,
the Secretary of Defense should be required to seek public
comment on the designation, release as many details justifying
the designation as possible, explain the expected mission
impact from the renewable energy development that led to the
designation, and explain any changes to operations and
technical mitigation options the Department of Defense
considered before making the designation.
Finally, AWEA urges the inclusion of provisions requiring
DOD to consider mitigation options, such as radar upgrades and
replacements, prior to opposing a wind project. And, there
needs to be more Federal investment in mitigation R&D. We need
to solve the challenges the industry and the DOD are facing,
and not just change how we talk about those challenges. These
upgrades and replacements will have positive benefits to
national security and air safety that reach well beyond the
wind industry alone.
The growth necessary to achieve 20 percent or more of our
Nation's electricity from wind, which DOE has determined
feasible, is unlikely to be achieved without resolving radar
and aerospace concerns, and these concerns cannot be resolved
without cooperation between the wind industry and Federal
agencies.
To that end, AWEA recommends: One, developing an improved
process for consulting agencies earlier; two, establishing a
proactive plan for upgrading radars to benefit national
security as well as accommodate additional wind energy
deployment; and, three, investing in significant research and
development.
I greatly appreciate your time today. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify. I am happy to answer any questions that
you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Webster can be found in the
Appendix on page 56.]
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you.
As it always happens right in the middle of testimony, we
have a vote. We have two votes coming up. I am just going to
ask one question for now.
Ms. Kalinowski, you mentioned that 100,000 projects have
been approved. Am I correct?
Ms. Kalinowski. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Ortiz. Can you tell me how many of these 100,000
projects are close to military bases?
Ms. Kalinowski. Not off the top of my head, but I could get
that information for you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 75.]
Ms. Kalinowski. In each and every case, the projects that
were close to military bases or military installations or close
to the FAA's long-range radars were coordinated with the
military, and they had the opportunity to comment on it. In
many cases, we were able to successfully work with the
proponent and with the military in order to mitigate the
effects on the radar or on the military installation.
Mr. Ortiz. Have you all taken into account the old radar
system that we have that dates back to the 1950s?
Ms. Kalinowski. Yes, we have. And that long-range radar
system and the secondary radar system serves the FAA's mission
quite well in terms of evaluating the safety and the efficiency
on the impact of the navigable airspace. It is the DOD's
mission, of course, to use the long-range radars for their
particular mission for the defense of the country. We work with
them, and they provide resources to us in order to maintain the
long-range radar sites to ensure that that ability is there for
them to complete their mission.
Mr. Ortiz. You know, one of the things that we worry about
is that military installations bring jobs to our districts. We
don't want the military or anybody else to come to us with any
excuse and tell us, you know what, we are going to have to move
our base, because you are impacted by the wind farms.
You know, the amount of wind farms dotting the landscape in
south Texas is quite amazing to the south and to the north. And
God knows we need the energy because we hope that--we cannot
continue to be dependent on foreign energy. But my installation
at Naval Air Station Kingsville is becoming increasingly
concerned. Should they continue to be concerned, or do you
think that we can pacify them because we do have a solution to
this problem? For anybody.
Mr. Webster. Chairman Ortiz, I will go ahead and address
your question. The reality is that the wind energy is a broad
and diverse group of stakeholders that have varying levels of
sophistication and understanding about how to go about
developing a wind project. Iberdrola Renewables has 400
megawatts in your district near the air station and, as a
result of our development efforts, sited that facility so that
it didn't pose an impact.
To the issue at hand today, the projects that are
potentially posing or are posing an impact perhaps could be
remedied not necessarily just by siting changes alone, but the
changes in the mitigation and the technology that is out there.
The surveillance community met in October 2008. The wind energy
was a minor line item in a large agenda that was primarily
concerned with the sophistication of the technology that they
are currently utilizing, and it seems like this is a ripe
opportunity to add the political momentum that wind energy has
to address a much larger and long-standing concern with the
surveillance community to upgrade their facilities. In doing
so, issues such as the air station in your district could be
mitigated and therefore remedied.
Mr. Ortiz. You know, we have about less than 3 minutes for
the next vote.
Mr. Garamendi, you will be first to ask questions when we
come back, but I think we should be back soon. It is three
votes. We are going to recess for a few minutes. And then we
will come back. I know that your time is very valuable. We will
try to come back and see if we can continue with this hearing.
We are recessed.
[Recess.]
Mr. Ortiz. Now, we are going to continue with our hearing.
Let me yield to my good friend for any questions he might have.
Mr. Forbes.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, thank you
to all of the witnesses for your time here today.
Ms. Kalinowski, you have a very impressive resume. You have
done a lot of things and there are a lot of things on your
plate. And unfortunately for you, if something goes wrong we
find out in a very dramatic manner.
I was excited to hear you mention not once but twice in
your testimony about the use of modeling. And I take it that it
is modeling and simulation that you are utilizing.
Two questions regarding that. One, are we giving you
everything you need now to do all of the modeling that you need
to accomplish your goals? And if not, how can we help you there
as a Congress? Because I think that is absolutely crucial for
you to be able to do.
And the second thing is, how do developers or individuals
who are doing some of these projects tap into the modeling that
you have in at an early stage? Because I know you have probably
some privacy concerns and some things that you don't want to
allow them to know. Is there some way that they can utilize
that modeling capability at the front end instead of waiting at
the back end and finding out, Oh, my gosh, this is having a
huge negative impact?
Ms. Kalinowski. Thank you very much for that question, Mr.
Forbes. I appreciate it.
We have enjoyed great support from the Congress for our
resources and we believe that we are using them efficiently and
effectively, and so we do thank you for your support in that
department.
We are also working closely with the Department of Defense
and the Department of Homeland Security in terms of educating
ourselves and improving the modeling that we have to bring to
the challenges of wind farms and understanding the limitations
of radar.
We have been very impressed with the Joint Program Office
and the work that has been done by the Department of Defense's
office. We refer to them as the 84th RADES [Radar Evaluation
Squadron]. That is their office that does extensive work and
modeling on long-range radar and the effect of wind turbines on
radar. Our technical people, our engineers within the FAA, have
been working very closely with them to understand the radar and
to develop and look to the professional community on better
modeling and simulation. Thank you.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you. Do we know how many turbines exist
today? I know you mentioned about 100,000 projects that had
been approved. Do we know how many actual turbines have been
constructed and how many do we predict will be constructed over
the next 5 years?
Ms. Kalinowski. I mentioned the statistics before. We
received 1,500 cases to look at this week alone. So it is
definitely increasing in numbers. I know that the
Administration and the Department of Energy and Mr. Webster's
supporting association, AWEA, have hoped that we can move
toward energy independence by increasing the number. If there
are 100,000 today that have been approved, I know that their
hopes are to go upwards to 800,000 in the future. So we are
gearing up to make sure that the Department of Defense and the
FAA can address that kind of influx of cases and to analyze
exactly what their impact would be on military readiness.
Mr. Forbes. Mr. Webster, do you have any idea currently how
many turbines we have already constructed? And what is your
best projection for how many we would expect to have
constructed within the next 5 years?
Mr. Webster. Sir, I don't think we have an accurate number.
We can certainly try and estimate that and get back with you
and the others.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 75.]
Mr. Webster. I would say that from--this is a very
difficult issue to address, but the lion's share of the
proposals that are brought into the FAA, for example, and other
agencies don't actually become real projects. So while there
are 100,000 turbines that have been assessed in any given year,
we are talking somewhere on the order of magnitude less than
that coming to fruition. So it is a difficult tug and pull, if
you will, trying to determine, from an agency perspective, what
is actually going to become an actual project versus what is
sort of a touch by the industry to try to determine whether or
not there is going to be an impact in that particular area.
Mr. Forbes. The chairman and I were talking in the break
about impacts these could have on our bases and other types of
things in there. I think it would be useful for us. Just like
when we are doing planning for highways, it is I think a
crucial piece of information to know how many cars we think we
have on the road and how many we would expect to have on the
road in 5 years. So if you could help us with those numbers, I
think it would be useful for the committee, even though it is
not exact, if we can just get our hands around how many we
think we have got out there and how many is our best estimate
of what we will have in the next 5 years could be useful
information for us.
Dr. Robyn and General, Dr. Robyn made a statement that I
certainly do not disagree with. You said that we should not
have to accept a decrease in military readiness to support
national energy initiatives, or some paraphrase of that. The
problem is, as we all know, sometimes just from a timing
sequence, even if we have enough money, we can't get things
underway; and sometimes with the budget concerns we have today,
we have a budgetary concern.
In all of the witnesses' opinions, do you think that there
would ever be a time that we should accept a decrease in
military readiness to support national energy initiatives? And
I don't care who starts, whoever has that opinion, but we would
just like your thoughts on that.
Dr. Robyn. I think it is a mistake to frame the problem
that way, because I think----
Mr. Forbes. Help me.
Dr. Robyn. What I said in my statement was the country
should not and does not have to choose between national
security and the development of renewable energy. And I think
what you have heard all of us say is that the two keywords,
improving the process, which allows for early discussions and
increases the chances significantly of working out some sort of
mitigation, and the other is technology. And there is an
overlap, because so far mitigation largely means moving the
radar to a different place.
Mitigation also means changes to the radar itself,
improvements in the software, improvements in the hardware,
potentially replacement of the radar. I am not saying that
every problem can be solved, and even Mr. Webster said there is
no silver bullet. But we have yet to really bring to bear the
potential for technological development or insertion of better
technology.
Mr. Forbes. And, Doctor, I guess then I kind of take back
my statement where I agreed with you, because I disagree with
you. Because I think while it may be our goal that the two
don't conflict, the real world we live in is that it is not
just theory. The real world--sometimes it does come down to a
conflict, either again because of timing--we just can't get
there quick enough--or because of money. So if you can address
that. General, do you feel----
Dr. Robyn. Can I just----
Mr. Forbes. Sure.
Dr. Robyn. Let me address each of those, because when I
said we ought not have to choose----
Mr. Forbes. I agree with you, we shouldn't have to choose.
But unfortunately sometimes in this committee----
Dr. Robyn. Timing is critical. I don't mean to imply that
you just say ``Okay, we are never going to say no because we
can figure out how to solve the problem technically.''
So the key to fixing the process is so that you have the
time so that we can learn about projects early, work with
developers to come up with a mitigation strategy, whether it
involves moving the turbines or improving the radar. But timing
is absolutely critical.
The second thing is money. And no one has put this on the
table yet. I am wishing I had done this in my testimony. These
wind energy development projects are--they are big and they
involve a lot of investment and that is a potential--those
developers are a potential source of improvements in the
technology. This is something that happens in other areas when
one person wants to make better use of the electromagnetic
spectrum and what they are proposing would interfere with
somebody who is occupying the spectrum; they will pay to
upgrade their receivers so that their activity doesn't create
interference. That is very common. There is a market for that.
We need to develop the same kind of thing here.
Mr. Forbes. I don't disagree with that. Again, all you guys
are good guys. It is not a white hat, black hat--these are not
trick questions. The question, though, at some point that this
committee just has to keep in mind as our checkoff--and I think
it is a fair question--is the Department willing to accept
decreased military readiness to support national energy
initiatives?
It is a fair response to say we hope to have both. It is a
fair response to say we need both. It is a fair response to say
we hope we don't have to choose between them. But none of those
are my question.
My question is if rather it is because of timing or budgets
or whatever else, beyond any of our controls in here, if we
have to choose--it is a simple question--would the Department
be willing to accept a decreased military readiness to support
national energy initiatives?
Dr. Robyn. We haven't to date, and I don't think we intend
to accept a significant level of reduction in military
readiness, no.
Mr. Forbes. General, what was your response?
General Stutzriem. Yes, sir. As you know, I cannot speak
for the Department of Defense, but as the COCOM [Combatant
Commander], I can. We, of course, will always do a very serious
and detailed operational risk assessment based upon
interference that may be caused by these wind turbines. And it
is clear that in our mission, we have to be able to detect and
track and, if necessary, take action on a track of interest
before it injures or hurts American citizens. So in that risk
assessment, we will be very sober and objective about risk that
is unacceptable.
And in the operational realm, if we have risk that is
unacceptable, we have to mitigate that down to an acceptable
level. So in our part of this process, we will be very
forthright with that analysis which we have focused quite a bit
in the last few weeks and bolstered.
However, I do also share Dr. Robyn's comment that some of
the recent studies in what we see, there is probably a lot of
technological pieces out there in the future that can help
mitigate that risk. We will not as a combatant command have any
kind of gap, however, that is unacceptably managed.
Mr. Forbes. General, I am sure you are articulating a lot
better than I am understanding it. So I don't want to push you
further than you can go. Sometimes we have to just come down to
hard and fast decisions.
Is it your opinion that we should ever accept a decrease in
military readiness to support national energy initiatives?
General Stutzriem. Once again, that is a policy question
for the Department. But we will always, from the operational
level, mitigate that risk in some way.
Mr. Forbes. General, I will try this one more time. What we
are told by the Secretary of Defense always, is when we have
witnesses here, we can ask your personal opinion and we rely on
this personal opinion. Again, it is not a trick question. It is
something we need to know.
In your personal opinion, should we ever accept--I
understand we want to mitigate, we want to not be there. But if
it comes down to it, should we ever accept a decrease in our
military readiness to support national energy initiatives?
General Stutzriem. Yes, sir. In my opinion, homeland
defense is our top priority, our mission priority, and that
should take precedent.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you. And, Ms. Kalinowski, the same thing.
Ms. Kalinowski. I can certainly speak for the FAA that we
would not accept the degradation of the safe and efficient use
of the navigable airspace. I believe that we at this table all
want to support a national goal toward energy independence, and
that also speaks to the Nation's security. Thank you.
Mr. Forbes. Fair response. And, Mr. Webster.
Mr. Webster. I would say that we do as an industry--
obviously do not want to see significant or adverse impact to
our ability as a Nation to protect ourselves and do not
advocate nor want to promote any notion that the industry feels
that it is somehow of higher importance than national security.
That said, the industry does feel along with our
counterparts in the agencies, that there are real technical
solutions that can be deployed today, and it is just the amount
of collective willpower to mobilize that technology to resolve
these issues so that we do not have that adverse impact
threshold reached, which to this date, at least according to
the Concurrent Technologies Corporation's recent report has not
been reached.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you all so much for your expertise. And,
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Kissell.
Mr. Kissell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to our
witnesses for being here today. I have a series of questions,
more or less trying to get an idea in my mind some of the
parameters of the issues. So I am not even sure I can direct
them to one person or not.
But the first question, Ms. Kalinowski, when you talk about
projects that are being given to us and that you all are
reviewing, on average how many devices per project, how big of
an area are these projects? Kind of just the scope of what an
average project would consist of.
Ms. Kalinowski. Thank you, Congressman. If you are speaking
of wind farms, we have dealt with wind farms as small as four
or five wind turbines, but the average is more along the lines
of 100 to 200 wind turbines on up to 500.
Mr. Kissell. And these devices, on average, in size--I had
read some can be as high--tall as 500 feet. What is the average
size of one of the wind turbines?
Ms. Kalinowski. I think Mr. Webster would probably be a
better person to ask that question, but we have dealt with them
ranging from 200 to 400 feet.
Mr. Kissell. Mr. Webster, would that be in the neighborhood
then?
Mr. Webster. Four hundred to 425 feet.
Mr. Kissell. Good. Thank you.
And, Dr. Robyn, I am going to give these questions to you,
and then once again feel free to move them to somebody in the
best place. The issue itself in the radar interference, is it
more of an issue based upon where the wind farms are and to the
number of miles to the base? Or is it more of a directional
issue; or is it an elevation issue; or what creates the
situation where some wind farms might be a problem and others
wouldn't be?
Dr. Robyn. I am an economist, not a physicist. So my
understanding is--certainly, you see in many places wind
turbines near military bases with no issue. It becomes a
problem--it is very case by case. And it can become a problem--
the two key things: line of sight, that is an issue. If the
turbines are shielded from the radar by the terrain, there is
not an issue. So, line of sight. And the number of turbines so
that you can have 500 turbines that do not create an issue. And
then when you add another 100, their cumulative impact on
existing technology, particularly the older radar, can become a
problem.
Mr. Kissell. And, General, with that said--and once again I
don't know where is the best place to ask these questions. So
you have some farms that could be within a few miles and not be
a problem and others somewhere else that it could be a problem.
Is it a difference in the radar between--are they more of an
issue for long-range radars versus short radars? So is it more
specific, and can we predict, as the modeling that Mr. Forbes
is talking about, can we predict where we would have a problem
and not have a problem?
General Stutzriem. Yes, sir. It does vary from radar type
to radar type. It is very dependent upon the environment. So,
for example, I can speak to simply one piece of this which is
once again the operations risk assessment. We look at that in
terms of what is that environment around the radar itself. So
once again, depending upon the sophistication or the technology
of the radar itself, it may deal with that interference better
or worse.
One radar that Dr. Robyn talked about out at Shepherds
Flat, of course, is an older radar. And it shows a lot of the
clutter based upon that interference that comes from those wind
turbines.
Mr. Kissell. My last question. Well, I will see how my time
is, whether it is my last question. It would seem to me that if
you are looking at a huge investment and you know this issue is
being a problem, that you would want to go to whatever
authority much sooner than 30 days from the time you want to
start building this.
Are we seeing that, that people are coming to us from the
initial concepts and saying, ``Hey, do you think this is going
to be a problem?'' Are we seeing any of that?
Mr. Webster. The industry has largely been increasing its
level of engagement with the agencies much sooner for the past,
I would say, 4 years, when this issue first arose to a sort of
national prominence, if you will. The result of that has been
largely unanimous recommendation from all of the stakeholders
that there is no process to engage in.
So you have situations where a military facility is engaged
by a single developer. The military facility makes a
recommendation that there will not be an adverse impact, and it
isn't until 2 or 3 years later, when a formal review process by
the FAA is undertaken, that a differing opinion by a different
entity within the DOD says, ``Actually there is an impact.'' By
that time millions, if not billions, of dollars have been
invested in that asset. And then, of course, you clearly have a
national defense question in mind, so it creates an automatic
tension between the stakeholders that could have been resolved
if there had been a process in place.
Mr. Kissell. Thank you, sir. Thank you, panel. And thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome. I appreciate
you being here. Just to set the record, I represent a district
that is in the top three or four in the Nation on wind power
generation. So please don't interpret anything I am saying as
being anti-wind because it is--some of my wind friends have
thin skins sometimes.
Mr. Webster, are all of the sites across the United States
fully developed and the only ones left to develop are the ones
that potentially interfere with military operations?
Mr. Webster. No. There is a variety.
Mr. Conaway. We have had this conversation this morning as
if the only ones left out there to be developed were the ones
that have this potential problem with military readiness. I
just want the record to show that there are zillions of sites,
for lack of a better phrase, that have no interference
whatsoever, that are available for development for the
industry.
Dr. Robyn, you mentioned a very interesting phrase or
concept. What are the barriers to the system? As an example,
you have got a developer that wants to put some wind towers in
a particular place; it gets in front of an older radar set and
that radar would need to be upgraded to mitigate.
Are there barriers to allowing the developer to say, in
order to move this project forward, I will pay to have the
radar upgraded or whatever mitigation costs are needed to
eliminate the problem that the military is having? Can that
investor or developer group fold those costs in, or are there
barriers to letting that happen?
Dr. Robyn. I think the biggest barrier is that most people
haven't thought about it that way. We are not used to thinking
of operating that way. There may be a technical/legal barrier
to us accepting money from a developer. But I think it is----
Mr. Conaway. I do, too. It is something that a business
would do all the time. It is not a foreign concept.
Mr. Webster, you might have your group look at that
concept. Obviously if the radars are doing the job that we want
them to do, and a developer comes in and wants to interfere
with that, it shouldn't be the responsibility of the taxpayers
to upgrade the existing facility to meet the need of that
developer. I would think that if that site is worthy, then it
could fade the costs of the other development.
General, throughout the NDAA [National Defense
Authorization Act], there is immense emphasis on the Department
of Defense single-handedly eliminating our need for foreign
oil. We spend a lot of money that way on wind generation,
alternative sources, all kinds of things. It would be helpful
to us as decision makers--because I think the Department of
Defense budgets are going to start looking a lot flatter than
they have in the last 7 or 8 years--to know what that delta is.
In other words, what would we pay for energy the traditional
way versus this emphasis that we have gone across DOD, what is
that delta and what are we trading? Are we trading MRAPs [Mine
Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles]? Are we trading body
armor? Are we trading a second engine? What is it, so as a
policy we can say, okay, this cost, these extra costs to the
system, that doesn't have to be there; it is there only because
of something else. What are we trading for that? What can we
use that dollar for? Do you have that number, by chance, or is
there a way to get at it?
General Stutzriem. Sir, I don't. And, of course, at the
combatant command, we establish requirements that are processed
by the Pentagon. I can take that question for the record and
route it and get you an answer on that.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 75.]
Mr. Conaway. I do think that the Secretary is looking for
100 billion over the next 5 years, and we ought to know what we
are trimming out of the 100 billion.
I had a report yesterday that the Air Force is going to
mothball the B-1 bombers and 250 fighters under this cost
saving hat, not for defense, not for capacity, not for
anything, just a cost saving hat.
It would be helpful for us as policymakers next year to
know what the Department is spending on energy that they don't
have to spend, but for requirements under the NDAA,
particularly in the last 3 years. With that, I yield back.
Dr. Robyn. Sir, is your question how much are we spending
on energy? The delta----
Mr. Conaway. Between what we would have spent but for all
of this emphasis on renewables and the Department of Defense
doing a lot of stuff that they don't have to do.
Dr. Robyn. Oh, I would disagree. I was with you up until
that.
Mr. Conaway. So you would trade wind power for body armor?
Dr. Robyn. We very much look at this. I believe it was
General Mattis during the Iraq War said, ``Please release us
from the tether of fuel.'' And that prompted a Defense Science
Board report which said we are losing lives and we are spending
enormous amounts of money to get fuel to forward operating
bases. And the cost that we pay for fuel is the tip of the
iceberg. The real cost is--and our soft underbelly is the
logistics tail to get that fuel to forward operating bases.
Insofar as we can use renewable in forward operating bases,
which we are working on, we can reduce that. And in domestic
bases, which I oversee, we are vulnerable to disruption of the
commercial electricity grid and renewable energy combined with
energy efficiency, smart microgrids, can increase mission
assurance.
Mr. Conaway. And that comes in front of other requirements
that DOD has. We are not making a rational decision because the
folks out there have just said--that the majority has said over
the last 3 years, this is an important deal. So you guys have
gone down that path.
I have had four-stars tell me that they have to come out of
hide for all of these extra costs, so they can look green; that
it is not mission-critical to what they are doing. You are not
going to power an MRAP with a battery or with a wind----
Dr. Robyn. You are not going to power an MRAP, but
renewables have an important----
Mr. Conaway. You argue with me that the fuel in the
battlefield is what you are worried about, and I am just saying
that is not what we are talking about.
Dr. Robyn. Generate--a significant amount of the fuel that
is transported to forward operating bases is used to power
generators, to heat and cool tents, to operate----
Mr. Conaway. So we are going to build wind towers in Iraq?
Dr. Robyn. I don't know if it will be wind, but we are
absolutely spending----
Mr. Conaway. More money on energy than we would otherwise
have to spend.
Dr. Robyn. We have been running a 270-megawatt geothermal
plant in China Lake for 20-some years.
Mr. Conaway. And it costs more to do that than to buy the
energy out of the grid.
Mr. Ortiz. You can go ahead and answer----
Dr. Robyn. I think we disagree here. I think it will cost
the Department money up front to develop renewables. It will
cost the country money up front. Part of that is because we
don't put a price on carbon. So we do need to----
Mr. Conaway. And the science is settled on that, that it is
an issue?
Dr. Robyn. Putting a price on carbon?
Mr. Conaway. Yes. The science is settled on that?
Dr. Robyn. I think that is an economic question. There are
huge externalities from carbon emissions which aren't captured
in the price of fossil fuels. But there is the Quadrennial--I
point to the QDR, the Quadrennial Defense Review, which says
that our dependence on fossil fuels, it is a national security
issue and it is an issue for domestic installations. Renewables
are not the silver bullet, but they have an important place.
Mr. Conaway. But you will get me the difference in costs
that the Department incurs between what they could have done
normally versus----
Mr. Ortiz. I think we are going to have time, because we
have got other members and we will have to have, probably, a
second round of questions and we will come back to you.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The RAND
Corporation estimates that about 16 to 18 percent of the total
defense budget is specifically designed for the purpose of
protecting the sea lanes in the Gulf of Hormuz so that we can
have oil. We are at great risk at any moment of that strait
being shut down, in which case we would have a very serious
problem in America. So 16 percent--let's just say 15 percent.
So $120 billion a year for that one purpose, according to the
RAND Corporation.
With regard to the issue that we just heard about, it is
imperative of every one of our bases to become as self-
sufficient for energy as possible so as to avoid the problem of
a shutdown of the grid.
This committee has heard testimony on cyberwarfare and the
potential problems that it presents to us. It is a very
significant issue. And spending money on renewables at the
base, conservation at the bases and other ways of making our
bases both domestic and international, self-sufficient and not
dependent upon the importation of oil arriving at the
appropriate moment, is of utmost importance.
Now, to the issue at hand, which happens to be wind
turbines and the bases. First of all, I want to thank the
industry for the work that you are doing in the Travis area,
the Fairfield area, and the wind energy that is extremely
important in that area. You have undertaken a joint operation
with the Air Force at Travis to find ways of dealing with the
interference that the wind turbines provide, and you are also
providing money to fund the studies, and that is the way it
should be done. So I thank the industry for that.
I also want to, Dr. Robyn, if I might, just ask you about
efforts that are underway to ameliorate the problem that exists
with regard to the Travis domestic flight. We are not talking
about long-range radars here, but rather those that are
specific for flight control at the bases.
Could you just comment on the work that is being done, some
studies that are underway? I understand Raytheon and the United
Kingdom has a study underway. I think there is a Jensen or
Jansen report.
Dr. Robyn. I am not sure I can speak to Travis in
particular. The work with Raytheon, you may be referring to the
CRDA [Cooperative Research and Development Agreement] that I
mentioned in my opening remarks. It was something the Air Force
entered into just recently, a cooperative R&D agreement, the
aim of which is to identify hardware and software improvements
in radar that can reduce wind interference.
I think that the U.K.--that may be a reference to the TPS,
the TPS-77 radar, which is a radar that the U.K. feels--it is a
Lockheed Martin radar, I believe. There is some evidence to
suggest that it deals fairly well with wind turbine
interference. We have not yet looked at that closely.
Mr. Garamendi. If I might just interrupt. It is my
understanding that the radar systems at Travis are being
significantly upgraded to deal with the wind turbine--with the
wind farm nearby, and that it is possible to use enhanced
software to achieve the necessary air traffic controls for
that. So if you could deliver to me and perhaps to the
committee a display of the various activities that are going
on.
[The information referred to was not available at the time
of printing.]
Mr. Garamendi. Most of the testimony we have had here today
concerns long-range radar systems which are quite antiquated in
most cases. It is pretty hard to move the wind from one
location to another. But it may be easier to move the radar,
particularly if it is an older system that is going to get
replaced sometime in the future, perhaps with the NextGen [Next
Generation Air Transportation System] system of traffic, air
traffic control coming up.
So I would like to have some comments on that as well as
the upgrading and the role of the industry in helping to pay
for it, the concept that was developed here a few moments ago.
I think it is an appropriate one.
So, General, if you would start and then the industry and
then FAA. And we have 3 seconds.
General Stutzriem. Yes, sir. We work very closely right now
with a number of Federal agencies, with the developers; when we
find through our operational risk assessment there is a
problem, there is kind of conflict. Some of those methods--and
I think there are a number, besides relocating wind turbines
outside of line of sight. That would be the most effective. But
we can change the sighting, the geometry, the spacing to assist
in reducing those effects.
Yes, some tuning of the radars are possible based upon a
growth in clutter across time and the environment. So simple
maintenance may help. And, of course, we are seeing more and
more, especially in the urgencies of looking at technology,
that there are probably software and hardware fixes that can be
inserted in these older radars that could reduce the impact of
the wind turbine interference.
Mr. Webster. Largely there has been some dialogue by the
stakeholders with respect to moving radars. My understanding is
that it is largely about as feasible as moving the wind
projects themselves, which is the other mitigation solution
that has often has been talked about, both of which I suppose
are possible but not probable in terms of being effective both
cost-wise, as well as technology-wise.
The radar systems were put in place where they were,
because they optimized our field of vision from a national
defense perspective as well as from an air traffic control
perspective. In a similar vein, we put the turbines where we do
because of the wind being present.
Again, however, there is a number of opportunities that
have been discoursed for the past few years that allow us the
ability to upgrade those radars, and possibly R&D technology
that can be inputted onto the turbine side of the equation to
ameliorate the problems.
Mr. Garamendi. FAA.
Ms. Kalinowski. Thank you for the question, Congressman. It
is very expensive to move a long-range radar. Not very feasible
at all. I think both gentlemen made very good points about
that. I think our future lies in either a software upgrade, a
hardware upgrade, or finding other alternatives to essentially
mitigate the project.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, in 30 seconds, I do want to
just make a final comment that the U.S. Air Force together with
the wind industry, three developers in the Solano area have
made significant progress on accommodating additional turbines
and the safety and the air traffic control at a major, major
base, probably with flights taking off every 90 seconds or so.
So it can be done. It is software and it is location of the
radars; and also, most important of all, a willingness to work
together. And I thank you for what you have been able to
accomplish there.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you. Before I go to the next Member who is
visiting with us today, let me ask a question now. We were
talking about at Kingsville a few moments ago. And I know that
some of you are mitigating some of the circumstances. But I was
just wondering, Dr. Robyn, can you explain what steps the
Department of Defense is taking to preserve military readiness
across the Nation, specifically in Kingsville--and we
appreciate the energy that you, Mr. Webster, are providing. We
need it. God knows that.
But my two bases hit right in the middle of them. If you
are flying in from San Patricio County, I think you see at
least, if not 200, maybe more windmills. And then when you go
south going to the valley, South Padre Island, you see maybe 3-
or 400 of them.
What is the Department of Defense doing to come up with
answers as to how we are going to protect our readiness? Yes,
ma'am.
Dr. Robyn. I don't--we have not--I was not aware of the
Kingsville situation until recently. We have not had--leaving--
I will come back to that one. But I am not aware that we have
had an issue with wind turbines and training routes.
Most training routes, most low-level training routes are on
public land. The process is easier when it is public land. We
get advanced warning from BLM [Bureau of Land Management]
typically, or the public land holder. So we have not--I am told
by our personnel and readiness folks, that has not been an
issue.
Kingsville, clearly we need to look at that. The process
seems to have broken down there because the FAA was not--the
Navy did not object to the proposed turbines as part of the OE/
AAA process. Nancy can say more about--apparently those radars
there are not even part of the National Airspace System. They
are not in the system at the FAA. So the process broke down. I
would like to look at it more closely, number one; see whether
there are some lessons from Travis that we can bring to NAS
[Naval Air Station]-Kingsville.
Mr. Ortiz. Ms. Kalinowski, would you like to respond or
give us any input or, Mr. Webster, to the same question?
What I really want to know--and things are moving pretty
fast. When you say that hundreds of thousands of them are
requesting authorization to do that, how long will it take for
all four of you to get together and to come up with a plan? Can
you do that? Because this is moving too fast, and it is very
costly and readiness is at stake.
But you think you all can get together and come up with
maybe a solution? I know it is going to be expensive when you
talk about upgrading or buying new radars. It is going to be
very, very expensive.
When Chairman Gates came down, he says, ``You know what? We
are going to cut down on defense to the point whether it is
going to be research and development and other items that we
need, or whether we are going to have to cut down on health
care for our service people.'' So this is a very serious,
serious problem.
How much time do you think you would need to come up with a
plan that we all can work and sing from the same page, for all
of you?
Mr. Webster. From the industry standpoint, we have been
advocating for 4 years now that a process of earlier engagement
that meets the needs of all the stakeholders be developed. I
think that largely the conversations that we have had with the
other stakeholders, both in the public and private sector, have
resulted in a good laundry list, if you will, of elements that
would be contained within such a process. And now it is just a
matter of actually implementing--more fully developing and
implementing that process.
Dr. Robyn. Congressmen, the National Security Council
initiated an interagency process in the wake of the controversy
over Shepherds Flat. Shepherds Flat was an unfortunate
controversy, but it was useful in galvanizing attention. And
that is an ongoing process, looking in particular at the FAA
siting review process and whether and if that needs to be--
whether and how that needs to be updated to take account of
current national security needs and operations.
I think there is a legitimate question as to whether the
FAA has--whether its authority would include issues related to
our training and testing routes. So that is something that we
are looking at on an interagency basis.
But I don't think--I mean--I co-chair a group, a standing
group focused on protection of our ranges. I don't think we
are--a lot--I don't think this is a big problem in terms of
maintaining readiness. I agree that there is a situation at
Kingsville that we need to look at closely. But I don't think
you will find many examples of that.
Mr. Ortiz. Let me see if I can get somebody to put the map
on the screen so you all can see it. And she is going to hand
out some copies so you can see how it is impacting on at least
Kingsville for now.
And another issue that is going to come up now, you see a
lot of investors coming up and they look at solar panels and
they say that when they fly, the reflection from these solar
panels--and this is going to be another issue--impacts on those
that are training up in the air. So that is going to be
another--and they are coming to the United States. And, of
course, we need all this energy.
But as you can see--the map that we have and how we are
impacted. But I think that the responsibility now lies on DOD,
if you can come up with a plan, because you are the ones that
are being impacted. And, of course as team players, we would
like to work with the rest of you.
So do you think, Dr. Robyn, that 30 days would be
sufficient to come up with something that you can give the
members of this committee?
Dr. Robyn. I would like to--there is an interagency process
in place. I don't know exactly. So I am a little hesitant to
commit to 30 days. But----
Mr. Ortiz. You will try?
Dr. Robyn. Within a fairly short period of time, I think
this process will run its course and we can report back to you.
Mr. Ortiz. After consultation with the minority, I now ask
unanimous consent that Mrs. Halvorson be authorized to question
the panel members of today's hearing. If there are no
objections, I will now recognize Mrs. Halvorson.
Mrs. Halvorson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the
committee for allowing me to ask a couple of questions. And I
also want to thank you for the work you have done on this
issue.
I just wanted to ask a couple of questions on a proposed
wind farm in my district, which is Kankakee County, Illinois,
which is about 45 miles south of Chicago. And it is called K-4,
which you all know about. And it is close to a radar system
located in Joliet, Illinois. As a lot of people know, it is a
$2 billion project with 310 proposed turbines. And it also has
an ARSR-3 radar, which is the one just like Shepherds Flat. And
I know that and I feel that the Shepherds Flat radar should not
be the only site receiving mitigation work and receiving the
software upgrades and physical improvements.
So my question is for Dr. Robyn. What upgrades can you make
to the ARSR-3 radars nationwide in order for more wind farms
and radars to coexist? As you know, we have been having major
problems with this K-4 wind farm project, and you all have been
so wonderful to work with us to try to make it work. So I am
wondering, since we are having the same problems as Shepherds
Flat, what can we do to make this somehow work with mitigation
efforts?
Dr. Robyn. Thank you, Congresswoman. And you have been
terrific, too, to work with on this issue as well. I think what
led to the response on Shepherds Flat that was somewhat
different is the construction was due to begin on May 1, and
there was not an opportunity for the Air Force and the
developer to go through the process that they normally would
have. And so that led to the Lincoln Lab study and some other
things. We do have that time in your district and the RADES--
Air Force is looking at how different configuration of the
turbines could help the problem.
I agree that the technology has potential. I think we
don't--the Lincoln Lab folks looked at a different radar. We
can't assume that the same things would work, but it is
encouraging. It suggests some things. And the pilot will offer
us lessons for that.
Mrs. Halvorson. So if these upgrades, though, are made,
what is a realistic time for completion? Because we don't even
hear that there are possibilities for upgrades.
And I think the other problem going forward that other
people need to realize is this is not a process that anybody
thinks of before they go and make the decisions with the
leaseholders and anybody who decides to even put a wind farm in
place.
Also, in regards to the FAA, Shepherds Flat wind farm in
Oregon, the FAA originally issued a notice of presumed hazard
in March. And when the DOD eventually withdrew its objections
in it to the Shepherds Flat project in late April, a DOD
spokesperson said that the impact of the project, to the Fossil
ARSR-3 radar, was not as great as once thought.
So I think what my issue is--because we have been going
back and forth with the same issue, the notice of presumed
hazard--is it possible for this scenario to be the case again
for other projects elsewhere? Because as you know, the fact is
there has been an issue with the upgrades not being made since
1990. And that has probably been one of the biggest problems
with K-4, is how up to date is the DOD's land covering the
terrain model data?
Dr. Robyn. I cannot speak to the terrain model data. I
think it is certainly worth doing--taking a look at the--
possibly having the Lincoln Lab folks look at the Joliet
situation. This is the area next to Oregon, north central
Oregon. This is the area that is of most concern. And as you
know, this reached a crisis point in 2006 that led to some
positive developments, but did not go far enough.
So I think it is worth looking at that. I think there are
some improvements, short of the Service Life Extension Program,
that may be suggested by the Lincoln Lab study. So I think it
is worth taking a look at that, but also having the discussions
about positioning of the turbines continue.
Mrs. Halvorson. And my time is up, but I just want to
reiterate that we are dealing with data from 1990, that it has
not been easy to tell people that want to invest in communities
and create jobs and do what they need to, and how do we go back
and want to mitigate these? So I appreciate all of your help,
but we need to do more.
Thank you. I yield back. And thank you so much for the
courtesy.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you so much for you joining us today. And
going back, if I understand correctly, the FAA--review process
is 30 days now?
Ms. Kalinowski. The requirement, Congressman, is for it to
be filed 30 days before construction begins; however, we
strongly encourage all developers to file as early as possible
with us, to begin the discussions and to begin the education
process with the Department of Defense and DHS [Department of
Homeland Security].
Mr. Ortiz. So you are satisfied with the 30 days; you can
get it running in 30 days?
Ms. Kalinowski. You made the suggestion earlier, Chairman,
that we should consider a much earlier filing process and we
very much wish to consider that.
Mr. Ortiz. I would like for the DOD also to work with us,
maybe get your team, Madam Secretary, to work and give us an
interim report within 30 days; and maybe you can work on
Kingsville and maybe give an additional 30 days, because the
people there are concerned and rightly so. We have seen where
there is a lot of jointness going on. And at one time, they
would say that Kingsville got all the--open skies, you can
train, you can do whatever you want to do.
That has changed now. We want to work together. This is why
I said we can work as a team, those that are creating this
energy. And rightly so. It has become a tourist spot because
people like to drive and see all those windmills turning
around. And I see people because between Corpus Christi and the
valley, it is about 110 miles, and there is nothing but the
windmills, cows and horses. So it has become an attraction. But
at the same time, we don't want it to impact on readiness.
Let me yield to my good friend, Mr. Forbes.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, I thank all
of you for being here. And, Dr. Robyn, when I heard your
colloquy with Mr. Conaway just a few minutes ago, I just sit
back and I ask this question. First of all, I premise it the
same way that he does, that all of us up here support wind
industry and what we are doing with a lot of our alternative
energies.
But 11 percent of the people in this country approve of
this Congress and 89 percent of them disapprove. And the reason
most of them disapprove is because we come in here and we are
good at hitting lofty goals. We can state them, we can state
them up and down here, we can state them from that witness
stand; but they understand that the devil is always in the
details, and over and over what we are trying to get up here
are the details. And we can't get them because all we get is a
restatement of the lofty goals.
We sit back here, and the American people here, drafting
legislation in the Senate now, where the drafter of the
legislation says, ``We don't know how it is going to work or
the impact until we pass the legislation and get it into
effect.'' And the American people are saying, ``My gosh, what
are they doing?''
This year the American people are saying, ``Give us the
details and a budget.'' And this Congress is saying, ``No, no,
no, no, we don't want to give the details, let us talk about
lofty goals.''
We won't do a budget and the American people, 89 percent of
them are saying, ``Are they crazy up there?'' The budget is
what shows the details.
Last year, the Department of Defense by law had to give us
a shipbuilding plan so we could see on paper those details
about how many ships we were building so we could see what
actually came out last year, the Chinese had more ships than we
had in our Navy, and we couldn't get those details from the
Department of Defense.
What Mr. Conaway is asking seems like a simple question--
let me finish and I will let you respond. You said you
disagreed with him. He is not asking about which theory we pick
or where we are going. He is saying, shouldn't the American
people be entitled to know the cost differential between buying
energy one way, and by putting something in a bill that is
going to cost us more, so that we can determine how many planes
we have to give up to do that, how many ships we have to give
up, how many MRAPs we have to give up, how many guns and how
many bullets we have to give up. Because our warfighters, when
they come back, theories don't matter to them. It comes down to
do they have that air covered, do they have those bullets and
do they have these planes--and as the chairman said, we are
getting realistic discussions now that we have got to cut out a
lot of those real things, because there is not enough money.
And so the question I come back to is: Why is that such an
unreasonable question to say, Can't we just come back and lay
on the table the cost differential between doing it one way and
doing it another way? Not policy. We can argue the policy.
Dr. Robyn. Sir, we were--certainly. Can I give you a plan
for how we will achieve our goal set by the Congress, codified
by the Congress, of achieving 25 percent renewable energy
consumption by our installations by 2025? That is a goal given
to us by the Congress.
Mr. Forbes. Doctor, I am not arguing that the Congress is
doing everything right. I don't think that is what Mr.
Conaway--what we are just saying is--I am sorry. Still, you are
giving us goals. And what we are saying--we understand we need
goals. That is okay to have. But what is the----
Dr. Robyn. No, sir. That is a goal that you gave us.
Mr. Forbes. I am not saying that I am going to rubber-stamp
everything Congress does. I am simply saying what Mr. Conaway
is saying, is whether Congress gives the goal or whether DOD
picks the goal, what is the cost of the implementation to try
to get to the goal?
Because I think you would agree with me at some point--even
if we look, all of these energy points at some point in time,
we are coming down to a situation that I have got to pick doing
this or cutting out airplanes.
That is what Mr. Conaway just said. The American people
need to know this is a good goal. But how many ships is it
going to cost us? How many planes is it going to cost us?
Because you may get to the end of that goal and it might not
have done what you wanted it to do, whereas we know those ships
and planes might have.
So my question is not so much the plan, but the cost. Do
you not feel that this committee and this Congress and the
American people should have the right to know those cost
differentials----
Dr. Robyn. I would be happy to lay that out in the context
of what we think it will save longer term. Last year in a
budget briefing, the Army said to me, ``We didn't have enough
money to invest in technology to reduce our utility bills,
because we were so strapped just to pay our utility bills.''
That is crazy. We should be making investments--not just
renewable, but energy-saving technology to reduce--we consume
20 billion--we spent $20 billion a year on energy, 4 billion of
that on facilities.
Mr. Forbes. Dr. Robyn, I wrote a plan, the New Manhattan
Project. The Wall Street Journal has seen it and Fox News; all
thought that was the way we should go to get where you want to
go. So I am not going to argue the goals. I understand those.
All Mr. Conaway was asking is: Can you tell us the cost
differential between getting energy one way and getting it with
all of the requirements that we have put in the defense
authorization bill?
And I don't think we are going to get that figure; any more
than we got a shipbuilding plan last year, we are going to get
a budget this year. But I am just simply saying as humbly as I
think I can, I think it is a reasonable request, and all we get
back is a repeating of what goals are.
Dr. Robyn. No. I feel like--I am happy to do that if I can
show you long-term savings and if I can also quantify the
benefits to energy independence.
Mr. Forbes. I think my good friend from Texas would love to
have you show him anything else if you would just give him the
cost.
Dr. Robyn. Good. The Defense Science Board said in its 2008
report two big things: One, you are not looking at the fully
burdened cost of fuel on the operational side. The actual cost
of fuel is the tip of the iceberg. You are ignoring the soft
underbelly, the logistics tail that it takes to get there. On
the facilities side, their big message was you are not taking
into account the risk to mission assurance from the
vulnerability of the electricity grid. And part of their
recommendation was increase use of renewables in combination
with several other things.
And they made the point, which I have made, that we don't
put--we don't quantify the benefits to mission assurance of
this increased energy security. That is a benefit that goes
unmeasured.
Mr. Forbes. And I think--and I don't want to speak for him.
But I think my good friend from Texas would be delighted for
you to put down any other costs that you would want to put
down, any other projections, as long as you provide the
committee with the cost of the two differentials. And then
argue any way you want to go. That is okay. That is fair. It is
just sometimes we feel like all we get is a restatement of the
goals. And nobody ever comes back with the detailed costs.
And that is what Mr. Conaway was asking, I think, fair, to
be able to say, because at some point in time, at some point in
time, this chairman is going to have to make a decision in his
mark between planes and between bullets and between other
things that we have in some of these things. And it just helps
us to know if we can get those details.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Ortiz. And this is so important, and this is why I said
earlier, we need to work as a team together. The State
legislature in Texas, as you well know, they meet once every 6
months, every 2 years. So they knew that we were about to have
a problem, but they are not in session. So I think that by
working together, and my question would be to the FAA, what can
we do as a committee to help improve the application review
process on the length of time afforded so that you can review?
Or do you have the necessary authority to get more time to
thoroughly review applications to protect military readiness? I
mean, do you think that the 30 days that you have gives you
ample time to do that? Maybe by putting the resources
together--but this is going to become, believe me, a very
serious problem, because we haven't touched yet on solar
panels. And that is going to become another issue as well.
And I know, because we have the wind in South Texas, and we
have the sunshine, and today a hurricane, but investors are
wanting to come in and invest on another system, the solar
system. But can you all work and maybe give us something in 30
days, and if it is a little more complicated, maybe 60 days? Do
you think we can work together on that?
Ms. Kalinowski. Sir, your guidance and your leadership to
us is probably sufficient. We will certainly take this under
consideration. It will take formal rulemaking, which, as you
well know, takes a long time. But what we can do is put on our
website and work with the proponents of the Wind Energy
Association and the individuals who wish to bring in both solar
energy and wind turbines, to ask them voluntarily to come to us
as early as possible. We will also work with our partners in
government to bring forth a proposal for the possibility of the
ability to work with proponents in confidence to protect their
ability to not communicate exactly where they want to put the
wind farms or the solar energy projects to other proponents,
but to work with us so that we can better analyze at a much
earlier stage, as you have encouraged us to do, to determine
what the impact on national readiness for defense would be.
Mr. Ortiz. Madam Secretary Robyn, what can we do to help
you? Because we are all in the same boat. We want to work with
you and each member of the panel this morning. What can we do
to help you?
Dr. Robyn. I think, we are--to complement the FAA process,
we are, as I described, standing up a clearinghouse, a central
point of contact, a 1-800 Butterball Turkey number, if you
will, something that makes it easy for developers to come to us
early on a voluntary basis.
We do feel we need, we think the FAA probably needs the
formal explicit authority to take into account training and
test--our training and test missions. We are not--it is not
certain that their current authority includes that.
Nancy mentioned a rulemaking, but some statutory guidance,
statutory language might help. That is something that this
interagency group, led by the National Security Council, is
very focused on. It is probably--it is one of the single
biggest issues. So, certainly at a minimum, within 30 days let
you know where that process stands. I think that is the most
concrete--that, together with this clearinghouse.
But with respect to training routes in particular, this--
give you a status report on our thinking on the need for
statutory authority. We are--it may make sense to try to use
the defense bill as a way to get that authority if the other
relevant committees were willing to do that.
Mr. Ortiz. And I can assure you that members of this
committee and the staff will work with you. As you can see,
this is the first time we had a hearing such as this, and it
has been very interesting. I think I have learned a lot.
And I am going to ask, Mr. Webster, is industry prepared to
provide proposals earlier, Mr. Webster?
Mr. Webster. AWEA and its stakeholders have been working
intimately with the public agencies to inform them as to where
our abilities are present to be as transparent as possible,
with the caveat that the industry is a highly competitive
industry and, therefore, is not necessarily in unison all the
time with each other. It is fair to say that this issue has
become of prominent importance because of the frequency and
intensity of the conflagrations that have occurred; Shepherds
Flat being the most recent but not the only one that has
reached national prominence.
The reality is that wind energy is a component to the
national security of this country. It is a component of
stabilization of a quickly destabilizing world that we are
living in. Fossil fuel has become a major point of conflict
that we are constantly and increasingly deploying resources to
deal with, either directly or indirectly. And wind energy and
solar energy and other renewables are a solution, not just for
the United States, but for the world. Someone has to be the
leader in that. The United States has a history of being a
leader in such initiatives, and we will continue to do so.
To this particular point, the solutions that can be brought
to bear today with the political and financial willpower to
solve the wind industry's issues with respect to radars would
also increase the effectiveness and the efficiency of those
same radars to accomplish their mission with or without a wind
turbine being impacted by it. To that end, the economic forces
that the industry can bring to bear on this issue have been and
will continue to be offered to the public agencies to resolve
this issue, both in a policy framework as well as a
technological solutions framework.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you so much.
You know, in the beginning, when we saw the first
windmills, the concern was for wildlife. Do you remember that?
The birds. Now, it has moved to another level, readiness. And
we are very concerned.
But let me thank each panel member for giving us some great
insight, that input that you have given us today. And you and
us are going to work together because this is an urgent matter
that we need to address. And thank you so much.
And there being no further questions, this hearing stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
?
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
June 29, 2010
=======================================================================
?
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
June 29, 2010
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.032
?
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
June 29, 2010
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.033
?
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
June 29, 2010
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. ORTIZ
Ms. Kalinowski. Although the FAA does not gather or track
information on proximity of wind farms to military bases or military
installations, we have conducted a review of our obstruction evaluation
automated system records. This review indicates that during the last 5-
year period, 19,972 determined wind turbine/met tower proposals were
located within a 5-nautical mile radius of long-range radars, military
and joint use airports, military facilities and military radars, and/or
have exceeded the parameters of the Military Conflicts program. The
Department of Defense sets up its own parameters on which information
in our automated system it wishes to receive, and is also solely in
control of the notifications it requires and receives. [See page 12.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. FORBES
Mr. Webster. According to the AWEA 2nd Quarter 2010 market report
(http://www.awea.org/publications/reports/2Q10.pdf), over 33,700 wind
turbines were installed in the U.S. as of June 2010. With respect to
the second part of the question, the number of additional wind turbines
over the next five years is impossible to predict. The number will
depend greatly on market demand and government policy. Over just the
last few years, installations have varied from 2,385 megawatts in 2005,
to 10,000 megawatts in 2009. Installations in 2010 are expected to be
below the 2009 numbers. Therefore, I can only give a wide range of
possible installations over the next five years. This is merely
illustrative and is not a prediction: the U.S. could install anywhere
from 3,000 to 6,000 additional turbines per year. Though, it could be
less or maybe more depending on market demand and turbine size. [See
page 14.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. CONAWAY
General Stutzriem. The Department's investment in renewable and
other alternative energy sources is the second part of a twofold
strategy. The first part is reducing the demand for traditional energy
through conservation and energy efficiency; investments that curb
demand are the most cost-effective way to improve an installation's
energy profile. The second part--investments designed to expand the
supply of renewable energy sources on base--is also important. Although
the payback period is significantly longer than that for energy
efficiency projects, renewable energy is key to energy security. When
combined with microgrid technology and energy efficiency investments
that significantly reduce demand, distributed renewable energy sources
will allow installations to carry out mission-critical activities and
potentially serve as mini-islands that can support restoration of the
grid in the event of disruption.
A report of the Defense Science Board highlighted the importance of
energy security to the Department. According to the report, DoD's
reliance on a fragile commercial grid to deliver electricity to its
installations places the continuity of critical missions at serious and
growing risk.\1\ Most installations lack the ability to manage their
demand for and supply of electrical power and are thus vulnerable to
intermittent and/or prolonged power disruption due to natural
disasters, cyberattacks, and sheer overload of the grid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``More Fight-Less Fuel,'' Report of the Defense Science Board
Task Force on DoD Energy Strategy, February 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The changing role of the military's fixed installations accentuates
this concern. Although in the past these installations functioned
largely to train and deploy our combat forces, increasingly they have a
more direct link to combat operations, by providing ``reachback''
support for those operations. For example, we operate Predator drones
in Afghanistan from a facility in Nevada and analyze battlefield
intelligence at data centers in the United States. Our installations
are also becoming more important as a staging platform for homeland
defense missions. This means that power failure at a military base here
at home could threaten our operations abroad or harm our homeland
defense capability.
Notwithstanding the importance of energy security and the
relationship between energy security and renewable energy, the DoD in
fact spends less per MBTU for renewable energy than for electricity
from the grid. In 2009, the Department spent a total of $3,784 million
to buy 220.6 trillion BTUs of facility energy. This averages to $17.15
per MBTU. In the same year, the Department spent $62.9 million to buy
3,726 billion BTUs of renewable energy, which averages to $16.89 per
MBTU.
The figures above for renewable energy do not include production
from Government-owned sources of renewable energy, nor do they include
production of geothermal energy at China Lake.
The 270 megawatt geothermal plant at China Lake is one example of a
renewable energy project that has significantly reduced the
Department's facility energy costs. The plant is operated by a private
firm under a lease that provides funding back to the Navy, which is
used to purchase additional power and to invest in other energy
efficiency and renewable energy projects. Another example of a highly
advantageous renewable energy project is the 14 megawatt photovoltaic
plant at Nellis AFB. The Nellis solar array was installed by a private
company; under the terms of the agreement with the company, DoD
purchases power from the plant at a steep discount as compared to the
prevailing energy rate ($22/MWH compared to prevailing $78/MWH). [See
page 20.]
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
June 29, 2010
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ORTIZ
Mr. Ortiz. Is the Department willing to accept decreased military
readiness to support national energy initiatives?
Dr. Robyn. No--but it doesn't have to. According to the data we've
collected to date--primarily centered on the southwestern US--the
Department has raised no objection to more than 93% of proposed
projects.
Mr. Ortiz. In Shepherds Flat, Oregon, the FAA, acting in response
to DOD's concerns, issued a proposed notice of hazard with regard to
the impact to an air defense radar at Fossil, Oregon. After public
concerns were considered, the FAA reversed the warning and allowed the
wind farm development to continue. What is the impact to military
readiness and operations as a result of the wind farm development at
Shepherds Flat? What are the lessons learned from the Shepherds Flat
wind farm project in the review of future wind farm proposals?
Dr. Robyn. After extensive study, we concluded that the risks
presented by Shepherds Flat would not be as severe as initially
thought. We've looked at all the known projects that could impact the
Fossil radar and have concluded those risks are manageable--but we must
review future development case-by-case to ensure we can continue to
manage the operational risk. The major lesson learned is that the
current regulatory and permitting process for wind farms was not
designed with homeland defense or military testing and training in
mind; we must move to an early voluntary notification process so the
Department can work with developers and localities to find win-win
siting and technical solutions.
Mr. Ortiz. In response to a wind farm application, how is the
Department currently organized to provide timely feedback to the FAA?
Which organizations review the applications for both readiness and
operational equities? Will the Department take any steps to reorganize
to better review and expedite applications to provide timely feedback
to the FAA?
Dr. Robyn. Until recently, the process was ad hoc, involving case-
by-case coordination among the Offices of the Deputy Under Secretaries
of Defense for Installations and Environment and for Readiness, the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense, the Director of
Test and Evaluation, the Joint Staff, the Service Secretariats, and the
Service Staffs. To streamline and institutionalize the process--and to
facilitate timely communication with the FAA, other governmental
entities, and industry--we are creating an Energy Siting Clearinghouse
to manage the review process and serve as a ``one-stop shop'' for all
inquiries and staff actions regarding utility-scale generation and
transmission projects. I hired the director on July 26, and in mid-
September we executed contracts to hire staff, procure IT support, and
draft the departmental instruction that will govern clearinghouse
processes.
Mr. Ortiz. Considering the FAA elects not to implement their
statutory review authority to protect military training routes, what is
the Department's response to an obstruction in a military training
route corridor? Does the Department need additional authority to
protect military training routes or is a degradation in these military
training routes an acceptable outcome to meet a national energy
strategy?
Dr. Robyn. The Department is concerned that the statutory and
regulatory language underlying the FAA's authorities may not be
sufficiently broad or explicit to handle concerns related to our test
and training mission; the scope of the OE/AAA process may need to be
expanded to address those concerns. To explore that issue, we're
working with an NSC-led interagency group that includes all parties
responsible for safety and security of our air domain. We don't want to
rely solely on the FAA, however, nor does the Department want to become
a regulator. Instead, we are reaching out to local, regional, and
industry officials and are working to institutionalize an early
voluntary consultation process.
Mr. Ortiz. Are there radar improvements or other technological
advancements that can mitigate the impacts of wind farm development?
What are the costs of such systems? If the Department determines that
an upgrade to a particular radar network is necessary to mitigate a
wind farm development proposal, should the Department accelerate the
upgrades of certain older radars that are proximate to potential wind
farm developments on a priority basis, or should the wind farm industry
be responsible for including the costs associated with radar upgrades
as an element of the overall wind farm project?
Dr. Robyn. There are a number of technological solutions that
promise to mitigate radar interference, and we're working with the FAA,
Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, and the Office
of Science and Technology Policy to determine the costs and relative
benefits of various options. First, MIT Lincoln Laboratory identified
near-term fixes for surveillance radars, including a new processor with
an ``adaptive clutter map'' to edit out false returns. Second, we're
looking at other existing technology, such as ``gap-filler'' radars and
replacement radars like the TPS-77. Finally, we are increasing the
level of R&D in this area and supporting an OSTP-led task force that
seeks to baseline and harmonize the efforts of various agencies on wind
turbine-radar interference. DoD will schedule improvements based on
operational requirements, which are affected by existing and planned
wind farms. However, given the long lead times associated with
programming and budgeting, industry may choose to cost-share to
accelerate radar upgrades or replacements.
Mr. Ortiz. What level of research and development is the Department
investing to reduce conflict with wind farm development? How much money
is being spent in FY10 and FY11?
Dr. Robyn. Over the last two years, the Department has spent
several million dollars. As this issue has risen, we have worked to
increase the Department's R&D spending in FYs 11 and 12, and we are
working on a research and development plan with our interagency
partners in an Office of Science and Technology Policy-led task force.
The task force's initial report is due in December 2010.
Mr. Ortiz. What guidance has the DOD given installation commanders
regarding steps required to properly evaluate a wind farm application
and what elements would be considered an obstruction?
Dr. Robyn. In June 2010, the Air Force--as force provider for the
majority of the homeland surveillance mission--issued interim guidance
from the Assistant Secretary for Installations, Environment, and
Logistics and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans, and
Requirements to make installation commanders aware of the breadth of
the issue and to refer them to its A3 Ranges and Airspace office for
assistance. Simultaneously, DoD has notified all its Regional
Environmental Coordinators, who represent installation commanders to
state and regional planners and have been working renewable energy
issues for the last two to four years, to immediately notify the new
Energy Siting Clearinghouse of wind farm plans and applications. Those
coordinators will meet in the Pentagon in late October to formalize
that process.
Mr. Ortiz. How does the proliferation of wind farms in and around
the United States impact your air sovereignty mission? And, what is
NORAD's strategy for adapting to the impacts of wind farms?
General Stutzriem. The air sovereignty/air control and air warning
missions require NORAD to detect, identify, monitor, and if
appropriate, intercept and engage potentially hostile aircraft. Wind
farms within line-of-sight of radars make it more difficult to detect,
identify, and monitor non-cooperative aircraft. The primary impacts to
the radar vary from an increase in screening from the wind turbines
themselves (towers, nacelles and blades) to increased false targets
generated by the wind turbine blades' movement (the Doppler motion
component), as well as reduced radar sensitivity where the severity
depends upon the type of radar in question and the amount of radar
clutter encountered. Each of these very complex impacts cumulatively
affects the radar's overall picture. This picture is what is used to
determine the ``tracks'' that allow us to detect, identify, track,
intercept and defend North American airspace. Some specific operational
impacts include:
-- Reduced ability to detect/monitor ``tracks''--both friendly or
with hostile intent
-- Reduced reaction times--diminished detection capability results
in earlier decision points for senior leaders and a high potential for
zero possibility of affecting an outcome
-- Negation of response options--lack of detection capability
results in decreased air safety capability and a reduced capability to
affect air defense intercepts
Our strategy is to maintain an acceptable level of air domain
awareness by:
-- Better understanding the true impact of wind farms on radars
-- Developing an overall depiction of the impact of existing,
developing, planned and potential wind farm air domain awareness
-- Working with the FAA to review wind farm project submissions.
During the review process, the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron analyzes
whether the new wind turbines will interfere with the local air
surveillance radars. If the wind farm project poses a significant
degradation to the radar, mitigation recommendations are made to the
builder
-- Weighing the risk of individual projects within the context of
location and magnitude of the risk and making appropriate
recommendations
-- Working with the technical community to identify and assess
potential mitigation, and with OSD, the Joint Staff and other partners
to gain recourses for required mitigation
For years, NORAD and USNORTHCOM have worked to maintain wide area
surveillance capabilities and improve them to meet future threats. We
fully support OSD and interagency efforts to improve the coordination
process for new wind energy development, as well as the development of
new technologies to help us better define the operational impacts of
wind turbines on our radar systems.
Mr. Ortiz. In your estimate, should the Department accept a
reduction in military readiness to obtain energy production goals?
Should the Department accept any risk in the air defense mission? How
should the Department balance these potentially diverging goals?
General Stutzriem. A complete avoidance of risk in any DOD mission,
including air defense, is not feasible from either a cost or technical
perspective. Moreover, risk discussions largely fall in relative
terms--a large decrease in overall national security risk due to
greater energy independence might justify a very small increase in air
defense risk against a limited threat. Thus, it is important to develop
a clear understanding of the impact of and potential mitigations for
wind energy projects, and we will be vigilant in identifying projects
we assess as carrying unacceptable risk.
We believe it is possible to obtain alternative energy sources
while simultaneously conducting our national air defense mission. To do
so, multi-department cooperation is required to pool our resources to
develop the policy and future surveillance infrastructure that will
provide national security and renewable energy at the same time. We
should also continue to explore technical solutions to mitigate wind
turbine effects on our current radars.
Mr. Ortiz. In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee,
the Commander of Northern Command has warned this committee of the
potential hazards associated with wind farms and other types of
obstructions. If current rates of wind-farm development are sustained
for the next five years, what is your assessment of the impact of these
developments on national defense?
General Stutzriem. The current pace of wind farm development
increases the potential that radar signals vital to our ability to
protect the national airspace will be obstructed. Currently, nearly
half of our 200 radars are impacted to some degree by wind turbines and
13 experience moderate or significant degradation substantial enough
for 84 RADES to recommend that NORAD and USNORTHCOM perform a more
detailed operational analysis. This analysis could result in a request
for a determination of hazard through the Federal Aviation
Administration's Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis
Review Process. The actual impact to national defense of these radars
is dependent upon the location of each radar and support that it
provides.
Mr. Ortiz. What, if any, is the most reasonable method to mitigate
wind farms and other similar encroachments?
General Stutzriem. DOD's Report to Congress in 2006 identified the
best approach as ``avoid locating the wind turbines in radar line of
sight of such radars. These mitigations may be achieved by distance,
terrain masking or terrain relief and requires a case-by-case
analysis.'' In addition, based on recent reporting from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Lincoln Laboratory, there are
also technical modifications that can mitigate wind farm effects on our
radar infrastructure. These include re-optimization of radar settings,
modifications to the auxiliary processor with detection editing and
adaptive clutter map, and installation of new transmitters/receivers
with coherent processing.
Mr. Ortiz. Considering the apparent indecision that a developer has
with making permit applications, would the FAA consider moving the
obstruction application deadline from 30 days before construction to
possibly one year? This could allow the developer some certitude with
the ordering of capital equipment.
Ms. Kalinowski. The FAA is considering separate regulatory
guidelines for wind turbine development with notice requirements of 8
months to 1 year before construction. If we pursue regulatory action,
it will take a minimum of three years to complete.
We note, however, that developers frequently wait until the very
end of their multiyear process before they acquire land rights or
leases, and, therefore, do not know the exact coordinates or layout of
their wind farm. Even if the FAA requires notice 1 year in advance, the
developer may not be able to provide specific information to allow for
an aeronautical study.
Mr. Ortiz. How successful is the FAA in managing the deluge of wind
turbine applications?
Ms. Kalinowski. The FAA believes that it has been successful in
managing wind turbine applications. We have increased staffing to
review the applications, and we work routinely with our partner
agencies, such as the DOD and DHS, as well as with the developers, to
reach compromises that do not interfere with aviation safety. However,
the FAA recognizes there is always room for improvement and seeks to
evolve our processes to better communicate and coordinate between our
agency and other entities.
Mr. Ortiz. In the FAA's assessment, how successful is the FAA in
coordinating with the DOD? What is the current process that FAA pursues
to seek DOD comment? How successful is the DOD in providing timely
feedback? Considering the classified nature of certain DOD missions,
how does the nature of these classified missions impact the FAA's
ability to evaluate obstructions for their impact to the navigable
airspace?
Ms. Kalinowski. The FAA is very successful in coordinating with the
DOD. We have an automated system and each notification goes directly to
the DOD for evaluation. The DOD sets up its parameters within the
obstruction evaluation Web site, and controls who reviews and evaluates
proposed construction. Current guidelines provide 2 weeks for review
and response. However, extension requests are frequent, and response
times can exceed 30 days for wind turbine evaluations that affect long-
range radars. The FAA relies on evaluation and information provided by
the DOD. Information that is considered classified is not shared with
the FAA. The FAA bases its evaluation on all the available information
and works with the DOD to resolve any gaps in information to the extent
possible.
Mr. Ortiz. In practice, should the DOD have regulatory authority to
better manage their concerns and potential impacts to military
readiness, in addition to FAA's regulatory authority? Why or why not?
Ms. Kalinowski. The FAA does not believe the DOD needs to have a
separate regulatory authority to better manage its concerns and impacts
to military readiness. A division of the regulatory authority would be
unwieldy and create additional and unforeseen difficulties in managing
and coordinating responses to the same proposals. The current process
is able to account for both the FAA's and the DOD's separate missions,
and continue to evolve our working relationships to improve the process
when needed.
Mr. Ortiz. Would the FAA consider alternative solutions such as a
radar relay station in an additional location, or additional radar
supplements on the far side of an offshore wind farm, to mitigate these
issues?
Ms. Kalinowski. The FAA is not responsible for procurement of air
defense radar systems. This responsibility was transferred to the DOD
and DHS in 2003 when the Long-Range Radar Joint Program Office between
the DOD and DHS was established.
Mr. Ortiz. During the early stages of wind turbine/wind farm
development, does the developer consider or take into account homeland
defense and homeland security aspects that may become an issue in the
development process? Or do they solely rely on the DOD process to
advise them of a national security impact that may occur with this
project?
Mr. Webster. Wind energy developers have to take many factors into
account when analyzing the viability of a given site, including (not
necessarily in this order):
(1) the wind resource;
(2) being able to lease the land;
(3) physical accessibility of the site;
(4) land use compatibility;
(5) environmental issues, including potential wildlife impacts;
(6) access to transmission;
(7) other resource conflicts, including airspace and radar,
cultural resources etc.; and
(8) finding a buyer for the power.
Any one of these issues can kill a project. Perhaps as few as one
out of 10 sites a company considers developing will ultimately end up
with turbines being constructed.
Developers generally do talk to local base commanders either
directly or through specialized consultants, though I am sure there are
exceptions, and most also consult DOD's online tool via the FAA Web
site to find out if there are potential conflicts with DOD activities.
However, to date, the quality of the engagement varies by base.
Some bases are open to discussions, including discussions of possible
mitigation, and others are not. Some bases will provide an explanation
of their concerns, which is a precursor to being able to discuss
mitigation, and some will not. For example, Iberdrola Renewables
consulted with the Kingsville Navy Air Station several years prior to
constructing our Penescal Wind Project, and altered the project's
layout to accommodate a military training route managed by the base.
Additionally, there is currently no DOD process, per se. Each
developer is essentially attempting to determine whether there is an
impact or not through various means such as those described above, as
well as through consultation with contractors who have varying degrees
of expertise in such matters.
In addition, the quality of information fed into the online tool
varies. It is my understanding that the Army and Navy have fed only
very limited data, if any, into the online tool. If industry is missing
two-thirds of the picture, that is a problem. Additionally, developers
are aware that the online tool has incorrect assumptions built in. For
example, the assumption on the height of the structure is too
conservative. Specifically, the tool assumes a 750, structure to
determine line of sight impact when turbines are approximately 400-450,
in height.
It would also be helpful for industry to be given access to GIS
shape files that would provide an additional layer of detail to more
fully understand the potential impacts of development and to consider
mitigation options on the wind farm side.
Mr. Ortiz. How does your organization coordinate renewable wind
energy concerns on homeland defense requirements? And, do you have any
suggestions for balancing wind farm developments with the military
readiness and operational impacts that have been discussed in today's
hearing?
Mr. Webster. One of AWEA's missions is to educate the industry
about issues of concern and to make sure developers are aware of
potential resource conflicts like airspace and radar. In a variety of
workshop and conference sessions over the last several years, AWEA has
held discussions on issues related to radar and military operations,
including having speakers from DOD and other federal agencies.
AWEA also issued a Siting Handbook in 2008, which is available for
free on the AWEA Web site to anyone who is interested. The handbook
contains information on the airspace and radar related reviews that are
required for wind energy projects.
So, while AWEA generally does not get involved in individual
project siting, AWEA does try to make sure our members have the tools
they need to engage agencies and address concerns that may arise.
With respect to balancing, as I detail in my written testimony and
in responses to some of these additional questions, the wind industry
believes that wind turbines can and must co-exist with military
operations. And, indeed, they have co-existed in the U.S. and around
the world for many years. But, to improve the likelihood of that
continuing into the future, AWEA recommends:
(1) Developing an improved process for consulting agencies
earlier;
(2) Establishing a proactive plan for upgrading radars, which will
not only benefit national security, but will also accommodate
additional wind energy deployment; and
(3) Investing in significant research and development to upgrade
the surveillance technology currently in place, much of which is two
decades or more old, as well as other impact-reduction opportunities
such as stealth blades and radar gap filling technology.
Mr. Ortiz. What is the industry's responsibility for upgrading air
defense radars that are impacted by a proposed wind farm development?
Mr. Webster. The wind industry is willing to share in the cost of
some radar upgrades. However, the details need to be negotiated with
the relevant agencies. And, they will likely have to be worked out on a
case-by-case basis with the wind energy developers operating in a given
area of concern to DOD.
Generally, from the industry's point of view, if DOD is already
planning to upgrade a radar for national security reasons, and those
changes also happen to benefit a specific wind energy project or
projects, it would not be reasonable to require the project
developer(s) to pay for the entire upgrade. On the other hand, if a
radar upgrade is largely attributable to wind energy development and
the developers are the primary beneficiaries of the upgrade, then a
case can be made for a larger industry cost share responsibility.
One example from a different context: the interconnection queue
process for energy generation facilities. When a generation facility
seeks to interconnect to the electric transmission grid, the
interconnecting utility determines what upgrades to the electrical
transmission system are needed, and among those upgrades, the
difference between which of these are solely benefitting the generation
facility and which are `network upgrades' that benefit the whole
system. The energy generation facility is then assigned the costs
attributable solely to their project, and in some cases they are also
assigned a prorated share of these network upgrades.
In some cases in the past, individual developers have offered funds
to pay for a radar upgrade. But, DOD had concerns about whether they
could accept resources from a private entity for this purpose. This
legal authority may need to be clarified.
Finally, the industry has suggested a proactive effort on the part
of the industry and the agencies to identify radars of concern that
coincide with heavy wind resource areas and to come up with a radar-by-
radar upgrade plan. The industry stands ready to assist in such an
effort.
Mr. Ortiz. Would the industry support an earlier review period by
FAA, beyond the 30-day submission prior to construction, to ensure that
the wind farm development has cleared the FAA regulatory review? What
would be a better time period for the federal agencies to complete
their regulatory review?
Mr. Webster. Yes, the industry supports the ability to engage in
voluntary consultations with federal agencies earlier than is required
under FAA rules. Ideally, we would seek a preliminary analysis,
including a discussion of mitigation alternatives. At the end of the
process, the agencies would then provide their final input on a
proposed project via the existing FAA obstruction evaluation process.
However, the industry strongly recommends that such early discussions
remain consultative and that they not be used as a regulatory decision
point.
Specific suggestions for areas in which we think the review process
could be improved are as follows:
1. Earlier engagement, including preliminary analysis
The agencies have tended to shy away from early consultations
because the developers do not have final turbine locations
established until very late in the development process and
because the agencies are resource constrained with respect to
conducting turbine evaluations. The agencies prefer to wait
until developers' plans have been finalized before they process
applications.
However, if the agencies conducted a preliminary analysis, in
which the developer submitted as much information as possible
about the project, such as the acreage of the project, the
``four corners'' of the project using latitude and longitude,
the approximate number of turbines, and the approximate turbine
height, then potential problems could be identified much
earlier, and solutions discussed. In order to conduct
preliminary reviews of this type, the resource constraints at
the agencies would still need to be addressed. The industry may
be willing to pay some sort of application fee if that would
help alleviate some of the resource burden. If the agencies are
reviewing upwards of 100,000 individual turbine applications
per year an application fee would certainly not seem
unreasonable to cover costs to increase staff resources.
2. Include mitigation discussions in the preliminary analysis
In addition, the industry strongly recommends that mitigation
discussions be required as a part of any early consultation
process
3. Transparent decision making
In order for mitigation discussions to be meaningful,
however, industry needs to know the rationale for the agency
concerns. Some DOD officials have alluded that a primary reason
for opposing a project is not an impact the project itself has,
but rather the perception that once one project encroaches on
an asset of concern then controlling that space from further
encroachment is made more difficult. While this concern is
understandable, the result is unsustainable and unproductive,
and creates an unreasonable threshold when evaluating any one
project.
4. Protect wind developers' proprietary information
As DOD acknowledged in its written testimony, developers are
concerned about the protection of proprietary information. This
is a critical point given the highly competitive nature of the
industry. Wind companies are extremely sensitive to the
possibility that proprietary development plans could fall into
the hands of competitors. Even worse, there have been instances
where local DOD officials have taken information voluntarily
provided by a developer in early consultations and subsequently
used it to oppose the project with local permitting authorities
before the consultations had run their course.
There needs to be protection for confidential business
information that is shared with DOD and limitations on what DOD
can do with such information.
Mr. Ortiz. Should the DOD accept a degradation in military
readiness to support national energy goals relating to wind
development?
Mr. Webster. The wind industry respectfully submits that this is a
false choice. It is our position that there is no need for a trade-off
between military readiness and deploying wind energy, which itself has
national security benefits. To the extent there are such concerns
today, it is because insufficient resources have been invested in
validating the technical mitigation options that would otherwise be
available. The appendices in my written testimony detail several of
these options that, once fully proven effective, should eliminate any
concerns about trade-offs.
Mr. Ortiz. What research and development is industry providing to
support efforts to reduce military readiness conflicts?
Mr. Webster. AWEA itself is not providing financial resources
related to R&D, but individual companies are doing so. In addition,
AWEA is supporting efforts in other ways.
AWEA has worked with a radar expert to prepare a priority list of
R&D the industry would like to see done on a radar-by-radar basis. This
list was included as an appendix to my written testimony. The list grew
out of a meeting the industry led with the FAA, DOD, DHS, and NOAA on
the sidelines of an FAA conference in Las Vegas in September 2008. At
that meeting, industry suggested, and all parties agreed, that it would
be useful to come up with a joint list of R&D, prioritize the list in a
way that both industry and agencies agreed with, attach projected
dollars needed for each item, and then figure out who would do the
research and how it would be paid for.
Industry is willing to share some of the costs associated with R&D,
but we would like the mechanism and amount to be negotiated with the
agencies based on a jointly developed R&D plan.
In addition, several AWEA members are engaging in research of their
own, including wind turbine manufacturers and radar companies. As one
example, Vestas has been testing stealth blade technology. And, enXco
and NextEra Energy Resources signed a cooperative research and
development agreement (CRADA) with the U.S. military to study the
impact of wind energy development on Travis Air Force Base. Iberdrola
Renewables has provided access to operating projects for the Department
of Energy's R&D efforts on gap filling radar technology testing.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. NYE
Mr. Nye. Can you discuss any radar systems or upgrades to existing
systems you are aware of today that could mitigate long range radar
surveillance interference caused by wind farms across the country and
off the coast of southeastern Virginia?
Dr. Robyn. There are a number of technological solutions that
promise to mitigate radar interference, and we're working with the FAA,
Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, and the Office
of Science and Technology Policy to determine the costs and relative
benefits of various options such as software changes, ``gap-filler''
radars, ``in-fill'' radars, and replacement surveillance radars.
Mr. Nye. The UK's MOD recently purchased the TPS 77 radar to
address its long range radar wind farm interference after significant
research and analysis; do you feel that such a system would be suitable
for addressing current defense concerns off the coast of southeastern
Virginia?
Dr. Robyn. The TPS-77 is one of the options we're evaluating in
conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of
Energy, and the FAA. We've sent teams to the UK to talk with the MOD,
and we've had detailed discussions with Lockheed-Martin regarding the
TPS-77. After comparing the TPS-77 to other mitigation options for wind
farm interference, we'll determine a way ahead.
Mr. Nye. Will the DOD be willing to consider additional areas off
the coast of Virginia for offshore wind development other than those
previously identified for the Virginia RFI, if they were able to work
with the developers on a case-by-case basis?
Dr. Robyn. DoD is working with the Department of Interior's Bureau
of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement and coastal
state agencies on the proposed siting of wind turbines on the outer
continental shelf. DoD is a member of the Virginia Offshore Wind Task
Force, and the Department has assessed and identified lease blocks off
the coast of Virginia where, given appropriate restrictions, wind
turbines would be compatible with Defense activities such as testing,
training and operations. DoD also meets on an ad hoc basis with the
Virginia Governor's Senior Advisor on Energy. We will work with these
partners to consider any feasible proposal for offshore wind.
Mr. Nye. Some have suggested that the military should ``train how
they will fight''--considering that wind farms are popping up all over
the world, it is inevitable that the U.S. military will need to know
how to maneuver around them. Does this enter the DOD's consideration
when looking at potential locations for wind farms off the Virginia
coast?
Dr. Robyn. The military services require realistic training
scenarios, but this does not mean that every condition that may be
encountered in battle has to be replicated in every training exercise
and on every range. It's essential that our offshore ranges remain free
of encroachment to allow our forces to train across the full spectrum
of air and sea operations. Large areas of sea and air space are
required to provide safety buffers and maneuver space for at-sea
training. For example, we conduct live fire training in areas off the
Virginia Capes (VACAPES), and placing wind turbines in these live-fire
areas would not be compatible with our training activities.
Additionally, wind turbines sited in our offshore ranges may create
electromagnetic interference with training and testing activities.
Through the Virginia Offshore Wind Task Force process we have
identified areas where offshore wind can be developed without impacting
our training and testing activities. It is true that we will have to
develop tactics, techniques, and procedures for operations in the
vicinity of offshore wind turbines, but we must also maintain
sufficient unencumbered offshore ranges, such as the VACAPES, to
accommodate essential training for our naval and air forces.
Mr. Nye. Is the FAA willing to look into new technologies that
might be able to overcome the concerns that wind turbines might cause
interference with radar?
Ms. Kalinowski. Yes, the FAA is investigating technologies that
could reduce or eliminate the radar interference caused by wind farms.
During FY 2010, the FAA sponsored a Systems Engineering Trade Study to
examine the possible solutions to the interference problem. The
research project is being conducted by the Georgia Institute of
Technology and is nearing completion, with the final report due to the
FAA by August 30, 2010. The purpose of the trade study was to identify
all of the possible solutions to the wind farm problem and weigh them
against cost, technical risk, and time to field. The project brought
together technical experts from the U.S. Air Force, DHS, and the FAA to
provide the technical expertise for the trade study.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. HALVORSON
Mrs. Halvorson I wanted to ask about a proposed wind farm in my
district in Kankakee County, Illinois, near Chicago, called ``K4,''
that is close to a radar system located in Joliet, Illinois.
K4 is a $2 billion project with 310 proposed wind turbines. The
nearby ARSR-3 radar is the same as the one near Shepherds Flat. I feel
the Shepherds Flat radar should not be the only site receiving
mitigation work; receiving software upgrades and physical improvements.
My question for Dr. Robyn is: What upgrades can you make to the
ARSR-3 radars nationwide in order for more wind farms and radars to co-
exist? And, if these upgrades are made, what is a realistic timeline
for completion?
Dr. Robyn. The ARSR-3 radars are part of a nationwide upgrade--a
Service Life Extension Program--to bring all FPS-series, ARSR-1, ARSR-
2, and ARSR-3 systems to a common configuration. According to a study
by Lincoln Laboratory, that configuration should be able to accept
software changes to mitigate wind farm interference, and we're
developing a test plan for the software. We plan to pilot-test the
hardware-software combination in the next 12-18 months, using the
Fossil, OR radar as a testbed. Lincoln Lab is currently on track to
deliver hardware and software to FAA Oklahoma City for test by the end
of January 2011; the lab's overall goal is to have a test system in
place at Fossil by April 2011. If the pilot test is successful, we can
deploy the adaptive clutter map during the Service Life Extension
Program; Lincoln Lab has confirmed that the software will be compatible
with the Joliet radar, and should mitigate wind farm interference from
K4.
Mrs. Halvorson How up-to-date is DOD's land cover/terrain modeling
data? Is DOD looking at areas with the same land cover information as
they were in 1990, not taking into account any of the new structures
that have since been built between radar's line of sight and existing/
proposed wind farm locations? If not, has there a reason prohibiting
DOD from obtaining newer or more up-to-date land cover/terrain modeling
data?
If you start using data from 2000 or later instead, do you think
more wind projects would gain approval?
Dr. Robyn. DOD has the most current terrain data available, and
we're currently double-checking to ensure our wind farm impact modeling
uses the most current data; we expect to have the re-look complete by
the end of October, 2010. However, because radar interference is caused
by complex factors such as the Doppler effect, we don't expect post-
1990 land cover information to significantly change our assessment
process.
Mrs. Halvorson In regards to the Shepherds Flat wind farm in
Oregon, DOD originally issued a ``Notice of Presumed Hazard'' in March.
When DOD eventually withdrew its objections in to the Shepherds Flat
project in late April, a DOD spokesperson said that the impact of the
project to the Fossil ARSR-3 radar was not as great as once thought.
Is it possible for this scenario to be the case again for other
projects elsewhere? Can you provide detail as to what information was
available in regards to how this particular wind farm was originally
thought to be hazardous, and what information later came to light that
led DOD to retract their objections?
Dr. Robyn. As we develop more robust modeling and assessment
tools--something we're doing internally and in conjunction with the
Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy, the FAA, and
the Office of Science and Technology Policy--our analysis will become
more refined and our final assessments may therefore change. As we
closely examined the project in April, we concluded that the risks
presented by Shepherds Flat would not be as severe as initially
thought, and extensive study by MIT's Lincoln Laboratory and a number
of DoD entities confirmed that conclusion. Furthermore, we were able to
apply the Lincoln Lab results to eight additional wind farm
applications in Oregon and Washington, and those wind farms can now
receive FAA approval. We have already provided briefings on the Lincoln
Lab study to various Members of Congress and staff members, and would
gladly provide you with the same.
Mrs. Halvorson More broadly, with the President's commitment to
renewable energy and growing number of wind farm project proposals
nationwide, what is the department's long term strategy for co-
existence between the nation's national security and renewable energy
needs?
Dr. Robyn. In my June testimony, I stated that first, the federal
government needed to improve the process for reviewing renewable energy
projects; second, the key federal agencies needed to realign their R&D
priorities to give greater attention to the issue; and third, those
agencies needed to look at the plan for upgrading the current
surveillance radars.
Addressing the first point, the Department is standing up an
office--an Energy Siting Clearinghouse--specifically to address the
balance between military readiness (which includes operations, testing,
and training) and energy independence, which are both important facets
of national security. The Clearinghouse will coordinate among the
Offices of the Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense for Installations
and Environment and for Readiness, the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Homeland Defense, the Director of Test and Evaluation, the Joint
Staff, the Service Secretariats, and the Service Staffs, and will serve
as a ``one-stop shop'' for all inquiries and staff actions regarding
utility-scale generation and transmission projects. I hired the
director on July 26, and in mid-September we executed contracts to hire
staff, procure IT support, and facilitate timely communication with the
FAA, other governmental entities, and industry.
Regarding R&D priorities, we're participating in an OSTP-led task
force that's examining the current state of play across the
interagency. Its preliminary report--a five-page outline of current
efforts--is due in December 2010, and will inform our future R&D
efforts. Finally, we're working with DHS on the upgrade plan. The first
step will be to pilot-test Lincoln Laboratory's recommended mitigation
measures over the next 12-18 months, using the Fossil, Oregon radar as
our ``testbed'' (this improvement would not otherwise occur until 2014-
2015, as part of the scheduled CARSR upgrade of the Fossil radar).
Lincoln Lab is currently on track to deliver hardware and software to
FAA Oklahoma City for test by the end of January 2011; the lab's
overall goal is to have a test system in place at Fossil by April 2011.
Mrs. Halvorson. Is there a possibility that DOD might be
overestimating the capability of its ARSR-3 radar in its analysis of
wind farm projects? If so, what efforts might be undertaken to
compensate for these misgivings?
Dr. Robyn. The ARSR-3 has been in service since the 1970s, and its
capabilities are well understood. Our current efforts, in conjunction
with those of our interagency partners, are focused on developing
modeling tools for wind farm impacts and assessing a number of
technological options for mitigating those impacts.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BLUMENAUER
Mr. Blumenauer. Wind energy projects not only supplement a growing
demand for clean power, they also contribute billions of dollars to the
tax base of rural counties in Oregon, create hundreds of jobs for local
businesses, and generate income for landowners that often is critical
to keeping their family farms alive. Unfortunately, as demand for wind
power continues to grow and more projects spring up around the country,
conflicts have started to occur.
Earlier this year, the Department of Defense concerns led to the
delay of two wind projects in my state due to issues relating to a
radar in Fossil, Oregon. These two projects were weeks away from
commencing construction and developers had already invested a great
deal of funding in them when the Department raised these concerns. The
Department's initial suggested mitigation proposal was for the two
developers to move all of their turbines some distance away. This
infeasible approach would have terminated the projects and resulted in
devastating economic losses to our local communities. I was pleased to
see that the Department allowed the projects (Caithness' Shepherds Flat
and Iberdrola Renewables' Leaning Juniper II wind farms, both in
Gilliam County) to proceed this spring.
Already there are several hundred additional megawatts of wind
power planned to start construction before the end of 2010 in the same
area of Oregon that has proximity to the Fossil radar. These projects
must stay on deadline for eligibility in a grant program established by
the ARRA. However, I understand that one of the projects slated to
begin construction at the end of this year is now being held up for the
very same concerns Defense Department originally raised when it opposed
the Shepherds Flat and Leaning Juniper II projects. In particular, the
developer of a nearby project (Iberdrola Renewables' Montague project)
is being told that the only acceptable mitigation is to move all the
turbines.
While I recognize and understand the importance of ensuring that
military operations are not compromised, I believe we must find a way
for the wind industry and the military to co-exist. In your testimony,
you discussed the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln
Laboratory study that identified and evaluated options for mitigating
the impact of wind turbines on the QVN radar in Fossil, Oregon. This
study helped increase the Department's comfort level with the
Shepherd's Flat project and others in the area. Can the techniques
recommended by the Lincoln Lab study also be used to mitigate the
impact of the Montague project? If not, please describe the
Department's justification for holding up these additional turbines and
provide a timeline for addressing the situation. Please also provide my
office with a full copy of the Lincoln Lab study.
Dr. Robyn. At my request, Lincoln Lab analyzed the proposed
Montague project using the same data/approach it used for Shepherds
Flat (the two sites are within a mile of one another). The results were
the same, and I informed your office of our recent decision to green-
light Montague, five additional sites in Oregon, and two in Washington.
The key Lincoln Lab recommendation (Option 2) calls for adding an
auxiliary processor with an adaptive clutter map. As I said in my oral
statement on June 29, we hope to do this on a pilot basis over the next
12-18 months, using the Fossil, Oregon radar as our ``testbed'' (this
improvement would not otherwise occur until 2014-2015, as part of the
scheduled CARSR upgrade of the Fossil radar). Lincoln Lab is currently
on track to deliver hardware and software to FAA Oklahoma City for test
by the end of January 2011; the lab's overall goal is to have a test
system in place at Fossil by April 2011.
Mr. Blumenauer. The Defense Department has acknowledged the
national security and strategic challenges associated with global
warming and our dependence on fossil fuels. I have been impressed by
the aggressive actions the Department is undertaking to reduce its own
energy use and explore the use of renewable energy. It would seem that
it is in the Department's interest to facilitate development of the
nation's wind resources. Since wind-radar conflicts appear to be a
growing problem, I am pleased that the Department is taking steps to
minimize these conflicts, including altering and upgrading existing
radars. I understand that funding may be a hurdle in completing these
upgrades. Is there a mechanism for a wind developer to contribute funds
to the upgrading or relocation of a radar if it will reduce or
eliminate wind turbine-radar conflicts? If not, does the Department
need statutory authority to allow contributions from project
developers?
Dr. Robyn. The Department is not certain it has clear legal
authority to accept such contributions; we've been working with
professional staff and NGOs to develop language that would clearly
grant that authority.
Mr. Blumenauer. I understand that the FAA currently requires wind
project developers to file separate applications for each turbine
proposed to be included in a project. I'm also told that the FAA
discourages developers from submitting applications until the developer
has made a final decision as to the exact location of each turbine. If
true, this approach seems not only burdensome for the FAA and project
developers, but it doesn't give developers and the government enough
lead-time to mitigate late-breaking concerns that are raised by the FAA
or DOD. One way to provide flexibility and reduce the burdensome nature
of processing applications for all parties involved may be for the FAA
to accept one application per wind project with an estimate as to the
approximate location, number, and height of all turbines. Is this
something that the FAA has considered? Would making this change in the
application process require a change in statute?
Ms. Kalinowski. An aeronautical study looks at the exact
coordinates and height of the proposed structure and determines if
there are any impacts to radar cells. If the locations and height of
the structure are changed, the impact could be more severe and must be
analyzed again. If estimates were provided, the FAA and the DOD would
not have exact data to perform a comprehensive analysis. Some turbines
in an area may be acceptable and others may not because of the number
of radar cells that may be affected. At present, the FAA needs to study
each individual turbine and not proposed areas. In addition, the DOD
cannot study geographic areas and must know exact locations to
determine impacts to radar.
A change of this nature would require a regulatory change, as the
current regulations require each structure to be filed separately with
the FAA. A regulatory change would require a minimum of three years to
complete.