Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Electromagnetic pulses (EMPs) are a little understood phenomenon that many believe could pose a serious threat to our
nations critical infrastructure. EMPs may sound like something out of a science fiction novel: a nuclear blast at high altitude or
particles from a solar storm interacting with the Earths magnetic field to cause disruption or damage to the electrical grid and
electronics. This paper will outline the EMP threat, and provide an overview of current and potential mitigations, including the
state of legislative and policy activity. It draws on the 2008 report from the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United
States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack, reputable open-source resources, and interviews with subject matter experts in
government and private industry.
The US1 and Soviet2 militaries learned first-hand of the potential
consequences of a major EMP event when conducting high altitude nuclear
tests over 50 years ago. In 1962 for example, a U.S. military exercise dubbed
Operation Starfish exploded a 1.4 megaton nuclear warhead 240 miles
above Johnson Island in the Pacific Ocean. Alarmingly, the resulting EMP field
caused street lights to blow out and affected telephone and radio
communications in Hawaii, 900 miles away.3 Fearing its use as a first strike
weapon that would take out critical military command and control
infrastructure, both superpowers spent the following decades hardening their
military apparatuses against such an attack. Our civilian infrastructure,
however, has remained largely unshielded from severe electromagnetic
events. Much of the knowledge on the effects of EMPs has been classified
due to its national security implications.
Over time, knowledge of the threat from an EMP has made its way into the
public consciousness. The Commission to Assess the Threat to the United
States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack (the Commission)4, a
congressionally-established body, produced two notable non-classified
reports (along with several classified reports) which included an Executive
Report in 2004 and a more detailed 2008 version. The 2008 report went
into greater depth regarding the risks posed to individual critical
infrastructure sectors, including recommendations for risk mitigation. These
reports and other subsequent studies also outline the related threat of severe
solar storms, whose effects are similar to the effects of nuclear EMP attacks.
Eight years later, however, few of the Commissions recommendations have
been addressed on any meaningful scale in the United States.
In March 2016 the United States Government Accountability Office released a report on critical infrastructure protection relating
to the threat posed by electromagnetic risks. The paper further supports our findings that, while progress is being made to
assess vulnerabilities and improve grid security, the United States is unprepared for the effects of an EMP and more work is
necessary to protect the American public.
http://www.empcommission.org/docs/empc_exec_rpt.pdf
http://www. eiscouncil.org/English/Resources/ResouceInside.asp?itemId=10427
3
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2014/07/31/protecting-the-u-s-against-the-electromagnetic-pulse-threat-a-continued-failure-of-leadership-couldmake-911-look-trivial-someday/
4
http://www.empcommission.org/
2
W hat are the primary current and potential emitters of electrom agnetic pulses?
In order to fully understand the threat surrounding EMP, it is important to know some basics about the science of EMP and EMPlike events. An EMP is a burst of electromagnetic energy. The changing electrical and magnetic fields may interact with electrical
and electronic devices to produce damaging voltages and currents. EMPs vary widely in magnitude and range, and are caused
by a variety of sources including lightning, electrostatic discharge, power line surges, and other sources. The largest known
sources of EMP are nuclear explosions, and the geomagnetic disturbance (GMD) caused by a solar flare or Coronal Mass
Ejection (CME).
Although all nuclear detonations cause some EMP effects, a nuclear weapon could be employed in a way intended specifically
to maximize the EMP effects. A high altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) is caused by a nuclear device exploding at high
altitudes above Earths surface (generally recognized to be anywhere between around 30km to 400km). The nuclear EMP is
comprised of three major components. The first EMP component (E1) is an extremely fast electromagnetic shock that
happens just nanoseconds after the nuclear explosion. The second EMP component (E2) has many similarities to the
electromagnetic pulses produced by lightning strikes. The third EMP component (E3) is a much slower pulse, lasting tens to
hundreds of seconds following the blast. The E3 pulse has a very similar profile to severe geomagnetic disturbances (GMDs),
which can be caused by large solar CMEs. Figure 2 provides an overview of these various threats5:
5
6
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Baker-Statement-5-13-EMP.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Baker-Statement-5-13-EMP.pdf
meter the longer the line, the more EMP energy will be coupled into the system and the higher the probability
of EMP damage.7 - Dr. George Baker, member of the Commission
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Baker-Statement-5-13-EMP.pdf
and societal collapse. A natural EMP catastrophe or nuclear EMP attack could blackout the national electric
grid for months or years and collapse all the other critical infrastructures--communications, transportation,
banking and finance, food and water--necessary to sustain modern society and the lives of 310 million
Americans. Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, Commission member, in his 2015 testimony to a joint House committee8
There is, however, some debate about the likelihood and potential destruction of a HEMP or solar GMD. While its known that
some rogue states are actively seeking or have acquired nuclear weapons, the ability to miniaturize such a weapon to allow it to
be placed on a launch vehicle capable of reaching HEMP altitudes above the US would represent another step in technology.
Furthermore, it is debatable whether any threat actor (state or non-state) would choose to use a single nuclear weapon in a
HEMP attack rather than in a traditional air- or ground-burst detonation in a major population center. Solar activity on the level
of the Carrington event is known to occur with some frequency, but the charged particles ejected must be directed at the Earth
to cause a GMD. This seems to occur infrequently.
The consequences of an EMP event are also not fully understood. Models show a significant threat to critical infrastructure, but
in the absence of more extensive real world testing some uncertainty remains. Even in a worst-case scenario in which a large
fraction of the high-voltage transformers connected to long electrical lines and critical infrastructure control systems are
destroyed, the recovery may not take the months or years that some have asserted. While its true that at the current rate of
production, replacement of these assets would take months or perhaps years, it also stands to reason that the worlds industrial
capacity (and the profit motive in the global market economy) would react by shifting resources to speed up the recovery.
8
9
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pry-Statement-5-13-EMP.pdf
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/03/world/nuclear-weapon-states/index.html
intermediate range missiles, such as the SCUDs that are popular across the Middle East, could be loaded onto a ship and fired
from off the U.S. coastline. However, the technology needed to miniaturize a nuclear device, mount it on a missile, and fire it
accurately enough to cause a widespread EMP catastrophe is scarce. Dr. Pry also mentions that aircraft which can reach Mach
1 may be able to do a zoom climb to 30km and detonate a nuclear device, though terrorists ability to possess and fly jets as
well as their capability to access U.S. airspace is dubious. Another scenario involves the use of high-altitude weather balloons to
carry a nuclear device high up into the atmosphere, a style that was actually the preferred method of high altitude nuclear
testing by the U.S. during the 1950s and early 1960s. Even with this relatively low-tech delivery method, terrorist would have to
acquire a nuclear weapon. Beyond our strong national security efforts to stop the spread of such weapons, nuclear-capable
countries even rogue ones would be unlikely to give away such valuable geopolitical commodities to terrorist groups. Finally,
in the rare event that a terrorist group does acquire a nuclear weapon, it is questionable they would attempt to use it as an EMP
as opposed to a low altitude or ground-level detonation that would be much more dramatic and cause much more immediate
destruction. Would they be willing to gamble that they could actually pull off a HEMP attack that could shut down the entire
electric grid and cause mass chaos as opposed to the more certain impact of a detonation in a major population center?
Another method by which terrorists could employ EMP against the nation would entail a coordinated non-nuclear EMP attack
against key critical infrastructure segments. Non-nuclear EMP devices, such as radio-frequency weapons (RFW), can impact
critical infrastructure much in the same way as the E1 component of a nuclear HEMP11. The difference is that the affected
region is much smaller, typically very local. Therefore, any group attempting to inflict a systemic failure of the electric grid or
other critical infrastructure would need to coordinate an attack at multiple facilities in close time proximity. While complicated,
this may be technically feasible should organizations be able to replicate the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
study12 which identified that the entire U.S. electric grid could be blacked out for weeks or months by knocking out only nine of
the countrys 55,000 electric transmission substations. It is then feasible, if unlikely, that a large-scale coordinated non-nuclear
EMP attack on the electric grid and other critical infrastructure could result in a severe national event.
10
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Baker-Statement-5-13-EMP.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pry-Statement-5-13-EMP.pdf
12
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304020104579433670284061220
13
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/06may_carringtonflare/
11
from exposed lines, lighting telegraph paper on fire, and destroying the newly-laid intercontinental telegraph line that ran under
the Atlantic Ocean and connected our continent with Europe14. Fortunately, 1859 society did not depend on electrical systems
the way we do today.
In 2010, Lloyds of London published a groundbreaking report15 in conjunction with Atmospheric and Environmental Research
(AER) that indicated a Carrington Event-level GMD had the potential to cause extended blackouts for 20-40 million Americans at
a total economic cost of $600 billion to $2.6 trillion. The report also acknowledged that the estimates may be understated.
Additionally, the report listed the projected recurrence of such an event at 150 years. By that count, we are seven years overdue.
As AER/Lloyds put it in a later 2013 report16: The hazard posed by geomagnetic storms is one of the most concerning due to
the potential for long-term, widespread power outage. While the probability of an extreme storm occurring is relatively low at
any given time, one will occur eventually. And as the electric infrastructure ages and we become more and more dependent on
electricity, the risk of a catastrophic outage increases with each peak of the solar cycle
Unlike the black swan events discussed earlier, a Carrington-class solar superstorm is almost certain to occur at some point.
Though it may not have the same drama as a nuclear attack, the impact on our critical infrastructure, especially the power grid,
could be widespread. As such, we have classified this threat as having the potential to result in a national level disaster, similar
to an advanced cyber-attack or an extreme hurricane (e.g. Katrina). To give some context, Hurricane Katrina is estimated to
have caused $125 billion in total economic losses, with $35 billion of that figure insured losses.17 These numbers are far
outstretched by even Lloyds of Londons lower bound damage estimates for a Carrington-class solar storm.
W hat critical infrastructure sectors are most vulnerable to electrom agnetic pulses?
In an EMP event, there are myriad potential consequences for critical infrastructure. The threat to the public from various EMP
events is driven both by the potential degradation of individual critical infrastructure assets and sectors and from the
interconnectivity of the multi-sector systems that sprawl across the country. In other words, the fact that an EMP can knock out
the power grid means it has the potential to cause great inconvenience or even in some cases death (imagine losing electrical
heating in the middle of winter in the upper Midwest). An added layer of complexity comes in when a hospital loses power
14
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pry-Statement-5-13-EMP.pdf
http://www.eiscouncil.com/images/upload/media/The%20International%20EPRO%20Report.pdf
16
Solar Storm Risk to the North American Electric Grid, Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER), May 2013
17
http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1520-20490-4067/549_cvr_toc.pdf
18
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/noaa-scales-explanation
15
though. Now not only is the damage manifested just in the lack of electricity, but in the lack of a vital emergency service. Backup
generators may keep operations going for a time, but unfortunately the fuel and energy infrastructure, such as oil and natural
gas pipelines, can be affected by EMP as well, both directly and through disruptions in the electric grid. Figure 6 illustrates the
interconnectivity of various critical infrastructure across the nation:
Despite the complexity of the relationships between our critical infrastructure assets, it is clear from the Commission Report as
well as other experts opinions that our Electric Power Infrastructure represents a center of mass of the threat from EMP. This
stems largely from our dependence on electricity and electronic control systems that enable or control our other critical
infrastructure assets. George H. Baker, who served on the Committee explained:
Among the critical infrastructure sectors, EMP risk is highest for electric power grid and telecommunication
grids These infrastructures are the most vulnerable due to their organic long lines. And they are also the
most critical to the operation and recovery of the other critical infrastructure sectors If we have to pick one
infrastructure to protect, the top choice would be the electric power grid.19
19
20
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Baker-Statement-5-13-EMP.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/sun_darkness.html
Telecommunications The telecommunications grid the mix of equipment necessary to send and receive voice,
data, video, and other messaging, including internet and phone networks is almost entirely dependent on sustained
electricity production. Backup generators may provide emergency service for days, but cannot accommodate prolonged
outages unless generator fuel supplies are secured. Communications are also considered vital to the recovery of other
critical infrastructures, and any prolonged outages may have detrimental impacts to long-term recovery efforts.
Additionally, long telecommunications lines and some fiber-optic cables (with repeaters) are vulnerable to E3 and solar
events, and telecom SCADAs would be vulnerable to the E1 component of a nuclear HEMP.
Banking and Finance Our banking and financial services system is extremely reliant on digital elements that require
electricity and telecommunications infrastructure to be working. Even though our banking system has some of the most
robust protections and recovery mechanisms for cyber and physical threats, these mechanisms are not designed to
sustain operations during prolonged blackouts unless a source of fuel is available to backup generators. In the event of
prolonged electricity shortage, significant effort would be required to operate stock exchanges, banks, and ensure citizens
access to their financial resources.
Fuel/Energy Infrastructure Fuel is the pre-cursor to many of our other infrastructure sectors, including the
electricity sector. Oil and natural gas account for over 60% of our domestic fuel consumption, and these resources are
distributed across the country along long pipelines. These pipelines are monitored and controlled by electronic systems
similar to those which control the electric grid, and are thus vulnerable to E1 from a nuclear HEMP. Beyond the direct
EMP vulnerability, like other sectors the fuel and energy assets would be unable to function fully during prolonged
electricity blackouts. Slowdown in fuel production and refinement would lead to longer, more difficult recovery of electric
power and other critical infrastructures.
Transportation Infrastructure While some might picture the impact of an EMP event on transportation mass
traffic jams caused by incapacitated cars, the real vulnerability is slightly less dramatic. Various transportation modes
would be impacted by EMP in different ways. The immediate effect on roads and the railway system would be the failure
of signals due to electrical outage. Until backup power was available, there would be significant disruption of fuel supplies.
Even if airports and seaports maintained sources of backup power, a prolonged, large scale blackout cloud cause
significant delays in the delivery of fuel which would hamper air travel and maritime cargo industries.
Food Infrastructure Our food infrastructure is extremely dependent on other infrastructures, especially electricity,
fuel and transportation. In the event of a severe EMP event, production could be impacted by the inoperability of
industrial farming equipment due to reductions in fuel availability. Likewise, fuel shortages could cause shipping delays,
while long-term blackouts would almost certainly cause issues for food processors and large regional food storage
facilities.
Water Supply Infrastructure The continued survival and health of our population relies on the availability of clean
and accessible drinking water. EMP can cause disruptions to the water supply through malfunctioning SCADA and longterm lack of electricity. Long-term blackouts can also disrupt wastewater removal systems and industrial water delivery to
other critical sectors, such as farming.
Emergency Services Emergency services are critical to the preservation of law and order, as well as health and
safety. On the local, state, and Federal level, millions of firefighters, police officers, doctors, and various other public
servants provide these critical services. Prolonged electricity blackouts or loss of telecommunications capabilities can
cause disruption to these services in the short term. Ironically, a crisis situation such as a severe EMP event would almost
definitely generate higher than normal demand for emergency services, as was observed after severe events such as
9/11 and Hurricane Katrina.
Space Systems Space systems, specifically satellites, have become an increasingly large component of modern
society even since the Commission Report in 2008. Today, people often check traffic or navigate even short car trips from
their smartphone GPS systems. Beyond this, satellites in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), provide an increasing array of other
functions, from communications, to weather tracking, to national defense. Satellites in LEO are particularly vulnerable to
HEMP and solar events and are particularly difficult or costly to harden.
W hat are the main mitigation activities that are available to protect against EM P?
Given the numerous potential EMP impacts due to the complexity of our critical infrastructure systems, developing a holistic
mitigation strategy is difficult and potentially costly. A focused, prioritized approach perhaps one that begins with the electric
grid could yield great benefits to our country. One key point is that the answer is not a purely engineering or technology
solution. As the Commission states, the appropriate national-level approach should balance prevention, protection, and
recovery. To this end, the responsibility of protecting our critical infrastructure from EMPs is shared by both government and
private sector owners and operators. Figure 7 outlines the shared responsibility for EMP mitigation:
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the government could develop effective regulation to promote EMP protection and
preparedness. This includes ensuring that key infrastructure assets are identified and hardened to the extent practical by
private sector owners and operators. Without such regulation, it may be challenging for an individual owner (such as an electric
utility) to justify the expense of hardening to its customers or shareholders. Private industry must, in turn, comply with regulation
and implement best practices to mitigate the risk from EMP.
Complexity of Mitigation
An important characteristic of EMP mitigation is acknowledgement of the complexity of our critical infrastructure. To give some
context, the U.S. electric transmission system, which is only one of three components that make up the entire electric grid, is
comprised of approximately 200,000 miles of power lines21. In addition, mitigation efforts and responsibilities cross sometimes
blurred lines among different federal, state, and local governments as well as private sector stakeholders.
One expert interviewed for this paper, who worked on EMP testing in the military and subsequently spent years in the electric
utilities industry described the complexity:
If you harden 100% against HEMP, you are fully protected from Solar EMP, but not the other way around.
Hardening 100% against HEMP is unrealistic though because its too complex and costly. You would need to
follow a model similar to what the military has done, i.e. prioritizing key systems and hardening only the most
critical ones. That way you can re-constitute after a disaster.
With this level of complexity, the Commission ultimately concluded that protecting the entire power grid system, or even all its
high value components, was impractical and instead recommended preparing for the widest possible scenarios of GMD and
EMP with a focus on quick response and repairs. The Commission also recommended conducting further research into costeffective mitigation and preparation. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) issued recommendations in 201322 that
included:
Inter-agency cooperation
More robust modeling capabilities
Focused hardening
Availability of shared backup and replacement components
While some of these recommendations have gained varying degrees of traction, mitigation activities have not yet been
implemented. Tellingly, five years after the Commissions 2008 report was published, EPRIs report ends with a call for more
research into EMP scenarios.
Cost of Mitigation
21
22
http://www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/transmission/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000003002001936&Mode=download
10
Determining the cost for realistic EMP mitigation scenarios is difficult due to the complexity discussed above. Since the electric
sector is decidedly the most important component to overall resiliency, the most comprehensive cost estimates focus on
ensuring the electric grid is protected from EMPs. The Commission provided cost estimates for some of the larger or more
system-specific initiatives, such as hardening major transformers. In total, the Commissions initiatives would cost between $3.3
billion and $4.5 billion in 2015 dollars. A more recent and robust cost estimate for protecting the U.S. electric grid was
developed by The Foundation for Resilient Societies, a non-profit focused on infrastructure protection, at the request of the U.S.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Their model, which is updated periodically and presented in a detailed
Excel format available online23, takes a systems approach that includes initiatives necessary to protect key supporting
infrastructures in telecommunications, natural gas pipelines, and rail transport (for coal shipping to power plants) from both
nuclear EMP and severe GMDs. Their estimate to protect most of the transmission and distribution systems as well as half of
the U.S. generation capacity ranges from $10 billion to $30 billion, or between $1.12 and $3.38 per month for every electric
customer over a five year period.
While those figures are substantial sums of money, some context is necessary to fully understand the scale. For one, the 2015
Federal budget was $3.8 trillion. U.S. foreign military aid which can be construed as a method of promoting national security
was roughly $28 billion for 2009-2013, 75% of which went to just two countries: Israel and Egypt24. Alternatively, a program of
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for smart grid modernization may serve as a benchmark. Over a five year period from
2010-2015, the program provided Federal funding of roughly $5.2 billion with matching funds from electric utilities of about $7
billion dollars. According to the Foundation for Resilient Societies, a low-cost EMP & GMD Protection Program, if providing 50%
Federal grant eligibility, would cost taxpayers about as much as the Smart Grid Program while protecting the U.S. electric grid
from both severe solar storms and man-made EMP attack.
23
http://www.resilientsocieties.org/research.html
http://www.state.gov/t/pm/ppa/sat/c14560.htm
25
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1073
26
http://www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/cybersecurity/Documents/Electromagnetic%20Pulses%20(EMPs)%20-%20Myths%20vs.%20Facts.pdf
27
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Baker-Statement-5-13-EMP.pdf
24
11
This will be achieved by validating several GMD-related system parameters and modeling approaches for the BPA system,
thanks to available data measurement during GMD storms.
Although the U.S. approach to EMP is the focus of this paper, it should be noted that the EMP threat is not isolated to our nation.
Industrialized, electricity-dependent modern economies all over the world exhibit varying degrees of vulnerability to EMP. Some,
like South Korea, Japan, and Israel due to their proximity to and rivalry with rogue states North Korea and Iran and Northern
European nations due to their exposure to solar weather would appear to be at greater risk than the U.S. The Electric
Infrastructure Security (EIS) Council put out a report28 in 2013 that identified Scandinavian countries and the UK as some of the
most advanced in EMP mitigation, largely due to their longstanding experience protecting against solar weather. South Korea,
Japan, and Israel appear to have conducted general studies into the effects of EMP, although many details on past, current, and
future steps to protect against EMP were not made available for the report. The European Space Agency (ESA) announced in
November 2015 that it was working with 14 European nations to develop a warning network for extreme space weather events.
Its clear that nations around the globe are beginning to take EMP more seriously.
Back in the U.S., in the absence of national-level EMP protection efforts, many states have taken the matter into their own
hands. According to Michael Caruso in his House testimony in May of 2015, 18 states have taken proactive efforts to protect
their grids from EMP: Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Colorado, Indiana,
Louisiana, New Mexico Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington.29 This trend may continue and even
expand if the Federal government does not offer a more comprehensive strategy for EMP protection.
Why does the United States remain relatively unprepared for EMP threats? Below, we highlight some of the common themes
that appear to be hindering more comprehensive mitigation against EMP, particularly in the electricity sector.
28
http://www.eiscouncil.com/images/upload/media/The%20International%20EPRO%20Report.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Caruso-Statement-5-13-EMP.pdf
30
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Baker-Statement-5-13-EMP.pdf
31
http://www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/cybersecurity/Documents/Electromagnetic%20Pulses%20(EMPs)%20-%20Myths%20vs.%20Facts.pdf
29
12
and actionable, carry no legislative or executive mandate. In the absence of a dedicated EMP lead at the Federal level,
confusion reigns and the Commissions recommendations serve as FYIs rather than imperatives. George Baker summed up this
dynamic in his House testimony:
To a major extent, the lack of progress in protecting our most critical infrastructure to EMP and GMD is that
the responsibility is distributed. There is no single point of responsibility to develop and implement a national
protection plan. Nobody is in charge. When I asked [NERC] about EMP protection, they informed me, we dont
do EMP, thats a Department of Defense problem. The Department of Defense tells me, EMP protection of
the civilian infrastructure is a DHS responsibility. DHS explained to me that the responsibility for the electric
power grid protection is within DOE since they are the designated Sector Specific Agency (SSA) for the energy
infrastructure. EMP protection has become a finger pointing, ring around the rosy, duck-and-cover game. Our
bureaucracy has enabled gaps for addressing the difficult problems of EMP and GMD, resulting in no
substantive action to protect the nation. We have the classic Washington problem of issues that span
departments or fall between departments, which were all very familiar with, but then we add to that the
involvement of the private sector, without central leadership, were foundering. Because these catastrophes
can be continental in scale with everyone in trouble, and theres nobody left to help, the ultimate solution, by
default, has fallen to the state and local levels. States are entitled to protect the safety, reliability and
adequacy of their electric grids, but most states expect the Federal government to provide leadership in
protecting the bulk power system. Local level preparedness is crucial, but we still need Federal top down
guidance to achieve a uniform, coordinated approach to the problem to be able to triage, to standardize
protection methods across the states and localities. We know, and Ive stressed, that we cant protect
everything. Uniform guidance is needed to determine what needs to be protected and assign responsibilities.
Local jurisdictions need top-level guidance and information to understand what to do. The current state of
EMP protection is random, disoriented and uncoordinated. As we go forward, I suggest that Congress establish
a responsible party or agency to be the central whip for EMP preparedness. That would change the landscape
materially and make progress possible.32
While this story is certainly not uncommon in our government, especially with the biggest issues, the ramifications of inaction on
EMP are tremendous. While some isolated progress has been made, much more is needed to protect America from the threats
of nuclear HEMP and severe solar weather GMD. Only through better education on and communication of the threat, regulation
that appropriately incentivizes industry to harden and prepare for EMP, and legislation that organizes and empowers leadership
at a Federal level can we truly degrade the EMP threat. In the absence of these steps, states will likely continue to take action
themselves, but due to the interconnectivity of the U.S. critical infrastructure system, this can only take us so far.
32
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Baker-Statement-5-13-EMP.pdf
13