faq.jpg)
| Q: | Won’t the new Smart Grid be more resistant to EMP than the current Grid? |
| A: | Our country’s energy infrastructure is moving towards a “smart grid” model – an automated, decentralized network designed to monitor, control and respond to energy usage and delivery. The system relies heavily on control devices (SCADAs) integrated throughout the system. The EMP Commission demonstrated that SCADAs are the most vulnerable part of our infrastructure. Unless protections are built in, the Smart Grid would be more vulnerable to EMPs than our current grid, as the entire grid will only be as strong as its weakest link. |
| Q: | Even if an EMP happened wouldn’t we be able to simply repair the grid and quickly restore power? |
| A: | An EMP event would destroy the large electrical transformers needed for transmission and render them useless. US utility companies have few spare transformers in their inventory to replace those that become damaged. These massive transformers are no longer made in the United States and must be imported from overseas. Only a few foreign suppliers manufacture these transformers and it takes at least eighteen months to produce just one. With so few spare transformers, a widespread EMP event could cause blackouts literally lasting years. |
| Q: | Wouldn’t it be cost-prohibitive to protect the grid against EMP? |
| A: | Protecting our most critical infrastructures would cost as little as $100 million, and $10 to 20 Billion would virtually eliminate the EMP threat. Including these protections at the outset is far more cost effective than retrofitting. Funds already set aside for this purpose in the stimulus package are available now. |
| Q: | Isn’t the threat of EMP minimal and limited to major super-powers? |
| A: | Nine countries currently have nuclear weapons. President Obama has expressed concern about terrorists acquiring nuclear materials and has initiated efforts to try to prevent this. In March 2010 the US Navy resurrected their EMP team, inactive for 10 years, as some officials believe the danger from electromagnetic attacks has remained or increased. |
| Q: | Wouldn’t a naturally occurring EMP be minimal and localized in scope, similar to a lightning strike? |
| A: | Mother Nature can also pose an EMP threat with solar flares that cause a geomagnetic storm. These storms could produce an EMP affecting large areas of the US and can destroy major parts of the Electric Grid. Major EMP effects were observed in 1859 and 1921 and we have developed a more sensitive system and more sensitive equipment since then. Recent extended power outages due to geomagnetic storms have occurred and had significant economic effects. |
| Q: | Wouldn’t a highly developed weapons system be required to launch an EMP attack? |
| A: | ICBMs are only one way of delivering such an attack. A rogue nation could launch a lower cost, short range missile from a freighter just 12 miles off the US coast to achieve an EMP effect. The EMP Commission warns that ANY nuclear weapon – even a low yield one – could cause a catastrophic EMP event. Early warning satellite and radar systems would not provide enough time to react. Despite the best technologies and efforts, a ship-launched missile would have an abbreviated trajectory that would not allow enough time for an early warning. Additionally, no such warning systems exist to provide advance notice or protection against a geomagnetic storm. |
| Q: | Was the EMP Commission supported by members of both political parties? |
| A: | The EMP Commission was established by a Republican led Congress in 2001 and was reauthorized by a Democratic led Congress in 2006. All Commissioners were appointed on a bi-partisan basis. Furthermore, the Commission’s work was reviewed by members of the intelligence, all security agencies and the military community. Both Congressional Commissions determined that the man-made EMP threat is a clear and present danger to the United States. |
| Q: | Were the conclusions reached by the EMP Commission shared and supported by others? |
| A: | The Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States and the Secretary of Defense concur with the EMP Commissions’ threat assessment. |
