[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEADING THE WAY: EXAMINING ADVANCES
IN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
June 21, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-18
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
26-235 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BILL POSEY, Florida ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky AMI BERA, California
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia JERRY MCNERNEY, California
GARY PALMER, Alabama ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia PAUL TONKO, New York
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana BILL FOSTER, Illinois
DRAIN LaHOOD, Illinois MARK TAKANO, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
JIM BANKS, Indiana CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
------
Subcommittee on Environment
HON. ANDY BIGGS, Arizona, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon, Ranking
BILL POSEY, Florida Member
MO BROOKS, Alabama COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
BRIAN BABIN, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
JIM BANKS, Indiana
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
June 21, 2017
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Andy Biggs, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 4
Written Statement............................................ 6
Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamic, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 10
Witnesses:
Mr. Sebastien De Halleux, Chief Operating Officer, Saildrone Inc.
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 15
Dr. Neil Jacobs, Chief Atmospheric Scientist, Panasonic Avionics
Oral Statement............................................... 30
Written Statement............................................ 32
Dr. Burke Hales, Professor in Ocean Ecology and Biogeochemistry,
College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State
University
Oral Statement............................................... 39
Written Statement............................................ 41
Discussion....................................................... 49
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Neil Jacobs, Chief Atmospheric Scientist, Panasonic Avionics. 62
Dr. Burke Hales, Professor in Ocean Ecology and Biogeochemistry,
College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State
University..................................................... 65
LEADING THE WAY: EXAMINING ADVANCES
IN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Andy Biggs
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Biggs. The Subcommittee on Environment will come
to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
We welcome you to today's hearing, which is entitled
``Leading the Way: Examining Advances in Environment
Technologies.''
All right. I recognize myself to give an opening statement.
Good morning, and welcome to today's Environment
Subcommittee hearing entitled ``Leading the Way: Examining
Advances in Environmental Technologies.'' First of all, I thank
each of our excellent panelists for being here today. I'm
grateful that you're here.
For a hearing such as this one, there are many different
avenues we could explore, but certainly one of undeniable
importance is atmospheric monitoring. Without accurate
atmospheric monitoring, we simply have no good way to predict
the weather and, in turn, no ability to ensure that citizens
are kept out of harm's way when severe weather arises.
In the federal government, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, is tasked with issuing
forecasts that inform millions of Americans each day. To make
these forecasts, NOAA also spends billions of dollars on
environmental observation and data collection. I have no doubt
that NOAA plays a vital role in atmospheric monitoring and
weather forecasting. But one of the questions we need to
explore in this hearing is whether it makes sense for NOAA to
provide all weather data, to be the exclusive provider of
weather data.
In the 21st century, the landscape has changed. The federal
government isn't the only game in town, nor, I would argue,
should it be. Partners in the private sector can and should use
their advanced and innovative technologies to better our
weather predictions. Unfortunately, NOAA has been reluctant to
seek the help it needs. In the face of degraded forecasting
capabilities and aging satellite systems, NOAA has continued to
solve all of its problems alone, thereby wasting time and
government resources. Instead of continuing to think inside the
government-only box, NOAA needs to look to private partners who
are ready and willing to help.
Earlier this year, President Trump signed into law the
Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act, a
comprehensive bill to increase our weather forecasting
capabilities to better protect lives and property. I commend
Chairman Lamar Smith for his leadership on this bill, as well
as the bill's original sponsor, Vice Chairman Frank Lucas. What
I like most about this bill is that it compels NOAA to
innovate. For far too long we have relied on outmoded
government technologies and systems. Thankfully, the Weather
Bill dictates that NOAA must partner with the growing private
sector to test and validate its data in order to enhance our
nation's forecasting capabilities. It is my hope that the
agency will take full advantage of this opportunity.
Switching gears slightly, we will also hear today about
innovative technologies deployed in the oceans and how they can
significantly influence a number of areas of our lives as well.
As ocean researchers engage in a wide variety of tasks, from
collecting data that feeds into our weather models to taking
ocean measurements that are used to keep commercial shippers
safe, these men and women are increasingly using cutting-edge
science and technology. By partnering with our commercial
sector, we can decrease government costs and ensure that data
streams continue to flow. As President Trump considers new
leadership at NOAA, I hope that he will select an Administrator
who is willing to seriously consider the benefits of private
innovation.
I look forward to learning more today about some of the
technologies that will lead the way to a better and smarter
future, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Biggs follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Biggs. And I now recognize the gentlewoman from
Oregon, the Ranking Member, Mrs. Bonamici--Ms. Bonamici for an
opening statement.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to all the witnesses for being here today.
Federal investment in policies can incentivize and drive
the development of new, innovative technologies. And these
technologies can help us find creative solutions to our most
troubling problems. We're fortunate to have with us today three
witnesses who have all worked with NOAA to bring their
technologies to the public. This hearing gives us the
opportunity to discuss the importance of federal engagement
with nonfederal partners.
One of the great things about new technology is that even
small innovations can have a large and meaningful effect on our
lives. Dr. Hales' Burkolator is an excellent example of this.
The Burkolator is an autonomous analyzer the size of a piece of
carry-on luggage that has helped shellfish growers across the
Pacific Northwest determine the best time to grow larva. The
Burkolator can determine the oceans' ability to form the
calcium carbonates needed for shell formation, and it can be
installed on ships. The Burkolator is available commercially,
and it's allowed shellfish growers to take control of their
livelihoods by putting the tools they need to be successful at
their fingertips. None of this would have been possible without
the federal research grants that provided the initial funding.
Although the range of technologies we're discussing in
today's hearing is narrowly focused on oceanic and atmospheric
observations, it's important to note that both the EPA and NOAA
cover a broad range of environmental monitoring and
observations that would be negatively affected by the
President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2018. The
President's proposed budget would cut EPA's state and local air
quality management grants by 30 percent, which would have a
devastating effect on the ability of many state and local
agencies to adequately maintain their ambient air quality
monitoring programs. This could lead to negative public health
outcomes for many residents.
Similarly, the proposed cuts to numerous NOAA grant
programs would severely limit the ability of the agency to meet
its mission on environmental monitoring and observations.
Although I'm looking forward to today's discussion about new
technologies, we must remember that fundamental science at
federal agencies such as the EPA and NOAA are on the chopping
block under this Administration.
As we listen to our witnesses, let's acknowledge that
federal agencies play an integral role in funding and
accelerating the development of new technology to fit specific
needs of niche markets or entire sectors. This is the Science
Committee, and I want to emphasize how critical it is for
Congress to continue to fund basic science at both NOAA and the
EPA.
The President's budget proposes cuts to fundamental
scientific research funding at EPA's Office of Research and
Development by almost 50 percent, and NOAA's Office of Oceanic
and Atmospheric Research is slated to be cut by 32 percent.
These numbers are unacceptable, and they demonstrate that this
Administration lacks an understanding or concern about the
importance of scientific research and promoting public health
and protecting the environment and property.
I'd also like to draw attention to the troubling fact that
there have been no nominations to fill any appointed positions
at NOAA since the beginning of this Administration. This vacuum
of leadership has left the agency, well, rudderless, pardon the
pun, with line offices neglected. The mission of NOAA's line
offices are simply too important and the stakes too high for us
to wait any longer. Our Committee must be advocates for NOAA's
role in our economy and for the safety of our citizens who rely
on their research and data.
We need to have discussions about the state of science at
NOAA and the EPA and its leadership, and I hope that we are
able to have a frank and open conversation about the future of
both agencies soon.
And I want to add, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the Weather
Forecasting Innovation Act. I was a proud cosponsor of that act
and worked on it for actually several years, beginning with a
former Environment Subcommittee Chair, Representative Stewart,
and then the next Subcommittee Chair Mr. Bridenstine, as well
as Mr. Lucas. So, we spent a lot of time talking about that
bill, and I look forward to continuing conversations about its
implementation.
So, again, I look forward to the discussion with our
witnesses today about the exciting technologies that they are
working on, as well as the integral role that federal
investments play in promoting innovation within the realm of
environmental monitoring in both the private sector and
academia.
And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Biggs. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
I am going to introduce--begin introducing our witnesses.
Our first witness today is Mr. Sebastien de Halleux, Chief
Operating Officer at Saildrone, Inc. Mr. de Halleux is the
recipient of the 2012 EA Emerging Leaders Award, the 2011 Tech
100 Award, the 2010 Tech Fellow Award, and the 2003 Booz Allen
Professional Excellence Award. He received his master's degree
in civil and environmental engineering from Imperial College
London.
And our second witness is Dr. Neil Jacobs, Chief
Atmospheric Scientist at Panasonic Avionics. Previously, Dr.
Jacobs worked on various projects, including NASA's Earth
Systems Science Program, GOES Satellite Imagery, Department of
Energy's Ocean Margins Program at the National Weather
Service's Atlantic Surface Cyclone Intensification Index. He
received bachelor's degrees in mathematics and physics from the
University of South Carolina, and an M.S. in air-sea
interaction and a Ph.D. in numerical modeling from North
Carolina State University.
I now yield to Ms. Bonamici to introduce our third witness,
Dr. Burke Hales.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to welcome to the Committee and introduce Dr.
Burke Hales, a Professor of Ocean Ecology and Biogeochemistry
in the College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences at
Oregon State University.
Dr. Burke has an undergraduate degree--excuse me, Dr. Hales
has an undergraduate degree in chemical engineering and a
doctorate in chemical oceanography from the University of
Washington.
Dr. Hales has had many noteworthy accomplishments over the
course of his career where much of his research has been
focused on coastal ocean carbon cycles, ocean acidification
monitoring, and experimental technology.
Recently, Dr. Hales' most publicized work has been
developing a technology called the Burkolator that is used by
shellfish farmers in Oregon to help them deal with the rising
acidity of the ocean. And I look forward to hearing more about
that in his testimony.
Thank you to Dr. Hales and the other witnesses for being
here today, and I yield back.
Chairman Biggs. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. de Halleux
for five minutes to present his testimony.
Can you please press the mic button? There we go.
TESTIMONY OF MR. SEBASTIEN DE HALLEUX,
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
SAILDRONE INC.
Mr. de Halleux. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Environment Committee, for providing an opportunity to discuss
this important topic of environment technology advances. It's
an honor to testify in front of your Subcommittee.
My name is Sebastien de Halleux, and I'm the Chief
Operating Officer of Saildrone, a company based in Alameda,
California. We have developed unmanned surface vehicle
technologies focused on collecting ocean data cost-efficiently,
at scale, providing insights into systems like weather
forecasting, fish stocks, marine life, surface and subsurface
maritime traffic.
Oceans play a key role in our nation's continued economic
growth, contributing an estimated $359 billion in gross
domestic product. Of all observation, in situ ocean data is
critical to understand global systems, yet collecting in situ
ocean data is expensive because it relies on ships. A
government research vessel costs anywhere between $100-200
million to purchase and $35,000 to $60,000 a day to operate.
If I could have slide 1?
[Slide.]
The commercial sector has developed cost-efficient--the
previous slide, please.
The commercial sector has developed cost-efficient
environment technology advances in response to this problem, an
example of which is the Saildrone unmanned surface vehicle,
which you can see on the slide, capable of missions of up to 12
months using no fuel, but wind power alone for propulsion. Each
23-foot-long USV carries a suite of sensors monitoring key
environmental variables covering the atmospheric, surface, and
subsurface domains and using a persistent satellite
communication link to send this data in real time back to
shore.
USVs of this type are good for many different government
applications and serve as both defense and civilian needs,
including maritime domain awareness, drug interdiction, weather
forecasting, fish stock assessment, and other environmental
observations.
Of course, data quality and cost-efficiencies are key and
both have been demonstrated over 100,000 nautical miles of
missions in partnership with NOAA, which has deemed the
Saildrones, quote, ``a platform that is ready for ocean
research, missions from the tropics to the Arctic,'' end quote.
And like many technology advances in the past, Saildrone
USVs are offered as a fully managed service, including the USV
lease, its operation, the data management, distribution for
fixed daily price per USV without requiring expensive up-front
investments. And in getting the private sector to pay for the
expensive infrastructure and shouldering the operational risk,
this public-private partnership framework provides great value
to NOAA.
Slide 2, please?
[Slide.]
NOAA's current fleet of 16 research and survey ships is
currently unable to meet the internal demand for days at sea,
over 3,000 unaddressed days at sea in fiscal year 2017
according to NOAA's own fleet plan. This shortage and NOAA's
recognized ocean data gaps can be addressed by USV technology,
augmenting NOAA's ships, though only for those roles requiring
data collection, i.e., the long tail of data collection, as
higher capabilities will always require actual ships.
However, despite being a very effective R&D partner, NOAA
has no clear pathway or budget to move this type of technology
innovation from R&D into operation, and therefore, not
realizing the associated cost savings. We would recommend that
such a pathway to operation be better defined.
The Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act that
you mentioned stops short of defining a clear public-private
partnership framework and remains ambiguous in defining the
type of data that it encourages NOAA to source in the private
sector. We would recommend that these ambiguous data types be
clarified to include ocean surface observation, thus
encouraging such public-private partnerships.
Yet in spite of the challenges mentioned here, the Nation
still holds a leadership position and a strategic advantage in
environmental observation and the technologies that make those
observations possible, reliable, and accurate. U.S. policy and
regulatory mechanism need to reflect the current status of
technology and market factors and also anticipate more
innovative technological developments with an eye towards
efficient addressing of mission and incentive-creation for U.S.
industry. The Nation as a whole benefits from such an approach.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to express my
views today, and I'm prepared to answer any question you might
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. de Halleux follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Biggs. Thank you. I now recognize Dr. Jacobs for
five minutes to present his opening statement.
TESTIMONY OF DR. NEIL JACOBS,
CHIEF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENTIST,
PANASONIC AVIONICS
Dr. Jacobs. Good morning, Chairman Biggs, Ranking Member
Bonamici, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Neil
Jacobs, and I serve as Chief Atmospheric Scientist for
Panasonic Weather Solutions, a division of Panasonic Avionics
Corporation. I am honored to be invited to participate in
today's hearing.
Panasonic is very pleased to continue our longstanding
public-private partnership to provide TAMDAR data to the
National Weather Service through the National Mesonet Program,
which is an example of a successful business model for
commercial atmospheric data acquisition. TAMDAR, which stands
for tropospheric airborne meteorological data reporting,
provides real-time observations of wind, temperature, moisture,
pressure, icing, and turbulence. These data are downlinked
through either Iridium's low-Earth orbiting satellite network
or Panasonic's high-throughput geostationary satellite Ku band
network. Once received, they are decoded, quality-controlled,
and passed on to the National Weather Service with a latency of
less than 20 seconds.
The aircraft-based weather observations are assimilated
into the National Weather Service forecast models, and numerous
studies have been conducted to document the substantial
positive impact on predictive skill. Visualization of the raw
observations can also be used to manually adjust regional
forecasts for convective activity and precipitation type issued
by the National Weather Service forecast offices.
The icing and turbulence observations can be used to
enhance aviation situational awareness for both commercial and
general aviation. These observations are used by the NTSB as a
routine part of many aviation accident investigations.
The TAMDAR network is rapidly expanding overseas, and many
airlines are utilizing both real-time observing systems and
forecast models to enhance safety, as well as operational
efficiency. Additionally, significant fuel savings are realized
by the airlines, which has the added benefit of greatly
reducing the footprint of--the carbon footprint of commercial
aviation.
A miniaturized version of this sensor has been developed
for UAVs. It is currently in operation on a number of
platforms, including NASA's Ikhana, which is a nonweaponized
predator drone used for scientific research. The probe has also
the capacity to do additional sensing such as various air
quality metrics.
In addition to the airborne sensing network, Panasonic is
in the initial stages of deploying ship-based marine and
atmospheric sensing capabilities through ITC Global, which is a
Panasonic-owned company that supplies broadband to the maritime
industry.
Panasonic is the only private entity in the world with a
custom-developed global weather modeling platform initialized
from raw observations and completely independent from NCEP-
produced global model data. This prediction system includes an
80-member ensemble in addition to high-resolution deterministic
model. The global model is designed to assimilate both
conventional observations, as well as satellite radiances among
other remotely sensed data sources, including commercial GNSS
radio occultation measurements. Panasonic also runs regional
models in air quality dispersion models, which are initialized
from boundary conditions provided by our global model.
The next-generation Panasonic global model will employ the
capability to run various dynamic cores, some of which are
currently being co-developed between public, private, and
academic sectors. Further advancements are being made for the
data assimilation system, as well as two-way coupling of an
ocean model. As part of this development initiative, Panasonic
has established a very successful academic-private partnership
with multiple universities and institutions, including
University of Maryland, North Carolina State University, and
the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Panasonic funds
several programs at these institutions, which support faculty
and students in STEM-related fields.
While commercial restrictions are placed on the
redistribution of Panasonic data and intellectual property, we
routinely grant research-only license agreements to
universities so that faculty and students have free access to
our data for educational purposes. At Panasonic, we believe it
is critical to the structure of public-private partnerships
such that industry is incentivized to collaborate with federal
agencies, as this is more convective to the mutual success of
both sectors.
A thriving private sector in the weather enterprise can not
only provide data, products, and services to enhance submission
of various federal agencies but can also fast-track applied
research and innovation through partnerships with the academic
sector.
Since its founding in 1998, Panasonic Weather Solutions has
worked cooperatively with federal agencies providing its data
to NOAA and the FAA and at many times at no cost. While we are
a commercial company responsible to our shareholders, we at
Panasonic also have another responsibility to help share our
technological expertise with the national meteorological
agencies around the world.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Bonamici, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you again for inviting me to participate
today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Jacobs follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Biggs. Thank you, Dr. Jacobs.
I now recognize Dr. Hales for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. BURKE HALES,
PROFESSOR IN OCEAN ECOLOGY AND BIOGEOCHEMISTRY,
COLLEGE OF EARTH,
OCEAN AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES,
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Hales. Thank you, Chairman Biggs, Vice Chair Banks, and
Ranking Member Bonamici, for the opportunity to speak to you
today to discuss the importance of federal investment in
environmental monitoring systems technology innovation. And
thank you, Representative Bonamici, for the introduction.
I study ocean carbon cycles and its boundaries, the sea
floor, the sea surface, and the land-ocean margins. Throughout
my 20-year career, I've embraced technological development to
explore new knowledge and real-world solutions with end users
in mind. My work is supportive of and supported by a number of
federally funded monitoring programs, including the National
Science Foundation Ocean Observatories Initiative, NOAA's
Integrated Ocean Observing System, and the National Weather
Service, as well as the NOAA and NASA Earth Observing Satellite
programs. While each of these programs serve unique objectives,
they're being leveraged in the field to drive groundbreaking
research in technology innovation.
For today's testimony, I will highlight this--I will
highlight an example of my technology innovation that's been
particular impactful in the West Coast for shellfish
agriculture.
In 2007, shellfish hatcheries that support the commercial
shellfish aquaculture industry in the U.S. West Coast began to
experience failure in the production of the larval shellfish,
the seed that is sold to commercial growers. Commercially
available monitoring technology couldn't identify what was
happening or how to remedy it. Alan Barton, the Manager at the
Whiskey Creek Shellfish Hatchery in Netarts Bay, Oregon,
contacted me to pursue linkages between production failure and
bay water carbonate chemistry.
My measurement, together with his hatchery production
records, identified the environmental trigger for this seed
stock crisis. Exposure of larvae in their first few hours to
days of life to waters with low favorability for shell
development is resulting in stress that dramatically reduced
seed growth and survival.
Complexity of this problem and why it demanded new
technology solutions stems from the variety of ways carbonate
chemistry in natural waters responds to natural and
anthropogenic forces. These responses include changes in
dissolved carbon dioxide gas, PH, and the favorability of
waters for carbonate mineral shell formation, upon which many
shellfish rely.
The favorability for mineral formation, also known as
omega, cannot be directly measured but must rather be
calculated from multiple parallel measurements of carbonate
chemistry. In dynamic coastal waters the seemingly simple
measurement of PH is far more difficult than widely realized
and is itself a poor proxy for the more critical value of
omega. The intake water chemistry could previously only be
determined adequately by infrequent and costly discrete samples
that could sometimes take months for analysis, leaving hatchery
operators blind to the environmental conditions that impacted
their operations to the greatest extent.
With technological development, motivated by my own ocean
carbon cycle research and supported by grants from National
Science Foundation and NOAA, I ultimately developed a system
and devised sampling protocols with low cost and skill barriers
to develop data systems for routine service sample analyses.
These systems allow commercial users to assess real-time
carbonate chemistry conditions relevant to the production of
shellfish seed stock.
At Whiskey Creek, which was near total collapse in 2007,
the installation of the prototype system in 2009 and the
development of proper approaches to buffering intake seawater
operations allowed the hatchery to begin to recover. Now,
Whiskey Creek is back to near total production recovery to pre-
crash levels. This work was referred to by former NOAA Chief
Scientist Rick Spinrad as the $100,000 investment that saved a
$200-million-per-year industry.
These systems, first popularized by Netarts Bay oysterman
Mark Weigardt as the percolator in reference to the bubbling
gas separation chamber, could be produced at a cost well under
half that of instruments at the time used in the research
community and provided significantly greater capacity for
measurement flexibility than any existing technology.
While the price per instrument is still high, the benefit
of the knowledge it produces for more efficient commercial
operations has been embraced by the shellfish industry on the
North American Pacific coast. More than 20 systems have been
deployed or are in development for deployment in shellfish
production facilities and marine laboratories from Carlsbad,
California, to Seward, Alaska. Further commercialization will
continue to reduce unit cost and streamline maintenance
operations.
The technology has been commercialized via license by
Oregon State University to my limited liability corporation and
will soon be sublicensed to Sunburst Sensors of Missoula,
Montana. In addition, the continued generation of research
quality monitoring data serves the working waterfront
stakeholder and oceanographic research communities alike.
In summary, while there was urgency among the shellfish
industry for a Burkolator technology solution, the market was
initially too small to provide motivation to independently
develop a market-driven prototype from a purely commercial
perspective without the research-driven environmental
monitoring technology development that I had already completed.
This federal- and university-supported innovation pathway
represents an ideal model for application of research-driven
technological development and unique market needs and,
ultimately, technology transfer to the commercial sector.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the
importance of our federal investment in environmental research,
monitoring, and observation systems and research-led technology
investigation. I welcome the opportunity to expand on and
clarify my comments in response to any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hales follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Biggs. Thank you, Dr. Hales. And I thank each of
the witnesses for their testimony.
Members are reminded that committee rules limit questioning
of the witnesses to five minutes, and the Chair recognizes
himself for five minutes.
Dr. Jacobs, I understand that NOAA currently buys a limited
amount of the data you collect. Can you explain the
relationship between Panasonic and NOAA? And does NOAA freely
distribute your proprietary data?
Dr. Jacobs. The current relationship we have is to sell
NOAA a subset of our TAMDAR data through the National Mesonet
Program. We do put redistribution restrictions on that data
both to other WMO members, as well as open to the commercial
market. The reason why we do that is we need the opportunity to
sell the data to those other government agencies, as well as
business customers. If the data were redistributed openly and
freely, then we wouldn't have that opportunity and we would
have to build that into the price that NOAA would pay for the
data.
Chairman Biggs. I also understand that Panasonic runs its
very own weather prediction model. How does this model compare
to our government's model? And do you think NOAA's strategy for
technology innovation has slowed their ability to create better
weather forecasts?
Dr. Jacobs. Our model is somewhat similar to theirs in the
data assimilation component and the dynamic core. A lot of what
differentiates it are things we do in the model as far as the
physics. There are some other different steps in the data
assimilation process. In addition to that, we use not only the
observation systems that they assimilate, but we have
additional observations that we assimilate into our model as
well.
As to their timeline, they're on a pretty robust, slow
timeline. I think it's really important for them from my
perspective the way I see them operate is worried about up-time
and reliability, so having transitions to newer models takes a
tremendous amount of testing and sometimes several years to
test these new upgrades that they implement.
Chairman Biggs. And for Mr. de Halleux, I understand you
have partnered with NOAA and the Navy to validate some of the
data you collect. Is there any indication that the federal
government is willing to purchase your data on a longer-term
contract?
Mr. de Halleux. This is correct. We currently work with the
Navy and NOAA on the assessment of the technology. We have a
five-year agreement with NOAA OAR, and we have been working
with the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory and the Alaska
Fisheries Science Center on a rigorous comparison between the
data quality collected by the Saildrone vehicles and the
existing NOAA assets, in this case, research vessels and buoys.
And the assessment has come back positive.
And to answer your question, yes, there is willingness of
engaging on the longer-term basis but no defined mechanism for
transferring the technology from the lab inside NOAA to the
line offices.
Chairman Biggs. Just--when you say the assessments came
back positive, can you elaborate on that just for a minute,
please?
Mr. de Halleux. Yes. So, the assessment was essentially a
correlation of the data set from existing NOAA assets--ships
and buoys--and Saildrone technologies equipped with the same
instrument located in the same location during the same time
frame. So physically, it's called follow the leader where you
have USVs and 500 yards behind a research vessel collecting the
exact same data, scientists at NOAA have subsequently analyzed
the two different data sets and found the correlation to be,
quote/unquote, ``outstanding'' in terms of the quality of the
data.
Chairman Biggs. In your experience, has working with the
government been a fast and easy process? And have you found
that the government seriously considers its private partners
for anything more than trial periods?
Mr. de Halleux. So, to answer the first part of your
question, yes. Our particular experience with NOAA on the
research and development side has been outstanding on all
accounts in terms of the speed of adoption, the assets that
were mobilized for assessing new technologies, and the types of
missions we've performed, which have ranged from Arctic
exploration to tropical Pacific missions to fisheries research
missions.
The second part of your question, the transfer of the
technology once the assessment is performed, is kind of the
point we are at right now, and there is a question mark as to
how the technology gets transferred once it's been assessed and
has matured into recurrent operations.
Chairman Biggs. Well, with that in mind, what can we do
better? What--where do we need to get better in--you know, such
as in licensing? How do we improve from your perspective?
Mr. de Halleux. So----
Chairman Biggs. And I'm not--nobody's going to hold you to
this. I just--you know, just get your idea.
Mr. de Halleux. It's hard for me to answer that directly. I
think the improvement is around both the mandate such as the
ones that are given by the Weather Service and, you know, more
precisely highlighting the need for public partnerships in
those line offices. And there's always, in any scientific
organization, reluctance to introduce new technologies because,
as you introduce new technologies, you introduce new ways of
working.
And what's very important to remember is that these
technologies are augmenting existing capabilities. As I was
saying my testimony, ships are required for high-capability
missions, which require in situ sampling, deployment of assets,
things like that. But the unaddressed--what we call the long
tail of data collection is what, you know, needs to be taken
care of with new technologies. And so defining those
frameworks, those public-private partnership frameworks is kind
of what's needed to be able to move that forward and with that,
you know, the budgets that support those new technologies,
which NOAA currently does not have.
Chairman Biggs. Thank you. Again, thanks to all the
witnesses. My time is expired.
I recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And first, I--before I ask you my questions, I want to note
that there's a lot of questions being asked today about NOAA.
It would have been helpful to have NOAA as well and testimony
from them about working with these different partners, so I
hope that in the future we can include NOAA when you're
planning a hearing like this where we're asking lots of
questions about working with NOAA.
Dr. Hales, you told that great story about the shellfish
industry in the Pacific Northwest, and being from the Pacific
Northwest, it's very close to home to me, but I want to
emphasize that this is an issue that affects people across the
country. When they go to a restaurant or a grocery store and
want to buy shellfish, they want it to be there. And I know
that that was important work and a really great example of how
commercial technology can grow out of fundamental scientific
research.
And in telling your story, I think you've made it pretty
clear that the shellfish growers did not have the tools
themselves to adapt to the changing acidity of the ocean. They
needed a tool like the Burkolator. And can you answer the
question about would you or another researcher have had the
time and resources necessary to build that tool without federal
funding, the grants through NSF and NOAA?
Dr. Hales. The short answer is no. Without the prior
research-driven support, this work wouldn't have happened. I
developed individual components of these systems in response to
needs from my high-resolution, high-frequency sampling systems,
and when I was contacted by the hatchery industry, most of this
work was done on a shoestring with existing technology, spare
parts and devising ways to merge those two measurement
capabilities in ways that would help the shellfish industry.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And I know, Mr. de Halleux, and--I
hope I was close in the pronunciation--and Dr. Jacobs, I know
in your testimony you made it pretty clear that your work is to
supplement or to augment, not to replace, the work of NOAA,
NSF, the federal agencies. Can you talk a little bit about how
the federal government can continue to be an important
contributor to technology innovation for the future and what
federal investments or incentives are most important to help
drive commercialization of research-driven technology and
innovation? Go ahead.
Mr. de Halleux. So, it's very important to realize that
companies like Saildrone harness the best of the private
sector, which is rapid iteration of R&D, to solve complex
engineering problems very cost-efficiently, but we are not
scientists, and therefore, our only mission is to solve
engineering problems to make agencies like NOAA and NASA more
efficient from a science perspective. And therefore, you know,
the role of--that NOAA plays is a critical one on the science
front, and our hope is that, you know, by contribution from the
private sector we can accelerate the science to answer
questions that further the missions of those agencies.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And I know we've had conversations
in this committee about technology transfer and
commercialization, and I hope we can continue those.
Dr. Jacobs?
Dr. Jacobs. I view it as a very good thing to have the
opportunity to have a business relationship with NOAA that
enables us to have a sustainable model but also allows them to
advance their mission and improve their forecast services to
the public. So, I think it's a very----
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. Thank you. And again, in this
committee we've had a lot of conversations about data quality
and quality assurances, and they're a priority, I know, for
monitoring systems and supporting technology, whether publicly
or privately owned, for research or commercial purposes. So,
what role should the federal government have to ensure
technology and monitoring systems are providing users with
reliable and accurate data? And can you walk us through--I know
we don't have a lot of time, but summarize your process for
data validation. Dr. Jacobs, would you like to start?
Dr. Jacobs. So, we--this is one reason why we do a lot of
internal modeling, because we use our own models to sort of
quality control the data. So, there's a pretty elaborate
quality control system we have in place that screens the data
before we pass it to the Weather Service. We pass along those
quality control flags with the data to them.
In addition to that, the FAA also funded a four-year data
denial study with the Weather Service to analyze the impact of
our data in their models. So, from our perspective, we prefer
that NOAA sets the bar for data quality and we have to jump
over it.
Ms. Bonamici. Do you concur?
Mr. de Halleux. We totally concur, and we let NOAA drive
the quality definition of both the process and output, and we
comply with, you know, all the required processes to assure the
quality is there. It's of paramount importance, as you stated.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much. And my time's about to
expire. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Biggs. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Representative Babin for five minutes.
Mr. Babin. And I'm from Texas there, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Biggs. The gentleman from Texas, yes, sir. I'm
sorry.
Mr. Babin. Thank----
Chairman Biggs. I should have mentioned that.
Mr. Babin. Thank you. Thank you very much, and thank the
witnesses for being here, too. We appreciate it.
I have several questions for Dr. Jacobs. Does the
government take full advantage of the technologies that your
company provides in your opinion?
Dr. Jacobs. Currently, no. One of the things that they
are--don't have access to in real time are the icing and
turbulence data. So, the National Weather Service, through the
Mesonet program, acquires the temperature, wind, pressure, and
moisture data, but currently, neither the Weather Service or
the FAA are receiving the icing and turbulence data.
We do offer to, on a 48-hour delay, make that available, so
quite often, the NTSB will contact me to do accident
investigations if it was aviation-related to icing or
turbulence. But currently, no one sees that data in real-time.
Mr. Babin. Well, you would think that they would be
interested in that information for goodness sakes. Why would
the government decline to purchase high-quality weather and
aviation data that could save and protect lives?
Dr. Jacobs. My guess is it's budget-related. It's not that
they necessarily haven't declined it; it's that they haven't
put a solicitation out to receive it. But they are well aware
that it exists.
Mr. Babin. Okay. And then also it appears to me that NOAA
is averse to changing things. Time and again, we've seen them
move slowly to adopt innovative technologies to better monitor
our environment and oftentimes refused to do so without being
forced to do it legislatively, a mandate. In your opinion, how
do we change the current paradigm so that NOAA can more
effectively and efficiently innovate to protect lives and
property? And in light of what you just said, maybe it's
funding. I assume that we were giving them adequate funding,
but let me hear what your opinion is.
Dr. Jacobs. I think a lot of these innovations are rapidly
evolving in the private sector, and probably the quickest way
to advance NOAA's mission is to harness the capabilities in the
private sector and let the private sector probably drive the
pace. So, setting up a sustainable business model of public-
private partnership between the public sector and private
industry would be a pretty way to fast track a lot of the
innovations coming out of the private sector.
Mr. Babin. They also claim that--NOAA also claims to--that
they are, quote, an ``environmental intelligence agency.'' In
your opinion, do you think they act as such?
Dr. Jacobs. Defining the word intelligence in a way that
means they are observing and sampling the environment, I
suppose so.
Mr. Babin. Okay. Well, does NOAA take full advantage of all
the technological innovations to better monitor our
environment?
Dr. Jacobs. There are innovations that I'm aware of out
there that they are not currently using.
Mr. Babin. Yes. And then, Mr. de Halleux, can you chime in
on some of this as well?
Mr. de Halleux. I think, as I said, that NOAA has--is very
good at looking at the technologies available and assessing
them. I think it's the transfer and the public partnership
framework that is missing and the dedication of imagining the
future. So, it's one thing to say that a USV can produce same
data quality as a ship. It's another to ask what could the
technology do for a budget at scale? You know, what would a
global observatory look like using new technologies either on
the surface, at high-altitude, or from space? And that
capability of planning and roadmapping is not always taking
advantage of the private sector innovation.
Mr. Babin. Absolutely. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the
balance of my time. Thank you. Thank you.
Chairman Biggs. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms.
Hanabusa.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here. As you can
imagine, representing Hawaii, all of your different topics are
very important to me, especially because if there's any area in
the United States that's very susceptible to oceans as well as
weather, I'd like to think that it's us more than anyone else.
Having said that, Dr. Jacobs, in reading your testimony,
one of the statements that you made that caught my eye and I'd
like for you to expand on is on page 3 when you said, ``In
addition to passenger and crew safety''--you're talking about
TAMDAR network--``significant fuel savings are realized by the
airlines, which has the added benefit of greatly reducing the
carbon footprint of commercial aviation.'' Can you explain
that? As you know, nobody gets to Hawaii primarily unless
you're on a plane, so what do you mean by that statement?
Dr. Jacobs. So, this is another reason why we internally
run a global model versus relying on NCEP output. We write out
the native files from our model on flight levels, and we use
the window grid from that to optimize the flight routes on
assent, descent, and cruise. So, if the planes actually have
the ability to find more efficient winds to fly through, they
can use less fuel, so it's strictly a cost savings from the
airlines' business perspective, but the added benefit is
reduction in CO2.
Ms. Hanabusa. And is this something that the airlines
directly--but the airlines can't establish their routes, right?
I mean, it's FAA-determined. So, do you sell that information
to the FAA or--it seems to be that that's something that needs
to be flexible by wind patterns as opposed to how I assume that
they do it, which is to set it and say everybody flies this
route. Am I correct?
Dr. Jacobs. They have an option and it really depends on
the airspace. For example, in the LaGuardia/JFK airspace, they
have absolutely no control over where they fly----
Ms. Hanabusa. Yes, I don't think they can move.
Dr. Jacobs. --but there are quite a few areas, particularly
at cruise level, where they have choices where they can fly
either east or west over the pole or they can fly a higher
latitude or lower latitude based on the position of the jet
stream. And they can also choose different flight levels. But
they still have to request that through ATC before they can
file that plan.
Ms. Hanabusa. I was going to say I think one of the issues
that this Congress faced last year was the whole issue of how
they would handle ATC, and it would seem like one of the
critical issues there was how updated that equipment was. And
I'm very curious about all these paper things that they put
next to their radar so I'm not quite sure, so safety, I would
assume, would be part of this discussion as well. So, Dr.--is
it de Halleux?
Mr. de Halleux. de Halleux.
Ms. Hanabusa. de Halleux. I was very curious because you do
DOD-related research, and as you can imagine, DOD is a very
critical part of my State. And I also sit on Armed Services.
The Saildrone is a fascinating technology. I'm curious that
when you gather information for the DOD using Saildrone, you
know, we've dealt before with the whole concept of dual use in
terms of the technology that's gained. Do you have those issues
with the information that you collect for DOD, or is that
something that's exclusive within their jurisdiction?
Mr. de Halleux. So, thank you for pointing out the multi-
mission capabilities of the platform. You're absolutely
correct. As a platform, it can take both meta-ocean data
collection while it's performing intelligence mission, whether
it's traffic detection or others. And at the moment this is not
fully exploited by DOD, although I would point out that DOD
have their own meta-ocean data collection needs. It has
certainly been explored extensively by NOAA where the last
mission we had six different internal customers from
identifying waves to collecting meta-ocean data to tracking
marine mammals to traffic detection. So, multi-mission
capability is a possibility. It's not fully harnessed yet
specifically by DOD.
Ms. Hanabusa. But that would be a natural for the
Saildrone?
Mr. de Halleux. Absolutely. All instruments run at all
times, and therefore, it's a possibility.
Ms. Hanabusa. Do they have any issues with U.S. security of
the data collected?
Mr. de Halleux. One of the first missions was to integrate
and to look at the security framework of the data, and it's not
been fully integrated into DOD frameworks for this application.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Biggs. Thank you.
I recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Banks.
Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
holding this Committee hearing this morning.
This subject is of particular interest to my district in
northeast Indiana where we have one company, for example,
Harris Corporation in Fort Wayne that has roughly 450 engineers
and scientists making the world's most advanced weather and
environmental satellite instruments for NASA, NOAA, and
international customers. And as we examine the opportunities in
the private sector to partner with the federal government on
opportunities in the future, this hearing brings to light
several important issues that we should examine further.
And to take off of--from where my colleague from Hawaii
started a moment ago, my question for you, Mr. de Halleux, is
you work with both NOAA and DOD. Can you expand a little bit on
some of the differences in attitude or culture and how you
develop your relationship with both of those federal entities?
Mr. de Halleux. So, with both we follow the similar
process, which was, number one, appropriately assessing the
technology by defining standards of quality. And on the case of
DOD it's around intelligence. In the case of NOAA, it's about
environmental variables. And the differences seem to appear
that DOD is better equipped at transferring operationally
assessed technology into operations by linking the technology
with the capability with a need than NOAA seems to be, although
the desire from both sides to use the technology is strong.
Mr. Banks. So, take that a step forward. What can NOAA
learned from DOD?
Mr. de Halleux. I think that studying the capability and
trying to plan how to use the capability in an operational
setting and ultimately, you know, finding the budgets to
operationalize it is something that the DOD is very good at and
potentially NOAA could be inspired by.
Mr. Banks. Any specific processes, programs that you've
dealt with the DOD that could be replicated at NOAA that come
to mind?
Mr. de Halleux. I think, you know, the idea is to move from
a research budget line to a program of record, which in NOAA-
speak is being embedded into a line office and finding a
partner or an internal customer into the line office. That
process specifically is something which is part of this public-
private partnership framework I was talking about. To be very
specific, if the OAR labs assess the technology as fit for fish
stock assessment, the fisheries organization at NOAA needs to
be identified as an internal customer and pick up the
technology for operation and develop integrated survey plans so
that the technology can be operationalized.
Mr. Banks. Is it--do you think at NOAA--is it an attitude
or a sentiment that makes it more difficult to get to that
recognition of the valuable partnership?
Mr. de Halleux. The big difference is that NOAA functions
on appropriations whereas DOD has bigger discretionary budgets,
and I think that's--you know, that's the difference as we live
it. And there is no budget available for the transition, and so
the risk approach is more conservative because one technology
has to displace another or gets further appropriated.
Mr. Banks. How many years have you worked with both NOAA
and DOD?
Mr. de Halleux. Two-and-a-half years for NOAA, a year-and-
a-half for DOD.
Mr. Banks. Okay. Dr. Jacobs, per your testimony, it's my
understanding that there's been some interest from the
government to partner with your company on your weather model.
Can you describe where those conversations are at this point?
Dr. Jacobs. There's a couple different fronts. Some of it
deals with data assimilation, quality control, various physics
schemes that we're using in our global model. There's also some
modules that are being developed communitywide for dynamic
cores. It's not really a scientific conversation as much as a
business model conversation from our perspective. And what
we're dealing with internally as far as the cost-benefit
analysis is--the Weather Service has a--there's--the weather
enterprise is basically divided into two groups. There's
commercial companies that provide data and services to help the
Weather Service further their mission, and then there's
companies that use inset-produced model output to derive data
and products.
And in Panasonic's case, we compete against those companies
on the backend. However, if we were to license any type of co-
development to help the Weather Service improve their model, we
would by default be improving the products of our competitors,
which use inset-produced model outputs, so we're struggling
with how to make that balance work.
Mr. Banks. Very good. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Biggs. Thank you.
I--the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have several
questions.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here.
Dr. Jacobs, just earlier today at the International
Supercomputing Conference in Frankfurt, Germany, The Weather
Company, which is an IBM business, announced a plan to improve
weather prediction globally via new collaboration with the
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research and the
National Center for Atmospheric Research. This represents to me
an exciting representation of an era of new technologies
emerging every day.
As a representative of a private sector company yourself
who's developed its own weather forecasting model, quite
successfully I might add, can you speak to the importance of
this news? How welcome is competition in your industry?
Dr. Jacobs. I think this is very exciting news. There's
actually several companies that are beginning to run their own
global weather models. One of the distinctions that I would
like to point out, though, is that running a global weather
model is not particularly the most sophisticated step in the
process. The way the process works is you collect observations
globally, including satellite data. You quality-control it.
Then, you do this step called data assimilation. This is the
part that you need $100 million supercomputers to produce the
initial condition start file. Then, that file is used to
initialize a global weather model, which in some cases you can
run on a laptop.
What Panasonic does is the entire process from observing
systems all the way to the model. What most of these other
companies are doing, which I still think it's fantastic, is
downloading the start file produced by the National Weather
Service NCEP and using that to initialize the model. That sort
of gets these companies out of having to do a lot of the data
assimilation process, which is actually the one that's
computationally expensive to produce.
Mr. Higgins. Regarding harvesting data, Mr. de Halleux, I'm
very interested in the transition gradually to unmanned surface
vehicles. That was a fascinating slide that you presented. Let
me ask, how many are currently deployed and where?
Mr. de Halleux. So, we currently have 20 vehicles, and they
are all in--under research contract with NOAA as part of OAR
and other research with the DOD. We are currently--we triple
the production facility and we're planning to be producing one
a day.
Mr. Higgins. And they are collecting live data right now?
Mr. de Halleux. They're collecting live data, yes, they
are.
Mr. Higgins. And is--are these SUVs protected from hacking?
Data collection can impact international narrative on sometimes
rather contentious subjects like climate change, global
warming.
Mr. de Halleux. So, the hacking protection and data
security is paramount, and as I was saying, for the DOD, one of
the first steps was to secure the data path from the vehicle to
Iridium back to shore, so the answer is yes. On NOAA's side,
data security is a wider topic, and the data--the concern there
is to make the data publicly available for research----
Mr. Higgins. But you feel like the vehicles themselves are
protected from--at the collection site----
Mr. de Halleux. At the collection site, one of the----
Mr. Higgins. --they're protected from hacking?
Mr. de Halleux. So, from--in general, which is--and
vandalism overall, which is how NOAA describes the problem,
which is a big problem for government assets, which has buoys,
which get vandalized by fishermen----
Mr. Higgins. Right.
Mr. de Halleux. --and then taken for scrap metal, the fact
that we are not on a chart and we are very hard to see and we
have very low rate of signature, it protects them from----
Mr. Higgins. That's a valid point. If I could, Mr.
Chairman, it's been mentioned today of NOAA's budget and why
they're not perhaps pursuing private technologies more fully.
What I would ask this panel, isn't this problem more related to
the increasing budgets for NOAA's satellite and ship programs?
Is this--isn't this a major hurdle that needs to be overcome?
Any member of the panel? In other words, we have to protect the
people's Treasury, and there's been some discussion regarding
NOAA's not pursuing private technologies, but NOAA's increased
budget for satellite and ship programs seems to be in the way.
How would you suggest that this panel would recommend we move
forward with that?
Mr. de Halleux. I think it's not so much an increase in
budget, although you know more budget allows more technology
for sure. I think the question is what is the technology mix to
achieve specific mission objectives? And as we show today, some
mission objectives are not reached because of, you know,
potentially not being--using the optimal mix of available
technologies.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman, if you would indulge me, I have
another question.
Chairman Biggs. Without objection.
Mr. Higgins. If you don't mind, thank you, sir.
And this relates to perhaps the gentlelady, my colleague
from Hawaii may be interested. The Fukushima nuclear disaster,
they're still dealing with tons and tons, hundreds of tons
daily of contaminated water. There's some discussion they're
having a problem containing it. You know, they're running out
of room, means by which to contain it. And there's some
discussion regarding dumping that nuclear--that radioactive
water into the Pacific Ocean. Are your vehicles, are your
technologies, sir, from Panasonic, your unmanned vehicles
capable of measuring radioactive contamination?
Mr. de Halleux. So, we are engineers, not scientists. We
can carry a payload anywhere for very long periods of time at
very low cost. So, if--I believe there are instruments which
can perform the assessment you mentioned. In this case, we can,
you know, deploy them. We do not run the science or the
instruments themselves.
Dr. Jacobs. Our probe has capacity into it to host
additional sensors for chemical, biological, and radiation
measurements. This would be particularly useful on the UAV
version----
Mr. Higgins. Are you currently deployed in the Pacific
Ocean near Japan?
Dr. Jacobs. No.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman, thank you for indulging that
question. I think that this subcommittee in particular should
be quite concerned regarding technologies deployed to measure
that potential hazard for the entire world.
Chairman Biggs. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. de Halleux, in your testimony, you stated that drones
could drive down cost of NOAA data collection activities by 90
percent. You also agree with NOAA's assessment that it is a
fallacy to assume that technology can replace ships in
conducting NOAA's work obviously. In your estimation, how much
of NOAA's weather data collection activities could be replaced
by private sector drones right now? What kind of cost savings
do you think could be realized from that?
Mr. de Halleux. Thank you for the question. So, NOAA, as
you know, has 16 research vessels and survey ships, of which 8,
according to NOAA, are due to be retired in the near future and
therefore makes it very hard to fulfill the mandate because if
you want to deploy any type of capability, even pushing a
simple instrument--you know, for example, to assess fish stock
over the Bering Sea, you need a full research ship to do this.
In those cases where the only capability required for
mission is pure data collection, then USVs are uniquely
qualified to perform those missions at the 90 percent cost
efficiency, $2,500 per day versus $35,000 per day. But for
missions which require high capabilities, including in situ
sampling of fish or water or complex onboard analysis, you will
always require a ship, and this is where we agree with the fact
that the mix does need to include ship as the bedrock of
observation.
Mr. Posey. Some of us that watch the History Channel see
some ships that appear to be NOAA crafts used by treasure
hunters and other nongovernment entities. Does the government
get reimbursed for that?
Mr. de Halleux. I'm not qualified to answer that question.
I don't have the facts.
Mr. Posey. Okay. What rationale does NOAA give for not
utilizing private sector capabilities?
Mr. de Halleux. Those capabilities have been part of NOAA's
fleet plan for a while. There is a mention of USVs as a
contingency measure. And up until now, I believe there was no
technology that fulfilled the operational needs of NOAA, which
have assessed a range of different capabilities. And Saildrone
seems to be one of the first companies that passes the
threshold, and there is a strong desire inside NOAA to use more
of that technology pertaining to problems that we mentioned in
the past, which is, you know, questions around the public
partnership framework and the availability of budgets for those
new technologies.
Mr. Posey. Thank you. Assuming data collection drones from
industry become increasingly more capable in the future, what
percentage of NOAA's activities would you estimate could be
replaced by entirely unmanned systems in the next, say, 5 to 10
years?
Mr. de Halleux. Again, you know, over the next 5 to ten
years, NOAA estimates that half the fleet will simply be out of
commission due to its age, so that's a number, you know, even
irrespective of joint technology which is to be considered.
The second factor to consider is that the mission and the
scope of the mission is increasing all the time as, you know,
the complexity of the system monitoring and the data collection
effort increases. So, I cannot give you a precise number. What
I can tell you is that you can deploy a global service
observation system on a 6-by-6-degree resolution with about
1,000 drones. And in comparison, there is such a network that
already exists subsurface called the Argo network, which uses
3-by-3-degree resolution with close to 4,000 deep-ocean
vehicles. So those things have been done. There is precedence
for deploying unmanned technologies and to answer very
important questions. Now, does NOAA want to envisage this kind
of future remains to be discussed.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Biggs. Thank you. I thank each of the witnesses
for your very interesting testimony and the Members for their
questions as well.
The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
comments and written questions from Members.
This hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]