Sponsor and military witness warn of transformer risks from solar storms and EMP; committee defers bill

Representative Jason Cruz introduced House Bill 12‑12, the Survey All Vulnerable Electric Transformers (SAVE) Act, saying the legislation would require utilities to assess large transmission transformers for vulnerability to ground‑induced currents from solar weather and electromagnetic pulse (EMP) events.

"Our critical infrastructure, starting with large power transformers, remains dangerously exposed to electromagnetic threats," Cruz said, calling for a state‑level survey to identify which units would need protection and how such upgrades could be funded.

Lieutenant Colonel Tommy Waller, president and CEO of the Center for Security Policy, testified in support and described both solar‑weather and manmade EMP risks. "When you look at the protection standard versus the real threat, it's more than a 100 times different," Waller said, arguing that the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) standard (described in testimony as 0.8 volts per kilometer) understates the threat and that an 85 volts/km benchmark recommended by an international body would better reflect known hazards.

Waller said utilities already have the modeling tools needed; HB1212 would ask utilities to run those models using the higher field‑strength number, report results to the Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (GOSEP) and offer funding recommendations. He estimated national hardening costs in the billions but said examples from two states showed protection for a small set of transformers could amount to about "2¢ a month" per customer if amortized over long schedules.

Committee members pressed Waller and the sponsor on several fronts. Representative Newell asked whether utilities already file comparable assessments under federal rules; Waller and other witnesses said utilities perform modeling under NERC requirements but that the federal standard is set at a lower field strength and does not drive installation of protection devices at the scale the witnesses recommend. Newell and others also asked whether the bill would expose sensitive data via public disclosure or FOIA requests; Waller and the sponsor said reports would go to GOSEP and that redacted versions could be provided to legislative oversight committees while keeping detailed location data secure.

Brandon Fry, appearing for the Public Service Commission (PSC), said the commission has studied physical security and EMP issues in a multi‑year docket beginning in 2016 and that PSC practice historically has been to defer to NERC on technical standards. Utilities and a Cleco representative argued that changes to standards should be pursued at the federal level because grids operate regionally and nationally and state‑by‑state rules could create inconsistency and cost burdens.

Members also pressed the sponsor on costs and process. Waller acknowledged uncertainty about exact Louisiana costs until the survey is done; he said federal grants are being pursued but emphasized that a state survey would position Louisiana to apply for funds. Representative Jordan and others raised concerns that publicizing vulnerability information—even aggregated cost estimates—could aid adversaries, and some members recommended confidential, stakeholder‑level conversations before moving forward.

After extended questioning and discussion, the committee chair recommended deferring HB12‑12 for additional stakeholder meetings including GOSEP, PSC and utilities; Representative Cruz accepted that suggestion and agreed to return after further consultation. The committee deferred the bill without objection.

What happens next: The sponsor said he will meet with state stakeholders and interested utilities and bring the bill back to the committee after those consultations.