Sen. James Inhofe (R
-OK) is expected to push an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would repeal a provision enacted in last year's energy law that prohibits the federal government from purchasing alternative fuels that emit more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than conventional gasoline, according to industry sources. Critics of the GHG limits, who say the provision was snuck into the energy law just before final passage, say the GHG restrictions would jeopardize the nation's energy security and undermine the Air Force's efforts to seek alternative sources of jet fuel.
The federal government, including the military, is a major consumer of fuel, and industry sources say those sales are crucial to development of non-conventional fuels from oil shale, tar sands and coal-to-liquids technology.
Sources say Inhofe, who recently introduced a bill to repeal the GHG restrictions in section 526 of the 2007 energy law, may offer the proposal as a floor amendment to defense authorization legislation, which is currently pending in the Senate Armed Services Committee. The defense bill is expected to pass out of committee within the month and go to the floor shortly thereafter. Inhofe is a member of the Armed Services Committee and the ranking Republican on the Environment & Public Works Committee.
Using the defense authorization bill to address energy issues is not unprecedented, especially given the Defense Department's hefty energy use. Last year, coal-to-liquid proponents had discussed pushing incentives for the technology through the defense bill. Also, Inhofe tried unsuccessfully last year to add an amendment to assist coal-to-liquid fuels to a homeland security bill.
Inhofe's office in an e-mail said section 526 "could limit the diversity and supply of fuel for our nation's Air Force and other military branches," but would not elaborate on the senator's strategy for moving his bill through Congress.
Section 526, authored by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), prohibits federal agencies from purchasing fuels derived from unconventional sources if the fuels have a larger carbon footprint than fuels from conventional petroleum. The Air Force has planned to spur the development of coal-to-liquids fuels as a means to ween the service off of foreign oil and achieve greater energy security. Waxman targeted liquid coal fuels because they are potentially much more GHG intensive.
Opponents of Waxman's provision argue that it will weaken the nation's energy security by limiting domestic energy resources as well as fuel from tar sands in Canada. Since some of the fuel imported from Canada comes from its tar sands, many parties, including the Canadian government, have expressed concern that the law could prohibit the U.S. government from purchasing such fuels.
Citing these concerns, many House and Senate lawmakers have called for a repeal. "Damaging provisions, such as section 526 of last year's energy bill, must be repealed as soon as possible," said Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) at an Energy Information Administration conference in Washington on April 8.
"At a time when nearly all of us agree that oil from overseas is a detriment to our national security, interpretations of the law that harm our ability to provide our own fuel, or import fuel from our ally and neighbor to the north, are irresponsible and counterproductive," Domenici said. The senator is ranking Republican on the Energy & Natural Resources Committee.
Waxman has made it clear that 526 should apply to fuels from tar sands when they have a "significantly higher" carbon footprint. Yet he also said that 526 should not apply to fuels that are generally available in the market, including fuels with an "incidental" amount of fuel from unconventional sources. Some fuels from Canadian tar sands already account for a portion of fuel purchased in the Northwest, sources say.
"The purpose of the provision is to bar federal agencies from spending taxpayer dollars to support the development and expansion of alternative fuels and fuels from unconventional sources, if those fuels have higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than the comparable conventional fuels," Waxman said in a letter to Senate energy committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) last month.
"It was not intended to bar federal agencies from entering into contracts to purchase fuels that are generally available in the market, such as diesel or jet fuel, that may contain incidental amounts of fuel produced from nonconventional petroleum sources," Waxman's letter reads.
Waxman's office also takes issue with arguments by critics that the provision was slipped into the energy bill at the last minute, noting that requirements identical to section 526 were cleared by both committee and floor action, before being added to the final energy bill, H.R. 6.
But critics say Waxman's explanation of the provision after the fact is weak and that a repeal is necessary. "Section 526 would be problematic enough if it were clear and straightforward, however, the language contains several ambiguities, causing a flurry of attempts at legislative interpretation by the Air Force, the Canadian government, the Center for Unconventional Fuels, and even the proponents of the language," said Reps. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Mike Conaway (R-TX) in a "dear colleague" letter to other House members in an attempt to build support for their own bill to repeal 526. The House bill, H.R. 5656, was introduced March 31 and referred to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is chaired by Waxman.
The Center for Unconventional Fuels, which lobbies on behalf of companies that produce fuels potentially affected by section 526, has mounted a campaign to repeal the provision. The group argues the provision should be repealed for energy security purposes. "The Air Force is developing these new transportation fuels for the future in response to the tightening international oil market caused by the increasing demand for oil, particularly in China and India," the organization says in a position paper. "Congress should make the immediate repeal of section 526 a priority."EnergyWashington Week
