Biofuels Bill

The Senate voted yesterday to eliminate a measure in the pending fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill that would have blocked the Defense Department from purchasing biofuels and other alternative fuels if they cost more than conventional fossil fuels, pushing back against an attempt to blunt the administration's high-profile initiative to bolster commercial deployment of cleaner fuels, according to a Clean Energy Report blog post:

With support from DOD, the Senate voted 62-37 to strike section 313 from the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, one of two controversial biofuels prohibitions in the bill.

Section 313, sponsored by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) during the Armed Services Committee mark-up of the bill, would have barred DOD from purchasing or producing alternative fuels if their cost exceeded the cost of producing or purchasing traditional fossil fuels, except in cases where DOD was purchasing limited quantities of alternative fuels to complete engine or fleet certification of 50/50 blends in research and development efforts.

But the provisions drew opposition from DOD, which has been a leader in the federal government in testing alternative fuels such as biofuels and moving toward their increased use. The Navy in particular has led the way, including among its priorities deployment of a "Great Green Fleet" in 2016.

Last month, DOD urged Congress to strip the language because it would "restrict the department's ability to contribute to the development of a domestic capability to produce cost-competitive advanced drop-in biofuels on a commercial scale, which is vitally important to our long-term national security." Its appeal added that "such a capability could increase the department's resilience against potential supply disruptions and price volatility of petroleum products."

In addition, a bipartisan group of 38 senators signed a Nov. 16 letter to Senate leadership, voicing their opposition to the two biofuels restrictions in the defense bill.

Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO), who led the effort on the Senate floor to strike section 313, echoed the DOD arguments, saying the department's biofuels program gives the military flexibility and aids in national security, military readiness, and helps wean the country off of foreign oil and aids in job growth.

"Our military is on the cutting edge technologically, but much of our fighting capability relies on foreign fossil fuels and decades-old power systems. That dependence has very real human and economic costs," Udall said in a press statement immediately following the vote. "Today's strong bipartisan vote affirms that we should allow our military leaders to continue to develop and use advanced alternative fuels in order to bring down costs and improve mission capabilities."

"Energy security and national security are inseparable, and our military is taking a necessary leadership role in developing and employing new technologies," Udall said earlier in a statement on the amendment.

Senate environment committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) also sought to strike the prohibition, saying the military opposes the language and that it could even prevent DOD from purchasing commercial biofuels, such as E-85 ethanol.

"The Department of Defense has flex-fuel vehicles in its fleet that can run on E-85," she said. Further, "it would restrict DOD's efforts to develop technologies to generate fuel at tactical locations, including waste to energy. These are precisely the types of technologies the nation should be investing in."

But Inhofe and other supporters of section 313 argued that the department's biofuels plan is a misplaced and expensive clean energy agenda. "I fully support development and use of alternative fuels, including biofuels, but not at the expense of the military," said Inhofe, who is slated to become the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee.

He argued during the floor debate the Energy Department should be experimenting on biofuels, not the military. "With a military budget that continues to decrease, where is the Navy going to get additional funding to pay its biofuel bill?" he said, contending the cost of these fuels is four times or in some cases one hundred times the amount as other fuels.

And Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who Inhofe is replacing as the military committee's ranking Republican, had argued in a July letter that it is inappropriate for the military to be using operations and maintenance funds provided by Congress to equip and train military personnel and operate and repair facilities to purchase costly biofuels for a "demonstration."

But Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), who is slated to become the new chair of the energy committee, rejected GOP concerns about the DOD fuels program's costs, saying that the defense biofuels initiative was not an "either/or proposition because my view is that an investment in energy efficiency and in energy self-sufficiency is hugely important to protecting our country’s national security in a dangerous time."

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) has said the conference process with the House would start immediately following the Senate's passage of the defense bill.

For more military fuel news, check out InsideDefense.com's Defense Energy Alert.