March 31, 2008

**Don't Risk Our National Security**

***Repeal the Fuels Mandate in the New Energy Law***

Dear Colleague,

Section 526 of the recently enacted energy law (Public Law 110-140, the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007) states in its entirety:

> No Federal agency shall enter into a contract for procurement of an
> alternative or synthetic fuel, including a fuel produced from
> nonconventional petroleum sources, for any mobility-related use, other
> than for research or testing, unless the contract specifies that the
> lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and
> combustion of the fuel supplied under the contract must, on an ongoing
> basis, be less than or equal to such emissions from the equivalent
> conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources.

Though short, this section, which raises concerns over national
security, economic security, and bureaucratic uncertainty, has powerful
and harmful implications and needs to be repealed immediately.

Section 526 was added largely to stifle the Defense Department's plans
to buy coal-based (or "coal-to-liquids") jet fuels, which radical
environmentalists contend will ultimately produce more greenhouse gas
emissions than would traditional petroleum---a contention that is
uncertain at best and that does not account for ongoing improvements in
carbon-capture technologies.

The Air Force is interested in procuring unconventional fuels over the
long-term as a way to reduce its reliance on fuels from unfriendly or
unstable countries and increasing its use of fuels from North America.
Coal-to-liquids, oil shale, and tar sands are all abundant in the United
States and Canada. The Air Force wants to use its purchasing power to
spur the development of a domestic coal-based synthetic fuel industry by
signing long-term fuel contracts with coal-based fuel producers,
ensuring that producers have a guaranteed market to offset the millions
of dollars in up-front investment needed to produce coal-based fuel.

Canada is currently the largest U.S. oil supplier. It sent 1.8 million
barrels per day of crude oil and 500,000 barrels per day of refined
products to the United States in 2006, according to the Canadian
Government. About half of Canadian crude is derived from oil sands, with
sands production forecast to reach about 3 million barrels per day in
2015. Section 526 could choke this flow of fuel from one of our nation's
most reliable allies and economic partners.

[To limit the ability of the Pentagon to get its fuels from friendly
sources and force increased petroleum importation from unfriendly or
unstable countries does nothing less than put our national and economic
security at risk]{.underline}.

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. The Air Force claims that there is
no specific standard to measure total greenhouse gas emissions from
alternative fuels, therefore a *study* is needed to determine if
coal-based fuel is clean enough to use under the law. Some sources claim
that Section 526 does not apply to the military, while proponents claim
that it most certainly does.

The Defense Department should not be wasting its time studying fuel
emissions and should not have to be stifled by the arguments over how to
interpret a small section of an energy law. [The Defense Department
should be allowed to proceed with its vital efforts to increase reliance
on American and Canadian fuels and reduce reliance on fuels from
overseas]{.underline}.

Given all these uncertainties and potential harms to our national and
economic security, we don't need to *study* Section 526, we don't need
to *re-interpret* Section 526, and we don't need to *fix* Section 526.
**[We need to *repeal* Section 526]{.underline}.**

To co-sponsor a bill (H.R. 5656) that would strike Section 526 from the
new energy law, please contact <paul.teller@mail.house.gov>. Thank you
for your attention to this important matter.

> Sincerely,

JEB HENSARLING MIKE CONAWAY

Member of Congress Member of Congress