The Defense Department's fuel choices stand to become a political football again this year after two provisions made their way into the fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill yesterday.

During the markup of H.R. 4310, the House Armed Services Committee yesterday approved two amendments from Texas Republican Rep. Mike Conaway related to the military's fuel options. The votes fell along party lines.

One amendment, introduced by Conaway with fellow Texan Rep. Mac Thornberry (R), would exempt DOD from a 2007 ban on fuels with a heftier greenhouse gas footprint than traditional petroleum, such as liquefied coal. The issue came up repeatedly throughout the appropriations process last year but has had particular sticking power as it relates to the military. Contention over the ban, which ultimately remained intact, was one of the final points to be resolved in last fall's budget deal for fiscal 2012.

The issue is largely symbolic, since liquefying coal remains extremely expensive and difficult to finance, but supporters of the ban say it sends an important signal to investors in current biofuel efforts.

A second amendment offered by Conaway yesterday would prevent the military from purchasing alternative fuels that cost more than their traditional petroleum counterparts.

Republicans have targeted the military's biofuel efforts in recent months, arguing that DOD's purchases are taking precious dollars away from more important security initiatives at a time when the department is facing nearly half a trillion dollars in budget cuts over the next decade (Greenwire, Feb. 23). The military has so far only purchased test quantities and has said it will not begin regular purchases until prices are competitive with petroleum.

The Navy's efforts to help build a market for advanced biofuels have come under particular scrutiny from congressional Republicans. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and other military leaders argue that dependence on fossil fuels creates both geopolitical and tactical vulnerabilities and that DOD can provide the market demand to bring prices for alternatives down.

The Navy purchased 450,000 gallons of advanced biofuels in December for demonstration exercises this summer and has joined an interagency effort to invest $510 million in building commercial-scale refineries using a defense procurement law (Greenwire, Aug. 16, 2011).

Yesterday, Conaway said such initiatives fall outside of the military's purview.

"The Department of Defense should not be in the business of driving fuel markets and fuel innovations," he said at the markup. "That's perhaps the Department of Energy's department or somebody else's. The Department of Defense's is defend the country and get the best bang you can for the money you're spending, and this is an area where we don't need to spend the money to prove anything."