Blog Archive

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Elizabeth L. King to Sen. Jeff Bingaman concerning Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

What Would Our Troops Do?
July 19th, 2011
America’s Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines support Section 526.  Here’s why:
July 12, 2011
The Honorable Jeff Bingaman
Energy and Natural Resources Committee
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Chairman Bingaman:
In May, you asked the Department of Defense to testify about Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which prohibits Federal Agencies from contracting for fuels that pollute more than conventional petroleum. While we were unable to participate in your hearing, I would like to take the opportunity to inform you of the Department’s views on this important subject.
The Department supports the goals and intent behind the current law. Most critically, the existing law has not prevented the Department from meeting our current mission needs. Through the Interim Implementation Plan, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency in August 2009, DoD has been successfully purchasing fuels in compliance with the law since its issuance.
Further, repeal or exemption could hamper the Department’s efforts to provide better energy options to our warfighters and further increase America’s reliance on non-renewable fuels. Our dependence on those types of fuels degrades our national security, negatively impacts our economy, and harms the environment.
I also believe that there are significant developments in America’s advanced biofuel industry that hold promise for meeting military needs. Repeal or exemption of Section 526 would send a negative signal to the industry, which could result in adverse impacts to U.S. job creation, competitiveness, and rural development efforts.
Thank you for the opportunity to inform you on this critically important issue. I look forward to continuing to work with Congress to provide our warfighters with the energy options they need to protect and defend the Nation.
[Elizabeth L King]
Elizabeth L. King

No comments: