Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Anti-LNG Export Train Sounding Louder

By Press Action

The movement to stop the export of domestically produced natural gas in the United States continues to gain momentum, as Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., introduced two pieces of legislation this week that would limit the ability of companies to ship liquefied natural gas overseas.

One bill would require that any natural gas extracted from federal lands be resold only to consumers in the United States. The other bill would prevent the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from approving new terminals that would export domestically produced natural gas.

Increased discoveries of natural gas in the United States, combined with new extraction technologies, have led to a sharp decrease in domestic natural gas prices, driving down electricity bills, costs for farmers and other businesses, and encouraging a shift away from dirtier fuels such as coal.

Among lawmakers, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., was the first to raise concerns about the export of domestically produced natural gas. Back in 2008, Wyden asked the U.S. Department of Energy to revoke an order allowing natural gas produced in Alaska to be exported to Japan and other countries in the Pacific Rim.

“The administration is trying to have it both ways—arguing that we need to drill everywhere because we don’t have adequate energy supplies, while finding that we have so much energy that big oil companies can export it overseas and keep prices here at home higher than they would otherwise be,” Wyden wrote in a September 2008 letter to then Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman.

In his letter, Wyden was concerned about the export of LNG from the Kenai LNG plant in Alaska, which is owned by ConocoPhillips and Marathon Oil. Wyden wrote the letter almost three-and-a-half years ago. Since then, several other owners of LNG import terminals in the Lower 48 states have filed applications with DOE and FERC seeking permission to export LNG.

In fact, companies have submitted plans for eight natural gas export terminals—one has already been approved—that could lead to as much as 18% of U.S. natural gas supplies being exported, according to a Feb. 14 news release issued by Markey’s office. Recently, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said that exporting that much natural gas could lead to an increase in the price of the fuel for U.S. consumers by up to 54%.

The first bill introduced by Markey, the Keep American Natural Gas Here Act, would require the U.S. Department of the Interior to accept bids to extract the fuel on taxpayer-owned land only from natural gas drilling companies that certify that they will offer the domestic natural gas for sale on the domestic market. The bill also says that any natural gas pipeline for which a right of way is issued to cross federal lands must offer that natural gas for domestic sale only. The second bill, the North America Natural Gas Security and Consumer Protection Act, would forbid FERC from approving any natural gas export terminal in the United States until 2025.

Among environmentalists, the Sierra Club has come out strongly against LNG exports. The group has moved away from its pro-natural gas stance and is now aggressively campaigning against LNG exports. The environmental group has come under fire recently in response to the $26 million in donations it accepted from Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon and other people associated with the natural gas producer.

The Sierra Club used the Chesapeake Energy money to fight coal-fired power plants. Carl Pope, the group’s executive director at the time, was promoting natural gas as a cleaner “bridge fuel” to a low-carbon future. The group’s new executive director, Michael Brune, said he decided to cut off the donations from Chesapeake Energy after he took over in 2010. In a Feb. 2 blog post, Brune said:

"It’s time to stop thinking of natural gas as a ‘kinder, gentler’ energy source. What’s more, we do not have an effective regulatory system in this country to address the risks that gas drilling poses on our health and communities."

In Feb. 6 comments filed with DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy, the Sierra Club protested Dominion Resources’ plan to export up to 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas from its Cove Point LNG import terminal in Maryland.

Dominion’s proposal to export LNG from the Cove Point terminal would raise domestic gas prices, which, according to EIA, would harm consumers and increase the use of highly polluting coal-fired generation, the Sierra Club said. Dominion also “entirely fails to acknowledge the significant environmental harms associated with natural gas production and LNG export—harms which are more than substantial enough to outweigh any benefit of export,” the group said.

Moreover, Dominion’s proposal for its Cove Point terminal “is the leading edge of a wave of export proposals which, considered cumulatively, will significantly exacerbate the harm [Dominion Cove Point] alone would cause,” the group added.

Share

Printer Friendly Format | Tell-a-Friend

Next: Economic Slump, not EPA Rules, Helping to Restore Environmental Health -->

<-- Previous: A Principled Stand on Diversity of Tactic: Avoiding Uniformity of Failure

Support Press Action