Energy Exporting: Still a Bad Idea
Posted on January 26, 2012 by Gordon Feighner
Tags, Climate and Conservation, Consumers and Utility Customers, Generation, Transmission, Distribution
Though it is sometimes enjoyable, saying “I told you so” is usually not an indication that the best outcome of a situation has been achieved. That’s certainly the case with the pending applications for liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals on the Oregon coast. In 2010, I wrote about these potential projects, which at that time were intended to be built to receive imports of LNG from the Middle East. Over the past couple of years, however, a sharp increase in the supply of shale gas from the Rocky Mountains has led to a glut of supply and low prices for domestic gas. Without any need for increased supply from foreign markets, the backers of these projects have shifted their plans and applied to develop the terminals as export facilities.
As I noted in my previous entry, the environmental and safety hazards posed by LNG facilities are reason enough to oppose their construction in Oregon. LNG export, however, has the potential to negatively impact gas prices for consumers, both here in Oregon and nationwide. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently released a report that predicted significant increases in consumer energy costs resulting from LNG export. Between 2015 and 2035, the impact on natural gas bills is projected to be between 3 and 9 percent, and the impact on electricity bills would range from 1 to 3 percent. These numbers are also only the average increase; the study indicates that higher export levels could lead to price spikes of as much as 60% in the earlier study years. So, on balance, the benefits of LNG export would go to foreign customers and project developers, while Oregon citizens would be faced with the environmental and cost impacts of the projects.
LNG isn’t the only energy source being considered for export from the Northwest. A number of proposals have been put forth to build a coal export terminal somewhere in Oregon or Washington. For example, Ambre Energy, an Australian company, has been working towards constructing a coal export facility along the Columbia, either at the Port of Longview, WA, or at Port Westward, OR. Since the lack of port capacity has been the primary limiting factor for coal exports, a large, dedicated coal export terminal will dramatically increase the amount of American coal shipped overseas from the West Coast. This will result in increased carbon emissions and other atmospheric pollutants at a time when the two major coal power plants in the northwest have agreed to cease operations. Power plant emissions from Asia are already the largest source of mercury deposition in the Northwest, and that situation will only grow worse with the increased supply from an export terminal. While the price impacts of coal export are less certain than those of LNG, there are definitely solid environmental arguments against building a coal export terminal in Oregon or Washington.
UPDATE: On Wednesday, January 25, the Port of St. Helens approved the applications of both Ambre Energy and Kinder Morgan to build coal export terminals at Port Westward. These two projects now face local, state, and federal permitting processes before construction can begin.
Oregon’s Attorney General John Kroger continues to be vocal against any LNG terminals in Oregon. Also, The Sierra Club has created a petition to Governor Kitzhaber requesting that he put a stop to coal exports in Oregon.
CUB will continue to monitor these projects and do what we can to spare Oregon utility customers from the negative impacts of exporting American energy. To stay up to date on the latest news, sign up for our e-newsletter—and consider becoming a CUB member. Your contribution directly helps our sustainable, affordable, energy future.
To keep up with CUB, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter!
03/28/17 | 2 Comments | Energy Exporting: Still a Bad Idea