[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
U.S. ENERGY ABUNDANCE: REGULATORY, MARKET, AND LEGAL BARRIERS TO EXPORT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 18, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-57
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-447 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
JOE BARTON, Texas Ranking Member
Chairman Emeritus JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky Chairman Emeritus
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GREG WALDEN, Oregon BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania GENE GREEN, Texas
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee LOIS CAPPS, California
Vice Chairman MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana JIM MATHESON, Utah
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington JOHN BARROW, Georgia
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana Islands
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky KATHY CASTOR, Florida
PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia JERRY McNERNEY, California
CORY GARDNER, Colorado BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas PETER WELCH, Vermont
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
BILL JOHNSON, Missouri
BILLY LONG, Missouri
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina
Subcommittee on Energy and Power
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
Chairman
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
RALPH M. HALL, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois PAUL TONKO, New York
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
LEE TERRY, Nebraska ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas GENE GREEN, Texas
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio LOIS CAPPS, California
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN BARROW, Georgia
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia DORIS O. MATSUI, California
CORY GARDNER, Colorado DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas Islands
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois KATHY CASTOR, Florida
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 4
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 7
Witnesses
Jennifer C. Moyer, Acting Chief, Regulatory Program, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers............................................. 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Answers to submitted questions............................... 181
Jeff C. Wright, Director, Office of Energy Projects, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission................................... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Answers to submitted questions............................... 184
Christopher A. Smith, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, U.S. Department
of Energy...................................................... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Answers to submitted questions............................... 186
Mike McGinn, Mayor, City of Seattle.............................. 62
Prepared statement........................................... 65
Answers to submitted questions............................... 192
Harold P. Quinn, President and CEO, National Mining Association.. 92
Prepared statement........................................... 94
Ross E. Eisenberg, Vice President, Energy and Resources Policy,
National Association of Manufacturers.......................... 100
Prepared statement........................................... 102
KC Golden, Policy Director, Climate Solutions.................... 117
Prepared statement........................................... 119
Lucian Pugliaresi, President, Energy Policy Research Foundation,
Inc............................................................ 134
Prepared statement........................................... 136
Bill Cooper, President, The Center for Liquefied Natural Gas..... 154
Prepared statement........................................... 156
Submitted Material
Coal dust analysis, Missoula, Montana, McCrone Associates, Inc... 177
U.S. ENERGY ABUNDANCE: REGULATORY, MARKET, AND LEGAL BARRIERS TO EXPORT
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Power,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:18 a.m., in
room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed
Whitfield (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Scalise,
Shimkus, Pitts, Latta, McKinley, Griffith, Barton, Upton (ex
officio), Rush, McNerney, Tonko, Green, Castor, and Waxman (ex
officio).
Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Charlotte
Baker, Press Secretary; Sean Bonyun, Communications Director;
Matt Bravo, Professional Staff Member; Allison Busbee, Policy
Coordinator, Energy and Power; Patrick Currier, Counsel, Energy
and Power; Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Tom
Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy and Power; Jason Knox,
Counsel, Energy and Power; Ben Lieberman, Counsel, Energy and
Power; Nick Magallanes, Policy Coordinator, Commerce,
Manufacturing, and Trade; Brandon Mooney, Professional Staff
Member; Mary Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel; Chris Sarley,
Policy Coordinator, Environment and the Economy; Jeff Baran,
Democratic Senior Counsel; Phil Barnett, Democratic Staff
Director; Alison Cassady, Democratic Senior Professional Staff
Member; Caitlin Haberman, Democratic Policy Analyst; and
Elizabeth Letter, Democratic Assistant Press Secretary.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Whitfield. I would like to call this hearing to order,
and today's hearing is entitled ``U.S. Energy Abundance and the
Regulatory, Market, and Legal Barriers to Export.'' I am going
to recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. I
would like to say in the beginning that we do appreciate the
witnesses that are here with us today. We have two panels of
witnesses, and I will be introducing you all right before you
have an opportunity to give your opening statement, but I
would--do want to thank you very much for joining with us this
morning to discuss this very important issue. And with that, I
will recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
I was reading an article a couple of days ago, and it was
talking about worldwide there are two or three million people--
between two and three million people who do not have
electricity today. Our trade deficit last year in the United
States was $539 billion. Our unemployment rate is still pretty
high, 7.5 percent range. Coal consumption is increasing every
year worldwide, primarily because of increased use in China,
India, and Asia. In fact, last year we exported 126 million
tons, which was above 107, and the projections are that by
2030, it is going to just continue to go up because of the use
of coal worldwide. We all know that having basic electricity is
vital to a society functioning, and as I said, our coal is
going into some areas that certainly need help. All of you are
very much aware of the abundance of coal we have in America
today, recoverable coal. We also are the number one natural gas
producer in the world in 2010 because of recent discovery in
shale fields. So we have a tremendous opportunity in the U.S.
to have a significant amount of export of both coal and natural
gas, and it will help decrease our trade deficit. It will help
increase the number of jobs available in America, and I think
about the railroad industry that is moving a lot of coal and
oil today, and just one railroad, the Burlington Northern in
Santa Fe, I was talking to some of their people recently, are
spending about $4.3 billion a year just maintaining their
railroads and multiply that by the number of railroads around
the country, and there is no government money involved in it.
So we have private enterprise putting in money to create jobs
in America to export a product and products, or at leas the
potential of doing it that the world wants and the world needs.
And so at today's hearing, we are going to focus on what
are the obstacles to this, because we all know that there are
significant obstacles. There are regulatory obstacles, market
obstacles, permit obstacles, and then a lot of lawsuits are
being filed. Mayor Bloomberg alone gave $50 million to the
Sierra Club basically to file lawsuits against the coal
industry. And I am a fan of the Sierra Club, and I will be the
first to say that they have done a lot of good in America, but
at the same time, when you are deliberately filing lawsuits to
stop jobs from being produced in America, I think that is not
something that we need very much of.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Ed Whitfield
Today's hearing is entitled ``U.S. Energy Abundance:
Regulatory, Market, and Legal Barriers to Export.'' It builds
upon our previous hearings that have assessed the tremendous
potential for increased American energy production, including
the opportunities to expand energy exports. Today, we will look
at the barriers to realizing this export potential with an eye
towards lessening regulatory hurdles and expeditiously
approving our export opportunities.
We all want to reduce our trade deficit and perhaps one day
have a trade surplus. And America's growing energy abundance is
already beginning to make this goal a reality, both by reducing
the need for energy imports and by expanding exports. However,
we should remain mindful that if our trading partners don't get
their coal or natural gas from us, they will very likely get it
from another energy-exporting nation with weaker environmental
safeguards.
And we can continue to increase energy exports. We have
long had an abundance of coal in this country and have exported
it for many years. But growing world demand for affordable and
reliable energy has led to record-setting coal exports in
recent years. In 2012, the U.S. exported 125.7 million short
tons of coal and EIA estimates that amount to rise to 144
million short tons by 2030. In 2011 in Kentucky alone, coal
mining operations employed over 25,000 workers, and 1,760 of
those jobs stemmed directly from the production of coal for
export. We could continue breaking these records in the years
ahead, bringing billions of dollars in revenues into the
country and supporting jobs all along the supply chain from
coal miners to railroad workers to dock workers.
And over the past few years we have seen a remarkable
expansion of domestic natural gas production to the point that
we are now the number one producer in the world. As with coal
exports, natural gas exports would create jobs and economic
development while strengthening our ties with energy-importing
allies like Japan and India who would much rather buy from us
than from Russia or Iran.
Unfortunately, those who are trying to shut down the
production and use of coal and natural gas in the U.S. are
attempting to do the same thing to exports. And much of their
focus is on infrastructure. Not only do we need to mine the
coal and drill for natural gas, but we need the transportation
and pipeline systems to deliver it to the nation's port
facilities. And we need to expand those port facilities to
handle the growing volumes. But many of these job-creating
infrastructure projects are being held up by an array of
burdensome regulations, permit requirements, and legal
challenges brought by litigious environmental groups. There are
currently two licenses that have been approved to export LNG
and 18 applications that have been filed and are pending with
DOE.
For example, the growth of coal exports will necessitate
the construction of new port facilities and the expansion of
existing ones, which comes under the purview of the Army Corps
of Engineers. The last thing we need is the kind of years-long
bureaucratic delays comparable to what we have seen with
Keystone XL, but the threat of such delays is very real.
LNG facilities also face a host of barriers, originating
with the Natural Gas Act of 1938 and extending to more recent
measures. Even beyond federal licensing issues, these projects
also face the threat of litigation from activist organizations.
The reality is that market forces will determine the amount
and to what extent we export our energy from the U.S. Policies
that delay or prevent energy exports are detrimental to energy
producing states like Kentucky, and they hurt the nation as a
whole. And I might add that the environmental arguments against
energy exports don't stand up to scrutiny. Instead of arbitrary
and irrational barriers proposed on U.S. exports, the U.S. can
be a global energy leader by exporting affordable and reliable
energy to povertystricken countries that would otherwise have
no electricity.
I have concerns that the approval process for these export
projects is not a balanced one as it clearly should be,
especially in light of the opportunities before us. We need to
restore that balance. I look forward to hearing the insightful
testimony from our government and industry witnesses today.
# # #
Mr. Whitfield. I still have a minute and 30 seconds left,
so I would like to yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise.
Mr. Scalise. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If you look at the barriers to export, I know in South
Louisiana, the first LNG facility that has been permitted,
Cheniere, is spending billions of dollars--this is all private
money--to be able to export natural gas. This is something that
I think if you look across America, there are going to be more
opportunities as we explore this revolution in shale with
hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, the things that
it has opened up, the opportunities not just to create jobs for
America, for Americans to create billions of dollars in
economic activity in the States that have chosen to be a part
of this revolution, but also it has allowed America not only to
be energy independent in terms of natural gas, which has been
great, not just for natural gas but for manufacturing in our
country. It is going to reindustrialize a lot of the chemical
facilities, a lot of other facilities that were looking at
moving out of the country because it has provided a stable
source of energy. It has also provided us an opportunity to
export energy, which is something that we should be looking at
doing more of, because again, this allows us to be competitive.
It allows us to bring that trade balance down.
And so if you look at the threats to the ability to export
more, a lot of these are coming from federal agencies right
now. You know, we had the Secretary of Energy last week talking
about energy independence and all-of-the-above, and this is
part of it.
So I appreciate the focus, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Whitfield. Gentleman yields back. At this time, I would
like to recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, for a
5-minute opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank the witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee
today. Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding today's timely
hearing on the potential impacts of exporting both coal and LNG
to overseas markets.
There is no doubt in my mind that the energy sector will
play a huge role in helping to get the American economy back on
track, while also creating the jobs and the economic
opportunity that can benefit all sectors of the American
population. Just as I believe that energy will play a
substantial role in helping to bolster the U.S. economy, I also
believe that the increased production of natural gas will play
a crucial role within the energy sector of helping us become
more competitive and energy independent.
With the new technologies of hydraulic fracturing and
horizontal drilling, we are already seeing natural gas
production defy expectations of only a few years ago, when most
experts believed that the U.S. would need to become a net
importer of natural gas in order to meet its domestic demands.
However, today, Mr. Chairman, through the increased use of
fracking and horizontal drilling, we have seen natural gas
production in the U.S. rise by 34 percent between 1990 and
2012, and the EIA projects that under existing policies,
natural gas production will increase by an additional 39
percent by 2040. Even with the EIA predicting that domestic
consumption of natural gas will increase modestly in the
electric, industrial, and to a lesser extent, the
transportation industries, the agency still expects for the
U.S. production of natural gas to outpace demand, resulting in
the U.S. becoming a net exporter of natural gas by 2020.
Which brings us to today's hearing, Mr. Chairman, where we
will have the opportunity to hear from relevant stakeholders
from within federal agencies and from within industry on the
regulatory, market, and legal barriers to exporting natural
gas, as well as the potential impacts and unintended
consequences of making these exports. It is my hope that
today's hearing will shed more light on important issues
associated with exporting LNG and coal, including the impact on
domestic prices, the potential for jobs, the effect on our
manufacturing base, as well as the effect on the U.S. trade
balance.
Additionally, Mr. Chairman, as a record-setting 2012 where
we witnessed an historical number of heat waves, wildfires,
flooding and drought, and with 2013 already showing signs of
record-breaking tornadoes, wildfires, and hurricanes sweeping
across our Nation and destroying lives and property, it is
imperative that we also hear about climate change as we debate
whether to export coal and LNG overseas. As policymakers, it is
our duty to understand the totality of the consequences for the
decisions we make in regards to exporting coal and LNG.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Rush. At this time, I
recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Upton, for 5
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman.
America's energy landscape is indeed changing for the
better, creating opportunities for jobs, economic growth,
energy security, and an enhanced standing around the world. But
this bright energy future is far from guaranteed. Federal laws
and regs that are stuck in the past could devastate newfound
opportunity, in addition to an Administration that sometimes
seems more intent on rewarding a handful of environmental
activist allies rather than capitalizing on our new energy
abundance that certainly would create jobs and stimulate the
economy for the benefit of all.
According to CRS, America has the largest fossil fuel
reserves of any nation on earth, and estimates keep growing
because of technological advances. At the same time, the global
demand for energy is on the rise. According to the World Bank,
more than 1.2 billion people--that is b as in big--17 percent
of the world's population, are still without access to
electricity. So when you put two and two together, the U.S. has
the potential to become the world's preeminent supplier of
affordable and reliable energy, and with commonsense planning
and continued safe and responsible development, our country can
indeed help to take the power back from OPEC and geopolitically
unstable regions of the world and be a force of change to help
bring nations out of poverty with our energy resources.
We are already seeing increased exports of coal. Rapidly
rising domestic natural gas production is likely to become the
next American-made energy source to reach the global market. As
a recent report conducted for the DOE concluded, America can
export a portion of its natural gas abundance while, in fact,
still maintaining affordable domestic supplies to continue to
power our manufacturing renaissance.
All that is missing is the additional infrastructure to
make expanded exports possible, and achieving our export
potential would have the added benefit of creating thousands,
tens of thousands, of new jobs.
Unfortunately, the build-up of red tape over the last
couple of decades has become a real obstacle, especially for
the kinds of major projects that will be needed such as
pipelines, ports, and LNG facilities.
The cumbersome federal approval process is out of step with
where we are as an energy-producing Nation today, and that is
partly due to the ingrained mindset of energy scarcity that has
proven slow to change despite the dramatic and unexpected rise
in domestic energy supplies. But it is also due to overlapping
laws and regs that create multiple opportunities for delays and
for litigation. The Keystone XL pipeline is a perfect example
of the kind of project delays we are talking about. We have
been waiting for nearly 5 years for federal approval, and when
it comes to the projects necessary to expand exports, thereby
increasing jobs and improving our trade balance, we should not
have to wait that long. Just as we are putting jobs at risk by
failing to approve Keystone, we may forego jobs and economic
growth by not pursuing energy export projects in a timely
fashion.
The private sector has made rapid progress in unlocking our
energy abundance. What the American people now need is a
regulatory process that can keep up with the evolving energy
landscape.
Are there other members wishing--I will yield the balance
of my time to Mr. Barton.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton
America's energy landscape is changing for the better,
creating opportunities for jobs, economic growth, energy
security, and an enhanced standing around the world. But this
bright energy future is far from guaranteed. Federal laws and
regulations that are stuck in the past could devastate newfound
opportunity, in addition to an administration that seems more
intent on rewarding a handful of environmental activist allies
rather than capitalizing on our new energy abundance that would
create jobs and stimulate the economy for the betterment of
all.
According to the Congressional Research Service, America
has the largest fossil fuel reserves of any nation on earth,
and estimates keep growing because of technological advances.
At the same time, the global demand for energy is on the
rise. According to the World Bank, more than 1.2 billion
people--17 percent of the world's population--are still without
access to electricity. Put two and two together, and the U.S.
has the potential to become the world's preeminent supplier of
affordable and reliable energy. With commonsense planning and
continued safe and responsible development, our country can
help to take the power back from OPEC and geopolitically
unstable regions of the world and be a force of change to help
bring nations out of poverty with our energy resources.
We are already seeing increased exports of coal, and
rapidly rising domestic natural gas production is likely to
become the next American-made energy source to reach the global
market. As a recent report conducted for the Department of
Energy concluded, America can export a portion of its natural
gas abundance while still maintaining affordable domestic
supplies to continue powering our manufacturing renaissance.
All that is missing is the additional infrastructure to
make expanded exports possible--and achieving our export
potential would have the added benefit of creating thousands of
new jobs.
Unfortunately, the build-up of red tape over the last
several decades has become a real obstacle, especially for the
kinds of major projects that will be needed such as pipelines,
ports, and LNG facilities. The cumbersome federal approval
process is out of step with where we are as an energy-producing
nation today.
This is partly due to the ingrained mindset of energy
scarcity that has proven slow to change despite the dramatic
and unexpected rise in domestic energy supplies. But it is also
due to overlapping laws and regulations that create multiple
opportunities for delays and for litigation.
The Keystone XL pipeline is a perfect example of the kind
of project delays we are talking about. We have been waiting
for nearly five years for federal approval of Keystone XL. When
it comes to the projects necessary to expand exports, thereby
increasing jobs and improving our trade balance, we should not
have to wait that long. Just as we are putting jobs at risk by
failing to approve Keystone XL, we may forego jobs and economic
growth by not pursuing energy export projects in a timely
fashion.
The private sector has made rapid progress in unlocking our
energy abundance. What the American people now need is a
regulatory process that can keep up with this evolving energy
landscape.
# # #
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There are three things that we need to know with regards to
natural gas exports. Number one, we are the world's largest
producer of natural gas. Number two, we have the world's
largest amount of reserves of natural gas, and number three, we
have the world's cheapest price. Prices in the United States
are \1/3\ of the--less than \1/2\ the price over in Europe,
less than \1/3\ of the price in Asia, and less than \1/4\ of
the price in South America. It would seem it is a win/win if we
could license some export facilities, get these natural gas
products overseas, bring the wealth back from overseas that
pays for it and use that to create more jobs in America.
The same thing can be said on coal. The good news on coal
is it doesn't have some of the regulatory requirements for
export that natural gas does.
So Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good hearing, and I look
forward to hearing from the witnesses. I will yield to whoever.
Mr. Whitfield. Gentleman yields back. At this time, I
recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, for 5
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
At today's hearing, we will focus on the export of
liquefied natural gas and coal. These are complex issues and it
is important for the subcommittee to understand how they relate
to our energy policy. There are multiple factors to consider
when evaluating exports. Proponents of increasing our exports
of natural gas and coal stress that exports can help our
balance of trade and create new economic opportunities.
Opponents raise a number of concerns ranging from potential
environmental harm to price impacts for U.S. consumers and
manufacturers.
In my view, a key factor on this issue, as on so many other
energy issues, is climate change. Climate change is the biggest
energy challenge we face. We can't have a conversation about
America's energy policy without also having a conversation
about climate change. The energy policy decisions we make today
will have an impact on whether we can prevent the worst impacts
of climate change in the future. We need to understand and
weigh those risks, otherwise we are in danger of locking in
infrastructure that will produce carbon pollution for decades
to come, or creating stranded investments that must be shut
down before they serve their useful life.
Last week, the International Energy Agency released a
report concluding that the world is not on track to meet the
goal of limiting global average temperature to rise below 3.6
degrees Fahrenheit above the preindustrial levels. Climate
scientists tell us that if global average temperatures increase
beyond this threshold, society will face devastating impacts.
It is not too late to keep temperatures below the most
dangerous levels if we act now to cut carbon pollution. The
International Energy Agency found that taking key actions now
to reduce emissions could be done at no net economic cost,
while delay would impose trillions of dollars in costs on
society.
It is through that lens we need to examine whether to
construct new export terminals to ship America's natural gas
and coal overseas. Liquefied natural gas and coal export
terminals are huge, multi-billion dollar investments that will
last for decades. It would make no sense to build these
facilities only to find out that they are unsustainable because
of the climate implications.
I have an open mind about natural gas exports. Natural gas
combustion for electricity emits less carbon pollution than
coal. If natural gas exports displace coal consumption, that
can produce a significant net climate benefit, especially if we
tackle the problem of fugitive methane emissions. On the other
hand, if natural gas exports raise gas prices in the United
States, that could cause some utilities to switch back to coal,
erasing some of the carbon pollution reductions that our
country has recently achieved. We should fully understand these
climate impacts before these facilities are built, not after.
With respect to coal exports, the United States and the
rest of the world need to reduce our dependence on carbon-
intensive fuels like coal, and move towards a cleaner, low-
carbon energy future. Building billions of dollars in new
infrastructure that guarantees China a steady supply of cheap
coal for decades to come is the opposite of what we should be
doing. Governor Inslee of Washington State, Governor Kitzhaber
of Oregon, the two States that would be most directly affected
by new coal export terminals, wrote a letter to the White House
on this very point. They argued that ``before the United States
and our trading partners make substantial new investments in
coal generation and the infrastructure to transport coal,
extending the world's reliance on this fuel for decades, we
need a full public airing of the consequences of such a path''
and they call on the White House to thoroughly examine this
matter. I agree with these Governors. If we do not, at the very
least, understand the consequences of our energy policies
before we implement them, I think we would be making a mistake.
I thank our witnesses for appearing today and I look
forward to your testimony.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Waxman.
At this time I would like to introduce the first panel, and
as I said in the beginning, we appreciate your being with us.
Thank you for coming and we look forward to your comments.
First we have Mrs. Jennifer Moyer, who is the Acting Chief,
Regulatory Program at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We have
Mr. Jeff Wright, who is the Director of Office of Energy
Projects at the Federal Energy Regulator Commission, and we
have Mr. Christopher Smith, who is the Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy--I
mean, for Fossil Energy at the Department of Energy.
So thank you for joining us, and each one of you will be
recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement. If you would
remember to pull the microphone close to you and just be sure
to turn it on, and when your time is expired, there are two
little boxes and the red light will go on.
So Ms. Moyer, we will recognize you for your 5-minute
opening statement. Thank you.
STATEMENTS OF JENNIFER C. MOYER, ACTING CHIEF, REGULATORY
PROGRAM, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; JEFF C. WRIGHT,
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION; AND CHRISTOPHER A. SMITH, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY AND ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FOSSIL
ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
STATEMENT OF JENNIFER C. MOYER
Ms. Moyer. Thank you. Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member
Rush, and members of the subcommittee, I am Jennifer Moyer,
Acting Chief of the Regulatory Program for the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the
Corps' regulatory authorities under Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899, and Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. I will specifically discuss the Corps' role in permitting
of shipping facilities with a focus on coal and the issues
currently being discussed in the Pacific Northwest.
The responsibility for making final permit decisions has
been delegated to our 38 district commanders. They are the
closest to the proposed activities, have staff and expertise to
evaluate applications, and know the aquatic resources and
navigation issues involved.
Section 10 permits are required for work in navigable
waters of the U.S., while Section 404 permits are required for
the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the
United States. First, a little background on the existing
shipping terminals along the Gulf Coast and East Coast, which
have accounted for most U.S. coal exports over the past 10
years.
Depending on originating and export facilities locations,
coal is shipped over existing rail networks or by barge on our
Nation's inland waterway system. In 2012, total U.S. coal
exports increased about 126 million tons due to a substantial
increase in the amount of steam coal exported, which is used
for generating electricity. The National Environmental Policy
Act, or NEPA, mandates that agency conclusions be supported by
critical thinking and reasoned analysis of the potential
environmental consequences of a proposed agency action, such as
a decision on a pending permit application.
The Corps first identifies the federal action under
consideration and then decides whether we have sufficient
control and responsibility for activities outside of our
regulatory jurisdiction; that is, waters of the United States,
such that the issuance of a Corps permit would amount to
approval of those activities. The Corps limits its review to
only the specific activity requiring a Corps permit and those
portions of the activity over which the Corps then has
sufficient control and responsibility. The Corps is evaluating
shipping facility proposals at three separate and independent
locations in the Pacific Northwest. These three facilities have
generated considerable public interest, in part because these
facilities' primary purpose would be to receive coal via rail
from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana for shipment
via barges and oceangoing vessels to other locations, including
Asia.
When considered in accordance with the laws and regulations
I have discussed above, many of the activities of concern to
the public, such as rail traffic, coal mining, shipping of coal
outside of U.S. waters, and the burning of coal overseas are
outside of the Corps' control and responsibility. These
activities are too far attenuated and distant from the proposed
activities being evaluated by the Corps to be considered
effects of the Corps' permit actions. The Corps expects to
receive many comments from the public and from sister federal,
state, and local agencies, and especially from tribes on these
issues, and we will carefully consider all the comments we
receive.
Based on anticipated direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts, the Seattle District is currently preparing a draft
environmental impact statement for the Gateway Project, and a
separate draft environmental impact statement for the
Millennium Project. For the Coyote Island Project, the Portland
District is currently preparing an environmental assessment.
The three proposed projects are not a Corps plan or a program,
therefore preparation of a programmatic EIS in this case is not
appropriate. Because they are independent projects at different
locations whose impacts are not related and they are
unconnected single actions under NEPA, preparation of an area-
wide or regional EIS is not appropriate, based on our review of
pertinent regulations. Based on these facts, we have determined
that preparation of neither a programmatic EIS nor an area-wide
or regional EIS is appropriate.
The scope of analysis established by the Corps in the
review of each proposal will include the specific activity
required by a Corps permit, the environmental effects or
impacts of that specific activity, and those portions of the
entire project over which there is sufficient federal control
and responsibility to warrant a Corps NEPA review. The
preparation of the NEPA documents for these projects, all three
of them, is at an early stage.
In summary, our Seattle and Portland Districts are
reviewing these proposals and carrying out the NEPA scoping
process to determine which potential environmental effects to
analyze in detail. The Corps Districts will carefully consider
each of these proposals while appropriately bounding the scope
of analysis and consideration of the impacts in accordance with
existing regulations, policies, and guidance.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and will be
happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Moyer follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.010
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Ms. Moyer.
Mr. Wright, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JEFF C. WRIGHT
Mr. Wright. Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, and
members of the subcommittee, my name is Jeff Wright and I am
the Director of the Office of Energy Projects at the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission. The Office of Energy Projects is
responsible for, among other things, the authorization and
oversight of the construction and operation of onshore and
near-shore liquefied natural gas terminals. Today I will
discuss the process which the Commission uses to review
applications for facilities for the export of LNG.
With respect to LNG, the Commission does not authorize the
import or the export of LNG. That authority rests with the
Department of Energy. Accordingly, applications for authority
to import or export LNG must be submitted to DOE, while
applications for the construction and operation of import or
export related facilities must be submitted to the Commission.
The Commission's review process is comprised of three
distinct phases: pre-filing review, application review, and
post-authorization review. Each stage of the review process
requires its submission of detailed information that involves a
review and consultation with key stakeholders and other federal
agencies, such as the Coast Guard and the Department of
Transportation.
Section 311 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires
perspective applicants seeking Commission authority to
construct and operate an LNG terminal to participate in a pre-
filing process for a period of at least 6 months. This is the
beginning of the Commission's staff review, and it involves not
only an early analysis of the project proposal, but also
provides a transparent forum for consultation and discussion.
The pre-filing process is designed to engage all stakeholders
in order to identify and resolve potential issues related to
the construction and operation of a facility before the filing
of a formal application. During this process, project-specific
issues are raised throughout the environmental scoping process
and/or by other means, such as open houses, public meetings,
site visits, and/or filed comments. At this stage, information
needs are identified and studies are conducted as necessary to
fill data gaps.
The end of the pre-filing process occurs when the applicant
files its formal application. Once the formal application has
been filed, any person can move to intervene in the
Commission's proceedings. Interveners become parties to a
proceeding and have the right to request rehearing of
Commission orders and seek relief of final agency actions in
U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. In addition, all interested
parties have the opportunity to place their concerns regarding
the project into the record and file any evidence they feel is
important for the Commission to consider.
During the application review phase, the Commission staff
analyzes the formal application and once sufficient information
to address environmental and safety issues exists in the
record, it establishes a schedule for the production of the
environmental review documents. The environmental document is
then issued for public comment, and comments received on that
document are addressed. The final environmental document
contains staff's conclusions regarding the feasibility, safety,
and environmental impacts associated with the proposed
facilities. The document also includes any recommended measures
for ensuring safety and mitigating any environmental impacts
identified through analysis of the proposal and consideration
of concerns raised during the pre-filing and application
review.
After issuance of the final environmental document, the
Commission considers the entire record of the proceeding. If
the Commission finds that the environmental and safety impacts
from the construction and operation of the LNG facility are
acceptable and authorizes the proposal, the project specific
mitigation measures recommended in the environmental document
are included as conditions to this authorization.
During the post-authorization review phase, detailed plans
for the Commission-required mitigation are developed. Approval
of these detailed plans must be received before construction
can commence. During the construction period, mitigation
measures are implemented and monitored. As part of its ongoing
detailed post-authorization project review, staff inspects the
construction and progress to ensure that all required measures
are implemented. Inspections during construction entail the
review of quality assurance and quality control plans,
nonconformance reports, and cool down and commissioning plans
to ensure that the installed design is consistent with the
safety and operability characteristics of the proposal approved
by the Commission.
Finally, at the end of construction, the project sponsor
will file a request for authorization to commence operation of
the facility. The information contained in this request must
demonstrate how the project sponsor has complied with all of
the Commission's requirements and must be consistent with the
results of the Commission's inspections. This final
authorization from the Commission will not be granted unless
all measures to ensure safe and secure operations and the
necessary environmental protections are in place and serving
their intended purpose. Once a facility is placed in service,
it is subject to continuing inspections by the FERC staff for
the life of the facility. This ensures that the facility
continues to be operated and maintained in accordance with the
Commission's original authorization.
This concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.017
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Wright.
Mr. Smith, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER A. SMITH
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member
Rush, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss the Department of Energy's program
regulating the export of natural gas, including liquefied
natural gas.
The Department's authority to regulate the export of
natural gas arises from the Natural Gas Act, which provides two
statutory standards for processing applications to export LNG
from the United States: one for export to free trade agreement
nations, and one for export to nations with which the United
States does not have a free trade agreement.
By law, applications to export natural gas to free trade
agreement nations are deemed consistent with the public
interest and the Secretary of Energy must grant authorization
without modification or delay. As of today, the Department of
Energy has approved 24 long-term applications to export a lower
48 LNG to free trade agreement countries, and there are three
other currently pending.
For applications to export natural gas to non-FTA nations,
the Secretary of Energy must grant the authorization unless,
after opportunity for hearing, the proposed export is found to
not be consistent with the public interest.
The Department's review of applications to export LNG to
non-FTA countries is conducted through a publically transparent
process which includes full public interest review. To date,
the Department has granted two long-term applications to export
domestically produced lower 48 LNG to non-FTA countries. In the
Sabine Pass order, the Department of Energy stated that it
would evaluate the cumulative impact of that authorization and
any future authorizations for export authority when considering
subsequent applications. Following the issuance of that order,
the Department of Energy undertook a two-part study of the
cumulative economic impact of LNG exports, to which were
received over 190,000 comments.
On May 17, the Department of Energy granted the second
long-term application to export LNG, which was granted to
Freeport LNG in a conditional order, pending successful
environmental review. The order was granted after an extensive,
careful review of the application, the LNG export study, public
comments for and against the application, and public comments
of the cumulative impact of LNG exports filed in the LNG export
study.
Currently, the Department of Energy has 20 non-FTA export
applications pending. Going forward, the Department will
continue processing the pending applications on a case-by-case
basis, following the order of precedence previously established
and set forward on the Department of Energy's Web site.
Finally, the Department will assess the impact of any market
developments on subsequent public interest determinations as
further information becomes available.
Due to the adjudicatory nature of this process, Mr.
Chairman, I will be unable to comment today on issues that are
presently being addressed in our pending proceedings. However,
I can speak to the Department of Energy's statutory authority,
our process to review applications, our two-party LNG export
study, the comments we received on those studies, and other
recent developments in LNG export. With respect to these
topics, the Department and I are committed to being as
responsive as possible to any questions that the committee may
have.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize that
Department of Energy is committed to moving this process
forward as expeditiously as possible. We understand the
significance of this issue, as well as the importance of
getting it right. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.023
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you all very much for your testimony.
We appreciate your being with us, as I said.
Ms. Moyer, let me ask you a couple questions here. You said
the--what was the word you used, deputy commander or division
commander? You had 38 division commanders, is that right?
Ms. Moyer. District commanders.
Mr. Whitfield. District commanders. And they have the
authority to make the final decision on, for example, Port
Morrow's application?
Ms. Moyer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. OK. Now the President recently had made
comments that he was considering requiring all federal agencies
to consider the climate change effect, including global impacts
of their actions. This is an unprecedented step with far
reaching geopolitical implications that it effectively puts the
U.S. in the position of evaluating the energy consumption--and
environmental policies of our trading partners. Now in your
testimony, you stated that the ultimate burning of coal
overseas is outside the Corps' control and responsibility. So
does this mean for the purposes of NEPA that the Corps of
Engineers does not intend to consider the climate change
impacts related to any of the three, for example, proposed
facilities in the West that have applied for license for
export?
Ms. Moyer. With respect to climate change or greenhouse gas
emissions, the Corps will limit its focus on emissions to those
emissions that will be associated with the construction of the
facilities for those impacts that will occur within our scope
of analysis, our limited scope of analysis, but the appropriate
application of our regulations have led us to the conclusion
that the effects of the burning of the coal in Asia or wherever
it may be is too far removed from our action to be considered
as an indirect effect or cumulative effect of our action
itself.
Mr. Whitfield. Right, which I think is a right decision.
You also indicated in your testimony that the Corps is not
planning to complete an area-wide environmental impact
statement for the three export terminals currently pending
before the Corps as one entity. Is that correct?
Ms. Moyer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. So you do intend to proceed each one of
those individually?
Ms. Moyer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. OK, which I think also is the right
decision. I know that there are groups out there that want an
area-wide environmental impact statement, which certainly makes
it a lot easier to create obstacles and lawsuits and so forth,
so I appreciate that very much.
Mr. Wright and Mr. Smith, would one of you just clarify for
us the different responsibilities that you have for the
liquefied natural gas export facility? Mr. Wright, Department
of Energy, I guess, authorizes, is that correct?
Mr. Wright. The Department of Energy--and I will let Mr.
Smith speak to that, but in my knowledge, the Department of
Energy authorizes the import or the export of the physical
commodity. FERC, or the Commission, authorizes the facilities
to facilitate the import or the export of the commodity.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly correct.
Mr. Whitfield. OK. And so far, you have issued--you have
authorized two facilities to non-free trade areas, is that
correct?
Mr. Wright. I believe the Department of Energy has
authorized two exports to non-free trade agreement projects.
The Commission has authorized the construction of one facility,
and that is Cheniere Sabine Pass facility for export.
Mr. Whitfield. Right. Yes, thanks for reminding me. Mr.
Smith is at the Department of Energy, you are at FERC, so thank
you.
OK, that is all the questions I have for now, so Mr. Rush,
I would recognize you for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your questions
have been quite interesting, and the testimony has been
informative, and it has touched on the issue of LNG exports
from a myriad of perspectives.
My concern is I would like to also hear more about
exporting LNG and how it would impact U.S. consumers. Unlike
oil prices, which are set on the global market, natural gas
prices are set on a regional scale in North America and Europe
and Asia. Today, Americans are paying very low prices for
natural gas, less than $4 per gallon as opposed to $10 in
Europe and $12 or $15 in east Asia. Most experts, however,
expect this price to increase over the coming years with the
EIA estimating that Henry Hub spot prices for natural gas will
increase by 2.4 percent as producers begin drilling in more
difficult terrain.
The question I have is how will exporting LNG impact the
cost of natural gas for American families and consumers, and
American businesses and manufacturers? Will this impact be
significant, and will it be widespread across many different
sectors of our economy? Mr. Smith, do you want to take a stab
at that?
Mr. Smith. Yes, thank you, Congressman, for that question.
So as the Department of Energy goes through its process of
evaluating these applications to export LNG, we are keenly
aware and concerned about the potential impacts on American
businesses, on American families, issues that might be related
to changes in the price for natural gas. We certainly see that
there is a tremendous opportunity that our country has in terms
of our large natural gas resources. We do want to make sure
they are being developed prudently and that we are making good
public interest determinations in terms of export decisions.
As part of that, as I mentioned in my oral testimony, when
we put out the Sabine Pass order, the Department of Energy
declared that it would consider the cumulative impacts of LNG
exports, which was the reason why we commissioned a
comprehensive study that looked at not only impacts here in the
United States, but also the global market's capability of
absorbing LNG into other markets internationally.
The conclusion of that study was overall that the impacts
of LNG exports would be positive for the consumers. There would
potentially be some price impacts, as you have additional
demand that is placed on our supply based on exporting LNG. But
the conclusion of the study that was done for DOE concluded
that overall for our economy and then for American consumers it
would be positive.
Mr. Rush. I have an additional question, and I think this
question centers around the issue of jobs. Would there be an
overall gain or loss in manufacturing jobs and other types of
employment when we start exporting LNG and how would exporting
LNG impact jobs overall in the U.S.? And you and any of the
other witnesses can chime in on this, the answer to this.
Mr. Smith. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman.
So we did look very closely at economic impact and jobs. You
certainly have a potential positive impact from the
construction activity of building the terminal of actually
producing the gas to be exported.
The concern that was raised by some opponents of the LNG
exports was that potential price rises might have a negative
impact on energy intensive users of natural gas like chemical
plants or some manufacturers. The evidence that we looked at
said that in balance that LNG exports at various levels would
be positive for the economy----
Mr. Rush. Mr. Wright, would you want to chime in on that?
Mr. Wright. Well, we don't get into the economic analysis,
but in terms of approving construction, obviously when you
build something there will be jobs there, and----
Mr. Rush. Ms. Moyer, would you?
Ms. Moyer. Certainly when we are evaluating applications
from a private entity for a facility, we look at cost
implications. We aren't looking at economic benefits and
detriments.
Mr. Rush. We don't have any infrastructure for any of this,
right, and the question is where is the infrastructure going to
come from, and how much would it cost?
Mr. Smith. Well, if you look at the Sabine Pass terminal,
the Sabine Pass terminal is actually an LNG import terminal
that is being converted into an export terminal, so there is
already a footprint that is going to be expanded in order to
make that conversion to export LNG, but for all of these
investments, there is going to be significant multi-billion
dollar capital investments that are required in order to create
the capacity to export LNG.
Mr. Whitfield. Gentleman's time is expired. At this time, I
recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask my
questions, I want to say welcome to Mr. Bill Cooper who is on
the second panel. He is a former staffer for the Republican
staff of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and we are glad to
have him here in the audience. I welcome him.
I want to ask a question of Mr. Smith. I have never seen a
longer title. The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and the
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy. That is quite a
mouthful. How many Deputy Assistant Secretaries for Fossil
Energy are there, since you are the principal one?
Mr. Smith. Well, I have a long title because I am wearing a
lot of hats right now. I will say that the chairman nailed the
title when he introduced me, so thank you for that.
Mr. Barton. I do want to also make sure that I understand
this. I am told that in a past life, you actually worked for
Chevron, is that correct?
Mr. Smith. I worked for Chevron and actually grew up in Ft.
Worth, Texas, not exactly in your district, but----
Mr. Barton. And yet you still got appointed to your
position. Congratulations.
Mr. Smith. I was actually appointed to my position because
of my specific industry background, so----
Mr. Barton. That is good. That is very good.
Well, my first question I will just--I will ask you, Mr.
Smith. Does the law stipulate which entity has to be applied to
first for an export permit? Do you have to get approved at DOE
to export LNG, or could you go directly to FERC and ask to have
the facility approved before DOE has approved that it could be
exported, or does it matter?
Mr. Smith. The law actually gives us some flexibility, and
it gives applicants some flexibility. So the way that we have
handled that question is we have to come up with some order in
which we are going to consider applicants, so applicants are
free to apply to FERC, they are free to apply to the Department
of Energy, but we have given priority to those applicants who
have already started that FERC pre-filing process, which is the
process in which you are starting to spend real money. And we
are also considering--so we are considering applicants on a
first come, first serve basis, with priority given to those who
have started the FERC pre-filing process.
Mr. Barton. So the law doesn't stipulate it, and the
practice is that an entity can apply either place, but the DOE
gives preference to those applicants that have already started
the facility permitting process at FERC, is that correct?
Mr. Smith. We are considering first those applicants who
have started the FERC pre-filing process.
Mr. Barton. OK, and is this go either place first policy
going to be maintained, or is there a possibility that you
might clarify it and set some specific criteria as to what you
have to do first?
Mr. Smith. Well, the Department looked at a lot of factors
when we were considering the order in which we were going to
rule on applications. There is a lot of ways that we could have
done that. We could have looked at business models, we could
have done other evaluations, but the standard that we had was
we wanted something that was open, that was transparent, that
was simple, that was fair, and that helped us push projects
that might be more valuable to the front of the queue. So we
wanted a very subjective standard that didn't have some--sorry,
a very objective standard that didn't have some subjectivity
where we had to evaluate business models. So that is the order
that we are moving forward. There is a PDF on the fossil energy
Web site that lists those applications in order, and the
process that we are using going forward.
Mr. Barton. And Mr. Wright, does FERC have a time table for
its review of its process that you try to get the permit to
build and construct done in so many months, so many years? Do
you have a guideline for that?
Mr. Wright. Well we do, and we are in relatively new
territory with export applications for construction. The import
applications of the regasification facilities were much
simpler, and given that we get all the information we would
need, including the pre-filing period, we would authorize LNG
import facilities somewhere between 18 to 24 months. With
export facilities, the engineering is much more critical, it is
much more safety conscious, environmental conscious because of
the use of refrigerants and natural gas liquids. What we are
seeing is we are very dependent upon the applicant being able
to finish its engineering studies to supply us with the
information for our evaluation.
Mr. Barton. My time is expired, but could you give us--you
try to get your review done by X months, X--is there an X that
you use, or is that not possible?
Mr. Wright. We would love to get our review--formal
application review done in 18 to 24 months.
Mr. Barton. Eighteen to 24 months.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Gentleman's time is expired. At this time, I
recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Moyer, the Corps has been asked by Governor Inslee of
Washington State and Governor Kitzhaber of Oregon and others to
prepare an environmental impact statement that looks at the
cumulative impacts of the proposed West Coast coal export
terminals. They have asked that this analysis include an impact
exporting U.S. coal to China on climate change. In your
testimony, you appear to reject this request. You state
``shipping coal outside of U.S. territory and the ultimate
burning of coal overseas are outside the Corps' control and
responsibility.'' Ms. Moyer, is this accurate? Has the Corps of
Engineers decided not to examine the climate impacts of these
coal export terminals as part of its environmental impact
statements?
Ms. Moyer. What we have determined is that the effects of
shipping of the coal outside of U.S. waters and the burning of
the coal wherever its ultimate destination would be is outside
of our scope of analysis. However, the climate change effects
or the emissions associated with the activities within our
scope of analysis, such as the construction activities
associated with building the facilities, the emissions that may
be associated with the increase in vessel traffic, those types
of effects that may have an impact on climate change will be
associated with our analysis for each of the facilities.
Mr. Waxman. Ms. Moyer, I think the Corps is making a big
mistake. As I understand it, some of the most important
responsibilities of the Corps of Engineers are to protect
navigable waters, to protect cities like New Orleans from
flooding, to protect beaches and coastlines, and to ensure that
major waterways remain open to commerce. Is that correct?
Ms. Moyer. Yes.
Mr. Waxman. All of these values which the Corps is charged
with protecting are threatened by climate change. Sea level
rise can dislocate millions of families and cause hundreds of
billions of dollars in damages. Extreme weather like Superstorm
Sandy can destroy coastlines. Droughts can make even the Mighty
Mississippi impassable. And according to the world's best
climate scientists, all of these impacts are caused or
exacerbated by climate change. Do you agree with this?
Ms. Moyer. Yes, I do.
Mr. Waxman. There are many causes of climate change, but
experts tell us that the single biggest source of the emissions
causing climate change is China, specifically burning coal in
China. The governors of Oregon and Washington and many others
have said that exporting coal to China could continue China's
dependence of coal and worsen climate change. They have asked
you to examine this issue, yet you are telling us you won't do
this. My question to you is, how can you conclude that
exporting coal to China does not contribute to climate change
if you even refuse to look at this issue?
Ms. Moyer. I would say that the Corps' responsibilities and
authorities with respect to our Civil Works Program are
dramatically different from the regulatory framework that
governs our work within the framework that we are looking at
these proposals, and primarily the proposals that we look at
within our regulatory program are for nonfederal activities.
And within that context, these issues are not part of the
Corps' scope of analysis. The burning of the coal in Asia,
although very important aspects, they are not part of our
framework. They are not within our scope of analysis, and they
are too far attenuated to be considered indirect effects of the
actions that we are----
Mr. Waxman. Well, I think you should reconsider your
position. There is no bigger threat to navigable waters than
climate change. Scientists tell us that those impacts will
include sea level rise, more intense storms, increased
flooding. Those impacts will all adversely affect navigable
waters. It is the responsibility of the Corps of Engineers to
protect the Nation's navigable waters. The Corps cannot meet
its responsibility by ignoring these climate impacts.
Before billions of dollars are spent building new coal
export facilities, we need to understand the impacts of those
exports, including the climate impacts of burning all of that
coal. I just think that makes common sense, so I would urge you
to reconsider the position in light of the impact that I think
is so important to the core goal of the Corps of Engineers.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back my time.
Mr. Whitfield. Gentleman's time--gentleman yields back. At
this time, I recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
Scalise, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the panel
for their testimony.
When I gave my opening, I talked a little bit about the
export facility at Cheniere, their investment alone represents
about $10 billion, again, private money being used to build
this export facility so that we can create more jobs, and not
only become energy independent at home, but also reduce our
trade balance by exporting to other countries as well. In
addition to Cheniere, there are I think 18 pending applications
to build additional export facilities that are moving slowly
through the process.
I want to ask you, Mr. Smith, because in your testimony you
talked about the economic impact on LNG exports. If you can
expand on that, you know, in general, what are your thoughts on
what LNG exports and expanding this would mean to our Nation's
economy first, if I could ask you that?
Mr. Smith. Well thank you, Congressman, for the question.
So when we look at our job in terms of evaluating public
interest, again, the standard that is set in the statute is
that we--there is a rebuttable presumption that exports are in
the public interest, and it requires us to do a public interest
determination for all of the applications that we are
considering. So as part of that, we consider a very wide range
of factors when we are evaluating exports. We look at economic
growth, we look at jobs, we look at balance of trade, we look
at prices, we look at impact on American businesses and
families, we look at impact on manufacturing sector, on users
of natural gas, we look at environmental impacts. So there is a
very wide range of standards that we use.
Part of that study or part of that evaluation we went out
and requested a detailed economic study that was done in two
parts, the first by our own IEA within the Department of
Energy, and the second by a third party consultant. The overall
result of that study which was done for the Department and
entered into the public docket for public review was that at
various levels, we found that LNG exports would be beneficial
for the U.S. economy. The study----
Mr. Scalise. Did you quantify jobs, economic impact?
Mr. Smith. Yes, the study looked at jobs, it looked at
economic----
Mr. Scalise. How many jobs did it conclude?
Mr. Smith. I don't have a number of jobs, and certainly
there was--if you look at different sectors, LNG exports would
have a different impact of certain sectors than other sectors.
But overall net, we saw that there would be a positive economic
impact for the U.S. economy, and a fairly flat impact on jobs
overall.
Mr. Scalise. So when you work in the Department of Energy
and you have a study you commission that shows that LNG exports
would have no real positive impact on our economy, and then you
see that there are other agencies within the Federal Government
that in various ways are trying to come and impede the
production of natural gas in America, which of course, if you
don't produce it in America then you can't export it. What do
you all do, if anything, to work with these other agencies that
are trying to get in the way of what States are doing very
successfully to regulate hydraulic fracturing to give them--to
make it clear to them that, if you are spending your time and
resources that these agencies complain with sequestration and
spending limitations, they complain that they don't have enough
money, yet they are spending some of those vital resources to
try to do things that would be counter to our own Nation's
economy that would hurt these jobs that you are talking about
that you tell. Do you all share this with these other agencies
as they are going off on these kind of separate tangents?
Mr. Smith. We work very closely with all the agencies here
within the Federal Government, because we have one mission, one
shared mission which is to ensure that we prudently develop
what is a very important resource, our natural resources here
in the United States, particularly natural gas, and also
ensuring that we do so with a minimal impact on the
environment.
The most important thing that Department of Energy is doing
right now in terms of prudent development is to take concerns
seriously, bring good objective science to quantify concerns
that people who live close to where these wells are being
drilled have, to help demonstrate that we take the concerns
seriously and that the regulations that are in place are
effectively mitigating those risks which we have scientifically
quantified.
Mr. Scalise. And so you know, our States do that already so
that you don't have a need to duplicate things that are already
being done successfully. Our States actually do--each State
regulates hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling and they
do it very well, and so as you have these concerns--as each
State has their concerns, I think somebody in Shreveport,
Louisiana, where they have got the Haynesville shale plate,
they feel much more comfortable that if there is any kind of
concern, they can pick up the phone and call their State
representative or call their State Department of Natural
Resources and get those problems addressed, rather than calling
some kind of--some bureaucrat that they can't identify, maybe
can't even get in touch with at Washington, DC. So I would
appreciate if you would share this information so other
agencies know that some of the things they are doing run
counter to the very things you showed in your report about
jobs.
I appreciate that. Yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Whitfield. Gentleman yields back. At this time, I
recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for 5
minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Moyer, I believe this is the first public
acknowledgment that the Corps is not going to do regional EIRs.
Is that correct, that this is the first time that that has been
publically acknowledged by the Corps?
Ms. Moyer. That we are not doing a regional or an area-
wide?
Mr. McNerney. Right.
Ms. Moyer. Yes. Well, I thank you for making that
statement; however, it seems to me that the combined effect on
traffic and noise pollution, road coal dust, and all these
other things would have a regional impact. How did the Corps
come to that decision that a regional or area-wide impact was
not appropriate?
Ms. Moyer. By doing a very careful review of our existing
regulations and pertinent case law, it is very clear that these
facilities are widely separated. They are not in the same
watershed. They have very different proposed impacts when you
look at each individual facility. And they are not connected
actions. Each facility is not dependent on another facility to
go forward, and when you look at that in the context of the
existing framework of regulations, those are the factors that
lead you to do an area-wide, and none of those factors----
Mr. McNerney. So you think that doing the specific EIRs for
each individual facility will be sufficient to capture those
issues and protect the local population?
Ms. Moyer. I do. I do, and each district is in the process
of doing a specific NEPA evaluation. The two in Seattle
District are undergoing environmental impact statements. The
project in the Portland District, the Coyote Island terminal is
currently doing--undergoing the process of an environmental
assessment to determine if they need to do an EIS or not.
Mr. McNerney. Do the governors of the two states involved
agree that that is the appropriate approach?
Ms. Moyer. They are involved in the process in the normal
way that we engage in those coordination attempts. Now, the
State is a cooperating agency and is actually a co-lead agency
on the two projects in Washington State, so that is a federal,
state, and actually the counties where the projects are located
in Washington State are also participating as co-lead agencies
on the Washington State projects.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Mr. Wright, would you reiterate
how the FERC and the DOE jurisdictions on LNG break down?
Mr. Wright. Basically, the Department of Energy is in
charge of approving the importer, the export of the commodity,
the natural gas, the movement itself. FERC is in charge of
approving the facilities necessary to effect that movement of
the import or the export of the natural gas.
Mr. McNerney. And the operations of the facilities?
Mr. Wright. Yes.
Mr. McNerney. Is there much collaboration between the two
agencies?
Mr. Wright. Well we do talk, yes. I mean, we do have
different procedures and we don't necessarily participate in
each other's procedures, but we are aware of what is going on
at each other's agencies.
Mr. McNerney. Do you all feel this is a controversial
issue, LNG exports?
Mr. Wright. From my perspective as an environmental and
safety regulator, it is controversial issue in that people--
some people do not like infrastructure. They do not like the
impact on the environment. Others go further and worry about
the effects on the economy, but we are not charged with looking
at the effects associated--economic impact.
Mr. McNerney. So how much gas do you expect will escape
from these LNG terminals?
Mr. Wright. I don't have a number for that, sir.
Mr. McNerney. That would be--I mean, I heard zero but I
don't hardly believe that. I would like to see that. I mean,
natural gas is a strong greenhouse gas, much stronger than
carbon dioxide, although it doesn't persist in the environment
as long, but in the short term do we need to worry about that?
Are you in charge of regulations to determine the technical
quality of the materials that go into building an LNG terminal?
Mr. Wright. We do an engineering review of what is proposed
and what will be constructed there and look for the most
efficient and safest way to build the LNG terminal.
Mr. McNerney. So what can you do, then, to prevent rogue
gas from escaping from LNG terminals, or what will you do?
Mr. Wright. Well not being an engineer myself, my engineers
would meet with the project proponent. They would talk it
over--and they do this in technical conferences--talk over what
valving, what piping they are going to use, and whether it is
the current state-of-the-art, if you will, and that would be
the one way to protect against fugitive emissions is using the
most relevant, the most current facilities and construction
materials possible.
Mr. McNerney. So, coming from an engineering background,
thank you for indulging me, Mr. Chairman, a little bit. Field
testing, test data, some way of assuring rather than just
saying it is the newest equipment would be in order.
I will yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. Gentleman's time is expired. At this time, I
recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, 5 minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For my friend from
California, we do have LNG facilities today and they have been
operating for decades, some of them, and I just find it hard to
believe that we--they would create a facility that would leak
gas, a commodity they want to sell, on the market.
We had talked before about--I usually bring a poster. I
haven't done it this Congress--of coal miners who lost their
jobs in the '92 Clean Air Act. And so sometimes I get questions
or where is it? Well, this is a great debate about bringing a
new poster about coal mining jobs that are available in
southern Illinois because of the exporting of coal. So I have
an Illinois basis supply site story--that is not the first one
I wanted to use. I want to use the Ernst and Young analysis,
and it says that 15 percent, which is 5.5 million short tons,
were exported abroad--this is just in Illinois--and accounted
for 860, 15 percent of the total 5,868 coal mining jobs in just
my state alone. The total estimate direct, indirect, and
reduced contribution related to exports from 2011 is 4,190
jobs, $281 million of labor income, and $524 million of gross
value added.
So we are poised as a country to really be in a great
position to turn--over my past decade of being here, it is
always we are sending our money to the Middle East because they
have the energy. Now we can say people are going to be buying
our energy. They are going to be sending their money to us,
which will help across the board in our balance of payment, our
trade, on our revenues to our country providing the services,
especially in a sequestration. This is just a tremendous win/
win if we get it right. If we get through the regulatory
hurdles and we get the export facilities, whether it is for LNG
terminals or whether it is for coal, and we start exporting
this stuff to folks who want to purchase it.
The other--so here is another one. This is one I held up
before. Illinois Basis supply site story. Illinois Basin
producers are positioning themselves to nearly double
production over the next 10 years. Now for the climate change
folks, that is scary. I mean, for people in southern Illinois
who want jobs, that is very, very exciting. But the caution is
that these expansions are market dependent.
So you know, the fight about LNG terminals or whether the
fight is on coal terminals, it is a climate debate to try to
destroy the market so that we don't have the market to expand
our selling of the fossil fuel bounty that we have in our great
land. That is what this debate is about, and everyone knows it,
and so that is why we need to move forward for jobs and lower
costs of energy and the like.
Illinois just moved yesterday and the governor signed the
fracking bill. We think it will be exploited greatly in
southern Illinois and crude oil will be flowing again like it
did during World War II, and we will need, again, market. So
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that we have one more, and this
is on exports of LNG and coal. I think that there may be a
time, based upon the demand of liquid transportation fuels
right now, and our supply and our renewables that we might be
able to export refined product across the world to those in
need. The world market is going to go up about 1 percent at a
minimum, so we may want to follow this up with another
opportunity for jobs.
So in my last minute, let me turn to Ms. Moyer, because we
are talking about kind of the hurdles that we are facing. What
is the average time frame for the Corps to complete an
environmental impact statement for the purpose of a marine
terminal?
Ms. Moyer. I don't have the timeframe.
Mr. Shimkus. We don't have an average timeframe?
Ms. Moyer. I don't. I can get that information. We can get
you some information on that.
Mr. Shimkus. When can the draft environmental impact
statement for the Gateway Pacific terminal project be expected?
Ms. Moyer. They just finished scoping and at the end of
this month, they are going to release the scoping report so
that that will outline what issues and effects they are going
to be considering in that draft document. So from there, then
they will draft the EIS. So I don't have the final timeline for
that, but they are moving forward with that process.
Mr. Shimkus. And when do you expect the draft EIS for the
Millennium Bulk terminal project?
Ms. Moyer. They are initiating scoping this summer, and as
I mentioned previously, they are doing a joint process with the
State and the county, so it is the Corps, the State, and the
county, and I think that although it makes things go a little
bit more slowly than if the Corps was doing it by itself,
moving together--forward together will ultimately get us all to
the same----
Mr. Shimkus. You are hoping that a partnership will help
you get to the finish line faster than a supposed fight that
may occur if you are not?
Ms. Moyer. Right, right.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Gentleman's time is expired. At this time, I
recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just an aside, I am
glad to hear my colleague from Illinois is going to be
producing oil, because we are good friends but we do have
differences coming from Texas and Illinois on ethanol. But I am
hoping you are going to produce a lot more oil than you do
ethanol.
But again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the
hearing. I thank our witnesses. Mr. Smith, I want to thank you
because I enjoyed meeting with you last week, and I hope you
don't mind, I will repeat some of my questions for the record,
and based on your remarks recently at the Senate energy
hearing, it has been suggested the remaining applications maybe
considered at a one project every month pace--every 2 months
pace. Is that true?
Mr. Smith. What we are able to say is two things. First, we
are looking at these on a case-by-case basis so it is going to
vary between projects, but if you look at our performance for
the Freeport application between closing of the public comment
and the release of the application was just over 2 months.
Mr. Green. OK. You mentioned also that further information
becomes available at the end of 2013, including the EIA's
annual energy outlook report. The Department will assess the
impact of any market developments on subsequent public interest
determinations. Are you suggesting that you plan to take
another pause at the end of the year? If so, aren't you
concerned that it will give certain companies a competitive
advantage?
Mr. Smith. Thanks for the question, Congressman. What we
are going to do is ensure that we are all using the most
appropriate information that is available, so as market
conditions change or as new information becomes available, we
are going to be constantly reassessing these applications on a
case-by-case basis.
Mr. Green. OK. This question is for both you and Mr.
Wright. When it comes to your statutory responsibility in
regards to LNG exports and imports, are there any issues or
limitations within the Natural Gas Act that you would like to
see changed in order to do your job more expeditiously and
effectively? Either FERC--and I know it is a two--well, three-
step process, that is why the Corps is here, but maybe FERC and
DOE.
Mr. Smith. Thank you for the question. I would state that
our job as a member of the Executive Branch is to ensure that
we are executing the law as written, both the letter and the
spirit of the law, so if Congress should change the law we will
certainly be executing the spirit of that law as changed.
Mr. Green. But you don't have any suggestions on
improvements in the law?
Mr. Smith. I would not take it upon myself to make
suggestions to this body about what they should change.
Mr. Green. Mr. Smith--or Mr. Wright?
Mr. Wright. As per the Energy Policy Act of 2005, FERC was
named--explicitly named the lead agency for processing LNG
cases as well as pipelines, and within that context we set the
schedule and we set the schedule not only for ourselves, but
for other agencies. So I would agree with Mr. Smith. We have a
good deal of authority that we need. If this body believes we
need more, we will welcome it.
Mr. Green. OK. Mr. Wright, in conducting the environmental
reviews, do you find that other agencies are responding in a
timely manner?
Mr. Wright. In most cases, yes, agencies do. Some agencies
do have statutory considerations that prevent them from
adhering to our usual--our schedule that we put out. That was
acknowledged in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, but in general,
the agencies do a very good job.
Mr. Green. Mr. Smith, you mentioned that Section 3A of the
Natural Gas Act creates a rebuttable presumption that a
proposed export of natural gas is in the public interest. Why
do you choose then to conduct a full public interest review?
Mr. Smith. Well I mean, our interpretation of that law
simply states that it is incumbent on those who would expose
exports to demonstrate that approving a particular export
application would not be consistent with the public interest,
which means that we have to take those things into
consideration. The law states that we have to consider the
public interest, and that is what we do through our processes.
Mr. Green. Mr. Booth and Mr. Cooper on the second panel
argues that the case-by-case order of applicants that you plan
to review violates the Administrative Procedures Act, because
that approach was never offered up for a notice and comment
period, and how do you respond to that.
Mr. Smith. Well, you know, we have an obligation to make
sure that we do consider each of these applications. We have to
have some sort of sequence for doing that, so we don't have--we
have not put in place anything that would state that there is a
rule or something unique that applicants have to do before they
will be considered, but in doing our work with the finite
resources that we have, we have to have some sort of process
for getting through the queue of applicants, and we wanted that
to be open and transparent and fair.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know I am almost out
of time, but coming from Texas, it seems like every port from
literally the Sabine River to the Rio Grande is going to get in
line, so hopefully we can keep that production going in south
Texas, make sure we can do that. Use it and export what we
can't use. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Chair at this time recognizes the gentleman
from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is only
appropriate that I ask questions after Mr. Green from Texas,
because it was 2005 that he and I teamed up to expedite the
process to import liquid natural gas, as we felt there was a
shortage of natural gas to meet our then current needs. That no
longer exists today, and now we are talking about, perhaps,
those same facilities that were being permitted to import
liquid natural gas can now turn around and be exporters
ourselves of natural gas.
So I was interested--and I think it was Mr. Wright that
there was a conversation regarding taking into account any
price impacts on consumers. Was that you that answered that
question?
Mr. Wright. No, it was not.
Mr. Terry. That was you, Mr. Smith? Sorry, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. That was me.
Mr. Terry. And so in regard, what was your finding on any
impact on prices?
Mr. Smith. So we commissioned a study that was delivered to
the Department of Energy, and that study found that in some
cases that there could be some price impacts in terms of
creating additional demand.
Mr. Terry. Can you be more specific?
Mr. Smith. Well there are lots of cases, so we looked at a
number of cases, so we found in the base case it is actually
very difficult for LNG to compete in global markets, and so
there would be zero or no impact on prices. We ran other cases
that looked at limited supply of LNG globally. We looked at
other cases that looked at increased demand for LNG globally,
and we looked at some cases to combine some of those. But in
different scenarios, we know that LNG is, at least
historically, has been a fairly volatile commodity in terms of
price, but we found that overall, the overall impact on the
economy, the results of the study said would be positive.
Mr. Terry. Is our current supply of natural gas that is
readily available recoverable? Is it meeting our current needs
of natural gas in the United States?
Mr. Smith. I would say yes.
Mr. Terry. In fact, there is an argument that we have an
oversupply of liquid--I am sorry, of natural gas currently. So
there is actually opportunities to increase demand, is that
correct?
Mr. Smith. I think the--right now certainly you see some
surplus of natural gas in lots of basins, in fact, you see some
areas in which companies are flaring natural gas, so certainly
you could unambiguously state that in many parts of the
country, you see some surpluses of natural gas.
Mr. Terry. Thank you.
Mr. Wright, a question for you. Based off of the reason why
we needed to streamline permitting of export--I am sorry,
import facilities in the United States so we could take more
natural gas, an amendment that Gene Green and I had. So
currently now for exporting, what role do State and county and
local agencies play in connecting with siting of any LNG
facilities under Section 7 of the Nat Gas Act?
Mr. Wright. Well, actually under Section 3 of the Natural
Gas Act----
Mr. Terry. Or Section 3.
Mr. Wright. Yes. States are invited to participate in the
process and they are--if they wish to assign an agency to
comment upon it, they are to do so within 30 days of the filing
of the application. So their involvement begins early on in the
process.
Mr. Terry. And counties and localities have the same
ability to provide you information?
Mr. Wright. Oh, certainly. Anyone has the ability to
provide information to us.
Mr. Terry. But they don't have the ability to stop a
project now, other than if you take into account their
comments?
Mr. Wright. Well that is part of what the environmental
process is, the NEPA process.
Mr. Terry. Now what is the position of your office on
whether the State has authority under the Coastal Zone
Management Act to allow county officials to effectively veto a
Section 7 natural gas pipeline application by withholding a
local permit?
Mr. Wright. Well, that has actually happened. In thinking
back, it was a proposal to bring a pipeline across Long Island
Sound some years ago and that was effectively vetoed by the
delegated--federally delegated authority to the State.
Mr. Terry. So that could happen again?
Mr. Wright. Yes, it could.
Mr. Terry. All right. And last--and this is to both Mr.
Smith and Mr. Wright and Ms. Moyer. Have you heard of--have any
lawsuits been filed against your agencies by environmental
groups permitting--regarding permitting LNG export facilities?
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. We would certainly expect all of the actions of
the Department to be scrutinized and contested, and in fact, we
have had some legal issues that we are currently litigating, so
yes.
Mr. Terry. All right.
Mr. Wright. We have had rehearings filed in the Sabine
Pass, the one action we did take. I do not believe we were
taken to court over that, though.
Mr. Terry. All right.
Ms. Moyer. I am not aware of any, but I can----
Mr. Terry. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Gentleman's time is expired. At this time, I
recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This hearing presents us with an issue that America must
confront. With everything science is telling us about climate
change and carbon pollution, should our country be promoting
and increasing exports of coal? I tend to agree with the
ranking member, Mr. Waxman, when he says there is a difference
between coal exports and natural gas. For coal, coal is the
single largest contributor to climate change and global
warming, and the resulting impacts, looking out at the years
ahead, are quite dire for our country and all across the globe.
It is going to impact our national security as our military
leaders have said. It is a great risk to coastal areas like my
home State of Florida, health issues. So can America, on the
one hand, provide any global leadership to fight climate
change, and then on the other hand, promote and increase
exports of coal?
Ms. Moyer, I know in your previous testimony here today you
said that examination of the broader climate change impacts
really are not within the framework of the Army Corps, but you
did acknowledge that climate change is very serious. So
shouldn't someone, some agency consider the larger impacts of
expanding coal exports on climate change?
Ms. Moyer. Certainly I think that climate change is a huge
issue that is facing us all. That is my personal opinion, and
what was in my testimony and what I will reflect on again is
that NEPA and the Corps zone regulations direct that the Corps
consider whether the Corps' permit action is part of a larger
action, or whether it is a limited--whether we have a limited
handle on what is being proposed. And if it is part of a larger
project, we have to decide what aspects outside of our
jurisdiction do we have control and responsibility for and
therefore, expand our scope of analysis.
And in the context of these proposed terminals, we have
looked at the context and we have determined that we don't
control coal mining. We don't control shipping by rail or
shipping on the high seas----
Ms. Castor. Well a number of elected officials and
community leaders, environmental groups, public health
organizations have raised concerns about the potential impacts
of building and operating new coal export terminals in
Washington State and Oregon. The impact of the coal export
terminals on water quality in the region's fisheries are one
important concern. In a letter to the Army Corps, the Puget
Sound Partnership, a State agency established to lead efforts
to protect and restore Puget Sound, outlined several concerns
with the proposed Gateway Pacific terminal near Cherry Point,
Washington. The Partnership raised ocean acidification as a
major concern. Ocean acidification is caused by oceans rapidly
absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and the State of
Washington has launched a major initiative to address the
impact, since it harms the State's shellfish populations and
commercial fisheries. How will the Army Corps examine the
impact of the proposed coal export terminals on ocean
acidification in the Pacific Northwest?
Ms. Moyer. It is my understanding that ocean acidification
is another resulting--or another result from climate change, so
it leads back to----
Ms. Castor. But is it regional. You said some impacts are
too attenuated for the Corps, but that is a regional impact or
a very localized impact.
Ms. Moyer. Well ocean acidification, it is the result--what
is in those letters is tied back to the local impacts from
overall ocean acidification. And I am not at all discounting
that there are those concerns from folks in that area.
Ms. Castor. All right, let me ask another specific
question. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
suggested the Corps evaluate potential impact of coal dust
generated by the Ute Gateway terminal, which would affect water
quality in nearby streams and wetlands. Others have raised
broader concerns about the water quality impacts along the rail
and barge routes. How will the Army Corps study the impacts of
coal dust from the proposed coal export terminals?
Ms. Moyer. As I mentioned in my testimony, the Corps is
going to look at those effects that are within its scope of
analysis so the ones that are occurring within the facility
itself and those areas in which we have----
Ms. Castor. What about the health of the Columbia River and
other important salmon habitats?
Ms. Moyer. Those aspects of it that are within our control
and responsibility certainly will be considered. Both all of
the effects, direct, indirect, and cumulative will be
considered, but those areas that are outside of our scope of
analysis will not be considered.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
Mr. Whitfield. Gentlelady yields back. At this time, I
recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Cassidy. Thank you.
Mr. Wright, the Sabine Pass liquefication project in
Cameron Parish took 441 days, and it may--I don't know if this
is going to be Mr. Wright or Mr. Smith. I think, Mr. Smith, you
mentioned that it was only 2 months between the closing of the
application process to approval, so 60 days, so clearly there
are 381 days in which the process took the time to get done. So
what bottlenecks are coming up that are prolonging this
process?
Mr. Smith. So thank you for the question. So we certainly
understand the sense of urgency around these regulatory
processes, and we are endeavoring to move these forward as
expeditiously as possible in all cases.
In the timeline that you just mentioned, after the Sabine
Pass order was finished, we stated in the Sabine Pass order
that we did have to consider the cumulative impact of that
order and any subsequent orders when we are looking at
additional authorizations. This is a very important and complex
public interest determination that has to look at domestic and
global impacts, domestic markets, global markets, impacts on
consumers, American businesses and families, jobs, et cetera.
It is not a trivial point, and we did----
Mr. Cassidy. So was there a bottleneck, per se, or was it
just that complexity of the issue was such that it just takes
that long?
Mr. Smith. I think it was a tremendously complex and
important issue, and----
Mr. Cassidy. Now since a lot of those issues are generic,
as presumably subsequent approvals will not take as long?
Mr. Smith. I would agree. One of the reasons that we
pointed out that the period between the end of the comment
period and the actual issuing of the order was something, you
know, just north of 2 months was to state that the public--the
cumulative impact study, which was a complex study, is not
something that we see that we are going to have to replicate
between each one of these orders.
Mr. Cassidy. Now just because I know this is how the game
works, there may be an agency that sits on it and doesn't
process it. Is there any way to one, identify agencies which
perhaps were not as expeditious as they could be, and two, if
there was such an agency--it doesn't have to be named--is there
any way to put the Bunsen burner underneath them to get them to
actually get it moving?
Mr. Smith. Our job is very specific. It is to--and very
explicit. It is to work together to move as expeditiously as
possible to get a good public interest determination----
Mr. Cassidy. That is not really answering my question.
Mr. Smith. Well, Congressman, I think it does address the
issue. I mean, we are currently----
Mr. Cassidy. So there is never an agency that seems to be a
little dilatory in terms of how quickly they respond?
Mr. Smith. Well in this case, we have got two primary
agencies that have jurisdiction. We control the authorization
to export the molecule. FERC controls the authorization to
build the terminal. We are working together very closely to
make sure that we are getting this work done.
Mr. Cassidy. Mr. Wright, would you add anything to what has
been said?
Mr. Wright. What I would say, and I said earlier this
morning, a lot of our problems or difficulties in processing do
stem from the applicant. We encourage or by statute they are
supposed to stay in the pre-filing period for at least 6
months. Some companies are very eager to get out of the pre-
filing, thinking that going to the application mode would
hasten the processing. It does not. Pre-filing is a very free
flowing information flow period. You go to a formal
application, our ex parte rules take over. Things have to be
done much more in writing and on the record. That said, I
believe Cheniere would have been processed much sooner. They
did not complete their air modeling analysis during the pre-
filing, so substantial--they jumped right to the formal
application, therefore substantial information was required
after their certificate filing was made.
Mr. Cassidy. Got you. Is there any limitation or timeframe
in which individuals or organizations can file claims in court
to request a rehearing of the Commission orders?
Mr. Wright. Thirty days after the Commission issues its
order rehearings are due.
Mr. Cassidy. So there is a definite kind of define
timeframe, cannot exceed?
Mr. Wright. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cassidy. Great. Mr. Smith, any comments? You look like
you were looking off in space pensively.
Mr. Smith. No additional comments.
Mr. Cassidy. Got you. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Dr. Cassidy. At this time, I
recognize the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5
minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a series of
things I would like to get a react to on it. The Energy Policy
Research Foundation has said that neither net world coal
combustion nor the greenhouse gas emissions will change
substantially as the result of an expansion of our coal
exports. Interesting statement. That was one. The other comes
from McClellan, who used to be chairman of the National
Research Council, Committee on Toxicology. He was past chairman
of the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. He said
that coal continues to play an important role of meeting the
energy needs around the world, with steady improvements made in
its transport and use. Coal has been transported through the
Northwest by rail for decades, and there has never been any
evidence of harm associated with this rail transport. Could any
of you respond to those two comments?
Mr. Smith. Well, I can give a response. We don't have
oversight over coal exports, but I would certainly say two
things. First, we do have significant concerns about climate
change and we think there are specific things that we need to
do to be reducing greenhouse gas emissions into the
environment. The second is that we are----
Mr. McKinley. If I could, on climate change. Could you tell
me what is your end game? If we are 400 parts per million of
CO2, where do you want to stop it, at 400 or do you want it
back at 250, or where are we trying to go?
Mr. Smith. Well, I cannot give you a specific answer to
that question because it is not simply something that is not
under my jurisdiction, but I can say that in terms of the
research and development we are doing for coal, we are making
an historic investment to ensure that coal is part of the clean
energy economy of the future, that we are making steps to
ensure that we are able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
coal-fired power plants, that we are creating the technologies
that we can sequester it in a way that is safe and
environmentally sustainable, and that we are able to take
advantage of this very important domestic energy resource.
So there are technological research and development
solutions to the challenges that we see of making sure that all
of our energy resources remain relevant and contribute to our--
--
Mr. McKinley. All right, so we didn't really answer either
of the two questions, but go back--if we don't export coal, do
we really think the other nations are going to not find coal
someplace else?
Mr. Smith. Again, Congressman----
Mr. McKinley. My question--really, are we trying to take
ourselves out of the market and all the jobs that are related
to it, from transportation to mining it and all the support
facilities? I am trying to understand, because I think the
Congressman from Illinois was right. This isn't a fight about
exports; this is a fight about coal. The war on coal continues
here in Washington. So I am trying to really grasp where we are
going, because they are going to find coal someplace else, or
they are going to find natural gas, LNG, from someone else, are
they not? Are they not? Are they not going to--if we don't sell
it to them, will they not find it someplace else?
Mr. Smith. Well, one can observe that there is lots and
lots of coal that is being burned in China and India. There are
lots of plants going up. There is lots of activity there. There
are things that we are doing that are very proactive in terms
of----
Mr. McKinley. So we are just taking ourselves out of the
market if we were to allow this to either be postponed,
delayed, or terminated, isn't that right?
Mr. Smith. I can't speak to exports. Again, Ms. Moyer could
speak to exports.
Mr. McKinley. Could you please add into this, because I am
curious about from all the jobs that are associated with it in
our industry, and coming from West Virginia, 50 percent of the
export of coal comes from West Virginia, and so I take it very
personally when someone says we potentially could ban the
exporting of coal and/or natural gas.
Ms. Moyer. And certainly----
Mr. McKinley. Could you get closer to your mike, please?
Ms. Moyer. Sure.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you.
Ms. Moyer. And certainly knowing that you are from West
Virginia, you are certainly most likely very familiar with the
fact that the Corps of Engineers doesn't regulate the--or have
the responsibility for regulating the development of coal
resources.
Mr. McKinley. I understand, but I am trying--but you have
got the terminal and they are threatened, but yet we have
testimony from people, we have got mayors from all over the
Northwest who say they support this.
Ms. Moyer. And what I explained in my testimony is that the
Corps of Engineers has very limited authority in these shipping
facilities where you have a limited scope of analysis. We are
not looking at a lot of these attenuated effects. We are
sticking to the footprint of the project itself and the
associated indirect effects.
Mr. McKinley. I am sorry, I have run out of my time. I am
sorry. Maybe we can chat more about the----
Mr. Whitfield. Gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you very much.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. I kind of feel like we are tag teaming.
McKinley just tagged me.
Let's pick it up where we left off. Virginia has--and most
of them are in my district, 9,000 plus workers who deal with
coal, and one of my concerns is as I was listening to some of
the other questions that you would think that some of the
folks, you know, want to dictate to the rest of the world
everything that happens, and I think we learned a long time ago
that while the United States has huge influence, we can't
dictate to other countries of the world. And so I do feel your
pain, Ms. Moyer, in trying to, you know, you are trying to do
your job within the parameters that you are given, but you
can't make decisions because it is complex as to what happens
and whether or not coal production in the United States for
exports would really change the amount of coal being burned,
because you would not disagree with me if I were to tell you
that over the last several years, the Australians, the
Indonesians, the Indians, the Russians, the Chinese, some of
the southern African countries have all increased their coal
production, and I would submit in part because there is some
hesitancy to use American coal for fear that the American coal
resources will be shut down. But you wouldn't disagree with me
if I indicated that there were numerous nations around the
world that have increased their coal production and their coal
usage, would you?
Ms. Moyer. I don't know what they have done. I am not
familiar with those.
Mr. Griffith. And that is why you can't make a decision
when you are trying to decide whether or not a new facility
should be opened up, you can't look at all of that. You have to
decide what the impact is on building that facility and do what
your job is in the parameters that are given to you by the law
on that facility, not looking at the worldwide impact of what
might or might not happen as we move forward. Isn't that
correct?
Ms. Moyer. Correct.
Mr. Griffith. And Mr. Smith, I am glad to hear that you all
are looking at coal and things that we can do. I have been very
excited about the work at Ohio State where they have come up
with a process that has worked in the small scale to do a
chemical looping that has virtually no pollutant, a little
bit--I think 1 percent of the carbon dioxide currently
produced, but they get the energy out of the coal without
having any of the NOX and SOX and mercury, and only 1 percent
of what is currently produced on carbon dioxide, and I would
wonder if you could tell me what you know about that project
and as they move forward on the project in Alabama, how much
assistance you all are going to give them in moving that
project on to the fast track. Because if that works, not only
can we export American coal, but we can export technology that
makes it so that Mr. Waxman and I can agree that it is good to
have jobs and we don't have global warming in the process. What
are you doing?
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
So over the course of the last several years, we have made
an historic $6 billion investment in technologies to reduce the
cost to capture CO2 out of the coal-fired power plants and to
demonstrate that we can successfully and sustainably store CO2
either in saline aquifers or in depleted oil fields for
enhanced oil recovery. That is a critically important goal to
ensure that we are using all of our domestic resources as part
of our all-of-the-above strategy.
Mr. Griffith. But if I might, because obviously we all have
limited time, but you know, if this technology that Ohio State
University has developed and has been working on, if that
works, that answers all those other questions. I mean, we don't
have to worry as much about carbon sequestration, because there
isn't going to be very much carbon output. You end up with
basically a process that is all housed within, you know, the
box, and of course, the bigger the box we have to see how it
works. And so I would strongly encourage that the Department of
Energy take a very serious look at that and see what we can do
to fast track that project to see if it works, because I think
it has the same potential to have us sitting here in 5 years
going you know, we thought we weren't going to be able to do
this, and schazaam, it happened that we are now saying about
natural gas, because just a couple of years ago, they were
saying we were going to have to import and now we are talking
about what we can do to expedite exports. And I would note in
that regard, hoping that you all are looking at the impact of
jobs if we do approve LNG for export, but some people have said
well that will make the prices go up. We are still waiting in
Virginia for the approval to do offshore drilling. We think we
have a lot of natural gas. We think we might have some oil, but
we think we have got a lot of natural gas out there. If we are
able to export, not only do we create jobs in the United
States, but I don't think there is any impact to--any
significant impact to the price because that will just spur
more exploration in the United States for more natural gas. We
ought to use our resources to create jobs, wouldn't you agree?
Mr. Smith. We are enthusiastic about chemical looping and
all the projects you mentioned, and we are working together on
those goals.
Mr. Griffith. Anything you can help us to do to get
approval for offshore drilling in Virginia would be fantastic.
Thank you. I see my time is up and I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. Gentleman yields back. At this time, I
recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It appears DOE's consideration of public interest is
somewhat limited in part due to the declarations of statute
that exports of LNG to countries we have a trade agreement with
are consistent with the public interest. I want to explore the
concept a bit more.
Unlike metal, paper, cloth or agricultural commodities, one
natural gas is exported and used, that is it. The fossil
reserves of it cannot be regenerated and it cannot be reclaimed
through recycling. So if we could, Mr. Smith, how does DOE
account for this in its determination of public interest?
Mr. Smith. Well, the statute creates two different and
separate categories. There is a categories with which the
United States has a free trade agreement. There is a separate
category for those countries with which the United States does
not have a free trade agreement. So by statute, we don't have
discretion over exports to those countries, so following the
letter in the spirit of the law, those applications are
approved without delay or modification or further consideration
by the Department. So when we talk about public interest
determinations and all the work that we are doing, studies,
evaluations, those apply to those countries with which the
United States does not have a free trade agreement.
Mr. Tonko. OK, thank you. And the determination of the
price that will benefit domestic manufacturing without
providing a distinctive--or a disincentive, excuse me, to
continue extraction is a difficult task. How does DOE consider
each application for export in a national context?
Mr. Smith. So the Department certainly doesn't set prices
or determine business models, so the way that we have to look
at that is look at our global dynamic equilibrium models that
would help us consider what would be the impact on the domestic
prices to various scenarios for export to other countries. So
these are studies, they are estimates. They are based on the
best available data that we have in place, and that is the
methodology that we use to try to estimate what might be the
impact of approving applications.
Mr. Tonko. Is the number of facilities you would approve
contingent on our oversupply and the number of existing
facilities?
Mr. Smith. Well certainly as we look at each facility, we
are going to have to consider the cumulative impact of
facilities that we already approved. So part of that is
understanding, well, what is the supply and demand balance in
the United States. What do we think about the size of the
resources that are available, and our ability to ensure that we
can prudently and safely develop those resources. So those are
all things that go into the modeling and the consideration
where we are making these public interest determinations.
Mr. Tonko. Yes, and how does the public interest test apply
to the reduction of domestic reserves of any essential fuel and
feed stock that can not be easily replaced?
Mr. Smith. I am sorry, I am not sure I understood the
question. How does the----
Mr. Tonko. Right, how does the public interest test apply
to the reduction of domestic reserves of an essential fuel and
feed stock that cannot be easily replaced?
Mr. Smith. So we do believe that we have got a vast supply
of natural gas in the United States, 100 years of supply, 800
trillion cubic feet of natural gas within the Marcellus Shale
alone, so we think this is a large resource that will be
attractive if we can produce it in a way that is safe and
environmentally sustainable. So we have to consider the size of
the resource, and that is part of the public interest
determination that we make for each of these applications.
Mr. Tonko. And the extraction of fossil fuels obviously has
benefits, both private and public, but it also has costs,
especially in the communities where this activity is occurring.
If exporting LNG stimulates additional extraction and the gas
is not being used as a fuel or feed stock here, how are the
costs to communities where extraction takes place accounted for
in your determination of public interest?
Mr. Smith. Well thanks for that question, and certainly we
have a keen understanding and awareness that the most important
factor in prudent development and effective use of the resource
is to ensure that the people who live and work close to where
the wells are being drilled are comfortable with the processes
that we have scientifically quantified the risks, and that we
are demonstrating that the regulations are mitigating those
risks. So that is the core part of the research and development
that we do within my office in terms of environmental
sustainability and safety of domestic coal and gas production.
So we consider that in our public interest determination, but
we are also doing that in real time in terms of real research
and development that is helping us to ensure that those
resources develop safely.
Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Gentleman yields back. At this time, I
recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that, and
also I want to thank our witnesses today. I appreciate your
testimony.
You know, it has been a common theme that has kind of gone
through a lot of the questioning is a lot on the timeline for
the applications to go through, and if I could just maybe
follow up on a couple of these, if I may.
Ms. Moyer, one of the things when you are looking at these
applications, how often do you have third party litigants that
are going to be filing lawsuits? Do you have any idea, like in
the current cases out West how many third party litigants you
have?
Ms. Moyer. As far as I know, we don't have anybody that has
sued us yet because we haven't taken an agency action.
Mr. Latta. OK. if I could turn, then, to Mr. Smith. I think
that--I am sorry, Mr. Wright. I believe that Mr. Barton had
asked a question as to from start to finish and filing of an
application how long it takes, did I understand it was 18 to 24
months? Is that correct what I heard?
Mr. Wright. I was using the example of our experience with
the regasification plants, the import terminals, but I tried to
point out is using the Sabine Pass example of about 15 months
is kind of risky in that it is each one of the export terminals
are presenting kind of issues of first impressions. So I can't
put my exact finger on a processing time for export terminals.
Mr. Latta. OK. Well because I am just kind of curious,
because in your testimony where you kind of lay out your
timelines and what is happening, from the pre-filing process it
says for a period of about at least 6 months, and then you have
right in the same paragraph the question again--if I could
bring this up, is on the interveners become parties to the
proceedings and have the right to request a rehearing of
Commission orders and seek relief of final agency actions in
the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. When that happens, how much
time is needed for that to get something out of the Court of
Appeals.
Mr. Wright. Well, that would be up to the actual project
proponent. If you get through our rehearing process and we find
that your project is approved, if someone sues you in the Court
of Appeals, you can go ahead and commence construction
activities at your risk. People do that on the pipeline side.
Mr. Latta. OK, and if I could turn--Mr. Smith, if I could
ask you, it is kind of interesting that in your testimony you
show--state that in the one case, I think it was the Sabine, if
I got that correct, it says in response to the Notice of
Availability, DOE received over 188,000 initial comments and
approximately 2,700 reply comments. How long did it take you
all to get through that? Any idea?
Mr. Smith. From the time that we closed that comment period
to the time we issued the order, it was somewhere around 2,
2\1/2\ months was the period of time that we took to evaluate
all of the comments, write the order, and get the report
published and the Federal Registry notice and out to the
applicant.
Mr. Latta. OK. In that period of time, just out of
curiosity then, how many folks do you have looking at the
comments and then also how much time is spent looking at pretty
much each of those comments, since you had, again, 188,000
initial comments and then again the 2,700 reply comments. Any
idea how much you spent on each one of those?
Mr. Smith. Thanks for the question. Some of those comments
are repetitive because some of them are letter writing
campaigns. Some of them are very comprehensive, so they could
be entire studies or comments that are very complex, so I
couldn't really give you a rule of thumb for each comment,
because it depends.
Mr. Latta. And also, just again because I said that there
is a common theme here of folks on the committee looking at--on
the time side. When you issued, it says here, that on May the
17th, 2013, DOE granted the second long-term application on the
Freeport, and it said--in your statement, it says the order was
granted after an extensive review of the application to export
LNG for Freeport. How long--when you say extensive, how much
time is that for that review?
Mr. Smith. Well, there are two things that happened between
Sabine Pass and Freeport. First, we commissioned an extensive
study that looked at domestic and international impacts of LNG
and how those would impact American businesses and families and
consumers, so that took a period of time. That study, once
completed, we want this to be an open and transparent and very
visible process, so we put that study in the docket for public
review. That was when various stakeholders had the opportunity
to comment, and so that was the genesis of those comments that
you just asked me about. When that was completed, we took a
period of time to evaluate the comments and then we got the
order written.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My time is
expired and I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. Gentleman's time is expired, and that
concludes the questions for this panel, except Ms. Moyer, one
question I wanted to ask you. How many export facilities are
under review by the Corps right now?
Ms. Moyer. In the Pacific Northwest?
Mr. Whitfield. Yes--no, nationwide.
Ms. Moyer. I don't know. I could get back to you on that. I
don't know.
Mr. Whitfield. But in the Northwest, three?
Ms. Moyer. Just the three.
Mr. Whitfield. OK. Well we will stay in touch with you on
that. I want to follow up on that.
But thank you all very much for being with us. We
appreciate your expertise and testimony.
At this time, I would like to call up the second panel, and
on the second panel today we have the Honorable Mike McGinn,
who is the Mayor of the City of Seattle. We have Mr. Ross
Eisenberg, who is the Vice President, Energy and Resources
Policy for the National Association of Manufacturers. We have
Mr. Harold Quinn, President and CEO of the National Mining
Association. Mr. KC Golden, Policy Director for Climate
Solutions. We have Mr. Bill Cooper, President of the Center for
Liquefied Natural Gas, and we have Mr. Lucien Pugliaresi,
President for the Energy Policy Research Foundation.
So I want to thank all of you for joining us today. We look
forward to your testimony on this important subject matter, and
each one of you will be given 5 minutes for an opening
statement, and then I am sure that there will be some questions
from members as they come back in. So thank you for joining us,
and Mr. McGinn, we will call on you for your opening statement
to begin with, and each one of you will be given 5 minutes. As
I said earlier, there is a little box that--if it is working.
Is it working? If it is working a red light will come on, but
we look forward to your testimony and Mr. McGinn, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE MIKE MCGINN, MAYOR, CITY OF SEATTLE;
HAROLD P. QUINN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL MINING
ASSOCIATION; ROSS E. EISENBERG, VICE PRESIDENT, ENERGY AND
RESOURCES POLICY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS; KC
GOLDEN, POLICY DIRECTOR, CLIMATE SOLUTIONS; LUCIAN PUGLIARESI,
PRESIDENT, ENERGY POLICY RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC.; AND BILL
COOPER, PRESIDENT, THE CENTER FOR LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE MIKE MCGINN
Mr. McGinn. Thank you, Chairman. It is----
Mr. Whitfield. I am sorry, I should say Mayor McGinn.
Mr. McGinn. That is--anything works. Chairman, thank you
for the invitation to testify. It is a real honor to be here.
A long time ago when my hair wasn't gray and my beard was
red, I worked for Congressman Jim Weaver of Oregon over there
in the Longworth Office Building, and Northwest politics often
involve energy. Congressman Weaver was deeply involved in
champion conservation as opposed to new nuclear power plants at
that time, and conservation was indeed the wiser choice. The
whoops nuclear power plants that were endorsed by Congress
ended up defaulting on billions of dollars of municipal bonds.
We now face another significant energy choice for the
Pacific Northwest, one that could have dramatic consequences
for our economic and environmental well-being: whether 110
million tons of coal a year will be transported across the
Northwest and shipped to China from Northwest ports. To put
that in perspective, the carbon emissions from that coal are
more than the emissions projected from the Keystone XL
Pipeline.
So I want to describe this just a little bit. To ship this
coal to China, terminals are proposed north of Bellingham,
Washington, near Longview, Washington, as well as in Oregon and
British Columbia is looking at coal ports as well. To ship this
coal, we would be looking at--to get to Bellingham, we would be
looking at 18 coal trains a day, each a mile and a half to 2
miles long, traveling from the Powder River Basin in Montana
and Wyoming, through Spokane and eastern Washington, down the
length of the Columbia River, the border between Oregon and
Washington, and then from south to north, almost to the
northwest corner of the State in Bellingham, traversing
multiple towns and traveling along the Puget Sound coastline.
The coal trains are uncovered. They lose approximately 2
percent of their load on the route. The proposed coal terminal
near Bellingham sits on ancestral Native American lands and is
opposed by the Lummi Nation, both because it violates the
burial grounds and because coal pollution in Puget Sound
threatens their salmon rights, and those are treaty rights.
I tell this story because the local impacts of coal trains
upon communities throughout Washington are significant. Over 40
local elected officials, including tribal leaders, have joined
me in the leadership alliance against coal because of the
serious negative impacts on their communities, and I would like
to talk about that. Coal train traffic will clog the railroads.
Coal dust and diesel exhaust from the engines pollute water and
lungs. Neighborhoods along the rail lines will see decreased
quality of life, and it will have significant negative
transportation impacts. I ask you to consider the impacts upon
communities as these coal trains go through.
In Seattle, in our industrial area we have four at-grade
crossings, and then we have four at-grade crossings between our
downtown and our waterfront. Each of these areas are
significant job-creating areas in their own right, and in order
for freight traffic to reach our port, they have to go across
these rail lines. We worked with consulting firm parametrics to
take a close look, and we are talking about increased gate down
time up to 2 to 3 hours each day. That has economic impacts as
well as public safety impacts upon our police and fire
departments. Now imagine that impact on cities and towns along
the entire route. These railroad lines tend to go right through
the middles of towns at grade.
And then let's take a look again at just the broader
impacts. We have spoken about the climate impacts already. This
is equivalent to all the gasoline burned by 50 million people
each year. Now unless we stop these coal terminals from being
built, we will be responsible for hastening the advance of
climate change here at home and around the world.
Now I have heard members of this group talk quite a bit
about jobs. I just want to say, we have been working really
hard in Seattle to recover from the recession caused by lax
oversight of our financial institutions in this country, and we
are creating jobs. We are building the greenest buildings in
the world. We are retrofitting buildings, and those are local
jobs. You have to be in that crawlspace. You have to be
operating those energy control systems. We have been
eliminating waste, putting savings--putting the money we save
to productive use. That is frugal, that is efficient, and that
is reducing demand for our clean wind and water power, which
means we can put that electricity to better use in our economy.
In fact, we should be exporting our green building technology,
not coal. In fact, we are. Our architects are building
buildings in China and all over the world, because they are
some of the leading architects in the world.
I want to return to the issue of the whoops nuclear power
plants that I mentioned at the beginning. We somehow have this
belief that economic growth requires ever-increasing amounts of
energy use. We prove that to be wrong in the Northwest. We have
had significant economic growth while reducing our energy use.
We have grown by being more efficient and cleaner, enhancing
our quality of life. That is the pathway to creating good jobs.
The same is true with coal trains. They will hurt us
economically. We have better ways to create jobs. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McGinn follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.050
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mayor Quinn--I mean, McGinn.
At this time, I would like to call on Mr. Quinn for a 5-
minute opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HAROLD P. QUINN
Mr. Quinn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I appreciate you having this hearing today. My
remarks focus on the economic contributions of U.S. coal
exports as well as potential for contributing more through the
expansion of that capacity.
As you, Mr. Chairman, know, many members of this
subcommittee are aware, coal has been the fastest growing
energy source globally over the past decade, and some forecasts
actually peg coal surpasses oil as the leading energy source
globally within the next 2 years. As it so happens, the United
States happens to have the most of what the rest of the world
needs and demands, 260 billion tons of recoverable coal
reserves. To put that in perspective, U.S. coal reserves equal
the proven oil reserves of the entire Middle East, Russia, and
the continent of Africa combined.
So when it comes to energy independence, U.S. coal stands
in the forefront by providing our Nation the resource to build
and power our economy while also supplying this energy resource
to countries around the globe. In fact, U.S. coal exports
represent the only positive addition to the U.S. trade balance
from the energy sector. Now last year we shipped about 125
millions of steam and metallurgical coal, double the amount we
shipped 4 years ago. We shipped this coal to 76 countries
around the globe through ports located in States on the East
Coast, the Gulf, West Coast, and Great Lakes.
The economic contributions from coal export activity are
documented in a report prepared by Ernest and Young released
last month by the National Mining Association. Here are a few
of the highlights: $16.6 billion was added to the GDP; coal
exports supported more than 168,000 jobs and a wide range of
businesses, from coal mines, railroads, barges, trucks, cargo
handling, and ports. For every million tons of coal exported,
more than 1,300 jobs are added to the U.S. economy. These
direct jobs created by coal exports pay on average $96,000
annually in wages and benefits, nearly 50 percent more than the
national average.
The trend of growing seaborne coal market is unmistakable.
The developing world is demanding more coal to power historic
transformation from agrarian societies to commercial powers.
This transformation, unprecedented in terms of scope and pace,
is built upon a coal-centric infrastructure of steel, cement,
and of course, electricity. But coal is also supplying the
energy and infrastructure needs of a developed world as the
cost and reliability of energy supplies becomes an increasing
concern in sustaining our economic futures. With a top of class
reserve base, workforce, and transportation infrastructure, the
U.S. is well-positioned to participate more fully in the
growing seaborne coal trade.
Now whether we are able to participate to our full
potential will turn on the building of our port capacity, in
terms of volume as well as location. Proposals to build coal
export facilities in the Pacific Northwest are critical to
connecting our western mines to the growing Asian markets. The
Interior Basin coal fields have been extraordinary growth in
export demand and the proposals to expand existing capacity in
the Gulf will make that region even more competitive.
Now like any major infrastructure project, major risks are
posed by timing and capital costs. This is why an efficient,
timely, and reliable process for reviewing permit applications
are critical to ensuring that these long-term investments
become a reality and bring enormous economic benefits locally
and nationally.
Make no mistake, if we do not seize this opportunity, other
coal exporting nations will, along with the benefits of
economic growth and jobs. Major exporting nations like Canada
and Australia fully understand the fierce competition exists
for these markets and that an efficient and timely regulatory
process provides a competitive advantage. Last year, Canada's
Prime Minister Steven Harper announced the ``One Project, One
Review'' initiative to streamline the process for permitting
major infrastructure projects. Here are some of the features:
deadlines for determining the type and scope of environmental
assessments; binding deadlines for completing reviews and
issuing decisions on permits; enhanced coordination,
consolidation, and responsibilities for provincial and federal
agencies reviewing these projects, eliminating duplication
between the provincial and federal environmental assessments.
These best practices for coordination, clarity, and
responsibilities and accountability with goals and timeframes
are not unlike the directives in the President's Executive
Order 13604 on improving performance of federal permitting on
infrastructure projects. They are also reflected in
recommendations to the President's Council on Jobs and
Competitiveness. Applying these practices to reviewing coal
export projects will unleash our full potential for providing
more Americans opportunities for high wage and highly skilled
jobs right here in the United States.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Quinn follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.056
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Quinn.
Mr. Eisenberg, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROSS E. EISENBERG
Mr. Eisenberg. Good afternoon, Chairman Whitfield, members
of the subcommittee. Thank you for having me here today to
express the views of the National Association of Manufacturers
and our 12,000 members, and also of the Alliance for Northwest
Jobs and Exports, a broad coalition of manufacturers and
agricultural, labor, civic, and other organizations that
support new export projects in Oregon and Washington State, the
projects we have been talking about today.
The NAM was founded in 1895 on principles of free trade. At
the time, the United States was in the midst of a very deep
recession, and many of the Nation's manufacturers saw a strong
need to export their products. The NAM believes that free trade
and open markets should govern in the context of energy
exports, and we also oppose bans or other similar market-
distorting mechanisms to energy exports.
Although today's hearing has focused on both LNG and coal,
my testimony today will focus primarily on coal. Manufacturing
jobs support coal exports in the United States. These jobs
include mining and support activities for mining, construction,
railroad transportation, transport by water and truck, port
operations and cargo handling, and all the manufacturing supply
chain jobs that support all of these activities. Now the
economic impact of the three terminals here today, Marrow
Pacific, Millennium Bulk terminals, and Gateway Pacific
terminal, if allowed to move forward, would be very
significant. All together, the three port expansions hold the
potential to create as many as 11,730 jobs and $831.4 million
in wages for the Pacific Northwest. This is an undeniably large
economic boost for our region which, like the rest of the
country, still continues to fight against high unemployment.
These projects would trigger increased activity from a wide
range of manufacturing industries, including cement, iron and
steel, wood products, aluminum, transportation, and shipping,
among others.
The NAM and the Alliance were very pleased to hear today
that the Army Corps will abide by the law and the regulations
and carefully consider each coal export proposal on its merits
while appropriately bounding the scope of their analysis and
their consideration of the impacts. The Corps determined that
neither a programmatic nor an area-wide or regional EIS are
appropriate when considering the proposed permits for the three
projects. The facts and circumstances related to each project
differ substantially, and they are not the type of connected
actions that warrant any sort of combined review. We are
encouraged that the Corps is committed to carrying out its
duties in accordance with the law. This is a great first step
towards creating thousands of manufacturing jobs in the region.
Now, opponents of these projects have characterized this as
a choice between the environment and the economy. It is not.
These three infrastructural projects plan to fully comply with
all the required environmental laws and regulations. The
projects will thoroughly examine air quality, water quality,
marine life, wetlands, human health, rail traffic, vessel
safety and traffic, endangered species, and the dozens of other
potential impacts of their projects required by all federal,
State, and local permitting laws. They would like nothing more
than to proceed with the permitting process in an orderly
fashion as the law requires. The Corps appears ready to give
them that opportunity.
Understand, however, that what the law requires isn't
necessarily what the opponents are calling for. They are asking
to broaden the scope of the environmental review to such a
degree that the analysis will be so long and so exhaustive that
it will delay the projects indefinitely. Both Mayor McGinn and
Mr. Golden will testify here today that they flat out oppose
the terminals and they believe a cumulative programmatic or
area-wide EIS is what it takes to stop the projects from being
built. To their credit, they are being pretty transparent about
their goal. Now I respect their opinions and their positions,
but I worry that their quests to stop these projects can have
serious consequences for all exports.
A cradle to grave life cycle impact analysis that includes
the environmental impact of the cargo, in this case, the coal,
would be a very, very dangerous precedent to be setting,
because everything we ship has a life cycle and environmental
impact. So what if the cargo was another fuel or a bulk
agricultural product like wheat or corn or soybeans? Would the
government need to perform a programmatic EIS to determine the
life cycle and environmental impact of that? In the case of
corn, would the EIS have to look at the environmental impact
not only in the transportation of the products, but also the
planting, cultivating, growing, and harvesting of crops? What
if the cargo were cars, tractors, electronics, toys, steel,
chemicals, pumps, air conditioners? You can see where I am
going here. How far up and down the supply chain would agencies
be required to go to assess the impact? The possibilities are
literally endless and are very, very deeply troubling to
manufacturers.
When NEPA was enacted in 1969, the intent was require
federal agencies to account for, document, and disseminate to
the public the environmental impacts of their actions.
Congress's intent in enacting NEPA was not to curtail or
significantly delay federal action. NEPA requires excellent
action, but there are boundaries to that action and those
boundaries must be respected. Free trade and exports aren't
particularly divisive concepts in the United States, but for
some reason--and as we are seeing here today, for some reason
when you put the word ``energy'' in front of export, we all
wind up wrapped around the axle. The United States is energy-
rich and domestic supply will soon exceed demand. Exports of
energy are a reality. Manufacturers support an objective,
orderly, and ultimately legal permitting process for energy
exports.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Eisenberg follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.071
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Eisenberg.
Mr. Golden, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KC GOLDEN
Mr. Golden. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rush, members of
the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
My name is KC Golden. I am the policy director for Climate
Solutions. We are a regional organization focusing on promoting
practical and profitable solutions to global warming. I am here
today to talk about coal export. Not about corn, not about
toys, but about coal exports.
Proposed coal export projects are a very big deal for our
region, and so we appreciate your willingness to carefully
examine the costs and benefits before proceeding. Northwest
citizens and communities are deeply concerned about the impacts
of coal export on public health, on property values, on
existing jobs, on Main Street businesses, and our economic
future. In my brief comments, I will focus primarily on the
climate impacts, but I want to emphasize that all of these
impacts deserve full and fair consideration before any public
decisions are made to issue permits or leases, let alone
subsidies for coal export.
We take climate disruption very seriously in the Northwest.
We have to. Our mountain snow pack is critical economic
infrastructure for our region. Our fishing, our farming, our
forestry communities depend critically on that snow pack. Our
power system is built on it. And like communities everywhere,
we are concerned about increasing and growing risks from
extreme weather to human life and human property in the
Northwest. And so Washington and Oregon and communities in the
Northwest are implementing climate action plans now. We know we
can't fix this problem alone, but we are determined to do our
part. We are determined to prove up effective solutions in our
communities. The centerpiece of these plans is our transition
to a clean energy economy. Our commitments to energy efficiency
and to clean energy and to transportation choices are working.
Our economy is stronger. Our industries are more competitive.
Our communities are healthier. Our emissions are down, and our
future is looking up because of these commitments.
And so now, turning from that strategy to coal exports
would be a tragic and abrupt reversal from that successful
strategy for the Northwest. And dumping over 100 million tons
of coal a year into global energy markets would have
significant irreversible impacts on the climate, and therefore
on our communities as well.
Now the coal industry argues that our coal would simply
replace other sources of supply and not increase in that
emissions. Our understanding is that supply and demand doesn't
work that way. It will only replace other sources of supply
insofar as it is cheaper, otherwise they wouldn't buy it. And
if it is cheaper, then more of it will be consumed. Now if it
turns out to not be cheaper and this coal isn't competitive in
these markets, then these projects may well go belly up as
previous coal export projects did, leaving our community with
substantial stranded costs. Neither outcome is acceptable to
us.
Economic modeling of this emissions effect shows that
emission increases would be substantial, and even more
troubling, they would have the effect of green lighting the
investment of enormous amounts of capital into new coal
infrastructure in the fast growing Nation economies. And by the
way, these are coal plants that lack the technology to
sequester or responsibly dispose of the carbon. The
International Energy Agency is one that these long-lived
capital intensive investments would lock in emissions that
virtually guarantee dangerous climate disruption. The coal
industry disputes this analysis, so instead of trying to
exclude analysis of climate impacts from the environmental
process, I would suggest that they welcome the opportunity to
set the record straight and a rigorous, transparent evaluation
of these impacts. This is obviously a much longer discussion
than we have today, and so let me close by emphasizing this
simple request for federal agencies and decision makers. Please
examine all of the relevant impacts carefully, rigorously,
transparently, and comprehensively, including climate effects,
before any public permits or subsidies are issued for coal
activity. Let's look at whether coal leases for export are fair
to federal taxpayers and in the public interest before BLM
issues any more of them. Let's not be afraid to ask and answer
the big questions about how this will affect our economic
future and the climate that our kids will live in. These are
big, fateful decisions, not just for the region, but for the
country. These choices deserve full transparency and public
accountability. All we are asking is that we simply look before
we leap, and make these decisions in the full light of day.
Thank you. I look forward to any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Golden follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.086
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Golden.
Mr. Pugliaresi, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LUCIAN PUGLIARESI
Mr. Pugliaresi. Thank you, chairman. Chairman Whitfield,
Ranking Member Rush, thank you so much for inviting me to
testify on this very important topic.
[Slide shown.]
Let's go to the first slide. I have a few graphs I would
like to show you. Let me just say that over the last 10 years,
we have had economic growth rate for the national economy of
less than 2 percent. This is not a problem; this is a national
crisis. I want to start out by seeing what happened with
natural gas. If you came here in 2008 and testified of natural
gas and members of the committee asked what can we do about the
shortage of natural gas? Should we lease more land? Should we
try new kinds of innovation? All the government witnesses would
have said it doesn't matter what we do. The path you see there
in blue, if you look at the vertical axis, that is truly in
cubic feet per year, and in 2008, we all believed that we were
going to have massive imports of natural gas. But, in fact,
because of the advances in hydraulic fracturing, because of the
incurred private land, because there was no NEPA review,
because ideas could move quickly from one province to another,
we rapidly increased our gas supplies. These are very important
lessons here. It is not just the technology, it was the whole
process.
[Slide shown.]
Next slide. The next slide I think shows us very clearly
why the real debate is not whether we are going to export too
much natural gas, but whether we may lose out from a highly
competitive market and export too little. The vertical axis
shows you billion cubic feet per day, and you see that narrow
blue line that goes across there? That is the most likely world
demand for LNG in the world market between 2020 and 2025. It is
a very competitive market. All these projects we have going
forward are of not much--should not be of much concern. We
don't even need a DOE export process. The capital markets
themselves are going to determine who gets these projects, and
the real issue for our country is how do we contain the
political and the regulatory risks?
I can tell you today there is no Canadian pipeline company
that will consider building a line across the U.S. border. The
experience of Keystone has shifted long-term expectations. This
is not a friendly place to do business.
[Slide shown.]
Next slide. This shows you the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission timelines for approving projects. Once again, as you
can see, it can take up to--until you get the final project, up
to 9 years. I think we are much too preoccupied with exporting
too more. The more likely outcome is that we are going to go
slowly, very measured, and we may miss out on some markets.
[Slide shown.]
Next slide, please. If you just take the projects which
are--the vertical axis here is billion cubic feet per day, and
these are the projects which have contracts. Actually, these
are the projects that are most likely to get permission to
proceed. And as you can see, it is very modest, somewhere
between 5, 6, maybe 7 billion cubic feet a day. We don't have a
process that--we should not be worried about exporting too
much. That is not our problem. We have to learn to--we have to
work on how we can be competitive to get a big part of this
market.
[Slide shown.]
Next slide. I know we talked about coal today. One of the
things I would like to point out is that, you know, how you get
economic value is that you sell something for more than it
costs, and it is true that if we were to expand--you see in the
middle there? This curve shows you what we call the supply
curve or merit order curve. The relative cost of producing coal
and delivering it to Asian markets. And the U.S. can expand,
for example, in the Powder River Basin, take a lot of that
value and we will, as Mr. Golden pointed out, help to lower the
price, but that lowering the price will be very small. The
implications of that lower price will not be substantial on
total coal use worldwide.
[Slide shown.]
And then finally the last slide. This is, you know, one
sort of presentation of what we call the North American
petroleum renaissance, and the vertical axis there shows you
both our imports, and then our imports when we look at it as a
North American entity, U.S. and Canada together as a percentage
GNP. If we can contain our regulatory and political risk, if we
can allow a relatively, you know, stable set of projects to go
forward that the market wants us to do, by 2020, total non-
Canadian water-borne imports into the United States are going
to be virtually insignificant. AS you can see, it will probably
be well less than \2/10\, \3/10\ of GNP. It is for that reason
that we, you know, we need to focus on this huge opportunity of
high value projects which are for us. We have a large number of
high value projects for some reason we can't get permission to
proceed.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pugliaresi follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.104
Mr. Whitfield. I thank you very much, and I am going to ask
unanimous consent that we include with your statement those
slides, because I don't think they were formally submitted, so
we will include those with them as well.
At this time, Mr. Cooper, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BILL COOPER
Mr. Cooper. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield and Ranking
Member Rush, Mr. Barton, and other members of the subcommittee.
My name is Bill Cooper. I am the President for the Center for
Liquefied Natural Gas. Thank you for this opportunity to
present my views on the regulatory barriers to LNG exports.
The Department of Energy has issued two exceptionally well-
reasoned orders in the Sabine Pass and Freeport cases, which
Assistant Secretary Smith--I will abbreviate his title--
Assistant Secretary Smith referenced in his testimony. Both of
those orders adhered to the statute, DOE's rules and policies,
and the rulings DOE has previously established in its orders it
has issued. Such orders provide regulatory certainty to the
community of the regulated, and I certainly commend them for
their good work.
When DOE makes a decision on an application, it is a good
decision. The problem is there is no certainty as to when DOE
will make a decision, and its effort to establish the order in
which it will proceed is unlawful. Effective December 5, 2012,
DOE published its order of precedence, the queue informing the
public as to the manner in which it would process the 15
applications pending before it and all subsequently filed
applications. Preference was given to the pending DOE
applications that had received approval from the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission to use the FERC pre-filing process in the
order the DOE application was received. All other pending and
future DOE applications would be processed thereafter in the
order of filing at DOE. Even with its attempt to provide
procedural guidance as to the order in which it will consider
the applications, DOE did not provide any timelines as to when
those decisions would be forthcoming. After 15 applicants
reasonably relied upon the only rules DOE had published, DOE
changed those rules by predicating when it would consider each
application, not based upon when those applications were filed
at DOE, but based upon when an application filed--an applicant
filed with another agency, and DOE announced that decision
after the fact.
While many may argue about the conditions of the queue,
namely when an applicant filed with FERC or whether contracts
should be in place, that is not the issue. The issue is the
establishment of the queue in the first place, or if it is
accepted that a federal agency can amend its rule by agency
decree and apply those amendments retroactively, there could be
no end to the process and no regulatory certainty. The result
would be an agency repeal of the congressionally mandated
Administrative Procedures Act. DOE's issuance of its order of
precedence for the queue is unlawful for the following reasons.
Number one, the establishment and use of the queue is, in
essence, an amendment to the rules promulgated by DOE as set
forth in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 590,
and therefore is subject to the same notice and comment
requirements as the original rules. Notice of the queue was not
published in the Federal Register with an opportunity for the
public to comment. The failure to provide such notice and
comment renders the queue void. Any amendment to an existing
rule cannot be applied retroactively, thus rendering their
queue ineffective as to the 15 pending applications at the time
of the queue's issuance, even if the queue was properly issued,
which it was not. DOE should acknowledge that the queue was not
properly issued and should proceed with its determinations of
all pending applications based upon its lawfully established
rules. With the queue being void, it cannot be applied even to
the applications filed after the announcement of the queue. DOE
should proceed with its determinations of all pending
applications within a reasonable time from the closing of the
time period set forth in the Federal Register. The mere passage
of time does nothing to add to the evidentiary record upon
which DOE must base its decision. That evidentiary record
closed when the public comment period closed. Any federal
agency should adhere to its rules. No matter how noble the
intentions of an agency may be, placing retroactive duties upon
applicants when it is too late for those applicants to do
anything about it undermines the rule of law, the need for
regulatory certainty, and the demands of justice.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cooper follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.115
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Cooper, thank you, and I thank all of
you for your testimony.
At this time, I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Recently I had a friend who had attended the World Economic
Forum in Dalvos, Switzerland, and when he came back he was
talking about so much of the discussion over there was about
the energy situation in America and how Europeans and many
parts of the world were genuinely concerned about the abundance
of energy that we have in America. The new oil finds, the new
shale gas finds, the reserve of coal that we have, and they
recognize that America is really at a point that we did not
expect to be not too many years ago that we do have the ability
to be energy independent, strong energy security. And when we
were preparing for this hearing, I was thinking about well,
what are the obstacles to export? And there are divergent views
on this panel, and that is why we have panels. That is why we
have open discussions. That is why we have debate, to get that
out there.
But in my view, the major obstacle to energy exports from
this country is the Obama Administration. And when he was
running for President, he really didn't talk a lot about global
or climate change issues in most parts of the country. But yet,
if the Council on Environmental Quality, as a result of
President Obama's action, does require consideration of both
the increase in greenhouse gases and a project's vulnerability
to flooding, drought, or other extreme weather that might
result from global warming, it is going to transform the way
any project will be considered or have the opportunity to be
built in our country.
It will be a major bottleneck, and what it illustrates to
me is that in the energy sector, the most important issue to
this Administration is global warming, more important than any
job outside of the green energy sector. More important than the
trade deficit of last year, $455 billion--$573 billion, more
important than that. More important than the opportunity to
reduce global poverty and increase the standard of living
because of the millions of people in the world who do not have
electricity. And that is why people are coming--companies are
coming to America to ask for our energy. And yet, this
President and his Administration are making a statement that
global warming is more important than anything else when it
comes to energy. And we need to have a national debate about
it, because I tell you what, the greenhouse--under the Clean
Air Act, you look at pollutant, anything can be a pollutant. In
the Massachusetts EPA case, they said that it is up to the EPA
to make a decision, and they did their endangerment finding and
they decided they were going to regulate greenhouse gases. So
if they come out with this regulation where we cannot even
build a new coal power plant, even though the new plant
emissions are much lower than the old plants, and then if they
go further and start regulating existing plants, then America
is going to find itself in a very difficult situation,
particularly when it comes to being competitive in the global
marketplace to attract industry for jobs.
Now I am all for green energy, and we can talk about all
sorts of green energy projects that work and all sorts that
fail. Right across the line in Tennessee, 20 miles from my
hometown of Hopkinsville, Hemlock Corporation spent $1.3
billion building a plant for component parts of solar panels.
They said they were going to create 2,500 jobs. They built a
$20 million railroad line into that plant and they received
about $200 million of stimulus funds. Three years ago they
started construction. In January, they announced they are not
even going to open this plant. So the danger, from my
perspective, is that the government is trying to dictate what
energy will be used instead of letting the American people and
the marketplace really decide that issue.
So this has been a very helpful hearing for me personally.
I want to thank all of you for testifying. We have many
challenges ahead of us.
My time is expired, so I will recognize the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Rush, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you used
your time to let your feelings be known. I think we understand
or know how you feel now. But I want to formulate my questions
on a different kind of path.
In the first panel, I talked a lot about jobs and the cost
of doing business, and on the prices that the American people
will be confronted with, so I would like to ask each of you,
since you are on the front line, the question of what will be
the net impact on prices, on jobs from your perspective if we
were to export LNG and coal? And notwithstanding the treatise
from my friend from Kentucky, Hopkinsville, Kentucky, I would
like to know do you have any concerns about climate change
also, and what other concerns. So I would--Mr. McGinn, if you
would just start, what would be the net impact on prices and
jobs for the American people?
Mr. McGinn. Well, I think we look at the--clearly there are
jobs in the production and transport of coal and the shipping
of it, but we look at the impact on our economic activities in
our cities and towns along that train route, and we see
negative impacts. You also have the health impacts, for
example, 200 doctors in Bellingham spoke about the impacts of
diesel exhaust and coal dust on people living near an export
facility. We know in particular those can hit some of our
minority communities harder who live closer to those train
tracks or closer to the facilities. I mentioned the Lummi
Indians' concern who have lived, you know, for centuries on
salmon and they are concerned about the effects on salmon.
So we see all of the positive economic activity in Seattle
and our region, and the coal trains concern us, and of course
we are worried about climate change, because what we do is we
export the coal and it comes back to us in the form of mercury
emissions which find their way into fish and find their way
into all of our bodies. It comes back in the form of global
warming, which has potentially devastating effects on our
economy and quality of life, and that is why we, again, keep
pointing to what we believe are more productive ways to create
jobs.
Mr. Quinn. Thank you, Congressman. Just to follow up on the
Mayor's comments, I would say this. I have already documented
the economic lift from coal exports, 1,300 high wage jobs for
every million tons we export. I would say if you are concerned
about the impact on your locality, I respect your opinion since
you are a resident, but I would say let's go to Virginia, to
Norfolk, let's go to Baltimore, let's go to New Orleans, let's
go down to the Gulf in Houston, Galveston, and I think you will
find that those ports exporting amounts of coal, they are most
welcoming in that economic activity and found those ports good
neighbors.
In terms of climate change, let me assure you that if you
need to write an EIS on what the impact is, it will be as
follows. Stopping U.S. coal exports will not make any material
change in global emissions of CO2. What it will do
is it will deny the opportunity of billions of people accessing
electricity modern energy, as coal has over the last 2
decades----
Mr. Rush. I would like to hear from----
Mr. Quinn [continuing]. And it will cost millions of jobs
in the United States.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Eisenberg?
Mr. Eisenberg. Thank you, Congressman. Speaking on both--
and I am not an economist but I have read almost every study.
On the issue in terms of just about every study that has been
done on LNG and coal exports, almost every single one of them
comes out with a net increase, including the ones that the
government has put together, a net increase in jobs and
minimal, if any, effects on price. You know, again, these are
studies not done by us but some of them have been done by the
government. That is almost pretty much uniformly what they say.
On climate, manufacturers are committed to reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, to being more efficient, to coming up
with the technologies that will deal with climate change. It is
a serious issue and we take it very, very seriously.
But again, as Mr. Quinn said, is this really--the issue
that we are talking about today in the context of coal exports
is does climate belong in the NEPA review on a Section 10
Rivers and Harbors Act or a Section 404 permit to dredge and
fill area for ships, and the answer really is no. Legally it is
no. And so, it just does not belong as part of this. We do
think that we are at the table for a conversation on climate
but it doesn't belong legally in the context of this.
Mr. Barton [presiding]. Gentleman's time is expired. Chair
recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cooper, when we passed the Energy Policy Act back in
2005, I believe that you were a staff member of the Majority
Staff and helped do the staff work on the conference report, is
that correct?
Mr. Cooper. I was a staffer on the Energy Policy Act of
2003. Many of those provisions made it into the 2005 Act. I had
left the Hill at that point in time.
Mr. Barton. See, I thought you were here in 2005. You just
took my question away.
Mr. Cooper. Maybe I should have been.
Mr. Barton. OK, well then I won't ask the question that I
was going to ask. I will make a brief statement and then I am
going to ask a few questions.
None of these projects are going to be done if they don't
make economic sense. Does everybody agree with that?
Mr. Cooper. Yes.
Mr. Barton. I mean, I would--you don't agree--Mr. Golden,
you don't agree with that? Why would somebody put money into a
project that doesn't make economic sense?
Mr. Golden. We have had at least two coal export facilities
sited, built on the West Coast and abandoned for lack of global
markets. I think the global markets are extremely volatile. I
think we are making----
Mr. Barton. But that is a different----
Mr. Golden [continuing]. A bet that may or may not turn
out.
Mr. Barton. But at the time that they were built, there was
an expectation by their developers that they did make economic
sense. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Golden. Sure, it just turned out to be wrong.
Mr. Barton. Well, you know, that is the market, you know. A
lot of people run for Congress with the expectation they will
win. They come up with a shortage of votes and they don't meet
expectations, so--but if you go from the premise that no matter
how good the project is, if it doesn't pass an economic test,
one, it is probably not going to be built. I will agree with
Mr. Golden that sometimes rosy colored glasses work, but it
certainly is not going to sustain itself.
So that when we look at these LNG facilities and when we
look at the coal export facilities, we start with the premise
that the people that are going to purchase the products
overseas think that they will help their nations and their
people and the expectation is that the people that are
developing the projects to sell the natural gas or the coal
believes it will make sense economically here.
Now in the interest--in the sense of the coal exports,
there is really no requirement in federal law for any kind of a
public interest test, is that not correct?
Mr. Cooper. Well, there is nothing, of course, Congressman,
such as LNG is going through in terms of whether it is in the
public interest to export.
Mr. Barton. Because----
Mr. Cooper. You know, public interest test in the context--
in a different context for the 404 permits that we have to go
through to get the----
Mr. Barton. Right, and see, because when the various
federal laws that govern energy policy were passed, coal has
never been considered to be something that is in a shortage
potential situation----
Mr. Cooper. Correct.
Mr. Barton [continuing]. So we didn't--the reason that
natural gas has some constraints on its export is because for
the last 40 to 50 years, there have been large periods of time
where we thought that we were going to have natural gas
shortages in the United States, so we wanted to reserve that
product for domestic use. We are now in a situation where we
have a potential surplus and all the indicators are that that
surplus is going to grow, but even in the case of natural gas,
the premise is that it is in the public interest to be exported
and you have to prove otherwise.
So my question is to the panel, this latest Department of
Energy decision to put a variable of cumulative impact, that is
nowhere seen in any federal law that I have read. Does anybody
point to a statute that requires a variable called cumulative
impact? Mr. Pugliaresi, you are shaking your head.
Mr. Pugliaresi. No, I think the critical issue here is
these are very expensive, capital intensive projects, and
buyers and sellers are not going to come together if they have
a lot of uncertainty in how the government is going to behave.
This is the problem, and it is a worldwide market. We want to
capture that extra value, because out of that extra value comes
revenues to State, federal, and local governments, return on
capital construction, and sustainable economic growth. The
biggest problem we have had in the last 10 years is that we
have lots of high valued projects with enormous economic value
to the national economy, and we can't get them--we can't get
permission from the government.
Mr. Barton. My time is expired, but I plan on sitting down
with Chairman Whitfield and Mr. Rush and hopefully come up with
some questions for the record where we send to the Department
of Energy to have them clarify a little bit more their
statutory authority for using cumulative impact and to more
properly define exactly what that is.
With that, my time is expired and I want to yield to the
gentleman from New York for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mayor McGinn, you described a number of ways in which a new
coal export terminal could affect local communities, and you
further developed that with the ranker on the committee,
Representative Rush. What are the city and State doing to
examine and quantify the potential impact of increased coal
train traffic on air quality? Is there anything being done in
that regard?
Mr. McGinn. Yes, there are a couple of things. One is local
University of Washington researcher is doing research on both
the effects of the coal dust and diesel exhaust along the
route. That requires setting up monitoring stations along the
length of the route to understand the impacts, and he actually
ended up crowd sourcing the funding for that. He was concerned
that he wouldn't be able to get it from traditional sources,
but he is doing that work. There is the Puget Sound Regional
Council, which is our regional planning agency for
transportation and economic purposes, is looking at a region-
wide analysis of four, that would the four counties that are
comprised around central Puget Sound. So those are two of the
analyses that are underway right now, and we are also looking
at a health impacts analysis as well.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Mr. Eisenberg's testimony directly
challenges the merits of your request for a comprehensive
programmatic environmental review of all of the coal terminal
proposals, and I believe the witness argues that assessing the
environmental impacts of each terminal on its own should be
deemed adequate. And we heard from Ms. Moyer from the Army
Corps of Engineers with a similar viewpoint in her testimony.
Why do you think it is important to examine all of the terminal
proposals together rather than individually?
Mr. McGinn. Well, it is embedded within the National
Environmental Protection Act and our State Environmental
Protection Act that you should look before you leap. You should
understand the impacts of a decision before making it. We have
clearly identified a wide range of impacts along the entire
length of the line. I think the question that was raised by Ms.
Castor was right on point. Shouldn't some agency of government
be evaluating all of the impacts, including, of course, the
cumulative impacts that come from climate change? So I do not
believe the decision of the Army Corps of Engineers should be
allowed to stand. If we are going to understand the
implications of this decision, we need to look at all the
impacts, and I would say both the governors of Oregon and
Washington have made the same request.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Mr. Golden, again, the witness Mr. Eisenberg says a life
cycle analysis of the climate change impacts of exported coal
would be a mistake. He says that if the climate impacts of coal
exports are examined, there will be no limit to the analysis of
the climate impacts at every step of the supply chain. I am
interested in your response to that concern.
Mr. Golden. Well as I said, I am not here to testify about
corn or toys, but about coal export. You know, that question is
actually a very important question in designing a comprehensive
climate policy. Where do you look at the impacts, where do you
assess accountability for those emissions? Unless I mistake the
committee's intentions, we are not designing a comprehensive
climate policy today. I hope I will be called again when you
decide to. But in this case, the choices before us are simply
do we look at the climate impacts of this proposal or not? And
given that those impacts are prospectively very large, and I
understand that is disputed, but let's argue about that--given
that those impacts are irreversible, I simply think it would be
irresponsible not to look at them as part of the decision
making process.
Mr. Tonko. And in terms of the approach of taking project
by project assessment of potential climate change, is there a
better approach than that, or----
Mr. Golden. I think it is very important to look at this
comprehensively. You know, some of these local decision makers,
you have county commissioners and others who are looking at
these permits in their jurisdictions, and I think we can
forgive them for saying, you know, some of these things, the
real impacts east of the mountains in other communities or the
climate impacts are a little above my pay grade. We ought to--
the responsible agencies ought to take a comprehensive look at
that. I don't think we can afford to close our eyes. If the
permit board decides that, you know, within a very narrow
legalistic interpretation of its responsibility and control it
can't do that, then I think we should find somebody who can.
Mr. Tonko. Seeing that my time is elapsed, I will yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much. At this time, I
recognize the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5
minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mayor, when is your election coming up? Don't you have
something coming up soon?
Mr. McGinn. Yes, it is indeed. This August is the primary
and this November is a general.
Mr. McKinley. So this makes a good photo op here, doesn't
it?
Mayor, I have got a couple questions for you, and when I
read through your testimony, because it seems like maybe you
left some things out that you had talked about. One is you
referenced--and maybe I didn't hear right, because I don't hear
as well as I should, but the--on page four you talk about on
mining leasing on public lands, that there is a, in your words,
``massive subsidy'' for coal companies. I have got a copy of
the report and I haven't found the word ``subsidy'' in there at
all. Can you tell me where I would find that word ``subsidy''
that you are referring to?
Mr. McGinn. No, and I think this goes back to the issue
that the chairman was talking about, about let them----
Mr. McKinley. Can you just tell me where it is?
Mr. McGinn. Well if you will, it goes back to this issue
the chairman was talking about about whether the marketplace,
you know, is letting this go----
Mr. McKinley. These are steel bids, are they not, Mayor?
They don't have to--they can accept or reject them. There is no
check, there is no subsidies to these companies and you know
that. This is just a matter of you didn't like the bids that
were received for that.
But I am more troubled with----
Mr. McGinn. You are testifying now, Congressman, and it is
your committee.
Mr. McKinley. No, you are challenging me on the thing and
Mayor, you are here before us.
Mr. McGinn. I understand that, and I appreciate the
opportunity.
Mr. McKinley. On page three, you had a ``more troubling''
and I thought it sent a shiver up my spine, and it should for
anyone from a coal producing area. When you said on page three
that ``we should keep our coal in the ground where it
belongs.'' Did you really mean that?
Mr. McGinn. Yes, I did.
Mr. McKinley. That we shouldn't be mining or using coal in
America?
Mr. McGinn. This gets us the fundamental issue of climate
change, and this is the difference between corn and toys and
the other things that were mentioned. The difference here is
that we have taken huge quantities of fossil fuels from beneath
the surface of the Earth and put them into the atmosphere with
potentially devastating effects upon the future of us and
future generations as well.
Mr. McKinley. You are entitled to have that opinion about
climate change. I am willing to acknowledge that there is
climate change going on. The question I am still trying to
determine as an engineer--I am one of two engineers in
Congress--is whether or not the climate change is caused by man
or is it natural and cyclical. We can come to the agreement
that it is changing. We know that, but you seem to be saying
that so many on the other side that it is all due to man or
burning coal fossil fuels, and that just simply does--that is
why there is an ongoing debate on it, and you are coming from
your position. But with all due respect, you coming here and
trying to lecture us about climate change, Mayor, I would
strongly suggest you take a look at the crime rate in Seattle,
Washington, when you have 94 percent of the cities across
America have a lower crime rate than you have in that city----
Mr. McGinn. Well, that is actually----
Mr. McKinley. When you have 3,707 violent crimes in your
community and 33,248 last year, was it, I think you ought to
take a look at that and become more aggressive----
Mr. McGinn. We have one of the lowest crime rates of a
large city in the country.
Mr. McKinley [continuing]. About not to burn a hole in
America----
Mr. McGinn. We are at a 30-year low for our crime rate,
Congressman, and----
Mr. McKinley. I yield back my time.
Mr. McGinn [continuing]. And we are proud of our police
force and the work they do fighting crime.
Mr. Whitfield. Gentleman yields back. At this time, I
recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Quinn, Virginia ranks 12th in the U.S. in total coal
production. Of that total, 43 percent or nearly 11 million
short tons of Virginia coal was exported abroad. Now, my
district and the other districts in coal have been greatly
impacted by a lot of the regulations that have come out. If
exports are also taken away, what do you think is going to
happen to the economy in the regions that I represent? Is it
going to get better or is it going to get worse?
Mr. Quinn. Cleary worse, Congressman. Southwest Virginia,
and frankly, export market is the key market because it has
better margins and all that coal goes for metallurgical steel
making in Europe as well as steam, so it is very important.
Mr. Griffith. I knew that was going to be the answer, but I
did want to get that question out on the record. The jobs that
we have been seeing that we lost, almost monthly we have had
announcements of people losing those jobs, and I think it was
either you or Mr. Eisenberg, somebody mentioned that when you
add in the benefits, you are almost at $100,000 a year, and
most people don't realize coal miners today make somewhere
around $75,000 a year, and then you add in benefits, who knows
how high that goes. And so these are good paying jobs.
I would also point to you and ask you, Mr. Pugliaresi, that
you mentioned something about the impacts on local, State, and
the Federal Government, and one of my counties, the income that
they receive from taxes in the county, not assistance they get
from the Federal Government or from the State government, there
are estimates that as much as 70 percent of that money comes
from the coal severance tax that Virginia has. So when we cut
back on coal exports, we are actually cutting money to the
schools in a number of the counties in my district and I think
you are aware of that, is that correct?
Mr. Pugliaresi. Yes, and I think we are sort of missing the
point. We always--I think what we are talking about, we always
talk about we need more jobs, and of course we need more jobs.
But we could return our economy to 17th century agriculture and
we could all go to work tomorrow, but we will be very poor. We
have these fossil fuels whose value in the marketplace is
substantially above their cost of production, and all that
value could come to us. And it doesn't just come to the owners,
it comes to State, local, and federal governments. It comes to
economic growth and sustainable growth.
Mr. Griffith. And to our children and grandchildren.
Mr. Pugliaresi. That value, we should not give it up
cavalierly.
Mr. Griffith. I don't disagree with that at all, and in
fact, politically we would be better off as well, because as
somebody mentioned--and I have heard so much good testimony
today, but somebody mentioned that the other nations of the
world are aggressively pursuing the markets, Australia, Canada.
If we don't pursue this market, they will get those markets and
wouldn't we be in a better position when we have a
disagreement, perhaps, with our colleagues in China if they are
relying on using our coal resources to generate their
manufacturing?
Mr. Pugliaresi. I think that if you look in the place--for
example, natural gas. Prime Minister Abe visited us, visited
President Obama recently. There was no announcement made. I
thought that was unfortunate because these exports are also
elements of soft power for us.
Mr. Griffith. No question about that.
Mr. Pugliaresi. When our allies look at us and say we are a
supplier of LNG, we are a supplier of petroleum products, of
coal----
Mr. Griffith. I am going to get your speculation here. I
speculate, and I wonder if you do, too, that part of the reason
that we are suddenly talking about a trade agreement with the
Europeans might actually be because of our large supply of
natural gas. Do you think that might be one of the things they
are discussing over in Ireland as we speak?
Mr. Pugliaresi. I am sure it is an element.
Mr. Griffith. I am sure it is an element as well.
Mr. Cooper, a study by the National Economic Research
Associates Group states that natural gas price increases at the
time LNG exports could begin range from zero to .33 NCF per
1,000 cubic feet. I always just call it the unit that we use to
measure how much it costs. Given these figures and the fact
that we haven't tapped into all of our natural gas resources,
like those off the shore--off the coast of Virginia and other
East Coast States, do you think if we export natural gas that
it is going to have any major impact on the cost of natural gas
in this country?
Mr. Cooper. No. Every credible report that has been
conducted that has examined the price impacts due to LNG
exports have said it would be minimal, if at all.
Mr. Griffith. And so the bottom line as I am hearing the
testimony today is that we actually strengthen ourselves in the
world, we create more wealth in the United States if we are
allowed to export our natural resources of which we have an
abundant supply that will last us for quite some time, and I am
concerned that when the time comes and we have to deal with
whatever issues are facing the country, if we are a poorer
Nation, it makes it a lot harder for us to deal with those
issues. If we are a richer Nation, we have got the resources to
deal with whatever issues may confront us. And last but not
least, I will give my plug-in again for this project with
chemical looping with hardly any pollution at all, because I
think this could actually be an answer to problems that all of
us are concerned about, and find a resolution for our Nation
and move us forward.
I thank you and yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Griffith. Do you have
anything else?
Mr. Rush. No, I don't have any other questions, but Mr.
Chairman, I just didn't realize--I mean, this is a new day for
this subcommittee when you have come upon the intersection
between coal and crime. I never thought we would see this day
here in this committee. Never cease to amaze me in this
committee--this subcommittee.
Mr. Whitfield. That is why this committee is so
interesting.
Mr. Cooper, if you wouldn't mind just providing the
committee your thoughts on the criteria that DOE should use in
deciding what order to proceed on these pending applications.
You talked a little bit about that in your testimony. Would you
mind just giving us your views on that?
Mr. Cooper. Yes, sir. The existing Code of Federal
Regulations which contain the promulgated rules by the
Department of Energy essentially set forth the contents of the
applications that are required, which involve where the gas is
coming from, how abundant the natural gas supply is, the
commercial terms of the arrangements. And the public interest
standard, while Congress set it, did not put a lot of criteria,
actually no criteria on it, and that has been developed over
the years. We don't particularly have any issues with the fact
that the agency can develop that public interest standard as it
adjudicates the cases over time. We think that the role of
Congress to set policy and the role of any regulatory agency to
flesh out that policy on a case-by-case basis is sound. Even
the cumulative impacts that was discussed previously do not
particularly concern us if they are handled within the
promulgated rules and the structures that DOE has in place, and
not to change that after the applicants have already filed to
where they can't respond. What I mean by that is when we look
at--when DOE looks at cumulative impacts, if it looks at the
existing facilities compared to the existing supply picture, we
think that that will justify the issuance of these applications
for LNG exports. The question is the timing.
Mr. Whitfield. OK, thank you, Mr. Cooper.
I want to thank you all again. I know some of you came very
long distances, and we appreciate your making the trek across
the country or from wherever. We appreciate your testimony and
look forward to working with all of you as we move forward.
And with that, the hearing is adjourned and the record will
remain open for 10 days for any additional materials. Thank
you.
[Whereupon, at 1:21 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5447.132