78
our Policy Guidelines that resource allocation decisions of this nature are better left to the
market, rather than to DOE, to resolve.
3.
Household and Distributional Impacts
a.
Comments
Several commenters, including Sierra Club, IECA, Hair on Fire Oregon, Torrey Byles,
Cascadia Wildlands, and Citizens Against LNG, maintain that, for most citizens, the
macroeconomic benefits of LNG exports, if any, will be minimal. These commenters contend
that the main beneficiaries of LNG exports will be a narrow band of the population, chiefly
wealthy individuals in the natural gas industry, foreign investors, and those holding stock or
having retirement plans invested in natural gas companies. They assert that, by contrast, a
majority of Americans will experience negative economic impacts, such as higher gas and
electric bills, without sharing in the benefits of the exports.
b.
DOE/FE Analysis
The 2015 LNG Export Study analyzed the macroeconomic impacts of LNG exports in
five areas. The 2015 Study projected that, for the economy as a whole, “the positive impacts of
higher U.S. gas production, greater investment in the U.S. natural gas sector, and increased
profitability of U.S. gas producers typically exceeds the negative impacts of higher domestic
natural gas prices associated with increased LNG exports.”
198
As noted previously, DOE believes that the public interest generally favors authorizing
proposals to export natural gas that have been shown to lead to net benefits to the U.S. economy.
While there may be circumstances in which the distributional consequences of an authorizing
decision could be shown to be so negative as to outweigh net positive benefits to the U.S.
198
2015 Study at 16.
79
economy as a whole, we do not see sufficiently compelling evidence that those circumstances are
present here. None of the commenters advancing this argument has performed a quantitative
analysis of the distributional consequences of authorizing LNG exports at the household level.
Given the findings in the 2014 and 2015 Studies that exports will benefit the U.S. economy as a
whole in terms of increased GDP, and absent stronger record evidence on the distributional
consequences of authorizing the proposed exports, we cannot say that those exports are
inconsistent with the public interest on these grounds.
4.
Regional Impacts
a.
Comments
Many commenters, including Oregon Wild and Harriett Heywood, address the issue of
negative and positive regional impacts potentially associated with LNG exports. For example,
Ninette Jones and Paula Jones assert that shale gas development and production will have a
negative impact on local industries that is incompatible with extraction-related activities, such as
agriculture and tourism. These commenters, along with Oregon Wild, identify specific ways in
which they allege local communities near shale gas production areas, pipelines, and/or LNG
export terminals could be adversely affected by increases in natural gas production and LNG
exports. They cite property devaluation, degradation of infrastructure, environmental and public
health issues, harm to local economies, and safety risks, among other issues.
Other commenters seek to rebut these concerns by identifying the positive regional
benefits associated with LNG exports, both in regions where shale development and production
occur, and the regions in which LNG export terminals may be located. The African American
Environmentalist Association, the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, Women
Impacting Public Policy, Our Energy Movement, Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, Sempra
LNG, and Western Energy Alliance cite regional economic benefits associated with each LNG
80
project, including the potential for new jobs, substantial direct and indirect business income, and
millions of dollars in new tax revenue. Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P., affirms the positive
regional befits associated with LNG exports, but contends that the 2014 and 2015 LNG Export
Studies fail to consider these positive regional impacts to the disadvantage of pending LNG
projects subject to review by DOE/FE.
b.
DOE/FE Analysis
We agree with the commenters who contend that a general consideration of regional
impacts is outside of the scope of the 2014 and 2015 LNG Export Studies, and that regional
impacts are appropriately considered by DOE/FE on a case-by-case basis during the review of
each LNG export application. We have addressed these issues in the Discussion and
Conclusions below.
C.
Estimates of Domestic Natural Gas Supplies
1.
Comments
Clarence Adams and other commenters assert that, in addition to underestimating the
demand for domestically produced natural gas, the 2015 Study overestimates future domestic
supplies of natural gas. Mr. Adams contends that several factors may limit domestic supplies of
natural gas, including: (i) new sources of LNG coming online internationally, (ii) increasing
resistance to hydraulic fracturing in the United States, and (iii) the shorter-than-expected
productivity of shale gas wells. According to these commenters, lower than estimated supplies
of natural gas will exacerbate the likely price increases due to exports.
Contrary to these arguments, many commenters, such as API, the City of Tulsa’s Office
of the Mayor, Tara Shumata Lee, and Triana Energy, LLC, argue that the United States has
abundant domestic natural gas reserves.
Other commenters, such as Oregon Wild, Torrey Byles, and Sierra Club, contend that, to
Dostları ilə paylaş: |