135
application to construct and operate the proposed Port. According to MARAD, Delfin must
accept the conditions of the license, as described in the ROD. Once Delfin accepts the
conditions, MARAD will issue the deepwater port license (with attendant conditions) to
Delfin.
319
XII.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
In reviewing Delfin’s Application to export LNG, DOE/FE has considered both its
obligations under NEPA and its obligation under NGA section 3(a) to ensure that the proposed
LNG exports are not inconsistent with the public interest. To accomplish these purposes,
DOE/FE has examined a wide range of information addressing environmental and non-
environmental factors, including:
•
Delfin’s Application; API’s motion supporting the Application; the submissions
of Sierra Club, APGA, and V4EI opposing the Application; Delfin’s Consolidated
Response; and Sierra Club’s reply to Delfin’s Response;
•
MARAD’s Final EIS and Record of Decision;
•
The Draft Addendum, comments received in response to the Draft Addendum,
and the final Addendum;
•
The LCA GHG Report (and the supporting NETL document), including
comments submitted in response to those documents; and
•
The 2014 and 2015 LNG Export Studies, including comments received in
response to those Studies.
To avoid repetition, the following discussion focuses on arguments and evidence presented by
Delfin and the three intervenor-protestors opposing the Application (Sierra Club, APGA, and
V4EI), to the extent that DOE/FE has not already addressed the same or substantially similar
arguments in its responses to comments on the Addendum, the LCA GHG Report, and/or the
2014 and 2015 Studies.
319
See id. at 67-68.
136
A.
Motions to Intervene
API timely filed a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Delfin did not oppose API’s
motion and, therefore, API’s motion is deemed granted. 10 C.F.R. § 590.303(g).
Additionally, we find good cause to grant the motions to intervene submitted by Sierra
Club, APGA, and VE4I, as well as Sierra Club’s motion to reply to Delfin’s Consolidated
Response. Delfin filed its Consolidated Response opposing the motions on the basis that (among
other reasons) the proposed intervenors failed to demonstrate an interest in this proceeding, and
failed to provide affirmative evidence to show the economic impact of authorizing the proposed
exports. Sierra Club moved to file a reply to that Response.
We find that the evidence presented in this proceeding, as well as in the 2014 and 2015
LNG Export Studies, indicate that the economic consequences of granting the Application could
be far-reaching and could affect the interests of Sierra Club, APGA, V4EI, and their members.
This fact alone is good cause to permit their intervention. In addition, each of these proposed
intervenors raised issues that are relevant to the public interest and addressed herein. Delfin was
afforded an opportunity to respond to these motions pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 590.304(f), and did
so. Accordingly, we will grant the motions to intervene, as well as Sierra Club’s motion to reply
to Delfin’s Consolidated Response. See infra § XV (Ordering Paras. T, U).
B.
Non-Environmental Issues
In considering non-environmental issues in this proceeding, we have reviewed Delfin’s
Application; the pleadings and comments submitted in this proceeding; and the 2014 and 2015
137
LNG Export Studies and comments thereto. We also take administrative notice of EIA’s most
recent authoritative supply data and projections, set forth in AEO 2017 and discussed below.
320
1.
Delfin’s Application
Delfin’s Application reviews natural gas supply and demand conditions in the United
States and the likely impact that the proposed exports will have on natural gas prices. Delfin
relies on EIA estimates in stating that the United States has significant natural gas resources
available to meet both projected future domestic needs and supply gas for the proposed exports
with only a modest incremental impact on domestic natural gas prices. Delfin also relies on
studies by ICE International and the Brookings Institute in asserting that the proposed exports
will yield significant local, regional, and national economic benefits and will generate additional
international benefits. The 2012 LNG Export Study, the 2014 and 2015 LNG Export Studies, as
well as more recent data in AEO 2017, provide additional support for the conclusion that the
proposed exports of LNG will yield significant economic benefits.
Sierra Club, APGA, and V4EI have argued that Delfin’s conclusions are unfounded. In
particular, they each contend that the proposed exports would not yield economic benefits but, in
fact, would increase natural gas prices significantly and result in other deleterious economic and
societal impacts. They contend, for example, that the net economic benefits projected in the
2012 LNG Export Study will be slight and limited to a relatively small, affluent segment of the
population. They argue that, independent of the distributional economic impacts of LNG
320
As noted supra note 187, EIA released Annual Energy Outlook 2017 (AEO 2017) on January 5, 2017. The AEO
2017 includes both a Reference case that incorporates implementation of the Clean Power Plan, as well as a
Reference case that does not incorporate the CPP. Both Reference Cases show natural gas production levels that
favor exports, but that also have lower net LNG exports in 2040 (12.5 Bcf/d for the Reference Case with the CPP
and 12 Bcf/d for the Reference Case without the CPP).
Dostları ilə paylaş: |