ENERGY POLICY

Greens debate impacts of LNG exports on global warming

Environmentalists wary of plans to open the gates for U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) might be missing an opportunity to advance their primary goal, fighting global warming.

So say some advocates for climate change action who see the wider distribution of natural gas leading to reduced emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases as coal-burning power plants are switched to gas.

Paul Bledsoe, a fellow with the German Marshall Fund and a former Clinton White House aide, is among those trying to recruit more greens to the LNG-climate camp. "There's a massive lack of awareness among Democrats and environmentalists about the climate potential here," he said in an interview.

Many environmental groups have expressed concern that LNG exports would promote unconventional gas production through hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which they regard as a threat to water and air quality. And some have signaled their intent to campaign against it (E&E Daily, March 26).

"They don't understand the issue," Bledsoe said. When LNG goes to countries that would otherwise use coal for power generation, he said, it results in a net reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.

Advertisement

Some of the best opportunities for the gas-for-coal swap are in Europe, he said. The price of gas there hovers around $12 per million British thermal units, about three times as expensive as in the United States. As a result, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Germany -- which Bledsoe dubs the "holier-than-thou triumvirate" for their ambitious international climate goals -- have expanded their imports of U.S. coal.

By diversifying Europe's gas supply and reducing its cost, American LNG exports could help those countries meet their carbon-reduction pledges, Bledsoe said. And because gas-fired power plants ramp up and down quickly, they are well suited to support the integration of intermittent renewable energy into Europe's power mix, he said.

"The U.S. and the European Union have a very important opportunity to help each other with their climate goals," he said. The United States not only can supply Europe with natural gas but can pioneer environmentally friendly production practices that Europe can later adopt.

Some of these might be outlined in a guidance on methane emissions the White House will unveil soon. It's expected to include some regulatory or nonregulatory policies aimed at limiting gas system emissions (Greenwire, March 24).

Europe, for its part, can show the United States how to achieve broader deployment of renewable energy, Bledsoe said.

Climate change has played a minor role so far in the congressional fight over expediting LNG exports.

The industry's congressional supporters have touted the geopolitical and economic benefits of natural gas export, especially since the crisis in Ukraine began. They argue that supplying Europe with an alternative to Russian gas will weaken that country's stranglehold on the European energy markets (E&E Daily, March 26).

Senate Republicans hope to attach LNG language to a Ukrainian aid package, while the GOP-controlled House mulls legislation that would direct the Energy Department to approve all outstanding applications for LNG export terminals.

DOE, meanwhile, is approving export facilities at a steady clip, most recently giving the nod to Jordan Cove's export terminal in Coos Bay, Ore. And President Obama announced Tuesday that a new U.S.-E.U. trade deal might further facilitate exports to Europe.

One of the few lawmakers who say LNG export could pay climate dividends is Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who worked on comprehensive climate and energy legislation in 2009 and 2010.

The issue came up, he said, in his recent discussion with the Environmental Defense Fund, which has worked extensively on natural gas and methane emissions.

"Natural gas is a bridge fuel that has lower carbon emissions than coal, so it seems there should be an environmental awareness that natural gas should be better accessed," Graham said in an interview this week. He predicted the Ukrainian crisis would mark a turning point in the battle over permitting LNG terminals, including among Democrats.

Graham and others point to a white paper released in February stating that exported LNG is between 43 and 52 percent less greenhouse-gas-intensive than coal. The paper -- prepared for Dominion Resources Inc. by ICF International -- criticized an earlier report by the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN), which contended that LNG promotes hydraulic fracturing that contributes greatly to climate change.

ICF disputed the environmental group's claims that methane emissions from hydraulic fracturing outstrip U.S. EPA estimates. ICF added that because new gas-fired power plants are generally 40 percent more efficient than old coal-fired power plants they will replace oversees, encouraging foreign countries to transition from gas to coal could offer dividends over and above the difference between the two fuels.

'Striking that balance'

But environmental groups opposing LNG exports say permitting export infrastructure will lock in fossil fuel use for decades to come.

CCAN, the Sierra Club and 14 other groups wrote in a letter to Obama earlier this month that they were "disturbed" to see his administration proceeding with LNG permitting, including by allowing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to opt not to do a full environmental impact statement of Dominion's Cove Point terminal in Maryland.

"The truth is that Cove Point, like other proposed LNG export terminals, will raise U.S. gas prices -- harming virtually all Americans -- while becoming a historic catalyst for more fracking across the mid-Atlantic and triggering a huge new pulse of climate pollution," they said in the March 18 letter.

John Coequyt of the Sierra Club said not only would exports fuel the domestic fracking boom, but the liquefaction and regasification process associated with LNG would introduce additional heat-trapping emissions into the atmosphere.

Additional gas may not be needed to support European renewable energy, he said, and it might compete with wind, solar and zero-carbon nuclear power in those countries.

But others say the greenhouse gas implications of LNG exports depend on many variables that have not been adequately studied.

Two big questions: Where would the exported gas go? And what fuels would it displace when it gets there?

If the answer to the second question is coal -- or gas from a country like Russia that allows unlimited flaring of methane during production -- the net result may be fewer emissions. The opposite is true if it edges nuclear energy or renewables.

But even then, the shift might be influenced little by U.S. export policy, said Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations. Japan may decide to curtail its reliance on nuclear energy, for example, but that choice likely has more to do with the Fukushima Daiichi disaster than with the availability of American LNG.

"Odds are, if it's not replaced with natural gas it will be predominantly replaced with coal," he said.

There is also the question of whether exported gas will be used for energy generation at all or whether it might be used for fertilizer or some other purpose that would not interact with the importing country's power supply. It could also be used to power automobiles -- a scenario that would result in a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions compared with gasoline, according to a study EDF released earlier this month.

Another consideration is the extent to which LNG exports might affect American energy prices, said Josh Freed of the centrist Democratic group Third Way.

"The balance is between enabling enough to get to other countries so that others can reap the benefits of it without having too significant an effect on prices here in the United States," he said.

As long as U.S. natural gas prices remain at or below $5 per MMBtu, gas will be viable for domestic use and for limited export, he said. If the price rises, both become more complicated.

"It really is striking that balance to accomplish our domestic climate goals -- and help other countries meet their climate goals -- without going too far in a direction that ends up shifting our electricity sector back toward coal or finding that we're losing some of the manufacturing that we've gained since the shale gas revolution started," he said.

Levi, who testified yesterday before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the Ukraine crisis and LNG imports, said he thought it unlikely that lawmakers would come to embrace LNG export for its relatively modest climate change benefits.

"If you polled every member and senator on Capitol Hill and asked what is the thing they care about most when it comes to energy, I doubt very many of them will say to you 'climate change,'" he said.

Local environmental concerns surrounding fracking and other practices are likely to continue to trump more global concerns, he said, especially since the climate benefits are so difficult to quantify.

Twitter: @chemnipot | Email: jchemnick@eenews.net

Like what you see?

We thought you might.

Start a free trial now.

Get access to our comprehensive, daily coverage of energy and environmental politics and policy.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Latest Selected Headlines

More headlinesMore headlines

More headlinesMore headlines

More headlinesMore headlines

More headlinesMore headlines