The Liquefied Natural Gas Provisions in the Energy Bill Make America Less Safe and More Dependent on Foreign Sources of Energy
This is not sound energy policy
One goal of the energy bill is to increase the country’s ability to import Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). Unfortunately, increasing America’s dependence on LNG is a strategy that includes substantial risks. LNG is a dangerous business with a history of accidents. In this age of global terrorism, LNG terminals represent attractive targets for terrorist organizations. The potential for civilian casualties is extremely high. The damage to the American economy would be substantial.
Increasing America’s dependence on LNG also means further increasing our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Natural gas reserves are somewhat more widely distributed than oil, but far and away the greatest concentrations are in the Middle East.
New LNG infrastructure should not be built without determining what our future natural gas needs will be. We must prioritize our energy options based on what is best for energy security and long-term consumer price stability. The smart way to address our need for a natural gas supply is to decrease our demand. The first step is to promote conservation and efficiency in the use of natural gas and other power sources. The second step is to institute a national Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) for clean, renewable energy. A sensible energy policy for the next century must include these important measures.
LNG provisions take important safety decisions away from local communities
In a 2004 report, Sandia National Laboratories examined several possible worst-case scenarios for an attack on an LNG terminal. The study concluded that a terrorist attack on an LNG tanker could create a hole between 16 and 39 feet in diameter. If a spill from a 16-foot hole were ignited, it would create a thermal blast that would set buildings on fire and melt steel up to one-quarter mile away. People would suffer second-degree burns more than three-quarters of a mile away. A 39-foot hole would melt buildings one third of a mile away and burn people well over a mile away.
These risks are not abstractions. Accidents in the past have killed hundreds over the years. A recent accident at an Algerian facility destroyed a plant, killing at least 23 people. An explosion close to a city could kill hundreds and injure thousands of people.
Now some members of the Senate are attempting to pass a bill that would allow the federal government to ride roughshod over state and local concerns with regard to specific LNG facilities. Under the energy bill, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) would have the sole authority to make decisions regarding the construction, expansion and operation of LNG facilities.
Considering the serious dangers that LNG presents, LNG terminals should only be built with the participation and cooperation of those who will be directly affected – state governments, municipalities and local communities.
This provision will not lower the price of natural gas
Pre-empting state authority over LNG terminals will not lower the price of natural gas in America. The most effective way to reduce natural gas prices in the short term – and alleviate burgeoning demand in the long run – is to encourage investments in clean alternatives to natural gas, such as energy efficiency improvements and the development of renewable sources of energy. A suite of policies including renewable portfolio standards and enhanced energy efficiency codes and standards can achieve this goal, while providing near-term economic relief to natural gas consumers and reducing the nation’s overall dependence on fossil fuels.
For more information, contact:
Anna Aurilio or Emily Kaplan
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
(202) 546-9707
Notes:
1.) See Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 320.
2.) Oil & Gas Journal, Worldwide Report, December 22, 2003.
3.) Sandia Report “Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill Over Water,” December 2004.
4.) "At Least 23 Dead in Algerian Refinery Blast," Reuters, January 20, 2004
Fact sheet courtesy of U.S. PIRG
