LWV Klamath County Posts

LWV Klamath County has been updating our community on the status of the proposed Jordan Cove pipeline for several years now. As one of the four Southern Oregon local leagues which have been fighting this development, we felt it important to keep our members informed about all the ups and downs of this project.

Now it appears we may be at the end of the road. Several developments have occurred in the past couple of months that indicate this project is not going to move forward. Below is a wrap-up of some of the recent activities by a number of stakeholder parties. Unless we receive significant new information about this project, there will be no further updates.

---

This notice is from Pembina, the Canadian developer of this pipeline:

Pembina Pipeline Corporation has decided to pause the development of Jordan Cove LNG while we reassess the impact of recent regulatory decisions.

While we continue to believe in the strategic rationale of Jordan Cove, in light of current regulatory and political uncertainty, our decision reflects our steadfast commitment to our financial guardrails, our disciplined and prudent approach to capital allocation, and our commitment to comprehensively mitigating risk on this project.

We are thankful for the incredible support from community members across southern Oregon and the Rockies Basin.

For more information, visit the Media Centre on Pembina’s website.

Here is the letter that Pembina recently sent to FERC, the regulatory agency.

Here is a recent article on the continued legal fight over Jordan Cove:

NATURAL GAS: Court denies FERC request to halt Ore. pipeline lawsuit

Niina H. Farah, E&E News reporter Published: Tuesday, June 8, 2021

A federal appeals court is charging ahead with a challenge to a controversial West Coast natural gas export facility — despite calls to freeze the case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit yesterday denied requests from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the developer of the Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas project to stall litigation over a federal approval for a pipeline associated with the Oregon facility.

Pembina Pipeline Corp., the developer, told the court in April that it was temporarily halting the $10 billion project after failing to gain the necessary permits for the Pacific Connector pipeline that would carry natural gas to the facility. The company argued that landowners challenging the project had not been able to show that they would be harmed by a pause in the legal proceedings.

FERC had also asked the D.C. Circuit to put the case on hold, or alternatively to throw out the dispute altogether.

“Landowner Petitioners do not meaningfully engage with the Project Developers’ commitment not to file any condemnation actions during an abeyance, or with this Court’s invitation to renew their request for interim relief if takings become imminent,” Pembina wrote in a May brief.

The focus of the litigation is whether FERC can convey its eminent domain authority to allow Pembina to seize private land to build its project.

A ruling in the case could answer questions about whether FERC can grant a certificate of public convenience and necessity for a pipeline serving a project with a product that is destined for foreign markets, said David Bookbinder, chief counsel at the Niskanen Center and a lawyer for the landowner challengers.

The D.C. Circuit’s decision to move forward with the case came as a surprise, he said.

“What this means is that [the judges] understood and accepted our argument that even if they decide not to build the project, they will have a valid certificate authorizing eminent domain,” Bookbinder said of Pembina.

He noted that the company has already attempted to build the project on three separate occasions. While Pembina had committed not to build during a pause in the litigation, landowners had not received any assurances that the company would not seek to build again in the future.

“There is every reason to believe there will be a fourth attempt,” Bookbinder said.

The D.C. Circuit’s order yesterday comes as the fate of the project itself has become more tenuous.

Earlier this year, FERC denied the company’s bid to override Oregon’s refusal to certify the facility under Clean Water Act Section 401, which allows states to determine whether federally approved projects comply with state water quality standards.

The Commerce Department has also determined the project is “inconsistent” with the Coastal Zone Management Act (Greenwire, April 23).

Pembina did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit is before D.C. Circuit Judges Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins. Both are Obama appointees.

---

Some Background Reading on FERC’s review and approval processes:

ENERGY POLICY: ‘Self-dealing’ loophole could upend FERC pipeline reviews

Miranda Willson, E&E News reporter Published: Friday, May 28, 2021

A worker steps out of a car to inspect a natural gas pipeline under construction near Cadiz, Ohio, in this 2012 file photo. Chris Fitzgerald / Candidate Photos/Newscom

As the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission weighs changes to its natural gas pipeline reviews, it’s grappling with a key question: How should it determine whether a project is needed?

For years, the agency has signed off on proposals if developers could prove they had customers ready to reserve capacity on their pipeline. But critics say these so-called precedent agreements have a glaring loophole: Different units of the same company can act as both seller and buyer — winning a green light from FERC in the process.

The commission’s reliance on precedent agreements is one of many topics included in FERC’s ongoing review of how it considers and approves new natural gas pipelines.

The outcome could shape the future direction of the independent agency, which regulates power markets and large-scale energy projects. Analysts say FERC’s approach to large-scale natural gas projects could make or break many of the Biden administration’s clean energy goals.

“For as much attention as the commission’s climate reviews have gotten, FERC’s dependence on precedent agreements is the single most problematic part of its reviews today,” said Gillian Giannetti, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Sustainable FERC Project.

The agency has also sought comments about landowner interests, environmental impacts, effects on environmental justice communities and the transparency of its pipeline approval process. Comments for the proceeding closed this week.

“This decision is probably not going to happen overnight,” said Suzanne Mattei, an energy policy analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, which advocates for sustainable energy. “It’s a lot to grapple with, but it’s all very, very important for the energy future of the country.”

When a developer applies with FERC to build a new natural gas pipeline, it typically includes one or more precedent agreements with prospective companies seeking to reserve capacity on the pipeline. While FERC’s current policy is to consider “all relevant factors” to determine the need for a given project, it has in practice relied on the existence of these agreements as proof of necessity, even when the parties that signed a contract are affiliates of the same parent company, according to longtime agency observers.

Between October 2008 and February 2020, FERC issued 480 certificates — allowing pipeline companies to begin construction for a project — and denied three, according to commission records. All recent projects that have been approved included precedent agreements in their applications, while the handful of projects that have been denied certificates lacked them, said Maya van Rossum, leader of the Delaware Riverkeeper, who has followed FERC pipeline issues for more than 15 years.

“In almost every instance, this is the kind of need demonstration we see in one form or another,” said van Rossum.

Natural gas companies and trade groups say the agreements are a good proxy for determining whether a project is in the public interest, since they help ensure that projects are financially viable and are supported by market demand. Precedent agreements among affiliates are just as valuable indicators and are often already subject to additional scrutiny by state regulators, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America wrote in comments to FERC.

“There is no basis for the Commission to depart from this precedent,” INGAA wrote.

Yet Democratic Chairman Richard Glick has said FERC should review its reliance on the agreements as proof of need, especially in cases where the contracts are between units of the same company. FERC’s Certificate Policy Statement — the guiding document for how the commission should consider project need — was issued in 1999 and hasn’t been amended since.

“FERC has been completely relying on the existence of precedent agreements between shippers and pipeline developers to determine whether there’s a need,” Glick said in a recent interview (Energywire, May 24). “In some cases, that might make sense, but it doesn’t make sense when the precedent agreements are between affiliates.”

Deals ‘not entered into lightly’

Advocates for changing FERC’s handling of pipeline reviews say the agency should account for shifting climate and energy trends. The Biden administration has proposed cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 relative to 2005 levels, and dozens of states have set their own clean energy or emissions reduction goals.

When FERC approves a project, it issues a certificate of public convenience and necessity. That generally allows the pipeline developer to begin construction, including the possibility of forcibly taking people’s property through eminent domain.

Because pipeline construction can result in irreparable damage to property and the environment, FERC must be thorough in its assessment of whether a project is truly in the public interest, a coalition of environmental and community groups wrote in comments to FERC this week. In addition, given the threat of climate change and long-term outlooks for natural gas use, relying exclusively on precedent agreements doesn’t cut it anymore, said the groups, including the Sierra Club and NRDC.

“[The] gas industry itself is recognizing the long-term instability of its projects, as shippers are demanding shorter and more flexible terms in precedent agreements,” the groups wrote. “This makes precedent agreements an even less reliable indicator of future demand than before.”

But Casey Hollers, director of regulatory affairs at the Natural Gas Supply Association, argued in comments to FERC that the agreements are “not entered into lightly,” given that they establish a binding commitment for a shipper to use gas from a project. Other supporters of the current practice wrote that the commission lacks the authority or the expertise to make its own determination of project need and should not attempt to second-guess developers on the issue.

“[The current] approach provides the most objective and straight-forward evidence for determining whether a project is in the public interest,” Hollers wrote.

Others have called for FERC to change its practices only in cases where the precedent agreements are among affiliate companies. In those situations, the commission should “employ a rebuttable presumption” that the contracts do not demonstrate need while requiring independent evidence to overcome that presumption, the Democratic attorneys general of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia wrote in joint comments to the commission.

EPA made a similar recommendation.

“To prevent self-dealing and ensure accurate needs assessment, it is important for the Commission to thoroughly examine the relationship between the parties entering into a precedent agreement and carefully scrutinize purposed need where the pipeline developer is affiliated with a local distribution company or other entity reserving capacity on the line,” EPA wrote in its comments.

Some commenters cited projects that were approved on the basis of precedent agreements between affiliates that are now canceled or facing setbacks. For example, the commission in 2020 approved the Pacific Connector pipeline, which had a precedent agreement with the Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas project. Both projects were developed by the same corporate parent, Pembina, and are now at risk of cancellation (Greenwire, April 23).

FERC initially rejected the Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector projects in 2016 because “Pacific Connector, by failing to provide precedent agreements or sufficient other evidence of need, failed to demonstrate market support for its proposal,” the agency recounted in a filing approving the project last year. But the second time around, Pacific Connector provided the commission with a precedent agreement with Jordan Cove, covering 96% of the project’s capacity, which FERC viewed as “sufficient evidence of market demand for the project,” according to the 2020 order.

The existence of that agreement with an affiliate company was the “sole reason” the commission approved what was essentially the same project, then-Commissioner Glick wrote in his dissent of the approval. Pembina could not immediately be reached for comment.

Broader review ‘looks likely’

Despite Glick’s skepticism of precedent agreements between affiliates, FERC’s other four commissioners — three Republicans and one other Democrat — declined to comment on the issue. While Glick as chairman has broad discretion over the commission’s agenda, he would need a majority to issue a new Certificate Policy Statement or modify FERC’s existing one.

Some commissioners have spoken about the issue before. Precedent agreements are a reliable indicator of the need for a project, then-Chairman Neil Chatterjee said in 2017.

“The commission has historically prioritized precedent agreements in its analysis because those are clear, unequivocal statements of economic need by the market itself,” Chatterjee, a Republican, said at a 2017 forum hosted by the Energy Bar Association. “The companies who are willing to enter into contracts to pay for transportation on the service on a pipeline have a much clearer understanding of the market need for the gas than we could develop through studies here in D.C.”

The commission has previously declined to change its stance on the topic. After receiving thousands of comments in 2018 as part of a similar review of its Certificate Policy Statement, FERC made no changes to its reliance on precedent agreements or other aspects of its pipeline review process.

Christi Tezak, managing director of research at energy research firm ClearView Energy Partners LLC, said the firm expects FERC “to expand its ‘determination of need'” to consider criteria other than just precedent agreements as part of its latest review.

“[We] have not attempted to discern individual commissioner views on the 12 individual questions related to determination of need,” Tezak said in an email. “But more than just precedent agreements (with affiliates or otherwise) looks likely to us.”

Given that it is “incredibly common” for pipeline proposals to include precedent agreements between affiliated companies, it would be a significant change if the commission were to rely on other factors to determine project need, said Megan Gibson, a senior staff attorney at the libertarian-leaning Niskanen Center.

“It would hopefully incentivize these pipelines to come to agreements with third parties, and with multiple parties, and it hopefully would help ensure that these pipelines are actually built for markets that need gas — not just for profit or export,” she said.

Four local LWV leagues, including Rogue Valley, Klamath, And Coos, have been working for several years to defeat this project which the LWV viewed as detrimental to the environment and lives of the people who live in the areas that would have been impacted by the pipeline construction.

Our position on this project reflects the LWV US position on the Environment, as represented by this action in 2020:

The League submitted a comment letter urging the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to withdraw proposed changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations that would remove public participation in and science-based review of large federal projects.

The League also joined a coalition letter started by the Water Protection Network and signed by over 300 organizations.

Jordan Cove Energy Project LWV Update Summary from rogue valley leaders

As 2021 begins, local, state, national, and global happenings remain relevant to the project’s future. The oil and gas industry is struggling due to market forces stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, and another year of tragic and costly wildfires and weather events have increased public and political pressure to step up the pace to transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The impact of the election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris is unclear for numerous reasons, but their strong commitment to addressing climate change including by reversing Trump era policies on a range of climate and environment-related matters, both here and internationally, puts projects like JCEP on a very different footing than they have enjoyed for the past four years. Investors are taking note. In their 2021 Guidance and Business Update, Pembina announced a write-down of the Ruby Pipeline, a major asset related to JCEP, and made it clear that their only expenditures on the project will relate to obtaining permits, a task that drags on largely due to state denials, local permit appeals, and incomplete federal regulatory processes.

Here’s an update on key permitting highlights:

1. The U.S. Secretary of Commerce has directed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to evaluate JCEP’s request for an override of Oregon’s objections to the corporation’s Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) consistency certificate. The outcome of the override request of this critical state permit would have multiple impacts. The Secretary’s decision is due by January 26 (with an option for an extension into February), so could happen at any time.
2. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) ruling on whether Oregon waived their authority over JCEP’s 401 Water Quality certification is still pending with a decision expected soon. Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) denied (without prejudice) the permit application in May of 2019. If the State prevails, Pembina will need to reapply, but under new EPA rules that weaken the role of states and tribal groups. (LWVOR commented in strong opposition to the rules when proposed.) As of January 4, the two vacancies on the FERC have been filled with a bipartisan pair, Mark Christie and Allison Clements, as is customary. Commissioner Glick is expected to become Chair.
3. Attorneys on both sides of the appeal of FERC’s Order approving JCEP in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals are now preparing briefs with a deadline after mid-January.
4. Crag Law Center and Talent Attorney Tonia Moro continue to pursue appeals of several local land use decisions before the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). They won one recently and are arguing another to overturn a permit allowing Coos Bay dredging at this writing.
5. In addition to these major events, see the list of water permits JCEP has yet to even apply for. The federal FAST-41 Dashboard tracks federal permit requirements, but fails to reflect several permits marked “complete,” that have been reopened due to FERC actions in the Final Order.

• Supportive quotes from landowners are available here.

• A one-page summary of the Landowners Fairness Act is available here.

• HERE is a final report from the NOAA which explains the denial of approvals necessary to go forward with this project (technical).

• HERE is a copy of a lengthy final summary report on this project from last year.

• LWV Klamath County also recently signed on to THIS letter of thanks to Gov. Brown for her efforts to head off approval of this project.

news release from our US Senators:

For Immediate Release: March 9, 2021

Contact: Nicole L’Esperance / Hank Stern (Wyden) 503-326-7539

Sara Hottman (Merkley) 503-326-3386

Wyden, Merkley Reintroduce Legislation to Defend Property Owners’ Rights from Eminent Domain Claims for Natural Gas Pipelines

Bills would provide needed protections for landowners in Oregon and nationwide facing increased and unfair use of eminent domain for pipeline development

Washington, D.C. – Oregon’s U.S. Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley today reintroduced their legislation that would strengthen the rights of landowners facing eminent domain claims from private companies exploiting public interest provisions to confiscate property in Oregon and nationwide for natural gas pipeline development.

The bills, which Wyden and Merkley first introduced last fall, come in response to the natural gas industry’s increased use of eminent domain for pipeline development and the failure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to protect landowners’ rights. The property owners in southern Oregon along the potential pipeline path for the proposed Jordan Cove project provide a clear example of that alarming trend.

“Making sure that landowners’ rights are maintained and that due process is the default process is just commonsense. Yet, in Oregon and elsewhere, long-running natural gas projects have kept property owners on edge, not knowing whether their property might be condemned or whether selling out to big industry was the only option,” Wyden said. “FERC has proven to be a weak guardian of landowners’ rights. These bills change that and bring much-needed transparency and standardized due process.”

“Allowing private pipeline companies to steamroll people’s private property rights to build export pipelines that won’t benefit Americans is wrong, plain and simple,” Merkley said. “If a massive corporation wants to use land—in Southern Oregon, the Columbia River Gorge, or anywhere in America—they should have to negotiate with landowners for that right. Let’s put an end to the days where powerful and privileged fossil fuel executives act like Americans’ private property is up for grabs as they try to line their own pockets at the expense of our communities.”

Wyden’s Landowner Fairness Act would end the legal presumption that gas exports are by definition in the public interest, standardize gas developers’ communications to landowners while also setting time limits on FERC actions, set stricter standards on eminent domain claims, provide a more robust appeals process for landowners, and more. In addition to Wyden and Merkley, the bill is also cosponsored by U.S. Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J.

Merkley’s Ending Natural Gas Companies’ Seizure of Land for Export Profits Act would prohibit companies building export pipelines from using eminent domain claims of private lands. In addition, the legislation would affirm that the federal government does not have the authority to allow companies to use eminent domain to seize state land for natural gas pipelines.

As one of the four local Leagues in LWV Oregon who has directly worked on the issue of the Pembina Pipeline Project for several years, we are vitally concerned with the progress of this effort, and our interest in supporting LWV environmental positions that would oppose such construction.

Here is some recent news:

Land Use Board of Appeals issues yet another setback for Jordan Cove LNG

LUBA overturns fourth LNG permit for Jordan Cove LNG in 6 months

[NORTH BEND, OREGON] —On January 6, 2021, the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) overturned yet another local land use permit for the Jordan Cove LNG export terminal and Pacific Connector pipeline. This is the fourth Jordan Cove LNG permit overturned by LUBA in the last six months while the company has also continued to fail to qualify for State and Federal permits. LUBA’s decision can be read here.

This City of North Bend permit was for the proposed pipeline construction under the Coos Bay estuary.  LUBA ruled that the City erred in its classification of the proposed Horizontal Directional Drill, which would include both drilling and dredging under the Coos Bay estuary. 

The permit was challenged by the Coos County community organization, Citizens for Renewables, on the grounds of protecting the estuary from the fracked gas pipeline. 

“This decision will require the City of North Bend to consider the damage this pipeline will do to our resource-rich estuary instead of ignoring the impacts as Jordan Cove LNG’s attorneys have argued,” said Katy Eymann, a Coos County resident and President of Citizens for Renewables. “LUBA is part of the long line of agency decisions rejecting this project demonstrating that this project is not good for Oregon.”

 “I am so glad that the hard work of local community member, like Jody McCaffree, who have studied and argued highly technical issues regarding the complex Coos Bay Estuary Management Plan has won the day,” said Tonia Moro, the attorney who represented both  Citizens for Renewables and Mrs. McCaffree on this appeal. “For years, community members in Coos County have been advocates to protect estuary resources by submitting comments to showcase that this project is not a good fit for the coastal community. This LUBA decision is another significant blow to this project.”

HERE is another recent article from E & E News regarding these efforts at a national level, with specific mention of Coos County, Oregon.

HERE is an older background document which may also be informative.

The fight over building the Canadian-owned and operated LNG pipeline across lands from Klamath County to Coos Bay has spanned several years now. LWV Klamath County has been involved as one of the 4 local leagues that has worked to support environmental and land rights across the projected pipeline route.

Here are several updates and recent media reports on this project, which has remained stalled over legal permits for a long time.

From ProPublica:

This past spring, while much of the country focused on COVID-19, three men who work in an obscure corner of the federal government weighed a question with profound effects across the American West. On the docket was a proposal to build a natural gas pipeline that would slice through hundreds of miles of Oregon wilderness, private lands and areas sacred to American Indians. The plan, which had been repeatedly rejected by state and federal regulators for more than a decade, would give a Canadian company the right to seize the land it needed from any American property owner who stood in the way. The government panel that would make the decision can meet in person. But on this March afternoon, it was conducting the people’s business in writing — government by what amounts to dueling memos.

(read more)

From Capital Press: Empowering Producers of Food and Fiber:

COOS BAY, Ore. — Wind howls across the channel — the kind of wind that turns umbrellas inside-out. On the water, the ghost-like outline of a ship, scarcely visible through white fog and driving rain, seems to stand still.

It is here the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay has proposed the largest project in its history: expanding the channel to 45 feet deep and 450 feet wide and allowing the port to take its place among the international shipping giants along the West Coast.

People have been talking about the idea for decades. Advocates say it could open new avenues for international trade of agricultural goods and transform the region’s economy.

(read more)

dated October 12, 2020: Western Environmental Law Center:

WELC (Western Environmental Law Center) is a critical ally in the fight against the Jordan Cove LNG and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline project (JC/PC). They recently made a formal request for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), due to factors associated with the South Obenchain Fire. The fire burned 32,000 acres, including 7 miles of the proposed pipeline route. (Map and request attached.)
Here’s how WELC’s request starts:
We write to bring to your attention significant new information requiring supplementation of existing environmental analysis for the Jordan Cove Energy Project since the FEIS was released in November 2019, and FERC’s issuance of the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity in March 2020. Western Oregon is experiencing an unprecedented wildfire season. Oregon Governor Brown has declared a state of emergency, calling the wildfires a “once-in-a-generation event.” These fires constitute significant new information that warrants preparation of a supplemental EIS.The rest of the letter is well worth a read as it outlines a range of related issues as Oregon grapples with the new normal undeniably enhanced by climate change.

Read the complete document HERE.

NATURAL GAS: LNG export projects face ‘uncertain’ future — report, dated October 6, 2020

Miranda Willson, E&E News reporter

A glut of natural gas supplies and the economic slowdown from the pandemic have created a “highly uncertain” outlook for planned liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities, according to a new report from an environmental nonprofit.

Ten proposed U.S. natural gas export terminals and expansion projects are delayed, and the status of another seven projects approved within the last 18 months is “unclear,” the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) said in a report released yesterday.

U.S. LNG exports decreased by more than 50% this year, and about twice as many U.S. oil and gas producers have declared bankruptcy so far in 2020 than last year, EIP said. Given these trends, it is increasingly likely that some proposed projects won’t be built, the report said.

“Recent project delays indicate that the industry expects market conditions to remain unsupportive of future LNG exports,” EIP said.

LNG export terminals were already on shaky ground before COVID-19 was declared a pandemic in March, said Alexandra Shaykevich, research analyst at EIP.

“All of those preexisting problems in terms of low energy prices, the chronic oversupply of natural gas and the size of the LNG glut … have been significantly compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic,” Shaykevich said on a call with reporters.

Since some of the 17 planned LNG projects lack financing, regulators and companies could still reassess their need and consider their environmental costs, according to EIP.

The 17 delayed projects would emit up to 67 million tons of greenhouse gases annually, EIP said. That’s equivalent to the emissions released from 16 coal-fired power plants “operating around the clock for a year,” and it doesn’t include emissions from end-use consumption of the natural gas, Shaykevich said.

“The total emissions footprint of the natural gas industry is substantial and threatens to lock-in demand for fossil fuels while slowing the transition to renewables and other sustainable sources of energy,” the report said.

Many of the projects pose environmental justice concerns as well, as they have the potential to release local air pollutants that elevate the risk of asthma and other illnesses among nearby residents, EIP said. Thirty-eight percent of residents within 3 miles of proposed LNG facilities are people of color, and 39% are low-income residents, according to the report.

Residents in Port Arthur, Texas, a refining hub on the Gulf Coast that is the site of one proposed LNG terminal, are already subject to oil and gas industry pollution, said John Beard, president and CEO of the Port Arthur Community Action Network. It is not clear that residents have much to gain from additional projects, including LNG terminals, he said.

“One has to wonder, what’s the need and what’s the benefit?” Beard told reporters.

LNG facilities under development should be required to get new Clean Air Act permits considering the time that has passed since companies won approval, EIP said. Six of the projects received permits more than three years ago, even though projects must begin construction “within a reasonable time” under the Clean Air Act, said Eric Schaeffer, executive director of EIP.

“Clearly at this point, there’s no reason not to pull these permits given how saturated the market is already, given the long delays we’ve already experienced with these projects and the fact that they don’t seem to have secured the financing,” Schaeffer said.

Two energy policy professors not affiliated with EIP, however, criticized some of the report’s claims.

For example, the report does not account for emissions from coal-fired generation that could be avoided by LNG exports. Burning natural gas is less carbon-intensive than using coal.

Exporting LNG could reduce the need for a country such as China to build additional coal-fired power plants, said Ed Hirs, an energy economics professor at the University of Houston.

“They should be looking at what the LNG is a substitution for, and it’s pretty clear it’s a substitution away from coal and away from oil,” Hirs said.

The report also appears to disregard recent trends in LNG demand, said Erin Blanton, senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. While demand for U.S. LNG exports has declined since the beginning of the year, it has shown signs of recovery, as existing LNG terminals have seen increased use since July, Blanton said.

Some analysts predict terminals will be fully utilized by winter, Blanton said.

“I wouldn’t extrapolate from this year that there’s no future for U.S. LNG because of the pandemic in 2020,” she said.

Although energy markets have been in retreat because of the pandemic, U.S. LNG exporters processed nearly 8 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day as of yesterday, said Charlie Riedl, executive director for the Center for LNG. That’s up from deliveries of 4 billion cubic feet per day in June, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

“As nations look to reduce emissions, improve air quality and spur economic growth, many will use natural gas and LNG to create a cleaner energy future,” Riedl said in an email.