Proponents of a “commercial maturity test” for LNG export projects suggest that it could help to bridge the gap between those who support and those who oppose allowing the market to determine how much natural gas the US will sell abroad. But changing the rules mid-stream could give some project developers an edge, and even raise questions about the stability and predictability of the US regulatory system. A “commercial maturity test” could ease the political process of determining which of the 20 pending applications for Department of Energy licenses to export LNG to non-free trade agreement countries will be approved, said David Goldwyn, President of consultancy Goldwyn Global Strategies at a Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy event earlier this week. In the ongoing debate over whether the US should seek to restrict LNG exports from the US, proponents of government-set limits – such as Dow Chemical, which benefits from cheap feedstock gas – have expressed concerns that exporting large volumes of gas will drive up domestic prices. Opponents of such restrictions – including potential exporters, as well as energy economists at NERA Economic Consulting and the Brookings Institution – have indicated that market forces will likely limit the volume of exports and corresponding upward pressure on prices, and warned of the negative impact of delayed investment on project competitiveness. “You’ve got to have a fix that essentially is commercially sensible, respectful of the investors, and won’t scare the bejesus out of Senator Wyden,” said Goldwyn. Senator Wyden (D-OR) has repeatedly raised concerns about the impact of large-scale natural gas exports on US natural gas consumers. Goldwyn suggested that requiring a project developer to complete the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) mandatory six-month pre-filing process – which precedes the longer and rather costly process of obtaining FERC approval to site, build and operate a plant – and secure a buyer for future volumes would narrow the field of prospective projects, at least in the near-term, and soothe concerns about the volume of gas that will leave the country. “If you waited until a project completed pre-filing, so that you know that it is technically right…and you waited until they presented a real contract, you would have three projects that are ripe for decision,” Goldwyn said. To date, only the first four trains of Cheniere’s Sabine Pass project have both FERC and DOE non-FTA export approval. Freeport LNG, Cameron LNG and Corpus Christi LNG have completed the FERC pre-filing process. “The next time you would have to make a decision on a project would probably be about a year from now,” Goldwyn said Goldwyn added that Freeport LNG’s ability to secure liquefaction contracts with Osaka Gas, Chubu Electric and BP is proof that non-FTA export approval is not a necessary condition for proposed projects to find buyers. Goldwyn is not the only energy expert that backs this proposal. Charles Ebinger, Director of the Brookings Institution’s Energy Security Initiative, also proposed requirements that a project complete FERC pre-filing and secure at least a portion of offtake contracts prior to obtaining non-FTA export approval. “Both requirements are costly and will encourage only serious projects to move forward,” Ebinger said in a testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care, and Entitlements (which you can read in full here). But Bill Cooper, President of LNG trade group the Center for LNG, has argued that instituting new requirements amounts to changing the rules late in the game, which could unfairly advantage some project developers over others. “When an applicant decides to seek an authorization from the DOE, that applicant should be able to reasonably rely upon the rules, regulations, policy and precedent that the agency has already established at the time of the filing,” Cooper told Breaking Energy. “Once the application is deemed to be complete, the DOE has an obligation to consider that application based upon the information known at the time of filing, not to add other requirements after the fact.” “The FERC process is far more expensive and extensive [than the DOE process], and therefore you might want to know that you’ve secured the authorization to export in the first place before spending a lot of money,” Cooper said. If FERC pre-filing requirements are tacked on to the non-FTA export approval process, what had appeared to be a fiscally prudent decision would prove to be a liability.
