U.S. to export more energy by 2020 than it imports, projects EIA

Federal energy analysts project that the United States will export more energy than it imports by 2020, making the nation a net energy exporter for the first time since the 1950s. Fossil fuels represent the largest volumes of this international trade.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

The United States both exports and imports energy in a variety of forms, including natural gas, coal and coke, petroleum and other liquids, and electricity. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the United States has long been a net exporter of coal and coke. In 2017, the nation began exporting more natural gas than it imports, primarily in the form of liquified natural gas or LNG. EIA notes that electricity trades with neighboring Canada and Mexico represent "a relatively small part of U.S. net energy trade flows."

The EIA projects that domestic production of crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas plant liquids will continue to grow at a faster rate than U.S. energy consumption over the next decade, meaning the balance of these fuels will be exported. EIA projects that due to "evolving trade flows of liquid fuels and natural gas," increasing exports of these fuels will tip the trade balance to where the U.S. is a net exporter of energy by 2020. When this shift occurs, it will represent the first time that the United States exports more energy than it imports on an annual basis since 1953.

Exactly how large the nation's net exports might be -- and how long the net-exporter status might last -- depend on a variety of assumptions about matters including oil and gas prices, resource extraction technologies, and possible changes to law. Under EIA's reference case which reflects current laws and regulations, the U.S. begins exporting more energy than it imports on an annual basis in 2020 and maintains that status through 2050. In other cases featuring lower prices or extraction rates for oil and gas, EIA projects that U.S. will return to net-importer status by the mid- to late-2030s.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

Changes to laws and regulations could also affect the trade balance for energy products.

Cross-border infrastructure and presidential permits

A recent report casts doubt on whether proposed federal legislation would actually accelerate decisions on the siting of cross-border energy infrastructure.

Cross-border pipelines and electric transmission lines play an important role in the North American energy industry.  Under U.S. law, cross-border energy infrastructure projects require a presidential permit and a finding of consistency with the national interest.  Executive orders give the State Department jurisdiction over cross-border oil pipelines, the Department of Energy jurisdiction over electric transmission lines, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission jurisdiction over natural gas pipelines. 

Recent projects like the Keystone XL pipeline have focused attention on the presidential permit process, as that project's presidential permit application has remained pending for years.  Some have raised questions about the scope of agency review and perceived differences in the approaches taken by the State Department, Energy Department, and FERC.

As a result, several members of Congress have proposed legislation designed to accelerate the permitting process.  These bills include:

• the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act (S. 1): passed in Congress but vetoed by President Obama
• the American Energy Renaissance Act of 2015 (S. 791 and H.R. 1487)
• the North American Energy Infrastructure Act (S. 1228)

These bills take various approaches, including limiting agency jurisdiction over cross-border energy infrastructure or the scope of agency review, or setting strict deadlines for agency action following completion of environmental review.

Could federal legislation like this speed up the process for reviewing proposed cross-border pipeline and electric transmission projects?  A recent report by the Congressional Research Service suggests that overall timelines for project review are driven by the scope of the environmental review process, not by delays following that environmental review or agency idiosyncrasies.

In particular, the report found that agency review is "driven largely by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)", which requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts before acting.  Moreover, the report notes that the same NEPA requirements apply to all three:

Faced with Presidential Permit applications for energy projects of similar physical scope, the agencies appear to perform NEPA reviews of similar proportion. Very short, smaller projects are generally reviewed more narrowly and quickly, whereas multi-state projects of large capacity are subject to more expansive environmental review and tend to face much greater public scrutiny and comment—regardless of which agency has jurisdiction. 

The report also found that NEPA review is the key driver of overall permitting decision timelines:

As long as agencies apply NEPA to Presidential Permitting decisions, changes to the delineation of, or jurisdiction over, the border-crossing portion of large projects for permitting purposes may not change the scope of project environmental review. The imposition of decision deadlines on the permitting agencies after NEPA review is complete, either for national interest or public interest determination, could provide greater process certainty to stakeholders. However, the overall project review would still be contingent on the completion of NEPA review. Thus, the effects of legislative proposals to change cross-border infrastructure permitting on the review or approval of future border crossing energy infrastructure projects are open to debate. 

It's unclear how the Congressional Research Service report will affect pending legislation.  Likely more influential may be any final action by the State Department on the Keystone XL project's application for a presidential permit.  Nevertheless, interest in cross-border energy trade will likely continue to grow.

Controversy over renewable energy claims

If an electric utility generates power from renewable resources and sells renewable energy certificates representing the renewable attributes of that energy, can it still call the underlying power "renewable"? No, according to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.

Solar panels in the Utah desert.

While this question may seem metaphysical, it arises from the structure of most U.S. renewable energy markets.  Most states have adopted renewable portfolio standards, which require utilities and competitive electricity suppliers to source some of their power from renewable resources.  In most cases, utilities and suppliers can satisfy this requirement by using renewable energy certificates or credits known as RECs.  While each state's program differs, these RECs typically represent the renewable attributes of electric energy -- the right to claim that energy is renewable -- but are distinct from that underlying energy.  As a result, a renewable generator can sell RECs to one buyer and the underlying energy to another.

Vermont utility Green Mountain Power Corporation recently found itself at the center of controversy over its claims regarding renewable energy.  The utility owns and is involved with a variety of renewable energy generation projects in Vermont, including wind and solar projects.  It sells energy produced from these projects to Vermont customers, while simultaneously selling some of the RECs generated by these sources to out of state utilities.

In 2014, concerns over "double counting" of renewable energy attributes led Connecticut to ban the use of RECs from renewable generation that also is counted toward another state’s renewable goals for meeting Connecticut's requirements, and REC marketer NextEra Energy to notify New England market participants that it would no longer buy Vermont RECs.

On September 15, 2014, a group of petitioners asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Vermont utility Green Mountain Power Corporation's claims that it is providing its customers with electricity from renewable sources such as commercial wind and solar projects, given its separate sale of the RECs to out of state utilities.  The Federal Trade Commission regulates claims about the environmental impacts of commerce under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, including claims regarding the production, sale, and use of renewable energy.  In their complaint, the petitioners claimed that "Vermont customers are being misled into thinking that they are buying 'renewable energy,' when in fact what they are getting is 'null' electricity consisting of a mix of fossil fuel, nuclear, gas and other 'brown' sources of electricity from the regional grid."

The FTC responded to this petition in February 2015 by issuing a letter to Green Mountain Power's counsel expressing concern that the utility might have created confusion for its customers about the renewable attributes of the power they purchased by not “clearly and consistently communicating” that it sells RECs for most of its renewable energy-generating facilities to entities outside Vermont.  In the letter, the FTC said that it had not found that any Green Mountain Power statements violated the Federal Trade Commission Act.  However, the Commission urged Green Mountain Power in the future to prevent any confusion by clearly communicating the implications of its REC sales for Vermont customers and REC purchasers.

The FTC letter represents the latest salvo in efforts to regulate claims regarding the production, sale, and use of renewable energy.  To help marketers avoid making deceptive environmental claims, for over 20 years the FTC has issued "Green Guides" providing its administrative interpretation of the law. The Green Guides outline general principles that apply to all environmental marketing claims and provide guidance regarding many specific environmental benefit claims, including renewable energy claims.  The Green Guides, as well as the recent FTC letter, illustrate the importance of caution in making claims about renewable energy in business activities.