June 7, 2022For Immediate Release
BETO FLIP-FLOPS ON SUPPORT FOR LNG
“Credibility-challenged Beto O’Rourke, who has made flip-flopping a central theme of his campaign, doesn’t seem to know where he stands when it comes to supporting Texas LNG. It’s clear Beto doesn’t care about the hundreds of thousands of Texas jobs supported by the energy industry.” – Mark Miner, Communications Director
BETO NOW IN PORT ARTHUR: O’Rourke Touts The Fact Texas Can Export LNG To Europe To Counter Russia. O’ROURKE: “And I love the idea that we might even be able to export LNG to those countries in Europe who shouldn’t have to depend on Russia going forward, given what they are doing in Ukraine right now.” (Beto O’Rourke, Remarks, Port Arthur, TX, 3/9/22)
BETO THEN IN WASHINGTON, D.C.: In 2015 O’Rourke Voted Against H.R. 351, The LNG Permitting Certainty And Transparency Act. “On Wednesday, the House voted on and passed the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act (H.R. 351) by a 277–133 vote. I voted against H.R. 351.” (Beto O’Rourke, “Voted ‘No’ on H.R. 351,” Medium.com, 1/30/15)
- H.R. 351 Would Significantly Speed Up The Permitting Process For LNG Exports From The United States, Which Experts Said Would Reduce Regulatory Impediments To LNG Exports. “Restrictive regulations and permitting processes that operate at glacial speed (as opposed to market speed) pose the primary hurdles to greater U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG). In response to a chorus of complaints from industry, Senators John A. Barrasso (R-WY) and Martin Heinrich (D-NM) recently introduced the ‘LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act,’ the 114th Congress’s first legislation aimed at increasing U.S. exports of LNG. … Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) subsequently introduced H.R. 351, an identically named bill with virtually identical legislative language, in the House on January 14, 2015. … Despite the robust enforcement levers the Act proposes, it would not address a major obstacle to expanding U.S. LNG exports: the ponderous environmental review process for export projects, which can take between 18 and 30 months and cost $100 million for proposals to export LNG to countries with which the U.S. does not have free trade agreements (FTAs). However, it would force the DOE to make much faster decisions on whether to grant commercially advanced facilities permits allowing them to export gas to countries that do not have free trade agreements with the U.S., a cohort that includes Japan, Ukraine, and other large potential customers for U.S. LNG. … Bottom Line: The Act Is a Positive First Step Toward Reducing Regulatory Impediments to Greater U.S. LNG Exports.” (Gabriel Collins, “The ‘LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act’— A Positive Step Toward Expediting U.S. LNG Export Projects,” JDSupra.com, 1/19/15)
- O’Rourke Opposed H.R. 351 Due To Environmental Concerns And Issues With Fracking. “I do not support H.R. 351 in its current form. If we are going to increase the amount of LNG we export, Congress should enhance safety and environmental protections. In addition, the long-term environmental impacts of fracking, including the effects on groundwater, need to be better understood prior to further increasing demand for natural gas from fracking.” (Beto O’Rourke, “Voted ‘No’ on H.R. 351,” Medium.com, 1/30/15)