A big debate on energy exports is playing out in the Pacific Northwest. Passions are running high on both sides, no doubt fueled in part by meticulously brewed cups of java.
NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons recently waded into the debate. In remarks to business community leaders in Portland and later in Seattle, he made a strong case in support of building the infrastructure necessary to move goods and commodities, such as coal and natural gas, to markets abroad. He said:
Building, modernizing and expanding export terminals makes sense. In a still sluggish economy, expansion will create over 10,000 jobs in the Pacific Northwest and throughout the entire manufacturing economy in America. Expansion means more private investment in export infrastructure—not just for commodities like coal and liquefied natural gas—but for agriculture and manufactured products. It’s a winning proposition.
Currently, plans to modernize export terminals in Washington and Oregon are effectively on hold. Approval of these projects takes the consent of seemingly every level of government, giving opponents plenty of opportunities to stall. All the while, the Pacific Northwest is missing out on the increased economic activity the export terminals would make possible.
The debate over energy exports isn’t isolated to the Pacific Northwest. Similar debates are taking place across the country, particularly on the issue of natural gas exports. The United States has abundant supplies of natural gas, which are now being developed thanks to advancements in hydraulic fracturing. By exporting energy, whether coal or natural gas, the United States can enhance its global economic leadership, boost economic growth and create high-wage jobs.
“Other growing global economies need energy,” Timmons remarked during his trip to the Pacific Northwest. “Why shouldn’t it be from America?”