U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, a skeptic of
unlimited gas exports and chairman of the committee, noted the
landscape for energy had changed in the United States and the
country was now positioned to be a major player in the
international gas market.

“I’m not convinced the application process is right for the
times,” he said at a committee hearing on the potential
consequences of LNG exports.

While Wyden called for a fresh look at gas export policy,
newly sworn-in Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz signaled he would
undertake an in-depth review of the government’s export
analysis.

Companies have sought permission to send excess U.S. gas
abroad from nearly two dozen projects. These exports need Energy
Department authorization to be shipped to all but the handful of
countries that have free-trade agreements with the United
States.

The department approved gas exports on Friday to all
countries from the Freeport LNG terminal in Texas, ending a
two-year pause in permitting.

A group of heavy industrial companies, though, led by Dow
Chemical, have pressed the government to ensure that the
amount of exports allowed will not harm manufacturers, who have
benefited from the cheap natural gas prices.

Wyden reiterated his support for the decision to greenlight
the Freeport project, but said Moniz had promised to review the
export process.

Moniz told reporters at an energy efficiency event that he
was committed to completing the review, ensuring that current
data is being used to make these decisions.

“Right now we have no plans of commissioning new studies but
everything is on the table until I have done my analysis,” Moniz
said, adding that the agency hopes to move quickly.

Moniz, replacing Steven Chu, was sworn in as head of the
department on Tuesday. He said that he had played no part in the
decision to approve Freeport’s export terminal.

60 DAYS FOR APPROVAL

At the Senate forum, the Energy Department’s point man on
the issue, Christopher Smith, said the Freeport decision was one
of the more significant orders the department had produced.

The department held off agreeing to any export applications
after it approved those for Cheniere Energy’s Sabine
Pass terminal in 2011.

Pressed on when the department would act again, Smith
repeated that it took 60 days after the end of the comment
period on the government-commissioned economic report on exports
for the department to issue the order on Freeport.

“Our job is to make sure we are moving as expeditiously as
possible,” Smith told lawmakers, noting that Moniz would be
responsible for future decisions.

Across town, Moniz there were no plans to commission new
studies on the impact of LNG exports, “everything is on the
table.” Moniz said he will have his first briefing as energy
secretary on Wednesday.

Tuesday’s forum was the second of three that Wyden has
scheduled to examine policy issues raised by the U.S. shale gas
boom. The final forum is slated for Thursday and will focus on
hydraulic fracturing and shale gas production.

The approval of natural gas exports from Freeport LNG’s
Quintana Island, Texas, terminal ends nearly a two-year pause in
the Energy Department’s review of export applications, as the
administration sought to address concerns that sending U.S. gas
abroad could harm U.S. manufacturers.

“It is an historic moment for the United States,” said Phil
Flynn, senior market analyst at the Price Futures Group in
Chicago. “From a price standpoint this is definitely going to
put some upward pressure on prices, further out in 2015 to
2018.”

Since the department signed off on exports from Cheniere’s
Sabine Pass terminal in 2011, a fierce debate over the
future of America’s natural gas bounty has swept through
Washington and elsewhere.

Rapid growth in shale gas output has placed the United
States in a position to be major gas exporter, upending years of
expectations that the nation would have to rely increasingly on
imports of gas.

More than a dozen projects have been proposed to export
natural gas, but a vocal contingent led by Dow Chemical
have argued that allowing unlimited exports could raise prices
and hinder a resurgence in U.S. manufacturing.

Energy Department authorization is required for gas exports
to all but a handful of countries with free-trade agreements.
Without approval to export to major gas consumers without such
agreements, including Japan and India, multi-billion dollar LNG
export facilities would likely not be economically feasible.

The department’s approval of the Freeport terminal will
allow the company to export up to 1.4 billion cubic feet of
natural gas a day for 20 years.

The announcement came a day after Ernest Moniz was confirmed
by the U.S. Senate as the new Secretary of Energy, replacing
Steven Chu. Moniz has not been sworn in.

The U.S. Interior Department scrapped a proposal from 2012
after facing heat from green groups and the drilling industry
over rules aimed at updating decades-old fracking regulations.

“Our thorough review of all the comments convinced us that
we could maintain a strong level of protection of health,
safety, and the environment while allowing for increased
flexibility and reduced regulatory duplication,” Interior’s
Bureau of Land Management Principal Deputy Director Neil Kornze
said in a statement.

But in attempting to navigate between environmental concerns
and economic needs, the latest plan is unlikely to please
advocates on either side of the debate.

The plan offers “flexibility” to drillers by allowing them
to use various tools to evaluate cement integrity and allowing
the use of an industry-backed web site known as FracFocus for
the disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing after
drilling takes place, the Interior Department said.

Added flexibilities will almost certainly raise the ire of
environmental groups, who argued that the department’s first
attempt at drafting rules did little to address pollution risks
often associated with fracking.

And the changes failed to win over some industry backers,
who have questioned why federal regulations are needed at all
when states already have rules in place.

(Reporting by Ayesha Rascoe; Editing by Ros Krasny and Gerald
E. McCormick and Alden Bentley)

Jewell told lawmakers at a Senate Appropriations
subcommittee hearing that the department was “very close” to
unveiling the rules and reiterated a recent comment that the
rules would be out in “weeks, not months.”

Jewell was also pressed about the department’s plans to
issue regulations for offshore drilling in the Arctic.

The Interior Department faced heat from green groups and
industry a year ago, when it unveiled its initial proposal to
update decades-old fracking regulations. Energy trade groups
argued the rules were onerous while greens said they did not go
far enough to protect the public.

Eventually, the department, then led by Ken Salazar,
scrapped the proposals and went back to the drawing board.
Environmentalists have raised concerns the new regulations may
be too accommodating of drillers, however.

“The fracking rules are not bowing to industry pressure or
environmental pressure,” Jewell told reporters after her first
hearing since assuming the top post at Interior in April.

Jewell said the proposed regulations would use the “best
science” and take into account modern technologies and
practices. The former oil company engineer noted that she had
“fracked a well before.”

The initial draft rules included new reporting standards and
a requirement that companies reveal chemicals they use in
fracking only after they complete drilling.

Advances in drilling techniques, including fracking, have
unlocked vast reserves of shale oil and gas and put the United
States on a path to energy self-sufficiency.

But some communities near new hubs of drilling activity have
complained that the development may be threatening water
supplies and polluting the air, and has inadequate oversight.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves injecting water,
sand and chemicals underground at high pressure to extract fuel.

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska, pressed Jewell
on the outlook for offshore drilling regulations in the Arctic.

Royal Dutch Shell abandoned plans to drill in the
Arctic this year after facing a number of setbacks in 2012,
including the dramatic grounding of a drillship while it was
being towed south for the winter.

ConocoPhillips shelved plans to explore for oil in
the Arctic in 2014 as well, citing regulatory uncertainty.

Deputy Interior Secretary David Hayes said the department
expects to propose regulations by year-end that would mirror the
requirements set forth in Shell’s approved exploration plans.

Hayes told reporters that any delay in finalizing the rules
would not affect companies’ drilling plans as long as they
agreed to meet the minimum standards that were set forth when
Shell made its attempt to drill in 2012.

California’s Boxer, the head of the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee, said the panel will hold a hearing “in
the near future” on the disaster and will probe whether there
are any gaps in the enforcement of U.S. chemical safety laws.

The cause of the April 17 fire and explosion at West
Fertilizer Co, about 20 miles (32 km) north of Waco, is not yet
known.

“I cannot rest until we get to the bottom of what caused the
disaster in West, Texas and the tragic loss of life,” Boxer said
in a statement. “It is critical that we find out how this
happened.”

A Texas state House committee is slated to hold the first
hearing on the explosion by a legislative body on Wednesday in
Austin, Texas.

The state panel on Homeland Security and Public Safety has
invited testimony from state entities or regulators that oversee
rules, security and other details for facilities such as the
fertilizer plant involved in the disaster.

Concerns have been raised that the fertilizer plant might
have been storing significant amounts of ammonium nitrate, which
can be used in bomb making, without notifying the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as required by law.

Boxer, a Democrat, sent a letter to the Environmental
Protection Agency on Tuesday requesting more information about
the agency’s oversight of chemical safety.

She questioned why the EPA does not include ammonium nitrate
on the list of chemicals that facilities must report to agency
under its Risk Management Program.

“This is good news,” Ali al-Naimi said about the U.S. oil
and gas production boom at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies in Washington, in a speech billed as his
first on energy in the United States in four years.

U.S. crude output, which has jumped to the highest level in
about 20 years, will increase stability in global oil markets,
Naimi said.

The rapid rise in U.S. oil and natural gas output has led
some to believe Washington would end its reliance on Middle
Eastern crude and perhaps ultimately loosen its military
protection of the region’s oil shipping lanes as well.

“This talk of ending reliance is a naive, rather simplistic
view,” Naimi said, adding that talk of energy independence
“fails to recognize the interconnected nature of global energy
markets.”

Even as Naimi spoke, evidence mounted that the U.S. drilling
boom may be bigger than thought. The U.S. government said
formations in the center of the country hold an estimated 7.4
billion barrels of technically recoverable oil, more than double
the previous estimate from 2008.

Despite new output from the United States, Iraq, Brazil and
elsewhere, Saudi Arabia remains the world’s main source of spare
oil production capacity, of between 2.5 million and 3.5 million
barrels per day.

By contrast, extra barrels from North Dakota and Texas will
be consumed in the United States, at least until laws are
changed to allow the country’s producers to export substantial
amounts of crude.

Still, Saudi Arabia would be lucky to go beyond current
production levels of about 9 million bpd by 2020, due to the new
global supplies, Naimi said. Although the kingdom could produce
15 million bpd, the need to build new wells to hike output in
coming years is not there, he said.

SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP

For decades Saudi Arabia and the United States had a special
relationship: the kingdom provided the United States oil, and
the United States provided Saudi Arabia protection against its
foes.

While the American boom is bringing about an evolution in
U.S.- Saudi energy relations, factors are also keeping them on
track, analysts said. Those include robust Asian demand for
Saudi oil and a combined goal in Washington and Riyadh of
keeping oil prices from going too high in order to control
Iran’s disputed nuclear program.

Naimi said early this month in Doha that nobody should fear
new oil supplies when global demand is rising, adding that
Asia’s population growth should be a driver for future oil
demand.

“The Saudis don’t see the North American oil boom as a
threat, not in the context of the global oil market,” said a
Washington-based energy consultant to governments and
businesses, who did not want to be named.

Regarding Iran, the United States is trying to choke funds
to Tehran’s disputed nuclear program through the application of
sanctions on its oil sales. High global crude prices could hurt
that effort.

Saudi Arabia, a longtime foe of Iran, also does not want
Iran to have nuclear weapons capability and is expected to help
keep oil prices stable.

As part of the changing relationship, Saudi has been
planning to buy tens of billions of dollars worth of U.S.
military aircraft while turning to other oil customers.

“Saudi seems to be arming themselves on the assumption that
they are going to have to play a larger role in their own
defense,” said Chas Freeman, who served as U.S. ambassador to
Saudi Arabia under former President George H.W. Bush.

“We are still partners, but less intimate partners than we
once were,” Freeman said.

The U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf will likely
remain, but now it’s more about averting an oil price shock that
would damage the economies of U.S. allies around the world and
empower Iran.

“It’s a lot more about the global economy and Iran than it
is about the Saudis per se,” said David Goldwyn, who led
international energy affairs at the State Department.

(Addtional reporting by Ayesha Rascoe; Editing by Ros Krasny,
Bill Trott and Gunna Dickson)

(Reuters) – Republican lawmakers said the U.S. government missed early warning signs that its loans to electric carmaker Fisker Automotive could be in trouble, and kept money flowing even after the startup missed a key 2011 production deadline.

Members of the House Oversight Committee cited Department of Energy documents at a hearing on Wednesday as showing Fisker got $32 million in payments, even after it failed to launch the Karma vehicle in February of 2011 as planned.

They spent hours quizzing current and former Fisker executives and an Energy Department official, over what the lawmakers termed the government’s “bad bet,” and questioned whether the unproven company received special treatment that put taxpayer dollars at risk.

The sporty Karma’s $100,000-plus price tag and trappings of Hollywood glamor also drew barbs.

“Taxpayers effectively subsidized luxury, novelty vehicles for the likes of Justin Bieber, Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore,” said Jim Jordan, the Republican from Ohio who chairs the subcommittee which held the hearing.

Under fire is the DOE’s decision in 2009 to grant the company a $529 million loan only to see it veer toward failure – a chain of events that echoed Solyndra, the U.S. government-backed solar manufacturer that went out of business in 2011.

“The government is a very poor venture capitalist,” said Patrick McHenry, a Republican from North Carolina.

Nicholas Whitcombe, the former acting director of the car loan program, defended the government’s actions.

“We make our calls based on the merits of the transactions,” Whitcombe said.

Energy Department officials have defended the auto loan program, saying it helped to bring the industry from the brink of collapse during a severe economic downturn. Mainstream carmakers like General Motors (GM.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) were key beneficiaries, and their revival has been widely acclaimed.

But Fisker’s troubles are the latest in a string of green automotive technology flops, including last year’s bankruptcy of its lithium-ion battery supplier, A123 Systems (AONEQ.PK: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz).

Forecasts in 2009 for sales of hybrid and electric vehicles far outstripped subsequent demand. Only about 2,000 Karmas have been sold.

Documents cited at the hearing pointed to signs Fisker was headed for trouble even before 2011. An email in June 2010 from an outside consultant to the Department of Energy said a Fisker disbursement request may be in “limbo due to lack of compliance with financial covenants.”

FOUNDER TESTIFIES

Henrik Fisker, founder and former CEO, said the Anaheim, California-based company, which has not built a vehicle since July last year, can still bounce back and repay nearly $200 million in government loans if is able to find the right “financial and strategic resources.”

“I do not believe that any taxpayer dollars have been lost,” Fisker told lawmakers.

Testifying about his eponymous company, the Danish-born Fisker, 49, who was forced to resign as chairman in March, blamed problems with its parts suppliers, delays in regulatory approval and recalls of its flagship Karma plug-in hybrid sports car for the company’s struggles.

“After resolving initial launch challenges, the cars perform well and customers love them,” Fisker asserted.

Republicans spent hours criticizing the loan at the hearing. But Henrik Fisker told lawmakers that the company was encouraged to apply for money in 2008 by the Republican administration of President George W. Bush. The loan was then approved by Barack Obama’s administration.

Fisker’s failure to make a payment on the DOE loan on Monday was the latest of its troubles. In recent weeks, Fisker has fired 75 percent of its workforce and hired bankruptcy advisers.

Republicans said Fisker received the DOE loan despite its junk bond rating and unproven track record.

“The Obama administration owes the American taxpayer an explanation as to why this bad loan was made in the first place, and what they are going to do to minimize the loss that taxpayers face,” said Jordan, the hearing chairman.

DOE BACKING BOOSTED FISKER

The DOE’s backing helped put Fisker, which was founded in 2007, on the map. With government guarantees in hand, Fisker has gone on to raise $1.2 billion in private funds to date, according to SEC filings.

The 2009 loan signaled that the DOE had done a rigorous review of the project, said Salo Zelermyer, a senior counsel at the DOE under the Bush administration, who also helped create the auto loan program.

“It’s fair to say the projects the DOE chose to proceed with were clearly given an added credibility with folks on the outside,” said Zelermyer, now a senior counsel at Bracewell and Giuliani in Washington.

Fisker tapped $192 million of its $529 million before the DOE quietly decided to freeze Fisker’s credit line in June 2011.

Neither the DOE nor Fisker publicly disclosed that decision until early 2012. Lawyers and a DOE official said the department was not obligated to divulge the decision.

In the confidential “information statement” sent to shareholders in December 2011 and obtained by Reuters, Fisker said it “will not meet certain financial covenants and project milestones” required in the DOE agreement, including earnings, net worth and certain financial ratio targets.

The terms of Fisker’s loan pact with the DOE were enough to put off potential suitors, including Chinese automaker Geely Automobile Holdings Ltd (0175.HK: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz). The conditions included an obligation to restore capacity and jobs at the company’s Delaware plant according to a schedule imposed by the U.S. government.

Since the high profile failure of Solyndra, a topic brought up regularly by Republicans during President Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, the Obama administration has become far more risk averse when doling out loan payments.

Solyndra, the first loan recipient and first major failure for the department’s portfolio, received more than $527 million of its $535 million loan before filing for bankruptcy.

(Reporting by Deepa Seetharaman and Paul Lienert in Detroit, Ayesha Rascoe in Washington and Nichola Groom in Los Angeles; Editing by Ros Krasny, Matthew Lewis, Leslie Gevirtz and Tim Dobbyn)

(Reuters) – Fisker Automotive Inc, which has not built a vehicle since July, has the potential to succeed and repay nearly $200 million in government loans if the “green” car maker is able to find the right “financial and strategic resources,” according to former CEO Henrik Fisker.

Problems with the parts suppliers, delays in regulatory approval and recalls of its flagship Karma plug-in hybrid sports car were among the issues that dogged the automaker over the last few years, Fisker plans to tell lawmakers during a congressional committee hearing later on Wednesday.

“After resolving initial launch challenges, the cars perform well and customers love them,” according to a copy of Henrik Fisker’s testimony to the panel. “Fisker still has the potential to build on these achievements if the company can secure financial and strategic resources.”

The House Oversight and Government Reform committee will focus on the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) decision to grant Fisker Automotive a $529 million loan in 2009.

The hearing comes as the automaker verges on collapse. Among the key questions is whether Fisker’s prospects were strong enough at the start to warrant the DOE’s backing, which helped trigger a flood of private financing for Fisker.

Fisker’s failure to make a payment on the DOE loan on Monday is the latest of its troubles. In recent weeks, Fisker has fired 75 percent of its workforce and hired bankruptcy advisers.

“The Obama Administration owes the American taxpayer an explanation as to why this bad loan was made in the first place, and what they are going to do to minimize the loss that taxpayers face,” said Ohio Republican Jim Jordan, chairman of the subcommittee holding Wednesday’s hearing.

Henrik Fisker founded the company in 2007 and abruptly resigned as executive chairman in March. “While the company retains my name, we are not one and the same,” Fisker will say, according to his testimony.

Nicholas Whitcombe, supervisory senior investment officer for the DOE loan program and Fisker co-founder Bernhard Koehler will also testify at the hearing.

DOE BACKING BOOSTED FISKER

The DOE’s early public support helped open doors for Fisker, which sells the $100,000-plus Karma plug-in hybrid sports car. Fisker has raised $1.2 billion in private funds to date, according to SEC filings.

The 2009 loan signaled that the DOE had done a rigorous review of the project, said Salo Zelermyer, a senior counsel at the DOE under the Bush administration who also helped create the auto loan program. The loan program was funded in late 2008.

“It’s fair to say the projects the DOE chose to proceed with were clearly given an added credibility with folks on the outside,” said Zelermyer, now a senior counsel at Bracewell and Giuliani in Washington.

Fisker never received the full $529 million loan. It tapped $192 million before the DOE quietly decided to freeze Fisker’s credit line in June 2011 when it became clear that Fisker would not meet performance milestones as part of the loan agreement.

Neither the DOE nor Fisker publicly disclosed that decision until early 2012. Lawyers and a DOE official said the department was not obligated to divulge its decision on Fisker.

In the confidential “information statement” sent to shareholders in December 2011 and obtained by Reuters, Fisker said it “will not meet certain financial covenants and project milestones” required in the DOE agreement, including earnings, net worth and certain financial ratio targets.

Fisker’s troubles come after a string of green technology flops, including last year’s bankruptcy of Fisker’s lithium-ion battery supplier, A123 Systems.

Forecasts in 2009 for the sale of hybrid and electric vehicles far outstripped subsequent demand.

“I’m not sure there is anything anyone can say or do to help Fisker,” said Theodore O’Neill, an analyst with Litchfield Hills Research LLC. “The company is adrift without Henrik.

“The supply chain is broken, so they can’t get parts on credit anymore, and while it is one of the most beautiful cars on the road, there is insufficient demand,” he added.

Lawmakers may raise questions about the relationship between the DOE and Fisker, which has been strained in recent months, people familiar with the matter have said.

The terms of Fisker’s pact with the DOE were enough to put off potential suitors, including Chinese automaker Geely Automobile Holdings Ltd (0175.HK: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz). The conditions included an obligation to restore capacity and jobs at the company’s Delaware plant according to a schedule imposed by the U.S. government.

Officials with Fisker could not be reached for comment.

(Reporting by Deepa Seetharaman and Paul Lienert in Detroit, Ayesha Rascoe in Washington and Nichola Groom in Los Angeles; editing by Matt Driskill and Matthew Lewis)

Problems with the parts suppliers, delays in regulatory
approval and recalls of its flagship Karma plug-in hybrid sports
car were among the issues that dogged the automaker over the
last few years, Fisker plans to tell lawmakers during a
congressional committee hearing later on Wednesday.

“After resolving initial launch challenges, the cars perform
well and customers love them,” according to a copy of Henrik
Fisker’s testimony to the panel. “Fisker still has the potential
to build on these achievements if the company can secure
financial and strategic resources.”

The House Oversight and Government Reform committee will
focus on the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) decision to grant
Fisker Automotive a $529 million loan in 2009.

The hearing comes as the automaker verges on collapse. Among
the key questions is whether Fisker’s prospects were strong
enough at the start to warrant the DOE’s backing, which helped
trigger a flood of private financing for Fisker.

Fisker’s failure to make a payment on the DOE loan on Monday
is the latest of its troubles. In recent weeks, Fisker has fired
75 percent of its workforce and hired bankruptcy advisers.

“The Obama Administration owes the American taxpayer an
explanation as to why this bad loan was made in the first place,
and what they are going to do to minimize the loss that
taxpayers face,” said Ohio Republican Jim Jordan, chairman of
the subcommittee holding Wednesday’s hearing.

Henrik Fisker founded the company in 2007 and abruptly
resigned as executive chairman in March. “While the company
retains my name, we are not one and the same,” Fisker will say,
according to his testimony.

Nicholas Whitcombe, supervisory senior investment officer
for the DOE loan program and Fisker co-founder Bernhard Koehler
will also testify at the hearing.

DOE BACKING BOOSTED FISKER

The DOE’s early public support helped open doors for Fisker,
which sells the $100,000-plus Karma plug-in hybrid sports car.
Fisker has raised $1.2 billion in private funds to date,
according to SEC filings.

The 2009 loan signaled that the DOE had done a rigorous
review of the project, said Salo Zelermyer, a senior counsel at
the DOE under the Bush administration who also helped create the
auto loan program. The loan program was funded in late 2008.

“It’s fair to say the projects the DOE chose to proceed with
were clearly given an added credibility with folks on the
outside,” said Zelermyer, now a senior counsel at Bracewell and
Giuliani in Washington.

Fisker never received the full $529 million loan. It tapped
$192 million before the DOE quietly decided to freeze Fisker’s
credit line in June 2011 when it became clear that Fisker would
not meet performance milestones as part of the loan agreement.

Neither the DOE nor Fisker publicly disclosed that decision
until early 2012. Lawyers and a DOE official said the department
was not obligated to divulge its decision on Fisker.

In the confidential “information statement” sent to
shareholders in December 2011 and obtained by Reuters, Fisker
said it “will not meet certain financial covenants and project
milestones” required in the DOE agreement, including earnings,
net worth and certain financial ratio targets.

Fisker’s troubles come after a string of green technology
flops, including last year’s bankruptcy of Fisker’s lithium-ion
battery supplier, A123 Systems.

Forecasts in 2009 for the sale of hybrid and electric
vehicles far outstripped subsequent demand.

“I’m not sure there is anything anyone can say or do to help
Fisker,” said Theodore O’Neill, an analyst with Litchfield Hills
Research LLC. “The company is adrift without Henrik.

“The supply chain is broken, so they can’t get parts on
credit anymore, and while it is one of the most beautiful cars
on the road, there is insufficient demand,” he added.

Lawmakers may raise questions about the relationship between
the DOE and Fisker, which has been strained in recent months,
people familiar with the matter have said.

The terms of Fisker’s pact with the DOE were enough to put
off potential suitors, including Chinese automaker Geely
Automobile Holdings Ltd. The conditions included an
obligation to restore capacity and jobs at the company’s
Delaware plant according to a schedule imposed by the U.S.
government.

Officials with Fisker could not be reached for comment.

Thomas Farrell, the head of Dominion Resources,
expressed confidence that the Energy Department would move
forward on applications to export liquefied natural gas in the
near future.

“We are hopeful to see some action in the next few weeks,”
Farrell said in a speech at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Dominion’s Cove Point is the third project in line for
review by the department, which is thought likely to rule on
applications in the order they were received.

Farrell told reporters his prediction was based on comments
from acting Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman that the department
would make decisions “very soon.”

Poneman told Senators at a hearing last week that he did not
think it would take “months” for the department to begin
considering applications.

The Energy Department, which must authorize gas exports to
all but a handful of countries with free trade agreements,
halted its review of export projects after approving Cheniere’s
Sabine Pass terminal nearly two years ago.

Facing a dramatic shift in the U.S. energy landscape, the
department said it would delay additional decisions pending the
outcome of two studies examining the impact of gas exports on a
number of criteria.

Companies have lined up to gain approval to export natural
gas in recent years as advances in drilling technology have
unlocked the nation’s massive shale gas reserves.

Booming shale gas production has placed the United States in
the position to be a net exporter, defying projections from
early in the last decade that the nation would be increasingly
dependent on gas imports.

But a vocal contingent of industrial gas users, led by Dow
Chemical, has come out strongly against unlimited
exports, warning that exports could lead to higher gas prices at
home and harm the resurgent U.S. manufacturing sector.

A department-commissioned study by NERA Economic Consulting
released in December found that LNG exports would provide net
economic benefits for the United States, no matter what level of
shipments was approved.

Critics of the report, including Senate energy committee
chairman Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said the study used
outdated data and did not fully assess the regional and
industrial impacts of exports.

The government received nearly 200,000 responses to the
study during its comment period that ended in February.

Analysts and industry observers have said they expect the
department to begin acting on applications some time this
summer.

Still, the department is thought to be waiting for Ernest
Moniz, President Barack Obama’s nominee to be U.S. Energy
Secretary, to take the helm. The arrival of a new department
head could impact the review process.

Moniz is expected to be confirmed soon by the full Senate,
but faces opposition from South Carolina Senators Lindsey Graham
and Tim Scott, both Republicans, over the government’s
management of a nuclear waste disposal project in the state.

At his nomination hearing, Moniz said he would want to
ensure that the department is using the best data in its review
of LNG export applications.