Oil and Gas
LNG Study Release Signals Feds' Concern Over 'Unfettered' Expansion
A storage tank at an LNG project in Cameron, La.
Photo by Getty Images
The U.S. Dept. of Energy's release on Dec. 17 of a much-anticipated analysis of environmental and economic impacts of growing export of liquefied natural gas to countries that have reciprocal free trade agreements with the U.S.—and the push for supporting infrastructure—generated expected responses from those who agree with the conclusions and those who don't.
Environmental advocates say the study validates their concerns that continued buildouts of new LNG terminals are not in the public interest and would only worsen global warming, while industry groups characterize the study as at least a partial justification for the administration decision last January to pause DOE review of plans for new projects.
The public will have 60 days to comment on the study, but DOE has indicated it will not make changes in it, only forward conclusions to the next administration, which has opposed the pause.
The U.S. is now the world's largest natural gas exporter, with LNG shipments tripling over the past five years, and on a trajectory to quadruple, with projects authorized. Currently eight export terminals are operating, seven others have been approved and are under construction, and 12 more have approval but have not started building, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
In July, a federal court judge in Louisiana issued an order to lift the DOE pause, but no new approvals have occurred since then.
'Special Scrutiny'
The DOE analysis concluded that on the current trajectory, LNG supply may eventually outpace demand, noting that "unfettered" exports would increase domestic natural gas prices by more than 30%.
In a statement released in tandem with the report, soon-to-depart Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said that going forward, applications for very large LNG projects should receive “special scrutiny.” She emphasized that “an LNG project exporting 4 billion cubic feet per day – considering its direct life cycle emissions – would yield more annual greenhouse gas emissions by itself than 141 of the world’s countries each did in 2023.”
Looking for quick answers on construction and engineering topics?
Try Ask ENR, our new smart AI search tool.
Ask ENR →
But the analysis fell short of making any broad recommendations to curtail the growth, punting future decisions about the current LNG pause to the next administration, “given that the comment period will continue" beyond President Joe Biden's tenure "as well as the fact that there are only a few applications currently ready for DOE public interest reviews.
President-elect Donald Trump has said he supports ending the moratorium on new LNG approvals.
Industry and business groups slammed the report, saying it was politically motivated. “This ‘review’ was political from the start of the pause” when White House National Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi announced it earlier this year “as a means to prevent an environmental group protest at DOE in the beginning of a campaign year,” said Frank Maisano, senior principal at Washington, D.C. policy firm Bracewell LLP in an email.
American Gas Association President and CEO Karen Harbert said the pause "was a mistake that resulted in uncertainty for the market, for investors and for America’s allies around the world." Added American Petroleum Institute CEO Mike Sommers, it "has only weakened global energy security."
The groups say they prefer an S&P Global study, which was supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that describes LNG as “fundamental to the global energy transition” and as a complement to rapid growth in renewable energy and to displacing oil and coal consumption in developing countries. S&P Global said if U.S. LNG exports are restricted, such fossil fuels will fill the gap to meet global energy demands.
S&P Global also contends that the federal analysis, which models a more than 30% domestic gas price rise fueled by exports in 2050 is based on assumed export volume then of more than 56 billion cubic feet per day, quadruple the level now. That projection is “not a realistic scenario in our view,” said Eric Eyberg, S&P Global Commodity Insights vice president of gas and power consulting.
Environmental advocates support the DOE conclusions, emphasizing that the S&P Global report fails to consider environmental and health impacts of LNG projects, particularly in fenceline communities that typically most affected, said Rachel Cleetus, policy director for the Union of Concerned Scientists' climate and energy program.
The DOE study and its analyses of economic, environmental, health and climate factors “provide a strong basis on which the agency should evaluate future decisions to prioritize the public interest,” she said in an email.
If the Trump administration supports more large LNG terminals, Cleetus said she would expect to see legal challenges.
Any administration is mandated by Congress to determine if there is “national interest” in approving a gas export facility, Mark Brownstein, senior vice president for energy transition at the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a media report. “Whether or not the next administration chooses to use the work of this study or not," it must make that decision “on the basis of data and facts,” he noted, adding that failing to make that determination or making one that is “on its face arbitrary and capricious” would be grounds for a lawsuit.
