The U.S. Department of Energy released a long-awaited analysis of the environmental and economic impacts of the growing export of liquefied natural gas to countries that have reciprocal free trade agreements with the U.S. on Dec. 17, and the push for support the infrastructure, generated the expected responses. those who agree with the conclusions and those who do not.
While environmental advocates say the study validates their concerns that continued construction of new LNG terminals is not in the public interest and will only worsen global warming, industry groups characterize the study6 as a vindication of at least part of the administration’s decision last January to halt DOE’s review of plans for new projects.
The public will have 60 days to comment on the study, but the DOE has indicated it will make no changes, only relaying findings to the next administration, which has opposed the pause.
The United States is now the world’s largest exporter of natural gas, with LNG shipments tripling in the past five years and on track to quadruple, with projects approved. Eight export terminals are currently operating, seven others have been approved and are under construction, and 12 more have approval but have not begun construction, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
In July, a federal court judge stepped in Louisiana issued an order to lift the DOE’s pause, but no new approvals have occurred since then.
The DOE analysis concluded that on the current trajectory, LNG supply could exceed demand, noting that “unfettered” exports would increase domestic natural gas prices by more than 30%.
In a statement released alongside the report, soon-to-be Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said that, going forward, applications for very large LNG projects should receive “special scrutiny “. He stressed that “an LNG project exporting 4 billion cubic feet per day, taking into account its direct life-cycle emissions, would produce more annual greenhouse gas emissions by itself than 141 countries in the world each 2023”.
But the analysis stopped short of making broad recommendations to curb growth, leaving future decisions on the current LNG pause up to the next administration, “noting that the comment period will continue” beyond President Joe Biden’s term “and also the fact that there are currently only a few applications 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 criticized the report, saying it was politically motivated. “This ‘review’ was political from the beginning of the hiatus,” when White House National Climate Adviser Ali Zaidi announced it earlier this year “as a means to avoid an outcry from a environmental group at the DOE at the start of a campaign year,” Frank said. Maisano, senior director at Washington, D.C. policy firm Bracewell LLP, in an email.
Saying the pause “has only weakened global energy security,” American Petroleum Institute CEO Mike Sommers said in a statement that “it has never been clearer that US LNG is critical to meeting the growing demand”.
The groups say they prefer a study by S&P Global, which was backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that describes LNG as “fundamental to the global energy transition” and a complement to the rapidly growing energy renewables and to shift the consumption of oil and coal to developing countries. S&P Global said that if U.S. LNG exports are restricted, these fossil fuels will fill the gap to meet global energy demand.
Environmental advocates support the DOE’s findings, stressing that the S&P Global report fails to take into account the environmental and health impacts of LNG projects, particularly in the fenced communities that are typically hardest hit, Rachel said. Cleetus, Policy Director of the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. .
The DOE study and its analyzes of economic, environmental, health and climate factors “provide a solid foundation on which the agency should evaluate future decisions to prioritize the public interest,” he said in an email electronic
If the Trump administration supports larger LNG terminals, Cleetus said he would expect to see legal challenges.
“Depending on what the incoming administration decides to do, these decisions could be challenged individually or together,” he emphasizes, “the DOE study provides a firm foundation. [for such legal action] for multiple reasons, including harm to local communities whose air, water and health are at stake,” as well as climate impact and “harm to consumers’ pockets.”
.
