The Department of Energy has completed its highly anticipated report on the environmental and economic effects of liquid natural gas exports, months after the Biden administration launched the analysis in order to curb new LNG projects.
The report, which will now undergo a 60 day public comment period, determined that increased levels of LNG exports would drive up costs for Americans, increase global greenhouse gas emissions, and even offer support to China.
It stops short of recommending banning LNG exports, indicating exports at some level are still within the public’s best interests.
Specifically, the report estimated that increased exports of LNG could lead to the average American family seeing their gas and electricity bills increase by $122.54 per year by 2050. It found that higher LNG export levels were associated with higher domestic gas prices, with prices rising by around 4%. In the same time frame, though, the analysis projected, exports could also result in a 0.2% increase in GDP. Authors of the report pointed to this, adding that an increase in GDP “does not necessarily correlate with a positive effect on broader public and consumer welfare.”
Regarding emissions, the study found that if LNG exports exceeded current authorized levels, associated direct emissions would be around 1.5 gigatons per year by 2050 — roughly equivalent to a quarter of all emissions generated in the U.S. annually currently. Additionally, the report found increase natural gas production within the U.S. would increase upstream environmental impacts across water, air, and land.
The report also estimated that demand for LNG in Europe, the primary current importer of US LNG, will drop while demand in Asia is expected to increase with China leading the way.
“Further increasing exports unconstrained would surely generate more wealth for the LNG industry, but American consumers and communities, and our climate would pay the price,” energy secretary Jennifer Granholm told reporters ahead of the study’s publication.
In a letter set to be released in tandem with the report, the secretary warned that the analysis of current LNG exports was “neither sustainable or advisable,” claiming “unfettered exports” could drive up domestic gas prices by 30%.
“Those are the facts, and the final decision, of course, is now in the hands of the next administration,” Granholm said Tuesday. “We hope that they’ll take these facts into account to determine whether additional LNG exports are truly in the best interest of the American people and economy.”
While the department is now moving forward with the public comment period, a senior DOE official told reporters the department has no intention to revise the report after receiving comments, calling the study “final.”
Natural gas is considered to be a much cleaner fuel source than coal, as it is primarily composed of methane. However, methane emissions have a great impact on warming in the atmosphere, as methane is considered to be 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Methane emissions do have a shorter lifespan than other greenhouse gases, though environmental and climate activists have long expressed concerns over its ability to leak and release into the atmosphere at any stage of the production, export, and operation processes.
In January, the Biden administration issued a pause on new LNG export approvals to non-free-trade-agreement countries in order to conduct a study on the climate effects of the projects before giving the green-light.
Many questioned the timing of the pause, as it came around the same time Venture Global LNG sought approval to build a $10 billion facility in Louisiana that would allow the U.S. to export massive quantities of LNG.
Critics have lambasted the pause as unconstitutional, while environmentalists have praised the move as a way to reduce emissions. In July, the freeze was overturned by a federal judge in Louisiana after several Republican states claimed it would hurt their economies. One month later, the DOE said it would be appealing the decision.
The U.S. has been exporting LNG since 2016, and in 2023 became the largest exporter worldwide. Despite the pause on new project approvals, exports are only expected to grow.
Weeks before the report was released, several top Republican lawmakers sent a letter to Granholm urging the agency to halt its review, pointing to the results of the November presidential election. Led by Energy and Commerce Committee Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the lawmakers said they were worried the administration was “rushing” to publish the report to “intentionally hamstring the incoming administration’s ability to process LNG export applications in a timely fashion.”
“The results of the 2024 presidential election are clear, and DOE leadership will soon change,” the Republicans said. “As a traditional part of the peaceful transfer of power, DOE should immediately stop work on any plans to expand the scope of review or add new conditions to LNG export licenses.”
The Republican Party has long criticized the pause and the plans for the report, even going so far as to accuse the DOE of hiding a past LNG report they claim was conducted months before this year’s pause.
In October, House Committee of Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer claimed the committee had learned that a study also looking at the economic and environmental impacts of LNG exports was in fact conducted in 2023. Comer said that DOE failed to provide information about this study, instead telling the committee that it did not find a “final LNG export study” earlier that same month.
However, Comer insisted that the agency did previously admit in September that documents may exist that respond to a FOIA request about any LNG study.
“Transparency on this issue is essential. DOE’s action has thrown vital U.S. businesses—companies that invest billions in capital in long-term projects, support tens of thousands of U.S. jobs, and bolster the energy security of our allies—into turmoil as they grapple with uncertainty from politically-motivated federal actions,” Comer said.
It remains unclear how much of an impact the report will have on the incoming administration, as Trump has repeatedly proclaimed his intentions to reverse the Biden administration’s pause on export approvals. On whether it would have an effect at all, Anne-Sophie Corbeau, a Global Research Scholar with the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, told the Washington Examiner via email, “I very much doubt so.”
Corbeau suggested the incoming administration will likely ask the DOE to still expedite approval for LNG projects, or even suggest foreign nations purchase U.S. produced LNG “in exchange of a better treatment in terms of tariffs.”
“That still does not solve the methane emission problem…but I don’t think this administration cares, and whatever issue it may create for future LNG exports to Europe will be felt after their time (2030+),” Corbeau said.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Still, others have said the administration will not be able to ignore its findings. Senior associate with the Energy Security and Climate Change Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Ben Cahill told the Washington Examiner that the report many impact the speed at which Trump implements his oil and gas agenda.
“It’s going to be a very substantial study,” Cahill said. “I don’t think the Trump administration can ignore it. It may complicate the desire of the Trump administration to make big changes on day one and return full speed ahead permitting as many projects as possible.”