Energy Secretary Granholm says study shows expanding LNG exports neither "sustainable nor advisable"

The Department of Energy released its report Tuesday on the impacts of granting more permits for new liquefied natural gas export operations. It had a lot of negative things to say about continuing the pace of growth in LNG exports. And in an accompanying letter, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm had the audacity to suggest that said pace is “neither sustainable nor advisable.” Before 2016, there were no U.S. natural gas exports. Currently, there are 15 billion cubic feet a day of LNG exports. But already-approved new projects will boost that to 49 billion cubic feet a day for a decade, even if not one new permit is granted.

In light of this pace of development, and to shrieks from Big Oil, President Joe Biden in January had paused any new permits pending completion of the DOE report. It is now complete and final, but still will undergo a 60-day comment period before being adopted. Since it points to numerous negatives that would issue from expanded LNG export operations, that timeline means the Trump administration could very well decide to trash it instead of merely shelving it. That would certainly delight fossil fuel interests.

Natural gas, the very name itself a marketing tool, has for decades been touted as a bridge fuel in the transition from coal to 100% clean energy sources. But the report concludes that increasing natural gas exports would mean an extra 1.5 gigatons of greenhouse gases emitted by 2050, equal to about a fourth of the current annual total of U.S. emissions. It would raise domestic gas prices by 31%. Adding to export facilities would further extend the environmental and health burden afflicting front-line communities, which are often poor or communities of color. Moreover, according to The New York Times, Granholm noted

that the study found increased LNG exports would displace more wind, solar, and other renewable energy than coal. The study modeled five scenarios, and in every one, global greenhouse gases were projected to rise, even when researchers assumed aggressive use of technologies to capture and store carbon emissions.

Olivia Rosane at Common Dreams condensed some of the findings Granholm emphasized in her statement :

LNG exports are booming, with the quantities already approved being sufficient to meet global demand for decades in 4 out of 5 scenarios.Increasing exports would boost the profits of export facility owners and generate jobs in the industry, but would raise gas prices for domestic industry and consumers overall. Within the U.S., "unfettered exports" would raise prices by more than 30% and add "well over" $100 to the average yearly household energy bill by 2050.LNG export facilities are concentrated in communities already exposed to fossil fuel industry pollution, with methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and other contaminates raising mortality rates.Increased LNG exports would contribute to the climate crisis: They are more likely to supplant renewables than coal and add to global emissions in every scenario the DOE examined.Regulators should consider where LNG exports will be shipped. Demand in Europe is falling, while China is currently the leading importer and projected to remain so through 2050.

The basic message?  “By itself, this rapid growth to date — and the continued growth we expect under existing authorizations — recommends a cautious approach going forward,” Granholm said.

The response from the fossil fuel industry and its puppet politicians was nothing you wouldn’t expect.

A U.S. Chamber of Commerce-commissioned study by S&P Global lauded the economic benefits of more LNG exports, including jobs. “We will thoroughly review the DOE report, but it appears to rely on questionable methodology and puts a thumb on the scale to downplay the clear economic, environmental and security benefits of U.S. LNG," the chamber said in a statement.

Said Mike Sommers, the president of the American Petroleum Institute: “It’s time to lift the pause on new LNG export permits and restore American energy leadership around the world, After nearly a year of a politically-motivated pause that has only weakened global energy security, it’s never been clearer that U.S. LNG is critical for meeting growing demand for affordable, reliable energy while supporting our allies overseas.”

Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming is the ranking member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and will probably chair it come January. Ten years ago he was an outright climate science denier but now he concedes humans are having an effect. He doesn’t act like it in his votes or arguments. In a statement, he said, “Studies have repeatedly shown that American liquefied natural gas exports benefit our economy, our environment, our security and the security of our allies. Nothing in a biased study from a bitter administration on its way out the door can change that. I look forward to President Trump unleashing American energy and reversing President Biden’s ban on liquefied natural gas exports.”

If it weren’t so incredibly stupid it would be hilarious that he’s talking about “unleashing” an industry that is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the history of countries. Worse than stupid given the perilous state of the climate. New natural gas infrastructure being built to last decades is something we cannot afford if we’re avoid the worst impacts of the climate we’re altering. If natural gas as a bridge fuel had an off-switch at a time certain say, 2040, it would make sense. But the investments are being made for natural gas operations lasting decades beyond that.

It’s true that Donald Trump could easily reverse any last minute decision by President Biden to deny permits to a few queued-up proposals seeking more LNG exports. But it would nevertheless be valuable to send a message that the Democratic Party gets it when it comes to climate and is finally done with bragging about how much oil and gas the US of A is sucking out of the ground.

Jamie Henn, the director of Fossil Free Media told Common Dreams: "The administration has indicated it wants to follow the regular process and not jump ahead and deny permits before they leave office, only to have Trump reapprove them. We disagree and think denials would send a strong political signal and potentially strengthen legal challenges. It's unlikely we'll sway them with so little time left, but we're going to try."

Of course, no such permit has ever been denied. But Republicans love to plow new ground when it comes to getting around tradition and rules (as well as the law). So Biden should give this a try. He can be a model for the fighting Democrats of the next Congress. Not “Fighting Democrats” the brand and logo, but fighting Democrats the genuine article. Saying no to an industry that helped buy the presidency would be a good start. Even if it only lasts a month.

—Meteor Blades

See also: The greenhouse gas footprint of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exported from the United States, a study by Robert Howarth.

A Major Paper on Liquified Natural Gas Emissions Is Riddled with Errors, a critical review of Howarth’s conclusions from Jon Messinger at the Breakthrough Institute, which is known for its stance that there is no climate crisis and, in the words of one of its founders, “climate change is happening” it’s “just not the end of the world,” and “not even our most serious environmental problem.”

The DOE Finally Admits That LNG Isn’t a Get-Out-of-Climate-Crisis Free Card by Bill McKibben.