Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Climate

The Long-Awaited LNG Study Is Out

And the predictable battle lines are already being drawn.

LNG transport.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The Department of Energy on Tuesday published the results of its long-awaited analysis of the economic and environmental implications of expanding U.S. exports of liquified natural gas. The study was the culmination of a year-long process after President Biden paused approvals of new LNG export terminals in January so that the agency could update the underlying assumptions it uses to determine whether new facilities are in the “public interest.”

Though the resulting assessment stops short of advising against approving new projects, it finds that additional U.S. LNG export terminals beyond what has already been approved would likely raise natural gas prices for U.S. consumers and increase global greenhouse gas emissions.

The main takeaway, according to an accompanying letter penned by the Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, is that “a business-as-usual approach is neither sustainable nor advisable.”

Among its other key findings:

  • LNG projects that have already been approved are likely to produce more than enough natural gas to meet global demand. New facilities that are under construction will nearly double exports by 2030, and exports could double again after that if all the facilities that have been approved, but have not yet reached a final investment decision, end up getting built.
  • Supporting that is the fact that demand for U.S. LNG has flattened in Europe and peaked in Japan, while South Korea’s demand is expected to plateau by 2030. The DOE’s analysis projects that China will be the largest LNG importer through 2050, and notes that entities there have already signed contracts with U.S. LNG export projects.
  • While new LNG terminals will create jobs and revenues, increased exports could also raise wholesale domestic natural gas prices by more than 30% by 2050.
  • In all five scenarios the DOE studied, U.S. LNG exports would increase global net emissions.

Environmental groups celebrated the outcome. “DOE’s analysis confirms the facts we’ve known for years,” Moneen Nasmith, a senior attorney at Earthjustice said in a statement. “Rampant LNG exports drive up energy prices, contribute to the catastrophic effects of climate change, and delay the global transition to truly clean energy.”

But the gas industry was quick to criticize the findings. In a statement, Karen Harbert, the president and CEO of the American Gas Association, accused the Biden administration of attempting to “justify” the president’s earlier pause on approvals. “The contribution of U.S. natural gas to driving down emissions in this country and the potential for lowering global emissions is unquestioned,” she said.

The transition from coal-fired power plants to natural gas was a major driver of emission reductions in the United States over the last decade. But renewable energy is increasingly a competitive alternative. An analysis of the climate impacts from expanding LNG exports must look not just at whether the fuel would displace dirtier options like coal and Russian natural gas, but also at whether it would displace cleaner options like renewables. The answer depends on which countries end up buying it, and how their climate commitments evolve.

As such, any estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from LNG exports is based on assumptions. Under the Department of Energy’s “defined policies” scenario, it found that additional U.S. LNG exports could end up displacing more renewable energy in other countries than coal, without even factoring in countries’ stated commitments to decarbonize. Overall in this scenario, additional exports would lead to an increase of 711 million metric tons of carbon dioxide between now and 2050.

The rapid acceleration of U.S. LNG exports has not had a discernible effect on U.S. natural gas prices to date. But the Department of Energy finds that “unfettered” LNG exports in the future would put upward pressure on domestic natural gas prices and potentially increase energy costs for U.S. consumers by more than $100 per year by 2050.

Biden’s pause on new LNG approvals was technically overturned in July, when a federal judge found that the administration had overstepped its authority. But two major projects still hang in the balance, the Calcasieu Pass 2 LNG Terminal and the Commonwealth LNG Terminal, both of which would be built in coastal Louisiana. Both projects require approvals from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission before the Department of Energy can issue a public interest determination.

Although the report published Tuesday is “final,” the administration is opening it up for public comment for 60 days, starting today, to ensure that alternative analyses are captured in the public record and can inform decisionmaking going forward.

In that, the gas industry sees an opening. “We look forward to working with the incoming administration to rectify the glaring issues with this study during the public comment period,” Harbert said in her statement.

During the call on Tuesday, Granholm acknowledged that the future is in the next administration’s hands. “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,” she said.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect more information from the finished report as well as the DOE’s Tuesday call with reporters.

Green

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Sparks

Trump Concedes a Battle in His War Against Offshore Wind

The administration filed to dismiss an appeal of a December ruling that overturned its offshore wind permitting freeze.

Trump Concedes a Battle in His War Against Offshore Wind
Illustration by Simon Abranowicz

Trump’s Department of Justice is giving up on defending the president’s offshore wind permitting moratorium.

The DOJ filed a motion on Wednesday to dismiss its appeal of a federal court’s December decision vacating the order to halt offshore wind approvals. The plaintiffs in the case — New York and 16 other states, as well as the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, a trade group — did not oppose the motion. The case will not be officially dismissed, however, until the First Circuit Court of Appeals approves the request, which typically happens quickly when both parties support the dismissal.

Keep reading...Show less
Red
Water, a data center, and a protester.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The data center water issues are real – but they aren’t what you think.

Too often, I hear people say the number one reason they’re against data center development is water use. Heatmap’s data shows water consumption is historically the reason cited most often by activists when opposing projects. This complaint, they often say, is rooted in the fear that this nascent buildout of AI infrastructure will simply draw so much H2O it will leave little liquid left for the rest of us.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Texas Is the Eye of the Bipartisan Data Center Hurricane

And more of this week’s biggest news around project fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Matagorda County, Texas – The bipartisan data center backlash is now so powerful that a top Republican Texas state official is doing an event with the Democrat vying to replace him.

  • On Thursday afternoon, outgoing Republican agriculture commissioner Sid Miller and Democratic candidate Clayton Tucker are marqueeing a forum hosted by Matagorda County Against Data Centers, an opposition group that appears to also monitor solar and battery storage for potential opposition, too. Miller is leaving his post at the end of the year after being defeated in a GOP primary by Nate Sheets, who was supported by Gov. Greg Abbott.
  • This bipartisan forum will take place after Abbott himself called for new laws and regulations on data centers in a letter to Texas Public Utility Commission Chair Thomas Gleeson and ERCOT CEO Pablo Vegas. Abbott said he’d push to require data centers to pay costs for electric infrastructure and use “water-efficient technologies such as closed-loop cooling systems.” Also on the to-do list? Mandatory property setbacks and noise reduction.
  • It’s becoming clear the frustrations against AI infrastructure and associated energy projects are starting to boil without a vent. The first county to issue a data center moratorium in Texas has withdrawn the effort after facing a $100 million lawsuit from a developer, and other counties are delaying future moratoria on fears of legal risks. Where will all of this frustration go without the option to pause development locally?
  • We’re starting to see Texas legislators seek to channel this anger. Last week, Rep. Veronica Escobar – a Democrat who represents the dry, data center-anxious city of El Paso – offered an amendment in a House committee to block funding for the EPA’s new data center construction rules. The amendment failed but I’d hardly be surprised to see this sort of rider gain traction if Democrats retake the lower chamber, especially if data centers are a major election issue.

2. Albany County, New York – As we await Gov. Kathy Hochul’s decision on whether to enact the nation’s first statewide moratorium on data centers, I wanted to bring up some pretty crucial facts about the situation in the Empire State.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow