A large coalition of more than 30 fossil fuel industry groups is sounding the alarm over the expected White House decision to delay permitting of a major natural gas export facility due to potential climate impacts. There is.
Those groups, including the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the American Exploration and Production Council (AXPC), sent a letter to Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm calling this action a “grave mistake” and harming American jobs. and said it would put allies at risk. The letter comes shortly after The New York Times reported that President Biden will soon order climate impact analyzes for 17 proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal projects.
“The United States is the world leader in natural gas production, meeting record domestic demand and becoming the largest exporter of LNG in 2023,” the joint letter states. “Our nation's abundant natural gas supplies are an influential geopolitical tool that promotes U.S. national interests and ensures the energy security of key U.S. allies while placing U.S. consumers at risk of global destabilization. It helps protect against an increase in
“Proceeding with the suspension of U.S. LNG export authorizations would only increase Russian influence, undermine President Biden’s own commitment to provide reliable energy to allies, undermine U.S. credibility, and undermine U.S. jobs will be threatened,” they continued.
Environmentalists call on Biden administration for natural gas tank project amid nationwide Arctic blast
President Biden is expected to order the Department of Energy to delay permitting of major natural gas export facilities due to climate impacts. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Industry says LNG export facilities are essential to meeting energy needs in Europe and Asia as countries seek to reduce natural gas supplies from Russia. In the weeks following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, Biden visited Europe and vowed to strike a deal with the European Union and send more U.S. LNG to the bloc.
And this month, energy groups Eurogas and the Asian Natural Gas and Energy Association (ANGEA) issued strong statements of support for continued licensing of LNG export terminals in the United States. Eurogas reiterated the importance of these exports to ensure a complete shutdown in Europe. Russia's dependence on natural gasMeanwhile, ANGEA added that US LNG is needed to meet Asia's decarbonization goals.
Biden administration abruptly withdraws proposal to open public lands to foreign ownership after opposition from Republicans
But Wednesday's New York Times report, citing three unnamed officials familiar with internal deliberations, said Mr. He said he would request that a review process be carried out.
The DOE is required to approve permits for proposed projects, but until now it has not been required to analyze their contribution to climate change. The agency has never rejected a gas export application on climate grounds.
Energy industry groups wrote a letter to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc, via Getty Images)
“This is a win for Russia, but a loss for U.S. allies, U.S. jobs, and global climate change.” API CEO Mike Sommers said: In a statement. “Understanding the clear benefits of U.S.-produced LNG in stabilizing global energy markets, supporting thousands of American jobs, and reducing emissions around the world by moving countries to cleaner fuels. There is no need for consideration.”
“This is a broken promise to America's allies, and it's time for this administration to stop playing politics with global energy security,” he said.
Energy developers shut down major coal-fired power plants to meet environmental goals, jeopardizing power for millions
Additionally, proponents of increasing LNG exports point out that shifting the global economy toward greater reliance on natural gas would also help ensure countries meet their decarbonization goals. . They argue that without an increase in LNG, countries will become increasingly reliant on coal-fired power generation, which has a much higher combustion carbon footprint than natural gas power generation.
The industry letter to Granholm noted that the United States has led the world in reducing carbon emissions thanks to increased reliance on natural gas. Coal accounted for the largest share of U.S. electricity generation for decades until natural gas surpassed coal in 2015.
A tank truck transporting LNG is photographed in Germany. “If additional U.S. LNG export capacity does not materialize, there is a risk of widening and prolonging global supply imbalances,” industry group Eurogas said in a statement this month. (Bodo Marks/Photo in partnership with Getty Images)
“The United States should be exporting more LNG, not less, and any actions or future plans that impede American LNG exports, including the White House's reported suspension of CP2, will undermine the U.S. economy. , the security of our allies, and the world's emissions goals,” AXPC CEO Anne Bradbury said in a statement.
Among the projects likely to be affected by the DOE review is the so-called Calcasieu Pass 2 (CP2) project, for which $10 billion has been proposed. LNG terminal is located Built on a 546-acre site in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, it will be the largest export terminal of its kind in the country.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
According to developer Venture Global, the facility will have an LNG export capacity of 20 million tonnes per annum (MTPA), with peak capacity of approximately 24 MTPA. According to one source, the United States exported 88.9 tons of LNG in 2023. FOX business analysis This represents a staggering 23% increase in exports from the CP2 facility alone.
“It appears that individuals within the White House are trying to force policy decisions through leaks to the media,” said Shaylyn Hines, a spokeswoman for energy developer Venture Global. “Uncertainty continues to arise as to the ability to rely on LNG.” said in a statement. “If this leak report from an anonymous White House source is true, it appears the administration intends to suspend the entire U.S. LNG industry.”
“Such an action would shock global energy markets, trigger economic sanctions, and send a devastating signal to our allies that they can no longer rely on the United States,” Hines added. “The real irony is that this policy would force the world to switch to coal, which would harm the climate and lead to higher emissions.”
