GOP opposition to Biden’s LNG export ‘ban’ continues with the first of two congressional hearings

The GOP reaction to President Joe Biden’s pause on liquified natural gas export permitting has been broad and swift.

Biden announced the pause on Jan. 25. Six days later, Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., introduced legislation to overturn the permitting pause. This week, over 150 Republicans signed a letter to Biden denouncing the decision as “economically and strategically dangerous,” and two congressional hearings are putting the reasoning for the pause under a microscope.

Pending applications

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce Tuesday, in a subcommittee hearing titled “Politics Over People: How Biden’s LNG Export Ban Threatens America’s Energy and Economic Security,” Republicans argued the pause will increase emissions and undermine national security.

“In addition to undercutting our domestic energy industry, President Biden's decision is a gift for Vladimir Putin,” said Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., chair of the Subcommittee on Energy, Climate and Grid Security.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) authorizes the construction of LNG import and export facilities, and the Department of Energy (DOE) approves licenses that are required to export natural gas to countries that lack a free-trade agreement with the U.S. That group includes European countries.

After FERC issues a certification, Duncan explained, the DOE conducts a review of the project to determine if it's in the public interest. Biden’s pause on export permitting only impacts pending applications with the DOE.

Supporters of the pause argued at the hearing that it’s not a ban, as Republicans repeatedly characterized it, but rather a temporary hold that will allow the Department of Energy time to update its data to improve its reviews. The White House characterized it as a "temporary pause." 

Lifeline to Europe

Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., said that a project's being in the public interest is a “purposefully broad phrase” that “encompasses both economic and environmental considerations.”

“It's imperative for DOE to include pertinent factors like domestic energy crisis, greenhouse gas emissions, and impacts on communities that have been hit hardest by pollution throughout our history when considering how a project will affect our nation,” DeGette said.

According to the Energy Policy Research Foundation (EPRF), since the U.S. allowed LNG exports beginning in February 2016, the U.S. has exported approximately 353 million tonnes of LNG to 49 countries. Following its invasion of Ukraine, European imports of natural gas from Russia fell from 15 billion cubic feet per day in 2019 to 1 billion cubic feet per day in 2022. U.S. exports to Europe, according to the EPRF, increased from 2 billion cubic feet per day to 8 billion cubic feet per day beginning in January 2022.

“The US LNG has been the lifeline to Europe ever since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It has helped reduce natural gas prices in Europe by over 83%,” said Rep. Cathy Rodgers, R-Wash., chair of the committee.

Gillian Giannetti, senior attorney for the National Resources Defense Council, testified that with the current approvals that the DOE has issued so far, the U.S. will double LNG exports by 2027 and triple exports by 2030s, even absent new authorizations.

Brigham McCown, director of the America Energy Security Initiative at the Hudson Institute, said that the LNG facilities that have been permitted won’t necessarily get built. Gas prices, he said, are more than four times higher in Europe than the U.S.

“They need more supply to bring that down. And we can't forget about our Asian allies — Japan and others, given the instability in the South China Sea — that require raw materials from outside,” McCown said.

Toby Rice, president and CEO of EQT Corporation, an LNG company, testified that Biden’s decision creates more regulatory uncertainty, which is harmful to capital-intensive terminal projects. “These facilities require billions of dollars of investments to make happen. And any sign that there's going to be political force introduced into market forces is going to make it very difficult to invest,” Rice said.

Emission reductions

Opponents of Biden’s decision also argued that restrictions on LNG exports runs the risk of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the EPRF, the switch from coal to natural gas was critical to a 20% decline in U.S. emissions since 2005. From 2005 to 2021, coal-fired electricity generation in the U.S. fell 900 million megawatt hours, an annual rate of nearly 5%. During that period, natural gas-fired generation increased to 1.58 gigawatt hours at an annual rate of 4.7%. The average American home uses 899,000 watt hours per month, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Giannetti testified that the DOE has never published guidelines evaluating the public interest for LNG exports, and studies the DOE relies on need revision. She also argued that the carbon footprint of LNG may be greater due to the methane leakage that occurs during the process to liquify the gas for transport and heat it up for use by importing countries.

Recently, a study, which hasn’t been peer reviewed, found that LNG produces more emissions than coal, partly due to methane leakage from the cooling and heating process. The study, by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell, was regularly cited by activists who called for a ban on LNG projects.



Howarth’s previous research has been criticized by academics for containing methodological flaws and based on weak data, and counter by saying extensive research attributes declining emissions in the U.S. to its switch from coal to natural gas.

The Department of Energy, Duncan said, declined to testify at the House Committee. On Thursday, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will continue the discussion on Biden’s LNG export permitting pause, where David Turk, deputy secretary of the Department of Energy, is scheduled to testify.