White House Halts Natural Gas Projects in Victory for Environmentalists
The White House is pausing the permitting process for several proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal projects due to concerns about their impact on climate change. Environmentalists have demanded this action for months.
Review of Carbon Emissions
The White House and the Department of Energy (DOE) announced a halt to the permitting process for several proposed LNG export terminal projects. This pause will allow federal officials to conduct an environmental review of the projects' carbon emissions. The review is expected to take more than a year to complete. Climate activists have criticized these projects, claiming that they will increase emissions and worsen global warming.
Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm stated that the review is necessary to consider economic, environmental, and national security considerations in export applications. During the pause, the department will update the underlying analyses for authorizations. Granholm emphasized the commitment to affordable energy, economic opportunities, energy security, and protection against climate change.
It remains unclear which projects will be affected by this action. However, according to federal data, there are 11 approved projects that are not yet under construction. Another four projects are pending approval, while two are in the pre-filing stage. The pause will impact projects that have completed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) approval process and are awaiting DOE approval.
Opposition and Support
Opponents of LNG export terminals, including Democrats and environmentalists, argue that these projects contribute to harmful pollution and global warming. Activists have taken to social media to voice their concerns, generating millions of views through videos. Environmental groups and scientists have also written letters to Energy Secretary Granholm and President Biden, urging them to reject pending LNG facilities.
On the other hand, proponents of additional LNG export facilities emphasize their importance in meeting energy demand in Europe and Asia. These projects help reduce dependence on Russian natural gas supplies. Former FERC Chair Neil Chatterjee argues that the activists' opposition overlooks the fact that U.S. LNG displaces more carbon-intensive fuel sources overseas. Energy associations Eurogas and ANGEA have issued statements supporting the permitting of U.S. LNG export terminals, highlighting their role in Europe's decarbonization and Asia's energy goals.
The letter to Granholm from fossil fuel industry associations, including the American Petroleum Institute (API), expresses concerns about the potential impact of the pause on U.S. allies, jobs, and global energy security. They argue that LNG exports stabilize global energy markets, support American jobs, and contribute to emissions reduction.
Transitioning to Natural Gas
Proponents of increased LNG exports believe that transitioning to natural gas is essential for meeting decarbonization goals and reducing carbon emissions. They argue that without increased LNG, nations will continue to rely heavily on coal-fired power generation, which has a significantly larger carbon footprint than natural gas power generation.
The industry letter to Granholm highlights the U.S.'s leadership in carbon emissions reductions, attributed in part to the greater use of natural gas. Historically, coal has been the primary source of electricity generation in the U.S., but natural gas surpassed it in 2015.
