Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm says her department’s newly updated analysis of U.S. LNG exports finds that business as usual is unsustainable. 

The U.S. already is the world’s largest producer and exporter of natural gas. Increasing export volumes would create economic risks for Americans and cause environmental damage, she wrote Dec. 17. 

Reaction was swift and fell along predictable lines, with environmentalists calling for greater protections, the energy industry saying it is counting the days until President Donald Trump is back in office and various organizations worried about costs for their constituents. 

The Department of Energy’s release of the “2024 LNG Export Study: Energy, Economic and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports” report summary and its four appendices kicked off a 60-day public comment period. 

In her statement that accompanied the announcement, Granholm said DOE paused decisions on new LNG exports earlier in 2024 to allow for the study to be completed. 

She acknowledged, however, that the 60-day comment period would push into the second term of Trump, whose energy and environmental policies and priorities differ vastly from those of President Joe Biden.  

Granholm nonetheless urged the next administration to take into consideration the findings of the study. “Regardless of what happens in each cycle of elections, the effect of increased energy prices for domestic consumers combined with the negative impacts to local communities and the climate will continue to grow as exports increase,” she wrote. 

She highlighted key takeaways: 

• • U.S. natural gas exports have expanded at an astounding rate and are on track to continue to double again by 2030 even without additional authorizations. Further growth risks outstripping global demand. 

• • While increased LNG exports benefit those in the natural gas supply chain, a wide range of U.S. consumers will face higher prices because of these exports — for the gas itself, for electricity generated with that gas, and for consumer goods produced with that gas and/or electricity. 

• • Increased exports would mean increased health impacts on the communities near gas production facilities, which tend to also be near other polluting industries. 

• • Existing U.S. LNG exports are sufficient to meet global demand. Increasing the export volume might slow development of emissions-free renewable power sources and is likely to increase net global carbon dioxide emissions, even under aggressive carbon-capture scenarios. 

• • The destination of LNG exports must be considered. Demand already has flattened among allies such as Europe and Japan, leaving China as the dominant importer of LNG. 

Granholm said special environmental scrutiny must be paid to very large LNG projects: “An LNG project exporting 4 billion cubic feet per day — considering its direct life cycle emissions — would yield more annual greenhouse gas emissions by itself than 141 of the world’s countries each did in 2023.” 

Reactions

American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle said the study epitomizes four years of misguided energy policy. 

“On election day, the American people rejected these kinds of artificial limits on America’s energy export potential,” he said. “I look forward to this study being thrown in the trash bin on Jan. 20, 2025, because that’s where it belongs.” 

The Industrial Energy Consumers of America agreed with the economic conclusions. “It is not surprising that the study finds that between 2020 and 2050, overall energy costs for the industrial sector will go up $125 billion and lead to inflationary impacts,” it said. “IECA urges the DOE and Congress to put in place a policy to insulate the U.S. from the negative impacts of increased LNG exports. Our recommended policy is an LNG inventory policy that is an America First policy.” 

“It’s time to lift the pause on new LNG export permits and restore American energy leadership around the world,” American Petroleum Institute President Mike Sommers said in a statement. “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.” 

The Environmental Defense Fund said the study showed the urgent need to cut methane pollution. “Under no circumstances is it ever acceptable to generate profits for oil and gas companies at the expense of energy access, affordability or the environment here at home,” Senior Vice President Mark Brownstein said. “With U.S. gas exports already at historic high levels and with even more projects approved and on the way, today’s study sounds the alarm.” 

The Consumer Energy Alliance was disappointed with the study. “It’s unfortunate to see what began as an election-year ploy turned into a predictable and pre-determined outcome that will slow environmental progress,” President David Holt said. “By arguing to limit exports of LNG produced under America’s strict environmental standards, we limit the opportunity for other nations to enjoy the same success we have had in cutting emissions by using gas instead of higher-emitting fuels.” 

Market Analysis

Also on Dec. 17, S&P Global announced a comprehensive study of its own on U.S. LNG exports that reached some different conclusions from the DOE study. 

“On their current trajectory, growing exports of U.S. liquefied natural gas would support nearly half a million domestic jobs annually and contribute $1.3 trillion to U.S. gross domestic product through 2040 while having a negligible impact on domestic gas prices,” it said. 

“The emergence of the U.S. LNG industry has placed the United States in the pole position with global demand for gas expected to grow through 2040 alongside the rapid growth of renewables,” S&P Global Vice Chairman Daniel Yergin said. “Continued growth in U.S. LNG capacity would have outsized impact in terms of jobs, GDP and labor income. 

“In addition to domestic economic benefits, being the world’s leading LNG supplier adds a new dimension to U.S. influence abroad. It was U.S. LNG that replaced nearly half of Russia gas supply to Europe after the outbreak of war in Ukraine.”