The Impact of LNG Export Pause on DOE’s Permit Reviews: A Closer Look at Local Effects
The Biden administration’s decision to implement a “temporary pause” on approving liquified natural gas (LNG) exports has sparked a heated debate between Republicans and Democrats. While Republicans argue that the pause damages the public interest by jeopardizing jobs and economic growth, the Biden administration and many congressional Democrats maintain that the pause is necessary to consider the economic and environmental impacts of energy development on local communities.
For four decades, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) has determined that exporting domestically produced LNG serves the public interest by generating jobs, strengthening national energy security, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Biden administration’s pause on LNG exports reflects a shift in focus towards considering the climate impacts of natural gas and the effects on local residents and communities.
House Republicans have been vocal in their opposition to the LNG regulatory lockdown, arguing that it creates uncertainty for planning and investment, stunts industry-paid taxes that fund local governments and schools, and increases carbon emissions. They have even passed legislation to prohibit a president from issuing an LNG permit freeze. Sixteen Republican-led energy-producing states have also challenged the Biden administration’s export permit pause in federal court, alleging that it violates the Natural Gas Act and longstanding DOE policy.
On the other hand, the Biden administration and congressional Democrats defend the pause as a necessary step to update permitting requirements and prioritize the health impacts on local communities and environmental concerns. They argue that the pause is not an export ban and that LNG exports continue each day. They also emphasize the need to reduce emissions and safeguard communities while acknowledging the importance of LNG exports in addressing climate change.
The impact of the pause is felt strongly in Port Arthur, Texas, a petrochemical hub where numerous energy infrastructure projects are now in limbo. Local government officials in Port Arthur have called for a compromise that addresses both economic growth and environmental justice issues. They emphasize the negative impact on jobs and economic stability if the permit reviews are not allowed to continue.
The economic benefits of LNG exports cannot be ignored. Studies by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University’s Baker Institute show that LNG exports could add up to $73 billion in U.S. economic activities and create 450,000 American jobs by 2040. Republicans argue that the pause hampers the U.S. economy, jobs, and energy security while benefiting countries like Russia and Iran.
Democrats, however, maintain that the pause is prudent and needed to update the DOE’s determination process for public interest. They argue that the U.S. has become the world’s top exporter of natural gas in just eight years and that it is necessary to evaluate the economic, environmental, and national security considerations of LNG exports comprehensively.
The debate also highlights the concerns of environmental and community advocates in Port Arthur. They argue that the region has historically been a sacrifice zone for the oil and gas industry, with high levels of greenhouse gas emissions and negative health impacts. They emphasize the need for expansive scrutiny of any expansion in the petrochemical industry and call for a balance between environmental wellness and economic growth.
Ultimately, finding a compromise that addresses both economic growth and environmental concerns is crucial. Local communities like Port Arthur deserve to have their voices heard and their health and well-being protected. The Biden administration should reconsider its course of action and find a middle ground that allows for responsible energy development while safeguarding the environment and local communities.
