Members of the U.S. Senate Energy Committee on Thursday questioned the Biden administration’s recent decision to withhold approvals for some liquefied natural gas exports, saying the decision appears to be politically motivated.
Committee Chairman Joe Manchin III, a moderate Democrat from West Virginia, called on President Joe Biden to reverse the Energy Department’s decision ad last month that it will not consider modern applications to export liquefied natural gas, or LNG, to countries covered by the free trade agreement as it conducts an environmental impact assessment of this energy source.
Manchin and some Republicans on the panel warned Thursday that the move would facilitate Russia in its war with Ukraine and called it an election stunt aimed at appeasing climate activists.
They noted that the decision did not go through a tough peer review process, and that White House communications about the document being put on hold focused on the climate implications.
“I strongly urge that this pause be immediately reversed,” Manchin said. “Facts must come before action, not the other way around. Unfortunately, it appears the White House has already sided with climate activists to block further LNG exports.”
Administration defends the pause
Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk told a Senate committee that U.S. LNG production capacity has tripled since the last comprehensive review of the issue in 2018 and is expected to double by the end of the decade. Projects that have already received department approval will not be affected, he said.
The department has a legal obligation to consider the public interest, Turk said, adding that a price and climate impact analysis needs to be updated after such a rapid expansion.
“There is no doubt that this dramatically increasing volume of LNG exports is creating and will continue to create a significant number of jobs,” he said. “But our public interest determinations must also consider the impact of prices on all American consumers and all American producers and industry.”
He added that greater exports of natural gas could result in higher prices on the domestic market.
US House of Representatives committee argues over Biden’s natural gas export freeze
The updated environmental analysis will need to focus on methane leakage, a major contributor to climate change, Turk added. The United States also needs to understand how increased LNG exploit will affect the climate in the long term.
While LNG supporters argue that natural gas is a lower-carbon energy source than coal and other fossil fuels, Turk said projections still indicate that global LNG demand must fall by 75% by 2050 to meet climate goals.
Political Questions
Republicans on the panel, including former Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, joined Manchin in accusing Biden of using the recess to curry favor with environmental groups.
“You have to admit that there is a lot of skepticism and cynicism about this issue and the politics of the time when the president is trying to reach an agreement with the environmental community,” Murkowski said. “It doesn’t make sense from an economic perspective, from a trade perspective.”
Leading Republican John Barrasso of Wyoming called the move “cowardly.”
Biden is “defying logic by sucking up to radical climate extremists,” he said.
Manchin gets into a fight with the king
Sen. Angus King, an independent senator from Maine who serves on the committee with Democrats, defended the break in discussions with Manchin.
Manchin, who is considering a third-party presidential bid, said it was prudent to update the LNG export approval process. But the administration’s break was abrupt and appeared political, he said.
“There are sound reasons to update the market assessments that DOE uses when reviewing export applications to make sure that the trajectory we’re on doesn’t put American families and businesses at risk,” Manchin said. “But those types of decisions should be firmly based in fact, not politics.”
He added that the administration did not consult with Congress or undertake a full legislative process before implementing the hold.
“If we’re talking about considering a pause, this is a great, great panel for that,” he said. “You have an executive order that takes a pause. That’s the difference I have with (the administration). They’re putting the cart before the horse. You really jumped before you looked.”
King responded that the work stoppage is only ephemeral and will allow the department to gather information to make an informed, final policy decision.
“I think it’s quite the opposite, Mr. Chairman,” King said. “They’re doing their job. Their job is to make sure that these projects are in the public interest. There’s no way to do that without data.”
Manchin responded that the administration should have continued its business as usual during the reassessment.
“But you can’t pause first,” Manchin said.
“Why not?” King asked. “Continue approving projects when, five years from now, it turns out to be a disaster? I don’t think that’s good policy.”
Turn to Russia
Critics of the suspension say it would mean giving up part of the market to Russian natural gas, which is the basis for financing the war with Ukraine.
Manchin said the pause was “ill-advised” because it sent a signal to allies and partners that the United States was “not interested” in exporting LNG.
“I don’t want to scare our friends terribly,” he said.
That view was echoed by James Watson, secretary general of European trade group Eurogas, who was a witness at Thursday’s hearing.
“Perhaps by not being able to honor the commitments that the United States has made to its allies, you will actually force us to continue to do business with Russia,” Watson said.
Thursday’s hearing was the second on Capitol Hill this week on the issue, underscoring the dissatisfaction of those opposed to the halt.
U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce divided along party lines in their opinion, a break in the hearing on Tuesday.
