Miller, Colleagues Send Letter Demanding Transparency from Department of Energy on LNG Export Ban

Washington D.C. - Congresswoman Carol Miller (R-WV) joined Congressman August Pfluger (R-TX) and 43 of their colleagues in sending a letter to Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm raising serious concerns about transparency and accountability within the Department of Energy (DOE) regarding the Biden-Harris administration’s handling of studies related to liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.

Click here for the full letter. 

On concerns that current law on non-Free Trade Agreement approvals of natural gas exports has been violated by the Department of Energy:

We write regarding recent media reports that the Biden-Harris administration conducted, or began to conduct, a review of the economic and environmental impacts of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in 2023, but then covered up its findings because they were favorable to U.S. LNG. As you know, on January 26, 2024, after succumbing to political pressure from environmental activists, President Biden announced an indefinite ban on the issuance of export permits to non-free trade agreement (FTA) countries while it conducts a review to consider the climate impacts of U.S. LNG.

Current law requires that natural gas exports to countries with which the U.S. has an FTA be approved without delay. For non-FTA countries, the Energy Secretary is required to approve export requests unless they find that those exports “will not be consistent with the public interest.” The Natural Gas Act thus includes a rebuttable presumption favoring authorization of U.S. LNG exports. In previous Republican and Democratic administrations, the Department of Energy (DOE) has conducted environmental studies and permit reviews simultaneously and has overwhelmingly concluded exports are positive for the U.S. and global economy.

Unfortunately, the DOE has chosen to stop reviewing and issuing non-FTA approvals while conducting its review. This illegal action is similar to the Biden-Harris administration’s previous attempted ban on new onshore and offshore oil and gas production on federal lands, which was blocked by a federal district court.

On the cover up of the Biden-Harris DOE 2023 LNG studies: 

In court filings for the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case between the DOE and Government Accountability and Oversight (GAO), an independent watchdog group, the DOE “identified 97 potentially responsive documents totaling 4,354 pages” of LNG export studies performed by the National Energy Technology Lab (NETL) between January 1, 2023, and October 31, 2023.

As GAO pointed out, “this confession that DOE indeed has copies of such a study on liquefied natural gas exports strongly indicates that the administration has been telling a spectacular non-truth to the public about the basis” of its ongoing review. In any case, there clearly seems to be something to hide, as DOE “employed motions seeking extensions of time, motions to stay proceedings, motions to tie unrelated cases together causing further delays, and outright refusal to provide even court-ordered answers.”

On May 1, 2024, you appeared before the House Energy & Commerce Committee and stated that there is no existing study conducted by the Biden-Harris DOE, and that NETL and the Pacific Northwest National Lab (PNNL) are in the process of developing a study. It is now clear that this statement was likely false, as it appears the DOE had performed, or began to perform, a study on LNG exports in 2023.

On Congress’ expectations on answers from the DOE:

The lack of transparency from DOE regarding this process is extremely unsettling. Therefore, we request answers to the following questions by November 8, 2024:

• Was any analysis conducted by this administration prior to the January 26^thannouncement, specifically between January 1, 2023, and October 31, 2023? How was it determined—that is, based on what specific factors and evidence, that an updated study was needed?
• Have the DOE leadership and/or anyone in the White House received any reports or results, even if preliminary, of the apparent LNG export study conducted during the first ten months of 2023? Did these reports conclude there is no credible basis to restrict LNG exports? Did the DOE reject those reports because the conclusions did not support restrictions on LNG exports?
• You have stated that the PNNL, which has expertise in renewable energy, will be involved in updating the life-cycle analysis for US LNG exports, as well as the NETL. If NETL has expertise in natural gas, why is PNNL involved in the life-cycle analysis?
• Did the DOE choose to involve PNNL in the 2024 study because the findings of the apparent 2023 studies performed by NETL failed to reach the political conclusion, specifically that U.S. LNG was bad for the environment, the economy, and our allies?
• Does the DOE still plan to publish the study in January 2025, as you stated in your May 1, 2024, appearance before the House Energy & Commerce Committee?

We look forward to your response.

###