{"id":12911,"date":"2024-12-18T04:24:22","date_gmt":"2024-12-18T04:24:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/usa\/?p=12911"},"modified":"2025-07-02T07:38:25","modified_gmt":"2025-07-02T07:38:25","slug":"lng-analysis-explained","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/usa\/lng-analysis-explained\/","title":{"rendered":"What to make of the Department of Energy\u2019s new LNG analysis"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Golden
Construction work on the Golden Pass Liquified Natural Gas facility in Sabine Pass, Texas.
\u00a9 Tim Aubry \/ Greenpeace<\/div><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n

Until recently, the federal government\u2019s issuance of technical studies of methane gas exports would not have registered as news. Those days are now gone, thanks to the tireless effort of community leaders and environmental advocates who have raised awareness of the devastating impacts of extracting, transporting, processing, and shipping away growing volumes of this dirty fuel, known commonly as liquefied natural gas (LNG).<\/p>\n\n

Although this moment has come at the tail end of President Joe Biden\u2019s term, it comes as welcome news that the Department of Energy has finalized its updated analysis of LNG. This analysis, originally announced in January as part of the Department of Energy\u2019s \u201cLNG pause\u201d<\/a>, serves as a blueprint for the review of new and pending LNG export applications.1<\/sup> Projects impacted by the pause, which include Venture Global\u2019s CP2 and Sempra\u2019s Port Arthur LNG Phase II expansion, have faced opposition from a broad coalition of environmental justice leaders, national and local environmental organizations, consumer advocates, and climate-concerned Americans.2<\/sup> The government’s updated final analysis bolsters the case against authorizing these LNG projects, strengthens the potential to block these projects in court, and confirms what has been known for years: fracked gas exports endanger the climate, domestic energy prices, and our health.<\/p>\n\n

Notable findings of the analysis<\/h2>\n\n

The results of the analysis are well-summarized in a cover letter<\/a> signed by Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm. Below, we offer key takeaways from both Secretary Granholm\u2019s letter \u2013 which we suggest reading in its entirety \u2013 and the Department of Energy analysis itself.<\/p>\n\n

The gas industry is sprinting into a supply glut<\/h3>\n\n

LNG export capacity is already skyrocketing, even without new approvals. The analysis indicates there is no need to authorize new LNG export projects in a Paris Agreement-compliant world. Further, projects that are already authorized and financially committed are curtailed or under-utilized in the only scenario of the analysis that we consider nearly 1.5\u00baC-aligned.3<\/sup><\/p>\n\n

An astonishing statistic emerges from Granholm\u2019s letter \u2013 \u201cThe quantities already approved for export equate to roughly half of the U.S.\u2019s total current natural gas production today.\u201d4<\/sup> <\/em>Our take: the massive price tags to build these hulking LNG terminals would be better directed to clean energy solutions, rather than wasted on projects that may end up stranded.<\/p>\n\n

The LNG industry will raise energy prices for Americans and American businesses<\/h3>\n\n

According to Granholm, increased LNG export volumes impose a \u201ctriple-cost\u201d on the economy: \u201cthe increasing domestic price of the natural gas itself, increases in electricity prices (natural gas being a key input in many U.S. power markets), and the increased costs for consumers from the pass-through of higher costs to U.S. manufacturers.\u201d5<\/sup> <\/em>The study indicates that the greatest residential price impacts would occur in the Southwest and Gulf Coast regions.6<\/sup> This means that low income communities at the fenceline of the LNG build-out would pay not only with their health, but also through their wallets \u2013 without ever seeing the financial benefits that fossil fuel CEOs may reap. <\/p>\n\n

Further, the study indicates that U.S. manufacturing sector could bear $125 billion in excess costs between 2020 and 2050 due to gas price hikes.7<\/sup> The oil and gas industry has claimed that LNG strengthens energy security, but this study indicates that the more they export, the more U.S. energy prices will be subject to global price volatility.8<\/sup><\/p>\n\n

LNG terminals force pollution upon already disadvantaged communities<\/h3>\n\n

Granholm correctly notes that expanding LNG exports will lead to increased air pollution burdens for communities from the well to the liquefaction terminal.9<\/sup> These communities, especially those along the Gulf Coast, already face \u201cexisting environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries.\u201d10<\/sup> A report released in August by Greenpeace USA and the Sierra Club, titled \u201cPermit To Kill<\/a>,\u201d quantified the detrimental impacts on human health from permitted levels of air pollution from operating and proposed LNG terminals.11<\/sup> The Department of Energy study confirms the seriousness of this threat, and Granholm\u2019s letter says that it will \u201conly get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.\u201d12<\/sup> <\/p>\n\n

The study also acknowledges that community members and advocacy organizations have raised concerns about issues such as corporate tax abatement, the risk of explosions, barriers to participation in decision-making processes, and effects on local industries such as shrimping, fishing, and tourism.13<\/sup><\/p>\n\n

LNG exports increase global greenhouse gas emissions and worsen the climate crisis<\/h3>\n\n

The study finds unequivocally that expanding LNG exports increases global greenhouse gas emissions by slowing the transition to renewables and other clean technologies. The oil and gas industry has often claimed that LNG will displace coal power around the world and therefore lower emissions; instead, this study finds that \u201cLNG exports displace more renewables than coal globally.\u201d<\/em>14<\/sup> As a result, \u201cin every scenario, increases in LNG exports would lead to increases in global net emissions.\u201d15<\/sup> This finding is resilient to uncertainty in methane intensity estimates and, in fact, the study uses a relatively low estimate of methane intensity for the baseline scenario by comparison to other literature.16<\/sup><\/p>\n\n

Fundamentally, limiting global warming to 1.5\u00baC imposes limits on how much fossil fuel can be burned in the coming decades. Past studies from the International Energy Agency show that the scale of the proposed LNG build-out \u2013 both in the U.S. and globally \u2013 is inconsistent with that 1.5\u00baC goal.17<\/sup> The Department of Energy study does not call for limiting warming to 1.5\u00baC, but it shows that approved levels of LNG exports greatly exceed export levels consistent with achieving climate pledges under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and, further, reaching net zero emissions by 2050.18<\/sup><\/p>\n\n

Granholm\u2019s letter warns that \u201cspecial scrutiny needs to be applied toward very large LNG projects. An LNG project exporting 4 billion cubic feet per day,\u201d like CP2, \u201cwould yield more annual greenhouse gas emissions by itself than 141 of the world\u2019s countries each did in 2023.\u201d19<\/sup><\/p>\n\n

Implications for the future of LNG<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n

The finalized analysis of LNG could make the incoming administration\u2019s pro-fossil fuel agenda harder to achieve in at least four ways:<\/p>\n\n