The long-awaited study was criticized by the oil and gas industry and could help environmental groups that want to stop new export terminals.
The Biden administration on Tuesday released a lengthy study that outlined the economic and environmental risks of shipping more liquefied natural gas overseas, a move that could complicate President-elect Donald J. Trump’s plans to approve additional gas export terminals.
If the United States were to continue exporting liquefied natural gas in the way that has made it the world’s biggest gas supplier, the study by the Energy Department found, it could drive up energy costs in America by further exposing the domestic market to international pricing. It could also increase pollution in coastal communities where export terminals are built and create more global greenhouse gas emissions.
The study stops short of explicitly saying that it is not in America’s interest to sell more gas around the world, noting that increased exports have also brought economic benefits and improved energy security for key U.S. allies such as Europe. The incoming Trump administration is widely expected to sign off on new facilities that export liquefied natural gas, or L.N.G.
Yet climate activists are very likely to cite the analysis in future lawsuits that challenge new export terminals in court.
“The final decision, of course, is now in the hands of the next administration,” said Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm. “But we hope that they’ll take these facts into account to determine whether additional L.N.G. exports are truly in the best interest of the American people and economy.”
Ms. Granholm wrote a letter to accompany the study in which she drew much stronger conclusions about the risks of continued L.N.G. exports than were raised by the researchers who wrote the analysis. A “business-as-usual approach is neither sustainable nor advisable,” she wrote.
The American Gas Association, an industry trade group, criticized the study, saying it had “glaring issues” that the group would seek to correct during a 60-day public comment period. Environmental groups praised the report.
The United States is relatively new to the business of selling gas abroad, but its export growth has been remarkable. Since 2016, U.S. energy companies have built eight large facilities in Texas, Louisiana, Maryland, Georgia and Mexico that can export 14.3 billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas each day. Another five export terminals have been fully permitted and are under construction along the Gulf Coast. They would nearly double U.S. export capacity by 2028.
In January, after protests by climate activists, the Biden administration ordered a pause in approving any new export terminals, saying it needed time to study the effects on the climate, economy and national security. That decision, which put several proposed projects on hold indefinitely, angered the oil and gas industry as well as lawmakers in fossil-fuel-producing states.
The new analysis, which runs to several hundred pages, looks at five scenarios for future U.S. liquefied natural gas exports, assessing whether the fuel might displace coal or renewables like wind or solar over various periods of time. It also considers the effects of new terminals on the Gulf Coast, where shorelines are vulnerable to flooding and where communities face increasing levels of pollution.
It concludes that a large increase in exports could lead to a relatively modest increase in global greenhouse gas emissions, amounting to an additional 711 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide-equivalent between 2020 and 2050, at the high end. (Nations currently emit about 53 billion tons per year.)
The authors point out that these calculations are highly uncertain. If U.S. exports are displacing dirtier fossil fuels, such as coal or other types of gas, they can potentially reduce emissions. But if L.N.G. exports are displacing renewable or nuclear power, or leading to greater overall energy use, emissions can go up.
The study also concludes that residential gas and electricity bills in the United States could be about 3 percent higher, on average, in 2050 if the country vastly expands its capacity to sell natural gas overseas. The Gulf Coast and Southwest would bear the brunt of price increases.
However, a separate analysis by S&P Global that examined effects through 2040 found the average American family would spend just $11 more per year on natural gas if a half-dozen pending export projects move forward, a difference of less than 1 percent.
If those gas projects were scrapped, a combination of natural gas, coal and oil from other countries would replace 85 percent of that supply, S&P Global said. Other sources of energy, such as renewables and nuclear power, would fill the rest.
The Energy Department study also found that new export terminals could have significant local effects on communities along the Gulf Coast. On the one hand, the construction of new terminals can employ thousands of workers. But some areas in Texas and Louisiana are already struggling with heavy pollution, and new export terminals threaten to exacerbate those problems.
Reprinted from the New York Times
