Home » Services » Natural Gas Regulation » Electronic Docket Index
2024 LNG Export Study: Energy, Economic, and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports

On December 17, 2024, the Office of Fossil Energy & Carbon Management (FECM) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) gave notice of availability of the 2024 LNG Export Study: Energy, Economic, and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports. The Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on December 20, 2024.  This multi-volume study updates DOE’s understanding of the potential effects of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports on the domestic economy; U.S. households and consumers; communities that live near locations where natural gas is produced or exported; domestic and internation energy security, including effects of U.S. trading partners; and the environment and climate (Study or 2024 LNG Export Study). DOE intends to use the Study to inform its public interest review of, and ultimately decisions in, certain applications to export LNG to countries with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement (FTA) requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy (non-FTA applications), future proceedings, and for other purposes. 

The 2024 LNG Export Study is composed of a summary report and four appendices containing three coordinated modeled analyses and a qualitative literature review. 

·       Appendix A: Global Energy and Greenhouse Gas Implications of U.S. LNG Exports. An analysis of the global market demand for U.S. LNG exports across a range of scenarios and the global emissions impacts of increased U.S. LNG exports through 2050. 

·       Appendix B: Domestic Energy, Economic, and Greenhouse Gas Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports. An analysis of the implications of the various U.S. LNG export levels on the U.S. economy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

·       Appendix C: Consequential Greenhouse Gas Analysis of U.S. LNG Exports. An analysis of global GHG emissions in response to increased U.S. LNG exports. 

·       Appendix D: Addendum on Environmental and Community Effects of U.S. LNG Exports. A literature review of the effects of upstream, midstream and downstream natural gas production and exports on the environment and on local communities. 

DOE invites the submission of comments regarding the 2024 LNG Export Study. Comments may include, among other things, data, reports, studies, or personal testimony. The Study and comments received will be included in the dockets of the long-term LNG export proceedings identified in the Federal Register Notice announcing the release of the Study.  DOE does not intend to revise the Study upon receipt of the comments. Rather, comments received will inform DOE’s public interest determination in each of the proceedings identified in the Federal Register Notice announcing the release of the Study and future non-FTA export proceedings. 

On January 21, 2025, DOE extended the public comment period from 60 days to 90 days. The comment period began on December 20, 2024 and now extends to March 20, 2025 at 4:30 pm Eastern time.  The comments submitted appear below.

 

 Comment Now 

Due Thursday, March 20, 2025 4:30 PM EST
Related Documents & Comments Library
Indicate comment
ID DATE SUBMITTED FILED/ISSUED BY FILING TYPE comment RELATED DOCUMENT
DATE SUBMITTED FILED/ISSUED BY FILING TYPE COMMENT RELATED DOCUMENT
1. expand/collapse 12/20/2024 5:11:22 PM Robb, Aly General Comment LNG exports will increase greenhouse gas emissions and displace renewable energy such as wind and solar. Please block LNG exports.
2. expand/collapse 12/20/2024 11:38:39 PM Paine, Thomas General Comment On the Necessity of Prudence and Principle in the Age of Energy Decisions Fellow Americans, The issue of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminals is no mere question of commerce or convenience; it is a challenge to the very fabric of our principles, our stewardship of the earth, and our duty to posterity. In deciding the fate of these industrial behemoths, we must not be lulled into the complacency of the present, nor seduced by the fleeting promises of profit. Instead, we must act as trustees of the natural bounty bestowed upon us, charged with safeguarding its vitality for generations yet unborn. On the Question of Justice and Stewardship It is a self-evident truth that the earth does not belong to us alone. Yet, LNG terminals—guzzling water, polluting air, and devastating landscapes—stand as monuments to a misguided dominion over nature. They extract their price not merely in dollars but in the vitality of our land, the purity of our waters, and the breath of our skies. The emissions they unleash warm the climate, sowing tempests where once stood calm, and drying rivers that once nourished the land. Shall we mortgage our children's inheritance for the transient gain of a few? Shall we lay waste to our fields, degrade our air, and poison our waters under the guise of progress? To do so is not to advance but to regress—to betray the trust that binds one generation to the next. On the Promise of Innovation and Resilience We live in a moment rich with possibility. The sun shines, the winds blow, and the tides turn with an unceasing energy, ready to be harnessed not through destruction but through harmony. Why then should we cling to the relics of the past? Why invest in LNG terminals when renewable technologies offer a pathway to prosperity that does not demand the sacrifice of our natural wealth? Americans, you are heirs to a revolutionary spirit, a spirit that upended tyranny, expanded liberty, and dared to dream of a nation built upon the principles of equality and natural law. Shall we, who once defied empires, now bow to the dictates of fossil fuels? Let us instead seize the promise of renewable energy, crafting an economy that thrives not on depletion but on regeneration. On the Duty of Action It is not enough to speak of these things; action must follow, bold and unrelenting. Let us demand from our leaders an end to the expansion of LNG terminals. Let us insist upon policies that prioritize clean energy, community resilience, and the equitable distribution of economic benefits. And let us, as citizens, wield our collective power to reshape the course of our nation toward one that is just, sustainable, and free from the chains of fossil dependency. The future is not a distant concept, it is forged in the decisions we make today. LNG terminals represent a step backward, a doubling down on systems that have brought us to the brink of ecological collapse. But we need not continue on this path. America has always been a nation of innovators, of dreamers, of those who look at the impossible and see opportunity. Let us apply that spirit now, for the benefit of all humankind. Conclusion The moment demands courage, vision, and a steadfast commitment to principle. To embrace LNG terminals is to embrace the erosion of our natural and moral foundations. To reject them is to affirm that we are still a people of conscience, guided not by the lure of short-term gain but by the enduring light of justice. Rise, Americans, and let your voices be heard. For in this struggle lies the test of our character, the measure of our resolve, and the promise of a brighter tomorrow. Yours in the cause of liberty and stewardship, A Citizen for the Common Good
3. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 2:15:58 PM Boetger, Julie General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
4. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 2:27:47 PM Berkowitz, Henry General Comment Such a large investment in clean energy rather than more fossil fuel energy would go a long way in limiting America's contribution to climate change. By the way, I remember when fracking was just getting started, that industry said we needed this gas to secure America's energy independence. Hoe does shipping this energy source away help with that?
5. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 2:37:52 PM Tsou, Walter Appendix B: Domestic Energy, Economic, and GHG Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports The LNG exports are going to other countries and not satisfying energy needs in America. That is because the oil and gas industry makes more money selling gas abroad than domestically. Natural gas is coming from fracking which has terrible health consequences for those who live nearby wells. In short Americans are bearing the health consequences of fracking in order to enrich the oil and gas industry for a product that is not even benefiting Americans. We should not be supporting these LNG terminals.
6. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 2:57:00 PM Rome, Abigail General Comment Dear Secretary Granholm, The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG and why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late. Thank you for your consideration.
7. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 2:58:56 PM Patton, Carol General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
8. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 2:59:30 PM Steinberg, David General Comment Under the Biden administration to limit an oppose LNG export is good policy, My concern is that under the trump administration, I am concerned that all of the work being done to assess and analyze the bad effects of LNG in our environment will be undermined by the incoming Trump administration. Are there any actions that will be difficult to undo that can be done in the short time there is before inauguration?
9. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 3:01:01 PM Folzer, Sandra General Comment Sustainable energy is now a reality. Relying on fossil fuels just adds to climate change. Our planet is at risk. Please reject all pending LNG permits!!! Our future depends upon wise decisions today.
10. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 3:02:42 PM Highland, James General Comment We can only have energy independence if we are not putting the health and safety of our people at risk. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
11. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 3:07:36 PM McCann , Annie General Comment Stop LNG Export. It is dangerous to people, wildlife, wild land.
12. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 3:21:27 PM Harland, Donald General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power.
13. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 3:32:53 PM Kelly, Eadie General Comment Stop this craziness, please.
14. 12/21/2024 3:38:29 PM Barrett, Jack General Comment
15. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 3:40:01 PM Brown, Janice General Comment We must stop the burning of fossil fuels if we want to keep Earth a livable planet! Without a livable planet nothing else matters!
16. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 5:06:53 PM Journet, Alan General Comment As a climate activist and scientist, I have been aware of the dangers from methane pollution (aka Natural gas) for many years It is time that those who care to limit toxins in our environment and address the climate crisis should do everything they can to prevent the further use of this evil product. The mean blocking LNG pipelines!
17. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 6:27:23 PM Blumberg, Phyllis General Comment The DOE study correctly used overwhelming scientific data to reach the important conclusions that with LNG a business-as-usual approach is “neither sustainable nor advisable.” (Energy Secretary Granholm, 2024). The United States is already the number one producer of greenhouse gases which means that we have the greatest responsibility to limit the damages that fossil fuels can produce. If the fossil fuel industry gets to build out all of these exporting LNG facilities, they will be emitting an extra 3.2 billion tons of greenhouse gases annually. This number is about what the total greenhouse gas admissions of the entire European Union produces. I totally agree with these main points clearly stated in the study: • LNG exports drive up energy costs for American families who still rely on it for cooking and heating. Unconstrained exports of LNG would increase costs for the average American household by well over $100 more per year by 2050. • LNG exports pollute frontline communities already burdened with toxic emissions. Methane causes many health problems, especially asthma and other respiratory problems in children, cancers of all ages and premature deaths. These fenceline communities face health threats every day because they are forced to breathe air polluted with methane and the toxic chemicals emitted alongside it. • LNG exports worsen the climate crisis and lock us and those countries that we export to into decades of fossil fuel dependency. LNG are carbon and methane bombs and have an enormous cost for our health and for the future. Each year is hotter than the one before, with GHG, especially methane, contributing to this global warming. Methane is a greenhouse gas that contributes to 25% of current climate change and it is 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Reducing methane pollution from the fossil fuel industries is the fastest, most cost-effective way to slow the rate of the climate crisis and prevent risking the lives of more people. And methane can be reduced from the atmosphere quicker than carbon dioxide If we scale up the use of renewable resources, we will have more than enough capacity to meet the needs for electricity, heating and cooling and transit for the whole world. Keep natural gas in the earth.
18. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 6:28:14 PM Koedyker, Nicole General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
19. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 6:58:57 PM Costamagna, Marilyn General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy Pending LNG applications pose definite irreversible risks not only for public health and for the environment but also for what it would cost us all financially. Hence, they should be unequivocally rejected. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes it clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster in progress that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why it is imperative that the DOE and the Biden Administration apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG application and projects.  The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past.  For the following reasons the DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Regarding climate devastation, projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. These potential carbon bombs cannot be allowed to move forward. Regarding health impacts in vulnerable communities, LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. These factors lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who do not need to be subjected to additional conditions, which would be even more adverse to their well being. Regarding environmental destruction, heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Regarding higher costs for families, LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not augment the already outrageous corporate profits. Regarding national security risks, with LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. Hence, I am relying on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG applications and projects in Pennsylvania and other states before it’s too late. 
20. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 8:29:37 PM Lerman, Paul General Comment This is a bad deal for public health, the environment, AND our wallets!
21. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 8:40:36 PM Peterson, MD., Alan General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
22. expand/collapse 12/22/2024 6:27:17 AM Libbey, Patricia General Comment PLEASE NO LNG OR LNG TERMINALS!!!!! WILL HURT SO MANY OF US!!!!
23. expand/collapse 12/22/2024 6:29:52 AM Libbey, Patricia General Comment PLEASE NO LNG/LNG TERMINALS - WILL HURT SO MANY OF US!!!
24. expand/collapse 12/22/2024 7:41:47 AM Johnson , Carol General Comment stop approving new LNG export terminals.
25. expand/collapse 12/22/2024 9:29:29 AM Roberts, Ruth General Comment The US has a finite amount of natural gas which may be used to power our industry or heat our homes and cook our food. We need a strategic reserve in case other sources of energy become compromised. We also need it for our own consumption while we transition to primarily renewable sources of energy. Allowing a few companies to extract and sell this public resource as rapidly and sloppily as possible for private profit, shipping it overseas to countries with already depleted resources, is not in the interest of the US and our people. It should be controlled as a public resource, not a private asset.
26. expand/collapse 12/22/2024 5:37:56 PM Seltzer, Elizabeth General Comment The report released on December 17 by the Department of Energy makes it clear that expanding our liquified natural gas (LNG) exports is not in the public interest. Expanding export production will not only increase pollution and greenhouse gases - which in turn impacts our health, but according to the report is likely to raise energy prices on consumers. STOP DESTROYING OUR PLANET Many Pennsylvania households already face energy bills that are just too high. Low-income families in some parts of the state are spending 9.4% of their income on energy costs, just a fraction of a percentage away from what the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy considers a “severe” energy burden. Raising prices by selling our natural resources abroad will put more pressure on those who are already overburdened. LNG production and processing can pose a serious health risk to Pennsylvania residents who live near facilities. Groundwater and aerial contamination from fracking waste products raises major health concerns, and pollution from industrial processes often disproportionately affects low-income rural and environmental justice communities. While LNG is often held up as a cleaner alternative to coal, its greenhouse gas emissions vary widely depending on where it is sourced and processed. And the study’s models show an increase in gas exports displacing renewable energy development rather than replacing coal plants. The study is very generous in its assumptions of how much methane is leaked during the extraction, processing and transport of LNG, and even then it predicts that increased exports will release catastrophic amounts of greenhouse gases. Finally, according to the study, we have no need to ramp up LNG exports. Five of the six scenarios modeled in the study show that we are already on track to satisfy projected demand. An estimated 75% of oil and gas produced in Pennsylvanian is exported - meaning we see few benefits and many burdens from the industry. There’s no good reason to expand production except a desire for perpetual, unsustainable growth.
27. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 12:16:36 AM Baumgardner, Terrie General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy It is clear from the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Dec. 17 report that Pennsylvanians have nothing to gain and everything to lose from the expansion of liquified natural gas (LNG) exports. If the fact that LNG exports are a climate disaster were not reason enough to reject their expansion, the prospect of increased gas prices and health impacts on families should suffice. DOE must urge the Biden Administration to apply the DOE's findings and reject all pending LNG projects. Expanding LNG exports is a sure way to accelerate the havoc already being wreaked by climate change. The DOE study predicts that—thanks to the methane leaked during the extraction, processing and transport of LNG— increased exports will release catastrophic amounts of greenhouse gases. Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana alone could emit 190 million tons of CO2e per year, the equivalent of emissions from 50 coal-fired power plants. And as the study’s models show, increased LNG exports will not replace coal plants but displace the renewable energy development that would help combat climate change. If LNG exports are expanded, low-income rural and EJ-community residents who are already suffering from the climate crisis and from pollution’s health impacts will experience more of both. Adding to the high cost of health care for these families in some parts of Pennsylvania is the 9.4% of their income spent on energy costs--a percentage that's very close to what the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy considers a “severe” energy burden. The promises of jobs that might have offset these financial now ring hollow. Contrary to industry promises, Pennsylvania communities have not benefited economically from the fracking infrastructure that fuels the 75% exportation rate of oil and gas produced in our state; instead residents have, for long enough, suffered the health impacts of that infrastructure, including increased risk for asthma, cancer, cardiovascular disease, endocrine disruption, and negative birth outcomes. Ramping up LNG exports is even more illogical when doing so is unnecessary, as five of the six scenarios modeled in the study show us already on track to meet projected demand. The people of Southwest Pennsylvania are counting on the DOE to protect people rather than corporate profits. There’s no good reason to appease this industry’s desire for perpetual, unsustainable growth, especially when expanding production will allowi it to continue externalizing its costs onto the people in the form of health, safety, and economic burdens. Pennsylvanians a are counting on your agency to reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
28. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 7:45:37 AM Saberi, Pouné General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. The Philadelphia community is counting on DOE to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
29. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 10:04:35 AM Sorovacu, Yvonne General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. The DOE and the Biden Administration needs to act on the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released on December 17th, 2024 make clear that previous studies used to fast track LNG permits in the past suffered from outdated datasets with faulty conclusions. I work as an environmental scientist. There are multiple ways this report informs my concern for the communities I care about. These projects will contribute significantly to the current and ongoing climate crisis, which is an ecological, economic and social burden that communities will bear now and well into the future. Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tons of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can not afford to add this new carbon burden to the atmosphere in a time when we need to be cutting emissions. These projects introduce and worsen health impacts in vulnerable communities, like my husband's family in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. LNG facilities are concentrated in areas where people are already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people whose bodies and pocketbooks have already suffered from insults to their health. These projects leads to localized environmental destruction, which impacts communities ecologically and economically. For example, heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. These projects raise costs for families. LNG exports raise energy bills for consumers while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that serve the American people, not corporate profits. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
30. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 2:20:21 PM HammarstromRN, Bryn General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: -I am vice-president and treasurer of Pine Creek Headwaters Protection Group [Wellsboro, Tioga County, Penna.], and while we have not taken a stand against fracking per se, the expanded foot-print of fracking for international export WILL CAUSE SEVERE HARM to Penn's Woods [which are already harmed by well-pads, roadways, and pipelines fracturing our communities, our forests, and our farmland]. - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
31. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 3:13:00 PM Vondra, Joan General Comment I am writing to ask you to REJECT the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis shows that LNG exports are not in the public's best interest. Their export will affect the climate and raise prices for American families, while putting communities AND the environment at economic and environmental risk. Please support the public, NOT the fossil fuel companies!
32. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 3:39:22 PM Stanton, James General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
33. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 3:47:05 PM Wolfgang, Joe General Comment The gas will be exported, and the fierce radioactive wastes will accumulate in the air of the Commonwealth and surrounding states. Already, the background reading has gone up several multiples from the uranium and radium finely divided particles. Please require daily testing for both the paved and unpaved roads that are receiving the "hot" wastewater. Regards Joe
34. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 4:36:05 PM DeVine, Deirdre General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
35. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 5:09:33 PM Johnson, Jenifer General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you, Jenifer Johnson
36. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 5:25:23 PM Burke, Bonnie General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
37. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 5:27:36 PM Hawkins, Don General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
38. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 7:48:07 PM Heffner, Sarah General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
39. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 8:07:57 PM Claus, Carol General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects.
40. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 8:11:54 PM Szczepanik, David General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you. David Szczepanik 19146
41. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 10:38:22 PM Lasley, Barbara General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects.
42. expand/collapse 12/24/2024 6:08:24 PM Krupa, Mary General Comment DOE: There are six LNG export facility permits pending right now. Please do NOT approve. Your own analysis makes it clear that these facilities are not good for people or the environment. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families - Health impacts in vulnerable communities - Climate devastation - Environmental destruction The DOE and the Biden Administration must solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
43. expand/collapse 12/24/2024 8:05:38 PM BezansonPhD, david General Comment Before 20 January 2025, please issue statement rejecting permit applications for more LNG terminals. Professor Robert Howarth has published lifecycle carbon intensity research on domestic extraction of LNG and shipping it abroad. The conclusion is that its carbon intensity equals that of coal mining and combustion. Over their 3-Scope lifecycle, each emits a plethora of airborne toxics, which impair public health in USA as well as in other nations who are the ultimate consumer of LNG energy. Domestic production for export increases the price of methane and electricity for domestic consumers. Production and sale anywhere ***** the transition to clean energy as mandated by legislation and agency regulations. A successful transition requires that the externalized costs of fossil fuels be internalized into their market prices. This is best done via a carbon tax on production and/or sales. In Dec. 2024, a metanalysis of research on the Social Cost of Carbon was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It concluded that the mean Social Cost of Carbon worldwide, based on estimates by scientists, is $285 per ton of CO2 emitted. Over the initial 20 year period of being in the atmosphere, methane has a GWP that is 84 times higher than that of CO2. By extrapolation, the Social Cost of methane may be as high as nearly $24000 per ton. However, most estimates are several thousand. Instead of keeping the world dependent upon fossil fuels, US policies should catalyze the development of clean energy. Instead of garnering income tax revenue from the export of fossil fuels, the US should increase tax revenue from the export of clean energy technologies including clean storage.
44. expand/collapse 12/25/2024 10:07:26 AM Callahan, Linda General Comment I am writing to strongly request that you deny the LNG export permits!
45. expand/collapse 12/25/2024 10:30:37 AM Rubin, Phyllis General Comment It is our generation's challenge to stop climate change from crossing topping points and becoming irreversible. This is NOT something that can be delayed or rationalized. We know there are renewable, sustainable, energy sources that work. We must pivot NOW to those. It's up to us.
46. expand/collapse 12/25/2024 10:52:28 AM Seader, Lynette General Comment That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. We have to protect our future generations
47. expand/collapse 12/25/2024 10:52:56 AM Dresner, Marion General Comment We should not increase the import of natural gas. U.S. domestic natural gas supply is sufficient to meet modeled global demand. Increasing U.S. LNG exports on domestic natural gas is likely to increase prices as well as drive up greenhouse gas emissions. The production and transportation of natural gas in the U.S. has negative workforce and economic impacts, and harmful environmental, and social justice problems. Instead, the Department of Energy should diversifying our energy portfolio. This is necessary for environmental and economic reasons as well as for long term security.
48. expand/collapse 12/25/2024 2:40:40 PM Abrams, Melanie General Comment LNG exports threaten our climate health and security. There is a preponderance of evidence that global warming caused by fossil fuels will lead to catastrophic changes in the planet we call home, with extreme weather events rendering areas unihabitable due to heat, fire, desertification, and more. Runaway warming effects have been associated with almost every historical mass extinction, and we are already in the middle of a mass extinction. We are unprepared for the effects of ecosystem collapse, human suffering and a climate refugee crisis, war, and disease, that will result even if we take moderate action. Allowing new fossil fuel permits would lock us into decades of further pollution that lock us into even worse scenarios that rob our children of their future, with implications for centuries if not millennia to come. As a scientist, and member of the Jewish Earth Alliance, I urge you in the strongest terms to accept the evidence that further fossil fuel infrastructure is not in the public interest. Please follow the science and pursue climate-friendly action during the shrinking window of opportunity we have left to protect each other and our planet.
49. expand/collapse 12/25/2024 4:50:20 PM Dembitz, Shoshana General Comment We need to keep our planet, healthy by stopping the export of LNG now. For ourselves, our children and grandchildren.
50. expand/collapse 12/26/2024 10:54:43 AM Pollack, Caleb General Comment Please deny all pending LNG export permits: LNG use, and export of LNG, threaten our climate and our health. The DOE itself issued a critical report about LNG’s climate impacts. LNG exports affect all of us (they create a damaged world for our grandchildren) and in particular, LNG export facilities would likely be built in disadvantaged communities along our Gulf Coast. Thank you -- Caleb Pollack Someone who would like to see more snow in NYC, like it used to be.
51. expand/collapse 12/26/2024 12:10:41 PM Heilbrun, Emily General Comment Please deny LNG export permits. LNG exports are a threat to our health and security, and to our climate. The DOE report makes the threats to our climate abundantly clear. Please deny all export permits now, before President-Elect Trump takes office. I care about climate change because it is a threat to all of us and because I want to leave the earth in as good shape as possible for all of our children.
52. expand/collapse 12/26/2024 12:20:15 PM Shultz, Diane General Comment No new pollution! No new LNG!
53. expand/collapse 12/26/2024 8:07:41 PM Hohag, Gabriel General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
54. expand/collapse 12/27/2024 3:22:56 PM Brown, Janice General Comment We need to stop burning fossil fuels ASAP. The CLIMATE disasters are getting worse, think Asheville, NC!
55. expand/collapse 12/27/2024 3:25:44 PM Hackney, Penn General Comment The report released on December 17 by the Department of Energy makes it clear that expanding our liquified natural gas (LNG) exports is not in the public interest. Expanding export production will not only increase pollution and greenhouse gases - which in turn impacts our health, but according to the report is likely to raise energy prices on consumers as well. LNG production and processing can pose a serious health risk to Pennsylvania residents who live near facilities. Groundwater and aerial contamination from fracking waste products raises major health concerns, and pollution from industrial processes often disproportionately affects low-income rural and environmental justice communities. Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Think of the future. Of your children and grandchildren. And make the *right* decision for the common good. Thank you,
56. expand/collapse 12/27/2024 3:26:45 PM Stevens , Craig General Comment Stop LNG Export, Export Raises Prices In America And The Drilling Causes Water, Air & Environmental Harms From Fracking And Poisons Pennsylvania Citizens And Beyond
57. expand/collapse 12/27/2024 4:06:40 PM Gore, Jesse General Comment The report released on December 17 by the Department of Energy makes it clear that expanding our liquified natural gas (LNG) exports is not in the public interest. Expanding export production will not only increase pollution and greenhouse gases - which in turn impacts our health, but according to the report is likely to raise energy prices on consumers. Many Pennsylvania households already face energy bills that are just too high. Low-income families in some parts of the state are spending 9.4% of their income on energy costs, just a fraction of a percentage away from what the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy considers a “severe” energy burden. Raising prices by selling our natural resources abroad will put more pressure on those who are already overburdened. LNG production and processing can pose a serious health risk to Pennsylvania residents who live near facilities. Groundwater and aerial contamination from fracking waste products raises major health concerns, and pollution from industrial processes often disproportionately affects low-income rural and environmental justice communities. While LNG is often held up as a cleaner alternative to coal, its greenhouse gas emissions vary widely depending on where it is sourced and processed. And the study’s models show an increase in gas exports displacing renewable energy development rather than replacing coal plants. The study is very generous in its assumptions of how much methane is leaked during the extraction, processing and transport of LNG, and even then it predicts that increased exports will release catastrophic amounts of greenhouse gases. Finally, according to the study, we have no need to ramp up LNG exports. Five of the six scenarios modeled in the study show that we are already on track to satisfy projected demand. An estimated 75% of oil and gas produced in Pennsylvanian is exported - meaning we see few benefits and many burdens from the industry. There’s no good reason to expand production except a desire for perpetual, unsustainable growth.
58. expand/collapse 12/27/2024 4:09:01 PM McCann , Annie General Comment Block LNG exports. It is damaging to our environment and our health!
59. expand/collapse 12/27/2024 4:12:33 PM Swain, Lauren General Comment LNG Exports take fuel away from future generations of Americans and raise fuel prices. They also destroy local ecosystems and cause flooding, droughts, and fires due to climate change. Drilling for natural gas releases air and water pollutants that harm human health. Please stop LNG exports and all associated construction, transport, and extraction now.
60. expand/collapse 12/27/2024 4:40:09 PM Haeri, Niloofar Appendix C: Consequential GHG Analysis of U.S. LNG Exports Dear President Biden, The least a government can do is to do no harm to its citizens. LNG increases pollution and green house gases, both of which gravely impact the health of all groups but especially low income ones. LNG production and processing can pose a serious health risk to Pennsylvania residents who live near facilities. Groundwater and aerial contamination from fracking waste products raises major health concerns, and pollution from industrial processes often disproportionately affects low-income rural and environmental justice communities.
61. 12/27/2024 4:54:23 PM PSR AZ Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports
62. expand/collapse 12/27/2024 6:09:23 PM Dugan, Michelle General Comment Do not allow any further construction of LNG export terminals! Stop the greed that is destroying our planet!
63. expand/collapse 12/27/2024 7:32:10 PM Peterson, MD., Alan General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
64. 12/27/2024 8:01:06 PM Hoven, Debra General Comment
65. expand/collapse 12/27/2024 8:25:20 PM Ozane, Roishetta General Comment Liquified natural gas (LNG) poses several risks to children, communities, and the climate. Firstly, when LNG is transported and processed, it can lead to air and water pollution. Children, with their developing lungs and immune systems, are particularly vulnerable to these pollutants, which contribute to respiratory issues and other health problems. In my view, the infrastructure associated with LNG, such as pipelines and export terminals, disrupt local communities. These developments lead to displacement and compromise the safety and quality of life for residents. I think about how this creates tension and division within communities as people grapple with the impacts on their homes and environment. From a climate perspective, LNG is often marketed as a cleaner alternative to coal or oil, but it still releases greenhouse gases, particularly methane, during extraction and transportation. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and its emissions contribute to climate change, which ultimately affects everyone, especially the youngest and most vulnerable among us. I feel that by continuing to rely on LNG, we divert attention and resources away from truly sustainable and renewable energy solutions that could benefit both current and future generations.
66. expand/collapse 12/27/2024 9:28:04 PM Pilling , Lucille General Comment Stop LNG exports
67. 12/27/2024 9:43:16 PM Rome, Abigail General Comment
68. expand/collapse 12/28/2024 12:02:27 AM Thorpe, Mary General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
69. expand/collapse 12/28/2024 1:11:30 AM Ouellette, Tracy General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
70. expand/collapse 12/28/2024 5:14:38 AM Bedard, Joe General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
71. expand/collapse 12/28/2024 8:31:50 AM Newman , Karen General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest at any level. This is a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: 1. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. 2. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. 3. Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. 4. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you, Karen Newman
72. expand/collapse 12/28/2024 8:44:03 AM Sonin, John General Comment I urge you to veto any energy bill Congress passes that does not transition us away from fossil fuels to a truly clean, renewable energy future. The consequences of our wasteful, abusive path to human progress are 'roosting the chickens' and if leaders can't lead humanity on the planetary "arc" of a sustainable energy consumption, conscious authorities such as yourself, must take the prerogative to secure civilization!
73. expand/collapse 12/28/2024 12:20:19 PM Bond, Linnea General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
74. expand/collapse 12/29/2024 7:58:21 AM Thio, Tineke General Comment We don't want or need expanded LNG exports: Exporting LNG makes gas prices higher for Americans. Exporting LNG contributes to the climate crisis that hits Americans in the shape of extreme weather and higher home insurance prices. Producing and exporting LNG means Americans bear the consequences of pollution without benefiting from the use. Expanding LNG exports is a bad deal for Americans.
75. expand/collapse 12/29/2024 9:20:30 AM Pezzati , Mark General Comment I reside in rural NY state and have been negatively impacted by a rapidly changing climate. Our summers have been very dry, bordering on drought. When it does rain the superheated, moisture trapping atmosphere causes mist rainfall to be very heavy. Two years ago wildfire smoke from Canada choked our air and darkened our skies. All of these things were caused by the extraction, transmission and burning of fossil fuels, including the most damaging fossil fuel of all, LNG. For the health and safety of myself and my community I want the DOE to permit no additional LNG export terminals. Existing terminals should be rapidly shut down and fossil fuel extraction on public lands must be stopped immediately. Any other course of action is knowingly suicidal. Be aware that your children and future generations will judge you harshly.
76. expand/collapse 12/29/2024 5:16:39 PM Kerzner, Allison General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
77. expand/collapse 12/29/2024 6:16:44 PM Smith, Douglas General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
78. expand/collapse 12/30/2024 8:48:41 AM Marshall, Dean General Comment Bearing in mind that our modern world requires ever increasing amounts of energy, and the subsequent exponential increase in Greenhouse Gas concentrations from extraction, processing, transportation and consumption of fossil fuels is a major contributor to Global Warming, any increase in LNG Export will only accelerate the consequences. Opting for additional infrastructure, (ie.)more Drilling,Fracking, Pipelines, Compressors, Cryogenic Production and Storage facilities, Coastal Channel Dredging, Shipping and Receiving/De-Gasification projects will exacerbate climate change, create additional environmental destruction, displace marginal populations and create increased pollution and health impacts. What is needed is a rapid investment in Sustainable, Renewable, and Clean Energy Solutions. Worldwide dependence on and further development of Fossil Fuel is a For Profit Folly that is tantamount to “Burning the furniture to heat the house” logic that has led to rising sea levels, species decimation, massive weather disasters, deaths and diseases, droughts and floods at historic levels! We must understand the situation and make informed and logical choices now. Building out more LNG Infrastructure is not the answer!
79. expand/collapse 12/30/2024 12:56:19 PM Long, Emily General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you. Emily Long
80. expand/collapse 12/30/2024 6:44:42 PM Gottesman , Corri General Comment Now's the time to increase the application of renewable and non-fossil fuel energy sources... not intensify the development of fossil fuels such as Liquid Natural Gas (LNG). Exporting Liquid Natural Gas will intensify the increase of pollution, habitat destruction, human induced seismic activity, and global greenhouse gases (climate change). The effects of climate change are upon us, w/ destructive weather events constantly at the top of the news due to their horrific effects on all human and natural systems. This will only get worse if we do not change our course. The technology for renewable and non-fossil fuel energy sources and application is here and available. Developing these sources will create jobs and an economic boom. For the sake of that which is life-giving and good for all, do not allow for the export of LNG, instead let's put our full effort into increasing renewable and other non-fossil fuel energy sources. For the sake of our and future generations and the beautiful, awe inspiring life around us.
81. expand/collapse 12/30/2024 7:31:46 PM Bach, Julianne General Comment Please do not encourage or support fracking or other destructive methods to extract LNG. It is destructive and the damage is irreversible. I will do my part to lesson my usage and dependence on this fuel. DO NOT EXPORT - that is corporate greed at it's finest. Encourage the young people to seek employment in protecting and building our environment and communities. Together we can do great things!
82. expand/collapse 12/31/2024 8:36:05 AM Weigand, Pauline Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports This is industry is destroying Pennsylvania. The air is harmful!
83. expand/collapse 12/31/2024 1:29:26 PM Bayen, Laurie General Comment I am a United Methodist pastor who believes that we are all called by the Creator to care for the planet and is creatures, especially those who are most vulnerable. I grieve the loss of species and ecosystems which had come about as a result of human greed. I believe that LNG exports threaten our climate, health and security and that the DOE should act on the findings of its recent report by denying all pending export permits.
84. expand/collapse 1/1/2025 10:59:55 AM Frelier, Andrew General Comment Please lift the pause on LNG new build terminals from the USA. US sourced LNG provides energy security around the world, displaces dirty coal emissions, provides jobs and revenue to American citizens and government. As a petroleum geologist, I can testify that there are ample natural gas resources in the USA to provide for over a hundred of years of supply. The number of gas rigs is hovering at lows of just 100 and can easily be ramped up to accommodate additional LNG offtake. This is a no-brainer positive for the USA, the environment and world peace through energy security.
85. expand/collapse 1/2/2025 6:03:36 PM Westman, Kathryn General Comment Please do all you can to cancel any support of the fossil fuel industry. The negative effects on our people and communities must not continue. I write as a Registered Nurse aware of the continuing harm caused to our health and environment. We must switch to and subsidize clean energy along with clean air and water.
86. expand/collapse 1/5/2025 6:00:34 PM Wolk, Daniel General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy As a practicing physician in the Philadelphia area, and as a member of Physicians for Social Responsibility's Advisory Board, I urge you to act upon the Department of Energy's recent analysis of the impact of expanding Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) exports on our communities, energy prices, and the climate crisis. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast-track LNG permits in the past. They show unequivocally that expansion of LNG exports will release massive amounts of greenhouse gases, particularly long-lasting methane, while polluting the air of communities near LNG facilities with toxins and carcinogens such as benzene. Meanwhile, the report's economic analysis states, "higher LNG exports create a tighter domestic natural gas market (all else held equal), increasing domestic natural gas prices”. In other words, while front-line communities such as nearby Marcus Hook, PA, are suffering the effects of pollution from nearby LNG facilities, they will be crushed by higher energy prices. These impacts are contrary to the Biden and incoming Trump administrations' stated goals of making life easier for working- and middle-class families and countering inflation. and will do significant harm to public health and our climate. I urge you to act on these recommendations before time runs out. Sincerely, Daniel Wolk, MD
87. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 10:24:54 AM Johnson, Jimmy General Comment Testing
88. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 11:13:29 AM McTeston, Testy General Comment Dear , This is a test message. Sincerely, Mr. Testy McTeston
89. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 11:25:46 AM LeCluyse, Megan General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
90. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 11:54:32 AM Fredricks, Katherine General Comment I very much appreciate the Federal Department of Energy recently released report analyzing the efficacy of exporting Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). This is a thorough and excellent study. The report finds that LNG export is not in the public interest. LNG export will raise prices for US consumers while massively increasing pollution for US residents, and endangering communities along proposed transportation/pipeline routes. Meanwhile, Europe is working fast to transition away from fossil fuels, so the entire project will find fewer and fewer buyers. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rules require that pipeline proposals cannot be confirmed if they are not in the public interest. Please follow Federal regulations and deny permits to build infrastructure for LNG export.
91. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 12:08:23 PM Kalvelage, Joan General Comment History of LNG exports shows pose grave risk of methane leaks. We know those leaks contribute more to climate change than carbon dioxide. And we also know that climate change contributes to wildfire smoke and air pollution--leading to more premature deaths than any disease. Enough!
92. 1/6/2025 12:08:26 PM Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) Appendix B: Domestic Energy, Economic, and GHG Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports
  1. IEEFA comments on 2024 LNG Export Study by CWD.pd...
93. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 1:54:27 PM Sale, Rebekah General Comment Subject: Stop Dangerous LNG Export Approvals – Protect Our Communities Now For too long, Big Oil and Gas CEOs have prioritizing profits over people, and communities have paid the price. I work with communities across the country helping them push back against these dangerous and mostly unneeded projects. The Biden Administration’s new analysis of liquified natural gas (LNG) exports confirms the pattern is not changing. Big Oil and Gas CEOs have been pushing to send as much US gas overseas as possible – but this new report finds clear evidence that their plans are a threat to our climate, public health, and wallets. In [STATE], we’re already feeling the pinch of rising energy costs. Now, LNG exports are projected to increase electric bills by [STATE-SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE], all so Big Oil can boost their profits. Everyone that I speak with is angry that we allow a trillion dollar industry to use the governments' awesome power of eminent domain to take people's land against their will for projects that export energy -- there is no PUBLIC USE which our constitution demands with eminent domain! Expanding LNG exports means higher bills for our families and dirtier air and water for everyone. It’s time to put evidence over corporate profits. Allowing more LNG export facilities to move forward would be a disaster. The Biden Administration must take this opportunity to stand with the public and stop the buildout of LNG exports and their dangerous facilities before it's too late. I urge our elected officials to stop unchecked expansion of LNG exports and prioritize people over polluters. Thank you!
94. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 2:15:50 PM Houk , Barbara J General Comment Hello, my name is Barbara Houk. I spent the early years of my life in Ohio. I was university educated in Missouri.I am a retired Kansas certified physician. I came back to Ohio in 2020 because of Covid. As an MD, I am concerned for our nation as a whole. The pause on the LNG permits to export this commodity will have a negative impact on this nation. Stopping LNG exports will limit American production and jobs for many different industries. My parents, Ohio natives, raised me to respect American production. This requires education and I certainly pursued this. Northern Ohio has experienced severe economic problems. Natural gas exporting has been helpful to this state. Natural gas exports benefit the manufacturing sector which is crucial to Ohio. To stop exporting LNG will hurt this state economically. This will affect every social economic class. The Department of Energy should have hard working Americans in mind. There is a balance between the environment, the economy, and job opportunities. The people of Ohio can not afford to lose any of the job opportunities this provides. The economy of Ohio as well as the nation depends on LNG exports. I urge the members of the commission to continue to issue these permits to export LNG, recognizing their positive impact on American jobs and the economy. Show trimmed content
95. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 2:45:53 PM Wetzel, Gregory General Comment Department of US Energy To Whom it may concern, I am a US citizen and have been a resident of Ohio for over seventy-seven years. I am a veteran of the USAF SAC (Strategic Air Command). I have been in retail sales with small businesses for thirty-nine years. All the businesses were small, and family owned. The cost of heat and utilities have always been an interest and concern. My wife and I are also retired and live on social security, plus our life’s savings. To add to that, we live in a small retirement village and most of my neighbors are widowed. Therefore, I am supporting any opportunity to keep or lower our heating and fueling costs is not only important but sorely needed. As I talk with all the small business owners and the retired community we live in, I will be asking for their support and feedback on this important issue. I urge you to allow more permits for the export of natural gas, to help in keeping or lowering our costs.
96. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 2:45:58 PM kilby, sharon General Comment Anna Scheuerman 2:37 PM (2 minutes ago) to me Hello, my name is Sharon Kilby. I am from Akron, Ohio and hold an Associates Degree in Business. I moved to Columbus, Ohio because of work. I have over 20 years service with the Department of Defense and recently retired. Being from Akon, Ohio, I saw the downside of the economy when Firestone Tire & Rubber. My father retired from Firestone . My first job out of high school was working for Firestone Tire & Rubber Credit Union. When the plants shut down, I saw first hand how many lives were affected, and the workers had a hard time finding comparable jobs, and many never found the same pay. One major concern I have is cutting off the LNG Exports without any concern or plan of the job loss and how it affects the economy, both the job loss along with the product loss, is a double hit to the economy -and should be considered along with the environmental impact. The manufacturing jobs from Firestone were basically never replaced and the workers were left without a plan & was very difficult or could not transfer their skills to other jobs. I understand the LNG industry has both blue and white collar jobs. I saw how difficult it was to transfer the skills of the blue collar sector without help or a plan. Many families are dependent on blue collar workers to be the primary provider. Without their job, their family does not have an income. Also as far as the economic impact, being on a limited income, having the cost of energy rise would be a hardship. And being part of the Baby Boomers, I have a retirement fixed income, and I am concerned about how the LNG would affect my costs, and I feel there are many more like me in the same boat. I saw how a lot of people moved out of the area after they lost their jobs, and I can see how this change could affect an area who relies on this gas industry, and can cause affects nationally and more. Please - I urge the Commission to continue giving permits for LNG exports which has a very positive impact on the job industry and many people rely on those jobs.
97. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 3:02:51 PM Palumbo , Carol General Comment Department of Energy, I am a decades long resident of Ohio and have worked forty plus years in both the business sector and the private sector. Both my husband and I have seen the benefits and impacts that the Natural Gas Industry has had on our lives and our communities, friends and family We, as a nation, are very vested in the country and economy of our nation. Natural Gas production has affected our employment numbers and our ability to make our economy stronger. By increasing our production capacity, we will realize a significant growth in the number of jobs available to our workers as well as related industries
98. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 3:46:26 PM Bramble, Janice General Comment My name is Jan Bramble, I have been a resident of Arapahoe County in Colorado my entire life. Ive raised 2 children enjoying all that our state provides. We enjoy golf, fishing, camping and socializing. I have worn many "hats" throughout my lifetime. I've been a dental assistant, a licensed daycare provider, legal secretary and a Real Estate agent for over the past 25 years. Both of my husbands have been self-employed. I fully realize the importance of jobs. I am writing to you today to urge you to not ban further exploration and drilling for natural gas. Past reports have shown definite bias. I feel United States oil and gas companies work beyond and above foreign companies regarding not only safety for citizens but include massive effort in protecting our environment. Our country is not prepared to rely on electricity and solar. Both of these options still rely on oil and gas in order to produce equipment and provide energy . The average family cannot afford new furnaces cars and trucks. Small companies and self employed workers are the backbone of America. As health insurance rates continue to climb workers rely on larger corporations for both retirement funds and health insurance. All workers and all families rely on natural gas at this time for a large part of their everyday life! Our national security depends on oil and gas. A ban will only line the pockets of our national advisories. Please do not place any bans on liquified natural gas or general oil production. Bans will negatively affect all of us.!!!
99. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 3:51:53 PM Hawk, Keely General Comment My name is Keely Hawk, I grew up in Colorado and attended the University of Colorado. I spent 18 years in the investment banking industry and the stock market focusing on technology stocks both in New York and San Fransico. Most recently, I have been selling real estate, I served on the state legislative policy committee for the Colorado Association of Realtors where we scrubbed bills to evaluate the impact on property owners’ rights. But, I am also Lakota Indian (Sioux) from the Standing Rock tribe in South Dakota where I have a multi-generational-ancestral tie to the environment. I appreciate the vast responsibility of the DoE from production, efficiency, technology innovation and some much more - all to make sure we have stable, safe and continuous production. I thank you for the work you do, it is immensely important to our country. I am concerned about many things which I won't go into here but I am most concerned about the pause on LNG and the impact it has on our economy and our national security. I am an advocate of LNG because of its safety and as a clean alternative. I think it is our responsibility to continue production from an environmental, social and national security responsibility. Because I'm sure these are all things that are important to you, I'd like to ask you to consider the impact of limiting or banning production of LNG and in the end, I urge you to not ban it.
100. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 4:53:51 PM Roethlein, Ed General Comment Hello, my name is Ed Roethlein. My family and I have lived in Western Pennsylvania our entire lives. As an architect of 38 years, I care deeply about lowering the cost of living through low construction costs. I appreciate the work that the department of energy has done to lower the cost of living through the promotion of reliable energy for construction across the country. Since we agree on keeping the cost of living low, we should both agree on opposing the LNG permit ban because of the decrease in production that would result from the ban's effects. This will not only decrease exports but will also raise the cost of living through a decrease in domestic production and the resulting construction price increases. Therefore, I urge the Department of Energy to resume the approval of Liquified Natural Gas permits.
101. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 5:07:57 PM Corson, Mark General Comment My name is Mark Corson. I currently live in Bay Village, Ohio on the west side of Cleveland. I am retired. Grew up in the Cleveland area and earned my BA at Case Western Reserve University. I traveled to South Africa and earned an MBA at University of Cape Town. I became a management consultant and worked on six continents. I was a consultant to Shell, Exxon Mobil, and many other companies. I worked for Accenture, Ernst & Young, and my last full-time job was with Shell. I feel the current freeze on new LNG export facilities is a huge geopolitical mistake. The US could significantly expand exports to our allies and friends thereby increasing our strength on the world stage. At the same time the increase in LNG exports would reduce the export earnings of Russia and Iran. The increase in LNG exports to Europe would decrease the dependency of our NATO allies and others on LNG from Russia. At the same time this would provide increased income for American workers, businesses, and property owners. The increase would help the balance of trade. Increasing LNG sales would increase local, state, and federal taxes and royalties. I ask the Department of Energy to approve the construction of new LNG export facilities and approve the increased export of LNG cargos.
102. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 5:09:23 PM Skaggs, Sara General Comment My name is Sara Skaggs I've worked in manufacturing in Ohio for all my life . It is important that we keep exports of natural gas because it will boost our economy. Which means more overtime and income for my family. It's crucial that our government sees this need to honor these permits. We know that our gas resources are the cleanest anywhere in the world. If we purchase outside resources they will not care about the environment as we do. We should support LNG exports 100% . It will benefit the environment from imports that could care less. It would promote job growth and companies will flourish. So much is dependent on these permits to be passed. Praying they will do what is right for My family and I are counting on you. You can make LNG happen . More jobs , companies can expand business opportunities. We need a win for the working class ! Let's move forward and start utilizing our own energy. Sincerely Sara L Skaggs
103. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 5:46:32 PM Cook, Annie General Comment To whom it may concern, My name is Annie Cook. I’ve been a resident of NM since 1971 when I moved here from Kansas. NM is home to me. I’ve lived here longer than I’ve lived anywhere else. Both of my sons were born here. I myself am a graduate of the University of NM. I am a masters prepared Nurse who retired in 2013 from the VA in Albuquerque after 30 years of service. My husband of 32 years and myself own a home on the west side of Albuquerque and we are totally invested in the land of enchantment and it’s preservation for our family and the many families who call NM home. Today I would like to discuss the urgent need to lift the pause on LNG exports because of its effect not only on the US, but also on the world at large. Below, I have outlined several reasons whyI feel we must lift the pause on LNG exports: 1. Strengthening Energy Security for Allies. The US is a supplier of LNG for our allies in Europe and Asia. By lifting the pause, the US can help nations like these reduce their reliance on Russian gas, maintaining geopolitical stability and energy security. This increased security will effect global energy policy and support economic and political stability in our allies. By supplying critical energy resources, we can leverage our role in the global energy market to promote democratic values and partnerships. 2. Economic and Environmental Benefits Increased LNG exports will boost the US economy by creating jobs in the energy sector and creating revenue from government taxes and royalties. Increased exports will balance out domestic gas supply and demand. Without sufficient export markets, natural gas production could slow, leading to a decrease in investments in the LNG industry and economic losses in the energy sector. Since the global demand for LNG is growing, many developing countries are moving from coal to cleaner energy. By helping countries with this change, the US not only helps growing economies, it helps support global carbon reduction efforts. 3. Existing Infrastructure Support: The equipment used to produce and transport LNG to customers was not meant to sit idle for long periods. The infrastructure and equipment needed to produce and export LNG is not something that can be turned on and off like a light switch. In order to maintain the LNG infrastructure it must be in constant use. Once the production has stopped, restarting it is not a simple matter. The longer the pause continues, the greater the risk of degradation of the infrastructure needed for LNG production, and the greater the risk of economic loss due to the infrastructure being unused. In conclusion, it is vitally important the we lift the LNG pause in order to create growth in, and modernization of, critical infrastructure needed for production of LNG. This will not only increase economic opportunities and security in the US, but also in developing countries and the world at large. I want to thank you for your consideration of these important issues. Sincerely, Annie Cook, RN, BSN, MSN Retired [Contact Information Deleted]
104. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 6:51:58 PM Epstein, Steve General Comment My name is Steve Epstein and I am a retired state employee who served the citizens of New Mexico for 26 years. I have resided continuously in New Mexico for almost 50 years. I am concerned about the welfare of New Mexicans and our economic growth. New Mexico is a large producer of natural gas. I urge the Biden administration to allow the sale of natural gas to countries not enrolled in the free trade agreement. Here in New Mexico, expanded exports of natural gas will create jobs, grow the economy, and add to the state budget for the welfare, education, and infrastructure needs in New Mexico. Your consideration will be appreciated.
105. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 6:58:14 PM Sandberg, Martin General Comment I’m Martin Sandberg, I’m a retired MSEE. I’m a long time Colorado resident, living at 6,500 feet up in the foothills so I know how much propane it takes to keep a place running through winter here. You’d think I’d be worried about how LNG exports would affect fuel costs, but as LNG exports have steadily increased, our fuel cost haven’t. That seems odd, so I did some checking and found out that we can produce a lot more natural gas than we can use in the States. The producers have built their infrastructure to support increasing LNG exports, actually keeping world prices stable to down. These producers are now employing some 300,000 people and some of them are my neighbors, since Colorado’s oil and gas fields are near us. I know that the environment should be protected, but that must be balanced against jobs and energy costs. We’ve swung too far away from energy jobs and energy costs and need to get the country back on the right track. So, I would ask the DOE not to ban new LNG terminals and allow the industry and us to prosper.
106. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 8:22:34 PM Dakey, Diana General Comment The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on December 17, 2024, gave notice of its Study to inform its public-interest review of, and ultimately decisions pertaining to, certain applications to export LNG to countries with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement (FTA). (1) The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for authorizing exports of domestically produced natural gas, including liquefied natural gas (LNG), to foreign countries under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. § 717b. For applications to export domestic natural gas to non-FTA countries, DOE must grant the application unless it finds that the proposed exportation will not be consistent with the public interest. (2) The DOE must reject new U.S. LNG export permits, none of which are in the public interest. The DOE Study raised important concerns. I would like to raise additional concerns and emphasize some already in the DOE Study. What is national interest? national interest. Noun: the interest of a nation as a whole held to be an independent entity separate from the interests of subordinate areas or groups and also of other nations or supranational groups (Merriam-Webster). The term national interest has been commonly used in a foreign-policy context. (3) LNG exports are inconsistent with national interest. • Increasing LNG exports means that the U.S. is abandoning any pretense of trying to limit climate change. The Study found that increasing LNG exports could generate 1.5 gigatons of direct greenhouse-gas emissions per year by 2050 – equivalent to about a quarter of current annual U.S. emissions, thereby would more than eclipse the emission reductions the country has made since 2000. (4) • Climate change is a national security risk, recognized by the U.S. Defense Department as a “threat multiplier”, not only within U.S. borders, but also to our partner countries. (5,6) o There are direct threats to U.S. miliary infrastructure in the United States and the Pacific due to sea level rise. o Global supply chains are disrupted by extreme weather, which may hinder the military’s ability to access critical supplies. o Because natural disasters are increasing, the military is being called on more frequently to be first responders for disaster and humanitarian relief and must respond to situations beyond their usual scope. o Melting Arctic ice will open up Arctic shipping, creating the potential for competition with and conflict with Russia. • Extreme heat compromises airports. (7) • LNG exports contribute to planetary warming and resulting severe weather events that cost the federal government and individuals billions of dollars in recovery costs. (8) • Climate change leads to climate refugees, intensifying the U.S. border crisis. (9) • The U.S.’s continued push to expand LNG infrastructure is at odds with world sentiment and diminishes our moral leadership in the world. In November 2024, more than 130 legislators from around 30 countries called on world leaders to place an immediate moratorium on LNG expansion worldwide. (10) • Using LNG to balance trade is shortsighted and risky. Eventually the bottom will fall out of the worldwide LNG market. The U.S. needs to prepare for an export economy beyond LNG and support emerging renewable energy industries. China became a world leader in solar panels, batteries, and EVs through forward-looking policies. • With Europe transitioning to renewable energy, the future of US LNG exports is at a crucial turning point, thus using LNG for tariff leverage (11) does not strengthen relations with allies. • Supplying China’s energy needs is not in the U.S. national interest. China is not an ally. (12) In February 2028, U.S. Senators introduced legislation that would ban the export of crude oil or LNG to our biggest adversaries: China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. (13) • Foreign firms are increasing their ownership interest in U.S. LNG terminals and feedgas-production assets. Among them: Woodside, QuatarEnergy, TotalEnergiesSE, INEOSS, Tokyo Gas, Osaka Gas. (13a,b) • The commoditization of U.S. LNG has caused U.S. domestic prices to be influenced by the fluctuations in worldwide commodity prices, creating difficulties for U.S. industry. In January 2024, the Industrial Energy Consumers of America wrote to the DOE urging an LNG policy that protects U.S. consumers from the risks that come with increased LNG exports. (14) • Pennsylvanians will pay more for electricity. Higher gas prices caused by increased exports would have the largest impact on the state’s electric power sector. Pennsylvania’s gas-fired power plants, which serve electric utilities around the mid-Atlantic region, would pay up to $7.4 billion extra for gas over 15 years. Industrial consumers would pay an extra $4 billion, residential consumers $2 billion and commercial consumers $1 billion. (14a) • Increased exports means increased gas production through fracking. To gear up for the industry’s increased exports, more gas drilling will be needed in Pennsylvania. The legacy of the externalities of this industry is already being felt as Pennsylvania looks for solutions to plugging orphaned and abandoned wells – with cleanup costs being shifted to the public. Additionally, the industry has a problem disposing of “produced water,” an unregulated pollutant having real consequences on ground water. (15) • LNG export projects that use overland transport (rail and truck) threaten communities with fire and explosion hazards. (15a) • Increasing LNG exports will be accompanied by increased pipelines and related infrastructure. With domestic gas demand stable, we can assume that future pipelines and related infrastructure is for the purpose of LNG export. It doesl not create public trust in government when eminent domain is used against property owners for the private profits of LNG exporters. • Pipelines are changing the natural dynamics of Pennsylvania forests (16), areas vital to recreational activities that support outdoor-focused business. (17) • LNG exports are inconsistent with Pennsylvania’s constitution. DOE decisions will look at national interest. But where a few states bear most of the impact of the LNG industry’s need for gas production, states’ rights must be considered. Pennsylvania is a leading gas-producing state that exports most of the gas it produces to beyond its state borders. We have an Environmental Rights Amendment. Article I, Section 27 provides: The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people. (18) Both reducing LNG exports and placing a permanent ban on new permits are consistent with the national interest. • The future of the U.S. will be more secure if the U.S. becomes a player in the worldwide transition to renewable energy, promoting the adoption of a variety of clean-power solutions, thereby creating a market for U.S. technology and components. Unfortunately, by sticking to a fossil-first energy strategy, the United States risks becoming a technology and energy backwater. Should we emulate Sweden or emulate Russia? (19) Some topics are irrelevant to national interest determination on the exportation of U.S. LNG. • Interests of multinational corporations cannot be considered the same as the national interest. Similarly, interests of publicly held companies do not meet the national interest standard, because shareholders could be anybody, a U.S. national or a foreigner. Furthermore, only a small percentage of U.S. citizens own stock, stock funds, and related investments. • Jobs in the LNG sector and related industries are elusive and fungible, in view of the growing renewable energy sector. The gas industry has not lived up to promises of jobs and prosperity in the Appalachian region. See research by Ohio River Valley Institute. (20) Distractions and misinformation should not cloud DOE decisions. • It is misinformation that the recent election shows that the U.S. public supports greater gas extraction. A poll conducted in September 2024 by the Ohio River Valley Institute of likely voters found that more than four in ten (42%) Pennsylvanians support an outright ban on fracking, and nearly half of Pennsylvanians say they’re opposed or on the fence about the practice. (20a) • It is misinformation to expect coal-to-gas-switching to reduce global carbon emissions. LNG is not a “transitional fuel.” The half-truth that gas burns cleaner than coal at the power plant smokestack ignores the reality of the end-to-end carbon footprint of LNG. A peer-reviewed research paper published in the Energy Science & Engineering journal in October 2024 concluded that LNG is 33% worse in terms of planet-heating emissions over a 20-year period compared with coal as a power source. (21) • It is a distraction to roll LNG into calls for “energy independence”. U.S. energy independence cannot be improved or secured by LNG exports. To the contrary, U.S. energy independence is ultimately put at risk by ad libitum exports. The U.S. has been methane-gas independent since roughly 2016. Gas consumption has been largely flat over recent years as alternatives sources of power generation are increasingly viable and affordable. Conclusion: The Department of Energy should not award any new LNG export permits or renew any LNG export permits. Those permits that it has already granted, if constructed, will result in an increase in LNG export volumes over the next decade. Continuing the “pause” on export permits should be seen as an opportunity to regroup and plan for new clean-tech industries of the future, for use both domestically and to give the U.S. a position of world leadership in renewable energy and put the United States on a pathway to compete with China, Sweden, and other countries preparing for the future. (22) DOE has an Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. This office should receive primacy for funding and staffing at DOE. DOE must acknowledge the science about fossil fuels and global warming. There is near-total scientific consensus that human activity is causing climate change and that fossil fuels are the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for over 75% of global emissions, making them the primary driver of climate change. DOE must not entertain false justification for the continued trajectory of LNG exports. Ethical decision making. There are various bases for making decisions. Vested interests who look to profit from a decision will try to influence what considerations go into a national-interest determination. DOE should not listen to voices of those with a financial interest in continuing LNG exports. Rather, I urge the DOE to consider ethical decision making. (23) 1 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/20/2024-30370/2024-lng-export-study-energy-economic-and-environmental-assessment-of-us-lng-exports 2 https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/LNGUpdate_SummaryReport_Dec2024_230pm.pdf 3 https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100224268 4 https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2024/12/gas-lng-climate-trump/681041/ 5 https://media.defense.gov/2021/Oct/21/2002877353/-1/-1/0/DOD-CLIMATE-RISK-ANALYSIS-FINAL.PDF; 6 https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/10/11/why-climate-change-is-a-national-security-risk/ 7 https://climatecrisis247.com/news/heat-may-shut-some-us-airports/#:~:text=Extreme%20heat%20can%20compromise%20a,have%20fewer%20passengers%20than%20usual 8 https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/calculating-cost-weather-and-climate-disasters 9 https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/26/us/climate-change-migration-border-haiti/index.html 10 https://www.fossilfuelfreefuture.org/news/over-130-legislators-call-to-stop-global-lng-expansion 11 https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/trump-says-eu-will-face-tariffs-unless-it-buys-more-u-s-oil-and-gas-here-s-why-that-matters/ar-AA1wdFAB?ocid=BingNewsSerp 11a https://energycouncil.com/articles/adapting-to-change-us-lng-exports-in-the-face-of-europes-evolving-energy-landscape/ 12 https://paenvironmentdaily.blogspot.com/2024/09/usdoe-china-is-biggest-destination-for.html 13 https://www.merkley.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/NEW24169.pdf 13a https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-07-26/woodside-deal-helps-make-the-case-for-foreign-investment-in-us-lng. 13b https://rbnenergy.com/american-pie-lng-buyers-and-suppliers-acquiring-slices-of-their-us-feedgas-needs 14 https://www.ieca-us.com/wp-content/uploads/01.25.24_LNG-Letter-to-Granholm.pdf 14a https://www.citizen.org/article/keystone-gas-gouge/ 15 https://www.desmog.com/2024/12/23/josh-shapiro-seneca-resources-whistleblower-demands-pennsylvania-gov-fix-completely-unregulated-fracking-wastewater-network/ 15a https://www.nrdc.org/stories/gibbstown-lng-terminal-catastrophe-waiting-happen 16 https://www.alleghenyfront.org/how-pipelines-are-changing-the-dynamics-of-pa-forests/ 17 https://www.pawildscenter.org/the-pa-wilds-region/our-tourism-assets/ 18 https://widenerenvironment.com/environmental-law/art-1-sec-27-resources/ 19 https://www.alleghenyfront.org/sweden-climate-change-hydrogen-energy-transition-manufacturing/ 20 https://ohiorivervalleyinstitute.org/shared-prosperity-clean-energy/ 20a https://ohiorivervalleyinstitute.org/pennsylvanians-overwhelmingly-support-stricter-regulations-on-fracking/ 21 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/04/exported-liquefied-natural-gas-coal-study 22 https://www.snexplores.org/article/green-energy-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-climate 23 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02074820
107. expand/collapse 1/7/2025 9:13:04 AM Racine, Susan General Comment To Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy The updated studies released by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the DOE analysis confirm that expanding liquified natural gas exports is not in the national interest. Climate change is already ravaging the US with severe hurricanes, deadly wildfires, and heatwaves. Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year- equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. This will accelerate the crisis we are already experiencing leading to hundreds of billions of dollars in damages every year. Climate disasters in 2024 cost the US $229 billion and caused 2000 deaths. We can't afford to allow these costs to escalate. The communities where the proposed LNG export projects would be sited are already experiencing incredibly high rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease from current fossil fuel industry infrastructure pollution. We cannot sacrifice the lives of these citizens for the profits of the oil and gas industry. On top of this, these environmentally damaging, climate warming LNG export facilities are expected to raise energy prices for the average American consumer. These pending LNG export permits must be rejected. They are unhealthy, costly both in lives and dollars, and ruinous to the only planet we have.
108. expand/collapse 1/7/2025 11:04:08 AM Magyar, Terry General Comment My name is Terry Magyar and I’ve lived in Ohio my entire life. I spent 30 years in the steel industry. I’m a retired steel worker, with experience in several aspects of steel manufacturing and processing. The oil and gas industry is dependent on many steel products. Some of which are produced in Ohio. There’s oil well casing and tubing, plus steel roofing and siding for buildings at O&G facilities. These are important jobs for Ohio. They pay good wages with excellent benefits. I understand the adverse affects of losing a job. This has a negative impact on the entire family and the community as a whole. Keeping good jobs in the steel industry and the O&G industry builds strong communities. It’s my hope the Dept. of Energy adopts policies that make our country strong. A good energy policy supports national defense, especially if we are energy independent. Good policy supports economic development, jobs and GDP. Hopefully, the department’s’ will also support exports of O&G to Europe, which needs to cut it’s dependence on Russian O&G. America should be in a position to export O&G to the world. The importance of America’s LN&G exports is critical for exporting freedom. The world still needs LN&G to support manufacturing, home heating, and economic growth. Some of our allies, especially Europe, Japan and Isreal need dependable suppliers of LN&G. If America fails to provide LN&G, our allies are prisoners to less dependable countries for their national security, which also depends on LN&G. I’m asking the Dept. of Energy to issue more permits for O&G exploration and for the export of Liquid Natural Gas to the world.
109. expand/collapse 1/7/2025 12:30:56 PM Danielson , Larry General Comment I think we should be exporting our natural gas to other countries as long as it doesn’t negatively effect our economy. I think it benefit our country by providing jobs.
110. 1/7/2025 12:35:09 PM IEEFA Appendix B: Domestic Energy, Economic, and GHG Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports
  1. IEEFA comments on 2024 LNG Export Study by TC.pdf
111. expand/collapse 1/7/2025 1:16:15 PM Frederick, Jesse General Comment Please see attached.
  1. Comments to DOE LNG Export Study.pdf
112. expand/collapse 1/7/2025 2:22:50 PM Moose, Stacie General Comment Hello my name is Stacie Ann Moose. I have lived all my life in Ohio and most of my family before me. Currently, I am full time caretaker for my 87 year old father and his affairs, which include his property in eastern Ohio. This land has been in the family since the late 1800s and is precious to us. Care for the land and environment in general is something that I have great respect and concern for both my land and the lands of the state and country in general. There is an oil and gas lease on our family property as well as our family log cabin and water well from which we drink. This is a source of income for my long since retired father on which he depends. I have complete confidence in the care and safety that the natural gas company offers and their commitment to the clean and efficient production of the product. Our 15+ year relationship with them has been reassuring and productive. Natural gas helps provide for my family and other families like mine. Legislation against natural gas exports, which is a very clean and efficient natural resource, could impact my family's oil and gas lease. Exporting LNG not only benefits the landowners and the businesses of the companies processing the gas, but also the millions of customers that need the stable source of energy and warmth. I urge the Department of Energy to continue giving permits for LNG exports, recognizing their positive impact on families that are financially dependent on natural gas.
113. expand/collapse 1/7/2025 3:55:28 PM Tidd, Bradley General Comment My family has been in the USA sense before it was the USA. Three Tidd men mustered to Lexington Green during the revolutionary war, and Lt William Tidd was the officer in command as the Captain did not make that muster. This is to show that my family has been involved in making the United States of America a nicer place to live from the founding. With regard to the Department of Energy, my grandfather fond Oil on his family farm which was enough to pay for his wife’s cancer treatment without him having to sell the farm to do that. When I owned the family farm I had to pay the taxes on the oil in the ground and the oil extracted etc. When I was working for IBM as a certified IT architect I traveled to install systems, and train other folks, I learned a lot about how the rest of the country and other parts of the world works. My father was the Chief Engineer for Humboldt Pacific Gas and Electric Division which made him responsible for the first commercial nuclear power plant in the USA. So I have some knowledge about that phase of the power grid as well. I have also acquired some more Mineral Rights in Colorado where I live and work so I am still very interested in the Department of Energy and everything that you do for everybody. The Department of Energy should have the best interest of the United States as well as the whole world. The ability of the USA to supply Liquefied Natural Gas, LNG, to the rest of the world is important for multiple reasons. 1) Prosperity of the US Economy, over 300,000 jobs are directly supplied by the LNG industry, as well as over 44 billion dollars go into the US GDP (aka economy.) 2)_ Helping our allies all over the world. If we can supply them dependable LNG then they can have a good clean (non sulfur) power source which is easy to manage. 3) IF we supply the LNG then people will not have to rely on Russia, and other hostile sources for their LNG supplies. 4) Energy independence for the USA so we do not have to rely upon those same hostile sources for our own energy. 5) Solar and Wind are NOT 100% dependable, you should have Natural Gas generators to supply the near instant power source to fill in those gaps. Nuclear is clean, but is not a fast spin up power source. The DOE pause of LNG policy should have shown you that lowering the output from the USA has had adverse effects on other countries, as well as on our own country. The US of A produces all of our mineral energy supplies cleaner than anybody else in the world. We are constantly improving how clean and efficient, as well as safely, we can produce energy. Especially LNG. Once in the LNG form when it is burned there is very little pollution and a very easy on/off source of power which even emerging economy third world countries can put to good use. As an American Citizen, as an Engineer, as a business owner, as a voter, and as a person who cares that the world is a better place, I plead with you to not stop the LNG industry in the USA. Please allow the USA LNG industry to supply the world with much needed energy. Cheap energy can solve a lot of problems everywhere.
114. 1/7/2025 4:05:42 PM Tohill, Merrily General Comment
  1. IMG.pdf
115. expand/collapse 1/7/2025 5:14:40 PM Bell, Nelson General Comment Hello, my name is Nelson Bell and my family has been involved with the oil and gas industry since 1920, My grandfather started in Texas and returned to Ohio and continued here, my father was also involved and I have been a mechanic for over 25, and I just retired from Ariel, Corp. We need to be an oil and gas independent country, we also need to continue to export LNG / CNG to maintain and or boost our economy, we as a country have lost to many jobs via pipeline shutdowns and various other oil and gas related jobs we can't afford to lose anymore. I have read studies and after the seismic testing that was done there is more oil and gas east of the Mississippi river than in all of Saudi Arabia. As I said in the beginning, I just retired from Ariel Corp and this could or can possibly affect over 1500 jobs in central Ohio alone. This would have a significant effect not only for the employees but also the city of Mt Vernon would be devastated. This is why we need to maintain and/or increase the exporting of LNG/CNG . This is why I am asking the department of energy to increase/expand our exporting of this product to better our economy and create more jobs.
116. expand/collapse 1/7/2025 5:17:40 PM Dagenfield, Gregg General Comment I am Gregg Dagenfield and a retired mechanic of 51 years. I've lived in Ohio my whole life. I have friends in south east Ohio with oil and gas wells. If it wasn't for their wells they couldn't afford to heat their homes. If we continue to increase the price of most natural gas, it will not be affordable to heat with. As a country we are here to support energy independence, and hopefully we can all agree on this. Increased exports will solidify jobs here in Ohio. Ohioans will be more secure in their personal financial standing and being comfortable spending. This is another reason for increasing L and G exports. I respectfully request the board to increase L and G exports to help stabilize the economy.
117. expand/collapse 1/7/2025 5:38:54 PM Hembree, William General Comment My name is William Hembree. I’m a retired software engineer who lives in Lyons, CO. I’m also a veteran who served in the USAF in Korea. My late father was a petroleum engineer so I grew up around the oil patch. However, my only employment in that industry was two summer jobs for service companies. Your (very lengthy report) makes it clear that you share my concern for a clean environment. I have observed that the petroleum industry today is operating in a far cleaner fashion than back in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The United States has enormous reserves of natural gas and our produces substantially less pollution (of all types, including CO2 and other greenhouse gasses) than any other major producing country. In terms of global pollution, it is better for the US to fill international needs than for other countries to do so. Increasing the United States’ share of the international LNG market also brings a host of benefits in our international relations. These include increased influence with the BRICS coalition and decreasing Russia’s influence generally (I view Russia as a geopolitical adversary). Most importantly, if the US provides a dominant share of China’s natural gas, that would be a strong deterrent against a potential invasion of Taiwan by the PRC. Finally, I must take issue with your report’s Executive Summary conclusion that allowing major increases in LNG exports would have a significant impact on domestic residential natural gas prices (4% in the Model Resolved scenario compared to the Existing/FID Exports scenario). First, 4% is a rounding error when projecting out 26 years. Second, “unknown unknowns” will almost certainly have substantial antically higher impacts on domestic natural gas prices. Third and most importantly, Americans petroleum producers have demonstrated a remarkable ability to increase production rapidly - if sufficient distribution systems (pipelines and LNG terminals) are in place. For the above reasons, I urge that you not go forward with the proposed regulation.
118. expand/collapse 1/7/2025 6:56:18 PM Lopez, Freddie General Comment My name is Freddie Lopez. I was raised in Santa Fe, New Mexico & I am a proud graduate of Santa Fe Community College. I'm very passionate about the oil and gas industry because the state of New Mexico is heavily reliant on oil and gas. I understand the argument when it comes to protecting and preserving the environment, But it should never come at the cost of the economy. We need to expand liquid natural gas drilling and lift the pause on exportations. Not reduce it. We should work alongside our Indian Pueblos & Reservations to preserve and protect our environment instead of having a one size fits all solution. Our energy industry provides so many opportunities and adding more stipulations does more harm than good. I ask that you reconsider and lift the pause on the liquid natural gas exports. Thank you.
119. expand/collapse 1/7/2025 9:35:56 PM Shetler, John General Comment I am a truck driver of 13 yrs, personally witnessing the affects of the price of fuel across the country and seeing the troubles of communities from the increases in the cost. I've seen the results of pay being diminished from the lack of available bonuses/incentives that have been directly influenced. I want to thank you for taking the responsibility of being an impact on the future of our country of communities and thriving businesses. Without your input to ensure affordable energy, we will continue to see the the fall of the power from citizens to contribute to the building up the United States for the betterment of all of its residents. I will gladly support your decision to help make the U.S. in the near future to be more energy independent in order to have a strong foundation for a strong prospective.
120. expand/collapse 1/8/2025 10:14:31 AM Allison, Maria General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
121. expand/collapse 1/8/2025 1:40:20 PM Trobough, Caroline General Comment Hello, my name is Caroline Trobough and I have been a resident of Ohio for 16 years. I have been married to my husband, Chris, for 19 years and shortly after we were married, he joined the military. We have three beautiful children and decided to make Ohio our permanent home after my husband medically retired from the Air Force. I own a small business and am deeply connected to our local community volunteering as Board Chair for the YMCA, along with other volunteer committees in the community. We live in a middle-class area where we support local small businesses and want to keep the American dream alive by ensuring there are jobs, fair wages, and economically affordable living. We have been homeowners in our community for 13 years and have always been diligent about budgeting our finances and paying attention to the bills that come our way. The absence of natural gas and its companies would greatly affect our area and community because it is a widely used resource for residential purposes. Not only is it affordable but it's cleaner than coal or petroleum, and is a much safer option. As a homeowner, it is crucial to consider how energy choices, like LNG, can impact our budget and the environment. LNG offers a cleaner, more efficient alternative to most traditional energy sources, providing homeowners with reliable energy and at a lower cost. Who wouldn't want that? Investing in a sustainable energy source could secure our future for a smarter and greener way to power our homes! I urge the commission to continue granting export permits for LNG, recognizing their positive impact on lower costs for homeowners.
122. expand/collapse 1/8/2025 2:38:46 PM Oxford Institute for Energy Studies Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports Attached paper assesses the scenarios used in Appendix A
  1. DOE-Report-on-US-LNG-Exports.pdf
123. expand/collapse 1/8/2025 3:36:00 PM Smith, John General Comment My name is John Smith. I am a petroleum engineer. My family and livelihood have been dependent on oil and gas production. I have been a volunteer fire fighter, boy scout leader, church youth group leader, and am a member of environmental organizations such as Wildlands Restoration and Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado. I am passionate about preserving the environment, but any proposal to not expand further export of natural gas is not only not the way to do this but is actually a negative for the environment. It is a moral, ecological and economic imperative that we expand our ability to export natural gas. From a moral standpoint every molecule we produce displaces a molecule produced by countries run by oligarchs or dictators who use the money derived from that production to oppress their own people and others. By expanding our export capacity, we knock out the monetary support that allows this oppression From an ecological point of view every molecule of gas we produce displaces a molecule of gas produced in countries where environmental regulations, if they even really exist, are at best lax and unenforced. So, by increasing our export capacity we replace “dirty” gas with relatively “clean” gas From an economic point of view increasing export of natural gas is a national windfall. Not only will a tremendous number of jobs be created in the production of natural gas, but also significant reductions to our trade imbalance will be achieved. This is major to the US economy.
124. expand/collapse 1/8/2025 3:44:09 PM QUINTERO MORRISON, SHERRY General Comment Hello, My name is Sherry Quintero Morrison, am a citizen of New Mexico. I grew up in Colorado, and my husband and I were transferred to Alaska in the 80” s. We lived there for 15 years. My husband was an underwriter for the company that insured the Alaska Pipeline. We understand the need for oil, gas and LNG for the economy, quality of life, and preservation of the climate. I am very concerned by the Secretary of Energy’s pause in exporting NLG only to countries we have a free trade agreement with. This is causing many of the poorer non free trade countries such as India to search for alternative options, many with countries not allies of the US. In many cases coal production is being used. If we are trying to improve the climate, why are we helping to destroy the climate.
125. expand/collapse 1/8/2025 6:40:26 PM Perez, Paul General Comment Hello, my name is Paul Perez, and I am a proud citizen of New Mexico. I was born in southern New Mexico and returned after 20 years of active-duty military service. Growing up around nuclear power and the nuclear weapons laboratories, I was always aware of the importance of energy to our state’s infrastructure and economy. Coming from a government and military background, I also recognized the tremendous need for gas and oil. As someone from southern New Mexico, I fully understand the vital role that our state’s natural resources, particularly gas and oil, play in driving economic growth. These resources are the cornerstone of New Mexico's economy and bring in significant revenue for the state. Since retiring from the military, my focus has been on education and driving impactful training and workforce development in New Mexico. The job training programs I’ve worked on are often in technology and hard trades like welding and electrical work, which offer employment opportunities in the gas and oil sectors for our citizens. I am writing to ask that the pause on liquid natural gas exportation be lifted. This issue is critical not only for our state’s economy but also for the future of our children and the generations to come. The prosperity of New Mexico depends on the continued development of our natural resources. Thank you for the opportunity to share my voice on this important matter. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration. Sincerely, Paul Perez
126. expand/collapse 1/8/2025 7:02:07 PM Anderson, Marty General Comment Hello, I am a resident of Colorado, and have been in the energy industry for over 40 years. I have worked in the electrical energy generation industry, and have worked with facilities that run on natural gas, coal, biomass, solar and waste to energy. Of all the fuels I have experience with, natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel. I have many friends and family members that have, or are still working in this industry. I also have friends that have businesses that are successful supporting the energy industry. Where I live, if the energy business is booming, the whole area businesses are growing. In the area that I live in, natural gas production and exploration is expanding. Also, across the country, natural gas is very plentiful. This gives the industry some reliability as far as growing, and providing job security for many of US citizens. This also gives us energy security, and provides a market to foreign countries. This market, if curtailed, would go to other countries like Russia, China and the Middle East countries. The US economy would benefit in many ways if we could produce LNG and export to Non FTA countries. This would also help countries their reduce dependency on coal to generate electricity. I ask the Department of Energy to not restrict the sale of LNG. This product would keep people employed and support many small businesses that provide services to the energy industry. I ask that you decline any proposals that would curtail this market. [Contact Information Deleted]
127. expand/collapse 1/8/2025 7:44:16 PM childers, Patrick General Comment I would like to say I am a ***** ***** married to a walrus. [Foul language removed]
128. expand/collapse 1/8/2025 11:33:20 PM Abott, Nott General Comment This comment is from an actual person, not a bot or form letter like most of these other comments. Without LNG, other (dirtier) forms of energy will be used until we have more nuclear capacity available. Energy prices will rise. Electrical energy requirements for AI are surging. These companies use the cheapest and most available means to generate electrical energy. I'd rather they use nat gas than coal please. With the stock market essentially riding on the future valuation of AI right now, messing with their ability to generate energy is an ingredient for recession. There are self-evident benefits of helping out our foreign allies who are suffering economically. It seems a mighty privilege to deny energy exports to folks that could use it for basic human necessities such as heating (UK).
129. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 11:04:21 AM Romasco, Mark General Comment Mark Romasco I am a resident in ***** County, and I work in the IT Industry. I live close to the ***** Fracking plant, and I think we need this for the energy resources and Economy benefits in Pa and Beave County. We need to continue to look for other sources of energy, but we need to continue to use Fascial fuel until we can make those viable solutions. The USA is not the primary or sole cause of emission issues on Plant Earth. I support your efforts in developing and promoting the use of Natural Gas within the US. Outlawing this is not within the best interest of America and cannot be dictated by a single Political. We need to Plan and look for new sources. Eliminating Nature Gas is not the answer at this time. As a consumer you cannot put us in a position to have planned electric outages as they have on the West Coast. That is 100% unacceptable. In doing so you would be dictating restriction/limitation on me to provide an environment for my family. We need to continue to search for energy sources. Shutting down any source at this time is not possible. The USA is not the Major generator or emission issues. Other country produces far more emission pollutions that the USA. We need to continue to investigate new resources, but you cannot eliminate our solution and leave us without affordable energy. The government needs to lift the policies to restrict energy sources. We need to work towards expanding our energy resources. I have Solar panels on my house and generate enough electric to power my home except for my heat which is oil base now. The cost of electric is out of control and being limited by shutting down power plants ***** County Duquesne Light. Please resume and grant permits to continue the generation of energy in ***** County. You must come up with viable alternatives not just pulling back from current energy alternatives.
130. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 11:05:15 AM mcphail, cassie General Comment Dear Office of Fossil Energy & Carbon Management, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) can play an important role in diversifying and expanding natural gas supplies and should be a part of a comprehensive, market-based energy policy that also encourages the development of domestic natural gas resources. Sincerely, Miss cassie mcphail
131. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 11:12:46 AM Ahrens, Judith General Comment My name is Judy Ahrens . I live in Wayne Pa . As a farmer it is important to have the use of fossil fuels for our farming needs. The mineral that our farm has have been taken from us by the DRBC. This has been done by a band on Drilling in Wayne County PA. We believe that your agency is looking to benefit the people. I must say that a diverse range of energy is needed. The cost of Natural gas should be of the upmost importance to you. Consumers benefit by the lower prices of natural gas by lowering the cost of products. Our community benefited when prices were lower. We want to see more natural gas production in NE PA . The environment has prospered by the use of liquified Natural Gas . Other countries can’t compare to the lower emissions of Our natural gas production. Solar and wind energy have their problems especially with the disposal of their by products. This would be our opportunity to supply Liquified Natural Gas to so many other counties and drive down the price of products. I support opening up more permits for production of more natural Gas Production in the country . We must be energy independent for a prosperous country . This in my opinion is the only way to reduce prices and once again be back as an energy productive nation. I urge the department of energy to increase permits so we can supply energy to other countries in Europe like Germany. It would also be a great boost the economics of our country. Sincerely , Judith Ahrens
132. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 11:26:07 AM Winks, Linda General Comment My name is Linda Winks and I use to be a small business owner. I understand the cost of energy has cost my expenses to go up. I am concerned about the cost because it was one of the many reasons I had to close my business. Because of the increasing the cost of fuel it caused me to have to work through many difficult times. I feel if the cost were to stay low more businesses can explore more avenues to take advantage of and make it easier for them no maintain control over their expenses. This helps the United States to become better in responding to help its people. As a business owner I feel that many small business can improve their bottom line, and continue to thrive. This is good for the United State to make prices better for the world. Small businesses are the life blood of the nation. Allowing liquid natural gas would lower small business expenses and US to thrive. Because of all the reasons expressed I feel The Department of Energy should allow the permits to sell Liquid Natural Gas. This would be great for small business around the world.
133. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 11:33:37 AM Radziszewski, Irena General Comment My name is Irena Radziszewski and I am currently living in southern Ohio with my partner and his grandson. I am a retired financial service provider. I retired from Wells Fargo in Oregon. While in Oregon I was forced to rely on public transportation due to the higher gas prices on the west coast. As a woman under five feet tall my trip to work was frightening. due to navigating homeless and drug users. I understand the Department of Energy has a major role in impacting the position of the United States as an energy leader. The DOE’s role is crucial to energy independence and national security. I believe that allowing LNG exports from the US will put us in a positive position with other countries as well as ensuring and cementing the position of the United States as a world leader. Based on my experiences I would request that permits for LNG exports be resumed to maintain American jobs, energy independence and to maintain national security. I appreciate your consideration.
134. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 11:35:14 AM Neuenschwander, Jim General Comment Hi my name is Jim Neuenschwander and I live in Granville Heights, OH. I’m concern to export LNG for revenue and send our LNG to Europe since Germany has started up their coal fired plants. I started working in the oil business in 1963 for the Standard Oil Company of OH(Sohio)in Lima OH as an intern and became a full-time employee in 1964. I have worked in upstream (Exploration/Production), Midstream (Transportation with pipelines and tankers and railroads and trucks), downstream (refining and chemical plants). After about 28.5 yrs of continuous service with SOHIO/BP I went to work for Saudi Aramco in 1992 on the Ras Tanara Refinery Upgrade Project. I moved to Ras Tanura Saudi Arabia in 1995 and resigned in 1998. I was a member of the Licking County Fracking County Advisory Committee in OH in 2012. I believe in the N2N (natural gas to nukes) discussed in the book, Power Hungry, to provide our long-term energy needs. With the natural gas we could produce from our Marcellus formation in OH we could be a major player in the global energy market. This is why we should continue LNG exports. I urge the DOE to resume our LNG exports and make sure the USA is a world leader again.
135. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 12:39:28 PM Stradling, Andra General Comment To Whom It May Concern, My name is Andra Stradling. I have been a resident of Farmington, New Mexico my entire life. Sixty five years. I have eight grandchildren that live in this community. The production and transport of oil and gas is vital to our community. It funds our schools, city and state government. As a school board member I know first hand the impact oil and gas has on New Mexico education. The children of New Mexico are the stake holders. The planned pause on Liquified Natural Gas by secretary of DOE Jennifer Granholm, will be devastating to our economy and communities. This ban jeopardizes our export standing. I do not support this ban.
136. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 12:50:59 PM Chavez, Monica Renee General Comment Hello, My name is Monica Renee Chavez. My family and I have lived in New Mexico our entire lives and understand the importance of liquid natural gas (LNG) for the economy, our quality of life and climate. I am opposed to the Secretary of Energy’s pause on exporting LNG. This jeopardizes our standing of exports around the globe, the 222,000 jobs that are dependent on LNG, and causes other countries not allied with the US to use alternative options that hurt the climate. For these reasons I am asking to stop the pause set by Secretary Granholm.
137. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 1:57:05 PM Carlson, Don General Comment Hello, my name is Don Carlson. I am an 83-year-old veteran who served in the 801st Combat Support Group. This group was part of the Strategic Air Command from 1959 to 1963. I am a retired principal of Ernst & Young Accounting Firm. I am originally from Chicago and moved to Wooster Ohio at age 17, in 1958. After my service, I attended Ohio State and then Kent State, where I earned my Bachelor of Science in Accounting. Since moving to Ohio, I have established my career, raised my family, become a devout member of my church community, over the years I have served on over 25 Tax Exempt Organizations that have helped people, I have been a scoutmaster for 20+ years and have helped 24 boys achieve the rank of Eagle Scout. I am very passionate about the livelihood of the members of my community, ensuring they are able to afford living expenses on a fixed income. Right now, our national debt, and the interest on it each year, equals our gross domestic product. The United States has plenty of natural gas and Oil available. By selling LNG, we can reduce our national debt. We will also be able to reduce funding to countries that are not our allies and help with world peace. There are many elderly members in my church. These members are on a fixed income. They have watched their living expenses increase to such an extent that they are barely making ends meet. We have to reduce these prices by increasing natural gas production. This will allow us to support our elderly members who are on a fixed income. We will also be able to reduce the resources going to countries that implement values which do not align with the freedoms the United States stands for. I urge the commission to continue granting export permits for LNG exports, recognizing their positive impact on reducing our national debt, lowering costs for all Americans, and creating a more prosperous America.
138. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 2:12:10 PM Osofsky, Shoshana General Comment Fires are raging out of control in the Los Angeles, public safety agencies say there is no way to prepare for so many simultaneous fires. Fire hydrants were pumped dry. Each time there is another climate catastrophe I hope maybe this will be the one that wakes people up to reality we cannot keep pumping CO2 back into the atmosphere without causing devastation. So far that hasn't happened and the US is still considering exporting LNG. How is that possible? No LNG terminal permits - please!
139. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 2:31:13 PM Tasco, John General Comment My name is John Tasco. I'm a life time resident of Northeastern Pa. I served for four years in the Marine Corps. Including a year and a half in Vietnam. I'm currently a retired disabled veteran. And retired. I spent most of my working career in sales and sales management traveling throughout most of Pa. Also I worked in corporate security. Many of the business contacts and friends were very dependent upon the natural gas industry. However, due to recent shutdowns in the industry many of them have lost businesses, homes and employment. One in particular is our son who has a trucking company and is currently struggling due to his loss of business from the gas industry.. I currently appreciate the work that this organization is doing to help the energy industry. As a veteran, I'm truly concerned about the security of our country. The current impact on the gas industry, I believe, will greatly impact our ability to provide aid to our allies, and make us weak, since we would then have to depend on foreign entities to provide our much needed resources for the security of our country. I believe that lifting the ban would make our country much less dependent upon the importing of energy from foreign countries. Also, it would open a tremendous number of employment opportunities for our country and the friends and family members that work in the industry. As someone who is currently seeing the economic loss, the very grave loss of national security as result of the ban. I urge that the DOE lift the ban, which will provide national security, and economic growth in our country.
140. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 2:54:30 PM Cox, Matt General Comment As a long time citizen of New Mexico which relies heavily on the oil and gas industries for our tax base I would like to voice my opposition to the planed pause on liquified natural gas by Secretary Granholm. This would be very detrimental to our economy. Jobs, education, as well as public safety. Non free trade agreement countries need LNG and we are losing out on their business and causing them harm.
141. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 4:44:01 PM Sobol, Ruth General Comment I am a 4th generation Colorado native. Originally, we moved to Colorado due to our asthma. We appreciate Colorado’s clean air and water. Currently, I am a part-time college instructor for the University of Colorado and nanny for my grandson. In the last four years, I have had a difficult time making ends meet. I shop at Walmart and buy mostly used clothes—but I am spending about 50% more on gas, food, electricity, and every other product I buy. This is the first time in my life that I fear not having enough money to survive. My husband and I created a small greeting card business. We had a thriving business for over 30 years and at one point we had a large warehouse with over 100 sales reps. Had the Department of Energy created harsh regulations and shut down our business, we would not have been able to survive. Our employees who lived from paycheck to paycheck would have panicked and would run to get other jobs. After 6 months, they would be employed elsewhere and would not come back to work for us. The trust would have been broken. Our customers would have found other companies to work with because we were unavailable. And our investors would find friendlier companies with less punitive rules to do business with. If we are to stop exports to other nations, Colorado housing will become even more unaffordable. My children will move to other states, and I won’t get to see my grandbabies grow up. I urge The Department of Energy to think about the consequences of this continued pause. This pause hurts small business owners; hurts hardworking Americans; hurts retirees; hurts our way of life. Energy is needed to run our hospitals, schools, and meals on wheels. For the sake of all of us who have live in America, I beg you to reconsider. We can avoid making our enemies rich and help keep our air and water clean.
142. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 4:50:45 PM Funkhouser, Vivian General Comment This is Vivian Funkhouser, and I have been a homeowner in Western Pennsylvania for over 20 years. I have traveled the world as a healthcare executive and chose to settle here in this rural region to raise my children. Though retired, I am a small business owner serving the real estate industry. We rely on workers in other industries to grow Pennsylvania's economy. No matter the size of the business, we know there are always competing priorities. And the DOE certainly has a lot to juggle in keeping up with those competing voices! We appreciate all you do to support businesses large and small in rural and urban areas. I'm sure you can understand the risks related to delaying the LNG export permits for upstream and downstream opportunities among businesses here in Pennsylvania -- knowing we are the nation's second largest producer of LNG. My own business relies on PA continuing to grow, and the permits you are evaluating affect me personally and the economy of PA collectively. I encourage you to be decisive in this evaluation and move forward to open the door to this opportunity in order to support economic growth, job growth and overall business growth both here in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. In other words, I would urge the DOE to lift the pause on LNG export permits sooner rather than later -- ASAP -- for the benefit of businesses, families, and economy. Thank you.
143. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 5:00:22 PM Christenberry, Mark General Comment My name is Mark and I have been in the transportation business from the early 80’s . Now I am on the Newark City School Board in Licking county Ohio. I have worked in the school system as a Board member or public advocate starting around 2000. We have income tax and property tax as a base for education for our children in our community. As a leader in my community I’m sure you understand how important it is to keep good local jobs. More production will help our tax base and keeps good education in the schools. More Infrastructure and production of LNG helps everyone along production chain. I feel we need to embrace our national resources. I believe it helps the environment as well as the pocket book. I urge the Board to help our community by issuing more permits to continue the growth and longevity of Liquid Natural Gas.
144. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 5:01:19 PM Moore, James General Comment Hello, I am Jim Moore. I have been a resident in Pennsylvania for 58 years, my entire life. I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Pittsburgh and have worked in the Specialty Metals industry as an engineer for 28 years. I started my career as a front line supervisor working with members of the USW and have progressed to be the superintendent of the facility. Western Pennsylvania has had a steady decline of industrial based jobs since the early 1980's which has impacted the residents traumatically. The loss of the industrial base has led to the loss of good paying, non-skilled jobs, resulting in a decline of the local population and hurting small businesses in the area. Therefore, I thoroughly support the generation of higher paying jobs in the area that would promote the economic wellbeing of our community. I appreciate the work that the Department of Energy has done to provide a steady stream of jobs in the energy industry that have helped improve the economy of the local community. We can agree that an improvement of quality and number of high paying jobs in the region is in everyone's interest and therefore the LNG Export permit pause should not move forward. The local energy sector jobs are needed for the stability and growth of this community and region. I urge the DOE to resume the approval of LNG permits.
145. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 6:35:54 PM Nelson, Chris General Comment My name is chris nelson I worked as an electrician for 25 years. I know the energy is the most vital component of our way of life and productivity. The United States has a great deal of liquefied natural gas. This is a great way to revive our country's economy this is a great way to balance our trade deficit! I think it is a vital importance that we continue to harvest natural gas and sell it on the open market. We have plenty of this and the world needs it the alternate. The alternative is other countries would will go to two countries like Russia and China, and we will lose that market! We also it also provides a great deal of employment for American workers! It's good for the American economy! Energy is the most vital component of our way of life and our culture! I urge the department of energy to let the American producers of natural gas sell them on the open market is a commodity that does our economy a great deal of good. It is an American product that solves a lot of problems around the world.
146. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 6:53:05 PM Sledd, Kimberle General Comment My name is Kimberle Sledd, a small business owner. I am also a wife, mother, grandmother and concerned citizen. I have worked as a drafter for oil and gas companies. As well as depended on natural gas wells to supplement farm income. I am concerned the freeze on exporting LNG will impact so many areas; higher prices, job losses, a bigger depletion of the petroleum reserves, national security and it puts the US behind our adversaries in the world market and our ability to support nations that are trying to switch from coal to a cleaner fuel to power their countries. I appreciate the work that you have done in the past and your protection of the people of the United States and the wisdom you have applied regarding energy management. As I stated before, I am concerned the freeze on exporting LNG will impact so many areas; higher prices, job losses, a bigger depletion of the petroleum reserves, national security and it puts the US behind our adversaries in the world market and our ability to support nations that are trying to switch from coal to a cleaner fuel to power their countries. Please don’t let this become a poor decision that puts the US in a poor position in all the listed areas and others. I urge the Department of Energy to resume the exportation of LNG to continue to support the citizens of the United States by protecting jobs, prices, energy independence, and national security. Thank you for taking the time to read my comment.
147. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 7:02:06 PM Tarr, Len General Comment Hello, my name is Len Tarr, I live in New Mexico and have served in both the United State's Marine and Navy for several years. Today I want to be an asset and not a liability to this issue and I support Americans making a living. I have a deep love for this country and the people who live in it, by expanding LNG we can strengthen this country that I love, along with people within it. So please take into consideration the benefits of expanding LNG will have for the American people.
148. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 7:31:31 PM Jewish Earth Alliance Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports Thank you for taking my comment. Please do not issue any permits for the export of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG). Good friends of ours just had their house, that they just bought, burn down in the LA fires--in JANUARY!!!! Per NOAA, accounting for CO2 and methane atmospheric concentrations today, "greenhouse gases contribute to a total concentration of approximately 534 ppm CO₂ equivalents in 2023, indicating a 51% increase in warming influence since 1990." We are nearing climate chaos. Please do all you can to prevent this.
149. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 7:44:57 PM Heger, Thomas General Comment I am Tom Heger a retired engineering manager with Hewlett Packard for over 30 years. As a manager I led many product and process development efforts with their multimillion dollar investments. A key belief of mine is successful projects require a clear stable definition, documented goals, multiple checkpoints to monitor progress and issues and a clear expectation presented to higher management of the expected return on investment. This generates continued support from higher management to provide the funding and the production resources to make this effort successful. Today I am writing you to comment on the need to have stable expectation on the return to insure that management will support future projects. I am aware that you are considering limiting the market for Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) exports to just trading partners with a free trade agreement and not allowing exports to other countries. If that change takes place we will have forced those countries to either stay with coal which we know is more environmentally damaging than natural gas or potentially purchasing their required natural gas from countries like Russia and Iran who are clearly adversaries of the United States. It is hard to understand why we would support such a plan for a couple reasons. First, it will negatively impact the returns of American companies who have made large investment in producing, liquefying and shipping LNG to those potential customers. This will negatively impact future investments by those companies to expand operations and with new projects continually improve the environmental impact of their operations. Second, we produce gas in the US as efficiently and an environmentally friendly better than other countries in the world. Do we really want to have other countries supply this LNG or worse yet supply coal to these countries? Third, as I mentioned if other countries supply this LNG , we will lose some very good paying jobs here in the United States and be sending that business elsewhere and maybe to the countries that are adversaries, have weak environmental regulations and use their profits against our national goals, Thank you for taking the time to consider these concerns
150. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 8:14:23 PM Negvesky, Richard General Comment II am a 27-year resident of Colorado and a small business owner. I’m now retired and living on fixed income. I have always supported the oil and gas industry in Colorado and the US and am VERY appreciative of the value they contribute to the Colorado & US economies, its tax base, and my own pocket through reduced living expenses. I am not happy with the way things have been heading the past four years. Inflation has been at a 40+ year high (8%). Oil/Gas prices have reached levels not seen in nearly half a century. The US had become a net energy importer, once again, after the previous administration had flipped that script for the first time in over 4 decades. In just 4 short years under Biden, all that changed. The energy sector industry and its workers have been unfairly demonized & ostracized for providing a great service to this country and its citizens. This is usually done under the aegis of clean energy and “climate” change policies (whether acknowledged or not). I appreciate the all the work done by the team in crafting what they propose to be a new policy restricting LNG shipments to non Fair-Trade partners. However, it has been my experience in working with the climate cabal over 30 years, even within the EPA and the DoE, that the ”analysis” behind such proposed policies are typically never truly “balanced” despite protestations/presentations to the contrary. They are nearly almost always biased in favor of environmental goals and usually engender unintended consequences. The propose policy change will have the following detrimental effects, if implemented: 1. Make non-energy producing countries even more dependent upon dangerous global regimes, pushing them closer into the arms of regimes who are feckless, despotic, sponsors of terrorism, or stated enemies of America. Many of these same regimes are not constrained by the bloated environmental bureaucracy / oversight the US energy industry often strains under. Still, our O&G industry is world leading when it comes to environmental, practices and technology. 2. LNG is one of the cleanest forms of energy there is. We produce it (or can) abundantly here in the US. It was fracking and NG that allowed the US to achieve the defined “objectives” for the US on carbon limits in the egregiously structured and mostly defunct Paris Accord. Exporting our LNG as a product will allow other resource poor countries, especially in the 3rd and 4th developing world, to also been clean while lifting their citizens out of poverty with an energy resilient and reliable infrastructure. 3. Biden’s feckless energy and foreign policy decisions have had the opposite effect on Russia than intended. Trade and energy sanctions (along with their own stupidity) have driven Germany deep into Russia’s arms for its energy needs, driving a wedge into the NATO coalition. Russia has become wealthy and stronger through its energy exports during the war with Ukraine – exactly the opposite intended outcome. 4. Because of such policies, US trade deficits have grown even larger as we foolishly restrain domestic production to meet our own energy needs while trading with Venezuela and the Middle east and other unstable regions in pursuit of “carbon” goals. This is nothing less than abject stupidity. All we have done is shift the production of carbon to other, less-stable, less environmentally concerned countries - to our own financial detriment. “Out-of-sight” apparently equates to “out-of-mind” for these ludicrous policies intended to punish the US, without having any real net carbon impact. 5. Shipping LNG to more nations not only reverses all the detrimental effects cited above, it hires more American workers and helps lift the US economy and spurs economic growth. 6. Exporting more LNG Increases domestic energy production and drives down US energy prices –due to economies of scale. Pure and simple, that lowers inflation for all Americans. Our dollars go further and people can spend more with more disposable income. A growing US economy is good for all the world. For all the reasons cited above, I urge rejection of the recommendation to restrict LNQ shipments to non Fair Trade countries.
151. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 11:34:55 PM Watson, Jeffrey General Comment We've been drilling for 175 years and we've been fracking for more than 75 years. Right now thru constant process improvements we have become very safe, very efficient and very clean. Concerned citizens have put pressures on the industry to get us to this point. There is always room for improvement but we should stay the course with caution and concern. Green energy is not the answer to fossil fuels. The environmental damage and health concerns are the same if not more when pursuing these options. There is not an upgrade but only trade-offs. If only the citizens would read about it instead of carrying a narrative from corporate News. LNG exports provide shovel ready jobs for American's and their families. There is not any reason we shouldn't be providing energy to those in need. It's good for American families and Its good for the world. In closing when we attempt to shut down or slow down oil and gas drilling, it's the poorer people who suffer the most.
152. expand/collapse 1/10/2025 11:05:02 AM Bennett, David General Comment My name is David W. Bennett, a Financial Adviser at a major national investment house. In my 50 years of managing individual investments energy has been an area my clients have used to diversify their portfolios. If the energy sector shrinks this will hurt investors but more importantly increase the cost to the end user and citizens. It is very important that the United States be energy independent, which requires us to be one of the largest producers of natural gas, oil, coal, along with producers of other types of energy such as nuclear power. We should be allowing our corporations to expand exploration, pipelines, processing plants, especially LNG for domestic use and export. This is why supporting permits for Exporting LNG is so crucial to our National Energy Policy. This would allow increasing energy production, jobs, and make us energy independent and support countries around the world instead of them buying energy from our enemies. I am asking the Department of Energy to increase permits for LNG to support the industry, make energy available at low prices, support our allies around the world , and make our world safer and more productive.
153. expand/collapse 1/10/2025 12:02:49 PM Bidwell, MD, MPH, Harvey General Comment Please reject expansion of LNG ports. For the sake of our current climate and our children's climate we must reduce the export of natural gas. We are exporting enough already,
154. expand/collapse 1/10/2025 12:20:15 PM Baca, Jonathan General Comment My name is Jonathan Baca, I have lived in New Mexico my whole life and I have seen the importance of oil and gas in our state. As a business owner my stake in New Mexico is amplified. I am worried about the local economy and cost of living for the residences of New Mexico. Especially the Native residents who rely on LNG to heat their houses. This ban on LNG would only continue to suppress the residences and native New Mexicans, like myself. That it is why I am against the Secretary of Energy’s pause on LNG exports.
155. expand/collapse 1/10/2025 12:53:24 PM Frackfreemahoning, SOBE Concerned Citizens Appendix B: Domestic Energy, Economic, and GHG Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports When slickwater, high pressure horizontal hydrofracturing is employed to use millions of gallons of water (for each fracking), this water is lost from the water cycle permanently. The "produced water" coming from frack wells is so toxic it is injected far below the earth to protect public health. Fracked gas product exported as LNG is an extremely unwise, dangerous and a damaging, wasteful use of drinking water that we should conserve, especially in the face of climate crisis.
156. expand/collapse 1/10/2025 1:52:39 PM Flohr, John General Comment Hi my name is John Flohr I am a nurse that works In the health ,safety and environmental health for some of the larger contractors I in Ohio. I have been doing it for 22 years. I am responsible for the safety of the employee s on the job as well as the safety and well-being of the community I work in. We understand the value of assuring that employees are kept safe in their work experience and work environment We know that by ensuring a safe work environment we keep employees from injury so they don't need to take time off work. The fewer Injuries we have will keep worker comp insurance down, it keeps employees providing for their families and spending quality time with them so by stopping the pause the exporting of energy we will ensure that there will be no loss of jobs in the United States. Please support exporting our energy so we will avoid the loss of these jobs
157. expand/collapse 1/10/2025 3:20:25 PM Sutton, Roger General Comment Hello my name is Roger Sutton and I have lived in PA all my life. I have raised my family of three children and two grandchildren. I am a retired small business owner. I am concerned with the high cost of living for retired people such as my self and also employment opportunities in the state to provide a strong economic base for development and growth. We need your oversight of the energy industry. Your regulation in the past has made the energy production in the USA the safest in the world and that is why we need to be a leader in the field. The approval of LNG export permits is going to protect the current jobs and provide the opportunities for more growth in the USA. This not only protects jobs but also helps to reduce our national debt. With Our oversight we will also do it safer than any country and with a better outcome environmentally. I am asking for the DOE To lift the pause on the issuing of LNG permits, to keep our economy strong and stable. This will keep us as a nation at the forefront of safe LNG exports.
158. expand/collapse 1/10/2025 3:23:39 PM Bolland, Donald General Comment I am Donald Bolland, President & Owner of a family business, Bolland Machine, established in 1962 in ***** County, PA. As a small business owner, our shop provides jobs for local residents which is important to support our local economy. The supply of jobs to our local community is very important to me. I would like to thank the Department of Energy for the reliable energy source needed to create our jobs and security that helps small businesses particularly my workforce. I also appreciate the DOE for implementing standards that empower small business across the USA. Because we agree on supporting small businesses and preserving lucrative jobs, we should agree upon resuming the approval of LNG export permits to prevent a decrease in production that would adversely impact the local economy as well as individual families. I hope my letter will be influential in urging the DOE to remove the export pause on LNG permits which will have a long-term benefit on our country.
159. expand/collapse 1/10/2025 4:58:58 PM Haulenbeek, Rebecca General Comment Hi I am Rebecca Haulenbeek and have lived in California, Alaska, Oklahoma and New Mexico. It has been my experience that natural gas has been more accessible to rural communities than the power grid. It is my observation that many states, including New Mexico, depend on the  economy of the oil and gas industry for the majority of its revenue. It is my concern that the power grid is undependable for the majority of the United States. When one lives in a rural area they make arrangements for their natural gas to be delivered and used as needed. I can appreciate that we, as a nation, want to support our allies. However, this ban limits the availability of countries with lesser resources, the ability to compete for oil and gas resources. I am concerned that by having this pause on the sale of oil and gas resources will handicap the industry and make it more difficult to recover in the long run. It also makes the industry unfavorable to invest in while the ban exists. I would appreciate serious thought being given to the consequences of this decision on the positive influence it would have on the job growth, industry growth and economic growth we would have by NOT extending this pause. Thank you for your consideration.
160. expand/collapse 1/10/2025 6:45:25 PM Levine, Karen General Comment Hello, my name is Karen Levine, and I am a Colorado native. I was born in 1959 and have lived here my entire life, except for a short time in Texas for college. I have been an active REALTOR for over 35 years helping people in my community achieve the American Dream of homeownership, sell their first home to move up to a large home, sell their large family home and move down or buy their first home. Over the years I have seen good real estate markets and not so good markets. The one thing I have also observed over the years is that government intervention can many times be costly to the American homeowner/taxpayer. The area of energy is one of those industry sectors that experiences government involvement on a regular basis. Today I am writing to encourage the Department of Energy to reopen trade of liquified natural gas (LNG) to our trade partners throughout the world. As a small business owner, I have seen how less than thoughtful legislation and regulation can not only negatively affect my business but also affect the cost and availability of affordable housing. The energy industry is no different. There are small business owners that support and depend on the extraction and trade of LNG. Please consider the effects of those you serve, small business owners, taxpayers, and all-American citizens and reopen the export of LNG. Thank you for your consideration.
161. expand/collapse 1/11/2025 3:44:40 PM Campbell, Larry General Comment The US needs to be discouraging the use of natural gas, not facilitating it. The world is facing climate disaster caused by emissions from natural gas production and burning. People living near natural gas production facilities and natural gas burning facilities face immediate harmful air quality effects. JUST SAY NO!!!!!!!!
162. expand/collapse 1/11/2025 3:57:54 PM Wong, Lawrence General Comment I am of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, I generally disapprove of more LNG terminals to be built because LNG is highly unsafe and flammable and greatly contributes to raising greenhouse gas levels and worsening global warming, which is an outcome that we want to avoid. On the other hand, China is projected to be the biggest importer of LNG exports from the US by 2050 and having some economic leverage against China is a good thing to have. So, is there a reasonable compromise whereby the US builds a certain number of LNG terminals to provide a certain number of tons of LNG exports to China but somehow minimizes the projected increase of greenhouse gas levels from production, transport, and burning of the LNG exports? (In other words, make it ideally or close to carbon neutral as much as possible.)
163. expand/collapse 1/11/2025 5:35:30 PM Steinberg, David General Comment ( My Protest in Rhymed Poetry) A Call for Justice: Reject LNG In shadows cast by rising gas, A danger looms that none surpass. LNG exports, a poison trail, For public health, a toxic tale. From fracking fields in Pennsylvania's core, To coastal ports where gas does roar, Pollution spreads, the skies grow dim, And justice fades on every whim. Secretary Granholm gave the alarm, Of communities faced with enduring harm. Environmental justice bears the strain, Of shortened lives and lasting pain. The climate crisis looms so near, Yet greenhouse gases stoke our fear. Instead of clean renewables' rise, Fossil fuels dim our future skies. Economies falter, prices soar, LNG exports promise more. Excess supply, demand will fall, And instability will engulf us all. The public interest must take the lead, Not corporate greed with endless need. Let voices rise in rightful plea, Reject these exports, let us be free. Submit your comments, join the fight, For cleaner air and future bright. Together strong, our cause is just, In DOE’s truth, place all our trust. The Specter of LNG Beneath the pall of twilight’s shroud, Where skies in mournful whispers bowed, A curse is cast, both bleak and vast— The specter of the gas amassed. From shadowed wells where fissures bleed, To fractured earth in wanton greed, A devil’s breath, both foul and dire, Ignites the world in phantom fire. Oh, Pennsylvania, scarred and torn, Thy fields of sorrow deeply worn. What specter haunts thy fracking ground, What griefs untold, what horrors found? The air grows thick, the winds despair, Borne on the backs of poisoned air. A justice cries, but none reply, As lives grow short beneath the sky. And yet, beyond the human toll, The climate weeps—a fractured whole. The icy poles, the rising seas, A world undone by such as these. Hear now the price, both cruel and grim, For fleeting gold and profits dim. Economies shall reel and break, Beneath the weight of what we take. Oh, DOE, a plea we send, To halt this madness, make it end. Let not this scourge of gas prevail, Let truth and justice tip the scale. So rise, ye voices, mournful, loud, And pierce the dark, a righteous cloud. For in your cries, the specter quakes, And justice stirs, though oft it wakes.
164. expand/collapse 1/11/2025 9:28:25 PM Farber, EdD, Susan General Comment Caring for the environment, leaving natural resources for future generations, limiting and reducing degradation of local communities and natural spaces are all valuable to me. Our society seems convinced that having so much without consideration of negative impacts—is appropriate. Raiding liquid natural gas reserves and pumping or using more petroleum than in the recent past — these actions can not continue. Significant reconsideration of our lifestyles and use of resources is necessary; natural destruction (fires, floods, mudslides) force this policy shift; businesses push us in opposite directions. Plastic production must cease; with PFAs in our bodies, food, water, products. Legislation is to protect, not favor one group over another. This may be naïve thinking. If our country is to grow without continual harm to the population and the land/environment, this bill should NOT be signed or passed into law..
165. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 10:25:12 AM van Rossum, Anneke General Comment LNG is ruining the planet and my future! I ask you to stop and never allow again the exportation of LNG. The continuation of this practice will leave no future for myself and generations to come. You are burdening us with a problem we may never be able to fix and will only live to inherit a dying world. LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires.
166. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 11:42:53 AM Kritzwiser, Diana General Comment My name is Diana Kritzwiser I have lived in Ohio all my life basically. I worked as a nurse aide all my life taking care of the elderly in their homes and in Nursing homes and now I’m retired. I had 6 children, one deceased, all struggling with finances so we don’t need the burden of higher energy cost in our nation. The high gas prices would increase by importing gas from other countries. We need to be exporting our gas to other countries and save money in our and their future. We need to be energy independent. With the lower prices of gas and cleaner fuel in our country, for the safety of all concern will increase. Our allies will have access to cleaner and cheaper energy coming from our country. Exporting our natural gas would help other countries with a cleaner environment and air to breathe. It would make us energy independent as well as helping other countries getting more reliable cleaner gas. Allowing liquid natural gas to be exported would lower gas prices for Americans and we will all become more independent. I urge you to take action by allowing more exports of our liquid natural gas so we become more energy independent and our allies can rely on us for their energy needs.
167. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 1:50:51 PM van Rossum, Anneke General Comment No more exportation of LNG!
168. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 1:58:50 PM Hunsicker, Nicholas General Comment LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires.
169. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:03:34 PM McCabe, Joseph General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power.
170. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:03:44 PM Angell, JL General Comment LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The recent report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. I expect you to follow the facts and law and do so ASAP.
171. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:07:46 PM Bevsek, Jean General Comment • LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. • LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. • The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. Thank you.
172. 1/13/2025 2:07:53 PM Ellison, Martha General Comment
173. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:08:07 PM Prostko, Linda General Comment LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires.
174. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:09:42 PM Layne, Allister General Comment LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires.
175. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:13:26 PM Johnson, Susan General Comment LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires.
176. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:13:45 PM Prior, Meghan General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
177. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:16:45 PM Clevenger, Jane General Comment I had to move from Colorado to Delaware to escape the severe pollution from the dirty Oil & Gas frackers who polluted where I use to live. I am 70 years old, and the move was NOT an easy one. It made me have to leave my family behind JUST SO I COULD BREATHE. As a Climate Refugee, I feel very strongly about the continued use and expansion of fossil fuels. You know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. Pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe is truly insane. Doesn't what has happened to California make your decision makers take pause? More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. Please reject this crazy idea!!!
178. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:17:54 PM Ellison, Martha General Comment Climate change is threatening our every existence. Natural disasters are becoming more severe and frequent causing lives and billions of dollars in damage and recovery. The US must make major changes to stop using fossil fuels and increase use of green energy if we want to have a sustainable planet. Take immediate action tomorrow drop the sale, use, and transport of natural gas. Heed the scientifically evidenced in what is feeling climate change and take action to stop our destruction.
179. 1/13/2025 2:18:57 PM Schumacher , Reid General Comment
180. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:19:31 PM Jordan, Jeanne General Comment I am strongly opposed to the DOE approving any new LNG exports. There are many reasons the United States should NOT export any more LNG (liquefied natural gas) overseas or approve new proposals expanding natural gas production. Processing LNG and transporting LNG only bring adverse effects on Americans, especially the communities near the plants and export terminals. The market value of natural gas is declining. There’s no economic benefit to exporting more LNG when the market doesn’t warrant it. Plus, as LNG exports increase, so will costs for Americans! We will have to pay higher prices for natural gas. The same goes for businesses and institutions, higher prices. This was one of the findings in the extensive report conducted by the DOE. The American people are already suffering from higher prices for goods and services. As an older American on a fixed income, I know I can't afford to pay more for gas or electricity. The general public can’t afford to pay more either. The dangers of transporting LNG, especially around communities which are already suffering from other kinds of pollution would be devastating. Whether delivered by trucks on highways or railroad cars, LNG is a disaster just waiting to happen. A simple accident will turn into a catastrophic disaster if a truck turns over or a railcar is derailed. An LNG spill can ignite and explode like a gigantic bomb. This is a very real threat to me. There is an existing proposal for a new LNG terminal along the Delaware River near where I live. All of us in this South Jersey area, including parts of eastern Pennsylvania and all of Delaware would be affected if this LNG proposal is approved. Lastly, the environmental impact of more LNG exports is obviously terrible. Harmful Methane is released during every step of LNG processing. More LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse than it is already. The US has to stop investing in more fossil fuel production. Our continued reliance on fossil fuels is not sustainable and the US must move toward more renewable, sustainable forms of energy, not more LNG exports! As you can easily see, the DOE must reject further expansion of LNG exports. It would be wrong for our economy, public safety, and the environment. A recorded version of my comment, which is not exactly the same, is provided here since there is no public hearing opportunity during this comment period: https://youtu.be/Ax4h-_Y00bs
181. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:21:01 PM Ludden, Janice General Comment I am on the Hainesport Township Environmental Commission, Joint Land Use Board member and a member of the Green Team. My background is in Mathematics and Computer Science. In recent year, due to my deep concern over the future of our planet, I have taken a number of courses through Rutgers University specifically relating to the environment. As I write this, horrific fires have devastated Los Angeles. Although prone to annual fires, these fires were unprecedented due to the change in our climate. In NJ, we have less frequent fires, yet due to the record drought this fall, the woods in my neighborhood burned (Big Rusty fire). Thankfully, we didn't have wind like in LA so no houses burned. All this to say, that I am speaking from something very concerning and personal to me. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave. From gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant - our planet does NOT need this!! DOE, the extensive report recently released explains that approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. You must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations. Thank you for your time and please do the right thing!
182. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:21:09 PM sanders, david General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
183. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:21:58 PM Grumer, Susan General Comment There are many reasons not to export LNG. The most important one right now is that it will make the price of domestic (our) fuel rise. We already pay too much. We cannot be afford to pay more!
184. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:22:07 PM Preston, Lynne General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue.
185. 1/13/2025 2:25:25 PM Biskus, Mimi General Comment
186. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:28:40 PM Mazariegos, David General Comment Our world is on fire, and somehow we continue to approve projects that will only make things worse when much cheaper and cleaner alternatives exist. Please do not approve this project
187. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:29:08 PM Stewart, James General Comment Record heatwaves, rising water levels, extreme weather events, droughts are all symptoms of the climate crisis. Yet fossil fuels and natural gas continue to be extracted and our federal agencies continue to approve infrastructure to prolong their use. The Gibbstown Logistics Center (Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) export facility) is a prime example. Not only is this facility a danger to global warming, it is a danger to the residents of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Delaware River Partners (DRP) plans to transport LNG by rail and/or by truck 150 miles from Wyalusing, Pa. These two means of transport of LNG over this distance has never been done before for. Hundreds of trucks per day and a 100 rail cars per day are proposed. Trucks will use Rt 295 from the PA Turnpike or the Commodore Barry Bridge while rail cars will cross the Delair bridge and precede south through many towns from Camden to Woodbury, West Deptford, Paulsboro and Gibbstown. Yes, many people say we need jobs, just not dangerous jobs that promote the continued use of fossil fuels over renewable energy. The continued extraction of fossil fuels needs to be stopped now. My 3rd Legislative District representatives recently have told me: "The health and safety of New Jersey residents remains the Legislature's top priority." I say the health and safety of all Americans should be a priority. I see that you have no public hearing opportunity for the public so I am including a slightly different verbal comment which can be retrieved here: https://youtu.be/Ax4h-_Y00bs
188. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:31:18 PM Quinn, Marilyn General Comment I recently moved to a new residence not far from where I lived for over 20 years in Gloucester County. I was living only 2 miles or less from a railroad track that was going to be used to transport LNG to an export terminal in Gibbstown, New Jersey, on the Delaware River. This was and is a highly populated section of the country. The track would go right down the main roads of my town and others, directly across the Delaware River from Philadelphia. When I learned what an accident (including a very small leak) could do to this area, I was horrified. How could humankind be willing to make a fortune off a product that is so explosive, so polluting (of the air and water), and so unnecessary? It was declared necessary just so certain investors could become even more wealthy by shipping and selling a dangerous product abroad. So, instead of putting the money into a safe, non-polluting, well-tested, and money-making way of producing energy, oil and gas producers and their investors want to continue what they have already been doing for far too long. So you see, I am totally against continuing, much less increasing, production and exporting LNG, a process that speeds up climate chaos, produces huge amounts of poisonous, polluting chemicals…. Methane, benzene, ethylbenzene, and n-hexane, not to mention carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide (SO2), CO, some of the many chemicals that are released during the production process. Particulate matter (PM) is reported in most weather apps. We live in an area where there is a high amount of PM. So we must reign in the fracking, transport, and use of LNG, as fast as possible, which is unneeded by us and uses up the funds and research for cleaner energy, by enriching companies that are not interested in changing what they do for the sake of the climate, our children’s lives, and the health of our loved ones. In addition, accidents from LNG do and have happened, and the transport of LNG in our neighborhoods, with the docking of ships for LNG, are a truly bad disaster guaranteed to happen. I am providing a recording of my verbal comment here, which is not the same as my written comment, because there was no public hearing for this rule: https://youtu.be/ijcnD7MUzKU
189. 1/13/2025 2:31:40 PM Mahaffey , Kevin General Comment
190. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:31:44 PM Bevsek, Jean General Comment • LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. • LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. • The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. Thank you.
191. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:32:10 PM ozkan, dogan General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
192. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:35:00 PM Reichert, Robyn General Comment Please end ALL LNG Exports!
193. 1/13/2025 2:35:49 PM Still, Brian General Comment
194. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:35:53 PM Snyder, Brad General Comment As a Science Teacher/Outdoor & Environmental Educator, Mechanical Engineer (Emphasis: Energy & Environmental Science), and an extremely concerned citizen, I wholeheartedly urge you to do everything you can to decrease our use of fossil fuels, including stopping the development and exporting of LNG, to reduce pollution, protect the environment, natural world, and human health, and fight climate change!! LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives! For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start!! We can’t allow these transgressions to continue!! NO need for more LNG! - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”! This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home! This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families!! The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply!! Without need for the LNG, there is NO public interest and DOE MUST deny applications for authorizations on this basis!!
195. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:38:11 PM Morales, Fermin General Comment Liquified Natural Gas is not the future if we are to survive as a species. We need to stop with the special interest of a few corporations who are not willing to adapt to the new reality. Whole the rest of the world is moving towards renewables we want to remain in the past as we are watching an episode of the Flintstones. Put a moratorium on LNG projects and stop with the cynicism that temperatures are not rising because of fossil fuels. We are in the midst of a war with Russia because of this dirty fuel and in the process you have ruined Europe's econo economy. How much longer before you have no allies or friends.
196. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:38:53 PM SHEPHERD, DONNA General Comment TRUTH in our environment is obvious! We should be intelligent and caring enough to reverse, not further the toxic mess we've created. Sickness and disasters should be avoided when truly we have all the abilities and resources to make our land, water and air much cleaner. Making all energy usage environmentally friendly. Stop the lies and greed compromising wellness or you'll regret it. WE Have all solution for even better energy production now. Stop hiding it by giving us super toxin. NO, NO, NO to LNG!!! NO!
197. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:39:11 PM Blumberg, Phyllis General Comment The DOE study correctly used overwhelming scientific data to reach the important conclusions that with LNG a business-as-usual approach is “neither sustainable nor advisable.” (Energy Secretary Granholm , 2024). The United States is already the number one producer of greenhouse gases which means that we have the greatest responsibility to limit the damages that fossil fuels can produce. If the fossil fuel industry gets to build out all of these exporting LNG facilities, they will be emitting an extra 3.2 billion tons of greenhouse gases annually. This number is about what the total greenhouse gas admissions of the entire European Union produces. I totally agree with these main points clearly stated in the study: • LNG exports drive up energy costs for American families who still rely on it for cooking and heating. Unconstrained exports of LNG would increase costs for the average American household by well over $100 more per year by 2050. • LNG exports pollute frontline communities already burdened with toxic emissions. Methane causes many health problems, especially asthma and other respiratory problems in children, cancers of all ages and premature deaths. These fenceline communities face health threats every day because they are forced to breathe air polluted with methane and the toxic chemicals emitted alongside it. • LNG exports worsen the climate crisis and lock us and those countries that we export to into decades of fossil fuel dependency. LNG are carbon and methane bombs and have an enormous cost for our health and for the future. Each year is hotter than the one before, with GHG, especially methane, contributing to this global warming. Methane is a greenhouse gas that contributes to 25% of current climate change and it is 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Reducing methane pollution from the fossil fuel industries is the fastest, most cost-effective way to slow the rate of the climate crisis and prevent risking the lives of more people. And methane can be reduced from the atmosphere quicker than carbon dioxide If we scale up the use of renewable resources, we will have more than enough capacity to meet the needs for electricity, heating and cooling and transit for the whole world. Keep natural gas in the earth. I urge an immediate halt to licensing any new LNG facilities especially those that involve exporting LNG abroad. All LNG facilities, including those meant to export LNG are carbon and methane bombs and have an enormous cost for our health and for the future. Each year is hotter than the one before, with GHG, especially methane, contributing to this global warming. The United States is already the number one producer of greenhouse gases which means that we have the greatest responsibility to limit the damages that fossil fuels can produce. If the fossil fuel industry gets to build out all of these exporting LNG facilities they will be emitting an extra 3.2 billion tons of greenhouse gases annually. This number is about what the total greenhouse gas admissions of the entire European Union produces. When we export LNG, we drive up the price for those Americans who still rely on it for cooking and heating. Rejecting this project will fight inflation, which will help get the president re-elected. It’s an environmental justice travesty—as usual, these projects will be close to poor communities of color. Again I urge you to take strong leadership and halt the licensing of all additional LNG processing facilities especially those intended for export.
198. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:46:15 PM Punday , Nicole General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
199. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:46:59 PM Steck, Burton General Comment "Stop LNG by Rail Permits
200. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:47:00 PM Edmondson, Dominique General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires.
201. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:48:57 PM Layne, Allister General Comment The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
202. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:51:44 PM Mace, Pat General Comment People over profits. LNG exports are harmful for the Earth and all living creatures! Fossil fuels are literally making this Earth UNINHABITABLE!! DO THE RIGHT THING!
203. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:52:25 PM Katsouros, Tracey General Comment LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
204. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:53:12 PM Delgado, Fabiola General Comment Please see attached 14,575 signatures from Center for Biological Diversity supporters urging you do the right thing and reject all pending LNG export permits immediately.
  1. CenterforBiologicalDiversity-NoMoreLNGExports-145...
205. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:54:45 PM Habets, Peggi General Comment I am writing to express my opposition to exports of liquified natural gas through the Pittsburgh area. Considering Norfolk Southern Rail’s abysmal track record on safety, running this chemical through a high-density population like Pittsburgh is a recipe for another great environmental disaster like the one in Palestine, Ohio. LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
206. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:55:23 PM Kommidi, Rashmika Appendix D: Addendum on Environmental and Community Effects of U.S. LNG Exports LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
  1. 20241217 - LNG Study statement from Energy Sec'y ...
207. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:56:09 PM Cowen, Anna General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
208. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:59:12 PM Cain, Andrea General Comment Any further development, funding, promotion of these industries is without question criminal and the industries along with the politicians that are responsible for this continued destruction to our lives must be held accountable. The public needs to draw their attention to this global crisis instead of allowing themselves to be manipulated and controlled but all these bad actors, they're criminals without any sense of humanity. The corruption now is worse than ever.
209. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:01:55 PM Welsford, Susan General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
210. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:04:18 PM Ehrlich, Barry General Comment Please stop liquefied natural gas exports. Approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution.
211. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:08:21 PM Richkus, John General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
212. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:12:47 PM Korostoff , Neil General Comment Export of LNG does not serve the best interests of the United States. It will increase the domestic price of natural gas. It also creates dangerous conditions during transport and loading in major population centers in the U.S. And the export and burning of LNG will contribute to climate change and other global disruptions.
213. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:12:48 PM Brown, Teresa General Comment Please halt all LNG projects and invest in renewable energies that do not have this horrible effect on the community and the environment.
214. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:13:25 PM publie, jean General Comment no lng exports at any time. usdoe - stop exporting lng that product belongs to the people of the usa - not to profiteers looking to exploit is. save all for usa citizens. its our land
215. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:16:05 PM Sketo, Steve General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
216. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:18:28 PM Clemson, go General Comment NO MORE HABITUALLY BOUGHT CODDLING of invasive, destructive, outdated, unnecessary, loyal-to-no-country, clean energy blocking, lying, self-serving, take the $ and run PETRO plus its Auto allies!
217. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:25:20 PM Zimny, Susan General Comment It is up to us to leave a healthier planet for future generations. Please stop the madness of continued use of fossil fuels, including LNG.
218. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:26:27 PM Pezzati , Mark General Comment I oppose the transportation of LNG by rail. End this madness immediately.
219. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:28:27 PM Pezzati , Mark General Comment I oppose the export of LNG. STOP THIS MADNESS.
220. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:30:26 PM Wigutoff, Lisa General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
221. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:31:07 PM Wolf, Rachel General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
222. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:31:25 PM Beers, Judy General Comment You must stop Liquified Natural Gas exports. Our environment & our low income people are already suffering serious health consequences. We need to be part of the solution or at the very least, NOT exasperating the problem. Put people over profits for big corporations. Thank you
223. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:31:57 PM Sugarman, Kathy General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
224. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:32:36 PM McShane, Mari General Comment Approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution.
225. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:33:53 PM Dolins, Merelyn General Comment Having worked as a Pediatric Physical Therapist the area of Newark which has experienced underexamined long and short term excessive pollution already in the air and water, I know that the effects that pollution has to children - effects on a mother and her baby prior to the birth and on children growing up in these polluted environments. Not to mention the increased medical issues faced by adults in these communities. Has there been an independent study of these facts which are included in the decision making - especially of those who will be most impacted? This is a “no win “ plan that needs to be discarded and further study which includes outcomes In pollution and it’s effects not only on the climate but on those who would be most vulnerable to the immediate and long term health effects.
226. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:34:02 PM Novkov, Russell General Comment I am writing to you today to please stop LNG Exports!
227. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:34:05 PM Carson, Maureen General Comment Please stop the export of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG). At a time when we are all affected by climate change, the export of LNG would increase greenhouse gas and make climate crisis worse. Environmental Justice communities bear the results of pollution more than other communities and this would add an extra burden of these communities.
228. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:34:16 PM taylor, kay General Comment We need your help to stop liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports! Last year, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) put a pause on its authorizations for LNG exports. They have now released the report updating how they decide whether a proposed LNG export project is in the public interest based on public health impacts, environmental/climate impacts, and economic impacts. The extensive report explains that approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution.
229. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:36:11 PM Heck, Kerry General Comment Hi, As what is evident with the California fires, we do not need another fossil fuel infrastructure. We should be looking into clean energy. Thank you, Kerry
230. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:37:26 PM Stefano, Lori General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
231. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:37:47 PM Carmon, Carol General Comment Please do not authorize for LNG exports. LNG exports: - will layer more pollution on communities - will make the climate crisis worse - drive up the price of gas for domestic users It is toxic, dangerous and needs to stop being used as a fossil fuel.
232. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:37:49 PM Richards, Julia General Comment There is no need for more liquified natural gas. It harms public health and adds fuel to the climate crisis fire. Further, Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in a statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
233. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:39:32 PM Price, Allen Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
234. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:41:01 PM Deshotel, James General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
235. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:42:07 PM Peterson, Ellen Jane General Comment Changing climate has resulted in all the weird climate in the world. We have noted this in the horrible fires in California and other states plus Canada and throughout the world. The increased snow in a variety of states and all the tornadoes throughout the States and drought all over the world.
236. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:42:57 PM Darlington, Beth General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
237. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:44:22 PM Caracci, Joyce General Comment Dear Representatives: Allowing LNG Exports will adversely affect the natural environment. I urge members of Congress and all parties involved to find alternatives to this dangerous transport of highly explosive gas. Solar and wind and Water are the future. Let’s protect all environments. Sincerely, Joyce Caracci
238. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:46:40 PM Conway, John General Comment LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. Scientist's agree that the world needs to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Just look at the extreme weather events taking place across the world today and we are not at 1.5 C yet. We are currently on a path to exceed 2.6 C. This is a path to ecocide. Our government spends beyond a trillion a year for defense and security. Yet the greatest danger to our continued existence is not foreign powers, terrorists or criminals. As our climate continues to degrade, we will have inadequate defense no matter what we spend against floods, extreme storms, ocean acidification, draught, crop failures, fire, extreme hot and cold temperatures. Mass starvation, displacement and death will be our legacy. Disease will spread from viruses and fungi from melting permafrost and the rising oceans will engulf our cities. Global climate goals will become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. If we fail to meet our climate goals than we fail to keep our nation safe. Do not work against our national security by allowing expansion of fracking or terminals for LNG exports. You hold the future of our society in your hands.
239. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:48:05 PM Atkins, Gail General Comment Please protect our lives and our environment by stopping LNG exports.
240. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:50:20 PM Bretschneider, Timothy General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue.
241. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:51:17 PM Ruffman-Weiss, Lisa General Comment The greed and cruelty of the fossil fuel industry must be stopped. Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) production is dangerous, unnecessary, short-sighted and--at this point--insane. Wildfires are decimating Los Angeles. North Carolina is still reeling from flooding. Do we really need more disasters?? Climate change is here, now. Ignoring it is at humanity's peril.
242. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:52:55 PM Privitera, Nora General Comment Please permanently stop all new liquified natural gas exports. These proposed facilities will pollute more in vulnerable communities that are already overburdened by industrial pollution. They are unnecessary, as we already have more than enough of them, and they pollute more even than coal according to the DOE report. They also exacerbate the climate crisis, which is causing environmental destruction around our country and the world.
243. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:53:12 PM Molineaux, Pascal General Comment LNG production, processing, transport abd use has devastating impacts on the climate crisis because of methane production, a potent greenhouse gas. Moreover exporting LNG increases the price of gas in the USA. These exports must be stopped.
244. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:54:09 PM Michaels, Brenda General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
245. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:55:46 PM Mennel-Bell, Mari General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
246. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:57:06 PM Leannah, Geralyn General Comment We need your help to stop liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports! Last year, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) put a pause on its authorizations for LNG exports. They have now released the report updating how they decide whether a proposed LNG export project is in the public interest based on public health impacts, environmental/climate impacts, and economic impacts. The extensive report explains that approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution.
247. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:59:51 PM Peterson, Andy General Comment Exporting LNG benefits the US, the countries that receive the LNG, and the world environment. In the US, there is an oversupply of natural gas and a lack of pipeline and processing capacity to handle it. In some states flaring of natural gas is allowed and in those states if the gas cannot get into the processing system it can be flared. This increases emissions of NOx and SOx unnecessarily. It benefits the US environment and economy if all the natural gas produced can get processed. Adequate LNG processing and exporting capacity is key to this. Shutting down this industry will lead to the loss of many high-paying jobs in design, permitting, construction and operation of these facilities. Countries receiving the LNG are able to meet their energy needs with this fuel which is less carbon intensive than alternative sources such as coal. In Europe, US LNG supplies back out Russian natural gas, which decreases the money earned by the Putin government. The world environment benefits from usage of US LNG since our natural gas is produced cleaner than other countries and is way cleaner than the coal other countries will need to use if US LNG is not available. Further, it is incorrect to assume that if the US ceases to build new LNG liquification plants that the natural gas destined for these plants will not be produced. The overwhelming majority of natural gas produced in the US is associated with crude oil production and as such will continue to be produced regardless of whether more LNG liquification plants are constructed or not. Putting a ban or even a temporary hold on construction of new US LNG liquification and export facilities leads to a slowdown in permitting and constructing the rest of the processing chain, not just in the US: overseas deliquification plants and tanker facilities, construction of LNG tankers, construction of pipelines, all of which take time to restart once the US resumes permitting of our facilities. I ask the Department of Energy to consider the above factors in deciding to resume allowing permitting and construction of new LNG facilities. This will benefit our workers, our country, our overseas partners, and the cause of climate change.
248. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:59:56 PM Drew, Janet General Comment Stop corporate polluters and climate terrorists: LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives.
249. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:01:52 PM Strand, Tara General Comment It hasn't taken living in wildfire-prone California (my home currently sits right between the Pacific Palisades and Eaton fires) for me to have been wringing my hands for over a decade, hoping that we would take massive and unprecedented, yet crucial, common-sense steps towards our energy policy. It's suicidal to do otherwise. LNG is a climate disaster. LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. Let's please drop LNG. Thank you.
250. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:05:34 PM Kroushl, Nicole General Comment It is a bad idea to expand LNG exports. Approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. We should be focusing on the win-win-win sources of energy -- solar, wind, and other clean sources which provide good jobs and don't harm the health of our communities. To expand our LNG exports and increase fossil fuel use is to ransom the future of our children and grandchildren -- and, in the case of young people in their 20s like me who will live to see the continued degradation of the environment, my own future.
251. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:06:42 PM Godwin, Nadine General Comment LNG is disastrous for human health and for our efforts to manage climate change. And to top that off, we don't even need more LNG! I am relying on Secretary Jennifer Granholm here. She said the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today.” Exporting the gas is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefiting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
252. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:12:34 PM Haug, Catherine General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health. It's bad enough now, we don't need it to get worse!
253. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:14:38 PM Doebler, Patricia General Comment I am writing as a retired educator in Southern NJ with family members that reside near proposed LNG terminals and very close to railways and highways for transport. An extensive report from DOE explains that approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my family and community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations. Yours truly, Patricia Doebler
254. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:15:27 PM McKenna, Mary General Comment Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives.
255. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:15:40 PM Eng, Marilyn General Comment Stop the export of Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) because it has serious negative environmental/climate impacts. Thank you.
256. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:16:23 PM Vogel, Steven General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health–LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction that permanently destroys and pollutes aquifers and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster–LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. 2024 was the warmest year in human history, and finally exceeded that 1.5 C goal. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources is being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG--Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors–homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production--benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must please act quickly to implement these findings into the decision-making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
257. 1/13/2025 4:23:03 PM Dolins, Merelyn General Comment
258. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:23:32 PM Luke, Jaedra General Comment I oppose any additional exports of LNG. No need for more - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
259. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:25:06 PM scott, joan General Comment I write to urge that you not approve more LNG exports. This will only undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. There is no need for these exports as was made clear in Secretary Granholm's report.
260. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:26:46 PM Lucas, Alta General Comment Please search your soul and make a decision that puts public health and environment as your top priority. Don’t put either at any possible risk…accidents unfortunately do happen.
261. 1/13/2025 4:27:15 PM Ahern , Eugenia General Comment
262. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:30:03 PM Morgan, Dan General Comment Dear Department of Energy I oppose the proposed project because: LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. Thank you for your consideration.
263. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:34:24 PM Rail, Larry General Comment As humanity, and we Americans are part of humanity, we are primarily responsible for living good lives that do not destroy our selves or this wonderful planet. We have to stop making a living through successes that destroy. We need to quit the expansionary conquering of nature, or else we will bring about catastrophe to our selves and many other naturally occurring life forms on Earth. Do not let anyone make more money through exploiting fossil fuels. Do not export LNG. Thank you.
264. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:35:25 PM Ballenger, Barbara General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
265. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:36:55 PM OMeara, Colleen and Joe General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
266. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:37:16 PM McDougall, Cassandra General Comment My community and I are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations. LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
267. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:38:36 PM Detato , Susan General Comment LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires.
268. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:48:08 PM Stevenson, Nan General Comment Stop fossil fuels now or the whole world will end up like Los Angeles is NOW!!!
269. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:51:19 PM Gatton, Nicholas General Comment I’ve been in central Ohio my entire life. I am 42 years old and the head of a family of 6. My name is Nicholas and the rising cost of natural gas directly affects my family’s budget. The rising costs associated with the limitation or banning of LNG export limits the funds I have available to provide my family with the things I used to be able to. We make ends meet, but there isn’t always much extra. The families in my community and my employees at my business are put in a bind paying for the DOE’s ill conceived, knee-***** reaction. Banning or limiting the export of LNG creates higher prices for my family and community. We believe that the free export would subsidize some of the cost that we are currently absorbing. This drives our economy down and further strains the middle class. This ban is without merit and if continued goes against the spirit of America. Though caution may be warranted, fear and irrationality are not the reason for caution. The free export of our LNG brings more jobs and income into our country. More jobs and the reduction in cost to the American consumer promotes a strong economy. This builds a better America for our children and future generations by securing our position in the global economy. You need to reconsider a permanent lift on the ban of the export of LNG as this drives our economy down as well as reduces our global independence.
270. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:56:08 PM Harris, Shirlene General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
271. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:03:45 PM Reel, Dawn General Comment Climate change is creating a crisis in Los Angeles. Our cities are overwhelmed. Please don’t make life almost impossible by putting a lot more carbon in the atmosphere. I have a one- year old granddaughter who is my main goal now—she can’t be living in carbon-fueled world that’s half underwater. No LNG facilities. Expand green and nuclear.
272. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:05:45 PM Luongo, Stephen General Comment My name is Stephen Luongo. I am a native of Michigan and am retired from the auto industry. Achieving environmental justice for all Americans and combating climate change on behalf of all living creatures on Earth are profoundly important to me. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently released a long-awaited report updating the criteria for deciding whether a proposed LNG export project is in the public interest based on public health impacts, environmental/climate impacts, and economic impacts. The extensive report explains that approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals by increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report's release. She pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities, who would be saddled with additional LNG pollution which, at present levels, is already harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production/transportation cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation, where the wounds of the fracking industry run very, very deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by spewing more greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to accelerate development of truly clean renewables, but this development will actually be slowed by any LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including the manufacturing and electric utility sectors, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The resulting worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. DOE, you must act quickly to reflect these findings into the decision-making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations. Thank you.
273. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:07:37 PM Moss, Paul General Comment Please consider the following comments: LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
274. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:08:50 PM Tymkiw, Liz General Comment --LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. --LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. --No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
275. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:09:17 PM Wagner, Shelly General Comment To the Department of Energy: My name is Shelly Wagner, and I am a wife, mother, and a contributing member of society in various capacities over the years. First of all, I want to thank you for your time in reading my comments. Our son works as an engineer in the oil and gas industry, enabling the industry to responsibly and safely extract oil and gas and to safely and cleanly add the remaining materials back into the ground. My husband works in manufacturing to provide much needed products made in the United States of America. Protecting and creating more jobs, as America provides liquified natural gas (LNG) for clean energy to ensure prices at the pump will be more affordable and to maintain availability not only to Americans, but also exported to other countries who need clean sources of energy, is of the utmost importance. The Department of Energy must keep these local sources available to provide what is needed for daily energy needs that are affordable, so people can get where they need to go, for daily needs, for warmth or cooling, for manufacturing, as well as storing what is necessary for emergency purposes. Clean energy in the form of LNG is fundamentally and physically important to each and every individual who lives in America and to the future of not only our own great country, but to many other countries as well. Our leadership in and contribution to the industry is also significant to maintain respect worldwide. I need you to look at what a ban on LNG would do to our economy, negatively impacting millions of Americans along with loss of jobs for our energy workers. The United States has an opportunity to increase jobs at home, as well as to improve our economy to protect and provide for our children and grandchildren and future generations to come. I appreciate your urgent consideration in this matter. As a US citizen, I urge the Department of Energy to resume all LNG exports. Sincerely, Shelly Wagner
276. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:11:00 PM Snowden, Rick General Comment My name is Rick Snowden and my family and I have been lifelong residents of western Pennsylvania. I have 40 years experience as a supervisor in electrical generation at both Nuclear and Coal fired power stations. Having worked in the energy industry, I strongly believe diverse electrical production is important to provide affordable energy to the residence of us in the states and abroad. A strong player for the future will be Natural Gas for electrical generation. With the rise of new technology industries energy security is important to power them for the near term and the future. I appreciate the work that the DOE has done to this point to ensure energy security for existing and developing industries. I'm sure we both agree on the importance of energy security. Even a temporary or permanent ban on the export of LNG will most likely have a negative economic affect both locally and globally. Locally, a negative impact would be felt by workers in the gas exploration, production and shipping sides of the business. Our allies would also be impacted as many do not have the resources we have in the states and are dependent on others to support their energy needs. I urge the DOE to further our nations energy security by allowing the export of LNG and issuing the necessary permits for future development of this energy source.
277. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:14:24 PM Helberg, Barbara General Comment I have lived in Ohio since 2006, when I moved here from Lexington, Kentucky. I have been in government service for forty years. My name in Barbara Helberg. . Moving to Ohio was a new chapter in my life and it's been great. Gas prices have affected how much it cost me to get to work and back home again. The price of energy is always at the top of my mind. It would be amazing to export liquid natural gas which would help with our allies, security, and even our economy. Right now, our allies rely on our enemies for energy, but we could fill that role and have better security. This would help lead our country to energy independence. Our liquid natural gas is cleaner than what the rest of much of the world is using, so exporting would have a big impact on the environment. Also, we would be saving funds for the customer and helping our budget too. We have an opportunity to help ourselves and the rest of the world. I implore you to approve more permits to export liquid natural gas to help our country as well as our allies for a better tomorrow.
278. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:14:36 PM Kassner, Kathryn General Comment If we are to preserve life and the planet as we know it for our children, we cannot continue to expand use of fossil fuels as an energy supply. As evidenced once again with the horrific wildfires in California this past week, our planet is warming at an alarming rate. Exporting LNG will only raise the price for our citizens as the domestic supply decreases. Already solar and other clean renewables are more economical than polluting fossil fuels especially when health care and disaster response costs are factored in. It is irresponsible and immoral to continue humanity's reliance on fossil fuels.
279. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:29:38 PM Mandel, Julie General Comment LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue.
280. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:31:08 PM Brandom, Barbara General Comment There are many reasons why no more export terminals for liquified natural gas (LNG) should be built in the United States. Exporting LNG increases prices in the US. More significant, the global average temperature is now more than 1.5 degree above what it was before industrialization.. Exporting LNG from the US will futher accelerate global warming including sea level rise and slowing of the Atlantic currents. Furthermore LNG is very explosive. Explosions due to escaping LNG can not be contained and must burn until the fuel is exhausted. Federal officials at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) have been advised by Congress to update the regulations for LNG. No draft of new reguilations on transport of LNG in the US has been published, although PHMSA acknowledges that this is a high priority. The LNG industry does not have an excellent safety record. For example in 2022 there was a serious explosion at the Freeport LNG terminal on Quintana Island in Texas. If LNG is transported by train through highly populated areas, many people could suffer life-threatening burns. Existing export terminals are meeting the needs for export of LNG. Buiilding more export terminals for LNG produces more danger than benefit for the peoiple of the US.
281. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:32:41 PM Cohen, Ellen S General Comment STOP LNG exports! We need less greenhouse gases, not more!
282. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:43:56 PM van der Ziel, Cornelia General Comment Dear Secretary Granholm, Please take immediate action to block LNG exports. They are not in the public interest. They will continue to fuel the the ongoing devastation of our environment by increasing the emissions of carbon dioxide. LNG facilities tend to be located in areas that already suffer an undue burden from pollution and its negative effects on human health. Building LNG facilities devastates our ecosystems and adversely affect biodiversity, with negative impacts on food supplies and livelihoods. In addition, the cost of building and maintaining these facilities will be borne by all of us while the oil and gas industry will continue to reap huge profits. So please ACT NOW. Thank you
283. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:44:26 PM Patten, Robin General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
284. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:47:56 PM Wertime, Shirin General Comment LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires.
285. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:48:11 PM Shotwell, Andi General Comment Please consider the following points. This is too important to not be taken seriously. It is dangerous. It is short sighted. It is an environmental disaster. • LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. • LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. • No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
286. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:52:57 PM Fite, Austin General Comment LNG is no longer needed, it's bad for people's health, and it is terrible for the climate.
287. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:57:12 PM Carola, Regina General Comment I am a life long resident of S. Jersey. I am asking you to deny the permits for any LNG plants in S. Jersey. We don't want to deal with the danger of explosions of the trucks or trains that will be transporting the gas to the plants. We don't want the air pollution that comes with the transport.
288. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 6:15:54 PM Engle, I. General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
289. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 6:15:58 PM Rounds-Atkinson, Valerie General Comment Stop LNG by Rail Permits LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
290. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 6:28:23 PM Rounds-Atkinson, Valerie General Comment Hello. My name is Valerie Rounds-Atkinson. I live in the Town of Union, Broome County, New York. I am nearing 70 years in age and have observed drastic changes to both my local environment and the world at large. I have been concerned about his situation since the age of 20. Global Warming and Pollution are threats to life on this planet and I wish to preserve this place so my children and grandchildren have a safe, supportive home on which to grow and thrive. LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
291. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 6:37:02 PM Tan, Hiedi General Comment I am a physician and live in TN. We don't not need more LNG. It is harmful to one's health and is destructive to the environment and disastrous for our climate.
292. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 6:41:46 PM Yeh, Emily General Comment I am a professor of geography focused on research on the effects of climate change . LNG exports must be stopped! LNG exports are NOT in the public interest - they are terrible for any hope of achieving climate change goals - meaning goals for reducing the devastations of natural disasters that the US and all peoples of the world are currently facing right now. LNG exports are a death knell, another huge nail in the coffin, of a world with fewer climate-fueled, horrifyingly tragic and expensive tragedies of uncontrolled fires, hurricanes, drought, flooding, and more. LNG exports will further harm communities already terribly devastated by dangerous infrastructure and leaking pipelines as well as air pollution, will further damage wildlife and fisheries, and will cause financial distress as well. There is NO way that LNG exports are in any way in the public or national interest.
293. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 6:44:27 PM Costa, Lynn General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
294. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 6:46:35 PM Brookes, Larissa General Comment I live in northern NJ, an area with far too many superfund sites. We don’t need more potential superfund sites here! I am urging the DOE to implement these findings into the decision-making process regarding LNG export. It’s vital to human life — not to mention all other forms of life on our planet — that we stop extracting, shipping, and using LNG. Fracking endangers so many lives, especially those of the poorest Americans, who live near fracking sites, refineries, and shipping hubs. You have the power to make our planet healthier, to give my kids (ages 16, 18, and 20) a future, and to continue the desperately needed rapid transition away from fossil fuels.
295. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 6:56:12 PM Retired Nurse Practitioner Appendix D: Addendum on Environmental and Community Effects of U.S. LNG Exports LNG exports are in no way in the interest of the public! As a matter of fact they are just the opposite by reducing their lifespans, causing fetal anomalies, cancer, asthma, cardiac conditions , poor air quality as those fracked toxins are released into the air our communities breathe during the freezing process in order to export it at their corporate refineries for their corporate profits leaving communities as their collateral damages! Ban all exports and fracking causing cancer in children in their communities!! In TX Abbott got $6 million to work for fossil fuel as governor to not monitor the air and just have his commissioners promptly give those poisoners of his state their permits!! He then made a law that Texan communities cannot stop fracking! Tex Tillerson, the former CEO of Exxon said “ Fracking is g fine as long as It’s not in my community.” Are you working for fossil fuel or we the people? STOP ALL Further EXPORTS and look to end all fracking starting in PA with our historic 1st Capital Philadelphia! Our lives are already shortened here and in Pittsburgh because of the shale boom! Thank you! Now look what happened to our Los Angeles
296. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 6:57:14 PM Swenson, Ruth General Comment Climate chaos is not going to go away by itself. We have to change what we're doing, how we are living and stop mining, drilling, transporting and burning fossil fuels.
297. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 7:03:24 PM Feder, Janet General Comment Approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increase greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. Please stop these dangerous exports. They are not in service of the public interest, and especially not the public good.
298. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 7:17:44 PM Earley, Brian General Comment Hello, I am writing as a concerned citizen and father who cares deeply about what will happen to human life in the very near future as a result of climate change. Of particular concern is LNG, which contributes to climate change. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. Please do not allow or encourage the use of LNG.
299. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 7:19:23 PM Grooms, Richard General Comment Please stop LNG exports. This will decrease pollution and make for a better environment.
300. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 7:21:53 PM Palmer, Maria General Comment I am opposed to LNG imports. They will make climate change worse. They will increase pollution. I do not want trains carrying LNG near my home.
301. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 7:32:17 PM Cage, Ray General Comment Continued unchecked industry/War is genocide to the Earth and Humanity. Thank you.
302. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 7:46:01 PM Ono, Lory General Comment LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires.
303. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 8:19:39 PM Fritsch, Robert General Comment The United States with its climate goals set for 2030 and 2050 shouldn't even entertain exporting LNG which is methane and which will contribute immensely to the warming of our atmosphere. It is so counter to our interests and goals respective of our warming concerns that it is hypocrisy and I believe will harm our credibility worldwide. It will weaken our stature among nations with concerns similar to ours and do serious harm to the international effort of erasing the carbon footprint by 2100. We are the leader among nations in this effort and what we do and how we develop our priorities has tremendous import. I really believe that as the United States goes, so goes the world of nations. So, we have to understand this and treat it with the utmost seriousness. The health and survival of life on our planet as we know it hangs in the balance. We must practice what we preach.
304. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 8:26:53 PM Gingras, Brian General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
305. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 8:35:47 PM Clements, Tamara General Comment We have known for quite a while, there are a sufficient number of LNG terminals. Watching the huge destructive fires in Los Angeles fueled by extreme wind and an overgrowth of brush due to too much rain then a extremely long drought is frightening and heartbreaking. It will be much worse if we do not stop new fossil fuel projects.Extreme weather is man made. We are only on the first steps of an excelerating hellscape of climate chaos that we can actually slow down if we hold fossil fuel companies accountable. We must work together to stop fracking for gas rather than encourage more fracking with new LNG terminals. I want our grandchildren to know we did our best to consider the earth first, protecting all the precious life it has given us. We can not allow the fossil fuel industry to ruin our world for our children.
306. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 9:13:24 PM Wakefield, Marie General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
307. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 9:17:30 PM Spiegelman, Robin General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
308. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 9:18:03 PM Bordelon, Tika General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
309. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 9:23:01 PM Wilder, Megan General Comment LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. There is no need for LNG. Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
310. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 9:54:35 PM Butts, Dean General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
311. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 10:05:31 PM Jay, B General Comment Fracking is polluting our water. Stop liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.
312. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 10:11:35 PM K, C General Comment No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
313. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 10:22:52 PM Albin, Audrey General Comment The planet is warming and on exhibit are the fires in Southern California. LNG is dangerous to our health and climate and we really do not need this gas now. I’m not loquacious on this subject although I have availed myself of much of the info. And I know this is a dangerous gas!!! I am 90 and good for another bunch of years And I have Two new Great Grandchildren who will hopefully be able to survive and will certainly stand more of a chance without the problems LNG will give us!!
314. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 10:44:39 PM hope, phillip General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
315. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 10:48:25 PM Motta, Denise General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
316. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 10:48:37 PM Temple, Deborah General Comment PULEESE LET'S, FINALLY, STOP BEING: 1.GREEDY 2. IN DENIAL 3. SCARED 3. LAZY 4. STUPID HUMANS. FLYING INTO OUTER SPACE WHILE WE POISON, BURN, DECIMATE, DESTROY, EVERYTHING HERE? ON THE ONLY HABITABLE PLANET WE HAVE? IF WE CAN TRANSPLANT. HEARTS & LUNGS, DEVELOP AI, CURE CANCER, WE CAN FIND HEALTHY, OR HEALTHIER, WAYS TO FUEL OURSELVES. OTHERWISE, THE SOULESS, UNCARING, CALLOUS/PSYCHOTIC OLIGARCHS CONTINUE THE DEATH OF ALL WE KNOW, NEED, WANT. NO LNG TRANSPORTING
317. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 10:58:59 PM Gradoni, Peter General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
318. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 11:07:21 PM DiFante , Diane General Comment LNG production, from fracking to transportation, in communities with facilities and through which LNG is stored and transported, harms the environment. Add to that the release and burning of LNG causing increased greenhouse gases and more climate disruptions. See DOE's own report! Also LNG production is outpacing worldwide demand. For these reasons I'm requesting an end to all LNG exports.
319. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 11:08:00 PM FORCE, THOMAS General Comment LNG is exactly the wrong substance to be exporting. ANY gas needs to lessen its presence on the planet. LNG is no exception. Get a brain.
320. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 11:23:52 PM Troth, Tracy S General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
321. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 11:49:39 PM Weisz, Russell General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
322. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 12:25:10 AM Smith, Glenn General Comment DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations. LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
323. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 1:27:05 AM Steitz, Jim General Comment I implore you to stop the Department of Energy’s program of permitting, licensing, subsidizing, encouraging, and cheerleading for the expansion of fossil methane gas export “LNG” terminals.  Both you and these projects’ corporate sponsors have been informed, in a torrent of increasingly desperate and explicit pleadings from scientists over a quarter-century, that human survival demands the bulk of remaining fossil methane remain securely underground.  The volume of natural gas that a guild of sociopathic hydrocarbon corporations envision extracting, liquefying, and shipping overseas will foreclose humanity’s hope for stabilizing our climate. The mathematics of our atmosphere's progressive saturation with carbon dioxide, and the constraints of an atmosphere capable of supporting human civilization, are unequivocal. Extracting and burning methane must be rapidly discontinued, overseas just as surely as domestically, if we wish our children a habitable planet. By brazenly defying this warnings in favor of consecrating a decades-long export program, you commit yourself to humanity’s obituary as an agent of our suicide by climate sabotage.   The Biden Administration has sought to rationalize these fossil methane exports as a geopolitical response to Russian influence in Europe, providing a ‘friendly’ source and displacing Russian leverage via its own methane gas. However, even a cursory consideration of the breathtaking scale and timeframe of these projects belies this cynical deception of humanity. The public statements, balance sheets, and seductive investor calls of these projects’ corporate sponsors openly aim to renew, reaffirm, and make imperturbable the world’s consumption of fossil methane for decades beyond even the most generous deadline offered by scientists for planetary survival. Today’s geopolitics is not an actual reason for fossil methane export, but rather a deceitful pretense for locking humanity to carbon bombs whose horrific consequences will render today’s wars, including that in Ukraine, a trivial footnote for our children. We live in a world where most nations have nominally assented to the idea of “net zero by 2050” or some comparable formulation, but no government has made the tangible decision to disappoint today’s fossil fuel interests by leaving their own carbon bombs in the ground. As each government implements a policy, either as explicit strategy or implicit rationalization, of ‘our nation-state as the last fossil fuel producer to the end,’ the cumulative effect is that nobody’s fossil fuel production declines, and humanity continues flooring the accelerator into climate hell. For any hope of attaining such 2050-pegged goals, let alone actual climate stabilization and its more demanding schedule, each government must renounce its own carbon bombs and anger its own carbon lobbies. Europe has shown itself capable of doing so with exceptional speed and focus of purpose where a national interest is at stake. By offering the easy siren call of American fossil methane to the myopic, complacent, and climate-denial lane of European politics, you sabotage this opportunity for dispatching both a passing petty tyrant and the tyranny of the climate suicide lobby. Moreover, the expansion of American natural gas companies into the foreign markets would accelerate and perpetuate their aggressive evisceration of our human and natural landscapes. From the Allegheny Mountains of New York and Pennsylvania, to the farmlands of the Piedmont, to the pastures of Texas, to the National Forests of California, natural gas companies are running amok over public and private lands. Iconic American landscapes that have defined our character and aesthetic for decades are being irrevocably scarred and peeled away. After the gas is gone, Americans will look in regret and shame upon what our generation has done to our home. If America becomes a major exporter of LNG, it would further encourage gas companies to peel away the green, living lungs of the Earth upon which human life depends.    Again, please reject these fossil methane ‘LNG’ export terminals, and prevent the gas companies from vivisecting America's land and communities for an immediate payout, and to prevent America from becoming a veritable launching pad for global climate catastrophe. America must become a leader of humankind into a future of survival, not off a cliff into climate Armageddon. Thank you for your attention to this urgent issue.
324. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 1:38:54 AM Johnson, Diana General Comment • LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. • LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. • No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, pleasle act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations. Thank you.
325. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 1:40:23 AM Maxson, Victoria General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities. LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
326. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 2:41:03 AM Raven, Robert General Comment LNG is explosive and dangerous to transport! LNG increases global warming!
327. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 2:57:36 AM Barnette , Perish General Comment No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
328. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 6:44:04 AM Wadsworth, Andrew General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
329. 1/14/2025 7:52:43 AM Stanley, Gabriel General Comment
330. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 9:03:54 AM Welling, Jeannette General Comment I live in Ventura County and have health conditions exascerbated by environmental pollutants. Stop the export authorizations of LNG and protect our environment. LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
331. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 9:56:14 AM Kennedy, Kevin General Comment As a 70-year-old with children and grandchildren, I urge the DOE to put an end to liquified natural gas exports and, in fact, to accelerate and intensify efforts to move away from LNG and fossil fuels, generally. LNG exports and continued exploitation of and dependence on fossil fuels offer a short-term economic “sugar high” for the fossil fuel industries and those who finance them. But economically and ecologically they are unsustainabl. They impose enormous burdens on the communities where these fuels are extracted, processed and transported, while those who benefit financially from this business are never held to account or compensate communities and individuals for the downstream economic costs of the very real damage they inflict. The unnecessary and negative impact of these industries on public health and the permanent, irreparable environmental damage they cause are, in themselves, sufficient reason to maintain the current pause in authorizations for LNG exports. They also constitute a compelling reason to push for the rapid development of alternative, renewable sources of energy and conservation measures.
332. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:22:26 AM Lynn, Andy General Comment NG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
333. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:25:50 AM Conyne, Sally General Comment Dear DOE I am strongly opposed to LNG exports. More exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. They are simply not needed at this time. Conserve all resources and oppose exports that provide nothing but fiscal benefits to a few. Sally Conyne
334. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:31:57 AM Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers General Comment Last year, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) put a pause on its authorizations for LNG exports. They have now released the report updating how they decide whether a proposed LNG export project is in the public interest based on public health impacts, environmental/climate impacts, and economic impacts. The extensive report explains that approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. Clearly the DOE's own report is well aware of the tremendous contribution that further LNG exports will make to climate disasters. The only (temporary) winners will be greedy fossil fuel CEOs and investors. We can no longer afford the fossil fuel industry's privatization of gains and socialization of extreme losses. The fossil fuel industry has made good profits on its investment in members of Congress and other governmental agencies, but this must stop. Climate change does affect everyone, although it hurts the most vulnerable the most. We have run out of time. The time to stop LNG expansion is NOW!
335. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:34:33 AM Van Liere, Jessica General Comment LNG exports cause harmful pollution to overburdened communities and undermine our critical climate goals. Please do not increase LNG exports. We should be focused on shifting towards clean fuels to generate greater economic returns for Americans, protect public health and slow climate change.
336. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:35:00 AM Lederman, Kenneth General Comment LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires.
337. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:39:09 AM Babkes, Joel General Comment My name is Joel Babkes. I am a proud resident of Pennsylvania, having lived here for the past sixty years. Next month, I will turn eighty-four years old, and I am happy to still be living here in the Keystone State. My career has spanned this length of time in various industries, including manufacturing, retail, and providing service to the public. I have sold machinery and equipment to major manufacturers, and eventually owned my own businesses on a more local basis. Throughout this time, the necessity of what makes America function has been clear – productive businesses, employees, and customers. In order for this to continue, ensuring energy security for businesses is essential. The enormity of the need of energy is so great that we should be in complete agreement with the Department of Energy, which has done a yeoman’s job at providing energy security for businesses of all sizes in order to keep our society functioning smoothly. I thank them greatly for the work they have done in this area. Since we both agree on the importance of energy security for businesses, we should both agree on opposing the pause on new permits for liquified natural gas exports. The current system has led to a prosperous economy with an abundant supply of energy for businesses in America and our trade partners abroad. If the pause were to go into effect, it would jeopardize this prosperity by causing a decline in trade with our allies and a subsequent decrease in domestic production as well, hurting American businesses. Simply put, the current system is thriving and does not need to be changed. For these reasons, I urge the Department of Energy to lift the pause on the approval of new liquified natural gas export permits.
338. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:41:54 AM Meade, Melanie General Comment Standing in love and solidarity with my cherished friends in the Gulf South I plead you to halt approving anymore LNG permits. LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. I have met lovely people directly harmed by the legacy pollution of LNG. These tenacious elders pave the way for me to advocate with so many others being murdered by big industry pollution. We can avoid and prevent future harms our planet needs this change immediately. You have the power to affect change!
339. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:44:31 AM Wolf, Todd General Comment The export of LNG only benefits a few greedy individuals, while polluting our nation and endangering the health of our citizens & poisoning our own land, air, and water. This should not be allowed.
340. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:46:25 AM Erickson, Luann General Comment Hello, my name is Luann Erickson, and I live in California where the LA fires are currently raging. It doesn't take a climate scientist to see the correlation between the rise in greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and the the increased natural disasters plaguing the world. These disasters that were predicted at least 20 years ago are now coming true. As a mother and grandmother, it is heartbreaking to think of the world we are leaving to them, not because we didn't know about the threat of climate change, but because we didn't have to will to stop it. Please do what you can to stop liquid gas exports. Following are facts provided by Action Network: LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
341. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:48:51 AM Neal, E. General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
342. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:53:56 AM RAYWOOD, LORRAINE General Comment STOP LNG EXPORTS! More LNG exports are clearly NOT in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. An increase in LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution.
343. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:54:58 AM Murphy, sandra boone General Comment Whereas, LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Whereas, every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. Whereas, LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. Whereas, we need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. Whereas, the Department of Energy Secretary, Jennifer Granholm, said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. Whereas, the report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. Therefore, you, the DOE, must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
344. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:55:38 AM Collins, Carol General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
345. 1/14/2025 10:57:43 AM Chojnicki, Michael General Comment
346. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:58:31 AM Kovar, Jo Ann General Comment LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires.
347. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:10:40 AM Eckstut, Joann General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
348. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:14:50 AM Putman, Tyler General Comment I am writing to strongly advocate against the ongoing use of LNG! LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
349. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:16:56 AM Balogh, Alana General Comment I am totally against promoting and supporting any and all fossil fuel further development and infrastructure including Liquefied Natural Gas. All efforts and actions MUST move towards a sustainable energy future if we’re going to have a future at all! We are in the thick of a climate emergency according to all sound science! Invest in Solar Roadways, train infrastructure and encourage ALL energy consumption reduction every way possible. Wake up and do what makes sense not what makes short term profits! I will only vote for political leaders who support making radical changes to ensure survival of life on the planet. I will not spend one dime for business and products that don’t support change to stop the climate emergency we’re all experiencing.
350. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:19:50 AM Lynch, Laura General Comment LNG exports will adversely impact communities already burdened with environmental hazards. LNG exports will increase greenhouse gas emissions at a time when we need to curb them. There is less demand for LNG now than additional exports warrant.
351. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:29:45 AM Berry, Karen Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports We don't need anymore climate heating transactions. Please limit our potential for heating up the climate.
352. 1/14/2025 11:32:58 AM Salata, Gary General Comment
353. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:33:42 AM Menya, Davis General Comment My name is Davis Menya from Delaware county, lived in the area for over 20 years; work in the home care industry for over 15 years. I care about energy because it has lasting effects on the livelihood of ordinary working people. I have seen how the increasing gas prices have directly affected my work environment. For instance, the ability to go back and forth from work is becoming expensive with increased gas prices. The cost of living, like buying groceries, feeding families, and other has been heavily impacted. The best solution to relieve these families from the deteriorating lifestyle, is to have cheaper energy which will positively improve their lives. Thank you for the work you have done to keep our energy infrastructure affordable and reliable. The exploration of LNG for the last many years has accorded many working-class families to have a better life. Technological advancements have allowed cleaner alternative energy sources that support the energy grid in America and overall global energy needs. It is important to note that this ban will negatively impact and hinder the progress the energy sector has made in increasing production of LNG that in the end would see consumer prices for ordinary commodities gradually decrease and thus improving lives. In addition, LNG production and exportation have steadily increased, which has brought about better relations with our trading partners and lowers trade deficits. I urge DOE to lift the export ban and improve our nation’s infrastructure. The lifting of the ban will ensure that our country can meet the needs of everyday life and citizens can live without struggle and want. This will indeed improve the lives of many, especially in Pennsylvania.
354. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:39:37 AM Cyphers, Jane General Comment The fracking communities in Pennsylvania are suffering from fracking. The fracking sites as well as the cracker plants are destroying the health and the environment of anyone who lives nearby.. Fracking was allowed in the Ohio and Susquehanna River basins under to guise of the need for energy independence. There is no need to export this product outside the US. The price of gas has plummeted because concerned citizens are finding safe and financially competitive energy alternatives. The industry wants to export it solely to keep the demand high and the prices inflated. all the while the world burns horrifically from the use of fossil fuels. DCS says NO to LGN exports.
355. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:42:28 AM Ehrlich, Marion General Comment We need your help to stop liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports! Last year, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) put a pause on its authorizations for LNG exports. They have now released the report updating how they decide whether a proposed LNG export project is in the public interest based on public health impacts, environmental/climate impacts, and economic impacts. The extensive report explains that approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution.
356. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:50:06 AM Kokal, Kristin General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue.
357. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:53:47 AM Meek, Robert General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
358. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:56:14 AM Paulmier, Greg General Comment The sun can provide the energy we all need without destroying the environment that sustains life. We must immediately move away from fossil fuels such as gas and oil and instead capture the energy of the sun. This strategy will create the jobs that we need and will help to make mother earth a place where all forms of life can exist and thrive. The sun rises to provide us with the energy and light we all need to survive. Oil,gas and coal are under ground and should remain under ground because when used to provide energy create carbon emissions that destroy life and the world we inhabit.
359. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:58:07 AM Challgren, Peg General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue.
360. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:59:53 AM Roberts, Michaelene General Comment Hi! my name is Michaelene Roberts I'm from Freedom, Pa. I'm a Veterans/ Air, Ex civil servant of the PAANG, and disabled Railroader from Norfolk Southern. I've lived in Pa. my entire life. And have traveled abroad withe the Military. In fact, I'm living in the House my immigrant Great grandfather build in 1932 While I was on the railroad, I worked down around Waynesburg. Prior to the wells and then when the wells started to be producing the area started to be developed. The houses started look good again and more local businesses were opening! Then it came to my area and the same happened. It's not big Dollar. but it helps everyone! Business and communities Flourished with the presence of the Oil and gas industry! I just want to Thank you for the work that you have done to keep our communities flourishing. And allowing the exporting of clean energy to our allies instead of coal like so many others do. That way zero emissions be gotten to as close as possible without destroying our climate. LNG is important for our military strength across the globe. a band on LNG would significantly decrease our ability to our job in a crisis! Also, our Allies rely on our LNG for their security as well. Our Allies, without our LNG, would have to turn to Russa or China. I ask this honorable commission to reconsider banning LNG. LNG is so important to our Livelihood and the country's' energy security as a whole.
361. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 12:18:32 PM Meseguer, Alejandro General Comment Please stop LNG exports!
362. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 12:27:02 PM Kauffman, Joshua General Comment Legacy fuels harm health and property. They are poorly managed and created few jobs and signifigant negative long term environmental impacts.
363. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 12:38:15 PM Andrew, Deborah General Comment It is essential that the exporting of natural gas be terminated. Not only does this practice involve additional extraction, there is the harm done in transporting. Our foreign and domestic policies must be revised to reflect the need to conserve resources, all of which are finite.
364. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 12:38:36 PM V, I General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
365. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 12:40:27 PM Douglass, Amy General Comment I am writing to express my opposition to the construction of any more infrastructure for the exporting of LNG. Every step of the lifecycle of LNG is a health hazard. LNG is mostly methane which has been linked to serious health problems in communities which have been exposed to this volatile gas. It is also an environmental disaster, damaging habitats in the extraction process, and construction of LNG plants and ports. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that should be left in the ground. There is no need for more LNG. The world is moving beyond fossil fuels, as we must to save our planet and keep it livable for all of humanity, animals and plants.
366. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 12:43:33 PM burn, d General Comment Make AMERICAN GREAT AND PROTECT ALL TAXPAYERS LAND, their CHILDREN, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, CLEAN LAND. FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL THANK YOU!!!!!
367. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 12:44:45 PM Birlingmair, Douglas General Comment Please see the attached pdf document where I have my comments. Thank you for your consideration.
  1. Doug Birlingmair comments.pdf
368. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 12:58:46 PM Thorpe, Mary General Comment Recent catastrophic climate related disasters highlight the need to get off fossil fuels as soon as possible. The Trump administration will undo all the environmental protections that it can so it's critical to make as many policies as possible that cannot be revoked.
369. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 12:59:28 PM Carota, Marie General Comment I have copied a trustworthy report below. I have read many other reports from different sources that say similar things. LNG is not the best type of fuel costing too much to transport. We don’t need to export more when it is polluting not only our lands but contributing to increased fossil fuel consumption in the world. We must stop!! I live in PA and have seen this industry grow too big too fast. It is one thing to need this resource for our country but to extract it , transport it through our communities and sell it is too much. It flies against all that we as a nation should be doing. We need to be working on renewable resources and using as little fossil fuels as possible. Besides on a local level people in our country don’t want the pollution and destruction it causes in our localities. LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to safeguard our land and our residents from this destructive endeavor before it is too late. The DOE should not be a rubber stamper for business interests over the peoples’ interests. PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING!
370. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 1:10:39 PM Libbey, Patricia General Comment Please STOP/CANCEL/DO NOT ALLOW all LNG EXPORTS!!!
371. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 1:11:37 PM Schmotzer, Michael General Comment We all know that weaning our economy away from fossil fuels, including natural gas, will be expensive and difficult politically. But the climate crisis is a reality and we are paying for it now. Just ask anyone in Los Angeles. It will only get worse. Please do not facilitate the use of natural gas.
372. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 1:17:13 PM Harris, Tom General Comment WE NEED CLEAN ENERGY!
373. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 1:34:39 PM Purvis, Cindy General Comment We have no need to ramp up LNG exports. Five of the six scenarios modeled in the study show that we are already on track to satisfy projected demand. An estimated 75% of oil and gas produced in Pennsylvanian is exported - meaning we see few benefits and many burdens from the industry. There’s no good reason to expand production except a desire for perpetual, unsustainable growth.
374. 1/14/2025 1:37:40 PM Sisters of St. Dominic of Blauvelt, New York Appendix D: Addendum on Environmental and Community Effects of U.S. LNG Exports
375. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 1:44:28 PM Fumarola, Aaron General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. Please don't ***** this up, DOE.
376. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 1:50:48 PM Leitch, Mary Ann General Comment LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability; further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
377. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 2:01:30 PM Logan, donna General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power.
378. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 2:06:09 PM Edington, Zoe General Comment Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
379. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 2:14:56 PM Derr, Sandra General Comment We need renewables, not fossil fuels.
380. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 2:19:46 PM D'Anna, MARIE General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
381. 1/14/2025 2:23:36 PM Sonin, John General Comment
382. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 2:29:11 PM Doll, Carl General Comment Stop LNG ports in the US. Energy independence is great, but not at the expense of our ports and coastal waters and ocean life. No LNG ports along the Eastern Seaboard.
383. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 2:41:50 PM Gruber, Eleanor General Comment I am writing to oppose any LNG facility to be allowed in New Jersey. I have studied the environment and government for almost 60 years. New Jersey has enough Natural Gas and if you allow the construction of an LNG port and all the accompanying infrastructure, it will only cause more gas to be extracted. It is scientifically proven that fracturing process to extract natural gas is not good for the community or environment; there is more asthma, infant and mothers mortality as a result. In addition,the construction of the port and roadways will be most destructive to our environment. The gas industry will say this is needed; the role of business is to make a profit; the role of government is to balance the health and welfare of its residents with the needs of industry. Any LNG infrastructure will most certainly harm our fragile environment. We urge you to reject any LNG projects in or near to NJ. thank you
384. 1/14/2025 2:53:52 PM Winkler, Erich General Comment
385. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 2:54:41 PM Brown, Janice General Comment We do not need anymore fossil fuels to disrupt our planetary ecosystems!
386. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 3:15:05 PM Folzer, Sandra General Comment Please don't extend pending LNG export permits. Put your energy into sustainable energy not into liquified natural gas which pollutes the air and water and poses a threat to those living nearby. There have been too many accidents. Besides, exporting only increases the price. LNG is dangerous and unnecessary.
387. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 3:15:31 PM Mayfield, Zulene General Comment I live in an environmental justice community threatened with a proposed LNG facility. Already overburdened with carcinogens and pollutants from existing facilities. My community literally cannot breathe. I know residents living in communities suffering under LNG operations. DOE must take steps to protect peoples lives and not the profits of LNG owners.
388. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 3:16:39 PM Ketyer, Edward General Comment To Secretary Granholm, US Department of Energy: You are a smart person. You understand the causes and effects of climate change and its impact on human health. You know that fracking degrades the environment, contaminates the air, water, and soil that all of us share, and makes people living near it sick. You know that increasing LNG exports means increasing fracking and its environmental, health, and climate impacts. You know that extracting and burning methane is the leading contributor to the planet’s climate predicament. Ultimately, LNG is a climate bomb. You’ve been briefed on these facts and deep down you know this is true. If you allow LNG infrastructure (and “blue” hydrogen, another topic for another day) to expand, you will be consciously ignoring those facts and the human suffering involved. It is the moral responsibility of every American to prevent harm to our neighbors and the world we live in from threats that we know are real and, in fact, already happening. It is your responsibility, too.
389. 1/14/2025 3:19:29 PM Benedict, Ruth General Comment
390. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 3:31:59 PM Winner, Barbara General Comment LNG exports harm our environment nor our health. In addition these exports are not supportive of clean energy, do not help our economy, and are especially harmful to communities experiencing environmental injustice. We must take positive environmental actions now in order to restore the health of our planet for future generations. We cannot continue to put corporate profits over our balance of nature and basic human needs, including clean air, water, and soil. Please work for a healthy future by denying LNG exports.
391. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 3:37:04 PM Nicholson, Susanna General Comment LNG results in more methane GHG emmissions, aggravating climate change. As we're learning from the force, velocity, and volume of floods, fire-spreading winds, and coastal storms/erosion, we must act quickly to prevent more human and property loss. Reducing LNG radioactive waste is also a very good idea. Our emphasis must be on being international leaders in renewable energy.
392. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 4:19:22 PM Clemmons, Harmon General Comment Hello, my name is Harmon Clemmons. I have lived in Southeastern New Mexico for 43 years and NM a total of 45 years. I have lived around the Oil and Gas Industry my whole life, relocating to NM from Wyoming. I was Mayor Pro Tempore, Mayor, Deputy Fire Chief, Post Master and continue to be active in my county. I have a great understanding of the amount of jobs the Oil & Gas Industry creates in my State. The Department of Energy is charged with protecting our energy independence. As a long time resident of Southeastern NM, I know that the Oil and Gas Industry is the economic driver of tax revenues that provide for schools, roads, and other crucial infrastructure and services. I support clean extraction of Liquid Natural Gas in order to strengthen my State’s economy and support thousands of jobs and families. I ask you to support New Mexico’s Oil and Gas workers and the economy by denying a ban on Liquid Natural Gas exportation. LNG exportation is a crucial aspect of success in my community.
393. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 4:39:47 PM Mulligan, Patrick General Comment On behalf of all the wonderful people working to preserve our beautiful planet: STOP NOW////////////////////////////????????????
394. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 4:48:22 PM saff , Ron General Comment To prevent catastrophic climate change, we need to transition from fossil fuels to clean renewable energy. Gas should be kept in the ground.
395. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 4:48:54 PM Colgan-Davis, John General Comment It is clear from the DOE's own studies that there are no positive benefits to exporting and expanding LNG production.None. The only people who benefit are the companies that will be involved. American consumers citizens of the world will all be negatively affected. so do not approve it
396. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 4:54:45 PM Climate Reality of the Lehigh Valley Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports Take your study's own good advice! We don't need to export more! Secretary Jennifer Granholm noted that the study found that “the amounts that have already been approved will be more than sufficient to meet global demand for U.S. LNG for decades to come.” Please please please, protect our communities and our environment from harmful and unnecessary LNG exports before your administration comes to an end.
397. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 4:56:36 PM Climate Reality of the Lehigh Valley Appendix D: Addendum on Environmental and Community Effects of U.S. LNG Exports The DOE’s own study shows that gas exports are a climate disaster that harm communities wherever the gas is extracted, processed, and transported. So-called liquid natural gas (LNG) is actually just a gas composed mostly of methane, a dangerous greenhouse gas that raises global temperatures more than CO2. Meanwhile, competition with foreign markets for LNG, methane gas, will increase the price of fuel for consumers. It would be in everyone's interest to stop further LNG exports.
398. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 5:01:59 PM Canarsky, Maurine General Comment I live in Portland, Oregon and vigorously opposed the Jordan Cove Energy Project. Luckily, after YEARS of opposition by landowners, tribes and environmental groups, the project was cancelled in 2021. This has benefited our health, our wetlands, streams, forests and communities. Because it was cancelled, we helped to delay SOME of the destruction of our global climate. More LNG exports are clearly NOT in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications MUST be rejected. From our experience with the Jordan Cove project, we KNOW that LNG pollutes and harms public health, is a climate disaster, and will prevent attaining our global climate goals to keep the atmosphere from warming above 1.5 C. We also know that there is no need for more LNG. Further permitting will result in EXCESS supply. Without need for the LNG, there is NO public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorization on this basis. Act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process. I and my community are counting on you to hear our informed concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
399. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 5:02:04 PM Enright, Elizabeth General Comment NG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
400. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 5:05:33 PM Glaush, Jeremy General Comment My name is Jeremy Glaush.  My family of six are lifelong Pennsylvanians.  I've lived in Northeast and Central Eastern Pennsylvania my whole life.  I work for a telecom/internet utility outside of Allentown Pennsylvania.  My greatest responsibility is that of taking care of my family and making sure that we have a comfortable life.  Therefore, keeping the cost of living for families low, through energy security, is very important to my way of life both professionally and personally.  I appreciate the work the DoE has done to keep the cost of living low for families through the promotion of energy security. Because we agree that keeping the cost of living low through energy security is imperative, opposing the ban on new liquified natural gas permits works against the goal of energy security.  We should adamantly oppose this ban for the following reasons:  Keeping energy production American protects the supply chain.  We've seen what happens when a country controls the flow of energy to another country with the Russia/Ukraine conflict.  Liquified natural gas permits also lead to great paying jobs creating a better quality of life for all those involved.  Energy security starts right in your own back yard when you know that neighbors are overseeing the secure, environmentally sound, low-cost energy production.  I urge the DoE to lift the ban on Liquified Natural Gas permits in order to promote energy security and affordable energy solutions for not just my family and I, but for all Americans.
401. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 5:05:54 PM Kuhnley, Sheryle General Comment I am Sheryle Kuhnley from Albuquerque, New Mexico. I have lived in New Mexico for 60 years. My father was a native New Mexican who brought our family to Moriarty while he was deployed to the Philippines and Vietnam in 1965. We ended up staying in NM. I graduated from Moriarty High School in 1969, married my husband of 55 years, and moved to Albuquerque to attend UNM. I received my BS and MA in education from the University of New Mexico and received my National Board Certification in Mathematics. I taught math and was a math coach for Albuquerque Public Schools and Albuquerque Christian School for over 30 years. We have four adult children and six grandchildren. I now work with my daughter to homeschool my grandchildren in mathematics. As a public and private school educator, I appreciate the immense value the gas and oil industry have for the state of New Mexico. A large percentage of funding for Albuquerque Public Schools is made up from revenue from these industries through the State’s General Fund. As an APS math coach I was involved in choosing up-to-date math curriculum, training math teachers, and working through a UNM Professional development grant in Lesson Study. Funding for teacher training, new curriculum, teacher salaries and keeping critical teacher/student ratios low, among many other educational needs, are all very dependent on the monies brought in by NM oil and gas. I ask the Department of Energy to be diligent to their mandate to protect New Mexico’s interests in these industries, and to please keep this in mind when addressing the matter of the Biden Administration’s threatened ban to the exportation of our state’s natural gas. Please do not allow this ban to take place. Sincerely yours, Sheryle Cavasos Kuhnley
402. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 5:14:32 PM Stratton, Alan General Comment My name is Al Stratton. I retired from the Petrochemical industry after over 30 years of service. My wife and I both returned to PA after having spent 12 years in New Jersey and 12 years in Connecticut. We were fortunate to be able to spend the early years of our three sons lives in PA where they got a good foundation in their education. All three have served in the military. One went to the Naval Academy and served in the Marine Corps as a helicopter pilot for 12 years, one graduated from Duquesne University and served in the Air Force as a Missileer, and the youngest graduated from the University of Pittsburgh and is a med evac helicopter pilot and reitiring from the Army in May of next year. As you can imagine, I have strong feelings towards supporting our military and national security by providing resources for energy security. I appreciate the work the Department of Energy has done to promote energy security for America's military and global trade. Because we agree on the promotion of Energy security for our military and national security, we should both agree on opposing the ban on new permits for LNG exports. Not allowing new exports jeopardizes our domestic and international economies. Many of our Allies depend on our supply of LNG for their economic and national security. Pennsylvania is one of the largest producers of LNG and many families depend on this industry. I urge the DOE to further our national security to lift the pause on new permits for LNG exports.
403. 1/14/2025 5:18:47 PM A Holden, Cathy General Comment
404. 1/14/2025 5:30:48 PM Private Equity Stakeholder Project Appendix B: Domestic Energy, Economic, and GHG Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports
  1. PESP Comments on DOE LNG Study.pdf
405. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 5:42:06 PM Gyncild, Brie General Comment I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the energy, economic, and environmental impact of US LNG exports. From the perspective of a human living in a warming world, I urge you to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations. Per international climate scientists and other experts, we need to immediately decrease the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, with the aim to stop using them entirely in the near future. This reality is in contrast to the development of new LNG export infrastructure. Liquefied natural gas is itself actually primarily methane, which is many times more damaging than carbon dioxide when it comes to global warming. The means by which it is extracted -- fracking -- creates hazards to human health and the environment, including polluted and radioactive wastewater, earthquakes in regions that have no known fault lines, leakage during transportation via pipelines or rail, and more. Communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. From an economic standpoint alone, there is no demand for additional LNG. Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. I urge DOE to examine the issue critically and consider all the harms to human health, climate, and the environment as a whole. With such examination, I believe DOE's only responsible decision will be to deny further US LNG exports.
406. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 6:00:38 PM Rosenberg, Pauline General Comment DO NOT EXPAND LNG EXPORTS!
407. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 6:20:30 PM Stoeckl, Bonnie General Comment Stop promoting the use and export of fossil fuels! We humans MUST get a handle on climate change and approving more LNG projects is NOT the way to do it!
408. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 6:37:31 PM Hopper, Clint General Comment Hello, my name is Clint Hopper, I have lived in New Mexico my whole life. I have lived in all parts of this state, I have lived near mines and oil fields. Oil and gas as well as mineral assets affect our economy. As a maintenance worker I need lower prices to get to work, there is no way for me to live directly next to my work. With more restrictions it raises the prices and jeopardizes our ability to cool. I worry about our older populations ability to heat and cool themselves, who would be directly affected by this ban. My job is directly related to this field. That is why I oppose the Security of Energy’s pause on LNG exports.
409. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 6:40:52 PM Rutledge, Donna General Comment Please stop exports of LNG permanently. The results of exporting LNG will be devastating to this country in many ways. Pollution Economy American lives impacted Public health Worsening the climate crisis
410. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 6:47:42 PM Hakeem, Shagufta General Comment LNG permits need to be limited in use by the US government. LNG and the process of its extraction, has many health and environmental concerns that does not serve as an alternative to fossil fuels such as coal.
411. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 7:12:38 PM Davis, Anna General Comment To the Department of Energy, I am a retired veteran, working here in Colorado. I have lived here since 1998 and raised four children. I am still working in the National Security arena. I worry about our National Security for my children and grandchildren. I have the privilege to see the Top Secret world. I personally believe that this country needs to be independent! We should not rely on other countries for fuel of any sort. Exporting LNG strengthens relationships with allies by helping them reduce dependence on unstable or adversarial suppliers (e.g., Russia for Europe). Stable allies mean a more secure global environment. Domestically, maintaining LNG infrastructure ensures a reliable energy source in emergencies or during supply disruptions. Controlling a significant share of the global LNG market gives the U.S. economic leverage to influence energy prices and market dynamics. LNG exports generate jobs and government revenues, contributing to economic resilience and reducing vulnerabilities to global energy shocks. Supplying LNG to countries like Europe, Japan, and South Korea reduces their dependence on energy sources controlled by geopolitical rivals. LNG exports can be used as a tool of foreign policy to support or pressure nations in line with U.S. strategic interests. By maintaining abundant production and export capabilities, the U.S. secures its position as a global energy leader, reducing the influence of OPEC or other cartels. This country needs get back to being strong and be the Lead in this world not the dependent. As a retired AF I urge you to resume exporting LNG for our country has a huge abondance fuel and we need future.
412. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 7:12:43 PM Westman, Kathryn General Comment As a RN seeing the need to prioritize clean energy to avoid the ongoing and numerous negative effects of the fossil fuel industries on our citizens health and the environment, I ask we cancel all plans for exportation of gas. It does not benefit our country, only the oil companies.
413. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 7:22:35 PM pantaleo, tari General Comment LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. Approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, bring economic hardship and instability for consumers, and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution.
414. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 7:26:30 PM Garvey, Lydia General Comment Nix destructive LNG! Your attention to this most urgent matter would be much appreciated by all present & future generations of all species. TY Lydia Garvey Public Health Nurse
415. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 7:37:22 PM Davidsen, Judith General Comment LNG: dangerous at the source, dangerous in transport, dangerous in use. And that's the lifetime of LNG. It's sourced, it's transported, and it's used. It doesn't do anything else.
416. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 7:52:04 PM Van Dell, Greg General Comment I am a retired microwave radio engineer and worked for various radio manufacturers. Part of the scope of my work was working with O&G companies in the field to design and implement microwave radio systems that transmit Supervisory, Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) traffic across the entire energy grid. Without this system, energy distribution of any type would be non-existent. Therefore, the function of the SCADA network is perhaps the most critical in the nation. It monitors and manages current flow, voltages and circuit breakers for example. The network employs computers, surveillance devices, and networked data communication devices. It is the lifeblood of energy on many levels. It was my job to ensure that the infrastructure of this network was designed to provide network integrity, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and durability. I worked extensively in the Baaken oil field, and more remotely in the Permian Oil Basin. I met lots of engineers, O&G executives and ancillary personnel in my years doing this. I live in a state where hundreds of thousands of people's livelihoods are dependent on the O&G and LNG industries. In the most regulated state in the union for these important industries, I've seen communities, towns and cities that were founded on the industries and built around the locations of the production and drilling sites. People in these areas are living on pins and needles right now, waiting for the axe to fall, cutting their sources of income because of more rules restricting the efficacy of the industry, which is critical to national defence! The politicians writing these regulations are not giving the workers a second thought. They think only of money for their agendas and don't care if these workers and their families end up homeless, which could very well happen. This is not the way an open-market economy is supposed to work. I'm reminded of Ayn Rand's book 'Atlas Shrugged', where industry was shut down because of nonsense. I see the same thing happening in America today. I was brought up by a proud WWII veteran, out of a family of six WWII veterans. I, too, am a veteran of the Vietnam era. Patriotism was handed down with respectful hands in my family. The means to defend the USA, yes, but also to stand up and point out where we as a nation are going down the wrong path, and to work hard with other like-minded people to help get the nation facing the right direction to becoming what our brave forefathers intended. I ask that the DOE take into consideration these things, resume LNG exports and act in the interest of these United States and Colorado. Greg Van Dell
417. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 8:11:47 PM Canright, Rebecca General Comment Greetings! I am a young person who cares about protecting our environment. Please reject LNG exports. Let's instead invest in renewable solar and wind. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. Thank you for your time and consideration! Take care, Rebecca
418. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 8:37:27 PM riccardi, patrizia General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
419. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 9:48:11 PM Bedard, Joe General Comment let's promote sustainable energy sources and jobs now
420. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 9:49:38 PM Khalsa, Dr. Mha Atma S General Comment As a very concerned American citizen and taxpayer, I greatly appreciate your considering my comments! LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
421. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 9:52:13 PM Albright, Etta General Comment With understanding evidence of irreversible damage to the planet due to human activity exacerbated global warming and climate change related to fossil fuels, is well documented then LNG exports must cease. Health well-being and safety must be esteemed and prioritized using available evidence. The egregious ethnocentric dark side of the human condition that knows no consequence for harming or destroying life must not be enabled to control.
422. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:06:38 PM Breakwell, Amy General Comment LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability.
423. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:12:02 PM Bower-Bjornson, Lois E General Comment I live in the most heavily fracked county in Pennsylvania Washington county. My home is completely encompassed by the oil and gas industry. The oil and gas industry promised us energy independence. That has not been the case. Seventy five percent of all the gas produced in the U.S. is exported. There is no energy security since we keep exporting our gas. If the oil and gas industry was making us energy independent are streets should be lined with gold not the oil and gas executives pockets. The only people benefiting form LNG exports are the oil and gas executives.
424. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:15:56 AM Guthrie, Patricia General Comment Our planet ALREADY is on fire - why are you even THINKING about adding more "fuel to the fire"? Don't you care about the world YOU are leaving to future generations? To YOUR children and grandchildren and their grandchildren? We MUST transition to clean renewable energy AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE to blunt the worst of the climate disaster that ALREADY is upon us.
425. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:28:04 AM Brincka, Frank General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
426. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:39:42 AM Larason, Lewis General Comment PLEASE do NOT allow more LNG Exports - our planet Earth already is burning up, with each year being hotter than the year before. We most certainly DO NOT need more fossil fuel pollution stoking the fires of climate change. Thank you for considering my comments.
427. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:45:01 AM Balaban, Susan General Comment Since 1980 I advocated for policies and regulations that would protect our environment. In that time I have watched people and our government ignore the science and the warnings. Our grim predictions have become commonplace weather occurrences and catastrophes mount. This is just the beginning. We must do everything in our power to halt the devastation we have triggered with our willful ignorance and neglect. To that end, we must do everything in our power to promote support and invest in a green economy first and foremost beginning with green energy. Approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. It cannot be allowed to continue. Our lives, and the lives of our children, grandchildren and all future generations and the health of our entire planet depend on our living up to our responsibilities.
428. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 7:07:08 AM Allison, Maria General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
429. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 7:15:23 AM Cavallo, Janet General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health, is a climate disaster. We do not need more LNG.
430. 1/15/2025 7:47:50 AM domiano, nicholas General Comment
431. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 8:13:09 AM dribin, lois General Comment please stop lng exports. very dangerous.
432. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 8:45:52 AM Pedersen, Ellen General Comment • LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. • The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
433. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:12:00 AM McCune, James General Comment Hi, my name is Jim McCune and I have lived in Pennsylvania for 46 years. My primary experience is as a trainer/instructional designer. For 17 years, I served as technical/SHE training coordinator for the petrochemical industry in ***** County. Following my service with he petrochemical industry, I began working for CCBC ***** an instructor in the process technology center. My students typically went to work for oil and gas and petrochemical industries, which were life-changing jobs. I felt the same way about my position in the petrochemical industry. These industries have provided excellent jobs to me and my neighbors, and have given back much to the community! I acknowledge the work the DOE is doing to protect our energy infrastructure and security and I believe we have many common goals in the areas of Safety and protection of the environment. As someone who has been directly involved in ensuring the implementation of clean energy and low-emissions production, I know that the best option is to produce LNG in the US. If we want to see lower emissions globally, we should be producing and exporting LNG to support the US economy which also supports the US economy and job growth as opposed to supporting job growth in other countries. As an industry employee, I urge this department to strengthen our economy by resuming approval of LNG export permits.
434. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:13:42 AM Kerzner, Boris General Comment To whom it may concern: Please do all in your power to prevent these LNG exports. LNG is natural gas is methane which is 80x more potent in the short-term than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. In my opinion, all relevant natural gas infrastructure, all fossil fuel infrastructure, should be gradually, faithfully, reliably phased out. Allowing LNG-related infrastructure and movement to entrench itself further is the opposite direction of the one we should be going in. The world is warming and calamities are ensuing - see the L.A. fires happening right now, the devastating Pakistan floods of 2022, and much more. Allowing LNG exports is a step in the wrong direction, please do not allow it. I have two young children, both below the age of 7, and I am far from certain of the stability of the world they're growing into. Please do your part. We can do this together. Thank you, Boris Kerzner
435. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:20:14 AM Wood, Caroline General Comment My name is Caroline Wood and I live in New Mexico with my family. We have lived in New Mexico for 43 years. Originally from Arizona. I want to express my concerns on how this will effect the citizens of New Mexico. I am also concerned how the LNG Ban impact will impact the New Mexico citizens. I am also concerned about the effect this will have on the smaller poorer countries. In the long run this will have a negative impact on future jobs in America. This is no more than an political ploy with no concern about how this will effect not only the citizens of New Mexico but the negative effect it will have world wide. We the American people will stand by our brothers and sisters in support of their concerns. Thank you and please uphold the rights the American people to prosper and live the American Dream.
436. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:22:54 AM Granato, Linda General Comment To whom it may concern, LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
437. 1/15/2025 11:36:04 AM Shapiro, Leo General Comment
438. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:36:15 AM Reichert, Robyn General Comment Please put an end to LNG Exports and the destruction of the environment!
439. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:37:43 AM Cordas, Zachary General Comment LNG exports only raise energy prices domestically and are so damaging to the environment. Please reflect that.
440. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:38:07 AM Tangi, Anna General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
441. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:38:09 AM Holland, Gabriele General Comment GLAD SOMETHING IS TRYING TO CORRECT THIS CORRUPT WORLD. I'M IN IWHT YOU GUYS AND DOING A GREAT JOB. THANK YOU
442. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:39:24 AM Levin, Carol General Comment This is our last opportunity to stop this environmental disaster. Please take action!
443. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:39:26 AM wilson, micheal General Comment You effect the environment have effects on you too you know it double sided coin
444. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:39:47 AM Chisari, Andrea General Comment NO MORE LNG!!! DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Time to do what is RIGHT, not what is pollution for all and money for a very few.
445. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:39:48 AM Wilson, Jeff General Comment We need to end the use of fossil fuels and the building of fossil fuel infrastructure.
446. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:40:27 AM Lee, Michael General Comment Please vote to ban LNG exports. They harm the environment: building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. In addition, they poison communities: most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Finally, they raise costs: more LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
447. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:40:39 AM Rocco , Chuck General Comment It takes more energy to create LNG than can be extracted thereby creating more CO2, a greenhouse gas, than just burning it. This is insanity. We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions, getting rid of LNG is one way.
448. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:40:49 AM O'Carroll, Kevin General Comment To protect THE EARTH, LNG exports need to STOP! Thank you,
449. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:41:12 AM Owens, Abigail General Comment I wholeheartedly agree with this study, and side with the decision to disapprove more LNG production. The harm to the economy, environment, and communities is not worth it.
450. 1/15/2025 11:41:39 AM Scheible , Barbara Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports
451. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:42:06 AM Anderson, Judith General Comment I am writing this to urge you to take action to reject all pending LNG export authorizations. Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Please take all this into consideration and reject these LNG exports. Thank you.
452. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:42:11 AM Nieland, Carolyn General Comment Denial of climate change won't work, we must transition away from fossil fuels usage and development to renewable energy sources ASAP!
453. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:42:21 AM Lee, Tsee General Comment Thank you all for working to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
454. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:42:28 AM Thornton, Mona General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Please stop further LNG exports!
455. 1/15/2025 11:42:29 AM Wolner, Kirsten General Comment
456. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:42:32 AM Seff, Joshua General Comment Please reject all pending LNG export authorizations.
457. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:42:44 AM Nieland, Thomas General Comment Denial of climate change won't work, we must transition away from fossil fuels usage and development to renewable energy sources ASAP!
458. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:43:21 AM Siptroth, Michael General Comment US must cut fossil fuels and not export more= cut all LNG facilities and stop exports!
459. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:43:33 AM Rochester, Ingrid General Comment More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
460. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:45:08 AM Melchoni, Frank General Comment We have to get away from fossil fuels period!
461. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:45:25 AM dull, john General Comment Let's create a world that our kids can be proud of.
462. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:46:00 AM Burke, Dana General Comment Please protect the environment and ultimately the people by not allowing LNG to export or drill.
463. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:46:31 AM Gibson, Duane General Comment We must stop the LNG from damaging the environment and hurting the people!
464. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:46:32 AM May, Maureen General Comment The DOE is clear that more LNG facilities and exports will be very harmful to the environment and the health of all, especially those close to the facilities. Please do the right thing and move the US to a more just society and to stop reliance on fossil fuels. If these facilities are built it will lock in fossil fuels use for many decades and we need to stop immediately and move to affordable and safer renewable energy sources. Thank you for your support of climate issues and for the thorough analyses that proved LNG is harmful in every way. Please stop it NOW. Thank you, Maureen May
465. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:46:36 AM Richardson, Gail General Comment I thank the DOE for your work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. Economic: Key study finding: DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain unconstrained, the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays my energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations, only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. As an American citizen and resident of Stone Mountain, Georgia, I am already experiencing impacts of the climate crisis, including extreme weather events and pollution. This has negatively impacted our community’s health, financial wellbeing, etc. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
466. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:46:42 AM Greco, Jose Luis General Comment I thank the DOE for their work to “update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not.” “The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.” “I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied.” “DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.” How this impacts the American public: (You could highlight how this price increase will negatively impact your family or household, i.e. “As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our “DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE.” “As an American citizen and resident of Connecticut I am already experiencing the impact of climate change. This has negatively impacted our community’s health, financial wellbeing, etc.] of my community. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending . In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” How this impacts the American public: Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.”
467. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:46:56 AM Darlington, Beth General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
468. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:47:41 AM Adelson, Julie General Comment stop LNG exports. It is outrageous that you could even think of more fossil fuels while we burn or flood. Climate crisis is real and here and we need to take bold action for solar and wind - no fossil fuels!
469. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:47:41 AM SLO Climate Coalition Appendix D: Addendum on Environmental and Community Effects of U.S. LNG Exports What part of California burning and Carolinas drowning and Florida sinking dont you understand? You canmot DENY the CLIMATE CRISIS, caused by your INDUSTRIES. NO MORE DRILLING, FRACKING, PLASTICS. PERIOD. Save your grandkids from unimaginable suffering. And it's NEVER TOO LATE to SAVE YOURSELVES by DOING WHAT'S RIGHT. You will be FORGIVEN and SPARED if you CHANGE COURSE NOW.
470. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:47:59 AM Leming, Chad General Comment As an American citizen and resident of the Gulf South I am already experiencing climate crisis in our area. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.
471. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:48:02 AM Risser, Mrs. Susan & Mr. Peter General Comment Nothing could be stupider than exporting the fuel that we need ourselves !
472. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:48:07 AM Nusekabel, Kent General Comment Given the changing climate, the United States of American should not be building more LNG export terminals. The resultant increases in more global net greenhouse gas emissions for LNG are the opposite effect of the needed action of reducing our fossil fuel use and cutting pollution. Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution; this situation is unacceptable. Increased LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
473. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:48:21 AM Pitt, Jon General Comment Stop the madness! Exporting LNG will harm our great country in 3 ways, Harm the environment, Poison low-income communities who have no power to do anything about it AND drive prices up for the rest of the country as LNG exports are much more profitable and as a result leaves less NG for domestic use. Lower supply and higher demand equals higher prices. This is bad all around; 3 strikes and you should be OUT! PLEASE!
474. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:48:38 AM Jarrett, Janice General Comment I have had asthma for sometime, which is extremely exacerbated by bad air. The wanton use of industrial platforms a machinery that does very little to clean the air, and their culture of lack of responsibility, threatens my life often. And I am not alone. The rates of asthma are climbing alarmingly. We rely on the government to help protect us from exploitation that causes illness and death. Please exercise your abilities and power to protect our air and therefore our variability to survive. It is very difficult to walk around with an elephant on your chest. This is how it feels when you suffer in attack of asthma. In the last week due to the fires from California, I am forced to be on a breathing machine almost around the clock. Add the particulates spread by high winds, and there is a very dangerous environment for even healthy people who do not suffer asthma or a similar disease as I said, we rely on you- please do the right thing.
475. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:48:55 AM Figallo, Kaeli General Comment Thank yo so much for your work on updating the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who helps pays part on my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. As an American citizen and resident of Minnesota, I am already experiencing extremely cold winters and much more hotter summer days. This has negatively impacted our community’s health of my community. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase. Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
476. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:49:25 AM Pearson, Cheryl General Comment DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
477. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:49:37 AM frey, katy General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.
478. 1/15/2025 11:49:37 AM O'Brien, Midge General Comment
479. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:49:48 AM schaffer, carol General Comment Please reject all pending LNG export authorizations. A few weeks ago, Biden's DOE released new research that shows how approving new permits for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports will drive up energy bills, exacerbate the climate crisis, and harm the public health of frontline communities—particularly those on the Gulf Coast. DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. The analysis from DOE can solidify President Biden's climate and environmental justice legacy, make it legally difficult for the Trump administration to advance more LNG export projects, and provide a solid foundation for bold action now.
480. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:50:16 AM Norden, Michael General Comment Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
481. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:50:46 AM Vose , Kathleen Appendix B: Domestic Energy, Economic, and GHG Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports DOE report is detrimental to our country’s fragile climate.
482. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:50:55 AM Williams, Mark General Comment US LNG Exports need to balance competing interests of (a) domestic energy, (b) exports to allies (geopolitical) and (c) environmental concerns. With LNG Expansion, I fear we are too heavily weighing geopolitical over environmental.
483. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:51:30 AM Romero, Robert General Comment Hello, I wish to thank the DOE for the important work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. Since the Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest, I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied: Economic: Key study finding: DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. Environmental and climate harms: Key study finding: DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. As an American citizen and resident of Houston, TX, I am already experiencing an inordinate number of cosecutive summer days over 100°F. This has negatively impacted many people in my community. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Environmental justice: In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of all communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
484. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:52:04 AM Mark, Peter General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
485. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:52:20 AM Moissant, Helen General Comment Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
486. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:52:24 AM Geukes , Kathi General Comment Just stop already!!!!
487. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:52:51 AM Kolesnik , Robert General Comment Stop American LNG exports. Thank you for your consideration.
488. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:53:05 AM Templeton, Jess General Comment Hello, I welcome the DOE's efforts to update economic and environmental studies concerning LNG exports. After reading the DOE's updated studies, and from doing my own research, it's clear to me that more LNG exports are definitely NOT in the public interest. I urge the DOE to deny ALL pending LNG export authorizations. A number of factors influence my opinion, but some key study finding's include: -If LNG exports remain "unconstrained" the average U.S. household will likely spend more than $100 per year on their energy bills by 2050. I am already burdened by my energy bill, the last thing I want is for the government to approve moves that will increase how much I pay, especially when such an increase will actually damage the environment, not help it. -The DOE's updated studies conclude that increasing LNG exports would increase global net emissions in EVERY SINGLE SCENARIO the DOE analyzed. I already live in perpetual fear of flooding and other Americans are forever fearful of increasing wildfires. More LNG exports would make these problems worse while making life continually unaffordable for most Americans. And for what purpose? To enrich a few corporate elites with offshore bank accounts? That would be unpatriotic, unjust, and, frankly, stupid. In conclusion, I am strongly opposed to any more LNG exports. Thank you for your time.
489. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:53:38 AM Rathbun , Peter General Comment Greed will be the death of us all.
490. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:53:40 AM Martin, Benjamin General Comment DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough.
491. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:54:42 AM High, Carol General Comment Further development for LNG is a hazard for the environment. Breathing the polution caused by this is a major health issue, but it is causing all living things to be negatively affected. Air, land and water are poluted by this. We are exporting these products and developing more than our country needs. Profit for shareholders is NOT more importat than the health of our environment. Even shareholders need to breath, eat and drink. If there is not a healthy environment they should be able to see that they too will suffer. Effort to develop sustainable sources of energy should be the focus now. This too could employ workers and provide income for both workers and shareholders. The refocusing will not be instantaneous but continuing with the fossel fuel energy consumption will keep the fires burning, the air, water, earth poluted and no one will, in the short and long term benefit.
492. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:55:36 AM Engle, I. General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
493. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:56:05 AM Weibel, Molly General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays for my family's energy bills, I do not want our government approving more LNG exports authorizations, only to increase our energy bill and pollute the environment. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. As an American citizen and resident of Portland, OR, I am already experiencing regular wildfire seasons (which are only recent and did not occur with any frequency 10 + years ago). This has negatively impacted our community’s health, financial wellbeing, and safety of my community. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
494. 1/15/2025 11:56:29 AM D'Ambrosia, Dominic General Comment
495. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:56:36 AM Kehl, Mike General Comment I want to thank the Department for their work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. I have read that the Department's updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Per your own findings if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low and middle income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living, and these costs will only increase in the future as the ongoing pollution continues to worsen the environmental damage leading to a more chaotic climate. It is also critical to remember that LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in "sacrifice" communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase. For these and other reasons please deny all pending LNG export authorizations.
496. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:56:51 AM Kagan, Harris General Comment The DOE's findings on LNG exports are striking, confirming what was mostly understood about LNG exports; in contradiction to what LNG distributors would have the public believe. Specifically, the LNG export proposers ignore the following: 1-Harm to the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution as indicated by the LA fires. 2-Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. 3-Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt mostly by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the cost of living. For the reasons listed above, I urge you to deny further LNG exports until real solutions are proposed.
  1. LNGExportComment_to_DOE.pdf
497. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:56:57 AM Cahyono, Heru General Comment Preserve the environment for the future of future generations
498. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:56:57 AM Baca, David General Comment Here's what we know about LNG export terminals, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable, especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
499. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:57:14 AM Damian , Ann Marie General Comment Save our planet and stop the big oil and gas polluters!!!!
500. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:57:46 AM Sparling, Jeff General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
501. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:58:07 AM Mulvey, Donna General Comment Please say No to LNG. Say No to: Harming the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up.
502. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:59:20 AM Gross, Steve General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
503. 1/15/2025 11:59:37 AM Harris, Tom General Comment
504. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:00:39 PM OXMAN, SHAREN General Comment Please reject all pending LNG export authorizations. It is harmful to the environment already in crisis due to the fossil fuel industry. Thank you
505. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:01:29 PM Angell, JL General Comment The report makes clear that no further LNG approvals can ever again meet statutory standards of being in the public interest; thus you must never approve any more and must deny all pending requests.
506. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:02:33 PM Steitz, Jim General Comment I implore you to stop the Department of Energy’s program of permitting, licensing, subsidizing, encouraging, and cheerleading for the expansion of fossil methane gas export “LNG” terminals.  Both you and these projects’ corporate sponsors have been informed, in a torrent of increasingly desperate and explicit pleadings from scientists over a quarter-century, that human survival demands the bulk of remaining fossil methane remain securely underground.  The volume of natural gas that a guild of sociopathic hydrocarbon corporations envision extracting, liquefying, and shipping overseas will foreclose humanity’s hope for stabilizing our climate. The mathematics of our atmosphere's progressive saturation with carbon dioxide, and the constraints of an atmosphere capable of supporting human civilization, are unequivocal. Extracting and burning methane must be rapidly discontinued, overseas just as surely as domestically, if we wish our children a habitable planet. By brazenly defying this warnings in favor of consecrating a decades-long export program, you commit yourself to humanity’s obituary as an agent of our suicide by climate sabotage.   The Biden Administration has sought to rationalize these fossil methane exports as a geopolitical response to Russian influence in Europe, providing a ‘friendly’ source and displacing Russian leverage via its own methane gas. However, even a cursory consideration of the breathtaking scale and timeframe of these projects belies this cynical deception of humanity. The public statements, balance sheets, and seductive investor calls of these projects’ corporate sponsors openly aim to renew, reaffirm, and make imperturbable the world’s consumption of fossil methane for decades beyond even the most generous deadline offered by scientists for planetary survival. Today’s geopolitics is not an actual reason for fossil methane export, but rather a deceitful pretense for locking humanity to carbon bombs whose horrific consequences will render today’s wars, including that in Ukraine, a trivial footnote for our children. We live in a world where most nations have nominally assented to the idea of “net zero by 2050” or some comparable formulation, but no government has made the tangible decision to disappoint today’s fossil fuel interests by leaving their own carbon bombs in the ground. As each government implements a policy, either as explicit strategy or implicit rationalization, of ‘our nation-state as the last fossil fuel producer to the end,’ the cumulative effect is that nobody’s fossil fuel production declines, and humanity continues flooring the accelerator into climate hell. For any hope of attaining such 2050-pegged goals, let alone actual climate stabilization and its more demanding schedule, each government must renounce its own carbon bombs and anger its own carbon lobbies. Europe has shown itself capable of doing so with exceptional speed and focus of purpose where a national interest is at stake. By offering the easy siren call of American fossil methane to the myopic, complacent, and climate-denial lane of European politics, you sabotage this opportunity for dispatching both a passing petty tyrant and the tyranny of the climate suicide lobby. Moreover, the expansion of American natural gas companies into the foreign markets would accelerate and perpetuate their aggressive evisceration of our human and natural landscapes. From the Allegheny Mountains of New York and Pennsylvania, to the farmlands of the Piedmont, to the pastures of Texas, to the National Forests of California, natural gas companies are running amok over public and private lands. Iconic American landscapes that have defined our character and aesthetic for decades are being irrevocably scarred and peeled away. After the gas is gone, Americans will look in regret and shame upon what our generation has done to our home. If America becomes a major exporter of LNG, it would further encourage gas companies to peel away the green, living lungs of the Earth upon which human life depends.    Again, please reject these fossil methane ‘LNG’ export terminals, and prevent the gas companies from vivisecting America's land and communities for an immediate payout, and to prevent America from becoming a veritable launching pad for global climate catastrophe. America must become a leader of humankind into a future of survival, not off a cliff into climate Armageddon. Thank you for your attention to this urgent issue.
507. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:02:44 PM Read, Gina General Comment The Department of Energy’s updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing to you today. I urge Department of Energy to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Your 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As a senior who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. Also, your updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. Having lived in Phoenix, AZ all my life, I am already experiencing climate crisis, with hotter and hotter temperatures, drought and increased wildfires around the state.
508. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:03:00 PM Dean, Elizabeth General Comment We do not need the pollution or the more expensive energy costs that would happen with liquid natural gas.
509. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:03:33 PM O'Rourke, Susan General Comment We are in a long fight against climate change and it is impacting lives globally and here in the United States. Florida had 3 hurricanes in 2024, 2 of them major. Believe me it was no picnic and many have not yet recovered or even been able to start fixing their properties due to slow permits by agencies with not enough help and newer re-build policies by FEMA some will never be able to re-build. This is a totally different Florida than the one I moved to in 1979. Californians are going thru horrific wildfires that are destroying whole communities and many will never rebuild. Globally every country pretty much has their own climate disasters which are causing just as many , or more horrific problems for their citizens.oil companies HAVE LIED for decades and should be made to pay. We don’t need the problems associated with LNG Exports which will certainly pollute our environment more than it already is. Asthma is harming children and adults in high numbers, we have explosive weather problems and on and on. Please stop LNG exports for everyone’s sake. They really can be a matter of life and death. CHOOSE LIFE.
510. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:04:45 PM VanWinkle, Jean Marie General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. Economic: Key study finding: “DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays my energy bills I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. Environmental and climate harms: DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. As an American citizen and resident of [insert your town or community, I am already witnessing the impact of the climate crisis and environmental harm facing our country and the planet. This has negatively impacted our health and financial wellbeing. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Environmental justice: In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
511. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:05:29 PM Moulton, Thomas General Comment I oppose LNG exports as they will increase the costs to local communities, harm the environment by contributing to climate change and poison local communities with pollution. These are catastrophic effects that should preclude the approval of LNG exports.
512. 1/15/2025 12:06:22 PM Streier, Randall General Comment
513. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:06:35 PM Davis, Jordan General Comment There is a concerted concern among the public about the export of LNG - which includes harmful chemicals and substances such as methane. As someone who lives in the Rust Belt, I have seen how the use and transport of nonrenewable resources has been catastrophic to the built environment and its inhabitants. Not to mention, the consolidation of wealth of those who already profit from exports of these resources prevent many working class people from prospering from what remains of the industrial past of this nation. Allocating capital to the transport, installation, and containment of renewable and alternative fuel sources (i.e. solar, wind, hydroelectrical, nuclear) will provide a more economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable pathway of industry for those in the working class.
514. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:07:31 PM Silverman, Mark General Comment LNG export terminals harm the environment. We should not build more!
515. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:10:15 PM Fradkin, Allison General Comment Thank you for your work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. We are already experiencing the impact of the climate crisis. This has negatively impacted people's health, financial wellbeing, and comfort. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest. Thank you for doing the right thing for everyone, including yourself!
516. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:10:17 PM Johanson, Erica General Comment More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
517. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:12:00 PM Esser, Char General Comment To whom it may concern, DOE's analysis shows that building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Additionally, most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Finally, more LNG exports would raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. This is our last shot at stopping dirty LNG. Please reject all pending LNG export authorizations. Thank you for your time.
518. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:12:22 PM Lunsford, Jimmie General Comment LNG export terminals: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Please do NOT approve new permits for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports!
519. 1/15/2025 12:12:24 PM Schneider, Danielle General Comment
520. 1/15/2025 12:13:17 PM Butler, Jane General Comment
521. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:15:38 PM Dutschke, Stephen General Comment Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
522. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:15:58 PM Ausman, Candi General Comment LNG Export Terminals: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
523. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:16:04 PM Mead, Heidi General Comment Why is it so difficult to understand how all fossil fuels are damaging to the planet. And that includes natural gas. Fracking has also proven damaging. Stop this now. Get back to developing alternative energy.
524. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:16:21 PM Van Alyne , Emily General Comment DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
525. 1/15/2025 12:16:54 PM Curtis, Anthony General Comment
526. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:16:59 PM Goell, William General Comment OE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
527. 1/15/2025 12:20:20 PM Hare, Carolyn General Comment
528. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:20:29 PM Adams, Sarah General Comment The future of liquefied natural gas is in question What is liquefied natural gas? The fossil fuel known as “natural gas” or “fossil gas”—the stuff frackers are after—exists in a gaseous state at room temperature. This presents a problem for transport. Since gases are made up of lots of empty space with just a few molecules bouncing around, it would take a massive container to ship a useful amount of gas by road or rail. That leaves pipelines as the primary means for transporting gas at room temperature. Enter liquefied natural gas (LNG). By cooling fracked natural gas to -259 degrees Fahrenheit—a very energy-intensive undertaking—processors can transform it into a denser liquid. (For context, the coldest temperature ever recorded outdoors on earth is -135.8 degrees Fahrenheit.) This liquid is then loaded into specialized oceangoing containers, which look like gigantic domes rising from the ship’s deck. Shippers have a trick to keep the LNG cold and in a liquid state during its long maritime journey. To understand it, first think of a pot of boiling water. When you add more heat, the water doesn’t get hotter, because you can’t heat liquid water above its boiling point. Instead, the added energy converts a small amount of the liquid into steam, which floats out of the pot. A large white tank suspends from a crane A 265,000-gallon tank being installed at Eagle LNG's ship fueling operation at JAXPORT in Jacksonville, FloridaCredit:Bob Mack/Florida Times-Union via AP The same thing happens on the LNG carrier. The product is loaded onto the ship at its condensation point of -259 degrees Fahrenheit. As the storage container absorbs heat from the outside air, that energy goes toward converting small amounts of the LNG back into its gaseous form. The regasified molecules are directed out of the storage container and into the ship’s engines, where they power the ship. Most of the LNG, however, remains in its liquid state until it reaches its destination, where it is regasified and transported through pipelines to consumers. “LNG is basically just very cold gas,” says Amanda Levin, director of policy analysis in NRDC’s Science Office. “You don’t typically use LNG directly. It’s about how you transport it, which is one reason it’s carbon-intensive.” What is liquefied natural gas used for? Once LNG is regasified at room temperature, it is used the same way as any natural gas—it is burned to generate electricity, heat, and cooking fuel in homes and businesses, as well as processed for plastics or other petrochemical products. LNG can also be used as a vehicle fuel without being returned to its gaseous form. But, since holding the liquid at -259 degrees Fahrenheit is no easy task, LNG’s transport use is limited to a small number of heavy-duty trucks, buses, and ships. Power plants also use LNG as a backup fuel. By cooling gas, utilities are able to store LNG on-site in cryogenic tanks. When demand peaks, or supply drops due to limited pipeline availability, the utility returns the LNG to its gaseous state and burns it to generate electricity. What are the differences between raw, compressed, and liquefied natural gas? Raw natural gas is the name for unprocessed natural gas that has just been pumped from the ground. Because raw natural gas is unprocessed, it contains several components (like water, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide) that have to be removed. Once the natural gas has been separated into its useful parts, there are two ways to make it dense enough to transport: compressing it or liquefying it. Compressed natural gas (CNG) is gas that has been physically stuffed into a chamber, which is then gradually shrunk. CNG has 100 times as much energy as the same volume of uncompressed gas and can be stored at room temperature. Liquefied natural gas, as mentioned, is chilled and liquefied gas held at very cold temperatures. Although LNG comes with storage and transport challenges, it is much more energy dense than compressed natural gas—and about 600 times more energy dense than ordinary gas. The liquefied natural gas industry The commercial production of LNG in the United States began in 1941, with the first U.S. exports heading to the United Kingdom in the late 1950s. But the real boom for U.S. LNG kicked off far more recently. An industrial facility on a coastline Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass LNG facility in Cameron Parish, LouisianaCredit:Lindsey Janies/Bloomberg via Getty Images The increase in U.S. natural gas extraction—which far exceeds domestic demand for gas—has spurred the industry to build out LNG infrastructure, such as processing facilities and export terminals to ease shipping of the fossil fuel. U.S. exports of LNG grew a staggering 450 percent between 2017 and 2022. The United States is now the world’s biggest LNG exporter (followed by Australia, Qatar, and Russia), hitting a record 12.4 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) in October 2023—almost 10 percent of total U.S. gas production. Some of that increase has to do with geopolitical issues. For example, ever since Russia invaded Ukraine, the European Union has used investments in energy efficiency and clean energy, among other strategies, to cut Russian gas imports from 41 percent of its total imports down to 8 percent. At the same time, U.S. LNG exports to Europe nearly doubled, making the United States its largest supplier. But ultimately, the final destination of a U.S. tanker of LNG might be influenced by where the company can get the highest prices. While Europe has been the main destination for recent exports, the vast majority of U.S. LNG contracts signed in 2022 and 2023 have unspecified destinations. Analysts have found that most of these new contracts are ending up in the hands of LNG resellers. These buyers, typically oil and gas companies or gas traders, will look to profit off of whichever country, company, or project offers the most money for the product. Unfortunately, these lucrative overseas exports are now contributing to higher home-heating costs across the United States. As the demand for gas has rebounded from pandemic lows, both globally and in the United States, the U.S. LNG industry remains focused on maximizing shareholder returns rather than meeting the domestic market demand—and so costs to consumers have risen. “Unlike oil, which is priced on a global market, natural gas prices reflect domestic supply and demand,” explains Gillian Giannetti, a senior attorney with NRDC’s Climate & Energy program. “LNG exports put upward pressure on gas bills for U.S. consumers, forcing them to compete with overseas customers for gas produced in this country.” Liquefied natural gas environmental concerns LNG and environmental justice There are many ways in which the gas industry can harm communities and ecosystems: water contamination around fracking sites, abandoned wells that send a stream of harmful pollution into the air, gas-fueled stoves that worsen in-home air quality, increased risk of explosions and deadly accidents, to name a few. But from the Delaware River Basin in New Jersey to Cameron Parish, Louisiana, the list of proposed LNG facilities is getting longer. “Most of these facilities are being built to process and ship gas abroad—at the cost of the health, safety, and well-being of local communities,” says Giannetti. “And as with other fossil fuel infrastructure, these facilities are disproportionately and deliberately sited in low-income neighborhoods and in communities of color.” This is especially true along the Gulf Coast in Louisiana and Texas, where the majority of existing and proposed LNG projects are located. As Anne Rolfes, director of the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, explained to the Environmental Integrity Project: “The LNG terminals proposed for Louisiana sacrifice [residents’ and workers’] health and the very existence of our coast for the worthless goal of exporting gas. We are an impoverished state, and these projects built in flood zones make us poorer and more vulnerable.” Three people stand in front of a large industrial facility and hold posters with images on them Port Arthur Community Action Network (PACAN) founder, ​​John Beard (front), stands with Lone Star Legal Aid's Amy Dinn and Chase Porter at a PACAN press conference outside of the Oxbow calcining plant in West Port Arthur, Texas, on August 18, 2021.Credit:Kim Brent/The Beaumont Enterprise Many communities have been pushing back, demanding not to be treated as sacrifice zones by the gas industry or by those that review these projects. “We must begin to treat each other and see each other as human beings and not as commodities—or the land upon which we live as a commodity to be used and exploited for profit and gain for the few, over the needs of the many,” said John Beard Jr., founder of the Texas-based Port Arthur Community Action Network, at a roundtable on environmental justice and infrastructure permitting, hosted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in March 2023. “Port Arthur is a city that has suffered in this way for over 12 decades of environmental pollution.” The majority-Black community of more than 55,000 residents is home to two LNG export facilities as well as some of the largest oil refineries in the United States. Beard went on to note that the city has twice the national average rate of cancer, heart, lung, and kidney disease. Not only does heavy industrial air pollution affect public health in Port Arthur, but the community’s proximity to the coast makes residents especially vulnerable to the stronger hurricanes brought on by climate change. LNG and climate change In addition to the health and environmental risks it poses, natural gas, in any form, contributes to climate change. Burning gas for energy releases carbon into the atmosphere, which fuels global warming. And in every step of its life cycle—from extraction and processing to storage and transportation—LNG emits methane. As a greenhouse gas, methane is 85 times more potent than carbon dioxide in the first 20 years after it is emitted. LNG is an especially problematic form of natural gas for the climate. Chilling gas to incredibly cold temperatures uses a lot of energy. Holding it at that temperature uses energy. Transporting it by ship, rail, and truck uses energy. Warming it back up uses a lot of energy. When you add all of that together, LNG is responsible for about twice as much greenhouse gas as ordinary gas. Fourteen percent of the climate footprint of LNG comes from gas leaks, flaring, or intentional venting (for example, when operators release gas into the atmosphere to allow for maintenance on a pipe) during production and transport. An empty playground with trees behind it and large oil rig standing in the background A fracking rig looms over the playground of Summit Elementary school in Butler, Pennsylvania.Credit:Steven Rubin for Public Herald, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 “As bad as that sounds, comparing LNG to ordinary natural gas isn’t even the right comparison,” explains Levin. “We should be comparing it to renewables.” To produce the same amount of energy, LNG emits 14 times as much carbon as solar power, and 50 times as much carbon as wind power. LNG poses a special problem to the United States from a carbon-accounting perspective. Since LNG intended for export would be extracted and chilled in the United States, all of the energy required to complete those steps counts toward U.S. carbon emissions—as well as up to 40 percent of the emissions of the exported fuel itself—even though the energy will be consumed abroad. The United States is already substantially behind on the commitment we made through the Paris Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent to 52 percent by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. The future of liquefied natural gas is in question With awareness of the many threats that LNG expansion poses, public pressure has mounted for lawmakers to intervene. And in January 2024, the Biden administration announced it is pausing pending approvals for new LNG export authorizations to non–Free Trade Agreement countries in order to re-evaluate how these exports impact high consumer energy costs domestically, as well as greenhouse gas emissions. “Federal law requires FERC and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to evaluate whether a proposed LNG project is consistent with the public interest and to quantify and assess the environmental effects of an LNG project,” says Giannetti. “But historically, the LNG review process has been little more than a check-the-box exercise.” (FERC reviews applications to build pipelines and liquefaction terminals, while the DOE reviews applications to export the commodity to other countries. The Biden administration’s action is related to the DOE’s reviews.) This pause is a much-needed reality check for an industry that’s already overbuilt, with companies racing to to profit in the face of overwhelming scientific opposition and to the detriment of the communities surrounding gas production and transportation projects. “The proposed projects that the Biden administration is reviewing now would not begin operating until 2028, at the earliest,” says Giannetti. “That’s the worst possible time to lock future generations into decades more of dependence on fossil fuels.” Phasing out fossil fuels in order to avoid climate catastrophe, as global leaders committed to at COP28 in Dubai, requires oil and gas consumption to fall by more than 5 percent a year, on average, between now and 2050. And to meet its legally mandated climate commitments, Europe, currently the largest importer of U.S. LNG, will need to drop its gas consumption by at least 26 percent below today’s levels. Your hoping that Europe will be failing their commitment. US will suffer “In LNG, the fossil fuel industry has found yet another way to push a product we should already be moving away from,” says Levin. “It’s simply not where we need to go.”
529. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:20:31 PM Kresse, Robert General Comment Greetings. I would like to begin by thanking you for your work in updating the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who is emphatic to the issues families face in this day and age, I disapprove of our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase families' energy bills and pollute our climate. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. I am well aware of the affects of climate change on communities, with the recent California wildfires being a prime example. An increasingly-heating earth will further hurt the health, financial wellbeing of my community and others. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. In her summary of the studies, Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase." Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
530. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:22:11 PM Apel, Jackie General Comment President Biden has gone above and beyond to try to help us all solve climate problems and the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which is seriously impacting our weather and the health of our planet, as well as us. He put a halt to exports of the natural gas, which does accumulate in the atmosphere and we just simply cannot afford to ignore this contribution to all of our current problems. Please do not give a green light to this project, but rather do a long-term assessment to see if it is really what we can afford to do. We must take climate change seriously and the impact of natural gas on our atmosphere. Carbon capture has not yet been perfected, and the only real way to save our planet is to halt the flow of these greenhouse gases, around the world. Concentrating on truly clean energy is what we need to do. We also do not need to allow the Trump Administration to turn back the clock, and continue to allow these greenhouse gases to spew into the atmosphere. We see what is happening in California, with extreme wildfires and the Santa Ana winds. We have to work with mother nature, not against her. Let's turn the page on dirty fossil fuels and greenhouse gases. We need to put into place regulations that cannot be overturned. President Biden's legacy deserves to be given priority over the incoming Trump Administration's wishes.
531. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:22:19 PM Schirm, Alyssa General Comment I am Alyssa Schirm, a citizen of Kearny, NJ, and an appointed member of Kearny's Advisory Committee for Environmental Sustainability. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. These authorizations should be denied as the report clearly shows unencumbered exports would result in financial strain on U.S. families and environmental disaster. Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
532. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:22:35 PM Sorge , Sven General Comment Dear Sirs and Madams, DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals! They are Big Polluters and: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Please stop this LNG! Thank you very much!
533. 1/15/2025 12:22:35 PM viles, zoe General Comment
534. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:23:23 PM Stewart, Jennifer General Comment LNG is not a safe source of energy. We must move toward safe renewable energy.
535. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:24:58 PM Burton , Barbara General Comment LNG Exports simply add to the degradation of our collective environment and perpetuate the consumption of fossil fuels. In addition, the safety of the workers AND surrounding neighborhoods/citizens are in jeopardy from these ticking time bombs
536. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:26:04 PM Stawinoga, Greg General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
537. 1/15/2025 12:26:27 PM Perkinson , Nancy General Comment
538. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:26:49 PM Gillaspie, Richard General Comment We need accountability. Prosecute powerful interests conspiring to continue polluting in the name of profits
539. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:28:06 PM Weigand, Pauline General Comment Do not do this!
540. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:31:14 PM Kovar, Jo Ann General Comment Please halt any plans to export LNG. We are supposed to cut, not increase, emissions to fight climate change. Average Americans have to deal with floods, fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, derechos and rising sea levels, all made worse as a result of higher greenhouse gases. LNG projects will contribute to making climate even worse. Do the right thing!
541. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:32:10 PM GANDOLFO, DEBORAH General Comment Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. In addition, most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Please reject all pending LNG export authorizations.
542. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:32:41 PM Lander, Lynn Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports Shipping of LNG is contrary to control of global warming. In the long run it will lead to massive increases in the cost of remediating disasters. In addition LNG export facilities will do harm to neighboring communities due to local pollution. The profits reaped by this venture will be more than offset by the cost and misery due to the global use of fossil fuels (in this case natural gas).
543. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:33:06 PM Salgado, Dalia General Comment Thank you for your work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. Economic: Key study finding: DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain unconstrained, the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. How this impacts the American public: As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. Environmental and climate harms: Key study finding: DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. How this impacts the American public: As an American citizen and resident of Los Angeles which currently is on fire, I am already experiencing current impacts of the climate crisis. This has negatively impacted our community’s health, financial wellbeing, etc. of my community. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Environmental justice: Summary of the study’s finding: In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase. How this impacts the American public: Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
544. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:33:32 PM KEKULE , DIANA General Comment Thank you for your work to “update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. Economic: Key study finding: “DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.” How this impacts the American public: As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. Environmental and climate harms: Key study finding: “DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE.” How this impacts the American public: As an American citizen and resident of [insert your town or community], I am already experiencing [insert an current or future impact of the climate crisis, or any environmental justice harm facing your community]. This has negatively impacted our community’s [health, financial wellbeing, etc.] of my community. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Environmental justice: In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” How this impacts the American public: Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
545. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:33:41 PM kelchak, mary General Comment Please protect the people and all the wildlife that depends on this area from being harmed. They need us to speak up for them. Ther are children, babies and mothers living there, Please do not let this happen.
546. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:34:32 PM Ahern, Maureen General Comment We need to conserve our land and not give in to developers who are trying to panic us. We need to preserve our wprld for future generations and future conservation. Do not give is protect our legacy to the world.
547. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:36:43 PM Levin, Beth General Comment DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
548. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:37:29 PM M, Frances General Comment LNG would hurt the environment by putting dangerous chemicals into the atmosphere. It's not worth the.risk to people, animals or the planet. I hope this dangerous event will be stopped. Thanks.
549. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:39:24 PM M, Amy General Comment LNG is very dangerous for people, animals and the planet we live in. I hope this is stopped before something bad happens and can't be stopped. Thanks.
550. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:40:15 PM Ruder, Cynthia General Comment Please consider these valid points, especially given that DOE studies have produced data to support them: DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Thank you for your consideration. A clean environment belongs to all of us.
551. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:41:37 PM Klaus, Aaron General Comment Thank you for your work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied: 1) DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. 2) DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. 3) In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
552. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:42:16 PM Anderson, Mark General Comment Thank you for your work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest. As you know, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies clearly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied: First, DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. In addition, DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. As such, I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.
553. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:42:40 PM Klaus, Aaron General Comment Thank you for your work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied: 1) DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. 2) DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. 3) In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
554. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:44:08 PM Schulte, Richard General Comment I feel we must do more to decrease the pollution that is causing climate change. Any attempt o do so should be supported.
555. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:45:53 PM hujet, carl General Comment thank you for your efforts in studying this issue. I believe they show more exports of LNG will hurt the citizens of the U.S.. My prices for propane and natural gas have gone through the roof as a result of al the LNG exports. I urge you to declare an end to more exports.
556. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:47:55 PM Schmidt, Kenneth General Comment Thank you for your efforts on transitioning to renewable energy. Regarding LNG, in the year 2024, we should not be burning fossil fuels to generate energy. From the environmental damage to the fact that renewables are now less expensive than any fossil fuel, it is time to put a moratorium on fossil fuels.
557. 1/15/2025 12:50:19 PM Douglas, Diana General Comment
558. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:52:27 PM Grammas, Kristen General Comment We as citizens have a right to clean air and water. Please protect us and future generations vs listening to the people who cause the pollutions stop approving for more natural gas. DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
559. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:53:00 PM Lipinski, Clare General Comment Reject all pending LNG export authorizations. Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Reject all pending LNG export authorizations.
560. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:53:51 PM Powers, Maura General Comment I am on the board of the Travis Audubon Society in Austin, TX. We care about the survival of birds in the atmosphere of a fast changing climate worldwide. Birds are in decline everywhere for various reasons but an unpredictable climate is at the top of the list. In Texas, we have begun experiencing polar vortexes. In 2021, Winter Storm Uri was so cold for so many days that there was a mass die off of birds. Many humans also died because they had no electricity. How many catastrophes like this need to happen before we turn back on fossil fuel emissions? Please do not permit more LNG terminals.
561. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:59:27 PM Schlender, Greg General Comment Enough is enough! Stop LNG gas exports!!!!
562. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:59:33 PM fojtik, pat General Comment LNG pollutes the air, especially for those living nearby.
563. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:59:35 PM Buer, Cierra General Comment Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
564. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:00:48 PM Temple, David General Comment LNG is a huge polluter. Please stop all LNG projects. We need to take action for the survival of our planet.
565. 1/15/2025 1:01:26 PM Sarah, Alabama General Comment
566. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:02:16 PM Rittenhouse, Jonathan General Comment Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions when we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Most LNG facilities are in areas burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
567. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:02:20 PM Fleischer, Tim General Comment More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
568. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:03:28 PM Quinn, James General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Exporting LNG does not help the average American, it hurts us economically.
569. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:03:49 PM Roseman, Seth General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. Economic Impact: DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I do not want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. Environmental and Climate Harms: As an American citizen and resident of York, Pennsylvania, I am already experiencing warmer weather and less annual snowfall. Moreover, DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Environmental Justice: In your summary of the studies, you noted that “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately borne by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly are not in the public interest. Thank you for considering this urgent matter. I look forward to your action to protect our environment, economy, and national health.
570. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:03:56 PM Woodard, Stephen General Comment Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest
571. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:04:02 PM Beavers, Nancy General Comment Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
572. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:04:12 PM Loomis, Gregry General Comment In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
573. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:08:49 PM Fast, Wendy General Comment Why should the public be charged for the cost of exporting liquid “natural “ gas. We derive no benefits, and shouldn’t be paying for bigger corporate profits.
574. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:09:23 PM Troland, Mary General Comment Please do not allow any more LNG terminals. Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. For these reasons, I urge you notto permit anymore LNG expansion.
575. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:09:54 PM West, Eric General Comment You know full well the extraordinary damage a new LNG facility will bring. The job of all sectors of our representative government is to protect us. By refusing to allow a new facility to be built you are protecting the environment and the people who live near the facility. The only option you have is to deny this permit.
576. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:10:14 PM Smith, Mark General Comment LNG export terminals: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
577. 1/15/2025 1:11:05 PM Hoffman, Luise N General Comment
578. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:12:06 PM Groom, Aaron General Comment I am writing today to urge the DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Thanks to the DOE's amazing work on the economic and environmental studies on whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest, it clearly shows that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. Environmental and climate harms: Key study finding: DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. How this impacts the American public: The DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Environmental justice: Summary of the study’s finding: In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” How this impacts the American public: Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
579. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:12:15 PM Vanderschaaf, Michelle General Comment Authorizing LNG exports is a mistake. It has been shown that this increases greenhouse emissions. We should be moving away from fossil fuels including LNG and encouraging the rest of the world to do the same. We should not be exporting any kind of fuels.
580. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:12:31 PM Vasquez, Heather General Comment Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
581. 1/15/2025 1:13:51 PM Conlan, Mike General Comment
582. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:13:51 PM Stern, Richard General Comment I thank the DOE for their work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. As an American citizen and resident of New York, NY, I am already experiencing climate crisis and environmental justice harm to my community. This has negatively impacted our community’s health and financial wellbeing. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest. Thank you.
583. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:13:56 PM Williamson, Debbie General Comment Stop approving permits for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. LNG exports harm the environment, poison communities, and raise the cost of energy prices. We want a greener world, a safer world, not just for ourselves but for many future generations. Thank you, Debbie Williamson
584. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:14:19 PM Fexis, Deborah General Comment Please reject all pending LNG export authorizations. The DOE recently released new research that shows how approving new permits for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports will drive up energy bills, exacerbate the climate crisis, and harm the public health of frontline communities—particularly those on the Gulf Coast. DOE's findings are striking, and confirm what we already knew about LNG export terminals. (1) They cause harm to the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. (2) They poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. (3) They raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As a concerned citizen, I ask again: please reject all pending LNG export authorizations.
585. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:14:32 PM Todd, Samuel General Comment Stand up to Big Oil and Gas before it's too late. LNG export terminals: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
586. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:15:13 PM Gehred, Alison General Comment The science is saying that the LNG line would wreak devastating environmental damage. We don’t need it. Please use your last days in power to permanently put this away.
587. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:15:40 PM Simon, Philip General Comment Thank you for your work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. As an American citizen and resident of San Rafael, I am already experiencing higher temperatures, and prolonged drought. This has negatively impacted our community’s wellbeing. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
588. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:15:41 PM Wright, Terri General Comment As an Angelino watching my city burn due to the effect of various and sundry carbon fuel emissions, I urge the Biden administration to reject all pending LNG export authorizations. Use these last days to do everything possible to protect our environment.
589. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:17:48 PM Sivulich , Lenore General Comment Building more LNG export terminals would harm the environment and result in more net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
590. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:18:29 PM Sarah, Alabama General Comment Thank you for tyour work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. Economic: Key study finding: “DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.” I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate.” Environmental and climate harms: Key study finding: DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. Our communities face decreased health aa a direct result of pollutants in our environment, breathing and drinking and eating ... absorbing pollution. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Environmental justice: Summary of the study’s finding: In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase. Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest. .
591. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:18:34 PM Strobeck , Juliana General Comment Do not support LNG gasses and stop funding fossil fuels. Environment over profit!!
592. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:18:43 PM Axner, Marya General Comment Thank you for updating the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied: Environmental and climate harms: Key study finding: “DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE.” How this impacts the American public: As an American citizen and resident of Boston, MA I am already experiencing sea level rise and in the summer, extreme heat. This has negatively impacted my health and the health of my community. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Thank you Marya Axner
593. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:21:39 PM Rosenbluth, Alexandra General Comment I am submitting comments on behalf of 2,774 individuals calling for the Biden administration to reject all six pending LNG export projects and to revoke authorizations for facilities approved under the outdated and inadequate standards that failed to account for their full climate, economic, and health impacts. The comments read as follows: "Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy Thank you for releasing the new Department of Energy (DOE) studies on liquified natural gas (LNG) exports detailing impacts on nearby communities' health and safety, prices for working families across the country, and accelerating the climate crisis. I stand with frontline communities calling for the Biden administration to reject all six pending LNG export projects and to revoke authorizations for facilities approved under the outdated and inadequate standards that failed to account for their full climate, economic, and health impacts. Under the Natural Gas Act, DOE must deny authorizations for non-FTA LNG terminals when harms outweigh their public benefits. The impacts outlined in DOE’s studies on LNG exports make clear that no new LNG capacity is aligned with the public interest. According to the International Energy Association, the US already has more LNG capacity than is aligned with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and averting the worst impacts of the climate crisis. Methane gas production and consumption must decline immediately to meet climate goals. Additional supply and export infrastructure will undermine domestic and international efforts to prevent climate catastrophe by derailing the transition to renewable energy, by competing with wind, solar, and energy efficiency technologies. The oil and gas industry builds LNG facilities in Black, Brown, Indigenous, and low-income communities that it sees as “sacrifice zones,” which are already heavily burdened by pollution. These mega-polluting projects will only harm frontline communities further, increasing their risk of cancer, asthma, preterm births, and other health problems. Please leave a climate legacy by doing all you can to stop and delay the expansion of LNG."
  1. 15-01-2025 DOE LNG Studies Submission.pdf
594. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:22:46 PM Lynch, Lisa General Comment Please do not approve new permits for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports will drive up energy bills, exacerbate the climate crisis, and harm the public health of frontline communities—particularly those on the Gulf Coast. DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Thank you
595. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:23:11 PM Beyers, Karen General Comment Users of commercial utility scale energy, have (Constitutionally) no actual controls over corporation pricing of the energy sent to the "territory" in which the users are most profitably trapped. Users are scheduled in, politically, for daily dark True Costs of the operations. The daily safety and health of myriad other local native lifeforms and systems, in coastal environments is also already threatened, unnecessarily. Older Business (bottleneck monopoly) culture's tech & engineering is timing out, and overnight - unstoppable - evolution of energy tech and engineering (ex: DOE's Rural & Remote, micro-utilities/microgrids) is already working, accepted eagerly. "Large array" infrastructure into natural wildlands for 40 more years is no longer reasonable, "Silent" Grid defection is no longer silent, and never was a "mystery". Thank you for space to comment.
596. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:26:19 PM Galdo, Querido General Comment Thank you DOE for updating the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. This type of comprehensive research and assessment is so critical to getting to the bottom of the factors in such an important decision. After reviewing summaries of DOE's updated economic and environmental studies, it's clear to see that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. Such clarity isn't always the outcome of these kinds of studies so we should celebrate how much of a no-brainer this one is. That's why I'm completely comfortable and confident in writing to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. In the economics / hard numbers realm, DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. Even though I'm relatively financially comfortable, Im certainly not looking to increase my energy costs--especially not for something that increases fossil fuel production and consumption. This price increase will be felt even more by low- and middle- income families who are already pushed to their limits by the high cost of living. This would be another instance of boosting corporate profits at the expense of the American people. In the realm of environmental protection, DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in *every single scenario* analyzed by DOE. How's that for unambiguous? As climate change continues to wreak havoc on our lives and planet (hello Los Angeles fires, Hurricane Helena, etc etc etc), we are already experiencing horrible impacts on our health, financial wellbeing, and surroundings. Approving even more LNG export authorizations would only make the already nightmarish the climate crisis even worse and crank up the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. Once again: I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. It's also worth noting who will be most impacted by the process of extracting and refining LNG for export. As DOE Secretary Granholm's studies summary reads, “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities." Again thank you for the tremendous amount of work it took to produce these studies—this is what I want my tax dollars spent on. Please, I urge you—deny all pending LNG export authorizations.
597. 1/15/2025 1:26:44 PM Nun, P General Comment
598. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:26:49 PM Linn, Alan General Comment Exporting any of our natural resources is not in our country's best interests. Making a profit for the big oil and gas companies is not reason enough to reduce our resources just for the benefit of their shareholders. They are already making more money than they need from the American citizens buying their products. Please do not hinder the progress of our country's energy accomplishments by exporting any of our own resources to any other country. Hopefully by not exporting our fuels will allow the US to not have to drill more wells on more federal lands or waters, which would benefit all Americans for a brighter future. Thank you for your time.
599. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:27:10 PM Kronheim , David General Comment Stop all lng projects, they would increase utility bills, increase pollutants & green house gases.
600. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:29:04 PM Mulcare, James General Comment For the sake of our planet, no more LNG!
601. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:30:15 PM Koehler, Christine General Comment Firstly, thank you for their work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest. Thank you.
602. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:30:17 PM Pudzianowski, Andrew General Comment As a physical chemist with decades of research experience, I'm very familiar with the molecular basis of greenhouse warming, and with the thermodynamics and fluid dynamics of masses of vapor and liquid, such as our atmospheric and ocean currents. I also know that Nature respects no ideological, political, or economic dogmas, like those advanced by the antiquated fossil fuel industries and their political enablers.
603. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:31:30 PM Thornhill, Hugh General Comment First, I would like to thank the DOE FOR updating the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The updated economic and environmental studies show that LNG exports are not in the public’s best interest. This is why I am writing today to urge the DOE to block any further LNG export authorizations. In any scenario where more LNG exports are authorized, there will be an increase in global net carbon emissions. We cannot afford to do this, as the climate crisis has only gotten worse in recent years. My community of Lincoln, MA experienced several heat waves last summer, which are only expected to get worse as time goes on. This will adversely impact wildlife, plant life, and perhaps most importantly, our water supply, which is experiencing an unprecedented drought since the dry summer and autumn we experienced. I urge the DOE to do the right thing before Trump takes office and block these exports. We cannot afford to wait any longer. LNGs only serve the interest of profits for the fossil fuel industry, at the expense of everyone else. Thank you for your time.
604. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:32:05 PM Allbright, Sharon General Comment THE LNG STUDY HAS PROVEN THAT THIS IS NOT GOOD FOR THE HEALTH OF THE COMMUNITIES.
605. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:33:04 PM Horwitz, Martin General Comment STOP with the buildout of any and all LNG facilities! The communities where the facilities are placed already suffer from terrible pollution, and the increased production and extraction of natural gas will be a terrible blow to trying to get our climate under control. Furthermore, these exports actually increase energy costs for regular families. Do NOT approve of one more LGN facility, they would only benefit the rich owners while encouraging the destruction of our climate and planet. Thank you for considering my comments.
606. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:34:33 PM Coomber, Annette General Comment Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. IT WILL CAUSE SO MUCH HARM TO THE ENVIRONMENT ‼️‼️ Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living
607. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:35:35 PM Ness, Chris General Comment Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
608. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:35:47 PM Devendittis, Monte A. General Comment I appreciate the DOE’s work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. These reports plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest, which is I urge the DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Key reasons to deny their approvals include: • DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained”, the average US American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As a single homeowning guardian of two boys, I do not want our government approving more LNG export authorizations only to increase my energy bills and to pollute our climate. • These reports also find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. Approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across the nation and the world. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the well-being of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly are not in the public interest. Thank you for your consideration.
609. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:37:26 PM De Nicola, Franco General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
610. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:38:02 PM Neste, Lisa General Comment Begin by thanking the DOE for their work to “update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not.” Lead with the ask: “The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.” State your key reasons why you are asking for this: “I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied.” Economic: Key study finding: “DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.” How this impacts the American public: (You could highlight how this price increase will negatively impact your family or household, i.e. “As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate.”) Environmental and climate harms: Key study finding: “DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE.” How this impacts the American public: You could write something like: “As an American citizen and resident of [insert your town or community], I am already experiencing [insert an current or future impact of the climate crisis, or any
611. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:39:48 PM Gupta, Anshul General Comment DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: 1. Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. 2. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. 3. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. So, please reject all pending LNG export authorizations. Thank you!
612. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:39:54 PM Pinque, Meryl General Comment DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Hundreds of thousands of Americans—including consumer advocates, national security experts, frontline community leaders, healthcare professionals have already spoken out and were a critical piece of winning the initial pause on LNG export approvals. I demand that the DOE stand up to Big Oil and Gas before it's too late.
613. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:40:36 PM Dawson, James General Comment Hi, I am writing to staunchly oppose any growth in the LNG infrastructure because of the following problems with LNG as it: Harms the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poisons communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raises costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
614. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:40:41 PM Refes, N General Comment If we hope to have a future we must stop doing things that we know are polluting our environment
615. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:41:44 PM East, Christopher General Comment The climate crisis is already here, and it's worse than scientists imagined. We need to do everything we can to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Therefore, it's of paramount importance that we halt all exportation of natural gas and halt construction of new drilling and pipeline operations.
616. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:42:56 PM Trottier, Jaye General Comment I ask that the Dept of Energy stand up to Big Oil and Gas and urge the Biden Administration to reject all pending LNG export authorizations. DOE itself recently released new research that shows how approving new permits for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports will drive up energy bills, exacerbate the climate crisis, and harm the public health of frontline communities—particularly those on the Gulf Coast. The main reasons to reject all pending LNG export authorizations are: • Harm to the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. • Poisoning of communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. • Raising costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
617. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:43:20 PM Cobb, Sandra General Comment As a resident of Ohio, I am already experiencing [insert an current or future impact of the climate crisis, or any environmental justice harm facing your community
618. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:44:27 PM Polonka, Jack General Comment DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
619. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:44:45 PM Bryant, Frank J General Comment I oppose approving any new permits for LNG exports due to the effect additional terminals would have on climate change. Thank you
620. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:48:19 PM Couch, Sandra General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
621. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:52:09 PM Halbert, Ellen General Comment I’m writing to urge rejection of all pending LNG export authorizations. New LNG export permits are not in the public interest because, as DOE research shows, they would have the following negative impacts: 1) Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in increased net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. 2) Threaten the health of communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people that would result from these facilities are unacceptable, especially for the local communities already suffering from these problems. 3) Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most acutely by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Considering the above, it makes no sense to approve additional LNG exports, and I ask that you deny all pending permits. Thank you.
622. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:54:27 PM Edwards, David General Comment This expresses my feelings exactly! Please reject all pending LNG export authorizations for the reasons below. Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
623. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:56:40 PM Seltzer, Elizabeth General Comment STOP DESTROYING OUR PLANET Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
624. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:57:10 PM Alexander, John General Comment NO to LNG Project
625. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 1:59:24 PM Ramirez , Isaac General Comment I writing to thank the DOE for providing this research to help understand if LNG exports are in the public interest and could harm our environment, with the research confirming that it will be not only harmful to the environment but also to the economy as it would raise prices to gas, so I’m calling for the DOE to reject the LNG permits as they will negatively affect the public and the environment it will cost my family and other communities with middle to low incomes more in this country already dealing with high cost of living, the environment will also suffer because it could lead to more disasters and poorer quality of air to minority communities who bear the burden of living near these areas and suffer unimaginable damage to their lives and homes and health, that is why the LNG exports are not in the public interest.
626. 1/15/2025 2:00:44 PM Kersten, David General Comment
627. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:01:57 PM Roe, Christina General Comment they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
628. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:05:33 PM Russell, Shawn General Comment As a 5th generation American citizen and someone who is disgusted and infuriated by our nation's repeated refusal to take the threat of climate change seriously, I strongly urge you to finally put a stop to these LNG plant proposals for good. The absolute last thing our country needs is new fossil fuel plants that will lock us into decades of continued, climate change fueling, dirty energy consumption. Furthermore, nobody should pity these abhorrent fossil fuel companies. They've been knowingly and intentionally lying to the global population for more than 60 years about the planet destroying consequences of their products. Not to mention, had they used their immense fortunes, global infrastructure, vast land holdings, and expansive access to top scientists and researchers, they could've developed amazing clean energy solutions to power our planet, making them the global leaders in clean energy for the next century at least. Please follow the science and the facts and finally stop this unnecessary, future destroying fossil fuel build out once and for all. Our planet's future literally depends on it. Thank you
629. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:07:15 PM Hermann-Wu, Kate General Comment DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.
630. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:14:45 PM Harris, Jaci General Comment I insist that you stand up to Big Oil and Gas and stop all LNG exports asap. There are three reasons why: First, LNG exports will harm the environment, which is my major reason for this. Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Second, most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. And finally, more LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. This is your last chance before Trump takes office. Please do the right thing and stop the LNG exports!
631. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:15:00 PM Okimoto , J. General Comment Dear President Biden and the Department of Energy, I am writing to ask that you reject all pending LNG export authorizations. First, building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions right when we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Second, most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable, especially for those who've already suffered. Third, more LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families. Thank you for your time and consideration.
632. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:15:21 PM Moore , Robert General Comment Please no more LNG
633. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:15:37 PM Daniel, Malissa General Comment Stop toxic energy!
634. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:16:21 PM Graves, Caryn General Comment Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
635. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:16:26 PM Sedon, douglas General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase. Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest. Thank you.
636. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:17:28 PM Stanton, Christina General Comment Exporting Liquid natural is a dangerous prospect, and our fracking was never supposed to be for that but for domestic security. The environmental hazards of transporting gas are horrifying, and the effects of using fossil fuels, including gas, are terrible and expensive. We should not be developing LNG export structures and systems.
637. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:21:02 PM Thorn, Debbie General Comment Thank you for your work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest. Thank you for your consideration.
638. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:21:04 PM Wilkinson, L.L. General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
639. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:21:39 PM White, Sondra General Comment Hello, my name is Sondra White. I have lived in Pennsylvania my whole life – over eight decades. I have been married to my husband for over 60 years, and I raised my four children here in the Keystone state. Although I am retired now, I formerly worked in sales at an engineering firm and in several other positions as well. My husband and I formerly owned a farm that was powered by a natural gas well on the property, helping to provide our farm with a source of clean, reliable energy security. Therefore, providing family farmers and other small business owners with a reliable source of energy to continue their operations is very important to me. I applaud the work that the Department of Energy has done to provide small businesses with a secure source of reliable energy, which has allowed for small businesses to prosper throughout our country. Since we both share the goal of ensuring energy security for small businesses, we should both agree on opposing the pause on the approval of new liquified natural gas export permits. The current system of liquified natural gas exports has proven that it can provide reliable, affordable energy to businesses in both America and abroad. By implementing this pause, we risk not only disrupting the supply of the LNG to our allies, but also to small businesses in America through the subsequent decline in domestic production that the ban would cause. For these reasons, I urge the Department of Energy to lift the pause on the approval of new liquified natural gas export permits.
640. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:21:59 PM Rosenbluth, Allie General Comment I am submitting additional comments from 738 individuals calling for the Biden administration to reject all six pending LNG export projects and to revoke authorizations for facilities approved under the outdated and inadequate standards that failed to account for their full climate, economic, and health impacts. The comments read as follows: "Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy Thank you for releasing the new Department of Energy (DOE) studies on liquified natural gas (LNG) exports detailing impacts on nearby communities' health and safety, prices for working families across the country, and accelerating the climate crisis. I stand with frontline communities calling for the Biden administration to reject all six pending LNG export projects and to revoke authorizations for facilities approved under the outdated and inadequate standards that failed to account for their full climate, economic, and health impacts. Under the Natural Gas Act, DOE must deny authorizations for non-FTA LNG terminals when harms outweigh their public benefits. The impacts outlined in DOE’s studies on LNG exports make clear that no new LNG capacity is aligned with the public interest. According to the International Energy Association, the US already has more LNG capacity than is aligned with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and averting the worst impacts of the climate crisis. Methane gas production and consumption must decline immediately to meet climate goals. Additional supply and export infrastructure will undermine domestic and international efforts to prevent climate catastrophe by derailing the transition to renewable energy, by competing with wind, solar, and energy efficiency technologies. The oil and gas industry builds LNG facilities in Black, Brown, Indigenous, and low-income communities that it sees as “sacrifice zones,” which are already heavily burdened by pollution. These mega-polluting projects will only harm frontline communities further, increasing their risk of cancer, asthma, preterm births, and other health problems. Please leave a climate legacy by doing all you can to stop and delay the expansion of LNG. "
  1. 15-01-2025 Additional DOE LNG Studies Submissions...
641. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:22:50 PM Bradley, Kathy General Comment Do NOT approve new LNG permits anywhere, ever, in our country. DOE's new research findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: -Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. -Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. -Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. We absolutely MUST spend our time, funding, and human resources expanding renewable and clean energy and phasing out fossil fuels. Recent so-called "natural" disasters including Hurricane Helene and the LA wildfires are undeniable testament to the urgency of this critically essential transition which must be immediate and complete. NO MORE LNG. PERIOD.
642. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:24:44 PM Shinners, James General Comment Increasing corporate profits by selling US resources and increasing pollution that directly causes health problems is the worst possible betrayal of the public trust.
643. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:25:06 PM Babin, Barbara General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
644. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:25:13 PM White, Ray General Comment Howdy, my name is Ray White. I am a lifelong resident of Pennsylvania, and I formerly worked as a guidance counselor in a rural public school district. My family and I operated a family farm in Pennsylvania for many years. As a farmer, I learned the importance of national security through the maintenance of a strong trade balance in order to secure markets for our crops to international markets. Therefore, promoting national security in order to maintain a strong trade balance is something that continues to be very important to me. I thank the Department of Energy for promoting national security by securing exports of American energy to international partners. Since both of us are in agreement on the promotion of national security, we should both agree on opposing the ban on new approvals for liquified natural gas export permits. Having an abundance of liquified natural gas exports supports our national security through providing our allies with a reliable, secure source of American-produced energy. Additionally, this benefits national security through a positive trade balance, allowing American producers to find new markets for liquified natural gas that will protect America’s role as the top exporter of the commodity. For these reasons, I urge the DOE to protect national security by lifting the ban on the approval of new permits for liquified natural gas exports.
645. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:25:42 PM Valinoti, Raymond General Comment President Biden must reject all pending LNG export authorizations. More LNG export terminals are bad for the environment. And more LNG exports would raise energy prices for families.
646. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:26:03 PM Griffith, Gina General Comment Allowing the export of LNG will increase demand and so raise my heating bill. Dont we have enough rich people? Enough already! You are supposed to work for the majority of Americans! And because I also manage my church's Jubilee Emergency Assistance Desk, I have tried to help many who can no longer keep up with their utility bills. This is a plan to help the rich get richer at the expense of the rest of us. Do all you can to prohibit the exports of L NG!
647. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:27:16 PM Abadia, Betty General Comment The bottom line is this: Do you want to line your pockets with the destruction of our planet?!
648. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:29:03 PM Murphy, Linda General Comment I oppose LNG exports because of the following reasons: LNG exports harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions, which are already at dangerously high levels; we need to significantly cut down on pollution. LNG exports poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution, ie. lower socio-economic areas, especially those populated by black and brown people. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered enough. LNG exports raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
649. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:29:50 PM Jones, Jo General Comment LNG Exports are terrible for the environment!
650. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:30:54 PM Lindgren, Connie General Comment Thank you for taking the time to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not.” The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied.” DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living How does this impacts the American public? As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. As an American citizen and resident of Arcata, CA, I am already experiencing extreme forest fires, look at what is going on down in LA right now, in recent years, many places around me have had fires, years ago the sky turned brown from the fires, I have photos and it looks like the apocalypse.. This has negatively impacted our community’s health, financial wellbeing, etc. of my community. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase. Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
651. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:33:09 PM Johnson, Shawn General Comment NO MORE LNG! Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Pollution hurts both people and the world we live in. Please make it more difficult for future administrations to reverse all progress on the survival of life on Earth. Thank you, Shawn Johnson
652. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:34:25 PM McCullin, Mr. and Mrs. Cregg General Comment We thank the DOE for their work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. We would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied: Economic: DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. Environmental and climate harms: DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. As an American citizen and resident of [insert your town or community], I am already experiencing extreme weather related to climate change. This has negatively impacted our community’s health, financial wellbeing, etc. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. We urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Environmental justice: LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase. Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
653. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:35:12 PM Sage, Will General Comment The Department of Energy's updated environmental & economic studies show that more LNG exports are not in the public's interest. That is why I am writing to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. DOE's 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain "unconstrained," the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. Americans are already struggling to keep up with the current cost of living. I don't want our government approving more LNG export authorizations only to increase American energy bills & pollute our climate. As an American citizen & lived in several states, I have experienced the impact of the climate crisis. DOE has found that more LNG exports will increase global net emissions in every scenario analyzed. So, approving more LNG export authorizations will exacerbate the climate crisis. This is clearly not in the public's interest.
654. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:35:13 PM Cummings, Frank General Comment The DOE’s recent study verifies what we already knew about LNG export terminals. Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. More LNG exports raise energy prices for families. This price increase hurts most the low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Please disallow the addition of more harmful LNG export ports.
655. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:35:42 PM MILLS, DEBBIE General Comment Please do not support exports of LNG from the US to other countries. We need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels so that climate change does not accelerate further.
656. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:38:26 PM Lefcourt, Philip General Comment Liquid natural gas must NOT be exported! Liquid natural gas contributes to climate change and it is toxic to neighborhoods and it’s price can be driven up, thus creating tremendous academic burdens for everyone.
657. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:39:23 PM Harris, James General Comment Increasing LNG exports is moving in exactly the WRONG direction regarding climate change. The impacts of climate change are becoming more obvious every day. LNG is a double edged sword!!! Extraction, pipelines, loading, etc. always have leaks along the way and methane is a very severe atmospheric warming gas and then when it's burned,, producing carbon dioxide, another and VEY LONG LIVED atmospheric warming gas, we need to reduce production and use of LNG.
658. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:39:29 PM Seltzer, Elizabeth General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late. STOP DESTROYING OUR PLANET
659. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:42:37 PM Williams, Dominic General Comment Hello. As another normal everyday citizen here in the US, allowing more LNG export terminals will be costly for us. The environment will harmed more than it already is, energy pricing is expected to rise $100 a year if this is allowed, and the overall general health of the public will be lowered due to this. Please stop LNG from doing this.
660. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:50:36 PM Hermann-Wu, Ailsa General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.
661. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:53:09 PM Raymond, Michael General Comment DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. This is our last shot at stopping dirty LNG. The analysis from DOE can solidify President Biden's climate and environmental justice legacy, make it legally difficult for the Trump administration to advance more LNG export projects, and provide a solid foundation for bold action now. Hundreds of thousands of Americans—including consumer advocates, national security experts, frontline community leaders, healthcare professionals, have already spoken out and were a critical piece of winning the initial pause on LNG export approvals. Stop this !!
662. 1/15/2025 2:54:50 PM Pitchford, Jayne General Comment
663. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:55:06 PM Horter, P General Comment Approving new permits for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports will drive up energy bills, exacerbate the climate crisis, and harm the public health of frontline communities—particularly those on the Gulf Coast. Let's hope our government listens to its own scientists and acts in the public interest--and not to the private interests pressuring them.
664. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:56:07 PM Chandler, Daniel General Comment Thank you for your study on the deleterious effects of permitting more LNG terminals. In 2022 the IEA said we need no more new fossil gas or oil development. Two years later the US LNG industry is gearing up to saturate the market and the atmosphere with warming gases. Approving any more terminals would be disastrous for global warming. As your study pointed out permitting more terminals would harm Americans economically and would add to the environmental burdens of communities near these facilities and other natural gas facilities. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Thank you for considering my views.
665. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 2:58:51 PM Bond, Elizabeth General Comment Lead with the ask: “The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.” -- Elizabeth Bond
666. 1/15/2025 2:59:46 PM Deakin, David General Comment
  1. LNG Comment.pdf
667. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:05:48 PM O'Dell, Deb General Comment I thank the Department of Energy’s (DOE) for its the work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The DOE updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. This impacts the American public with price increases that could negatively my community. I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations that will likely increase energy bills and pollute our land and climate. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. As an American citizen and resident of Knoxville, TN, I am already experiencing challenging weather, temperature, and other problems related to climate change. This has negatively impacted our community’s health and financial wellbeing. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase. Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest. Thank you for considering the public's viewpoints.
668. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:06:17 PM Novkov, Russell General Comment Please stop LNG Exports now. Sincerely, Russell J. Novkov
669. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:08:40 PM Stuhl, Emma General Comment Thank you for your work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied: Economic: DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate.”) Environmental and climate harms: DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. As an American citizen, I have already experienced climate-change-exacerbated catastrophic flooding of our downtown and neighbors in Vermont. This has negatively impacted our community’s health and financial well being. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Environmental justice: In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
670. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:09:48 PM Ochsner, Michele General Comment I'm writing to ask DOE to put a stop to LNG exports and the expansion of LNG export facilities. There is strong evidence that LNG facilities are hazardous to public health with a particularly high toll on the poor and minority communities. LNG exports contribute to global warming, dangerous storms and flooding, and unmanageable fires like those currently burning in California. Export facilities also degrade coastal environments and community infrastructure where many facilities are located.
671. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:12:17 PM Bradley, Marya General Comment I am writing to express my strong opposition to permitting any further LNG production, transport and export as no part of the cycle of extraction, processing, transport, re-processing and then exporting and ultimate burning serves the public interest now or in the future. There is no possible doubt that LNG is highly polluting and causes harm and sometimes ultimately fatal harm to human beings, the environment and wildlife. Though often given the misleading name of "natural gas", LNG is made from fracked gas, which is more than 95% methane. Every step of its production, transport, export and use involves devastating environmental effects: from gas extraction and the enormous amount of water used for that and the resultant toxic and radioactive contamination of that water made into wastewater, to its transport by pipelines that destroy and degrade ecosystems and communities and by the highly dangerous transport by rail, to the process of liquefaction that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the highly destructive construction and operation of terminals and subsequent shipping by enormous tankers that devastate habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife, to LNG’s re-gasification at its destination, all of which culminates in the burning of this gas as an end use, usually in a power plant which itself is highly polluting and exacerbates catastrophically the rise of methane gas and thereby of global warming. Every step in this process spews toxic pollutants which are disastrous for all life forms and which disproportionately poison communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism and intensify the deadly effects of being subjected to such contamination that include respiratory, heart, and neurological damage that result in the loss of years of life. Indeed those communities situated near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. The unseemly and ugly truth is that existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered and all communities recognized as having equal value and right to a healthy environment. It is imperative to cease to condone this kind of unethical sacrifice of human life and environmental degradation. In addition, LNG is disastrous in its intensification of the release of greenhouse gas emissions: it has a more malignant effect on global warming than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to calamitous increases in greenhouse gas emissions when its entire cycle of production, transport and use are accurately assessed. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. Finally, it is patently clear that we have no need for more LNG: Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. The result of continuing to produce LNG for export is harmful to the public: it increases the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- and so only benefits the companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. Without need for the LNG, it is clear that in fact, there is NO public interest and the DOE should clearly deny applications for authorizations on this basis. I and the public rely on the DOE to respond to this findings regarding the export of LNG and to take heed and protect the public interest, not the interest of those profiting off public harm, and reject all new and pending LNG export authorizations. Thank you.
672. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:13:09 PM Davis, Rod General Comment DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
673. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:13:22 PM Jackson, Trey General Comment LNG should not be exported until the energy needs of this country are controlled and the cost of natural gas for heating and cooking for the consumer are lowered. Most of the natural gas that is shipped overseas is used to make plastics, which we all know has negative impacts upon the environment and now found in human foods.
674. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:16:00 PM Sepe, Ryan General Comment Please do what is right for future generations. Other countries and OPEC are increasing their supply so the effects are LNG exports economically will be drastically reduced but the danger to the climate remains equally as drastic.
675. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:16:00 PM Prellwitz, Carl General Comment First, I would like to thank the DOE for their work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. Economic: Key study finding: DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. Environmental and climate harms: DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. How this impacts the American public: As an American citizen and resident of Newmarket, NH, I am already experiencing an environmental justice harm facing my community. This has negatively impacted my community’s health and financial wellbeing. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
676. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:16:43 PM Orona, Angel General Comment Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough.
677. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:17:40 PM Schreur, Lois General Comment Thank you for you work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.” DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling. I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. As a resident of Omaha, Nebraska, I am already experiencing higher winds, more tornado damage, drought. The DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.” I strongly urge the DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.
678. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:23:24 PM Kokal, Kristin General Comment LNG exports make domestic energy prices more expensive while oil companies make record profits. Oil pipelines are polluting Texas from the Permian Basin to the Gulf of Mexico. An investment for clean energy is an investment for Texas, the energy capital of the United States
679. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:23:40 PM Schmidt, Mary General Comment People deserve service. It is necessary. They don't deserve to be overpriced for it .
680. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:24:34 PM Weinberger, Daniel General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
681. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:24:44 PM Schroeder, Wendy General Comment We need to move to clean energy now! The world is getting worse and we have to make difficult decisions that will impact our old energy of oil and coal. The workers for these companies can be retrained for other energy jobs. If not, in just a couple of generations the parts of the Earth will be uninhabitable and people displaced. We can no longer ignore the truth.
682. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:25:27 PM Beverly, Robert General Comment LNG exports make domestic energy prices more expensive while oil companies make record profits. Oil pipelines are polluting Texas from the Permian Basin to the Gulf of Mexico. An investment for clean energy is an investment for Texas, the energy capital of the United States.
683. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:26:41 PM Cohen, Lisa General Comment Please stop LNG expansion. LNG expansion s will: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
684. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:26:44 PM Snyder, Thomas General Comment Deny all pending LNG export authorizations! The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. It is time to put an end to our LNG exports.
685. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:33:08 PM DeRosa, Laura General Comment Thank you for updating the economic and environmental studies to inform the public whether or not LNG exports are in the best interest of the public. Department of Energy's environmental studies reveal that more LNG exports are not in the best interest of the public. Approvals should be denied due to the reasons below: 1. LNG's are "unconstrained" meaning, economically, American households, mostly low and middle income, will expect to spend more on their energy bills over $100 per year leading to the year 2025, according to a key finding of the Department of Energy's 2024 updated studies. An added financial burden on our families. 3. Environmentally, the DOE"s updated studies found increasing LNG exports are resulting in more global net emissions that affects our atmosphere causing disruptions to exacerbate our climate patterns. Our health and wellbeing should be a priority concern we are facing in our communities at the present time. The Department of Energy's Secretary Granhom writes in her summary of studies that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” As an American citizen, I don't want our government to approve of more LNG export authorizations to increase American energy bills, and to continue polluting our climate even further only to attack our health and well being. This is not in the public's interest. Thank you.
686. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:34:17 PM Handelsman, Robert General Comment No more LNG hubs. It is past time to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. This is a good place to start.
687. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:40:32 PM Jorgensen, Alena General Comment When will people's lives matter? You know it's dangerous. I believe in Karma. What goes around comes around.
688. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:42:58 PM Lozow Cleary, Karen and Will General Comment We do not support LNG gas. They are not part of the clean energy efforts supported by a majority of scientists.We must save our one and only planet from coal,fracking, LNG ,and all fossil fuels and pipelines. We are exhausted by far too many disasters that have occurred because of climate change.Additionally ,we do not support exploitation ,LNG ,or drilling anywhere.
689. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:43:57 PM Saxon, Diana General Comment Thank you for the work to “update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not.” “The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.” “I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied.” “DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.” “As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate.”) “DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE.” “As an American citizen and resident of Salem, Oregon, I am already experiencing higher electric service pricing. This has negatively impacted our community’s financial wellbeing. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.” “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” “Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.”
690. 1/15/2025 3:44:42 PM Ramble, Kirk General Comment
691. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:47:15 PM Teague, John and Susan General Comment Texas and America needs clean air and water and diverse energy not more tar sands and LNG pipelines through neighborhoods and our waterways and wetlands and ocean and gulf borders endangering lives and our enviornment. Texas must stop letting money scream the loudest give all our children hope for the future and protect our state, country and planet from increasing CO2 levels that are now at the 1.5C critical level. There is no turning back! We must work together now and elect good leaders who do the right thing stop fossil fuel and all increasing CO2 levels from all sources now.
692. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:53:49 PM Fighera, Linda General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
693. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:55:07 PM Workman, Krysta General Comment LNG exports make domestic energy prices more expensive while oil companies make record profits. Oil pipelines are polluting Texas from the Permian Basin to the Gulf of Mexico. This isn't acceptable. An investment for clean energy is an investment for Texas, the energy capital of the United States. Action must be taken NOW. Climate disasters are going to continue but the damage can be mitigated. The Trump administration will only exacerbate the climate crisis and kill more Americans. ACT NOW.
694. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:57:11 PM Peebles, Helen General Comment Energy, economic, and environmental assessment of U.S. LNG exports
695. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 3:57:36 PM Rook, Sara General Comment We don't need anymore LNG export terminals. They're detrimental to the environment and the communities where they're built. Stop these projects. They don't improve the lives of everyday citizens. Thank you.
696. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:01:47 PM Singleton , Greg General Comment Please stop LNG exports. LNG exports: - Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. - Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. - Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Please stop LNG exports.
697. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:02:56 PM Paley, Leon General Comment I would like to thank the Department of Energy’s (DOE) for their work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The DOE updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. As an American citizen and resident of East Brunswick, NJ, I am already experiencing increased summer temperatures that are killing my home's landscape. This has negatively impacted our community’s financial wellbeing. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase. Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
698. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:03:13 PM harris , kym General Comment we must stop destroying the planet for a handful of persons profit. stop all lng projects!!
699. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:04:36 PM Speno, Charlie General Comment I WILL NOT REPEAT ALL OF THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE HARM TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE WHICH THE USE OF LNG CAUSES, VS USE CLEANER ENERGY SOURCES - WE KNOW THAT DEATH OF THE PLANET IS MORE IMMINENT WITH EACH YEAR NOW, PER USE OF FOSSIL BURNING FUELS . IT IS SIMPLY A MATTER OF GREED, SELFISHNESS, IRRESPONSIBILITY THAT KEEPS THE 'BURNING' GOING - THINGS COULD BE DIFFERENT
700. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:06:35 PM Brown, Robert General Comment Thank you for your work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. As an American citizen and resident of Fircrest, Washington, I am already experiencing warmer than normal temperatures, summertime fires, and unusual winter heat (highs often in the 50's). This has negatively impacted our community’s health. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Summary of the study’s finding: In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.”
701. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:11:18 PM Oswald, Fred General Comment I am very concerned about authorizing LNG exports, which will have disastrous effects on the climate our children will inherit as well as exacerbating the harm the public health especially of of people who live on the Gulf Coast. Please stop this disaster now.
702. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:14:32 PM Gromoll, Norda General Comment We do not need to ruin our land for more fossil fuel. We have enough.
703. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:16:33 PM Gherardi, Lisa General Comment Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution.
704. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:18:04 PM Christgau, Andrea Appendix D: Addendum on Environmental and Community Effects of U.S. LNG Exports I urge you to reject LNG export permits in 2025. LNG exports make domestic energy prices more expensive while oil companies make record profits. Oil pipelines are polluting Texas from the Permian basin to the Gulf of Mexico. An investment for clean energy is an investment for Texas, the energy capital of the United States. Thank you
705. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:19:15 PM Simonetti, Hilary General Comment Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. With the terrible fires and desolation we are having right now, can you NOT SEE our future if you don't change things? PLEASE.
706. 1/15/2025 4:19:28 PM Stanley, Gabriel General Comment
707. 1/15/2025 4:23:01 PM sayer, stanley General Comment
708. 1/15/2025 4:24:39 PM Ziegler, Russ General Comment
709. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:25:22 PM Beiler, John General Comment Please do not let LNG expand. We don’t need to make more folks sick, hurt our environment with additional greenhouse gasses, and increase the cost of energy. This is a bad idea.
710. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:26:54 PM Blevins, Patricia General Comment I am asking the DOE and President Biden to reject all pending LNG export authorizations. The DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals. We know they: 1) Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. 2) Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. 3) Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
711. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:27:55 PM Mlynek, Aaron General Comment Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough.
712. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:30:31 PM Conver, Linda General Comment No more dirty LNG
713. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:30:57 PM Watters, Cheryl General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
714. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:31:53 PM Smith, Richard General Comment WE SHOULD KEEP LNG HERE, FOR OUR USE. STORED IN FACILITIES THAT DO NO HARM TO COMMUNITIES OR THE ENVIRONMENT.
715. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:33:23 PM Herren, Doug General Comment Please deny LNG export permits! LNG exports raise energy bills for everyday Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already burdened with harmful pollution and climate change. Building more facilities in these communities will only worsen rates of chronic illnesses such as cancer, asthma, and heart disease. Climate devastation: LNG export projects emit greenhouse gases that fuel climate change, in addition to increasing pollution from upstream gas development. LNG also displaces the development of renewable energy worldwide. Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. The bottom line is that growing LNG exports is an all-around bad investment. In addition to the harms LNG export facilities have on the communities and environments they are located in, the demand for polluting LNG is actually decreasing globally, making it that much more clear that these projects should not be built. The new study found that LNG demand in Europe and other countries around the world is flattening, with most new demand projected to come from China. This analysis from DOE can solidify President Biden’s climate and environmental justice legacy, provide important legal arguments against future LNG export project proposals, and serve as a solid foundation for bold action now.
716. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:34:15 PM Emery, Robert General Comment We do not need to be exporting LNG if we need it in this country. If we don't need it in this country then there is no need to build volumes of this fossil fuel (primarily methane) which is a much greater impact to climate change than CO2. The mining of this gas(generally fracking) is extremely dirty and lets off an abundance of this gas in the process. The cleanup of these sites is extremely costly and is not being done by the frackers. These exports would: 1) raise the cost of gas to American families 2) Increase worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases 3)Have a very negative impact on the health and well being of communities close to these export facilities In the interest in the future of me and my family and my community, please deny any LNG export licenses.
717. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:38:25 PM Truong, Justin General Comment LNG exports make domestic energy prices more expensive while oil companies make record profits. Oil pipelines are polluting Texas from the Permian Basin to the Gulf of Mexico. An investment for clean energy is an investment for Texas, the energy capital of the United States.
718. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:39:46 PM Coss, Shelley General Comment LNG exports need to be eliminated. The ports are dangerous and cause terrible pollution. Please discontinue these efforts.
719. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:43:16 PM Phelps, James General Comment Building additional LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at a time when we need to significantly reduce pollution. The majority of LNG facilities are in areas that are already affected by pollution. Increased rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease should be unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered more than enough. Increased LNG exports will raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt primarily by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
720. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:52:07 PM Lofgren, Ethan General Comment I absolutely cannot fathom how anybody in the world, let alone half this entire country, could think that what Trump plans to do is perfect for the for the economy and would allow it to happen by voting him and his cronies back in. The environments and wildlife of this planet absolutely MUST be protected whatever the cost. I for one voted against these very people because I knew that this might happen. And now it is. Hopefully someday that changes but for now, please President Biden, do whatever you have to. Stop them.
721. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:52:24 PM Bissell, Mary General Comment Thank-you for your work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. We are already seeing the impacts of climate change; as an educator and a mom, I want to be part of leaving a better world for my students and my own daughter, not a more pollutd one. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
722. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:52:25 PM Collignon, Jessica General Comment Hello, Thank you to the DOE for updating the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. My household bills have already reached record highs, and I am doing everything in my power to reduce the energy used. Members of my community are going cold during the winter months and hot during the summer months, and going hungry throughout all the months, to try and reduce their bills. $100 more a year may not seem like a lot to those who have money, but to working class Americans, that can make or break our homes. Especially when this added monetary cost comes with increased pollution and climate costs. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. As an American citizen and a resident in California, I have already felt the change to our climate. Our wildfire incidents have increased to devastating proportions. We have lower air quality year-round. The winters are getting colder and the summers are getting hotter, making living here more costly and harder. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest. Thank you for your time and attention to this very important matter. Jessica Collignon
723. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:59:24 PM Reyes, Jesse General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. Take a stand! The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
724. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 4:59:27 PM Sterling, Karen General Comment Good morning! I am writing to request that you refuse to permit authorization for all further future LNG facilities. Look at what's happening on the west coast. I experienced something similar with a wildfire near Bastrop a few years back. The climate is in CRISIS and we need to do whatever we can to mitigate further damage. Or in this case not do. Thank you for your time ad attention to this matter!
725. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 5:03:51 PM Bobroff , Al General Comment We must cease building LNG infrastructure because it hurts the environment and the local communities
726. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 5:06:55 PM Chin, Andrea General Comment Thank you for updating the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays the energy bills for multiple family members, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate.
727. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 5:08:43 PM Altman, Vivian General Comment I am Vivian Altman. I have lived in PA most of my life. For 6 years I lived in New York state because the gas company my husband worked for transferred him there. My husband was the third generation in his family to work in the gas industry. When I worked my job was always in finance. I worked in a bank and was also a county auditor. My most important job was being a stay-at-home mom. I live in a small town and feel that local small business is very important. Therefore, providing energy security to local small businesses is important to me. I thank the Department of Energy for supporting small businesses through providing them with important energy security to continue their operations. Because we agree on supporting small businesses, we should agree on lifting the pause on the approval of new liquified natural gas export permits. Exports have provided an important energy supply for our allies while also ensuring small businesses in America continue to have reliable energy security for their operations. Implementing the pause would not only harm our allies but also lead to a decrease in domestic production that will harm small businesses across the United States. I urge the Department of Energy to resume the approval of liquified natural gas export permits.
728. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 5:09:14 PM Guzman, Eva General Comment Cut off the flame! The wind can cause a fire.
729. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 5:13:14 PM Mccarthy, Shirley General Comment Please deny all pending LNG export authorizations. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. We are in the midst of a climate crisis that is getting worse. Furthermore, gas is a pollutant that has been medically shown to be bad for human health and toxic to wildlife and the environment. Please do the right thing for life on this planet. Thank you, Shirley McCarthy, MD, PhD; Professor Yale School of Medicine
730. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 5:15:36 PM Wiebe, Tobey General Comment LNG is bad for the environment
731. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 5:15:58 PM Stefano, Lori General Comment Thank you for your work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. Economic: Key study finding: DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. Environmental and climate harms: Key study finding: DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. As an American citizen and resident of Yelm, Washington, I am already experiencing heat domes and incredibly high energy costs. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Environmental justice: In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest. Thank you for your consideration.
732. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 5:16:26 PM Schall, Buck General Comment Hello, Please do not continue LNG exports. It is not in a public interest since will increase cost to consumers and will exacerbate extreme weather from climate change. Buck
733. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 5:28:12 PM Metz, Richard General Comment Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects.
734. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 5:37:10 PM Lupenko, Andy General Comment Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
735. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 5:39:27 PM Severns, Dayle General Comment Seriously, everyone involved knows what the right thing to do is for the environment - what besides basic greed prevents it?
736. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 5:40:36 PM Bonner, Tracey Appendix D: Addendum on Environmental and Community Effects of U.S. LNG Exports We ALL have a responsibility to work together in order to Protect and SAVE our Wilderness, Waterways and Environment from senseless Destruction and Poisoning in the name of Ignorance and Greed. We have to SAVE our Wildlife, including OUR incredibly amazing COMMUNITIES and WILD PLACES where some of OUR magnificent Wildlife live! We have to STOP the senseless killing of our Wildlife out of Ignorance and Greed!!!
737. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 5:43:08 PM Wimberly, B General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest, economically or environmentally. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.
738. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 5:45:12 PM BOWEN, APRILL General Comment DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. This is our last shot at stopping dirty LNG. The analysis from DOE can solidify President Biden's climate and environmental justice legacy, make it legally difficult for the Trump administration to advance more LNG export projects, and provide a solid foundation for bold action now.
739. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 5:51:24 PM Lewis, Felicia General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
740. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 5:51:48 PM Kendall, Perry General Comment Posthaste we need real leadership to protect our precious people and avert climate catastrophe~ our greatest environmental concern and threat. Things only worsen when CEO’s are desperate to keep drilling to maintain their enormous profits. Time to prioritize essential food, water and our planetary home! Because most alarmingly our nation is now the world's leading exporter of dirty fracked gas~ and an industry eagerly trying to export even more. We desperately need this to stop! Meeting climate goals is absolutely mandatory now. For the greater good swiftly put an end to all new fossil fuel approvals.
741. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 5:53:56 PM Merritt, Amy General Comment DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
742. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 6:04:43 PM Stone, Lisa General Comment I join all those asking you to protect Texas families and businesses by rejecting LNG export permits in 2025. As is well known, LNG exports make domestic energy prices more expensive while oil companies make record profits. In addition, oil pipelines are polluting Texas from the Permian Basin to the Gulf of Mexico. Perhaps most importantly, investment for clean energy is an investment for Texas, the energy capital of the United States. Please require the Department of Energy to protect American families from rising energy costs and archaic Big Oil and Gas expansion: deny LNG export permits for 2025.
743. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 6:07:10 PM Raitano, Joan General Comment I don't think new permits for LNG should be approved because the climate crisis is a very real threat to humankind. I live in Long Island, and the southern part of my town was devastated by Hurricane Sandy. Beyond hurricanes, however, winds have increased on a daily basis relative to when I was a child in the 1970s and 1980s. At night I can hear the wind howling. I think we should focus on promoting truly green energy, not creating more liquified natural gas facilities.
744. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 6:08:51 PM Delgado, Fabiola General Comment Please see attached 317 signatures from Center for Biological Diversity supporters urging you to do the right thing and reject all pending LNG export permits immediately.
  1. CenterforBiologicalDiversity-NoMoreLNGExports-317...
745. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 6:09:48 PM brown, ronald General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
746. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 6:10:31 PM Gardner, Jan General Comment Do the right thing! Stop environmental and human damage by eliminating U.S.LNG exports.
747. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 6:14:10 PM Fooks, Gloria General Comment Research that shows how approving new permits for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports will drive up energy bills, exacerbate the climate crisis, and harm the public health of frontline communities—particularly those on the Gulf Coast. Harms the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poisons communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raises costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
748. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 6:15:47 PM White, Daniel General Comment Exporting LNG is being done for odious geopolitical reasons, which all involve diminishing Russian or Iranian gas sales. Shipping natural gas by ship is economically and environmentally wrong when it can be shipped by pipeline. Selling American gas reserves abroad as LNG exports is a very bad idea on account of the US' shift to natural gas for electric generation. We will have electrical system problems sooner than we want to think about because of our selling our currently plentiful natural gas abroad. Our making our LNG 'available' to Western Europe and strongarming them to buy it because we don't want them buying Russian natural gas is going to cripple European manufacturing industries, and once the Europeans wise up to this fact we will be in deep trouble. There is something very wrong that nobody has looked into LNG exports damaging American electric generation. Our geopolitical ugliness against Russia and Iran will hurt us worldwide in the near future, and that hurt will be felt for decades.
749. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 6:18:15 PM Post, Frances General Comment Seems that most LNG facilities are in communities where people already suffer from all kinds of pollution. How long must this continue? Please help to make it stop!
750. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 6:23:28 PM Hanson, Jean General Comment These are some of the negative consequences of continuing to suppport LNG: Harm to the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poisoning of communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Increased costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
751. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 6:27:20 PM Brown, Sylvia General Comment Thanking you for your work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. Economic: Key study finding: “DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. Thank you for your consideration.
752. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 6:28:02 PM Phillips, Donna General Comment More LNG ports would seriously harm our world - through more greenhouse emissions. We need LESS, not more. Most of these terminals directly harm people of color - particularly in Louisiana along the Mississippi River near Baton Rouge. Entire neighborhoods of people have contracted cancer that has seriously harmed or killed. This has gone on for years and those that determine policy have turned a deaf ear. These people have suffered ENOUGH! Do what you can to make things morally right for these populations.
753. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 6:31:56 PM Vayu, Satya General Comment Thank you for updating the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. First of all, DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. Considering the magnitude of this crisis, this is enough for me to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. In addition, DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend more on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Also, Increased LNG pollution is disproportionately born by frontline communities on the Gulf Coast. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest. Thank you for considering.
754. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 6:36:16 PM O'Connor, Maura General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. Economic: DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Environmental and climate harms: DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase. Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by front line communities harms public health and the well-being of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
755. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 6:38:31 PM Leicher , Dorothea General Comment Thank you for updating your studies to determine if LNG exports to non Free Trade Agreement countries are in our best interest. Your studies have shown that they are not and I therefore ask you to deny all pending LNG authorizations. In particular I want to call to your attention that in all cases considered in your studies increased LNG exports increased greenhouse gas emissions. We are currently experiencing increasing climate catastrophes between more destructive storms, floods and draughts. These weather events have been linked to our activities and threaten our communities and their infrastructure, our forests which are burning at increased rates and exacerbate climate change additionally, and which are beginning to disturb our food supply.
756. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 6:41:23 PM Harper, Barbara General Comment Thank you for your attention to my concerns. Here is a summary of the reasons I oppose any LNG permits and/or expansions: In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” How this impacts the American public: You could write something like: “Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.”
757. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 6:51:13 PM LaPorte, Michele General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
758. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 6:55:32 PM Carter, Jayne General Comment Thank you for your work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
759. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 6:58:49 PM Shankel, Georgia General Comment Thank you for your work to “update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all LNG export authorizations.” DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase. Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
760. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 7:07:53 PM Perilli, Aggie General Comment By admission, there is no need for more LNG, which is a climate disaster and harms human health! Why is this message even necessary??!!
761. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 7:08:34 PM Brabham, Lorraine General Comment Does no one care that LNG pipelines/transport are heinous for humans and all life? When are the folks in charge going to realize that accessing the LNG is a horrible process for the earth? No matter how much money is made this is a slow suicidal decision. For every one. Please stop.
762. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 7:14:35 PM Prudente, Vincent General Comment As someone who lives within a few miles of trains that would be transporting LNG, I am urging DOE to reject LNG export authorizations. LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
763. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 7:20:40 PM Sams, Lewis General Comment Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution.
764. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 7:26:12 PM Selix, Raymond General Comment I, Raymond Selix am sending this letter regarding the use of Liquid Natural Gas and share with you some facts that regarding the Executive Order of President Biden-Harris Administration. My work background centered around Hazard Materials which was used by the product we were creating which was aluminum cans. Our production plant utilized very important and hazardous materials. The support fuel if you will was Natural Gas and was utilized 24 hours per day and probably the most important ingredient to produce outstanding products. My role as a worker at Rocky Mountain Metal Container required careful handling Hazardous Materials and the controls that maintain heat value for very large washer systems. I share the use of Natural Gas as do other Countries and, Businesses large and small. Natural Gas is needed in the industry where I worked. The support staff such as Truckers, the natural gas operators, drillers, and the like certainly made my job important. As an American citizen I see this as an oportunity for the United States to step in and help busineses large and small and overseas. I urge the Department of Energy to resume the L&G exports. Take a moment to think about what you are doing and the effects to our nation and the overseas countries.
765. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 7:26:48 PM Whitcomb, Jane General Comment Thank you for updating existing studies of the effects of LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries. Based on the results published in those studies, please deny all pending LNG export authorizations. The studies have shown that increased LNG exports lead to an increase in global carbon emissions, thereby further destabilizing the global climate. I am already experiencing the effects of climate change: we have suffered through unbelievable heat waves and just last week I was forced to evacuate my home to escape a massive wildfire burning out of control in the midst of what used to be Southern California's rainy season but is now, due to climate change, an endless drought that continues throughout almost every year. Another issue is that if LNG exports are not constrained, most consumers are going to have to pay more over time than they otherwise would have in order to meet their energy needs, with the poor most severely impacted. Thank you for considering the denial of pending LNG export authorizations.
766. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 7:34:26 PM Hedge, Belinda General Comment These exports are not needed. Greed is a sin and is already ruining our country!!!!!!
767. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 7:35:50 PM Pe., El. General Comment IN THIS DAY AND AGE OF COMPLETE COLLAPSE STOP ALL LNG. THERE ARE PLENTY OF ALTERNATIVES BUT NO SPINE TO DEVELOP AND USE CLEAN METHODS, JUST SHORT SIGHTED SHORT TERM PROFIT GOVERNING EVERYTHING.
768. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 7:40:18 PM Hwang, Kevin General Comment Thank you DOE for your work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. This past years wildfire, hurricanes and floods are an indication of what more LNG would do. There are already assured alternatives to energy such as solar, wind, and maybe in the future, nuclear fusion. We need drinkable water rather than a liquid we can't drink. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.
769. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 7:40:41 PM Swenson, Ruth General Comment The DOE is to be thanked for the work to “update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not.” “The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.” Economic: Key study finding: “DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.” How this impacts the American public: “As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate.”) Environmental and climate harms: “DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE.” I am already experiencing climate crisis, as is LA County in California. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.” Environmental justice: In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” I am hoping that we still have time to avoid the collapse of our environment. We should be doing everything we can to avoid this.
770. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 7:45:57 PM artman, cara General Comment Hello, I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. Economic: The DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Environmental and climate harms: The DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. We are in a state of constant weather phenomenons/disasters. The DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Environmental justice: Summary of the study’s finding: In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
771. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 7:47:10 PM Anderson, Dean General Comment I am writing to oppose future LNG exports, as they will cause irreparable harm to our environment and future generations. The DOE has recently completed a thorough study clearly documenting the harm that LNG export terminals inflict. DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
772. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 7:51:39 PM Christofferson, Michael General Comment Thank you for your work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. Increasing global temperatures lead to more dry and drought conditions that I personally witness living in the American west. We are currently seeing the effects play out in horrific wildfires and in general drought conditions. Finally, in her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Please consider the work the DOE has already done and reject more LNG export authorizations on these economic, environmental, and justice grounds.
773. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 7:53:15 PM Dunham, Jill General Comment LNG export terminals Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. I oppose additional LNG export terminals.
774. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 8:04:52 PM Hacker, Claire General Comment Thank you to the DOE for its work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether or not LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest. DOE's updated studies clearly demonstrate that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am urging DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I am writing to draw DOE’s attention to the economic and environmental reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. On the economic side, DOE's updated studies find that the average American household can expect significant increases in their energy bills if LNG exports remain "unconstrained." This is also a justice issue, as marginalized communities are already often spending a disproportionate amount of their income on utility costs. LNG will make this situation worse. As a renter, I do not want our government to approve LNG export authorizations that will only serve to increase my bills and cause climate chaos. That brings us to the environmental side of things. DOE's updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario they analyzed. This means that approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt by people across the country - from wildfires in California to hurricanes in Florida to flooding in North Carolina. Where I live in DC, we are already dealing with seasonal extreme heat that impacts public health and safety, particularly for residents who may not have access to air conditioning or safe housing. Not only are the impacts of climate change felt disproportionately by marginalized communities, but so too are the impacts of producing and distributing fossil fuels - including from LNG facilities. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” More LNG exports are simply not in the public interest. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Thank you for your consideration.
775. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 8:11:19 PM Waltman, Martha General Comment Thank you for your work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today. I want to urge the DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. Economic: Key study finding: Why DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. This impacts the American public by increasing costs of energy bills and polluting our environment. I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. Environmental and climate harms: Key study finding: “DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE.” As an American citizen and resident of Florida , I am already experiencing the impact of the climate crisis through frequent, severe hurricanes and significant increases in insurance rates. This has negatively impacted our community’s health, safety and financial wellbeing. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even one more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Environmental justice is another issue. In her summary of the studies findings DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
776. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 8:12:49 PM Haderlein, Peter General Comment To the DOE, thank you for updating the literature studying whether exporting liquid natural gas is in the public interest. The latest study makes clear that the environmental effects of flooding the global energy market with US liquid natural gas outweighs any short-term financial benefit to American energy producers. At a time when one of our great cities is burning due to recurring extreme weather events, it is incumbent on us as all Americans to change our priorities to make a better future for our neighbors and our children. A future with more burned LNG is one with greater greenhouse gasses in the air, and that means more cancers, asthma, and breathing problems, more wildfires and recurrent hurricanes and drought. DOE should deny pending LNG export authorizations, not just for environmental reasons, but for the good of our pocketbooks. From the latest study: " the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.” My family and I are already experiencing the negative effects of climate change. We have to spend more weatherizing our home and helping friends who have lost their livelihoods to natural disasters. I need my government to look out for my interests and those of the next generation, and that means stopping the proliferation of natural gas sales.
777. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 8:13:55 PM Barton, Jennifer General Comment Thank you for updating the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. More LNG exports should be denied for the following reasons: -DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. -DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. -In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” For these reasons, I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Thank you.
778. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 8:14:13 PM Langgin , Diane General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
779. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 8:14:57 PM Jones, Clayton General Comment I vehemently oppose this project for the following reasons: Harm to the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poisoning of communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raising of costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
780. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 8:27:03 PM Tillman, Elena General Comment Thank you for the work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied: Economic: Key study finding: DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. Environmental and climate harms: Key study finding: “DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE.” As an American citizen, I am already experiencing extreme weather (droughts and heat waves with flooding). This has negatively impacted our community’s health and financial wellbeing. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Environmental justice: Summary of the study’s finding: In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
781. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 8:34:33 PM soulia, scott General Comment Investing in a deadly dying industry responsible for the destruction of a planet is sheer insanity. Stop subsidizing the immolation of your planet and instead invest in renewable energy and infrastructure. Serve the people, not the preferred providers.
782. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 8:38:33 PM Walsh, Kevin General Comment Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.
783. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 8:45:22 PM Harris , X General Comment DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. This is our last shot at stopping dirty LNG. The analysis from DOE can solidify President Biden's climate and environmental justice legacy, make it legally difficult for the Trump administration to advance more LNG export projects, and provide a solid foundation for bold action now.
784. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 8:48:17 PM Oldham , Lisa General Comment I implore the DOE and President Biden to halt all forward momentum on the exportation of LNG. It is clear that the extraction, and use of this and all other fossil fuels are the primary cause of the increasingly catastrophic events fueled by our swiftly accelerating climate change. Please- for the sake of my grandchildren and all future humans stop the planned exportation now. Hopefully, Lisa
785. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 8:57:58 PM mcglocklin, lecil General Comment SAVE YOUR FAMILY. STOCK UP, THIS FOOD IS DELICIOUS , BEEN EATING IT FOR 3 YR"S
786. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 9:05:48 PM Lawler, Michael General Comment Among the many reasons to move away from Natural Gas is that it is poison. Legislation such as the Inflation Reduction Act is an effort to improve our health and our environment, and I would ask that you vote against any conduct contrary to that effort.
787. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 9:07:44 PM Futrell, Sherrill General Comment More LNG exports THREATEN the public interest. Therefore DOE should STOP all LNG exports. DOE already said that prices will increase despite the record high cost of living Americans are struggling with. Worse, more LNG exports will pollute our environment with more emissions. We've tolerated fossil fuel pollution and high prices for decades and it's past time for DOE stand up to Big Oil and Gas before it's too late. I do my job as a teacher and I expect you to do yours. Thank you.
788. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 9:08:01 PM Miller, Dennis General Comment Oppose LNG!
789. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 9:12:57 PM Lonergan, Gwyneth General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
790. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 9:15:28 PM Monte, Bonnie J. General Comment Thanks to the DOE for your efforts to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement serve the public interest. Clearly, the DOE's updated study shows that more LNG exports are NOT in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Financially, the study finds that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can their energy bills to increase by over $100 more annually by 2050. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. But most importantly, the DOE's updated study finds that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by the DOE. The climate crisis is already wreaking havoc on the world, its people and every other living thing. One only need to look at what is happening in Los Angeles or in myriad other places around the globe where climate crisis/global warming is causing every imaginable kind of extreme weather, drought, flooding, sinkholes, etc. Our air, water, and land are all in dire straights already - we keep rendering our precious natural resources toxic. We MUST amp up our lukewarm efforts to protect our planet and the things that live on it, and therefore, I beg the DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.
791. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 9:36:58 PM Hargrove, Barbare General Comment We cannot go backward. We must continue forward with sustainable energy. Forget fossil fuels. That is what is causing climate change and those horrible forest firesl
792. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 9:51:08 PM Card, Geraldine General Comment LNG is poison communities: LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough.
793. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 9:56:35 PM Komishock Jr., Paul General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
794. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 10:01:59 PM Lindberg , Kristy General Comment Thank you, DOE, for your research re LNG. I'm asking you not to approve any LNG exports. LNG is not in America’s financial interests, is bad for climate crisis, and hurts Gulf communities by hurting their climate justice. Thank you.
795. 1/15/2025 10:02:17 PM Stratman PhD, James General Comment
  1. New Letter re Fracking Terminal Proposals to Gran...
796. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 10:05:37 PM Edinger, Elizabeth General Comment Please do not allow any LNG exports. Thank you.
797. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 10:12:16 PM Gorman, Holly General Comment Please reject any LNG export permits. LNG exports make domestic energy prices more expensive while oil companies make record profits. Oil pipelines are polluting Texas from the Permian Basin to the Gulf of Mexico. An investment for clean energy is an investment for Texas, the energy capital of the United States.
798. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 10:23:09 PM K, C General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
799. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 10:32:57 PM Wood, Daniel General Comment Thank you for your work on studying the impacts of exporting LNG. The Department's economic and environmental studies show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Americans would face more expensive energy costs, higher carbon emissions, and environmental injustices if pending LNG export authorizations were allowed. Please deny them in the interest of all American citizens.
800. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 10:34:21 PM Gosselin , Kathy General Comment We need to do everything possible to protect our environment!
801. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 10:34:40 PM Schaef, Dennis General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
802. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 10:36:41 PM Latta, George General Comment DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will
803. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 10:51:04 PM Bolton, Loretta General Comment There's confirmation of LNG's pollution. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
804. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:12:42 PM Dowdall, Dan General Comment Re lng exports-NO!
805. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:14:21 PM klein, leslie General Comment Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
806. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:22:10 PM StaVIS, Alex General Comment 1-15-25 @ 11:19 P.M. Dear Good People: I implore you to stop LNG exports. Thank you very much in advance for stopping LNG exports. Respectfully yours, Alex Stavis
807. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:29:40 PM Sonin, John General Comment Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough.
808. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:32:44 PM Procter, Karen General Comment DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
809. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:49:28 PM Walls, Mary General Comment Good Afternoon, First I'd like to thank the DOE for their work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. Please consider my comments and decrease LNG exports. Thank You
810. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:50:38 PM Baker, Norman General Comment Begin by thanking the DOE for their work to “update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not.” Lead with the ask: “The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.” State your key reasons why you are asking for this: “I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied.” Economic: Key study finding: “DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.” How this impacts the American public: (You could highlight how this price increase will negatively impact your family or household, i.e. “As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate.”) Environmental and climate harms: Key study finding: “DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE.” How this impacts the American public: You could write something like: “As an American citizen and resident of [insert your town or community], I am already experiencing [insert an current or future impact of the climate crisis, or any environmental justice harm facing your community]. This has negatively impacted our community’s [health, financial wellbeing, etc.] of my community. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.” Environmental justice: Summary of the study’s finding: In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” How this impacts the American public: You could write something like: “Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.”
811. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:51:32 PM Annoni, Pat General Comment As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
812. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:54:21 PM Mast, Steven General Comment I recently retired from the oil and gas industry. My 7 years in that industry gave me a better understanding of the industry and the impact it has on our country. I called on oil and gas clients in North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico and Texas. I support the industry because of the positive impact it has on our economy and the importance of allowing us to be energy independent! I live in Colorado where many communities benefit from the employment opportunites presented by the oil and gas industry and many of the school districts receive substantial funding from taxes paid by the industry. It is also important to know that energy production in the United States is cleaner than it is in any other country in the world! As someone who understands the energy industry, I strongly recommend that we allow the resumption and expansion of LNG exports. It creates jobs, is a clean source of energy and is good for our economy. Thanks for your consideration, Steve Mast
813. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 12:04:43 AM Farwell, David General Comment The DOE should deny all pending and future LNG export authorizations. The current fire storm that has been burning in Los Angeles should make this decision a No-Brainer. The biggest environmental disaster in the history of the United States is still on-going, although this is only one of multiple disasters across the country all due to the effects of global warming. This is a scientific fact, not some hoax as some would like to believe. Floods, tornados in places that have never seen tornados and mudslides that have taken out entire communities have all occurred in the last few years at an ever-increasing pace and with greater and greater intensity and frequency. 500-year weather events are occurring about every 2 to 5 years!! This is not a hoax! It is a view of the impending end of our planet's livable climate! The approval of any more LNG exports will only contribute more harm, not just to the United States of America, but to the entire planet Earth. Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. • Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. • Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. For the sake of all living species on our planet you need to do the right thing, right here and right now!
814. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 12:04:56 AM Burrell, Kristopher General Comment We must protect our environment and not keep extracting fossil fuels, including Liquid Natural Gas. Our survival depends on moving to renewable energy.
815. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 12:08:54 AM Bertolucci, Brandon General Comment This is a singular moment to choose to release more methane or less. The choice will be felt by all, forever.
816. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 12:14:11 AM Hoang , Lynn General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
817. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 12:33:38 AM Hanson, Art General Comment I thank the Department of Energy (DOE) for their work to “update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. DOE’s updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are NOT in the public interest. That is why I strongly urge DOE to DENY All pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are NOT in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be DENIED. 1. Economic: a. DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. b. I do Not want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our Climate. 2. Environmental and Climate Harms: a. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in More global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. b. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the Climate Crisis and the very real Climate Harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I strongly urge DOE to DENY All pending LNG export authorizations. 3. Environmental Justice: a. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities.  Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” b. Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly are NOT in the public interest. However, you MUST do MUCH MORE. We MUST keep ALL Climate-Changing fossil fuels IN THE GROUND! We MUST achieve 100% Clean, Renewable Energy like Solar and Wind in electrical generation and transportation by 2030.
818. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 12:34:41 AM Rumiantseva, Elena General Comment Please ban LNG exports. Your own scientists came to the following conclusions: LNG export terminals harm the environment: Building more of them would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. They poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. They raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Please do the right thing and pull the plug on these dangerous exports. Thank you for your attention to this important issue.
819. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 1:08:19 AM Lackey, Mercedes General Comment I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. I am already experiencing HUGE increases in summer temperatures. This has negatively impacted our community’s [health, financial wellbeing, etc.] of my community. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.”
820. 1/16/2025 1:08:32 AM Pilling , Monte General Comment
821. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 1:41:00 AM Schmidt, Roger General Comment WE HAVE BUT ONE EARTH AND GREED SHOULD NOT HAVE A SAY ON WEATHER LIFE LIVES ON THIS PLANET! HUMANS HAVE KILLED OFFF 80% OF WILD LIFE AND ITS SAID 50%OF THAT WILL BE GONE IN 25 YEARS! WE KILL OFF 5000 KINDS OF MICROWSCOPIC LIFE EVERY YEAR! WE ARE DOWN TO LESS THAN1% FRESH DRINKABLE WATER ON THIS PLANET! FOOLS IGNOR THIS ! WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LARGEST MASS EXSTINGTION THIS PLANET EVER SEEN! HUMANS ARE THE CAUSE AND ONLY WE HUMANS CAN CHANGE AND RESTORE . WITH NO ACTIONS WE ARE DONE AND LIFE ON THIS PLANET AS WELL! MAY KARMA COME TO THE GREEDY WHO MAKE NO EFORT TO FIT THIS!
822. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 1:48:48 AM Ginn , Dana General Comment Wherever the US LNG is exported to is still part of the world that we ALL get to live in. And therefore, its "contribution" to the ever increasing climate change, and in turn the also ever increasing climate disasters is a problem we share with the rest of the world. When will we learn?
823. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 1:59:47 AM Whiterabbit, Herman General Comment I would like to draw attention to the fact that LNG exports are not within public interest, and their approvals should therefore be denied. Updated studies made by the Department of Energy find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Also, DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crises for communities throughout the world. Increased LNG pollution poses threat to both public health and the financial stability of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports do not suit the public interest. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.
824. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 2:16:06 AM Marcus, Martin General Comment Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
825. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 2:47:04 AM Baird, Chris General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
826. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 4:17:31 AM Hearle Ph.D. , Kevin General Comment LNG exports endanger communities, and worsen global anthropogenic climate change. The time has long since passed when economic arguments for LNG could even pretend to make sense.
827. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 4:44:05 AM Winters, Shawn General Comment please do not allow any more LNG export projects. the world is bad enough already, without these making things much worse. please protect the people and the environment.
828. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 4:55:59 AM Barlow, Karissa General Comment Thank you for your hard work protecting us from harm. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies clearly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today, as a concerned citizen, to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Simply put, increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions, as shown in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. This is our chance to do the right thing for our communities and for the environment that we all rely on.
829. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 5:50:21 AM Hatcher, Cindy General Comment Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions when we need to significantly cut down on pollution. LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. The analysis from DOE can solidify President Biden's climate and environmental justice legacy, make it legally difficult for the future administrations to advance more LNG export projects, and provide a solid foundation for bold action now. Hundreds of thousands of Americans—including consumer advocates, national security experts, frontline community leaders, healthcare professionals—have already spoken out and were a critical piece of winning the initial pause on LNG export approvals. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” It is time to focus attention on the detrimental effects of fossil fuel usage and encourage alternative sources. Thank you.
830. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 6:14:21 AM Quirk, Joseph General Comment Please keep in mind, the DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
831. 1/16/2025 6:54:41 AM Ackerman, Judith General Comment
832. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 7:49:57 AM W, Mike General Comment The science is clear, LNG is not a net benefit to the United States. In the changing world we live in, we must seek out energy solutions that will ensure our nation is secure and independent. Those solutions are in renewable energy, and that is where we must place our focus. LNG is a dead end in the long term, and it is in our best interests to simply end the exports now.
833. 1/16/2025 7:55:43 AM Romero Villanueva, Sonia General Comment
834. 1/16/2025 8:00:55 AM Walsh, Gerald General Comment
835. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 8:31:01 AM Stewart, Doug General Comment Office of Fossil Energy & Carbon Management, I am writing to express my concern over the recently released Department of Energy (DOE) LNG Export Study and the ongoing pause of LNG export permitting to Non-Free Trade Agreement countries. This delay not only affects our American economy but also puts our energy security at risk as well as our commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. LNG industry provides critical benefits: - Economic Growth: Since 2016, LNG industry has contributed more than $400 billion to the GDP and supports an average of 273,000 US jobs. - Energy Security: As global demand for natural gas grows, our allies rely on American-made LNG to reduce their dependence on adversaries like Russia and Iran. European countries are already looking to replace Russian gas with U.S. LNG and officials have publicly noted that our supply will allow them to decrease dependency on Russia. - Environmental Impact: U.S. LNG has one of the cleanest emission profiles and displaces high-emission coal, supporting global emissions reduction. In fact, S&P Global found that if additional U.S. LNG is unavailable, just 15% of the replacement energy would come from renewables, and the remaining 85% from higher-emitting fuels from other countries. Furthermore, concerns over negative impacts to American consumers are unfounded. Last year, U.S. natural gas prices fell to an all-time low while LNG exports reached record highs. Americans enjoy some of the lowest residential natural gas prices in the world, and growth in natural gas production has outpaced LNG export growth by nearly three-fold. Combining this with the fact that Henry Hub natural gas prices have averaged 37% lower than previous decades since LNG exports began in 2016, American consumers are not at risk of unaffordable natural gas should exports rise. The pause on new LNG export permits is holding back as much as $250 billion in economic activity here at home, undermines America’s energy leadership, and does nothing to promote cleaner fuel sources. I urge the Department of Energy to end its LNG permit pause and allow the U.S. to continue serving as a global energy leader. Thank you for considering my comment. Sincerely, Mr. Doug Stewart
836. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 8:46:14 AM Bolling, Ronnie General Comment Thank you DOE for updating the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. I want to state that I am opposed to our nation building more LNG export terminals that will result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution.
837. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 9:24:10 AM Dillon, Christi General Comment More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living
838. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 9:38:26 AM haegele, william General Comment LNG export is asinine and ridiculous. Greed driven, no other reason. Clean energy is the ONLY way YOUR grandchildren might not endure a *****, dreary existence. The industry has spent millions on stopping clean energy. Anyone who supports LNG exports doesn't care about American citizens, aka constituents. Please be HUMAN! ***** the oligarchs.
839. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 9:43:42 AM Oliver, Reed General Comment LNG is toxic. Do not use.
840. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 9:52:30 AM Bailey, Capri General Comment Please, please,.please, limit the availability of LNG reach into ruining our environment and driving everything bad to a new height. The only benefit their non-constraints will benefit is their own greedy pockets. If not stopped now, continuation of their plans will make prices soar, inflict harm to our already fragile environment, and give them more power to cause greater harm. Please lock down their requests NOW.
841. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 9:58:58 AM Schade, Corey General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
842. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 10:00:07 AM Miller, Richard General Comment All LNG exports and facilities should be terminated. LNG pollutes, and sending more of it overseas will make prices higher in the US, which working families can ill afford.
843. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 10:27:16 AM Sevier, Crystal General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you, Crystal Sevier
844. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 10:29:10 AM Varley, Kevin General Comment Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
845. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 10:29:39 AM Gauntt, Judith General Comment After careful study of the proposed LNG export project I believe that it not in the public interest based to allow this project to move forward. The impact potential to the public health and the ever more becoming fragile environmental/climate impacts are more than enough to realize this project will be detrimental to critical climate goals.
846. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 10:32:33 AM Taylor, Maria General Comment I urge the Department of Energy (DOE) to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. The DOE’s own updated studies confirm that approving more LNG export projects will harm our environment, increase global greenhouse gas emissions, and further burden frontline communities already suffering from disproportionate pollution. Additionally, these projects will raise energy costs for American families, with low- and middle-income households bearing the greatest burden. Approving these authorizations contradicts our urgent need to combat the climate crisis and protect public health. Please prioritize the well-being of communities and our planet by rejecting these harmful projects and standing firm against Big Oil and Gas interests.
847. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 10:54:20 AM Taluto, Michael General Comment My name is Michel Taluto, and I’m from Scranton, located in Northeastern Pennsylvania. I’ve lived here for all of my 61 years and currently work as a local real estate agent. My primary concern is the impact that LNG has on jobs in NEPA. We cannot afford to lose any jobs in the area, as many people's livelihoods depend on this industry. I would like to acknowledge the outstanding work of the LNG industry and the jobs it has created across the United States. However, at this time, I am asking for your support in lifting the ban so we can continue to grow this vital industry and create even more jobs for American citizens. I urge you to lift the ban immediately so we can continue providing the American workforce with a safe environment and more job opportunities.
848. 1/16/2025 11:20:44 AM Knaack, Dennis General Comment
849. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 11:34:25 AM Haas, Gwendy General Comment The economic gains do not outweigh the negative impact on consumer lives and on the environment… this isn’t going to help anyone and in reality doesn’t really provide that much profit. Can we just stop doing stupid actions that negatively outweigh any benefits and end up costing large amounts of taxpayer monies to clean up and fix in the future.
850. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 11:42:18 AM Lutman, Robert General Comment Go Green. The fossil fuel industry has caused the world untold problems. Stop them now!!!
851. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 11:48:17 AM Schmidt , Amy General Comment I DEMAND YOU STOP POISONING ME , MY COMMUNITY AND MY STATE!! OUR CROOKED REPUBICAN POLITICIANS DON'T GIVE A ***** ABOUT THE TAXPAYERS THEY ARE KILLING! TEXANS KNOW ALL TOO WELL THE HARM BIG OIL & GAS HAVE WROUGHT ON OUR BODIES, OUR WATER, OUR LAND AND OUR WILDLIFE! WE ARE *****. WE VOTE. WE WILL CONTINUE TO VOTE UNTIL WE TAKE BACK AMERICA FROM THESE REPUBLICAN *****!
852. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 12:13:16 PM Moore, Bob General Comment Hello, I am Bob Moore. I was born in Carlsbad, NM and have lived all my life in New Mexico. I have been well aware of the oil and gas industry in New Mexico for many years. Our state produces a vast amount of Natural Gas. The production, processing, delivery and sale of LNG is a vital part of the New Mexico economy. Because there is a vast amount of LNG available it is most important to export and sell the gas for the strength of the American economy as well as New Mexico. The availability and sale of LNG helps to reduce the consumer price of all petroleum products. It's sale helps to reduce the cost of gasoline for personal automobiles as well as the transport of goods and services across the United States. I strongly urge the continuation of the export of LNG to support the economy of America and helping to support our economy and industry. Sincerely, Bob Moore
853. 1/16/2025 12:17:32 PM Parker, Lauren General Comment
  1. Center for Biological Diversity comments on DOE 2...
854. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 12:34:46 PM Lampone, Vince General Comment I am writing to urge you to stop Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) exports from the U.S. The burden of evidence is clear: more LNG exports will increase greenhouse gas emissions, bring economic hardship and instability for consumers, and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. In particular, let me underscore these three points: #1) LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. #2) LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. #3) There is no need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm has said that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefiting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
855. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 12:50:58 PM Brennan, Kenneth General Comment My name is Kenneth Brennan and my family moved to NM in 1975 Graduate of Cibola High School class of 79 Joined the Navy in 1980 and retired in 2000. Worked for a GE Company from 2000 to 2023 as a Gas Turbine field engineer, Wind Turbine Commissioner and maintenance tech and as a manger over Wind turbine techs for the last 17 years. Currently I am the Edgewood Commissioner for district one and serve as the Mayor. I have had direct contact with the use of natural gas in the power industry. LNG and NG is by far a better fuel source for electrical production due to its clean burning characteristics. The Department of Energy is tasked to create a balance between clean energy and affordability. Not only for the US but for the world as a whole. This also includes the Oil and Gas industry in the US as being a major economic engine for the communities they serve. By allowing US LNG to be exported to other countries it offers these countries a cleaner and mor economic source of energy. Currently many other countries rely on coal for power but do not have the ability to invest in clean technologies for burning coal unlike the US. By providing them with clean natural gas we also help them to provide a cleaner environment for their people. This in turn provide high paying jobs for Americans in the production of this clean fuel. I ask that we support the use and export of LNG to further the cause of creating a cleaner and robust world economy.
856. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 12:55:33 PM TOMARI, JOSEPH General Comment My name is Joe Tomari, lived my entire life in NE Pennsylvania a retired person for past 20 years and a Veteran. I've seen the hardship of higher cost of energy and negative impact it brought into the lives of Senior Citizens on a daily basis. Small Business friends have had to increase their products i.e. Pizzas, coffee, and restaurant owners have had to close shops sell out and, in most cases, close the doors attributed to overhead cost of energy. United States is a known country for people's freedom including energy for the world and I personally feel that we need to open the avenues to export our Natural Gas (LNG) to our allies and other nations. Which will provide economy gains, jobs for American people. In addition to increase our National Security for America and Global allies. I urge the DOE to fully support the policies of Natural Gas along with removing any roadblocks and/or restrictions that discourage economic growth and jobs for America. I urge the DOE to fully support the policies of Natural Gas along with removing any roadblocks and/or restrictions that discourage economic growth and jobs for America.
857. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 12:57:21 PM Dishman, Patricia General Comment Dear Sir: I oppose the use of ING Exports. Here are some of the reasons why: They can: * Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. * Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. * Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Thank you or the opportunity to respond.
858. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 1:02:05 PM Dehmer, Pamela General Comment I am writing to you because it is vitally important that we stop the exporting of liquid natural gas. The environmental damage will not only affect the planet, but poor communities will be the ones who will suffer the increasing cost of this fossil fuel. The simple solution is to stop subsidizing this destructive energy and instead subsidize renewable energies. We are seeing the effects of climate change in larger and more frequent wildfires, hurricanes, and droughts.
859. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 1:31:34 PM Weger, Evan General Comment First off, thank you DOE for your work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied - Economic: Key study finding: DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. How this impacts the American public: This price increase will negatively impact my family and household, i.e. as someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. Environmental and climate harms: Key study finding: DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. How this impacts the American public: As an American citizen and resident of Garfield County Colorado, I am already experiencing climate change. This has negatively impacted our community’s health, financial wellbeing, etc. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Environmental justice: Summary of the study’s finding: In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase." How this impacts the American public: Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest. Thank you for your time. Best, Evan
860. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 2:17:47 PM Hoodwin, Marcia General Comment Building more LNG export terminals harm the environment, raise costs and poison communities. Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
861. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 2:55:24 PM Henry, J General Comment My name is J. C. Henry. I'm a Navy veteran and retired after working for 35 years for Defense contractors like ITT, General Dynamics, and 20 years with Raytheon. My family and I moved to Pennsylvania in 1989 primarily for the good economy and proximity to my first post-military employer. We selected the community we live in based on the affordability of housing, the great schools and local economy based on small businesses, light industry and some tourism. The cost of living around here is a great concern to my family and friends who live up here. Many of us, myself included, live on a fixed income. Living on a fixed income isn't easy, especially during periods of higher inflation. Economic stability and low inflation are critical to maintaining a lower cost of living. We all need a lower cost of living, given the mostly rural nature of greater community. Energy costs are a significant part of that cost of living and energy security is very important to me. I appreciate the DOE's efforts to keep the availability of energy stable for my community and thank you for your efforts to hold energy costs down. This is a critical thing for our mountain homes. Since we both believe in keeping the cost of living low through energy security, I believe we should agree on lifting the ban on new approvals of permits for liquified natural gas (LNG) exports. The current LNG export strategy helps keep our allies in a position of energy security as well as our economy. If the proposed ban on new export licenses is allowed to go into effect, it jeopardizes that energy security both for the US and our allies, likely raising our cost of living. I heartily urge the DOE to lift the ban on approval of new LNG export permits.
862. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 3:02:07 PM Bond, Lauren General Comment I'm grateful to DOE for their work to “update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not.” What continues to be concerning is that regardless of location, the pollution rises and effects the entire planet. We are all living these effects. DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” As Constituent, I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.” Respectfully, Lauren Bond
863. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 3:07:38 PM Mackey, Kendall General Comment Attached is a transcript of an People's Hearing on Environmental Justice Impacts of LNG held in Corpus Christi, TX on October 18th, 2024.
  1. 101824 People's Hearing on Environmental Justice ...
864. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 3:14:49 PM Samarro, Katey General Comment Hello, I would first like to thank your department for its work in updating the economic and environmental studies that inform LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are NOT in the public interest. This was a necessary step and gives a voice to those in underrepresented communities and plants/animals who usually do not get a chance to weigh in. Following this finding, one can clearly see that more LNG exports are NOT in the public interest, either. I am writing this public comment to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE's attention to the following reasons why continued LNG export approvals should be denied: -On an economic level, the DOE's studies in 2024 found that if LNG exports remain unconstrained, the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills, most impactful for low- and middle-income families. -On an environmental level, the DOE's updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That being said, the only upsides to approving more LNG exports is for the monetary gains of the oil & gas companies. And as we know, they do not need more money. Cheaper and cleaner energy has been proven to be effective not only in the US, but around the world where these LNG exports would be sent. Please continue to follow through on the precedent set by the studies' findings that LNG export continuation will NOT be in the public interest by denying all pending app export authorizations. The people and the planet are already seeing the impacts of climate change each day. Please do not allow these harmful deals to go through any longer. Thank you for your time.
865. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 3:15:27 PM Blake, Barb General Comment Hi, my name is Barb Blake. I’ve been a resident of Pennsylvania my entire life, raised my children and now enjoy my grandchildren. I’m a retired athletic field specialist and my son who is a combat veteran owns a tree service. As a member of a rural community keeping the cost of living low through energy security is something that is very important to me I thank the DOE for working to keep energy costs low to make living more affordable. Since we agree on keeping the cost of living low through energy security, we should also be in agreement to lifting the ban on new permits for the exportation of liquified natural gas. Currently we supply our allies with energy security and keep energy prices affordable for American citizens. If the ban were to go into effect it would not only affect our allies but would also lead to a decrease in domestic production that would raise the cost of living by reducing our energy security. I urge the DOE to resume the approval of LNG export permits.
866. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 3:20:47 PM Schmitt, Tim General Comment I oppose this project.
867. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 3:36:14 PM Hummel, Matthew General Comment This study and opportunity for comment is greatly appreciated. I'll be honest, it's hard to keep up with the functions of federal government beyond the incessant outpouring of media reporting, often captured after the fact. DOE's findings are striking, confirming what I'd guess was suspected about LNG export terminals. Specifically, they harm the environment with additional emissions, burden specific communities as a result of LNG processing for transport, and raise costs. This constant balancing act with energy and our national spending is a complicated one. I can appreciate the perspective of going forward with these exports, but the fact is we should place ourselves in a position of accountability to these findings. It's an ethical choice now. Continuing with exports has tremendous negatives associated with it, and the consequences are not borne equally by all. Given what has been revealed in this study, I'm not in favor of proceeding with exports.
868. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 3:40:15 PM lenk, adam General Comment I can't believe we're still considering this, but oh man, let me give this a shot. Imagine you're sick, and you go to a doctor. The doctor tells you that you need to stop drinking crude oil, because oh my god why are we still having a conversation about whether it is a good idea to burn more fossil fuels in 2025?! No! Do not build any more LNG infrastructure! You've heard if from any and every reputable scientist around the world, I don't understand why you still need to hear it from me, the general public, but okay. Here goes. - We've already had several "Bomb cyclones" here in Washington, which have caused significant infrastructure damage, and these weather events are directly linked to climate change, you know, the thing that burning more fossil fuels is going to accelerate. - I have to rely on rainwater collection for drinking water here, and because of pollutants, there is literally no where in the world where rainwater is safe to drink and I have to spend extra money to filter it. Do not add additional pollutants to the atmosphere and make this even worse! - At some point, we will run out of fossil fuels. Or the demand for them will be 0. Do not invest any more money in this dying industry. It does not make financial sense. Thanks for your time in reading this, but know that my thanks is conditional pending a decision to stop investing in LNG. If that action is not taken, then congratulations; instead of my thanks you have won my everlasting ire. -Adam
869. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 3:45:00 PM Brewton, Molly General Comment Thank you for all you've done to try to be judicious in what energy projects you do or do not approve. LNG has been clearly shown to have major problems, which include: increasing energy costs, adding to the climate crisis, and causing harm to the public—particularly on the Gulf Coast. Therefore, the right choice seems clear: These projects need to be rejected. (I could go into considerably more detail, but you have probably already received many comments which cover these bases.) Since we clearly have an incoming administration which will NOT be fair, I'm asking you to reject all pending LNG export authorizations, NOW, while you still have a chance. Thank you very much for considering my comments.
870. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 3:50:55 PM Dixon, Reed General Comment My name is Reed Dixon, and I have worked in the Oil and Natural Gas industry for 15 years. I live in Denver, Colorado with my wife and children. Nine years ago, I started my own small oil and gas business. Currently we employ three people in our Denver office and 10-15 contract employees across major shale basins from Utah to Louisiana. The current LNG pause has negatively impacted our properties in Louisiana, heavily reliant on LNG demand. This uncertainty has frightened our investors and strained our cash flow. Our 2022 investment models anticipated future demand growth, but if the pause continues, we may need to invest elsewhere, affecting local employment. We understand the significance of the oil and gas industry in Louisiana, especially in historically marginalized regions like Northwest Louisiana. The LNG pauses only harm hardworking Americans in these areas. I appreciate the DOE's consideration of various viewpoints and the vital work you do for our country. I hope you recognize the broader impact of the permit pause on Americans. Therefore, I strongly encourage resuming LNG permitting as soon as possible. Thank you, Reed
871. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 4:01:40 PM Hufnagel, Glenn General Comment A few weeks ago, Biden's DOE released new research that shows how approving new permits for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports will drive up energy bills, exacerbate the climate crisis, and harm the public health of frontline communities—particularly those on the Gulf Coast. DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
872. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 4:02:12 PM Juell, David General Comment I am concerned about the effort to limil exports of LNG for the following reasons. As a private citizen, veteran, retired i raised 3 children with 6 grandchildren and we enjoyed the lifestyle benefits derived from the work of the oil and gas industry in Colorado supporting its employees and providing enormous tax benefits to benefit schools, infrastructure and parks. I know the benefits of reliable energy in both our home, community and travel. Much of our lifestyle is enjoying these benefits derived from the enbergy industry including, oil, gas, hydro, geothermal and also renewables when available. Since retiring it is more expensive to travel but i am willing to pay the cost to benefit from this industry. Our activity is very similiar many, hiking, fishing, sking, camping etc with both faqmily and friends. This hasd been possible with the efforts of you and the industry. I ask that the DOE resume LNG exports to provide energy at less cost to foreign countries so they to can enjoy these benefits and at the same timne provde income for companies to pay high wages and invest in more exploration. Thank youy for ltaking my concerns as you review the current pause in LNG imports.
873. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 4:11:46 PM Tucker, James General Comment Thank you for your work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest. DOE's updated economic and environmental studies clearly show more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I write today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. More LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, their approvals should be denied. DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain unconstrained, the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government to approve more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. DOE’s updated studies find increasing LNG exports will result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. As an American citizen and resident of Alabama, I already experience the climate crisis. This has a negative impact on the health and financial wellbeing of Alabama. DOE found more LNG exports will result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations will further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my state, the country, and the world. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast, including states like Alabama. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest. Thank you.
874. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 4:18:14 PM Cole, Richard General Comment I am providing this comment in response to the report on LNG export recently made available. The report made clear that further buildout of LNG is not in the best interest of the public. With all of the climate-related disasters that have been occurring with greater intensity and frequency the fossil fuel industry is adding fuel to the fire. Climate disasters are increasing just as predicted, only worse. The damages are mind-numbing when you consider for example the wildfires that occurred in Maui, the ones in LA, the hurricanes. These are only some examples and there are many, many more in the US and abroad. Some officials in government either deny climate change or view it as an a price we must pay for energy security. But these politicians are bought out by fossil fuel interests and do their bidding. We now are the world’s leading exporter of gas and oil and there just isn’t the need/demand for more. When you look at energy security for instance it’s ridiculous that somehow the answer lies in exporting to other countries. How is that right for our security? That’s about the security of the companies’ profits, plain and simple. They are literally killing is, contributing to the destruction of ecosystems and harming communities. There is one new LNG facility proposed in my area and if that goes through we will be subject to the same set of problems that have occurred elsewhere such as along coastal Louisiana. Enough is enough. It’s time we consider the the long-term picture instead of short-term profits. I want for my daughter’s generation and beyond to have a livable world. It’s what they deserve. So let’s put an end to the nonsense and ensure no more LNG facilities are built.
875. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 4:31:39 PM Juell, Janet General Comment To the Department of Energy, My name is Janet Juell and I'm writing you today as a longtime resident of Larimer County, CO. For a long time I've been interested and care about what happens in the LNG industry. I'm a retired senior citizen living on a fixed income. As a married couple we're concerned about the rising costs in everything and how it has affected our life style. We are active with our grandchildren and four of them live out of state which requires travel to spend time with them. We worry for their future as they grow up and need to find jobs and support themselves. We know the importance of the US LNG and that our country produces the cleanest in the world. This industry employs around 220,000 people and we don't want those people losing their jobs if this pause were to continue. These workers give value to our community as they are good tax paying citizens and support our local economies. My ask of your Department is to resume the US LNG exports. We can't afford these higher prices and we want all people globally to have access to the cleanest LNG which directly helps our environment. Thank you, Janet Juell
876. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 4:35:50 PM Enright, Elizabeth General Comment Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
877. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 4:39:15 PM Hawkins, Don General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
878. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 4:51:05 PM Allen, Patricia General Comment They put this LNG plants in the middle of older, primarily rural, poor neighborhoods where they polute the air and water. STOP THIS..
879. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 5:00:25 PM greer, jill General Comment Please reject all pending permits for liquified natural gas (LNG) export facilities. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) has done the research already, and spelled out the reality that LNG exports simply are not in the public interest, but rather constitute a climate disaster. In addition to the environmental affects, it will also result in higher costs for American families financially AND at risk medically, due to the toxic nature of LNG upon all life forms. It is my sincere hope that the DOE and the Biden Administration will do the right thing: apply these findings and reject all pending LNG projects! It is key to remember that the most recent (12/17/2024) DOE studies are more accurate, as they are NOT based on outdated datasets which were previously use to allow LNG permits to slide through unopposed, and be fast-tracked. This more accurate and updated evidence needs to be referenced NOW, to protect the American people. Let me specify why this immediate halt is so important: - Ordinary American citizens cannot afford the price hike that will accompany the LNG exports,. In fact, economic models of the negative impact is tri-fold: the price of natural gas, the cost of electricity, and even consumer goods' prices would go up! - Increasing the negative health impact upon the poorest families whose homes are in the danger zone. LNG facilities are NOT in the backyards of the wealthiest among us, but are concentrated there in the communities who are already suffering from both environmental toxins which cause respiratory illness and cancer rates to skyrocket, and the many devastating extreme weather events caused by climate change. The profits (and the burning of the actual LNG) all come at the price of human suffering. - Ecological pollution and environmental destruction: The proposed CP2 LNG in Louisiana has been estimated to emit greenhouse gases that may equate to the shocking level of 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions at every stage of the process, from extraction, transportation, processing into the liquified form, the export of the finished product, and of course, its ultimate burning and production of even more destructive greenhouse gases. All human populations need to make the transition to clean energy as soon as possible. Expanding LNG exports prolongs that ultimate necessity and serves only to enrich the powerful and incredibly wealthy fossil fuel companies. - Extractive Industry's inherent environmental devastation: The massive industrial equipment needed to build the infrastructure for the export facility along is basically a man-made disaster, from the dredging to all the industrial traffic, trash, displacement of native flora and fauna, and last but not least, the socioeconomic cost of losing precious coastline and marine access for tourism and fishing. Local communities will be losing on every possible measure of the situation, and there is NO benefit for anyone except the LNG producers. Clearly it is urgent and righteous for action to protect those communities and their ecosystems. The DOE and the Biden Administration have ONE LAST CHANCE to solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy, so PLEASE act now. Reject all of these proposed LNG projects. Respectfully yours,
880. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 5:07:44 PM Schott, Sandy General Comment I am Sandy Schott. The DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
881. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 5:11:33 PM Teets, Dennis General Comment I grew up with my dad doing excavating on the side. I learned how to drive truck and operate equipment. In 1997 my brother and I went into the business for ourselves. After about 15 years 2011 we went bankrupt do to poor handling of the business side which my brother handled. as a small business we delt with townships and code enforcement offices and red tape all the time I appreciate the work that the dept. of energy has done over the years but there is still a lot more work to do in small towns, making fuel affordable and accessible to the fuel. I worry about the future for my grandsons, who talk about being truck drivers or mechanics. What kind of trouble will they have accessing fuel and products for their own business in small town. Any ban on natural gas hurts construction business and suppliers of materials for well sites. Along with not just small businesses but home owners who count on natural gas to run their vehicle’s, to cook with or heat their homes. I urge the DOE to further our nation’s energy security and small town growth , by resuming approval of permits for LNG exports
882. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 5:31:17 PM Bucher, Theresa General Comment Do you really think we should do these things? Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
883. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 7:04:23 PM Page, Steven General Comment My name is Steven Page. My wife Debra and I grew up in Colorado and after moving for work returned to Colorado and have resided in Lakewood for the past 37 years. Before retiring I was an operations executive in two fortune 500 companies before starting my own company. Having been responsible for manufacturing and distribution I have an acute awareness as to energy source, use and cost. I have always been and America first advocate. I believe we should be able to generate cheap energy for the consumption of business and the general public. We appreciate the work the department has done to protect our environment. Wanting to make America first, we must be energy independent, which requires us to make use of the abundance of oil and gas our country has. Our LGN is not only abundant but clean. I am opposed to the pause that was placed on our sale of LNG. Our energy is cleaner than our competition and is fundamental to supporting our national security. There is big demand that we can fill. We can participate in this market creating good paying jobs for Americans and have a positive impact on our trade deficit and make the world a cleaner place to live. With your help and guidance we can export LNG which will have a positive impact for our economy and security. LET'S MAKE AMERICA FIRST!
884. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 7:07:38 PM Chispa Texas Appendix D: Addendum on Environmental and Community Effects of U.S. LNG Exports President Biden and Department of Energy Secretary Granholm: Our communities and our children deserve clean air, safe water, and a future free from the harmful impacts of Big Oil and Gas pollution. The new Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facilities proposed along the Gulf Coast put our children at further risk of asthma, respiratory illnesses, and long-term health issues. They consume vast amounts of clean water, and their operations devastate our environment. The public interest should be determined by our collective voices – not Big Oil and Gas lobbyists. To clean up our air and water, protect our kids and our precious Gulf Coast home – we call on you to reject the permits on new polluting oil and gas facilities in the Gulf.
  1. LNG Petition Names.pdf
885. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 7:25:27 PM Page, Debra General Comment I am a native of Colorado. When I married Steve, we moved to Chicago, IL, then Georgia, then back to Chicago. We moved back to Colorado and have been here for 37 years. We had our own business for 5 years and the cost of energy was a major expense. To have cleaner and cheaper energy is a must for small businesses to succeed. I worked 15 years for the Department of Interior with the Bureau of Land Management. I was a Support Administrator in a few offices. When I was working the Collections and Billings we had a oil and gas sale twice yearly and these lease sales made money for the government, one was over 3 million. Due to the "pause" in the lease sales they have gone now to "one lease". This is just not acceptable! We need to get back into the business of being energy secure for ourselves and to help other countries to be able to have cleaner energy at a reasonable cost. This will make more jobs for others to be able to help build their own countries to become stronger, cleaner and secure. This will bring money back to the USA, new jobs, and energy security for the USA. We need to get the LNG business to be able reach the "non-free trade countries" to be able to purchase a cleaner gas so the whole world can be a healthier place to live. Thank you for your work to make the world a better place to live!
886. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 7:25:43 PM Akerley, Cherlyn General Comment Hello, my name is Cherlyn Akerley and I’ve lived in the beautiful state of Colorado since 1972. I’ve seen the trouble everyone goes through to take care of our beautiful state. I’ve been to all 50 states and I appreciate the vast beauty that our country has to offer and why it’s so very important to keep our country pristine. I love this country and want to thank you for being so diligent in protecting these lands. This is important to all of us. I don’t want to see our environment suffer. However, I’m concerned that by not selling or sharing our clean, regulated energy, other countries are ramping up non-regulated types of energy productions. This affects climate change negatively with all of the non-safe, unclean forms of energy our adversaries are using for energy sources, therefore, polluting the world. The best thing we can do for our country is to continue producing clean, regulated energy for the world and sharing it! I’m asking the Department of Energy to resume our liquified natural gas exports for the safety of our environment and the world’s environment.
887. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 7:30:26 PM Anderson, Leo General Comment Please invest in clean energy and stop any LNG exports. Let us support the people of Texas, not big oil!
888. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 7:35:38 PM Talbot, James General Comment I want the Department of Energy to protect us from rising energy costs and Oil and Gas expansion. I am against LNG exports--they make domestic energy prices more expensive while oil companies make record profits. Oil pipelines are polluting my state and I would rather invest in clean and sustainable energy.
889. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 8:01:48 PM Bala, Arun General Comment I oppose building more LNG terminals. LNG is disastrous for the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emission, polluting local communities, and the economically inferior choice to prioritizing renewable energy. Thanks to the DOE for taking into account public comment on expanding LNG exports and their research in this forum.
890. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 8:43:54 PM Merz, Elizabeth General Comment There's not much time left for you to DENY LNG export authorization. Time's running out. If you approve more LNG export authorizations, our energy bills will increase. I live on my Social Security check and can't afford one more penny for utilities. As it is, my thermostat is low enough to keep me chilly. LNG export authorizations will increase pollution. I've been diagnosed with asthma and I can't stand any more deterioration to the air quality in my community. There are many other reasons for you to deny LNG export authorizations. But you aleady know those. We're trusting you to look out for us, the American public, and not the energy industry. Pleae do the righ thing by us. Thank you.
891. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 9:01:02 PM Sells, Greg General Comment Before the change in administration, please reject all pending LNG export authorizations. Your department's research shows that building more LNG export terminals will increase net greenhouse emissions just when we need to cut emissions to mitigate climate change. Most LNG terminals are in areas heavily burdened by pollution, with residents suffering higher rates of cancer, asthma and heart disease. And exporting more natural gas will lead to higher energy bills for American families, by an average of over $100 per year by 2050.
892. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 10:16:14 PM Friedman, Esther General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.” “I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied.” Economic: Key study finding: “DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.” How this impacts the American public: (“As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate.”) Environmental and climate harms: Key study finding: “DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE.” How this impacts the American public: “As an American citizen and resident of [insert your town or community], I am already experiencing [insert an current or future impact of the climate crisis, or any environmental justice harm facing your community]. This has negatively impacted our community’s [health, financial wellbeing, etc.] of my community. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.” Environmental justice: Summary of the study’s finding: In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” How this impacts the American public:: “Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.”
893. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 10:20:28 PM Kerzner, Allison General Comment Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
894. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 10:40:47 PM Valentine, Jennifer General Comment In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.”
895. expand/collapse 1/16/2025 11:14:20 PM Merrill, Stephen General Comment Do not authorize any new LNG terminals, these are very bad for our environment, will just exacerbate the global climate crisis, and are a danger to coastal communities housing these terminals, look what happened in the Texas coast community in the 1940's when that whole town blew up!
896. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 12:03:08 AM Selquist, Donna General Comment We do not need more fossil fuels of any kind, especially including LNG. Please do not approve any further exploration of possible LNG sources, infrastructure needed to transport it, or port facilities or tankers to ship it. The consequences of proceeding include the following: Harm to the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. You can stop this before it gets any worse, and I urge you to do so! Thank you.
897. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 5:58:17 AM Deutsche Umwelthilfe / Environmental Action Germany Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports See full statement attached. Conclusion: Peak LNG has been reached in Europe The European gas crisis is over. US LNG does play an important role at present, but existing infrastructure is sufficient to cover all needs, current and future. European prices are stabilizing and gas demand is projected to fall. The EU has implemented effective measure to accelerate the phase-out of Russian fossil fuels. Peak LNG has been reached and Europe will continue to reduce its import dependency through REPower EU.
  1. 250117 DUH_DOE Energy Security Europe.pdf
898. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 7:41:36 AM Kieninger, Frida General Comment Please find attached a letter responding to the publication of the DOE 2024 LNG Export Study signed by 78 civil society organizations (60 from Europe and 18 non-European supporting organizations).
  1. EU-CSO-DOE-LNG letter Jan2025.pdf
899. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 9:10:18 AM Riehl, Jean General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions, and at the very moment, we need to cut down significantly on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports will raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year on their energy bills by 2050. This price increase will be felt most by low—and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. STOP more LNG exports.
900. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 9:45:36 AM Battersby, Frank General Comment In light of the world-wide rise in temperatures and the now daily occurrences of drought, flooding, storms and wild fires, how can a rational thinking person consider the exporting of LNG as a viable option? From the environmental issue caused by fracking to the potential catastrophe transporting of LNG by rail, trucks and ships could have, there should be no way that any agency should allow this to occur. I believe it’s time to consider all the facts, and to put the needs of all human beings, above those of the lobbyists and big money corporations.
901. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 10:59:54 AM Bhattacharjee, Ila General Comment I’m a student in Montclair, NJ, deeply concerned about the climate emergency. I’m furious at how slowly our leaders are moving to save our planet and my future. The Department of Energy has the chance to act meaningfully regarding LNG. Please act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. My friends and I are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
902. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 11:02:27 AM Brookes-La Blanc, Clara General Comment I’m a high school student from Montclair, NJ, and I am concerned and scared about the climate emergency. Our leaders are not doing enough about it. This is a chance for The Department of Energy to act meaningfully.
903. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 11:02:27 AM Sustainability Club Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports I’m a high school student in Montclair, NJ, deeply concerned about the climate emergency. I’m furious at how slowly our leaders are moving to save our planet and my future. The Department of Energy has the chance to act meaningfully regarding LNG. Please act quickly to implement these findings into the decision-making process regarding the export of LNG. My friends and I are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
904. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 11:04:16 AM Music, Barbra General Comment Stop this NOW!
905. 1/17/2025 11:04:56 AM Gardner , Kristen General Comment
906. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 12:20:29 PM Sikora, Magdalena General Comment I write this comment urging the DOE to follow Secretary Gramholm's warnings -- which are in line with calls from climate scientists worldwide -- to stop all liquified natural gas exports. We are in a perilous moment; the climate crisis is here and worsening. We see fires in LA in the middle of winter following unprecedented flooding in North Carolina just a few months prior. Exporting LNG gas for ultimate use will only further escalate the precarity of human life on this planet; moreover, global demands for gas are projected to decrease. Why would we be increasing exports of something that demand is falling for? It seems like very bad business for the financial stability of this country. Why not focus our efforts on expanding solar and wind so we can be more self-sufficient as a country, what the incoming administration campaigned on. Please, this is not political, this is a call to help protect all of our futures. I urge you to listen to affected communities and individuals across this nation: please stop LNG exports.
907. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 12:26:22 PM Langenmayr, Eric General Comment The LNG Export Study documents the following harmful effects: 1. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to LNG buildout including increased domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices. 2. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. 3. Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. 4. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism.
908. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 12:48:01 PM Andersen, Alan General Comment Hello, my name is Alan Andersen, I have lived across New Mexico for most of my life. I have been a teacher in biology and geology for 25 years, so I have seen the positive impact on education from oil and gas. And as a contractor for pipelines and injections sites at oil fields in New Mexico and Utah, I was involved in implementing our vital oil and gas economy. I am worried about America maintaining our ingenuity due to restrictions on oil and gas. This ban on LNG exports would pause our continued growth and advancement. I fear that the restrictions would jeopardize our standing as the world’s leader in LNG production. Natural gas should stay cheap and be easy to work with as a customer. I would hope that other individuals could get this message and be educated as to the importance of natural gas as a form of energy to the world. That is why I oppose the ban on LNG by the Department of Energy.
909. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 12:48:10 PM Parkos, Karl General Comment Hi my name is Karl Parkos I have been lucky enough to have raised my family here in the Rockies for the past 50+ years and enjoying all of its amenities. I have been a Commercial Motor Vehicle driver with over 40+ years of experience. I am currently a Transportation manager for a Company in the Oil and Gas industry. The reason I am writing you today is for the proposed ban on the exporting LNG. I have many of family and friends that work in this industry and would be greatly affect job security if production and exporting of LNG was to be banned. So, with that said please look at the potential impact this would have on family, friends, and communities with the loss of wages and that results in the loss of taxes which in end effects the community with improvements to schools, parks, and roads.
910. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 12:49:13 PM Schroeder, Don General Comment The ban on LNG exports is an important issue for me. I have degrees in chemical engineering and had a Professional Engineering credential in Colorado for many years. I have worked in the petroleum industry for 32 years as a research engineer working on enhanced oil recovery, well completions, flow assurance and gas hydrates mitigation. I am a member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. I understand the industry, the high safety and environmental standards, and also the workers that are involved in producing oil and gas. I think it is important for the United States to fully participate in the worldwide LNG market for several reasons. First, if we don't develop the resources we have other nations will expand their production of LNG. We will lose market share, good paying jobs in the US and the economic activity that contributes to our gross national product. Second, the export of LNG will help displace the use of coal which has a much greater environmental impact. And, third, we need LNG and natural gas to stabilize the production of electric power which is very important. I urge the DOE to recommend that the ban on LNG exports be eliminated.
911. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 1:01:32 PM Natural Resources Defense Coun, NRDC General Comment Please find attached 30,011 signatories from NRDC members urging President Biden and Secretary Granholm to reject dangerous liquefied natural gas.
  1. NRDC LNG petition & signatories.pdf
912. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 1:22:23 PM Kimak, Mina General Comment Any action taken by the federal government contradictory to this study's findings is a blatant disregard for the health and well-being of the American people and constitutes a failure on the part of our elected officials who are obligated to represent us. A just transition away from fossil fuels needs to happen yesterday.
913. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 2:00:30 PM Howard, Robert General Comment I am Bob Howard, a long-term resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and an Army Veteran. As a veteran national security is a priority for me. I thank the Department of Energy for working to provide a reliable source of energy for America and our allies. Since we are in agreement on supporting national security we should oppose the ban on LNG export permits. As a retiree of a Pennsylvanian glass manufacturer and a consumer of gas, I am aware of the impact bans like the proposed ban on LNG export permits will have on Pennsylvania’s work force and the cost to consumers. The proposed ban creates uncertainty that results in the loss of jobs and lower revenues needed by Pennsylvania to service our citizens. It concerns me that such a ban diminishes America’s national security and our influence in global affairs by denying our allies with energy security and decreasing our domestic production. I urge the Department of Energy to lift the proposed ban on LNG permits. Thank you.
914. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 2:30:08 PM Mihalic, Jackie General Comment Hello my name is Jackie Mihalic. I am a ***** County resident for the last 13 years and I have a husband who has been a life long resident. We have our kids here and we own a small business here. Therefore, supporting small businesses is very important to me. I thank the Department of Energy for the work they do to support small businesses with energy security. Because we agree on supporting small businesses, we should both oppose the proposed ban on LNG export permits. The current system not only provides our allies with energy security but it benefits our home, as well. The ban would not only harm our allies but would decrease production and likely cause price increases for small businesses across America. I urge the DOE to lift the pause on the approval of the LNG export permits.
915. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 2:30:15 PM Garcia, Raena General Comment On behalf of Friends of the Earth U.S. and Public Citizen which highlights an analysis on announced agreements between exporters and LNG buyers to sell LNG from pending export terminals.
  1. Gassed Up Jan 2025 Methane Report.pdf
916. 1/17/2025 2:33:28 PM Agnew, Jennessa General Comment
  1. LNG Export Study Public Comments_LCV.pdf
917. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 2:37:23 PM Garcia, Raena General Comment Attached, please find the signatures and comments of 14,567 supports. The first document includes 14,314 signatures on the included letter to the Department of Energy. The second document includes 253 additional comments made.
  1. 010425 - DOE Stop LNG - Signatures.pdf
  2. 010425 - DOE Stop LNG - Comments.pdf
918. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 3:11:20 PM Milliken, Russell General Comment I, Russell P Milliken, a thirty two year resident of Pittsburgh, PA, served in the U.S. Army for 5 years and am a retired federal employee. After, I owned my own business where I serviced the community of Penn Hills, PA with all of their energy needs. I am an ardent supporter of the natural gas industry because of the abundance of resources our country has, and the great jobs the industry has provided to my family and community. U.S. Natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel and one that fulfills our country and our allies' energy demands. As a veteran I can appreciate the work this Department is doing to keep our countries’ energy infrastructure affordable and secure. When I served in Thailand I witnessed firsthand, a country that was in need of energy to push them into the industrial age. Now, this country relies heavily on the U.S.’s LNG. As someone that has worked to protect our nation and our allies I do not want to see a country’s infrastructure and economy crippled due to a lack of resources. This is the United State’s opportunity to supply many nations with the American’s success story of lower GHG emissions while supporting our economy. I urge this department to protect American citizens and their interests by resuming approvals to LNG export permit projects.
919. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 3:20:26 PM Roggie, Judi General Comment Please stop the export LNG. The recent report by Secretary Jennifer Granholm illustrates how LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities. As stated LNG Exports are even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in my home state, Pennsylvania, which as you know is the second largest gas producer in the nation. We are suffering from the destruction imposed on us by the fracking industry. I urge you also to do everything possible to stop this practice and concentrate on enabling the production od renewable energy such as wind and solar farms. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report also finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. I strongly urge you to do everthing possible to halt the production and export of LNG. It is robbing us of our precious clean air and clean water. PLEASE protect these valuable resources. There are muchbetter options for solving the world's energy needs and we can MAKE THIS HAPPEN by encouraging renewable energy production by wind, solar, and hydro generation.
920. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 3:21:47 PM Larter, Donald General Comment My name is Donald Larter. I am a retired business owner and educator in the Keystone State of Pennsylvania. My wife and I have lived in Pittsburgh for over 40 years. My son and his wife live in Pittsburgh, and our daughter, who was born in Pittsburgh, now lives in California. As a former teacher of Public Speaking at a number of colleges and universities in New York State and Pennsylvania, I am well aware there are at least two sides to every issue–the “pro” and the “con”. The energy issue’s pro and con are particularly complicated and controversial. With so much at stake–politically, economically, and environmentally, those who are eager to maintain America’s lead in oil and gas production and exportation have a burden of proof that can sometimes feel overwhelming. The fact remains, however, that the needs of people for employment and a stable income must sometimes trump other issues that are less defined and less immediate. For that reason, our federal government needs to make more jobs available to its citizenry. I commend the DOE for its diligence in securing our nation’s energy grid, but I also encourage the DOE to include in its vision the need to expand our country’s ability to provide for the energy needs of foreign countries, especially our foreign allies who may currently be non-FTA countries. Because I care about increased employment opportunities and lower energy prices for myself, my son and daughter, my community, and communities across this great land of ours and throughout the free world, I want to see the continuation of LNG exports from the US. Our exports help to keep energy prices down, provide more disposable income for myself, my children, and for communities throughout the world. I urge the DOE, therefore, to lift the export pause of LNG exports in order to support the economy of not only our nation but the economies of our allies around the world.
921. 1/17/2025 3:22:55 PM Purcell, Elizabeth General Comment
  1. TIRN DOE LNG Comments-2.pdf
922. 1/17/2025 3:37:10 PM LaGoe, Laurie General Comment
923. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 3:39:12 PM Delgado, Fabiola General Comment Please see attached 110 signatures from Center for Biological Diversity supporters urging you to do the right thing and reject all pending LNG export permits immediately.
  1. CenterforBiologicalDiversity-NoMoreLNGExports-110...
924. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 3:40:38 PM Jackson, Francis General Comment My name is Frank Jackson, I am a retired Pilot, who lives in Colorado, and enjoys the recreational activities here. The environment is very important to me as well as reliable energy. I appreciate what the DOE has done to keep the environment unspoiled and the air clean while keeping a reliable source of energy to keep our economy strong. I do not understand however how the DOE can promote wind farms offshore, while shutting down oil and gas production. Wind turbines off the east coast have been proven to be detrimental to marine life as well as the fishing industries that depend on them. Like wise wind and solar farms on land have destroyed large ares of formerly pristine wilderness and been very harmful to wildlife. I therefore urge the Deptartment of Energy to not ban Natural Gas exports, which weaken our economy as well as our National Security, and the security of other countries as well.
925. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 3:40:42 PM O'Neill, Jessica General Comment Please see attached.
  1. 2025 1 17 - PennFuture Comments to DOE on 2024 LN...
926. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 3:40:56 PM Hamilton, George General Comment Attn: Department of Energy I am writing to you concerning my Interest to increase liquefy natural Gas exports to Europe and other countries. This is very important to the United States, economically and well as providing security to the U. S. I have been in the energy industry for over twenty years and throughout my experience I can see why a Pro-energy policy is good for the U.s, as well as the world. Prosperity and will being is important to the U.S. in economic growth. Depending on foreign sources for energy supplies is not a crucial strategy for either the U.S. or the World. Of Major importance is that " green Energy" will not the needs of our Country or be an asset of need in critical situations During the early 80's, the U.S. unleashed its Energy might by opening the U.S. land based and ocean resources to exploration. This resulted in a drive of economic wealth and Prosperity that lowered the costs of energy and pulled the U.S. out a recession. The whole country benefited and ended inflationary prices and less dependent on Foreign sources. I ask that the Department of Energy rescind the Biden Administration ban on LNG exports. Not only will the U.S. benefit but the exports will help the world whereby the world will not be forced to buy from countries like Russia, Venezuela, and Saudia Arbia, and etc. A very concerned citizen George J. Hamilton Centennial, CO
927. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 3:43:35 PM Matthews, Nathan General Comment Comments of Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and WE ACT for Environmental Justice on the Department of Energy's December 2024 Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports
  1. Earthjustice, NRDC, Sierra Club and WEACT Comment...
928. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 3:53:15 PM Chanin, Mitch General Comment My name is Mitch Chanin, and I'm a resident of Philadelphia who works with a number of community-based organizations. I urge the Department of Energy to deny permits for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals. As DOE's "2024 LNG Export Study" has found, ramping up LNG exports would increase the emission of climate-damaging greenhouse gases, exacerbating the climate emergency and increasing the likelihood of disasters like the wildfires that are devastating Southern California this week and the floods that recently devastated parts of North Carolina. In addition, permitting new export terminals would also lead to an increase in toxic pollution and increased risk of explosions in communities near fracking wells, compressor stations, and the terminals themselves. Finally, if DOE permits new export terminals, domestic gas prices may rise substantially, harming people here in Philadelphia who are already struggling to pay their utility bills. Please protect our health and safety and our access to affordable energy by rejecting new export terminals. A video recording of my comment is here: https://youtu.be/zgs2vgx9EjY
929. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 3:56:47 PM Hamer, Geoff General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects.
930. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 4:03:42 PM Bayuk, John General Comment My name is John Bayuk and I live in ***** County,PA. I am a 74 year old retired Family Physician. My wife and I have lived in PA. all our adult lives, except for college, and have raised four children. We live in a rural area and rely on oil heat, but are concerned about the cost, especially this winter. We are also concerned about the many small businesses that depend on low cost energy such as the Amish who use gas generators. I appreciate that the DOE works to support small businesses with their energy concerns. Because we both support small business and lower energy costs, we should oppose the ban on LNG export permits. My wife is originally from Slovakia and relatives just yesterday told her that they only have natural gas until May. Our friends across the globe may need affordable LNG more than us (especially since they are caring for Ukrainian refugees). A ban on LNG exports would also put a severe damper on domestic production, hurting small business as well as free world security. The current system provides both our allies and small American businesses with energy security and should not be changed. I urge the DOE to lift the ban on the approval of new LNG export permits.
931. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 4:12:29 PM ralston, james General Comment I am James Ralston an adult citizen residing in Queensbury, NY. I thank the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for this opportunity to comment about the decision making process their staff intends to use in acting upon Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) export license applications. I am particularly concerned about the global warming of our planet. As an elder, I have compromised health in the form of heart disease, atherosclerosis, and hyponatremia. The latter condition of low serum sodium in the blood has me restricted in my daily intake of fluids. This, at my age of seventy six, makes me particularly susceptible to compromised health during heat waves. These heat waves are becoming increasingly frequent in these United States of America. As a retired Air Pollution Engineer I understand the physics of manmade pollution which is warming our planet. As repeated reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change make clear release of Green House Gases (GHG) is the cause. No activity more than the extraction of methane, and subsequent conversion, transport, and volatilization of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) interferes with our necessary goal of reaching net zero GHG emissions by the year 2050. New York State has adopted many enforceable strategies to limit the extraction, pipeline transport, and use of natural gas in new buildings throughout this state. Many other governments at the national, state, and local levels have also limited the release of GHG. Irrespective of our states commitments to renewable energy GHG releases continue to increase. These ever increasing emissions are predominantly associated with continuing reliance upon methane based fuels in thermal electricity generating facilities globally. The US DOE must not approve any more export licenses to nations for which we have no Free Trade Agreement. Otherwise achievement of our climate goals will continue to be frustrated. From the forward to this report: “… the U.S. has become the top global exporter of LNG; Russia has invaded Ukraine and used energy as a weapon to undermine European and global security; the impacts and costs of extreme weather and natural disasters fueled by climate change have increased dramatically; and the pace of the energy transition and technological innovation has itself accelerated.” These are an effective summation of why no further LNG export licenses should be granted by DOE. Also, from Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm’s introductory statement to this report: “…LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase…LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” I agree with this assessment which effectively summarizes why the DOE should stop granting LNG export licenses to non Free Trade Agreement nations. Thank you for this opportunity to comment about this proposal.
932. 1/17/2025 4:18:22 PM Danis, Jennifer General Comment
  1. Policy Integrity Comments on DOE LNG Export Study...
933. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 4:49:38 PM Tritico, Michael General Comment Our regional environmental group, RESTORE, (founded in 1974), sent our first letter of concern in 1978 about the fire safety hazards of LNG. That remains our overriding worry about what has turned into a global epicenter for the LNG speculators, here in Southwest Louisiana. Your table on PDF Page 21 shows that 72% of the operational export terminals are located here and more are coming. I plan to do a more complete review of the materials you have available to us for comment and submit new comments by the February 18 deadline. Meanwhile please consider on the economic side of your deliberations the reality that our domestic gas prices for heating and cooking as well as for electricity generation have climbed substantially as each export terminal had gone online. Keep in mind also that the America First commitment of the incoming President with his planned 35% tariffs on Chinese imports may trigger things that the main LNG customer, China, may find intolerable. As for fire safety, the Moss-Style tankers at least, are all foreign-flagged and therefore not subject to a full inspection by the U.S. Coast Guard, but are only one fire away from having a catastrophe since the SEP (Surface Emissive Power) number recommended by Sandia Corporation years ago never made it into the IGC code thereby meaning that the Pressure Relief Valves are 4 to 5 times too small to handle a swelling LNG cargo should there be a ship collision and fire or terrorist attack. It is just waiting to happen and will have profound implications on your premises and conclusions. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. Michael Tritico, Biologist and President of RESTORE. 01/17/2025
934. 1/17/2025 4:59:44 PM Danis, Jennifer General Comment
  1. Policy Integrity LNG Comments Conforming Cite For...
935. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 5:15:00 PM Raybould, Senator Jane General Comment Dear Secretary Granholm, I write to express my gratitude for the release of the final Department of Energy (DOE) studies on the impacts of liquefied methane gas (LNG) exports, which the agency relies on to inform its Public Interest Determination. By ensuring the final studies release before the next administration takes office, the Biden Administration has taken another step towards protecting our climate and frontline communities from the impacts of unfettered LNG export expansion. DOE’s analysis found that continued approval of LNG export projects threaten our ability to meet science-based emissions reduction targets by locking in decades of climate pollution and undermining efforts to tackle the climate crisis at home and abroad. The findings show that additional U.S. LNG exports displace more renewables than coal globally. In my own state of Nebraska, we are already seeing the consequences of climate change. According to the fifth national climate assessment, my home state will experience unprecedented extremes of severe droughts, floods and wildfires. We saw the devastation of flooding along the Missouri River in 2011 and 2019, that caused evacuations, costly damages, and the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant being offline for three years due to flooding. If we don’t meet these science-based emissions targets my state could expect to see some of the highest increases in annual flooding damage in the United States. At the same time, drought is expected 20% more frequently by the end of the century. This would potentially be devastating to agriculture and our economy. I am grateful that the studies explored, for the first time, the negative environmental justice impacts of LNG exports, of which there are many. Numerous frontline leaders and environmental justice groups have submitted firsthand accounts of these downstream impacts to DOE, such as observing high asthma rates in children, watching neighbors develop cancer, and witnessing the Freeport LNG terminal explosion in which little evacuation guidance was provided. Gulf Coast communities have been fighting the expansion of LNG exports for years, citing much of the same information that DOE has concluded through the modeling and data in these studies. What these communities are calling for is exactly what the Biden Administration and DOE can now do before the end of this term, incorporate the final studies into decision-making on LNG export authorizations without delay. The DOE has the authority to deny LNG export authorizations under the Natural Gas Act when the negative impacts of these facilities outweigh their benefits to the public, and the final studies make it clear that any additional LNG exports are not in the public interest. Therefore, I urge the DOE and the Biden Administration to immediately incorporate this updated analysis into all pending LNG export proposals and find that these projects are not in the public interest. Doing so would solidify the Biden Administration’s climate and environmental justice legacy, work to keep costs down for consumers, and fight back against the next administration's fossil fuel agenda.
936. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 5:36:54 PM Scanlan, Brian General Comment This report is an exceptionally well documented work and should be considered carefully by decision makers in the federal and state governments who have to approve U.S. LNG export terminals. There terminals are contrary to the long-term economic and environmental development of our country.
937. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 5:41:15 PM Dye, Arianna General Comment I am writing to urge The Department of Energy (DOE) -- under these final days of President Biden's term -- to deny all pending Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) export authorizations. The DOE's recently updated economic and environmental studies have shown clearly that more LNG exports are not in the public interest on multiple levels. Other people have more eloquently explained the combination of economic infeasibility and environmental unsustainability that LNG exports present, so I will simply beg that quick action be taken before the next administration begins.
938. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 5:48:43 PM O'Brien, Midge General Comment I grew up in Oklahoma where petroleum was heavily produced. After oil wells were depleted they were mined for further oil (LNG) which is methane gas, which is lethal and contributes to climate change and pollution. Another negative result of fracking it is a cause of the daily earthquakes in a Oklahoma that never had them before. Fracking is unsafe to local populations where produced as well as to areas where it is exported and contributes to climate warming. I do not wish for petroleum pollution and earth warming. Please do not produce LNG. It is unsafe and corporations do not need to make more money from oil!
939. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 5:59:37 PM Carluccio, Tracy General Comment Delaware River Petition to Stop LNG Exports Showing Community Opposition to LNG Export from the Locally Proposed Gibbstown LNG Export Terminal Petition text: Plans are moving forward in New Jersey for a massive new fracked gas project that will threaten our climate, environment, and public health. New Fortress Energy and Delaware River Partners want to expand the deepwater port terminal in Gibbstown, Gloucester County, NJ across from Chester, PA to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) overseas for sale. Shale gas would be extracted from fracking wells in PA and piped to a New Fortress processing plant being built in Wyalusing, Bradford County, PA on the Susquehanna River. Tank trucks and/or trains would carry this hazardous LNG over 200 miles through populated areas to Gibbstown daily. Huge shipping vessels would transport it down the river, passing Delaware and NJ and through the Bay to ports proposed by New Fortress in Ireland, Puerto Rico, and beyond. This project would be a disaster for Delaware River communities. Every day, up to 1,650 truck trips and/or 100 rail cars would come into Gibbstown, worsening air pollution in a region that doesn’t meet EPA standards for ozone. LNG will be loaded onto ships continuously, 24/7, 365 days per year, putting communities at risk from explosion. And water quality, endangered species, such as Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, and rare, vulnerable habitats for many animals and plants are threatened by the terminal and dredging. The entire New Fortress scheme is an untested, convoluted project that will only serve special private interests, will cause destructive pollution every step of its way and will increase methane emissions that will worsen our national and global climate crisis. Signed by the 87 individuals listed in the accompanying submitted PDF document.
  1. Copy Petition.pdf
940. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 6:09:13 PM Schwartz, Tamar General Comment Please don't mine for LNG! Let's save the planet from climate change!
941. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 6:42:40 PM Miller, Bryce General Comment Hello, my name is Bryce Miller and I’ve always been someone who values hard work, resilience, and opportunity, which is why I became deeply interested in the oil and gas industry. My curiosity grew after watching Land Man and learning about the livelihoods and communities this industry supports. As a proud citizen who values energy independence, I’ve come to understand just how vital this sector is to the backbone of our economy and everyday life. The industry’s ability to create jobs, fuel innovation, and support families resonates with my belief in empowering people and communities. Articulate the Value (We): Like many of you, I care about providing for my family and ensuring a stable, thriving future for our country. Oil and gas are essential to heating our homes, fueling our vehicles, and driving our economy, especially during the colder months when energy needs are critical. Whether we’re working hard to provide for loved ones or striving for economic progress, the values of self-reliance, opportunity, and energy security unite us all. Connect to the Issue (This): These shared values have made me an advocate for oil and gas production, without additional restrictions or pauses. Supporting this industry not only ensures our energy independence but also creates countless jobs and opportunities for hardworking individuals. I’ve seen firsthand how this industry uplifts families and communities, and I believe halting or hindering its progress would undermine our ability to achieve the bright future we all hope for. Ask (You): I urge you to take action and support policies that promote oil and gas production in our nation. Together, let’s protect the jobs, energy independence, and future opportunities this industry provides for all of us. Let’s continue to drive progress by standing behind an industry that powers our lives and strengthens our communities by lifting the pause on liquid natural gas. Thanks you for your time and consideration
942. 1/17/2025 7:08:14 PM Greene, Janet General Comment
943. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 7:08:15 PM Portaro, Alyssa General Comment To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to express my concern regarding the significant habitat destruction caused by pipeline projects associated with LNG development, and the troubling influence of LNG companies on local universities, governing bodies, and regulatory agencies. These projects, including the proposed DeLa Pipeline, cut through critical ecosystems, causing irreparable damage to wildlife habitats, wetland systems, and the livelihoods of the communities dependent on these environments. This systematic capture of institutions undermines the integrity of environmental governance and the ability to truly assess these projects' impacts on America’s natural beauty and public interest. -Impact on Wetland Ecosystems- Pipeline construction often necessitates the clearing of wetlands, which are among the most biologically productive ecosystems on Earth. These areas provide essential services, including water filtration, carbon sequestration, and flood mitigation. The DeLa Pipeline and similar projects pose a direct threat to these critical functions by fragmenting habitats and altering hydrological patterns. For example, dredging and construction activities disrupt water flow, leading to increased salinity in freshwater systems and the degradation of wetland vegetation. Wetlands are vital for species such as brown and white shrimp, which rely on these habitats for spawning. Disruption of their traditional migration and spawning routes due to construction noise, vibration, and changes to the ecosystem can have cascading effects on the entire food chain. The community of fishermen know this, and have been speaking out, but there has not been coverage locally, nor analysis by agencies who should be responsible. -The Need for Independent Analysis and Community Stories- The growing influence of LNG companies on local universities, governing bodies, and regulatory agencies must be scrutinized. The reliance on industry-sponsored studies or partnerships risks producing biased data that downplays the true extent of environmental and social harm. Comprehensive and independent analyses are necessary to ensure transparency and accountability in assessing the impacts of these projects. Moreover, while quantitative data is vital, it often fails to capture the lived experiences of affected communities. Stories from farmers and landowners, such as ones in Gillis and Starks, Louisiana who have lost entire herds of cattle due to leaks, reveal a fuller picture of the human and ecological cost of LNG development. Reports from farmers losing entire herds to water contamination or watching amphibian populations—critical indicators of water health—decline are examples of qualitative data that must be integrated into decision-making. These personal accounts illuminate how the degradation of ecosystems impacts food security, mental health, and local economies. -Public Interest vs. Private Gain- It is difficult to reconcile claims that LNG export projects serve the public interest when they primarily benefit foreign markets such as China and Germany, a country that does not permit fracking within their own borders. Meanwhile, American communities bear the brunt of environmental degradation, health risks, and economic losses. How can we justify harming Americans to support countries that refuse to endure the same costs? The DOE’s LNG Study acknowledges some of these issues but lacks the depth provided by qualitative accounts that highlight the real-life implications for those directly impacted. Integrity in environmental governance requires amplifying these voices and ensuring that the public interest is genuinely represented. -The Integrity of America’s Outdoors- The preservation of natural habitats is about more than clean water and food security. It is about protecting the mental health and cultural identity tied to America’s beautiful landscapes. The outdoors serve as a sanctuary, offering solace, recreation, and connection to nature. When these spaces are destroyed, we lose an integral part of what makes this country unique and livable. This natural beauty is also deeply intertwined with the integrity of the institutions tasked with safeguarding it. If these institutions are compromised, so too is the future of America’s landscapes and the communities they support. -Call to Action- I urge the Department of Energy and other regulatory bodies to address the following concerns: -Conduct independent, comprehensive environmental impact studies that assess the cumulative effects of pipeline construction on wetlands, forests, grasslands, and the species they support. -Investigate the capture of local universities, governing bodies, and regulatory agencies by LNG companies to ensure unbiased analysis and decision-making. -Include qualitative community stories in environmental assessments to provide a full picture of the human and ecological cost. -Require pipeline companies to implement robust mitigation measures, including habitat restoration and long-term monitoring of ecological impacts. -Enforce stricter controls on noise, vibration, and light pollution during construction and operation to minimize disruptions to wildlife and communities. -Prioritize alternatives to pipeline construction in ecologically sensitive areas, such as rerouting pipelines or investing in renewable energy infrastructure. -Conclusion- The ongoing expansion of LNG infrastructure and associated pipelines represents a significant threat to our nation’s ecological heritage and the communities that depend on it. Without immediate action to mitigate habitat destruction, scrutinize institutional integrity, and amplify community voices, we risk irreversible damage to biodiversity, cultural heritage, and local economies. America’s natural beauty and the integrity of the institutions tasked with protecting it must remain uncompromised to preserve the values that define our nation. Thank you for your attention to this pressing issue. Sincerely, Alyssa Portaro Habitat Recovery Project Travis Dardar Fishermen Involved in Sustaining our Heritage
  1. Boothe Health_Environment Conference final 10_17....
944. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 7:16:17 PM Portaro, Alyssa General Comment To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to express my serious concerns regarding the Department of Energy’s analysis of LNG industrial development and its associated infrastructure, as detailed in the recent LNG Study. While the study addresses several impacts, it fails to adequately consider the profound and well-documented social risks associated with large-scale LNG infrastructure projects, particularly the heightened threats to women’s safety, the risk of human trafficking, and the exacerbation of violence within marginalized communities. I urge you to incorporate the following critical points into the public interest evaluation of LNG development projects: -Increased Violence Against Women and Human Trafficking- The development of LNG export facilities and associated infrastructure, such as pipelines, inevitably brings temporary workforces into communities through the establishment of "man camps." Research consistently shows that these camps lead to spikes in violence against women, including sexual violence, domestic abuse, and human trafficking. Vulnerable populations, especially women from Indigenous, BIPOC, rural, and low-income communities, are disproportionately affected. Numerous studies from regions with significant oil and gas activity in North America, such as the Bakken oil fields, have documented increases in trafficking and exploitation directly tied to these workforce camps. Local communities, often lacking adequate resources to manage these issues, become hotspots for exploitation. The Department of Energy’s assessments must account for these risks and prioritize mitigation strategies to protect the safety and dignity of at-risk populations. -Port Cities as Hubs for Trafficking and Exploitation- Port cities that support LNG exports are known hubs for human trafficking due to their high volume of transient workers, goods movement, and often limited oversight. LNG facilities exacerbate these conditions by increasing industrial activity and attracting a transient workforce. Houston, a central node for LNG export activity, is already a leading U.S. city for trafficking. Expanding LNG infrastructure will further intensify these risks by increasing demand for labor and facilitating environments conducive to trafficking and exploitation. The DOE must address these social consequences as part of its regulatory and approval process. -Economic Disruption and Women’s Marginalisation- LNG development often disrupts local economies, displacing small-scale agriculture, fishing, and other traditional livelihoods. Women, frequently at the forefront of these sectors, face economic marginalization when industrial activities take precedence. Displacement creates conditions of economic vulnerability, forcing women into precarious work, including informal or underground economies. Such economic shifts can exacerbate exploitation and trafficking, perpetuating cycles of harm. DOE must evaluate these economic impacts and prioritise protections for women and marginalised communities. -Environmental and Health Risks to Women- LNG infrastructure projects pose significant environmental risks, including air, water, and soil pollution from petrochemical processes. Women, particularly pregnant women and children, are especially vulnerable to the adverse health effects of these pollutants, which include reproductive harm, respiratory issues, and long-term diseases such as cancer. Communities near LNG facilities are disproportionately composed of low-income and BIPOC populations, who already face systemic barriers to healthcare and environmental justice. DOE’s analysis must incorporate these risks and ensure that affected communities are not further burdened by health inequities. -Export-Oriented Development Does Not Benefit Local Communities- LNG export projects are primarily designed to serve corporate and foreign market interests rather than addressing domestic energy needs. While the economic benefits flow to private corporations, the social, environmental, and economic costs are borne by local communities. This disparity underscores the importance of thoroughly evaluating the public interest and equity impacts of LNG projects. -Conclusion- The intersection of LNG infrastructure development, violence against women, human trafficking, and environmental injustice is a critical issue that cannot be overlooked. The DOE’s current LNG Study neglects these interconnected harms, leaving vulnerable populations at heightened risk. Approving LNG infrastructure without addressing these risks perpetuates systemic violence and exploitation, undermining the safety and well-being of the communities affected. I strongly urge the Department of Energy to revise its LNG Study to include a comprehensive assessment of these social impacts and to implement measures that prioritize community safety, equity, and justice. How does the agency plan to mitigate these risks and ensure that women and girls in at-risk communities are protected from harm? Will these social implications be incorporated into the cultural and public interest analysis of LNG projects? Sincerely, Alyssa Portaro Habitat Recovery Project Rusty Havens SWLA Abolitionists Arianna Akbari Climate Justice Texas
945. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 7:17:30 PM ray, cindy General Comment I'm Cindy Ray I've lived in Colorado for over 60 years I've done real estate for 25 years. I want our country to use our ability to use our own natural gas resources that we have. Due to the abundance of our own clean natural gas we enjoy we are given the opportunity to be able to export and help other country's with out our natural resources. Our country will benefit from clean energy and high paying jobs from dock workers, shipping, working in oil fields, refiners and thousands of other jobs. After stating my concerns above, this is why I urge DOE to IMMEDIATELY resume all LNG exports to support our American economy and American jobs. Thank you. Cindy Ray
946. 1/17/2025 7:54:43 PM Sydnor, Anna General Comment
947. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 9:18:42 PM Patterson, Cynthia General Comment I urge you to reject all pending LNG export permits. Every stage of the natural gas industry leaks methane into the atmosphere: exploration, drilling, compression, transporting, regasification and burning. - LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse. We must reduce greenhouse gases NOW to slow global heating. - People who live near LNG facilities suffer from polluted air, soil and water, and higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease. - Building LNG facilities requires dredging, which pollutes water, damages ecosystems, and destroys fishing and tourism in local economies. Please reject all proposed LNG export projects and lead us toward a clean-energy future.
948. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 9:59:23 PM Amalphy, Madeline General Comment As a young Maryland nature lover who is extremely concerned about the climate crisis and pollution, I strongly urge you to immediately end approvals of all LNG exports. If you continue to support the dirty fossil fuel industry, millions of innocent Americans will die in hurricanes, floods, famines, heat waves, droughts, and wildfires caused by climate change. This is your last chance to save humanity from destruction. Our lives are in your hands. LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. As the planet warms, exporting LNG must be recognized as an activity that exacerbates climate change. Methane’s impact on warming has been well established. DOE must abandon its argument that natural gas, in any form, is clean energy. Our continued reliance on fossil fuels is not sustainable. Already market demand for natural gas is declining in parts of the world where fossil energy is being replaced with renewable, sustainable forms of energy. DOE must lead us away from fossil fuel projects and put the country, and our economy, on a better path. LNG exports must become a thing of the past. Increased LNG exports would hit consumers in three ways – higher prices for natural gas itself, higher prices for electricity produced from natural gas, and higher prices for goods whose manufacturers pass their own natural gas costs through to consumers. DOE must act in the best interest of the public it serves and avoid burdening consumers. LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
949. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 11:13:31 PM Kurth, Robinson General Comment So many of these facilities at the coast are dangerous and dirty. We need instead to invest in cleaner and greener energy sources. We have the technology and the climate indicates we need to do it now. Thank you.
950. expand/collapse 1/18/2025 12:42:50 PM Wenzel, Joseph General Comment LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. Please do not expand any fuel that will further cook our planet. Thank you, Joseph Wenzel
951. expand/collapse 1/18/2025 1:07:53 PM Ruby , Kenneth General Comment LNG exports are destructive both environmentally and economically. They should be stopped altogether.
952. expand/collapse 1/18/2025 2:02:18 PM Young, John General Comment INTRODUCTION: I've been an active member of Save RGV (aka Save RGV from LNG, https://www.facebook.com/saveRGVfromLNG, contact@savergv.org) since it was formed in May 2014 by local folks on news that our local Port of Brownsville Texas was being targeted by LNG projects including but not limited to NextDecade's Rio Grande LNG project. Back in June 2014, I started exploring how the DOE was allowing some US LNG export projects to move forward. based on macroeconomic and case studies. Including case studies of LNG projects targeting my Port of Brownsville back then that never even initiated the FERC application process for the permitting of their LNG export projects. By on such case studies. And on macroeconomic studies based on corporate methane emission reports. Concluding that that the export of US LNG would provide some cumulative financial benefit. To the sum total of all US households nationwide, all added together, A benefit that would increase as the amount of US LNG exports increases. Based on the National Gas Act's clause that said LNG exports were to be assumed in our nation's best interests unless shown to be contrary to our nation's best interest. The industry claims that the US emissions were lower than Russia's emissions, even if the LNG Tanker Ship emissions from the US to Europe were included, were considered factual. The challenges by environmental NGOs (such as the Sierra Club) were dismissed as hypothetical, unknowable, and/or unprovable back then. Rio Grande LNG would like DOE to revert to its previous position that all US LNG export operations are in our nation's best interest. Here, due to the fast-approaching deadline for public comments, I want to focus on the issue of the US EPA's limited consideration of LNG-related emissions as opposed to Australia's broader list of LNG emission concerns that were available for public review until the companies engaged in LNG projects there were able to get the government to remove LNG emission data from public view. REGARDING AUSTRALIA'S EPA'S LNG EMISSIONS DATA: The most relevant documents I can still find that are still available are: "Latest National Pollution Inventory Data Reveals Curtis Island LNG Plant is Belching Out Massive Amounts of Toxic Air Pollutants," NTN NATIONAL TOXICS NETWORK, 04-18-2016, https://ntn.org.au/latest-national-pollution-inventory-data-reveals-curtis-island-lng-plant-is-belching-out-massive-amounts-of-toxic-air-pollutants/#sthash.pG4RbQjf.dpuf/. Based on "2014/2015 report for QCLNG OPERATING COMPANY PTY LTD, Curtis Island LNG Plant - Curtis Island, QLD," http://www.npi.gov.au/npidata/action/load/individual-facility-detail/criteria/state/QLD/year/2015/jurisdiction-facility/Q012QGC015/ And: Based on "2014/2015 report for QCLNG OPERATING COMPANY PTY LTD, Curtis Island LNG Plant - Curtis Island, QLD," http://www.npi.gov.au/npidata/action/load/individual-facility-detail/criteria/state/QLD/year/2015/jurisdiction-facility/Q012QGC015/ To increase its scope on the full sum of possible LNG project potentially harmful emissions, and the corporation attempts to conceal such information, the US Department of Energy would be well advised to contact the Australian EPA regarding its LNG project emission concerns and data. The Rio Grande LNG relies heavily on data from the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality in responding to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's requests for information regarding its expected emission levels. For a recent, substantive article on TCEQ's inadequacies, see "A Texas Town Faced Dangerous Benzene Fumes. Regulators Never Told Residents.," Savanna Strott, 12-15-2024, Truthout, https://truthout.org/articles/a-texas-town-faced-dangerous-benzene-fumes-regulators-never-told-residents/. Subheading: The levels exceed even Texas’s benzene guidelines — the weakest in the nation — but aren’t being recorded by monitors. Regarding my Cameron Couty TX where the Rio Grande LNG is preparing its project lease site for the construction of its LNG Terminal Phase 1 & 2, TCEQ considers excess soot emissions to be anomalies not qualifying Camer County as an emissions non-attainment area requiring tighter emission monitoring and regulations: "The air in 12 Texas counties exceeded federal soot standards. Only four may face consequences.," Alejandra Martinez, The Texas Tribune, Texas agency says only four counties don’t meet soot standard | The Texas Tribune/.   Subheading: Critics say TCEQ is erroneously using a federal rule to exclude counties that are failing federal soot rules.. On 06-21-2018, EPA Director, Office of Federal Activities Robert Tomiak provided the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) a document focused that provided guidance and links “for the development of alternatives, assessment of cumulative impacts, and tools for quantifying and monetizing greenhouse gas (GHG) emission changes” (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20180621-5095). Yet this document, as far as I can tell, never became part of the ongoing conversation regarding the pros and cons of US LNG export operation. Beyond LNG-related air emissions up and down the supply chain resulting in the US LNG exports, the impacts of such projects on our local and national growing water and electric power needs -- already inadequate across broad areas of our nation -- need DOE's urgent attention. Groth driven by the present race to build and expand water and electricity Data Centers and AI computer programs. As described in "With AI, Big Tech Is Ruining the Planet to Push a Product Most People Don’t Want," Omar Ocampo and A.J. Schumann, 12-19-2024, Common Dreams, https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/big-tech-ai-ruin-planet/. Subheading: The true AI doom scenario is not a sentient robot uprising but the oncoming environmental catastrophe caused by the expansion of AI infrastructure. Snippet: Texas’ electrical grid made national headlines in the winter of 2021 when the state experienced statewide power outages. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT—the state’s power grid operator—was caught completely off-guard when a winter storm exposed the organization’s lack of severe weather preparedness. Embarrassed, ERCOT developed a roadmap to increase the reliability of its energy delivery system. But guaranteeing a reliable flow of energy from the state’s generating plants to the homes and businesses of Texan residents has proven more difficult than expected. ERCOT recently announced that if a comparable storm were to hit the Lone Star State this winter, there is an 80% chance that they would again experience blackouts during peak hours. Failure to resolve Texas’ power grid bottlenecks is perhaps not entirely ERCOT’s fault. Demand for energy in the state has ballooned in recent years thanks, in part, to the explosion and hype around artificial intelligence. There are approximately 342 data centers currently operating in Texas. Running these systems non-stop, daily, for 24 hours, requires a gargantuan amount of electricity. As a result, ERCOT has identified data centers as presenting a potential energy emergency alert risk at night and during early morning hours this winter. Data centers are currently consuming close to 9% of the energy produced in Texas, and it is putting a significant strain on its power grid. John Young, MS (Psychology), MSW (Social Work), Retired San Benito TX An active member of Save RGV (aka Save RGV from LNG) since May 2014 (contact@savergv.org/,https://www.facebook.com/) Registered with FERC as an Intervenor opposed to: 1) The originally paired Rio Grande LNG and Rio Bravo Pipeline projects on 05-25-2016 (http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20160609-5280); 2) Enbridge's Rio Bravo Pipeline Company's Rio Bravo Pipeline project on 06-26-2020 (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20200626-5079); 3) Rio Grande LNG's application for a Limited CCS Amendment on 11-22-2021 (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num2-=20211125057); 4) Rio Bravo Pipeline 07-20-2023 pipeline modification request under CP23-519-000 (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/docinfo?accession_num=20230814-5025).
953. expand/collapse 1/18/2025 2:30:03 PM Thompson, Terrence General Comment LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue.
954. expand/collapse 1/18/2025 2:45:13 PM Skelton, Nathaniel General Comment Thank you to the DOE for conducting this study on LNG exports. Additional LNG exports are not in the public interest. Many studies and future energy analyses, including DOE's published 2024 studies, demonstrate this. There are numerous reasons to reject or deny permitting for additional LNG capacity, but fundamentally, it is irresponsible to approve and fund the planning, construction, and continuation of an energy source rooted in the past century. Modeling shows that energy sources in the United States are rapidly transitioning to wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear. Any new LNG projects would become a worthless investment within 20 years, far shorter than the lifespan of the assets themselves. This means these permits are not addressing the energy requirements of the world but rather serving as a revenue source for a declining industry—one whose importance is shrinking—at the expense of environmental harm in many communities across the U.S. and global impacts on temperature and climate patterns. None of these consequences serve the interest of the American public.
955. expand/collapse 1/18/2025 3:52:22 PM Brown, Rita General Comment It is imperative that the DOE halt all pending and new LNG export applications immediately. The negative environmental, economic, health, safety and social justice ramifications are too dire to permit continuation let alone expansion of this practice. The DOE's own research substantiates this. Additionally, dependance on LNG domestically should be phased out as we eventually transition to truly sustainable energy sources that support our economy without harming the environment or people. There is no justification for continuing to produce and transport this highly dangerous substance. There are no arguments to the contrary that are not based on the greed of a small percentage of our citizenry. The DOE must protect all of us.
956. expand/collapse 1/18/2025 3:58:16 PM Kemper, Eliot General Comment More LNG exports are not in the public interest. Its sacrificing our future safety for the profits of the shareholders of the industries poisoning our waters and roasting our skies. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Authorize some wind and solar, some geothermal, some innovative energy storage if we need more energy.
957. expand/collapse 1/18/2025 4:25:58 PM Cobb, Robert General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
958. expand/collapse 1/18/2025 5:26:25 PM Nyland, Sarah General Comment I hope the new administration will deeply consider doing away with most future LNG exports. They just don't seem economically feasible anymore. The only country they are largely benefiting is the one country we should not be supporting. Don't ban TikTok, ban LNG exports. That'll have a much bigger impact.
959. expand/collapse 1/18/2025 7:34:52 PM Gustafson, Marcia General Comment I’ve read a summary of key points from the 2024 LNG Export Study and believe that you should end approvals of LNG exports, because they are unnecessary and would not serve the public interest in terms of health, environmental, and economic impacts. Currently, the quantities of LNG approved for export are about half of production. Four of five modeling scenarios from your study show that this production level is sufficient for decades to come. This tells me that additional approvals are not needed. The old adage is “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.” I would suggest monitoring the situation to see if the four modeling scenarios play out before approving any new applications that could, in fact, do harm to the economy, the environment, and public health in the communities where they are located. The world needs to stop producing fossil fuels and transition to renewable energy sources. The LNG exports have been focused on displacing coal and have been touted as doing so, but increasing the LNG exports could start displacing renewables, which would be a step backward. Meanwhile here at home, LNG facilities built to increase exports would often be sited in communities where public health is already at risk from existing refineries, petrochemical companies, and other industries that are polluting their air, their water, and the environment. Economically speaking, approving more LNG exports will generate wealth for the owners and create some jobs, but at the same time those exports will cause domestic natural gas prices to rise for households, institutions, and businesses. In sum, there is no need to approve more LNG exports and doing so does not serve the public good. So, I urge you to reject all applications for LNG exports. Thank you.
960. expand/collapse 1/19/2025 8:49:01 AM Canright, Rebecca General Comment Hi there!! I am a young person who cares about protecting our ecosystems and communities.Thank you for all that you do. I respectfully ask you to support moving away from LNG and towards investing in renewable energy like solar and wind. Again, please let's move away from LNG. Thank you for your time and consideration! Take care, Rebecca
961. expand/collapse 1/19/2025 1:06:52 PM Smith, Evelyn General Comment THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE TO STOP SOME OF tRUMP'S EVIL!!!
962. expand/collapse 1/19/2025 1:12:15 PM Solutions For Our Climate(SFOC) Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports see the full comments attached. Conclusion : While U.S. LNG exports have played a pivotal role in supporting Asian economies until now, not just East Asia but rising economies of South East Asia are stepping forward to transition toward renewables now. Currently planned U.S. LNG export capacity is projected to triple by 2030, a development that conflicts with Asia’s downward demand trajectory revisions. Asian economies are increasingly aligning with climate targets and economic realities that favor renewable energy over gas.
  1. 2024 LNG Export Study_Asia Gas Demand_250119 .pdf
963. expand/collapse 1/19/2025 2:07:24 PM van Rossum, Anneke General Comment The Delaware Riverkeeper Network is submitting this petition on behalf of the 1,863 signatures saying No to LNG Export. Please find the petition language and signatures attached. This is being submitted on January 19th, 2025 at 1:40 pm EST
  1. NoLNGExportPetition_Submitted1.19.2025_140pm.pdf
964. expand/collapse 1/19/2025 2:12:12 PM Carluccio, Tracy General Comment Delaware Riverkeeper Network submits the attached PDF entitled: Comments of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis to the U.S. Department of Energy – Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management regarding the Notice of Availability of the 2024 LNG Export Study and its Request for Comments that Inform DOE Public Interest Determinations in the Permitting of Future LNG Export Terminals and Permitting the Expansion of Existing Sites to supply non-Free Trade Agreement nations, Docket Nos. 13-69- LNG, 14-88-LNG, 15-25-LNG, 16-28-LNG, 19-134-LNG, 20-23-LNG, 21-131-LNG, 22- 39-LNG, 22-167-LNG, 23-34-LNG, 23-46-LNG, 23-87-LNG, 23-109-LNG, 23-137- LNG, 24-27-LNG, and 24-87-LNG RE: Delaware Riverkeeper Network Comments on the Department of Energy 2024 LNG Export Study: Energy Economic, and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports
  1. DRN_LNG.fnl.pdf
965. expand/collapse 1/19/2025 2:55:50 PM McCarthy, Danelle General Comment We need to protect the health of our citizens an extra pollution would be a risk.
966. expand/collapse 1/19/2025 5:33:27 PM Vu, Tien General Comment DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution.
967. expand/collapse 1/19/2025 5:38:38 PM de arteaga, jose General Comment Please stop LNG exports. Please do not pollute are communities
968. expand/collapse 1/19/2025 6:35:16 PM Hardy, Ruth General Comment As the largest producer and exporter of LNG gas in the world, the United States is already “energy dominant”, which obviates the justification used by oil and gas industry’s claim of why they need to increase production and export. LNG production has many downsides for most Americans, but I will limit my comments to the discussion of the costs of climate disasters caused by runaway heating of the atmosphere by fossil fuel emissions. We know that greenhouse gas emissions from LNG are 80X more potent (over 20 years) than is C02, and additionally, according to an analysis reported by the BBC, the production and transport of LNG causes up to ten times the carbon emissions compared to pipeline gas. So both LNG production and transport are a big culprits in driving climate-related disasters, thus costing the taxpayer ever escalating amounts of money to pay for these disasters. Since many home insurance companies are dropping customers due to increasing climate-related risks, I am terrified that I will lose my coverage and thus value of my home, which I have been counting on to provide money for care in my old age. I also worry that increasing uninsured homes may trigger a market collapse. According to NOAA, over the last ten years (2015-2024), the U.S. has been impacted by 190 separate billion-dollar disasters that have killed more than 6,300 people (direct and indirect fatalities) and cost ~$1.4 trillion in damage (not counting the recent LA County wildfires), The year 2024 is the 14th-consecutive year (2011-2024) in which 10 or more separate billion-dollar disaster events have impacted the U.S. The impacts from Hurricanes Helene and Milton were particularly destructive, causing between $100 -225 billion in combined damage. The total cost of U.S. billion-dollar disasters over the last 5 years (2020-2024) is $746.7 billion. The 2024 cost per capita was apprx. $1500 (not counting the LA County wildfires). ..we also know from extreme event attribution research that human-caused climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of certain types of extreme weather that lead to billion-dollar disasters—most notably the rise in vulnerability to drought, lengthening wildfire seasons in the Western states, and the potential for extremely heavy rainfall becoming more common in the eastern states. Sea level rise is worsening hurricane storm surge flooding. In addition, the LA County wildfires are estimated to top $250 billion, according to Accuweather. Please do not permit any more LNG terminals. They are NOT in the public interest. Thank You
969. expand/collapse 1/19/2025 7:50:27 PM Dallin, Eric General Comment DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Economic: Key study finding: “DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.” How this impacts the American public: (You could highlight how this price increase will negatively impact your family or household, i.e. “As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate.”) Environmental and climate harms: Key study finding: “DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE.” How this impacts the American public: You could write something like: “As an American citizen and resident of [insert your town or community], I am already experiencing [insert an current or future impact of the climate crisis, or any environmental justice harm facing your community]. This has negatively impacted our community’s [health, financial wellbeing, etc.] of my community. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.” Environmental justice: Summary of the study’s finding: In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” How this impacts the American public: You could write something like: “Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.”
970. expand/collapse 1/19/2025 8:45:22 PM Jaffe, Taylor General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
971. expand/collapse 1/19/2025 9:41:21 PM Bucher, Scott General Comment Move Past Plastic (MPP) is a grassroots organization in central Pennsylvania. We collaborate with a network of individuals, businesses and organizations to address the harms of single-use plastic and to promote sustainable practices. Through education, finding, sharing and implementing solutions, we promote moving away from single-sue plastics and toward a regenerative, circular economy in a mutualistic relationship with nature and respect for all people. We in south-central PA are contending with impacts of climate change and persistently high levels of air pollutants, among many environmental concerns. According to a 2023 report, the central PA region where we are located is the 8th worst air-polluted region in the entire United States. The data collected through the U.S. Census Bureau specifically shows York, Lebanon, Lancaster, Harrisburg, and Carlisle as polluted hotspots. The Harrisburg metro area had the second-most serious air pollution levels in the mid-Atlantic region during 2020-2022, with Dauphin County’s annual average exceeding new federal air quality standards, according to the American Lung Association. The report recently released by your agency explains that approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. As such, we strongly urge a cessation of all LNG exports. Our objections to LNG exports include the following: • LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. • Low-income and disadvantaged communities will continue to be disproportionately harmed by the degradation of their environment, as noted by Secretary Granholm’s in her statement accompanying the report’s release. • LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs. • LNG will harm the environment and increase global warming. LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. • LNG pollutes and harms public health – Since LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water Every step in LNG’s production cycle emits toxic pollutants. The harm caused by these pollutants falls disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism. We in Pennsyvania have witnessed the environmental damage caused by the fracking industry and its practices. • There is no need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today” More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
972. 1/19/2025 9:49:09 PM IEEFA Appendix B: Domestic Energy, Economic, and GHG Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports
  1. IEEFA follow up comments on 2024 LNG Export Study...
973. expand/collapse 1/19/2025 10:54:32 PM Myers , Lindsey General Comment LNG is not in the public interest. Extracting it creates environmental damage to wildlife habitat and pollutes groundwater. Transporting it often crosses indigenous sacred land, and aways has a great risk of leaks, which pollutes air, increases climate change, and pollutes groundwater. Using it creates air pollution, and further increases climate change and the threat of wildfires, floods, hurricane, and other unsettled weather. None of this is in anyone's best interest.
974. expand/collapse 1/20/2025 2:53:24 AM Arioli, Kristin General Comment I want to thank the Department of Energy (DOE) for its work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be DENIED. The DOE’s updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Per the DOE’s own studies, LNG export terminals have negative effects on the following: (1) Environment & Climate: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. (2) Environmental Justice efforts: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. (3) Economy: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Thank you.
975. expand/collapse 1/20/2025 2:56:16 AM Mashevsky, Michael General Comment To the Department of Energy, I appreciate the DOE’s efforts to update the economic and environmental studies that determine whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries serve the public interest. These updated studies make it clear: expanded LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I urge the DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Economic Harms: The DOE’s 2024 studies show that if LNG exports remain unconstrained, the average American household will face over $100 in additional annual energy costs by 2050. These increases will disproportionately impact low- and middle-income families already struggling with the rising cost of living. As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I strongly oppose further LNG export approvals that would raise household energy costs while benefiting only the fossil fuel industry. Environmental and Climate Harms: DOE’s studies confirm that increased LNG exports would drive higher global net emissions in every scenario analyzed. I have already seen the impacts of climate change in my community, whether through extreme weather events, rising insurance costs, or local environmental degradation. Approving more LNG export authorizations would only exacerbate these harms, worsening the climate crisis for future generations. Environmental Justice Impacts: DOE Secretary Granholm rightly highlights that LNG facilities disproportionately burden frontline communities, adding to pollution from refineries, petrochemical plants, and other industrial sites. Methane, particulate matter, and nitrogen oxides from these operations increase mortality rates and harm public health. Expanding LNG exports would further endanger these communities while offering them no benefits. The DOE’s own findings show that more LNG exports will raise costs, worsen climate change, and harm public health. Therefore, I urge you to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. Sincerely, Michael Mashevsky
976. expand/collapse 1/20/2025 8:01:27 AM Simon, Tia General Comment NO LGN exports! When I was a child decades ago, I learned in school that a combination of energy conservation with mixed clean energy production could solve our energy needs. Since then, under poor management, things have gotten critically worse - to an astounding degree. There is virtually no conservation of energy, just wild, rampant production and waste - in development, and in use. It’s bizarre. There is NO need for LNG exports except profit for a few, at the expense of the expense of all present and future people, animals and ecosystems. Think about that. THINK.
977. 1/20/2025 10:32:28 AM Steyn, Kelly General Comment
978. expand/collapse 1/20/2025 10:48:43 AM Merhar, Doug General Comment Thanks for your time in reading my comment and the hard work that goes into these assessments! The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. The DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Furthermore, the DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. The means a hotter world. This means slower net zero achievable timeframe. This means my 4 kids are susceptible to the dangers of an over heating world. For what? The potential (let's be honest how much will actually be realized by people like myself) of short term financial benefits for political expediency and profit for a few individuals. There are two possible futures, we must pick one that gives us the best chance of thriving.
979. expand/collapse 1/20/2025 11:14:47 AM Scott, Quentin General Comment I am writing as the Federal Policy Director at Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) who oversees our energy policies. Today, I will comment on the Department of Energy’s recent 2024 Liquid Natural Gas Export Study, which focuses on energy, economic, and environmental impacts of the United States’ liquid natural gas exports. In December 2023, the American people asked the Department of Energy (DOE) to update their LNG in the public interest assessment to better understand the true impacts of LNG on energy demand, consumer prices, and the environment. CCAN submitted a letter to the DOE with 5,128 signatures asking for no new licenses to be issued until this analysis was completed. On behalf of CCAN, we are thankful for the DOE’s expeditious nature to complete this study so the agency could use this study to inform its Public Interest Determination for some of the largest LNG export proposals seeking approval. The study finds that further LNG export expansion would lead to an increase in wholesale domestic methane gas prices by over 30%, and would increase costs for the average American household by well over $100 per year by 2050. Many have observed the DOE analysis exposes a triple-cost increase to U.S. consumers from increasing LNG exports. The increasing domestic price of the methane gas itself, increases in electricity prices, and the increased costs for consumers from the pass-through of higher costs to U.S. manufacturers. From 2020 to 2050, the overall energy costs for the industrial sector would go up $125 billion, which would increase the price of a wide range of consumer goods. At a time when inflation is a key concern for all Americans, exporting more LNG would do little to offset higher cost but in reality add to inflationary pressures. Additionally, in 4 of the 5 modeling scenarios explored in the studies, the amount of LNG that DOE has already approved exceeds demand for decades to come. This aligns with the findings of the International Energy Agency (IEA), which for years has shown that LNG demand through 2050 can be met entirely by projects existing today. With demand for LNG becoming flat or shrinking as nations across the globe shift towards more renewable sources, it is a high possibility that the LNG supply glut is not absorbed and becomes stranded assets. For the first time, the true environmental impacts of LNG exports have been included in this report. Supporting the firsthand accounts of many frontline leaders when they have expressed their experiences with downstream impacts to DOE, such as observing high asthma rates in children, watching neighbors develop cancer, and witnessing the Freeport LNG terminal explosion in which little evacuation guidance was provided. The report found that, “Air pollution from currently operating LNG export terminals is estimated to cause 60 premature deaths and $957 million in total health costs per year. This report was completed by the highly credible national laboratories. These national laboratories are the backbone of the DOE’s work. Any attempt to discredit this non-partisan report is based on political forces siding with the fossil fuel industry to maintain their corporate profits. The Department of Energy serves the people, not the private interests of lobbyists representing billionaires. DOE should implement this long-awaited report immediately into its public determination process and reject pending and future export licenses because this report clearly demonstrates exporting LNG at this continued trajectory would hurt American businesses and consumers. In conclusion, Chesapeake Climate Action Network and its 5,128 members who signed the letter asking for this study, support the findings and credibility of this study and ask the Department of Energy to stand by their own report and reject all pending and future LNG export licenses. Thank you for considering our comment.
  1. DOE LNG Comment-1.pdf
  2. CCAN Petition Opposing LNG Exports_11-29-2023-A.p...
980. expand/collapse 1/20/2025 3:25:06 PM Watters, Whitney General Comment DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
981. 1/20/2025 4:15:56 PM Drumright, Chris General Comment
982. expand/collapse 1/20/2025 6:26:34 PM Peters, Sarah General Comment As a citizen concerned about our environment and the public health, I am deeply opposed to any further LNG exports. LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires.
983. expand/collapse 1/21/2025 10:55:42 AM Willock, Douglas General Comment My name is Douglas Willock and I am 68 years young, and a 9 year resident of Pennsylvania. I am a U.S. Airforce veteran and served for 30 plus years in the law enforcement and security field for the State of Maryland and the Federal government, retiring in January of 2017. My wife and I just celebrated our 50th wedding anniversary yesterday and our children and 13 grandchildren all reside in Pennsylvania. We as a family rely on various energy sources for our comfort and safety as do most other folks. To have affordable, domestically produced energy supplies is very important to my family and me. As my wife and I live on a fixed income, Social Security and a state pension, the cost of necessities is very important to us and any action or regulation which would impede the efficient production of energy does create a stressful burden. I would like to thank you and the department for all its efforts to ensure that the safety and security of all Americans by prudently managing the production and management of energy supplies for the United States and its foreign allies. I sincerely believe that any ban on the export of LNG to friendly nations could have compromised the relationships with these nations and thus weakened our national security. I further applaud the wisdom and vision of those who stopped this ban from becoming a reality. Had this ban not been lifted I’m certain that families across the Commonwealth would have suffered immeasurable harm, both now and for generations to come.
984. expand/collapse 1/21/2025 2:02:42 PM Corry, Ronit General Comment Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
985. expand/collapse 1/21/2025 2:18:19 PM James, Dianne General Comment Hi, I am Dianne James from Louisiana. I’m retired from teaching 25 yrs. In Pre-k in 2018. I have been a small business owner for Dianne’s Essential Oils Coaching LLC for 6 yrs. As an educator who cares about funding for the pre-k program; I saw how important public funding is in benefitting my community in education. As a business owner, the increases in prices in all areas of life, has affected families being able to make ends meet, and trying to keep food on the table at home. My son Justen, works at a liquid natural gas plant called Calcasieu Refinery in Lake Charles, La. They are having problems with this older plant in keeping the maintenance to not breakdown. They have less employees; now because of this issue. Everyone has left. LNG hiring has had a freeze on hiring due to the gas industry having less investment. This is affecting jobs in this area. Plant jobs are important in the US. So, this affects prices on everything going up. And right now, it affects the electric, and gas bill that lets us keep prices down for heating. This impacted my life also in the late 70’s and early 80’s when gas prices raised the prices on everything. Gas prices I remember, were in the .30 cents a gallon to much higher prices. I know drilling is very important for lowering prices we pay. So, it seems like history itself right now, with prices increases in the last 4 years; because we are drilling less leading to less disposable income. So Liquid Natural Gas leads to more jobs in Louisiana when production is increased. Then this leads to lower prices on everything. Exporting Liquid Natural Gas helps everyone involved. Thank you for allowing more permits to export Liquid Natural Gas; which is benefitting Louisiana with more jobs in this field for the people involved.
986. expand/collapse 1/21/2025 2:36:47 PM Pastian , Doreen General Comment I am a retired Physical Therapist. My name is Doreen and I have seen the difficulties that my neighbors have seen when gas prices rise, also how many more people needed food assistance at the food bank where I volunteer. We need to avoid having to use sources that are from countries who are hostile to America, and if we are independent with our power we are stronger. We have so much gas and oil within our country. This is why we need liquid natural gas, because it is more available and keeps our USA dollars in our country. We have areas that are full of natural gas, and using some of it to export will add even more jobs for our labor force. We need to use our resources to our best advantage. Thank you for helping more Americans to be prosperous by exporting liquid natural gas.
987. expand/collapse 1/21/2025 2:42:00 PM Confletti , Rocco General Comment My name is Rocco Confletti and I have lived in PA for 69 years. I was a baker for 35 years and am now retired. I'm on a fixed income and I can't afford the increased prices on heating and gasoline that this ban would cause. I want to thank you for lifting the ban on LNG Exports. I know this department wants to support our country’s growing demand for American energy. This ban would have made it hard to sustain the raised cost of living across America for myself and my friends. I want to thank this department for lifting the ban and by doing so, supporting America’s economy.
988. expand/collapse 1/21/2025 5:21:30 PM Jones, Penny General Comment Dear Department of Energy, My name is Penny Jones and my husband and I are small business owners in Pennsylvania. I am a pediatric nurse and my husband is a retired veteran of 26 years. Our business provides housing for low to moderate income families in our local community. We care about rising energy costs in Pennsylvania and the effect they have on local residents. Many of our clients have experienced energy instability and found themselves unable to pay their current bills to heat and light their homes. I appreciate the work that the Department of Energy has provided to small towns in Pennsylvania and we know the work is in the process and not fully completed. We have seen many local families displaced by the of lack of energy security and would like to see greater support for small town communities. As small business owners we appreciate the continued work you have provided for our community to ensure energy security, but your continued support is needed to fortify our communities and small towns. As a small business owner I care about our local communities and your organization at the Department of Energy, also cares, so we should both continue supporting energy security because of it’s impact on small towns. I am thankful to the current administration for ending the pause on LNG export permits.
989. expand/collapse 1/21/2025 6:47:12 PM Martina, Jett General Comment Department of Energy, I have lived in New Mexico for over 40 years. My family has lived in the four corners area for close to 100 years. My family and friends work in oil filed related industry, education and the medical field. We are all directly impacted by the ups and downs of the oil and gas economy. When oil and gas production is shut down, the area shuts down. People leave. School enrollment goes down. We don’t have teachers. Store fronts empty. Prices go up for everything. I do not support any recommendation to halt or limit the production of LNG. It is a natural resource we have in the US that we can offer as a clean energy source. Department of Energy, thank you for facilitating the clean production of energy in the US. We got it. LNG is near zero emissions. The land is reclaimed after we have explored for resources. All products are managed with efficacy. I urge the Department of Energy to resume the export of LNG in order to restore our ability to create and maintain our economic strength and safety. I don’t want other nations financially benefitting from producing and selling LNG. I want our country and my community to benefit from its sale. Not all countries extract resources as cleanly as we do. I want the US to produce our clean energy and offer it to other countries who need clean energy. And in this way we can reach out a friendly had to them. There is no reason why we should import oil and gas.
990. expand/collapse 1/21/2025 6:49:23 PM McSherry, Paul General Comment I am a fourth generation New Mexican living near Albuquerque . I am interested in improving the economy and living conditions of the citizens of this State. I have immediate family members who have completed careers in foreign diplomacy and the petroleum industry and who have enhanced my thoughts about the oil & gas industry in New Mexico. Further, I remain vested in a family farm that uses natural gas to power water pumping. We have found gas power to be economical and clean. My home county (Luna) has been identified as one of the poorest counties in the U.S. The primary reason for the poverty is unemployment. This prompts me to be very concerned that suitable employment such as that offered by the oil and gas industry is of highest importance to the economy of the State. Any reduction in the health and success of this industry would be detrimental to the economy and health of New Mexico. I witnessed the results of the catastrophic depression of petroleum in the Permian Basin many years ago. In summary, it was ugly! Natural gas has become a significant part of the energy economy in New Mexico. Continuation of international trade in LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) will ensure a continued robust economy in my State and help maintain a healthy trade with other countries. I strongly oppose any action of federal government to interfere with the development of LNG production and sales.
991. expand/collapse 1/21/2025 6:58:54 PM Smith, Laura and Chuck General Comment Hello, we are the Smiths. I, Chuck Smith, have worked in the oil industry all over the United States, from Cheyenne Wyoming to Colorado to New Mexico, Arkansas and Pennsylvania. I believe the oil and gas can be operated very efficiently and very environmentally friendly. In fact, it's probably the most friendly energy that we can use. The Oil and Gas provides many jobs in the San Juan Basin. I believe natural gas is the best thing we can do for the environment and climate control. I would urge the Department of Energy to revisit and educate themselves so they can see what coal is doing to the atmosphere...I am against any restrictions toward processing, drilling, exporting, transporting and any restrictions on natural gas. Thank you, Chuck and Laura Smith
992. expand/collapse 1/21/2025 7:03:02 PM Lester, Tommy General Comment Dear DOE, My Name is Tommy Lester I have been in the oil and gas industry sense 2012. Currently I operate a consulting business where oil and gas make up the 75% of our workload. My home heat runs on LNG, and the bulk of our work revolves around it. Banning LNG export will raise cost to heat my home and take a large chunk of work from us. I appreciate the work DOE has put into this report; however, it does not align with my core beliefs. The U.S. has strict regulatory departments in charge of overseeing our oil and gas exploration. Other countries do not. I'd like to know that our allies and countries in need are receiving LNG from a safe clean source. Also, with the rising cost of, frankly everything we as Americans cannot afford higher gas prices. I urge the DOE to lift the ban on export of LNG.
993. expand/collapse 1/21/2025 7:14:54 PM Vanderhoof, Linda General Comment My father, Gov John D Vanderhoof, was a 3rd generation native Coloradan. He served as a Naval Aviator in WWII. He earned the Purple Heart, Bronze Star, and Navy Cross. Like most of the Great Generation he returned from the war still determined to serve his country. In 1950 he was elected to serve in the Co House of Representatives. He served for 20 years, 5 of which he was Speaker of The House. Then in 1971-73 he served as Lt Gov and Gov from 1974-1975. Immediately after taking office he was faced with the crisis caused by the Arab Oil Embargo. This would have a lasting effect on him and his career that extended into his mid 70’s. Along with advocating Colorado’s historical economic base of agriculture and tourism, he now advocated for the expansion of energy production. But this was not just for the economic boon for his beloved state, but even more for the well being of his country. My Father was a visionary. He saw far into the future. He could see what problems were arising, and potential solutions could be instituted in the present to minimize them. But most of his peers did not understand what he warned of. I remember he predicted the water shortage problems that would arise in the future of the west. His warning fell on deaf ears. They saw so plenty of water,,, but not the growth ahead. Oh, but now we see. We are paying a price for the blindness for failing to be better stewards of our future. My father saw the importance of being in control of our own energy sources. When an energy company decided to try to establish the 1st oil shale fracking enterprise in CO my father worked very hard to help it come to fruition. Throughout my life I have often reflected on the wisdom my father infused in me. He always emphasized the importance of serving one's community, state and country. Inspired by his words I joined the USNNC. and served 10 years. My father’s view for the US to remain as self reliant as possible became even more apparent as I served. I realized that our peace and prosperity lies not only in our strength., but the strength of our allies as well. Strengthening our allies is paramount to our national security. Clearly Energy Independence is key to the stability & well being of the US economy. LPL is a vital part of establishing that. Additionally it provides jobs, encourages growth of small businesses, & provides cheaper energy. Best of all it provides CLEANER energy. Energy independence is the pathway to becoming the world's Energy Power House. Right now our failure to maximize our energy production and export it is dangerous. It is injuring our Allies and emboldening our enemies. As the daughter of a WWII Hero and Gov of the Great State of Co, and a veteran herself I am imploring the Dept of Energy to unleash our energy potential. Get the boots of our enemies of out allies throats. PLEASE resume the LNG exports. Sincerely Linda R Vanderhoof
994. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:11:00 AM Merkley, Jeff General Comment See attached letter
  1. Letter from Members of Congress _1.14.2025.pdf
995. expand/collapse 1/17/2025 5:18:00 PM Raybould, Jane General Comment See attached letter
  1. Letter from Senator Raybould_1.17.2025.pdf
996. expand/collapse 1/22/2025 12:16:14 PM Guthrie, Linda General Comment STOP LPG EXPORTS! Filthy energy we don't need.
997. expand/collapse 1/22/2025 12:48:04 PM Milligan, Victor General Comment We should have stricter government oversight over LNG production, manufacturing, and exportation.
998. expand/collapse 1/22/2025 12:49:10 PM Isacsson, Lake General Comment The Earth is dying, save it.
999. expand/collapse 1/22/2025 12:50:08 PM Younan, Jacob General Comment Focus on nuclear.
1000. expand/collapse 1/22/2025 12:51:01 PM Covington, Lindsay General Comment I believe that there should be and are alternatives for sourcing power that does not impact our physical wellness.
1001. expand/collapse 1/22/2025 12:52:06 PM Price, Joshua General Comment Cleaner energy utilizing either nuclear or solar is ideal.
1002. expand/collapse 1/22/2025 12:54:05 PM Schultz, Ian General Comment I’m Ian Schultz, an Architect with over 45 years of professional experience in the design and construction of small and large facilities for governments and private corporations. I have resided in Albuquerque throughout my career while completing projects across the United States and overseas. The growth of the United States and world economies are highly dependent on the availability of abundant, affordable energy for domestic and industrial use. Every individual and industry requires some measure of energy for their survival and operations. Without an adequate supply of affordable energy, the world population will not have life sustaining supplies of food, clothing, housing, warmth, medicine and other essentials. Preservation of our environment calls for the use of the clean fuels. The determination of clean must consider the entire cost of producing each watt of power. Natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels, is highly affordable, and contains one of the highest concentration of energy. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) enables the transport of this energy source across oceans and around the world. Providing LNG to countries like India would greatly reduce the pollution cause by the burning of coal. The Biden Administration’s ban on the export of LNG is causing pollution increases as nations like India continue to increase the amounts of coal being burned to meet their energy need. I urge the Department of Energy to remove all barriers to the production and distribution of LNG world wide. Thank you for your attention in these maters.
1003. expand/collapse 1/22/2025 12:54:26 PM Ingham, Mary and Stewart General Comment My name is Mary Ingham and my husband Stewart and I live in the South Valley of Albuquerque, NM. Stewart is a lifelong NM resident and I moved here over 55 years ago. I spent my early years on the Navajo Reservation in NW NM and I have observed the importance of the Oil and Gas industry for that area and that population. We have a large solar system on our property and we use natural gas as well. We are very interested and positive about the use of both renewable and clean energy. We realize that the Oil and Gas industry in NM is vital to NM for jobs and income for many parts of rural NM, including the Reservation areas that have very few employment options, much less the higher paying jobs related to energy. The premature closure of the Four Corners plant was a travesty and a devastating loss to the Navajo Nation and that area of our state. We support the Department of Energy’s increased permitting of LNG projects and the focus on provision of affordable and plentiful petroleum products in the US as well as increased exportation as appropriate/ and wise for our economy and God’s beautiful Creation/our World. The last several years have made it clear to most Americans that the ban on exporting and permitting Liquid Natural Gas was not helpful to our nation, nor to its people.
1004. expand/collapse 1/22/2025 1:41:52 PM Collins, Kathy General Comment My name is Kathy Collins. I have lived in Pennsylvania for about 35 years. My family consists of myself, my husband (also retired) and my adult son who is currently employed in the freight industry. As a retired legal secretary who formerly worked at a law firm with a large client base of individuals who were negotiating contracts to lease their land for the purpose of developing the natural gas industry in Pennsylvania, I would like to note my appreciation for the current administration’s reversal of the ban on the exportation of Liquid Natural Gas. I understand how important this industry and the energy resources of the state are to both homeowners and businesses. Additionally, as a retired individual residing in Pennsylvania and therefore cognizant of the cost of energy to residents on fixed incomes, I am appreciative of all efforts to utilize Pennsylvania’s and the nation’s energy resources to reduce the impact of rising energy costs. It is important for those on fixed incomes and low incomes to have a reliable source of energy at a cost they can afford. At this time, I am writing to thank the Department of Energy for its efforts today and in the future to maintain reliable and affordable energy. I recognize that this new administration has lifted the ban on LNG exports and want to express my appreciation for making that a priority.
1005. expand/collapse 1/22/2025 1:56:59 PM Aucoin, William General Comment Hello, my name is William Aucoin, and I am proud to be Cajun, born, raised, and still living in the heart of south Louisiana. I’ve spent a total of 20 years working in the trucking industry, with 17 of those years as a driver and the last 3 years focusing on compliance, safety, and training. For the vast majority of my career, I’ve been directly involved in supporting the oil and gas industry; an industry that has been a cornerstone of both my personal life and the economic fabric of this region. Over the years, my family, like so many others, has experienced firsthand the impacts of the changes in the energy sector. As a member of a larger extended family of energy professionals, I’ve seen how vital this industry is, not just to Louisiana, but to the nation and the world. The oil and gas industry has fueled our past, our present, and will continue to fuel our future. It’s not just an economic engine, but the foundation on which so many other industries and technologies are built. When we look at our world today, it’s clear that we’re deeply dependent on oil and gas. It’s not just a luxury; it’s a necessity. From the fibers in our clothing to the plastics in medical devices like my continuous glucose monitor, and the components that make up the devices we use every day, petroleum is in everything. These are not just conveniences; these are critical components of modern life. So, it’s not just about wanting more oil and gas exploration—it’s about needing it, for ourselves and for the generations that follow. That’s why I’m here today to ask for your support in promoting more oil and gas exploration. We need to continue to invest in and explore new sources of energy, not just to keep our economy strong, but to ensure our nation’s energy independence and security. If we work together, we can set an example for the world—demonstrating that it’s possible to produce energy in a safe, efficient, and environmentally responsible way. I thank the commission for reading my comment and I ask your assistance in continuing the exploration and production of liquid natural gas.
1006. expand/collapse 1/22/2025 2:26:10 PM Sobotka , Irving General Comment My name is Irving Sobotka, and I am a 70-year-old Army veteran living in Ohio. I am currently retired and rely on a fixed income. This winter, the extreme cold has made it especially difficult to afford propane, and it has become a real financial strain. Given the vast amounts of natural gas and oil in our country, it’s a shame that we, as Americans, are facing such challenges. Over the past few years, I’ve watched the price of both gasoline and home heating fuel skyrocket, from around $1.80 to over $4.00 per gallon. This price hike has affected all of us, particularly those of us on fixed incomes. As a citizen of this country, I believe we need greater understanding and empathy for people who are struggling, including retirees, veterans, and the homeless, who are facing unprecedented difficulties due to these rising costs. It’s time for a more compassionate approach to ensure that those who are most vulnerable can continue to cope with these challenges. I thank the commission for continuing to give permits for LNG exports, recognizing their positive impact on veterans and others on a fixed income.
1007. expand/collapse 1/22/2025 2:40:06 PM Layne, Jerry General Comment My name is Jerry Layne, a long-term resident of Baton Rouge, LA. I am a retired chemical engineer and community college educator. I have 50 years of experience in global energy operations and 16 years of service as an educator. I trained 2,000 process technicians for energy-related operations. The U.S. is the largest producer of both liquefied and gaseous natural gas. Natural gas and its derivatives are required in residential and commercial heating, cooking, and other uses. When we talk about jobs in the energy sector, we’re not just talking about those who work directly in the industry, those in exploration, drilling, or production but also those whose livelihoods depend on the goods and services that this industry supports. Process industries and power generation are dependent on natural gas and its derivatives. The U.S. has substantial marine facilities for the export of LNG. The bulk of these facilities are in TX and LA. Land facilities are regulated by FERC, and marine operations are regulated by MARAD. The U.S. is the world's largest exporter of LNG, with 50% going to Asia, 40% to Europe, and 10% to other regions. The world’s annual consumption of LNG is 400 million tons. The U.S. is the largest consumer, with growing import demand from China and Japan. Obviously, the U.S. and other growing global economies are essentially dependent on an adequate production and supply of LNG. Europe will require more U.S. imports to reduce its dependence on Russian gas. I urge the commission not to place undue regulations on the U.S. production, supply, and export/import of LNG.
1008. expand/collapse 1/22/2025 2:47:33 PM Martinez, Richard C. General Comment My name is Richard C. Martinez and I am a lifelong resident of Northern New Mexico, being born and raised in the unincorporated community of Guachupangue which lies just outside the City of Espanola. I retired from the NM State Senate, having served district 5 for twenty years. My senate district included Los Alamos, Rio Arriba, northern Santa Fe and a portion of Sandoval Counties. I understand the importance of the Oil and Gas Industry as a vital contributor to our economy as a state, knowing that the revenues generated from the Oil and Gas Industry fund our educational system, repairs to our roads and countless other services. I fully support the extraction of Liquid Natural Gas and would be against a ban of exportation in New Mexico, having witnessed the successes it brings to our state and New Mexico communities.
1009. expand/collapse 1/22/2025 2:52:01 PM ralph, patrick General Comment Hi my name is Patrick Ralph. I am from Meshoppen, PA, where I live with my five kids. My work consists of doing small repairs, changing oil and filters, and hanging brakes and tires on semi trucks. As a proud Pennsylvania resident who raises a family here in the Keystone State, keeping the cost of living affordable for families is something that is very important to me. I thank the Department of Energy for keeping the cost of living low for families in Pennsylvania and throughout the U.S. by providing them with a reliable source of energy security. Because we both agree on keeping the cost of living low for families, we should also support the natural gas industry here in America by continuing to export LNG. Exports of LNG provide our allies with needed energy security while also promoting domestic production. This allows us to support our allies while also providing energy security for families, keeping the cost of living low for my family and many others. Therefore, I thank the Department of Energy for lifting the ban on the approval of new LNG export permits.
1010. expand/collapse 1/22/2025 4:56:09 PM Hesuse, Delora General Comment My name is Delora Hesuse, I am a Navajo allottee from Nageezi New Mexico. I testified before the committee of the natural resources in 2019 and 2023 to protect the resources of the allottees that would be impacted by the buffer zone around Chaco Canyon. Unnecessary regulations and pauses on our resources such as the buffer zone and the pause on LNG hurt many of us Navajos with Allotments. We don't need to depend on other countries when we have our own resources here in the United States. We need to lift this pause and any other pause on our resources. I have witnessed a lot of my family having to go part time or that were laid off due to these types of restrictions on our resources. Thank you again for your time and consideration and please lift these pauses off of our resources.
1011. expand/collapse 1/22/2025 6:49:27 PM M HELMER, SHERRY General Comment I'm Sherry Helmer. I'm a retired schoolteacher and grandmother who values our great country and the resources that we have in the USA. I value jobs for the US energy workers, of which my son is a part of and keeping our economy strong. I appreciate the DOE to make time and effort to make the effort to release the ban on LNG. I feel it is important to me to keep prices down not only for energy but for all the products I use since I live on a limited income, being retired. My value of having valuable resources in the USA don't align with the ban of LNG from the report. I urge the DOE to resume LNG as a needed clean energy resource because I value economic resources that are necessary for living not only for myself on a limited income but for the families' raising children for the next generation and generations to follow.
1012. expand/collapse 1/23/2025 8:46:06 AM Pennell, Elizabeth General Comment I oppose the continued growth of the LNG industry. At some point we will be forced to prioritize human health over corporate growth. Why can't that time be now? Put people over profit.
1013. expand/collapse 1/23/2025 1:30:25 PM Walters, Patricia G General Comment I, Patricia G. Walters have been a resident of New Mexico 25 years. And through literature and involved friends have interest in the production of natural gas as one of the clean and safe sources of energy for our state and our country and the world. Since 1963 my life in Wyoming, Colorado and now New Mexico observing the oil and gas production up close have in both rural and city areas have proudly noted the professional care of the environments in these states particularly, and what has been the best for the land and the people is always the priority. In this new challenge ahead of us it is imperative that we confidently move quickly ahead to secure more markets for our Liquid natural gas exportation. Our service to the world is truly met in bringing high and clean liquid natural gas to off-lay high prices for them and we at home and to off-lay our out of control debt here in the U.S. which is (us). I enjoyed all my life gas for heating and cooking. We must produce our own energy at home and in New Mexico if we are to keep and bring new manufacturing here. The new department of energy will make many important decisions in these next months and I know that our wealth in Liquid natural gas will be their proliority.
1014. expand/collapse 1/23/2025 1:34:39 PM Dill, James General Comment My name is Jim Dill and I am a trucking defense attorney out of Lafayette, Louisiana. I am 62 years old, married, the father of 3 grown children and the grandfather of one. I have lived in Louisiana all of my life and among other hobbies, and an avid fisherman in the Gulf of Mexico. Much of my family still resides on the Gulf Coast and I spend much of my free time fishing the coastal waters and enjoying our sportsman’s Paradise. Being from South Louisiana, the oil industry touches every aspect of our lives. Many of my friends and family work in the oil industry today. Many more formerly worked in the industry. In the early 1980s, when the oil industry took a downturn, there was a bumper sticker that became very popular here -it read “I believe in Lafayette”. Within a year, it was the most popular bumper sticker in Atlanta Georgia. Our friends and family moved away because there were no jobs left here for them to support their families. Since then, our oil industry has rebuilt, we have diversified but it is still an important driver of our local economy. As a trucking defense attorney, the cost of fuel impacts my clients -when the price of fuel is high, my business turns down. The impact of fuel cost has a ripple effect through the industry. Since it increases the cost of manufacturing, there is a slow down that results in a drop in tonnage that moves through the economy. That means fewer loads for more clients. Fewer loads means lower revenue. Higher fuel costs means that profit margins shrink and often squeeze the mom and pop companies out of business. It causes drivers to leave an industry that already has a hard time finding people who will take on the difficult job of delivering our economy every day. Pausing the exportation of LNG has an effect of cutting production which will also cause a downturn in exploration and production which also causes the loss of jobs, not just in the direct oil industry but also in industries like trucking who support them. Again, that means fewer loads, fewer jobs and that also transfers to my industry as well. Like many other parents and grandparents and probably yourselves, I believe that our energy independence is critical to our national security so that the generations that will follow us will be safe and secure. It is a major driver of our national economy. My friends and family rely upon the jobs created by LNG exploration, production and transport to support themselves and their families. There is no place in the world that can explore, produce and transport fossil fuels, including LNG, more safely and efficiently than we can here in Louisiana and the United States. In my personal opinion, by pausing the export of LNG from the US will force exploration and production to other countries who are not as environmentally conscious as we are here in the United States. That is more detrimental to our global environment than producing it here. Producing it here allows us to secure our own safety, protect our economy to make sure that the production is done in the safest possible way for our global environment. Please continue to issue LNG export permits - we are leaders in the world in environmental protection and innovation. Let the American way be the example for the rest of the world to follow and at the same time secure our energy independence. Sincerely, James Dill
1015. expand/collapse 1/23/2025 3:45:17 PM Trujillo, Audrey General Comment Hi, my name is Audrey Trujillo and I was born and raised in New Mexico. My husband and I are raising our 3 children here and have two college students at the the University of New Mexico currently.  I also am a graduate from the University of New Mexico where I recieved 2 Bachelors and a Masters in Public Administration. Hence, I am very aware on the impact oil and gas has on our state and how we must maintain the industry that provides most of our states budget and jobs. As a citizen of this great state, I want to write in support of maintaining our industry to include LNG gas. LNG gas is a clean energy, much cleaner than coal and should be utilized in our state that's mission is to keep our carbon footprint lowered. Please consider the benefits LNG has on our state and take action to safeguard it. I urge the Secretary of energy to consider reversing the pause on LNG exporting and permiting. Thank you for your time and attention to this very important matter. Best regards, Lifelong resident Audrey Trujillo Corrales,  NM
1016. expand/collapse 1/23/2025 3:47:24 PM Allison, Richard General Comment Hello my name is Richard Allison, not only am I a NM resident for over 40 yrs, but I live and work in the Permian Oil Basin. I have supported my family and hundreds like it for over 16 years by working in the oil and Gas industry. 60% of NM state revenue come from gross receipts taxes created by Oil and Gas companies working in Eddy and Lea counties. 4 power plants in my area are gas fed power plants, they create no odors, don’t pollute, and the cleanliness of these facilities are impeccable!! I am honored to have a hand in getting LNG t these facilities that provide power to thousands of homes! To deny other countries this ability to sustain their regions with a clean and stable product that can enhance quality of life. What better way to help humanity than to provide a responsibly sourced Gas, rather than looking for alternative sources that do not use Preventative Measures, or meet criteria from EPA or BLM standards. Countries starved for energy sources will find ways to obtain the LNG. So please allow America to continue to supply the LNG exports in the safest and cleanest way possible. Thank you for allowing my voice to be heard Respectfully Richard Allison Lea County NM
1017. expand/collapse 1/23/2025 4:20:06 PM Verkitus, Tonyehn General Comment The December 17th Department of Energy report shows that increasing liquified natural gas (LNG) exports inarguably goes against the public interest. Further expansion would offer little benefit and great potential for harm to the environment, public health, and to the pockets of domestic utility customers. Perhaps the most damning finding of the study is that pouring resources into increasing exports will most likely result in higher energy prices here at home. Residents of Northeastern PA, would be expected to pay extra for the privilege of having their neighborhoods - such as Dickson City - turned into LNG storage parks. We understand the appeal of the potential jobs that expansion might bring, but as we’ve seen time and time again, those numbers always seem to fall short of developers’ promises. The desire for economic growth must be balanced with the need to protect the health of our residents, especially children and the elderly who are the most vulnerable to air, water and soil pollution. While industry often lacks transparency about their processes and chemical formulations the 9th Edition of the Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking and Associated Gas and Oil Infrastructure share some 2,000 abstracts of and links to medical, scientific and investigative reports about the consequences of oil and gas drilling, fracking, and infrastructure. Also, a University of Pittsburgh and Department of Health study in 2023 shared that residents living near shale gas development experience a range of health impacts. While natural gas is often touted as being more environmentally friendly than other fossil fuels, it still produces emissions. And when processed into LNG it can be up to 33% worse than coal in terms of greenhouse gas. This is largely due to the additional energy used to process and compress it into a liquid, the extensive transportation networks used to carry it to far-off locations, as well as the increased incidence of leaks and other unintended pollution from the extended infrastructure required for that conversion and transport.
1018. expand/collapse 1/23/2025 4:20:48 PM Archuleta, Phillip General Comment Good Afternoon, My name is Philip Archuleta, I am a resident of New Mexico who has worked around the oil field and dry ice production plants. Today I stand in support of lifting the export ban of LNG. New Mexico is on of the top producers of oil and gas in this great country. What is not widely mentioned is the economical benefits provided to the often desolate areas and locals. a lift on exporting LNG would be the first beneficial step in returning to drilling of new locations and creating new jobs in otherwise dying communities. As someone who grew up in one of these communities the Natural gas wells helped to created jobs in a dry ice plant creating an opportunity for locals including myself the chance to improve our quality of life. Today I ask that you consider supporting a lift on the international export of LNG and allow Americans the chance to reduce emissions while potentially improving their quality of life. Thank you for your time and I hope to see this pause lifted for the benefit of Americans
1019. expand/collapse 1/23/2025 5:17:13 PM Mintz, Eric General Comment I feel very strongly that the exportation of LNG should be discontinued barring exceptional life-and-death emergencies. There is an old saw that goes "Everyone complains about the weather, but no one does anything about it." Well, now that we have all been burning fossil fuels like LNG for years in ever increasing quantities, we are changing the weather for the worse. Climate disasters in the last year (Hurricanes in North Carolina; wildfires in the winter in Los Angeles; etc, etc.) will cost the United States over $250,000,000,000 (that's 250 billion dollars)! The lives lost are gone forever. We need to change direction quickly and minimize our Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and that starts with stopping export of LNG. We don't need Exxon and the rest of the fossil fuel companies to earn more profits. They are already rich enough. We do need to support solar energy and other renewable energy sources and to implement them as soon as possible and wean ourselves from the poisonous fossil fuels. Sending the LNG to be burned somewhere else is the same as burning it here. One planet; one climate; one solution. Stop the Shill, Shill, Shill, and the Drill, Drill, Drill because you are making us all ill, ill, ill! This is the ultimate crisis - the more we burn, the more we will suffer. We are smart enough to have viable alternatives to fossil fuels, all we need to do is implement them quickly and we can avoid a whole lot of hurt. Do The Right Thing!
1020. expand/collapse 1/23/2025 6:04:46 PM Xavier, Fiwasaye General Comment Clean energy is considerably cheaper, and cleaner, and should be the way forward.
1021. expand/collapse 1/23/2025 6:12:11 PM Hilger, Mikey General Comment I disagree with your need to kill us further America.
1022. 1/23/2025 6:51:22 PM Howard, Bill General Comment
1023. expand/collapse 1/23/2025 8:11:52 PM LONG, PAUL General Comment Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is Paul Long and I have lived in New Mexico for 54 years. I have worked in the oil & gas industry since moving here and have seen the awesome effect the industry has on our economy. The jobs created and the taxes generated are the lifeblood of the state. I support making Liquid Natural Gas and selling it to those countries that really need this energy and could use it to replace less clean sources such as coal. This will help strengthen our economy, reduce poverty, and improve education. I am asking you to please deny the ban on exportation of Liquid Natural Gas.
1024. expand/collapse 1/24/2025 1:07:05 PM Moore, Alex General Comment I disagree with the expansion.
1025. 1/24/2025 1:07:54 PM Brandt, Maria General Comment
1026. 1/24/2025 1:08:33 PM Todd, Don General Comment
1027. expand/collapse 1/24/2025 1:09:39 PM Lazcano, Gabriel General Comment Family members suffer from respiratory and heart problems. I am all for reducing chances as much as possible.
1028. expand/collapse 1/24/2025 1:11:17 PM Cui, Alvin General Comment Continued expansion of fossil fuel production, works against what should be our goal of shifting towards renewable energy resources.
1029. expand/collapse 1/24/2025 1:16:07 PM Gillis, Drue General Comment This action is completely wrong. Fix it.
1030. expand/collapse 1/24/2025 1:16:57 PM Pereira , Omar General Comment No more cancer!
1031. expand/collapse 1/24/2025 1:18:14 PM Mejia, Daniel General Comment This will cause a higher percentage of cancer within the USA, which can and will lead to an epidemic.
1032. expand/collapse 1/24/2025 2:24:33 PM Nieland, Thomas General Comment Pursuit of fossil fuels usage projects at this point is just plain stupid. 40 plus years of denial by Big Oil and right-wing pols aren't working. Everyone now sees and feels the effects of climate change, from ever higher temperatures to droughts to super cold Arctic fronts to devastating floods and fires. Stop the inhumanity and insanity, stop LNG and transition away from fossil fuels usage to clean renewable energy sources ASAP!
1033. 1/24/2025 2:54:59 PM Rinear, Charles General Comment
1034. expand/collapse 1/24/2025 3:04:06 PM P, Ron General Comment Desalination is not the solution. Our focus will be on protecting our comunidades from the conditions of drought and irresponsible overselling of our water supply, and the continued fight against the buildout of new and expansion projects for liquefied “natural” gas (LNG) facilities.
1035. expand/collapse 1/24/2025 3:30:23 PM earney, Michael General Comment the environment comes first, all energy decisions must take this into consideration.
1036. expand/collapse 1/24/2025 4:08:04 PM White, Joseph General Comment The United States already exports more liquified natural gas than almost any other country. The current production is poorly regulated and additional facilities will be incredibly detrimental to the environment and nearby communities.
1037. expand/collapse 1/24/2025 4:13:43 PM Tecpile Gonzalez , King General Comment Let's keep our families safe!
1038. expand/collapse 1/24/2025 4:14:37 PM Sampson, Priscilla General Comment I disagree with these actions from our government.
1039. expand/collapse 1/24/2025 4:15:30 PM Tyler, Gracie General Comment We need better health and have good alternatives.
1040. expand/collapse 1/24/2025 4:17:00 PM Troung , Tuyen General Comment Please save the environment.
1041. expand/collapse 1/24/2025 4:17:52 PM Sundaram, Shivani General Comment Let's fight for a change!
1042. expand/collapse 1/24/2025 4:18:41 PM Muniz, Roberto General Comment I support the idea of protection for the people.
1043. 1/24/2025 4:19:43 PM Mosley, Nicholas General Comment
1044. expand/collapse 1/24/2025 4:21:02 PM McFerren, Michael General Comment Y'all expanding this ***** is wack.
1045. 1/24/2025 4:21:46 PM Suyao, Kai General Comment
1046. expand/collapse 1/24/2025 4:23:07 PM Carr, Michelle General Comment Protect our home.
1047. expand/collapse 1/24/2025 4:24:06 PM James, Angelina General Comment No faith in fossil fuels. Keep it in the ground. Methane is dangerous.
1048. expand/collapse 1/24/2025 4:25:14 PM Hickman, Jeannette General Comment For the health of our citizens, we need to stop importing liquified natural gas.
1049. expand/collapse 1/24/2025 6:20:42 PM Beldavs, Mara General Comment The expansion of drilling and fracking being promoted by the current administration will continue to denigrate the environment causing more and more dramatic changes in the weather. How is this justified when the world is turning more and more to clean energy solutions? We do not want our public lands; wildlife preserves and backyards destroyed for the profits of a few corporations! This is the 21st century and respect for the earth is tantamount for our survival!
1050. expand/collapse 1/24/2025 6:40:31 PM Moulesong, Jon General Comment America DOES NOT need more LNG production and/or exportation. We are literally killing the planet, by continuously treating it like our personal garbage can. You can only abuse something for so long, before the object being abused becomes damaged beyond repair. Unfortunately, planet Earth is quickly approaching the point of no return.
1051. expand/collapse 1/25/2025 12:43:56 AM Benedict, Derek General Comment The Climate Crisis Clock is ticking and we've already passed the 1.5 degree Centigrade red-line. For the sake of humanity and all of Earth's fauna and flora, you must take great strides right now towards making renewable energy the norm and wean us away from fossil fuels!
1052. expand/collapse 1/25/2025 4:44:13 PM Roberson, William General Comment I oppose the construction of more LNG export facilities. LNG increases the effects of climate change and the facility's pollution is dangerously unhealthy for nearby communities.
1053. expand/collapse 1/26/2025 3:34:30 PM Zovich, Beatrice General Comment I am writing to oppose the export of liquefied natural gas. LNG is a climate disaster and has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. This is so clearly harmful for our planet and the people on it. We do not need any more evidence that climate change is real, that it is human-caused, and that its effects are disastrous. Preservation of our species and our planet depends on stewardship and responsibility and not the endless and crippling prioritization of profits. The difference between right and wrong choices can sometime be opaque, but that is not the case here - LNG is clearly the wrong choice.
1054. expand/collapse 1/27/2025 12:51:22 PM J., John General Comment Hello, my name is John, I own 3 small businesses. Apartment building and 2 large laundromats, 4000 and 5000 sq ft. I own 5 cars, all gas powered. Been living in Colorado since 1968. Using natural gas to run my businesses and my cars is essential. I appreciate the dept of energy’s efforts to ensure my needs and my community. Also, I know that 3rd world countries are reliant upon natural gas to ween themselves off extremely polluting coal and therefore globally moving towards a cleaner planet. I do not support a ban of natural gas at all.
1055. expand/collapse 1/27/2025 1:48:50 PM cherry, andre General Comment My name is Andre Cherry, I have lived in PA all my life, 55 years, where my four children also reside. I have worked in the service and retail industry for many years. I want to see America’s energy industry continue to bolster our economy, provide good paying jobs, and support our country and our allies’ needs. Thank you for supporting these goals by lifting the ban on LNG exports. Many family members are now retired and rely on a fixed income to get by. This ban would have raised the cost of utilities, groceries, and everyday goods, making it impossible for my 80 year old mother to live. I appreciate the work this department has done to protect American citizens and make sure they are able to continue living and contributing to their communities. I am grateful for the position the DOE has taken in supporting the industry that supports our country.
1056. expand/collapse 1/27/2025 2:17:53 PM Eby, Jason General Comment To Whom it May Concern: My Name is Jason Eby. I have lived in Chambersburg Pennsylvania for nearly 40 years. I have enjoyed a low cost of living mostly because of low energy prices. I am a FedEx driver. It was such a pleasure to be able to deliver packages to people in a cost effective way. I was so disappointed in the early 2000s when there were more regulations. And bans on permits for drilling were enacted. It meant higher costs for the people we deliver to so they are not happy to see us now. Plus with the cost of furnace fuel and gas for my car to get to work I am not able to save for retirement I do appreciate the effort the DOE has made in Franklin County to provide a reliable clean source of energy in a safe friendly work structure. I am here to Thank Y and encourage you to continue that commitment to clean energy and produce it in a safe environment for the workers at Chambersburg Pa. Because I care about keeping the cost of producing energy in a safe clean effective way for everyone and you are the answer to environmental issues I think we can agree on many of the issues facing us. Pennsylvania has the answer to a clean environment because we produce over half of the natural gas used in the country. Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel available. If the ban on the Creation of Permits to Export LNG is enacted it will cause our allies to rely on energy sources from countries who are not friendly to us. It will also cause all energy sources to be more expensive because we won't have the volume to keep energy low. In this country the Free Market and the Market forces work so much better to provide low cost clean energy than any regulations enacted by a government. I urge you to let the Market Decide for it's self on issues related to LNG. I do want to Thank the current administration for ending the pause on LNG Export Permits. Respectfully as a Concerned Citizen Jason Eby
1057. expand/collapse 1/27/2025 2:58:10 PM Jernigan , Garth General Comment My name is Garth Jernigan, and I'm a 63 year old man who has lived in PA for almost 28 years. During my life, I've done a variety of jobs and no longer take anything manufactured for granted, especially having worked in various types of manufacturing, and I'm now a small business owner, that depends on affordable energy that allows me to have security when it comes to my energy bill. As a small business owner, I'm thankful for what the Department of Energy has done in bringing energy prices down in order to provide small business owners, like me, with energy security. In doing so, this makes for a secure country, which I've come to realize is extremely important for me, and all friends and family members. Since we are in agreement with supporting all businesses, large and small, continuing the exporting of LNG is highly beneficial for everyone involved as we are all stakeholders in the outcome. The LNG industry creates jobs, along with increasing our GDP, and puts money back into the local economy which in turn, supports all businesses, both large and small. Current LNG production supplies our allies with much needed energy security, while also ensuring a market for our excess LNG. If this were to change, both businesses in our country, along with our allies abroad, would lose their energy security. I want to thank the current administration for lifting the pause on the new LNG export permits. I would strongly urge continuing LNG exports.
1058. expand/collapse 1/27/2025 3:54:04 PM Rager , Becky General Comment My name is Becky Rager, I'm 70 years old. I lived in Southern California for 50 years, Northern California for 6. Moved here to New Mexico April 2014. Been driving since I was 16. Always have had a L&G heaters. The ban on getting L&G to non-free trade agreement countries has caused the state some stress. In 2023 we were the biggest producers of L&G in the world. No longer. We all need heat. L&G is clean and efficient. Much more than coal. Please lift the ban and let New Mexico produce again.
1059. expand/collapse 1/27/2025 3:57:09 PM Ferrar, Kyle General Comment To: Department of Energy From: Kyle Ferrar The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. Exporting LNG will increase the cost of energy in the United States. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
1060. expand/collapse 1/27/2025 3:59:53 PM Cruz-Jimenez, Denise General Comment To: Department of Energy From: Denise Cruz-Jimenez The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. Support of LNG projects does nothing for energy independence. It is a handout to oil and gas at the expense of American families. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
1061. expand/collapse 1/27/2025 4:51:29 PM Sullivan, Carol General Comment To Whom it may concern: My name is Carol Sullivan. I am an 81 year old retired Nursing executive with seven grown children, 14 grandchildren, and so far, 11 greatgranchildren. My husband and I moved to New Mexico in 1977 for the health of our children, who were suffering with chronic ear infections and respiratory illnesses. We decided to escape the toxic environment of Chicago, Illinois caused by emissions from the surrounding steel mills. We quickly found out the efficacy of "clean" natural gas use and that the petroleum/natural gas industry of New Mexico supported most of the educational and medical institutions and functions in the state. Liquid natural gas provides one of the cleanest and efficient forms of energy production in the world. When President Biden declared a "pause" in its production, he not only threatened our state's education budget, but the health of children across the globe by causing dependence on much "dirtier polluting" forms of energy production. "Common Sense" demands a lifting of this pause in LNG production. I urge the new Department of Energy Secretary to Lift this pause immediately and call on all Americans to demand it for the sake of our children and the environment. In His Love, Carol Joy Sullivan
1062. expand/collapse 1/27/2025 4:53:54 PM Edelman, Lisa General Comment Hi! I’m Lisa E and I was born and raised in PA. Lived in FL for a few years but came back to PA – my “Home”. I am retired but still have my part time business as a Mobile Notary. As a mobile notary I go to my client’s home that could be up to a 50 mile round trip. The price of gas has had a big effect on my business. More of my notary fee goes to the gas pump and less into my pockets. I do appreciate that the ban was lifted on the LNG exports. I feel our county’s energy infrastructure is in a much better place. If the ban were reinstated, I will have increased gasoline prices and no increase in my fees. I would be worried about everyone who uses fuel in their business. Please do not reinstate the ban! I do not wish to see gas prices rise to the point it negatively affects my small business and other small businesses in Pennsylvania.
1063. expand/collapse 1/27/2025 4:54:08 PM Tomb, Gordon General Comment I am Gordon Tomb, a native of Pennsylvania, who has a long history with the energy industry. My family, including my father and both grandfathers, worked in the industry. As for myself, I drove coal trucks part-time while a college student, then worked for the electric utility industry for nearly 20 years and covered the oil and gas industry as a management consultant. Since retiring several years ago, I have written about energy and very much support its development for the well-being of the economy and my state’s natural gas industry. The lifting of the previous administration’s ban on LNG exports is much appreciated. The outlook for our country’s energy infrastructure is already brighter because of it. A ban on LNG exports would have been exceedingly harmful to thousands of workers and the future of Pennsylvania. I have seen how a healthy energy industry has brought prosperity to many parts of the state and how people have suffered from the decline of other businesses over the years. I much prefer healthy businesses. As somebody who has benefited greatly from the energy industry and who knows of many others who have as well, I ask that the department stands firm in its support of LNG exports.
1064. expand/collapse 1/27/2025 5:02:30 PM Touhsant, Linda General Comment My name is Linda Touhsant, a retired person residing in Pennsylvania. I have had serious concerns about the United State’s energy independence and the drawing down of our petroleum reserves. I’m worried about the effects the ban would have on our foreign relations and our ability to replenish our petroleum reserves. Thank you for lifting the ban. I have enjoyed the benefits of receiving royalties from the gas industry which has supplemented my income. It’s been a financial burden with every sector being affected by rising energy costs. Please don’t reinstate the ban.
1065. expand/collapse 1/27/2025 5:27:27 PM O'Brien, Hagen General Comment To Our Heroes at the U.S. Department of Energy , My name is Hagen O’Brien, and I’m a married, educated, community-engaged, single-family homeowner and small business owner located in Pickerington, Ohio. As a public relations professional, a leader of my neighborhood’s 61-home homeowners’ association, and through my service working alongside Violet Township and Fairfield County, energy innovation and sustainability are extremely important topics which remain close to my heart. Before I continue, I’d like to take a moment to express my gratitude for your hard work and combined past efforts to advance natural energy solutions and support the growth of liquified natural gas (LNG) exports. Your collective efforts are not only making a significant impact shaping the future of our nation’s energy landscape, but they also contribute to energy security and independence while also strengthening our position as a global leader in energy while diversifying energy markets worldwide. You are not unsung heroes. Your efforts are not lost on us! Having said all of that, I’m concerned that if LNG exports remain shut down the great State of Ohio will sustain serious economic challenges, from increased costs and reduced production of crude oil into gasoline and related oil-based products, to job market instability and ultimately an unstable and unfavorable economic impact. Please understand that I’ve seen firsthand via my community involvement the financial hardships placed on oil and gas workers when they sustain a job loss or a work-stoppage. I must urge you to please continue utilizing your voice and influence to protect our precious LNG exports and the stability of Ohio’s energy economy, as my family and so many families like mine, are counting on you. Thank you for all that you do! Respectfully, Hagen P. O’Brien
1066. expand/collapse 1/27/2025 5:47:54 PM Stolworthy, Billie General Comment Hello, my name is Billie Stolworthy. I have been a resident of New Mexico since 1958. My family has been involved in the oil and gas industry ever since. My father was a superintendent of one of the drilling companies, my husband worked for a major pipeline company for 42 years and my son is a petroleum engineer for an oil and gas company. The ban on LNG to non free trade agreement countries has put a strain on New Mexico's economy. The USA was the leader of LNG export in 2023. Please consider overturning the ban and helping our economy.
1067. expand/collapse 1/27/2025 6:34:46 PM Lanning, Beth General Comment My name is Beth Lanning and I Love the fact that I live in New Mexico and its home to my family now. We moved here from Texas for my husband’s job but we have fallen in love with the state and the beautiful open spaces. Coming from South East Texas that has a high concentration on oil and gas on the gulf coast I have seen the advantages and opportunity clean energy can bring to everyday citizens in the way of jobs and hope for future jobs. I love this state and want to see the people prosper and thrive. I believe seeing firsthand the types of jobs it can create and job security it gives everyday people is vital to bring New Mexico to the forefront and help so many other issues the state struggles with. My hope is to live in a prosperous state and to see people here filled with more hope for the future. It is something I have really seen a difference in from moving here from a different area. Thank you for your consideration in lifting the liquefied natural gas permits. I appreciate your time and effort in the matter.
1068. expand/collapse 1/27/2025 7:07:42 PM Bowman, Bruce General Comment I am Bruce Bowman, a concerned citizen of the United States. I come from a long line of oilfield personnel dating back to my great-great-grandfather at the turn of the 20th century and I have been involved in energy policy discussions my entire adult life. I am writing to urge the reversal of the “Pause” in liquified natural gas exports to non FTA countries for two reasons. If the driving concern is carbon reduction, then LNG is a great, easily utilized substitute for coal, which is the primary competitor for this role in international energy mixes. The “Pause” removes a great diplomatic tool from our arsenal at a time when other gas exporting nations such as Russia use their position to pressure other countries to acquiesce to their demands. There are other valid reasons to end the pause, such as the health of the U.S. energy industry, but these are the two that matter most in my opinion. Affordable energy is the lifeblood of any economy. Lifting the “Pause” makes that available to more countries and will be a net gain for the world. Thank you for your consideration. If it’s not clear by now I strongly favor lifting the “Pause.”
1069. expand/collapse 1/27/2025 7:09:45 PM Hittle, Lawrence General Comment My name is Lawrence Hittle and I am citizen of the United States and I live in Roswell NM, I use both solar and natural gas for my home, my car runs on gasoline and though I know that petroleum products from the ground are going to run out in the future I don't believe that the government should dictate what I use right now. Right now we don't have an infrastructure or an energy source that can replace our natural gas so to demand that everybody switch over to electrical when our grid cannot support the demand is relatively unintelligent. The government is irresponsible in trying to force the individual to go completely electric when they have no means of supporting it. We need to use our natural resources, natural gas and oil while we have them and develop a sustainable alternative. Solar energy and wind energy fluctuate and cannot provide power 24 hours a day and are affected by the weather. Nuclear energy offers 2 solutions, fission and fusion, and right now fusion has waste products that we have to deal with, and fission hasn't been made of reality for our situation. At the present time, our oil and gas industries as well as other fossil fuels are having to fill in the gap. The economic benefit of using these industries to our best advantage is the wisest choice we have to provide the energy we need for our homes, families, business, and industries to keep this great nation going forward. Many jobs and companies in our country are dependent on these resources. If we're worried about increasing carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, plant more trees and quit cutting down the rainforests. Sincerely, Lawrence Hittle
1070. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 11:05:35 AM Niemeyer, Janet General Comment My name is Janet Niemeyer and have been a Pennsylvania resident all of my life. I’m retired from being an Administrative Assistant and I’m currently active as the President of our community Civic Club. Pennsylvania is a very diversified state with many options for energy. I appreciate the work that has been done by the Department of Energy and feel that options should continue to expand. It is important to keep options available for folks. In my community I have seen how one source of energy can have a negative impact. My friend lives in an all electric home with a heat pump and over the past weekend with the temperatures in the teens and below, that heat pump failed them. Options are important. I have always had natural gas – and have loved it. I believe it is an important source for many of the manufacturing companies in my area and around the country. Limiting a resource should not be our direction – alternatives that best fit the needs, should be the goal. Again, I would like to thank the current administration for ending the ban on our clean liquid natural gas, saving the jobs of many of my neighbors, and allowing Pennsylvania residents to enjoy this option as their choice of energy.
1071. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 11:31:52 AM Locke , Daniel General Comment My name is Daniel Locke. I am a retired toolmaker living in the New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania tristate area. As I have worked in manufacturing for 50 years, I recognize the importance of natural gas to the manufacturing companies in my area. I recognize the benefits of what the DOE has done for our area. I have yet to see renewable energy be cost effective for manufacturing without being subsidized by the government which is tax payer dollars. I do believe cost effective energy provides a better quality of life for all. Living in the Pocono mountains, clean energy is important but at a cost effective expense. I believe liquified natural gas is not only important to the US but to the whole world. The US produces the cleanest LNG. If clean energy is the great concern, this is obviously the way to go. The currant administration if I understand correctly is looking to increase our production of LNG. I see this as a benefit to US citizens and the world. Clean and affordable. As renewable energy becomes more technologically advanced and affordable, then at that time, we can consider its use
1072. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 12:50:36 PM Herkstroeter, Ronald General Comment I am 74 years old and a retired Aircraft mechanic from Southwest Airlines. I come from 4 generations of of farmers and ranchers in Co and WY and still have friends that farm and ranch here in CO and WY. Our oil and gas production has been severally reduced during the last administration which has hurt our economy and made it very difficult for everyone to make ends meet. We need to open up drilling and producing oil and gas to boost our exports to other countries as well providing energy for the USA. This will boost the dollar value and reduce inflation here at home!! Please re-evaluate by opening up drilling in the Gulf here at home and in Alaska. This can be done without hurting our environment, we have the technology!!! Natural gas is a clean burning fuel which can used for producing electricity as well as heating or homes. This electric every thing in homes and cars will not work with electric grids at max capacity now. We do not have the technology now for all electric homes and cars, we probably will in the future but for now we need to DRILL BABY DRILL. I think this administration sees this and I hope you will work with them to make this all happen and still protect the environment and get Russia out of the worlds only provider of natural gas!!! Thanks Ron H
1073. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 1:55:05 PM Stickler, Shelley General Comment My name is Shelley, and I live in northwest New Mexico. I have a blended family with seven children. As a former school bus driver, I’ve witnessed many of the challenges our community faces first hand, especially as many jobs have left the area. Regulations on gas production and exportation here in New Mexico have directly impacted my family. Many of my children have had to move because of regulations causing job loss. This ripple effect doesn’t just impact the oil and gas industry, it affects local jobs across the board, including servers, bus drivers, and many others. It’s worth noting that we produce some of the cleanest energy anywhere and can help lower global emissions. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Please help lift this pause.
1074. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 2:56:19 PM Steiner, A.L. General Comment As you know, LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1075. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 2:57:29 PM Casper, Chris General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep.
1076. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 2:58:08 PM Mcdonald, Pamela General Comment This is dangerous!
1077. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 2:58:55 PM OMeara, Colleen and Joe General Comment We need to stop LNG exports, for the following reasons: LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1078. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:01:13 PM Seltzer, Elizabeth General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1079. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:01:47 PM sachau, barbara General Comment i do not believe we should be drilling for export. we must take care of any resources we have and make them for people in this country. we save our resources for ourselves. i see absolutely no reason to let our public lands be destroyed so a few political powers can enrich themselves selling out the usa. that is selling ouit this country for money and greed and selfishness. stop the exports of oil/gas, etc.
1080. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:02:33 PM Paltin, Sharon General Comment I am writing to advocate NOT to be exporting LNG for many reasons. The most important is to minimize the detrimental impact on climate. Also it drives the xomestic prices up which we can ill afford. Communities near LNG facilities face extra pollution and explosion dangers. Thank you for your kind attention, Sharon Paltin, M.D.
1081. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:02:37 PM Layne, Allister General Comment The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1082. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:02:48 PM Keller, Sophia General Comment The negative impact of LNG us is already under considerable scrutiny by multiple agencies and experts. The immediate and long-term risks to global health as well as to local communities have already been determined to be significant. Ignoring these data not only overlooks public safety and violates laws protecting it, it displays lamentable irresponsibility and a deficit in ethical conduct. Pause all LNG projects until adequate safety can be convincingly demonstrated.
1083. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:04:19 PM Schreier, William General Comment It's time Government agencies started considering the health and pollution consequences of materials over corporate profits and greed. I realize our political system is now controlled by money rather common sense and concerns for the public well-being. Be the first agency to stand up against this type of bullying and coercion that has no concept of public safety.
1084. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:04:39 PM mossman, sue General Comment Communities near fracking facilities are being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. I am requesting a fair, accurate, and comprehensive analysis of the public interest determination of each LNG export project.
1085. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:04:44 PM Mahaffey , Kevin General Comment The truth is the planet is going to evict humanity for trying to destroy everything mankind comes in contact with. Trump has rejected the truth with his fake news and lies.We cannot let a madman destroy our preshious home.
1086. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:05:09 PM Scavezze, Barbara General Comment STOP LNG Exports! The comprehensive report on LNG finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases.
1087. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:11:41 PM Martin, Benjamin General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1088. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:11:50 PM Levin, Carol General Comment We already are the world's largest energy producer. We need to preserve our planet for our children. Please do not approve this project!
1089. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:11:59 PM McKenna, Caephren General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
1090. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:15:12 PM Derzon, Jim General Comment Increasing LNG exports will increase the pace of global warming. We need to be investing in renewables, not global warming.
1091. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:15:19 PM Davis, Virginia General Comment Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the LNG Export Study. The study finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1092. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:16:37 PM Angell, JL General Comment Since the science and data are clear and already reported by DOE that no new LNG will ever be in the public's interests, do not even consider approving any additional project or project expansion since that would violate our laws and your duties.
1093. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:16:49 PM Davis, Virginia General Comment Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 2024 LNG Export Study. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced if LNG development and exports increase.
1094. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:17:17 PM Prellwitz, Carl General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1095. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:19:05 PM Davis, Virginia General Comment Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 2024 LNG Export Study. LNG exports will impact environmental justice communities disproportionately, since they would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep.
1096. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:21:08 PM Green, Judith General Comment How can it be in the public interest to worsen climate change? The last 10 years have already been the hottest on record and we have exceeded the 1.5 degree C "safe" limit several times in 2024. Global temperatures will continue to rise, as we have not reined in carbon or other greenhouse gas levels. LNG, which is mainly methane, is leaked at the source, and from pipelines and storage facilities. Methane is 80 times more powerful at trapping the sun's heat in our atmosphere than CO2 over a 20 year period. Earth's biosphere cannot tolerate more extraction, transport, storage, shipping and burning of LNG without succumbing to unimaginable damage to all the interlocking ecosystems that we depend on for life on this planet. While it is true that environmental justice (EJ) communities, already overburdened by environmental assaults on their health and well-being, will continue to be the hardest hit by pollution and catastrophic climate events, wealthy people are not immune to climate devastation. The Palisades fire in California is a case in point. Rampaging forces unleashed by climate change do not spare anyone in their paths. The greed of the Fossil Fuel industry is robbing our children and future generations of the magnificent legacy of a habitable Earth. This has to stop!
1097. 1/28/2025 3:22:13 PM Pan, Michael General Comment
1098. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:26:00 PM Chalfant, James General Comment It’s hard to imagine a stupider, more short sighted, ignorant plan.
1099. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:26:28 PM Welsford, Susan General Comment When the Trump Administration took office last week, his Executive Order on Energy directed the Department of Energy (DOE) to restart reviews of LNG export projects, disregarding the comprehensive report that was released for public comments by DOE in December. Trump ordered that “economic and employment impacts to the United States” and “the impact to the security of allies and partners” be considered by the agency, omitting the critical environmental and climate impacts and the public health implications for communities that was key to the study’s original purpose. These MUST be considered!
1100. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:27:33 PM Baker-Smith, Gerritt and Elizabet General Comment More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. PLEASE, NO MORE LNG exports
1101. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:30:36 PM more, mary General Comment All this LNG goes overseas to be made into plastics. This certainly makes money for the oil companies, but why aren't they using their drilling knowhow to drill for geothermal energy for cities and towns? Enough! Stop the LNG!
1102. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:38:54 PM Seegott , Mary General Comment NO EXPORT OF LIQUID GAS! OPPOSE! DO NOT CONSIDER THIS ACTIVITY!
1103. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:45:41 PM Bucher, Theresa General Comment Climate Change is real and increasingly costly to all worldwide. Stop all LNG exports if you care at all about the quality of life for this and future generations.
1104. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:49:37 PM Keim, Lisa General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. We The People demand a fair, accurate, and comprehensive analysis of the public interest determination of each LNG export project.
1105. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:51:03 PM Tyler, Margaret Guilfoy General Comment I demand a fair, accurate, and comprehensive analysis of the public interest determination of each LNG export project.
1106. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 3:51:33 PM Giffen, Phoenix General Comment Mother Earth is sacred. We must protect her so she can protect us.
1107. 1/28/2025 3:56:47 PM Mennel-Bell, Mari General Comment
1108. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 4:16:54 PM Leannah, Mike General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1109. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 4:17:11 PM Mlynek, Aaron General Comment More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
1110. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 4:17:34 PM Lorig, Connie General Comment STOP LNG Exports
1111. 1/28/2025 4:19:36 PM Hodges, Sherri General Comment
1112. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 4:23:16 PM Eng, Marilyn General Comment Reduce fossil fuels and save our environment. No more LNG exports!!
1113. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 4:24:38 PM Stanley, Gabriel General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1114. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 4:34:54 PM Nafziger , Nikki General Comment Lng exports are very hurtful to the economy because they drive up the costs of domestic use! And the pollution from them is costly to Healthcare and the storms, etc exacerbated by the pollution are more costly to clean up and the destruction from the pollution fueled storms results in greater loss of life and destruction that results in loss of jobs because the businesses/workplaces have been destroyed.
1115. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 4:35:08 PM Punday , Nicole General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1116. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 4:39:31 PM Spragu, Denise General Comment I don’t want the danger of LNG pipelines going through my state, nor do I want their ports and export centers on my coast line. It will greatly impact the economic and recreational activities along the Jersey coast. Also the LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability.
1117. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 4:47:26 PM KILEY, ANNE General Comment The exploitation of all fossil fuels must stop in order to affect climate chaos. If you don't know this by now, wake up. It is nothing short of criminal to speed the destruction of a livable planet for the sake of a few fossil fuel investors. How you can even sleep at night after approving ANY fossil fuel industry expansion, I do not know.
1118. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 4:55:28 PM Dumser, N. General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities. It is known that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. You must perform a fair, accurate, and comprehensive analysis of the public interest determination of each LNG export project. Stop the export of liquified natural gas.
1119. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 4:55:32 PM Deshotels, James General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. Please take a few minutes to submit your personal comment to demand a fair, accurate, and comprehensive analysis of the public interest determination of each LNG export project.
1120. 1/28/2025 5:00:25 PM Hallman, Janice General Comment
1121. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 5:07:16 PM Saign, Geoffrey General Comment Please stop all LNG exports! LNG exports are anti-science, anti-planet, anti-health, anti-intelligence. It is only for the few rich people who benefit and bribe their way into power.
1122. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 5:07:19 PM Balaban, Susan General Comment There should absolutely positively be not one more permit issued for LNG pipelines in this country or anywhere! We need green energy infrastructure investment! That's what the majority of Americans and the majority of humans on the planet want. Only the billionaires who stand to benefit financially and their stockholders want more dirty fuel polluting our planet. SAY NOT TO LNG PERMITS AND PROJECTS. NO NO NO!
1123. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 5:14:35 PM Smith, Joan General Comment More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1124. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 5:14:43 PM Wesley, James General Comment LNG transport, exports and fracking need to be banned NOW. The scientific community is unanimous in its opposition to the extraction and sale of LNG. The window of opportunity to halt the climate crisis is closing fast. The changes in explosive wildfires are now witnessed like never before in human history. LNG emissions are responsible for much of this climate catastrophe.
1125. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 5:20:41 PM Mangum, V General Comment LNG sites are just asking for a disaster.. Oil and Oil products destroy EVERYTHING they touch. It is toxic to all life it touches too!
1126. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 5:25:09 PM Arnouts, Ashley General Comment Please do not approve any more LNG Facilities in the US. Your own study confirmed that doing so would dramatically increase prices for US Citizens and would be detrimental to the environment. DOE analysis exposes a triple-cost increase to U.S. consumers from increasing LNG exports – the 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. ‘Special scrutiny needs to be applied toward very large LNG projects. An LNG project exporting 4 billion cubic feet per day – considering its direct life cycle emissions – would yield more annual greenhouse gas emissions by itself than 141 of the world’s countries each did in 2023.'
1127. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 5:28:57 PM Weisz, Russell General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1128. 1/28/2025 5:29:38 PM Wallof, Hunter General Comment
1129. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 5:44:05 PM Herrick, Haylee General Comment I oppose any new LNG export projects.
1130. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 5:45:05 PM Morgan, Dan General Comment I am opposed to any new LNG export facilities. LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. Once again. please do not approve any more LNG export facilities. Thanks, Dan Morgan
1131. 1/28/2025 5:46:50 PM Martin, Ben General Comment
1132. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 5:52:31 PM Garner, Lauren General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
1133. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 5:58:39 PM Baka, Ryan General Comment LNG is not the fuel of the future, renewable energy is.
1134. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 6:24:19 PM Laskasky, Cheryl General Comment LNG exports will add more pollution to communities, especially those already affected by increasing pollution. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by adding more greenhouse emissions. Stop the export of Liquified Natural Gas!
1135. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 6:24:59 PM Louge, Isabelle General Comment The report produced by the DOE clearly outlines and states that creating LNG facilities will directly lead to increased release of carbon into the atmosphere that will directly lead to a worsening of climate change. In addition, these facilities are likely to put the communities in which they are built at risk for pollution and a worsening of livability. Having lived previously in Texas I can attest that the state, especially the coastline, is already horribly susceptible to climate change and we are seeing the effects of climate disasters in that region routinely. These damage done by creating these facilities far exceeds and benefit- economic or otherwise. I urge you to reject any new projects meant to fund LNGs to keep the communities of Louisiana, Texas, and the world safer.
1136. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 6:44:01 PM Epstein MD, Marsha General Comment I'm a physician and I'm concerned about the health Impacts of LNG - LNG is harmful across its entire lifecycle from fracking the methane that is then liquified which risks the air quality of local communities, to the emissions produced by both its transportation across the globe and its use which further contributes to climate change. - Fracking, which is necessary to source the methane used in the LNG process, can expose nearby communities and workers to dangers like benzene, PFAS, lead, and arsenic, all of which have been found in fracking fluid. - People living in close proximity to LNG infrastructure and those working at these facilities are more likely to be exposed to pollutants that lead to the development of cancer, heart attacks, strokes, and respiratory illnesses, such as asthma. - These pollutants include but are not limited to particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds - Any of these conditions/events could lead to premature death and the cumulative impact of multiple pollutants over time makes the risk even more significant. - According to Greenpeace and Sierra Club's research, "Direct air pollution from currently operating LNG export terminals is estimated to cause 60 premature deaths and $957 million in total health costs per year." and "If all the planned terminals and expansion projects are built, these numbers would increase to 149 premature deaths and $2.33 billion in health costs per year." - The number of deaths and health costs would continue to grow year over year if all projects were approved as outlined. - The transport of methane once fracked and upon liquefaction also contributes to negative health outcomes. - Methane gas transported via pipelines must be compressed which leads to poor air quality at and around the compressor stations where this occurs. - These pipelines can also have dangerous leaks and at worse, explosions that have been deadly in the past. - The final voyage of LNG is most often overseas by ship. The liquid is still highly flammable and explosive on board. - The transport ships also lead to increased global emissions that contribute to climate change as well as local emissions in port regions that risk the health of nearby communities and port workers. Health Impacts of Climate Change, which LNG exports contribute to - As temperatures rise due to climate change, the likelihood of extreme weather events rises alongside it. Hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, and wildfires can all harm health via their own unique mechanisms and be deadly. - There is an increased risk of transmittable diseases as a result of climate change as well as a lengthening of the typical allergy season. - The mental health impacts of experiencing an extreme weather event or simply considering climate change at large have become increasingly alarming. Post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety have all been linked to climate change. Environmental and Health Justice - The current and future buildout of LNG is concentrated in communities already burdened with increased emissions from other industrial sources and the impacts of climate change. These communities are more likely to be made up of people of color due to the United States' history of redlining and structural racism. - Many current and proposed LNG facilities are in the direct path of natural disasters that are increasing in frequency with climate change, particularly along the Gulf coast. This poses an additional risk to people living nearby. - There are no economic benefits that would make the tradeoff of frontline communities' health and wellbeing worthwhile. Even so, DOE's report indicates that LNG will continue to be an economic burden. Energy bills will rise over time and the cost of healthcare needed for those experiencing the direct impact of emissions and climate change will hurt low income communities the most. - The health of the American people must rank above the profits of the oil and gas industry.
1137. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 6:50:45 PM Fast, Wendy General Comment Poisoning us and our land to enable corporate profits is not why our country was founded. It’s not why our Constitution was written.
1138. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 7:28:24 PM Troxell, Shawn General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are CLEARLY not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
1139. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 7:38:09 PM Shafransky, Paula General Comment This issue is very important to me. I demand a fair, accurate, and comprehensive analysis of the public interest determination of each LNG export project. LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse. LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users. Stop the export of liquified natural gas NOW!
1140. 1/28/2025 7:42:56 PM Babineau , Mary General Comment
1141. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 7:44:33 PM Engle, I. General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1142. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 7:55:24 PM Edington, Zoe General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep.
1143. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 7:57:45 PM Regan, Laura General Comment Stop the export of liquified natural gas. LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
1144. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 7:59:11 PM Beauchamp, Catherine General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1145. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 8:07:23 PM Hastings, Bradley General Comment Your own study says that the carbon emissions from this would be more substantial than carbon emissions from over 100 other countries.
1146. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 8:31:12 PM Booz, Martha General Comment Liquid “Natural” Gas is lots worse than CO2 for the climate! We should not export it, it should be left in the earth. We must stop using any kind of fossil fuel to get our climate back on track. DON’T EXPORT LIQUID “NATURAL” GAS!
1147. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 8:31:33 PM Fritsch, Robert General Comment Exporting LNG (methane) is counter productive to our efforts to reign in further fossil fuel contamination of our atmosphere and thus, accelerate atmospheric warming. It is increasingly critical and makes the U.S. look hypocritical and insensitive to the rest of humanity.
1148. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 8:56:16 PM Quintana , Katarine General Comment No more handoffs for polluters!!! What kinda of progress is this?
1149. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 9:03:14 PM Duerr, Ruth General Comment I am totally against additional U.S. LNG exports. Why? Well here is a short list: 1) LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. 2) LNG exports degrade the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at both at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Colorado, where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. 3) LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the very moment we urgently need to reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. 4) We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. 5) LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. 6) Further permitting of LNG would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1150. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 9:08:19 PM Bryan, Judith General Comment PLEASE -- NO MORE LNG exports
1151. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 9:42:14 PM Motta, Denise General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1152. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 9:57:47 PM Petter, Kristina General Comment I urge the Federal Government to halt further development of LNG. It's bad for communities in the target area, bad for the environment, and bad for the economy. It is time to shift our primary focus to developing renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric. Great strides have already been made, but more work is needed. Instead of further polluting our planet and the communities where the new LNG mining would occur, let's bolster the economy and work toward a cleaner and safer future with renewable energy.
1153. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 10:26:36 PM Wilder, Megan General Comment More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1154. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 10:31:45 PM McCleary, Harriet General Comment Liquid natural gas? Who could possibly think that it is safe! Duh!
1155. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 10:45:42 PM Charrier, JL General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes
1156. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 11:19:30 PM Kovshun, Rita General Comment Please stop the export of liquified natural gas!
1157. expand/collapse 1/28/2025 11:43:13 PM MacGregor, Susie General Comment Stop LNG by Rail Permits! LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases.
1158. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 2:20:05 AM Raven, Robert General Comment Prevent Leaks and Accidents! Protect Our Climate! No LNG!
1159. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 6:32:12 AM Simon, Tia General Comment Stop the LNG! America is not in an energy crisis, except that we are causing global catastrophic climate change with fossil fuel energy production and waste. The best way to create sustainable jobs and grow our economy, and all of our energy concerns can readily be solved with a mix of conservation measures and mixed clean renewable energy
1160. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 7:43:35 AM Wolf, Rachel General Comment LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
1161. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 7:57:12 AM Heathfield , MaryAnn General Comment Stop LNG by Rail Permits. Stop the issuing of permits to move liquid natural gas (LNG) by rail. Moving LNG by rail through our communities is a danger to the people along the routes!
1162. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 8:14:09 AM Canright, Mark General Comment Hi there, please let's move away from LNG exports and instead choose nuclear, solar and wind power. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. Have a good day, Mark
1163. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 8:15:40 AM Canright, Rebecca General Comment Hello! I am a young person who cares about protecting our ecosystems and communities.Thank you for protecting our environment. I respectfully ask you to invest in renewable energy like solar and wind. Please let's divest from LNG, and let's end LNG exports. It's the 21st century, way past time to transition off of fossil fuels (which obviously cause climate change and pollution disasters). Thank you for your time and consideration! Take care, Rebecca
1164. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 8:21:07 AM Jackson , Marnese General Comment Here at Midwest BDC, our mission is to equitably decarbonize the Midwestern building sector by 2050. We're working to move our homes and businesses to energy-efficient, electrified heating powered by renewable energy to improve our health, utility bills, and climate impacts. Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) is a fossil fuel that is being extracted from the United States and shipped abroad - at the expense of our communities' health and safety. In Michigan, energy costs are rising as gas is extracted and exported worldwide. The escalating extraction of fossil fuels will encourage the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure that keeps communities locked into harmful energy sources, exacerbate the impacts of climate change, intensify housing insecurity, and disproportionately burden the most vulnerable communities with higher energy costs.
1165. 1/29/2025 9:12:09 AM Unertl , Ann General Comment
1166. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 9:27:39 AM Gheorghiu, Andy General Comment Dear Madam / Sir, US LNG exports harm the environment and communities across the full supply chain while fueling devastating global warming. No envisaged LNG export and import capacity expansion is needed on either side of the Atlantic from an energy security point of view, nor does it contribute in a positive way to economic benefits for the people and the country. Instead of being in the public interest, they serve the orgiastic profit greed of polluting companies and reckless individuals. This needs to end! We request the current and future US DOE to deny all (pending and future) authorizations for US LNG exports and lay out further reasoning for this in our letter to you. With reference to the letters sent by European civil society groups[i] and parliamentarians[ii] in January 2024, we, 60 Civil Society Groups from throughout Europe and 18 non-European organizations hereby send our comments on the key findings of your Energy, Economic and Environmental Assessment of US LNG exports. - Domestic Natural Gas Supply and Economic Impacts The Department of Energy (DOE) study clearly outlines that increasing US LNG exports are linked to higher gas and electricity prices for households and the industry in the USA. (US) LNG is also costly for EU consumers and likely has a negative impact on Europe’s economy. Even extremely costly, according to the think tank Bruegel[iii]: “LNG is more expensive than pipeline gas because of the liquefaction and regasification costs that arise when gas is transformed into a state that can be transported by ship. … EU consumers must pay the LNG premium, and as a result, wholesale gas prices in the EU are almost five times as high as in the US.” We remind you that increasing US LNG exports is and will remain costly for U.S. and EU consumers and industry besides its devastating other impacts – highlighting the need for a permanent stop of expanding LNG infrastructure on both sides of the Atlantic and a well-managed phase down and ultimate phase out in future LNG trade. We Europeans do not want to be complicit in a system that further harms people in LNG sacrifice zones and the related fracking areas. - Energy Security The DOE study rightfully points to the fact that the EU has been the primary destination for US LNG since 2016 but that, at the same time, European policies will reduce the consumption of fossil gas. We already see a significant decline in gas consumption within the EU and the UK – with a specific impact on future LNG imports. According to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis[iv]: “European demand for the fuel will drop 11.2% this year to 148 bcm, meaning the continent has likely already passed peak LNG consumption. By 2030, LNG demand is expected to fall to 93 bcm.” We want to highlight that fossil gas and LNG consumption in the EU will further decrease, making more US LNG exports into the European markets obsolete. Wasting further billions on LNG expansion and volatile gas prices channels scarce funds away from urgently needed, proven and ready-to-use solutions which can lift both blocs out of dangerous fossil gas dependency. Europe has shown in recent years how important reduction in gas demand is possible and must and will continue this path, making super-sized gas extraction and export capacities a risky investment. Future transatlantic energy security lies in energy efficiency and sufficiency as well as renewables – not in an increased US-EU-LNG trade or expansion of existing infrastructure. - Greenhouse Gas Emissions The study acknowledges an increase in global greenhouse gas emissions because of (increasing) US LNG exports. However, the modeling heavily relies on several Carbon Capture Storage (CCS) scenarios – even though CCS has been mostly successfully used for an increase of oil and gas production (enhanced oil recovery or EOR) and has for decades failed to successfully capture and safely store CO2.[v] More realistic assumptions about actual CO2 capture and storage rates are needed to show the real impact of CO2 emissions caused by LNG exports. According to a peer-reviewed study by Prof. Robert Howarth, Cornell University, the greenhouse gas footprint of US LNG is 33% worse than coal, when upstream production, processing and shipping are considered.[vi] This is because of the high methane intensity of US fossil gas.[vii] Further studies, e.g. a study published 2024 in ‘Nature’ show how methane emissions from oil and gas in the US have been underestimated previously.[viii] The Climate Action Tracker[ix] highlighted already in 2022, that the “LNG capacity now under construction, coupled with expansion plans, could increase emissions … above emission levels consistent with the IEA’s Net Zero by 2050 scenario.”[x] We warn that LNG – which in the case of U.S. LNG is almost entirely fracked gas – is at least as climate hostile as coal. Expanding US LNG export infrastructure and increasing US LNG production and trade will torpedo all necessary efforts to reduce global warming even to under 2 degrees Celsius determined by the Paris Agreement. Methane is over 100x more heat trapping than CO2 during its lifetime in the atmosphere and thus a critical molecule to target to increase our chances to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of global warming. From 2027 onwards, the European Methane Regulation[xi] will also apply to imports – making it much harder for methane intensive LNG to enter the EU market, which must be yet another reminder for proponents of U.S. LNG export expansion to reconsider.   - Environmental and Community Effects The study tries to indicate that possible positive impacts might balance out the well documented disproportionate negative impacts of U.S. fossil gas. It acknowledges that “communities of color, including those with Black, Indigenous, and Hispanic populations, as well as rural and low-income communities, have historically been disproportionately exposed to the environmental risks, harms, and measurable impacts that arise from natural gas and overall fossil fuel development and production activities” but again, says that “these same activities also provide economic support for many communities” as if this kind of income would justify the severe health, environmental or climate impacts linked to fossil gas extraction and LNG production. The bulk of US LNG exports to Europe comes from the Gulf Coast (Texas and Louisiana). The US EIA points to the direct link between shale gas production growth in the Haynesville and Permian basins and increasing LNG exports from the Gulf Coast.[xii] Shale gas is being extracted via hydraulic fracturing or fracking.[xiii] According to the Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking and Associated Gas and Oil Infrastructure: “no evidence [has been found] that fracking can be practised in a manner that does not threaten human health directly or without imperilling climate stability upon which human health depends.”[xiv] It is disappointing that this fully referenced compilation of evidence is not being referenced in your study! Adding to communities heavily impacted by fracking are those impacted by LNG export facilities, which pose a serious health risk adding to other polluting industries in export locations, as well as severe security risks [xiii]. We once again underline that US fossil gas extraction via fracking and LNG production are linked to structural human rights violations and a significant contribution to global warming. The new European Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive “will ensure that companies in scope identify and address adverse human rights and environmental impacts of their actions inside and outside Europe.”[xv] We will monitor the strict implementation of this law which we expect to have further impact on the futility of U.S. LNG export expansion. In a report published by the German ministry for labor, LNG has been identified and listed as a commodity with potential human rights violations.[xvi] We will continue drawing attention to the fact that US LNG exports into the EU fuel environmental racism and climate chaos and are incompatible with existing EU regulations and climate targets and call on the DOE to uphold fundamental principles such as the protection of human rights in their future actions. We repeat our call on the DOE to deny all pending and future authorizations to the inherently harmful, polluting, dangerous and economically unsound expansion of U.S. LNG exports. We are keen to discuss this further in a meeting in the future. Best regards Andy Gheorghiu (on behalf of the 60 European and 18 non-European organizations listed here: https://www.foodandwatereurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/EU-CSO-DOE-LNG-letter-Jan2025.pdf)
  1. EU-CSO-DOE-LNG-letter-Jan2025.pdf
1167. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 9:36:17 AM Mace, Harrison General Comment To whom it may concern: More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. This is going to alert the public to the fact that they are paying for the profits of executives - this is a lose lose, especially when you consider the damage to the environment. LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. We need to stop this trend so that we can beat China in the race to truly renewable and untethered energy freedom.
1168. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 10:15:49 AM Kovar, Jo Ann General Comment As someone who grew up on the gulf coast, oil and gas exploration was everywhere, and the stink and pollution from it was unavoidable. I urge you not to add more pollution to our environment! LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases.
1169. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 10:26:23 AM Gardiner, Sandra General Comment Exporting LNG will hurt the environment which will hurt the earth and will eventually hurt the economy. Only a very few selfish people will think they have gained something for a short amount of time.
1170. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 10:28:32 AM Hunsicker, Nicholas General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1171. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 10:47:03 AM Lee, Peter General Comment Please stop the transport and export of LNG. The risks to health and safety are too much. Many of the train cars used to carry it are not structurally safe in the event of rupture, explosion, and fire. Trains carrying LNG sit in Albany NY between six lanes of heavy traffic. It is a disaster waiting to happen. Please put people’s safety and health above profits.
1172. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 11:02:14 AM Landless, Gavin General Comment LNG exports are the WORST strategy for US and global energy. Such exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, pollute frontline communities and are completely antithetical to the urgent need to electricify to reduce climate impacts. I urge a hard NO to all new LNG exports, period.
1173. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 11:32:36 AM Elkins, Catherine General Comment As the DOE analysis shows, increasing LNG exports will increase costs to Americans, produce more greenhouse gasses and endanger communities that already face the worst impacts from pollution and climate change. For these reason I strongly disagree with increasing LNG exports.
1174. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 12:23:18 PM TERESKA, JOHN General Comment Hello my name is John Tereska and I am 76 years old and a veteran. I live in Northeast Pennsylvania where I have lived for 55 years. Our National gas supplies under ground are an asset that gives opportunity for the clean energy. We need this option for now and future energy independence and also a brake for folks in home heating, cooking and hygiene. Also for public transportation as well as personal vehicles to produce fewer emissions to better preserve our environment. Natural gas is the most cleanest energy source and is an asset to our national security, so we should both care about this ban and it's negativity impact on our nations security. I would like to thank our current administration for ending pause on LNG export permits.
1175. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 12:27:59 PM Sisk, Sidney General Comment We have advanced so many other ways of clean energy, it is lunacy to continue extracting and utilizing old polluting methods of energy. We as citizens have the right to stay healthy and not live in an unhealthy environment. It is our country and citizens have the right to be heard. Change needs to start now if we have any chance to change our old polluting ways and not leave it up to the very wealthy to force us to live this way. It is time for change!! Sidney Sisk
1176. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 12:31:52 PM Wadsworth, Andrew General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
1177. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 12:53:45 PM Hickman, cathy General Comment Hello my name is Cathy Hickman. I am retired and take care of my 3 Year old grandson . I was a Bartender/waitress for most of my life. I think we should support this for our economy and employment. I think we should un-pause our LNG to support American economy and people. I would love to leave our grandchildren our country in better shape than it is now. Thank You Cathy Hickman
1178. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 12:57:34 PM Andrews, Penelope General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1179. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 1:13:17 PM alexander.obersht@gmail.com, alexander.obersht@gmail.com General Comment Any plans to increase LNG exports are misguided and ruinous not only for the United States but for our entire planet. It is regrettable that a group of regressive and anti-science political charlatans currently holds America hostage. There is nothing behind them except irresponsible populism of the worst possible kind and outright lies. The triumph of ignorant extremists will be short-lived, but the damage they're capable of causing in the meantime may be quite devastating. You must do everything that is within your powers to stop or at least hinder them. Remember that the time marches faster than it might appear in such backwards moments. When the Trump administration is thrown into the dustbin of history, your children will ask you which side you were on. There is no refuge from the climate destruction, because physics is infinitely more powerful than money. No-one — no matter how wealthy — will be able to buy their way out of this worldwide catastrophe. Neither Greenland nor Mars will offer any kind of shelter. The only safe way out of this crisis is to stop burning fossil fuels now.
1180. 1/29/2025 1:28:37 PM George, Richard General Comment
1181. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 2:00:28 PM Vogel, Steven General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep (e.g., permanently destroying ground water aquifers with toxic "proprietary" pollution). LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to American economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1182. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 2:27:45 PM Snyder, Jewel and Dave General Comment David R. Snyder Jewel M. Snyder I was raised in PA and attended school in Rochester, PA, so I have lived here since 1950. Dave has been a permanent resident since 1985. Dave and I are retired, but when we worked, we were employed in the construction field. From highway and Railroad construction we moved into management. Being retired is a scary thing at times, not knowing if we will be able to afford the cost of utilities, gas and necessities of life, or if it will be readily available. We are concerned as well for our children's future, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren's future. We have friends and have had family that work in the the energy industry. We presently are profiting by receiving royalties from the pipeline going through our area on the property that we own. We appreciate the current administration for lifting the ban as we rely on our royalties for many necessities mostly our (Three) property taxes. We always have the fear of losing our home due to not being able to afford the taxes and the royalties make that possible. We believe that it is very important to continue exporting liquid gas from PA. It is good for the economy and if we should stop exporting, it will eliminate the jobs of thousands of people and it will deteriorate the local economy. We stand for the continuation of exporting liquid gas from PA. We are relieved that the ban has been lifted and ask that the ban is not reinstated. Thank you.
1183. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 3:38:55 PM Fodera, Carol General Comment LNG exports are harmful to our health. The harmful effects of LNG do NOT support a stronger and safer America. LNG does NOT make America healthy again as the Trump administration claims it wants to do.
1184. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 3:59:55 PM Peterson, John General Comment As a person that served in government at both the state and federal level one of my goals was to increase our energy supply to enhance job growth pa lost the many industries all at once .Too Many of my friends and neighbors lost their jobs. I have lived in pa all 86 years of my life.I watched our local jobs come and go as energy production rose and fell.It is our number one opportunity to give people hope for an economic future thank you for lifting the detrimental ban on LNG. natural gas is our strongest hope for an economic future.. LNG could be used to fuel our many local industries. LNG is one of our cleanest fuels and gives the U S the opportunity to supply a cleaner alternative to coal in countries where rapid growth and increased energy demand is expected. I urge DOE to continue protecting our country energy infrastructure and workforce by not reinstating this ban.
1185. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 5:02:02 PM Stopperich Sulc, Sonia General Comment My name is Sonia Stopperich Sulc and I am a Registered Nurse at our local hospital in my town and a former Township Supervisor. I am married and a mother of 4 grown children. I have lived in Pennsylvania for over 50 years. Over the years, I have realized the importance of supporting small businesses. Small businesses are the economic driver for growth and development for our communities and it is essential that we provide them with energy security. I thank the Department of Energy for the work that you do to provide energy security for small businesses. Because we agree on supporting small businesses, I am sure we agree on the exporting of liquified natural gas. If the LNG export permit ban would have taken effect, our allies would have been deprived of energy security from a reliable and trusted source and would have experienced national security implications. The current system of LNG exports provides our allies with valuable energy security while also ensuring that the domestic needs of small businesses are met. This would have been jeopardized if the LNG export permit pause would have taken effect. As a parent of a small business owner, I want to thank you for lifting the LNG export permit pause and encourage the continuation of LNG exports in the future.
1186. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 6:03:55 PM Howard, Bill General Comment My I do not need any financial investments to complete this project.name is Bill Howard I have lived in New Mexico for roughly 20 years I Am currently an educator in Carrizozo, New Mexico. I support Natural fro two main reasons One being the economic impact of oil and gas promoting good paying jobs from transportation ,working in the field , small business with lower energy cost, people working means economic stability. Environmental energy is cleaner compared to coal and wind turbines increase toxic waste through battery disposal and fiberglass waste from blades with a lot of other issues. We need to lift this pause to bring back jobs and lower costs for Americans. Thank you for your time and please lift this pause. Thank you Bill Howard
1187. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 6:57:39 PM Roller, Lynnette General Comment My name is Lynnette Roller, and I was born in Roswell, New Mexico. I have lived around the world with first my father in the Air Force and then my husband in the Army, but we have come home to be with family and enjoy the Land of Enchantment. I teach Mathematics at Eastern New Mexico University where I get to work with students and faculty both from New Mexico and outside the state. I have a love for this state born of working with the people and walking the land. We all recognize the importance of clean, affordable energy. The contrast of countries without our wealth of resources is startling. Europe especially is finding it difficult to provide the energy needed by their citizens and companies. Their economies are faltering. They cannot produce the energy needed so they must turn to other countries for energy. If we cannot help them meet their needs, they will be forced to turn to countries that are not friendly. This leads to global destabilization. Green energy has not lived up to our expectations. It does not produce the amount of energy needed. It is also detrimental to the environment. Solar panels are made from heavy metals, and solar farms generally have no good plans for taking care of the toxic panels when they are retired. Windmills have a limited framework within which they can operate, are difficult to dispose of and leak hydraulic fuel into the ground water. We and the world need clean affordable energy to meet the needs of our populations. Liquid Natural Gas provides this source of energy. New Mexico is one of the most economically depressed states in the nation. We are at the bottom of the rankings in education and health care. We need the jobs and revenue brought in by energy production in our state. Liquid natural gas production in our state can go a long way to helping our state provide a better living for our people and for the people around the world. Please help us by lifting the pause on liquid natural gas so that we can provide a better future for everyone.
1188. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 8:04:51 PM Stephens, Matthew General Comment The study published by the DOE itself has made it quite clear that the expansion of LNG exports would have devastating impacts on the Global Climate. This in and of itself is cause for immense concern and should be enough premise to stop any additional exports. However, I am more concerned with the impacts of potential new LNG export facilities on local communities and ecosystems in Louisiana and the gulf coast more extensively. Communities across Louisiana are already exposed to obscenely high levels of industrial pollution and suffer from higher rates of cancer, asthma, heart disease, and other conditions that significantly degrade life expectancy and quality of life. The construction of additional LNG export facilities would accelerate this further, and would subject people to inordinate levels of harm. Similarly, the heavy dredging needed to build LNG export facilities will degrade vital ecosystems which serve as a natural barrier of protection to hurricanes and other storms. As these ecosystems continue to decline, in large part due to alteration and construction of fossil fuel export and refinement facilities, these same communities that already face levels of pollution that are killing them will see their homes and communities become more vulnerable to storms as the ecosystem declines. My partner was forced to evacuate his home and spent months of his childhood away from his community because of the terrible impacts of Hurricane Katrina, and more recently lost his family home and business in the wrath of Hurricane Ida. I have seen and know too well the pain and destruction that the degradation of wetland ecosystems and diminished natural protection of communities leads to. Building new LNG export facilities comes at the cost of the health, safety, and livelihood of communities that are already being brutalized by the policies of the federal government and the actions of the fuel industry. There is no economic benefit from these export facilities that can outweigh the irreparable harm caused to real people and real lives. The DOE is faced with a clear choice: it can halt further infrastructure development and in turn protect and invest in communities that need it in the upmost way, or it can sell these people and these communities out to the highest bidder and watch entire communities be poisoned and washed away forever.
1189. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 9:04:28 PM Wozniak, Agnes General Comment ​I am opposed to the exportation of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG). LNG pollutes and harms public health. LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster. LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. We do not need more LNG. Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
1190. expand/collapse 1/29/2025 10:23:44 PM Benesh, Stephanie General Comment The DOE's own report exposes the manifold dangers LNG exports pose. Energy costs will rise, while Louisiana and Texas communities in particular will be battered by the environmental impacts. The benefits of exporting to China are grossly outweighed by the environmental fallout, community devastation, and domestic energy cost spikes.
1191. expand/collapse 1/30/2025 12:26:21 AM Dickinson, Amanda General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1192. expand/collapse 1/30/2025 8:18:15 AM m Clark, Steve General Comment Please stop creating demand for fossil fuels. Be on the right side of history, please
1193. expand/collapse 1/30/2025 9:28:43 AM Roberts, Susie General Comment I encourage you to use your judgement to create a barrier from the destructiveness of Trump's administration. This is crunch time for Earth, and you are what stands between destructiveness and policies and procedures that protect and maintain the environment of this planet. That is all I have to say.
1194. expand/collapse 1/30/2025 10:34:54 AM kelleher, karen General Comment I am opposed to the exportation of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG). LNG pollutes and harms public health. LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster. LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. We do not need more LNG. Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
1195. expand/collapse 1/30/2025 10:48:11 AM Sutton, Barbara General Comment My name is Barbara Sutton. I was born in Pennsylvania, other than a few military stays in other states I have lived in Pennsylvania 90% of my life. As a full time Realtor, I see the critical needs daily of the United States to have energy independence for the purpose of National Security. When the price of energy goes up, everything else increases in price due to delivery costs, travel costs, heating costs, etc. I appreciate any/all efforts the Department of Energy makes to secure our National Security interests by providing America and her allies with energy security. Since we agree on supporting National Security, we should oppose the ban on liquified natural gas export permits. If the ban would have gone into effect then our American allies would have been denied valuable energy security. Additionally, Americans would have been reliant on foreign energy sources to meet their need which reduces our energy independence and national security. To protect jobs, to ensure energy independence and to make the United States a stronger nation. I urge the continuation of LNG exports and I want to thank you for eliminating the export LNG permit ban.
1196. expand/collapse 1/30/2025 11:07:00 AM koblitz, Keith General Comment My name is Keith Koblitz, and I live in Ohio. I am a retired veteran with almost 40 years of service and a small business owner. Energy costs effect all aspects of my life from the cost of groceries, heating my properties, and filling my tank. Personally, I travel over 100 miles nearly every day, and the cost of just that one aspect has been challenging. Additionally, Ohio is a state that has a large energy and manufacturing sector, and energy cost have a large impact on them, as it does all of us. As I stated, energy production affects all aspects of our lives from costs of things, to national security, and relations with our allies and adversaries. The production of liquid natural gas(LNG) for export is particularity important for our allies, given recent events with Russia and Iran as well as creating revenue and jobs for our Country. That increased production, however, does not have to have a negative impact on the environment. My understanding of the oil and gas industries in the US are that they hold themselves to very high standard, regardless of government regulations. LNG production and exports, in particular, will have profound effects on our own economy. Doing this will provide a secure energy source for our allies around the world, something especially important now with conflicts erupting all over the globe. Domestic production of energy supports our national economy and security. Jobs and revenue from this sector are critical to our economy, and a secure domestically produced energy is key to our national defense. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the commission for reversing the ban on LNG exports. Not only will this action greatly help our domestic economy and national defense, it sends a message to our allies that the US supports them, and to our adversaries we are in this for the long run. Thank You
1197. expand/collapse 1/30/2025 11:07:04 AM Varrasso, John General Comment I am a retired Ohioan on a fixed income. I am a retired auditor from the Department of Defense. The price of my heating bill keeps rising every year faster than my income does. I am worried that my fixed income will not keep up with my energy costs. I understand that if we could produce more natural gas, prices would come down. Exporting more Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) would help that. While I do support environmentally sound policy, I also support the idea of energy independence. We can not be a truly free country if we are always beholden to others for our energy needs. Energy independence is important to all Americans and I hope that you also realize the importance of that. By increasing the exporting of LNG, we are increasing the production of natural gas in general. This will in turn help drive down the cost of natural gas and all the many things that are affected by the cost of energy, from the price of groceries to the prices of clothing and other basic needs. This is a result that is important to all Americans. I would like to thank the Department of Energy for lifting the pause on the export of LNG. I believe this was the correct policy decision to make. Hopefully, we will all see the cost of energy and everything else come down in the near future.
1198. expand/collapse 1/30/2025 11:54:30 AM Thompson, Emily General Comment I am writing to urge the U.S. Department of Energy to reject all new permits for liquified methane gas export facilities based on the findings of the department's own report. The recently released DOE report on methane gas exports underscores that these projects are not in the public interest. Approving new facilities would raise prices for American consumers, exacerbate the ongoing climate crisis, and further harm frontline communities already disproportionately impacted by oil and gas operations. Taking decisive action to halt LNG expansion would mark a pivotal moment in addressing climate chaos and advancing common sense policy. This is a critical opportunity to safeguard the well-being of the American people and our environment over the interests of the bloated fossil fuel industry. We must protect the coastlines and communities we cherish. Please act now to reject all new liquified methane gas export permits and demonstrate commitment to a sustainable and equitable future.
  1. 2024 LNG Export Study FRN_signed_Study Statement ...
1199. expand/collapse 1/30/2025 12:42:11 PM Michel , Robert General Comment Hello my name is Bob. I own a small business that supplies the farrier industry. The cost of energy has exploded the past few years. My concern is the cost of fueling trucks and cost of heating our stores. The petroleum industry is important to my livelihood and my independent customers. Thank you for your time letting me express my thoughts. I appreciate concerns about the environment. I’ve lived 7 decades and believe our air and water is cleaner now than when I was younger. Now we are threatening the people’s livelihood. Therefore we need all forms of energy. This means gas, oil, coal, and nuclear in addition to renewables. Strengthening exports is key. Especially LNG to Europe. Please end this pause now
1200. expand/collapse 1/30/2025 12:44:24 PM Aguirre , Armando General Comment I'm Armando 67years old, I'm retired presently, my back ground is working retail,restaurant maintenance, boilermaker working in the power plants, Colorado and Wyoming. My concerns are energy cost, supply, regulations put upon this, I know family members friends that work in the different types of energy production and maintenance, being know on a fixed income I notice the cost before when I was working I could just work more , overtime etc. I appreciate the work you have done and the studies, however it concerns me about the future of our nation and national security, I'm thankful for the new administration for its commitment to the all Americans , Thank You . I born and raised in colorado, I've work my whole life in colorado, I've been a employee, business owner, I've indurd raising cost in both in employment and personal, please move forward on LNG for the future. Thank You !!
1201. expand/collapse 1/30/2025 1:02:31 PM Barcena, Norbert General Comment My name is Norbert Barcena. I have been a resident of New Mexico for 37 years. I care deeply about the beauty of New Mexico and have my whole family living here as of 3 months ago so it is very important to me. I have been an entrepreneur all of my life and have had the unique experience of having worked in the oil and gas business for some part of that, so my understanding of the issues we face in terms of clean energy is well understood. I write to you today in interest of expressing how important it is that we utilize a clean and viable source of energy of which I believe natural gas. We have a rich source here in New Mexico and must utilize this for the interest of the citizens' well being. Natural gas in New Mexico is abundant and must be brought to the forefront as our number one energy source to supply the world. Job creation will be enhanced and people must have a dependable and affordable energy source for the future. It is my strong belief that any limitation or halt of the production of natural gas will be detrimental to the strategic future of the United States and of the well being of its citizens. I thank you for considering my thoughts and opinions on this matter. Sincerely, Norbert Barcena Jr
1202. expand/collapse 1/30/2025 1:53:46 PM Dirnbach, Boris General Comment STOP LNG Exports! LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. Stop these disastrous LNG exports.
1203. expand/collapse 1/30/2025 2:19:52 PM Orr, Leslie General Comment Hi, my name is Leslie Orr. I have lived in Pennsylvania for 14 years now. I have a daughter here who is married with 6 children. I currently am a direct care worker. As a resident of a small town I am interested in keeping the cost of living down for us all in ***** County and America as a whole. I admire what the department of energy has done to keep the cost of living affordable by providing communities like mine with necessary energy security. Because we agree on keeping the cost of living low, we should also agree on opposing the LNG export permit ban. Current LNG exports meet the energy security needs of our allies and Americans at home. LNG exports provide an international market for American energy while also bolstering domestic production at home; keeping the cost of living low for all Americans. If this were to change then the cost of living would sky rocket in both America and abroad. Therefore, I thank the DOE for lifting the LNG export permit pause and I urge continuing LNG exports going forward.
1204. 1/30/2025 2:48:51 PM Parker, Lauren General Comment
  1. Impacts-of-LNG-exports-Center-factsheet-2024.pdf
1205. expand/collapse 1/30/2025 2:56:42 PM Lira, Tracy General Comment I strongly oppose LNG exports. At a time when we should be doing everything in our power to minimize the impact of climate change, it is baffling that we would still be pursuing fossil fuel projects. As a mother of two and an extremely concerned citizen, I strongly urge you to stop all LNG exports.
1206. 1/30/2025 3:03:31 PM Lough, John General Comment
  1. EC letter to dept of energy 1-25.pdf
1207. expand/collapse 1/30/2025 4:07:58 PM Third Act MN Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports Please continue to hold off on any LNG exports or construction of facilities for making LNG available. Expanding LNG is risky and highly polluting and unfair. LNG is one of the worst green house gases, much more polluting that CO2, and often located near lower income neighborhoods. Our planet is in deep distress and I have children and grandchildren who need not face the destruction and unhealthy air of that planet, if we can take action now. Please deny any permits for LNG.
1208. expand/collapse 1/30/2025 4:57:33 PM Laird, Stephen General Comment To: Department of Energy From: Stephen J Laird Re: The effects of federal policies on LNG exports. I am a citizen of the United States of America, Born in Ohio 1968. Working in construction since the age of 14 for my father’s company, I have seen amazing changes in my industry since I started over four decades ago. I am currently managing the Logistics and Purchasing for a small union steel fabrication shop. I set up the trucking, and purchase materials and energy for our shop. Heating our 150,000 sqft facility in the winter can determine our profits. The importance of reliable, inexpensive, and clean energy cannot be understated. In our business we use both gas and diesel. LGN is an important source of energy especially during Ohio winters. Any assistance our government can give to the citizens is a moral imperative. The actions taken that increase the cost of energy production affect the marginalized more than the wealthy. The bottom ninety percent are most affected by your polices. It can be the difference between eating and paying your energy bills.I ask that consideration be given to this issue before you implement policies that will be punitive to working Americans. I thank the commission for continuing LNG exports, I urge the commission expand production and exploration to increase the viability of our countries ability to remain competitive in a global market. Respectfully Submitted Stephen J Laird
1209. expand/collapse 1/30/2025 4:59:24 PM lytle, robert General Comment Hello, I’m Robert Lytle. I am an auto body technician and have been working in the industry for over 47 years. I’ve lived and worked in Ohio my entire life, and I have a high school education. I am a blue-collar worker. I’ve seen how higher prices for natural gas can negatively impact us all. LNG exports can help keep household costs down. Soon, I will be on a fixed income, and I realize how important managing costs is. At my job, higher gas costs can increase, which can affect the consumer greatly by making it harder to repair their cars. When the cost of maintaining one's vehicle becomes a burden, it can put people in danger. Please stop harming people with higher costs. I thank the commission for supporting LNG exports and urge them to continue supporting oil and blue collar jobs.
1210. expand/collapse 1/30/2025 5:03:16 PM Hannah, Karen General Comment The expansion of LNG is basically expanding our dependence on oil and gas and moving us away from all climate goals. The escape of methane all along the extraction, production and delivery routes can not be tolerated. Not only are the communities near facilities bombarded with toxic chemicals but fracking has many negative impacts. We no longer need this fuel. The world is moving past; more growth is not the direction the people want. Additionally health organizations representing more than 67,000 health professionals recognize that LNG is a health hazard and urge the Department of Energy to make this pause permanent—to protect our health and the planet’s.” LNG expansion sacrifices our collective future for short-term profits for a select few.
1211. expand/collapse 1/30/2025 6:12:51 PM Cleveland, Bradley General Comment Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DOE’s “2024 LNG Export Study: Energy, Economic, and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports.” I opposed the expansion of LNG exports because such an expansion is not in the public interest. Specifically, the report found that communities of color have historically been disproportionately exposed to the environmental risks and impacts of natural gas production, which emits pollutants that are harmful to human health. Increased U.S. production of natural gas will only increase the detrimental environmental impacts to water, air and land, and consequently human health. These burdens will fall heaviest on communities of color. Thank you.
1212. expand/collapse 1/30/2025 7:37:57 PM Swenson, Ruth General Comment So which do you think is going to collapse first, the environment or our civilization? By supporting more fossil fuel production, transportation and burning the scale will tip towards the collapse of the environment. So don't do it.
1213. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 12:58:02 AM Portaro, Alyssa General Comment Habitat Recovery Project 1636 Arledge Road Vinton, LA 70668 Alyssa@HabitatRecovery.org January 30, 2024 Department of Energy – LNG Impact Comment Study Submission U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy & Carbon Management 1000 Independence Avenue SW Washington, D.C. 20585 Subject: Submission in Support of Dr. Jerry Havens’ Analysis on LNG Export Terminal Hazards Dear DOE, On behalf of Habitat Recovery Project, I am submitting this letter in strong support of Dr. Jerry Havens’ retrospective analysis on the hazards associated with LNG export terminals. Our organization, which focuses on environmental justice, ecological restoration, and frontline community advocacy, has grave concerns about the inadequacies in current LNG regulatory frameworks, particularly regarding explosion modeling, vapor cloud dispersion, and emergency preparedness in the event of catastrophic failures. Dr. Havens’ findings highlight fundamental flaws in the FLACS dispersion modeling used for LNG terminal siting, particularly its inability to accurately account for vapor cloud behavior in zero-wind conditions. As communities in Southwest Louisiana bear the disproportionate burden of expanding LNG infrastructure, it is critical that safety regulations are updated to reflect real-world risks rather than relying on proprietary models that lack transparency and independent verification. The persistent use of outdated and incomplete hazard assessments places frontline communities, ecosystems, and industries—such as fisheries—at severe and preventable risk. Habitat Recovery Project urges the Department of Energy to give full consideration to Dr. Havens’ recommendations, including the need for revised dispersion modeling that accounts for zero-wind conditions and independent verification of FLACS calculations. Moreover, we call for an immediate review of LNG carrier pressure relief valve (PRV) settings in light of the Sandia National Laboratories’ findings on fire-induced heat flux. The failure to incorporate updated science into LNG safety regulations threatens not only human lives but also the environmental integrity of the Gulf Coast. As an organization deeply invested in the protection of our land, water, and people, we strongly support Dr. Havens’ expert analysis and request that his concerns be integrated into the DOE’s LNG impact study. The risks outlined in his retrospective review underscore the urgency of regulatory reform before further LNG expansion proceeds. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you require further insights from impacted communities. Sincerely, Alyssa Portaro Executive Director Habitat Recovery Project
  1. Retrospective Comments on LNG Export Program.pdf
1214. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 1:04:47 AM Portaro, Alyssa General Comment To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to bring attention to the severe environmental and economic impacts of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) export facilities, particularly those operated by Venture Global at the mouth of the Calcasieu Ship Channel and Cameron LNG further north along the Calcasieu River. These facilities significantly disrupt critical migration pathways for birds and aquatic species, threatening biodiversity, food chain stability, and the livelihoods of small-scale fishing communities in the region. // Disruption to Migratory Bird Pathways // The Louisiana Gulf Coast plays an essential role in "The Great Flyway," a migratory route for millions of birds. The development and operation of LNG facilities are causing extensive habitat destruction and introducing noise, vibration, and light pollution that disorient and deter migratory birds. This impact is particularly devastating for species such as the Eastern Black Rail, a threatened bird highly sensitive to environmental disturbances. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, LNG developments could harm up to 100 Eastern Black Rails, representing 6-7% of the threatened population and over half of Louisiana’s total population. These disruptions pose a severe threat to the survival of already imperiled bird species. // Effects on Aquatic Species and Food Chain Dynamics // The LNG facilities also jeopardize aquatic species vital to the region’s ecosystems and economy, such as brown and white shrimp and oysters. Noise and vibration from industrial operations create significant barriers to these species’ natural behaviors. For instance: Shrimp, when exposed to loud noises or vibrations, may burrow for up to two weeks in response to perceived threats. This behavior disrupts their migration to traditional spawning grounds in wetlands further upstream. When shrimp are forced to spawn closer to the Gulf, their larvae are at greater risk of predation, reducing their population and destabilizing the food chain. The erosion caused by the swells of LNG tankers and the dredging of channels further degrades critical estuarine habitats essential for shrimp and oyster development. Oysters, already struggling due to increased salinity from saltwater intrusion, find it increasingly difficult to grow under these conditions. The cumulative effect of these disruptions on aquatic species extends to the broader ecosystem. The loss of shrimp and oysters as primary prey impacts predators and creates cascading effects throughout the food web, threatening biodiversity. //Economic and Cultural Consequences for Fishing Communities // Cameron Parish, historically the largest seafood-producing region in the United States, has experienced a dramatic decline in commercial fishing due to LNG facility impacts. Two decades ago, Cameron Parish supported approximately 250 commercial fishing vessels; today, only about 16 remain active. Fishermen report alarming declines in catch levels, with some showing reductions of up to 80% over the past five years, coinciding with the establishment of LNG export facilities. The forced adaptation to new fishing grounds has left many fishermen economically vulnerable, as they lack the resources to map unfamiliar waters or contend with increased operating costs. The introduction of noise, vibration, and light pollution not only disrupts migration and spawning but also creates a hostile environment for wildlife and human communities alike. These factors undermine the cultural heritage and economic stability of fishing villages that have depended on these waters for generations. //Conclusion and Call to Action // LNG export facilities in Southwest Louisiana are causing irreversible harm to the region’s biodiversity and fishing economy. These projects disrupt migratory pathways for birds and aquatic species, degrade critical habitats, and destabilize ecosystems vital to both wildlife and local communities. To address these impacts, I urge the Department of Energy and other regulatory bodies to: (1) Conduct comprehensive, independent environmental impact studies that assess the long-term consequences of LNG facilities on migratory species and ecosystems. (2) Implement stricter noise, vibration, and light pollution controls to mitigate disruptions to wildlife. (3) Protect and restore wetland habitats critical to the survival of migratory birds, shrimp, and oysters. (4) Involve local fishing communities in decision-making processes, leveraging their generational knowledge of the ecosystem to inform sustainable practices. (5) It is crucial that regulatory agencies prioritize the ecological and economic health of Southwest Louisiana over the interests of fossil fuel corporations. Without immediate action, the region risks losing its rich biodiversity, cultural heritage, and economic foundation. Thank you for considering these urgent concerns. Sincerely, Alyssa Portaro Managing Director, Fishermen Involved in Sustaining our Heritage Executive Director, Habitat Recovery Project
1215. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 1:06:39 AM Portaro, Alyssa General Comment To Whom It May Concern, Please accept this cover letter as part of my submission of the enclosed document addressing critical community impacts associated with LNG industrial development. As detailed in the DOE’s recently published 58-page LNG Study, there is a glaring oversight regarding the profound ecological, economic, and social consequences faced by Gulf Coast communities. This omission underscores the urgency for a more comprehensive analysis that prioritizes long-term environmental sustainability and public interest. Southwest Louisiana, the epicenter of LNG development, currently hosts three operational LNG export facilities, with eight additional projects proposed. Despite this unprecedented industrial expansion, the DOE’s report relegates the fishing industry to a single paragraph—an oversight compounded by its mention of imported shrimp, which is irrelevant to domestic LNG’s impact. This trivialization starkly contrasts with the lived experiences of local fishermen who possess intrinsic, generational knowledge of the region’s ecosystems. Their firsthand accounts paint a harrowing picture of declining catches, ecological degradation, and the erosion of livelihoods due to LNG activities. Fishermen’s Observations and Alarming Ecological Signals: Fishermen have reported alarming declines in catch levels, with some trip tickets indicating drops of over 80% in the past five years. This period coincides with the construction and operation of LNG facilities. The environmental signals flagged by these frontline communities—including increased water temperatures, habitat destruction from dredging, and the disruptive noise and vibrations of industrial operations—suggest severe and accelerating harm to the ecosystem. Without an extensive, independent environmental analysis over the long term, the full scope of LNG’s impact on marine and coastal environments remains unknown. Systemic Failures in Environmental Oversight: The recent DC District Court decision overturning FERC’s approval of the CP2 LNG Export facility highlights the systemic inadequacies in the permitting process. The court emphasized the “unique data and circumstances” presented by fishermen’s trip tickets and local testimony, underscoring the urgent need for a more rigorous and transparent environmental review. The current practice of relying on industry self-reporting—where companies like Venture Global produce the data submitted to FERC—is akin to “a student creating and grading their own test.” This broken process must be reformed before further LNG development proceeds. Cameron Parish: The Frontline of LNG Impact: Cameron Parish, Louisiana, serves as ground zero for the largest fossil fuel buildout of our lifetime. The voices of local fishermen, shared in the attached document, highlight the acute and far-reaching consequences of this development. From collapsing ecosystems to irreversible cultural and economic losses, their testimony demands attention and action. These fishermen are not just stakeholders; they are stewards of the region’s natural heritage and an invaluable resource in understanding the true cost of LNG expansion. Call to Action: I urge the Department of Energy to reevaluate its analysis and include an exhaustive study of LNG’s cumulative environmental, economic, and social impacts. Specifically, the DOE must: Integrate the experiential knowledge and data provided by local fishermen into environmental assessments. Conduct independent, long-term studies on the ecological impacts of LNG facilities, including water temperature changes, noise pollution, migration path impact, and habitat destruction. Reform the permitting process to ensure accountability and transparency, reducing reliance on industry self-reporting. Prioritize the voices of frontline communities like those in Cameron Parish in determining the public interest. This is a pivotal moment to course-correct and ensure that policy decisions align with the principles of environmental justice, sustainability, and community protection. The enclosed document provides detailed accounts and evidence supporting these urgent priorities. Thank you for considering this submission. I am hopeful that the DOE will take these critical perspectives into account as it moves forward in evaluating the future of LNG development in the United States. Sincerely, Alyssa Portaro Managing Director, Fishermen Involved in Sustaining our Heritage Executive Director, Habitat Recovery Project
  1. Fishermen Quotes on LNG & CP2-5.pdf
1216. 1/31/2025 1:09:26 AM Portaro, Alyssa General Comment
  1. Copy of DOE Study Comments from HRP & FISH.pdf
1217. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 1:22:25 AM Bordelon, Tika General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1218. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 6:44:43 AM Krawisz, Bruce General Comment Children and teens face an uncertain and unsafe future caused partly by global heating and extreme weather. Burning fossil fuels (coal, gasoline, diesel, and “natural” or methane gas) is the primary driver of climate change. Fossil fuel combustion releases enormous amounts of greenhouse gases into Earth’s atmosphere. Increases in the concentrations of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) cause global heating by reducing heat passage to outer space and accumulating heat energy on Earth. Heat accumulation causes not only heatwaves but also more wildfires, droughts, and floods. Natural gas is composed principally of methane. Methane gas combustion is less polluting than burning coal, gasoline, or oil. However, methane gas combustion generates oxides of nitrogen that increase asthma attacks and aggravate chronic lung disease and methane gas is a powerful driver of climate change. About 4% of methane gas produced by fracking leaks into the air, and these releases may have contributed to recent increases in atmospheric methane concentration. Methane has a heat-trapping potential 30 times greater than that of carbon dioxide. Methane gas burning in stoves and boilers contributes to global warming by generating carbon dioxide. Hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) is the primary mining method used to obtain methane gas in the United States. Fracking is linked to contamination of ground and surface water, air pollution, and radiation release. When fracking chemicals are inserted underground at high pressures to mine methane gas, they also bring up radioactive particles from below ground that are released into the air. Transmission and storage of gas result in fires and explosions. Gas compressor stations emit toxic and cancer-causing chemicals such as benzene and formaldehyde. Gas stoves emit the same carcinogenic chemicals into our homes. For more information consult this article from New England Journal of Medicine: “The False Promise of Natural Gas”.
1219. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 9:11:29 AM Williams, Linda General Comment I oppose the expansion of LNG exports because such an expansion is not in the public interest. Specifically, the report found that communities of color have historically been disproportionately exposed to the environmental risks and impacts of natural gas production, which emits pollutants that are harmful to human health. Increased U.S. production of natural gas will only increase the detrimental environmental impacts to water, air and land, and consequently human health. Thank you.
1220. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 10:36:17 AM Accettola, Lorrie General Comment I am Lorrie Accettola, and I have been employed in the railroad industry for 42 years. I graduated from Kent State University in 1970 with a Bachelor of Science in Secondary Education. After retiring from the railroad, I worked as a substitute teacher in my local school district. I have lived in Ohio my entire life. At 78 years old, I was also a small business owner, running a donut shop. The export volume of domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the United States will continue to grow exponentially, fueling global energy needs. This versatile fuel, abundantly available in our country, will also supercharge the American economy. With large reserves in our nation, exporting this commodity is a logical decision. LNG is the solution to the 21st-century energy demands. Small business owners like myself depend on affordable energy to keep our businesses running. I thank the commission for supporting the continued export of LNG and urge them to continue supporting natural gas jobs.
1221. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 11:04:34 AM Bunnell, Gavin General Comment To whom it may concern at the DOE. My name is Gavin Bunnell, I have lived in Susquehanna County PA for all 21 years of my life. As a fourth-generation farmer and third generation contractor in the local area, I am extremely involved in the affairs of my community. I have watched since I was a child the massive positive impact that the natural gas industry has had on my community. Many other small farms including my own would have collapsed under intense economic pressure if not for the uplifting force of the LNG industry. Similarly, I have personally witnessed many of my own customers who would be unable to perform crucial home repairs or grow their own businesses without the economic boost provided by the industry. Small businesses in my area rely on one another. I thank the department for their work keeping one of the cleanest economically efficient energy sources available to my community. Because we agree on the importance of the LNG industry, we should also agree that any ban on exports would only negatively impact all who have any contact with the industry. It would negatively impact the industry by capping their ability to further grow and preventing any further economic growth for my community. I thank the current administration for pausing the ban on liquified natural gas exports permits.
1222. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 12:41:15 PM bentz, steven General Comment As a disabled Army vet with experience living in Germany for seven years I've seen how much our friends & allies count on American energy. having been to places like Bremerhaven, and other north sea ports. Everywhere you travel Europe you can American flagged ships at anchor. the idea that energy polices need to be a one size fits all is shortsighted at best. America needs a comprehensive, and multi layered approach, to energy. This should include oil,LNG, atomic,and renewables all at the same time.
1223. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 12:58:17 PM Rial, David General Comment I am submitting comments on the DOE’s “2024 LNG Export Study: Energy, Economic, and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports.” I oppose the expansion of LNG exports because such an expansion is not in the public interest. Specifically, the report found that communities of color have historically been disproportionately exposed to the environmental risks and impacts of natural gas production, which emits pollutants that are harmful to human health. Increased U.S. production of natural gas will only increase the detrimental environmental impacts to water, air and land, and consequently human health.
1224. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 1:18:28 PM heger, marjorie General Comment I live very close to the rail line and trains carrying hazardous chemicals frequently run by there on the way to and from the Delaware River. I don't want or need another b iohazard nearby,
1225. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 1:39:23 PM Griffin, Ryan General Comment Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ryan Griffin, and I am an Army veteran and a fireman for the city of Pittsburgh. I'm very concerned about the cancelation of gas and oil drilling and / or slow downs in the state and, for that matter in the country as a hole, my whole career path has been predicted on the use of natural gas and oil and if that were to stop or be slowed down at all the safety of my friends and community would be in jepordey and the expense of any other alternatives would be very expensive. So please when this comes up please vote no.
1226. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 1:53:57 PM Vought, Mary Ann and Donald General Comment Our name is MaryAnn and Donald Vought, we are supporters of the oil and gas industry because of how it provides for our family. We as senior citizens who are really concerned about the reliable energy that keeps our country running. We are also very concerned about the lack of surplus that we have in reserves. The lack of surplus hurts the efficiency of our military and our national security. My self as a veteran is extremely concerned about the reserves we have because it hurts our allies and the overall efficiency of our country as a global player. The ban on liquified natural gas exports would greatly diminish out nations ability to protect our allies and maintain our position on the global stage. This ban would also directly impact our family through our grandson. Our grandson is currently employed by the oil and gas industry and he provides for his family through this employment opportunity. If this ban were to pass he as well as I are both fearful that it would negatively impact himself personally, his family, as well as his community who became accustomed to this industry in the area. I want to thank the current administration for their work that they have done to pause the deliberation on this ban.
1227. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 2:40:39 PM Yellen, Lynn General Comment Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is made from fracked gas and is mostly methane, a toxic pollutant and planet-warming gas. Methane is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. Every step leading up to LNG exports — from the pipeline and rail transportation to the liquefaction processing and the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction — is hazardous. Operating ports for enormous tankers, shipping impacts, and the regasification that occurs when LNG reaches its destination all harm human health and safety due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG. And all of this happens before the gas is burned in a power plant. The continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today.” This raises the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- and will bring economic hardship and instability for consumers. The Department of Energy must act quickly to implement the findings in this report into the decision making process regarding LNG exports. My community is counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations. In Brooklyn, we have fought long and hard to block efforts to build an LNG terminal. No community should have to have a toxic facility located where it can poison the land and every living thing.
1228. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 3:53:13 PM Miner, Dan General Comment LNG is dangerous, expensive, and unnecessary. This administration should reconsider wind, solar and geothermal, which are all dropping in price to be less costly energy sources than fossil fuels. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is made from fracked gas and is mostly methane, a toxic pollutant and planet-warming gas. Methane is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. Every step leading up to LNG exports — from the pipeline and rail transportation to the liquefaction processing and the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction — is hazardous. Operating ports for enormous tankers, shipping impacts, and the regasification that occurs when LNG reaches its destination all harm human health and safety due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG. And all of this happens before the gas is burned in a power plant. The continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today.” This raises the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- and will bring economic hardship and instability for consumers. Project 2025 highlights the need to align LNG export strategies with national security goals while ensuring that domestic energy remains affordable. It critiques current regulatory barriers for delaying export approvals and recommends streamlining licensing processes to boost both production and exports. As the US has emerged as the leading exporter of LNG, the price of natural gas in the US has gone up, creating a higher cost-of-living for American families. In his campaign, Trump insisted on the need for affordable energy “for the people who matter most: hardworking Americans.” Did he forget about us? My community is counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations. In Brooklyn, we have fought long and hard to block efforts to build an LNG terminal. No community should have to have a toxic facility located where it can poison the land and every living thing. That we will also end up paying more for energy is a great insult.
1229. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 3:58:26 PM Graham, Chelsea General Comment Please listen to the study! The impacts of LNG Exports are devastating for everyone and we cannot plan any further LNG exports or facilities. We must take bold action to change course on climate change.
1230. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 4:12:41 PM Heifetz, Jeanne General Comment Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is made from fracked gas and is mostly methane, a toxic pollutant and planet-warming gas. Methane is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. Every step leading up to LNG exports — from the pipeline and rail transportation to the liquefaction processing and the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction — is hazardous. Operating ports for enormous tankers, shipping impacts, and the regasification that occurs when LNG reaches its destination all harm human health and safety due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG. And all of this happens before the gas is burned in a power plant. The continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today.” This raises the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- and will bring economic hardship and instability for consumers. Project 2025 highlights the need to align LNG export strategies with national security goals while ensuring that domestic energy remains affordable. It critiques current regulatory barriers for delaying export approvals and recommends streamlining licensing processes to boost both production and exports. As the US has emerged as the leading exporter of LNG, the price of natural gas in the US has gone up, creating a HIGHER cost-of-living for American families. My community is counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations. In Brooklyn, we have fought long and hard to block efforts to build an LNG terminal. No community should have to have a toxic facility located where it can poison the land and every living thing. That we will also end up paying more for energy is a great insult.
1231. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 4:13:05 PM Morales, Jason General Comment Hello, My name is Jason Morales, and I am a lifelong resident of New Mexico. Over the course of my 55 years, I’ve witnessed the profound role that energy resources play in shaping not only the economy of our state but the world at large. I currently serve as an engineer for the Department of Defense, holding a masters degree in environmental engineering. Through both my education and experience, I have come to appreciate the critical importance of oil, gas, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) in securing a sustainable future for all nations. As an engineer deeply involved in energy systems, I understand that the extraction and utilization of natural resources like oil and gas are not just vital for our daily lives but also essential for driving economic development and maintaining energy security. In New Mexico, oil and gas are the backbone of our state’s revenue, supporting not only local businesses but also contributing significantly to the national economy. These resources provide fuel, power industries, and ensure the mobility of transportation systems, among countless other essential services. From a global perspective, oil, gas, and LNG are integral to the way modern society functions. They fuel industries, power homes, and are indispensable for maintaining a high quality of life across all nations. Every country, regardless of its political or economic system, relies on these energy sources to ensure the basic needs of their citizens are met, including heating, transportation, and electricity generation. The ability to access affordable and reliable energy is a fundamental right that supports public health, prosperity, and security. Given my professional background and personal experiences, I am deeply concerned by the current stance taken by the U.S. Secretary of Energy regarding the potential halting of trade with non-free trade countries, particularly when it comes to vital energy resources. While I recognize the importance of diplomatic relationships and international policy, I believe that denying nations access to these crucial resources could lead to severe humanitarian and economic consequences. All people, regardless of their nation’s political alignment, deserve the right to access energy and the means to fuel their homes and industries. Restricting access to these essential resources may inadvertently harm the very individuals we seek to support by stifling their ability to thrive and meet their basic needs. We must consider the broader implications of energy policy not just from a political or economic standpoint, but from a humanitarian perspective as well. The world’s interconnected energy markets are crucial to ensuring that no nation is left behind in the pursuit of progress and prosperity. If we are to lead the world in energy policy, we must do so with a commitment to equitable access to resources that are necessary for every society to flourish. Thank you for considering my perspective on this important matter. Sincerely, Jason Morales Engineer, Department of Defense New Mexico Resident
1232. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 4:25:23 PM Stiver, David General Comment Natural Gas and Regulatory Policy Committee Dear Members of the Committee, My name is David Stiver. I am an honorably disabled Army Veteran, and President/CEO of Team Strategy Inc. I have resided in the state of Colorado for approximately 50 years. As a small business owner, I have been involved with the National Federation of Business Owners (NFIB), for approximately 25 years. As well as many civic, social, business, and community organizations. Like so many other states, Colorado is heavily reliant upon Natural Energy for its livelihood. Indeed, as the sixth largest producer of oil and natural gas in the United States, we too have benefitted from the LNG program (both directly and indirectly). If allowed to expire, Colorado small business owners will find their already escalating energy costs skyrocket even further. Dino the Dinosaur is not a fossil fuel. Neither is the limited Wind and Solar Energy an adequate answer to meeting the world’s global needs. LNG affords countries, modern and third world, the opportunity to leap beyond the coal-driven methods of producing energy. Thus, I strongly believe in aiding these nations in developing a cleaner, sustainable environment for generations to come. Colorado needs LNG, the world needs LNG, and America has barely touched the surface of its LNG production capabilities and capacity. Liquified Natural Gas has proved to be a safe and effective method of sharing energy resources at a fraction of the costs of coal production. The present moratorium is short-sided and an affront to America’s system of FREEDON and FREE ENTERPRISE. To date, the Department of Energy has gone beyond by implementing five (5) separate studies. Two of which focused solely on greenhouse gases, carbon emissions, and LNG. All of which supports reinstituting this program. I urge the United States Department of Energy to move forward with its initial 48 Bcf project. Thank you for your consideration. Best Regards, David C. Stiver BA MA President /CEO Team Strategy Inc.
1233. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 4:32:36 PM Varcoe, Jane General Comment To whom it may concern at the Department of Energy, My name is Jane Varcoe. Working with the school board and Principals, I realized that energy was also a I am a retired teacher/librarian of 34 years plus I was a volunteer EMT for over 30 years with our local ambulance corps. I am a fourth generation Wayne County resident. As a librarian for the elementary schools in our area I worked with numerous parents and children. As a EMT I had the opportunity to go into numerous homes and I realized that the number one concern for many was their source for heating their homes and local businesses in this rural area of Northeast Pennsylvania. real concern in their yearly budget. The high cost of energy was affecting the educational system as energy needs were taking a larger slice of the budget that was planned for books and other materials for our students. I really enjoyed interacting with these families. I soon realized that their energy needs are paramount as the cost was escalating and taking a larger part of their income. I realized that gas in its many forms especially liquified gas was especially important to or area residents plus to all citizens in our society. I am concerned with the ban on liquified gas. I feel this has an adverse impact on our local economy as well as our national security Our area needs jobs! Our citizens need job security with high paying jobs. I care strongly about our future. I do appreciate what the Department of Energy is doing to work with the industry and their history of energy development and I want to thank the current administration for the pause on this ban. Please I thank you for consideration on this matter. consider lifting of the ban on liquified gas.
1234. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 6:09:22 PM Fumarola, Aaron General Comment Stop being so slimy! LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
1235. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 6:17:40 PM McClure, Louise General Comment Restarting LNG exports would be severely injurious to the US and to the world. We are already reeling from back-to-back environmental catastrophes. We are upset by increasing migration - we ain't seen nothing yet! Environmental catastrophes worldwide are increasing migration from both inability to live in a devastated environment and from the political instability that engenders. Neither the US nor the world can survive the release of more fossil fuels. Do NOT allow LNG exports to restart!
1236. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 6:26:47 PM Scott, GEOFFREY General Comment I am a long time contributor to the Delaware River keeper Network. They do excellent and necessary work, but they are not always right. Their resistance to increased LNG exports is very short sighted and just wrong. It's called global warming, not USA warming, or California warming, or East Coast warming. What happens in other countries is an important part of the global solution. Everyone would stipulate that generating electricity from coal is dirtier than natural gas generation. The coal generation in the US is down substantially from 20 years ago, as our coal plants have been retired and replaced with natural gas generation. China is currently building more than 100 new coal generating plants. If the US were to contract with China to supply a larger amount of LNG, China could switch to building more gas generating facilities, rather than coal. Their emissions would be reduced and the entire world would benefit. It is to the entire globe's benefit that the US produce and export whatever is needed to help the world reduce its coal usage. The Delaware Riverkeeper Network will tell you that it has "X" number of members. I am one of them, but it clearly does not speak for me in all matters. This is one for which we clearly disagree. Let's go after the low hanging fruit and achieve an immediate reduction in harmful emissions.
1237. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 6:27:51 PM Eaton, Kathleen General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
1238. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 6:46:23 PM Gardner , Kristen General Comment The dangers associated with LNG outweigh the risks.
1239. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 7:04:35 PM Granato, Linda General Comment Please consider the following: as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
1240. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 7:06:57 PM Dack, Michael General Comment I oppose the expansion of LNG exports because such an expansion is not in the public interest. Communities of color have historically been disproportionately exposed to the environmental risks and impacts of natural gas production, which emits pollutants that are harmful to human health. Increased U.S. production of natural gas will only increase the detrimental environmental impacts to water, air and land, and consequently human health. Thank you.
1241. 1/31/2025 7:59:27 PM Ansted, John General Comment
  1. 2025-01-31 DOE LNG JPA Com.pdf
1242. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 8:29:59 PM Brincka, Frank General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1243. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 9:41:21 PM Giambruno, Robert General Comment LNG will increase profit for billionaires and increase pollution for the rest of us who cannot afford the facilities (the rich can) to avoid the pollution. Eventually even their money cannot stop what petrochemicals pollution has already done, and will continue to do, to our planet
1244. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 10:35:22 PM Khalsa, Dr. Mha Atma General Comment As a very concerned American citizen and taxpayer, I appreciate your considering my comments! LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. You must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
1245. expand/collapse 1/31/2025 11:34:11 PM Uhlman, Ted General Comment LNG Exports in general are bad for local communities, bad for Americans, and bad for The Planet. LNG Exports are only good for Fossil Fuel Corporate Profits. Local communities suffer the pollution where the gas is extracted, transported, stored, and exported. Americans suffer higher energy prices, because expanding the market overseas means that Americans have to compete with gas consumers in Europe and China. The Planet suffers because this expanded market means that more CO2 (and leaked methane) will be pumped into the atmosphere, increasing Climate Change to a warmer normal.
1246. expand/collapse 2/1/2025 5:08:53 AM Madden, Michael General Comment No more LNG exports.
1247. expand/collapse 2/1/2025 6:45:08 AM White , Elaine General Comment LNG export projects are dangerous and short sighted. They endanger the surrounding communities and only benefit the companies that will profit from them. Plus, they weaken our country’s focus on future cutting edge industries of clean energy while setting the United States up to fall behind China and other countries’ clean energy development. Of course, they harm the planet in contributing to greenhouse gases and climate change. America must look to the future and focus on new clean energy industries and protect communities.
1248. expand/collapse 2/1/2025 7:28:22 AM Amanda , Fogarty General Comment This study made the effects of LNG exports very clear- bad for American's health, climate, and wallets. We should not be continuing to build LNG export plants at the expense of Americans.
1249. expand/collapse 2/1/2025 8:27:34 AM Seward, Robert General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
1250. expand/collapse 2/1/2025 8:32:00 AM Cavallo, Janet General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1251. expand/collapse 2/1/2025 8:33:31 AM Herrero, Isabel General Comment According to the study that the US Department of Energy performed, an increase in LNG exports would likely have negative effects on the general public especially those in disadvantaged communities or living close to where the export terminals would be. It would increase greenhouse gas emissions when we are already seeing the devastating effects of climate change with the increase of hurricanes in Florida or the unexpected snow in the southern US. It would also increase domestic gas prices which would increase the prices of general goods most likely without increasing salaries which would harm consumers. The study also notes that although the new LNG exports would increase GDP, that does not necessarily mean it would benefit the general public. Additionally, the new LNG export terminals would have negative health effects on nearby communities and workers as well as a potential increase in seismic activity. They also note that the money gained from the LNG exports may not even go to local residents who would have to bear the burden that the exports bring since they may not even get the new jobs offered by the expansion. Overall, the plan would harm the average consumer and harm the planet.
1252. expand/collapse 2/1/2025 8:47:30 AM Clement, John General Comment I am strongly opposed to relaxing regulations regarding the export of liquid natural gas (LNG), particularly because of the negative environmental impact it can have both locally and globally. While LNG is often touted as a "cleaner" alternative to coal, its production and transport have significant environmental consequences that shouldn't be overlooked. Methane Emissions: A key issue is methane, a potent greenhouse gas that can leak during the extraction, liquefaction, and transportation processes. According to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the natural gas supply chain leaks nearly 2.3% of the gas, which undermines its environmental benefits compared to coal. Methane has over 80 times the warming potential of CO2 in the first 20 years after release, making even small leaks a huge concern. Fracking and Water Use: A significant portion of the natural gas extracted for LNG comes from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which poses serious risks to water supplies and the surrounding environment. The process can lead to groundwater contamination, water depletion, and induced seismic activity. In fact, the U.S. Energy Information Administration has noted that around 70% of U.S. natural gas is now extracted via fracking, which compounds these concerns. LNG Infrastructure and Carbon Footprint: Export terminals, liquefaction plants, and pipelines required to handle LNG are energy-intensive and contribute to large carbon footprints. For instance, a study from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) estimates that the U.S. LNG export industry could result in a 3 to 6% increase in domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 if export regulations are loosened further. Global Impact: As LNG is exported globally, it creates a domino effect. Many countries that import LNG are also building more natural gas infrastructure, further entrenching fossil fuel use globally. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has emphasized that we need to drastically reduce fossil fuel consumption in order to meet global climate goals, and increasing natural gas exports may work counter to those efforts. Relaxing these regulations would only exacerbate the climate crisis and further delay the necessary transition to renewable energy sources. Instead, we should prioritize policies that reduce emissions, promote renewable energy development, and ensure the protection of our ecosystems.
1253. expand/collapse 2/1/2025 8:58:15 AM Brett, Tom General Comment I want to register my opposition to increasing US LNG exports. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases.
1254. expand/collapse 2/1/2025 9:24:56 AM Greenberg, Bernard General Comment We must stop producing and exporting LNG if we are to control global warming
1255. expand/collapse 2/1/2025 9:49:50 AM Dunham, Christopher General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
1256. expand/collapse 2/1/2025 12:30:00 PM Donald F Weigl Appendix D: Addendum on Environmental and Community Effects of U.S. LNG Exports Please stop LNG exports which pollute and harm public health. It utilizes fracked gas the process of which is a great environmental hazard throughout its life cycle from extraction and its associated fallout from toxic, radioactive wastewater, to transport the likes of destructive pipelines and hazardous rail transit. Liquification processing emits toxic pollutants into the air and water and terminals destroy habitats, i.e. ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during the construction and operation of these ports. Enormous tankers create shipping impacts and regasification at its final destination and burning create even more pollution. These toxic pollutants, cause respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shorten lives. LNG is a climate disaster as it has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. Additional exports would lead to severe detrimental increases in greenhouse gas emissions., especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere. We need to reduce greenhouse gases by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. which we already are in danger of missing. Global climate goals would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the necessary fracking it requires. No need for more LNG. I understand Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. Please you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision-making process regarding the export of LNG. We are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
1257. expand/collapse 2/1/2025 2:45:29 PM Evelhoch II, Frank General Comment Since our presidents pretends that climate change isn’t happening, exposing himself as not the sharpest pencil in the box, it allows him to think that increasing LNG exports is a good idea. I vociferously disagree with that. Beyond further damaging our climate which contributes to both more severe storms and an increasing severity of them. But if ruining the climate isn’t good enough for him, consider all the damage that will be done to the American people living near the LNG exporting sites by breathing the fouled air. Information that I’ve read also says that gasoline prices, which are already too high, will like increase if even more LNG is exported. The bottom line is that no existing or new LNG export applications must be approved.
1258. expand/collapse 2/1/2025 8:04:40 PM Scarpa, Maria Nina General Comment In 2020 a truck was carrying liquefied natural gas (LNG) when it exploded on the Shenyang-Haikou Expressway south of Shanghai in Zhejiang province, southeastern China. We need to avoid massive destruction by prohibiting the transportation of LNG on our roads and railways.
1259. expand/collapse 2/2/2025 1:20:41 PM Heldt, Alex General Comment I believe the development of such LNG facilities will severely jeopardize public health in areas that are already facing a lack of environmental equity. By exposing already vulnerable populations to carbon monoxide, VOCs, and sulfur dioxide (three commonly released chemicals from LNG processing facilities), the government is directly harming the health of the citizens they are bound by the Constitution to protect. LNG plants are not the solution to American energy needs, as outlined by the report published. While corporations may claim they are beneficial, that is only because those facilities are beneficial to their pockets. To the average American? They earn more health complications, a dying environment, exposure to chemicals they did not consent to, and likely no reduction in the price of natural gas, given we've seen how large corporations behave. In regards to environmental health, as the report notes, the construction and operation of these facilities can contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer through the release of nitrous oxides. Which increases exposure to harmful uv rays and thus increases residential risk of skin cancer. In no form does the construction of these facilities benefit the populations around them. As a government made to serve it's population, authorizing the construction of these harmful facilities is a failure of your duties. Do not let an easy dollar buy out your obligations to the citizens of whom you swore to protect. The world saw what happened in Flint, Michigan when caution was thrown to favor money. Do not let it happen again.
1260. expand/collapse 2/2/2025 4:30:21 PM DiLeva, DanDumpTheDemocrats General Comment Capitalism is literally baking the planet. We either end capitalism, or it ends us. And both Democrats and Republicans are deliberately getting in the way of ending capitalism.
1261. expand/collapse 2/2/2025 5:52:41 PM Racano, Celeste General Comment First of all, the use of the word “natural” in the term Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is a misnomer. There isn’t anything “natural” about this gas emission. Since it is methane, the correct terminology should be Liquefied Methane Gas or LMG. Methane is 80x more powerful during the first 20 years after it is released into the atmosphere and it is 25x more potent than CO2 at trapping heat and 93% of that heat is absorbed by our oceans. All of these continued GHG emissions raise the threats of sea level rise and severe storms. We all know the health risks - from pipeline spills, contaminated drinking water and “bomb trains” which can level an entire community if they derail. Each year 1 in 10 people die because of fossil fuel related pollution. Exporting LNG (LMG) destroys the environment at every stage of the gas production cycle. Especially vulnerable are our environmental justice communities, already impacted with this methane pollution which is severely detrimental to their health and thereby shortening their lives. We must stop LNG or Liquefied Methane Gas exports and continue developing truly clean renewable energy. We need to move away from denial, doubt and delay because it always leads to the big “D” - deception. Time is running out to convince government leaders and organizations of the urgency to take action as an essential step to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
1262. expand/collapse 2/2/2025 6:01:39 PM Millar, Susan General Comment I write to affirm former DOE Secretary Jennifer Granholm's report stating that expansion of liquid natural gas (LNG) exports is risky, unnecessary, highly polluting and unfair. I support this report because LNG, which is primarily methane, is (1) a major factor in the destruction of a livable atmosphere and hence our climate, (2) significantly pollutes our air and water, and (3) is produced and stored in facilities that almost always are located in poor communities, which thus suffer greater health risks than other communities.
1263. expand/collapse 2/2/2025 7:32:58 PM 3rd Act Sacremento Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports Please continue to hold off on construction of new facilities for making LNG available. Expanding LNG is risky and highly polluting and unfair. LNG is one of the worst greenhouse gases, 80 times more potent than CO2, and often located near lower income neighborhoods. Increased U.S. production of natural gas will only increase the detrimental environmental impacts to water, air and land, and consequently human health. Our planet is in deep distress and I have children and grandchildren who need not face the destruction and unhealthy air of that planet, if we can take action now. Please deny any permits for LNG. Sincerely, Ron Sadler 3rd Act Sacramento
1264. expand/collapse 2/3/2025 11:22:58 AM Hinckley, Thor General Comment Greetings, I am submitting comments as a member of the Third Act OR Coordinating Committee, an organization representing over 700 elders focused on Climate Change and Democracy. As elders we are deeply opposed to increased exports of Methane (natural gas). Methane and its combustion by-products and emissions are directly related to Climate Change, the impacts of which, we witness all around us. Additionally, the use of Methane indoors for cooking is responsible for indoor air pollution and the increasing amounts of asthma, seen in youth. We urge you to deny the export permits required to sell this damaging commodity outside of the country. Thanks you.
1265. expand/collapse 2/3/2025 1:57:27 PM Millkey, Jean General Comment We in Georgia agree with former Secretary Jennifer Granholm. Lets REDUCE rather than increase LNG production and export production. There is no good reason for the U.S. to incur risks, increase pollution, and exacerbate the injustice to poor communities where these facilities are located. It well known that methane gas destroys our climate and pollutes our air and water, and we're polluting those countries receiving our exports. The name Natural is greenwashing. There are less expensive, renewable clean energy sources which we should pursue, and encourage other countries to use. Renewable energy is a win-win for everyone (except those who want to profit from exporting LNG.)
1266. expand/collapse 2/3/2025 2:17:28 PM Brown, Gerald General Comment My name is Gerald Brown. I have a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and live in Cedarville, Ohio, where I currently teach power electronics, power systems, and drive systems engineering. I've worked as a consultant for over 20 years in the design of electric drive systems for off-highway mine trucks. I understand the value of fossil fuels in the global economy and the importance of economical, reliable energy sources to the welfare, prosperity, and security of our nation. In this context, I am very interested in the availability of export permits for liquid natural gas. Fossil fuels are the backbone of the world's energy economy. Producing LNG domestically and allowing export to other nations strengthens our economy, supports some of the world's cleanest production of fossil fuels, and strengthens our national security. This matters to me, personally, because I hate to see our nation's energy policy dictated by other world leaders and for us to lose out economically through mismanagement of our LNG resources. The continued issuance of LNG export permits allow U.S. producers and refiners to better plan for the future and strengthen this portion of our economy. Locally, LNG export permits make a positive difference to oil and gas jobs in Ohio, but it also communicates to nations around the world that the United States is wisely managing our resources and that we want to be in a position to support strong international relations with our friends abroad. I'd like to thank the DOE for issuing LNG export permits in the past and hope that the department will continue to do so in the future.
1267. expand/collapse 2/3/2025 2:46:04 PM Hucek, Christine General Comment Hello, I would like to introduce myself. I am Christine Hucek and I have been interested in our country's ability to produce clean energy like natural gas for many years. I graduated From Indiana University and The Ohio State Universities with degrees in microbiology and German. I spent over fifteen years doing medical research at research centers in Akron Ohio and Cincinnati Ohio I also helped my husband set up his medical practice and worked with and for him for 20 years. I also raised three girls as a stay at home mom. I can appreciate how important it is to be energy independent and produce clean , efficient, and affordable energy for the benefit of every aspect of life. I recently became a first time grandmother and asking myself what kind of future will my grandson have without the benefit of clean natural gas. I ask myself what kind of future will this country have if we do not become energy independent. It seems very clear our economic future and the security of our country depends on both these things so that future generations will have the energy and security they need to prosper, keep innovating and create new means of producing energy. In order to insure that our country moves forward in supporting future generations we need to make sure that permits are available to export liquid natural gas. We need to make sure we produce enough energy for ourselves but just as importantly we need to export liquid natural gas as a clean form of energy and for security reasons so that other countries are not able to manipulate global energy production. It is important to me and to my family and future generations that we take a stance today to ensure that we produce the best energy and make it available to the world. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope that your work continues and helps support our country in our energy endeavors. --
1268. expand/collapse 2/3/2025 4:44:36 PM Orner, Daphne General Comment Hello, my name is Daphne Orner, I have lived in New Mexico 80% of my life. I remember the Oil Embargo 1979, signs that said, “Sorry No GAS”. The US was not energy independent. If you didn’t have a bike, you didn’t go anywhere. In California, where I worked as an oil and gas engineer, regulations stifled a lot of development. New Mexico was no different. New Mexico is blessed with these resources. Let’s grow and build with these blessings. Being last in education and struggling with economic development, leaves New Mexico with little to offer our children. If I had oil and gas opportunities in the 70’s I wouldn’t have had to leave New Mexico. With this said, let keep our homes warm, our children fed, and educated so there will be economic opportunities and stability that will allow them to stay in New Mexico. LNG is here and other options will not sustain the growth that we need now. Stop the pause of LNG, for a brighter New Mexico for her children. Thank you for your time and consideration.
1269. expand/collapse 2/3/2025 4:50:49 PM Johnson, Caroline General Comment I oppose the expansion of LNG exports. The financial impact on us citizens will be burdensome, even as my regional utility company already is in the process of seeking an increase in prices! And the expanded reliance on fossil fuels, when we are already suffering devastating disasters from the climate damage they cause is irresponsible and unjustified. I urge you to reject this proposal on all grounds!
1270. expand/collapse 2/3/2025 5:06:02 PM Etheridge, Jess General Comment Hello, My name is Jess Etheridge and I am native to New Mexico. I have lived in Deming and have now been in Farmington for the past 17 years. I started my career in manufacturing for the people of San Juan County. Furthermore, I have worked as a truck driver and also in commercial refrigeration. The Department of Energy is responsible for protecting America’s energy independence and making policy decisions that support the people of New Mexico. I rely on the Oil and Gas Industry to maintain my livelihood and transportation needs. Since the pause was put on LNG production, I have seen my community shrink. Oil and Gas workers and local businesses have had to move out of Farmington due to a damaged economy from the pause on O&G production. The Oil and Gas Industry is needed in my state to support our local workforce, economy, and infrastructure. I hope the LNG pause gets lifted, because we need production to open back up for the sake of success in New Mexico. I encourage you all to speak up about this issue. If we come together as a nation of people, our voices can make the change we need.
1271. expand/collapse 2/3/2025 5:30:18 PM Tarnalicki, David General Comment Hello my name is David Tarnalicki. I am a lifelong resident of Pennsylvania and have been a past member of the Pa National Guard, a 38 year Union Boilermaker, and a current member of the American Legion. As someone who grew up in a somewhat small community with people that have worked together for a common goal, it is important to keep the general cost of energy within the means of our community. I appreciate the efforts made by the Dept of Energy in order to keep energy cost low for the citizens of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the rest of the country. Since we are in agreement on keeping the cost of living low for our communities, we should also be in agreement on opposing any ban on liquified natural gas export permits. The current system of LNG export permit allows for the energy security needs of America’s allies to be met while also ensuring that there is an abundant supply for consumers here in America. If a ban on LNG export permits were to go into effect it would harm America’s international standing by denying our allies with needed energy security while also decreasing domestic production which would drive up the cost of the energy prices for my neighbors in the community here and across the country. I thank the DOE for lifting the ban on LNG export permits, and urge the continuation of LNG exports going forward
1272. expand/collapse 2/3/2025 6:29:49 PM Abrahamson, Keith General Comment My name is Keith Abrahamson and I've been a high school teacher for several years. Prior to that my wife and I were in businesses that required a lot of travel. We both are retiring this year and have great concerns regarding the economy being able to sustain the things we'll count on such as affordable health care and Social Security. We understand the importance of a free market for LNG both from an economic and ecological standpoint. Economically we can't continue to spend without growing our own assets as a nation, and environmentally we must preserve the safety of all that lives on this planet by sustaining the planet as well. Logically, making use of our natural resources to secure our own economic welfare seems to make sense to me. My wife and I are of the belief that this country is capable of developing great things that will project far into future generations, we don't believe that the DOE's push to limit LNG export, especially to a nation such as India is aligned with this economic strategy.
1273. expand/collapse 2/3/2025 6:36:11 PM Zimmerman, Robert General Comment My name is Robert Zimmerman and I am resident of Weld County Colorado. I was born and raised in the Denver area and went to Colorado School of Mines. I have worked for The Western Sugar Cooperative since 1986. I have 4 daughters that also attended the Colorado School of Mines. The Western Sugar Cooperative is a farmer’s cooperative that makes sugar from sugar beets. Sugar beets are very energy intensive starting at 75% water and generating tables sugar. The company recently converted 2 of its facilities from coal to natural gas and is considering converting the last coal fired factory to natural gas to reduce carbon emissions reducing company-wide emissions by 40%. The cost of natural gas is now critical to the farmers that own the cooperative. We must have an energy policy in place that provides low cost clean burning natural gas. I urge the Department of Energy to continue to support the production and distribution of natural gas to provide clean and reliable energy to US industry.
1274. expand/collapse 2/3/2025 6:48:53 PM Aronson, Linda General Comment I strongly oppose expanding LNG exports. It is risky, unnecessary, highly polluting and unfair, and costly.LNG is made up of almost exclusively methane. Methane is a powerful gas that destroys our climate, and pollutes our air and water, and are nearly always located in poor communities.
1275. expand/collapse 2/3/2025 9:45:14 PM Carlson, Melissa General Comment Methane does not need to move around the world. Each ecosystem needs to figure out the best source of locally available energy. Exporting LNG will upset prices in the US, pollute the communities where it is produced, leak and pollute the places where it is used, and benefit only the fossil fuel profiteers. Methane is a very harmful gas, not the wonder drug of fuels that Big Oil makes it out to be. It is much more harmful to the climate than carbon, and it is a health hazard inside homes where muchof it is burned. Please do not continue to export LNG.
1276. expand/collapse 2/4/2025 8:34:30 AM Morales, Fermin General Comment If you are thinking that bombarding rhe world with LNG will solve all of your problems is as short sighted as an administration can be. With all the competition in the world there will be a price war which will force you into more conflicts with nations and more importantly the environment. You will not win either one because both cannot be solved by greed. You have to invest in the environment. This will kickstart an economic boom if you play your cards right. I am urging you to be an innovator and dissent. Dissenting is not a crime and you will play your part in saving us from the catastrophes that is climate chaos and both political parties self interest. Invest in humanity.
1277. expand/collapse 2/4/2025 8:56:35 AM Scanlan, Brian General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1278. expand/collapse 2/4/2025 9:32:35 AM Godwin, Sandra General Comment I am against expanding LNG exports because I believe they are highly polluting (they produce methane, a powerful greenhouse gas), are unnecessary (solar and wind energy are clean and sustainable solutions, not to mention cheaper), and they are unfair (facilities are often located in poor communities). Please do not expand LNG exports.
1279. expand/collapse 2/4/2025 10:43:29 AM Feagley, Duane General Comment Dear Department of Energy, My name is Duane Feagley, and I am a lifelong Pennsylvania resident. Three of my four children and my grandchildren also live and work in the Commonwealth. Like many Americans, we are directly impacted by the high cost of energy and the need for a strong national energy policy. While the Department of Energy has made significant strides in ensuring our nation’s energy security, more remains to be done. I am deeply concerned about the Department’s current ban on LNG exports to our allies in Europe and around the world. If this ban continues, I fear it will negatively impact our national security, Pennsylvania’s economy, and the jobs and tax revenues that sustain our communities. Hostile powers like Russia and China continue to use energy as leverage to manipulate and control both the U.S. and our allies. Now, more than ever, we must demonstrate our support by providing them with the energy needed to heat homes, power businesses, and sustain industries. I urge the Department to lift the LNG export ban—both to strengthen our relationships with our allies and to ensure good-paying jobs for American workers. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Duane Feagley
1280. expand/collapse 2/4/2025 12:37:00 PM McElfish, Dove General Comment Good morning my name is Dove McElfish. I wanted to thank you for this opportunity to have my voice heard. I am a wife and mother living in New Mexico for over 30 years. The New Mexico landscape is a vast and expansive mostly rural topography. Our climate has all the extremes in weather from blistering heat, icey cold winters, to 60 + MPH wind (In New Mexico that can all occur in a single day). The great distance we travel from one town to another a far trek with an hour or more between towns. I am in support of the oil and gas industry including its significant contribution to the economy. The oil and gas industry provides jobs, energy security, access to affordable energy, it supports various industries that are reliant on oil and gas products, and provides the potential for technological advancements to mitigate environmental impacts. These are all important to those of us living in New Mexico. As a private citizen that is part of the working class struggling to make a living in this low-income state of New Mexico I am asking for you to please support the oil and gas industry. Please do not place a ban on further advances in the industry that is the primary means of support that is available to us in New Mexico as a low-income rural state. Our state is depending on this for our very survival. Sincerely Dove McElfish
1281. expand/collapse 2/4/2025 2:31:15 PM Weidenhammer, Brian General Comment Hi, I’m Brian Weidenhammer. I’ve lived in Pennsylvania my whole life. I’m an owner of Apartment rentals. Keeping the cost of living down is what I care to see throughout the entire USA. I appreciate the work you The DOE has done already, for the efforts you put in already to keep the costs of living down. Because we seem to be in agreement on keeping the costs of living down in all aspects, we should be in agreement on opposing any bans on LNG Export permits. Allowing LNG exports permits helps our Allies and to have an abundant supply for the USA. If a ban would go into effect, it would hurt American workers and it would raise the cost of living, while hurting our allies in the process. The decrease of Domestic Production will raise energy prices in the whole USA and rural communities. I thank the DOE for lifting The Ban on LNG Export permits and urge the Continuation of LNG Exports from here on.
1282. expand/collapse 2/4/2025 3:40:11 PM Greenshields, Tim General Comment The U.S. supports developing and exporting LNG because it boosts economic growth, creates jobs, and improves the trade balance while enhancing energy security for allies and reducing global reliance on adversarial suppliers like Russia. LNG exports strengthen U.S. geopolitical influence, stabilize domestic energy markets, and provide a cleaner alternative to coal, aiding global emissions reduction. Additionally, they sustain domestic production, encourage infrastructure investment, and support the transition to renewable energy. Overall, LNG exports benefit the U.S. economy, national security, and global energy stability. LNG exports matter to me because they help create jobs, strengthen the economy, and keep energy prices stable. A strong energy sector means more opportunities, a secure economy, and lower costs for everyday goods and services. I benefit from a reliable energy market that helps keep my home energy costs manageable. Plus, knowing that LNG exports reduce dependence on unstable foreign energy sources gives me confidence in our national security. And by supporting a cleaner alternative to coal, I feel good knowing we’re contributing to a healthier environment for future generations. LNG exports impact me and my neighbors in Colorado in several ways. First, they contribute to job growth in the energy sector, benefiting local workers and businesses that support natural gas production, transportation, and infrastructure. As part of an energy-rich state, Colorado plays a role in the industry, and a strong LNG market helps sustain local economies and tax revenues that fund schools, roads, and public services. Additionally, a stable and competitive energy market helps keep our utility bills manageable, making a real difference in our cost of living. From a broader perspective, LNG exports enhance national security by reducing global dependence on energy from adversarial nations, which helps prevent economic and political instability that could affect us all. Environmentally, exporting LNG gives other countries a cleaner alternative to coal, helping to improve air quality worldwide—including right here in Colorado, where clean air and environmental conservation are important. Overall, LNG exports support jobs, strengthen our economy, keep energy costs stable, and promote a cleaner and more secure future for me, my neighbors, and future generations. I strongly urge the Department of Energy (DOE) to continue supporting the LNG industry because it is vital to our economy, national security, and global energy stability. LNG exports create jobs, drive economic growth, and keep energy prices competitive, benefiting American families and businesses. By maintaining a strong LNG industry, the U.S. can provide reliable energy to our allies, reducing global dependence on adversarial nations like Russia while strengthening our geopolitical influence. Additionally, LNG is a cleaner alternative to coal, helping to lower emissions worldwide while supporting a responsible energy transition. Restricting LNG exports would hurt American workers, weaken our energy leadership, and jeopardize our economic and national security. The DOE must continue its support to ensure the U.S. remains a global energy leader while securing a prosperous future for American communities.
1283. expand/collapse 2/4/2025 3:40:13 PM Starner, Antoinette General Comment My name is Antoinette Starner from Brighton, Colorado in Adams County. I am a small business owner (Marketing and social media) and I have worked for over twenty five years with Farmers’ Markets in the Metro Denver area. These farmers are all small business owners right here in Colorado. I care about our local food source and how small farmers contribute to the community. Not only do they provide fresh fruits and vegetables to their neighbors, but they also work with SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) federal nutrition program designed to help low-income households purchase food. And they donate anything left over to homeless shelters and churches in our community. I appreciate that you put out the study. Because I agree about the importance to our community and you care about Coloradoans, we should care about how this issue will impact job loss, the increase in cost to consumers and increased dependence on foreign sources especially since we have the resources right here in Colorado. Farmers need energy to make our local food source affordable. I urge DOE to support the continued development of LNG exports as a small business owner and member of the community.
1284. expand/collapse 2/4/2025 3:43:04 PM Davis, Colton General Comment My Name is Colton and I have been the Electrical Utility field for over 7 years and I lived in New Mexico for 27 years I recently moved to Texas to be in a state that believe in the existing infrastructure to support the expanding loads. I have seen the benefit and the reliability of LNG and how it isn't dependent on wind or the sun to produce electricity. If we keep expanding at the rate we are going and while not expanding the LNG generation facilities. We will eventually become California 2.0 and have rolling brown outs on days where it is to windy and wind turbines are shutdown. Green is not a bad way to go but we are putting the horse in front of the carriage on this one expanding LNG is the only way we will be able to keep up with growing infrastructure as of right now. So all I ask D.O.E to do your research! First thing I would look up is what the white smoke is coming out of generation, I think you would be surprised it is just steam.
1285. expand/collapse 2/4/2025 5:23:16 PM Divil, Lisa General Comment My name is Lisa Divil and I was raised in ***** County in Pennsylvania. I am opposed to the ban on L and G export permits because I believe our country should not be dependent on other countries for energy when we have enough to produce it right here. This ban would stop the growth of the L and G market and stopping the growth of the market would only increase prices and stop the job growth in here in Pennsylvania. If the ban was overturned, this would lower our own energy prices and save thousands of jobs that are much needed right here in Pennsylvania. I want to thank the current administration for pausing the ban on L and G export permits. Sincerely, Lisa Divil
1286. expand/collapse 2/4/2025 6:25:57 PM kelly, donald General Comment Good day, I would like to see the repeal of the export license ban as it affects me the on a number of different levels. First is an economic hit to me as I have participated in the oil gas industry and have worked long hours ensuring safe and efficient production of LNG and oil for safely for over 40 years. Limiting export limits the job opportunities we have domestically and money we bring back to the country this limiting my opportunities. Furthermore I have a home in Colorado that I like to visit and by limiting LNG limits the amount of oil we produce which works to drive up prices of my travel and my families cost of living as a whole. These two issues weaken our country - strong oil and gas production = a strong country. Drill baby drill!!
1287. expand/collapse 2/4/2025 6:34:07 PM COURIER, MICHAEL General Comment As a leader in the oil and gas industry and a growing career in this industry. I have grown in the Colorado oil and gas industry for 9 of my 13 years in the industry and have watched the state set the bar for the cleanest energy produced in the country if not the entire world. I, as well as every single American home am completely reliant on the oil and gas industry. I got into the industry as a means for income and not much mindset past a paycheck. However, I grew in this industry very quickly and leaned that I had a massive passion for the energy sector of our country. I have been ridiculed and slandered by anti-oil and gas groups, but none came seem to answer the question of "how are you not reliant on oil and gas?" I personally have debated anti oil and gas groups that have solicited my doorstep to explain how fracking will ruin our children's health and livelihoods. However, what they couldn't answer is why I was still alive and well when I was directly exposed to the industry on a daily basis for over a decade. Enough about me, I am a massive supporter of the export of LNG for a few reasons. Our GDP is vastly reliant on the exports of energy products. It is cleaner than coal and much more powerful. Wind and solar will never suffice to what LNG does for simply "turning the lights on our home and businesses". Last but absolutely not least, the aide to our national security. I encourage the DOE to take into consideration the effect our Energy Exports have on providing clean energy, protecting our national security and supporting our countries GDP. LNG Exports are pivotal to this country's growth and independence.
1288. 2/4/2025 8:32:51 PM Ravnitzky, Michael General Comment
  1. comments on LNG study.pdf
1289. expand/collapse 2/5/2025 12:37:27 PM Montoya, Rosella General Comment Hi, my mane is Rosella Montoya,I have been a native New Mexican for over 50 years, I was born and raised here. My family has been here for over 150 years. Our beautiful state is my home. Since, this is my home, the need of clean energy to maintain our beautiful state. The need for clean energy is very important. Natural gas is the most clean energy, that can help to keep our state and our world working with less carbon emissions. The need for jobs and maintaining our working people. All these reasons are important for our state and our global economy. The pause should be lifted for all of our benefit. I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Rosella Montoya
1290. expand/collapse 2/5/2025 12:47:00 PM Strickler, Matthew General Comment My name is Matthew Strickler. My family has called New Mexico its home since 1995 and has been privileged to reside in the four corners region of the state. I returned to NM to start my own company in 2012 and have been developing oil and gas projects since that time. I love living in the four corners which has been a place that has provided a sense of community and family for over 30 years. The four corners region is one of natural resources ranging from the beautiful outdoors to the bountiful energy resources we provide to the country as a whole. I have been blessed to work in the energy sector and wish to see those industries thrive. Our coal, power, and oil and gas development serve as the primary source of employment and economic life. The continuation of these industries is critical to our communities well being. Lifting the LNG pause is of vital importance to the four corners region and the state of NM as a whole. LNG exports will be a continued growth sector for natural gas markets in the lower 48 and will have significant impact on our local and state economy. It is our hope these expanded markets will generate and eventual world price for our natural gas that will drive further development of our resources providing expanded economic growth and jobs.
1291. expand/collapse 2/5/2025 12:59:16 PM Austin, David General Comment I'm David Austin I writing to you about LNG exports that shouldn't have be put hold on from shipping to other countries.When states that have LNG ports those state need the taxable revenue to keep there state from going broke. I worked in the oil fields in North Dakota for close to a year. I've seen first hand when a tank Battery unit goes on-line this generates revenue from the natural gas. This goes from those meters to the natural gas grid from every cubic foot gas that is separated from the oil and produce water from oil well. By continuing LNG exports this is going to only economically benefit America and American Citizens by boosting our economy here at home. As a former industry employee, I ask the DOE continue to export LNG.
1292. expand/collapse 2/5/2025 1:30:09 PM Kurtz, Maya General Comment Please do not approve these new LNG exports. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1293. 2/5/2025 2:39:32 PM Wald, Ellen General Comment
  1. Comment on 2024 LNG Export Study.pdf
1294. expand/collapse 2/5/2025 5:05:00 PM Petcu, Constanta General Comment My name is Constanta Petcu, I came in USA 29 years ago, I work at Ursuline college starting 2001. In 2003 as LabChem coordinator until 2011 when I retired but still working as chem and physics tutor. I graduated in Bucharest Romania. I am warried about the gas prices will affect everybody budget especially the retired people. Also I believe that using our gas will set up the environment and using our cleaner energy resources the price will be cheaper and affordable for most of the people. The way we manufacture the energy in USA is the cleanest because must respect the strict regulation, we produce the cleanest energy that wiil be sold in the word compare with other country such as Russia and China. Manufacture a cleanest energy in USA will also make more jobs. Specific liquid natural gas does all of these. I Thank the Department of Energy for lifting the ban to export liquid natural gas making better environment in the world an lower the prices.
1295. expand/collapse 2/5/2025 6:32:19 PM Schenk, Michael General Comment The Department of Energy (DOE) used its authority to pause all pending liquefied natural gas (LNG) export licenses to conduct a necessary update to its “public interest” assessment. The DOE looked at impacts on consumer pricing, national security, health, and environment. Former Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, based upon the DOE assessment, concluded, “continued growth on this trajectory will quickly outpace global demand. By itself, this rapid growth to date – and the continued growth we expect under existing authorizations – recommends a cautious approach going forward.” A cautious approach from the current Administration will protect consumers from skyrocketing prices. The DOE assessment underscores the average electric bill increase of $118.37 per year by 2050, representing nearly one percent of annual household income. Additionally, the DOE assessment acknowledged this analysis did not explore the price impacts of increased natural gas exports on broader consumer goods, however indicated there are likely additional impacts on consumers as companies pass on increased industrial energy cost to consumers. The DOE assessment, again, warns for a cautious approach when predicting the global market for LNG. The assessment says, “the global market for LNG has been increasing for several years and LNG re-gasification and associated import infrastructure is being built out globally, but future demand for natural gas and LNG is uncertain and the demand centers are expected to shift.” Europe is the primary destination for US LNG however European policies are quickly shifting to reduce the usage of fossil fuels. Across all scenarios China will be the largest importer of US LNG by 2050. In this era of great competition with China, providing China with the energy it needs to fuel its industry and AI data centers is counter to the goals of the US government.   To compound its economic disadvantages, DOE's LNG assessment provides ample evidence that increased U.S. natural gas production will result in adverse impacts to water, air, and land. Natural gas extraction processing and transportation require the use of valuable resources, like water, and cause significant land disruptions through fracking. DOE states that these land use changes are strongly connected to increased seismic activity in Midwestern states, posing a significant environmental hazard to local populations. Furthermore, attributional studies estimate that direct life cycle GHG emissions from LNG production would contribute up to 1,500 MMT CO2e in our atmosphere. This increase in emissions, coupled with the destruction of natural landscapes and ecosystems, would further destabilize the climate, causing increasing economic, social, and environmental instability. In addition to further destabilizing our climate, emissions from LNG facilities have also been associated with adverse health problems. The DOE assessment highlights that the air pollutants that LNG facilities emit, particularly methane, are associated with higher mortality rates as well as increased rates of cancer, heart disease, hospitalizations, asthma, liver disease, and adverse pregnancy outcomes among neighboring residents. However, emissions are not the only aspects of natural gas production associated with adverse health conditions. Construction increases noise and light pollution, which the DOE assessment asserts are strongly connected to worsening physical and mental health conditions among local residents due to excessive sleep disruptions. The DOE assessment also emphasizes increased traffic due to LNG construction, highlighting a 10-fold increase in Texas. Heightened traffic congestion is strongly associated with increased motor vehicle crashes and fatalities, as well as increased rates of respiratory issues.  This project will serve only to further enrich the small investor class at the expense of squandering our valuable and irreplaceable domestic resources, while putting the general populace at risk. The main beneficiaries will have estates far removed from the impact zones. Since safety measures cut into profits and dividends, it is a simple matter of arithmetic that safety and maintenance measures will be skimped, as is typical for such projects. Quarterly profits trump all other factors. This project does not make economic sense. It will have minimal economic benefit to the impacted localities. The temporary jobs created by the construction will be filled by nomadic experts in pipeline-welding and large construction projects; there will be only a small number of permanent jobs created. Fossil gas is the feedstock for plastics manufacture. Expanding the production and sale of fossil gas will multiply plastic pollution. Each human now living already has microplastic particles in their body, with all the known and yet-to-be-determined attendant health risks. Overall, the information presented in DOE’s LNG assessment suggests that expanding LNG export facilities in the United States is not in the nation’s public interest. LNG expansion projects, such as Venture Global’s CP2 facility in Louisiana, will fuel China’s energy industry at the expense of U.S. citizens who will face skyrocketing energy bills. Furthermore, the United States will face environmental degradation as LNG facilities continue to exacerbate climate change by emitting harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These greenhouse gases not only contribute to climate change but also have been associated with causing countless adverse health effects, such as increased rates of cancer, among neighboring residents. Due to LNG facilities’ significant negative impacts on consumer prices, national security, the environment, and public health, DOE should reject any and all pending and future LNG facility construction permits.  In short, exporting LNG will increase the already lopsided wealth of our plutocracy, while the external costs, hazards, and risks will be borne by the rest of us. Therefore, the DOE must not approve expansion of LNG exports.
1296. expand/collapse 2/5/2025 9:50:58 PM Stiers, Amy General Comment Hello, my name is Amy. I have lived in NM for almost 30 years. I understand the importance of oil and gas revenue not only for the areas where it is drilled but for the revenue it brings to the State of New Mexico. The amount of this revenue also greatly affects the funding of schools in New Mexico and their ability to pay for the educators that they need. I highly encourage you all to support New Mexico’s oil and gas industry and oppose this ban of LNG exportation that would cause economic hardship in our state. Sincerely, Amy Stiers
1297. expand/collapse 2/6/2025 10:33:03 AM Hubert, Leonard General Comment My name is Leonard Hubert. I am originally from Alabama and have lived in Ohio since 1995. I hold both a B.S. and an M.S. in Agribusiness from Alabama A&M University, along with a certificate in Supervision and Administration from Cheyney University. I am a small business owner and run a full service government relations firm, managing a team of four employees. I work alongside companies on policy-related matters, overseeing the day-to-day operations of the business. As a small business owner, I understand firsthand how rising expenses affect the lives of everyday people. When I am forced to spend more money upfront to cover costs such as natural gas bills, I must raise my prices to stay afloat. This not only impacts my clients but also the businesses I contract with. The manufacturing industry is a major sector in Ohio and a key part of my clientele. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports in Pennsylvania are closely tied to Ohio’s manufacturing industry. When jobs in one sector decrease, it has a ripple effect across others. If manufacturing businesses have to spend more to produce their goods, it forces every other area of business to raise their prices as well. I thank the Commission for continuing to issue LNG export permits, understanding their importance for American jobs and inflation. I urge the Commission to keep supporting the oil and gas industry, ensuring a strong and sustainable future for jobs in this sector.
1298. expand/collapse 2/6/2025 12:19:47 PM Walter, Scott General Comment I am Scott Walter and I and my family have lived in Weld County Colorado for 30 years. I have owned a oil and gas service company in Greeley Colorado for the past 21years. I support clean energy and a clean environment, both of which support LNG. LNG is a huge factor in our economy and supports many jobs in this country. LNG is a clean burning fuel that has less of an impact on the environment than coal does. I urge you to support exports of LNG as LNG plays a major role in our economy, and benefits both our nation and the nations that import our LNG.
1299. expand/collapse 2/6/2025 12:22:29 PM Wilcox, David R General Comment The Department of Energy (DOE) used its authority to pause all pending liquefied natural gas (LNG) export licenses to conduct a necessary update to its “public interest” assessment. The DOE looked at impacts on consumer pricing, national security, health, and environment. Former Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, based upon the DOE assessment, concluded, “continued growth on this trajectory will quickly outpace global demand. By itself, this rapid growth to date – and the continued growth we expect under existing authorizations – recommends a cautious approach going forward.” A cautious approach from the current Administration will protect consumers from skyrocketing prices. The DOE assessment underscores the average electric bill increase of $118.37 per year by 2050, representing nearly one percent of annual household income. Additionally, the DOE assessment acknowledged this analysis did not explore the price impacts of increased natural gas exports on broader consumer goods, however indicated there are likely additional impacts on consumers as companies pass on increased industrial energy cost to consumers. The DOE assessment, again, warns for a cautious approach when predicting the global market for LNG. The assessment says, “the global market for LNG has been increasing for several years and LNG re-gasification and associated import infrastructure is being built out globally, but future demand for natural gas and LNG is uncertain and the demand centers are expected to shift.” Europe is the primary destination for US LNG however European policies are quickly shifting to reduce the usage of fossil fuels. Across all scenarios China will be the largest importer of US LNG by 2050. In this era of great competition with China, providing China with the energy it needs to fuel its industry and AI data centers is counter to the goals of the US government. To compound its economic disadvantages, DOE's LNG assessment provides ample evidence that increased U.S. natural gas production will result in adverse impacts to water, air, and land. Natural gas extraction processing and transportation require the use of valuable resources, like water, and cause significant land disruptions through fracking. DOE states that these land use changes are strongly connected to increased seismic activity in Midwestern states, posing a significant environmental hazard to local populations. Furthermore, attributional studies estimate that direct life cycle GHG emissions from LNG production would contribute up to 1,500 MMT CO2e in our atmosphere. This increase in emissions, coupled with the destruction of natural landscapes and ecosystems, would further destabilize the climate, causing increasing economic, social, and environmental instability. In addition to further destabilizing our climate, emissions from LNG facilities have also been associated with adverse health problems. The DOE assessment highlights that the air pollutants that LNG facilities emit, particularly methane, are associated with higher mortality rates as well as increased rates of cancer, heart disease, hospitalizations, asthma, liver disease, and adverse pregnancy outcomes among neighboring residents. However, emissions are not the only aspects of natural gas production associated with adverse health conditions. Construction increases noise and light pollution, which the DOE assessment asserts are strongly connected to worsening physical and mental health conditions among local residents due to excessive sleep disruptions. The DOE assessment also emphasizes increased traffic due to LNG construction, highlighting a 10-fold increase in Texas. Heightened traffic congestion is strongly associated with increased motor vehicle crashes and fatalities, as well as increased rates of respiratory issues. Overall, the information presented in DOE’s LNG assessment suggests that expanding LNG export facilities in the United States is not in the nation’s public interest. LNG expansion projects, such as Venture Global’s CP2 facility in Louisiana, will fuel China’s energy industry at the expense of U.S. citizens who will face skyrocketing energy bills. Furthermore, the United States will face environmental degradation as LNG facilities continue to exacerbate climate change by emitting harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These greenhouse gases not only contribute to climate change but also have been associated with causing countless adverse health effects, such as increased rates of cancer, among neighboring residents. Due to LNG facilities’ significant negative impacts on consumer prices, national security, the environment, and public health, DOE should reject any and all pending and future LNG facility construction permits.
1300. expand/collapse 2/6/2025 12:37:12 PM Eberly, Alan General Comment My name is Alan Eberly. I am a retired Engineer/Maintenance manager from Weld County Colorado. I have been in the Baking and Dairy industry for 45 years. I know that the gas and industry is and always has been critical to all American in keeping costs of all goods produced as low as possible. I believe reliance on foreign sources is very determial to the american public. I believing exporting gas and oil can and will improve the costs of goods for all. I urge the DOE to support the continued export of LNG gas.
1301. expand/collapse 2/6/2025 1:19:25 PM Zavertnik, Louise General Comment My name is Louise Zavertnik. I have been a teacher for 20 years in the same community I grew up in, East Stroudsburg Pennsylvania. I have strong roots in Eastern Pennsylvania as I have lived here most of my life and am raising my family here. As an educator, I know how essential tax dollars are in supporting the work I do every day. The oil and gas industry helps tremendously with contributing funds to public education. I appreciate the work the DOE has already done but there is more to do. As a parent, security is of utmost importance to me. The ban puts our National Security at risk which makes me fearful for my family, friends, and community. This ban puts all Americans as well as our allies in danger. I truly believe we must stay strong and safe as a nation which in turn helps to keep our allies safe. I thank the current administration for the work they have done to pause the deliberation on the ban on export permits for LNG.
1302. expand/collapse 2/6/2025 2:20:28 PM Key, Anna General Comment My name is Anna Key and I have lived in New Mexico continuously since 1969. I taught school in Las Cruces for 40 years. Many of my students went to trade schools or work in the oil fields. This was an excellent way for the young men and women to have a career where they could afford to take care of their families. It is important to support the oil and gas energy industry. The taxes it pays is a large part of the budget in our state. It supports schools, programs for the elderly, poor and homeless. It is also a necessary energy while we develop more green energy. The oil and gas industry is no longer the great polluter of the past. It has developed ways to make the energy cleaner. One example is reusing water they need at drill sites by cleaning it instead of getting new water each time which wastes water. All of us need to be part of helping others learn about energy in our state. Activities for children in schools to learn about the importance of oil and gas, family activities to have children and their parents work together and chances to speak out on their beliefs to the state lawmakers and to the Department of Energy. I do not support a ban on liquid natural gas.
1303. expand/collapse 2/6/2025 2:47:20 PM Americans Against Eminent Domain Abuse Appendix B: Domestic Energy, Economic, and GHG Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports Comment on Appendix B and D
  1. LNG exports Public Interest examination 01-15-202...
  2. Exhibit A Forecast of economic gas production in ...
  3. The Parable of the Tribe Fixed and Final 02-06-20...
1304. expand/collapse 2/6/2025 5:04:41 PM Pitre, Maureen General Comment My name is Maureen Pitre. I’m a retired secondary English teacher. whose students and families relied on the oilfield. Our rural community is heavily reliant on offshore drilling and looks encouragingly toward renewed drilling. As the banning of permits were issued, many of our businesses shut down. Many in our community lost jobs, many have moved away and in the midst we had a devastating hurricane Ida which caused much loss! My youngest son works in the oil and gas industry but many have not been hired back. In fact, we have a LNG facility that has been planned. The opportunity it’s completion would give would be significant to our reemergence as powerful force for south LA and the USA oil and gas industry. America needs to use its own energy! Liquified natural gas would be just the vehicle to bring back the work and workers our community needs to rebuild and thrive! For these reasons and many others I want to thank you for lifting the ban on Liquified Natural Gas permits which will give our economy a boost and restore our energy independence.
1305. expand/collapse 2/6/2025 5:27:38 PM Benoit, Bryska General Comment My name is Dr. Bryska B Benoit. I have lived in south Louisiana all of my 75 years. I Received my education degrees at Nichols State University and Ole Miss. My job as a teacher would be directly affected with less population in our area with reduction in oil and gas production and leases. Fewer jobs in oil and natural gas affects us all with more permits my grandchildren can successfully run their occupational health business.A huge percent of their business deals with oil and gas companies. Our entire community is connected to fishing or oil and gas. A large part of our population will return if oil and gas jobs are available. Our community feels our environment is protected. Almost everyone in our area uses natural gas stoves and home heating. In fact, an oil and gas company is leasing my land and beginning to produce both.Our area’s economy and myself personally need this industry! On behalf of myself, our community and my family members I’d like to thank the DOE for lifting the export permits on liquified natural gas! Our entire community needs this boost to our economy!
1306. expand/collapse 2/6/2025 6:29:11 PM Dolby, Kevin General Comment My name is Kevin Dolby, and I was born and raised right here in New Mexico. I've been a carpenter for 15 years, and I take great pride in my work, my state, and my country. My love for both has led me to recognize the importance of lifting the pause on LNG exports. Doing so will provide Americans with the most affordable and reliable energy option while strengthening our economy. Expanding export capacity presents a unique opportunity to create jobs right here in New Mexico while also helping coal-reliant areas transition to cleaner energy alternatives. For these reasons, I firmly believe it’s time to lift this pause. Thank you for your time and consideration.
1307. expand/collapse 2/6/2025 7:10:17 PM Gendreau, Jeremy General Comment Hello, my name is Jeremy Gendreau. I’ve been a resident of Colorado since 2001 after my service in the Navy. My background is in Information Technology and I’ve been in the field for the past 20 years. I’ve worked positions from a help desk for multiple oil and gas companies, where I’ve developed friendships with people in the industry and helped them with their IT needs while they were out in the fields in Alaska and Afghanistan to name a few countries. I think that to become prosperous as a country, it’s important to gain revenue by exporting where we are able to. I understand how important it is for us to rely on our resources, but also understand the implications from over regulating. I want to thank the DOE for allowing me the time to look at the implications on our environment economically while placing checks and balances around our resources. I’m writing this comment today in support of our oil and gas industry and the people in the field with families that provide us the energy we have.
1308. expand/collapse 2/7/2025 11:34:44 AM Tappin, Karen General Comment My name is Karen TAPPIN. I live with my husband George ,and we live in Louisiana. We worked in the oil field for years, .I was a cook on the supply boats for 14yrs. And George for 49 yrs.I also have 2 sons that reley on the oil field and also friends. We all rely on the the oil field.. As you know we get a lot of hurricanes down here, the electricity go off, we happen to have a generator Gas one , and stove and heater. We reley on that when we get a storm in I encourage the department to continue LNG exports permits in the future .
1309. expand/collapse 2/7/2025 12:11:34 PM Purcell, Patrick General Comment My name is Patrick Purcell. I have been in the Oil and Gas industry spanning 15 years all over the Rocky Mountain states. I live in Weld County Colorado which is a vibrant community that has a booming agricultural and oil and gas industry. Oil and Gas directly impacts my community in many positive ways. Tax revenue helps build schools, parks, and open space projects in my neighborhood and in the surrounding communities. LNG jobs are prevalent in my community and we cannot afford to lose just one. We do not want to see a pause on LNG exports, here in Colorado or in the U.S. LNG is a bridge fuel that is clean, safe and effective. This is why I urge the Department of Energy to expand our exports, in to the global market place. This has a large financial impact here at home for all American Citizens.
1310. expand/collapse 2/7/2025 12:39:44 PM Qualia, Mary Ann General Comment I grew up in Midland Texas around the oil and gas industry. I worked in Architecture in Texas before moving to New Mexico. Most of my income came from oil and gas investments. The oil and gas industry in NM is the most valuable industry in the State. NM is the 5th largest state in area but has a small population of only 2.1 million which makes for a very small tax base. NM is the second largest Crude Oil producer and 9th largest Natural Gas producer in the Country. The royalties received from the Oil &Gas industry funds 13 billion in State and Local Revenue. Being the 3rd poorest state in the Union, we rely on this revenue...there isn't another industry to fill that need. Why is liquified natural gas important? Natural gas is the most efficient and cleanest of all carbon based fuels. The use of Natural gas has made the United States one of the cleanest countries in the world. Also, it provides a cheap and highly efficient POWER source. With our technology boom and AI, we now require enormous amounts of POWER which goes way beyond "energy". It wouldn't be in our best interest to stop or decrease the production and export of Oil and Natural Gas. Thank you for your time Sincerely, Mary Ann Qualia
1311. expand/collapse 2/7/2025 1:22:36 PM Johnson, Kendrick General Comment My name is Kenderick Johnson, and I have over a decade of experience in Health, Safety, and Environmental (HSE) consulting within the energy and offshore drilling industries. Throughout my career, I have worked to ensure safe and efficient operations, implementing OSHA, NFPA, and API standards to protect workers and maintain industry integrity. As someone deeply involved in safety and risk mitigation, I recognize the critical role of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) exports in maintaining energy security while upholding rigorous safety and environmental standards. The LNG industry not only supports American jobs but also strengthens global energy markets, reducing reliance on less stable energy sources. Expanding LNG exports will allow the U.S. to remain a leader in responsible energy production while ensuring economic growth and workforce stability. I urge the Department of Energy to continue supporting LNG exports, ensuring a balanced approach that prioritizes both economic opportunity and safety. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my support. I thank the Department of Energy for continuing to issue LNG export permits, I urge the department to continue supporting the LNG industry ensuring a balanced approach that prioritizes both economic opportunity and safety. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my support. Sincerely, Kendrick Johnson
1312. expand/collapse 2/7/2025 1:33:20 PM Smith, Stanley General Comment My name is Stanley Smith, and I have lived in Louisiana for most of my life, almost 60 years. I have worked in the construction industry for over 40 years, in Pulp and Paper, Timber, Refinery, Chemical, Oil and Gas Industries. Currently I am a Chief Inspector at a Natural Gas Amine Facility. My crew and I work with the Contractors to complete projects and assure quality that the Client demands. Our facility cleans up the natural gas for use at the LNG plants located in Lake Charles, La. I am writing to express my concerns that we keep America moving in the correct direction to support the production and use of our natural resources. I believe everyone has taken notice of the high cost of living during the last few years. Groceries and Gasoline have been extremely expensive, and I have noticed it was mostly due to the loss of production in the Natural Gas and Oil areas. I am hoping the current government administration will open up the production as they did in the past. I also hope that they can make permanent the use of our natural resources so it can be used safely and cleanly to meet Americas needs. I look forward to alternative fuel sources in the future but until we have those sources at a quantity and price that is affordable to everyone then we should keep utilizing our current source of energy. I thank the department for continuing issuing LNG export permits; I urge the department to continue supporting natural gas jobs understanding their positive impact on the cost of living.
1313. expand/collapse 2/7/2025 4:10:35 PM McCaw, Susie General Comment Hello, my name is Susie McCaw. I live in Artesia, New Mexico. My family moved here in 1955. I married a home town boy and we raised our three kids here. The oil and gas industry has been the source of our families income. Even as a retired Real Estate Broker the families I sold homes to were also employed by oil and gas. As so many home owners we depend on natural gas for our homes. I feel this is a clean energy source and am proud of this industry. Our nation should be able to produce and sell this knowledge to other countries. A cleaner energy is a global issue. I encourage you to lift all pauses on this production.
1314. expand/collapse 2/7/2025 7:31:05 PM DALDRY, CHARLES General Comment I am a 22 year Air Force veteran. I have lived in Colorado for 22 years and have seen how the oil and gas industry helps make the state more prosperous. While I appreciate the idea of reducing use of fossil fuels, European countries have had to generate electricity with coal, because Russia is using control of natural gas against Ukraine. I believe exporting natural gas would be a good way to decrease Russian capability for economic blackmail against Europe. And that would increase our national security by helping our allies maintain strong economies while still being good environmental stewards by using natural gas instead of coal. In short, I ask you to allow the export of liquified natural gas.
1315. expand/collapse 2/8/2025 4:48:40 AM Maurer, Tim General Comment Office of Fossil Energy & Carbon Management, I am writing to express my concern over the recently released Department of Energy (DOE) LNG Export Study and to thank you for lifting the pause of LNG export permitting to Non-Free Trade Agreement countries. This delay not only affected our American economy but also put our energy security at risk as well as our commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. LNG industry provides critical benefits: - Economic Growth: Since 2016, LNG industry has contributed more than $400 billion to the GDP and supports an average of 273,000 US jobs. - Energy Security: As global demand for natural gas grows, our allies rely on American-made LNG to reduce their dependence on adversaries like Russia and Iran. European countries are already looking to replace Russian gas with U.S. LNG and, officials have publicly noted that our supply will allow them to decrease dependency on Russia. - Environmental Impact: U.S. LNG has one of the cleanest emission profiles and displaces high-emission coal, supporting global emissions reduction. In fact, S&P Global found that if additional U.S. LNG is unavailable, just 15% of the replacement energy would come from renewables, and the remaining 85% from higher-emitting fuels from other countries. Furthermore, concerns over negative impacts to American consumers are unfounded. Last year, U.S. natural gas prices fell to an all-time low while LNG exports reached record highs. Americans enjoy some of the lowest residential natural gas prices in the world, and growth in natural gas production has outpaced LNG export growth by nearly three-fold. Combining this with the fact that Henry Hub natural gas prices have averaged 37% lower than previous decades since LNG exports began in 2016, American consumers are not at risk of unaffordable natural gas should exports rise. The recent lifting of the pause on new and pending LNG export permits has created an opportunity to unlock $250 billion in economic activity here at home, restoring America’s energy leadership, and promoting cleaner fuel sources. Thank you for considering my comment. Sincerely, Mr. Tim Maurer
1316. expand/collapse 2/9/2025 8:49:56 AM Hirose, Mary General Comment LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increase greenhouse gas emissions and will bring economic hardship and instability for consumers. They will harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. We must have a fair, accurate, and comprehensive analysis of the public interest determination of each LNG export project.
1317. expand/collapse 2/9/2025 10:20:17 AM Leensvaart, Shirley General Comment Office of Fossil Energy & Carbon Management, I am writing to express my concern over the recently released Department of Energy (DOE) LNG Export Study and to thank you for lifting the pause of LNG export permitting to Non-Free Trade Agreement countries. This delay not only affected our American economy but also put our energy security at risk as well as our commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. LNG industry provides critical benefits: - Economic Growth: Since 2016, LNG industry has contributed more than $400 billion to the GDP and supports an average of 273,000 US jobs. - Energy Security: As global demand for natural gas grows, our allies rely on American-made LNG to reduce their dependence on adversaries like Russia and Iran. European countries are already looking to replace Russian gas with U.S. LNG and, officials have publicly noted that our supply will allow them to decrease dependency on Russia. - Environmental Impact: U.S. LNG has one of the cleanest emission profiles and displaces high-emission coal, supporting global emissions reduction. In fact, S&P Global found that if additional U.S. LNG is unavailable, just 15% of the replacement energy would come from renewables, and the remaining 85% from higher-emitting fuels from other countries. Furthermore, concerns over negative impacts to American consumers are unfounded. Last year, U.S. natural gas prices fell to an all-time low while LNG exports reached record highs. Americans enjoy some of the lowest residential natural gas prices in the world, and growth in natural gas production has outpaced LNG export growth by nearly three-fold. Combining this with the fact that Henry Hub natural gas prices have averaged 37% lower than previous decades since LNG exports began in 2016, American consumers are not at risk of unaffordable natural gas should exports rise. The recent lifting of the pause on new and pending LNG export permits has created an opportunity to unlock $250 billion in economic activity here at home, restoring America’s energy leadership, and promoting cleaner fuel sources. Thank you for considering my comment. Sincerely, Ms. Shirley Leensvaart
1318. expand/collapse 2/9/2025 11:13:40 AM Straight, Bob General Comment Office of Fossil Energy & Carbon Management, I am writing to express my concern over the recently released Department of Energy (DOE) LNG Export Study and to thank you for lifting the pause of LNG export permitting to Non-Free Trade Agreement countries. This delay not only affected our American economy but also put our energy security at risk as well as our commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. LNG industry provides critical benefits: - Economic Growth: Since 2016, LNG industry has contributed more than $400 billion to the GDP and supports an average of 273,000 US jobs. - Energy Security: As global demand for natural gas grows, our allies rely on American-made LNG to reduce their dependence on adversaries like Russia and Iran. European countries are already looking to replace Russian gas with U.S. LNG and, officials have publicly noted that our supply will allow them to decrease dependency on Russia. - Environmental Impact: U.S. LNG has one of the cleanest emission profiles and displaces high-emission coal, supporting global emissions reduction. In fact, S&P Global found that if additional U.S. LNG is unavailable, just 15% of the replacement energy would come from renewables, and the remaining 85% from higher-emitting fuels from other countries. Furthermore, concerns over negative impacts to American consumers are unfounded. Last year, U.S. natural gas prices fell to an all-time low while LNG exports reached record highs. Americans enjoy some of the lowest residential natural gas prices in the world, and growth in natural gas production has outpaced LNG export growth by nearly three-fold. Combining this with the fact that Henry Hub natural gas prices have averaged 37% lower than previous decades since LNG exports began in 2016, American consumers are not at risk of unaffordable natural gas should exports rise. The recent lifting of the pause on new and pending LNG export permits has created an opportunity to unlock $250 billion in economic activity here at home, restoring America’s energy leadership, and promoting cleaner fuel sources. Thank you for considering my comment. Sincerely, Mr. Bob Straight
1319. expand/collapse 2/9/2025 11:15:54 AM Mears, James General Comment Office of Fossil Energy & Carbon Management, I am writing to express my concern over the recently released Department of Energy (DOE) LNG Export Study and to thank you for lifting the pause of LNG export permitting to Non-Free Trade Agreement countries. This delay not only affected our American economy but also put our energy security at risk as well as our commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. LNG industry provides critical benefits: - Economic Growth: Since 2016, LNG industry has contributed more than $400 billion to the GDP and supports an average of 273,000 US jobs. - Energy Security: As global demand for natural gas grows, our allies rely on American-made LNG to reduce their dependence on adversaries like Russia and Iran. European countries are already looking to replace Russian gas with U.S. LNG and, officials have publicly noted that our supply will allow them to decrease dependency on Russia. - Environmental Impact: U.S. LNG has one of the cleanest emission profiles and displaces high-emission coal, supporting global emissions reduction. In fact, S&P Global found that if additional U.S. LNG is unavailable, just 15% of the replacement energy would come from renewables, and the remaining 85% from higher-emitting fuels from other countries. Furthermore, concerns over negative impacts to American consumers are unfounded. Last year, U.S. natural gas prices fell to an all-time low while LNG exports reached record highs. Americans enjoy some of the lowest residential natural gas prices in the world, and growth in natural gas production has outpaced LNG export growth by nearly three-fold. Combining this with the fact that Henry Hub natural gas prices have averaged 37% lower than previous decades since LNG exports began in 2016, American consumers are not at risk of unaffordable natural gas should exports rise. The recent lifting of the pause on new and pending LNG export permits has created an opportunity to unlock $250 billion in economic activity here at home, restoring America’s energy leadership, and promoting cleaner fuel sources. Thank you for considering my comment. Sincerely, Mr. James Mears
1320. expand/collapse 2/9/2025 11:16:48 AM Cicero, Rene General Comment Office of Fossil Energy & Carbon Management, I am writing to express my concern over the recently released Department of Energy (DOE) LNG Export Study and to thank you for lifting the pause of LNG export permitting to Non-Free Trade Agreement countries. This delay not only affected our American economy but also put our energy security at risk as well as our commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. LNG industry provides critical benefits: - Economic Growth: Since 2016, LNG industry has contributed more than $400 billion to the GDP and supports an average of 273,000 US jobs. - Energy Security: As global demand for natural gas grows, our allies rely on American-made LNG to reduce their dependence on adversaries like Russia and Iran. European countries are already looking to replace Russian gas with U.S. LNG and, officials have publicly noted that our supply will allow them to decrease dependency on Russia. - Environmental Impact: U.S. LNG has one of the cleanest emission profiles and displaces high-emission coal, supporting global emissions reduction. In fact, S&P Global found that if additional U.S. LNG is unavailable, just 15% of the replacement energy would come from renewables, and the remaining 85% from higher-emitting fuels from other countries. Furthermore, concerns over negative impacts to American consumers are unfounded. Last year, U.S. natural gas prices fell to an all-time low while LNG exports reached record highs. Americans enjoy some of the lowest residential natural gas prices in the world, and growth in natural gas production has outpaced LNG export growth by nearly three-fold. Combining this with the fact that Henry Hub natural gas prices have averaged 37% lower than previous decades since LNG exports began in 2016, American consumers are not at risk of unaffordable natural gas should exports rise. The recent lifting of the pause on new and pending LNG export permits has created an opportunity to unlock $250 billion in economic activity here at home, restoring America’s energy leadership, and promoting cleaner fuel sources. Thank you for considering my comment. Sincerely, Mr. Rene Cicero
1321. expand/collapse 2/9/2025 3:32:19 PM Berlant, Rebecca General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
1322. 2/10/2025 9:50:51 AM Walker, Kristen General Comment
  1. DOE LNG Study ACI.pdf
1323. expand/collapse 2/10/2025 11:08:43 AM Americans Against Eminent Domain Abuse Appendix B: Domestic Energy, Economic, and GHG Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports I uploaded 3 PDFs containing 2 comments and 1 exhibit last Thursday, Feb 6, 2025 at around 4:00 pm EST. It still hasn’t posted to the docket. What’s the holdup? I have posted hundreds of comments to FERC dockets in the past and have never run into such delays. The 1st amendment guarantees the right of every American to Petition their government for a redress of grievances. Congress shall pass no law to inhibit. I just noticed you’ve now added instructions not to include hyperlinks in any submission. I don’t believe that was there last week. The LNG study had hyperlinks in the document. I did not receive a notification my comments would not publish. When were you planning to tell me I had to remove hyperlinks, if ever? I sure hope the DOE intends to honor that right. Record made.
1324. expand/collapse 2/10/2025 12:09:49 PM AAEDA1776 Appendix B: Domestic Energy, Economic, and GHG Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports Addendum to previous comment on DOE failing to post my PDF comments and exhibits uploaded Feb 6, 2025 at approximately 4:00 pm EST, possibly because they included hyperlinks, which this version of instructions says not to do. A Public comment period is akin to a Town Hall or Public square meeting wherein the American people are guaranteed a 1st amendment right to Petition their government. If the DOE cannot figure out how to make hyperlink references safe, ask one of Elon’s 20 something year olds. I do not have Adobe Acrobat, which is apparently required for me to remove the hyperlinks in the reference Exhibit A I posted. I can and will remove the reference hyperlinks from my own groups’ comment. I received no confirmation in an email confirming my comments were received and no instructions in an email telling hyperlinks had to be removed. The LNG export study the DOE posted which is the subject of this Public comment period contained hyperlinks, as most reference papers do so as to give validity to statements contained therein. I’ll have to plead for someone with Adobe Acrobat to remove the hyperlinks for me. Record made.
1325. expand/collapse 2/10/2025 1:07:15 PM H, John General Comment How the LNG industry has impacted me. One factor affecting me in the rising cost of LNG is the rising cost of fuel and energy to heat our homes, businesses, schools and medical facilities. The pause in the LNG industry has impacted me with the rising cost of energy to heat my home. It has also impacted me in almost every aspect of my life. LNG affects the cost of producing just about everything we produce and pay for, thereby raising the cost of everything. It costs producers more to produce everything and that cost is passed down to the consumer, myself and everyone in our communities. My background and what I’ve seen happen with the rising cost of LNG / Energy in general. I work as a Supervisor and project Manager in the construction industry. I do not work in the same place every day so it is not feasible for me to just move closer to my job. I have to commute to where my work is. In just the last four to eight years I have seen and experienced the astronomical cost of fuel for my vehicle go up. Additionally the rising cost of goods and services has gone up immensely as well. Everything we pay for is affected by the cost to produce energy. There are so many people that live paycheck to paycheck and just day by day, they have less than me , I’m sure they are having trouble just to survive.
1326. expand/collapse 2/10/2025 1:31:36 PM Latshaw, Paul General Comment My name is Paul Latshaw and I have been a resident of ***** County for roughly 50 years. My family has been here for at least 4 generations and is a family of self-employed small business owners. I graduated from Monaca High School, then graduated from Penn State (attending Penn State ***** for the first 2 years). After college I raised my family in ***** County for the past 26 years, while running 3 small businesses of my own. My wife actually has a small business of her own, as well. In fact, one of my businesses, as well as my wife's business, is in the Oil & Gas industry. I have many friends that are also employed by the Oil & Gas industry in western Pennsylvania. This industry provides many more jobs than one might think. These jobs reach well beyond the workers at the well sites and cracker plants. There are lease agents, attorneys, title researchers, and so on. In fact, I personally know over 50 people employed by this industry in western PA, none of which work on a well site and only 1 at the Monaca cracker plant. This is an important industry, not only to our area, but to our country as well. We both care about preserving our environment and ensuring we leave a better place than we found it. This can be achieved through the use of natural gas, since it is the cleanest fossil fuel. If this ban were to pass, I could see our environment, our small businesses, as well as our nation as a whole impacted negatively. I also want to thank the current administration for the work they have don in delaying the deliberation on the LNG export permit ban.
1327. expand/collapse 2/10/2025 2:25:25 PM Rubin, Ronald General Comment My name is Ronald Rubin and I live in Denver, Colorado. I am a semi-retired attorney having assisted business for almost 50 years. I have been privileged to represent many varied clients including landowners who have leased mineral rights and drillers. My background goes back to my college years where I received a BA in mechanical engineering with an emphasis on health physics (the design of nuclear facilities to minimize radiation exposure). During that time I interned at Lawrence Livermore Labs where I assisted in the development of nuclear devices. I am acutely aware of geopolitical events and the energy crises confronting our nation and the world. I am also aware of the opportunities available to us as a nation to address these issues. I believe that the United States has an abundance of fossil fuels, has a moral duty to assist the world with this gift for the betterment of the world both socially and politically. Energy generation has been equated to prosperity and a reduction in poverty. Fossil fuels are the lynchpin to this. Alternative energy has only a stop-gap place in this equation. For example, it takes a windmill operating under good conditions three years to generate enough energy to make up for the energy needed to build and run the windmill. The operation and disposal of spent windmills is an environmental disaster. Solar panels are primarily made in China, the purchase of which aggravates our trade imbalance with China. Solar panels have a limited life expectancy. It is estimated that over 78 tons of solar panels have reached their life expectancy and another 6M tons of solar panel waste per year will need to be disposed of in the coming years. The environmental damage of doing so will be enormous. Renewable energy does not significantly decrease our dependency on fossil fuel electrical generation as backup generators are always needed. Dormant backup generators pose problems due to a failure to start, failure to run, and fuel degradation. Reliable backup generators must be built, maintained, and operated on a limited basis almost all of the time, burning and wasting fossil fuels when the power is not needed. From a social and economic perspective, liquified natural gas (“LNG”) is a viable answer to many geopolitical problems confronting us. Russia has been supplying much of Europe’s energy for decades including petroleum through pipelines (some of which have been intentionally destroyed) and LNG. Ten European countries have recently indicated a desire to terminate their purchases of Russian LNG. The US has large natural gas reserves that can be converted to LNG. Transporting LNG is cost-efficient. Selling LNG, particularly to Europe, would benefit the US economy, decrease Europe’s dependency on Russia for both LNG and petroleum, increase the quality of life in Europe due to the shortages of petroleum, and potentially impact current global wars. As an aside, nuclear power generation, particularly using small, single-use nuclear power generators being developed, is integral to the overall approach to energy needs. Based on recent press conferences and news reports, it appears that the current administration and the Department of Energy share many of these values with me including the need to increase exports of LNG for economic reasons beneficial to our country, the desire to decrease world dependency on Russian LNG for geopolitical reasons, and the desire to move away from some of the more environmentally destructive renewable energy sources by using LNG for electrical power generation. By exporting LNG, the US could be a good steward of the environment, a good neighbor to Europe, a positive proponent of our economy, and a factor in ending a three-year war in Europe. Accordingly, I urge the Department of Energy to facilitate increased exports of LNG.
1328. expand/collapse 2/10/2025 4:31:18 PM D'Alessandro, Joel General Comment My name is Joel D’Alessandro, and I was born and raised in *****, Pennsylvania. I come from generations of lifelong ***** County residents on both sides of my family, and I have vivid memories of the economic struggles our area faced during the 1980s and 1990s. Many of our local factories and businesses closed or cut back, leaving hardworking families uncertain about their future. Despite those difficult times, our community has always shown an unbreakable spirit, one founded on neighborly support and a dedication to the well-being of every resident. It is precisely because of those shared values—support for local families, economic resiliency, and ensuring stable growth—that I am writing to express my full support for lifting any ban on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) export permits. We know that affordable and abundant energy sources lower the cost of living for rural communities and strengthen our nation’s ability to meet both domestic and international energy needs. By exporting LNG, we provide our allies with a reliable resource while simultaneously generating the kind of job creation and economic investment that places like ***** County need to thrive. I am encouraged that the current administration has chosen to keep this proposed ban on hold. Your decision not only helps secure America’s standing as a leader in global energy markets but also ensures that our neighbors can continue working here at home. The ripple effects of increased energy production—including job opportunities, a more competitive domestic energy sector, and the promise of new local businesses—benefit families across the entire region. Because I believe so strongly in the positive impact of LNG exports on our communities, I ask others who share our values to join me in voicing support. Please consider contacting your elected officials, local organizations, and neighbors to emphasize how vital it is to stand behind the Department of Energy’s commitment to maintaining LNG export permits. Together, we can champion responsible policies that preserve our way of life, spur economic growth, and reinforce the well-being of rural communities across America. Thank you to the Department of Energy—and the current administration—for lifting the ban on LNG export permits and recognizing the importance of these exports to families in ***** County and beyond. Your leadership is fueling hope and opportunity for countless hard-working Americans, and I sincerely appreciate your efforts on behalf of our communities.
1329. expand/collapse 2/10/2025 4:44:55 PM Hill, Glade General Comment My name Glade Hill , I came to Denver in 1968 2 weeks after graduation from Idaho falls High school. I came here to attend a trade school for automotive repair and worked as a mechanic for a Texaco service station and ended up buying that service station April 2 1973. 1 month before the first oil embargo, gas was expensive, coming in at 31.9 miles per gallon. In 1988 I went to work for Federal Express, retired in 2016 with 29 years of service. I also owned a motorcycle recreation park of 160 acres for 18 years. I sold it in 2016 and have been enjoying retirement ever since. I have always been a motor head, with motor cycles and a truck collection. At the race track we owned the mineral rights and learned so much about the drilling process, without oil we would not any trees, so we would freeze in the dark, oil saved the usage of whale oil and the trees. Transportation is our freedom; natural gas actually helps bring oil to the surface. If it wasn't for that we would have to manually pump it out of the ground. LNG is a fabulous resource and with the USA having an abundance we have more than we can use which makes exporting a source for more great jobs that are needed and wanted. Coal would be a last resort if we ever run out of oil, Pennzoil is making engine oil lubricants out of natural gas. You need oil to make the motor it runs and the wire it flows on. I urge the continuation of this valuable power source, energy is the life blood of our economy
1330. expand/collapse 2/10/2025 5:00:16 PM Miller, Carol General Comment My name is Carol Miller. I have lived in Lake Charles, LA for 63 years. I am a lifetime resident. I have worked in the plant industry and have come to understand the importance of the continued production of liquid natural gas. I believe the members of the DOE and I share the same goals and visions for all communities in the US to rest assured they will have energy independence. Never the need to rely on another country. Throughout my adult life, I have witnessed the independence of the people of my home state due to the production of oil and natural gas. I have witnessed the positive impact on our economy and my community from ongoing production of liquid natural gas. I have also felt the negative impact on the economy from reduced production due to stifling regulations causing reduced revenue, unemployment, and rising prices. I have experienced recessions and have seen reductions in the workforce which included plant layoffs. My hope is for an agreement on contracts to keep productions flowing and to continue exports of liquid naturall gas. I thank the department for continuing LNG export permits. I am hopeful to see an expansion in this industry.
1331. expand/collapse 2/10/2025 5:03:59 PM Madsen, James General Comment I would like to comment on this matter as it is of great importance to me. My community has been affected by this and it needs to stop.
1332. expand/collapse 2/10/2025 6:14:42 PM riebel, kristin General Comment Hello my name is Kristin Riebel. I have lived in New Mexico since 2018. I am from Texas and have seen the economic benefits of the oil and gas industry. New Mexico would benefit from the taxes, jobs, peripheral industries that support Oil & Gas, cheaper energy. New Mexico is a very poor State with some if not the lowest in education, jobs, etc. The oil and gas industry would offer taxes for education and jobs for so many that have only a High School Education. As far as exports I have been to India and have seen the air quality. Exporting cleaner energy would benefit the climate everywhere. I encourage the DOE to further support the Oil and Gas Industry with in the US and specifically in New Mexico. I ask that the DOE oppose the current ban on LNG.
1333. expand/collapse 2/10/2025 6:53:43 PM Young, Sandra General Comment My name is Sandra Young and I live in Lyons, Colorado. I’d like to comment on the 2024 LNG study that was performed under the Biden administration. Until recently, I was self-employed for over 35 years in the legal field, editing transcripts of court proceedings and depositions for court reporters. I’m a Colorado native and, as you know, Colorado has a large oil and gas industry. I also have a son and son-in-law that both live in the Vernal, Utah, area, and they are both employed in the oil and gas industry. While I appreciate all of the hard work that went into producing the report and the efforts made to look out for our environment, I would like to express my support for lifting the ban on exports of liquified natural gas from the United States. Exports of LNG would encourage other nations to use it as a cleaner alternative to coal and, instead of displacing renewable energy, it can be a great way to supplement renewable energy. It would enhance energy security of our allies and would positively affect the U.S. trade balance. In addition, knowing that the LNG export ban forced non-free trade nations to turn to some of our adversaries for their LNG needs, I believe it would put the U.S. back into a more powerful political and economic position if the ban were lifted. Of course, I also support lifting the ban because anything that affects the many jobs provided by the oil and gas industry affects my family personally. The employees of the industry are hard-working Americans just trying to support their families, and the decisions that are made in Washington, D.C., greatly affect their ability to do so. As an American citizen who cares deeply about the future of our country both economically and on the world stage, I would urge you to follow through on the new administration’s commitment to resume LNG exports.
1334. expand/collapse 2/10/2025 6:56:03 PM Erdmann, Shannon General Comment Hi and thank you for letting me write my comment on the LNG study to you today. My name is Shannon Erdmann. I am a fourth generation Coloradoan, Mother of 3 girls, grandmother of 8 girls and 1 boy. My roots are deep in Colorado from my ancestors that came to Colorado and homesteaded on the Eastern plains to my grandchildren who are 6th generation Coloradoans. I hold my Bachelors in Safety Engineering, AAS in Environmental Sciences and AAS in Occupational Safety and Health. The US and specifically, Colorado has always been very conscientious about our environment and the safety of our Colorado lifestyle. Fracking has been increasingly perfected and is extremely safe. The United States is the best and safest and efficient country for Gas production bar none!!! Oil and gas production is critical to the delicate fiscal balance in our country. Oil and natural gas benefit the United States’ energy industry, contributes billions to our economy and supports hundreds of thousands of reliable, good jobs. I am one of those recipients! My second job is in Oil and gas. I support LNG export and urge you to support and resume exporting LNG for the betterment of Colorado and the rest of the US!!! Like all of you, I want a safe and healthy state and country but we simply have to be guided by common sense and a balance of what it might take to ensure the state’s longevity for generations to come. As an American citizen, I urge you to support American LNG production and continue to resume exporting for the betterment of our country.
1335. expand/collapse 2/10/2025 10:40:03 PM Hibbs, Stanley General Comment I am opposed to the expansion of liquid natural gas facilities and exports. Liquid natural gas is primarily composed of methane, which is a powerful gas that pollutes our air and water. It also contributes to climate change. We need to be developing clean, renewable, and sustainable methods of producing energy. Thank you!
1336. expand/collapse 2/11/2025 7:52:20 AM Pyatt, Susanna General Comment More LNG exports are not in the public interest; reject all pending and new LNG export applications. LNG exports are dangerous for our communities. They are environmental hazards, causing harmful pollution and the potential for explosive, deadly accidents. New LNG projects have already been rejected by communities across America, such as where I lived and worked in central Kentucky, for their potential to harm environmental and human health. It serves only the short-sighted economic interest of a few to push forward on LNG exports.
1337. expand/collapse 2/11/2025 8:45:44 AM Gross, Tim General Comment On February 6, 2025 I uploaded 3 PDFs as a comment from Americans Against Eminent Domain Abuse. The DOE has failed to publish those documents in contravention of the 1st amendment right to petition our government. No content based or viewpoint discrimination is permitted under the 1st amendment of the Constitution. On February 10, 2025, the DOE published a comment from a different entity which contained copious hyperlink. Please explain the discriminatory practice.
1338. expand/collapse 2/11/2025 11:35:35 AM Olmstead, Cecilia General Comment Hello, my name is Cecilia. I was born and raised in Northeastern New Mexico before marrying an Air Force serviceman and moving across the country and world for 20 years. I have returned to New Mexico and currently live in Rio Rancho, gladly calling New Mexico my home. I am retired from working at Sandia National Laboratory after 13 years and from the Department of Defense after 20 years. Some of my children live in New Mexico as well, and have raised families here. I hope for a better future for my family and the rest of New Mexico. I support the Oil and Gas Industry, because it creates thousands of jobs in my state. Furthermore, our economy and public education fund rely on tax revenues from the Oil and Gas Industry. I ask the Department of Energy to deny a ban of Liquid Natural Gas exportation, because it would damage my state’s workforce and weaken our public education further. New Mexico relies on the Oil and Gas Industry for success.
1339. expand/collapse 2/11/2025 12:22:34 PM Americans Against Eminent Domain Abuse Appendix B: Domestic Energy, Economic, and GHG Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports Re DOE docket 6450-01-P I am re-uploading the comments originally submitted to this docket on February 6, 2025. DOE did not publish those uploads to the docket, and no explanation was given as to why my First Amendment-protected right to petition my government was denied. All hyperlinks to any page other than EIA have been removed. Yesterday, February 10, 2025, a comment from the American Consumer Institute was allowed to be posted by DOE even though it contained many hyperlinks. There may be no discrimination based on viewpoint or content during a 1st amendment protected Public comment period. Much as I try over and over I get an "internal server error" when I attempt to upload my PDF files. You have my email address, I'd appreciate an explanation as to why my voice is being silenced.
1340. expand/collapse 2/11/2025 12:55:22 PM Groseclose, Jay General Comment My name is Jay Groseclose, and I am a native New Mexican born and raised in Roswell and currently living in Santa Fe since 1980. I worked my way through college by working in the oil patch of SE New Mexico for a large natural gas pipeline company. After graduating, I became a civil engineer largely practicing in the field of water resources. I have in common with my fellow New Mexicans a strong desire for energy independence and use of New Mexico’s natural resources for my gas and oil needs. I strongly believe and understand that more than half of New Mexico’s government funding is supplied by gas and oil production taxes, and the loss of oil and gas revenues to the state would require massive income taxes raised from the hard-working people of the state. I believe that liquified natural gas is one of the cleanest sources of energy in the world, and that we are only just now beginning to realize that “green” energy adaptations result in massively damaging environmental conditions for the entire world. I also believe, on the basis of my education and professional experience, that reliance on foreign sources of materials for energy production equipment and manufacturing weakens New Mexico and the United States. For these reasons, I strongly believe it is time to lift the pause on liquified natural gas production as necessary to support our citizens with clean and affordable energy as a path to future energy needs for a prosperous future. Only a strong production of New Mexico’s oil and gas can secure that future for current and future citizens of New Mexico. I strongly request and urge the pause on liquified natural gas by the Department of Energy be lifted permanently as soon as possible to protect our people.
1341. expand/collapse 2/11/2025 1:33:57 PM Burmood, Richard General Comment Dear Department of Energy, My name is Richard Burmood, I live in Thornton Colorado where I was born. I have also lived in Southern California, where I went to college and worked for a time until I decided to move back to Colorado in 1997. I have been in the art industry for the last 30 years as an art gallery owner and now as an art appraiser and liquidator of various collectibles and fine art. I loved living in Southern California because of the natural beauty of the diverse landscapes of the beaches, oceans, mountains, and desert. All four landscapes have been a source of inspiration and creativity to many artists and contributes to mental health and wellbeing for millions of people that live and visit California. I moved back to Colorado also because of the beauty and the clean and beautiful environment that it offers like California once did. Because I have lived in both states for a significant amount of time I have personally seen many changes regarding the environment. The changes that have taken place have been very destructive to the environment, not only from a artistic view but also from a safety and environmental perspective. When I lived in Southern California I would often drive from Huntington Beach to Joshua Tree to get inspired for my budding art career after I graduated from The Laguna Art and Design in Laguna Beach California. I loved painting the landscapes in the desert and beach settings. I think that artists play a very important role in society in that we leave behind a document of history through the arts. After several years I noticed that along my drive to Joshua Tree, a huge field of windmills grew over the years that literally littered the beautiful landscapes that have been there for thousands of years. That was the most horrifying thing that the environmentalists lied about and scammed the public into believing these windmills would help the environment but was far from the truth. This ruined my creative inspiration and showed me that the environmentalists are not concerned about protecting and conserving the environment but destroying and littering the environment over their own false agenda. Not only do these windmill fields ruin thousands of years of natural beauty and inspiration but they kill numerous animal life that use to frequent the area, for example birds are killed at alarming rates by flying close to these windmill fields that now stretch for miles and miles. I have also seen this same horrifying scene in numerous other states which as been a failed attempt to move clean and effective energy to solar that is not as safe as the environmentalists lie to us about and is never going to be effective with the current technology that we have in place. Solar energy is going to take many more years to perfect but these solar fields are not the answer and neither is battery powered automobiles for obvious reasons, I drive to Aspen for work a couple times a month and that is a four hour drive and I would not be able to get there and back on a charge and then trying to find a charging station and wait to get charged is a major inconvenience for me as a small business that depends on my car to take me to clients all over the state and country for that matter! One ore example is battery powered lawn tools and home appliances that you have to change out the batteries often and they will not even finish a house vacuum or lawn mow on one battery charge so it takes so much longer and inefficient! Lets reduce windmills and focus on clean energy like natural gas and oil and stop importing these resources and create our own energy in American that there is in abundance of right beneath our feet. We need to export so we can prosper as a nation for national security and economic reasons. What I would like to see the Department of Energy do more of is bring the cost of oil and gas down by drilling in America and using the clean energy to help bring down the costs of everyday goods and services because we all know energy is the catalyst of most everything, going back thousands of years. All of humanity has depended on energy in some form to advance and sustain a healthy, progressive society. I urge you to continue with the Trump agenda and help this country get back to where we need to be energy wise in a sustainable, clean and healthy way without ruining our natural landscapes and environment with unproven methods like damaging windmill fields that cost more to make than the energy they produce! Sincerely, Richard Burmood
1342. expand/collapse 2/11/2025 1:36:35 PM Cromer, Leah General Comment Hello, my name is Leah Cromer. I have been a resident of western Pennsylvania for most of my life. I currently live in rural western PA where the oil and gas industry employs most people. The DOE has done an amazing job with our country's security and I feel the ban on LNG will greatly risk the work done at this point. If the ban is passed I feel the security and independence of our nation among others could be in jeopardy, because it allows other nations will ill intent to step up to try and fill the need. I appreciate the work by the current government to pause this ban and hope they can see this ban needs repealed.
1343. expand/collapse 2/11/2025 2:10:13 PM Mack, Charlie General Comment Since Exxon Mobil's own predictions of temperature changes indicate that there is no limit to our capacity to cause increased heating of the earth, my questions are: - - If we have the capacity to heat the planet enough to boil the surface water, should we keep burning mined carbon fuels until we get to that point? - - If our leaders plan is to stop burning mined carbon before we boil the oceans, at what point do we stop? - - When will these criteria be shared with the rest of us?
  1. Exxon Graph of Predicted Temperature Changes.pdf
1344. expand/collapse 2/11/2025 2:48:33 PM Crouch, Dan General Comment I have lived in Colorado 76 of my 78 years. In the last 50 years I have been involved in agriculture business and farming. LNG is very important in my life, manufacturing fertilizer heating our home. With massive amount of LNG in this Great Country further production of LNG would be good for not only our country but other country’s also. Any exports and domestic production will be a good all the way around I urge the DOE to increase LNG exports in this country. Dan Crouh
1345. expand/collapse 2/11/2025 3:31:54 PM Cook, Cara General Comment The Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments (ANHE), a national network of nursing organizations and individual nurses working to promote health through addressing environmental health concerns, appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DOE’s analysis of LNG exports. The study shows that LNG exports harm individuals and community health by increasing air pollution and potential for water contamination, creating disproportionate health harms to communities living near export facilities, displacing renewable energy, and releasing massive quantities of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that undermine progress to address climate change. Climate change is already impacting the physical and mental health of those living in the United States through more frequent and severe extreme heat and weather events, air quality degradation, increased risk of vector-borne disease, and more. Nurses are on the frontlines caring for patients suffering these climate-related health impacts. The findings make clear that approving more LNG exports will only make climate impacts worse. A 2024 report by the Sierra Club and Greenpeace USA, found that US LNG export terminals are already permitted to emit levels of air pollution that cause serious health harms for people living in regions near the export terminals, with harm set to increase to 149 premature deaths and $2.33 billion in health costs per year if all planned LNG terminals and expansion projects are built. Most of the methane gas in the United States is obtained by unconventional drilling or hydraulic fracking. There are a number of health harms associated with fracking, including water contamination, air pollution, toxic chemical exposures, and more. DOE’s studies explore how the upstream extraction of fracked gas has environmental repercussions such as contamination of water sources, air pollution, and disruption of ecosystems, which can impose significant costs on communities and public health. The DOE needs to consider that increasing LNG exports would result in heightened fracking activity, increasing health threats. Due to the existing and potential health harms associated with LNG exports and in order to adequately address health, the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments calls for an incorporation of the analysis of health harms into all pending LNG export proposals, which we believe will result in LNG export applications being rejected due to the significant negative health impacts.
1346. expand/collapse 2/11/2025 6:35:16 PM Hoffman, Sandra General Comment Dear Department of Energy I have been a resident of Adams County in Colorado for 52 years. In the early times Public Service was the company in which our electric and gas was supplied. Today, EXCEL Energy is the company that supplies our needed energy. It is very important to my family to have good and trustworthy energy efficient suppliers. We wholeheartedly support President Trump’s mission to DRILL for oil and gas. He has received an overwhelming edict from the people to carry out his promised platforms. Dealing with the need to become energy independent is a top priority for many of us Americans. Recently in the past our energy bills have increased in alarming amounts. That is why today, I have taken the time, to write to you about my concerns for affordable energy prices. It is my hope that you will provide some solutions for this critical issue and keeping people employed. Please, I urge DOE to support continue LNG exports
1347. expand/collapse 2/11/2025 6:46:46 PM Roberts, Tyler General Comment Dear Department of Energy, As a lifelong resident of Colorado and a young homeowner in Weld County for the past five years, I have witnessed firsthand the rising cost of living, including the significant increase in energy bills required to heat and cool my home. These expenses have placed an increasing financial strain on my household, making affordable and efficient energy solutions more critical than ever. LNG exports represent a vital opportunity not only to lower domestic energy costs but also to strengthen the U.S. economy through expanded international trade. Increased LNG exports could enhance energy production, drive economic growth, and ultimately provide relief to homeowners like myself who struggle with rising utility expenses. As a homeowner working hard to maintain a comfortable and affordable living environment, I strongly urge the Department of Energy to support and resume LNG exports. Doing so would not only benefit individual households but also bolster the nation’s energy security and economic prosperity. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Tyler Roberts
1348. expand/collapse 2/11/2025 7:25:30 PM Lott, Betty General Comment Hello, my name is Betty and I have lived in New Mexico since 1957. I have witnessed New Mexico grow into a prosperous and strong state because of the Oil and Gas Industry. I have family members who work in the industry and have moved to New Mexico for work. The economy of my state relies on the Oil & Gas Industry for success. It is the main source of funding from tax revenues for infrastructure development, fixing roads and building bridges. Furthermore, all sorts of everyday essentials made of plastic or rubber use Oil as a by-product. The roads we drive on are made from petroleum. New Mexicans rely on Natural Gas for heating their homes, so successful Liquid Natural Gas production is essential during the cold months. The Liquid Natural Gas Industry creates thousands of jobs in rural areas of my state and country. I ask the Department of Energy to lift this pause on Liquid Natural Gas production. The Oil and Gas Industry has made great improvements to become a cleaner source of energy, and is something that we truly need.
1349. expand/collapse 2/12/2025 12:27:02 AM Jerke, Bill General Comment Office of Fossil Energy & Carbon Management, I am writing to express my concern over the recently released Department of Energy (DOE) LNG Export Study and to thank you for lifting the pause of LNG export permitting to Non-Free Trade Agreement countries. This delay not only affected our American economy but also put our energy security at risk as well as our commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. LNG industry provides critical benefits: - Economic Growth: Since 2016, LNG industry has contributed more than $400 billion to the GDP and supports an average of 273,000 US jobs. - Energy Security: As global demand for natural gas grows, our allies rely on American-made LNG to reduce their dependence on adversaries like Russia and Iran. European countries are already looking to replace Russian gas with U.S. LNG and, officials have publicly noted that our supply will allow them to decrease dependency on Russia. - Environmental Impact: U.S. LNG has one of the cleanest emission profiles and displaces high-emission coal, supporting global emissions reduction. In fact, S&P Global found that if additional U.S. LNG is unavailable, just 15% of the replacement energy would come from renewables, and the remaining 85% from higher-emitting fuels from other countries. Furthermore, concerns over negative impacts to American consumers are unfounded. Last year, U.S. natural gas prices fell to an all-time low while LNG exports reached record highs. Americans enjoy some of the lowest residential natural gas prices in the world, and growth in natural gas production has outpaced LNG export growth by nearly three-fold. Combining this with the fact that Henry Hub natural gas prices have averaged 37% lower than previous decades since LNG exports began in 2016, American consumers are not at risk of unaffordable natural gas should exports rise. The recent lifting of the pause on new and pending LNG export permits has created an opportunity to unlock $250 billion in economic activity here at home, restoring America’s energy leadership, and promoting cleaner fuel sources. Thank you for considering my comment. Sincerely, Mr. Bill Jerke
1350. expand/collapse 2/12/2025 2:21:27 PM Hough, Betty Ann General Comment My name is Betty Ann Hough. I moved to ***** County in 1988 with husband and one daughter due to change of occupation. After children I was a stay-at-home Mom. After children left the nest volunteering became my everyday activity. When we moved here the Steel Mills had been closed for a few years and so employment was difficult to find. ***** County has come a long way in the last thirty years. It is good for the the community when new manufacturing facilities locate here. With new opportunities for employment are available the community will grow. When something new is happening there is always skepticism. It takes time to get things to run smoothly. Employment is a great asset to the community as well as the products which make our lives more comfortable. Thank you to the Department of Energy for well paying jobs which they have provided. Since we agree on providing jobs for communities throughout the U.S., we should agree on opposing any ban on liquified natural gas export permits. We have ample resources in our country to supply sufficient energy for the people. Liquified natural gas provides many jobs throughout the United States which would be at risk if a ban were to take effect. Therefore, it is important that we continue to export liquified natural gas to protect jobs throughout the United States. I am grateful for the continued interest in liquified natural gas exports, and I thank the department of energy for lifting the LNG export permit ban.
1351. expand/collapse 2/12/2025 2:50:57 PM Bishop, Jack General Comment Hello, my name is Jack and I live in the Northwestern region of New Mexico. I have lived here for 8 years now, but have experienced the Oil and Gas Industry since the 1990s. Unfortunately, Oil and Gas workers and their extended family groups do not have time within their busy schedules - between working in the industry and spending quality time together at home- to advocate for themselves regarding issues that deeply affect them. It is crucial that their voices are heard and supported by not only government officials and policy makers but also fellow New Mexicans and Americans alike. Liquid Natural Gas is one of many blessings to New Mexico. God has blessed our state with this fossil fuel that provides us with energy and heat, and furthermore establishes an industry that creates thousands of jobs. New Mexicans rely on the Liquid Natural Gas Industry to provide for their families. We must strive to use facts with science as well as open dialogue when discussing issues regarding the Oil and Gas Industry without offense from supporters or those who oppose. If we can continue to utilize the technological developments that make the Oil and Gas Industry safer and cleaner, there is a potential for New Mexico to further prosper from this industry.
1352. expand/collapse 2/12/2025 3:16:54 PM Mead, Marla General Comment My name is Marla Mead. I am a native New Mexican. I have had family members who worked in the the gas and oil industry. I am concerned about our climate so I am asking you to reconsider the ban on liquefied natural gas since the countries such as India that are poorer will have to access other sources for energy that will not be as clean. This is why I oppose the ban on L and G permitting and exporting by the Department of Energy.
1353. expand/collapse 2/12/2025 4:26:07 PM Dewey , Brenda General Comment Dear Department of Energy, My name is Brenda Dewy. I’m a 5th generation Colorado Native. My parents, myself, and my husband have all been and are small business owners. My son in law is a former oil rig employee in Northern Colorado. Price increases have affected us personally with our Xcel Energy bills increasing, our grocery prices increasing, and fuel being too expensive for our vehicles. Professionally prices of building materials for remodeling have significantly increased and with that the shipping of required parts and transportation cost to and from job site to job site. Over time, the number of remodeling has decreased because of the rising costs in parts and materials. Exporting LNG contributes to over $40 billion dollars to the U.S. economy, not to foreign adversaries or foreign wars. By enabling the U.S to export its abundance of natural gas reserves, LNG strengthens domestic energy independence. I urge the DOE to support the continued development and exporting of LNG. Sincerely, Brenda Dewey
1354. expand/collapse 2/12/2025 6:42:37 PM McNutt, Derek General Comment My name is Derek McNutt, and I’ve lived in Ohio my entire life. I’ve been an avid hunter and fisherman since childhood and I’ve always enjoyed the vast wildlife and nature Ohio has to offer. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve grown to appreciate the quality and quantity of wildlife in this great state. To maintain all of the great wildlife, it’s crucial that we prioritize clean and dependable energy. Ohio has a unique opportunity to harness natural gas as a reliable and cleaner energy source. With our state’s strategic location and access to abundant natural gas reserves, we can strengthen the local economy and contribute to a cleaner energy future, supporting both Ohio's workforce and regions dependent on coal for energy. Given these points, I am confident that the time has come to lift this pause. I appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this matter.
1355. expand/collapse 2/12/2025 6:44:52 PM Overholt, Addison General Comment I’m Addison, and I grew up on a farm in Ohio, where I learned the value of hard work and how important it is to take care of the land and wildlife. Spending time outdoors gave me a real appreciation for nature, and that’s something I’ve carried with me throughout my life. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve realized that protecting Ohio’s natural beauty means we need to focus on clean, reliable energy. Natural gas offers us a great chance to have energy that’s both dependable and better for the environment. If we expand natural gas infrastructure and export capacity we can boost our economy, and help industries move toward cleaner energy. That’s why I think it’s time to lift this pause and take advantage of this opportunity. Thanks for taking the time to think this over.
1356. expand/collapse 2/13/2025 1:04:04 PM Rodke, Russell General Comment I am Russell Rodke, PE in Santa Fe, NM. As a 27-year State employee I know a great deal about infrastructure in all areas of the state and the poor condition of it. Lift the LNG Export Pause! New Mexico depends on revenues from oil and gas for 50% of the state budget. This includes capital outlay projects like water and wastewater systems, schools and state government workers. New Mexico is the worst on every list for education, child welfare, etc. Don't make things even worse!
1357. expand/collapse 2/13/2025 3:36:15 PM Muchowski, Phoenix General Comment Thank you for your work so far to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest and should be permanently stopped. I am writing today to urge you to deny all pending LNG export authorizations since they do align with public interest and pose a threat our climate and environment.
1358. expand/collapse 2/13/2025 5:16:36 PM Puryear, Steven General Comment My name is Steven Puryear. I live in Racoon Twp, Pennsylvania. I have Lived here for 25 yrs. I've worked in Rendering, Hospital and RealEstate and at Pittsburgh International Airport as a City of Pittsburgh Licensed Stationary Engineer. In All of the aforementioned fields and Jobs I/We relied on Natural Gas If We continue to maintain LNG as an Export We continue to foster better alliances with our Friends and Allies In my years of Employment as a Maintenance Man, Operator of Facilities and as a Stationary Engineer Natural gas has been a main Ingredient in the Operations and Manufacturing of Goods. Natural Gas is vital to Industry Exporting LNG is needed by Customers we would Sell and Export to. I want to Thank and Encourage the Department of Energy for continuing to Issuing permits for Export of LNG. This will help to ensure Jobs for the people working in the Natural Gas Industry
1359. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 3:30:50 AM Agrawal, Devendra Appendix B: Domestic Energy, Economic, and GHG Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports I agree with the conclusions of the 2024 LNG Export Study, however I disagree with the natural gas export authorization by Department of Energy (DoE) to Mexico Pacific LLC (FECM Docket No. 22-167-LNG) that it is not in the interest of the United States and its public. Economic Growth and Job Creation: The study concluded that U.S. LNG exports have contributed $408 billion to the nation’s GDP since 2016 and have supported an average of 273,000 domestic jobs. LNG Exports of US gas through Mexico will create 0 (Zero) jobs in the United States and contribute 0 (Zero) dollars to the US GDP. This company is: Mexico Pacific Limited LLC (MPL), a.k.a. Mexico Pacific LLC, a.k.a. MPL LNG LLC, a.k.a. Saguaro Energeia LLC Previously Owned by Quantum Energy Partners This project will take up to 2.8 BCFD of United States natural gas from the Permian Basin via a 900-mile pipeline system to the West coast of Mexico, where the gas will be liquefied and transported to Asia via sea-tankers. This project of ~20 billion USD is the single largest investment in the recent history of Mexico and it will increase the GDP of Mexico by ~3% which is a massive boost to the Mexican economy. The project will purchase natural gas from the Waha Hub in Texas at negative or zero dollars/MCF and then sell it to the Asian markets at $12-18/MCF. Natural gas at Waha hub is being traded at a massive discount to Henry Hub, which means that the American producers will give the gas to Mexico for free and also pay them to take it away from America. This is a massive profit-making machine which will hugely benefit the Mexican economy by using American natural resources. The project was Owned by an American company Quantum Energy Partners and the profits generated would have benefited the American economy, however Quantum Energy Partners has sold this project to a Mexican conglomerate Alfa Grupo owned by The Garza Sada Family. So, in the future, all the profits generated by this project will be retained in Mexico with no benefit to the US economy. At $4 /MCF margin this project will generate a profit of US$ 11.2 million/day or US$ 4 billion/year or $100 billion over 25 years which will be retained in Mexico. This is money that could have boosted the American economy and help reduce the public debt. Mexico will be using American gas to enrich themselves while they keep sending migrants across our southern border. The Department of Energy export permit (FECM Docket No. 22-167-LNG) for Mexico Pacific will expire on Dec 14, 2025. Mexico Pacific will request for an extension of this permit. I urge you to deny this extension. The extension of this permit is not in the public interest of United States. American gas should be exported from American shores or left in the ground for future generations.
  1. Letter to DoE on Mexico Pacific.pdf
1360. 2/14/2025 9:35:38 AM McManus, Mark General Comment
  1. DOE LNG Study - UA Comments February 2025.pdf
1361. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 6:34:34 PM Johnson, Rhianna General Comment I am the wife of a preacher and a homeschooling Mom of three children. I’ve lived in Colorado my entire life, and in Weld County for the last six years. I believe in using the resources that God has given us. One of the greatest natural resources we have is oil and gas. This is a great source of energy and a great source of jobs in our nation. I care about the future of our nation. My husband and I are raising our three children to be citizens that care about their community and are educated about the issues that affect their community. We want to see our country prosper and thrive, rather than be dependent on our adversaries for a source of energy. We have the oil and gas right under our feet, and we need to use it. We are an average family, without excess income, and we need affordable gas for our vehicles. We need affordable heating for our home. We need affordable groceries. We love living in a small town, and we would like to support the local businesses in our community, but our finances are stretched too thin. This is why I urge the DOE to continue the export of LNG and to support its continued development of infrastructure.
1362. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 6:49:20 PM Kokal, Kristin General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1363. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 6:50:04 PM Pace , Michael General Comment I have lived in Arapahoe County for the past 30 years. As a small business owner for the past 43 years and dealing with many industries which work with and utilize LNG and its varied products, gives me good insight into the energy industry. Increased production of LNG, utilizing existing infrastructure, lower cost and more abundant supplies help us improve our lives. Energy costs are one of the largest expenses in the operation of my business. LNG provides tax revenues and income to a large portion of our communities. A strong energy industry reduces our reliance on dirtier production of oil and gas products. If we are truly attempting to have an effect on global issues, we need cleaner processes which the US already has the capability to perform. I URGE the Department of Energy to support the continued increase of LNG production and improvement of this infrastructure.
1364. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 6:50:16 PM Malven, Tania General Comment STOP THESE ROLLING BOMBS FROM DESTROYING OUR TOWNS NOW ***** IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1365. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 6:51:18 PM Leone, Veronica General Comment LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
1366. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 6:52:04 PM Tyler, Margaret Guilfoy General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. The public demands and deserves a fair, accurate, and comprehensive analysis of the public interest determination of each LNG export project.
1367. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 6:52:56 PM Mahaffey , Kevin General Comment Fossil fuel is putting mankind past the point of no return. Mother Earth is going to evict the human race.
1368. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 6:53:54 PM Gliva, Stephen General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1369. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 6:54:23 PM Thompson, Keith General Comment Why are you allowing the export of fracked gas, which uses enormous amounts of precious water resources, for the profit of offshore energy conglomerates? Our resources should stay here! Stop exporting our future! There is no justifiable purpose to stripping our country of resources for the profits of a foreign owned corporation.
1370. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 6:54:57 PM Costa, Lynn General Comment LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep.
1371. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 6:57:51 PM Darlington, Beth General Comment Stop the export of LNG!
1372. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 6:58:47 PM Sprague, Denise General Comment More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. LNG pollution is harming public health, degrading the environment, emitting greenhouse gases and by LNG exports the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, will rise. This can lead to economic instability. The infustructure needed will degrade our coastline. It will damage our ability to retain the use of the shorline for fishing and other economical endeavors and be a safety issue.
1373. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 6:59:07 PM Herrick, Haylee General Comment A big resounding NO to all of this. This is a pointless environmental hazard with a massive carbon footprint. No, no and NO.
1374. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 7:02:43 PM Tran, Sheila General Comment We don’t need LNG destroying our environment and causing prices to rise anymore than they already are thanks to Trump and Musk. We all know that they don’t give a ***** about the environment. We do. That’s why I am asking you not to go forward with this. Thank you for your time.
1375. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 7:08:52 PM Kwasneski , Cathie Appendix C: Consequential GHG Analysis of U.S. LNG Exports This LNG a dirty, dangerous solution to our energy use. Better and safer solutions would be to promote clean energy such as renewables. Thank you
1376. 2/14/2025 7:10:00 PM Macdonald, Nick General Comment
1377. 2/14/2025 7:11:06 PM Stanley, Gabriel General Comment
1378. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 7:12:41 PM Tostanoski, DeeDee General Comment I am writing to oppose the continuation of LNG projects anywhere in the United States. While some argue that such projects provide economic benefits by creating jobs, they also do economic harm associated with damaging the environment. Polluted waterways kill off fish, damaging the food supply as well as people's livelihoods. Methane gas emitted from these projects damages the lungs of both workers and nearby residents, as well as contributing to raising the global temperature. Communities near the sites of such projects are ruined in that their property values plummet, so folks cannot sell their homes, therefore cannot relocate and must continue to live in polluted and unhealthy locations. Stop this insanity.
1379. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 7:13:09 PM Ogella, Edith General Comment This is a dangerous enterprise. In Cleveland, during WWII, a ship with LNG blew up and took the port with it. It devastated the area for miles around. The rebuilding took years, and thousands of dollars. Is it worth it? If it appears to be, perhaps the shipping should be done in the port of New York. That is where the push to engage in this activity is coming from.
1380. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 7:19:20 PM Angell, JL General Comment The report makes clear that no new LNG can ever be in the public interest and thus you would be violating the law to ever approve a new one or an expansion.
1381. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 7:19:49 PM Naprstek, Pam General Comment More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. There should be a fair, accurate, and comprehensive analysis of the public interest determination of each LNG export project. LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1382. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 7:31:08 PM Molineaux, Pascal General Comment The FACTS of Science matter. The causes and consequences of the worsening climate crisis are known, not debatable. LNG export facilities will contribute to the climate crisis. Renewable, locally-produced, clean energy sources EXIST and would ensure rapid transition to a low carbon economy. If we are to have a liveable earth we simply must seek this transition ASAP.
1383. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 7:33:43 PM Eckstut, Joann General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1384. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 7:54:57 PM Schumacher , Reid Appendix B: Domestic Energy, Economic, and GHG Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports Stop Shipping LNG by rail.
1385. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 7:56:43 PM Cardott, A General Comment This is NOT something that we can let any senile politician or crony hijack. The point of the Assessment is environmental and health impact, and such can NOT be excluded from the assessment. Further, at this point no phony "economic assessment" is necessary. Anyone who doesn't already know that the CEOs will make a killing and the "job creation" will be temporary, exploitative and wasteful, at the expense of the country's environment and affected areas' health, is guilty of lack of attention. Get the assessment right or halt the entire export!
1386. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 7:57:20 PM Jones, Charlotte General Comment My comment is short. I am just a citizen and not well versed in LNG. But I do know that continuing the export of Liquified Gas will hurt our environment and our health. It will RUIN our environment and therefore hurt everything in the world. Please help our world by stopping the export and use of LNG. Thank you for your attention to this very important problem and danger.
1387. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 8:04:09 PM Glasscock, Rita General Comment STOP LNG EXPORTS !!!!
1388. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 8:06:55 PM mossman, sue General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
1389. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 8:16:49 PM Moran, Gail General Comment I do not support furthering LNG production. LNG production has several environmental, economic and health consequences. The extraction, liquefaction, transportation, and re-gasification releases vast amounts of greenhouse gases, worsening the climate crisis. Numerous studies have found that LNG exports push prices upward for American consumers. LNG can have many negative health effects, especially for people that leave near LNG facilities. The air pollution produced by these facilities can cause •Respiratory illnesses like coughing, headaches, and dizziness •Irritation of the eyes, skin, nose, and lungs •Increased risk of heart disease, cancer, and respiratory disease
1390. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 8:17:11 PM Councilman , David General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1391. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 8:17:52 PM Fritsch, Robert General Comment For the U.S. to get into the business of exporting LNG, actually methane, flies in the face of erasing our carbon footprint beginning in 2030 and continuing through 2050 and amounts to yet another broken promise on the world state. We are losing our leadership and becoming a serious disappointment to friends and allies around the world as we attempt at the same time to confront authoritarianism. We might be losing on both fronts as a relatively prosperous and peaceful world dissolves.
1392. 2/14/2025 8:32:45 PM Berumen, Yolanda General Comment
1393. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 8:36:38 PM Dutschke, Stephen General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on all communities. It’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. More permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1394. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 8:38:13 PM Johnson, Shawn General Comment STOP the export of liquified natural gas. It is too dangerous and destructive to our health. Thank you, Shawn Johnson
1395. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 8:41:19 PM Unertl, Ann General Comment Speaker Mike Little Johnson went to tRump and informed him that he stopped LNG via executive order. tRump didn’t realize he did. Speaker Little Johnson told him that stopping LNG affected his constituents. Ironic isn’t it?
1396. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 8:42:20 PM Renfro, Robert General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
1397. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 8:55:21 PM Mortimer, Rudolf General Comment Stop LNG exports and production for the sake of a habitable world. Thanks.
1398. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 8:57:04 PM Zowader, Ruth General Comment As a former executive with ExxonMobil I know how dangerous the transportation of LNG is. It is a disaster waiting to happen. Given the track record of the oil industry, it should never be allowed. There can be no guarantees. We need to move to less dangerous fuels.
1399. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 9:00:57 PM Mentzer, Kerry General Comment I am greatly concerned about the proven track record the LNG facilities have of emitting dangerous levels of lead, benzene and carbon monoxide. With LNG facilities comes the loss of wetlands. LNG facilities use immeasurable amounts of water. Traffic surges with these facilities and the LNG poses a major environmental threat should fire result from faulty piping or other issue. You must not approve this.
1400. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 9:05:15 PM Busler, Niles General Comment We should be keeping the product for our use. Someday they will have none and we will. Then if it is exported, it will be at a premium. Shot sighted is exporting too soon.
1401. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 9:07:27 PM Brandom, Barbara General Comment There should be no expansion of LNG export infrastructure in the USA, because there is already enough LNG under contract to meet the world markets for LNG. Adding more LNG export will be wasting assets that should remain within the USA. It is immoral to create discord and increase deaths just to sell LNG. Expanding LNG exports will hurt the economy in the USA, directly by making LNG in the US meet the higher prices abroad. Furthermore burning LNG will greatly increase green house gas emissions around the world and increase suffering from the results of global warming. There is no exuse to export more LNG from the US other than that the rich want more money.
1402. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 9:21:15 PM Garner, Lauren General Comment ​I am opposed to the exportation of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG). LNG pollutes and harms public health. LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s re-gasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster. LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. We do not need more LNG. Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefiting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
1403. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 9:23:48 PM Punday , Nicole General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1404. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 9:34:32 PM Cage, Ray General Comment To You, Shut down this LNG export business.
1405. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 9:37:42 PM Lozoraitis, Helen General Comment LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. Given that not only will there be negative economic and employment impacts to the United States but also severe environmental impacts, I am overwhelmingly opposed to LNG Exports and strongly urge you to stop LNG exports as soon as possible. Thank you.
1406. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 10:03:38 PM K, Colleen General Comment LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. These two reasons are more than enough not to do expand and let the current LNG continue... the really ironic thing is this is a mistake that Obama made. He was the first President to authorize LNG when it had been against all policy. There's irony for you, two administrations from two different parties going with the same mistake. Please stop expecting the same action to have different results.
1407. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 10:06:50 PM OToole, Joe General Comment The state of the environment demands a fair, accurate, and comprehensive analysis of the public interest determination of each LNG export project
1408. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 10:11:44 PM Balaban, Susan General Comment LNG is dirty energy and if we are to protect ourselves we must cease dependence on these kind of sources. We need NO MORE LNG pipelines!!!
1409. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 10:16:09 PM Tan, Hiedi General Comment LMG exports will cause more pollution, exacerbate the climate crisis and cause more financial hardship on domestic users.
1410. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 10:19:27 PM Nafziger , Nikki General Comment Lng exports are causing layers of pollution. We're already exporting more than we can use/more than we need. We cannot continue to pollute: causing greater damage to the environment that results in devastating storms, etc fuelled by pollution. So the costs for cleaning up and the costs of human lives are enormous! We the people cannot afford this!
1411. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 10:22:35 PM O'Brien, Lee General Comment We're in an energy emergency - its got to be illegal to sell US energy over seas.
1412. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 10:25:46 PM herrington, Marna General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1413. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 10:34:31 PM Dumser, N. General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse, LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. I demand a fair, accurate, and comprehensive analysis of the public interest determination of each LNG export project. demand a fair, accurate, and comprehensive analysis of the public interest determination of each LNG export project.
1414. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 10:42:53 PM Glaeske, Lynne General Comment Petroleum products, including LNG, are dirty from the moment they are extracted, through transport, to the moment they are burned. We don't need to continue polluting our air and water, and endangering the health of the US population through the production and use of fossil fuels -- we choose to do it through ignorance and disregard for the health of our people and our planet.
1415. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 10:47:38 PM Troxell, Shawn General Comment Build on truth and facts. Trump ordered that “economic and employment impacts to the United States” and “the impact to the security of allies and partners” be considered by the agency, omitting the CRITICAL environmental and climate impacts and the public health implications for communities that was key to the study’s original purpose. Truth. Science. Not whimsy.
1416. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 11:34:43 PM Wilder, Megan General Comment STOP LNG PERMITS!!!
1417. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 11:47:01 PM Kim, Earl General Comment LNG is bad for the global climate. We don’t need more carbon in our atmosphere. This is not good for the American economy too. Do not encourage more LNG production. Thank you for your consideration.
1418. expand/collapse 2/14/2025 11:50:06 PM MacGregor, Susie General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1419. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 12:01:04 AM Yeh, Emily General Comment LNG exports should be stopped. They will make the climate crisis worse, drive up price of gas for domestic users, and create more pollution for American communities. They are bad for everyone. There is no rationale in the public interest for exporting Liquified Natural Gas. New applications to export LNG should be stopped given the preponderance of evidence that shows the damage they will cause both at home from local pollution and high prices and for global climate change which also affects all communities across the United States, whether rural or urban, republican or democrat .
1420. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 12:09:57 AM Swenson, Michele General Comment The Dept. of Energy 2024 LNG Export Study reports that LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we urgently need to reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe, and LNG increases will displace truly clean renewables at the time we really need them. The Study reports that the resultant oversupply of LNG will be bad for business, and jeopardize energy security, as well as increasing gas prices for consumers with increased exports. Wholesale domestic natural gas prices could increase by over 30%, if LNG exports are not constrained. Increased gas prices in turn would also increase the cost of domestically consumed electricity because so much natural gas is used to run the nation’s electric generating stations. Additional knock-on impact would be felt in the costs of goods for consumers because higher manufacturing costs would be passed through. This is a lose-lose for Americans.
1421. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 12:10:35 AM Lipinski, Clare General Comment No more LNG exports - they drive up domestic prices, increase pollution, and worsen climate change - and expansion of exports is projected to exceed demand, glutting the global market anyway. LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1422. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 12:23:17 AM Lama, Kunga General Comment The DOE report showed very clearly the need to stop LNG exports. LNG export facilities would drastically increase greenhouse gas emissions, lead to more than 1 million premature deaths as well as respiratory issues, cancer, and fetal health problems, cause environmental destruction of American landscapes, and be disastrous for local communities. Stop destroying the futures of our children and grandchildren. No more LNG exports!
1423. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 12:32:09 AM more, mary General Comment - There is already a glut of LNG worldwide - LNG causes more greenhouse gases - More LNG will drive up the cost of electricity and manufacturing - More LNG will drive up the price of domestic gas
1424. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 12:41:18 AM Dorsey, Ann General Comment I urge you to block all LNG exports for the following reasons: LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
1425. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 2:32:33 AM Benson, Barbara General Comment At a time when we should be considering our impact on the climate of the planet, to even consider expanding the export of LNG from our shale bonanza is more than foolish. It is deadly. While we might think that all is being done to contain the methane as it moves along the process, we need to further study HOW MUCH is escaping into the atmosphere. The export of LNG will impact the price of natural gas here domestically by at least 30% AND because of that electricity prices would also increase at a time when we need relief from higher expenditures in general. The dramatic effect LNG has on the GLOBAL environment should be enough incentive to discourage the export of this product, not to mention the inherent risk of the production of the gas itself. This is a dangerous industry and is just primed for a catastrophic event. Please don't let this exportation happen. Keep America SAFE for our children and grandchildren.
1426. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 2:54:08 AM Evan, V General Comment LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases. At the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. A new report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. This is to demand a fair, accurate, and comprehensive analysis of the public interest determination of each LNG export project. Thank you.
1427. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 3:24:55 AM Steitz, Jim General Comment I implore you to stop the Department of Energy’s program of permitting, licensing, subsidizing, encouraging, and cheerleading for the expansion of fossil methane gas export “LNG” terminals.  Both you and these projects’ corporate sponsors have been informed, in a torrent of increasingly desperate and explicit pleadings from scientists over a quarter-century, that human survival demands the bulk of remaining fossil methane remain securely underground.  The volume of natural gas that a guild of sociopathic hydrocarbon corporations envision extracting, liquefying, and shipping overseas will foreclose humanity’s hope for stabilizing our climate. The mathematics of our atmosphere's progressive saturation with carbon dioxide, and the constraints of an atmosphere capable of supporting human civilization, are unequivocal. Extracting and burning methane must be rapidly discontinued, overseas just as surely as domestically, if we wish our children a habitable planet. By brazenly defying this warnings in favor of consecrating a decades-long export program, you commit yourself to humanity’s obituary as an agent of our suicide by climate sabotage.   DOE has sought to rationalize these fossil methane exports as a geopolitical response to Russian influence in Europe, providing a ‘friendly’ source and displacing Russian leverage via its own methane gas. However, even a cursory consideration of the breathtaking scale and timeframe of these projects belies this cynical deception of humanity. The public statements, balance sheets, and seductive investor calls of these projects’ corporate sponsors openly aim to renew, reaffirm, and make imperturbable the world’s consumption of fossil methane for decades beyond even the most generous deadline offered by scientists for planetary survival. Today’s geopolitics is not an actual reason for fossil methane export, but rather a deceitful pretense for locking humanity to carbon bombs whose horrific consequences will render today’s wars, including that in Ukraine, a trivial footnote for our children. We live in a world where most nations have nominally assented to the idea of “net zero by 2050” or some comparable formulation, but no government has made the tangible decision to disappoint today’s fossil fuel interests by leaving their own carbon bombs in the ground. As each government implements a policy, either as explicit strategy or implicit rationalization, of ‘our nation-state as the last fossil fuel producer to the end,’ the cumulative effect is that nobody’s fossil fuel production declines, and humanity continues flooring the accelerator into climate hell. For any hope of attaining such 2050-pegged goals, let alone actual climate stabilization and its more demanding schedule, each government must renounce its own carbon bombs and anger its own carbon lobbies. Europe has shown itself capable of doing so with exceptional speed and focus of purpose where a national interest is at stake. By offering the easy siren call of American fossil methane to the myopic, complacent, and climate-denial lane of European politics, you sabotage this opportunity for dispatching both a passing petty tyrant and the tyranny of the climate suicide lobby. Moreover, the expansion of American natural gas companies into the foreign markets would accelerate and perpetuate their aggressive evisceration of our human and natural landscapes. From the Allegheny Mountains of New York and Pennsylvania, to the farmlands of the Piedmont, to the pastures of Texas, to the National Forests of California, natural gas companies are running amok over public and private lands. Iconic American landscapes that have defined our character and aesthetic for decades are being irrevocably scarred and peeled away. After the gas is gone, Americans will look in regret and shame upon what our generation has done to our home. If America becomes a major exporter of LNG, it would further encourage gas companies to peel away the green, living lungs of the Earth upon which human life depends.    Again, please reject these fossil methane ‘LNG’ export terminals, and prevent the gas companies from vivisecting America's land and communities for an immediate payout, and to prevent America from becoming a veritable launching pad for global climate catastrophe. America must become a leader of humankind into a future of survival, not off a cliff into climate Armageddon. Thank you for your attention to this urgent issue.
1428. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 5:37:19 AM Hasapidis, George General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be saddled with a disproportionate amount of toxic LNG pollution. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report also finds that exporting our LNG overseas drives up the price of gas here at home, all while causing a glut of LNG overseas, engendering economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. Please take a few minutes to submit your personal comment to demand a fair, accurate, and comprehensive analysis of the public interest determination of each LNG export project.
1429. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 5:52:57 AM publie, jean General Comment I do not support long exports. I am overwhelmingly opposed to allowing long exports. they bring about pollution. they harm the usa by destroying land that is then poisoned for thousands of years.
1430. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 6:02:59 AM KELEHER, Hugh General Comment We don't want LNG exports!
1431. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 6:18:58 AM Close, Brian General Comment No way!
1432. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 7:43:18 AM Pinque, Meryl General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1433. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 7:43:20 AM Weisman, Eleanor General Comment I urge you to stop LNG exports that are contributing to the breakdown of the livable climate. LNG exports produce toxic pollution here in the United States and harm our communities. While the corporate fossil fuel producers benefit financially, ordinary Americans suffer from the long term environmental impacts. In addition, LNG exports raise prices here at home. I oppose the continuing expansion of LNG exports that. Thank you.
1434. 2/15/2025 8:12:53 AM Seegott , Mary General Comment
1435. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 8:46:58 AM Martin, Benjamin Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour
1436. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 9:04:03 AM Henkel, Lorna General Comment Wholesale domestic natural gas prices could increase by over 30%, if LNG exports are not constrained. Increased gas prices in turn would also increase the cost of domestically consumed electricity because so much natural gas is used to run the nation’s electric generating stations.
1437. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 9:11:22 AM Petri, Claire General Comment We should stop LNG exports because it is shown to increase costs for consumers in the United States. LNG production also has horrible effects on local communities, particularly in my home state of Pennsylvania where the environmental and health effects of fracking are devastating. All new and pending LNG export applications should be rejected and LNG exports should be phased out altogether.
1438. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 9:17:27 AM B, Jenna General Comment I am a resident of Philadelphia with family ties to western PA coal miners. Pennsylvania has suffered the devastating environmental, health, and economic hardships of being the second largest gas producer in the nation, and approving more LNG exports will only exacerbate these consequences. My great-grandfather came to this country fleeing abject poverty, and he made a living quickly by killing himself slowly — that is, by working in a coal mine. We must not approve LNG exports, which produce pollution, devastate health, and perpetuate poverty. Instead, we should pursue renewable energy projects that let us live longer, healthier lives and increase the chances we will leave a livable planet for our children. It’s what my grandfather would have wanted for me and what I want for my grandchildren.
1439. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 9:28:50 AM Yelenik, Margaret General Comment The reasons below explain why more LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and must be rejected. LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1440. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 10:43:07 AM Steiner, A.L. General Comment As you know, LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Sec. Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are fully and swiftly degrading, poisoning and destroying the environment and all life forms in the vicinity at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. As you also know, LNG exports are and will continue to worsen climate chaos by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We MUST develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases! The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1441. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 10:45:09 AM Posch, Robert General Comment America First! Primary focus should be on the critical environmental and climate impacts and the public health implications for OUR communities in the surrounding areas as well to the Climate which impacts all Citizens! Fossil fuel profits and infrastructure top continue the dependency on such is NOT in the interests of America!
1442. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 11:24:56 AM Cushman, Jean General Comment I am opposed to developing more U.S. LNG exports. The reasoning behind this is simple, CO2. CO2 warms the planet and has caused a wavering jet stream. That's why in Baltimore, we had weeks of low temperatures, and then more like spring temperatures. For example, on January 20, it was so cold that the inauguration had to be held indoors - Washington, DC is on our border. Every year, the blooming of the cherry trees in Washington, DC, happens sooner than the year before. According to the National Geographic, "Despite being on opposite sides of the world, data from Japan and America suggests global shifts in the dates of peak bloom season- approximately 13 days earlier on average in Kyoto and 3 days in D.C. by decade." (March, 2024). When was trying to figure all of this out, I turned to our government. According to the EPA, "Warming temperatures are believed to be contributing to earlier bloom dates for the iconic cherry trees in the nation’s capital. Rising sea levels lead to increased tidal flooding that can threaten cherry blossoms and infrastructure." In 1975, the water in the Baltimore harbor was so frozen over, an ice-breaker was used to get container ships into the Harbor moved in and unloaded. It hasn't happened since that year. On August 2, 2024, that was 105 degrees, a DPW worker named Ronald Silver, died due to heat as he was working. This is just one example of sickness and death due to heat in Baltimore in 2024. I had to spend many days in doors last summer, unlike summers before that. I worry for my children and grandchildren because of war and mass extinctions. Please do not go ahead with this plan to export more LNG.
1443. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 11:29:08 AM Donnelly, Richard General Comment I oppose the export of LNG. It’s time to get on board with alternatives that don’t damage our health for the benefit of other countries.
1444. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 11:51:56 AM McCune , Sandra General Comment The trump administration needs to use the study that has already been done, and oppose US LNG exports.
1445. 2/15/2025 12:28:11 PM Kendall, Connie General Comment
1446. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 12:32:40 PM Huggins, William General Comment We must end the era of fossil fuels. For a livable future, we must stop using fossil fuels and building out the infrastructure: we must build no more fossil fuel infrastructure, including for LNG. LNG exports create more pollution for communities near the plants, pipelines, and export terminals, causing birth defects, disease, and shortening lives. LNG exports make the climate crisis worse. LNG exports also make gas more expensive here in the US, for both vehicle and electricity use. Ignorance is not an American value. We must end our reliance on fossil fuels and move to a greener future--today, not tomorrow.
1447. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 12:46:40 PM Dunnell, David General Comment LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
1448. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 1:02:47 PM Reilly, Mary General Comment LNG is an extremely dangerous substance and should not be transported near densely populated areas. Stop the transport of LNG in the Philidelphia area.
1449. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 2:03:56 PM OMeara, Colleen and Joe General Comment Mining is fundamentally incompatible with wilderness preservation. The EA admits some impacts to Wilderness would occur, but downplays them. This proposal is to assess mineral potential for eventual mining in the Wilderness and is an extension of the larger Rock Creek Mine proposal. However, the EA erroneously claims no cumulative impacts to the Wilderness from this proposed mine even though the goal of exploration is to develop a mine in the Wilderness. The EA further ignores connected actions, specifically the larger proposal to develop a mine or mines in the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness. The EA erroneously fails to recognize that the Wilderness includes the subsurface. Extending a tunnel 4,200 feet in the Wilderness does have an impact even if the tunnel does not—yet—come to the surface. The current tunnel, built in the 1990s, has its entrance not far outside of the Wilderness and intrudes into the Wilderness underground. This proposal would greatly expand the tunnel by a few thousand feet, all in the Wilderness. The EA claims no significant degradation to surface water in the Wilderness, but that is degradation nonetheless. The wilderness section of the EA claims no impact to groundwater, yet the groundwater section of the EA admits a 500-foot draw down of the water table where the tunnel would be built underground in the Wilderness, and states that an expected increase in flow—of 135 gallons per minute—would add to the existing flow from the current tunnel. Further, the EA refers to impacts after de-watering rather than during the de-watering phase. Thus, the impacts to hydrology are not well quantified or analyzed. The EA admits there would be increased noise that affects the Wilderness. However, the EA fails to mention whether impacts from heavy equipment used to build the tunnel underground in the Wilderness could affect the surface in any way. The project would last for 16 years and is an extensive proposal of rehabilitating 7,000 feet of existing tunnel and building an additional 4,200 feet of tunnel, all in the Wilderness. A full Environmental Impact Statement is needed for this long-lasting project that will negatively impact the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness.
1450. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 2:06:59 PM Engle, I. General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1451. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 2:07:18 PM Vogel, Steven General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. Including the permanently destroyed drinking water aquifers contaminated with toxic "proprietary" pollutants. I personally know of one northeastern Pennsylvania resident, a long-time friend, who had to leave her dream retirement home and move back to Manhattan after nearby fracking polluted her well, and another pair of friends, a Native American couple in Utah, whose rural well was similarly polluted. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1452. 2/15/2025 2:50:22 PM Coffey, Karen General Comment
1453. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 3:18:12 PM Derzon, Jim General Comment No LNG exports! We don't need to continue destroying the environment when clean energy alternatives are available and cheaper for the public.
1454. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 3:19:20 PM Long, Laura General Comment LNG will make our climate crisis even worse. Please stop LNG exports.
1455. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 3:45:31 PM Born, Janet General Comment It is vital that we look at the consequences of any of our actions. The environment is critical to this issue. Please continue monitoring any and all actions taken by our country.
1456. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 4:21:07 PM Our Green West Orange Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports Dear Sir or Madam, We must move to a plant-based, clean energy economny. Oil and gas are as outdated as coal. The technology exists to move to clean energy that will not pollute our environment. Leave the gas in the ground and let's create clean energy jobs, instead. Thank you.
1457. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 5:45:39 PM Burns, Phoebe General Comment I am opposed to LNG exports because they will drive up domestic gas prices. That’s a severe economic downside for all Americans.
1458. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 6:27:11 PM Earley , Brian General Comment Hello, We need to greatly reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and LNG production needs to be reduced and not expanded. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. Please halt the development and export of LNG.
1459. expand/collapse 2/15/2025 6:30:45 PM Caracci, Joyce General Comment Dear Department of Energy: I live in a rural community. I am very concerned about the environmental impact of LNG on the environment and people who live and work and attend school near pipelines and railways that transport this dangerous fuel. In the past few years, there have been several accidents by rail and in ships that have resulted in toxic fumes and seepage into the soil and water. The fumes from the rail fires caused health emergencies in the nearby towns that were effected. Our nation must be an example for other countries. We must transition to safer, cleaner energy such as solar, wind and geothermal. Destroying our ground and soil will cause irreversible damage to our already fragile ecosystems that are struggling. Please stop the transport of LNG to other countries. This action will cause ecological fatalities.
1460. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 11:45:50 AM Nelson, Jeffrey General Comment Increasing LNG exports is not in the interest of our country or the world. There is strong medical evidence showing the risk to human health from the burning of fossil fuels. Burning LNG and other fossil fuels increases the risk of cardiac and pulmonary disease as well as cancer. I am a retired family physician and have followed the science for years. It is unequivocal that our society needs to get away from fossil fuel use if we wish to prosper and survive. The only ones to benefit from LNG export are the owners of those companies and their only benefit is short term economic benefit. Their families will also suffer from our society's continued use of fossil fuels. The families of those who live near facilities that produce LNG will suffer worse consequences in their health. It is time to move past fossil fuels. The science is clear. Whether or not we heed the science will determine our fate.
1461. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 12:11:55 PM Schivell, Chrystal General Comment My research indicates that approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increase greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and will harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. Increased LNG exports will also lead to an LNG glut globally. An oversupply of LNG is not only bad for business, it jeopardizes energy security. I therefore call upon the Trump administration to stop LNG exports.
1462. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 12:38:52 PM Francis, Stuart General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1463. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 3:11:46 PM Facey, Laurel General Comment The export of LNG is one of the worst actions of our industries and government - a total waste of energy!
1464. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 3:16:09 PM Van Bramer, Scott General Comment I am writing to express my opposition to LNG exports. The environmental, climate, and social justice impacts of these projects far outweigh the benefit to large corporations. The United States government has an obligation to do what is in the best interests of the American people - not in the monied interests of the wealthy and corporate interests.
1465. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 3:21:16 PM Collins, Carol General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
1466. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 3:31:15 PM Anonymous , Anonymous General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1467. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 3:34:09 PM perilli, aggie General Comment Polluting LNG is harmful to public health – LNG is made from previously illegal fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
1468. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 3:36:50 PM Pantaleo, Tari General Comment The export of liquified natural gas must stop. Approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increase greenhouse gas emissions, and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. The critical environmental and climate impacts such exports pose cannot be ignored.
1469. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 3:38:42 PM Beck, Paul General Comment I am a 74 year old native Californian and an attorney. I have two sons, 35 and 32, and a grandson aged 1 and 1/2. I am greatly concerned about our wilful ignorance of the effects of climate change on my children and granchild and those who will follow us. I believe that LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities and harm public health and shorten lives. The scientific research proves that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle, both at LNG facilities and where fossil gas is being fracked and transported, such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation. Furthermore, LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we urgently must reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophes. We need to develop truly clean renewables, but these will be displaced by LNG increases. Furthermore, LNG exports will drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and will likely lead to economic instability.
1470. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 3:52:25 PM Gardner, Kristen General Comment LNG poses threats to public safety in every phase of production, transportation, and utilization. It is harmful and short sighted. The economic benefits do not outweigh the risks. Please do not support further LNG projects.
1471. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 3:53:23 PM Dugan, Michelle General Comment Please stop LNG export immediately!
1472. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 3:57:09 PM Wolfgang, Joe General Comment The gas goes overseas and the radioactive wastes stay here..Crazy! Joe Wolfgang
1473. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 3:57:22 PM Meyers, Paul General Comment I firmly believe that LNG is extremely dangerous for our country, both for our citizens and for the environment. When I say environment, I mean for the local environments from where it is extracted, where it is produced, the communities along routes it is transported, as well as for the climate itself, which affects the entire planet and people everywhere. LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It therefore carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
1474. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 4:04:17 PM Switzer, Andrew General Comment I live and work in West and Southwest Philadelphia, an area of the city that is still devastated by decades of fossil fuel industry use. Though the bulk of the industry has now moved on from our neighborhoods, the contamination remains. Our soil is still laced with benzene and heavy metals and a whole rich cocktail of carcinogenic compounds, and they're in the underground water as well, slowly but steadily leaking into the Schuylkill River. We need to immediately do everything in our power to turn away from fossil fuels, and toward energy-producing technologies that don't poison us and the generations to come, and a key part of that is ending LNG exports now. We need clean air, water and soil, not more pipelines and export hubs, and not the rising global temperatures that LNG brings.
1475. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 4:08:45 PM Winkler , Barbara General Comment Please stop the LNG export.
1476. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 4:35:14 PM Mumma, Kathleen General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
1477. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 4:44:09 PM Nahill, Brad General Comment Reject liquid natural gas exports. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1478. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 4:51:02 PM Armstrong, Carol General Comment As a stream monitor, I am discovering the high levels of contaminants in our drinking water and in aquatic ecosystems. Such contaminants are threatening biodiversity of even the species that we have considered common in our lifetimes. More LNG exports will require extensive infrastructure that will undermine critical climate goals, increase greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health. The health of our environment is not as robust as it appears, and many species are at risk, as well as human health. The release of chemicals into our environment over decades is a legacy of disability that we are passing on, with increasing rates of developmental disorders, chronic diseases in younger age groups, and diseases of aging. Economic analyses show the increasing cost of these diseases. We need to make the decisions to protect our future and use our innovative technologies to avoid reliance on fossil fuels.
1479. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 5:07:09 PM Kauffman, Joshua General Comment I oppose exporting LNG
1480. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 5:13:57 PM Tymkiw, Elizabeth General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
1481. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 5:23:51 PM Rayna, Adrienne General Comment Liquid natural gas, as well all other fossil fuels, is just going the wrong direction. The risks of polluting water and habitat, releasing more carbon into the air, and effecting pressures within the earth that could cause earth quakes, are just to high. Stop Liquid Natural Gas exports. If we need to compete in a global economy using things that destroy the water, air and climate then we better look at the design of our economy and find a better way.
1482. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 5:29:22 PM Shakarjian, Michael General Comment The extensive report by the U.S. Department of Energy that was released at the end of 2024 explains that approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities from both increased extraction as well as activities at the LNG facilities. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases from the process of the extra extraction, the process of liquifying the natural gas, and the transport long distances. Also, LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. This action is contrary to the notion that we have an energy emergency in the U.S. Therefore, I ask you to STOP LNG exports and the review of new projects.
1483. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 6:06:58 PM Barnartt-Goldstein , Elaine General Comment LNG is damaging to the environment, and transporting by rail is dangerous to the communities it passes through. Please do not permit it.
1484. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 6:09:16 PM Coladonato , Philip General Comment Hello. I am a lifelong resident of the great state of Pennsylvania. I’d like to urge you to stop the export of liquified natural gas. This practice is too damaging to public health and our great environment. And it is unnecessary. Thank you.
1485. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 6:18:12 PM Fumarola, Aaron General Comment Dear sleazy ***** absolutely DRENCHED in crude oil: LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. Please take a few minutes to submit a comment through our easy-to-use system to demand a fair, accurate, and comprehensive analysis of the public interest determination of each LNG export project.
1486. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 6:20:18 PM DAnna, Marie General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
1487. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 7:06:32 PM Van *****, Norma General Comment A 2024 LNG export study revealed that exporting gas will have several adverse consequences: 1. It will drive up the price of gas for domestic use, including electric utility and manufacturing costs; 2. Further permitting would result in excess supply; 3.It would make the climate worse by pumping out greenhouse gasses; 4. It would drive up the price of gas for domestic use, including manufacturing and utility costs
1488. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 9:05:11 PM Leitch, Mary Ann General Comment LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
1489. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 9:09:08 PM Canright, Mark General Comment Greetings! As a farmer, I strongly support protecting our environment. Thanks for all that you do. I ask you to please do all you can to move away from fossil fuels like LNG exports, and move instead towards renewable energy like solar and wind and geothermal. Have a great day, Mark
1490. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 9:59:50 PM McClure, Louise General Comment We are in an existential climate crisis, caused by burning fossil fuels. We CANNOT continue business as usual if we want to continue existing. For the love of life, DO NOT allow LNG exports. They will poison the environment at the point of extraction, at the point of consolidation, at the point of shipping, and at the point of burning. And our beloved planet will continue to warm, with ongoing floods and droughts around the world. It will push migration and fighting over the remaining resources to unimagined levels. We know how to avoid the worst. Do we have the political will to save ourselves?
1491. expand/collapse 2/16/2025 11:10:16 PM Bryan, David General Comment Last year, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) put a pause on its authorizations for LNG exports in January. In December, they released the report updating how they will decide whether a proposed LNG export project is in the public interest based on public health impacts, environmental/climate impacts, and economic impacts. The extensive report explains that approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution.
1492. expand/collapse 2/17/2025 3:24:34 AM Rea, Cynthia General Comment STOP LNG Exports! They kill people and the environment with pollution. It is cheaper to use wind and sun power!
1493. expand/collapse 2/17/2025 7:01:00 AM Uhlman, Ted General Comment JUST SAY NO TO LNG EXPORTS ON THE DELAWARE RIVER
  1. PowellMemo.009.pdf
1494. expand/collapse 2/17/2025 7:38:36 AM Feely-Nahem, Erin General Comment Please reconsider approving more LNG exports. This act will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution.
1495. expand/collapse 2/17/2025 8:31:13 AM Cummings, Christina General Comment NG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale.
1496. expand/collapse 2/17/2025 9:24:31 AM Enger, Erin General Comment More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. This is not what I want my taxes to pay for!
1497. expand/collapse 2/17/2025 9:26:05 AM Pedersen, Ellen General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
1498. expand/collapse 2/17/2025 10:00:45 AM Seabloom, Donna General Comment I wholly oppose LNG Exports. LNG exports are a temporary solution for energy needs. Among the many reasons I oppose LNG are for disadvantaged communities already fighting for environmental justice that would be burdened with more LNG pollution which harms public health and shortens lives. In fact, LNG exports degrade the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at all LNG facilities and anywhere fossil gas is fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases now. We must act urgently to reduce these emissions immediately to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables. Without urgent action against LNG increases, the climate crisis will worsen. Investigations find that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs which can lead to economic instability. The report concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
1499. expand/collapse 2/17/2025 10:24:31 AM Balogh, A General Comment I am totally opposed to the export and further development of ALL fossil fuels including LNG! Climate change has been shown by sound science to be exacerbated by the use of fossil fuels. Invest in sustainable, non-polluting energy sources such as solar power. Support development of Scott and Julie Brusaw’s Solar Roadway system as a global initiative.
1500. expand/collapse 2/17/2025 10:50:03 AM Sanders Alcántara, Gisela General Comment This os a regular citizen of the US, I’m a mother of two teenagers (with disabilities), a wife, and a professional of education and media industries. I’m concerned about the current effect on climate change, the cost LNG on our backs, and the legacy my children will inherit as they grow in a planet that needs healing rather than exploitation. Here are the reasons why I don’t support the exports of LNG and ask for them to stop right away: LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1501. expand/collapse 2/17/2025 12:18:09 PM Supporters, Healthy Gulf General Comment We are writing to urge the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to reject all new permits for liquified methane gas export facilities, commonly known as LNG export facilities. The recently released DOE report on methane gas exports underscores that these projects are not in the public interest. Approving new facilities would exacerbate the ongoing climate crisis and further harm frontline communities already disproportionately impacted by oil and gas operations. Taking decisive action to halt LNG expansion would mark a pivotal moment in addressing climate chaos and advancing environmental justice. This is a critical opportunity to safeguard the well-being of the American people and our environment over the interests of the fossil fuel industry. We must protect the coastlines and communities we cherish. Please act now to reject all new liquified methane gas export permits and demonstrate commitment to a sustainable and equitable future.
  1. We the undersigned - StandardText20250217-1060567...
1502. expand/collapse 2/17/2025 1:27:56 PM McNamara, Sharon General Comment Please stop destroying the planet! Just leave the natural gas alone. Don't frack. We are ruining the planet we live on. We should not be exporting anything. Solar power would be better. Please, please, please.
1503. expand/collapse 2/17/2025 2:11:47 PM Foster, Robert Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports I am opposed to LNG Exports for the United States.
1504. expand/collapse 2/17/2025 5:59:14 PM Lothman, Kurt General Comment I’m submitting comments on the 2024 LNG Export study from my perspective as a residential natural gas customer in the U.S. The 2024 LNG Export Study was published by the Office of Fossil Energy & Carbon Management (FECM) in the DOE. The Trump Administration has already made a sham of the public input process regarding the review of additional LNG Export facilities approval. On “Day One” i.e. January 21, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order to end the “pause” on LNG Export permit applications. Further, President issued Executive order on February 14, 2025, “Establishing the National Energy Dominance Council” to be chaired by Secretary of the Interior and Vice Chair Secretary of the Interior. The EO calls for the Council to submit a plan within 100 days (i.e. by Memorial Day 2025) to the President. Thus the issue has already been decided, without public input, and Americans can expect many more LNG Export permits to be approved. Although they are fond of using the word, nowhere has the Trump Administration defined “affordable” energy. With a Cabinet full of billionaires and ultra wealthy elite, it’s a daunting thought what “affordable” might mean to them. What is affordable (energy) to Elon Musk is NOT affordable to me. However, since I’ve spent considerable personal time researching topic of Natural gas prices, and impact of LNG Exports on natural gas prices I’ll submit my comments, knowing that the Trump Administration has already decided policy without public input and basically, it is waste of time to present facts to this administration. The former Secretary of Energy (Jennifer Granholm) on December 17, 2024, issued Statement on Updated Final Analysis regarding where authorizations export of LNG is consistent with the “public interest”. From this analysis its clear additional LNG exports (beyond those already approved) are not necessary to support global markets. The analysis also “…. finds that unfettered export of LNG would increase wholesale domestic natural gas prices by over 30%.” EIA data indicated 2024 monthly average Henry Hub natural gas price of $2.21 and forecast 2025 of $3.10 and 2026 average of $4.00. In fact, EIA state that “We expect increases in the Henry Hub natural gas price in 2025 and 2026 as demand for natural gas grows faster than supply driven mainly by more demand from U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities…” And those are just the “average” prices. As a commodity, natural gas prices are subject to daily market swing and at times, rapid, even extreme price volatility. And those market prices get passed straight through to residential customers’ bills. On December 30, 2024, natural gas futures prices surged higher by 20% in a matter of hours, to a 52-week high of $4.201 on expectations for colder than usual January on East Coast. There is no advocate for residential customers in these markets. There is clear evidence that LNG demand has direct impact on overall U.S. natural gas market. When the Freeport LNG plant went offline due to explosion on June 8, 2022, natural gas prices dropped significantly. Henry Hub natural gas spot price on 06/08/22 was $9.43; less than a month later, spot price had dropped to $5.65 on 07/06/2022, a drop of about 40% from the June 8th price. Similarly, natural gas spot prices reacted when Freeport LNG announced its plan to restart operations on November 18, 2022, by rising 6% in one day. These price swings were noted in the letter of November 14, 2023, from Congress to Secretary Granholm. This letter urged DOE to “…update how it determines new licenses for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports are in the public interest.” The letter was signed by 64 members of Congress. The Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) have long cautioned about the impact increased LNG exports will have on domestic natural gas prices and American industrial competitiveness. IECA issued a press release on 12/17/24 titled ‘MANUFACTURERS AGREE WITH DOE LNG EXPORT STUDY – LNG EXPORTS INCREASE RELIABILITY AND PRICE RISKS FOR U.S. CONSUMERS.” In summary, I do not support the approval of additional LNG Export Facilities primarily because of the resultant higher natural gas prices / costs to residential customers.
  1. LNG Comments_pdf.pdf
1505. expand/collapse 2/17/2025 6:18:38 PM Koerner, Norman General Comment Given that we have new evidence that global temperatures are skyrocketing with ever greater acceleration (see James Hansen new study Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?), it is unacceptable to continue any new natural gas drilling never mind extracting it for export on diesel oil burning ships to emit more methane into the atmosphere. STOP LNG EXPORTS ASAP!
1506. expand/collapse 2/17/2025 10:05:01 PM Rios, Elisa General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. I demand a fair, accurate, and comprehensive analysis of the public interest determination of each LNG export project.
1507. expand/collapse 2/18/2025 12:54:37 AM Bryan, David General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
1508. expand/collapse 2/18/2025 11:41:24 AM McClintock, Judith General Comment Hello, I am categorically against the creation and use of LNG’s. More exports of liquefied natural gas means higher domestic consumer costs, more pollution and more greenhouse gas emissions! It is all bad stuff — please stop it now! Thank you for considering my views, Judith McClintock Arden DE
1509. expand/collapse 2/18/2025 7:29:51 PM Goldman, Deborah General Comment approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; will bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and will harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution.
1510. expand/collapse 2/18/2025 9:05:15 PM Puskarcik, Joann General Comment More LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing green house gas emissions: bring economic hardship and instability for con consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution.
1511. expand/collapse 2/18/2025 9:09:27 PM Michaels, Harvey General Comment Thanks to the U.S. DOE for this Report. The Report objectively supports the following conclusions: It is time to leave fossil fuels in the ground, if at all possible. That’s by far the cheapest way to sequester the carbon. Due to its extraction and transport emissions, methane is worse for the climate than coal. Building export facilities will lock in the increased emissions from LNG exports for the next thirty years. In addition, ordinary air pollution (VOCs and PM2.5) from natural gas extraction, transport, and burning, threaten health worldwide, especially in poor communities, where the facilities are sited. Please act on the information in this report to stop the construction of LNG terminals and the export of this obsolete and dangerous product.
1512. expand/collapse 2/19/2025 4:30:14 AM Eaton, Kathleen General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. Please take a few minutes to submit a comment through our easy-to-use system to demand a fair, accurate, and comprehensive analysis of the public interest determination of each LNG export project.
1513. expand/collapse 2/19/2025 11:46:52 AM Chu, Paula General Comment I am a resident of the state of NY, as well as a parent and grandparent, writing to ask that the DOE reject any and all pending and future LNG facility construction permits. The Department of Energy (DOE) used its authority to pause all pending liquefied natural gas (LNG) export licenses to conduct a necessary update to its “public interest” assessment. The DOE looked at impacts on consumer pricing, national security, health, and environment. Former Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, based upon the DOE assessment, concluded, “continued growth on this trajectory will quickly outpace global demand. By itself, this rapid growth to date – and the continued growth we expect under existing authorizations – recommends a cautious approach going forward.” A cautious approach from the current Administration will protect consumers from skyrocketing prices. The DOE assessment underscores the average electric bill increase of $118.37 per year by 2050, representing nearly one percent of annual household income. Additionally, the DOE assessment acknowledged this analysis did not explore the price impacts of increased natural gas exports on broader consumer goods, however indicated there are likely additional impacts on consumers as companies pass on increased industrial energy cost to consumers. The DOE assessment, again, warns for a cautious approach when predicting the global market for LNG. The assessment says, “the global market for LNG has been increasing for several years and LNG re-gasification and associated import infrastructure is being built out globally, but future demand for natural gas and LNG is uncertain and the demand centers are expected to shift.” Europe is the primary destination for US LNG however European policies are quickly shifting to reduce the usage of fossil fuels. Across all scenarios China will be the largest importer of US LNG by 2050. In this era of great competition with China, providing China with the energy it needs to fuel its industry and AI data centers is counter to the goals of the US government. To compound its economic disadvantages, DOE's LNG assessment provides ample evidence that increased U.S. natural gas production will result in adverse impacts to water, air, and land. Natural gas extraction processing and transportation require the use of valuable resources, like water, and cause significant land disruptions through fracking. DOE states that these land use changes are strongly connected to increased seismic activity in Midwestern states, posing a significant environmental hazard to local populations. Furthermore, attributional studies estimate that direct life cycle GHG emissions from LNG production would contribute up to 1,500 MMT CO2e in our atmosphere. This increase in emissions, coupled with the destruction of natural landscapes and ecosystems, would further destabilize the climate, causing increasing economic, social, and environmental instability. In addition to further destabilizing our climate, emissions from LNG facilities have also been associated with adverse health problems. The DOE assessment highlights that the air pollutants that LNG facilities emit, particularly methane, are associated with higher mortality rates as well as increased rates of cancer, heart disease, hospitalizations, asthma, liver disease, and adverse pregnancy outcomes among neighboring residents. However, emissions are not the only aspects of natural gas production associated with adverse health conditions. Construction increases noise and light pollution, which the DOE assessment asserts are strongly connected to worsening physical and mental health conditions among local residents due to excessive sleep disruptions. The DOE assessment also emphasizes increased traffic due to LNG construction, highlighting a 10-fold increase in Texas. Heightened traffic congestion is strongly associated with increased motor vehicle crashes and fatalities, as well as increased rates of respiratory issues. Overall, the information presented in DOE’s LNG assessment suggests that expanding LNG export facilities in the United States is not in the nation’s public interest. LNG expansion projects, such as Venture Global’s CP2 facility in Louisiana, will fuel China’s energy industry at the expense of U.S. citizens who will face skyrocketing energy bills. Furthermore, the United States will face environmental degradation as LNG facilities continue to exacerbate climate change by emitting harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These greenhouse gases not only contribute to climate change but also have been associated with causing countless adverse health effects, such as increased rates of cancer, among neighboring residents. Due to LNG facilities’ significant negative impacts on consumer prices, national security, the environment, and public health, DOE should reject any and all pending and future LNG facility construction permits.
1514. expand/collapse 2/19/2025 12:41:30 PM Horbinski, Andrea General Comment LNG must be ended rather than expanded in order to protect people and the planet. Copious information shows that LNG harms the health of communities that surround it, leading to worse lifelong health outcomes, and LNG is a greenhouse gas whose production harms our planet and the future of everyone on it. Stop this project.
1515. expand/collapse 2/19/2025 1:52:04 PM Geary, diane General Comment I do not want any more chances of pollution or explosions in my backyard. I worry about my drinking water, too. I worry for my grandchildren. Say NO to this expansion of the LNG lines/export!
1516. expand/collapse 2/19/2025 1:55:16 PM Tholke, Fred General Comment The Department of Energy (DOE) used its authority to pause all pending liquefied natural gas (LNG) export licenses to conduct a necessary update to its “public interest” assessment. The DOE looked at impacts on consumer pricing, national security, health, and environment. Former Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, based upon the DOE assessment, concluded, “continued growth on this trajectory will quickly outpace global demand. By itself, this rapid growth to date – and the continued growth we expect under existing authorizations – recommends a cautious approach going forward.” A cautious approach from the current Administration will protect consumers from skyrocketing prices. The DOE assessment underscores the average electric bill increase of $118.37 per year by 2050, representing nearly one percent of annual household income. Additionally, the DOE assessment acknowledged this analysis did not explore the price impacts of increased natural gas exports on broader consumer goods, however indicated there are likely additional impacts on consumers as companies pass on increased industrial energy cost to consumers. The DOE assessment, again, warns for a cautious approach when predicting the global market for LNG. The assessment says, “the global market for LNG has been increasing for several years and LNG re-gasification and associated import infrastructure is being built out globally, but future demand for natural gas and LNG is uncertain and the demand centers are expected to shift.” Europe is the primary destination for US LNG however European policies are quickly shifting to reduce the usage of fossil fuels. Across all scenarios China will be the largest importer of US LNG by 2050. In this era of great competition with China, providing China with the energy it needs to fuel its industry and AI data centers is counter to the goals of the US government. To compound its economic disadvantages, DOE's LNG assessment provides ample evidence that increased U.S. natural gas production will result in adverse impacts to water, air, and land. Natural gas extraction processing and transportation require the use of valuable resources, like water, and cause significant land disruptions through fracking. DOE states that these land use changes are strongly connected to increased seismic activity in Midwestern states, posing a significant environmental hazard to local populations. Furthermore, attributional studies estimate that direct life cycle GHG emissions from LNG production would contribute up to 1,500 MMT CO2e in our atmosphere. This increase in emissions, coupled with the destruction of natural landscapes and ecosystems, would further destabilize the climate, causing increasing economic, social, and environmental instability. In addition to further destabilizing our climate, emissions from LNG facilities have also been associated with adverse health problems. The DOE assessment highlights that the air pollutants that LNG facilities emit, particularly methane, are associated with higher mortality rates as well as increased rates of cancer, heart disease, hospitalizations, asthma, liver disease, and adverse pregnancy outcomes among neighboring residents. However, emissions are not the only aspects of natural gas production associated with adverse health conditions. Construction increases noise and light pollution, which the DOE assessment asserts are strongly connected to worsening physical and mental health conditions among local residents due to excessive sleep disruptions. The DOE assessment also emphasizes increased traffic due to LNG construction, highlighting a 10-fold increase in Texas. Heightened traffic congestion is strongly associated with increased motor vehicle crashes and fatalities, as well as increased rates of respiratory issues. Overall, the information presented in DOE’s LNG assessment suggests that expanding LNG export facilities in the United States is not in the nation’s public interest. LNG expansion projects, such as Venture Global’s CP2 facility in Louisiana, will fuel China’s energy industry at the expense of U.S. citizens who will face skyrocketing energy bills. Furthermore, the United States will face environmental degradation as LNG facilities continue to exacerbate climate change by emitting harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These greenhouse gases not only contribute to climate change but also have been associated with causing countless adverse health effects, such as increased rates of cancer, among neighboring residents. Due to LNG facilities’ significant negative impacts on consumer prices, national security, the environment, and public health, DOE should reject any and all pending and future LNG facility construction permits.
1517. expand/collapse 2/21/2025 11:14:27 AM Delgado, Fabiola General Comment Please see attached 425 comments from Center for Biological Diversity supporters urging you to do the right thing and reject all pending LNG export permits immediately.
  1. CenterforBiologicalDiversity-NoMoreLNGExports-425...
1518. expand/collapse 2/21/2025 12:24:43 PM Friss, Jess General Comment Attached.
  1. 3RWK_2024 LNG Export Study Comment.pdf
1519. expand/collapse 2/22/2025 12:40:01 PM Duffy, Jerry General Comment Why would we ship our new found "Energy Independence" gas overseas ? Especially after all the hardship of residents due to the fracked gas process. It's not even clean energy being more than 95% methane - Green House Gas. The entire process degrades the environment at every step of the gas production cycle obviously making the climate crisis worse . This will also drive up gas prices domestically. There is no doubt that the force driving this is simply special corporate self-interests over US citizen and domestic business needs.
1520. expand/collapse 2/23/2025 9:59:23 AM Franklin, Joe General Comment US Department of Energy and secretary Wright: Please consider the following comments concerning the 2024 LNG export study and assessment which were also laid out in a statement from former secretary Granholm in December 2024. The US is already the world leader in the export of natural gas specifically LNG, with Europe being the primary destination for these exports. The expected price volatility of LNG is a huge concern and would most certainly be felt by domestic consumers. According to Secretary Granholm, "Unconstrained exports of LNG would increase costs for the average American household by well over $100 more per year by 2050. We have recently lived through the real-world ripple effects of increased energy prices domestically and globally since the pandemic. Middle and low-income households already face energy bills that are too high. In parts of the South, the export-induced price increase would put some households over the energy burden threshold, further challenging their ability to meet basic needs." The majority of customers in the US southeast will have to burden the costs in the form of higher energy bills if these highways to export LNG are allowed to be constructed. Southeastern ratepayers are helping to finance the infrastructure that ultimately benefits 1) pipeline company shareholders and 2) foreign countries. These LNG export facilities tend to be located in communities of low-wealth and minority groups which are already bearing the burden of environmental degradation and pollution. Many of these communities are seeing detrimental health effects from the refining of petroleum and gas and these populations will likely suffer further if the LNG export terminals are allowed to be built. Finally, the carbon footprint and effects to the global climate are simply too high and outweigh the consequences of building more LNG expansion projects. The CO2 emissions would be astronomical all the way through extraction, transportation and liquefication of the product and also applies to CH4 which has a higher warming potential than CO2. Conversely, we need to be reversing our GHG emissions significantly in response to rapid acceleration of global warming. This increased emphasis on gas pipelines and LNG exports will continue to fan the flames of climate change and catastrophes. We need less emphasis on these pipelines, power plants and export terminals and more emphasis on decarbonization and expansion of clean, renewable energy projects. The expansion of LNG export terminals and cumulative effects of LNG expansion do not jibe with the public interests and only serve to increase the gas pipeline companies profits all the while increasing gas prices and electric bills for American consumers. These LNG expansion projects should not only be paused but prevented from being constructed. Thank you for your time and consideration of these concerns. Joe Franklin
1521. expand/collapse 2/23/2025 11:33:30 PM McKenna, Caephren General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
1522. expand/collapse 2/25/2025 4:52:50 PM Tritico, Michael General Comment Attached comment sent via certified mail
  1. Michael Tritico_RESTORE_02.06.2025.pdf
1523. expand/collapse 2/26/2025 1:13:00 PM Baxter, Jason General Comment I am strongly AGAINST the rail transport and export of LNG. LNG presents both a serious explosion hazard and serious risk for climate change. It has been estimated that approximately 20 rail cars full of LNG has the explosive power of an atomic bomb. To export, the LNG will need to be transported near highly populated areas such as Philadelphia, and the risk and consequences of explosion are too high. One must only look back two years to remember the disaster in East Palestine, OH, which would have been far worse if the train had been carrying LNG. Leaks of LNG release methane into the atmosphere, which is 30 times more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
1524. expand/collapse 2/26/2025 6:15:26 PM Wenzel, Joseph General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe, and drive up the price of gas for domestic users. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. Thank you, Joseph Wenzel
1525. expand/collapse 2/28/2025 10:22:21 AM Cass, Tabatha General Comment All scientific data we have points to LNGs being disasterous for the planet, places additional burdens on taxpayers, and puts already highly vulnerable communities at greater risk. I strongly oppose any new LNG exports, and urge the closure of any current projects. We must move away from these extractive policies immediately if we wish to have a livable planet.
1526. expand/collapse 2/28/2025 4:53:50 PM Langer, Elizabeth General Comment You cannot conscionably approve a plan with such devastating consequences for not only americans but for the world at large. Your own study confirms that the costs and drawbacks of this proposal far outweigh any perceived benefits - the environmental burden alone is atrocious. Please DO NOT proceed with this! The world cannot shoulder the burden of the consequences.
1527. expand/collapse 2/28/2025 9:06:45 PM Eisenhauer, Janet General Comment As a resident of southern New Jersey, I have been submitting comments for stopping the development of an LNG shipping terminal in Gloucester County for several years for the following reasons: LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
1528. expand/collapse 3/3/2025 3:17:12 PM van Rossum, Anneke General Comment I am submitting a petition on behalf of the members of the public who signed it. This petition was first submitted with 1,864 signatures. It is now being submitted with the additional 930 signers below
  1. NoLNGExportPetition_Submitted3.3.25_305pm.pdf
1529. expand/collapse 3/4/2025 12:13:30 PM Wesley, James Appendix D: Addendum on Environmental and Community Effects of U.S. LNG Exports For the sake of global climate catastrophe/prevention, suspend all LNG drilling, transport, and export now.
1530. expand/collapse 3/10/2025 11:52:27 AM Prest, Brian General Comment Please see the attached issue brief and research study. Please consider these comments from the respective authors' (Brian Prest, Alan Krupnick, and Jordan Wingenroth) on the analysis and appropriate assumptions underlying the DOE study on LNG exports. These are also available publicly on RFF's website at: https://www.rff.org/publications/issue-briefs/unpacking-the-department-of-energys-report-on-us-liquefied-natural-gas-exports/ https://www.rff.org/publications/working-papers/where-does-the-marginal-methane-molecule-come-from-implications-of-lng-exports-for-us-natural-gas-supply-and-methane-emissions/
  1. IB_25-05_aSgTJrn.pdf
  2. WP 25-05.pdf
1531. 3/10/2025 6:36:05 PM Browning, Andrew General Comment
  1. 031025-WSTNCommentsLNGStudy.pdf
1532. expand/collapse 3/10/2025 7:16:17 PM Cheetham, Gabriella General Comment The December 2024 DOE study examines the environmental, economic, and social justice impacts of U.S. LNG exports. It highlights how LNG exports will likely increase domestic energy prices, harshly affecting low-income communities. Families may pay $100 more per year by 2050 and U.S. manufacturers may pay $125 billion more. The study also highlights how LNG production harms marginalized communities in the Gulf Coast and Southwest due to wastewater spills, pollution, and other industrial hazards that create serious health and safety risks. The study warns that LNG exports could slow the transition to renewable energy instead of replacing coal, increasing greenhouse gas emissions by $84 billion to $250 billion over the next few decades. U.S. LNG exports have tripled in the past 5 years and are expected to double again by 2030 but, changing global demand like Europe relying less on U.S. LNG and with China becoming the largest importer, introduces uncertainty. The DOE suggests future policies may focus on more selective restrictions rather than blanket approvals. The report also highlights the economic risks for communities that depend on natural gas, emphasizing the need for long-term stability plans. Ultimately, the report emphasizes tradeoffs between economic growth, environmental harm, and social equity. It calls for better policies that ensure a sustainable and fair future. LNG exports are often portrayed as a cleaner alternative to coal, but research shows that their climate benefits will diminish by 2030- undermining long-term environmental goals. As the DOE assesses its export policies it must account for long-term climate impacts, not just the immediate shift from coal. Under the public interest criteria, the DOE must consider not only economic and energy security factors, but also climate, environmental, and social consequences. The DOE study accurately concludes that increased LNG exports will raise domestic energy prices and contribute to environmental harms. This comment will explore the economic, environmental, and ethical concerns with a focus on the pending LNG export application for Venture Global CP2 LNG, LLC. The DOE study examines how increased LNG exports will reduce the domestic natural gas supply, likely driving up prices for U.S. consumers. Ben Cahill, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) says that within 5 years, LNG export facilities could be using 20% of the nation’s natural gas supply. This diversion of gas for export instead of domestic use like electricity, industry, or home heating will likely raise bills for U.S. households. When supply decreases and demand stays the same, prices go up! The American Gas Association also points out that industries that rely on natural gas, like agriculture and transportation, will experience higher production costs, increasing prices for goods and services. The proposed Venture Global CP2 LNG export facility in Louisiana would only add to these economic challenges. It has a projected capacity of 20 million metric tons per year, which would increase demand for natural gas, making it more expensive for American consumers. While some argue that increased LNG exports benefit the economy, the majority of these benefits go to large corporations, not everyday consumers. High energy prices during the 2021-2022 global energy crisis show this imbalance. The 5 Western oil and gas majors including ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron and TotalEnergies saw record profits during this time while consumers experienced a surge in costs. This contradicts the notion that expanding LNG exports serves the public interest. Instead it shows that costs mostly affect consumers, while only big corporations benefit. The environmental risks of increasing LNG exports are just as concerning as the economic ones. Biogeochemist and Cornell professor Robert Howarth explains that shale gas production, liquefaction, and transport are energy-intensive, significantly contributing to the LNG greenhouse gas footprint. This, alongside methane leaks and CO₂ emissions, keeps the world dependent on fossil fuels and delays the switch to cleaner energy. Additionally, LNG exports threaten ecosystems. In Batangas, Philippines, home to the Verde Island Passage which is called the “Amazon of the oceans” for its biodiversity, 8/12 of the country’s proposed LNG exports threaten to disrupt this habitat through destruction, water contamination, and air pollution. Disrupting this habitat will harm the ecosystem and nearby communities. Some claim that LNG exports will reduce dependence on coal, but studies show LNG can compete with renewables. The NRDC found that fossil gas makes up 39% of global power sector demand, which could otherwise be met by renewables. This slow transition to cleaner energy enhances fossil fuel reliance, which ultimately doesn't serve the public interest. FERC approved CP2 in June of last year which allowed it to use an 85.4 mile pipeline to move up to 4.4 million dekatherms of gas per day from Texas. That project alone is expected to emit as much greenhouse gas emissions as putting 1.85 million more gas-power cars on the road. By prioritizing LNG exports over renewables, CP2 compromises long-term climate goals, energy security, and the health of impacted communities. A public interest-focused approach would prioritize policies that protect the environment and future well-being. Beyond the technical concerns, LNG expansion poses serious human rights and health risks, especially for marginalized communities. Exports along the U.S. Gulf Coast, like CP2, release harmful pollutants like volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides, which contribute to respiratory and heart diseases. Similarly, Indigenous land defenders from Wet'suwet'en territory are fighting against the Coastal GasLink pipeline, which would supply LNG Canada with fracked methane gas and further violate their land rights. These examples show how LNG expansion disproportionately harms marginalized communities by polluting their air, endangering their health, and disregarding their rights. CP2’s location in Louisiana puts more threats on Gulf Coast communities, many that already suffer from pollution and degradation. This contradicts public interest as it should prioritize the health and rights of all people. Instead of expanding fossil fuels, we should be promoting cleaner energy that actually protects the environment and all those who live in it. Ensuring access to clean air and respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples should be central to any policy that claims to serve the public interest. Based on the public interest criteria as described in the December 2024 report, the DOE should reject the pending LNG export application for Venture Global CP2 LNG, LLC. The CP2 project’s impacts contradict the DOE’s mandate to protect the stability of our economy, environmental sustainability, and social equity. The economic burden on consumers, the acceleration of climate change, and the disproportionate harm to marginalized communities far outweigh any potential benefits of expanded exports. Rejecting this application is essential to support the public interest and ensure that U.S. energy policy prioritizes long-term sustainability, public well-being, and a just transition to cleaner energy sources.
1533. expand/collapse 3/11/2025 8:18:01 PM Ibarra, Genesis General Comment Hi, please take a look into your LNG project research findings. Clearly this is a huge health concern for my community and everyone I speak to about it is worried about energy prices too. Please put an end to these pollution projects.
1534. 3/12/2025 1:28:52 AM Carr, Jeremiah General Comment
  1. Comments on Assessment of LNG Exports.pdf
1535. expand/collapse 3/12/2025 9:25:03 AM Culbertson, Mike General Comment Please see our letter in support of the LGN industry in America.
  1. DOE Letter of Support for LNG - CCREDC.pdf