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. 

The comment period begins on December 20, 2024 and extends through February 18, 2025 at 4:30 pm Eastern time.  The comments submitted appear below.

 

 Comment Now 

Due Tuesday, February 18, 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 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 1/9/2025 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.
128. 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
129. 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
130. 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.
131. 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.
132. 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.
133. 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.
134. 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!
135. 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.
136. 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.
137. 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.
138. 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.
139. 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.
140. 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.
141. 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.
142. 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.
143. 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.
144. 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
145. 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.
146. 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.
147. 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.
148. 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.
149. 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.
150. 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
151. 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.
152. 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.
153. 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.
154. 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.
155. 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.)
156. 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.
157. 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..
158. 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.
159. 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.
160. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 1:50:51 PM van Rossum, Anneke General Comment No more exportation of LNG!
161. 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.
162. 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.
163. 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.
164. 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.
165. 1/13/2025 2:07:53 PM Ellison, Martha General Comment
166. 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.
167. 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.
168. 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.
169. 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.
170. 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!!!
171. 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.
172. 1/13/2025 2:18:57 PM Schumacher , Reid General Comment
173. 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
174. 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!
175. 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.
176. 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.
177. 1/13/2025 2:25:25 PM Biskus, Mimi General Comment
178. 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
179. 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
180. 1/13/2025 2:31:40 PM Mahaffey , Kevin General Comment
181. 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.
182. 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.
183. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:35:00 PM Reichert, Robyn General Comment Please end ALL LNG Exports!
184. 1/13/2025 2:35:49 PM Still, Brian General Comment
185. 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!!
186. 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.
187. 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!
188. 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.