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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 Comment Now 

Due Thursday, March 20, 2025 4:30 PM EST
Related Documents & Comments Library
Indicate comment
ID DATE SUBMITTED FILED/ISSUED BY FILING TYPE comment RELATED DOCUMENT
DATE SUBMITTED FILED/ISSUED BY FILING TYPE COMMENT RELATED DOCUMENT
1. expand/collapse 12/20/2024 5:11:22 PM Robb, Aly General Comment LNG exports will increase greenhouse gas emissions and displace renewable energy such as wind and solar. Please block LNG exports.
2. expand/collapse 12/20/2024 11:38:39 PM Paine, Thomas General Comment On the Necessity of Prudence and Principle in the Age of Energy Decisions Fellow Americans, The issue of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminals is no mere question of commerce or convenience; it is a challenge to the very fabric of our principles, our stewardship of the earth, and our duty to posterity. In deciding the fate of these industrial behemoths, we must not be lulled into the complacency of the present, nor seduced by the fleeting promises of profit. Instead, we must act as trustees of the natural bounty bestowed upon us, charged with safeguarding its vitality for generations yet unborn. On the Question of Justice and Stewardship It is a self-evident truth that the earth does not belong to us alone. Yet, LNG terminals—guzzling water, polluting air, and devastating landscapes—stand as monuments to a misguided dominion over nature. They extract their price not merely in dollars but in the vitality of our land, the purity of our waters, and the breath of our skies. The emissions they unleash warm the climate, sowing tempests where once stood calm, and drying rivers that once nourished the land. Shall we mortgage our children's inheritance for the transient gain of a few? Shall we lay waste to our fields, degrade our air, and poison our waters under the guise of progress? To do so is not to advance but to regress—to betray the trust that binds one generation to the next. On the Promise of Innovation and Resilience We live in a moment rich with possibility. The sun shines, the winds blow, and the tides turn with an unceasing energy, ready to be harnessed not through destruction but through harmony. Why then should we cling to the relics of the past? Why invest in LNG terminals when renewable technologies offer a pathway to prosperity that does not demand the sacrifice of our natural wealth? Americans, you are heirs to a revolutionary spirit, a spirit that upended tyranny, expanded liberty, and dared to dream of a nation built upon the principles of equality and natural law. Shall we, who once defied empires, now bow to the dictates of fossil fuels? Let us instead seize the promise of renewable energy, crafting an economy that thrives not on depletion but on regeneration. On the Duty of Action It is not enough to speak of these things; action must follow, bold and unrelenting. Let us demand from our leaders an end to the expansion of LNG terminals. Let us insist upon policies that prioritize clean energy, community resilience, and the equitable distribution of economic benefits. And let us, as citizens, wield our collective power to reshape the course of our nation toward one that is just, sustainable, and free from the chains of fossil dependency. The future is not a distant concept, it is forged in the decisions we make today. LNG terminals represent a step backward, a doubling down on systems that have brought us to the brink of ecological collapse. But we need not continue on this path. America has always been a nation of innovators, of dreamers, of those who look at the impossible and see opportunity. Let us apply that spirit now, for the benefit of all humankind. Conclusion The moment demands courage, vision, and a steadfast commitment to principle. To embrace LNG terminals is to embrace the erosion of our natural and moral foundations. To reject them is to affirm that we are still a people of conscience, guided not by the lure of short-term gain but by the enduring light of justice. Rise, Americans, and let your voices be heard. For in this struggle lies the test of our character, the measure of our resolve, and the promise of a brighter tomorrow. Yours in the cause of liberty and stewardship, A Citizen for the Common Good
3. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 2:15:58 PM Boetger, Julie General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
4. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 2:27:47 PM Berkowitz, Henry General Comment Such a large investment in clean energy rather than more fossil fuel energy would go a long way in limiting America's contribution to climate change. By the way, I remember when fracking was just getting started, that industry said we needed this gas to secure America's energy independence. Hoe does shipping this energy source away help with that?
5. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 2:37:52 PM Tsou, Walter Appendix B: Domestic Energy, Economic, and GHG Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports The LNG exports are going to other countries and not satisfying energy needs in America. That is because the oil and gas industry makes more money selling gas abroad than domestically. Natural gas is coming from fracking which has terrible health consequences for those who live nearby wells. In short Americans are bearing the health consequences of fracking in order to enrich the oil and gas industry for a product that is not even benefiting Americans. We should not be supporting these LNG terminals.
6. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 2:57:00 PM Rome, Abigail General Comment Dear Secretary Granholm, The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG and why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late. Thank you for your consideration.
7. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 2:58:56 PM Patton, Carol General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
8. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 2:59:30 PM Steinberg, David General Comment Under the Biden administration to limit an oppose LNG export is good policy, My concern is that under the trump administration, I am concerned that all of the work being done to assess and analyze the bad effects of LNG in our environment will be undermined by the incoming Trump administration. Are there any actions that will be difficult to undo that can be done in the short time there is before inauguration?
9. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 3:01:01 PM Folzer, Sandra General Comment Sustainable energy is now a reality. Relying on fossil fuels just adds to climate change. Our planet is at risk. Please reject all pending LNG permits!!! Our future depends upon wise decisions today.
10. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 3:02:42 PM Highland, James General Comment We can only have energy independence if we are not putting the health and safety of our people at risk. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
11. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 3:07:36 PM McCann , Annie General Comment Stop LNG Export. It is dangerous to people, wildlife, wild land.
12. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 3:21:27 PM Harland, Donald General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power.
13. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 3:32:53 PM Kelly, Eadie General Comment Stop this craziness, please.
14. 12/21/2024 3:38:29 PM Barrett, Jack General Comment
15. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 3:40:01 PM Brown, Janice General Comment We must stop the burning of fossil fuels if we want to keep Earth a livable planet! Without a livable planet nothing else matters!
16. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 5:06:53 PM Journet, Alan General Comment As a climate activist and scientist, I have been aware of the dangers from methane pollution (aka Natural gas) for many years It is time that those who care to limit toxins in our environment and address the climate crisis should do everything they can to prevent the further use of this evil product. The mean blocking LNG pipelines!
17. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 6:27:23 PM Blumberg, Phyllis General Comment The DOE study correctly used overwhelming scientific data to reach the important conclusions that with LNG a business-as-usual approach is “neither sustainable nor advisable.” (Energy Secretary Granholm, 2024). The United States is already the number one producer of greenhouse gases which means that we have the greatest responsibility to limit the damages that fossil fuels can produce. If the fossil fuel industry gets to build out all of these exporting LNG facilities, they will be emitting an extra 3.2 billion tons of greenhouse gases annually. This number is about what the total greenhouse gas admissions of the entire European Union produces. I totally agree with these main points clearly stated in the study: • LNG exports drive up energy costs for American families who still rely on it for cooking and heating. Unconstrained exports of LNG would increase costs for the average American household by well over $100 more per year by 2050. • LNG exports pollute frontline communities already burdened with toxic emissions. Methane causes many health problems, especially asthma and other respiratory problems in children, cancers of all ages and premature deaths. These fenceline communities face health threats every day because they are forced to breathe air polluted with methane and the toxic chemicals emitted alongside it. • LNG exports worsen the climate crisis and lock us and those countries that we export to into decades of fossil fuel dependency. LNG are carbon and methane bombs and have an enormous cost for our health and for the future. Each year is hotter than the one before, with GHG, especially methane, contributing to this global warming. Methane is a greenhouse gas that contributes to 25% of current climate change and it is 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Reducing methane pollution from the fossil fuel industries is the fastest, most cost-effective way to slow the rate of the climate crisis and prevent risking the lives of more people. And methane can be reduced from the atmosphere quicker than carbon dioxide If we scale up the use of renewable resources, we will have more than enough capacity to meet the needs for electricity, heating and cooling and transit for the whole world. Keep natural gas in the earth.
18. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 6:28:14 PM Koedyker, Nicole General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
19. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 6:58:57 PM Costamagna, Marilyn General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy Pending LNG applications pose definite irreversible risks not only for public health and for the environment but also for what it would cost us all financially. Hence, they should be unequivocally rejected. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes it clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster in progress that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why it is imperative that the DOE and the Biden Administration apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG application and projects.  The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past.  For the following reasons the DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Regarding climate devastation, projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. These potential carbon bombs cannot be allowed to move forward. Regarding health impacts in vulnerable communities, LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. These factors lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who do not need to be subjected to additional conditions, which would be even more adverse to their well being. Regarding environmental destruction, heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Regarding higher costs for families, LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not augment the already outrageous corporate profits. Regarding national security risks, with LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. Hence, I am relying on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG applications and projects in Pennsylvania and other states before it’s too late. 
20. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 8:29:37 PM Lerman, Paul General Comment This is a bad deal for public health, the environment, AND our wallets!
21. expand/collapse 12/21/2024 8:40:36 PM Peterson, MD., Alan General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
22. expand/collapse 12/22/2024 6:27:17 AM Libbey, Patricia General Comment PLEASE NO LNG OR LNG TERMINALS!!!!! WILL HURT SO MANY OF US!!!!
23. expand/collapse 12/22/2024 6:29:52 AM Libbey, Patricia General Comment PLEASE NO LNG/LNG TERMINALS - WILL HURT SO MANY OF US!!!
24. expand/collapse 12/22/2024 7:41:47 AM Johnson , Carol General Comment stop approving new LNG export terminals.
25. expand/collapse 12/22/2024 9:29:29 AM Roberts, Ruth General Comment The US has a finite amount of natural gas which may be used to power our industry or heat our homes and cook our food. We need a strategic reserve in case other sources of energy become compromised. We also need it for our own consumption while we transition to primarily renewable sources of energy. Allowing a few companies to extract and sell this public resource as rapidly and sloppily as possible for private profit, shipping it overseas to countries with already depleted resources, is not in the interest of the US and our people. It should be controlled as a public resource, not a private asset.
26. expand/collapse 12/22/2024 5:37:56 PM Seltzer, Elizabeth General Comment The report released on December 17 by the Department of Energy makes it clear that expanding our liquified natural gas (LNG) exports is not in the public interest. Expanding export production will not only increase pollution and greenhouse gases - which in turn impacts our health, but according to the report is likely to raise energy prices on consumers. STOP DESTROYING OUR PLANET Many Pennsylvania households already face energy bills that are just too high. Low-income families in some parts of the state are spending 9.4% of their income on energy costs, just a fraction of a percentage away from what the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy considers a “severe” energy burden. Raising prices by selling our natural resources abroad will put more pressure on those who are already overburdened. LNG production and processing can pose a serious health risk to Pennsylvania residents who live near facilities. Groundwater and aerial contamination from fracking waste products raises major health concerns, and pollution from industrial processes often disproportionately affects low-income rural and environmental justice communities. While LNG is often held up as a cleaner alternative to coal, its greenhouse gas emissions vary widely depending on where it is sourced and processed. And the study’s models show an increase in gas exports displacing renewable energy development rather than replacing coal plants. The study is very generous in its assumptions of how much methane is leaked during the extraction, processing and transport of LNG, and even then it predicts that increased exports will release catastrophic amounts of greenhouse gases. Finally, according to the study, we have no need to ramp up LNG exports. Five of the six scenarios modeled in the study show that we are already on track to satisfy projected demand. An estimated 75% of oil and gas produced in Pennsylvanian is exported - meaning we see few benefits and many burdens from the industry. There’s no good reason to expand production except a desire for perpetual, unsustainable growth.
27. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 12:16:36 AM Baumgardner, Terrie General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy It is clear from the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Dec. 17 report that Pennsylvanians have nothing to gain and everything to lose from the expansion of liquified natural gas (LNG) exports. If the fact that LNG exports are a climate disaster were not reason enough to reject their expansion, the prospect of increased gas prices and health impacts on families should suffice. DOE must urge the Biden Administration to apply the DOE's findings and reject all pending LNG projects. Expanding LNG exports is a sure way to accelerate the havoc already being wreaked by climate change. The DOE study predicts that—thanks to the methane leaked during the extraction, processing and transport of LNG— increased exports will release catastrophic amounts of greenhouse gases. Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana alone could emit 190 million tons of CO2e per year, the equivalent of emissions from 50 coal-fired power plants. And as the study’s models show, increased LNG exports will not replace coal plants but displace the renewable energy development that would help combat climate change. If LNG exports are expanded, low-income rural and EJ-community residents who are already suffering from the climate crisis and from pollution’s health impacts will experience more of both. Adding to the high cost of health care for these families in some parts of Pennsylvania is the 9.4% of their income spent on energy costs--a percentage that's very close to what the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy considers a “severe” energy burden. The promises of jobs that might have offset these financial now ring hollow. Contrary to industry promises, Pennsylvania communities have not benefited economically from the fracking infrastructure that fuels the 75% exportation rate of oil and gas produced in our state; instead residents have, for long enough, suffered the health impacts of that infrastructure, including increased risk for asthma, cancer, cardiovascular disease, endocrine disruption, and negative birth outcomes. Ramping up LNG exports is even more illogical when doing so is unnecessary, as five of the six scenarios modeled in the study show us already on track to meet projected demand. The people of Southwest Pennsylvania are counting on the DOE to protect people rather than corporate profits. There’s no good reason to appease this industry’s desire for perpetual, unsustainable growth, especially when expanding production will allowi it to continue externalizing its costs onto the people in the form of health, safety, and economic burdens. Pennsylvanians a are counting on your agency to reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
28. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 7:45:37 AM Saberi, Pouné General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. The Philadelphia community is counting on DOE to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
29. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 10:04:35 AM Sorovacu, Yvonne General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. The DOE and the Biden Administration needs to act on the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released on December 17th, 2024 make clear that previous studies used to fast track LNG permits in the past suffered from outdated datasets with faulty conclusions. I work as an environmental scientist. There are multiple ways this report informs my concern for the communities I care about. These projects will contribute significantly to the current and ongoing climate crisis, which is an ecological, economic and social burden that communities will bear now and well into the future. Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tons of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can not afford to add this new carbon burden to the atmosphere in a time when we need to be cutting emissions. These projects introduce and worsen health impacts in vulnerable communities, like my husband's family in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. LNG facilities are concentrated in areas where people are already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people whose bodies and pocketbooks have already suffered from insults to their health. These projects leads to localized environmental destruction, which impacts communities ecologically and economically. For example, heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. These projects raise costs for families. LNG exports raise energy bills for consumers while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that serve the American people, not corporate profits. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
30. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 2:20:21 PM HammarstromRN, Bryn General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: -I am vice-president and treasurer of Pine Creek Headwaters Protection Group [Wellsboro, Tioga County, Penna.], and while we have not taken a stand against fracking per se, the expanded foot-print of fracking for international export WILL CAUSE SEVERE HARM to Penn's Woods [which are already harmed by well-pads, roadways, and pipelines fracturing our communities, our forests, and our farmland]. - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
31. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 3:13:00 PM Vondra, Joan General Comment I am writing to ask you to REJECT the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis shows that LNG exports are not in the public's best interest. Their export will affect the climate and raise prices for American families, while putting communities AND the environment at economic and environmental risk. Please support the public, NOT the fossil fuel companies!
32. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 3:39:22 PM Stanton, James General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
33. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 3:47:05 PM Wolfgang, Joe General Comment The gas will be exported, and the fierce radioactive wastes will accumulate in the air of the Commonwealth and surrounding states. Already, the background reading has gone up several multiples from the uranium and radium finely divided particles. Please require daily testing for both the paved and unpaved roads that are receiving the "hot" wastewater. Regards Joe
34. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 4:36:05 PM DeVine, Deirdre General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
35. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 5:09:33 PM Johnson, Jenifer General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you, Jenifer Johnson
36. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 5:25:23 PM Burke, Bonnie General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
37. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 5:27:36 PM Hawkins, Don General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
38. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 7:48:07 PM Heffner, Sarah General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
39. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 8:07:57 PM Claus, Carol General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects.
40. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 8:11:54 PM Szczepanik, David General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you. David Szczepanik 19146
41. expand/collapse 12/23/2024 10:38:22 PM Lasley, Barbara General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects.
42. expand/collapse 12/24/2024 6:08:24 PM Krupa, Mary General Comment DOE: There are six LNG export facility permits pending right now. Please do NOT approve. Your own analysis makes it clear that these facilities are not good for people or the environment. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families - Health impacts in vulnerable communities - Climate devastation - Environmental destruction The DOE and the Biden Administration must solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
43. expand/collapse 12/24/2024 8:05:38 PM BezansonPhD, david General Comment Before 20 January 2025, please issue statement rejecting permit applications for more LNG terminals. Professor Robert Howarth has published lifecycle carbon intensity research on domestic extraction of LNG and shipping it abroad. The conclusion is that its carbon intensity equals that of coal mining and combustion. Over their 3-Scope lifecycle, each emits a plethora of airborne toxics, which impair public health in USA as well as in other nations who are the ultimate consumer of LNG energy. Domestic production for export increases the price of methane and electricity for domestic consumers. Production and sale anywhere ***** the transition to clean energy as mandated by legislation and agency regulations. A successful transition requires that the externalized costs of fossil fuels be internalized into their market prices. This is best done via a carbon tax on production and/or sales. In Dec. 2024, a metanalysis of research on the Social Cost of Carbon was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It concluded that the mean Social Cost of Carbon worldwide, based on estimates by scientists, is $285 per ton of CO2 emitted. Over the initial 20 year period of being in the atmosphere, methane has a GWP that is 84 times higher than that of CO2. By extrapolation, the Social Cost of methane may be as high as nearly $24000 per ton. However, most estimates are several thousand. Instead of keeping the world dependent upon fossil fuels, US policies should catalyze the development of clean energy. Instead of garnering income tax revenue from the export of fossil fuels, the US should increase tax revenue from the export of clean energy technologies including clean storage.
44. expand/collapse 12/25/2024 10:07:26 AM Callahan, Linda General Comment I am writing to strongly request that you deny the LNG export permits!
45. expand/collapse 12/25/2024 10:30:37 AM Rubin, Phyllis General Comment It is our generation's challenge to stop climate change from crossing topping points and becoming irreversible. This is NOT something that can be delayed or rationalized. We know there are renewable, sustainable, energy sources that work. We must pivot NOW to those. It's up to us.
46. expand/collapse 12/25/2024 10:52:28 AM Seader, Lynette General Comment That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. We have to protect our future generations
47. expand/collapse 12/25/2024 10:52:56 AM Dresner, Marion General Comment We should not increase the import of natural gas. U.S. domestic natural gas supply is sufficient to meet modeled global demand. Increasing U.S. LNG exports on domestic natural gas is likely to increase prices as well as drive up greenhouse gas emissions. The production and transportation of natural gas in the U.S. has negative workforce and economic impacts, and harmful environmental, and social justice problems. Instead, the Department of Energy should diversifying our energy portfolio. This is necessary for environmental and economic reasons as well as for long term security.
48. expand/collapse 12/25/2024 2:40:40 PM Abrams, Melanie General Comment LNG exports threaten our climate health and security. There is a preponderance of evidence that global warming caused by fossil fuels will lead to catastrophic changes in the planet we call home, with extreme weather events rendering areas unihabitable due to heat, fire, desertification, and more. Runaway warming effects have been associated with almost every historical mass extinction, and we are already in the middle of a mass extinction. We are unprepared for the effects of ecosystem collapse, human suffering and a climate refugee crisis, war, and disease, that will result even if we take moderate action. Allowing new fossil fuel permits would lock us into decades of further pollution that lock us into even worse scenarios that rob our children of their future, with implications for centuries if not millennia to come. As a scientist, and member of the Jewish Earth Alliance, I urge you in the strongest terms to accept the evidence that further fossil fuel infrastructure is not in the public interest. Please follow the science and pursue climate-friendly action during the shrinking window of opportunity we have left to protect each other and our planet.
49. expand/collapse 12/25/2024 4:50:20 PM Dembitz, Shoshana General Comment We need to keep our planet, healthy by stopping the export of LNG now. For ourselves, our children and grandchildren.
50. expand/collapse 12/26/2024 10:54:43 AM Pollack, Caleb General Comment Please deny all pending LNG export permits: LNG use, and export of LNG, threaten our climate and our health. The DOE itself issued a critical report about LNG’s climate impacts. LNG exports affect all of us (they create a damaged world for our grandchildren) and in particular, LNG export facilities would likely be built in disadvantaged communities along our Gulf Coast. Thank you -- Caleb Pollack Someone who would like to see more snow in NYC, like it used to be.
51. expand/collapse 12/26/2024 12:10:41 PM Heilbrun, Emily General Comment Please deny LNG export permits. LNG exports are a threat to our health and security, and to our climate. The DOE report makes the threats to our climate abundantly clear. Please deny all export permits now, before President-Elect Trump takes office. I care about climate change because it is a threat to all of us and because I want to leave the earth in as good shape as possible for all of our children.
52. expand/collapse 12/26/2024 12:20:15 PM Shultz, Diane General Comment No new pollution! No new LNG!
53. expand/collapse 12/26/2024 8:07:41 PM Hohag, Gabriel General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
54. expand/collapse 12/27/2024 3:22:56 PM Brown, Janice General Comment We need to stop burning fossil fuels ASAP. The CLIMATE disasters are getting worse, think Asheville, NC!
55. expand/collapse 12/27/2024 3:25:44 PM Hackney, Penn General Comment The report released on December 17 by the Department of Energy makes it clear that expanding our liquified natural gas (LNG) exports is not in the public interest. Expanding export production will not only increase pollution and greenhouse gases - which in turn impacts our health, but according to the report is likely to raise energy prices on consumers as well. LNG production and processing can pose a serious health risk to Pennsylvania residents who live near facilities. Groundwater and aerial contamination from fracking waste products raises major health concerns, and pollution from industrial processes often disproportionately affects low-income rural and environmental justice communities. Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Think of the future. Of your children and grandchildren. And make the *right* decision for the common good. Thank you,
56. expand/collapse 12/27/2024 3:26:45 PM Stevens , Craig General Comment Stop LNG Export, Export Raises Prices In America And The Drilling Causes Water, Air & Environmental Harms From Fracking And Poisons Pennsylvania Citizens And Beyond
57. expand/collapse 12/27/2024 4:06:40 PM Gore, Jesse General Comment The report released on December 17 by the Department of Energy makes it clear that expanding our liquified natural gas (LNG) exports is not in the public interest. Expanding export production will not only increase pollution and greenhouse gases - which in turn impacts our health, but according to the report is likely to raise energy prices on consumers. Many Pennsylvania households already face energy bills that are just too high. Low-income families in some parts of the state are spending 9.4% of their income on energy costs, just a fraction of a percentage away from what the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy considers a “severe” energy burden. Raising prices by selling our natural resources abroad will put more pressure on those who are already overburdened. LNG production and processing can pose a serious health risk to Pennsylvania residents who live near facilities. Groundwater and aerial contamination from fracking waste products raises major health concerns, and pollution from industrial processes often disproportionately affects low-income rural and environmental justice communities. While LNG is often held up as a cleaner alternative to coal, its greenhouse gas emissions vary widely depending on where it is sourced and processed. And the study’s models show an increase in gas exports displacing renewable energy development rather than replacing coal plants. The study is very generous in its assumptions of how much methane is leaked during the extraction, processing and transport of LNG, and even then it predicts that increased exports will release catastrophic amounts of greenhouse gases. Finally, according to the study, we have no need to ramp up LNG exports. Five of the six scenarios modeled in the study show that we are already on track to satisfy projected demand. An estimated 75% of oil and gas produced in Pennsylvanian is exported - meaning we see few benefits and many burdens from the industry. There’s no good reason to expand production except a desire for perpetual, unsustainable growth.
58. expand/collapse 12/27/2024 4:09:01 PM McCann , Annie General Comment Block LNG exports. It is damaging to our environment and our health!
59. expand/collapse 12/27/2024 4:12:33 PM Swain, Lauren General Comment LNG Exports take fuel away from future generations of Americans and raise fuel prices. They also destroy local ecosystems and cause flooding, droughts, and fires due to climate change. Drilling for natural gas releases air and water pollutants that harm human health. Please stop LNG exports and all associated construction, transport, and extraction now.
60. expand/collapse 12/27/2024 4:40:09 PM Haeri, Niloofar Appendix C: Consequential GHG Analysis of U.S. LNG Exports Dear President Biden, The least a government can do is to do no harm to its citizens. LNG increases pollution and green house gases, both of which gravely impact the health of all groups but especially low income ones. LNG production and processing can pose a serious health risk to Pennsylvania residents who live near facilities. Groundwater and aerial contamination from fracking waste products raises major health concerns, and pollution from industrial processes often disproportionately affects low-income rural and environmental justice communities.
61. 12/27/2024 4:54:23 PM PSR AZ Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports
62. expand/collapse 12/27/2024 6:09:23 PM Dugan, Michelle General Comment Do not allow any further construction of LNG export terminals! Stop the greed that is destroying our planet!
63. expand/collapse 12/27/2024 7:32:10 PM Peterson, MD., Alan General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
64. 12/27/2024 8:01:06 PM Hoven, Debra General Comment
65. expand/collapse 12/27/2024 8:25:20 PM Ozane, Roishetta General Comment Liquified natural gas (LNG) poses several risks to children, communities, and the climate. Firstly, when LNG is transported and processed, it can lead to air and water pollution. Children, with their developing lungs and immune systems, are particularly vulnerable to these pollutants, which contribute to respiratory issues and other health problems. In my view, the infrastructure associated with LNG, such as pipelines and export terminals, disrupt local communities. These developments lead to displacement and compromise the safety and quality of life for residents. I think about how this creates tension and division within communities as people grapple with the impacts on their homes and environment. From a climate perspective, LNG is often marketed as a cleaner alternative to coal or oil, but it still releases greenhouse gases, particularly methane, during extraction and transportation. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and its emissions contribute to climate change, which ultimately affects everyone, especially the youngest and most vulnerable among us. I feel that by continuing to rely on LNG, we divert attention and resources away from truly sustainable and renewable energy solutions that could benefit both current and future generations.
66. expand/collapse 12/27/2024 9:28:04 PM Pilling , Lucille General Comment Stop LNG exports
67. 12/27/2024 9:43:16 PM Rome, Abigail General Comment
68. expand/collapse 12/28/2024 12:02:27 AM Thorpe, Mary General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
69. expand/collapse 12/28/2024 1:11:30 AM Ouellette, Tracy General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
70. expand/collapse 12/28/2024 5:14:38 AM Bedard, Joe General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
71. expand/collapse 12/28/2024 8:31:50 AM Newman , Karen General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest at any level. This is a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: 1. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. 2. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. 3. Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. 4. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you, Karen Newman
72. expand/collapse 12/28/2024 8:44:03 AM Sonin, John General Comment I urge you to veto any energy bill Congress passes that does not transition us away from fossil fuels to a truly clean, renewable energy future. The consequences of our wasteful, abusive path to human progress are 'roosting the chickens' and if leaders can't lead humanity on the planetary "arc" of a sustainable energy consumption, conscious authorities such as yourself, must take the prerogative to secure civilization!
73. expand/collapse 12/28/2024 12:20:19 PM Bond, Linnea General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
74. expand/collapse 12/29/2024 7:58:21 AM Thio, Tineke General Comment We don't want or need expanded LNG exports: Exporting LNG makes gas prices higher for Americans. Exporting LNG contributes to the climate crisis that hits Americans in the shape of extreme weather and higher home insurance prices. Producing and exporting LNG means Americans bear the consequences of pollution without benefiting from the use. Expanding LNG exports is a bad deal for Americans.
75. expand/collapse 12/29/2024 9:20:30 AM Pezzati , Mark General Comment I reside in rural NY state and have been negatively impacted by a rapidly changing climate. Our summers have been very dry, bordering on drought. When it does rain the superheated, moisture trapping atmosphere causes mist rainfall to be very heavy. Two years ago wildfire smoke from Canada choked our air and darkened our skies. All of these things were caused by the extraction, transmission and burning of fossil fuels, including the most damaging fossil fuel of all, LNG. For the health and safety of myself and my community I want the DOE to permit no additional LNG export terminals. Existing terminals should be rapidly shut down and fossil fuel extraction on public lands must be stopped immediately. Any other course of action is knowingly suicidal. Be aware that your children and future generations will judge you harshly.
76. expand/collapse 12/29/2024 5:16:39 PM Kerzner, Allison General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
77. expand/collapse 12/29/2024 6:16:44 PM Smith, Douglas General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
78. expand/collapse 12/30/2024 8:48:41 AM Marshall, Dean General Comment Bearing in mind that our modern world requires ever increasing amounts of energy, and the subsequent exponential increase in Greenhouse Gas concentrations from extraction, processing, transportation and consumption of fossil fuels is a major contributor to Global Warming, any increase in LNG Export will only accelerate the consequences. Opting for additional infrastructure, (ie.)more Drilling,Fracking, Pipelines, Compressors, Cryogenic Production and Storage facilities, Coastal Channel Dredging, Shipping and Receiving/De-Gasification projects will exacerbate climate change, create additional environmental destruction, displace marginal populations and create increased pollution and health impacts. What is needed is a rapid investment in Sustainable, Renewable, and Clean Energy Solutions. Worldwide dependence on and further development of Fossil Fuel is a For Profit Folly that is tantamount to “Burning the furniture to heat the house” logic that has led to rising sea levels, species decimation, massive weather disasters, deaths and diseases, droughts and floods at historic levels! We must understand the situation and make informed and logical choices now. Building out more LNG Infrastructure is not the answer!
79. expand/collapse 12/30/2024 12:56:19 PM Long, Emily General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you. Emily Long
80. expand/collapse 12/30/2024 6:44:42 PM Gottesman , Corri General Comment Now's the time to increase the application of renewable and non-fossil fuel energy sources... not intensify the development of fossil fuels such as Liquid Natural Gas (LNG). Exporting Liquid Natural Gas will intensify the increase of pollution, habitat destruction, human induced seismic activity, and global greenhouse gases (climate change). The effects of climate change are upon us, w/ destructive weather events constantly at the top of the news due to their horrific effects on all human and natural systems. This will only get worse if we do not change our course. The technology for renewable and non-fossil fuel energy sources and application is here and available. Developing these sources will create jobs and an economic boom. For the sake of that which is life-giving and good for all, do not allow for the export of LNG, instead let's put our full effort into increasing renewable and other non-fossil fuel energy sources. For the sake of our and future generations and the beautiful, awe inspiring life around us.
81. expand/collapse 12/30/2024 7:31:46 PM Bach, Julianne General Comment Please do not encourage or support fracking or other destructive methods to extract LNG. It is destructive and the damage is irreversible. I will do my part to lesson my usage and dependence on this fuel. DO NOT EXPORT - that is corporate greed at it's finest. Encourage the young people to seek employment in protecting and building our environment and communities. Together we can do great things!
82. expand/collapse 12/31/2024 8:36:05 AM Weigand, Pauline Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports This is industry is destroying Pennsylvania. The air is harmful!
83. expand/collapse 12/31/2024 1:29:26 PM Bayen, Laurie General Comment I am a United Methodist pastor who believes that we are all called by the Creator to care for the planet and is creatures, especially those who are most vulnerable. I grieve the loss of species and ecosystems which had come about as a result of human greed. I believe that LNG exports threaten our climate, health and security and that the DOE should act on the findings of its recent report by denying all pending export permits.
84. expand/collapse 1/1/2025 10:59:55 AM Frelier, Andrew General Comment Please lift the pause on LNG new build terminals from the USA. US sourced LNG provides energy security around the world, displaces dirty coal emissions, provides jobs and revenue to American citizens and government. As a petroleum geologist, I can testify that there are ample natural gas resources in the USA to provide for over a hundred of years of supply. The number of gas rigs is hovering at lows of just 100 and can easily be ramped up to accommodate additional LNG offtake. This is a no-brainer positive for the USA, the environment and world peace through energy security.
85. expand/collapse 1/2/2025 6:03:36 PM Westman, Kathryn General Comment Please do all you can to cancel any support of the fossil fuel industry. The negative effects on our people and communities must not continue. I write as a Registered Nurse aware of the continuing harm caused to our health and environment. We must switch to and subsidize clean energy along with clean air and water.
86. expand/collapse 1/5/2025 6:00:34 PM Wolk, Daniel General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy As a practicing physician in the Philadelphia area, and as a member of Physicians for Social Responsibility's Advisory Board, I urge you to act upon the Department of Energy's recent analysis of the impact of expanding Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) exports on our communities, energy prices, and the climate crisis. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast-track LNG permits in the past. They show unequivocally that expansion of LNG exports will release massive amounts of greenhouse gases, particularly long-lasting methane, while polluting the air of communities near LNG facilities with toxins and carcinogens such as benzene. Meanwhile, the report's economic analysis states, "higher LNG exports create a tighter domestic natural gas market (all else held equal), increasing domestic natural gas prices”. In other words, while front-line communities such as nearby Marcus Hook, PA, are suffering the effects of pollution from nearby LNG facilities, they will be crushed by higher energy prices. These impacts are contrary to the Biden and incoming Trump administrations' stated goals of making life easier for working- and middle-class families and countering inflation. and will do significant harm to public health and our climate. I urge you to act on these recommendations before time runs out. Sincerely, Daniel Wolk, MD
87. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 10:24:54 AM Johnson, Jimmy General Comment Testing
88. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 11:13:29 AM McTeston, Testy General Comment Dear , This is a test message. Sincerely, Mr. Testy McTeston
89. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 11:25:46 AM LeCluyse, Megan General Comment Please reject the six pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility permits. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that LNG exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for American families while putting communities and the environment at risk. I am counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. While the updated evidence will be a key tool in protecting communities from future LNG export project proposals, the Biden Administration should act now to reject all existing export facility permits and solidify its climate and environmental justice legacy. Here is why DOE must take immediate action to stop LNG: - Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas companies. In fact, the study noted there would be a triple cost increase for consumers due to unfettered LNG buildout: domestic gas prices, electricity rates, and consumer goods prices would all increase. - Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from harmful pollution and climate change. Allowing for continued LNG infrastructure buildout will lead to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease among people who are already experiencing these negative health impacts. - Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit greenhouse gases that equate to 190 million tonnes of CO2 per year. LNG development increases emissions from upstream gas production and through the combustion of exported gas around the world. LNG also offsets the development of renewable energy worldwide. - Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities pollute and disturb wildlife habitats, devastating local economies reliant on fishing and tourism. It is critical that the DOE and the Biden Administration solidify their climate and environmental justice legacy by acting quickly to address these concerns and reject all currently-proposed LNG projects. Thank you.
90. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 11:54:32 AM Fredricks, Katherine General Comment I very much appreciate the Federal Department of Energy recently released report analyzing the efficacy of exporting Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). This is a thorough and excellent study. The report finds that LNG export is not in the public interest. LNG export will raise prices for US consumers while massively increasing pollution for US residents, and endangering communities along proposed transportation/pipeline routes. Meanwhile, Europe is working fast to transition away from fossil fuels, so the entire project will find fewer and fewer buyers. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rules require that pipeline proposals cannot be confirmed if they are not in the public interest. Please follow Federal regulations and deny permits to build infrastructure for LNG export.
91. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 12:08:23 PM Kalvelage, Joan General Comment History of LNG exports shows pose grave risk of methane leaks. We know those leaks contribute more to climate change than carbon dioxide. And we also know that climate change contributes to wildfire smoke and air pollution--leading to more premature deaths than any disease. Enough!
92. 1/6/2025 12:08:26 PM Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) Appendix B: Domestic Energy, Economic, and GHG Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports
  1. IEEFA comments on 2024 LNG Export Study by CWD.pd...
93. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 1:54:27 PM Sale, Rebekah General Comment Subject: Stop Dangerous LNG Export Approvals – Protect Our Communities Now For too long, Big Oil and Gas CEOs have prioritizing profits over people, and communities have paid the price. I work with communities across the country helping them push back against these dangerous and mostly unneeded projects. The Biden Administration’s new analysis of liquified natural gas (LNG) exports confirms the pattern is not changing. Big Oil and Gas CEOs have been pushing to send as much US gas overseas as possible – but this new report finds clear evidence that their plans are a threat to our climate, public health, and wallets. In [STATE], we’re already feeling the pinch of rising energy costs. Now, LNG exports are projected to increase electric bills by [STATE-SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE], all so Big Oil can boost their profits. Everyone that I speak with is angry that we allow a trillion dollar industry to use the governments' awesome power of eminent domain to take people's land against their will for projects that export energy -- there is no PUBLIC USE which our constitution demands with eminent domain! Expanding LNG exports means higher bills for our families and dirtier air and water for everyone. It’s time to put evidence over corporate profits. Allowing more LNG export facilities to move forward would be a disaster. The Biden Administration must take this opportunity to stand with the public and stop the buildout of LNG exports and their dangerous facilities before it's too late. I urge our elected officials to stop unchecked expansion of LNG exports and prioritize people over polluters. Thank you!
94. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 2:15:50 PM Houk , Barbara J General Comment Hello, my name is Barbara Houk. I spent the early years of my life in Ohio. I was university educated in Missouri.I am a retired Kansas certified physician. I came back to Ohio in 2020 because of Covid. As an MD, I am concerned for our nation as a whole. The pause on the LNG permits to export this commodity will have a negative impact on this nation. Stopping LNG exports will limit American production and jobs for many different industries. My parents, Ohio natives, raised me to respect American production. This requires education and I certainly pursued this. Northern Ohio has experienced severe economic problems. Natural gas exporting has been helpful to this state. Natural gas exports benefit the manufacturing sector which is crucial to Ohio. To stop exporting LNG will hurt this state economically. This will affect every social economic class. The Department of Energy should have hard working Americans in mind. There is a balance between the environment, the economy, and job opportunities. The people of Ohio can not afford to lose any of the job opportunities this provides. The economy of Ohio as well as the nation depends on LNG exports. I urge the members of the commission to continue to issue these permits to export LNG, recognizing their positive impact on American jobs and the economy. Show trimmed content
95. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 2:45:53 PM Wetzel, Gregory General Comment Department of US Energy To Whom it may concern, I am a US citizen and have been a resident of Ohio for over seventy-seven years. I am a veteran of the USAF SAC (Strategic Air Command). I have been in retail sales with small businesses for thirty-nine years. All the businesses were small, and family owned. The cost of heat and utilities have always been an interest and concern. My wife and I are also retired and live on social security, plus our life’s savings. To add to that, we live in a small retirement village and most of my neighbors are widowed. Therefore, I am supporting any opportunity to keep or lower our heating and fueling costs is not only important but sorely needed. As I talk with all the small business owners and the retired community we live in, I will be asking for their support and feedback on this important issue. I urge you to allow more permits for the export of natural gas, to help in keeping or lowering our costs.
96. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 2:45:58 PM kilby, sharon General Comment Anna Scheuerman 2:37 PM (2 minutes ago) to me Hello, my name is Sharon Kilby. I am from Akron, Ohio and hold an Associates Degree in Business. I moved to Columbus, Ohio because of work. I have over 20 years service with the Department of Defense and recently retired. Being from Akon, Ohio, I saw the downside of the economy when Firestone Tire & Rubber. My father retired from Firestone . My first job out of high school was working for Firestone Tire & Rubber Credit Union. When the plants shut down, I saw first hand how many lives were affected, and the workers had a hard time finding comparable jobs, and many never found the same pay. One major concern I have is cutting off the LNG Exports without any concern or plan of the job loss and how it affects the economy, both the job loss along with the product loss, is a double hit to the economy -and should be considered along with the environmental impact. The manufacturing jobs from Firestone were basically never replaced and the workers were left without a plan & was very difficult or could not transfer their skills to other jobs. I understand the LNG industry has both blue and white collar jobs. I saw how difficult it was to transfer the skills of the blue collar sector without help or a plan. Many families are dependent on blue collar workers to be the primary provider. Without their job, their family does not have an income. Also as far as the economic impact, being on a limited income, having the cost of energy rise would be a hardship. And being part of the Baby Boomers, I have a retirement fixed income, and I am concerned about how the LNG would affect my costs, and I feel there are many more like me in the same boat. I saw how a lot of people moved out of the area after they lost their jobs, and I can see how this change could affect an area who relies on this gas industry, and can cause affects nationally and more. Please - I urge the Commission to continue giving permits for LNG exports which has a very positive impact on the job industry and many people rely on those jobs.
97. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 3:02:51 PM Palumbo , Carol General Comment Department of Energy, I am a decades long resident of Ohio and have worked forty plus years in both the business sector and the private sector. Both my husband and I have seen the benefits and impacts that the Natural Gas Industry has had on our lives and our communities, friends and family We, as a nation, are very vested in the country and economy of our nation. Natural Gas production has affected our employment numbers and our ability to make our economy stronger. By increasing our production capacity, we will realize a significant growth in the number of jobs available to our workers as well as related industries
98. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 3:46:26 PM Bramble, Janice General Comment My name is Jan Bramble, I have been a resident of Arapahoe County in Colorado my entire life. Ive raised 2 children enjoying all that our state provides. We enjoy golf, fishing, camping and socializing. I have worn many "hats" throughout my lifetime. I've been a dental assistant, a licensed daycare provider, legal secretary and a Real Estate agent for over the past 25 years. Both of my husbands have been self-employed. I fully realize the importance of jobs. I am writing to you today to urge you to not ban further exploration and drilling for natural gas. Past reports have shown definite bias. I feel United States oil and gas companies work beyond and above foreign companies regarding not only safety for citizens but include massive effort in protecting our environment. Our country is not prepared to rely on electricity and solar. Both of these options still rely on oil and gas in order to produce equipment and provide energy . The average family cannot afford new furnaces cars and trucks. Small companies and self employed workers are the backbone of America. As health insurance rates continue to climb workers rely on larger corporations for both retirement funds and health insurance. All workers and all families rely on natural gas at this time for a large part of their everyday life! Our national security depends on oil and gas. A ban will only line the pockets of our national advisories. Please do not place any bans on liquified natural gas or general oil production. Bans will negatively affect all of us.!!!
99. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 3:51:53 PM Hawk, Keely General Comment My name is Keely Hawk, I grew up in Colorado and attended the University of Colorado. I spent 18 years in the investment banking industry and the stock market focusing on technology stocks both in New York and San Fransico. Most recently, I have been selling real estate, I served on the state legislative policy committee for the Colorado Association of Realtors where we scrubbed bills to evaluate the impact on property owners’ rights. But, I am also Lakota Indian (Sioux) from the Standing Rock tribe in South Dakota where I have a multi-generational-ancestral tie to the environment. I appreciate the vast responsibility of the DoE from production, efficiency, technology innovation and some much more - all to make sure we have stable, safe and continuous production. I thank you for the work you do, it is immensely important to our country. I am concerned about many things which I won't go into here but I am most concerned about the pause on LNG and the impact it has on our economy and our national security. I am an advocate of LNG because of its safety and as a clean alternative. I think it is our responsibility to continue production from an environmental, social and national security responsibility. Because I'm sure these are all things that are important to you, I'd like to ask you to consider the impact of limiting or banning production of LNG and in the end, I urge you to not ban it.
100. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 4:53:51 PM Roethlein, Ed General Comment Hello, my name is Ed Roethlein. My family and I have lived in Western Pennsylvania our entire lives. As an architect of 38 years, I care deeply about lowering the cost of living through low construction costs. I appreciate the work that the department of energy has done to lower the cost of living through the promotion of reliable energy for construction across the country. Since we agree on keeping the cost of living low, we should both agree on opposing the LNG permit ban because of the decrease in production that would result from the ban's effects. This will not only decrease exports but will also raise the cost of living through a decrease in domestic production and the resulting construction price increases. Therefore, I urge the Department of Energy to resume the approval of Liquified Natural Gas permits.
101. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 5:07:57 PM Corson, Mark General Comment My name is Mark Corson. I currently live in Bay Village, Ohio on the west side of Cleveland. I am retired. Grew up in the Cleveland area and earned my BA at Case Western Reserve University. I traveled to South Africa and earned an MBA at University of Cape Town. I became a management consultant and worked on six continents. I was a consultant to Shell, Exxon Mobil, and many other companies. I worked for Accenture, Ernst & Young, and my last full-time job was with Shell. I feel the current freeze on new LNG export facilities is a huge geopolitical mistake. The US could significantly expand exports to our allies and friends thereby increasing our strength on the world stage. At the same time the increase in LNG exports would reduce the export earnings of Russia and Iran. The increase in LNG exports to Europe would decrease the dependency of our NATO allies and others on LNG from Russia. At the same time this would provide increased income for American workers, businesses, and property owners. The increase would help the balance of trade. Increasing LNG sales would increase local, state, and federal taxes and royalties. I ask the Department of Energy to approve the construction of new LNG export facilities and approve the increased export of LNG cargos.
102. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 5:09:23 PM Skaggs, Sara General Comment My name is Sara Skaggs I've worked in manufacturing in Ohio for all my life . It is important that we keep exports of natural gas because it will boost our economy. Which means more overtime and income for my family. It's crucial that our government sees this need to honor these permits. We know that our gas resources are the cleanest anywhere in the world. If we purchase outside resources they will not care about the environment as we do. We should support LNG exports 100% . It will benefit the environment from imports that could care less. It would promote job growth and companies will flourish. So much is dependent on these permits to be passed. Praying they will do what is right for My family and I are counting on you. You can make LNG happen . More jobs , companies can expand business opportunities. We need a win for the working class ! Let's move forward and start utilizing our own energy. Sincerely Sara L Skaggs
103. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 5:46:32 PM Cook, Annie General Comment To whom it may concern, My name is Annie Cook. I’ve been a resident of NM since 1971 when I moved here from Kansas. NM is home to me. I’ve lived here longer than I’ve lived anywhere else. Both of my sons were born here. I myself am a graduate of the University of NM. I am a masters prepared Nurse who retired in 2013 from the VA in Albuquerque after 30 years of service. My husband of 32 years and myself own a home on the west side of Albuquerque and we are totally invested in the land of enchantment and it’s preservation for our family and the many families who call NM home. Today I would like to discuss the urgent need to lift the pause on LNG exports because of its effect not only on the US, but also on the world at large. Below, I have outlined several reasons whyI feel we must lift the pause on LNG exports: 1. Strengthening Energy Security for Allies. The US is a supplier of LNG for our allies in Europe and Asia. By lifting the pause, the US can help nations like these reduce their reliance on Russian gas, maintaining geopolitical stability and energy security. This increased security will effect global energy policy and support economic and political stability in our allies. By supplying critical energy resources, we can leverage our role in the global energy market to promote democratic values and partnerships. 2. Economic and Environmental Benefits Increased LNG exports will boost the US economy by creating jobs in the energy sector and creating revenue from government taxes and royalties. Increased exports will balance out domestic gas supply and demand. Without sufficient export markets, natural gas production could slow, leading to a decrease in investments in the LNG industry and economic losses in the energy sector. Since the global demand for LNG is growing, many developing countries are moving from coal to cleaner energy. By helping countries with this change, the US not only helps growing economies, it helps support global carbon reduction efforts. 3. Existing Infrastructure Support: The equipment used to produce and transport LNG to customers was not meant to sit idle for long periods. The infrastructure and equipment needed to produce and export LNG is not something that can be turned on and off like a light switch. In order to maintain the LNG infrastructure it must be in constant use. Once the production has stopped, restarting it is not a simple matter. The longer the pause continues, the greater the risk of degradation of the infrastructure needed for LNG production, and the greater the risk of economic loss due to the infrastructure being unused. In conclusion, it is vitally important the we lift the LNG pause in order to create growth in, and modernization of, critical infrastructure needed for production of LNG. This will not only increase economic opportunities and security in the US, but also in developing countries and the world at large. I want to thank you for your consideration of these important issues. Sincerely, Annie Cook, RN, BSN, MSN Retired [Contact Information Deleted]
104. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 6:51:58 PM Epstein, Steve General Comment My name is Steve Epstein and I am a retired state employee who served the citizens of New Mexico for 26 years. I have resided continuously in New Mexico for almost 50 years. I am concerned about the welfare of New Mexicans and our economic growth. New Mexico is a large producer of natural gas. I urge the Biden administration to allow the sale of natural gas to countries not enrolled in the free trade agreement. Here in New Mexico, expanded exports of natural gas will create jobs, grow the economy, and add to the state budget for the welfare, education, and infrastructure needs in New Mexico. Your consideration will be appreciated.
105. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 6:58:14 PM Sandberg, Martin General Comment I’m Martin Sandberg, I’m a retired MSEE. I’m a long time Colorado resident, living at 6,500 feet up in the foothills so I know how much propane it takes to keep a place running through winter here. You’d think I’d be worried about how LNG exports would affect fuel costs, but as LNG exports have steadily increased, our fuel cost haven’t. That seems odd, so I did some checking and found out that we can produce a lot more natural gas than we can use in the States. The producers have built their infrastructure to support increasing LNG exports, actually keeping world prices stable to down. These producers are now employing some 300,000 people and some of them are my neighbors, since Colorado’s oil and gas fields are near us. I know that the environment should be protected, but that must be balanced against jobs and energy costs. We’ve swung too far away from energy jobs and energy costs and need to get the country back on the right track. So, I would ask the DOE not to ban new LNG terminals and allow the industry and us to prosper.
106. expand/collapse 1/6/2025 8:22:34 PM Dakey, Diana General Comment The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on December 17, 2024, gave notice of its Study to inform its public-interest review of, and ultimately decisions pertaining to, certain applications to export LNG to countries with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement (FTA). (1) The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for authorizing exports of domestically produced natural gas, including liquefied natural gas (LNG), to foreign countries under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. § 717b. For applications to export domestic natural gas to non-FTA countries, DOE must grant the application unless it finds that the proposed exportation will not be consistent with the public interest. (2) The DOE must reject new U.S. LNG export permits, none of which are in the public interest. The DOE Study raised important concerns. I would like to raise additional concerns and emphasize some already in the DOE Study. What is national interest? national interest. Noun: the interest of a nation as a whole held to be an independent entity separate from the interests of subordinate areas or groups and also of other nations or supranational groups (Merriam-Webster). The term national interest has been commonly used in a foreign-policy context. (3) LNG exports are inconsistent with national interest. • Increasing LNG exports means that the U.S. is abandoning any pretense of trying to limit climate change. The Study found that increasing LNG exports could generate 1.5 gigatons of direct greenhouse-gas emissions per year by 2050 – equivalent to about a quarter of current annual U.S. emissions, thereby would more than eclipse the emission reductions the country has made since 2000. (4) • Climate change is a national security risk, recognized by the U.S. Defense Department as a “threat multiplier”, not only within U.S. borders, but also to our partner countries. (5,6) o There are direct threats to U.S. miliary infrastructure in the United States and the Pacific due to sea level rise. o Global supply chains are disrupted by extreme weather, which may hinder the military’s ability to access critical supplies. o Because natural disasters are increasing, the military is being called on more frequently to be first responders for disaster and humanitarian relief and must respond to situations beyond their usual scope. o Melting Arctic ice will open up Arctic shipping, creating the potential for competition with and conflict with Russia. • Extreme heat compromises airports. (7) • LNG exports contribute to planetary warming and resulting severe weather events that cost the federal government and individuals billions of dollars in recovery costs. (8) • Climate change leads to climate refugees, intensifying the U.S. border crisis. (9) • The U.S.’s continued push to expand LNG infrastructure is at odds with world sentiment and diminishes our moral leadership in the world. In November 2024, more than 130 legislators from around 30 countries called on world leaders to place an immediate moratorium on LNG expansion worldwide. (10) • Using LNG to balance trade is shortsighted and risky. Eventually the bottom will fall out of the worldwide LNG market. The U.S. needs to prepare for an export economy beyond LNG and support emerging renewable energy industries. China became a world leader in solar panels, batteries, and EVs through forward-looking policies. • With Europe transitioning to renewable energy, the future of US LNG exports is at a crucial turning point, thus using LNG for tariff leverage (11) does not strengthen relations with allies. • Supplying China’s energy needs is not in the U.S. national interest. China is not an ally. (12) In February 2028, U.S. Senators introduced legislation that would ban the export of crude oil or LNG to our biggest adversaries: China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. (13) • Foreign firms are increasing their ownership interest in U.S. LNG terminals and feedgas-production assets. Among them: Woodside, QuatarEnergy, TotalEnergiesSE, INEOSS, Tokyo Gas, Osaka Gas. (13a,b) • The commoditization of U.S. LNG has caused U.S. domestic prices to be influenced by the fluctuations in worldwide commodity prices, creating difficulties for U.S. industry. In January 2024, the Industrial Energy Consumers of America wrote to the DOE urging an LNG policy that protects U.S. consumers from the risks that come with increased LNG exports. (14) • Pennsylvanians will pay more for electricity. Higher gas prices caused by increased exports would have the largest impact on the state’s electric power sector. Pennsylvania’s gas-fired power plants, which serve electric utilities around the mid-Atlantic region, would pay up to $7.4 billion extra for gas over 15 years. Industrial consumers would pay an extra $4 billion, residential consumers $2 billion and commercial consumers $1 billion. (14a) • Increased exports means increased gas production through fracking. To gear up for the industry’s increased exports, more gas drilling will be needed in Pennsylvania. The legacy of the externalities of this industry is already being felt as Pennsylvania looks for solutions to plugging orphaned and abandoned wells – with cleanup costs being shifted to the public. Additionally, the industry has a problem disposing of “produced water,” an unregulated pollutant having real consequences on ground water. (15) • LNG export projects that use overland transport (rail and truck) threaten communities with fire and explosion hazards. (15a) • Increasing LNG exports will be accompanied by increased pipelines and related infrastructure. With domestic gas demand stable, we can assume that future pipelines and related infrastructure is for the purpose of LNG export. It doesl not create public trust in government when eminent domain is used against property owners for the private profits of LNG exporters. • Pipelines are changing the natural dynamics of Pennsylvania forests (16), areas vital to recreational activities that support outdoor-focused business. (17) • LNG exports are inconsistent with Pennsylvania’s constitution. DOE decisions will look at national interest. But where a few states bear most of the impact of the LNG industry’s need for gas production, states’ rights must be considered. Pennsylvania is a leading gas-producing state that exports most of the gas it produces to beyond its state borders. We have an Environmental Rights Amendment. Article I, Section 27 provides: The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people. (18) Both reducing LNG exports and placing a permanent ban on new permits are consistent with the national interest. • The future of the U.S. will be more secure if the U.S. becomes a player in the worldwide transition to renewable energy, promoting the adoption of a variety of clean-power solutions, thereby creating a market for U.S. technology and components. Unfortunately, by sticking to a fossil-first energy strategy, the United States risks becoming a technology and energy backwater. Should we emulate Sweden or emulate Russia? (19) Some topics are irrelevant to national interest determination on the exportation of U.S. LNG. • Interests of multinational corporations cannot be considered the same as the national interest. Similarly, interests of publicly held companies do not meet the national interest standard, because shareholders could be anybody, a U.S. national or a foreigner. Furthermore, only a small percentage of U.S. citizens own stock, stock funds, and related investments. • Jobs in the LNG sector and related industries are elusive and fungible, in view of the growing renewable energy sector. The gas industry has not lived up to promises of jobs and prosperity in the Appalachian region. See research by Ohio River Valley Institute. (20) Distractions and misinformation should not cloud DOE decisions. • It is misinformation that the recent election shows that the U.S. public supports greater gas extraction. A poll conducted in September 2024 by the Ohio River Valley Institute of likely voters found that more than four in ten (42%) Pennsylvanians support an outright ban on fracking, and nearly half of Pennsylvanians say they’re opposed or on the fence about the practice. (20a) • It is misinformation to expect coal-to-gas-switching to reduce global carbon emissions. LNG is not a “transitional fuel.” The half-truth that gas burns cleaner than coal at the power plant smokestack ignores the reality of the end-to-end carbon footprint of LNG. A peer-reviewed research paper published in the Energy Science & Engineering journal in October 2024 concluded that LNG is 33% worse in terms of planet-heating emissions over a 20-year period compared with coal as a power source. (21) • It is a distraction to roll LNG into calls for “energy independence”. U.S. energy independence cannot be improved or secured by LNG exports. To the contrary, U.S. energy independence is ultimately put at risk by ad libitum exports. The U.S. has been methane-gas independent since roughly 2016. Gas consumption has been largely flat over recent years as alternatives sources of power generation are increasingly viable and affordable. Conclusion: The Department of Energy should not award any new LNG export permits or renew any LNG export permits. Those permits that it has already granted, if constructed, will result in an increase in LNG export volumes over the next decade. Continuing the “pause” on export permits should be seen as an opportunity to regroup and plan for new clean-tech industries of the future, for use both domestically and to give the U.S. a position of world leadership in renewable energy and put the United States on a pathway to compete with China, Sweden, and other countries preparing for the future. (22) DOE has an Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. This office should receive primacy for funding and staffing at DOE. DOE must acknowledge the science about fossil fuels and global warming. There is near-total scientific consensus that human activity is causing climate change and that fossil fuels are the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for over 75% of global emissions, making them the primary driver of climate change. DOE must not entertain false justification for the continued trajectory of LNG exports. Ethical decision making. There are various bases for making decisions. Vested interests who look to profit from a decision will try to influence what considerations go into a national-interest determination. DOE should not listen to voices of those with a financial interest in continuing LNG exports. Rather, I urge the DOE to consider ethical decision making. (23) 1 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/20/2024-30370/2024-lng-export-study-energy-economic-and-environmental-assessment-of-us-lng-exports 2 https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/LNGUpdate_SummaryReport_Dec2024_230pm.pdf 3 https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100224268 4 https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2024/12/gas-lng-climate-trump/681041/ 5 https://media.defense.gov/2021/Oct/21/2002877353/-1/-1/0/DOD-CLIMATE-RISK-ANALYSIS-FINAL.PDF; 6 https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/10/11/why-climate-change-is-a-national-security-risk/ 7 https://climatecrisis247.com/news/heat-may-shut-some-us-airports/#:~:text=Extreme%20heat%20can%20compromise%20a,have%20fewer%20passengers%20than%20usual 8 https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/calculating-cost-weather-and-climate-disasters 9 https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/26/us/climate-change-migration-border-haiti/index.html 10 https://www.fossilfuelfreefuture.org/news/over-130-legislators-call-to-stop-global-lng-expansion 11 https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/trump-says-eu-will-face-tariffs-unless-it-buys-more-u-s-oil-and-gas-here-s-why-that-matters/ar-AA1wdFAB?ocid=BingNewsSerp 11a https://energycouncil.com/articles/adapting-to-change-us-lng-exports-in-the-face-of-europes-evolving-energy-landscape/ 12 https://paenvironmentdaily.blogspot.com/2024/09/usdoe-china-is-biggest-destination-for.html 13 https://www.merkley.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/NEW24169.pdf 13a https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-07-26/woodside-deal-helps-make-the-case-for-foreign-investment-in-us-lng. 13b https://rbnenergy.com/american-pie-lng-buyers-and-suppliers-acquiring-slices-of-their-us-feedgas-needs 14 https://www.ieca-us.com/wp-content/uploads/01.25.24_LNG-Letter-to-Granholm.pdf 14a https://www.citizen.org/article/keystone-gas-gouge/ 15 https://www.desmog.com/2024/12/23/josh-shapiro-seneca-resources-whistleblower-demands-pennsylvania-gov-fix-completely-unregulated-fracking-wastewater-network/ 15a https://www.nrdc.org/stories/gibbstown-lng-terminal-catastrophe-waiting-happen 16 https://www.alleghenyfront.org/how-pipelines-are-changing-the-dynamics-of-pa-forests/ 17 https://www.pawildscenter.org/the-pa-wilds-region/our-tourism-assets/ 18 https://widenerenvironment.com/environmental-law/art-1-sec-27-resources/ 19 https://www.alleghenyfront.org/sweden-climate-change-hydrogen-energy-transition-manufacturing/ 20 https://ohiorivervalleyinstitute.org/shared-prosperity-clean-energy/ 20a https://ohiorivervalleyinstitute.org/pennsylvanians-overwhelmingly-support-stricter-regulations-on-fracking/ 21 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/04/exported-liquefied-natural-gas-coal-study 22 https://www.snexplores.org/article/green-energy-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-climate 23 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02074820
107. expand/collapse 1/7/2025 9:13:04 AM Racine, Susan General Comment To Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy The updated studies released by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the DOE analysis confirm that expanding liquified natural gas exports is not in the national interest. Climate change is already ravaging the US with severe hurricanes, deadly wildfires, and heatwaves. Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year- equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. This will accelerate the crisis we are already experiencing leading to hundreds of billions of dollars in damages every year. Climate disasters in 2024 cost the US $229 billion and caused 2000 deaths. We can't afford to allow these costs to escalate. The communities where the proposed LNG export projects would be sited are already experiencing incredibly high rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease from current fossil fuel industry infrastructure pollution. We cannot sacrifice the lives of these citizens for the profits of the oil and gas industry. On top of this, these environmentally damaging, climate warming LNG export facilities are expected to raise energy prices for the average American consumer. These pending LNG export permits must be rejected. They are unhealthy, costly both in lives and dollars, and ruinous to the only planet we have.
108. expand/collapse 1/7/2025 11:04:08 AM Magyar, Terry General Comment My name is Terry Magyar and I’ve lived in Ohio my entire life. I spent 30 years in the steel industry. I’m a retired steel worker, with experience in several aspects of steel manufacturing and processing. The oil and gas industry is dependent on many steel products. Some of which are produced in Ohio. There’s oil well casing and tubing, plus steel roofing and siding for buildings at O&G facilities. These are important jobs for Ohio. They pay good wages with excellent benefits. I understand the adverse affects of losing a job. This has a negative impact on the entire family and the community as a whole. Keeping good jobs in the steel industry and the O&G industry builds strong communities. It’s my hope the Dept. of Energy adopts policies that make our country strong. A good energy policy supports national defense, especially if we are energy independent. Good policy supports economic development, jobs and GDP. Hopefully, the department’s’ will also support exports of O&G to Europe, which needs to cut it’s dependence on Russian O&G. America should be in a position to export O&G to the world. The importance of America’s LN&G exports is critical for exporting freedom. The world still needs LN&G to support manufacturing, home heating, and economic growth. Some of our allies, especially Europe, Japan and Isreal need dependable suppliers of LN&G. If America fails to provide LN&G, our allies are prisoners to less dependable countries for their national security, which also depends on LN&G. I’m asking the Dept. of Energy to issue more permits for O&G exploration and for the export of Liquid Natural Gas to the world.
109. expand/collapse 1/7/2025 12:30:56 PM Danielson , Larry General Comment I think we should be exporting our natural gas to other countries as long as it doesn’t negatively effect our economy. I think it benefit our country by providing jobs.
110. 1/7/2025 12:35:09 PM IEEFA Appendix B: Domestic Energy, Economic, and GHG Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports
  1. IEEFA comments on 2024 LNG Export Study by TC.pdf
111. expand/collapse 1/7/2025 1:16:15 PM Frederick, Jesse General Comment Please see attached.
  1. Comments to DOE LNG Export Study.pdf
112. expand/collapse 1/7/2025 2:22:50 PM Moose, Stacie General Comment Hello my name is Stacie Ann Moose. I have lived all my life in Ohio and most of my family before me. Currently, I am full time caretaker for my 87 year old father and his affairs, which include his property in eastern Ohio. This land has been in the family since the late 1800s and is precious to us. Care for the land and environment in general is something that I have great respect and concern for both my land and the lands of the state and country in general. There is an oil and gas lease on our family property as well as our family log cabin and water well from which we drink. This is a source of income for my long since retired father on which he depends. I have complete confidence in the care and safety that the natural gas company offers and their commitment to the clean and efficient production of the product. Our 15+ year relationship with them has been reassuring and productive. Natural gas helps provide for my family and other families like mine. Legislation against natural gas exports, which is a very clean and efficient natural resource, could impact my family's oil and gas lease. Exporting LNG not only benefits the landowners and the businesses of the companies processing the gas, but also the millions of customers that need the stable source of energy and warmth. I urge the Department of Energy to continue giving permits for LNG exports, recognizing their positive impact on families that are financially dependent on natural gas.
113. expand/collapse 1/7/2025 3:55:28 PM Tidd, Bradley General Comment My family has been in the USA sense before it was the USA. Three Tidd men mustered to Lexington Green during the revolutionary war, and Lt William Tidd was the officer in command as the Captain did not make that muster. This is to show that my family has been involved in making the United States of America a nicer place to live from the founding. With regard to the Department of Energy, my grandfather fond Oil on his family farm which was enough to pay for his wife’s cancer treatment without him having to sell the farm to do that. When I owned the family farm I had to pay the taxes on the oil in the ground and the oil extracted etc. When I was working for IBM as a certified IT architect I traveled to install systems, and train other folks, I learned a lot about how the rest of the country and other parts of the world works. My father was the Chief Engineer for Humboldt Pacific Gas and Electric Division which made him responsible for the first commercial nuclear power plant in the USA. So I have some knowledge about that phase of the power grid as well. I have also acquired some more Mineral Rights in Colorado where I live and work so I am still very interested in the Department of Energy and everything that you do for everybody. The Department of Energy should have the best interest of the United States as well as the whole world. The ability of the USA to supply Liquefied Natural Gas, LNG, to the rest of the world is important for multiple reasons. 1) Prosperity of the US Economy, over 300,000 jobs are directly supplied by the LNG industry, as well as over 44 billion dollars go into the US GDP (aka economy.) 2)_ Helping our allies all over the world. If we can supply them dependable LNG then they can have a good clean (non sulfur) power source which is easy to manage. 3) IF we supply the LNG then people will not have to rely on Russia, and other hostile sources for their LNG supplies. 4) Energy independence for the USA so we do not have to rely upon those same hostile sources for our own energy. 5) Solar and Wind are NOT 100% dependable, you should have Natural Gas generators to supply the near instant power source to fill in those gaps. Nuclear is clean, but is not a fast spin up power source. The DOE pause of LNG policy should have shown you that lowering the output from the USA has had adverse effects on other countries, as well as on our own country. The US of A produces all of our mineral energy supplies cleaner than anybody else in the world. We are constantly improving how clean and efficient, as well as safely, we can produce energy. Especially LNG. Once in the LNG form when it is burned there is very little pollution and a very easy on/off source of power which even emerging economy third world countries can put to good use. As an American Citizen, as an Engineer, as a business owner, as a voter, and as a person who cares that the world is a better place, I plead with you to not stop the LNG industry in the USA. Please allow the USA LNG industry to supply the world with much needed energy. Cheap energy can solve a lot of problems everywhere.
114. 1/7/2025 4:05:42 PM Tohill, Merrily General Comment
  1. IMG.pdf
115. expand/collapse 1/7/2025 5:14:40 PM Bell, Nelson General Comment Hello, my name is Nelson Bell and my family has been involved with the oil and gas industry since 1920, My grandfather started in Texas and returned to Ohio and continued here, my father was also involved and I have been a mechanic for over 25, and I just retired from Ariel, Corp. We need to be an oil and gas independent country, we also need to continue to export LNG / CNG to maintain and or boost our economy, we as a country have lost to many jobs via pipeline shutdowns and various other oil and gas related jobs we can't afford to lose anymore. I have read studies and after the seismic testing that was done there is more oil and gas east of the Mississippi river than in all of Saudi Arabia. As I said in the beginning, I just retired from Ariel Corp and this could or can possibly affect over 1500 jobs in central Ohio alone. This would have a significant effect not only for the employees but also the city of Mt Vernon would be devastated. This is why we need to maintain and/or increase the exporting of LNG/CNG . This is why I am asking the department of energy to increase/expand our exporting of this product to better our economy and create more jobs.
116. expand/collapse 1/7/2025 5:17:40 PM Dagenfield, Gregg General Comment I am Gregg Dagenfield and a retired mechanic of 51 years. I've lived in Ohio my whole life. I have friends in south east Ohio with oil and gas wells. If it wasn't for their wells they couldn't afford to heat their homes. If we continue to increase the price of most natural gas, it will not be affordable to heat with. As a country we are here to support energy independence, and hopefully we can all agree on this. Increased exports will solidify jobs here in Ohio. Ohioans will be more secure in their personal financial standing and being comfortable spending. This is another reason for increasing L and G exports. I respectfully request the board to increase L and G exports to help stabilize the economy.
117. expand/collapse 1/7/2025 5:38:54 PM Hembree, William General Comment My name is William Hembree. I’m a retired software engineer who lives in Lyons, CO. I’m also a veteran who served in the USAF in Korea. My late father was a petroleum engineer so I grew up around the oil patch. However, my only employment in that industry was two summer jobs for service companies. Your (very lengthy report) makes it clear that you share my concern for a clean environment. I have observed that the petroleum industry today is operating in a far cleaner fashion than back in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The United States has enormous reserves of natural gas and our produces substantially less pollution (of all types, including CO2 and other greenhouse gasses) than any other major producing country. In terms of global pollution, it is better for the US to fill international needs than for other countries to do so. Increasing the United States’ share of the international LNG market also brings a host of benefits in our international relations. These include increased influence with the BRICS coalition and decreasing Russia’s influence generally (I view Russia as a geopolitical adversary). Most importantly, if the US provides a dominant share of China’s natural gas, that would be a strong deterrent against a potential invasion of Taiwan by the PRC. Finally, I must take issue with your report’s Executive Summary conclusion that allowing major increases in LNG exports would have a significant impact on domestic residential natural gas prices (4% in the Model Resolved scenario compared to the Existing/FID Exports scenario). First, 4% is a rounding error when projecting out 26 years. Second, “unknown unknowns” will almost certainly have substantial antically higher impacts on domestic natural gas prices. Third and most importantly, Americans petroleum producers have demonstrated a remarkable ability to increase production rapidly - if sufficient distribution systems (pipelines and LNG terminals) are in place. For the above reasons, I urge that you not go forward with the proposed regulation.
118. expand/collapse 1/7/2025 6:56:18 PM Lopez, Freddie General Comment My name is Freddie Lopez. I was raised in Santa Fe, New Mexico & I am a proud graduate of Santa Fe Community College. I'm very passionate about the oil and gas industry because the state of New Mexico is heavily reliant on oil and gas. I understand the argument when it comes to protecting and preserving the environment, But it should never come at the cost of the economy. We need to expand liquid natural gas drilling and lift the pause on exportations. Not reduce it. We should work alongside our Indian Pueblos & Reservations to preserve and protect our environment instead of having a one size fits all solution. Our energy industry provides so many opportunities and adding more stipulations does more harm than good. I ask that you reconsider and lift the pause on the liquid natural gas exports. Thank you.
119. expand/collapse 1/7/2025 9:35:56 PM Shetler, John General Comment I am a truck driver of 13 yrs, personally witnessing the affects of the price of fuel across the country and seeing the troubles of communities from the increases in the cost. I've seen the results of pay being diminished from the lack of available bonuses/incentives that have been directly influenced. I want to thank you for taking the responsibility of being an impact on the future of our country of communities and thriving businesses. Without your input to ensure affordable energy, we will continue to see the the fall of the power from citizens to contribute to the building up the United States for the betterment of all of its residents. I will gladly support your decision to help make the U.S. in the near future to be more energy independent in order to have a strong foundation for a strong prospective.
120. expand/collapse 1/8/2025 10:14:31 AM Allison, Maria General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
121. expand/collapse 1/8/2025 1:40:20 PM Trobough, Caroline General Comment Hello, my name is Caroline Trobough and I have been a resident of Ohio for 16 years. I have been married to my husband, Chris, for 19 years and shortly after we were married, he joined the military. We have three beautiful children and decided to make Ohio our permanent home after my husband medically retired from the Air Force. I own a small business and am deeply connected to our local community volunteering as Board Chair for the YMCA, along with other volunteer committees in the community. We live in a middle-class area where we support local small businesses and want to keep the American dream alive by ensuring there are jobs, fair wages, and economically affordable living. We have been homeowners in our community for 13 years and have always been diligent about budgeting our finances and paying attention to the bills that come our way. The absence of natural gas and its companies would greatly affect our area and community because it is a widely used resource for residential purposes. Not only is it affordable but it's cleaner than coal or petroleum, and is a much safer option. As a homeowner, it is crucial to consider how energy choices, like LNG, can impact our budget and the environment. LNG offers a cleaner, more efficient alternative to most traditional energy sources, providing homeowners with reliable energy and at a lower cost. Who wouldn't want that? Investing in a sustainable energy source could secure our future for a smarter and greener way to power our homes! I urge the commission to continue granting export permits for LNG, recognizing their positive impact on lower costs for homeowners.
122. expand/collapse 1/8/2025 2:38:46 PM Oxford Institute for Energy Studies Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports Attached paper assesses the scenarios used in Appendix A
  1. DOE-Report-on-US-LNG-Exports.pdf
123. expand/collapse 1/8/2025 3:36:00 PM Smith, John General Comment My name is John Smith. I am a petroleum engineer. My family and livelihood have been dependent on oil and gas production. I have been a volunteer fire fighter, boy scout leader, church youth group leader, and am a member of environmental organizations such as Wildlands Restoration and Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado. I am passionate about preserving the environment, but any proposal to not expand further export of natural gas is not only not the way to do this but is actually a negative for the environment. It is a moral, ecological and economic imperative that we expand our ability to export natural gas. From a moral standpoint every molecule we produce displaces a molecule produced by countries run by oligarchs or dictators who use the money derived from that production to oppress their own people and others. By expanding our export capacity, we knock out the monetary support that allows this oppression From an ecological point of view every molecule of gas we produce displaces a molecule of gas produced in countries where environmental regulations, if they even really exist, are at best lax and unenforced. So, by increasing our export capacity we replace “dirty” gas with relatively “clean” gas From an economic point of view increasing export of natural gas is a national windfall. Not only will a tremendous number of jobs be created in the production of natural gas, but also significant reductions to our trade imbalance will be achieved. This is major to the US economy.
124. expand/collapse 1/8/2025 3:44:09 PM QUINTERO MORRISON, SHERRY General Comment Hello, My name is Sherry Quintero Morrison, am a citizen of New Mexico. I grew up in Colorado, and my husband and I were transferred to Alaska in the 80” s. We lived there for 15 years. My husband was an underwriter for the company that insured the Alaska Pipeline. We understand the need for oil, gas and LNG for the economy, quality of life, and preservation of the climate. I am very concerned by the Secretary of Energy’s pause in exporting NLG only to countries we have a free trade agreement with. This is causing many of the poorer non free trade countries such as India to search for alternative options, many with countries not allies of the US. In many cases coal production is being used. If we are trying to improve the climate, why are we helping to destroy the climate.
125. expand/collapse 1/8/2025 6:40:26 PM Perez, Paul General Comment Hello, my name is Paul Perez, and I am a proud citizen of New Mexico. I was born in southern New Mexico and returned after 20 years of active-duty military service. Growing up around nuclear power and the nuclear weapons laboratories, I was always aware of the importance of energy to our state’s infrastructure and economy. Coming from a government and military background, I also recognized the tremendous need for gas and oil. As someone from southern New Mexico, I fully understand the vital role that our state’s natural resources, particularly gas and oil, play in driving economic growth. These resources are the cornerstone of New Mexico's economy and bring in significant revenue for the state. Since retiring from the military, my focus has been on education and driving impactful training and workforce development in New Mexico. The job training programs I’ve worked on are often in technology and hard trades like welding and electrical work, which offer employment opportunities in the gas and oil sectors for our citizens. I am writing to ask that the pause on liquid natural gas exportation be lifted. This issue is critical not only for our state’s economy but also for the future of our children and the generations to come. The prosperity of New Mexico depends on the continued development of our natural resources. Thank you for the opportunity to share my voice on this important matter. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration. Sincerely, Paul Perez
126. expand/collapse 1/8/2025 7:02:07 PM Anderson, Marty General Comment Hello, I am a resident of Colorado, and have been in the energy industry for over 40 years. I have worked in the electrical energy generation industry, and have worked with facilities that run on natural gas, coal, biomass, solar and waste to energy. Of all the fuels I have experience with, natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel. I have many friends and family members that have, or are still working in this industry. I also have friends that have businesses that are successful supporting the energy industry. Where I live, if the energy business is booming, the whole area businesses are growing. In the area that I live in, natural gas production and exploration is expanding. Also, across the country, natural gas is very plentiful. This gives the industry some reliability as far as growing, and providing job security for many of US citizens. This also gives us energy security, and provides a market to foreign countries. This market, if curtailed, would go to other countries like Russia, China and the Middle East countries. The US economy would benefit in many ways if we could produce LNG and export to Non FTA countries. This would also help countries their reduce dependency on coal to generate electricity. I ask the Department of Energy to not restrict the sale of LNG. This product would keep people employed and support many small businesses that provide services to the energy industry. I ask that you decline any proposals that would curtail this market. [Contact Information Deleted]
127. expand/collapse 1/8/2025 7:44:16 PM childers, Patrick General Comment I would like to say I am a ***** ***** married to a walrus. [Foul language removed]
128. expand/collapse 1/8/2025 11:33:20 PM Abott, Nott General Comment This comment is from an actual person, not a bot or form letter like most of these other comments. Without LNG, other (dirtier) forms of energy will be used until we have more nuclear capacity available. Energy prices will rise. Electrical energy requirements for AI are surging. These companies use the cheapest and most available means to generate electrical energy. I'd rather they use nat gas than coal please. With the stock market essentially riding on the future valuation of AI right now, messing with their ability to generate energy is an ingredient for recession. There are self-evident benefits of helping out our foreign allies who are suffering economically. It seems a mighty privilege to deny energy exports to folks that could use it for basic human necessities such as heating (UK).
129. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 11:04:21 AM Romasco, Mark General Comment Mark Romasco I am a resident in ***** County, and I work in the IT Industry. I live close to the ***** Fracking plant, and I think we need this for the energy resources and Economy benefits in Pa and Beave County. We need to continue to look for other sources of energy, but we need to continue to use Fascial fuel until we can make those viable solutions. The USA is not the primary or sole cause of emission issues on Plant Earth. I support your efforts in developing and promoting the use of Natural Gas within the US. Outlawing this is not within the best interest of America and cannot be dictated by a single Political. We need to Plan and look for new sources. Eliminating Nature Gas is not the answer at this time. As a consumer you cannot put us in a position to have planned electric outages as they have on the West Coast. That is 100% unacceptable. In doing so you would be dictating restriction/limitation on me to provide an environment for my family. We need to continue to search for energy sources. Shutting down any source at this time is not possible. The USA is not the Major generator or emission issues. Other country produces far more emission pollutions that the USA. We need to continue to investigate new resources, but you cannot eliminate our solution and leave us without affordable energy. The government needs to lift the policies to restrict energy sources. We need to work towards expanding our energy resources. I have Solar panels on my house and generate enough electric to power my home except for my heat which is oil base now. The cost of electric is out of control and being limited by shutting down power plants ***** County Duquesne Light. Please resume and grant permits to continue the generation of energy in ***** County. You must come up with viable alternatives not just pulling back from current energy alternatives.
130. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 11:05:15 AM mcphail, cassie General Comment Dear Office of Fossil Energy & Carbon Management, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) can play an important role in diversifying and expanding natural gas supplies and should be a part of a comprehensive, market-based energy policy that also encourages the development of domestic natural gas resources. Sincerely, Miss cassie mcphail
131. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 11:12:46 AM Ahrens, Judith General Comment My name is Judy Ahrens . I live in Wayne Pa . As a farmer it is important to have the use of fossil fuels for our farming needs. The mineral that our farm has have been taken from us by the DRBC. This has been done by a band on Drilling in Wayne County PA. We believe that your agency is looking to benefit the people. I must say that a diverse range of energy is needed. The cost of Natural gas should be of the upmost importance to you. Consumers benefit by the lower prices of natural gas by lowering the cost of products. Our community benefited when prices were lower. We want to see more natural gas production in NE PA . The environment has prospered by the use of liquified Natural Gas . Other countries can’t compare to the lower emissions of Our natural gas production. Solar and wind energy have their problems especially with the disposal of their by products. This would be our opportunity to supply Liquified Natural Gas to so many other counties and drive down the price of products. I support opening up more permits for production of more natural Gas Production in the country . We must be energy independent for a prosperous country . This in my opinion is the only way to reduce prices and once again be back as an energy productive nation. I urge the department of energy to increase permits so we can supply energy to other countries in Europe like Germany. It would also be a great boost the economics of our country. Sincerely , Judith Ahrens
132. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 11:26:07 AM Winks, Linda General Comment My name is Linda Winks and I use to be a small business owner. I understand the cost of energy has cost my expenses to go up. I am concerned about the cost because it was one of the many reasons I had to close my business. Because of the increasing the cost of fuel it caused me to have to work through many difficult times. I feel if the cost were to stay low more businesses can explore more avenues to take advantage of and make it easier for them no maintain control over their expenses. This helps the United States to become better in responding to help its people. As a business owner I feel that many small business can improve their bottom line, and continue to thrive. This is good for the United State to make prices better for the world. Small businesses are the life blood of the nation. Allowing liquid natural gas would lower small business expenses and US to thrive. Because of all the reasons expressed I feel The Department of Energy should allow the permits to sell Liquid Natural Gas. This would be great for small business around the world.
133. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 11:33:37 AM Radziszewski, Irena General Comment My name is Irena Radziszewski and I am currently living in southern Ohio with my partner and his grandson. I am a retired financial service provider. I retired from Wells Fargo in Oregon. While in Oregon I was forced to rely on public transportation due to the higher gas prices on the west coast. As a woman under five feet tall my trip to work was frightening. due to navigating homeless and drug users. I understand the Department of Energy has a major role in impacting the position of the United States as an energy leader. The DOE’s role is crucial to energy independence and national security. I believe that allowing LNG exports from the US will put us in a positive position with other countries as well as ensuring and cementing the position of the United States as a world leader. Based on my experiences I would request that permits for LNG exports be resumed to maintain American jobs, energy independence and to maintain national security. I appreciate your consideration.
134. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 11:35:14 AM Neuenschwander, Jim General Comment Hi my name is Jim Neuenschwander and I live in Granville Heights, OH. I’m concern to export LNG for revenue and send our LNG to Europe since Germany has started up their coal fired plants. I started working in the oil business in 1963 for the Standard Oil Company of OH(Sohio)in Lima OH as an intern and became a full-time employee in 1964. I have worked in upstream (Exploration/Production), Midstream (Transportation with pipelines and tankers and railroads and trucks), downstream (refining and chemical plants). After about 28.5 yrs of continuous service with SOHIO/BP I went to work for Saudi Aramco in 1992 on the Ras Tanara Refinery Upgrade Project. I moved to Ras Tanura Saudi Arabia in 1995 and resigned in 1998. I was a member of the Licking County Fracking County Advisory Committee in OH in 2012. I believe in the N2N (natural gas to nukes) discussed in the book, Power Hungry, to provide our long-term energy needs. With the natural gas we could produce from our Marcellus formation in OH we could be a major player in the global energy market. This is why we should continue LNG exports. I urge the DOE to resume our LNG exports and make sure the USA is a world leader again.
135. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 12:39:28 PM Stradling, Andra General Comment To Whom It May Concern, My name is Andra Stradling. I have been a resident of Farmington, New Mexico my entire life. Sixty five years. I have eight grandchildren that live in this community. The production and transport of oil and gas is vital to our community. It funds our schools, city and state government. As a school board member I know first hand the impact oil and gas has on New Mexico education. The children of New Mexico are the stake holders. The planned pause on Liquified Natural Gas by secretary of DOE Jennifer Granholm, will be devastating to our economy and communities. This ban jeopardizes our export standing. I do not support this ban.
136. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 12:50:59 PM Chavez, Monica Renee General Comment Hello, My name is Monica Renee Chavez. My family and I have lived in New Mexico our entire lives and understand the importance of liquid natural gas (LNG) for the economy, our quality of life and climate. I am opposed to the Secretary of Energy’s pause on exporting LNG. This jeopardizes our standing of exports around the globe, the 222,000 jobs that are dependent on LNG, and causes other countries not allied with the US to use alternative options that hurt the climate. For these reasons I am asking to stop the pause set by Secretary Granholm.
137. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 1:57:05 PM Carlson, Don General Comment Hello, my name is Don Carlson. I am an 83-year-old veteran who served in the 801st Combat Support Group. This group was part of the Strategic Air Command from 1959 to 1963. I am a retired principal of Ernst & Young Accounting Firm. I am originally from Chicago and moved to Wooster Ohio at age 17, in 1958. After my service, I attended Ohio State and then Kent State, where I earned my Bachelor of Science in Accounting. Since moving to Ohio, I have established my career, raised my family, become a devout member of my church community, over the years I have served on over 25 Tax Exempt Organizations that have helped people, I have been a scoutmaster for 20+ years and have helped 24 boys achieve the rank of Eagle Scout. I am very passionate about the livelihood of the members of my community, ensuring they are able to afford living expenses on a fixed income. Right now, our national debt, and the interest on it each year, equals our gross domestic product. The United States has plenty of natural gas and Oil available. By selling LNG, we can reduce our national debt. We will also be able to reduce funding to countries that are not our allies and help with world peace. There are many elderly members in my church. These members are on a fixed income. They have watched their living expenses increase to such an extent that they are barely making ends meet. We have to reduce these prices by increasing natural gas production. This will allow us to support our elderly members who are on a fixed income. We will also be able to reduce the resources going to countries that implement values which do not align with the freedoms the United States stands for. I urge the commission to continue granting export permits for LNG exports, recognizing their positive impact on reducing our national debt, lowering costs for all Americans, and creating a more prosperous America.
138. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 2:12:10 PM Osofsky, Shoshana General Comment Fires are raging out of control in the Los Angeles, public safety agencies say there is no way to prepare for so many simultaneous fires. Fire hydrants were pumped dry. Each time there is another climate catastrophe I hope maybe this will be the one that wakes people up to reality we cannot keep pumping CO2 back into the atmosphere without causing devastation. So far that hasn't happened and the US is still considering exporting LNG. How is that possible? No LNG terminal permits - please!
139. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 2:31:13 PM Tasco, John General Comment My name is John Tasco. I'm a life time resident of Northeastern Pa. I served for four years in the Marine Corps. Including a year and a half in Vietnam. I'm currently a retired disabled veteran. And retired. I spent most of my working career in sales and sales management traveling throughout most of Pa. Also I worked in corporate security. Many of the business contacts and friends were very dependent upon the natural gas industry. However, due to recent shutdowns in the industry many of them have lost businesses, homes and employment. One in particular is our son who has a trucking company and is currently struggling due to his loss of business from the gas industry.. I currently appreciate the work that this organization is doing to help the energy industry. As a veteran, I'm truly concerned about the security of our country. The current impact on the gas industry, I believe, will greatly impact our ability to provide aid to our allies, and make us weak, since we would then have to depend on foreign entities to provide our much needed resources for the security of our country. I believe that lifting the ban would make our country much less dependent upon the importing of energy from foreign countries. Also, it would open a tremendous number of employment opportunities for our country and the friends and family members that work in the industry. As someone who is currently seeing the economic loss, the very grave loss of national security as result of the ban. I urge that the DOE lift the ban, which will provide national security, and economic growth in our country.
140. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 2:54:30 PM Cox, Matt General Comment As a long time citizen of New Mexico which relies heavily on the oil and gas industries for our tax base I would like to voice my opposition to the planed pause on liquified natural gas by Secretary Granholm. This would be very detrimental to our economy. Jobs, education, as well as public safety. Non free trade agreement countries need LNG and we are losing out on their business and causing them harm.
141. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 4:44:01 PM Sobol, Ruth General Comment I am a 4th generation Colorado native. Originally, we moved to Colorado due to our asthma. We appreciate Colorado’s clean air and water. Currently, I am a part-time college instructor for the University of Colorado and nanny for my grandson. In the last four years, I have had a difficult time making ends meet. I shop at Walmart and buy mostly used clothes—but I am spending about 50% more on gas, food, electricity, and every other product I buy. This is the first time in my life that I fear not having enough money to survive. My husband and I created a small greeting card business. We had a thriving business for over 30 years and at one point we had a large warehouse with over 100 sales reps. Had the Department of Energy created harsh regulations and shut down our business, we would not have been able to survive. Our employees who lived from paycheck to paycheck would have panicked and would run to get other jobs. After 6 months, they would be employed elsewhere and would not come back to work for us. The trust would have been broken. Our customers would have found other companies to work with because we were unavailable. And our investors would find friendlier companies with less punitive rules to do business with. If we are to stop exports to other nations, Colorado housing will become even more unaffordable. My children will move to other states, and I won’t get to see my grandbabies grow up. I urge The Department of Energy to think about the consequences of this continued pause. This pause hurts small business owners; hurts hardworking Americans; hurts retirees; hurts our way of life. Energy is needed to run our hospitals, schools, and meals on wheels. For the sake of all of us who have live in America, I beg you to reconsider. We can avoid making our enemies rich and help keep our air and water clean.
142. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 4:50:45 PM Funkhouser, Vivian General Comment This is Vivian Funkhouser, and I have been a homeowner in Western Pennsylvania for over 20 years. I have traveled the world as a healthcare executive and chose to settle here in this rural region to raise my children. Though retired, I am a small business owner serving the real estate industry. We rely on workers in other industries to grow Pennsylvania's economy. No matter the size of the business, we know there are always competing priorities. And the DOE certainly has a lot to juggle in keeping up with those competing voices! We appreciate all you do to support businesses large and small in rural and urban areas. I'm sure you can understand the risks related to delaying the LNG export permits for upstream and downstream opportunities among businesses here in Pennsylvania -- knowing we are the nation's second largest producer of LNG. My own business relies on PA continuing to grow, and the permits you are evaluating affect me personally and the economy of PA collectively. I encourage you to be decisive in this evaluation and move forward to open the door to this opportunity in order to support economic growth, job growth and overall business growth both here in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. In other words, I would urge the DOE to lift the pause on LNG export permits sooner rather than later -- ASAP -- for the benefit of businesses, families, and economy. Thank you.
143. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 5:00:22 PM Christenberry, Mark General Comment My name is Mark and I have been in the transportation business from the early 80’s . Now I am on the Newark City School Board in Licking county Ohio. I have worked in the school system as a Board member or public advocate starting around 2000. We have income tax and property tax as a base for education for our children in our community. As a leader in my community I’m sure you understand how important it is to keep good local jobs. More production will help our tax base and keeps good education in the schools. More Infrastructure and production of LNG helps everyone along production chain. I feel we need to embrace our national resources. I believe it helps the environment as well as the pocket book. I urge the Board to help our community by issuing more permits to continue the growth and longevity of Liquid Natural Gas.
144. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 5:01:19 PM Moore, James General Comment Hello, I am Jim Moore. I have been a resident in Pennsylvania for 58 years, my entire life. I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Pittsburgh and have worked in the Specialty Metals industry as an engineer for 28 years. I started my career as a front line supervisor working with members of the USW and have progressed to be the superintendent of the facility. Western Pennsylvania has had a steady decline of industrial based jobs since the early 1980's which has impacted the residents traumatically. The loss of the industrial base has led to the loss of good paying, non-skilled jobs, resulting in a decline of the local population and hurting small businesses in the area. Therefore, I thoroughly support the generation of higher paying jobs in the area that would promote the economic wellbeing of our community. I appreciate the work that the Department of Energy has done to provide a steady stream of jobs in the energy industry that have helped improve the economy of the local community. We can agree that an improvement of quality and number of high paying jobs in the region is in everyone's interest and therefore the LNG Export permit pause should not move forward. The local energy sector jobs are needed for the stability and growth of this community and region. I urge the DOE to resume the approval of LNG permits.
145. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 6:35:54 PM Nelson, Chris General Comment My name is chris nelson I worked as an electrician for 25 years. I know the energy is the most vital component of our way of life and productivity. The United States has a great deal of liquefied natural gas. This is a great way to revive our country's economy this is a great way to balance our trade deficit! I think it is a vital importance that we continue to harvest natural gas and sell it on the open market. We have plenty of this and the world needs it the alternate. The alternative is other countries would will go to two countries like Russia and China, and we will lose that market! We also it also provides a great deal of employment for American workers! It's good for the American economy! Energy is the most vital component of our way of life and our culture! I urge the department of energy to let the American producers of natural gas sell them on the open market is a commodity that does our economy a great deal of good. It is an American product that solves a lot of problems around the world.
146. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 6:53:05 PM Sledd, Kimberle General Comment My name is Kimberle Sledd, a small business owner. I am also a wife, mother, grandmother and concerned citizen. I have worked as a drafter for oil and gas companies. As well as depended on natural gas wells to supplement farm income. I am concerned the freeze on exporting LNG will impact so many areas; higher prices, job losses, a bigger depletion of the petroleum reserves, national security and it puts the US behind our adversaries in the world market and our ability to support nations that are trying to switch from coal to a cleaner fuel to power their countries. I appreciate the work that you have done in the past and your protection of the people of the United States and the wisdom you have applied regarding energy management. As I stated before, I am concerned the freeze on exporting LNG will impact so many areas; higher prices, job losses, a bigger depletion of the petroleum reserves, national security and it puts the US behind our adversaries in the world market and our ability to support nations that are trying to switch from coal to a cleaner fuel to power their countries. Please don’t let this become a poor decision that puts the US in a poor position in all the listed areas and others. I urge the Department of Energy to resume the exportation of LNG to continue to support the citizens of the United States by protecting jobs, prices, energy independence, and national security. Thank you for taking the time to read my comment.
147. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 7:02:06 PM Tarr, Len General Comment Hello, my name is Len Tarr, I live in New Mexico and have served in both the United State's Marine and Navy for several years. Today I want to be an asset and not a liability to this issue and I support Americans making a living. I have a deep love for this country and the people who live in it, by expanding LNG we can strengthen this country that I love, along with people within it. So please take into consideration the benefits of expanding LNG will have for the American people.
148. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 7:31:31 PM Jewish Earth Alliance Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports Thank you for taking my comment. Please do not issue any permits for the export of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG). Good friends of ours just had their house, that they just bought, burn down in the LA fires--in JANUARY!!!! Per NOAA, accounting for CO2 and methane atmospheric concentrations today, "greenhouse gases contribute to a total concentration of approximately 534 ppm CO₂ equivalents in 2023, indicating a 51% increase in warming influence since 1990." We are nearing climate chaos. Please do all you can to prevent this.
149. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 7:44:57 PM Heger, Thomas General Comment I am Tom Heger a retired engineering manager with Hewlett Packard for over 30 years. As a manager I led many product and process development efforts with their multimillion dollar investments. A key belief of mine is successful projects require a clear stable definition, documented goals, multiple checkpoints to monitor progress and issues and a clear expectation presented to higher management of the expected return on investment. This generates continued support from higher management to provide the funding and the production resources to make this effort successful. Today I am writing you to comment on the need to have stable expectation on the return to insure that management will support future projects. I am aware that you are considering limiting the market for Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) exports to just trading partners with a free trade agreement and not allowing exports to other countries. If that change takes place we will have forced those countries to either stay with coal which we know is more environmentally damaging than natural gas or potentially purchasing their required natural gas from countries like Russia and Iran who are clearly adversaries of the United States. It is hard to understand why we would support such a plan for a couple reasons. First, it will negatively impact the returns of American companies who have made large investment in producing, liquefying and shipping LNG to those potential customers. This will negatively impact future investments by those companies to expand operations and with new projects continually improve the environmental impact of their operations. Second, we produce gas in the US as efficiently and an environmentally friendly better than other countries in the world. Do we really want to have other countries supply this LNG or worse yet supply coal to these countries? Third, as I mentioned if other countries supply this LNG , we will lose some very good paying jobs here in the United States and be sending that business elsewhere and maybe to the countries that are adversaries, have weak environmental regulations and use their profits against our national goals, Thank you for taking the time to consider these concerns
150. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 8:14:23 PM Negvesky, Richard General Comment II am a 27-year resident of Colorado and a small business owner. I’m now retired and living on fixed income. I have always supported the oil and gas industry in Colorado and the US and am VERY appreciative of the value they contribute to the Colorado & US economies, its tax base, and my own pocket through reduced living expenses. I am not happy with the way things have been heading the past four years. Inflation has been at a 40+ year high (8%). Oil/Gas prices have reached levels not seen in nearly half a century. The US had become a net energy importer, once again, after the previous administration had flipped that script for the first time in over 4 decades. In just 4 short years under Biden, all that changed. The energy sector industry and its workers have been unfairly demonized & ostracized for providing a great service to this country and its citizens. This is usually done under the aegis of clean energy and “climate” change policies (whether acknowledged or not). I appreciate the all the work done by the team in crafting what they propose to be a new policy restricting LNG shipments to non Fair-Trade partners. However, it has been my experience in working with the climate cabal over 30 years, even within the EPA and the DoE, that the ”analysis” behind such proposed policies are typically never truly “balanced” despite protestations/presentations to the contrary. They are nearly almost always biased in favor of environmental goals and usually engender unintended consequences. The propose policy change will have the following detrimental effects, if implemented: 1. Make non-energy producing countries even more dependent upon dangerous global regimes, pushing them closer into the arms of regimes who are feckless, despotic, sponsors of terrorism, or stated enemies of America. Many of these same regimes are not constrained by the bloated environmental bureaucracy / oversight the US energy industry often strains under. Still, our O&G industry is world leading when it comes to environmental, practices and technology. 2. LNG is one of the cleanest forms of energy there is. We produce it (or can) abundantly here in the US. It was fracking and NG that allowed the US to achieve the defined “objectives” for the US on carbon limits in the egregiously structured and mostly defunct Paris Accord. Exporting our LNG as a product will allow other resource poor countries, especially in the 3rd and 4th developing world, to also been clean while lifting their citizens out of poverty with an energy resilient and reliable infrastructure. 3. Biden’s feckless energy and foreign policy decisions have had the opposite effect on Russia than intended. Trade and energy sanctions (along with their own stupidity) have driven Germany deep into Russia’s arms for its energy needs, driving a wedge into the NATO coalition. Russia has become wealthy and stronger through its energy exports during the war with Ukraine – exactly the opposite intended outcome. 4. Because of such policies, US trade deficits have grown even larger as we foolishly restrain domestic production to meet our own energy needs while trading with Venezuela and the Middle east and other unstable regions in pursuit of “carbon” goals. This is nothing less than abject stupidity. All we have done is shift the production of carbon to other, less-stable, less environmentally concerned countries - to our own financial detriment. “Out-of-sight” apparently equates to “out-of-mind” for these ludicrous policies intended to punish the US, without having any real net carbon impact. 5. Shipping LNG to more nations not only reverses all the detrimental effects cited above, it hires more American workers and helps lift the US economy and spurs economic growth. 6. Exporting more LNG Increases domestic energy production and drives down US energy prices –due to economies of scale. Pure and simple, that lowers inflation for all Americans. Our dollars go further and people can spend more with more disposable income. A growing US economy is good for all the world. For all the reasons cited above, I urge rejection of the recommendation to restrict LNQ shipments to non Fair Trade countries.
151. expand/collapse 1/9/2025 11:34:55 PM Watson, Jeffrey General Comment We've been drilling for 175 years and we've been fracking for more than 75 years. Right now thru constant process improvements we have become very safe, very efficient and very clean. Concerned citizens have put pressures on the industry to get us to this point. There is always room for improvement but we should stay the course with caution and concern. Green energy is not the answer to fossil fuels. The environmental damage and health concerns are the same if not more when pursuing these options. There is not an upgrade but only trade-offs. If only the citizens would read about it instead of carrying a narrative from corporate News. LNG exports provide shovel ready jobs for American's and their families. There is not any reason we shouldn't be providing energy to those in need. It's good for American families and Its good for the world. In closing when we attempt to shut down or slow down oil and gas drilling, it's the poorer people who suffer the most.
152. expand/collapse 1/10/2025 11:05:02 AM Bennett, David General Comment My name is David W. Bennett, a Financial Adviser at a major national investment house. In my 50 years of managing individual investments energy has been an area my clients have used to diversify their portfolios. If the energy sector shrinks this will hurt investors but more importantly increase the cost to the end user and citizens. It is very important that the United States be energy independent, which requires us to be one of the largest producers of natural gas, oil, coal, along with producers of other types of energy such as nuclear power. We should be allowing our corporations to expand exploration, pipelines, processing plants, especially LNG for domestic use and export. This is why supporting permits for Exporting LNG is so crucial to our National Energy Policy. This would allow increasing energy production, jobs, and make us energy independent and support countries around the world instead of them buying energy from our enemies. I am asking the Department of Energy to increase permits for LNG to support the industry, make energy available at low prices, support our allies around the world , and make our world safer and more productive.
153. expand/collapse 1/10/2025 12:02:49 PM Bidwell, MD, MPH, Harvey General Comment Please reject expansion of LNG ports. For the sake of our current climate and our children's climate we must reduce the export of natural gas. We are exporting enough already,
154. expand/collapse 1/10/2025 12:20:15 PM Baca, Jonathan General Comment My name is Jonathan Baca, I have lived in New Mexico my whole life and I have seen the importance of oil and gas in our state. As a business owner my stake in New Mexico is amplified. I am worried about the local economy and cost of living for the residences of New Mexico. Especially the Native residents who rely on LNG to heat their houses. This ban on LNG would only continue to suppress the residences and native New Mexicans, like myself. That it is why I am against the Secretary of Energy’s pause on LNG exports.
155. expand/collapse 1/10/2025 12:53:24 PM Frackfreemahoning, SOBE Concerned Citizens Appendix B: Domestic Energy, Economic, and GHG Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports When slickwater, high pressure horizontal hydrofracturing is employed to use millions of gallons of water (for each fracking), this water is lost from the water cycle permanently. The "produced water" coming from frack wells is so toxic it is injected far below the earth to protect public health. Fracked gas product exported as LNG is an extremely unwise, dangerous and a damaging, wasteful use of drinking water that we should conserve, especially in the face of climate crisis.
156. expand/collapse 1/10/2025 1:52:39 PM Flohr, John General Comment Hi my name is John Flohr I am a nurse that works In the health ,safety and environmental health for some of the larger contractors I in Ohio. I have been doing it for 22 years. I am responsible for the safety of the employee s on the job as well as the safety and well-being of the community I work in. We understand the value of assuring that employees are kept safe in their work experience and work environment We know that by ensuring a safe work environment we keep employees from injury so they don't need to take time off work. The fewer Injuries we have will keep worker comp insurance down, it keeps employees providing for their families and spending quality time with them so by stopping the pause the exporting of energy we will ensure that there will be no loss of jobs in the United States. Please support exporting our energy so we will avoid the loss of these jobs
157. expand/collapse 1/10/2025 3:20:25 PM Sutton, Roger General Comment Hello my name is Roger Sutton and I have lived in PA all my life. I have raised my family of three children and two grandchildren. I am a retired small business owner. I am concerned with the high cost of living for retired people such as my self and also employment opportunities in the state to provide a strong economic base for development and growth. We need your oversight of the energy industry. Your regulation in the past has made the energy production in the USA the safest in the world and that is why we need to be a leader in the field. The approval of LNG export permits is going to protect the current jobs and provide the opportunities for more growth in the USA. This not only protects jobs but also helps to reduce our national debt. With Our oversight we will also do it safer than any country and with a better outcome environmentally. I am asking for the DOE To lift the pause on the issuing of LNG permits, to keep our economy strong and stable. This will keep us as a nation at the forefront of safe LNG exports.
158. expand/collapse 1/10/2025 3:23:39 PM Bolland, Donald General Comment I am Donald Bolland, President & Owner of a family business, Bolland Machine, established in 1962 in ***** County, PA. As a small business owner, our shop provides jobs for local residents which is important to support our local economy. The supply of jobs to our local community is very important to me. I would like to thank the Department of Energy for the reliable energy source needed to create our jobs and security that helps small businesses particularly my workforce. I also appreciate the DOE for implementing standards that empower small business across the USA. Because we agree on supporting small businesses and preserving lucrative jobs, we should agree upon resuming the approval of LNG export permits to prevent a decrease in production that would adversely impact the local economy as well as individual families. I hope my letter will be influential in urging the DOE to remove the export pause on LNG permits which will have a long-term benefit on our country.
159. expand/collapse 1/10/2025 4:58:58 PM Haulenbeek, Rebecca General Comment Hi I am Rebecca Haulenbeek and have lived in California, Alaska, Oklahoma and New Mexico. It has been my experience that natural gas has been more accessible to rural communities than the power grid. It is my observation that many states, including New Mexico, depend on the  economy of the oil and gas industry for the majority of its revenue. It is my concern that the power grid is undependable for the majority of the United States. When one lives in a rural area they make arrangements for their natural gas to be delivered and used as needed. I can appreciate that we, as a nation, want to support our allies. However, this ban limits the availability of countries with lesser resources, the ability to compete for oil and gas resources. I am concerned that by having this pause on the sale of oil and gas resources will handicap the industry and make it more difficult to recover in the long run. It also makes the industry unfavorable to invest in while the ban exists. I would appreciate serious thought being given to the consequences of this decision on the positive influence it would have on the job growth, industry growth and economic growth we would have by NOT extending this pause. Thank you for your consideration.
160. expand/collapse 1/10/2025 6:45:25 PM Levine, Karen General Comment Hello, my name is Karen Levine, and I am a Colorado native. I was born in 1959 and have lived here my entire life, except for a short time in Texas for college. I have been an active REALTOR for over 35 years helping people in my community achieve the American Dream of homeownership, sell their first home to move up to a large home, sell their large family home and move down or buy their first home. Over the years I have seen good real estate markets and not so good markets. The one thing I have also observed over the years is that government intervention can many times be costly to the American homeowner/taxpayer. The area of energy is one of those industry sectors that experiences government involvement on a regular basis. Today I am writing to encourage the Department of Energy to reopen trade of liquified natural gas (LNG) to our trade partners throughout the world. As a small business owner, I have seen how less than thoughtful legislation and regulation can not only negatively affect my business but also affect the cost and availability of affordable housing. The energy industry is no different. There are small business owners that support and depend on the extraction and trade of LNG. Please consider the effects of those you serve, small business owners, taxpayers, and all-American citizens and reopen the export of LNG. Thank you for your consideration.
161. expand/collapse 1/11/2025 3:44:40 PM Campbell, Larry General Comment The US needs to be discouraging the use of natural gas, not facilitating it. The world is facing climate disaster caused by emissions from natural gas production and burning. People living near natural gas production facilities and natural gas burning facilities face immediate harmful air quality effects. JUST SAY NO!!!!!!!!
162. expand/collapse 1/11/2025 3:57:54 PM Wong, Lawrence General Comment I am of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, I generally disapprove of more LNG terminals to be built because LNG is highly unsafe and flammable and greatly contributes to raising greenhouse gas levels and worsening global warming, which is an outcome that we want to avoid. On the other hand, China is projected to be the biggest importer of LNG exports from the US by 2050 and having some economic leverage against China is a good thing to have. So, is there a reasonable compromise whereby the US builds a certain number of LNG terminals to provide a certain number of tons of LNG exports to China but somehow minimizes the projected increase of greenhouse gas levels from production, transport, and burning of the LNG exports? (In other words, make it ideally or close to carbon neutral as much as possible.)
163. expand/collapse 1/11/2025 5:35:30 PM Steinberg, David General Comment ( My Protest in Rhymed Poetry) A Call for Justice: Reject LNG In shadows cast by rising gas, A danger looms that none surpass. LNG exports, a poison trail, For public health, a toxic tale. From fracking fields in Pennsylvania's core, To coastal ports where gas does roar, Pollution spreads, the skies grow dim, And justice fades on every whim. Secretary Granholm gave the alarm, Of communities faced with enduring harm. Environmental justice bears the strain, Of shortened lives and lasting pain. The climate crisis looms so near, Yet greenhouse gases stoke our fear. Instead of clean renewables' rise, Fossil fuels dim our future skies. Economies falter, prices soar, LNG exports promise more. Excess supply, demand will fall, And instability will engulf us all. The public interest must take the lead, Not corporate greed with endless need. Let voices rise in rightful plea, Reject these exports, let us be free. Submit your comments, join the fight, For cleaner air and future bright. Together strong, our cause is just, In DOE’s truth, place all our trust. The Specter of LNG Beneath the pall of twilight’s shroud, Where skies in mournful whispers bowed, A curse is cast, both bleak and vast— The specter of the gas amassed. From shadowed wells where fissures bleed, To fractured earth in wanton greed, A devil’s breath, both foul and dire, Ignites the world in phantom fire. Oh, Pennsylvania, scarred and torn, Thy fields of sorrow deeply worn. What specter haunts thy fracking ground, What griefs untold, what horrors found? The air grows thick, the winds despair, Borne on the backs of poisoned air. A justice cries, but none reply, As lives grow short beneath the sky. And yet, beyond the human toll, The climate weeps—a fractured whole. The icy poles, the rising seas, A world undone by such as these. Hear now the price, both cruel and grim, For fleeting gold and profits dim. Economies shall reel and break, Beneath the weight of what we take. Oh, DOE, a plea we send, To halt this madness, make it end. Let not this scourge of gas prevail, Let truth and justice tip the scale. So rise, ye voices, mournful, loud, And pierce the dark, a righteous cloud. For in your cries, the specter quakes, And justice stirs, though oft it wakes.
164. expand/collapse 1/11/2025 9:28:25 PM Farber, EdD, Susan General Comment Caring for the environment, leaving natural resources for future generations, limiting and reducing degradation of local communities and natural spaces are all valuable to me. Our society seems convinced that having so much without consideration of negative impacts—is appropriate. Raiding liquid natural gas reserves and pumping or using more petroleum than in the recent past — these actions can not continue. Significant reconsideration of our lifestyles and use of resources is necessary; natural destruction (fires, floods, mudslides) force this policy shift; businesses push us in opposite directions. Plastic production must cease; with PFAs in our bodies, food, water, products. Legislation is to protect, not favor one group over another. This may be naïve thinking. If our country is to grow without continual harm to the population and the land/environment, this bill should NOT be signed or passed into law..
165. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 10:25:12 AM van Rossum, Anneke General Comment LNG is ruining the planet and my future! I ask you to stop and never allow again the exportation of LNG. The continuation of this practice will leave no future for myself and generations to come. You are burdening us with a problem we may never be able to fix and will only live to inherit a dying world. LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires.
166. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 11:42:53 AM Kritzwiser, Diana General Comment My name is Diana Kritzwiser I have lived in Ohio all my life basically. I worked as a nurse aide all my life taking care of the elderly in their homes and in Nursing homes and now I’m retired. I had 6 children, one deceased, all struggling with finances so we don’t need the burden of higher energy cost in our nation. The high gas prices would increase by importing gas from other countries. We need to be exporting our gas to other countries and save money in our and their future. We need to be energy independent. With the lower prices of gas and cleaner fuel in our country, for the safety of all concern will increase. Our allies will have access to cleaner and cheaper energy coming from our country. Exporting our natural gas would help other countries with a cleaner environment and air to breathe. It would make us energy independent as well as helping other countries getting more reliable cleaner gas. Allowing liquid natural gas to be exported would lower gas prices for Americans and we will all become more independent. I urge you to take action by allowing more exports of our liquid natural gas so we become more energy independent and our allies can rely on us for their energy needs.
167. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 1:50:51 PM van Rossum, Anneke General Comment No more exportation of LNG!
168. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 1:58:50 PM Hunsicker, Nicholas General Comment LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires.
169. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:03:34 PM McCabe, Joseph General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power.
170. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:03:44 PM Angell, JL General Comment LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The recent report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. I expect you to follow the facts and law and do so ASAP.
171. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:07:46 PM Bevsek, Jean General Comment • LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. • LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. • The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. Thank you.
172. 1/13/2025 2:07:53 PM Ellison, Martha General Comment
173. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:08:07 PM Prostko, Linda General Comment LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires.
174. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:09:42 PM Layne, Allister General Comment LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires.
175. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:13:26 PM Johnson, Susan General Comment LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires.
176. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:13:45 PM Prior, Meghan General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
177. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:16:45 PM Clevenger, Jane General Comment I had to move from Colorado to Delaware to escape the severe pollution from the dirty Oil & Gas frackers who polluted where I use to live. I am 70 years old, and the move was NOT an easy one. It made me have to leave my family behind JUST SO I COULD BREATHE. As a Climate Refugee, I feel very strongly about the continued use and expansion of fossil fuels. You know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. Pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe is truly insane. Doesn't what has happened to California make your decision makers take pause? More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. Please reject this crazy idea!!!
178. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:17:54 PM Ellison, Martha General Comment Climate change is threatening our every existence. Natural disasters are becoming more severe and frequent causing lives and billions of dollars in damage and recovery. The US must make major changes to stop using fossil fuels and increase use of green energy if we want to have a sustainable planet. Take immediate action tomorrow drop the sale, use, and transport of natural gas. Heed the scientifically evidenced in what is feeling climate change and take action to stop our destruction.
179. 1/13/2025 2:18:57 PM Schumacher , Reid General Comment
180. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:19:31 PM Jordan, Jeanne General Comment I am strongly opposed to the DOE approving any new LNG exports. There are many reasons the United States should NOT export any more LNG (liquefied natural gas) overseas or approve new proposals expanding natural gas production. Processing LNG and transporting LNG only bring adverse effects on Americans, especially the communities near the plants and export terminals. The market value of natural gas is declining. There’s no economic benefit to exporting more LNG when the market doesn’t warrant it. Plus, as LNG exports increase, so will costs for Americans! We will have to pay higher prices for natural gas. The same goes for businesses and institutions, higher prices. This was one of the findings in the extensive report conducted by the DOE. The American people are already suffering from higher prices for goods and services. As an older American on a fixed income, I know I can't afford to pay more for gas or electricity. The general public can’t afford to pay more either. The dangers of transporting LNG, especially around communities which are already suffering from other kinds of pollution would be devastating. Whether delivered by trucks on highways or railroad cars, LNG is a disaster just waiting to happen. A simple accident will turn into a catastrophic disaster if a truck turns over or a railcar is derailed. An LNG spill can ignite and explode like a gigantic bomb. This is a very real threat to me. There is an existing proposal for a new LNG terminal along the Delaware River near where I live. All of us in this South Jersey area, including parts of eastern Pennsylvania and all of Delaware would be affected if this LNG proposal is approved. Lastly, the environmental impact of more LNG exports is obviously terrible. Harmful Methane is released during every step of LNG processing. More LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse than it is already. The US has to stop investing in more fossil fuel production. Our continued reliance on fossil fuels is not sustainable and the US must move toward more renewable, sustainable forms of energy, not more LNG exports! As you can easily see, the DOE must reject further expansion of LNG exports. It would be wrong for our economy, public safety, and the environment. A recorded version of my comment, which is not exactly the same, is provided here since there is no public hearing opportunity during this comment period: https://youtu.be/Ax4h-_Y00bs
181. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:21:01 PM Ludden, Janice General Comment I am on the Hainesport Township Environmental Commission, Joint Land Use Board member and a member of the Green Team. My background is in Mathematics and Computer Science. In recent year, due to my deep concern over the future of our planet, I have taken a number of courses through Rutgers University specifically relating to the environment. As I write this, horrific fires have devastated Los Angeles. Although prone to annual fires, these fires were unprecedented due to the change in our climate. In NJ, we have less frequent fires, yet due to the record drought this fall, the woods in my neighborhood burned (Big Rusty fire). Thankfully, we didn't have wind like in LA so no houses burned. All this to say, that I am speaking from something very concerning and personal to me. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave. From gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant - our planet does NOT need this!! DOE, the extensive report recently released explains that approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. You must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations. Thank you for your time and please do the right thing!
182. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:21:09 PM sanders, david General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
183. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:21:58 PM Grumer, Susan General Comment There are many reasons not to export LNG. The most important one right now is that it will make the price of domestic (our) fuel rise. We already pay too much. We cannot be afford to pay more!
184. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:22:07 PM Preston, Lynne General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue.
185. 1/13/2025 2:25:25 PM Biskus, Mimi General Comment
186. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:28:40 PM Mazariegos, David General Comment Our world is on fire, and somehow we continue to approve projects that will only make things worse when much cheaper and cleaner alternatives exist. Please do not approve this project
187. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:29:08 PM Stewart, James General Comment Record heatwaves, rising water levels, extreme weather events, droughts are all symptoms of the climate crisis. Yet fossil fuels and natural gas continue to be extracted and our federal agencies continue to approve infrastructure to prolong their use. The Gibbstown Logistics Center (Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) export facility) is a prime example. Not only is this facility a danger to global warming, it is a danger to the residents of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Delaware River Partners (DRP) plans to transport LNG by rail and/or by truck 150 miles from Wyalusing, Pa. These two means of transport of LNG over this distance has never been done before for. Hundreds of trucks per day and a 100 rail cars per day are proposed. Trucks will use Rt 295 from the PA Turnpike or the Commodore Barry Bridge while rail cars will cross the Delair bridge and precede south through many towns from Camden to Woodbury, West Deptford, Paulsboro and Gibbstown. Yes, many people say we need jobs, just not dangerous jobs that promote the continued use of fossil fuels over renewable energy. The continued extraction of fossil fuels needs to be stopped now. My 3rd Legislative District representatives recently have told me: "The health and safety of New Jersey residents remains the Legislature's top priority." I say the health and safety of all Americans should be a priority. I see that you have no public hearing opportunity for the public so I am including a slightly different verbal comment which can be retrieved here: https://youtu.be/Ax4h-_Y00bs
188. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:31:18 PM Quinn, Marilyn General Comment I recently moved to a new residence not far from where I lived for over 20 years in Gloucester County. I was living only 2 miles or less from a railroad track that was going to be used to transport LNG to an export terminal in Gibbstown, New Jersey, on the Delaware River. This was and is a highly populated section of the country. The track would go right down the main roads of my town and others, directly across the Delaware River from Philadelphia. When I learned what an accident (including a very small leak) could do to this area, I was horrified. How could humankind be willing to make a fortune off a product that is so explosive, so polluting (of the air and water), and so unnecessary? It was declared necessary just so certain investors could become even more wealthy by shipping and selling a dangerous product abroad. So, instead of putting the money into a safe, non-polluting, well-tested, and money-making way of producing energy, oil and gas producers and their investors want to continue what they have already been doing for far too long. So you see, I am totally against continuing, much less increasing, production and exporting LNG, a process that speeds up climate chaos, produces huge amounts of poisonous, polluting chemicals…. Methane, benzene, ethylbenzene, and n-hexane, not to mention carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide (SO2), CO, some of the many chemicals that are released during the production process. Particulate matter (PM) is reported in most weather apps. We live in an area where there is a high amount of PM. So we must reign in the fracking, transport, and use of LNG, as fast as possible, which is unneeded by us and uses up the funds and research for cleaner energy, by enriching companies that are not interested in changing what they do for the sake of the climate, our children’s lives, and the health of our loved ones. In addition, accidents from LNG do and have happened, and the transport of LNG in our neighborhoods, with the docking of ships for LNG, are a truly bad disaster guaranteed to happen. I am providing a recording of my verbal comment here, which is not the same as my written comment, because there was no public hearing for this rule: https://youtu.be/ijcnD7MUzKU
189. 1/13/2025 2:31:40 PM Mahaffey , Kevin General Comment
190. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:31:44 PM Bevsek, Jean General Comment • LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. • LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. • The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. Thank you.
191. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:32:10 PM ozkan, dogan General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
192. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:35:00 PM Reichert, Robyn General Comment Please end ALL LNG Exports!
193. 1/13/2025 2:35:49 PM Still, Brian General Comment
194. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:35:53 PM Snyder, Brad General Comment As a Science Teacher/Outdoor & Environmental Educator, Mechanical Engineer (Emphasis: Energy & Environmental Science), and an extremely concerned citizen, I wholeheartedly urge you to do everything you can to decrease our use of fossil fuels, including stopping the development and exporting of LNG, to reduce pollution, protect the environment, natural world, and human health, and fight climate change!! LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives! For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start!! We can’t allow these transgressions to continue!! NO need for more LNG! - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”! This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home! This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families!! The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply!! Without need for the LNG, there is NO public interest and DOE MUST deny applications for authorizations on this basis!!
195. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:38:11 PM Morales, Fermin General Comment Liquified Natural Gas is not the future if we are to survive as a species. We need to stop with the special interest of a few corporations who are not willing to adapt to the new reality. Whole the rest of the world is moving towards renewables we want to remain in the past as we are watching an episode of the Flintstones. Put a moratorium on LNG projects and stop with the cynicism that temperatures are not rising because of fossil fuels. We are in the midst of a war with Russia because of this dirty fuel and in the process you have ruined Europe's econo economy. How much longer before you have no allies or friends.
196. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:38:53 PM SHEPHERD, DONNA General Comment TRUTH in our environment is obvious! We should be intelligent and caring enough to reverse, not further the toxic mess we've created. Sickness and disasters should be avoided when truly we have all the abilities and resources to make our land, water and air much cleaner. Making all energy usage environmentally friendly. Stop the lies and greed compromising wellness or you'll regret it. WE Have all solution for even better energy production now. Stop hiding it by giving us super toxin. NO, NO, NO to LNG!!! NO!
197. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:39:11 PM Blumberg, Phyllis General Comment The DOE study correctly used overwhelming scientific data to reach the important conclusions that with LNG a business-as-usual approach is “neither sustainable nor advisable.” (Energy Secretary Granholm , 2024). The United States is already the number one producer of greenhouse gases which means that we have the greatest responsibility to limit the damages that fossil fuels can produce. If the fossil fuel industry gets to build out all of these exporting LNG facilities, they will be emitting an extra 3.2 billion tons of greenhouse gases annually. This number is about what the total greenhouse gas admissions of the entire European Union produces. I totally agree with these main points clearly stated in the study: • LNG exports drive up energy costs for American families who still rely on it for cooking and heating. Unconstrained exports of LNG would increase costs for the average American household by well over $100 more per year by 2050. • LNG exports pollute frontline communities already burdened with toxic emissions. Methane causes many health problems, especially asthma and other respiratory problems in children, cancers of all ages and premature deaths. These fenceline communities face health threats every day because they are forced to breathe air polluted with methane and the toxic chemicals emitted alongside it. • LNG exports worsen the climate crisis and lock us and those countries that we export to into decades of fossil fuel dependency. LNG are carbon and methane bombs and have an enormous cost for our health and for the future. Each year is hotter than the one before, with GHG, especially methane, contributing to this global warming. Methane is a greenhouse gas that contributes to 25% of current climate change and it is 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Reducing methane pollution from the fossil fuel industries is the fastest, most cost-effective way to slow the rate of the climate crisis and prevent risking the lives of more people. And methane can be reduced from the atmosphere quicker than carbon dioxide If we scale up the use of renewable resources, we will have more than enough capacity to meet the needs for electricity, heating and cooling and transit for the whole world. Keep natural gas in the earth. I urge an immediate halt to licensing any new LNG facilities especially those that involve exporting LNG abroad. All LNG facilities, including those meant to export LNG are carbon and methane bombs and have an enormous cost for our health and for the future. Each year is hotter than the one before, with GHG, especially methane, contributing to this global warming. The United States is already the number one producer of greenhouse gases which means that we have the greatest responsibility to limit the damages that fossil fuels can produce. If the fossil fuel industry gets to build out all of these exporting LNG facilities they will be emitting an extra 3.2 billion tons of greenhouse gases annually. This number is about what the total greenhouse gas admissions of the entire European Union produces. When we export LNG, we drive up the price for those Americans who still rely on it for cooking and heating. Rejecting this project will fight inflation, which will help get the president re-elected. It’s an environmental justice travesty—as usual, these projects will be close to poor communities of color. Again I urge you to take strong leadership and halt the licensing of all additional LNG processing facilities especially those intended for export.
198. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:46:15 PM Punday , Nicole General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
199. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:46:59 PM Steck, Burton General Comment "Stop LNG by Rail Permits
200. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:47:00 PM Edmondson, Dominique General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires.
201. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:48:57 PM Layne, Allister General Comment The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
202. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:51:44 PM Mace, Pat General Comment People over profits. LNG exports are harmful for the Earth and all living creatures! Fossil fuels are literally making this Earth UNINHABITABLE!! DO THE RIGHT THING!
203. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:52:25 PM Katsouros, Tracey General Comment LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
204. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:53:12 PM Delgado, Fabiola General Comment Please see attached 14,575 signatures from Center for Biological Diversity supporters urging you do the right thing and reject all pending LNG export permits immediately.
  1. CenterforBiologicalDiversity-NoMoreLNGExports-145...
205. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:54:45 PM Habets, Peggi General Comment I am writing to express my opposition to exports of liquified natural gas through the Pittsburgh area. Considering Norfolk Southern Rail’s abysmal track record on safety, running this chemical through a high-density population like Pittsburgh is a recipe for another great environmental disaster like the one in Palestine, Ohio. LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
206. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:55:23 PM Kommidi, Rashmika Appendix D: Addendum on Environmental and Community Effects of U.S. LNG Exports LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
  1. 20241217 - LNG Study statement from Energy Sec'y ...
207. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:56:09 PM Cowen, Anna General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
208. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 2:59:12 PM Cain, Andrea General Comment Any further development, funding, promotion of these industries is without question criminal and the industries along with the politicians that are responsible for this continued destruction to our lives must be held accountable. The public needs to draw their attention to this global crisis instead of allowing themselves to be manipulated and controlled but all these bad actors, they're criminals without any sense of humanity. The corruption now is worse than ever.
209. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:01:55 PM Welsford, Susan General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
210. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:04:18 PM Ehrlich, Barry General Comment Please stop liquefied natural gas exports. Approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution.
211. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:08:21 PM Richkus, John General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
212. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:12:47 PM Korostoff , Neil General Comment Export of LNG does not serve the best interests of the United States. It will increase the domestic price of natural gas. It also creates dangerous conditions during transport and loading in major population centers in the U.S. And the export and burning of LNG will contribute to climate change and other global disruptions.
213. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:12:48 PM Brown, Teresa General Comment Please halt all LNG projects and invest in renewable energies that do not have this horrible effect on the community and the environment.
214. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:13:25 PM publie, jean General Comment no lng exports at any time. usdoe - stop exporting lng that product belongs to the people of the usa - not to profiteers looking to exploit is. save all for usa citizens. its our land
215. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:16:05 PM Sketo, Steve General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
216. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:18:28 PM Clemson, go General Comment NO MORE HABITUALLY BOUGHT CODDLING of invasive, destructive, outdated, unnecessary, loyal-to-no-country, clean energy blocking, lying, self-serving, take the $ and run PETRO plus its Auto allies!
217. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:25:20 PM Zimny, Susan General Comment It is up to us to leave a healthier planet for future generations. Please stop the madness of continued use of fossil fuels, including LNG.
218. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:26:27 PM Pezzati , Mark General Comment I oppose the transportation of LNG by rail. End this madness immediately.
219. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:28:27 PM Pezzati , Mark General Comment I oppose the export of LNG. STOP THIS MADNESS.
220. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:30:26 PM Wigutoff, Lisa General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
221. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:31:07 PM Wolf, Rachel General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
222. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:31:25 PM Beers, Judy General Comment You must stop Liquified Natural Gas exports. Our environment & our low income people are already suffering serious health consequences. We need to be part of the solution or at the very least, NOT exasperating the problem. Put people over profits for big corporations. Thank you
223. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:31:57 PM Sugarman, Kathy General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
224. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:32:36 PM McShane, Mari General Comment Approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution.
225. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:33:53 PM Dolins, Merelyn General Comment Having worked as a Pediatric Physical Therapist the area of Newark which has experienced underexamined long and short term excessive pollution already in the air and water, I know that the effects that pollution has to children - effects on a mother and her baby prior to the birth and on children growing up in these polluted environments. Not to mention the increased medical issues faced by adults in these communities. Has there been an independent study of these facts which are included in the decision making - especially of those who will be most impacted? This is a “no win “ plan that needs to be discarded and further study which includes outcomes In pollution and it’s effects not only on the climate but on those who would be most vulnerable to the immediate and long term health effects.
226. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:34:02 PM Novkov, Russell General Comment I am writing to you today to please stop LNG Exports!
227. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:34:05 PM Carson, Maureen General Comment Please stop the export of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG). At a time when we are all affected by climate change, the export of LNG would increase greenhouse gas and make climate crisis worse. Environmental Justice communities bear the results of pollution more than other communities and this would add an extra burden of these communities.
228. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:34:16 PM taylor, kay General Comment We need your help to stop liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports! Last year, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) put a pause on its authorizations for LNG exports. They have now released the report updating how they decide whether a proposed LNG export project is in the public interest based on public health impacts, environmental/climate impacts, and economic impacts. The extensive report explains that approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution.
229. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:36:11 PM Heck, Kerry General Comment Hi, As what is evident with the California fires, we do not need another fossil fuel infrastructure. We should be looking into clean energy. Thank you, Kerry
230. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:37:26 PM Stefano, Lori General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
231. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:37:47 PM Carmon, Carol General Comment Please do not authorize for LNG exports. LNG exports: - will layer more pollution on communities - will make the climate crisis worse - drive up the price of gas for domestic users It is toxic, dangerous and needs to stop being used as a fossil fuel.
232. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:37:49 PM Richards, Julia General Comment There is no need for more liquified natural gas. It harms public health and adds fuel to the climate crisis fire. Further, Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in a statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
233. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:39:32 PM Price, Allen Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
234. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:41:01 PM Deshotel, James General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
235. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:42:07 PM Peterson, Ellen Jane General Comment Changing climate has resulted in all the weird climate in the world. We have noted this in the horrible fires in California and other states plus Canada and throughout the world. The increased snow in a variety of states and all the tornadoes throughout the States and drought all over the world.
236. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:42:57 PM Darlington, Beth General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
237. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:44:22 PM Caracci, Joyce General Comment Dear Representatives: Allowing LNG Exports will adversely affect the natural environment. I urge members of Congress and all parties involved to find alternatives to this dangerous transport of highly explosive gas. Solar and wind and Water are the future. Let’s protect all environments. Sincerely, Joyce Caracci
238. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:46:40 PM Conway, John General Comment LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. Scientist's agree that the world needs to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Just look at the extreme weather events taking place across the world today and we are not at 1.5 C yet. We are currently on a path to exceed 2.6 C. This is a path to ecocide. Our government spends beyond a trillion a year for defense and security. Yet the greatest danger to our continued existence is not foreign powers, terrorists or criminals. As our climate continues to degrade, we will have inadequate defense no matter what we spend against floods, extreme storms, ocean acidification, draught, crop failures, fire, extreme hot and cold temperatures. Mass starvation, displacement and death will be our legacy. Disease will spread from viruses and fungi from melting permafrost and the rising oceans will engulf our cities. Global climate goals will become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. If we fail to meet our climate goals than we fail to keep our nation safe. Do not work against our national security by allowing expansion of fracking or terminals for LNG exports. You hold the future of our society in your hands.
239. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:48:05 PM Atkins, Gail General Comment Please protect our lives and our environment by stopping LNG exports.
240. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:50:20 PM Bretschneider, Timothy General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue.
241. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:51:17 PM Ruffman-Weiss, Lisa General Comment The greed and cruelty of the fossil fuel industry must be stopped. Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) production is dangerous, unnecessary, short-sighted and--at this point--insane. Wildfires are decimating Los Angeles. North Carolina is still reeling from flooding. Do we really need more disasters?? Climate change is here, now. Ignoring it is at humanity's peril.
242. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:52:55 PM Privitera, Nora General Comment Please permanently stop all new liquified natural gas exports. These proposed facilities will pollute more in vulnerable communities that are already overburdened by industrial pollution. They are unnecessary, as we already have more than enough of them, and they pollute more even than coal according to the DOE report. They also exacerbate the climate crisis, which is causing environmental destruction around our country and the world.
243. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:53:12 PM Molineaux, Pascal General Comment LNG production, processing, transport abd use has devastating impacts on the climate crisis because of methane production, a potent greenhouse gas. Moreover exporting LNG increases the price of gas in the USA. These exports must be stopped.
244. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:54:09 PM Michaels, Brenda General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
245. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:55:46 PM Mennel-Bell, Mari General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
246. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:57:06 PM Leannah, Geralyn General Comment We need your help to stop liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports! Last year, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) put a pause on its authorizations for LNG exports. They have now released the report updating how they decide whether a proposed LNG export project is in the public interest based on public health impacts, environmental/climate impacts, and economic impacts. The extensive report explains that approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution.
247. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:59:51 PM Peterson, Andy General Comment Exporting LNG benefits the US, the countries that receive the LNG, and the world environment. In the US, there is an oversupply of natural gas and a lack of pipeline and processing capacity to handle it. In some states flaring of natural gas is allowed and in those states if the gas cannot get into the processing system it can be flared. This increases emissions of NOx and SOx unnecessarily. It benefits the US environment and economy if all the natural gas produced can get processed. Adequate LNG processing and exporting capacity is key to this. Shutting down this industry will lead to the loss of many high-paying jobs in design, permitting, construction and operation of these facilities. Countries receiving the LNG are able to meet their energy needs with this fuel which is less carbon intensive than alternative sources such as coal. In Europe, US LNG supplies back out Russian natural gas, which decreases the money earned by the Putin government. The world environment benefits from usage of US LNG since our natural gas is produced cleaner than other countries and is way cleaner than the coal other countries will need to use if US LNG is not available. Further, it is incorrect to assume that if the US ceases to build new LNG liquification plants that the natural gas destined for these plants will not be produced. The overwhelming majority of natural gas produced in the US is associated with crude oil production and as such will continue to be produced regardless of whether more LNG liquification plants are constructed or not. Putting a ban or even a temporary hold on construction of new US LNG liquification and export facilities leads to a slowdown in permitting and constructing the rest of the processing chain, not just in the US: overseas deliquification plants and tanker facilities, construction of LNG tankers, construction of pipelines, all of which take time to restart once the US resumes permitting of our facilities. I ask the Department of Energy to consider the above factors in deciding to resume allowing permitting and construction of new LNG facilities. This will benefit our workers, our country, our overseas partners, and the cause of climate change.
248. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 3:59:56 PM Drew, Janet General Comment Stop corporate polluters and climate terrorists: LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives.
249. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:01:52 PM Strand, Tara General Comment It hasn't taken living in wildfire-prone California (my home currently sits right between the Pacific Palisades and Eaton fires) for me to have been wringing my hands for over a decade, hoping that we would take massive and unprecedented, yet crucial, common-sense steps towards our energy policy. It's suicidal to do otherwise. LNG is a climate disaster. LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. Let's please drop LNG. Thank you.
250. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:05:34 PM Kroushl, Nicole General Comment It is a bad idea to expand LNG exports. Approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. We should be focusing on the win-win-win sources of energy -- solar, wind, and other clean sources which provide good jobs and don't harm the health of our communities. To expand our LNG exports and increase fossil fuel use is to ransom the future of our children and grandchildren -- and, in the case of young people in their 20s like me who will live to see the continued degradation of the environment, my own future.
251. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:06:42 PM Godwin, Nadine General Comment LNG is disastrous for human health and for our efforts to manage climate change. And to top that off, we don't even need more LNG! I am relying on Secretary Jennifer Granholm here. She said the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today.” Exporting the gas is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefiting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
252. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:12:34 PM Haug, Catherine General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health. It's bad enough now, we don't need it to get worse!
253. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:14:38 PM Doebler, Patricia General Comment I am writing as a retired educator in Southern NJ with family members that reside near proposed LNG terminals and very close to railways and highways for transport. An extensive report from DOE explains that approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my family and community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations. Yours truly, Patricia Doebler
254. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:15:27 PM McKenna, Mary General Comment Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives.
255. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:15:40 PM Eng, Marilyn General Comment Stop the export of Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) because it has serious negative environmental/climate impacts. Thank you.
256. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:16:23 PM Vogel, Steven General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health–LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction that permanently destroys and pollutes aquifers and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster–LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. 2024 was the warmest year in human history, and finally exceeded that 1.5 C goal. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources is being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG--Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors–homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production--benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must please act quickly to implement these findings into the decision-making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
257. 1/13/2025 4:23:03 PM Dolins, Merelyn General Comment
258. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:23:32 PM Luke, Jaedra General Comment I oppose any additional exports of LNG. No need for more - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
259. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:25:06 PM scott, joan General Comment I write to urge that you not approve more LNG exports. This will only undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. There is no need for these exports as was made clear in Secretary Granholm's report.
260. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:26:46 PM Lucas, Alta General Comment Please search your soul and make a decision that puts public health and environment as your top priority. Don’t put either at any possible risk…accidents unfortunately do happen.
261. 1/13/2025 4:27:15 PM Ahern , Eugenia General Comment
262. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:30:03 PM Morgan, Dan General Comment Dear Department of Energy I oppose the proposed project because: LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. Thank you for your consideration.
263. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:34:24 PM Rail, Larry General Comment As humanity, and we Americans are part of humanity, we are primarily responsible for living good lives that do not destroy our selves or this wonderful planet. We have to stop making a living through successes that destroy. We need to quit the expansionary conquering of nature, or else we will bring about catastrophe to our selves and many other naturally occurring life forms on Earth. Do not let anyone make more money through exploiting fossil fuels. Do not export LNG. Thank you.
264. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:35:25 PM Ballenger, Barbara General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
265. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:36:55 PM OMeara, Colleen and Joe General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
266. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:37:16 PM McDougall, Cassandra General Comment My community and I are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations. LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
267. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:38:36 PM Detato , Susan General Comment LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires.
268. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:48:08 PM Stevenson, Nan General Comment Stop fossil fuels now or the whole world will end up like Los Angeles is NOW!!!
269. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:51:19 PM Gatton, Nicholas General Comment I’ve been in central Ohio my entire life. I am 42 years old and the head of a family of 6. My name is Nicholas and the rising cost of natural gas directly affects my family’s budget. The rising costs associated with the limitation or banning of LNG export limits the funds I have available to provide my family with the things I used to be able to. We make ends meet, but there isn’t always much extra. The families in my community and my employees at my business are put in a bind paying for the DOE’s ill conceived, knee-***** reaction. Banning or limiting the export of LNG creates higher prices for my family and community. We believe that the free export would subsidize some of the cost that we are currently absorbing. This drives our economy down and further strains the middle class. This ban is without merit and if continued goes against the spirit of America. Though caution may be warranted, fear and irrationality are not the reason for caution. The free export of our LNG brings more jobs and income into our country. More jobs and the reduction in cost to the American consumer promotes a strong economy. This builds a better America for our children and future generations by securing our position in the global economy. You need to reconsider a permanent lift on the ban of the export of LNG as this drives our economy down as well as reduces our global independence.
270. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 4:56:08 PM Harris, Shirlene General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
271. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:03:45 PM Reel, Dawn General Comment Climate change is creating a crisis in Los Angeles. Our cities are overwhelmed. Please don’t make life almost impossible by putting a lot more carbon in the atmosphere. I have a one- year old granddaughter who is my main goal now—she can’t be living in carbon-fueled world that’s half underwater. No LNG facilities. Expand green and nuclear.
272. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:05:45 PM Luongo, Stephen General Comment My name is Stephen Luongo. I am a native of Michigan and am retired from the auto industry. Achieving environmental justice for all Americans and combating climate change on behalf of all living creatures on Earth are profoundly important to me. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently released a long-awaited report updating the criteria for deciding whether a proposed LNG export project is in the public interest based on public health impacts, environmental/climate impacts, and economic impacts. The extensive report explains that approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals by increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report's release. She pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities, who would be saddled with additional LNG pollution which, at present levels, is already harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production/transportation cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation, where the wounds of the fracking industry run very, very deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by spewing more greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to accelerate development of truly clean renewables, but this development will actually be slowed by any LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including the manufacturing and electric utility sectors, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The resulting worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. DOE, you must act quickly to reflect these findings into the decision-making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations. Thank you.
273. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:07:37 PM Moss, Paul General Comment Please consider the following comments: LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
274. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:08:50 PM Tymkiw, Liz General Comment --LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. --LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. --No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
275. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:09:17 PM Wagner, Shelly General Comment To the Department of Energy: My name is Shelly Wagner, and I am a wife, mother, and a contributing member of society in various capacities over the years. First of all, I want to thank you for your time in reading my comments. Our son works as an engineer in the oil and gas industry, enabling the industry to responsibly and safely extract oil and gas and to safely and cleanly add the remaining materials back into the ground. My husband works in manufacturing to provide much needed products made in the United States of America. Protecting and creating more jobs, as America provides liquified natural gas (LNG) for clean energy to ensure prices at the pump will be more affordable and to maintain availability not only to Americans, but also exported to other countries who need clean sources of energy, is of the utmost importance. The Department of Energy must keep these local sources available to provide what is needed for daily energy needs that are affordable, so people can get where they need to go, for daily needs, for warmth or cooling, for manufacturing, as well as storing what is necessary for emergency purposes. Clean energy in the form of LNG is fundamentally and physically important to each and every individual who lives in America and to the future of not only our own great country, but to many other countries as well. Our leadership in and contribution to the industry is also significant to maintain respect worldwide. I need you to look at what a ban on LNG would do to our economy, negatively impacting millions of Americans along with loss of jobs for our energy workers. The United States has an opportunity to increase jobs at home, as well as to improve our economy to protect and provide for our children and grandchildren and future generations to come. I appreciate your urgent consideration in this matter. As a US citizen, I urge the Department of Energy to resume all LNG exports. Sincerely, Shelly Wagner
276. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:11:00 PM Snowden, Rick General Comment My name is Rick Snowden and my family and I have been lifelong residents of western Pennsylvania. I have 40 years experience as a supervisor in electrical generation at both Nuclear and Coal fired power stations. Having worked in the energy industry, I strongly believe diverse electrical production is important to provide affordable energy to the residence of us in the states and abroad. A strong player for the future will be Natural Gas for electrical generation. With the rise of new technology industries energy security is important to power them for the near term and the future. I appreciate the work that the DOE has done to this point to ensure energy security for existing and developing industries. I'm sure we both agree on the importance of energy security. Even a temporary or permanent ban on the export of LNG will most likely have a negative economic affect both locally and globally. Locally, a negative impact would be felt by workers in the gas exploration, production and shipping sides of the business. Our allies would also be impacted as many do not have the resources we have in the states and are dependent on others to support their energy needs. I urge the DOE to further our nations energy security by allowing the export of LNG and issuing the necessary permits for future development of this energy source.
277. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:14:24 PM Helberg, Barbara General Comment I have lived in Ohio since 2006, when I moved here from Lexington, Kentucky. I have been in government service for forty years. My name in Barbara Helberg. . Moving to Ohio was a new chapter in my life and it's been great. Gas prices have affected how much it cost me to get to work and back home again. The price of energy is always at the top of my mind. It would be amazing to export liquid natural gas which would help with our allies, security, and even our economy. Right now, our allies rely on our enemies for energy, but we could fill that role and have better security. This would help lead our country to energy independence. Our liquid natural gas is cleaner than what the rest of much of the world is using, so exporting would have a big impact on the environment. Also, we would be saving funds for the customer and helping our budget too. We have an opportunity to help ourselves and the rest of the world. I implore you to approve more permits to export liquid natural gas to help our country as well as our allies for a better tomorrow.
278. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:14:36 PM Kassner, Kathryn General Comment If we are to preserve life and the planet as we know it for our children, we cannot continue to expand use of fossil fuels as an energy supply. As evidenced once again with the horrific wildfires in California this past week, our planet is warming at an alarming rate. Exporting LNG will only raise the price for our citizens as the domestic supply decreases. Already solar and other clean renewables are more economical than polluting fossil fuels especially when health care and disaster response costs are factored in. It is irresponsible and immoral to continue humanity's reliance on fossil fuels.
279. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:29:38 PM Mandel, Julie General Comment LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue.
280. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:31:08 PM Brandom, Barbara General Comment There are many reasons why no more export terminals for liquified natural gas (LNG) should be built in the United States. Exporting LNG increases prices in the US. More significant, the global average temperature is now more than 1.5 degree above what it was before industrialization.. Exporting LNG from the US will futher accelerate global warming including sea level rise and slowing of the Atlantic currents. Furthermore LNG is very explosive. Explosions due to escaping LNG can not be contained and must burn until the fuel is exhausted. Federal officials at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) have been advised by Congress to update the regulations for LNG. No draft of new reguilations on transport of LNG in the US has been published, although PHMSA acknowledges that this is a high priority. The LNG industry does not have an excellent safety record. For example in 2022 there was a serious explosion at the Freeport LNG terminal on Quintana Island in Texas. If LNG is transported by train through highly populated areas, many people could suffer life-threatening burns. Existing export terminals are meeting the needs for export of LNG. Buiilding more export terminals for LNG produces more danger than benefit for the peoiple of the US.
281. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:32:41 PM Cohen, Ellen S General Comment STOP LNG exports! We need less greenhouse gases, not more!
282. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:43:56 PM van der Ziel, Cornelia General Comment Dear Secretary Granholm, Please take immediate action to block LNG exports. They are not in the public interest. They will continue to fuel the the ongoing devastation of our environment by increasing the emissions of carbon dioxide. LNG facilities tend to be located in areas that already suffer an undue burden from pollution and its negative effects on human health. Building LNG facilities devastates our ecosystems and adversely affect biodiversity, with negative impacts on food supplies and livelihoods. In addition, the cost of building and maintaining these facilities will be borne by all of us while the oil and gas industry will continue to reap huge profits. So please ACT NOW. Thank you
283. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:44:26 PM Patten, Robin General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
284. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:47:56 PM Wertime, Shirin General Comment LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires.
285. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:48:11 PM Shotwell, Andi General Comment Please consider the following points. This is too important to not be taken seriously. It is dangerous. It is short sighted. It is an environmental disaster. • LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. • LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. • No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
286. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:52:57 PM Fite, Austin General Comment LNG is no longer needed, it's bad for people's health, and it is terrible for the climate.
287. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 5:57:12 PM Carola, Regina General Comment I am a life long resident of S. Jersey. I am asking you to deny the permits for any LNG plants in S. Jersey. We don't want to deal with the danger of explosions of the trucks or trains that will be transporting the gas to the plants. We don't want the air pollution that comes with the transport.
288. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 6:15:54 PM Engle, I. General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
289. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 6:15:58 PM Rounds-Atkinson, Valerie General Comment Stop LNG by Rail Permits LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
290. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 6:28:23 PM Rounds-Atkinson, Valerie General Comment Hello. My name is Valerie Rounds-Atkinson. I live in the Town of Union, Broome County, New York. I am nearing 70 years in age and have observed drastic changes to both my local environment and the world at large. I have been concerned about his situation since the age of 20. Global Warming and Pollution are threats to life on this planet and I wish to preserve this place so my children and grandchildren have a safe, supportive home on which to grow and thrive. LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
291. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 6:37:02 PM Tan, Hiedi General Comment I am a physician and live in TN. We don't not need more LNG. It is harmful to one's health and is destructive to the environment and disastrous for our climate.
292. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 6:41:46 PM Yeh, Emily General Comment I am a professor of geography focused on research on the effects of climate change . LNG exports must be stopped! LNG exports are NOT in the public interest - they are terrible for any hope of achieving climate change goals - meaning goals for reducing the devastations of natural disasters that the US and all peoples of the world are currently facing right now. LNG exports are a death knell, another huge nail in the coffin, of a world with fewer climate-fueled, horrifyingly tragic and expensive tragedies of uncontrolled fires, hurricanes, drought, flooding, and more. LNG exports will further harm communities already terribly devastated by dangerous infrastructure and leaking pipelines as well as air pollution, will further damage wildlife and fisheries, and will cause financial distress as well. There is NO way that LNG exports are in any way in the public or national interest.
293. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 6:44:27 PM Costa, Lynn General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
294. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 6:46:35 PM Brookes, Larissa General Comment I live in northern NJ, an area with far too many superfund sites. We don’t need more potential superfund sites here! I am urging the DOE to implement these findings into the decision-making process regarding LNG export. It’s vital to human life — not to mention all other forms of life on our planet — that we stop extracting, shipping, and using LNG. Fracking endangers so many lives, especially those of the poorest Americans, who live near fracking sites, refineries, and shipping hubs. You have the power to make our planet healthier, to give my kids (ages 16, 18, and 20) a future, and to continue the desperately needed rapid transition away from fossil fuels.
295. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 6:56:12 PM Retired Nurse Practitioner Appendix D: Addendum on Environmental and Community Effects of U.S. LNG Exports LNG exports are in no way in the interest of the public! As a matter of fact they are just the opposite by reducing their lifespans, causing fetal anomalies, cancer, asthma, cardiac conditions , poor air quality as those fracked toxins are released into the air our communities breathe during the freezing process in order to export it at their corporate refineries for their corporate profits leaving communities as their collateral damages! Ban all exports and fracking causing cancer in children in their communities!! In TX Abbott got $6 million to work for fossil fuel as governor to not monitor the air and just have his commissioners promptly give those poisoners of his state their permits!! He then made a law that Texan communities cannot stop fracking! Tex Tillerson, the former CEO of Exxon said “ Fracking is g fine as long as It’s not in my community.” Are you working for fossil fuel or we the people? STOP ALL Further EXPORTS and look to end all fracking starting in PA with our historic 1st Capital Philadelphia! Our lives are already shortened here and in Pittsburgh because of the shale boom! Thank you! Now look what happened to our Los Angeles
296. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 6:57:14 PM Swenson, Ruth General Comment Climate chaos is not going to go away by itself. We have to change what we're doing, how we are living and stop mining, drilling, transporting and burning fossil fuels.
297. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 7:03:24 PM Feder, Janet General Comment Approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increase greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. Please stop these dangerous exports. They are not in service of the public interest, and especially not the public good.
298. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 7:17:44 PM Earley, Brian General Comment Hello, I am writing as a concerned citizen and father who cares deeply about what will happen to human life in the very near future as a result of climate change. Of particular concern is LNG, which contributes to climate change. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. Please do not allow or encourage the use of LNG.
299. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 7:19:23 PM Grooms, Richard General Comment Please stop LNG exports. This will decrease pollution and make for a better environment.
300. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 7:21:53 PM Palmer, Maria General Comment I am opposed to LNG imports. They will make climate change worse. They will increase pollution. I do not want trains carrying LNG near my home.
301. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 7:32:17 PM Cage, Ray General Comment Continued unchecked industry/War is genocide to the Earth and Humanity. Thank you.
302. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 7:46:01 PM Ono, Lory General Comment LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires.
303. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 8:19:39 PM Fritsch, Robert General Comment The United States with its climate goals set for 2030 and 2050 shouldn't even entertain exporting LNG which is methane and which will contribute immensely to the warming of our atmosphere. It is so counter to our interests and goals respective of our warming concerns that it is hypocrisy and I believe will harm our credibility worldwide. It will weaken our stature among nations with concerns similar to ours and do serious harm to the international effort of erasing the carbon footprint by 2100. We are the leader among nations in this effort and what we do and how we develop our priorities has tremendous import. I really believe that as the United States goes, so goes the world of nations. So, we have to understand this and treat it with the utmost seriousness. The health and survival of life on our planet as we know it hangs in the balance. We must practice what we preach.
304. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 8:26:53 PM Gingras, Brian General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
305. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 8:35:47 PM Clements, Tamara General Comment We have known for quite a while, there are a sufficient number of LNG terminals. Watching the huge destructive fires in Los Angeles fueled by extreme wind and an overgrowth of brush due to too much rain then a extremely long drought is frightening and heartbreaking. It will be much worse if we do not stop new fossil fuel projects.Extreme weather is man made. We are only on the first steps of an excelerating hellscape of climate chaos that we can actually slow down if we hold fossil fuel companies accountable. We must work together to stop fracking for gas rather than encourage more fracking with new LNG terminals. I want our grandchildren to know we did our best to consider the earth first, protecting all the precious life it has given us. We can not allow the fossil fuel industry to ruin our world for our children.
306. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 9:13:24 PM Wakefield, Marie General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
307. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 9:17:30 PM Spiegelman, Robin General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
308. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 9:18:03 PM Bordelon, Tika General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
309. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 9:23:01 PM Wilder, Megan General Comment LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. There is no need for LNG. Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
310. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 9:54:35 PM Butts, Dean General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
311. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 10:05:31 PM Jay, B General Comment Fracking is polluting our water. Stop liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.
312. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 10:11:35 PM K, C General Comment No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
313. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 10:22:52 PM Albin, Audrey General Comment The planet is warming and on exhibit are the fires in Southern California. LNG is dangerous to our health and climate and we really do not need this gas now. I’m not loquacious on this subject although I have availed myself of much of the info. And I know this is a dangerous gas!!! I am 90 and good for another bunch of years And I have Two new Great Grandchildren who will hopefully be able to survive and will certainly stand more of a chance without the problems LNG will give us!!
314. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 10:44:39 PM hope, phillip General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
315. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 10:48:25 PM Motta, Denise General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
316. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 10:48:37 PM Temple, Deborah General Comment PULEESE LET'S, FINALLY, STOP BEING: 1.GREEDY 2. IN DENIAL 3. SCARED 3. LAZY 4. STUPID HUMANS. FLYING INTO OUTER SPACE WHILE WE POISON, BURN, DECIMATE, DESTROY, EVERYTHING HERE? ON THE ONLY HABITABLE PLANET WE HAVE? IF WE CAN TRANSPLANT. HEARTS & LUNGS, DEVELOP AI, CURE CANCER, WE CAN FIND HEALTHY, OR HEALTHIER, WAYS TO FUEL OURSELVES. OTHERWISE, THE SOULESS, UNCARING, CALLOUS/PSYCHOTIC OLIGARCHS CONTINUE THE DEATH OF ALL WE KNOW, NEED, WANT. NO LNG TRANSPORTING
317. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 10:58:59 PM Gradoni, Peter General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
318. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 11:07:21 PM DiFante , Diane General Comment LNG production, from fracking to transportation, in communities with facilities and through which LNG is stored and transported, harms the environment. Add to that the release and burning of LNG causing increased greenhouse gases and more climate disruptions. See DOE's own report! Also LNG production is outpacing worldwide demand. For these reasons I'm requesting an end to all LNG exports.
319. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 11:08:00 PM FORCE, THOMAS General Comment LNG is exactly the wrong substance to be exporting. ANY gas needs to lessen its presence on the planet. LNG is no exception. Get a brain.
320. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 11:23:52 PM Troth, Tracy S General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
321. expand/collapse 1/13/2025 11:49:39 PM Weisz, Russell General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
322. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 12:25:10 AM Smith, Glenn General Comment DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations. LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
323. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 1:27:05 AM Steitz, Jim General Comment I implore you to stop the Department of Energy’s program of permitting, licensing, subsidizing, encouraging, and cheerleading for the expansion of fossil methane gas export “LNG” terminals.  Both you and these projects’ corporate sponsors have been informed, in a torrent of increasingly desperate and explicit pleadings from scientists over a quarter-century, that human survival demands the bulk of remaining fossil methane remain securely underground.  The volume of natural gas that a guild of sociopathic hydrocarbon corporations envision extracting, liquefying, and shipping overseas will foreclose humanity’s hope for stabilizing our climate. The mathematics of our atmosphere's progressive saturation with carbon dioxide, and the constraints of an atmosphere capable of supporting human civilization, are unequivocal. Extracting and burning methane must be rapidly discontinued, overseas just as surely as domestically, if we wish our children a habitable planet. By brazenly defying this warnings in favor of consecrating a decades-long export program, you commit yourself to humanity’s obituary as an agent of our suicide by climate sabotage.   The Biden Administration has sought to rationalize these fossil methane exports as a geopolitical response to Russian influence in Europe, providing a ‘friendly’ source and displacing Russian leverage via its own methane gas. However, even a cursory consideration of the breathtaking scale and timeframe of these projects belies this cynical deception of humanity. The public statements, balance sheets, and seductive investor calls of these projects’ corporate sponsors openly aim to renew, reaffirm, and make imperturbable the world’s consumption of fossil methane for decades beyond even the most generous deadline offered by scientists for planetary survival. Today’s geopolitics is not an actual reason for fossil methane export, but rather a deceitful pretense for locking humanity to carbon bombs whose horrific consequences will render today’s wars, including that in Ukraine, a trivial footnote for our children. We live in a world where most nations have nominally assented to the idea of “net zero by 2050” or some comparable formulation, but no government has made the tangible decision to disappoint today’s fossil fuel interests by leaving their own carbon bombs in the ground. As each government implements a policy, either as explicit strategy or implicit rationalization, of ‘our nation-state as the last fossil fuel producer to the end,’ the cumulative effect is that nobody’s fossil fuel production declines, and humanity continues flooring the accelerator into climate hell. For any hope of attaining such 2050-pegged goals, let alone actual climate stabilization and its more demanding schedule, each government must renounce its own carbon bombs and anger its own carbon lobbies. Europe has shown itself capable of doing so with exceptional speed and focus of purpose where a national interest is at stake. By offering the easy siren call of American fossil methane to the myopic, complacent, and climate-denial lane of European politics, you sabotage this opportunity for dispatching both a passing petty tyrant and the tyranny of the climate suicide lobby. Moreover, the expansion of American natural gas companies into the foreign markets would accelerate and perpetuate their aggressive evisceration of our human and natural landscapes. From the Allegheny Mountains of New York and Pennsylvania, to the farmlands of the Piedmont, to the pastures of Texas, to the National Forests of California, natural gas companies are running amok over public and private lands. Iconic American landscapes that have defined our character and aesthetic for decades are being irrevocably scarred and peeled away. After the gas is gone, Americans will look in regret and shame upon what our generation has done to our home. If America becomes a major exporter of LNG, it would further encourage gas companies to peel away the green, living lungs of the Earth upon which human life depends.    Again, please reject these fossil methane ‘LNG’ export terminals, and prevent the gas companies from vivisecting America's land and communities for an immediate payout, and to prevent America from becoming a veritable launching pad for global climate catastrophe. America must become a leader of humankind into a future of survival, not off a cliff into climate Armageddon. Thank you for your attention to this urgent issue.
324. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 1:38:54 AM Johnson, Diana General Comment • LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. • LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. • No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, pleasle act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations. Thank you.
325. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 1:40:23 AM Maxson, Victoria General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities. LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
326. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 2:41:03 AM Raven, Robert General Comment LNG is explosive and dangerous to transport! LNG increases global warming!
327. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 2:57:36 AM Barnette , Perish General Comment No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
328. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 6:44:04 AM Wadsworth, Andrew General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
329. 1/14/2025 7:52:43 AM Stanley, Gabriel General Comment
330. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 9:03:54 AM Welling, Jeannette General Comment I live in Ventura County and have health conditions exascerbated by environmental pollutants. Stop the export authorizations of LNG and protect our environment. LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
331. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 9:56:14 AM Kennedy, Kevin General Comment As a 70-year-old with children and grandchildren, I urge the DOE to put an end to liquified natural gas exports and, in fact, to accelerate and intensify efforts to move away from LNG and fossil fuels, generally. LNG exports and continued exploitation of and dependence on fossil fuels offer a short-term economic “sugar high” for the fossil fuel industries and those who finance them. But economically and ecologically they are unsustainabl. They impose enormous burdens on the communities where these fuels are extracted, processed and transported, while those who benefit financially from this business are never held to account or compensate communities and individuals for the downstream economic costs of the very real damage they inflict. The unnecessary and negative impact of these industries on public health and the permanent, irreparable environmental damage they cause are, in themselves, sufficient reason to maintain the current pause in authorizations for LNG exports. They also constitute a compelling reason to push for the rapid development of alternative, renewable sources of energy and conservation measures.
332. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:22:26 AM Lynn, Andy General Comment NG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
333. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:25:50 AM Conyne, Sally General Comment Dear DOE I am strongly opposed to LNG exports. More exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. They are simply not needed at this time. Conserve all resources and oppose exports that provide nothing but fiscal benefits to a few. Sally Conyne
334. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:31:57 AM Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers General Comment Last year, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) put a pause on its authorizations for LNG exports. They have now released the report updating how they decide whether a proposed LNG export project is in the public interest based on public health impacts, environmental/climate impacts, and economic impacts. The extensive report explains that approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. Clearly the DOE's own report is well aware of the tremendous contribution that further LNG exports will make to climate disasters. The only (temporary) winners will be greedy fossil fuel CEOs and investors. We can no longer afford the fossil fuel industry's privatization of gains and socialization of extreme losses. The fossil fuel industry has made good profits on its investment in members of Congress and other governmental agencies, but this must stop. Climate change does affect everyone, although it hurts the most vulnerable the most. We have run out of time. The time to stop LNG expansion is NOW!
335. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:34:33 AM Van Liere, Jessica General Comment LNG exports cause harmful pollution to overburdened communities and undermine our critical climate goals. Please do not increase LNG exports. We should be focused on shifting towards clean fuels to generate greater economic returns for Americans, protect public health and slow climate change.
336. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:35:00 AM Lederman, Kenneth General Comment LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires.
337. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:39:09 AM Babkes, Joel General Comment My name is Joel Babkes. I am a proud resident of Pennsylvania, having lived here for the past sixty years. Next month, I will turn eighty-four years old, and I am happy to still be living here in the Keystone State. My career has spanned this length of time in various industries, including manufacturing, retail, and providing service to the public. I have sold machinery and equipment to major manufacturers, and eventually owned my own businesses on a more local basis. Throughout this time, the necessity of what makes America function has been clear – productive businesses, employees, and customers. In order for this to continue, ensuring energy security for businesses is essential. The enormity of the need of energy is so great that we should be in complete agreement with the Department of Energy, which has done a yeoman’s job at providing energy security for businesses of all sizes in order to keep our society functioning smoothly. I thank them greatly for the work they have done in this area. Since we both agree on the importance of energy security for businesses, we should both agree on opposing the pause on new permits for liquified natural gas exports. The current system has led to a prosperous economy with an abundant supply of energy for businesses in America and our trade partners abroad. If the pause were to go into effect, it would jeopardize this prosperity by causing a decline in trade with our allies and a subsequent decrease in domestic production as well, hurting American businesses. Simply put, the current system is thriving and does not need to be changed. For these reasons, I urge the Department of Energy to lift the pause on the approval of new liquified natural gas export permits.
338. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:41:54 AM Meade, Melanie General Comment Standing in love and solidarity with my cherished friends in the Gulf South I plead you to halt approving anymore LNG permits. LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. I have met lovely people directly harmed by the legacy pollution of LNG. These tenacious elders pave the way for me to advocate with so many others being murdered by big industry pollution. We can avoid and prevent future harms our planet needs this change immediately. You have the power to affect change!
339. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:44:31 AM Wolf, Todd General Comment The export of LNG only benefits a few greedy individuals, while polluting our nation and endangering the health of our citizens & poisoning our own land, air, and water. This should not be allowed.
340. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:46:25 AM Erickson, Luann General Comment Hello, my name is Luann Erickson, and I live in California where the LA fires are currently raging. It doesn't take a climate scientist to see the correlation between the rise in greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and the the increased natural disasters plaguing the world. These disasters that were predicted at least 20 years ago are now coming true. As a mother and grandmother, it is heartbreaking to think of the world we are leaving to them, not because we didn't know about the threat of climate change, but because we didn't have to will to stop it. Please do what you can to stop liquid gas exports. Following are facts provided by Action Network: LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
341. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:48:51 AM Neal, E. General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
342. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:53:56 AM RAYWOOD, LORRAINE General Comment STOP LNG EXPORTS! More LNG exports are clearly NOT in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. An increase in LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution.
343. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:54:58 AM Murphy, sandra boone General Comment Whereas, LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Whereas, every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. Whereas, LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. Whereas, we need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. Whereas, the Department of Energy Secretary, Jennifer Granholm, said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. Whereas, the report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. Therefore, you, the DOE, must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
344. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:55:38 AM Collins, Carol General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
345. 1/14/2025 10:57:43 AM Chojnicki, Michael General Comment
346. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:58:31 AM Kovar, Jo Ann General Comment LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires.
347. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:10:40 AM Eckstut, Joann General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG - Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
348. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:14:50 AM Putman, Tyler General Comment I am writing to strongly advocate against the ongoing use of LNG! LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
349. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:16:56 AM Balogh, Alana General Comment I am totally against promoting and supporting any and all fossil fuel further development and infrastructure including Liquefied Natural Gas. All efforts and actions MUST move towards a sustainable energy future if we’re going to have a future at all! We are in the thick of a climate emergency according to all sound science! Invest in Solar Roadways, train infrastructure and encourage ALL energy consumption reduction every way possible. Wake up and do what makes sense not what makes short term profits! I will only vote for political leaders who support making radical changes to ensure survival of life on the planet. I will not spend one dime for business and products that don’t support change to stop the climate emergency we’re all experiencing.
350. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:19:50 AM Lynch, Laura General Comment LNG exports will adversely impact communities already burdened with environmental hazards. LNG exports will increase greenhouse gas emissions at a time when we need to curb them. There is less demand for LNG now than additional exports warrant.
351. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:29:45 AM Berry, Karen Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports We don't need anymore climate heating transactions. Please limit our potential for heating up the climate.
352. 1/14/2025 11:32:58 AM Salata, Gary General Comment
353. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:33:42 AM Menya, Davis General Comment My name is Davis Menya from Delaware county, lived in the area for over 20 years; work in the home care industry for over 15 years. I care about energy because it has lasting effects on the livelihood of ordinary working people. I have seen how the increasing gas prices have directly affected my work environment. For instance, the ability to go back and forth from work is becoming expensive with increased gas prices. The cost of living, like buying groceries, feeding families, and other has been heavily impacted. The best solution to relieve these families from the deteriorating lifestyle, is to have cheaper energy which will positively improve their lives. Thank you for the work you have done to keep our energy infrastructure affordable and reliable. The exploration of LNG for the last many years has accorded many working-class families to have a better life. Technological advancements have allowed cleaner alternative energy sources that support the energy grid in America and overall global energy needs. It is important to note that this ban will negatively impact and hinder the progress the energy sector has made in increasing production of LNG that in the end would see consumer prices for ordinary commodities gradually decrease and thus improving lives. In addition, LNG production and exportation have steadily increased, which has brought about better relations with our trading partners and lowers trade deficits. I urge DOE to lift the export ban and improve our nation’s infrastructure. The lifting of the ban will ensure that our country can meet the needs of everyday life and citizens can live without struggle and want. This will indeed improve the lives of many, especially in Pennsylvania.
354. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:39:37 AM Cyphers, Jane General Comment The fracking communities in Pennsylvania are suffering from fracking. The fracking sites as well as the cracker plants are destroying the health and the environment of anyone who lives nearby.. Fracking was allowed in the Ohio and Susquehanna River basins under to guise of the need for energy independence. There is no need to export this product outside the US. The price of gas has plummeted because concerned citizens are finding safe and financially competitive energy alternatives. The industry wants to export it solely to keep the demand high and the prices inflated. all the while the world burns horrifically from the use of fossil fuels. DCS says NO to LGN exports.
355. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:42:28 AM Ehrlich, Marion General Comment We need your help to stop liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports! Last year, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) put a pause on its authorizations for LNG exports. They have now released the report updating how they decide whether a proposed LNG export project is in the public interest based on public health impacts, environmental/climate impacts, and economic impacts. The extensive report explains that approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution.
356. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:50:06 AM Kokal, Kristin General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue.
357. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:53:47 AM Meek, Robert General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
358. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:56:14 AM Paulmier, Greg General Comment The sun can provide the energy we all need without destroying the environment that sustains life. We must immediately move away from fossil fuels such as gas and oil and instead capture the energy of the sun. This strategy will create the jobs that we need and will help to make mother earth a place where all forms of life can exist and thrive. The sun rises to provide us with the energy and light we all need to survive. Oil,gas and coal are under ground and should remain under ground because when used to provide energy create carbon emissions that destroy life and the world we inhabit.
359. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:58:07 AM Challgren, Peg General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue.
360. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 11:59:53 AM Roberts, Michaelene General Comment Hi! my name is Michaelene Roberts I'm from Freedom, Pa. I'm a Veterans/ Air, Ex civil servant of the PAANG, and disabled Railroader from Norfolk Southern. I've lived in Pa. my entire life. And have traveled abroad withe the Military. In fact, I'm living in the House my immigrant Great grandfather build in 1932 While I was on the railroad, I worked down around Waynesburg. Prior to the wells and then when the wells started to be producing the area started to be developed. The houses started look good again and more local businesses were opening! Then it came to my area and the same happened. It's not big Dollar. but it helps everyone! Business and communities Flourished with the presence of the Oil and gas industry! I just want to Thank you for the work that you have done to keep our communities flourishing. And allowing the exporting of clean energy to our allies instead of coal like so many others do. That way zero emissions be gotten to as close as possible without destroying our climate. LNG is important for our military strength across the globe. a band on LNG would significantly decrease our ability to our job in a crisis! Also, our Allies rely on our LNG for their security as well. Our Allies, without our LNG, would have to turn to Russa or China. I ask this honorable commission to reconsider banning LNG. LNG is so important to our Livelihood and the country's' energy security as a whole.
361. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 12:18:32 PM Meseguer, Alejandro General Comment Please stop LNG exports!
362. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 12:27:02 PM Kauffman, Joshua General Comment Legacy fuels harm health and property. They are poorly managed and created few jobs and signifigant negative long term environmental impacts.
363. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 12:38:15 PM Andrew, Deborah General Comment It is essential that the exporting of natural gas be terminated. Not only does this practice involve additional extraction, there is the harm done in transporting. Our foreign and domestic policies must be revised to reflect the need to conserve resources, all of which are finite.
364. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 12:38:36 PM V, I General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
365. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 12:40:27 PM Douglass, Amy General Comment I am writing to express my opposition to the construction of any more infrastructure for the exporting of LNG. Every step of the lifecycle of LNG is a health hazard. LNG is mostly methane which has been linked to serious health problems in communities which have been exposed to this volatile gas. It is also an environmental disaster, damaging habitats in the extraction process, and construction of LNG plants and ports. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that should be left in the ground. There is no need for more LNG. The world is moving beyond fossil fuels, as we must to save our planet and keep it livable for all of humanity, animals and plants.
366. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 12:43:33 PM burn, d General Comment Make AMERICAN GREAT AND PROTECT ALL TAXPAYERS LAND, their CHILDREN, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, CLEAN LAND. FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL THANK YOU!!!!!
367. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 12:44:45 PM Birlingmair, Douglas General Comment Please see the attached pdf document where I have my comments. Thank you for your consideration.
  1. Doug Birlingmair comments.pdf
368. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 12:58:46 PM Thorpe, Mary General Comment Recent catastrophic climate related disasters highlight the need to get off fossil fuels as soon as possible. The Trump administration will undo all the environmental protections that it can so it's critical to make as many policies as possible that cannot be revoked.
369. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 12:59:28 PM Carota, Marie General Comment I have copied a trustworthy report below. I have read many other reports from different sources that say similar things. LNG is not the best type of fuel costing too much to transport. We don’t need to export more when it is polluting not only our lands but contributing to increased fossil fuel consumption in the world. We must stop!! I live in PA and have seen this industry grow too big too fast. It is one thing to need this resource for our country but to extract it , transport it through our communities and sell it is too much. It flies against all that we as a nation should be doing. We need to be working on renewable resources and using as little fossil fuels as possible. Besides on a local level people in our country don’t want the pollution and destruction it causes in our localities. LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to safeguard our land and our residents from this destructive endeavor before it is too late. The DOE should not be a rubber stamper for business interests over the peoples’ interests. PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING!
370. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 1:10:39 PM Libbey, Patricia General Comment Please STOP/CANCEL/DO NOT ALLOW all LNG EXPORTS!!!
371. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 1:11:37 PM Schmotzer, Michael General Comment We all know that weaning our economy away from fossil fuels, including natural gas, will be expensive and difficult politically. But the climate crisis is a reality and we are paying for it now. Just ask anyone in Los Angeles. It will only get worse. Please do not facilitate the use of natural gas.
372. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 1:17:13 PM Harris, Tom General Comment WE NEED CLEAN ENERGY!
373. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 1:34:39 PM Purvis, Cindy General Comment We have no need to ramp up LNG exports. Five of the six scenarios modeled in the study show that we are already on track to satisfy projected demand. An estimated 75% of oil and gas produced in Pennsylvanian is exported - meaning we see few benefits and many burdens from the industry. There’s no good reason to expand production except a desire for perpetual, unsustainable growth.
374. 1/14/2025 1:37:40 PM Sisters of St. Dominic of Blauvelt, New York Appendix D: Addendum on Environmental and Community Effects of U.S. LNG Exports
375. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 1:44:28 PM Fumarola, Aaron General Comment LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. Please don't ***** this up, DOE.
376. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 1:50:48 PM Leitch, Mary Ann General Comment LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability; further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
377. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 2:01:30 PM Logan, donna General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power.
378. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 2:06:09 PM Edington, Zoe General Comment Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis.
379. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 2:14:56 PM Derr, Sandra General Comment We need renewables, not fossil fuels.
380. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 2:19:46 PM D'Anna, MARIE General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
381. 1/14/2025 2:23:36 PM Sonin, John General Comment
382. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 2:29:11 PM Doll, Carl General Comment Stop LNG ports in the US. Energy independence is great, but not at the expense of our ports and coastal waters and ocean life. No LNG ports along the Eastern Seaboard.
383. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 2:41:50 PM Gruber, Eleanor General Comment I am writing to oppose any LNG facility to be allowed in New Jersey. I have studied the environment and government for almost 60 years. New Jersey has enough Natural Gas and if you allow the construction of an LNG port and all the accompanying infrastructure, it will only cause more gas to be extracted. It is scientifically proven that fracturing process to extract natural gas is not good for the community or environment; there is more asthma, infant and mothers mortality as a result. In addition,the construction of the port and roadways will be most destructive to our environment. The gas industry will say this is needed; the role of business is to make a profit; the role of government is to balance the health and welfare of its residents with the needs of industry. Any LNG infrastructure will most certainly harm our fragile environment. We urge you to reject any LNG projects in or near to NJ. thank you
384. 1/14/2025 2:53:52 PM Winkler, Erich General Comment
385. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 2:54:41 PM Brown, Janice General Comment We do not need anymore fossil fuels to disrupt our planetary ecosystems!
386. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 3:15:05 PM Folzer, Sandra General Comment Please don't extend pending LNG export permits. Put your energy into sustainable energy not into liquified natural gas which pollutes the air and water and poses a threat to those living nearby. There have been too many accidents. Besides, exporting only increases the price. LNG is dangerous and unnecessary.
387. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 3:15:31 PM Mayfield, Zulene General Comment I live in an environmental justice community threatened with a proposed LNG facility. Already overburdened with carcinogens and pollutants from existing facilities. My community literally cannot breathe. I know residents living in communities suffering under LNG operations. DOE must take steps to protect peoples lives and not the profits of LNG owners.
388. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 3:16:39 PM Ketyer, Edward General Comment To Secretary Granholm, US Department of Energy: You are a smart person. You understand the causes and effects of climate change and its impact on human health. You know that fracking degrades the environment, contaminates the air, water, and soil that all of us share, and makes people living near it sick. You know that increasing LNG exports means increasing fracking and its environmental, health, and climate impacts. You know that extracting and burning methane is the leading contributor to the planet’s climate predicament. Ultimately, LNG is a climate bomb. You’ve been briefed on these facts and deep down you know this is true. If you allow LNG infrastructure (and “blue” hydrogen, another topic for another day) to expand, you will be consciously ignoring those facts and the human suffering involved. It is the moral responsibility of every American to prevent harm to our neighbors and the world we live in from threats that we know are real and, in fact, already happening. It is your responsibility, too.
389. 1/14/2025 3:19:29 PM Benedict, Ruth General Comment
390. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 3:31:59 PM Winner, Barbara General Comment LNG exports harm our environment nor our health. In addition these exports are not supportive of clean energy, do not help our economy, and are especially harmful to communities experiencing environmental injustice. We must take positive environmental actions now in order to restore the health of our planet for future generations. We cannot continue to put corporate profits over our balance of nature and basic human needs, including clean air, water, and soil. Please work for a healthy future by denying LNG exports.
391. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 3:37:04 PM Nicholson, Susanna General Comment LNG results in more methane GHG emmissions, aggravating climate change. As we're learning from the force, velocity, and volume of floods, fire-spreading winds, and coastal storms/erosion, we must act quickly to prevent more human and property loss. Reducing LNG radioactive waste is also a very good idea. Our emphasis must be on being international leaders in renewable energy.
392. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 4:19:22 PM Clemmons, Harmon General Comment Hello, my name is Harmon Clemmons. I have lived in Southeastern New Mexico for 43 years and NM a total of 45 years. I have lived around the Oil and Gas Industry my whole life, relocating to NM from Wyoming. I was Mayor Pro Tempore, Mayor, Deputy Fire Chief, Post Master and continue to be active in my county. I have a great understanding of the amount of jobs the Oil & Gas Industry creates in my State. The Department of Energy is charged with protecting our energy independence. As a long time resident of Southeastern NM, I know that the Oil and Gas Industry is the economic driver of tax revenues that provide for schools, roads, and other crucial infrastructure and services. I support clean extraction of Liquid Natural Gas in order to strengthen my State’s economy and support thousands of jobs and families. I ask you to support New Mexico’s Oil and Gas workers and the economy by denying a ban on Liquid Natural Gas exportation. LNG exportation is a crucial aspect of success in my community.
393. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 4:39:47 PM Mulligan, Patrick General Comment On behalf of all the wonderful people working to preserve our beautiful planet: STOP NOW////////////////////////////????????????
394. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 4:48:22 PM saff , Ron General Comment To prevent catastrophic climate change, we need to transition from fossil fuels to clean renewable energy. Gas should be kept in the ground.
395. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 4:48:54 PM Colgan-Davis, John General Comment It is clear from the DOE's own studies that there are no positive benefits to exporting and expanding LNG production.None. The only people who benefit are the companies that will be involved. American consumers citizens of the world will all be negatively affected. so do not approve it
396. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 4:54:45 PM Climate Reality of the Lehigh Valley Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports Take your study's own good advice! We don't need to export more! Secretary Jennifer Granholm noted that the study found that “the amounts that have already been approved will be more than sufficient to meet global demand for U.S. LNG for decades to come.” Please please please, protect our communities and our environment from harmful and unnecessary LNG exports before your administration comes to an end.
397. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 4:56:36 PM Climate Reality of the Lehigh Valley Appendix D: Addendum on Environmental and Community Effects of U.S. LNG Exports The DOE’s own study shows that gas exports are a climate disaster that harm communities wherever the gas is extracted, processed, and transported. So-called liquid natural gas (LNG) is actually just a gas composed mostly of methane, a dangerous greenhouse gas that raises global temperatures more than CO2. Meanwhile, competition with foreign markets for LNG, methane gas, will increase the price of fuel for consumers. It would be in everyone's interest to stop further LNG exports.
398. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 5:01:59 PM Canarsky, Maurine General Comment I live in Portland, Oregon and vigorously opposed the Jordan Cove Energy Project. Luckily, after YEARS of opposition by landowners, tribes and environmental groups, the project was cancelled in 2021. This has benefited our health, our wetlands, streams, forests and communities. Because it was cancelled, we helped to delay SOME of the destruction of our global climate. More LNG exports are clearly NOT in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications MUST be rejected. From our experience with the Jordan Cove project, we KNOW that LNG pollutes and harms public health, is a climate disaster, and will prevent attaining our global climate goals to keep the atmosphere from warming above 1.5 C. We also know that there is no need for more LNG. Further permitting will result in EXCESS supply. Without need for the LNG, there is NO public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorization on this basis. Act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process. I and my community are counting on you to hear our informed concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
399. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 5:02:04 PM Enright, Elizabeth General Comment NG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
400. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 5:05:33 PM Glaush, Jeremy General Comment My name is Jeremy Glaush.  My family of six are lifelong Pennsylvanians.  I've lived in Northeast and Central Eastern Pennsylvania my whole life.  I work for a telecom/internet utility outside of Allentown Pennsylvania.  My greatest responsibility is that of taking care of my family and making sure that we have a comfortable life.  Therefore, keeping the cost of living for families low, through energy security, is very important to my way of life both professionally and personally.  I appreciate the work the DoE has done to keep the cost of living low for families through the promotion of energy security. Because we agree that keeping the cost of living low through energy security is imperative, opposing the ban on new liquified natural gas permits works against the goal of energy security.  We should adamantly oppose this ban for the following reasons:  Keeping energy production American protects the supply chain.  We've seen what happens when a country controls the flow of energy to another country with the Russia/Ukraine conflict.  Liquified natural gas permits also lead to great paying jobs creating a better quality of life for all those involved.  Energy security starts right in your own back yard when you know that neighbors are overseeing the secure, environmentally sound, low-cost energy production.  I urge the DoE to lift the ban on Liquified Natural Gas permits in order to promote energy security and affordable energy solutions for not just my family and I, but for all Americans.
401. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 5:05:54 PM Kuhnley, Sheryle General Comment I am Sheryle Kuhnley from Albuquerque, New Mexico. I have lived in New Mexico for 60 years. My father was a native New Mexican who brought our family to Moriarty while he was deployed to the Philippines and Vietnam in 1965. We ended up staying in NM. I graduated from Moriarty High School in 1969, married my husband of 55 years, and moved to Albuquerque to attend UNM. I received my BS and MA in education from the University of New Mexico and received my National Board Certification in Mathematics. I taught math and was a math coach for Albuquerque Public Schools and Albuquerque Christian School for over 30 years. We have four adult children and six grandchildren. I now work with my daughter to homeschool my grandchildren in mathematics. As a public and private school educator, I appreciate the immense value the gas and oil industry have for the state of New Mexico. A large percentage of funding for Albuquerque Public Schools is made up from revenue from these industries through the State’s General Fund. As an APS math coach I was involved in choosing up-to-date math curriculum, training math teachers, and working through a UNM Professional development grant in Lesson Study. Funding for teacher training, new curriculum, teacher salaries and keeping critical teacher/student ratios low, among many other educational needs, are all very dependent on the monies brought in by NM oil and gas. I ask the Department of Energy to be diligent to their mandate to protect New Mexico’s interests in these industries, and to please keep this in mind when addressing the matter of the Biden Administration’s threatened ban to the exportation of our state’s natural gas. Please do not allow this ban to take place. Sincerely yours, Sheryle Cavasos Kuhnley
402. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 5:14:32 PM Stratton, Alan General Comment My name is Al Stratton. I retired from the Petrochemical industry after over 30 years of service. My wife and I both returned to PA after having spent 12 years in New Jersey and 12 years in Connecticut. We were fortunate to be able to spend the early years of our three sons lives in PA where they got a good foundation in their education. All three have served in the military. One went to the Naval Academy and served in the Marine Corps as a helicopter pilot for 12 years, one graduated from Duquesne University and served in the Air Force as a Missileer, and the youngest graduated from the University of Pittsburgh and is a med evac helicopter pilot and reitiring from the Army in May of next year. As you can imagine, I have strong feelings towards supporting our military and national security by providing resources for energy security. I appreciate the work the Department of Energy has done to promote energy security for America's military and global trade. Because we agree on the promotion of Energy security for our military and national security, we should both agree on opposing the ban on new permits for LNG exports. Not allowing new exports jeopardizes our domestic and international economies. Many of our Allies depend on our supply of LNG for their economic and national security. Pennsylvania is one of the largest producers of LNG and many families depend on this industry. I urge the DOE to further our national security to lift the pause on new permits for LNG exports.
403. 1/14/2025 5:18:47 PM A Holden, Cathy General Comment
404. 1/14/2025 5:30:48 PM Private Equity Stakeholder Project Appendix B: Domestic Energy, Economic, and GHG Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports
  1. PESP Comments on DOE LNG Study.pdf
405. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 5:42:06 PM Gyncild, Brie General Comment I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the energy, economic, and environmental impact of US LNG exports. From the perspective of a human living in a warming world, I urge you to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations. Per international climate scientists and other experts, we need to immediately decrease the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, with the aim to stop using them entirely in the near future. This reality is in contrast to the development of new LNG export infrastructure. Liquefied natural gas is itself actually primarily methane, which is many times more damaging than carbon dioxide when it comes to global warming. The means by which it is extracted -- fracking -- creates hazards to human health and the environment, including polluted and radioactive wastewater, earthquakes in regions that have no known fault lines, leakage during transportation via pipelines or rail, and more. Communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. From an economic standpoint alone, there is no demand for additional LNG. Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production -- benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. I urge DOE to examine the issue critically and consider all the harms to human health, climate, and the environment as a whole. With such examination, I believe DOE's only responsible decision will be to deny further US LNG exports.
406. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 6:00:38 PM Rosenberg, Pauline General Comment DO NOT EXPAND LNG EXPORTS!
407. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 6:20:30 PM Stoeckl, Bonnie General Comment Stop promoting the use and export of fossil fuels! We humans MUST get a handle on climate change and approving more LNG projects is NOT the way to do it!
408. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 6:37:31 PM Hopper, Clint General Comment Hello, my name is Clint Hopper, I have lived in New Mexico my whole life. I have lived in all parts of this state, I have lived near mines and oil fields. Oil and gas as well as mineral assets affect our economy. As a maintenance worker I need lower prices to get to work, there is no way for me to live directly next to my work. With more restrictions it raises the prices and jeopardizes our ability to cool. I worry about our older populations ability to heat and cool themselves, who would be directly affected by this ban. My job is directly related to this field. That is why I oppose the Security of Energy’s pause on LNG exports.
409. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 6:40:52 PM Rutledge, Donna General Comment Please stop exports of LNG permanently. The results of exporting LNG will be devastating to this country in many ways. Pollution Economy American lives impacted Public health Worsening the climate crisis
410. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 6:47:42 PM Hakeem, Shagufta General Comment LNG permits need to be limited in use by the US government. LNG and the process of its extraction, has many health and environmental concerns that does not serve as an alternative to fossil fuels such as coal.
411. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 7:12:38 PM Davis, Anna General Comment To the Department of Energy, I am a retired veteran, working here in Colorado. I have lived here since 1998 and raised four children. I am still working in the National Security arena. I worry about our National Security for my children and grandchildren. I have the privilege to see the Top Secret world. I personally believe that this country needs to be independent! We should not rely on other countries for fuel of any sort. Exporting LNG strengthens relationships with allies by helping them reduce dependence on unstable or adversarial suppliers (e.g., Russia for Europe). Stable allies mean a more secure global environment. Domestically, maintaining LNG infrastructure ensures a reliable energy source in emergencies or during supply disruptions. Controlling a significant share of the global LNG market gives the U.S. economic leverage to influence energy prices and market dynamics. LNG exports generate jobs and government revenues, contributing to economic resilience and reducing vulnerabilities to global energy shocks. Supplying LNG to countries like Europe, Japan, and South Korea reduces their dependence on energy sources controlled by geopolitical rivals. LNG exports can be used as a tool of foreign policy to support or pressure nations in line with U.S. strategic interests. By maintaining abundant production and export capabilities, the U.S. secures its position as a global energy leader, reducing the influence of OPEC or other cartels. This country needs get back to being strong and be the Lead in this world not the dependent. As a retired AF I urge you to resume exporting LNG for our country has a huge abondance fuel and we need future.
412. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 7:12:43 PM Westman, Kathryn General Comment As a RN seeing the need to prioritize clean energy to avoid the ongoing and numerous negative effects of the fossil fuel industries on our citizens health and the environment, I ask we cancel all plans for exportation of gas. It does not benefit our country, only the oil companies.
413. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 7:22:35 PM pantaleo, tari General Comment LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. Approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, bring economic hardship and instability for consumers, and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution.
414. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 7:26:30 PM Garvey, Lydia General Comment Nix destructive LNG! Your attention to this most urgent matter would be much appreciated by all present & future generations of all species. TY Lydia Garvey Public Health Nurse
415. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 7:37:22 PM Davidsen, Judith General Comment LNG: dangerous at the source, dangerous in transport, dangerous in use. And that's the lifetime of LNG. It's sourced, it's transported, and it's used. It doesn't do anything else.
416. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 7:52:04 PM Van Dell, Greg General Comment I am a retired microwave radio engineer and worked for various radio manufacturers. Part of the scope of my work was working with O&G companies in the field to design and implement microwave radio systems that transmit Supervisory, Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) traffic across the entire energy grid. Without this system, energy distribution of any type would be non-existent. Therefore, the function of the SCADA network is perhaps the most critical in the nation. It monitors and manages current flow, voltages and circuit breakers for example. The network employs computers, surveillance devices, and networked data communication devices. It is the lifeblood of energy on many levels. It was my job to ensure that the infrastructure of this network was designed to provide network integrity, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and durability. I worked extensively in the Baaken oil field, and more remotely in the Permian Oil Basin. I met lots of engineers, O&G executives and ancillary personnel in my years doing this. I live in a state where hundreds of thousands of people's livelihoods are dependent on the O&G and LNG industries. In the most regulated state in the union for these important industries, I've seen communities, towns and cities that were founded on the industries and built around the locations of the production and drilling sites. People in these areas are living on pins and needles right now, waiting for the axe to fall, cutting their sources of income because of more rules restricting the efficacy of the industry, which is critical to national defence! The politicians writing these regulations are not giving the workers a second thought. They think only of money for their agendas and don't care if these workers and their families end up homeless, which could very well happen. This is not the way an open-market economy is supposed to work. I'm reminded of Ayn Rand's book 'Atlas Shrugged', where industry was shut down because of nonsense. I see the same thing happening in America today. I was brought up by a proud WWII veteran, out of a family of six WWII veterans. I, too, am a veteran of the Vietnam era. Patriotism was handed down with respectful hands in my family. The means to defend the USA, yes, but also to stand up and point out where we as a nation are going down the wrong path, and to work hard with other like-minded people to help get the nation facing the right direction to becoming what our brave forefathers intended. I ask that the DOE take into consideration these things, resume LNG exports and act in the interest of these United States and Colorado. Greg Van Dell
417. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 8:11:47 PM Canright, Rebecca General Comment Greetings! I am a young person who cares about protecting our environment. Please reject LNG exports. Let's instead invest in renewable solar and wind. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected. Thank you for your time and consideration! Take care, Rebecca
418. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 8:37:27 PM riccardi, patrizia General Comment To: Secretary Granholm; Department of Energy The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
419. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 9:48:11 PM Bedard, Joe General Comment let's promote sustainable energy sources and jobs now
420. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 9:49:38 PM Khalsa, Dr. Mha Atma S General Comment As a very concerned American citizen and taxpayer, I greatly appreciate your considering my comments! LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
421. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 9:52:13 PM Albright, Etta General Comment With understanding evidence of irreversible damage to the planet due to human activity exacerbated global warming and climate change related to fossil fuels, is well documented then LNG exports must cease. Health well-being and safety must be esteemed and prioritized using available evidence. The egregious ethnocentric dark side of the human condition that knows no consequence for harming or destroying life must not be enabled to control.
422. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:06:38 PM Breakwell, Amy General Comment LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability.
423. expand/collapse 1/14/2025 10:12:02 PM Bower-Bjornson, Lois E General Comment I live in the most heavily fracked county in Pennsylvania Washington county. My home is completely encompassed by the oil and gas industry. The oil and gas industry promised us energy independence. That has not been the case. Seventy five percent of all the gas produced in the U.S. is exported. There is no energy security since we keep exporting our gas. If the oil and gas industry was making us energy independent are streets should be lined with gold not the oil and gas executives pockets. The only people benefiting form LNG exports are the oil and gas executives.
424. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:15:56 AM Guthrie, Patricia General Comment Our planet ALREADY is on fire - why are you even THINKING about adding more "fuel to the fire"? Don't you care about the world YOU are leaving to future generations? To YOUR children and grandchildren and their grandchildren? We MUST transition to clean renewable energy AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE to blunt the worst of the climate disaster that ALREADY is upon us.
425. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:28:04 AM Brincka, Frank General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health – LNG is made from fracked gas, more than 95% methane. It carries devastating environmental impacts throughout its life cycle from gas extraction and its related fallout such as toxic and radioactive wastewater, to transport such as destructive pipelines and hazardous rail, to liquefaction processing that emits toxic pollutants into the air and water, to the impacts of terminals such as the destruction of habitats, ecosystems, fishing economies, and vulnerable wildlife during construction and operation of these ports for enormous tankers, to shipping impacts, to LNG’s regasification at its destination, and finally to burning as an end use, usually in a power plant. Every step in LNG’s cradle to grave journey belts out toxic pollutants, disproportionately in communities that have already been overburdened due to environmental racism, causing respiratory, heart, and neurological damage and shortening lives. For instance, communities living near LNG facilities are exposed to human health and safety impacts due to pollution and the dangerous volatility of LNG and those living along the major railways that would be used to transport LNG are predominantly low-income communities and communities of color. In truth, existing LNG authorizations would not have moved ahead if these factors had been fairly considered at the start. We can’t allow these transgressions to continue. LNG is a climate disaster – LNG has a greater climate impact than coal, diesel oil, or natural gas. LNG exports would lead to crippling increases in greenhouse gas emissions when accurately assessed from cradle to grave, throughout the life cycle of LNG, as illustrated in the study by Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. The full life cycle of LNG shows that when using LNG powered tanker ships, the footprint of LNG is “significantly greater than using natural gas produced domestically because of the energy needed to power the super-cooling of natural gas to make LNG and because of the energy needed to transport LNG in tankers”. This results in more greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon in warming the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale. We need to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by at least 50% by 2030 to keep the earth from warming above 1.5 C. Global climate goals, and those of President Biden, would become unattainable if pending LNG exports proceed. The development of clean zero-GHG renewable energy sources are being sidelined by the rampant expansion of LNG exports and the inducing of fracking it requires. No need for more LNG – Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in her accompanying statement that the continued growth of gas exports “would quickly outpace global demand” and the quantities already approved equate to “roughly half of the U.S.’s total current natural gas production today”. This is increasing the price of natural gas domestically in all sectors – homes, businesses, manufacturing, and electricity production — benefitting companies capitalizing on the exports at the expense of consumers and economic stability here at home. This means increased financial stressors caused by higher natural gas prices for families. The report concludes that global demand will not reach full utilization of currently approved U.S. LNG export capacity, showing that further permitting would result in excess supply. Without need for the LNG, there is no public interest and DOE must deny applications for authorizations on this basis. DOE, you must act quickly to implement these findings into the decision making process regarding the export of LNG. I and my community are counting on you to hear our concerns and to reject new and pending LNG export authorizations.
426. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:39:42 AM Larason, Lewis General Comment PLEASE do NOT allow more LNG Exports - our planet Earth already is burning up, with each year being hotter than the year before. We most certainly DO NOT need more fossil fuel pollution stoking the fires of climate change. Thank you for considering my comments.
427. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 12:45:01 AM Balaban, Susan General Comment Since 1980 I advocated for policies and regulations that would protect our environment. In that time I have watched people and our government ignore the science and the warnings. Our grim predictions have become commonplace weather occurrences and catastrophes mount. This is just the beginning. We must do everything in our power to halt the devastation we have triggered with our willful ignorance and neglect. To that end, we must do everything in our power to promote support and invest in a green economy first and foremost beginning with green energy. Approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution. It cannot be allowed to continue. Our lives, and the lives of our children, grandchildren and all future generations and the health of our entire planet depend on our living up to our responsibilities.
428. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 7:07:08 AM Allison, Maria General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) analysis makes clear that liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are not in the public interest. Instead, they are a climate disaster that raises prices for our families while putting our communities and national security at risk. That is why we are counting on the DOE and the Biden Administration to apply the findings in these studies and reject all pending LNG projects. The updated studies released by DOE on December 17th, 2024 improve upon outdated datasets that have been used to fast track LNG permits in the past. Here’s why DoE must take immediate action to stop LNG: Here’s why your voice is urgently needed: Climate devastation: Projects like CP2 LNG in Louisiana could emit 190 million tonnes of CO2e per year—equivalent to the pollution from 51 coal-fired power plants. We can’t let these carbon bombs move forward. Health impacts in vulnerable communities: LNG facilities are concentrated in areas already suffering from pollution and climate change. This leads to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people who’ve suffered enough. Environmental destruction: Heavy dredging and construction for LNG facilities damage ecosystems, devastate local economies reliant on fishing and tourism, and threaten biodiversity. Higher costs for families: LNG exports raise energy bills for Americans while padding the profits of oil and gas CEOs. We need policies that protect people, not corporate profits. National security risks: With LNG demand in Europe declining, U.S. rivals like China are increasingly buying up American LNG, using our resources to strengthen their power. My community is counting on your agency to quickly address these concerns and reject proposed LNG projects before it’s too late.
429. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 7:15:23 AM Cavallo, Janet General Comment LNG pollutes and harms public health, is a climate disaster. We do not need more LNG.
430. 1/15/2025 7:47:50 AM domiano, nicholas General Comment
431. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 8:13:09 AM dribin, lois General Comment please stop lng exports. very dangerous.
432. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 8:45:52 AM Pedersen, Ellen General Comment • LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. • The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour.
433. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:12:00 AM McCune, James General Comment Hi, my name is Jim McCune and I have lived in Pennsylvania for 46 years. My primary experience is as a trainer/instructional designer. For 17 years, I served as technical/SHE training coordinator for the petrochemical industry in ***** County. Following my service with he petrochemical industry, I began working for CCBC ***** an instructor in the process technology center. My students typically went to work for oil and gas and petrochemical industries, which were life-changing jobs. I felt the same way about my position in the petrochemical industry. These industries have provided excellent jobs to me and my neighbors, and have given back much to the community! I acknowledge the work the DOE is doing to protect our energy infrastructure and security and I believe we have many common goals in the areas of Safety and protection of the environment. As someone who has been directly involved in ensuring the implementation of clean energy and low-emissions production, I know that the best option is to produce LNG in the US. If we want to see lower emissions globally, we should be producing and exporting LNG to support the US economy which also supports the US economy and job growth as opposed to supporting job growth in other countries. As an industry employee, I urge this department to strengthen our economy by resuming approval of LNG export permits.
434. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:13:42 AM Kerzner, Boris General Comment To whom it may concern: Please do all in your power to prevent these LNG exports. LNG is natural gas is methane which is 80x more potent in the short-term than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. In my opinion, all relevant natural gas infrastructure, all fossil fuel infrastructure, should be gradually, faithfully, reliably phased out. Allowing LNG-related infrastructure and movement to entrench itself further is the opposite direction of the one we should be going in. The world is warming and calamities are ensuing - see the L.A. fires happening right now, the devastating Pakistan floods of 2022, and much more. Allowing LNG exports is a step in the wrong direction, please do not allow it. I have two young children, both below the age of 7, and I am far from certain of the stability of the world they're growing into. Please do your part. We can do this together. Thank you, Boris Kerzner
435. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:20:14 AM Wood, Caroline General Comment My name is Caroline Wood and I live in New Mexico with my family. We have lived in New Mexico for 43 years. Originally from Arizona. I want to express my concerns on how this will effect the citizens of New Mexico. I am also concerned how the LNG Ban impact will impact the New Mexico citizens. I am also concerned about the effect this will have on the smaller poorer countries. In the long run this will have a negative impact on future jobs in America. This is no more than an political ploy with no concern about how this will effect not only the citizens of New Mexico but the negative effect it will have world wide. We the American people will stand by our brothers and sisters in support of their concerns. Thank you and please uphold the rights the American people to prosper and live the American Dream.
436. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:22:54 AM Granato, Linda General Comment To whom it may concern, LNG exports will layer more pollution on communities, emphasized by Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a statement accompanying the report’s release, in which she pointed out that it’s even worse for environmental justice communities that would be being saddled with more LNG pollution that is harming public health and shortening lives. We know that LNG exports are degrading the environment at every step of the gas production cycle. This is true at LNG facilities and also where fossil gas is being fracked and transported such as in Pennsylvania, the second largest gas producer in the nation where the wounds of the fracking industry run deep. LNG exports will make the climate crisis worse by pumping out greenhouse gases at the moment we must urgently reduce these emissions to avoid climate catastrophe. We need to develop truly clean renewables but these will be displaced by LNG increases. The report finds that LNG exports drive up the price of gas for domestic users, including manufacturing and electric utility costs, and can lead to economic instability. It also concludes that further permitting would result in excess supply. The worldwide glut of LNG will engender economic instability as demand wanes and investments sour. More LNG exports are clearly not in the public interest and all pending and new LNG export applications must be rejected.
437. 1/15/2025 11:36:04 AM Shapiro, Leo General Comment
438. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:36:15 AM Reichert, Robyn General Comment Please put an end to LNG Exports and the destruction of the environment!
439. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:37:43 AM Cordas, Zachary General Comment LNG exports only raise energy prices domestically and are so damaging to the environment. Please reflect that.
440. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:38:07 AM Tangi, Anna General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
441. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:38:09 AM Holland, Gabriele General Comment GLAD SOMETHING IS TRYING TO CORRECT THIS CORRUPT WORLD. I'M IN IWHT YOU GUYS AND DOING A GREAT JOB. THANK YOU
442. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:39:24 AM Levin, Carol General Comment This is our last opportunity to stop this environmental disaster. Please take action!
443. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:39:26 AM wilson, micheal General Comment You effect the environment have effects on you too you know it double sided coin
444. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:39:47 AM Chisari, Andrea General Comment NO MORE LNG!!! DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Time to do what is RIGHT, not what is pollution for all and money for a very few.
445. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:39:48 AM Wilson, Jeff General Comment We need to end the use of fossil fuels and the building of fossil fuel infrastructure.
446. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:40:27 AM Lee, Michael General Comment Please vote to ban LNG exports. They harm the environment: building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. In addition, they poison communities: most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Finally, they raise costs: more LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
447. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:40:39 AM Rocco , Chuck General Comment It takes more energy to create LNG than can be extracted thereby creating more CO2, a greenhouse gas, than just burning it. This is insanity. We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions, getting rid of LNG is one way.
448. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:40:49 AM O'Carroll, Kevin General Comment To protect THE EARTH, LNG exports need to STOP! Thank you,
449. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:41:12 AM Owens, Abigail General Comment I wholeheartedly agree with this study, and side with the decision to disapprove more LNG production. The harm to the economy, environment, and communities is not worth it.
450. 1/15/2025 11:41:39 AM Scheible , Barbara Appendix A: Global Energy and GHG Implications of U.S. LNG Exports
451. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:42:06 AM Anderson, Judith General Comment I am writing this to urge you to take action to reject all pending LNG export authorizations. Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. Please take all this into consideration and reject these LNG exports. Thank you.
452. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:42:11 AM Nieland, Carolyn General Comment Denial of climate change won't work, we must transition away from fossil fuels usage and development to renewable energy sources ASAP!
453. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:42:21 AM Lee, Tsee General Comment Thank you all for working to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
454. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:42:28 AM Thornton, Mona General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Please stop further LNG exports!
455. 1/15/2025 11:42:29 AM Wolner, Kirsten General Comment
456. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:42:32 AM Seff, Joshua General Comment Please reject all pending LNG export authorizations.
457. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:42:44 AM Nieland, Thomas General Comment Denial of climate change won't work, we must transition away from fossil fuels usage and development to renewable energy sources ASAP!
458. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:43:21 AM Siptroth, Michael General Comment US must cut fossil fuels and not export more= cut all LNG facilities and stop exports!
459. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:43:33 AM Rochester, Ingrid General Comment More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
460. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:45:08 AM Melchoni, Frank General Comment We have to get away from fossil fuels period!
461. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:45:25 AM dull, john General Comment Let's create a world that our kids can be proud of.
462. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:46:00 AM Burke, Dana General Comment Please protect the environment and ultimately the people by not allowing LNG to export or drill.
463. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:46:31 AM Gibson, Duane General Comment We must stop the LNG from damaging the environment and hurting the people!
464. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:46:32 AM May, Maureen General Comment The DOE is clear that more LNG facilities and exports will be very harmful to the environment and the health of all, especially those close to the facilities. Please do the right thing and move the US to a more just society and to stop reliance on fossil fuels. If these facilities are built it will lock in fossil fuels use for many decades and we need to stop immediately and move to affordable and safer renewable energy sources. Thank you for your support of climate issues and for the thorough analyses that proved LNG is harmful in every way. Please stop it NOW. Thank you, Maureen May
465. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:46:36 AM Richardson, Gail General Comment I thank the DOE for your work to update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. Economic: Key study finding: DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain unconstrained, the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who pays my energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations, only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. As an American citizen and resident of Stone Mountain, Georgia, I am already experiencing impacts of the climate crisis, including extreme weather events and pollution. This has negatively impacted our community’s health, financial wellbeing, etc. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
466. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:46:42 AM Greco, Jose Luis General Comment I thank the DOE for their work to “update the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not.” “The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.” “I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied.” “DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.” How this impacts the American public: (You could highlight how this price increase will negatively impact your family or household, i.e. “As someone who pays my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our “DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE.” “As an American citizen and resident of Connecticut I am already experiencing the impact of climate change. This has negatively impacted our community’s health, financial wellbeing, etc.] of my community. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending . In her summary of the studies, DOE Secretary Granholm writes that: “LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase.” How this impacts the American public: Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.”
467. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:46:56 AM Darlington, Beth General Comment Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
468. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:47:41 AM Adelson, Julie General Comment stop LNG exports. It is outrageous that you could even think of more fossil fuels while we burn or flood. Climate crisis is real and here and we need to take bold action for solar and wind - no fossil fuels!
469. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:47:41 AM SLO Climate Coalition Appendix D: Addendum on Environmental and Community Effects of U.S. LNG Exports What part of California burning and Carolinas drowning and Florida sinking dont you understand? You canmot DENY the CLIMATE CRISIS, caused by your INDUSTRIES. NO MORE DRILLING, FRACKING, PLASTICS. PERIOD. Save your grandkids from unimaginable suffering. And it's NEVER TOO LATE to SAVE YOURSELVES by DOING WHAT'S RIGHT. You will be FORGIVEN and SPARED if you CHANGE COURSE NOW.
470. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:47:59 AM Leming, Chad General Comment As an American citizen and resident of the Gulf South I am already experiencing climate crisis in our area. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.
471. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:48:02 AM Risser, Mrs. Susan & Mr. Peter General Comment Nothing could be stupider than exporting the fuel that we need ourselves !
472. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:48:07 AM Nusekabel, Kent General Comment Given the changing climate, the United States of American should not be building more LNG export terminals. The resultant increases in more global net greenhouse gas emissions for LNG are the opposite effect of the needed action of reducing our fossil fuel use and cutting pollution. Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution; this situation is unacceptable. Increased LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
473. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:48:21 AM Pitt, Jon General Comment Stop the madness! Exporting LNG will harm our great country in 3 ways, Harm the environment, Poison low-income communities who have no power to do anything about it AND drive prices up for the rest of the country as LNG exports are much more profitable and as a result leaves less NG for domestic use. Lower supply and higher demand equals higher prices. This is bad all around; 3 strikes and you should be OUT! PLEASE!
474. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:48:38 AM Jarrett, Janice General Comment I have had asthma for sometime, which is extremely exacerbated by bad air. The wanton use of industrial platforms a machinery that does very little to clean the air, and their culture of lack of responsibility, threatens my life often. And I am not alone. The rates of asthma are climbing alarmingly. We rely on the government to help protect us from exploitation that causes illness and death. Please exercise your abilities and power to protect our air and therefore our variability to survive. It is very difficult to walk around with an elephant on your chest. This is how it feels when you suffer in attack of asthma. In the last week due to the fires from California, I am forced to be on a breathing machine almost around the clock. Add the particulates spread by high winds, and there is a very dangerous environment for even healthy people who do not suffer asthma or a similar disease as I said, we rely on you- please do the right thing.
475. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:48:55 AM Figallo, Kaeli General Comment Thank yo so much for your work on updating the economic and environmental studies that inform whether LNG exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are in the public interest or not. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. I would like to draw DOE’s attention to the following reasons why more LNG exports are not in the public interest, and therefore, why their approvals should be denied. DOE’s 2024 updated studies find that if LNG exports remain “unconstrained,” the average American household can expect to spend over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle- income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. As someone who helps pays part on my family’s energy bills, I don’t want our government approving more LNG export authorizations – only to increase my energy bills and pollute our climate. DOE’s updated studies find that increasing LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. As an American citizen and resident of Minnesota, I am already experiencing extremely cold winters and much more hotter summer days. This has negatively impacted our community’s health of my community. DOE has found that more LNG exports would result in more global net emissions in every single scenario analyzed by DOE. That means approving even more LNG export authorizations would further exacerbate the climate crisis and the very real climate harms being felt across my community, the country, and the world. I urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations. LNG facilities tend to be concentrated in communities that are being asked to shoulder the additional burden of pollution from increased natural gas production and liquefaction. This comes on top of existing environmental burdens from refining, petrochemical, and other industries already concentrated near these communities. Pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase. Increased LNG pollution that is disproportionately born by frontline communities harms public health and the wellbeing of communities on the Gulf Coast. More LNG exports clearly aren’t in the public interest.
476. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:49:25 AM Pearson, Cheryl General Comment DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
477. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:49:37 AM frey, katy General Comment The Department of Energy’s (DOE) updated economic and environmental studies plainly show that more LNG exports are not in the public interest. That is why I am writing today to urge DOE to deny all pending LNG export authorizations.
478. 1/15/2025 11:49:37 AM O'Brien, Midge General Comment
479. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:49:48 AM schaffer, carol General Comment Please reject all pending LNG export authorizations. A few weeks ago, Biden's DOE released new research that shows how approving new permits for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports will drive up energy bills, exacerbate the climate crisis, and harm the public health of frontline communities—particularly those on the Gulf Coast. DOE's findings are striking, confirming what we already knew about LNG export terminals, despite what Big Polluters would have us believe. Specifically, they: Harm the environment: Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Poison communities: Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. Raise costs: More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living. The analysis from DOE can solidify President Biden's climate and environmental justice legacy, make it legally difficult for the Trump administration to advance more LNG export projects, and provide a solid foundation for bold action now.
480. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:50:16 AM Norden, Michael General Comment Building more LNG export terminals would result in more global net greenhouse gas emissions at the very moment we need to significantly cut down on pollution. Most LNG facilities are in areas already burdened by pollution. Higher rates of cancer, asthma, and heart disease for people are unacceptable—especially for those who've already suffered through enough. More LNG exports raise energy prices for families, who can expect to spend (on average) over $100 more per year by 2050 on their energy bills. This price increase will be felt most by low- and middle-income families who are already struggling to keep up with the high cost of living.
481. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:50:46 AM Vose , Kathleen Appendix B: Domestic Energy, Economic, and GHG Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports DOE report is detrimental to our country’s fragile climate.
482. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:50:55 AM Williams, Mark General Comment US LNG Exports need to balance competing interests of (a) domestic energy, (b) exports to allies (geopolitical) and (c) environmental concerns. With LNG Expansion, I fear we are too heavily weighing geopolitical over environmental.
483. expand/collapse 1/15/2025 11:51:30 AM Romero, Robert General Comment