House Committee Alleges Biden DOE Hid Study on Natural Gas Exports to Push Anti-Fossil-Fuel Agenda
Existence of those studies would prove a Biden-Harris ordered pause on Natural Gas Export projects is unnecessary. And the DOE may have used a flawed study to justify the pause, too.
Early this year I reported that the Biden-Harris administration paused approvals for pending and future applications to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) from new projects.
The move was made to allow the Department of Energy (DOE) to review during the pause to evaluate the economic and environmental impacts of projects seeking approval to export LNG to Europe and Asia, where the fuel is in hot demand.
The review would take months and then will be open to public comment… which would take even more time.
Now leaders on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee are asserting that an internal study conducted in 2023 renders this moratorium on natural gas projects unnecessary, and appears to be nothing more that a strategy to push an anti-fossil-fuel agenda.
House Republicans, led by Oversight and Accountability Committee Chair James Comer, have accused the DOE of concealing this study.
The Washington Free Beacon has been following this matter.
The Republicans’ claim stems from a June information request filed by the government watchdog group Government Accountability & Oversight, that asked for any federal study on natural gas exports conducted last year and transmitted to the Department of Energy. The group eventually filed a lawsuit against the Department of Energy, accusing it of stalling the request.
In court filings cited by the Oversight Committee leaders and reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon, the Department of Energy acknowledged in September that it completed the information request, which yielded 97 responsive documents totaling 4,354 pages.
The Department of Energy, though, never shared those documents. On Friday, it sent its final response to the request to Government Accountability and Oversight, saying it understood the group’s request to be seeking only any “final” natural gas export study and that it did not find a “final” study in its search. The group’s information request never specified that it only sought “final” studies rather than potential draft studies.
“The clear implication is that one or more draft studies do exist, and DOE is attempting to cover that up,” Oversight Committee chairman James Comer (R., Ky.), Oversight energy subcommittee chairman Pat Fallon (R., Texas), and Rep. Clay Higgins (R., La.) wrote to Granholm on Wednesday.
A copy of the letter sent by the committee to Department of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm is here.
The DOE may be playing word games.
…[T]the DOE did not release the documents, claiming it found no “final” study, though the request had not specifically asked for finalized reports.
A study by the American Petroleum Institute projected that natural gas exports could contribute $73 billion to the U.S. economy by 2040 and create over 450,000 jobs.
If the allegations are true, the justification for the export permit pause must be called into question. The implications for its impact on the American economy are staggering.
The committee did not mince words about the gamesmanship, either.
“Transparency on this issue is essential. DOE’s action has thrown vital U.S. businesses—companies that invest billions in capital in long-term projects, support tens of thousands of U.S. jobs, and bolster the energy security of our allies—into turmoil as they grapple with uncertainty from politically-motived federal actions,” continued the lawmakers.
“The Committee demands that DOE finally provide complete and accurate information related to the Committee’s investigation and all relevant studies or drafts thereof that may have been conducted or prepared prior to DOE’s January 26, 2024, imposition of the Biden-Harris LNG export ban.”
This is exactly the type of bureaucratic behavior that would need to be countered if there were a Department of Government Efficiency.
The Biden administration has put a pause on American Liquified Natural Gas exports.
This pause is not in the public interest.
This pause does not lower LNG prices.
This pause benefits the Russian regime.
This pause could be against the law.This pause should be REVERSED. pic.twitter.com/UxPQ0qJS4C
— Congressman Byron Donalds (@RepDonaldsPress) May 24, 2024
Interestingly, it appears that the Biden-Harris DOE used a flawed study to justify the pause.
An analysis of earlier versions of the study, before it went through peer review, found it contained errors, which has sparked a congressional investigation into how much the study played into the LNG permit pause and whether or not the Department of Energy had any role in the research.
The original preprint, which is the version before going through peer review, estimated that LNG exports produce 24% to 274% greater greenhouse gas emissions than coal.
The published study, which was authored by Cornell University professor Robert Howarth, estimated 33% and doesn’t include any upper range.
An analysis by the Breakthrough Institute found several errors with the study and noted that the comparisons of emissions from LNG versus coal were revised several times.
The Breakthrough Institute’s analysis caught the attention of Republicans in the Senate and House. Rep. Pfluger, R-Texas, and Senator Tim Scott R-S.C., led a bicameral letter to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm that asks if she directed the study, how much it was relied upon in justifying the LNG moratorium, and if studies the DOE is undertaking use similarly flawed methodologies.
House GOP Probes If Activist Scientist’s Flawed Study Led To Biden-Harris’ LNG Export Pause | Climate Change Dispatch
Why Hardcore Advocacy And Science Don't Mix
A study cited by supporters of the Biden-Harris administration’s pause on liquified natural gas (LNG) export permits… pic.twitter.com/yi1jollmlC
— Owen Gregorian (@OwenGregorian) October 5, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
But they’re just following The Science they paid for, just like every other government grant in the past 70 years.
The $cience
Another day ending in the letter “y;” still more Dhimmi-crat deceit, prevarications and lawlessness revealed.
It’s insane that this was even an option.
Any study funded by the government should be DE FACTO required to be published publicly, REGARDLESS OF RESULTS OR CONCLUSIONS.
Just what you would expect.
https://atkinson.cornell.edu/profile/robert-howarth/
Not turning over info requested by the committee of jurisdiction seems pretty simple to solve. Cut the non responsive agency/dept budget by 15%. If they still don’t answer questions or drag their feet cut it another 15%. Keep doing that until zero is left. Build the authority to cut into the authorizing language only releasing 1/4 of the appropriation each fiscal quarter. Of executive branch agencies don’t impede legit oversight by Congress they get the full amount …if not….
Yeah, but you need the senate to go along with it.
Far easier if the Senate agrees…. but not absolutely necessary if the HoR refuses to pass anything without those provisions.
The Congressional money piñata is easy during Dem administrations. Make a preliminary draft of your study before collecting data that shows global warming/cooling/bunny collapse or whatever they want, collect the grant cash, hire some graduate students in the field to collect data in a way they know which side of their bread is buttered with avocado, twist the resulting numbers into saying what you want, and turn them in with a recommendation “More studies in this area are needed” and a few targeted political donations when you get paid. Lather, rinse, repeat. Tax money laundering.
Well, it all depends on what is in your investment portfolio.
LNG, bad. Make some trades.
Then, move into LNG at the bottom…
LNG Good.