U.S. Extends Comment Period on Biden LNG Study to Protect Approvals

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has extended the comment period for its study on the economic and environmental impacts of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, from February 18 to March 20, 2025. This extension allows for more time to gather and consider stakeholder input, which could potentially delay the approval process for new LNG export projects.

The DOE's study, released in December 2024, will have a 60-day comment period once published in the Federal Register. This public comment period is crucial for stakeholders to voice their concerns and opinions on the study's findings and how they may affect future LNG export applications. The extended comment period provides additional time for pro-LNG interests to challenge the study and help thwart any potential lawsuits when they approve the pending export permits.

The extended comment period could have several implications for U.S. LNG producers and global LNG markets:

1. Delayed approvals: The extended comment period may lead to delays in approving pending LNG export permits, as the DOE will need to consider the additional stakeholder input. This delay could impact the timeline for new LNG export projects, potentially pushing back the start of operations and the associated revenue streams for U.S. LNG producers.
2. Market uncertainty: The delay in approving new LNG export permits could create uncertainty in global LNG markets, as potential buyers may be hesitant to commit to long-term contracts without clarity on the U.S. export landscape. This uncertainty could impact the pricing and availability of LNG in global markets.
3. Increased competition: The delay in approving new U.S. LNG export permits could provide an opportunity for other LNG-producing countries, such as Qatar and Australia, to increase their market share and solidify their positions as major LNG suppliers. This increased competition could put pressure on U.S. LNG producers to maintain their market share and remain competitive in the global LNG market.
4. Environmental concerns: The extended comment period allows for more time to address environmental concerns related to LNG exports. The DOE's study highlights the potential triple-cost increase to U.S. consumers from increasing LNG exports, as well as the significant greenhouse gas emissions associated with large LNG projects. Addressing these environmental concerns could lead to stricter regulations and requirements for new LNG export projects, potentially increasing the cost and complexity of developing these projects.



Pro-LNG interests are likely to challenge specific aspects of the Biden-era LNG study during the extended comment period, which may influence the final study's conclusions. These challenges may include:

1. Economic impacts on U.S. consumers: Pro-LNG interests may challenge the study's analysis of the triple-cost increase to U.S. consumers from increasing LNG exports, arguing that the economic benefits of LNG exports outweigh the costs. They may also contest the methodology used to calculate these impacts or suggest that the study underestimates the positive economic effects.
2. Environmental impacts and greenhouse gas emissions: Pro-LNG interests may challenge the study's assessment of the significant greenhouse gas emissions associated with large LNG projects, arguing that the study overestimates emissions or that the benefits of LNG exports outweigh the environmental costs. They may also contest the study's assumptions about the carbon intensity of LNG compared to other fossil fuels or renewable energy sources.
3. Targeted guardrails for LNG exports: Pro-LNG interests may challenge the study's recommendation for targeted guardrails to protect the public interest, arguing that it is too restrictive or that it favors certain importing countries over others. They may also contest the study's criteria for determining which countries should receive LNG exports or the appropriate level of scrutiny for each case.
4. Demand for LNG in China: Pro-LNG interests may challenge the study's projection of China's LNG demand, arguing that it underestimates China's LNG demand or that the study does not adequately consider the potential for U.S. LNG exports to China. They may also contest the study's assessment of the geopolitical implications of increased LNG exports to China or the potential for China to stockpile and resell U.S. LNG exports.



In conclusion, the extended comment period for the DOE's study on LNG exports has the potential to impact the timeline for approving pending LNG export permits, create market uncertainty, increase competition, and address environmental concerns. U.S. LNG producers and global LNG markets should closely monitor the developments surrounding the DOE's study and the extended comment period to better understand the potential implications for their businesses and the broader LNG market.