[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                         OVERSIGHT OF THE BIDEN
                       ADMINISTRATION'S PAUSE ON
                     LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS EXPORTS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

 SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH, ENERGY POLICY, AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

                                 OF THE

               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                             APRIL 18, 2024
                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-103
                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
  
  
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  


                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
55-544PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                                
                             



               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Ro Khanna, California
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Shontel Brown, Ohio
Byron Donalds, Florida               Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Robert Garcia, California
William Timmons, South Carolina      Maxwell Frost, Florida
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Greg Casar, Texas
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Dan Goldman, New York
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Nick Langworthy, New York            Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mike Waltz, Florida

                                 ------                                

                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
                Kim Waskowsky, Professional Staff Member
                          David Ehmen, Counsel
                     Daniel Flores, Senior Counsel
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051
                                 ------                                

 Subcommittee On Economic Growth, Energy Policy, And Regulatory Affairs

                      Pat Fallon, Texas, Chairman
Byron Donalds, Florida               Cori Bush, Missouri, Ranking 
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania                Minority Member
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Shontel Brown, Ohio
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida               Columbia
Nick Langworthy, New York            Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Mike Waltz, Florida                  Ro Khanna, California
                                     Vacancy

                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on April 18, 2024...................................     1

                               Witnesses

                              ----------                              

Brad Crabtree, Assistant Secretary, Office of Fossil Energy and 
  Carbon Management, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement...................................................     5

 Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses 
  are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository 
  at: docs.house.gov.

                           Index of Documents

                              ----------                              


  * Letter, from European Parliamentarian, to President Biden, 
  April 16, 2024, re: LNG Export Pause; submitted by Rep. Fallon.

  * Letter, from House Democrats, to President Biden, February 1, 
  2024, re: LNG; submitted by Rep. Fallon.

  * Article, Global Commodity, ``US LNG 'pause' to have no impact 
  on EU''; submitted by Rep. Norton.


  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Crabtree; submitted by Rep. 
  Fallon.

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Crabtree; submitted by Rep. 
  Fry.

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Crabtree; submitted by Rep. 
  Langworthy.

The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
                         OVERSIGHT OF THE BIDEN
                       ADMINISTRATION'S PAUSE ON
                     LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS EXPORTS

                              ----------                              


                    Thursday, April 18, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

                Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy 
                     Policy, and Regulatory Affairs

                                           Washington, D.C.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:31 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Pat Fallon 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Fallon, Waltz, Brown, Norton, 
Krishnamoorthi, and Khanna.
    Also present: Representatives Higgins and Pfluger.
    Mr. Fallon. This hearing on the Subcommittee of Economic 
Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs will come to 
order.
    I want to welcome everyone and our witness, Mr. Crabtree.
    And without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at 
any time.
    I recognize myself for the purposes of an opening 
statement.
    We are here today to examine the Biden Administration's 
announcement of a pause on LNG, liquefied natural gas, exports 
to non-free trade agreement countries, which appears to be 
nothing more than electioneering and a bending of the knee to 
the leftist environmental activists. I will admit I could not 
believe it happened when it did, and if it was a pause of a 
week or two, maybe that could be something that would be 
digestible. The fact that it has gone on now for months is 
something that is very perplexing, and this is the reason for 
the hearing.
    In doing so, however, the Administration is undermining our 
country's national security and energy independence. The 
Administration, along with leftist activist organizations, have 
made it abundantly clear that they wish to end all fossil fuel 
use and reach Net Zero emissions by 2050 at any cost. This 
effort would be laughable, except that it is eviscerating our 
economy and hurting hardworking Americans across the country. 
In fact, the left's policies have consistently ignored the 
energy benefits, jobs, revenues, investments, and educational 
opportunities that come with LNG facilities across the United 
States.
    In 2019, America officially became a net exporter of energy 
and now leads the world in LNG exports. I found it interesting 
that in my home state of Texas, we actually produce more 
natural gas than the entire country of China. We take great 
pride, and we should take great pride, in the fact that we are 
an exporter and that we have states like Texas that can 
outperform and outproduce large nation-states like China. 
However, this Administration's pause has caused a great alarm 
and uncertainty, particularly with our European allies.
    The United States' LNG producers and exporters are 
rightfully alarmed by the pause. They need predictability in 
order to move forward into the future. In fact, 16 states' 
attorney generals [sic] have now sued the Department of Energy, 
arguing that the DOE did not have clear congressional 
authorization to issue a pause and violated major questions of 
doctrine when they did. State-level representatives in Texas 
have gone as far as to create a House Select Committee on 
Protecting Texas LNG Exports to mitigate the negative 
consequences of the pause on the LNG industry and the state 
energy sector as well. It is going to affect the Texas economy 
as well as the United States economy, and I commend them for 
these efforts.
    One key issue with this LNG pause is understanding the 
Federal Government's legal authority to make the decision. It 
is unclear whether the pause is even necessary to update the 
public interest analysis the Department seeks to update. When 
acting on an LNG export permit application to a non-free trade 
agreement country, the Department conducts a public interest 
analysis that takes a number of criteria into account. Many, 
including several of us in Congress, question whether the 
Department and the Biden Administration should have applied 
those same criteria to their decision to pause LNG exports. Had 
they applied those criteria, it seems the Administration would 
have easily decided against an LNG export pause.
    You have to ask yourself, what was the domestic need for 
the pause. What would be the effect on job creation? What were 
the international considerations, and what would be the pause's 
effect on the environment, which it is purportedly intended to 
benefit? If the Biden Administration was truly considering 
environmental impacts of LNG exports, it would have dismissed 
the role LNG plays in the world's energy mix.
    LNG produces 40 percent less carbon dioxide than coal and 
30 percent less than oil, which solidifies LNG as the cleanest 
fossil fuel in the mix. The Biden Administration and the 
Department have defended the pause by arguing that our 
operational capacity for LNG exports remains at high levels. 
True, but for how long because we are talking about moving 
forward and what is going to happen in the mid and near future. 
Americans do not need to read between the lines to understand 
that this pause is a political decision in an election year to 
shore up an election base.
    Our witness, Brad Crabtree from the Department of Energy, 
leads the Department's Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon 
Management. His office has been tasked to assist in the review 
and update to the public interest the analysis for LNG exports. 
I want to thank Mr. Crabtree for appearing here today and for 
your willingness to testify on this important issue.
    One thing to also consider, when you have a war between 
Ukraine and Russia, this is an absolute gift to Vladimir Putin 
insomuch as one of the main destinations for liquified LNG 
exports is Europe, and allies desperately need it, and I do not 
want them buying it from Russia.
    And with that, I yield to the Ranking Member, well, now it 
is going to be acting Ranking Member, Ms. Norton from 
Washington, DC, for her opening statement.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Chairman 
Fallon, and thank you to the witness for being with us here 
today.
    As a matter of good government, I have always held that 
Congress should use the most up-to-date facts and analysis when 
crafting policy. I would expect Federal agencies to do the 
same. Members of Congress should encourage agencies to study 
issues before making consequential policy choices. Outdated 
data leads to outdated policy.
    Back in January, when the Department of Energy paused 
future permits for liquified natural gas, or LNG, export 
terminals, they did so with the goal of making better policy. 
DOE is taking the opportunity to update its public interest 
analysis to include current economic climate change and global 
energy security considerations. Over the last 5 years, global 
events and new research have shifted the economic and 
environmental factors that DOE should consider when making LNG 
export facility permitting determinations. DOE must also 
closely scrutinize the greenhouse gas emissions associated with 
the LNG production lifecycle and its disproportionate effect on 
minority communities.
    The Biden-Harris Administration has wisely pumped the 
brakes or new permits to examine all potential effects on the 
American people. This temporary and limited pause on permits 
will in no way affect our ability to assist allies across the 
globe. To help defund Vladimir Putin's war of aggression 
against Ukraine, the United States has stopped export capacity 
to meet the European allies' energy needs. DOE has already 
approved permits to supply enough LNG to support Europe, with 
capacity to spare.
    New research indicates that producing LNG emits more 
greenhouse gases than previously estimated. Natural gas system 
leaks spew greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. New satellite 
measurements reveal that prior estimates fell woefully short of 
understanding the scope of LNG production's environmental 
impact. Previous analysis also failed to account for the 
disproportionate damage LNG export projects have on 
disadvantaged communities. These export projects emit toxic 
gases that can increase cancer and lung disease risks. Yet 
corporations, focused solely on profits, keep building new 
export sites near low-income and minority communities. I 
applaud DOE's work to take a moment to update their research 
related to these projects.
    As part of President's Justice 40 Initiative, these studies 
must focus on decreasing the energy and environmental burden on 
disadvantaged communities. The Biden-Harris Administration has 
not chosen to stymie industry. It seeks simply to carve a 
policy path forward using up-to-date research and evidence. 
Using science and facts is not anti-energy. It is pro-people, 
pro-communities, and just commonsense.
    This hearing makes a mountain hill out of a molehill. The 
permitting pause affects only export projects awaiting approval 
by DOE. DOE has already authorized permits for facilities that, 
when operational, will amount to a 600-percent increase in LNG 
capacity. Moreover, DOE leadership does not expect this pause 
to last more than a year. We are all here today talking about a 
drop in the LNG export budget bucket compared to the massive 
expansion in export capacity the Biden Administration has 
already enabled. This whole endeavor is just one more chapter 
in the Majority's false claim that the Biden-Harris 
Administration is waging some sort of ``war on energy.''
    I once again return to the facts, which show that the 
United States has never produced more fossil oils than right 
now. LNG export capacity has increased more than 30 percent 
since 2021. More importantly, this Administration and 
congressional Democrats have made historic investments in clean 
energy through the Inflation Reduction Act, which will reduce 
energy costs for American families, invest in a healthier 
future, and combat climate change by bringing us closer to a 
100 percent renewable energy future. I follow the facts and 
listen to experts. The Biden-Harris Administration has 
committed to do the same.
    The natural gas permitting pause is just that, a pause to 
gather more evidence to make sure our policies are the right 
ones. I do not understand why some of my colleagues object to 
evidence-based policymaking. Maybe they would rather have this 
hearing than working with the Administration to move beyond 
harmful fossil fuels, like LNG, and support policies that 
embrace renewable energy sources. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 
I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you very much. Today, we are joined by 
Brad Crabtree, who serves as an Assistant Secretary of the 
Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management at the United 
States Department of Energy. Thank you, Mr. Crabtree, for being 
here and for your testimony.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witness will please 
stand and raise your right hand.
    Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 
about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Crabtree. I do.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. Please let the record show the 
witness answered in the affirmative.
    Please take your seat, and let me remind the witness that 
we have read your written statement, and it will appear in full 
in the hearing record. Please limit your oral testimony to 5 
minutes. I think you know the drill: 4 minutes green light, 1 
minute yellow light, and then kind of try to wrap it up, and 
then the red light. If you go a little bit over, you will be 
forgiven. I now recognize Mr. Crabtree for his opening 
statement.

                     STATEMENT OF MR. BRAD CRABTREE

                          ASSISTANT SECRETARY

             OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY AND CARBON MANAGEMENT

                       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Mr. Crabtree. Good morning, Chairman, Ranking Member 
Norton----
    Ms. Norton. He needs to speak into the microphone.
    Mr. Fallon. Sir, could you speak into the microphone? Thank 
you.
    Mr. Crabtree. Sorry. I thought I pushed it.
    Good morning, Chairman Fallon, Ranking Member Norton, 
Congressman Higgins. I appreciate the opportunity to be before 
you today and to testify at today's hearing regarding the 
Department of Energy's announcement of updates to our economic 
and environmental analyses that support public interest 
determinations for liquified natural gas export applications to 
countries with which we do not have free trade agreements. We 
are required under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act to 
undertake such determinations. I look forward to sharing some 
background on that announcement and a status update of where we 
are today.
    Let me begin with the unprecedented transformation brought 
about by U.S. natural gas production. In less than 2 decades, 
the shale revolution has fundamentally changed America's energy 
prospects. We have gone from a Nation poised to become a major 
natural gas importer to the world's top producer and exporter 
of natural gas, both of which are relatively new roles for our 
country. Over the past 2 years, American natural gas has made a 
decisive difference in helping Europe to meet its energy supply 
challenges following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as well 
as the broader energy security needs of our Asian and other 
international allies and partners.
    Last year, U.S. LNG exports reached a new high, averaging 
nearly 12 billion cubic feet per day, and exports are expected 
to increase to over 14 billion cubic feet next year as new 
projects come online. With authorized projects currently under 
construction, our export capacity is set to reach over 26 
billion cubic feet per day. That is more than double our 
current level, and our export capacity will be 40 percent 
greater than any other country by 2030, even after accounting 
for other countries' announced capacity additions. And our 
level of authorized exports to countries in which we have no 
qualifying free trade agreement goes well beyond these numbers. 
We have authorized exports over 48 billion cubic feet per day 
to non-FTA countries. This is 4 times our actual current LNG 
export levels and nearly twice the anticipated export volumes 
at the end of this decade. This level of authorized exports to 
non-FTA countries represents nearly 45 percent of our current 
domestic natural gas production.
    To summarize, our export posture is world leading and will 
grow dramatically during the remainder of this decade, 
regardless of future DOE export approvals. This context makes 
clear why it is so important that we take this moment to 
evaluate the impacts of authorizing further exports beyond the 
very large volume of exports that we have already approved. We 
need to understand how additional exports beyond 48 billion 
cubic feet per day--again, nearly half our domestic 
production--would impact our economy, communities, domestic 
consumers, and manufacturers, international partners, and the 
environment. To that end, on Friday, January 26, DOE announced 
that we are undertaking a review of our analyses that we rely 
on for public interest determinations of applications for 
proposed exports, again, to non-FTA countries. While this 
update to our analysis is being completed, DOE will defer 
making determinations on all pending non-FTA applications.
    Regular updates to economic and environmental analyses have 
long been a critical component of DOE's public interest 
determinations under the Natural Gas Act, Section 3(a), and in 
the past, we have also deferred decisions on those 
determinations pending completion of analyses. In 2012, DOE 
temporarily deferred its review of 15 then-pending applications 
to export LNG until it completed its review of public comments, 
which occurred several months later in 2013. Two years later, 
in 2014, DOE announced plans to undertake new economic studies 
to gain a better understanding how even higher levels of U.S. 
LNG exports, at levels between 12 and 20 billion cubic feet of 
natural gas, would affect the public interest. Those studies 
were then published in late 2015.
    By early 2018, DOE again determined that a new economic 
study was warranted, given both the total volume of non-FTA 
exports authorized at that time, again, equivalent to 21.35 
billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, and the additional 
volumes of LNG requested for export in then pending 
applications. Accordingly, 6 years ago, in June 2018, DOE 
published its fifth and most recent economic study, entitled, 
``Macroeconomic Outcomes of Market-Determined Levels of U.S. 
LNG Exports.'' DOE provided notice of all of these economic 
studies in the Federal Register and solicited public comment. 
These public comment processes have been an invaluable part of 
our decisionmaking.
    Additionally, beginning in 2014, DOE undertook studies to 
evaluate lifecycle greenhouse gas and other environmental 
impacts associated with LNG exports. The established framework 
for making public interest determinations relies on economic 
and environmental analyses to inform DOE of the potential 
impacts of additional exports. As we explained in an order 
denying a petition for rulemaking brought by several 
environmental groups last summer, ``because the U.S. LNG market 
and related issues, including climate change considerations and 
global energy security, are all dynamic, the LNG export program 
is best served by continuing to update the economic 
environmental studies, analytic approaches, and public interest 
factors that DOE considers in an iterative fashion based on 
developing facts and circumstances.'' Our current economic and 
environmental analysis is consistent with last summer's order.
    To carry this out, we are partnering with two of our 
national laboratories, the National Energy Technology 
Laboratory and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, to 
support the underlying modeling work, which is well underway. 
This effort will be similar to past updates. However, one key 
difference is that when those past updates were undertaken, the 
reality of U.S. LNG exports was speculative or, at best, 
nascent. Now, after several years of burgeoning U.S. natural 
gas production exports, we have significant data and global 
events and trends to draw on. We are working quickly to 
complete this work and to have it ready for public comment. We 
are planning for a 60-day public comment period, and together 
with that process, we estimate the update will be completed by 
the end of the first quarter of 2025.
    I would note in conclusion, we have a strong record of 
defending our Natural Gas Act determinations because they have 
relied on well-supported and up-to-date analyses. Absent our 
current update to those analyses, future applicants whose non-
FTA applications are approved would face litigation challenges 
from organizations alleging that DOE improperly relied on 
outdated analyses.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Crabtree.
    Without objection, Representative Higgins of Louisiana and 
Representative Pfluger of Texas are waived onto the 
Subcommittee for the purpose of questioning the witness at 
today's hearing.
    Without objection, so moved.
    And now, I recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Crabtree, do you believe that President Biden is 
completely aware that there is a complete 100-percent pause on 
new permits for LNG exports to non-FTA countries?
    Mr. Crabtree. I am sorry?
    Mr. Fallon. OK. Sorry. Did you not hear me?
    Mr. Crabtree. Apologies.
    Mr. Fallon. That is OK. I will speak in the microphone. Do 
you believe that President Biden is completely aware that there 
is a 100-percent pause on new permits being issued for LNG 
exports to non-FTA countries?
    Mr. Crabtree. We have deferred decisions on only those 
pending applications that are above the authorized levels of 48 
billion cubic feet. That is the decision.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. Do you believe that he is completely aware 
of that decision, that you just----
    Mr. Crabtree. The entire Administration, I believe, is 
aware of that.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. I find it interesting that when Speaker 
Johnson spoke to the President about this issue, President 
Biden was completely unaware, and he said, no, we have not done 
that, so that is interesting and alarming at the same time. The 
Biden Administration's announcement on the LNG pause occurred 
on the 26th of January, which is almost 3 months ago, we have 
since heard all sorts of indications from the Department and 
the Administration regarding its anticipated length. So, the 
question is, when will the pause end? I think you might have 
just answered it. Are you saying the first quarter, 2025?
    Mr. Crabtree. Yes. The Secretary has been very clear about 
that publicly, and I have as well.
    Mr. Fallon. So, almost an entire year. Here is another 
question. The Biden Administration is seeking to bring, I 
think, a crushing end to U.S. energy production involving the 
use of fossil fuels in any place, in any form. Meanwhile, 
liquified natural gas is wildly abundant, and it is a clean 
source of energy that leads the world in exporting. So, why the 
pause when I believe under the Obama Administration, what you 
just mentioned, there was a pause, but they were issuing 
conditional permits. Why not issue conditional permits?
    Mr. Crabtree. No. In 2012, the economic analysis was being 
undertaken, and there were 15 applications, decisions upon 
which were deferred until the analysis was complete.
    Mr. Fallon. And how long did that analysis take?
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, the public comment was incorporated, 
and the results of the studies were finalized in early 2013.
    Mr. Fallon. So, how long did it take?
    Mr. Crabtree. I believe----
    Mr. Fallon. Was it 2 months, a month, a year?
    Mr. Crabtree. I believe it was about a year, but I would 
like to get back to you for the record to be precise on that.
    Mr. Fallon. So, your testimony is that they did not issue 
any permits for that year?
    Mr. Crabtree. In 2012----
    Mr. Fallon. 2012.
    Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. My understanding is no, but 
again, I will confirm that.
    Mr. Fallon. OK.
    Mr. Crabtree. My understanding is that they were issued in 
2013.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. My colleague mentioned in her opening 
statement that ``This no way affects our allies across the 
globe.'' Do you believe that? Do you agree with that statement 
that this pause in no way affects our allies across the globe?
    Mr. Crabtree. It does not affect allies in terms of near-to 
medium-term energy security supply because we are going to be 
doubling our export capacity by 2030, and we have an additional 
22 billion cubic feet of authorized volumes that do not yet 
have a final investment decision.
    Mr. Fallon. So, do you think that they are not alarmed and/
or concerned?
    Mr. Crabtree. They are not alarmed. We have briefed our 
allies extensively.
    Mr. Fallon. Really? OK. That is interesting because I have 
spoken with some of our allies, and they are very alarmed, and 
they want this pause lifted, every single one of them that we 
have talked to.
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, I have met with----
    Mr. Fallon. Their Ambassadors. OK.
    Mr. Crabtree. I have met with my direct counterparts in 
multiple countries----
    Mr. Fallon. And they do not care at all.
    Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. On the basis of our position. 
They want to know, long term, the direction of our policy, but 
they are not alarmed.
    Mr. Fallon. So, it is your testimony that they would prefer 
it to be reauthorized in 2025 and not as soon as possible.
    Mr. Crabtree. What I would say is there are different 
perspectives in different countries.
    Mr. Fallon. And I think our European allies are the ones 
that I have been talking to, and they are very alarmed about 
what is going on, in addition to the fact that they want to 
wean themselves off of Putin's gas. Mr. Crabtree, the Wall 
Street Journal detailed the outside influence of groups who 
sought to pressure the Biden Administration to halt new 
approvals of LNG export facilities. Further, Bloomberg reports 
that the work of a researcher, who ``openly admitted that his 
research on LNG lifecycle emissions was prematurely released, 
with the ultimate goal of getting rid of natural gas 
entirely,'' was a clear factor in the Biden Administration's 
decision to announce the pause. This research was not peer 
reviewed. Are you familiar with the work that we are referring 
to?
    Mr. Crabtree. The work was not peer reviewed. I am familiar 
with it. I would argue that that is, actually, a basis for our 
decision is that there is conflicting analysis from both sides 
about lifecycle analysis, about domestic economic impacts, and 
we----
    Mr. Fallon. I am limited on time, so I apologize, but I 
just need to ask you this. As assistant Secretary of the Fossil 
Energy and Carbon Management Office, is it important that 
research, relied on by the FECM to do its work, is 
scientifically sound and peer reviewed?
    Mr. Crabtree. That is exactly why we have involved our 
National Labs to participate with us and technical experts from 
DOE offices to do this work.
    Mr. Fallon. Do you anticipate that this researcher's work 
will support the DOE's update to its public interest analysis?
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, their work is the basis for our public 
interest analysis. I am not predetermining the outcomes of what 
we come up with on the economic and environmental analysis, but 
it is precisely why we are doing it is their expertise and to 
bring that to bear.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. And my time has expired, so the Chair now 
recognizes acting Ranking Member Norton for her 5 minutes of 
questions.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous 
consent to submit for the record this article from S&P Global 
Commodity Insights, entitled, ``U.S. LNG Pause to Have No 
Short-Term/Mid-Term Impact on EU Supply Security EC.''
    Mr. Fallon. Without--I am sorry.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you. This report quotes a spokesman from 
the European Commission who says they have been in close 
contact with DOE on the matter and continue to have a ``solid'' 
energy partnership.
    Mr. Fallon. Without objection, so ordered.
    [Chart.]
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Crabtree, the Department of Energy's pause 
on LNG exports will have almost no impact on the United States' 
ability to support LNG globally. Looking at this chart on the 
screen, you will see that DOE's pause on exports affects only a 
small fraction of potential export capacity. The affected 
capacity is represented in the red bar on the chart. All the 
remaining green bars on the chart represent LNG export capacity 
that either already exists, is under construction, is permitted 
awaiting construction, or awaiting approval from another 
unrelated agency. This chart shows that DOE already has already 
permitted nearly 7 times the amount of capacity than this pause 
will affect. So, Mr. Crabtree, how long do you estimate the 
export pause will last?
    Mr. Crabtree. So, we have stated publicly--the Secretary, 
again, and myself--that we anticipate this work----
    Ms. Norton. Speak up a little bit, please.
    Mr. Crabtree. The Secretary and I have both indicated 
publicly that we anticipate this work being done within a year. 
And I would note that in your chart, the 14 billion cubic feet 
that you have in the last two rows is accurate. That is the 
capacity that is currently being deferred for decisionmaking. 
We have committed to 48 billion cubic feet in terms of 
authorized exports. Again, that is 4 times our current actual 
exports of 12 billion cubic feet. So, to put that into context, 
with the additional 14 billion cubic feet in the last two rows, 
that would take the United States to the neighborhood of 60 
billion cubic feet of authorized capacity, which is well over 
half of our domestic natural gas production.
    I would note that the United States has the world's largest 
economy. We have a major industrial and manufacturing base and 
330-plus million people. We rely extensively on our natural gas 
resource for our own domestic economy. And so, our current 
export commitment of 48 billion cubic feet per day, 45 percent 
of our production, is a very, very substantial export 
commitment.
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Crabtree, is DOE's permitting process a 
barrier to U.S. exports of LNG?
    Mr. Crabtree. In the near to medium term, the commitments 
we have already made will allow us to essentially double our 
export capacity by 2030, so, no.
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Crabtree, DOE has already permitted 
significant LNG export capacity that is not yet built. Why is 
that?
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, so, in the United States, we are 
different than the country of Qatar. Qatar is the world's 
second largest exporter. The Government of Qatar and Qatar 
Energy are the same. It is a state-owned company. We approve 
FERC and MARAD a permit construction siting in operation of 
terminals. The role of the Department of Energy is to authorize 
their exports to non-free trade countries. But after that, our 
industry is a fully private sector enterprise. Those projects 
are financed in the private sector, and so you have 22 billion 
cubic feet of capacity represented across a wide range of 
projects that have been approved by Department of Energy for 
export, but they have not been able to finance their projects 
in the private sector up until this time. I think it is fair to 
say that some of those projects may not move forward, some 
will, but that is a private sector decision. We have authorized 
their exports, but we do not get involved in financial 
investment decisions. That is not our role.
    Ms. Norton. So, we have determined that the global and 
domestic LNG production effects of DOE's pause are not 
consequential, but the reason for the pause is quite 
consequential. For far too long, when DOE evaluated LNG export 
authorization requests, it did not consider the detrimental 
effects on disadvantaged communities. LNG export sites come at 
a cost to local communities and industries where they operate. 
Studies have found that living near LNG export facilities may 
cause serious health concerns, including asthma, heart disease, 
cancer, et cetera. On top of that, in Louisiana, a new LNG 
terminal destroyed the local shrimp industry when it wrecked 
the wildlife habitats and eliminated docking space.
    Mr. Crabtree, can you commit today to ensuring that DOE's 
forthcoming public interest analysis will incorporate and 
consider environmental justice concerns and effects on existing 
local industries?
    Mr. Fallon. And the gentlelady's time has expired. I am 
going to let you answer, but if you could just do it quickly. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Crabtree. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ranking Member 
Norton, we are undertaking an assessment of local and community 
impacts from the development of liquified natural gas 
production. I would just quickly note that compared to 2018, 
when we last updated our economic analysis, our capacity was 4 
billion cubic feet. We are now at 14. One of the fastest-
growing industries in the world is U.S. natural gas production 
and export, and the geographic footprint of that is 
concentrated on the Gulf Coast of the United States. So, we 
will be looking at the whole range of impacts, some of those 
that you have referenced, like environmental justice, as well 
as the economic and jobs benefits where they occur.
    Mr. Fallon. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes our good friend, Representative Higgins from 
Louisiana.
    Mr. Higgins. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member, 
and I appreciate the Committee allowing me to waive here. Mr. 
Crabtree, we appreciate you being here today, sir.
    You realize, of course, that the actions that you have 
taken on behalf of the executive for whom you work, it is 
impacting thousands and thousands of American lives and jobs. 
You can speak to the amount of LNG export that has been 
maintained, and you can dangle those numbers before the 
American people, but that is growth of the industry that was 
created by the industry and an appetite from the world for 
clean, reliable, affordable energy.
    So, my district in South Louisiana has become, over the 
course of a very quick couple of decades, the epicenter of LNG 
export for the entire country. And we feed clean, affordable, 
reliable energy to the entire world, primarily before the 
interruptions from this executive branch, many of which were 
led by you, or at least you are at the point of that spear that 
you are being forced to wield. Prior to the executive's 
interference, the American LNG industry had been feeding 
reliable, affordable clean energy to our allies across the 
world, and because of various interruptions that have been 
planned and calculated, interruptions to American energy 
production and dominance and export, our European allies have 
had to rely on other sources for their raw energy product to 
power their grids across the continent.
    And now you have, Iran is selling 90 percent of its raw 
energy product to China. That means China is feeding Iran 
billions and billions of dollars. Russia is deeply engaged in 
renewed energy supply across Europe because the reliability of 
that supply chain has been crippled by Biden Administration 
policy decisions. And, my brother, Mr. Crabtree, you are a part 
of this, man. We do not understand what happened between the 
summer of last year and January of this year. My colleagues are 
going to get into that.
    The timeline that you put forth in your advisement of the 
pause sounds very cool. We are just going to chill for a little 
while we take a closer look for a few months. But you knew that 
a pause that you were initiating generally requires over a year 
to renew normal permitting. Is that correct? Historically, 
doesn't it take over a year? Didn't you say in this hearing, a 
little while ago, next year? Will be done in a year?
    Mr. Crabtree. We have committed to delivering this work 
within a year, so----
    Mr. Higgins. OK. So, a year.
    Mr. Crabtree. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Higgins. OK. Not a few months? Because your letter said 
a few months.
    Mr. Crabtree. No----
    Mr. Higgins. So, let us just move on.
    Mr. Crabtree. To clarify, to clarify----
    Mr. Higgins. What happens----
    Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. To clarify, a few months to 
provide the analysis for public comment.
    Mr. Higgins. There was an illusion of this, just slight, 
pause that was put forth by this executive. Now the year's time 
for renewal, that brings us past November 2024, does it not? I 
am pretty sure that brings----
    Mr. Crabtree. We are committing to complete the analysis in 
the----
    Mr. Higgins. Yes. So, we are past the election, my brother. 
Do you see a pattern developing here? Do you have 
communications, Mr. Crabtree, in my remaining time, with the 
Biden Administration officials regarding LNG permitting pause 
that took place between the summer of last year and January 
through today in this hearing? Do you have communication, 
emails, telephone calls, et cetera?
    Mr. Crabtree. With whom, Congressman?
    Mr. Higgins. The Biden Administration officials, people you 
work for.
    Mr. Crabtree. So, we have had extensive discussions from--
--
    Mr. Higgins. Extensive discussion.
    Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. Within the Department of 
Energy----
    Mr. Higgins. I am advising you, in my remaining 10 seconds, 
to preserve that stuff. How long have you been building your 
career at DOE, Mr. Crabtree?
    Mr. Crabtree. I was confirmed beginning of May 2022.
    Mr. Higgins. How long you been building your career to get 
to that point?
    Mr. Crabtree. I worked on energy policy for the better part 
of 30 years----
    Mr. Higgins. Thirty years. You got 30 years into this 
thing. You realize you are being set up as a sacrifice on the 
Green New Deal altar?
    Mr. Crabtree. I disagree with that, sir.
    Mr. Higgins. I am going to offer you whistleblower 
protection, sir. I am going to offer you whistleblower 
protection. Remember that statement, because we will protect 
you, sir. Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair now recognizes Representative Brown 
from Ohio.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Biden-Harris 
Administration is supercharging our Nation's energy 
independence while combating the climate crisis, one of the 
greatest challenges and responsibilities of our generation. 
Congressional Democrats and President Biden are committed to a 
bold, effective, and expansive climate agenda, which is already 
creating tens of thousands of clean energy jobs across the 
country. I was proud to vote in favor of the Inflation 
Reduction Act, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the CHIPS and 
Science Act. These laws all made historic investments in our 
energy sector, and I am glad to say these efforts are already 
yielding great success. In 2023, the United States boasted the 
highest level of energy independence our country has seen in 
over 70 years.
    This January, the Biden-Harris Administration announced a 
pause in the approval of pending and future liquified natural 
gas export projects as part of an effort to update the current 
outdated process, while developing a modern approach to assess 
how projects serve the best interests of the American people. 
So, Assistant Secretary Crabtree, how has the Biden-Harris 
Administration demonstrated a commitment to energy 
independence?
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, Representative, I think you have 
summarized it well in the sense that we have, obviously, the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed in 2021, which provided 
extensive funding across energy industries, energy and climate 
investments. The Inflation Reduction Act provides several 
hundred billion dollars' worth of tax credits to incentivize a 
whole range of technologies that are essential both to meet our 
climate goals, but also, as you point out, to sustain and even 
improve U.S. energy independence.
    And I think the facts speak for themselves. We are 
dramatically expanding a whole range of clean energy 
alternatives even as the United States has become the largest 
oil and gas producer and exporter in the world today. And that 
expansion continues even as the same time we are committing to 
decarbonize that oil and gas production in use and also to 
manage methane emissions to near zero by 2030. And I would note 
that we have the support and participation of the oil and gas 
industry in that effort as well.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you. And, Assistant Secretary Crabtree, 
how will the pause on liquid natural gas export projects 
positively impact American energy independence now or in the 
future?
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, I would just note I need to go back to 
the fact that we have already made authorization decisions for 
48 billion cubic feet of exports. We are currently at capacity. 
We are currently exporting 12 billion cubic feet, and then of 
the 14 billion cubic feet that is operating in terms of 
capacity, we have another 12 billion cubic feet that will be 
online by 2030. So, we are already No. 1 in the world in terms 
of our natural gas exports. We will be No. 1 in the world in 
2030, 40 percent ahead of Qatar, which is the second ranked 
exporter today. So, what I would argue is that our decisions 
are not impacting U.S. energy independence because the 
decisions DOE has already made will allow a doubling of our 
export capacity, which contributes to our larger domestic 
energy independence, along with all the other investments in 
other energy resources and technologies that we are making.
    Ms. Brown. And I would not call those dangling numbers for 
the American people. They are facts. Last, what factors does 
the Department of Energy take into consideration when measuring 
what is in the best interest of the public?
    Mr. Crabtree. So, we take a broad range of factors into 
account. We take domestic energy supply, natural gas supply, 
and its availability to consumers and to industry. We look at 
natural gas prices, again, for households, but also for 
industrial producers and manufacturers. Also, distributional 
consequences, how these price changes affect who. We look at 
demand in the future, what is the demand both for the natural 
gas here at home, but also our exports. Importantly, and ever 
more so following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we look at 
energy security not only for ourselves, but our allies. And 
then finally, we look at environmental impacts, and that 
includes traditional environmental impacts that you might 
imagine from project development, but also greenhouse gas 
emissions, both methane and carbon dioxide emissions, 
associated with natural gas production, processing, 
liquefaction, and export.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you. Contrary to the claims by my 
Republican colleagues, in 2023, the United States set a new 
high for natural gas production. In fact, today the U.S. is the 
world's single largest liquid natural gas exporter. While my 
Republican colleagues continue to put the interest of large 
corporations and Big Oil first, Democratic policies are 
building clean energy infrastructure for the next generation. 
This translates to lower energy, water, and fuel costs for 
American families, both at home and at the gas pump. And as we 
expand our energy independence, Democrats continue to work on 
building the clean energy sector for the future.
    The Inflation Reduction Act provides hundreds of billions 
of dollars in loan guarantees and subsidies for clean energy to 
expand domestic clean power production, growing our energy 
independence, and leading the world. Although my Republican 
colleagues are once again attempting to undermine that 
transformational legislation, I will continue to work to build, 
expand, and defend it. Thank you.
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair now recognizes our good friend from 
Florida, Mr. Waltz.
    Mr. Waltz. Assistant Secretary Crabtree, do you recall 
signing and issuing the July 18, 2023 Department of Energy 
denial to the Sierra Club's rulemaking petition on DOE's 
natural gas export policy?
    Mr. Crabtree. Yes, Congressman, I do.
    [Chart]
    Mr. Waltz. And with that decision, you stated, as we have 
up here for the American people to see, ``DOE's continuing 
development of LNG export policy has accounted for changes''--
say again--``accounted for changes in environmental, energy, 
economic, and other relevant considerations.'' I would also 
like to bring your attention to the excerpt for that decision 
here, that it says, ``Insofar as petitioners''--the Sierra Club 
in this case, a well-known environmentally focused group that, 
by the way, have been petitioning the DOE for over a decade to 
do this and repeatedly denied, including yourself--so, 
``insofar as petitioners are asking DOE to halt approval of 
pending applications to export LNG until DOE completes a final 
version of its policy guidelines, we find there is no factual 
or legal basis for such an action at this time.'' That is from 
you. But then 6 months later, after you signed this denial, the 
Administration announced its decision to pause pending 
decisions on export permitting for LNG to non-free trade 
agreement countries.
    So, what factual or legal basis suddenly emerged? What 
happened in 6 months----
    Mr. Crabtree. Sure.
    Mr. Waltz [continuing]. To justify implementing this pause 
that you agreed was ``well-functioning'' and adaptable to 
``changing economic and environmental circumstances.'' What 
changed?
    Mr. Crabtree. I am happy to answer that question. The 
Sierra Club, in their petition, was basically asking us to 
fundamentally roll back our adjudicatory process to our orders 
and our determinations and proceed with the rulemaking. And the 
point we were making in that order is that our process has been 
sustained in litigation, our past approvals of projects, 
because we look at these projects on a case-by-case basis and 
look at the evolving LNG----
    Mr. Waltz. For many years----
    Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. Natural gas and LNG.
    Mr. Waltz. Right. So, what changed?
    Mr. Crabtree. And in that very order, we essentially make 
the case for the very thing we are doing today, which is 
updating our economic and environmental analysis because it is 
very clear, based on the----
    Mr. Waltz. But----
    Mr. Crabtree. Its very cure, is based on the litigation 
approach of various stakeholders, that our determinations, any 
future approvals we make would have been subject to litigation, 
and that is in that order.
    Mr. Waltz. But in the time I have remaining, we are saying 
it is fine, the process is fine, but then in 6 months, we need 
to update everything. And let me tell you what a lot of the 
American people----
    Mr. Crabtree. That is not what it said. That is not what it 
said.
    Mr. Waltz. But that is essentially what we have done, 
right?
    Mr. Crabtree. No, that is not true.
    Mr. Waltz. But I will tell you what people suspect. We 
suspect this is an election year. We expect this is a political 
play to the Democratic base. And let me just tell you, I mean, 
you have industry estimating that global demand for LNG could 
rise as much as 50 percent by 2040, and the thing that concerns 
me is that Russian LNG exports to the EU have grown since 2021. 
They are selling just as much as they ever did through China 
and through India. Is it in the public interest to cripple 
Russia's LNG exports?
    Mr. Crabtree. Congressman, there are so many differing 
views of future market demand. That is actually an argument for 
our pause. We have 22 billion cubic feet of exports that we 
have authorized----
    Mr. Waltz. Is it in----
    Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. That have not been able to get--
----
    Mr. Waltz. Is it in the----
    Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. FID in the marketplace----
    Mr. Waltz [continuing]. Public interest?
    Mr. Crabtree. No, we have not----
    Mr. Waltz. We are voting on the Ukraine package today. Is 
it in the public interest to cripple Russia's LNG? That is a 
``yes.'' I would think that would be an easy ``yes.''
    Mr. Crabtree. We are crippling their----
    Mr. Waltz. They are selling just as much----
    Mr. Crabtree. That is because we are doubling our exports--
--
    Mr. Waltz [continuing]. As they ever did, so we are 
spending against our----
    Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. Between now and 2030, sir.
    Mr. Waltz. So, look, I sit on the Intelligence Committee, 
on the Armed Services Committee. If we drop the price of global 
oil and gas below a certain point, Russia is done, Mr. 
Secretary, and for that matter, Iran is done. And yet we are 
literally spending against ourselves as they are selling just 
as much as they ever did. Ninety percent of Iran's is going to 
China, by the way. Look, you are----
    Mr. Crabtree. Between now----
    Mr. Waltz. Look, you are parsing some things here, but this 
is about long-term signals, and you just stated that our allies 
are not being affected. I just sat down with the Speaker of the 
Parliament of Lithuania right on the front lines, and she said, 
we buy 80 percent of our gas through Texas and through 
Louisiana at your government's request, and now, she said, we 
are making political and industry decisions to go in a 
different direction from the United States because we do not 
know if it is going to be there long term. I also sat down with 
officials from Japan and South Korea, and we know Japan has 
moved away from nuclear, they are trying to go back. They said 
we are trying to get off. You guys are beating us up for buying 
Russian gas. Where is North American gas? Where is it going to 
be in the next 5, 10 years? What is going to happen if 
President Biden gets reelected?
    They are making long-term decisions, and the signal you 
have sent to our allies, Mr. Secretary, is a big question mark. 
They do not know, at least they are telling me, and I take it 
at face value. I do not think politics are at play for them. 
They are trying to get onto North American gas and off of 
Russian gas, and this pause has sent all the wrong signals. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time.
    Mr. Crabtree. To help them get off Russian gas, we are 
going to be providing another 12 billion cubic feet of capacity 
between now and 2030.
    Mr. Fallon. All right. We are going to go ahead, and the 
Ranking Member and myself are going to ask an additional 2 
minutes of questions.
    I think it is important to state that economics 101, 
particularly when you are talking about energy, is production 
levels today are not determined by what is happening today. 
Production levels today in energy are determined by policies 
and decisions that happened years ago, whether that is 2 years 
ago, 4 years ago, 6 years ago. Do you believe, Mr. Crabtree, 
that stability and predictability are important when we are 
talking about energy production?
    Mr. Crabtree. Investment certainty is important to 
industries that are capital intensive and have projects that 
take years----
    Mr. Fallon. So, you would agree that energy production is 
capital intensive?
    Mr. Crabtree. What I would argue is that----
    Mr. Fallon. Mr. Crabtree, it is just----
    Mr. Crabtree. The certainty of our regulatory decisions are 
also important----
    Mr. Fallon. Mr. Crabtree, do me a favor.
    Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. If we are subject to litigation.
    Mr. Fallon. Mr. Crabtree, I have been overly polite. Can 
you please just answer the question? Do you believe that energy 
production is a capital-intensive endeavor?
    Mr. Crabtree. Yes----
    Mr. Fallon. That is a simple question.
    Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. Capital intensive.
    Mr. Fallon. That is not a trick question.
    Mr. Crabtree. I just said that, yes.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. All right. Do you believe that stability 
and predictability are important when you are talking about 
capital intensive endeavors? Again, not a trick question.
    Mr. Crabtree. It is important, but also, the certainty of 
our regulatory decisions is important to investors, and that 
is----
    Mr. Fallon. So, when you have this analysis, couldn't you 
do the analysis and continue to approve new liquified natural 
gas exports or exporting permits?
    Mr. Crabtree. The challenge is there are----
    Mr. Fallon. No. Could you do that?
    Mr. Crabtree. There are 14 billion cubic feet of projects 
that----
    Mr. Fallon. All right. Let us try it again. Could you do 
that, though? Could this Administration, could your Department 
do this analysis, but at the same time, we will say 
synchronously, also be approving new liquified natural gas 
permits?
    Mr. Crabtree. Not without approving them and having them 
subject to legal risk because our analysis for the 
environmental analysis is 5 years old. Our economic analysis is 
6 years old.
    Mr. Fallon. You can do it. The past Administration did not 
have a pause.
    Mr. Crabtree. No, but the Obama Administration did. In 
2012, we had 15 projects pending, and they deferred the 
decisions on those projects until the analysis was completed, 
and then it was----
    Mr. Fallon. So, these are political policy decisions.
    Mr. Crabtree. Mr. Chairman, I would note that our approvals 
in the past have all been sustained in courts of law because we 
have updated analysis----
    Mr. Fallon. Mr. Crabtree?
    Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. And now we are 5 and 6 years out 
from our last update.
    Mr. Fallon. A very simple question. Are you a political 
appointee?
    Mr. Crabtree. I am a political appointee.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. Thank you. I yield to the Ranking Member.
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Crabtree, would you like time to walk 
through the administrative process? Mr. Waltz would not give 
you time to explain.
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, so, thank you, Ranking Member Norton. 
We have economic and environmental analysis that we are 
required to use in our decisions of determining whether a given 
export application is in the public interest. And over the 
course of the program, beginning in 2012, on a periodic basis, 
we have had to update the economic and environmental analysis, 
subject to changing circumstances in the marketplace. In the 
initial years, those analyses and, frankly, the industry itself 
were suggesting much lower levels of exports than we are 
actually already at today, let alone what we have approved for 
the future. And so, our process now is consistent with what we 
have done in the past. Our last environmental analysis was 
updated 5 years ago. Our economic analysis was updated 6 years 
ago. Based on previous practice, it is time for us to update 
that analysis.
    A lot has changed in the world. We are the largest producer 
and exporter of natural gas in the world. We had COVID that we 
came out of, supply chain crises, the Russian invasion of 
Ukraine. It is a dramatically different environment that we are 
operating in today. And so now, as part of our process, as we 
did in 2012, we are deferring decisions on those applications 
until we complete this economic and environmental analysis. And 
what I would argue gets lost in the public discussion is that 
our previous approvals for industry have been sustained in the 
courts, and even in 2017, the courts specifically acknowledged 
the updating of our analyses as a basis for that, and any 
future decisions we might make will be subject to litigation 
risk if we do not take this step today.
    Mr. Fallon. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes Representative Pfluger from Texas for 5 minutes 
of questions.
    Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and for waiving on. It 
was a shock on January 26 to hear the President announce his, 
what I think he is calling a pause, but what the industry is 
calling a ban on LNG exports to non-free trade agreement 
countries. Mr. Crabtree, how many free trade agreement 
countries exist?
    Mr. Crabtree. I do not remember the exact number. I would 
have to go back and check, but 80----
    Mr. Pfluger. Fourteen.
    Mr. Crabtree. Eighty percent of the natural gas market is 
non-free trade agreement countries.
    Mr. Pfluger. Eighty percent?
    Mr. Crabtree. Yes.
    Mr. Pfluger. Is non-free trade agreement countries?
    Mr. Crabtree. Correct.
    Mr. Pfluger. OK. So, we have 14 free trade agreement 
countries that comprises 20 percent of the----
    Mr. Crabtree. That is correct. Korea is the large market 
that is a free trade country with respect to natural gas.
    Mr. Pfluger. OK. So, DOE undertaking steps in the usual 
process, in accordance with DOE's past practice, to update the 
analyses that DOE has long determined are necessary to make a 
reliable assessment of the public interest. How many Bcf was 
promised, Bcf a day, Bcf a year, any metric you want, was 
promised to Europe by President Biden about a year ago?
    Mr. Crabtree. The agreement with the EU promised 15 billion 
cubic meters, so----
    Mr. Pfluger. All of those to free trade agreement 
countries?
    Mr. Crabtree. No, that was to the European Union, which is, 
collectively, the world's largest natural gas market.
    Mr. Pfluger. All of those free trade agreement countries?
    Mr. Crabtree. No, they are not.
    Mr. Pfluger. OK.
    Mr. Crabtree. They are non-free trade agreement.
    Mr. Pfluger. Exactly the point. So, was it determined at 
that point in time that they were in the public interest? Did 
the President making that statement promising that amount to 
the EU----
    Mr. Crabtree. No.
    Mr. Pfluger [continuing]. To non-free agreement countries.
    Mr. Crabtree. Based on regulatory decisions made in 
previous administrations and this one, plus efforts to make 
sure that cargoes got to Europe that were actually committed 
cargoes to East Asia, we were able to not only meet that 
commitment, but succeeded it substantially.
    Mr. Pfluger. So, I want to know why DOE is not following 
precedent to consider the LNG export authorization applications 
while updating the study. Why are you deviating from past----
    Mr. Crabtree. We are following precedent. I just got done 
explaining in response to the Chairman's questions that in--or, 
sorry, the Ranking Member's questions--in 2012, there were 15 
applications pending to non-free trade area countries, and the 
decisions on those applications were deferred until the 
economic analysis was updated. Public comments were 
incorporated. That process was completed in 2013, after which--
--
    Mr. Pfluger. How many current projects are in works that do 
not have approval, that need the approval, that would meet the 
requirement and meet the demand and meet the supply that was 
promised by the President to the EU or other non-FTA countries?
    Mr. Crabtree. I can get you the specific number of 
projects, but the volume of exports, beyond what is operating, 
the capacity is 12 billion cubic feet under construction, and 
22 billion cubic feet have been authorized but do not yet have 
FID, if that is your question.
    Mr. Pfluger. No. The question really is why is it taking 
longer? Why are you not following precedent when this pause has 
happened, and yet the President stated previously in statements 
like he made about the EU and the promise that we were going to 
send a certain volume over there, why now are we pausing it?
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, we met that commitment and exceeded it, 
sir.
    Mr. Pfluger. But this is not happening.
    Mr. Crabtree. By a large measure.
    Mr. Pfluger. You met it on that day, but for the future 
commitments that we have, for the future contracts that we 
have, let me----
    Mr. Crabtree. We have capacity, nearly equivalent to our 
current entire export capacity, is coming online in the next 6 
years, nearly a doubling, sir.
    Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Crabtree, I will reclaim my time. Thank 
you for that. The fact is that there are many countries right 
now that are looking for LNG and are looking for contracts. Are 
they asking you for 1-year contracts, 2-year contracts? What 
does a typical contract look like, a request from a country 
that we are dealing with?
    Mr. Crabtree. Contracts vary, but the United States' LNG 
sector is financed liquefaction terminals based on long-term 
contracts. Most companies have a small percentage of short-
term----
    Mr. Pfluger. Fifteen, 20 years.
    Mr. Crabtree. Yes, exactly. Yes.
    Mr. Pfluger. OK. So, the decision to pause--I call it a ban 
because I think industry agrees with that--the decision to ban 
LNG exports starting on January 26, has industry received that 
positively? Have you had discussions with industry, and which 
companies have you talked to since then?
    Mr. Crabtree. It depends on which energy sector you are 
referring to. We have domestic manufacturers and industrial 
companies that are actually concerned about committing even 
more than 48 billion cubic feet of our domestic natural gas 
supply to export. And so, we have heard from them that they 
think this is prudent.
    Mr. Pfluger. Prior to January 26, which companies did you 
personally deal with to make this decision?
    Mr. Crabtree. I have met with many companies.
    Mr. Pfluger. Can you give me a list? Can you tell me four 
of them right now?
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, I have met with all of the major LNG 
producers.
    Mr. Pfluger. I understand, but just tell me three or four.
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, there are not that many, so----
    Mr. Pfluger. Just name them.
    Mr. Crabtree. I have met with all of the major companies 
that operate liquefaction terminals, most of the major natural 
gas producers. Also met----
    Mr. Pfluger. Can you name three or four of them?
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, they are well known. There is only----
    Mr. Pfluger. It should be easy, right? So, just name three 
of them. Name two of them.
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, there is----
    Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Crabtree, you are the Department of 
Energy----
    Mr. Crabtree. I mean, are you asking me to provide you with 
a list?
    Mr. Pfluger. No. I am asking you right now, just name one 
of them.
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, Cheniere is an example.
    Mr. Pfluger. OK. So, you met with Cheniere prior to January 
26? Were they in agreement----
    Mr. Crabtree. I have been meeting with these companies 
since the day I was confirmed, sir.
    Mr. Pfluger. Were they in agreement with the 
Administration's decision? Was Cheniere in agreement with the 
Administration's decision?
    Mr. Crabtree. The LNG companies are concerned about the 
decision.
    Mr. Pfluger. Very concerned about the decision. We finally 
got somewhere. I will yield back.
    Chair. The Chair recognizes Mr. Khanna for his 5 minutes of 
questions.
    Mr. Khanna. Mr. Chairman, I know that the companies may be 
concerned about the decision, but this President has one 
concern: lowering prices for the American people. Now, I find 
it amusing, sometimes, my Republican friends, you could say a 
policy is going to reduce prices for the American people, help 
lower electricity bills, they may applaud it. Then you say it 
happens to also be good for climate, they will stop applauding. 
We are bringing manufacturing back to America. Great. It 
happens to also be decarbonizing. Oh, we cannot support that.
    The reality, Mr. Crabtree, is this is a policy that puts 
Americans first, right? I mean, this is a policy that is 
actually going to lower electricity bills for Americans because 
President Biden cares more about Americans' electricity bills 
than anyone else in the world. He is the American President. 
And you have testified that we have seen periods during which 
U.S. LNG exports had a noticeable influence on domestic prices. 
Can you explain why the President's policies in prioritizing 
Americans over people elsewhere in the world for electricity 
bills is helping lower electricity prices for Americans?
    Mr. Crabtree. So, Congressman, I mentioned earlier in the 
hearing that we have seen an enormous increase in natural gas 
production and export. During the timeframe of this program at 
the Department of Energy, we have gone from effectively zero in 
2015 to 14 billion cubic feet.
    Mr. Khanna. More than tripled, correct?
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, more than tripled.
    Mr. Khanna. Yes.
    Mr. Crabtree. Yes, and then we have also authorized 3-and-
a-half times that volume for export already committed, and 
there are 12 billion cubic feet under construction. So, up 
until this point, with the exception of the, you know, the 
supply crisis following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we 
have seen very low natural gas prices in the United States. We 
saw a spike in that market situation, that supply crisis. What 
we need to look at, though, is as we contemplate much higher 
volumes of exports, far beyond anything if you look at both 
what we have authorized, the 48 billion cubic feet and then the 
14 billion cubic feet of projects that are pending, 
collectively, that takes us in the neighborhood of 60 billion 
cubic feet, which is well above half of U.S. domestic natural 
gas production.
    The Department of Energy has never analyzed exports at that 
level, and we are duty bound to look at that and see what the 
domestic price and supply and other considerations are. Along 
with the needs of our allies and the environmental 
considerations, we have to look at all of that----
    Mr. Khanna. Let me help you out a little bit, maybe help 
out the Biden messaging. Isn't it true that the EIA project 
projects that if the President had not taken this policy, you 
would have American consumers paying 10 percent more in their 
electricity bills?
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, the EIA does, in their projections, 
does associate an incremental increase in price based on given 
levels of increased export.
    Mr. Khanna. Isn't a simple way of saying this is the 
President's policy is saving Americans' electricity bills 10 
percent, whereas what the Republicans want without this pause 
would mean higher electricity prices for Americans because of 
their ideological commitment to utility companies and LNG 
companies?
    Mr. Crabtree. We are very concerned that any future 
decisions we make do not lead to higher domestic prices, sir.
    Mr. Khanna. My sense is that this is the President's total 
priority, and you heard from my colleague on the other side, 
they care about the companies. This President cares about 
lowering prices for Americans, and it also happens that it is 
good for climate disasters. Can you explain, Mr. Crabtree, how 
much climate disasters have cost the U.S. taxpayers over the 
last year?
    Mr. Crabtree. I am sorry, I do not have that data at hand--
--
    Mr. Khanna. Of course.
    Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. But we have been seeing for many 
years a steady increase both in the number of disasters and 
their intensity, and, therefore, their costs.
    Mr. Khanna. Ninety-two billion dollars, 500 deaths in those 
disasters. I just want to summarize, Mr. Crabtree, that the 
President's policies primarily are motivated by lowering energy 
prices for American consumers at a time of inflation. The big 
contrast is that many of my colleagues and friends on the other 
side care about the companies. That is why they are asking you, 
did you meet the companies. While you are not maybe meeting 
with all the companies, our President is meeting with folks in 
Pennsylvania and Ohio who are facing too high electricity 
bills, and his policies are with them in mind, lower their 
electricity bills. If he had not done this, they would be 
paying 10 percent higher. Is that a fair summary of the 
President's policies here?
    Mr. Crabtree. That is a fair summary. For the record, 
though, it is important. I want to emphasize that in my job, in 
the 2 years I have been in this job, I have met with all 
stakeholders. I have met with industry, both natural gas and 
LNG industry. I have met with other industries----
    Mr. Khanna. But do you prioritize the American people 
first?
    Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. And I have met with 
environmental and community groups and other stakeholders. We 
have an open door. We are taking improvements from all parties, 
so I just want to make that clear.
    Mr. Khanna. That is fair. I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Norton for her 
closing statement.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have heard in this 
hearing today the United States has grown to be the world 
leader in liquified natural gas exports in less than a decade. 
The Department of Energy has already permitted more than 50 
billion cubic feet of LNG export capacity. That total of new 
export capacity eclipses the United States' daily energy use. 
As I showed earlier, the Biden Administration has paused only a 
small fraction of possible permits. The Administration paused 
new permits to perform a long-overdue update of public interest 
studies that currently do not reflect reality.
    Updating the Nation's permitting policies based on modern 
information and data is just good government. The world has 
changed in the last 5 years. Russia invaded Ukraine, leading 
Europe to end all LNG purchases from Vladimir Putin, leaving 
them searching for new sources of natural gas. The United 
states seized this opportunity to help our allies hurt Vladimir 
Putin and rise from fourth in natural gas exports globally to 
first in just a few years. At that time, American exporters 
doubled their capacity.
    At the same time, the Inflation Reduction Act and 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act supercharged domestic 
green energy production. The Biden Administration has America 
on a clean energy path that allows us to move forward from 
fossil fuels like LNG. In the meantime, DOE must update its LNG 
export public interest analysis to account for the detrimental 
impacts on the communities that house LNG export locations. 
Previous assessments overlooked the disproportionate impact on 
underserved communities and ignored critical questions of 
environmental justice. I commend the Biden-Harris 
Administration's actions to right these historical wrongs.
    This hearing boils down to a made-up war on energy and an 
attack on evidence-based policymaking. President Biden and 
congressional Democrats have charted a path to renewable, 
affordable energy for all Americans. Thank you, and I yield 
back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you very much. I just want to correct the 
record. Since 2012, the pause that occurred then, and before 
the studies were complete in 2014 and 2015, the DOE actually 
issued seven conditional projects. The precedent appears clear 
to me. And also, we rose to prominence in historical high 
production levels in the 10-year period where there were zero 
LNG export bans. And I will say once again, the production 
levels today are determined by policies and decisions from 
years ago. The industry wants stability and predictability.
    I talked with former Secretary of state Mike Pompeo, and I 
found something that he said very interesting, that when he was 
talking to other diplomats, heads of state, et cetera, and his 
counterparts around the world, that he had a lot more pliancy 
and flexibility when he was negotiating things that were 
unrelated to energy because of the production levels that 
occurred during the Trump Administration, and because these 
nation-states wanted, needed, need what we have an abundance 
of.
    The Biden Administration is simply unserious about energy 
independence, and I do think there is a war on energy. You can 
ask the energy industry, and I did not come to Congress, 
despite what one of my colleagues said, to do the bidding of 
anyone other than the American people and certainly not the 
energy sector. I want the free markets to reign, and I found it 
very interesting as well that, apparently, Joe Biden can 
prevent natural disasters. I was unaware of that, so that is 
very interesting. And I do think there is a war on American 
energy, though, and it is very clear. You can ask the energy 
industry, and you can see what President Biden did on day one, 
was canceling the Keystone XL Pipeline and emptying our 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
    We had a hearing on that, on the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, and how it is essentially--I do not know what the 
exact number is as it is now updated--but it is about half of 
what it was when he came into office. That is absolutely 
inexcusable, particularly when Mr. Crabtree talked about 
precedent. The precedent was, when we were drawing down the 
Strategic Reserve, we were drawing it down sometimes 10 million 
barrels here, 20 million here, right after a natural disaster, 
or I think it was the incursion in Libya. We have never drawn 
it down 200, 300, 350 million barrels ever, and that just 
happened before a midterm election, so, that is inexcusable.
    And I do think that the ban on liquified natural gas 
exports is also inexcusable because when you have capital-
intensive industries and projects, they need reliability, they 
need stability, they need predictability. They are risking a 
lot. When they invest that money, there is no guarantee that 
there is going to be a return, and we all use the energy that 
they produce. I found it also interesting that at a State of 
the Union address, the President of the United States said we 
may need--may need--fossil fuels 10 years from now. I find that 
remarkable. I think we are definitely going to need them moving 
forward.
    The Department says that because the U.S. leads the world 
in LNG exports, it needs to update its public interest analysis 
for LNG permitting, and that requires a pause in permitting. It 
does not require a pause. You can do both. Again, you can do it 
at the same time. The update to the analysis will include new 
studies on LNG's climate impact. After the pause's 
announcement, White House national climate advisor, she could 
not even answer questions when asked about the amount of 
greenhouse gas emissions that this pause would cut in the short 
term. And there is a good reason to think it will not reduce 
emissions at all, and I sure as hell think it is not going to 
prevent any natural disasters.
    You know, listen to what 10 of my democratic colleagues 
wrote President Biden on February 1, 2024, urging him to 
support U.S. LNG exports, and this is a quote: ``If U.S. LNG 
replaced international coal use by 2030, it would have the 
equivalent climate impact of electrifying every vehicle in the 
United States, installing rooftop solar on every U.S. home, and 
doubling our current wind capacity.'' That is some bipartisan 
commonsense. They also wrote, ``Every molecule of US LNG 
exported helps limit the growth of global emissions.''
    Why then is the Biden Administration willing to say goodbye 
to one of the most important tools in the tool shed for 
reducing emissions? The liquified natural gas pause sends the 
wrong message to the world, as do other clearly political 
decisions against U.S. energy interests. I think, again, for 
the record, we should note that this pause, this ban, will only 
be lifted after the November elections this year. We have heard 
testimony today explaining how the pause is not affecting 
domestic price adversely, and how the operational capacity of 
our LNG exports remains at high levels. What these numbers do 
not indicate are the market conditions for new LNG facilities 
and LNG exports which, ultimately, impact prices and our 
ability to export. LNG is a global commodity. The prices 
fluctuate based on markets. It is just more coincidental that 
domestic prices have gone down slightly in the last 3 months. 
What these numbers do not indicate are market conditions for 
new LNG facilities and LNG exports, which, ultimately, again, 
impact the prices and our ability to export.
    And to quote, again, one of my Democratic colleagues on 
February 1 in the letter to President Biden, ``It is time to 
dispel the false narrative that U.S. LNG exports have an impact 
on domestic prices.'' Another quote: ``Despite record high LNG 
exports, U.S. natural gas prices have collapsed since February 
2022.'' So let us be clear. United States' LNG exports have not 
had any sustained and significant direct impact on natural gas 
prices domestically. Exports of LNG have the potential to add 
$73 billion to the U.S. economy and create thousands of, as my 
colleague, Mr. Higgins said, well-paying jobs. This is 
economics 101, and really, it is kind of free market for 
dummies in which the Department of Energy needs to have a 
lesson in.
    Meanwhile, Russia is laughing in our faces. Think about who 
was pleased by this ban or pause. I think Vladimir Putin and 
the Kremlin was very happy with it. You know, newspapers in 
Russia are writing ``now it is not Russia but the United States 
that wants to bring Germans to their knees by denying new 
American LNG export potential.'' Many European Parliament 
members have expressed regret and concern over the pause in the 
announcement that came in January. They wrote, ``The decision 
not to allow permits to proceed undermines America's allies and 
the Western order more broadly and will give succor to our 
adversaries and those who wish to divide us. We should 
reconsider.''
    I would like to submit for the record the European 
Parliament letter and House Democrats' February 1, 2024 letter 
to President Biden in the record.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The question becomes, if it is not the U.S. supplying 
affordable and clean and abundant energy to the world, who is 
going to do it? I think some nefarious actors are going to be 
very pleased. Our allies around the world are relying on us. We 
need to provide leadership. We have what not only they want, 
but what they need, and we need to provide consistent energy 
supplies at affordable prices. Instead, this Administration has 
chosen to intentionally create uncertainty within the markets 
at a time when global tensions are growing increasingly high, 
particularly considering what is happening in the Middle East 
right now. America is uniquely situated to provide the world 
with affordable energy, and it is a blessing, and, you know, we 
should not hinder our own energy security. The rest of the 
world will be watching closely the decisions that we make here 
in Washington, and we urge the Department of Energy to 
reevaluate and reverse this misguided decision.
    I want to thank our witness for coming today, and with 
that, this Committee hearing is adjourned.
    Nope. Nope. One minute.
    And with that, and without objection, all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to submit materials and 
additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be 
forwarded to the witnesses.
    Mr. Fallon. If there are no further business, without 
objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 10:49 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]